THE DESIGN OF SOUR WATER STRIPPERS

Sour water effluents from petroleum refining processes originate primarily from the use and subsequent
condensation of process steam. Condensation of steam
usually occurs simultaneously with the condensation
of hydrocarbon liquids and in the presence of a
hydrocarbon vapor phase containing H2S. Thus the
condensed steam contains H2S which imparts the
unpleasant odor characteristic of sour water.
Most sour waters also contain NH, derived either
from nitrogen in the process feedstocks, or from
ammonia injected into fractionation overhead systems
to combat corrosion. In addition to H2S and NH,, sour
waters may contain significant amounts of other
undesirable pollutants such as Phenols, cyanides and
carbon dioxide. Fortunately the principal pollutants,
H2S and NH,, can be effectively removed by stripping
the sour water with steam or flue gas. Stripping the sour
water often removes a good part of the Phenols as well.
The proper design of sour water strippers requires
two types of data. Firstly, data are required for predicting the H2S and NH3 content of the origin sour water.
Secondly, designing the stripper requires data for
obtaining H2S and NH, partial pressures above
aqueous solutions of HzS and NH3.
The first type of data involves three-phase systems :
(1) a vapor phase containing gaseous hydrocarbons,
H2S, and NH,, (2) a hydrocarbon liquid phase, and
(3) the aqueous sour water phase. These data should
relate the vapor phase H2S content to the sour water
H2S content in the presence of a hydrocarbon liquid
phase.
The second type of data involves only two phases:
(1) a vapor phase containing H20, HzS, and NH,, and
(2) an aqueous solution of HzS and NH,. There is no
hydrocarbon liquid phase in the stripper.
The main purpose of this paper is to develop the data
required and to present a tray-by-tray design for a
typical sour water stripper which compares quite well
with published operating performances of such
strippers.
H2S IN SOUR WATER

Data from the API Manual on Disposal of Refinery

~~~~~~~~~~~

by M. R. BEYCHOK,
Process Engineering, Fluor (England)Ltd.
(United States)

Wastes are presented in Table I. These and other data

are plotted in Figure 1. These data indicate that:
(a) The equilibrium attained is such that the sour
water contains excess NH3 as evidenced by the
alkaline pH values
(b) The average equilibrium attained is such that
the sour water contains NH, and H2S in the molar
ratio of 1-5
( c ) The H2S contents of the sour waters are too high
to be explained by assuming equilibrium in a pure
HzS-pure HzO system (this point is discussed in
more detail below).
The source datal for Table I do not include the type
of process origin or the temperature or the HzS partial
pressure of the sour water process origin. However, it
can be assumed that most refinery sources of sour water
operate somewhere within the following range :
Temperature
About 100F
1.0 to 30 psig
Total pressure
0.5 to 10 volume %
H2S in vapor phase
Thus the typical H2S partial pressure at the process
source would be about 0.1 to 4-4 psia (allowing for
1-0psia water vapor pressure at 100F).
The API data in Table I indicate that the H2S
content of sour waters ranges from 275 to 11,000 ppm.
This range cannot be explained by assuming pure HzSpure H 2 0 equilibrium. Using Henrys Law as being
valid at low solute concentrations, the H2S-H20
equilibrium at 100F is approximately :
ppm HzS in solution = (i80)(H2S P.P., psia)
TABLE I

ANALYSES OF REFINERY SOUR WATERS

275-500
1500
5000
7200
4800
3000-11,000

7500-9000
4000
1600-2500
8000
1876
I020
3000

1OO-700
1o00
5000
5000
3600

3500-6000
6100-7000
3000
2000-2300
5000
1480
748
2400

7.5-8.0
8.0
8.3
8.4-8.8
8.7
8.5-9.0
8-5
9.0-9.5
8-5
8.4

314

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

If the H,S-H,O equilibrium were valid, an H,S partial

pressure of 4.4 psia would dissolve only 810 ppm of
H,S in the sour water. To dissolve 11,000 ppm of
H,S would require a 60 psia H2Spartial pressure which
is certainly far above the origin H2S partial pressures
for the data in Table I.
Assuming that NH, is present and assuming the
validity of Henry's Law for the pure NH3-pure H 2 0
system, the equilibrium at 100F is approximately:

has reacted with NH3 and the sour water contains

dissolved NH4SH and excess NH3. This would explain
the average sour water NH3/H2Smolar ratio of 1.5 as
obtained from Fig. 1. Such systems have been studied
by Van Krevelin and his co-workers2 who presented
the equilibrium for the aqueous system :

NH3 + H2S % NHZ + SHTheir work covered the following ranges:

ppm NH3 in solution = (38,000)(NH3P.P., psia)

Mols NH3/mol H2S = 1.5 to 6.0

Temperature = 68-140F
Total NH3 in solution = 4700 to 59,000 ppm

If the NH3-H20 equilibrium were valid, the dissolved

NH, range of 100 to 7000 ppm in Table I would require
an NH, partial pressure range of only 0.0026 to 0.18 Therefore, their data cover the range of typical refinery
psia. Hence, the NH3 contents of sour waters can be sour waters in Table I. From their work, Van Krevelin
explained even by very low concentrations of NH3 in and co-workers derived the following :
the origin vapor phase.
It therefore appears that the sour water origin sys3
10"-9.089 s
H,S P.P., mm Hg =
tems could be better explained by assuming that H2S
( 4 s )- 1
r.

Fig. I .

Some Special Aspects of Water Conser vation and Air Pollution

where AIS = NH3/H2Smolar ratio

S = H2Sin gm-mols/liter
A = NH3 in gm-mols/liter
a = 1.63 at 100F
By using the average molar ratio of 1.5 for AIS derived
from Fig. 1 and by conversion to more convenient
units, the following is obtained :
H2S P.P., psia = ___ 101.63-S/382,000
8 75,000
where :

S = H2S in solution, ppm

The equilibrium solubilities of H2S in H20 at 100F

(assuming that Henrys Law is valid), and in aqueous
NH4SH at 100F for an NH3/H2Smolar ratio of 1-5
(assuming the work of Van Krevelin and co-workers
is valid) are plotted in Fig. 2. It is apparent from Fig. 2
that the API data in Table I cannot be explained by
assuming that the aqueous NH4SH equilibrium is valid.
The aqueous NH4SH equilibrium predicts much higher
concentrations of H2Sin sour waters than are indicated
in Table I.
It is doubtful that any single type of equilibrium
between the vapor phase H,S and the aqueous phase
H2S can be assumed as valid for the system existing
in a process origin vessel. The overall equilibrium is
probably somewhere between that of an H2S-H20
system and that of an H2S-NH4SH system . . . and is
the cumulative result of:
(a) The H2S vapor-aqueous NH4SH equilibrium
(b) The H2S vapor-hydrocarbon liquid equilibrium
which would be just below that of H2S-H20 if
plotted on Fig. 2)

315

TABLE II

REFINERY DATA ON SOUR WATER HiS CONTENT

VERSUS H2S PARTIAL PRESSURE
H2S in
vapor
phase
(volume %)

H2S
Total
pressure
(P.W

partia[
pressure

11.0
16.2
8.2
26.7
14.0
50.0
0.6
39.5
1.75
28.0
4.41
19.7
3.65
74.7
3.86
48.7
(Water partial pressure assumed

( P W

H2S fn
sour
water
ppm wt.)

1.67
2960
2.1 1
15,600
6.85
14,000
023
750
0.47
3000
0.82
300
2.69
3700
1.84
6500
as 1.0 psia in all cases)

The distribution equilibrium of dissolved H,S

between hydrocarbon liquid and the sour water
( d ) The degree to which the above equilibria are
actually attained
(e) The effect of other components such as mercaptans, Phenols, cyanides, chlorides etc.
Table II presents actual refinery data for eight
different process origin sour water vessels where H2S
vapor phase partial pressures and sour water H2S
contents were determined and where hydrocarbon
liquid phases were present. These data were obtained
from vessels operating at 90-120F. Unfortunately, a
literature search failed to disclose other such data.
The writer is indebted to Mr L. V. Sorg of the American
Oil Co. and to Mr C . Murdoch of the Mobil Refining
Co. of South Africa for their help in obtaining most of
these data.
The eight data points from Table II are plotted on
Fig. 2. A line has been drawn through these points and
labeled Sour Water Equilibrium. Admittedly, much
additional data of this type would be required to fully
prove that this line accurately represents the equilibrium existing in process origin sour water vessels.
However, until further data becomes available, this
line will be taken as valid for predicting the H2S
content of sour water effluents from process vessels
operating at about 100F and wherein a hydrocarbon
liquid phase exists.
(c)

PARTIAL PRESSURES OF H2S AND NH,

ABOVE AQUEOUS NH4SH SOLUTIONS

Fig. 2.

Assuming the effect of components other than H2S

and NH, is negligible, the aqueous NH4SH equilibrium
data of Van Krevelin and co-workers should be valid
for use in designing sour water strippers. Once the
sour water has been separated from the hydrocarbon
liquid in the origin vessel, then aqueous NH4SH
solution data are applicable.

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

316

The NH3 and H2S are present in solution as the salt

of a weak base and a weak acid. This salt undergoes
considerable hydrolysis to reform free NH3 and free
H2S which, being gases, tend to escape from solution.
The over-all equilibrium can be depicted as :

(Vapor phase)

NH, H,S
P.P. P.P.

NH,++SH- % NH,+H,S
(Aqueous phase)
I

Van Krevelin et al. started with an inverse form of the

usual hydrolysis equation :
K=

(NHmH-)
(free NH,)(free H2S)

And they then defined:

A = total NH3 present in solution
= free NH3 + NH: (both in solution)
S = total H2S present in solution)
= free H2S + SH- (both in solution)
=approx. SH- (this approximation will be discussed in more detail)

Fig. 4.

And since the mols of NH: must equal the mols of SH-,
and if the approximation that S = SH- is valid :
Fig. 3.

K=

(NHi)(S)
( A - S)(free H2S)

__ ....

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Polluiion

.----I

317

318

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

319

320

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation ana Air Pollution

322

And since the free H2Sin solution depends on the vapor

phase H2Spartial pressure tending to keep it in solution
the term free H2S was arbitrarily replaced by the
term H2S P.P.. Finally, by rearranging:

(3)
The correlation constant K was then evaluated experimentally and it was found that:
1/ K = 10s

(4)

Fig. 3 presents values of the temperature dependent

correlation factor a as determined by Van Krevelin
et al.
Van Krevelin and co-workers also developed and
experimentally confirmed the following expression for
the NH3 partial pressure :
(5)

Fig. 4 presents values of Ho as used by Van Krevelin

et al. in evaluating the numerical constants in equation
5 above. The broken-line extrapolations to higher
temperatures in both Figs. 3 and 4 were assumed valid
by the writer of this paper.
The above equations can be further rearranged and
converted to more convenient units :
S

H2S P.P. (psia) =

(1-75 x lo6)

(s-

1o/a-s382,000

1)

(6)

(1 - $ ) A

NH3 P.P. (psia) =

10(151X 10-6)(l-z)4S)A

(8.8 x 105)H0

(7)

where: A / S = total NH3/total H2S molar ratio

SIA = total H,S/total NH3 molar ratio
A =total NH3 in solution, ppm
S = total H2S in solution, ppm
HO=Henrys coefficient for NH3 in pure
water(see Fig. 4), (gmols/liter)/mm Hg
a = Correlation factor (see Fig. 3), with Van
Krevelins original negative signs
changed to positive signs for use herein
Equations 6 and 7 were used to obtain Figs. 5a-5e
and Figs. 6a-6e from which the partial pressures of H2S
and NH3 can be obtained for various values of temperature and various NH3/H2Smolar ratios. These ten
charts are the basis for the tray-by-tray design of sour
water strippers.
Some cautionary discussion regarding equations 6
and 7 is necessary:

(a) The values of Housed by Van Krevelin et al. may

not be accurate absolute values. However, they
were used in the experimental evaluation of the
numerical constants in equation 7. Hence the Ho
values from Fig. 4 must be used or equation 7 will
not be valid.
(b) The ratios AIS and SIA are molar ratios whereas
the individual terms A and S are in units of ppm wt.
Any further rearrangement of equations 6 and 7
to eliminate the ratios must include the fact that
(AIS molar) = 2 ( A / S weight).
(c) Equation 6 will indicate an infinite value of H2S
partial pressure for an NH3/H2Smolar ratio of
1-0, and a negative value of H2S partial pressure
if the NH3/H2Smolar ratio is less than 1.0. This is
obviously incorrect and a consequence of assuming
that the total H2S present in solution is in the
form of SH- and that therefore S = approx. SH-.
At the conditions of Van Krevelins experimental
work, all of the NH3/H2S molar ratios were 1.5
or more and the H2S partial pressures were 7.0
psia or less. Therefore the amount of free H2S
remaining in solution was indeed negligible and
equation 6 was valid. In summary, equation 6 is
only valid for solutions containing equal amounts
of NHZ and SH- plus free NH3 and a negligible
amount of free H2S. Equations 6 and 7 should
probably be used only for NH3/H2Smolar values
of 1.5 or more. This limitation on the work of
Van Krevelin and co-workers has not been
recognized in other references and texts which
discuss their work.
Figs. 5a-5e and 6a-6e can be used to obtain H2S and
NH3 partial pressure directly if given their solution
concentrations. However, trial-and-error is required
if the partial pressures are given and the solution
concentrations are sought, since the correct NH3/H2S
ratio in solution must be found.

TYPES OF SOUR WATER STRIPPERS

Most refineries have facilities for stripping H2S, and,
in some cases, NH3from sour waters. Various stripping
methods are used but most of them involve downward
flow of sour water in a trayed or packed tower while an
ascending flow of stripping steam or gas removes the
H2Sand, in some cases, the NH,. The stripping medium
may be steam, flue gas or fuel gas. The sour water may
or may not be acidified with H2S04or HC1 prior to
stripping. The operating conditions may vary from 1 to
50 psig and from 100 to 270F.
The H2S is less soluble in water than is NH3 and
therefore H2S is more readily stripped. For example, in
pure water at 100F, the Henrys Law coefficient for

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

Fig. da.

323

324

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservationand Air Pollution

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

325

326

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

327

328

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

H2S is 180 ppmlpsia and for NH3 is 38,000 ppm/psia.

To efficiently remove about 90% of the NH,, a temperature of 230F or higher is required. Obviously, at
the same stripping gas rate, 90% of the H2S could be
removed at much lower temperatures.
The use of mineral acids to acidify the sour water
fixes the NH3 as NH4C1 or (NH4)$04 so that free
NH, formed by hydrolysis is nil and NH, stripping is
prevented. This releases the H2S and 90% or more of
the H2S can then be stripped out even at 100F.
The use of flue gas for stripping introduces acidic
CO2 which tends to fix the NH, as NH4HC03. Although flue gas does not fix the NH3 as effectively as
does mineral acid, it gives good H2S removal at lower
temperatures than would be needed in a conventional
steam stripper.
Fuel gas, or any inert gas, can also be used to strip
H2S from sour water. However, if NH3 removal is
desired, then a temperature of 230F or more is required

to operate at reasonable stripping gas rates. Thus steam

must be used to heat the water if NH, removal is
wanted. This is true whether the stripping medium is
fuel gas, flue gas or additional steam.
The majority of installed sour water strippers use
steam as a heat medium and as stripping gas. This paper
is limited to the design of such steam strippers.
For those who are interested, the comparative performance of different stripper types (i.e. steam,
mineral acid, flue gas and fuel gas) are discussed in the
writers recently published book7.
DESIGN OF STEAM STRIPPERS (WITHOUT
USING ACIDIFICATION)
Fortunately the more commonly used steam
strippers lend themselves to rigorous tray-by-tray
design. Due to the work of Van Krevelin and

TABLE In

SOUR WATER STRIPPERS

(no acidification)
Gar

-+Acid

0
-0

- J J@

al

IL

al

:
c

0 Raw Feed
la

(1) Raw feed flow, gpm

Temperature, F
HZS, PPm
NH3, ppm
(2) Reflux flowrate, gpm
Temperature, F
(3) Tower feed flow, gpm
Temperature, F
Tower bottom, F
Tower bottom, psig
(4) Bottoms flow, gpm
His, ppm
NH3, ppm
Heating steam, lbs/hr
Stripping steam, Ibs/hr
lbs/gal*
(5) Total steam, lbs/hr
H2S removal, %
NH3 removal, %
Trays (or packing)

Wit hout
Overhead
Condenser

With

Overhead
Condenser
Steam

Raw Feed

Bottoms

Reference

lb

2a

2b

[i I. p . 76

[il, p.39

[il, p . 76

[il, p . 39

3
[l],p. 76
and [3]

150
10,000
5000
32
200
182
200
268
30
195
50
280
6500
15,500
1.41
22,000
99.4
94.0
13

200
8000
5000
33
233
200
268
22
250
10
200
8300
16,700
1.2
25,000
99.85
95.00
13

60
1500
1O00
None
60
195
230
6
62
2
300
1100
1400
0.39
2500
99.86
69.00
(12 ft.)

60
1876
1480
None
60
195
230
6-7
62
O
194
1100
2400
0.67
3500
100.0
86.5
(12 ft.)

204
5000
5000
10
200
214
240
250
216
50
600
1130
4870
0.38
6000
98.94
87.30
6

* Pounds of steam per gallon of tower feed (i.e. raw feed plus reflux).

[il. Fig. 7
and [4]

[51

i61

35
113
4600
3800
3
226
38
160
240
15
41
39
227
1600
1400
0.62
3000
99.0
93.0
6

89
3000
1500
11
1O 0
150
220
105
5

41
1O0
7350
9800
7.7
140
48.7
207
240
10
52.7
Trace
790
1500
4500
1.54
6000
100.0
89.6
12

3700
4700
0.78
8400
99.80
12

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

co-workers, the partial pressure data from Figs. 5a-5e

and 6a-6e are applicable to such designs.
Table III presents actual operating data for six
steam strippers as gathered from the literature.
Refinery designers have long used a rule-of-thumb for
sour water strippers: Heat the water with steam to its
boiling point at the desired operating pressure and
provide additional stripping steam of about 0-5pounds
per gallon of tower feed. Table III confirms that this
is a fairly good approximation. But if 95f % NH3
removal is desired, it will not provide an adequate
design.
The stripping steam rate, rigorously, is a function of:
(u) The operating temperature and pressure.
(b) The NH, and H2S content of the raw feed.
(c) Whether or not refluxing of overhead condensate
is provided. The overhead reflux is highly enriched
in NH3 and H2S which increases the required
stripping. When refluxing is provided, the choice
of reflux accumulator temperature and pressure

329

becomes important since it affects the NH3 and

H2S content of the reflux.
(d) The number of trays provided and their efficiency.
A detailed tray-by-tray design of a steam stripper is
presented in Example 1 in the appendix, using the partial pressure data developed in Figs. 5a-5e and 6a-6e.
The calculated results are in excellent agreement with
the actual plant performances in Table III. 99% H2S
removal and 97 % NH3 removal, from a feed containing
10,000 ppm H2S and 7500 ppm NH,, is obtained at a
stripping steam rate of 0-9lbs/gal of tower feed and with
4 theoretical trays using a non-refluxed design. Assuming 50 % tray efficiency, 4 theoretical trays are equivalent
to 8 actual trays. The plants in Table III have from
6-13 actual trays. One plant uses 12ft. of packing which
is about 6 theoretical trays if an HETP of 2 ft. is assumed.
Fig. 7 summarizes the composition and temperature
profiles calculated in Example 1. It is interesting to note
that most of the heating steam is condensed on the top
tray and hence serves as additional stripping steam for
the lower trays. It also appears that most of the H2S is
removed on the top tray whereas the NH3 removal is
fairly evenly distributed among all the trays. Fig. 7
indicates that additional theoretical trays will accomplish very little.
If a design similar to Example 1 were made for a
refluxed stripper, using a stripping steam rate of 0.9
lbslgal of tower feed (including reflux returned) and
using 4 theoretical trays, the calculated gas removals
would be lower than in the non-refluxed stripper. Such
a comparison is made in the writers book7 by presenting two such design calculations. The comparison
strongly suggests that stripping steam rates should be
based on the amount of NH3 in the total tower feed
rather than based on the volumetric flow of tower feed.
REMOVAL OF OTHER CONTAMINANTS
IN SOUR WATER
There are a few data available7 on the removal of
Phenols in sour water strippers :
Type of stripper
Steam (non-refluxed)
Steam (refluxed)
Flue gas
Steam (acidified and refluxed)
Steam (refluxed)
Steam (refluxed)
Steam (non-refluxed)

Fig. 7.

% phenol removal
35
O
24
O
24
30
25

Without more data, it would be unwise to assume more

than about 20 % phenol removal in asour water stripper.
Phenol removal will vary with the temperature and
partial pressure conditions within the stripper as well
as with the volatility of the particular Phenols present.

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

330

There are no data from which to draw any conclusions regarding removal of other contaminants such as
mercaptans, ammonium chloride, cyanides, carbon
dioxide, etc.
SUMMARY
Based on available data, correlations and methods
have been presented herein for predicting the H,S and
NH3 contents of sour waters, for obtaining H2S and
NH3 partial pressures above their aqueous solutions
and for the tray-by-tray design of sour water strippers.
The ever-growing emphasis on reduction of aqueous
pollution from refineries makes it important to utilize
more accurate design methods. It is hoped that this
paper contributes toward that end.
The writer is indebted to the publishers of his book7,
John Wiley and Sons Ltd., for their permission to
extract sections of the book for presentation herein.

Feed H2S
Bottoms water

= (50,000)(10,000) lop6= 500 lbs/hr

= feed

condensed heating steam

50,000 + 50,000 (30)/950
= 51,580 lbs/hr
Bottoms NH3 = (0.05)(375) = 18.8 lbs/hr
= (18~8/51,800)lo6 = 363 ppm
Bottoms H2S = (0.01)(500) = 5.0 lbs/hr
= (5.0/5 1,800) lo6 = 97 ppm
Overhead NH3 = (375 - 18.8)/17 = 20.9 mols/hr
Overhead H2S = (500 - 5.0)/34 = 14-55mols/hr
=

Thus, as a preliminary flow sheet:

14.55

REFERENCES
1. Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Vol. III, Chemical
Wastes. New York, American Petroleum Institute, 4th edn,
19hn

2. VNKREVELIN, D. W., HOFTIJZER, P. J., and HUNT-

JENS, F. J., Rec. Trav. Chim., 1949, 68, 191-216.

3. GOTHARD. N. J.. and FOWLER. J. A., Indust. Engng.
Chem., 1952, 44 (3), 503-507.
4. PURSELL, W. L., and MILLER, R. B., Proc. 16th Indust.
Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., 1961, 292-302.
5. HARRIS, A. J., J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 1963,35 (9),
1154-1165.
6. ALBRIGHT, J. C., Petrol. Process., Nov. 1948, 1116.
7. Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants,
Milton R. Beychok, London, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.,
1967.

APPENDIX
Example I : Design of sour water stripper (without reflux)
A sour water stream of 100 gpm at 100F contains
10,000 ppm H2S and 7500 ppm NH3. Design a steam
stripper to remove about 99% of the H2S and about
95 % of the NH3. The tower overhead will be routed to
a furnace firebox and must operate at a pressure of
about 19 psia.
Assume the use of 8 actual trays at 0.25 psi dP each
and design for 21 psia as tower bottoms pressure.
Assume tower bottoms operates at 0.5-1.0"F below
boiling point of water at 21 psia (say 230F) due to
residual NH3 and H2S partial pressures.
With tower bottoms at 230"F, assume that heat
exchange will heat the feed to 200F and cool the
bottoms to about 130F. Heating steam, injected with
the stripping steam, will supply heat required to
operate at 230F tower bottoms temperature.
Preliminary material balance :

Feed water = 100 gpm = 50,000 lbs/hr

= 375 lbs/hr
Feed NH3 = (50,000)(7500)

Check bottoms temperature, using Figs. 5e and 6e:

Bottoms NH3/H2Smolar ratio = 7.3
H2S P.P. at 97 ppm H2S = 0.014 psia
NH3 P.P. at 363 ppm NH3 = 0.107 psia
H 2 0 P.P. at 230F
=20.78 psia
= 20.901 psia
Total pressure
(This checks assumed 21 psia and 230F)
~

Calculate top tray temperature :

Assume stripping steam rate of 0.9 lbs/gal of feed.
Thus, S = 0.9(100)(60) = 5400 lbs/hr = 300 mols/hr
And, overhead vapor :
P.P.
mols/hr
(Psi4
NH3 = 20.9 = (20*9/335*5)(19)= 1.18
H2S = 14.55 = (14.55/335*5)(19)= 0.82
HZO = 300.0 = (300/335*5)(19) =__
17.00
335.45
19.00

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

Thus, top tray is at condensation temperature of steam

at 17.00 psia P.P., or approx. 219F.

.=.;

Theoretical tray I :

331

Theoretical tray 2:

224OF

v 2

LI

200'F

219OF

Heating steam condensed on tray 1 = 50,000(19/950)

= 1000 lbs/hr.

Hence, heating steam in V2 = 1000 lbs/hr = 55

mols/hr.
The overhead vapor, O, is in equilibrium with the
exit liquid, L I . Use Figs. 5c and 6c (the 220F P.P.
charts) to find equilibrium liquid composition having
NH3 P.P. of 1-18psia and H2SP.P. of 0.82 psia. Trialand-error is required until the correct NH3/H2Smolar
ratio is found for the liquid. As a first trial, choose a
ratio higher than in the feed since the ratio increases as
the liquid flows downward.
Assume NH3/H2S= 4.0 molar = 2.0 wt.
NH3 = 5300 ppm at 1-18psia (Fig. 6c)
H2S = 5300/2-0= 2650 ppm = 0.65 psia (Fig. 5c)
(This does not check 0.82 psia H2S P.P. in overhead)
Assume NH3/H2S= 3-66 molar = 1-83wt.
NH3 = 5500 ppm at 1-18psia (Fig. 6c)
H2S = 5500/1.83 = 3000 ppm = 0.83 psia (Fig. 5c)
(This does check 0.82 psia H2S P.P. in overhead)
Thus, L I composition:
5500 ppm NH3 = 5500(51,000)
= 280 lbs/hr = 16.5 mols/hr
3000 ppm H2S = 3000(51,000)
= 153 lbs/hr = 4.5 mols/hr
Since V2= O L I - F condensed heating steam,

Tray 2 is at condensation temperature of steam at

18.47 psia, or 224F. Use Figs. 5d and 6d.
Heating steam condensed on trays 1 and 2
= 50,000(24/950) = 1260 lbs/hr
Hence, heating steam in V3
= 1260 lbs/hr = 70 mols/hr
Liquid in equilibrium with vapor, V2:
Assume NH3/H2S= 5.40 molar = 2-70 wt.
NH3 = 3050 ppm at 0.80 psia (Fig. 6d)
H2S= 3050/2.70 = 1130 ppm = 0.225 psia (Fig. 5d)
(This does check 0.226 psia H2S P.P. in V . )
Thus, L2composition:
3050 ppm NH3 = 3050(51,260) lop6= 156.5 lbs/hr
= 9.2 mols/hr
= 58 lbs/hr
1130 ppm H2S = 1130(51,260)
= 1.71 mols/hr
Since V3= V2+ L2 - LI + condensed heating steam,

V3 Composition:

P.P.
mols/hr (psia)
NH3 15.4 9.20 - 16.5 = 8.10 == 0.426
H2S = 4.35 + 1.71 - 4.5 = 1-56= 0.082
= 370.0 = 19.492
H20 = 300 70
~
_
_
_
379.66 20.00
Partial pressures for V3components were calculated
from mol fractions and 20.0 psia total pressure.

+
+

Theoretical tray 3:
4

V2Composition:
P.P.
mols/hr (psia)
NH3 = 20.9 -I- 16.5 -22 = 15.4= 0.80
H2S = 14.55 + 4.5 - 14.7= 4*35= 0.226
= 355.0 = 18.474
H20 == 300 55
374.75 19.50

~~

Assuming 1 theoretical tray is about 2 actual trays, the

total pressure of V2is 19.50 psia. Partial pressures for
V2 components were calculated from mol fractions
and the total pressure of 19.50 psia.

Steam condensation temperature at 19.49 psia is

226F. Use Figs. 5d and 6d.
Heating steam condensed on trays 1,2 and 3
= 50,000(26/950) = 1370 lbs/hr = 76 mols/hr
Assume NH3/H2S= 6.3 molar = 3-15 wt.
NH3 = 1600 ppm at 0.426 psia (Fig. 6d)
H2S = 1600/3.15 = 508 ppm = 0.084 psia (Fig. 5d)
(This checks 0.082 psia H2S P.P. in V,)

332

Some Special Aspects of Water Conservation and Air Pollution

380.33

20.50

Partial pressures for V4 components calculated from

mol fractions and 20.5 psia total pressure.
Theoretical tray 4:

Tray temperature is 229F. Use Figs 5e and 6e.

Heating steam in V , = 1530 lbs/hr = 85 mols/hr.
Assume NH3/H2S= 6.8 molar = 3.4 wt.
NH3 = 690 ppm at 0.200 psia (Fig. 6e)
H2S = 690/3.4 = 203 ppm = 0.034 psia (Fig. 5e)
Thus, L4 composition:
690 ppm NH3 = 35.6 lbs/hr = 2.09 mols/hr
203 ppm H2S = 10.5 lbs/hr = 0.309 mols/hr

k5

Steam

230F

Assume NH3/H2S= 7.0 molar = 3.5 wt.

NH3 = 185 ppm at 0.054 psia (Fig. 6e)
H2S = 185/3.5 = 53 ppm = 0.009 psia (Fig. se)
Thus, Bottoms Composition:
185 ppm NH3 = 9.6 lbs/hr = 2-6% of feed NH3
53 ppm HzS = 2.8 lbs/hr = 0.6 % of feed H2S
Therefore, at a stripping steam rate of 0.9 lbs/gal
of feed, NH3 removal calculates as 97.4% and H2S
removal calculates as 99.4 %.