The Chemical Engineering Journal, 20 (1980) 59 - 67

@ Elsevier Sequoia S.A., Lausanne - Printed in the Netherlands

59

Gas Hold-up in Bubble Columns

H. HIKITA, S. ASAI, K. TANIGAWA, K. SEGAWA and M. KITAO
Department

of Chemical Engineering,

University of Osaka Prefecture,

Sakai, Osaka (Japan)

(Received 11 April 1979; in final form 6 November 1979)

Abstract

PREVIOUS

Experimental data on the fractional gas holdup in a 10 cm I.D. bubble column with a
single-nozzle gas sparger were obtained with
various gases and pure liquids or aqueous
solutions of non-electrolytes and the effect of
the physical properties of the gas and the
liquid on the gas hold-up was studied. A new
dimensionless correlation for the fmctional
gas hold-up was presented and shown to
correlate the experimental data with an
avemge deviation of 4.2%. The gas hold-up for
air in aqueous solutions of various electrolytes
was also measured and the effect of the
presence of electrolytes on the gas hold-up
was investigated.

Previous correlations of the fractional gas

hold-up in bubble columns are summarized in
Table 1.
Hughmark [l] has presented a correlation
of the gas hold-up which takes into account
the effect of the liquid properties. He showed
that his own and other investigators data on
the fractional gas hold-up eo can be
correlated successfully by using the term
UG [(i/~d(72/0)1
13, where uo is the superficial gas velocity and pL and u are the
density and surface tension of the liquid. The
final correlation has been given as a curve on
log-log coordinates, which can be represented
well by eqn. (1) of Table 1.
Akita and Yoshida [ 21 measured the gas
hold-up for various gas-liquid systems and
analyzed the experimental data by means of
dimensional analysis. They did not find the
effect of the nature of the gas, although the
gas viscosity was not varied:-over a wide range.
The equation representing. the final correlation is eqn. (2) of Table 1.
Hikita and Kikukawa [ 31 have studied the
effect of the liquid physical properties on the
gas hold-up, using air and various liquids of
different properties, and found that the liquid
surface tension had a considerable effect. The
experimental data were correlated by the
dimensional expression given by eqn. (3) of
Table 1.
Gestrich and Riihse [4] have correlated the
literature data for the fractional gas hold-up
and suggested eqn. (4) of Table 1 which
relates the gas hold-up to the liquid properties, the column dimensions and the operating variables. The mean bubble diameter d,,,
usually ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 cm, has been
found to have no significant effect on the gas
hold-up. Therefore, the constant value of

INTRODUCTION

Bubble columns are widely used in the chemical industry as absorbers, fermenters and
gas-liquid reactors. In recent years a number
of studies have been made on gas hold-up in
bubble columns. However, there is very
limited or inconsistent information in the
literature concerning the effect of the
physical properties of the gas and liquid on
the gas hold-up.
In the present work the fractional gas holdup in a bubble column was measured by using
various gas-liquid systems and a new dimensionless correlation for the gas hold-up was
obtained. In addition, the gas hold-up for air
in aqueous solutions of various electrolytes
was also measured and the effect of the
presence of electrolytes on the gas hold-up
was studied.

CORRELATIONS

TABLE 1

C11

Gestrich

and R&se

Hikita and Kikukawa

Akita and Yoshida

Hughmark

Investigator

Previous correlations

[4]

[ 31

[ 21

for gas hold-up

columns

[(&,/1)(o/72)]i3

solutions

(3)

solutions

(2)

(u~/dbg)0.025(2.6+lolK)K0.047

db = 0.3 cm

o.05

(4a)
(4b)

0.89(~e/D~)0036(-157+10gK)(d~/D~)03
x

K = PLO~II.&

EG

uG in m s-l
u
in dyn cm-l
C(L in cP

eG = 0.505uGo~47(72/O)23(1/~~)o~06

c = 0.25

For electrolyte

c = 0.20

and non-electrolyte

in m se1
in g cm-l
in dyn cm-l

For pure liquids

uG
pi
u

eG = 2 + (0.35/uG)

Correlation

in bubble

Sieve-plate sparger
do = 0.03 - 0.05 cm
Porous-plate
sparger
DT =T.56 L 6f:U cm
2, = 2.0 - 350 cm
uG=l.O-&Ocms-

Single-nozzle
sparger
do = 0.9 - 3.62 cm
DT = 10.0 - 19.0 cm
2, = 60 - 135 cm
uG = 7.0 _ 33.8 cm s-l

Single-nozzle
sparger
do = 0.5 cm
DT = 15.2 - 60.0 cm
2, = 200 - 300 cm
uG = 0.53 - 41.9 cm s-l

Multi-orifice
sparger
DT > 10.0 cm
uG = 0.40 - 45.0 cm s-l

Column

Continued

on facing page

17 Liquids-air
pi = 0.79 - 1.59 g cmp3
c(L = 0.43 - 19.9 CP
u = 21.4 - 72%.dyn cm-l

Water -air
Methanol aq. soln.-air
Sucrose aq. soln.-air
pi = 0.91- 1.24 g cmM3
/JL = 0.70 - 13.8 CP
u = 37.5 - 74.8 dyn cm-

Water-air
Glycol-air
Methanol-air
Glycol aq. soln.-air
Methanol aq. soln.-air
Water-02
Water-He
Water-CO2
pi = 0.79 - 1.59 g cmw3
/JL = 0.58 - 21.1 CP
u = 22.3 - 74.2 dyn cm-l

Water-air
Kerosene-air
Light oil-air
Glycerol aq. soln.-air
NazSOa aq. soln-air
ZnCl2 aq. soln.-air
pa = 0.78 - 1.7 g cmM3
pL = 0.9 - 152 cP
u = 25 - 76 dyn cm-l

System

Q,

61

0.3 cm can be used as the value of db in eqn.

(4) to estimate the eo values.
Kumar et al. [ 51 have presented the gas
hold-up data for air in several liquids and
found that their own and the previous investigators data can be correlated by eqn. (5) of
Table 1 as a function of the dimensionless gas
velocity containing the superficial gas
velocity, the densities of the liquid and gas,
and the surface tension of the liquid.
Memmann [6] has recently proposed a
semitheoretical correlation for the gas hold-up
in terms of the dimensionless groups including
the physical properties of the gas and liquid.
This correlation is given by eqn. (6) of Table
1.
The correlations outlined above are for gas
hold-up in pure liquids or in aqueous nonelectrolyte solutions. Several investigators [ 2,
3, 71 have observed that the gas hold-up in
aqueous electrolyte solutions is slightly larger
than that in pure liquids or non-electrolyte
solutions. Akita and Yoshida [2] measured
the gas hold-up in aqueous solutions of
various electrolytes and suggested that, for
the gas hold-up in electrolyte solutions, 0.25
instead of 0.20 should be taken as the
constant in the right-hand side of eqn. (2).

EXPERIMENTAL

The bubble column used was constructed of

glass and its inside diameter was 10.0 cm. The
column was 150 cm in height and three pressure taps were drilled in the wall at 25 cm
intervals, the lowest being 15 cm above the
bottom plate of the column. The gas sparger
used was of single-nozzle type, and its inside
diameter was 1.1 cm. The nozzle was located
5 cm above the bottom plate of the column.
The bubble column was operated continuously with respect to the gas flow and batchwise
with respect to the liquids. The liquids and
gases used are given in Tables 2 and 3,
together with their physical properties. The
water used was deionized and all the aqueous
solutions were also prepared from deionized
water. The gas was fed from the nozzle to the
bottom of the column after the flowrate had
been measured with rotameters. The gas was
not presaturated; in the cases of the air-

62
TABLE

Properties

of gases and pure liquids

System

Air-water
Air -30 wt .% sucrose
Air-50
wt.% sucrose
Air-methanol
Air-n-butanol
Air -aniline
Air-53
wt.% methanol
Air-7 wt.% i-butanol
Hz-water
COz-water
CHd-water
CaHg-water
Hg + Ng(l:l)-water
H2 + N2(5:1)-water

TABLE

or non-electrolyte

solutions

Temp.

PG x lo3

PL

CLL

(C)

62 cmv3)

(g cmw3)

(CP)

pd
y

20
20
20
17
20
20
15
20
20
20
10
20
20
20

1.21
1.21
1.21
1.22
1.21
1.21
1.23
1.21
0.0837
1.84
0.692
1.83
0.624
0.263

0.998
1.13
1.24
0.794
0.814
1.02
0.918
0.992
0.998
0.998
1.00
0.998
0.998
0.998

1.01
3.18
17.8
0.658
2.89
4.80
2.00
1.31
1.01
1.01
1.31
1.01
1.01
1.01

72.8
74.2
75.9
22.9
24.6
42.9
37.2
30.3
72.8
72.8
74.1
72.8
72.8
72.8

1.81
1.81
1.81
1.79
1.81
1.81
1.78
1.81
0.931
1.60
1.12
0.800
1.61
1.29

of gases and electrolyte

System

solutions

Temp.

,&

CC)

(CP)

kcm

1.16 - 1.23
1.20 - 1.21
1.20 - 1.21
1.21
1.19 - 1.21
1.19 - 1.29
1.21
1.17,1.19
1.21

1.78 - 1.87
1.79 - 1.82
1.80 - 1.82
1.80
1.80 - 1.82
1.79 - 1.83
1.80
1.84, 1.82
1.79

1.01 - 1.17
1.02 - 1.17
1.01 - 1.16
1.04
1.01 - 1.11
1.01 - 1.14
1.07
1.03,1.09
1.03

methanol and air-53% methanol systems

methanol was vaporized to a considerable
extent. The superficial gas velocity uo ranged
from 4.2 to 38.0 cm s-l.
The gas hold-up was determined by measuring the static pressure at three points in the
column. The fractional gas hold-up eo was
calculated from

RESULTS

Air-(0.1
- 6.0 M) NaCl
Air-(0.1
- 1.5 M) Na2S04
Air-(0.1
- 2.0 M) CaCla
Air-O.4 M MgCl2
Air-(0.1
- 1.0 M) AlC13
Air-(0.1
- 3.0 M) KC1
Air-O.5 M K&S04
Air-(0.16
M, 0.5 M) K3P04
Air-O.5 M KNOs

Properties

fG

n cm-l

15-31
17 - 23
20 - 23
20
20 - 24
18 - 26
20
28,24
19

1 + (&/PLg)(*/~)

where g, is the gravitational conversion factor

and dP/dZ is the slope of the curve representing the axial distribution of the static pressure
in the column. The clear liquid height 2, was
kept at about 65 cm.

x lo2

PL

AND

_3

@L
)

;y

(CP)

1.08
1.08
0.97
1.22
1.04
0.90
1.10
0.90,
1.01

- 1.48
- 1.87
- 1.64
- 2.04
- 1.08
1.16

ncm -l)

73.7 - 79.6
73.1 - 77.8
72.7 - 79.3
74.0
72.9 - 77.8
72.0 - 77.5
74.0
71.9, 72.7
73.5

DISCUSSION

Pure liquids and non-electrolyte solutions

Experimental data
In the present work, the fractional gas
hold-up eo was constant through the column
except for the lowest section between the
bottom plate of the column and the first pressure tap, where fo was low because of the
larger gas bubbles and the jetting gas stream.
The gas hold-up was found to be proportional
to about the 0.58 power of the superficial gas
velocity uo .
In Fig. 1 the present data for the airwater system are compared with the previous
data [ 2,7 - 121 obtained by using the singleor multi-nozzle gas sparger. Except that the

63

Investigator

1 Koide et aI.
2 Ueyama et aI.

,c
60

surface tension of the liquid u, and the

gravitational constant g. By applying dimensional analysis and the least-squares method
to the experimental data, we obtained the
following correlation for the fractional gas
hold-up in the pure liquid or the non-electrolyte solutions:
EG

4610

4
G

6
.

100

o.6,2(Uy!k) o.58
(!!&-,,131
x

6 1000

cm/s

(PPGr(PG,

Fig. 1. Comparison of the present data with previous

data for gas hold-up for the air-water system.

data of Deckwer et al. [9] and Hills [lo] are

fairly high at lower values of the superficial
gas velocity, the previous data accord well
with the present data, suggesting no
appreciable effect of the column diameter Dr
on fo.
Previous studies on the effect of the gas
properties on the fractional gas hold-up Eo are
scarce and lead to conflicting conclusions.
Bhaga et al. [13] and Koetsier et al. [14]
concluded from the results of their experiments that an increase in the gas density
results in increasing gas hold-up, while Akita
and Yoshida [2] and Shulman and Molstad
[ 151 reported no effect of the nature of the
gas. Some of the present experimental results
obtained with water and various gases are
shown in Fig. 2. It can be seen from this
figure that the gas hold-up eo apparently
depends on the nature of the gas.

o
0
0.1
6
0.06

4610

2
,j

Air-Water
H&(M)-water

100

400

. cmk

Fig. 2. Effect of the nature df the gas on gas hold-up.

Correlation
The effects of the nozzle diameter d,,, the
column diameter Dr and the clear liquid
height 2, on the fractional gas hold-up so can
be neglected in view of our previous data [3],
Thus the factors conceivably affecting eo are
considered to be the superficial gas velocity
uo , the gas and liquid densities p o and pL,
the gas and liquid viscosities C(o and pL, the

(8)

The ranges of the dimensionless numbers over

which the use of eqn. (8) seems justified are
as follows:
1.1 X 1O-3 < (u&L/(T) < 8.9 X 1O-2
2.5 X lo-l1 < (/&pLo3)

< 1.9 X lO-(j

8.4 x 1o-6 < (PG/PL) < 1.9 x 1o-3

1.0 X 1O-3 < (,.&/c(L) < 1.8 X lO-2
Equation (8) can be rewritten as
Eo = ~~~,2g-0.131uG0.578,,G0.092pL0.069
PG

0.197 ~ L- 0.053a-

0.185

(9)

It can be seen from the above correlation that

the effects of the gas density and the gas
viscosity on the gas hold-up are not so large.
However, similar correlations of the present
data obtained by neglecting either of these
effects give systematic errors of about 15% or
more for the data of a few specified systems,
indicating that the density ratio term p o /PL
or the viscosity ratio term po/pL cannot be
eliminated.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of the
values of eo obtained in the present work
with those calculated from eqn. (8). The
observed values of fo are in good agreement
with the calculated ones with an average
deviation of 4.2% and a maximum deviation
of 10%.
Discussion
Figure 4 presents the comparison of the
measured values of so for the air-aqueous
alcoholic solution systems which were not
used in obtaining eqn. (8) with those
calculated from eqn. (8). Also included are
the previous data of Hikita and Kikukawa
[ 31. As can be seen in the figure, the
observed VdUes of so for aqueous methanol

Air-Water

Av. Dw. I 4.2%

H,+NJl4)-Water
H,+Y(B:l)-Water
Air4OwtLSucroPe
Air-6OwYLSumse
Air-Methanol
Air-n-Butdnol
Air-Aniline

+
x
o
v
l

0.06L

a08 0.1

Kqs same as in Fig.3

Illlll

(EG)~aI

1.0

Fig. 3. Comparison of the present data with the proposed correlation for gas hold-up for pure liquids and
non-electrolyte
solutions.

III
6

Fig. 5. Comparison of the present data with the

Hughmark correlation for gas hold-up for pure liquids
and non-electrolyte
solutions.

II

1.0

Fig. 4. Gas hold-up for air in aqueous alcoholic

tions.

solu-

Keys same as in Fig. 3

0.08 0.1

solutions are considerably higher than those

estimated by eqn. (8), by a maximum of 50%,
while the data for 7% aqueous iso-buranol
solution areslightly higher than the estimated
ones. These discrepancies of the data points
from eqn. (8) may be attributed to the coalescence-hindering property of aqueous
alcoholic solution; as pointed out by Calderbank [ 161, and the extent of the deviation
appears to .depend on the nature of the
alcohol and its concentration, judging from
the results of the previous study on the fractional gas hold-up in bubble columns [6].
Further, in the case of the air-aqueous
methanol solution system, the convection
currents at the surface of the solution induced
by surface tension gradients resulting from
the vaporization of methanol into an air
stream may cause an appreciable increase in
the gas hold-up.
Figures 5 to 10 compare the present data
with the previous correlations described
above. In these figures, the eo values observed
in the present work are plotted on logarithmic
coordinates against the eo values calculated

0.6

=G),,

Fig. 6. Comparison of the present data with the Akita

and Yoshida correlation for gas hold-up for pure
liquids and non-electrolyte
solutions.

Keys same as in Fig. 3

1

d 0.8

(EG)Ul

Fig. 7. Comparison of the present data with the

Hikita and Kikukawa correlation for gas hold-up for
pure liquids and nonelectrolyte
solutions.

from the previous correlations. Figure 5

shows the comparison of the present data
with the correlation proposed by Hughmark

65

- Av. Dev.= 55.4%

0.1-1
0.06.

0.2

Keys same as in Fig. 3 _

I
IIll8
_
4
6
0 1.0
(EG)cal

Fig. 6. Comparison of the present data with the

Gestrich and Riihse correlation for gas hold-up for
pure liquids and nonelectrolyte solutions.
0.6 erl
Keys same as in Fig. 3
4 -

Av. Dev.= 35.2%

(EG)c.,

Fig. 9. Comparison of the present data with the

correlation of Kumar et al. for gas hold-up for pure
liquids and non-electrolyte solutions.

- Av. Dev.-13.1 *I.

4-

(EGh.a,

Fig. 10. Comparison of the present data with the

Mersmann correlation for gas hold-up for pure liquids
and nonelectrolyte solutions.

[l]. It can be seen that the Hughmark

correlation yields somewhat higher eo values,
especially at lower gas velocities, equivalent to

lower values of the abscissa. In Fig. 9 the

Kumar et al. correlation [ 51 of the present
data is shown. Except at higher values of the
abscissa, corresponding to the higher gas
velocities, the Kumar et al. correlation gives
considerably higher eo values. Figure 8 represents the comparison of the present data
with the correlation of Gestrich and Riihse
[4]. As can be seen in this figure, the data
points lie below the solid line representing the
Gestrich and R&se correlation and display
greater scattering. The disagreement between
the present data and these previous corn&
tions may be attributed partly to differences
in the design of gas spargers. In general, at
lower gas velocities the single-nozzle gas
sparger as used in the present work gives
somewhat lower values of gas hold-up than a
multi-nozzle or a porous-plate gas sparger [ 7,
171. In Fig. 7 the Hikita and Kikukawa
correlation [ 31 of the present data is shown.
They used aqueous methanol solutions as
liquids for studying the effect of surface tension on the gas hold-up. As shown in Fig. 4,
the presence of methanol in water increases
the gas hold-up because of the coalescencehindering properties of aqueous alcoholic
solutions and of the convection currents
induced by surface tension gradients resulting
from the methanol vaporization. Therefore,
the Hikita and Kikukawa correlation overestimates the effect of the liquid surface tension on the gas hold-up and, as shown in
Fig. 7, the data points for the liquids of low
surface tension, i.e. methanol, n-butanol and
aniline, are well below the correlation line. It
can also be seen from Fig. 7 that the data
points for hydrogen and the gas mixture of
hydrogen and nitrogen (5:l) in water are
below the Hikita and Kikukawa correlation
line. This discrepancy may be due to the
fact that the Hikita and Kikukawa correlation
does not take into account the effect of gas
properties. Figures 6 and 10 compare the
present experimental data with the correlations of Akita and Yoshida [ 21 and of
Mersmann [6], respectively. It can be seen
that the measured values Of eo are in approximate agreement with those estimated from
both of these correlations, although the data
for hydrogen and the hydrogen-nitrogen
(5:l) mixture in water are somewhat lower
and the data for air in methanol, n-butanol
and aniline are slightly higher.

66

Electrolyte solu@ons
Experimetital dpta. :.. ., ., li A
Figure lf showsthe values~f thefractional
gas hold-up Co for&r in~aqt&busI&assium
phosphate solutions. It can beTseen in this
figure that to varies as about the 0.58 power
of the superficial gas VdOCity uG in the same
manner as for the gas hold-up in pure liquids
or nonelectrolyte
solutions. The same dependence Of eo on uo was observed for all the
air-electrolyte
solution systems used in the
present work. Figure 12 presents the values of
the gas hold-up eo of air in aqueous SOlUtiOnS
of various electrolytes
at a constant gas
velocity of 10 cm s-l as a function of the
ionic strength I of the electrolyte solution. It
can be seen that the values of fo for the electrolyte solutions are slightly larger than those
for water, the extent depending on the nature
of the electrolyte
and its concentration.
Similar observations have been reported by
several investigators [ 2,3, 71. The larger gas
hold-up in the electrolyte
solutions may be
explained by the occurrence of smaller gas
bubbles due to the coalescence-hindering
property of the electrolyte solution [ 181.

Correlation
In Fig. 13 the ratios of the measured fo
values for the electrolyte solutions shown in
Fig. I2 to the eo values calculated from eqn.
(8) are plotted
on semilogarithmic
coordinates against the ionic strength I of the
solution. The ratio f is the correction factor,
i.e. the factor by which the fractional gas
hold-up is increased by the presence of
electrolyte in water. It can be seen in Fig. 13
that the ratio f is practically constant at ionic
strengths above about 1.0 g-ion 1-l. The two
solid lines through the data points are represented by the following equations:
For 0< I<

l.Og-ionl-1
(lOa)

f = 1 O.0414
For I > 1.0 g-ion 1-l

f= 1.1

0.6l

(IOb)

1 ,

I
6

g-ion/l

Fig. 13. Effect of the presence of electrolytes oh gas

hold-up as a function of the ionic strength of
solutiolls.

Us

cm/s

Fig. 11. Gas hold-up for air in aqueous potassium

phosphate solutions.

0.51
4
3

,
,
,
Gas:Air
uG ~10 cm/s
---Water

Uey Electmlyle
0
NaCl
.
KCI
&
KNOa

The experimental
data agree approximately
with the above equations with an average
deviation of 5.7%. Thus, the fractional gas
hold-up in electrolyte
solutions can be
calculated from eqns. (8) and (10).

NOMENCLATURE

db mean bubble diameter, cm

do
DT

f
g
0.1

g-ion/l

Fig. 12. Gas hold-up for air in aqueous solutions of

various electrolytes at a superficial gas velocity of
10.0 cm s-l.

gc
I

nozzle diameter, cm
column diameter, cm
correction factor for effect of presence
of electrolyte in water
gravitational constant, cm se2
gravitational conversion factor, g cm
g (force)-l se2
ionic strength of electrolyte solution,
g-ion 1-l
dimensionless parameter defined by
eqn. (4b)

67

number of nozzles or orifices

static pressure in column, g (force) cmm2
superficial gas velocity, cm s-l or m s-l
UG
U
dimensionless parameter defined by
eqn. (5b)
height above bottom of column, cm
Z
-%3 aerated liquid height, cm
clear liquid height, cm
2,

Greek symbols
fG
fractional

gas hold-up
viscosity
of
gas, g cm-l s-l or cP
E1G
viscosity
of
liquid,
g cm- s-l or CP
c1L
Po
density of gas, g cmp3
pL density of liquid, g cme3
Ap
difference between liquid and gas
densities, g cme3
surface tension of liquid, g sC2 or dyn
a
cm-l

REFERENCES
1 G. A. Hughmark, Znd. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., 6 (1967) 218.

2 K. Akita and F. Yoshida, Znd. Eng. Chem. Process

Des. Dev., 12 (1973) 76.
3 H. Hikita and H. Kikukawa, Bull. Univ. Osaka
Prefect., Ser. A., 22 (1973) 151.
4 W. Gestrich and W. Riihse, Chem. Zng. Tech., 47
(1975) 8.
5 A. Kumar, T. E. Degaleesan, G. S. Laddha and
H. E. Hoelscher, Can. J. Chem. Eng., 54 (1976)
503.
6 A. Mersmann, Chem. Zng. Tech., 49 (1977) 679;
Ger. Chem. Eng., 1 (1978) 1.
7 F. Yoshida and K. Akita, AZChE. J., 11 (1965) 9.
8 T. Miyauchi and C. N. Shyu, Kagaku Kogaku, 34
(1970) 958.
9 W. D. Deckwer, R. Burckhart and G. Zoll, Chem.
Eng. Sci., 29 (1974) 2177.
10 J. H. Hills, Chem. Eng. J., 12 (1976) 89.
11 K. Ueyama and T. Miyauchi, Kagaku Kogaku
Ronbunshu, 3 (1977) 19.
12 K. Koide et al., J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 12 (1979) 98.
13 D. Bhaga, B. B. Pruden and M. E. Weber, Can. J.
Chem. Eng., 49 (1971) 417.
14 W. T. Koetsier, W. P. M. van Swaaij and M. van
der Most, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn., 9 (1976) 332.
15 H. L. Shulman and M. C. Molstad, Znd. Eng.
Chem., 42 (1950) 1058.
16 P. H. Calderbank,
Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., 36
(1958) 443.
17 Y. Ohki and H. Inoue, Chem. Eng. Sci., 25
(1970) 1.
18 R. R. Lessard and S. A. Zieminski, Znd. Eng.
Chem. Fundam., 10 (1970) 260.