EFFECT of HYDRODYNAMIC Characteristics On Flotation Treatment Process of Oily Wastewater

Ministry of Higher Education
& Scientific Research

University of Technology
Chemical Engineering Department
EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC
CHARACTERISTICS ON FLOTATION
TREATMENT PROCESS OF OILY
WASTEWATER
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of
Technology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Chemical Engineering / Refining
Oil&Gas
By
Shahad Salim Mohammed
( B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering, 2009 )
2012
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to Allah for his mercy and blessing.
I wish to express my sincere gratitude and grateful admiration to my
supervisor Prof. Dr. Thamer J.Mohammed, for choosing the research and for
his continuous guidance, efforts and interest, which contributed to the
completion of the present work.
Also, I wish to express my respectful regard to the Chemical
Engineering Department, University of Technology, where this research was
conducted for providing financial and logistic facilities.
My respectful regard goes to the staff of Petroleum Research
and Development Center especially Mr. Zaidoon khalaf and Miss Nahla
namir for their assistance and help during the experimental work.
My deepest thanks are given to my family for their support
and encouragement throughout this endeavor.
My very deep respect and sincere appreciation go to my

Father (May Allah have Mercy on his soul) whose memory
encouraged and gave me so much hope and support.
Also, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my friends

for their support and encouragement.
Shahad
I
Abstract
EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ON FLOTATION TREATMENT

PROCESS OF OILY WASTEWATER
By
Shahad Salim Mohammed
Supervised by
Prof.Dr.Thamer J.Mohammed
In the North Oil Company (Kirkuk) which represents one of the important
companies in Iraq that consumes a large quantity of water, the oily wastewater
discharges from this company represent a great threat to the agricultural lands.
The aim of the present work is to select the efficient systems for treating oily
wastewater using different flotation techniques. Two flotation techniques were
carried out: Induced Air Flotation (IAF), and Modified Induced Air Flotation
(MIAF) with a coagulation processes.
The experimental work was carried out using flotation bubble column of
Perspex glass (10cm I.D, 150cm height). A liquid depth of 70cm was kept
constant throughout the study. Different two types of gas distributors namely
Perspex perforated plate of diameter of 0.002m was drilled with (70) holes and
the second one is a porous ceramic plate of 0.09m diameter with pore size
(120m). In order to achieve effective mixing and to modify the flotation
column (MIAF), stirrer was used with a rotational speed of (50-250) rpm. A
monometer was used to measure the local gas hold up; also a high speed camera
was used to measure the bubble rise velocity and bubble size.
V
The variables that affects the removal efficiency (R%) of oil from
wastewater is hydrodynamic characteristics, such as gas velocities (0.00636-
0.0636) m/sec, oil concentration (30-800) ppm, surfactant concentration(SLS,
Camper) and the addition of alum, pH (4.3-8.5), speed of stirrer (50-250) rpm,
have been studied.
The study has showed that the removal efficiency of oil, COD and BOD
were related to the additive dose of Alum and SLS. It was found that the flotation
rate increases when using alum and surfactant together, the fastest removal rate
was obtained when pH 4.3 and also, when a stirrer speed 200 rpm was used, the
removal efficiency was about 98%(residual oil <10 ppm) when the initial oil
concentration was 800 ppm.
The kinetics of flotation bubble column was studied and it was found that the
removal rate constant increases with increasing oil concentration and with dosage
of surfactant (SLS). The results showed that the order of the kinetics flotation
process changes between half to first order.
The interfacial area (a) obtained experimentally from the bubble
hydrodynamic parameters and the velocity gradient (G), have been proven to be
important parameters for controlling the flotation process efficiency.
The experimental results of the removal efficiency are represented in two and
three dimensional graphs. An empirical correlation for gas hold up using MIAF
has been developed as follows:
g =0.39 (Ug) 0.0163 (H/D) 0.157 (N/L) 0.473
Statistical analysis showed that the average absolute error and correlation
coefficient are 2% and 0.98 respectively. And general correlation for the removal
efficiency (R %) using dimensionless groups was found to be:
R% = 1.67 (CA/ l )145.7 (CS/L)161 (C/Co)0.0624(1/Re)1.48(1/We)1.54 (1/Fr)1.096
VI
The correlation obtained gave an average absolute error and correlation
coefficient 0.053%, 0.9999 respectively.
VII
Contents
Subject page
Acknowledgement I
Abstract V
Nomenclature X
Greek Symbols XII
List of Figures XIV
List of Tables XIX
Contents XV
Chapter one: Introduction
1.1 General 1
1.2. Oily Wastewater Treatment Technologies 2
1.2.1 Flotation 4
1.2.1.1 Flotation Column 4
1.3 Pollutants Effect 7
1.4 Case Study 8
1.5 The aim of the present work 8
Chapter two: Literature survey

2.1 Introduction 10
2.2. Hydrodynamic parameter affecting removal efficiency 10
2.2.1 .Gas Hold up 10
2.2.2. Effect of the flow rate 12
2.3. Operating condition affecting removal efficiency 13
2.3.1. Effect of temperature 13
2.3.2. Effect of pH 15
2.4. Geometrical Dimensions 17
2.4.1. Effect of Bubble Diameter and (H/d) Ratio on Removal efficiency 17
2.4.2. Effect of Sparger Type 18
2.5. The Effect of Surfactant and Additives on Removal Efficiency 20
XV
2.6. Hybrid Treatment (Coagulation Flocculation-Flotation) 23
2.7. Empirical Equations of Parameters 26
2.7.1. Bubble rise velocity 26
2.7.2. Bubble Size 29
2.7.3. Gas Hold up 30
2.7.4. Removal Efficiency 32
2.8 Summary: 34
Chapter three: Experimental work
3.1. Introduction 35
3.2. Characteristic and Preparation of Sample Wastewater 35
3.3. Materials 36
3.4. Experimental Set up 37
3.41. Flotation column 37
3.4.2. Gas Delivery 38
3.4.3. Experimental Procedure 38
3.5 Determination of Oil Concentration 42
3.5.1. Outline of the Method 42
3.5.2 Calibration 43
3.5.4 Procedure 43
3.6. Bubble Size and Rise Velocity Measurement 43
3.7. Sample wastewater treatment 45
Chapter four: Theoretical concepts
4.1. Determination of Rate Constant 46
4.2 Froth height equation 48
4.3 Dimensional Analyses 49
Chapter five: Results and discussion
Introduction 50
5.1 Hydrodynamic Characteristics 50
5.1.1 Bubble Diameter 50
5.1.2 Bubble Rise Velocity 51

5.1.3 Gas Hold-up 52
XVI
5.2 Effect of Various Factors on the Removal Efficacy of Oily Wastewater 61
5.2.1 Effect of pH 61
5.2.2 Effect of Initial Oil Concentration 62
5.2.3 Effect of Gas Velocities on the Removal Efficiency 63
5.2.4 Effect of Coagulant and Flocculant Agents 63
5.2.5 Effect of Sampling Zone 65
5.2.6. Effect of Mixing 66
5.3 Effect of Interfacial Area and Velocity Gradient on the
81
Removal Efficiency
5.4. The Best Conditions 84
5.5. Dimensionless Groups for Removal Efficiency 86
Chapter six: Conclusions and Recommendations for
future work
6.1. Conclusions 88
6.1.1 Separation of Oil 88
6.2. Recommendations for future work 89
References 90
Appendices
Appendix A: Calibration curve of rotameter 102
Appendix B: Calibration curve of mixer 103
Appendix C distributor design 104
Appendix D Sample of calculations 107
Appendix E Tables figures 110
XVII
Nomenclature
Symbol Definition Units

A Specific surface area of column (m2)
Atm Atmosphere (N/m2)
API American petroleum institute (-)
d R2 l g
Bo Bond number (-)

COD Chemical oxygen demand (ppm)
CPI Corrugate plate inceptor (-)
CD Drag coefficient (-)
CA Alum concentration (ppm)
CS Surfactant concentration (ppm)
C Oil concentration (ppm)

CO Initial oil concentration (m)
(COD)U Chemical Oxygen Demand in the under flow in (ppm)

eq.2.22
(COD)L Chemical Oxygen Demand in the feed flow in (ppm)
eq.2.22
DGF Dissolved gas flotation (-)
Dc, D Column diameter in eq.217 and 2.18 (m)
db Bubble diameter (m)
EPA Environmental protection agency (-)
Vg
Fr Froude number (-)
gd R
FB Frequency of bubble (sec-1)
g Gravitational acceleration m s
2
G Mean velocity gradient (sec-1)

d R3 l g
Ga Galileo number (-)
L2
H, h Bed height (m)
(m)
hf
Froth height
X
IAF, IGF Induced air flotation (-)
Jg superficial gas velocity in eq.2.10 (m/sec)
Jl superficial liquid velocity in eq.2.10 (m/sec)
k Rate constant (sec-1)
MAIF Modified induced air flotation (-)
NTU Naphlometric turbidity unit (-)

N Speed of the stirrer (sec-1)
Nb Number of bubble (-)
PPI Parallel plate inceptor (-)
ppm Part per million (-)
P Power in the column W
PPI Parallel plate inceptor
Q Gas flow rate (m3/min)
Qair/Ql Air flow rate/feed flow rate (-)
Qa/Qis feed flow rate/saturated liquid rate (-)
Ud
Re Reynolds number (-)

Pa * m 3
Rg Gas constant = 8.314
mol * K
R Removal efficiency (1-C/Co)*100 (-)
SF Scale correction factor (-)
Sb Surface area of the bubble (m2)
t Time (sec)
TTW Treated waste transmittance (%) (-)
TWF Waste feed transmittance (%) (-)
TW Water transmittance (%) (-)
Ugs Bubble rise velocity in eq.(2.9) &(2.13) (m/sec)
U Fluid velocity in Table (2.1) (m/sec)
Ug Gas velocity (m/sec)
Ut Terminal velocity in Table (2.1) (m/sec)
Vb Total volume of the bubble (m3)
We Weeper number l Ug2d/ (-)
XI
Greek Symbols
Symbol Definition Units

Micron (-)
l Density of the liquid (kg/m3)
g Density of the gas (kg/m3)
w The density of water (kg/m3)
l Liquid viscosity (Pa.s)
g Gas viscosity (Pa.s)
vg Superficial gas velocity in Table (2.1) (m/sec)
Surface tension (N
m
)
g Volume fraction of gas or gas holdup (-)
vb Bubble rise velocity in Table (2.1) (m/s)
w Viscosity of water (Pa.s)
Density of liquid (kg/m3)
Pt Pressure difference along the column (atm)
z Liquid height in the manometer

(m)
XII
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1. General
Oil contaminated wastewater has been recognized as one of the most

concerned pollution sources. This kind of wastewater comes from variety of
sources such as crude oil production, oil refinery, compressor, condensates,
lubricant and cooling agents and car washing. The oily wastewater is considered as
hazardous industrial wastewater because it contains toxic substances such as
phenols, petroleum, hydrocarbons, and poly aromatic hydrocarbons; therefore the
treatment of oily wastewater is particularly difficult, especially when oil is found at
low concentration in the water phase (Phan, 2002, and Couto&Massrani, 2005).
The type of oil-water mixture may be classified as oil and present,
as free oil, grease, dispersed oil, emulsified oil or dissolved oil. Free oil is usually
characterized by an oil-water mixture with droplets greater than or equal to
(150m) in size (API, 1969). While a dispersed oil mixture has a droplet size
range between (20-150m), and the emulsified oil mixture will have droplet
size smaller than(20m) (Francis &Eric 1983). A wastewater with an oil-water

mixture where the oil is said to be soluble is a liquid where oil is not present in the
form of droplets the oil particle size would be typically less than (5m) (Patterson,
1985). Free oil is not dispersed and float on the surface, the oily layer can be
skimmed. Soluble oil requires the use of ion-exchange technology (Zoubolils

&Arranas, 2000). Carbon adsorption or membrane filtration treatment is very
effective to remove emulsified oil (Wemco, 1982). Non-emulsified dispersed oil
can be removed by gravity separation, e.g. hydro cyclones, gravity filter or
sedimentation or flotation where oily droplets larger than 40 are removed by
*Chapter one: Introduction 2
flotation techniques(Zoubolils&Arranas,2000) . Chemical pretreatment is very
important in this treatment. Chemical treatment to inactivate the emulsifying
substances, this inactivation may be accomplished by the use of chemical
coagulating agents such as aluminum salts, ferric salts, and calcium salts. The
use of organic poly electrolytes is also widely recognized as a practical and
often efficient technique (Zuber &Hench, 1962). The process of bringing together
the destabilized or "coagulated" particles to form a larger agglomeration of flocc
by physical mixing that is called flocculation (Koide et al, 1979). (NSF, 1999)
states that the flocculation is the process to enhance agglomeration or collection of
smaller floc particles into larger, more easily stable particles through gentle stirring
by hydraulic or mechanical means.
1.2. Oily Wastewater Treatment Technologies

Treatment methods for oily wastewater can be classified into three categories
namely, primary or gravity treatment units, secondary processes and tertiary
processes (Fig.1.1). However the applications of each of these technologies depend
on the quality characteristics and condition of the particular oil-water mixture.
Table 1.1 shows the main advantages and disadvantages for each system (Jorge et
al, 2007).
Table (1.1): The advantage and disadvantage of the treatment process (Jorge et al., 2007).
Process Advantage Disadvantage

API,CPI, PPI Gravitational Effective in removal of Limited in removal of
separators free and dispersed oil emulsion particles
,simple and economical
DGF,IGF flotation Effective for the removal
of dispersed and Generates mud
emulsified oil in range of management when using
1000 to 100 ppm, in coagulants
general reliable
Static and dynamic hydro- Possible to attain a great Requires very stable
cyclones separation with initial operating conditions ,high
concentration up to 2000 energy consumption
ppm
Centrifugal Effective for removal Not competitive with other
emulsified oil in range of 3 technologies when smaller
to 7 m size than 15m, due to
high maintenance energy
costs
Sand filtration, Effective for removal Pretreatment required ,the
anthracite, vegetable emulsified oil that regeneration or change of
means, multiple beds dispersed in range greater medium may create
than 2 m disposal problems, its
operation is very varied
Carbon activated Effective for removal of Very low activity ratio (0.1
all types of particles ,even g oil/g CA), requires high
those oil soluble ones regeneration or changes
,limited to loads greater
than 100 ppm, not for high
flow because of high
maintenance
Membrane processes , Effective for removal of Useful in specific cases,
inverse osmosis ,ultra, soluble oil low flow ,short-lived with
micro and nano filtration emulsions ,requires very
effective pretreatment
Figure(1.1): Oil/water emulsion conventional systems (Degremont, 1979)
The oil/water emulsion cannot be removed by simple gravity separation;

therefore a variety of secondary and tertiary treatment methods have been applied
to treat the soluble fraction and the oil/water emulsion of the oily wastewater.
Among the physical-chemical processes, flotation system is one of the most
common processes used to treat the oily wastewater after gravity separation. This
process has been reported to achieve oil removal of 80% to 90% (ASTM, 1969,
Donal, 1987 & Meyers, 1987).
1.2.1 Flotation:
Flotation is an alternative as it has high efficiency as well as low
operating cost(Rubio et al,2002). Flotation separation is a process used in many
industries to separate one constituent from another (Arther, 2006). The use of
flotation has a great potential owing to high throughput and efficiency of modern
equipment (Zabel, 1992). The general process of flotation separation can be divided
into two types, dispersed and dissolved air flotation (Arther, 2006).
In dissolved air flotation technique the bubbles are formed by nucleation on
the particles. In this technique a substantial portion of the clarified effluent must be
recycled, compressed to 4 up to 5atm and saturated with air. In dispersed air
flotation air bubble are generated either by electrolysis or by forcing air
through, porous glass, single orifice or other suitable sparger. In this type of
flotation the gas flow rate may be an important operating variable. Dispersed air
has the advantage of eliminating the need for recycling (Radoev et al, 1989).
1.2.1.1 Flotation Column:

In order to appreciate the need for a fundamentally based dynamic model
of column flotation, it is first necessary to understand the behavior of flotation
columns . In general the appearance of flotation columns was the result of a
novel idea in the 1960's aimed at improving the performance of conventional
flotation significant. Gain achieved with flotation columns over conventional
flotation technology include:
Higher grades
Lower operating costs
Improved operating stability
Reduced maintenance requirements
Increased suitability for automatic control (wheeler et al, 1966)
Most flotation columns are characterized by a series of features, illustrated in
Fig.1.2.
Figure (1.2): Flotation Column Layout (Gu et al, 1999).
That include:
Higher height to diameter ratio.
Wash water sprinkle at the same point below the over flow lip.
Feed addition point located at an intermediate location along the
column height.
Bubble generation system at the bottom of column.
No mechanism of agitation (Caixeta et al, 2000)
Main applications have been in the removal of solids, ions, macromolecules

and fibers, and other materials from water (Saxena, 1989) more, flotation is also
practiced in other fields (Kumar et al, 1976) such as:
Analytical chemistry
Protein separation
Treatment of spent photography liquors
Odor removal
Plastics separation and recycling

Deinking of printed paper
Separation of micro-organisms
Removal of sulfur dyes resins and rubber, impurities in cane sugar
Clarification of fruit juices.
1.3 Pollutants Effect
The world is faced with problems related to the management of wastewater.
This is due to extensive industrialization, increasing population density and high
urbanized societies were the major sources of the natural water pollution load. This
is a great burden in terms of wastewater management effluents generated from
domestic and industrial activities constitute and can consequently lead to a point-
source pollution problem, the polluted water discharge from the refineries that
contain pollutants and its environmental effects are shown in Table 1.2.
Table (1.2): Components of Wastewater (Henze et al, 1997)
Component Of special interest Environmental effect

Micro-organisms Pathogenic bacteria, virus Risk when bathing and eating
and worms eggs shellfish
Biodegradable organic Oxygen depletion in rivers,
materials Lakes and estuaries.
Other organic materials Detergents, pesticides, fats, Toxic effect, aesthetic
oil and grease, coloring, inconveniences, bio
solvents, phenol, cyanide accumulation
Nutrients Nitrogen, phosphorus, Oxygen Depletion, toxic effect.
ammonia
Metals Hg, Pb, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni Toxic effect, bio accumulation
Other inorganic Acids, e.g. hydrogen Corrosion, toxic effect
materials sulphide, bases
Thermal effects Hot water Changing living conditions for

flora and fauna
Odor (and taste) Hydrogen sulphide Aesthetic inconveniences, toxic
effect
1.4 Case Study

This research is concerned with the problem which takes place in the North
Oil Company, where the oil is mixed with water in different locations as shown in
Fig.1.3, especially thought-out cooling systems where the water is used to cool the
equipments and where there are some leakage in the pipes and other equipments,
so the water becomes polluted.
This problem is tried to be solved by the application of flotation treatment
process before the wastewater discharge to river and agricultural lands with
allowable limit concentration (<10 ppm), depending on EPA and Environmental
Specification of Iraq, (Iraqi regulation, 2001).
1.5 The aim of the present work
1- To investigate the possibility and efficiency of flotation treatment process of
oily wastewater in North Oil Company.
2- To study the hydrodynamic characteristic of flotation column with air
bubble.
3- To study the effect of different parameters of hydrodynamic characteristic
(gas hold up, bubble size, gas velocityetc) in flotation bubble column on
removal efficiency of oil.
4- To study the effects of various variables on the removal efficiency such as,
oil concentration, different type of surfactant concentration, pH and addition
of alum as a coagulant flocculent.
5- To select the best surfactant type as a demulsified substance of oily
wastewater.
6- To study the kinetic of flotation column of emulsified oil wastewater.
7- To find the model to correlate different parameters which affects the
removal efficiency of oil from wastewater.
Compressing gas Gases liberated from

station treatment process Rounded
Fire pit tank to receive
untreated
crude oil
Treated oil consistent with Crude oil treatment unit to Untreated crude oil
standard specifications remove the hydrogen from pump station
Export tanks sulphide and other light Treated oil
Oily wastewater
gases
Oily wastewater
To fire system and human use tank (slop tank)
Oily wastewater
The main Steam
Oily wastewater
water tank To different users
Cooling water content To agricultural

anticorrosion and antiscale lands
Feed
Oily
water Water Treatment unit wastewater
Boiler API- Lagoon
of boiler water
separator
Wastewater
blow down
Cooling tower Water flows down from action process
for industrial treatment unit and flows down from boiler
water Water flows down from cooling tower
to reduce total dissolved solid contents
Fig. 1.3 New Process Plant in the North Oil Company

Chapter two
Literature survey
2.1. Introduction
Most of the research studies on the separation of oil from wastewater
have addressed the effect of oil concentration, type and concentration of
destabilizing agent for oil-water emulsion technique to be employed. In this
chapter the hydrodynamic characteristics of flotation column that affect the oil
removal efficiency was classified and the previous studies are shown for each
one, these studies were published in different international journals, text books
and websites, and papers published locally in resent years.
2.2. Hydrodynamic Parameters Affecting Removal Efficiency
2.2.1 .Gas Hold up
Gas hold up is a dimensionless key parameter for design purposes that

characterizes transport phenomena of bubble column systems (Prakash, 2000).
It's basically defined as the volume fraction of the gas phase occupied by the
gas bubbles likewise it is possible to characterize the liquid and solid phase hold
ups as the volume fraction of liquid and solid phase, respectively. All studies
examine gas hold up because it plays an important role in design and analysis of
bubble columns (Fan& Chern, 1985&Hikita et al, 1980). It is reported that the
basic factors affecting gas hold up are: superficial gas velocity, liquid
properties, column dimensions, operating conditions (temperature and
pressure), and gas distributor design, (Reilley et al, 1986).
Peter&Cesar, 1999, suggested that column flotation is an emerging
technology in the deinking of recycled paper, dinking efficiency depends
primarily on the effect of physical properties, gas flow rate, bubble size
distribution and pulp consistency. Experiments to establish operating ranges for
Chapter two: Literature survey 11
these variables by determining their effects on gas hold up were conducted in a
laboratory column. The results showed that gas hold up increases with the
increasing gas flow rate and with smaller bubble size. Ru"a, 2006, studied the
influence of superficial gas velocity on gas hold up in bubble column (Air-
water system). The results found that, increasing superficial gas velocity in the
range of (0.0314-0.0754)m/sec increases gas hold up. Ben mansour et al, 2007,
studied the hydrodynamic properties in electro-flotation process, and showed
the effect of the current density, viscosity, surface tension of liquid phase on gas
hold up. He found that increasing the current density increases the gas hold up,
but it depend on liquid viscosity, where the increase in the viscosity leads to an
increase in bubble size due to coalescence phenomena as bubble size increases,
the rise velocity tends to increase, the latter phenomena lead to a decrease in
the gas hold up. Franco, 2007, Studied the sectionalized flotation column and
investigate the effect of tray hole diameter and superficial gas velocity and
liquid properties on gas hold up and on removal efficiency of contaminants. The
concluded that the smaller hole of tray is the best and caused to increase the gas
hold up and removal efficiency and increasing in superficial gas velocity
increase in gas hold up and removal efficiency. Shanmugam et al, 2008,
studied the effect of various parameters like superficial gas velocity and speed
of stirrer (N) on fractional gas hold up in bubble column of 0.14m ID and 2m
height. They concluded that fractional gas hold up increased with increaseing
superficial gas velocity and speed of the stirrer. Behnoosh et al, 2009, studied
the effect of bubble size and gas velocity on gas hold up by a cylindrical slurry
bubble column made of glass with inside diameter 0.15m and a height of 2.8 m.
They found that the total gas hold up increases at the optimum value of (0.25) at
the superficial gas velocity of about (10cm/sec) and the large bubbles have high
rise velocity and decrease the gas hold up. Sulaymon& Mohammed, 2010,
studied the effect of gas hold up on kerosene removal efficiency in QVF
flotation column with 0.156cm diameter and 1.2cm height. They found that gas
hold up increases with increasing gas velocity in the range (1.1-2.6) cm/sec, and
that caused an increase in the removal efficiency.
2.2.2. Effect of the flow rate
Puget&Massrani, 2000: studied the performance analysis of a separation
set-up characterized by the ejector-hydro cyclone association, applied in the
treatment of a synthetic dairy wastewater and the effect of (air flow rate/ feed
flow rate) were studied and the results obtained were compared with the results
from the flotation column. It was shown that better results are obtained for the
ratio (Qair/QL)>0.15 and showed lower efficiency than that obtained by flotation
column. Ying huang et al, 2003: studied the effect of flow rate on unburned
carbon removal efficiency by flotation column, a glass column measuring
500mm high and 50mm in diameter was used at the range of gas flow rate (0-
1.4) l/min. It was found that the recovery efficiency increases with increasing
the gas flow rate up to the optimum value (0.7) l/min. Above this value; the
recovery efficiency decreased because, increasing flow rate increases the
thickness of the froth zone. The results found that flotation with too high froth
zone is not effective in recovery of unburned carbon. Couto&Massrani, 2005:
studied the effect of ratio Qa/Qis (feed flow rate/saturated liquid rate) on
removal efficiency in dissolved air flotation technique that is applied to the
continuous treatment of a synthetic oily effluent (crude oil in water). It may be
remarked that the increase in Qa/Qis ratio leads to a lower oil removal
efficiency, and the higher oil removal efficiency attained in the continuous
flotation process about 90% was obtained when the process was operated with a
Qa/Qis ratio of (0.5). Puget, 2005: studied the effect of the flow rate on oil
removal efficiency in a 450ml flotation column batch mode. The range of the
flow rate was (3-6 l/min). The results showed that in 5 minutes of batch
operation, using foaming agent and using an air flow rate of 3.9 l/min, it was
possible to remove about 99.5% of oil present in the column feeding (2500
ppm) and reduce the oil concentration of the effluent to the standard allowed by
the legislation(<20ppm). Welz et al, 2007, investigated the flotation of oil
removal from wastewater in laboratory-scale, mechanically agitated flotation
cell and investigated the effect of the flow rate under optimal chemical
conditions. They found that at lowest air flow rate (2l/min) the rate of oil
removal is controlled by the stability of the froth, and found that increasing the
aeration rate increases the rate of oil removal. Turtureau &Oprean, 2008,
studied the effect of air flow rate on nickel removal efficiency by dispersed air
flotation by using a column 60cm in height. They found that the increase of air
flow rate increases the removal efficiency. Al-Maliky, 2010, used two values of
flow rates 3 l/min and 5 l/min in rectangular glass mode tank which was used as
the flotation basin that has a movable part to control the width of flotation tank.
They found that at 3 l/min and at about (1.75-2) width/height the increase in
removal efficiency is more than that at the rate of 5 l/min at the same
width/height ratio. Yinchen et al, 2010, studied the effect of the gas flow rate
(10, 20, and 40) ml/min on removal efficiency in separation of butyl acetate
from oil/water type emulsion solution by solvent sublation. They found that the
removal efficiency increased about 70% with the increase in the gas flow rate to
about 40ml/min.
2.3. Operating Conditions Affecting Removal Efficiency

2.3.1. Effect of temperature
Most plants use heat in treating process, since it provides an aid to mixing
coalescing and settling. Heat aids the treatment by enhancing the followings
(Baker, 2005):
-Reducing viscosity of the oil.
-Weakling or rupturing the film between the oil and water drop by expanding
the water.
-Altering the difference in density of the fluids and these by tending to decrease
the settling time.
-Growing droplets in size when they combine until they become heavy enough
to separate by settling down to the bottom of the treated coalescence. Heat
effect accelerates the treating process.
Connor&Mill, 1990, the effect of temperature on the flotation of pyrite has

been investigated. They concluded that increase in temperature, increases the
rate of flotation due to the decrease of the viscosity of the water thus increasing
the rate of elutriation of gangue back to the pulp. Alexander& Manrice, 2000,
studied the effect of temperature on oil removal efficiency in water crude oil
demulsified process that carried out through "bottle test" technique. They
showed that the increase in temperature in range of (10-50) Co caused to
increase the phase separation rate by viscosity decrease. Ghazi et al, 2008,
studied the effect of temperature on Pb +2 and Cu+2 removal efficiency by
flotation. They found that the floatability of the system was not markedly
affected by rising the temperature in the range (10-80)Co, it just made an
acceleration of the flotation process. Turtureanu&Oprean, 2008, studied the
effect of temperature on nickel removal by flotation column 60cm height
dispersed air flotation. The results showed that the increasing temperature
between (20-60) Co decreased the removal efficiency to 78%. Mastouri et al,
2009, studied the effect of temperature on oil removal efficiency by induced gas
flotation. They found that increasing temperature enhances the oil removal
efficiency (85%) until reaching the optimum value of (70)Co and after this
value increasing in temperature decreases the removal efficiency about(72%).
Al-Maliky, 2010, studied the effect of temperature on the separation efficiency
of induced air flotation process of oily wastewater in a rectangular glass tank,
by using the temperature range of (0-120) Co. He found that the increase in
temperature, increases the removal efficiency until reaching the optimum value
of (80-84) Co and after that, temperature increase has an adverse performance.
2.3.2. Effect of pH
One of the most important factors to study and to show it's effect on
removal efficiency of oily wastewater. The value of pH is varied depending on
some factors like the addition of surfactant and coagulant. Most natural
particles in water and emulsifier are surfactants which have either anionic or
non ionic polar group (Reynolds &Richards, 1996). Sulfonated of fatty acids
and protein is common anionic emulsifier. Protein contains amino group (-NH2)
and carboxylic group (COOH) that their dissociation depend on the pH of the
solution. The destabilization or demulsification can be achieved with reducing
electric factor or destroys electrical double layer. By pH adjustment, pH control
can enhance the efficiency of coagulation by inorganic salt (Aneak& wirach,
2009), such as at low pH, Fe ion is surrounded with water molecule [Fe
(H2O)+3] then was difficult to contact with collide, but at the optimum pH or
high dosage, the Fe ion can form complex to be Fe(OH)3 that is in the solid
form (Recep,2005).
Ying hung et al, 2002: studied the effect of pH on unburned carbon
removal efficiency in flotation column. They found that the removal efficiency
increases with increasing pH value in the range below the optimum pH value
where the optimum value of the contact angle decreases and the flotation
efficiency also decreases. Thamer&Eman, 2007, studied the effect of coagulant
(alum, CaO, clay) on pH value and as a result on removal efficiency in
dissolver air flotation of oily wastewater treatment. It was found that the
increase in coagulant (alum &clay) decreases the pH value (6.7) and increases
the removal efficiency, but increasing CaO, increases pH value (8.5) and
decreased the removal efficiency. Ahmed, 2004, studied the separation of
emulsified kerosene in water (concentration 250-750 ppm) in a bubble column
15.6cm diameter and 120cm height and the effect of pH was studied in range
(2.5-9)on removal efficiency. It was found that the fastest removal efficiency
was obtained when pH about 4. Ziyadanagullaril, 2005, studied the effect of
pH on flotation efficiency in the flotation of oxidized copper ore, at the range of
pH (6-11). It was found that the flotation efficiency increases with the increase
in pH until reaching the optimum value of pH (8.7) where the efficiency of
copper is 100%. Welz et al, 2007, investigated the flotation of oil from
wastewater in a laboratory scale mechanically agitated flotation cell and
explores the effect of pH on flotation performance. They found that an increase
in pH decrease the removal efficiency. Bao-yu gao&Qin-yan yue, 2007,
studied the effect of pH on oil removal efficiency in a laboratory experiments.
They showed that the removal efficiency decreases with the increase in pH at
the optimum pH range of (6-8). Turtureanu et al, 2008, studied the effect of pH
on removal efficiency in nickel removal from aqueous solution by flotation in a
laboratory scale, range of pH (8-12). The results showed that the increase in pH
increase removal efficiency, but a good separation >=98% is obtained at pH
values>=10. Ghazy et al, 2008, studied the effect of pH on copper and lead
removal efficiency by flotation by using (H2SO4, HCl, and HNO3) as
adjustment. It was found that the maximum flotation efficiencies of Cu+2 Pb+2
ions were attained on the presence of HNO3 and found that the removal
increases until the optimum value of (5-6) and after that decreases with
increasing pH. Aneak& Wirach, 2009, studied the effect of pH by acid
adjustment (HCl & H2SO4) and using coagulant (FeCl3) aid in combination with
pH control on greases and oil removal in wastewater from biodiesel process.
They concluded that pH should be low to enhance oil removal efficiency, and
the use of coagulant (FeCl3) in combination with pH adjustment may be more
practical and the oil removal efficiency 97% at the pH (4-7) and the efficiency
could be enhance by using cationic polymer as coagulant aid. Yinchen et al,
2010: studied the effect of pH on removal efficiency in separation of butyl
acetate from oil/water type emulsion solution by solvent sublation, by
cylindrical glass column 200cm in length with inner diameter of 5cm was used
for sublation. They concluded that increasing pH, decreases the removal
efficiency and the removal efficiency is in its largest value when the solution is
nearly in natural.
2.4. Geometrical Dimensions
2.4.1. Effect of Bubble Diameter and (H/D) Ratio on Removal Efficiency
Strickland, 1980, studied the flotation of oily wastewater with bubbles

varying from about (0.4-1) mm and studied the effect of various variable and
chemical compositions of the phases on over all system performance. His
results agree with Reay's theoretical predications of the effect of drop size
bubble size and gas concentration on overall removal efficiency. Fatemeh et al,
2006, studied the effect of salinity and pressure on bubble size and the removal
efficiency in the removal of organic pollutants from waste streams where the
micro bubbles produced by saturation of air in a pressurized packed column
where released in an atmospheric column leading the bubble to rise. It was
found that increasing pressure and salt concentration decrease the size of bubble
and increasing removal efficiency. Ru'a, 2006, studied the effect of column
diameter on gas hold up in bubble column. The results showed that the gas hold
up decreases slightly with increasing column diameter because the bubble
accelerated, this acceleration effect causes a significant reduction in gas hold up
with increasing diameter. Ben mansour et al, 2007, studied the hydrodynamic
in electro flotation process and studied the effect of liquid viscosity, surface
tension and current density on the average bubble diameter. They found that the
average bubble diameter increases with increasing the current density, but
decreases with decreasing both liquid viscosity and surface tension, the
influence of current density on the average bubble diameter is also significant
only at specific internal of variation.
Shanmugam et al, 2008, studied the effect of height to diameter (H/D)
ratio on the fractional gas hold up in bubble column of 0.14m ID and 2m
height. They found that increasing (H/D) ratio decrease the gas hold up
gradually. Behnoosh et al, 2009, studied the effect of bubble size on gas hold
up in a cylindrical slurry bubble column made of a glass with inside diameter of
0.15m and height of 2.8m. It was found that the initial bubble size is depended
on the sparger type; the large bubbles have higher rise velocity and decrease the
gas hold up and removal efficiency. Al-Maliky, 2010, studied the effect of
geometrical dimension (width: height) on the separation efficiency of induced
air flotation process that handle effluent of dairy industry, six ratios were tested
(1:1), (1.25:1), (1.5:1), (2:1), (2.25:1), (2.5:1) in rectangular glass mode tank,
used as the flotation basin, that have a movable parts to control the width of
flotation tank. He found that the best dimensional configuration for an inducer
air flotation approach (of rectangular flotation tank) for oil/water separation was
proven to be via the adoption of flotation tank (1.75:1, 2:1) width/height ratio.
2.4.2. Effect of Sparger Type
Gas sparger type is the parameter that can alter bubble characteristics
which in turn affects gas hold up values and thus many other parameter
characterizing bubble column (Oyeraar et al, 1991). There are numerous type
of gas sparger, which significantly differ in their size and number of orifices,
porous plates, perforated plates (sieve plate/sieve tray), multiple /single
orifice nozzle, bubble cups, perforated rings, annular shears, spider-type in
injectors, and hollow fibers among others account for the most commonly
distributors employed in the bubble column reactors (Behkish,2004). Figure
(2.1) illustrates some of these gas distributors. The characteristics of gas
spargers include among others opening size, number of openings, distributor
positioning, and nozzles position/orientation (Mustafa, 2004). The initial
bubble size and distribution at the orifice could be controlled by the distributor
characteristics (Oyeraa et al, 1991, Jung& woo, 2004). (Camarasa, 1999)
used aqueous non-coalescing solutions and water to compare the effect of
porous plate, multi-orifice nozzle and single-orifice nozzle on the gas hold up as
shown in Fig. (2.2).
Figure (2.2):Average gas holdup data in the air-water system (Camarasa, 1999)
They found that bubble characteristics in water with porous plate and multi-
orifice nozzle were comparable, where as the trend was different in non-
coalescing solution on the other hand the single- orifice nozzle is completely
different compared with the two other distributor.
Mustafa 2004,studied the effect of distributor type on gas hold up, by
using two types of distributor (porous, perforated) in a QVF glass bubble
column with 0.1m inside diameter and 2m height. The results showed that the
porous plate gives higher gas hold up than the remaining perforated plate. Jung
and Woo, 2004, showed that the bubble properties in the column flotation
system are deeply affected by the bubble-generator type, frother dosage, and
superficial gas velocity. This study is to determine the bubble-generator type,
which effectively produces micro-bubbles to affect the flotation efficiency.
Characteristics for two types of bubble generators like the in-line mixer and
sparger are examined by bubble properties such as bubble diameter, holdup and
bubble velocity. Micro bubbles generated from an in-line mixer result in the
increase of the bubble rising velocity and gas holdup. Bubbles produced at the
in-line mixer were more effective for operating the flotation system than that of
the sparger. It means that the in-line mixer bubble generator is more effective
than a sparger in designing or operating the column flotation system. Puget
2005, studied the treatment of oily waste coming from air compressor by using
flotation column, the column is constituted by a consolidated porous medium
composed of sand and araldite with the aim to develop a new form of use for
the porous medium to decrease the operating costs of the process and turned the
experimental unit very versatile, compact and efficient. The porous medium is
used as a disperser of air bubbles and in the end the batch it used as a filter
medium. Benhoosh et al, 2009, studied the effect of sparger type in different
gas velocity in cylindrical slurry bubble column made of glass with inside
diameter of 0.15m and a height of 2.8m, two types of sparger were used,
namely a porous plate and a perforated plate with the same porosity. They
found that the porous plate with smaller pore diameters generate smaller gas
bubbles compared with perforated plate therefore the gas hold up in system
equipped with porous plate at high superficial gas velocity is approximately
40% higher than system equipped with perforated plate.
2.5. The Effect of Surfactant and Additives on Removal Efficiency

Surfactants are surface active contaminants whose molecules have
hydrophobic and hydrophilic parts. The hydrophobic part tends to align itself in
the air, while the hydrophilic part aligns itself in the water, thus surfactants tend
to be found at interfaces (Bel Fdhila et al, 1996). Electrolyte solutions,
aqueous alcohol solutions, polymeric dilute solutions and fatty acids are
surfactants (Kulkarni et al, 2005). The important effects of surfactants are that
these substances reduce surface tension and inhibit the formation of large
bubbles, furthermore, causing the bubbles rising with lower velocity (Rodrigue
et al, 1996). The modern theory of the mechanism of surface action is
intimately related to the fundamental work of (Harkins et al. & Langmuir)
with the phenomenon of molecular orientation at interfaces.
All surfaces capable of surface action are composed of relatively large
molecules which contain widely separated groups of dissimilar nature. It is
characteristic of these substances to be surface active in quite dilute solution,
this ability to function effectively in low concentration is due to the tendency of
the molecules to concentrate at interface between the solvent and a gas, solid, or
other immiscible liquid, at the boundaries of the solvent there is an orientation
of molecules according to the nature of the substances forming the interface. If
the solvent is oily, the hydrophobic hydrocarbon chain or "tail" of the molecule
is orientated toward the solvent (oil) and the hydrophilic or polar "head" is
directed toward other phase (water), where orientation of the surface active
molecules at the surface of the droplet forms a protective film which prevents
the droplets from coalescing on contact with each other, Daniel swern, 1979.
Angelldon et al, 1977: studied flotation of oil drops using air bubbles of
0.15mm diameter and found that NaCl salts decrease the flotation rate. Wasan
et al, 1979: has shown that surfactants which act to lower the interfacial
viscosity also act to destabilize crude oil emulsion. Ying huang et al, 2002:
studied the effect of collector dosage (kerosene) on unburned carbon removal
efficiency in flotation column. They found that the use of kerosene increase
unburned carbon recovery efficiency compared with flotation with out collector
kerosene and when excess collector was added decrease the flotation efficiency.
Thamer&Eman, 2007, studied the effect of coagulant (alum, clay) on removal
efficiency of oily wastewater treatment by dissolved air flotation. They found
that the removal efficiency of oil increase with alum until reaching the optimum
dosage (25, 40, 70) ppm for initial oil concentration (30, 58, 136) ppm
respectively, and the over dosage causes a decrease in the oil removal
efficiency, but the other coagulant (clay) having higher removal efficiency of
oil the optimum dose of it was (2.5, 5, 9) ppm for the same initial oil
concentration, but disadvantage of higher amount of sludge caused. Soletti et al,
2005, studied the effect of ferric sulfate Fe (SO4)3 on pH values in dissolved air
flotation of oily wastewater treatment by flotation column and obtained increase
in coagulant concentration decrease pH value and enhance removal efficiency .
Lima& Patrico ,2005, studied the use of an anionic surfactant in the recovery
process of organic compounds present in oily effluents from petroleum industry
separation process using gaseous bubbles formed by the passage of a gaseous
stream through a liquid column, surfactant concentration from(0.045-4.545)g/l
at a fix flow rate (500)cm3/min. They found that the efficiency was around 80%
when concentration of surfactant is (0.09)g/l. Puget, 2005, showed an
aluminum sulfate solution was used as flocculating agent (optimal
concentration determined by jar test) also laurel ether sodium sulfate was used
as foaming agent to improve the efficiency of oil removal by flotation column.
It was found that the best result (efficiency 98%) was obtained with 155ppm of
aluminum sulfate and SLES on 3.33mg/l, this concentration was used to reduce
the waste superficial tension and to improve the oil removal efficiency.
Welz et al, 2007, investigated the flotation of oil from wastewater in a
laboratory -scale mechanically agitated flotation cell and explores the effect of
chemical factors (coagulant & flocculants) on flotation performance based on
coagulant and flocculants dosages of (0.5 mg/l) when using Al2(SO4)3 and
1.5mg/l when using lime. They found that the effect of coagulant dosage is
more economical with the use of Al2 (SO4)3 is the further justified due to lower
cost as well as lower dosage and higher efficiency. Shanmugam et al, 2008,
studied the effect of adding electrolytes like NaOH ,BaCl 2 ,MgCl2 ,NaCl of
various concentration on gas hold up in bubble column of 2m height and 0.14m
I.D. They found that the fractional gas hold up increased for electrolyte solution
when compared with pure water, and the addition of electrolyte increased gas
hold up initially, but further addition of electrolyte of excess concentration
doesn't affect the gas hold up considerably. The gas hold up increased with
addition of electrolyte in the following trend MgCl2<NaOH<BaCl2<NaCl.
Adel&Luma, 2009, studied the addition of demulsifiers (RP6000, Chimec2439
and PAA) for dehydration (desalting) of Al-Basra water in oil emulsion. The
parameters where demulsifier dose (10-80) ppm, separation time (5-120) min.
They found that the dehydration efficiency with prepared demulsifier (PAA)
was 75%, the two of commercial demulsifiers also used (RP6000 and
Chimec2439), which gave water separation efficiency (87.5% and 72.2%),
respectively. Sulaymon& Mohammed, 2010, studied the effect of coagulant
Al2 (SO4)3.17H2O and surfactant on separation efficiency of the emulsified
kerosene in water in bubble column. The results indicate that the rate of the
flotation enhanced when using SLES (sodium laurel ether sulfate) where the
surface tension was reduced which leads the improvement of the separation
efficiency, and found that adding Al2 (SO4)3.17H2O and SLES together have a
high coagulant effect than individually.
2.6. Hybrid Treatment (Coagulation Flocculation-Flotation)
Flocculation and flotation processes in the mineral industry are primarily
designed to separate one particle type from another. In contrast, for wastewater
treatment, the flotation is designed to remove all particles generally
encountered as very fine emulsions, suspended solids, microorganisms and
colloidal dispersions. Thus, processes are optimized by the maximum recovery
of cleaned water with the lowest concentration of pollutants and sludge
containing low percentage of solids (or oils) (Rubio, 2003).
A new turbulent on-line flocculation system assisted with air bubbles has
been developed at LTM (Laboratory Technological Mineral) yielding aerated
flocs (flocs with entrained and entrapped bubbles). These flocs, which rapidly
float, are formed only in the presence of high molecular weight polymers
and bubbles and under high shearing in the flocculator (Fig. 2.3). The excess air
leaves the flotation tank (a centrifuge) at the top and the flocs float after very
short residence times (within seconds). The aerated flocs are large units (some
millimeters in diameter) having an extremely low density (Rubio, 2001).
Figure(2.3):The FF pilot system used in the removal of oils from oil-in-water

emulsions (Rubio, 2001).
Zouboulis,&Arranas, 2000, showed the treatment of oil-in-water
emulsions containing n-octane (used as simulated wastewater) was investigated
by means of dissolved-air flotation jar-tests. The effect of several parameters on
flotation efficiency for separation of the emulsified oil was examined, namely,
(a) the presence the nonionic surfactant Tween 80, used for the stabilization of
the emulsions, (b) the initial pH value of the emulsions, (c) the concentration of
chemical additives, such as polyelectrolyte (organic flocculants of cationic or
anionic type) or ferric chloride (inorganic coagulant), (d) the concentration of
sodium oleate (used as flotation collector) and (e) the recycle ratio. The use of
polyelectrolyte was not able to effectively treat the studied emulsions, while the
addition of ferric chloride and the subsequent application of dissolved-air
flotation were found very efficient. At the optimum defined experimental
conditions (recycle ratio: 30%, pH: 6, [Fe 3+]: 100 mg l1 and [sodium oleate]:
50 mg l1) more than 95% of the emulsified oil was effectively separated from
an initial concentration of 500 mg l 1. Jailton& Jorge, 2004, A new on-line
flocculation system (FF) has been developed which is coupled with a rapid
flotation to remove the aerated flocs (flocs with entrained and entrapped
bubbles). These aerated flocs are formed only in the presence of high molecular
weight polymers and bubbles and under high shearing (and head loss) in special
flocculators. The result showed successful examples of emulsified oil and
solids removal from water and that because in all cases were obtained high
efficiencies (>90% removal), at high hydraulic loadings (>130 m/h) it is
believed that this kind of flocculationflotation appears to have a great potential
in solid/liquid or liquid/liquid separation. Weichun Yang et al, 2008, Aiming at
handling oily waste water of steel-making enterprise, active separation of oil-
coagulation-floatation-slag filtration technology routing was designed. Via
static test, poly aluminum chloride etc. Three kinds of coagulant were primarily
selected. Coagulant for treating effect and rational operating conditions were
determined. Optimized operating condition was: poly aluminum chloride
dropping quantity was 50~70 mg/L, air solubility was about 45 mg/L, gas-oil
ratio was 0.53 ml/mg or so, appropriate size floatation tank, slag filter column.
Under the medicine dropping quantity and air solubility, wastewater oil removal
rate reached more than 90%. Shu liu et al, 2009, In order to enhance the
pretreatment effect of dyeing wastewater, comparison experiments of
coagulation micro-bubble floatation and coagulation conventional air bubble
flotation were carried out. The results demonstrated that coagulation micro-
bubble flotation significantly reduced coagulant doses and enhanced the
pretreatment rate, because the usage of micro-bubble generator produces fog-
like micro-bubbles with diameters in tens of micrometer, which has longer
preservation time in the water. In addition, the micro-bubbles could reach a
higher oxygen transfer rate: the total mass-transfer coefficient of micro-bubbles
was 1.1754 min1, and that of conventional air bubbles was of 0.7535 min1.
Under the same conditions, the removal efficiencies of COD, color and oil for
the micro-bubble floatation increased 30%, 110% and 40% respectively,
compared with the conventional air bubble flotation. Furthermore, the
wastewater biodegradability was increased from 0.290 to 0.363 after
coagulation micro-bubble flotation and to 0.301 after coagulation conventional
air bubble flotation. The application of the micro-bubble technology in
coagulation processes may provide an efficient and cost-effective approach.
Paimanakul et al, 2010, studied the treatment of oily wastewater containing
anionic surfactant at micelle concentration (CMC) by IAF and MIAF process in
flotation column with 0.05 m in diameter and 2m in height. The MIAF process
combined between the IAF process and the coagulation process and found
interfacial area(a) and (G) values experimentally in MIAF and IAF and their
effect on the removal efficiency. It was shown that the removal efficiencies
obtained with the optimal gas flow rate(5ml/s) in MIAF process are greater
than obtained by IAF process of about(97%) , and found when (a) increase
(R%) was increased, and the velocity gradient (G) have been proven to be the
important parameter for controlling the flotation process efficiency and
operating cost.
2.7. Empirical Correlations

2.7.1. Bubble rise velocity
Zuber and Hench (1962), provided a prediction for the rise velocity of
bubble swarm under condition were the bubble swarm rises in a stagnant liquid
in laminar motion these authors proposed:
g L G d b
2
U 1 3
br
18 G
L
r
... for db < 0.05 cm ........... (2.1)
g L G
U 1.41 1 G
br
L for 0.05 < db < 2 cm (2.2)
At higher Re number bubbles lose their separate identity and a region which
Zuber et al. (1967), described as the churn turbulent bubbly regime is
encountered. They recommended the following correlation:
1/ 4
g
U br 1.41
2
...... (2.3)

l
The magnitude of the wall effects depends on the ratio of the bubble
diameter to the column diameter, db/DC. When the column diameter is large
enough, the bubbles are free from wall effects. The Davies-Taylor relationship
is found applicable, provided the ratio db/DC < 0.125. For values of db/DC
exceeding 0.125, Collins, 1967, introduced a scale correction factor, SF, into
the Davies-Taylor relationship:
g db
U br 0.71 g d b ..... (2.4)
2
U br 0.71 g d b (SF ) ............................................................... (2.5)
This scale correction factor was determined empirically to be given by

Collins, 1967, as follows:
d b 0.125
SF=1 for .. (2.6)
DC

SF 1.13 exp d b for 0.125 d b 0.6 .....(2.7)
DC
DC
SF 0.496 DC for
d b 0.6
....(2.8)
db DC
Bhatia (1969), attempted to extend Mendelson's wave analogy further to
describe the rise velocity of a swarm of bubbles they obtained the following
correlation:
U U
gs t

tanh 0.25 1/ G 1 / 3 .. (2.9)
In the column flotation, drift flux theory states that the hindered bubble rise
velocity (Ubr) is defined by:
Jg Jl
U br
g 1 g .. (2.10)
Where Jg is the superficial gas velocity, Jl is the superficial liquid velocity, and
g is the fractional air holdup.
Koide (1979) employed the electroesistivity probe to measure bubble rise
velocity locally and calculated the average bubble rise velocity. The bubble rise
velocity in the central area of the column was approximately (60-150) cm/sec.
The following equation was used:
U br
U br ..... (2.11)
Nb
Finch &Dobby 1990, provide a prediction for the rise velocity of bubbles in
flotation column for bubble size db<= 2mm (Re<=500)
Ubr=Jg/g (2.12)
Where Jg is the superficial gas velocity and g is the fractional air holdup.
The knowledge of terminal rise velocity of a single bubble is used in
conjunction with the interaction of neighboring bubbles to provide a better
assessment of the mean bubble rise velocity in the swarm as follow (Ruzicka et
al., 2003):
U gs U t F
G
... ..... (2.13)
Where F ( G ) , represents the effect of the interaction of the neighboring

gas bubbles.
2.7.2. Bubble Size

For very large gas flow rate, Lehrer (1971), proposed the following
equation:
0.4 0.2
Q 3(C D ) B
d b 2.05 G ....... (2.14)
N 4g
The drag coefficient of bubbles (CD)B ranges as follows:

24
(C D ) B for laminar chain bubbling .... (2.15)
Re B
8
for turbulent chain bubbling (C D ) B .... (2.16)
3
Akita and Yoshida (1974), showed that the gas bubble diameter is only
slightly depends on the gas velocity in case the gas is sparged by single orifice,
or perforated or sintered plates. They determine the bubble size distribution in
bubble column using photographic technique, the gas sparged through
perforated plates and single orifices and various liquids (water, aqueous and
pure glycol, methanol, and carbon tetrachloride) were used and they proposed
the following correlation:
0.5 0.12 0.12

db D 2 g gDc3 ug
26 c l 2 ..(2.17)
Dc u Lc gD
c
This correlation is based on data in columns up to 0.3 m in diameter and up

to superficial gas velocities of about 0.07 m/s. Though equation 2.17 indicates
that db is proportional to D c0.3 , for Dc>0.3 m bubble diameter becomes
independent of column diameter.
Guy et al. (1986), proposed the expression of bubble diameter in
cylindrical bubble column (height of 0.9 m and diameter of 0.254 m) as a
function of Bond, Galileo, and Froude numbers as well as the ratio of orifice
diameter to the column diameter.
db d
.. f Bo, Ga, Fr , (2.18)
D D
Benhoosh, 2009, measured the bubble size distribution in gas-liquid bubble
column by digital camera and analyzed the result by computer programming
and Abdullah et al, 2002, studied the effect of hydrodynamic interaction in
bubbly two-phase component flow in bubble column. They measured bubble
parameter by neutron transmission technique in addition to a high speed
camera.
2.7.3. Gas Hold up
Table 2.1 shows some of the empirical correlations. The comparison

between measured and predicted gas hold up values are illustrated below in Fig.
(2.4). It can be seen that Haikita's & kikukaw correlation is the better than other
correlations for estimating gas hold up.
Table (2.1): Empirical correlations for gas hold up ((Behnoosh et al, 2009)
Author Correlation
Kumar et al, 2 3
g 0.728U 0.485U 0.0975U

1976 14
2
U Vg l g
0.578 0..131
Vg l l4 g
g 0.672 f
3
l
Hikita et al, 0.062 0.107
g g

1980
l l
f 1 for pure liquids and non electrolyte solutions,
for ionic solutions f is a functionof ionic strength
2 0.05
Hikita& 0.072 3 0.001
g 0.505V 0.47

l
g
kikukaw,1974
Reil y et al
g 0.009 296Vg0.44 l or sl 0.98 l0.16 g0.19
,1987
1
g
Hugmark et al

2 0.35 V g l
w w 1 3
,1967
V g in ms1 , l in gcm1 , in dyn cm 1
Figure (2.4): Comparison between correlations and

experimental data (Behnoosh et al, 2009)
The bed expansion technique is the most common procedure for measuring
the overall average value of gas holdup of the bubble column, where no foam is
present. The gas holdup ( g ) is measured by visually recording the dispersion
height Hf above the gas distributor, Ruzicka et al. (2001).
The following relation determines the average gas holdup as a function of
the superficial gas velocity Ug
g H f H .... (2.19)
H f
Where Ho is the initial height of the liquid in the column, and H f is the
expanded height of the liquid after aeration of the column with constant
superficial gas velocity at steady state.
The manometric method is used for the measuring of the pressure drop
across the bubble column. A glass manometers filled with mercury is connected
to the bubble column. The value of gas holdup g for each gas velocity is
estimated using experimental value of pressure drop obtained, Saxena (1989).
The equation mainly used is:
g p . (2.20)
1
( l g ) gZ
2.7.4. Removal Efficiency
Couto&Massrani, 2005: The flotation efficiency of the treatment of oily

effluent (crude oil) was calculated according to the equation below:
R%= (1- C/Ca)*100 . (2.21)
Ca ,C are the oil concentrations in the feed and clarified effluent streams
respectively
Puget &Massarani2000: evaluated the efficiency of separation milk powder

in water by means of the following equation:
R%=1- [(COD)U/(COD)L]*100 .(2.22)
Where (COD)U&(COD)L are the Chemical Oxygen Demand in the under flow
&feed flow respectively. Painmanakul et al, 2010, analyzed the amount of oily
wastewater in term of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) according to the
procedures described in standard methods as a function of operation time
obtained in flotation column (standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 1998). Therefore the removal efficiency at different operation
times can be calculated by:
R%= (COD)o-(COD)t/(COD)o .(2.23)
Puget 2005, considered the turbidity to be a good parameter for controlling

the efficiency of flotation process and it was determined using a
spectrophotometer operating at 460nm. Distillated water whose transmittance is
100% was used during the analysis. The oil removal efficiency was calculated
using equation 2.24:
R %=(TTW-TWF / TW-TWF)*100 .(2.24)

Where: TTW is treated waste transmittance (%)
TWF is waste feed transmittance (%)
TW is water transmittance (%)
2.8 Summary
It can be concluded from the literature review that the important

hydrodynamic characteristics in flotation column was (gas hold up, bubble size,
gas flow rate, type of the distributor). Also other parameters, such as pH, type
of surfactant, coagulants type, concentration oil of wastewater, can affect oil
removal efficiency. Although there are multi equations to correlate the
hydrodynamic parameters, but still the research work required more
experiments to consider the interaction of these parameters with adding new
surfactant and new technique to get clear water <10 ppm oil concentration or
higher removal efficiency. From above literature, the nearest papers to the
present work are Painmanakul et al, 2010, and Sulaymon& Mohammed, 2010.
The literature review for flotation processes indicates shortage to express the
experimental results in a general equation on dimensionless group, therefore in
the present work, dimensional analysis equation for the removal efficiency will
be derived to express the interaction between the variable, and another
correlation for the stirrer in the flotation column to improve removal efficiency
will be suggested namely, modified flotation by the stirrer.
Chapter three
Experimental Work
3.1. Introduction
This chapter contains the experimental runs to measure the efficiency of oil
removal from oily wastewater from the North Oil Company at different
parameters, such as different oil concentration, different flow rates, different
additive in different concentration (alum, sodium laurel sulfate, camper) and
different pH, by using flotation column fitted at the bottom with porous
distributor (120 m) to generate bubbles. Also some experiments were carried
out by using perforated plate with hole diameter (2mm) to compare with porous
distributor.
3.2. Characteristic and Preparation of Sample Wastewater

The properties of oily wastewater (crude oil in water) from the (North Oil
Company) at different concentrations are shown in Tables.3.1 and 3.2, and to
make it stable before the treatment it was mixed with blender (3000 rpm) for
10 min, and subjected to flotation experiment. The stability of emulsion was
checked by bottle test , the bottle test is an empirical test in which varying
amounts of potential demulsifiers are added into a series of tubes or bottles
containing sub sample of an emulsion to be broken. After some specific time,
the extent of phase separation and appearance of the interface separating the
phases are noted (Auflem, 2002).
Chapter three: Experimental Work 36
Table (3.1): properties of wastewater*
Pollutants Before lagoon After lagoon

PH 6 7.2
Conductivity (s/cm) 1057 1017
Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) mg/l 739.9 711.9
COD mg/l as O2 Hi 66.4
OIL mg/l 19786 30
H2S mg/l 3.4 Nil
Turbidity (NTU) 304.7 4.04
Total Hardness (T.H) mg/l 600 475
Calcium mg/l as CaCO3 525 425
Magnesium mg/l as CaCO3 75 50
Chloride mg/l as Cl- 130.46 86.97
Sulphate mg/l as SO4-2 504 312
Total iron mg/l as Fe Nil Nil
Copper mg/l as Cu+2 Nil Nil
Manganese mg/l as Mn+2 Nil Nil
Nitrate mg/l as NO3- Nil Nil
Table (3.2): Physical properties of the crude oil
Density(Kg/m^3) 829
Viscosity(Kg/m.sec) 0.0023
API 35.3
Surface tension(N/m) 0.0285
* All these examinations were carried out by Petroleum Research and

Development Center (Ministry of Oil).
3.3. Materials
Surfactant sodium laurel sulfate (SLS) was used as anionic emulsifier, it's
molecular weight is equal to 288.38 gm/mole and it's purity is 90%.
Aluminum sulfate (Alum) Commercial alum was used in the experiments, it
is a white dry powder, has a formula of (Al2 (SO4)3.18H2O) and molecular
weight of (594.4 gm/mole).
Surfactant camper (Cocamidopropylamine Oxide) it is an amphoteric
surfactant, its yellow oil with the molecular weight of 309.
pH adjustment was done by using (NaOH molecular weight is 40 gm/mole and
purity of 100%, HCl molecular weight is 98.08 gm/mole and purity of 100%).
Normal Hexane was used as a solvent and Anti-Foam.
Carbon tetra chloride.
Distilled water.
3.4. Experimental Set up
The experiment apparatus is shown schematically and photographically in
Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 respectively, details are given in the following section:
3.4.1. Flotation column
The experiments were performed into a cylindrical Perspex glass flotation
column with the dimensions (10 cm I.D and 150 cm in height) and operated in a
semi- batch mode (batch wastewater, continuous air). The drop oil sizes
distribution were found by using microscope and the mean drop diameter was
found to be equal to(44)m ,The inner column had (3) sample ports arranged
axially the first one (10 )cm above the bottom of the column, the other two taps
arranged at interval of 50 cm, these taps were glued by means of super glue,
also (2)pressure taps located along the column, arranged at interval of (35
)cm. The pressure taps were connected to manometer by plastic tube of (10)
mm inside diameter filled in water to measure the local gas hold up. The bottom
of the column connected to a conical joint of QVF glass by flanged joint the
conical joint contained two types of bubble generators. The first one was an
orifice gas distributor which was made of Perspex plate with (70) drilled holes
and of a diameter (2mm), the drilled holes were distributed on the Perspex plate
with suitable rectangular pitch, the design of gas distributor was cited in
appendix (C). The second one was a porous ceramic distributor of 0.09m
diameter, and with pore size (120 m). The pore size was determined by
Scanning Electron microscope Model (Olympus, BX51M) as shown in the
photograph (Fig.3.3). The porous ceramic plate and the Perspex gas distributor
were supported by epoxy resin inside the conical section. In order to achieve
effective mixing in the column the stirrer used was (50-250) rpm in rotational
speed and consisted of a shaft 120cm in height and 6 mm in diameter made
of stainless steel, and a paddle with a diameter of 8 cm and thickness of 1.5
mm . The rotational speed of the impeller is controlled by an autotransformer
connected to a D.C motor (Heidolph). The reading of the motor was calibrated
by using digital tachometer (cited in appendix B) and another calibration curve
in the same Appendix shows the relation between the velocity gradient and the
speed (rpm). The high speed camera type (SONY-DSC-HX1) was stationed in
front of the test column to measure the bubble velocity and size.
3.4.2. Gas Delivery
Air was used as the gas phase supplying to the column by means of
Compressor type (Assomel A 52-8-100/ Italy); the compressed air was
passed through a stabilizer, and then fed to the column via a filter
dryer(ELCO type) to remove water and any other impurities from
the gas before introduced into the system. The gas flow rate was
adjusted with the aid of a needle valve and a calibrated rotameter of capacity
(30) l/min was used in this work. The rotameter was calibrated by using a gas
meter Model (Gallenkamp and with accuracy 0.025%), the calibration curve of
the rotameter is illustrated in appendix (A). The range of superficial gas
velocity which is used in these experiments was varied from (0.006363-0.0636)
m/sec.
3.4.3. Experimental Procedure
The procedure is concluded by the following steps:
Oily water with different concentrations (30 up to 800 ppm) was poured
gently at the top of the column on 70cm from the height of the column in
different gas velocity (0.006363-0.0636) and after (25) minute the samples were
taken from a sampling port 10 cm above the bottom of the column to determine
the oil removal efficiency for the sample analyzed for oil concentration using
UV-1100, and also during the run the hydrodynamic characteristics were
measured (gas hold up, bubble size and bubble rise velocity).
The experimental runs to investigate the effect of flotation time analysis
were carried out by taking the sample each 5 minute and analyzed by UV-1100.
To study the effect of different surfactants on efficiency of flotation column,
the experimental procedure above was repeated with treatment of oily
wastewater by adding the additives SLS, Camper, Alum separately.
The above experiment runs were repeated for the following cases studied:
Different pH (4.3, 7, and 8.5) at a constant gas velocity and surfactant.
By using a mixer (50-250rpm in range of speed) called Modified Induced
Air Flotation process (MIAF).
By taking the sample in different location from the column (10, 25, and
50cm).
Some experiments was carried out to show the effect of additive in different
dose on COD and BOD removal, the final COD and BOD was measured
according to standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater,
1998, using LEVIBOND spectrophotometer system.
Figure (3.1( :Schematic diagram for the experimental apparatus
1) Air (9)monometer
compressor
(2) filter )10)&(11)Pressure taps
(3) needle valve (12)&(13)&(14)sampling
valves
(4)Rota meter (15)stirrer
(5)pressure gage (16)motors
(6)check valve (17) camera
)7)drain valve (18)PC
(8)distributor (19) Flotation column
Figure.3.2): Photographic diagram for the experimental apparatus.

(a) (b)
Figure (3.3): The pore size of the distributor where (a) 50 time zoom and (b)
100 time zoom
3.5 Determination of Oil Concentration

3.5.1. Outline of the Method
The oily wastewater is extracted from the water with carbon tetra chloride.
Then the absorbance of the extract is determined with the use of Ultraviolet
Spectrophotometer (Takahashi et al.1979), and the oily matter concentration
was taken from the calibration curve as shown in Fig. 3.4. The apparatus and
materials were:
- Ultraviolet spectrophotometer (UV) type 1100.

- Separating funnels of 250 ml capacity.
- Pipettes of various sizes.
- Sodium chloride analytical grade.
- Carbon tetra chloride spectroscopic grade.
3.5.2 Calibration
0.3 gm of the crude oil was dissolved in 500 ml of carbon tetra chloride that
called (stock solution). Different concentrations were obtained by dilution with
CCl4. Absorbance of those samples are measured by UV spectrophotometer at
285m. The Figure (3.4) shows the concentration against absorbance show
linear relationship for the range of concentration studied (10 to 600 ppm).
6
5.4
4.8
4.2
Absorbance
3.6
3
2.4
1.8
1.2
0.6
0
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 560
Concentration(mg./lit.)
Figure (3.4): Calibration curve

3.5.3 Procedure
Small quantity of NaCl was added to the wastewater in the separating

funnel in order to break the emulsion of oil. 5 ml of carbon tetra chloride was
added and followed by vigorous shaking for 3 min. After 30 min, when the
solution separated into two distinct layers, the lower (organic) layer was taken
for the absorbance measurement, and from the calibration curve, concentration
of oil was obtained.
3.6. Bubble Size and Rise Velocity Measurement

The bubble size and Rise velocity thought-out the operation was measured
using digital high speed camera type (SONY-DSC-HX1), 9.1 mega pixel, and
20X optical zoom, connected to PC (Laptop type Acer) in order to analyze the
images by computer programming. Figure (3-5) shows the image from the
present work. The mean bubble size and rise velocity were measured in this
camera in the following method:
A small spherical ball (0.001 m) outside diameter made of plastic was
immersed in the liquid of the test region of the column. Air bubbles were
introduced in the test region of the column which contained the ball. And the
pictures which appeared on the monitor of laptop were also recorded on the disk
of the video. The camera was stopped and the video was operated at slow rate
to show the pictures of the bubble and the plastic ball on the monitor. By using
the appropriate proportionality factors and the variables, bubble size and bubble
rise velocity were measured by camera and the average values were taken
through three zones.
Figure (3.5): present work

3.7. Sample wastewater treatment

Figure 3.6 shows a picture of the wastewater sample, where the first
cylinder is the emulsion before treatment and the second is the water after
treatment when adding alum and the third is water after treatment when
adding sodium laurel sulfate during the operation.
(1) (2) (3)
Figure (3.6): Samples of wastewater before and after treatment.

20 cm
20 cm
20 cm
10 cm
Chapter Four
Theoretical concepts
4.1. Determination of Rate Constant

A number of complex chemical and physical interaction aspects are involved
in the flotation process. An extensive work is reported in the literature on the
study of this process, which has been studied from different angles. Of these,
kinetic approach has been highly instrumented in better understanding leading
to reasonably accurate prediction (Hernainz and Calero, 2001).
The qualification of kinetic parameters has an increasing importance in
industrial flotation to shed light on the speed of the process. Many researchers
have studied the kinetic aspects of froth flotation paying special attention to
particle size, bubbles and their complex interactions (Trahar and Warren,
1976).
Arbitor and Harris (1962) found that the flotation kinetics in the study of
the variation in amount of froth overflow product with flotation time and the
quantitative identification of all rate-controlling variables maintained constant.
The algebraic relationship between the proportion of mineral floated and
flotation time is a flotation rate equation. This contains the constant values of
all the rate determining variables implicit in one or more rate constants, which
must be evaluated from experimental data.
By analogy with chemical kinetics, the equation representing flotation
kinetics may be expressed (Hernainz and Calero, 2001) thus,
dC
kC n (4.1)
dt
Where C is the concentration of oils, t is the flotation time, n is the order of the
process, and k is the flotation rate constant.
Chapter four: Theoretical concept 47
Three approaches may be used to calculate this constant, namely first order
equation (n=1), second order equation (n=2), and non-integral-order equation.
Investigation of the flotation kinetics is an important task, which contributes
to determine process feasibility and to establish design equations for equipment
operation and scale-up purposes. Santos, 1996, proposed different approaches
for flotation kinetics investigation. The simplest one utilizes a reaction model to
represent flotation kinetics, as indicated below.
aX(Particles) + bY(Bubbles) k cZ(Floatable Aggregate)

Thus, the rate of particle consumption by flotation, for an order reaction, is
given by Equation below:
n ..(4.2)
d[C(t).V(t)]/dt = -k.V(t).C(t)
C(t) is the concentration of particles inside the flotation tank, V(t) the tank
volume and k the flotation kinetic constant.
The column was regulated to operate in batch mode. It is of fundamental
importance to evaluate the variation of oil concentration as a function of time to
understand oil removal mechanism by the air bubbles. Based on the exposed,
the differential methodology was used (concentration dependence parameter
and column physical parameter) (Fogler, 2002), in which the concentration data
vary as a function of contact time. As the extraction column operates in an
isothermal way, at a constant volume, and assuming that the law of oil speed
extraction is
- r = * C, and from the combination of the molar balance with the extraction
speed, Equation (4.1) was obtained:
- (dc/dt) = k*C
Where: k is the column physical parameter and is the concentration
dependence parameter. Applying the logarithm in both sides of Equation (4.1),
Equation (4.3), is obtained
-ln (dc/dt) =ln k+ ln C (4.3)
Using the experimental data of concentration versus time and applying a linear
fit, the concentration dependence parameter () and the column physical
parameter () can be obtained.
4.2 Froth height equation

Azbel (1963) showed theoretically that the froth height (h f) above a
perforated plate was a function of Froud number based on clear liquid height on
the assumption of both spherical and elliptical bubbles as follows:

hf H Fr 1 (4.4)
Takahashi and Miyahara (1973) showed that froth height above perforated
plate under stagnant liquid flow on the assumption of spherical capped bubble
as follows:
86
h f H 1 Fr . (4.5)
5
And the experimentally froth height is:
hf H1 6.5Fr1/ 2 Fr 8.5 104 .... (4.6)
hf H1 2.0Fr1/ 3 Fr8.5 104 ... (4.7)
4.3 Dimensional Analyses

Dimensional analysis is used to correlate operating conditions and physical
properties which affect the removal efficiency of oily wastewater in flotation
column.
If removal efficiency (R %) is assumed to be a function of the following
parameters, then :
R% = F (CA, C S, g, Ug, db, L, L, L) ..... (4.8)
The dimensionless groups are obtained using Buckingham's -theorem

(Coulson &Richardson, 1978). The resulting expression then has the form:
R% = C1 (CA/ L)C2 (CS/L)C3(1/Re)C4 (1/We)C5 (1/Fr)C6...(4.9)
Therefore the constants C1 and the powers of the dimensions groups in Eq.4.9
were calculated and shown in chapter 5, section 5.5.
Where, Re No. = Ud , We No. = l Ug2d/ , Fr No. =

Vg
.
gd R
Chapter Five
Results & Discussion
Introduction
The results will be presented in five sections. The first will deal with the
effect of hydrodynamic characteristics (bubble diameter, bubble rise velocity, gas
hold up), the second section deals with the effect of various factors on the
removal efficiency (pH, initial oil concentration, gas velocities, additives,
sampling zone, and mixer), the third section deals with the effect of interfacial
area and velocity gradient on the removal efficiency, the fourth section deals with
the best condition for finding the best removal efficiency and the last one deals
with dimensionless groups for removal efficiency and finding an equation for the
removal efficiency.
5.1 Hydrodynamic Characteristics

Hydrodynamic characteristics including bubble diameter, bubble rise velocity,
gas hold-up, were measured and tabulated in Tables E.1 to E.7 in Appendix E.
5.1.1 Bubble Diameter

The relationship of the bubble diameter at the center in the axial direction of
the flotation column at different gas velocities (0.00636 to 0.0636 m/s) of tap
water and oily wastewater at concentration 30ppm are shown in Fig. 5.1. It can
be seen from this figure that increasing gas velocity resulted in an increase in
bubble diameter, that because the breaking and coalescence phenomena. Also it
shows higher bubble diameter in pure water than oily wastewater because the
Chapter five: Results and discussion 51
pure water does not contain contaminants like the oily wastewater which affects
the bubble size and rise velocity (Clift et al, 1978).
The effect of hole diameter (2 mm for perforated plate and 120 m for porous
sparger) of the gas distributor on the bubble diameters were shown in Fig. 5.2. It
can be seen that the bubble diameter increased with increasing hole diameter
since the increase in hole diameter resulted in an increase in bubble rise velocity
for a given gas flow rate. These results show that the flotation column operates
within the bubbly flow regime; the present experimental results were projected
on the homogeneous bubbly flow regime map of Shah et al, 1982.
The effect of addition of surfactant on bubble diameters was shown in Figs.
5.3. to 5.7., respectively for different concentration of oily wastewater.
Examining Fig. 5.3., it can be seen that, bubble diameters decreased with
increasing the concentration of sodium laurel sulfate (SLS), while bubbles
diameters slightly decreased with the addition of camper. These phenomena can
be explained by the addition of surfactant to the wastewater which hinders
bubbles coalescence by accumulating at the gas-liquid interface and orienting
their hydrophilic group into the liquid film surrounding the gas bubble and this
creating repulsive electric force when two bubbles come close to each other
(Keital and Onken, 1982). The experimental results show that, when adding
alum not affected because alum has no effect on the surface tension and has no
effect on the bubble size. The size of the bubble was measured when adding alum
found to be in range of (3-3.5) mm at Co=800 ppm.
5.1.2 Bubble Rise Velocity

Bubble rise velocities at different concentrations of surfactant for Co=800
ppm are shown in Fig. 5.8. , and the rise velocity was found experimentally and
also theoretically by using Eq.2.4, where SF equal to one. It can be seen that the
bubble rise velocity decreased with adding surfactants. This decrease is
explained on the basis of surface tension gradient present on the bubble surface
(Davis and Acrivos, 1966), and can be seen that the rise in velocity
experimentally was higher than that found by using Eq.2.4.
The relationship between the bubble rise velocity and the hole diameter of
the gas distributor was shown in Fig. 5.9. It was found that the bubble rise
velocity increased with increasing hole diameter at different gas velocity, that is
because the large bubbles have a small drag force, and also depend on stock's
equation, therefore the rise velocity increased, while the relationship between
bubble rise velocity and different gas velocities was plotted in Fig. 5.10. From
this figure, can be noticed that the bubble rise velocity increased with increasing
gas velocities. Also this Figure shows the results plotted by theoretical Equation
2.4 to compare between the experimental and theoretical results, and also shows
the rise velocity of pure water was higher than oily wastewater, because the
contaminants affect mass transfer via hydrodynamic and molecular effects, and
the contaminants decrease the mobility of the interface so the rise velocity
decreased (Clift et al, 1978).
5.1.3 Gas Hold-up

Gas hold-up was measured by the visual observation of liquid level. The
relationship between gas hold-up and different hole diameter of gas distributor
at different flow rates are plotted in Fig. 5.11. This figure shows that the higher
hole diameter resulted in low gas hold-up for a given volumetric flow rate. This
result is in agreement with Behnoosh et al, 2009 and Mostafa, 2004.
The effect of addition of surfactants on gas hold-up is shown in Fig. 5.12.
From this figure, it can be seen that the gas hold-up increases with increasing
surfactant concentrations. The explanation of this behavior is that adding
surfactant will lead to hinder the bubble coalescence and produce small bubbles
which cause increases in gas hold-up.
Fig. 5.13 shows the values of froth height calculated from Equations 4.4 and
compared with the experimental froth height calculated by using equation 4.6 at
Co=30 ppm, here the hf value calculated from equation 4.4 is larger than that of
equation 4.6 at the same gas velocity.
Figure 5.14 shows the effect of gas velocity on local gas hold up and
compare this value with average gas hold up at the same gas velocity, where the
local gas hold up was measured by using U-tube manometer filled with water. It
can be seen that the local gas hold up increases with increasing gas velocity, but
there values still less than the average gas hold up and a good agreement can be
noticed between the local and average gas hold up.
When these results are compared with air-water system it can be noticed a
very low difference between the local and average gas hold up, that is shown in
Fig.5.15.
10
9
8
Bubble Diameter (mm)
7
6
5
4
3
2 Wastewater
1 Pure water
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.1): Effect of gas velocity on bubble diameter, H=70 cm and Co= 30 ppm.
Perforated sparger
Bubble Size(mm)
4
1 porous
perforated
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity(m/sec)
Figure(5.2): Effect of hole diameter on the bubble size at different gas velocities,
H=70 cm, and Co=30 ppm
2.5
1.5
1
SLS
0.5
Camper
0
1 4 7 10 13
Surfactant Dose (ppm)
Figure (5.3) Effect of adding surfactant on the bubble diameter, Q=0.0113(m3/min),

H=70 cm, and Co=100 ppm
2.5
2
1.5
0.5 SLS
Camper
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure (5.4): Effect of adding surfactant on the bubble diameter, Q=0.0113(m3/min),

H=70 cm, Co=200 ppm
2.5
1.5
1
SLS
0.5 Camper
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure (5.5): Effect of adding surfactant on the bubble diameter, Q=0.0113(m3/min),

H=70 cm, Co=400 ppm
2.5
2
1.5
1
SLS
0.5 Camper
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

H=70 cm, Co=600 ppm
3.5
3
2.5
1.5
1
SLS
0.5
Camper
0
0 50 100 150 200

H=70 cm, Co=800ppm
0.18
Bubble Rise Velocity (m/sec)

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08 Ub (m/sec) Ex."SLS"
0.06 Ub (m/sec) Eq.2.4"SLS"
0.04 Ub (m/sec) Ex. "Camper'
0.02 Ub (m/sec) Eq.2.4"Camper"
0
0 50 100 150 200
Surfactant Dose(ppm)
Figure (5.8) Effect of surfactant concentration on bubble rise velocity, H=70cm,

and Co= 800ppm.
30
25
20
15
10
5 perforated
porous
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Vlocity (m/sec)
Figure (5.9): Effect of hole diameter on the bubble rise velocity at different gas
velocities, H=70 cm, and Co=30 ppm
0.3

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Ub (m/sec) Experimental
0.05 Ub (m/sec) Eqn.2.4
Puer water
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.10): Comparison between the experimental and theoretical bubble rise
velocity, H=70cm, Co= 30 ppm.
0.35
0.3
0.25
Gas Hold Up
0.2
0.15
0.1
Porous distributor
0.05 Perforated plate
Puer water
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.11): Effect of hole size at different gas velocities on gas hold-up, H=70 cm,
and Co=30 ppm
0.16
0.14
0.12
Gas Hold Up
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04 SLS
0.02 Camper
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Figure (5.12): Effect of the surfactant concentration on the gas hold-up, H=70cm,
Q=0.0113 m3/min, and Co=800 ppm
70
60
Froth Height (cm)
50
40
30
20
Eqn. (4.4 )
10
Eqn. (4.6 )
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.13): Froth height calculated by Equations (4.4) and (4.6), H=70 cm, and
Co=30 ppm
0.25
0.2
Gas Hold up
0.15
0.1
0.05 local
average
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure(5.14): Effect of gas velocity on the local gas hold up, H=70cm, Co=30ppm
0.25
0.2
Gas Hold up
0.15
0.1
0.05 local
average
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Gas Velocity (m /sec)
Figure (5.15): Effect of gas velocity on the local gas hold up, H=70cm, air-water
system.
5.2 Effect of Various Factors on the Removal Efficiency of Oily
Wastewater
The effect of various factors on the removal efficiency of emulsified oil
such as pH, initial oil concentration, gas velocity, adding coagulants and
flocculants agents, and the effect of the mixing by stirrer on the removal
efficiency and another parameters. The experimental value are tabulated in
Tables E.8 to E.18 in Appendix E.
5.2.1 Effect of pH
The effect of pH on the removal efficiency of emulsified oil by flotation
column is shown in Fig. 5.16. Plotting the removal efficiency (R %) versus time
at various pH values, obtained by adding an adjustment to the mixture. From
this figure it can be seen that (R%) increases suddenly at the beginning of the
run then the ratio began to increase slowly with time and it was found that the
highest removal is achieved when the pH of the emulsion was about 4.3. This
result is in agreement with the results given by Aneak& Wirach, (2009), they
concluded that oil removal efficiency 97% at the pH (4-7).
The effect of pH on the removal efficiency by adding alum in different

doses is plotted in Fig. 5.17. This figure shows that the removal efficiency at
pH=4 .3 is the highest value at alum dose 560 ppm. The removal rate constant
at various pH was found by plotting against log(C/Co) against time in Fig.5.18.
And their values are tabulated in Table 5.1.
Table (5.1): Rate constants value at different pH
pH K(1/sec)
4.3 0.206
7.2 0.148
8.5 0.057
The rate constant plotted at various pH values shown in Fig.5.18. It can be

seen that the best removal is at pH=4.3, that result is in agreement with
Sulaymon& Mohammed,1020
5.2.2 Effect of Initial Oil Concentration

The removal rate of oil at various initial oil concentrations (30 to 800 ppm)
was studied and it was found that the removal rate increases with increasing
initial oil concentration that because when the concentration of oil increased the
contact of air bubble and oil droplet was increased. This is shown in Figs. 5.19,
and 5.20(a) which show the relationship between removal efficiency (R%) with
time of flotation at different concentrations (100-800ppm) of oily wastewater.
Also these experimental results are represented in three dimensions curve as
shown in Fig.5.20 (b). This Figure shows the combined effect of time flotation
and concentration of oily wastewater on removal efficiency. Three dimensional
representation in this work is mainly to show the classification of the optimum
surface shape of two parameters which give higher removal efficiency. The
removal rate constants at various initial oil concentrations were found and
plotted log(C/Co) against time in Fig. 5.21. The slope of the lines gives the rate
constants and their values are tabulated in Table 5.2.
Table (5.2): Rate constants at various initial oil concentrations.
Co (ppm) K (1/sec) n
100 0.012 1.05
200 0.0223 0.87
400 0.0446 0.66
600 0.0493 0.51
800 0.177 0.47
It was found that the fastest removal of oil occurred at the highest initial
concentration.
An empirical correlation from the experimental results was found by
computer programming as shown in Eqn.5.1, for initial oil concentration (100-
800), with R2=0.98, to make comparison between the experiment and predicted
results as shown in Fig. 5.22,
R% =0.053Co +33.9 . (5.1)
5.2.3 Effect of Gas Velocities on the Removal Efficiency

The removal efficiency of emulsion from wastewater was studied at
different gas velocities (0.00636 to 0.0636 m/sec) in order to show the effect of
gas velocity and air bubble diameter on the removal efficiency of oil. This
effect is shown in Fig. 5.23 by plotting R% versus time at different gas velocity
and from this figure, it can be seen that R% becomes larger at higher gas
velocity that because the higher gas velocity case to increase the collection zone
(collection oil and air bubble) and that cause to increase the froth zone and the
removal efficiency.
The dependence of removal efficiency on bubble diameter is shown in Fig.
5.24(a). From this Figure, it was found that the highest removal efficiency is
obtained at the smallest bubble diameter, the effect of bubble diameter is that
small bubbles have a large projected area which facilitate collision with oil
drops as well as the oil drop is more accessible to the smaller bubble. This
result is in agreement with Jung and Woo, 2004. Fig. 5.24(b) shows the
effectiveness of different parameters (bubble diameter and gas velocity) on each
of them.
5.2.4 Effect of Coagulant and Flocculant Agents

Fig. 5.25 shows the effect of adding sodium laurel sulfate (SLS). It can be
seen that the removal efficiency improves with adding the surfactant.
The explanation of this improvement is that surfactant reduces surface
tension and reduces the bubble diameter and increases the coalescence of larger
diameter droplets which are more easily removed, that result is in agreement
with (Gregory and Zebal, 1990). They concluded that chemical pre-treatment
of oil-water emulsions is based on the addition of chemicals that destroy the
protective action of the emulsifying agent, overcoming the repulsive effects of
the electrical double layers to allow the finally sized oil droplets to form larger
droplets through coalescence.
The removal rate constant at various concentration log(C/Co) versus time is
plotted in Fig.5.26. It can be seen that the rate constant increased with
increasing SLS concentration that result is in agreement with Lima, 2005. Table
5.3 show the value of rate constant and the order of the reaction of each
concentration of the surfactant.
Table (5.3): Rate constants at various surfactant concentrations.

C surfactant(ppm) K n
Zero 0.023 0.96
5 0.207 0.425
10 0.211 0.422
48 0.23 0.385
72 0.24 0.25
96 0.28 0.102
Coagulant Alum with concentration ranged from 80 to 560 ppm was used
alone in the experiment and used in combination with surfactant to show the
effect on the removal efficiency.
Figure 5.27 shows the effect of adding alum to the removal efficiency of
emulsion. This figure shows that R% increased with increasing concentration of
alum, also from Fig. 5.28, it can be noticed that the removal is higher when
adding alum and surfactant together as compared with adding alum alone.
Fig 5.29. Shows the effect of adding alum on COD (Chemical oxygen
demand), it can be noticed that COD decreases slowly without alum compared
with adding alum and also obtaining a good clarification.
Fig. 5.30 shows the effect of adding alum on BOD (Biological oxygen
demand), from the results obtained it can be seen that BOD decreases when
increasing alum dose.
5.2.5 Effect of Sampling Zone
Figs.5.31. and 5.32. show the effect of the sample zone where the sample
was taken at the distance 10 cm from the bottom of column flotation and the
second 25 cm and the third 50 cm through height column flotation. It can be
noticed that at the distance 10 cm, the best removal efficiency was obtained,
compared with 25 and 50 cm. and Fig.5.33 shows the comparison in removal
efficiency at the same sampling zone with and without additive to see the
difference results in each run. In this zone the bubble was very small; therefore
the contact between oil and bubble was good and as a result the removal
efficiency was high.
5.2.6. Effect of Mixing

From above experimental results as induced air flotation by porous
distributor and chemical treatment process by adding Alum and Surfactant were
the effective methods for treating oily wastewater to obtain water as effluent <
10 ppm, this value is accepted by EPA, but to modify this system, then the
flotation bubble column combined with agitator mixer has different speed and
this system is called MIAF, Painmanakul et al, 2010, studied the process and
the results were compared with the results obtained from IAF process and from
the Jar test experiments.
Figure 5.34. show the effect of different speeds of the stirrer (50-250)
rpm(22.6-253sec-1) on the gas hold up, where the gas hold up increases when
increasing the speed of the stirrer, Fig.5.35 shows the comparison between the
gas hold up with and without stirrer and found that the gas hold up with stirrer
was higher than without stirrer. This may be due to the formation of larger gas
bubbles where the stirrer plays a vital role in breaking of large bubbles; thereby
increasing the gas hold up, this result is in agreement with Shamugam, 2008
and Fig. 5.36. Show the effect of the mixing on the oil removal efficiency at
different time.
It can be noticed at the range (50-250) rpm that the removal efficiency
increased slowly and the high removal efficiency can be obtained at 200 rpm
and the removal efficiency decreased slowly compared with 200 at 250 rpm.
This system is called (MIAF) and R% in it was higher than (IAF). This result
can be explained that the size of oil droplets increases due to the sweep flocc
coagulation from the presence of alum content and thus accelerates the
separation flotation process. Fig.5.37 shows the effect of stirrer on the bubble
size; also a correlation has been developed as shown in Eqn.5.2 for fractional
gas hold up for stirred flotation column based on computer programming with
statistical method.
g =0.39 (Ug) 0.0163 (H/D) 0.157 (N/L) 0.473 (5.2)
The comparison between the observed and the predicated results is shown in
Fig. 5.38, where the average error was 2%, and the correlation coefficient was
0.98.
Figure.5.39 shows a comparison between the removal of oil in the Jar-test
and in the flotation column in the same initial oil concentration equal to 800
ppm and the same dose of additive 24 SLS+80 alum and at 50 rpm, the results
shows that the removal efficiency in the flotation column is higher than the Jar-
test and that is in agreement with Puget&Massrani, 2000.
100
90
80
R%
70
60 pH=7.2
pH=8.5
50
pH=4.3
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.16): Effect of pH on the oil removal, Q=0.0113 m3/min, H=70 cm and
Co=800 ppm
95
90
85
80
R%
75
70 pH =7.2
pH =8.5
65
pH =4.3
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Alum Dose (ppm)
Figure (5.17): Effect of adding Alum dose on the oil removal efficiency, H=70 cm,
at different pH, and Co=800 ppm , t=1500 s .
-1.2
pH=7.2
-1
pH=8.5
-0.8 pH=4.3
Log(C/Co)
Log.
-0.6 (pH=7.2)
Log.
-0.4 (pH=8.5)
Log.
(pH=4.3)
-0.2
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0
Time(sec)
Figure (5.18): Log(C/Co) versus time at different pH values, Q=0.0113m3/min,

t=1500 sec, and Co=800 ppm, H-70 cm.
80
75
70
65
60
R%
55
50
45
40
35
30
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Oil Concentration (ppm)
Figure (5.19): Effect of the initial oil concentration on the removal efficiency,
pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min, t=1500 sec.
80
70
60
50
R%
40
Co =100 ppm
30
Co= 200 ppm
20 Co= 400 ppm
Co= 600 ppm
10
Co= 800 ppm
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.20) (a): Effect of the initial oil concentration on the removal efficiency,
pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min, as function of time.
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
Figure (5.20) b: Effect of the initial oil concentration on the removal efficiency in a 3D
plot, pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min, as function of time.
-0.7
-0.6
Co =100 ppm
-0.5
Co =200 ppm
Log(C/Co)
-0.4
Co=400 ppm
-0.3 Co =600 ppm
Co=800 ppm
-0.2
Log. (Co
-0.1 =200 ppm)
Log. (Co
0 500 1000 1500 2000
=100 ppm)
0 Log. (Co=400
ppm)
Time (sec) Log. (Co=800
ppm)
Log. (Co
=600 ppm)
Figure (5.21): Log(C/Co) versus time at different Co values, Q=0.0113m3/min, t=1500

sec, and Co=800 ppm, H=70 cm.
80
75
70
65
Observed Values
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
30 40 50 60 70 80
Predicted Values
Figure (5.22): Comparison between the observed vales of removal efficiency of

oily wastewater and the predicted vales.
75
70
65
60 Ug=0.006363 m/sec
R%
Ug=0.017 m/sec
55
Ug=0.033 m/sec
50 Ug=0.044 m/sec
Ug=0.053 m/sec
45
Ug=0.06363 m/sec
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.23): Effect of Gas Velocity on the oil removal, H=70 cm and Co=30 ppm,
pH=7.2.
72
71
70
69
R%
68
67
66
65
64
1.3 2 2.7 3.4 4.1 4.8
Figure( 5.24)(a): Effect of bubble size on the removal efficiency, Co=30 ppm , at
different gas velocities (0.00636-0.0636), pH=7.2 .
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Figure( 5.24)(b): Effect of bubble size on the removal efficiency, Co=30 ppm , at
different gas velocities (0.00636-0.0636) 3Dplot, pH=7.2 .
80
75
70
R%
65
60
SLS=Zeor
55
SLS= 1.5 ppm
50
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.25): Effect of adding surfactant on the oil removal efficiency, H =70 cm, and
Co=30 ppm, pH=7.2.
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7 5 sls
-0.6 10 sls
Log(C/Co)
-0.5 48 sls
-0.4 72 sls
96 sls
-0.3
Log. (5
-0.2 sls)
Log. (10
-0.1 sls)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Log. (48
0 sls)
Log. (72
Tim e(sec) sls)
Log. (96
sls)
Figure (5.26): Log(C/Co) versus time at different surfactant dose (ppm),

Q=0.0113m3/min, t=1500 sec, and Co=800 ppm, H=70 cm.
95
90
85
80
R%
75
70
65
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Alum Dose (ppm)
Figure(5.27): Effect of alum dose on oil removal efficiency, Co= 800 ppm, pH =7.2
100
95
90
85
R%
80
75 80 Alum+24 SLS
240 Alum +24 SLS
70
80 Alum+64 SLS
65
240 Alum+64 SLS
60
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.28): Effect of adding alum and SLS together, H=70 cm, pH=7.2 and Co=800
ppm
2000
1800
1600
1400
COD (ppm)
1200
1000
800
600
400 Alum =Zero
200 Alum= 560 ppm
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.29): Effect of Alum dose on Chemical oxygen demand, Co=800 ppm
, pH= 7.2.
700
Alum =Zero
600
Alum =560 ppm
500
BOD (ppm)
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.30): Effect of Alum dose on Biological oxygen demand, Co=800 ppm
, pH= 7.2.
80
70
60
50
R%
40
30
X=10 cm
20
X=25 cm
10 X=50 cm
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.31): Effect of the sample zone on the removal efficiency, Co=800 ppm,
pH=7.2, Q= 0.0113 m3/min.
100
90
80
R%
70
60
X=10 cm
X=25 cm
50
X=50 cm
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.32): Effect of the sample zone on the removal efficiency, Co=800 ppm,
pH=7.2, and with 64 sls+240 alum, Q= 0.0113 m3/min.
96
91
86
81
R%
76
71
66
w ithout additive
61 w ith additive
56
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.33): Comparison in removal efficiency at X=10, pH =7.2, H=70 cm,

Q=0.0113 m3/min
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
Gas Hold Up
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed Of The Stirrer (rpm)
Figure (5.34): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the gas hold-up, H=70 cm, Co=800
ppm
0.3
0.25
0.2
Gas Hold Up
0.15
0.1
0.05 without stirrer

with stirrer
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.35): The comparison in gas hold up values, H=70 cm, Co=800 ppm
100
92.5
R%
85 50 rpm
100 rpm
150 rpm
77.5
200 rpm
250 rpm
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.36): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the removal efficiency, pH=7.2,
Q=0.0113 m^3/min, Co=800 ppm , 64 sls+240 alum .
2.4
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed Stirrer (rpm)
Figure (5.37): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the bubble size, H=70 cm, Co=800 ppm
Figure (5.38): Predicted versus observed gas hold up of Eqn.5.2.
95
90
85
R%
80
75
70 Jar -test
Flotation column
65
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.39): A comparison between flotation column and the Jar-test, Co=800 ppm
5.3 Effect of Interfacial Area and Velocity Gradient on the Removal

Efficiency
Figure 5.40 shows that the interfacial areas vary between (40.4and 112) 1/m
for IAF and (65.3-143) l/m for MIAF, where the calculation of it was found in
appendix "D" while gas velocities can alter between (0.00636 and 0.0636 m/sec).
It can be noted that the obtained values are corresponded with the number of
bubbles generated and thus the available bubble surface for the interacting with
oil droplets presence in the liquid phase, therefore, these values of (a) roughly
increase linearly with the gas flow rate injected into the flotation column, but the
MIAF system give higher value of (a) than IAF. The small effect of alum
concentrations on the interfacial areas has been again observed as shown
previously in the results obtained with the variation or bubble sizes. Note that, the
values of (a) are directly linked to the bubble diameters, bubble rising velocities
and their formation frequencies, due to the variation of calculated velocity
gradient with gas flow rate as presented in Fig. (5.41). In any flotation
system, the value of G increases linearly with the gas velocities. Their values
vary between (99 and 288)1/sec whereas the gas velocities change between
(0.006363and 0.0636) m/sec; more turbulent mixing condition occurs at higher
gas flow rate. In order to take into account the available bubble surface and also
the mixing condition occurred in the flotation process, the ratio of interfacial area
(a) to velocity gradient (G) was determined and presented in Fig. (5.42). This
figure shows that the ratios of interfacial area (a) to velocity gradient (G) vary
between (0.4 - 0.38) sec/m for IAF and (0.66-0.49) for MIAF while gas flow
rates can change between (0.006363 and 0.0636)m/sec by using porous sparger.
Moreover, it can be seen that the maximum of the a/G values can be found at the
gas flow rate equal to (0.033) m/sec which corresponds to the U g value that
provides the highest removal efficiency obtained with both IAF and MIAF
processes, therefore, the a/G ratio can be used in order to select the operating
condition of the flotation process.
Note that , the optimal chosen a/G ratio will relate to the gas flow rates that
generate ,not only high interacting opportunity/surface between oil droplets and
bubbles, but also proper mixing condition between generated bubbles, oil
droplets and applied chemical agents in the flotation processes (IAF and MIAF) ,
and thus the highest oily wastewater treatment efficiency, and the relation
between the treatment efficiency and the ratio of interfacial area to velocity
gradient (a/G) is shown in Fig. (5.43). From this figure it can be found that the
treatment efficiencies obtained with IAF and MIAF processes increase roughly
with the a/G values However, at the same a/G value, the differences of removal
efficiencies obtained with the IAF and MIAF processes can be observed. These
confirm that, not only the interacting and mixing phenomena control the overall
removal efficiency, but also the chemical dosages applied in the MIAF process
can affect the associated performances and the experimental value were tabulated
in Tables E.19 to E.26 in Appendix" E".
160
140
120
100
a (1/m)
80
60
40 IAF
20 MIAF
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.40): Interfacial area versus gas velocity for the IAF and MIAF processes,
Co=30 ppm , t=1500 sec, H=70 cm
350
300
250
G (1/sec)
200
150
100
IAF
50
MIAF
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.41): Velocity gradient versus gas velocity for the IAF and MIAF processes,
Co=30 ppm , t=1500 sec, H=70 cm
0.7
0.6
0.5
a/G (sec/m)
0.4
0.3
0.2
MIAF
0.1
IAF
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Figure (5.42): Ratio of interfacial area to velocity gradient versus gas velocity for the
IAF and MIAF processes, Co=30 ppm , t=1500 sec, H=70 cm
80
78
76
74
72
R%
70
68
66
64 IAF
62 MIAF
60
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
a/G (sec/m)
Figure (5.43): Treatment efficiency versus ratio of interfacial area to velocity gradient for
the IAF and MIAF processes.
5.4. The Best Conditions

As results, from the experimental work, the best conditions that give
maximum removal of oil, COD and BOD from wastewater, can be obtained
when the concentration of surfactant is 64ppm, alum is 240ppm with pH 4.2
and by using stirrer with 200 rpm. Then from Figs.5.44, 5.45and 5.46 the oil
concentration, COD, BOD in the treated water are nearest to the Iraqi
regulation for the preservation of water sources (act No.B (2)-2001
amendment). The results are tabulated in E.26, E.27 and E.28 in Appendix
"E", where the standard final oil concentration was <10 ppm, COD <150
ppm and BOD<40 ppm.
160
Final Oil Concentration(ppm) MIAF
140
64 SLS+240 alum
120 pH=4.2
100 standared
80
60
40
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time(sec)
Figure (5.44): Effect of the best condition on oil removal, Co=800ppm, Ug=0.025m/sec.
900
MIAF
800
pH=4.2
700 64SLS+240 alum
600 standared
COD (ppm)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.45): Effect of the best condition on COD, Co=800ppm, Ug=0.025m/sec.

350
MIAF
300 pH=4.2
250 64sls +240 alum

BOD (ppm) standared
200
150
100
50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec)
Figure (5.46): Effect of the best condition on BOD, Co=800ppm, Ug=0.025m/sec.
5.5. Dimensionless Groups for Removal Efficiency

Experimental results for different parameters were correlated in the general
dimensionless Eqn.4.9 that is
R% = C1 (CA/ l )C2 (CS/L)C3 (C/Co)C4(1/Re)C5(1/We)C6 (1/Fr)C7..(4.9)
The coefficient of the equation C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6 and C7 are found by
using statistical programming. Values of the coefficient, correlation coefficient,
average absolute error, and variance are listed in Table5.4.
A comparison between the observed and predicted removal efficiency is
shown in Fig. 5.46.
Table (5.4): Constants and statistical analysis results of equation 5.2 for removal efficiency
Coefficient Value Coefficient Value Coefficient Value coefficient

value
C1 1.67 C3 161 C5 1.48 C7 1.096
C2 145.7 C4 0.0624 C6 1.56
Average absolute error (A.A.E) =0.053%, Correlation coefficient=0.9999 ,

Variance=0.95.
Figure( 5.46): Predicted versus observed removal efficiency
Where the range of Re (43.4-90.9), We (0.013-0.025), Fr (0.0199-0.0425).

Chapter Six
Conclusions & Recommendations

for future work
6.1. Conclusions
6.1.1 Separation of Oil
The emulsified oil with concentration (30-800 ppm) can be removed by
dispersed air flotation; high percentage was achieved from 20 to 25 minutes.
Induced air flotation (IAF) and modified induced air flotation (MIAF) were
applied and analyzed in term of treatment efficiency; the removal efficiency
obtained with IAF processes was smaller than obtained in MIAF.
Bubble size increases with the increase in air flow rate, and the size of bubble
decrease with adding surfactant.
Adding alum and (SLS) together have a high coagulant effect than adding them
individually.
The best removal efficiency was found at pH 4.3.
The gas hold up increased with the increase of gas velocity and also increased
when adding surfactant, when using the stirrer. The gas hold up was correlated
according to the following equation:
g =0.39 (Ug) 0.0163 (H/D) 0.157 (N/L) 0.473
The ratio of interfacial area to velocity gradient (a/G) has been proved to be the
important parameter to consider for attaining a good performance in the
treatment of oily wastewater process.
The kinetics of flotation bubble column was studied and it was found that the
removal rate constant (K) increases with increasing oil concentration and with
dosage surfactant (SLS). Also the experimental results indicate that the order of
the kinetic flotation nearly changes between half to first order.
Chapter six: Conclusions & Recommendations for future work 89
A correlation for the removal efficiency was correlated and found acceptable
values between the experiment and observed value:
6.2 Recommendations for future work

1. Studying the oily wastewater treatment by membrane.
2. Using two or three columns in order to enhance the removal efficiency.
3. Studying the effect of temperature.
4. Using more active surfactant from recent papers and research.
5. Comparison between IAF and DAF.
6. Treatment of the oily wastewater by IAF, but in continuous operation.
7. Effect of two contaminants on the removal efficiency.
Appendix A Calibration curves of the flow meters 201
0.03
Flowmeter reading(m^3/min.)
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
y = 0.9022x + 0.0004
0.005 R2 = 0.9964
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
Reading scale(m^3/min.)
Figure A.1: Calibration Curve of gas Rotameter

Appendix A Calibration curves of the flow meters 201
Appendix B Calibration curves of the mixer 301
350
300
250
Speed(rpm)
200
150
100 y = 47.143x - 30.143

R2 = 0.9554
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Gage Control
FigureB.1 Calibration Curve of mixer by digital tachometer
300
250
200
G (1/sec)
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Speed (r.p.m.)
Figure B.2 Velocity Gradient (G) at Various Speeds

Appendix B Calibration curves of the mixer 301
Appendix c Distributor design 401
This procedure was developed by Ruff et al. (1978) to ensure the flow
through all the openings of perforated plates for fluid dispersion. If all the
perforations of a perforated plate for dispersing a gas or liquid in a liquid
phase are occupied by the disperse, weeping, backflow etc. can occur, which
are usually undesirable. In bubble column Reactors plates are frequently
used with perforations of diameters 1 to 5mm. Ruff (1978) has investigated
perforated plates with perforation of diameters 0.3 to 1mm in the gassing of
liquids to find what minimum gas velocity in the perforations is necessary to
ensure complete flow through the openings of the sieve plates. He found that
at small perforation diameters a constant Weber number must be maintained,
while, at large perforation diameters a Froude number must be maintained in
order to ensure flow through openings or prevent weeping. The effect of the
fractional free area of the perforations varied over the range from 0.1 to 5%.
We=2 and Fr=0.37 give the minimum velocity of the disperse required in the
perforations, and significant weeping is to be prevented in the case of large
perforations.
Following steps are used to find the number of holes required to

ensure flow through all the perforations and to prevent weeping of the
continuous phase. The calculations are based on the following physical
properties:
w=993.8 Kg/m3, g=1.16 Kg/m3, w=0.0728 N/m, Perry and Chilton
(1978).
Step 1:
Calculation of the diameter do according to eqn. (C-1):
1/ 2 5/8
g
do 2.32 w (C-1)
g g w g
5/8
(0.0728
1/ 2
1.16
d o 2.32
1.16 * 9.81 (993.8 1.16
do=0.0027 m
do=2.7 mm.
The perforation diameter selected lies below this value of d o and so criterion
We= constant must be used.
Step 2:
We have:
g doU o 2
We 2 . (C-2)
w
2 w
Uo
2
g do
2 * (0.0728)
Uo
2
1.16 * 1.0 * 10 3
U o 11.1m/sec
Applying a safety factor of 40% gives:

U o 16.65 m/sec
d cU g
N .. (C.3)
d oU o
Ug=Upper range of experimental gas velocity

=0.063 m/sec
(0.1) 2 0.063
N
(0.001) 2 15.68
N 70
Free area=area of holes area of distributor

2
do N
= 2
dc
(0.001) 2 70
= =0.007 =0.7%
(0.1) 2
This value lies between the range of (0.1 5) %

Appendix Sample ofCalculations 701
D
D.1. Local Gas Hold up

The particle case of gas-slurry will be considered. To make the
solution tractable it is assumed that the dynamic component of the
pressure is negligible and that the bubble are lightly, and
consequently the bubble-particle aggregate density is negligible. The
pressure above atmospheric at A and B Fig. D.1. (a) (Finch &Dobby,
1990):
PA = sl LA g (1- g gA) (D.1)
PB = sl LB g (1- g Gb) (D.2)
Where sl is the slurry density, and g s, g B are the gas hold up above A and B
respectively (the product L (1- g ) is the equivalent height of the slurry without
gas). Therefore, the pressure difference between A and B, the pressure
difference is:
P = sl L g (1- g ) (D.3)
Where g is the gas holdup between A and B. Upon rearranging, g is
given by
g = 1- (P /sl L g) . (D.4)
Note that g is measured locally over distance L and that gas holdup in other
parts of the column is not a factor. By repeating the measure at intervals along a
D
column, the profile of g with height can be established. If water-filled

manometers are used to measure pressure .Fig. D.1. (b).
PA = w g (L+h1)
PB = w g h2
Therefore
P = w g (L-h)
Where h is positive when the upper manometer level is higher than the lower
manometer level then g is given by:
g =1-(w/sl)(1-h/L) (D.5)
Assumed w=sl eq. (D.5) then reduces to

g = h/L
D
Fig. D.1. Measuring gas holdup by pressure difference: (a) general; (b) using
manometers.
D.2. Sample of Calculation

D.2.1 average gas holdup
For Ug 0.0636, HL=70cm, HF=86.1
HF HL
Eg =
HF
(86.1-70)/70=0.23
D.2.2 Bubble Rise Velocity
distence 0.25
Ub 0.206m / sec
time 1.2
D
D.2.3 Local Gas Holdup
At Ug=0.0636 m/sec, then E local =5/35=0.14
D.2.4 Calculation of Interfacial Area (a) and Velocity Gradient (G)

(a)= FB *( Hl/Ub ) *( Sb/Vtotal)
For flow rate 0.000048 m3/sec, Vb 10-8 m3, Sb 0.000025 m2 Ub

from the experimental 14.7 m/sec and Hl 0.7 m
Where Fb =flow rate /Vb = 4000 sec-1, therefore the value of (a)
equal to 40.4 m-1 for IAF.
For MIAF at the same flow rate Vb 4*10-8 m3, Sb 0.000013 m2,
Fb 11461 sec-1, Ub 0.26 m/sec therefore the value of (a) 65.3 m-1
Now for finding (G) value for both IAF and MIAF where:
G = P/ ( *V)0.5
P = 3904* flow rate * log (3904+10.33)/10.33
P= 0.48 m3/sec
V (liquid volume in column) =0.0055 m3
(G) = 99 sec-1
Appendix E Tables Figures111
Table (E.1): Effect of Gas Velocity on Bubble

Characteristics.
Ub Ub
Ug db g
(m/s) (m/s) glocal
(m/s) (mm) (-)
Experiment Theoretical (-)
0.00636 1.4 0.147 0.083 0.056 0.02
0.017 2.1 0.159 0.101 0.085 0.028
0.033 2.4 0.166 0.108 0.14 0.055
0.044 2.8 0.175 0.12 0.18 0.085
0.053
3.4 0.1888 0.13 0.22 0.11
0.06363
4.3 0.206 0.15 0.25 0.14
Table (E.2): Effect of surfactant (sls) concentration on

bubble Characteristics.
Ub Ub
db g
Co CS (m/s) (m/s) glocal
(mm) (-)
100 1.5 2 0.1624 0.11 0.086 0.08
100 3.5 1.88 0.151 0.106 0.1 0.086
100 5 1.72 0.1457 0.099 0.11 0.087
100 8 0.144 0.093 0.087
1.55 0.12
100 12 1.34 0.129 0.084 0.15 0.088
200 3 0.15 0.106 0.085 0.072
2.2
200 7 0.146 0.099 0.12 0.086
1.87
Appendix E Tables Figures 111
200 10 0.137 0.096 0.13 0.088

1.81
200 16 0.135 0.088 0.135 0.089
1.62
200 24 0.127 0.083 0.2 0.09
1.44
400 12 2.3 0.1512 0.106 0.085 0.081
400 32 2.13 0.1483 0.102 0.093 0.085
400 48 0.1433 0.099 0.1 0.089
2
400 64 1.97 0.1398 0.098 0.114 0.1
400 80 1.94 0.1376 0.097 0.13 0.1
600 18 2.5 0.161 0.11 0.084 0.083
600 48 0.158 0.108 0.093 0.084
2.4
600 72 2.3 0.155 0.106 0.1 0.09
600 96 2.2 0.153 0.104 0.12 0.1
600 120 1.8 0.1512 0.099 0.13 0.1
800 24 0.083
2.7 0.1607 0.115 0.086
800 64 2.31 0.1527 0.106 0.099 0.09
800 96 2.24 0.1515 0.105 0.12 0.095
800 128 2.14 0.1496 0.103 0.135 0.1
800 160 0.11
2.11 0.147 0.102 0.14
Table (E.3): Effect of surfactant (camper) concentration on

bubble Characteristics.
Ub Ub
db g
Coil Ccamper (m/s) (m/s) glocal
(mm) (-)
100 1.5 2.45 0.0144 0.098 0.087 0.086
100 3.5 2.2 0.14 0.096 0.11 0.088
0.092 0.09
100 5 0.135 0.12
2
0.087 0.13 0.099
100 8 0.131
1.78
100 12 1.45 0.124 0.081 0.2 0.1
200 3 0.15 0.104 0.089 0.086
2.31
200 7 0.145 0.096 0.11 0.089
2
200 10 0.1411 0.09 0.12 0.09
1.88
200 16 0.1354 0.085 0.12 0.09
1.73
200 24 0.1282 0.082 0.19 0.1
1.56
400 12 2.8 0.168 0.12 0.055 0.03
400 32 2.5 0.16 0.11 0.057 0.029
400 48 2.3 0.1544 0.106 0.062 0.042
400 64 0.1513 0.101 0.077 0.06
2.1
400 80 1.99 0.1485 0.098 0.086 0.056
600 18 2.8 0.168 0.12 0.055 0.03
600 48 2.5 0.161 0.11 0.057 0.029
600 72 0.1547 0.106 0.062 0.042
2.3
600 96 2 0.1508 0.101 0.077 0.056
600 120 1.98 0.148 0.098 0.086 0.056
800 24 2.9 0.165 0.119 0.06 0.05
800 64 2.5 0.158 0.11 0.062 0.051

800 96 0.054
2.43 0.159 0.109 0.065
800 128 2.33 0.155 0.107 0.072 0.066
800 160 2.12 0.15 0.102 0.075 0.068
Table (E.4): Effect of Hole Diameter on Bubble

Characteristics at Liquid Height= 70cm.
Ug do db Ub g
glocal
(m/s) (mm) (mm) (m/s) (-)
(-)
0.044
0.00636 0.12 1.4 14.7
0.056
0.053
0.017 0.12 2.1 15.9
0.085
0.09
0.033 0.12 2.4 16.6
0.14
0.1
0.044 0.12 2.8 17.5
0.18
0.11
0.053 0.12 3.4 18.88
0.22
0.15
0.0636 0.12 4.3 20.6
0.25
0.029
0.006363 2 1.7 15.2
0.05
0.057
0.017 2 3 17.75
0.07
0.061
0.033 2 3.5 18.8
0.1
0.11
0.044 2 4.2 20.66
0.14
0.14
0.053 2 5.25 23
0.19
0.153
0.0636 2 9.4 25.7
0.23
Table (E.5): Effect of gas velocity on the froth height.
Ug hf(m) hf(m)
(m/s) Eq.(4.4) Eq.(4.6)
0.006363
2.32 3.34
0.017
6.79 9
0.033
13.7 20.6
0.044
20.7 30.6
0.053
35.6 51.3
0.0636
45.78 64.3
Table (E.6): Effect of the gas velocity on both average and

local gas hold up in air-water system.
Ug g g local
(m/s) (-) (-)
0.006363
0.029 0.05
0.017
0.057 0.07
0.033
0.11 0.11
0.044
0.15 0.15
0.053
0.2 0.2
0.0636
0.23 0.23
Table (E.7): Effect of gas velocity on bubble diameter,

H=70cm, Co=30 ppm.
Gas
db db
velocity
(mm) wastewater (mm) pure water
(m/sec)
0.0636 1.4
1.7
0.017 2.1
3
0.033 2.4
3.5
0.044 2.8
4.2
0.053 3.4
5.25
0.0636 4.3
9.4
Table (E.8): Effect of pH on the oil removal efficiency,

Ug=0.025 m/s, do= 0.12 mm and H=70 cm.
Time Removal efficiency (%)

(sec) pH=4.3 pH=7.5 pH=8.5
300 72 63 60
600 84 69 62
900 84.9 71 68
1200 86.67 74.5 72.3
1500 88.5 75 73.5
1800 88.49 76 73.8
Table (E.9): Removal efficiency of oil at difference gas

velocity, H=70cm, Co=30 ppm.
Removal efficiency (%)
Time Ug Ug Ug Ug
(sec) Ug (m/s) Ug (m/s)
(m/s) (m/sec) (m/s) (m/s)
0.033 0.0636
0.00636 0.017 0.044 0.053
300 46 65.3 63.22 64.55 64.7 69.3
600 51 65.8 67.11 67.7 65.66 69.6
900 58.6 66.8 67.7 68.4 66.4 70.4
1200 64 67.4 68.3 69 69 71.1
1500 64.44 68.33 69.33 69.5 69.8 71.5
1800 62.4 67.33 69.33 68.6 69.55 71.1
Table (E.10): Effect of alum dose on Chemical oxygen

demand, Co=800ppm, pH=7.2
Time COD (ppm) BOD(ppm)
(sec) Alum Alum Alum Alum
=zero =560ppm =zero =560
300 1835 1204 655 429
600 1830 915 653 326
900 1541 722 550 257
1200 1228 578 438 206
1500 1204.5 524 429 153
1800 1156 525 412 147
Table (E.11): Effect of sampling zone on the removal

efficiency, pH=7.2, Co=800ppm, without additive.

Time
(sec) X=10 X=25 X=50
(cm) (cm) (cm)
300 62 60 40
600 65 61 55
900 68 65 61
1200 71 66 63
1500 72.5 68 65
1800 72.3 70.4 68.7
Table (E.12): Effect of sampling zone on the removal

efficiency, pH=7.2, Co=800ppm, with 64sls+240alum.

Time
(sec) X=10 pH=7.5 pH=8.5
(cm) (cm) (cm)
300 72 69 67
600 81 77 72
900 87 82.34 80.11
1200 92 84 81.12
1500 93.9 88 85.6
1800 93.8 90 87.44
Table (E.13): Effect of the speed of the stirrer on the

hydrodynamic characteristics, Co=800ppm, H=70cm.
Speed
g
stirrer db(mm) Ub(m/sec)
(-)
(rpm)
50 0.149
0.11 2.2
100 0.146
0.12 2.17
150 0.144
0.14 1.97
200 0.14
0.15 1.81
250 0.141
0.16 1.85
Table (E.14): Effect of speed stirrer on the removal

efficiency, pH=7.2, Ug=0.025m/sec, Co=800ppm, 64
sls+240 alum
R (%)
Time
(sec) 50 100 150 200 250
(rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm)
300 85 80 83 88 82
600 88 86.5 88 92.11 84
900 93 90 91.2 93.8 92
1200 93.86 92.4 92.8 96 92.8
1500 94 94.86 95 98.8 95.7
1800 94 94.8 95.34 98.6 95.9
Table (E.15):.Effect of alum dose on oil removal efficiency

at different pH
Alum Removal efficiency (%)

dose
(ppm) pH=4.3 pH=7.5 pH=8.5
80 74 69 75.5
240 85 72 86
320 87 74.5 88.6
400 88 77 89.5
560 88 79.4 89.87
Table (E.16): Effect of surfactant concentration on the

removal efficiency, pH=7.2, Co=100ppm, Ug=0.025m/sec.
Time Removal efficiency (%)

(sec) SLS=zero SLS=1.5
300 63.2 72.8
600 67.11 73.2
900 67.7 74.5
1200 68.3 75.3
1500 69.33 76.5
1800 69.33 76.3
Table (E.17):.Effect of adding alum and sls together on the

removal efficiency, Co =800ppm, Ug =0.025m/sec
Time R (%)
(sec) 80alum+24sls 240alum+24sls 80alum+64sls 240alum+64sls
300 75 85 81 84
600 86 90 87 91
900 89 92 91 92
1200 90 92.34 91.99 92.6
1500 92.5 93 94 95
1800 92.33 93.23 94 95.22
Table (E.18): Effect of initial oil concentration on the

removal efficiency.
Time R (%)
(sec) 100(ppm) 200(ppm) 400(ppm) 600(ppm) 800(ppm)
300 31 33 37 51 62
600 31.8 34.4 41 62 68
900 33 36.8 44 66 71
1200 36.5 38 49 67.5 74.5
1500
42 44 52.8 69 75
1800
42.5 44.7 52.9 69.3 76
Table (E.19): Effect of gas velocity on interfacial area for

IAF and MIAF, Co=800ppm.
Gas a (m-1)
velocity MIAF
(m/sec) IAF
0.00636 40.4 65.3
0.017 71.9 88.7
0.033 108.5 134.8
0.044 109.7 140
0.053 111.8 141
0.0636 112 143
Table (E.20): Effect of gas velocity on velocity gradient for

Gas G(sec-1)
velocity MIAF
(m/sec) IAF
0.00636 99 99
0.017 165.34 165.34
0.033 222 222
0.044 247 247
0.053 286.7 286.7
0.0636 288 288
Table (E.21): Effect of gas velocity on interfacial

area/velocity gradient for IAF and MIAF, Co=800ppm.
Gas a/G (sec/m)

velocity MIAF
(m/sec) IAF
0.00636 0.408 0.66
0.017 0.43 0.54
0.033 0.488 0.6
0.044 0.44 0.56
0.053 0.38 0.49
0.0636 0.38 0.49
Table(E.22): Effect of a/G on the removal efficiency for

a/G a/G
R%, R%
(sec/m),IAF (sec/m),MIAF
0.408
64 0.66 73
0.43
67.4 0.54 74.4
0.488
68.3 0.6 75
0.44
69 0.56 76.3
0.38
69.8 0.49 76.7
0.38
71 0.49 78.4
Table ( E.23): Effect of treatment process on the removal

efficiency, Co=800ppm, Ug=0.025m/sec, pH=7.5.
Time R (%)
(sec) Flotation column Jar test
300 75 69
600 79.3 73.4
900 88 75
1200 91 79.33
1500 92.9 80.5
1800 92.87 80.4
Table (E.24): Comparison in removal efficiency at X=10,

pH =7.2, H=70 cm, Ug=0.025 m/sec
Time R (%)
(sec) Without additive With additive
300 62 72
600 65 81
900 68 87
1200 71 92
1500 72.5 93.9
1800 73.3 93.8
Table(E.25): Effect of speed stirrer on the gas hold up, Ug=

(0.00636-0.0636), Co=30ppm, pH=7.5.
Gas Hold up (%)

velocity
(m/sec) Without stirrer With stirrer
0.00636 0.056 0.07
0.017 0.082 0.089
0.033 0.14 0.15
0.044 0.18 0.19
0.053 0.22 0.24
0.0636 0.25 0.28
Table (E.26): Effect of the best conditions on the final oil

concentration.
Time Final oil concentration(ppm)

(sec) MIAF 64sls+240alum pH=4.2
300 75.2 128 136
600 63.12 72 104
900 49.6 64 96
1200 32 59.2 68.8
1500 9.6 40 48
1800 11.2 39 45.6
Table( E.27): Effect of the best conditions on BOD.
Time Final BOD (ppm)

300 161.6 275.2 292
600 135 154.8 223
900 106.6 137 206
1200 68.8 127 147
1500 20 86 103
1800 24 83.8 98
Table (E.28): Effect of the best conditions on COD.
Time Final COD (ppm)

300 452 770 818
600 380 433 626
900 298 385 578
1200 192 356 414
1500 57 240 289
1800 67 234 274

()
. ,
-
. ( )IAF ( )MIAF
. (
01 051) 01
(01) ( 2)
( 021 ) .
()251-51 .
.
(/ )1.10.0-1.110.0
()011-.1
()0.5-3.. ()251-51 .
.
( ) .
.
COD BOD ( )
.
. 3..
211 . ( %80 01
) 011 .

.
( )G ( )a
. .
:
g =0.39 (Ug) 0.0163 (H/D) 0.157 (N/L) 0.473
%2 1.80 .
( )dimensionless:
%1.15. .1.8888

2012

EFFECT of HYDRODYNAMIC Characteristics On Flotation Treatment Process of Oily Wastewater

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT of HYDRODYNAMIC Characteristics On Flotation Treatment Process of Oily Wastewater

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministry of Higher Education

& Scientific Research

My very deep respect and sincere appreciation go to my

Also, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my friends

EFFECT OF HYDRODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS ON FLOTATION TREATMENT

Chapter two: Literature survey

5.1.1 Bubble Diameter 50

5.1.2 Bubble Rise Velocity 51

Symbol Definition Units

C Oil concentration (ppm)

(COD)U Chemical Oxygen Demand in the under flow in (ppm)

G Mean velocity gradient (sec-1)

NTU Naphlometric turbidity unit (-)

Ut Terminal velocity in Table (2.1) (m/sec)

Vb Total volume of the bubble (m3)

We Weeper number l Ug2d/ (-)

Symbol Definition Units

z Liquid height in the manometer

Oil contaminated wastewater has been recognized as one of the most

size smaller than(20m) (Francis &Eric 1983). A wastewater with an oil-water

skimmed. Soluble oil requires the use of ion-exchange technology (Zoubolils

1.2. Oily Wastewater Treatment Technologies

Process Advantage Disadvantage

Figure(1.1): Oil/water emulsion conventional systems (Degremont, 1979)

The oil/water emulsion cannot be removed by simple gravity separation;

1.2.1.1 Flotation Column:

Figure (1.2): Flotation Column Layout (Gu et al, 1999).

Main applications have been in the removal of solids, ions, macromolecules

Plastics separation and recycling

Component Of special interest Environmental effect

Thermal effects Hot water Changing living conditions for

1.4 Case Study

Compressing gas Gases liberated from

The main Steam

Cooling water content To agricultural

Fig. 1.3 New Process Plant in the North Oil Company

2.2. Hydrodynamic Parameters Affecting Removal Efficiency

2.2.1 .Gas Hold up

Gas hold up is a dimensionless key parameter for design purposes that

2.3. Operating Conditions Affecting Removal Efficiency

Connor&Mill, 1990, the effect of temperature on the flotation of pyrite has

2.4.1. Effect of Bubble Diameter and (H/D) Ratio on Removal Efficiency

Strickland, 1980, studied the flotation of oily wastewater with bubbles

2.5. The Effect of Surfactant and Additives on Removal Efficiency

Figure(2.3):The FF pilot system used in the removal of oils from oil-in-water

2.7. Empirical Correlations

U br 0.71 g d b (SF ) ............................................................... (2.5)

This scale correction factor was determined empirically to be given by

Where F ( G ) , represents the effect of the interaction of the neighboring

2.7.2. Bubble Size

The drag coefficient of bubbles (CD)B ranges as follows:

0.5 0.12 0.12

This correlation is based on data in columns up to 0.3 m in diameter and up

2.7.3. Gas Hold up

Table 2.1 shows some of the empirical correlations. The comparison

Figure (2.4): Comparison between correlations and

2.7.4. Removal Efficiency

Couto&Massrani, 2005: The flotation efficiency of the treatment of oily

R%= (1- C/Ca)*100 . (2.21)

Puget &Massarani2000: evaluated the efficiency of separation milk powder

Puget 2005, considered the turbidity to be a good parameter for controlling

R %=(TTW-TWF / TW-TWF)*100 .(2.24)

It can be concluded from the literature review that the important