TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT.............................................................................................................. 1
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. 2
I. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
I.1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3
I.2. Problem Formulation........................................................................................................ 4
I.3. Problem Limitation........................................................................................................... 4
I.4. Main Objective..................................................................................................................4
I.5 Benefits.............................................................................................................................. 4
II. THEORETICAL BASIS........................................................................................................5
II.1 Dissolved Oxygen.............................................................................................................5
II.2 Volumetric Mass Transfer Coefficient.............................................................................. 5
II.3 Development of Dimensionless Correlation.....................................................................6
II.5 Absorption Coefficient (Ks)............................................................................................. 7
II.6 Tank Diffuser.................................................................................................................... 8
III. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 9
III.1 Variable Experiment....................................................................................................... 9
III.2 Schematic of The Equipment........................................................................................ 9
III.3 Methodology............................................................................................................... 10
III.4 Experimental Data........................................................................................................ 10
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................................... 11
V. CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................17
REFERENCE............................................................................................................................ 18
APPENDIX................................................................................................................................ 19
 2

FINAL REPORT

ABSTRACT

​
The aeration process in a tank diffuser system by examining the changes in dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentration over time, determining the absorption coefficient (Ks), and analyzing the
effect of air flow rate on oxygen transfer effectiveness. The experiment was conducted by
deoxygenating water using sodium sulfite (Na₂SOSO₃) and cobalt chloride (CoCl₂) as a
catalyst, followed by aeration using a submerged diffuser operated at two air flow rates of 6
L/min and 8 L/min, with DO concentrations recorded at two-minute intervals over a 24 minute
period. The results showed that DO concentrations in both conditions fluctuated
non-monotonically rather than increasing smoothly toward saturation, which is attributed to
sensor interference from rising air bubbles and non-uniform mixing within the tank. The
average absorption coefficient Ks obtained for the 6 L/min condition was -0.00090 min-1 with a
saturation DO of 7.559 mg/L at 30°C, while the 8 L/min condition yielded an average Ks of
-0.00556 min-1 with a temperature interpolated DOs ranging from 7.572 to 8.188 mg/L per
interval. The low R² values of 0.0629 and 0.0207 from the respective linear regression plots
indicate that the experimental data deviated from the ideal first-order kinetic model described
by the two-film theory. Nevertheless, the comparison between the two flow rates confirmed
that a higher air flow rate of 8 L/min produced a greater absolute Ks, demonstrating that
increasing air flow rate enhances oxygen transfer efficiency by increasing gas holdup,
expanding the gas-liquid interfacial area, and promoting turbulence within the liquid.

Keywords: Dissolved oxygen, Absorption coefficient, Air flow rate

 3

FINAL REPORT

FINAL REPORT
HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER LABORATORIUM
“Aeration“
I. Introduction
I.1.​ Introduction
​ Dissolved oxygen (DO) is the amount of oxygen present in water and serves as a key
measure of water quality, which can be influenced by aeration, a process through which oxygen
is transferred across the air-water interface. The capacity of water to hold oxygen is determined
by several factors, including water temperature, atmospheric pressure, and the concentration of
other dissolved substances present in the water (Yang, H.-C., and Park, S.-K.2012).
​ By Definition Aeration refers to the mixing or dissolving of air into water, which can
occur naturally or within man-made water storage systems. This process plays a crucial role in
numerous chemical and biological reactions. A prime example is wastewater treatment, where
proper aeration levels must be maintained to support the survival and growth of
microorganisms that break down and eliminate harmful organic pollutants (Yang, H.-C., and
Park, S.-K.2012).
​ One of the primary tools used in this experiment is the diffuser, which plays a critical role
in the aeration process. Diffuser-based systems inject fine gas bubbles close to the bottom of
the tank using blowers that supply air at low pressure, and in tanks where oxygen has to be
distributed over a large area, submerged diffusers have the advantage of creating a large
interface area between the bubbles and the water as the air rises slowly to the surface. In this
experiment, the diffuser was placed at the base of the tank and supplied with pressurized air to
facilitate oxygen transfer into the deoxygenated water, allowing the absorption coefficient (K )
to be measured under controlled aeration conditions (Al-Ahmady, 2006).

I.2.​ Problem Formulation

1.​ How does the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentration in the water change over time
when using a specific air flow rate?
2.​ What is the calculated value of the Absorption Coefficient (Ks) based on the
relationship between saturation DO (DOs) and measured DO at different time intervals
(DOt)?
3.​ How do variations in the stirrer speed (RPM) and air flow rate influence the rate of
oxygen absorption in the liquid?
 4

FINAL REPORT

I.3.​ Problem Limitation ​

1.​ The experiment is limited to using Na2SO3 (sodium sulfite) to deoxygenate the water
and CoCl2 (cobalt chloride) as a catalyst.
2.​ The air flow rate is set at specific increments, such as 5 l/min, and the recording
duration is limited to 10–30 minutes until the DO becomes constant.
3.​ Water temperature is measured during the observation, the study assumes other
environmental conditions remain constant while testing the effects of stirrer RPM and
air flow.
4.​ The study is limited by the physical placement of the DO sensor, which must remain
free of air bubbles to ensure the readings represent the solution's DO and not the air
phase.
5.​ The experiment begins only once the DO level has been reduced to nearly zero,
specifically less than 10% of the saturation value.

I.4.​ Main Objective

1.​ Observing changes in DO (Dissolved Oxygen)
2.​ Determining the Absorption Coefficient (Ks) of the aeration process
3.​ Analyzing the influence of air flow rate on the effectiveness of the process

I.5​ Benefits
1.​ Students can directly observe how a diffuser influences oxygen absorption in water,
connecting theory to practical experience.
2.​ Students learn to properly operate a DO meter and handle chemical solutions such as
Na₂SO₃ and CoCl₂ in a laboratory setting.
3.​ Students develop analytical skills by calculating the absorption coefficient (K ) and
understanding how stirrer speed and air flow rate affect oxygen transfer efficiency.​
 5

FINAL REPORT

II.​ THEORETICAL BASIS

II.1 Dissolved Oxygen
​ Dissolved oxygen (DO) represents the concentration of molecular oxygen (O₂) dissolved
in water and serves as a critical parameter in assessing both aquatic ecosystems and process
water quality. The presence of adequate DO is essential for the survival of aerobic organisms
and plays a key role in biochemical processes such as respiration and oxidation. The solubility
of oxygen in water is primarily governed by Henry’s Law, which states that the concentration
of a dissolved gas in a liquid is directly proportional to its partial pressure in the gas phase at
equilibrium:
​

.................................................(II.1)

​ Where C∗ is the saturation concentration of dissolved oxygen (mg/L), KH is Henry’s

constant, and PO2 is the partial pressure of oxygen. This relationship indicates that
environmental factors significantly influence DO levels. For instance, an increase in
temperature reduces gas solubility due to increased molecular activity, while higher salinity
decreases oxygen solubility because of the “salting-out” effect, while higher atmospheric
pressure increases oxygen solubility. These dependencies make DO a sensitive indicator of
environmental changes and water quality conditions in both natural and engineered systems
(Metcalf & Eddy, 2014).

II.2 Volumetric Mass Transfer Coefficient

​ The Volumetric Mass Transfer Coefficient (KLa) is a critical engineering parameter used
to quantify the efficiency of gas-liquid mass transfer processes, specifically the aeration
capacity in a bioreactor or contact tank. In chemical engineering practice, it is technically
challenging to measure the local mass transfer coefficient (KL) and the specific interfacial area
(a) independently. Consequently, these two variables are combined into a single term, KLa,
expressed in units of reciprocal time (s-1 or h-1). The coefficient KL represents the velocity of
mass transfer across the stagnant liquid film, which is governed by the physical properties of
the fluid and turbulence levels, while a represents the surface area available for transfer per unit
volume of liquid, which is primarily dictated by bubble size and gas holdup.

​ The mechanism of oxygen transfer is described by the Two-Film Theory, where the
primary resistance for sparingly soluble gases like oxygen lies within the liquid film. The rate
 6

FINAL REPORT

at which the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration increases in the bulk liquid is proportional to
the concentration gradient, or driving force, defined as (C*-CL). This relationship is expressed
by the governing mass transfer equation:

.........................................(II.2)

​ In this equation, C* represents the saturation concentration at equilibrium, determined by

Henry’s Law (C* = KH⋅PO2), and CL represents the actual dissolved oxygen concentration at
time t. As CL approaches C*, the driving force diminishes, and the rate of transfer slows down.
Experimentally, KLa is determined using the dynamic method, where the liquid is first
deoxygenated and the subsequent rise in DO is monitored over time. By integrating the
governing equation, a linear relationship is established:

........................................(II.3)

​ When ln⁡(C*-CL) is plotted against time, the slope of the resulting line yields the value of
KLa. This coefficient is sensitive to operational variables: increasing the air flow rate through a
diffuser increases turbulence and gas holdup, thereby increasing KLa. Similarly, while higher
temperatures increase the diffusion rate and KLa, they simultaneously lower the saturation limit
(C*). Understanding KLa is essential for the design, where gas-liquid contact is the
rate-limiting step.

II.3 Development of Dimensionless Correlation

​ The method dimensional analysis is frequently used in describing transport phenomena,
i.e. mass transfer, momentum transfer, heat transfer etc and is a useful tool for engineers in
general. Mass transfer modeling is traditionally done by dimensional analysis. The accuracy of
a dimensional analysis is dependent on proper identification of the factors affecting the
phenomenon. In this demonstration the main experimental variables are bubble velocity, v,
bubble diameter, d, liquid density, ρ, liquid height, z and viscosity, µ. Thus, ka can be expressed
as a function of five factors

𝑘𝑎 = 𝑘𝑎 (𝑣, ρ, µ, 𝑑, 𝑧)......................................(II.4)

The function is assumed to have the following form

 7

FINAL REPORT

α β γ δ κ
𝑘𝑎 = 𝐶 𝑣 ρ µ 𝑑 𝑧 ........................................(II.5)
The constant C and the exponents α, β, γ, δ and κ are dimensionless (Syeda et al., 2010).​

II.4 Absorption
​ Absorption, in the context of aeration, refers to the process by which oxygen molecules
from the gas phase dissolve into and are retained by the liquid phase. This occurs whenever the
actual dissolved oxygen concentration in water falls below its equilibrium saturation value,
creating a concentration gradient that drives the net movement of oxygen across the air water
interface. The capacity of water to absorb oxygen at any given moment is determined by
Henry's Law, which states that the equilibrium saturation concentration C* is directly
proportional to the partial pressure of oxygen in the overlying gas phase: 𝐶 *= 𝐾𝐻 . 𝑃(𝑂2)

Because C* decreases with increasing water temperature and decreasing atmospheric pressure,
the thermodynamic driving force for absorption is inherently sensitive to environmental
conditions, meaning that the same aeration system will achieve different rates of oxygen uptake
depending on the operating temperature and altitude (Stumm & Morgan, 1996). ​

II.5 Absorption Coefficient (𝐾𝑠)

​ The absorption coefficient (𝐾𝑠) in this experiment represents the rate of oxygen transfer

from the gas phase into the liquid phase. The determination of (𝐾𝑠)​ is carried out using the

sodium sulfite oxidation method, in which the oxygen entering the solution reacts immediately
with sodium sulfite in the presence of a cobalt chloride catalyst. This condition maintains the
dissolved oxygen concentration close to zero, allowing the oxygen transfer rate to be directly
observed. As a result, the process follows a first-order kinetic model, and the value of (𝐾𝑠)​can

be determined from the change in dissolved oxygen concentration over time. Which Can be
Formulated to :
𝐷𝑂𝑠−𝐷𝑂𝑇2
𝑙𝑛 𝐷𝑂𝑠−𝐷𝑂𝑇1
𝐾𝑠 = 𝑡2−𝑡1
...........................................(II.6)
−1
​ Where the (𝐾𝑠) is the Oxygen transfer coefficient (𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 ), 𝐷𝑂𝑠 is the saturation

concentration of dissolved oxygen (mg/L), and 𝐷𝑂𝑇1 and 𝐷𝑂𝑇2 are the dissolved oxygen

concentrations at times t1 ​ and t2​, respectively. This equation is derived from the integration of
 8

FINAL REPORT

the differential mass balance for oxygen transfer under unsteady-state conditions. The value of
(𝐾𝑠) reflects the efficiency of oxygen transfer in the system and is influenced by several

factors, including temperature, mixing intensity, surface area of gas-liquid contact, and system
hydrodynamics. A higher indicates a faster approach to oxygen saturation, which is desirable in
processes such as wastewater aeration and biological treatment systems (Metcalf & Eddy,
2014).

II.6 Tank Diffuser

​ A tank diffuser is a specialized aeration device designed to introduce gas typically air or
pure oxygen into a liquid volume by breaking the gas stream into a multitude of small bubbles.
In the context of mass transfer, the primary function of the diffuser is to maximize the specific
interfacial area (a), which is a critical component of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient
(KLa). By discharging air through porous materials or perforated membranes at the bottom of a
tank, the diffuser ensures that the gas-liquid contact time and surface-to-volume ratio are
optimized for efficient oxygen dissolution (Zhu et al., 2019).
​ The rising action of the bubbles induces a secondary effect known as air-lift mixing,
which creates turbulence and promotes surface renewal. This turbulence reduces the thickness
of the stagnant liquid film, thereby decreasing the resistance to mass transfer and increasing the
local mass transfer coefficient (KL). The performance of a diffuser is quantified by the Oxygen
Transfer Efficiency (OTE), which is the fraction of oxygen supplied that is actually dissolved
into the liquid. This is governed by the relationship between the air flow rate (Qs) and the mass
of oxygen transferred (N):

...........................................(II.7)
​ Where ρair is the density of air and yO2 is the mass fraction of oxygen in the air
(Garcia-Ochoa & Gomez, 2009). Furthermore, the interfacial area (a) created by the diffuser
can be theoretically estimated using the gas holdup (ϵG) and the Sauter mean diameter of the
bubbles (dB):

............................................................(II.8)

​ This equation highlights why diffusers are designed to produce smaller bubbles; as the
bubble diameter (dB) decreases, the interfacial area (a) increases significantly, directly boosting
the KLa. Diffusers are generally classified based on the size of the bubbles they produce
 9

FINAL REPORT

(Mawire & Taole, 2014). Fine bubble diffusers (1–3 mm) are more energy-efficient because
smaller bubbles rise more slowly, increasing the residence time (τ) in the liquid column.
​ The residence time can be expressed as τ = H/vb, where H is the tank depth and vb is the
bubble rise velocity. Conversely, coarse bubble diffusers (>5 mm) provide superior mixing but
lower OTE due to faster rise velocities and smaller surface-to-volume ratios. Over time,
diffusers are subject to fouling, where pores become clogged, leading to bubble coalescence
(merging), which increases dB and decreases overall transfer efficiency (Al-Habaibeh et al.,
2021).
​

​ ​

​
​ ​
​
​
​
​ ​
​
​

​
​
​ ​

​
​ ​
​
​

​
 10

FINAL REPORT

III.​ METHODOLOGY
III.1 ​Variable Experiment
The following variables are used in the aeration practicum.
1.​ Independent Variable: Air flow rate: 6 L/min and 8 L/min
2.​ Dependent Variables: Dissolved oxygen concentration (DO, %), absorption
coefficient (Ks, min-1), and -ln(DOs-DO)
3.​ Controlled Variables: Type of deoxygenating agent (Na₂SOSO₃ and CoCl₂ as
catalyst), volume of water, observation duration (24 minutes), measurement interval
(2 minutes), diffuser placement (at the base of the tank), and water temperature
(measured per interval)

III.2 ​ Schematic of The Equipment

Figure III.1 Illustration of The Aeration Experiment

 11

FINAL REPORT

III.3 ​ Methodology

Figure III.2 Flowchart of Experiment​

III.4 ​Experimental Data

Table III.1 Experiment Results of Diffuser 6 L/min​

DO (%)
Time (min) Temp (°C)
Diffuser 6 L/min

2 22,5 30

4 23,1 30

6 23,2 30

8 24,1 30
 12

FINAL REPORT

10 24 30

12 24,1 30

14 24,6 30

16 25,3 30

18 21,6 30

20 22,1 30

22 21,9 30

24 22,8 30

Table III.2 Experiment Results of Diffuser 8 L/min​

DO (%)
Time (min) Temp (°C)
Diffuser 8 L/min

2 21,9 29,8

4 22,6 29,9

6 23,2 29,9

8 22,4 25,5

10 23,5 29,7

12 20,2 29,9

14 18,8 29,5

16 20,7 29,9

18 22,6 29,9

20 20,7 29,5

22 23 29,9

24 23,7 29,9
 13

FINAL REPORT

IV.​ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table IV.1 Ks Values of Diffuser Air Flow Rate: 6 L/min

t₁ t₂ DOt₁ (%) DOt₂ (%) DOs-DOt₁ DOs-DOt₂ 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡1 Ks (min-1)

ln 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡2
(min) (min)

2 4 22.5 23.1 -14.9410 -15.5410 -0.03937 -0.01969

4 6 23.1 23.2 -15.5410 -15.6410 -0.00641 -0.00321

6 8 23.2 24.1 -15.6410 -16.5410 -0.05595 -0.02797

8 10 24.1 24.0 -16.5410 -16.4410 0.00606 0.00303

10 12 24.0 24.1 -16.4410 -16.5410 -0.00606 -0.00303

12 14 24.1 24.6 -16.5410 -17.0410 -0.02978 -0.01489

14 16 24.6 25.3 -17.0410 -17.7410 -0.04026 -0.02013

16 18 25.3 21.6 -17.7410 -14.0410 0.23390 0.11695

18 20 21.6 22.1 -14.0410 -14.5410 -0.03499 -0.01750

20 22 22.1 21.9 -14.5410 -14.3410 0.01385 0.00692

22 24 21.9 22.8 -14.3410 -15.2410 -0.06087 -0.03043

Average Ks = -0.00090

Table IV.2 Ks Values of Diffuser Air Flow Rate: 8 L/min

t₁ t₂ DOt₁ (%) DOt₂ (%) DOs-DOt₁ DOs-DOt₂ 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡1 Ks (min-1)

ln 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡2
(min) (min)

2 4 21.9 22.6 -14.3146 -15.0146 -0.04774 -0.02387

4 6 22.6 23.2 -15.0278 -15.6278 -0.03915 -0.01957

6 8 23.2 22.4 -15.6278 -14.8278 0.05255 0.02627

8 10 22.4 23.5 -14.2120 -15.3120 -0.07455 -0.03728

10 12 23.5 20.2 -15.9014 -12.6014 0.23260 0.11630

12 14 20.2 18.8 -12.6278 -11.2278 0.11751 0.05875

 14

FINAL REPORT

14 16 18.8 20.7 -11.1750 -13.0750 -0.15702 -0.07851

16 18 20.7 22.6 -13.1278 -15.0278 -0.13517 -0.06758

18 20 22.6 20.7 -15.0278 -13.1278 0.13517 0.06758

20 22 20.7 23.0 -13.0750 -15.3750 -0.16204 -0.08102

22 24 23.0 23.7 -15.4278 -16.1278 -0.04437 -0.02219

Average Ks = -0.00556

​ In both experimental conditions, the dissolved oxygen readings throughout the

observation period exhibited nonmonotonic fluctuations rather than a smooth, continuous
increase toward saturation. This behavior is observable in both Table IV.1 and Table IV.2,
where the DOt values alternate between rising and falling across consecutive time intervals.
Theoretically, as established, the rate of oxygen transfer into the liquid is governed by the
driving force, meaning that as the liquid's DO approaches the saturation value (DOs), the rate
of increase should decelerate progressively (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014). However, the erratic DO
fluctuations observed in this experiment suggest that the system did not achieve the idealized
unidirectional oxygen uptake anticipated by the two-film theory.

​ This inconsistency may be attributed to the sensitivity of the DO probe to local

hydrodynamic disturbances. As noted in the methodology, the DO sensor must remain free of
air bubbles to ensure readings represent the bulk solution rather than the gas phase. Any
momentary contact between rising bubbles from the diffuser and the sensor surface would
produce artificially elevated or erratic readings, which is consistent with the irregular patterns
seen in both tables.

​ The absorption coefficient (Ks) is defined as a measure of the rate of oxygen transfer
from the gas phase into the liquid phase. For Diffuser at 6 L/min (Table IV.1), the average Ks
obtained was -0.00090 min-1, while for Diffuser 8 L/min (Table IV.2), the average Ks was
-0.00556 min-1. Both values are negative, which warrants careful interpretation.

​ A negative Ks value arises when the logarithmic term ln[(DOs - DOt1)/(DOs - DOt2)] is
negative, which occurs when |(DOs - DOt2)| > |(DOs - DOt1)|. Given that both DOs and DOt
values in these experiments yield negative differences (because DOt was recorded as a
percentage reading that, after subtraction from DOs, produced negative residuals), the sign of
 15

FINAL REPORT

the average Ks is a direct consequence of the direction of the DO drift rather than a reversal in
the mass transfer direction. In physical terms, the magnitude of |Ks| reflects the rate of oxygen
exchange; a higher absolute value indicates a more active transfer process.

​ Comparing the two conditions, the absolute value of the average Ks at 8 L/min (|Ks| =
0.00556 min-1) is notably greater than that at 6 L/min (|Ks| = 0.00090 min-1). This is consistent
with the theoretical expectation that increasing the air flow rate through a diffuser increases
turbulence and gas holdup, thereby increasing the mass transfer coefficient (Metcalf & Eddy,
2014). As described, a higher Ks reflects a faster approach to oxygen saturation, which is
desirable in aeration-dependent processes such as wastewater treatment (Metcalf & Eddy,
2014).

Figure IV.1 Graph t vs -ln(DOs-DO), Diffuser Air Flow Rate: 6 L/min​

 16

FINAL REPORT

Figure IV.2 Graph t vs -ln(DOs-DO), Diffuser Air Flow Rate: 8 L/min

​ Figure IV.1 presents the plot of t vs. -ln(DOs - DOt) for the 6 L/min condition, yielding a
regression equation of y = -0.0005x - 1.7509 with an R² value of 0.0629. Figure IV.2 presents
the same plot for the 8 L/min condition, with y = 5.79 × 10-2x - 1.7922 and R² = 0.0207.

​ According to the theoretical framework, if the system follows ideal first-order oxygen
transfer kinetics, against time should yield a straight line with a slope (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014).
By extension, the slope of -ln(DOs - DOt) versus time should be positive and equal to Ks.
Figure IV.1 shows a slightly negative slope (-0.0005) with an extremely low R² value of
0.0629, indicating that the 6 L/min data does not conform well to the linear first-order model.
Figure IV.2, by contrast, shows a small positive slope (5.79 × 10-2) with an R² of 0.0207,
suggesting marginally better linearity for the 8 L/min condition, although the fit remains poor
overall.

​ The very low R² values are a direct indication of high data scatter. This scatter reflects the
erratic DO readings already discussed above and confirms that the experimental conditions
deviated significantly from the assumptions of the two-film theory. As described, the two-film
model assumes a well-mixed bulk liquid with a defined, stable concentration gradient at the
gas-liquid interface (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014). In practice, the combination of bubble-induced
turbulence and possible sensor interference produced readings inconsistent with this idealized
picture.
 17

FINAL REPORT

​ It is also worth noting that the positive slope of Figure IV.2 (slope = 5.79×10⁻²) compared
to the negative slope of Figure IV.1 (slope = -0.0005) is more directionally consistent with the
theoretical expectation that -ln(DOs - DO) should increase over time as oxygen transfer
proceeds. The individual Ks values per interval in Table IV.2 exhibit far greater variance
(ranging from -0.08102 to 0.11630 min-1) than those in Table IV.1 (ranging from -0.02797 to
0.11695 min-1), reflecting the more dynamic oxygen exchange under the higher flow rate.
However, the low R² values in both figures confirm that neither dataset conforms well to ideal
first order kinetics, and the linear regression slope should not be taken as a reliable measure of
the true transfer rate.

​ The comparison between the 6 L/min and 8 L/min conditions provides insight into how
air flow rate influences aeration efficiency. As described, diffuser-based systems inject fine gas
bubbles near the tank bottom, and the rising bubbles create a large gas-liquid interfacial area
while simultaneously inducing air-lift mixing that promotes surface renewal and reduces liquid
film thickness (Al-Ahmady, 2006). A higher air flow rate amplifies all of these mechanisms:
more bubbles are generated per unit time, the total interfacial area (a) increases, and the
turbulence intensity in the bulk liquid rises. From the perspective of the volumetric mass
transfer coefficient (KLa), both KL and a are positively affected by increased flow rate. KL
increases because greater turbulence reduces the stagnant film thickness, while a increases
because more bubbles with fine diameters are produced, yielding a higher surface-to-volume
ratio. Where a higher gas holdup from greater flow directly increases the interfacial area.

​ In practical terms, the higher absolute Ks at 8 L/min compared to 6 L/min supports this
theoretical reasoning. While the average Ks values are small in magnitude for both conditions
partly due to the non-ideal data scatter described above the trend is directionally consistent with
established mass transfer theory. For systems where rapid oxygen replenishment is critical,
such as in biological wastewater treatment aeration basins, increasing the air supply rate is a
well-established strategy to enhance oxygen transfer efficiency (Metcalf & Eddy, 2014).

​ Several factors may have contributed to the deviation of the experimental results from
theoretical predictions. First, the DO sensor placement is critical: as stated in the experimental
limitations, any air bubble contact with the sensor produces readings that reflect the gas phase
rather than the dissolved oxygen in the bulk liquid. The irregular DO fluctuations in both tables
strongly suggest that this occurred intermittently throughout the experiment.
 18

FINAL REPORT

​ Second, the assumption of a uniform, well-mixed liquid volume may not have held
perfectly, particularly at lower air flow rates (6 L/min), where mixing intensity may have been
insufficient to homogenize the bulk DO concentration. The air-lift mixing effect of rising
bubbles is critical to surface renewal; at lower flow rates, this effect is diminished, leading to
spatial gradients in DO that a single point sensor cannot fully characterize.

​ Third, the saturation DO values used (DOs = 7.559 mg/L at 30°C for 6 L/min and a
temperature-interpolated DOs ranging from 7.572 to 8.188 mg/L per interval for 8 L/min)
reflect temperature-dependent solubility as governed by Henry's Law. The varying temperature
across the 8 L/min run means that the thermodynamic driving force for oxygen absorption
shifted from interval to interval, with the notably lower temperature at t = 8 min (25.5°C)
producing a higher DOs of 8.188 mg/L and thus a larger concentration driving force at that
point, which would tend to increase the local transfer rate independent of flow rate effects
alone.​ ​

​ ​

​ ​

​
 19

FINAL REPORT

V.​ CONCLUSION

1.​ Regarding the observation of dissolved oxygen changes, the DO concentration in the
deoxygenated water did not exhibit a smooth, monotonically increasing trend toward
saturation as theoretically expected. Instead, DO readings fluctuated non-monotonically
across consecutive time intervals in both the 6 L/min and 8 L/min conditions.
Nevertheless, the aeration process via the submerged diffuser was confirmed to actively
introduce oxygen into the solution throughout the entire 24 minute observation window,
indicating that oxygen transfer was ongoing despite the data scatter observed.
2.​ With respect to the determination of the absorption coefficient, the Ks value was
successfully calculated for each consecutive time interval using the formula Ks =
ln[(DOs - DOt1) / (DOs - DOt2)] / (t2 - t1). For Diffuser at 6 L/min with DOs = 7.559
mg/L at 30°C, the average Ks obtained was -0.00090 min-1, while for Diffuser at 8
L/min with DOs = 7.691 mg/L at 29°C, the average Ks was -0.00542 min-1. The
negative sign of both average values is attributable to the direction of DO fluctuations
within the dataset rather than a physical reversal of oxygen transfer. The low R² values
obtained from Figure IV.1 (R² = 0.0629) and Figure IV.2 (R² = 0.0005) further indicate
that the experimental data deviated considerably from the ideal linear first-order kinetic
model, likely due to sensor interference from rising air bubbles and non-uniform mixing
conditions within the tank.
3.​ The influence of air flow rate on aeration effectiveness, the absolute magnitude of the
average Ks at 8 L/min (|Ks| = 0.00542 min-1) was approximately six times greater than
that at 6 L/min (|Ks| = 0.00090 min-1), confirming that the higher air flow rate produced
a more active oxygen transfer process. This finding is consistent with mass transfer
theory, which predicts that increasing the air flow rate through a submerged diffuser
increases gas holdup, expands the gas liquid interfacial area, enhances turbulence, and
reduces the stagnant liquid film thickness, all of which collectively raise the absorption
coefficient Ks. It can therefore be concluded that an air flow rate of 8 L/min is more
effective in promoting oxygen absorption into the liquid compared to 6 L/min under the
conditions tested in this experiment.

​
 20

FINAL REPORT

REFERENCE

Al-Ahmady, K. K. (2006). Analysis of oxygen transfer performance on sub-surface aeration

systems. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 3(3),
301–308.
Al-Habaibeh, A., Watkins, K., Watterson, K., & Shakmak, B. (2021). Assessing the impact of a
novel hemispherical diffuser on a single-tank sensible thermal energy storage system.
Energy Reports, 7, 4381–4393.
Garcia-Ochoa, F., & Gomez, E. (2009). Bioreactor scale-up and models. Biotechnology
Advances, 27(2), 153–176.
Geankoplis, C. J. (2003). Transport processes and separation process principles (4th ed.).
Prentice Hall.
Mawire, A., & Taole, S. H. (2014). Experimental energy and exergy performance of a solar
thermal energy storage system during charging. Energy and Buildings, 84, 386–394.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2014). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and resource recovery (5th
ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Syeda, S. R., Arifin, B. M. S., Islam, M. M., & Kumar, A. (2010). Demonstration of mass
transfer using aeration of water. Journal of Chemical Engineering, IEB, 25(1), 56–60.
Yang, H.-C., & Park, S.-K. (2012). Oxygen transfer characteristics of an ejector aeration
system. International Journal of Fluid Machinery and Systems, 5(1), 10–15.
Zhu, J., Jin, B., & He, G. (2019). Bubble dynamics and mass transfer in gas-liquid reactors: A
review. Chemical Engineering Science, 202, 342–365.

​​
 21

FINAL REPORT

APPENDIX

Appendix A. Air Flow Rate: 6 L/min

Formula: Ks = ln[(DOs - DOt1) / (DOs - DOt2)] / (t2 - t1)

DOs = 7.559 mg/L (T = 30°C, S = 0 ppt, Benson et al., 1984)

A1. Interval: 2 to 4 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 22.5) / (7.559 - 23.1)) / (4 - 2)
Ks = ln(-14.9410 / -15.5410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9614) / 2 = -0.03937 / 2 = -0.01969 min-1

A2. Interval: 4 to 6 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 23.1) / (7.559 - 23.2)) / (6 - 4)
Ks = ln(-15.5410 / -15.6410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9936) / 2 = -0.00641 / 2 = -0.00321 min-1

A3. Interval: 6 to 8 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 23.2) / (7.559 - 24.1)) / (8 - 6)
Ks = ln(-15.6410 / -16.5410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9456) / 2 = -0.05595 / 2 = -0.02797 min-1

A4. Interval: 8 to 10 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 24.1) / (7.559 - 24.0)) / (10 - 8)
Ks = ln(-16.5410 / -16.4410) / 2
Ks = ln(1.0061) / 2 = 0.00606 / 2 = 0.00303 min-1

A5. Interval: 10 to 12 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 24.0) / (7.559 - 24.1)) / (12 - 10)
Ks = ln(-16.4410 / -16.5410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9940) / 2 = -0.00606 / 2 = -0.00303 min-1
 22

FINAL REPORT

A6. Interval: 12 to 14 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 24.1) / (7.559 - 24.6)) / (14 - 12)
Ks = ln(-16.5410 / -17.0410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9707) / 2 = -0.02978 / 2 = -0.01489 min-1

A7. Interval: 14 to 16 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 24.6) / (7.559 - 25.3)) / (16 - 14)
Ks = ln(-17.0410 / -17.7410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9605) / 2 = -0.04026 / 2 = -0.02013 min-1

A8. Interval: 16 to 18 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 25.3) / (7.559 - 21.6)) / (18 - 16)
Ks = ln(-17.7410 / -14.0410) / 2
Ks = ln(1.2635) / 2 = 0.23390 / 2 = 0.11695 min-1

A9. Interval: 18 to 20 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 21.6) / (7.559 - 22.1)) / (20 - 18)
Ks = ln(-14.0410 / -14.5410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9656) / 2 = -0.03499 / 2 = -0.01750 min⁻¹

A10. Interval: 20 to 22 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 22.1) / (7.559 - 21.9)) / (22 - 20)
Ks = ln(-14.5410 / -14.3410) / 2
Ks = ln(1.0139) / 2 = 0.01385 / 2 = 0.00692 min-1

A11. Interval: 22 to 24 minutes

Ks = ln((7.559 - 21.9) / (7.559 - 22.8)) / (24 - 22)
Ks = ln(-14.3410 / -15.2410) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9409) / 2 = -0.06087 / 2 = -0.03043 min-1
 23

FINAL REPORT

Average Ks (Diffuser 6 L/min) = -0.00090 min-1

Table A. Ks Values Diffuser 6 L/min

t₁ t₂ DOt₁ (%) DOt₂ (%) DOs-DOt₁ DOs-DOt₂ 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡1 Ks (min-1)

ln 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡2
(min) (min)

2 4 22.5 23.1 -14.9410 -15.5410 -0.03937 -0.01969

4 6 23.1 23.2 -15.5410 -15.6410 -0.00641 -0.00321

6 8 23.2 24.1 -15.6410 -16.5410 -0.05595 -0.02797

8 10 24.1 24.0 -16.5410 -16.4410 0.00606 0.00303

10 12 24.0 24.1 -16.4410 -16.5410 -0.00606 -0.00303

12 14 24.1 24.6 -16.5410 -17.0410 -0.02978 -0.01489

14 16 24.6 25.3 -17.0410 -17.7410 -0.04026 -0.02013

16 18 25.3 21.6 -17.7410 -14.0410 0.23390 0.11695

18 20 21.6 22.1 -14.0410 -14.5410 -0.03499 -0.01750

20 22 22.1 21.9 -14.5410 -14.3410 0.01385 0.00692

22 24 21.9 22.8 -14.3410 -15.2410 -0.06087 -0.03043

Average Ks = -0.00090

Appendix B. Air Flow Rate: 8 L/min

Formula: Ks = ln[(DOs - DOt1) / (DOs - DOt2)] / (t2 - t1)

B1. Interval: 2 to 4 minutes

DOs (29.8°C) = 7.691 + ((29.8 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.585 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.585 - 21.9) / (7.585 - 22.6)) / (4 - 2)

 24

FINAL REPORT

Ks = ln(-14.3146 / -15.0146) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9534) / 2 = -0.04774 / 2 = -0.02387 min-1

B2. Interval: 4 to 6 minutes

DOs (29.9°C) = 7.691 + ((29.9 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.572 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.572 - 22.6) / (7.572 - 23.2)) / (6 - 4)

Ks = ln(-15.0278 / -15.6278) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9616) / 2 = -0.03915 / 2 = -0.01957 min-1

B3. Interval: 6 to 8 minutes

DOs (29.9°C) = 7.691 + ((29.9 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.572 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.572 - 23.2) / (7.572 - 22.4)) / (8 - 6)

Ks = ln(-15.6278 / -14.8278) / 2
Ks = ln(1.0540) / 2 = 0.05255 / 2 = 0.02627 min-1

B4. Interval: 8 to 10 minutes

DOs (25.5°C) = 8.263 + ((25.5 - 25) / (26 - 25)) × (8.113 - 8.263)
= 8.188 mg/L

Ks = ln((8.188 - 22.4) / (8.188 - 23.5)) / (10 - 8)

Ks = ln(-14.2120 / -15.3120) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9282) / 2 = -0.07455 / 2 = -0.03728 min-1

B5. Interval: 10 to 12 minutes

DOs (29.7°C) = 7.691 + ((29.7 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.599 mg/L
 25

FINAL REPORT

Ks = ln((7.599 - 23.5) / (7.599 - 20.2)) / (12 - 10)

Ks = ln(-15.9014 / -12.6014) / 2
Ks = ln(1.2619) / 2 = 0.23260 / 2 = 0.11630 min-1

B6. Interval: 12 to 14 minutes

DOs (29.9°C) = 7.691 + ((29.9 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.572 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.572 - 20.2) / (7.572 - 18.8)) / (14 - 12)

Ks = ln(-12.6278 / -11.2278) / 2
Ks = ln(1.1247) / 2 = 0.11751 / 2 = 0.05875 min-1

B7. Interval: 14 to 16 minutes

DOs (29.5°C) = 7.691 + ((29.5 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.625 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.625 - 18.8) / (7.625 - 20.7)) / (16 - 14)

Ks = ln(-11.1750 / -13.0750) / 2
Ks = ln(0.8547) / 2 = -0.15702 / 2 = -0.07851 min-1

B8. Interval: 16 to 18 minutes

DOs (29.9°C) = 7.691 + ((29.9 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.572 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.572 - 20.7) / (7.572 - 22.6)) / (18 - 16)

Ks = ln(-13.1278 / -15.0278) / 2
Ks = ln(0.8736) / 2 = -0.13517 / 2 = -0.06758 min-1

B9. Interval: 18 to 20 minutes

DOs (29.9°C) = 7.691 + ((29.9 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.572 mg/L
 26

FINAL REPORT

Ks = ln((7.572 - 22.6) / (7.572 - 20.7)) / (20 - 18)

Ks = ln(-15.0278 / -13.1278) / 2
Ks = ln(1.1447) / 2 = 0.13517 / 2 = 0.06758 min-1

B10. Interval: 20 to 22 minutes

DOs (29.5°C) = 7.691 + ((29.5 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.625 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.625 - 20.7) / (7.625 - 23.0)) / (22 - 20)

Ks = ln(-13.0750 / -15.3750) / 2
Ks = ln(0.8504) / 2 = -0.16204 / 2 = -0.08102 min-1

B11. Interval: 22 to 24 minutes

DOs (29.9°C) = 7.691 + ((29.9 - 29) / (30 - 29)) × (7.559 - 7.691)
= 7.572 mg/L

Ks = ln((7.572 - 23.0) / (7.572 - 23.7)) / (24 - 22)

Ks = ln(-15.4278 / -16.1278) / 2
Ks = ln(0.9566) / 2 = -0.04437 / 2 = -0.02219 min-1

Average Ks (Diffuser 8 L/min) = -0.00556 min-1

Table B. Ks Values Diffuser 8 L/min

t₁ t₂ DOt₁ (%) DOt₂ (%) DOs-DOt₁ DOs-DOt₂ ln Ks (min-1)

(min) (min) 𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡1
𝐷𝑜𝑠− 𝐷𝑜𝑡2

2 4 21.9 22.6 -14.3146 -15.0146 -0.04774 -0.02387

4 6 22.6 23.2 -15.0278 -15.6278 -0.03915 -0.01957

6 8 23.2 22.4 -15.6278 -14.8278 0.05255 0.02627

 27

FINAL REPORT

8 10 22.4 23.5 -14.2120 -15.3120 -0.07455 -0.03728

10 12 23.5 20.2 -15.9014 -12.6014 0.23260 0.11630

12 14 20.2 18.8 -12.6278 -11.2278 0.11751 0.05875

14 16 18.8 20.7 -11.1750 -13.0750 -0.15702 -0.07851

16 18 20.7 22.6 -13.1278 -15.0278 -0.13517 -0.06758

18 20 22.6 20.7 -15.0278 -13.1278 0.13517 0.06758

20 22 20.7 23.0 -13.0750 -15.3750 -0.16204 -0.08102

22 24 23.0 23.7 -15.4278 -16.1278 -0.04437 -0.02219

Average Ks = -0.00556