Scientific & Technical Report GDS120

Analysis of Foaming Mechanisms

in Amine Plants

Presented by:

C. Richard Pauley
Pauley Gas Conditioning
Chattanooga, Tennessee
and
Reza Hashemi
Scott Caothien
Pall Corporation
East Hills, New York
to the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Summer Meeting
August 22-24, 1988
Denver, Colorado
 Scientific & Technical Report
Analysis of Foaming Mechanisms in Amine Plants
Presented by: C. Richard Pauley, Pauley Gas Conditioning, Chattanooga, Tennessee
and Reza Hashemi, Scott Caothien, Pall Corporation, East Hills, New York
To the: American Institute of Chemical Engineers Summer Meeting
August 22-24, 1988, Denver, Colorado

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................4

2.0 MECHANICS OF FOAM FORMATION AND STABILITY

2.1 Surface Tension & Foaming Tendency ...................................................................... 4

2.2 Elasticity of Film Layer & Foam Stability .................................................................... 4

2.3 Gelatinous Layer Formation & Hydrocarbon Solubility ................................................ 5

2.4 Film Drainage & Foam Stability ...................................................................... 5

2.5 Iron Sulfide & Surface Viscosity ............................................................ 6

3.0 DATA & EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ................................................................ 7

4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Contaminants ................................................................................... 11

4.2 Foam Stability as an Indication of Problematic Behavior ............................ 11

4.3 Factors Influencing Foam Stability .............................................................. 11

4.4 Effect of Contaminants on Foam Stability ...................................................... 11

4.5 Contaminant Removal ............................................................................ 12

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................ 13

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.. ........................... 14

7.0 APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES AND APPARATUS

A.1 Determination of Foaming Tendency and Stability .................................................... 14

A.2 Determination of Surface Tension ............................................................................ 15

A.3 Determination of Carbon Efficiency .......................................................................... 15

1.0 Introduction

Foaming in amine plants increases operating Since pure amines do not form stable foams, one
costs and reduces treating efficiency. When foam- or more components must be present in the
ing becomes severe, amine is often carried over treating solution in order to form a persistent
into downstream treating equipment. It is com- foam.3 Possible contaminants include not only liq-
monly held that liquid hydrocarbons and iron uid hydrocarbons and iron sulfide, but well treat-
sulfide cause foaming. Most treatments rely heav- ing fluids, amine degradation products, and other
ily on carbon filtration and the addition of finely divided solids. The purpose of this work
antifoam agents to the circulating solutions. 1,2 is to determine the physical/chemical mecha-
Unfortunately, most antifoam agents are surface nisms which cause foaming and offer some prac-
active, and are removed by activated carbon. tical solutions to control the foaming.
Most often, after a brief improvement the prob-
lem becomes worse.

2.0 Mechanics of Foam Formation and Stability

Foam is the result of a mechanical incorporation In order to expend the surface, molecules must
of a gas into a liquid. The liquid film surrounds move from the interior of the liquid to the surface.
a volume of gas creating a bubble. The formation This movement requires overcoming forces such
and stability of the bubble depends somewhat as dipolar effects and hydrogen bonding. A non-
on physical conditions such as temperature and polar liquid with a minimal amount of hydrogen
pressure. Foam is primarily dependent on surface bonding would require little work to expand its
characteristics such as elasticity of the film layer, surface. It follows that liquid hydrocarbons would
gelatinous layer efficiency, drainage, and surface have a low surface tension and tend to foam,while
viscosity. polar aqueous alkanolamine solutions would have
a high surface tension and tend not to foam.
2.1 Surface Tension & Foaming Tendency
The surface tension is an indication of a solu- 2.2 Elasticity of Film Layer & Foam Stability
tions tendency to foam. The surface tension () Low surface tension alone does not ensure a sta-
is a force acting parallel to the surface which ble foam.3,4 The nature of the surface layer is
opposes any attempt to expand the surface area more important to foam stability than just a low
(A). The work required to expand the surface surface tension. Consider a bubble wall or film
area is called the surface free energy (G) and which is a dynamic system constantly stretching
depends on cohesive and intermolecular forces and contracting. After stretching, the thinner film
in the liquid: section contains less liquid and has a higher sur-
Surface Free Energy, dG = dA (EQ.1) face tension. Liquid tends to migrate along the
bubble wall to restore equilibrium carrying with
Figure 1A it a relatively thick layer of underlying fluid which
Unstable Foam in
Uncontaminated Gravity
restores film thickness (Figure 1A). This ability to
Liquids resist film thinning is referred to as film elastici-
ty. Gibbs defined elasticity in terms of the sur-
Low
Surface
face tension () and surface area (A) by the
Viscosity relation:
Elasticity,E = 2A (d/dA) (EQ.2)

Capillary Tension

4
Antifoamers are chemicals which are designed to Any chemical species which lowers the surface
increase the elasticity.5 When the chemicals tension (enhanced foaming tendency) or pro-
migration along the surface is slower than its motes gelatinous layer formation (enhances foam
migration from the bulk to the bubble wall, the stability) can create a problem in amine treating
thinned spot will not heal. Such a foam is weak solution. Acidic amine degradation products do
and unstable. both,and since acidic amine degradation products
are soluble in the treating solution, small con-
2.3 Gelatinous Layer Formation & centrations can be quite influential. Acidic amine
Hydrocarbon Solubility degradation products have been observed in used
Factors which increase hydrocarbon solubility MEA,DEA and MDEA solutions.6 The rate and type
will increase the solutions tendency to foam, of degradation products formed depends on the
and factors which increase gelatinous layer for- type of amine. MEA is quite easily degraded when
mation will increase foam stability. compared to DEA and MDEA. MEA and DEA
have labile hydrogen atoms attached to the nitro-
The gelatinous nature of the surface layer con- gen atom and form certain degradation products
tributes enormously to foam stability. Gelatinous which MDEA can not.Some of the more common
surface layers are plastic,i.e.,they remain motion- degradation reactions are shown in Table 1.
less under a shearing stress until the stress exceeds
a certain yield value. The small gravitational and TABLE 1 SOME AMINE DEGRADATION REACTIONS

capillary stress acting on the surface is usually less Oxidation of amine to form carboxylic acids and
ammonia.
than the yield value. Consequently,the formation
of a plastic or gelatinous layer has a tremendous Internal dehydration of amine carbonate to form
HEOZD.
foam stabilizing effect. Molecules containing long
unbranched hydrocarbons and small terminal Simultaneous dehydration and decarboxylation of
HEOZD to form THEED.
polar groups form gelatinous surface layers.3
Internal dehydration of THEED to form DEP.
Secondary and tertiary amines would tend not to
foam; therefore, foam stability is a moot point in Double dehydration of DEA in presence of MEA to
form HEP.
a clean amine solution. However, the addition of
a chemical species promotes a gelatinous layer. Condensation of two MEA molecules to form
Piperazine.
If such a solution begins to foam, the foam will
Acylation of tertiary amines to form Quaternary
be quite stable.
Ammonium Salts.

HEOZD N(hydroxyethyl) oxazolidone

The addition of liquid hydrocarbons to amine
THEED Tri(hydroxyethyl) ethylenediamine
solutions has been considered the primary cause
DEP Diethanolpiperazine
of foaming problems. However, liquid hydrocar-
HEP N(hydroxyethyl) piperazine
bons will only reduce the surface tension of the
solution and increase its tendency to foam to the
extent that liquid hydrocarbons are more soluble
2.4 Film Drainage & Foam Stability
in the bulk solution. Since liquid hydrocarbons
Stable foams drain slowly. Film drainage is a
are more soluble in secondary and tertiary amines,
process by which the liquid around the bubbles
secondary and tertiary amines are more likely to
migrates from the cell wall into the intersection
foam in the presence of liquid hydrocarbons.
of the bubbles. The geometry of the bubble inter-
The ability to form gelatinous surface layers also
section results in capillary tension which draws
means that secondary and tertiary amine foams
the liquid into the intersections and away from
will be quite stable.
the wall until the bubble ruptures. The capillary
action is influenced by the external forces such

5
 as repulsive Coulombic forces,vapor velocity,and 10 micron absolute polypropylene cartridge show-
gravity. Repulsive Coulombic forces retard the ing iron sulfide particles which are primarily sub-
formation of bubble intersections and limit micron in size. Colloidal iron sulfide particles are
drainage. Gravity tends to accelerate downflow so small that they remain in suspension indefinitely
drainage while vapor velocity tends to hold liq- and follow Brownian movement. They will con-
uid up in the foam and retard drainage. centrate on the liquid surface forming a quasi-
polymer network in the film around the bubbles.
2.5 Iron Sulfide & Surface Viscosity This will increase the surface viscosity and retard
Iron sulfide is produced by the reaction of H2S in the migration of liquid that thins the bubble walls.
the feed gas with iron found in the plants mate- In addition, the dipolar character of iron sulfide
rial of construction or iron oxides brought in increases the Coulombic repulsion of individual
with the feed gas. Iron sulfide produced in this foam bubbles to further retard drainage (Figure 1B).
manner is extremely fine. Figure 2 is a photomi-
crograph of a plant solution collected on a The larger particles shown in the photomicro-
graph are aggregates of iron sulfide. If iron sul-
Figure 1B
Stable Foam in fide is allowed to concentrate in the solution, it
Vapor Loss
Contaminated can form aggregates that can become attached to
Liquids
vessel orifices and restrict gas flow. The restric-
High tions caused by these aggregates increases the
Surface vapor velocity through the tower. The increased
Viscosity
vapor velocity further limits drainage and enhances
Gelatinous
Layers the stability of the foam.
Coulombic Forces

Figure 2
Collection of
Submicron Iron
Sulfide Particles

6
3.0 Data and Experimental Results

The surface tensions of the commercial amines The foaming tendency (foam height) and stabil-
were determined, at various concentrations, using ity (break time) of commercial amines were
the procedure described in the Appendices. The evaluated using the procedure described in the
results are presented in Figure 3. The surface Appendices. The results are presented in
tension of MDEA is slightly lower than MEA and Figure 4A. Based on the results, pure MEA,
DEA, but formulated solvents have surface ten- DEA, and MDEA solutions do not foam apprecia-
sions significantly lower than MEA and DEA. The bly, and the small amount of foam produced is
formulations must contain additives that decrease unstable. The two formulated MDEA solvents
surface tension. Such additives commonly found have a greater foaming tendency and produce a
in formulated products increase the foaming ten- more stable foam than the generic MDEA solution.
dency and foam stability as indicated by the data
in Figure 4A.

Figure 3
Surface Tension of 75
Aqueous Amine
Solutions
70
Surface Tension (Dynes/cm)

At Ambient
Temperature
65

60

55

50

45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Amine Concentration (Percent)

MEA DEA MDEA MDEA Formula #1 MDEA Formula #2

Figure 4A
Foam Height 1200 60
& Stability of
Aqueous Amines
1000 50
Break Time (Seconds)
Foam Height (MLs)

800 40

600 30

400 20

200 10

0 0
20% MEA 30% DEA 50% MDEA MDEA MDEA
Formula #1 Formula #2
Aqueous AMINE Solutions
Foam Height Foam Stability

7
 Several of the commercial amines were con- The effect of acidic amine degradation products
taminated with liquid hydrocarbon. The foaming was evaluated by adding a series of lower molec-
tendency and stability were again measured. The ular weight organic acids to 20% MEA solutions
results are presented in the first three bar group- (Figure 5A and 5B). The effect of higher molec-
ings in Figure 4B. The foaming tendency and ular weight organic acids was evaluated on 20%
stability of the MEA solution was not significantly MEA, 30% DEA, 50% MDEA, and formulated 50%
different in the presence of liquid hydrocarbon, MDEA (Figure 6A and 6B). The individual data
but the foam stabilities of MDEA and formulat- points shown on Figures 6A and 6B illustrate the
ed MDEA significantly increased. The addition of proportionate difference between 20% MEA and
a small amount of organic acid to the formulat- the other amines.
ed MDEA sample enhanced both foaming ten-
dency and foam stability by several orders of
magnitude (the last bar groupings of Figure 4B).

Figure 4B
Foam Height (mls in 1000 ml Graduate)

Foam Height & 1200 60

Stability of 5,000 PPM Caprylic Acid
Aqueous Amines Also Added to Solution
1000 50

Break Time (Seconds)

Contaminated with
5,000 PPM Liquid 800 40
Hydrocarbon

600 30

400 20

200 10

0 0
20% MEA 50% MDEA MDEA MDEA
Formula #1 Formula #2
Contaminated Aqueous AMINE Solutions
Foam Height Foam Stability

Figure 5A
Foaming Tendency 700
of Contaminated
Foam Height (mls in 1000 ml Graduate)

Amine Solutions
600
20% MEA
500

400

300

200

100

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Amine Concentration (wt%)

Formic Acetic Propionic Butyric Valeric

8
Figure 5B
21
Foam Stability of
Contaminated
Amine Solutions 18

20% MEA
15

Foam Stability (Seconds)

12

0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Acid Concentration (wt%)

Formic Acetic Propionic Butyric Valeric

Figure 6A
Foaming Tendency 1200
of Contaminated
Amine Solutions 50% MDEA
1000
20% MEA
Differential Foam Height (ml)

30% DEA
800
50% MDEA
600

400

200

0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0
Acid Concentration (wt%)

Caproic Caprylic Capric Lauric

Figure 6B
Foam Stability of 100
Contaminated
Amine Solutions 50% MDEA (204 Sec.)
80
20% MEA
Foam Stability (Seconds)

60
50% MDEA

40
30% DEA

20

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Acid Concentration (wt%)
Caproic Caprylic Capric Lauric

9
 The impact of carbon filtration on contaminat- results are presented in Figures 7A and 7B. The
ed amine solutions was evaluated by filtering data shows that some activated carbons are total-
contaminated amines through activated carbon ly ineffective at removing foam promoting
using the procedure described in Appendix A. The species.

Figure 7A
Effect of Carbon 1400
Filtration on
Foaming Tendency 1200

Foam Height (mls in 1000 ml Graduate)

20% MEA
Contaminated with 1000
0.5% Caprylic
Acid
800

600

400

200

0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Carbon Bed Volumes
Carbon A Carbon B Carbon C Uncontaminated MEA

Figure 7B
Effect of Carbon 120
Filtration and Foam
Stability
100
20% MEA
Break Time (Seconds)

Contaminated with
0.5% Caprylic Acid 80

60

40

20

0
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Carbon Bed Volumes
Carbon A Carbon B Carbon C Uncontaminated MEA

10
4.0 Discussion of Results

4.1 Contaminants enhance the formation of gelatinous surface lay-

Pure amine solutions do not form stable foams. In ers, but only enhance the solutions foaming ten-
order to form a stable foam, some other compo- dency to the extent they are soluble in the solution.
nents must be present in the treating solution. Small amounts of acidic amine degradation prod-
There are two categories of contaminants, those ucts both enhance the solutions foaming ten-
contaminants which are added to the solution dency and promote foam stability.
and those which are created within the solution.
Added contaminants include liquid hydrocarbons, 4.4. Effect of Contaminants on Foam
well treating fluids, antifoam agents, corrosion Stability
inhibitors,particulates,and lubricants in the form The combination of certain contaminants can cre-
of aerosols. Contaminants created within the ate a significant foaming problem in gas treating
treating solution include basic and acidic amine solutions. In order to limit foaming problems, it
degradation products,iron sulfide,and iron oxides is necessary to remove contaminants from the
(hydroxides). Each contaminant can have an inlet gas or to remove them from the treating
impact on foaming tendency and foam stability. solution. For example:Liquid hydrocarbons have
a small effect on the foaming tendency of clean
4.2. Foam Stability as a Indication of amine solutions, but significantly stabilize aque-
Problematic Behavior ous MDEA foam (Figure 4B). When both liquid
Foaming tendency alone is not a good indication hydrocarbon and organic acid are present in the
of problematic foaming behavior. Foam stability treating solution, the foaming tendency and foam
must also be evaluated. For example, pure aque- stability are enormously increased.
ous MDEA has a lower surface tension than the
other amines and should have a greater foaming While antifoam agents reduce foaming tendency,
tendency (Figure 3). In fact, the opposite is true; they increase foam stability. Continued treatment
pure aqueous MDEA has a lower foaming ten- with antifoamer will initially knock back the foam,
dency (Figure 4A). However, the data appears to but will make the solution sensitive to smaller
be consistent with the fact that additives increase amounts of foam promoters. The best remedy is
foam stability (Figure 4B). Additives which are typ- to eliminate the need for antifoam agents by remov-
ically added to formulated MDEA to reduce sur- ing liquid hydrocarbons and other surface active
face tension actually increase foam stability. The materials from the inlet gas. Activated carbon
subsequent addition of small quantities of liquid should be used to remove amine degradation
hydrocarbons or organic acids then have an enor- products. However,activated carbon is only effec-
mously adverse effect on formulated MDEA solu- tive when properly specified and monitored.
tions.
Particulates such as iron sulfide increase the sur-
4.3. Factors Influencing Foam Stability face viscosity and inhibit film drainage. Any gas
Foam stability is primarily dependent on the for- stream which contains H2S will eventually produce
mation of a gelatinous layer and the addition of iron sulfide.The most effective way to eliminate
components which increase the surface viscosi- this contaminant is with mechanical filtration.
ty and inhibit draining. Liquid hydrocarbons

11
 4.5 Contaminant Removal Not all cartridge filters are the same. Only select-
Several types of carbon were evaluated with ed cartridge filters can be efficient in gas plant liq-
respect to their ability to remove organic acids uid systems. Any filter will remove some
(Figures 7A and 7B). Based on the data, carbon contaminants, but it is the fine particles which
with a high iodine number is more effective. must be removed in order to minimize surface
(Iodine numbers are empirical values which viscosity. Nominal cartridge filters will pass such
denote the efficiency of carbon at adsorbing cer- particles and are ineffective in foam control. Rather
tain types of chemicals.) However, any activated they remove the aggregates and larger solids,result-
carbon becomes ineffective when surface active ing in some apparent cleanliness. This apparent
compounds begin to breakthrough. A side stream cleanliness is not necessarily a sign of troublefree
reclaimer can be effective at removing some con- operation. Colloidal particles will remain in the sys-
taminants, but without a reclaimer activated car- tem and over-contaminate the solution which
bon assumes the entire duty. Unfortunately, will ultimately increase surface viscosity and foam
activated carbon will not remove every contami- stability.
nant, particularly lower molecular weight organ-
ic acids. These acids tend to concentrate in the To maintain a clean system,the majority of the col-
solution and will increase foam stability in high loidal particles must be removed. Filtration at
enough concentrations. Since secondary and ter- 0.5 micro absolute is required in order to assure
tiary amine processes preclude the use of a sufficiently low levels of solids. Coarser filters
reclaimer, effective carbon and mechanical filtra- (e.g.,10 or 20 micron absolute) are partially effec-
tion are critically important in DEA and MDEA tive because they are also partially effective in
based processes. submicron levels (Figure 2).

The amount of carbon required and its effective- In a recent case study at a natural gas treating
ness depends on the type and amount of con- plan in Texas,10 micron absolute filters effectively
taminants to be removed. In this case, activated eliminated a persistent foaming problem.7 The
carbon should be selected on the basis of iodine plant in question had experienced a persistent
number. A high iodine number is more effective foaming problem in its MEA unit. The unit con-
at removing the type of compounds which pro- tained a full flow carbon filter and full flow
mote and stabilize foam. Additives must be care- mechanical filter. Nominal filter elements would
fully evaluated when using activated carbon. plug frequently indicating that something was
Surface active additives will be adsorbed onto being removed, but the foaming problem per-
activated carbon and simply increase the carbon sisted. Even fresh activated carbon gave little
requirement. improvement. However, when the filters were
replaced with 10 micron absolute elements,foam-
Effective carbon filtration will also remove some ing was effectively eliminated. As a result, the
particles. However,fine colloidal solids (e.g., iron amine carryover as gradually reduced (Figure 8).
sulfide) can pass through the bed while larger par-
ticles or aggregates will plug the bed. Cartridge fil-
ters are typically used on a side stream of the treating
solution but have been used on full streams as well.
These filters are supposed to remove solid con-
taminants from the liquid and also protect the car-
bon beds.

12
Figure 8
Amine & Filter 100 100
Element
Consumption

MEA Consumption (Lbs/MM scf)

80 80
27 MMSCFD
Texas Gas Plant

Filter Elements
85% Basis
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
Lbs/MM scf 21.5 8.7 3.6 7.2 5.9 36.8 6.9 2.1 2.5 4.9 7.4 3.6 3.9 20.6 1.8 6.5
Nominal Elements 88 88 88 88 88 44
Absolute Elements 44 22
22 33 55 44 33 22 11 11 11 33
Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

5.0 Conclusions

1.0 Clean amine solutions do not form stable onto activated carbon and simply increase the
foams. carbon requirement. Antifoam agents,which
2.0 Contaminants such as liquid hydrocarbons, reduce the foaming tendency, can increase
well treating fluids,corrosion inhibitors,lubri- foam stability.
cants, acidic amine degradation products, 7.0 Liquid hydrocarbons play a significant role
and particulate matter promote the formation in the foaming mechanism due to their abil-
of foam,but more importantly stabilize foam. ity to promote gelatinous layer formation. A
3.0 Stable foams are the result of contaminants high efficiency liquid gas coalescing filter,
which promote the formation of a gelati- installed ahead of the adsorber, is the most
nous layer,increase the surface viscosity,and effective way to limit liquid hydrocarbon
inhibit drainage. carryover into the process. (The size of liq-
4.0 MDEA and formulated MDEA solutions tend uid particles found in process gases are typ-
to form quite stable foams when contami- ically on the order of 0.1 to 0.6 microns.8
nated by small amounts of liquid hydrocar- Conventional inlet gas separators are not
bons and organic acids. effective at removing liquid hydrocarbons
5.0 Activated carbon can be effective at reduc- which are less than 3 microns in size. 9, 10)
ing foaming problems. Selection and time- 8.0 Iron sulfide, carbon fines, and colloidal iron
ly replacement are important.Carbon should oxides will increase the surface viscosity.
be selected on the basis of iodine number. Aggregates will increase the vapor rate which
A high iodine number is more effective. The will retard film drainage. Fine particles can
carbon should be replaced when the foam be effectively removed only by absolute rated
stability (not foaming tendency) first begins cartridges. Experience indicates that ten
to increase. (10) micron absolute is a minimum specifi-
6.0 Additives must be carefully evaluated. The cation whereas the 0.5 micron absolute fil-
use of antifoamer should be considered a ters would provide maximum protection.
temporary treatment not a long-term solution.
Surface active additives will be adsorbed

13
6.0 Bibliography

1. Agrawal, J.M.,Method of Defoaming in Gas DEA and MDEA. Presented at the 32nd Annual
Purification Systems, U.S. Patent No 4,287, Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Corporation,
Sept.1, 1981. 1982.
2. Perry,C.R., Filtration Method and Apparatus, 7. Pauley, C.R., and Perlmutter B.A.,Texas Plant
U.S. Patent No. 3,568,405, Mar. 9, 1971. Solves Foam Problems with Modified MEA
3. Ross, S., Mechanisms of Foam Stabilization System,Oil and Gas Journal, Feb. 29, 1988.
and Antifoaming Action, Chemical 8. Perlmutter, B.A., Advanced Filtration
Engineering Progress, Sept. 1967, pp. 41-47. Techniques for Optimizing Gas Plant
4. Gaden,E.L.and Kevorkian,V.,What foams are Operation,Presented at the 64th Annual Gas
and how they behave. How to eliminate trou- Processor Association Convention, Houston,
blesome foams. How to put useful foam to TX, May 18-20, 1985.
work, Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1956, 9. Monat, J.P. et al, Accurate Evaluation of
pp.173-184. Chevron Mist Eliminators, Chemical
5. Pape, P.G., Silicons: Unique Chemicals for Engineering Progress, Dec. 1986, pp. 32-39.
Petroleum Processing,Journal of Petroleum 10. Holmes, T.L., and Chen, G.K., Design and
Technology, Jun. 1983, pp. 1197-1204. Selection of Spray/Mist Elimination Equipment,
6. Blanc,C.,Grall,M.,and Demarals,G.,The Part Chemical Engineering, Oct. 15, 1984,
Played by Degradation Products in the pp. 82-89.
Corrosion of Gas Sweetening Plants using

7.0 Appendix A Experimental Procedures and Apparatus

A.1 Determination of Foaming Tendency (1) Timer or stop watch.

and Stability Procedure
Scope Step 1: Preset the flow meter to allow 4,000
This test is designed to determine the foaming ml/min. of air to sparge into the gradu-
tendency and resultant foam stability of pure ated cylinder.
liquids or mixtures. Step 2: Pour 200 ml of TEST SOLUTION into
the graduated cylinder,begin air flow,and
Principle start watch or timer.
Air is sparged through a measured amount of Step 3: After five minutes, record the foam
solution at a specified rate for a specified peri- height then ter minate air f low.
od. The difference between initial and final foam Immediately reset and restart the stop
height is measured. The air is stopped and the watch or timer.
time required for the foam to collapse is report- Step 4: Record the time required for the foam
ed. to break back to the initial level in the
graduated cylinder.
Apparatus Step 5: Thoroughly clean the graduated cylinder
(1) 1,000 2,000 ml graduated cylinder. and sparger before reuse. Very small
(1) Gas flow meters, rated up to 5,000 ml/min. amounts of surfacant may affect the test.
(1) Sparger tube, either sintered glass or metal.
(1) Length of surgical rubber tubing to connect Calculation & Data Handling
air source to flow meter and flow meter to Report initial liquid level in milliliters, final foam
sparger. height in milliliters, and break time in seconds.

14
A.2 Determination of Surface Tension Procedure
Surface tensions were determined at room Step 1: Prepare a 5 liter solution while adding the
temperature using a Fisher Surface Tensionmeter, ingredients to a reservoir. Begin mixing.
Model 20. Apparent interfacial surface tension Step 2: Place a glass wool plug in the bottom of
readings were obtained then corrected for the the carbon bed to support the carbon and
ring and wire used. charge the bed to the top and seal.
Step 3: Support the carbon bed and attach the
A.3 Determination of Carbon Efficiency tubing from the reservoir to the ball valve.
Scope Connect one port of the valve to the top
This test is designed to determine the efficiency of the carbon bed and the other port to
of activated carbon at reducing foaming tendency return solution to the reservoir.
and foam stability. Step 4: Position the ball valve to return solution
to the reservoir and establish flow. Check
Principle the flow rate calibration and catch a 300
A surface active contaminant is added to an ml sample. Mark it 0 bed volumes.
aqueous amine solution. The solution is filtered Step 5: Switch the valve to deliver solution to the
through a tube containing a measured amount of carbon bed. When liquid flows from the
activated carbon. The effluent is caught in bottom, catch the entire reservoir, 300
increments equal to the volume of carbon in the mls to a beaker. Label each beaker as
tube, i.e., bed volumes. Bed volume increments successive one-half bed volume catches
are subsequently analyzed for foaming beginning with 0.5 bed volumes.
characteristics. Step 6: Determine the foam height and break time
of each sample using the procedure
Apparatus described in Section 3.1.
(1) 6,000 ml reservoir and stirring device.
(1) Carbon bed: 2 ID X 12 L. Calculation & Data Handling
(1) Lobe pump calibrated to deliver 110 ml/min. Report initial liquid level in milliliters, final foam
of amine solution. height in milliliters, and break time in seconds.
(1) Three way ball valve.
(1) Length of 1 4 tygon tubing to connect
reservoir, pump, ball valve, and carbon bed.
(1) Supply of 500 ml beakers.

15
New York - USA Visit us on the Web at www.pall.com
888.873.7255 toll free in the USA
Pall Corporation has offices and plants throughout the world in locations including: Argentina,
+1 516 484 5400 phone Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland,
+1 516 484 0364 fax Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Puerto
fuelsandChemicals@pall.com Rico, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, United
Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela. Distributors are located in all major industrial areas of
the world.
Portsmouth - Europe
+44 (0)23 9230 3303 phone
+44 (0)23 9230 2506 fax
fuelsandChemicals@pall.com email
Copyright 2003, Pall Corporation. Pall, , are trademarks of Pall Corporation. Indicates a Pall
trademark registered in the USA. is a service mark of Pall Corporation.

Reorder Code. GDS120