4
The sonicated deionized water containing the acid was sub-
sequently evaluated using the Automatic Potentiometric
Titrator, shown in Figure 4, to ascertain the concentration
of acid obtained at the sampling point of the monitoring
chamber. The titration was repeated three times for each 50
mL sonicated solution. In doing this, 30 mL solution was
pipetted from the 50 mL sonicated solution (10 mL for
each titration). To each 10 mL sonicated solution, a 40 mL
deionized water was added to reach a 50 mL mark required
by the titrator.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter details the results of the experimental study on
the effects of organic solutions and surfactants on acid mist
suppression. The findings are analyzed in connection with
the research objectives established in Chapter One. The
results are displayed in a graph illustrating plots that depict
mist concentrations relative to the number of contacts or
frequencies and suppression efficiencies at different con-
tact tests or frequencies for the electrolyte-surfactants and
organic solution interaction. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illus-
trate the correlations between the number of contacts, the
mist concentrations, and the suppression efficiencies for the
combination of electrolyte-FC1100, electrolyte-Licorice,
and the organic solution/phase.
The data points (x-axis) showing 0, 1, 5, and 10 con-
tacts represent the number of times the electrolyte-sur-
factant and the organic phase were in contact. The Y-axis
represents the measured acid mist concentration on the fil-
ter during the sampling period. The suppression efficiency
in percentage is plotted on the secondary y-axis to indicate
how well the combination of surfactant and organic solvent
reduces mist. Three sets of titration data are shown on the
graphs, denoted by blue. The values of mist concentration
for varying numbers of contacts are displayed in these data
points (0, 1, 5, 10). The red dot shows the average/mean
of the three titrations for each contact test. The dashed line
represents the electrolyte concentration without any addi-
tives (raw electrolyte). This is the reference or the bench-
mark to compare the various mist concentrations.
In Figure 5, the average mist concentration decreased
significantly from 7.102 mg/m3 (0 contact) to 4.42 mg/
m3 (1 contact). This shows that the electrolyte-surfactant’s
initial contact with the organic phase significantly impacts
acid mist reduction. After the initial contact, the average
mist concentration remains consistent with modest fluctua-
tions (4.235 mg/m3 at five contacts and 4.746 mg/m3 at
ten contacts). This suggests that subsequent interactions fail
to decrease mist concentration further substantially. The
graph also shows a suppression efficiency of 35.59% with
no contact. The efficiency increases drastically to 59.913%,
indicating that the first contact significantly impacts mist
suppression, albeit not as large as demonstrated in Figure 6.
There is a tiny increase to 61.593% at five contacts, fol-
lowed by a slight decline to 56.958% at ten contacts. The
Figure 3. Experimental setup
Figure 4. Automatic potentiometric titrator
The sonicated deionized water containing the acid was sub-
sequently evaluated using the Automatic Potentiometric
Titrator, shown in Figure 4, to ascertain the concentration
of acid obtained at the sampling point of the monitoring
chamber. The titration was repeated three times for each 50
mL sonicated solution. In doing this, 30 mL solution was
pipetted from the 50 mL sonicated solution (10 mL for
each titration). To each 10 mL sonicated solution, a 40 mL
deionized water was added to reach a 50 mL mark required
by the titrator.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter details the results of the experimental study on
the effects of organic solutions and surfactants on acid mist
suppression. The findings are analyzed in connection with
the research objectives established in Chapter One. The
results are displayed in a graph illustrating plots that depict
mist concentrations relative to the number of contacts or
frequencies and suppression efficiencies at different con-
tact tests or frequencies for the electrolyte-surfactants and
organic solution interaction. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illus-
trate the correlations between the number of contacts, the
mist concentrations, and the suppression efficiencies for the
combination of electrolyte-FC1100, electrolyte-Licorice,
and the organic solution/phase.
The data points (x-axis) showing 0, 1, 5, and 10 con-
tacts represent the number of times the electrolyte-sur-
factant and the organic phase were in contact. The Y-axis
represents the measured acid mist concentration on the fil-
ter during the sampling period. The suppression efficiency
in percentage is plotted on the secondary y-axis to indicate
how well the combination of surfactant and organic solvent
reduces mist. Three sets of titration data are shown on the
graphs, denoted by blue. The values of mist concentration
for varying numbers of contacts are displayed in these data
points (0, 1, 5, 10). The red dot shows the average/mean
of the three titrations for each contact test. The dashed line
represents the electrolyte concentration without any addi-
tives (raw electrolyte). This is the reference or the bench-
mark to compare the various mist concentrations.
In Figure 5, the average mist concentration decreased
significantly from 7.102 mg/m3 (0 contact) to 4.42 mg/
m3 (1 contact). This shows that the electrolyte-surfactant’s
initial contact with the organic phase significantly impacts
acid mist reduction. After the initial contact, the average
mist concentration remains consistent with modest fluctua-
tions (4.235 mg/m3 at five contacts and 4.746 mg/m3 at
ten contacts). This suggests that subsequent interactions fail
to decrease mist concentration further substantially. The
graph also shows a suppression efficiency of 35.59% with
no contact. The efficiency increases drastically to 59.913%,
indicating that the first contact significantly impacts mist
suppression, albeit not as large as demonstrated in Figure 6.
There is a tiny increase to 61.593% at five contacts, fol-
lowed by a slight decline to 56.958% at ten contacts. The
Figure 3. Experimental setup
Figure 4. Automatic potentiometric titrator