EFFECTS OF ALTERNATE ANTIFOAM AGENTS, NOBLE METALS, MIXING SYSTEMS AND MASS TRANSFER ON GAS HOLDUP AND RELEASE FROM NONNEWTONIAN SLURRIES

Abstract

Gas holdup tests performed in a small-scale mechanically-agitated mixing system at the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) were reported in 2006. The tests were for a simulant of waste from the Hanford Tank 241-AZ-101 and featured additions of DOW Corning Q2-3183A Antifoam agent. Results indicated that this antifoam agent (AFA) increased gas holdup in the waste simulant by about a factor of four and, counter intuitively, that the holdup increased as the simulant shear strength decreased (apparent viscosity decreased). These results raised questions about how the AFA might affect gas holdup in Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) vessels mixed by air sparging and pulse-jet mixers (PJMs). And whether the WTP air supply system being designed would have the capacity to handle a demand for increased airflow to operate the sparger-PJM mixing systems should the AFA increase retention of the radiochemically generated flammable gases in the waste by making the gas bubbles smaller and less mobile, or decrease the size of sparger bubbles making them mix less effectively for a given airflow rate. A new testing program was developed to assess the potential effects of adding the DOW Corning Q2-3183A AFA to WTP waste streams by first confirming the results of the work reported in 2006 by Stewart et al. and then determining if the AFA in fact causes such increased gas holdup in a prototypic sparger-PJM mixing system, or if the increased holdup is just a feature of the small-scale agitation system. Other elements of the new program include evaluating effects other variables could have on gas holdup in systems with AFA additions such as catalysis from trace noble metals in the waste, determining mass transfer coefficients for the AZ-101 waste simulant, and determining whether other AFA compositions such as Dow Corning 1520-US could also increase gas holdup in Hanford waste. This new testing program was split into two investigations, prototypic sparger-PJM tests and modeling being conducted at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and small-scale agitation tests and evaluations of effects waste and AFA ingredients have on gas retention and mass transfer being conducted at SRNL. Only work conducted at SRNL is reported here. Key results are: (1) The unexpected gas holdup behavior reported in 2006 for a small-scale agitation system is confirmed. The gas holdup data from small-scale and bench-scale impeller-type mixing systems reported herein show very different trends than the behavior exhibited by the prototypic sparger-PJM mixing system tested in the PNNL APEL facility. Results obtained from testing this 1/4-scale prototypic mixing system will be reported by PNNL. The reason for this difference in holdup behavior between the two different mixing systems is not known at this time. Consequently, data from the small mechanical agitation systems should not be extrapolated to prototypic plant conditions. (2) Bench-scale and small-scale tests conducted with Dow Corning 1520-US AFA show it to be a viable replacement to Dow Corning Q2-3183A AFA. This alternative AFA will, however, require significantly higher dosage (concentration) to perform the same antifoam function. (3) Addition of noble metals to the AZ-101 waste simulant does not produce a catalytic gas retention effect with the AFA. The Gas holdup is similar whether or not noble metals are present in the AZ-101 simulant. (4) Mass transfer tests were performed in a large (0.76 m diameter) bubble column filled to 1.3, 3.4, and 7.4 m elevations with water and the AZ-101 waste simulant. Mass transfer coefficients for air bubbles emanating from a prototypic 0.051 m diameter sparger were obtained from the transient decay of dissolved oxygen concentration in the initially saturated fluids. Adding AFA to water reduces the mass transfer coefficient slightly. AFA addition reduces the mass transfer coefficient for AZ-101 simulant more than it does for water because the shear strength of the simulant allows for larger bubble sizes, and larger bubbles have smaller surface area for mass transfer than small bubbles for the same void volume.