CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY VII (EP 329)

Number of Experiment: 6 & 7

Title of Experiment : Analysis Of Water Samples & Solids Content In Wastewater
Name and ID : Maisarah Binti Abdullah (1001644692)
Group : Thursday Group
Date Of Experiment : 21/02/19
Lab Instructor : Asst. Prof. Dr. Kiew Peck Loo
Dr. Lai Li Sze
Miss Nurul Huda Binti M Ali

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY & BUILT ENVIRONMENT
JAN-APRIL 2019
NO. SUBJECT PAGE

1. Objectives 2

2. Introduction 2-4

3. Material & Methodology 5-7

4 Result and Calculation 7-15

5. Discussion 16-18

6. Limitation of the Experiment/Safety Precautions 18-19

7. Conclusion 19

8. References 19-20

9. Appendix

1
EXPERIMENT 6 & 7: Analysis Of Water Samples & Solids Content In Wastewater

OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the turbidity of water samples.
2. To determine the dissolved oxygen of water samples.
3. To determine the hardness content in wastewater samples.

INTRODUCTION
Turbidity is caused by suspended materials which absorb and scatter light. These
colloidal and finely dispersed turbidity-causing materials do not settle under quiescent conditions
and are difficult to remove by sedimentation. Turbidity is a key parameter in water supply
engineering, because turbidity will both cause water to be aesthetically unpleasant and cause
problems in water treatment processes, such as filtration and disinfection. Turbidity is also often
used as indicative evidence of the possibility of bacteria being present.
The dissolved oxygen content is an important index when considering its suitability for
town supply. A good clean potable water will give dissolved oxygen value close to the
theoretical value for the saturated solution of oxygen in water. When there is pollution from
organic matter and other trade effluents, the dissolved oxygen is up in various biochemical
oxidation processes and it slowly replaces through surface absorption. Such water will give a
low dissolved oxygen content until oxidation is completed. Adequate dissolved oxygen is
necessary for the life of fish and other aquatic organisms.
Hardness of water is a property caused by the presence of polyvalent metal cations,
primarily Ca2+ and Mg2+ in natural waters. Hardness is undesirable in a water supply because it
results in scale formation and in soap wastage. It can be easily removed by boiling the water or
by adding lime to water. Total hardness of water is composed of two components: temporary and
permanent hardness. The temporary hardness is due to the presence of carbonates and
bicarbonates of calcium and magnesium. The permanent hardness is due to the presence of
sulphates, chlorides and nitrates of calcium and magnesium. It requires special methods of water
softening.
Hardness is expressed in part per million or commonly known as ppm. Water with
hardness up to 50 ppm is known as soft water. 50-150 ppm it is termed as medium and 150-300

2
ppm is termed as moderately hard water. If the hardness is more than 300 ppm it is known as
hard water. Total hardness is commonly found by determining the amount of calcium and
magnesium by gravimetric analysis and by calculating their equivalent values in terms of
CaCO3. Hardness determination uses one of the most common agents: ethylene-diamine-tetra-
acetic acid (EDTA).
Disodium ethylene-diamine-tetra-acetic acid (Na2EDTA) forms stable complex ions with
Ca2+, Mg2+, and remove them from solution. When small amount of dye is added to the water
containing hardness ions at pH10, the solution becomes wine red and if there is no hardness the
colour is blue. With the addition of EDTA the water sample having indicator dye starts forming
stable complexes.

MATERIAL AND APPARATUS

Material
1. Rainwater
2. Lake water
3. Distilled water
4. EGTA solution
5. EDTA solution
Apparatus
1. Turbidity meter
2. Dissolved Oxygen meter
3. Water Quality meter
4. Test tube
5. Test tube holder

METHODOLOGY

Water sample collection and preparation

1. Two water samples from different location were collected which are rainwater and lake
water.
2. The water samples was placed in a cleaned bottles each.

3
Turbidity
1. A 250 ml beaker was rinsed with distilled water.
2. 100 ml of rainwater sample was poured into a 250 ml of beaker.
3. The vial from the turbidity meter was filled with rainwater until it reached the indicator line
of the vial.
4. The outer surface of vial was carefully cleaned with tissue paper before being inserted into
the turbidity meter.
5. The value shown on the turbidity meter was recorded when it have stabilized.
6. Step 3 to 5 was repeated to obtain an average reading.
7. The steps were repeated by replacing rainwater with lake water.
8. All electrical laboratory equipment was switched off and all the apparatus were cleaned
before leaving the laboratory.

Dissolved Oxygen
1. A 250 ml beaker was rinsed with distilled water.
2. 100 ml of rainwater sample was poured into a 250 ml of beaker.
3. The dissolve oxygen meter probe was carefully inserted into the rainwater in the beaker.
4. The result was recorded when the value shown have stabilized
5. The value shown on the turbidity meter was recorded when it had stabilized.
6. Step from 3 to 5 was repeated to obtain an average reading.
7. The step from 1 to 6 was repeated by replacing rainwater with lake water.
8. All electrical laboratory equipment was switched off and all the apparatus were cleaned
before leaving the laboratory.

Wastewater Hardness
1. Two test tubes was rinsed with distilled water.
2. 10mL of rainwater was poured into each test tube.
3. 3 drops of Ca+ and Mg+ indicator was added in each tube.
4. 2 drops of EGTA solution was added into one test tube and another 2 drops of EDTA
solution was added into the other tube.
5. One test tube was filled with 10mL of distilled water as blank.

4
6. The reading of the sample containing EDTA, EGTA and blank respectively were observed
and recorded.
7. Step 1 to 6 was repeated by replacing rainwater with lake water.
8. All electrical laboratory equipment was switched off and all the apparatus were cleaned
before leaving the laboratory.

RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

Turbidity

Turbidity of water samples ( mg/L )

Samples Readings
Average
1 2 3
Rainwater 0.59 0.60 0.69 0.63
Lake water 2.42 2.43 2.44 2.43
Table 1 : Turbidity meter reading of water samples.

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved Oxygen of water samples ( mg/L )

Samples Readings
Average
1 2 3
Rainwater 3.40 3.40 3.50 3.43
Lake water 2.80 2.70 2.80 2.77
Table 2 : Dissolved Oxygen, D.O. meter reading of water samples.

Wastewater Hardness

Hardness content in wastewater samples ( mg/L )

Samples
Rainwater Lake water
Agents Ca 2+ Mg 2+ Ca 2+ Mg 2+
EGTA Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
EDTA Not Applicable 2.37 4.24 1.93
Table 3 : Hardness content reading of water samples.

5
Calculations :

Turbidity
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Average turbidity meter reading of tap water = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡
(0.08+0.22+0.16)
= 3

= 0.15 mg/L
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Average turbidity meter reading of lake water = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡
(6.99+6.80+6.86)
= 3

= 6.88 mg/L
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Average turbidity meter reading of river water = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡
(4.31+4.27+4.46)
= 3

= 4.35 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷.𝑂. 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Average D.O. meter reading of lake water = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐷.𝑂. 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡
(5.4+5.3+5.1)
= 3

= 5.27 mg/L
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷.𝑂. 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔
Average D.O. meter reading of river water = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐷.𝑂. 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡
(6.9+6.5+7.0)
= 3

= 6.8 mg/L

DISCUSSION
The following experiment was to determine the turbidity of water samples, determine the
dissolved oxygen of water samples and to determine the hardness content in wastewater samples.

6
Firstly, 100mL of rainwater sample was poured into a 100mL beaker carefully. Using a dissolved
oxygen meter,

design, demonstrate and control the working principle of concentric flow heat exchanger
under parallel as well as counter flow conditions, demonstrate the effect of heat water inlet
temperature variation and flow rate variation on the performance characteristics of a concentric
tube heat exchanger and to determine and investigate the efficiency of the concentric tube heat
exchanger in parallel and counter current flow arrangement. Firstly, the circulation of cold water
was started by opening the valve that controls the water. Valve 1 (V1) and valve 4 (V4) was
opened whereas valve 2 (V2) and valve 3 (V3) was closed to conduct parallel flow for heat
exchangers. The temperature was carefully set to 60oC by waiting for 30 minutes using a
stopwatch until it reaches the desired temperature. The hot water flow rate was set to 2 liters per
minute and cold water to 1.5 liters per minute. The temperature for TT1 until TT6 was recorded
with a value of 61.6℃, 56.7℃, 54.4℃, 31.0℃, 40.8℃ and 43.7℃ respectively. Using the
formula, Power emitted = QH ρH CH (THin-THout), power emitted was calculated to be 986.9W
and using the formula, Power absorbed = QC ρC CPC (THCin-THCout), power absorbed was
calculated to be 1317.3W. Power lost of the parallel flow heat exchanger was calculated giving a
value of -330.4W by using the formula of, Power lost = power emitted – power absorbed.
System efficiency was calculated and a value of 133.48% was obtained by using the formula, η =
x 100%. Log mean temperature difference was calculated a value of 18.94℃ was obtained using
the formula, △tm= .
Counter flow in heat exchanger was conducted by closing valve 1 (V1) and valve 4 (V4)
and opening valve 2 (V2) and valve 3 (V3), 5 minutes was waited using a stopwatch for the
temperature to stabilize before temperature readings were taken. After 5 minutes, the temperature
for TT1 until TT4 was collected giving a value of 61.4℃, 57.7℃, 54.4℃, 45.9℃, 40.8℃ and
31.0℃ respectively. Using the formulas discussed for parallel flow for heat exchangers, the
power emitted value was calculated to give a value of 959.5W, power absorbed at 1545.04W,
power lost at -585.544W, system efficiency at 161.03% and log mean temperature difference at
19.0℃. The experiment was repeated to test for the flow rate variation by manipulating the flow
rate of hot and cold temperature at 2.0L/min, 3.0L/min, 4.0L/min and 5.0L/min. Temperature
readings for 2.0L/min was taken from previous experiment on counter flow heat exchanger as

7
the parameters were all similar. For flow rate at 3.0L/min, the flow rate for cold at hot water was
adjusted to 3.0L/min and 5 minutes was waited. After 5 minutes, the temperature reading for
TT1 until TT6 was collected in which the values are 61.4℃, 58.6℃, 56.1℃, 47.5℃, 42.1℃ and
31.1℃ respectively. The flow rate for cold at hot water was adjusted to 4.0L/min. After 5
minutes, the temperature reading for TT1 until TT6 was collected in which the values are 61.4℃,
59.3℃, 57.4℃, 49.3℃, 43.6℃ and 31.2℃ respectively whereas when adjusting flow rate at
5.0L/min values for TT1 until TT6 gives for 61.2℃, 59.3℃, 57.6℃, 49.3℃, 43.7℃ and 31.2℃
respectively.
The power emitted for flow rate at 2L/min was calculated to give a value at 959.5W, power
absorbed at 1545.04W, power lost at -585.54W, system efficiency at 161.03% and log mean
temperature difference at 19.18℃. For flow rate at 3L/min power emitted is at 1090.6W, power
absorbed at 1679.4W, power lost at -588.80W, system efficiency at 153.99% and log mean
temperature difference at 18.91℃. For flow rate at 4L/min power emitted is at 1152.60W, power
absorbed at 1876.9W, power lost at -724.30W, system efficiency at 162.84% and log mean
temperature difference at 18.29℃. Lastly, for flow rate at 5L/min power emitted is at 1234.14W,
power absorbed at 1876.90W, power lost at -642.7W, system efficiency at 152.08% and log
mean temperature difference at 18.19℃.
Theoretically, as flow rate for the heat exchanger increase, the temperature increase,
thus the efficiency increase due to flow rate is directly proportional to the efficiency of heat
exchanger. From the data calculated in Part C, the efficiency has a fluctuation in data due to
errors and limitation occurred during the experiment.
The water temperature variation experiment on heat exchangers was conducted by
manipulating the temperature of hot water. Flow rate for hot and cold water was both
adjusted and fixed to 2L/min. At 60℃, 5 minutes was waited using a stopwatch before
temperature readings were collected. After 5 minutes, temperature reading for TT1 until
TT6 was taken which are 61.5℃, 57.2℃, 53.5℃, 43.1℃, 39.1℃ and 30.9℃ respectively. The
temperature was carefully set to 55℃ and using a stopwatch, 5 minutes was waited for the
temperature readings to stabilize. After 5 minutes, temperature reading for TT1 until TT6
was taken which are 56.6℃, 52.7℃, 49.6℃, 40.6℃, 37.8℃ and 31.0℃ respectively. Using the
formula from counter heat exchanger, at 60℃, power emitted is at 1096.6W, power absorbed at
1686.1W, power lost at -589.5W, system efficiency at 153.76% and log mean temperature

8
difference at 17.27℃. Cold medium was carefully calculated to give a value of 39.87% using
the formula, , hot medium was calculated to give a value of 26.14% using the formula, , and
mean temperature efficiency was calculated to give a value of 33.00% using the formula, .
Using the same formula, at 55℃, power emitted was calculated and a value of 961.37W was
obtained, power absorbed at 1244.2W, power lost at -282.9W, system efficiency at 129.42%,
log mean temperature difference at 20.43℃, cold medium at 37.5%, hot medium at 27.34%
and mean temperature efficiency at 32.42%. According to the First Law of
Thermodynamics , the higher the temperature, the molecules tends to have higher kinetic
energy .Therefore to conclude Part D, the higher the temperature in heat exchangers, the
higher the efficiency.
By observing both experiments in part A and Part B, the counter flow heat exchanger
produces greater efficiency than parallel flow. This result follows the theoretical conclusion
where counter flow heat exchanger is more efficient than parallel flow because they create a
more uniform temperature difference between the fluids, over the entire length of the fluid path.
However, there are a few errors that might have caused the mistakes in data which will be
discussed in limitations part of this report. Errors in data such as in Part C whereby as the flow
rate increase, the temperature increase except the data flow rate at 5.0L/min in which the
temperature decrease for TT1.

LIMITATION OF EXPERIMENT/SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

Throughout the experiment, there were a few errors that might have affected the results
and data. First error that occurred was the valve that controls the flow rate of cold water was too
blurry to adjust accurately. To reduce inaccuracy, carefully adjust the flow rate of cold water and
must have agreement to all teammates if the adjustment is accurate.
During the experiment, there was an error in which the temperature reading will have a
small sudden fluctuation and temperature was taken when it had not achieved in steady state. To
reduce this error, wait for the temperature in TT1 until TT6 to reach at a steady value before
collecting the readings.
During the experiments, there was an error in temperature value reading due to the lack
of time given to reach a steady state for temperature reading after manipulating temperature or

9
flow rate as intended in 5 minutes. To reduce this error, the time to take the value given for TT1
until TT6 must be at least 7 to 8 minutes.
Some safety precautions are laboratory coats, safety goggles and covered shoes must be
worn at all times during lab session.

CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, the experiment is considered a success as the objectives were met and
the procedures were carried out. The working principles of industrial heat exchangers has been
designed and constructed by conducting heat exchange experiment on the equipment, SOLTEQ
Triple Pipes Concentric Heat Exchanger. The experiment is carried out repeatedly with several
variations of physical parameters of experiment to study how it affects the efficiency of the heat
exchanging process. The manipulated parameters of the experiment are flow rate of fluid,
direction of flow (parallel or counter flow), and water temperature. Based on the results from
Part A and Part B we can conclude that counter flow heat exchanger is more efficient than
parallel flow heat exchanger as the percentage efficiency for counter flow is higher than parallel
flow besides the log mean temperature difference in counter flow is smaller than parallel flow.
The data temperature obtained were tabulated accordingly in the results and the power,
efficiencies, log mean temperature are all calculated accordingly and respectively. However, the
Power Efficiencies obtained for all four parts were theoretically incorrect as the efficiency
exceeds 100% which is impossible in which the Power Absorbed (Outlet) is greater than the
Power Emitted (Inlet). This may be caused by errors and limitations where the flow rate
fluctuates and the temperature reading is inaccurate. Moreover, external energy such as
environmental condition can affect the heat exchange and heat transfer as well.Other than that ,
the water may contain some contaminants such as dust which will affect the heat transfer rate as
well. Thus, the objectives of this experiment were achieved.

REFERENCES
1. Che245 - Lab Report Solteq Concentric Tube Heat Exchanger Unit (he:104-pd) (2016)
Nurlina Syahiirah-Nurlina Syahiirah
Available at:

10
 https://www.academia.edu/25412248/CHE245_-
_Lab_Report_SOLTEQ_Concentric_Tube_Heat_Exchanger_Unit_HE_104-PD_2016
2. Incropera, F., Dewitt, D., Bergman, T., & Lavine, A. (2007). Fundamentals of heat and
mass transfer (6th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
3. Lienhard V, J., & Lienhard IV, J. (2003). A heat transfer textbook (3rd ed.). Cambridge,
Mass.: Phlogiston Press.
4. Cengel Y. A. (2006). Heat and Mass Transfer: A practical Approach. (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

11