Heat Transfer and Hydrodynamic in Internal Jacket Airlift Bioreactor with Microbubble Technology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31699/IJCPE.2017.4.4Keywords:
Bioreactor, Microbubble, Airlift, Computational ModelAbstract
Integration of laminar bubbling flow with heat transfer equations in a novel internal jacket airlift bioreactor using microbubbles technology was examined in the present study. The investigation was accomplished via Multiphysics modelling to calculate the gas holdup, velocity of liquid recirculation, mixing time and volume dead zone for hydrodynamic aspect. The temperature and internal energy were determined for heat transfer aspect.
The results showed that the concentration of microbubbles in the unsparged area is greater than the chance of large bubbles with no dead zones being observed in the proposed design. In addition the pressure, due to the recirculation velocity of liquid around the draft tube, increased the retention time of microbubbles in the same area.
Thus it was expected that their effect on mass and heat transfer phenomena would be positive for biological applications. For example the gas fraction volume of microbubble in the downcomer region is 0.0063, while with fine bubble diameter of 1 mm, this region was free from any bubble. Furthermore, the velocity of liquid in the center of ring diffuser would be 0.175 m/s, if the sparging system operated with bubble diameter of 100 micrometer, whilst would be 0.035 m/s with fine bubble diameter of 1 mm.
The study also proved the importance of bubble diameter on the heat transfer in gas and liquid phases in the proposed design. Microbubbles gave greater responsiveness to stability and homogeneity in all parts of the bioreactor. Finally, this study concluded the efficiency of the proposed design with the microbubbles technology thermally and hydrodynamically.
References
Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D. 2011. The Oxford handbook of Climate change and society: approaches and responses Oxford university Press Inc., New York. Chapter one.
Schenk, P. M., Thomas-Hall, S. R., Stephens, E., Marx, U. C., Mussgnug, J. H., Posten, C., Kruse, O. and Hankamer, B. 2008. Second Generation Biofuels: High-Efficiency Microalgae for Biodiesel Production. Bioenergy Research, 1, 20-43.
Singh, V. 2012. Effect of corn quality on bioethanol production. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 1, 353-355.
Scott, S. A., Davey, M. P., Dennis, J. S., Horst, I., Howe, C. J., Lea-Smith, D. J. and Smith, A. G. 2010. Biodiesel from algae: challenges and prospects. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 21, 277-286.
Chisti, Y. 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances, 25, 294-306.
Montgomery, L. F. and Bochmann, G. 2014. Pretreatment of feedstock for enhanced biogas production. IEA Bioenergy, 1-20.
Castellucci, S., Cocchi, S., Allegrini, E. and Vecchione, L. 2013. Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion of slaughterhouse wastes. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 44, 526-530.
De Wit, M., Junginger, M., Lensink, S., Londo, M. and Faaij, A. 2010. Competition between biofuels: Modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34, 203-217.
Fraser, T. and Brown, P. D. 2017. Temperature and Oxidative Stress as Triggers for Virulence Gene Expression in Pathogenic Leptospira spp. Frontiers in microbiology,8.
Capson-Tojo, G., Torres, A., Muñoz, R., Bartacek, J. and Jeison, D. 2017. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of lipid-extracted microalgae N. gaditana for methane production. Renewable Energy, 105, 539-546.
Tian, Z., Zhang, Y., LI, Y., Chi, Y. and Yang, M. 2015. Rapid establishment of thermophilic anaerobic microbial community during the one-step startup of thermophilic anaerobic digestion from a mesophilic digester. Water research, 69, 9-19.
Donoso-Bravo,A., Retamal, C., Carballa, M., Ruiz-Filippi, G. and Chamy, R. 2009. Influence of temperature on the hydrolysis, acidogenesis and methanogenesis in mesophilic anaerobic digestion: parameter identification and modeling application. Water Science and Technology, 60, 9-17.
Ahring, B. K., Ibrahim, A. A. and Mladenovska, Z. 2001. Effect of temperature increase from 55 to 65 degrees C on performance and microbial population dynamics of an anaerobic reactor treating cattle manure. Water Research, 35, 2446-2452.
Waqas, M., Almeelbi, T. And Nizami, A.-S. 2017. Resource recovery of food waste through continuous thermophilic in-vessel composting. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-11.
Riggio, S., Hernandéz-Shek, M., Torrijos, M., Vives, G., Esposito, G., Van Hullebusch, E., Steyer, J. and Escudié, R. 2017. Comparison of the mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of spent cow bedding in leach-bed reactors. Bioresource Technology, 234, 466-471.
Budzianowski, W. M. 2012. Sustainable biogas energy in Poland: Prospects and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 342-349.
Denis, B., Pérez, O. A., Lizardi-Jiménez, M. A. and Dutta, A. 2017. Numerical evaluation of direct interfacial uptake by a microbial consortium in an airlift bioreactor. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 119, 542-551.
Asadi, A., Zinatizadeh, A. A. and Van Loosdrecht, M. 2016. A novel continuous feed and intermittent discharge airlift bioreactor (CFIDAB) for enhanced simultaneous removal of carbon and nutrients from soft drink industrial wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal, 292, 13-27.
Cozma, P. and Gavrilescu, M. 2012. Airlift reactors: applications in wastewater treatment. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 11, 1505-1515.
Hernández-Calderón Oscar, M., González-Llanes Marcos, D., Rios-Iribe Erika, Y., Jiménez-Lam Sergio, A., Chavez-Parga Ma.Del, C. and Escamilla-Silva Eleazar, M. 2017. Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer Simulation in Airlift Bioreactor with Settler using Computational Fluid Dynamics. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering.
Soman, A. and Shastri, Y. 2015. Optimization of novel photobioreactor design using computational fluid dynamics. Applied Energy, 140, 246-255.
Huang, Q., Yang, C., Yu, G. and Mao, Z.-S. 2010. CFD simulation of hydrodynamics and mass transfer in an internal airlift loop reactor using a steady two-fluid model. Chemical Engineering Science, 65, 5527-5536.
Karaeva, J. V. and Khalitova, G. R. 2015. Evaluation of mixing quality in anaerobic digester. 7, 1-12.
Lestinsky, P., Vecer, M., Vayrynen, P. and Wichterle, K. 2015. The effect of the draft tube geometry on mixing in a reactor with an internal circulation loop – A CFD simulation. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 94, 29-34.
Baudez, J. C., Ginisty, P., Peuchot, C. and Spinosa, L. 2007. The preparation of synthetic sludge for lab testing56 (9) 67-74.
Dursun, D., Ayol, A. and Dentel, S. K. 2004. Physical characteristics of a waste activated sludge: conditioning responses and correlations with a synthetic surrogate. Water Science and Technology, 50, 129-136.
AL-Mashhadani MKH, Wilkinson, S. J. and Zimmerman, W. B. 2015. Airlift bioreactor for biological applications with microbubble
mediated transport processes. Chemical Engineering Science, 137, 243-253.
Prud’homme R. K. and Khan S. A., 1996. Foams, Theory, measurements, and Applications. Surfactant science series, Volume 57. PP 146-151.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Iraqi Journal of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
