9 views

Uploaded by Venkata Suryanarayana Gorle

- 200-059-GMRC-2004-Separation
- Inclusion Removal
- FB-manual
- pub-mb_159
- TurbulentFlows Pope Chapter5Figures
- Separation Criterion for Turbulent using similarity.pdf
- Nosek Paper Kolokvium 2011
- Hetsroni
- Characteristics of the Low-speed Wind Tunnel of the UNNE
- 1-s2.0-S1369703X16301541-main.pdf
- dosfases
- Turbulence Theories
- Vielmo, H. a. Et Al 2008 - Numerical Analysis of a High Swirl-Generating Helical Intake Port for Diesel Engines
- 19820019810
- Turbulence Modeling (Dr. Alam Wardag)
- Cfd Simulation of Stirred Tanks- Comparison of Turbulence Models-radial Flow Impellers
- C06 Chapter 6 six Engineering fan technology
- Hendrik Cosemans Nynas
- 1
- Fluid Flow Simulations

You are on page 1of 13

**Advances in understanding and modeling the gas–liquid
**

mass transfer in shake flasks

Ulrike Maier, Mario Losen, Jochen Büchs∗

Biochemical Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, Aachen 52056, Germany

Received 12 December 2001; accepted after revision 17 June 2003

Abstract

The gas–liquid mass transfer in 250 ml shake flasks has previously been sucessfully modelled on basis of Higbie’s penetration theory.

The current contribution presents advances in understanding and modelling the gas–liquid mass transfer in shake flasks at waterlike liquid

viscosity in flask sizes between 50 and 1000 ml. An experimental investigation of the maximum gas–liquid mass transfer capacity OTRmax

using the sodium sulphite system was extended to relative filling volumes of 4–16%, shaking diameters of 1.25, 2.5, 5, 7, 10 cm and shaking

frequencies of 50–500 rpm for the above flask sizes. Simultaneously, the previous model of the gas–liquid mass transfer was extended

to a “two sub-reactor model” to account for different mechanisms of mass transfer in the liquid film on the flask wall and the bulk of

the liquid rotating within the flask. The shake flask is for the first time considered to be a two-reactor system consisting of a stirred tank

reactor (bulk liquid) and a film reactor (film on flask wall and base). The mass transfer into the film on the flask wall and base at “in-phase”

operating conditions is described by Higbie’s penetration theory. Two different mass transfer theories were applied to successfully describe

the mass transfer into the bulk liquid: a model by Kawase and Moo-Young and a model by Gnielinski. The agreement between the new

modelling approach, which requires absolutely no fitting parameters and the experimental is within ±30%. The applicability of the models

to a biological system was shown using a Pichia pastoris culture. This is particularly notable since geometrically non-similar liquid

distributions in very different sizes of shaking flasks are covered. A comparable description of the gas–liquid mass transfer in bubble

aerated reactors like stirred tanks is absolutely out of reach. A spatially- and time-resolved consideration of the mass transfer in the liquid

film on the flask wall and base has shown that the validity of Higbie’s theory sensitively depends on the film thickness and contact time.

© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Gas–liquid mass transfer; Shake flasks; Modelling; Aeration; Aerobic processes; Bioprocess engineering

1. Introduction

Providing sufficient oxygen to biological cultures is vital

for efficient bioprocess development. According to Hilton

[1], “highly variable fermentation processes may constructively be viewed as the result of a lack of awareness of some

parameter critical to that particular process. Often in small

liquid batch processes, that critical parameter is gas exchange or balance between respiration rate (oxygen demand

of the culture, OUR) and oxygen transfer (to the culture,

OTR)”. The oxygen demand of the culture OUR may be

limited if it exceeds the maximum oxygen transfer capacity

OTRmax through the shake flask closure and the gas–liquid

interface. If the metabolism of the organism under investigation remains unaffected by the oxygen limitation, the

∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Biochemical Engineering,

RWTH Aachen University, Worringerweg 1, Aachen 52056, Germany.

Tel.: +49-241-8025546; fax: +49-241-8022265.

E-mail address: buechs@biovt.rwth-aachen.de (J. Büchs).

**1369-703X/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
**

doi:10.1016/S1369-703X(03)00174-8

**observed growth rate is a function of the mass transfer rate
**

alone and gives no information about the true growth rate of

the microorganisms as demonstrated by van Suijdam et al.

[2]. Yet, changes in metabolism may occur [3]. Büchs [4]

has identified different degrees of severity of the metabolic

problems encountered resulting from an oxygen limitation.

In summary it can be said that the true effect of the variables

under study in the screening stage of bioprocess development may be difficult to evaluate under oxygen limitation

[5]. Only when the operating conditions are changed in such

a way as to increase OTRmax does the true and unlimited

oxygen uptake rate OUR, meaning the unlimited breathing

rate, of the microorganisms become visible. Screening under an unknown oxygen limitation may cause an unwanted

selection pressure and thus lead to a high degree of variability in an early and decisive stage of bioprocess development.

To harmonise screening experiments, suitable operating

conditions (flask size, shaking frequency, filling volume

and shaking diameter) ensuring sufficient oxygen supply to

cultures must be determined. For this it is vital to gain a

Yet.i B kL.i F tc. Eq.i kL a kn L Li LO2 n n¯˙ O2 n¯˙ O2 . [23] gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient (m/s) gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient for differential slice (m/s) gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient of bulk (m/s) gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient of film (m/s) integral volumetric gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient (1/s) reaction rate constant nth order (1/s(m3 /mol)n −1 ) characteristic overflow length (m) characteristic overflow length of each differential slice (m) oxygen solubility (mol/(l bar)) shaking frequency (1/s or rpm) reaction order of sulphite reaction with respect to oxygen time averaged oxygen flux across the gas–liquid interface (mol/s) time averaged oxygen flux across the gas–liquid interface according to Higbie’s penetration theory (mol/s) oxygen transfer rate (mol/(m3 s)) oxygen transfer rate of biological system (mol/(m3 s)) OTRmax. Eq. the results of the investigations conducted are difficult to transfer to every day laboratory work in a biological system since only a limited range of operating conditions (flask size. Vital .L cs d di d0 DO2 dt Fra kL kL. shaking frequency) has been investigated [7].i Ph pO2 . [23] oxygen partial pressure in gas-phase (bar) oxygen partial pressure in liquid-phase (bar) Reynolds number.b cD ∗ cO 2 .L Re ReL Sc Shmin Shlam Shturb tc B tc. such as the sodium sulphite system has been employed to simulate a biological oxygen consumer in experimental investigations. Frequently a chemical model system. In some investigations oxygen probes immersed in the liquid have influenced the hydrodynamics and thus the gas–liquid mass transfer characteristics of the system [5.i F kL. Eq.8] making results difficult to interpret. Maier et al.G pO2 .Higbie OTR OTRB OTRmax (m2 /m3 ) specific mass transfer area specific mass transfer area of differential slice (m2 /m3 ) specific mass transfer area of bulk (m2 /m3 ) specific mass transfer area of differential slice of film (m2 /m3 ) catalyst concentration (mol/m3 ) dissolved oxygen concentration of liquid bulk (mol/m3 ) factor oxygen concentration at gas–liquid interface (mol/m3 or % air sat. Sc = η/(ρDO2 ) (−) minimum Sherwood number laminar Sherwood number.156 U. meaning the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax of the shake flask in dependency of the influencing factors. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 Nomenclature a ai aiB aiF ccat cO2 . filling volume.) oxygen concentration in the liquid bulk (mol/m3 ) maximum shake flask diameter (m) maximum shake flask diameter at considered height (m) shaking diameter (m) diffusion coefficient of oxygen in liquid phase (m2 /s) time step (1 × 10−4 ) s axial Froude number (−).i OTRFmax. (10) (−) Schmidt number. shaking diameter.L cO2 . Re = (d2 n)/v(−) overflow Reynolds number.i OTRB max.i v VL x maximum oxygen transfer capacity (mol/(m3 s)) maximum oxygen transfer capacity of differential slice (mol/(m3 s)) maximum oxygen transfer capacity of bulk slice (mol/(m3 s)) maximum oxygen transfer capacity of film slice (mol/(m3 s)) Phase number.) dissolved oxygen concentration (mol/m3 or % air sat.8–12]. Oxygen transfer in shake flasks has previously been discussed in the literature [2. (8) turbulent Sherwood number. (9) contact time (s) contact time of bulk liquid (s) contact time of liquid film (s) velocity of the liquid surface relative to the flask wall filling volume (m3) length scale perpendicular to wall (m) Greek symbols δ film thickness (m) ε˜ energy dissipation rate (W/kg) εrel relative deviation between oxygen flux calculated using Higbie’s penetration theory and of exact solution of mass transfer equation (%) η viscosity of liquid phase (mPa s) ν kinematic viscosity of liquid phase (kg m/s) ρ density of liquid (kg/m3 ) mechanistic understanding of the gas–liquid mass transfer.

In the shake flask the contact time tc. An overview over literature and first results concerning the gas–liquid mass transfer have been previously presented [7]. (1) if the mass transfer coefficient kL is known.L across the gas–liquid interface 2 . (1) is equal to 0. The influence of the sterile closure on the oxygen partial pressure in the flask has been studied in detail by Mrotzek et al. and the opposite movement at the same angular velocity around the flask axis ω2 . Previous mechanistic model of the gas–liquid mass transfer The previous mechanistic understanding of the gas–liquid mass transfer in shake flasks is based on a model of the 157 cs dt DO2 k1 δ a Nomenclature Value Oxygen concentration at gas–liquid interface Oxygen concentration in the liquid bulk Time step Diffusion coefficient of oxygen in liquid phase (m2 /s) First-order reaction rate constant Film thickness 1.L liquid distribution [7. In our previous investigation it was shown that the relevant mass transfer a in the shake flask comprises the mass transfer area of the bulk liquid aB and the liquid film aF distributed on the flask wall and base by the rotating bulk [7].G = ∗ kL a cO 2 .U.09 × 10−1 mol/m3 [20] dt(n = 400) = 5 × 10−5 s. 1b) and on the flask wall/base and gas phase tc. LO2 and a have been discussed previously [7]. 2. 1a. Gas–liquid mass transfer into shake flasks The mass transfer into the shake flask is described by two resistances: that of the closure and that of the gas–liquid interface.G − pO2 . the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax can be calculated using Eq. [19] (see Table 1 for details). In a previous approach [7] a fully mechanistic understanding of the gas–liquid mass transfer in 250 ml shake flasks requiring absolutely no fitting parameters was developed.i between the gas and liquid phase depends on the considered height.1. as shown in Fig.i . The liquid distribution results as the intersection between the rotational paraboloid based on a frictionless fluid and the flask wall. which • the mass transfer coefficient kL. 1b. This is the case when the closure resistance can be neglected and the oxygen partial pressure pO2 .i between the gas. Theory 2.17]. According to Higbie. when the driving partial pressure or concentration difference is greatest. The basic mass transfer correlations will be briefly presented in the following. the mass transfer coefficient is inversely proportional to the square root of the contact time tc. Higbie’s penetration theory [18] has previously [7] been applied to calculate the mass transfer coefficient kL . In the mass transfer model [7] it was furthermore differentiated between F of the liquid film. In this model the movement of the shaking table is divided into two partial movements as shown in Fig. the specific transfer area a.and liquid-phase DO2 kL.i is described by the contact time between the liquid film F (see Fig.22 × 10−4 m2 /s [19] 0. The results presented in the following will only be concerned with the maximum transfer properties across the gas–liquid interface.2. The diffusion coefficient DO2 for electrolyte solutions can be calculated according to Akita et al.52 1/s 5 × 10−5 m .i Table 1 Input values for “gPROMS” simulation ∗ cL. meaning it is necessary to calculate the mass transfer coefficient in differential slices kL.L in Eq. so that data cannot be employed to identify suitable operating conditions for a specific biological system. the movement of the flask around the excenter axis ω1 . meaning that mass transfer takes place only close to the gas–liquid surface. the oxygen solubility LO2 and the driving pressure difference pO2 . / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 information such as the diffusion coefficient DO2 and oxygen solubility LO2 of the chemical model system investigated often lacks. 2. The aim of this current investigation is to extend the previous understanding of the gas–liquid mass transfer to a wider range of operating conditions at waterlike liquid viscosity.L ) = kL a(cO − cO2 .L ) 2 .O 2 (2) The factors influencing kL .L (1) The OTR defined by Eq.L or driving concentration difference ∗ cO − cO2 .L or the dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 . The alignment of the flask remains unchanged in the North–South direction. [6]. This model describes the liquid distribution and resulting gas–liquid mass transfer area a in the shake flask for liquids of low liquid viscosity [7]. For this the OTRmax was investigated experimentally using a fully defined chemical system (aqueous sodium sulphite) which simulates a biological oxygen consumer. The oxygen transfer rate OTR at this point is termed as the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax OTRmax = kL a LO2 pO2 .L ∗ OTR = kL a LO2 (pO2 .i Higbie is valid for semi-infinite space. The oxygen transfer rate OTR is proportional to the mass transfer coefficient kL . Using the above model of the liquid distribution to calculate the mass transfer area a. 0 mol/m3 1 × 10−4 sa 1. (1) is at its maximum.G − pO2 . Maier et al.i = 2 (3) πtc.

(b) application of Higbie’s penetration theory to differential slice in the shake flask.i ai + kL.138Sc−2/3 ν˜ε = 0. This mechanistic model of the mass transfer has been verified with some experimental data of limited range in the 250 ml shake flask [7]. The dissolved oxygen concentration at the gas–liquid inter∗ face cO can be calculated according to Schumpe et al. Model of the liquid distribution and mass transfer in the shake flask: (a) division of the shaking movement into two partial movements—ω1 : rotation of the shaking table and ω2 : counter orientation of the shake flask. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 Fig.i considered to move with the velocity of the flask wall v B tc. the mass transfer coefficient in surface aerated stirred tank bioreactors at conditions of isotropic turbulence is described by the following correlation: 1/4 1/4 P kLB = 0. B of the bulk liquid.L [20].i is described by the contact time between the bulk surface B (see Fig. Extended modelling approach The maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax can now be calculated by inserting Eq. 2. 2 . Model for mass transfer coefficient kL according to Kawase and Moo-Young The model described by Kawase and Moo-Young [26] is based on the periodic sublayer theory by Pinczewski and Sideman [27].i ai cO2 . 1b). the kinematic viscosity of liquid phase ν.i + i=1 film N OTRB max. .L i=1 i=1 film bulk (5) 2. d0 : shaking diameter. the combination of both movements results in a unchanged orientation of the F : film shake flask relative to the ground. and gas phase tc. (3) into Eq. which • the mass transfer coefficient kL.i i=1 bulk N N F F B B ∗ ∗ = kL.1.158 U. 1. Maier et al. the energy dissipation rate ε˜ and the specific power input P/VL .3.i : bulk contact time.L = kL a cO 2 . tc. (5) can be interpreted as an integral mass transfer coefficient comprising of the bulk and film contribution to the mass transfer.i The contact time between the bulk surface and gas phase B is defined by the velocity of the liquid surface which is tc. In this model. (1) with the respective mass transfer areas of the bulk liquid aiB and the film aiF resulting from the liquid distribution OTRmax = N OTRFmax.i = Li v (4) The resulting mass transfer coefficient kL a in Eq.138Sc−2/3 ν VL ρ (6) with the Schmidt number Sc. tc.i B contact time.3.

t with the exchange area a and the diffusion coefficient of oxygen DO2 . The sodium sulphite system The sodium sulphite reacts with the oxygen passing into the liquid according to the following reaction: Co2+ 2.L (x. Materials and methods 3. Roth.5. UK). x: length scale perpendicular to wall.L tration at tc = 0. δ: film thickness. is transferred to the gas–liquid interface of the bulk liquid by assuming that the gas–liquid interface behaves as a rigid boundary..L (tc = 0. ∗ Fig. Gnielinski’s model.L n˙ O2 (x = 0. Gas–liquid mass transfer in liquid film SO3 2− + 0. cO : dissolved oxygen concen2 .8 L Sc 1 + 2.1 (Sc2/3 − 1) L (9) with the characteristic overflow length L.b (11) (15) 3. (11) can be solved using a simulation tool.3. . who investigated the gas–liquid mass transfer across a surface aerated stirred tank reactor also assume that the free surface behaves as a rigid boundary.L ∂2 cO2 .L ∗ gen concetration at gas–liquid interface.L (x = 0) = ∂cO2 .L cO2 .L = DO2 − k1 cO2 . as for example Kawase and Moo-Young [26]. Dissolved oxygen concentration profile in liquid film—cO : oxy2 . t) = aDO2 (12) ∂x x=0. tc ) which depend on contact time tc and penetration depth result. x) = cO2 . Concentration profiles cO2 . ∂cO2 .5O2 −−→ SO4 2− On basis of a first order reaction the oxygen mass balance around an element in a liquid film is described by To determine the mass transfer coefficient kL a from measurements of the absorption rate measurements have to be conducted in the so-called “non-accelerated” reaction regime described in detail by Linek and Vacek [16].1. On basis of this literature. such as “gPROMS” (Process Systems Enterprise Ltd. the minimum Sherwood number Shmin and the Schmidt number Sc. Kudrjawizki and Bauer [31]. London. Sc) valid for the liquid–solid mass transfer at a plane surface kLB L = Shmin + Sh2lam + Sh2turb (7) DO2 with the minimum Sherwood number Shmin = 8/π for a disc at diffusive conditions [29] and the laminar term Shlam 1/2 1/3 Shlam = 0. It is based on Gnielinski’s [29] boundary layer theory in form of the Sherwood number Sh = f (Re.037Re0.U.Higbie = 2 ac (14) πtc O2 . t) dt ¯n˙ O2 = (13) tc According to Higbie the average oxygen flux across the gas liquid interface n¯˙ O2 .L 2. The oxygen flux across the gas–liquid interface n˙ O2 can be calculated by ∂cO2 . / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 159 2. 2) BC1 : BC2 : BC3 : ∗ cO 2 . The chemical model system The chemical system used to simulate an oxygen consumer is a 1 M sodium sulphite system (≥98%. The gas–liquid interface is assumed to behave as a rigid boundary [26].L ∂t ∂x2 with the boundary conditions (see Fig.L =0 ∂x x=∂ cO2 . The overflow Reynolds number ReL is defined by ReL = ρLv η (10) The above model can be transferred to any geometry by defining a characteristic overflow length L and velocity v [29].443Re−0. developed for solid–liquid mass transfer.664ReL ScL (8) and the turbulent term Shturb Shturb = 0.2. Mass transfer model according to Gnielinski A second model applied to calculate the mass transfer coefficient of the bulk liquid kLB is proposed. In literature some investigators have carried fixed interface theories over to free surfaces [30]. The inhomogeneous differential equation Eq. The “periodic transitional sublayer” theory [27] developed for liquid–solid mass transfer is directly transferred to the gas–liquid mass transfer at the free surface of a surface aerated bioreactor without the use of any fitting parameters.4. The average oxygen flux across the gas–liquid interface n¯˙ O2 within the contact time tc is then given by n˙ O2 (x = 0.Higbie is equal to DO2 ∗ n˙¯ O2 . 2. Maier et al.

L (16) Pichia pastoris was grown on complex medium (YPG: 10 g/l glycerine. 10. Investigation of the chemical model system n OTR = kn cO 2 . Germany). (1) to the volumetric mass transfer coefficient kL a as follows: 3. This is quite in contrast to literature.2. Buchs. which assumes a dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 . 15. Fig. Switzerland) equipped with a polarographic gas analyzer (Model 26082. The reactor was aerated at 1. Shake flask experiments kL a = The OTR was measured using an on-line measuring method developed by Anderlei and co-workers [3. Germany).78 mPa s and a density of ρ = 1105. Wald. Karlsruhe. kn in Eq. 3 were fitted to the following equation in a least-squares sense: An investigation to determine the reaction kinetics of the sodium sulphite system was conducted in a 1. Investigation of the chemical model system An investigation was conducted in a stirred tank reactor to determine the reaction kinetics of the sodium sulphite system according to Eq.L ∗ cO 2 . 7. This effect has also been reported in literature [14–16]. Maier et al. Fluka Chemie AG. Applichem. 2.L is actually unequal to 0 for all catalyst concentrations investigated. Chemie AG. Consequently. diameters of 1. and 1000 ml nominal volume.L of 0.21. Still. For each stirring speed.22]. (16). Karlsruhe.5 ◦ C.L . Buchs. relative filling volumes of 4–16%. sodiumdihydrogenphosphate monohydrate ≥98%: Roth.1 M phosphate buffer (disodiumhydrogenphosphate ≥99%. 4.32]. Erlenmeyer flasks of 50. For the catalyst concentration of 10−7 M applied in the systematic investigation of the shake flask in this work. The experiment was conducted at a cobalt catalyst concentration ccat equal to 0. Mettler Toledo. (2) 3. 1 × 10−7 . The stirring speed was increased in steps from 400 to 800.15 vvm and operated at a temperature of T = 22.L = 0) were achieved. (16) can be considered as the reaction rate constant and n as the reaction order of the sulphite reaction. The catalyst concentration of 1 × 10−7 M required to work in the “non-accelerated” reaction regime [16] was verified in preliminary experiments. Invitrogen Life Technologies. Gibco BRL.7 1/s (m3 /mol)n −1 . Germany and 20 g/l peptone. 1 × 10−6 and 1 × 10−5 M.5 l stirred tank reactor (VSF Fermentor. Kühner AG. Germany) to ensure a constant pH [13]. For calculation of kL a the oxygen solubility and diffusion coefficient given in Table 1 was used.5%.L was measured with an oxygen sensor (Comp. 3 it can be seen that the reaction order of the sulphite reaction increases from 1 (when no catalyst is present) in direction of 2 with increasing catalyst concentration. Switzerland). YPM: 31.3.L O2 . Results and discussion 4. (1)) does not correspond with the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax (Eq. From Fig.160 U. Invitrogen Life Technologies. 10 g/l select yeast extract.L OTRmax = cO∗ 2 OTR c∗ − cO2 . 1500 and 2000 rpm keeping each stirring speed constant until the oxygen transfer rate OTR and the dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 .64 g/l methanol. The culture was run into an oxygen limitation verified by carrying out the experiment using the online measuring method described by Anderlei and co-workers [3. The investigations were carried out at a temperature of T = 22. Applichem. the measured oxygen transfer rate OTR in this investigation is based on a significantly lower driving concentration difference than if the full driving concentration difference (at cO2 . Nr. in which investigations of the volumetric gas–liquid mass transfer coefficient kL a should be conducted.9 kg/m3 . shaking and inserting this expression into Eq. Switzerland). 250. The measured oxygen transfer rate OTR describes the oxygen balance around the liquid. Orbisphere Laboratorien. Birsfelden. Biological experiments OTR − cO2 . 25 and 40 ml filling volume and 50–500 rpm shaking frequency (in steps of 50) at a temperature of T = 30 ◦ C. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 Karlsruhe. Germany. which assumes that the sodium sulphite system reduces the dissolved oxygen concentration to 0 in the so called “non-accelerated” reaction regime [16]. Steinheim. The experiment was conducted in a 250 ml shake flask at 5 cm shaking diameter. The system is buffered using a 0. Germany. Karlsruhe. The measuring points of the OTR in Fig. Germany) in deionized water catalysed by 1 × 10−7 M cobalt sulphate (≥97. 500.22. 10 cm (modified Lab Shaker. Aldrich. 5. Germany. The system is adjusted to pH = 8 using sulphuric acid (≥30%. 100. Darmstadt. 10 g/l select yeast extract. corresponding values of OTR and cO2 . 3 furthermore shows that the dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 . Germany) and has a resulting viscosity of η = 1.5.5 ◦ C.21.L were in steady state. Switzerland) and shaking frequencies of 50–500 rpm (in 50 rpm steps) at waterlike liquid viscosity were investigated.25.4. Steinbach. 3. Invitrogen Life Technologies. the reaction order is n = 1. Bioengineering. The dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 . (2)). Genf. 1200. Karlsruhe. Gibco BRL. 341003050. This means that the measured OTR (Eq. Darmstadt.L (17) (18) .1 and the reaction rate constant is kn = 0.1. the measured oxygen transfer rate OTR in the shake flask can be corrected to the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax by resolving Eq.L were gained. Switzerland and 20 g/l select peptone.

The comparison between the measured oxygen transfer rate OTRB of the P.03 0. Reaction kinetics of the 1 M sodium sulphite system: oxygen transfer rate.01 0 0 0. 5 cm shaking diameter.97. There is a linear Fig.02 0.1 0. n = 50–500 rpm (in steps of 50). / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 161 Oxygen Transfer Rate OTR [mol/(m³ s)] 0.04 0. (䉬) c = 10−6 M.03 OTR = 0. Measured oxygen transfer rate OTR of P.L = n (19) kn The oxygen concentration at the gas–liquid interface phase ∗ in Eqs.05 0. (18): 250 ml shake flask. 4.9 cO2.L1.07 Dissolved Oxygen Concentration cO2. catalyst concentration: (䊏) c = 10−5 M.7 cO2.6 0.L1.07 OTR = 29.04 OTR = 0. In the shake flask the dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 . Maier et al.L1. pastoris culture.06 OTR = 2.06 0. 15. . T = 22. pastoris culture and the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax of the sodium sulphite system is shown in Fig. maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax of sodium sulphite system calculated from Eq. OTR vs.2.8. 4.05 0.5 cO2. (䊉) c = 10−7 M.L [mol/m³] Fig. (䉱) no catalyst. R2 = 0.L under variation of the stirrer speed and cobalt sulfate catalyst concentration.L 1. 1. resulting correlation factor OTRB /OTRmax = 2.L Schumpe et al. [20] (see Table 1 for details). VL = 10.4 cO2. 3. (17) and (18) (depending on whether kL a or OTRmax is regarded) can be calculated from the oxygen mass balance in Eq. pastoris vs. (16) OTR cO2 .0 0. Transfer of data from chemical model system to biological system The applicability of the measured results of the chemical model system to a biological system was verified using a P.4 l stirred tank reactor. 25 and 40 ml. OTRB is in fact higher than OTRmax of the sodium sulphite system due to the lower ionic strength of the biological system.4 0. 4. (17) and (18) can be calculated according to cO 2 .01 0.U.5 ◦ C.L in Eqs. dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 .02 0.

[23]. the shake flask is divided into two hypothetical reactors: a falling film reactor and a stirred tank reactor as shown in Fig. It is thus necessary to extend the modelling approach to account for the different mechanisms of mass transfer in the liquid film and bulk liquid. (3) overestimates the experimental data. Maier et al. Only the models by Kawase and Moo-Young [26] and Gnielinski [29] lead to reasonable mass transfer coefficients as will be presented in the following. 6 shows the experimental versus the modelled values of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient. According to power input investigations by Büchs and Zoels [25]. The bulk contribution to the total mass transfer in Eq.6 + 1. the fer coefficient of the bulk liquid kL.4. The applicability to other biological systems requires different correlation factors which need to be individually determined for each system. [33]. P n3 d 4 = 2/3 VL ρ VL (70Re−1 + 25Re−0. (6). Fig. pastoris culture and OTRmax of the sodium sulphite system.162 U. the bulk mass transfer is likely to be overestimated. which has been specifically developed for falling films satisfactorily describes the film mass transfer coefficient kLF in Eq.62kL aExp meaning 62% deviation. (5) is calculated with Higbie’s penetration theory. (17)). The comparison between the volumetric mass transfer coefficient of the model computations kL aModel and measurements kL aExp for the investigated operating conditions shows that although there is a general linear tendency the data points clearly scatter (data not shown). In shake flasks the bulk of the liquid generally rotates with the direction of the centrifugal acceleration. (5) is calculated using the specific exchange area of the bulk aB . Several mass transfer models including models based on the “boundary layer theory”. The maximum volumetric mass transfer coefficient of the experimental investigation was found to be kL a.5Re−0. measuring values: Eq. an unfavourable hydrodynamic operating condition. 5.4.3. This approach will be referred to as the “Kawase and Moo-Young two sub-reactor model”. such as those by King [30]. Extended modelling approach When applying Higbie’s theory to model the mass transB (“previous model”). the maximum flask diameter d and the Reynolds number Re. If all measuring points are considered the scattering is still significant. The conditions of isotropic turbulence were ensured using Liepe’s criteria [28]. (5) must still vwall F t C.2 ) (20) with the shaking frequency n. Prasher [34] and Zhang and Thomas [35] were therefore tested for their suitability to describe the mass transfer in the shake flask.i surface of the bulk liquid is considered to move with the velocity of the flask wall. which has been transferred to the shake flask by Büchs and Zoels [25]. 5. 4. a shaking frequency of 450 rpm and shaking diameter of 7 cm.157 1/s in the 50 ml flask at a relative filling volume of 4%. (5). These models proved to significantly overestimate the mass transfer coefficient of the liquid bulk. the so-called “out-of-phase” condition . To elucidate this behaviour the hydrodynamics of the measuring points are considered. (5) resolved to kL a. The validity of the previous mechanistic model of the gas–liquid mass transfer described above and termed as “previous model” will now be investigated using the mass transfer coefficient kL a (model: Eq. 4. neglecting all friction effects within the liquid. The average deviation of the model values from the measuring values is given by the linearly assumed fit kL aModel = 1. pastoris as an oxygen consumer by applying one correlation factor for all operating conditions. Hydrodynamics in the liquid bulk and resulting “two sub-reactor model” of the shake flask: hypothetical division of the shake flask into a falling film and a stirred tank reactor. Eq. be found. (6) is now applied to calculate the mass transfer coefficient of the bulk liquid kLB . Theofanous et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 relationship between OTRB of the P. the bulk can be considered as being well-mixed.i shaking flask = film reactor + stirred tank reactor F t C. For this.Exp = 0. This mixing in the liquid is not accounted for by Higbie’s model. Due to this. This means that Higbie’s model applied for the bulk liquid and film mass transfer as in Eq. 4. Lamont and Scott [32].i Fig. It can be assumed at this point that Higbie’s penetration theory. This shows that the 1 M sodium sulphite system is suitable to model P. The film contribution in Eq. A suitable model to describe the mass transfer coefficient of the bulk liquid kLB in Eq.8 results over the investigated range of operating conditions.1. This correlation is transferred to the shake flask using the volumetric power input correlation described by Büchs et al. Systematic description of the gas–liquid mass transfer in shake flasks The experimental investigation of OTRmax in the shake flask using the above described sodium sulphite system is extended well beyond the commonly applied operating conditions. Yet. Mass transfer model according to Kawase and Moo-Young The first model proposed to describe the mass transfer into the bulk liquid is a model by Kawase and Moo-Young [26] according to Eq. A correlation factor of OTRB /OTRmax = 2.

2. It can be concluded that the scattering is obviously caused by the “out-of-phase” operating conditions. Considering the fact that both models require no fitting parameters for the large number of operating conditions investigated the agreement with measurement values can be considered as being good. The model of the liquid distribution explained above. The bulk the mass transfer coefficient of the bulk liquid kL.88. shaking diameter or flask volume. 6. In the following the validity of the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” in dependency of the maximum flask diameter. 4–20% relative filling volume. Even though the condition of isotropic turbulence for the “Kawase and Moo-Young two sub-reactor model” have been ensured [25. shown in Fig. At this operating condition. whether this transition is actually well defined within the shake flask. meaning a correlation factor of 1. it can be questioned. It can be clearly seen that the agreement between the model and measurement values improves with increasing flask volume. With this the scattered data points are clearly reduced as Fig. The agreement between the model and measured values when applying the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” for the bulk liquid is slightly superior to the “Kawase and Moo-Young two sub-reactor model” for the bulk liquid.26 and axial Froude number. [23].28]. meaning a correlation factor of 1. 50–500 rpm shaking frequency. R2 = 0. In the 250 ml flask the agreement is very good.3.and measurement values . Influence of the flask volume When regarding the parity plot differentiated by flask size. The “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” accounts for mass transfer at laminar flow conditions. the greater the overestimation of the model values compared to the measuring values.4. a clear tendency becomes visible: the smaller the flask volume. the bulk liquid no longer rotates with the direction of the centrifugal acceleration [23.14 for the very broad range of operating conditions investigated (not shown).5 ◦ C. is unable describe the mass transfer area at “out-of-phase” operating conditions. whereas in the 50 ml flask the agreement increases with shaking frequency. 1. (5) is 163 calculated using Higbie’s penetration theory. (5) results by considering the specific mass transfer area aiB . (䊊) only “in-phase” measurement values which were calculated according to Büchs et al. The “out-of-phase” operating conditions in our investigation can be identified and eliminated using the “in-phase” criteria by Büchs et al. which the “Kawase and Moo-Young two sub-reactor model” does not account for. This approach will be termed as the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” in the following. measuring values kL aExp : 50–1000 ml shake flask. shaking diameter and filling volume will be discussed to figure out in which conditions the new modelling approach still doesn’t describe the true mechanisms correctly. 4. The average deviation of the model from the measured values is reduced from 60% in the “previous model” to 16%. (7)–(10) are thus applied to calculate B .i contribution in Eq. Eqs. 6 shows. Only at low kL a-values does the “Kawase and Moo-Young two sub-reactor model” show slightly higher values than the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model”. 4. Influence of the shaking diameter. Fig. The volumetric mass transfer coefficients kL aModel of the “Kawase and Moo-Young two sub-reactor model” correspond well with those of the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” (data not shown). 1 M sodium sulphite system. (䉱) all measurement values.25–10 cm shaking diameter. Fra > 0.4. since it assumes a symmetrical liquid bulk rotating within the flask. bulk mass transfer: Kawase and Moo-Young) vs. [23] with the Phase number.16. The specific power input P/VL and mass transfer area a are consequently significantly reduced. Ph > 1. This is quiet remarkable considering that the modelling approach is absolutely different and both approaches require absolutely no fitting parameters. 8a shows a representative comparison between the model and measurement kL a-values in dependency of the shaking frequency and flask volume. Volumetric mass transfer coefficient of model kL aModel (film mass transfer: Higbie. 7. No general tendency in dependency of the shaking diameter could be found between the model and measuring values (data not shown). The data points have up to now been considered irrespective of flask size. [23] may occur towards small shaking diameters. The film contribution in Eq. Maier et al. The agreement between the model.4. Applying Gnielinski’s boundary layer theory to model the mass transfer in the bulk liquid results in an average deviation of the model from the measured values of 14%. The characteristic overflow length of each differential slice Li is defined by the length of the gas–liquid interface and the characteristic velocity at the gas–liquid interface vi is approximated by the velocity of the flask wall vi = 2πndi /2. T = 22. but collapses at the flask base. kL aModel = 1. Mass transfer model according to Gnielinski To apply this model the bulk liquid is divided into differential slices. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 Fig. In the following results from the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” only will be further discussed.U.16kL aExp . low filling volumes and high liquid viscosities.24].

This indicates that there is a second influencing factor. which compensates the expected effect. It can be seen that the lower the shaking frequency. Gas–liquid mass transfer in liquid film The rotating bulk liquid distributes a liquid film of a certain thickness δ on the flask wall and base.6 s. can be considered as being good for a shaking diameter of 5. Maier et al. 1. 200.and spatially-resolved to validate the application of Higbie’s penetration theory in the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” as well as to investigate the influence of the reaction. There is a tendency in deviation between the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” and the measurement values in dependency of the maximum flask diameter. bulk mass transfer: Gnielinski) vs. flask sizes: (䉬) 50 ml flask. Volumetric mass transfer coefficient of model kL aModel (film mass transfer: Higbie. 7 and 10 cm. 4. (14)) and that of the exact solution of Eq. meaning that it describes the mass transfer as long as this takes place close to the gas–liquid interface.6% results. The relative deviation εrel between the oxygen flux calculated using Higbie’s penetration theory (Eq. This is at first quite surprising.5 ◦ C.25–10 cm shaking diameter.and measurement kL a-values in dependency of the shaking frequency and relative filling volume. (+) 250 ml flask. (12)) is actually underestimated by Higbie’s theory (Eq. 7. It can be seen that the agreement between the model.and measurement values increases towards smaller relative filling volumes and increasing shaking frequencies.164 U.The resulting profiles of the dissolved oxygen concentration cO2 . Influence of the filling volume Fig. At low shaking frequencies the dissolved oxygen concentration at the flask wall is lifted. This effect is that Higibe’s penetration theory neglects the mass transfer due to the reaction in the liquid film.8% results. filling volume and shaking frequency. 9a. In the following the oxygen diffusion process into the liquid film will be considered time. (11) was solved using the programme “gPROMS” applying the values listed in Table 1.b . The reason for small deviations between model.and measurement values at a shaking diameter of 2.5 cm (not shown).5×10−5 . Gas–liquid mass transfer and reaction then takes place across the film for the contact time tc . The oxygen mass balance in Eq. Contact times corresponding with shaking frequencies n = 100.5. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 Fig.L (x. In first investigations of the film thickness conducted using a fluorescent measuring method a film thickness in the order of δ = 5 × 10−5 m was found in a 250 ml flask. meaning Higbie’s penetration theory can still be applied. Higbie’s penetration theory is valid for semi-infinite space only.15 s (corresponding to n = 400 rpm) a relative deviation of εrel = 2. The dissolved oxygen concentration of the film at the time of application (tc = 0) is equal to the dissolved oxygen concentration of the liquid bulk cO2 . As described earlier. the more the actual oxygen flux (Eq. since no fitting parameters whatsoever are applied. At high shaking frequencies (n > 400 rpm) the liquid film can still be considered as a semi-infinite space. measuring values kL aExp for different flask sizes: 50–1000 ml shake flask. T = 22. after which the liquid film is mixed under the rotating liquid bulk. the film thickness was increased and decreased by 50% (meaning to δ = 7. (14)). For a first estimation mass transfer for different contact times tc equal to the reciprocal of the shaking frequency 1/n is considered. For the shortest contact time considered tc = 0.4.Higbie × 100 (21) εrel = 2 n¯˙ O2 For the longest contact time considered tc = 0. This process is repeated continuously. 9a Higbie would be expected to overestimate the actual oxygen flux. tc (100 rpm) =1/100 × 60 = 0. In this preliminary measurement the film thickness was not investigated in dependency of the operating conditions.15 s (corresponding to n = 100 rpm) a relative deviation of εrel = 8. (䊐) 500 ml flask. (12) can be calculated according to: n¯˙ O − n¯˙ O2 . For example. which decreases with increasing shaking frequency could not be found. To investigate the influence of the film thickness on the validity of Higbie’s penetration theory. t) are shown in Fig. This means that the higher the contact time. meaning that Higbie’s penetration theory is no longer fully valid.4. 4. meaning the higher the contact time tc the higher the dissolved oxygen concentration at the flask wall. The reaction of the sodium sulphite system is considered as a 1. 50–500 rpm shaking frequency. since based on the results presented in Fig. 1 M sodium sulphite system. 8b shows a representative comparison between the model. 4–20% relative filling volume. (䉱) 1000 ml flask. 300 and 400 rpm were considered.1 order reaction. () 100 ml flask. Still the agreement between the “Gnielinski two sub-reactor model” and the measurement values can be considered as being good.

6 s. To elucidate the exact influence of the above tendencies on the deviations in the “Gnielinksi two sub-reactor model” shown above detailed measurements of the film thickness . 5 cm shaking diameter. 9b it can be seen that the thinner the film. the more the dissolved oxygen concentration profile at the flask wall is lifted and the condition of semi-infinite space is certainly no longer given at δ = 2. in this case Higbie’s penetration theory overestimates the actual oxygen flux across the gas–liquid interface. bulk mass transfer: Gnielinski) and measuring values kL aExp of 1 M sodium sulphite system.5 × 10−5 m) the oxygen diffuses right through to the flask wall and the condition of semi-infinite space is no longer given. and 2.5 × 10−5 m a relative deviation of εrel = −9. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 165 Fig. 4% relative filling volume. T = 22.5×10−5 m) and the resulting dissolved oxygen profile and oxygen flux calculated for a contact time of 0.5 × 10−5 m.6% results. (ii) in thin liquid films (δ = 2. 5 cm shaking diameter. (b) different relative filling volumes in 250 ml flask. Two general tendencies have been found (i) at moderate contact times (tc > 0.5 ◦ C for: (a) different flask sizes. For δ = 2.2 s) and film thickness (δ = 5 × 10−5 m) the reaction within the film dominates and causes Higbie’s penetration theory to underestimate the actual oxygen flux across the gas–liquid interface. meaning that Higbie’s penetration theory actually overestimates the oxygen flux in thin films. 8. Volumetric mass transfer coefficient of model kL aModel (film mass transfer: Higbie. Maier et al.U. From Fig. The above considerations have shown that the validity of Higbie’s penetration theory depends sensitively on contact time and film thickness.

film thickness δ = 5 × 10−5 m. Maier et al. 5. This model considers the shake flask as a “two sub-reactor” system dividing it into a hypothetical film reactor and a stirred tank reactor. are necessary. The models require no fitting parameters whatsoever and satisfactorily describe the measuring values of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient kL a and the maximum oxygen transfer capacity OTRmax in a 1 M aqueous sodium sulphite model system with an average deviation of 14%. Gnielinski’s model can be considered to describe mass transfer at laminar flow conditions better than Kawase and Moo-Young’s model.166 U. (b) Variation of the film thickness.8 with an oxygen limited P. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 Fig. penetration depth x. The OTRmax of the sodium sulphite system has shown a constant correlation factor of 2. Conclusion A fully mechanistic “two sub-reactor model” of the gas–liquid mass transfer in shake flasks at waterlike liquid viscosity has been developed. since the film thickness may be a function of the operating conditions such as shaking frequency and maximum flask diameter.6 s (n = 100 rpm). pastoris culture under variation of the operating conditions. Other biological systems have still to be investigated. The mass transfer into the bulk liquid (stirred tank reactor) is equally well described by two different mass transfer theories: that of Kawase and Moo-Young [26] and that of Gnielinski. contact time tc = 0. 9. Calculated oxygen concentration cO2 in liquid film vs. which is based on the boundary layer theory [29] for a rigid boundary. The mass transfer into the liquid film (film reactor) on the flask wall is described using Higbie’s penetration theory. Thus. the . (a) Variation of the contact time tc .

C. Hirose. [5] L. Utilization of specific power consumption measurements for optimization of culture conditions in shaking flasks. Commun. [34] B. 7 (2) (2001) 91–98. RQ) in shaking flasks. 74 (5) (2001) 355– 363. Biotechnol. Diffusivities of gases in aqueous electrolyte solutions.-J. Maier. 5 (1973) 153–159. Veglio. J.B. Shake flask fermentations. Turbulent mass transfer at free gas–liquid interfaces. Chem. Part I. Gas absorption in a turbulent film. Suitability of the shake flask for oxygen supply to microbial cultures. Washington. H. Biochem. Inst. Büchs. S. [7] U. An eddy cell model of mass transfer into the surface of a turbulent liquid. Gas Solubilities in Microbial Culture Media. Biotechnol. Trans. [21] T. [26] Y. 1–37. Büchs. Chemical engineering use of catalyzed sulphite oxidation kinetics for the determination of mass transfer characteristics of gas–liquid contactors. Chem. Mass transfer at a free surface in stirred tank bioreactors. Washington. Zhang. van Dierendonck. Quicker.G. [10] V. A. [22] T. Eng. Demain. Moo-Young. S. J. Scott. Hem. (2003).L. H. 33 (4) (1998) 367–376. AIChE J. King. Teil 4 Stoffvereinigung in fluiden Phasen.). Sideman. C. [19] K. Bailey. 7 (2) (2001) 157–163. [25] J. Ing. Studies on oxygen transfer in submerged fermentations. Non-dimensional description of specific power consumption and flow regimes in unbaffled flasks at elevated liquid viscosity. Okada. pp. Manual of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology.S.L. Studies in unbaffled and baffled shake flasks. Ind. Agric. [16] V. Maier. Chem. Walter. F. Prasher. Biochem. [4] J. H. Van Suijdam„ N. P. 49–60. Gnielinski. Beolchini. Chem. Zang. 7 (2) (2001) 99–106. Turbulent liquid phase mass transfer at a free gas–liquid interface. [35] Z. Zimmerli. H. Büchs. Maier. Eng. Am. 29 (PartA) (1974) 1969–1976. M.). Gastransport durch die Oberfläche gerührter Flüssigkeiten. with application to openchannel. Online respiration activity measurement (OTR. Kudrjawizki. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Mixing in Industrial Processes. 48 (5) (1993) 933–941. [29] V. V. W. Kossen. Bauer. R. J. Sci. this issue. Vacek. [23] J. [17] U. resulting in a larger fraction of the liquid participating in film mass transfer. Eng. Zoels.C. Fundam.U. Zoels. Ubaldini. Eng. Kawase. Int. C. Schumpe. Part II. [32] C. American Society for Microbiology.R. Eddy number distribution in isotropic turbulence and its application for estimating mass transfer coefficients. Lotter. Calam.E.L. Henzler. J. W. End. J. Verfahrenstechnische Berechnungsmethoden. J. Lamont.K. [24] S. Microbiol. Akita.H. B. Biol. 13 (1) (1965) 109–114. Brumfield. J.J. Lotter. 36 (11) (1981) 1747–1768.V. Anderlei.-J. Lazic. Milbradt. 41 (5) (1975) 145–153. (2003). pp. Mass transfer resistance of sterile plugs in shaking reactors. Process Biochem. Jpn. Demain. It could be shown that the validity of Higbie’s penetration theory to describe the mass transfer in the liquid film sensitively depends on the film thickness and contact time between the gas and liquid phase. Liepe. J. Henzler. Büchs. Moderate and high Schmidt numbers.M. Meusel. 30 (1) (1966) 49–58. The liquid distribution in the flask becomes increasingly asymmetrical towards higher viscosities [23] and may finally reach an “out-of-phase” state. Wilkinson. On the kinetics of sulphite oxidation in heterogeneous systems. Springer.A. Berechnung mittlerer Wärme. McDaniel. 167 [14] J. Ind. J. Hermann. Model for oxygen transfer in a shake flask. M. M. E. Sonoda. Biochem. T. A more detailed investigation of the influence of the operating parameters on the film must be conducted.D. Biotechnol. J.D. Biochem. Theofanous. Oxygen transfer in flasks shaken on orbital shakers. [31] F. Cramers. Characterisation of the gas–liquid mass transfer in shaken bioreactors. 7 (1991) 123–131. Chem. Joha. IChemE 68 (Part A) (1990) 189–194. The rate of absorption of a pure gas into a still liquid during short periods of exposure. Effect of oxygen supply rates on growth of Esherichia coli. 1996. Evaluation of the ratio of the maximum to specific power consumption in shaking bioreactors. Solomon (Eds. [30] C. Kinoshita. it can be assumed that the thickness of the liquid film on the flask wall increases with viscosity. in: A. 34 (5) (2001) 647–653. Davies (Eds. 1999. N. VCH Publishers. Maier. J. CTR. Büchs. J. B. [13] R. Nikolic. Houze. Deckwer.E. Bioeng.E. 56 (20) (1981) 89–94.R. Fundamentals 5 (1) (1966) 1–8. J. Device for sterile online measurement of the oxygen transfer rate in shake flasks. Doldersum. The applicability of the model to higher liquid viscosities has to still be investigated. . L. U. In our present model the film volume is neglected. pp. 140 (1) (1996) 207–217. Eng.W. Power consumption in shake flasks on rotary shaking machines. in press. 16 (1) (1970) 513–519. Schedel. Eng. Chem. Eng. S.N. 1982. Ing. And EC. Empirical models for oxygen mass transfer: a comparison between shake flask and lab-scale fermentor and application to manganiferous ore bleaching.D. [28] F. Weißgräber. DC. Chem. Platzer. [6] C. Bioeng. bubble and jet flows. Chem. Sci. Determination of oxygen transfer rate and respiration rate in shaken cultures using oxygen analysers. Anderlei. Büchs. Eng. 65 (11) (1993) 1360– 1362.O. Higbie. [33] T. [18] R. W. Eng.C. Bioforum 3 (2001) 149–151. Chem. Thomas. Biochem.T. Barron. Anderlei. Technol. Eng. [8] Y. Calculation of the Liquid Distribution and Mass and Momentum Transfer Area in Shake Flasks on Rotary Shakers at Waterlike Viscosities. Engler. U. D. Furthermore. 2003. Eng. C. [11] C. 1988. Veljkovic.und Stoffübergangskoeffizienten an laminar und turbulent überströmten Einzelkörpern mit Hilfe einer einheitlichen Gleichung. Introduction to advantages and problems of shaken cultures. J. in: A. 49 (6) (1995) 265–272. Wes. Sci. References [1] M. Sci. Büchs. Eng. M. this issue. Part IV. [9] H. [27] W. Linek.G. in Reaction Engineering. Eng. Biochem. B. American Society for Microbiology. J. Mrotzek. Trans. Büchs. Chem. [2] J. Chem. Part I. Möckel. G. [12] F. Büchs. Hilton. J. [15] P. K. [3] T. A. N. Bioeng. Pinczewski. Appl. Bioprocess Eng. Small-scale liquid fermentations. 28 (1973) 1230. 59–65. L. Maier et al. 7 (2) (2001) 107–112. [20] A. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 17 (2004) 155–167 developed model can be applied to chose suitable operating conditions for biological screening experiments at waterlike viscosities apriori to screening ensuring sufficient oxygen supply. 68 (6) (2000) 594–597. J. Heat Mass Transfer 19 (1976) 613–624. J. This effect is not accounted for by the presented model of the liquid distribution which is also the basis for calculating the mass transfer area. S.H. A model for mass (heat) transfer in turbulent tube flow. B.F.L. Optical method for the determination of the oxygen transfer capacity of small bioreactors based on sulphite oxidation.L. Forsch. Anderlei. Manual of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology. 31 (1935) 365–389. Büchs. Weinheim. Büchs. Berlin. RAMOS (respiration activity monitoring system). The kinetics of uncatalysed sodium sulphite oxidation. Sawicki. Eng. 20 (1978) 1695–1709.

- 200-059-GMRC-2004-SeparationUploaded byklam
- Inclusion RemovalUploaded byAmiy Srivastava
- FB-manualUploaded bynervthc
- pub-mb_159Uploaded byIjaz Fazil
- TurbulentFlows Pope Chapter5FiguresUploaded byPaq123
- Separation Criterion for Turbulent using similarity.pdfUploaded byManu Chakkingal
- Nosek Paper Kolokvium 2011Uploaded byStepan81
- HetsroniUploaded bysasa_22
- Characteristics of the Low-speed Wind Tunnel of the UNNEUploaded byMario Aleman
- 1-s2.0-S1369703X16301541-main.pdfUploaded byRina Zulwardi
- dosfasesUploaded bychacui
- Turbulence TheoriesUploaded byNorBertoChavez
- Vielmo, H. a. Et Al 2008 - Numerical Analysis of a High Swirl-Generating Helical Intake Port for Diesel EnginesUploaded byla8805
- 19820019810Uploaded bypreetham108
- Turbulence Modeling (Dr. Alam Wardag)Uploaded byShehryar Ali
- Cfd Simulation of Stirred Tanks- Comparison of Turbulence Models-radial Flow ImpellersUploaded byAnoop
- C06 Chapter 6 six Engineering fan technologyUploaded byNereo Spengler
- Hendrik Cosemans NynasUploaded byprevrtljivac
- 1Uploaded byTatiana Caballero
- Fluid Flow SimulationsUploaded byVaibhav Shetiya
- caracterización túnel UNNEUploaded byLucy Lopez
- Characterization of dynamic gas-solid distribution in the fluidized beds by CuiUploaded byKamyll Dawn Cocon
- Euromech Colloquium 508Uploaded byCiprian Rhamnusia
- FAC Multiphase NEDUploaded byRizqi Ilmal Yaqin
- ProofUploaded bykasy3
- 3Uploaded bypescanova3
- Modul GambitUploaded bysafridasasha
- Incompressible flow.pdfUploaded byjprvader
- unit 1 and 2 reviewUploaded byapi-233187566
- MIT2_29F11_lect_27Uploaded bycostpop

- Aggie-challenge Report - Low Cost Spectrophotometer 1Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 12 Michael MelcherUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- Bio ReactorUploaded byZianaly Jeffry
- 1701.08318Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 2006 Biochemical Engineering Journal Dumont Andres LecloirecUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- C 244 AbstractUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- ChromatBAUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- InTech-The Genus Galanthus a Source of Bioactive CompoundsUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 10.1002@bit.10645Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 3466Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- MassUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- Full Text 01Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 6.1.09 Specialty ChemicalsUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- SLJTS-59(2)-62Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 10.1002@1097-0290(20001020)70-2-217--aid-bit11-3.0.co;2-wUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 1779_ftp.pdfUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- Chapter_6Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 39047Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- Stirred Bioreactor Engineering for Production Scale Part 1Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- bger6-3Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 666-1889-1-SMUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- Gene n Tech Pat ArticleUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- ajassp.2009.848.856Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 9597769Uploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 018879.fullUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- 10.1.1.490.6029.pdfUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- Batch Fed BatchUploaded byAyesha Ralliya
- 2006 Biochemical Engineering Journal Dumont Andres LecloirecUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle
- bioreactors.pdfUploaded byVenkata Suryanarayana Gorle

- phy2-lecture3-03Uploaded byCris Angelo S. Pangilinan
- InsoGum Marketing PlanUploaded byArif Masood
- Cardiovascular Drugs[1]_ppt [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byLeonel Dos Santos
- 14-01-07 Order on Apple v. Samsung Permanent Injunction BriefingUploaded byFlorian Mueller
- OTDR lab manualUploaded byRakkuyil Sarath
- course info march-june2016Uploaded byapi-314629719
- Background of BrexitUploaded byAmanullah Bashir Gilal
- C Programming Lab-2Uploaded bysweetie05
- Merger AcquisitionUploaded bySoha Bendre
- 4 Level 1 - Lighting SystemUploaded byDania DanDan
- Prelease AddendumUploaded byRealtyProsAustin
- Experiments in General Chemistry Ebbing PDFUploaded byKimberly
- EN302 DSD Mini Project Topics Y03 2Uploaded bytamshete_483066235
- Gordon and DiTomaso 1992Uploaded bytijanarajkovic
- Glossary of Electronics and Communications TermsUploaded byJoan Padilla
- Deploying Nexus7000 in Data Centre Networks_BRKDCT-2951Uploaded byPadam Dhami
- Civil and Structural WorkUploaded byAngeline Ong
- Gonzales Cannon June 28 IssueUploaded byGonzales Cannon
- rocketreportUploaded byapi-335483695
- schedule aUploaded byapi-280605987
- Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume I Estimation Theory by Steven M.kayUploaded byNarasimha Reddy
- Data Vault Modeling GuideUploaded byobeidat_dba
- 04-32-00-1FTUploaded byEnggel Bernabe
- PranUploaded byshiva
- 4 - Marlborough College Malaysia - Person SpecificationUploaded byAntariksh Pratap Singh
- Phase I ESA QuestionnaireUploaded byredhousecat
- 14009A_ch2.pdfUploaded bywasim
- Wu_Shu (CM) 2002.pdfUploaded byThyago de Lellys
- 18-35-1-SMUploaded byAthira Sankar
- C12 chapter 12 fan engineering technickUploaded byNereo Spengler