See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259972213

Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor for domestic wastewater

treatment

Article · December 2012

DOI: 10.1504/IJEE.2012.050792

CITATIONS READS

0 180

3 authors, including:

Rodolfo Reyna-Velarde Rosa Olivia Cañizares-Villanueva

Grupo Rotoplas Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute
8 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   1,927 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and characterization of large-scale bioreactors for wastewater treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodolfo Reyna-Velarde on 22 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Environmental Engineering, Vol. 4, Nos. 3/4, 2012 171

Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor for

domestic wastewater treatment

Martha Arias-Peñaranda*
GIRN, University of Pamplona,
Km 1 Vía Bucaramanga, Pamplona,
Norte de Santander, Colombia
E-mail: marta.rias@hotmail.com
*Corresponding author

Rodolfo Reyna-Velarde and

Rosa Olivia Cañizares-Villanueva
Department of Biotechnology and Bioengineering,
Centro de Investigaciones y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto
Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV-IPN)
Fax: 52-55- 57473800 Ext: 3315
E-mail: rcanizar@cinvestav.mx
E-mail: fenix@cinvestav.mx
Abstract: This study evaluates the hydrodynamic and mass-transfer behaviour
of a 20-L airlift photobioreactor, employed for secondary wastewater treatment
of domestic effluent. Gas hold-up (ε), as well as the volumetric mass transfer
coefficient (kLa) was assessed as a function of superficial gas velocity (Ug) for
both bi- and triphasic systems. In the experimental range of Ug investigated, the
maximum kLa and ε obtained were in the order of 0.0074 s−1 and 0.035 for water/
air system and 0.0097 s−1 and 0.026 for triphasic system respectively. The results
indicate that this PBR is a good candidate for wastewater treatment, with lower
power costs than other types of biological reactors.
Keywords: airlift; hydrodynamic; gas hold-up; mass–transfer; photobioreactor.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Arias-Peñaranda, M.,

Reyna-Velarde, R. and Cañizares-Villanueva R.O. (2012) ‘Hydrodynamic
characterisation of an airlift reactor for domestic wastewater treatment', Int. J.
Environmental Engineering, Vol. 4, Nos. 3/4, pp.171–182.
Biographical notes: Martha Trinidad Arias Peñaranda Research Group in
Natural Resources, University of Pamplona, Colombia, Currently, she is a
PhD student, Department of Biotechnology and Bioengineering of Centro
de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional
(CINVESTAV-IPN).
Rodolfo Reyna Velarde, a PhD student, Department of Biotechnology and
Bioengineering of Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto
Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV-IPN).
Rosa Olivia Cañizares Villanueva PhD, is a Professor and the Head of the
Department of Biotechnology and Bioengineering and a Leader of the Microalgae
Biotechnology Laboratory Research Group.

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

172 M.A. Peñaranda et al

1 Introduction
Recently, it has become apparent that residential activities generate a large amount of
domestic wastewater, which eventually becomes mixed with rainwater in combined sewer
systems where its disposal represents a big problem, especially in small towns because of the
high-cost of constructing treatment plants. This varies according to the type of ground in the
area, but the facilities are necessary when population growth outstrips residential services.
Conventional treatment of municipal wastewater is carried out by the sedimentation of solids
and subsequent removal of dissolved and suspended organic matter, leaving an effluent
containing high-concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, which is generally discharged
into freshwater streams and which may lead to eutrophication of water bodies. In recent
years, the use of microalgae (Órpez et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Chinnasamy et al., 2010;
Pittman et al., 2011) and fungus (Olivieri et al., 2006; Morales-Barrera and Cristiani-Urbina
2006; Park et al., 2011) has been proposed for the removal of these pollutants and also as a
way of obtaining high-value biomass.
Although an important aspect in terms of the bio-purification of effluents using microalgae
consists in the design and type of bioreactors, which must ensure high-removal efficiency,
high-biomass productivity, short-retention time and low-cost. The design of wastewater
treatment has focused primarily on the biochemical process leaving hydrodynamic aspects,
such as flow characteristics, mixing regime, residence time and reactor geometry, as secondary
considerations, even though these influence the effectiveness of the treatment processes.
Airlift reactors, have been employed successfully for wastewater treatment (Xianling
et al., 2005; Dhamole et al., 2009), using microalgae and cyanobacteria cultures (Xu et al.,
2002; Sanchez-Mirón et al., 2002) for treating of waste gases (Lo and Hwang, 2004).
The main characteristics have been outlined by Olivieri et al., (2007), who describe their
construction and operation as straight forward, with capacity for obtaining high-liquid linear
velocities without recourse to recirculation, thus substantially improving turbulence, degree
of mixing and heat and mass transfer (Chisti, 1989). Likewise, low-energy consumption
has been reported, as well as a low-shear rate (Dhanasekharan et al., 2005; Gourich et al.,
2005; Talvy, et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2010) These reactors are also thought to fortify
the photosynthetic ability of organisms employing light energy, thus improving the overall
performance process (Sanchez-Mirón et al., 1999; Luo and Al-Dahhan, 2004).
The characteristics of the airlift bioreactors depend on the gas flowrate and liquid
velocity, on the reactor geometry and on the fluid properties (Chisti and Moo-Young, 2002).
Therefore, the design, scale-up and performance of this bioreactor requires a knowledge of
the hydrodynamic behaviour of the system, which can be evaluated by applying parameters,
such as gas hold-up and mass transfer coefficient, widely employed for representing the flow
dynamics of these reactors (Blaže et al., 2004).
In this work, the hydrodynamic and mass-transfer characteristics of this airlift PBR for
domestic wastewater treatment were assessed as function of the superficial gas velocity, by means
of the gas hold-up and volumetric mass transfer coefficient in both bi- and triphasic systems.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Photobioreactor (PBR)

The measurements taken for a cylindrical airlift photobioreactor (Figure 1), constructed
from transparent acrylic, with the height of 68 cm, with an inner diameter of 20.6 cm and
 Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor 173

a working volume of 20-L. A stainless steel deflector located in the centre that divided the
bioreactor into two equal zones (riser and downcomer) and it was hydraulically connected
to the bottom and top. The reactor was agitated by means of air flowing through a diffuser
located at the bottom of the rise zone, causing a difference in the average density of the fluid
between both zones, thus inducing fluid circulation with a defined cyclic pattern.

Figure 1 Reactor airlift (see online version for colours)

2.2 Measurements
The effect of superficial gas velocity on the retained gas-fraction in the reactor and the
volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) in the biphasic system (top water/air) and
tri-phasic system (wastewater/air/Arthrospira spp.) was assessed.
The tri-phasic system (wastewater/air/Arthrospira spp.) was comprised of 17 residual
water L with 8 g/L of sodium bicarbonate and 3 L of Arthrospira spp.innoculums, this being
a native strain isolated by the Universidad del Valle at Ciénaga Miramar, located in the city
of Barrancabermeja, Colombia.
Measurements were obtained by applying air flows between 2 and 20 L/min, at intervals
of 2 L/min, so that the air superficial velocity (UgR) in the rise zone varied between 0.001
and 0.01 m/s.

2.2.1 Gas hold-up assessment

The gas hold-up (ε) represents the retained gas-fraction in the reactor and was measured by
means of the volumetric expansion method (Vasconcelos et al., 2003; Jin and Lant, 2004;
Kilonzo et al., 2010). It was determined by measuring the liquid level differences caused by
the bubbles and gas retention in the reactor, applying the following ratio:
ΔH
ε−
ΔH + HL

where HL is the liquid height without aeration and ΔH is the liquid increase after aeration.
174 M.A. Peñaranda et al

2.2.2 Volumetric mass-transfer coefficient determination

Volumetric mass-transfer coefficient (kLa) was determined by dynamic aeration (Fadavi and
Chisti, 2005; Reyna-Velarde et al., 2010), where the bioreactor was initially filled up with
20-L of tap water and air was supplied to reach water saturation with dissolved oxygen
(100% DO), equivalent to a concentration of 7.3 mg/l (at 15 °C and 583 mm Hg). The
oxygen was stripped from the liquid, using nitrogen to reduce the DO approx 0% (0,2 mg/l).
Subsequently the nitrogen was replaced by air and the oxygen was measured every 20 s
using a membrane-electrode Orion, located at the centre of each area. This procedure was
repeated for each one of the intended air flowrates.
The value of kLa was calculated from the slope of the graph: (C*−Co/C*−C) versus
(t–to), applying the following equation (Chisti, 1989):

⎛ C * −C 0 ⎞
In ⎜ C * − C ⎟ = kL a (t − t 0)
⎝ ⎠

where C* is the concentration of the dissolved, saturated oxygen (DO), C0 is the concentration
of DO at a time t0 and C is the concentration of DO at a time t. All measurements were
carried out at room temperature (15°C) and under local atmospheric pressure (583 mm Hg).
The global value of kLa was calculated by the kLa ratios determined at the riser zones and
downcomer applying the following equation (Chisti, 1989):
Ar kLar + Ad kLad
kLa = Ar + Ad

where:
Ar = cross-sectional area of the riser zone
kL ar = kLa in the riser zone
Ad = cross-sectional area of the downcomer zone
kLad = kLa in the downcomer zone

2.2.3 Volumetric power (P/V)

The volumetric power (P/V) was calculated by the expression (Chisti and Moo-Young,
1998; Znad et al., 2004):
P ρ gUg
=
V ⎛ Ad ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Ar ⎠

where
P/V = volumetric power (Wm−3)
ρ = liquid density (kg m-3)
g = gravity acceleration (m s-2)
Ug = superficial gas velocity (m s-1), based on the total cross-sectional area of the PBR
Ad = cross-sectional area of the downcomer zone (m2)
Ar = cross-sectional area of the riser zone (m2)
 Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor 175

As the airlift division plate is located at the centre of this PBR (Ad = Ar), the denominator
of this expression had a value of 2. The liquid density was determined using the pycnometer
method, substituting a value of 1008.9 Kg m−3.

3 Results and discussions

Experimental data were fitted to a correlation of the type F = αUgβ where F could be the gas
hold-up (ε) or the volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa). This type of correlation has
been applied by many investigators (Shah et al., 1982; Godbole et al., 1984; Heijnen and
Van’t Riet, 1984; Chisti, 1989; Vasconcelos et al., 2003).
The results obtained for the influence of the Ug in the kLa and ε are presented in Figure 2.
It was found experimentally that the volumetric mass transfer coefficient and ε are strongly
dependent on the superficial gas velocity. Similar types of findings were reported earlier
(Jurascık et al., 2006; Deng et al., 2010).

Figure 2 Influence of Ug on the kLa and ε

176 M.A. Peñaranda et al

3.1 Volumetric mass-transfer coefficient (kLa)

Figure 2a shows the values of kLa dependent on Ug at the bioreactor as biphasic system
(waterair) and tri-phasic system (with biomass) one. It can be observed from the figure in
both systems that the volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) increased with increasing
superficial gas velocity in the riser owing to an increase in gas hold-up, which increases the
available area for oxygen transfer. Moreover, an increase in the superficial gas velocity in the
riser increases the liquid velocity, which decreases the thickness of the gas-liquid boundary
layer decreasing the mass transfer resistance.
Experimental data shown in Figure 2a were fitted and the following equations represent
the correlation relating volumetric mass transfer coefficient with the superficial gas velocity:
kLa (triphasic system) = 1,3532Ug1,1128
kLa (biphasic system) = 0,5281Ug0,941
The coefficients of correlation were of the order of 0.8505 and 0.9506 for the triphasic and
biphasic system, respectively. Similar correlations were reported by Shah et al. (1982) in a
bubble column with air–water system kLa = 0:467 Ug0.82 , Nikakhtari and Hill (2005) for an
external loop airlift bioreactor with packed Bed KLa = 0.531 Ug0.762 and Barboza et al. (2000)
report a β-value equal to 1.33. The values of 1.1128 and 0.941 obtained in this work, is close
to these last values. It is apparent that for values of Ug of less than 2 × 10−3 m s−1,the kLa in
both systems displayed no significant difference, whereas for Ug between 2 × 10−3 and 4 × 10−3
m s−1, the kLa at the biphasic system exceeded that observed in the three-phase system, by an
average of 49%. At values of Ug exceeding 4 × 10−3 m s−1, the kLa of the triphasic system was
superior to that recorded for the biphasic system by an average of 21%.
It is likely that for between 2 and 4 × 10−3 m s−1 of Ug, there was a transition zone in the flow
regime within the PBR. In the triphasic system, the value of the liquid film coefficient (kL) may
decrease owing to the presence of solids, which in turn reduces oxygen diffusion within the liquid
(Sanchez-Mirón et al., 2000, Reyna-Velarde et al., 2010). In the case of a Ug value greater than
4 x 10−3 m s−1, the presence of these solids apparently favoured the production of smaller bubbles,
thus, amplifying the interfacial area, which in turn generated an increase in the kLa observed in the
biphasic system (Sada et al., 1983; Quicker et al., 1984; Chisti, 1989; Reyna-Velarde et al., 2010).
The kLa obtained in the PBR evaluated in this study was similar to that of reported for
other airlift reactors (Sanchez-Mirón et al., 2000; Xu et al., 2002), although the PBR in
this work had a higher height/diameter ratio (H/D) ratio, possibly resulting in less spending
power of the studied PBR (Chisti, 1989). Besides this, the kLa in this PBR was higher than
that of reported for the horizontal tubular PBR (Camacho-Rubio et al., 1999), but lower than
that of reported for the flat panel type PBR (Sierra et al., 2008; Reyna-Velarde et al., 2010).

3.2 Gas hold-up (ε)

The gas hold-up impacts upon the bioreactor design because the total design volume of the
bioreactor for any range of operating conditions depends on the maximum gas hold-up that
must be accommodated (Chisti, 1989). The influence of Ug on the ε in the analysed PBR
is shown in Figure 2b. The following equations that represent the correlation relating gas
hold-up with the superficial gas velocity were obtained from fitting experimental data:
ε (triphasic system) = 1,2668 Ug0,815
ε (biphasic system) = 1,6031 Ug0,8781
 Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor 177

The coefficients of correlation were of the order of 0.9565 and 0.917 for the triphasic
and biphasic system, respectively. It was found experimentally that gas hold-up is strongly
dependent on the superficial gas velocity. The increase in superficial gas velocity riser
implies an increase in the quantity of gas present in the riser, that is, an increase of gas
fraction in the riser owing to at higher-liquid velocity the system that tends to generate finer
bubbles, and thus increased gas hold-up (Chisti, 1989). Similar correlations were reported
by Chisti (1989) for a Bubble column and Nikakhtari and Hill (2005):
ε (Bubble column) = 2,47Ug0.97
ε (without packed bed) = 3,228Ug1.016
ε (with packed bed) = 1,460 Ug0.784

At Ug values below 2 × 10−3 m s−1, the gas hold-up is equal for both systems, whereas at Ug
values between 4 and 8 × 10−3 m s−1, ε is higher by an average of 21% in the triphasic system,
compared with the biphasic system. With Ug exceeding 8 × 10−3 m s−1, ε is higher by 27% in
the biphasic system, compared with the triphasic system.
The behaviour of ε, when Ug is lower than 9 × 10−3 m s−1 concurs with that observed for
kLa. Possibly, the coalescence of gas bubbles in the biphasic system generated larger bubbles,
which reduced the gas residence time and, therefore, the value of ε. A disturbance occurred
when Ug exceeded 9 × 10−3 m s−1, as ε increases in the biphasic system. It was likely that the
geometry of the PBR had an impact on the trajectory of the bubbles in the biphasic system,
as it possibly causes a longer residence time and, therefore, an increase in the value of ε.

3.3 Relationship between (kLa) and (ε)

The slope of the graph showing kLa vs. 6ε/(1−ε) provides us with the value of the ratio
of liquid film coefficient (kL) and the diameter of bubbles (db) in the PBR (Chisti, 1989;
Sanchez-Mirón et al., 2000; Reyna-Velarde et al., 2010). The graph showing the relationship
between kLa and 6ε/(1−ε) is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Relation between kLa y 6ε/(1-ε) at PBR evaluated

178 M.A. Peñaranda et al

The average values of kL/dB obtained in the present work are 0.0561 s−1 for triphasic
system and 0.032 s−1 for biphasic system. Chisti (1989) performed a similar analysis for 97
data points obtained from several different reactors and found an average value of 0.053 s−1.
The slope of the graph in the three-phase system has 43% higher, thus confirming that
the diameter of the bubbles is generally lower in the three-phase system and corroborating
the hypothesis that mass transfer is greater in this system than in the biphasic system. On the
other hand, the value of R2 in the triphasic system was 0.8437, indicating that the diameter
of the bubbles is not constant in terms of Ug values, consistent with that previously stated
concerning the change in the size of the bubbles in the three-phase system, which apparently
decreases at Ug values above 4 × 10−3 m s−1, compensating for the decline in oxygen dispersal,
resulting from the presence of solutes within the liquid.

3.4 Relationship between kLa, ε and volumetric power

The relationship of kLa, ε with volumetric power is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Relation between kLa, ε vs. P/V

 Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor 179

At Ug = 0.005 m s−1, it is apparent that kLa in this PBR is 34% lower than that reported by
Hullat and Thomas (2011) with a bubble-column PBR of 1.4 L capacity, even when the
value of (P/V) in the PBR in our research was 43.5% lower compared with a similar
study mentioned previously. We compared the values obtained in this research, with those
calculated using the correlation proposed by Chisti (1989):
0.86
⎛P⎞
kLa = 2.39 × 10−4 ⎜ ⎟
⎝V ⎠

It is evident that there are virtually no differences in terms of kLa, when comparing the two
phase system with the model described in this equation. In the triphasic system, the slope of
the kLa vs. (P/V) relationship increases by 100%, compared with that shown in the biphasic
system, indicating that it is possible to reach higher kLa values and, therefore, higher-mass
transfer characteristics in a three-phase system, with a smaller energy input.
The overall gas hold-up, once again, correlated with equations of the form F = α(P/V)β,
ε (triphasic system) = 1,2 × 10 −3 (P/V)0,815
ε (biphasic system) = 0,9 × 10 −3 (P/V)0,8781
The magnitude of power input dependence of overall gas hold-up was reflected in the slope
of the plots in figure 4b. It can be seen that there are virtually no differences in the slope,
when comparing the two systems. At a power input less to 40 Wm–3 the gas hold-up was only
marginally increased by addition of biomass relative to in air-water system, while that at a
power input upper to 40 Wm–3 was decreased.
It is important to emphasise that in wastewater treatment systems, compounds are present
which behave differently from inorganic salts or gases, for example organic compounds or
other particles, which are able to modify the hydrodynamic characteristics of the system
(Kluytmans et al., 2003). These characteristics should be taken into account when considering
applying this type of equipment in wastewater treatment systems, as it is possible to modify
the superficial surface tension or the gas-liquid interfacial area, probably modifying the mass
transfer in a positive way.

4 Conclusions
In the present work, the volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) and the gas hold-up (ε)
were evaluated in an airlift photobioreactor, employed for wastewater treatment. It was
found experimentally that values of ε and kLa are strong functions of superficial gas velocity.
Thus, basic correlations of ε and kLa were developed as a function of superficial gas velocity,
from where the values of the parameters at any given gas velocity can be predicted. The
empirical correlations calculated were compared with literature reported correlations and a
good agreement was obtained, which allows to employing these data in scale-up strategies.
For both system at low-aeration rates (< 0.002 m/s), the volumetric mass transfer
coefficient (kLa) and the gas hold-up (ε) increased with an increase in superficial gas velocity
(Ug), while at middle (> 0.004 m/s) in triphasic system, ε increased more significantly with
increasing Ug and at high-aeration rates (> 0.008 m/s) ε is higher in the biphasic system,
compared with the triphasic system.
The volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) and the gas hold-up (ε) evaluated for the
vertical-column airlift PBR analysed in this work is similar to that described for other PBR’s
equipments, although ours has a higher height/diameter ratio (H/D). This PBR represents
180 M.A. Peñaranda et al

a good candidate as a system for biological wastewater treatment, reaching competitive

mass-transfer rates and effective hydrodynamic characteristics, as well as possibly implying
lower power consumption.

Acknowledgements
This work is part of a agreement between Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados
del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV ), México and the University of Pamplona,
Colombia. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of COLCIENCAS and
University of Pamplona (Colombia), CONACYT and CINVESTAV-IPN (México) (Project
J110.331/2006) through International Scientific Cooperation Program.

References
Blažej, M., Kiša, M. and Markoš, J. (2004) ‘Scale influence on the hydrodynamics of an internal loop
airlift reactor’, Chem. Engin. Process., Vol. 43, pp.1519–1527.
Barboza, M., Zaiat, M. and Hokka, C.O. (2000) ‘General relationship for volumetric oxygen transfer
coefficient (kLa) prediction in tower bioreactors utilizing immobilized cells’, Bioprocess Eng.,
Vol. 22, pp.181–184.
Camacho-Rubio, F., Acién-Fernández, F.G., Sánchez-Pérez, J.A., García-Camacho, F. and Molina-
Grima, E. (1999) ‘Prediction of dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration profiles in
tubular photobioreactors for microalgal culture’, Biotechnol. Bioeng., Vol. 62, pp.71–86.
Chinnasamy, S., Bhatnagar, A., Hunt, R. and Das, K.C. (2010) ‘Microalgae cultivation in a wastewater
dominated by carpet mill effluents for biofuel applications’, Bioresour. Technol., Vol. 101,
pp.3097–3105.
Chisti, Y., (1989) Airlift Bioreactors, Elsevier, London: UK.
Chisti, Y. and Moo-Young, M. (1998) ‘Communications to the editor: on the calculation of shear rate
and apparent viscosity in airlift and bubble column bioreactors’, Biotechnol. Bioeng., Vol. 34,
pp.1391–1392.
Chisti, Y., and Moo-Young, M. (2002) Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Meyers,
R.A., editor, Academic Press, San Diego, Bioreactors, Vol. 2, pp.247–271.
Deng, Z., Wang, T., Zhang, N. and Wang, Z. (2010) ‘Gas holdup, bubble behavior and mass transfer
in a 5m high internal-loop airlift reactor with non-Newtonian fluid’, Chem. Engin. J., Vol. 160,
pp.729–737.
Dhamole, P., Nair, R., D’Souza, S. and Lele, S.S. (2009) ‘Simultaneous removal of carbon and nitrate
in an airlift bioreactor’, Bioresour. Technol., Vol. 100, pp.1082–1086.
Dhanasekharan, K., Sanyal, J., Jain, A. and Haidari, A. (2005) ‘A generalized approach to model
oxygen transfer in bioreactors using population balances and computational fluid dynamics’,
Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 60, pp.213–218.
Fadavi, A. and Chisti, Y. (2005) ‘Gas–liquid mass transfer in a novel forced circulation loop reactor’,
Chem. Engin. J., Vol. 112, pp.73–80.
Godbole, S.P., Schumpe, A., Shah, Y.T. and Carr, N.L. (1984) ‘Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in
non-Newtonian solutions in a bubble column’, A.I.Ch.E.J., Vol. 30, pp.213–220.
Gourich, B., EL Azher, N., Bellhaj, M.S., Delmas, H., Bouzidi, A. and Ziyad, M. (2005) ‘Contribution
to the study of hydrodynamics and gas–liquid mass transfer in a two- and three-phase split-
rectangular airlift reactor’, Chem. Eng.. Process, Vol. 44, pp.1047–1053.
Heijnen, J.J. and Van’t Riet, K. (1984) ‘Mass transfer mixing and heat transfer phenomena in low
viscosity bubble column reactors’, Chem. Engin. J., Vol. 28, pp.B21–B42.
 Hydrodynamic characterisation of an airlift reactor 181

Huang, Q., Yang, Ch., 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’, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
Vol. 65, pp.5527–5536.
Hullat, C.J. and Thomas, D.N. (2011) ‘Productivity, carbon dioxide uptake and net energy
return of microalgal bubble column photobioreactors’, Bioresour. Technol., DOI:10.1016/j.
biortech.2011.02.025.
Jin, B. and Lant, P. (2004) ‘Flow regime, hydrodynamics, floc size distribution and sludge properties in
activated sludge bubble column, air-lift and aerated stirred reactors’, Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 59,
pp.2379–2388.
Jurascık, M., Blazej, M., Annus, J. and Markos, J. (2006) ‘Experimental measurements of volumetric
mass transfer coefficient by the dynamic pressure-step method in internal loop airlift reactors of
different scale’, Chem. Engin. J., Vol. 125, pp.81–87.
Kilonzo, P., Margaritis, A. and Bergougnou, M.A. (2010) ‘Hydrodynamic characteristics in an inverse
internal-loop airlift-driven fibrous-bed bioreactor’, Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 65, pp.692–707.
Kim, J., Lingaraju, B., Rheaume, R., Lee, J. and Siddiqui, K. (2010) ‘Removal of Ammonia from
wastewater effluent by chlorella vulgaris’, Tsinghua Sci. Technol., Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.391–396.
Kluytmans, J.H.J., van Wachem, B.G.M., Kuster, B.F.M. and Schouten, J.C. (2003) ‘Mass transfer in
sparged and stirred reactors: influence of carbon particles and electrolyte’, Chem. Engin. Sci.,
Vol. 58, pp.4719–4728.
Lo, C.H. and Hwang, S. (2004) ‘Dynamic behavior of an internal-loop airlift bioreactor for degradation
of waste gas containing toluene’, Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 59, pp.4517–4530.
Luo, H.P. and Al-Dahhan, M.H. (2004) ‘Analyzing and modeling of photobioreactors by combining
first principles of physiology and hydrodynamics’, Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Vol. 85,
No. 4, pp.382–393.
Morales-Barrera, L. and Cristiani-Urbina, E. (2006) ‘Removal of hexavalent chromium by Trichoderma
viride in an airlift bioreactor’, Enzyme Microbial Technol., Vol. 40, pp.107–113.
Nikakhtari, H. and Hill, G.A. (2005) ‘Hydrodynamic and oxygen mass transfer in an external loop
airlift bioreactor with a packed bed’, Biochem. Engin. J., Vol. 27, pp.138–145.
Olivieri, G., Marzocchella, A., Salatino, P., Giardina, P., Cennamo, G. and Sannia, G. (2006)
‘Olive mill wastewater remediation by means of pleurotus ostreatus’, Biochem. Engin. J.,
Vol. 31, pp.180–187.
Olivieri, G., Marzocchella, A., Van Ommen, J.R. and Salatino, P. (2007) ‘Local and global
hydrodynamics in a two-phase internal loop airlift’, Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 62, pp.7068–7077.
Órpez, R., Martínez, M.E., Hodaifa, G., El Yousfi, F., Jbari, N. and Sánchez, S. (2009) ‘Growth of
the microalga Botryococcus braunii in secondarily treated sewage’, Desalination, Vol. 246,
pp.625–630.
Park, J.B.K., Craggs, R.J. and Shilton, A.N. (2011) ‘Wastewater treatment high rate algal ponds for
biofuel production’, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 102, pp.35–42.
Pittman, K., Dean, P. and Osundeko, O. (2011) ‘The potential of sustainable algal biofuel production
using wastewater resources’, Bioresour. Technol., Vol. 102, pp.17–25.
Quicker, G., Shumpe, A. and Deckwer, W.D. (1984) ‘Gas-liquid interfacial areas in a bubble column
with suspended solids’, Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 39, pp.179–183.
Reyna-Velarde, R., Cristiani-Urbina, E., Hernández-Melchor, D.J., Thalasso, F. and Cañizares-
Villanueva, R.O. (2010) ‘Hydrodynamic and mass transfer characterization of a flat -panel airlift
photobioreactor with high light path’, Chem. Engin. Process., Vol. 49, pp.97–103.
Sada, E., Kumazawa, H. and Lee, C.H. (1983) ‘Chemical absorption in a bubble column loading
concentrated slurry’, Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 38, pp.2047–2051.
Sánchez-Mirón, A., Contreras-Gómez, A., Garcia-Camacho, F., Molina-Grima E. and Chisti, Y. (1999)
‘Comparative evaluation of compact photobioreactors for large-scale monoculture of microalgae’,
J. Biotechnol., Vol. 70, pp.249–70.
 182 M.A. Peñaranda et al

Sánchez-Mirón, A., García-Camacho, F., Contreras-Gómez, A., Molina-Grima, E. and Chisti,

Y. (2000) ‘Bubble column and airlift photobioreactors for algal cultura’, AIChE J., Vol. 46,
pp.1872–1887.
Sánchez-Mirón, A., Cerón-García, M.C., García-Camacho, F., Molina-Grima, E. and Chisti, Y. (2002)
‘Growth and biochemical characterization of microalgal biomass produced in bubble column and airlift
photobioreactors: studies in fed-batch culture’, Enzyme Microbial Technol., Vol. 31, pp.1015–1023.
Shah, Y.T., Kelkar, B.G., Godbole, S.P. and Deckwer, W.D. (1982) ‘Design parameters estimations for
bubblecolumn reactors’, A.I.Ch.E.J., Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.353–379.
Sierra, E., Acién, F.G., Fernández, J.M., García, J.L., González, C. and Molina, E. (2008) ‘Characterization
of a flat plate photobioreactor for the production of microalgae’, Chem. Engin. J., Vol. 138,
pp.136–147.
Talvy, S., Cockx, A. and Line, A. (2005) ‘Global modelling of a gas–liquid–solid airlift reactor’, Chem.
Engin. Sci., Vol. 60, pp.5991–6003.
Vasconcelos, J.M.T., Rodríguez, J.M.L., Orvalho, S.C.P., Alves, S.S., Mendes, R.L. and Reis, A. (2003)
‘Effect of contaminants on mass transfer coefficients in bubble column and airlift contactors’,
Chem. Engin. Sci., Vol. 58, pp.1431–1440.
Xianling, L., Jianping, W., Qing, Y. and Xueming, Z. (2005) ‘The pilot study for oil refinery wastewater
treatment using a gas–liquid–solid three-phase flow airlift loop bioreactor’, Biochem. Engin. J.,
Vol. 27, pp.40–44.
Xu, Z., Baicheng, Z., Yiping, Z., Zhaoling, C., Wei, C. and Fan, O. (2002) ‘A simple and low-cost
airlift photobioreactor for microalgal mass culture’, Biotechnol. Lett., Vol. 24, pp.1767–1771.
Znad, H., Báles, V., Markos, J. and Kawase, Y. (2004) ‘Modelling and simulation of airlift bioreactors’,
Biochem. Eng. J., Vol. 21, pp.73–81.

View publication stats