H/?t:. Re~. Vol. 31, No. 9. pp.

2392 2396, 1997

~ Pergamon P l h S0043-1354(97)00079-1
( 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
0043-1354/97 $17.00 + 0.00

RESEARCH NOTE

MIXING AND SEGREGATION IN WATER FLUIDISED-BED

BIOREACTORS

RENZO DI FELICE*, CRISTIANO NICOLELLA and M A U R O ROVATTI

Istituto di Ingegneria Chimica e di Processo "G.B. Bonino", Universitfi degli Studi di Genova, via Opera
Pia, 15, 16145 Genova, Italy

(First received October 1995; accepted in revisedJbrm March 1997)

Abstract--The complete segregation model, already successfully tested for binary-solid liquid fluidised
beds of smooth rigid particles, has been applied to fluidised-bed bioreactors. Qualitative comparison with
reported experimental behaviour has shown the capability of the model to predict solid mixing and
segregation in these specific types of ftuidised beds. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Key words--fluidised-bed bioreactors, solid mixing and segregation

NOMENCLATURE Fluidised-bed bioreactors are generally made up of

larger particle volume concentration an inert support, typically sand or char, around
CL
which an active biofilm layer attaches and grows,
Cs= smaller particle volume concentration
equivalent particle diameter (m) while the solid is kept in a fluidised state by the
d =
&= clean particle diameter (m) reacting liquid stream. One important parameter that
strongly influences the bioreactor performance is the
d,.= larger particle diameter (m)
& = smaller particle diameter (m) biomass concentration, generally quantified as
g = gravitational field strength (m/s 2) kilogram of biomass per unit volume of reactor or per
particle Reynolds number ( d p u / p ) unit weight of inert support. For example, Ruggeri
Re =
et al. (1994) experimentally showed how biomass
u = superficial fluid velocity (m/s)
concentration affected the specific substrate uptake
numerical coefficient rate and the specific oxygen uptake rate, both
¢5s = smaller particle biofilm thickness (m) quantities presenting a clear maximum for a very
~t = larger particle biofilm thickness (m) specific value of biomass concentration.
F, = bed voidage In steady-state operation, biomass would tend to
l( = fluid viscosity (kg/m/s) grow continuously inside the reactor, and this growth
p = fluid density (kg/m 3) would only be partially balanced by some of the
Pb = layer bulk density (kg/m 3) active substance which is carried away by the
pbio biofilm density (kg/m -~) upward-moving fluid, due to shear stress and
PC = clean particle density (kg/m 3) particle-particle attrition. Controlling bed expansion
pL = larger particle density (kg/m 3) by choosing a proper value for the liquid flow rate is
PS = smaller particle density (kg/m ~) an elegant way to set the bioreactor at the optimum
biomass concentration; this method, however, can
only vary the parameter in a limited range of values.
INTRODUCTION For this reason it is the normal mode of operation to
withdraw from the bed some of the biocovered solid,
The interest in the utilisation of biological
to wash it and then to reintroduce it, discharging the
fluidised-bed reactors, e.g. in water treatment
excess biological sludge (Shieh et al., 1981) resulting
processes, has been rising steadily in the past few
in two solid phases being present at the same time in
years. The reasons for this interest are well known: as
the bioreactor; one fully covered with the biofilm and
they have been listed in many papers (e.g. SchiJgerl,
the other where the biofilm is thinner or even absent.
1989), they will not be discussed further.
The correct operation of the reactor requires the prior
knowledge on the fluid dynamic behaviour of the
*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed system, e.g. if the two solid phases will mix or if they
[Fax: ( + 39) 10 3532586]. will segregate and, in the latter case, which solid

2392
 Research Note 2393

phase will segregate at the bottom and which will
segregate at the top of the bed,
In this journal, My~ka and ~vec (1994) have
discussed the occurrence of mixing and segregation of
biocovered particles by taking into account only one
physical characteristic of the solid, namely the
unhindered settling velocity. Although of some
importance, the settling velocity alone is not sufficient
to determine which solid phase will segregate at the
bottom and which will segregate at the top of the bed.
The so-called "inverting" systems are a striking
confirmation, where one solid kind can occupy the
bottom or the top portion of the bed depending on
the liquid fluidising velocity alone, all the other
characteristics of the system being kept constant
(Moritomi et al., 1982).
In the last two decades, various basic studies have
been carried out on the behaviour of liquid fluidised
systems and, on the basis of results obtained (a review
of them has been recently presented--Di Felice,
1995), a more correct procedure to predict solid
mixing and segregation for fluidised-bed bioreactors,
will be shown.
BACKGROUND
Let us consider here a binary-solid liquid fluidised
bed: the two particle types may differ in size or
density or, in the most general case, in both.
Experience has shown that the bed behaviour can be
well represented by the complete segregation model
(Di Felice, 1995). This approach states that,
depending on the system's physical characteristics
and on the liquid fluidising velocity, one of the five
different patterns depicted in Fig. I can be expected.
Figure 1 reveals that the bottom part of the bed is
made up of either only one solid kind or both,
whereas the top part is, with the only exception of
case (c), always a monocomponent bed.
In order to predict the composition of the bottom
layer, stability considerations have been invoked
(Gibilaro et al., 1986) which postulates that the
combination of particle concentrations giving rise to
the maximum bulk density
pb = CLpL + Csps + (I -- CL-- Cs)p (I)
would always occupy the bottom region, Particle
concentrations can not be varied independently but
must comply with fluid dynamic constraint, arising
from an overall pressure drop balance (Gibilaro
et al., 1986)
d L\-~T~7+0.336• ~-~
---- C L ( p L -- p)g + Cs(ps -- p)g (2)
with the equivalent particle diameter
d - dLds (C,. + Cs) (3)
dt Cs + &CL
and cta numerical parameter given by
ct = 2.55 - 2.1 [tanh (20e. - 8)"3']3 (4)
The application of equation (2), for a given system
and at a fixed fluid velocity, gives all the possible pairs
of CL and Cs compatible with the pressure drop
constraint, as shown in Fig. 2. Depending on the
particle densities, the pair possessing the highest bulk
density would be either a single component (case a
and b in Fig. 2) or a mixture (case c-d-e). It follows,
therefore, that the bottom of the bed is a
monocomponent or a mixture of the two solid
species, and the top would consist of the monocom-
ponent in excess when the ratio of solids charged in

..,%; 0000 I •
• 00.0
Q
,'.::. 0000
0 0001 • QQ O0 0 000
• 00
Q Q O 0 ~II
0 Q
0000 [ •
.0~0.0
O0 0 Q
Q000 ~0 000,~
III 0 • 011 0 0 0 O/ .0(2. @ • 0 QQ

,0000 ooo/ %'o;ol %:o.'ol 0 : 0 "c

:0 000
opOjo
0 ~ 0 U
$.%-ol $.%-Ol .'0:6
0~0.
k
• 0 Q QO

,uO0 0 0001 ~0
.O.-oi .O.:ol .0, :0
OOd 0 0 Q O0
o.:'o I o.:'o I 0.%'0
(a) (b) (c) (d) Ce)
Fig. I. Binary-solid fluidisation: behaviour patterns predicted by the complete segregation model.
2394 Research Note
CL
Fig. 2. Typical concentration pairs and bulk density
function of the larger particles concentration. The letters
(a-e) refer to the corresponding model predictions depicted
in Fig. 1.
the column differs from the one predicted in the
bottom layer.
The complete segregation model, whose name
suggests that solid mixing arising from particle
diffusivity has been neglected when compared with
segregation arising from the difference in layer bulk
density, has been verified against a wide range of
results on binary-solid fluidised systems of smooth
rigid particles, showing excellent agreement in every
case (Di Felice, 1995).
APPLICATION OF THE COMPLETE SEGREGATION
MODEL TO FLUIDISED-BED BIOREACTORS
It is now possible to show how the complete
segregation model can be applied to a fluidised-bed
bioreactor by making use of equations (1)-(4) in
order to predict solid mixing and segregation. It
should be stressed at this point that, although the
procedure is of general validity, the numerical
constant in equations (2) and (4) were obtained by
fitting experimental data on the homogeneous
expansion characteristics of rigid, smooth solids
(Gibilaro et al., 1986). Here it is assumed that these
numerical parameters are valid also for biocovered
particles, given that the scarce and somewhat
contradictory evidence available at the present time
on their fluid dynamic behaviour does not allow a
more accurate, if different, estimation.
As a further simplification, it will be assumed that
these reactors were fluidising a binary-solid mixture:
a smaller solid type made up of the inert particle with
a thin biofilm cover and a larger solid type where the
inert material is covered with a thicker active
biomass.
The smallest solid will have a size given by
ds = dc + 26s (5)
and a density
ps P<C~) + Pb,oLI
r -
_1 (6)
where dc and pc are the size and density of the clean
particle, 6s is the biofilm thickness and pb~oits density,
which for this work is assumed constant and equal to
1100 kg/mL Analogous relationships will hold for the
larger solid, which is characterised by a biofilm
thickness 6L.
For a typical bioreactor, with clean inert particles
of dc = 1 mm and pc = 2500 kg/m 3 as smaller solid
phase and three different biofilm thicknesses, Fig. 3
shows the concentration pairs obtained from
equation (2) at a fluid velocity of 20 mm/s. The
corresponding bulk density is also shown in Fig. 3: its
maximum is for a bed made up to clean material only
(CL = 0); consequently the complete segregation
model predicts for this illustrative example the
bottom of the bed to be made of clean solid only and
the top of biocovered solid only.
COMPARISON WITH REPORTED EXPERIMENTAL
OBSERVATIONS
This section compares the solid mixing and
segregation as predicted by the complete segregation
model with reported experimental evidence. At this
stage, only a qualitative comparison is possible given
the rather scarce information reported in the
literature so far.
When sand (or glass) is used as inert support,
whose density is about 2500 kg/m 3, invariably the bed
stratifes: at the bottom the solid is covered with a
thin layer of biofilm; at the top the particles are
covered with a thicker layer of biofilm. This has been
reported in many experimental studies, such as those
of Shieh et al. (1981), Boaventura and Rodrigues
1400
in
1000
0.8
~.~ 0.4~ ,
0.2
increasinl
6a
°'~:0 0.2 0.4 0.6
CL
Fig. 3. Concentration pairs and corresponding bulk density
for a typical fluidised-bed bioreactor ( p c = 2500 kg/m 3,
dc = 1 mm, 6s = 0, & = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 mm).
 Research Note
1600 ; t
1400
1200
Iz)
1000
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
cL
Fig. 4. Calculated concentration pairs and bulk densities for
reported experimental cases: (1) pc = 2450 kg/m3,
dc=0,5mm, 6s=0.05mm, 6L=0.2mm, u = 5 m m / s
(Hermanowicz and Cheng, 1990); (2) pc= ll80kg/m ~,
de= 1.67mm, 6s=0mm, 6L=0.8mm, u = 14mm/s
(Colehoso et al., 1992).
(1988), Hermanowicz and Ganczarczyk (1983) and
Hermanowicz and Cheng (1990). Analogous stratifi-
cation in the bed has been observed by Diez Blanco
et al. (1995), who used clay (with a density of
1440 kg/m 3) as inert support.
The experiments of Hermanowicz and co-workers
are of particular relevance for the present study. By
sampling the fluidised column at different heights,
they have shown that the bioreactors can, with good
approximation, be represented by the pattern
depicted in Fig. l(b), with the two sections of the bed
quite completely segregated. Always the bottom of
the bed was made up of inert support with little
biofilm attached (less than 0.1 ram), whereas in the
biofilm thickness in the upper section of the bed was
up to 0.5mm. Figure 4 (case 1) shows the
concentration pairs and the bulk density for one of
the systems studied by Hermanowicz and Cheng
(1990): a clear maximum in the bulk density is
present, corresponding to the bed made up of the
smaller solid so that the observed segregation (with
the larger solid at the top) is correctly predicted by
the model. This result is quite general: numerical
simulations have shown that, whenever sand or a
similar material is the inert support, the model always
predicts particle stratification, with the larger
particles segregating at the top of the bed, for any
reasonable value of inert diameter (0.1-5ram),
biofilm thickness (0-5 mm) and water superficial
velocity (from minimum fluidisation to unhindered
settling velocity), in agreement with observed
behaviour.
When char (density of 1050-1200 kg/m 3) is used as
inert support, Ngian and Martin (1980) and Coelhoso
et al. (1992) observed homogeneous film thickness
along the bed axis. In particular, the latter authors
reported a biofiim layer 0.8 mm covering the 1.69-mm
char inert particles both at the bottom and at the top
2395
of the fluidised reactor, for a fluid velocity five times
the minimum fluidisation velocity. Figure 4 (case 2)
depicts the concentration pairs and the bulk density
for the specific system studied by Coelhoso et al.
(1992). The bulk density is almost constant, so that
the observed solid mixing is well justified: random
solid movements promoting mixing are not over-
come, contrary to the previous case, by the
segregating effect arising from bulk density differ-
ence. As for the sand, this result is quite general: due
to the low char density, differences in bulk density are
bound to be small, regardless of biofilm thickness, so
that such beds are much more prone to exhibit solid
mixing.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
It iS comforting that the predictions of the
complete segregation model are in good qualitative
agreement with experimental observations, even if at
this first stage it has been assumed that the
biocovered solid behaves as solid sphere, which may
not be entirely correct. The main purpose of the work
was, however, to stress the correct procedure in order
to predict particle mixing and segregation: as already
demonstrated in many previous studies, the magni-
tude of the layer bulk density is of primary
importance and this basic idea can be applied to
other, more complicated, situations.
The complete segregation model appears quite
satisfactory when the accuracy of published exper-
imental evidence is considered: refinement of the
model, as done for example by Di Felice (1993) in
order to take into account particle mixing deriving
from interface stability, can be easily carried out and
tested when more accurate data become available on
the solid mixing and segregation in fluidised-bed
bioreactors.
Acknowledgements--This work has been supported by the
Ministero della Universit~i e della Ricerca Scientifica e
Tecnologica (Rome).
REFERENCES
Boaventura R. A. and Rodrigues A. E. (1988) Consecutive
reactions in fluidized-bed biological reactors: modeling
and experimental study of wastewater denitrification.
Chem. Engng Sci. 43, 2715-2728.
Coelhoso I., Boaventura R. and Rodrigues A. (1992)
Biofilm reactors: an experimental and modeling study of
wastewater denitrification in fluidized-bed reactors of
activated carbon particles. BiotechnoL Bioengng 40,
625-633.
Diez Blanco V., Garcia Encina P. A. and Fdz-Polanco F.
(1995) Effects of biofilm growth, gas and liquid velocities
on the expansion of an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor
(AFBR). Wat. Res. 29, 1649-1654.
Di Felice R. (1993) Mixing in segregated, binary-solid liquid
fluidised beds. Chem. Engng Sci. 48, 881-888.
Di Felice R. (1995) Hydrodynamics of liquid fluidisation.
Chem. Engng Sci, 50, 1213-1245.
Gibilaro L. G., Di Felice R., Waldram S. P. and Foscolo
P. U. (1986) A predictive model for the equilibrium
2396 Research Note
composition and inversion of binary-solid liquid fluidized
beds. Chem. Engng Sci. 41, 379-387.
Hermanowicz S. W. and Cheng Y. M. (1990) Biological bed
reactor: hydrodynamics, biomass distribution and per-
formance. Wat. Sci. Technol. 22, 193-202.
Hermanowicz S. W. and Ganczarczyk J. J. (1983) Some
fluidization characteristics of biological beds. Biotechnol.
Bioengng 25, 1321-1330.
Moritomi H,, lwase T, and Chiba T. (1982) A comprehen-
sive interpretation of solid layer inversion in liquid
fluidised bed. Chem. Engng Sci. 37, 1751-1757.
My,~ka J. and ~vek J. (1994) The distributive properties of
a fluidized bed with biomass. Wat. Res. 28, 1653-1658.
Ngian K.-F. and Martin W. R. B. (1980) Bed expansion
characteristics of liquid fluidized particles with attached
microbial growth. Biotechnol. Bioengng 22, 1843 1856,
Ruggeri B., Cairo G., Specchia V., Sassi G., Bosco F. and
Gianetto A. (1994) Determination of optimal biofilm
activity in a biological fluidized bed (BFB) reactor. Wat.
Sci. Technol. 29, 347-351.
Schiigerl K, (1989) Biofluidization application of the
fluidization technique in biotechno[ogy, Can J. Chem.
Engng 67, 178-184.
Shieh W. K., Sutton P. M. and Kos P. (1981) Predicting
reactor biomass concentration in a fluidized-bed system.
J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fred. 53, 1574-1584.