Selecting Particles for Fluidized-Bed
Bioreactors with Flocculent Biomass
Designing a fluidized bed reactor f o r wastewater treatment or ethanol
production reduces to choosing the size and density of the support particle. The
need to fluidize the particles then fixes the flow rate and the required
substrate removal fixes the bed height. Specific recommendations,
depending on the kinetics of the process, are discussed.
Graham F. Andrews, Department of Chemical Engineering, State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260
Introduction
Fluidized beds containing flocculant biomass have been
used in the production of beer and fuel ethanol [I, 21 and
for biological wastewater treatment, both Serobic and ana-
erobic [3, 41. Two types are usually identified: the tower
fermenter, which contains a bed of floc particles; and the
supported film fermenter, which consists of a bed of sand,
coal, etc. coated with a biological film. In the following
analysis, the former is considered as the limiting case of
the latter as the support particle diameter approaches zero.
Fluidized beds have two advantages over continuous
stirred-tank fermenters. First, they approximate plug-
flow reactors, which usually gives them a higher volumet-
ric productivity (the case of substrate inhibition is the main
exception). Second, there is less problem of cell washout
because the biomass is held in the bed by gravity. The
great advantage of fluidized beds over packed-bed immo-
bilized cell designs is that a fluidized bed will not be
clogged by the growth ofbiomass so problems of high pres-
sure drop and channeling are avoided. This means that
bed particles can be much smaller, again leading to higher
productivity due to the higher surface area of biomass.
Rather than clogging, a fluidized bed tends to expand to
accommodate the biomass so particles are often removed
from the top ofthe bed, washed to remove excess biomass,
and returned to the bed. The comparative ease with which
gas bubbles pass through a fluidized bed is an additional
advantage in some cases.
This paper demonstrates two facts about the design of
these reactors. First, given the kinetic parameters of the
biomass and the job to be done by the reactor (liquid flow
rate; inlet and outlet substrate concentrations), the only
variables left to be specified are the size and density of the
particles in the bed. For floc particles these are fixed bio-
logically; the designer can only select the strain with the
best floc characteristics. Adding a support particle allows
the designer more control over these variables. Once they
are fixed the liquid superficial velocity is, in principle,
fixed b y the need to fluidize the bed to the desired poros-
16 March, 1986
ity. (In practice, this calculation is complicated when gas
bubbles are present, a problem not covered in detail in this
paper.) Combined with the liquid flow rate, this velocity
fixes the bed diameter, and combined with the required
hydraulic residence time, it fixes the bed height.
Second, a consideration of the mechanics of liquid
fluidized beds (porosity and solid mixing) and of the effec-
tiveness factors for biological particles enables the de-
signer to specify types of support particles likely to
maximize the reactor productivity for a particular applica-
tion. The optimum support particle can be quite different
for the different applications.
Theory
Effectiveness Factors
Consider a spherical support particle, radius R,, coated
with a thickness L of biomass. Assuming that the
properties of the biomass (diffusivity, cell concentration,
etc.) do not vary with depth we can write an equation for
the diffusion and consumption of the limiting nutrient in
the biomass:
dc-- O a t r
- = R,
dr
dc
D - = k(s - c) at r = R,
dr
+L
The identity of the limiting nutrient and procedures for
solving this equation have been discussed previously [5].
When the activity in the biomass is limited by an inhibi-
tory product the equation still applies if c and s are inter-
preted as (p- product concentration) where p is the prod-
uct concentration that stops all activity.
Once the equation has been solved focthe particular
form ofthe function f(this is the function PIP)the effective-
ness factor can be defined as follows:
Blotechnology Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)
 ' =
actual uptake rate of nutrient
uptake rate if whole particle were biomass with f = 1
3D
(R, + L) f(sj, j = 1 . . . m)
Note that this is different from the definition used by
Shieh [6] and others since theirs is based on biomass vol-
ume, not total particle volume. The above definition is
preferred since it is directly proportional to the local volu-
metric productivity of the_reactor. The overall productivity
equals the value of r ) ( ~ , )(p/Y @sj,j = 1. . . m) + p) averaged
through the reactor, so in order to maximize it we need to
maximize the effectiveness factor (as defined here), the
solids holdup ( E , ) and the average value of f(sj). The latter is
achieved in a plug-flow reactor as long as f is an increasing
function of sj, which covers all cases except substrate inhi-
bition. Consider the case of first order kinetics gcj) = c/K
with negligible uptake for maintenance. The transforma-
tion y = rc/K reduces equation (1)to an elementary form,
whose solution, substituted in equation ( 2 ) ,gives
E,Ex
' = E, + E x
3Sh
E, = (3)
2 4 e + y)2
E, = -
This is plotted in Figure 1 versus the dimensionless
outer radius of the particle ( y is a dimensionless support
particle radius and 8 a dimensionless film thickness) for
the case of negligible mass transfer resistance in the liquid
phase (Sh + m). Although simple, this case suffices to il-
lustrate five points that will almost always be true. First,
the floc particle ( y = 0) sets the upper limit on the effec-
tiveness, so tower fermenters should be examined first.
Second, for any supported film there exists a film thick-
FIGURE 1. Particle effectlveness: no liquid mass transfer
reslstance.
II 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
ll
I'
I
Biotechnoiogy Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)
-
ness that maximizes the effectiveness and thus the reactor
productivity. The objective in designing supported-film
fermenters should therefore be to maintain this optimum
thickness in the reactor. Note that the active depth of the
biofilm (the depth at which the concentration of the limit-
ing nutrient becomes zero at the film base) corresponds to
the e value at which the line for a support particle merges
with that for the floc particle. The optimum thickness is
always slightly less than this value. Third, flocculant
types of biomass offer a tremendous advantage because
they can grow to this optimum thickness. A monolayer of a
non-flocculant strain immobilized on a support gives a di-
mensionless film thickness 0 of the order which
clearly(Figure 1)gives an effectiveness far below the max-
imum. Fourth, the maximum effectiveness decreases with
increased support particle size. The rocks in trickling
filters or raschig rings in packed-bed reactors for ethanol
production will give very low reactor productivities even
if the optimum film thickness can be maintained. Both
cases are off the right side of Figure 1, which gives some
idea of the potential productivity advantages of a properly
designed fluidized bed over a packed bed.
A final point to note is that a support particle covered
with a thick film has the same effectiveness as a floc
particle of the same outside diameter. This is expected,
since very little substrate can penetrate to the center of a
large particle so it does not really matter whether that cen-
ter consists of biomass or support particle. It will, however,
be shown later that the presence of a support particle can
significantly change the particle density and settling ve-
locity, and thus the liquid-phase mass transfer resistance
and the behavior of the bed.
Bed Porosity
The porosity must be kept as small as possible without
allowing contact between the particles that could lead to
coagulation ofparticles into ineffective lumps. The value E
= 0.6 is a reasonable compromise.
In a fluidized bed, unlike a packed bed, the particle size
and density and the flow velocity are not independent
variables. Once the particles have been chosen the veloc-
ity must be fixed so as to fluidize them to the desired po-
rosity. The relationship in the absence of gas bubbles is
given by [7].
5.1-n
--- - Re,U.9
n-2.7 lo
Choosing particles with a large settling velocity, ut,
means that the superficial velocity, u, must also be large.
In order to achieve the required contact time the bed must
20
then be very tall and, since u is large, it will be narrow for a
given flow rate. Conversely, choosing a small light
particle leads to a short, wide bed.
March, 1986 17
 The growth of biomass on a support particle increases its
diameter, which tends to increase its settling velocity. But
it also reduces its average densitv. which tends to reduce
the settling velocity. If we assume a drag coefficient corre-
lation ofthe form Cd = h/Ree,, then it can be shown that the
net result is: [I51
U, = (1 + Bx)"r2 - e ,
- (54
UlS (1 + x p 3
tween two extremes. One extreme case is complete solids
mixing, a disordered condition in which each particle
spends an equal amount of time in all parts of the bed. A
sample of particles drawn from any height would then be a
representative sample of all the particles in the bed. If, on
the other hand, the tendency of the particles to move about
randomly is small then the solids will adopt the other ex-
treme condition of complete stratification. This is a highly
ordered situation in which each particle has a set position,

1 x =
biomass volume
support particle volume
- (1 + 0)s
-
( 7) (5b)
all those particles with a higher setting velocity being be-
low it and all those with a lower settling velocity above it.
A sample of particles from a fixed height in the bed would
now all have the same settling velocity.
This is plotted in Figure 2 for e = 0.85. It can be seen that Which extreme is closer to the truth for fluidized bed
for very dense support particles, (small B) adding biomass fermenters? T h e r e is experimental evidence from
reduces the settling velocity, whereas for low density sup- sampling the solids in laboratory beds, from bimodal beds
ports (and of course flocs where B = 1)adding biomass in- (beds containing just two types of particles) and from mea-
creases the settling velocity. It will be shown later that this surement of the axial dispersion coefficient for solids [7].
difference is very significant in fermenter design. It shows that stratification is encouraged by a low porosity
(below e = 0.7) and a large variance in the settling veloci-1
Liquid-Phase Mass Transfer ties of the particles, and that mixing is encouraged b y large
The mass transfer coefficient at the liquid-solid inter- particles (high Re,) and by gas bubbling through the bed.
face in the absence ofgas bubbles is found from the work of In fermenters, both Re, and E are low, so it is reasonable to
Kolioni, et al. [8], combined with Equation 4. assume complete stratification is closer to the truth, as
long as a setting velocity ratio of 2:1 is maintained among
100 > Re, E" >1 Sh = 0.81 Re,'12S~1'3 - the particles. It is shown later that there is considerable ev-
1 > Re, en > 0.1 Sh = 1.1 Re,ScCi3
E'" -
idence for stratification in tower fermenters even in the
(6) presence of gas.
0.1 > Re, en Sh = 2
I
The regime Re, en < 0.1 was not, in fact, studied by
Design Recommendations
Kolioni et al. [8], but 2 is the lower limit of Sh for a sphere The parameter values used in these studies are given in
in a completely stagnant fluid, and there is no reason to Table 1. While the detailed values may be disputed, this
believe Sh could be lower in a fluidized bed. would not change the broad conclusions derived here
since these are based on order-of-magnitude arguments.
Solids Mixing
T h e mechanics of liquid-fluidized b e d s are not
Ethanol Production
sufficiently studied to be able to specify the solids mixing The following assumptions are made:
condition exactly. It must, however, fall somewhere be- -Non-growth associated ethanol production is negligi-
ble.
-Substrate concentration is high so growth kinetics are
dominated by product inhibition.
1 FIGURE 2. Varlatlon of settling velocity wlth fllm volume.
-The linear inhibition model applies.
-Plug flow of liquid.
With the variable transformation given with Equation
(l),it follows that qc,) = c/p, and the solution to Equation
(1)is as shown in Figure 1with p replacing K in the Thiele
moduli ( y and 0). The general conservation equation for a
component in the bed is:
5-
-
- Ut -
Uts
-u-
ds = 7
dv
(-PY qsj, j = 1 . . . m) + p) (7)
With the assumptions given above, plus the additional
one that the particle size is constant through the bed, this
can be integrated to give the required solids volume per
unit area of bed.

v = - l nuYp Sln (8)

0.5 - cL7 [SO",]

Accurate calculation of bed height from V values re-

quires information about the mechanics of three-phase
0.2L fluidized beds in which the gas (CO,) flow increases up
II the bed. This is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead I

18 March, 1986 Blotechnology Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)

 TABLE
1. PARAMETER
VALUES
FOR DESIGN
Characteristic
FIY concentration
Process gm/cm3 hr gm/l
Ethanol from 0.60 6 = 140
Zymomonas mobilis
(gm of ethanol)
Aerobic wastewater 0.07 K =
treatment
(gm of BOD)
Anaerobic wastewater 0.02 s,, = 1
treatment (gm of BOD)
2ssume a value for the average solids hold-up in the bed,
which gives the volumetric productivity as:
-_
vp=-- W S 7 ) POUJP
(9)
Y In (1 - POut/F)
Since Figure 1 shows that flocs give the highest effec-
tiveness factors it is logical to explore tower fermenter de-
signs first. Picking q = 0.9 5s a desirable goal gives 0 = 1.3
Figure l), which (with (~L/DYP)”~ = 11 cm-I) gives a
particle radius R = 1.2 mm. Fortunately, there exists a
well-studied flocculant strain of Zymomonas mobilis that
forms very regular, cohesive, and almost spherical flocs of
2-3 mm diameter [9,12]. Kinetic parameters for these flocs
:an be approximated by comparing Equation (8)with the
data of Strandburg et al. [9], since these data are given in
terms of settled bed height that is easier to convert to the
variable V than is fluidized bed height. (See Table 1).Put-
ting these valuesin EquationL9) gives aproductivity of 130
gm/l * hr. if P,,Jp = 0.5 and E, = 1/3.
The significance of this number is that despite its being
based on uniformly optimistic assumptions (plug flow, no
liquid-phase mass transfer resistance, no glucose limita-
tion, and a high value for E,) it is comparable to or less than
experimental values reported b y Scott [I21 for similar
values of P/P,,,. This suggests that the experimental reac-
lor satisfied the assumptions, in which case it must he
close to t h e optimum for producing ethanol using
Zymomonas. Some of these assumptions can he checked
independently. At the superficial velocities used (u =
0.025 - 0.05 cm/s, Re is of order 1for a 2.5 mm particle, and
liquid properties (kinematic viscosity = 0.013 cm%) in a
-eactor fed with a 10% glucose solution. Equations (4)and
6) then give Sh of order 20 for a bed with no gas bubbles,
which is sufficient to make the liquid-phase mass transfer
resistance negligible. [The criterion is E,, >> E, in Equa-
:ion (3)J In the real bed the gas bubbles would make Sh
;till higher. The highest biomass loading reported experi-
nentally was 100 gm dry wt/l near the base of the bed. If
his corresponds to a non-fluidized bed of flocs with a
void fraction of approximately 0.5, then the average load-
-
ing reported in the bed(40 60 gm/l) must correspond to E ,
= 0.2 - 0.3; so taking E , = 1/3is indeed optimistic. Note
Blotechnology Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)
STUDIES
t/JDi%
cm-’ Source
10 Fit equation (8)to data in Ref.
(9)
Fit linear inhibition to data in
Fig. 3, Ref. (10) Set D = 50% of
free-liquid value
0.1 150 Text values, plus measured
film density of 0.07 gm/cm3 and
active film depth = 150 p m (11)
25 Text values.
Film density and D as for aero-
bic films
also that if the gas bubbling induces complete liquid
mixing t_he final term in Equation (9) should he replaced
by (P,,,JP - I), which gives a productivity of90 gmll hr, less
than half of the value found experimentally under condi-
tions where glucose limitation is not expected [12].
There are two problems with this type of bed, both re-
lated to the control and stability of fluidization. The first
is simply that of density. A 10% glucose solution has a
specific gravity (1.038) very close to that of biomass (meas-
-
ured by Przezdziecki [lo] as 1.02 1.04). Application of
Equation (4) at the bed inlet would therefore give u = 0.
With more concentrated feeds the settling velocity would
he negative, so fluidization would, strictly speaking, be
impossible. One solution to this problem would he to in-
duce the flocs to form around 20 mesh particles of sand(€$
= 425 pm, y = 0.47, specific gravity = 2.5). If the biomass
grew to the same outer radius as before (0 + y = 1.3;this is
by no means certain due to the increased shear on the
particle) the effectiveness would he unaffected by the
presence of the particle (see Figure 1) and the average
specific gravity of the particle would he increased to 1.11,
safely above that of the liquid.
The second problem is that the performance of the reac-:
tor discussed above relies on the fact that the flocculent
strain of Zymomonas grows to a floc size of 1 = 2 mm and
no larger. It is not clear why this happens, hut it is interest-
ing to note that flocculent strains of Saccharomyces
cerevisciae have no such limit, a fact that greatly degrades
the performance of tower fermenters. Flocs at the base of
the bed, being exposed to high substrate and low ethanol
concentrations, grow rapidly to a large size. The settling
velocity may become so large (Figure 2 with B = 1)that the
flocs are no longer fluidized and form a “plug” at the bed
base [13]. Meanwhile, flocs at the top of the bed, where
ethanol is plentiful and substrate is scarce, remain small.
Having a small settling velocity they are fluidized to a
high porosity (Equation 4). Consequently the reactor pro-
ductivity is low both at the base of the bed (due to low q )
and at the top (due to high E ) . Incidentally, the observation
that these beds remain stratified with small flocs at the
top and large ones at the bottom provides support for the
“complete stratification” hypothesis, even in full-scale
beds [I] with gas bubbling.
March, 1986 19
 Aerobic Wastewater Treatment
Given the solubility of oxygen in water, the concentra-
tion of organic matter at the entrance to a fluidized-bed
bioreactor must be kept small if the bed is not to become
anaerobic. This is achieved by heavy liquid recycle [3],
which also helps to match the variable wastewater flow
with the constant flow required through the bed. How-
ever, even with deep well aeration or pure oxygen the inlet
concentration will necessarily be smaller than the Monod
constant(typical1y K = 100 mg BOD/l). First-order kinetics
is again applicable. However, the much higher value of
-(mainly since K << 6) now makes the liquid-
phase mass transfer resistance significant so the effective-
ness factor is now as shown in Figure 3 [Equations (3)and
@)I.
Attempting to design a bed of flocs gives 6 = 0.76 for q
= 0.9, which gives R = 46 pm, ut = 0.013 cm/s (for biomass
density = 1.03),u = 0.0012 cm/s, [Equation (4) with E =
0.61, V = 0.0095 cm for 75% substrate removal. With a
height less than 1mm this could not really be described as
a fluidized bed (an ideal aerobic sludge blanket reactor
would be more accurate) nor could it be built. For pur-
poses of comparison its liquid residence time is 0.33 min.
Note that this number and those that follow are bed resi-
dence times; to get the system hydraulic residence time as
normally defined they must be multiplied by (1 + recycle
ratio).
Making a fluidized bed with reasonable heightldiame-
ter ratio clearly requires heavy particles. Figure 3 is there-
fore drawn for the densest imaginable support particles,
lead shot, suitably coated to prevent toxicity to t h e
biomass. The main result is that floc particles no longer
necessarily provide the upper limit on the effectiveness.
The weight of the support particle greatly increases Ret
and thus reduces the liquid-phase mass transfer resist-
~ ance. Consequently, the effectiveness factor for an
optimally-coated support particle is greater than that for
the same-sized floc. The same result appears with lower
density support particles but, obviously, to a lesser extent.
A design procedure accurate enough for our purposes is
now demonstrated for a support particle size y = 2 (R, =
133 pm, approximately 60 mesh). Choosing 0.4 < 6 < 3.4
FIGURE 3. Partlcle effectiveness wlth lead support particles.
I
(8 + 7 )
I
20 March, 1986
[0.73 < x < 18.7 from equation (5)]ensures that q never
falls below 0.4 and gives an average q in the bed of 0.46
(Figure 3). A lead particle this size has uts = 12.8 cm/s, so
this range of x gives 5.0 < ut < 10.7 cm/s [equation (5):B =
0.003 e = 0.851. This wide variance of settling velocity
should be sufficient to ensure stratification, with the
lightly covered particles at the base of the bed and the
heavily covered particles at the top. (See Figure 2 with B =
0.003). This is important, because if an aerobic biofilm is
left alone it would grow to a thickness much greater than 6
= 3.4 and the bed would correspondingly depart from the
optimum. With the stratification established here the
particles with 8 = 3.4 are all at the top of the bed and there-
fore can easily be removed, washed down to 6 = 0.4 and
returned to the bed where they will sink down to the base
of the bed since they now have the highest settling veloc-
ity.
Note h e r e t h e importance of monosized support
particles. If there is a significant variance of particle size
then the bed will stratify based on particle size rather than
biofilm thickness. Large support particles will remain at
the base of the bed accumulating a biofilm much greater
than the optimum thickness, while the smaller particles
will be repeatedly and wastefully cycled through the
particle washer. This is the probable situation in the pres-
ent generation of reactors.
If we specify that the minimum porosity in the bed, that
is the value at the base, should be 60% then equation (3)
gives u = 1.9 cm/s and equation (7) gives V = 29.4 cm
(using the average q = 0.46 and 75% substrate removal).
This translates to a height of approximately 1 m (greater
precision is difficult since the porosity increases from
60% to 75% up the bed) and a liquid residence time of 0.9
min. This compares well with the ideal floc reactor ana-
lyzed previously and is considerably less than the reactor
volumes now in use [3].
Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment
In anaerobic wastewater treatment the limitation on
concentrations imposed by the solubility of oxygen is no
longer present, so substrate concentrations are typically
much higher. Consequently, zero-order kinetics (f = 1)
give a better approximation to the Monod curve (A two-
phase appoximation has been studied by Andrews and
Trapasso [14]). With all the Ktive cells metabolizing sub-
strate at their maximum rate p/Y(the mainten3nce term /3 is
ignored but can, in fact, simply be added to p/Y)the effec-
tiveness factor equals the fraction of the particle consisting
of active cells. For thin biomass this is:
X
Q=K
As the biomass gets thicker a point is reached where the
substrate concentration becomes zero at the support-
particle surfiace. It can be shown by solving equation (1)
that this occurs when:
-2s‘
- - 1 + (1 + 4a/Sh) d3
Y2 (1 + x)”, -1 (11)
For thicker biomass (larger x) the radius of the support
particle becomes irrelevant since no substrate ever
reaches it. Equation (11)now gives y as the radius of the
inactive zone at the center of the particle for a given x. This
Blotechnology Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)
 >an be substituted in equation (10) to give the effective-
+
ness, with the corresponding (e y ) being calculated from
-quation (5b). Since there is no natural characteristic con-
2entration in zero-order kinetics, K is replaced in the
lefinitions of e and y by sin,the reactor inlet concentra-
:ion. The results are shown in Figure 4.
The main difference between Figure 4 and the first-
x d e r kinetics case (Figure 1)is that the effectiveness fac-
tors for thick biomass now depend on the liquid-phase
substrate concentration. For example, at the point in the
reactor where the concentration is one-tenth of that at the
inlet, all the points above the s’ = 0.1 line in Figure 4 are
unattainable. Consequently, the optimum film thickness
3n a support particle inkreases with substrate concentra-
:ion [OOp, can be calculated from equations (11) and (5b)
md is proportional to s‘”’]].
Consider what would now happen with the bed of
jense, monosized support particles with y = 2 recom-
mended for the aerobic bed. If we specify 90% substrate
removal the optimum film thickness would be 8 = 1.7 at
the inlet and 8 = 0.5 at the outlet (Figure 4). However, this
is exactly the reverse of the biomass distribution that is es-
tablished by stratification with the thick films at the top
and thin films at the bottom. Obviously, this design would
be far from optimal [14].
A bed of flocs, the sludge-blanket reactor, gives high ef-
fectiveness factors but introduces other problems. The
biomass particles (flocs and granules) generated b y the or-
ganisms involved in anaerobic digestion are not the cohe-
sive, spherical, monosized flocs Woduced b y Zymomonas
nobizis, but are more variable with irregular shapes, sizes,
and densities. This makes controlling the bed porosity at
the desired value almost impossible. It would be much
easier if support particles could be used to stabilize the
particle’s settling velocities. This can be done as follows.
If 90% removal is specified, choose a range of support
particle sizes y = 0.5 to 1 (roughly 20 x 40 mesh if sin =
1000 mg/l). These particles will stratify with the largest at
the base ofthe bed where s’ = 1, and the smallest at the top
where s’ = 0.1. It can be seen from Figure 4 that, given
optimal film thicknesses, effectiveness factors of order 0.9
can be maintained at both these points and hence, presum-
ably, throughout the bed. Furthermore, the wide range of
FIGURE 4. Particle effectiveness: zero-order kinetics.
II
y=o
1.o
--Sh+a : ’5,”
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20
( e + 7)
I’
Blotechnoiogy Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)
particle sizes will allow stratification to be maintained de-
spite film growth and gas production.
This may be beneficial to the multistage nature of anae-
robic digestion; the acid-forming organisms could domi-
nate near the base ofthe bed and the methanogens near the
top. Whether this specialization of function happens in a
real bed (packed or fluidized) or whether every particle of
biomass contains the complete microbial ecosystem in
equal parts is unclear at present. However, its potential
benefits could obviously not be obtained in a fluidized
bed in which the solids were mixing, because individual
particles would then not be exposed to a constant environ-
ment.
How can the optimal film thicknesses be maintained?
In the absence of particle removal in order to wash off ex-
cess biomass, the steady-state thickness of the film is a
balance between biomass growth on the one hand and en-
dogenous metabolism and the shearing off ofbiomass from
the particle surface on the other. The shear at the particle
surface depends on the particle Reynolds number, which
depends strongly on the density of the support particle.
This density can therefore be chosen to give steady-state
film thicknesses close to the optimum values. (A thinner
film is required at the top of the bed: This should happen
naturally, despite the higher shear there, because s’ is
much smaller.) The required density can not be specified
here but must be determined experimentally for individ-
ual wastewaters. The superficial velocity and required
bed height can then be calculated as before.
Three further factors may influence the choice of
particle density. First, dense particles lead to a high bed
heightldiameter ratio and vice versa. This ratio must be
kept w i t h i n reasonable limits. Second, with dense
particles the growth of biomass reduces the settling veloc-
ity (Figure 2 ) , so the required biomass distribution in the
bed would reduce the variance of the particle settling ve-
locities and thus the bed’s tendency to stratify. With low
density (< 1.1)support particles the stratification would
be strengthened. Third, the liquid phase mass transfer re-
sistance is not a limiting factor, except at very low substrate
concentrations that are not common in anaerobic reactors.
The dashed lines in Figure 4 show the true effectiveness
factors for sin = 1000 mg/l and particles of specific gravity
1.03, that is flocs or very light support particles. Dense
support particles will give results closer to the Sh = m
lines, and this would clearly be beneficial at low substrate
concentrations.
There may exist situations (denitrification, for example)
in which the biomass is so cohesive that the steady-state
film thickness is much larger than the optimum for any
feasible level of shear. Continuous particle removal and
-
>-
P washing is then necessary. The best solution is then to use
DY monosized, low density( < 1.1) supports. Film growth then
increases the settling velocity, so stratification puts the
thickly-covered particles at the base of the bed, where s’ =
1,and thinly covered particles near the top, where s’ = 0.1,
this is the optimum distribution (Figure 4).Particles must
then be removed for washing from the base of the bed and
returned to the top.
Conclusions
Effectiveness factors for biological particles should be
50 defined based on total particle volume, because this gives
a figure directly related to the local productivity in the
1 reactor.
March, 1986 21
 For any support particle, there exists a biofilm thick-
ness that maximizes this effectiveness. Designing a
fluidized-bed bioreactor involves selecting a support
particle (or deciding not to use one) and ensuring that the
film on it is close to the optimum thickness. The bed
height, diameter, and volumetric productivity can then be
calculated if the flow rate, kinetic parameters, and sub-
strate removal are known, although this calculation is ap-
proximate when gas is present.
Several factors influence the choice of the support
particle: the inherent kinetics of the process; the need to
obtain a reasonable height/diameter ratio; minimizing li-
quid phase mass transfer resistance (important with low
substrate concentrations); stratification of the particles in
order to maintain the correct distribution of biofilm thick-
ness through the bed; and, the cohesiveness of the bio-
mass, that is the relationship between its optimum thick-
ness and the thickness established if it is allowed to grow
unhindered.
For ethanol production, flocs of Zymomonas mobilis
grow to an optimum size and can be used in a tower
fermenter except for very concentrated feeds when the li-
quid density would be greater than the f o c density. In
aerobic wastewater treatment the steady-state biomass
thickness is much larger than the optimum so particles
must be removed from the top of the bed to remove the ex-
cess. Support particles should be monosized and as small
and d e n s e a s possible. F o r anaerobic digestion, t h e
particle size range can be specified given the inlet sub-
strate concentration and the kinetic! parameters. The
particle density can be chosen to give film thicknesses
close to the optimum.
Acknowledgement
This work was performed under N.S.F. grant #CPE
8204968.
Notation
B density ratio (biomass-liquid)/(Support-liquid)
C concentration in the biomass
D diffusivity in the biomass
e exponent in drag coefficient correlation
f the function (growth rate)/(maximum growth rate)
k mass transfer coefficient at the particle surface
K Monod constant
L biofilm thickness
n exponent in bed porosity correlation
-
Pout product concentration at reactor outlet
P concentration ofinhibiting product that stops growth
particle settling Reynolds number
Re,
RS support particle radius
r radius
22 March, 1986
S concentration in liquid phase
S' S/Sj"
sc Schmidt number
Sh Sherwood number 2(R, + L) k x/D
U superficial liquid velocity
Ut settling velocity of particle
UlS settling velocity of support particle
V solids volume per unit area below a point in the bed
V total solids volume per unit area
Y yield as cm3 biomass produced per gm substrate
consumed
X biomass volume/support particle volume
(Y (diffusivity in biomass)/(diffusivity in water)
P non-growth associated uptake or production rate per
unit volume of biomass
Y R, L m
E bed porosity
ES solids holdup
7, effectiveness factor
LL maximum specific growth rate of biomass
e L m
Literature Cited
1. Greenshields, R. N. and E. L. Smith, Chem. Eng., 249, 182 (1971).
2. Smith, E. L. and R . N. Greenshields, Chern. Eng., 281,28 (1974).
3. Cooper, P. and B. Atkinson, Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment of
Wuter and Wustewater, E . Harwood Ltd., London (1981).
4. Hickey, R. F. and R. W. Owens, Biotech. Bioengin. Sym. Ser., 11,15
(1981).
5. Andrews, G. F. and J. Przezdziecki, The Design of Fluidized Bed
Ferrnenter, Biotech. Bioeng., in press.
6 . Shieh, W. K., L. T . Mulcahy, and E. J. LaMotta, Truns. Inst. Chem.
Engrs., 59, 121 (1981).
7. A1 Djibouni, M . R. and J. Garside, Trans. Znst. Chem. Engrs., 57,94
11979).
8. Kolioni, T., M. Zumer, S. Mlinar, and M.Novak,Chem. Engrg. Comm.,
5,233 (1980).
9. Strandburg, G. W., T. Donaldson, E. J. Arcuri, Biotechnology Letters,
4, 347 (1982).
10. Lee, K. J. and P. L. Rogers, Chemical Engrg. J., 27, B31 (1983).
11. Heohn, R. and A. D. Ray, Journ. Wuter Poll. Control Fed., 45,2302
(1973).
12. Scott, C. D., Biotech. and Bioeng. Symp. Ser., 13,287 (1983).
13. Jones, S. T., R . A. Korus, W. Admassu, and R. C. Heimsch, Biotech.
Bioengin., 26, 742 (1984).
14. Andrews, G. F. and R. Trapasso, Enoiron. Prog., 3, 57 (1984).
15. Andrews, G. F., Biotechnol. Bioeng., 24,2013 (1982).
16. Przezdziecki J,, M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Chemical Engrg. S.U.N.Y.at
Buffalo (1984).
Graham Andrews is an Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering at
the State University of New York at Buffalo. He holds a B.S. degree in Me-
chanical Engineering from Imperial College, London and M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in Chemical Engineering from Syracuse University.
Blotechnology Progress (Vol. 2, No. 1)