Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263

Comparison of the hydrodynamics and mass transfer

characteristics of a modi"ed square airlift reactor with common
airlift reactors
Xiaoping Lu*, Jian Ding, Yanru Wang, Jun Shi
Department of Chemical Engineerisng, Nanjing University of Chemical Technology, Nanjing 210009, People's Republic of China
Received 6 July 1998; received in revised form 15 August 1999; accepted 16 August 1999

Abstract

A modi"ed square airlift loop reactor (MSALR) was developed. Experiments were performed to investigate the e!ects of the ratio of
height and diameter of draft tube (H /D ), and the ratio of cross-sectional area of riser and downcomer (A /A ) on gas holdup, liquid
r r r d
circulation velocity and mixing time in the MSALR. A comparison of these characters as well as the total volumetric mass transfer
coe$cient was carried out between MSALR and round airlift loop reactor (RALR). Finally, the mixing time within the MSALR,
RALR and square bubble column (SBC) was also studied. The results indicate that the hydrodynamic characteristics of MSALR are
better when H /D "11.2 or A /A "0.695, and its characteristics of gas holdup and mass transfer surpass those of RALR. The
r r r d
average volumetric mass transfer coe$cient K a of MSALR is about 40% larger than that of RALR, except for extreme
L
conditions. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Airlift reactor; Hydrodynamics; Mass transfer; Mixing

1. Introduction
Airlift loop reactors (ALR) are increasingly being ap-
plied in commercial biotechnology and multiphase
chemical reactions because of their better hydrodynamics
and mass transfer characteristics. Generally, ALR is
either a round, square or rectangular column in which
a draft tube or a partition board is "xed (Choi, Chirsti
& Moo-Young, 1996; Kawase & Moo-Young, 1986a).
The #uid #ow in ALR is regular, the axial mixing is
relatively weak, and the mass transfer coe$cient is slight-
ly lower than bubble column (BC). To reinforce the
dispersion and the #uid disturbance, some sieve plates,
packing and static mixers can be "tted into the draft tube
of ALR. The square or rectangular airlift loop reactor
(SALR) has a simple scale-up rule as another advantage.
Geometric modi"cation of ALR is a promising way to
improve the reactor performance (Choi, Chisti & Moo-
Young, 1995; Bakker, den Hertog, Tramper & Gooijer,
1995; Chisti & Moo-Young, 1993).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: perdep@njuct.edu.cn (X. Lu)
In this work, a round draft tube was used to replace the
square draft tube in the SALR, so the downcomer of the
reactor has an irregular cross section. The velocity distri-
bution of gas/liquid is di!erent from round airlift loop
reactor (RALR) with the same downcomer cross-sec-
tional area. It makes the local liquid circulation velocity
vary point to point at the downcomer cross section, and
promotes macro-circulation of the liquid phase in the
downcomer. The modi"ed square airlift loop reactor
(MSALR) has been studied and the results are compared
with the RALR with identical cross-sectional area and
height. The experimental investigation was done on the
air}tap water system. The objectives of this study are
examining the e!ects of the ratio of height and inner
diameter of draft tube (H /D ), the ratio of inner cross-
r r
sectional area of riser and downcomer (A /A ) on the gas
r d
hold-up e, liquid circulation velocity ; and mixing time
L
¹ . A comparison of the in#uence of e, ; and ¹ on the
m L m
performance of MSALR and square bubble column
(SBC) is given. The total volumetric mass transfer coe$-
cients K a of oxygen absorption at di!erent A /A in
L r d
MSALR and RALR were determined. The experimental
results of ¹ among MSALR, RALR and SBC are also
m
compared.

0009-2509/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 4 7 3 - X
2258 X. Lu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263

Nomenclature

A cross-sectional area of downcomer, m2 H length of draft tube, m

d r
A cross-sectional area of riser, m2 K a overall volumetric mass transfer coe$cient, s~1
r L
CH saturated oxygen concentration in liquid, mol l~1 ¹ liquid circulation time, s
C
C initial oxygen concentration in liquid, mol l~1 ¹ mixing time, s
L0 m
C oxygen concentration in liquid, mol l~1 ; super"cial gas velocity, m s~1
L g
D inside diameter of the airlift reactor, m ; liquid circulation velocity, m s~1
L
D inside diameter of the riser, m ; liquid velocity in riser, m s~1
r Lr
h aerated liquid height, m e overall gas holdup
D
h static liquid height, m e gas holdup in downcomer
L d

2. Experimental conductance (Merchuk & Yunger, 1990). The interval

between two probes in downcomer is 1 m. Sodium chlor-
Fig. 1 shows the con"guration of three plexiglass reac- ide was used as a tracer. The liquid circulation time
tors used in our experiments. Outside diameters (D ) of ¹ (the time for a single circulation) is de"ned as the
r C
0.07, 0.1, 0.13 and 0.15 m, and lengths (H ) of 1.08 and interval between two adjacent concentration peaks. ¹ is
r m
1.45 m were used for the round draft tube according to de"ned as the time required to reach $5% of the equi-
the purposes of di!erent experiments. A single nozzle was librium tracer concentration when mixing is completed.
located at the base of the riser. For making comparison The liquid circulation velocity ; was calculated by
L
between airlift reactor and SBC, the riser was sparged the following relation:
with air at super"cial gas velocity of 0.02}0.1 m s~1
2h
based on the entire column cross section. Tap water at ; " D. (2)
L ¹
253C was used as the liquid phase in all experiments. The C
overall gas holdup e in the reactor was determined by The overall volumetric oxygen transfer coe$cient K a
visual measurements of the static liquid height h and the L
L was determined by the dynamic gassing-in method.
aerated height h . The gas holdup e was calculated from A dissolved oxygen probe was settled at the middle point
D
the following equation. of downcomer. The concentration change of the dis-
solved oxygen was measured using an oxygen meter. K a
h !h L
e" D L. (1) was calculated with reference to total reactor volume
h from the following expression:
D

A B
The liquid circulation time ¹ and mixing time 1 CH!C
C K a" ln L0 . (3)
¹ were measured by means of tracer impulse electric L t CH!C
m L

3. Results and discussion

3.1. The inyuence of H /D on e, ; and ¹ in MSALR

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of reactors: (a) round airlift loop reactor;
(b) modi"ed square airlift reactor; (c) square bubble column.
r r L m
A number of investigators have studied the in#uence of
H /D on e in RALR. Bohner and Blenke (1972) con-
r r
sidered that e decreased as H /D increased. Chisti (1989)
r r
revealed that for solid-free liquid, the gas holdup declined
slightly with the height of the split-cylinder reactors. The
experiments of Weiland (1984) were carried out using
three D /D values (0.59, 0.74 and 0.88) and the height of
r d
draft tube was 1.5 m in RALR, the respective H /D are
r r
12.8, 10.2 and 8.5. The optimal H /D value is 10.2 at
r r
which there is a maximum value of e.
In our experiments, outside diameters (D ) of 0.07, 0.1,
r
0.13 and 0.15 m, and lengths (H ) of 1.08 and 1.45 m of
r
round draft tube were used. Figs. 2 and 3 show that when
H /D is 11.2, there are maximum values of e and ; . The
r r L
 X. Lu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263 2259

Fig. 2. E!ect of H /D on e under di!erent ; in MSALR.

r r g Fig. 4. E!ect of H /D on ¹ under di!erent ; in MSALR.
r r m g

velocities of gas and liquid phases. In the experiment,

an increase of H /D means a decrease of D that will
r r r
weaken the axial dispersion in the riser increasing the
mixing time. Fig. 4 also shows that ¹ increases with the
m
increase of H /D , and there is a transition point for
r r
¹ at H /D "11.2 at which, the form resistance in the
m r r
bottom de#ection zone and the velocity di!erence in the
riser and the downcomer will be greater. All these fea-
tures will intensify the mixing process in MSALR and
slow down the increasing rate of ¹ with the increase of
m
H /D .
r r
3.2. The inyuence of A /A on e, ; and ¹ in MSALR
r d L m
The experiments were performed with di!erent A /A
r d
values (0.111, 0.266, and 0.695) and the height of draft
tube was 1.45 m. The corresponding H /D values are
r r
Fig. 3. E!ect of H /D on ; under di!erent ; in MSALR. 20.7, 14.5 and 11.2. Fig. 5 shows that the gas holdup
r r L g

optimal H /D was found to be 11.2. Generally, the resist-

r r
ing force and the driving force for liquid circulation
increase with the increase of H /D , but the increase in
r r
resisting force is more evident. The resisting force will
surpass the driving force when H /D exceeds 11.2, and
r r
results in the reduction of liquid circulation rate. The gas
holdup in turn will be decreased as the bubbles entrained
in downcomer are decreased.
The mixing process in airlift reactors consists of back-
mixing and axial dispersion occurred respectively at the
top and bottom de#ection zones and in the riser/down-
comer space. Mixing in riser and downcomer is caused
by axial dispersion due to turbulence and di!erential Fig. 5. E!ect of A /A on e under di!erent ; in MSALR, H "1.45 m.
r d g r
2260 X. Lu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263
Fig. 6. E!ect of A /A on ; under di!erent ; in MSALR,
r d L g
H "1.45 m.
r slightly higher in RALR with larger D /D value (in the
Fig. 7. E!ect of A /A on ¹ under di!erent ; in MSALR.
r d m g
increases with increasing super"cial gas velocity. When
; is smaller than 0.06 m s~1, there is no signi"cant
g L
di!erence of e for various A /A . However, when ; is
r d
larger than 0.06 m s~1, the in#uence of A /A is compar-
r d
atively notable. As the experimental range of H /D is
r r
11.2}20.7, e decreases with the increase of A /A at the
r d
same ; . The variation trend of e is similar to that of e in
g
Fig. 2. Both Koide et al. (1984), Koide, Kimura, Nitta
and Kawabata (1984) and Weiland (1984) reported that
there is a maximum value of ; at D /D+0.6 (i.e.
L r
A /A +0.56) in draft tube bubble column (RALR).
r d
Fig. 6 shows that ; at A /A "0.695 is the largest. The
L r d
#ow resistance in MSALR is smaller when A /A "
r d
0.695, and it indicates that there is a di!erence of liquid
#ow in MSALR and in RALR. To minimize the mixing
time, Chisti and Moo-Young (1987) recommended that
A /A"0.49, i.e. A /A "0.96, should be used in the
r r d
internal loops. Our experiments show that the mixing
time ¹ is the smallest when A /A is equal to 0.695
m r d
(Fig. 7), and high liquid circulation velocity yields a good
mixing.
3.3. Comparison of hydrodynamic characteristics between
MSALR and RALR
The experiments were carried out using two A /A
r d
values (0.695 and 1.38) and the height of draft tube is
1.08 m for both MSALR and RALR. The H /D values
r r
are 8.3 and 7.2, respectively. Fig. 8 shows that the gas
holdup e in both MSALR and RALR is increased with an
increase of the gas super"cial velocity ; . The gas holdup
g
e corresponding to A /A "1.38 (H /D "7.2) is lower
r d r r
than that of A /A "0.695 (H /D "8.3) in both reac-
r d r r
tors. The reason might be that the operating range of
H /D is less than 11.2. The variation trend of e is similar
r r
to that shown in Fig. 2. However, Koide, Kurematsu,
Iwamoto, Iwata and Horibe (1983) pointed out that e is
r
range of ; '0.06 m s~1) and H /D "13.5}21.2. The
g r r
reason could be that the operating range of H /D sur-
r r
passes the optimal H /D value. The e in MSALR is
r r
larger than that in RALR at the same ; and A /A
g r d
values. An explanation for this behavior is that the liquid
circulation in MSALR is smaller. The decrease of liquid
velocity in the airlift reactor causes an increase of e in the
riser, as the bubble rise velocity is also reduced. The gas
holdup e in the downcomer will be reduced, since the
liquid #ow in downcomer has a negative in#uence on
bubble rise. The contribution of the gas holdup in the
riser to the overall e is larger compared with the contribu-
tion of e in the downcomer, thus the overall e increases.
The e values in MSALR are also higher than that in
RALR reported by Koide et al. (1984). For example,
the e in MSALR is &0.16 (when H "1.45 m and
r
A /A "0.695), whereas Koide et al. (1984) showed that
r d
the e in RALR is &0.08 (when H "1.40 m and
r
A /A "0.538).
r d
Fig. 9 shows that at the same ; and A /A values,
g r d
; in MSALR is slightly lower than that in RALR. It
g
Fig. 8. Comparison of gas e in MSALR and RALR, H "1.08 m.
r
 X. Lu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263 2261

could be that at the same ; and A /A values, the ; in

g r d L
MSALR is lower than that in RALR. It causes the back-
mixing in MSALR to become weaker than that in RALR.
In the experimental range, the increase of area in the riser
will promote mixing in reactors and there is an optimal
value of A /A for MSALR design.
r d
For comparison, some empirical correlations of e, ; ,
L
¹ for MSALR and RALR are listed below (the height of
m
draft tube is 1.08 m for both MSALR and RALR).
e: MSALR e"0.046;0.58(A /A )~0.072, (4)
g r d
RALR e"0.035;0.647(A /A )~0.085, (5)
g r d
; : MSALR ; "0.114;0.557(A /A )0.073, (6)
L L g r d
RALR ; "0.124;0.537(A /A )0.08 (7)
L g r d
¹ : MSALR ¹ "53.15 ;~0.377(A /A )~0.269, (8)
m m g r d
RALR ¹ "45.70 ;~0.377(A /A )~0.319. (9)
Fig. 9. Comparison of ; in MSALR and RALR, H "1.08 m.
L r
m g r d
The exponent values of ; in the above correlations
g
are similar to those reported by some previous investiga-
tors for RALR. For example, Kawase and Moo-Young
(1986a) obtained a result of eJ;0.7 for water system,
g
compared to our result of eJ;0.647 for the same system.
g
Chisti, Fujimoto and Moo-Young (1986) also reported
that e J;0.43}0.892 for coalesced bubble #ow or bubble
g
#ow in rectangular internal-loop airlift reactors.
Chakravart et al. (1973) obtained a relation of e J
d
;0.88[A /A ]1.08. Bello, Robinson and Moo-Young
Gr r d
(1984) proposed a correlation of ; J;1@3[A /A ]0.78
Lr Gr d r
in RALR, and Siegel, Merchuk and Schugerl (1986)
presented another correlation of ; J;0.4[D /D ]~0.41
lr Gr r d
in rectangular channel internal-loop airlift. For the
mixing time, Choi et al. (1996) presented a relation of
¹ J;~0.36 in rectangular internal-loop airlift reactors
m g
and Bello et al. (1984) reported a relation of
¹ /¹ J[A /A ]0.5. The exponent values of A /A in
m c d r r d
the above correlations are quite di!erent and this indi-
Fig. 10. Comparison of ¹ in MSALR and RALR, H "1.08 m. cates that the e!ect of A /A is more complicated.
m r r d
3.4. Comparison of mixing time among MSALR, RALR and
SBC
indicates that the resistance of liquid circulation
in MSALR is slightly larger than that in RALR. In Another experiment on the mixing time ¹ was car-
m
either MSALR or RALR, the ; corresponding to ried out in an SBC (see Fig. 1), the cross-sectional area is
L
A /A "1.38 is lower than that corresponding to the same as with MSALR. Fig. 11 shows the variation of
r d
A /A "0.695. ¹ in MSALR, RALR and SBC with gas super"cial
r d m
Fig. 10 indicates that ¹ decreases with increase of velocity. At the same super"cial velocity, the ¹ of SBC
m m
; or A /A in both MSALR and RALR. Kawase and is about 40}50% longer than MSALR or RALR. Wei-
g r d
Moo-Young (1986b) also reported that the mixing time land (1984) found that when draft tube is not used
in water increases with the increase of cross-sectional (bubble column), the mixing time at various super-
area A . The backmixing due to recirculation could be "cial gas velocities is longer than in loop reactors.
d
the main contributor to the mixing in airlift reactors. The ¹ of MSALR is slightly longer than that of
m
When ; increases, the eddy mixing is increased. In our RALR, which could be due to the fact that the liquid
g
experiments, the ¹ in the MSALR is longer than that in circulation velocity in MSALR is slightly lower than that
m
RALR at the same super"cial gas velocity. The reason in RALR.
2262 X. Lu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263

on K a will greatly exceed the e!ects of the form resist-

L
ance and interfacial friction. Hence, the di!erence in K a
L
between these two reactors is not signi"cant. Whereas,
when the super"cial gas velocity is settled within the two
extreme super"cial velocities, the average K a value in
L
MSALR is about 40% larger than that in RALR. It could
be inferred as due to the e!ects of #uid dynamics and
higher gas holdup in MSALR. The local liquid #ow
velocities in a downcomer with irregular cross section are
quite di!erent. It can cause some velocity and concen-
tration di!erences among streamlines, at which mass
transfer will be promoted in MSALR.

4. Conclusions

This work veri"es that there is an optimal value (11.2)

of H /D to e and ; in MSALR. In air}water system, the
r r L
Fig. 11. Comparison of ¹ among MSALR, RALR and SBC,
m
gas holdup e in MSALR is larger than that in RALR and
H "1.08 m. the liquid circulation velocity ; in MSALR is slightly
r L
lower than that in RALR. There is a maximum ; value
L
at A /A "0.695. The mixing time ¹ is decreased with
r d m
the decrease of H /D and with the increase of A /A . The
3 3 3 $
mixing time in MSALR is slightly longer than that in
RALR, which indicates that the e!ect of the geometrical
structure of MSALR is di!erent from that of RALR. At
identical operating conditions, the ¹ of SBC is about
m
40}50% larger than those of MSALR and RALR. The
average volumetric mass transfer coe$cient K a of
L
MSALR is about 40% larger than that of RALR (except
for extreme conditions). Due to the geometrical change in
reactor, the characteristics of MSALR appear better than
those of RALR. The modi"ed square airlift reactor can
also be used as a multiple airlift reactor without scale-up
e!ect.

Fig. 12. Comparison of K a of MSALR and RALR, H "1.08 m.

L r
References

3.5. Comparison of mass transfer characteristics between Bakker, W. A. M., den Hertog, M., Tramper, J., & Gooijer, C. D. (1995).
MSALR and RALR Oxygen transfer in a air-lift loop reactor. Bioprocess Engineering, 12,
167}172.
Fig. 12 shows that the overall volumetric mass transfer Bello, R. A., Robinson, C. W., & Moo-Young, M. (1984). Liquid
circulation and mixing characteristics of airlift contactors. Canadian
coe$cients K a in the two reactors are almost the same
L Journal of Chemical Engineering, 62, 573}577.
at the minimum or maximum super"cial gas velocity Bohner, K., & Blenke, H. (1972). Verfahrenstechnik, 6, 50}56.
(0.01 and 0.1 ms~1). The result reveals that when the Chakravarty, M., Begum, S., Singh, H. D., Barwah, J. N., & Iyengar,
super"cial gas velocity ; is very low or very high, the M. S., (1973). Gas holdup distribution in a gas-lift column. Biotech-
g nology and Bioengineering Symposium, 4, 363}378.
e!ect of the geometrical structure of the reactors on K a
L Chisti, M. Y. (1989). Airlift Bioreactors. London: Elsevier.
is insigni"cant. Under a very small liquid circulation Chisti, M.Y., Fujimoto, K., & Moo-Young, M., 1986. Hydrodynamic
velocity ; , the e!ect of #ow disturbance (caused by
L and oxygen mass transfer studies in bubble columns and airlift
form resistance and interfacial friction) on K a is weaker bioreactors. Paper 117a presented at the A.I.CH.E Annual Meeting,
L Miami Beach, 2}7 November.
than that of mass di!usion and convection. Therefore,
the mass transfer of oxygen is nearly independent of the Chisti, M. Y., & Moo-Young, M. (1987). Airlift reactors: characteristics,
applications, and design considerations. Chemical Engineering Com-
geometrical structure of the reactors under very low munications, 60, 195}242.
super"cial gas velocity. When the gas and liquid through- Chisti, Y., & Moo-Young, M., (1993). Improve the performance of airlift
puts are very high, the e!ect of gas and liquid turbulence reactors. Chemical Engineering Progress, 89, 38-45.
 X. Lu et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 55 (2000) 2257}2263
Choi, K. H., Chisti, Y., & Moo-Young, M. (1995). Split-channel rectan-
gular airlift reactors: enhance of performance by geometric modi"-
cations. Chemical Engineering Communications, 138, 171}181.
Choi, K. H., Chisti, Y., & Moo-Young, M. (1996). Comparative evalu-
ation of hydrodynamic and mass transfer characteristics in bubble
column and airlift slurry reactors. Chemical Engineering Journal, 62,
223}229.
Kawase, Y., & Moo-Young, M. (1986a). In#uence of non-Newtonian
#ow behaviour on mass transfer in bubble columns with and with-
out draft tubes. Chemical Engineering Communications, 40, 67}83.
Kawase, Y., & Moo-Young, M. (1986b). Mixing and mass transfer in
concentric-tube airlift fermenters: Newtonian and non-Newtonian
media. Journal of Chemical Technology in Biotechnology, 36, 527}538.
Koide, K., Iwamoto, S., Takasaka, Y., Matsuura, S., Takarashi, E.,
Kimura, M., & Kubota, E. (1984). Liquid circulation, gas holdup
and pressure drop in bubble column with draught tube. Journal of
Chemical Engineering of Japan, 17, 611}618.
2263
Koide, K., Kimura, M., Nitta, H., & Kawabata, H. (1988). Liquid
circulation in bubble column with drauft tube. Journal of Chemical
Engineering of Japan, 21(3), 393}399.
Koide, K., Kurematsu, K., Iwamoto, S., Iwata, Y., & Horibe, K. (1983).
Gas holdup and volumetric liquid-phase mass transfer coe$cient in
bubble column with draught tube and with gas dispersion into tube.
Journal Chemical Engineering Japan, 16, 419}423.
Merchuk, J. C., & Yunger, R. (1990). The role of the gas}liquid separ-
ator of airlift reactors in the mixing process. Chemical Engineering
Science, 45(9), 2973}2975.
Siegel, M. H., Merchuk, J. C., & Schugerl, K. (1986). Airlift reactor
analysis: interrelationships between riser, downcomer and
gas}liquid seperator behaviour including gas recirculation e!ects.
A.I.Ch.E Journal, 32, 1585}1596.
Weiland, P. (1984). In#uence of draft tube diameter on operator
behavior of air-lift loop reactor. German Chemical Engineering, 7,
374}385.