Modelling Mass Transfer in Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in a

Jet Zone Loop Reactor

€ ck,1 Pascal Volkmer,1 Norbert R€abiger1† and Udo Fritsching2

Susanne Heithoff,1* Ulf D. Ku
1. University of Bremen, Institute of Environmental Process Engineering, Bremen, Germany
2. University of Bremen, Particles and Process Engineering, Bremen, Germany

Experimentally determined mass transfer rates of the gas-liquid multiphase flow in a jet zone loop reactor are compared to several existing model
approaches. The experimental data deviate due to insufficient consideration of the local hydrodynamic effects in the models. It is identified that
bubble surface movement and its impact on the turbulence are not yet appropriately pictured. A new approach for describing the mass transfer
coefficient in the riser of the jet zone loop reactor is derived, including the effect of mass transfer enhancement by bubble-induced turbulence.

Keywords: two-phase flow, mass transfer, kLa, loop reactor, bubble-induced turbulence

INTRODUCTION THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In bubbly two-phase flow the local hydrodynamics are dominated

L
ocal mass transfer processes influence the conversion and
selectivity of chemical reactions. Models for describing the by the momentum transfer between the phases: bubble rise and
reactor performance often assume homogeneous mass bubble surface deformation produce eddies and enhance the
transfer efficiency by using mean values as reference parameter, contained kinetic energy in the continuous phase. To quantify the
like a mean energy dissipation rate in single-phase flow or a energy augmentation, Prakash[6] introduced the parameter b as
mean mass transfer coefficient in multiphase flow. The follows:
relevance of the local energy dissipation rate distribution in
 2B;abs
1 eG  w
modelling yields of mass transfer-limited reactions in single- b¼ ð1Þ
phase flow has been shown in the literature.[1–5] Hence, 2 0 2
w 0
modelling reactor performances should consider local mass
transfer rates, e.g. by dividing the reactor into several zones with which compares the liquid fluctuation velocity in a single-phase
characteristic mass transfer behaviour. Thus, the entire reaction plug flow w 0 2 to the bubble-induced turbulence depicted by
0
conversion in the system is calculated by the sum of the locally 
eG  wB;abs . Whereas b ! 0 is for single-phase turbulent flow and
2 [6]

described conversion rates. This approach was developed for
single-phase flow in a jet zone loop reactor and practically
validated e.g. by the halogenation of ketones in a jet zone loop
reactor.[1]
This study presents the local zone approach for modelling the
gas-liquid mass transfer in the riser of the reaction zone of a jet
zone loop reactor (Figure 1), as a step towards the overall gas-
liquid reactor performance modelling and description.
In bubbly gas-liquid flow the description of the reaction yield
including the local mass transfer phenomenon is still outstanding
and more complex due to the additional continuous-disperse
phase momentum transfer and the two occurring mass transfer
processes: the liquid-liquid diffusion transport and the gas-liquid
mass transfer. In both cases, the transfer rate depends on the
diffusive mass transport in the boundary layer. In single-phase
flow, the Kolmogorov length describes the hydrodynamic
boundary layer thickness.[1] In two-phase flow, the boundary
layer development is influenced by different mechanisms,
depending on the turbulence intensity of the continuous phase:
in highly turbulent systems, the interfacial boundary layer
thickness is determined by small-scale eddies dissipating at the
bubble surface. In bubbly gas-liquid flow, the interfacial boundary
layer thickness is mainly influenced by the slip velocity. Since
both mechanisms can coexist in contact apparatus, local
modelling of the hydrodynamics and the mass transfer is
necessary to ensure a correct phenomenological description.
b ! 1 describes turbulent flow caused by intense bubble swarms.
Bubble-induced turbulence can be divided into contributions
by Reynolds, grid, and deformation turbulence.[7] Reynolds
turbulence describes the deviation in the liquid flow character-
istics due to the shear flow at the bubble-liquid interface. The
description is analogous to the turbulence in single-phase flow.
Grid turbulence defines the two different flow regimes arising in
a bubble swarm. Between the bubbles a stream flow develops,
while behind the bubbles eddies detach periodically. Deforma-
tion turbulence is induced by liquid eddies bouncing on the
bubble surface, producing a change in the bubble shape. The
surface tension of the bubble causes a momentum transfer back
into the liquid, which sustains until the distance of a length
similar to the bubble diameter.[7]
The interplay between the bubble surface movement and the
hydrodynamic flow pattern affects the shape of the bubble rise as
well as the bubble volume, bubble form, and its drag. In coalescent
†
N. R€
abiger passed away in April 2015.
* Author to whom correspondence may be addressed.
E-mail address: heithoff@iuv.uni-bremen.de
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 9999:1–7, 2016
© 2016 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.22660
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

VOLUME 9999, 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1

 hydrodynamic and concentration interfacial boundary layer
thickness.

dB
tc ¼ ð3Þ
ws

In the ellipsoid bubble regime, the effective contact time is also

influenced by stretching and shrinking processes of the bubble
surface, due to surface deformation. The chaotic behaviour of the
deformation along the bubble surface leads to an inhomogeneous
distribution of the boundary layer thickness and therefore the
mass transfer. Brauer’s phenomenological description of the gas-
liquid mass transfer[11] includes this effect of surface deformation.
An empirical correlation is defined (Equation (5)) in which the
boundary layer conditions are modelled by the slip velocity Re and
the liquid properties Sc as follows:

kL dB
¼ Sh ¼ 2 þ 0:015Re0:89 Sc0:7 ð4Þ
Di

with:

ws dB;e
Re ¼ ð5Þ
y

and:

Di
Figure 1. Sketch of the jet zone loop reactor with subdivision of the reactor Sc ¼ ð6Þ
in several compartments. y

The exponents include the deformation effects and are

systems, the ellipsoid bubble regime prevails, where bubble
deformation processes dominate the bubble rise. Although
the interplay of the disperse and continuous phase prevails in
the hydrodynamics and thus the mass transfer behaviour, a
general description of the gas-liquid interaction in practical
systems does not exist due to the missing understanding of the
bubble-induced turbulence mechanisms.[8] Hence, mass transfer
models for reactor precalculation include these effects by using
empirical determined correlation factors or by using simplifying
assumptions.
The gas-liquid mass transfer process consists of a diffusive
transport in the interfacial boundary layer bulk phase-bubble and
a convective transfer of unsaturated liquid elements towards the
interfacial boundary layer. Higbie’s[9] penetration model is one of
the basic mass transfer models and extends the diffusive film
model from Lewis and Whitmen[10] by the transverse transfer of
saturated fluid elements from the boundary layer into the bulk
phase. Assuming that liquid turbulence is fully developed, new
fluid elements get continuously to the interfacial area for the
saturation process. The saturation process accelerates with lower
contact time, depicted in Equation (2), due to the higher driving
force.
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Di
kL ¼ 2 ð2Þ
ptc
The residence time of the liquid elements at the interfacial
boundary layer is defined by the ratio of the bubble diameter dB to
the slip velocity ws, Equation (3). An increase of the slip velocity
leads to higher mass transfer rates caused by the decrease of the
determined from experimental data. The equation was validated
e.g. by data of Calderbank et al.[12]
In addition to the interfacial boundary layer thickness, the
bubble wake formation plays an important role in the liquid
saturation process.[13–16] According to Bork’s model, the main
mass transfer from the gas bubble into the bulk phase is caused by
bubble wake shedding.[17] The model extends Higbie’s theory[9]
by the wake influence and defines the diffusive and convective
mass transfer newly: liquid elements at the boundary layer get
saturated by diffusion; afterwards they do not expand directly
into the bulk phase but are transferred into the bubble wake due
to the inner bubble circulation. The intensity of the diffusive
mass transfer may be displayed by an enhancement factor FD,i,
which is assumed to be independent of the gas hold up and the
slip velocity in homogeneous bubble flow:[17]
FD;i ¼ 2:4 ð7Þ
The convective mass transfer from the bubble wake into the
bulk phase is caused by bubble surface oscillation, which leads to
wake shedding. The wake shedding frequency is influenced by the
slip velocity and can be calculated by the Strouhal number Sr
and the vertical bubble diameter dv as follows:
4  Sr ws
fW ¼ ð8Þ
dv
whereas Miyahara et al.[18] defined the Strouhal number for single
bubbles rising in a non-moving liquid as follows:
2=3
Sr ¼ 0:0013  Re dv for 103 < Redv < 104 ð9Þ

2 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING VOLUME 9999, 2016

with the Reynolds-number Redv including the vertical bubble
diameter as a characteristic length scale.
Hence, the definition of the contact time as a reference
parameter for the gas-liquid mass transfer is modified including
the enhancement factor and the wake shedding frequency:
1 1
tc ¼ ð10Þ
FD;i f W
The model of Bork[17] was developed by mass transfer
measurements at single bubbles rising through a rigid particle
grid. The bubble movement in the grid was compared to the model
of Richardson and Zaki[19] and good agreement was found. Thus,
the model is based on the assumption that the flow pattern in
the rigid particle grid displays turbulent flow conditions in a
bubble swarm.
All presented models[9,11,17] describe the mass transfer rate as a
function of the interfacial boundary layer thickness. Brauer[11] and
Higbie[9] correlate the boundary layer thickness with the bubble
diameter and the slip velocity, whereas Bork[17] also includes
surface deformations by the enhancement factor FD,i.
Since all presented models assume that the slip velocity is a valid
reference parameter for the interfacial boundary layer thickness, it
is concluded that the mass transfer rate in the bubbly-flow region
of the jet zone loop reactor should be properly pictured by these
slip velocity models. Thus, the several existing model calculations
are compared to experimental determined mass transfer rates in
the riser of the reaction zone, to validate their applicability in
technical systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Local mass transfer rates in a jet zone loop reactor are investigated
(Figure 1). This reactor type is a modified compact jet loop reactor
with the jet position in the lower reactor part. The reactor volume
is divided into two parts: a jet zone and a reaction zone.[20] Within
the jet zone a high mass transfer rate is achieved by concentrating
the energy input of a gas-liquid two phase jet in a small area of the
reactor. High shear rates generate a huge specific surface area of
the gas phase and cause efficient mixing. The required residence
time for reaction is achieved by the height of the reaction zone
where a loop circulation of the liquid is realized by the mammoth
pump effect. Both zones are separated by the baffle plate. Between
the lip of the baffle plate and the reactor wall the two-phase
mixture flows from the jet zone to the reaction zone. Back mixing
effects are present due to the under-pressure generation of the jet,
and cause high exchange between both zones.
For the investigation of local mass transfer rates, the reactor is
divided into several compartments, as shown in Figure 1. The
different compartments are: the reaction zone with the riser (C1)
and the downcomer (C2), and the riser (C3) and downcomer (C4)
of the jet zone. In this study, the mass transfer phenomena are
solely discussed in the riser of the reaction zone C2 (Figure 1).
The volumetric mass transfer is determined under stationary
conditions, based on Equation (11).[21] Radial dissolved oxygen
Table 1. Reactor geometry and experimental parameters
HR (m) DR (m) DD (m) E_ (kW/m3)
V
1 0.1 0.03 0.7–1.3
VOLUME 9999, 2016
concentration profiles are measured at M1 and M2 (Figure 1). In
addition, local gas samples are taken to measure the decrease of
the oxygen concentration in the gas phase along the reactor height.
The decrease of the saturation concentration is used to include the
instationarity of the mass transfer mechanisms in the determina-
tion of kLa (Equation (11)). The reactor is operated dead end,
which leads to stationary conditions for the oxygen profiles over
the reactor height and depth.
V_ L rout  rin
kL a ¼ ð11Þ
VR ð1  eG Þ r  r
The geometric reactor data are listed in Table 1 together with the
experimental parameters.
Optical sensors (Hamilton VISIFERMTM DO) are used to
measure the concentration profiles in the liquid. An optical
micro-probe (PreSens1 (type PSt 1)) is used to measure the
oxygen concentration in the gas phase; samples are taken as
described in Bork.[17] The gas hold up is determined by difference
pressure measurements and calculated by the following:
Dp
eG ðhÞ ¼ ð12Þ
ðrL  rG ÞgDh
The electro diffusion measurement technique (EDM) is applied
to measure radial and axial velocity profiles. The EDM is based on
the principle of a polarographic measurement cell where the
measured liquid velocity is proportional to a diffusion-limited
electrode reaction. Due to the specific sensor arrangement, the
flow direction can be determined precisely, which allows an
analysis of the turbulence structures. The sensor is calibrated in a
plug flow under variation of liquid velocities and angles. A
detailed description of the EDM is given in Pannek et al.[22] For
signal analysis, a bubble signal filter has been established by
subtracting the bubble-related part of the signal from the bulk
flow. The energy spectrum is calculated using the Welch method,
comparable to Prakash.[6]
The bubble rise velocity and bubble diameter are analyzed by
optical measurements. Pictures are taken with a high-speed
camera at a frequency of 500 Hz and analyzed with ImageJ1.
Bubble equivalent diameters are calculated out of the tracked area,
and the specific interfacial area is calculated by the following:
6eG
a ¼ ð13Þ
dB;e
The absolute bubble rise velocity is determined by bubble
tracking. For each operating parameter 6300 pictures are analyzed.
To quantify the influence of bubble-induced turbulence on the
energy spectra, liquid fluctuation velocities at constant mean axial
velocities under varying gas hold ups need to be measured.
Therefore, velocity profiles in a channel with and without a
flexible particle grid are measured under constant mean liquid
w G0 (cm/s) T (8C) rL (kg/m) y (m/s)
1.2–2.5 20 998 1  106
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 3

Figure 2. Flexible particle grid, used to quantify the kinetic energy
enhancement of the continuous phase by bubble flow under constant
mean axial velocities.
velocity with the EDM to uncouple the gas hold up and the axial
liquid velocity. The grid (Figure 2) consists of cubic centred
spherical ellipsoids (dB,e ¼ 5 mm). The particles are staggered on
flexible fibres, which enables high moving variances in the
horizontal direction. The grid simulates a gas hold up of e ¼ 0.1.
The equivalent particle size and particle hold up and the slip
velocity are analogous to the flow conditions in the riser of the
reaction zone of the jet zone loop reactor. The geometric and
experimental conditions of the channel flow with the mobile
particle grid are given in Table 2.
The experimental determined mass transfer rates, bubble
properties, and hydrodynamics are used to discuss model
calculations and to describe the mass transfer determining
mechanisms in the reaction zone of the jet zone loop reactor.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The basic parameter for the precalculation of two-phase flow
driven contact apparatus is the volumetric mass transfer coeffi-
cient kLa, which characterizes the transfer of the gas component
into the liquid. Two mechanisms control the volumetric mass
transfer coefficient: the hydrodynamics and the gas hold up eG.
The hydrodynamics in the riser of the reaction zone are mainly
influenced by the gas hold up. In the range of the investigated
operating parameters, circulating gas can be neglected. Thus, an
increase in the superficial gas velocity wG0 results in a higher liquid
circulation velocity caused by increased buoyancy in the riser and
the mammoth pump effect. The gas hold up is dominated by the
superficial gas velocity, so the influence of the axial liquid velocity
in the reaction zone is insignificant.
The volumetric mass transfer coefficient in the riser of the
reaction zone is 0.02 < kLa < 0.1 1/s and comparable to mass
transfer rates in an airlift-loop reactor, e.g. Jurascık.[23] It
Table 2. Geometrical and experimental parameters of the flow channel with the mobile particle grid
DChannel (m) dP,e (mm) eP
0.1 5 0.1
4 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Figure 3. Volumetric mass transfer coefficient in the riser of the reaction
zone as a function of the mean axial velocity under varying superficial gas
velocities.
correlates with the mean axial liquid velocity w  ax and the
superficial gas velocity w0G , as illustrated in Figure 3.
Since the specific interfacial area a dominates the overall mass
transfer rate, it needs to be derived for modelling the mass transfer
mechanism in the interfacial boundary layer. The specific
interfacial area a in the riser of the reaction zone is experimentally
determined, shown in Figure 4. The specific area slightly increases
with higher liquid velocity, caused by an augmentation of the gas
hold up and a decrease of the bubble diameter with increasing
liquid velocity. It is dominated by the superficial gas velocity.
Thus, the increase of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient with
increasing gas hold up is mainly caused by the augmentation of the
specific interfacial area a in the system. Nevertheless, the mass
transfer rate strongly depends on the liquid velocity (Figure 3),
which underlines the necessity of modelling the mass transfer
coefficient kL independently of the specific interfacial area a.
In bubbly gas-liquid flows, the main mass transfer coefficient kL
determining parameter is the interfacial boundary layer thickness,
which can be displayed by the slip velocity. According to Brauer,[7]
the slip velocity is defined as the difference between the mean
absolute bubble rise velocity w  B; abs and the mean axial liquid
velocity w ax . The interrelation between these two parameters is
shown in Figure 5; in the riser of the reaction zone, the slip velocity
increases with higher axial liquid velocity due to the augmentation
of the bubble rise velocity. Hence, the kLa in the riser of the
reaction zone correlates with the slip velocity (Figures 3 and 4)
and the discussed slip velocity models (Equations (2, 4, 10))
should picture the experimental determined mass transfer
coefficient.
In Figure 6, the comparison of the experimental determined
mass transfer coefficients and the model calculations of Bork,[17]
Brauer,[11] and Higbie[9] are pictured. The mass transfer models
were calculated by the use of the experimental values of the slip
velocity and the bubble diameter.
All approaches predict an increase of the mass transfer
with higher slip velocity, as supposed. However, the models
T (8C) rL (kg/m3) y (m2/s)  ax (m/s)
w
6
20 998 1 10 0–0.3
VOLUME 9999, 2016

Figure 4. Specific interfacial area as a function of the axial velocity in the
riser of the reaction zone.
Figure 5. Bubble rise velocity in the riser of the reaction zone as a function
of the mean axial velocity under varying superficial gas velocities.
Figure 6. Sherwood number correlated to Re Sc. Experimental results
compared to model calculations.
VOLUME 9999, 2016
underestimate the mass transfer significantly. The deviations
gain with higher gas hold up. Hence, it is reasoned that the
models do not consider swarm effects sufficiently, like bubble-
induced turbulence. Higbie[9] assumes fully developed turbu-
lences in the continuous phase, but by using the slip velocity as a
reference parameter for the contact time, small-scale velocity
fluctuations and their impact are not taken into account.
Brauer[11] discusses that surface deformation intensifies the
mass transfer, but also uses the mean slip velocity as a reference
parameter for the interfacial boundary layer thickness. The
influence of the bubble-induced turbulence on the mass transfer
is only depicted by the empirical determined exponents and thus
cannot be transmitted to other reactor designs. At least Bork[17]
describes phenomenological differences between changes in
wake shedding frequency and the surface deformation caused by
different gas hold ups. Nevertheless, assuming that the mass
transfer enhancement factor FD,i is constant in homogeneous
bubble flow and thus independent of the number of eddy-
generating bubbles, it cannot picture real bubble swarm
phenomena properly.
For visualizing the impact of bubble-induced turbulence on the
hydrodynamics, an example of the turbulent kinetic energy
spectrum at constant axial liquid velocities for a channel flow with
and without the mobile particle grid is shown in Figure 7.
The energy distribution in the continuous phase is extremely
sensitive to the particle density and movement with a particle hold
up of 0.1 significantly enhances the random liquid fluctuation
velocity and thus, the turbulent kinetic energy.
The enhanced bubble-induced momentum transfer in the riser
of the reaction zone, pictured by the mean-root-square liquid
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
fluctuation velocity in radial direction w0 2rad , is proportional to
the slip velocity in terms of Re Sc, as shown in Figure 8. An
increase of the liquid velocity augments the slip and the
fluctuating velocity. Thus, the effective contact time decreases
disproportionally with the liquid velocity, which results in higher
mass transfer rates. Using a mean slip velocity for modelling the
mass transfer rates does not depict these effects and leads to the
underestimation of Sh as seen in Figure 6.
Hence, existing mass transfer approaches need to be extended
by the influence of bubble-induced turbulence. Supposing that
wake phenomena strongly influences the mass transfer in the riser
Figure 7. Measurement of the spectral energy density for a channel flow
with a mean axial velocity of 0.25 cm/s for single-phase flow and a
simulated two-phase flow (mobile particle grid).
THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 5

Figure 8. Comparison of the mean radial liquid fluctuation velocity
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
w 0 2rad with the convective term Re Sc.
Figure 9. Mass transfer enhancement factor correlated to mean radial
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
liquid fluctuation velocity w 0 2rad by exponential regression.
Figure 10. Calculated mass transfer coefficients by Equations (8), (9), and
(16) compared to experimental data for several operating parameters in
the riser of the jet zone loop reactor.
6 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
of the reaction zone, Bork’s approach[17] is extended by the
turbulent conditions here.
The mass transfer enhancement factor FD,i in bubble swarms
can be calculated by Equation (14), with Equation (8) for the
determination of the wake shedding frequency.
k2L ; exp p
FD;i;exp ¼ ð14Þ
4Di f W
To analyze how the local bubble swarm turbulence affects the
mass transfer enhancement factor FD,i, both parameters are
correlated in Figure 9. The mass transfer enhancement factor
correlates exponentially to the mean radial fluctuation velocity
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
w0 2rad , both parameters increase with the gas hold up. Thus, even
in homogeneous bubble flow the mass transfer enhancement by
bubble-induced turbulence is not constant, but depends on the
turbulence intensity. From the exponential regression, it may be
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
derived that a minimal threshold of about w0 2radmin  0:008 m=s
exists: below this critical fluctuation velocity, the bubble-induced
turbulence can be neglected due to marginal impact on the
mass transfer rate, hence FD,i  1.
In the riser of the reaction zone the mass transfer enhancement
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
factor can be modelled for w0 2rad > 0:008 m=s by the following:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiC2
F D;i ¼ C1 w0 2rad with C1 ¼ 98 and C2 ¼ 0:9 ð15Þ
Figure 10 shows the model calculation for the mass transfer
coefficient for all experimental parameter settings compared to the
experimental results, where agreement is found for the calculated
data with R2 ¼ 0.73.
CONCLUSIONS
Models for calculating the mass transfer coefficient in jet loop
reactors typically assume homogeneous mass transfer behaviour.
As a result, they neglect local differences, which could limit
reaction yields of fast chemical reactions. Therefore, it is proposed
to model mass transfer phenomena locally, depending on the
phenomenological mechanisms, which affect the boundary layer
thickness and the mass transfer behaviour.
In this study, a new approach of modelling the gas-liquid mass
transfer rate in the riser of the reaction zone in the jet zone loop
reactor is presented, which extends common slip velocity models by
the bubble-induced turbulence. The influence of the deformation
turbulence is depicted by the mass transfer enhancement factor FD,i,
which correlates to the root mean square radial liquid fluctuation
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
velocity w0 2rad as a reference parameter for the swarm turbulence.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Parts of this project are associated to the priority program
SPP1740 of the German research association DFG. The support
is gratefully acknowledged.
NOMENCLATURE
a specific interfacial area (m2/m3)
b bubble parameter
C1,2 constants
VOLUME 9999, 2016
Di diffusion coefficient (m2/s) [9] R. Higbie, T. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 1935, 31, 365.
DR reactor diameter (m) [10] W. Lewis, W. Whitmen, Ind. Eng. Chem. 1924, 16, 1215.
DD downcomer diameter (m) [11] H. Glaeser, H. Brauer, Berechnung des Impuls- und Stofftran-
DChannel flow channel diameter (m) sports durch die Grenzfla €che einer formvera €nderlichen Blase.
dP,e equivalent particle diameter (m) VDI-Forschungsheft 581, VDI Verlag, Du € sseldorf 1977.
dB,e equivalent bubble diameter (m)
[12] P. Calderbank, D. Johnson, J. Loudon, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1970,
dB bubble diameter (m)
25, 235.
dv vertical bubble diameter (m)
E spectral energy density (m2/s) [13] T. Wasowski, E. Blaß, Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 1989, 7, 519.
FD,i mass transfer enhancement factor [14] D. Bothe, M. Koebe, K. Wielage, J. Pru € ss, H. Warnecke,
fW wake shedding frequency (1/s) “Direct numerical simulation of mass transfer between rising
g gravity (m/s2) gas bubbles and water,” in Bubbly Flows: Analysis, Modelling
HR reactor height (m) and Calculation, 1st edition, M. Sommerfeld, Ed., Springer-
h height (m) Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.
kL mass transfer coefficient (m/s1) [15] S. Nedeltchev, U. Jordan, A. Schumpe, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007,
p pressure (Pa) 62, 6263.
tc contact time (s) [16] M. Sto€hr, J. Schanze, A. Khalili, Exp. Fluids 2009, 47, 135.
V_ L liquid volume flow rate (m3/s) €nomene auf den Stofftransport
[17] O. Bork, Einfluss lokaler Pha
VR compartment volume (m3)
an Gasblasen in Zweiphasenstr€omung, PhD thesis, Univer-
w ax mean axial velocity (m/s)
sity of Bremen, Bremen 2006, p. 125.
w G0 superficial gas velocity (cm/s)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi root mean square radial fluctuation velocity (m/s) [18] T. Miyahara, K. Tsuchiya, L. Fan, Int. J. Multiphas. Flow
w0 2rad 1988, 14, 749.
ws slip velocity (m/s) [19] J. Richardson, W. Zaki, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 1954, 32, 35.
[20] M. Wiedemann, M. Schlu € ter, N. R€abiger, Can. J. Chem. Eng.
2010, 88, 359.
Greek Letters
[21] D. Si-Salah, Hydrodynamik und Stoffaustausch im Prall-
eG gas hold up
strahlreaktor, PhD thesis, Technical University of Clausthal,
eP particle hold up
Clausthal 1991, p. 13.
r mean mass concentration (kg/m3)
r saturation mass concentration (kg/m3) [22] S. Pannek, J. Pauli, U. Onken, J. Appl. Electrochem. 1994, 24,
rG gas density (kg/m3) 666.
rin input mass concentration (kg/m3) [23] M. Jurascık, M. Blazej, A. Annus, J. Markos, Chem. Eng. J.
rL liquid density (kg/m3) 2006, 125, 81.
rout output mass concentration (kg/m3)
y kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
v angular frequency (Hz) Manuscript received February 24, 2016; accepted for publication
Re Reynolds number June 17, 2016.
Sc Schmidt number
Sh Sherwood number
Sr Strouhal number

REFERENCES
[1] M. Wiedemann, Einfluss der lokalen Energiedissipations-
dichte in Reaktoren auf Umsatz und Selektivita €t chemischer
Reaktionen, PhD thesis, University of Bremen, Bremen 2011,
p. 110.
[2] J. Baldyga, J. Bourne, S. Hearn, Chem. Eng. Sci. 1997, 52,
457.
[3] H. Laufhu€ tte, A. Mersmann, Chem. Eng. Technol. 1987, 10,
56.
[4] J. Baldyga, J. Bourne, Chem. Eng. J. 1989, 42, 83.
[5] E. Schaer, P. Guichardon, L. Falk, E. Plasari, Chem. Eng. J.
1999, 72(2), 125.
[6] V. Prakash, Light particles in turbulence, PhD thesis,
University of Twente, Twente 2013, p. 58, 69.
[7] H. Brauer, H. Thiele, Chem.-Ing.-Tech. 1979, 51, 934.
[8] M. Schlu€ ter, Blasenbewegung in praxisrelevanten Zweipha-
senstr€omungen, PhD thesis, University of Bremen, Bremen
2002, p. 1.

VOLUME 9999, 2016 THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 7