MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082365470 · doi:10.2202/1542-6580.2081

Characteristics of Local Flow Dynamics and Macro-Mixing in Airlift Column Reactors for Reliable Design and Scale-Up

2009· article· en· W2082365470 on OpenAlex
Farouza Gumery, Farhad Ein‐Mozaffari, Yaser Dahman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixing (physics)AirliftProcess engineeringBioprocessBioreactorProcess (computing)Flow (mathematics)Environmental scienceMechanical engineeringComputer scienceMechanicsEngineeringChemistryChemical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been tremendous development within mixing operations in industry. Incomplete knowledge of this process caused serious economic losses to process industries. For optimum yields and the economic potential that goes with better understanding of mixing, research in this field continues to grow. The major forms of mixing in industry are either by mechanical or pneumatic agitation. Airlift bioreactors achieve mixing through pneumatic agitation and have gained attention over two decades for their fluid dynamic characteristics and low power consumption. It has been widely applied in bioprocess industries for production of biochemicals, to wastewater treatment in which the performance of this reactor has been overwhelming with respect to its production levels as compared to the conventional mechanical agitation.In this review, mixing through mechanical and pneumatic agitation is compared. An extensive literature is distilled from various investigators on the hydrodynamics and mixing characteristics of airlift bioreactors. This review has emphasis on factors that affect mixing such as the geometrical parameters of the vessel, gas flow rate, properties of the liquid medium, sparger design and measuring techniques employed. In an attempt to understand process related issues, sophisticated advances in the measuring techniques provides more insight into mixing in this reactor. Thus extensive correlations have been proposed by various investigators to predict the hydrodynamic and mixing parameters. Some design modifications proposed by several scholars have also been reviewed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it