Mass transfer and mixing characteristics in an airlift‐driven fibrous‐bed bioreactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An internal loop airlift‐driven fibrous bed bioreactor (ILALFBB) was designed and developed with a high degree of flexibility to handle genetically engineered and fragile shear‐sensitive cells. The mixing and oxygen mass transfer characteristics have been investigated. A cotton fibre was set in the downcomer of the ILALB to represent the fibrous packed bed and the outcome results were compared with those of the polyurethane foam (PUF) packed and unpacked ILALB systems. The effects of fibre, packing height, bed top and bottom clearances, spacing between adjacent fibre surfaces, and superficial gas velocity were investigated. The liquid phase mixing output variables included the liquid circulation velocity (ULc), circulation time (tLc), mixing time (tLm), Bodenstein number (BoL), and axial dispersion coefficient (EL), whereas the mass transfer out variable was the KLa. BoL and EL in the riser and downcomer regions of all packed systems increased with increasing in packing height, packing top clearance, and superficial gas velocity, except the overall BoL was independent of gas velocity at low gas velocities. The BoL was found highest in the riser of the large cotton and small PUF packed system with large spacing and the EL in the downcomer of PUF packed systems with smaller spacing between fibre surfaces. Increased amounts of packing in the ILALB, whether in the form of cotton or PUF decreased the ULc in the bioreactor because of the increased frictional resistance and tortuosity. The reduction in ULc was significant for large packing with smaller spacing between fibre surfaces and increased bottom clearances of the cotton packed system. High circulation times (tLc) and shorter mixing times (tLm) were achieved using small PUF packing with large top clearance. Relatively high KLa values were obtained using large packing with large top clearances and spacing between fibre surfaces. The boost in KLa was associated with increased gas holdup and/or interfacial area, due to bubble breakage by the shearing action of the fibrous‐bed. Empirical correlation proposed for EL, BoL, and KLa gave a good fit of the experimental data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".