Effect of aeration mode on the performance of center‐ and annulus‐rising internal‐loop airlift bioreactors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extensive experimental studies on internal‐loop airlift reactors, including center‐rising (CR‐ALR) and annulus‐rising airlift reactors (AR‐ALR), have been reported in the literature. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the effects of the aeration mode on the local hydrodynamics remain an under‐investigated area, especially for complex culture media. At present, it is difficult to select the best aeration mode for ALRs due to limited understanding of the pros and cons of the different modes. This study presents a detailed quantitative investigation of the overall gas holdup, local liquid velocity, liquid circulation time, shear rate distribution, and volumetric mass transfer coefficient in center‐ and annulus‐rising airlift bioreactors to better understand the effect of aeration mode on airlift bioreactor performance. Particle image velocimetry is employed to conduct local measurements. The results show that the overall gas holdup, liquid circulation time, and volumetric mass transfer coefficient are larger in the AR‐ALR than in the CR‐ALR. The local liquid velocity circulating into the downcomer of the AR‐ALR, which contributes to bubble entrainment and therefore to overall gas holdup, is higher than in the CR‐ALR. It was observed that a large circulation loop formed in the CR‐ALR, whereas two counter‐looping circulation cells appeared in the AR‐ALR. It was also found that the shear rate field was more uniform in the AR‐ALR than the CR‐ALR although the shear rates were similar in magnitude.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".