Gas holdup, bubble size distribution, and mass transfer in an airlift reactor with ceramic membrane and perforated plate distributor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The airlift reactor is one of the most commonly used gas–liquid two‐phase reactors in chemical and biological processes. The objective of this study is to generate different‐sized bubbles in an internal loop airlift reactor and characterize the behaviours of the bubbly flows. The bubble size, gas holdup, liquid circulation velocity, and the volumetric mass transfer coefficient of gas–liquid two‐phase co‐current flow in an internal loop airlift reactor equipped with a ceramic membrane module (CMM) and a perforated‐plate distributor (PPD) are measured. Experimental results show that CMM can generate small bubbles with Sauter mean diameter d 32 less than 2.5 mm. As the liquid inlet velocity increases, the bubble size decreases and the gas holdup increases. In contrast, PPD can generate large bubbles with 4 mm < d 32 < 10 mm. The bubble size and liquid circulation velocity increase as the superficial gas velocity increases. Multiscale bubbles with 0.5 mm < d 32 < 10 mm can be generated by the CMM and PPD together. The volumetric mass transfer coefficient k L a of the multiscale bubbles is 0.033–0.062 s −1 , while that of small bubbles is 0.011–0.057 s −1 . Under the same flow rate of oxygen, the k L a of the multiscale bubbles increases by up to 160% in comparison to that of the small bubbles. Finally, empirical correlations for k L a are obtained.
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".