MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389437346 · doi:10.3390/pr11123387

Analyzing Local Shear Rate Distribution in a Dual Coaxial Mixing Bioreactor Handling Herschel–Bulkley Biopolymer Solutions through Computational Fluid Dynamics

2023· article· en· W4389437346 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Mixing
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsImpellerShear thinningMechanicsBioreactorComputational fluid dynamicsMixing (physics)Shear rateNon-Newtonian fluidCoaxialHerschel–Bulkley fluidNewtonian fluidMaterials scienceAerationShear (geology)RheologyChemistryPhysicsMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the aeration of highly viscous non-Newtonian fluids, prior studies have demonstrated the improved efficacy of dual coaxial mixing bioreactors fitted with two central impellers and a close clearance anchor. Evaluating the effectiveness of these bioreactors involves considering various mixing characteristics, with a specific emphasis on shear rate distribution. The study of shear rate distribution is critical due to its significant impact on the mixing performance, gas dispersion, and homogeneity in aerated mixing systems comprising shear-thinning fluids. Although yield-pseudoplastic fluids are commonly employed in various industries, there is a research gap when it comes to evaluating shear rate distribution in aerated mixing bioreactors that utilize this fluid type. This study aims to investigate shear rate distribution in an aerated double coaxial bioreactor that handles a 1 wt% xanthan gum solution, known as a Herschel–Bulkley fluid. To achieve this goal, we employed an experimentally validated computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model to assess the effect of different mixing configurations, including down-pumping and co-rotating (Down-Co), up-pumping and co-rotating (Up-Co), down-pumping and counter-rotating (Down-Counter), and up-pumping and counter-rotating (Up-Counter) modes, on the shear rate distribution within the coaxial mixing bioreactor. Our findings revealed that the Up-Co system led to a more uniform local shear distribution and improved mixing performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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