Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 257–266 | Cite as

Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in miniaturized bubble column bioreactors

  • Sirwan Khanchezar
  • Sameereh Hashemi-NajafabadiEmail author
  • Seyed Abbas Shojaosadati
  • Valiollah Babaeipour
Research Paper


Miniaturized bubble columns (MBCs) have different hydrodynamics in comparison with the larger ones, but there is a lack of scientific data on MBCs. Hence, in this study, the effect of gas hold-up, flow regimes, bubble size distribution on volumetric oxygen mass transfer coefficient at different pore size spargers and gas flow rates in MBCs in the presence and absence of microorganisms were investigated. It was found that flow regime transition occurred around low gas flow rates of 1.18 and 0.85 cm/s for small (16–40 µm) and large (40–100 µm) pore size spargers, respectively. Gas hold-up and KLa in MBC with small size sparger were higher than those with larger one, with an increasing effect in the presence of microorganisms. A comparison revealed that the wall effect on the flow regime and gas hold-up in MBCs was greater than bench-scale bubble columns. The KLa values significantly increased up to tenfold using small pore size sparger. In the MBC and stirred tank bioreactors, the maximum obtained cell concentrations were OD600 of 41.5 and 43.0, respectively. Furthermore, it was shown that in MBCs, higher KLa and lower turbulency could be achieved at the end of bubbly flow regime.


Miniaturized bubble column (MBC) Gas hold-up Bubble size distribution Hydrodynamic 



The authors wish to thank Tarbiat Modares University for the financial support of this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to publish the manuscript in “Bioprocess and Biosystem Engineering”.


  1. 1.
    Kheradmandnia S, Hashemi-Najafabadi S, Shojaosadati SA, Mousavi SM, Malek Khosravi K (2015) Development of parallel miniature bubble column bioreactors for fermentation process. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 90:1051–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gill N, Appleton M, Baganz F, Lye G (2008) Design and characterisation of a miniature stirred bioreactor system for parallel microbial fermentations. Biochem Eng J 39:164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim BJ, Diao J, Shuler ML (2012) Mini-scale bioprocessing systems for highly parallel animal cell cultures. Biotechnol Prog 28:595–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doig SD, Ortiz-Ochoa K, Ward JM, Baganz F (2005) Characterization of oxygen transfer in miniature and lab-scale bubble column bioreactors and comparison of microbial growth performance based on constant kLa. Biotechnol Prog 21:1175–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Puskeiler R, Kaufmann K, Weuster-Botz D (2005) Development, parallelization, and automation of a gas-inducing milliliter-scale bioreactor for high-throughput bioprocess design (HTBD). Biotechnol Bioeng 89:512–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betts JI, Baganz F (2006) Miniature bioreactors: current practices and future opportunities. Microb Cell Fact 5:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar S, Wittmann C, Heinzle E (2004) Minibioreactors. Biotech Lett 26:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patnaik PR (2015) Invited paper microbioreactors for cell cultures: analysis, modeling, control, applications and beyond. Int J Bioautomation 19:1–42Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moshtari B, Babakhani EG, Moghaddas JS (2009) Experimental study of gas hold-up and bubble behavior in gas-liquid bubble column. Petroleum Coal 51:27–32Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moshtari B, Moghaddas JS, Gangi E (2007) A hydrodynamic experimental study of slurry bubble column. Stud Surf Sci Catal 167:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shaikh A, Al-Dahhan M (2013) A new method for online flow regime monitoring in bubble column reactors via nuclear gauge densitometry. Chem Eng Sci 89:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Besagni G, Inzoli F (2016) Bubble size distributions and shapes in annular gap bubble column. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 74:27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mena P, Ferreira A, Teixeira J, Rocha F (2011) Effect of some solid properties on gas–liquid mass transfer in a bubble column. Chem Eng Process 50:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walke S, Sathe V (2011) Review of gas holdup characteristics of bubble column reactors. reactors. I J CH E R 3:71–80Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moshtari B, Moghaddas JS, Gangi E (2007) A hydrodynamic experimental study of slurry bubble column. Stud Surface Sci Catal 167:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Jesus SS, Neto JM, Maciel Filho R (2017) Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in bubble column, conventional airlift, stirred airlift and stirred tank bioreactors, using viscous fluid: a comparative study. Biochem Eng J 118:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Besagni G, Inzoli F, De Guido G, Pellegrini LA (2017) The dual effect of viscosity on bubble column hydrodynamics. Chem Eng Sci 158:509–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pirdashti M, Kompany R (2009) Effects of height to diameter ratio and aeration rate on liquid mixing and hydrodynamic properties in a bubble column. Iran J Chem Eng 6:46–52Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chisti M, Fujimoto K, Moo-Young M (1986) Hydrodynamic and oxygen mass transfer studies in bubble columns and airlift bioreactors. Paper 117a presented at the AIChE Annual Meeting, pp 2–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kantarci N, Borak F, Ulgen KO (2005) Bubble column reactors. Process Biochem 40:2263–2283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rollbusch P, Becker M, Ludwig M, Bieberle A, Grünewald M, Hampel U, Franke R (2015) Experimental investigation of the influence of column scale, gas density and liquid properties on gas holdup in bubble columns. Int J Multiph Flow 75:88–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Guido G, Pellegrini LA (2017) Prediction of the gas hold-up in a large-diameter bubble column with liquid mixtures and electrolytes. Chem Eng Res Des 124:283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anastasiou A, Passos A, Mouza A (2013) Bubble columns with fine pore sparger and non-Newtonian liquid phase: prediction of gas holdup. Chem Eng Sci 98:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vandu C, Krishna R (2004) Influence of scale on the volumetric mass transfer coefficients in bubble columns. Chem Eng Process 43:575–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Su X, Hol PD, Talcott SM, Staudt AK, Heindel TJ (2006) The effect of bubble column diameter on gas holdup in fiber suspensions. Chem Eng Sci 61:3098–3104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muroyama K, Imai K, Oka Y, Hayashi J (2013) Mass transfer properties in a bubble column associated with micro-bubble dispersions. Chem Eng Sci 100:464–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sobieszuk P, Aubin J, Pohorecki R (2012) Hydrodynamics and mass transfer in gas-liquid flows in microreactors. Chem Eng Technol 35:1346–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamadi F, Latrache H, Zahir H, Elghmari A, Timinouni M, Ellouali M (2008) The relation between Escherichia coli surface functional groups’ composition and their physicochemical properties. Braz J Microbiol 39:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Terada A, Okuyama K, Nishikawa M, Tsuneda S, Hosomi M (2012) The effect of surface charge property on Escherichia coli initial adhesion and subsequent biofilm formation. Biotechnol Bioeng 109:1745–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prakash A, Margaritis A, Li H, Bergougnou M (2001) Hydrodynamics and local heat transfer measurements in a bubble column with suspension of yeast. Biochem Eng J 9:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Esmaeili A, Guy C, Chaouki J (2015) The effects of liquid phase rheology on the hydrodynamics of a gas–liquid bubble column reactor. Chem Eng Sci 129:193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newton JM, Schofield D, Vlahopoulou J, Zhou Y (2016) Detecting cell lysis using viscosity monitoring in E. coli fermentation to prevent product loss. Biotechnol Prog 32:1069–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Newton JM, Vlahopoulou J, Zhou Y (2017) Investigating and modelling the effects of cell lysis on the rheological properties of fermentation broths. Biochem Eng J 121:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mandal A, Kundu G, Mukherjee D (2005) A comparative study of gas holdup, bubble size distribution and interfacial area in a downflow bubble column. Chem Eng Res Des 83:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kazakis N, Mouza A, Paras S (2008) Experimental study of bubble formation at metal porous spargers: effect of liquid properties and sparger characteristics on the initial bubble size distribution. Chem Eng J 137:265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Correia L, Aldrich C, Clarke K (2010) Interfacial gas–liquid transfer area in alkane–aqueous dispersions and its impact on the overall volumetric oxygen transfer coefficient. Biochem Eng J 49:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ramezani M, Kong B, Gao X, Olsen MG, Vigil RD (2015) Experimental measurement of oxygen mass transfer and bubble size distribution in an air–water multiphase Taylor–Couette vortex bioreactor. Chem Eng J 279:286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Şal S, Gül ÖF, Özdemir M (2013) The effect of sparger geometry on gas holdup and regime transition points in a bubble column equipped with perforated plate spargers. Chem Eng Process 70:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Garcia-Ochoa F, Gomez E, Santos VE, Merchuk JC (2010) Oxygen uptake rate in microbial processes: an overview. Biochem Eng J 49:289–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Garcia-Ochoa F, Gomez E (2009) Bioreactor scale-up and oxygen transfer rate in microbial processes: an overview. Biotechnol Adv 27:153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Painmanakul P, Wachirasak J, Jamnongwong M, Hébrard G, Praserthdam P, Editor E, Intakan E, Office E, Zhao Y (2009) Theoretical prediction of volumetric mass transfer coefficient (kLa) for designing an aeration tank. Eng J 13:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lau R, Lee PHV, Chen T (2012) Mass transfer studies in shallow bubble column reactors. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 62:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Galaction A-I, Cascaval D, Oniscu C, Turnea M (2004) Prediction of oxygen mass transfer coefficients in stirred bioreactors for bacteria, yeasts and fungus broths. Biochem Eng J 20:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ferreira A, Ferreira C, Teixeira J, Rocha F (2010) Temperature and solid properties effects on gas–liquid mass transfer. Chem Eng J 162:743–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pollard D, Ison A, Shamlou PA, Lilly M (1998) Reactor heterogeneity with Saccharopolyspora erythraea airlift fermentations. Biotechnol Bioeng 58:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Chemical EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Bioscience and BiotechnologyMalek Ashtar University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations