Disposable Bioreactors II pp 45-60 | Cite as
Orbitally Shaken Single-Use Bioreactors
- 7 Citations
- 2.6k Downloads
Abstract
Orbitally shaken single-use reactors are promising reactors for upstream processing, because they fulfill three general requirements for single-use equipment. First, the design of the disposable parts is inherently simple and cost-efficient, because no complex built-in elements such as baffles or rotating stirrers are required. Second, the liquid distribution induced by orbital shaking is well-defined and accurately predictable. Third, the scale-up from small-scale systems, where shaken bioreactors are commonly applied, is simple and has been successfully proven up to the cubic meter scale. However, orbitally shaken single-use reactors are only suitable for certain applications such as cultivating animal or plant cells with low oxygen demand. Thus, detailed knowledge about the performance of such systems on different scales is essential to exploit their full potential. This article presents an overview about opportunities and limitations of shaken single-use reactors.
Graphical Abstract
Keywords
Animal cell culture Hydromechanical stress Orbitally shaken Out-of-phase Oxygen transfer Power input Scale-up1 Introduction
Orbitally shaken bioreactors are widely used for small-scale screening and process optimization. Complex mechanical and electronic parts such as the shaker drive, the power train, and the control unit are integrated in the shaker and, therefore, separated from the reactor vessel. This allows a simple and cost-efficient reactor design, important not only for many parallel experiments on a small scale but also crucial for single-use applications in general. Unlike shaken systems, stirred single-use reactors require a complex sealing of the stirrer shaft or a magnetic clutch for energy transmission that is disposed of with the bag-reactor after each cultivation [1].
The simple design and handling of shaken bioreactors has led to their wide acceptance for screening and process optimization. After the detection of optimized conditions and suitable strains on a small scale, the cultivation conditions have to be transferred to a larger production scale. However, the scale-up from a shaken bioreactor to a bubble-aerated stirred tank reactor requires detailed knowledge about the basic engineering characteristics of both systems. Consequently, extensive research has been conducted to determine suitable methods for the transfer of culture conditions from shaken to stirred tank reactors [2, 3, 4, 5]. Nonetheless, problems may still occur due to differences in oxygen transfer, hydromechanical stress, aeration, mixing, power input and temperature control between both reactor types. These problems are partly avoided by using orbitally shaken large-scale bioreactors. It is obvious that a transfer of culture conditions is highly simplified when the same basic principle for mixing, aeration, and power input is applied during scale-up. But even if the same working principle is applied, changes in culture conditions resulting from an increased reactor scale need to be carefully considered. In particular, the maximum oxygen transfer capacity is reduced with increasing reactor size due to a reduced volumetric oxygen transfer area. The basic engineering parameters for utilizing orbitally shaken disposable bioreactors with volumes ranging from 50 mL up to 1,000 L are described in the following chapter.
2 Types and Scales of Orbitally Shaken Single-Use Reactor Systems
Examples for orbitally shaken single-use reactor systems with volumes from 15 to 600 mL
Single-use Erlenmeyer flasks made out of polycarbonate or polypropylene have a similar geometry to that of conventional glass flasks (see Fig. 1). However, the material properties of single-use flasks differ from the properties of borosilicate glass, commonly used for conventional flasks. The impact of material properties on the maximum oxygen transfer capacity is discussed in Sect. 3.2.
Examples for orbitally shaken single-use reactor systems with volumes from 10 to 200 L
Commercially available OrbShake SB 200-X and SB 50-X bioreactors (with kind permission of Kühner AG, Birsfelden)
3 Engineering Parameters of Orbitally Shaken Single-Use Reactors
To choose the right cultivation conditions, it is important to know the fundamental engineering parameters of a bioreactor such as power input, hydromechanical stress, oxygen transfer and mixing performance. The following sections discuss the parameters for correctly applying orbitally shaken reactors.
3.1 Liquid Distribution, Power Input, and Hydromechanical Stress
Liquid distribution of a liquid with water-like viscosity during orbital shaking in a cylindrical single-use reactor
An accurate calculation of the power transfer and gas transfer areas during shaking can be realized with a mathematical model on the basis of Eq. (2) (manuscript in preparation).
Volumetric power input (P/V Ø) in cylindrical orbitally shaken reactors (Nalgene Clearboy); measured with a torque sensor using water at 25 °C; diameter of the 10 L reactor = 25 cm; diameter of the 20 L reactor = 28.6 cm; shaking diameter = 5 cm
Furthermore, hydromechanical stress in shaken bioreactors was investigated in several research studies using Erlenmeyer flasks [13, 14]. Here, maximum stable drop-size measurements were conducted in coalescence inhibited liquid–liquid two-phase systems in order to determine the ratio of maximum local energy dissipation (εmax) to volumetric energy dissipation (εØ). Values for εmax/εØ ratios in Erlenmeyer flasks were between one and seven and therefore about ten times lower compared to the ratios determined in stirred tank reactors [13, 14]. The evenly distributed energy dissipation in orbitally shaken bioreactors leads to lower levels of hydromechanical stress compared to that of stirred tank reactors at the same level of volumetric power input. The evenly distributed energy dissipation is attributed to the fact that the size of the reactor wall (that acts as a power introducing element in orbitally shaken reactors) is much larger than the size of a stirrer in conventional bioreactors relative to the reactor liquid volume [13]. However, differences between the conical glass wall in Erlenmeyer flasks and the cylindrical plastic wall in single-use bags might lead to differences in hydromechanical stress between both systems. This influence has not been described in the literature up to now.
3.2 Aeration and Maximum Oxygen Transfer Capacity
The applicability of orbitally shaken single-use reactors for aerobic bioprocesses highly depends on their potential to deliver a sufficient amount of oxygen to the cells. The first quantitative characterization of the oxygen transfer in orbitally shaken single-use reactors was reported in 2008 [15]. Comparatively low values for the oxygen transfer coefficient (k L a) of between 1 and 30 1/h were reported for conventional cylindrical vessels. A three- to five-fold increase in the oxygen transfer was achieved with a helical track attached to the inner wall of the cylindrical reactor [15]. However, there is a trade-off between the benefit of a higher oxygen transfer rate and the increased production costs for reactors with integrated helical track. Increased values for k L a were also reported for square and baffled reactor systems compared to non-baffled cylindrical reactors, but the improved mass transfer characteristics were accompanied by an inhomogeneous and undefined liquid flow that might hamper scale-up [15]. The influence of different shaking frequencies and filling volumes on k L a values in cylindrical orbitally shaken reactors was investigated in scales from 0.05 to 1,000 L. Sufficient oxygen transfer for cultivating mammalian cells was realized in culture volumes of up to 1,000 L [16]. The influence of different filling volumes, shaking frequencies and liquid properties on k L a values in cylindrical orbitally shaken reactors was recently investigated in scales from 50 mL to 200 L (manuscript in preparation).
Values for k L a of between 7 and 10 1/h are regarded as necessary in order that a sufficient amount of oxygen be delivered for cultivating mammalian cells [17, 18]. The dissolved oxygen tension (DOT) in the liquid phase changes during a normal batch-cultivation with constant aeration and agitation according to the cell density of the culture. A changing DOT has no influence on aerobic cell growth as long as oxygen is available in the liquid phase at a sufficient level and diffusion between liquid phase and cell wall is not hampered (e.g. due to cell aggregation, biopolymer production or filamentous growth). Consequently, the k L a value has no influence on cell growth as long as oxygen is available in the liquid phase at a nonlimiting level. However, a constant k L a value has been recently reported as an adequate means to keep the pH level constant during scale-up [18, 19]. The described effect is most likely caused by similar levels of dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2) and not related to oxygen transfer. CO2 transfer between the gas and liquid phase is much faster than oxygen transfer due to the higher solubility of CO2 in aqueous solutions. In contrast to oxygen transfer, equilibrium conditions between gas and liquid phases usually prevail for CO2. Thus, the dissolved CO2 concentration is mainly affected by the ventilation rate and not by the k L a value. This was recently shown in large-scale reactors for CHO cell cultivation where three- to four-fold increased CO2 removal rates were achieved at a constant k L a value only by increasing the ventilation rate [20]. Hence, it is advisable to use a constant volumetric ventilation rate and not a constant k L a value to avoid pH shifts during scale-up of mammalian cell cultivations. Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that the k L a value is high enough during scale-up to prevent oxygen limitations, but solely a constant k L a is not a sufficient scale-up criterion.
Cultivation of Nicotiana tabacum BY-2 cells in Murashige and Skoog medium in 50 mL TubeSpin® reactors at a shaking frequency of 180 rpm with a shaking diameter of 5 cm
Comparison of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient (k L a) in conventional glass flasks and single-use polycarbonate flasks; flask volume = 250 mL; filling volume = 50 mL; temperature = 37 °C; shaking diameter = 5 cm; sulfite solution with 0.5 M Na2SO3; 10−7 m CoSO4; 0.1 M phosphate buffer; initial pH = 8; oxygen solubility Lo2 = 0.65 mmol/(L ⋅ bar)
3.3 Mixing Performance and Out-of-Phase Operation
Comparison between “in-phase” and “out-of-phase” operation in shaken cylindrical single-use reactors; reactor volume = 10 L; reactor diameter = 25 cm; filling volume = 2.5 L; shaking frequency = 220 rpm; dynamic viscosity = 0.984 mPas
As shown in Fig. 8, different shaking diameters were used with otherwise equal conditions. A metal ball rotating in a glass flask on the right side of the shaker thereby indicates the direction of the centrifugal force. With a shaking diameter of 2.5 cm, the liquid is oriented in the direction of the centrifugal force, thereby indicating in-phase operation (Fig. 8a). Here the liquid is evenly distributed, providing a large mass transfer area between gas and liquid phase. By contrast, with a shaking diameter of 1.25 cm and otherwise equal operating conditions, out-of-phase operation was observed (Fig. 8b). In this case, the liquid is no longer oriented in the direction of the centrifugal force, as indicated by the black rotating ball on the shaker. The strong reduction in the mass transfer and power transfer area triggers significantly lower mixing, power input, and oxygen transfer properties.
Values for P/V Ø and k L a during “in-phase” and “out-of-phase” operation in a shaken single-use reactor; reactor volume = 10 L; reactor diameter = 25 cm; filling volume = 5 L; temperature = 25 °C; dynamic viscosity = 1.554 mPas; sulfite solution with 1 M Na2SO3; 10−7 M CoSO4; 0.012 M phosphate buffer; initial pH = 8; oxygen solubility Lo2 = 0.56 mmol/(L ⋅ bar)
4 Applications of Orbitally Shaken Single-Use Reactors
The first application of orbitally shaken single-use reactors was reported by Liu and Hong [33] for cultivating insect and animal cells. They monitored the number of viable cells during cultivation using orbitally shaken vessels in different scales and compared the results with values from a stirred tank reactor. For the first time, the scale-up from shake flasks to cylindrical shaken single-use bioreactors with culture volumes of up to 36 L had been successfully proven in this work.
The general suitability of orbitally shaken bioreactors for cultivating Nicotiana tabacum BY-2 cells growing in suspension was proven in cylindrical reactors with volumes of 20 and 50 L [34]. The successful utilization of square bottles for cultivating mammalian cells was first described by Muller et al. [35]. Comparable yields were reported between cultivations in square bottles of different size and cultivations in spinner flasks [35]. The first application and validation of the 50 mL TubeSpin® system for cultivating animal cells was reported by Jesus et al. [6]. Experiments were conducted with sealed and open ventilation membranes to investigate the influence of different ventilation rates on evaporation, pH and dissolved oxygen concentration. A sufficient oxygen supply and CO2 removal rate was reported even for tubes that were entirely closed during a cultivation time of 4 days [6].
The successful application of the TubeSpin® system for the cultivation of mammalian cells was proven in several studies [36, 37]. Characteristics of the reactor system such as the cost-efficient design and easy handling make them suitable for a large number of parallel screening experiments. Consequently, the influence of 29 different cultivation media and 20 protein hydrolysates on growth and productivity of a CHO cell culture was investigated with the TubeSpin® system [37]. The effective application of the system for transient gene expression with CHO cells was also recently proven. Similar protein yields in the TubeSpin® system compared to standard stirred tank reactors were reported [36].
5 Conclusion and Outlook
Within the past 10 years, orbitally shaken single-use reactors have developed from the first proof of concept to established systems for upstream processing. Today, reactors are available in volumes ranging from 15 mL to 200 L, and the basic working principle has been substantiated up to reactor volumes of 2,000 L. Fundamental engineering parameters such as oxygen transfer, power input, mixing performance and hydromechanical stress have been investigated in several research studies. In addition, the applicability of orbitally shaken single-use reactors for cultivating animal, insect and plant suspension cells has been demonstrated on different scales. A major advantage of shaken single-use reactors compared to systems with a wave, rocking or stirred agitation is the very well-defined liquid movement in the reactor and the fact that orbitally shaken bioreactors are commonly applied for screening and media optimization in small-scale systems. Transferring culture conditions from shake flasks or microtiter plates to orbitally shaken single-use reactors is greatly simplified due to similar characteristics with respect to hydromechanical stress, mixing and oxygen supply. The commonly accepted advantages of shaken bioreactors for small-scale systems such as simple and cost-efficient reactor design, easy handling and low hydromechanical stress are also essential requirements of single-use reactors. Despite the effort that has already been expended on characterizing shaken single-use reactors, further investigations are needed to exploit their full potential. In particular, a more detailed description of the fluid flow properties during shaking would be advantageous to allow a precise characterization of hydromechanical stress and out-of-phase operation. Nevertheless, orbitally shaken single-use reactors are already today a serious option.
References
- 1.Brod H, Vester A, Kauling J (2012) Opportunities and limitations of disposable technologies in biopharmaceutical processes. Chem Ing Tech 84(5):633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Reyes C, Pena C, Galindo E (2003) Reproducing shake flasks performance in stirred fermentors: production of alginates by Azotobacter vinelandii. J Biotechnol 105(1–2):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Seletzky JM, Noak U, Fricke J et al (2007) Scale-up from shake flasks to fermenters in batch and continuous mode with Corynebacterium glutamicum in lactic acid based on oxygen transfer and pH. Biotechnol Bioeng 98(4):800–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Pena C, Millan M, Galindo E (2008) Production of alginate by Azotobacter vinelandii in a stirred fermentor simulating the evolution of power input observed in shake flasks. Process Biochem 43(7):775–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Mehmood N, Olmos E, Marchal P et al (2010) Relation between pristinamycins production by Streptomyces pristinaespiralis, power dissipation and volumetric gas-liquid mass transfer coefficient, k(L)a. Process Biochem 45(11):1779–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.De Jesus MJ, Girard P, Bourgeois M et al (2004) TubeSpin satellites: a fast track approach for process development with animal cells using shaking technology. Biochem Eng J 17(3):217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Büchs J, Maier U, Lotter S et al (2007) Calculating liquid distribution in shake flasks on rotary shakers at waterlike viscosities. Biochem Eng J 34(3):200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Büchs J, Maier U, Milbradt C et al (2000a) Power consumption in shaking flasks on rotary shaking machines: I. Power consumption measurement in unbaffled flasks at low liquid viscosity. Biotechnol Bioeng 68(6):589–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Klöckner W, Tissot S, Wurm F et al (2012) Power input correlation to characterize the hydrodynamics of cylindrical orbitally shaken bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 65:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Kato Y, Peter CP, Akgün A et al (2004) Power consumption and heat transfer resistance in large rotary shaking vessels. Biochem Eng J 21(1):83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Raval K, Kato Y, Büchs J (2007) Comparison of torque method and temperature method for determination of power consumption in disposable shaken bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 34(3):224–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Raval K, Büchs J (2008) Extended method to evaluate power consumption in large disposable shaking bioreactors. J Chem Eng Jpn 41(11):1075–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Büchs J, Zoels B (2001) Evaluation of maximum to specific power consumption ratio in shaking bioreactors. J Chem Eng Jpn 34(5):647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Peter CP, Suzuki Y, Büchs J (2006) Hydromechanical stress in shake flasks: correlation for the maximum local energy dissipation rate. Biotechnol Bioeng 93(6):1164–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Zhang X, Stettler M, Reif O et al (2008) Shaken helical track bioreactors: providing oxygen to high-density cultures of mammalian cells at volumes up to 1000 l by surface aeration with air. New Biotechnol 25(1):68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Zhang X, Bürki C-A, Stettler M et al (2009) Efficient oxygen transfer by surface aeration in shaken cylindrical containers for mammalian cell cultivation at volumetric scales up to 1000 l. Biochem Eng J 45(1):41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Stettler M, Zhang X, Hacker DL et al (2007) Novel orbital shake bioreactors for transient production of CHO derived IgGs. Biotechnol Prog 23(6):1340–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Tissot S, Michel PO, Hacker DL et al (2012) k(L)a as a predictor for successful probe-independent mammalian cell bioprocesses in orbitally shaken bioreactors. New Biotechnol 29(3):387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Tissot S, Oberbek A, Reclari M et al (2011) Efficient and reproducible mammalian cell bioprocesses without probes and controllers? New Biotechnol 28(4):382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Mostafa SS, Gu XJ (2003) Strategies for improved dCO(2) removal in large-scale fed-batch cultures. Biotechnol Prog 19(1):45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Zhang X, Stettler M, De Sanctis D et al (2010) Use of orbital shaken disposable bioreactors for mammalian cell cultures from the milliliter-scale to the 1,000-liter scale. Adv Biochem Eng/Biotechnol 115:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Anderlei T, Büchs J (2001) Device for sterile online measurement of the oxygen transfer rate in shaking flasks. Biochem Eng J 7(2):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Anderlei T, Zang W, Papaspyrou M et al (2004) Online respiration activity measurement (OTR, CTR, RQ) in shake flasks. Biochem Eng J 17(3):187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Henzler HJ, Schedel M (1991) Suitability of the shaking flask for oxygen supply to microbiological cultures. Bioprocess Eng 7(3):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Maier U, Büchs J (2001) Characterisation of the gas-liquid mass transfer in shaking bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 7(2):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Maier U, Losen M, Büchs J (2004) Advances in understanding and modeling the gas-liquid mass transfer in shake flasks. Biochem Eng J 17(3):155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Maier B, Dietrich C, Büchs J (2001) Correct application of the sulphite oxidation methodology of measuring the volumetric mass transfer coefficient k(L)a under non-pressurized and pressurized conditions. Food Bioprod Process 79(C2):107–113Google Scholar
- 28.Ries C, John G, John C et al (2010) A shaken disposable bioreactor system for controlled insect cell cultivations at milliliter-scale. Eng Life Sci 10(1):75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Tissot S, Farhat M, Hacker DL et al (2010) Determination of a scale-up factor from mixing time studies in orbitally shaken bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 52(2–3):181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Büchs J, Maier U, Milbradt C et al (2000b) Power consumption in shaking flasks on rotary shaking machines: II. Nondimensional description of specific power consumption and flow regimes in unbaffled flasks at elevated liquid viscosity. Biotechnol Bioeng 68(6):594–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Büchs J, Lotter S, Milbradt C (2001b) Out-of-phase operating conditions, a hitherto unknown phenomenon in shaking bioreactors. Biochem Eng J 7(2):135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Büchs J (2001a) Introduction to advantages and problems of shaken cultures. Biochem Eng J 7(2):91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Liu CM, Hong LN (2001) Development of a shaking bioreactor system for animal cell cultures. Biochem Eng J 7(2):121–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Raval KN, Liu C, Büchs J (2006) Large-scale disposable shaking bioreactors: a promising choice. Bioprocess Int 4(1):46–50Google Scholar
- 35.Muller N, Girard P, Hacker DL et al (2005) Orbital shaker technology for the cultivation of mammalian cells in suspension. Biotechnol Bioeng 89(4):400–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Muller N, Derouazi M, Van Tilborgh F et al (2007) Scalable transient gene expression in Chinese hamster ovary cells in instrumented and non-instrumented cultivation systems. Biotechnol Lett 29(5):703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Stettler M, De Jesus M, Ouertatani-Sakouhi H et al (2007) 1000 non-instrumented bioreactors in a week. In: Smith R (ed) Cell technology for cell products. Springer, New York, pp 489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar









