The Optimal Design of Fluidized Bed Bioreactors

Author(s): G. Andrews and R. Trapasso

Source: Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), Vol. 57, No. 2 (Feb., 1985), pp. 143-150
Published by: Water Environment Federation
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25042545
Accessed: 30-11-2015 12:06 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Water Environment Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The optimal design of fluidized
bed bioreactors
G. Andrews, R. Trapasso

In the supported-film fluidized-bed bioreactor a bed of

materials such as sand, coal, and activated carbon, coated with For any supported-film bioreactor, there exists a film
a microbial film is fluidized by the wastewater flowing up thickness that maximizes the uptake rate, but
through it. Such beds are in use or under investigation for numerous operating modes are possible.
many types of biological treatment including the aerobic and
anaerobic removal of organics and denitrification.13 Their
main advantages over packed beds are that they will not be The model assumes that the film is relatively thin and thus
clogged by film growth, and gas bubbles pass through them can be treated as a flat plate, that the film is homogeneous
easily. Consequently much smaller support particles can be with a diffusivity, density, and cell concentration that do not
used giving a larger surface area of film per unit reactor vary with and that the mass transfer resistance
depth; liquid-side
volume, and therefore
higher loadings. is negligible, hence
Rather than a fluidized bed to accom
clogging, expands r,?2s =0
modate the film volume. For aerobic or (1)
rapidly growing Dd^-r
denitrifying films this expansion is very fast, so the bed height
with boundary conditions.
is controlled by removing particles from the top of the bed,
The rate of uptake per unit film volume r would
and them after off excess film. This is not normally
returning washing
be given by a monod-type equation, but this is mathematically
usually necessary for anaerobic beds.
intransigent. It is therefore approximated by two-phase kinetics;
Several theoretical analyses of these beds are available.4-6 In
=
are
first order (r kvs) at low concentrations (s < k/kv) and zero
with substrate these models based on
order (r = k) at high concentrations
dealing uptake
that the film thickness is constant or greater than
(s > k/kv). This leads to
assumptions
three possible cases:
the film's active depth, or that the bed solids are completely
mixed. The result is that the uptake rate per unit film area is 1. Low liquid concentration (c < k/kv) so that the entire film
made dependent only on the local substrate concentration. is first-order;
While this type of assumption is adequate for solving the 2. Concentration at film base s0 > so that the entire film
k/kv
design problem of relating the substrate removal to the bed is zero order; or
volume, it obviously conceals considerable complexity. The 3. c > k/kv and s0 < k/kv so that the base of the film (o < w
film on an individual particle grows as it consumes substrate, < I) is first order while the outer section (/ < w < L) is
although growth may be balanced by endogenous metabolism zero order.
or the shearing of cells from the particle surface. Also microbial
Equation 1 can be solved for each case to obtain the
film is light and voluminous so its growth will change the
concentration profile the film. The substrate
settling velocity of the particle, and fluidized beds are known through uptake
rate per unit area is then found from:
to stratify based on particle settling velocity. The particle's
motion in the bed may be determined by this stratification
requirement superimposed on its random motion (mixing).
Because of this simplification existing models cannot deal
The results are given in dimensionless form in Table 1. In
with the reactor optimization problem. How thick should the
the third case 1 must be solved
film be? Should its thickness vary through the bed? Could this described, Equation twice,
once with first order kinetics for o < w < / and once with zero
variation be achieved in practice by proper choice of the
or size distribution or by order kinetics for / < w < L. N can then be found either from
support particle density encouraging
over or Equation 2, or by adding the uptake rate in the zero-order
solids stratification solids mixing vice versa? The
-
objective of this paper is to examine the theory of fluidized region, k(L /), to that in the first order region (found by
= / and c =
bed bioreactors in more detail to answer these questions. putting L kjk in the equations for Case 1). This
gives the two equations for ? in Table 1,which can be solved
THEORY numerically to give 6 (6 is a dimensionless film thickness
analogous to a Thiele modulus, and 0 is the corresponding
Substrate uptake by film. Substrate consumption is described dimensionless form of /).
by a conventional model for simultaneous diffusion and uptake The active depth of the film can be defined as the value of
in the film. 0 which gives 99% of the maximum ? possible with that

February 1985 143

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Andrews & Trapasso

Table 1?Summary of analytical results.

Case

Range of c' c' < 1 1+ ? sc' 1 -I-? <c' < 1

2 2

c' tan/? 0 -
0 0+ tan/7 0

_ 0-0 c'- 1
2 0-0

Active -
depth 0a 2.5 0a tan/?0a + 0.99(2c'- 1)1/2
where
-
tan/i 0a = (1.0199 0.0398c')1/2

Exact N' 3c' tan/7 0 +

p 1_1___~| MM3
(spherical co-ord) 0 + 0 L 0 + tanA?
0 0 + 0j
sin/7 20o " 1+
Optimum depth 0O A/(2+ N sin/720)
? + 00 40 + 0o

particular substrate concentration. In Case 1 the maximum is base of the bed where c' is high the film must be thick, while
=
clearly c' and the active depth Ba is 2.5 (since tan/z 2.5 0.99). near the exit where c' is small it should be thinner. Note that,
In Case 2 no such value exists because the uptake rate increases for small the thickness is
particularly particles, optimum
proportionately as more film is added, until Case 3 applies. less than the active and the
considerably depth, approximates
Here the maximum uptake obviously occurs with large 6 depth of the all zero-order film.
=
(tan/z 0 1). By solving the two equations for ? in Table 1 Taking the active depth as 150 ??m7 in Case 1 gives (kj
? =
for (6 d) it can be shown that the corresponding maximum D)l/2 16.7 mm-1 so ? = 1 corresponds roughly to 120 mesh
- = 20
value of ? is (2c' 1)1/2.The results given for 0a in the first support particles while ? corresponds to 8 mesh.
case can then be derived. film thickness. If a particle remains in contact
Steady-state
Optimum film thickness. A dimensionless substrate uptake with wastewater under constant conditions of concentration
rate per unit particle volume is defined by: and flow, a film will develop. The film will thicken until its
growth rate is balanced by the processes of endogenous metab
3(2R + LfN=3(2? + e?
4 (R4 Lf k 4 (? 4 0)3 K} olism, cell maintenance, and wash-off of cells from the surface.8
Andrews and Tien9 showed that to a first approximation, all
In going from the flat plate model to the real spherical these decay processes can be lumped into a single term that is
the film area has been taken as the area of proportional to the film volume. Thus the steady-state film
particles average
the actual film, 4ir(R + L/2)2. The validity of this calculation thickness (L ) is given by:
can be confirmed by comparing Equation 3 with the exact =
solutions for Cases 1 and 2 derived from spherical coordinates
YN kdL^ (4)
(Table 1). For example, in Case 2 it can be shown in this way
that the fractional error in Equation 3 arising from the flat
plate assumption is Vi(\ + 2?/6)2. This is less than 4% when
the film thickness equals the particle radius (6 = ?) and only
1% when the film is half this thickness. The error should be
similarly small in Case 3 where the exact solution in spherical
coordinates is unknown.
For thin films, N' obviously increases as the film grows
thicker. However, as the film grows past its active depth the
substrate uptake rate onto the particle increases as (R 4 L/2)2
(as a result of the increasing film area) while the particle
volume increases as (R 4 L)3. So N' decreases with increasing
film thickness. It follows that N' must go through a maximum
at a particular value of 0 between zero and the active depth.
Implicit algebraic expressions for this optimum 6 are given in
Table 1, and calculated values are plotted in Figure 1 as a
function of substrate concentration and support particle radius.

Figure 1 shows how the film thickness must be varied Figure 1?Optimum and steady-state film thickness for different
through the bed to maximize the volumetric loading. Near the particle sizes.

144 Journal WPCF, Volume 57, Number 2

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Research
_Process

or in dimensionless form

Y is the yield coefficient expressed as film volume produced

per unit of substrate consumed, so Yk corresponds to the
maximum specific growth rate (jx)of the film. Substituting the
equations for ? (Table 1) into Equation 5 allows the steady
state film thickness to be calculated and plotted in Figure 1
for various values of kd/jx. Note that no solution exists for
Case 2; if kd < jx the film keeps growing until Case 3 applies,
while if kd > Jxno film ever develops.
Figure 1 gives an overview of how much film will grow
compared to how much is required. For example, if a particle
= =
of radius ? 20 is exposed to a concentration c' 2 and a
=
shear stress and metabolism such that kd/jx 0.5, then the
=
film grows to a steady-state thickness 0^ 3.32. However,
the active = 2.84
only depth 6a would be consuming substrate,
cells below this being starved of substrate and inactive. The
=
optimum depth 60 2.21 is considerably less than the steady
state thickness. However if c' = 0.8, then the steady-state
Figure 2?Variation of settling velocity with film volume.
= so never
thickness 0^ 1.44, the film would grow to its

optimum thickness 60= 1.91. Note that if c' < kd/jx, the model

predicts that no film develops at all because the decay rate is increases as the film grows. This difference can have a large
always greater than the growth rate.
impact on the behavior of a fluidized bed.
=
The value kd/jx 0.5 is very large and would be expected Solids mixing. The behavior of the solids in liquid-fluidized
only for anaerobic films which are not very cohesive (kd large) beds is usually analyzed in terms of two opposing tendencies.
and have a low growth rate (jx small). Andrews and Tien4 give The first is stratification which tends to arrange the particles
a value kd = 0.0066 hr~] for a film of denitrifying bacteria so that those with the highest settling velocity sink to the
metabolizing valeric acid. This suggests kdj]x? 0.01 and the bottom and those with the lowest settling velocity rise to the
same films. It is
order of magnitude is expected for aerobic top. This orderly situation is disrupted by the opposing tendency
clear from Figure 1 that in this case the steady-state film for the solids to move and mix This leads to the
randomly.
thickness would be very much larger than the optimum for all definition of two extreme the completely
hypothetical situations;
realistic c' values. This is why a film removal device is required stratified bed in which no particle is ever below another which
for aerobic beds. has a higher and a completely mixed bed in
settling velocity,
which the mean settling velocity of a representative sample of

particles is independent of the depth where the sample is

PARTICLE SETTLING VELOCITY
taken."
The settling velocity of a particle increases with its diameter The question of whether a real bed approximates either of

and density. The net effect of film growth on settling velocity these extremes has been addressed in the chemical engineering
is complex because it changes both of these factors. Using a literature. Scarlett and Blogg12 examined the variation of
=
drag coefficient correlation of the form CD f/Rf, Andrews10 particle size with height in a bed of glass beads and found a
showed that: definite stratification tendency. Al-Djibouni and Garside13
measured an axial dispersion coefficient for the solids and
_?/, = (l+2fr)1/(2-g)
W found that it increased with the terminal Reynolds number
Uls (1+*)1/3
and showed a pronounced maximum at a bed porosity of 0.7.
x is the film volume per unit volume of support particle. It is Several experiments have been performed with beds containing
related to the film thickness by: with two distinct velocities, each type
particles settling having
a different color so that and stratification could be
IL 4 R\* ( 0\3 mixing
(7) judged visually. These beds apparently stratify almost com
i+x-(?)-v+?) pletely if the settling velocity ratio is greater than 2.n However,

With the normal range of support particle sizes and the if gas is bubbled through the bed, the solids mix vigorously.
optimum 0 values in Figure 1, the range 0 < x < 10 is of So, in summary, the balance between mixing and stratification

interest; higher values are associated with the smaller particles. is expected to depend on the variation in the settling velocity
Equation 6 is plotted in Figure 2, which shows that the of the particles, the particle terminal Reynolds number, the

effect of film growth is very different for support particles of bed porosity, and whether gas bubbles are present.

different densities. For sand the parameter B (the density ratio, Actual measurements of average support particle diameter
film-water support particle-water is approximately 0.02, so and film thickness as functions of distance into aerobic beds

film growth reduces the settling velocity down to some 70% of of sand are given by Shieh et al.14 In one bed with averages
the support particle value when x
-
10. For a plastic particle and radius R ? 275 fxm (Rets = 35) there is little variation in
~ so the is dominant. But another bed
with a specific gravity of 1.05, B 0.5 settling velocity either, indicating that mixing

February 1985 145

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Andrews & Trapasso

with smaller sand (R ? 175 ??m,Rets ? 18) showed a definite the fractional reduction in TV.For the range 1 < Re < 100,
= 0.81
stratification with thin films near the base and slightly larger Kolioni et al}6 give the mass transfer correlation She
sand particles with considerably more film (x ? e = 0.85 so Re
15, so Ut/Uts Rel/2Scl/3. Also, in this range, the exponent is
= 0.5 from near the It is to suppose related to the terminal Reynolds number of the support
Figure 2) top. reasonable
that for beds with even lower Rets values the stratification particle by (see Equations 6 and 8).
tendency will become even more dominant.
Re=en(l + Bx)0*7 Rets (10)

CHOICE OF SUPPORT PARTICLES Combining all the above shows that the reduction in the
uptake rate per unit film area caused by the mass transfer
The previous sections show what film thickness is required,
resistance is proportional to R~?3. But reducing R also increases
what thickness will develop spontaneously, and how the bed
the film area, so there is still a net increase (prop, to R~0J) in
solids will behave. This information is now used to formulate
the uptake rate per unit reactor volume. The limit occurs with
recommendations about the size and of the
general density a change in the bed behavior at Re ? 1. For Re < 1, Sh is
support particles.
directly proportional to Re16 which is proportional to R3
Settling velocity and bed shape. It must be remembered
(Stokes Law), so T becomes proportional to R~2 and decreasing
that in a fluidized bed, unlike a packed bed, the size and now rate per unit reactor
the particle size decreases the uptake
weight of the particles, the superficial liquid velocity (w), and volume.
the bed porosity are not ind?pendant quantities. Ngain and A sensible procedure is first to choose the support particle
Martin15 showed that the Richardson-Zaki correlation describes material and then to calculate the size that Re
=
1.
gives
the relationship for beds of coated particles.
Equation 9 can then be used to estimate whether this gives a
e"= u/u, (8) reasonable bed height. With anticipated values of e and x, Re
= =
1 corresponds to Rets 5 (Equation 10) for 60-mesh coal,
n = 4.4 Re,'003 0.2 < Ret < \ or
100-mesh sand, 35-mesh plastic of density 1.05.

= 4.4 1< Re, < 500 Support particle density and bed stratification. Small bed
Rer?A
porosity and Rets are precisely the conditions that give the
= 2.5 500 < Re, least solids Given a reasonable variation in settling
mixing.13
velocities, the bed behavior will be dominated by stratification,
To maximize the film area in the bed, e must be set at the
with some random motion of a particle about its completely
minimum value that avoids particle agglomeration (?0.55). stratified position.
Consider a bed of heavy particles like sand (B = 0.01). Film
Now if large, heavy support particles are selected Equation 8
a large u, so the bed needs to be very tall to achieve the
gives
growth decreases the settling velocity (Figure 2) so particles
required contact time. Conversely, a low u, gives short, broad
with the thickest films tend to move to the top of the bed,
reactors (the sludge blanket reactor can be thought of as the
where the substrate concentration is lowest. This is the situation
limit of this process). found by Shieh et al.14 for smaller particles, but it is exactly
A first approximation to the bed height, H, required for a the reverse of the optimum situation shown in Figure 1. This
substrate removal, AC, can be found from a substrate
given optimum film distribution could only be achieved with light
balance through the bed, which reduces to
support particles of density about 1.05 (B ? 0.5). Now settling
increases with film thickness, so the bed can achieve
uReAC velocity
?> a stable stratification with thick films near the base of the bed
"-^lw- and thin films near the top. Solids mixing would be undesirable
+ 0/?
fr^?.-.> \av
in this bed because it tends to even out the film thickness
the bed, and thus represents a departure from the
Here A V indicates the average values in the bed. Average 6 throughout
optimum. However, with the heavy support particles the same
and N values may be approximated by the optimum values at
evening out would move the film distribution nearer to the
the average c' in the bed.
optimum, so solids mixing would be desirable.
Particle size and mass transfer resistance. Decreasing the

particle size is desirable because it increases the area of film

in the reactor. a trade-off is required because it
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Unfortunately
also increases the mass-transfer resistance in the liquid film Anaerobic beds. Anaerobic metabolism is characterized by
around the This resistance, which has been ignored gas production, low rate constants, and a rather uncohesive
particles.
up to this point, makes the substrate concentration at the film/ film. The latter two factors mean that kd/jx is large, so the
liquid interface, s?, less than the bulk liquid concentration. steady-state film thickness is close to the optimum. In this
The percent reduction it causes in the uptake rate is higher situation it is best to use support particles with a size distribution
for all-first-order (Case 1) films, where N is proportional to sif just sufficient to maintain bed stratification in spite of the gas
than for Case 3 films where the proportionality is more like bubbling through the bed. The larger particles fall to the base
s?l/2. (For Case 2 films N is independent of s? so this resistance of the bed where, being exposed to a high substrate concentra

would have no effect unless it were large enough to shift the tion, they develop thick steady-state films. The small particles
film to Case 3. stay near the top and develop thin films so the film distribution
Considering Case 1 as the worst case it can be shown that, through the bed is close to the optimum (Figure 1). However,
if the diffusivity D is half the free liquid value, then this it is important that the size distribution not be too wide or
= the increase in porosity, which is inevitable up through a
resistance reduces N by a factor 1 4 T, where T (2? 40)
X tan/r 6/4Sh(? 4 0). Thus, if T is small (<lh) it represents stratified fluidized bed, becomes excessive. For example, 18

146 Journal WPCF, Volume 57, Number 2

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Research
_Process

X 35-mesh particles have a diameter ratio of 2:1 which gives small, dense, monosize support particles, the solids would mix.
a settling velocity ratio of 3:1 (with e = 0.85). If the porosity The steady-state film thickness would be the same throughout
at the base of the bed is 0.55 the porosity at the top of a the bed and determined by the average substrate concentra

completely stratified bed would be 0.73. (Equation 8) which is tion.10 Thus it would be too thick at the top of the bed and
too large to achieve good loading. too thin near the bottom. Furthermore, the motion of an

Liquid-phase mass transfer resistance is a less severe problem individual particle around the bed would expose its film to
in anaerobic than aerobic beds three reasons.
for First, uptake rapidly changing substrate concentration, substrate composition,
rates are lower (? is smaller fora given R, so T is smaller). and perhaps pH. The consequences for the film metabolism

Second, because anaerobic treatment is usually used for high are unpredictable but probably deleterious. These disadvantages
strength wastes, (c' > 1) almost the entire bed consists of Case would probably outweigh the advantages of having uniformly
2 or 3 films that are less affected by this resistance. Third, the small particles.
gas bubbles agitate the liquid and thus increase the mass Aerobic beds. Aerobic films tend to be cohesive and fast
transfer coefficients. Consequently, the Reynolds number Re growing, so kjjx is small and the steady-state film thickness is
?
can be set in the range 0.5 1 without incurring excessive much larger than the optimum. To prevent excessive accu
resistance. mulation of biomass, particles are continuously removed from
No definitive statement can be made about the best support the top of the bed, stripped of film, and returned to the bed.
particle density because different values give different advan In this situation a bed stratified on the basis of support particle
tages. Once Re is fixed the support density does not alter the size is clearly undesirable. Large particles would stay near the
bed height (Equation 9). However, denser particles give a base of the bed accumulating films much thicker than necessary,
higher u for a given Re, so a bed of dense particles will be while small particles are continually recycled through the
narrower for a given waste flow. On the other hand, the high particle washing device with little effect.
u increases surface shear which increases kd. This may be With monosize particles there are three possibilities. Dense
critical because if kd > jx very little film will develop (the particles such as sand can, as before, be smaller for a given

model predicts none, but reality is probably less definitive). Re, but stratification of such a bed will force the thickest films
Also, film growth decreases the settling velocity of dense to the top of the bed which is the opposite of the optimum
a wider =
particles (Figure 2), so dense support particles require situation. Particles with B 0.2 to 0.3 have settling velocities
size distribution if stratification is to be maintained after the relatively unaffected by film growth, so the bed solids
film develops. With very light particles film growth encourages would mix.
the correct stratification so the size distribution of the support The residence time distribution of individual particles in
particles can be less. In terms of ease of control, the best the bed would then be analagous to that of molecules in a
= 0.2 to backmix reactor, giving rise to a distribution of film thicknesses.
density is in the range 1.06 to 1.1 gm/cm3 (B 0.3).
Film growth then has little effect on settling velocity until x The average thickness would be the same at all heights in the
becomes very large so bed porosity remains constant during bed, but at any height some films would be much thicker than
film growth and bed height becomes a direct measuer of the optimum for that substrate concentration and others would
amount of film in the bed.17 be much thinner. Very light particles have settling velocities
In principle, the particle sizes required for a given type of that increase with film thickness, so they stratify with the
support can be determined as follows. Suppose the inlet thickest films at the bottom of the bed, as required. Particles
concentration C\ = 10, 90% removal is required, and kd/jx would be removed for washing from the base of the bed and
= film thicknesses be returned to the top. An incidental advantage of this is that
0.8. From Figure 1 the optimum steady-state
=
at the inlet and outlet are 0, = 5.44, 02 0.89: For Re ? 0.5 any agglomerated particles that naturally sink to the base of
at the outlet (which is the critical point because Re decreases the bed, would be removed and separated. In a conventional

up the bed), by trial and error from Equations 7 and 10 reactor they remain agglomerated.
= = = as =
(assuming kJD 8 mm-1 and e2 0.6), for sand R2 106 Design of this reactor proceeds follows. With ps 1.05
= a settling = > a particle
ixm (70-mesh) and x2 7.6. If stratification requires gm/cm3 (B 0.5), the condition Re 1 gives size
= 250 = 4 for = 16.7 mm"1).
velocity ratio of 2:1, Equation 6 gives the required conditions of 35 mesh (R /um, ? (kJD)m
at the bed base as Ri = 212 ?im (40 mesh) Xj = 73. For plastic Given an inlet substrate concentration c\
=
5 and an outlet
= are X = at
with B 0.2 the corresponding sizes 40 40 mesh, the concentration c2 0.5 the optimum 0 values the top and
difference in film thickness providing all the required variation bottom of the bed are respectively 62 = 1, #i
= 3
(Figure 1),
to x2 = =
in settling velocity. which corresponds 0.95, X\ 4.37 (Equation 7).
Three further points should be noted. First, the greatest Ignoring the decay processes (because kd <? p) the volumetric
uncertainty in the calculation involves the thickness reached flow rate of support particles through unit area of the bed (P)
? = -
by the film. If experimental data on the steady-state thickness is given by the substrate balance P(x2 x2) uY(cx c2).
of anaerobic films as a function of shear stress and substrate With these values profiles through the bed can be computed
concentration were available, it should certainly be used in using the computer program given by Andrews and Trapasso18
of this part of the model. Second, the theory would which is based on the theory given here plus the assumptions
place
predict that a stratified bed could never reduce c' below kd/jx of plug flow of liquid and complete stratification of the solids.
because below this concentration (above this point in the bed) In Figures 3 and 4, profiles of film thickness, settling
no film will develop (Figure 1). In the real world of solids velocity, substrate concentration and porosity through such a

mixing and interparticle contact this would not be strictly bed are compared with those through a bed of monosized

true, but it emphasizes the point that anaerobic beds are best sand, giving the same substrate removal with approximately
suited to substrate concentrations. Third, in a bed of the same maximum and minimum film thicknesses and Re
high

February 1985 147

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Andrews & Trapasso

A cross-plot of 0 versus c' (Figure 5) shows that the film

distribution in the plastic bed is very close to the optimum
shown in Figure 1. Consequently the average uptake rate per
unit area in the bed is higher (Figure 5) than in the sand bed
0.60
where the film thickness near the bed inlet is far below the
optimum. In conjunction with the lower average e and 0/?
values of the plastic bed, this means that the required bed
0.59 = 1 in
height is less (see Equation 9: Re both cases). However,
the superficial velocity u in this reactor is ony about half that
in the sand bed so the difference between them in terms of
reactor volume required is not conclusive.
0.58
The inlet substrate concentration to an aerobic reactor is
limited by the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in the
60 MESH SAND wastewater. High strength wastes must be diluted by a large
0.57 another reason are best treated
35 MESH PLASTIC recycle stream, why they
anaerobically. This dilution, combined with the high uptake
rates on aerobic films, makes the liquid-phase mass transfer
reistance more than in anaerobic beds. It may,
H 0.56 significant
therefore, be better to design them with Re in the range 2 to
5. Because the computer program described here ignores this

resistance, it probably underestimates the required volume by

0.25 0.55
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
10 to 20% for both reactors.

kvz cm/s
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 3?Profiles through a completely stratified aerobic bed.
For any supported film bioreactor there exists, for a given

support particle size and substrate concentration, a film thick

ness that maximizes the uptake rate per unit reactor volume.
(this makes the sand about 60 mesh). The large almost
constant gradient of settling velocities through the plastic bed This optimum lies between the active depth and the depth of
an all-zero-order film. The decrease in substrate concentration
should be sufficient to keep itwell stratified. The small gradient
near the top of the sand bed means that solids mixing will up a fluidized bed reactor means that the optimum film
thickness also decreases.
occur there, but such localized mixing in a region of fairly
In choosing the support particles for best reactor performance
constant film thickness should not greatly affect reactor per
several factors summarized in Table 2 must be considered.
formance.
One is solids mixing which must in practice fall somewhere
between three possible extremes; complete mixing, complete
stratification based on support particle size, and with mono
size support particles, stratification based on microbial film
thickness. With the small particle sizes and bed porosities
required for high loadings, one of these forms of stratification
will usually be significant.

C'2=0.5

Figure 5?Profiles of film thickness and uptake rate through completely

Figure 4?Profiles through a completely stratified aerobic bed. stratified aerobic beds.

148 Journal WPCF, Volume 57, Number 2

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Research
_Process

Table 2?Problems arising from incorrect support particle P = Volumetric flow rate of support particles per unit area
characteristics. of bed
r = Rate of substrate consumption per unit voulme of
Too large Too small film
= on
Re Reynolds number based u and particle diameter
= on
Size (a) High Ut requires tall (a) Excessive liquid mass Ret Reynolds number based ut and particle diameter
bed for given contact transfer resistance if R = Radius of support particle
time and increases kd Re < 1. s = Substrate concentration in film
as a result of surface =
Sc Schmidt number
shear. =
Sh Sherwood number based on particle diameter
(b) Low ratio of film area (b) Difficult to handle.
u = Superficial velocity
to reactor volume
=
ut Particle settling velocity
gives low loading
w = Distance from film base

Density (a) As above As above. x = (Film volume)/(support particle volume)

(b) Reverse stratification; Y = (Film volume produced)/(substrate consumed)
Ut decreases with x
so thickest films move ?
to top of bed. o
Bed porosity
,1/2
Width of size Stratification based on
Li"
distribution particle size causes:

(a) Large increase in Encourages solids mixing

porosityup the bed. which tends to
(b) "short-circuiting" if distribute film thickness =
?i Maximum specific growth rate of film
particles are being uniformly through the
taken from bed for bed.
Subscripts:
film removal.
s: = Support particle
1 = Bed inlet
2 = Bed outlet
oo = Steady state value
Any design must have Re > 1 to minimize the liquid-phase
i = Value at film/liquid interface
mass transfer resistance. Between this constraint and the
o = Value at film/support interface
extremes of solids mixing, numerous modes of operation are

possible, of which two appear promising. The first involves

= 1.05 to Such
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
light (ps 1.1) monosize support particles.
particles tend to stratify with the thickest films near the base Authors. G. F. Andrews is an assistant professor in the
of the bed, which approximates the optimum distribution of Department of Chemical Engineering, State University of New
film. The second involves heavy particles like sand. They can York at Buffalo, and R. is a project with
Trapasso engineer
be smaller (60 to 70 mesh versus 30 to 40 mesh), which the General Mills Corp., Buffalo, N.Y. Correspondence should
compensates for their tendency to stratify in reverse with the be addressed to Graham State of New
Andrews, University
thinnest films near the base. This analysis shows no conclusive York at Buffalo, Department of Chemical Engineering, Clifford
advantage for either of these approaches, but it may encourage C. Furnas Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260.
experimentation to resolve the question.

REFERENCES
NOMENCLATURE 1. Cooper, Bed Treatment
P., and Atkinson, B., "Biological Fluidized
of Water and Wastewater." E. Harwood Ltd., London, U.K.
B = Density ratio (film-liquid)/(support particle-liquid) (1981).
c = Liquid phase substrate concentration
2. Hickey, R. F., and Owens, R. W., "Methane Generation from
=
c' kvc/k Wastes with the Anaerobic Fluidized
High-Strength Industrial
D = Diffusivity of substrate in film Bed." Biotechnoi Bioeng. Symp., 11, 399 (1981).
e = Exponent in drag coefficient correlation J. F., et ai, "Biological Treatment of Nitrate Wastewater
3. Walker,
= r
k Maximum (zero-order) value of Fluidized Bed Bioreactors." Biotechnoi Bioeng. Symp., 11,
Using
= Film
kd decay coefficient 15 (1981).
= 4. Hancher, T. W., and Perona, J. J., "Kinetic Model for a Fluidized
kv First-order rate constant for substrate uptake in film
L = Film thickness Bed Bioreactor for Dentrification of Wastewaters." Biotechnoi

/
=
Value of w where s - Bioeng. Symp., 12, 317 (1982).
k/kv
= 5. Shieh, W. K., "Suggested Kinetic Model for the Fluidized-Bed
N Substrate uptake rate per unit area of film
Biofilm Reactor." Biotechnoi 22, 667 (1980).

AT
=
N dimensionless rate per unit area 6. Jennings,
Bioeng.,
P. A., "A Mathematical Model for Biological Activity
uptake

N'
=
(!)'
Substrate rate unit nor
in Expanded Beds." Ph.D. dissertation,
gineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
Department
(1975).
of Civil En

uptake per particle volume,

malized by k 7. Atkinson, B., and Fowler, H. W., In "The Significance of Microbial

February 1985 149

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Andrews &
Trapasso_

Film in Fermenters." In "Advances in Biochemical Engineering in Liquid Fluidized Beds." Trans. Chem. Engrs. (London), 57, 94
Vol. 3." T. K. Ghose (Ed.) (1974). (1979).
8, Rittmann, B. E., "Basics of Kinetics and Micro-organism/Surface 14. Shieh, W. K., et ai, "Predicting reactor biomass concentration in
Attachment in Fixed-film Reactors." Paper presented, AIChE a fluidized bed system." J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 53, 1574
Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C. (November 1983) (1981).
9. Andrews, G. F., and Tien, C, "Bacterial Film Growth on Adsorbent 15. Ngain, K. F., and Martin, W. R. B., "Bed Expansion Characteristics
Surfaces." AIChE Journal, 27, 396 (1981). of Liquid Fluidized Particles with Attached Microbial Growth."
10. Andrews, G. F., "Fluidized-Bed Fermenters?A Steady State Anal Biotechnoi Bioeng., 22, 1843 (1980).
ysis." Biotechnol. Bioeng, 24, 2013 (1982). 16. Koloini, T., et ai, "Mass Transfer in Liquid Fluidized Bed at Low
11. Andrews, G. F., and Tien, C, "The Expansion of a Fluidized Bed Reynolds Numbers." Chem. Eng. Comm., 5, 233 (1980).
Containing Biomass." AIChE Journal, 25, 720 (1979). 17. Andrews, G. F., and Tien, C, "The Expansion of a Fluidized Bed
12. Scarlett, B., and Blogg, M. J, "The Motion and Distribution of containing Biomass." AIChE Journal, 25, 720 (1979)
particles in a Liquid Fluidized Bed." Paper presented at First 18. Andrews, G F., and Trapasso, R., "A Novel Adsorbing Bioreactor
International Symposium on Fluidization, Eindhoven, (1967). for Wastewater Treatment." Paper presented at AIChE Annual
13. Al-Dibouni, M. R., Garside, J., "Particle Mixing and Classification Meeting, Washington, D. C. (November 1983).

150 Journal WPCF, Volume 57, Number 2

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:06:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions