Particle—liquid mass transfer in three-phase fluidized beds

Burru, I.G.; Briens, Cédric

doi:10.1016/0032-5910(91)80050-s

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, the local solid holdup increased. Similar findings for the CMC solution-solid two-phase fluidized beds have been reported 5 Effect of superficial liquid and gas velocities, liquid viscosity, and particle size on the radial distribution of local solid holdup.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Experimental Investigation into the Radial Distribution of Local Phase Holdups in a Gas−Liquid−Solid Fluidized Bed

Chen

Liu

Guo

2007

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments were conducted in a gas−liquid−solid fluidized bed (GLSFB), using two types of particles. The light particles were styrene-blend spheres 1.45 mm in diameter, with a density of 1264 kg/m3, whereas the heavy particles were spherical glass beads 0.48 and 1.25 mm in diameter, with a density of 2460 kg/m3. In both cases, compressed air and tap water and carboxymethyl cellulose sodium with concentrations of 0.05 and 0.20 wt % (CMCS) were used as the gas phase and liquid phase, respectively. Local holdups in the GLSFBs were measured simultaneously using an improved double-sensor micro-electric conductivity probe under different liquid viscosities, superficial gas velocity, superficial liquid velocity, and particle sizes. It was determined that local solid holdup decreased with increasing liquid viscosity, superficial gas velocity, and superficial liquid velocity, whereas the local solid holdup at the center increased as the particle size increased. A maximum value of local solid holdup existed at r/R = 0.75−0.85, whereas the minimum value of the local solid holdup was located at the wall region. Dimensionless correlations of local holdups were developed using measurement results. Calculation values using correlations are in reasonable agreement with the measurement data.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Experimental Investigation into the Radial Distribution of Local Phase Holdups in a Gas−Liquid−Solid Fluidized Bed

Chen

Liu

Guo

2007

Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Garcia-Ochoa and Gomez [ 30 ] developed dimensional correlations expressing the Sherwood number as a function of the Reynolds, aeration, and Weber numbers. Burru and Briens [ 31 ] developed a correlation to predict particle–liquid mass transfer coefficients on fluidized beds using an appropriate apparent viscosity to account for the non-Newtonian effect of the liquid.…”

Section: Activated Sludge For Membrane Bioreactos and Applications Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Membrane BioReactor (MBR) Activated Sludge Surrogate Alternatives Carboxymethyl Cellulose and Xanthan Gum: A Statistical Analysis and Review

Ratkovich

Amaya-Gómez

2022

Membranes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) combine traditional biological treatments such as Activated Sludge (AS) with a membrane-based filtration process to extract suspended and organic solids. MBR operation involves high shear rates near the membrane surface due to the high crossflow velocity, which complicates any simulation process from a hydrodynamic point of view. In this regard, the viscosity as a function of total suspended solids (TSS) plays an essential role in characterizing and modeling the behavior of activated sludge (AS). However, AS has an intransparency property that prevents experimental measurements (i.e., velocity profiles) commonly associated with optical techniques from being peformed. In light of this limitation, two polymeric compounds, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and xanthan gum (XG), are considered here in order to explore the possibility of mimicking the rheological behavior of AS. These compounds are commonly used in the food industry as food thickeners, and their rheological behavior is supposedly well defined in the literature. In this work, we reviewed the viscosity behavior of these compounds through their reported flow behavior and consistency indexes. It was found that the rheological properties of these two polymers differ depending on the chemical manufacturer, rheometers, and measurement protocols involved. Different curves (shear rate vs. viscosity/shear stress) are obtained, as each device and procedure seem to modify the polymer structure. Therefore, a statistical analysis was performed based on the flow and consistency indexes using different concentrations and temperatures reported in experimental data. Several insights regarding CMC, XG, and AS performance were obtained, including a better relationship with concentration than with temperature or certain exponential-based performances, which can support further MBR design and operational decision-making.

show abstract