Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

Gas-liquid mass transfer coefcient in stirred tanks interpreted through bubble contamination kinetics
S.S. Alves , C.I. Maia, J.M.T. Vasconcelos
Department of Chemical Engineering, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Centro de Eng. Biolgica e Qu mica, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal Received 23 December 2002; received in revised form 18 May 2003; accepted 19 May 2003

Abstract Experimental data on the average mass transfer liquid lm coefcient (kL ) in an aerated stirred tank are presented. Liquid media used were tap water, electrolyte solutions and water with controlled addition of tensioactive material. Values of kL range from those expected for bubbles with a mobile surface to those expected for rigid bubbles. These data are quantitatively interpreted in terms of bubble contamination kinetics, using a stagnant cap model, according to which bubbles suddenly change from a mobile interface to a rigid condition when surface tension gradients, caused by surfactant accumulation, balance out shear stress. 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Tank; Bubble; Kinetics

1. Introduction Mass transfer effectiveness in gasliquid contactors is most often expressed by means of the volumetric mass transfer coefcient (kL a). This may be correlated, for example, with power input per unit volume and gas supercial velocity, but the resulting correlations do not achieve any degree of generality. Too many phenomena contribute to the values of the lm coefcient, kL and of the specic area a and their combined effect cannot easily be predicted. Separation of kL and a in the volumetric mass transfer coefcient is thus a rst step for a better understanding of the underlying phenomena. While separate determination of kL and a has been carried out by a number of authors in bubble columns [19] and air-lifts [10], problems related to reliable measurement of kL make determination in stirred tanks particularly difcult. The mass transfer lm coefcient kL is a major function of bubble rigidity. If a bubble is rigid, then kL , which will rigid be named kL in this case, is theoretically obtained by the equation proposed by Frssling [11] from laminar boundary layer theory:
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-1-8417-188; fax: +351-1-8499-242. E-mail address: salves@alfa.ist.utl.pt (S.S. Alves). 0255-2701/$ see front matter 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0255-2701(03)00100-4

kL

rigid

=c

vS D2/3 1/6 d

(1)

where d is the bubble diameter, D is the diffusivity, vS is the bubble-liquid relative velocity (slip velocity), is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid and c is a constant value of 0.6. Experimental values of c have been found to vary from 0.42 to 0.95 [12,13]. If the bubble has a mobile interface, then kL , which will be named kL mobile , is given by the penetration model solution [14]:
mobile kL = 1.13

vS D1/2 d

(2)

A considerable amount of literature data on bubble absorption in water [1524] shows that experimental kL falls between the limits dened by Eqs. (1) and (2), which may differ by a factor of >5 for small bubbles. The scatter of data is attributed to different methods of bubble release, to different measurement techniques and to different system purities. The dependence of bubble rigidity on bubble size and on surface contamination has been widely recognized (e.g. Refs. [1,4,7,2527]). There is experimental evidence suggesting that bubbles may be free of surface-active impurities when they are formed, but that their behavior changes in

824

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

time as contaminants accumulate at the interface. This would explain why kL depends on time, both under uncontrolled conditions [12,16,17,2832] or controlled conditions [33,34]. Contaminants with the greatest effect on the interface mobility, thus on mass transfer, are insoluble [21]. Surface contamination is particularly consistent with the observed asymmetry of interface circulation that is implicit in Savics stagnant cap model [35,36]. According to this model, the insoluble monolayer of adsorbed surfactant is dragged by the adjacent liquid towards the bottom of the bubble, where a stagnant cap region builds up. When the amount and type of contaminant are unknown, Savics model describes a limiting case where the surface tension varies from its value for a pure system, at the bubble front, to a minimum at the rear [21]. The gradient of surface tension so generated opposes the surface ow and increases the drag, up to the point where it balances the viscous stress at the surface, leading to immobilization. This hypothesis [37] is generally accepted to explain the retardation of terminal velocity by surfactants [36]. It has also been demonstrated that the transition bubble behaviour from that of a uid sphere to that of a rigid particle is sharper for increased Reynolds number [38]. A particularly clear picture of the phenomenon started to emerge from the experiments of Schulze and Schlnder [39]. Mass transfer coefcient (kL ) was determined from the dissolution rate of free-oating bubbles held stationary in a downward water ow. A period of large initial kL was suddenly followed by a much lower kL value, consistent with Eq. (1). The time span of the initial regime was so short in Schulze and Schlnders system that it could only be detected with highly soluble gases. More recently, the use of a water cleaning system in a similar apparatus [40] allowed the duration of the regime of large kL to be expanded by orders of magnitude, so that it could easily be observed with air and other slowly dissolving gases. Moreover, the initial large kL value was consistent with Eq. (2), thus showing that the abrupt change to the slower mass transfer regime was connected with surface immobilization. A simple model was developed [40] based on the stagnant cap concept [37,41] to theoretically interpret contamination times for various sizes of bubbles. Larger bubbles remain mobile for a longer period, as they are slower to accumulate enough contaminant for transition to rigidity, explaining the common knowledge that larger bubbles tend to be mobile while smaller bubbles tend to be rigid [21]. The model was also used to successfully interpret experimental mass transfer data in airlift and bubble column contactors [42]. This paper is an attempt at extending the analysis to stirred tanks. kL a data from a double turbine stirred tank are combined with previous data on local bubble diameter and on local gas holdup obtained in the same apparatus [43,44] to determine experimental values of the lm coefcient kL and try to interpret these in terms of the proposed theory.

2. Model The model employs average values of bubble size, gas holdup, specic interfacial area and bubble residence time in the tank to calculate an average gas liquid lm coefcient, kL . For a population of n bubbles, kL is dened as
n kLi dt tRi N i=1

kL =

i=1

di2 (3)

di2

where tR, is the bubble residence time. This equation may be simplied if all bubbles are assumed of average size and only two possible values of kL are considered, depending on rigid surface mobility: kmobile for fully mobile bubble and kL L for a rigid bubble of the given average diameter. Eq. (3) then becomes: kmobile t mobile + kL kL = L tR
rigid

(tR t mobile )

(4)

where tmobile stands for the time span where bubbles behave like mobile uid particles. kmobile is given by the penetration L rigid model solution (Eq. (2)). kL is using Frsslings equation Eq. (1). The average bubble residence time, tR , in Eq. (4) is calculated dividing the gas volume by the gas volumetric owrate, Q: VL tR = (5) Q (1 ) where VL is the liquid volume and is the overall gas holdup. An expression for the calculation of tmobile has been deduced [40] assuming the stagnant cap model of bubble surface contamination [36]: t mobile = k d 1/2 ln (d / htrans ) Csurf (6)

where d is the bubble average diameter, Csurf is the surfactant concentration, k is a constant of unknown value related with surfactant properties and htrans is the bubble clean segment height at the transition point from mobile to rigid. Eqs. (1)(6) constitute a model for predicting kL . Besides bubble diameter, two parameters are required: htrans , which was found earlier [40] to have a value of 6104 m and the ratio k/Csurf , which depends on experimental conditions. 3. Experimental The experimental set-up consisted of a 0.292 m diameter, at-bottomed, fully bafed Perspex vessel. Agitation was provided by two 0.096-m standard Rushton turbines set at clearances of 0.146 and 0.438 m, respectively above the tank base. The tank dimensions are shown in Fig. 1, together with the location of sampling points for local gas hold-up and

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

825

Fig. 1. Tank dimensions and location of experimental sampling points (). Distances in mm.

bubble size, data which were determined in previous work [43,44]. The liquid media used were tap water 0.3 M aqueous solution of sodium sulphate and 0.3 M aqueous solution of sodium sulphate with 20 ppm PEG (surface tension, 63 mN/m). Operation conditions are presented in Table 1. The overall volumetric mass-transfer coefcient, kL a, was measured at 25 0.5 C, using the peroxide decomposition steady-state technique with manganese dioxide as the catalyst [45]. Measurements of the dissolved oxygen concentration CL were performed using two oxygen meters, WTW Oxi340, equipped with galvanic probes WTW Cell Ox 325. The kL a value was calculated from Qperoxide kL a = (7) 2VL log C
Table 1 Experimental conditions Liquid phase Aqueous Na2 SO4 0.3 M Ref. S-N1-Q1 S-N2-Q1 S-N3-Q1 S-N4-Q1 S-N5-Q1 S-N4-Q2 PEG-N4-Q1 W-N4-Q1 N (s1 ) 4.2 5.0 7.9 7.5 10.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 Q (m3 s1 ) 0.000167 0.000167 0.000167 0.000167 0.000167 0.000333 0.000167 0.000167

Fig. 2. Local bubble size distributions for operating conditions S-N4-Q2 (see Table 1).

Aqueous Na2 SO4 0.3 M with 20 ppm PEG Water

826

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

where Qperoxide is the peroxide molar addition to the liquid volume V and log C is the logarithmic mean between the oxygen concentration in the liquid bulk, CL and the one in equilibrium with the gas. The outlet oxygen concentration in the gas phase was calculated assuming a constant volumetric gas ow across the vessel, which is accurate within 5%. kL a was determined at least twice under the same experimental conditions with a reproducibility within 20%.

4. Results and discussion Data on local gas hold-up and local average bubble diameter [43,44], obtained from bubble size distributions, as shown in Fig. 2, allow local specic areas to be determined for the tank. From local data, the average interfacial specic area may easily be calculated using a=
tank

a i Vi

(8)

Fig. 3. Local specic areas, a (m1 ), for various operating conditions (see Table 1): (a) S-N2-Q1; (b, c) two runs of S-N4-Q1; (d) S-N4-Q2; (e) PEG-N4-Q1; (f) W-N4-Q1.

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

827

Table 2 Experimental gas holdup, bubble size and volumetric mass transfer coefcient; calculated specic area and lm coefcient for various tank conditions Conditions S-N1-Q1 S-N2-Q1 S-N3-Q1 S-N4-Q1 S-N5-Q1 S-N4-Q2 PEG-N4-Q1 W-N4-Q1 0.018 0.022 0.033 0.044 0.072 0.050 0.052 0.025 d32 (m) 0.00230 0.00167 0.00152 0.00124 0.00090 0.00134 0.00121 0.00289 a (m1 ) 47 78 135 213 512 233 253 53 kL a (s1 ) 0.008 0.013 0.028 0.030 0.062 0.030 0.022 0.017 kL (ms1 ) 0.000169 0.000166 0.000207 0.000141 0.000121 0.000129 0.000087 0.000319

Conditions as explained in Table 1.

where ai are the local experimental specic areas, Vi the corresponding compartment volumes and V the tank volume. Results are shown in Fig. 3. While large specic areas near the turbines discharge are due to lower bubble diameter (see Fig. 2), in other points of the tank they result from high local gas hold-up. Table 2 brings together average tank data on gas hold-up and bubble diameter [43,44], specic area (as calculated through Eq. (8)), experimental volumetric mass transfer coefcient, kL a and lm coefcient given by the ratio kL a/a. The resulting kL values are plotted against bubble diameter in Fig. 4. These results have an estimated random error of 30%. Theoretical values obtained from Higbies Eq. (2) for bubbles with mobile surface and from Frosslings Eq. (1) for rigid bubbles are also presented in Fig. 4. These depend upon gasliquid slip velocity, which, apart from the turbines discharge jet, may be assumed to be a rise velocity. For the relatively low gas holdups at play, rise velocities are close to single bubble terminal velocities, which, both for rigid and for mobile bubbles rising in still water, may be estimated using correlations of experimental data, given in Clift et al. [21]. It is however known that turbulence considerably reduces bubble mean rise velocity, up to 50% [46,47]. A correction for turbulence was introduced by a factor assumed equal for bubbles with both rigid and mobile surface. This factor was adjusted by noticing that bubbles in 20 ppm PEG solution are mostly rigid due to the relatively high concentration of contaminant, as observed in [42]. Their value of kL should therefore fall on the Frssling line. This was achieved by a 35% reduction on rise velocities, as calculated from terminal velocities. Simulated kL , calculated by applying the simple model described in Section 2, is also superimposed on Fig. 4. While the previously determined value of 6104 m was used for parameter htrans [40], parameter k/Csurf is expected to vary with the liquid medium, since both the contaminant and its concentration are probably different, thus affecting k and Csurf . Bubbles in tap water are the closest to Higbies line, since the water is relatively clean and the bubbles are relatively large. Bubbles in salt solution (non-coalescing medium), but

Fig. 4. Liquid lm mass transfer coefcient versus average bubble diameter. , Salt solution; , water; , PEG solution; - - -, simulated kL .

without PEG addition, behave in a manner that is intermediate between that of bubbles in tap water and in PEG solution. This is because they are of intermediate size, but also because the liquid medium has intermediate contaminant concentration. Preparation of the salt solution with technical sodium sulphate is likely to have introduced a level of contaminant higher than what existed in the tap water. This explains why parameter k/Csurf that ts the data for salt solution is approximately half of that which ts tap water. If the contaminant were similar, this would mean contaminant concentration in the salt solution about double of that in tap water. PEG (20 ppm), on the other hand, is certainly a higher concentration than the trace levels of surfactant present either in tap water or in salt solution. It causes bubbles to rigidify very quickly after formation. In previous work carried out both in airlifts and in a bubble column, with considerably larger bubbles and lower overall residence times, antifoam concentrations >10 ppm invariably led to rigid bubble values of kL [42]. The effect of bubble size on kL which is apparent in the simulation curves is also clear from the salt solution experimental points. It is due to the fact that larger bubbles take longer to rigidify. Thus, they tend to move away

828

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

5. Conclusions Experimental data on the average mass transfer liquid lm coefcient, kL , in an aerated stirred tank range from those mobile , to those expected for bubbles with a mobile surface, kL rigid expected for rigid bubbles, kL ,which are much lower. Bubbles in PEG solution behave as rigid bubbles, while bubbles in tap water behave closer to having a mobile interface. Bubbles in salt solution have intermediate values of kL . For the same liquid medium (salt solution) smaller bubrigid bles result in lower values of kL , closer tokL . These data can be quantitatively interpreted in terms of bubble contamination kinetics, using a stagnant cap model, according to which bubbles suddenly change from a mobile interface to a rigid condition when surface tension gradients caused by surfactant accumulation balance out shear stress. Appendix A. Nomenclature a c C d, d32 D htrans k kL kL a n N Q Qperoxide t tR V specic interfacial area based on the liquid volume (m1 ) constant in Eq. (1) concentration (mol m3 ) bubble diameter, Sauter mean diameter (m) gas diffusivity in the liquid (m2 s1 ) height of the clean segment at the bubble front (m) constant in Eq. (6) (mole m7/2 s) liquid-side mass transfer coefcient (m s1 ) volumetric mass transfer coefcient referred to the liquid volume (s1 ) number of bubbles agitation rate (s1 ) gassing rate (m3 s1 ) peroxide solution addition ow rate (mol s1 ) time (s) residence time (s) volume (m3 )

Fig. 5. Fraction of bubbles with mobile interface versus average bubble diameter.

from Frsslings line, while smaller bubbles spend a greater fraction of their residence time in the rigid regime, thus approaching it. The estimated fraction of bubbles in the tank that are mobile, x = tmobile /tR , is presented in Fig. 5. The above theory may be used to estimate average values of kL for each of the two halves of the tank, assuming that there is no bubble recirculation from the top to the bottom half of the tank and that the air/liquid interface lose no contaminant in the top turbine. kL calculation for each half of the tank follows the same steps as for the whole tank, only using local average values of bubble size and gas holdup for the two halves of the tank, obtained from data in previous work [43,44]. Results are presented in Table 3. What they indicate is rather surprising, namely, that the volumetric mass transfer coefcient for the salt solution is signicantly higher in the bottom half of the tank, in spite of the lower specic transfer area in that region. This is because the lm coefcient is much higher in the bottom half, since the fraction of clean bubbles is much larger there. There are very few experimental data to assess these simulated results. While they appear to agree with the experimental results by Moucha et al. [48], they disagree with results by Alves and Vasconcelos [49] and Linek et al. [50].

Table 3 Experimental gas holdup and bubble size; calculated specic area; simulated fraction of clean bubbles, lm coefcient and volumetric mass transfer coefcient for top and bottom halves of the tank for various tank conditions Conditions S-N2-Q1 S-N4-Q1 S-N4-Q2 PEG-N4-Q1 Location Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom 0.031 0.013 0.053 0.033 0.069 0.035 0.060 0.039 d32 (m) 0.00167 0.00164 0.00122 0.00128 0.00144 0.00120 0.00125 0.00116 a (m1 ) 110 46 269 157 285 175 307 198 x 0 0.62 0 0.73 0 0.67 0 0 KL (ms1 ) 0.000078 0.000401 0.000085 0.000198 0.000082 0.000291 0.000084 0.000086 kL a (s1 ) 0.0085 0.0184 0.0229 0.0310 0.0233 0.0509 0.0259 0.0170

Conditions as explained in Table 1.

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830

829

vS x

slip velocity (m s1 ) fraction of bubbles with mobile interface

Greek symbol overall fractional gas holdup Superscripts and subscripts i refers to zone i in the tank or to an individual bubble L liquid mobile mobile interface rigid rigid interface surf surfactant

References
[1] W.W. Eckenfelder, E.L. Barnhart, The effect of organic substances on the transfer of oxygen from air bubbles to water, AIChE J. 7 (1961) 631634. [2] K. Akita, F. Yoshida, Bubble size, interfacial area, and liquid-phase mass transfer coefcient in bubble columns, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. 13 (1974) 8491. [3] D.N. Miller, Interfacial area, bubble coalescence and mass transfer in bubble column reactors, AIChE J. 29 (1983) 312319. [4] J.J. Jeng, J.R. Maa, Y.M. Yang, Surface effects and mass transfer in bubble column, Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev. 25 (1986) 974978. [5] M.H.I. Baird, N.V.R. Rao, Characteristics of a countercurrent reciprocating plate bubble column. II. Axial mixing and mass transfer, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 66 (1988) 222231. [6] T. Miyahara, M. Kurihara, M. Asoda, T. Takahashi, Gas-liquid interfacial area and liquid-phase mass transfer coefcient in sieve plate columns without downcomer operating at high gas velocities, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 23 (1990) 280285. [7] F. Kawase, M. Moo-Young, The effect of antifoam agents on mass transfer in bioreactors, Bioproc. Eng. 5 (1990) 169173. [8] A. Cockx, M. Roustan, A. Line, G. Hebrard, Modelling of mass transfer coefcient KL in bubble columns, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 73A (1995) 627631. [9] M. Bouai, G. Hebrard, D. Bastoul, M. Roustan, A comparative study of gas hold-up, bubble size, interfacial area and mass transfer coefcients in gas-liquid reactors and bubble columns, Chem. Eng. Proc. 40 (2001) 97111. [10] M.Y. Chisti, M. Moo-Young, Airlift reactors: characteristics, applications and design considerations, Chem. Eng. Commun. 60 (1987) 195242. [11] N. Frssling, bber die verdnstung fallenden tropfen (Evaporation of falling drops), Gerlands Beitage Geophys. 52 (1938) 170216. [12] R.M. Grifth, Mass transfer from drops and bubbles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 12 (1960) 198213. [13] A.C. Lochiel, P.H. Calderbank, Mass transfer in the continuous phase around axisymmetric bodies of revolution, Chem. Eng. Sci. 19 (1964) 471484. [14] R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart, E.N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, Wiley, New York, 1960, pp. 537542. [15] P.H. Calderbank, M.B. Moo-Young, The continuous phase heat and mass-transfer properties of dispersions, Chem. Eng. Sci. 16 (1961) 3954. [16] F.H. Deindoerfer, A.E. Humphrey, Mass transfer from individual gas bubbles, Ind. Eng. Chem. 53 (1961) 755759.

[17] P.H. Calderbank, A.C. Lochiel, Mass transfer coefcients, velocities and shapes of carbon dioxide bubbles in free rise through distilled water, Chem. Eng. Sci. 19 (1964) 485503. [18] P.H. Calderbank, Gas absorption from bubbles, The Chemical Engineer (1967) October, CE209CE233. [19] S.A. Zieminski, D.R. Raymond, Experimental study of the behavior of single bubbles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 23 (1968) 1728. [20] D.R. Raymond, S.A. Zieminski, Mass transfer and drag coefcients of bubbles rising in dilute aqueous solutions, AIChE J. 17 (1971) 5765. [21] R. Clift, J.R. Grace, M.E. Weber, Bubbles, Drops, and Particles, Academic Press, London, 1978, pp. 3541 (pp. 125137 and 169199). [22] M. Motarjemi, G.J. Jameson, Mass transfer from very small bubblesthe optimum bubble size for aeration, Chem. Eng. Sci. 33 (1978) 14151423. [23] J.H. Hills, C.J. Abbott, L.J. Westall, A simple apparatus for the measurement of mass transfer from gas bubbles to liquids, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 60 (1982) 369372. [24] F. Kawase, M. Moo-Young, Correlations for liquid-phase mass transfer coefcients in bubble column reactors with Newtonian and non-Newtonian uids, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 70 (1992) 4854. [25] K. Koide, S. Yamazoe, S. Harada, Effects of surface active substances on gas holdup and gas liquid mass transfer in bubble column, J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 18 (1985) 287292. [26] F. Kudrewizki, P. Rabe, Hydrodynamics and gas absorption in gassed stirred tanks in presence of tensids, Chem. Eng. Sci. 42 (1987) 19391944. [27] A. Moro, C.I. Maia, M.M.R. Fonseca, J.M.T. Vasconcelos, S.S. Alves, Effect of antifoam addition on gasliquid mass transfer in stirred fermenters, Bioproc. Eng. 20 (1999) 165172. [28] M.H.I. Baird, J.F. Davidson, Gas absorption by large rising bubbles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 17 (1962) 8793. [29] J.H. Leonard, G. Houghton, Mass transfer and velocity of rise phenomena for single bubbles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 18 (1963) 133142. [30] J.H. Hills, C.J. Abbott, L.J. Westall, A simple apparatus for the measurement of mass transfer from gas bubbles to liquids, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 60 (1982) 369372. [31] A. Brankovic, I.G. Curie, W.W. Martin, Laser-Doppler measurements of bubble dynamics, Phys. Fluids 27 (1984) 348355. [32] F. Bischof, M. Sommerfeld, F. Durst, The determination of mass transfer rates from individual small bubbles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 46 (1991) 31153121. [33] K. Koide, Y. Orito, Y. Hara, Mass transfer from single bubbles in Newtonian liquids, Chem. Eng. Sci. 29 (1974) 417425. [34] K. Koide, T. Hayashi, K. Sumino, S. Iwamoto, Mass transfer from single bubbles in aqueous solutions of surfactants, Chem. Eng. Sci. 31 (1976) 963967. [35] P. Savic, Circulation and distortion of liquid drops falling through a viscous medium, National Research Council of Canada, Rep. No. MT-22, 1953, (cited in Ref. 36). [36] R.M. Grifth, The effect of surfactants on the terminal velocity of drops and bubbles, Chem. Eng. Sci. 17 (1962) 10571070. [37] A. Frumkin, V.G. Levich, On surfactants and interfacial motion (in Russian), Zh. Fizichesk. Khimii 21 (1947) 11831204. [38] F. Takemura, A. Yabe, Rising speed and dissolution rate of a carbon dioxide bubble in slightly contaminated water, J. Fluid Mech. 378 (1999) 319334. [39] G. Schulze, E.U. Schlnder, Physical absorption of single gas bubbles in degassed and preloaded water, Chem. Eng. Proc. 19 (1985) 2737. [40] J.M.T. Vasconcelos, S.C.P. Orvalho, S.S. Alves, Gas-liquid mass transfer to single bubbles: effect of surface contamination, AIChE J. 48 (2002) 11451154. [41] I.E. Scriven, Dynamics of a uid interface. Equation of motion for Newtonian surface uids, Chem. Eng. Sci. 12 (1960) 98108. [42] J.M.T. Vasconcelos, J.M.L. Rodrigues, S.C.P. Orvalho, S.S. Alves, R.I. Mendes, A. Reis, Effect of contaminants on mass transfer co-

830

S.S. Alves et al. / Chemical Engineering and Processing 43 (2004) 823830 efcients in bubble column and airlift contactors, Chem. Eng. Sci. 58 (2003) 14311440. S.S. Alves, C.I. Maia, J.M.T. Vasconcelos, Experimental and modelling study of gas dispersion in a double turbine stirred tank, Chem. Eng. Sci. 57 (2002) 487496. S.S. Alves, C.I. Maia, J.M.T. Vasconcelos, A.J. Serralheiro, Bubble size in aerated stirred tanks, Chem. Eng. J. 89 (2002) 109117. J.M.T. Vasconcelos, A.W. Nienow, T. Martin, S.S. Alves, C.M. McFarlane, Alternative ways of applying the hydrogen peroxide steady-state method of kL a measurement, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. Part A 75 (1997) 467472. P.D.M. Spelt, A. Biesheuvel, On the motion of bubbles in homogeneous isotropic turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 336 (1997) 221244. [47] R.E.G. Poorte, A. Biesheuvel, Experiments on the motion of gas bubbles in turbulence generated by an active grid, J. Fluid Mech. 461 (2002) 127154. [48] T. Moucha, V. Linek, J. Sinkule, Measurement of kL a in multiple-impeller vessels with signicant axial dispersion in both phases, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. Part A 73 (1995) 286290. [49] S.S. Alves, J.M.T. Vasconcelos, Mixing and oxygen transfer in aerated tanks agitated by multiple impellers, in: Bioreactor and Bioprocess Fluid Dynamics, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London, 1993, pp. 314 (Third International Conference). [50] V. Linek, T. Moucha, J. Sinkule, Gas-liquid mass transfer in vessels stirred with multiple-impellersI. Gasliquid mass transfer characteristics in individual stages, Chem. Eng. Sci. 51 (1996) 32033212.

[43]

[44] [45]

[46]