P ,'gamo.

0043-1354(94)00253-3
Wat. Res. Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 1129-1138, 1995
Copyright 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0043-1354/95 $9.50 + 0.00
MASS TRANSFER IN BUBBLE COLUMNS: A
COMPARISON OF CORRELATIONS
J. DUDLEY@
WRc, Frankland Road, Swindon SN5 8YF, England
(First received December 1993; accepted in revised form September 1994)
Abstract--Several correlations were evaluated for predicting the gas hold-up and oxygen mass transfer
coefficient in bubble columns. A recent hold-up correlation was greatly superior to the others used in this
study. Only one of the mass transfer coefficient correlations included the effect of the sparger area in
relationship to the total surface area, yet it was found that this relationship did have a significant effect
on the measured mass transfer coefficients. Most of the mass-transfer correlations therefore required a
correction factor. As with gas hold-up it was a recent correlation, based in part on theoretical principles,
that gave the best results. This study also developed a new correlation for the depression to be expected
from detergents on the mass transfer coefficient.
Key words--bubble column, hold-up, mass-transfer, alpha-factor, Kea
NOMENCLATURE
a = gas-liquid interracial area (m2/m 3)
B = bubble column diameter (m)
B 0 = Bond number = pLgd~/~
D L = diffusivity of gas in liquid (m2/s)
d b = Sauter mean bubble size diameter (m)
F = diffuser diameter (m)
Fr = Froude number = V6/ ( ~b)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s 2)
H = liquid depth (m)
K L = specific mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
KLa = mass transfer coefficient (l/s)
P~ = pressure at diffuser orifice (Pa)
Pc = gassed power input (W)
P~ = pressure at liquid surface (Pa)
QG = gas flowrate at standard temperature and pressure
(m3/s)
SAA = surface active agent concentration as Manoxol OT
equivalent (kg/m 3)
Sc = Schmidt number = #L/PL DL)
T = temperature (C)
Vb = bubble free rise velocity (m/s)
V 6 = superficial gas velocity (m/s)
lie = [in equation (1)] liquid volume (m 3)
V t = superficial liquid velocity (m/s)
Greek symbols
= ratio of mass transfer coefficient in liquid to that in
tap water
E G = gas hold-up, dimensionless fraction
i' = surface active agent concentration on bubble surface
/~L = liquid viscosity (Pa s)
PG = gas density (kg/m 3)
PL = liquid density (kg/m 3)
a = gas-liquid surface tension (N/m)
I NTRODUCTI ON
When designing aerat i on systems it is frequently
necessary to be able to calculate the mass t ransfer
coefficient, KLa. Many correl at i ons are available for
these calculations, but with no guidance as to which
correl at i on shoul d be used. The purpose of this study
was to evaluate a range of such correl at i ons to
det ermi ne the preferred one. Many of these corre-
lations requi red the calculation of gas bubbl e di am-
eters and gas hol d-up. These were again calculated
using correlations, and the study was t herefore
wi dened to include an eval uat i on of gas hol d-up
correlations. All these correl at i ons assume t ap wat er
(or comparabl e "cl ean fluids"), yet oxygen mass
t ransfer is rarely required under these condi t i ons.
As an example, in the activated sludge process
there are frequently traces of detergents. While it is
known t hat these det ergent s will depress the mass
t ransfer coefficient, there has been no met hod to
relate det ergent concent rat i on to the expect ed de-
pression. This study t herefore devel oped such a corre-
lation.
Many activated sludge model s require the use of
KLa values. For many designers convert i ng the aera-
tion requi rement s predi ct ed by the model , as a range
of Kt a values, is probl emat i c. The correl at i ons in this
work allow this probl em to be tackled. They also
allow the effect of det ergent s in sewage on KLa to be
estimated. The results of this study are i nt ended to be
included in the activated sludge model in WRc' s
sewage works model STOAT.
CORRELATI ONS FOR HOLD- UP AND MASS TRANSFER
The correl at i ons used in this eval uat i on for gas
hol d-up are given in Table l, and for mass t ransfer
in Table 2. These correl at i ons requi red the bubble size
1129
1130
J. Dudl e y
Table 1. Correlations for gas hold-up
Name Correlation Reference
Vc Joshi and Sharma (1979)
Joshi ~c 0. 3+ 2. V G
Vc
Koide E G Joshi and Shah (1981)
31 +fl -(1 - e)' ~f~G
/~ = 4.5 -- 3.5" exp(--0. 064 B "3)
e = - 0 . 1 8 - v' J / f l
Lockett VG' (I - - eG) + V L ' G = Vb' ~G' (1 --EG)239( 1 +2. 55" e ~) Lockett and Ki rkpat ri ck (1975)
Schugerl E G = 0.91 - V ~ ' 9 / g ~ / ~ b Winkler (1981)
Kul karni I / 6+ V L 3. V b. (1 --~G)/(l _ ~3) Kulkarni e t a L (1987)
E G 1 - ~c I + (2 + 3. T//ZL)(I -- 0. 628/ , , / ~)
Re = PL" Vb" db/~tL
Table 2. Mass Transfer Coefficients
Name Correlation Reference
Khudenko K L a = 0.041 ' ct - d~ ] \ B ] \ ~- ] Khudenko and Shpirt (1986)
Ozt urk Sh = 0. 62. Sc 5. Bo 33. Fr 68" ( PG ~0.o4
- - Ozt urk e t a l . (1987)
\ P I . /
Higbie K L = 2. DN/n~ t Motarj emi and Jameson (1978)
t =d b ' Ec / V~
Cal derbank K L Sc 5 = 0. 42. (/z L . g / P t . ) Motarj emi and Jameson (1978)
Kawase K L =2. J Dt - ~ Kawase e t a L (1987)
t 3.
D
" 0
r-4
0
t -
t -
O)
0
" 3
X10-1
0 , 5 0
0 , 4 0
0 . 3 0 , . , , a ~ . , . ,
0 . 2 0 _ -
A,,
0 , 1 0 .
0 , 0 0
0 , 0 0 0' , 10 0' , 40 0 , 5 0 0' , 20 0' , 30
E x p e r i me n t a l h o l d u p
X10-1
Fi g. I . Hol d- up: exper i ment al da t a vs t he Joshi cor r el at i on.
K L a correlations 1131
O.
~D
r-4
0
t-
O
XIO-1
0. 50
0.40.
~j -~. ~ . ~ -
/X A
0. 30 ~ ' ~ ~4a ~'~ /'
0. 20.
0 . I 0 .
0. 00,
0 00 0. 10 0.40 0. 20 0. 30
XI 0 - I
Expenimental holdup
0, 50
Fig. 2. Hold-up: experimental data vs the Koide correlation.
diameter, which was calculated using the Caiderbank
correlation (Joshi and Sharma, 1979)
0.0.6
a~=4.15- ~ + 9 . lO-'. (1)
i , ' , , I
This correlation was developed for a 6-bladed disk
turbine in a baffled tank, but has been recommended
by Joshi and Sharma (1979) for diffused air systems.
One other bubble size correlation was studied, devel-
oped by Keil and Russell (1987) for activated sludge-
type systems. Keil' s correlation was found to predict
much larger bubble sizes than were observed in this
work. The bubble sizes predicted by Cal derbank' s
correlation did match visual estimates of the bubble
sizes in this work.
X10-1
0. 60
0. 50.
0.40.
C~
"m
o 0 . 3 0
c "
4-, I
4.a
d
o2o
J
0.10J
0. 00
, 0 0
zx AZ~
/x tx &
zxzx ~
i
0'. I 0 0'. 20 0'. 30 0 . 4 0 0 ' . 5 0 0 6 0
10- I
Experimenta2 holdup
Fig. 3. Hold-up: experimental data vs the Lockett correlation.
1132 J. Dudley
n
O
C-
C-
CJ
c"
U
O3
X10-1
0. 50
0 ,~0.
0. 30.
0, 20.
0. 10.
0, 00
0. 00
,x A
0', 10 0'.20 0'.30 0'.40 0. 50
X10-1
Expepi ment a] hol dup
F i g . 4 . Hold-up: experimental data vs the Schuger I correlation.
The gas power input is given by
Pc = Qc' P," In P".
P,
The gas-liquid interfacial area by
6.E6
O=
du
and the free-rise velocity of a bubble by (Winkler,
1981)
(2) [ 2. t r
Vb = 4P--~b + 0.5 "g" db. (4)
Many of these correlations were taken from sec-
(3) ondary sources recommending their general appli-
cation, principally because of the theoretical support
cx
13
O
c-
O
c_
0
2L
3
XI0-1
0. 50
Z ~ ~ z~A
0.40.
0.30_ J ~
0, 20 . ~ ~
0.10_
A A
0. 00
0 O0 0'.10 0'.20 0'.30 0'.40 0
X10-1
Exper i ment al hol dup
F i g . 5. Hold-up: experimental data vs the Kulkarni correlation.
50
KLa correlations 1133
to
o
C
'13
r "
120
1 0 0 .
80.
60.
40.
20.
A Z~
o ~ o 4 0 ~ o ~ o ' 100
Experimental Kla
Fig. 6. KLa correlation: Khudenko vs experimental.
20
behind the correlations. Khudenko and Shpirt (1986)
developed their correlation purely from non-di men-
sional analysis, and fitted parameters to their model
from small-scale experiments; as with the other corre-
lations there were no effective limits placed on the
resulting application. Because of this all the
correlations have been tested as if they would be
applicable over the range of conditions developed
within the test equipment. All the KL and KL a corre-
lations were developed around oxygen in clean water,
with no ment i on of ionic effects. Khudenko and
Shpirt' s correlation is the exception here, where the
alpha-factor is explicitly included in the correlation.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A column 200 mm i.d. by 4 m depth was used to represent
a vertical slice of an activated sludge tank. The column was
120
I00.
80.
t o
x 60.
4-~
20.
0
0
t ,
/ -
~o 4o so ~o ioo
Experimental K l a
Fig. 7. KLa correlation: Ozturk vs experimental data.
20
1134 J. Dudley
r o
r - I
v
-,,-,I
gO,
80
70
60.
50
40
30
20
10_
0
0
A
i o ~ o ~ o 4 0 ~ o ~ o # o ~ o 9 0
Exper i ment al Kl a
Fig. 8. KLa correlations: Higbie vs experimental.
chosen to have a depth comparable to activated sludge
tanks and to represent the pitch around a single
diffuser. This column size has been used previously
(Doyle et aL, 1983) to minimise scale effects on the measured
hold-up. Two diffusers were used, one I00 mm diameter,
the other 50 mm. Liquid levels in the column could be
varied and liquid depths of 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m were used
for the trials. For the hold-up experiments working
fluids were t ap water, settled sewage and mixed liquor
from a batch activated sludge tank. The mass transfer
experiments used tap water and tap water spiked with
detergent.
For the hold-up tests the column was filled to 1.5, 2.5 or
3.5 m and aeration started, recording the gas flow. A tap was
opened at the liquid level, and aeration forced excess liquid
out of the column. This liquid was collected and the volume
measured, from which the air volume and the hold-up could
be calculated. The gas flowrates used were chosen to main-
tain the same diffuser loadings as would be found with these
diffusers in an activated sludge plant. The air flows used
were therefore 2-5 l/min with the 50mm diffuser and
5-201/min for the 100 mm diffuser. Flowrate was measured
in a rotameter, and corrections to the rotameter reading
were made for the gas pressure.
100
80_
m 60_
r - i
v
v
t-,"
r D
40_
O3
" 13
I ' D
20.
0
0
A A
&
5o 4o 6o @o
Exper i ment al Kl a
Fig. 9. KLa correlation: Calderbank vs experimental.
00
KL a correlations
1135
The mass transfer experiments used the same apparatus.
Water was de-oxygenated by stripping with nitrogen, with
a rapid switchover after de-oxygenation from the nitrogen
stream to an air stream. This is the procedure recommended
by Spriet and Botterman (1984).
De-oxygenation continued until the dissolved oxygen
level was in the range 0.05~).5 mg/1. Then a step change
in the gas oxygen concentration was made as air was
injected. The dissolved oxygen levels were measured at
intervals of 30 s initially, increasing as the rate of increase
of dissolved oxygen concentration decreased. This is
the procedure recommended by Brown (1979). When
substantially constant dissolved oxygen levels were
reached the column was again stripped of oxygen using
nitrogen, and another experiment begun at a different
flowrate.
Corrections to the equilibrium dissolved oxygen concen-
trations for depth were made, using the approach of Lister
and Boon (1973). The dynamics of the dissolved-oxygen
probe, a pHOX probe, was modelled as a first-order lag
(Dunn and Einsele, 1975). Other approaches are to use a
second-order lag (Shioya and Dunn, 1979) or a detailed
representation of the chemical reactions taking place within
the probe 1 (Linek et al., 1987). The measured mass transfer
coefficients were corrected to 20C using the water-industry
standard approach (Brown, 1979) of
KLaT = KLa20 C' 1.024r-m- (5)
The calculation procedure used with the correlations is
described in Appendix A.
COMPARISONS OF CORRELATIONS
The correlations were compared by plotting
the measured and predicted gas hol d-up and
oxygen mass transfer coefficients against each
other. These graphs are given as Figs 1-10. The
following discussion of correlations is based on the
system:
Correl at i on for dp
Correl at i on for Vb
Correl at i on for E G
Correl at i on for Kt a.
Therefore the discussion is not of the adequacy of the
correlations when provided with dat a on gas hol dup
or bubbl e diameter, but with the ensemble of
correlations for design use.
Gas hold-up
Visual exami nat i on readily shows that the
Kui karni correlation was a better fit to the dat a t han
the compet i ng hol d-up correlations. The simple Joshi
correlation provides a good first approxi mat i on, and
does not need the iterative solution met hods required
by Kul karni ' s correlation.
The different fluids and diffuser diameters did not
affect the gas hold-up. Kul karni ' s correlation predicts
t hat there will be a difference between different fluids,
dependent on the value of the surface-active agent
parameter, 7- But this difference onl y reaches the
measurement accuracy levels in this study for gas
hold-ups above 8%; below this, ~, can be set to zero
and the hold-ups used for all water mixtures; tap,
sewage or activated sludge.
Oxygen mass-transfer coefficient
The mass transfer coefficients were first examined
(Box et al., 1978) for the effect of diffuser diameter,
water depth, probe location and gas flowrate. Fr om
this analysis the probe location was not significant at
the 5% significance level, while the other factors were
all significant beyond the 0.5% level. Average values
for mass-transfer coefficients were therefore taken
for each set of flowrate, water depth and diffuser
combi nat i on.
120
100.
80.
r o
, . - i
60.
40,
20.
0
0 20 40 60 80 1 O0 120
Expenimental Kla
Fig. 10. Kta correlation: Kawase vs experimental.
1136
J. Dudley
The comparison between measured and predicted
mass-transfer coefficients is given in Figs 6-10.
Most of the correlations had to be corrected for
the effect of the diffuser diameter. That diffuser
density affects the measured KLa value has been
recognised by Khudenko and Shpirt (1987) and
by one of the reviewers of this paper. The effect
of diffuser density is the resulting plume width of
the air: the greater the plume width, the greater
the mixing within the aerated volume and the
greater the turbulence, factors that lead to higher
mass transfer coefficient. Ratios of 8F/B for
Khudenko and Ozturk, and 4F/B for Higbie and
Calderbank were used. Thus the predicted KLa
from these correlations was multiplied by 8F/B
or 4F/B to obtain revised KLa predictions. For
the 50 mm diffuser this meant that the correction
factor was 1.0 for Higbie' s and Cal derbank' s
correlations. Kawase' s correlation was not adj usted.
With this correction Cal derbank' s correlation was
the best (most of the predicted values lying within
the _+ 10% lines marked on Fig. 9), followed by
Higbie. The Kawase correlation did not require a
correction factor but still produced a reasonable
agreement with the experimental data. There is
nothing apparent in Kawase' s correlation to
explain why it did not require a correction factor for
diffuser density, other than that at low KLa values
(less than 10/h) it has a greater spread than the
(corrected) predictions from the other correlations.
Because it has been developed from a theoretical
analysis, and because it did not require a correction
factor it is the correlation recommended for general
us e .
ALPHA- FACTOR C O R R E L A T I O N
A l p h a - v a l u e s , t h e r a t i o o f t h e o x y g e n t r a n s f e r
coefficient in a t e s t l i q u i d t o t h a t in t a p w a t e r , w e r e
also measured in our apparatus. For these tests we
used a constant liquid dept h- - 3. 5m- - and fixed
diffuser di amet er--50 mm. KL a values for water were
calculated using the corrected Calderbank
correlation.
The effect of surfactants on KLa is three-fold. The
first effect is to reduce the gas-liquid surface tension,
so' that the bubble sizes are smaller for a given
aeration power. This results in an increased specific
area for mass transfer, a. The second effect is that
generally the diffusivity of oxygen through the surfac-
tant layer around the air bubbles is less than that in
water, so that the mass transfer coefficient g L is lower
than in clean water. The third effect is that the
surfactant can make the bubble surface more rigid,
which further reduces the KL values. There is then an
interplay between bubble size, mass transfer and
changes in flow regimes caused by the smaller and
more rigid bubbles (Andrews et al., 1988). The net
effect on KLa is usually, for diffused aeration systems,
to reduce the Kta value.
The alpha-factor was correlated using the equation
ot = b o+ b 2e x p( - b 3' SAA. E G" h
\ a v o /
( SAA. %- h) (6)
+ b 3 exp - b 4 a V o
with the constraint b 0 + b I + b 3 = 1. This constraint
ensures that in the absence of any surface-active agent
(SAA = 0.0) the alpha-factor is 1.0.
0 . 8 0
tO
f-
C ~
(u
4 J
r-
ID
E
L.
c'3
X
hi
0 . 7 0
0 . 6 0
0 . 5 0
0 . 4 0
0 . 3 0
0 . 3 0
A
A
A
0 .~rO
A
A
a ,
Cornel at i on alpha
Fig. 11. Alpha correlation: experimental data compared with the correlation.
. 5 0 0 . 8 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 8 0
AA
Parameter
r
b0
bl
b2
b3
b4
KL a correlations
Table 3. Alpha-factor correlation parameter values
Change in sum-of-squares for change in parameter (%)
Value -20 - 10 + 10 +20
0.111 +30 +8 +10 +35
0.362 +2 -0.3 +3 +8
6.54 + 17 +4 +2 +8
0.527 +544 +133 +143 +563
0.0726 + 32 + 8 + 6 + 24
1137
The correl at i on is based on the expect at i on that the
al pha factor is affected mainly by the surfactant
concent rat i on on the surface, SAA/ a, and the bubble
residence time, Ec h / V c . Wi t h this form the alpha
factor decreases with increasing surfactant concen-
tration, and with decreasing flowrate: the observed
behavi our.
This equat i on was fitted to our dat a using a
nonl i near least squares algorithm. The resulting cor-
relation is shown in Fig. 11, and the paramet er values
are given in Table 3. Fr om this analysis the model is
insensitive to the value for bj and fairly insensitive to
the value for b2, implying that these do not add much
to the performance of the correlation. The calculated
values are significantly affected by the values for the
ot her parameters. The correl at i on was eval uat ed with
only three paramet ers but the performance was sig-
nificantly worse (setting b t to 0 increased the sum of
squares by 120%). Addi ng an additional exponent i al
term to the correl at i on did not statistically i mprove
the predictions.
CONCLUSI ONS
1. Gas hol d-up is a function of superficial velocity
with a weak effect of depth. There are no
effects from the diffuser size or additives to
the liquid, at least up to gas hold-ups of around
8%.
2. Hol d- up can be adequat el y correlated by
the Kul karni correl at i on in conj unct i on with
correlations for the bubble di amet er and rise
velocity.
3. The mass transfer coefficient, KLa, is a function
of depth, superficial gas velocity and also the
effective gassed area.
4. Cal derbank' s correl at i on with a correct i on for
the gassed area can adequat el y correlate the
mass transfer coefficient.
5. Kawase' s mass transfer coefficient correl at i on
supplies a reasonable correl at i on of the
observed coefficient wi t hout needing a correc-
tion for the gassed area.
6. Correl at i ons based on theoretical support have
performed better in this compari son t han those
devel oped by curve-fitting.
7. The al pha-fact or is a function of gas velocity
and surfactant concentration.
8. Equat i on (6) can correlate the alpha factor, with
the correct behavi our for zero surfactant con-
centration. This correl at i on has been devel oped
for a specific system, and the paramet er values
should where possible be confirmed for ot her
systems.
Acknowl edgement s--The author would like to thank WRc
plc for permission to publish this paper and the reviewers for
their helpful comments.
REFERENCES
Andrew G. F., Fike R. F. and Wong S. (1988) Bubble
hydrodynamics and mass transfer at high Reynolds num-
ber and surfactant concentration. Chem. Engng Sci. 47,
1467-1477.
Box G. E. P., Hunter W. G. and Hunter J. S. (1978)
Statistics f or Experimenters, pp. 503-504. Wiley, New
York.
Brown L. B. (1979) Oxygen transfer parameter estimation.
In Proc. Workshop toward an oxygen transfer standard,
EPA/600/9-78/021, pp. 27-40. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Doyle M. I., Boyle W. C., Rooney T. and Huibregate G. L.
(1983) Pilot plant determination of oxygen transfer in fine
bubble aeration. J. WPCF 55, 1435-1440.
Dunn I. J. and Einsele A. (1975) Oxygen transfer coefficients
by the dynamic method. J. AppL Chem. Biotech. 2 5 ,
707-720.
Joshi J. B. and Shah Y. T. (1981) Hydrodynamic and mixing
models for bubble column reactors Chem. Engng. Com-
mun. 11, 165-199.
Joshi J. B. and Sharma M. M. (1979) A circulation model
for bubble columns. Trans. Inst., Chem Engrs 57,
244-251.
Kawase Y., Halard B. and Moo-Young M. (1987) Theoreti-
cal prediction of volumetric mass transfer coefficients in
bubble columns for Newtonian and non-Newtonian
fluids. Chem. Engng Sci. 42, 1609-1617.
Keil Z. O. and Russell T. W. F. (1987) Design of commercial
scale gas-liquid contactors'. A. I. Ch~ E. Jl 33,
488~496.
Khudenko B, M. and Shpirt E. (1986) Hydrodynamic
parameters of diffused air systems. War. Res. 20,
905-915.
Kulkarni A., Shah Y. T. and Kelkar B. G. (1987) Gas
hold-up in bubble column with surface-active agents: A
theoretical model. A. I. Ch. E. Jl 33, 690-693.
Linek V., Vacek V. and Benes P. (1987) A critical review
and experimental verification of the correct use of
the dynamic method for the determination of oxygen
transfer in aerated agitated vessels to water, electrolyte
solutions and viscous liquids. Chem. Engng J. 34,
1 1 - 3 4 .
Lister A. R. and Boon A. G. (1973) Aeration in deep tanks:
An evaluation of a fine-bubble diffused-air system. Wat.
Pollut. Control, pp. 59ff4i05.
Lockett M. J. and Kirkpatrick R~ D. (1975) Ideal bubbly
flow and actual flow on bubble columns. Trans. Inst.
Chem. Engrs 53, 267-273.
1138 J. Dudley
Motarj emi M. J. and Jameson G. J. (1978) Mass
transfer from very small bubbles--the optimum
bubble size for aeration. Chem. Engng. Sci . 33,
1415-1423.
Ozturk S. S., Schumpe A. and Deckwer A.-D.
(1987) Organic liquids in a bubble column: hold-ups
and mass transfer coefficients..4. L Ch. E. Jl 33,
1473-1489.
Shioya S. and Dunn I. J. (1979) Model comparisons for
dynamic KLa measurements with incompletely mixed
phases. Chem. Engng Commun. 3, 41-52.
Spriet J. A. and Botterman J. H. (1984) Correction factors
for the dynamic measurement of the volumetric mass-
transfer coefficient. J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 34A,
137-153.
Winkler M. (1981) Biological Treatment of Waste-
Water, Ist edn, pp. 55, 56, 66. Elliss Horwood,
Chichester.
APPENDIX A
The calculation procedure adopted was, given the air
flowrate:
I. Calculate V~.
2. Using equation (2), calculate PG,
3. Calculate the gas hold-up using Joshi' s correlation in
Table 1 (or Koide--the other correlations will be
addressed at point 7).
4. Calculate the bubble diameter from equation (1).
5. Calculate the specific surface area from equation (3).
6. Calculate the rise velocity from equation (4).
7. For gas hold-up equations other than Joshi' s or Koide's,
calculate the gas hold-up and compare with the current
value. Repeat steps 4, 5, 6, 7 until the gas hold-up value
has converged.
8. Calculate the KLa value from the relevant equation in
Table 2.