Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Measurement of local gas holdup in bubble columns via a non-isokinetic

withdrawal method
Sergio Garca-Salasa, b , Carlos Orozco-Alvarezb , R. Michael Porterc , Frederic Thalassoa,
a Department of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Apdo. Postal 14-740,

Mxico D. F. 07360, Mexico

b Department of Bioengineering, Unidad Profesional Interdisciplinaria de Biotecnologa del IPN. Mxico. Av. Acueducto S/N, Ticomn,

Mxico D. F. 07340, Mexico

c Department of Mathematics, Centro de Investigacin y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Apdo. Postal 14-740, Mxico D. F. 07360, Mexico

Received 10 August 2004; received in revised form 2 June 2005; accepted 19 June 2005
Available online 1 August 2005

Abstract
An inexpensive method was developed to measure local gas holdup based on withdrawal of the airliquid dispersion in bioreactors
under non-isokinetic conditions. The method was tested with several suction probe designs and withdrawal pressures using coalescing
and non-coalescing model media as well as during yeast fermentations. Simultaneously, gas holdup was measured manometrically. With
a straight end probe and vacuum pressure of 3 kPa, local gas holdup measurements presented a relative error < 6% compared to the
manometric method, independently of the media composition. This method was used to characterize local gas holdup in a bubble column.
Two new parameters are proposed to characterize non-gassed volume and gas holdup homogeneity.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bioreactor; Bubble column; Fermentation; Hydrodynamics; Coalescing; Non-coalescing media

1. Introduction
Gas holdup is dened as the fraction
of gas volume in
gasliquid dispersion and is commonly used to characterize
oxygen mass transfer and mixing of aerated vessels. Compared to global gas holdup, local gas holdup measurements
allow a ner analysis of hydrodynamics in aerated vessels.
Several methods have been developed for this purpose, based
on conductivity (Bin et al., 2001), optical (Schweitzer et al.,
2001), and gamma ray tomography (Kemoun et al., 2001)
detectors. These methods are time consuming and require
complex calibration or expensive equipment. Greaves and
Kobbacy (1984), Tabera (1990), and Yang and Wang (1991)
have proposed another approach, based on volumetric measurement of gas and liquid phases after they are withdrawn
from the gasliquid dispersion. Their method is simple and
Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 55 50 61 33 20;
fax: +52 55 50 61 33 13.
E-mail address: thalasso@mail.cinvestav.mx (F. Thalasso).

0009-2509/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ces.2005.06.010

inexpensive in as much as no specially designed equipment is required. However, Greaves and Kobbacy (1984) and
Hofmeester (1988) have stated that the aerated media must
be withdrawn under isokinetic conditions, that is, with the
same withdrawal speed as the speed of bubbles arriving at
the suction probe. In stirred media, Yang and Wang (1991)
recommended a withdrawal velocity in the sampling probe
equal to 50% of the stirrer tip speed, which is similar to
Hofmeesters (1988) recommendation of maintaining withdrawal conditions proportional to the kinetic conditions of
the aerated media. The purpose of isokinetic conditions is
to guarantee that the gas/liquid ratio E extracted is equal to
the gas/liquid ratio of the aerated media. Due to the difference of gravitational effect on the gas and the liquid phases
entering the probe, the ratio withdrawn would be different
from the true ratio if isokinetic conditions are not ensured
(Nevers, 1991).
The need to maintain either isokinetic conditions or
withdrawal conditions proportional to the conditions prevailing in the aerated media is a signicant limitation. This

6930

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

requirement implies a preliminary characterization of the

reactor hydrodynamics, often at least as complex as the
gas holdup measurement itself. Further, bubble columns,
the simplest system, characteristically exhibit variable bubble diameters (Akita and Yoshida, 1974; Pohorecki et al.,
2001), bubble speeds (Deckwer, 1992) and liquid velocities
(Wu and Al-Dahhan, 2001). A normal distribution of bubble rising velocities is typically observed, and isokinetic or
proportional sampling is therefore an unrealistic condition
that can at best be approached, as noted by Nevers (1991),
Hofmeester (1988), and Greaves and Kobbacy (1984).
Non-isokinetic conditions would allow an easier implementation of the withdrawal method. Although a withdrawn
air/liquid ratio different from the actual ratio can be expected, this could be compensated for via proper calibration
of the withdrawal procedure with another gas holdup measurement method.
The objective of this paper is to study withdrawal under non-isokinetic conditions using several sampling probe
designs, withdrawal vacuum pressures, and media compositions. Local gas holdups were measured in a bubble column operated with coalescing and non-coalescing media as
well as during a yeast fermentation process, and correlations were observed between withdrawn (E) and true (
)
ratios. Numerical parameters are proposed to characterize
non-gassed volume and gas holdup homogeneity in bubble
columns.

2. Experimental
2.1. Bubble column and operating conditions
Fig. 1(A) shows the glass bubble column (internal diameter: 0.12 m; height: 1.6 m; working volume 14 L) tted with
a glass porous plate (0.02, 0.04, 0.06 or 0.12 m diameter).
The bubble column was aerated at supercial gas velocities
vg ranging from 0.25 102 to 3.5 102 m/s. The air
supply was controlled by a needle valve and measured with
a variable area owmeter (Cole Parmer, USA).
During the experiment, distilled water was used as coalescing medium and 0.13 M KCl aqueous solution as noncoalescing medium. The total height Hd of the gasliquid
dispersion was kept constant at Hd /(2R) = 10.4, where R
is the column radius.
Measurements were also carried out in the same bubble
column during an aerobic batch fermentation with Candida
utilis NRRL-Y900. The medium contained initially (g/L):
glucose 13.0; yeast extract 1.0; (NH4 )2 SO4 1.37; NaH2 PO4
1.26, dissolved in tap water. Except glucose, all reagents
were of analytical grade. The operating conditions were as
follows: operating liquid volume 10 L; temperature 33 C.
The air ow rate was changed from 1.7 to 10.2 L/ min (vg
from 0.26102 to 1.50102 m/s) as explained in Section
4.5. The pH was automatically maintained at 4.5 using a
2 M NaOH solution and an automatic pH controller (B&C

Fig. 1. (A). Bubble column design. (B). Experimental set-up. Control

valves (1 to 9); pressure control (P). Probes: straight end (a), inclined
(b), and funnel-like (c).

Electronics, Italy). When foam development was observed,

a 1% (v/v) organic non-silicon antifoam (Mazu DF-7911,
Mazer, Mexico) was added. Cell growth was monitored by
dry weight and glucose concentration was determined by the
DNS method (Miller, 1959).
2.2. Withdrawal apparatus
The experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 1(B). Three withdrawal probes were designed: (i) straight end (Fig. 1a), (ii)
inclined (Fig. 1b), and (iii) funnel-like (Fig. 1c). All were
made from glass capillary tubing of 0.8 103 m internal

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

diameter, 6 103 m external diameter and 60 103 m

long. The sampling probe was connected to a exible, 4
103 m internal diameter silicone tube. The silicone tube
was connected to a volumetric 0.1 L gas and a 0.1 L liquid
recovery ask. The withdrawal system was connected to a
2 L vacuum tank and a pneumatic vacuum pump (PIAB,
Vacuum Products, USA). Vacuum pressures ranging from 1
to 33 kPa were used and measured using a vacuum pressure
gauge (Ashcroft, USA).
2.3. Withdrawal method
Before measurement, (i) the sampling probe was xed at
the selected aerated media location (height and radial distance); (ii) the vacuum pressure was adjusted to the desired
value; (iii) the withdrawal system was lled with water by
opening valves 1, 4, and 5 (all others being closed) until
the withdrawal system was free of residual air; (iv) the liquid recovery ask was emptied by opening valves 6 and
8; (v) all the valves were closed; (vi) the vacuum pressure
was readjusted by opening valve 9; and (vii) valves 3 and 7
were opened. The measurement then proceeded by opening
valve 2 the time needed to recover a signicant amount of
gas (from 10 to 60 s). After sampling, valves 2 and 7 were
closed. The withdrawn gas and liquid volumes VG and VL
were measured (VL including the liquid displaced by the
withdrawn gas), and the extraction parameter E dened by
Eq. (1) was calculated as
VG
.
E=
VL

(1)

2.4. Manometric and expansion method

Simultaneously to the local E measurement, gas holdup

was also measured manometrically, at each cross section, from the pressure difference between two points as described by Chisti (1989), in our case separated by approximately
h = 0.2 m in height. The extraction parameter E
was measured in triplicate at ve different radii (r/R = 0,
0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1). The manometric gas holdup measurements varied little (< 5%) across xed height h and were
dened in Eq.
thus compared to an average parameter E,
(2). This equation is analogous to Parasu and Joshi (1999)
but with E in place of
. The correlations between E and
manometric gas holdup were found by single factor analysis
of variance using SigmaPlot software (SPSS Inc, USA). A
global extraction parameter E0 obtained from the withdrawal
method at seven axial and ve radial locations, as described
in Section 3, was also compared to the overall gas holdup

0E measured with the expansion method as described by
Lbbert (1991)
1
E =
R 2

R
0

2E(r)r dr.

(2)

6931

3. Model for gas holdup homogeneity

Local behavior was analyzed by partitioning the total volume into N subregions of volumes Vi , in our case of equal
height
h and corresponding to circular rings between consecutive radii. As is discussed in Section 4, a linear relation
(10) holds between average gas holdup and the average extraction parameter. Thus
i can be estimated directly from
local Ei measurements once the manometric calibration is
complete and assuming that
i and Ei are connected by the
same linear relation (10). The total gas component of the
subregion is then
i Vi .
Next we reorder the subscripts so that
1

2


N .
As remarked in the discussion of Figs. 9 and 10 in Section 4, there is a cutoff index m such that
1 ,
2 , . . . ,
m
are quite small, so the signicant gas holdup is reected in

m+1 , . . . ,
N . Thus, we introduce the cumulative volume
Vi =

i


Vj

(3)

j =1

and investigate the non-gassed or dead volume, given by

Vdead = Vm .

(4)

Note that the total volume of the reactor is Vtot = VN =

R 2 Hd . The cumulative gas holdup up to the ith subregion
is given in turn by

i

i

j =1
j Vj

Vtot

(5)

The signicance of this quantity is seen as follows. The

global gas holdup is
0 =
N . Observe also that Vi < Vi+1

and
i

i+1 . The functional relationship
i =f (Vi ), which

can be observed by graphing the pairs (Vi ,
i ), is described
ideally by
f (v) = 0 

dead
f (v) =
0 VvV
tot Vdead

for 0
v
Vdead ,
for Vdead
v
Vtot ,

(6)

where Vdead and the exponent  1 are solved for numerically in such a way as to make (6) best t the experimental
data. This eliminates the need to decide subjectively how
small a value of
i is to be considered insignicant. A value
of  = 1 describes a mixture completely homogeneous in
the complement of the dead region, while large values of 
correspond to a strongly non-homogeneous mixture. Finally,
the relative dead volume is given by
0
Vdead
=

Vdead
,
Vtot

(7)

and the relative cumulative gas holdup is given by

0i =

i
.

0

(8)

6932

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

Fig. 3. Average extraction parameter E versus average manometric gas

holdup
at various vacuum pressures, non-coalescing media (0.13 M KCl)
and sparger diameter of 12 cm, h/(2R) = 6.75. Vacuum pressures: 1 kPa
(
), 3 kPa (), 9 kPa (), 20 kPa (-), 33 kPa (). In all cases r 2 > 0.99.
(-): dimensionless.

Eq. (2), which is

n
2 
E = 2
(ri ri1 )(ri Ei ri1 Ei1 ).
R

Fig. 2. Relative cumulative gas holdup versus relative cumulative volume.

0
Four possible cases of gas holdup homogeneity: A (Vdead
= 0,  = 1),
0
0 > 0,  = 1), D (V 0 > 0,  > 1). (-):
= 0,  > 1), C (Vdead
B (Vdead
dead
dimensionless.

0
The three dimensionless parameters
0 ,  and Vdead
give a
concise description of the state of the reactor. Fig. 2 presents
the four possible cases of gas holdup homogeneity (i.e.,  =1
0
0 > 0).
or  > 1 combined with Vdead
= 0 or Vdead

(9)

i=1

When the straight and the inclined orices were used, E was
linearly correlated to the average manometric gas holdup
(r 2 > 0.99). The straight end probe presented a higher slope
and an ordinate to origin closer to zero. These results are in
accordance with Greaves and Kobbacy (1984), who reported
that straight capillary orices induce higher ow eld at
the suction point and therefore higher air withdrawal. The
straight end probe was selected for follow-up experiments.
4.3. Withdrawal pressure

4. Results
4.1. Overall operative conditions
A preliminary experiment was run in order to evaluate
the overall operative conditions required by the withdrawal
method. When the apparatus was operated at vacuum pressure > 35 kPa signicant differences between repetitions
were observed. At vacuum pressure < 1 kPa, the sampling
time was greater than 5 min and was considered too long.
Several probe orientations were also tested. The error between repetitions was signicantly reduced when the withdrawal probe was positioned horizontally instead of vertical
or inclined position. Therefore, it was decided to use the
probe in horizontal position and with vacuum pressure
within the 135 kPa range for follow-up experiments.
4.2. Probe design
Three probe designs were compared using distilled water
at vacuum pressure of 3 kPa. The average extraction parameter E was calculated by means of the discrete version of

The effect of vacuum pressure on E is presented in Fig. 3

(using 0.13 M KCL aqueous solution). The parameter E was
linearly correlated to the average manometric gas holdup

(r 2 > 0.99) and no signicant difference (P < 0.001) was
observed between the E parameters measured at vacuum
pressures in the 39 kPa range. Accordingly, a withdrawal
pressure of 3 kPa was selected for follow-up experiments.
4.4. Comparison between the average extraction ratio and
the average manometric gas holdup
The average extraction parameter E was calculated at several axial locations (h/(2R) = 1.83, 6.75 and 8.45) using
coalescing and non-coalescing media (i.e., distilled water
and 0.13 M KCl aqueous solution, respectively). This in turn
was compared to the average manometric gas holdup
at
the same axial location. Fig. 4 shows that the correlation
was essentially independent of the axial position and of the
media composition (P < 0.001). The correlation equation
(r 2 = 0.994) was found to be

= 0.55E 0.0094.

(10)

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

Fig. 4. Average extraction parameter E versus average manometric gas

holdup
for coalescing and non-coalescing media at several axial locations
and 3 kPa vacuum pressure. Sparger diameter of 12 cm. Distilled water:
h/(2R) = 1.83 (); h/(2R) = 6.75 (
); h/(2R) = 8.45 ( ); 0.13 M KCl
solution: h/(2R) = 1.83 (); h/(2R) = 6.75 (); h/(2R) = 8.45 ().
Correlation equation: y = 1.817x + 1.707, r 2 = 0.994. (-): dimensionless.

Fig. 5. Biomass and glucose concentration, and supercial gas velocities

during fermentation. Biomass ( ), glucose (), supercial gas velocity
(- - -).

6933

Fig. 6. Average extraction parameter E versus average manometric gas

holdup
during yeast fermentation at h/(2R) = 6.75 and sparger diameter
of 12 cm. Lag phase ( ), stationary phase (); stationary phase with
antifoam agent (). Data points and line represent the correlation equation
of Fig. 4; y = 1.817x + 1.707, r 2 = 0.994. (-): dimensionless.

Fig. 7. Local gas holdups obtained from the withdrawal method ( ) and
the local gas holdups measured with the manometric method (), as well
as the average gas holdups obtained from the withdrawal method ( - - - ), the manometric method (- - - - - - ), and the expansion method
( ). Operating conditions: vg = 3.42 cm/s, h/(2R) = 6.67 and
sparger diameter of 12 cm, using distilled water. Bars are 1 standard
deviation of three replicates. (-): dimensionless.

4.5. Yeast fermentation

A batch fermentation was prepared with systematic variations of the supercial gas velocity, such as made by Frhlich
et al. (1991), in order to compare the extraction parameter
E to the average manometric gas holdup
under different
aerating conditions. Fig. 5 shows the yeast and glucose concentration observed during the fermentation as well as the
supercial gas velocities applied. After 12 h, both the
biomass and the glucose concentration reached asymptotically a stationary phase, as usually observed during fermentation. At hour 12, foam formation was observed and
14 mL of antifoam was added to the bubble column. Fig. 6
compares the parameter E to the average manometric gas
holdup
measured at the beginning and the end of the fermentation (lag and stationary phases; hours 04 and 1013,
respectively). Fig. 6 presents also the correlation equation
reported in Fig. 4. The experimental data closely tted the
correlation equation (r 2 > 0.99) obtained with coalescing
and non-coalescing media. This highlights the fact that

media composition did not affect signicantly (P < 0.001)

the results obtained through the withdrawal method.
4.6. Comparison of the withdrawal method to manometric
and expansion method gas holdup
Fig. 7 presents an example of the comparison between
the local gas holdups obtained from the withdrawal method
and the local gas holdups measured with the manometric
method, as well as the average gas holdups obtained from
the withdrawal method, the manometric method, and the expansion method. The manometric gas holdup was approximately the same in all radial positions while the withdrawal
method gave a clear radial prole. Additionally, it was observed that the average gas holdup obtained from the withdrawal method was close to the manometric average gas
holdup (3.3% lower) and close to the global gas holdup obtained from the expansion method (8.1% lower).

6934

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

Table 1
Global gas holdup obtained by withdrawal method and global gas holdup measured by expansion method
Sparger dia (m)

vg (cm/s)

Distilled water

KCL 0.13 M

0 (%)

0E (%)

Error (%)

0 (%)

0E (%)

Error (%)

0.12

0.54
1.71
3.42

2.32
8.54
16.14

2.13
7.85
14.74

8.1
8.1
8.6

2.32
10.90
25.79

2.27
11.33
24.11

2.1
3.9
6.5

0.06

0.54
1.71

2.17
6.05

2.01
6.54

7.3
8.1

2.33
7.79

2.19
8.06

6.0
3.4

0.04

0.35
1.71

1.17
4.80

1.07
4.52

8.5
5.8

1.55
5.27

1.44
5.36

7.0
1.9

0.02

0.20
0.54

0.44
1.39

0.40
1.49

9.0
7.1

0.71
1.57

0.65
1.45

8.4
7.6

vg ; supercial gas velocity,
0E : global gas holdup measured by expansion method,
0 : global gas holdup obtained by withdrawal method.

Table 1 presents a more detailed comparison of the global

gas holdup
0 obtained from the withdrawal method at seven
axial and ve radial locations and the global gas holdup

0E measured by the expansion method. An average error of
3.8% was observed (maximum 9.1%; minimum 1.7%). This
error is similar to those obtained by Kumar et al. (1997) and
Parasu and Joshi (1999) who compared tomography to the
expansion method. Indeed, they observed a maximum error
between 5 and 10%, respectively. These errors are within
the normal error range of each technique, and a best one
of the three techniques cannot be specied. Nevertheless,
the results obtained conrm that the proposed non-isokinetic
withdrawal method can be used for local as well as overall
gas holdup measurement.
4.7. Power law model and gas holdup proles
It is customary to describe the gas holdup proles with a
power law model expression as in Eq. (11) (Parasu and Joshi,
1999, 2000; Kumar et al., 1997). This formula describes the
dropoff of gas holdup as r increases for xed height h, but
not globally within the bubble column. In this formula,
is
the averaged gas holdup for xed height h and
hw is the
gas holdup at the reactor wall. The exponent p indicates the
atness of the gas holdup prole. High values of p indicate
a at distribution (uniform gas holdup distribution across the
section) while low p values indicate a deeply curved prole.
Fig. 8 presents an example of the best t of gas holdup
prole to the power law model, using three supercial gas
velocities. An error between 0.9 and 1.9% was observed
between the formula and the experimental data. The same
experimental ttings were made for 60 gas holdup proles
obtained under several conditions. The results shown that
the error was within the 0.93.6% range with an average
value of 1.9%


 r p
p+2 

h = (

hw )
(11)
+
hw .
1
p
R

Fig. 8. Power law model ts to the local gas holdups obtained from
the withdrawal method at several supercial gas velocities vg . Sparger
diameter of 12 cm at h/(2R) = 6.75 using distilled water. vg = 0.034 m/s,
( ), p = 2.1, error = 0.9%; vg = 0.017 m/s (
), p = 6.2, error = 1.2%;
vg = 0.005 m/s (), p = 7.0, error = 3.3%. Power law model (). Bars
are 1 standard deviation of three replicates. (-): dimensionless.

4.8. Characterization of local gas holdup in bubble column

Fig. 9 shows radial and axial gas holdup distributions for
distilled water and 0.13 M KCl aqueous solution at vg =0.54
and 1.71 cm/s, with sparger diameters of 2, 4, 6 and 12 cm.
For each condition, local gas holdup was measured at 35
locations (seven axial and ve radial positions). As expected,
the gas dispersion was favorably inuenced by the sparger
diameter, the supercial gas velocity and the presence of
salt. In Fig. 9 one also sees the regions of the column where
the gas holdup is signicantly less than the average gas
holdup. These regions are to some extent an artifact of the
arbitrary subdivisions of the scale of values of ratios local gas
holdup/average gas holdup. This leads to a certain amount
of subjectivity in estimating the number m (recall Eq. (4))
of essentially gas free regions.
In order to quantify objectively these regions as well as
the homogeneity of the gasliquid dispersion, the mathemat-

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

6935

Fig. 9. Radial and axial gas holdup distributions at vg = 0.54 and 1.71 cm/s for distilled water and KCl 0.13 M aqueous solution, with sparger diameters
0
and  parameters. x axis values: r/R = 1, 0.75, 0.5,
of 2, 4, 6 and 12 cm. The homogeneity of the gasliquid dispersion are represented by Vdead
0.25, 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 (dimensionless), y axis values: h/(2R) = 0.16, 1.83, 3.45, 5.16, 6.75, 8.45, 10.10 (dimensionless), (local gas holdup/average
gas holdup): < 0.30 (), 0.310.80 ( ), 0.811.20 ( ), 1.211.40 ( ), > 1.40 ().

ical model described in Eq. (6) was applied. The resulting

0
values for non-gassed volume Vdead
and gas holdup homogeneity  are included in Fig. 9 for each set of experimental
conditions. In all cases, Eq. (6) tted the experimental data
closely (r 2 > 0.995, average r 2 = 0.999). Fig. 10 shows two
examples of how experimental data were tted to Eq. (6).
0
As can be observed, the relative dead volume Vdead
and 
express numerically the homogeneity of the gasliquid dispersion more succinctly than the graphical representation.
These new two parameters are proposed for characterizing
gas distribution in aerated reactors jointly with the global gas
holdup
0 .
0
Fig. 11 shows the relative dead volume Vdead
for various
sparger diameters using distilled water and 0.13 M KCL
aqueous solution at supercial gas velocity of 1.71 cm/s.
On the one hand, relative dead volume decreases as sparger
diameter increases, as expected from the larger sparger
area. On the other hand, the presence of salt decreases
the relative dead volume, as electrolytes hinder bubble
coalescence and favor axial bubble distribution. Addition-

ally, increased gas ow rate generates lower relative dead

volume.

5. Discussion
Taking into account the total air and liquid withdrawn
volumes as well as the time needed to complete E measure ments, the withdrawn ow rate was estimated as
88 103 L/ min at 3 kPa vacuum pressure. This ow rate
corresponds to a suction velocity into the probe of 2.93 m/s.
According to Yu and Kim (1991), under similar operating
conditions to this work, a maximum radial distribution of
local bubble velocity from 0.40 up to 0.75 m/s is expected.
There is therefore no doubt that the suction speed was
clearly greater than the bubble speed and that the withdrawal
method presented here was operated under non-isokinetic
conditions.
The results obtained indicate that under non-isokinetic
conditions, the withdrawn air/liquid ratio is greater than the

6936

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

Fig. 10. Two examples of experimental data ( ) tted to the model of

gas holdup homogeneity (). Supercial gas velocity of 1.71 cm/s. (A):
sparger diameter of 4 cm using distilled water, r 2 = 0.999. (B): sparger
diameter of 12 cm using 0.13 M KCl aqueous solution, r 2 = 0.999. (-):
dimensionless.

0
Fig. 11. Relative dead volume Vdead
for various sparger diameters, at
supercial gas velocity of 0.54 cm/s: distilled water ( ), solution of KCl
0.13 M (); and at supercial gas velocity of 1.71 cm/s: distilled water
(), solution of KCl 0.13 M (). (-): dimensionless.

true air/liquid ratio in the bubble column. This is no major

limitation, since a linear correlation coefcient > 0.99 was
systematically observed between the extraction parameter E
and the average manometric gas holdup
, with the straight
end probe design. Further, the correlation between E and the
average manometric gas holdup
was independent of the
withdrawal pressure when this was within the 39 kPa range,
with a total error no greater than 6%. This indicates that
moderate modications in withdrawal pressure do not affect
the results obtained and favors condence in the method.

Indeed, withdrawal pressure is the sole parameter difcult

to control accurately.
Moreover, it was seen that the results obtained are not
signicantly affected by the liquid media composition, i.e.,
in coalescing and non-coalescing media as well as during
a batch fermentation process. This suggests that the nonisokinetic withdrawal method could be used in processes
where media composition changes are expected.
The non-isokinetic withdrawal method allows the determination of local gas holdup. Compared to global gas
holdup, local gas holdup measurements allow a ner analysis of hydrodynamics in aerated vessels. However, as the
main objective frequently is reactor design optimization,
concise numerical parameters that characterize bubble homogeneity quantitatively are of interest. Apart from the
global gas holdup
0 , two additional parameters are pro0
and (ii) the 
posed: (i) the relative dead volume Vdead
parameter, which represents how close the gassed subregion
of the bubble column is to the ideal case of a perfectly ho0
mogeneous gasliquid dispersion. The parameter Vdead
has
a direct and obvious signicance, and may be useful in the
search for regions with poor mixing of gas and liquid, for
example, in the optimization of sparger design or reduction
of the energy input to the column without incurring a lower
value of kL a. However, the relative dead volume alone does
not represent the overall gasliquid dispersion, as two reactors of the same size and with the same non-gassed volume
can be globally quite different. The  parameter goes a long
way to characterizing such differences, since it represents
the global gasliquid homogeneity in the part of the reactor
volume in which the gas is moving. One might conjecture
that an increase in the dead volume could correspond to an
0 , ) does
increase in . However, a plot of the pair (Vdead
not show any correlation between these parameters.
The non-isokinetic withdrawal method should be applicable to larger bubble columns. According to Joshi (2001),
large bubble columns are characterized by liquid velocities
ranging from 0 to 1.1 m/s and by gas holdup ranging from
0 to 0.34. In the laboratory scale reactor we tested, the liquid velocities ranged from 0 to 1 m/s (data not shown) and
the gas hold-up ranged from 0 to 0.25. The similarity between conditions on these two scales leads one to expect that
the withdrawal method would carry over. However, in large
scale reactors, the hydrostatic column can exceed 200 kPa
(over 20 m height), so important differences are to be expected between measurements made at the top and the bottom of the column. Therefore, experimental conrmation of
the withdrawal method for large scale columns would imply
adjusting the coefcients of Eq. (10) to take into account
important hydrostatic pressure changes.

6. Conclusion
The withdrawal method for local gas holdup measurement
is simple, versatile and inexpensive. This method can be

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

used under non-isokinetic conditions, after calibration with a

manometric method. The withdrawal method is not affected
by liquid composition changes and is therefore applicable
for gas holdup measurements in fermentation broths. However, it is based on the assumption that gas holdup is determined by the withdrawal fraction independently of other
factors such as gas ow rate, pressure, etc., and this has yet
to be conrmed using other reactor designs and other fer0
mentation processes. The relative dead volume Vdead
and the
parameter  describe numerically the gasliquid dispersion
homogeneity. These also remain to be tested in other reactor
designs.

Notation
E
E0
E
f (v)
h
Hd
kL a
N
p
r
R
vg
V
Vdead
0
Vdead
VG
Vi
Vio
VL
Vtot

extraction parameter (=VG /VL ), dimensionless

global extraction parameter, dimensionless
average extraction parameter at xed height, dimensionless
cumulative gas holdup function for volume v,
dimensionless
height from the bottom of the column, m
gasliquid dispersion height, m
volumetric liquid phase coefcient, h1
number of subregions of the gasliquid dispersion, dimensionless
prole exponent (index parameter) in Eq. (11),
dimensionless
radial location, m
column radius, m
supercial gas velocity, m/s
volume, m3
dead volume, m3
relative dead volume (=Vdead /Vtot ), dimensionless
withdrawn gas volume, m3
cumulative gasliquid dispersion volume, m3
relative cumulative gasliquid dispersion volume
(=Vi /Vtot ), dimensionless
withdrawn liquid volume, m3
total gasliquid dispersion volume, m3

Greek letters







h

hw

i

gas holdup exponent in Eq. (6),dimensionless

gas holdup, dimensionless
average manometric gas holdup at xed height
h, dimensionless
local gas holdup calculated from Eq. (11), dimensionless
local gas holdup at the reactor wall, dimensionless
cumulative gas holdup, dimensionless

oi

0

0E

h

6937

relative cumulative gas holdup (=
i /
0 ), dimensionless

global gas holdup obtained by withdrawal
method, dimensionless
global gas holdup obtained by expansion method,
dimensionless
height between liquid manometers, m

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the nancial support of the Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo (IMP) through a FIES project
(FIES-98-107-VI) and CONACyT (Mxico). The authors
also thank C. I. Hernndez Gonzlez for his technical assistance and L. Dendooven and L. B. Flores-Cotera for their
critical reading of the manuscript. S. Garca-Salas was holder
of a grant from COFAA-I.P.N. and SUPERA and gratefully
acknowledges the COTEPABE-I.P.N., Mxico.

References
Akita, K., Yoshida, F., 1974. Bubble size, interfacial area, and liquid-phase
mass transfer coefcient in bubble columns. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry, Process Design and Development 13 (1), 8491.
Bin, A., Duczmal, B., Machniewski, P., 2001. Hydrodynamics and ozone
mass transfer in a tall bubble column. Chemical Engineering Science
56, 62336240.
Chisti, M.Y., 1989. Airlift Bioreactors. Elsevier, England. pp. 294297.
Deckwer, W.D., 1992. Bubble Column Reactors. Wiley, New York. pp.
190191.
Frhlich, S., Lotz, M., Larson, B., Lbbert, A., Schgerl, K., Seekamp,
M., 1991. Characterization of a pilot plant airlift tower loop reactor: III.
Evaluation of local properties of the dispersed gas phase during yeast
cultivation and in model media. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 38,
5664.
Greaves, M., Kobbacy, K., 1984. Measurement of bubble size distribution
in turbulent gasliquid dispersions. Chemical Engineering Research
and Design 62, 312.
Hofmeester, J.J.M., 1988. Gas holdup measurements in bioreactors. Trends
in Biotechnology 6, 1922.
Joshi, J.B., 2001. Computational ow modeling and design of bubble
column reactors. Chemical Engineering Science 56, 58935933.
Kemoun, A., Rados, N., Li, F., Al-Dahhan, M., Dudukovic, M., Mills,
P., Leib, T., Lerou, J., 2001. Gas holdup in a trayed cold-ow bubble
column. Chemical Engineering Science 56, 11971205.
Kumar, S.B., Moslemian, D., Dudukovic, M.P., 1997. Gas-holdup
measurements in bubble columns using computed tomography.
A.I.Ch.E. Journal 43 (6), 14141425.
Lbbert, A., 1991. Characterization of Bioreactors. In: Schgerl, K., (vol.
Ed.), Measuring, Modeling and Control. In: Rehm, H.J., Reed, G.,
(Eds.), Biotechnology. Weinheim, New York, pp. 119120.
Miller, G.L., 1959. Use of dinitrisalicilic acid reagent for determination
of reducing sugar. Analytical Chemistry 31, 426428.
Nevers, N., 1991. Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill,
New York. pp. 449457.
Parasu, U.V., Joshi, J.B., 1999. Measurement of gas holdup proles in
bubble column by gamma ray tomography: effect of sparger design
and height of dispersion in bubble columns. Transactions of Institution
of Chemical Engineers 77 (A), 303317.

6938

S. Garca-Salas et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 60 (2005) 6929 6938

Parasu, U.V., Joshi, J.B., 2000. Measurement of gas holdup proles in

bubble column by gamma ray tomography: effect of liquid phase
properties. Transactions of Institution of Chemical Engineers 78 (A),
425434.
Pohorecki, R., Moniuk, W., Bielsky, P., Zdrjkowski, A., 2001. Modelling
of the coalescence/redispersion processes in bubble columns. Chemical
Engineering Science 56, 61576164.
Schweitzer, J.M., Bayle, J., Gauthier, T., 2001. Local gas holdup
measurements in uidized bed and slurry bubble column. Chemical
Engineering Science 56, 11031110.

Tabera, J., 1990. Local gas holdup measurement in stirred fermenters. I.

description of the measurement apparatus and screening of variables.
Biotechnology Techniques 4 (5), 299304.
Wu, Y., Al-Dahhan, M.H., 2001. Prediction of axial liquid velocity prole
in bubble columns. Chemical Engineering Science 56, 11271130.
Yang, J.D., Wang, N.S., 1991. Local gas holdup measurement in aerated
agitated bioreactors. Biotechnology Techniques 5 (5), 349354.
Yu, Y.H., Kim, S.D., 1991. Bubbles properties and local liquid velocity in
the radial direction of cocurrent gas-liquid ow. Chemical Engineering
Science 46, 313320.