Premium
Minimum tank volumes for CFST bioreactors in series
Author(s) -
Hill Gordon A.,
Robinson Campbell W.
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
the canadian journal of chemical engineering
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.404
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1939-019X
pISSN - 0008-4034
DOI - 10.1002/cjce.5450670513
Subject(s) - residence time (fluid dynamics) , bioreactor , substrate (aquarium) , volume (thermodynamics) , residence time distribution , continuous stirred tank reactor , biomass (ecology) , plug flow reactor model , kinetics , series (stratigraphy) , chemistry , reactor design , flow (mathematics) , chemical engineering , pulp and paper industry , process engineering , mathematics , environmental science , environmental engineering , thermodynamics , nuclear engineering , engineering , physics , biology , organic chemistry , ecology , geotechnical engineering , paleontology , geometry , quantum mechanics
The primary reactor type currently used in the production of microorganisms or microbial products is the stirred tank reactor (STR). If operated on a continuous flow basis (CFSTR) they become similar in performance to the primary reactor configuration used in most of the chemical industry. In this work, microbial kinetics are considered in the design of CFSTRs in series. An equation is derived to predict the minimum possible total residence time to achieve any desired substrate conversion. The equation permits the use of a wide variety of growth kinetic models and is applied here to Monod, substrate inhibition and product inhibition cases. For the majority of cases, it is found that three optimally designed CFSTRs in series provide close to the minimum possible residence time for any desired substrate conversion. A comparison to the use of a PFR is made for cases of both no‐recycle and biomass recycle to the CFSTR train. It is found that three CFSTRs, which are not equi‐volume, provide the same required total mean residence time as a PFR for Monod kinetics, but are significantly superior (i.e., less total volume required) to a PFR for substrate‐inhibited growth.