Open AccessBiofilm Growth and Bed Fluidization in a Fluidized Bed Reactor Packed with Support Materials of Low Density
Author(s) -
SaucedoTerán R.A.,
RamírezBaca N.,
ManzanaresPapayanopoulos L.,
BautistaMargulis R.,
NevárezMoorillón G.V.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
engineering in life sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.547
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1618-2863
pISSN - 1618-0240
DOI - 10.1002/elsc.200420016
Subject(s) - fluidization , perlite , fluidized bed , biofilm , packed bed , materials science , bioreactor , chemical engineering , mesophile , pulp and paper industry , waste management , biomass (ecology) , chemistry , chromatography , composite material , bacteria , organic chemistry , engineering , ecology , geology , paleontology , biology
Support materials of low‐density for fluidized bed reactors provide several operational advantages, including lower energy requirements and proper biofilm growth balance. The aim of this investigation was to study the extent of biofilm growth and bed fluidization in an experimental reactor, using polyester resin (ρ pr = 1220 kg/m 3 ) and vitrified expanded perlite (ρ vep = 1710 kg/m 3 ) as alternative support materials to conventional silica sand. A noteworthy amount of biofilm was observed to be attached to both support materials from the very beginning of the bioreactor operation. Nevertheless, there were significant variations in biofilm growth and activity over the course of the experimental trials. For both perlite and polyester beds, the highest biofilm mass and the highest total number of mesophilic bacteria were observed between the 7 th and the 10 th day, showing a steady state trend at the end of the experimental runs. The chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal levels were concomitant with biofilm mass and total mesophilic bacteria changes, although the polyester bed efficiency was slightly higher than that for the perlite bed. As expected, the polyester bed was fluidized at a lower re‐circulation flow compared to the perlite bed. Reactor back‐washing was not required for these support materials since biomass excess was adequately separated by means of a special internal device. The efficiencies of removal of organic matter achieved were acceptable (up to 78 %) despite the low volume of the support material (25 %) and the low hydraulic retention time (30 min).