1. When = 0, Fw= 0 2. When is large, Fw from Eq.(32) is the same as that for a mixed fermenter [see Eq.

(26)] It follows from conditions 1 and 2 that recirculation is mandatory and that the range of operation is much the same as that for a completely mixed system. The equations corresponding to Eqs. (31) and (32), but including a biomass concentration stage,are ln { +1} ln = (33)

) ( )(

) ( )(

And Fw = V (34)

Performance Characteristics Eq. (27)has been plotted in Fig. 28 for W=1 (i.e. no recirculation) and K=0 (i.e. no endogenous respration). The wash- out flow rate i clearly evident, conforming to Eq. (26). The fact that, over most the range of flow rates, complete conversion is is archieved is also clear. The effect of a solid-phase diffusional limitation (see Table 10) s shown in Fig. 28 by an increased particle size reducing the wash-out flow rate, the conversion efficiency and the productivity. Figs 29-31 contain experimental data on the performance characteristics of continous fermenters. Eq. (29) is plotted diagrammaatically in Fig. 32 for K= 0 to illustrate the linear dependency of conversion efficiency on the flow-rate under liquid-phase diffusion-controlled conditions (see Table 10) Fig. 33 shows the similarity in the performance characteristics of a tubular fermenter and a continous mixed fermenter for the same values of the recirculation parameters and . Fig. 34 compares the performance of a tubular fermenter at various values of rand .

Figure 29. Steady-state growth of Aerobacter aerogenes in single-single continous culture with ammonia as growth-limiting substrate,in single-single continous culture with ammonia as growthlimiting substrate,, cell concentration; , ammonia concentration [herbert (1958)]

Figure 30. performance caracteristics of a continous stirred-tank fermenter. Theoretical curve 1. K= 004 1/Km = 111, o = 0.396, max= 0.728; theoritical curve 2, K= 0.08, 1/Km= 111 o= 0.435, max = 0.770;, experimental points [ sinclair et.al (1971)] Figure 31. variation in viability () and doubling times ( ) of viable organism with the recipocal of the dilution rate (i.e the replacement time). Curve_______culture doubling time [ Tempest et al. (1967)]

Figure 32. Variation of concentration in a continous stirred-tank fermenter with liquid-phase difusion control [ Coulson and Richardson (1971)].

Figure 33. Comparison of performance of fermenters under the same recirculation conditions ( = 0.4; = 3.0)_______So:_ _ _ _ _ Xo. Curve A, tubular fermenter; curve B, continous, stirred-tank fermenter {Grieves et al.(1964)]

Figure 34. Performance characteristics of a tubular fermenter ________.s: _ _ _ _ _ _ o. Curve A, = 0.2, = 2.0; curve B, = 0.2 , ; curve C, [ Grieves et al. (1964)]

Figure 35. Relation betwee volumetric rate of reaction and micribial concentration [Eq. (37)]

Graphical Representations For a simple growth-associated system and small flocs (35) A balance of the biomass across a fermenter leads to (36) The volumetric rate of substrate uptake is given by x=
( )

(37)

Eq. (36) is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 35 and shows an optimum biomass concentration and a maximum volumetric rate of substrate uptake.

Completely mixed fermenters A balance on the biomass in a mixed fermenter leads to (38) Or (39)

Fig.36 shows a reciprocal plot of Eq.(37). The rectangle marked abcd corresponds to V/F in Eq. (39), i.e. it defines the residence time required to archieve conversion from 0 to Xo. The position marked b identifies the conditions in the fermenter. Fig. 36 provides a ready method of identifying fermenter size. The curve in the Fig. 35 can be established when Monod kinetics are not applicable by following the algebraic steps in Eqs. (35)-(37). Using the procedure defined in Fig.36, Fig. 37 and 38 show how the total fermenter volume is minimized by using a single fermenter, when Xo < Xopt, and by using a train of fermenters, when Xo >Xopt.

Figure 36. recidence time ( V/F ) in a Xo continous stirred-tank fermenter [Atkinson (1974)]

Figure 37. Comparison of fermenter volumes required with n fermenter used in series to achieve a given conversion ( x< Xopt ). Area /// indicates volume reqired for there tanks in series; area \\\ indicates volume for a single tank [ Atkinson (1974)]

Figure 38. Comparison of fermenter volumes required with n fermenter used in series to achieve a given conversion ( x< Xopt ). Area \\\ indicates volume reqired for there tanks in series; area /// indicates volume for a single tank [ Atkinson (1974)]

Tubular fermenters The equation corresponding to Eq. (39) for a tubular fermenter is = - (40)

Fig. 39 illustrates the determination of the required fermenter residence time (i.e. the area efgh under the curve) It can be seen from Fig. 40 that, when Xo < Xopt, a tubular fermenter leads to the largest volume. While when X1<Xopt<Xo, an optimization exercise is required to find the minimum volume when using a single mixed or tubular fermenter. However, Fig.41 shows that, when X1<Xopt<Xo. The fermenter volume is minimized by using two fermenters in series a mixed fermenter operating a Xopt followed by a tubular fermenter. Such an arrangement can be achieved in a single vessel by careful arrangement of the mixed and plug flow zones.

Figure 39. residence time ( V/F ) in atubular fermenter [ Atkinson (1974)]

Figure 40. comparison of the volumes for a continou stirred-tank fermenter or tubular fermenter. Area /// indicates volume of tubular fermenter; area \\\ indicates volume of a single continous stirred-tank fermenter. (a) Xo<Xopt, (b) Xo>xopt, (c) Xo> Xopt [Atkinson (1974)].

Figure 41. minimum total fermenter volume for a continous stirred-tank fermenter and tubular fermenter in series (Xo.Xopt). [Atkinson (1974)]

CONTINOUS REACTORS CONTAINING IMMOBILIZED BIOMASS IN SUSPENSION Configuration Immobilized biomass may consist of either multilayers of microorganisms adhering to an innert particle (see p.26) or biomass contained within the intertice of a a biomass support particle (see p.32). in both cases, the quantity of biomass associated with an individual particle (see fig. 42) Is controlled by three mechanisms. 1. Attrition, e.g, particle and particle-wall contact, which balance growth 2. Passing through a zone of high shear, e.g., in the region of a impeller 3. By removal from the fermenter follwed by cleaning and return (see p.649) Mechanisms 1 and 2 lead to essentilly constant amounts of biomass associated with an individual paticle. Mechanisms 3 leads to a range of particle biomass hold-ups, altough the fermenter biomass hold-ups is steady. Various fermenter arrangements can be used in conjunction with immobilized biomass particles. 1. Particles can be added to a conventional stirred-tank fermenter and maintained in suspension by the fluid motion from in the impeller. 2. Particles can be arranged as a fluidized bed in an external recirculation loop from a conventional fermenter (see fig. 43). This has the advantage that a high number density of particles can be used and that the flow velocity required for fluidization can be achieved independent of fermenter troughput. 3. Particles with a lower density than water can be maintained in suspension by usina the air flow of an aerobic fermenter to reduce the bulk fluid density and, therefore, particle buoyancy (see figs. 44 and 45) There are three important aspects that require assessment when considering the possible use of immobilized biomass technology in conjunction with a given microbe-substrate system. Figure 42. concept of organism age within a microbial film [Atkinson and kossen (1978)]

Figure 43. completely mixed microbial film fermenter [Atkinson (1974)]

1. Does the intended support particle retain the biomass? A convenient experiment is to add particles to a conventional stirred-tank fermenter operating beyond wash-out;improved conversion efficiencies suggest biomass retention (see p.27) 2. Does the intended biomass contol mechanism lead to steady particle biomass hold-ups? A bed of particles in a recirculation loop connected o aconventional fermenter (see fig.43) allows identification of the flow velocity required to achieve the necessary level of attrition. This flow velocity may be lower or higher than the incipient fluidizing velocity depending on the morphology of the microorganisma. Fungi present the greatest problems. 3. What number density of particles can be achieved in the fermenter? Fig.46 shows the number densities and flow regimes associated with biomass support particles (in the case, plastic toroid lighter than water) maintained in suspension by air flow.

Figure 44. schematic of 0.6 m3 pilot units. Column diameter, 0,5m, column height,3,5 m. [Walker and Austin (1981)]

Figure 45. pilot plant of Simon Hartley, Stoke on Trent

Figure 46. Reltionship between air flow and the number of toroids in the reactor at 0.8 g and 0.93 g biomass per toroid [Walke and Austin (1981)]

Ideal Performance Equation The volumetric rate of substrst uptake for a fermenter containing immobilized biomass in the absence of solid-or liquid-phase diffusional limitations (see chapter 10) is given by (41) Where xi is the immobilized biomass concentration. For solid supports (42) Where A is the area of support surface per unit fermenter volume. For biomass support particles
pVp

(43)

Where np is the number density of particles in the fermenter and and Vp are the particle porosity and volume, respectively. Balances on microorganisms and substrate followed by algebraic combination and rearrangement lead to Atkinson and Davies (1972). )2 + - -1= 0 (44)

Where 0< < 1 ( And ( ) )

Eq. (44) provides the performance characteristics of fermenters containing immobilized biomass and shows that ( ) (45)

i.e. the conversion efficiency depends upon (1) a dimensionless floe rate F/V max (2) a dimensionless inlet concentration Si/Km and (3) a dimensionless biomass hold-up Xi/ sKm.s. The algebra of Eqs,(41)-(45) has been extended to include both solid and liquid-phase diffusional limitations by Fonseca (1978).

Performance Characteristics Figs. 47-49 contain solutions to Eq(44). In Fig. 47, the line corresponding to = 0 is equivalent to

Fig. 28. i.e. the simple chemostat. The features of significance in Fig. 47 are the absence of a washout flow rate and increased conversion efficiency with increased immobilized biomass in the lowers the conversion efficiency

fermenter. Fig. 48 demonstrates that increased inlet concentration

and a sufficiently high value can produce performance characteristics very similiar to wash-out. The volumetric rate of substrate uptake, i.e. the productivity, for a a fermenter containing immobilized biomass is shown in Fig. 49. Productivity is increased by greater up to a limiting value

characteristic of the particular flow rate. At higher values, the productivity is insensitive to changes in the flow rate.

Figure 47. effect of immobilized biomass on the conversion efficiency of a completely mixed fermenter Si/Km = 100: = Xi/

Figure 48. Effect of inlet concentration on the conversion efficiency of a completely mixed fermenter containing immobilized biomass ( Xi/ = 100 = Si /Km)

in Fig. 50, lines of constant conversion efficiency obtained from Fig. 47 are supuerimposed on Fig. 49. It is clear from Fig.50 that maximum productivities occur at higher flow rates than do the

highest conversions (also see Fig. 28), and judgement has to be exeecised in selecting the appropriate compromise between conversion efficiency and productivity. The effect of the particle size [ i.e.solid-phase diffusionl limitations (ee chapter 10)] on conversion efficiency and productivity rae shown in Figs. 51 and 52. The effects are greatest at low fermenter concentrations. A large number of combinations of particle size and fermenter biomass hold-up can be used to achieve a required conversion efficiency or productivity.

Figure 49. Dimensionless volumetric rate of reaction of a completely mixed fermenter containing immobilized biomass (Si Km = 100: = Xi/ . O. Locus of Rr,max/
max

Km

Figure 50. Relationship between volumetric rate of reaction and conversion efficiency of a completely mixed fermenter containing immobilized biomass. , O. Locus of Rr, max Km

Figure 51. effect of solid-phase diffusional limitations or the concentration leaving a fermenter containing biomass-support particles Si/Km = 100 = K2Vp/Ap = 5. B= k2 Vp/Ap = 20 and = Xi/ .

Figure 51. effect of solid-phase diffusional limitations on the productivity of a fermenter containing biomass-support particles Si/Km = 100 = K2Vp/Ap = 5. B= k2 Vp/Ap = 20 and = Xi/ Si.