4.6 Article

New method to determine the mass transfer resistance of sterile closures for shaken Bioreactors

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 98, 期 5, 页码 999-1007

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/bit.21490

关键词

aeration; mass transfer resistance; oxygen transfer rate; sterile closure; shake flask; water evaporation; relative humidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper a novel and easily applied method to measure the mass transfer resistance of the sterile closures (e.g. cotton plug) of shaken bioreactors is introduced. This method requires no investment in special equipment (e.g. an oxygen sensor) and can be performed with the materials usually available in typical laboratories. The method is based on the model of Henzler et al. (1986), which mechanistically describes mass transfer through the sterile closure of a shaken bioreactor based on diffusion coupled with Stefan convection. The concentration dependency of the multi-component diffusion coefficients is taken into account. The water loss from two equivalent shaken bioreactors equipped with sterile clo- sures during several days of shaking is measured. One flask contains distilled water, the other a saturated salt solution. From the water evaporation rate in each of the two flasks, the new model presented calculates the relative humidity in the environment, the average diffusion coefficient of oxygen in the sterile closure (D-O2), and the diffusion coefficient of carbon dioxide (D-CO2). The diffusion coefficient of carbon dioxide (D-CO2) only depends on the density and material properties of the sterile closure and not on the gas concentrations and is, therefore, an ideal parameter for the characterization of the mass transfer resistance. This new method is validated experimentally by comparing the diffusion coefficient of oxygen (D-O2) to a measurement by the classic dynamic method; and by comparing the calculated relative humidity in the environment to a humidity sensor measurement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据