4.5 Article

Mixing Characteristics and Bubble Behavior in an Airlift Internal Loop Reactor with Low Aspect Ratio

期刊

CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 611-621

出版社

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1004-9541(14)60089-6

关键词

airlift loop reactor; macro-mixing; micro-mixing; bubble behavior; hydrodynamics

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB224806]
  2. National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [21025627]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21206166, 20990224]
  4. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA03A606]
  5. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [2112038]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study summarizes the results of macro-and micro-mixing characteristics in an airlift internal loop reactor with low aspect ratio (H/D <= 5) using the electrolytic tracer response technique and the method of parallel competing reactions respectively. The micro-mixing has never been investigated in airlift loop reactors. The dual-tip electrical conductivity probe technique is used for measurement of local bubble behavior in the reactor. The effects of several operating parameters and geometric variables are investigated. It is found that the increase in superficial gas velocity corresponds to the increase in energy input, liquid circulation velocity and shear rate, decreasing the macro-mixing time and segregation index. Moreover, it is shown that top clearance and draft diameter affect flow resistance. However, the bubble redistribution with a screen mesh on the perforated plate distributor for macro-mixing is insignificant. The top region with a high energy dissipation rate is a suitable location for feeding reactants. The analysis of present experimental data provides a valuable insight into the interaction between gas and liquid phases for mixing and improves the understanding of intrinsic roles of hydrodynamics upon the reactor design and operating parameter selection.

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

4.5
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