Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Biochemical Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bej

Sequential modular simulation of ethanol production in a three-phase uidized

bed bioreactor
Amir Sheikhi 1 , Rahmat Sotudeh-Gharebagh , Ali Eslami, Abolhasan Hashemi Sohi
Multiphase Systems Research Lab, Oil and Gas Processing Centre of Excellence, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran,
P.O. Box 11155-4563, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A state-of-the-art sequential modular approach towards the modeling of a complex three-phase uidized
Received 28 April 2011 bed bioreactor has been introduced. The aim was to simulate the fermentation process of glucose for
Received in revised form 26 October 2011 ethanol production using immobilized yeast in a gasliquidsolid three-phase bioreactor. According to
Accepted 26 November 2011
the newly-introduced dimensionless number (ASh number), a uidized bed bioreactor was divided into
Available online 4 December 2011
several sections in which the three phases of emulsion, wake, and bubble were modeled parallel to each
other. In the proposed model, two sub-models, namely, hydrodynamic and chemical reaction sub-models,
Keywords:
were integrated to take the governing physical and chemical phenomena into account. Emulsion, wake,
Three-phase uidized bed
Sequential modular simulation
and bubble phases were considered as CSTR (continuous stirred-tank reactor), PFR (plug ow reactor),
Bioreactors and bypass ow, respectively. Afterwards, mass transfer was taken into account right at the outlet of each
Ethanol production section. The simulation results were compared with the experimental data derived from the literature in a
Glucose wide range of gas velocity, liquid ow rate, biocatalyst particle size, and the concentration of glucose in the
feed stream, which showed a great consistency. The simulation approach proposed in this study proved
to be applicable in predicting the behavior of industrial three-phase uidized bed reactors successfully.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The most important difculty in using three-phase uidized bed

Production of ethanol, as a green fuel, has gained lots of inter-
ests in industry due to inexpensive and in-hand feed resources
such as agricultural residues, and industrial and urban wastewa-
ter, which are known as the rich sources of sugars, cellulose, and
starches [18]. Due to an intense industrial tendency to produce
ethanol in steady-state continuous conditions, uidized bed biore-
actors showed to be promising unit operations [912]. Compared
to xed bed reactors, uidized bed bioreactors have more advan-
tages such as easier agglomeration control, uniform temperature
through the bed, easier controllability, higher efciency due to the
increased contact surface of catalyst with liquid phase [13], and
the eliminating of dead volume occupied by CO2 gas because of
the higher transport rate of carbon dioxide in the bulk solution
of uidized bed reactors [10,14]. Consequently, demands for the
development of uidized bed bioreactors and reliable methods to
optimize and scale up such units for biofuel production have been
increased in the recent years.
bioreactors, regardless of their application, e.g., in ethanol pro-
duction, ferrous ion oxidation, penicillin production, acetic acid
production, and etc. [15], is their complex nature from the con-
version point of view. Lack of robust, yet simple and easy-to-carry
out, approaches in the modeling of such reactors to predict the
production yield of a certain product, and consequently, achiev-
ing scale up purposes, is the main obstacle in their industrial and
large-scale operation. On the other hand, no literature is available
on the sequential modeling of three-phase uidized beds while
most researches have been fullled on the two-phase modeling
of uidized bed reactors. Therefore, it is vital to conduct an investi-
gation on a new mathematical-conceptual method in three-phase
uidized bed modeling based on simple and practical approaches.
The aim of this study is to develop a sequential modular simulation
approach to provide such an easy and in-hand method. Using this
modeling pathway, the prediction of non-ideal uidized bed biore-
actors at different operating conditions becomes possible, even in
industrial process simulators.

2. Reactor model
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 6697 6863; fax: +98 21 6646 1024.
E-mail addresses: amir.sheikhi@mail.mcgill.ca (A. Sheikhi), sotudeh@ut.ac.ir
(R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh).
Farag et al. [2] used the dispersion model to obtain mass and
1
Present address: Department of Chemical Engineering, 3610 University Street, energy balance equations for a three-phase uidized bed reac-
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2B2, Canada. tor considering three phases of emulsion, wake, and bubble. Their

1369-703X/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bej.2011.11.010
96 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103

Nomenclature
Uw wake velocity (m/s)
A cross-sectional area of bioreactors (m2 ) V(i) volume of ith stage (m3 )
Ab bubble cross-sectional area (m2 ) WB mass of solid in the bed (kg)
Ae emulsion cross-sectional area (m2 ) Xi experimental values
Aw wake cross-sectional area (m2 ) X mean value of experimental data
Ar Archimedes number (gdp3 l (s l )/2l ) Yi predicted values
AR aspect ratio (h/DB ) Y mean value of predicted data
ASh newly-introduced dimensionless number to obtain YEG stoichiometric yield coefcient of ethanol over glu-
the optimum number of stages cose (g-ethanol/g-glucose)
BIAS bias between the model predictions and experimen-
tal data Greek letters
Cab ethanol concentration in bubble phase (kg/m3 ) b volume fraction of bubbles
Cae ethanol concentration in emulsion phase (kg/m3 ) w volume fraction of wake
Caw ethanol concentration in wake phase (kg/m3 ) g volume fraction of gas
CC correlation coefcient l volume fraction of liquid in emulsion
Cce critical concentration of ethanol (kg/m3 ) mf volume fraction of liquid in emulsion at minimum
Cgb glucose concentration in bubble phase (kg/m3 ) uidization
Cge glucose concentration in emulsion phase (kg/m3 ) s volume fraction of solids
Cgf glucose concentration in feed (kg/m3 ) w volume fraction of liquid in wake
Cgw glucose concentration in wake phase (kg/m3 ) l viscosity of liquid phase (Pa s)
Cy yeast concentration (kg/m3 ) l kinematic viscosity of liquid (m2 /s)
D diffusivity of glucose in liquid phase (m2 /s) g gas density (kg/m3 )
DB bed diameter (m) s solid density (kg/m3 )
Fb mole ow of bubble phase (mol/s) l liquid density (kg/m3 )
Fe mole ow of emulsion phase (mol/s) sphericity of particles
Fw mole ow of wake phase (mol/s)
dp particle diameter (m)

Frp,g particle Froud number (Ug / gdp ) mathematical approach led to several coupled differential equa-
h bed height (m) tions. El-Halwagi et al. [16] presented a three-phase model for the
HB loaded-solid height (m) simulation of a two-phase uidized bed reactor. In their approach,
Kbe bubble-to-emulsion mass transfer coefcient (1/s) emulsion, cloud, and bubble phases were considered as ideal
Kbw bubble-to-wake mass transfer coefcient (1/s) reactors. Kobayashi and Nakamura [17] proposed a mathematical
Ks Monod constant (kg/m3 ) model to predict the process of direct starch-to-ethanol production
Kwe wake to emulsion mass transfer coefcient (1/s) by immobilized yeast and concluded that by using immobilized
n number of stages biocatalysts, rather than free cells, an order-of-magnitude-higher
N number of observations production could be achieved. From the kinetic point of view,
N1 mass ow rate of glucose from wake to emulsion starch-to-ethanol direct conversion was studied by Kroumov et al.
phase (1/s) [18]. They introduced a mathematical model to determine the
N2 mass ow rate of ethanol from wake to emulsion kinetics of this bioconversion based on two-hierarchic-level mod-
phase (1/s) eling, which described starch-to-glucose enzymatic conversion
N3 mass ow rate of ethanol from bubble to emulsion (using bifunctional protein) and glucose-to-ethanol bioconver-
phase (1/s) sion (using yeasts). Although the rst step is not the case of
N4 mass ow rate of ethanol from bubble to wake phase present study, lots of interesting literature can be found on the
(1/s) starch-to-ethanol simultaneous saccharication and fermentation
P reactor operating pressure (Pa) [1927].
Rae rate of ethanol production in emulsion phase Three-phase bioreactors, evidently, include three phases: liquid
(kg/(m3 s)) phase, which is usually a reactant, solid phase, which consists of
Raw rate of ethanol production in wake phase (kg/(m3 s)) (bio-)catalyst or sorbent, and gas phase, that can be applied as a
Rge rate of glucose consumption in emulsion phase reactant or just as an inert gas to provide better mixing patterns. In
(kg/(m3 s)) the present work, glucose, in liquid form, is injected to the bottom
Rgw rate of glucose consumption in wake phase of a bioreactor, and yeast particles, which are fed from the top of the
(kg/(m3 s)) reactor, play the role of biocatalyst and exist in the whole bed. Feed
Rep,l particle Reynolds number (l Ul dp /l ) gas enters the bioreactor from bottom-side along with the liquid
Sc Schmidt number phase in order to uidize the solid particles and ease up reaction
SI scatter index between the liquid and the solid. The conversion reaction of glucose
T reactor operating temperature (K) into ethanol is as follows:
Ub bubble velocity (m/s) yeast
Ue emulsion velocity (m/s) C6 H12 O6 2C2 H5 OH + 2CO2 (1)
Ug supercial gas velocity (m/s) A schematic of a typical uidized bed bioreactor is shown in
Ul supercial liquid velocity (m/s) Fig. 1. Glucose and air pass through a distributor to ensure uniform
Umax maximum specic ethanol production rate velocity and temperature proles. Possible interactions among the
(kg/(kg s)) three phases of emulsion, wake, and bubble are shown in Fig. 2. Due
umf minimum uidization velocity (m/s) to the non-ideal behavior of a uidized bed bioreactor, it cannot
be considered as either a plug ow reactor (PFR) or a continuous
 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103 97

Disengagement stirred-tank reactor (CSTR). To model this bioreactor, it was axi-

section ally divided into a series of CSTRs, PFRs, and bypass ow as shown
in Fig. 3. The PFR, the CSTR, and the bypass represent wake,
emulsion, and bubble phases, respectively. The assumptions made
in developing the equations of the model are summarized as fol-
Effluent lows:

(1) The reaction takes place isothermally due to the high mixing
Column liquid recycle
rate of the phases within the emulsion and wake.
Gas bubbles: Ub, g (2) The bubble phase is free from glucose and yeast [28].
(3) The velocity of bubble and wake phase is the same [29].
(4) Produced ethanol is distributed among the three phases due to
h its high volatility.
(5) Bubble phase (mixing enhancer) participates only in mass
transfer among the present phases.
Liquid phase: l, l
In the modular simulation of uidized bed bioreactors, emul-
sion phase was considered as a CSTR since it undergoes a vigorous
mixing. Also, because of the movement of gas through the emul-
sion phase in the uidized bed reactor, this phase can be considered
as plug ow [30,31]. According to the third assumption, wake and
bubble phase velocities are equal because the wake is formed by
DB bubble phase displacement carrying some amount of solids behind
itself [32]. So, glucose conversion can be considerable in the wake
phase due to the presence of both solid catalyst and liquid sub-
Solid strate. Therefore, the wake phase was assumed to be in the form of
dp, s,
phase: plug ow reactor in this work.
In contrast to two-phase uidized beds in which the bubble
HB
phase is usually considered as a plug ow reactor [33,34], it is
Gas-liquid treated as a bypass ow in three-phase uidized beds [28]. Such
assumption was based on the fact that the gas phase, in ethanol pro-
distributor
duction three-phase bioreactor, does not participate in the reaction
Air: Ug and plays the role of phase-mixer. In addition, according to the sec-
Liquid substrate: Ul, Cgf ond assumption, bubble phase is free of solids and liquid. However,
mass transfer among the bypass ow and the other phases affects
the performance of the reactor. This will be discussed in details later
Engagement as a part of hydrodynamic sub-model.
section
2.1. Governing equations
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a three-phase uidized bed bioreactor.
Governing equations were derived using mass balance in each
reactor phase. The molar balance in the emulsion phase is described
for glucose and ethanol, respectively, as follows:
Fb,out Fw,out Fe,out Cge(i1) Ue Ae + Rge(i) l [1 (b + w )]V(i) Cge(i) Ue Ae = 0 (2)

Cae(i1) Ue Ae + Rae(i) l [1 (b + w )]V(i) Cae(i) Ue Ae = 0 (3)

Also, the molar balance for ethanol and glucose, respectively, in the
wake phase is described as:
 zi
Caw(i1) Uw Aw Aw w Raw(i) dz Caw(i) Uw Aw = 0 (4)
zi1
Bubble Wake Emulsion
 zi
phase phase phase Cgw(i1) Uw Aw Aw w Rgw(i) dz Cgw(i) Uw Aw = 0 (5)
zi1

2.2. Hydrodynamic sub-model

The required hydrodynamic parameters are listed in Table 1

[2,29,3538]. Mass transfer occurs among the efuent of each reac-
tor and bypass ow at the outlet of each section. Concentrations of
glucose at the entrance of each section in the emulsion and wake
Fb,in Fw,in Fe,in phases, respectively, are given as:

Cge(i+1) = Cge(i) + N1 Ue Ae (6)

Fig. 2. Possible interactions among the reactor phases in a three-phase uidized
bed bioreactor. Cgw(i+1) = Cgw(i) + N1 Uw Aw (7)
98 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103

Table 1
The required hydrodynamic parameters.

Parameter Correlation Reference

umf = 0.0006969Ug0.328 ( dp ) DB0.042 0.355

1.086 0.865
Minimum uidization velocity (s l ) l
[35]
Bubble volume fraction g = b = 1.6115Ug0.72 dp0.168 DB0.125 [36]
Wake volume fraction w = 14.00.5
g (Ul umf ) [29]
WB
Solids volume fraction s = s AHB
[2]
Volume fraction of liquid l = w = mf = (1 s g )/(1 g ) [2]
Bubble velocity Ub = Ug /g [2]
Emulsion phase velocity Ue = Umf /(1 g w ) [2]
0.67 0.67
Mass exchange coefcient Kwe = Ul [1.09/(1 s )](Rep ) (Sc) [37]
Mass exchange coefcient Kbe = Kbw = 0.0432Ug0.76 [38]
l
Schmidt number Sc = D
[37]

Particle Reynolds number Rep,l = l Ul dp /l [37]

3 ( )
gdp l s l
Archimedes number Arl =
2
l
U
Particle Froud number Frp,g = g
gdp

Mass
transfer

Mass
transfer

ith Stage

Mass
transfer

Flow distributor
subroutine

Mass
transfer

Wake Emulsion
Bubble
(PFR) (Completely-mixed)
(Bypass
flow)

Feed mixture (gas & liquid)

Fig. 3. Schematic of the simulation diagram of a three-phase uidized bed bioreactor.

 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103 99

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of mass transfer in a three-phase uidized bed bioreactor.

According to assumption 4, ethanol can be transferred among emulsion and wake phases, Rae and Raw , were calculated from the
all phases. Therefore, ethanol concentrations in the three phases following expressions:
are as follows:    
Cge(i) Cae(i)
Cae(i+1) = Cae(i) + (N2 N3 )Ue Ae (8) Rae(i) = Umax + Cge(i) 1 Cy (15)
Ks Cce
Caw(i+1) = Caw(i) + (N2 N4 )Uw Aw (9)
   
Cab(i+1) = Cab(i) + (N3 + N4 )Ub Ab (10) Cgw(i) Caw(i)
Raw(i) = Umax + Cgw(i) 1 Cy (16)
Ks Cce
The rate of glucose mass transfer between the emulation and wake
phases can be described as:
In Eqs. (15) and (16), Cy is yeast concentration which is the same
N1 = Kwe (Cgwi Cgei )V(i) w (11) in both emulsion and wake phases. Using high concentration of
glucose, ethanol production rate turns to a zero-order rate with
Moreover, ethanol mass transfer rates among the phases are: respect to glucose concentration. Glucose consumption rates were
N2 = Kwe (Cawi Caei )V(i) w (12) obtained from Eqs. (17) and (18) [2]:

N3 = Kbe (Cabi Caei )V(i) b (13) Rae(i)

Rge(i) = (17)
N4 = Kbw (Cabi Cawi )V(i) b (14) YEG

The mass transfer among the phases was calculated as illustrated
in Fig. 4. As soon as the mass transfer was calculated, the corre-
sponding ow distribution in each section was evaluated and the
computation was moved to the next section (i + 1). The calculations
were continued upward until the top of the bed was reached.
2.3. Kinetic sub-model
Ethanol production from glucose is a reversible reaction that
obeys Monod kinetics [39]. Ethanol production rates in the
Raw(i)
Rgw(i) = (18)
YEG
in which, Rge and Rgw are glucose consumption rates in the emul-
sion and wake phases, respectively, and YEG is stoichiometric yield
coefcient of ethanol over glucose, which was measured experi-
mentally and reported to be 0.511 [2]. Ks expresses Monod constant
(0.59 kg/m3 ), and critical ethanol concentration, Cce , is the max-
imum allowable ethanol concentration above which cells do not
grow, which is reported to be 0.76 kg/m3 [2,40].
100 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103

3. Results and discussion

100

Number of the stages, as the most important part of the model,

depends on several parameters such as supercial gas velocity, liq- 90

Glucose conversion (%)

uid feed rate, yeast particle size, difference between liquid and solid
densities, glucose concentration, etc. Based on the several sets of
experimental data obtained in uidized bed reactors, it was found 80
that both hydrodynamics and reaction kinetics affect the number of
stages, which are required to be taken into account to simulate the Experiment [9]
uidized bed bioreactors [33,34]. The concentration of reactants in 70
Model, n=1
the feed is a crucial parameter in determining the effect of reaction
Model, n=2
kinetics. Also, the three most important parameters in the hydro- 60 Model, n=3
dynamics of the model are gas-to-liquid ow rate ratio, difference
between solid and liquid densities, and aspect ratio (AR) (the ratio Model, n=4
of bed height to diameter). 50
The effect of increasing supercial gas velocity is obvious in 100 150 200 250
increasing the solid and liquid mass transfer due to vigorous mix-
C gf (kg/m3)
ing in emulsion phase. Furthermore, increasing liquid feed rate
decreases the residence time of the reactants in the reactor. Also, Fig. 5. Glucose conversion as a function of glucose concentration in the feed at
when there is only a small difference between solid and liquid different number of stages.
densities, solid particles do not precipitate readily, therefore, min-
imum uidization can be easily achieved at low gas velocities.
Consequently, occurred perfect mixing causes improved ethanol
production. Moreover, increasing aspect ratio will increase bub- 100
ble phase volume fraction in the bed. Because there is no reaction
in bubble phase, by increase of AR, the number of stages should
Glucose conversion (%)
90
be increased to achieve a particular conversion. In this work, four
series of experimental data were employed in a wide range of glu-
cose concentration, supercial gas velocity, and liquid feed rate. 80
Properties and operating condition of each case are given in Table 2
[9,14,41,42].
Results of the model presented in this study were compared to 70
the experimental data at different operating conditions in terms of
Experiment [9]
glucose conversion, ethanol production, and ethanol yield. Fig. 5 60
illustrates the impact of glucose concentration in the feed stream Model, optimum stages
on the glucose conversion for various numbers of sections. As
shown in this gure, increasing the glucose concentration in the 50
feed decreases the nal conversion. This is attributed to incomplete 100 150 200 250
and prolonged fermentation time as well as decreased growth rate C gf (kg/m3)
[4345]. Using one section in the simulation, the calculated con-
version falls below the experimental values. In contrast, increasing Fig. 6. Glucose conversion as a function of glucose concentration in the feed at the
optimum number of stages.
the number of stages causes the model to overpredict the experi-
mental conversion. This can be explained by the fact that increasing
the number of stages in a tank-in-series model turns it into a plug
ow reactor and according to Eq. (15), which presents the reaction
kinetics, a plug ow reactor offers more conversion than CSTRs. The same procedure was repeated for all of the experimen-
Therefore, there is an optimum number of stages (for each oper- tal data listed in Table 2, and the optimum number of sections
ating condition) to simulate the bioreactor appropriately, which is was determined in each case. Based on the earlier discussion on
comparable to [46]. The results based on the optimum stages are inuencing hydrodynamic and reaction parameters, the following
shown in Fig. 6. dimensionless number (ASh) is introduced in order to predict the

Table 2
The experimental operating conditions.

Parameter Unit [9] [14] [41] [42]

h m 0.62 0.07 1 0.45

Db m 0.048 0.055 0.02540.05 0.0254
dp mm 36 0.75 15
s kg/m3 1400 1040 10301090 1010
l kg/m3 1200 9921040

T C 30 30 30 30
P Pa 101,300 101,300 101,300 101,300
Ug mm/s 3.32 3.52 0.662.57 6.67
Ul m/s 1.535.8 38
Cgf kg/m3 72250 30 2500 100
Cy kg/m3 5.37.9 3 2 2
l Pa s 0.001 1.04 0.00990.00114
 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103 101

Table 3 Table 4
Number of stages dened by ASh dimensionless number. BIAS, scatter index (SI), and correlation coefcient (CC) of model results and different
experiments.
Range n
Reactor results BIAS SI CC
13.6 ASh 1
7.4 ASh < 13.6 2 Conversion [41] 0.06 0.07 0.99
4.8 ASh < 7.4 3 Conversion [9] 0.03 0.015 0.87
ASh < 4.8 4 Ethanol yield [41] 0.01 0.05 0.95
Ethanol yield [9] 0.02 0.04 0.89
optimum number of stages required to simulate the uidized bed
bioreactors:
Measured errors, presented in Table 4, are small and acceptable
 0.4  1.5
Rep,l Cce so that they conrm the validity of the model.
ASh = 3 103 AR2 (19) Fig. 8 illustrates efuent ethanol concentration as a function of
Arl Frp,g 2 Cgf
glucose concentration in the feed. As can be seen, by increasing
in which, Rep,l is particle Reynolds number, Arl denotes Archemedes glucose concentration in the feed, ethanol concentration increases
number of particles in the liquid, Frp,g represents Froud number of in the efuent. However, at high glucose concentrations, reaction
particles with respect to gas ow, and AR shows the aspect ratio of rate turns into zero-order with respect to glucose concentration.
bed. The relationship between the number of stages and the dimen- Therefore, ethanol concentration remains constant. It should also
sionless number, ASh, in various operating conditions of uidized be noted that high ethanol concentration in efuent may result
bed bioreactors is presented in Table 3. In each case, all affecting in low productivities [47]. Moreover, this kind of inhibition, espe-
parameters, except one, for example glucose concentration in the cially at high product rates, is usually damaging free cells more
feed, considered to be constant, and then, a desired parameter was than immobilized ones [47], thus particulate biocatalysts in bio-
manipulated to calculate the proper effect of it on the dimension- uidized beds seems to be a promising solution. Fig. 9 illustrates
less number. parity plot of calculated against experimental ethanol yields. In
The parity plot of predicted against experimental conversions general, the predicted values by the model are satisfactory, e.g.,
[9,41] is also presented in Fig. 7. It can be seen in this gure that the
model predictions are in a close agreement with the experimental
results. In addition, the performance of the model was evaluated 80
quantitatively using error statistics such as BIAS and Scatter Index
(SI), dened as Eqs. (20) and (21), respectively:
[Effluent ethanol] (kg/m3)

70

N
1
BIAS = (Yi Xi ) (20)
N
i=1 60

N
(1/N) i=1
(Yi Xi )2
SI = (21) 50
X i
where Xi and Yi denote the experimental and predicted values, 40 experiment [9]
respectively, and N is the number of observations. X is the mean
Model
value of the experimental data. Also, correlation coefcient (CC) is
calculated for each case based on Eq. (22); 30

N 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

(Xi X)(Y
i Y)
CC = i=1
(22) C gf (kg/m3)

N
N
2
(X X) (Y Y )
2
i=1 i i=1 i Fig. 8. Efuent ethanol concentration as a function of glucose concentration in the
feed.
in which, Y is the mean value of the predicted data.
100 52
Experiment [9]
Ethanol production yield (%) (model)

Experiment [9]
Glucose conversion (%) (model)

Experiment [41] 50 Experiment [41]

98
48

96 46

44
94
42

40
92
38

90 36
90 92 94 96 98 100 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52
Glucose conversion (%) (experiment) Ethanol production yield (%) (experiment)

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental data with model prediction in the term of glu- Fig. 9. Comparison of experiment data with model prediction in the term of ethanol
cose conversion. production yield.
102 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103

23 59
Experiment [9]
22 Model
57

[Effluent ethanol] (kg/m3)

21
[Ethanol] (kg/m3)

55
20
53
19

51
18

49 experiment [42]
17
Model
16 47
0.895 0.905 0.915 0.925 0.935 0.945 0.955 0.965 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3
l/s
(U g /U l ) 0.5
Fig. 10. Ethanol concentration as a function of liquid-to-solid density ratio.
Fig. 12. Efuent ethanol concentration as a function of gas-to-liquid ow rate ratio.

according to Table 4, measured errors by BIAS and SI for Bjar et al.

thus more glucose in the feed leaves the bioreactor without any
[41] experiments are 0.01 and 0.05, respectively.
participation in the reaction.
Fig. 10 shows ethanol concentration as a function of liquid-
to-solid density ratio. Based on this gure, increasing the
4. Conclusion
liquid-to-solid density ratio increases the production of ethanol.
Using low-density particles leads to a suitable uidization at
Sequential modular simulation was introduced to predict the
lower gas velocities. Consequently, mixing of solids and liquid is
performance of three-phase uidized bed bioreactors. It was found
improved. In addition, similar to two-phase uidized beds [48],
that although the concept and the mathematics behind this method
the reaction, mainly, takes place in the emulsion phase at lower
are quite simple, by using it wisely, this approach results in very
gas velocities while the phase in which the reaction occurs shifts
accurate and reliable outputs for the simulation of three-phase
towards wake as the supercial gas velocity is increased. Therefore,
uidized bed bioreactors. In order to model a three-phase u-
low-density yeast particles results in enhanced ethanol production.
idized bed bioreactor, it is axially divided into a series of CSTRs,
Davison and Scott [49] suggested either using different kinds of
PFRs, and bypass ow. While a PFR represents the wake, a CSTR
bacteria such as Zymomonas mobilis or manipulating the structure
stands for the emulsion phase, and bypass ow acts as the bub-
of yeast particles in order to reduce the density of yeast parti-
ble phase. Impact of several parameters, such as supercial gas
cles. Fig. 11 presents glucose conversion versus yeast particle size.
velocity, liquid feed rate, yeast particle size, difference between
According to this gure, increasing the size of yeast particles results
liquid and solid densities, and glucose concentration on the num-
in the reduction of glucose conversion as discussed previously.
ber of required stages as well as the performance of reactor were
Fig. 12 shows efuent ethanol concentration as a function of
investigated, and a new dimensionless number (ASh) was intro-
gas-to-liquid velocity ratio. As shown in this gure, the glucose
duced to obtain the optimum number of stages. In addition, the
conversion can be increased initially by increasing the supercial
performance of the model was judged quantitatively using various
gas velocity as a result of mixing improvement. However, further
error measures. This showed that the model predictions were in a
increase of the supercial gas velocity leads to jet streaming in
good agreement with the experimental results. The results of this
the bed, which reduces the glucose conversion. On the other hand,
study are being suggested to be used to predict the performance of
high liquid ow rate leads to lower residence time of the reactant,
three-phase uidized bed bioreactors for further purposes such as
optimization and scale up. Moreover, using this approach, rather
100 than equation-oriented approaches, empowers industrial simula-
Experiment [42] tors to predict the behavior of non-ideal uidized bed bioreactors
at different operating conditions without getting into the complex
Model
95 routines of numerical calculations.
Glucose conversion (%)

Acknowledgement
90
We would like to thank Professor Navid Mostou for his kind
help and valuable comments.
85

References
80
[1] C.M.S.G. Baptista, J.M.A. Cias, A.C.M. Oliveira, N.M.C. Oliveira, J.M.S. Rocha, M.J.
Dempsey, K.C. Lannigan, P.S. Benson, Natural immobilisation of microorgan-
isms for continuous ethanol production, Enzyme Microb. Technol. 40 (2006)
75 127131.
0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 [2] I.H. Farag, H.M. Ettouney, C.B.C. Raj, Modeling of ethanol bioproduction in three-
phase uidized bed reactors, Chem. Eng. Commun. 79 (1989) 4763.
d p (m) [3] R. Liu, F. Shen, Impacts of main factors on bioethanol fermentation from stalk
juice of sweet sorghum by immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae (CICC 1308),
Fig. 11. Glucose conversion as a function of yeast particle diameter. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2008) 847854.
 A. Sheikhi et al. / Biochemical Engineering Journal 63 (2012) 95103
[4] F. Tao, J.Y. Miao, G.Y. Shi, K.C. Zhang, Ethanol fermentation by an acid-tolerant
Zymomonas mobilis under non-sterilized condition, Process Biochem. 40 (2005)
183187.
[5] C.A. Cardona, .J. Snchez, Fuel ethanol production: process design trends and
integration opportunities, Bioresour. Technol. 98 (2007) 24152457.
[6] S. Chohnan, M. Nakane, M.H. Rahman, Y. Nitta, T. Yoshiura, H. Ohta, Y. Kurusu,
Fuel ethanol production from sweet sorghum using repeated-batch fermenta-
tion, J. Biosci. Bioeng. 111 (2011) 433436.
[7] B.-Z. Li, V. Balan, Y.-J. Yuan, B.E. Dale, Process optimization to convert forage and
sweet sorghum bagasse to ethanol based on ammonia ber expansion (AFEX)
pretreatment, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 12851292.
[8] S.I. Mussatto, G. Dragone, P.M.R. Guimares, J.P.A. Silva, L.M. Carneiro, I.C.
Roberto, A. Vicente, L. Domingues, J.A. Teixeira, Technological trends, global
market, and challenges of bio-ethanol production, Biotechnol. Adv. 28 (2010)
817830.
[9] E. Melin, W.K. Shieh, Continuous ethanol production from glucose using Sac-
charomyces cerevisiae immobilized on uidized microcarriers, Chem. Eng. J. 50
(1992) B17B22.
[10] C.-Z. Liu, F. Wang, F. Ou-Yang, Ethanol fermentation in a magnetically uidized
bed reactor with immobilized Saccharomyces cerevisiae in magnetic particles,
Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) 878882.
[11] S. Shindo, S. Takata, H. Taguchi, N. Yoshimura, Development of novel carrier
using natural zeolite and continuous ethanol fermentation with immobilized
Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a bioreactor, Biotechnol. Lett. 23 (2001) 20012004.
[12] P. Bravo, G. Gonzalez, Continuous ethanol fermentation by immobilized yeast
cells in a uidized-bed reactor, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 52 (1991)
127134.
[13] K.-J. Wu, C.-F. Chang, J.-S. Chang, Simultaneous production of biohydrogen and
bioethanol with uidized-bed and packed-bed bioreactors containing immo-
bilized anaerobic sludge, Process Biochem. 42 (2007) 11651171.
[14] G.H. Cho, C.Y. Choi, Y.D. Choi, M.H. Han, Continuous ethanol production by
immobilized yeast in a uidized reactor, Biotechnol. Lett. 3 (1981) 667671.
[15] F. Gdia, C. Sol, Fluidized-bed bioreactors, Biotechnol. Progr. 11 (1995)
479497.
[16] M.M. El-Halwagi, M.A. El-Rifai, Mathematical modeling of catalytic uidized-
bed reactors-I. The multistage three-phase model, Chem. Eng. Sci. 43 (1988)
24772486.
[17] F. Kobayashi, Y. Nakamura, Mathematical model of direct ethanol production
from starch in immobilized recombinant yeast culture, Biochem. Eng. J. 21
(2004) 93101.
[18] A.D. Kroumov, A.N. Mdenes, M.C. d.A. Tait, Development of new unstructured
model for simultaneous saccharication and fermentation of starch to ethanol
by recombinant strain, Biochem. Eng. J. 28 (2006) 243255.
[19] W. Biaas, D. Szymanowska, W. Grajek, Fuel ethanol production from gran-
ular corn starch using Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a long term repeated
SSF process with full stillage recycling, Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010)
31263131.
[20] S. Ochoa, V. Lyubenova, J.-U. Repke, M. Ignatova, G. Wozny, Adaptive control of
the simultaneous saccharication-fermentation process from starch to ethanol,
in: B. Bertrand, J. Xavier (Eds.), Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, Elsevier,
2008, pp. 489494.
[21] D. Szymanowska, W. Grajek, Fed-batch simultaneous saccharication and
ethanol fermentation of native corn starch, Acta Scientiarum Polonorum, Tech-
nologia Alimentaria 8 (2009) 516.
[22] M.C. De Araujo Tait, A.N. Mdenes, A.D. Kroumov, Application of system anal-
ysis to the process of simultaneous saccharication and fermentation of starch
to ethanol utilizing genetically modied microorganisms, Ciencia y Engenharia
14 (2005) 712.
[23] F. zcelik, T. zderen, M. Balk, Simultaneous saccharication and ethanol
fermentation of starch by Zymomonas mobilis, Turk. J. Agric. For. 20 (1996)
2125.
[24] C.H. Kim, S.K. Rhee, Process development for simultaneous starch sacchari-
cation and ethanol fermentation by Zymomonas mobilis, Process Biochem. 28
(1993) 331339.
103
[25] C.G. Lee, C.H. Kim, S.K. Rhee, A kinetic model and simulation of starch sac-
charication and simultaneous ethanol fermentation by amyloglucosidase and
Zymomonas mobilis, Bioprocess. Eng. 7 (1992) 335341.
[26] G.M. Lee, C.H. Kim, Z.A.M. Yusof, Sago starch saccharication and simultaneous
ethanol fermentation by amyloglucosidase and Zymomonas mobilis, J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol. 38 (1987) 235242.
[27] G.M. Lee, C.H. Kim, K.J. Lee, Z.A.M. Yusof, M.H. Han, S.K. Rhee, Simultaneous
saccharication and ethanol fermentation of sago starch using immobilized
Zymomonas mobilis, J. Ferment. Technol. 64 (1986) 293297.
[28] L.S. Fan, Gasliquidsolid uidization: perspectives, Int. J. Chem. Reactor Eng.
2 (2004) P5.
[29] K. stergaard, On bed porosity in gas-liquid uidization, Chem. Eng. Sci. 20
(1965) 165167.
[30] D. Kunii, O. Levenspiel, Fluidization Engineering, second ed., Butterworth-
Heineman, Massachusetts, 1991.
[31] R. Habibi, S. Hajizadeh, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, N. Mostou, Two-phase sequen-
tial simulation of a uidized bed reformer, Chem. Eng. Technol. 31 (2008)
984989.
[32] G.Q. Yang, B. Du, L.S. Fan, Bubble formation and dynamics in gasliquidsolid
uidization a review, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 227.
[33] R. Jafari, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, N. Mostou, Modular simulation of uidized
bed reactors, Chem. Eng. Technol. 27 (2004) 224-224.
[34] A. Kiashemshaki, N. Mostou, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, Two-phase modeling
of a gas phase polyethylene uidized bed reactor, Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (2006)
39974006.
[35] E. Costa, A. De Lucas, P. Garcia, Fluid dynamics of gasliquidsolid uidized
beds, Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 25 (1986) 849854.
[36] J.M. Begovich, J.S. Watson, Hydrodynamic characteristics of three-phase u-
idized beds, in: J.F. Davidson, D.L. Keairns (Eds.), Fluidization, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1978.
[37] E.J. Wilson, C.J. Geankoplis, Liquid mass transfer at very low Reynolds numbers
in packed beds, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 5 (1966) 914.
[38] K. stergaard, Holdup, mass transfer, and mixing in three-phase uidization,
in: Fluidization: Application to Coal Conversion Processes, AIChE Symp., Ser.,
74, No. 176, vol. 82, 1978.
[39] L. Rttenbacher, L. Behlau, W. Bauer, The application of infrared gas analyzers
for the fast determination of kinetic parameters for ethanol production from
glucose, J. Biotechnol. 2 (1985) 137147.
[40] J.H.T. Luong, Kinetics of ethanol inhibition in alcohol fermentation, Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 27 (1985) 280285.
[41] P. Bjar, C. Casas, F. Gdia, C. Sol, The inuence of physical properties on the
operation of a three-phase uidized-bed fermentor with yeast cells immobi-
lized in Ca-alginate, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 34-35 (1992) 467475.
[42] C.D. Gilson, A. Thomas, Ethanol production by alginate immobilised yeast in a
uidised bed bioreactor, J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 62 (1995) 3845.
[43] F.G. King, M.A. Hossain, The effect of temperature, pH, and initial glucose con-
centration on the kinetics of ethanol production by Zymomonas mobilis in batch
fermentation, Biotechnol. Lett. 4 (1982) 531536.
[44] P.L. Rogers, K.J. Lee, D.E. Tribe, Kinetics of alcohol production by Zymomonas
mobilis at high sugar concentrations, Biotechnol. Lett. 1 (1979) 165170.
[45] K. Joon Lee, D.E. Tribe, P.L. Rogers, Ethanol production by Zymomonas mobilis
in continuous culture at high glucose concentrations, Biotechnol. Lett. 1 (1979)
421426.
[46] A. Sarvar-Amini, R. Sotudeh-Gharebagh, H. Bashiri, N. Mostou, A. Haghta-
lab, Sequential simulation of a aluidized bed membrane reactor for the steam
methane reforming using ASPEN PLUS, Energy Fuels 21 (2007) 35933598.
[47] M.R. Castellar, F. Borrego, M. Cnovas, A. Manjn, J.L. Iborra, Continuous
ethanol production at high glucose concentrations by a passively immobilized
Zymomonas mobilis system, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 31 (1989) 249252.
[48] N. Mostou, H. Cui, J. Chaouki, A comparison of two- and single-phase models
for uidized-bed reactors, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40 (2001) 55265532.
[49] B. Davison, C. Scott, Operability and feasibility of ethanol production by
immobilized Zymomonas mobilis in a uidized-bed bioreactor, Appl. Biochem.
Biotechnol. 18 (1988) 1934.