$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
The power inputs in different multi-use and single-use bioreactors with working volumes between 1 L and 10 L were determined. The geometrical details are summarized in Table 2. In case of the single-use vessels, the top mounted tubing ports and impeller shaft housings had to be removed from the head plates in order to fit the vessels into the vessel holder. Furthermore, the built-in plastic shafts were attached to the stainless-steel shaft that was used in conjunction with the air bearing, but no further modifications were required.
The torque was measured for impeller speeds between 100 rpm and 300 rpm in the unbaffled vessels and between 100 rpm and 700 rpm in the baffled vessels, corresponding to maximum tip speeds of 1.13 m·s-1 and 1.54 m·s-1 (see Eq. 4) respectively.
(4)
The defined agitator speeds at the lower end were restricted by the torque sensor measurement accuracy and relative standard deviation of reproducibility of ± 0.2 % and < 0.05 % of the nominal torque respectively (specified by the manufacturer36). Furthermore, the maximum agitator speeds were defined by the nominal torque (0.2 Nm), in particular for the 10 L tank investigated, and vortex formation in the unbaffled vessels. In order to prevent the sensor from being damaged, the maximum torque during measurement was defined at 60 % of the nominal torque (0.12 Nm) and the vortex depth was limited to approximately 20 mm based on visual inspection.
Using the stepwise increase in the rotational agitator speeds, a typical torque profile is shown in Figure 2. The torque signal increased with every step increase in the rotational speed, as expected from Eq. 1. Peak values in the torque signal were observed after each adjustment of the impeller speed, which can be explained by the initial acceleration of the liquid and the PID control of the agitator speed. Quasi stable measurements were obtained after approximately 1 min, depending on the rotational speed and impeller used. The residual fluctuations around the time averaged torque value of the individual phase were usually around 5 % of the mean value for most of the impellers and agitation speeds investigated.
For further evaluation, the phase averaged torque values were used, whereas the peak torque after each speed adjustment was ignored. Based on the measurement frequency of 2 Hz, the measured torques (TL) represented the mean of a least 240 data points, which provided a sufficiently high statistical certainty, and the relative standard deviations of these mean values were lower than 3 % for the majority of measurement points, which indicates stable measurement signals. Interestingly, the standard deviations typically decreased with increasing agitation speeds, which indicates that the relative importance of the aforementioned fluctuations decrease with higher agitation.
As it has been shown earlier35, the dead torque, i.e. the torque measured without liquid inside the vessel, which can be a result of friction losses in the bearing, seals and the motor drive or small bends in or imbalances of the impeller shaft (particularly in the single-use plastic shafts), can be substantially reduced by the use of the air bearing. In general, the dead torque values of the stainless steel agitators were smaller than for those made of the plastic. This can be explained by the higher level of stiffness of the steel shafts, which results in lower oscillation during the rotation. For most of the agitators used, the residual dead torques with the air bearing were as low as 0.5 mN·m and, consequently, below, or close to the sensor resolution of the torque meter applied (0.4 mN·m). The highest residual dead torque was observed in the bioreactor #6, which uses an impeller shaft retainer on the vessel bottom. During rotation, the impeller shaft collided with that retainer, which can also be observed during cultivation experiments, resulting in additional friction.
As can be seen from Figure 3, after calculating the power inputs from the effective torques (based on Eq. 1) and plotting them as a function of the Reynolds numbers (Eq. 3), individual profiles were obtained for each of the model media tested. In each of these curves, the power input increased as the Reynolds number increased and the slopes were close to the relationship PL
Re3. This correlation can be obtained from Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 when assuming a constant power number and impeller diameter. This was found for all agitators tested with R2 > 0.99.
From the obtained experimental torque data, the power characteristics of all agitators investigated were finally calculated based on Eq. 2 (see Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6). The standard Rushton turbine was used as a reference with well documented power numbers in the literature1,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25. As can be seen from Figure 4a, the power number in the smaller 2 L vessel (bioreactor #1) decreased at low Reynolds numbers (100 < Re < ≈500) from P0 = 6.3 to P0 ≈ 3.3 before it increased again above Re ≈ 2000. An almost constant power number of P0 = 4.17±0.14 was obtained under fully turbulent conditions (Re > 104). A comparable value of P0 = 4.34±0.22 was determined for the larger vessel with 10 L working volume (bioreactor #2), whereas some deviations between the two scales were found for the transitional range with 600 < Re < 104 (see Figure 4a). Nevertheless, the qualitative trends in both scales agreed fully with literature data1,19, where the power input of a single Rushton turbine in 20 L1 and 40 L19 working volumes has been determined, respectively. It should be noted that the power numbers for the turbulent range are up to 25 % lower than those provided by reference data of P0 ≈ 4.719 and P0 ≈ 5.51. However, direct comparison is often difficult because of the different measurement techniques used as well as deviations in the geometrical parameters, including the diameter ratio (d/D), the off-bottom clearance (zM/D) and the tank bottom and baffle geometry. Other researchers found power numbers for Rushton turbines in baffled vessels in a range of 3.6 to 5.9, depending on the stirrer and vessel geometry used17,18,21,24,27,29,37,38. Thus, it can be argued that the current results were satisfying.
In Figure 4b, the power numbers of the bioreactors #3 and #4, with 1 L and 2 L working volumes respectively, are compared for a wide range of Reynolds numbers. The P0 values of the two geometrically similar agitators decreased continuously in the transition range and became constant (bioreactor #3: P0 = 3.67±0.06; bioreactor #4: P0 = 4.46±0.05) at fully developed turbulence with Re > 104, a criterion that has previously been found for the Rushton turbine and other agitators38. Interestingly, an almost constant offset between the two scales was observed, which can be explained by differences in the vessel and impeller geometries. Even though the impeller configuration in the two vessels is similar, it was not possible to keep all geometrical parameters constant. For example, the 1 L vessel is equipped with only two built-in baffles, whereas the 2 L vessel was equipped with three baffles. It is well known that the power number increases as the number of baffles increases, until a critical reinforcement condition is achieved38. Furthermore, the shape of the impeller disc in the smaller vessel had to be modified for manufacturability, which could have an influence on the power input. It should be also noted that the measured torque values in the smaller vessel were only between 4.2 mN·m and 12.8 mN·m, which corresponds only up to 6 % of the nominal torque of the torque meter used. In this range, small deviations in the measurement signal can have a significant impact on the results. Since no comparison data from reference measurements are available, it is difficult to draw final conclusions on the measurement reliability at the smallest scale used in this study and further investigations are necessary.
Figure 5 shows the power characteristics of the three commercially available single-use bioreactors investigated. In contrast to the baffled vessels, the power numbers of the single-use agitators decreased continuously over the complete range of Reynolds numbers investigated (100 < Re < 3·104), and no constant values were obtained due to the progressive vortex formation at high agitation rates in the unbaffled vessels. The highest power numbers of between P0 ≈ 6 and P0 ≈ 1.8 were obtained for the bioreactor #5, which is agitated by a radially pumping blade impeller and an axially pumping segment blade impeller with 45° pitched blades.
As expected, lower power numbers of between P0 ≈ 5.1 and P0 ≈ 1.1 were obtained for the bioreactor #7, which is agitated by two segment blade impellers with 30° pitched blades resulting in a primarily axial flow. It is well known that axial flow impellers have smaller power numbers than radial flow blade impellers due to the lower flow resistances of the pitched blades38. It should be noted that the experimental data on the power input in the bioreactor #7 that have been previously reported32 are somewhat higher ( e.g. P0 = 1.9 for Re = 1.4·104). However, the previously published data showed the same relationship of P0
Re-0.336 as found in the present study. The different measurement techniques can be responsible for the different absolute values.
Among the investigated single-use bioreactors, the bioreactor #6, which is mixed by one bottom-near marine impeller, had the lowest power numbers in the range of P0 ≈ 0.8 and P0 ≈ 0.3 (see Figure 5). This low power input can be explained by the low impeller pitch, even though computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis showed a rather dominant radial flow component around the impeller blades39. Good agreement of the current results and published data from CFD models39 and experiments32 can be stated.
Finally, the measurement setup was used to investigate the influence of the impeller diameter and blade angle in the bioreactor #7. As can be seen from Figure 6, all power curves decrease continuously over the complete range of Reynolds numbers, as expected. Significant differences were obtained between the two blade angles (30° and 45°), where the larger blade angle had higher power inputs (with 30°: 1.13 < P0 < 4.25 and 45°: 1.65 < P0 < 4.46) irrespective of the turbulence (i.e. Reynolds number). This is also known for classical pitched blade impellers40 and can again be explained by the higher flow resistance around the blades with stronger pitch. Interestingly, no significant differences in the power numbers between the two impeller diameters were detected. This has also been found for pitched blade impellers, whereas the power numbers of radial flow blade impellers typically tend to decrease as the d/D ratio increases40.

Figure 1: Schematic of the test setup. The setup consists of the (1) mixing tank, (2) vessel holder, (3) bearing cage with air bushing, (4) torque meter, (5) motor drive, (6) A/D converter, (7) control unit, (8) PC for data acquisition and control. Pressurized air (5.5 bar) was supplied for the air bushing, as recommended by the manufacturer. The main geometric dimensions of the mixing tank and the agitator are also indicated. This figure has been modified from35. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Typical measurement profile with a stepwise increase in the agitator rotational speed (i.e. N1 < N2 < N3) in 5 min intervals, as indicated by the vertical dashed lines. The horizontal dashed lines represent a 5 % confidence interval around the time-averaged torque values for the corresponding phases (indicated by the horizontal solid lines). Peak values were observed during the first minute of each interval, which can be explained by the initial acceleration of the liquid inside the tanks and the PID based agitator speed control. For further evaluation, only the torque signal during the quasi stable phase was used, where the measurement signal fluctuated around the mean averaged value within the 5 % confidence interval. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Calculated power input in the bioreactor #1 as a function of the Reynolds number for different model media. Individual profiles were obtained for each of the model media tested. The solid lines represent model predictions assuming P
Re3 and very good agreement with the experimental data was found (with R2 > 0.99). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4: Determined power numbers as a function of the Reynolds number in baffled tanks. (a) The comparison of data from Rushton turbines in the small and large tanks (with 2 L and 10 L working volume respectively) shows that the dimensionless power numbers for fully turbulent conditions are equal between the two scales. Small deviations were found for the transitional range with Re < 104, where the power number increased as the Reynolds number increased. (b) The comparison of data from the bioreactors #3 and #4 shows a qualitatively similar decrease of the power numbers as the Reynolds number increased until stable values are obtained under fully turbulent conditions. The power numbers for the 1 L bioreactor show higher fluctuations compared to the 2 L counterpart. No data for the 1 L vessel were obtained for Reynolds numbers in the range 550 < Re < 950 when using the same model media as in the 2 L vessel. The quantitative offset between the scales can be explained by differences in the vessel and agitator geometries or could be a result of the sensor sensitivity. Further investigations are required. The solid lines represent polynomial regression models. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5: Determined power numbers as a function of the Reynolds number for different single-use bioreactors. The power numbers for each of the vessels decreased as the Reynolds numbers increased. In contrast to the baffled vessels, no stable power numbers were obtained due to the progressive vortex formation at high agitation rates in the unbaffled vessels. The solid lines represent polynomial regression models. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6: Determined power numbers as a function of the Reynolds number for different modifications of the bioreactor #7. Distinct profiles were obtained for the two different blade angles of 30° and 45°, but no significant differences between the two impeller diameter ratios (d/D = 0.43 and d/D = 0.57) were found. The power numbers of all configurations showed a continuous decrease over the complete range of Reynolds numbers investigated due to the progressive vortex formation at high agitation rates in the unbaffled vessels. The solid lines represent polynomial regression models. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
| Final sucrose concentration | Liquid density ρL | Liquid viscosity ηL | Reynolds number Re |
| (%w/w) | (kg·m-3) | (mPa·s) | (-) |
| 0 | 998.2 | 1 | 11954 |
| 20 | 1081 | 2 | 6486 |
| 30 | 1127 | 3.2 | 4226 |
| 40 | 1176.4 | 6.2 | 2277 |
| 50 | 1231.7 | 15.5 | 954 |
| 55 | 1259.8 | 28.3 | 534 |
| 60 | 1288.7 | 58.9 | 263 |
Table 1: Summary of liquid densities and viscosities for selected sucrose solutions at 20 °C and resulting dimensionless Reynolds number for an impeller with diameter and rotational speed of 60 mm and 200 rpm, respectively. The Reynolds number is calculated using Eq. 3.

Table 2: Summary of the geometrical details of the bioreactors investigated. Please click here to download this file.