Hydrodynamic characterisation in a flat-panel photobioreactor through computational fluid dynamics analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15282/jceib.v12i1.13302Keywords:
Photobioreactor, Computational fluid dynamics , Hydrodynamics , COMSOL MultiphyiscsAbstract
Assessing hydrodynamic parameters in photobioreactors (PBR) is essential for optimised operation, yet computational fluid dynamics studies specifically evaluating shear stress properties remain scarce. This study utilises COMSOL Multiphysics® to provide novel quantitative insights into the hydrodynamic performance of a 15 L conventional flat-panel photobioreactor. A 2D time-dependent turbulent bubbly-flow model based on the Euler-Euler approach was implemented and validated against an airlift PBR (ALR) system, with a margin of error of less than 3%. Fluid flow, shear stress, and mixing behaviour were systematically investigated under aeration rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 vvm. Results demonstrated that while increasing aeration improved hydrodynamic parameters, average liquid velocities consistently remained below 0.02 m/s, indicating the persistent presence of dead zones near the vessel walls. Crucially, simulated shear stress remained below the 1.2 Pa critical threshold for microalgal cell damage. However, the 0.2 Pa threshold required to inhibit biofilm formation was only exceeded at aeration levels above 0.4 vvm. While higher aeration increased average turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent energy dissipation, their distribution remained non-uniform, with peak turbulence concentrated near the sparger and upper sections. These findings suggest an optimal aeration range of 0.2 to 0.6 vvm to balance mixing efficiency and shear control. Ultimately, this work delivers novel quantitative mapping of critical hydrodynamic regions, advancing the predictive basis for reactor scale-up and design optimisation.
References
[1] Tan XB, Lam MK, Uemura Y, Lim JW, Wong CY, Lee KT. Cultivation of microalgae for biodiesel production: A review on upstream and downstream processing. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2018;26(1):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2017.08.010
[2] Vale MA, Ferreira A, Pires JCM, Gonçalves AL. CO2 capture using microalgae. In: Advances in carbon capture. Woodhead Publishing; 2020. p. 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819657-1.00017-7
[3] Alok A, Shrestha R, Ban S, Devkota S, Uprety B, Joshi R. Technological advances in the transformative utilisation of CO2 to value-added products. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2022;10(1):106922.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106922
[4] Barbosa MJ, Janssen M, Südfeld C, D’Adamo S, Wijffels RH. Hypes, hopes, and the way forward for microalgal biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology. 2023; 41(3):452–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.12.017
[5] Huang Q, Jiang F, Wang L, Yang C. Design of photobioreactors for mass cultivation of photosynthetic organisms. Engineering. 2017;3(3):318–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2017.03.020
[6] Zhou W, Lu Q, Han P, Li J. Microalgae cultivation and photobioreactor design. In: Microalgae cultivation for biofuels production. Academic Press; 2020. p. 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817536-1.00003-5
[7] Benner P, Meier L, Pfeffer A, Krüger K, Oropeza Vargas JE, Weuster-Botz D. Lab-scale photobioreactor systems: principles, applications, and scalability. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. 2022;45(5):791–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-022-02711-1
[8] Chu HM, Narindri B, Hsueh HT, Chu H. Improvement of Thermosynechococcus sp. CL-1 performance on biomass productivity and CO2 fixation via growth factors arrangement. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 2020;205:111822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2020.111822
[9] Luzi G, McHardy C. Modeling and simulation of photobioreactors with computational fluid dynamics—A comprehensive review. Energies. 2022;15(11):3966. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15113966
[10] Pires JCM, Alvim-Ferraz MCM, Martins FG. Photobioreactor design for microalgae production through computational fluid dynamics: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2017;79:248–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.064
[11] Ranganathan P, Pandey AK, Sirohi R, Tuan Hoang A, Kim SH. Recent advances in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling of photobioreactors: Design and applications. Bioresource Technology. 2022;350:126920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126920
[12] Ansoni JL, Santiago PA, Seleghim Jr. P. Multiobjective optimisation of a flat-panel airlift reactor designed by computational fluid dynamics. Chemical Engineering Science. 2019;195:946–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2018.10.041
[13] Ali H, Solsvik J, Wagner JL, Zhang D, Hellgardt K, Park CW. CFD and kinetic‐based modeling to optimize the sparger design of a large‐scale photobioreactor for scaling up of biofuel production. Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 2019;116(9):2200–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27010
[14] Vasile NS, Cordara A, Usai G, Re A. Computational Analysis of dynamic light exposure of unicellular algal cells in a flat-panel photobioreactor to support light-induced CO2 bioprocess development. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021;12: 639482.https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.639482
[15] Assunção J, Malcata FX. Enclosed “non-conventional” photobioreactors for microalga production: A review. Algal Research. 2020;52:102107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.102107
[16] Peter AP, Koyande AK, Chew KW, Ho SH, Chen WH, Chang JS, Krishnamoorthy R, Banat F, Show PL. Continuous cultivation of microalgae in photobioreactors as a source of renewable energy: current status and future challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2022;154:111852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111852
[17] Li M, Hu D, Liu H. Photobioreactor with ideal light–dark cycle designed and built from mathematical modeling and CFD simulation. Ecological Engineering. 2014;73:162–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.010
[18] Gómez-Pérez CA, Espinosa J, Montenegro Ruiz LC, van Boxtel AJB. CFD simulation for reduced energy costs in tubular photobioreactors using wall turbulence promoters. Algal Research. 2015;12:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2015.07.011
[19] Gómez-Pérez CA, Espinosa Oviedo JJ, Montenegro Ruiz LC, van Boxtel AJB. Twisted tubular photobioreactor fluid dynamics evaluation for energy consumption minimisation. Algal Research. 2017;27:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2017.08.019
[20] Hinterholz CL, Trigueros DE, Módenes AN, Borba CE, Scheufele FB, Schuelter AR, Kroumov AD. Computational fluid dynamics applied for the improvement of a flat-plate photobioreactor towards high-density microalgae cultures. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 2019;151:107257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2019.107257
[21] Inostroza C, Solimeno A, García J, Fernández-Sevilla JM, Acién FG. Improvement of real-scale raceway bioreactors for microalgae production using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Algal Research. 2021;54:102207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102207
[22] Belohlav V, Zakova T, Jirout T, Kratky L. Effect of hydrodynamics on the formation and removal of microalgal biofilm in photobioreactors. Biosystems Engineering. 2020;200:315–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.10.014
[23] Huang J, Kang S, Wan M, Li Y, Qu X, Feng F, Wang J, Wang W, Shen G, Li W. Numerical and experimental study on the performance of flat-plate photobioreactors with different inner structures for microalgae cultivation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015;27:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-014-0281-y
[24] Yaqoubnejad P, Rad HA, Taghavijeloudar M. Development a novel hexagonal airlift flat plate photobioreactor for the improvement of microalgae growth that simultaneously enhance CO2 bio-fixation and wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Management. 2021;298:113482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113482
[25] Zhang X. Microalgae removal of CO2 from flue gas. IEA Clean Coal Cent UK. 2015.
[26] Sadeghizadeh A, Farhad Dad F, Moghaddasi L, Rahimi R. CO2 capture from air by Chlorella vulgaris microalgae in an airlift photobioreactor. Bioresource Technology. 2017;243:441–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.147
[27] Huang J, Li Y, Wan M, Yan Y, Feng F, Qu X, et al. Novel flat-plate photobioreactors for microalgae cultivation with special mixers to promote mixing along the light gradient. Bioresource Technology. 2014;159:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.134
[28] Salehpour R, Jalilnejad E, Nalband M, Ghasemzadeh K. Hydrodynamic behaviour of an airlift reactor with net draft tube with different configurations: Numerical evaluation using CFD technique. Particuology. 2020;51:91–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2019.09.005
[29] COMSOL Inc. COMSOL Multiphysics® v. 6.0 Documentation [Internet]. COMSOL AB; 2021. Retrieved from: https://doc.comsol.com/6.0/docserver/#!/com.comsol.help.comsol/helpdesk/helpdesk.html
[30] Wang L, Wang Q, Zhao R, Tao Y, Ying KZ, Mao XZ. Novel flat-plate photobioreactor with inclined baffles and internal structure optimisation to improve light regime performance. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 2021;9(4):1550–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c06109
[31] Guler BA, Deniz I, Demirel Z, Oncel SS, Imamoglu E. Comparison of different photobioreactor configurations and empirical computational fluid dynamics simulation for fucoxanthin production. Algal Research. 2019;37:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2018.11.019
[32] Besagni G, Inzoli F, Ziegenhein T. Two-Phase Bubble Columns: A Comprehensive Review. ChemEngineering. 2018;2(2):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering2020013
[33] Xu J, Cheng J, Lai X, Zhang X, Yang W, Park JY, et al. Enhancing microalgal biomass productivity with an optimised flow field generated by double paddlewheels in a flat plate photoreactor with CO2 aeration based on numerical simulation. Bioresource Technology. 2020;314:123762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123762
[34] Pawar SB. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of airlift bioreactor: effect of draft tube configurations on hydrodynamics, cell suspension, and shear rate. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. 2018;41(1):31–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-017-1841-8
[35] Wang C, Lan CQ. Effects of shear stress on microalgae – A review. Biotechnology Advances. 2018;36(4):986–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.03.001
[36] Rebej M, Juřena T, Vondál J, Fuente Herraiz D, Červený J, Jegla Z. Numerical simulations and validation of single- and two-phase flow in a stirred lab-scale photobioreactor. Biosystems Engineering. 2023;230:35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.04.004
[37] Belohlav V, Uggetti E, García J, Jirout T, Kratky L, Díez-Montero R. Assessment of hydrodynamics based on computational fluid dynamics to optimise the operation of hybrid tubular photobioreactors. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2021;9(5):105768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105768
[38] Michels MHA, van der Goot AJ, Norsker NH, Wijffels RH. Effects of shear stress on the microalgae Chaetoceros muelleri. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering. 2010;33(8):921–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-010-0415-9
[39] Li L, Xu X, Wang W, Lau R, Wang CH. Hydrodynamics and mass transfer of concentric-tube internal loop airlift reactors: A review. Bioresource Technology. 2022;359:127451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127451
[40] Luo HP, Al-Dahhan MH. Local characteristics of hydrodynamics in draft tube airlift bioreactor. Chemical Engineering Science. 2008; 63(11):3057–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.03.015
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
