Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The dynamic gas disengagement technique is discussed comprehensively in this paper. Also outlined is the procedure for estimating holdup structures and bubble rise velocities in a bubble column, which is extended to include the methodology for estimating the Sauter mean bubble diameter and therefore the specific gas‐liquid interfacial area. The error limits for the estimated quantities are established using two extreme cases to describe the disengagement process: constant rate disengagement and interactive disengagement of bubbles. The analysis is done assuming a bimodal bubble size distribution; however, generalized equations for a multimodal bubble size distribution are also presented. Sensitivity of results to the two cases is illustrated using results obtained from experiments conducted with the air‐tap water system in two bubble columns (0.05 and 0.23 m in diameter, 3 m tall). Sauter mean bubble diameters and specific interfacial areas estimated using the two approaches provide lower and upper limits for values reported in the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: