Figure 14.4 Sustained damage in D.
carota (Dunlop et al., 1994), M.
citrifolia (Kieran et al., 1994;
MacLoughlin et al., 1998) and A.
belladonna (Wongsamuth and Doran,
1997) suspensions, as a function of
total energy expended.
Shearing/cultivation devices are as
indicated. Response indicators: (a)
aggregate size, (b) cell lysis, (c)
mitochondrial activity, (d)-(f) viability
(membrane integrity), (g) protein
release, (h) cake
permeability/aggregate size.
volume or the high shear region surrounding the impeller) and whether total energy
dissipation is considered, or only that fraction dissipated on the biomass. Figure 14.4 uses
cumulative energy dissipation to compare the effects of turbulent flow in capillary
(Kieran et al., 1995), jet (MacLoughlin et al., 1998) and Couette (Dunlop et al., 1994)
devices and in a 2 L STR (Wongsamuth and Doran, 1997) for three different cell
suspensions, using a variety of response indicators. Differences between the viability
results for M. citrifolia in the capillary (curve (d)) and jet (curve (e)) trials are attributable
to the choice of the active volume for estimation of the average energy dissipation rate.
Multiphase bioreactor design 432