4.6 Article

Characterizing the Shearing Stresses within the CDC Biofilm Reactor Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9081709

关键词

CDC biofilm reactor; shear stress; computational fluid dynamics

资金

  1. BioSurface Technologies Corporation - Montana State University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Investigation of fluid dynamics within the CDC biofilm reactor revealed consistent shear stresses and pressures, potentially explaining its reproducibility in laboratory studies. Computational fluid dynamics proved to be a valuable tool for defining key fluid dynamic parameters within the reactor.
Shearing stresses are known to be a critical factor impacting the growth and physiology of biofilms, but the underlying fluid dynamics within biofilm reactors are rarely well characterized and not always considered when a researcher decides which biofilm reactor to use. The CDC biofilm reactor is referenced in validated Standard Test Methods and US EPA guidance documents. The driving fluid dynamics within the CDC biofilm reactor were investigated using computational fluid dynamics. An unsteady, three-dimensional model of the CDC reactor was simulated at a rotation rate of 125 RPM. The reactor showed turbulent structures, with shear stresses averaging near 0.365 +/- 0.074 Pa across all 24 coupons. The pressure variation on the coupon surfaces was found to be larger, with a continuous 2-3 Pa amplitude, coinciding with the baffle passage. Computational fluid dynamics was shown to be a powerful tool for defining key fluid dynamic parameters at a high fidelity within the CDC biofilm reactor. The consistency of the shear stresses and pressures and the unsteadiness of the flow within the CDC reactor may help explain its reproducibility in laboratory studies. The computational model will enable researchers to make an informed decision whether the fluid dynamics present in the CDC biofilm reactor are appropriate for their research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据