Cited by 15Algal biology and biofuel productionGreenhouse Technology and Climate ControlFluid Dynamics and Mixing

Reflection‐refraction effects on light distribution inside tubular photobioreactors

Open access
Marotta, Gaspare, Pruvost, Jeremy, Scargiali, Francesca, Caputo, Giuseppe, Brucato, Alberto·2017·The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering

Abstract

One of the main parameters affecting autotrophic algae cultures is photon absorption distribution inside the photobioreactor. This clearly depends on the geometry of both the radiation source and the photobioreactor, as well as on algae suspension optical properties. In this work the local volumetric rate of photon absorption LVRPA in a cross‐section of a horizontal‐pipe photobioreactor was investigated by means of simplified Monte Carlo simulations. In particular, the fate of a number of photons perpendicularly hitting the photobioreactor circular section was simulated in relation to different values of algae concentration. The model takes into account refraction/reflection phenomena at the air/photobioreactor‐wall interface. Simulation results show that radiation distribution inside the photobioreactor is quite strongly affected by reflection/refraction at the air‐reactor interface. In particular, dark zones (not revealed when neglecting reflection/refraction phenomena) are observed in conjunction with unexpected radiation intensification in other zones. These phenomena are bound to affect photobioreactor performance and should therefore be considered if effective photobioreactor models are sought.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cjce.22811

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even in quasi two-dimensional geometries like pipes, refraction and reflection cannot be ignored, and their consideration requires solving the Radiative transfer equation.

    “However, even in quasi two-dimensional geometries like pipes, refraction and reflection are effects which cannot be ignored [85], and their consideration requires to solve the Radiative transfer equation.”

    From Modeling and Simulation of Photobioreactors with Computational Fluid Dynamics—A Comprehensive Review (2022) · cites this paper as [85]

    The Conclusions say reflection and refraction can strongly affect light distribution in tubular photobioreactors and should be considered in advanced models. But they also say the effects may be neglected in models concerned only with average photon absorption. The Introduction and Conclusions describe a Monte Carlo approach as an alternative to solving the full RTE, so the claim that accounting for these effects requires solving the RTE is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reflection or refraction at the various interfaces cause additional heterogeneity of the light intensity distribution and even dark regions may arise in consequence.

    “It is also often neglected that reflection or refraction at the various interfaces cause additional heterogeneity of the light intensity distribution and even dark regions may arise in consequence [21,85].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. A. Richmond, Q. Hu, Handbook of Microalgal Culture, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken 2013, p. 102.
  2. A. K. Pegallapati, Y. Arudchelvam, N. Nirmalakhandan, Bioresource Technol. 2012, 126, 266.
  3. S. Xue, Q. Zhang, X. Wu, C. Yan, W. Cong, Bioresource Technol. 2013, 138, 141.
  4. M. Janssen, Cultivation of microalgae: effect of light/dark cycles on biomass yield, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen 2002, 184.
  5. R. Pandey, A. Sahu, K. K. Vasumathi, M. Premalatha, Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 38, 1547.
  6. B. Kong, R. D. Vigil, Bioresource Technol. 2014, 158, 141.
  7. A. Souli es, J. Legrand, H. Marec, J. Pruvost, C. Castelain, T. Burghelea, J. F. Cornet, Biotechnol. Progr. 2016, 1, 1.
  8. J. Pruvost, F. Le Borgne, A. Artu, J. Legrand, Algal Research 2017, 21, 158.
  9. R. Kandilian, J. Pruvost, J. Legrand, L. Pilon, Bioresource Technol. 2014, 163, 124.
  10. J. Colina, F. Machuca-Mart ınez, G. Li Puma, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5112.
  11. F. Machuca-Mart ınez, J. Colina-Marquez, M. Mueses, J. Adv. Oxid. Technol. 2008, 11, 1.
  12. A. Brucato, A. E. Cassano, F. Grisafi, G. Montante, L. Rizzuti, G. Vella, AIChE J. 2006, 52, 11.
  13. D. C. Hammersley, J. M. Handscomb, Monte Carlo Methods, 1st edition, Chapman and Hall, London 1983, 34.
  14. A. Brucato, F. Grisafi, L. Rizzuti, A. Sclafani, G. Vella, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 7684.
  15. A. Busciglio, O. M. Alfano, F. Scargiali, A. Brucato, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 142, 79.
  16. J. Pruvost, J. F. Cornet, F. Le Borgne, V. Goetz, J. Legrand, Algal Research 2015, 10, 1.
  17. E. Lee, J. Pruvost, X. He, R. Munipalli, L. Pilon, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2014, 106, 18.
  18. R. Kandilian, J. Pruvost, A. Artu, C. Lemasson, J. Legrand, L. Pilon, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra. 2016, 175, 30.
  19. R. Kandilian, A. Soulies, J. Pruvost, B. Rousseau, J. Legrand, L. Pilon, Chem. Eng. Sci. 2016, 146, 1.
  20. E. Molina, F. Fern andez, J. Appl. Phys. 2000, 12, 355. Manuscript received December 7, 2016; revised manuscript received January 24, 2017; accepted for publication February 2, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marotta, G., Pruvost, J., Scargiali, F., Caputo, G., & Brucato, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Palermo (IT)
  • Université de Nantes, CNRS, GEPEA, UMR‐CNRS 6144 Bd. De l'Université, CRTT‐BP 406 44620 Saint Nazaire Cedex France
Corresponding author
Scargiali, Francesca
Venue
The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-13
Volume
95
Issue
9
Pages
1646-1651
ISSN
  • 0008-4034 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-019X
OpenAlex
W2588251938
Cited by
15
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Algal biology and biofuel production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Greenhouse Technology and Climate Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Fluid Dynamics and Mixing
Keywords
tubular photobioreactor, light distribution, photon absorption, dark zone, algae concentration, Monte Carlo photon transport

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review