Aquaculture International

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1353–1368 | Cite as

Modeling re-oxygenation performance of fine-bubble–diffusing aeration system in aquaculture ponds

  • Xiangju ChengEmail author
  • Yuning Xie
  • Dantong Zhu
  • Jun Xie


Fine-bubble-diffusing (FBD) aeration system is widely used in aquaculture ponds. To maximize its re-oxygenation capability, it is needed to have a quantitative understanding of the reoxygenation performance. In practice, two indexes, namely oxygen volume mass transfer coefficient (KLa) and standard oxygen transfer efficiency (E), are commonly used to measure the re-oxygenation performance. However, few mathematical models are available to accurately predict these two indexes. The objective of this regard was to develop such a model driven by commonly available data. In this regard, the results from 54 group laboratory tests were regressed on four independent variables, including air flow rate (Qg), aeration tube length (L), submerged water depth of the diffuser (hd), and plane-view tank area (Acs). The regression revealed that both KLa and E are negatively related to hd and Acs, but they are positively related to L. In addition, KLa was found to be positively related to Qg, whereas E was found to be negatively related to Qg. Two regression models, one for KLa while another for E, are expected to be effective tools for operating FBD aeration system in practice to maximize its re-oxygenation capability though they may need to be further verified using field data.


Prediction model Oxygen volume mass transfer Oxygen utilization rate Fine-bubble diffusing system Aquaculture 


Funding information

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51579106), the China Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System (no. CARS-46-17), the National Key Technology R&D Program (no. 2012BAD25B04), and the Open Research Fund Program of State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering, Sichuan University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed by the authors. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Akita K, Yoshida F (1974) Bubble size, interfacial area and liquid-phase mean transfer coefficient in bubble columns. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 13(1):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Ahmady KK (2006) Effect of airflow rate and submergence of diffusers on oxygen transfer capacity of diffused aeration systems. Al Rafdain Eng 14:27–38Google Scholar
  3. Al-Ahmady KK (2011) Mathematical model for calculating oxygen mass transfer coefficient in diffused air systems. Al-Rafdain Eng 19(4):43–54Google Scholar
  4. ASCE ASCE (2007) Standard measurement of oxygen transfer in clean water. American Society of Civil Engineers, VirginiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azbel D (2009) Two-phase flows in chemical engineering. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrut B, Blancheton JP, Champagne JY (2012) Mass transfer efficiency of a vacuum airlift-application to water recycling in aquaculture systems. Aquac Eng 46:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bayramoàlu M, Çakici A, Tekin T (2000) Modeling of oxygen transfer rate in diffused-air aeration tanks. Inst Chem Eng 78:209–212Google Scholar
  8. Bhavaraju SM, Russell TWF, Blanch HW (1978) The design of gas sparked devices for viscous liquid systems. AICHE J 24(3):454–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd CE, Hanson T (2010) Dissolved-oxygen concentrations in pond aquaculture. Global Aquaculture Alliance 40–41Google Scholar
  10. Boyle W, Craven A, Danely W, Riech M (1996) Oxygen transfer study at the Madison metropolitan sewerage district facilities. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of research and Division, US EPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  11. Brevik I, Kristiansen ø (2002) The flow in and around air-bubble plumes. Int J Multiphase Flow 28:617–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calderbank PH, Moo-Young MB, Bibby R (1964) Coalescence in bubble reactors and absorbers. Chem Eng Sci 91–113Google Scholar
  13. Casy T (2009) Diffused air aeration systems for the activated sludge process. Technical Report, Aquaverrra Research PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  14. Chavan A, Mukherji S (2008) Dimensional analysis for modeling oxygen transfer in rotating biological contactor. Bioresour Technol 99:3721–3728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng X, Xie J, Yu D (2013) Calculated analysis of oxygen transfer from air bubble-water interface and turbulent water surface in microporous aeration system. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 29(13):190–199 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  16. Cheng X, Zeng Y, Xie J (2014) Impact of microporous aeration flow and aeration tube length on oxygen transfer performance in water. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 30(22):209–217 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  17. Chern JM, Yang S (2003) Oxygen transfer rate in a coarse bubble diffused aeration systems. Ind Eng Chem Res 42(25):6653–6660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chern J-M, Yu C-F (1997) Oxygen transfer modeling of diffused aeration systems. Ind Eng Chem Res 36:5447–5453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deronzier G, Gillot S, Duchène PH, Héduit A (1996) Influence de la vitessehorizontale du fluidesur le transfertd’oxygène en fines bullesdans les bassinsd’aération. Tribune de l’Eau 91–97Google Scholar
  20. Deswal S (2011) Modeling oxygen-transfer by multiple plunging jets using support vector machines and Gaussian process regression techniques. Int J Civ Environ Eng 3(1):28–33Google Scholar
  21. Dold P, Fairlamb M (2001) Estimating oxygen transfer K La, SOTE, and air flow requirements in fine bubble diffused air systems. In: Proceedings of the water environment federation, Water Environment Federation, WEFTECGoogle Scholar
  22. Dudley J (1995) Mass transfer in bubble columns: a comparison of correlations. Water Res 29:1129–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) (1989) Design manual: Fine pore aeration systems. Risk reduction Engineering Laboratory, Center of Research and Development, US EPA, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerling AB, Browne GR, Gantzer AP, Mobley HM, Little GJ, Carey GC (2014) First report of the successful operation of a side stream supersaturation hypolimnetic oxygenation system in a eutrophic, shallow reservoir. Water Res 67:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillot S, Héduit A (2000) Effect of air flow rate on oxygen transfer in an oxidation ditch equipped with fine bubble diffusers and slow speed mixers. Water Resour 34(5):1756–1762Google Scholar
  26. Gillot S, Héduit A (2003) Predicting oxygen transfer in annular ditches equipped with fine bubble diffusers. In: Proceedings of the water environment federation, Annual WEF conference and exposition, Los Angeles, USA, pp 719–728Google Scholar
  27. Gillot S, Capela S, Heduit A (2000) Effect of horizontal flow on oxygen transfer in clean water and in clean water with surfactants. Water Res 34(2):678–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillot S, Capela-Marsal S, Roustan M, Heduit A (2005) Predicting oxygen transfer of fine bubble diffused aeration systems—model issued from dimensional analysis. Water Resour 39:1379–1387Google Scholar
  29. Groves KP, Daigger GT, Simpkin TJ, Redmon DT, Ewing L (1992) Evaluation of oxygen transfer efficiency and alpha factor on a variety of diffused aeration systems. Water Environ Res 64(5):691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopkins J, Stokes A, Browdy C (1991) The relationship between feeding rate, paddlewheel aeration rate and expected dawn dissolved oxygen in intensive shrimp ponds. Aquac Eng 10(4):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huibregtse GL, Rooney TC, Rasmussen DC (1983) Factors affecting fine bubble diffused aeration. Water Pollut Control Fed 55(8):1057–1064Google Scholar
  32. Kulkarni A, Shah YT, Kelkar BG (1987) Gas holdup in bubble column with surface-active agents: a theoretical model. AICHE 33:690–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee J (2018) Development of a model to determine the baseline mass transfer coefficient in bioreactors (aeration tanks). Water Environ Res 90:2126–2140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li E (2007) Theory of optimal bubble group for fine bubble aeration and its application to reaeration engineering. Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, pp 1–104 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  35. Maria CC, Alessandro A, Giorgio B (2019) Oxygen transfer improvement in MBBR process. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:10727–10737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGinnis DF, Little JC (2002) Predicting diffused bubble oxygen transfer rate using the discrete bubble model. Water Res 36:4627–4635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metcalf and Eddy (2002) Wastewater engineering. McGraw Hill Companies, International Edition, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  38. Molder E, Tenn T, Tenno T (2009) Research of oxygen mass transfer through the air-water surface at low bulk concentrations of surfactants. Proc Est Acad Sci 58(2):132–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oliveira MEC, Minkowycz WJ (1998) Simulation of oxygen mass transfer in aeration systems. Heat Mass Transf 25(6):853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Panimanakul P, Hébrard G (2008) Effect of different contaminants on the α-factor: local experimental method and modeling. Chem Eng Res Des 86:1207–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paul M (2001) 15000 liter bioreactor gas dispersion, oxygen transfer and blending studies. Mixing Technology Development ProgramGoogle Scholar
  42. Pittoors E, Guo Y, Van Hulle SWH (2014) Oxygen transfer model development based on activated sludge and clean water in diffused aerated cylindrical tanks. Chem Eng J 243:51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rao RA (1999) Prediction of reaeration rates in square, stirred tanks. Environ Eng 125:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rice R, Gandlakhani NB (1987) Bubble formation ata puncture in a submerged rubber membrane. Chem Eng Commun 24:215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saret B, Kritchart W, Nattawin C, Jenyuk L, Phaly H, Pisut P (2019) Development of modified airlift reactor (MALR) for improving oxygen transfer: optimize design and operation condition using ‘design of experiment’ methodology. Environ Technol.
  46. Schierholz EL, Gulliver JS, Wilhelms SC, Henneman HT (2006) Gas transfer from air diffusers. Water Res 40:1018–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wagner MR, Pöpel HJ (1998) Oxygen transfer and aeration efficiency—influence of diffuser submergence, diffuser density, and blower type. Water Sci Technol 38:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zlokarnik M (1978) Sorption characteristics for gas-liquid contacting in mixing vessels. Adv Biochem Eng 8:133–151Google Scholar
  49. Zlokarnik M (1979) Sorption characteristics of slot injectors and their dependency on the coalescence behavior of the system. Chem Eng Sci 34:1265–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering and TransportationSouth China University of TechnologyGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River EngineeringSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  3. 3.Pearl River Fisheries Research InstituteChinese Academy of Fishery ScienceGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations