Industrial Manufacture

Que son las tecnológias disruptivas en la ingeniería industrial y como se relacionan con la manufactura globalizada en diferentes sectores como el automotriz, aeroespacial, manufacturero, metalmecanico en la implementación de sistemas de calidad y de gestión?

Industry of Southeast Asia Industrialization in Southeast Asia is a relatively recent phenomenon, much of the development having occurred only since the early 1960s. As mentioned above, industrialization policies have been critical goals in the market economies of the ASEAN countries; and, in all of them except Brunei, industry’s share of the GDP has grown considerably. The most significant increases have occurred in Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines. Manufacturing in particular has accounted for the greatest changes, with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand making especially large gains during the 1980s. Small factories dominate, both in terms of the number of companies and the number of workers employed. Agricultural processing is most important in virtually all nations. The notable exception is Singapore, where the manufacture of a variety of products, headed by electrical and electronic and transport equipment, is dominant. In Thailand, Myanmar, and the Philippines, textiles and clothing are significant, as is the chemical industry in Thailand and Indonesia. Light, labour-intensive goods, such as electrical and electronic products, are increasingly important. It is in the manufacture of these products and textiles that the most employment has been gained. Tin is the most important metallic mineral in the region in terms of value, and Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia account for more than half of world production. In Malaysia and elsewhere, however, alluvial lodes are becoming depleted, and the remaining concentrations are less economical to mine. Fluctuating market prices have also discouraged tin production. Nickel, copper, and chromite are also mined, although the quantities produced in the region are minor in terms of world production. Southeast Asia has considerable reserves of oil and natural gas, notably in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei. Trade Given Southeast Asia’s strategic location and the early development of trade there, it is not surprising that trade is especially important to all nations in the region. The value of regional trade is about one-third that of the United States. Most striking is the almost total dominance of trade by the market economies. Exports, as a percentage of the GDP, are small in Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Laos and moderately so in Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Countries with a relatively large proportion of export trade are Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei. Composition of exports is important. In this respect, Indonesia—the trade structure of which long has been dominated by oil—has been relatively successful in diversifying its exports toward plywood, rattan, coffee, rubber, and textiles. Conversely, Malaysia, with a trade pattern of exporting palm oil, tropical hardwoods, and tin, now derives the majority of its export income from petroleum products. This revenue has been used to build up the country’s industrial base. Thailand exhibits a much less diverse export structure, where food and manufactured goods account for nearly all of its total trade. Likewise, Brunei relies almost entirely on its petroleum exports. Singapore, however, has utilized its unique geographic position and highly educated labour force to attract multinational corporations. As a result, investment in the manufacturing and, increasingly, service sectors has greatly expanded. Intraregional trade among the ASEAN members, while important, accounts for only about one-fifth of Southeast Asia’s total trade. Philippine trade within the region is especially small, reflecting its long-term orientation toward the United States. Far more important, therefore, is the trade with countries outside the region, dominated by that with Japan, Europe, and the United States; increasingly significant, however, is the trade with Taiwan, China (especially Hong Kong), and South Korea.

The Invention of the Automobile An automobile, or car, is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor and transports passengers. The automobile as we know it was not invented in a single day by a single inventor. In 1769, the French engineer Nicolas-Joseph Cagnon devised the first self-propelled road vehicle, a military tractor powered by a steam engine. One year later, Cagnon built a steam-driven tricycle that could carry four passengers, but steam engines were very heavy and they proved a poor design for road vehicles. Around 1830, the Scotsman Robert Anderson built the first electric carriage. Both steam and electric road vehicles were soon abandoned in favour of petrol-powered vehicles. In 1876, Nicolaus August Otto built the first practical four-stroke internal combustion engine. In an internal combustion engine, the fuel is burnt inside the engine, while in a steam engine, the fuel is burnt outside. The most common internal combustion engine type is petrol-powered. The first petrol-powered vehicles were developed by Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz. In 1885, Karl Benz designed the first three-wheeler powered by an internal combustion engine. In 1891, Benz built the first four-wheeler. The first automobile to be mass-produced in the USA was the 1901 curved-dashed Oldsmobile built by Ransom L.E. Odds. Odds devised the basic concept of the assembly line and started the Detroit-area automobile industry. Henry Ford installed the first conveyor belt-based assembly line in his car factory in Michigan in 1913. The assembly line reduced production costs for cars by reducing assembling time. Ford's famous Model T was assembled in 93 minutes. The Ford Motor Company was launched in 1903, and by 1927, 15 million Model Ts have been manufactured. The modern era of automobiles had begun. The assembly line During the period known as the Industrial Revolution (1760-1850) machines changed people’s lives as well as their methods of manufacturing. Most products people in the industrialized nations use today are manufactured by the process of mass production, that is by people and robots that use power-driven machines. Through the use of mass pro-duction methods and the assembly line, a larger amount of goods can be produced in a given period of time, usually at a lower cost.The assembly line developed at the Ford Motor Com-pany in 1913 had immense influence on the automo-tive industry and on other industrial branches. Henry Ford, founder of the company, had built his first car in 1896 and was unique among automobile inventors. In Ford’s early assembly line, cars were pulled by rope from one worker to the next. This new technique allowed individual workers to stay in one place and perform the same task repeatedly on vehi-cles as they passed by. This reduced production timeby about one-half. Ford later employed the use of conveyor belts to move the parts down the line.

Economy of Southeast Asia Even prior to the penetration of European interests, Southeast Asia was a critical part of the world trading system. A wide range of commodities originated in the region, but especially important were such spices as pepper, ginger, cloves, and nutmeg. The spice trade initially was developed by Indian and Arab merchants, but it also brought Europeans to the region. First the Portuguese, then the Dutch, and finally the British and French became involved in this enterprise in various countries. The penetration of European commercial interests gradually evolved into annexation of territories, as traders lobbied for an extension of control to protect and expand their activities. As a result, the Dutch moved into Indonesia, the British into Malaya, and the French into Indochina. Europe’s interest and activity in the region was further enhanced by the opening of the Suez Canal, the development of telegraphic communications, the adoption of steam shipping, and the prospects for trade with China. In the case of Malaya, the gradual diffusion of British administration provided systems of law and order and of taxation and allowed for the gradual development of infrastructure, principally reliable transport systems. This environment attracted Chinese immigrants, and the growth of the tin mining industry soon followed. Later rubber plantations were established, which brought about still further immigration. Similar developments took place in Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam, and Indonesia. In Siam (Thailand) during the second half of the 19th century, a rapid expansion of Western enterprise occurred, though not by colonization. Both British and American firms began trading in the region. The impact of the Western activity was essentially to remove trade from what had been a Chinese monopoly and to emphasize the export of a single commodity, rice. Established indigenous textile and sugar-processing industries were replaced by imports, and the economy slowly became dependent on rice exports. The Philippines gradually developed a plantation farming system under Spanish and later American influence, although rice, sugar, and tobacco continued to be produced by small-scale growers and processed by Chinese enterprises until the mid-19th century. The incorporation of Southeast Asia into the world economy had a major impact on the distribution of the region’s economic development, and it created more uneven patterns of population growth and economic activity. It also brought about a stronger sense of class distinction and resulted in a larger discrepancy between the wealthy and poor. The worldwide economic depression of the 1930s severely affected the commercialized areas most dependent on the world economy. Unemployment rose, and the period produced the seeds of political change and activism that culminated in the independence of most of the region’s countries after World War II. Since the 1950s the economic development strategies of virtually all the capitalist Southeast Asian states have emphasized urban industrialization, while agricultural development generally has been viewed as subsidiary to industrial growth. These strategies have met with mixed success. Indeed, the trading pattern of the region by and large has continued to be one of producing and exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods. Only Singapore has reached an advanced level of industrialization, in the process becoming one of the world’s great centers of industry and commerce. There is great disparity in development rates within the region, especially between the member and nonmember countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Those belonging to this grouping—Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand—generally have experienced significant economic development since the mid-1960s; the exception has been the Philippines, the economy of which has grown at a much slower rate. Development has been extremely slow or nonexistent in the non-ASEAN countries of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam, and these are among the poorest nations in the world.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Cuales son las ventajas del diseño industrial en la manufactura?

President Xi Jinping, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, visits Luoyang Bearing Group Co on Monday afternoon during his inspection of Luoyang, Henan province. During the visit, Xi called for continuous efforts to make the manufacturing industry even stronger to advance Chinese modernization. YAN YAN/XINHUA President Xi Jinping has stressed the importance of keeping businesses, employment, the market and expectations stable in the face of a complex international environment, saying that China will respond to various uncertainties with the certainty of its high-quality development. Xi, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chairman of the Central Military Commission, made the remarks on Tuesday as he wrapped up a two-day fact-finding trip to Central China's Henan province. Speaking to provincial Party and government officials at a work briefing on Tuesday in Zhengzhou, the provincial capital, Xi said that high-quality development is essential to Chinese modernization. Faced with the complex external environment, it is necessary to firm up confidence, unwaveringly manage China's own affairs well, and steadfastly expand high-level opening-up, he said. He also urged Henan, one of the country's economic powerhouses, to further consolidate the foundation of its real economy, and promote the development of new quality productive forces suited to local conditions and led by technological innovation, in order to enhance the capacity of its modern industrial system to support high-quality development. When visiting Luoyang Bearing Group Co in the city of Luoyang on Monday, Xi said: "China has always adhered to the path of developing the real economy. From the past reliance on imported matches, soap and iron, to now becoming the world's largest manufacturing country with the most complete industrial categories, we have taken the right path." As a traditional manufacturing enterprise specializing in bearings, Luoyang Bearing Group's products are widely used in fields such as aerospace, construction machinery, wind power generation, rail transit, port machinery and ships. After learning about the company's efforts to accelerate the development of advanced manufacturing, Xi said that China must continue to strengthen the manufacturing sector, adhere to the principles of building self-reliance and strength, and master core technologies in key fields. "The hope is placed on you," he told the on-site workers. He also called for efforts to strengthen collaboration between industries, universities and research institutes, and cultivate a large number of high-quality talent. Despite internal challenges and increasing external shocks, China's manufacturing industry has withstood pressure and maintained stable growth. In April, the manufacturing sector saw its value-added output climb 6.6 percent year-on-year, with that of equipment manufacturing and high-tech manufacturing up 9.8 percent and 10 percent, respectively, according to data released by the National Bureau of Statistics on Monday. Advanced manufacturing is the high ground in global industrial competition and the main battlefield for technological innovation. Xi has repeatedly emphasized the need to upgrade the country's modernized industrial system, supported by advanced manufacturing. In a resolution adopted at the third plenary session of the 20th CPC Central Committee in July last year, it was clearly stated that China will move faster to advance new industrialization, promote the growth and expansion of advanced manufacturing clusters, and make the manufacturing sector higher-end, smarter and more eco-friendly. On Monday, Xi also visited the White Horse Temple, the first Buddhist temple in China, and the Longmen Grottoes, a UNESCO World Heritage site. Contact the writers at mojingxi@chinadaily.com.cn

Lide 1: Introduction to Bioreactor A bioreactor is a vessel used for growing microorganisms, plant or animal cells Provides controlled conditions for biological reactions Maintains optimum pH, temperature, oxygen, and nutrients Widely used in fermentation, enzyme, vaccine, and antibiotic production Ensures sterile and aseptic environment Scale ranges from laboratory to industrial production Slide 2: Basic Design Requirements of a Bioreactor Must be constructed with non-toxic, corrosion-resistant materials Should allow effective mixing and mass transfer Provision for sterilization (in situ sterilization) Must maintain uniform temperature and pH Easy sampling without contamination Should support scalability and automation Slide 3: Materials Used in Bioreactor Construction Stainless steel (SS-316) for industrial bioreactors Glass for laboratory-scale bioreactors Plastic (polycarbonate) for disposable bioreactors Materials must withstand heat and pressure Should be smooth to prevent microbial attachment Resistant to chemicals and cleaning agents Slide 4: Main Parts of a Bioreactor Vessel: holds the culture medium and microorganisms Agitator (impeller): provides mixing Sparger: supplies sterile air Baffles: prevent vortex formation Sensors: monitor pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen Ports: used for inoculation, sampling, and feeding Slide 5: Agitation System Ensures uniform mixing of nutrients and cells Improves oxygen transfer rate Common impellers: Rushton turbine, marine propeller Speed controlled by motor Prevents settling of cells Affects shear stress on cells Slide 6: Aeration System Supplies oxygen for aerobic fermentation Air introduced through sparger Types of spargers: ring, nozzle, sintered Maintains dissolved oxygen concentration Air is filtered for sterility Essential for high cell density cultures Slide 7: Temperature and pH Control Temperature controlled by heating/cooling jackets pH maintained using acid or alkali addition Sensors continuously monitor parameters Automated control systems used Ensures optimal microbial growth Prevents enzyme denaturation Slide 8: Foam Control System Foam formed due to protein and agitation Excess foam reduces oxygen transfer Mechanical foam breakers used Chemical antifoam agents added Foam sensor detects foam formation Maintains efficient fermentation Slide 9: Types of Bioreactors – Based on Mode of Operation Batch bioreactor Fed-batch bioreactor Continuous bioreactor Choice depends on product type Widely used in industrial fermentation Controls productivity and yield Slide 10: Batch Bioreactor All nutrients added at the beginning No addition or removal during process Simple and easy to operate Low risk of contamination Used for antibiotics and enzymes Limited control over nutrient depletion Slide 11: Fed-Batch Bioreactor Nutrients added during fermentation Prevents substrate inhibition High product yield Widely used in industrial fermentation Allows better control of growth rate Used in insulin and enzyme production Slide 12: Continuous Bioreactor Fresh medium continuously added Culture removed at same rate Maintains steady-state conditions High productivity Risk of contamination is high Used in wastewater treatment and SCP production Slide 13: Types of Bioreactors – Based on Design Stirred tank bioreactor Airlift bioreactor Bubble column bioreactor Packed bed bioreactor Fluidized bed bioreactor Photobioreactor Slide 14: Stirred Tank Bioreactor (STR) Most commonly used bioreactor Mechanical agitation using impellers Suitable for aerobic fermentation Excellent mixing and oxygen transfer Used for bacteria and fungi Easy scale-up Slide 15: Airlift Bioreactor Mixing achieved by air circulation No mechanical agitator Low shear stress Energy efficient Suitable for shear-sensitive cells Used in wastewater treatment Slide 16: Bubble Column Bioreactor Air bubbles provide mixing Simple design and low cost No moving parts Limited mixing efficiency Used for microbial fermentation Suitable for large-scale operations Slide 17: Packed Bed Bioreactor Contains immobilized cells or enzymes Substrate flows through packed matrix High cell density Used in continuous processes Limited oxygen transfer Used in enzyme and wastewater treatment Slide 18: Fluidized Bed Bioreactor Immobilized particles kept in suspension Better mass transfer than packed bed Reduced clogging Suitable for continuous operation Used in biotransformations Higher operational complexity Slide 19: Photobioreactor Designed for photosynthetic organisms Provides light source Used for algae and cyanobacteria Controls light, CO₂, and temperature Used in biofuel and pigment production Can be tubular or flat-plate design Slide 20: Applications of Bioreactors Production of antibiotics and vaccines Enzyme and organic acid production Single cell protein production Wastewater treatment Biofertilizer and biopesticide production Biopharmaceutical manufacturing

Related quizzes

Related quizzes