Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemical Engineering Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ces

Review

Electrostatics in gas-solid fluidized beds: A review

Farzam Fotovat, Xiaotao T. Bi , John R. Grace
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

The characterization methods of electrostatics in fluidized beds are outlined.

Charge generation and distribution phenomena in fluidized beds and the underlying mechanisms are discussed.

The interplay between electrostatics and hydrodynamics in fluidized beds is reviewed.

Practical applications of tribocharging fluidized beds are presented.

The CFD simulations of fluidized bed systems including electrostatic charges are compared.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gas-solid fluidized beds, by their nature, are associated with intense and frequent collisions of solid par-
Received 3 May 2017 ticles with each other and with the vessel wall, causing tribo-electrification. Accumulation of electrostatic
Received in revised form 29 June 2017 charges in fluidized bed reactors can result in severe problems such as agglomeration, wall fouling, nui-
Accepted 2 August 2017
sance and hazardous discharge, all reducing the process performance and raising significant safety con-
Available online 3 August 2017
cerns. Tribo-charging of particles in fluidized beds has also been exploited in a number of useful
applications. In this review, the characterization methods of electrostatics and the mechanisms of charge
Keywords:
generation and distribution in fluidized beds are presented, followed by an account of the interplay
Fluidization
Electrostatics
between the hydrodynamics and electrostatic phenomena. Furthermore, techniques of electrostatic
Hydrodynamics charge control in fluidized beds are reviewed, and applications of tribo-electrostatic fluidization systems
Triboelectric charging are summarized. Finally, computational fluid dynamics simulations of the electrostatic effects on the
Application hydrodynamic characteristics of fluidized beds are outlined.
Simulation 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
2. Characterization of electrostatics in fluidized beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
2.1. Direct methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
2.1.1. Faraday cups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
2.2. Indirect methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
2.2.1. Electrostatic probes and sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
2.3. Particle trajectory tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
3. Charge generation and distribution in fluidized beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
3.1. Charge generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
3.2. Bipolar charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
3.3. Charge distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
4. Relationship between electrostatic phenomenon and hydrodynamics in fluidized beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
4.1. Electrostatic force vs. other forces acting on fluidized particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
4.2. Influence of fluidized bed hydrodynamics on electrostatics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
4.3. Influence of electrostatics on hydrodynamics of fluidized beds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
5. Electrostatic charge control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: ffotovat@mail.ubc.ca (F. Fotovat), xbi@chbe.ubc.ca (X.T. Bi), jgrace@chbe.ubc.ca (J.R. Grace).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2017.08.001
0009-2509/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
304 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

6. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.1. Powder coating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.2. Solids separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.2.1. Coal and fly ash beneficiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320
6.2.2. Separation of granular plastic waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
6.2.3. Protein enrichment in a tribo-electrification bio-separation process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
6.3. Modifying hydrodynamics of fluidized beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
6.4. Enhancing fluidization of nanoparticles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
6.5. Measuring fluidized bed hydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
6.5.1. Measurement of particle mean velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
6.5.2. Measurement of bed level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
7. Simulation including electrostatic charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
8. Summary and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Nomenclature

Symbols z distance between tips of a dual-tip probe, m

Ap probe tip surface area, m2
d particle diameter, m Greek letters
D fluidized bed diameter, m ai fitted parameter in Eq. (5), kg/m
Db bubble size/diameter, m bi fitted parameter in Eq. (5), C s2/kg m2
dp particle diameter, m ci fitted parameter in Eq. (5), C/kg
Ed breakdown potential in air (3  106 V/m) Dt time lag between peaks from two tips, s
Fd drag force, kg m/s2 Ds time difference between maximum and minimum
Fe electrostatic force, kg m/s2 peaks from one tip, s
Fg gravity force, kg m/s2 e voidage, dimensionless
I total current, A e0 vacuum permittivity (8.854  1012 F/m)
q particle electrostatic charge, C qb fluidized bed density, kg/m3
qm charge density or specific charge on particles, C/kg qp particle density, kg/m3
t time, s
Ub bubble velocity, m/s
Subscripts
Ug superficial gas velocity, m/s 1 upper probe tip
Ujet jet velocity, m/s 2 lower probe tip
Umf minimum fluidization velocity, m/s
max maximum
Ut terminal settling velocity of particles, m/s min minimum
Ws entrainment flux of solid particles, kg/m2 s mf minimum fluidization
xi weight fraction of fine particles having di as average
diameter, dimensionless

1. Introduction
Fluidization is associated with solid particles being transformed
into a fluid-like state by a flowing fluid. It arrived on the industrial
scene in a major way in the early 1940s with Fluid Catalytic Crack-
ing (FCC) (Jahnig et al., 1980) and has since been implemented in
many other industrial applications, including solid-catalyzed gas-
phase reactions, non-catalytic reactions and physical processes.
Advantageous features of gas-solid fluidized beds such as excellent
gas-solid contacting, efficient and uniform heat transfer, tempera-
ture uniformity, and suitability for processing a wide range of feed-
stocks, have led to widespread industrial applications including
coal/biomass combustion/gasification/pyrolysis, drying, coating,
ore roasting, catalytic processes such as acrylonitrile, aniline and
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, and gas-phase polyolefin production
(Grace et al., 2006; Kunii and Levenspiel, 1991).
Electrostatic charging of particles in gas-solid fluidized beds
was first reported about 60 years ago in connection with anoma-
lous behavior encountered in experiments on subjects as diverse
as heat transfer (Miller and Logwinuk, 1951), elutriation (Osberg
and Charlesworth, 1951), and characteristics of fluidized particles
(Lewis et al., 1949). Problems associated with fluidized bed electri-
fication include particle-wall adhesion, inter-particle cohesion and
electrostatic discharges. The charged particles can coat vessel
walls, requiring frequent cleaning. The electrostatic charges on
particles and vessel walls, as well as the high-voltage electrical
fields arising from them, can affect hydrodynamics and cause the
formation of undesired byproducts (Cheng et al., 2012a). They
can also interfere with sensors and bed internals, leading to mal-
function of measurement instruments and operation (Zhang
et al., 2013). For instance, when electrical capacitance tomography
(ECT) is applied in a particulate process, electrification can result in
measurement errors and even malfunction of some ECT systems
(Gao et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). Electrostatic charges are also
responsible for potentially severe problems in commercial gas-
solid fluidized bed facilities due to agglomeration (Ciborowski
and Wlodarski, 1962), sheeting (Hendrickson, 2006), shank (fusion
of solid particles into solid shapes resulting from overheating par-
ticles residing on the reactor wall in a reactive environment)
(Moughrabiah, 2009), nuisance discharges and product handling
(Chen et al., 2003a, 2003b). All of the obstacles owing to electro-
statics, especially sheeting in fluidized bed polymerization reac-
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
tors, may cause serious operational problems and production
losses (Hendrickson, 2006). Unintentional charge accumulation
and resultant hazardous discharges can cause sparks, fires, and
even explosions, affecting process performance and endangering
the operators (Jones et al., 1991; Nifuku and Katoh, 2003;
Ohsawa, 2003). On the other hand, since electrostatic forces can
affect the motion of charged particles, the exploitation of electro-
statics in fluidized beds can be beneficial in some industrial pro-
cesses such as powder coating (Yang et al., 2016a), coal
beneficiation (Zhao et al., 2014) and separation of solid wastes
(Wu et al., 2013). In addition, useful information on the dynamic
characteristics of bubble and particles can be obtained by process-
ing electrostatic signals acquired from different locations in flu-
idized beds (He et al., 2016a).
In granular flow systems including fluidized beds, tribo-
electrification is inevitable due to the motion of particles which
results in continuous particle-particle, particle-wall, and particle-
fluid interactions, friction and rolling (Alsmari, 2014; Mehrani
et al., 2007a). The net change in particle charge level in a gas-
solids fluidized bed or transport line results from the balance of
charge generation and dissipation occurring simultaneously (Bi,
2005). Electrostatics in gas fluidized beds is complex across multi-
ple scales, affected by many factors influencing electrostatic charge
generation, accumulation, transfer and dissipation, e.g. roughness
and condition of surfaces, particle properties, relative velocity of
particles, fluid physical properties and operating variables such
as pressure and temperature (Moughrabiah, 2009). Electrostatic
phenomena in gas-solids fluidized beds are further complicated
by the heterogeneous flow structure due to the presence of gas
bubbles and particle clusters, so that charged particle beds cannot
be treated as homogeneous media (Jalalinejad, 2013). Accordingly,
the heterogeneous flow structure at the bubble scale must be con-
sidered in order to understand the electrostatic forces and fields
associated with charged particles. Moreover, the charge on parti-
cles may be non-uniformly distributed, making the estimation of
the electrostatic charges and process control more difficult
(Matsusaka et al., 2010). As a result of the incentive to mitigate
the negative impacts of electrostatic in fluidized bed reactors and
to exploit it effectively in developing useful physical processes,
there has been a reawakening of interest in this topic in recent
years (Fotovat et al., submitted for publication).
In 2006, Hendrickson (2006) reviewed electrostatics phenom-
ena in gas phase polymerization fluidized bed reactors with a focus
on commercial issues and mitigation techniques. Powder charging
mechanisms were reviewed by Matsusaka et al. (2010) in 2010.
Mehrani et al. (2017) have recently reviewed advances in under-
standing charge buildup in gas-solid fluidized beds. To capture
the significant progress in understanding the electrostatic phe-
nomena in fluidized beds, this paper reviews recent advances in
measurement techniques of electrostatics in fluidized beds. The
interplay between electrostatics and hydrodynamics in fluidized
beds is then outlined by focusing on the underlying mechanisms
and associated phenomena. Applications, mitigation techniques
and computational simulations of electrostatics in fluidized beds
are summarized next. Finally, we provide a brief outlook on future
challenges and required research in this area.
2. Characterization of electrostatics in fluidized beds
In view of the serious technical issues caused by electrostatic
charges in industrial fluidized beds, quantification of electrostatic
charges is essential for monitoring and control. Moreover, based
on the interplay between the hydrodynamic and electrostatic phe-
nomena in fluidized beds, measurements and analysis of electro-
static charges are helpful when characterizing the motion of
305
particles and bubbles, an approach that has been extensively
adopted in pneumatic transport pipelines to measure the velocity,
concentration and mass flow rate of solids (Gajewski, 2006; Ma
and Yan, 2000; Masuda et al., 1994; Matsusaka and Masuda,
2006; Qian et al., 2012, 2014; Xu et al., 2010a; Yan, 1996; Yan
et al., 1995, 2006).
Particle charge-to-mass ratio, current or the electric potential
induced by charged particles are commonly measured to quantify
electrification phenomena in fluidized beds. The instruments
employed to measure these parameters are (1) Faraday cup, the
most common method to measure particle charge density (Bi,
2011); and (2) electrostatic sensors, including both contacting (or
collision) probes and induction sensors. Contacting probes, in the
form of a ball, hemisphere or rod, are inserted into the bed to mea-
sure charge, current or voltage signals arising from a combination
of charges transferred between particles and the probe and those
induced by particles. In spite of the intrusiveness of these probes,
they have been applied more commonly than induction sensors
in gas-solid fluidized beds (Sun and Yan, 2016). The wide applica-
tion of the contacting probes reflects their usefulness in determin-
ing local charges and their spatial distributions (Chen et al., 2003a,
2003b; Chen et al., 2006b), particle charge density (Chen et al.,
2003a, 2003b; He et al., 2015a), and even bubble characteristics
(He et al., 2014, 2015a, 2015b).
2.1. Direct methods
2.1.1. Faraday cups
The sign and density of charges on particles provide crucial
information on the degree of particle charging and the magnitude
of electrostatic forces acting on individual particles. Charged parti-
cles in fluidized beds can be removed by a sampling tube or a scoo-
per, then poured into a Faraday cage, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Such
simple sampling methods have been applied to directly measure
the particle charge density in the dense bed (Ali et al., 1999;
Fujino et al., 1985; Tardos and Pfeffer, 1980; Zhao et al., 2003)
and freeboard (Alsmari, 2014; Alsmari et al., 2015a, 2015b; Fasso
et al., 1982; Fotovat et al., 2016a, 2016c, 2016d) regions of bub-
bling/slugging fluidized beds and circulating fluidized bed (CFB)
risers (Jiang et al., 1997; Tucholski and Colver, 1998). These meth-
ods can be localized by sampling from different locations of the flu-
idized bed (Ali et al., 1999; Salama et al., 2013; Song et al., 2016;
Song and Mehrani, 2017; Sowinski et al., 2012, 2011, 2010;
Zhang et al., 2016).
Since wide particle size distributions are commonly encoun-
tered in fluidized beds, it is important to be able to distinguish dif-
ferential charging of particles of different sizes. To determine the
charge density on particles of different sizes sampled from flu-
idized beds, multi-compartment Faraday cup systems may be used
which separate particles of different charge densities into several
Faraday cups, arranged horizontally (Sharmene Ali et al., 1998) or
vertically (Zhao et al., 2003), as shown in Fig. 2, based on the prin-
ciple that charged particles of the same polarity repulse each other
while falling.
Faraday cups have mostly been used offline, measuring the
charge density of particles withdrawn from different locations of
the fluidized bed. The charge density of particles is then obtained
by dividing the charge by the mass of particles which have entered
the Faraday cup. Despite the simplicity of Faraday cups, charge
generation or dissipation during particle sampling may reduce
the measurement accuracy. To avoid this drawback, Faraday cups
equipped with a filter can be used to capture airborne particles
and measure their charge densities in the freeboard of a fluidized
bed or in gas-solid pipe flows (Alsmari, 2014; Fotovat et al.,
2016c). Also, to minimize the additional electric charging of bed
components, entrained and bed material particles can be dis-
306 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Powder in
Grounded Cup
Faraday Cup
Electrometer
++ + + +
+ ++ + +
Insulation
Fig. 1. Schematic showing Faraday cup charge density measurement system.
a)
Fig. 2. (a) Horizontal and (b) vertical multi-compartment Faraday cups (Sharmene Ali et al., 1998; Zhao et al., 2003).
charged into two separate Faraday cups, one at the top and the
other at the bottom of the bed (Salama et al., 2013; Song and
Mehrani, 2017; Sowinski et al., 2012). Also, to minimize the addi-
tional electric charging of bed components, entrained particles can
be directly collected into Faraday cups at the top of the bed to mea-
sure the charge density, while the charge density of the bed mate-
rial is determined by dropping the bed particles into a Faraday cup
located underneath the gas distributor, immediately after the flow
of fluidizing gas is terminated (Fig. 3a) (Sowinski et al., 2009, 2010,
2012). By placing a charge separator and a horizontal array Faraday
cup system below the fluidized bed, the charge distribution of
dropped particles can also be determined (Salama et al., 2013;
Song and Mehrani, 2017) (Fig. 3b).
A novel in-situ Faraday cup fluidized bed method was developed
by Mehrani (2005) and Mehrani et al. (2005, 2007b) to measure the
charge density of entrained fine powders from an electrically iso-
lated copper fluidization column, which serves as a Faraday cup.
As shown in Fig. 4, when charged fine particles are elutriated from
the fluidized bed, an equal but opposite charge is registered by the
electrometer connected to the isolated copper fluidization column.
To monitor the change of charge density of entrained fine powders
with time, the entrained particles are captured by a bag filter and
weighed by a sensitive balance so that the transient charge density
of the entrained fines can be obtained (Omar et al., 2010). Unlike
conventional Faraday cups, this fluidized bed Faraday cup is not
susceptible to strong interferences of the flow field, generation of
extra charges or discharging while handling particles, or variations
in environmental factors, such as atmospheric air humidity and
Fluidized Bed
Electrometer
Faraday Cup
b) Fluidized bed
Plug
Metal sampling tube
1
3
4
Vertical array of
Faraday cup sensors 5
6
7
electromagnetic noise. However, this approach is unable to provide
information on the charge distribution of bed particles, since it
only measures total net charges in the bed.
2.2. Indirect methods
2.2.1. Electrostatic probes and sensors
Electrostatic charge buildup inside fluidized beds has been
measured by electrostatic probes of three major types: capacitance
probes, induction probes and collision probes. Unlike the Faraday
cup, which is a static measurement tool, probe signals contain
dynamic information on particle charging and hydrodynamics
inside the bed. The output of an electrostatic probe is in the form
of an induced charge signal (Chen et al., 2007, 2006b), current sig-
nal (Dong et al., 2015b) or voltage signal (Coombes and Yan, 2015;
Zhang et al., 2015), from which the charge level and charge distri-
bution in a gassolid fluidized bed are obtained.
When particles in the fluidized bed are charged, whether or not
the reactor wall is grounded, an electrical field is created. By plac-
ing a metal probe connected to an electrometer inside the fluidized
bed, a potential relative to a grounded reference surface (reactor
wall, metal distributor or another metal probe) will be registered
by the electrometer. The magnitude of the potential relative to a
grounded metal wall or distributor generally increases with time,
finally reaching a steady state value. The final potential is then
believed to reflect the degree of electrification of fluidized particles
at steady state when equilibrium between charging and discharg-
ing is reached. In this technique, the metal probe and the grounded
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334 307

b)
a) Top Faraday cup

Top Faraday cup

Charge separator

Bottom Faraday cup

Fig. 3. Schematic of (a) a fluidization column equipped with bottom and top Faraday cups; (b) electrostatic charge separator placed below the fluidized bed (()). adapted from
Salama et al., 2013

Fig. 4. Schematic of an in-situ Faraday cup fluidized bed (Mehrani et al., 2005).
308 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
reference probe are considered to act like plates of a capacitor,
while the section of the bed located between the probes acts as a
capacitor dielectric medium over which the average charges are
obtained (Bi, 2011).
The other type of electrostatic probe, most commonly used to
measure electrostatics in industry, is the collision type current
probe, or so-called ball probe. The collision probe is installed in
the fluidized bed and connected to a resistor, with the current
measured by an electrometer (Fig. 5). These probes receive both
charges transferred from particles colliding with the probe surface
and charges induced when particles pass the probe (Tardos and
Pfeffer, 1980). Park et al. (2002b) and Chen et al. (2003a, 2003b)
mounted collision ball probes to measure charges induced and
transferred by particles surrounding rising bubbles in a two-
dimensional fluidized bed. Moughrabiah (2009) and Liu et al.
(2010) also measured the axial distribution of electrostatic current
from a number of ball probes located both at the axis and near the
wall of a fluidized bed containing polyethylene powders.
To eliminate probe interference with the motion of particles
and gas in the bed and charge transfer due to collisions between
particles and the probe, shielded induction probes have also been
deployed to characterize the electrification of fluidized beds
(Demirbas et al., 2008). Induction sensors with disc-, ring-, arc-
or stud-shape electrodes are also used to measure electrostatics
in multiphase systems (Sun and Yan, 2016). Non-contacting induc-
tion sensors are independent of net charge accumulation, such as
with contacting probes, and have the advantage of not disturbing
the flow since they are not directly exposed to the fluidized mate-
rial. Furthermore, compared to contacting probes, it is easier to
reconstruct the charge distribution from the signals generated by
non-contacting sensors, since the influence of contact charging
can be reasonably ignored (Sun and Yan, 2016). However, they
are unsuitable for obtaining local information on non-
homogenous flow systems since particle-wall interactions, rather
than particle-particle interactions, dominate the signal output.
In the case of contacting probes, the properties of the particles
and probe tip, e.g., work function, dielectric constant, electrical
conductivity, particle density and size distribution, probe tip size
and shape, affect current signals (He et al., 2016b). For a given com-
bination of a probe and a bed material, the average magnitude of
electrical current from collision probes depends not only on the
charge density of particles colliding with the probe, but also on
the particle velocity and collision frequency, because charge trans-
fer from charged particles to the probe is a function of the relative
velocity or contact time of the contacting surfaces (Matsusaka
et al., 2010). Since bubbles are known to be mainly responsible
for particle motion and therefore collision with the ball probe in
bubbling fluidized beds (Tiyapiboonchaiya et al., 2012), some
attempts have been made to decouple hydrodynamic contributions
from the probe current so as to extract the particle charge density
from ball probe current signals. It has been observed (Yao et al.,
Brass tube
Alumel wire lead
Stainless steel ball 6.7 mm O.D. to electrometer
3.2 mm dia.
Glass sleeve
5.8 mm O.D.
Fig. 5. Collision ball probe (()). adapted from Park et al., 2002b
2002) that the probability density distributions of local pressure
drop and electrostatic voltage are similar, and that the amplitudes
of voltage signals from a ball probe are mainly induced by passing
bubbles. Moreover, the power spectra of the pressure drop and the
cumulative electrostatic charge signals show a characteristic fre-
quency of about 1 Hz at relatively high superficial gas velocities,
indicating that the periodicity of both signals is dominated by large
bubbles near the bed surface (Liu et al., 2010). For a single bubble
passing a current probe in a two-dimensional fluidized bed, Park
et al. (2002b) and Chen et al. (2003a, 2003b) developed a combined
charge transfer and induction model to interpret transient current
signals. The change in net current is related to the charge transfer
from particle-probe collisions, while the fluctuations are induced
by passing bubbles. Chen et al. (2007) further demonstrated that
the charge density of the particles in the dense phase surrounding
the bubble could be obtained by fitting a single bubble model to
the measured current signals for given particle electrical properties
based on the assumption of a uniformly charged dense phase.
These findings suggest that it may be possible to estimate local
particle charge-to-mass ratios from electrical current and local voi-
dage and/or pressure signals. By developing a novel dual-tip elec-
trostatic probe, He (2015) exploited this potential to
simultaneously measure the in-situ charge density of particles
and the size and rise velocity of bubbles in a bubbling fluidized
bed. As shown in Fig. 6a and b, this novel dual-tip probe consists
of two tips separated vertically by a known distance, Dz. The work-
ing principle of this probe is that when a bubble passes the probe,
each tip registers a current signal, with maximum and minimum
peaks corresponding to arrival of the bubble nose and wake,
respectively. The time lag between the peaks from the two tips,
Dt, can then be used to estimate the bubble rise velocity, Ub. The
bubble size, Db, represented by the vertical pierced length, can be
obtained from the time difference Ds between the times corre-
sponding to arrival of the bubble nose and wake from the signals
of either tip.
Dz
Ub 1
Dt
Db U b Ds 2
The time lag, Dt, can be obtained either from the cross-
correlation of the current signals registered by each tip, or from
the time difference between maximum and minimum peak corre-
sponding times (tmax,1, tmin,1, tmax,2, tmin,2) from the upper and lower
tips as demonstrated in Fig. 6c.
tmax;1  tmax;2 tmin;1  t min;2
Dt 3
2
t min;1  tmax;1 tmin;2  tmax;2
Ds 4
2
The total current measured by the probe arises from a combina-
tion of current transferred from charged particles to the probe tip
and the current induced by charged particles. The transferred cur-
rent can be related to charge density and particle velocity (He et al.,
2014), while the induced current is correlated with the bubble rise
velocity and particle charge density (Chen et al., 2003a, 2003b).
Accordingly, He et al. (2015a) proposed an equation of the form
Ipeak;i ai qm U b qp 1  emf U b Ap bi U 2b ci 5
to represent the current peaks from either of the probe tips, where
qm, emf and Ap are the particle charge density, voidage at minimum
fluidization and probe tip surface area, respectively. ai, bi and ci are
fitted constants obtained by calibrating the probe, related to the
properties of the probe materials and particles, such as the dielec-
tric constant of particles, work function difference between the
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Fig. 6. (a) Schematic of dual-tip electrostatic probe developed by He et al. (2015a, 2015b). (b) Configuration of probe tips inserted into a fluidization column. (c) Principle of
probe to determine bubble rise velocity and size (He et al., 2015a).
probe tip material and the bed particles, probe tip size and particle
size and shape (He et al., 2016b). Calibration was achieved by
injecting bubbles into a two-dimensional fluidized bed. Synchro-
nization experiments were performed with different particle charge
densities and bubble rise velocities. The charge density (qm) was
varied by changing the superficial gas velocity (Ug), and measured
by discharging particles into a Faraday cup. Single bubbles passing
a dual-material probe in vertical alignment were selected from
recorded videos to obtain the bubble rise velocity (Ub), and corre-
sponding current peaks (Ipeak) were selected from the synchronized
probe signals. Eq. (5) was then fitted to measured data for bubbles
passing the probe from both single bubble injection and freely bub-
bling experiments. This method seems practical for calibration of
the novel probe for use in commercial-scale fluidized beds.
Eq. (5), representing the total current when the bubble nose or
wake reaches the probe, relates the current peak values (Ipeak) to
in-bed particle charge density and bubble rise velocity. Once the
bubble rise velocity has been determined from Eq. (1), the particle
charge density can be estimated by inserting the bubble rise veloc-
ity into Eq. (5). As shown in Fig. 7, the charge density obtained indi-
rectly from this novel dual probe gave reasonable agreement with
those measured directly by a Faraday cup (He et al., 2015b).
2.3. Particle trajectory tracking
The particle trajectory method is a non-contact measurement
method by which two parallel metal plates are installed in the
freeboard region of a transparent fluidized bed (Wolny and
Kazmierczak, 1989). When single particles are ejected into the
space between the parallel plates by a single gas nozzle located
inside the dense bed immediately underneath the parallel plates,
the trajectory of the single particles can be captured by a high-
speed video camera, enabling the charge density of individual par-
ticles to be determined by analyzing the trajectory of the particles
subject to the electrical field. The accuracy of this method is
309
affected by the interference of the electric field imposed by the
charged column walls and the bed particles, unless the space
between the parallel plates is well isolated (Bi, 2011).
3. Charge generation and distribution in fluidized beds
3.1. Charge generation
By its very nature, fluidization is associated with continuous
solid-solid contact and separation, as well as friction, as particles
rub against each other and against the wall. These circumstances
lead to electrostatics through triboelectric charging, or tribo-
electrification, which is the process of charge transfer between
two materials that are brought into contact and then separated.
Triboelectric charging is a non-equilibrium process. However,
when charged surfaces are close to one other, a charged state
may represent a quasi-equilibrium, as the Columbic attraction
between the oppositely charged surfaces stabilizes the charged
system (Lacks and Sankaran, 2016).
Triboelectric charging can be caused by electron transfer, ion
transfer, and material transfer (Lacks and Sankaran, 2011;
Matsusaka et al., 2010). Once electrons are responsible for charge
transfer, tribo-electrification between dissimilar materials is char-
acterized by the surface work function, defined as the work/energy
needed to pull an electron away from the surface of a material. In
general, metals have lower work functions than non-metals, so it is
easier for them to lose electrons when in contact with other mate-
rials. The work function is also closely correlated with the dielec-
tric constant of the material, being higher for materials with
higher dielectric constants. When two dissimilar materials are in
contact, electrons flow from the surface of lower work function
to that of a higher work function. Thus, in contact with a neutral
metal surface, a neutral dielectric particle will extract electrons
from the metal surface. Upon separation, the dielectric particle
then becomes negatively charged. When a charged particle con-
310 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

Fig. 7. Decoupled charge densities from dual-tip probe and Faraday cup in 0.3 m diameter fluidized bed column with polyethylene particles. (a) Steady state operation; (b)
time-on-stream monitoring with stepwise velocity changes (He et al., 2015b).

tacts a metal surface, however, the net charge exchange depends
on the pre-charge level (Matsuyama et al., 2003; Watanabe et al.,
2006), collision speed (Watanabe et al., 2006), collision angle
(Ema et al., 2003), distribution of charge on the particle surface
(Matsuyama et al., 2003), and time interval between impacts
(Matsusaka et al., 2000). Matsusaka et al. (2010) thoroughly
reviewed the extensive work carried out on the effect of particle
pre-charge level, surface pre-charge level, collision angle and colli-
sion speed on the degree of charge transfer and separation. As
depicted in Fig. 8, charge transfer occurs when two surfaces that
come into contact with each other acquire charges of similar polar-
ity after contact. In charge transfer contact between a charged par-
ticle and a neutral surface, or vice versa, results in charge being
transferred to the neutral body (Ireland, 2010). Charge separation
occurs when the charge polarities of contacting surfaces differ after
contact (Fig. 9). In charge separation contact between a neutral
particle and a neutral surface results in each acquiring an equal
charge, but with opposite polarities. Charge separation can explain
the opposite polarity of fine and coarse particles of the same mate-
rial when they come into contact, known as bipolar charging
(Mehrani et al., 2007a). This phenomenon is discussed further in
Section 3.2.
The dynamics of electrostatic charges in fluidized beds are com-
plex and depend on several parameters, including the particle
material and size distribution, column wall material and diameter,
fluidization time, fluidizing gas velocity, relative humidity, pres-
sure and temperature, among others (Salama et al., 2013).
3.2. Bipolar charging
As noted above, contact charging between particles of the same
material, but different sizes, leading to opposite charge polarity of
large and small particles, is known as bipolar charging. Three
mechanisms have been proposed to explain triboelectric charging
of systems composed of particles of identical material. The first is
the particle-size dependence of the work function, which can
result in transfer of charge species (electrons and ions) from larger
particles (with smaller work function) to smaller particles (with
larger work function) (Gallo and Lama, 1976). However, the influ-
ence of particle size on the work function is negligible for particles
larger than 1 mm. (The size correction to the work function for a
1 mm sphere would be 5  104 eV, compared with the typical
magnitude of the work function (5 eV) (Lacks and Sankaran,
2011)). A second mechanism proposed to explain particle tri-
bocharging of identical materials is that the material surfaces of
particles of a single material are not truly identical since there is
a statistical distribution of the properties of materials around the
mean values. These statistical variations can significantly affect
charge transfer since only a very small number of charged species
are required to bring about an electrostatically charged surface, e.g.
a very highly charged surface has only approximately one excess
species per 105 surface atoms (Lacks and Sankaran, 2016)). The
number of charge donor states on two surfaces of identical materi-
als may differ due to statistical variations, with a width of variation
proportional to square root of the surface area (Apodaca et al.,
2010). This difference can lead to net transfer of charged species
from the surface with a larger number of donor states to that with
a smaller number of donor states.
In the presence of an external electric field surfaces of identical
materials can be polarized leading to the breakage of the symmetry
between the surfaces and consequently to bipolar charging of sur-
faces contact with each other. As discussed in Section 4.2, the inter-
play between hydrodynamics and electrostatics in gas-solid
fluidized beds results in an electrical potential distribution along

a) b) c)
Surface Surface Surface
P (neutral particle) + P (neutral particle)
- P (neutral particle)
+ -
+ -
P - (Charge Transfer)
P (Charge Transfer)
+
P + (Charge Transfer) -
Fig. 8. Charging transfer between particles and a surface with (a) zero initial charge, (b) positive initial charge, (c) negative initial charge.
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
a) b)
Surface Surface
P (neutral particle) + P (neutral particle)
+ -
+ -
P + (Charge Separation)
OR
+ -
P - (Charge Separation)
Fig. 9. Charge separation between particles and a surface with (a) zero initial charge, (b) positive initial charge, (c) negative initial charge.
the bed, which results in tribocharging of particles of identical
materials in fluidized beds.
Asymmetric contact is another mechanism proposed by Lowell
and Truscott (1986a) to explain triboelectric charging between sur-
faces of identical materials. This theory is based on the existence of
charge transfer species on the contacting surfaces that are out-of-
equilibrium, i.e., trapped in high-energy states. Assuming an equal
density of species trapped in high-energy states for contacting sur-
faces, contact between two surfaces leads to equilibration, with
species in high-energy states on one surface relaxing to low-
energy states on the other surface. According to Lowell and
Truscott (1986a, 1986b), in the case of contact between two sur-
faces with unequal surface areas, the surface contacted over a lar-
ger area will lose charge species, while that contacted over a
smaller area gains species. Lacks and Levandovsky (2007) extended
the Lowell and Truscott theory to polydisperse granular systems by
attributing bipolar charging of identical material particles to
particle-size differences. Their model shows that the collision of
particles of different sizes leads to the accumulation of charged
species on the smaller particles in the system and a depletion of
charged species on the larger particles (Lacks et al., 2008).
Bipolar charging is often used in a general sense once particles
with opposite polarities exist in a system, whether or not the sys-
tem contains chemically identical particles. It has been found that
roughness or asperities in the range of 0.011cmm (Baytekin et al.,
2011) on the surface of particles give rise to uneven surface ener-
gies at different locations on the surface of a single particle that can
result in different polarities upon contact (Cross, 1987).
Most studies on electrostatic charging of fluidized beds before
the 1990s assumed a single polarity of bed materials, although
bipolar charging had been identified as early as 1950 (Kunkel,
1950; Turner and Balasubramanian, 1976). The first direct evi-
dence of bipolar charging in fluidized beds was provided by
Wolny and Kazmierczak (1989) who measured the charge density
of individual particles using a particle trajectory tracking technique
installed in the freeboard of the fluidized bed. They reported a
probability distribution of charge density, revealing both nega-
tively and positively charged particles. Bipolar charging of the fine
and coarse fluidized particles in binary systems has been identified
in a number of studies. However, there is no consensus on the rela-
tionship between polarity and the size of particles. While some
researchers have identified negatively charged fines and positively
charged coarse particles (Forward et al., 2009; Mehrani et al.,
2007b; Omar et al., 2010; Sharmene Ali et al., 1998; Zhao et al.,
2003), others have observed the opposite (Alsmari, 2014; Alsmari
et al., 2015b; Fotovat et al., 2017b, 2016c). A plausible reason for
this discrepancy could be the contribution of particle-wall contacts
to the reported charge and polarity of the particles tested in flu-
idization vessels of different construction materials and dimen-
sions. In addition to type and size distribution of fluidized
particles, relative humidity has also been shown to influence the
polarity of particles. In the experiments conducted by Mehrani
et al. (2007b), addition of different proportions of fines to the poly-
ethylene powder bed showed a strong dependence of the charge
311
c)
Surface
- P (neutral particle)
P - (Charge Separation) P +(Charge Separation)
level and polarity on the relative humidity of the fluidizing gas.
Fine Larostat 519 powder (an antistatic compound) was negatively
charged in dry nitrogen, but positively at 60% relative humidity.
Sign reversal was also observed for fine catalyst powder and
silver-coated glass beads.
Bipolar charging is responsible for most electrostatic-related
phenomena in fluidized beds such as particle agglomeration
(Taillet, 1993) and wall fouling (Salama et al., 2013). Trapping cat-
alyst particles in electrostatic-induced agglomerates can be benefi-
cial. However, the lower heat transfer rate from agglomerates can
be detrimental since the particle temperature may exceed the sin-
tering temperature of the bed materials, resulting in defluidization
(Hendrickson, 2006; Wei and Gu, 2015). The identification and
confirmation of bipolar charging changed the perception of a uni-
formly charged fluidized bed of particles of singular polarity, thus
opening the door to examine charge distributions in fluidized beds.
3.3. Charge distribution
Fluidized beds are non-uniform in terms of the electrostatic
field strength and polarity of particles. The highest electrical poten-
tial may occur at the bottom (grid zone) (Buzanov et al., 1978) or at
the top (near the bed surface) (Servais and Bernot, 2000), depend-
ing the charge density distribution of the fluidized particles. The
polarity of the electrostatic voltage may also change from the bot-
tom to the top of the bed (Fujino et al., 1985; Goode et al., 2000), if
there is axial segregation of positively and negatively charged par-
ticles. The grid zone and upper part of the fluidized bed are likely
the regions of maximum charge generation (associated with
high-speed gas jets and rubbing of particles on the distributor
plate) and dissipation (associated with eruption of large bubbles
at the bed surface), respectively (Buzanov et al., 1978;
Ciborowski and Wlodarski, 1962; Gajewski, 1985). The variation
of the polarity of the charged particles has been supported by the
measured opposite polarities of the particles in the dense bed
and the entrained fine particles (Ali et al., 1999) and varying polar-
ity of wall deposits in the dense bed region and above the bed sur-
face (Salama et al., 2013; Sowinski et al., 2009, 2010). In the radial
direction, the electrical field is strongest near the wall and zero at
the axis of the vessel (Fang et al., 2008; Fujino et al., 1985; Fulks
et al., 1985), which is expected even if the particles in the bed
are uniformly charged and distributed, not necessarily caused by
the radial non-uniform distributions of local void fraction or parti-
cle charge density, as speculated by Fang et al. (2008).
Gajewski (1985) measured the axial profiles of the average elec-
trostatic current from multiple isolated copper rings embedded
inside a glass fluidized bed with polypropylene powders as the
bed material. Tiyapiboonchaiya et al. (2012) found positive current
in the bottom dense bed region, and negative current in the upper
bed and freeboard region, i.e. reversal of current flow in the sys-
tem. Moughrabiah et al. (2009) and Liu et al. (2010) measured
the axial distribution of electrostatic current from eight ball probes
located at both the axis and near the wall of a fluidized bed of poly-
ethylene powders. The average currents from those probes were
312 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
always negative in the lower dense bed region, and positive in the
upper and the freeboard region, confirming the polarity reversal
with increasing height in the bed.
Rojo et al. (1986), Servais and Bernot (2000), and Fang et al.
(2008) measured the axial distribution of electrical potential based
on potential probes immersed in the fluidized bed. Fang et al.
(2008) showed that regardless of the static bed height and particle
size distribution, negative potentials were present in the lower
dense bed region, and positive potentials in the upper bed and
freeboard region. According to Fang et al. (2008) the polarities at
the top and bottom of the bed are largely determined by the net
charges on small and large particles, respectively. As illustrated
in Fig. 10, in a bed of linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) par-
ticles fluidized at 0.6 m/s, the polarities in the dense and dilute
phases are opposite, and, as expected, the magnitude of the elec-
trostatic potential at the same height increases with increasing
radial distance from the center of the bed (Fang et al., 2008).
Ali et al. (1999) studied the charge distribution in fluidized beds
of polymer powders, with samples removed from different loca-
tions of the fluidized bed by a scooper and poured into a Faraday
cup. Their results showed that the charge density inside the bed
was quite uniform, except in the near-wall region where some fine
powders deposited onto the walls. The mean size and the charge
density of the wall deposit were also analyzed. It was found that
wall deposits were positively charged in the dense bed region, with
the charge density increasing with increasing height above the dis-
tributor. Above the bed surface, however, the deposit polarity was
negative. In the region where the charge density passed through
zero, there was no deposit on the wall. The maximum charge den-
sity of the deposit corresponded to the maximum field potential for
a uniformly charged bed. Ali et al. (1999) noted that wall deposit
particles below and above the dense bed differed in mean volume
size and charge polarity. They supposed that the wall deposit par-
ticles above the dense bed were originally positively charged, but
became negatively charged due to the electric field induced by flu-
idized charged particles. However, they indicated that this was not
the case for wall-deposit particles in the dense bed since these par-
ticles were continually bombarded or replaced by other particles in
the positively charged dense bed, leading to the maintenance of
their positive net charge.
Sowinski et al. (2009, 2010, 2012) carried out similar tests on
polyethylene particles with a wide particle size range in a fluidized
bed equipped with two separate Faraday cups described in Sec-
tion 2.1.1 (Fig. 3a). They visually inspected and sampled the fine
Fig. 10. Distribution of (a) electrostatic potential and (b) equipotential lines in a bed of LLDPE particles fluidized at 0.6 m/s (Fang et al., 2008).
powders deposited on the column wall so that the charge density
and particle size distribution could be determined. Sowinski et al.
(2010) observed bipolar charging with entrained fines being
mainly positively charged, whereas the bed particles and those
attached to the column wall carried net negative charges. In their
experiments the smallest particles were positively charged and
entrained from the column. A small fraction of these particles
adhered to the column wall above the dense bed. Thus, the polarity
of the wall deposit above the dense bed was positive. In the dense
bed, the smaller bed particles adhered to the wall followed by the
larger bed particles. Moreover, overlap of the particle size distribu-
tion of the wall particles and fines with positive charge implied
that there was, to an extent, some fines trapped within the wall
particles. Overall, the polarity of wall particles in the dense bed
was negative. Despite an overlap, the size distributions of wall par-
ticles differed below and above the bed surface, likely explaining
their different polarities. Again there was a clean wall region
between the dense bed and freeboard regions. These results are
in general consistent with those of Ali et al. (1999), although the
deposits in different regions were not examined in the latter case.
As indicated by Sowinski et al. (2010), the polarity of fine parti-
cles in their work differed from those fluidized by Ali et al. (1999).
The polarity of charged particles in fluidized beds depends not only
on particle size, but also on the particle and column wall materials,
as well as the operating conditions such as relative humidity. Ali
et al. (1999) fluidized polyamide particles smaller than 150 mm in
a steel vessel with a rectangular cross section. Sowinski et al.
(2010) fluidized polyethylene particles with a particle size distri-
bution ranging from 20 to 1500 mm in a 0.10 m diameter carbon
steel column. While the former group used air with 610% RH (rel-
ative humidity), the latter used dry air. These differences are likely
responsible for different polarities of wall deposit particles
observed in these two studies, and further investigation is still
warranted.
Salama et al. (2013) utilized an electrostatic charge separator
below the fluidized bed to measure the charge distribution of
bed material (dropped through the distributor) and wall particles.
The dominance of negative charge in the wall region was shown to
result from a small number of highly negatively charged particles,
tribo-charged by contact with the carbon steel column wall. Giffin
and Mehrani (2010) showed that the charge density (charge-to-
mass ratio) of wall particles was two orders of magnitude larger
than that of dropped particles. As shown in Fig. 11, these highly
charged particles adhered strongly to the positively charged wall
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Image force
Fig. 11. Schematic of wall coating formation mechanism in a fluidized bed of polyethylene particles (Song and Mehrani, 2017).
due to the image force and attracted positively charged polyethy-
lene particles due to the electrostatic force. Layerwise formation
of wall fouling with positive net specific charge was observed by
Song et al. (2016) and Song and Mehrani (2017), who fluidized
polyethylene particles at various operating pressures, ranging from
atmospheric to 2600 kPa, with the latter being similar to the oper-
ating pressure of a commercial gas-phase polyethylene process.
Generation of electrostatic charges in the bottom of the bed
where high-velocity gas jets impinge into the dense bed before
bubbles form and charge dissipation at the bed surface where bub-
bles burst and eject particles into the freeboard at high speed, bipo-
lar charging of segregating coarse and fine particles, and the
possibility of charge transfer to or from the vessel wall are among
the factors which contribute to the axial and radial charge distribu-
tion in fluidized beds (Fang et al., 2008; Hendrickson, 2006;
Tiyapiboonchaiya et al., 2012). The size distribution of fluidized
particles and the fraction of a certain particle size can also affect
the electrostatic charging behavior of the system (Tian and
Mehrani, 2015). There is some evidence (Krauss et al., 2003;
Zheng et al., 2003) that polydispersity of particle sizes enhances
charge transfer and electric field intensities of charged particles,
presumably due to greater degree of particle charging (Lacks and
Sankaran, 2011). Addition of antistatic agents has been shown to
be able to completely change the axial and radial charge distribu-
tion profiles in fluidized beds (Goode et al., 2000; Servais and
Bernot, 2000).
4. Relationship between electrostatic phenomenon and
hydrodynamics in fluidized beds
Continual collision of particles with each other or with the ves-
sel wall is known to be the main mechanism of tribo-electrification
in fluidized beds. At the same time, electrostatic forces generated
by charged particles can influence the hydrodynamic behavior of
fluidized beds and other granular systems. Understanding the
interplay between electrostatics and hydrodynamics is vitally
important to optimize the operation and performance of fluidized
beds experiencing tribo-electrification.
In bubbling fluidized beds, particle-gas contacting has negligi-
ble effect on tribo-charging of particles (Mehrani et al., 2005). By
exploring the charge distribution around a single bubble rising in
a two-dimensional fluidized bed based on a number of induction
probes, Chen et al. (2006a, 2006b) showed that the wakes of bub-
bles could be more negatively charged than the remainder of the
dense phase, and that the charge density inside the bubbles was
nearly zero because of the extremely low solids concentration
inside the bubble.
Accumulation of electrostatic charges in fluidized beds can be
attributed to entrainment of charged fines, leaving net positive or
negative charges behind in the bed (Mehrani et al., 2005). In the
313
Electrostatic force
case of fluidization with negligible entrainment in a grounded con-
ductive column, the net specific charge generated within the bed
has been attributed to contacts between fluidizing particles and
the column wall because the net charge from bipolar charging
due to particle-particle contacts would be zero (Song and
Mehrani, 2017).
4.1. Electrostatic force vs. other forces acting on fluidized particles
The motion of particles in fluidized beds results from a balance
between gravitational force, drag and inter-particle forces such as
electrostatic and van der Waals forces exerted on the particles.
Assessment of the relative magnitude of the electrostatic forces
with respect to other forces is therefore crucial to determine the
contribution of electrostatics to the motion of particles in fluidized
beds. Hendrickson (2006) provided a detailed comparison of the
electrostatic forces with drag force and van der Waals force in flu-
idized beds containing polymer particles. Due to highly non-
uniform distributions of particle charges and resulting electric field
in fluidized beds, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reliably esti-
mate the electrostatic forces exerted on a particle in a fluidized
bed. Instead, the maximum electrostatic force, linked to the maxi-
mum particle charge that can accumulate before ionization (break-
down) of the surrounding fluid, is generally calculated and used as
a reference point to compare the electrostatic forces with the other
forces. However, in practice, charge densities of particles are signif-
icantly less than the maximum theoretical values (Chen et al.,
2003a; Hendrickson, 2006) due to the influence of experimental
conditions, e.g., relative humidity, or the measurement techniques
(Hendrickson, 2006). Among the three methods developed to esti-
mate the theoretical maximum particle charge based on Gauss
law, Hendrickson (2006) showed that the method developed by
Revel et al. (2003) gives a more reasonable result. Revel et al.
(2003) applied the Gauss law to a cylindrical-shaped fluidized
bed to obtain the maximum theoretical particle charge, |q|max, at
the condition of incipient breakdown in air:
2pe0 dp Ed
3 3
dp
jqjmax 5:56  105 6
3 1  eD 1  eD
where e0, dp, Ed, e, and D are permittivity of free space
(8.854  1012 F/m), particle diameter, breakdown potential in air
(3  106 V/m), fluidized bed void fraction, and fluidized bed diame-
ter, respectively. Since the electrostatic force acting on a particle of
charge q in an electric field E is F = Eq, the maximum electrostatic
force, |Fe|max, is the product of |q|max and the electric breakdown
potential of air. Thus
2pe0 qp dp Ed
3
2 3
dp
jF e jmax 167 7
3 qb D 1  eD
314 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Dong et al. (2015b) compared the electrostatic force and the
drag force exerted on polypropylene (PP) particles (d p = 1.85 mm,
qp = 900 kg/m ) for various gas velocities. As seen in Fig. 12, the
3 for the particle elutriation and attrition in fluidized beds. Because
maximum electrostatic force and drag were of the similar order
of magnitude in their experiments. The drag force increased signif-
icantly with increasing superficial gas velocity so that when super-
ficial gas velocity increased from 0.7 to 0.9 m/s, the drag became
the dominant force, considering that the charge density of PP par-
ticles never exceeded 50% (q/m)max in the system studied. Fig. 12
shows that when the PP particles were charged to 50% of (q/
m)max, the electrostatic force was of the same order of magnitude
as the fluid drag at a low gas velocity (Ug = 0.7 m/s). For lower par-
ticle charge densities, e.g. 25% of (q/m)max, the electrostatic force
decreased correspondingly and the drag was dominant, except at
superficial gas velocities <0.5 m/s. While the drag force primarily
acts on the particles in the gas flow direction, the electrostatic force
is exerted on the particle in both axial and radial directions, so that
the radial force component can be larger than the axial force com-
ponent (Jalalinejad et al., 2015a). Accordingly, Dong et al. (2015b)
concluded that the electric force enhanced the radial motions of
charged particles when the magnitudes of the electric and drag
forces were similar. This resulted in an increase in the impact angle
between charged particles and the column wall (Dong et al.,
2015b).
Fotovat et al. (2016a, 2016b) examined the relative significance
of electrostatic forces in the freeboard of a gas-solid fluidized bed
for various fines, where the electrostatic force was the result for
the electrostatic interaction between a pair of touching fine parti-
cles of equal size and spherical shape, with the charge densities
being experimentally measured values from the freeboard. To
demonstrate the range of variation in electrostatic force (Fe) nor-
malized by the gravitational force (Fg), the normalized minimum
(Fe,min/Fg) and maximum (Fe,max/Fg) electrostatic forces are plotted
vs. the particle size in Fig. 13 based on the lowest and highest
charge densities measured in the Fotovat et al. (2016a, 2016b)
experiments. Fig. 13 also depicts variation of the drag force (Fd)
with particle size for the tested fines. It is seen that most of the
(Fd/Fg) curves lie within the shaded regions demarcated between
the (Fe,min/Fg) and (Fe,max/Fg) curves. Moreover, most of the Fd/Fg
band, for fine particles, >1, indicating that the electrostatic forces
on these particles often exceed the gravity force, which must be
overcome for entrainment to occur. Therefore, when analyzing
the elutriation of fine particles, it is crucial to consider the effect
of the electrostatic forces on entrainment. This is in accord with
Fig. 12. Comparison of electrostatic force and drag force at different gas velocities
p = 1.85 mm, q = 900 kg/m3) (Dong et al., 2015b).
for PP particles (d
p
the findings of Maurer et al. (2016), who noted that the maximum
electrostatic forces can be relevant for particle adhesion and hence
the electrostatic forces are inter-particle forces, they primarily
affect entrainment by influencing whether particles travel individ-
ually or as aggregates/clusters. As shown by Maurer et al. (2016),
electrostatic forces may be complemented by van der Waals forces
in this role.
According to Feng and Hays (2003), both van der Waals forces
and the image electrostatic force exerted on a particle with net
charge of about 15 fC in the vicinity of a material surface can be
manipulated at least in a range over one order of magnitude with-
out encountering any physical limitations. It is generally believed
that the electrostatic forces can be more important than van der
Waals forces for large particles (Feng and Hays, 2003;
Hendrickson, 2006; Walton, 2008). However, the relative impor-
tance of electrostatic and van der Waals forces depends highly
on the surface characteristics of fines, such as roughness, and the
distance between adjacent particles. Irregular particles or particles
with a dusting of nano-scale fines may have very low effective van
der Waals adhesion forces. As a very rough estimate for such cases,
the electrostatic and image forces can exceed surface energy forces
for particles considerably larger than 10 mm (Walton, 2008).
4.2. Influence of fluidized bed hydrodynamics on electrostatics
The generation, dissipation and accumulation of electrostatic
charges are closely related to the hydrodynamic behavior of flu-
idized beds (Wei and Gu, 2015). The maximum level of charge
accumulation in fluidized beds is determined by the bed size and
fluidization parameters, such as particle size, bubble size, as well
as superficial gas velocity (Chen et al., 2003a, 2003b).
In general, the degree of electrification (charge per particle or
per unit mass of particles) increases with increasing superficial
gas velocity in bubbling fluidized beds (Alsmari et al., 2015a;
Guardiola et al., 1996; He et al., 2015a; Liu et al., 2010;
Moughrabiah et al., 2009; Park et al., 2002a). This is attributed to
enhanced particle movement by large bubbles and increased con-
tact frequency between particle and wall surfaces
(Tiyapiboonchaiya et al., 2012). Under bubbling conditions, the flu-
idized bed usually contains two circulation zones core and annu-
lus. Positive and negative electrical currents can be traced in
different locations of the bed, with opposite polarities associated
with different circulation zones, demonstrating the interplay
between hydrodynamic and electrification phenomena. The elec-
trical potential distribution can be manipulated by altering the
gas-inlet configuration (Tiyapiboonchaiya et al., 2012; Zhou et al.,
2013). For instance, by strengthening a core-annulus structure,
Zhou et al. (2013) enlarged the upper circulation zone by increas-
ing the inlet gas velocity in the core zone. Conversely, the bottom
circulation zone was expanded by increasing the gas velocity in the
annulus zone. These alterations led to expansion of the electropos-
itive and electronegative zones, respectively. Fig. 14 compares the
electrostatic potential distributions in a fluidized bed of LLDPE par-
ticles with three different gas-entering modes. One should note
that the local electrical potential may not directly reflect the local
charge density because charged particles in the whole fluidized
bed determine the distribution of electrical potential fields.
Cheng et al. (2012b) studied electrostatics in the fully devel-
oped regions of the riser and downer of a large-scale circulating
fluidized bed. They found that at relatively low superficial gas
velocities the typical core-annulus flow pattern in the riser main-
tained a balance between negative and positive induced currents
generated due to the motion of charged particles. When the flow
pattern approached dilute phase transport or the dense suspension
up-flow regime at high superficial velocities in the riser, positive
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334 315

p = 38 mm, q = 2700 kg/m3), (b)

Fig. 13. Comparison of drag-to-gravity force ratio at (Ug-Ut = 0.3 m/s) with electrostatic-to-gravity force ratio for (a) fine glass beads (d p
alumina (dp = 35 mm, q = 3200 kg/m3), (c) polyethylene furanoate (PEF) (d
p = 41 mm, q = 940 kg/m3), (d) cork (dp = 171 mm, q = 664 kg/m3) and (e) porcelain (d
p = 138 mm,
p p p
qp = 2403 kg/m ) (Fotovat et al., 2016b).
3

induced current became dominant, likely associated with reduced
back-mixing or down-flow of sand particles near the wall.
The electrostatic characteristics also differed in the fully devel-
oped regions of a riser and a downer. While increasing the air
superficial velocity resulted in an increase in the average induced
current in the riser, it led to a decrease in the induced current in
the downer at a given solids circulation rate (Cheng et al.,
2012b). Both the experimental observation of Cheng et al.
(2012a) and the results of numerical simulations showed that
the average induced currents increased with increasing solids mass
flux in a downer at a given gas velocity, because of the increased
number of particles colliding with the probe.
Particle size has a significant effect on the accumulation of elec-
trostatic charges in bulk powder flows (Wu and Bi, 2011). Boland
and Geldart (1972) and Guardiola et al. (1996) found that the
charge density increased with increasing particle size, likely
because of augmented inter-particle contacts. Addition of large
polymer granules to a fluidized bed containing particles of the
same chemical composition, but different sizes, had no discernable
effect on the electrostatic level, other than a little fluctuation of the
electrostatic potentials (Yu et al., 2010). However, injection of
small granules could increase or decrease the electrostatic poten-
tial of the bed, depending on the amount added (Moughrabiah
et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2010). This was attributed to the role of small
particles in altering the contact mode between particles and in
affecting the generation, transfer and neutralization of electrostatic
charges. For instance, as illustrated in Fig. 15, in the presence of
fine particles which tend to adhere to surfaces of opposite polarity,
316 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

Fig. 14. Electrostatic potential distribution in a fluidized bed of LLDPE particles with three different gas-entering configurations (Ug = 0.3 m/s): (a) normal uniform gas-inlet
mode, (b) gas entering core zone exclusively, and (c) gas entering annulus zone exclusively (Zhou et al., 2013).

Fig. 15. Transition of the structure of a bed of coarse LLDPE particles by adding fine particles (Yu et al., 2010).

the contact surfaces between coarse particles themselves and
between coarse particles and the column wall are reduced. As
the fines concentration increases, the contact between fine parti-
cles and between fineparticles and the wall increases to a certain
extent and then levels off. In general, the finer the granules, the
stronger the influence on fluidized bed behavior (Yu et al., 2010).
Moughrabiah (2009) and Moughrabiah et al. (2009) explored
the influence of operating pressure on the degree of electrification
in bubbling fluidized beds of glass beads and high-density poly-
ethylene resin (HDPE) particles (see Fig. 16). As the pressure
increased, the degree of electrification, as reflected by the average
current from ball probes and particle charge density from a Fara-
day cup, increased, probably due to an increase in bubble rise
velocity, frequency, and volume fraction. This is consistent with a
higher degree of fluidized bed wall coating observed in the exper-
iments of Song et al. (2016) as a consequence of elevating the sys-
tem pressure from atmospheric to 2600 kPa. Moughrabiah et al.
(2009), Alsmari (2014), and Alsmari et al. (2015a) reported a
decrease in electrostatic current, associated with charge polarity
reversal, as the bed temperature increased from 20 to 75 C, likely
due to increased charge dissipation at higher temperatures. Fig. 17
shows the effect of temperature on cumulative transferred charge
to the ball probe as a function of time in a bed of LLDPE particles.
Increasing the initial bed height resulted in an increase in the
degree of electrification of fluidized polypropylene (PP) particles
because of increased bubble size enhancing solids circulation and
frequency of particle collisions (Tiyapiboonchaiya et al., 2012).
4.3. Influence of electrostatics on hydrodynamics of fluidized beds
Electrostatic charges can change the forces on particles (Dong
et al., 2015a; Jiang et al., 1994; Revel et al., 2003), thereby inducing
particle-wall adhesion, inter-particle cohesion, and agglomeration
(Hendrickson, 2006; Wang et al., 2009; Wolny and Kazmierczak,
1993), which can further affect electrostatic phenomena in the
bed. For instance, in fluidized beds of polyethylene (PE), small
agglomerates and falling sheets significantly affect the electrostatic
behavior of the bed by changing the particle concentration, as well
as the surface charge and polarity of particles (Yang et al., 2016b).
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Fig. 16. (a) Effect of pressure on cumulative transferred charge to ball probes as a function of time measured by a collision probe located at the center of a fluidized bed of
glass beads  0.3 m above distributor, dp = 321 mm, T = 19 C, RH = 912%, and U -U = 0.05 m/s. Numbers on the curves denote absolute pressures (in kPa). (b) Charge
g mf
density of HDPE particles measured by Faraday cup, d p = 450 lm, T = 22 C, RH = 913%, and U  U = 0.05 m/s, particles sampled 0.15 m above distributor (Moughrabiah
et al., 2009).
Fig. 17. Effect of temperature on cumulative charge, measured by a collision probe
located at the center of a fluidized bed of LLDPE beads about 0.3 m above
distributor, as a function of time. dp = 600 mm, P = 379 kPa, and Ug-Umf = 0.05 m/s
(Moughrabiah et al., 2009).
Experimental and numerical studies have reported that the fre-
quency and size of bubbles decrease due to particle charging in flu-
idized beds (Dong et al., 2015a; Hassani et al., 2013; Jalalinejad
et al., 2015a, 2012). Moreover, the bubble rising zone in the bed
shrinks as a consequence of electrostatic accumulation (Dong
et al., 2015b). Bubble elongation and the tendency of bubbles to
rise more towards the axis of the column in the presence of
charged particles have also been predicted by computational sim-
ulations (Jalalinejad, 2013; Jalalinejad et al., 2015a, 2012) (see
Fig. 18a and b). Bubble shape and stability have been shown to
be influenced by the particle charge density distribution in the
bed (Jalalinejad et al., 2016). Coalescence of a pair of bubbles in a
bed of charged particles was predicted to be asymmetric (see
Fig. 18c and d), with the leading bubble wobbling, and particles
raining from the roof of the trailing bubble.
Numerical simulations of Jalalinejad et al. (2015a, 2015b) also
predicted higher rise velocity of elongated bubbles in the lower
part of a 2D column containing charged glass beads, compared to
a corresponding uncharged system. This was in line with experi-
mental work of Grace and Harrison (1967), who found that elon-
gated bubbles rise at higher velocity. However, with respect to
uncharged conditions, Dong et al. (2015a) inferred the reduced
317
mf
bubble rise velocity from less fluctuating dynamic height of a
bed of charged coarse polypropylene particles, fluidized in a cylin-
drical column. The discrepancy in the impact of electrostatics on
the bubble rise velocity in studies of Jalalinejad et al. (2015a,
2015b) and Dong et al. (2015a) may be due to different wall effects
on bubble properties in 2D and 3D columns. Moreover, Jalalinejad
et al. (2016) showed that the distribution of charge density along
the bed affects the bubble shape and stability, thereby influencing
the bubble rise velocity. Accordingly, the different charge density
distributions of particles in these studies may explain the different
conclusions drawn about the effect of electrostatic charges on bub-
ble rise velocity in fluidized beds.
When particles are mainly charged with one polarity, repulsion
forces dominate (Dong et al., 2015a). Then the void fraction in the
emulsion phase increases, explaining shrinkage of bubbles (Dong
et al., 2015a; Hassani et al., 2013). As a consequence of a reduction
in the bubble size and velocity and also because of the charged par-
ticles which adhere to the wall and form immobile close-packing
aggregates, the bed height slightly decreases and bed level fluctu-
ations are damped (Dong et al., 2015a; Lim, 2013). Increasing the
degree of electrification of particles can also delay fluidization by
increasing the minimum fluidization velocity (Dong et al.,
2015a). Electrostatics accumulation in fluidized beds also restrains
particle motion and reduces particle impact velocities, which may
augment wall sheeting and particle agglomeration. However, at
high gas velocities, where the effect of the drag force on particles
is dominant, the impact of electrostatic force on the particle impact
velocity was found to be insignificant (Dong et al., 2015b).
Computational simulations of fluidized beds with electrostatic
effects have indicated that charged particles are subject to axial
and lateral segregation because of the non-uniform potential dis-
tribution and particle charging in the bed (Bi, 2005). Due to the
presence of adhesive forces between particles and the walls arising
from electrostatic forces, particle motion is significantly hindered.
Consequently, fluidization is less vigorous in beds with strong elec-
trostatic effects, and the mixing efficiencies of such systems are
less than those with weak electrostatic effects (Lim, 2013).
Fig. 19 compares the time evolution of Lacey mixing indices of
three systems differing in the charge densities of particles and
the column wall. Electrostatic forces between particles and walls
during the fluidization process were observed to be stronger on
average than both fluid drag forces and particle-particle collision
forces when strong electrostatic effects were present (Lim, 2013).
Particle segregation due to different charges is more pronounced
318 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

Fig. 18. Effect of charge density distribution on single simulated bubbles for (a) uncharged particles and (b) uniformly charged particles with charge density of 1 lC/kg
(dp = 520 mm, qp = 2500 kg/m3, Ujet = 0.64 m/s) (Jalalinejad et al., 2016). Coalescence of two simulated bubbles in horizontal alignment in (c) uncharged (d) charged particles
with charge density of  0.33 lC/kg (dp = 300 mm, qp = 2450 kg/m3, Ug = 0.084 m/s) (Jalalinejad et al., 2015b).

Fig. 19. Time evolution of Lacey mixing indices for simulated fluidized bed systems at various fluidizing velocities with particle charge density and wall charge density of (a)
1 mC/kg and 1 mC/m (b) 1 mC/kg and 10 mC/m, and (c) 10 mC/kg and 10 mC/m (Lim, 2013).

for the particle fraction that is at lower concentration, because of
the higher frequency of collisions with particles of a different size
(Bilici et al., 2014). Monopolar charged particles are subject to lat-
eral segregation which is increased by particle charges
(Kolehmainen et al., 2016a). Size segregation in fluidized beds
can be suppressed in the presence of bipolar electrostatic charges,
since small and large particles having opposite polarities are likely
to attach to each other and form agglomerates (Yang et al., 2017b).
There is a lack of experimental studies on the mutual effects of
mixing or segregation of particles and their electrostatic character-
istics in fluidized beds.
There is extensive evidence that the entrainment of charged
fines is reduced relative to uncharged particles due to particle-
particle and particle-wall attractive interactions hindering free
and independent particle motion (Alsmari et al., 2015b; Baron
et al., 1987; Briens et al., 1992; Fotovat et al., 2016b, 2016c;
Tardos et al., 1983; Wolny and Kazmierczak, 1989; Yang et al.,
2017b). Fig. 20 portrays the normalized entrainment flux of fines
vs. electrostatic-to-gravity-force (Fe/Fg) ratio for a variety of binary
mixtures composed of fine and coarse particles. Fig. 20 suggests
that, regardless of the ratio between superficial gas velocity and
terminal settling velocity of fine particles (Ug/Ut), the entrainment
flux decreases with increasing electrostatic force. Such a trend can-
not be predicted by any of the many empirical correlations pro-
posed to estimate particle entrainment from fluidized beds,
exclusively based on hydrodynamic mechanisms, which have been
shown to be prone to extremely wide discrepancies in predictions,
up to 20 orders of magnitude (Chew et al., 2015), in part due to
ignoring electrostatic effects. By incorporating the effect of electro-
static forces on the entrainment process and developing a new cor-
relation, Fotovat et al. (2016b) showed that the predictability of the
correlations for estimating entrainment rates can be greatly
improved. Fotovat et al. (2016c, 2016d, 2017b) also demonstrated
that both the particle conductivity and the column wall material
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334 319

of the reactor product discharge system or loss of fluidization as

Fig. 20. Normalized entrainment flux vs. electrostatic-to-gravity-force ratio of
entrained fine particles, with electrostatic forces varied by varying the relative
humidity (from 5% to 35%). Coarse particles, 9095% of bed inventory, were coarse
glass beads of average size 528 lm in all cases (Fotovat et al., 2016b). xi denotes the
weight fraction of the ith cut of particle size distribution, with di as average
diameter.
properties have major impacts on the entrainment of fines because
of their effects on the electrostatic force exerted on particles in the
freeboard zone.
5. Electrostatic charge control
As discussed above, electrostatic charges in gassolid fluidized
beds can lead to problems such as agglomeration, wall sheeting,
reduction of product quality, and unscheduled shutdowns (Dong
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2009). Therefore, there is great incentive
to control electrostatic charge generation and accumulation in flu-
idized beds. Most relevant studies have been carried out on flu-
idized bed polymerization reactors, which are prone to plugging
a consequence of significant wall sheeting (Hendrickson, 2006).
The methods adopted to control electrostatic charges in fluidized
beds are categorized as charge generation rate reduction, charge
dissipation rate enhancement and charge neutralization
(Hendrickson, 2006). Table 1 provides some methods pertaining
to each mechanism found to be effective in mitigating electrifica-
tion in fluidized beds.
Grounding the column wall is commonly ineffective in reducing
electrostatic charges in fluidized beds (Park et al., 2002a; Sowinski
et al., 2011), possibly because of limited charge transfer from
poorly conductive dielectric particles to the reactor wall. However,
coating the inner column wall with an appropriate antistatic or
charge-neutralizing agent is a proven method to mitigate electro-
static charges (Mihan et al., 2002; Muhle et al., 2005). In Plexiglas
laboratory-scale columns operating at ambient temperature, coat-
ing the inner surface with a layer of cellotape or Scotch tape has
been widely used to prevent particles from adhering to the wall
(Grace and Baeyens, 1986; Park et al., 2002a).
There is extensive evidence that increasing the relative humid-
ity of the fluidizing gas decreases the level of electrostatic charging
in fluidized beds (Fujino et al., 1985; Jiang et al., 1997; Tardos et al.,
1983; Tardos and Pfeffer, 1980; Wolny and Kazmierczak, 1989).
The increase in humidity of the fluidizing gas may lower the resis-
tivity and the break-down potential of the gases, helping to dissi-
pate particle surface charges (Bi, 2011). At relatively high relative
humidities, the reduction in bed charge level is attributed to the
increased surface conductivity of moisture-coated particles
(Boland et al., 1969). Adsorption hysteresis of the powder has a
large effect on the charging characteristics (Nomura et al., 2003).
Thus the impact of relative humidity on tribo-electrification of par-
ticles in fluidized beds also depends on particle surface properties.
This is supported by observations of Giffin and Mehrani (2013) and
Alsmari (2014), who found that relative humidity has no effect on
the charge density of hydrophobic fine particles, which are unlikely
to be coated with moisture. Fotovat et al. (2016d) observed that the

Table 1
Summary of methods adopted for electrostatic charge mitigation in fluidized beds.

Mechanism Approach Example

Reducing the charge Reducing contact surface area
generation rate
Changing the operating
conditions
Enhancing the charge Increasing the relative
dissipation rate humidity
Adding antistatic agents
Neutralizing Adding charge inducing agents
electrostatic charges
Generating or injecting charge-
neutralizing ions
Adding 0.1 vol% fines (dp < 10 mm) to a fluidized bed of 1 mm polystyrene beads (Wolny and Opalinski,
1983)
Increasing bed operating temperature from 20 to 75 C in a bed of fluidized glass beads, alumina or
polymer particles (Alsmari et al., 2015a; Moughrabiah et al., 2009)
Increasing relative humidity to 4080% in a bed of fluidized glass beads and polyethylene particles (Park
et al., 2002b)
Adding 0.14 wt% graphite and other conductive fines to a bed of fluidized glass beads (Bafrnec and Bena,
1972)
Adding Larostat 519 (<1.5 wt%) to a bed of fluidizing glass beads or polyethylene particles (He et al.,
2015b; Mehrani et al., 2007b; Moughrabiah et al., 2012)
Using antistatic agents on supported catalysts in polymerization reactors (McKay et al., 2009;
Neal-Hawkins et al., 2005)
Coating the reactor inner walls with an antistatic agent mixed with polyalpha olefin (Mihan et al., 2002)
(All examples are connected to fluidized bed polymerization reactors)
Injecting very small amount of water (0.13 ppmv) (Ali and Hagerty, 1997; Chirillo et al., 1989; Goode
et al., 1989)
Adding 0.12 wt% inorganic positive or negative charge generating compounds (Song et al., 1995)
Adding solid metal oxide (0.25 wt%), water, ethanol and Triethylaluminum co-catalyst (Wang et al., 2009)
Adding a mixture of aluminum or chromium salts of an alkylsalicylic acid and alkali metal alkyl
sulfosuccinate (Brown and OShaughnessy, 1976; Willcox, 1980)
Adding hydroxyethyl alkylamine or its derivatives (Poliafico et al., 2005)
Using a static modifier catalyst such as a titanium-based catalyst (Brant et al., 2005; Eisinger et al., 1991;
Fulks et al., 1985)
Coating the reactor inner walls with a titanium-based compound of 100 lm thickness (Muhle et al., 2005)
Injecting ions through a supersonic nozzle into bulk material fluidized with humid air (Taillet, 1993)
Installing electrodes of an in situ corona charge eliminator on the wall of a bed of fluidized LLDPE particles
(Dong et al., 2014)
320 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
charge density of conductive fine particles was increased by
increasing the relative humidity, presumably because the electrical
conductivity of moisture coating was lower than that of the con-
ductive particles, hindering charge dissipation. Fig. 21 illustrates
the opposite trends of change in particle charge density with
increasing relative humidity for dielectric uncoated and conductive
silver-coated fine glass beads of the same size, density and shape,
fluidized in stainless steel and acrylic columns.
In general, injection of antistatic or charge inducing agents is
the most successful technique to eliminate electrostatic charges
in commercial fluidized bed polymerization reactors (Wang et al.,
2009). Selection of an appropriate electrostatic charge inducing
agent in these reactors depends on the polarity of the electrostatic
charge induced and the effects on the catalyst activity
(Hendrickson, 2006). When solid metal oxides are used as the
charge inducing agent, their chemical composition, especially the
electronegativity of the metal ions, can greatly influence the final
electrostatic potential distribution (Wang et al., 2009).
In addition to the approaches listed in Table 1, a few other tech-
niques have been proposed to control tribo-charging in particulate
systems, though their effectiveness in fluidized beds needs to be
explored experimentally. Physisorption and chemisorption of elec-
tronegative species, such as oxide layers, and environmental con-
tamination on the surface of particles have been shown to
decrease the chargeability of particles upon tribo-electrification
by changing their surface work functions, resulting in a reduced
charge generation rate (Trigwell et al., 2003). Surface modification
by oxygen plasma treatment is another method suggested for tai-
loring the work function of polymeric powders to provide selective
unipolar charging (Trigwell et al., 2003). Plasma treatment has also
been exploited to increase the charge decay rate of acrylic and
epoxy polymer powders by increasing the hydrophilicity and
decreasing the electrical resistivity of the particle surface
(Sharma et al., 2003, 2002).
6. Applications
6.1. Powder coating
Due to relatively low initial equipment and maintenance costs,
electrostatic fluidized beds can be used for powder coating,
especially when coating uniform layers thicker than 250 mm. Elec-
trostatic fluidized bed coating produces thick, uniformly coated
Fig. 21. Comparison of charge density for (a) fine glass beads (b) silver-coated fine glass beads in acrylic column (circular symbols) and stainless steel column (square
symbols) at different relative humidities, with Ug = 0.56 m/s (Fotovat et al., 2017b).
layers (Barletta and Tagliaferri, 2006a). In this technique the
work-piece is completely immersed in the dense bed of a fluidized
bed of charged particles, or held in the freeboard zone, some dis-
tance above the dense bed. The latter approach is superior in
achieving high coating performance of parts with complex shapes
because of the easy access of fine powders to the coating surface
without altering the hydrodynamics of dense bed. Electrification
of particles is achieved through corona charging in which elec-
trodes are located in the bottom of the bed to charge the particles
(Barletta and Tagliaferri, 2006a). Alternatively, particle-particle
and particle-wall contacts are exploited for particle tribo-
charging, alleviating the need of a high-voltage electrode system
for corona charging and providing greater safety (Ali and Inculet,
2000). The coating is based on adherence of charged particles to
the grounded work-piece. Fig. 22 demonstrates an electrostatic flu-
idized bed coating setup. The airflow, applied voltage and exposure
time are among the most important parameters affecting the coat-
ing thickness. A voltage of about 70 kV has been determined for
optimal coating. Higher voltages reportedly result in decreased
coating thickness and related deterioration of surface aesthetics,
whereas lower voltage levels can cause weak powder adhesion or
poor coverage on substrate, leading to deterioration of surface fin-
ish (Barletta and Tagliaferri, 2006b).
6.2. Solids separation
Bipolar charging of the components of a solid particulate mix-
ture provides favorable conditions for solids separation when the
freely flowing tribo-charged particles are exposed to an external
electrical field, deflecting particles with a given polarity towards
an electrode of opposite polarity. Fluidized beds are usually uti-
lized as chargers in tribo-electrostatic separators, especially at
industrial scales. Depending on the characteristics of the particles,
fluidization may offer additional advantages, enhancing the sepa-
ration efficiency. The main applications of fluidized bed tribo-
electrostatic separators are covered in the next paragraphs.
6.2.1. Coal and fly ash beneficiation
Beneficiation of coal is often imperative to improve the effi-
ciency of coal utilization and reduce pollution. Electrostatic bene-
ficiation is an advanced dry fine coal cleaning technology to
process coal particles finer than 300 mm (Dwari and Rao, 2007;
Zhao et al., 2014). This technology has a comparatively small
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Fig. 22. Schematic of (a) electrostatic fluidized bed coating setup and (b) fluidization column used by Barletta and Tagliaferri (2006b).
handling capacity and is used to produce value-added clean coal.
Prior to the separation stage, coal particles have to be electrostat-
ically charged by contact or friction with other particles or with the
walls of a container or a pipe in which they are conveyed by air. In
the tribo-electrification process, due to different work functions
and electrical properties, coal is positively charged, while accom-
panying impurities such as quartz, kaolin, pyrite, and calcite gain
negative charges (Dwari and Rao, 2006; Xin-xi et al., 2009). During
free-fall through an electrical field generated between vertical
electrode plates, charged particles are separated according to the
magnitude and polarity of their charges by being deflected toward
the positive or negative electrode (Dwari and Rao, 2007).
Dwari and Rao (2008, 2009) developed a novel laboratory
fluidized bed coal tribo-charger equipped with internal copper baf-
fles (Fig. 23) to reach a greater particle charge build-up than in
other tribo-charging systems. The results showed that the ash con-
tent could be reduced to 18% and 33% from 43% in feed coal, with
yields of about 30% and 67%, respectively. A fluidized bed could
enable recycling of non-separated materials, improving the separa-
tion efficiency. Moreover, a fluidized bed could provide an environ-
ment for treating fine coal with vapors of acidic and/or basic
organic solvents to alter the surface energetic structure of particles,
thereby enlarging the work function difference between the con-
321
tacting surfaces for enhanced tribo-electrification and separation
(Dwari and Rao, 2009; Higashiyama and Asano, 1998).
Reducing the carbonaceous matter content of fly ash from coal-
fired power plants makes fly ash suitable for use in concrete.
Zhang et al. (2012a, 2012b) used a vibrating fluidized bed as a
tribo-charger of impure fly ash containing unburned carbon.
Charged particles were then discharged into a static electrical field
between two parallel copper plates, where they were separated.
Zhang et al. (2012a) found that the best separation could be
achieved with powders discharged from the dilute freeboard region
of the tribo-charger fluidized bed, where fine particles tended to
carry net positive charges.
6.2.2. Separation of granular plastic waste
Fluidized beds can also be used to tribo-charge mixed plastic
waste granules (such as PET, PVC, PMMA, PS and PE), which are
then directed to an electrical field where free-fall of charged gran-
ules results in their deflection toward an electrode plate of oppo-
site polarity. Depending on the relative position of plastics in the
tribo-electric series, granules gain charges of different magnitudes
and polarities, leading to their separation in the electrostatic field.
Various layouts have been devised for tribo-charger fluidized beds
to enable plastic granules to gain sufficient charge for deflection in
322 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Copper baffles
Fluidized bed
Cyclone Voltage
source
N2
Electrode plate + -
Collecting bins
Electrostatic
separator
Electrometer
Fig. 23. Scheme of coal electrostatic separator developed by Dwari and Rao (2008,
2009); (adapted from (Dwari and Rao, 2009)).
the electrical field (Inculet et al., 1998; Iuga et al., 2005; Lee and
Shin, 2002).
One of the technical issues of the tribo-electrostatic separators
is setting an optimal voltage so that particles can be attracted to
the right collectors beneath the electrode plates, but not rebound
into the wrong collector due to overly forceful impacts (Wu
et al., 2013). A solution is integration of fluidized bed tribo-
charger and the electrical field, where charging and deflection
occur at the same time (Dascalescu et al., 2011; Dragan et al.,
2011). In such a system, shown in Fig. 24, particles that do not
accumulate enough charges fall back from the electrodes to the flu-
idized bed until they gain enough charge to adhere to the elec-
trodes. Particles adhering to the electrodes can be either
aspirated or removed by a belt conveyor. Despite the superiority
of this system for separating plastic granules, a disadvantage is
variation of the mixture composition with time because of uneven
charging and collection rates of mixture constituents (Wu et al.,
2013). This drawback may constrain the integration of bipolar sep-
aration systems in continuous industrial processes (Dragan et al.,
2011).
6.2.3. Protein enrichment in a tribo-electrification bio-separation
process
Ionizable functional groups on the surface of particles promote
their chargeability (Kamiyama et al., 1994; Mayr and Barringer,
2006; Nmeth et al., 2003). Proteins have many ionizable side
chains, in addition to their amino- and carboxy-terminal groups,
enabling them to be charged upon physical contact with the
tribo-charging media due to the transfer of electrons or ions
between the surface of the tribo-charger and the ionizable groups
exposed at the surface of the protein particles. Unlike proteins, car-
bohydrates are weakly charged through tribo-electrification, due
to their low proton affinity and ionizability (Ahn and Yoo, 2001).
Tabtabaei et al. (2016a, 2016b, 2017) took advantage of the differ-
ence in tribo-charging affinity of protein and carbohydrates to pro-
duce high-quality protein powders from navy bean flour using a
laboratory-scale tribo-electrostatic separator. The feedstock (flour)
was initially charged in a fluidized bed reservoir connected to a
tribo-charger tube. As depicted in Fig. 25, highly positively charged
protein particles were collected in the bin beneath the negatively
charged copper electrode plate, while the rest of particles, mostly
carbohydrates, were collected in three other bins distal to the
charged plate. Under optimal operating conditions, protein-rich
fractions with a protein content of 38.1%, accounting for 50.4% of
the total protein, were produced (Tabtabaei et al., 2016b). Employ-
ing a two-stage tribo-electrostatic separation process operated in
laminar air flow with plate voltages of 5 kV followed by 1 kV
resulted in the production of a protein-rich fraction with 38%
protein and a protein separation efficiency of 60% (Tabtabaei
et al., 2017).
6.3. Modifying hydrodynamics of fluidized beds
Electrification of particles by means of an external electric field
can be exploited to control bubble characteristics and improve the
quality of fluidization. For example, it has been demonstrated that
electric fields of the order of 1 kV/cm are effective in changing the
fluidization behavior of semi-insulating Geldart B and A powders
(Johnson and Melcher, 1975; van Willigen et al., 2005). Colver
(1977) deployed an electric field to dissipate bubbles near the
incipient bubbling velocity in a laboratory-scale fluidized bed.
The charge relaxation time of semi-insulating granules, i.e. static
dielectric constant divided by the electrical conductivity of the
material, is comparable to the typical time interval between parti-
cle collisions. This allows for charge exchange during collisions,
preventing the particles from accumulating charges which can dis-
turb the particle polarization required for this technique (Lepek
et al., 2010). Polarized particles can be arranged in chains along
the external electric field direction, leading to bubble deformation.
This, however, can decrease the particle mixing rate (Sun et al.,
2015). Controlling the bubble size and spatial distribution can
facilitate reactor scale-up and increase conversion and selectivity.
Colver (2000) developed a force model for alternating and direct
(AC-DC) current flow in particulate systems involving semi-
insulating powders and compared the model to experimental data.
He also proposed an empirical force equation involving the electric
field strength and frequency to estimate the demarcation between
a fluidized bed and a bed in which the AC (alternating current) field
forces lock up (freeze) particles (Colver, 2000).
The optimal electric field to modify the hydrodynamic behavior
of a fluidized bed mainly depends on the characteristics of the par-
ticles, such as conductivity and diameter (van Willigen et al.,
2005). According to van Willigen et al. (2003, 2005), for 77 mm Gel-
dart A glass beads, a co-flow (field lines parallel to the gas flow) AC
electric field with a frequency of 520 Hz and intensity of 400
1600 V/cm can reduce the bubble diameter by up to 25%. The
reduction in bubble diameter for larger (700 mm) Geldart B parti-
cles can be up to 85% at an optimal frequency of 2070 Hz.
6.4. Enhancing fluidization of nanoparticles
Fluidization of nanoparticles is a promising technique for the
chemical, pharmaceutical and other industries which use ultrafine
particles due to its potential for powder dispersion, coating, gran-
ulation, mixing and improving gassolid reaction efficiency
(Quintanilla et al., 2008). Unfortunately, most nanopowders cannot
be uniformly fluidized, impeding processes that rely on the poten-
tially high gas-solids contact surface provided by nanoparticles
(Quintanilla et al., 2012). Due to the exceedingly large ratio of
interparticle attractive force to particle weight, fluidized nanopar-
ticles tend to form hierarchical fractal structured, highly porous
agglomerates of the order of hundreds of microns in diameter
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334 323

Fig. 24. Fluidized bed-type tribo-electrostatic separator (Wu et al., 2013).

Fig. 25. Schematic of tribo-electrostatic separator used to enrich protein from navy bean flour (Tabtabaei et al., 2016a).

(Valverde and Castellanos, 2007). Dielectric dry nanoagglomerates
accumulate significant charge during fluidization, of the order of
1014 C, comparable to the typical charge measured in pneumatic
conveying of micron-sized and larger particles (Valverde et al.,
2008). The high charge level acquired in fluidization is attributable
to the large specific surface area of nanopowders and to the high
charge transfer between nanoparticles and vessel walls
(Quintanilla et al., 2012). However, since the electrostatic forces
between agglomerates are much weaker than the attractive van
der Waals force, the charge of nanoparticles in the fluidized bed
has negligible influence on the agglomeration dynamics.
Since porous light agglomerates suppress gas bubbles in flu-
idized beds of nanoparticles, even at superficial gas velocities well
above the minimum fluidization velocity, mobilizing or disrupting
these agglomerates is vital to boost fluidization of nanoparticles in
the absence of bubbles. One of the techniques used for this purpose
324 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
is to apply an electric field to enhance mobilization of dispersed
agglomerates relative to the gas, analogous to electrophoresis of
particles suspended in fluids (Quintanilla et al., 2012). The opti-
mum frequency for enhancing bed expansion enables agglomer-
ates to be displaced over distances a few times larger than their
sizes. It has been found that bed expansion is enhanced for field
oscillation frequencies of tens to hundreds of Hertz. For oscillation
frequencies of the order of Hertz, or smaller, bed expansion is hin-
dered due to electrophoretic deposition of the agglomerates onto
the vessel walls, which leads to channeling and depletion of the
bed (Kashyap et al., 2008; Quintanilla et al., 2008). For oscillation
frequencies of the order of kiloHertz, or larger, the agglomerates
cannot follow the rapid oscillations of the field, and hence bed
expansion is unaffected (see Fig. 26). The field strength needed to
enhance bed expansion must produce an electric force on the
agglomerates slightly larger than their weight, while the oscillation
velocity of the agglomerates must be similar to the gas velocity
(Quintanilla et al., 2012).
Espin et al. (2009) demonstrated that expansion of a non-
bubbling fluidized bed of insulating silica nanoparticles was
enhanced by imposing an alternating electric cross-flow field with
oscillation frequencies between tens and hundreds of Hertz and
field strengths of about 1 kV/cm. Under these conditions, naturally
charged nano-agglomerates experienced forced oscillations that
caused an increase in the shear on their surfaces, leading to a
decrease in the size of agglomerates.
Stratification, i.e. migration of large and small agglomerates to
the bottom and top of the bed, respectively, is a common issue in
nanoparticle fluidization caused by the wide size distribution of
the nano-agglomerates, especially in the case of unsieved samples
ranging from tens of microns to millimeters in diameter. According
to Lepek et al. (2010), the most effective technique to assist flu-
idization of such particles is to apply a non-uniform alternating
electric field, weak in the vicinity of the free surface, but strong
close to the bottom of the bed. The variable field agitates the heavy
agglomerates at the bottom of the bed, destabilizing the develop-
ment of gas channels close to the distributor, which in turn
Fig. 26. Relative variation of the particle volume fraction vs. alternating electric field frequency for different gas velocities. Root-mean-square of the field strength is 1.25 kV/
cm. Photos in the inset illustrate electrophoretic deposition (left, Ug = 2.7 cm/s, f = 1 Hz), enhanced expansion (center, Ug = 2.7 cm/s, f = 20 Hz), and minor field effect (right,
Ug = 2.7 cm/s, f = 1 kHz) (Quintanilla et al., 2012).
enhances the gas distribution and improves fluidization. Further-
more, the variable field has almost no effect on lightweight
agglomerates at the top of the bed, thus avoiding excessive elutri-
ation (Quintanilla et al., 2012).
6.5. Measuring fluidized bed hydrodynamics
The relationship between electrification and solids motion in
gas-solid flows has been well scrutinized to characterize the veloc-
ity, concentration and mass flow rate of solids in pneumatic trans-
port (Gajewski, 2006; Ma and Yan, 2000; Qian et al., 2014, 2012;
Yan et al., 2006). However, there are few studies on the use of elec-
trostatic signals to explore the hydrodynamics of fluidized beds
(Zhang et al., 2015, 2013), primarily because of poor understanding
of the relationship between tribo-electrification and hydrodynamic
phenomena in these systems.
6.5.1. Measurement of particle mean velocity
One technique to measure particle velocity is to utilize arrays of
ring- or arc-shape induction sensors installed on the outer wall of a
fluidized bed at different levels above the distributor. Single or
double ring induction sensors have commonly been used to mea-
sure particle velocities in pneumatic conveying lines based on
probe calibration and cross-correlation of signals from two rings,
separated by a given distance, by assuming uniform particle flow
in the pneumatic conveying lines (Ma and Yan, 2000; Yan et al.,
1995). This technique can be associated with a greater error in a
dense phase system than in a dilute pipe (Xu et al., 2010b, 2008)
because the particle concentration profile is prone to continuous
fluctuations due to the instability of dense phase gas-solid flows
(Liang et al., 2007).
Since velocity and the relative concentration of particles in
upward and downward flows in the detection zone of the sensors
contribute to the induced electrostatic signals, this approach is
suitable to obtain the mean velocity of particles lying in the com-
mon detection zone of the upper and lower sensors by dividing the
distance between the centers of the sensors by the transit time
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
between the upstream and downstream electrostatic signals. The
dominant peak in the cross-correlation function of the pair of sig-
nals is used to identify the time lag. The ability of cross-correlation
techniques to correctly determine the particle mean velocity lar-
gely depends on the selection of appropriate sampling frequency
(order of kHz) and integral time, i.e. number of data points used
in the cross-correlation calculation (Yang et al., 2017a). Note that
the velocity obtained from this technique is the average of upward
and downward velocities of particles in the core and the wall
region of the bed. Induction sensors have been shown to be more
sensitive to charged particles near the electrodes (Zhang et al.,
2013), affecting the measurement accuracy, particularly when
there is strong back-mixing of particles in the bed (Sun and Yan,
2016). However, it has been reported that a change in electrostatic
charge level has nearly no effect on the correlation between the
upstream and downstream signals (Shi et al., 2017).
Recent findings of Yang et al. (2017a) demonstrate that the
results obtained from this technique in a Plexiglas column with
an inner diameter of 140 mm satisfactorily represented the mean
particle velocity of the entire cross-section of the dense bed at dif-
ferent levels. Fig. 27 shows the layout of the arc-shape electrodes
used by Yang et al. (2017a). Since this technique lumps together
the effects of particle velocity, particle charging, and concentration
distribution, further research is required to illuminate the impact
of each parameter and provide more localized results.
6.5.2. Measurement of bed level
Consistent with the experimental findings of Gajewski (1985),
Fang et al. (2008) observed that if there was a distinct interface
between the dilute and dense phases, the voltage polarity reversed
near the bed surface, regardless of the gas velocity, static bed
height and particle size. This observation, attributed to the bipolar
charging of particles of different sizes, was exploited in their study
to determine the bed level by measuring the axial distribution of
electrostatic potential along a fluidized bed of linear low-density
polyethylene (LLDPE) particles in a Plexiglas column (150 mm in
inner diameter and 1000 mm high) equipped with eight electro-
static copper bar probes located at various heights along the col-
Fig. 27. Installation layout of arc-shape electrodes in Yang et al. (Yang et al., 2017a).
325
umn. Satisfactory agreement was observed between the visual
measurements and calculated values of the bed level, with a max-
imum relative error of about 4% and a mean relative error of 2%.
7. Simulation including electrostatic charges
Compared with experimental studies, computational analysis of
electrostatics in fluidized beds has received little attention until
recent years. A difficulty to incorporate the electrostatic effects in
fluidized beds is the lack of a precise model to predict dynamic par-
ticle charging as a function of the hydrodynamics, operating condi-
tions, properties of the materials involved in the fluidization
process and location. As a simplistic approach to overcome this
hurdle, the charge density has usually been assumed to be uniform
and constant for the fluidized particles. This approach has been
widely adopted in Eulerian-Eulerian and Eulerian-Lagrange models
used for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) estimation of electro-
static forces in fluidized beds. The Eulerian-Eulerian models treat
the gas and solid phases as interpenetrating continua, with each
set of particles with unique size and charge density represented
by a different solid phase, rendering this approach computationally
costly. However, changes in sub-macroscale structures may not be
captured by Eulerian-Eulerian simulations (Kolehmainen et al.,
2016a). Therefore, it is unclear if changes in the microstructure
due to electrostatics require refinement of the constitutive gas-
particle drag and particle stress models proposed for uncharged
particles.
The EulerianLagrangian approach adopted for studying the
electrostatic phenomena in fluidized beds mostly combines com-
putational fluid dynamics (CFD) and the discrete element method
(DEM). CFD-DEM considers the gas phase as a continuum, with
the momentum and continuity equations solved for each solid
phase at the particle level. The trajectory and motion of each par-
ticle is calculated at each time step and thus becomes very compu-
tationally demanding with increasing numbers of particles. Hence,
there is a limitation on the number of particles which can be
included in simulations.
Electrodes
326 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

Table 2
Summary of computational studies on electrostatics in fluidized beds.

Reference Numerical approach
Rokkam (2012) and Rokkam et al. E-E (Coupled MFM and electrostatic
(2010a, 2010b) model)
Rokkam et al. (2013) E-E (model of Rokkam et al. (2010a))
Jalalinejad (2013) and Jalalinejad E-E (TFM coupled with the
et al. (2012, 2015a, 2015b, 2016) electrostatic force density proposed
by Melchers (1981))
Jiang et al. (2014) E-E (model of Rokkam et al. (2010a))
Sun et al. (2015) E-E (TFM and MFM coupled with the
electrostatic force density proposed
by Melchers (1981))
Cheng et al. (2012a) E-L (CFD-DEM, electrostatic force
model incorporated into EDEM)
Hassani et al. (2013) E-L (CFD-DEM)
Lim (2013) E-L (CFD-DEM)
Pei et al. (2013, 2016) E-L (CFD-DEM coupled with a
condenser model for modelling
contact electrification)
Kolehmainen et al. (2016a) E-L (CFD-DEM coupled with a hybrid
approach)
Kolehmainen et al. (2016b) E-L (CFD-DEM coupled with a hybrid
approach)
Yang et al. (2017b) E-L (CFD-DEM)
Specifications of the system modeled
2D and 3D
Fluidized-bed zone (D = 0.40.6 m, H = 48 D)
Disengagement zone (Dd = 24 D, Hd = 46 D)
2D (W  H = 0.086  1.27 m2)
2D (W = 0.280.54 m, H = 0.581.22 m)
Monodisperse particles
2D (W  H = 0.186  14.0 m2)
2D (W  H = 0.57  1.0 m2)
Monodisperse particles
3D (Ddowner = 0.04 m, Hdowner = 2.0 m)
Monodisperse particles
3D (W  HD = 0.15  1.00  0.01 m3)
Np = 75,000 (monodisperse)
3D (W  HD = 0.064  0.80  0.008 m3)
Np = 25,000 (monodisperse)
2D (W  H = 0.01  0.02 m2 and
0.005  0.035 m2)
Np = 2500 (monodisperse)
3D (D = 0.003 m, H = 0.096 m)
Np = 38,410 (monodisperse)
3D (D = 0.003 m, H = 0.096 m)
Np = 38,410 (monodisperse)
2D (W  HD = 0.07  1.20  0.006 m3)
Np = 31,620 large particles and 13,315 small
particles
Method of particle charge
determination
Prefixed, size-dependent (different
polarities of small, medium, and large
particles)
Prefixed, experimentally measured
charge densities of fine, dropped, and
wall particles
Prefixed (monopolar particles with
same magnitude of charge
(Jalalinejad et al., 2015a, 2015b,
2012), three horizontal layers of par-
ticles with different charge densities
(Jalalinejad et al., 2016))
Prefixed, size-dependent (similar
polarities of coarse and fine particles)
Prefixed (monopolar particles with
the same charge density, two solid
phases with different charge
magnitudes and polarities)
Dynamic charging (neglecting charge
transfer between particles, charge
exchange mostly due to particle-wall
collisions, neglecting charge
dissipation)
Prefixed (monopolar and bipolar
particles)
Prefixed (experimentally measured
particle charge density and linear
wall charge density by Yao et al.
(2006))
Dynamic charging
Prefixed (monopolar particles with
the same amount of charge density,
two solid phases with different
charge magnitudes and polarities)
Dynamic charging (triboelectric
charging through the model
developed by Laurentie et al. (2013))
Prefixed, size-dependent (opposite
polarities of coarse and fine particles)

2D: 2-dimensional.
3D: 3-dimensional.
D: Depth or diameter.
E-E: Eulerian-Eulerian.
E-L: Eulerian-Lagrangian.
H: Height.
MFM: Multi-fluid model.
Np: Number of particles.
TFM: Two-fluid model.
W: Width.

Electrostatic interactions among particles can be determined
explicitly or implicitly. The explicit method generally determines
the electrostatic force directly, based on the charge on the particles
and the distance between them (Coulombs law), while the implicit
method first calculates the electric potential for the given charge
density distribution in fluidized beds by solving Poissons equation.
The electric potential distribution is then differentiated to obtain
the electric field strength. The electrostatic forces on particles are
obtained from the product of the electrostatic charge and the elec-
tric field strength (Pei et al., 2015).
Incorporating the explicit method into CFD-DEM models
requires summation of the forces exerted on each particle due to
all the other particles in the flow domain and the presence of
bounding surfaces. Since this approach is highly demanding com-
putationally, long-range contributions are ignored, limiting the
electrostatic forces to those exerted by the particles within a
user-specified distance from the particle of interest. However, a
large cutoff distance is required to obtain reasonable estimates of
the electrostatic force on a particle. Long-range contributions are
more dominant than short-range contributions when monodis-
perse particles have similar charge, while the opposite is true for
oppositely charged mixtures (Kolehmainen et al., 2016a). Hybrid
particle-mesh or particle-cell integrated methods have been pro-
posed to take into account the short-range contributions within
the cutoff distance, as well as long-range contributions from parti-
cles beyond the cutoff distance (Hockney and Eastwood, 1988;
Kolehmainen et al., 2016a; Luty and van Gunsteren, 1996; Pei
et al., 2015). This is first achieved by discretizing the electric field
into a mesh, with the charge on the particles mapped onto the
nodes of the mesh. The potential function is then solved for the
mesh using a continuum model, e.g. the Poisson equation
(Hockney and Eastwood, 1988), or, alternatively, the pairwise
sum of the mapped charges is calculated from the mesh locations
(Pei et al., 2015). According to Kolehmainen et al. (2016a),
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Fig. 28. Simulated fluidization of bipolarly charged particles at Ug = 0.05 m/s in a 2D column (Pei et al., 2016).
EulerianEulerian simulations using the Poissons equation to
model the electrostatic effects can capture the electrostatic field
quite accurately for large systems consisting of similarly charged
particles, whereas EulerianLagrangian techniques are more
appropriate for simulating systems of all sizes with oppositely
charged particles. Table 2 summarizes studies on the computa-
tional modeling of electrostatic phenomena in fluidized beds.
The most important phenomena predicted by the simulation
results are reviewed below. According to the numerical simula-
tions, triboelectric charging causes fluidization to become more
homogeneous and the bed height and particle velocities to
decrease (Kolehmainen et al., 2016b). Moreover, particles of differ-
ent material properties, e.g. work function, are charged with oppo-
site polarities and form agglomerates which inhibit fluidization at
low gas velocities (Pei et al., 2016). Consequently, charged particles
in fluidized beds are subject to solids segregation (Rokkam, 2012;
Rokkam et al., 2013, 2010a, 2010b), since the mixing efficiencies
of fluidized beds with stronger electrostatic effects are lower than
those with weaker electrostatic effects and the motion of particles
327
is significantly hindered by electrostatically-induced adhesive
forces between particles and the walls (Lim, 2013). This results
in less vigorous fluidization in the presence of strong electrostatic
effects, which can even give rise to defluidization (Rokkam, 2012;
Rokkam et al., 2010a, 2010b).
Fig. 28 presents the predicted influence of electrostatic charges
on fluidization of 2500 monodisperse Geldart B particles based on
a CFD-DEM simulation model of a 2D fluidized bed (Pei et al.,
2016). At the early stage of fluidization (Fig. 28a and b), the flu-
idized bed shows similar fluidization phenomena to that of
uncharged particles. However, with accumulation of net charge
on bipolarly charged particles, crystalline agglomerates of particles
form and the gas bubbles become smaller (Fig. 28c). In the pres-
ence of strong electrostatic interactions, the gas cannot easily dis-
rupt the agglomerates of particles (Fig. 28d, positive in
yellow1/light color and negative in blue/dark color). Consequently,
1
For interpretation of color in Fig. 28, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.
328 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334

the dispersed fluidized bed is transformed into a collection of a)

agglomerates, and the gas predominantly percolates through the
channels between the agglomerates, rather than via bubbles
(Fig. 28d).
Evolution of particle charging in a 2D fluidized bed has been
simulated by the CFD-DEM approach using a dynamic charging
model (Pei et al., 2013). According to the simulation results, the
electrostatic charge is initially generated near the wall, then prop-
agating into the entire granular bed by particle mixing and parti-
cleparticle collisions. Consistent with the experimental findings,
the electrostatic charge increases exponentially, eventually reach-
ing an equilibrium state with a maximum value. The superficial gas
velocity can affect the charge transfer and mixing of the particles. A
higher superficial gas velocity results in larger, more rapid charge
accumulation and a sparse net charge distribution by breaking
agglomerates and mobilizing primary particles (Pei et al., 2016).
As mentioned previously, results of two-fluid model (TFM) cou-
pled with the electrostatic force density proposed by Melchers b)
(1981) showed that bubble shape and stability are functions of
the particle charge density distribution (Jalalinejad et al., 2016).
Depending on the superficial gas velocity, electrostatic charges
can decrease bubble size, modify bubble spatial distribution and
influence time-average solid velocities (Jalalinejad, 2013;
Jalalinejad et al., 2016, 2015a, 2015b, 2012; Sun et al., 2015). As
depicted in Fig. 29, a bubble progressively shrinks as the particle
charge-to-mass ratio increases owing to a decrease in the bubble
detachment time and an increase in gas leakage (Sun et al.,
2015). The electrostatic field is predicted to cause a denser bed
near the outer walls, leading to more gas flow per unit area near
the column axis (Jalalinejad, 2013).
CFD-DEM simulations of monopolar particles with constant and
uniform charge have also shown a decrease in the size and number
of bubbles, resulting in a more homogenous bed with increased
void fraction of the dense bed, reduced solids circulation and less
c) Charge-to-mass
solids dispersion (Hassani et al., 2013). Small fluidized beds of par-
ticles with monopolar charges are subject to lateral segregation, ratios [C/kg]
formation of a ring-like layer at modest charge levels, and bed
height oscillations which decrease with increasing charge level
(Kolehmainen et al., 2016a). In the case of equal numbers of posi-
tively and negatively charged particles, these characteristics
approach those of the neutral bed (Hassani et al., 2013;
Kolehmainen et al., 2016a), and connected chains of particles are
likely to form (Hassani et al., 2013).
Sun et al. (2015) simulated the impact of an external electrical
field on the hydrodynamics of a bubbling bed through a multi-fluid
model (MFM), coupled with the electrostatic force density pro-
posed by Melchers (1981). The simulation results showed that
under incipient fluidization conditions, imposing a DC electric field
can cause bubble splitting for a cross-flow field and bubble stretch-
ing in the case of a co-flow field. However, imposing an AC electri-
cal field at low frequencies can result in bubble deformation.
Discrete particle simulations of a fluidized bed of monodisperse Fig. 29. Variation of (a) bubble diameter and (b) bubble detachment time with
increasing particle charge density. (c) Variation of accumulated gas leakage fraction
spheres (dp = 200 mm, qp = 2500 kg/m3, ep = 7), enhanced by an
with time and particle charge density (Sun et al., 2015).
external AC electric-field, showed that at very high field strength
(3 kV/mm, 30 Hz), particles formed strings with reduced free
movement throughout the bed (van Willigen et al., 2008). Under
these conditions and compared to a regular fluidized bed, a larger tion near the wall are reduced as the particle self-generating elec-
number of bubbles formed in the bottom of the bed, regardless of trical field declines (Sun et al., 2015).
the orientation of the electric field. As these bubbles rose through In polymerization reactors involving polymer and catalyst par-
the bed, their coalescence rate was lower than for a corresponding ticles, the spatial distribution of particles depends on their charge
fluidized bed not exposed to an electric field because of the guiding and polarity (Rokkam, 2012; Rokkam et al., 2010a, 2010b). Exper-
paths formed by stringed particles. This led to smaller bubbles in imental testing of the simulation results obtained by Rokkam et al.
the higher region in the bed (van Willigen et al., 2008). Note that (2013) demonstrated that their model could successfully predict
self-generating electric fields of charged particles were not consid- solid distribution, segregation and height of the wall coatings of
ered in the simulations of van Willigen et al. (2008). Computational a laboratory-scale fluidized bed of polyethylene particles operating
simulations have shown that particle segregation and agglomera- in the bubble and slugging flow regimes.
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
The CFD-DEM simulation of a circulating fluidized bed involving
charged particles illustrates that the average induced current
caused by electrostatics is proportional to the solids mass flux in
the downer (Cheng et al., 2012a). The electrostatic charging is
weaker along the downer compared to its entrance. The average
induced current caused by charge transfer is much larger than that
due to charge generation through tribo-charging and increases
with increasing initial particle velocities and particle size. The ini-
tial charges on particles or walls significantly influence electro-
static charging (Cheng et al., 2012a).
The simulation results of Jiang et al. (2014) for an FCC riser pre-
dict that the influence of electrostatic forces on the particle distri-
bution is more noticeable in the bottom dense region than in the
upper dilute region under cold model conditions, and the electric
potential distribution is inhomogeneous because of the hydrody-
namic segregation of particles. Electrostatics is predicted to have
a weak influence on the particle concentration, gas phase tempera-
ture and main product yield for hot conditions of catalytic cracking.
Differences in work functions between the column wall and
particles can also affect particle charging during fluidization (Pei
et al., 2016). For a high effective work function difference between
Fig. 30. Instantaneous snapshots of a simulated fluidized bed at different charge levels: (a) no charge, (b) 25% of qmax, (c) 50% of qmax, and (d) 100% of qmax (Yang et al., 2017b).
329
particles and conducting walls, a bimodal distribution of charges is
observed; bed height oscillates and particles stick to the walls
(Kolehmainen et al., 2016b), leading to reduced entrainment of
charged fines (Rokkam, 2012; Rokkam et al., 2010a, 2010b; Yang
et al., 2017b). Particle entrainment might even disappear in theory
as the amount of charge on particles reaches high values. The effect
of electrostatic interactions on suppressing elutriation due to
enhanced particle agglomeration predominates over promoting
entrainment by increasing the fluidized bed expansion and the ver-
tical velocity component of small particles in the freeboard (Yang
et al., 2017b).
Fig. 30 depicts the predicted evolution of particle agglomeration
and suppression of fine entrainment with increasing charge carried
by particles from zero to a maximum value (qmax). As shown in
Fig. 30a, uncharged particles are dispersed well in the bed and a
distinct boundary can be observed at the bed surface, with a
core-annular distribution in the upper part of the freeboard. At
q = 0.25qmax, some small particles are attached to large particles,
and the boundary between small and large particles becomes
indistinct. However, as seen in Fig. 30b, small particles are still
uniformly dispersed in the bed. In the upper part of the freeboard,
330 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
distances between particles become larger, and the lateral concen-
tration difference becomes smaller. At q = 0.5qmax, dispersed small
particles are no longer discernable in the dense bed as they form
strings or clusters with some of the large particles (Fig. 30c). At this
level of charge, there are still a few dispersed small particles in the
freeboard. Only agglomerates in the form of clusters can be
detected in the bed once the charge reaches qmax (Fig. 30d). On
average, electrostatic forces between particles and walls can be
stronger than both drag and particle-particle collision forces when
electrostatic effects are strong (Lim, 2013).
8. Summary and recommendations
We have summarized current knowledge of measurement,
characteristics, control, application, and simulation of electrostat-
ics in gas-solid fluidized beds. The following points capture the
most important aspects of each topic, as well as challenges and
areas needing further research:
(1) Bipolarity and non-uniform charge distributions in fluidized
beds containing particles of different sizes and chemical
compositions increase the complexity of tribo-charging phe-
nomena. Bulk measurements relying on the assumption of
uniform spatial charge distribution are therefore unable to
capture the local charging characteristics. Localized mea-
surement techniques such as small collision and induction
probes, in conjunction with advanced signal analysis and
reconstruction methods, are needed to understand local
charging behavior in fluidized beds. It is also of practical
importance to develop commercially available probes able
to differentiate between transferred and induced charges.
Furthermore, creating an accurate picture of the bipolar
charging and segregation of particles of different sizes and
charge polarities requires advanced techniques to measure
transient local particle charge density, as well as charge den-
sity distribution across a spectrum of particle sizes.
(2) The generation, dissipation and accumulation of electro-
static charges in gas-solid fluidized beds are primarily deter-
mined by the motions of gas and solids. At the same time,
particle-particle and particle-wall electrostatic interactions
influence the hydrodynamics of fluidized beds by changing
the size and shape of bubbles, the velocity and mixing rate
of particles, and the elutriation rate of fines. The interrela-
tionship between electrostatics and hydrodynamics compli-
cates characterization, operation and scale-up of gas-solid
fluidized beds. Electrostatic signals are a potentially rich
source of information on particle motion and bubble size
and velocity. Developing novel probes and advanced signal
processing techniques have made electrostatic-based mea-
surements a powerful and inexpensive tool for characteriz-
ing fluidized beds. The potential of using electrostatics of
particles as a tool for characterizing fluidized bed hydrody-
namics could be further explored using novel electrostatic
probes. Different frequency band ranges of capacitance and
electrostatic induction signals (Li et al., 2015; Wang et al.,
2016) are also promising to adopt combined electrostatic
and capacitance tomography techniques as an advanced
approach to simultaneously study electrostatics and hydro-
dynamics of fluidized beds.
(3) Electrostatic charges in fluidized beds can be mitigated by
decreasing the charge generation rate or increasing the
dissipation rate. The most successful technique for charge
elimination in industrial-scale fluidized bed reactors,
particularly polymerization reactors, is injection of antistatic
agents to dissipate electrostatic charges by increasing
surface conductivity. Adding charges/ions or charge induc-
ing agents can also be effective in controlling fluidized bed
electrostatic potential by generating charges of polarity
opposite to the dominant polarity of the bed. Further
research is needed to prove the efficacy of different charge
control methods under commercial operating conditions,
i.e. high pressure and temperature.
(4) Although electrostatic charging in gas-solid fluidized beds is
most often detrimental to reactor performance, several
physical processes, such as powder coating and solids sepa-
ration, have been developed which take advantages of tribo-
charging in fluidized beds. Better understanding of the
underlying tribo-charging mechanisms should lead to devel-
opment of techniques/strategies to tailor the electrostatic
interactions.
(5) Computational simulations which account for electrostatic
interactions in fluidized beds have received increasing atten-
tion in recent years. Predictions from both Eulerian-Eulerian
and Eulerian-Lagrangian (CFD-DEM) approaches have been
compared with experimental results with some success.
Most such models have assumed constant particle charges,
without allowing for the dynamic nature of tribo-
electrification kinetics in fluidized beds. Developing models
which predict dynamic charge generation, accumulation
and dissipation as a function of hydrodynamics, operating
conditions and particle properties, and coupling those elec-
trostatic kinetic models with CFD models could significantly
improve the accuracy and applicability of the numerical
approaches.
(6) Overall, a multiscale approach in which proper understand-
ing of charge generation and dissipation mechanisms at the
particle scale (or even the molecular or crystal scale) cou-
pled with the distribution of charged particles at the meso
(bubble) scale is required to predict the impact of electro-
static charges on overall reactor performance and to develop
effective tools for mitigating electrostatic charges.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for financial support from a post-
doctoral fellowship to F.F. granted by Fonds de Recherche du
Qubec - Nature et Technologies (FRQNT) and for funding from
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) Discovery grant program.
References
Ahn, Y.H., Yoo, J.S., 2001. Piperidine as an efficient organic catalyst of derivatization
of oligosaccharides with malononitrile for high-sensitivity electrospray
ionization mass analysis. Anal. Sci. 17, 893895.
Ali, A.H., Hagerty, R.O., 1997. Process and system for preventing pressure tap fouling
in tandem polymerization reactors. US Patent 5,688,865.
Ali, F.S., Inculet, I.I., 2000. Electric field analysis of the tribocharged fluidized bed
powder coating process. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 36, 12471250.
Ali, F.S., Inculet, I.I., Tedoldi, A., 1999. Charging of polymer powder inside a metallic
fluidized bed. J. Electrostat. 45, 199211.
Alsmari, T.A., 2014. Effect of Operating Conditions and Particle Properties on
Electrostatics and Entrainment in Gas-solid Fluidized Beds (Ph.D. dissertation).
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Alsmari, T.A., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2015a. Effects of superficial gas velocity and
temperature on entrainment and electrostatics in gassolid fluidized beds.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 123, 4956.
Alsmari, T.A., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2015b. Effects of particle properties on entrainment
and electrostatics in gassolid fluidized beds. Powder Technology 290, 210.
Apodaca, M.M., Wesson, P.J., Bishop, K.J.M., Ratner, M.A., Grzybowski, B.A., 2010.
Contact electrification between identical materials. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49,
946949.
Bafrnec, M., Bena, J., 1972. Quantitative data on the lowering of electrostatic charge
in a fluidized bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 11771181.
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Barletta, M., Tagliaferri, V., 2006a. Electrostatic fluidized bed deposition of a high
performance polymeric powder on metallic substrates. Surf. Coatings
Technology 200, 42824290.
Barletta, M., Tagliaferri, V., 2006b. Influence of process parameters in electrostatic
fluidized bed coating. Surf. Coatings Technology 200, 46194629.
Baron, T., Briens, C.L., Bergougnou, M.A., Hazlett, J.D., 1987. Electrostatic effects on
entrainment from a fluidized bed. Powder Technology 53, 5567.
Baytekin, H.T., Patashinski, A.Z., Branicki, M., Baytekin, B., Soh, S., Grzybowski, B.A.,
2011. The mosaic of surface charge in contact electrification. Science 333, 308
312.
Bi, H.T., 2005. Electrostatic phenomena in gas-solids fluidized beds. China Particuol.
3, 395399.
Bi, X.T., 2011. Electrostatic phenomena in fluidization systems: current status of
understanding and future research needs. In: Knowlton, T. (Ed.), 10th
Circulating Fluidized Bed and Fluidization Technology. ECI Press, pp. 4157.
Bilici, M.A., Iii, J.R.T., Sankaran, R.M., Lacks, D.J., 2014. Particle size effects in particle-
particle triboelectric charging studied with an integrated fluidized bed and
electrostatic separator system. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 16.
Boland, D., Al-Salim, Q.A.W., Geldart, D., 1969. Static electrification in fluidised beds.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 24, 13891390.
Boland, D., Geldart, D., 1972. Electrostatic charging in gas fluidised beds. Powder
Technology 5, 289297.
Brant, P., Muhle, M.E., Kuchta, M., 2005. Polymerization reactor operability using
static charge modifier agents. US Patent 6,914,027 B2.
Briens, C.L., Baron, T., Bergougnou, M.A., Inculet, I.I., Hazlett, J.D., 1992. Size
distribution of particles entrained from fluidized beds: electrostatic effects.
Powder Technology 70, 5762.
Brown, T.D., OShaughnessy, M.T., 1976. Prevention of fouling in polymerization
reactors. US Patent 3,995,097.
Buzanov, V.I., Abramyan, V.K., Grishina, T.F., Krapivin, L.E., 1978. Probe
measurement of electrostatic fields in particle-bearing gas flows. Meas. Tech.
21, 692696.
Chen, A., Bi, H., Grace, J.R., 2006a. Effects of probe numbers and arrangement on the
measurement of charge distributions around a rising bubble in a two-
dimensional fluidized bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61, 64996510.
Chen, A., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 2007. Charge distribution around a rising bubble in a
two-dimensional fluidized bed by signal reconstruction. Powder Technology
177, 113124.
Chen, A., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 2003a. Measurement of particle charge-to-mass ratios
in a gas-solids fluidized bed by a collision probe. Powder Technology 135136,
181191.
Chen, A., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 2003b. Effects of charge distribution around bubbles on
charge induction and transfer to a ball probe in gas-solid fluidized beds. J.
Electrostat. 58, 91115.
Chen, A., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., Kleijn van Willigen, F., van Ommen, J.R., 2006b.
Measurement of charge distribution around a rising bubble in a 2-D fluidized
bed. AIChE J. 52, 174184.
Cheng, Y., Lau, D.Y.J., Guan, G., Fushimi, C., Tsutsumi, A., Wang, C.H., 2012a.
Experimental and numerical investigations on the electrostatics generation and
transport in the downer reactor of a triple-bed combined circulating fluidized
bed. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51, 1425814267.
Cheng, Y., Lim, E.W.C., Wang, C.H., Guan, G., Fushimi, C., Ishizuka, M., Tsutsumi, A.,
2012b. Electrostatic characteristics in a large-scale triple-bed circulating
fluidized bed system for coal gasification. Chem. Eng. Sci. 75, 435444.
Chew, J.W., Cahyadi, A., Hrenya, C.M., Karri, R., Cocco, R.A., 2015. Review of
entrainment correlations in gassolid fluidization. Chem. Eng. J. 260, 152171.
Chirillo, J.R., Kellam, C.K.I.I., McHattie, P.E., 1989. Method for reducing sheeting
during polymerization of alpha-olefins. US Patent 4,855,370.
Ciborowski, J., Wlodarski, A., 1962. On electrostatic effects in fluidized beds. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 17, 2332.
Colver, G.M., 2000. An interparticle force model for ac-dc electric fields in powders.
Powder Technology 112, 126136.
Colver, G.M., 1977. Bubble control in gas-fluidized beds with applied electric fields.
Powder Technology 17, 918.
Coombes, J.R., Yan, Y., 2015. Experimental investigations into the flow
characteristics of pneumatically conveyed biomass particles using an
electrostatic sensor array. Fuel 151, 1120.
Cross, J., 1987. Electrostatics: Principles, Problems and Applications. Adam Hilger
Bristol, Bristol.
Dascalescu, L., Fati, O., Bilici, M., Rahou, F., Dragan, C., Samuila, A., Iuga, A., 2011.
Factors that influence the efficiency of a fluidized-bed-type tribo-electrostatic
separator for mixed granular plastics. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 301, 12066.
Demirbas, B., Nijenhuis, J., Yurteri, C.U., van Ommen, J.R., 2008. Towards monitoring
electrostatics in gassolid fluidized beds. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 86, 493505.
Dong, K., Zhang, Q., Huang, Z., Liao, Z., Wang, J., Yang, Y., 2015a. Experimental
investigation of electrostatic effect on bubble behaviors in gas-solid fluidized
bed. AIChE J. 61, 11601171.
Dong, K., Zhang, Q., Huang, Z., Liao, Z., Wang, J., Yang, Y., 2014. Experimental
investigation of electrostatic reduction in a gassolid fluidized bed by an in situ
corona charge eliminator. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53, 1421714224.
Dong, K., Zhang, Q., Huang, Z., Liao, Z., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Wang, F., 2015b.
Experimental investigation of electrostatic effect on particle motions in gas-
solid fluidized beds. AIChE J. 61, 36283638.
Dragan, C., Fati, O., Radu, M., Calin, L., Samuila, A., Dascalescu, L., 2011.
Tribocharging of mixed granular plastics in a fluidized-bed device. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl. 47, 19221928.
331
Dwari, R.K., Rao, K. Hanumantha, 2009. Fine coal preparation using novel tribo-
electrostatic separator. Miner. Eng. 22, 119127.
Dwari, R.K., Rao, K. Hanumantha, 2008. Non-coking coal preparation by novel tribo-
electrostatic method. Fuel 87, 35623571.
Dwari, R.K., Rao, K. Hanumantha, 2006. Tribo-electrostatic behaviour of high ash
non-coking Indian thermal coal. Int. J. Miner. Process. 81, 93104.
Dwari, R.K., Rao, K.H., 2007. Dry beneficiation of coala review. Miner. Process. Extr.
Metall. Rev. 28, 177234.
Eisinger, R.S., Goode, M.G., Hasenberg, D.M., Lee, K.H., 1991. Process for reducing
sheeting during polymerization of alpha-olefins. US Patent 5,034,479 A.
Ema, A., Yasuda, D., Tanoue, K., Masuda, H., 2003. Tribo-charge and rebound
characteristics of particles impact on inclined or rotating metal target. Powder
Technology 135, 213.
Espin, M.J., Valverde, J.M., Quintanilla, M.A.S., Castellanos, A., 2009.
Electromechanics of fluidized beds of nanoparticles. Phys. Rev. E Stat.
Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys. 79, 17.
Fang, W., Jingdai, W., Yongrong, Y., 2008. Distribution of electrostatic potential in a
gas-solid fluidized bed and measurement of bed level. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47,
95179526.
Fasso, L., Chao, B.T., Soo, S.L., 1982. Measurement of electrostatic charges and
concentration of particles in the freeboard of a fluidized bed. Powder
Technology 33, 211221.
Feng, J.Q., Hays, D.A., 2003. Relative importance of electrostatic forces on powder
particles. Powder Technology 135136, 6575.
Forward, K.M., Lacks, D.J., Sankaran, R.M., 2009. Charge segregation depends on
particle size in triboelectrically charged granular materials. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,
14.
Fotovat, F., Alsmari, T.A., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2016a. The relationship between
fluidized bed electrostatics and entrainment. In: Chaouki, J., Berruti, F., Bi, X.T.,
Cocco, R.A. (Eds.), Fluidization XV. Montebello.
Fotovat, F., Alsmari, T.A., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2016b. The relationship between
fluidized bed electrostatics and entrainment. Powder Technology.
Fotovat, F., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2017a. A perspective in electrostatics in gas-solid
fluidized beds: challenges and potential research areas. Powder Technology
(submitted for publication).
Fotovat, F., Gill, K., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2017b. Impact of column material on
electrostatics and entrainment of particles from gas-solid fluidized beds. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 167, 120134.
Fotovat, F., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2016c. Particle entrainment from gas-solid fluidized
beds: conductive vs. dielectric fines. AIChE J. 63, 11941202.
Fotovat, F., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2016d. Impact of particle and column electrical
properties on entrainment from gas-solid fluidized beds. In: AIChE Annual
Meeting. San Francisco.
Fujino, M., Ogata, S., Shinohara, H., 1985. The electric potential distribution profile
in a naturally charged fluidized bed and its effects. Int. Chem. Eng. 25, 149159.
Fulks, B.D., Sawin, S.P., Aikman, C.D., Jenkins, J.M., 1985. Process for reducing
sheeting during polymerization of alpha-olefins. US Patent 4,792,592.
Gajewski, A., 1985. Investigation of the electrification of polypropylene particles
during the fluidization process. J. Electrostat. 17, 289298.
Gajewski, J.B., 2006. Non-contact electrostatic flow probes for measuring the flow
rate and charge in the two-phase gas-solids flows. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61, 22622270.
Gallo, C.F., Lama, W.L., 1976. Classical electrostatic description of the work function
and ionization energy of insulators. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 711
Gao, H., Xu, C., Fu, F., Wang, S., 2012. Effects of particle charging on electrical
capacitance tomography system. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 45, 375383.
Giffin, A., Mehrani, P., 2013. Effect of gas relative humidity on reactor wall fouling
generated due to bed electrification in gas-solid fluidized beds. Powder
Technology 235, 368375.
Giffin, A., Mehrani, P., 2010. Comparison of in fluence of fluidization time on
electrostatic charge build-up in the bubbling vs. slugging flow regimes in gas-
solid fluidized beds. J. Electrostat. 68, 492502.
Goode, M.G., Hasenberg, D.M., McNeil, T.J., Spriggs, T.E., 1989. Method for reducing
sheeting during polymerization of alpha-olefins. US Patent 5,731,392.
Goode, M.G., Williams, C.C., Hussein, F.D., McNeil, T.J., Lee, K.H., 2000. Static control
in olefin polymerization. US Patent 6,110,344.
Grace, J.R., Baeyens, J., 1986. Instrumentation and experimental techniques. In:
Geldart, D. (Ed.), Gas Fluidization Technology. Wiley, New York, pp. 415462.
Grace, J.R., Harrison, D., 1967. The influence of bubble shape on the rising velocities
of large bubbles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 22, 13371347.
Grace, J.R., Leckner, B., Zhu, J., Cheng, Y., 2006. Fluidized beds. In: Crowe, C.T. (Ed.),
Multiphase Flow Handbook. Taylor & Francis, Florida, USA.
Guardiola, J., Rojo, V., Ramos, G., 1996. Influence of particle size, fluidization velocity
and relative humidity on fluidized bed electrostatics. J. Electrostat. 37, 120.
Hassani, M.A., Zarghami, R., Norouzi, H.R., Mostoufi, N., 2013. Numerical
investigation of effect of electrostatic forces on the hydrodynamics of gas
solid fluidized beds. Powder Technology 246, 1625.
He, C., 2015. Probing the Electrostatics and Hydrodynamics in Gas-solid Fluidized
Beds (Ph.D. dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
He, C., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2016a. Decoupling electrostatic signals from gas-solid
bubbling fluidized beds. Powder Technology 290, 1120.
He, C., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2016b. Comparison of conventional and novel probes for
measuring electrostatics and hydrodynamics during fluidization of
polyethylene. J. Electrostat. 79, 715.
He, C., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2015a. Simultaneous measurements of particle charge
density and bubble properties in gas-solid fluidized beds by dual-tip
electrostatic probes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 123, 1121.
332 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
He, C., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2015b. Monitoring electrostatics and hydrodynamics in
gas-solid bubbling fluidized beds using novel electrostatic probes. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 54, 83338343.
He, C., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2014. Contact electrification of a novel dual-material
probe with charged particulate flow. Powder Technology 253, 19.
Hendrickson, G., 2006. Electrostatics and gas phase fluidized bed polymerization
reactor wall sheeting. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61, 10411064.
Higashiyama, Y., Asano, K., 1998. Recent progress in electrostatic separation
technology. Part. Sci. Technology 16, 7790.
Hockney, R.W., Eastwood, J.W., 1988. Computer Simulation Using Particles. CRC
Press.
Inculet, I.I., Castle, G.S.P., Brown, J.D., 1998. Electrostatic separation of plastics for
recycling. Part. Sci. Technology 16, 91100.
Ireland, P.M., 2010. Triboelectrification of particulate flows on surfaces: Part I
experiments. Powder Technology 198, 189198.
Iuga, A., Calin, L., Neamtu, V., Mihalcioiu, A., Dascalescu, L., 2005. Tribocharging of
plastics granulates in a fluidized bed device. J. Electrostat. 63, 937942.
Jahnig, C.E., Campbell, D.L., Martin, H.Z., 1980. History of fluidized solids
development at Exxon. In: Grace, J.R., Matsen, J.M. (Eds.), Fluidization. Plenum
Press, New York.
Jalalinejad, F., 2013. Electro-hydrodynamics of Gas-solid Fluidized Bed (Ph.D.
dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Jalalinejad, F., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2016. Comparison of theory with experiment for
single bubbles in charged fluidized particles. Powder Technology 290, 2732.
Jalalinejad, F., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2015a. Effect of electrostatics on freely-bubbling
beds of mono-sized particles. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 70, 104112.
Jalalinejad, F., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2015b. Effect of electrostatics on interaction of
bubble pairs in a fluidized bed. Adv. Powder Technology 26, 329334.
Jalalinejad, F., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2012. Effect of electrostatic charges on single
bubble in gas-solid fluidized beds. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 44, 1528.
Jiang, L., Fang-Zhi, X., Zheng-Hong, L., 2014. A CFD modeling of the gassolid two-
phase flow in an FCC riser under the electrostatic conditions. Asia-Pacific J.
Chem. Eng. 9, 645655.
Jiang, P., Bi, H., Liang, S., Fan, L.S., 1994. Hydrodynamic behavior of circulating
fluidized bed with polymeric particles. AIChE J. 40, 193206.
Jiang, P., Zhang, J., Fan, L.S., 1997. Electrostatic charge effects on the local solids
distribution in the upper dilute region of circulating fluidized beds. In:
Circulating Fluidized Beds V. Science Press, Beijing.
Johnson, T.W., Melcher, J.R., 1975. Electromechanics of electrofluidized beds. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Fundam. 14, 146153.
Jones, T.B., King, J.L., Yablonsky, J.F., 1991. Powder Handling and Electrostatics:
Understanding and Preventing Hazards. CRC Press.
Kamiyama, M., Maeda, M., Okutani, H., Koyama, K., Matsuda, H., Sano, Y., 1994.
Effect of functional groups on the triboelectric charging property of polymer
particles. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 51, 16671671.
Kashyap, M., Gidaspow, D., Driscoll, M., 2008. Effect of electric field on the
hydrodynamics of fluidized nanoparticles. Powder Technology 183, 441453.
Kolehmainen, J., Ozel, A., Boyce, C.M., Sundaresan, S., 2016a. A hybrid approach to
computing electrostatic forces in fluidized beds of charged particles. AIChE J. 62.
Kolehmainen, J., Ozel, A., Boyce, C.M., Sundaresan, S., 2016b. Triboelectric charging
of monodisperse particles in fluidized beds. AIChE J., 120
Krauss, C.E., Horanyi, M., Robertson, S., 2003. Experimental evidence for
electrostatic discharging of dust near the surface of Mars. New J. Phys. 5, 70.
Kunii, D., Levenspiel, O., 1991. Fluidization Engineering. Butterworth-Heinemann,
USA.
Kunkel, W.B., 1950. The static electrification of dust particles on dispersion into a
cloud. J. Appl. Phys. 21, 820832.
Lacks, D.J., Duff, N., Kumar, S.K., 2008. Nonequilibrium accumulation of surface
species and triboelectric charging in single component particulate systems.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 14.
Lacks, D.J., Levandovsky, A., 2007. Effect of particle size distribution on the polarity
of triboelectric charging in granular insulator systems. J. Electrostat. 65, 107
112.
Lacks, D.J., Sankaran, R.M., 2016. Triboelectric charging in single-component
particle systems. Part. Sci. Technology 34, 5562.
Lacks, D.J., Sankaran, R.M., 2011. Contact electrification of insulating materials. J.
Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 44, 453001.
Laurentie, J.C., Traor, P., Dascalescu, L., 2013. Discrete element modeling of
triboelectric charging of insulating materials in vibrated granular beds. J.
Electrostat. 71, 951957.
Lee, J.-K., Shin, J.-H., 2002. Triboelectrostatic separation of pvc materials from mixed
plastics for waste plastic recycling. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 19, 267272.
Lepek, D., Valverde, J.M., Pfeffer, R., Dave, R.N., 2010. Enhanced nanofluidization by
alternating electric fields. AIChE J. 56, 5465.
Lewis, W.K., Gilliland, E.R., Bauer, W.C., 1949. Characteristics of fluidized particles.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 41, 11041117.
Li, J., Kong, M., Xu, C., Wang, S., Wang, S., 2015. Influence of particle electrification
on AC-based capacitance measurement and its elimination. Meas. J. Int. Meas.
Confed. 76, 93103.
Liang, C., Zhao, C., Chen, X., Pu, W., Lu, P., Fan, C., 2007. Flow characteristics and
Shannon entropy analysis of dense-phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized
coal with variable moisture content at high pressure. Chem. Eng. Technology 30,
926931.
Lim, E.W.C., 2013. Mixing behaviors of granular materials in gas fluidized beds with
electrostatic effects. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 1586315873.
Liu, Z., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2010. Electrostatic charging behaviour of dielectric
particles in a pressurized gas-solid fluidized bed. J. Electrostat. 68, 321327.
Lowell, J., Truscott, W.S., 1986a. Triboelectrification of identical insulators. II. Theory
and further experiments. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 19, 1281.
Lowell, J., Truscott, W.S., 1986b. Triboelectrification of identical insulators. I. An
experimental investigation. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 19, 1273.
Luty, B.A., van Gunsteren, W.F., 1996. Calculating electrostatic interactions using the
particle particle particle mesh method with nonperiodic long-range
interactions. J. Phys. Chem. 100, 25812587.
Ma, J., Yan, Y., 2000. Design and evaluation of electrostatic sensors for the
measurement of velocity of pneumatically conveyed solids. Flow Meas.
Instrum. 11, 195204.
Masuda, H., Matsusaka, S., Nagatani, S., 1994. Measurements of powder flow rate in
gas-solids pipe flow based on the static electrification of particles. Adv. Powder
Technology 5, 241254.
Matsusaka, S., Ghadiri, M., Masuda, H., 2000. Electrification of an elastic sphere by
repeated impacts on a metal plate. J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 33, 23112319.
Matsusaka, S., Maruyama, H., Matsuyama, T., Ghadiri, M., 2010. Triboelectric
charging of powders: a review. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 57815807.
Matsusaka, S., Masuda, H., 2006. Simultaneous measurement of mass flow rate and
charge-to-mass ratio of particles in gas-solids pipe flow. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61,
22542261.
Matsuyama, T., Ogu, M., Yamamoto, H., Marijnissen, J.C.M., Scarlett, B., 2003. Impact
charging experiments with single particles of hundred micrometre size. Powder
Technology 135136, 1422.
Maurer, S., Durn, S.R., Knstle, M., Biollaz, S.M.A., 2016. Influence of interparticle
forces on attrition and elutriation in bubbling fluidized beds. Powder
Technology 291, 473486.
Mayr, M.B., Barringer, S.A., 2006. Corona compared with triboelectric charging for
electrostatic powder coating. J. Food Sci. 71, E171E177.
McKay, I., Jeremic, D., Mesquita, P., Jacobsen, G.B., Mastroianni, S., 2009. Supported
antistatic polymerization catalyst. US Patent 7,476,715 B2.
Mehrani, P., 2005. Characterization of Electrostatic Charges in Gas-solid Fluidized
Beds (Ph.D. dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Mehrani, P., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 2007a. Bench-scale tests to determine mechanisms
of charge generation due to particle-particle and particle-wall contact in binary
systems of fine and coarse particles. Powder Technology 173, 7381.
Mehrani, P., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 2007b. Electrostatic behavior of different fines added
to a Faraday cup fluidized bed. J. Electrostat. 65, 110.
Mehrani, P., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., 2005. Electrostatic charge generation in gassolid
fluidized beds. J. Electrostat. 63, 165173.
Mehrani, P., Murtomaa, M., Lacks, D.J., 2017. An overview of advances in
understanding electrostatic charge buildup in gas-solid fluidized beds. J.
Electrostat. 87, 6478.
Melchers, J.R., 1981. Continuum Electromechanics. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Mihan, S., Lange, A., Rohde, W., 2002. Solid reactor with an antistatic coating for
carrying out reactions in a gaseous phase. US Patent 6,335,402 B1.
Miller, C.O., Logwinuk, A.K., 1951. Fluidization studies of solid particles. Ind. Eng.
Chem. 43, 12201226.
Moughrabiah, W.O., 2009. Effect of Operating Parameters and Particle Properties on
Electrostatics in Gas-solid Fluidized Beds (Ph.D. dissertation). University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Moughrabiah, W.O., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2012. Electrostatics in gas-solid fluidized
beds for different particle properties. Chem. Eng. Sci. 75, 198208.
Moughrabiah, W.O., Grace, J.R., Bi, X.T., 2009. Effects of pressure, temperature, and
gas velocity on electrostatics in gas-solid fluidized beds. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48,
320325.
Muhle, M.E., Shannon, P.C., Ehrman, F.D., 2005. Reactor wall coating and processes.
US Patent 6,870,023.
Neal-Hawkins, K.L., Nagy, S.M., Sartain, W.J., Gupte, K., Johnson, K.W., 2005.
Supported catalysts which reduce sheeting in olefin polymerization, process for
the preparation and the use thereof. US Patent 6,884,749 B2.
Nmeth, E., Albrecht, V., Schubert, G., Simon, F., 2003. Polymer tribo-electric
charging: dependence on thermodynamic surface properties and relative
humidity. J. Electrostat. 58, 316.
Nifuku, M., Katoh, H., 2003. A study on the static electrification of powders during
pneumatic transportation and the ignition of dust cloud. Powder Technology
135136, 234242.
Nomura, T., Satoh, T., Masuda, H., 2003. The environment humidity effect on the
tribo-charge of powder. Powder Technology 135136, 4349.
Ohsawa, A., 2003. Computer simulation for assessment of electrostatic hazards in
filling operations with powder. Powder Technology 135, 216222.
Omar, M., Choi, K.S., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., 2010. Effects of particle size and fluidizing
velocity on the charge density of entrained fines. In: Kim, S.D., Kang, Y., Lee, J.K.,
Seo, C.S. (Eds.), 13th International Conference on Fluidization.
Osberg, G.L., Charlesworth, D.H., 1951. Elutriation in a fluidized bed. Chem. Eng.
Prog. 47, 566570.
Park, A., Bi, H., Grace, J.R., 2002a. Reduction of electrostatic charges in gas-solid
fluidized beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 57, 153162.
Park, A., Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., Chen, A., 2002b. Modeling charge transfer and induction
in gas-solid fluidized beds. J. Electrostat. 55, 135158.
Pei, C., Wu, C.-Y., England, D., Byard, S., Berchtold, H., Adams, M., 2015. DEM-CFD
modeling of particle systems with long-range electrostatic interactions. AIChE J.
61, 17921803.
 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Pei, C., Wu, C., Adams, M., 2016. DEM-CFD analysis of contact electrification and
electrostatic interactions during fluidization. Powder Technology 304, 208217.
Pei, C., Wu, C.Y., England, D., Byard, S., Berchtold, H., Adams, M., 2013. Numerical
analysis of contact electrification using DEM-CFD. Powder Technology 248, 34
43.
Poliafico, K., Coyle, M., Marello, M., Frantz, T., 2005. Method for reducing static
charge and reactor fouling in a polymerization process. US Patent 2005
0,203,259 A1.
Qian, X., Huang, X., Yonghui, H., Yan, Y., 2014. Pulverized coal flow metering on a
full-scale power plant using electrostatic sensor arrays. Flow Meas. Instrum. 40,
185191.
Qian, X., Yan, Y., Shao, J., Wang, L., Zhou, H., Wang, C., 2012. Quantitative
characterization of pulverized coal and biomasscoal blends in pneumatic
conveying pipelines using electrostatic sensor arrays and data fusion
techniques. Meas. Sci. Technology 23, 113.
Quintanilla, M.A.S., Valverde, J.M., Castellanos, A., Lepek, D., Pfeffer, R., Dave, R.N.,
2008. Nanofluidization as affected by vibration and electrostatic fields. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 63, 55595569.
Quintanilla, M.A.S., Valverde, J.M., Espin, M.J., Castellanos, A., 2012.
Electrofluidization of silica nanoparticle agglomerates. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
51, 531538.
Revel, J., Gatumel, C., Dodds, J.A., Taillet, J., 2003. Generation of static electricity
during fluidisation of polyethylene and its elimination by air ionisation. Powder
Technology 135136, 192200.
Rojo, V., Guardiola, J., Vian, A., 1986. A capacitor model to interpret the electric
behaviour of fluidized beds. Influence of apparatus geometry. Chem. Eng. Sci.
41, 21712181.
Rokkam, R.G., 2012. Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation of Fluidized Bed
Polymerization Reactors (Ph.D. dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa,
USA.
Rokkam, R.G., Fox, R.O., Muhle, M.E., 2010a. Computational fluid dynamics and
electrostatic modeling of polymerization fluidized-bed reactors. Powder
Technology 203, 109124.
Rokkam, R.G., Fox, R.O., Muhle, M.E., 2010b. CFD modeling of electrostatic forces in
gas-solid fluidized beds. J. Comput. Multiph. Flows 2, 189205.
Rokkam, R.G., Sowinski, A., Fox, R.O., Mehrani, P., Muhle, M.E., 2013. Computational
and experimental study of electrostatics in gas-solid polymerization fluidized
beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 92, 146156.
Salama, F., Sowinski, A., Atieh, K., Mehrani, P., 2013. Investigation of electrostatic
charge distribution within the reactor wall fouling and bulk regions of a gas-
solid fluidized bed. J. Electrostat. 71, 2127.
Servais, T., Bernot, C., 2000. Measurement of electrostatic effects in a fluidized bed
reactor. In: First European Conference on the Reaction Engineering of
Polyolefins. Lyons.
Sharma, R., Sims, R.A., Mazumder, M.K., 2002. Charge decay enhancement in
polymer powders using plasma treatment. In: Inductry Applications Conference
37th IAS Annual Meeting, pp. 610613.
Sharma, R., Trigwell, S., Biris, A.S., Sims, R.A., Mazumder, M.K., 2003. Effect of
ambient relative humidity and surface modification on the charge decay
properties of polymer powders in powder coating. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 39, 87
95.
Sharmene Ali, F., Adnan Ali, M., Ayesha Ali, R., Inculet, I.I., 1998. Minority charge
separation in falling particles with bipolar charge. J. Electrostat. 45, 139155.
Shi, Q., Zhang, Q., Han, G., Zhang, W., Wang, J., Huang, Z., Yang, Y., Yang, Y., Wu, W.,
Yan, Y., 2017. Simultaneous measurement of electrostatic charge and its effect
on particle motions by electrostatic sensors array in gas-solid fluidized beds.
Powder Technology 312, 2937.
Song, D., Mehrani, P., 2017. Mechanism of particle build-up on gas-solid fluidization
column wall due to electrostatic charge generation. Powder Technology.
Song, D., Salama, F., Matta, J., Mehrani, P., 2016. Implementation of Faraday cup
electrostatic charge measurement technique in high-pressure gas-solid
fluidized beds at pilot-scale. Powder Technology 290, 2126.
Song, G.-H., Rhee, A.S., Lowder, G.R., 1995. Method for reducing sheeting and static
charges during polymerization of ethylene polymers. US Patent 5,391,657.
Sowinski, A., Mayne, A., Javed, B., Mehrani, P., 2011. Comparison of the effect of
grounding the column wall in gas- solid fluidized beds on electrostatic charge
generation. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 301.
Sowinski, A., Mayne, A., Mehrani, P., 2012. Effect of fluidizing particle size on
electrostatic charge generation and reactor wall fouling in gas-solid fluidized
beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 71, 552563.
Sowinski, A., Miller, L., Mehrani, P., 2010. Investigation of electrostatic charge
distribution in gas-solid fluidized beds. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 27712781.
Sowinski, A., Salama, F., Mehrani, P., 2009. New technique for electrostatic charge
measurement in gas-solid fluidized beds. J. Electrostat. 67, 568573.
Sun, J., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Zhu, Z., 2015. Effects of external electric field on bubble
and charged particle hydrodynamics in a gas-solid fluidized bed. Adv. Powder
Technology 26, 563575.
Sun, J., Yan, Y., 2016. Non-intrusive measurement and hydrodynamics
characterization of gas-solid fluidized beds: a review. Meas. Sci. Technology
27, 131.
Tabtabaei, S., Jafari, M., Rajabzadeh, A.R., Legge, R.L., 2016a. Solvent-free production
of protein-enriched fractions from navy bean flour using a triboelectrification-
based approach. J. Food Eng. 174, 2128.
Tabtabaei, S., Jafari, M., Rajabzadeh, A.R., Legge, R.L., 2016b. Development and
optimization of a triboelectrification bioseparation process for dry fractionation
of legume flours. Sep. Purif. Technology 163, 4858.
333
Tabtabaei, S., Vitelli, M., Rajabzadeh, A.R., Legge, R.L., 2017. Analysis of protein
enrichment during single- and multi-stage tribo-electrostatic bioseparation
processes for dry fractionation of legume flour. Sep. Purif. Technology 176, 4858.
Taillet, J., 1993. Elimination of static charges in the processing of bulk material. J.
Electrostat. 30, 181189.
Tardos, G., Pfeffer, R., 1980. A method to measure electrostatic charge on a granule
in a fluidized bed. Chem. Eng. Commun. 4, 665671.
Tardos, G., Pfeffer, R., Peters, M., Sweeney, T., 1983. Filtration of airborne dust in a
triboelectrically charged fluidized bed. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 22, 445453.
Tian, Y., Mehrani, P., 2015. Effect of particle size in fluidization of polyethylene
particle mixtures on the extent of bed electrification and wall coating. J.
Electrostat. 76, 138144.
Tiyapiboonchaiya, P., Gidaspow, D., Damronglerd, S., 2012. Hydrodynamics of
electrostatic charge in polypropylene fluidized beds. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 51,
86618668.
Trigwell, S., Grable, N., Yurteri, C.U., Sharma, R., Mazumder, M.K., 2003. Effects of
surface properties on the tribocharging characteristics of polymer powder as
applied to industrial processes. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 39, 7986.
Tucholski, D., Colver, G.M., 1998. Charging of glass powder in a circulating fluidized
bed. In: Industry Applications Conference, 1998. 33rd IAS Annual Meeting. IEEE,
pp. 19061912.
Turner, G.A., Balasubramanian, M., 1976. The frequency distributions of electrical
charges on glass beads. J. Electrostat. 2, 8589.
Valverde, J.M., Castellanos, A., 2007. Fluidization, bubbling and jamming of
nanoparticle agglomerates. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62, 69476956.
Valverde, J.M., Quintanilla, M.A.S., Espin, M.J., Castellanos, A., 2008. Nanofluidization
electrostatics. Phys. Rev. E 77, 31301.
van Willigen, F.K., Demirbas, B., Deen, N.G., Kuipers, J.A.M., Ommen, J.R.Van, 2008.
Discrete particle simulations of an electric-field enhanced fluidized bed. Powder
Technology 183, 196206.
van Willigen, K.F., van Ommen, J.R., van Turnhout, J., van den Bleek, C., 2003. Bubble
size reduction in a fluidized bed by electric fields. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 1.
van Willigen, K.F., van Ommen, J.R., van Turnhout, J., van den Bleek, C.M., 2005.
Bubble size reduction in electric-field-enhanced fluidized beds. J. Electrostat.
63, 943948.
Walton, O.R., 2008. Review of adhesion fundamentals for micron-scale particles.
KONA Powder Part. J. 26, 129141.
Wang, J., Xu, Y., Li, W., Yang, Y., Wang, F., 2009. Electrostatic potentials in gas-solid
fluidized beds influenced by the injection of charge inducing agents. J.
Electrostat. 67, 815826.
Wang, S., Li, J., Kong, M., Xu, C., Wang, S., 2016. Electrostatic effect on AC-based ECT
and its elimination. IEEE Sens. J., 110
Watanabe, H., Samimi, A., Ding, Y.L., Ghadiri, M., Matsuyama, T., Pitt, K.G., 2006.
Measurement of charge transfer due to single particle impact. Part. Part. Syst.
Charact. 23, 133137.
Wei, W., Gu, Z., 2015. Electrification of particulate entrained fluid flows-
mechanisms, applications, and numerical methodology. Phys. Rep. 600, 153.
Willcox, K.W., 1980. Prevention of fouling in polymerization reactors. US Patent
4,068,054.
Wolny, A., Kazmierczak, W., 1993. The influence of static electrification on
dynamics and rheology of fluidized bed. Chem. Eng. Sci. 48, 35293534.
Wolny, A., Kazmierczak, W., 1989. Triboelectrification in fluidized bed of
polystyrene. Chem. Eng. Sci. 44, 26072610.
Wolny, A., Opalinski, I., 1983. Electric charge neutralization by addition of fines to a
fluidized bed composed of coarse dielectric particles. J. Electrostat. 14, 279289.
Wu, G., Li, J., Xu, Z., 2013. Triboelectrostatic separation for granular plastic waste
recycling: a review. Waste Manage. 33, 585597.
Wu, J., Bi, H.T., 2011. Addition of fines for the reduction of powder charging in
particle mixers. Adv. Powder Technology 22, 332335.
Xin-xi, Z., Dai-yong, D., Bing, T., Jin-song, W., Feng, D., Hai-sheng, L., Rui-xin, M.,
2009. Research on the triboelectrostatic separation of minerals from coal.
Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 1, 845850.
Xu, C., Liang, C., Zhou, B., Wang, S., 2010a. HHT analysis of electrostatic fluctuation
signals in dense-phase pneumatic conveying of pulverized coal at high
pressure. Chem. Eng. Sci. 65, 13341344.
Xu, C., Zhou, B., Wang, S., 2010b. Dense-phase pneumatically conveyed coal particle
velocity measurement using electrostatic probes. J. Electrostat. 68, 6472.
Xu, C., Zhou, B., Yang, D., Tang, G., Wang, S., 2008. Velocity measurement of
pneumatically conveyed solid particles using an electrostatic sensor. Meas. Sci.
Technology 19, 24005.
Yan, Y., 1996. Mass flow measurement of bulk solids in pneumatic pipelines. Meas.
Sci. Technology 7, 1687.
Yan, Y., Byrne, B., Woodhead, S., Coulthardt, J., 1995. Velocity measurement of
pneumatically conveyed solids using electrodynamic sensors. Meas. Sci.
Technology 6, 515537.
Yan, Y., Xu, L., Lee, P., 2006. Mass flow measurement of fine particles in a pneumatic
suspension using electrostatic sensing and neural network techniques. IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas. 55, 23302334.
Yang, Q., Ma, Y., Zhu, J., Chow, K., Shi, K., 2016a. An update on electrostatic powder
coating for pharmaceuticals. Particuology 31, 17.
Yang, Y., Huang, Z., Zhang, W., Wang, J., Lungu, M., Liao, Z., Wang, F., Yang, Y., Yan, Y.,
Yang, J., 2016b. Effects of agglomerates on electrostatic behaviors in gas solid
fluidized beds. Powder Technology 287, 139151.
Yang, Y., Zhang, Q., Zi, C., Huang, Z., Zhang, W., Liao, Z., Wang, J., 2017a. Monitoring
of particle motions in gas-solid fluidized beds by electrostatic sensors. Powder
Technology 308, 461471.
334 F. Fotovat et al. / Chemical Engineering Science 173 (2017) 303334
Yang, Y., Zi, C., Huang, Z., Wang, J., Lungu, M., Liao, Z., 2017b. CFD-DEM investigation
of particle elutriation with electrostatic effects in gas-solid fluidized beds.
Powder Technology 308, 422433.
Yao, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, C.H., Liang, Y.C., 2006. On the electrostatic equilibrium of
granular flow in pneumatic conveying systems. AIChE J. 52, 37753793.
Yao, L., Bi, H.T., Park, A., 2002. Characterization of electrostatic charges in freely
bubbling fluidized beds with dielectric particles. J. Electrostat. 56, 183197.
Yu, X., Li, W., Xu, Y., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Xu, N., Wang, H., 2010. Effect of polymer
granules on the electrostatic behavior in gas-solid fluidized beds. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 49, 132139.
Zhang, L., Hou, J., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., Janke, T., Arato, C., 2012a. Fluidization
characteristics and charging behavior of fly ash in a vibro-fluidized bed. Powder
Technology 215216, 235241.
Zhang, L., Hou, J., Bi, X.T., Grace, J.R., Janke, T., Arato, C., 2012b. Electrostatic
beneficiation of fly ash in a free-falling system. Particuology 10, 154160.
Zhang, Q., Dong, K., Zhou, Y., Huang, Z., Liao, Z., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Wang, F., 2016. A
comparative study of electrostatic current and pressure signals in a MSFC gas-
solid fluidized bed. Powder Technology 287, 292300.
Zhang, W., Cheng, Y., Wang, C., Yang, W., Wang, C.H., 2013. Investigation on
hydrodynamics of triple-bed combined circulating fluidized bed using
electrostatic sensor and electrical capacitance tomography. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 52, 1119811207.
Zhang, W., Wang, C., Yang, W., Wang, C.-H., 2014. Application of electrical
capacitance tomography in particulate process measurement a review. Adv.
Powder Technology 25, 174188.
Zhang, W., Yang, Y., Wang, J., 2015. Measurement of flow parameters in a bubbling
fluidized bed using electrostatic sensor arrays. In: Instrumentation and
Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), pp. 15731577.
Zhao, H., Castle, G.S.P., Inculet, I.I., Bailey, A.G., 2003. Bipolar charging of poly-
disperse polymer powders in fluidized beds. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 39, 612618.
Zhao, Y., Yang, X., Luo, Z., Duan, C., Song, S., 2014. Progress in developments of dry
coal beneficiation. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technology 1, 103112.
Zheng, X.J., Huang, N., Zhou, Y., 2003. Laboratory measurement of electrification of
wind-blown sands and simulation of its effect on sand saltation movement. J.
Geophys. Res. Atmos. 108.
Zhou, Y., Ren, C., Wang, J., Yang, Y., Dong, K., 2013. Effect of hydrodynamic behavior
on electrostatic potential distribution in gas-solid fluidized bed. Powder
Technology 235, 917.