The same trend in hold-up was obtained for 15 kg/h at 495 RPM (Fig. 9B). In this case, the hold-up decreased substantially with increasing rotation rate (expected) for all blade configurations exceptfor blade configuration #5. In this case, the rotation rate had a minor effect on the hold-up. This further suggests the possibility of larger stagnant regions created by a less effective convective mechanism for this blade configuration even at higher rotational speeds. For 45 kg/h at 112 RPM (Fig. 9C) and 495 RPM (Fig. 9D), the effect of the blade configuration was the same but the differences in hold-up values between blade configurations were substantially The same trend in hold-up was obtained for 15 kg/h at 495 RPM (Fig. 9B). In this case, the hold-up decreased substantially with increasing rotation rate (expected) for all blade configurations exceptfor blade configuration #5. In this case, the rotation rate had
a minor effect on the hold-up. This further suggests the possibility of larger stagnant regions created by a less effective convective mechanism for this blade configuration even at higher rotational speeds. For 45 kg/h at 112 RPM (Fig. 9C) and 495 RPM (Fig. 9D), the effect of the blade configuration was the same but the differences in hold-up values between blade configurations were substantially