Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) as a simulation tool allows obtaining a more complete view of the fluid flow and heat transfer mechanisms in packed bed reactors, through the resolution of 3D Reynolds averaged transport equations, together with a turbulence model when needed. This tool allows obtaining mean velocity and temperature values as well as their fluctuations at any point of the bed. An important problem when a CFD modeling is performed for turbulent flow in a packed bed reactor is to decide which turbulence model is the most accurate for this situation. Turbulence models based on the assumption of a scalar eddy viscosity for computing the turbulence stresses, so-called eddy viscosity models (EVM), seem insufficient in this case due to the big flow complexity. The use of models,based on transport equations for the turbulence stresses, so-called second order closure modeling or Reynolds stress modeling (RSM), could be a better option in this case, because these models capture more of the involved physics in this kind of flow. To gain insight into this subject, a comparison between the performance in flow and heat transfer estimation of RSM and EVM turbulence models was conducted in a packed bed by solving the 31) Reynolds averaged momentum and energy equations. Several setups were defined and then computed. Thus, the numerical pressure drop, velocity, and thermal fields within the bed were obtained. In order to judge the capabilities of these turbulence models, the Nusselt number (Nu) was computed from numerical data as well as the pressure drop. Then, they were compared with commonly used correlations for parameter estimations in packed bed reactors. The numerical results obtained show that RSM give similar results as EVM for the cases checked, but with a considerably larger computational effort. This fact suggests that for this application, even though the RSM goes further into the flow physics, this does not lead to a relevant improvement in parameter estimation when compared to the performance of EVM models used. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.