4.7 Article

Biohydrogen production in anaerobic fluidized bed reactors: Effect of support material and hydraulic retention time

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 35, Issue 8, Pages 3379-3388

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.01.108

Keywords

Biohydrogen production; Anaerobic fluidized bed reactor; Support material; Polystyrene; Expanded clay; Hydraulic retention time

Funding

  1. FAPESP
  2. CNPq
  3. CAPES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated two different support materials (polystyrene and expanded clay) for biohydrogen production in an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor (AFBR) treating synthetic wastewater containing glucose (4000 mg L-1). The AFBRs contained either polystyrene (R1) or expanded clay (R2) as support materials were inoculated with thermally pre-treated anaerobic sludge and operated at a temperature of 30 degrees C and a pH of approximately 5.5. The AFBRs were operated with a range of hydraulic retention times (HRTs) between 1 and 8 h. For R1 with an HRT of 2 h, the maximum hydrogen yield (HY) was 1.90 mol H-2 mol(-1) glucose, with 0.805 mg of biomass (as total volatile solids, or TVS) attached to each g of polystyrene. For R2 operated at an HRT of 2 h, the maximum HY was 2.59 mol H-2 moll glucose, with 1.100 mg of attached biomass (as TVS) g(-1) expanded clay. The highest hydrogen production rates (HPR) were 0.95 and 1.21 L h(-1) L-1 for R1 and R2, respectively, using an HRT of 1 h. The H-2 content increased from 16-47% for R1 and from 22-51% for R2. No methane was detected in the biogas produced throughout the period of AFBR operation. These results show that the values of HY, HPR, H-2 content, and g of attached biomass g(-1) support material were all higher for AFBRs containing expanded clay than for reactors containing polystyrene. (C) 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available