4.2 Article

Enhancement of anaerobic biodegradability of, flower stem wastes with vegetable wastes by co-hydrolysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 297-303

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(08)60047-9

Keywords

municipal solid wastes; hydrolysis; feedstock characteristics; VFA; bivariate analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The vegetable wastes and flower stems were co-digested to evaluate the anaerobic hydrolysis performance of difficultly biodegradable organic wastes by introducing readily biodegradable organic wastes. ne experiments were carried out in batches. When the vegetable wastes were mixed with the flower stems at the dry weight ratio of I to 13, the overall hydrolysis rate increased by 8%, 12%, and 2% according to the carbon, nitrogen, and total solid (TS) conversion rate, respectively. While the dry weight ratio was designed as I to 3, there was a respective rise of 5%, 15%, and 4% in the conversion rate of carbon, nitrogen, and TS. The enhancement of anaerobic hydrolysis from the mixed vegetable wastes and flower stems can be attributed to the formation of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and nutrient supplement like nitrogen content. The maximum VFA concentration can achieve 1.7 g/L owing to the rapid acidification of vegetable wastes, loosing the structure of lignocellulose materials. The statistic bivariate analysis revealed that the hydrolysis performance was significantly related to the physical and biochemical compositions of the feeding substrate. Especially, the soluble carbon concentration in the liquid was significantly positively correlated to the concentration of nitrogen and hemicellulose, and negatively correlated to the concentration of carbon and lignocellulose in the feeding substrate, suggesting that the regulation and control of feedstock can have an important influence on the anaerobic hydrolysis of organic wastes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available