4.2 Article

Effects of mixture ratio on anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Volume 23, Issue 8, Pages 1403-1408

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60572-4

Keywords

anaerobic co-digestion; biochemical methane potential; continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR); fruit and vegetable waste; food waste

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2008BADC4B16, 2008BADC4B18, 2008AA062401]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The biochemical methane potentials for typical fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) and food waste (FW) from a northern China city were investigated, which were 0.30, 0.56 m(3) CH4/kgVS (volatile solids) with biodegradabilities of 59.3% and 83.6%, respectively. Individual anaerobic digestion testes of FVW and FW were conducted at the organic loading rate (OLR) of 3 kg VS/(m(3).day) using a lab-scale continuous stirred-tank reactor at 35 degrees C. FVW could be digested stably with the biogas production rate of 2.17 m(3)/(m(3).day) and methane production yield of 0.42 m(3) CH4/kg VS. However, anaerobic digestion process for FW was failed due to acids accumulation. The effects of FVW: FW ratio on co-digestion stability and performance were further investigated at the same OLR. At FVW and FW mixing ratios of 2:1 and 1:1, the performance and operation of the digester were maintained stable, with no accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and ammonia. Changing the feed to a higher FW content in a ratio of FVW to FW 1:2, resulted in an increase in VFAs concentration to 1100-1200 mg/L, and the methanogenesis was slightly inhibited. At the optimum mixture ratio 1:1 for co-digestion of FVW with FW, the methane production yield was 0.49 m(3) CH4/kg VS, and the volatile solids and soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD) removal efficiencies were 74.9% and 96.1%, respectively.

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