4.8 Article

Garden and food waste co-fermentation for biohydrogen and biomethane production in a two-step hyperthermophilic-mesophilic process

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 278, Issue -, Pages 180-186

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.085

Keywords

Garden waste; Food waste; Co-fermentation; Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus; Biochemical methane potential

Funding

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [UID/BIO/04469/2013, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006684, SAICTPAC/0040/2015, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016403]
  2. BioTecNorte operation - European Regional Development Fund under the scope of Norte2020 - Programa Operacional Regional do Norte [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000004]
  3. FCT
  4. European Social Fund [SFRH/BPD/82000/2011]
  5. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant [323009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Co-fermentation of garden waste (GW) and food waste (FW) was assessed in a two-stage process coupling hyperthermophilic dark-fermentation and mesophilic anaerobic digestion (AD). In the first stage, biohydrogen production from individual substrates was tested at different volatile solids (VS) concentrations, using a pure culture of Caldicellulosiruptor saccharolyticus as inoculum. FW concentrations (in VS) above 2.9 g L-1 caused a lag phase of 5 days on biohydrogen production. No lag phase was observed for GW concentrations up to 25.6 g L-1. In the co-fermentation experiments, the highest hydrogen yield (46 +/- 1 L kg(-1)) was achieved for GW: FW 90: 10% (w/w). In the second stage, a biomethane yield of 682 +/- 14 L kg(-1) was obtained using the end-products of GW: FW 90: 10% co-fermentation. The energy generation predictable from co-fermentation and AD of GW: FW 90: 10% is 0.5 MJ kg(-1) and 24.4 MJ kg(-1), respectively, which represents an interesting alternative for valorisation of wastes produced locally in communities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available