4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of feeding strategies in upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor for hydrogenogenesis at psychrophilic temperature

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 44, Issue 24, Pages 12346-12355

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.09.215

Keywords

Bioenergy; Dark fermentation; Energy balance; Room temperature

Funding

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (Conacyt) [604922]
  2. Secretaria de Educacion Publica (SEP) [UANL-CA-385]
  3. [02-106534-PST-15/123]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present work evaluated the biohydrogen production from a 0.4 L upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor type (UASB) operating at psychrophilic temperature (21 +/- 2 degrees C) at different feeding strategies varying hydraulic retention times (HRT) and sucrose concentration in the feeding. First strategy (24 h/31c) fed semi-continuously 31 g(sucrose) L-1 at 24 h HRT; second strategy (12 h/19c) fed semi-continuously 19 g(sucrose) L-1 at 12 h HRT; third strategy (4 h/8c) fed continuously 8.3 g(sucrose) L-1 at 4 h HRT. After 70 days of operation, the UASB accumulated 65.44 L H-2. The average HY for the whole operation during the three strategies was 62.6 NmL H-2 g(sucrose)(-1), and average hydrogen content was 69.04%. In general terms, the best operation strategy was 12 h/19c since it presented good set of results, the best HY (70.6 NmL H-2 g(sucrose)(-1)) and a comparable hydrogen production rate (2.6 L (L d)(-1)) to that obtained in 4 h/8c strategy (3.17 L (L d)(-1)). The average gross energy potential rate from the 12 h/19c strategy was 46.21 kJ (L d)(-1), whereas energy heating losses were circumvented due to operation at psychrophilic regime. Indeed, psychrophilic or room temperatures should be broadly regarded as an effective alternative towards net energy gains in biohydrogen production. (C) 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. 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