4.7 Article

Comparison of single-stage and two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste: Performance, energy balance and reaction process

Journal

ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT
Volume 156, Issue -, Pages 215-223

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.10.092

Keywords

Energy balance assessment; Food waste; Performance; Reaction process; Single-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion; Two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion

Funding

  1. Japan Science and Technology (JST) (Japanese-Chinese Research Cooperative Program on inverted right perpendicular Research and Development to Find Solutions to Environmental and Energy Issues in Urban Areas) [16769220A]
  2. China Scholarship Council (CSC) [201504910086, 201206230087]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16J02584] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The single-stage and two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD) in lab scale continuously stirred tank reactor systems fed semi-continuously with food waste (FW) were studied to compare their performance, energy balance and reaction processes. The experimental results showed the two TADs both had good performance at a sludge retention time (SRT) of 30 d. The VS destruction (83.22 +/- 1.33%) of the single-stage TAD was comparable with the two-stage TAD (82.02 +/- 1.25%) during the steady period. While the average biogas yield of the two-stage TAD (0.810 +/- 0.13 L/g Added VS) was higher than that of single-stage TAD (0.775 +/- 0.20 L/g Added VS) and the methane content of the former (59.1 +/- 1.4%) was lower than that of the latter (61.6 +/- 2.1%), the methane yields of the two TADs were similar. The single stage TAD had higher energy recovery, rate and specific rate of reaction for the four AD steps than the two-stage TAD. The two-stage TAD had to adjust its operational parameters to improve its AD efficiency.

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