4.7 Article

Evaluation of different supplementary nutrients for enhanced biohydrogen production by Enterobacter aerogenes NRRL B 407 using waste derived crude glycerol

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 2191-2198

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.11.110

关键词

Brewery waste; Crude glycerol; Hydrogen production; Supplementary nutrient; Urea

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [355254]
  2. Ministere des Relations internationales du Quebec
  3. Le Centre de recherche industrielle du Quebec (CRIQ), MAPAQ [809051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crude glycerol (CG) has several advantages over a range of conventional substrates used for biohydrogen production by Enterobacter aerogenes NRRL B 407. Meanwhile, high process cost due to requirement of expensive supplementary media component is a concern. Therefore, different less expensive (or wastes) materials have been evaluated as supplementary nutrient for H-2 production by CG (meat processing and restaurant waste based biodiesel derived) bioconversion. Among the materials selected, slaughterhouse liquid waste (SL), brewery waste biomass (BWB) and urea was found to improve the production by 18.81 +/- 3.56, 27.30 +/- 3.54 and 38.57 +/- 3.66%, respectively. Further, in the case of urea (10 mg/L), cumulative production as high as 116.41 +/- 3.72 mmol H-2/L media has been achieved; which is comparable to other reports available on CG bioconversion. Thus, present study demonstrates successful replacement of large amount (similar to 5-6 g/L) of expensive nutrients/buffering agents by negligible amount (similar to 10 mg/L) of different waste materials, without compromising the cumulative H-2 yield. Further, the strain used in the present study was found to grow at an acidic pH as low as 3.3, indicating its prospective application for dark fermentative H-2 production. Copyright (C) 2012, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据