4.7 Article

In search of a reliable technique for the determination of the biological stability of the organic matter in the mechanical-biological treated waste

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 162, 期 2-3, 页码 1065-1072

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.141

关键词

Biogas; Composting; Mechanical-biological treatment; Municipal solid wastes; Respirometry

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia [CFM2006-00315]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The biological stability determines the extent to which readily biodegradable organic matter has decomposed. In this work, a massive estimation of indices suitable for the measurement of biological stability of the organic matter content in solid waste samples has been carried out. Samples from different stages in a mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plant treating municipal solid wastes (MSW) were selected as examples of different stages of organic matter stability in waste biological treatment. Aerobic indices based on respiration techniques properly reflected the process of organic matter biodegradation. Static and dynamic respirometry showed similar values in terms of aerobic biological activity (expressed as oxygen uptake rate, OUR), whereas cumulative oxygen consumption was a reliable method to express the biological stability of organic matter in solid samples. Methods based on OUR and Cumulative oxygen consumption were positively correlated. Anaerobic methods based on biogas production (BP) tests also reflected well the degree of biological stability, although significant differences were found in solid and liquid BP assays. A significant correlation was found between cumulative oxygen consumption and ultimate biogas production. The results obtained in this study can be a basis for the quantitative measurement of the efficiency in the stabilization of organic matter in waste treatment plants, including MBT plants, anaerobic digestion of MSW and composting plants. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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