4.7 Article

Effect of ammoniacal nitrogen on one-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 388-398

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.12.001

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Total ammoniacal nitrogen; Buffer capacity; Ammonia inhibition; Comparison of one-stage and two-stage

资金

  1. Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctoral Program ETeCOS3 (Environmental Technologies for Contaminated Solids, Soils and Sediments) under the EU [2010-0009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research compares the operation of one-stage and two-stage anaerobic continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) systems fed semi-continuously with food waste. The main purpose was to investigate the effects of ammoniacal nitrogen on the anaerobic digestion process. The two-stage system gave more reliable operation compared to one-stage due to: (i) a better pH self-adjusting capacity; (ii) a higher resistance to organic loading shocks; and (iii) a higher conversion rate of organic substrate to biomethane. Also a small amount of biohydrogen was detected from the first stage of the two-stage reactor making this system attractive for biohythane production. As the digestate contains ammoniacal nitrogen, re-circulating it provided the necessary alkalinity in the systems, thus preventing an eventual failure by volatile fatty acids (VFA) accumulation. However, re-circulation also resulted in an ammonium accumulation, yielding a lower biomethane production. Based on the batch experimental results the 50% inhibitory concentration of total ammoniacal nitrogen on the methanogenic activities was calculated as 3.8 g/L, corresponding to 146 mg/L free ammonia for the inoculum used for this research. The two-stage system was affected by the inhibition more than the one-stage system, as it requires less alkalinity and the physically separated methanogens are more sensitive to inhibitory factors, such as ammonium and propionic acid. (C) 2014 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