4.7 Article

Vegetable waste as substrate and source of suitable microflora for bio-hydrogen production

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 68, 期 -, 页码 6-13

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2014.01.013

关键词

Self-fermentation; Bio-hydrogen production; Vegetable waste; Facultative anaerobes; H-2 producing bacteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-fermentation of cellulosic substrates to produce biohydrogen without inoculum addition nor pretreatments was investigated. Dark fermentation of two different substrates made of leaf-shaped vegetable refuses (V) and leaf-shaped vegetable refuses plus potato peels (VP), was taken in consideration. Batch experiments were carried out, under two mesophilic anaerobic conditions (28 and 37 degrees C), in order to isolate and to identify potential H-2-producing bacterial strains contained in the vegetable extracts. The effect of initial glucose concentration (at 1, 5 and 10 g/L) on fermentative H-2 production by the isolates was also evaluated. H-2 production from self-fermentation of both biomasses was found to be feasible, without methane evolution, showing the highest yield for V biomass at 28 degrees C (24 L/kg VS). The pH control of the culture medium proved to be a critical parameter. The isolates had sequence similarities >= 98% with already known strains, belonging to the family Enterobacteriaceae (gamma-proteobacteria) and Streptococcaceae (Firmicutes). Four genera found in the samples, namely Pectobacterium, Raoultella, Rahnella and Lactococcus have not been previously described for H-2 production from glucose. The isolates showed higher yield (1.6-2.2 mol H-2/mol glucose(added)) at low glucose concentration (1 g/L), while the maximum H-2 production ranged from 410 to 1016 mL/L and was obtained at a substrate concentration of 10 g/L. The results suggested that vegetable waste can be effectively used as both, substrate and source of suitable microflora for bio-hydrogen production. (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