4.8 Article

A waste characterisation procedure for ADM1 implementation based on degradation kinetics

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 13, 页码 4099-4110

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.028

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Modelling; ADM1; Fractionation; Calibration; Waste activated sludge

资金

  1. French PSDR (Pour et Sur le Developpement Regional) Program
  2. Saur Research and Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a procedure accounting for degradation kinetics was developed to split the total COD of a substrate into each input state variable required for Anaerobic Digestion Model n(degrees)1. The procedure is based on the combination of batch experimental degradation tests (anaerobic respirometry) and numerical interpretation of the results obtained (optimisation of the ADM1 input state variable set). The effects of the main operating parameters, such as the substrate to inoculum ratio in batch experiments and the origin of the inoculum, were investigated. Combined with biochemical fractionation of the total COD of substrates, this method enabled determination of an ADM1-consistent input state variable set for each substrate with affordable identifiability. The substrate to inoculum ratio in the batch experiments and the origin of the inoculum influenced input state variables. However, based on results modelled for a CSTR fed with the substrate concerned, these effects were not significant. Indeed, if the optimal ranges of these operational parameters are respected, uncertainty in COD fractionation is mainly limited to temporal variability of the properties of the substrates. As the method is based on kinetics and is easy to implement for a wide range of substrates, it is a very promising way to numerically predict the effect of design parameters on the efficiency of an anaerobic CSTR. This method thus promotes the use of modelling for the design and optimisation of anaerobic processes. (C) 2012 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

4.8
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