4.8 Article

Balancing hygienization and anaerobic digestion of raw sewage sludge

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 19, 页码 6218-6227

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.035

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Sewage sludge; Hygienization; Indicators; Temperature; Energy balance

资金

  1. NOVEDAR Consolider-Ingenio [CSD2007-00055]
  2. European Union [ROUTES-FP7-ENV-2010-265156]
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya [2009-SGR-01043]
  4. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [CTM2008-05986]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The anaerobic digestion of raw sewage sludge was evaluated in terms of process efficiency and sludge hygienization. Four different scenarios were analyzed, i.e. mesophilic anaerobic digestion, thermophilic anaerobic digestion and mesophilic anaerobic digestion followed by a 60 degrees C or by an 80 degrees C hygienization treatment. Digester performance (organic matter removal, process stability and biogas yield) and the hygienization efficiency (reduction of Escherichia coli, somatic coliphages and F-specific RNA phages) were the main examined factors. Moreover, a preliminary economical feasibility study of each option was carried out throughout an energy balance (heat and electricity). The obtained results showed that both thermophilic anaerobic digestion and mesophilic anaerobic digestion followed by a hygienization step were able to produce an effluent sludge that fulfills the American and the European legislation for land application. However, higher removal efficiencies of indicators were obtained when a hygienization post-treatment was present. Regarding the energy balance, it should be noted that all scenarios have a significant energy surplus. Particularly, positive heat balances will be obtained for the thermophilic anaerobic digestion and for the mesophilic anaerobic digestion followed by 60 degrees C hygienization post-treatment if an additional fresh-sludge/digested sludge heat exchanger is installed for energy recovery. (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