4.7 Article

Hydraulic and organic rates applied to pilot scale UASB reactor for sugar cane vinasse degradation and biogas generation

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 411-417

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.10.002

关键词

Biogas; High rate reactor; Pilot-UASB reactor; Renewable energy; Vinasse

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq -Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico, Brazil) [04394/2009-2, 158721/2012-8, 142211/2015-0]
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (Fapesp-Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa doEstado de Sao Paulo, Brazil) [2013/17591-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A pilot-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor (120 L) was operated for biogas production by vinasse degradation. The reactor was operated for 700 days using a recirculation rate of 1:3 with organic loading rates (OLR) ranging from 0.5 to 32.4 kgCOD.m(-3).d(-1), upflow velocities ranged from 0.008 to 0.292 m h(-1) (feed added with recirculation) and the hydraulic retention time ranged from 33.33 to 0.86 days. The reactor demonstrated a stable performance at OLR at all applied loads. The COD removal efficiencies throughout the experiment were 87.5 +/- 5.3 and 90.5 +/- 3.6% for raw and soluble COD, respectively. Total volatile acids ranged from 59 mg L-1 to 585 mg L-1. The concentration of acetic and propionic acids at the reactor effluent reached 28 mg L-1 on OLR 20 kgCOD.m(-3).d(-1). The methane content in the biogas was 68.8 +/- 7.14%.The methane yield of 0.299 +/- 0.066 LCH4.g(-1)COD corresponds to about 76.4% of the theoretical methane yield. The methane productivity reached the highest value of 8.059 LCH4.L-1.d(-1) at 32.27 kgCOD.m(-3).d(-1)., corresponding to 83.9% of the theoretical value (9.611 LCH4.L-1.d(-1)). This result is very promising for power generation in the sugar and ethanol industry, complementing the energy balance of sugarcane, as shown by an energy balance evaluation.

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