4.6 Article

Valorisation of the selectively collected organic fractions of municipal solid waste in anaerobic digestion

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 87-96

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2019.05.003

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Archaea; Biogas productivity; Fibre materials; Methanogenic microorganisms; Microbial community

资金

  1. Ministry of Scientific Research and Information Technology of Poland [N N523 612439, 18.610.006-300]
  2. Ministry of Science and Higher Education

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biogas productivity (BP) with kinetics and microbial structure during methane fermentation and co-fermentation of food (FW) and green waste (GW) was investigated. Biogas potential tests (GP21) were performed with FW:GW 0:100, FW:GW 30:70, FW:GW 50:50, FW:GW 70:30 and FW:GW 100:0. Although all the substrates had similarly high contents of organic matter (88.4 +/- 2.2-93.1 +/- 2.3% TS), they differed in characteristics and composition. Biogas production and methane content were lowest with GW alone (518.9 +/- 14 L/kg VS; 58.6 +/- 0.2% CH4); these values were highest with FW alone (733.9 +/- 14 L/kg VS; 65.2% CH4). When the share of FW in the mixtures was increased, content of fibrous materials decreased, BP increased. The kinetic coefficients of biogas production and of organic matter content loss during fermentation of GW alone were lowest (0.27 +/- 0.01 d(-1), 0.36 +/- 0.02 d(-1)), they increased as the share of FW in the mixtures was increased, up to 0.57 +/- 0.02 d(-1) and 0.68 +/- 0.02 d(-1) with FW alone. Methanosarcinaceae made up the largest share of the Archaea (6.1-13.2%) that were present. The abundance of Methanosaeta ranged from 2.4% to 7.8%. The most numerous core group was Cytophagaceae, comprising about 13-17% of all identified sequences. Bacteroides and Spirochaeta predominated in all digestates and positively correlated with the content of fibrous materials in the feedstock. Bacteroidetes abundance increased if the effectiveness of organic matter loss diminished.

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

4.6
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