4.7 Article

Anaerobic biological fermentation of urine as a strategy to enhance the performance of a microbial electrolysis cell (MEC)

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 139, 期 -, 页码 936-943

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.120

关键词

Raw human urine; Fermented human urine; Microbial electrolysis cell; Anaerobic digestion; Two-stage bioconversion process; H-1 NMR

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [UID/BIO/04469, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006684]
  2. BioTecNorte operation - European Regional Development Fund [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000004]
  3. European Union's Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration [308535]
  4. Wetsus, European Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Water Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of pre-fermented urine on anode performance of a two-chambered microbial electrolysis cells (MECs) compared to raw urine. Pre-fermentation of urine was performed by anaerobic digestion. The effect of this pre-fermentation on anode performance of a MEC was assessed by measuring the removal of chemical oxygen demand (COD), current density and Coulombic efficiency (CE). The MEC using fermented urine achieved a higher average current density (218 +/- 6 mA m(-2)) and a higher CE (17%). Although no significant differences were observed in the COD removal efficiency between both urines, the MEC using fermented urine displayed the highest COD removal rate (0.14 +/- 0.02 g L-1 d(-1)). The organic compounds initially found in both urines, as well as the metabolic products associated to the biodegradation of the organic matter were analyzed by proton nuclear magnetic resonance (H-1 NMR). The main compounds initially identified in the raw urine were urea, creatinine and acetate. In the fermented urine, the main compounds identified were methylamine, acetate and propionic acid demonstrating the effectiveness of the anaerobic fermentation step. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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