4.7 Article

Potential use of Methylibium sp. as a biodegradation tool in organosilicon and volatile compounds removal for biogas upgrading

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 240, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124908

关键词

Biodegradation; Siloxane; Volatile organic compounds; Biogas upgrading; Biotrickling filter; Anaerobic batch enrichment

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Business (MINECO) - Spain - European Regional Development Fund, (FEDER) [CTQ2014-53718R]
  2. University of Girona
  3. National Secretary of Education, Science and Technology, (SENESCYT) - Ecuador
  4. Catalan Government [2017SGR-548, 2017-SGR-1552]
  5. Universitat de Girona [IFUdG-2015/51]
  6. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [712949]
  7. Agency for Business Competitiveness of the Government of Catalonia [TECSPR16-1-0045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organosilicon compounds are the most undesirable compounds for the energy recovery of biogas. These compounds are still resistant to biodegradation when biotechnologies are considered for biogas purification. Herein we isolated 52 bacterial species from anaerobic batch enrichment cultures (BEC) saturated with D4 and from an anaerobic lab-scale biotrickling filter (BTF) fed with a gas flow containing D4 as unique carbon source. Among those Methylibium sp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed the highest capacity to remove D4 (53.04% +/- 0.03 and 24.42% +/- 0.02, respectively). Contrarily, co-culture evaluation treatment for the biodegradation of siloxanes together with volatile organic compounds removed a lower concentration of D4 compared to toluene and limonene, which were completely removed. Remarkably, the siloxane D5 proved to be more biodegradable than D4. Substrates removal values achieved by Methylibium sp. suggested that this bacterial isolate could be used in biological removal technologies of siloxanes. (C) 2019 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

4.7
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