4.7 Article

Anaerobic co-digestion of Pennisetum hybrid and pig manure: A comparative study of performance and microbial community at different mixture ratio and organic loading rate

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 247, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.125871

关键词

Co-digestion; Pennisetum hybrid; Pig manure; Performance; Microbial community

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51776208]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA21050400]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2018A0303130335]
  4. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province [2017A050501049, 2017B020238002]
  5. Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou [201707010201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate how the changes in performance and the microbial community of the co-digestion system of Pennisetum hybrid and pig manure, two co-digestion systems in a semi-continuous mode were established at different grass:manure mixture ratios (50:50 and 75:25), and at variable organic loading rates (OLRs). The two reactors were in a steady-state at the OLRs of 2.0-5.0 g VS/(L.d), with the specific and volumetric biogas yields of 383.86 +/- 65.13 to 574.28 +/- 72.04 mL/g VS and 0.87 +/- 0.07 to 2.36 +/- 0.13 m(3)/(m(3).d), respectively. The co-digestion system with a mixture ratio of 75:25 failed at an OLR of 5.5 g VS/(L.d). This failure could be attributed to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) owing to the imbalance between acid-production and -oxidation bacteria. By contrast, the co-digestion system with mixture ratio of 50:50 failed at an OLR of 7.0 g VS/(L.d), which was likely due to mechanical issues or improper reactor configuration. The genus Proteiniphilum contributed to the increase in total ammonia nitrogen. These findings provide useful guidance for optimizing co-digestion system, enhancing reactor performance and improving the wastes treatment. (C) 2020 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