4.7 Article

Effects of foam nickel supplementation on anaerobic digestion: Direct interspecies electron transfer

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 399, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122830

关键词

Direct interspecies electron transfer; Methane production; Industrial wastewater; Biofilm; Biogas

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51876016]
  2. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [51836001]
  3. Venture & Innovation Support Program for Chongqing Overseas Returnees [cx2019040]
  4. Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST [2018QNRC001]
  5. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) through the MaREI centre for energy, climate and marine [12/RC/2302_P2, 16/SP/3829]
  6. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [797259]
  7. Environmental Protection Agency - Ireland [2018-RE-MS-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stimulating direct interspecies electron transfer with conducive materials is a promising strategy to overcome the limitation of electron transfer efficiency in syntrophic methanogenesis of industrial wastewater. This paper assessed the impact of conducive foam nickel (FN) supplementation on syntrophic methanogenesis and found that addition of 2.45 g/L FN in anaerobic digestion increased the maximum methane production rate by 27.4 % (on day 3) while decreasing the peak production time by 33 % as compared to the control with no FN. Cumulative methane production from day 2 to 6 was 14.5 % higher with addition of 2.45 g/L FN than in the control. Levels of FN in excess of 2.45 g/L did not show benefits. Cyclic voltammetry results indicated that the biofilm formed on the FN could generate electrons. The dominant bacterial genera in suspended sludge were Dechlorobacter and Rikenellaceae DMER64, whereas that in the FN biofilm was Clostridium sensu stricto 11. The dominant archaea Methanosaeta in the FN biofilm was enriched by 14.1 % as compared to the control.

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