4.7 Article

Effect of gas-liquid flow pattern and microbial diversity analysis of a pilot-scale biotrickling filter for anoxic biogas desulfurization

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 215-223

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.05.016

关键词

Biotrickling filter; Anoxic; Biogas desulfurization; Hydrogen sulfide; Pyrosequencing

资金

  1. Spanish government (MINECO) [CTM2012-37927-C03-01/FEDER, CTM2012-37927-C03-03/FEDER]
  2. Conselho nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico-Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CNPq/CAPES) from the Brazil government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrogen sulfide removal from biogas was studied under anoxic conditions in a pilot-scale biotrickling filter operated under counter- and co-current gas-liquid flow patterns. The best performance was found under counter-current conditions (maximum elimination capacity of 140 gS m(-3) h(-1)). Nevertheless, switching conditions between co- and counter-current flow lead to a favorable redistribution of biomass and elemental sulfur along the bed height. Moreover, elemental sulfur was oxidized to sulfate when the feeding biogas was disconnected and the supply of nitrate (electron acceptor) was maintained. Removal of elemental sulfur was important to prevent clogging in the packed bed and, thereby, to increase the lifespan of the packed bed between maintenance episodes. The larger elemental sulfur removal rate during shutdowns was 59.1 gS m(-3) h(-1). Tag-encoded FLX amplicon pyrosequencing was used to study the diversity of bacteria under co-current flow pattern with liquid recirculation and counter-current mode with a single-pass flow of the liquid phase. The main desulfurizing bacteria were Sedimenticola while significant role of heterotrophic, opportunistic species was envisaged. Remarkable differences between communities were found when a single-pass flow of industrial water was fed to the biotrickling filter. (C) 2016 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