4.7 Article

Effects of acid/alkali pretreatments on lignocellulosic biomass mono-digestion and its co-digestion with waste activated sludge

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 277, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123998

关键词

Acid/alkali pretreatment; Wheat straw; Waste activated sludge; Anaerobic digestion; Inhibition

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51208531]
  2. Natural Science Foundation Project of Chongqing [cstc2017jcyjAX0173]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study investigated the effects of acid/alkali pretreatments on wheat straw mono-digestion and its co-digestion with waste activated sludge (WAS). The effects of pretreatment conditions on different anaerobic digestion (AD) stages (hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis) were discussed. At first, this study analyzed the impacts of acid/alkali pretreatments on wheat straw morphology, lignocellulosic components and evaluated these impacts on subsequent AD process by SEM, XRD, FT-IR and 3D-EEM analysis. The results of AD process showed that both acid and alkali pretreatments can enhance the hydrolytic performance of substrates. W12 (0.01 mol/L NaOH pretreated wheat straw mono-digestion) obtained the highest cumulative specific methane yield (CSMY) of 227.4 mL/g.VS. However, due to the formation of humic substances in liquid fraction, 0.1 mol/L NaOH pretreated wheat straw (W13) presented inhibition in converting propionic acid into acetic acid process. Co-digestion with sludge can relieve this inhibition and obtain the highest CSMY of 221.4 mL/g.VS. This study also exhibited the effects of pretreatments on microbial community and diversity: the inhibition of acetogens in AD process was revealed. Eventually, this study summarizes the positive and negative effects of acid/alkali pretreatments on the different digestive stages, aiming to provide references for future research and engineering implementation. (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