4.8 Article

Investigation on the effect of different additives on anaerobic co-digestion of corn straw and sewage sludge: Comparison of biochar, Fe3O4, and magnetic biochar

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126532

关键词

Methane production; Magnetic biochar; Co-digestion; Recycling; Cost-benefit analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878145, 51861145102]
  2. Jiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development Program [BE2020114]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that the addition of Fe3O4 additive had the best effect on methane production during the co-digestion of corn straw and sewage sludge, significantly increasing methane yield. Biochar and magnetic biochar showed relatively limited effectiveness compared to Fe3O4, which can enhance direct interspecies electron transfer and methane production pathways. Additionally, cost-benefit analysis demonstrated that recycling Fe3O4 additive is the most economically beneficial strategy.
The co-digestion of corn straw and sewage sludge with different additives (biochar, magnetic biochar, Fe3O4) were investigated. The highest cumulative methane yield of 245.15 mL/g VSadded was obtained with the Fe3O4 addition ratio of 5 g/kg, which was 60.47% higher than that of the control run (without additives). The lag phase time was shortened from 5.46 to 3.82 days with a biochar dosage of 5 g/kg. The performance of Fe3O4 on methane production from the co-digestion process was better than that of the biochar and magnetic biochar. The direct interspecies electron transfer (DIET) was enhanced with regard to the increased concentration of acetic acid and decreased concentration of propionic acid. Microbial community analysis showed that the Geobacter and Methanosarcina were selectively enriched on the surface of Fe3O4, promoting the DIET and acetoclastic methanogenesis pathway. The cost-benefit analysis proved that the strategy of recycling Fe3O4 additive has the best economic benefit.

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

4.8
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