4.7 Article

Overview of pretreatment technologies on vegetable, fruit and flower market wastes disintegration and bioenergy potential: Indian scenario

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 288, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132604

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Vegetable waste; Fruit waste; Flower waste; Pretreatment; Biogas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the research updates on pretreatment techniques for enhancing biogas yields from vegetable, fruit, and flower market wastes. It highlights the potential of anaerobic digestion technology while acknowledging the challenges and technical issues associated with it.
Disposal of segregated organic fractions of centralized wholesale market wastes (i.e. vegetable, fruit and flower markets waste) in dumpsites/landfills are not only a serious issue but also underutilizes the huge potency of these organic wastes. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a promising technology for converting organic wastes into methane, as a carbon-neutral alternative to conventional fuels. The major challenges related to the AD process are poor biodegradation of wastes and buffering capacity within the anaerobic digester that lowers the biogas yield. To accelerate biodegradation and to enhance the process efficacy of anaerobic digestion, several pretreatment technologies (mechanical, thermal, biological, chemical and combined pre-treatments) for organic wastes prior to the AD process were developed. This review article presents a comprehensive analysis of research updates in pretreatment techniques for vegetable, fruit and flower markets wastes for enhancing biogas yields during the AD process. The technological aspects of the pretreatment process are described and their efficiency comparison with the resultant process yields and environmental benefits are also discussed. The challenges and technical issues associated with each pretreatment and future research directions for overcoming the field implementation issues are also proposed.

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