4.5 Article

Two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cheese whey: Process optimization, comparison with single-stage, and full-scale estimation

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cep.2022.109260

关键词

Agro-industry wastewater; Biofilm; Biofuel; Cheese whey; Hydrogen; Methane

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of this study was to compare the efficiency of a single-stage and two-stage system for anaerobic digestion and bioenergy production using a sequencing batch and fed-batch biofilm reactor. The results showed that the single-stage system achieved better performance with high organic matter removal, methane productivity, and yield. Temperature also influenced the microbial community diversity and the abundance of Methanosarcina genus.
The purpose of this study was to determine whether a single-stage or two-stage system of an anaerobic sequencing batch and fed-batch biofilm reactor (AnSBBR) would be more efficient for thermophilic whey treatment and bioenergy production. The best results were achieved at 55 degrees C and 15 kg-COD.m- 3.d-1 with organic matter removal of 96%, methane productivity of 142.9 mol-CH4.m- 3.d-1, and yield of 10.3 mol-CH4.kg-COD-1. In addition, temperature strongly impacted the microbial community diversity and had an inverse relation with the genus Methanosarcina. To treat all of the whey produced by a dairy industry, which generates 3.4 x 103 m3-whey.year- 1, a single-stage anaerobic digestion system of 80.0 m3 would be required, generating a power of 75.1 kW and an energy yield of 9.89 MJ.kg-COD-1. A two-stage system designed for the same industry would have a total working volume of 134.9 m3, combining thermophilic acidogenic reactors and mesophilic methanogenic reactors, with a power of 39.1 kW and energy yield of 5.14 MJ.kg-COD-1. The single-stage system would need an investment cost of U$$ 271,681.00, which is 42% cheaper compared to the two-stage system and would be able to supply 23.5% of the energy demand required by the dairy industry.

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

4.5
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