4.7 Article

Co-fermentation of waste steamed bun and municipal wastewater towards energy recovery for wastewater treatment plant

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 452, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2022.139219

关键词

Biohydrogen generation; Energy recovery; Municipal wastewater; Ultra -fast hydrolysis; Waste steamed bun

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the co-fermentation of waste steamed bun and municipal wastewater for biohydrogen generation in order to support the energy demand of municipal wastewater treatment plants. The use of solid enzymes for ultra-fast hydrolysis resulted in significantly higher hydrogen yields compared to traditional anaerobic fermentation. The economic analysis showed that the scenario utilizing solid enzymes was the most competitive option.
Co-fermentation of waste steamed bun (WSB) and municipal wastewater (MWW) for biohydrogen generation was investigated to support the energy demand of municipal wastewater treatment plant. WSB was ultra-fast hydrolyzed by solid enzymes which were produced by fungi through solid state fermentation (scenario 1), and commercial enzymes (scenario 2), respectively. The separated WSB hydrolysate with MWW was fed into a digester for biohydrogen generation. Compared to the traditional anaerobic fermentation (scenario 3), the yield of hydrogen with scenarios 1 and 2 were 3.17 and 2.43 times higher. The techno-economic assessment of the plant with capacity of 100 t/d WSB and 700 m3/d MWW was also conducted. The minimum selling price (MSP) of hydrogen with scenarios 1-3 were US$ 0.072/kWh, US$ 1.046/kWh and US$ 0.347/kWh, respectively. Scenario 1 was the most competitive alternatives because of the lowest annualized total cost (US$/y 1,070,920), the highest revenue (US$/y 1,016,400) and the lowest net cost (US$/y 54,520). This was the first study to examine the biohydrogen generation from co-fermentation of WSB and MWW and provide the economic analysis for practical application.

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