4.6 Article

Improved Biohythane Production from Rice Straw in an Integrated Anaerobic Bioreactor under Thermophilic Conditions

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11020474

关键词

rice straw; continuously biohythane production; integrated reaction bioreactor; NaOH; Urea pretreatment; thermophilic fermentation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the feasibility of continuous biohythane production from rice straw using an integrated anaerobic bioreactor. The use of NaOH/Urea solution as a pretreatment method resulted in higher biohythane yield compared to the control group. The study also demonstrated high COD removal and efficient carbon distribution, with most of the carbon flowing to the CH4 fermentation process. The energy conversion analysis showed significantly higher efficiency compared to single H-2 and CH4 production processes.
This study evaluated the feasibility of continuous biohythane production from rice straw (RS) using an integrated anaerobic bioreactor (IABR) at thermophilic conditions. NaOH/Urea solution was employed as a pretreatment method to enhance and improve biohythane production. Results showed that the maximum specific biohythane yield was 612.5 mL/g VS, including 104.1 mL/g VS for H-2 and 508.4 mL/g VS for CH4, which was 31.3% higher than the control RS operation stage. The maximum total chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal stabilized at about 86.8%. COD distribution results indicated that 2% of the total COD (in the feed) was converted into H-2, 85.4% was converted to CH4, and 12.6% was retained in the effluent. Furthermore, carbon distribution analysis demonstrated that H-2 production only diverted a small part of carbon, and most of the carbon flowed to the CH4 fermentation process. Upon further energy conversion analysis, the maximum value was 166.7%, 31.7 times and 12.8% higher than a single H-2 and CH4 production process. This study provides a new perspective on lignocellulose-to-biofuel recovery.

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

4.6
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