4.6 Article

Succinic Production from Source-Separated Kitchen Biowaste in a Biorefinery Concept: Focusing on Alternative Carbon Dioxide Source for Fermentation Processes

期刊

FERMENTATION-BASEL
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fermentation9030259

关键词

succinic acid; kitchen biowaste; organic fraction of household kitchen wastes; enzymatic hydrolysis; anaerobic digestion; carbon dioxide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a sustainable method for producing succinic acid from the organic fraction of household kitchen wastes. The use of enzymatic hydrolysis and A. succinogenes fermentation resulted in high sugar conversion and succinic acid yields. The study also demonstrated the successful conversion of the liquid fraction and residue of kitchen waste into biogas.
This study presents sustainable succinic acid production from the organic fraction of household kitchen wastes, i.e., the organic fraction of household kitchen waste (OFHKW), pretreated with enzymatic hydrolysis (100% cocktail dosage: 62.5% Cellic(R) CTec2, 31%% beta-Glucanase and 6.5% Cellic(R) HTec2, cellulase activity of 12.5 FPU/g-glucan). For fermentation, A. succinogenes was used, which consumes CO2 during the process. OFHKW at biomass loading > 20% (dry matter) resulted in a final concentration of fermentable sugars 81-85 g/L and can be treated as a promising feedstock for succinic production. Obtained results state that simultaneous addition of gaseous CO2 and MgCO3 (>20 g/dm(3)) resulted in the highest sugar conversion (79-81%) and succinic yields (74-75%). Additionally, CH4 content in biogas, used as a CO2 source, increased by 21-22% and reached 91-92% vol. Liquid fraction of source-separated kitchen biowaste and the residue after succinic fermentation were successfully converted into biogas. Results obtained in this study clearly document the possibility of integrated valuable compounds (succinic acid) and energy (biogas) production from the organic fraction of household kitchen wastes (OFHKW).

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