3.8 Article

Co-digestion of mushroom compost with switchgrass using solid-state anaerobic digester

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1680/jwarm.22.00009

关键词

Co-digestion; methane; total volatile solids; spent mushroom compost; switchgrass; UN SDG 11; Sustainable cities and communities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using spent mushroom compost (SMC) that has been broken down into smaller particles by fungal action is an effective way to produce biogas. The study compared different mix ratios of SMC and switchgrass (SG) in solid state anaerobic digesters (SS-ADs) and found that higher SMC fractions led to lower methane production, lower pH value, and higher VFA content. The digesters with a 50:50 SMC/SG ratio showed more than twice the methane production compared to those with SMC as the sole substrate.
Spent Mushroom Compost (SMC) already broken down into smaller particles by fungal action is an ideal material for producing biogas. Two cycles of five Solid State Anaerobic Digesters (SS-ADs) with different mixratio of SMC and Switchgrass (SG) were operated at feedstock-to-effluent ratio (F/E) of 2 at a temperature 35 +/- 2 degrees C. The total solids concentration of the digester was kept at similar to 17%. Initial biogas production observed during the start-up of the digester confirmed the presence of readily available extractives for digestion. In the first cycle, the highest methane yield was observed in SMC 0 (0% SMC + 100% SG) of 28.82 L/kg VS/d and the lowest yield was observed in SMC 4 (100% SMC + 0% SG) as 10.32 L/kg VS/d. The substrate containing 100% SG (SMC 0) recorded the highest cumulative biogas yield of 295.43 L/kg VS in 63 days. The digesters with higher SMC fraction showed lower methane production, low pH value, and high VFA content upon decomposition. The SS-ADs having SMC/SG of 50:50 showed more than 2 times methane production in comparison with SS-ADs having SMC as sole substrate. An estimation of volumetric productivity also established a linear relationship with the SMC/SG ratio.

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

3.8
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