4.8 Article

Comparative study on packing materials for improved biological methanation in trickle Bed reactors

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 385, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129456

关键词

Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis; Activated carbon; Raschig rings; Bioprocess optimization; Microbial community

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Packing materials play a significant role in improving the efficiency of biological methanation in Trickle Bed Reactors. This study evaluated the performance of pelletized activated carbon and Raschig rings as packing materials. Activated carbon outperformed Raschig rings by achieving higher methane purity, maintaining stable pH levels, and reducing gas retention time. The study also found that the digestate from biogas plants served as a sufficient nutrient source. The composition of the microbial community and the physical properties of packing materials contributed to maximizing the efficiency of biological methanation.
Packing materials improve biological methanation efficiency in Trickle Bed Reactors. The present study, which lies in the field of energy production and biotechnology, entailed the evaluation of commercial pelletized activated carbon and Raschig rings as packing materials. The evaluation focused on monitoring process indicators and examining the composition of the microbial community. Activated carbon resulted in enhanced methane purity, achieving a two-fold higher methane percentage than Raschig rings, maintaining a stable pH level within a range of 7-8 and reducing gas retention time from 6 h to 90 min. Additionally, the digestate derived from biogas plant was found to be a sufficient nutrient source for the process. Fermentative species with genes for & beta;-oxidation, such as Amaricoccus sp. and Caloramator australicus could explain the production of hexanoic and valerate acids during reactor operation. Based on the physical properties of packing materials, the efficiency of biological methanation could be maximized.

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

4.8
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