4.8 Article

Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge using anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor under various sludge composition and organic loading rates

期刊

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
卷 384, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129275

关键词

Waste activated sludge; Pretreatment; Mixed sludge; Pollution prevention; Biogas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effects of sludge compositions and organic loading rates (OLRs) on stable biogas production during sludge digestion. The highest average methane production rate of 0.7 L/L & BULL;d is achieved when the OLR, hydraulic retention time, WAS volume fraction, and FOS/TAC ratio are 5.0 g COD/L & BULL;d, 12 days, 0.75, and 0.32, respectively. An increase in OLR promotes bacterial and archaeal abundance and specific methanogenic activity. These results can be applied to the design and operation of sludge digestion for stable, high-rate biogas recovery.
This study investigates the effects of sludge compositions and organic loading rates (OLRs) on stable biogas production during sludge digestion. Batch digestion experiments evaluate the effects of alkaline-thermal pretreatment and waste activated sludge (WAS) fractions on the biochemical methane potential (BMP) of sludge. A lab-scale anaerobic dynamic membrane bioreactor (AnDMBR) is fed with a mixture of primary sludge and pretreated WAS. Monitoring of volatile fatty acid to total alkalinity (FOS/TAC) helps maintain operational stability. The highest average methane production rate of 0.7 L/L & BULL;d is achieved when the OLR, hydraulic retention time, WAS volume fraction, and FOS/TAC ratio are 5.0 g COD/L & BULL;d, 12 days, 0.75, and 0.32, respectively. This study finds functional redundancy in two pathways: hydrogenotrophic and acetolactic. An increase in OLR promotes bacterial and archaeal abundance and specific methanogenic activity. These results can be applied to the design and operation of sludge digestion for stable, high-rate biogas 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

4.8
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