4.7 Review

A Review on Performance Improvement of Anaerobic Digestion Using Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Sewage Sludge

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 338, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117733

关键词

Anaerobic co -digestion; Animal manure; Biogas; Food waste; Methane; Water waste

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anaerobic co-digestion is an important technology for processing organic waste, recovering nutrients, and creating sustainable biofuel. However, the low biogas output and high installation costs limit its viability. This literature review demonstrates that anaerobic co-digestion produces more methane biogas than anaerobic digestion, and adjusting the waste-to-water waste ratio can increase methane production.
Anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) is a vital technology in the decarburization of the economy because of its ability to process organic waste, recover nutrients, and create biogas as a sustainable biofuel all at the same time. This attribute also makes this technology a viable partner in pursuing a circular economic model. However, the poor biogas output of typical substrates like sewage sludge and animal manure and the hefty installation costs limit its viability. This review paper with literature analysis provides a good grasp of the anaerobic co-digesting process with diverse food digestion methods. In this survey, we have analyzed the Anaerobic Digestion of water waste, food waste, and animal manure and the anaerobic co-digestion of animal waste with water waste and food waste with water waste. This analysis demonstrates that anaerobic co-digestion produces more methane biogas than anaerobic digestion. Also, it has been shown that by adjusting the ratio of food and animal waste to water waste, we can produce more methane. In the future, we would like to supplement anaerobic co-digestion by altering the proportion of different wastes that are mixed with water waste in order to increase methane production.

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

4.7
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