4.3 Article

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH FOR CATALYTIC COMBUSTION OF BIOGAS Preliminary Research

期刊

THERMAL SCIENCE
卷 27, 期 2B, 页码 1383-1392

出版社

VINCA INST NUCLEAR SCI
DOI: 10.2298/TSCI220716182I

关键词

biogas; anaerobic digestion; catalytic combustion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to analyze the possibility of obtaining biogas through anaerobic digestion of solid agricultural wastes (degraded corn and wheat) in municipal waste-waters substrate. The biogas production was tested on a self-sustained double biogas reactors and CH4 production obtained presented. Combustion of biogas-like syngas simulating produced biogas was performed in the presence of ZnAl2O4 and CoAl2O4 catalyst, in an experimental combustor. Experiments conducted showed that both corn and wheat blended with municipal waste-water produce biogas with up to 80% CH4 concentration and that combustion behavior of biogas is improved in presence of CoAl2O4 catalyst.
Nowadays, the use for renewable resources comes as a necessity to stringent energetic consumption issues that are related to both economic and energy autonomy (if possible) by using alternative sources of energy. In this context, one possible solution could be the application of anaerobic digestion processes, with a main energy carrier as result in the production of biogas. The focus for the present paper is to analyze the possibility to obtain biogas through anaerobic digestion of solid agricultural wastes (degraded corn and wheat) in municipal waste-waters substrate. The biogas production was tested on a self-sustained double biogas reactors and CH4 production obtained presented. Combustion of biogas-like syngas simulating produced biogas was performed in the presence of ZnAl2O4 and CoAl2O4 catalyst, in an experimental combustor. Experiments conducted showed that both corn and wheat blended with municipal waste-water produce biogas with up to 80% CH4 concentration and that combustion behavior of biogas is improved in presence of CoAl2O4 catalyst.

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

4.3
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