4.6 Article

Codigestion of sludge and citrus peel wastes: Evaluating the effect of biochar addition on microbial communities

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 314-325

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2018.06.010

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Biochar; High throughput sequencing; Orange peel wastes; Sewage sludge

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad
  2. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional [CTQ2015-68925-R]
  3. Junta de Castilla y Leon - FEDER funds [LE060U16]
  4. Junta de Castilla y Leon [LE060U16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the effects on process performance and changes in microbial populations with the addition of biochar to the anaerobic digestion of sludge and orange peels were evaluated. Biochar had a positive influence in batch digestions, leading to a decrease in the lag phase and an increase in methane yields; this was even more evident for citrus peel wastes, which reached an increase of approximately 33% when 10g L-1 of biochar was added and 56% when 30 g L-1 was added. Particle size analysis performed for the experiments shows greater surface area available in biochar systems for biomass immobilization. Analysis of the microbial communities by means of 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing shows that the biochar addition favoured the electro-active microorganisms consortia creating a synthrophic metabolism between eubacterial and archaeal populations, which resulted in an improvement of the anaerobic digestion performance. The codigestion of the mixture under a semicontinuous regimen showed an improvement in methane yields of approximately 60% and at hydraulic retention times of 30-20 days (reaching methane production values above 500 L CH4 kg VS-1 at an OLR of 1.49 kg VS m(-3) d(-1)). The enhancement observe in biochar supplemented fermentations may be explained by the adsorption of inhibitors and the relatively high surface area favoured the adhesion and growth of microorganisms. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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