4.7 Article

Type and amount of organic amendments affect enhanced biogenic methane production from coal and microbial community structure

期刊

FUEL
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 600-608

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.09.074

关键词

Coalbed methane (CBM); Enhanced biogenic methane; Microbial diversity; Coal conversion; Microalgae

资金

  1. Department of Energy [DE-FE0024068]
  2. Montana Research and Economic Development Initiative Contract [51040-MUSRI2015-05]
  3. NSF [CHE-1230632]
  4. Directorate For Engineering [1230609] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1230632] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Slow rates of coal-to-methane conversion limit biogenic methane production from coalbeds. This study demonstrates that rates of coal-to-methane conversion can be increased by the addition of small amounts of organic amendments. Algae, cyanobacteria, yeast cells, and granulated yeast extract were tested at two concentrations (0.1 and 0.5 g/L), and similar increases in total methane produced and methane production rates were observed for all amendments at a given concentration. In 0.1 g/L amended systems, the amount of carbon converted to methane minus the amount produced in coal only systems exceeded the amount of carbon added in the form of amendment, suggesting enhanced coal-to-methane conversion through amendment addition. The amount of methane produced in the 0.5 g/L amended systems did not exceed the amount of carbon added. While the archaeal communities did not vary significantly, the bacterial populations appeared to be strongly influenced by the presence of coal when 0.1 g/L of amendment was added; at an amendment concentration of 0.5 g/L the bacterial community composition appeared to be affected most strongly by the amendment type. Overall, the results suggest that small amounts of amendment are not only sufficient but possibly advantageous if faster in situ coal-to-methane production is to be promoted.

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