4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Nutrients recovery from anaerobic digestate of agro-waste: Techno-economic assessment of full scale applications

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 216, 期 -, 页码 111-119

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.026

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Circular economy; Drying; Manure; Membranes; Nutrients; Stripping

资金

  1. Riducareflui project
  2. Veneto Region
  3. Veneto Agricoltura Spa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sustainable production of fertilizers, especially those based on phosphorus, will be one of the challenges of this century. Organic wastes produced by the agriculture, urban and industrial sectors are rich in nutrients which can be conveniently recovered and used as fertilizers. In this study five full scale systems for the recovery of nutrients from anaerobic digestate produced in farm-scale plants were studied. Monitored technologies were: drying with acidic recovery, stripping with acidic recovery and membrane separation. Results showed good performances in terms of nutrients recovery with average yields always over 50% for both nitrogen and phosphorus. The techno-economic assessment showed how the specificity of the monitored systems played a major role: in particular, membranes were able to produce a stream of virtually pure water (up to 50% of the treated digestate) reducing the digestate volume, while drying, because of the limitation on recoverable heat, could treat only a limited portion (lower than 50%) of produced digestate while stripping suffered some problems because of the presence of suspended solids in the liquid fraction treated. Specific capital and operational costs for the three systems were comparable ranging between 5.40 and 6.97 per m(3) of digestate treated and followed the order stripping > drying > membranes. Costs determined in this study were similar to those observed in other European experiences reported in literature. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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