4.6 Article

Enhancing phototropic hydrogen production by solid-carrier assisted fermentation and internal optical-fiber illumination

期刊

PROCESS BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 2041-2049

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2006.05.005

关键词

phototrophic hydrogen production; Rhodopseudomonas palustris; photosynthetic bacteria; photobioreactor; optical fiber; solid carriers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three strategies were applied to promote the phototrphic H-2 production of an indigenous purple nonsulfur bacterium Rhodopseudomonas palustris WP3-5 using acetate as the sole carbon substrate. First, a small amount of solid carriers (e.g., activated carbon, silica gel, and clay) was supplemented to fermentation broth to stimulate cell growth and H2 production. Second, the acetate concentration leading to optimal production of H2 was identified. Finally, an innovative optical-fiber illuminating system was designed to facilitate the efficiency of the photobioreactor. The results show that addition of clay and silica gel was effective in promoting H2 production, resulting in 67.2-50.9% and 37.2-32.5% increases in H-2 production rate (V-H2) and H2 yield (Y-H2), respectively. For clay-supplemented batch cultures, the optimal acetate concentration was 1000 mg COD/ 1, leading to a V-H2 and Y-H2 value of 28.5 ml/h/l and 2.97 mol H-2/ruol acetate, respectively. Moreover, combination of internal optical-fiber illumination system, clay addition, and optimal acetate concentration further elevated the V-H2 and Y-H2 to a maximum level of 43.8 ml/hA and 3.63 mol H-2/Mol acetate, respectively. These values are considerably higher than most reported results from relevant studies. Meanwhile, the results of continuous cultures operated at 36 h HRT (hydraulic retention time) show that the high phototrophic H-2 production efficiency was stably maintained for over 17 days with a steady-state V-H2 and Y-H2 of 44.0 mUhA and 3.57 mol H-2/mol acetate, respectively. (c) 2006 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

4.6
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