4.8 Article

Screening microalgae strains for their productivity in methane following anaerobic digestion

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 100-107

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.051

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Methane; Microalgae; Biofuel; Bioenergy; Scenedesmus

资金

  1. AAFC-NRCan-NRC's National Bioproducts Program on Microalgae Biofuels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interest in the use of microalgae for the production of biofuels has grown in recent years. Biomethane is a biofuel that can be obtained with high efficiency from anaerobic digestion of various organic feedstocks. In this study, a Selection of freshwater (n = 15) and marine (n = 5) microalgae were tested in order to identify a microalgal strain that could be used as a model for large scale production of methane. Analysis of pH, volatile suspended solids and ammonium at the end of the assay ranged between 6.98-7.66, 16.0-25.9 g/L and 495-1622 mg/L respectively. No significant differences in these values were detected between freshwater and marine strains. There was no significant difference in the methane yield from freshwater microalgae (329 +/- 43 mL CH4/g TVS) and marine microalgae (298 +/- 83 mL CH4/g TVS) although it varied greatly within the tested strains. A statistical analysis of the microalgae grown under two different culture media showed that the type of medium was more determinant than the type of microalgae (freshwater or marine) for the methane yield, with 310 35, 365 +/- 25 and 303 77 mL CH4/g TVS for the freshwater microalgae grown in Bold's-3NV, f/2 and marine microalgae grown in f/2 media, respectively. The strains Scenedesmus sp.-AMDD, Isochrysis sp. and Scenedesmus dimorphus displayed the best methane yield with 410 +/- 6, 408 +/- 4 and 397 +/- 10 mL CH4/g TVS, respectively. The strain Scenedesmus sp.-AMDD was chosen as a model strain for future work development with continuously fed digesters. Crown Copyright (c) 2013 Published by 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

4.8
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