4.8 Article

Mesophilic and thermophilic temperature co-phase anaerobic digestion compared with single-stage mesophilic- and thermophilic digestion of sewage sludge

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 7, 页码 1653-1662

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.019

关键词

anaerobic digestion; thermophilic; mesophilic; co-phase; sewage sludge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The performance of thermophilic and mesophilic temperature co-phase anaerobic digestions for sewage sludge, using the exchange process of the digesting sludge between spatially separated mesophilic and thermophilic digesters, was examined, and compared to single-stage mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestions. The reduction of volatile solids from the temperature co-phase anaerobic digestion system was dependent on the sludge exchange rate, but was 50.7-58.8%, which was much higher than 46.8% of single-stage thermophilic digestion, as Well as 43.5% of the mesophilic digestion. The specific methane yield was 424-468 mL CH4 per gram volatile solids removed, which was as good as that of single-stage mesophilic anaerobic digestion. The process stability and the effluent quality in terms of volatile fatty acids and soluble chemical oxygen demand of the temperature co-phase anaerobic digestion system were considerably better than those of the single-stage mesophilic anaerobic processes. The destruction of total coliform in the temperature co-phase system was 98.5-99.6%, which was similar to the single-stage thermophilic digestion. The higher performances on the volatile solid and pathogen reduction, and stable operation of the temperature co-phase anaerobic system might be attributable to the well-functioned thermophilic digester, sharing nutrients and intermediates for anaerobic microorganisms, and selection of higher substrate affinity anaerobic microorganisms in the co-phase system, as a result of the sludge exchange between the mesophilic and thermophilic digesters. (C) 2004 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