4.7 Article

Production of methane by co-digestion of cassava pulp with various concentrations of pig manure

期刊

BIOMASS & BIOENERGY
卷 34, 期 8, 页码 1117-1124

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.02.018

关键词

Anaerobic digestion; Cassava pulp; C:N ratio; Pig manure; Manihot esculenta Crantz; Methane potential

资金

  1. School of Energy and Environment
  2. Royal Jubilee Ph.D Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cassava pulp is a major by-product produced in a cassava starch factory, containing 50-60% of starch (dry basis). Therefore, in this study we are considering its potential as a raw material substrate for the production of methane. To ensure sufficient amounts of nutrients for the anaerobic digestion process, the potential of co-digestion of cassava pulp (CP) with pig manure (PM) was further examined. The effect of the co-substrate mixture ratio was carried out in a semi-continuously fed stirred tank reactor (CSTR) operated under mesophilic condition (37 C) and at a constant OLR of 3.5 kg VS m(-3) d(-1) and a HRT of 15 days. The results showed that co-digestion resulted in higher methane production and reduction of volatile solids (VS) but lower buffering capacity. Compared to the digestion of PM alone, the specific methane yield increased 41% higher when co-digested with CP in concentrations up to 60% of the incoming VS. This was probably due to an increase in available easily degradable carbohydrates as the CP ratio in feedstock increased. The highest methane yield and VS removal of 306 mL g(-1) VSadded and 61%, respectively, were achieved with good process stability (VFA:Alkalinity ratio < 0.1) when CP accounted for 60% of the feedstock VS. A further increase of CP of the feedstock led to a decrease in methane yield and solid reductions. This appeared to be caused by an extremely high C:N ratio of the feedstock resulting in a deficiency of ammonium nitrogen for microbial growth and buffering capacity. (C) 2010 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