4.7 Article

New approach for integral treatment of OFMSW: Comparative analysis of its methane performance versus a conventional continuously stirred tank reactor

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 233, 期 -, 页码 282-291

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.034

关键词

Biomethanization; Continuously stirrer tank reactor (CSTR); Up-flow anaerobic filter (UFAF) reactor; Organic fraction municipal solid waste (OFMSW)

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Innovation [CTM2007-62164/TECNO, CTM2010-17654]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The overall objective of this study was to compare the methane performance between a new four-stage scheme to degrade OFMSW as source of substrate versus a conventional methanogenic continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) operated at its optimum hydraulic retention times (HRTs). The new approach proposed is based on a methanogenic up-flow anaerobic filters (UFAFs) reactor as biomethanization technology. To develop this comparative, in this study was necessary to determine experimentally the HRT in which maximum methane production was reached (optimum HRT) using UFAF technology. Bio-hydrogen effluents resulting of the dark fermentation of OFMSW coming from a full-scale mechanical-biological treatment plant was used as feedstock. To determine the optimum HRT, a sequential decreasing of this operational parameter from 7.5 to 1.5 days was established. The results obtained indicate that the maximum specific methane yield, 0.26 and 0.28 LCH4/g CODr respectively, were obtained at 3 days HRT in mesophilic (35 degrees C) and thermophilic (55 degrees C) regime of temperature. Finally, the comparative analysis showed that the methane production of the new scheme based on methanogenic-thermophilic UFAF reactor is approximately 4 times higher than methanogenic-thermophilic CSTR (2.00 versus 0.48 LCH4/L/d respectively) and, in addition, higher methane percentage on biogas is reached (75.9% versus 70.6% respectively). (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. 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