4.7 Article

A simple method to reduce the start-up period in a H-2-producing UASB reactor

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 1466-1473

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.09.095

关键词

Completely-stirred tank reactor; Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; H-2-producing granules; New operational strategy

资金

  1. KAIST

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction of an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor apparatus to fermentative hydrogen production (FHP) enormously improves H-2 production performance. However, the long start-up period required to form H-2-producing granules (HPG) remains as a major obstacle. In the present work, a completely-stirred tank reactor (CSTR) was operated for 7 days, and the mixed liquor in the CSTR was transferred to a UASB reactor (UASBr (I)) as a seeding source. Coffee drink manufacturing wastewater (CDMW) was used as a feedstock, constituting the first attempt to form HPG from actual industrial wastewater. The strategy employed here was found to be more effective in developing HPG than directly starting from the UASB reactor (UASBr (II)), which is attributed to substantially higher active mass transfer in the CSTR. The average size of particles in the UASBr (II) blanket zone after 50 days of operation corresponded with that in the CSTR after only 7 days of operation. The drastic decrease of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) protein concentration in the CSTR operation also indicates efficient removal of non-active biomass, the presence of which could adversely affect HPG formation. UASBr (I) showed a stable H-2 yield and H-2 production rate of 1.78 mol H-2/mol hexoseadded and 2.76 L H-2\/L/h, respectively, and HPG with an average size of 1.9 mm were developed after 45 days. It appears that the abundant presence of divalent ions, especially calcium ions, contained in the CDMW facilitated HPG formation. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu.

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