4.7 Article

Effects of woody biochar on dry thermophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110633

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents the results of semi-pilot scale anaerobic digestion tests conducted under dry thermophilic conditions with the addition of biochar (6% on fresh mass basis of inoculum), derived from an industrial gasification plant, for determining biogas and biomethane production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste. By using two types of inocula (from a full-scale dry anaerobic digestion plant and from lab-scale biomethanation tests), the obtained experimental results did not show significant increase in methane yield related to the presence of biochar (330.40 NL CH4 kgVS(-1) using plant inoculum; 335.41 NL CH4 kgVS(-1) using plant inoculum with biochar, 311.78 NL CH4 kgVS(-1) using lab-inoculum and 366.43 NL CH4 kgVS(-1) using lab-inoculum with biochar), but led to significant changes in the microbial community composition. These results are likely related with the specific biochar physical-chemical features and low adsorption potential. Resulting digestate quality was also investigated: biochar-enriched digestates were characterized by increased biological stability (809 +/- 264 mg O-2 kgVS(-1) h(-1) vs. 554 +/- 76 mg O-2 kgVS(-1) h(-1) for biochar-free and biochar-enriched digestates, respectively), lower heavy metals concentrations (with the exception of Cd), but higher polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons content, with a reported maximum concentration of 8.9 mgPAH kgTS(-1) for biochar-enriched digestate derived from AD test with lab-inoculum, which could trigger non-compliance with regulation limits for agricultural reuse of digestates. However, phytotoxicity assessments showed a decreased toxicity of biochar-containing digestates when compared to biochar-free digestates.

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