4.7 Article

Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of several types of spent livestock bedding in a batch leach-bed reactor: substrate characterization and process performance

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 59, 期 -, 页码 129-139

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.027

关键词

Spent livestock bedding; Dry anaerobic digestion; Leach-bed reactor; Percolation; Process scale-up

资金

  1. Erasmus Mundus Joint Doctorate Environmental Technologies for Contaminated Solids, Soils, and Sediments (ETeCoS3) (FPA) [2010-0009]
  2. Naskeo Environnement (Malakoff, Paris, France)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spent animal bedding is a valuable resource for green energy production in rural areas. The properties of six types of spent bedding collected from deep-litter stables, housing either sheeps, goats, horses or cows, were compared and their anaerobic digestion in a batch Leach-Bed Reactor (LBR) was assessed. Spent horse bedding, when compared to all the other types, appeared to differ the most due to a greater amount of straw added to the litter and a more frequent litter change. Total solids content appeared to vary significantly from one bedding type to another, with consequent impact on the methane produced from the raw substrate. However, all the types of spent bedding had similar VS/TS (82.3-88.9)%, a C/N well-suited to anaerobic digestion (20-28, except that of the horse, 42) and their BMPs were in a narrow range (192-239 NmL CH4/g VS). The anaerobic digestion in each LBR was stable and the pH always remained higher than 6.6 regardless of the type of bedding. In contrast to all the other substrates, spent goat bedding showed a stronger acidification resulting in a methane production lag phase. Finally, spent bedding of different origins reached, on average, (89 +/- 11)% of their BMP after 60 days of operation. This means that this waste is well-suited for treatment in LBRs and that this is a promising process to recover energy from dry agricultural waste. (C) 2016 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