鸡粪中高温厌氧甲烷发酵产气潜能与动力学特性

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (5)

Download: PDF (843 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract A batch experiment of 48days was carried out under the conditions of mesophilic (35℃) and thermophilic (55℃) by using raw chicken manure (RCM), solid part of chicken manure (SCM) and liquid part of chicken manure (LCM) to test the biogas production dynamics and potential when the seed sludge obtained from the effluent of chicken manure methane fermentation reactors under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions, correspondingly. It's worth noting that both reactors were continuously operated more than 90days, which domesticated microorganisms in the reactors adapted to the methane fermentation of chicken manure. An obvious two-stage characteristic with RCM methane fermentation biogas production simulated by Gompertz model, first order kinetics model and two-stage model under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions was analyzed. The K₁ of fast biogas production stage kinetics under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions were 0.4174 and 0.2104d^-1, when the methane production during fast biogas production stage took 69% and 58% of total methane production, respectively. And then it entered slow biogas production stage in 4.5 and 6.4d. The first-order kinetic rate constants of RCM and LCM mesophilic methane fermentation were 0.4177 and 0.2330d^-1, which higher than those getting from RCM and LCM thermophilic methane fermentation. Thus, compared to thermophilic methane fermentation, RCM and LCM mesophilic fermentation had a faster methane production rate. But the first-order kinetic rate constants of SCM mesophilic methane fermentation was only 0.4177d^-1, which lower than those getting from LCM mesophilic methane fermentation and SCM thermophilic methane fermentation. So the hydrolysis process maybe one of the main factors limiting the methane production rate of chicken manure under mesophilic condition. The first-order kinetic rate constant of SCM and LCM thermophilic methane fermentation were 0.2310 and 0.22214d^-1. So SCM thermophilic methane fermentation had a faster methane production rate than LCM thermophilic methane fermentation, which saying that the hydrolysis process was not the main factor limiting the methane production rate of chicken manure under thermophilic condition. The methane production potential of RCM under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions were 212.9 and 177.4mL/gTS. Therefore, compared with those in thermophilic condition, the methane production potential and the maximum methane-producing rates were higher and faster under mesophilic condition.

Key words： chicken manure methane fermentation biogas production dynamics

Received: 05 June 2017

PACS:

X712

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	QIAO Wei
	BI Shao-jie
	YIN Dong-min
	JIANG Meng-meng
	Dalal E. Algapani
	DONG Ren-jie

Cite this article:

QIAO Wei,BI Shao-jie,YIN Dong-min等. Biogas production potential and kinetics of chicken manure methane fermentation under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions[J]. CHINA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCECE, 2018, 38(1): 234-243.

URL:

http://manu36.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_zghjkx/EN/ OR http://manu36.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_zghjkx/EN/Y2018/V38/I1/234

[1]	王方浩,马文奇,窦争霞,等.中国畜禽粪便产生量估算及环境效应[J]. 中国环境科学, 2006,26(5):614-617.
[2]	FAO. Statistical Yearbook 2013:World Food and Agriculture[R]. Rome, Italy:FAO (Food and Agriculture Organziation of the United Nations), 2013.
[3]	Niu Q G. rocess performance and microbial community dynamics during methane fermentation of chicken manure[D]. Sendi:Tohoku University, 2014:14.
[4]	潘君廷,马俊怡,邱凌,等.生物炭介导鸡粪厌氧消化性能研究[J]. 中国环境科学, 2016,36(9):2716-2721.
[5]	Hagos K, Zong J, Li D, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production:Progress, challenges and perspectives[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017,76:1485-1496.
[6]	Wang M, Sun X L, Li P F, et al. Chicken manure (CM) is a typical agricultural waste with a high fraction of biodegradable organic matter[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2014,164:309-314.
[7]	Qiao W, Yan X Y, Ye J H, et al. Evaluation of biogas production from different biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal pretreatment[J]. Renewable Energy, 2011,36(12):3313-3318.
[8]	杜连柱,杨继东,张克强,等.厌氧消化过程氨抑制研究进展[J]. 可再生能源, 2012,30(4):70-74.
[9]	Rao A G, Reddy T S K, Prakash S S, et al. Biomethanation of poultry litter leachate in UASB reactor coupled with ammonia stripper for enhancement of overall performance[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2008,99(18):8679-8684.
[10]	Cieslik M, Dach J, Lewicki A, et al. Methane fermentation of the maize straw silage under meso-and thermophilic-conditions[J]. Energy, 2016,115:1495-150.
[11]	Jiang H Y, Qin Y, Gadow S I, et al. The performance and kinetic characterization of the three metabolic reactions in the thermophilic hydrogen and acidic fermentation of cassava residue[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017,42:2868-2877.
[12]	Wan J J, Jing Y H, Zhang S C, et al. Mesophilic and thermophilic alkaline fermentation of waste activated sludge for hydrogen production:Focusing on homoacetogenesis[J]. Water Research, 2016,102:524-532.
[13]	金宝丹,王淑莹,邢立群,等.不同发酵方式对污泥厌氧发酵性能的影响及其发酵液利用[J]. 中国环境科学, 2016,36(7):2079-2089.
[14]	陈广银,鲍习峰,叶小梅,等.堆肥预处理对麦秸与奶牛废水混合物厌氧产沼气的影响[J]. 中国环境科学, 2013,33(1):111-117.
[15]	李海红,巴琦玥,闫志英,等.不同原料厌氧发酵及其微生物种群的研究[J]. 中国环境科学, 2015,35(5):1449-1457.
[16]	Niu Q G, Takemura Y, Kubota K, et al. Comparing mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of chickenmanure:Microbial community dynamics and process resilience[J]. Waste Management, 2015,43:114-122.
[17]	Jang H M, Ha J H, Kim M S, et al. Effect of increased load of high-strength food wastewater in thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge on bacterial community structure[J]. Water Research, 2016,99(1):140-148.
[18]	Dalk?l?c K, Ugurlu A. Biogas production from chicken manure at different organic loading rates in a mesophilic-thermopilic two stage anaerobic system[J]. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2015,120(3):315-322.
[19]	Zhang W Q, Lang Q Q, Pan G D.Performance evaluation of a novel anaerobic digestion operation process for treating high-solids content chicken manure:Effect of reduction of the hydraulic retention time at a constant organic loading rate[J]. Waste Management, 2017,64:340-347.
[20]	Buswell A M, ollo F W. Mechanism of the methane fermentation[J]. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 952,44(3):550-552.
[21]	Sun C, Cao W X, Banks C, et al. Biogas production from undiluted chicken manure and maize silage:A study of ammonia inhibition in high solids anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016,218:1215-1223.
[22]	苏敏,乔玮,Algapani D,等.餐厨垃圾与污泥厌氧发酵产气动力学特性研究[J]. 新能源进展, 2016,4(1):01-09.
[23]	王凯军.厌氧生物技术(I)-理论与应用[M]. 北京:化学工业出版社, 2014:56-60.
[24]	Zeeman G, Wiegant W M, Koster-Treffers M E, et al. The influence of the total ammonia Concentration on the Thermophilic Digestion of Cow Manure[J]. Agricultural Wastes, 1985,14(1):19-35.
[25]	Hashimoto A G. Ammonia Inhibition of Methanogenesis from Cattle Wastes[J]. Agricultural Wastes, 1986,17(4):241-261.
[26]	Niu Q G, Hojo T, Qiao W, et al. Characterization of methanogenesis, acidogenesis and hydrolysis in thermophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2014,244:587-596.
[27]	Kima M, Ahnb Y H, Speece R E. Comparative process stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic[J]. Water Research, 2002,36(17):4369-4385.
[28]	Niu Q G, Qiao W, Qiang H, et al. Mesophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure at a wide range of ammonia concentration:Stability, inhibition and recovery[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013,137:358-367.