2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biogas from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and primary sludge for cogeneration of power and heat

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
7
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in Figure 6, the cumulative biogas production for the reactor (R2(140)) is higher in the untreated reactor with approximately 29.65%, as shown in Figure 7, but the biogas yields in terms of COD removed and VS removed were approximately the same. The biogas yield production resulted in this study is higher than a study of co-digestion of FW and Primary Sludge (PS) which indicated that a mixing ratio of 1:2 produced a maximum biogas yield of 272 ml/ gVS at mesophilic conditions (Marcelo et al, 2017). It is very close to the biogas yield obtained by co-digestion of pretreated OFMSW and sludge with mixing ratio of 1.25:1 (volume ratio) at 65 °C for 60 min by (Amiri et al, 2016) which was 380 ml g -1 COD.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As shown in Figure 6, the cumulative biogas production for the reactor (R2(140)) is higher in the untreated reactor with approximately 29.65%, as shown in Figure 7, but the biogas yields in terms of COD removed and VS removed were approximately the same. The biogas yield production resulted in this study is higher than a study of co-digestion of FW and Primary Sludge (PS) which indicated that a mixing ratio of 1:2 produced a maximum biogas yield of 272 ml/ gVS at mesophilic conditions (Marcelo et al, 2017). It is very close to the biogas yield obtained by co-digestion of pretreated OFMSW and sludge with mixing ratio of 1.25:1 (volume ratio) at 65 °C for 60 min by (Amiri et al, 2016) which was 380 ml g -1 COD.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 60%
“…On the basis of the previous studies (Table 1) in this field, the mixing ratio used in this research between the food waste and sludge was chosen according to (Marcelo et al, 2017;Prabhu & Mutnuri, 2016). To determine the optimal ratio of mixing FW with SS for anaerobic co-digestion, a biomethane potential batch was achieved.…”
Section: Mixing Ratiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are few simulations performed for the AcoD process using municipal solid waste organic fractions and sewage sludge via the ADM1 modeling approach (Derbal et al, 2009;Esposito et al, 2011). Simulation studies are available for AD using Aspen Plus software (Rajendran et al, 2014;Aguilar et al, 2017;Ravendran et al, 2019), but limited studies were found in which simulation was used to evaluate AcoD (Nduse and Oladiran, 2016;Inayat et al, 2019;Ankathi et al, 2021). Aspen Plus (AP) software is a chemical process simulator that allows users to design and simulate a process model or improve existing designs using complex equations.…”
Section: Simulation Of Acodmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Organic waste constitutes an important outcome of human activity, totaling 30% of waste with a 0.8% yearly increase. Traditional landfilling, predominant in developing countries [1] , contrasts with the circular economy's reduce, reuse, recycle, and add value philosophy. Raw organic waste has limited reuse/recycling possibilities, but it has significant energy potential [2] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%