2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving methane production and anaerobic digestion stability of food waste by extracting lipids and mixing it with sewage sludge

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 2 represents the kinetic parameters of modified Gompertz model , it was found that, the maximum rate of methane production ( M P ) for co‐digestion was higher (18.60 L/Kg VS fed /day) compared to the mono digestion of DW (15.59 L/Kg VS fed /day) and WH (16.28 L/Kg VS fed /day). Similarly, Algapani et al (2017) investigated the anaerobic co‐digestion of lipid removed food waste with sewage sludge and proposed the modified Gompertz model where the lag phase duration, methane production rate was predicted with an accuracy of R 2 ‐0.99 which was almost similar to this present study. Thus, the characteristic sigmoidal curve pattern observed in this present study was similar to previous studies (Akshaya & Jacob, 2018; Lo et al, 2010; Samuel et al, 2017).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Table 2 represents the kinetic parameters of modified Gompertz model , it was found that, the maximum rate of methane production ( M P ) for co‐digestion was higher (18.60 L/Kg VS fed /day) compared to the mono digestion of DW (15.59 L/Kg VS fed /day) and WH (16.28 L/Kg VS fed /day). Similarly, Algapani et al (2017) investigated the anaerobic co‐digestion of lipid removed food waste with sewage sludge and proposed the modified Gompertz model where the lag phase duration, methane production rate was predicted with an accuracy of R 2 ‐0.99 which was almost similar to this present study. Thus, the characteristic sigmoidal curve pattern observed in this present study was similar to previous studies (Akshaya & Jacob, 2018; Lo et al, 2010; Samuel et al, 2017).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Indeed, in a work of 2016, Prabhu and Muturi found methane increases in biogas of 60% and 73% with the addition of SS to FW; while in 2015 Koch and colleagues found accelerated methane production rates [164,165]. Moreover, AcoD of FW with SS is beneficial to process stability, particularly in thermophilic conditions [138]. Anaerobic co-digestion of FW with SS appeared to be an advantageous way of managing sewage sludge, especially in China [166] and in South Korea [30] where such matters raise a lot of concern.…”
Section: Anaerobic Co-digestion Of Food Waste With Different Substratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Algapani and colleagues in 2017 [138]. Biological co-treatment (biological solubility pre-treatment) could improve the hydrolysis performance of FW and SS, since alkalis generated by sludge can buffer VFAs and maintain optimum pH for hydrolysis [181].…”
Section: Anaerobic Co-digestion Of Food Waste With Different Substratesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lipid, as seen, favours the long fatty acids production which can inhibit hydrogen and methane production. The extracted lipid have been introduced to a secondary anaerobic bioreactor fed by sewage sludge, where the acids production does not represent an possible inhibiting factor, as sewage sludge organic content is lower than HFWs (Algapani et al, 2017).…”
Section: Recent and Innovative Strategies For Biohythane Productionmentioning
confidence: 99%