Simulation and Model Validation of a Pneumatic Conveying Drying for Wood Dust Particles

Bhattarai, Sujala; Kim, Dae Hyun; Oh, Jung-Kwon

doi:10.5307/jbe.2012.37.2.082

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The predicted biogas production obtained from the SPSS program was plotted with the measured biogas production using Matlab software R2011b (7.13.0.564). The statistical indicators R 2 and root mean square error (RMSE) were calculated (Bhattarai, et al, 2012a;Bhattarai, et al, 2012b): …”

Section: Kinetic Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study

Kafle¹,

Kim²

2012

Journal of Biosystems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The biogas productivity potential of fish waste (FW) was evaluated. Methods: Batch trials were carried out in 1.3 L glass digesters kept in a temperature controlled chambers at 36.5˚C. The first order kinetic model and the modified Gompertz model were evaluated for biogas production. The Chen and Hashimoto model was used to determine the critical hydraulic retention time (HRT Critical) for FW under mesophilic conditions. The feasibility of co-digestion of FW with animal manure was studied. Results: The biogas and methane potential of FW was found to be 757 and 554 mL/g VS, respectively. The methane content in the biogas produced from FW was found to be 73% and VS removal was found to be 77%. There was smaller difference between measured and predicted biogas production when using the modified Gompertz model (16.5%) than using first order kinetic model (31%). The time period for 80%-90% of biogas production (T80-90) from FW was calculated to be 50.3-53.5 days. Similarly, the HRT Critical for FW was calculated to be 13 days under mesophilic conditions. The methane production from swine manure (SM) and cow manure (CM) digesters could be enhanced by 13%-115% and 17%-152% by mixing 10%-90% of FW with SM and CM, respectively. Conclusions: The FW was found to be highly potential substrate for anaerobic digestion for biogas production. The modified Gompertz model could be more appropriate in describing anaerobic digestion process of FW. It could be promising for co-digestion of FW with animal manure.

show abstract

Section: Kinetic Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study

Kafle¹,

Kim²

2012

Journal of Biosystems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The predicted methane yield obtained from the SPSS program was plotted with the measured methane yield using Matlab software R2011b (7.13.0.564). The statistical indicators R 2 and root mean square error (RMSE) were calculated (Bhattarai, et al, 2012a;Bhattarai, et al, 2012b): …”

Section: Kinetic Model and Statistical Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinetic Study of the Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure at Mesophilic Temperature: A Lab Scale Batch Operation

Kafle¹,

Kim²

2012

Journal of Biosystems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The kinetic evaluation was performed for swine manure (SM) degradation and biogas generation. Methods: The SM was anaerobically digested using batch digesters at feed to inoculum ratio (F/I) of 1.0 under mesophilic conditions (36.5℃). The specific gas yield was expressed in terms of gram total chemical oxygen demand (mL/g TCOD added) and gram volatile solids added (mL/g VS added) and their effectiveness was discussed. The biogas and methane production were predicted using first order kinetic model and the modified Gompertz model. The critical hydraulic retention time for biomass washout was determined using Chen and Hashimoto model. Results: The biogas and methane yield from SM was 346 and 274 mL/ TCOD added, respectively after 100 days of digestion. The average methane content in the biogas produced from SM was 79% and H2S concentration was in the range of 3000-4108 ppm. It took around 32-47 days for 80-90% of biogas recovery and the TCOD removal from SM was calculated to be 85%. When the specific biogas and methane yield from SM (with very high TVFA concentration) was expressed in terms of oven dried volatile solids (VS) basis, the gas yield was found to be over estimated. The difference in the measured and predicted gas yield was in the range of 1.2-1.5% when using first order kinetic model and 0.1% when using modified Gompertz model. The effective time for biogas production (TEf) from SM was calculated to be in the range of 30-45 days and the critical hydraulic retention time (HRTCritical) for biomass wash out was found to be 9.5 days. Conclusions: The modified Gompertz model could be better in predicting biogas and methane production from SM. The HRT greater than 10 days is recommended for continuous digesters using SM as feedstock.

show abstract

Response of hydrolysis, methanogenesis, and microbial community structure to iron dose during anaerobic digestion of food waste leachate

Antwi

Zhang

Luo

et al. 2020

Biomass Conv. Bioref.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simulation and Model Validation of a Pneumatic Conveying Drying for Wood Dust Particles

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study

Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study

Kinetic Study of the Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure at Mesophilic Temperature: A Lab Scale Batch Operation

Response of hydrolysis, methanogenesis, and microbial community structure to iron dose during anaerobic digestion of food waste leachate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About