2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.194
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simultaneously upgrading biogas and purifying biogas slurry using cocultivation of Chlorella vulgaris and three different fungi under various mixed light wavelength and photoperiods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
26
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 85 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
2
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, culturing certain species of microalgae with sanitary sewage might enable the harvest of potentially high added value microalgae biomass and the metabolic products, such as proteins and fatty acids 10 , 11 . Therefore, microalgae-based technology is suitable for wastewater treatment because of its high effectiveness and low-cost 12 , 13 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, culturing certain species of microalgae with sanitary sewage might enable the harvest of potentially high added value microalgae biomass and the metabolic products, such as proteins and fatty acids 10 , 11 . Therefore, microalgae-based technology is suitable for wastewater treatment because of its high effectiveness and low-cost 12 , 13 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A 16.8‐L glass jar was used as a photobioreactor, and the set‐up diagram was as shown in Figure (Cao et al, ). The photobioreactor (height = 0.6 m; diameter = 0.2 m) was filled with 2.8 L of PWW and 14 L of biogas.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The zinc ion removal efficiency (%) was calculated by the difference in zinc ion concentration in the pig wastewater before and after treatment. The growth rate (d −1 ) and biomass productivity (g L −1 d −1 ) of the microalgae, removal efficiency of nutrient in PWW, and CO 2 in biogas were calculated according to the equations in the references (Cao et al, ; Zhao et al, ). The economic efficiency of the energy consumption for nutrients and CO 2 removal in biogas slurry and biogas are calculated by Equation ().E=RitalickTPwhere E is the economic efficiency of the energy consumption for nutrient and CO 2 removal, USD −1 ; R is the removal efficiency, %; k is the electric power charge per unit of energy consumption, USD kW −1 h −1 ; T is the illumination time, h; P is the LED electrical power consumption, W. The electric power charge per unit of energy consumption k in local after conversion is around 0.08826 USD kW −1 h −1 (Cao et al, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The key obstacle for high AD implementation of raw biogas is the upgrade into bio-methane, where the removal of This study proposes electric potential swing desorption (EPSD) as a step towards affordable bio-gas upgrading (Lijó et al, 2017;Parkin, 2016;Pascal et al, 2015;Roy et al, 2015). Bio-methane is typically 86-96% CH 4 and 2-6% CO 2 with H 2 S < 10ppm and can be used in vehicles or injected in national natural gas grids (Cao et al, 2017;Farooq et al, 2016;Kanjanarong et al, 2017). The necessity to reduce the H 2 S concentration to be in compliance with grid injection standards is a challenge.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%