| Literature DB >> 23509824 |
Zilin Song1, Gaihe Yang, Xinhui Han, Yongzhong Feng, Guangxin Ren.
Abstract
The lime pretreatment process for rice straw was optimized to enhance the biodegradation performance and increase biogas yield. The optimization was implemented using response surface methodology (RSM) and Box-Behnken experimental design. The effects of biodegradation, as well as the interactive effects of Ca(OH)2 concentration, pretreatment time, and inoculum amount on biogas improvement, were investigated. Rice straw compounds, such as lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose, were significantly degraded with increasing Ca(OH)2 concentration. The optimal conditions for the use of pretreated rice straw in anaerobic digestion were 9.81% Ca(OH)2 (w/w TS), 5.89 d treatment time, and 45.12% inoculum content, which resulted in a methane yield of 225.3 mL/g VS. A determination coefficient (R(2)) of 96% was obtained, indicating that the model used to predict the anabolic digestion process shows a favorable fit with the experimental parameters.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23509824 PMCID: PMC3591124 DOI: 10.1155/2013/968692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Characteristics of rice straw.
| Parameters | Values (%) |
|---|---|
| Total solids (TSs) | 95.8 ± 3.6 |
| Volatile solid (VS) | 84.0 ± 4.3 (of TS) |
| Total carbon (TC) | 33.96 ± 1.87 |
| Total nitrogen (TN) | 0.49 ± 0.040 |
| Carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio | 69.31 ± 3.64 |
Result = mean ± standard deviation (SD).
Figure 1Controllable and constant-temperature anaerobic fermentation device. 1: Relay; 2: temperature controller; 3: heater; 4: anaerobic digester; 5: trough at constant temperature; 6: receiver; 7: measuring cylinder.
Box-Behnken design for the Ca(OH)2 pretreatment of rice straw.
| Run | Coded | Uncoded | Response | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC | PT | IA | LC | PT | IA | Methane yield | |
| 1 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 8 | 3 | 20 | 154.0 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 50 | 200.0 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 35 | 200.0 |
| 4 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 12 | 3 | 35 | 156.5 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 35 | 215.1 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 7 | 50 | 190.0 |
| 7 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 155.9 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 35 | 207.1 |
| 9 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 12 | 7 | 20 | 103.6 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 35 | 228.2 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 7 | 35 | 229.0 |
| 12 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 167.0 |
| 13 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 50 | 190.0 |
| 14 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 11 | 35 | 167.0 |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 11 | 35 | 141.1 |
| 16 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 35 | 190.0 |
| 17 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 50 | 216.1 |
LC: Ca(OH)2 concentration; PT: pretreatment time; IA: inoculum amount.
Changes in the main compositions of corn straw after chemical pretreatment (%).
| Control | 4% Ca(OH)2 | 8% Ca(OH)2 | 12% Ca(OH)2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 d | 7 d | 11 d | 3 d | 7 d | 11 d | 3 d | 7 d | 11 d | ||
| Cellulose | 45.36 ± 0.55 | 43.72 ± 0.86 | 40.98 ± 0.65 | 39.82 ± 1.00 | 37.29 ± 1.04 | 31.07 ± 0.49 | 29.74 ± 0.79 | 31.61 ± 1.13 | 22.14 ± 0.86 | 20.97 ± 0.58 |
| Hemicellulose | 28.14 ± 0.43 | 26.16 ± 1.02 | 22.51 ± 0.88 | 21.1 ± 0.91 | 19.81 ± 0.57 | 13.99 ± 1.14 | 11.54 ± 0.37 | 13.91 ± 0.39 | 11.24 ± 0.88 | 9.98 ± 0.64 |
| Lignin | 6.88 ± 0.09 | 6.58 ± 0.06 | 6.45 ± 0.10 | 6.23 ± 0.07 | 6.36 ± 0.03 | 6.22 ± 0.09 | 6.17 ± 0.04 | 6.39 ± 0.08 | 5.36 ± 0.15 | 5.21 ± 0.08 |
Result = mean ± SD.
Figure 2Daily methane production for each pretreatment of rice straw. (a) 4% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment; (b) 8% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment; (c) 12% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment.
Figure 3pH value for each pretreatment of rice straw. (a) 4% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment; (b) 8% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment; (c) 12% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment.
Figure 4Ratio of volatile fatty acids to alkalinity for each pretreatment of rice straw. (a) 4% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment; (b) 8% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment; (c) 12% Ca(OH)2 pretreatment.
ANOVA for the response surface quadratic model.
| Source | Statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
| Prob > | |
| Model | 17714.58 | 9 | 1968.29 | 18.86 | 0.0004 |
|
| 1885.66 | 1 | 1885.66 | 18.07 | 0.0038 |
|
| 345.74 | 1 | 345.74 | 3.31 | 0.1115 |
|
| 5807.45 | 1 | 5807.45 | 55.66 | 0.0001 |
|
| 14.48 | 1 | 14.48 | 0.14 | 0.7205 |
|
| 1005.94 | 1 | 1005.94 | 9.64 | 0.0172 |
|
| 80.34 | 1 | 80.34 | 0.77 | 0.4093 |
|
| 5322.85 | 1 | 5322.85 | 51.01 | 0.0002 |
|
| 1172.85 | 1 | 1172.85 | 11.24 | 0.0122 |
|
| 1318.90 | 1 | 1318.90 | 12.64 | 0.0093 |
| Residual | 730.41 | 7 | 104.34 | — | — |
| Lack of fit | 76.94 | 3 | 25.65 | 0.16 | 0.9199 |
| Pure error | 653.47 | 4 | 163.37 | — | — |
| Cor Total | 18444.99 | 16 | — | — | — |
Figure 5Effects of Ca(OH)2 concentration, treatment time, and inoculum amount on the AD of pretreated rice straw. (a) Interactive effect of Ca(OH)2 concentration and pretreatment time; (b) interactive effect of Ca(OH)2 concentration and inoculum amount; (c) interactive effect of pretreatment time and inoculum amount.