| Literature DB >> 25210715 |
Leonidas Matsakas1, Ulrika Rova1, Paul Christakopoulos1.
Abstract
The potential of utilizing dried sweet sorghum stalks as raw material for anaerobic digestion has been evaluated. Two different treatments were tested, a mild thermal and an enzymatic, alone or in combination. Thermal pretreatment was found to decrease the methane yields, whereas one-step enzymatic treatment resulted in a significant increase of 15.1% comparing to the untreated sweet sorghum. Subsequently, in order to increase the total methane production, the combined effect of enzyme load and I/S on methane yields from sweet sorghum was evaluated by employing response surface methodology. The obtained model showed that the maximum methane yield that could be achieved is 296 mL CH4/g VS at I/S ratio of 0.35 with the addition of 11.12 FPU/g sweet sorghum.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25210715 PMCID: PMC4153003 DOI: 10.1155/2014/731731
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Codded and actual values of the experimental design.
| Treatment |
Coding values ( |
Actual values ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 3 | 0.7 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | 13 | 0.7 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | 3 | 3.3 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 3.3 |
| 5 | −1.414 | 0 | 0.93 | 2 |
| 6 | 1.414 | 0 | 15.07 | 2 |
| 7 | 0 | −1.414 | 8 | 0.16 |
| 8 | 0 | 1.414 | 8 | 3.83 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
Figure 1Effect of enzymatic treatment on methane yields. Enzymatic treatment was performed either in one step or in two steps. The values presented are the average of duplicate experiments.
Figure 2Effect of thermal treatment on methane yield with or without the combination of enzymatic treatment. The values presented are the average of duplicate experiments.
Figure 3Effect of I/S ratio in methane yield and total methane production from avicel cellulose. The values presented are the average of duplicate experiments.
Experimental obtained and predicted methane yields.
| Treatment | Met (methane yield, mL CH4/g VS) experimental | Met (methane yield, mL CH4/g VS) predicted | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | ||
| 1 | 267.15 | 273.02 | 269.57 |
| 2 | 277.92 | 290.82 | 283.23 |
| 3 | 210.68 | 225.40 | 213.51 |
| 4 | 256.48 | 239.09 | 242.64 |
| 5 | 229.42 | 246.11 | 240.16 |
| 6 | 274.20 | 260.08 | 270.41 |
| 7 | 47.11 | 49.86 | — |
| 8 | 201.86 | 216.86 | 215.03 |
| 9 | 242.05 | 256.17 | 254.56 |
| 10 | 257.15 | 249.21 | 254.56 |
| 11 | 259.60 | 263.16 | 254.56 |
Figure 4Diagnostic tools for model evaluation. (a) Residual normal probability and (b) plot of observed values against predicted.
Figure 5Response surface (a) and contour plot (b) of the methane yield at different combinations of enzyme load and I/S ratio.