Literature DB >> 27595700

Significance of dissolved methane in effluents of anaerobically treated low strength wastewater and potential for recovery as an energy product: A review.

Brian C Crone1, Jay L Garland2, George A Sorial3, Leland M Vane4.   

Abstract

The need for energy efficient Domestic Wastewater (DWW) treatment is increasing annually with population growth and expanding global energy demand. Anaerobic treatment of low strength DWW produces methane which can be used to as an energy product. Temperature sensitivity, low removal efficiencies (Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Suspended Solids (SS), and Nutrients), alkalinity demand, and potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have limited its application to warmer climates. Although well designed anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors (AnMBRs) are able to effectively treat DWW at psychrophilic temperatures (10-30 °C), lower temperatures increase methane solubility leading to increased energy losses in the form of dissolved methane in the effluent. Estimates of dissolved methane losses are typically based on concentrations calculated using Henry's Law but advection limitations can lead to supersaturation of methane between 1.34 and 6.9 times equilibrium concentrations and 11-100% of generated methane being lost in the effluent. In well mixed systems such as AnMBRs which use biogas sparging to control membrane fouling, actual concentrations approach equilibrium values. Non-porous membranes have been used to recover up to 92.6% of dissolved methane and well suited for degassing effluents of Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors which have considerable solids and organic contents and can cause pore wetting and clogging in microporous membrane modules. Microporous membranes can recover up to 98.9% of dissolved methane in AnMBR effluents which have low COD and SS concentrations. Sequential Down-flow Hanging Sponge (DHS) reactors have been used to recover between 57 and 88% of dissolved methane from Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor effluent at concentrations of greater than 30% and oxidize the rest for a 99% removal of total dissolved methane. They can also remove 90% of suspended solids and COD in UASB effluents and produce a high quality effluent. In situ degassing can increase process stability, COD removal, biomass retention, and headspace methane concentrations. A model for estimating energy consumption associated with membrane-based dissolved methane recovery predicts that recovered dissolved and headspace methane may provide all the energy required for operation of an anaerobic system treating DWW at psychrophilic temperatures.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anaerobic treatment; Bioreactor; Degassing; Dissolved methane; Membrane

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27595700     DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2016.08.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Water Res        ISSN: 0043-1354            Impact factor:   11.236


  9 in total

1.  Design and evaluation of degassed anaerobic membrane biofilm reactors for improved methane recovery.

Authors:  Brian C Crone; George A Sorial; Jonathan G Pressman; Hodon Ryu; Scott P Keely; Nichole Brinkman; Christina Bennett-Stamper; Jay L Garland
Journal:  Bioresour Technol Rep       Date:  2020-06-01

2.  Energy and greenhouse gas life cycle assessment and cost analysis of aerobic and anaerobic membrane bioreactor systems: Influence of scale, population density, climate, and methane recovery.

Authors:  Sarah Cashman; Xin Ma; Janet Mosley; Jay Garland; Brian Crone; Xiaobo Xue
Journal:  Bioresour Technol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 9.642

Review 3.  A Review on Opportunities and Limitations of Membrane Bioreactor Configuration in Biofuel Production.

Authors:  Shruti Garg; Shuvashish Behera; Hector A Ruiz; Sachin Kumar
Journal:  Appl Biochem Biotechnol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 2.926

4.  Membrane fouling and performance of anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor treating phenol- and quinoline-containing wastewater: granular activated carbon vs polyaluminum chloride.

Authors:  Shun Wang; Cong Ma; Chao Pang; Zhenhu Hu; Wei Wang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 4.223

Review 5.  Recent Progresses in Application of Membrane Bioreactors in Production of Biohydrogen.

Authors:  Bahman Jabbari; Elham Jalilnejad; Kamran Ghasemzadeh; Adolfo Iulianelli
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2019-08-10

Review 6.  A Review on the Mechanism, Impacts and Control Methods of Membrane Fouling in MBR System.

Authors:  Xianjun Du; Yaoke Shi; Veeriah Jegatheesan; Izaz Ul Haq
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2020-02-04

7.  Hollow-Fiber Membrane Contactor for Biogas Recovery from Real Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Permeate.

Authors:  Qazi Sohaib; Carla Kalakech; Christophe Charmette; Jim Cartier; Geoffroy Lesage; Jean-Pierre Mericq
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-19

8.  Flat PVDF Membrane with Enhanced Hydrophobicity through Alkali Activation and Organofluorosilanisation for Dissolved Methane Recovery.

Authors:  Ramón Jiménez-Robles; Beatriz María Moreno-Torralbo; Jose David Badia; Vicente Martínez-Soria; Marta Izquierdo
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-15

9.  Assessment of an Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor (AnMBR) Treating Medium-Strength Synthetic Wastewater under Cyclical Membrane Operation.

Authors:  Ahmet E Uman; Robert A Bair; Daniel H Yeh
Journal:  Membranes (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-31
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.