| Literature DB >> 28484998 |
Jiayu Feng1, Jiyu Zhang1, Jiafu Zhang1, Yanfeng He1, Ruihong Zhang2, Chang Chen3, Guangqing Liu4.
Abstract
As the by-product of the vinegar production process, a large number of vinegar residue has been abandoned and caused a serious environmental pollution. Anaerobic digestion has been proved to be able to dispose and convert vinegar residue into bioenergy but still need to improve the efficiency. This study applied central composite design of response surface methodology to investigate the influences of feed to inoculum ratio, organic loading, and initial pH on methane production and optimize anaerobic digestion condition. The maximum methane yield of 203.91 mL gVS-1 and biodegradability of 46.99% were obtained at feed to inoculum ratio of 0.5, organic loading of 31.49 gVS L-1, and initial pH of 7.29, which was considered as the best condition. It has a very significant improvement of 69.48% for methane production and 52.02% for biodegradability compared with our previous study. Additionally, a high methane yield of 182.09 mL gVS-1 was obtained at feed to inoculum ratio of 1.5, organic loading of 46.22 gVS L-1, and initial pH of 7.32. And it is more appropriate to apply this condition in industrial application owing to the high feed to inoculum ratio and organic loading. Besides, a significant interaction was found between feed to inoculum ratio and organic loading. This study maximized the methane production of vinegar residue and made a good foundation for further study and future industrial application.Entities:
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Efficiency; Interaction; Methane production; Response surface methodology; Vinegar residue
Year: 2017 PMID: 28484998 PMCID: PMC5422223 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-017-0392-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Vinegar residue
Characteristics of VR and inoculum
| Parameter | VR | Inoculum |
|---|---|---|
| TS (%)a | 96.60 ± 0.19 | 14.29 ± 0.10 |
| VS (%)a | 91.17 ± 0.03 | 7.56 ± 0.09 |
| VS/TS (%) | 94.38 ± 0.15 | 52.87 ± 0.36 |
| Ash (%)b | 5.62 ± 0.15 | 47.13 ± 0.36 |
| Cellulose (%)b | 22.96 ± 1.43 | ND |
| Hemicellulose (%)b | 38.90 ± 1.02 | ND |
| Lignin (%)b | 9.20 ± 0.82 | ND |
| C (%)b | 46.61 ± 0.02 | 27.31 ± 0.50 |
| H (%)b | 6.83 ± 0.03 | 4.01 ± 0.02 |
| N (%)b | 2.50 ± 0.05 | 2.02 ± 0.17 |
| S (%)b | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.60 ± 0.05 |
| O (%)b | 37.98 ± 0.09 | 19.30 ± 0.32 |
| C/N | 18.68 ± 0.36 | 13.57 ± 1.37 |
ND not detectable
aAs total weight of sample
bAs TS of sample
The level of variables
| Variables | Factors | Experimental design (Coded level) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Coded Xi) | −1.682 | −1 | 0 | +1 | +1.682 | |
| F/I ratio | X1 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 1 | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| Organic loading (gVS L−1) | X2 | 13.18 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 46.82 |
| Initial pH | X3 | 5.32 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 8.68 |
Methane production and chemical characterization of effluent after AD
| F/I ratio (X1) | Organic loading (X2) (gVS L−1) | Initial pH (X3) | Methane production | Final pH | TAN (mg L−1) | TA (mg CaCO3 L−1) | VFA (mg L−1) | VFA/TA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental value (mL gVS−1) | Predicted value (mL gVS−1) | ||||||||
| 0.7 | 20 | 6 | 145.27 | 136.50 | 6.78 ± 0.08 | 778.0 ± 38.1 | 3025.0 ± 35.4 | 33.99 ± 7.72 | 0.011 |
| 0.7 | 20 | 8 | 155.78 | 157.47 | 7.50 ± 0.01 | 809.0 ± 12.7 | 7050.0 ± 106.1 | 31.33 ± 4.38 | 0.004 |
| 0.7 | 40 | 6 | 159.27 | 152.57 | 7.24 ± 0.04 | 904.5 ± 23.3 | 4962.5 ± 53.0 | 30.38 ± 0.41 | 0.013 |
| 0.7 | 40 | 8 | 174.79 | 178.10 | 7.87 ± 0.01 | 978.5 ± 14.9 | 9437.5 ± 88.4 | 64.86 ± 1.59 | 0.003 |
| 1.3 | 20 | 6 | 92.89 | 87.04 | 6.93 ± 0.02 | 491.0 ± 4.2 | 3287.5 ± 17.7 | 70.40 ± 0.13 | 0.021 |
| 1.3 | 20 | 8 | 103.32 | 107.47 | 7.39 ± 0.03 | 562.0 ± 26.9 | 5087.5 ± 159.1 | 30.20 ± 3.78 | 0.006 |
| 1.3 | 40 | 6 | 145.35 | 141.11 | 6.89 ± 0.08 | 978.0 ± 18.4 | 3700.0 ± 106.1 | 67.86 ± 1.05 | 0.018 |
| 1.3 | 40 | 8 | 159.87 | 166.10 | 7.37 ± 0.02 | 820.5 ± 10.6 | 5875.0 ± 141.4 | 52.97 ± 3.24 | 0.009 |
| 0.5 | 30 | 7 | 198.90 | 203.90 | 7.69 ± 0.06 | 910.0 ± 18.4 | 9337.5 ± 159.1 | 22.27 ± 1.69 | 0.002 |
| 1.5 | 30 | 7 | 153.62 | 152.22 | 7.28 ± 0.03 | 610.0 ± 35.4 | 4762.5 ± 53.0 | 49.32 ± 0.39 | 0.010 |
| 1 | 13.18 | 7 | 102.80 | 106.79 | 7.29 ± 0.08 | 455.0 ± 17.0 | 3262.5 ± 159.1 | 16.33 ± 2.10 | 0.005 |
| 1 | 46.82 | 7 | 170.00 | 169.61 | 7.50 ± 0.05 | 901.5 ± 24.8 | 8562.5 ± 123.7 | 58.18 ± 5.15 | 0.007 |
| 1 | 30 | 5.32 | 77.59 | 91.56 | 6.66 ± 0.05 | 973.5 ± 7.8 | 3175.0 ± 70.7 | 118.24 ± 4.29 | 0.037 |
| 1 | 30 | 8.68 | 140.59 | 130.22 | 7.60 ± 0.01 | 820.0 ± 14.1 | 8112.5 ± 123.7 | 24.88 ± 1.77 | 0.003 |
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 168.33 | 168.60 | 7.40 ± 0.01 | 781.5 ± 27.6 | 5912.5 ± 53.0 | 28.46 ± 2.31 | 0.005 |
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 160.02 | 168.60 | 7.42 ± 0.01 | 807.5 ± 31.8 | 5725.0 ± 106.1 | 30.67 ± 1.68 | 0.005 |
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 175.53 | 168.60 | 7.38 ± 0.06 | 824.0 ± 29.7 | 5900.0 ± 106.1 | 27.88 ± 1.92 | 0.005 |
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 178.15 | 168.60 | 7.33 ± 0.07 | 789.0 ± 34.0 | 5862.5 ± 123.7 | 25.64 ± 0.69 | 0.004 |
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 162.53 | 168.60 | 7.43 ± 0.04 | 780.0 ± 22.6 | 6425.0 ± 141.4 | 30.17 ± 1.90 | 0.005 |
| 1 | 30 | 7 | 167.65 | 168.60 | 7.41 ± 0.06 | 824.0 ± 11.3 | 5862.5 ± 88.4 | 31.20 ± 0.53 | 0.005 |
TAN total ammonia–nitrogen; TA total alkalinity; VFA volatile fatty acids
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean squares | F-value |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 18185.28 | 9 | 2020.59 | 24.04 | <0.0001 | Significant |
| X1-F/I | 3223.97 | 1 | 3223.97 | 38.35 | 0.0001 | |
| X2-loading | 4762.71 | 1 | 4762.71 | 56.66 | <0.0001 | |
| X3-pH | 1803.34 | 1 | 1803.34 | 21.45 | 0.0009 | |
| X1X2 | 722.00 | 1 | 722.00 | 8.59 | 0.0150 | |
| X1X3 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.9676 | |
| X2X3 | 10.35 | 1 | 10.35 | 0.12 | 0.7329 | |
| X12 | 161.29 | 1 | 161.29 | 1.92 | 0.1961 | |
| X22 | 1664.55 | 1 | 1664.55 | 19.80 | 0.0012 | |
| X32 | 5999.04 | 1 | 5999.04 | 71.36 | <0.0001 | |
| Residual | 840.62 | 10 | 84.06 | |||
| Lack of fit | 590.02 | 5 | 118.00 | 2.35 | 0.1845 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 250.60 | 5 | 50.12 | |||
| Cor total | 19025.90 | 19 |
C.V. % coefficient of variation
Fig. 2The 3D response surfaces and 2D contour plots for describing the interaction of different variables on methane production