| Literature DB >> 28490754 |
Tao Yu1, Yihuan Deng2, Hongyu Liu3, Chunping Yang4,5, Bingwen Wu1, Guangming Zeng3, Li Lu1, Fumitake Nishimura6.
Abstract
Microwave assisted with alkaline (MW-A) condition was applied in the pretreatment of class="Species">swine mclass="Chemical">anure, class="Chemical">and the effect of the pretreatment on class="Chemical">anaerobic treatment class="Chemical">and biogas production was evaluated in this study. The two main microwaving (MW) parameters, microwaving power class="Chemical">and reaction time, were optimized for the pretreatment. Response surface methodology (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28490754 PMCID: PMC5431765 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-01706-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Experiment design matrix for combined Alkaline microwaving pretreatment.
| Run | Coded variables | Experimental variables | DD (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | x2 | x1 | x2(J/g) | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 54 | 36.40 |
| 2 | −2 | 0 | 8 | 54 | 33.05 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 72 | 54.98 |
| 4 | −1 | 1 | 9 | 72 | 42.34 |
| 5 | 0 | −2 | 10 | 18 | 24.13 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 54 | 33.42 |
| 7 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 54 | 63.91 |
| 8 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 90 | 37.14 |
| 9 | 1 | −1 | 11 | 36 | 45.32 |
| 10 | −1 | −1 | 9 | 36 | 27.11 |
ANOVA for a quadratic response surface model.
| Source | Squares | df | Square | Value | Prob > F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1270.27 | 5 | 254.05 | 11.31 | 0.0178 | significant |
| A-x1 | 714.1 | 1 | 714.1 | 31.79 | 0.0049 | |
| B-x2 | 215.99 | 1 | 215.99 | 9.61 | 0.0362 | |
| x1x2 | 7.76 | 1 | 7.76 | 0.35 | 0.5884 | |
| x1 2 | 151.41 | 1 | 151.41 | 6.74 | 0.0603 | |
| x2 2 | 34.43 | 1 | 34.43 | 1.53 | 0.2834 | |
| Lack of Fit | 85.42 | 3 | 28.47 | 6.41 | 0.2807 | not significant |
| R2 = 0.9339 | ||||||
Figure 1Analysis of Response surface methodology: interactive effects of pH and E on DD. (a) 3D response surface; (b) Verification result of RSM predicts and determined.
Figure 2Changes of pH during the anaerobic digestion after different pretreatments.
Figure 3Changes of soluble organics during the anaerobic digestion after different pretreatments.
Figure 4Changes of ammonium nitrogen during the anaerobic digestion after different pretreatments.
Figure 5Methane content and cumulative biogas production of manure after different pretreatments. (a) Methane content; (b) Cumulative biogas production; (c) Daily specific production.
Characteristics of swine manure used in this study.
| pH | TCOD (mg/g TS) | SCOD (mg/g TS) | TS(%) | VS(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.14 ± 0.26 | 208.4 ± 16.3 | 50.39 ± 0.82 | 6.02 ± 0.12 | 4.26 ± 0.06 |