| Literature DB >> 30037006 |
N Altınay Perendeci1, Sezen Gökgöl2, Derin Orhon3,4.
Abstract
This paper intended to explore the effect of alkaline H₂O₂ pretreatment on the biodegradability and the methane generation potential of greenhouse crop waste. A multi-variable experimental design was implemented. In this approach, initial solid content (3⁻7%), reaction time (6⁻24 h), H₂O₂ concentration (1⁻3%), and reaction temperature (50⁻100 °C) were varied in different combinations to determine the impact of alkaline H₂O₂ pretreatment. The results indicated that the alkaline H₂O₂ pretreatment induced a significant increase in the range of 200⁻800% in chemical oxygen demand (COD) leakage into the soluble phase, and boosted the methane generation potential from 174 mLCH₄/g of volatile solid (VS) to a much higher bracket of 250⁻350 mLCH₄/gVS. Similarly, the lignocellulosic structure of the material was broken down and hydrolyzed by H₂O₂ dosing, which increased the rate of volatile matter utilization from 31% to 50⁻70% depending on selected conditions. Alkaline H₂O₂ pretreatment was optimized to determine optimal conditions for the enhancement of methane generation assuming a cost-driven approach. Optimal alkaline H₂O₂ pretreatment conditions were found as a reaction temperature of 50 °C, 7% initial solid content, 1% H₂O₂ concentration, and a reaction time of six h. Under these conditions, the biochemical methane potential (BMP) test yielded as 309 mLCH₄/gVS. The enhancement of methane production was calculated as 77.6% compared to raw greenhouse crop wastes.Entities:
Keywords: alkaline H2O2 pretreatment; breakdown of lignocellulosic structure; greenhouse crop waste; methane generation; process optimization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30037006 PMCID: PMC6099686 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23071794
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Average characteristics of the greenhouse crop waste.
| Parameter | Result |
|---|---|
| Total solid, TS (g/kg) | 136.53 |
| Volatile solid, VS (g/kg) | 93.9 |
| Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, TKN (mg/gVS) | 6.75 |
| Protein (mg/gVS) | 60 |
| Chemical oxygen demand, COD (mg/gVS) | 1494.1 |
| Soluble chemical oxygen demand, sCOD (mg/gVS) | 60.88 |
| Soluble reducing sugar, sRedSugar (mg/gVS) | 7.59 |
| Extractable material and lipids * (%) | 0.14 |
| Van Soest fractionation | |
| Soluble matter (%) | 76.58 |
| Hemicellulose (%) | 3.89 |
| Cellulose (%) | 19.49 |
| Lignin (%) | 0.03 |
| Total lignin on an extractive free bases (%) | 19.39 |
| Acid-insoluble (%) | 17.25 |
| Acid-soluble (%) | 2.11 |
| C (%) | 29.23 |
| H (%) | 4.89 |
| N (%) | 2.96 |
| S (%) | 1.1 |
* Determined in extractives soluble in water.
Figure 1Increase in soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD; (a)) and increase in soluble reducing sugar (sRedSugar; (b)) due to alkaline H2O2 treatment.
Figure 2Methane generation due to the impact of alkaline H2O2 pretreatment.
Figure 3Methane production from sCOD and volatile solid (VS) destruction (a) and VS breakdown (b) due to the impact of alkaline H2O2 treatment.
Figure 4Destruction profile for volatile solids due to the impact of alkaline H2O2 treatment (a). Experimental outcomes for the total lignin on an extractives free bases (b).
ANOVA results for sCOD, sRedSugar, total lignin on an extractives free bases, and biochemical methane potential (BMP) models.
| Quadratic model | |||
| Prob > F | <0.0001 Significant | Adj- | 0.9562 |
| 0.9682 | Pred- | 0.9338 | |
| Adeq Precision | 35.6593 | C.V% | 8.85 |
| sCOD = +1045.11218 − 24.76191 × Reaction temp. − 44.99164 × Solid content + 88.00049 × H2O2 concent. − 3.98184 × Reaction time − 0.64327 × Reaction temp. × Solid content + 1.48441 × Reaction temp. × H2O2 concent. + 0.022507 × Reaction temp. × Reaction time − 27.45672 × Solid content × H2O2 concent. − 0.000607639 × Solid content × Reaction time − 0.62899 × H2O2 concent. × Reaction time + 0.19592 × Reaction Temp.2 + 11.76235 × Solid content2 + 6.39440 × H2O2 concent.2 + 0.21604 × Reaction time2. | |||
| Quadratic model | |||
| Prob > F | <0.0001 Significant | Adj- | 0.6966 |
| 0.7740 | Pred- | 0.5519 | |
| Adeq Precision | 11.705 | C.V% | 41.85 |
| sRedSugar = +844.41473 − 18.34946 × Reaction temp. + 16.89274 × Solid content − 136.48065 × H2O2 concent. – 13.05242 × Reaction time − 0.17577 × Reaction temp. × Solid content + 1.01831 × Reaction temp. × H2O2 concent. + 0.063115 × Reaction temp. × Reaction time − 2.93797 × Solid content × H2O2 concent. + 0.27415 × Solid content × Reaction time + 0.12308 × Reaction temp.2 − 1.32058 × Solid content2 + 18.98017 × H2O2 concent.2 + 0.29090 × Reaction time2 | |||
| Quadratic model | |||
| Prob > F | <0.0001 Significant | Adj- | 0.7762 |
| 0.8376 | Pred- | 0.6727 | |
| Adeq Precision | 14.903 | C.V% | 14.18 |
| 1/(Lignin) = +0.0736566 + 5.8380149 × 10−5 × Reaction temp. − 0.0284772 × Solid content − 7.8491088 × 10−3 × H2O2 concent. − 4.5014496 × 10−4 × Reaction time + 3.4923132 × 10−5 × Reaction temp. × Solid content + 2.3900179 × 10−4 × Reaction temp. × H2O2 concent. − 2.2097257 × 10−7 × Reaction temp. × Reaction time + 8.6433922 × 10−4 × Solid content × H2O2 concent. − 4.3403413 × 10−5 × Solid content × Reaction time − 3.95154005 × 10−5 × H2O2 concent. × Reaction time − 6.01390484 × 10−6 × Reaction temp.2 + 2.664218431 × 10−3 × Solid content2 − 1.7142995 × 10−3 × H2O2 concent.2 + 2.74301920 × 10−5 × Reaction time2 | |||
| Quadratic model | |||
| Prob > F | <0.0001 Significant | Adj- | 0.4112 |
| 0.5728 | Pred- | 0.1190 | |
| Adeq Precision | 7.23 | C.V% | 10.35 |
| 1/(BMP) = +4.20476 × 10−3 − 1.31145 × 10−5 × Reaction temp. − 4.36888 × 10−5 × Solid content − 9.28724 × 10−4 × H2O2 concent. − 4.17111 × 10−5 × Reaction time + 4.08924 × 10−7 × Reaction temp. × Solid content + 3.96470× 10−6 × Reaction temp. × H2O2 concent. − 8.50445 × 10−8 × Reaction temp. × Reaction time − 3.64937 × 10−5 × Solid content × H2O2 concent. − 2.27112 × 10−6 × Solid content × Reaction time + 4.32086 × 10−6 × H2O2 concent. × Reaction time + 1.02675 × 10−7 × Reaction temp.2 + 1.19229 × 10−5 × Solid content2 + 2.09008 × 10−4 × H2O2 concent.2 + 1.83088 × 10−6 × Reaction time2 | |||
Figure 5Effects of independent variables on biochemical methane potential (BMP). (a) H2O2 concentration and temperature; (b) reaction time and temperature; (c) solid content and temperature; (d) H2O2 concentration and solid content; (e) reaction time and solid content; (f) reaction time and H2O2 concentration.
Comparison of Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of waste pretreated with alkaline H2O2 under different conditions with with that of raw greenhouse crop waste.
| Wavelength (cm−1) | Region | 50 °C, 5% VS, 15 h, 2% H2O2 | 50 °C, 7% VS, 6 h, 1% H2O2 | 100 °C, 3% VS, 24 h, 3% H2O2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 895–900 | Characteristic absorption peak of cellulose associated with the ß-glycosidic bond [ | +++++ | + | ++++ |
| 1050 | C–O stretch of the C–O–C in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin [ | +++++ | + | ++ |
| 1270 | C–O stretch in the guaiacyl aromatic ring associated with lignin [ | +++ | ++ | +++++ |
| 1430–1460 | Aromatic skeletal vibration combined with C–H in plane deformation associated with lignin [ | ++++ | +++ | +++++ |
| 1510–1600 | Aromatic skeletal vibration of lignin constituting conjugated C=C, aryl-substituted C=C, and alkenyl C=C stretch [ | +++++ | + | +++ |
| 2920–2925 | C–H vibration of CH2 and CH3 groups [ | +++ | ++ | +++++ |
| 3420 | Inter- and intramolecular hydrogen bonding [ | ++++ | +++ | +++++ |
| 3446 | O–H stretch vibration in cellulose [ | +++ | + | ++++ |
+++++ to +: Max to Min.
Figure 6Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra and SEM images of raw and pretreated greenhouse crop waste.