污泥预处理-厌氧消化体系的能源经济性评价

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2021-1330

化工进展 ›› 2022, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (3): 1503-1516.DOI: 10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2021-1330

• 减污降碳协同化工节能减排技术 • 上一篇下一篇

污泥预处理-厌氧消化体系的能源经济性评价

阮敏¹(), 孙宇桐¹, 黄忠良², 李辉², 张轩², 吴希锴¹^,², 赵成¹^,², 姚世蓉¹^,², 张拴保¹, 张巍¹, 黄兢²()

^1.长沙理工大学能源与动力工程学院, 湖南长沙 410114
^2.湖南省林业科学院省部共建木本油料资源利用国家重点实验室, 湖南长沙 410004

收稿日期:2021-06-24 修回日期:2021-09-26 出版日期:2022-03-23 发布日期:2022-03-28
通讯作者: 黄兢
作者简介:阮敏（1979—），女，讲师，研究方向为固体废物资源化利用。E-mail: maggie_rm@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(51808216);湖南省自然科学基金(2019JJ50665);长沙市科技计划国际合作项目(kq1907082);湖南省林业科技计划(XLK201908);湖湘青年英才计划(2018RS3109)

Energy economy evaluation of sludge pretreatment-anaerobic digestion system

RUAN Min¹(), SUN Yutong¹, HUANG Zhongliang², LI Hui², ZHANG Xuan², WU Xikai¹^,², ZHAO Cheng¹^,², YAO Shirong¹^,², ZHANG Shuanbao¹, ZHANG Wei¹, HUANG Jing²()

^1.School of Energy and Power Engineering, Changsha University of Science & Technology, Changsha 410114, Hunan, China
^2.State Key Laboratory of Utilization of Woody Oil Resource, Hunan Academy of Forestry, Changsha 410004, Hunan, China

Received:2021-06-24 Revised:2021-09-26 Online:2022-03-23 Published:2022-03-28
Contact: HUANG Jing

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在污泥的厌氧消化中，降低过程能耗与提高甲烷产量是实现污水处理系统“碳中和”的主要思路之一。热、化学、机械预处理是打破厌氧消化限速水解的有效手段，主要着眼于甲烷增产以形成更多的“碳补偿”。但从热力学角度，预处理是通过消耗电能、热能、化学能使有机物大量溶解，从而获得更多生物质能的过程，其本身作为一种能量输入形式增加了厌氧消化的能耗。以往的研究通常以污泥液相中有机物溶出、固相中有机物去除以及甲烷产量作为厌氧消化性能的评价指标，难以客观评估各类厌氧消化预处理的实际效益。本文从能源转换的角度出发，综述了各类污泥预处理方法的作用机理及对厌氧消化的抑制因子等方面的研究进展，对比了典型的热预处理、碱预处理、超声预处理及其联合处理分别在甲烷产量、净能量和净利润等指标上的研究结果，并在污泥厌氧消化效率评价基础上分析了上述预处理方法在能源和经济层面的可行性，为预处理方法和预处理条件的选择提供多维度依据。

关键词: 净能量, 净利润, 厌氧消化预处理, 抑制因子, 能源经济性

Abstract:

Under the background of "carbon neutralization", sludge treatment and disposal is an important field of emission reduction. Anaerobic digestion is one of the key technologies of sludge safety disposal and energy recovery. As a low-carbon technology, the carbon emission of anaerobic digestion is mainly the result of the balance between the "energy source carbon emission" produced by energy consumption in the process of treatment and the "carbon compensation" formed by biomass energy (such as methane) produced after treatment and disposal. Therefore, reducing energy consumption and improving methane production are the main ideas to realize "carbon neutralization". Thermal, chemical, and mechanical pretreatment are effective means to break the rate-limiting hydrolysis of anaerobic digestion, mainly focusing on increasing methane production to form more "carbon compensation". However, from the perspective of thermodynamics, pretreatment is the process of dissolving a large amount of organic matter through the consumption of electric, heat, and chemical energy, thereby obtaining more biomass energy. As an energy input form, pretreatment increases the energy consumption of anaerobic digestion. The inhibitory factors produced in the process prevent the solubilized organic matter from being completely converted into methane. Increasing methane production is usually difficult to balance this part of the energy consumption. Therefore, the selection of low energy consumption pretreatment methods can effectively reduce carbon emissions. Previous studies usually used methane production as the evaluation index of anaerobic digestion performance, which was difficult to objectively evaluate the actual benefits of various anaerobic digestion pretreatments. In this paper, the mechanism of various sludge pretreatment methods and their inhibitory factors on anaerobic digestion were reviewed. The research results of typical thermal pretreatment, alkali pretreatment, ultrasonic pretreatment and combined treatment on methane production, net energy and net profit were compared. Based on the evaluation of anaerobic digestion efficiency of sludge, the feasibility of the above pretreatment methods at the energy and economic levels was analyzed, which provides multi-dimensional basis for the selection of pretreatment methods and intensity.

Key words: net energy production, net cost, anaerobic digestion pretreatment, inhibitor, energy economy

中图分类号:

X703

阮敏, 孙宇桐, 黄忠良, 李辉, 张轩, 吴希锴, 赵成, 姚世蓉, 张拴保, 张巍, 黄兢. 污泥预处理-厌氧消化体系的能源经济性评价[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(3): 1503-1516.

RUAN Min, SUN Yutong, HUANG Zhongliang, LI Hui, ZHANG Xuan, WU Xikai, ZHAO Cheng, YAO Shirong, ZHANG Shuanbao, ZHANG Wei, HUANG Jing. Energy economy evaluation of sludge pretreatment-anaerobic digestion system[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2022, 41(3): 1503-1516.

图/表 13

图1 国内污泥处理处置不同技术路线的碳排放和净能量[7]

表1 常见的厌氧消化抑制剂

抑制剂	适宜浓度/mg·L^-1	弱抑制浓度/mg·L^-1	强抑制浓度/mg·L^-1	主要抑制效果
$N H 4 +$	<200	1500~3500	>3500	减少50%甲烷产量
$N H 3$	<200	560~4051	>4051~5734	降低甲烷菌56.1%活性
$N a +$	约350	3500~5500	>8000	抑制50%产乙酸
$K +$	<400	2500~4500	>12000	抑制厌氧菌活性
$C u +$	0	<0.5	>0.5	使酶失活
$V F A$		2000~6000	>6000	降低pH

表1 常见的厌氧消化抑制剂

抑制剂	适宜浓度/mg·L^-1	弱抑制浓度/mg·L^-1	强抑制浓度/mg·L^-1	主要抑制效果
$N H 4 +$	<200	1500~3500	>3500	减少50%甲烷产量
$N H 3$	<200	560~4051	>4051~5734	降低甲烷菌56.1%活性
$N a +$	约350	3500~5500	>8000	抑制50%产乙酸
$K +$	<400	2500~4500	>12000	抑制厌氧菌活性
$C u +$	0	<0.5	>0.5	使酶失活
$V F A$		2000~6000	>6000	降低pH

图2 各类预处理的甲烷和沼气产量[15]

图3 热预处理的甲烷产量和净能量

表2 热预处理过程中回收与不回收热量所产生的净能量[77]

热预处理温度/℃	污泥停留时间=10天		污泥停留时间=20天
热预处理温度/℃	$? E 0$	$? E 1$	$? E 0$	$? E 1$
90	16.2	55.2	10	29.5
125	-6.8	57.2	-2.3	29.7
155	-46.3	39.0	-13.1	29.5

表2 热预处理过程中回收与不回收热量所产生的净能量[77]

热预处理温度/℃	污泥停留时间=10天		污泥停留时间=20天
热预处理温度/℃	$? E 0$	$? E 1$	$? E 0$	$? E 1$
90	16.2	55.2	10	29.5
125	-6.8	57.2	-2.3	29.7
155	-46.3	39.0	-13.1	29.5

表3 不同热预处理温度下的甲烷产量和净利润[80]

热预处理温度/℃	甲烷产量/m³	净利润/USD
50	370	78
70	368	67
90	386	45

图4 碱预处理的甲烷产量和净能量[76]

图5 超声、微波预处理的能量平衡[93]

表4 不同类型污泥在不同浓度下的净能量[95] (kJ·kg-1 TS)

类型	初沉池污泥浓度/g·L^-1			二沉池污泥浓度/g·L^-1			混合污泥浓度/g·L^-1
类型	21	32.2	41.1	20.6	31.4	42.1	20	31.6	41.7
超声预处理净能量	-2030.8	-582.9	-541	-1153.8	7.89	-218.6	-1464.1	-319.8	-455.7
未经预处理污泥净能量	-934.2	-146.5	-146.1	-574.6	-19.7	-27.3	-747.4	-109.3	-171.7

表5 超声预处理的甲烷产量和净利润[91]

超声时间/min	甲烷产量/m³	净利润/USD
1	374	54
5	391	-14
10	404	-112

图6 热超声联合预处理的甲烷产量和净能量[98]

图7 热和热碱联合预处理[99]

图8 热和热碱联合预处理[96]

参考文献 100

1	中华人民共和国生态环境部. 2019年中国生态环境统计年报[EB/OL]. [2021-08-27]. .
2	LIN W Y, NG W C, WONG B S E, et al. Evaluation of sewage sludge incineration ash as a potential land reclamation material[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2018, 357: 63-72.
3	刘云兴, 罗海斌. 中国城市污水厂污泥处理技术的现状及发展研究[J]. 环境科学与管理, 2013, 38(7): 94-97.
	LIU Yunxing, LUO Haibin. Current status and development of Chinese urban sewage sludge treatment technologies[J]. Environmental Science and Management, 2013, 38(7): 94-97.
4	张杞蓉, 普晓晶. 中国城市污水厂污泥处置现状研究[J]. 环境科学与管理, 2015, 40(4): 86-89.
	ZHANG Qirong, PU Xiaojing. Current status of China’s urban sewage plant sludge disposal[J]. Environmental Science and Management, 2015, 40(4): 86-89.
5	RAMACHANDRAN A, RUSTUM R, ADELOYE A J. Anaerobic digestion process modeling using Kohonen self-organising maps[J]. Heliyon, 2019, 5(4): e01511.
6	SHI Y, HUANG J, ZENG G, et al. Exploiting extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) controlling strategies for performance enhancement of biological wastewater treatments: an overview[J]. Chemosphere, 2017, 180: 396-411.
7	戴晓虎, 张辰, 章林伟，等. 碳中和背景下污泥处理处置与资源化发展方向思考[J]. 给水排水, 2021, 57(3): 1-5.
	DAI Xiaohu, ZHANG Chen， ZHANG Linwei, et al. Thoughes on the development direction of sludge treatment and resource recovery under the background of carbon neutrality[J]. Water & Wastewater Engineering, 2021, 57(3): 1-5.
8	TAO Z, WANG D, YAO F, et al. Influence of low voltage electric field stimulation on hydrogen generation from anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 704: 135849.
9	CHEN J, TYAGI R D, LI J, et al. Economic assessment of biodiesel production from wastewater sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 253: 41-48.
10	BASUVARAJ M, FEIN J, LISS S N. Protein and polysaccharide content of tightly and loosely bound extracellular polymeric substances and the development of a granular activated sludge floc[J]. Water Research, 2015, 82: 104-117.
11	SEVIOUR T, YUAN Z, LOOSDRECHT M C M VAN, et al. Aerobic sludge granulation: a tale of two polysaccharides?[J]. Water Research, 2012, 46(15): 4803-4813.
12	PATINVOH R J, OSADOLOR O A, CHANDOLIAS K, et al. Innovative pretreatment strategies for biogas production[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 224: 13-24.
13	PASSOS F, ORTEGA V, DONOSO-BRAVO A. Thermochemical pretreatment and anaerobic digestion of dairy cow manure: experimental and economic evaluation[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 227: 239-246.
14	KOR-BICAKCI G, ESKICIOGLU C. Recent developments on thermal municipal sludge pretreatment technologies for enhanced anaerobic digestion[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2019, 110: 423-443.
15	KIM J, PARK C, KIM T H, et al. Effects of various pretreatments for enhanced anaerobic digestion with waste activated sludge[J]. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 2003, 95(3): 271-275.
16	WANG J, XUE Q, GUO T, et al. A review on CFD simulating method for biogas fermentation material fluid[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, 97: 64-73.
17	赵阳, 金刚, 汪辉. 不同污泥预处理方法对污泥厌氧消化产气量影响研究[J]. 资源节约与环保, 2015(9): 40-41.
	ZHAO Yang, JIN Gang, WANG Hui. Study on the influence of different sludge pretreatment methods on the gas production of sludge anaerobic digestion[J]. Resource Conservation and Environmental Protection, 2015(9): 40-41.
18	THOMPSON T M, YOUNG B R, BAROUTIAN S. Efficiency of hydrothermal pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of pelagic Sargassum for biogas and fertiliser recovery[J]. Fuel, 2020, 279: 118527.
19	LI W, FANG A, LIU B, et al. Effect of different co-treatments of waste activated sludge on biogas production and shaping microbial community in subsequent anaerobic digestion[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2019, 378: 122098.
20	KIM D, JEONG E, OH S, et al. Combined (alkaline+ultrasonic) pretreatment effect on sewage sludge disintegration[J].Water Research, 2010, 44: 3093-3100.
21	RASAPOOR M, ADL M, BAROUTIAN S, et al. Energy performance evaluation of ultrasonic pretreatment of organic solid waste in a pilot-scale digester[J]. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2019, 51: 517-525.
22	PASSOS F, SOLÉ M, GARCÍA J, et al. Biogas production from microalgae grown in wastewater: effect of microwave pretreatment[J]. Applied Energy, 2013, 108: 168-175.
23	PASSOS F, ASTALS S, FERRER I. Anaerobic digestion of microalgal biomass after ultrasound pretreatment[J]. Waste Management, 2014, 34(11): 2098-2103.
24	PASSOS F, UGGETTI E, CARRÈRE H, et al. Pretreatment of microalgae to improve biogas production: a review[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2014, 172: 403-412.
25	AGARWAL M, TARDIO J, MOHAN S V. Pyrolysis of activated sludge: energy analysis and its technical feasibility[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 178: 70-75.
26	CHEN J L, ORTIZ R, STEELE T W J, et al. Toxicants inhibiting anaerobic digestion: a review[J]. Biotechnology Advances, 2014, 32(8): 1523-1534.
27	ROMERO-GÜIZA M S, MATA-ALVAREZ J, CHIMENOS J M, et al. The effect of magnesium as activator and inhibitor of anaerobic digestion[J]. Waste Management, 2016, 56: 137-142.
28	ERYILDIZ B, TAHERZADEH M J. Effect of pH, substrate loading, oxygen, and methanogens inhibitors on volatile fatty acid (VFA) production from Citrus waste by anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 302: 122800.
29	PHUTTARO C, SAWATDEENARUNAT C, SURENDRA K C, et al. Anaerobic digestion of hydrothermally-pretreated lignocellulosic biomass: influence of pretreatment temperatures, inhibitors and soluble organics on methane yield[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 284: 128-138.
30	LIU X, XU Q, WANG D, et al. Thermal-alkaline pretreatment of polyacrylamide flocculated waste activated sludge: process optimization and effects on anaerobic digestion and polyacrylamide degradation[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 281: 158-167.
31	NEUMANN P, GONZÁLEZ Z, VIDAL G. Sequential ultrasound and low-temperature thermal pretreatment: process optimization and influence on sewage sludge solubilization, enzyme activity and anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 234: 178-187.
32	AVILA R, CARRERO E, CRIVILLÉS E, et al. Effects of low temperature thermal pretreatments in solubility and co-digestion of waste activated sludge and microalgae mixtures[J]. Algal Research, 2020, 50: 101965.
33	CHEN S, DONG B, DAI X, et al. Effects of thermal hydrolysis on the metabolism of amino acids in sewage sludge in anaerobic digestion[J]. Waste Management, 2019, 88: 309-318.
34	LI X, CHEN S, DONG B, et al. New insight into the effect of thermal hydrolysis on high solid sludge anaerobic digestion: conversion pathway of volatile sulphur compounds[J]. Chemosphere, 2020, 244: 125466.
35	STRONG P J, MCDONALD B, GAPES D J. Combined thermochemical and fermentative destruction of municipal biosolids: a comparison between thermal hydrolysis and wet oxidative pre-treatment[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(9): 5520-5527.
36	LEE J, PARK K Y. Impact of hydrothermal pretreatment on anaerobic digestion efficiency for lignocellulosic biomass: influence of pretreatment temperature on the formation of biomass-degrading byproducts[J]. Chemosphere, 2020, 256: 127116.
37	WANG D, WANG Y, LIU X, et al. Heat pretreatment assists free ammonia to enhance hydrogen production from waste activated sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 283: 316-325.
38	ZHANG D, FENG Y, HUANG H, et al. Recalcitrant dissolved organic nitrogen formation in thermal hydrolysis pretreatment of municipal sludge[J]. Environment International, 2020, 138: 105629.
39	XU D, HAN X, CHEN H, et al. New insights into impact of thermal hydrolysis pretreatment temperature and time on sewage sludge: structure and composition of sewage sludge from sewage treatment plant[J]. Environmental Research, 2020, 191: 110122.
40	TOUTIAN V, BARJENBRUCH M, UNGER T, et al. Effect of temperature on biogas yield increase and formation of refractory COD during thermal hydrolysis of waste activated sludge[J]. Water Research, 2020, 171: 115383.
41	CESARO A, BELGIORNO V. Pretreatment methods to improve anaerobic biodegradability of organic municipal solid waste fractions[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2014, 240: 24-37.
42	ZOU X, YANG R, ZHOU X, et al. Effects of mixed alkali-thermal pretreatment on anaerobic digestion performance of waste activated sludge[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 259: 120940.
43	GÜELFO L A F, ÁLVAREZ-GALLEGO C, SALES D, et al. The use of thermochemical and biological pretreatments to enhance organic matter hydrolysis and solubilization from organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2011, 168(1): 249-254.
44	GENG Y K, YUAN L, LIU T, et al. Thermal/alkaline pretreatment of waste activated sludge combined with a microbial fuel cell operated at alkaline pH for efficient energy recovery[J]. Applied Energy, 2020, 275: 115291.
45	CHEN Y, YANG H, ZOU H, et al. Effects of acid/alkali pretreatments on lignocellulosic biomass mono-digestion and its co-digestion with waste activated sludge[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 277: 123998.
46	WANG S, YU S, LU Q, et al. Development of an alkaline/acid pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion (APAD) process for methane generation from waste activated sludge[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 708: 134564.
47	LI Y, LIN L, LI X. Chemically enhanced primary sedimentation and acidogenesis of organics in sludge for enhanced nitrogen removal in wastewater treatment[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 244: 118705.
48	KUMAR A, SAMADDER S R. Performance evaluation of anaerobic digestion technology for energy recovery from organic fraction of municipal solid waste: a review[J]. Energy, 2020, 197: 117253.
49	ŞAHINKAYA S, SEVIMLI M F. Sono-thermal pre-treatment of waste activated sludge before anaerobic digestion[J]. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2013, 20(1): 587-594.
50	PILLI S, BHUNIA P, YAN S, et al. Ultrasonic pretreatment of sludge: a review[J]. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 2011, 18(1): 1-18.
51	TIEHM A, NICKEL K, ZELLHORN M, et al. Ultrasonic waste activated sludge disintegration for improving anaerobic stabilization[J]. Water Research, 2001, 35(8): 2003-2009.
52	TIEHM A, NICKEL K, NEIS U. The use of ultrasound to accelerate the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge[J]. Water Science and Technology, 1997, 36(11): 121-128.
53	MARTÍN M Á, GONZÁLEZ I, SERRANO A, et al. Evaluation of the improvement of sonication pre-treatment in the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 147: 330-337.
54	LE L T, LEE S, BUI X T, et al. Suppression of nitrite-oxidizing bacteria under the combined conditions of high free ammonia and low dissolved oxygen concentrations for mainstream partial nitritation[J]. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 2020, 20: 101135.
55	YAN M, TREU L, CAMPANARO S, et al. Effect of ammonia on anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste: inhibitory performance, bioaugmentation and microbiome functional reconstruction[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2020, 401: 126159.
56	LI X, XIONG N, WANG X, et al. New insight into volatile sulfur compounds conversion in anaerobic digestion of excess sludge: influence of free ammonia nitrogen and thermal hydrolysis pretreatment[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 277: 123366.
57	BOZKURT Y C, APUL O G. Critical review for microwave pretreatment of waste-activated sludge prior to anaerobic digestion[J]. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 2020, 14: 1-9.
58	LIU Jianwei, ZHAO Mengfei, Chen LYU, et al. The effect of microwave pretreatment on anaerobic co-digestion of sludge and food waste: performance, kinetics and energy recovery[J]. Environmental Research, 2020, 189: 109856.
59	APPELS L, BAEYENS J, DEGRÈVE J, et al. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge[J]. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2008, 34(6): 755-781.
60	AHRING B K, PETER W. Sensitivity of thermophilic methanogenic bacteria to heavy metals[J]. Current Microbiology, 1985, 12(5): 273-276.
61	徐俊, 朱雯喆, 谢丽. 生物强化技术对厌氧消化特性影响研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2019, 38(9): 4227-4237.
	XU Jun, ZHU Wenzhe, XIE Li. Effect of bioaugmentation on the performance of anaerobic digestion: a review[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2019, 38(9): 4227-4237.
62	ARIUNBAATAR J, PANICO A, FRUNZO L, et al. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by thermal and ozonation pretreatment methods[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2014, 146: 142-149.
63	王磊, 谭学军, 王逸贤, 等. 热水解预处理剩余污泥的有机物分布及厌氧消化特性[J]. 环境工程, 2019, 37(3): 35-39.
	WANG Lei, TAN Xuejun, WANG Yixian, et al. Organic matter distribution and charactersics of excess sludge pretreated by thermal hydrolysis[J]. Environmental Engineering, 2019, 37(3): 35-39.
64	LU D, SUN F, ZHOU Y. Insights into anaerobic transformation of key dissolved organic matters produced by thermal hydrolysis sludge pretreatment[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 266: 60-67.
65	NAZARI L, YUAN Z, SANTORO D, et al. Low-temperature thermal pre-treatment of municipal wastewater sludge: process optimization and effects on solubilization and anaerobic degradation[J]. Water Research, 2017, 113: 111-123.
66	李海兵, 刘志英, 林承顺, 等. 微波预处理对剩余污泥生化处理的影响[J]. 环境工程学报, 2018, 12(4): 1254-1260.
	LI Haibing, LIU Zhiying, LIN Chengshun, et al. Effect of microwave pretreatment on biochemical treatment of waste actived sludge[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2018, 12(4): 1254-1260.
67	EBENEZER A V, KALIAPPAN S, KUMAR S A, et al. Influence of deflocculation on microwave disintegration and anaerobic biodegradability of waste activated sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 185: 194-201.
68	于潘芬. 不同预处理对污泥厌氧消化性能的影响研究[D]. 青岛: 青岛大学, 2019.
	YU Panfen. Study on the influence of different pretreatments on the performance of anaerobic digestion of sludge[D]. Qingdao: Qingdao University, 2019.
69	KIM D, LEE J. Ultrasonic sludge disintegration for enhanced methane production in anaerobic digestion: effects of sludge hydrolysis efficiency and hydraulic retention time[J]. Bioprocess and Biosystem Engineering, 2012, 35: 289-296.
70	TYAGI V K, LO S L. Application of physico-chemical pretreatment methods to enhance the sludge disintegration and subsequent anaerobic digestion: an up to date review[J]. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio-Technology, 2011, 10(3): 215-242.
71	XU H, HE P, YU G, et al. Effect of ultrasonic pretreatment on anaerobic digestion and its sludge dewaterability[J]. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2011, 23(9): 1472-1478.
72	SAPKAITE I, BARRADO E, FDZ-POLANCO F, et al. Optimization of a thermal hydrolysis process for sludge pre-treatment[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 192: 25-30.
73	ALZATE M E, MUNOZ R, ROGALLA F, et al. Biochemical methane potential of microalgae: influence of substrate to inoculum ratio, biomass concentration and pretreatment[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2012,123: 488-494.
74	HAO X, CHEN Q, LOOSDRECHT M C M VAN, et al. Sustainable disposal of excess sludge: incineration without anaerobic digestion[J]. Water Research, 2020, 170: 115298.
75	GIANICO A, FIORIN D, TOSTI L A, et al. Innovative two-steps thermo-chemical pretreatment for sludge reduction and energy recovery: cost and energy assessment[J]. Water and Environment Journal, 2020, 34(S1): 540-550.
76	CHO S, PARK S, SEON J, et al. Evaluation of thermal, ultrasonic and alkali pretreatments on mixed-microalgal biomass to enhance anaerobic methane production[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 143: 330-336.
77	LIU X, WANG Q, TANG Y, et al. Hydrothermal pretreatment of sewage sludge for enhanced anaerobic digestion: resource transformation and energy balance[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2020, 21: 127430.
78	VOLSCHAN JUNIOR I, ALMEIDA R, CAMMAROTA M C. A review of sludge pretreatment methods and co-digestion to boost biogas production and energy self-sufficiency in wastewater treatment plants[J]. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 2021, 40: 101857.
79	PASSOS F, FERRER I. Influence of hydrothermal pretreatment on microalgal biomass anaerobic digestion and bioenergy production[J]. Water Research, 2015, 68: 364-373.
80	KAVITHA S, BANU J R, PRIYA A A, et al. Liquefaction of food waste and its impacts on anaerobic biodegradability, energy ratio and economic feasibility[J]. Applied Energy, 2017, 208: 228-238.
81	XIAO B, TANG X, YI H, et al. Comparison of two advanced anaerobic digestions of sewage sludge with high-temperature thermal pretreatment and low-temperature thermal-alkaline pretreatment[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 304: 122979.
82	KAVITHA S, BANU J R, SUBITHA G, et al. Impact of thermo-chemo-sonic pretreatment in solubilizing waste activated sludge for biogas production: energetic analysis and economic assessment[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2016, 219: 479-486.
83	PILLI S, MORE T, YAN S, et al. Anaerobic digestion of thermal pre-treated sludge at different solids concentrations-computation of mass-energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 157: 250-261.
84	YUAN T, CHENG Y, ZHANG Z, et al. Comparative study on hydrothermal treatment as pre-and post-treatment of anaerobic digestion of primary sludge: focus on energy balance, resources transformation and sludge dewaterability[J]. Applied Energy, 2019, 239: 171-180.
85	BISWAL B K, HUANG H, DAI J, et al. Impact of low-thermal pretreatment on physicochemical properties of saline waste activated sludge, hydrolysis of organics and methane yield in anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 297: 122423.
86	LU J, GAVALA H N, SKIADAS I V, et al. Improving anaerobic sewage sludge digestion by implementation of a hyper-thermophilic prehydrolysis step[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2008, 88(4): 881-889.
87	APPELS L, DEGRÈVE J, BRUGGEN B VAN DER, et al. Influence of low temperature thermal pre-treatment on sludge solubilisation, heavy metal release and anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2010, 101(15): 5743-5748.
88	WANG L, LI A. Hydrothermal treatment coupled with mechanical expression at increased temperature for excess sludge dewatering: the dewatering performance and the characteristics of products[J]. Water Research, 2015, 68: 291-303.
89	CHEN R, YU X, DONG B, et al. Sludge-to-energy approaches based on pathways that couple pyrolysis with anaerobic digestion (thermal hydrolysis pre/post-treatment): energy efficiency assessment and pyrolysis kinetics analysis[J]. Energy, 2020, 190: 116240.
90	CANO R, PÉREZ-ELVIRA S I, FDZ-POLANCO F. Energy feasibility study of sludge pretreatments: a review[J]. Applied Energy, 2015, 149: 176-185.
91	LIU J, DONG L, DAI Q, et al. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge by thermal or alkaline-thermal pretreatments: influence of hydraulic retention time reduction[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(4): 2655-2667.
92	PASSOS F, CARRETERO J, FERRER I. Comparing pretreatment methods for improving microalgae anaerobic digestion: thermal, hydrothermal, microwave and ultrasound[J]. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2015, 279: 667-672.
93	HOUTMEYERS S, DEGREVE J, WILLEMS K, et al. Comparing the influence of low power ultrasonic and microwave pretreatments on the solubilisation and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2014, 171: 44-49.
94	AKGUL D, CELLA M A, ESKICIOGLU C. Influences of low-energy input microwave and ultrasonic pretreatments on single-stage and temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) of municipal wastewater sludge[J]. Energy, 2017, 123: 271-282.
95	PILLUI S, YAN S, TYAGI R D, et al. Anaerobic digestion of ultrasonicated sludge at different solids concentrations-computation of mass-energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2016, 166: 374-386.
96	KIM D, LEE K, PARK K Y. Enhancement of biogas production from anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge by hydrothermal pre-treatment[J]. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 2015, 101: 42-46.
97	ŞAHINKAYA S, SEVIMLI M F. Synergistic effects of sono-alkaline pretreatment on anaerobic biodegradability of waste activated sludge[J]. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 2013, 19(1): 197-206.
98	DHAR B R, NAKHLA G, RAY M B. Techno-economic evaluation of ultrasound and thermal pretreatments for enhanced anaerobic digestion of municipal waste activated sludge[J]. Waste Management, 2012, 32(3): 542-549.
99	CHEN H, YI H, LI H, et al. Effects of thermal and thermal-alkaline pretreatments on continuous anaerobic sludge digestion: performance, energy balance and, enhancement mechanism[J]. Renewable Energy, 2020, 147: 2409-2416.
100	KAVITHA S, KANNAH R Y, YEOM I T, et al. Combined thermo-chemo-sonic disintegration of waste activated sludge for biogas production[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 197: 383-392.

[1]	赵景超, 谭明. 表面活性剂对电渗析减量化工业含盐废水的影响[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(S1): 529-535.
[2]	王大为, 毕春梦, 秦永丽, 蒋永荣, 谢华宾, 毛宇昆, 苗雪岩. 硫酸盐还原活性污泥矿化固定酸性矿山废水中的镉[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5509-5519.
[3]	朱义浩, 赵白航, 王淳, 张雨晴, 杨海山. 改性煤矸石基沸石对水中腐殖酸的吸附性能[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5531-5537.
[4]	张会霞, 周立山, 张程蕾, 钱光磊, 谢陈鑫, 朱令之. Bi₂S₃/TiO₂纳米锥光阳极的制备及其光电催化降解土霉素[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(10): 5548-5557.
[5]	许中硕, 周盼盼, 王宇晖, 黄威, 宋新山. 硫铁矿介导的自养反硝化研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(9): 4863-4871.
[6]	陈翔宇, 卞春林, 肖本益. 温度分级厌氧消化工艺的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(9): 4872-4881.
[7]	王琦, 寇丽红, 王冠宇, 王吉坤, 刘敏, 李兰廷, 王昊. 焦化废水生物出水中可溶解性有机物的分子识别[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(9): 4984-4993.
[8]	龚鹏程, 严群, 陈锦富, 温俊宇, 苏晓洁. 铁酸钴复合碳纳米管活化过硫酸盐降解铬黑T的性能及机理[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3572-3581.
[9]	陈娜, 张肖静, 张楠, 马冰冰, 张涵, 杨浩洁, 张宏忠. 淬灭酶对亚硝化-混合自养脱氮系统的影响[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(7): 3816-3823.
[10]	朱雅静, 徐岩, 简美鹏, 李海燕, 王崇臣. 金属有机框架材料用于海水提铀的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(6): 3029-3048.
[11]	李白雪, 信欣, 朱羽蒙, 刘琴, 刘鑫. SASD-A体系构建及进水不同S/N对脱氮工艺的影响机制[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(6): 3261-3271.
[12]	曾天续, 张永显, 严渊, 刘宏, 马娇, 党鸿钟, 吴新波, 李维维, 陈永志. 羟胺对硝化菌活性及其动力学参数的影响[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(6): 3272-3280.
[13]	杨自强, 李风海, 郭卫杰, 马名杰, 赵薇. 市政污泥热处理过程中磷迁移转化的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(4): 2081-2090.
[14]	朱紫旋, 陈俊江, 张星星, 李祥, 刘文如, 吴鹏. 基于短程反硝化厌氧氨氧化新型污水生物脱氮工艺的研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(4): 2091-2100.
[15]	王玉, 余广炜, 江汝清, 黎长江, 林佳佳, 邢贞娇. 餐厨厌氧沼渣生物炭吸附盐酸环丙沙星[J]. 化工进展, 2023, 42(4): 2160-2170.

污泥预处理-厌氧消化体系的能源经济性评价

Energy economy evaluation of sludge pretreatment-anaerobic digestion system

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 13

参考文献 100

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价