Optimization of anaerobic co-digestion process of rural organic household waste with other substrates

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2021-1181

Abstract

Abstract:

Effective treatment of rural organic domestic waste (ROW) is of great significance to beautify the rural environment. It is prone to acidification and ammonia nitrogen inhibition during high-concentration anaerobic digestion, resulting in poor stability of the system. There is still a lack of research on the effects of different ROW co-digestion substrates and TS(total solids) concentrations on anaerobic digestion. In order to improve the performance of anaerobic digestion and reduce the pressure of environmental protection, the anaerobic co-digestion characteristics of ROW under different substrate ratio and different TS concentration were studied, so as to optimize the anaerobic fermentation process of ROW. The anaerobic co-digestion with different feed concentration was carried out. ROW was collected from Peixian, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, and the PM and RC were from the Luhe Animal Experimental Base of Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences. When the digestion substrates were ROW and PM, the cumulative methane yields increased with the increase of feed TS concentration, and the highest was 257.38mL/g VS. When the digestion substrates were ROW and RC or ROW, PM and RC, the cumulative methane yields increased when the feed TS concentration increased from 8% to 12%, and the highest were 339.59mL/g VS and 322.16mL/g VS, respectively; when the feed TS concentration continued to increase to 15%, the methane yields decreased and were 231.17mL/g VS and 194.67mL/g VS, respectively, which were lower than that of other experimental groups. Under the experimental conditions set in this paper, the optimal co-digestion feed was as follows: the digestion substrate was ROW and RC, VS ratio was 1∶1, the feed TS concentration was 12%, and the cumulative methane yields was 339.59mL/g VS.

Key words: rural organic household waste, pig manure, rice straw, anaerobic co-digestion, biogas

摘要：

有效处理农村有机生活垃圾（rural organic household waste, ROW）对美化农村环境具有重要意义，在对其进行高浓度厌氧发酵时容易出现酸化和氨氮抑制现象，导致系统稳定性差。目前尚缺乏ROW不同共发酵底物和进料总固体（total solids，TS）浓度对厌氧发酵的影响研究。为提高厌氧发酵性能，减少环境保护压力，本文对ROW不同共发酵底物配比和不同进料浓度下厌氧共发酵特性进行研究，从而优化农村有机生活垃圾厌氧发酵工艺。文中对取自江苏徐州沛县的农村有机生活垃圾和江苏省农业科学院六合动物实验基地的猪粪（PM）、水稻秸秆（RC）进行厌氧共发酵。当发酵底物为ROW和PM时，甲烷产量随着进料总固体含量TS的升高而增加，最高为257.38mL/g VS；当发酵底物为ROW和RC，或者发酵底物为ROW、PM和RC时，进料TS质量分数从8%增加到12%时，甲烷产量随之增加，最高分别为339.59mL/g VS、322.16mL/g VS，当进料TS质量分数继续升高到15% 时，二者产量均出现降低且均低于其他实验组，分别为231.17mL/g VS、194.67mL/g VS。在本文所设置实验条件下，最优共发酵进料为：发酵底物为ROW和RC，生活垃圾与挥发性固体（VS）质量比为1∶1，进料TS质量分数为12%，甲烷产量为339.59mL/g VS。

关键词: 农村有机生活垃圾, 猪粪, 水稻秸秆, 厌氧共发酵, 沼气

CLC Number:

X712

LIU Yang, YE Xiaomei, WANG Chengcheng, JIA Zhaoyan, DU Jing, KONG Xiangping, XI Yonglan. Optimization of anaerobic co-digestion process of rural organic household waste with other substrates[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2022, 41(5): 2770-2777.

刘洋, 叶小梅, 王成成, 贾昭炎, 杜静, 孔祥平, 奚永兰. 农村有机生活垃圾与不同原料厌氧共发酵工艺优化[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(5): 2770-2777.

Figures/Tables 9

References 30

1	TANG F F, YU Z S, LI Y, et al. Catalytic co-pyrolysis behaviors, product characteristics and kinetics of rural solid waste and chlorella vulgaris[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 299: 122636.
2	操建华. 乡村振兴视角下农村生活垃圾处理[J]. 重庆社会科学, 2019(6): 44-54.
	CAO Jianhua. Research on rural domestic waste disposal under the perspective of rural revitalization[J]. Chongqing Social Sciences, 2019(6): 44-54.
3	聂二旗, 郑国砥, 高定, 等. 中国西部农村生活垃圾处理现状及对策分析[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2017, 33(10): 882-889.
	NIE Erqi, ZHENG Guodi, GAO Ding, et al. Status quo and strategy for management of rural domestic waste in West China[J]. Journal of Ecology and Rural Environment, 2017, 33(10): 882-889.
4	韩智勇, 费勇强, 刘丹, 等. 中国农村生活垃圾的产生量与物理特性分析及处理建议[J]. 农业工程学报, 2017, 33(15): 1-14.
	HAN Zhiyong, FEI Yongqiang, LIU Dan, et al. Yield and physical characteristics analysis of domestic waste in rural areas of China and its disposal proposal[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2017, 33(15): 1-14.
5	颜鹰, 庞豫健. 标准化视角下的农村生活垃圾分类处理研究[J]. 中国标准化, 2021(5): 139-143.
	YAN Ying, PANG Yujian. Research on classification and treatment of rural household waste by standardization[J]. China Standardization, 2021(5): 139-143.
6	曾文俊, 李冰峰, 李惠斌, 等. 地埋式沼气工程资源化利用农村有机垃圾技术模式探析[J]. 中国沼气, 2020, 38(6): 74-78.
	ZENG Wenjun, LI Bingfeng, LI Huibin, et al. Analysis on the technical model of utilizing rural organic waste by using buried biogas project[J]. China Biogas, 2020, 38(6): 74-78.
7	WAINAINA S, AWASTHI M K, SARSAIYA S, et al. Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 301: 122778.
8	金鹏康, 陆佳宁, 李志鹏. 不同基质配比对农村生活垃圾厌氧发酵效率及稳定性的影响[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(1): 300-307.
	JIN Pengkang, LU Jianing, LI Zhipeng. Influence of different distributive ratios of typical rural wastes on efficiency and stability of co-digestion system[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 19(1): 300-307.
9	ADAMI L, SCHIAVON M, TORRETTA V, et al. Evaluation of conventional and alternative anaerobic digestion technologies for applications to small and rural communities[J]. Waste Management, 2020, 118: 79-89.
10	BERNARD S S, SRINIVASAN T, SURESH G, et al. Production of biogas from anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste and cow dung[J]. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2020, 33: 1104-1106.
11	CHOWDHURY T H. Technical-economical analysis of anaerobic digestion process to produce clean energy[J]. Energy Reports, 2021, 7: 247-253.
12	奚永兰, 刘洋, 高娣, 等. 农村生活垃圾厌氧发酵产沼气潜力研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(23): 222-228.
	XI Yonglan, LIU Yang, GAO Di, et al. Potential of biogas produced from anaerobic fermentation of rural household wastes[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(23): 222-228.
13	蒋滔, 韦秀丽, 肖璐, 等. 玉米秸秆固态和液态厌氧发酵产气性能与微生物种类比较研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(3): 227-235.
	JIANG Tao, WEI Xiuli, XIAO Lu, et al. Comparison of biogas production and microbial species of corn straw in solid-state anaerobic digestion(SS-AD) and liquid anaerobic digestion(L-AD)[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(3): 227-235.
14	于佳动, 赵立欣, 冯晶, 等. 序批式玉米秸秆牛粪混合厌氧干发酵产甲烷工艺优化研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(S1): 86-92.
	YU Jiadong, ZHAO Lixin, FENG Jing, et al. Study on optimal technology of methane production by sequencing batchdry anaerobic digestion with corn straw and cattle manure[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(S1): 86-92.
15	李宵宵, 吴丽杰, 任瑞鹏, 等. 高含固污泥厌氧消化处理技术研究进展[J]. 现代化工, 2020, 40(8): 21-25.
	LI Xiaoxiao, WU Lijie, REN Ruipeng, et al. Research progress on anaerobic digestion treatment technology for high-solid sludge[J]. Modern Chemical Industry, 2020, 40(8): 21-25.
16	李丹妮, 张克强, 孔德望, 等. 非混合接种对猪粪厌氧干发酵产气特性的影响[J]. 环境工程学报, 2021, 15(1): 279-288.
	LI Danni, ZHANG Keqiang, KONG Dewang, et al. Effects of non-mixed seeding on methane production characteristics of the batch dry anaerobic digestion of pig manure[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2021, 15(1): 279-288.
17	冯晶, 荆勇, 赵立欣, 等. 生物炭强化有机废弃物厌氧发酵技术研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(12): 256-264.
	FENG Jing, JING Yong, ZHAO Lixin, et al. Research progress on biochar enhanced anaerobic fermentation technology of organic wastes[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2019, 35(12): 256-264.
18	郭南飞, 韩智勇, 史瑞, 等. 农村垃圾厌氧-准好氧时空联合生物反应器中微生物群落分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2020, 36(19): 200-208.
	GUO Nanfei, HAN Zhiyong, SHI Rui, et al. Analysis of microbial community in the anaerobic/semi-aerobic spatiotemporal bioreactor for rural wastes[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2020, 36(19): 200-208.
19	傅国志, 郭文阳, 马宗虎, 等. 秸秆与猪粪混合高固厌氧消化产气性能及关键微生物分析[J]. 化工进展, 2020, 39(8): 3386-3394.
	FU Guozhi, GUO Wenyang, MA Zonghu, et al. Analysis of gas generation performance and key microorganisms of high solid anaerobic digestion of straw mixed with pig manure[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(8): 3386-3394.
20	张大磊, 李瑞栋, 赵昱皓, 等. 农业废弃物共发酵的产气潜力研究[J]. 山东化工, 2018, 47(20): 175-178.
	ZHANG Dalei, LI Ruidong, ZHAO Yuhao, et al. Study on gas production potential of agricultural waste co-fermentation[J]. Shandong Chemical Industry, 2018, 47(20): 175-178.
21	齐利格娃, 高文萱, 杜连柱, 等. 粪草比对猪粪与稻草干发酵产沼气及古菌群落的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(23): 232-238.
	QI Ligewa, GAO Wenxuan, DU Lianzhu, et al. Influence of pig manure and rice straw mass ratio on its biogas production and archaeal communities in dry anaerobic co-digestion system[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(23): 232-238.
22	张国华, 徐鹏程, 田汝康. 不同物料厌氧共发酵产甲烷特性研究[J]. 山东化工, 2019, 48(13): 208-212, 217.
	ZHANG Guohua, XU Pengcheng, TIAN Rukang. Synergistic effect on methane production of anaerobic co-digestion with mixed materials[J]. Shandong Chemical Industry, 2019, 48(13): 208-212, 217.
23	冯晶, 赵兰兰, 赵立欣, 等. 进料浓度对玉米秸秆与牛粪全混式厌氧发酵特征影响研究[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(14): 221-227.
	FENG Jing, ZHAO Lanlan, ZHAO Lixin, et al. Effect of feed concentration on continuous stirred anaerobic fermentation characteristics with mixed corn straw and cow manures[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2019, 35(14): 221-227.
24	WANG Y Y, LI G X, CHI M H, et al. Effects of co-digestion of cucumber residues to corn stover and pig manure ratio on methane production in solid state anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2018, 250: 328-336.
25	JIANG Y, DENNEHY C, LAWLOR P G, et al. Inhibition of volatile fatty acids on methane production kinetics during dry co-digestion of food waste and pig manure[J]. Waste Management, 2018, 79: 302-311.
26	MOTHE S, POLISETTY V R. Review on anaerobic digestion of rice straw for biogas production[J]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28(19): 24455-24469.
27	APHA, 2005. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater[M]. 23rd ed.American Public Health Association, Washington D C, 1966.
28	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析 [M]. 3版. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2007.
	BAO Shidan. Soil agricultural chemistry analysis[M]. 3rd ed. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2007.
29	乔玮, 姜萌萌, 赵婧, 等. 中温和高温环境下乙酸和丙酸厌氧发酵产甲烷动力学特征[J]. 农业工程学报, 2018, 34(21): 234-238.
	QIAO Wei, JIANG Mengmeng, ZHAO Jing, et al. Methanogenesis kinetics of anaerobic digestion of acetate and propionate at mesophilic and thermophilic conditions[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 2018, 34(21): 234-238.
30	LIU Z, DANG Y, LI C H, et al. Inhibitory effect of high NH₄ ⁺-N concentration on anaerobic biotreatment of fresh leachate from a municipal solid waste incineration plant[J]. Waste Management, 2015, 43: 188-195.

项目	TS /%	VS/ %	总有机碳/g·kg^-1	总氮/g·kg^-1	C/N比
农村有机生活垃圾	60.03±1.85	78.27±0.84	412.83±0.95	25.30±0.12	16.33
猪粪	19.70±0.59	75.61±2.35	384.36±2.15	32.25±1.46	11.92
水稻秸秆	90.91±1.76	87.80±2.43	446.95±3.24	16.72±0.89	26.73

项目	TS /%	VS/ %	总有机碳/g·kg^-1	总氮/g·kg^-1	C/N比
农村有机生活垃圾	60.03±1.85	78.27±0.84	412.83±0.95	25.30±0.12	16.33
猪粪	19.70±0.59	75.61±2.35	384.36±2.15	32.25±1.46	11.92
水稻秸秆	90.91±1.76	87.80±2.43	446.95±3.24	16.72±0.89	26.73

项目	农村有机生活垃圾/g	猪粪/g	水稻秸秆/g
TS-8-1	23.00±0.60	72.50±1.33	0
TS-8-2	25.00±0.86	0	15.00±2.22
TS-8-3	16.00±1.02	50.20±1.21	9.40±0.69
TS-10-1	29.00±1.35	90.50±2.25	0
TS-10-2	31.00±1.42	0	18.00±1.06
TS-10-3	20.00±1.11	63.00±2.22	11.80±1.23
TS-12-1	34.50±1.32	108.50±1.92	0
TS-12-2	37.00±1.25	0	22.00±0.85
TS-12-3	24.00±0.96	75.50±1.46	14.00±0.56
TS-15-1	43.00±1.11	135.50±2.02	0
TS-15-2	46.00±1.28	0	27.00±0.99
TS-15-3	30.00±1.16	94.00±2.11	17.60±0.86

项目	农村有机生活垃圾/g	猪粪/g	水稻秸秆/g
TS-8-1	23.00±0.60	72.50±1.33	0
TS-8-2	25.00±0.86	0	15.00±2.22
TS-8-3	16.00±1.02	50.20±1.21	9.40±0.69
TS-10-1	29.00±1.35	90.50±2.25	0
TS-10-2	31.00±1.42	0	18.00±1.06
TS-10-3	20.00±1.11	63.00±2.22	11.80±1.23
TS-12-1	34.50±1.32	108.50±1.92	0
TS-12-2	37.00±1.25	0	22.00±0.85
TS-12-3	24.00±0.96	75.50±1.46	14.00±0.56
TS-15-1	43.00±1.11	135.50±2.02	0
TS-15-2	46.00±1.28	0	27.00±0.99
TS-15-3	30.00±1.16	94.00±2.11	17.60±0.86

项目	沼气单位VS产气量/mL·g^-1	甲烷单位VS产气量/mL·g^-1
TS-8-1	357.65±1.11	243.91±1.52
TS-8-2	419.07±1.32	237.83±2.04
TS-8-3	406.87±1.41	252.45±2.86
TS-10-1	355.06±1.08	231.78±1.46
TS-10-2	468.10±1.26	280.96±1.85
TS-10-3	452.90±1.21	286.47±1.65
TS-12-1	320.58±1.33	216.18±2.85
TS-12-2	509.23±1.42	339.59±3.42
TS-12-3	467.99±2.02	322.16±1.52
TS-15-1	372.70±3.01	257.38±1.66
TS-15-2	365.94±2.15	231.17±2.54
TS-15-3	311.88±1.98	194.67±2.01