IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v6y2013i8p4207-4222d28098.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Mixing Driven by Siphon Flow: Parallel Experiments Using the Anaerobic Reactors with Different Mixing Modes

Author

Listed:
  • Takuro Kobayashi

    (Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan)

  • Ya-Peng Wu

    (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, 6-6-06 Aza-Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan)

  • Kai-Qin Xu

    (Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
    School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Minghang District, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Yu-You Li

    (Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, 6-6-06 Aza-Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan)

Abstract

The effect of mixing by siphon flow on anaerobic digestion, sludge distribution and microbial community were examined in parallel experiments using a siphon-mixed reactor (SMR), an unmixed reactor (UMR) and a continuously mixed reactor (CMR). The SMR performed well without the accumulation of fatty acids under COD loading rates varying from 3 to 18 kg/m 3 /day, while the UMR was totally acidified when the loading rate increased to 10 kg/m 3 /day. The methane yield of the SMR was at least 10% higher than that of the UMR, and comparable to that of the CMR. Furthermore, the SMR was found to markedly improve the dispersion of solids and reduce deposit formation compared to the UMR. Besides, during stable operation, the fatty acids level in the effluent of the SMR and UMR was lower than that in the CMR, and the archaeal community structure of the SMR was similar to that of the UMR.

Suggested Citation

  • Takuro Kobayashi & Ya-Peng Wu & Kai-Qin Xu & Yu-You Li, 2013. "Effect of Mixing Driven by Siphon Flow: Parallel Experiments Using the Anaerobic Reactors with Different Mixing Modes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:6:y:2013:i:8:p:4207-4222:d:28098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/8/4207/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/6/8/4207/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Groenendaal, Willem & Gehua, Wang, 2010. "Microanalysis of the benefits of China's family-size bio-digesters," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 4457-4466.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhang, Jingxin & Mao, Liwei & Nithya, Karthikeyan & Loh, Kai-Chee & Dai, Yanjun & He, Yiliang & Wah Tong, Yen, 2019. "Optimizing mixing strategy to improve the performance of an anaerobic digestion waste-to-energy system for energy recovery from food waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 249(C), pages 28-36.
    2. Takuro Kobayashi & Ya-Peng Wu & Zhi-Jiang Lu & Kai-Qin Xu, 2014. "Characterization of Anaerobic Degradability and Kinetics of Harvested Submerged Aquatic Weeds Used for Nutrient Phytoremediation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Pei Guo & Jiri Zhou & Rongjiang Ma & Nanyang Yu & Yanping Yuan, 2019. "Biogas Production and Heat Transfer Performance of a Multiphase Flow Digester," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    4. Susanne Theuerl & Johanna Klang & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "Process Disturbances in Agricultural Biogas Production—Causes, Mechanisms and Effects on the Biogas Microbiome: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Du, Yimeng & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2019. "Can climate mitigation help the poor? Measuring impacts of the CDM in rural China," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 178-197.
    2. Jun Hou & Weifeng Zhang & Pei Wang & Zhengxia Dou & Liwei Gao & David Styles, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation of Rural Household Biogas Systems in China: A Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Garfí, Marianna & Martí-Herrero, Jaime & Garwood, Anna & Ferrer, Ivet, 2016. "Household anaerobic digesters for biogas production in Latin America: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 599-614.
    4. Lim, Jeng Shiun & Abdul Manan, Zainuddin & Wan Alwi, Sharifah Rafidah & Hashim, Haslenda, 2012. "A review on utilisation of biomass from rice industry as a source of renewable energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 3084-3094.
    5. Cheng, Shikun & Li, Zifu & Mang, Heinz-Peter & Neupane, Kalidas & Wauthelet, Marc & Huba, Elisabeth-Maria, 2014. "Application of fault tree approach for technical assessment of small-sized biogas systems in Nepal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1372-1381.
    6. Johnson, Nathan G. & Bryden, Kenneth M., 2012. "Factors affecting fuelwood consumption in household cookstoves in an isolated rural West African village," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 310-321.
    7. Tian, Guangliang & Zhang, Wudi & Dong, Minghua & Yang, Bin & Zhu, Rui & Yin, Fang & Zhao, Xingling & Wang, Yongxia & Xiao, Wei & Wang, Qiang & Cui, Xiaolong, 2017. "Metabolic pathway analysis based on high-throughput sequencing in a batch biogas production process," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 571-579.
    8. Karthik Rajendran & Solmaz Aslanzadeh & Mohammad J. Taherzadeh, 2012. "Household Biogas Digesters—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-32, August.
    9. Qu, Wei & Tu, Qin & Bluemling, Bettina, 2013. "Which factors are effective for farmers’ biogas use?–Evidence from a large-scale survey in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 26-33.
    10. Ahmad Romadhoni Surya Putra, R. & Liu, Zhen & Lund, Mogens, 2017. "The impact of biogas technology adoption for farm households – Empirical evidence from mixed crop and livestock farming systems in Indonesia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1371-1378.
    11. Bluffstone, Randy & Robinson, Elizabeth & Guthiga, Paul, 2012. "Deforestation and forest degradation are estimated to account for between 12 percent and 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. These activities, largely in the developing world, released abou," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-11-efd, Resources for the Future.
    12. Bedi, Arjun S. & Sparrow, Robert & Tasciotti, Luca, 2017. "The impact of a household biogas programme on energy use and expenditure in East Java," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 66-76.
    13. Bluffstone, Randy & Robinson, Elizabeth & Guthiga, Paul, 2013. "REDD+and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: Any hope for a linkage?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-52.
    14. Ortiz, Willington & Terrapon-Pfaff, Julia & Dienst, Carmen, 2017. "Understanding the diffusion of domestic biogas technologies. Systematic conceptualisation of existing evidence from developing and emerging countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1287-1299.
    15. Bedi, A.S. & Pellegrini, L. & Tasciotti, L., 2014. "Caught between necessity and feasibility," ISS Working Papers - General Series 51698, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    16. Bedi, Arjun S. & Pellegrini, Lorenzo & Tasciotti, Luca, 2015. "The Effects of Rwanda’s Biogas Program on Energy Expenditure and Fuel Use," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 461-474.
    17. Wang, Xiaojiao & Lu, Xingang & Yang, Gaihe & Feng, Yongzhong & Ren, Guangxin & Han, Xinhui, 2016. "Development process and probable future transformations of rural biogas in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 703-712.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:6:y:2013:i:8:p:4207-4222:d:28098. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.