Articles & Issues
- Language
- English
- Conflict of Interest
- In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Publication history
-
Received January 20, 2013
Accepted December 18, 2013
-
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © KIChE. All rights reserved.
All issues
Enhanced anaerobic digestion of livestock waste by ultrasonication: A tool for ammonia removal and solubilization
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, 373-1, Guseong-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Korea 1Clean Fuel Department, Korea Institute of Energy and Research, 102 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-343, Korea 2Center for Environmental Technology Research, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 131, Cheongryang, Seoul 130-650, Korea 3Department of Environmental Engineering, Hanbat National University, San 16-1, Duckmyoung-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-719, Korea
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, April 2014, 31(4), 619-623(5), 10.1007/s11814-013-0284-4
Download PDF
Abstract
Ultrasonication was applied to lower the ammonia level in livestock waste to enhance the anaerobic digestion performance. In simulated waste tests, in spite of an identical temperature increase, a higher ammonia removal rate was observed at lower frequency. This could be explained by the existence of athermal effects, accounting for 64% of the total ammonia removal rate. These effects originated from various convections (micro-streaming, micro-convection,_x000D_
shock-waves, and micro-jets), possibly caused by stable bubbles, and this indigenous mixing ability led to a negligible effect of aeration in the ultrasound assisted ammonia stripping process. In actual waste tests, an ammonia removal rate of up to 55% was achieved with a 0.77 h^(-1) mass transfer rate coefficient. After ultrasonication (28 kHz, pH 11, 15 min) of livestock waste, 58% higher CH4 yield was achieved due to the decrease of ammonia concentration (28%) and enhanced solubilization (51%).
References
Management of organic wastes, Ministry of Environment, Korea (2009)
Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P, Bioresour. Technol., 74(1), 3 (2000)
Lu J, Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Mladenovska Z, Ahring BK, J. Environ. Manage., 88, 1361 (2008)
Sung S, Liu T, Chemosphere, 53, 43 (2003)
Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I, Bioresour. Technol., 99(17), 7995 (2008)
Koster IW, Lettinga G, Agric. Wastes, 9, 205 (1984)
Koster IW, Lettinga G, Biol. Wastes, 25, 51 (1988)
Borja R, Sanchez E, Duran MM, J. Environ. Sci. Health A, 31, 479 (1996)
Arogo J, Zhang RH, Riskowski GL, Christianson LL, Day DL, J. Agric. Eng. Res., 73, 77 (1999)
Matouq MAD, Al-Anber ZA, Ultrasonics, 14, 393 (2007)
Suslick KS, Science, 247, 1439 (1990)
Wang S, Wu X, Wang Y, Li Q, Tao M, Ultrasonics, 15, 933 (2008)
Cheung KC, Chu LM, Wong MH, Water Air Soil Poll., 94, 209 (1997)
Basakcilardan-Kabakci S, Ipekoglu AN, Talini I, Environ. Eng. Sci., 24, 615 (2007)
Seader JD, Henley EJ, Separation process principles, New York (1998)
Matter-Muller C, Gujer W, Giger W, Water Res., 15, 1271 (1981)
APHA, AWWA, WEF, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th Ed., Baltimore (1998)
Lin L, Yuan SH, Chen J, Xu ZQ, Lu XH, J. Hazard. Mater., 161(2-3), 1063 (2009)
Laborde JL, Bouyer C, Caltagirone JP, Gerard A, Ultrasonics, 36, 589 (1998)
Khanna S, Jaiswal S, Goyal A, Moholkar VS, Chem. Eng. J., 200-202, 416 (2012)
Gustin S, Marinsek-Logar R, Process Saf. Environ. Protect., 89(1), 61 (2011)
Show KY, Mao T, Lee DJ, Water Res., 41, 4741 (2007)
Neis U, Nickel K, Tiehm A, Water Sci. Technol., 42, 73 (2000)
Dwyer J, Starrenburg D, Tait S, Barr K, Batstone D, Lant P, Water Res., 42, 4699 (2008)
Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hagerdal B, Bioresour. Technol., 74(1), 25 (2000)
Bonmati A, Flotats X, Waste Manage., 23, 261 (2003)
Zhang L, Jahng D, J. Hazard. Mater., 182(1-3), 536 (2010)
Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P, Bioresour. Technol., 74(1), 3 (2000)
Lu J, Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Mladenovska Z, Ahring BK, J. Environ. Manage., 88, 1361 (2008)
Sung S, Liu T, Chemosphere, 53, 43 (2003)
Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I, Bioresour. Technol., 99(17), 7995 (2008)
Koster IW, Lettinga G, Agric. Wastes, 9, 205 (1984)
Koster IW, Lettinga G, Biol. Wastes, 25, 51 (1988)
Borja R, Sanchez E, Duran MM, J. Environ. Sci. Health A, 31, 479 (1996)
Arogo J, Zhang RH, Riskowski GL, Christianson LL, Day DL, J. Agric. Eng. Res., 73, 77 (1999)
Matouq MAD, Al-Anber ZA, Ultrasonics, 14, 393 (2007)
Suslick KS, Science, 247, 1439 (1990)
Wang S, Wu X, Wang Y, Li Q, Tao M, Ultrasonics, 15, 933 (2008)
Cheung KC, Chu LM, Wong MH, Water Air Soil Poll., 94, 209 (1997)
Basakcilardan-Kabakci S, Ipekoglu AN, Talini I, Environ. Eng. Sci., 24, 615 (2007)
Seader JD, Henley EJ, Separation process principles, New York (1998)
Matter-Muller C, Gujer W, Giger W, Water Res., 15, 1271 (1981)
APHA, AWWA, WEF, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th Ed., Baltimore (1998)
Lin L, Yuan SH, Chen J, Xu ZQ, Lu XH, J. Hazard. Mater., 161(2-3), 1063 (2009)
Laborde JL, Bouyer C, Caltagirone JP, Gerard A, Ultrasonics, 36, 589 (1998)
Khanna S, Jaiswal S, Goyal A, Moholkar VS, Chem. Eng. J., 200-202, 416 (2012)
Gustin S, Marinsek-Logar R, Process Saf. Environ. Protect., 89(1), 61 (2011)
Show KY, Mao T, Lee DJ, Water Res., 41, 4741 (2007)
Neis U, Nickel K, Tiehm A, Water Sci. Technol., 42, 73 (2000)
Dwyer J, Starrenburg D, Tait S, Barr K, Batstone D, Lant P, Water Res., 42, 4699 (2008)
Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hagerdal B, Bioresour. Technol., 74(1), 25 (2000)
Bonmati A, Flotats X, Waste Manage., 23, 261 (2003)
Zhang L, Jahng D, J. Hazard. Mater., 182(1-3), 536 (2010)
