Modeling of methane formation in gravity sewer system: the impact of microorganism and hydraulic condition

Sewer system is an important source of methane formation and emission. Although some models were developed to predict methane production in sewers, the impact of microorganism amount was indicated indirectly. Here, seven laboratory scale sewers with varied wall-shear stresses were established. The b...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:AMB Express 2018-03, Vol.8 (1), p.34-34, Article 34
Hauptverfasser: Xu, Jingwei, He, Qiang, Li, Hong, Yang, Chun, Wang, Yinliang, Ai, Hainan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Sewer system is an important source of methane formation and emission. Although some models were developed to predict methane production in sewers, the impact of microorganism amount was indicated indirectly. Here, seven laboratory scale sewers with varied wall-shear stresses were established. The biofilm thickness, microorganism amount, DO distribution, microorganism community in the biofilms and methane production in the sewers were measured. Based on experimental data, an empirical model was developed to directly describe the relationship between methane production, microorganism amount and wall-shear stress. The results showed that DO concentration decreased significantly along the biofilm depth under varied wall-shear stress, and the DO reduction rate was positively related to the intensity of wall-shear stress. The dominant archaea species in mature biofilms were similar whereas the proportions showed remarkable differences. The abundance of Methanospirillum in biofilms cultured at 2.0 Pa wall-shear stress was 53.08% more than that at 1.29 Pa. The maximum methane production rate, 2.04 mg/L wastewater day, was obtained when the wall-shear stress kept at 1.45 Pa, which was 1.2-fold higher than the minimum in sewer at 0.5 Pa. The R 2 value of the established model was 0.95, the difference between the measurement and simulation was in the rage of 1.5–13.0%.
ISSN:2191-0855
2191-0855
DOI:10.1186/s13568-018-0559-6