Ammonium Chloride vs Urea‐Induced Ammonia Inhibition of the Biogas Process Assessed by Stable Isotope Analysis

Anaerobic digestion of poultry manure poses many challenges due to ammonia inhibition by nitrogen‐containing compounds. Here, the effect of NH4Cl or urea‐induced inhibition was investigated in bioreactors fed with maize silage or cellulose and compared to previous experiments with chicken manure as...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Chemical engineering & technology 2018-04, Vol.41 (4), p.671-679
Hauptverfasser: Lv, Zuopeng, Jiang, Jihong, Liebetrau, Jan, Richnow, Hans Hermann, Fischer, Anko, Ács, Norbert, Nikolausz, Marcell
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Anaerobic digestion of poultry manure poses many challenges due to ammonia inhibition by nitrogen‐containing compounds. Here, the effect of NH4Cl or urea‐induced inhibition was investigated in bioreactors fed with maize silage or cellulose and compared to previous experiments with chicken manure as ammonia source. The hydrogen and carbon stable isotope compositions of biogas samples were evaluated to assess the shifts in predominant methanogenic pathways during increasing ammonia inhibition. Due to the higher free ammonia concentrations, stronger inhibition was observed in the urea added reactors compared to the NH4Cl treated ones. Collectively, the results suggested that ammonium salts are not really appropriate to investigate ammonia inhibition during anaerobic digestion of manure. Ammonia, as a major inhibitor of the biogas process, is an important target of process monitoring. Ammonium salts, which are frequently used in laboratory experiments, are shown to lead to misleading results. Stable isotope analysis of the biogas was used to assess the major methanogenic pathway, confirming that ammonium chloride is a less effective biogas inhibitor than urea.
ISSN:0930-7516
1521-4125
DOI:10.1002/ceat.201700482