Microsoft Word - 本論文の代替用要旨（2_19_馬場保徳）.doc

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Microsoft Word - 本論文の代替用要旨（2_19_馬場保徳）.doc"

めぐのひろもり
7 years ago
Views:

1 1

2 1 5% [1]2011 [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7-8]

3 5 BDF 9000 kl [9] [7-8, 10-11] 50 m 3 30 m 3 -working vol. 3.5 m 3 -week 5 75L glycerol/plant-day 30 L glycerol/plant-day (1 ml/l-day)fig % 70 85% 0 Fig km BOD T-N: 3

4 0.11%, P 2 O 5 : 0.036%, K 2 O: 0.19% 6 3, 3;1.67kg/a, ;0.62kg/a, ;1.24kg/a1 (1a)2 m K 2 O Table J 10 [12] Ceriporiopsis subvermispora [13] HRT 24 HRT3060 Clostridium sp. TCW1 3 [14]

5 %, 52.3%, 50.0% % Fig VFA ! Fig

6 !-24!- CO 2! % () 50m 3 (30m 3 -working vol.) 30 L/Table kg/table 3 6

7 120 kg/ Table 3 4.0% (w/v) 84 kg / 2.8 %(w/v) 2 [1] International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Balances of OECD Countries 2010 Edition [2], [3], [4],, I :. 21, [5] Tokuda, M., Fujiwara, Y., Kida, K., Pilot plant test for removal of organic matter, N and P from whisky pot ale. Process Biochemistry [6] Macedoa, I.C., Seabrab, J.E.A., Silvac, J.E.A.R., Green house gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 7

8 averages and a prediction for Biomass and Bioenergy [7] Siles López, J.Á., Martín Santos, M.A., Chica Pérez, A.F., Martín Martín, A., Anaerobic digestion of glycerol derived from biodiesel manufacturing. Bioresour. Technol. 100, [8] Castrillón, L., Fernández-Nava, Y., Ormaechea, P., Marañón, E., Optimization of biogas production from cattle manure by pre-treatment with ultrasound and co-digestion with crude glycerin. Bioresour. Technol. 102, [9]. 22 [10] Astals, S., Nolla-Ardèvol, V., Mata-Alvarez, J., Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate. Bioresour. Technol. 110, [11] Siles, J.A., Martín, M.A., Chica, A.F., Martín, A., Anaerobic co-digestion of glycerol and wastewater derived from biodiesel manufacturing. Bioresour. Technol. 101, [12], , [13] Amirta, R., Tanabe, T., Watanabe, T., Honda, Y., Kuwahara, M., Watanabe, T., Methane fermentation of Japanese cedar wood pretreated with a white rot fungus, Ceriporiopsis subvermispora. J. Biotechnol. 123, [14] Lo, YC., Huang, CY., Cheng, CL., Lin, CY., Chang, JS., Characterization of cellulolytic enzymes and bioh2 production from anaerobic thermophilic Clostridium sp. TCW1. Bioresour. Technol. 102,

9 !"#$%#$&'(')*+, D$$2$* #$$2$* +$$2$*,$$2$* $2$* 3,$$2$* 3+$$2$* 3#$$2$*!-(%#$&'(')*+,./0(1H*,#2#*./0(1H*34$2-* Fig. 1 Energy balance per crude glycerol load../0(1h*3,-#24*./0(1h*3,4,25*!"#$%&'()*!"+$%&'()*!",$%&'()*!"-%&'()*./0(1*,#2#* 34$2-* 3,-#24* 3,4,25* 6789:1(;/<*=:>=* 3,2+* 3,2+* 3,2+* 3,2+*?/71@8* 3$2-* 3$2-* 3$2-* 3$2-* A@(;<B*/71* 3,CC2D* 3,CC2D* 3,CC2D* 3,CC2D* E;887<B* 3DC2C* 3DC2C* 3DC2C* 3DC2C* F@0G(<@* +-+2,*,DC2D* C-2$* D52,* " # Input and output energy (MJ) Average temperature ( ) :*3./";6#%,.<,% =6:/'*% >'";#0%6:/% 1;**:#0%?*6@.3;7'%'#'*0-%A)'4B"#'%0"CD%%!"#$% &'($% )"*$% +,*$% )"-%!.#%!./$% +.0$% 1',$% 234$% 567$% 8'3$%! Fig. 2. Energy balance (A) and average temperature (B) per month. Electric power, heating oil, and methane gas were converted to thermal units (electric power, 3.6 MJ/kwh; heating oil, 36.7 MJ/L; methane gas, 37.2 MJ/m 3 ). Asterisk (*): Energy of the methane produced at a loading rate of 30 L glycerol/30 m 3 -day. -5!"#$% &'($% )"*$% +,*$% )"-%!.#%!./$% +.0$% 1',$% 234$% 567$% 8'3$% 9

10 ! Fig. 3. Time course of methane production and soluble nitrogen over 20 days of methane production process with rumen fluid-treated and untreated " waste paper. Symbols: () 6-h treated, () 24-h treated, () control * * (untreated with rumen fluid). Asterisk (*): (NH 4 ) 2 CO 3 was added to the control at 7 (additive amount: 700 mg/l) and 13 (additive amount: 300 mg/l) days. <",.=0$'"" 4*).*. >'7*$'""#"%&' 8'""#"%&'07*$;%?9;*"& 14%.)($5,*.0$'""#"%&'3 -.+%)"#$,.,&' 16'+*#7($5,*.0$'""#"%&'3 -/%)"#$,.,&'0120'.+%)"#$,.,&'3 18'""%9*%&':0$'""%(%"*)%&,$$5,;*+'30 ()"#$%&*+,&'!"#$%&' 6*$;%9' A*%),&018> B :08C D 3 Fig. 4. Model of cellulose hydrolysis by cellulolytic enzymes. 10

11 Table 1 Grass yields and components with and without fertilization. Without fertilization With Fertilization Grass yield (kg-dry/a) 17.7 ± ± 1.3 Grass component T-N (%) 3.2 ± ± 0.7 P 2 O 5 (%) 1.4 ± ± 0.1 K 2 O (%) 5.2 ± ± 2.0 Table 2 GJ/ * * 5 L/ L/ L/ L/ * Table 3 CO 2 kg/% w-/v (3.04) (3.71) CO (2.87) (4.00) 11

Since

Since Since 1885 16.4 15.6 14.2.8 39.4 13.6 21 211 212 213 214 8,88 227 186,164 181,869 184,412 197,495 21,995 11,466 11,67 15,474 16,899 22,1 1, 24, 3,54 5,686 7,518 9,615 17,467 8,88 8,37 8,288 8,29 8,319