环境卫生工程 ›› 2025, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (3): 37-48.doi: 10.19841/j.cnki.hjwsgc.2025.03.005

• 有机固废生物处理与高值化利用 • 上一篇    下一篇

厨余垃圾干式厌氧发酵处理技术的应用对比探究

刘 彬,张 森,王立彤   

  1. 天津建昌环保股份有限公司
  • 出版日期:2025-07-01 发布日期:2025-07-01

Application Comparison Analysis of Dry Anaerobic Fermentation Treatment Technology for Kitchen Waste

LIU Bin, ZHANG Sen, WANG Litong   

  1. Tianjin JC Environmental Services Co. Ltd.
  • Online:2025-07-01 Published:2025-07-01

摘要: 我国某厨余垃圾处理项目采用Kompogas卧式推流单轴搅拌、TTV隧道窑单轴搅拌、Dranco立式锥底强制循环搅拌3种干式厌氧发酵技术对城市垃圾分类中有机质含量较高的厨余垃圾进行资源化处理。通过对比3种干式厌氧技术的装备集成和运行参数,分析探究其技术应用的特点和优势。通过工艺和设备特性对比,TTV和Dranco中温干式厌氧可以得到更稳定的运行参数,优于Kompogas高温干式厌氧;TTV厌氧罐桨叶设置与罐体贴合,可以有效避免易沉重物质沉积,出料不发生堵塞,Dranco立式厌氧罐通过强制循环保证了物料的均质性,实现快速接种;沼渣脱水工艺采用振动筛、螺旋挤压机、离心脱水机效果更稳定。通过运行参数和指标的对比,TTV和Dranco实现了满负荷稳定运行,3种厌氧技术VS的降解比例基本相同; TTV的关键评价指标具有明显的技术优势,容积产气率为5.44 m3/m3、厌氧罐进料挥发性固体负荷(以VS计)为10.47 kg/(m3·d)、挥发性固体分解率为75.77%;TTV和Dranco均实现了较高的脱水残渣含固率,平均值分别达到37.31%和37.19%,结合厨余垃圾实际处理量,TTV的沼液产生量和沼液含固率均低于Kompogas和Dranco。通过运行经济对比,TTV的管理维护成本为16.2元/t,运行消耗成本33.42元/t,显著优于Kompogas和Dranco。

关键词: 干式厌氧, 厨余垃圾, 干物质的量, 挥发性固体负荷, 容积产气率

Abstract: A kitchen waste treatment project in China has adopted three dry anaerobic fermentation technologies, including Kompogas horizontal push flow single axis stirring, TTV tunnel kiln single axis stirring, and Dranco vertical cone bottom forced circulation stirring, to recycle kitchen waste with high organic matter content in urban waste classification. By comparing the equipment integration and operating parameters of three dry anaerobic technologies, their technical application characteristics and advantages were analyzed and explored. By comparing the process and equipment characteristics, TTV and Dranco medium temperature dry anaerobic systems could achieve more stable operating parameters, which were superior to Kompogas high-temperature dry anaerobic systems. The blade of TTV anaerobic tank was set to fit the tank body, which could effectively avoid the deposition of heavy substances and prevent blockage of discharge. Dranco vertical anaerobic tank ensured the homogeneity of materials through forced circulation and achieved rapid inoculation. The sludge dewatering process used vibrating screens, spiral extruders, and centrifugal dewatering machines for more stable results. By comparing the operating parameters and indicators, TTV and Dranco achieved stable operation at full load. The VS degradation ratio of the three anaerobic technologies were basically the same. The key evaluation indicators of TTV have obvious technical advantages, with a volumetric gas production rate of 5.44 m3/m3, an anaerobic tank feed volatile solid load (based on VS) of 10.47 kg/(m3·d), and a volatile solid decomposition rate of 75.77%. Both TTV and Dranco achieved high solid content in dehydrated residue, with an average of 37.31% and 37.19%, respectively. In combination with the actual processing volume of kitchen waste, the biogas slurry production and solid content of TTV were lower than those of Kompogas and Dranco. Through economic comparison, the management and maintenance cost of TTV was 16.2 yuan per ton, and the operating consumption cost was 33.42 yuan per ton, which was significantly better than Kompogas and Dranco.

Key words: dry anaerobic, kitchen waste, amount of dry matter, volatile solid load, volumetric gas production rate

[1] 王慧慧, 王 领, 朱旻航, 连宋剑. 我国厨余垃圾处理设施现状及处理成本分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(3): 12-18.
[2] 王玉洁, 仇俊杰, 吕 凡, 章 骅, 何品晶. 乳酸介导碳链延长产己酸规模化应用瓶颈[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(3): 27-36,48.
[3] 张晓星, 王 伟, 张献华. 提油对家庭厨余垃圾厌氧资源化处理工程运营安全及经济性分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(3): 49-55.
[4] 夏 青, 徐孝健, 张虞婷, 周呈亚, 刘海春. 扬州家庭厨余垃圾重金属赋存特征与风险评价[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(2): 50-54.
[5] 刘 彬, 张 森, 王立彤. 重庆洛碛厨余垃圾干式厌氧发酵技术工程应用探究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(2): 55-63.
[6] 王一然, 孟星尧, 李京霖, 王 攀, 任连海. 厨余垃圾好氧堆肥过程中恶臭气体研究现状[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2025, 33(1): 40-49,56.
[7] 尚怡君, 李许南, 刘 岩, 陈永杰, 袁 伟, 陆建红. 厨余垃圾好氧堆肥中抗生素抗性基因消长研究进展[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(6): 80-89.
[8] 王 峰, 孙金浩, 刘纹君, 陈卫华, 田弘毅, 炊春萌, 谢 冰. 不同原料配比对沼渣和厨余垃圾共堆肥的理化性质和腐熟度的影响[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(5): 41-47.
[9] 马 想, 陈 平, 梁 晶. 两种城市源有机固体废物生物质炭理化特性研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(4): 29-35.
[10] 周永泉, 李小伟, 邰 俊. 低剂量纸巾添加对餐厨垃圾和厨余垃圾共消化的影响[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(4): 36-43.
[11] 肖 绎, 贾维健. 北京市生活垃圾甲烷控制状况与综合利用[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(3): 9-15.
[12] 林晓凤. 厨余垃圾干式厌氧发酵过程中的挥发性脂肪酸测定方法研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(3): 42-46,53.
[13] 张 玉. 西安市农村生活垃圾分类现状与对策研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(3): 105-109,116.
[14] 田启欢, 高彦达, 宫亚斌, 杜 睿, 王立伦, 姚建刚. 厨余垃圾中高温高效厌氧产沼中试研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(2): 39-45.
[15] 张 栋. 厨余垃圾三相有机固渣不同利用方式碳排放分析[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(1): 104-109.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
版权所有 © 天津市城市管理研究中心
津ICP备2022007900号-1   津公网安备 12010302000952号   中央网信办违法和不良信息举报中心
地址:天津市河西区围堤道107号    邮政编码: 300201
电话: 022-28365069 传真: 022-28365080 E-mail: csglwyjs10@tj.gov.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发