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 ," /> 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 ,"/> Dry anaerobic, Kitchen Waste, The amount of dry matter, Volatile solid load, Volumetric gas production rate ,"/> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:left;"> <span>重庆</span><span>洛碛</span><span>厨余垃圾干式厌氧发酵处理技术的应用对比</span><span>探究</span>

环境卫生工程

• •    下一篇

重庆洛碛厨余垃圾干式厌氧发酵处理技术的应用对比探究

  

  1. 天津建昌环保股份有限公司

Application Comparison of Dry Anaerobic Fermentation Technology for Kitchen Waste Treatment in Luoqi, Chongqing

  1. Tianjin JC Environmental Services

摘要:

重庆洛碛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三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。通过对比三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;沼渣脱水工艺采用震动筛、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,TTVDranco实现了满负荷稳定运行三种厌氧技术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5.44 Nm3/m3厌氧罐进料挥发性固体负荷10.47 kgVS/m3·d、挥发性固体分解率75.77%TTVDranco均实现了较高的脱水残渣含固率,平均值达到37%TTV的沼液产生量和沼液含固率均低于KompogasDranco;通过运行经济对比,TTV的管理维护成本为16.2/吨,运行消耗成本33.41/吨,显著优于KompogasDranco

关键词: 干式厌氧')">

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:

The Chongqing Luoqi Kitchen Waste Treatment Project adopts three dry anaerobic fermentation technologies: 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, analyze and explore their technical application characteristics and advantages. By comparing the process and equipment characteristics, TTV and Dranco medium temperature dry anaerobic systems can achieve more stable operating parameters, which are superior to high-temperature dry anaerobic systems; The blade of TTV anaerobic tank is set to fit the tank body, which can effectively avoid the deposition of heavy substances and prevent blockage of discharge. Dranco vertical anaerobic tank ensures the homogeneity of materials through forced circulation and achieves rapid inoculation; The sludge dewatering process uses 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 degradation ratio of the three anaerobic technologies VS is basically the same; The key evaluation indicators of TTV have obvious technical advantages, with a volumetric gas production rate of 5.44 Nm3/m3, an anaerobic tank feed volatile solid load of 10.47 kgVS/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%. TTV's biogas slurry production and solid content were lower than those of Kompogas and Dranco; Through economic comparison, the management and maintenance cost of TTV is 16.2 yuan/ton, and the operating consumption cost is 33.41 yuan/ton, which is significantly better than Kompogas and Dranco.

Key words:

Dry anaerobic')">"> Dry anaerobic, Kitchen Waste, The amount of dry matter, Volatile solid load, Volumetric gas production rate

[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] 朱远超, 赵子旼, 张劲松. 厨余垃圾和农林废弃物好氧堆肥协同处理碳排放核算——以某镇处理设施为例[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2024, 32(1): 111-115.
[14] 祁光霞, 刘政洋, 夏 怡, 陈思涵, 胡进会, 任连海. 物理组成对厨余垃圾堆肥恶臭组成及排放特征影响[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2023, 31(6): 54-62.
[15] 赵 磊, 李 科, 王亚东, 吴 元, 邵 军, 王立伦. 不同运行工艺下大型生物水解反应器处理厨余垃圾试验研究[J]. 环境卫生工程, 2023, 31(6): 63-68.
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