All gas production data at the diff

All gas production data at the different temperatures are
represented as the dry gas production at STP to eliminate
the effects of water vapor pressure (Eq. (2)). The results
from the batch experiments are summarized in Table 2.
The influence of the digestion temperatures and feed loads
on the methane yields is shown in Fig. 2. Regardless of the
digestion temperature, increasing the feed load from 5% to
40% decreased the biogas yield, as would be expected due
to the incomplete degradation for 20 days. In Fig. 2, even
though the methane yields were different according to
tested temperatures, the slope of the graph does not clearly
vary within the range of feed loads from 5 to 20% at all
tested temperatures. Meanwhile, with a 40% feed load,
the methane yields were significantly lower (approximately
54% reduction) than with the lower feed loads regardless of digestion temperatures due to incomplete degradation
within 20 days. Consequently, the upper limit of applicable
feed load of swine manure seems to be up to 20% in mesophilic
digestion ranging from 25 to 35 C.
According to the results, the total gas production was
greatest at 35 C, and a temperature increase from 25 to
35 C resulted in an increased biogas yield (17.4% high at
35 C relative to 25 C). Ultimate methane yields of 317,
397 and 437 mL CH4/g VSadded were obtained at 25, 30
and 35 C, respectively, when swine manure was fed at
5%. These values corresponded to 44%, 55% and 61% of
the theoretical yield, which means VS reductions in the
range of 44–61%. These were relatively high compared to
the methane yields normally achieved, i.e. 220–350 mL
CH4/g VS from swine manure (Bonmati et al., 2001; Hansen
et al., 1998). Bonmati et al. (2001) reported a 347 mL
CH4/g VS from the anaerobic digestion of swine manure for 80 days at 35 C when investigating the thermal pretreatment
effect on the gas production potential. Hansen
et al. (1998) presented that the maximum methane potential
of swine manure was 300 ± 20 mL CH4/g VS, and also
a relatively low methane yield of 188 mL CH4/g VS at
37 C due to the inhibition caused by a high ammonia
nitrogen concentration of 6000 mg/L. The relatively high
methane yield obtained from this experiment might have
resulted from the high carbon and hydrogen contents in
the feed, as shown in the results of elemental analysis,
C14.25H28.80O4.43NS0.03.
The relative biogas yield (% of gas production at 35 C)
at different temperatures in the digestion of swine manure
is shown in Fig. 3. The biogas yield was influenced by temperature
in the range of 25–35 C, but was not linear within
the tested range. The difference in the methane yield was
not obvious between 35 and 30 C; approximately 97% of the methane produced at 35 C was still produced at 30 C.
In contrast, the digestion proceeding at a temperature of
25 C showed only 82.6% of that at 35 C. These results
were in agreement with previous results that showed an
improvement in the biogas yields with increasing temperature
(Hobson et al., 1980).
There was a faster degradation at the higher temperatures,
as shown in Fig. 4. The degradation of swine manure
at 25 C took almost twice as long as at 35 C. The
required times to complete the digestion of a 10% feed load
were 7, 12, 15 days at 35, 30 and 25 C, respectively. These
were fairly short due to the removal of the large particles
by the 28-mesh sieve prior to feeding into reactors. Therefore,
approximately 15–20 days seems to be the minimum
for optimal digestion of swine manure for a digester in
which somewhat larger particles can be fed occasionally.
The biogas composition differed according to digestion
temperature, with methane contents in the biogas of
65.3%, 64.0% and 62.0% at 35, 30 and 25 C, respectively,
but these differences were statistically not significant. The
obtained methane contents were similar to the 65% theoretical
value calculated from Eq. (2).

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

Data Production at the gas all different temperatures are
represented Dry gas As the Production at STP to Eliminate
the effects of Water Vapor pressure (Eq. (2)). The results
from the experiments are Summarized in Table 2. Batch
The influence of the feed digestion temperatures and loads
on the methane yields is shown in Fig. 2. Regardless of the
digestion Temperature, increasing from 5% to the feed Load
40% Decreased the biogas yield, As would be expected Due
to the incomplete degradation for 20 days. In Fig. 2, even
though the methane yields were different according to
temperatures tested, the Slope of the graph does not Clearly
Vary Within the Range of feed loads from 5 to 20% at all
temperatures tested. Meanwhile, with a 40% feed Load,
the methane Lower yields were significantly (approximately
54% reduction) than with the Lower feed loads regardless of digestion temperatures Due to incomplete degradation
Within 20 days. Consequently, the Upper Limit of applicable
feed Load of Swine Manure seems to be up to 20% in mesophilic
digestion ranging from 25 to 35? C.
According to the results, the total gas Production was
Greatest at 35? C, and a Temperature increase. from 25 to
35? C resulted in an Increased biogas yield (17.4% High at
35? C Relative to 25? C). Ultimate methane yields of 317,
397 and 437 mL CH4 / G VSadded were obtained at 25, 30
and 35? C, respectively, when Swine Manure was fed at
5%. These values ​​corresponded to 44%, 55% and 61% of
the theoretical yield, which means VS reductions in the
Range of forty-four to sixty-one%. These were relatively High compared to
the methane yields normally achieved, IE 220-350 mL
CH4 / G VS from Swine Manure (Bonmati et Al., 2 001; Hansen
et Al., 1998th). Bonmati et al. (The 2,001th) reported a 347 mL
CH4 / G VS from the anaerobic digestion of Swine Manure for 80 days at 35? C when investigating the pretreatment Thermal
Effect on the gas Production potential. Hansen
et Al. (One thousand nine hundred ninety-eight) Presented that the maximum methane potential
of Swine Manure was 300 ± 20 mL CH4 / G VS, and also
a relatively low methane yield of 188 mL CH4 / G VS at
37? C Due to the inhibition caused by a High ammonia
nitrogen. concentration of 6000 mg / L. The relatively High
methane yield obtained from Experiment Might this have
resulted from the High carbon and hydrogen contents in
the feed, As shown in the results of Elemental Analysis,
C14.25H28.80O4.43NS0.03.
The Relative biogas yield (% of gas. Production at 35? C)
at different temperatures in the digestion of Swine Manure
is shown in Fig. 3. The biogas yield was influenced by Temperature
in the Range of 25-35? C, but was not linear Within
the Range tested. The difference in the methane yield was
between 35 and 30 not Obvious? C; approximately 97% of the methane produced at 35? C was still produced at 30? C.
In contrast, the digestion proceeding at a Temperature of
25? C Showed only 82.6% of that at 35? C. These results
were in Agreement with previous results Showed that an
Improvement in the biogas yields with increasing Temperature
(Hobson et Al., 1,980).
There was a Faster degradation at the Higher temperatures,
As shown in Fig. 4. The degradation of Swine Manure
at 25? C took twice Almost As long As at 35? C. The
times required to Complete the digestion of a 10% Load feed
were 7, 12, 15 days at 35, 30 and 25? C, respectively. These
were short Fairly Due to the Removal of the Large particles
by the 28-mesh Sieve prior to feeding into reactors. Therefore,
approximately 15-20 days seems to be the Minimum
for optimal digestion of Swine Manure for a digester in
which somewhat larger particles Can be fed occasionally.
The biogas composition according to Differed digestion
Temperature, with methane contents in the biogas of
65.3%,. 64.0% and 62.0% at 35, 30 and 25? C, respectively,
but these differences were not statistically significant. The
contents were obtained methane Similar to the 65% theoretical
value calculated from Eq. (2).

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

All gas production data at the different temperatures are
represented as the dry gas production at STP to eliminate
the. Effects of water vapor pressure (Eq. (2)). The results
from the batch experiments are summarized in Table 2.
The influence. Of the digestion temperatures and feed loads
on the methane yields is shown in Fig. 2. Regardless of the
digestion, temperatureIncreasing the feed load from 5% to
40% decreased the, biogas yield as would be expected due
to the incomplete degradation. For 20 days. In, Fig. 2 even
though the methane yields were different according to
tested temperatures the slope, of the. Graph does not clearly
vary within the range of feed loads from 5 to 20% at all
tested temperatures. Meanwhile with a, 40% feed. , load
.The methane yields were significantly lower (approximately
54% reduction) than with the lower feed loads regardless of. Digestion temperatures due to incomplete degradation
within 20 days. Consequently the upper, limit of applicable
feed load. Of swine manure seems to be up to 20% in mesophilic
digestion ranging from 25 to 35  C.
According to the results the total,, Gas production was
.Greatest at 35  C and a, temperature increase from 25 to
35  C resulted in an increased biogas yield (17.4% high at
35.  C relative to 25  C). Ultimate methane yields, of 317
397 and 437 mL CH4 / g VSadded were obtained, at 25 30
and 35  C respectively,,, When swine manure was fed at
5%. These values corresponded to 44% 55% and, 61% of
the theoretical yield which means, VS. Reductions in the
.Range of 44 - 61%. These were relatively high compared to
the methane yields, normally achieved i.e. 220 - 350 mL
CH4 / g VS. From swine manure (Bonmati et al, 2001; Hansen
et al, 1998). Bonmati et al. (2001) reported a 347 mL
CH4 / g VS from the. Anaerobic digestion of swine manure for 80 days at 35  C when investigating the thermal pretreatment
effect on the gas production. Potential. Hansen
et al.(1998) presented that the maximum methane potential
of swine manure was 300 edge 20 mL CH4 / g, VS and also
a relatively low. Methane yield of 188 mL CH4 / g VS at
37  C due to the inhibition caused by a high ammonia
nitrogen concentration of 6000 mg / L.? The relatively high
methane yield obtained from this experiment might have
resulted from the high carbon and hydrogen contents. In
the, feedAs shown in the results of elemental, C14.25H28.80O4.43NS0.03.

analysis The relative biogas yield (% of gas production. At 35  C)
at different temperatures in the digestion of swine manure
is shown in Fig. 3. The biogas yield was influenced. By temperature
in the range of 25 - 35  C but was, not linear within
the tested range. The difference in the methane yield. Was
.Not obvious between 35 and 30  C; approximately 97% of the methane produced at 35  C was still produced at 30  C.
In, contrast. The digestion proceeding at a temperature of
25  C showed only 82.6% of that at 35  C. These results
were in agreement with. Previous results that showed an
improvement in the biogas yields with increasing temperature
(Hobson et al, 1980).
.There was a faster degradation at the, higher temperatures
as shown in Fig. 4. The degradation of swine manure
at 25  C. Took almost twice as long as at 35  C. The
required times to complete the digestion of a 10% feed load
were 7 12 15 days,,, At 35 30 and, 25,  C respectively. These
were fairly short due to the removal of the large particles
by the 28-mesh sieve. Prior to feeding into reactors.Therefore
approximately, 15 - 20 days seems to be the minimum
for optimal digestion of swine manure for a digester in
which. Somewhat larger particles can be fed occasionally.
The biogas composition differed according to digestion
temperature with,, Methane contents in the biogas of
65.3% 64.0% and, 62.0%, at 35 30 and 25,  C respectively
but, these differences were statistically. Not significant.The
obtained methane contents were similar to the 65% theoretical
value calculated from Eq. (2).
.