Comparison of two gas volume measurement systems by evaluating biochemical methane potential

The objective of this study is to compare and analyze the efficiency of an automated measurement system for biogas flow with a control performed by a programmable logic controller (PLC) called the SAMB compared to commercial equipment widely disseminated for this purpose, the automatic methane poten...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental quality management 2022-03, Vol.31 (3), p.201-207
Main Authors: Konrad, Odorico, Hasan, Camila, Marder, Munique, Zulian, Lucas, Guerini Filho, Marildo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anaerobic digestion
biochemical methane potential
Biogas
Environmental management
Environmental quality
Evaluation
Gas flow
Globalization
Inoculum
Methane
Microorganisms
Programmable logic controllers
Samples
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
Substrates
Systems analysis
two automated system
Volume measurement
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The objective of this study is to compare and analyze the efficiency of an automated measurement system for biogas flow with a control performed by a programmable logic controller (PLC) called the SAMB compared to commercial equipment widely disseminated for this purpose, the automatic methane potential test system (AMPTS II). The objective is to identify the accuracy in gas flow analysis of the two systems. The experiments were conducted in triplicate at a constant temperature of 37°C in anaerobic reactors. Two synthetic substrates and two natural substrates combined with a microbial inoculum were used. Considering the different ways the two systems capture data, the results show that all samples differed statistically between them (p  0.05). Thus, with the advancement and globalization of knowledge, it is necessary to develop systems capable of generating standardized, precise, and accurate data. In this context, the systems evaluated here present different forms of methane measurement but the results have no significant statistical differences.
ISSN:1088-1913
1520-6483
DOI:10.1002/tqem.21776