gototop
Bảng quảng cáo

home

KH?O ST HI?N TR?NG V TI?M N?NG ?NG D?NG H?M ? BIOGAS ? M?T S? X THU?C T?NH TI?N GIANG

T?p ch Khoa h?c Tr??ng ??i h?c C?n Th? s? 28 (2013): 80-85 Tc gi?: ?o Mai Trc Qu?nh, Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, Jan B...

Factors Influencing the Adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in developing countries - Empirical

The use of small-scale biogas digesters among farmers and households in rural areas of developing co...

?ng d?ng m hnh ti ? HDPE c?i ti?n v?i nguyn li?u n?p r?m v l?c bnh

Vi?c ?ng d?ng m hnh kh sinh h?c trong x? l ch?t th?i ch?n nui ?? cung c?p n?ng l??ng ? ???c p d?ng kh ph? bi?...

Cc xu?t b?n trong n?m 2016 - 2017

STT Tn bi bo Abstract -E Abstract -VN 1 Ngo Thi Thanh Truc, Tran...

S?n xu?t biogas t? thn b?p - ?nh h??ng c?a kch c?

Study on size effects of corn stalks for biogas production was evaluated for three differe...

  • KH?O ST HI?N TR?NG V TI?M N?NG ?NG D?NG H?M ? BIOGAS ? M?T S? X THU?C T?NH TI?N GIANG

  • Factors Influencing the Adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in developing countries - Empirical

  • ?ng d?ng m hnh ti ? HDPE c?i ti?n v?i nguyn li?u n?p r?m v l?c bnh

  • Cc xu?t b?n trong n?m 2016 - 2017

  • S?n xu?t biogas t? thn b?p - ?nh h??ng c?a kch c?

Hnh ?nh Tiu Bi?u

 
1
9
Tong ket hoi thao
poster chi - eng
poster hong - eng

STT

Tn bi bo

Abstract -E

Abstract -VN

1

Ngo Thi Thanh Truc, Tran Sy Nam, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Jan Bentzen., 2017. Factors Influencing the Adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in developing countries empirical evidence from Vietnam. International Business Research, Vol.10, No.2, 2017

The use of small-scale biogas digesters among farmers and households in rural areas of developing countries is a well-known technology. The potential for biogas in these areas is probably much larger than presently exploited and therefore more knowledge on factors that may further the use of biogas is needed. The present study draws on data from two extensive surveys in the Mekong Delta with questionnaires of one hundred and two hundred respondents, respectively, and data collected from personal interviews in all cases. The empirical evidence shows that the technology is well known and if the purpose is to expand the use of biogas, financial instruments (like subsidies) are the most important to rely on. High investment costs are important for the biogas investment
decision and subsequently information on the economic benefits of cheap biogas is an important topic to address.

Keywords: small-scale biogas, developing countries, Mekong Delta, barriers for biogas adoption, survey data, logit model

2

Nguyen Le Phuong, Thach Hai, Nguyen V?n Liem, Duong Ngoc Tram, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Trang, Kim Lavane, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, 2016. Study on co-fermentation of cow dung and giant dirt in semi-contunuous anaerobic digester. Journal of science and technology 54(2A) (2016) 287-292

Study on co-fermentation of cow dung (CD) and giant dirt (GD-Pistia stratiotes L.) in semi-continuous anaerobic digester aims to test biogas quantity and quality by time. There mixing rate counted based on ODM of each material were chosen: 100%CD, 50% CD + 50% GD and 100%GD. The experiments were set up in laboratory conditions with two types of digesters: one-stage digesters and two- stage digesters (triplicate for each treatment). After 80 days, the biogas produced from the one-stage digesters was not significantly different to the two-days, the biogas produced from the one-stage digesters was not significantly different to the two-stage digesters with similar input material. The highest production of biogas came from digesters of 100%GD-235.8l for the one-stage and 240.3 L for the two-stages. The medium production came from digesters of 50% CD+50%GD 127.8 L for the one-stage and 118.4 L for the two-stage. After one month, the percentage of CH4 was high enough for burning and almost giant dirt was digested that limited of a blockage inside the digesters. The results showed that co-fermentation of GD and CD is an alternative for livestock raising households to produce biogas for energy purpose.

Keywords: anaerobic semi-continuous digester, cow dung, giant dirt, one-stage digester, two-stage digester.

3

Tran Sy Nam, Le Ngoc Dieu Hong, Huynh Van Thao, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Le Hoang Viet, Kjeld Ingvorsen, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, 2016. Enhancing biogas production by anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and pig manure. Journal of Vietnamese environment, 2016 Vol.8,No.3, PP. 195-199

The characteristics of anaerobic batch co-digestion of water hyacinth (WH) with pig manure (PM) under seven mixing ratio 100% WH; 80%WH : 20%PM; 60%WH : 40%PM; 50%WH: 50%PM; 40%WH : 60%PM; 20%WH : 80%PM and 100%PM were inves igated. eacit treatment was conducted in five replications with daily loading rate at 1 gVS.L-1.day-1. During the anaerobic digestion process of 60 days, maximum biogas production occurred in two periods, the first stage from 12- 22 days and second stage from 30 - 35 days. The maximum daily biogas productions from each stage were 17.2 L.day-1 and 15.1 L.day-1, respectively. The cumulative biogas production varied between 60 L (100%PM) and 360 L (60%WH : 40%PM). The results showed that the biogas yields of co-digestion 40 - 80%WH were higher from 34.6 to 56.1% in comparison with 100%PM and from 109 to 143% in comparison with 100%WH. When mixing with WH, treatments were received more methane and the methane contents were higher than 45% (v/v) that good for energy using purposes.

Keywords: batch anaerobic co-digcstion, biogas, mixing ratios, pig manure, water hyacinth

Nghin c?u ???c th?c hi?n nh?m kh?o st kh? n?ng gia t?ng l??ng kh sinh h?c khi ti?n hnh ??ng phn h?y y?m kh l?c bnh (WH) v phn heo (PM) ? cc t? l? ph?i tr?n khc nhau g?m 100%WH, 80%WH : 20%PM; 60%WH:40%PM; 50%WH:50%PM; 40%WH:60%PM; 20%WH:80%PM v 100%PM. Cc nghi?m th?c ???c n?p nguyn li?u l 1gVS.L-1.ngy-1 v b? tr l?p l?i 5 l?n. Theo di qu trnh phn h?y c?a cc nghi?m th?c trong 60 ngy ghi nh?n c 2 kho?ng th?i gian l??ng kh s?n sinh nhi?u nh?t giai ?o?n 1 t? ngy 12 ??n 22, giai ?o?n 2 t? ngy 30 ??n 35. L??ng kh s?n sinh cao nh?t t??ng ?ng trong m?i giai ?o?n l 17,2 L.ngy-1 v 15,1 L.ngy-1. L??ng kh tch l?y trong su?t th?i gian th nghi?m ghi nh?n th?p nh?t ? nghi?m th?c 100% PM ??t 60 L v cao nh?t ? nghi?m th?c 60%WH:40PM ??t 360 L. N?ng su?t sinh ra c?a cc nghi?m th?c ph?i tr?n l?c bnh t? 40 ??n 80% cao h?n t? 34,6 ??n 56,1% so v?i nghi?m th?c 100% PM v cao h?n t? 109% ??n 143% so v?i nghi?m th?c 100% WH. Hm l??ng m-tan sinh ra t? cc nghi?m th?c c ph?i tr?n l?c bnh ?n ??nh trong kho?ng >45% ??m b?o nhi?t l??ng cho nhu c?u s? d?ng n?ng l??ng.

T? kha: m? ? y?m kh, kh sinh h?c, t? l? ph?i tr?n, phn heo, l?c bnh

4

Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan and Nguyen Lan Huong, 2016. Vietnams renewable energy - an overview of current status and legal normative documents. Can Tho University Journal of Science, Special issue: Renewable Energy (2016) 92-105

This paper aims to overview current status on exploiting and applying energy in general and renewable energy in particular in Vietnam and to
present the Vietnamese policy on renewable energy. Vietnam is located in
a tropical area, which is highly potential for renewable energy development with various sources such as biomass, solar, wind, solid waste, etc. but exploitation capacities on these resources are limited. The Vietnamese
Government gradually institutionalizes legal normative documents to
promote energy exploitation from local potential renewable energy.

Keywwords: Energy demand, legal normative documents, renewable energy, Vietnam

5

Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, Tr?n S? Nam, L Hong Vi?t, Nguy?n H?u Chi?m, Kjeld Ingvorsen,
Jan Bentzen, 2016. Ti?m n?ng s? d?ng r?m r? trong s?n xu?t biogas ? ??ng b?ng sng C?u Long. H?i th?o thi?t b?, cng ngh? thu gom v x? l r?m r? vng ??ng b?ng sng C?u Long, thng 03 n?m 2016.

??ng b?ng sng C?u Long l v?a la l?n nh?t c?a Vi?t Nam, tuy nhin l??ng ch?t th?i t? canh tc la g?o c?ng r?t l?n. Hng n?m ring l??ng r?m r? pht sinh trn cc cnh ??ng ? khu v?c ny ? x?p x? 30 tri?u t?n. Bi vi?t ny t?ng h?p m?t s? k?t qu? nghin c?u c?a d? n S?n xu?t b?n v?ng kh sinh h?c t? r?m th?i. D? n ? th?c hi?n cc th nghi?m ? y?m kh theo m? h?n h?p r?m v phn heo ?? ?nh gi s?n l??ng kh sinh ra. R?m ???c chu?n b? theo cc ph??ng php khc nhau: ph?i tr?n v?i phn heo theo nh?ng t? l? khc nhau, ti?n x? l r?m v?i cc lo?i ch?t l?ng khc nhau, c?t nh? r?m v?i cc kch c? khc nhau. K?t qu? cho th?y r?m c th? ???c s? d?ng nh? ngu?n nguyn li?u n?p b? sung cho h?m ? biogas quy m h? gia ?nh.
T? kha: ?BSCL, r?m, ? y?m kh theo m?

6

Nguy?n L? Ph??ng, Tr??ng Minh Chu, V V?n ??, Lm Thanh ?i v Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, 2015. ?nh h??ng c?a cc t? l? ph?i tr?n ??n kh? n?ng sinh kh c?a m? ? y?m kh k?t h?p phn b v?i thn cy b?p (Zea mays) v bo tai t??ng (Pistia stratiotes L). T?p ch Khoa h?c Tr??ng ??i h?c C?n Th? s? chuyn ?? Mi tr??ng v Bi?n ??i kh h?u (2015): 71-79

Study of mixing ratio effect on the ability of biogas production from codigestion of cow manure (PB) with corn stalks (Zea mays) (TB) and
aquatic weed (Pistia stratiotes L) (TT) was evaluated in three mixing ratios of manure and plant, including: 100:0, 75:25 and 50:50. The 21 L
anaerobic digesters were set up to implement experiments in laboratory conditions. After 60 days, total biogas volume of the treatment of
100%PB:0%TB, 70%PB:25%TB and 50%PB:50%TB was 698.65 L, 1023.4 L and 1806.4 L, respectively and biogas yield was 196.15.55 L Kg-
1VS-1, 2415.3 L Kg-1VS-1 and 560.211.1 L Kg-1VS-1, respectively. Similarly, total biogas volume of the treatment of 100%PB:0%TT, 70%PB:25%TT and 50%PB:50%TT was 698.65L, 96.450.55 L and
142.39.5 L, respectively and biogas yield was 196.15.55 L Kg-1VS-1, 226.711.6 L Kg-1VS-1 and 314.212.1 L Kg-1VS-1, respectively. The
results indicated that co-digestion of cow manure and plants can increase biogas volume.

Keywords: Anaerobic co-digestion, aquatic weed, biogas
production, corn stalks, cow
manure

Nghin c?u nh?m ?nh gi ?nh h??ng c?a t? l? ph?i tr?n ??n kh? n?ng sinh kh trong m? ? y?m kh k?t h?p phn b v?i 02 lo?i th?c v?t l thn b?p v bo tai t??ng theo cc t? l? phn b:th?c v?t l 100:0, 75:25 v 50:50. Cc th nghi?m ???c ti?n hnh trn cc m hnh ln men y?m kh theo m? 21 L trong ?i?u ki?n phng th nghi?m. Sau 60 ngy ?, t?ng th? tch kh sinh ra t?ng theo l??ng thn b?p ph?i tr?n 100:0, 75:25, 50:50 t??ng ?ng l 698,65 L; 1023,4 L; 1806,4 L; ??ng th?i n?ng su?t sinh kh gia t?ng t??ng ?ng 196,15,55 L Kg-1VS-1; 2415,3 L Kg-1VS-1; 560,211,1 L Kg-1VS-1. Nhm nghi?m th?c ? phn b v?i bo tai t??ng c t?ng th? tch kh sinh ra gia t?ng theo l??ng bo thm vo 100:0, 75:25, 50:50 t??ng ?ng l 698,65 L; 96,450,55 L; 142,39,5 L v?i n?ng su?t sinh kh t?ng t??ng ?ng 196,15,55 L Kg-1VS-1; 226,711,6 L Kg-1VS-1; 314,212,1 L Kg-1VS-1. K?t qu? nghin c?u cho th?y trong ?i?u ki?n th nghi?m y?m kh theo m? k?t h?p phn b v?i th?c v?t, vi?c k?t h?p phn b v?i th?c v?t gip c?i thi?n hi?u qu? sinh kh ??ng th?i kh? n?ng sinh kh c xu h??ng t?ng khi t?ng t? l? nguyn li?u n?p th?c v?t.

T? kha: Bo tai t??ng, phn h?y y?m kh, phn b, s?n xu?t kh sinh h?c, thn b?p.

7

Tr?n S? Nam, Nguy?n Ph??ng Chi, Nguy?n H?u Chi?m, L Hong Vi?t, Nguy?n V Chu Ngn v Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2015. ?nh h??ng c?a cc ph??ng php ti?n x? l sinh h?c l?c bnh (Eichhornia crassipes) ln kh? n?ng sinh biogas trong ? y?m kh theo m? c ph?i tr?n phn heo. T?p ch Khoa h?c Tr??ng ??i h?c C?n Th? s? chuyn ?? Mi tr??ng v Bi?n ??i kh h?u (2015): 102-110

This study was performed based on anaerobic batch experiment in 60 days with biological pre-treatment water hyacinth methods such as (i) biogas digester effluent, (ii) dark anoxic sediment, (iii) ditch water, and (iv) tap water and 100% pig manure. The results indicated that pre-treated water hyacinth by dark anoxic sediment could speed up biogas process and have greater daily biogas production capacity than that of pre-treated with tap water, biogas digester effluent and ditch water. On the 30th day, the cumulative biogas production of water hyacinth pre-treated by dark anoxic sediment, biogas digester effluence was greater than other pre-treatment methods (p<0,05). On 60th day, the cumulative biogas production of water hyacinth pre-treated by dark anoxic sediment, biogas digester effluence and tap water was not significantly different, but it is significantly different with the experiment of ditch water and 100% of pig manure (p<0.05). Biogas produced from the day 6th to 20th accounted for more than 40% of the total. The concentration of methane was low in the first week, increased in the week after and then remained stable at the rate of greater than 50%. The methane concentration was not significantly different among pre-treatment methods. Biogas yielded from all treatments ranged from 436-723L/kgVSdegraded. The results showed that water hyacinth pre-treated with dark anoxic sediment and biogas digester effluent could enhance biogas production.

Keywords: Water hyacinth, biological pre-treatment, anaerobic digestion, co-digestion, biogas

Th nghi?m ???c th?c hi?n theo ph??ng php ? y?m kh theo m? trong 60 ngy v?i cc ph??ng php ti?n x? l l?c bnh b?ng (i) n??c th?i biogas, (ii) n??c bn ?en, (iii) n??c ao, (iv) n??c my v nghi?m th?c 100% ph?n heo. K?t qu? nghin c?u cho th?y l?c bnh ti?n x? l b?ng n??c bn ?en gip qu trnh sinh kh di?n ra nhanh h?n v l??ng biogas sinh ra hng ngy cao h?n so v?i ti?n x? l b?ng n??c my, n??c th?i biogas v n??c ao. ? th?i ?i?m 30 ngy, l??ng kh tch d?n c?a cc bnh ? ti?n x? l b?ng bn ?en v n??c th?i biogas cao h?n cc nghi?m th?c ti?n x? l khc (p<0,05). L??ng kh biogas tch d?n sau 60 ngy khng c s? khc bi?t gi?a cc ph??ng php ti?n x? l b?ng n??c bn ?en, n??c biogas v n??c my, nh?ng cao h?n n??c ao v 100% ph?n heo (p<0,05). L??ng kh biogas sinh ra t?p trung vo giai ?o?n t? ngy 6 ??n ngy 20, chi?m h?n 40% t?ng l??ng kh. N?ng ?? m-tan trong tu?n ??u tin th?p sau ? t?ng d?n, gi? ?n ??nh trn 50% v khng c s? bi?n ??ng l?n gi?a cc ph??ng php ti?n x? l. N?ng su?t sinh kh c?a cc nghi?m th?c dao ??ng t? 436 - 723 L.kgVSph?n h?y-1. K?t qu? nghin c?u cho th?y ti?n x? l l?c bnh b?ng n??c bn ?en v n??c th?i t? biogas c kh? n?ng thc ??y nhanh qu trnh t?o kh sinh h?c.

T? kha: L?c bnh, ti?n x? l sinh h?c, ? y?m kh, ? y?m kh k?t h?p, kh sinh h?c

8

Tr?n S? Nam, Hu?nh V?n Th?o, Hu?nh Cng Khnh, Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, Nguy?n H?u Chi?m, L Hong Vi?t, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2015. ?nh gi kh? n?ng s? d?ng r?m v l?c bnh trong ? y?m kh bn lin t?c - ?ng d?ng trn ti ? biogas polyethylene v?i quy m nng h?. T?p ch Khoa h?c Tr??ng ??i h?c C?n Th? s? 36a (2015): 27-35

The experiment was carried out in five polyethylene (PE) digesters each of them either contains 100% pig manure (100%PH), 100% water hyacinth (100%LB), 100% rice straw (100%RO), 50%LB+50%PH, or 50%RO+50%PH with anaerobic fermentation volume of 4.24 m3 and monitoring period of 60 days. The results showed that 100%RO and 100%LB digesters had short operation time (23 and 27 days, respectively) in comparison with 50%RO+50%PH, 50%LB+50%PH and 100%PH digesters (60 days). In term of total cumulative biogas volume, the study illustrated that there was no difference between 50%LB+50%PH; 50%RO+50%PH and 100%PH digesters (cumulative biogas volume of 55.3; 56.0 and 59.8 m3, respectively). However, it was higher than 100%LB and 100%RO digesters (cumulative biogas volume of 19.0 and 21.0 m3, respectively). Digesters that used completely water hyacinth and rice straw as the input substrates had the problems of short duration, cumulative total volatile fatty acids (TVFAs), pH drop, floating of rice straw and water hyacinth in the digester. The study proved that pig manure could be replaced by rice straw and water hyacinth in the level of 50% (base on VS) in case of lacking input substrates. It is highly recommended that pH, cumulative TVFAs, floating of rice straw and water hyacinth in the digester need to be studied in the research of using rice straw and water hyacinth for biogas production.

Keywords: Anaerobic fermentaion, biogas application, water hyacinth, rice straw, polyethylene biogas digester

Th nghi?m ???c th?c hi?n v?i n?m ti ? polyethylene (PE) bao g?m 100% phn heo (100%PH); 100% l?c bnh (100%LB); 100% r?m (100%RO), 50%LB+50%PH; 50%RO+50%PH v?i th? tch ? y?m kh l 4,24 m3, theo di trong 60 ngy. K?t qu? nghin c?u cho th?y ti ? n?p 100%RO v 100%LB c th?i gian v?n hnh th?p (l?n l??t l 23 v 27 ngy) so v?i c ph?i tr?n 50%RO+50%PH, 50%LB+50%PH v ti n?p 100%PH (60 ngy). V? t?ng l??ng kh tch d?n trong 60 ngy, nghin c?u cho th?y khng c s? khc bi?t l?n gi?a t?ng th? tch kh biogas sinh ra gi?a cc ti 50%LB+50%PH; 50%RO+50%PH v 100%PH (v?i gi tr? l?n l??t l 55,3; 56,0 v 59,8 m3), nh?ng cao h?n so v?i 100%LB v 100%RO (l?n l??t l 19,0 v 21,0 m3). Cc ti ? s? d?ng hon ton r?m v l?c bnh g?p cc tr? ng?i l th?i gian s? d?ng ng?n, s? tch t? t?ng cc axit bo bay h?i (TVFAs), pH gi?m, r?m v l?c bnh d? b? n?i trong m? ?. Nghin c?u cho th?y c th? s? d?ng ngu?n nguyn li?u r?m ho?c l?c bnh ?? n?p vo cc ti ? ? m?c thay th? 50% (theo VS) trong giai ?o?n thi?u ngu?n ch?t th?i. S? gi?m pH, tch l?y TVFAs, r?m v l?c bnh n?i trong ti ? l cc y?u t? c?n ???c theo di trong cc nghin c?u ?ng d?ng r?m v l?c bnh ?? s?n xu?t kh sinh h?c.

T? kha:

? y?m kh, ?ng d?ng biogas, l?c bnh, r?m, ti ? biogas polyethylene

9

Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan and Tran Sy Nam, 2014. Greenhouse gas emission from on-field straw burning in the Mekong delta of Viet Nam. Proceedings of 8th Asian crop science association conference. 2014

Greenhouse gas emission from burning rice straw on file in the Mekong delta of Viet Nam was investigated by prepared questionnaires and field surveys in An Giang, Dong Thap, Kien Giang and Can Tho provinces. The results showed that the most common method to remove rice straw is field burning while other methods such as burying, cultivating mushroom, selling, raising cattle, giving away and leaving on fields accounted for the small proportion. Removing rice straw methods vary depending on the rice crop seasons. The estimated quantity of rice straw in the Mekong Delta region is approximate 28.98 million tons in 2014, in which 27.68 million tons is burned directly on the fields. The survey indicates most rice farmers tend to continue burning straw as the most popular method in the next few years. This practice releases into the atmosphere with about 32.42 million tons of CO2, 768.40 thousand tons of CO and 68.65 thousand tons of NOx. The amount of CO2 accounting for more than 97% of the total greenhouse gas released from field burning. Studying on the methods to utilize the straw after harvests is highly recommended in order to limit the straw burning activities which waste a biomass resource and causes environmental pollution.

Keywords: Greenhouse gas, on-field burning, rice straw, the Mekong Delta.

10

Tram Sy Nam, Huynh Van Thao, Huynh Cong Khanh, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Le Hoang Viet, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2015. The components of volatile fatty acids in semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and water hyacinth and pig manure. Journal of science and technology 53(3A) (2015) 229-234

The semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion experiment was investigated with five treatments including (1) 100 % rice straw (RS), (2) 100 % water hyacinth (WH), (3) 100 % pig manure (PM), (4) 50 % RS : 50 % PM, (5) 50 % WH : 50 % PM. Each treatment was conducted in triplicate with daily loading rate at 1 kgVS.m'3 and run for 60 days. The results showed that the components of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) were acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, succinic acid, acrylic acid, fumaric acid, formic acid, malic acid. Acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid were the main component, accounting for approximately 80 % of VFAs. The highest level of VFAs was recorded in 100 % RS, 100 % WH treatment at level of 33.1 and 39.6 mmol.L"1, respectively. The concentration of long chain fatty acid such as propionic and butyric in 100 % RS and 100 % WH reactors were higher than other reactors. As a result, these treatments produced biogas more stable and higher than 100 % pig manure (PM), 50 % RS : 50 % PM, 50 % WH : 50 % PM treatment. There was a strong relationship between VFAs and pH, the accumulation of VFAs. Monitoring the components of volatile fatty acids in anaerobic process was highly recommended.

Keywords: anaerobic co-digestion, semi-continuous, volatile fatty acids.

11

Tran Sy Nam, Huynh Cong Khanh, Huynh Van Thao, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Le Hoang Viet, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2015. Biogas production from rice straw and water hyacinth The effect of mixing in semi-continuous reactors. Journal of science and technology 53(3A) (2015) 217-222

This experiment was carried out in 60-L semi-continuous reactors using rice straw (RS) water hyacinth (WH) as the substrate. All of the treatments were set up by completely random design; each treatment was done in triplicate with the loading rate of 1 gVS.L-1d-1. The results showed that mixing during incubation period enhanced 47.2% and 6.4% of cumulative biogas volume of WH and RS reactors, respectively. The biogas yield of WH reactors was higher than that of RS. Methane content was not significant difference from the mixing and non-mixing reactors. The maximum concentration of VFAs was 32.1, 28.6, 39.6 and 34.1 mmol/L in RSnon, RSmix, WHnon, WHmix reactors, recpectively. Daily feeding was not effected to pH, The lowest pH was recorded in this experiment was 6.1 in RS reactors. RS and WH could be used as the main substrate for biogas production in semi-continuous bio-reactors.

Keywords: anaerobic digestion, biogas production, semi-continuous, rice straw, water hyacinth.

12

Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Tran Sy Nam, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Le Hoang Viet, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2015. Effects of C/N ratios on anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and local biomass in the Mekong delta. Journal of science and technology 53(3A) (2015) 223-228

In the Mekong Delta, anaerobic digesters are applied to pig manure (PM) for waste treatment and creation of biogas for energy. However, due to rich nitrogen, anaerobic digestion of solely PM produces biogas in poor quantity and quality. This study investigated the effects of C/N ratio on anaerobic co-digestion of PM and water hyacinth (WH) or rice straw (RS). The lab scale 21-L batch anaerobic apparatus were set up at WH or RS replacement to PM of 80+20, 60+40, 50+50 (mixing ratio base on organic dry matter of input materials). The results showed that biogas yield from PM+WH treatments of 80 + 20 (C/N 25.1), 60 + 40 (C/N 27.0), 50+50 (C/N 28.1) significantly higher than the treatment of 100 %PM (C/N 23.5). For PM+RS treatment, the biogas yields of treatments 80+20 (C/N 26.2), 60+40 (C/N 29.8), 50+50 (C/N 32.1) significantly higher than the treatment of 100 %PM. The CH4 concentrated in biogas reaches the optimum values after 2 weeks that well suit for cooking purpose. It is strongly confirm that anaerobic co-digestion of PM with WH or RS is an effective way to achieve desired digestion performance.

Keywords: batch anaerobic co-digestion, C/N ratio, pig manure, rice straw, water hyacinth.

13

Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Nguyen Minh Tung, Tran Sy Nam, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Le Hoang Viet, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2015. Apply paddy straw for energy production to reduce in situ straw burning in the Mekong delta of VietNam. Papers of the 23rd European biomass conference, 1-4 June 2015.

The Mekong Delta - a rice bowl of Vietnam - discharges around 30 million tons of paddy straw annually but most of straw is in situ burning that causes loss of precious nutrients and polluting the environment. Meanwhile, anaerobic technology was introduce in the region for long time but not yet become popular due to lack of input materials. The lab-scale 20 L anaerobic digesters were applied to co-ferment paddy straw (with sizes of 1.0 cm, 10.0 cm, 20.0 cm, original size) and pig manure (mixing ratio of 50%:50% based on their organic dry matter values) in 60 continuous days. The recorded values of temperature (25.3 to 30.30C), pH (6.74 0.18), and redox potential (

316.4 to -128.2 mV) of almost treatments were suitable for activities of methanogenic micro-organisms. The biogas yield of treatment with straw size of 1.0 cm was 691.05 L/kg ODMfermented, of 10.0 cm - 687.79 L/kg ODMfermented, of 20.0 cm - 685.08 L/kg ODMfermented and original size - 680.44 L/kg ODMfermented which significant different to the treatment of 100% pig manure. The results confirmed rice straw could apply as additional material to the pig manure at anaerobic digester to produce biogas that eliminate in situ straw burning.

Keywords: anaerobic co-fermentation, paddy straw, in situ straw burning, the Mekong Delta of Vietnam

14

Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Tran Sy Nam, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Le Hoang Viet, Nguyen Thi Thuy, Kjeld Ingvorsen. 2015. Paddy straw application for energy production to reduce in situ straw burning in the Mekong delta of Vietnam. In International conference on Solid Wastes 2015: Knowledge transfer for Sustainable resource management in at Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, P.R. China.

This study aimed to make use of paddy straw and limit the gas emission from the practice of straw in situ burning. Lab-scale 21 L batch anaerobic digesters were set up to ferment paddy straw in 60 continuous days. Straw was cut in different sizes and pre-treated with digester's effluent for 5 days. The temperature, pH, and redox recorded daily in most of the treatments were in good conditions for methanogen. The gas yield from the treatments of rice straw 0.2 cm was 760 L/kg ODMfermented, 0.5 cm - 756 L/kg ODMfermented, and 1.0 cm - 764 L/kg ODMfermented which was higher than the treatments of 0.05 cm - 677 L/kg ODMfermented and original size - 698 L/kg ODMfermented. The CH4 content in all treatments got more than 45% after three weeks. The results confirm that the anaerobic practice could produce biogas from paddy straw and this can help reduce the local practice of burning straw on field.

Keywords: anaerobic digester, batch fermentation, paddy straw, in-situ straw burning, the Mekong Delta of Vietnam

15

Nguyen Le Phuong, Le Thi Thao Quyen, Nguyen Thi Ngoc Huyen, Nguyen Thi Nhu Huynh, Nguyen Thi Diem Trang, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, 2015. Biogas production from corn (zea mays) stalks: effects of size.

Journal of Fisheries Science and Technology 2015 (69-75)

Study on size effects of corn stalks for biogas production was evaluated for three different sizes of stalk: 15 - 20 cm, 8 - 10 cm and 1-2 cm. The 21L anaerobic digesters were set up to implement experiments in laboratory conditions. All experiments were fed with loading ratio of 1 kg vs/m^ct1, the hydraulic retention time was 60 days. The control parameters from all experiments (temperature, pH) were not significantly different between treatments but ranged in suitable values for anaerobic fermentation processes. The biogas yield and CH4 concentrations were highest at treatment with sizes 8-10 cm, the next was treatment of 1 - 2 cm and the lowest was treatment of 15 - 20 cm with 526 L/kg vs - 38.3%, 440.5 L/kg vs - 29.2% and 312.2 L/kg VS-26.4% in respectively. The %CH4 ofall treatments tended to increase by day and kept more stable in treatment with size 8- 10 cm than the rest. The results show that using com stalks in size 8- 10 cm produced more biogas than other sizes. Using com stalks for biogas production help farmers improve their life conditions.

Keywords: anaerobic digestion, batch fermentation, corn stalk

16

Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, Nguy?n Th? B Gi, Nguy?n Th? Thu Vn, 2015. Hi?u qu? x? l Vi Sinh V?t c?a m? ? y?m kh n?p ph?i tr?n phn heo v th?c v?t. K? y?u h?i ngh? khoa h?c ton qu?c Ch?n Nui Th Y 2015. NXB Nng Nghi?p

This study evaluated the treatment efficiency of microorganisms on anaerobic co-digestion from pig dung and biomass. The experiment systems used 5 L glass bottles which connected to aluminum bag for gas collection. There were 5 treatments (NT) set up randomly with treatments 1 and 2 fed 50 pig dung (PH) and 50% water hyacinth (LB) cut of 1 cm and 10 cm, respectively; treatment 3 and 4 fed 50% PH and 50% rice straw (RO) cut of 1 cm and 10 cm, respectively; and treatment 5 fed 100% PH as control treatment. All treatments were nin in 45 continuous days. The results showed reduction of worm eggs and harmful bacteria by time. The eliminating efficiencies were more than 98% for ascarid eggs, and 100% for hookworm eggs and hairworm at all treatments. The treatment efficiency of total Coliform ranged from 99.78-99.98%; Enterococcus from 95.17-99 .97%; E. coli from 99.78-99.99%; Salmonella from 76- 97.8%. The treatment efficiency was rather high but the remaining germs were still higher than discharge standards on QCVN 40:2011/BTNMT, QCVN 01-14/BNNPTNN and WHO (2006). Further study on treating of digester effluent is therefore needed to reach the discharge standards.

Keywords: anaerobic co-digestion, biogas technology, harmful bacteria, worm eggs.

Nghin c?u ???c th?c hi?n nh?m ?nh gi hi?u qu? x? l vi sinh v?t c?a m? ? y?m kh n?p nguyn li?u ph?i tr?n. Th nghi?m s? d?ng cc bnh ? th?y tinh 5 L lin k?t v?i ti nhm ch?a kh, g?m 5 nghi?m th?c (NT) b? tr hon ton ng?u nhin trong ? NT1 v NT2 n?p h?n h?p 50% phn heo (PH) v 50% l?c bnh (LB) v?i LB kch c? 1 cm v 10 cm; NT3 v NT4 l hai nghi?m th?c ph?i tr?n 50% PH v 50% r?m (RO) v?i RO ???c c?t nh? 1 cm v 10 cm; NT 5 l nghi?m th?c ??i ch?ng n?p 100% PH, th?i gian ? 45 ngy. K?t qu? th nghi?m cho th?y s? l??ng tr?ng giun sn v vi khu?n gy b?nh gi?m ?ng k? qua 45 ngy ?. Hi?u su?t lo?i b? tr?ng giun ??a trn 98%, tr?ng giun mc v tr?ng giun tc ??t 100% ? c? 5 nghi?m th?c. Hi?u su?t x? l t?ng Coliforms dao d?ng t? 99,78 - 99,98%. E. coli c hi?u su?t x? l dao ??ng t? 99,78-99,99%. Hi?u su?t lo?i b? Enterococcus kh cao dao ??ng t? 95,17-99,97%. Salmonella b? lo?i b? th?p chi t? 76- 97,8%. M?c d hi?u su?t x? l ca m ? kh cao nh?ng m?m b?nh trong n??c thi ??u ra v?n cao g?p nhi?u l?n so v?i yu c?u x? thi ca n??c th?i cng nghi?p QCVN 40:2011/BTNMT, yu c?u v? n??c cho tr?i ch?n nui heo QCVN 01-14/BNNPTNN v yu c?u x? l n??c th?i cho canh tc nng nghi?p WHO (2006). Do ? c?n nghin c?u thm cng ngh? x? l n??c th?i ??u ra c?a h?m ? biogas ??t yu c?u x? th?i.

T? kha: cng ngh? biogas, tr?ng giun sn. ? y?m kh ph?i tr?n, vi sinh v?t gy b?nh

17

Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, Nguy?n Th? Thy, ?on Th? Thy Ki?u Ng Qu?c Vinh, ?? Th? M? Ph??ng, Tr?n S? Nam, 2015. L?i ch kp c?a cng ngh? biogas t? vi?c s? d?ng b th?i ti ? biogas trong canh tc nng nghi?p h?u c?. K? y?u h?i ngh? khoa h?c ton qu?c Ch?n Nui Th Y 2015. NXB Nng Nghi?p

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of using the effluent from anaerobic co-digesters on water spinach yield. All experiments were set up onsite at the farmer household with 13 treatments (triplicate for each) including 10 treatments applied effluents from digesters composing of pig dung, rice straw, water hyacinth, or co-digestion; 2 treatments applied inorganic fertilizer and 1 control treatment. The results showed that treatments fertilized by effluent front digesters got the yield of 21.9-25.71 ton/ha that was not significantly different from that of with inorganic fertilizer of 23.93 ton/ha. Applying organic fertilizer source from biogas digester for planting is an optimum way of saving money to buy inorganic fertilizer, reducing the environment pollution and direct to a green agriculture development.

Keywords: biogas technology, co-digestion, digester's effluent, inorganic fertilizer, organic fertilizer, water spinach

Nghin c?u hi?n t?i ???c ti?n hnh ?? ?nh gi hi?u qu? s? d?ng b th?i ti biogas ? k?t h?p ln sinh tr??ng ca cy rau mu?ng. Th nghi?m ???c b tr t?i h? dn gm 13 nghi?m th?c v?i 3 l?n l?p l?i trong ? 10 nghi?m th?c s? d?ng b th?i ti ? biogas v?i cc nguyn li?u n?p g?m phn heo, r?m, l?c bnh, ho?c k?t h?p; 2 nghi?m th?c s? d?ng phn v c? v 1 nghi?m th?c ??i ch?ng. K?t qu? th nghi?m cho th?y cc nghi?m th?c s? d?ng phn h?u c? t? ti ? biogas cho n?ng su?t rau mu?ng ??t t? 21,9-25,71 t?n/ha t??ng ???ng nghi?m th?c s? d?ng phn v c? l 23,93 t?n/ha. Phn bn h?u c? gip c?i thi?n hm l??ng ch?t h?u c?, t?ng hm l??ng ??m, ln v kali cho ??t. Vi?c t?n d?ng ngu?n phn h?u c? c s?n t? cc ti ? biogas ?? bn cho cy tr?ng l bi?n php hi?u qu? trong vi?c ti?t ki?m chi ph mua phn v c? v gi?i quy?t ???c v?n ?? nhi?m mi tr??ng, ??nh h??ng pht tri?n n?n nng nghi?p xanh.

T? kha: b th?i biogas, cng ngh? biogas, phn h?u c?, phn v c?, rau mu?ng

18

Tr?n S? Nam, Nguy?n Ph??ng Chi, Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, 2014. Kh?o st sinh tr??ng c?a cy L?c Bnh (Eichhornia crassipes) trn cc th?y v?c khc nhau. NXB Nng Nghi?p

The study of water hyacinth was carried out at 4 aquatic types (river, canal, fish pond and irrigated pond). The experiment consisted of 3 plots of 4m2 ineach water-body, all parameters were determined weekly and continuously for 6 weeks. The results showed that water hyacinth grows best in fish ponds and lowest in the river. The growth of water hyacinth in canals was not significantly different from irrigated ponds (p > 0.05). The dry matter (DM) of water hyacinth in fish ponds, canal and irrigated ponds dramatically higher (542 - 572g DM/m2 than in the river 104,46 gDM/m2. DM of water hyacinth in fish ponds was not different from the canal (p>0.05) but significantly different from irrigated ponds and river (p<0.05). Doubling time of water hyacinth in the fish ponds, canals and ditches was relatively short at about 11 days and 23 days for rivers. The results of the study are the basis to help the local agencies in planning water hyacinth farming area for handicraft or other purposes.

Keywords: Aquatic area, dry matter, water hyacinth

Nghin c?u nh?m kh?o st s? sinh tr??ng v pht tri?n c?a l?c bnh trn cc th?y v?c khc nhau. Th nghi?m ???c tri?n khai trn 4 lo?i hnh th?y v?c khc nhau g?m sng, knh d?n n??c, ao nui c v m??ng v??n. M?i th?y v?c b? tri 3 l th nghi?m v?i di?n tch m?i l 4 m2, cy tr?ng ???c theo di hng tu?n v lin t?c trong 6 tu?n. K?t qu? nghin c?u cho th?y l?c bnh pht tri?n t?t nh?t ? th?y v?c ao nui c v th?p nh?t ? th?y v?c sng. Gi?a knh v m??ng th sinh tr??ng v pht tri?n c?a l?c bnh khc bi?t khng c ngh?a (p>0,05). Kh?i l??ng v?t ch?t kh (DM) c?a l?c bnh ? ao nui c, knh d?n n??c v m??ng v??n gia t?ng t? 542 - 572 g DM/m2, ??i v?i sng DM gia t?ng 104,46 g DM/m2, DM c?a l?c bnh ? ao c khng khc bi?t so v?i knh (p>0,05) nh?ng khc bi?t c ngh?a so v?i m??ng v??n v sng (p <0,05). Th?i gian nhn ?i c?a l?c bnh ? ao nui c, knh v m??ng t??ng ??i ng?n kho?ng 11 ngy v 23 ngy ??i v?i sng. K?t qu? c?a nghin c?u l c? s? gip cc ??a ph??ng quy ho?ch vng nui l?c bnh s? d?ng cho ngnh hng th? cng m? ngh? hay cc m?c ?ch khc.

T? kha: Kh?i l??ng v?t ch?t kh, l?c bnh, th?y v?c

19

Tran Sy Nam, Nguyen Thi Huynh Nhu, Nguyen Huu Chiem, Nguyen Tuan Thanh, Tran Thanh Thai, Nguyen Vo Chau Ngan, Le Hoang Viet, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2014. Estimated quantity of rice straw and its uses in some provinces in the Mekong delta region. Journal of Science and Technology 52 (3A) (2014), PP 316-322

The estimated quantity of rice straw and its use in some provinces in the Mekong Delta region was carried out based on prepared questionnaires and field surveys in An Giang, Dong Thap, Kien Giang and Can Tho. The results showed that there were six common methods of rice straw treatment. They include burning, burying, mushroom cultivation, breeding, sale and giving away. The methods of using rice straw vary depending on the rice season crops. In the Winterspring season, burning is the most common method (98.2 %), whereas mushroom cultivation and sale are the least. In the Summer-Autumn season, the proportion of straw burning decreases to 89.67 %, and that of burying to 6.65 %. In the Autumn-Winter season, straw burning has the lowest level (54.1 %), and the proportion of straw burying is quite high (26.1 %), followed by mushroom cultivation (8.14 %) and the rest methods share the small proportions. The estimated quantity of rice straw in the Mekong Delta region is approximate 26.23 million tons annually, in which 20.93 million tons is burned directly on the fields. This practice releases into the atmosphere with about 17.95 million tons of CO2, 485.58 thousand tons of CO and 10.38 thousand tons of NOX. The results also show that most farmers tend to continue the practice of burning straw as the most popular method in the next few years.

Keywords: rice straw, burning, rice straw treatment, the Mekong Delta Region.

20

Tr?n S? Nam, V Th? V?nh, Nguy?n H?u Chi?m, Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, L Hong Vi?t, Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2014. Enhancing biogas production by supplementing rice straw. Journal of Science and Technology 52 (3A) (2014) 294-301

The study was conducted in batch anaerobic digesters of 21 L in lab conditions for 60 days. The mixing ratios of rice straw and pig manure were 100 % of pig manure, 20 % of straw + 80 % of pig manure, 40 % of straw + 60 % of pig manure, 50 % of straw + 50 % of pig manure, 60 % of straw + 40 % of pig manure, 80 % of straw + 20 % of pig manure, and 100 % of straw. These experiments were arranged randomly in batch anaerobic reactors with volume of 21 liters; each mixing ratio was repeated five times. The results showed that rice straw have a high potential of enhancing biogas production due to mixing with pig manure. Mixing ratios of rice straw and pig manure at 50 % and 60 % had highest gas yield (846,6 and 841,8 L/kg vs degraded), which were not different from other mixing ratios except in the ratios of 100 % of straw and 100 % of pig manure (P < 0.05). Supplementing rice straw could enhance the rate of methane in biogas. The digestate had a high concentration of total nitrogen and total phosphorus that could be used as organic fertilizer. The research results strongly reveal that supplementing of rice straw could improve the biogas efficiency of real biogas reactors.

Keywords: biogas, rice straw, pig manure, mixing ratio, batch anaerobic digestion.

21

?o Mai Trc Qu?nh, Nguy?n V Chu Ngn, Jan Bentzen v Kjeld Ingvorsen, 2013. Kh?o st hi?n tr?ng s? d?ng v ti?m n?ng ?ng d?ng h?m ? biogas ? m?t s? x thu?c t?nh Ti?n Giang. T?p ch Khoa h?c Tr??ng ??i h?c C?n Th? s? 28 (2013): 80-85

This study evaluates the biogas appliance and the possibility to enhance the development of the biogas practices in the Mekong Delta. There were 100 households with and without biogas installation at Tien Giang interviewed. Before constructing the digester, there were 54/65 biogas-user households applied pig dung direct to their trees, 7 households discharged direct to the surrounding canal, and the rest of households buried pig dung at their garden or gave to their neighbor. For 35 non-biogas user there were 10 households applied pig dung direct to their trees, 5 households discharged direct to the surrounding canal, 10 households sold pig dung to their neighbor and the rest of households buried at their garden. Among 65 biogas-user households, there was 41 households mentioned on decrease of disease after construct a biogas plant, 22 house-holds connect their toilet to biogas plant, and 26 households mentioned time-saving (i.e. quick cooking with biogas and save time from wood collection) for husbandry and gardening. About 60% of non-biogas user households had information on biogas technology but they did not construct a biogas plant due to high investment cost. 70% of the non-biogas household would like to install a digester if the investment cost of about 3 million dong while the rest could construct one if they were offered (freely) 50% of investment cost.

Keywords: Biogas appliance, biogas technology, Tien Giang Province.

Nghin c?u nh?m ?nh gi hi?u qu? s? d?ng h?m ? biogas v kh? n?ng pht tri?n cng ngh? biogas ? ?BSCL. ?? ti ? ti?n hnh ph?ng v?n 65 h? c h?m ? v 35 h? ch?a c h? m ? ? t? nh Ti?n Giang. K?t qu? ? i ? u tra cho th? y tr??c khi xy d?ng h?m ? c 54/65 h? bn t??i cho cy tr?ng, 7 h? th?i tr?c ti?p xu?ng knh r?ch, cc h? cn l?i cho hng xm ho?c ?o h? chn l?p sau nh; ??i v?i 35 h? ch?a xy h?m ? c kho?ng 10 h? bn t??i cho cy tr?ng, 10 h? bn cho hng xm, 5 h? th?i tr?c ti?p xu?ng knh r?ch, cc h? cn l?i ?o h? chn l?p sau nh. Trong s? cc h? c h?m ?, 41 h? cho bi?t b?nh t?t gi?m ?i t? khi c h?m ?, 22 h? k?t n?i nh v? sinh v?i h?m ?, 26 h? s? d?ng th?i gian ti?t ki?m nh? ?un n?u b?ng biogas ho?c khng ph?i thu gom c?i ?? lm cc cng vi?c khc. ??i v?i 35 h? ch?a c h?m ? th c 60% bi?t v? cng ngh? biogas nh?ng khng xy d?ng v v?n ??u t? cao; kho?ng 70% h? dn c nhu c?u xy d?ng v?i ?i?u ki?n v?n ??u t? d??i 3.000.000 ??ng, 30% cn l?i s? xy d?ng h?m ? n?u ???c h? tr? 50% v?n xy d?ng.

T? kha: ?ng d?ng biogas, cng ngh? biogas, t?nh Ti?n Giang.


Tin mới hơn:
Tin cũ hơn: