quaderno gestione e valorizzazione dei reflui
Transcript
quaderno gestione e valorizzazione dei reflui
FONDOPERLAPROMOZIONEDIACCORDIISTITUZIONALI “PIATTAFORMADIBIOTECNOLOGIEVERDIEDITECNICHEGESTIONALIPERUN SISTEMAAGRICOLOADELEVATASOSTENIBILITÀAMBIENTALE” QUADERNO GESTIONEEVALORIZZAZIONEDEIREFLUI Assorbimento spettrale(1stder) bassiAGV[1g/LHAc eq.] mediAGV [3g/LHAc eq.] elevatiAGV [7g/LHAc eq.] 2200 2300 Lunghezza d’onda(nm) Febbraio2014 Hannopartecipatoalleattivitàdiricercaedistesuradeltesto: FabrizioAdania AiraMenaa a JacopoBacenetti FrancescoMolinaria b PaolaBranduardi PierluigiNavarottoa a RobertoObertia AnnamariaCosta a MarcoFiala DaniloPorrob a DavideGardoni GiorgioProvoloa a DiegoRomanoa MarcellaGuarino a AntoniottoGuidobonoCavalchini TommyPepèSciarriaa ClaudiaGusmaraa BarbaraScagliaa a MassimoLazzari FulviaTambonea a EsterManzini FrancescoMariaTangorraa a UniversitàdegliStudidiMilano b UniversitàdegliStudidiMilanoBicocca Coordinamento: DavideGardoni,MarcellaGuarino,FulviaTambone FONDOPERLAPROMOZIONEDIACCORDIISTITUZIONALI “PIATTAFORMADIBIOTECNOLOGIEVERDIEDITECNICHEGESTIONALIPERUN SISTEMAAGRICOLOADELEVATASOSTENIBILITÀAMBIENTALE” QUADERNO GESTIONEEVALORIZZAZIONEDEIREFLUI 2 Presentazione ǯ ǡ îǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ± ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Dz dzǡ ͳͳ Dz ǡǡ dzǤ ° ʹͲͲͻǡ ʹͲͳͲǡ ʹ ǡ ̵ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ʹͲͳͷǡ ǡ ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ î î 3 ǡ ǯǦǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ ǯ ʹͲͳͷǤ MarioMelazzini ǡ 4 IlprogrammadiRicerca&SviluppoBIOGESTECA Ǥ ǡ ǯ Ǥǡ ǯ Ǥ Ö ǡ î ǡǡǯ Ǥǯ °ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ö ǯ Ǥ Dz dz ʹͲͲͻ ǡ Ƭ ǯ ǡǯ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ʹͲͲͲǡ î Ǥ 5 Mater ie prime e mezzi tecnici Mater ie prime e mezzi tecnici Emissioni inquinanti Energia di alta qualità Sistema agricolo Energia di bassa qualità Riutilizzo dell’energia Emissioni inquinanti Energia di alta qualità Sistema agricolo Prodotti poco differenziati Risorse naturali Risorse naturali Rifiut i Sottoprodotti Valorizzazione energetica e fertilizzante Schema del sistema agricolo attuale Sistema agricolo attuale Prodotti caratterizzati dalla sostenibilità del sistema produttivo Rifiut i Schema di sistema agricolo sostenibile Sistema agricolo sostenibile ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡǯǯ ǡǡǯǡ ǯ ǯ Ǥ ° ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǣ Ö ǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ 6 WP1 Gestionedegli apportidi fertilizzantial suolo WP6 Utilizzodireflui eresiduiperla produzionedi energiae fertilizzazione deiterreni WP2 Efficienzad’uso deinutrienti mineralie riduzionedegli apportidi fertilizzantial suolo WP3 Usodellarisorsa idricanella coltivazionedel riso WP5 Esplorazione dellavariabilità geneticaescelte WP4 Biocontrollo WP7 Valutazionetecnica,economicaeambientale ǡ Ǥ ǤǤ ȋ Ǣ ǯ Ǣ Ǣ Ȍ ǯ ǡ î Ǥ ǯ ǯʹͲͳͷǤ ° ǤȋȌǡǤ ȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ ȋ 7 ȌǡǤȋȌǤ ȋȌǤ ° ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ 8 Sommario ͵ Ƭ ͷ ͳͳ ʹ͵ ʹͷ Ǧ ͵ͻ ͷͳ Ǧ ͵ ͺͷ 9 10 Introduzione ǣ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ° Ǥ ° Ö ǯǤ ǡ ° Ǥ Dz dz Dz dz ¿ ̵ ȋǯǡʹͲͲȌǤ Ǧ °ǡ ȋǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋǦȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ 11 ProduzionedibioenergiaǤ ǡ° ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ö ȋȌȋǤǡ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ȋȌȋ ǡʹͲͲͶȌǡ ǡÖ̵ ǦȋǤǡʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡǡǡ Ǧǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǯ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǧ ȋ ǡ ǤȌ Ȁ ǯ ǯ 12 Saccharomycescerevisiaeȋ ǤǡʹͲͲͺǡ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͶǡ Ǧ¡ǡ ʹͲͲͲǡ Ǧ¡ǡ ͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ ǡ î ȋ S.cerevisiaeȌ î Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ î ǡ ¿ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ ȋ ǤǡͳͻͻͺȌǤ Monitoraggiodeiprocessi. ǡ ǡ ȋǡ ǡ ǡ Ȍ ǡ ǯ Ǥǡ ǯ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ 13 Ǥ ǯ ǡǡ ǡ° Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ insitu ǡ ǯ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲʹǢ ǡ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ȋǡ ǡ ǡ ǤȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ¿ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲʹǢ ǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͳǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͶȌ ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲͲȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯ 14 î Ǥǡǡ Ǣ Ö ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ î ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲǢ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͺǢ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͻǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ¿ ǡ ǯ ǯ ȋǤǡͳͻͻͲǢǤǡʹͲͲʹǢ ǡ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲʹ Ǣ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲʹǢ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ ȋ Ȍ° ǡ ǯǡ ǯȋǤǡʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǡ ǡ î ǡ ȋȌǤ Biosicurezza. ǡ ǯ ǡ ° ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ǯǯ ǡ 15 ǡ ǡ ǯ ȋǡ ͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ ° Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǡ ° ȋǡ ͳͻͺͷȌǤ ° ǡǡ ǡǡ Dz dz ȋǡ ʹͲͲͻȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ ° ǡ ǡ Salmonella ͺͲǡE.coliîͳͲǡClostridium sppǤ î ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲͺǢ ǡ ͳͻͺͷȌǤ ǡ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Dzpathogenfreedzȋ ǡ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ Ǥ ǯ ǡǯǯ° îǤǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ ǡǣǡ ǯ Ǥ ǯ 16 Ö î Dzdz ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǯ ǯ Ö Ǥ Valutazione della sostenibilitàǤ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ö Ǥ ǡ ǯ Ö ǯ ǡ ǡ ȋǡ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ î ǯ ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡǦ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǡ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Ǧ 17 Ǧ ȋ Ǧǡ ʹͲͲͺǢ ǡ ʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǤǡʹͲͲǢǡʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǣǡ Ǥ ǡ î î ǡ ǡ ǯ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤȌǡǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǤȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǧ ȋǤǡ ʹͲͲͺȌǡ ǯ Ȁ ǡ ǯ stepbystepǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥǡǡ ǤǯDz dz ȋ°DzdzȌȋǡʹͲͲ͵Ȍ Ǣ ǡ ȋ Dz dz DzdzȌ ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲǢ ǡ ʹͲͲǢ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲȌǡ Ǥ ǡ 18 ʹ ǡ ȋǯǡʹͲͲǢǡʹͲͲͺȌǤǡ ǡ Ǥ ARGONNE National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 2007, The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model, http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/index.html Bachinger T, Mandenius C. 2000. Searching for process information in the aroma of cell cultures. Trends in Biotechnology, 18, 494-500 Bauer A., Mayr H., Hopfner-Sixt K., Amon T. (2009). Detailed monitoring of two biogas plants and mechanical solid-liquid separation of fermentation residues. Journal of Biotechnology, 142 (1), 56-63. Bicudo J.R.;Goyal S.M. 2003. Pathogens and Manure Management Systems: A Review. Environmental Technology, Volume 24, 1, 115-130(16). Boe K., Batstone D. J., Angelidaki I. (2005). An Innovative Online VFA Monitoring System for the Anaerobic Process Based on Headspace Gas Chromatography. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 96,(4), 712-721. Bonacina C. 2008. Digestione anaerobica: opportunità per l’agricoltura e l’ambiente. Atti della conferenza “utilizzo agronomico del digestato”. 24 e 25 Gennaio, Sesto S. Giovanni, Milano. Borzecka-Walker M., 2008, Evaluation of carbon sequestration in energetic crops (Mischantus and coppice willow), International Agrophysics, 22, 185-190. Breer C., 1985 – Environmental contamination with Salmonellae by the spred of animal waste and sewage sludge. Experientia, 41: 533-537. Castellini A., 2008, Preliminary analyses of sustainability of agroenergy, Estimo e Territorio, 5, 16-22. Clementschitsch F., Bayer K. 2006. Improvement of bioprocess monitoring: development of novel concepts. Microbial Cell Factories, 5, 19 CRPA. 1993. Manuale per la gestione e l’utilizzazione agronomica dei reflui zootecnici. Ed. centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali, Reggio Emilia. D’Artis K., 2007, Evaluation of renewable energy policies in an integrated economic-energyenvironmental model, Forest Policy and Economics, 10, 128-139. Demirel, B. (2009). Laboratory investigations on continuous bio-methanization of energy crops as mono-substrate without supplementation. Biomass & Bioenergy, 33, 6-7, 988-993. Energy and Resources Group, 2006, ERG Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM), http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/ Esteban L.S., Ciria P., Carrasco E., 2008, An assessment of relevant methodological elements and criteria for surveying sustainable agricultural and forestry biomass by-products for energy purposes, BioResources, 3, 910-928. 19 EurObserv’ER, 2007. European Barometer 2007 of Renewable Energies. Syste`mes Solaires, Paris, 30 pp. Available at: http://www.eurobserv-er.org/ Accessed December 12, 2008. Fabbri C., 2008, L’analisi di fattibilità e redditività per impianti di biogas, CRPA, EimaEnergy 2008, Convegno “Biogas, un’opportunità di crescita per le aziende agricole”, 2008 Fan, Y.T., Zhang, Y.H., Zhang, S.F., Hou, H.W., Ren, B.Z., 2006. Efficient conversion of wheat straw wastes into biohydrogen gas by cow dung compost. Bioresource Technology 97, 500–505. Farrel A.E., Plevin R.J., Turner B.T., Jones A.D., O’Hare M., Kammen D.M., 2006, Ethanol can contribute to Energy and environmental goals, Science, 311, 506-508. Fezzani, B., Ben Cheikh, R., (2007). Optimisation of the mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill wastewater with olive mill solid waste in a batch digester. Desalination, 228, 159-167. Fischer CR, Marcuschamer DK and Stephanopoulos (2008). Selection and optimization of microbial hosts for biofuels production. Metabolic Engineering, 10, 295-304 Hanegraaf, M.C., Biewinga, E.E., Van der Bijl, G., 1998. Assessing the ecological and economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass and Bioenergy 15 (4/5), 345–355. Hansson, M., Nordberg, Å., Sundh, I. and Mathisen, B. (2002) Early warning of disturbances in a laboratory-scale MSW biogas process. Water Science and Technology, 45, (10), 255-260. Harms P., Kostov Y., Rao G. 2002. Bioprocess monitoring. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 13, 124-127 INTUSER, 2007. Information network on the technology of utilization and sustainability of energy resources, European Commission. Available at: http://www.intuser.net/5/1/renewable_70.php Accessed May 10, 2008. Jacobi, H. F.; Moschner, C. R.; Hartung, E. (2009). Monitoring of the biogas process by NIRS. Landtechnik, 64, 2, 119-122. Jungmeier G., 2000, Base line scenarios for greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy, Proceedings of 1st Word Conference and Exhibition on Biomass for Energy and Industry, Sevilla, 5-9 june 2000. Kirk J.H. 2009. Pathogens in manure. Available at: http: //www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INFDA/pathog-manure.pdf Klinke HB, Thomsen AB, Ahring BK. (2004). Inhibition of ethanol-producing yeast and bacteria by degradation products produced during pretreatment of biomass. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 66, 10-26. Komives C., Parker R. 2003. Bioreactor state estimation and control. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 14, 468-474 Kowal E.N., 1985 – Health effects of land application of municipal sludge. EPA Report 600/1-85/015 Liu, H., Logan, B.E., 2004. Electricity generation using an air-cathode single chamber microbial fuel cell in the presence and absence of a proton exchange membrane. Environ Sci Technol 38:4040– 4046. Liu, J. (2003) Instrumentation, Control and Automation in Anaerobic Digestion. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Biotechnology, Lund University, Sweden. Logan, B.E., Call, D., Cheng, S., Hamelers, H.V.M., Sleutels, T.H.J.A., Jeremiasse, A.W. and Rozendal, R.A., 2008. Microbial electrolysis cells for high yield hydrogen gas production from organic matter. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42 (23), 8630-8640 Olsson L and Hahn-Hägerdal B. (1993). Fermentative performance of bacteria and yeasts in lignocellulose hydrolysates. Process Biochem 28, 249-57. Palmqvist E and Hahn-Hägerdal B. (2000). Fermentation of lignocellulosic hydrolysates II:Inhibitors and mechanisms of inhibition. Biores Technol 74, 25-33. Paska J.; 2009, Current status end perspectives of renewable Energy sources in Poland, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 142-154. Pimentel D., 2003, Ethanol fuels: Energy balance, economic and environmental impacts are negative, Natural Resources Research, 12, 127-134. Ren, N.Q., Chua, H., Chan, S.Y., Tsang, Y.F., Wang, Y.J., Sin, N., 2007. Assessing optimal fermentation type for bio-hydrogen production in continuous-flow acidogenic reactors, Bioresource Technology 98, 1774–1780 20 Rinaldi, A., Mecheri, B., Garavaglia, V., Licoccia, S., Di Nardoc, P. and Traversa, E., 2008. Engineering materials and biology to boost performance of microbial fuel cells: a critical review. Energy Environ. Sci., 1, 417–429 | 417. Scarff M, Arnold SA, Harvey LM, McNeil B. 2006. Near infrared spectroscopy for bioprocess monitoring and control: current status and future trends. Crit Rev Biotechnol, 26, 17-39 Skibsted E, Lindemann C, Roca C, Olsson L. 2001. On-line bioprocess monitoring with a multiwavelength fluorescence sensor using multivariate calibration. Journal of Biotechnology, 88, 4757 Spinelli R., 2003, Il progetto ChipCost del CNR; uno stato dell’arte su scala nazionale, Legno Energia, 1, 20-29. Steyer, J.-P., Bouvier, J. C., Conte, T., Gras, P., Harmand, J. and Delgenes, J. P. (2002a) Online measurements of COD, TOC, VFA, total and partial alkalinity in anaerobic digestion processes using infra-red spectrometry. Water Science and Technology, 45, (1), 133-138. Steyer, J.-P., Bouvier, J. C., Conte, T., Gras, P. and Sousbie, P. (2002b) Evaluation of a four year experience with a fully instrumented anaerobic digestion process. Water Science and Technology, 45, (4-5), 495-502. Suehara K, Yano T. 2004. Bioprocess monitoring using near-infrared spectroscopy Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol, 90, 173-98. Switzenbaum, M. S., Giraldo-Gomez, E. and Hickey, R. F. (1990) Monitoring of the anaerobic methane fermentation process. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 12, 722-730. Ward A. J., Hobbs P. J., Holliman P. J., Jones L. D. (2008). Optimization of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresource Technology, 99, 7928–794 21 22 Obiettivi ǯ ǡ Ǧǡ°ǡǡǤ ͳȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ʹȌ ǡ Ǧ ǯ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ ͵ȌȋȌ ǡ Ǥ ͶȌ Ǥ 23 ͷȌ ǡ ǯ ȋ ǡmicrobialfuelcellǡ ǤȌǡ ǡ î ǯ Ǥ Ȍ ǯ Ǧ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȍ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 24 Valorizzazionedieffluentieresiduiagricolimediantelaproduzionedi bioenergia Responsabiledell’attivitàǣǡǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ʹǡ ʹͲͳ͵͵ Ǥ Ǧ ǣǤ̷Ǥ ͳǤ ȋȌ° ǡ Ǥ ǡ ° Ͷ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡȌȋͳȌ ǡǯǡ Ǥ ° ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ȌǤ ǯ Ͷ ȋ Ȍ ȋʹȌǤ ǯ° ȋ ͳͳǡͳͲͻȀ͵ǡ αͳ ǡ Ͳιǡ î Ȍ ǯǤ ǯ î ǡ ǡǤ 25 Presentazione dei risultati. ȋͳȌǤ Ǥ ȋʹȌ ǡ ǡ ȋǤ ǡ ǡ Ȍ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ ° Ǣ ǯ Ǥ ȋ ʹȌ ǯ ǡǯArundodonax ȋǤ Ȍ ȋͳͳǦͳʹȀȌǤ° ȋǤ ǡǡ ǤǤȌȋ ͳȌǤ ° ǡ Ǥ Figura1. ǦǦǤ 26 Tabella1.Ǥ Campione SS SV TOC TKN NDF ADF ADL Cellulosa % t.q. Emicell. Cell. Solub. % OD20 ABP gO2/kg ss NL/kg ss s.s. Insilato segale 23.0 85.1 45.5 1.28 61.3 38.5 5.52 33.0 22.8 38.7 6.9 567 Trinc. di mais 33.5 96.7 51.7 1.25 52.1 19.5 7.52 12.0 32.6 47.9 16.8 650 Sorgo 14.8 89.6 47.9 1.26 51.9 30.7 5.12 25.6 21.2 48.1 4.62 352 Pula di riso 86.1 93.3 49.9 46.9 17.1 6.27 10.8 29.8 53.1 11.5 700 Scarti di verde 99.3 66.0 35.3 0.58 45.1 44.6 23.9 20.7 0.5 54.9 15.0 206 Trebbie 24.5 93.1 49.8 3.69 49.1 27.9 11.2 16.7 21.2 50.9 98.0 735 Estr. di mirtillo 66.2 96.7 51.7 0 0 100.0 308.0 621 Polpa di bietole fresc. 11.9 89.8 48.0 0.82 44.6 25.4 12.0 13.4 19.2 55.4 94.0 754 nd 0 0 0 0 Polpa di bietole ins. 22.4 92.9 49.7 1.14 54.2 29.9 19.2 10.6 24.3 45.9 124.0 579 Polpa di bietole press. 25.1 92.8 42.8 1.03 50.02 29.2 13.1 16.1 21.0 49.8 104.0 661 Foglie di bietole press 21.0 90.1 40.8 1.13 53.6 31.6 12.4 19.2 21.9 46.4 90.0 422 Germogli 91.6 99.0 49.7 1.62 60.4 36.1 29.5 6.6 24.3 39.6 168.0 688 Glutine 57.4 98.7 33.9 9.70 41.5 36.9 34.4 2.5 4.5 58.5 94.0 325 Vinaccioli 95.8 96.3 51.5 1.51 62.4 58.9 52.0 6.9 3.4 37.6 103.0 166 Vinacce umide 35.9 91.6 49.0 2.48 64.5 60.4 40.7 19.8 4.1 35.5 92.0 121 Vinacce senza semi 27.3 29.9 41.1 2.99 68.9 67.8 54.4 13.4 1.1 31.1 54.0 128 Vinacce secche 95.4 91.6 43.8 2.03 56.0 45.1 43.4 1.7 10.9 44.0 127.0 294 Farinaccio di riso 82.4 99.0 53.0 2.55 53.5 37.5 13.1 24.3 16.0 46.5 53.4 500 Sansa 53.8 99.8 53.4 2.09 66.9 58.4 38.3 20.0 8.5 33.1 72.0 379 Arundo 35.5 95.0 50.8 0.96 82.6 55.8 12.8 43.0 26.8 17.4 53.4 430 Frutta e verdura 13.4 76.8 41.1 0.80 29.9 29.6 14.4 15.2 0.3 70.1 nd 787 Stocco 28.4 92.1 49.9 0.96 59.1 36.3 7.5 28.8 22.8 40.9 nd 476 Panico 23.9 89.1 47.5 1.93 66.4 42.2 9.8 34.4 22.2 36.6 nd 516 Tritello 87.7 96.4 52.2 2.33 27.7 9.0 3.2 5.7 18.7 72.3 nd 792 α Ǣ α Ǣ α Ǣ α Ǣ α Ǣ α Ǣ ʹͲα Ǣ α 27 Tabella2ǤǤ H2 Campione L/kg ss Insilato di mais 105.7 Estratto mirtillo 123 Polpa di barbabietola 69.9 Vinacce secche 12.7 Farinaccio di riso 96.6 Sansa di olive 48.7 Arundo donax 101.6 Vorva 60 Loietto 11 Glucosio (biomassa di riferimento) 240 Figura2. Ǥ 28 ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǯ î Ǥ Figura 3. Reattori contenenti inoculo. Figura 4. Gas bag per la raccolta del gas prodotto. ǡ ǡ Ǥ ° Ǥ ǯ ȋ Ȍ°ͷͲͲ ͵͵ Ǥ ° ͵ι ͻͲ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ° Ǥ 29 ȋ͵Ȍ ͵ͲͲ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ȋ Ȍ ° Ǥ ǡ ° ȋ ͶȌǤ ǯ ° ȋͷͷιȌǡ ǯ ǯǤ Ǣ ǯ ° ǯǤ ȋȌǤ ȋ Ȍ Ǧ î Ǣ ǦȋͷȌǤ Figura5.ǯ Ǥ 30 ʹǤ ȋȌ ȋȌ ° ̵ Ǥ ǡ ° ǡ ǡ ̵ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǣ Ȍ ǡȌ ȋȌǤ Figura6. Ǥ 31 Ǣ ǦǤ Presentazione dei risultati. ȋαʹͺȌȋ Ȍ ǦǤ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ ° Ǥ Figura7. Ǥ 32 Utilizzo delle acque di lavaggio dei caseifici come substrato per le MFC. Ǥͳ° ͳǣͷȋȀȌǡ ȋȌǡ ° ȋ͵ȌǤ Tabella 3Ǥ ȋα Ǣ α ǡ οΨα ȌǤ Analisi COD [g/l] BOD5 [g/l] N-NH3 [mg/l] NO3- [mg/l] N-tot [mg/l] pH Conduttività [ȝS] Media In 2.07±0.03 1.25±0.07 127±19.1 < 0.3 149.75±0.35 6.99±0.11 11.82±0.09 Media Out 0.4±0.04 0.08±0.002 83.8±7.8 < 0.3 100.25±3.2 6.88±0.08 11.96±0.12 ¨% 80.6 92.8 34.0 / 33.1 Ͷ ǡ Ǣ ǯ ȋ Ȍ ǯ° ǯͺͲΨ ͷȋ Ȍ °ͻ͵ΨǤ Ǥʹ Ǥͳǯ ǡ ǡ°ͳǣͳͲǤ ° ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǥ 33 Tabella4. ȋα Ǣ α ǡ οΨα ȌǤ Analisi COD [mg/l; g/l] COD solubile[g/l] BOD5 [g/l] N-NH3 [mg/l] NO3- [mg/l] N-tot [mg/l] pH Conduttività [mS] Media In 5.1±0.4 0.35±0.02 0.37±0.05 3.65±0.6 41.5±0.2 188±2.8 6.41±0.12 2.58±0.07 Media Out 3.8±0.5 0.13±0.01 0.09±0.02 4.3±0.9 14.1±1.6 144.5±10.6 6.49±0.22 2.72±0.28 ¨% 25.1 62.9 75.8 -16.4 66.1 23.1 ° ǡ ʹ Ǥ ȋͶȌ ǯ ǯ ͷǤ ǡ° ȋ ͷȌǤ ȋȌ ͵ ° Ǥ Tabella5Ǥ Lav. Casei +PBS Lav. Casei+Denitro mV(ȍ) OCV mV C.E % Curr. Dens mA/m2max Pwr. DensmW/m2max Power prodution W/m3 540(1K) 0.41 20±0.017 2481±2.7 456±18 12.63±2.45 (250 ȍ ) 354(1K) 0.20 17±0.008 986.16± 13 138.6±35.5 3.83±0.98 (500ȍ) 34 Utilizzo delle fecce di vino rosso e di vino bianco come substrato per le MFC. ° ǡ Ǥ Ǥ͵° ͳǣͳͷǡ ȋαͳͲͲȌǡ ± ȋα͵ǤȌȋȌǤ Tabella 6. ȋα Ǣ α ǡ οΨα ȌǤ Analisi COD [g/l] BOD5 [g/l] N-NH3 [mg/l] NO3- [mg/l] N-tot [mg/l] pH Conduttività [ȝS] In 10.1±0.3 0.85±0.07 129.5±3.9 1.5±0.1 148.5±18.5 7±0.06 11.6±0.08 Out 7.3±0.9 0.55±0.01 83.9±12.8 0.8±0.1 112.5±1.9 6.22±0.23 12.27±0.85 ¨% 27.9 35.3 35.2 48.3 24.2 ǤͶ°ǡ ǡ ȋȌ ȋ Ȁ ͳǣͶͲȌǡ ȋα͵ǤͺȌȋȌǤ Tabella 7. ȋα Ǣ α ǡ οΨα ȌǤ Analisi COD [g/l] BOD5 [g/l] N-NH3 [mg/l] NO3- [mg/l] N-tot [mg/l] pH Conduttività [ȝS] In 6.4±0.1 6±0.2 127±22.4 3.15±0.07 135±1.41 6.92±0.04 12.00±0.5 35 Out 0.645±0.11 0.12±0.01 69.7±3 0.55±0.01 94.0±4.5 6.74±0.08 11.98±0.3 ¨% 89.9 98 45.1 81.28 30.4 ȋǦȌ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ͻͲΨ ͻͺΨȌ ͷ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ʹȀ͵ ȋʹǤͻΨ͵ͷǤʹΨͷȌǤ ǡǡǡ Ǥ ǣ ͺǤʹȀ͵ ͵Ǥͳ Ȁ͵ ȋ ͺȌǤ ǯ Ǥ Tabella8. Ǥ mV(ȍ) OCV mV C.E % Fecce Rosse 302(1K) 0.17 9±0.07 Curr. Dens mA/m2 max 725±12 Fecce Bianche 422(1K) 0.42 12±0.04 1363± 20 Power prodution W/m3 Pwr. Dens mW/m2 max 111.2±5 3.1±0.08 (500ȍ) 262±4 8.23±0.002 (500ȍ) ͵Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ° ǡ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ° ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ 36 Ǥ ° ǣ Ǥ Ǥ î Ǥ °î Ǥ ǡ ± ȋ Ȍ ǣͳ͵ǡǦ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ ǯ Ǥ ȋȌ ͻǤ ͳͲ ǯǡ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡǡ ǡǡ ǡǡǯǦǤ 37 Tabella9. ͶͲ Campioni pH S.S. % t.q. S.V. TOC % s.s. NH3 Azoto tot mg/l Fosforo Potassio g/kg s.s. A 8.18 8.80 74.11 41.21 2463 68.21 12.41 32.67 B 7.78 8.68 68.62 38.16 3664 67.26 12.32 57.23 C 8.42 4.36 65.69 36.53 4445 80.36 12.86 54.17 D 8.32 3.64 66.35 36.89 3410 142.86 13.21 59.51 E 8.28 3.00 68.38 39.42 2747 141.90 29.41 80.78 F 7.48 4.28 71.35 41.13 2932 93.37 31.02 61.75 G 7.96 3.73 71.01 40.94 3351 110.75 24.90 80.01 H 7.48 3.75 71.3 41.11 2255 112.00 26.80 67.77 I 8.11 4.71 70.83 40.83 2545 67.94 32.54 50.82 J 7.66 6.93 75.28 40.85 966 58.03 11.69 42.82 K 7.57 7.18 76.35 41.43 2007 60.44 11.07 46.21 L 7.6 8.02 80.42 43.90 1812 54.86 9.04 41.90 M 7.65 6.48 76.83 41.70 2104 66.36 10.68 54.11 N 7.78 7.32 75.83 41.14 1770 42.08 10.32 52.51 O 7.7 7.16 78.21 45.09 1930 58.00 11.42 49.83 P 7.14 7.74 79.58 45.88 1679 55.55 11.51 46.14 Q 7.57 8.42 78.70 45.37 2420 67.70 12.47 50.45 R 7.7 7.39 76.46 44.08 2382 67.66 11.42 43.58 S 7.4 6.92 78.43 46.00 1377 59.25 15.64 53.65 T 7.68 3.96 72.28 42.00 1967 88.38 24.07 47.57 U 7.61 4.73 70.35 41.00 2125 67.59 19.16 53.52 V 7.54 5.96 74.68 43.00 1871 65.44 17.76 52.86 V 7.55 7.70 73.45 42.21 1866 63.64 18.96 39.82 X 7.95 7.23 70.92 40.76 2432 65.00 23.67 49.73 Y 7.43 7.76 72.22 41.51 2595 64.44 22.73 41.99 Z 7.52 9.20 76.65 44.05 2203 52.17 22.82 41.89 AA 8.00 7.48 77.13 44.33 2915 68.19 27.24 57.11 AB 7.52 11.40 77.71 44.66 1074 34.03 19.35 25.23 AC 7.79 4.67 75.86 43.60 2058 83.01 26.72 51.01 AD 7.74 5.79 78.04 44.85 1961 59.76 19.34 33.95 AE 7.34 5.13 77.45 44.51 1494 72.12 18.78 51.59 AF 7.62 8.06 77.24 44.39 1514 33.50 20.86 24.58 AG 8.17 8.06 65.25 37.62 4201 85.73 28.88 56.36 AH 8.46 6.86 60.33 34.78 3959 94.31 30.70 68.87 AI 8.34 4.34 68.25 39.00 2215 92.17 25.57 74.42 AJ 8.09 4.05 67.57 38.96 2174 98.80 23.89 80.37 AK 8.12 5.35 67.89 39.00 2196 82.29 13.44 53.09 AL 8.33 10.51 70.43 38.28 4295 69.95 19.06 71.89 AM 8.02 9.70 70.46 38.29 3822 72.16 19.70 73.30 AN 8.01 9.40 70.45 38.29 3794 76.33 19.38 72.59 38 ProduzionedibioenergiadaresiduilignoǦcellulosici Responsabiledell’attivitàǣǡ ǡ ǡ ʹǡǤǦǣǤ̷ǤǤ ͳǤ ǯ ǡ ǡǯ Ǥ ͵ͲΨ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǯͺͷΨ ° ǯͳͲʹͲͳͲʹͲͷͲȏͳǡʹȐǤ ǯǯ ǡ ǡ° ǡ ǯî Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ǯ ° î ǡ Ǥ ǯ Ǥ î ǡ Ǣ 39 ǯ Ǥ ȋ ͶͲǦ ͷͷΨȌǡ ȋ ʹͷǦͶͲΨȌȋ ͳͷǦ͵ͲΨȌǢ î ȋȌǡȋȌȏ͵ǦͷȐǤ Saccharomyces cerevisiae ° ǡ ȏǦͺȐǤǡǯ ȏǡ ͻǦͳͳȐ ǯ Ǥ Dz dz Ǥ ǡ ° ǯ ǡ ȏͳʹȐǤ ° ȋ ǡ ȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȏͳ͵ǡͳͶȐǤ ° ǣ x S. cerevisiae î Ǧ Ǣ x S.cerevisiae Ǣ x Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ ȋȌ Ǥ 40 ʹǤ CaratterizzazionedeirifiutiagroaziendaliabaselignoǦcellulosicaǤ °ǯȋǤǦ ǡȋȌ° ǡ Ǥ ° ǡ ǯ ȋ ȌǤ ° ǣ - ȋ ǡ ǡ Ȍ - - ȋͳȌ Ǥ Figura 1Ǥ ǯ Ǧ Ǥ 41 ǡ° Ǥ ° Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǡǤ Sviluppo di sistemi di lievito migliorati per la conversione dei residui. ǯ ǡ ǡS.cerevisiaeǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǯǤ Öǡ ° ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ͷ Ǥ ± ȋ ǡ ǡ ° ǯ ǡ Ȍǡ ° ǡ ͵ͲΨ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ¿ ǡ î ǡǤ 42 ° ȋ ǡȌǡî Ǥ IngegneriametabolicaperlacostruzionediunceppodiS.cerevisiaeproduttorediacidoLǦ ascorbico.Ǥ° ° ȏͳͷȐǡ ǡ ȋʹȌǤ Antioxidant levels 0.14 0.12 0.1 mg/l OD 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 GRF18Uc GRF ALO LGDH 1.AtME 2.AtVTC2 24h, YNB Glu2% 3.AtVTC4 4.AtLGDH 5.ScALO Figura 2Ǥ S. cerevisiae ȋ ǣ Ǣ ǣȌ ǯ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ö î ǡ ǯ ȏͳȐ ǡ î ȋ͵ȌǤ 43 Acetic Acid 60mM pH 3 OD (660 nm) Formic Acid 15mM pH 3 2,4 3,0 2,0 2,5 OD (660 nm) 1,6 1,2 0,8 0,4 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 0 time (hours) control 10 20 30 40 50 time (hours) producing strain Figura 3Ǥ S. cerevisiae Ȍ ȋ ȌǤ ȋȌǤ Ingegnerizzazione per la creazione di un ceppo di lievito S. cerevisiae in grado di metabolizzarezuccheria5atomidicarbonio.ǯ° ǯ ǡ ǣ ȋȌ ȋȌ ǡ Pichia stipitis ȏͳȐǡ ǯ PyromycessppǤClostridiumȏͳͺȐǢ Ǧͷǡ ǡ Ǥ °ǡ CaulobactersppǤPseudomonasspp.ǡ Ǧ ǡͶǤ ° ǡ ȋ ° ǡ ȌǤ 44 Figura4Ǥ Ǥ C.crescentus B.xenovorans Ǧǡǡ ǡ ǣǢǦ ͳǡͶǦǢǢʹǦǦ͵ǦǦǢǦ Ǥ ǡ ʹǦǦ͵ǦǦ ʹǦǦ͵Ǧ ǡ °ȀPseudomonas fragi ǤǤǤǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ Escherichiacoliǡ ʹǦǦ͵Ǧ ȏͳͻȐǤ ° ǡ Ǥ ¿ ǡ 45 ȋǡ ȌǤǡǡ ʹǦǦ͵Ǧ ȋȌ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ͷȌ ȋȌǤ Figura5Ǥ ȋȌ S.cerevisiae Ǥ Ǥ Figura6Ǥ ȋʹͲȀȌ S.cerevisiae ȋȌǤǤǯ ° ͳͲͲΨǣ Ǥ 46 ǡ° Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ Messa a punto di processi integrati per l’idrolisi della componente lignocellulosica di stocchi di mais e recupero dell’acido ferulico. ǯ Aspergillus terreus Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ȋ Trichoderma resei Aspergillus nigerȌ ǡ ͺΨ Ǥ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ Figura7ǣ Ǧ Ǥ 47 Biotrasformazionedell’acidoferulicoinvanillina.ǯ ͳ° ǣ ȋ ͺȌ ȋ PseudomonasspǤȌ° StreptoccocusthermophilusLactobacillusparacasei ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ͵ͲΨ ͳȀǤ Figura8Ǥǯ Ǥ ͵Ǥ ° ǣ x ǯ Ǧ Ǧǡ ° Ǥ x ǯ S.cerevisiae ǡǡ î ǡ 48 ǡ ° Ǥ x ǯ ǡ ͷǦ Ǥ x ǯ Aspergillus terreus Ǥ x ǯ ǯ Ǥ x ȋStreptoccocus thermophilus Lactobacillus paracaseiȌ ǡ ͵ͲΨǤ ͶǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 49 ͷǤ ȏͳȐ ǡǤ ǢʹͲͳͳǤ ȏʹȐȋʹͲͳͳȌNextgenerationbiofuelsǤǡͶͶǣʹǦͷǤ ȏ͵ȐǡǡȋʹͲͲͳȌFuelethanolproductionfromlignocellulose:achallenge formetabolicengineeringandprocessintegrationǤ ǡͷȋͳǦʹȌǣͳǦ͵ͶǤ ȏͶȐ ± ǡ ÓǦ ǡ ǡ À ȋʹͲͲʹȌ Biodegradation and biological treatmentsofcellulose,hemicelluloseandlignin:anoverviewǤ ǡͷȋʹȌǣͷ͵Ǧ͵Ǥ ȏͷȐǡǡǡǡǡǡǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲȌ Alcoholic fermentation of carbon sources in biomass hydrolysates by Saccharomyces cerevisiae: current statusǤ ǡͻͲȋͶȌǣ͵ͻͳǦͶͳͺǤ ȏȐ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳͳȌ Productionofrecombinantproteinsandmetabolitesinyeasts:whenarethesesystemsbetter thanbacterialproductionsystems? ǡͺͻȋͶȌǣͻ͵ͻǦͻͶͺǤ ȏȐ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͻȌ Yeast cell factory: fishing for the best one or engineering it? ǡͺǣͷͳǤ ȏͺȐǡǡǡ ǡȋʹͲͲȌHowdidSaccharomyces evolvetobecomeagoodbrewer? ǡʹʹȋͶȌǣͳͺ͵ǦͳͺǤ ȏͻȐǡǡǦ¡ȋͳͻͻͻȌInfluenceoffurfuralonanaerobicglycolytic kineticsofSaccharomycescerevisiaeinbatchcultureǤ ǡʹȋͶȌǣͶͶǦͶͷͶǤ ȏͳͲȐ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͺȌ Microbial production of organic acids:expandingthemarketsǤ ǡʹȋʹȌǣͳͲͲǦͳͲͺǤ ȏͳͳȐ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͺȌ Metabolically engineered yeasts: 'potential' industrialapplicationsǤ ǡͳͷȋͳȌǣ͵ͳǦͶͲ ȏͳʹȐ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲȌ Bioconversion of ferulate into vanillin by E.coli strain jm 109/pBB1 in an immobilizedǦcell reactorǤ ǡͷͶȋͶȌǣͷͳǦͷʹǤ ȏͳ͵Ȑ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋͳͻͻͻȌ Basidiomycetes as new biotechnological tools to generate natural aromatic flavours for the food industryǤ ǡͳȋȌǣʹͺʹǦʹͺͻǤ ȏͳͶȐ ǡ ȋͳͻͻͻȌ TowardsahighǦyieldconversionofferulicacidtovanillinǤ ǡͷͳǣͶͷǦͶͳǤ ȏͳͷȐǡǡǡǡ ǡȋʹͲͲȌBiosynthesisof vitaminCbyyeastleadstoincreasedstressresistanceǤǡ ͵ͳǢʹȋͳͲȌǤ ȏͳȐǡǡǡǡǡȋʹͲͳ͵ȌDifferentresponseto aceticacidstressinSaccharomycescerevisiaewildǦtypeandlǦascorbicacidǦproducingstrainsǤ ǡ͵ͲȋͻȌǣ͵ͷǦ͵ͺǤ ȏͳȐ ǡ Ǧ ȋʹͲͲͺȌ Cellulosic ethanol production using the naturally occurringxyloseǦfermentingyeast,PichiastipitisǤ ǡ͵ͲȋͻȌǣͳͷͳͷǦͳͷʹͶǤ ȏͳͺȐǡǡȋʹͲͲͻȌFunctionalexpressionofabacterialxyloseisomerasein SaccharomycescerevisiaeǤ ǡͷȋͺȌǣʹ͵ͲͶǦʹ͵ͳͳǤ ȏͳͻȐǤȋʹͲͳʹȌ Ǥ 50 Tecnologieinnovativeebiosensoriperlavalorizzazionedieffluentie residui Responsabile dell’attivitàǣ ǡ ǡ ȂǡǡǡǡʹǡʹͲͳ͵͵Ǥ ǦǣǤ̷ǤǤ ͳǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ ȋǤǡʹͲͲͺȌǤ in situ ǡ ǯ Ǥ 51 ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ö Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋ Ȁǡǡǡǡ ǤǢǤǡʹͲͲͺǡǤǡʹͲͲͻǡ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲ͵Ȍ ǡ ǡ ǡ ¿ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Applicazioni sensoristiche innovative. î ǡ ȋ ǤǡʹͲͲͳȌ ȋ Ǥǡ ʹͲͲ͵Ȍ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ Ö Ǥǡ 52 ° ǣ Ȍ ǡ î Ǣ Ȍ ǡ ǡǤ Limitidegliapprocciclassicidimonitoraggiodeibioprocessi. ǡ Ö Ǧ ȋ ° ǡ ǯ ǯ Ȍ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ± ǡ±Ǥ Ǧǯ ǡ 53 Ǧ ǯ Ǥ Livello di AGV come indicatore delle fermentazioni energetiche di biomasse di scarto. ǡ ȋ ȌǦ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ° ǯ ǡ Ǥ ° Ȁ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ȌǤ ǯ Ȁǡ ǡ ° ǡ ǯ ͲǤ͵ǦͲǤͷ ǯ ǡ ͲǤ Ǥ ǡ 54 Ǥ ǡ ° Ǥ î ° Ȁ ͳǤͶǦͳǤͷǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ° ͵ǦͶȀ͵Ǥ ǯ ǡǡ° Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ î Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ǡî Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ö ͳͲ Ȁ͵ îǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǡ Ȍ ǯ ǡ 55 ǡ Ǥ ʹǤ Misure ottiche per la valutazione onǦline degli AGV nelle fermentazioni di biomasse di scarto. ǯ î Ǥ ǯ ȋ ȌǦ ȋ ȌǤ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ îǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ î ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǯǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 56 ǡ ͳͲͲʹͶͲͲǤ Ǥ ° ǣ Ȍ î Ǣ Ȍ ǡ ǡ ° ǯ Ǣ Ȍǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ȋͺͲͲǦʹͷͲͲ Ȍ ǡ ȋ ͳȌ Ǥ Ǥ ȋǡ Ȍ î Ǥ ǯ ǡ Ǧ ǯ Ͳǡͷ Ȁ͵ ʹͲȀ͵ȋʹȌǤ 57 Figura 1Ǥ ȋǦȌ Ǥ 58 Stimamodellospettrale(g/L) Stimamodellospettrale(g/L) R2 =0.986 RMSEP=0.69g/L Concentrazioneac.acetico(g/L) R2 =0.992 RMSEP=0.54g/L Concentrazioneac.proprionico (g/L) Figura 2Ǥ Ǥ ǡ° Ǥ °ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ͳͳͲȀ͵Ǥ Ǥ ͵ Ǥ Ö ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǡǡǡȌ Ǥ 59 Assorbimento spettrale(1stder) bassiAGV[1g/LHAc eq.] mediAGV [3g/LHAc eq.] elevatiAGV [7g/LHAc eq.] 2200 2300 Lunghezza d’onda(nm) Figura3. ǡ ȋǡǡ Ȍ ȋ ǣ Ȍ ǡ Ȍ ǡ Ȍ ȌǤ Ö ǡ Ǥ Sensori elettrochimici per la discriminazione del processo di fermentazione in digestori anaerobici:ilnasoelettronico. ǯ ǡ ǯ ° ǡ ° ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ö ǣ 60 Ȉ ǡ ǯ ǡ ȋͳ ʹȌǢ Ȉ ǯȋǯȌǢ Ȉ Ȁ ǣ ǡȋ ¿ ǯ Ȍ DzdzǤ Tabella1. Ǧʹdzǡ Ǥ Numero del sensore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Descrizione del sensore Composti aromatici Molto sensibile, reattivo agli ossidi di azoto, molto sensibile con segnali negativi ammoniaca Principalmente idrogeno Alcani Metano ca 10 ppm Composti solforati, altrimenti sensibile a terpeni e limonene , pirazine Composti alccolici Composti aromatico-solforati Alte concentrazioni ,metano in generale Riferimento Toluene, 10 ppm NO2, 1 ppm Benzene 10 ppm H2, 100ppb Propano, 1 ppm CH3, 100ppm H2S, 1 ppm CO, 100 ppm H2S,1 ppm CH3, 100 ppm Ma come lavora un naso elettronico? Nell’immagine seguente (Figura 4) vediamo a sinistra lo strumento al lavoro (“Airsense PEN 2”, AIRSENSE Analytics GmbH dotato di sensori MOS – Metal oxide semiconductors ovvero di sensori “caldi”) e a destra il grafico elaborato dal naso in seguito all’analisi dell’emissione odorosa dei campioni. 61 Figura4. ǣǯ ȋ ǡ ͳͻͻͺȌǤ x ǣ x ǣ x ǣ x ǣ ǣ x ǯȋȌ x ȋ ǤǡǤǡȌ x ȋȌ 62 ǡ̵ ǡ̵ ǡ° ° ̵ ǡ ̵ ̵ ǡ̵Ǥ ° î ȋ Ȍ ȋ ǡͳͻͻͺȌǤ ǯ Ǥ ͵Ǥ Spettrofotometria:primeapplicazionionlinesureattoriperlafermentazionidibiomasse di scarto. ° Ǧ ȋͷȌǤ ° Ǥ° ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ 63 ǯǡ ° ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Figura 5Ǥ ͵Ϊ͵ Ǧ Ǥ ° Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ° ǯ ǯ ͳǡͷ Ǧ ʹ Ȁ͵ Ǥ 64 ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ° Ȃ Ǧ î Ǥ ȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ Figura 6. Ǧ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ 65 Figura7Ǥ Ǧ ǯ Ǥ ° ǯ Ǥ Il naso elettronico: applicazioni su reattori per la fermentazioni di biomasse di scarto. ǡ ° ǯ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ ǡǯ ǡǡ ǡ Ö ǯ Dzdzǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǯǡ ǡ ȋ ǡ Ȍ ȋ ͳͲͺ Ȍǡ Ǥ Dz dz Ǥ 66 Tabella2. ȀǡǤ Rapporto FOS/TAC >0.6 0,5–0,6 0,4–0,5 0,3–0,4 0,2–0,3 <0,2 Indicazione Eccessivo carico organico Carico organico alto L’impianto sta per entrare in sovraccarico Condizione ideale per la produzione di biogas Carico organico insufficiente Carico organico troppo basso ǡ° ǡǡ î ǯ Ǥ ͺ ȋ ǡ ͳǥ ͺ ȌǤ Figura 8Ǥ ǯ ȋ ǡ ͳǥ ͺ ȌǤ 67 ǡǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ° ǣ ǡ ǦǦ ȋ ʹ ȌǤ ° ǯȀ Ǥ ǯ ͻ ǣ ͳ Ǧ ͳͳǣ Ȁ ζ ͲǤʹͷǢ ͳͳ Ǧͳʹǣ Ȁ ζ ͲǤ͵ͺǢ ͳ͵Ǧͳͷǣ ȀζͲǤͶͲǢͳǦͳǣȀζͲǤͶͳǢͳͺǦʹͲǣȀηͲǤͷͷǤ ȋ ͻȌ ǯ ǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ǦǤ îǯ ͳǤ Figura 9Ǥ ǯ ȋ ȋ Ȍǡ Ǧ ǯǦͳȌǤ 68 ° ǯǡ ǡ ȋ ͵Ȍ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ ad hoc ǡ ǦDz dzǡ ǡ Dz dz Ǥ Risvolti futuri: il concetto di Sensor Fusion per il monitoraggio on line del processo di fermentazione anaerobica. ǡ ° ǯ ǡ ° Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ Dzdz Ȃ ȋǤǡͳͻͻͻȌǡ ̵ǯǤ sensor fusion, î ǡ ȋ Ȍǣ Ǧ ȋ Ǥǡ ͳͻͻͻǢ ǡʹͲͲͲȌǤ ͶǤ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǡ 69 Ǥ ǦǤ° Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ° Ǥ Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ Dzdz Ȃ Ǥ ǡ Ö Ǥ ͷǤ Bachinger T, Riese U, Eriksson RK, Mandenius CF. Gas sensor arrays for early detection of infection in mammalian cell culture. Biosens Bioelectron 2002;17(5):395-403. Cimander C, Bachinger T, Mandenius C-F (2002) Assessment of the performance of a fed-batch cultivation from the preculture quality using an electronic nose. Biotechnol Prog 18(2):380–386. doi:10.1021/bp010166j Cimander C, Carlsson M, Mandenius C-F (2002) Sensor fusion for on-line monitoring of yoghurt fermentation. J Biotechnol 99(3):237–248. doi:10.1016/s0168-1656(02)00213-4 Hansson M, Nordberg A ° , Mathisen B (2003) On-line NIR monitoring during anaerobic treatment of municipal solid waste. Water Sci Technol 48(4):9–13 70 Holm-Nielsen JB, Lomborg CJ, Oleskowicz-Popiel P, Esbensen KH (2008) On-line near infrared monitoring of glycerol-boosted anaerobic digestion processes: evaluation of process analytical technologies. Biotechnol Bioeng 99(2):302–313. doi:10.1002/bit.21571 Nicolas J, Romain A-C, Andre P (2001) Chemometrics methods for the identification and the monitoring of an odour in the environment with an electronic nose. In: Sensors and chemometrics. Research Signpost, India, pp 75–90 Pearce TC, Schiffman SS, Nagle HT, Gardner JW (2003) Handbook of machine olfaction: electronic nose technology. ISBN: 978-3-527-60563-7 Shaw, A.D., Winson, M.K., Woodward, A.M., McGovern,A.C., Davey, H.M., Kaderbhai, N., Broadhurst, D., Gilbert,R.J., Taylor, J., Timmins, E.M., Goodacre, R., Kell, D.B., Alsberg, B.K., Rowland, J.J., 1999. Rapid analysis of high dimensional bioprocesses using multivariate spectroscopies and advanced chemometrics. In: Scheper, P. (Ed.), Adv. Biochem. Eng., vol. 66. Springer, pp. 83_/113. Todeschini R. 1998. Introduzione alla chemiometria. Ed. Edises. ISBN: 8879591460 Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL (2008) Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresource Technology 99(17):7928–7940. Zhang ML, Sheng GP, Mu Y, Li WH, Yu HQ, Harada H, Li YY (2009) Rapid and accurate determination of VFAs and ethanol in the effluent of an anaerobic H2-producing bioreactor using near infrared spectroscopy. Water Res 43(7):1823–1830. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.01.018. 71 72 Valutazione delle tecniche di trattamento e stoccaggio degli effluenti inrelazionealrischioigienicoǦsanitario Responsabile dell’attivitàǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ͳͲǡʹͲͳ͵͵ǡǤǦǣ Ǥ̷ǤǤ ͳǤ ǯ ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ° ǦǤ ǡ ¿ ǯ ǡ ° Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Dz dzǤ ǡ ǡ ʹͲͳͳǡ ͷͶ ͵ͲͲͲ ǯ EscherichiaColiǤ ǡǯ ǡ ǯ Ǥ 73 ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǯ Ö î Dzdz ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǯ ° ǡ ǯDz dzǤ ʹǤ ͺ ǡ Ͷ Ͷ ǡ Ǥ° Ǥ ȋǣ ǡ ȌǤ ° ǡ Ǧ ǯ ǡ Ȁ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ ȋ Ȍǡǡ ȀǤ ColiformiǡǯEscherichiaColiO157ȋ Ȍǡ Salmonelleǡ Lattobacilliǡ Streptococchi ClostridiǤ ǡ ǡ ʹͲ ǡ ȋͳͺιȌ ǡ ¿ ǯ ȋͳȌǤ 74 Figura1. Ǥ ͵Ǥ ǡ ° EscherichiaColiǡ±SalmonelleǤ °ǡ ǡ ǯ. Figura2. Ǥ 75 ǡ ǯǡ Ǥ ǯǡǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ͳǤ° ǯ ǡ ǦǤ ǡ ° ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǡǤ Öǡ ǡ° ǡ Ǥîǡǡ ǡ ǯ ǯ ǯǤ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ±ǯ ǡ° ǡ ¿ î ǯ Ǥ Figura3.ȋ Ȍȋ ȌǤ 76 ǯ ǡ ǡ ǦǦ ¿ ǯ Ǥ ° Ǥ Coliformiǡ Streptococchi Lattobacilli ʹǦ͵ ǡ ͳͲͲͳǤͲͲͲǤî ȋ ǯͳͲǤͲͲͲ Ȍ ǡ ͷͲǦͷͷιȋ ͵ǦͶͲι ȌǤ Ǥǡ ǡ ǡ Dzdz Ǥ Ö Ǥ Ö ClostridiumǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǡ Clostridiumǡ ǯ ȌǤ Clostridium Ǥ ǡ Dz dz ° ǡ ǡ Ǥ 77 Figura4.ǯ Ǥ Tabella 1. Ǥ ǡ ȀȀ. Coliformi Streptococchi Lattobacilli Clostridium Liquami Bovini Suini 1,32 × 105 6,98 × 107 8,44 × 105 4,31 × 105 1,39 × 105 2,30 × 106 7,18 × 104 8,79 × 105 Separato liquido Bovini Suini 1,49 × 106 6,81 × 104 6,87 × 106 1,13 × 105 1,37 × 105 3,49 × 105 6,03 × 106 1,21 × 105 Dig. anaerobica - IN Bovini Suini 9,58 × 104 2,69 × 109 1,73 × 106 4,06 × 106 1,49 × 105 3,67 × 107 8,29 × 104 8,95 × 105 Dig. anaerobica - OUT Bovini Suini 6,00 × 101 6,10 × 104 3,20 × 102 1,70 × 104 3,20 × 101 9,45 × 106 5,90 × 104 8,66 × 106 ǡ ǡ ǡ ¿ °ǯ Ǥǡ ǡ° Ǥ ° ǡ Ǥͷ Ǥ Ö ǡ ͷǦȋͳͲͲǤͲͲͲȂͳǤͲͲͲǤͲͲͲȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Coliformi Streptococchiǡ î Lattobacilli î Ǥ 78 ǡ Clostridium Ǥ Ö ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ°Ö î Ǥǡ° ° Ǥǡ ǡ Ö Ǥ ǡ ° ȋ ȌǤ Ö ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ îǡ ° Ǥ î ǡ Coliformi StreptococchiǤ Clostridium ǡ ¿ Lattobacilli ǯ Ǥ 79 Coliformi Ͳ Bovini Digestato Liquame CFU grͲ1 CFU grͲ1 1,E+07 1,E+06 1,E+05 1,E+04 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 Coliformi Ͳ Suini 1,E+05 Liquame 1,E+04 Digestato 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 0 2 Mesi 4 0 6 4 6 Streptococchi Ͳ Suini Digestato Digestato 1,E+05 Liquame Liquame 1,E+04 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 0 2 Mesi 4 6 0 Digestato 1,E+05 Liquame CFU grͲ1 1,E+04 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 0 2 Mesi 4 6 1,E+03 Digestato 1,E+02 Liquame CFU grͲ1 CFU grͲ1 1,E+04 1,E+01 1,E+00 4 6 Liquame 2 Mesi 4 6 Clostridium Ͳ Suini 1,E+05 Mesi 4 Digestato Clostridium Ͳ Bovini 2 Mesi 1,E+07 1,E+06 1,E+05 1,E+04 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 0 1,E+06 0 2 La obacilli Ͳ Suini La obacilli Ͳ Bovini 1,E+06 CFU grͲ1 Mesi 1,E+06 CFU grͲ1 CFU grͲ1 Streptococchi Ͳ Bovini 1,E+07 1,E+06 1,E+05 1,E+04 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 2 6 1,E+07 1,E+06 1,E+05 1,E+04 1,E+03 1,E+02 1,E+01 1,E+00 Digestato Liquame 0 2 Mesi 4 6 Figura 5. Ǥ ǡ ȀȀǤ 80 ǡ Ǧ ǯ î Ǥ ǡ Ȁ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ͶǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Coliformiǡ StreptococchiLattobacilli° Clostridium ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ î Ǥ ǣ ȋͶǦȌ Ǥǯ ° ǡÖ ° Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯͳǤͲͲͲǦͳͲǤͲͲͲǤ 81 ͷǤ Bicudo, J.R., Goyal, S.M., 2003. Pathogens and manure management systems: a review. Environ. Technol. 24, 115-130. Cho, S., Bender, J. B., Diez-Gonzalez, F., Fossler, C. P., Hedberg, C. W., Kaneene, J. B., Ruegg, P. L., Warnick, L. D., Wells, S. J., 2006. Prevalence and characterization of Escherichia coli O157 isolates from Minnesota dairy farms and county fairs. J. Food Prot. 69, 252–259. Coté, C., Villeneuve, A., Lessard, L., Quessy, S., 2006b. Fate of pathogenic and nonpathogenic microorganisms during storage of liquid hog manure in Quebec. Livest. Sci. 102, 204–210. Cummings, K. J., Warnick, L. D., Alexander, K. A., Cripps, C. J., Gröhn, Y. T., McDonough, P. L., Nydam, D. V., Reed, K. E,. 2009. The incidence of salmonellosis among dairy herds in the northeastern United States. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 3766–3774. Frank, C. , Werber, D. , Cramer, J.P. , Askar, M. , Faber, M. et al., 2011. Epidemic profile of Shigatoxin-producing Escherichia coli O104:H4 outbreak in Germany. N. Engl. J. Med. 365, 1771– 1780. Huston, C. L., Wittum, T. E., Love, B. C., Keen, J. E., 2002. Prevalence of fecal shedding of Salmonella spp. in dairy herds. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 220, 645–649. Hutchison, M.L., Walters, L.D., Avery, S.M., Synge, B.A., Moore A., 2004. Levels of zoonotic agents in British livestock manure. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 39, 207-214. Hutchison, M.L., Walters, L.D., Avery, S.M., Munro, F., Moore, A., 2005. Analyses of Livestock Production, Waste Storage, and Pathogen Levels and Prevalences in Farm Manures, Appl. Environ. Microb. 71, 1231-1236. Kearney, T. E., Larkin, M.J., Frost, J.P., Levett, P.N., 1993. Survival of pathogenic bacteria during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of animal waste. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 75, 215–219. Klein, M., Brown, L., van den Akker, B., Peters, G.M., Stuetz, R.M., Roser, D.J., 2010. Monitoring bacterial indicators and pathogens in cattle feedlot waste by real time PCR. Wat. Res. 44, 13811388. Massé, D., Gilbert, Y., Topp, E., 2011. Pathogen removal in farm-scale anaerobic digesters processing swine manure. Bioresource Technol. 102, 641-646. Murinda, S. E., Nguyen, L. T., Ivey, S. J., Gillespie, B. E., Almeida, R. A., Draughon, F. A., Oliver, S. P., 2002. Prevalence and molecular characterization of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in bulk tank milk and fecal samples from cull cows: A 12-month survey of dairy farms in east Tennessee. J. Food Prot. 65, 752–759. Nicholson, F.A., Groves, S.J., Chambers, B.J., 2005. Pathogen survival during livestock manure storage and following land application. Bioresource Technol. 96, 135-143. 82 Pachepsky, Y.A., Sadeghi, A.M., Bradford, S.A., Shelton, D.R., Guber, A.K., Dao, T., 2006. Transport and fate of manure-borne pathogens: Modeling perspective. Agr. Water Manage. 86, 81-92. Peu, P., Brugère, H., Pourcher, A.M., Kérourédan, M., Godon, J.J., Delgenès, J.P., Dabert, P., 2006. Dynamics of a Pig Slurry Microbial Community during Anaerobic Storage and Management. Appl. Eviron. Microbiol. 77, 3578-3585. Rogers, S.W., Donnelly, M., Peed, L., Kelty, C.A., Mondal, S., Zhong, Z., Shanks, O.C., 2011. Decay of Bacterial Pathogens, Fecal Indicators, and Real-Time Quantitative PCR Genetic Markers in Manure-Amended Soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 77, 4839-4848. Sahlström, L., 2003. A review of survival of pathogenic bacteria in organic waste used in biogas plants. Bioresource Technol. 87, 161-166. Semenov, A.V., van Overbeek, L., Termorhuizen, A.J., van Bruggen, A.H.C., 2011. Influence of aerobic and anaerobic conditions on survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in Luria-Bertani broth, farm-yard manure and slurry. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 780-787. Toth, J.D., Aceto, H.W., Rankin, S.C., Dou, Z., 2013. Survey of animal-borne pathogens in the farm environment of 13 dairy operations. J. Dairy Sci. 96, 1-6. Watanabe, H., Kitamura, T., Ochi, S., Ozaki, M., 1997. Inactivation of pathogenic bacteria under mesophilic and termophilic conditions. Water Sci. Technol. 36, 25-32. Watcharasukarn, M., Kaparaju, P., Steyer, J.P., Krogfelt, K.A., Angelidaki, I., 2009. Screening Escherichia Coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Clostridium perfringens as Indicator Organism in Evaluating Pathogen-Reducing Capacity in Biogas Plants. Microb. Ecol. 58, 221-230. Ziemer, C.J., Bonner, J.M., Cole, D., Vinjé, J., Constantini, V., Goyal, S., Gramer, M., Mackie, R., Meng, X.J., Myers, G., Saif, L.J., 2010. Fate and transport of zoonotic, bacerial, viral and parasitic pathogens during swine manure treatment, storage, and land application. J. Animal Sci. 88, 84-94. 83 84 Valutazione della sostenibilità energetica e ambientale delle tecnologieperlavalorizzazionedeiresiduiedeglieffluentiagricoli Responsabile dell’attivitàǣ ǡ ǡ ǤǡǡǡǡʹǡʹͲͳ͵͵ǤǦǣ Ǥ̷ǤǤ ͳǤ ǯ DzValutazione della sostenibilità energetica e ambientale delle tecnologieperlavalorizzazionedeiresiduiedeglieffluentiagricolidzǡ Ǧ ȋȌ Ǧ ȋ ǡȌǤ Ǥ ʹǤ ͵ ǯ modellodicalcoloȋ ͵ǦSoftwareforEconomic, EnergeticandEnvironmentalAnalysisȌ ǡ ǡ° 3 valutazioni sintetiche e fra loro integrate ͳǣ x Ǣ x Ǣ 1 Dz dzǤͳ 85 x ȋ Ȍǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳͲȌͳͳǤ ͵ ǡ ȋIndicediGlobalediSostenibilitàǢ ȌǤ Dz dzDz dz ǯ ǣ ȋȌ Ȁ Ȁ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋȌ Ȁ Ȁ ȋ Ȃ EnergyReturnonEnergy InvestedȌȋȌ ȀȀǯ Ǥ î ° ǯ ǡ ° ȋͳȌǤ ͵ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋ ǡ Life Cycle Assessmentǡ ȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ î Ǥ ǯ Ǥʹ ǡǡ°î Ǥ ǡ Ȁ ǡ ǡͳͶͲͶͲǤ ǯǣ x ͵ǡǢ x ǡ ǯǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ Ȍǡ ǡ ǡ x ͵ǡ ǯ ǯǤ 86 Figura1Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ʹǤ ͵Ǥ ȋȌ ȋ 22 impianti, Ͷ Ȍǡ ° fase di conversione ȋ ȌÖ5segmentiǣ ͳǤ Ǧ͵Ǣ ʹǤ ͶǢ ͵Ǥ ͷǢ ͶǤ Ǣ ͷǤ Ǥ ʹ Dz dzǤʹ Ͷ Dz dzǤͳʹ Dz dzǤͳ ͵ ͷ Dz dzǤͳ͵ Dz dzǤͳͶ 87 ǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤȌ ȋǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȍ ǦǤ CasiStudiovalorizzazionedeirefluiǢ îǡ° ǣ ͳǤ singolamatriceǣ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ Ǥ ° ǯ ǤǤ ȋȌ gruppo frigoriferoadassorbimentoȋ Ȍ ǦǤ ʹǤ matricemultiplaȋ Ȍǣ Ǥ Ϊ ȋͳαǡʹα ǡ͵αȌǢ Ǥ Ϊ ȋͳαǡʹα Ȍ ʹǡ ǡ Dz dzǯȋLCAboundaryȌǤ 88 Figura 2Ǥ Ǥ ǣ Ǣǣ ͺǤ ͺ Dz dzǤͷ Dz dzǤͳͲ 89 ͶǤ ǯ paglie ǡ ǡ ȋȌǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ö ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ° Ǥ 1 ǡ ǡ ǯ °ǣȋȌ ȋȌ ȋȌ ȋ ǣ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ͷǤ ǯ ǡ ͵ ǡ fasedicampo fase di trasportoǦstoccaggio energy crops ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȍ ǡ ǣ x energeticoȋȀȌǢ x ambientaleȋcarbonfootprint ǡʹȀȌǤ ǯ ͵ Ǣ ǡǡmodellizzazionemedianteSE3Apresentauna maggior accuratezza, soprattutto per quanto concerne la meccanizzazione delle operazionidicampoǤ 90 ǯ ǡ ǡ ǯintero processo di produzione dell’energia elettrica da biogasǡ ǯ ǡǯ ǯ ǯ ǡ cradleǦtoǦgraveǡ Ǥ bilancio energetico bilancio ambientale ȋȀ ε ʹǡͷǡ ͲΨȌǤǯ ȋ Ȍ ǯ ǡ ʹͲǡ ȋ͵ȌǤ SuinoTrasporto20km SuinoTrasporto5km SuinonoTrasporto BovinoTrasporto5km BovinonoTrasporto ReteelettricaITA BovinoTrasporto20km 100 90 80 Perentuale(%) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Consumorisorse Acidificazione Eutrofizzazione RiscaldamentoGlobale Figura3ǤǯǯȋȌȋ Ȍ ȋȌǤ ǣ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǯǡ ȋ ȌǤ ȋ ǯǣʹͲͲͲȌǤ 91 ǯ ° ǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋͻͳͷ Ȍ Ȃ Ǧ ȋ ǡ ǡȌ ǣ x ǡ ǡ ° ǯǢ x ǯ ǡ ȋ ͳͷͲͲʹǤȀȌǤ ǯ ǯ ǡ ͻǡ ȋ ǦȌ Ȃ Ȃ ǯ ǯǡ ǯ ȋʹͲ Ȍ ȋͶǡͷΨȀ α ͲǡȌ ȋ Ͷ) 10 Ǥ ǡ ǯ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǧ ȋͷȌǤ ͻ ͲͳǤͲͳǤʹͲͳ͵ȋ ʹͲͳʹ Ȃ Dz ͳͲ Dz dzǤͳͳ dzȌ 92 30.000 PRESTAZIONIECONOMICHE (€) 20.000 10.000 0 0 5 10 15 20 ANNI Ͳ10.000 Ͳ20.000 Ͳ30.000 Ͳ40.000 Figura 4Ǥ ǣ ǯ ǯ Ǥ 100 90 80 70 % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Riscaldamento globale Acidificazione terrestre Eutrofizzazione acque dolci Interramento Paglia Eutrofizzazione marina Richiesta di energia Imballaggio Paglia Figura 5Ǥ ǣ ǡ ǯ Ǧ ȋ ǯǣ ȌǤ 93 Ǥ Life Cycle Assessment ȋȌ processi agricoli ȋ Ǧ Ȍ ȋ Ȍǯ Ǥ Dz dzǡ ǡ rappresenta una opportunità con prospettivedisviluppoenormiǡ ȂȂ Ȃ ǯ Ȃ Ȁ Ǥ ǯ ǯǡ ǡ fasedicampoǡ ǡ risultatisensibilmentepiùaccuratiedielevatasitoǦspecificitàǤ Dzlasostenibilità energeticaeambientaledelletecnologieperlavalorizzazionedeiresiduiedeglieffluenti agricoli Ȃ Ȃ ǯ ǡ Dz dz impatto ambientale minore ǡ ottimiindicatori diefficienzaenergeticaǤ Ǥ ArticolisurivisteISIǦPeerReview 1. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ȋʹͲͳʹȌ Ǧ Model for economic, energy and environmental evaluationinbiomassproductionsǤ ǤǣʹͶǦ͵͵Ǥ 2. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ȋʹͲͳʹȌ Ǧ Life Cycle Assessment: An application to poplar for energy cultivated in Italy. Journal of Agricultural EngineeringǤǣʹǦͺǤ 3. Ǧ À Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤǡ Ǥ ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍ Present and future environmentalimpactofpoplarcultivationinPoValley(Italy)underdifferentcrop managementsystemsǤ ǤʹǣͷǦǤ 94 4. Ǧ À Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍ Ǧ Comparative environmental performance of three different annual energy crops for biogas productioninnorthenItalyǤ ǤͶ͵ǣͳǦͺ͵Ǥ 5. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥǡ ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍ Ǧ Anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks: Impact on energetic and environmental balances of biogas processǤ ǤͶ͵ȂͶͶǣͷͶͳȂͷͷͳǤ 6. ǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡǤǡȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǦAdetailedmonitoring of an anaerobic digestion plant in Northern ItalyǤ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǡǤͳʹǡǤͳͳǣͳǦʹǤ 7. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ȋʹͲͳͶȌǦ Environmentalevaluationofdifferent cereal crop systems for biogas productionǤ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǦǦͳ͵ǦͲͳͲǤ 8. ǤǡǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǡǤǡȋʹͲͳͶȌǦEnvironmentalassessmentof twodifferentcropsystemsintermsofbiomethanepotentialproductionǤ Ǥ ͶȂͶǣ ͳͲȂͳͲ ȋǣȀȀǤǤȀͳͲǤͳͲͳȀǤ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤͲǤͳͲͻȌǤ 9. ǤǡǤǡǤǡȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǦPioppoinrotazionequinquennaleǦUncasodi studiosullasostenibilitàdellaproduzionedibiomassaǤǡͳͻǣ͵ͷǦͶͲǤ Articolisuriviste 10. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ʹͲͳʹ Ǧ La digestione anaerobica per refrigerare il latteǤǡ ǡͶǣʹͶǦʹǤ 11. ǤǡǤǡ ǤǡǤǡʹͲͳ͵ǤLasostenibilitàambientaledell’energia darefluiǤǦ ǡͶ͵ǣͳͶǦͳͻǤ 12. Ǥ ʹͲͳʹȂ La lente sul biogas Ǧ Una panoramica su tipologie e gestione dei principalielementidiunimpiantodibiogasǡ ǡͷǦͷͻǤ 13. Ǥǡ ǤǡʹͲͳ͵ȂPiùbiogasconipretrattamentiǡ ǡͳǣͷͲǦ ͷʹ. 14. ǤǡǤǡʹͲͳ͵ȂPulireilbiogasǡ ǡ͵ǣͶʹǦͶͶǤ 15. ǤǡʹͲͳ͵ȂPiùenergiaconmenosuoloǡ ǡͶǣͷǦͷͻǤ 16. ǤǡǤǡʹͲͳ͵ȂNonsoloenergiaelettricaǡ ǡͷǣͷʹǦͷͶǤ ComunicazioniaConvegni 17. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ʹͲͳʹ Ȃ Energetic and Environmental Balance of a Biogas Plant in Northern ItalyǤ ǦʹͲͳʹǡ ǡǡͺǦͳʹǡʹͲͳʹǤ 18. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ʹͲͳͳ Ȃ Valorizzazione dei residui di potatura per la riduzione dei consumi energetici in cantinaǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ʹʹǦʹͶ ʹͲͳͳǤ 95 19. ǤǡǤǡ ǤǡǤǡǦLifeCycleAssessmentofmaizecultivationfor biogasproductionLifeCycleAssessmentofmaizecultivationforbiogasproductionǤ ̶ ǡ ̶ǡ ǡ ǡ ͺǦͳʹǡ ʹͲͳ͵ ȋ ȌǤ 20. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǧ Colture erbacee per la digestione anaerobica: valutazioni di sostenibilitàǤ ǣ Ǧ ǡ ʹͲͳʹǡǡǡǦͳͲʹͲͳʹǤ 21. Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǧ LCA per valutare l’impatto ambientale di un impiantodibiogasincoǦdigestioneǤ ǡǦ ǡ ǡ ǡ ͳʹǦͳ ʹͲͳ͵Ǥ 22. Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǧ LCA della produzione di biomassa lignocellulosica da colture arboree dedicate in Pianura PadanaǤ ǡ Ǧǡ ǡ ǡ ͳʹǦͳ ʹͲͳ͵Ǥ 96 www.biogesteca.unimi.it