RESUMEN
The methane removal capacity of mixed methane-oxidizing bacteria (MOB) culture in a biofilter setup using autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) as a highly porous carrier material was tested. Batch experiment was performed to optimize MOB immobilization on AAC specimens where optimum methane removal was obtained when calcium chloride was not added during bacterial inoculation step and 10-mm-thick AAC specimens were used. The immobilized MOB could remove methane at low concentration (~1000 ppmv) in a biofilter setup for 127 days at average removal efficiency (RE) of 28.7 %. Unlike a plug flow reactor, increasing the total volume of the filter by adding a biofilter in series did not result in higher total RE. MOB also exhibited a higher abundance at the bottom of the filter, in proximity with the methane gas inlet where a high methane concentration was found. Overall, an efficient methane biofilter performance could be obtained using AAC as the carrier material.
Asunto(s)
Filtros de Aire/microbiología , Filtración/métodos , Metano/aislamiento & purificación , Methylococcaceae/metabolismo , Methylococcaceae/crecimiento & desarrollo , Oxidación-ReducciónRESUMEN
The Peruvian environmental action plan seeks headwaters protection as one of its integrated watershed management objectives. However, heterogeneous social and environmental conditions shape this freshwater management challenge at subnational scales. We have noticed different interpretations of this challenge. To map the debate, understand the diverse interpretations, and frame political choices, we conducted semi-structured interviews with institutional and non-institutional stakeholders for performing discourse analysis in an Andean watershed where mountaintop gold mining, midstream farmers, and the downstream Cajamarca city coexist. One discourse dominates the debate on protecting the freshwater supply and argues the importance of river impoundment, municipal storage capacity, and institutional leadership. The other two discourses revolve around protecting the mountain aquifer. The second discourse does so with a fatalistic view of headwaters protection and rural support. The third discourse partially shifts the debate towards the need for improving rural capacity building and (ground)water inventories. To understand evolutions in society, it is crucial to understand these three discourses, including the types of knowledge that actors present as legitimate, the attributed roles to all stakeholders, and the kinds of worldviews informing each discourse. The interaction among discourses could hinder integrated watershed management at worst or, at best, help inspire multi-stakeholder collaboration.