Anaerobic Digestion And Biogas Production: Combine Effluent Treatment With Energy Generation In Uasb Reactor As Biorefinery Annex

The issue of residues and industrial effluents represents an unprecedented environmental challenge in terms of recovery, storage, and treatment. This work discusses the perspectives of treating effluents through anaerobic digestion as well as reporting the experience of using an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor as biorefinery annex in a pulp and paper industrial plant to be burned in the boilers. The performance of the reactors has shown to be stable under considerable variations in load and showed a significant potential in terms of biogas production. The reactors UASB treated 3600.00 m3 of effluent daily from a production of 150.00 tons. The biogas generation was 234.000 kg/year/mill, equivalent in combustible oil. The results of methane gas generated by the anaerobic system UASB (8846.00 kcal/m3) dislocate the equivalent of 650.0 kg of combustible oil (10000.00 kcal/kg) per day (or 234.000 kg/year). The production of 8846.00 Kcal/m3 of energy from biogas can make a run at industrial plant for 2 hours. This substitution can save US$128.700 annually (or US$ 550.0 of fuel oil/tons). The companies are invested in the use of the biogas in diesel stationary motors cycle that feed the boilers with water in case of storage electricity. © 2014 Mauro Berni et al.2014Mussatto, S.I., Dragone, G., Roberto, I.C., Brewers' spent grain: Generation, characteristics and potential applications (2006) Journal of Cereal Science, 43 (1), pp. 1-14. , DOI 10.1016/j.jcs.2005.06.001, PII S0733521005000706BRACELPA - Associação Brasileira de Celulosee Papel, Evolução da Produção Brasileira de Papel, Pulp and Paper Sector Results, Edição n. 59, 2013Mladenov, M., Pelovski, Y., Utilization of wastes from pulp and paper industry (2010) Journal of the University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 45 (1), pp. 33-38Harrison, R.B., Guerrini, I.A., Henry, C.L., Cole, D.W., Reciclagem de resíduos industriais e urbanos em áreas de reflorestamento (2003) Circular Técnica, (198), pp. 1-20Berni, M.D., Dorileo, I.L., Prado, J.M., Forster-Carneiro, T., Meireles, M.A.A., Advances in biofuel production (2013) Biofuels Production, pp. 11-58. , Beverly, Mass, USA ScrivenerKamm, B., Kamm, M., Gruber, P.R., Kromus, S., Biorefinery systems - An overview (2006) Bioferineries-Industrial Process and Products: Status Quo and Future Directions, 1, pp. 1-40. , Weinheim, Germany Wiley-VCHForster-Carneiro, T., Isaac, R., Perez, M.G., Schvartz, C., Anaerobic digestion: Pretreatments of substrates (2011) Biogas Production: Pretreatment Methods in Anaerobic Digestion, 1, pp. 1-18. , Massachusetts, Calif, USA ScrivenerZupancic, G.D., Ros, M., Aerobic and two-stage anaerobic-aerobic sludge digestion with pure oxygen and air aeration (2008) Bioresource Technology, 99 (1), pp. 100-109. , DOI 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.054, PII S0960852406006407Pescod, M.B., Wastewater Treatment and Use in Agriculture, , FAO - Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Irrigation and drainage paper, pp 1-169, 1992Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (2008) Bioresource Technology, 99 (15), pp. 6763-6770. , 2-s2.0-44649190455 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.052Cea-Barcia, G., Carrère, H., Steyer, J.P., Patureau, D., Evidence for PAH removal coupled to the first steps of anaerobic digestion in sewage sludge (2013) International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2013, p. 6. , 2-s2.0-84876534693 10.1155/2013/450542 450542Abdelgadir, A., Chen, X., Liu, J., Xie, X., Zhang, J., Zhang, K., Wang, H., Liu, N., Characteristics, process parameters, and inner components of anaerobic bioreactors (2014) BioMed Research International, 2014, p. 10. , 841573 10.1155/2014/841573Bahar, K.I., Zeynep, C., Orhan, I., Pollution prevention in the pulp and paper industries (2010) Environmental Management in Practice, pp. 223-246. , Istanbul, Turkey Bogazici University, Institute of Environmental SciencePokhrel, D., Viraraghavan, T., Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater - A review (2004) Science of the Total Environment, 333 (1-3), pp. 37-58. , DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.05.017, PII S0048969704004279Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid wastes: Dry thermophilic performance (2008) Bioresource Technology, 99 (17), pp. 8180-8184. , 2-s2.0-47949125430 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.021Fernández, J., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., Effect of substrate concentration on dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) (2008) Bioresource Technology, 99 (14), pp. 6075-6080Zahedi, S., Romero, L.I., Solera, R., Optimisation of single-phase dry-thermophilic anaerobic digestion under high organic loading rates of industrial municipal solid waste: Population dynamics (2013) Bioresource Technology, 148, pp. 443-452Technologies, M., Colorado Agriculture IOF Technology Assessments: Anaerobic Digestion, , Editor Governor's Office of Energy Conservation and Management Inc. Union Blvd, 1-17, 2005Schmidt, J.E., Ahring, B.K., Granular sludge formation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors (1997) Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 49 (3), pp. 229-246. , 2-s2.0-0031053283Kim, M., Ahn, Y.-H., Speece, R.E., Comparative process stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestionmesophilic vs. Thermophilic (2002) Water Research, 36 (17), pp. 4369-4385. , DOI 10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00147-1, PII S0043135402001471Lissens, G., Vandevivere, P., De Baere, L., Biey, E.M., Verstraete, W., Solid waste digestors: Process performance and practice for municipal solid waste digestion (2001) Water Science and Technology, 44 (8), pp. 91-102Dinsmore, N., Anaerobic treatment allows viable handling of bleached CTMP Effluent (1987) Pulp and PaperElmitwalli, T.A., Zandvoort, M.H., Zeeman, G., Burning, H., Lettinga, G., Low temperature treatment of domestic sewage in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket and anaerobic hybrid reactors (1999) Water Science and Technology, 39 (5), pp. 177-185. , DOI 10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00100-6, PII S0273122399001006Chynoweth, D.P., Wilkie, A.C., Owens, J.M., Anaerobic Treatment of Piggery Slurry (1999) Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 12 (4), pp. 607-628Alabaster, G.P., Mills, S.W., Osebe, S.A., Thitai, W.N., Pearson, H.W., Mara, D.D., Muiruri, P., Combined treatment of domestic and industrial wastewater in waste stabilisation pond systems in Kenya (1991) Water Science and Technology, 24 (1), pp. 43-52. , 2-s2.0-0025919647Flohr, L., Castilhos Júnior, A.B.D., Matias, W.G., Acute and chronic toxicity of soluble fractions of industrial solid wastes on daphnia magna and vibrio fischeri (2012) The Scientific World Journal, 2012, p. 10. , 2-s2.0-84861054553 10.1100/2012/643904 643904Peralta-Zamora, P., Esposito, E., Reyes, J., Duran, N., Remediation of effluents from paper and cellulose industry. Biological and photocatalytic treatment (1997) Quimica Nova, 20 (2), pp. 186-190Commission, E., Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) - Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry, , GK/IK/MR/GG/EIPPCB/PP, 2001Junior, J.L., Cortez, L.A.B., Silva, A., (1997) Biodigestão, , Manaus, Brazil Tecnologiasda Conversão da BiomassaEDUA/EFEISánchez Rubal, J., Cortacans Torre, J.A., Castillo González, I., Influence of temperature, agitation, sludge concentration and solids retention time on primary sludge fermentation (2012) International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2012, p. 8. , 2-s2.0-84862273481 10.1155/2012/861467 861467Berni, M.D., Bajay, S.V., Geração de energia e a digestão anaeróbica no tratamento de efluentes: Estudo-de-caso na indústria de papel (2003) Anais 3 Encontro de Energia Meio Rural, pp. 1-4. , São Paulo-SP UNICAMPEPE-Energy Research Company, Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), National Energy Balance, Brazilian energy balance, 1-11, 2011Burton, C.H., The potential contribution of separation technologies to the management of livestock manure (2007) Livestock Science, 112 (3), pp. 208-216. , DOI 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.004, PII S1871141307004702, Recycling of Livestock Manure in a Whole-Farm PerspectiveStatistical yearbok 2008 (2009) Abraf Statistical Yearbook, pp. 1-9

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE-048): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study

Background: Pembrolizumab is active in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression associated with improved response. Methods: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031. Findings: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45–0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64–0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71–1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63–0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45–0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53–0·80], p<0·0001) at final analysis. Neither pembrolizumab alone nor pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival at the second interim analysis. At final analysis, grade 3 or worse all-cause adverse events occurred in 164 (55%) of 300 treated participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 235 (85%) of 276 in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 239 (83%) of 287 in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Adverse events led to death in 25 (8%) participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 32 (12%) in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 28 (10%) in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Interpretation: Based on the observed efficacy and safety, pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme. © 2019 Elsevier Lt