10.1007/s40095-019-0312-1

Continuous two-step anaerobic digestion (TSAD) of organic market waste: rationalising process parameters

HTML PDF
  • Carlos Enrique Gómez Camacho*1,
  • Bernardo Ruggeri1,
  • Lorenzo Mangialardi1,
  • Marco Persico1,
  • Andrea Cristina Luongo Malavé1,
  1. DISAT, Department of Applied Science and Technology, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, 10129, IT
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2019-07-04

How to Cite

Gómez Camacho, C. E., Ruggeri, B., Mangialardi, L., Persico, M., & Luongo Malavé, A. C. (2019). Continuous two-step anaerobic digestion (TSAD) of organic market waste: rationalising process parameters. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Engineering, 10(4 (December 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40095-019-0312-1
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

HTML views: 19

PDF views: 115

Abstract

Abstract Experimental tests on continuous two-stage anaerobic digestion (TSAD) were conducted, to assess its energetic performance, using organic market waste as a substrate. The systems were tested to ascertain the effects of external stressors, which allow the separation into two different microorganism consortia, that is, hydrogen-producing bacteria and hydrogen-consuming bacteria, to be maintained. Two bioreactors were run in series under different operational conditions, including pH, mixing rate, and initial inoculum, and three different decreasing hydraulic retention times were considered, with a fixed ratio of 1:10 in volume between the first bioreactor (hydrogen) and the second one (methane). The performance of the whole system was assessed over > 140 days to monitor the stability of the process, in terms of the reduction of the volatile solids and the energy productivity for each step. Each tested condition was scored using two parameters: efficiency and efficacy. The first corresponds to the fraction of recovered energy of the available ( η ) and the second ( ξ ) was used to compare the energy produced by the TSAD with that of one-step anaerobic digestion. The efficiency resulted to be (24–32)%, while the efficacy proved to be around 1.20. The share of energy, under the form of hydrogen, compared to the total energy recovery, was in the (8–12) % range. Finally, the oscillation behaviour of the quasi-steady-state condition was analysed in terms of the Fano factor to establish the most stable conditions.

Keywords

  • Microbiome,
  • Two-stage mesophilic anaerobic digestion,
  • Bio-hydrogen,
  • Bio-methane,
  • Hydraulic retention time,
  • Selective pressure,
  • Fano factor
HTML PDF

References

  1. EurObserv’ER: Press Release: Biogas Barometer, Paris (2017)
  2. Ben-Iwo et al. (2016) Biomass resources and biofuels potential for the production of transportation fuels in Nigeria (pp. 172-192) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.05.050
  3. Franke-Whittle et al. (2014) Investigation into the effect of high concentrations of volatile fatty acids in anaerobic digestion on methanogenic communities (pp. 2080-2089) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.020
  4. Liu and Whitman (2008) Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity of the methanogenic archaea (pp. 171-189) https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1419.019
  5. Bagi et al. (2007) Biotechnological intensification of biogas production (pp. 473-482) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-007-1009-6
  6. Gomez Camacho and Ruggeri (2018) Syntrophic microorganisms interactions in anaerobic digestion (AD): a critical review in the light of increase energy production https://doi.org/10.3303/cet1864066
  7. Bader et al. (2010) Relevance of microbial coculture fermentations in biotechnology (pp. 371-387) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04659.x
  8. Koch et al. (2014) Microbiomes in bioenergy production: from analysis to management (pp. 65-72) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.11.006
  9. Oliveira et al. (2017) Strategies for efficiently selecting PHA producing mixed microbial cultures using complex feedstocks: feast and famine regime and uncoupled carbon and nitrogen availabilities (pp. 69-79) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NBT.2016.10.008
  10. Ruggeri et al. (2015) Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6431-9
  11. Łukajtis et al. (2018) Hydrogen production from biomass using dark fermentation (pp. 665-694) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.04.043
  12. Siddiqui et al. (2014) Optimising the production of energy from coblended food waste and biosolids using batch reactor studies (pp. 483-489) https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12060
  13. Luongo Malave’ et al. (2015) Multistep anaerobic digestion (MAD) as a tool to increase energy production via H2 + CH4 (pp. 5050-5061) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.02.068
  14. Malavè et al. (2018) Experimental tests on commercial sweet product residue (SPR) as a suitable feed for anaerobic bioenergy (H2 + CH4) production (pp. 626-635) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.011
  15. Winkler et al. (2017) Effect of the dilution rate on microbial competition: r-strategist can win over k-strategist at low substrate concentration (pp. 1-12) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172785
  16. Gómez Camacho et al. (2018) Macro approach analysis of dark biohydrogen production in the presence of zero valent powered Fe° (pp. 525-533) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.171
  17. Ruggeri et al. (2013) Energy efficacy used to score organic refuse pretreatment processes for hydrogen anaerobic production (pp. 2225-2233) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.06.024
  18. Angelonidi and Smith (2015) A comparison of wet and dry anaerobic digestion processes for the treatment of municipal solid waste and food waste (pp. 549-557) https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12130
  19. Ruggeri et al. (2009) Experimental kinetics and dynamics of hydrogen production on glucose by hydrogen forming bacteria (HFB) culture (pp. 753-763) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.10.076
  20. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, APHA (1999)
  21. Veldkamp (1972) Mixed culture studies with the chemostat (pp. 105-123) https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2720220113
  22. Ferguson et al. (2016) Organic loading rate: a promising microbial management tool in anaerobic digestion (pp. 348-356) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.009
  23. Fano (1947) Ionization yield of radiations. II. The fluctuations of the number of ions (pp. 26-29) https://doi.org/10.1103/physrev.72.26
  24. Cox and Isham (1980) Taylor & Francis
  25. Thattai and van Oudenaarden (2001) Intrinsic noise in gene regulatory networks (pp. 8614-8619) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.151588598
  26. Barato and Seifert (2015) Universal bound on the Fano factor in enzyme kinetics (pp. 6555-6561) https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b01918
  27. Luo et al. (2011) Enhancement of bioenergy production from organic wastes by two-stage anaerobic hydrogen and methane production process (pp. 8700-8706) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.02.012
  28. Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A.: Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction. Wiley, Weinheim (2011).
  29. https://books.google.it/books?id=CJiMmmxu2tcC
  30. . Accessed 1 Feb 2019
  31. Esposito et al. (2012) Bio-methane potential tests to measure the biogas production from the digestion and co-digestion of complex organic substrates (pp. 1-8) https://doi.org/10.2174/1874829501205010001
  32. Schaum et al. (2016) Evaluation of the energetic potential of sewage sludge by characterization of its organic composition (pp. 3072-3079) https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.188
  33. Gary et al. (1995) Heat of combustion, degree of reduction and carbon content: 3 interrelated methods of estimating the construction cost of plant tissues (pp. 59-69) https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:19950107
  34. Lindner et al. (2016) Is the continuous two-stage anaerobic digestion process well suited for all substrates? (pp. 470-476) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2015.10.052
  35. Xiao et al. (2018) Comparison of single-stage and two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste: performance, energy balance and reaction process (pp. 215-223) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2017.10.092
  36. Schievano et al. (2012) Two-stage vs single-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion: comparison of energy production and biodegradation efficiencies (pp. 8502-8510) https://doi.org/10.1021/es301376n
  37. Voelklein et al. (2016) Assessment of increasing loading rate on two-stage digestion of food waste (pp. 172-180) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.12.001
  38. Wang et al. (2014) Two-phase mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge: effect of hydraulic retention time (pp. 789-796) https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.852.789
  39. Kisielewska et al. (2013) Continuous biohydrogen and biomethane production from whey permeate in a two-stage fermentation process https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11890
  40. Thong et al. (2015) Two-stage thermophilic fermentation and mesophilic methanogenic process for biohythane production from palm oil mill effluent with methanogenic effluent recirculation for pH control (pp. 21702-21712) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.095
  41. Krishnan et al. (2016) Process enhancement of hydrogen and methane production from palm oil mill effluent using two-stage thermophilic and mesophilic fermentation (pp. 12888-12898) https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12537
  42. Benito Martin et al. (2017) Production of bio-hydrogen and methane during semi-continuous digestion of maize silage in a two-stage system (pp. 5768-5779) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.020
  43. Algapani et al. (2018) Long-term bio-H2 and bio-CH4 production from food waste in a continuous two-stage system: energy efficiency and conversion pathways (pp. 204-213) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.164