Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada N2L 3G1
Received 20 November 2003; received in revised form 3 January 2005; accepted 5 January 2005
Available online 8 March 2005
Abstract
In this paper the ADM1 model that has been developed by the IWA Task Group for Mathematical Modelling of Anaerobic
Digestion Processes is summarized. The model was applied to a variety of anaerobic digestion scenarios that are presented in the
literature and for each data set the model predictions were compared to experimental values. Based upon the model applications
it was apparent that for accurate model simulations the inuent sludge should be well characterized in terms of biodegradable
and recalcitrant COD and also nitrogenous compounds. In almost all cases the model was able to reect the trends that were
observed in the experimental data however the concentrations of VFAs were consistently over-predicted in digesters with short
SRTs. It would appear that the inhibition functions associated with low pH values tend to overestimate the impact of pH on biokinetic rates for the acid-consuming bacteria. Application of the model with ow through of active biomass between digesters in series
in temperature-phased systems needs to be further evaluated in the future.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Two-phase; Temperature-phased; Mesophilic; Thermophilic; Model; Sludge
1. Introduction
Owners and operators of wastewater treatment
plants are increasingly considering the use of advanced
digestion technologies for producing pathogen-free biosolids and for enhancing sludge stabilization. Some
examples of such technologies include staged thermophilic (Krugel et al., 1998), temperature-phased (TPAD)
(Han et al., 1997), two-phase (Ghosh, 1987) and threephase digestion (Drury et al., 2002). With the increasing
complexity of these processes it is dicult to evaluate
the impact of all process variables on the performance
of the digesters. Hence, it is dicult to optimize the
design and operation of these processes. Pilot testing
for the purposes of optimization is challenging due to
the extended time periods that are required to operate
0960-8524/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.01.022
2. Model description
The ADM1 model is described in considerable detail
in the report prepared by the IWA Task Group for
Mathematical Modeling of Anaerobic Digestion Processes (IWA, 2002). The following provides a brief overview of the model for the purposes of this discussion.
The ADM1 model is a structured model that reects
Complex Particulate
Organic Matter (Xc)
Carbohydrates (Xch)
Proteins (Xpr)
Sugars
(Ssu)
Amino
Acids
(Saa)
Propionate (Spro)
Inert
Particulates
(XI)
Fats (Xli)
Long Chain
Fatty Acids
(Sfa)
Butyrate (Sbu)
Valerate (Sva)
Hydrogen (Sh2)
Acetate (Sac)
1833
Methane (Sch4)
Fig. 1. Conceptual model for ADM1 model.
Inert
Soluble
(SI)
1834
through microbial cellular walls and include the monomers of complex polymers (sugars, amino acids, long
chain fatty acids), volatile organic acids (propionate,
butyrate, valerate, acetate), hydrogen, and methane. In
Fig. 1, soluble species are represented with a capital
S. In addition to the organic species, the model addresses inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide and bicarbonate) and nitrogenous species (ammonia and
ammonium). All of the species that dissociate as a function of pH (VFAs and ammonia) have variables dened
for both the protonated and non-protonated species.
The model maintains a charge balance among ionic species and hence there are variables for inorganic anions
and cations including the hydrogen ion. The model
solves for the hydrogen ion concentration, and thereby
the pH, by ensuring chemical neutrality in solution.
Particulate species consist of either active biomass
species or particulate substances that are incapable of
directly passing through bacterial cell walls. In Fig. 1
particulate species are those with a capital X. The
microbial species that are considered in the model include sugar fermenters, amino acid fermenters, LCFA
oxidizers, butyrate and valerate oxidizers, propionate
oxidizers, aceticlastic methanogens and hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Non-microbial particulate species
include complex organics that either enter the process in
the inuent or that result from the death and decay of
microbial species and the products of disintegration of
the complex organics. This latter group consists of carbohydrates, proteins and LCFAs.
Substrate conversion processes are described by a
number of kinetic expressions that describe the conversion rates in terms of substrate concentrations and rate
constants. The disintegration of Xc and hydrolysis of
Xch, Xpr and Xli are described by rst order rate expressions. Substrate conversion processes have Monod-type
kinetic expressions while endogenous decay processes
are rst order in biomass concentration. It should be
noted that the ADM1 model diers from the ASM models in that microbially mediated processes are dened in
terms of substrate conversion as opposed to microbial
growth. For each of the above-mentioned processes
the rate of generation of products is related to the process rate through stoichiometric coecients. For example the rate of growth of an organism is related to the
rate of substrate consumption through the yield coecient for the organism on the substrate. This format is
consistent with the approach that is employed in the
ASM models.
It is recognized that a number of the conversion processes that are active in anaerobic digestion of municipal
sludges can be inhibited by the accumulation of intermediate products such as molecular hydrogen, ammonia or
by extremes of pH. In the model, all microbially mediated substrate conversion processes are subject to inhibition by extremes of pH. All anaerobic oxidation
3. Model application
In this study a selected number of data sets were
chosen from previously published reports on anaerobic
digestion of municipal wastewater sludges. Data sets
were selected to encompass a range of digester congurations and on the basis of the completeness of the data
sets that would be employed for model inputs and for
comparison with model predictions. In all cases, studies
that employed actual sludges from municipal wastewater treatment plants were selected. The data sets that
were employed in this study are described in Table 1.
The ADM1 model employs a large number of constants and coecients. Given the model complexity it
was impossible to calibrate the model parameters with
any of the data sets that were available. In the report
describing the ADM1 model the authors reviewed the
previously published reports on anaerobic digestion processes and presented recommended values for model
parameters. For the purposes of this study the recommended model parameters were employed unless additional information was provided by the original
researchers that allowed for an improved estimate of
the model parameters.
In order to achieve accurate model predictions it
is important to dene the properties of the sludge stream
entering the digester. For organic substances, the
ADM1 model denes these inputs in terms of soluble
and particulate COD. For municipal sludges a majority
Table 1
Data sets referenced in this study
Digester conguration
Sludge source
References
Single stage
mesophilic digestion
Acid phase digestion
Temperature-phased
anaerobic digestion
Two-phase digestion
PS
PS
Mixed PS and WAS
Mixed PS and WAS
1835
1836
30
25
COD (g/L)
20
Model
15
Experimental
10
NH4/NH3-N (mg/L)
2000
1500
Model
Experimental
1000
500
0
5
10
20
40
10
SRT (d)
20
40
SRT (d)
300
1800
1600
250
1200
1000
Model
Experimental
800
600
1400
200
Model
150
Experimental
100
400
50
200
0
0
5
10
20
40
10
SRT (d)
20
40
SRT (d)
100
100
80
80
Model
40
Experimental
20
60
60
40
Model
20
Experimental
0
5
10
20
40
-20
0
5
10
20
40
-40
-60
-20
SRT (d)
SRT (d)
Fig. 2. Comparison of model predictions with data of Cacho Rivero et al. (2002).
inhibition of this activity by ammonia. The model predicted a 40% reduction in the activity of these organisms
due to the presence of ammonia. The impact of reduced
rates of aceticlastic activity on model predictions would
be greatest at the lower SRTs.
3.2. Acid phase digestion
Eastman and Ferguson (1981) performed one of the
rst detailed studies on the acid-phase digestion of municipal sludges. In their study, the impact of HRT was
assessed over a range from 9 to 36 h. The impact of seed
culture was also evaluated. The model does not have the
capability to address this parameter and hence only the
tests that were conducted with raw sludge as the seed
were employed for this analysis. The model predictions
for ammonia/ammonium-N, pH and total volatile acids
(as acetate) were compared with the observed values in
Fig. 3.
From Fig. 3 it can be seen that the model somewhat
underpredicted the organic acid concentrations at the
lowest SRT of 9 h and overpredicted these values for
the longest SRT of 72 h. The underprediction of acid
12
VFA (g COD/L)
10
Model
Experimental
0
9
18
36
72
SRT (hrs)
7
concentrations at 9 h is in agreement with the overestimation of the euent pH in this test. It would appear
that the model underestimated the rates of disintegration, hydrolysis and acidication under these relatively
extreme conditions of SRT and pH. It should be noted
that the model does not correct any of the disintegration
or hydrolysis rates for pH. Ghosh (1987) has demonstrated that the rate of hydrolysis is inuenced by pH.
An improvement of the model for addressing acid phase
digesters would be to include a rate correction term for
hydrolysis processes.
While not presented in Fig. 3 it must be noted that
although Eastman and Ferguson (1981) observed methane production at the longer SRTs the model did not predict the generation of appreciable quantities of methane
under these conditions. The conversion of VFAs to methane in the experimental data may explain the higher modelpredicted VFA concentrations relative to the observed
values. The results suggest that methanogens are less sensitive to pH than the pH inhibition functions suggest.
The ammonia-nitrogen concentrations were underpredicted at the lowest SRTs and overpredicted at the
highest SRTs. These results tend to conrm the model
predictions of VFA concentrations since an underprediction of solids destruction and hydrolysis, as indicated
by reduced VFAs, would also result in a reduced release
of ammonium.
3.3. Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD)
4
pH
Model
Experimental
3
0
9
18
36
72
SRT (hrs)
800
700
600
NH4-N (mg/L)
1837
500
Model
400
Experimental
300
200
100
0
9
18
36
72
SRT (hrs)
TPAD processes consist of reactors operating at thermophilic and mesophilic temperatures in series. While
either process may be rst, the most common orientation
has the thermophilic digester ahead of the mesophilic digester. For the purposes of this study two papers on
TPAD digestion were referenced; one that studied digestion of PS alone (Han and Dague, 1995) and one that
studied a mix of PS and WAS (Han et al., 1997). In the
former paper the ratio of the volumes of the rst and second digesters was 1:2. In the latter paper two systems
were operated with system A having a ratio of volumes
of 1:2.5 while system B had a ratio of volumes of 1:5.
In all of the systems the mesophilic temperature was
35 C while the thermophilic temperature was 55 C. A
comparison of the model predictions with the data presented in the paper of Han and Dague (1995) is summarized in Fig. 4. The comparison of model predictions
with the results of Han et al. (1997) are presented for systems A and B in Figs. 5 and 6 respectively.
It should be noted that the model does not explicitly
predict volatile solids removal (VSR). For the purposes
of this paper it was assumed that the removal of volatile
solids was proportional to the removal of overall
COD. This assumes that all of the COD remaining
after digestion have the same ratio of volatile solids
concentration:COD. This undoubtedly introduces some
1838
16
60
14
50
40
10
Model
Experimental
VSR (%)
12
Model
30
Experimental
6
20
4
10
2
0
10
11.5
12.5
13.6
15
10
11.5
SRT (d)
12.5
13.6
15
SRT (d)
9000
2500
8000
1st Stage
2nd Stage
2000
7000
5000
Model
Experimental
4000
VFA (mg/L)
VFA (mg/L)
6000
1500
Model
Experimental
1000
3000
2000
500
1000
0
0
10
11.5
12.5
13.6
15
SRT (d)
10
11.5
12.5
13.6
15
SRT (d)
Fig. 4. Comparison of model predictions with data of Han and Dague (1995).
error in the estimates however, there was generally insufcient data on the composition of the digester euent to
perform a more rened conversion of COD to solids
concentrations.
The patterns with respect to the model predictions
and observed data that are presented in Figs. 46 are
consistent. In all three cases, the model overpredicted
the production of methane by the temperature-phased
processes. It should be noted that in the papers only
total methane production was reported and hence it
was not possible to compare methane production from
the two reactors separately. In all cases the extent of
overprediction was greatest for the lower SRTs and predictions improved for the longer SRTs. The predictions
for VSR were best for the results presented in Fig. 4
while in Figs. 5 and 6 the model consistently overpredicted the VSR. The overprediction of VSR was consistent with the overprediction of methane generation. In
all three cases the model substantially overpredicted
the concentrations of VFAs in the thermophilic reactor.
The greatest overprediction was associated with the
shortest SRTs and the predictions improved at longer
SRTs. With the exception of the 10 day SRT in Fig. 4
the model tended to underpredict the concentrations
of VFAs in the mesophilic second stage digester.
12
60
10
50
40
Model
Experimental
VSR (%)
Model
30
20
10
1839
Experimental
14
20
28
14
SRT (d)
20
28
SRT (d)
6000
250
2nd Stage
1st Stage
5000
200
Model
3000
Experimental
VFA (mg/L)
VFA (mg/L)
4000
150
Model
Experimental
100
2000
50
1000
0
14
20
SRT (d)
28
0
14
20
SRT (d)
28
Fig. 5. Comparison of system a model predictions with data of Han et al. (1997).
have been due to the procedure used to adjust the biokinetic coecients for temperature. In the model documentation (IWA, 2002) it is suggested that a constant
correction factor be employed for all of the microbial
species. Implementing this strategy tends to result in
an accumulation of VFAs at the higher temperatures.
It may be that diering temperature correction factors
should be employed for the dierent microbial
species.
the 3 day SRT the rst stage had an SRT of 0.9 days
while the second stage had an SRT of 2.1 days.
With the 7 day SRT the rst stage had an SRT of
2 days and the second stage had an SRT of 5 days. In
Tables 2 and 3 a comparison of some of the model
predictions and the reported experimental values are
presented.
From Table 2 it can be see that with the exception of
the rst stage of the 7 day SRT digesters the model predictions for VFAs were relatively close to the observed
values and the pH values for the second stage digesters
were also well predicted. The paper did not report the
rst stage pHs and hence it was not possible to use this
parameter to evaluate the predictions for VFAs. The
overprediction of VFAs for the short SRT reactors
was consistent with that observed in the previously described temperature phased digestion studies.
The model signicantly under-predicted the NH4-N
concentrations for the 3 day SRT system while this response was relatively well predicted for the 7 day SRT
system. It should be noted that there appeared to be
an inconsistency in the data for this response since the
observed values for the 3 day SRT system were substantially higher than the 7 day system. This seems to be
inconsistent with the VSR data that will be subsequently
1840
10
9
50
40
6
Model
Experimental
VSR (%)
Model
30
Experimental
20
3
2
10
1
0
0
12
17
24
12
SRT (d)
17
24
SRT (d)
7000
250
1st Stage
2nd Stage
6000
200
4000
Model
Experimental
3000
VFA (mg/L)
VFA (mg/L)
5000
150
Model
Experimental
100
2000
50
1000
12
17
24
10
SRT (d)
11.5
12.5
SRT (d)
Fig. 6. Comparison of system B model predictions with data of Han et al. (1997).
Table 2
Comparison of volatile acids, pH And NH4-N for two phase digestion
Table 3
Comparison of VSR for two phase digestion
Response
Response
SRT = 3 days
SRT = 7 days
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 1
Stage 2
1680
1393
16101810
6711
109
180
pH
Exper.
Model
7.2
7.0
NA
5.2
7.3
7.3
1820
899
NA
766
1049
961
NA
5.8
NH4-N (mg/l)
Exper.
NA
Model
472
VSR (%)
SRT = 3 days
SRT = 7 days
Model
34.0
42.0
Experimental
MOPa
Weight of gasb
Theor. gas yieldc
26.5
35.5
28.3
33.6
51.5
43.4
4. Discussion
In this paper the predictions of the ADM1 model
using the default values for most of the model coecients were able to reect most of the trends that were
reported for a variety of digester congurations. There
were however consistent deviations between the model
predictions and observed values for VFAs when the
5. Conclusions
The ADM1 model is a powerful tool for predicting
the behaviour of anaerobic digesters treating municipal
sludges. However, for successful simulation the feed
stream should be well characterized with respect to its
COD content and the biodegradable fraction of this
material. A standardized protocol for measuring the
latter parameter would further use of the model by the
1841
References
Angelidaki, I., Ellegard, L., Ahring, B.K., 1999. A comprehensive
model of anaerobic bioconversion of complex substrates to biogas.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 63, 363372.
Blumensaat, F., Keller, J., 2005. Modelling of two-stage anaerobic
digestion using the IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1
(ADM1). Water Res. 39, 171183.
Cacho Rivero, J.A., Suidan, M.T., Ginestet, P., Audic, J.-M., 2002.
Eect of SRT on the anaerobic digestion of excess municipal
sludge. Proceedings of WEFTEC 2002, Chicago, IL.
Drury, D.D., Lee, S.A., Baker, C., 2002. Comparing three-phase
thermophilic continuous feed system to semi-batch feed/hold/draw
system. Proceedings of the 16th Annual WEF Residuals and
Biosolids Management Conference, Austin, Texas.
Eastman, J.A., Ferguson, J.F., 1981. Solubilization of particulate
organic carbon during the acid phase of anaerobic digestion. J.
WPCF 53, 352366.
Ghosh, S., 1987. Improved sludge gasication by two-phase anaerobic
digestion. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 113, 12651284.
Gossett, J.M., Belser, R.L., 1982. Anaerobic digestion of waste
activated sludge. ASCE J. Environ. Eng. 108, 11011120.
Han, Y., Dague, R.R., 1995. laboratory studies on the temperaturephased anaerobic digestion of domestic wastewater sludges. Proceedings of WEFTEC 1995, Miami Beach, FL.
Han, Y., Sung, S., Dague, R.R., 1997. Temperature-phased anaerobic
digestion of wastewater sludges. Water Sci. Technol. 36, 367374.
IWA 2002. Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1), International
Water Association Scientic and Technical Report No. 13, IWA
Publishing, London, UK.
Krugel, S., Nemeth, L., Peddie, C., 1998. Extending thermophilic
anaerobic digestion for producing class a biosolids at the greater
1842