P. 1
Anaerobic Digester Paper Parameter Tests

Anaerobic Digester Paper Parameter Tests

|Views: 99|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Ronnie H. Encarnacion on Aug 18, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/28/2012

pdf

text

original

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: Waste strength versus impact of mixing
Khursheed Karim a, Rebecca Hoffmann a, Thomas Klasson b, M.H. Al-Dahhan
a

a,*

Chemical Reaction Engineering Laboratory (CREL), Department of Chemical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA b Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA Received 31 March 2003; received in revised form 10 January 2005; accepted 16 January 2005

Abstract We studied the effect of mode of mixing (biogas recirculation, impeller mixing, and slurry recirculation) and waste strength on the performance of laboratory scale digesters. The digesters were fed with 5% and 10% manure slurry, at a constant energy supply per unit volume (8 W/m3). The experiments were conducted in eight laboratory scale digesters, each having a working volume of 3.73 L, at a controlled temperature of 35 ± 2 °C. Hydraulic retention time (HRT) was kept constant at 16.2 days, resulting in a total solids (TS) loading rate of 3.08 g/L d and 6.2 g/L d for 5% and 10% manure slurry feeds, respectively. Results showed that the unmixed and mixed digesters performed quite similarly when fed with 5% manure slurry and produced biogas at a rate of 0.84–0.94 L/L d with a methane yield of 0.26–0.31 L CH4/g volatile solids (VS) loaded. This was possibly because of the low solids concentration in the case of 5% manure slurry, where mixing created by the naturally produced gas might be sufficient to provide adequate mixing. However, the effect of mixing and the mode of mixing became prominent in the case of the digesters fed with thicker manure slurry (10%). Digesters fed with 10% manure slurry and mixed by slurry recirculation, impeller, and biogas recirculation produced approximately 29%, 22% and 15% more biogas than unmixed digester, respectively. Deposition of solids inside the digesters was not observed in the case of 5% manure slurry, but it became significant in the case of 10% manure slurry. Therefore, mixing issue becomes more critical with thicker manure slurry. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anaerobic; Biogas; Digestion; Draft tube; Manure; Mixing

1. Introduction Growth in livestock industries has resulted in large amounts of animal waste (cow manure) generation. In the United States over 100 million tons of dry matter is produced every year (Fontenot and Ross, 1980). This has brought in the requirement of safe waste management. Different types of waste management options may include technologies based on physical, chemical, or biological conversions. Examples are combustion/ incineration (gasification), chemical conversion (methanol) and biological conversion (anaerobic digestion).
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 314 935 7187; fax: +1 314 935 7211.

Combustion/incineration efficiently recovers the greatest amount of energy from manure, but the practicality of using the ash as a recycled material has yet to be proven. Moreover, self-sustaining incineration requires a waste of about 30% solids. Wetter manure with lower solids content requires supplemental fuel to sustain incineration (OSU, 2000). The possibility of producing methanol production from animal wastes is promising, but there is no specific technology or research is available yet. Anaerobic Digestion is biological means of decomposition of manure in an oxygen-free environment, and has the advantage of producing a fuel gas (methane) and odor free residues rich in nutrients, which can be used as fertilizers.

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.01.020

USA). Most of the literature on anaerobic digestion emphasizes the importance of adequate mixing to improve the distribution of substrates. Stroot et al. 1980. Parkin and Owen. Mixing of the substrate in the digester helps to distribute organisms uniformly throughout the mixture and to transfer heat. The first set of experiments was performed with four laboratory scale digesters. and slurry recirculation—keeping same amount of energy applied per unit volume of the waste digested. other than a power input of 0. including mechanical mixers. 1983). New York. were operated at a controlled temperature of 35 ± 2 °C. because Choi et al. It has been observed that very rapid mixing disrupts the structure of flocs inside a biological reactor which disturbs the syntrophic relationships between organisms.5 m3 digester under unmixed conditions than continuously mixed conditions. P1 is the pressure at the injection point (i. the present study was designed to focus on the performance of digesters having three different modes of mixing. 2003). and k is the polytropic exponent. USA).83 N/m2 (atmospheric) = 101. 1987. Mills (1979) and Smith et al.. USA). At the same time. Mixing can be accomplished through various methods. although the optimum mixing pattern is a subject of much debate. In the case of digesters mixed by biogas recirculation. Ben-Hasson et al. The importance of mixing in achieving efficient substrate conversion has been noted by many researchers. power per unit volume was calculated per Eq. Rochester. P2 is the head space pressure (equal to 101416. Karim et al. 1986. (Chicago. the information available in the literature about the effect of the intensity and duration of mixing on the performance of anaerobic digesters are contradictory. The contradictory findings reported in the literature about the effect of mixing on the performance of anaerobic digesters bring the need of extensive research in this direction. These parameters are primarily a function of the hydraulic regime (mixing) in the reactors. Lema et al.. (1979) recommended intermittent mixing of anaerobic digesters over continuous mixing. a Masterflex pump from Cole Parmer Instrument Co. there is no clear information available in the literature about the threshold limits of digester mixing.ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 K. Biogas generated in the digesters was collected in tedlar bags and was recirculated from the top of the digesters by an air pump and draft tube arrangement. Digester 2 consisted of a hopper bottom with a 25° slope angles. and Hashimoto (1983) found higher biogas production from beef cattle wastes under continuously mixed conditions than under intermittent mixing conditions. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx The performance of anaerobic digesters is affected primarily by the retention time of substrate in the reactor and the degree of contact between incoming substrate and a viable bacterial population. or by recirculating the produced biogas using pumps.e. Gr is specific biogas recirculation rate (m3/d m3). thereby adversely affecting the reactor performance (Whitmore et al. Digester 3 had a hopper bottom with a 25° slope angles and was mixed by 62 mm diameter axial flow impeller (Lightnin A-310. However. agitation aids in particle size reduction as digestion progresses and in removal of gas from the mixture. as this lesser slope angle is easy to construct in the field and requires less earth work. Chen et al. as no significant change in the digester performance was observed with increased biogas recirculation rate up to 3 L/min rate (Karim et al.—biogas recirculation. All four digesters were mixed while keeping a constant energy supply per unit volume of slurry treated (8 W/m3). Dolfing. 1977. Under isothermal conditions the value of k approaches unity... Digester 1 consisted of a hopper bottom with a 60° slope angle. Digesters 1–4. Connecticut. (Clinton.20–0. Dague et al. 1992. each having a working volume of 3. James et al. The draft tubes were located at mid-height of the hopper bottoms (Table 1). However. 1. while under adiabatic conditions . 1986). Ho and Tan (1985) reported greater gas production for a continuously mixed digester than for an unmixed digester fed with palm oil mill effluents. Stenstrom et al.26–7. Methods The reported study was performed in the three sets of experiments. 1991). (1985) observed 75% lower methane production rate from dairy cattle manure under continuously mixed conditions than unmixed conditions... On the contrary.325 Pa). 2. Digester 4 had a hopper bottom with a 25° slope angles and was mixed by slurry recirculation. P2 + Static head of slurry). The biogas recirculation rate was kept as 1 L/min. Furthermore. (1990) observed higher methane yield in the case of a 4. 1989. (1) (Casey. Schematics of the digesters are shown in Fig. Therefore. EMI Inc. In another study. impeller mixing.30 HP/1000 cu ft (5.V is the volume of the slurry mixed. (1996) reported that a 60° double slopped bottom helped in reducing the sedimentation of solids. recirculation of digester contents. 1979). "  # ðkÀ1Þ=k P kGr P 2 P1 ¼ À1 ð1Þ V ðk À 1Þ P 2 where P is power. The two very important aspects of digester mixing are the intensity and duration of mixing..91 W/m3) is recommended by the US EPA for proper digester mixing (US EPA. and the impeller motor was Model 5vb. (1970). The pump used for slurry recirculation was. enzymes and microorganisms throughout the digester (Chapman. Illinois. 2001).73 L. Several studies indicated that a lack of sufficient mixing in low solids digesters dealing with municipal waste resulted in a floating layer of solids (Diaz and Trezek.

(c) Digesters 4 and 10. 1. The value of k was taken as 1. Since the digesters in this study were operated at a controlled tem- perature of 35 ± 2 °C. set 1 Digester 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a Mode of mixing Biogas recirculation (1 L/min) Biogas recirculation (1 L/min) Impeller (275 rpm) Slurry recirculation (0. Schematic diagram of the experimental set-up: (a) Digesters 1. Table 1 Operational conditions for the digesters Expt.01. (b) Digesters 3. . 6 and 9. its value for biogas is approximately 1. as suggested by Casey (1986).ARTICLE IN PRESS K.82 L/min) Hopper bottom angle (deg) 60 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Draft tubea position from bottom (mm) 48 13 NA NA NA NA NA 13 NA NA Feed manure slurry (%) 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 2 3 NA: Not applicable. Karim et al. (d) Digesters 5 and 7.82 L/min) Unmixed Impeller (275 rpm) Unmixed Biogas recirculation (1 L/min) Impeller (275 rpm) Slurry recirculation (0. 2 and 8. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 3 Fig.3.

All other conditions were kept the same. San Francisco.63 g/L..6 ± 1 15 ± 2 a TS = total solids. The waste slurry was prepared from the collected raw manure after blending. Digester 9 (impellermixed) and Digester 10 (slurry recirculation). Digester 8 (biogas mixed). q = density of the slurry pumped (kg/m3). (3). there were no replications. USA). It was verified that the cows were not receiving any antibiotic treatment. followed by settling for one hour to remove sands. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx Keeping the same power input per unit volume of the slurry treated (8 W/m3). After total solids for the prepared slurry were determined. digesters were operated under steady-state conditions for a long period (approximately three to four weeks) for statistical comparison.7 ± 4 61 ± 10 DCODa (g/L) 19.ARTICLE IN PRESS 4 K. were operated for approximately two months.13 g/L and 35. Later on. To evaluate this. The seed sludge had total suspended solids (TSS) and volatile suspended solids (VSS) of 66. One of the digesters was unmixed and the other was mixed by impeller at 275 rpm. The Bex Company.5% volatile solids (VS).e. California. Tennessee and stored in a freezer. The blending of the manure was done at 10. as explained in the following paragraph. The feed slurry was pre- Table 2 Characteristics of the prepared feed. Since. The second set of performance experiments was conducted to compare the performance of mixed and an unmixed digesters. the slurry recirculation rate (0. (2). Thereafter a more dilute manure slurry (3. straw and hay. was considered for this study knowing the fact that dairy manure ‘‘as excreted’’ has approximately 12% total solids (TS) and 10. H = head of the slurry (m). Two 3.. . it was then diluted with tap water to achieve the required solid concentration (50 g TS/L). Digesters 1 and 2 were started simultaneously. Effluent (460 mL) was taken out from the bottom of the digesters on alternate days and fed with same amount of freshly prepared cow manure slurry. Digester 7 (unmixed). as described in the first set of experiments. until the 71st day. 100 g TS/L) manure slurry.82 L/min) was decided based on Eq. Manure slurry. as mentioned in Table 1. The remaining 90% of the working volume was filled with fresh prepared 5% manure slurry (i.73 L working volume and with 25° hopper bottom. a third set of experiments was conducted to evaluate whether mixing becomes more important with an increase in the TS concentration in the animal waste slurry. and to create the slurry. Model 38. four digesters. respectively. having 50 g dry solid per liter.73 L working volume digesters.. while most of the treatment systems operate at a lower solids concentration than the ‘‘as excreted’’ values (Burke. ± shows the standard error. an equal volume of water was added to the blended slurry to dilute it and then it was screened through a 2 mm sieve. having 50 g dry solid per liter of slurry). The digesters were destabilized to study the recovery process and to check the reproducibility of their performance. Steady-state conditions were considered achieved when the variation in biogas production and total COD (chemical oxygen demand) concentration in the effluent was within 15% of the average value (Haghighi-Podeh et al. were operated for approximately 120 days. Digesters 5 and 6.2 g/L d and 3. whereas Digesters 3 and 4 were started after 48 days due to late procurement of fittings. 2001). NA = not available. resulting in a total solids loading rate of 3. DCOD = dissolved chemical oxygen demand. TCOD = total chemical oxygen demand. as some of the antibiotic treatments limit the viability of methane generating microorganisms in their manure (Masse et al.2 days. VS = volatile solids. P ¼ Torque ðN mÞ Â Angular velocity ðrpmÞ ð2Þ Similarly.5%) was fed for four feeding days to destabilize the digesters. a second set of experiments. However. settling and dilution. 1995). was conducted to check the reproducibility of the digester performance.08 g/L d (2 g volatile solids/L d) for all four digesters. Later. 2002). Karim et al. as well as to check the reproducibility of the performance data obtained in the first set of experiments. Hydraulic retention time (HRT) was kept constant at 16.6 ± 3 TSSa (g/L) 37 ± 5 40 ± 8 VSSa (g/L) 25 ± 3 36 ± 7 TCODa (g/L) 58. The raw cow manure was collected fresh (less than 2 days old) from University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture. respectively. VSS = volatile suspended solids. Q = discharge (m /s). the impeller speed for Digester 3 was calculated as 275 rpm.e. of 3. The digesters were inoculated with 373 mL (10% of the total working volume) anaerobic seed sludge collected from an active laboratory-scale digester containing cow manure. The characteristics of the prepared feed slurry are given in Table 2. resulting in TS and VS loadings of 6. screening. using Eq. P ¼ qgHQ 3 ð3Þ where. 5% and 10% manure slurry Feed manure slurry (%) 5 10 TSa (g/L) 51 ± 1 100 VSa (g/L) 34 ± 2 52. TSS = total suspended solids. followed by continuation of 10% manure slurry feed till the end of the study. with 25° hopper bottom (Table 1). The torque applied was determined by a rotating torque meter (Bex-O-Meter.500 rpm for 2 min in a household blender to break big pieces of wood..2 g/L d. The digesters were fed with 10% (i.

6 14. respectively. 1998). Results and discussion 3. dissolved chemical oxygen demand (DCOD).9 23 ± 3.94 ± 0. and 67 ± 2%.7 ± 0.88 ± 0.3 1. 57%.09 L/L d with methane content as 62 ± 3. respectively. Volatile fatty acids (formic.6 ± 1. Volatile fatty acids concentrations in the effluents from the digesters were observed as less than 250 mg/L with pH in between 7 and 7.). In the HPLC. Karim et al. ± shows the standard error.84 ± 0. leakage on the vacuum side of the air pump.5 23. PA) gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with a 6 ft · 1/8 in. All analyses were performed per standard procedures (APHA. 80 · 100 Hayesep Q. Biogas volume was measured using wet gas test meters (GSA/Precision Scientific. Better reduction of DCOD is quite obvious as the dissolved substrate would be more readily available for bacterial attack. Total solids and volatile solids reduction was approximately 37–40% and 50– 63%.. and valeric acids) were determined by centrifuging a small sample at greater than 10.2 ± 0.3 1 2 3 4 51 ± 1 31 ± 3 30 ± 4 32 ± 2.2 1.4 24.8 mm (8 lm particle size) RHM Monosaccharide column (Phenomenex. total suspended solids (TSS).3 TSS (g/L) 37 ± 5 23. averaged over last 30 days.8 TN = Total nitrogen. and 0.3 ± 3.05) of the experimental data was tested using one way ANOVA statistical program (Microsoft Excel 2002). injector and thermal conductivity detector (TCD) temperatures were kept as 45.65 TNa (g/L) 1.4 16. unless otherwise mentioned.85 ± 0. Feed and effluent samples were analyzed for total solids (TS).7 TCOD (g/L) 58. Input power density for the mixed digesters was kept the same as used in the first set of experiments (8 W/m3). MA) held at a temperature of 40 °C. The samples were injected in duplicate into a Gow-Mac (Model 69-350 Series. Total COD in the feed was approximately 58.5 31 ± 3. filtering the liquid through a 0.7 ± 4 24. however it decreased with time.2 ± 0. which was observed to be up to 18% in the case of Digester 2.3 ± 0. Initially there was variation in the performance of the four digesters.7 14 ± 0. and injecting a 10 lL sample into a high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC). volatile fatty acids (VFA). Total volume of the biogas generated was measured. packed column (Supelco. Miltford. 0.1. the GC was calibrated with 99.2 g/L. and the samples (1 mL) for biogas composition were collected using a gas-tight syringe.7 23.1 ± 0. All four digesters behaved quite similarly as shown in Table 3.7 g/L. S. Initially. etc.8.8 14 ± 1. Torrance.6 ± 1 3.9% pure methane (CH4) and nitrogen standards.57 4. The average biogas production rates for Digesters 1–4 were 0.4 ± 3 25 ± 2 25. 56 ± 3. Lehigh Valley. butyric.1 ± 0. The biogas production rate data shows that Digester 2 produced slightly more biogas than the other digesters.09.7 ± 3. respectively. First set of experiments (Digesters were fed with 5% manure slurry) Four laboratory scale digesters. volatile solids (VS). 0. CA). Statistical significance (P = 0.2 ± 1. probably due to infiltration of air.4 1. Average steady-state performance Table 3 Average steady-state feed and effluents characteristics data.8 13 ± 1.6 ± 2. showing approximately 79–81% reduction in the DCOD in the digesters under steady state conditions.6 mL/ min through a 300 mm · 7. were continuously operated over a period of approximately 108 days. to a refractive index detector (Model 2410.3 1. the mobile phase (filtered 5 mM H2SO4) was pumped at 0.6 ± 2. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 5 pared per the procedure described for the first set of experiments.3 ± 0.8 ± 2.000 rpm for 5 min. in all four digesters. total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD).1. Waters Corporation.5 4 ± 0.3 16.8 ± 1. and 56% for Digesters 1–4. but the corresponding methane content was found to be lower in comparison. The oven. propionic. held at a temperature of 65 °C.S. volatile suspended solids (VSS). The carrier gas (helium) flow rate through the column was maintained as 30 mL/ min.67 4. .07. The biogas production rate was calculated as volume of biogas produced per liter of digester volume per day and averaged over a period of more than 30 days (86th day onward). respectively.ARTICLE IN PRESS K. The reduction of TCOD was observed as 56%. It is worthwhile mentioning that biogas circulation in laboratory digesters increases the chances for ÔinfiltrationÕ of air into the system (due to slight air permeability of tubing. Chicago. acetic. The nitrogen component of the influent waste slurry under anaerobic conditions remained unchanged.2-lm-pore-size filter. approximately 33% of which was present in the form of dissolved COD. 61 ± 3. and total nitrogen (TN). 58%. for 5% feed slurry study TS (g/L) Feed Digester Digester Digester Digester a VS (g/L) 34 ± 2 18 ± 1.7 DCOD (g/L) 19. 3. Average steady-state data and the standard error presented in the paper have been calculated as a mean value over 20–30 days of observations.2 ± 0.8 VSS (g/L) 25 ± 3 15.5 ± 1. Ill). and the composition of the biogas was analyzed three times a week.7–4. 90 and 110 °C. fed with cow manure slurry. The effluent DCOD concentration from the digesters was observed at 3. USA).

The observed methane yield is in accordance with a reported methane yield of 0. 2. and Digester 6 (impeller-mixed). The methane contents were 66 ± 3. Fcrit = 2. mixed digester in the first and second sets of experiments were 0. .93 ± 0. The goal was to study whether the role of mixing becomes more important with increase in the total solids concentration in the animal waste slurry.09 L/L d. Average steady-state data were calculated over a period of 30 days (from Day 41 to Day 71).ARTICLE IN PRESS 6 K.05. df = 3. df = 3.04.84 ± 0. To elucidate further.6%. There was no significant difference for TCOD reduction at the 5% level (P = 0.00 4. The steady-state biogas production rates for Digesters 7–10 were calculated as 0.08.00 0 10 20 30 Unmixed Impeller mixed (Digester 6) Impeller mixed (Digester 3) 40 50 60 70 Days of operation Fig. Methane yield was calculated based on the mass of the VS added every day. the two sets of data varied significantly (P = 0.13 and 1. F = 0. The average steady-state data calculated over a period of 30 days (from Day 41 to Day 71) of TS. 3. 56). In sum. The zaverage steady-state biogas production rates for the impeller- Biogas production (L/d) 5. 56). VSS. Their methane contents were 64 ± 3% and 66 ± 2%. respectively. Fcrit = 2. VS. The ANOVA test was also performed for biogas production rate for the four digesters. to elucidate further. df = 1. 3. Volume of biogas produced per unit weight of VS removed was calculated as 0. ANOVA of the daily biogas production data for whole operational period at the 5% level showed no significant difference in the two cases (P = 0. It is important to note that the VS loading in the present study was 2 g/L d. reported by Persson et al.77.31 L/g VS added for the unmixed and impeller-mixed digester. Similar results were observed for other parameters. The methane yield.27 and 0. Thus the difference recorded in the biogas production rate of the two digesters was more probably due to random error than the effect of mixing.036. However.04.84 L. the performance of the impeller-mixed digester was successfully reproduced. F = 5. However.2. ANOVA of the daily biogas production data for the steady-state period at the 5% level showed significant difference among the digesters (P = 4.88 L/L d and 0. This value compares well with the reported value of 0. calculated based on the weight of the VS added every day.07 ± 0. respectively.68–0.4.93 ± 0. Second set of experiments (Digesters were fed with 5% manure slurry) Results of the second set of performance studies.07 and 0. including stagnant and impeller-mixed digesters. the data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). the data presented in Table 4 do not clearly show the superiority of any of the digesters.2 ± 0.6. Digester 8 (biogas mixed). Third set of experiments (Digesters were fed with 10% manure slurry) The third set of experiments was conducted with four digesters. F = 0. df = 3. 41% and 35%. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 6.75. Digester 3 (impeller-mixed). (1979).41 · 10À7. observed at a loading of 2.68.76.14 L/L d. showed no significant difference in their start-ups and performance. The data show that during steady state period. and it was observed that the value does not differ significantly at the 5% level (P = 0. At the 5% level. 1.00 1. seems to have produced more gas than any of the other digesters. Digester 9 (impeller-mixed) and Digester 10 (slurry recirculation). 39%. The figure shows that the second set of experimental data matches very well with the first set of experiments.00 data of the four digesters were found to be quite similar. while the unmixed digester (Digester 7) produced the least.14 ± 0. which is within 6% error.1. To show the reproducibility of the laboratory scale digester performance. 60) for the four digesters.5. Plot showing daily biogas production for Digester 5 (unmixed). Fcrit = 2. Digesters 7–10 had a VS removal efficiency of 35%. F = 2. The impeller-mixed digester produced slightly more biogas (approximately 10%) than the unmixed digester.3.00 2. Karim et al. it was observed to be 0.376 L/g VS added. Digester 7 (unmixed).00 0. and thus the data observed during the ongoing study is reproducible.003. 48). the daily biogas production data of Digester 6 (impeller-mixed) was plotted with the one operated during first set of experiments (Digester 3) in Fig. equipped with slurry recirculation. However. 1997). and DCOD in the feed and effluents are given in Table 4. the probability of the difference occurring due to random error in the measurement was 3. steady-state biogas production rates of the two digesters were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Unmixed and impeller-mixed digesters produced biogas at a rate of 0. while TS removal was in between 41% and 49%. Digester 10.86 g VS/L d (Linke. was 0. 20).7 L/g VS removed.95.00 3. TSS.35. Daily biogas production from Digesters 7 to 10 along with the TS and VS concentrations in the used feed slurry have been shown in Fig. Fcrit = 4. TCOD.27 L/g VS added. 3.21–0. Fcrit = 4. 2. 1. df = 1. respectively.93 L/L d. F = 14.

respectively.03 0. Upon continuation of normal 10% feed slurry.04 0.03 0. and the unmixed digester produced biogas at a rate almost 22% less than Digester 10 (Fig.43 ± 0.04 0. averaged over 30 days (from Day 41 to Day 71). However. all four digesters reached their earlier methane yield level of 0.69 ± 0.84 ± 0.31 ± 0. 0.93 ± 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.53 ± 0.03 0. Daily biogas production (L/d) Table 5 Biogas production rate.21. 26) between the biogas production rates of Digester 9 (impeller-mixed) and Digester 10 (slurry recirculation).08 ± shows the standard error.85 ± 0.31. the effect of perturbation was greater in the case of unmixed digester in comparison to mixed digesters.09 0.53 ± 0.6 ± 3 34 ± 3 32 ± 5 31 ± 2 34 ± 1 TSS (g/L) 40 ± 8 43 ± 4 40 ± 11 40 ± 5 43 ± 4 VSS (g/L) 36 ± 7 28 ± 3 27 ± 7 26 ± 3 30 ± 3 TCOD (g/L) 61 ± 10 44 ± 4 41 ± 3 41 ± 3 44 ± 5 DCOD (g/L) 15 ± 2 8±2 8±1 7±2 9±2 7 ± shows the standard error. After steady-state data had been collected for 30 days.24 3.27 ± 0.27 ± 0.20 ± 0.55 ± 0.24 3.44 ± 0.24 ± 0. However.55 ± 0. methane yield and methane productivity for the digesters under steady-state conditions Set of expt. the digesters were fed with normal 10% manure slurry feed till the end of the study.03 0. 60° hopper bottom Biogas recirculation 25° hopper bottom Impeller Slurry recirculation Unmixed Impeller-mixed Unmixed Biogas recirculation Impeller Slurry recirculation VS loading (g/L d) 2 2 2 2 2 2 3.06 0.03 Methane productivity (L CH4/g VS consumed) 0.23 ± 0. Feed TS and VS (g/L) . after recovery.28 ± 0. 3. F = 1. Karim et al.26.73 ± 0.08 1.13 1.23 and 0.92 ± 0.1 1. Digester 8 (mixed by biogas recirculation) produced biogas approximately 10% less than Digester 10 (slurry recirculation). 20 18 Biogas (Digester 7) Biogas (Digester 9) TS (Feed) Biogas (Digester 8) Biogas (Digester 10) VS (Feed) 120 16 14 12 10 40 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -40 140 0 80 Days of operation Fig.02 0.21 ± 0.25 L CH4/g VS loaded (averaged over the 103rd–120th day).06 0. 65 ± 4. respectively (Table 5). df = 1.22. 1 Digester 1 2 3 4 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mode of mixing Biogas recirculation. Thereafter.24 3. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx Table 4 Average steady-state feed and effluents characteristics data. showing the consistency of the reported performance data. The above data show that the slurry recirculation digester (Digester 10) had the highest biogas production rate. 65 ± 3 and 66 ± 4. Plot showing daily biogas production from Digesters 7 to 10 along with the TS and VS concentration in the used feed slurry.5%) in between the 71st and 79th days to perturb the digesters.24 L/g VS added for Digesters 7– 10.5 51 ± 5 53 ± 4 55 ± 1 VS (g/L) 52. as the biogas production for the unmixed digester dropped severely as shown in Fig.19.03 0.06 0.44 ± 0. Methane yield was observed to be 0. With the change in feed slurry concentration. although it took almost 10 days longer for unmixed digester to return to the earlier performance level.26 ± 0. ANOVA shows that there was no significant difference (P = 0.26 ± 0. the digesters were fed with a more dilute manure slurry (3.14 ± 0. for 10% feed slurry study TS (g/L) Feed (10% slurry) Digester 7 Digester 8 Digester 9 Digester 10 100 59 ± 3.09 0.77 ± 0.06 0.ARTICLE IN PRESS K. the mixed digesters started recovering.24 Biogas production rate (L/L d) 0. all four digesters became unstable and produced less biogas.18–0. 3.1 0.19 ± 0.07 0.07 ± 0. 3).14 Methane yield (L CH4/g VS loaded) 0.94 ± 0.84 ± 0.05 0.02 0.88 ± 0.02 0. 0. These results show that the mixed digesters were better able to handle a sudden change in the influent slurry than the unmixed digester. However.07 0. Fcrit = 4.

The above findings raise questions of whether the 16. Ghaly and Ben-Hassan (1989) observed higher biogas production rates in a 25 L unmixed digester fed with dairy manure than in a completely mixed digester..77. df = 1. Linke (1997) conducted studies with cattle and pig waste slurries in a 2. Another reason for conducting the second set of experiments was to check the reproducibility of the lab- oratory scale digester performance. the average gas production decreased by approximately 12%. Fcrit = 4.6%. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) of the biogas production rate for the steadystate period (from day 41 to day 71) showed significant difference among the digesters at the 5% level (P = 1. although they all behaved the same. as observed from the third set of experiments. Thus the unmixed digesterÕs biogas production rate was significantly different from all other digesters. A similar finding was observed in a previous study conducted with 5% manure slurry in unmixed and biogas mixed digesters (Karim et al. However. Stafford (1981) conducted an extensive study on a laboratory scale digester (3 L volume) to see the effect of eight different stirring rates (140– 1000 rpm) on biogas production in an anaerobic digester fed with primary sewage sludge. F = 1.5 L mechanically stirred digester (working volume 2.22. Fcrit = 2.8 L/L d and 0. df = 1. Therefore. P = 0. mixing had almost negligible effect on the digester performance in the case of digesters fed with 5% manure slurry.3 L) at different HRTs.26. However. mixing improved the biogas production. Therefore.29 L/g VS loaded.8. 2003).76.4. but methane yield (L/g VS added) decreased almost linearly. Karim et al. 41). keeping the HRT at 10 days. F = 0. The answer to the second question is no. The daily biogas production data of impeller-mixed digesters from the first and second set of experiments (Digesters 4 and 6) show that statistically (at the 5% level) there was no significant difference for the whole operational period (P = 0. there was no significant difference in the biogas production for the slurry recirculation digester and the impellermixed digester. as ANOVA showed a probable random error difference in the measurement of 3. Discussion In this investigation of different modes of mixing with 5% feed slurry (loading = 2 g VS/L d).. especially when the steady-state is considered as 15% variation from the mean daily biogas production. However. the role of mixing becomes more significant with an increase in TS concentration in the feed slurry. F = 15. this difference was more probably due to random error than the effect of mixing.08 as the least significant difference value. However. only further study can reveal if the role of mixing becomes favorable with the increase in TS concentration in the feed slurry. Statistically. To answer the first question.7 L/L d and 0. the performance of the digesters reported in this paper is consistent and reproducible. as mentioned earlier. Moreover. 2003). We conclude that the role of mixing becomes more important with an increase in TS concentration in the feed slurry. Therefore. Further.22. He concluded that as the stirring rate was increased from 140–1000 rpm. 58). In the case of 10% feed slurry the impeller-mixed digester produced approximately 10% more biogas than the unmixed digester.95.26 · 10À7.2 days HRT (Karim et al. the 10% difference in biogas production was not very significant. The biogas mixed digester (Digester 8) produced approximately 15% more biogas than the unmixed digester (Digester 7). The above mentioned statistical comparison of the biogas production for the digesters mixed by slurry recircula- .003. at the 5% level significant difference was observed (P = 0. the biogas production for the slurry recirculation was significantly higher than that of the biogas mixed digester. The slurry recirculation digester (Digester 10) produced approximately 29% more biogas than the unmixed digester (Digester 7). Fcrit = 3.ARTICLE IN PRESS 8 K. with 0.31. Mechanical mixers are reported to be most efficient in terms of power consumed per gallon mixed (Brade and Noone. respectively) are comparable to the earlier observed biogas production rate and methane yield (0. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 3.03. Obviously the digester mixed by an impeller would have had better mixing than the others. 26). So far as the mode of mixing is concerned. The impeller-mixed digester (Digester 9) produced approximately 22% more biogas than the unmixed digester (Digester 7). The results obtained from the first and second set of experiments did not show a significant effect of mixing or mode of mixing under the studied experimental conditions with 5% manure slurry. but there was no significant difference in the biogas production for the impeller-mixed digester and the slurry recirculation digester (at the 5% level. and observed that the methane production rate (L/L d) increased with reduced HRT. one should conduct a similar study at different HRTs. the biogas production rate and methane yield observed for the unmixed digester (Digester 5) in this study (0. df = 2. the results show that when thicker manure slurry (10%) was fed. The digester was fed with primary sewage sludge. Fcrit = 4.2 days HRT was long enough for the microorganisms to assimilate whatever organics were readily available or if the mixing intensity was not high enough to play a role. df = 3. respectively) for an unmixed digester fed with manure 5% manure slurry at 16.27 L/g VS loaded. Linke (1997) suggested an HRT range of 10–15 days. the two different bottoms and three different modes of mixing did not significantly affect the digesters performance.04. The above data further show that the slurry recirculation digester (Digester 10) had the highest biogas production rate. Similarly. Since energy production and disintegration of organic matter have priority. 48). 1981). F = 3.

with a methane productivity of 0. the 60° hopper bottom (Digester 1) provided better settling of solids than did the 25° hopper bottom (Digesters 2–4). the methane productivity of Digester 1 is different from Digesters 2 to 4. methane yields and methane productivities observed during the studies reported in this paper are summarized in Table 5. These results are as expected as with the increase in solid concentration. etc. 260 and 190 g deposits (dry weight). and thus the microorganisms had less time to degrade per unit waste.. as explained elsewhere (Karim et al. though in some cases their values differ significantly from others. in the third set of experiments (with 10% feed slurry). From Tables 3 and 4 it can be seen that the amount of TS removed is very much close to the amount of VS removed. However. though the biogas production rate does not vary much (Table 5).87–5. Digester 1 gave significantly low VS reduction (47%) than Digesters 3–4 (59–61%). 2004). as it will ultimately reduce the effective volume of the digester and lead to digesterÕs failure. These results show that the unmixed digester had more deposits and with a high percentage of VS than the mixed digesters.e. Alternatively. and giving lower VS removal effi- ciency and higher methane productivity values than the actual ones. 205. 57%. and the deposits were analyzed for TS and VS.43 and 0. Stratification will become more critical with an increase in scale of the digester. 53% and 59% VS for Digesters 7– 10. Similarly. In another study. Biogas production rate increased with an increase in the TS concentration in the feed slurry. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 9 tion. Solids accumulation inside any digester can be judged from the mass balance of TS and VS. It is important to note that methane productivity will differ with the type of animal and type of fodder used. a flow imaging technique needs to be used to characterize the flow patterns inside these digesters.82 g VS/L d. level of stagnancy. 2004). the amount of TS reduced is almost twice the amount of VS reduced (Table 4). Methane yield is defined as the volume of methane produced per unit weight of VS loaded. As in the first set of experiments. and thus will vary with the manure collected from different farms.52–0. It is reported that dairy cattle manure should theoretically give a methane productivity of 0. This difference seems to be because of different degrees of mixing (or level of settling/stagnancy) inside the digesters. however.469 L/g VS destruction (Moller et al. respectively. Of the three modes of mixing used. Therefore. while methane productivity is defined as the volume of methane produced per unit weight of the VS consumed. For example.. to provide quantitative information about the differences in degree of mixing. but mixing does become important to avoid stratification/deposition with an increase in the TS concentration in the feed slurry. shear level inside the digesters. and thus there was insignificant accumulation of solids inside the digesters.66 at standard temperature and pressure) without a clear trend. the digesters were opened after completion of the study.37–0. impeller and biogas shows that the probability of the difference occurring due to random error in the measurement is 3. For the present study the manure was collected from the same farm but at different times. and the methane productivity for Digester 10 is different from that of Digesters 7–9 (Table 5). Karim et al. 2004).. It is further evident from the data given in Table 5 that the methane productivity for the digesters varied between 0. One of the roles of mixing inside digesters is to avoid stratification and accumulation of inert solids. Thus the difference recorded in the biogas production rate of the three cases was more probably due to random error than the effect of mixing. especially if the feed manure has a high concentration of inert solids. Harikishan and Sung (2003) observed 36–41% VS reduction in cattle waste in a temperature phased anaerobic digester. Since the effluents were taken from the bottom of the digesters. settled volatile solids came out with the effluent giving a higher VS value than were actually present inside the digester. and the bulk liquid was gently poured out. though the biogas production rate of Digester 10 was approximately 22% more than Digester 7 (Table 5). Similar observations were also reported by Linke (1997). while the methane yield decreased (Table 5). all different digesters used for a particular set of experiments received the same manure slurry. This brings to the attention the need of inert solids removal prior to the slurry being fed to the digester. Digester 10 in the third set of experiments showed less VS reduction (32%) than Digester 7 (35%). This suggests that stratification and deposition were not problems when more dilute feed slurry (5%) was used. impeller-mixed and slurry recirculation gave better biogas production rate and methane . 64 and 57 g/L TS with 52%. For confirmation. However. at a loading rate of 1.6%. Clearly inert solids accumulated inside the digesters. Therefore. the bulk liquid had a TS concentration of 71. 9%. which had approximately 23%. respectively. such as sand (from bedding). 0. methane productivity is not a very reliable parameter for comparing the performance of digesters other than CSTR. However. It was observed that the Digesters 7–10 was having approximately 337.. 59. 5% and 6% VS. The high biogas production in the case of the slurry recirculation digester can also be attributed to the fact that the particles.77 (i..ARTICLE IN PRESS K.62 L methane/g of VS destroyed. The deposits in the mixed digesters were mostly inert sand. However. chunks and flocs were exposed to higher shear and were crushed while passing through the hub of the recycling pump used. The biogas production rates. one needs to conduct hydrodynamic studies as explained elsewhere (Karim et al. there should be a proper arrangement such as scraper and a properly designed effluent port for settled solids removal at the bottom of the digesters. the slurry loading increased.

. A. 6007 Hill Street..M.. R. 75. DePaoli. 18.. M.. 80. Halkidiki. Chisti. Part 2 42 (2). C. Varma. impeller mixing and biogas recirculation produced approximately 29%. C. However. R. Biotechnol. Trezek.. Fourth Int. 79– 86. R... Y. FEMS Microbiol. Droste. 1977.H. 3659– 3670. Biogasification of a selected fraction of municipal solid wastes. Anaerobic digestion—need it be expensive? Water Pollut. 1989.). S. Karim.T. it can be concluded that mixing becomes more critical with thicker manure slurries. Mingbo.E. 4.. Effect of mixing duration and vacuum on methane production rate from beef cattle waste. ASAE. S. 20–21.. R.. 325– 354. Appl. K. B. 24. R. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: Effect of mixing. pp. Y. Choi. In: Cheremisinoff. Al-Dahhan. (Ed. Biotechnol.E. Encyclopedia of Environmental Control Technology. Cattle waste treatment and class A biosolid production using temperature-phased anaerobic digester. In: Proceedings. Ahring. 259– 272. Olympia.E. Wiles. 35b. 1995. Dolfing. vol. but became significant when thicker manure slurry (10%) was fed to both unmixed and mixed digesters. Thus. C. Dague. References APHA. Agriculture Wastes 1. Comparative evaluation of hydrodynamics and gas-liquid mass transfer characteristics in bubble column and air lift slurry reactors. Bulletin 604. 183– 187. American Public Health Association. 24. Environmental Energy Company. Ohio State University Extension. The digesters fed with 10% manure slurry and mixed by slurry recirculation. Chapman.. 1985. 14–16 May 2003. including biogas recirculation. Q. 485–495.. Conclusions Mixing did not improve the performance of the digesters fed with more dilute (5%) manure. 7.I. Effects of nitrophenols on acetate utilizing methanogenic systems. D. Symp. J. Sommer. 2000. Washington. 701–706. 1997. 90–103. M. Technol. Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion Handbook. S.W. M. T. Noone. Anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill effluent by tank digesters.... the effect of mixing and the mode of mixing (at constant energy input of 8 W per m3 volume) became prominent when digesters were fed with thicker manure slurry (10%).. Moo-Young.. 1992. 29. Annual Meeting. 57–59.. Ben-Hassan. on Livestock Wastes. biogas recirculation seems to be a promising option..E.. 1998. S. Ben-Hasson.K. 1983.G. 533–544.J. Solids deposition and stratification were not observed to be problems with more dilute manure slurry (5%). 1989. Water Pollut. and slurry recirculation. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. P. 155– 164.M.. 541–559. Vesvikar. Garcia. In: Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge and Organic Agricultural Wastes. P..H. A. A model for anaerobic digestion of animal waste slurries. 2001. However. However. In: Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium. Tan. D. L. WA 98516. Smith.R. St.A. furthering biodegradation.R. pp. June 23–27. Based on the findings of this study. 2003. Ecol..P.. Dresher.. Iza. Minimization of energy input requirements of an anaerobic digester.. K. S. Singh. 2003.K. Harikishan. there was no difference in the performance of digesters fed with 5% manure slurry and mixed by different modes of mixing... MI. 22% and 15% more biogas than the unmixed digester. 1980. Bioeng. Lu. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx Casey. J. Water Res. Compos. Karim et al.. pp. P. Houston. Mendez. Technol. Klasson. Mills. D. 3. Flow pattern visualization of a simulated digester. F. L. Chen.. Burke. Control Fed. Mixing in largescale municipal solid waste-sewage sludge anaerobic digesters. 1990.R.J. 24–25. Biochem. Biores.. Ho. Brade. R. Moller... H. Chem.K. Chem. Fernandez-Polanco. as both unmixed and mixed digesters (energy input of 8 W per m3 volume) performed the same under the studied conditions.. K. 1996. Ross. 175–185. considering the fact that pumping of thick slurry is not an easy task and the energy requirement for impeller mixing increases in orders of magnitude with the size of the digester. Ghaly.. Solids retention in anaerobic waste treatment systems. Control. which would help to keep light weight biodegradable deposits at the top of the heavier inert deposits. Masse. 2004.ARTICLE IN PRESS 10 K. mixing seems help segregate volatile solids from inert solids. Acknowledgement The authors thank the United States Department of Energy for sponsoring the research project (Identification Number: DE-FC36-01GO11054). 70–76. Chynoweth..B. A. Hashimoto. Adv. 849–854. J. Sci. 101.. 1985. Hoffmann. 1991. Sung... Available yield. D. Water Res. Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering. In: Livestock waste: A Renewable Resource. Water Sci.. R29–R46. 223–229. M. OSU.. Energy and the Environment 2003..J. Biljetina. Karim. G.G.. R.M.T. .. straw and solid fractions of manure.E..K. R. Proc.H.. Haghighi-Podeh. Masse. DC.. Mixing in anaerobic digesters: state of the art. Technol. 2004. 20th ed.I. Requirements and methods for mixing in anaerobic digesters. 1979. With this feed the unmixed digester produced the least biogas. Ghaly. Design and evaluation of no-mix energy efficient anaerobic digester. T. Eng. 1980. Lema. 62. Effect of antibiotics on psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure slurry in sequencing batch reactors. Linke. Environ. I. J.P. Al-dahhan. J. Fontenot. Technol. Appl. Biotechnol. McKinney. 1986. Sci. 1981. B. Biomass Bioenergy 26. 8–13. D. Gulf Publishing Company. 38.. 1970. Greece. Pub.. impeller mixing.. R. Continuous production of biogas from dairy manure using an innovative no-mix reactor. Biotechnol.. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste in a nonmixed solids concentrating digestor. M. G.... 391–397. Appl.. J. D... 2002. K. The energetic consequences of hydrogen gradients in methanogenic ecosystems. Pfeffer. Joseph. R. 205–211.. pp. Res. Charlottetown. vol. Diaz. P. Animal waste utilization. In: Proc..P.L.. James.. Methane productivity of manure. Swartzbaugh. 9–23. J. Bhattacharya.C.. S. J. R. Environ. Chemical reactor engineering concepts in design and operation of anaerobic treatment processes. Elsevier. 10. Biochem. Ohio livestock manure and wastewater management guide. J.

A. D. Raskin. A.. Microbiol. Pennsylvania. G. Hein.. Bulletin 827. A. T. W. P.H. The Pennsylvania State University. 493–500. Stroot. 1987. Bartlett. Animal Sci. 1979.. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2005) xxx–xxx from: <www. Abramson. 1983. 109. S. 48. Mackie. H. Experimental methane production from animal excreta in pilot-scale and farm-size units. The effects of mixing and volatile fatty acid concentrations on anaerobic digester performance. Parkin. Fundamentals of anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludges. Smith... Bhunia. L. K. 383–388.edu/~ohioline/b604/b604_24. 202–217. R. USA. Jones.. D. Accessed December 2000. Karim et al. M. Owen.I.. McMahon. Digester performance.F..G. 1804–1816. T.. M.D.. Biotechnol. Water Res. 456. Stafford.J. . Eng. T. 1986.E. Whitmore. Environ.E. Branding. Agricultural anaerobic digesters: Design and operation.F. J. 112. Eng. R.. Persson.. J. J. Environ. Trib.ohio-state. G..html>.N.. 1981. US EPA. Greinier. Ng. 26.D. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste.ag. Hydrogen-dependent control of the continuous anaerobic digestion process.. Lloyd. Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions—I. Ohio. Regan. S. 867–920. 1148– 1158... Cebedeau. R..ARTICLE IN PRESS K. 35.. 1979. 2001. 11 Stenstrom. Cincinnati.. Williams. Appl..N. EPA 625/1-79-011.P. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal. 1979..J.W. P.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->