J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-017-0581-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Study of anaerobic co-digestion on wastewater treatment sludge
and food waste leachate using BMP test
Youngsam Yoon1 · Suyoung Lee1 · KiHeon Kim1 · Taewan Jeon1 · Sunkyoung Shin1
Received: 16 February 2016 / Accepted: 18 December 2016 / Published online: 11 February 2017
© Springer Japan 2017
Abstract  The study conducted basic component analyses
including three component analyses, elementary analysis
and heavy metal content and BMP test according to the
mixing ratio for food waste leachate and wastewater treat-
ment sludge(from brewery, dairy factory, bread factory,
sewage sludge), and calculated biogas production speed
using mathematical models. According to the elementary
analysis of organic wastes, the C/N ratio, a major condition
for anaerobic digestion, is 5.40–9.23, except for food waste
leachate (FWL). Defined by Tchobanoglous’ mathematical
biogas prediction model, methane gas and biogas produc-
tions increased, depending on the mixing rate of FWL. Fur-
thermore, anaerobic digestion of both wastewater sludge
and food waste leachate based on the correct mixing ratio,
increases methane gas productions compared to digest-
ing wastewater sludge alone. In other words, co-anaerobic
digestion is more likely to realize biogasification than sin-
gle anaerobic digestion. We mixed food waste leachate and
wastewater treatment sludge by proportion of 1:9, 3:7, and
5:5, respectively. It turns out that they produced 118, 175,
223  CH4  mL/g VS with the dairy factory, 176, 233, 263
­CH4mL/g VS with the brewery, 268, 300, 314  CH4  mL/g
VS with the bread factory and 233, 298, 344  CH4-mL/g
VS with the sewage sludge of methane gas. The result pro-
poses that as the mixing rate of food waste leachate rises,
the methane gas production increases as well. In the case
of co-digestion of wastewater treatment sludge and food
waste leachate based on the mixing ratio, more methane
* Suyoung Lee
ssyy76@korea.kr
1 generation using extra gas is difficult [1, 5].
Environmental Resources Research Department, National
Institute of Environmental Research, Environmental Research
Complex, Incheon 404‑708, Republic of Korea
 
gas is produced compared to single digestion of wastewa-
ter treatment sludge. Modified Gompertz and exponential
models describe the BMP test results that show how meth-
ane gas is produced from organic waste. According to the
test, the higher the mixing rate of food waste leachate is,
the higher the methane gas production is. The mixing ratio
of food waste leachate which produces the largest volume
of methane gas is 1:9 for the dairy and bread facilities and
3:7 for brewery and sewage sludge. Modified Gompertz
and exponential models describe the test results very well.
The correlation values (R2) that show how close the results
of model prediction and experiment are 0.920–0.996.
Keywords  Wastewater sludge · Food waste leachate ·
Methane and biogas production · Model prediction
Introduction
Organic sludge is an excellent source of biogas produc-
tion; hence energy production using it has rapidly increased
in advanced countries. In Korea, biogas production and
supply using food waste, livestock excretion and sewage
sludge is in commercialization stage. However, utiliza-
tion of industrial waste is still insufficient though it has
great potential as an available energy. Additionally, organic
waste resources generated in industrial complexes includ-
ing organic sludge are utilized for energization by a few
large companies, but most small and medium-sized com-
panies contract out waste disposal at a certain cost. A small
amount of biogas produced by a few large companies is
used solely for incineration or running boilers, so profit
Sludge is a precipitation yielded from wastewater treat-
ment, sewage and excretion, and very difficult to process due
13
Vol.:(0123456789)

284
to a high degree of organic constituents and moisture content.
Sludge can be separated into organic and inorganic sludge,
and organic sludge can be highly reduced by incineration.
Recycling usage of sludge, including organic constituents
can be expanded by utilizing the characteristics of the con-
stituents. Advanced countries consider wastewater sludge a
resource while Korea considers it waste; moreover, Korea has
weaker sludge treatment technology than advanced countries
as recycling costs are substantially more expensive than land-
fill and incineration due to the high moisture content of sew-
age sludge. What is more, various regulations also serve as a
stumbling block to sludge recycling technology development.
As regulations on marine dumping of waste have become
stricter around the globe in accordance the 1996 protocol to
the London Convention that took effect in March 2006, land
disposal measures for the waste prohibited from marine dump-
ing are required. In line with the policy of marine dumping
prohibition and energy recovery of organic waste resources
such as wastewater sludge, livestock excretion and food waste
leachate, energization of organic waste resources has emerged
as an important national task. Energization of waste materials
can be one of proper measures of waste treatment, thus can
encourage proper waste treatment and maximize utilization of
waste materials. Furthermore, if biogas (methane) is produced
and used as a fuel, methane yield which has 25 times higher
global warming potential than carbon dioxide can be reduced,
thus, it is expected to have a larger greenhouse gas reduction
effect than biodiesel and bioethanol [1].
Due to a ban on marine waste dumping and direct land-
fill specified by the Waste Control Act, biogas production
facilities should be introduced as a new treatment method for
organic waste materials produced in industrial complexes. In
particular, the introduction of biogas production technology
needs to be considered as a land resource recycling method
and alternative energy production method. In Europe, integra-
tion management of biodegradable waste materials has been
actively promoted rather than single organic waste material
treatment. Therefore, in this study, the potential for biogasi-
fication of wastewater sludge from household food waste lea-
chate and manufacturing facilities (brewery, dairy and bread
factory and sewage sludge) has been evaluated to set up alter-
native measures in response to the ban on marine dumping of
organic waste materials and to secure national energy sources
through energization of organic waste materials.
Materials and methods
Organic waste materials for investigation
The organic waste materials investigated in this study are
wastewater treatment sludge generated from beverage and
food manufacturing facilities which amount to total 328,331
13
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292
tons a year and it accounts for 17.1% of whole wastewater
treatment sludge produced in Korea. Food waste leachate is
highly concentrated wastewater generated by leaching and
solid–liquid separation in pre-conditioning process, leach-
ing and evaporative decomposition in treatment process in
food waste energization facilities. And its daily production
amounts to 8209 tons. In this study, to evaluate the possi-
bility of co-digestion of food waste leachate and wastewater
treatment sludge, M dairy in Pyeongtaek(Milk Manufactur-
ing, MM), H brewery in Hongcheon (Beer Manufacturing,
BM), L confectionery in Pyeongtaek (Bread Manufactur-
ing, BRM) and P sewage treatment plant in Pyeongtaek
(Sewage Sludge, SS). Annual wastewater treatment sludge
production of M dairy, H brewery, L confectionery and P
sewage treatment plant are 3770.6, 16,935.8, 1769.2 and
6679.4  tons, respectively. In addition, the study collected
food waste leachate from S landfill site (Food Waste Lea-
chate, FWL) and mixed it at different mixing ratios.
Analytical methods
Moisture, volatile solid and fixed solid contents in the
samples was analyzed through three component analysis
method specified by Korea Standard Leaching Procedure
(KSLP), and indicated as weight percent. In addition, total
solid (TS) and volatile solid (VS) contents were calculated
in consideration of volatile solid and fixed solid contents.
Element contents(C, H, O, N) were determined by elemen-
tal analyzer (Leco Co. 628 series, 2012). Heavy metal
content of Cu, Pb, As, ­Cr6+, Cd and Hg is analyzed by
ICP–OES equipment.
Biochemical methane potential (BMP) test
BMP test is an anaerobic batch test method to evaluate poten-
tial methane yield from organic materials. The test is carried
out by injecting nutritive materials and microorganisms into a
serum bottle under an optimal condition such as temperature,
pH to identify the gas production amount and composition
change [2, 13]. It was reported that potential methane yield
evaluation in BMP test may vary depending on the size and
concentration of substrates used in the test, type and injection
amount of microorganisms and cultivation condition, but it is
easy to measure methane yield from organic waste and reli-
ably compare potential methane yield between different sam-
ples subject to the test in short time [13–16].
In this study, 25 mL of microorganism culture media and
25 mL of seeding sludge were put into 125 mL serum bot-
tle. Oxygen inside the serum bottle was removed and suf-
ficient amount of nitrogen gas was injected before sealing
it to create complete anaerobic condition. Finally, serum
bottle in the 55 °C BOD incubator. Time taken until tem-
perature inside the serum bottle reaches 55 °C from starting
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292 285
the test was measured and that moment was set as test start
time. Gas was measured using manometer that measures
the difference between pressure inside the serum bottle and
air pressure.
In general, methane yield is the estimation of methane
gas production per volatile solid (VS) of waste input and
it is expressed through ­CH4-L/g VS. Estimated methane
yield is converted to standard condition (0 °C, 1 atm) using
Eq.  4 below, then cumulative methane yield is calculated.
To calculate gas yield in dry condition, 118.04  mmHg of
saturated water vapor pressure at 55 °C was subtracted. And
cumulative gas production of blank test sample including
inoculums solution only was measured to identify pure
cumulative gas production amount, so the formula to cal-
culate portion of cumulative gas production by inoculums
solution was modified as Eq. 1 below.
273 760 − 118.04
VCH4 (STP) = VCH4 (55 ◦ C) × , (1)
273 + 55 760
Wastewater treatment sludge produced in beverage fac-
tories and food waste leachate through BMP test, mixing
ratios of food waste leachate and wastewater treatment
sludge were set as 1:9, 3:7, and 5:5. BMP test on single
sample was carried out at the same time to compare co-
digestion with single-phase digestion of food waste lea-
chate and wastewater treatment sludge.
Theoretical methane yield estimation
and biodegradability
Organic materials are composed of C, H and O, and in the-
ory, ­CO2 and ­H2O are produced when they are completely
oxidized. If an organic material contains protein ingredient,
nitrogen is included. Digestion reaction formula of organic
materials may vary depending on composition of the sam-
ple, but, in general, ­CaHbOcNd combines to O ­ 2, and pro-
duces reaction products as described by Eq. 2 below.
Ca Hb Oc Nd + xO2 → yCO2 + zH2 O + vNH3 . (2)
In the condition of anaerobic digestion tank, if organic
constituents digested under anaerobic condition, they can be
described by reaction formula such as Eq. 3 below. On the
assumption that all organic constituents are transformed into
biogas, theoretical methane gas production can be calcu-
lated as shown by Eq. 4 below. In this study, after analyzing
element content, theoretical methane yield was calculated
with the content value using Eqs. 3 and 4 below [3, 4].
4a − b − 2c + 3d 4a + b − 2c − 3d
( ) ( )
Ca Hb Oc Nd + H2 O →
4 8
(
4a − b + 2c + 3d
) materials in this study ranges from 0.6 to 10.7%, wet pro-
CH4 + CO2 + dNH3 . (3)
8
Under STP condition,
Theoretical methane yield estimation (STP, CH4 -L∕g VS)
( )
22.4 4a+b−2c−3d
8
= . (4)
12a + b + 16c + 14d
Energy can be produced from organic waste materials
by generation source and the research on fermentation
speed acceleration and biodegradability was carried out
to measure methane yield and methane production speed
[5, 6]. Biodegradability indicates the degree of biological
degradation of organic waste material and it is considered
the most important factor in designing biological waste
treatment system.
The method is developed by Owen et al. [2, 4] to evalu-
ate biodegradability of organic wastewater or waste mate-
rials, and it traces cumulative methane production by ana-
lyzing biogas composition of samples put into a reactor
and evaluates methane yield ­(CH4-L/g TVS added) and
biodegradability of the input substrates.
This study indicates cumulative methane yield
(CMY) measured from BMP test on theoretical meth-
ane yield (TMY) evaluated from TVS (Total Volatile
Solids) of the samples as percentage. On the assump-
tion that each organic constituent of the samples subject
to treatment is completely degraded into C ­ H4 and C­ O 2,
biodegradability was estimated using theoretical meth-
ane yield calculated by prediction formula of Tchobano-
glous et al. [3] based on element composition of organic
constituents and cumulative methane yield found in the
test in this study.
Cumulative methane yield
Biodegradability(%) = × 100.
Theoretical methane yield
(5)
Results and discussion
Three component analysis
The result of three component analysis including mois-
ture, volatile solid and fixed solid is indicated in Table 1
and all organic waste materials subject to the analysis
excluding food waste leachate marked high moisture con-
tent of 96% and above. For volatile solid content, food
waste leachate and brewery marked 8.6 and 1.3%, respec-
tively. Generally, anaerobic process is classified into wet
and dry process depending on TS of input organic con-
stituents. As total concentration of the organic waste
cess is applicable.
13

286 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292

Table 1  Characteristics of collected samples for the anaerobic diges- food waste leachate seems to have various positive effect to
tion anaerobic digestion such as methane yield increase result-
Facilities % ing from high organic constituent concentration and C/N
ratio of food waste leachate compared to single digestion of
Moisture VS FS TS VS/TS
wastewater treatment sludge.
MM 99.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.7
BM 97.6 1.3 1.2 2.4 0.5 Heavy metal content
BRM 96.2 3.4 0.4 3.8 0.5
SS 98.5 1.2 0.4 1.6 0.8 The result of the heavy metal contents analysis including
FWL 89.3 8.6 2.0 10.7 0.8 Cd, Cu, As, Pb, C ­ r6+, Hg is indicated in Table  2. Heavy
metal concentration of organic wastewater treatment sludge
produced in industrial circles has been pointed out because
Element analysis of problems caused after disposal such recycling and ocean
dumping, and is a hazardous material subject to regulation
According to element analysis, food waste leachate indi- that needs to be primarily considered in reviewing the pos-
cated 21.8 of C/N ratio, a critical condition for anaerobic sibility of co-digestion. According to heavy metal analysis
digestion while C/N ratio of milk factory, bread and beer to evaluate environmental effect of organic waste materials,
factory and sewage sludge were lower, marking 5.5, 9.2, neither As nor C­ r6+ was found in all samples, and Cd, Hg,
9.1 and 5.4, respectively. References report that proper C/N Cu and Pb were not detected or satisfied anaerobic diges-
ratio to prevent incomplete anaerobic digestion such as tion criteria of EU. For MF-mix, BF-mix, BRF-mix and
ammonia accumulation is 10–30 and optimal C/N ratio is SS-mix samples, MM, BM, BRM, SS and FWL are mixed
12–16 [7]. If C/N ratio is low, ammonia concentration can by the proportion of 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5. The analysis result
rise in the process of anaerobic digestion, and high ammo- indicates heavy metal content in the residue after BMP test.
nia concentration can hinder microorganism vitality serving
as an obstacle to anaerobic digestion. Therefore, in the case Volatile fatty acids (VFAs)
of single digestion of sewage sludge, wastewater sludge of
milk, bread and beer manufacturing facilities except for The result of volatile fatty acids indicated in Table  3.
food waste leachate, effective anaerobic digestion can be Volatile fatty acids generated as an intermediate product
difficult due to low VS concentration and C/N ratio. In con- in the process of anaerobic digestion are mainly acetic
sequence, co-digestion of wastewater treatment sludge and acid, propionic acid and butyric acid, and besides, formic

Table 2  Results of the heavy Facility mg/L

metal contents
Cd Cu As Pb Cr6+ Hg

MM
 MM N/D 2.16 N/D 0.24 N/D N/D
 MM + FWL (MF-mix) N/D 1.44 N/D 0.92 N/D 0.0044
BM
 BM N/D 9.88 N/D 0.18 N/D N/D
 BM + FWL(BF-mix) N/D 1.42 N/D 1.10 N/D 0.0045
BRM
 BRM N/D 4.20 N/D 0.54 N/D 0.0006
 BRM + FWL(BRF-mix) N/D 1.52 N/D 1.02 N/D 0.0165
SS
SS N/D 6.54 N/D 0.70 N/D 0.0080
SS + FWL(SF-mix) N/D 2.12 N/D 1.08 N/D 0.0059
FWL
 FWL 0.100 14.50 N/D 0.62 N/D 0.0014
Anaerobic digestion 1.5 100 – 150 100 1.0
condition(EU standard)

N/D not detected, LOQ limit of quantification: Cd = 0.004, Cu = 0.006, As = 0.05, Pb = 0.04, Cr = 0.04,
Hg = 0.0005

13
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292 287

and valeric acid are also generated. In general, optimal Element analysis by mixing ratio
fatty acid concentration is 50–500 mg/L in case of single-
phase anaerobic digestion [8, 9]. However, McCarty et al. Element analysis and C/N values by mixing ratio of food
[10, 11] reported that if pH is in certain range, there is waste leachate and wastewater treatment sludge are indi-
no specific effect to methane generation until VFA con- cated in Table 4. As to C/N value, 10–30 range is presented
centration reaches 6000  mg/L, and if propionic concen- as a titration condition for anaerobic digestion, and 12–16
tration is 6000  mg/L, activity of acetogenic bacteria is range is known to be optimal [7]. As shown by Table 4, as
diminished. mixing ratio with food waste leachate increases, wastewa-
If VFA/alkalinity ratio in the digestion tank exceeds ter treatment sludge falls into titration or optimal range for
0.8, pH lowers and methane generation is restrained, so anaerobic digestion. Therefore, compared to single-phase
digestion process fails. When the ratio is 0.3–0.4, diges- digestion of wastewater treatment sludge, co-digestion with
tion is instable. For proper digestion, the ratio should be food leachate is expected to bring positive result through
maintained between 0.1 and 0.2 [12, 17]. mixing such as methane yield increase.
According to the result of VFAs concentration of
organic waste materials, VFAs concentration of all inves- Biogas production as a result of co‑digestion
tigated organic sludge ranged from 167 to 15,330  mg/L
of organic sludge, and VFAs was not detected after sin- In this study, theoretical biogas production calculated using
gle digestion of organic sludge except for food waste lea- Tchobanoglous’ formula and methane gas production meas-
chate. In the case of co-digestion, VFAs was not found in ured through the experiment was compared considering
all mixed samples after anaerobic digestion. It is deemed that organic waste materials composed of carbon, hydro-
that almost all VFAs was digested and transformed to gen, oxygen and nitrogen, and they produce methane gas,
­CH4 and ­CO2 as sufficient time was given until diges- carbon dioxide and ammonia gas. Methane gas production
tion is completely done. Therefore, rather than single at mixing ratio of food waste leachate to wastewater treat-
digestion of food waste leachate, biogasification through ment sludge calculated through prediction formula is illus-
mixing with wastewater treatment sludge seems to raise trated in Table 5. As presented in Table 5, methane produc-
anaerobic digestion effect by mutual complementation tion amount in dairy factory, brewery, sewage sludge, bread
such as digestion efficiency improvement. factory and food waste leachate are 197.5, 294.9, 305.6,
411.8 and 414.2  CH4-mL/g VS, respectively. As such, it
Table 3  Results of the VFAs
Samples Volatile fatty Table 4  Results of the different mixture elements content
acids (mg/L)
Mixing ratio C (%) H (%) O (%) N (%) C/N ratio
Individual (before anaerobic digestion)
FWL
 MM 182
 Individual 47.4 6.9 43.0 2.2 21.8
 BM 167
FWL:MM
 BRM 1080
 1:9 31.1 5.8 56.9 5.0 6.2
 SS 216  3:7 34.8 6.0 53.8 4.4 8.0
 FWL 15,330  5:5 38.4 6.3 50.8 3.7 10.3
Individual (after anaerobic digestion)  Individual (MM) 29.3 5.6 58.5 5.3 5.5
 MM N/D FWL:BRM
 BM N/D  1:9 43.2 6.8 44.2 4.4 9.9
 BRM N/D  3:7 44.1 6.8 43.9 3.9 11.3
 5:5 45.1 6.8 43.7 3.4 13.3
 SS 94
 Individual (BRM) 42.7 6.8 44.3 4.6 9.2
 FWL 12,953
FWL:BM
Co-digestion (after anaerobic digestion)
 1:9 40.6 4.7 49.9 4.2 9.7
 MM, BM, BRM, SS-FWL mix
 3:7 42.1 5.2 48.4 3.7 11.3
  MM:FWL  5:5 45.1 6.8 43.7 3.4 13.3
  9:1 N/D  Individual (BM) 42.7 6.8 44.3 4.6 9.2
  BM:FWL FWL:SS
  BRM:FWL
 1:9 37.5 6.3 48.6 6.3 6.0
  7:3 N/D  3:7 39.7 6.4 47.4 5.4 7.4
  SS:FWL  5:5 41.9 6.6 46.1 4.5 9.4
  5:5 N/D  Individual (SS) 36.4 6.2 49.2 6.7 5.4

13

288 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292

Table 5  Theoretical biogas Mixing ratio Theoretical (mL/g VS) Experiment (mL/g VS) Biodeg-
production of the mixing sludge radability
Methane Biogas Methane (%)

FWL:MM
 1:9 225.0 587.2 117.9 52.4
 3:7 279.2 651.1 175.4 62.8
 5:5 332.7 714.1 222.9 77.0
Individual (MM) 197.5 554.5 80.2 40.6
FWL:BM
 1:9 311.8 759.7 175.7 56.4
 3:7 346.1 784.3 232.6 67.2
 5:5 380.1 808.8 263.4 69.3
Individual (BM) 294.9 748.3 149.4 50.7
FWL:BRM
 1:9 418.1 818.7 268.34 64.18
 3:7 430.7 834.4 299.70 69.58
 5:5 443.3 850.1 314.19 70.87
Individual (BRM) 411.8 810.8 246.81 59.93
FWL:SS
 1:9 321.6 707.3 233.15 72.50
 3:7 353.7 743.7 298.26 84.33
 5:5 385.9 780.6 343.52 89.02
Individual (SS) 305.6 689.4 200.39 65.57

Theoretical prediction
[ equation] (Tchobanoglous
[ et al.) ] [ ]
Cn Ha Ob Nd + n − a4 − 2b + 3d
4
H 2 O → n
2
+ a
8
− b
4
− 3d
8
CH4 + n2 − a
8
+ b
4
+ 3d
8
CO2 + dNH3

Fig. 1  Cumulative ­CH4 production (­ CH4-mL/g VS)

13
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292 289

is predicted that biogas production is high in the following
order: food waste leachate, bread factory, sewage sludge,
brewery and dairy factory [18]. Methane productions at
1:9, 3:7 and 5.5 of mixing ratio with food waste leachate
were found as follows: 225.0, 279.2 and 332.7  CH4-mL/g
VS for milk factory, 311.8, 346.1 and 380.1  CH4-mL/g
VS for brewery, 418.1, 430.7 and 430.7  CH4-mL/g VS
for bread factory and 321.6, 353.7 and 385.9  mL, respec-
tively. The result demonstrates that theoretical methane
production grows as mixing ratio with food waste leachate
increases.
BMP test result to evaluate the possibility of co-diges-
tion of wastewater treatment sludge, sewage sludge and
food waste leachate are illustrated in Table  5; Fig.  1. As
described in Table  5; Fig.  1, approximately 118, 175 and
223  CH4-mL/g VS of methane gas was produced in the
samples that food waste leachate and wastewater treat-
ment sludge from dairy manufacturing facility is mixed
at the ratio of 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5, respectively. In the sample
that food waste leachate and wastewater treatment sludge
from bread manufacturing facility are mixed, around 268,
300 and 314 CH4-mL/g VS of methane gas was produced
at 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5 mixing ratio. In addition, it is found
that food waste leachate and wastewater treatment sludge
from brewery produces 176, 233 and 263 CH4-mL/g VS of
methane gas while food waste leachate and sewage sludge
generated about 233, 298 and 344 CH4-mL/g VS of meth-
ane gas, respectively in the samples mixed by the propor-
tion of 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5. According to the analysis, possi-
bility of biogasification through co-anaerobic digestion is
higher than that through single anaerobic digestion. And
as the mixing ratio of food waste leachate increases, meth-
ane gas production went up. Compared to single treatment
of sewage sludge, co-digestion of sewage treatment sludge
from the facilities subject to this study and food waste lea-
chate mixed at each ratio produced higher amount of meth-
ane gas because organic particulate material including food
waste has higher possibility of bio degradation and is more
easily hydrolyzed [13].
Methane production potential analysis
Through BMP test, cumulative methane production curve
is applied to modified Gompertz model (Eq.  6) and first-
order kinetic model (Eq. 7), and estimated various param-
eters included in those model formula using the best-fit
method in accordance with trial over method.
{ [ ]}
Rm × e
M = P × exp − exp (𝜆 − t) + 1 . (6)
P
Here, M and P mean cumulative methane production
amount ­(CH4-mL/g VS) and methane production potential
­(CH4-mL/g VS), respectively. Rm and λ stands for maxi-
mum methane production speed ­[CH4-mL/(g VS·day)] and
lag growth phase time (day). Lastly, t means anaerobic cul-
tivation period (day).
B = B0 (1 − e−kt ). (7)
Here, what elements of above formula stand for are
as follows: B: cumulative methane production amount
­(CH4-mL/g VS), B0: methane production potential

Table 6  Parameter estimation Mixing ratio Modified Gompertz Model First-order kinetic model
of modified Gompertz and first-
order kinetic model Max. methane yield Rm (mL/g λ(day) Max. methane yield k ­(day−1)
(mL/g VS) VS·day) (mL/g VS)

FWL:MM
 1:9 272.9 33.7 2.13 288.6 0.11
 3:7 315.7 22.4 2.36 345.5 0.06
 5:5 324.6 25.6 2.48 375.7 0.05
FWL:BM
 1:9 180.7 23.8 0.22 183.3 0.79
 3:7 236.6 35.5 0.55 252.2 0.18
 5:5 276.4 23.7 1.13 295.4 0.09
FWL:BRM
 1:9 272.8 35.9 2.43 278.8 0.14
 3:7 305.2 24.1 2.51 375.6 0.05
 5:5 325.3 27.5 2.68 420.6 0.04
FWL:SS
 1:9 238.5 38.2 0.15 242.8 0.32
 3:7 302.3 48.2 1.25 312.5 0.22
 5:5 353.6 28.4 1.98 365.5 0.08

13

290
(­ CH4-mL/g VS), k: first reaction rate constant ­(day−1), t:
anaerobic cultivation period (day).
Parameter estimation of modified Gompertz and first-
order kinetic model is indicated in Table  6. In regards
to cumulative methane yield data, modified Gompertz
model and first-order kinetic model are used to calculate
final methane yield and each model’s reaction param-
eters of anaerobic digestion and the result is presented
in this paper. Both modified Gompertz model and first-
order kinetic model describe BMP test result. In first-
order kinetic model, correlation values of MM by mix-
ing ratio were 0.952, 0.953 and 0.937 while in modified
Gompertz model; they were 0.996, 0.979 and 0.979.
BM marked 0.975, 0.973 and 0.961 of correlation value
in first-order kinetic model, and 0.917, 0.990, 0.992 in
Modified Gompertz model showing high correlation. In
addition, BMP test result on BRM and mixed sample
made of SS and FWL and model simulation result dem-
onstrated high correlation with greater than 0.9 of cor-
relation value. Therefore, compared to first-order kinetic
model, modified Gompertz model shows high correla-
tion value ranging from 0.92 to 0.99 and better describes
cumulative methane production amount based on BMP
test result. Maximum methane production amount of
wastewater treatment sludge from milk manufacturing
facility mixed with food waste leachate (10, 30, 50%)
marked 272.9, 315.7 and 324.6 C ­ H4-mL/g VS at 1:9,
Fig. 2  Biochemical methane potential by first-order kinetic model
13
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292
3:7 and 5:5 of mixing ratio, respectively, while wastewa-
ter treatment sludge from brewery marked 180.7, 236.6
and 276.4 C ­ H4-mL/g VS of maximum methane produc-
tion amount at 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5 of mixing ratio with food
waste leachate. When it comes to lag time, concentration
of organic constituents rose in line with increase in mix-
ing ratio with food waste leachate extending lag growth
time. However, as anaerobic digestion reaction in this
study was conducted at 55 °C of high temperature, lag
growth time was short in all samples subject to mixing,
and wastewater treatment sludge from brewery was found
to have shorter lag growth time than that from dairy pro-
cessing plant. As to maximum methane production speed,
both wastewater treatment sludge from dairy processing
plant and brewery marked maximum methane production
speed at 3:7 of mixing ratio with food waste leachate. In
regards to the first reaction rate constant of first-order
kinetic model, the longer the lag growth time is, the
lesser the first reaction rate constant value, showing sim-
ilar tendency to lag growth time of modified Gompertz
model.
Best-fit graph of modified Gompertz model and first-
order kinetic model, and correlation value of simulation
result and test result are presented in Figs.  2, 3; Table  7.
Both modified Gompertz model and first-order kinetic
model describe test result well as shown by Figs.  2, 3;
Table 7, and correlation value (R2) representing goodness of
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292 291

Fig. 3  Biochemical methane potential by modified Gompertz model

Table 7  Correlation values of Mixing ratio First-order kinetic model Modified Gompertz model
cumulative ­CH4 Production and
models prediction MM BM BRM SS MM BM BRM SS

1:9 0.952 0.975 0.957 0.971 0.996 0.917 0.996 0.921

3:7 0.953 0.973 0.947 0.974 0.979 0.990 0.983 0.984
5:5 0.937 0.961 0.929 0.946 0.979 0.992 0.978 0.982

fit of test result and simulation result ranges from minimum
0.917 to maximum 0.996 revealing very high correlation.
Biodegradability estimated using theoretical methane
production amount calculated by Tchobanoglous’ predic-
tion formula and cumulative methane production amount
estimated through BMP test are displayed in Table 5. Bio-
degradability can be defined as the ratio of experimental
biogas production amount to theoretical biogas production
amount. In case of single digestion of wastewater treatment
sludge, milk factory and brewery indicated 40.6 and 50.7%
of biodegradability, respectively. As mixing ratio with food
waste leachate rose, biodegradability increased.
Conclusion
In this study, it is found that organic waste materials are dif-
ficult to manage by uniform application of only a few tech-
nologies. In this respect, European countries have actively
pushed ahead with integrated management of biodegrad-
able waste materials rather than single organic waste mate-
rial treatment. In Korea, organic waste materials are man-
aged by different government organizations depending on
their source of generation.
1. According to heavy metal analysis to evaluate environ-
mental effect of organic waste materials, neither As nor
­Cr6+ were found in all samples, and Cd, Hg, Cu and Pb
were not detected or satisfied anaerobic digestion crite-
ria of EU.
2. According to the elementary analysis on organic waste
materials for mixing, C/N ratio, a key condition for
anaerobic digestion ranges from 5.40 to 9.23, except
for food waste leachate and anaerobic digestion effi-
ciency could be improved by mixing with food waste
leachate which has 21.84 of high C/N ratio.
3. When mathematical prediction model for methane and
carbon dioxide suggested by Tchobanoglous et  al., is

13

292
applied, methane gas production by mixing ratio of
food waste leachate and wastewater treatment sludge
grew with increase of mixing ratio with food waste lea-
chate. Consequently, it is analyzed that co-anaerobic
digestion has higher possibility of biogasification com-
pared to single anaerobic digestion.
4. Approximately 118, 175 and 223  CH4mL/g VS of
methane gas was produced in the samples that food
waste leachate and wastewater treatment sludge from
milk factory is mixed at the ratio of 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5,
respectively. As a result of co-digestion of the sam-
ple, food waste leachate and wastewater treatment
sludge from bread factory with high organic waste
material content are mixed at 1:9, 3:7 and 5:5 mixing
ratio, approximately 268, 300 and 314  CH4-mL/g VS
of methane gas was produced. As mixing ratio with
food waste leachate went up, methane gas produc-
tion volume increased, and co-digestion of wastewater
treatment sludge from those facilities and food waste
leachate by mixing ratio produced larger amount of
methane gas compared to single digestion. Therefore,
biogasification possibility through anaerobic co-diges-
tion is found to be higher compared to anaerobic single
digestion. The higher the mixing ratio with food waste
leachate is, the larger the methane gas production
volume is, and co-digestion of wastewater treatment
sludge from those facilities and food waste leachate at
each mixing ratio produced larger amount of methane
gas compared to single digestion.
5. Both modified Gompertz and index model well
described the result of BMP test on methane produc-
tion by organic waste material, and as mixing ratio
with food waste leachate increased, larger amount
of methane was produced. When it comes to maxi-
mum methane production speed, food waste leachate
and dairy factory, and food waste leachate and bread
factory marked the maximum speed at 1:9 of mixing
ratio while food waste leachate and brewery, and food
waste leachate wastewater treatment sludge recorded
the maximum speed at 3:7 of mixing ratio. Both modi-
fied Gompertz model and first-order kinetic model well
explained the test result, and both modified Gompertz
model and first-order kinetic model describe test result
well, and correlation value (R2) indicating goodness of
fit of test result and simulation result ranges from mini-
mum 0.920 to maximum 0.996 showing very high cor-
relation. The mixing ratio of food waste leachate that
produces the largest volume of methane gas is 1:9 for
the dairy and bread factory and 3:7 for brewery and
sewage sludge.
6. Biodegradability can be defined as the ratio of experi-
mental to theoretical biogas production amount. In
13
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2018) 20:283–292
the case of single digestion of wastewater treatment
sludge, biodegradability of dairy factory, brewery,
bread factory and sewage sludge were 40.6, 50.7, 59.9
and 65.6%, respectively. The result implies that biodeg-
radability goes up in line with the increase of mixing
ratio with food waste leachate.
References
1. Danny Harvey LD (1993) A guide to global warming potentials
(GWPs). Energy Policy 21(1):24–34
2. Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JB, Young LY, McCarty PL
(1979) Bioassay for Monitoring biochemical methane potential
and anaerobic toxity. Water Resour 13: 485–492
3. Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil S (1993) Integrated solid
waste management engineering principles and management
issues. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York USA
4. Buswell AM, Mueller HF (1952) Mechanism of methane fer-
mentation. Ind Eng Chem 44(3):550–552
5. Gossett JM (1975) Heat treatment of refuse for increasing anaer-
obic biodegradability. Civil Engineering Technical Report, 198.
Stanford University, Stanford
6. Chynoweth DP, Turick CE, Owen JM, Jerger DE, Peck MW
(1993) Biochemical methane potential of biomass and waste
feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy 5(1):95–111
7. Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspec-
tives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85(4):849–860
8. Shelton DR, Tiedje JM (1984) General method for determin-
ing anaerobic biodegradation potential. Appl Environ Microbiol
47(4):850–857
9. Parkin GF, Owen WF (1986) Fundamentals of anaerobic diges-
tion of wastewater sludge. J Environ Eng 112:867–920
10. McCarty PL (1964) Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals, I.
Chemistry and microbiology II. Environmental requirements and
control III. Toxic materials and their control IV. Process design.
Public Works 95:9–12
11. McCarty PL, McKinney RE (1961) Volatile acid toxicity in
anaerobic digestion. JWPCF 33(3):223–232
12. WPCF (1987) Anaerobic Sludge Digestion, Manual of Practice
16, 2nd Edition
13. Cho JK, Park SC, Chang HN (1995) Biochemical methane
potential and solid state anaerobic digestion of Korea food waste.
Bioresour Technol 52:245–253
14. Rodrigo AL, Largus TA, Norman RS (2011) Biochemical meth-
ane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates.
Bioresour Technol 102:2255–2264
15. EI-mashad HM, Zhang R (2010) Biogas production from co-
digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour Technol
101:4021–4028
16. Bilgili MS, Ahmet D, Gamze V (2009) Evaluation and mode-
ling of biochemical methane potential(BMP) of landfilled solid
waste: a pilot scale study. Bioresour Technol 100:4976–4980
17. Lee D, Lee S, Bae J, Kang J, Kim K, Rhee S, Park J, Cho J,
Chung J, Seo D (2015) Effect of volatile fatty acid concentra-
tion on anaerobic degradation rate from field anaerobic digestion
facilities treating food waste leachate in South Korea. J Chem.
doi:10.1155/2015/640717
18. Kim S, Ju H (2012) Feasibility of co-digestion of sewage sludge,
swine waste and food waste leachate. J Korea 20(1):61–70