Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A

Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering

ISSN: 1093-4529 (Print) 1532-4117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lesa20

Modelling anaerobic digestion in an industrial

biogas digester: Application of lactate-including
ADM1 model (Part II)

Preseela Satpathy, Piotr Biernacki, Heribert Cypionka & Sven Steinigeweg

To cite this article: Preseela Satpathy, Piotr Biernacki, Heribert Cypionka & Sven Steinigeweg
(2016): Modelling anaerobic digestion in an industrial biogas digester: Application of lactate-
including ADM1 model (Part II), Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, DOI:
10.1080/10934529.2016.1212559

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2016.1212559

Published online: 15 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lesa20

Download by: [Cornell University Library] Date: 18 August 2016, At: 23:10
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH, PART A
2016, VOL. 0, NO. 0, 1–7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2016.1212559

Modelling anaerobic digestion in an industrial biogas digester: Application of

lactate-including ADM1 model (Part II)
Preseela Satpathya,b, Piotr Biernackia, Heribert Cypionkab, and Sven Steinigewega
a
Emder Institut f€ur Umwelttechnik (EUTEC), University of Applied Sciences, Emden, Germany; bInstitute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine
Environment (ICBM), University of Oldenburg, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A modified Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1xp) including lactate was applied to a full-scale biogas Received 27 February 2016
plant. This model considers monosaccharides to degrade through lactic acid, which further degrades
KEYWORDS
majorly into acetate followed by propionate and butyrate. Experimental data were derived from the ADM1xp; lactate; food waste;
previous works in the same laboratory, and the proposed parameters were validated against batch cattle manure; biogas
experiments. After successful validation, the biogas plant bearing a fermenter size of 7 dam3 and operated
with food waste and cattle manure was simulated. The biogas production and methane content were
reliably simulated, and a good fit could be obtained against the experimental data with an average
difference of less than 1%. When compared to the original ADM1 model, the performance of the lactate-
incorporated model was found to be improved. Inclusion of lactate as a parameter in the ADM1xp model
is recommended for an increased sensitivity and enhanced prediction principally for systems dealing with
high carbohydrate and lactate loads.

Introduction
Carbohydrate-rich substrates are common for biogas production
due to their ability to produce higher biogas yield.[1] Food wastes
contain high biodegradable organic fraction and have been attrac-
tive substrates due to their abundance.[2] However, such rich
organic load comes with a risk of pH issues due to accumulation
of intermediate products like lactic acid and propionic acid,[3]
thus affecting the stability of the reactor. Donoso et al.[4] report
digester failures due to issues relating to rise in volatile fatty acids,
reduction in methane production, pH drops, etc., ultimately
destroying the balance of the system. In this regard, mathematical
models are beneficial in understanding the processes and predict-
ing the digester conditions for extended periods of time, which
help prevent reactor breakdowns. These are cost and time effective
and enable an effective forecast of the viability and efficiency of the
biogas digesters.[5] One such widely used model providing a com-
mon platform for modelling anaerobic digestion is the Anaerobic
Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1) developed by the International
Water Association’s (IWA) Task Group.[6]
Anaerobic digestion model no. 1
The ADM1 model combines 19 biochemical and 2 physico-
chemical processes to simulate the behaviour of various com-
ponents in the anaerobic digesters. It includes the major
processes involved in the bioconversion of complex organic
materials into methane, carbon dioxide and inert by-products,
with the main metabolic intermediates being hydrogen, acetic,
propionic and butyric acids.[6] The model conserves the mass
of input substrates and converts them into solid, liquid and gas-
eous forms as output, and also includes the transformation of
products from liquid phase to gas phase. Separate biomasses
and their decay fractions further strengthen the capability of
this model.[7]
Despite the wide application of ADM1 model as an anaerobic
degradation model for several types of substrates, a limitation has
been identified related to the model’s applicability to digesters
with carbohydrate overload.[8] Lactate is ignored in the original
model, considering its insignificant impact on methanogenic and
low loading systems.[9] However, various reports indicate the pro-
duction of lactic acid as a major intermediate compound during
the anaerobic digestion of kitchen wastes [3,10] and carbohydrates
[9,11]
as well. Considerable accumulation has also been reported
after a sudden increase in the organic loading.[5,12,13] Lactate with
its low acid dissociation constant (pKa D 3.86) has a strong effect
on pH values,[11] ultimately destroying the balance of the system
when accumulated. Such effects have been described in the works
of Cao et al.[14] and Ubalua [15] who describe lactic acid ceasing
fermentation. Despite such significant influences on biogas pro-
duction, the ADM1 model does not consider pathways involving
lactic acid.[9]
In our previous works,[16,17] we confirmed the influential
role of lactate in causing an enhanced biogas production. After
this finding, the ADM1 model was further extended to include
lactate and its kinetic parameters to simulate a laboratory-based
standard reactor.[18] The aim of this work is to explore the
applicability of this lactate-included modified ADM1xp model

CONTACT Preseela Satpathy preseela.satpathy@hs-emden-leer.de EUTEC, Constantiaplatz 4, Emden D-26721, Germany.

Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lesa.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 P. SATPATHY ET AL.
to an existing full-scale high-rate biogas plant operated with a
complex organic substrate like food waste.
Methods
System
The system modelled here is the EWE biogas plant in Witt-
mund, Lower Saxony, Germany [19] built in 1996. This plant
operates on kitchen wastes from restaurants and households
and agricultural waste like cattle and swine manure. The plant
and its description have been detailed in the works of Biernacki
et al.[7]
The EWE biogas plant has two parallel fermenters, each
3.5 dam3, with an average hydraulic retention time of
20 days.[20] The biogas plant bears the facility of combined heat
and power (CHP) unit and produces electricity (2.5 MW) and
heat (3.4 MW) from biogas. The organic waste is collected
from farmers and food industries, and collected in an under-
ground tank (1.9 dam3) and is further transferred to a mixing
tank (620 m3), where it is mixed with manure in order to obtain
a homogeneous consistency and an optimal buffer/substrate
ratio. Manure is significant because it provides an ideal buffer
system and a healthy bacterial composition for the production
of biogas. The biogas produced in the digester is then measured
from the recorded cumulative gas flow, and its composition is
monitored with the help of infrared sensors.
During the assessment period of the plant, it was operated
with an input of 180 m3 day¡1 of cattle manure and 100 m3
day¡1 of food waste on an average. The simulated data of bio-
gas production was collected for 28 days (19.03.2012 until
15.04.2012), and the cumulative biogas production was found
to be 4.57 dam3 day¡1. A schematic diagram of the representa-
tion of the plant and the setup in the model is shown (Fig. 1).
The model
The model used in this study has been stepwise developed by the
authors. The ADM1xp model updated by Biernacki et al. [7] was
used as the starting model. This model incorporates a new decay
product fraction (XP), which is formed from a decayed biomass
Figure 1. Model description of the EWE biogas plant in Wittmund, Germany, prepared using SIMBAÒ simulation software derived from Rojas et al.[20] and modified for
this research.
factor (fP), and this updated model was used for both SIMBAÒ 6
and in MATLAB R2006b, integrated by IFAK [21] and Biernacki
et al.[7] The advantage of using ADM1xp includes an ensured
incorporation of nutrient mineralization.[22] This ADM1xp
model was further modified by the authors [18] in the previous
investigation to include the formation of lactate from carbohy-
drates and its further degradation. In this lactate-included
model, the monosaccharides were presented to degrade to ace-
tate, lactate and butyrate; propionate was formed indirectly
from lactate. Lactate is further degraded to propionate, acetate
and butyrate. The acid degraders and their decay in each step
were also included in the modified model. The COD flow
describing the degradation pathways and the model matrix dis-
playing the position of lactate in the model are presented in the
first part of this study.[18]
Characterization of substrates
Characterization of complex substrates by the Weende analysis
and van Soest extension [23] were used for transferring the sub-
strate characteristics into the ADM1 model. We considered the
experimental data from Biernacki et al.[7] who calculated the nec-
essary ADM1 fractions from the organic matter to raw lipids
(RL), raw protein (RP), raw fiber (RF) and N-free extract (NfE) as
described by Naumann and Basler.[24] The substrate characteriza-
tion was performed for the digester contents during the assess-
ment period i.e. for both cattle manure and food waste (Table 1).
Batch reactors setup and operation
Batch experimental data for both cattle manure and food
waste were derived from Biernacki et al.[7] They had pre-
pared the batch reactors with fresh starter inoculum from
the EWE biogas plant, and the experiments were performed
as per the German VDI 4630 [25] guidelines. Digital
ANKOM (N1v0, 4RF2; RFS#194) wireless sensors (Mace-
don, NY, USA) were used in order to obtain automated
hourly measurements of the total biogas produced in the
reactors. The blank data were subtracted, thus enabling the
validation of biogas produced only from the substrates

Table 1. Characteristic of the examined substrates (taken from Biernacki et al.).[7]
Parameter Cattle
[Unit] manure
Dry mass (DM) [%] 5.23
Organic dry mass (oDM) [%] 4.01
Raw protein (RP) [%] 0.74
Raw lipids (RL) [%] 0.17
Raw fibre (RF) [%] 1.15
Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) [%] 2.24
Acid detergent fibre (ADF) [%] 2.22
Acid detergent lignin (ADL) [%] 3.66
Nitrogen-free extracts (NfE)a [%] 1.96
Ash [%] 1.22
Composite fraction (Xc)a [kg COD/m3] 55.07
Protein content stoichiometric factor (fPr_xc)a [–] 0.185
Lipids content stoichiometric factor (fLi_xc)a [–] 0.042
Carbohydrates content stoichiometric factor (fCh_xc)a [–] 0.264
Inerts content stoichiometric factor (fxi_xc)a [–] 0.509
a
Calculated value.
during these batch experiments. Previous studies have
emphasized on the need to determine hydrolytic constants
specifically for the substrates;[26] hence, the kinetic parame-
ters and activity in each batch reactor were also accordingly
determined. Kinetic parameters in the model were individu-
ally determined for cattle manure and food waste. For each
substrate, a set of kinetic constants describing the phases of
disintegration (kdis), hydrolysis of carbohydrates (khyd_ch),
hydrolysis of lipids (khyd_li) and hydrolysis of proteins
(khyd_pr) was determined from Biernacki et al.[7] The other
data sets of parameters were obtained from the previously
described works of the authors.[18,27] These set of parame-
ters were calibrated with experimental data and were
adjusted further in order to obtain a desirable fit. An opti-
mization tool was utilized in order to obtain a sophisticated
calibration to simulate the batch results.
Parameter estimation
As previously mentioned, the hydrolytic constants were deter-
mined from Biernacki et al.[7] since this set was found to provide a
satisfactory optimized fit in combination with the other parame-
ters. The relevant lactate-related parameters were determined
from the previous works of the authors.[18] The authors had esti-
mated the necessary parameters for inclusion of lactate into the
model from the steady-state experimental results directly available
from the culture on lactate. They also had outlined an approach
to parameter estimation and the same approach was utilized in
this study. After experimental determination of the lactate degra-
dation products, the dominant pathway and the parameters (Ylac,
KS_lac), the batch experiments were validated. A numerical optimi-
zation algorithm (described in the optimization tool) was used in
order to determine the optimal set of parameters. Different
approaches thus were used to ultimately obtain a successful fit.
Table 1 outlines the considered set of parameters, which were
determined from either of the following approaches: experimen-
tally determined from our laboratory, adjusted by the mathemati-
cal fminsearch tool for an improved fit, calibrated directly using
the mathematical tool for an enhanced fit with the batch experi-
ments or from literature sources.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH, PART A 3
Optimization tool
Food
A numerical algorithm commonly referred as Simplex algo-
waste rithm minimizes the difference between experimental and
simulation results with the help of the downhill simplex
30.55
27.83 method algorithm from Nelder and Mead.[28] This algorithm
7.47 is incorporated into MATLAB as a function fminsearch.[29]
9.41 For each substrate, the four adjustable parameters (kdis,
1.17
9.53 khyd_ch, khyd_li, khyd_pr) were simultaneously fitted fol-
9.15 lowed by the other listed parameters (Table 1). The maximum
1.09 utilization constants (k) were found to be the parameters with
9.78
2.72 the most significant effects for the different groups of bacteria.
522.88 High sensitivity was also observed for flac_su, Ylac, KS_lac and
0.268 fh2_lac, and these parameters were adjusted using the mathe-
0.338
0.183 matical tool in order to reduce the errors between the experi-
0.210 mental and simulation data. After determination of the
kinetic constants for both the batch experiments, considering
the same proportion as fed in the biogas plant, a fraction of
60% manure and 40% food waste was considered, and the final
values were calculated accordingly. This was the same propor-
tion in which the substrates were fed into the biogas digester
during the assessment period.
Analytics
Dry solids and volatile solids contents were measured using
standard methods detailed in.[25]
The soluble nitrogen (NH4-N) was measured using the
(LCK303 and LCK305) ammonium cuvettes from Hach Lange.
COD was measured using the (LCK314) COD cuvettes from
Hach Lange as per the manufacturer’s instructions.
Determination of volatile fatty acids
Gas chromatography (GC) was performed in order to deter-
mine the intermediate organic acids content in the inoculum.
Agilent gas chromatograph (GC 7820) was used with an
INNOPEG-FFAP column (length: 30 m, I.D.: 0.25 mm, film
thickness: 0.25 mm; CS, Germany). The flame ionization detec-
tor (FID) with nitrogen gas as a carrier was utilized, and an iso-
thermal temperature of 180 C was set for both the injector and
the detector. Sample (1 mL) was injected with a flow splitting of
1:50. The details are presented in the previous works of the
authors.[16]
Results and discussion
Initial state of the reactor
The starter inoculum considered in the batch experiments
was an extract from the EWE biogas plant’s digester, and
the characterization of this inoculum was fed into the
ADM1 model as the reactor’s initial state. The dry mass of
this inoculum, organic dry matter mass fraction, pH and
ammonium content (represented as SNH4) in the model
were determined to be 4.83%, 3.39%, 7.84 and 3.1 kg/m3,
respectively. The organic acid content too was fed into the
model, which showed a positive impact on the simulation
results. The acetic acid, propionic acid, lactic acid, butyric
acid and valeric acid contents were determined to be 0.5,
4 P. SATPATHY ET AL.

0.9, 0.64, 0.69 and 0.08 kg COD/m3, respectively, and were Model prediction by original ADM1
further updated into the model. It was encouraging to
At first, we tried to simulate the biogas plant without any
observe the presence of lactic acid already in the inoculum.
modification and considering the values specified by Batstone
et al.[6] A discrepancy was clearly observed between the exper-
imental data and the simulation outcome (Fig. 2). A difference
Validation of the kinetic parameters against batch of nearly 60,886 m3 (»48%) on an average was observed in the
experiments biogas production. We infer this difference to be due to the
lack of optimization of the parameters and the absence of
The batch results with kinetic constants describing the disinte-
decay products (XP), which provide an advanced explanation
gration and hydrolysis phase (shown in Table 1) were individu-
to the biological process dynamics. The basic model was thus
ally determined for cattle manure and food waste by Biernacki
found to be unable to simulate the data satisfactorily. How-
et al.[7] These values were found to be reliable; hence, no
ever, it was remarkable that the trends in the erratic biogas
changes were further necessary. Some parameters related to lac-
production could be well reflected by the original model.
tate were further optimized with the help of the optimization
An evident difference was also observed between the exper-
tool, and these sets of parameters (outlined in Table 1) were
imental and simulation data for the methane content.
found to provide a desirable fit with the batch experiments for
Although, unlike the total biogas production, the average
both the substrates. It was notable that the approach for charac-
methane content was well simulated by the original ADM1
terising the substrates described earlier (Characterization of
model, a difference of only ¡1.3% was observed between the
substrates) provided an optimal prediction along with a precise
experimental and simulation results. The trends however
description of the reaction kinetics during the batch experi-
were not found to be reliable (Fig. 3) and the predictions by
ments. After successful validation of the batch experiments, the
the original model appeared to be uncertain. While in some
large-scale biogas reactor of EWE company in Germany was
cases there was an overestimation of methane content, during
simulated.

Figure 2. Comparison of the (a) biogas production and (b) methane content between the experimental data collected from the EWE biogas plant and the model
simulations by the default ADM1xp model.
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH, PART A 5

Figure 3. Comparison of the (a) biogas production ant and (b) methane content in the EWE biogas plant between the lactate-including and lactate-devoid ADM1 model
developed in this study and by Biernacki et al.[7] respectively.

days 20–24, there seemed to be a clear underestimation in the Table 2. Parameters set in the modified ADM1xp model.
simulation results. Such difference (nearly 3% observed on
Sl no. Parameters Value Source
day 20) between the simulated and recorded data could be
misleading and substantially affect in practical scenarios. 1 kdis 1.704338 Biernacki et al. [7]
2 khyd_ch 0.433202 Biernacki et al. [7]
3 khyd_pr 0.697782 Biernacki et al. [7]
Modified ADM1 model predicts the biogas plant 4 khyd_li 0.3222691 Biernacki et al. [7]
5 km,lac 13 Hinken [27]
successfully 6 0.4202 Experimental data calibrated b
KS,lac
7 Ylac 0.06 Experimental data calibrated b
The lactate-included ADM1 model was used to verify both 8 0.02 Batstone et al. [6]
kdec, Xlac
biogas production and the methane content in the EWE bio- 9 kA/B, lac 108 Batstone et al. [6]
gas plant for 28 days. We found a satisfactory correlation 10 Ka, lac 1.259 £ 10¡4 Hinken [27]
11 KVFA, lac 0.5 Hinken [27]
between experimental and simulation results for both the sim- 12 Clac 0.03125 Hinken [27]
ulations. An integral objective of our present work included to 13 flac,su 0.456 Calibration c
investigate if the lactate-included ADM1 could further opti- 14 fh2, lac 0.3942 Calibration c
15 fac_lac 0.456 Experimental data calibrated b
mize the prediction capability of the model described by Bier- 16 0.1083 Experimentally determined a
fpro_lac
nacki et al.[7] Works of Biernacki et al.[7] in this laboratory 17 fbut_lac 0.0057 Experimentally determined a
had already shown simulation of this biogas plant after opti- 18 fCO2_lac 0.0358 Calibration c
mization of the kinetic constants (Fig. 3). They had success- a
Experimentally determined.
fully simulated the EWE biogas plant with a methane content b
Adjusted by the mathematical fminsearch tool for an improved fit.
underestimated only by 1.74% and the biogas production
c
Calibrated directly using the mathematical tool for an enhanced fit with the batch
experiments.
overestimated by 1.5%. The lactate-included ADM1 model
6 P. SATPATHY ET AL.
Table 3. Biogas production and methane content predicted for the EWE biogas plant with the different models: original ADM1 model, ADM1 modified by Biernacki
et al.[7] lacking lactate and ADM1xp with lactate.
Biogas Methane content
(m3) (% vol.)
Experimental data 127,711 66.85
Original ADM1 66,824 67.91
Modified ADM1without lactate 129,581 65.11
Lactate-included ADM1 128,719 66.63
applied in this study facilitated an even improved prediction
of the same plant reducing the differences between the experi-
mental and simulation data to nearly 0.2% and 0.8% for the
methane content and total biogas production, respectively
(Table 3).
The strength of both the modified models was clearly
observed through their capability to predict the biogas plant
well despite the challenge of simulating the inconstant input
feed. Changes in input led to fluctuating biogas production in
the digester throughout the analysis period, and this could be
adequately reflected by the model. Inclusion of lactate in the
model not only produced a close and better fit with the experi-
mental data, but also showed an increased correlation to the
trend of the methane formation (Fig. 3b). Despite the successful
simulation shown in the previous model by Biernacki et al.[7]
the methane content was found to be predicted in an opposite
trend (especially after 11 days). This shortcoming was however
overtaken by the lactate-included model clearly providing an
improved prediction and a closer fit. We inferred these
improvements to be due to the consideration of lactate as both
a substrate and an intermediate in the model, which was other-
wise neglected. We also anticipate that with inclusion of a
strong acid like lactate, the impact of pH on the overall anaero-
bic digestion process could be more accurately assessed by the
model. Influence of pH on affecting the anaerobic digestion
process is widely reported.[8] We conclude these improved sim-
ulations due to the models’ increased sensitivity to the real
overall process dynamics in the digester. In order to facilitate
an easier comparison of the different simulation results and the
average differences overall between the original model and the
modified ADM1 models, the data are presented (Table 2).
Both modified ADM1xp by Biernacki et al.[7] and lactate-
included ADM1 models presented in this study show a good
correlation of biogas and methane yields when compared to the
experimental data. The correlation to the erratic tendencies of
the digester was also well predicted by the lactate-included
ADM1xp. The methane content also was very closely and reli-
ably predicted with a difference of only 0.2% by the modified
model incorporated with lactate.
The model considered in this study could thus successfully pre-
dict the biogas production in the large-scale biogas plant. Other
researchers have also reported that the degradation of glucose
could be predicted better with inclusion of lactate,[30] and Soda
et al.[9] clearly show lactate as the major product during monosac-
charide degradation. We expect the lactate-incorporated model
used in this study to successfully predict large-scale biogas plants
operated with food waste over a longer duration of operation,
thereby proving to be useful for biogas plant operators in prevent-
ing possible digester stability issues.
Difference in Difference of methane
biogas production (m3) content compared to
compared to experimental data experimental data (%)
60,886 ¡1.3
1,840 ¡1.7
1,008 ¡0.2
Despite the capability and success of the model, some weak-
nesses could be with regard to the amount of lactate formed
from monosaccharides. Glucose and lactic acid breakdown has
been reported to be dynamic and highly dependent on the
hydrogen pressure in the digesters.[8] We therefore believe that
a more in-depth study of this sensitive aspect might be useful
to improve the model’s prediction capability. It would be of
great interest to analyse the operation of a biogas plant operat-
ing with heavy doses of lactate to evaluate the real strength and
capability of this model.
Conclusion
The motivation of this paper came after successful validation of
the lactate-incorporated model against a laboratory-based reac-
tor operated with starch. In this study, we evaluated this modi-
fied ADM1 model to describe a full-scale anaerobic reactor
treating food waste and cattle manure. With a difference of
nearly 0.8% and 0.2%, respectively, for biogas yield and meth-
ane content, the lactate-included ADM1xp model was found to
successfully improve the fit against the experimental data. The
trends of irregular methane formation during the assessment
period were also well reflected by the model for this biogas
plant developed by the coauthors.[7] Inclusion of lactate was
clearly found to further enhance the prediction capability of the
ADM1xp model. This model was thus recommended to
describe full-scale biogas plants operating with complex organic
substrates like food waste. Further research focussing on reac-
tors solely based on carbohydrate overload or in industries like
dairy, pharmaceuticals, food and leather operated highly with
lactic acid might be useful in order to examine the model’s
applicability and reliability.
Acknowledgments
We thank Prof. Eike Siefert and Dr. Frank Uhlenhut from the EUTEC
Institute for their support and guidance. We greatly acknowledge Mrs.
Manuela Bayer from the EWE biogas plant for providing us with data and
materials from the plant.
Funding
This research was funded by Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
(DAAD) and was conducted in Hochschule Emden/Leer in collaboration
with Carl von Ossietzky University, Germany.
References
[1] Weissbach, F. Gas production potential of fresh and ensiled sugar
beets in biogas production. Landtechnik. 2009, 64(6), 394–397.

[2] Wang, H.T.; Nie, Y.F. Municipal solid waste characteristics and man-
agement in China. J. Air &Waste Manage Assoc. 2001, 51, 251–272.
[3] Zhang, B.; Wei-min, C.; Pin-jing, H. Influence of lactic acid on the
two-phase anaerobic digestion of kitchen wastes. J. Environ. Sci.
2007, 19, 244–249.
[4] Donoso- Bravo, A.; Mailier, J.; Martin, C.; Rodriguez, J.; Aceves-Lara,
C.; Wouwer, A.V. Model selection, identification and validation in
anaerobic digestion: A review. Water Res. 2011, 45, 5347–5364.
[5] Schoen, M.; Sperl, D.; Gadermaier, M.; Goberna, M.; Franke- Whittle, I.;
Insam, H.; Ablinger, J.; Bermhard, W. Population dynamics at digester
overload conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100(23), 5648–5655.
[6] Batstone D.J.; Keller, J.; Angelidaki, I.; Kalyuzhnyi, S.V.; Pavlostathis,
S.G.; Rozzi, A.; Sanders, W. T.; Siegrist, H.; Vavilin, V. A. Anaerobic
digestion model no.1. International Water Association, London, 2002.
[7] Biernacki, P.; Steinigeweg, S.; Borchert, A.; Uhlenhut, F.; Brehm, A.
Application of Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 for describing an
existing biogas power plant. Biomass Bioenerg. 2013, 59, 441–447.
[8] Thamisiriroj, T.; Nizami, A.S.; Murphy, J.D. Why does mono-diges-
tion of grass silage fail in long term operation? Appl. Energ. 2012,
95, 64–76.
[9] Soda, S.; Wada, K.; Okuda, M.; Ike, M. Application of modified
ADM1 to long-term experiments for methane/hydrogen production
from model organic waste. Water Pract. Tech. 2011, 6(1),
wpt2011009.
[10] Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Wang, J.; Yu, X.; Lu X. Exploring optimal feed
to microbes ratio for anaerobic acidogenic fermentation of cassava
residue from brewery. BioResour. 2012, 7(1), 1111–1122.
[11] Antonopoulou, G.; Gavala, H.N.; Skiadas I.V.; Lyberatos, G. Modeling
of fermentative hydrogen production from sweet sorghum extract
based on modified ADM. Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 2012, 37, 191–208.
[12] Mattiasson, B. Anaerobic digestion generates fatty acids. Ind. Biopro-
ces. 2004, 26(6), 8–9.
[13] Pipyn, P.; Verstraete, W. Lactate and ethanol as intermediates in two-
phase anaerobic digestion. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1981, 28, 1145–1154.
[14] Cao, Y.; Cai, Y.; Takahashi, T.; Yoshida, N.; Tohno, M.; Uegaki, R.; Non-
aka, K.; Terada, F. Effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculant and beet pulp
addition on fermentation characteristics and in vitro ruminal digestion
of vegetable residue silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94(8), 3902–3912.
[15] Ubalua, A.O. Cassava wastes: treatment options and value addition
alternatives. Afr J. Biotechnol. 2007, 6(18), 2065–2073.
[16] Satpathy, P.; Steinigeweg, S.; Cypionka, H.; Engelen, B. Different sub-
strates and starter inocula govern microbial community structures in
biogas reactors. Environ. Technol. 2016, 37(11), 1441–1450.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH, PART A 7
[17] Satpathy, P.; Steinigeweg, S.; Siefert, E.; Cypionka, C. Effect of lactate
and starter inoculum on biogas production from fresh maize and
maize silage (under review).
[18] Satpathy, P.; Biernacki, B.; Uhlenhut, F.; Cypionka, H.; Steinigeweg,
S. Modelling anaerobic digestion in a biogas reactor: ADM1 model
development with lactate as parameter (Part I). J. Environ. Sci.
Health A. 2016, (in press).
[19] EWE Biogas GmbH & Co. KG. Wittmund biogas power plant:
important data at a glance. Available at http://www.ewe-biogas.de/
english/index_28.php. (accessed Jan 2016).
[20] Rojas, C.; Uhlenhut, F.; Schlaak, M.; Borchert, A.; Steinigeweg, S.
Simulationsunterstuetzte Prozessfuehrung von Biogasanlagen.
Nuernberg, Dechema Gesselschaft fuer Chemische Technik. Poster-
beitrag und Abstract, DECHEMA-Tagung: Bioprozessorientiertes
Anlagendesign. Chem. Tech. 2010, 108–109.
[21] IFAK. SIMBA_ 5.1. User’s guide. Magdeburg: Ifak System GmbH,
2005.
[22] Koch, K.; L€ ubken, M.; Gehring, T.; Wichern, M.; Horn H. Biogas
from grass silage measurements and modelling with ADM1. Biore-
sour. Technol. 2010, 101(21), 8158–8165.
[23] van Soest, P.J.; Wine, R.H. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous
feeds IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. J. Assoc. Off
Anal. Chem. 1967, 50, 50–59.
[24] Naumann, C.; Bassler, R. Die Chemische Untersuchung von Futter-
mitteln. VDLUFA-Verlag: Darmstadt, 1993.
[25] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI). Fermentation of organic mate-
rial. Characterization of the substrate, sampling, collection of mate-
rial data, fermentation tests. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI):
Dusseldorf, 2006.
[26] Wichern, M.; Gehring, T.; Fischer, K.; Andrade, D.; L€ ubken, M.;
Koch, K.; Gronauer, A.; Horn, H. Monofermentation of grass silage
under mesophilic conditions: measurements and mathematical
modelling with ADM1. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100(4), 1675–1681.
[27] Hinken, L. Mathematische Modellierung von anaeroben Abbaupro-
zessen unterschiedlicher Substrate auf Basis des, Anaerobic Digestion
Model No. 1”. PhD dissertation. Leibnitz University, Hannover, 2013.
[28] Nelder, J.A.; Mead, R. A simple method for function minimization.
Comput. J. 1965, 7(4), 308–313.
[29] The MathWorks, Inc. MATLAB – Optimization toolboxTM 6. user’s
Guide. The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2011.
[30] Peiris, B.R.H.; Rathnasiri, P.G.; Johansen, J.E.; Kuhn, A.; Bakke, R.
ADM1 with modifications for Bio-hydrogen Simulations. Water Sci
Technol. 2006, 53(8), 129–137.