Anaerobic Digestion in Latin

America
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION APPLIED TO
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Adalberto Noyola
Institute of Engineering UNAM-Mexico

René Moletta’s workshop.

And Old Story for Today and Tomorrrow
Narbonne, 10-11 December 2009
 Contents

The context of sanitation in LAC

Some elements for diagnosis

Anaerobic digestion in LA

Anaerobic sewage treatment

New developments needed

Final remarks
 Introduction
The context of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

563 million inhabitants (8.5% World population)

Extreme GNI’s

LAC region has the highest income per capita and the highest life
expectancy at birth among developing regions.

Water supply for 85% of its population (84 millions lacking)

Sanitation for 78% of its population (124 millions lacking)

Wastewater treatment for around 15%

Unattained national and international sector goals

 Some economic background
Gross National Income for some countries in the Region

Gross National Income

2001 2004 2007
($USD per capita.year)
Argentina 6,950 3,963 6,050
Brazil 3,060 3,384 5,910
Colombia 1,890 2,150 3,250
Chile 4,600 5,898 8,350
Haití 480 411 560
Mexico 5,560 6,518 8,340
Latin America and Caribbean 3,550 3,657 5,540
USA 34,400 39,752 46,040

Source: World Development Indicators Database 2008

(www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html)
 Sanitation coverage
(urban and rural sewer systems)
 Some elements for diagnosis
74% urban population (cities bigger than 2,500 inhab.)

Sanitation for 78% of the population

48% conventional sewage

30% latrines and septic tanks

Conventional treatment technologies (15%)

Stabilization ponds (+++)

Activated sludge (+)

Resistance to adopt non conventional or adapted

technologies

Anaerobic reactors for MWW (UASB)
Water scarcity in some areas

Wastewater reuse in agricultural irrigation (520,000 ha)

Growing needs for industrial an urban water reuse

Decentralized responsibilities for water and

sanitation services in some countries

Municipalities in 12 of 26 countries

Economy of scale may be lost

New approaches, new solutions for a persistent

problem

Innovative

Adapted

Holistic (finances, management, technology, environment, social
participation)
 The sanitation challenges

Millennium Development Goals (ONU, 2000)

Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable
access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (Goal 7,
Target 10)

IDB estimations (2006)

Required investment to catch up: $US 65 billons

Required investment to meet MDG (target 10) $US 27 billons

Trends for water and sanitation coverage (2015)

Water supply

Sewage treatment

Inter-american Developing Bank, 2005

Sanitation in Latin America
Field for opportunities

Firm political decisions

Responsible social participation (all stakeholders)

• New technical solutions, less conventional and

more adapted

• Innovative technology in accordance with local

conditions, needs and restrictions

• Optimize capital investment and operational costs,

for a sustainable process
 Other strategies
Decentralized wastewater treatment and re-use
management

• Areas with limited infrastructure or disperse land

occupation

• In situ wastewater treatment and reuse

(bring together O and D)

• Reduced civil works

• Society participation and empowering (owning of the

system)

• Coexisting of conventional and decentralized systems

 Anaerobic reactors in LA
Borzacconi et al. (1995) Application of anaerobic digestion to the treatment of
agroindustrial efuents in Latin America. Water Sci. Tech. 22(12), 105-111.

Monroy et al. (2000) Anaerobic digestion for wastewater treatment in Mexico:

state of the technology (2000) Wat. Res. Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 1803±1816, 2000

AD reactors in Mexico (1998) Industrial: 51

Municipal: 34
Total 85
 Up to date reactors in Mexico (2009)

Increase
WW Vol (m3) Daily COD load (kg/d) No. of reactors 1999-2009
SEWAGE 72,378 22% 284,000 20% 49 36% 15

INDUSTRIAL 260,753 78% 1,134,119 80% 86 64% 35

TOTAL 333,131 1,418,119 135

50

(Macarie, personal communication)

Advantages of high rate AD reactors for
wastewater treatment
☺ Low sludge production (stabilized)

☺ Low or no energy requirements

☺ Low nutrients needs

☺ Energy production (biogas)

☺ Very high loading rates (up to 30 kgCOD/m3day)

☺ Relatively simple operation

☺ Anaerobic sludge may remain unfed

☺ Fast start up with proper inoculation

Drawbacks of Anaerobic Digestion

 Lower effluent quality (COD, NH3, H2S)

 Potential source of odors

 Temperature dependant

 Complex bacterial consortium

 12 1

Anaerobic 1

research 5
1
groups in LA 29

5
1
1
 Brasilan successful case
Research Program on Basic Sanitation (PROSAB)
Collaborative (network) research
To develop technology and know-how for low cost systems
Major research areas:

Drinking water

Sewage

Sludge management

Water reuse

Municipal solid waste management

Started in 1996, 6 periods (2 years each)

Results:

Strengthening of academic and professional sectors

Adapted technologies already in full scale applications

Well documented productions (books, research papers, thesis, seminars)

Return of investment on R & D to society

Open access to the information (mostly in Portuguese)

www.finep.gov.br/prosab/index.html
Domestic sewage as a “substrate”

Low organic matter concentration

250 to 500 mg/l of COD

High fraction of suspended solids

Around 50% of COD (150 to 300 mg/l)

Medium to low temperature

Around 20ºC

Highly variable flow

Pathogen (and parasites) content

 UASB for domestic sewage
Biogas
Effluent weir

• Compact installation….
Settling zone
• Primary settler
• Biological reactor Gas collector
• Secondary settler
• Sludge digester Baffle
• Sludge thickener
….all in one tank

• Nutrientconservation (crop irrigation)

• Simple and economic operation Sludge bed

•BUT…lower effluent quality Influent

…water temperatures above 20 C
 UASB for domestic sewage
Biogas
Effluent weir

Typical design for UASB Settling zone

application in municipal Gas collector

wastewater treatment:
Baffle
•Temp: above 20 C
•HRT: 6 to 8 hours
•Organic Load: 1.5 to 2 kgCOD/m3day
(not limiting parameter)
•Height: 5 to 6 meters
Sludge bed
•Upflow velocity: 0.6 to 0.8 m/h
•Feeding points: 1 per 2 to 4 m2
Influent
 UASB for domestic sewage
Typical results for UASB application in municipal
wastewater treatment
(sewage temperature 20 C or above)

• Effluent BOD: 40 to 60 mg/l

• Effluent COD: 120 to 160 mg/l
• Effluent TSS: 40 to 60 mg/l

• BOD removal: 75 to 85%

• COD removal: 70 to 80%

• Fecal coliforms removal: 1 log unit

• Parasites ova: up to 100%

In many cases: need for a post-treatment step

Full scale experiences in Parana,
Brazil (SANEPAR)
1983 BR patent; Jurgensen and Savelli
(PI – 890.1564-9)
 Municipal WWTP in Paraná State, Brasil
(2006)
TREATMENT PROCESS WWTP IN OPERATION

 UASB 100
 ANAEROBIC POND 2
 FACULTATIVE POND 3
 ANAEROBIC + FACULTATIVE PONDS 6
 UASB + FACULTATIVE POND 61
 UASB + SETTLING TANK 7
 UASB + ANAEROBIC FILTER 18
 UASB + TRICKLING FILTER 6
 UASB + SUBMERGED AEROBIC FILTER 2
 UASB + AIR FLOTATION 2
 UASB + COAGULATION/SEDIMENTATION 1
 EXTENDED AERATION (CARROUSSEL) 1
 TOTAL 209
 RALFs in Parana, Brasil.
2 different UASB designs

UASB (RALF) UASB

(100 l/s) (70 l/s)

UASB + dissolved air flotation + UV

SÃO LOURENÇO - LONDRINA
RALF + facultative pond
30.000 hab. (60 l/s)
 PADILHA SUL – CURITIBA
RALF + Facultative pond + UV
Two “big” UASB reactors for municipal treatment

UASB Onça (Belo Horizonte) UASB Atuba Sul (Curitiba)

(2000 l/s) (1460 l/s)
UASB Onça (Belo Horizonte)
(2000 l/s)
 Investment cost. UASB (RALF) + postratment
0,40

Investment ($US/m3) 0,35

0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00
4.203 12.610 29.424

Inhabitants SANEPAR, Parana, BR

RALF + Aerated pond

RALF + submerged aerobic filter
RALF + dissolved air flotation
RALF + Trickling filter
RALF + coagulation /sedimentation
Main limitations for UASB in MWWT

Lower effluent quality (do not meet a secondary level std)

No nutrient removal (N, P)

Temperature is crucial (should be above 20 C)

Odors

(Still) not accepted among practitioners

 New developments
… remaining a simple technology

Overcome temperature limitation

Expanded granular sludge bed

Increase mass transfer

Two phase reactor

Improve hydrolysis in a first step reactor
 New developments
… remaining a simple technology
Scum control
Long term operational problem (gas collecting device)
Odor control
Capture devices, compost biofilters
Management of dissolved methane
Meeting GHG emissions
Prevent venting of methane
Simpler, safe gas burners
Alternative solutions for small plants (biofilters)
 Final remarks
A lot still has to be done, mainly on sanitation and wastewater
treatment. New approaches are needed in order to face water
scarcity and lack of sanitary infrastructure in LA.

The huge economic resources that will be involved in medium

and long terms are an opportunity for Latin-American engineering
innovation in order to look for its own (endogenous) solutions

Anaerobic technologies, mainly the UASB concept, may be a

well-suited option that fulfills the requirements for sewage
management in many LA countries.

Developments for scum handling, odor control, environmentally

safe biogas venting and control of dissolved methane in the
effluent are opportunities for researchers and engineers; keep
them simple.
The big challenge is to innovate and to achieve alliances
between stakeholders for putting together economic,
technical and political resources, in a framework of long
term, comprehensive and sustainable planning
 AN INVITATION

AD12

Guadalajara, México

31 October – 4 November 2010

Full paper submission deadline:

April 1st, 2010
Short paper (poster) submission deadline:
June 1st, 2010

www.ad12mexico.unam.mx

ad12@pumas.unam.mx
Programme Committee
Germán Buitrón, (Mexico)
Damien Batstone, (Australia)
Eugenio Foresti, (Brasil)
Fons Stams, (The Netherlands)
Francisco Cervantes, (Mexico)
Jules van Lier, (The Netherlands)
Jürg Keller, (Australia)
Willy Verstraete, (Belgium)
Scientific Committee
Elías Razo-Flores (Mexico) Coordinator
Carlos Chernicharo (Brazil)
David Bagley (USA)
David Jeison (Chile)
David Stuckey (United Kingdom)
Denis Dochain (Belgium)
Eberhard Morgenroth (USA)
Franco Cecchi (Italy)
Fernando Fdz-Polanco (Spain)
Héctor Poggi-Varaldo (Mexico)
Henri Spanjers (The Netherlands)
Herbert P. Fang (Honk Kong, China)
Hiroshi Tsuno (Japan)
Irini Angelidaki (Denmark)
Jean-Philippe Steyer (France)
Jim Field (USA)
Joan Mata-Alvarez (Spain)
Joo Hwa Tay (Singapore)
Jorge Rodríguez Rodríguez (United Kingdom)
Juan Lema (Spain)
Liliana Borzacconi (Uruguay)
Madalena Alves (Portugal)
Makarand Madhao Ghangrekar (India)
Marcelo Zaiat (Brazil)
Mario Kato (Brazil)
Moktar Hamdi (Tunisia)
Nanqi Ren (China)
Pavel Jenicek (Czech Rep.)
Petia Mijaylova (Mexico)
Raman Saravanane (India)
René Moletta (France)
Reza Iranpour (USA)
Rolando Chamy (Chile)
Serge Guiot (Canada)
Shin Hang-Sik (Korea)
Spyros Pavlostathis (USA)
Viviane Yargeau (Canada)
Thank you
Merci
Gracias
 Costos de inversión y operación para
diversos procesos de tratamiento
Tipo Tratamiento Calidad Inversión % Operación %
de agua US$/per respecto US$/m3 respecto
capita Lodo Act Lodo Act
UASB ++ 30-40 40 0.025 20
Lodo Activado ++++ 80-100 100 0.12 100
Primario Avanzado + 40-50 50 0.06 50
UASB+laguna +++ 42-52 52 0.03 25
UASB+filtro +++ 55-65 65 0.04 35
percolador
UASB+filtro aireado ++++ 65-75 75 0.07 60
UASB+flotación +++ 40-50 50 0.06 50
DAF