Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Automatic process control in anaerobic digestion technology: A critical

review
Duc Nguyen a, Venkataramana Gadhamshetty c, Saoharit Nitayavardhana b, Samir Kumar Khanal a,⇑
a
Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, 1955 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
b
Deparment of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
c
Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota State University, 501 E. St Joseph Street, Rapid City, SD 57701, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

 Critical review on automatic controls for diverse scales of AD processes.

 Monitoring in AD system was focused in chromatography and spectrometry techniques.
 Advanced controls are usually equipped with simple sensors and vice versa.
 Centralized AD plants could promote applications of automatic controls.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a mature technology that relies upon a synergistic effort of a diverse group of
Received 1 May 2015 microbial communities for metabolizing diverse organic substrates. However, AD is highly sensitive to
Received in revised form 16 June 2015 process disturbances, and thus it is advantageous to use online monitoring and process control tech-
Accepted 17 June 2015
niques to efficiently operate AD process. A range of electrochemical, chromatographic and spectroscopic
Available online 24 June 2015
devices can be deployed for on-line monitoring and control of the AD process. While complexity of the
control strategy ranges from a feedback control to advanced control systems, there are some debates
Keywords:
on implementation of advanced instrumentations or advanced control strategies. Centralized AD plants
Anaerobic digestion
Bioenergy
could be the answer for the applications of progressive automatic control field. This article provides a
Monitoring critical overview of the available automatic control technologies that can be implemented in AD
Automatic control processes at different scales.
Process control Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction complex polymers into simple soluble products; (ii) fermentation

Anaerobic digestion (AD) processes have successfully been
employed to remediate waste ranging from high strength indus-
trial wastewater, sewage sludge, municipal and agricultural solid
wastes to animal manures while generating renewable energy
resources. The major advantages of AD process includes low energy
consumption, less sludge yield, and above all, its ability to stabilize
diverse organic wastes with concomitant production of renewable
energy, biogas (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004; Khanal, 2008).
The fundamental science underlying the AD process has been
well covered in many reviews (Speece, 1996; Khanal, 2008). AD
process is complex due to the involvement of diverse microbial
communities supporting a series of interdependent biochemical
reactions. The major steps in AD process include (i) hydrolysis of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 808 956 3812; fax: +1 808 956 3542.
E-mail address: khanal@hawaii.edu (S.K. Khanal).
of simple soluble products (e.g., amino acids, fatty acids and sug-
ars) into short-chain fatty acids (C > 2), ethanol, lactic acids etc.,
also known as acidogenesis; (iii) anaerobic oxidation of
short-chain fatty acids or volatile fatty acids (VFAs) into acetic acid
and hydrogen also known as acetogenesis and (iv) methane pro-
duction from acetate and hydrogen via methanogenesis. The AD
process could be inhibited by its own intermediates such as
VFAs, ammonia and hydrogen produced during digestion (Chen
et al., 2008), and it is critical to design and operate an AD bioreac-
tor that enables precise control over the operational parameters
and promote the syntrophic growth of diverse microorganisms. A
lack of meticulous control of operational parameters results in a
catastrophic failure of AD processes. Lusk and Wiselogel (1998)
reported that among 57 operating farm-based anaerobic digesters
in the U.S, the failure rate was over 50%. Besides poor design and
high maintenance cost, major reasons for cessation of AD operation
were due to generation of corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas, inability

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.080
0960-8524/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
514 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522
to maintain optimum pH, and low biogas yield. Lack of profit asso-
ciated with low biogas yield was stated to be a typical reason for
closing down of AD plants (Beddoes et al., 2007). As a result, many
industries/clients are hesitant to implement AD technology despite
its inherent advantages.
Automatic AD process control system enables quick process sta-
bilization with less operation and maintenance inconveniences.
The ultimate objective of automatic control is to allow AD pro-
cesses stably operate at their maximum capacity. The system con-
sists of two constituents, monitoring and control. First, the process
parameters that are sensitive to process disturbances, such as pH,
biogas/methane production rate, ammonia, VFAs composition, and
total VFAs to alkalinity (VFA/ALK) ratio are closely monitored.
Next, the monitoring data is sent to control system to regulate/con-
trol these parameters around desired ranges. Diverse process con-
trol systems have been studied and tested in AD systems. The
control strategy could be as simple as a feedback on/off control,
or as complicated as adaptive, fuzzy logic, neural network control,
or their combinations (Pind et al., 2003b; Batstone et al., 2004;
Drosg, 2013). Advanced control system could be equipped with
basic monitoring techniques; on the other hand, simple control
strategies could be compensated by advanced monitoring equip-
ment (Fig. 1).
The goal of this paper is to critically review the existing litera-
ture on recent advances on emerging process monitoring and con-
trol techniques as applied to AD process. Further, this review
provides details on the automatic process control techniques as
applied to industrial-scale AD plants. Finally, a broader perspective
on the further research needs in the domains of automatic AD pro-
cess control is briefly discussed.
2. Process monitoring
Process monitoring is the initial step and crucial component of
any AD automatic control systems. Advances in instrumentation
enable the on-line (real-time) monitoring of critical parameters
in the AD system for early detection of process disturbances.
Such instruments will send early warning signal to operators or
control algorithm in case of manual and automatic control,
Fig. 1. Monitoring techniques and control strategies in the AD system.
respectively, and ultimately promote the stable operation of AD
process. In this section, key monitoring parameters in the AD pro-
cess and techniques for on-line monitoring of those parameters are
discussed.
2.1. Monitoring parameters
In the AD process, the degradation of complex organic matter
occurs through a series of biochemical reactions catalyzed by a
diverse group of microbial communities as indicated earlier. Each
microbial community requires different physiological conditions
for their growth, and further these diverse communities work syn-
trophically to metabolize the organic matter and the degradation
products. As a result, maintaining an optimal condition for the
whole microbial community in the AD system is crucial. Besides
the fundamental operating parameters (e.g., substrate composi-
tion, biogas production and composition, pH, and temperature) of
the AD process, the parameters indicating process disturbances
(e.g. individual VFAs, total VFAs to alkalinity ratio, ammonia and
hydrogen) are of greater interest (Björnsson et al., 2000; Drosg,
2013). The process disturbances associated with an increasing
organic loading rate are due to accumulation of intermediates dur-
ing digestion (Batstone et al., 2004). Studies have shown that the
inhibition effects occur when the key operational parameters are
not controlled in their optimum ranges (Chen et al., 2008;
Yenigün and Demirel, 2013). The optimum ranges of these param-
eters are shown in Table 1.
2.2. Monitoring techniques
Laboratory analysis or off-line monitoring of control parameters
is often associated with potential errors due to improper sampling
and analysis techniques, as well as human bias (Drosg, 2013).
Further, it takes a significant amount of time to receive the output
data, thereby making it difficult to implement corrective measures
on time in order to prevent reactor disturbance and eventual fail-
ure. Therefore, developments of on-line monitoring techniques
were focused recently.
 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522 515

Table 1
Optimum operational range of the AD process. Khanal (2008) and Deublein and Steinhauser (2011)

Parameters Mixed-culture Hydrolysis/acidogenesis Methanogenesis

pH 6.8–7.4 5.2–6.3 6.7–7.5
Temperature (°C) Mesophilic: 35 25–35 Mesophilic: 32–42
Thermophilic: 55 Thermophilic: 50–58
Solids retention time (SRT) (days) High-rate: 15–30
Low-rate: 30–60
Total VFAs (mg/L as acetic acid) 50–250
Acetic acid (mg/L) <1000
Propionic acid (mg/L) <250
Oxidation reduction potential (ORP) (mV) 200 to 350 +400 to 300 < 250
Alkalinity (ALK) (mg/L as CaCO3) 1500–3000
VFA/ALK ratio 0.1–0.2
Carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio 10–45 20–30
Carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus (C:N:P) ratio 350:7:1 100:5:1 120:5:1
NH+4-N (mg/L) 50–1,000 61,500
H2 (mg/L) <100

While basic sensors provide robust method for operating the AD
systems (e.g., gas/liquid flow meter, temperature, pH, and oxida-
tion reduction potential (ORP) sensors), intricate sensors/analytical
instruments (e.g., chromatography, spectroscopy) are valuable for
controlling the AD process (Vanrolleghem and Lee, 2003;
Spanjers and Lier, 2006). Among parameters indicating process dis-
turbance, sensors for ammonia, hydrogen and auto-titrator for
VFA/ALK ratio analysis are already commercially available. This
led to the focus on development of on-line analysis of individual
VFAs in recent years. Table 2 presents methods available for mea-
suring various parameters in the AD process, which can be used for
AD process control.
2.2.1. Chromatographic devices
In recent years, chromatographic methods have been developed
to monitor critical parameters in the AD process. Chromatographic
technique can be used to identify and quantify compounds of
interest in both liquid and gas phases. On-line monitoring by gas
chromatography (GC) is commonly applied to analyze biogas com-
position by thermal conductivity detector (GC-TCD), and individual
VFAs by flame ionization detector (GC-FID) (Ward et al., 2011).
Individual VFAs (e.g. acetate, propionate, butyrate, valerate and
capriorate) have been found to be an effective early indication
for AD upset (Nielsen et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2008). However,
the analysis of VFAs requires an additional step to convert VFAs
from liquid phase to gas phase for GC detection. Therefore, tech-
niques for on-line analysis of individual VFAs have been developed
recently. For instance, Pind et al. (2003a) developed an on-line GC
system that continuously analyze VFAs with 15 min interval. The
upstream of GC apparatus consists of in-situ microfiltration
followed by ultrafiltration and sample preparation unit. The disad-
vantage of this system is that the filtration units require occasional
replacement, and the system is applicable only to the samples with
total solids (TS) content less than 5%. To overcome these limita-
tions, Boe et al. (2007) established the headspace gas chromatogra-
phy (HS/GC) system for VFA analysis. This ex-situ system consists
of VFA stripping unit connected to GC-FID. The headspace
solid-phase micro-extraction gas chromatography-mass spectrom-
etry (HS-SPME/GC–MS) is another technique for VFAs analysis
(Pickl et al., 2011). The HS-SPME uses specific fibers to capture
volatile compounds in headspace of sample vial, and injects coated
fibers to GC–MS. The HS-SPME technique offers higher sensitivity
and selectivity (Pickl et al., 2011). However, the complexity of
the system could be the reason for its limited application in AD
process.
2.2.2. Spectroscopic devices
Spectroscopic devices use light at specific wavelength to quan-
tify the concentration of chemicals in a given sample by detecting
the proportions of light that was absorbed, transmitted and scat-
tered. Unlike chromatographic devices, the spectroscopic device
offers non-invasive analytical technique, as the sample is not
destroyed during analysis. Therefore, on-line monitoring with
recirculation loop could be applied (Holm-Nielsen et al., 2008).
The major advantage of spectroscopic over chromatographic tech-
nique is that it could measure a wide range of parameters.
Infrared spectroscopy (IRS) has been applied for on-line moni-
toring of dissolved CO2, total VFAs, acetate, COD, TOC, alkalinity
in the liquid phase of AD process by coupling ultrafiltration with
IRS working in the mid infrared range (i.e., 2.5 to 25 lm) (Steyer

Table 2
Measuring techniques of parameters in anaerobic digestion.

Parameters Techniques
Physical sensors Electrochemical sensors Gas chromatography Liquid chromatography Spectroscopy Titration
pH + +
Alkalinity + + + +
Total VFAs + + + +
Individual VFAs + + +
Biogas volume +
Biogas composition + + + +
NH+4–N + + + + +
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) + +
Total organic content (TOC) + + +
H2S + + + + +
H2 + +
516 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522

et al., 2002a). This system was evaluated for nearly 15 years for range from simple on/off and proportional integral derivative
monitoring of multiple parameters in the pilot-scale (Steyer (PID) control to intricate model-adaptive control, fuzzy logic and
et al., 2002b, 2006) and industrial scale AD systems (Spanjers artificial neural network schemes, and their combinations. In addi-
et al., 2006). Results from the IRS were in agreement with data tion, higher level of control algorithm could compensate for infor-
from the industrial TOC analyzer and titrimetric sensor (Fig. 3). mation from monitoring the AD process. In this section, the
Despite the ability to analyze multiple parameters, the disadvan- contemporary control strategies for AD system are critically
tage of spectroscopy technique is that it requires intense calibra- reviewed. The review focuses on the outcome of the control strate-
tion for the parameters of interest. Further, frequent clogging of gies rather than gaining deeper insight into control algorithm and
filtration membrane in sample pretreatment is another drawback development.
of this technique.
Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) using 0.8–2.5 lm wavelength
3.1. Basic control elements and structures
is a state-of-the-art technique to monitor multiple parameters in
AD process. Hansson et al. (2003) monitored lab-scale AD system
There are three basic elements in any loop-control system,
by on-line NIRS for 2 years. The viability of NIRS was tested in
namely sensor, controller and actuator. As discussed earlier, sen-
the digester that was subjected to various disturbances including
sors are implemented to measure the output of the AD process.
overloading, C:N ratio shifting, mixing and foaming problems.
The data from the sensors can be transmitted to the display, stored
The authors also demonstrated that the NIRS can be used to mon-
in disk, and send to controller for subsequent calculation. The con-
itor propionic acids in response to disturbances within short span
troller (e.g., microprocessor controller or computer) receives data
of time (i.e., as short as 2.5 min). Compared to other real-time gas-
from sensors for tracking error/deviation by comparing with
eous monitoring techniques (e.g., GC or membrane-inlet mass
desired set point, and then the tracking error is plugged in the con-
spectrometry), NIRS has been reported to yield better result with
trol algorithm to calculate the variable output. The actuator or final
less maintenance (Ward et al., 2011). NIRS technique has also been
control element receives variable output in the form of electrical
adapted to analyze composition of feedstock (Jacobi et al., 2011).
signal and converts it into physical actions, like open/close valves,
Data from this on-line substrate monitor was used to control feed-
activate/deactivate pumps or regulate flow rate.
ing strategies of the biogas plant. However, authors indicated that
Feedback and feed forward controls are two fundamental struc-
inconsistent size and dryness of samples could result in high offset
tures that constitute the basis for developing advanced control
of the achieved data.
schemes. For example, cascade control is a multiple feedback loop
The state-of-art literature on the diverse instrumentation tech-
control, and ratio or adaptive control uses the theory of feed for-
niques used in the anaerobic technology can be found elsewhere
ward control. The schematic diagram of the two basic
(Vanrolleghem and Lee, 2003; Batstone et al., 2004; Spanjers and
loop-control system is illustrated in Fig. 2; the controller and actu-
Lier, 2006; Madsen et al., 2011).
ator are combined to prevent tangle.
The advantage of feedback control is its simplicity; however,
the correction happens only after the error has occurred.
3. Control systems
Accordingly, feed forward system could be implemented to make
correction before the disturbance affects the process. Yet, accurate
The ultimate goal of controlling the AD process is to meet two
measurement should be established in order to precisely estimate
conflicting objectives, i.e., maximizing the efficiency of AD process
the incoming disturbance. As a result, estimation could be made
while maintaining its stability. In other words, it is desirable to
using adaptive (Rincón et al., 2012) or predictive models (Gaida
operate AD system that can steadily handle high loading rate with-
et al., 2011). These advanced control systems, however, require
out affecting the performance. However, such case requires a
complex algorithm and mathematical experience.
proper control strategy since increasing organic loading rate often
introduces disturbances to the system. Operators prefer operating
digester at low loading rates to avoid the process disturbances, 3.2. Controlled inputs
which often results significant economic loss. For example, a
reduction in 10% biogas yield of a 500-kW electricity equivalent Controlled inputs or manipulated variables in automatic control
biogas plant was reported to cause corresponding loss of nearly of AD process are corrected actions triggered from the control algo-
11% in annual revenue from selling electricity (Wiese and Haeck, rithm. Therefore, these variables should have a quick and signifi-
2006). cant impact on the process. In AD processes, pH, alkalinity, and
The degree of complexity of the control algorithms is directly feeding rate are the typical controlled inputs. pH is one of the most
proportional to the number of required objectives. As a result, a fundamental parameters in bioprocess control. In practice, how-
variety of process control strategies have been developed that ever, it is difficult to regulate the pH inside the reactor at a stable

Fig. 2. Basic control concepts: (A) Feedback; (B) Feedforward.

 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522
level due to the dynamics of AD process. Therefore, adjusting pH by
dosing concentrated acid or base solution is a challenge to control
the AD systems. The misinterpretation of pH data has been
reported as another drawback of using pH as process variables
(Björnsson et al., 2000; Pind et al., 2003b). The reason for misinter-
preting pH data comes from the fact that pH value is affected by
factors like bicarbonate alkalinity, ammonia, or organic acids.
Similarly, pH value has also been found to be less sensitive to
changes in the system (Boe et al., 2010). Thus, pH has not been rec-
ommended as a main process control input, instead it is monitored
and interpreted along with other parameters in the AD systems
(Björnsson et al., 2000; Boe et al., 2010)
Supplementation of alkalinity can be used to maintain the sta-
bility of the system under high organic loading rate by increasing
the buffering capacity. Addition of alkalinity has been successfully
applied to prevent abrupt decrease in pH due to excessive accumu-
lation of VFAs during overloaded condition. This has been con-
trolled by simple on–off system (Guwy et al., 1997), PID control
(Marsili-Libelli and Beni, 1996) or advanced artificial neural net-
work (Wilcox et al., 1995). To maintain an adequate buffering
capacity, alkalinity level in AD should be maintained in the range
of 1000 to 3000 mg/L as CaCO3 (Wilcox et al., 1995; Speece,
1996) or the VFA/ALK ratio of below 0.3 (Drosg, 2013). Although
fine control schemes for dosing alkalinity were studied, the high
chemical cost is still a problem, especially on industrial-scale bio-
gas plants. As a result, there are very limited studies on alkalinity
dosing control in recent years. Some of the alternative methods
for adjusting the bicarbonate alkalinity in AD systems are: (i) add-
ing nitrogenous organic matter (e.g., cattle manure) to induce the
generation of natural alkalinity (Speece, 1996), (ii) recirculating
dissolved CO2 in effluent (Turkdogan-Aydinol and Yetilmezsoy,
2010), or (iii) recycle biogas (Robles et al., 2013).
As a result, feeding rate is the commonly used variable input for
controlling disturbances in AD system. A wide variety of control
strategies were studied to manipulate feeding rate, which included
proportional integral (PI) control (Steyer et al., 1999;
Alvarez-Ramirez et al., 2002), PID control (García-Diéguez et al.,
2011), adaptive control (Hilgert et al., 2000; Luo et al., 2014),
robust adaptive (Petre et al., 2013), fuzzy logic (Murnleitner
et al., 2002; Djatkov et al., 2014), neural network (Holubar et al.,
2002, 2003), and neural fuzzy (Waewsak et al., 2010). The feeding
rate can be used to simultaneously regulate the retention time and
organic loading rate, allowing microbial communities in the sys-
tem to adapt to the disturbances. Unlike previous methods, this
control approach avoids the sudden interruption to the system.
However, the ability to control the feeding rate could be restricted
due to the continuous incoming feedstock that need to be digested.
To overcome this limitation, regulation of recycling flow rate
within the reactor or to the acidification reactor in a two-staged
reactor configuration was applied as variables with successful
result (Murnleitner et al., 2002).
3.3. Control strategies
3.3.1. Proportional integral derivative (PID) control
The PID control is the widely used feedback control algorithm
for automatic process control (Åström et al., 2001). The PID control
consists of proportional, integral, and derivative algorithm, which
is based on present, past, and future error, respectively. The pro-
portional control is given by multiplying the error with a constant
(i.e., proportional gain). However, the proportional control creates
an off-set between the set-point and output, even when the output
reaches steady state (i.e., steady state error). To eliminate this
off-set, the integral term is added to the algorithm. The integral
control is given by multiplying the integral of error after time with
a constant (i.e., integral gain). On the other hand, the derivative
517
control is based on rate of change of the error (time derivative of
error). As a result, output from integral and derivative control helps
the system quickly reach desired set point without large oscilla-
tion. Details of PID algorithm and related issues were presented
elsewhere (Åström and Hägglund, 2001; Ang et al., 2005).
The PID control scheme has been successfully applied in AD sys-
tems, especially for non-biological manipulated parameters, such
as pH (Heredia-Molinero et al., 2014), temperature control
(Aguilar et al., 2002), and feeding rate (García-Diéguez et al., 2011).
Overall, PID control is a simple, robust and effective control
strategy for anaerobic process. However, due to the fact that PID
algorithm is highly depended on proportional, integral, and deriva-
tive gain, identifying optimal values of these constants (i.e., tuning
constants) could be a challenge. The details on the automatic tun-
ing of PID controller are described in other studies (Liu and Daley,
2001; Robles et al., 2014). However, the tuning of PID is compli-
cated in non-linear systems, where optimal set-points and
responses are highly dynamic (Liu and Daley, 2001). As a result,
other advanced control schemes must be developed for a better
control of dynamic processes.
3.3.2. Adaptive control
Since anaerobic process is a dynamic and non-linear system, the
optimal condition of the system varies with time. As a result, a
fixed-gain control scheme like PID control could be ineffective
when the system changes its state. In such a situation, adaptive
controllers are better substitutions since the parameters could be
automatically adjusted to compensate with variations in the pro-
cess. Based on the objective function, the adaptive control is able
to self-adapt to the changes in the process and yield the optimal
manipulated input that fits the current state of the system. The
optimal input values are decided based on model, which is nor-
mally constructed from mass balance of parameters in the system
(Bernard et al., 2001). The performance of adaptive control is vali-
dated based on the capability to predict the future response of out-
put. Details of algorithms and applications of adaptive controllers
can be found in Åström and Wittenmark (2013).
Adaptive controller was developed and effectively applied in
various AD process to control feeding rate (Rincón et al., 2012),
recycling flow rate (Petre et al., 2013), feed-discharge pattern
(Luo et al., 2014) and intermediate alkalinity to total alkalinity
ratio (Bernard et al., 2001). The advantage of this control scheme
is that the system is well-regulated even when large uncertainty
input and disturbances are introduced to the process. Further,
since the adaptive model is based on mass balance and kinetic of
the AD process, only basic monitoring data is required (e.g., feed-
stock composition, biogas volume) (Bernard et al., 2001). The adap-
tive control scheme could be an effective control strategy,
especially considering that the microbial kinetics exert a key influ-
ence on the functionality of anaerobic process. Besides providing a
better control system in non-linear and dynamic processes, adap-
tive algorithm could also be applied as software sensor (i.e., esti-
mate values of parameters using models instead of
instrumentation). Adaptive model could successfully compute
value of COD, VFAs and alkalinity in the pilot- and
industrial-scale anaerobic digesters (Bernard et al., 2001).
Therefore, the applications of mathematical models to replace
advanced instrumentation in the AD process are promising. The
drawback of adaptive control could be in the complexity of con-
structing model that requires advanced algorithms and knowledge
of process kinetics (Steyer et al., 2006).
3.3.3. Fuzzy logic control
Besides control strategies based on algorithms and mathemati-
cal models, the knowledge-based control schemes have also been
applied in anaerobic process control. In contrast to previous
 518
Table 3
Advanced control system in anaerobic digestion process.

AD systems Control objectives Control strategies Monitoring parameters Controlled inputs Remarks References
Reactor configuration Reactor Substrate
scale
Two-staged reactor Lab Food Identify the biological state of Fuzzy logic – Temperature – Temperature – Successfully in state identification Murnleitner
(fixed bed methane processing reactors and regulate the system – pH – pH – Effectively regulate the system et al. (2002)
reactor) wastewater under shock loading rates – ORP – Feeding rate under shock loading and start-up
– Conductivity – Recirculation state
– Biogas volume and rate

D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522

composition – Flow rate
- Liquid level between two
reactors
Up-flow anaerobic Pilot Molasses Predicting the biogas and Fuzzy logic – pH N/A – Successfully predicted the biogas Turkdogan-
sludge blanket (UASB) wastewater methane production rate – Alkalinity and methane production rate using Aydinol and
– TOC multiple inputs multiple outputs Yetilmezsoy
– Biogas volume and (MIMO) fuzzy logic model (2010)
composition
Hybrid reactor Lab Synthetic Using neural network model to Neural-fuzzy – pH Feeding rate – The system was well regulate during Waewsak
wastewater predict pH, total VFAs, alkalinity – Total VFAs start-up, overloading, and recovery et al. (2010)
as inputs for fuzzy logic to control – Alkalinity phase
feeding rate. – COD
– Biogas volume and
composition
Submerged anaerobic Full Municipal Regulate filtration cycle to PID-fuzzy logic – pH Filtration and backflush – The system used PID control at lower Robles et al.
membrane wastewater minimize membrane fouling rate – Temperature rate level and MIMO fuzzy logic controller (2013)
bioreactors – Pressure, water at upper level in order to regulate the
(SAnMBRs) level, flow rate filtration and biogas recycling rate
– Biogas composition for membrane scouring
– Solids, nutrient, – Membrane fouling rate was success-
sulphide, COD, fully control closed to minimum level
VFAs, alkalinity with less membrane scouring time
 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522
controllers, fuzzy logic controllers are a decision-making system
that is based on knowledge of operators rather than precise data
from on-line monitoring. Exploiting merits of computational tech-
nology, knowledge from experts could be converted into functions
to be applied in automatic control. In fuzzy logic control, the mon-
itored parameters are divided into subsets, which have values
ranging from 0 to 1. From the interrelationship between subsets,
the manipulated input is estimated based on empirical rules.
Fuzzy logic controllers have effectively been used to control
anaerobic processes by using simple monitoring parameters.
These control systems perform well in process with large number
of input uncertainties. Details of fuzzy logic controllers applied in
anaerobic process are presented in Table 3.
Besides the application of fuzzy logic in controlling AD systems,
it has also been applied in the dynamic modeling of AD process
(Polit et al., 2002). In the research, biogas flow rates at various
pH and temperature conditions were modeled that showed good
correlation with real measurement. The fuzzy modeling
method has been found advantageous compared to theoretical
mass-balance modeling due to the high flexibility and adaptation
features. Djatkov et al. (2014) used knowledge-based fuzzy logic
law to estimate performance of five industrial-scale agricultural
biogas plants in Germany. The system has been found effective in
assisting plant operators to operate and optimize the biogas plants
with combined heat and power systems. The limitation of fuzzy
logic control is that it solely depends on knowledge level of oper-
ators. As a result, the performance of this control system greatly
varies with AD plants.
3.3.4. Neural network control
Neural network is technique of controlling process by mimick-
ing the working principle of human brain. Neural networks consist
of nodes (same as neurons on human brain) categorized in series of
layers that are interconnected with each other in various ways.
Measurement data from sensory devices is fed as inputs to the
nodes in first layer (input layer) and interconnected with other
nodes in intermediate layers (hidden layers) to generate suitable
output signals in nodes of output layer. After setting the multilayer
structures, the neural network has to be trained by weighting
nodes in the system, and adjusting with various training algorithm.
Such process is called training period, where the neural network is
taught a wide variety of operating conditions of the system.
Eventually, a well-trained neural network controller could be
effectively applied in regulating the process.
The artificial neural network was applied to monitor and con-
trol the bicarbonate alkalinity (BA) in anaerobic filter system
Table 4
Merits and demerits of various control strategies.
Control strategy Merits
On–off  Simple control
 Suitable for valve, pump control
PI/PID  Simple, robust control
 Fine control
 No model required
Adaptive control  Non-linear/dynamic system
 Capable of on-line estimating unknown parameters
 Automatic tuning
 Able to anticipate future disturbance
Fuzzy logic  Multiple input multiple output system
 Non-linear/dynamic system
 Easy communication with operator
Artificial neural network  No model or expertise required
 Suitable when plant behavior is unknown
519
(Wilcox et al., 1995). The system was trained over 80 h with vari-
ous monitoring data of BA and showed good performance in
adjusting alkalinity level at different loading rates. Holubar et al.
(2002) developed the hierarchical structure of neural network to
model and control methane production in four anaerobic reactors.
The system has been reported to model pH, VFA, biogas production
with high precision. By successfully predicting the gas production
rate and composition in advance, the system was well regulated
even under shock loading induced by sludge-surplus disturbances.
The same neural network was then applied to control an AD sys-
tem in start-up and recovery state (Holubar et al., 2003).
3.3.5. Hybrid control system
Recently, hybrid control strategies were developed by exploit-
ing advantages of individual control schemes. Heredia-Molinero
et al. (2014) successfully associated fuzzy logic with PID control
to create an effective algorithm to maintain pH level. Tay and
Zhang (2000) combined the artificial neural networks with the
fuzzy logic control for predicting system disturbances in advance.
The system was applied in various anaerobic reactor configurations
(i.e., anaerobic fluidized bed reactor, anaerobic filter, and UASB)
and could accurately predict VFA, TOC, methane production rate
in advance time of one hour. The similar control system was then
adapted in automatic control of anaerobic hybrid reactor
(Waewsak et al., 2010) (Table 3). By using the artificial neural net-
work component to predict the disturbance, and fuzzy logic com-
ponent to control the influent flow rate, the reactor was
regulated under organic and hydraulic overloading.
3.3.6. Summary of control strategies
To sum up, there are diverse control strategies available for AD
processes occurring at different level of complexities. Each control
strategy has its own inherent merit and drawback, which made the
implementation greatly depend on distinct control objectives.
Advantages and disadvantages of each control strategy are listed
in Table 4. For application in real scale anaerobic digesters, simple
feedback closed loop control like PID control is preferable and
mostly adopted to control valve and heating system. Advanced
monitoring techniques could be used to reinforce these robust con-
trol schemes in order to produce a better control result. On the
other hand, advanced control strategies were demonstrated to be
powerful in modeling and controlling anaerobic systems with sim-
ple monitoring inputs (Fig. 1). It was assumed that high level of
experience from expertise is a limiting factor for applying complex
control strategies in real scale biogas plants.
Demerits
 Inadequate for fine control
 No significant impact on important process control
 Applicable only for linear system
 Limited for single input and single output system
 Model required
 Detailed information of input required
 Large uncertainties from model kinetics
 Complex mathematic calculation required
 Highly depend on expertise of operator
 Required training time
 Large information required
520 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522
4. Automatic control in industrial-scale AD plants
Different from process control experiments carried out in labo-
ratory or pilot-scale anaerobic reactor, automated control system
in industrial scale plant has to deal with many uncertainties. For
industrial scale AD plants, simple parameters, which include pH,
temperature, mixed liquor level, gas pressure, mixed liquor and
biogas flow rate, are monitored on-line (Vanrolleghem and Lee,
2003; Spanjers and Lier, 2006; Wiese and Haeck, 2006). Only 10%
among 400 industrial scale anaerobic reactors worldwide are
equipped with on-line analysis of COD, TOC, VFAs, alkalinity,
and biogas composition (Spanjers and Lier, 2006). This situation
could be explained from the complexity in operation and
maintenance of these advanced analyzers. Additionally, high capi-
tal and operation costs of these state-of-the art devices make it
economically unattractive for biogas operators to embrace the
technology.
The survey on manure-based biogas plants in Europe also
revealed poor management of data monitoring and process control
(Wiese and Haeck, 2006). In fact, continuous on-line monitoring
was not performed in many plants. For plants with on-line moni-
toring systems, real-time control was rare and even the periodical
data analysis was skipped. For the plants with real-time con-
trollers, the control system was simple, time-based, equipped with
on–off controller. The main reason for this poor state of automa-
tion is that the number of these biogas plants are small-scale
plants with electricity production capacity under 125 kW. Similar
scenarios were reported in the United States, where most of the
farm-based AD plants were shut down due to high maintenance
cost and low biogas production (Beddoes et al., 2007). As a result,
these small-scale AD plants cannot afford the expenses to acquire
the instruments and automate the plant operation. This situation
Fig. 3. AD process with instrumentation, control and automation system (Steyer et al., 2002b).
prompts that the centralized biogas plants may be a better solution
to automate the AD process in a given geographical location. The
investment cost for adequately instrumented and automated bio-
gas plant with electricity generation capacity larger than 300 kW
has been estimated to be just 5–10% of total capital cost (Wiese
and Haeck, 2006). This investment can be profitable in long term
operations, since a 10% drop in efficiency of a biogas plant can
result in 11% decrease in the annual revenue (Wiese and Haeck,
2006). Even though the operational cost was not included in the
report, this seems to be a worthy investment for large-scale indus-
trial AD plants in long term.
Steyer et al. (2006) mentioned that despite the availability of
advanced modeling and control strategies, all the disturbances in
industrial-scale AD plants could not be eliminated. Suitable
on-line diagnosis system is also required to optimize an
industrial-scale AD plant (Lardon et al., 2004). Based on several
years of operating a fully instrumented AD reactor (Fig. 3), Steyer
et al. (2002b) summarized the following factors as obstructions
for automation of AD process: pipe clogging/leaking, foaming,
water level dropping below sensors, and dosing system malfunc-
tion. As a result, besides instrumentation and control strategy of
AD processes, an effective diagnosis system plays an equally
important role in controlling the whole system.
Development of monitoring and control technologies for AD
system is a never-ending process. In fact, over the last decade there
have been significant improvements in automatic control and
monitoring system. Techno-economic and management of auto-
matic control and instrumentation in AD plants should be deeply
investigated to evaluate the pros and cons of investment.
Recently, the automatic control systems have become robust and
feasible for anaerobic processes due to key developments in hard-
ware instrumentation and software control algorithms.
 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522
5. Conclusions
Two major strategies to promote the stable performance of the
AD process include monitoring and control over the process. While
there is a constant debate on the importance of instrumentation
versus control strategy, the experience on both aspects is limited
in industrial scale AD operations. With the rapid development of
instrumentation and automatic control, implementation and oper-
ation cost of this advanced system is expected to decrease. The
optimistic outlook for the next decades is that small scale AD
plants would be equipped with automatic control system for a bet-
ter performance, meanwhile, centralized AD plant is still a feasible
option.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No.
2013-67022-21177. Gadhamshetty acknowledges the partial fund-
ing support from NASA Award No. NNX13AB25A.
References
Aguilar, R., Poznyak, A., Martı´nez-Guerra, R., Maya-Yescas, R., 2002. Temperature
control in catalytic cracking reactors via a robust PID controller. J. Process
Control 12, 695–705.
Alvarez-Ramirez, J., Meraz, M., Monroy, O., Velasco, A., 2002. Feedback control
design for an anaerobic digestion process. J. Chem. Technol. Biot. 77, 725–734.
Ang, K.H., Chong, G., Li, Y., 2005. PID control system analysis, design, and
technology. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 13, 559–576.
Åström, K.J., Hägglund, T., 2001. The future of PID control. Control Eng. Pract. 9,
1163–1175.
Åström, K.J., Wittenmark, B., 2013. Adaptive control, second ed. Courier Dover
Publications, New York.
Åström, K.J., Albertos, P., Quevedo, J., 2001. PID control. Control Eng. Pract. 9, 1159–
1161.
Batstone, D.J., Gernaey, K.V., Steyer, J.P., 2004. Instrumentation and control in
anaerobic digestion. In: 2nd IWA Leading-Edge Conference on Water and
Wastewater Treatment Technologies, p. 173.
Beddoes, J.C., Bracmort, K.S., Burn, R., Lazarus, W.F., 2007. An analysis of energy
production costs from anaerobic digestion systems on US livestock production
facilities. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC (2007 Oct.).
Bernard, O., Polit, M., Hadj-Sadok, Z., Pengov, M., Dochain, D., Estaben, M., Labat, P.,
2001. Advanced monitoring and control of anaerobic wastewater treatment
plants: software sensors and controllers for an anaerobic digester. Water Sci.
Technol. 43, 175–182.
Björnsson, L., Murto, M., Mattiasson, B., 2000. Evaluation of parameters for
monitoring an anaerobic co-digestion process. Appl. Microbiol. Biot. 54, 844–
849.
Boe, K., Batstone, D.J., Angelidaki, I., 2007. An innovative online VFA monitoring
system for the anerobic process, based on headspace gas chromatography.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 96, 712–721.
Boe, K., Batstone, D.J., Steyer, J.-P., Angelidaki, I., 2010. State indicators for
monitoring the anaerobic digestion process. Water Res. 44, 5973–5980.
Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 4044–4064.
Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A., 2011. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources:
An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim.
Djatkov, D., Effenberger, M., Martinov, M., 2014. Method for assessing and
improving the efficiency of agricultural biogas plants based on fuzzy logic
and expert systems. Appl. Energy 134, 163–175.
Drosg, B., 2013. Process monitoring in biogas plants, IEA Bioenergy. Available from
<http://www.rohkraft.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20140319_DROSG_
process_montoring_RZ_web1.pdf> (accessed: May 2015).
Gaida, D., Luis, S., Wolf, C., Back, T., 2011. Optimal control of biogas plants using
nonlinear model predictive control. ISSC, June 23–24, 2011, Trinity College
Dublin. Available from <http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/3648/1/SMcL_
optimal_control.pdf> (accessed: May 2015).
García-Diéguez, C., Molina, F., Roca, E., 2011. Multi-objective cascade controller for
an anaerobic digester. Process Biochem. 46, 900–909.
Guwy, A.J., Hawkes, F.R., Wilcox, S.J., Hawkes, D.L., 1997. Neural network and on-off
control of bicarbonate alkalinity in a fluidised-bed anaerobic digester. Water
Res. 31, 2019–2025.
Hansson, M., Nordberg, A., Mathisen, B., 2003. On-line NIR monitoring during
anaerobic treatment of municipal solid waste. Water Sci. Technol. 48, 9–13.
Heredia-Molinero, M.C., Sánchez-Prieto, J., Briongos, J.V., Palancar, M.C., 2014.
Feedback PID-like fuzzy controller for pH regulatory control near the
equivalence point. J. Process Control 24, 1023–1037.
521
Hilgert, N., Harmand, J., Steyer, J.-P., Vila, J.P., 2000. Nonparametric identification
and adaptive control of an anaerobic fluidized bed digester. Control Eng. Pract.
8, 367–376.
Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Lomborg, C.J., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., Esbensen, K.H., 2008. On-
line near infrared monitoring of glycerol-boosted anaerobic digestion
processes: evaluation of process analytical technologies. Biotechnol. Bioeng.
99, 302–313.
Holubar, P., Zani, L., Hager, M., Fröschl, W., Radak, Z., Braun, R., 2002. Advanced
controlling of anaerobic digestion by means of hierarchical neural networks.
Water Res. 36, 2582–2588.
Holubar, P., Zani, L., Hager, M., Fröschl, W., Radak, Z., Braun, R., 2003. Start-up and
recovery of a biogas-reactor using a hierarchical neural network-based control
tool. J. Chem. Technol. Biot. 78, 847–854.
Jacobi, H.F., Moschner, C.R., Hartung, E., 2011. Use of near infrared spectroscopy in
online-monitoring of feeding substrate quality in anaerobic digestion.
Bioresour. Technol. 102, 4688–4696.
Khanal, S., 2008. Anaerobic Biotechnology for Bioenergy Production: Principles and
Applications. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Ames, Iowa.
Lardon, L., Punal, A., Steyer, J.P., 2004. On-line diagnosis and uncertainty
management using evidence theory––experimental illustration to anaerobic
digestion processes. J. Process Control 14, 747–763.
Liu, G., Daley, S., 2001. Optimal-tuning PID control for industrial systems. Control
Eng. Pract. 9, 1185–1194.
Luo, T., Yang, M., Han, J., Sun, P., 2014. A novel model-based adaptive control
strategy for step-feed SBRs dealing with influent fluctuation. Bioresour.
Technol. 167, 476–483.
Lusk, P., Wiselogel, A.E., 1998. Methane recovery from animal manures: the current
opportunities casebook. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available from
<http://agrienvarchive.ca/bioenergy/download/methane.pdf> (accessed: May
2015).
Madsen, M., Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Esbensen, K.H., 2011. Monitoring of anaerobic
digestion processes: a review perspective. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15, 3141–
3155.
Marsili-Libelli, S., Beni, S., 1996. Shock load modelling in the anaerobic digestion
process. Ecol. Model. 84, 215–232.
Metcalf, E., Eddy, H., 2004. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and
Reuse. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Murnleitner, E., Becker, T.M., Delgado, A., 2002. State detection and control of
overloads in the anaerobic wastewater treatment using fuzzy logic. Water Res.
36, 201–211.
Nielsen, H., Uellendahl, H., Ahring, B., 2007. Regulation and optimization of the
biogas process: propionate as a key parameter. Biomass Bioenergy 31, 820–830.
Petre, E., Selisßteanu, D., S
ß endrescu, D., 2013. Adaptive and robust-adaptive control
strategies for anaerobic wastewater treatment bioprocesses. Chem. Eng. J. 217,
363–378.
Pickl, K.E., Adamek, V., Gorges, R., Sinner, F.M., 2011. Headspace-SPME-GC/MS as a
simple cleanup tool for sensitive 2, 6-diisopropylphenol analysis from lipid
emulsions and adaptable to other matrices. J. Pharmaceut. Biomed. 55, 1231–
1236.
Pind, P.F., Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., 2003a. A new VFA sensor technique for
anaerobic reactor systems. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 82, 54–61.
Pind, P.F., Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., Stamatelatou, K., Lyberatos, G., 2003b.
Monitoring and control of anaerobic reactors. Biomethanation, vol. II.
Springer, pp. 135–182.
Polit, M., Estaben, M., Labat, P., 2002. A fuzzy model for an anaerobic digester,
comparison with experimental results. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 15, 385–390.
Rincón, A., Erazo, C., Angulo, F., 2012. A robust adaptive controller for an anaerobic
digester with saturated input: guarantees for the boundedness and
convergence properties. J. Process Control 22, 1785–1792.
Robles, A., Ruano, M.V., Ribes, J., Ferrer, J., 2013. Advanced control system for
optimal filtration in submerged anaerobic MBRs (SAnMBRs). J. Membrane Sci.
430, 330–341.
Robles, A., Ruano, M.V., Ribes, J., Seco, A., Ferrer, J., 2014. Model-based automatic
tuning of a filtration control system for submerged anaerobic membrane
bioreactors (AnMBR). J. Membrane Sci. 465, 14–26.
Spanjers, H., Lier, J.B.V., 2006. Instrumentation in anaerobic treatment – research
and practice. Water Sci. Technol. 53, 63–76.
Spanjers, H., Bouvier, J., Steenweg, P., Bisschops, I., Gils, W.V., Versprille, B., 2006.
Implementation of in-line infrared monitor in full-scale anaerobic digestion
process. Water Sci. Technol. 53, 55–61.
Speece, R.E., 1996. Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewater. Archae
Press, Nashville, Tennessee.
Steyer, J.-P., Buffière, P., Rolland, D., Moletta, R., 1999. Advanced control of anaerobic
digestion processes through disturbances monitoring. Water Res. 33, 2059–
2068.
Steyer, J., Bouvier, J., Conte, T., Gras, P., Harmand, J., Delgenes, J., 2002a. On-line
measurements of COD, TOC, VFA, total and partial alkalinity in anaerobic
digestion processes using infra-red spectrometry. Water Sci. Technol. 45, 133–
138.
Steyer, J., Bouvier, J., Conte, T., Gras, P., Sousbie, P., 2002b. Evaluation of a four year
experience with a fully instrumented anaerobic digestion process. Water Sci.
Technol. 45, 495–502.
Steyer, J., Bernard, O., Batstone, D.J., Angelidaki, I., 2006. Lessons learnt from 15
years of ICA in anaerobic digesters. Water Sci. Technol. 53, 25–33.
Tay, J.-H., Zhang, X., 2000. A fast predicting neural fuzzy model for high-rate
anaerobic wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 34, 2849–2860.
522 D. Nguyen et al. / Bioresource Technology 193 (2015) 513–522
Turkdogan-Aydinol, F.I., Yetilmezsoy, K., 2010. A fuzzy-logic-based model to predict
biogas and methane production rates in a pilot-scale mesophilic UASB reactor
treating molasses wastewater. J. Hazard. Mater. 182, 460–471.
Vanrolleghem, P., Lee, D.S., 2003. On-line monitoring equipment for wastewater
treatment processes: state of the art. Water Sci. Technol. 47, 1–34.
Waewsak, C., Nopharatana, A., Chaiprasert, P., 2010. Neural-fuzzy control system
application for monitoring process response and control of anaerobic hybrid
reactor in wastewater treatment and biogas production. J. Environ. Sci. 22,
1883–1890.
Ward, A.J., Bruni, E., Lykkegaard, M.K., Feilberg, A., Adamsen, A.P.S., Jensen, A.P.,
Poulsen, A.K., 2011. Real time monitoring of a biogas digester with gas
chromatography, near-infrared spectroscopy, and membrane-inlet mass
spectrometry. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 4098–4103.
Wiese, J., Haeck, M., 2006. Instrumentation, control and automation for full-scale
manure-based biogas systems. Water Sci. Technol. 54, 1–8.
Wilcox, S.J., Hawkes, D.L., Hawkes, F.R., Guwy, A.J., 1995. A neural network, based on
bicarbonate monitoring, to control anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 29, 1465–
1470.
Yenigün, O., Demirel, B., 2013. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review.
Process Biochem. 48, 901–911.