Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Livestock Manure at Various Mixing Ratios under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Food Waste and Livestock Manure
2.2. Experimental Setup
2.2.1. Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) and Anaerobic Toxicity Assay (ATA) Tests
2.2.2. Evaluation of the Biodegradable Organic Matter’s Concentration (BMP Test)
2.2.3. Anaerobic Toxicity Assay (ATA) Test
2.3. Analytical Methods
2.4. Theoretical Methane Potential
2.5. BMP Mathematical Modeling
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Characteristics of the FW and LM
3.2. Degradable COD Concentration and Methane Yield
3.3. ATA Test
3.3.1. Initial Toxicity of Organic Matter Concentration in FW
3.3.2. The Effect of NH4+ Inhibition on the Initial Biogas Production Rate
3.4. Modeling Results of First-Order Reaction and Modified Gompertz Model
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Nomenclature
DeCOD | degradable COD concentration (g COD/L) |
V1 | biogas volume of the organic waste measured with a syringe (mL) |
V0 | biogas volume of the organic waste at the previous sampling time (mL) |
C1 | methane content at the sampling time (%) |
S1 | injection volume of the waste in a serum bottle (mL) |
T1 | CH4 production equivalent to 1 g of COD reduction (mL) |
VCH4 | volume of methane produced (mL) |
C1 | methane content at the sampling time (%) |
C0 | methane content at the previous sampling time (%) |
V1 | biogas volume measured with a syringe (mL) |
V0 | gas-phase volume of the reactor (mL) |
a | molecular amount of carbon (%) |
b | molecular amount of hydrogen (%) |
c | molecular amount of oxygen (%) |
d | molecular amount of nitrogen (%) |
e | molecular amount of sulfide (%) |
Bt | theoretical methane potential (mL CH4/g VSadded) |
k | kinetic constant (d−1) |
S | substrate concentration (g VS) |
B | cumulative methane production (mL) |
Bu | ultimate methane production (mL) |
M | cumulative methane production (mL) |
Rm | the maximum specific methane production rate (mL/d) |
P | methane production potential (mL) |
λ | lag-phase time (days) |
References
- Tsapekos, P.; Lovato, G.; Rodrigues, J.A.D.; Morales, M.A. Amendments to model frameworks to optimize the anaerobic digestion and support the green transition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 197, 114413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, X.; Cai, Y.; Ma, X.; Fu, H.; Wang, P.; Wang, Y.; Liu, W.; Ren, L. A review of the technologies used for preserving anaerobic digestion inoculum. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 188, 113804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutegoa, E.; Hilonga, A.; Njau, K.N. Approaches to the mitigation of ammonia inhibition during anaerobic digestion—A review. Water Pract. Technol. 2020, 15, 551–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilarska, A.A.; Kulupa, T.; Kubiak, A.; Wolna-Maruwka, A.; Pilarski, K.; Niewiadomska, A. Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste—A Short Review. Energies 2023, 16, 5742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Z.; Ye, Z.; Lyu, R. Multi-omics analysis unravels effects of salt and oil on substance transformation, microbial community, and transcriptional activity in food waste anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2023, 387, 129684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Huang, G.; An, C.; Chen, X.; Zhang, P.; Xin, X.; Shen, J.; Agnew, J. Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure in cold regions: Technological advancements and global impacts. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 119, 109494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadam, R.; Jo, S.Y.; Lee, J.H.; Khanthong, K.; Jang, H.W.; Park, J.G. A Review on the Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Livestock Manures in the Context of Sustainable Waste Management. Energies 2024, 17, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speece, R.E. Anaerobic Biotechnology and Odor/Corrosion Control for Municipalities and Industries; Archae Press: Nashville, TN, USA, 2008; pp. 456–458. [Google Scholar]
- Karki, R.; Chuenchart, W.; Surendra, K.C.; Shrestha, S.; Raskin, L.; Sung, S.; Hashimoto, A.; Khanal, S.K. Anaerobic co-digestion: Current status and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 330, 125001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, H.; Qin, H.; Li, Y.; Guo, G.; Liu, J.; Li, Y. Comparative study of high-performance mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactors in the co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste: Methanogenic performance and energy recovery potential. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alrowais, R.; Said, N.; Al-Otaibi, A.; Hatata, A.Y.; Essa, M.A.; Abdel daiem, M.M. Comparing the effect of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion for sustainable biogas production: An experimental and recurrent neural network model study. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 392, 136248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, W.F.; Stuckey, D.C.; Healy, J.B.; Young, L.Y.; McCarty, P.L. Bioassay for Monitoring Biochemical Methane Potential and Anaerobic Toxicity. Water Res. 1979, 13, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nasr, N.; Elbeshbishy, E.; Hafez, H.; Nakhla, G.; El Naggar, M.H. Comparative assessment of single-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion for the treatment of thin sillage. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, K.H.; Angelidaki, I.; Ahring, B.K. Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: Inhibition by ammonia. Water Res. 1998, 32, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buswell, A.M.; Mueller, H.F. Mechanism of methane fermentation. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1952, 44, 550–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, Y.; Yun, S.; Mehmood, A.; Shah, F.A.; Wang, K.; Eldin, E.T.; Al-Qahtani, W.H.; Ali, S.; Bocchetta, P. Co-digestion of cow manure and food waste for biogas enhancement and nutrients revival in bio-circular economy. Chemosphere 2023, 311, 137018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sposob, M.; Moon, H.S.; Lee, D.G.; Kim, T.H.; Yun, Y.M. Comprehensive analysis of the microbial communities and operational parameters of two full-scale anaerobic digestion plants treating food waste in South Korea: Seasonal variation and effect of ammonia. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 398, 122975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MOE (Ministry of Environment). Livestock Manure Treatment Status; 2021. Available online: https://me.go.kr/home/web/public_info/read.do?pagerOffset=60&maxPageItems=10&maxIndexPages=10&searchKey=&searchValue=&menuId=10123&orgCd=&condition.publicInfoMasterId=3&condition.deleteYn=N&publicInfoId=88&menuId=101232021 (accessed on 20 July 2024).
- McCarty, P.L. Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals (parts 1–4). Chem. Microbiol. 1964, 95, 107–112. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Xu, X.; Chen, C.; Xu, L.; Du, Z.; Gu, L.; Xiang, P.; Shi, D.; Huangfu, X.; Liu, F. Conductive materials enhance microbial salt-tolerance in anaerobic digestion of food waste: Microbial response and metagenomics analysis. Environ. Res. 2023, 227, 115779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Yellezuome, D.; Liu, R.; Wang, Z.; Liu, X. Effects of co-digestion of food waste, corn straw and chicken manure in two-stage anaerobic digestion on trace element bioavailability and microbial community composition. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speece, R.E.; Boonyakitsombut, S.; Kim, M.; Azbar, N.; Ursillo, P. Overview of Anaerobic Treatment: Thermophilic and Propionate Implications. Water Environ. Res. 2006, 78, 460–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Gao, Y.; Cui, Z.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X. The effects of C/N (10–25) on the relationship of substrates, metabolites, and microorganisms in “inhibited steady-state” of anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 2021, 188, 116466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Remigi, E.U. , Buckley, C.A. Co-Digestion of High Strength/Toxic Organic Effluents in Anaerobic Digesters at Wastewater Treatment Works; Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.U.; Ahring, B.K. Improving the biogas yield of manure: Effect of pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of the recalcitrant fraction of manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 321, 124427. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, J.G.; Jang, H.M.; Shin, S.G.; Kim, Y.M. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion: Effect of start-up strategies on performance and microbial community. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 687, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, W.; Huang, J.J.; Hua, B.; Huang, Z.; Droste, R.L.; Chen, L.; Wang, B.; Yang, C.; Yang, S. A new strategy to recover from volatile fatty acid inhibition in anaerobic digestion by photosynthetic bacteria. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 311, 123501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alam, M.; Dhar, B.R. Boosting thermophilic anaerobic digestion with conductive materials: Current outlook and future prospects. Chemosphere 2023, 343, 140175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryue, J.; Lin, L.; Kakar, F.L.; Elbeshbishy, E.; Al-Mamun, A.; Dhar, B.R. A Critical Review of Conventional and Emerging Methods for Improving Process Stability in Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2020, 54, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mlinar, S.; Weig, A.R.; Freitag, R. Influence of NH3 and NH4 + on anaerobic digestion and microbial population structure at increasing total ammonia nitrogen concentrations. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 361, 127638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tojo, G.C.; Moscoviz, R.; Astals, S.; Robles, Á.; Steyer, J.P. Unraveling the literature chaos around free ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wittmann, C.; Zeng, A.P.; Deckwer, W.D. Growth inhibition by ammonia and use of a pH-controlled feeding strategy for the effective cultivation of Mycobacterium chloropheolicum. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1995, 44, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallert, C.; Bauer, S.; Winter, J. Effect of ammonia on the anaerobic degradation of protein by a mesophilic and thermophilic biowaste population. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1998, 50, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sprott, G.D.; Shaw, K.M.; Jarrell, K.F. Methanogenesis and the K+ transport system are activated by divalent cations in ammonia-treated cells of Methanospirillum hungatei. J. Biol. Chem. 1985, 260, 9244–9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melbinger, N.R.; Donnellon, J. Toxic effects of ammonia nitrogen in high-rate digestion. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1971, 43, 1658–1670. [Google Scholar]
- Angelidaki, I.; Ahring, B.K. Anaerobic thermophilic digestion of manure at different ammonia loads: Effect of temperature. Water Res. 1994, 28, 727–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakakubo, R.; Moller, H.B.; Nielsen, A.M.; Matsuda, J. Ammonia inhibition of methanogenesis and identification of process indicators during anaerobic digestion. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2008, 25, 1487–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahbab, A.; Djaafri, M.; Kalloum, S.; Benatiallah, A.; Atelge, M.R.; Atabani, A.E. Co-digestion of vegetable peel with cow dung without external inoculum for biogas production: Experimental and a new modelling test in a batch mode. Fuel 2021, 306, 121627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Unit | Value (Average ± S.D. a) | |
---|---|---|---|
FW | LM | ||
Total COD | g/L | 220.4 ± 48.2 | 54.0 ± 5.3 |
Soluble COD | g/L | 115.8 ± 40.2 | 35.6 ± 4.2 |
TN | g/L | 5.6 ± 1.8 | 4.2 ± 2.2 |
TP | g/L | 2.0 ± 0.9 | 0.9 ± 0.7 |
NH4+ | g/L | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 2.8 ± 0.8 |
Na+ | g/L | 3.8 ± 0.06 | 0.6 ± 0.01 |
Cl− | g/L | 2.6 ± 1.8 | 0.9 ± 0.6 |
TS | g/L | 153.0 ± 29.3 | 20.2 ± 14.7 |
VS | g/L | 142.9 ± 28.5 | 13.1 ± 11.8 |
VS/TS | % | 93.4 | 64.9 |
pH | - | 4.0 | 7.2 |
C | % | 49.7 | 43.1 |
H | % | 6.9 | 5.6 |
O | % | 33.0 | 24.3 |
N | % | 4.0 | 4.9 |
S | % | 0.3 | 1.5 |
Trace Element | Value (mg/L, Average ± S.D. a) | Theoretical Range (mg/L as Ion) | |
---|---|---|---|
FW | LM | ||
Mg | 239.0 ± 0.75 | 78.0 ± 0.66 | 39 |
Fe | 36.1 ± 0.63 | 8.5 ± 0.13 | 5.8 |
Co | 0.03 ± 0.02 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 2.5 |
Ni | 0.17 ± 0.06 | 0.19 ± 0.06 | 0.13 |
Zn | 6.71 ± 0.04 | 1.21 ± 0.08 | 0.25 |
B | 2.60 ± 0.06 | 3.03 ± 0.04 | 0.09 |
Cu | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.04 | 0.19 |
Mn | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.06 | 0.15 |
Se | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 0.21 |
Mo | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.20 |
V | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.21 |
Parameter | Unit | Value (Average ± S.D. a) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FW | LM | ||||
38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | ||
Degradable COD | g COD/L | 190.7 ± 11.2 | 132.7 ± 9.6 | 29.2 ± 1.5 | 28.5 ±1.3 |
Ratio of degradable COD to TCOD concentrations in waste | % | 86.7 | 60.3 | 54.2 | 52.7 |
Ultimate methane yield | L CH4/g COD | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.03 |
L CH4/g VS | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 0.46 ± 0.04 | 0.42 ± 0.06 | 0.38 ± 0.04 | |
Theoretical methane yield | L CH4/g VS | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 0.55 ± 0.01 | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.57 ± 0.01 |
Ratio of ultimate methane yield to theoretical methane yield in waste | % | 89.1 | 83.6 | 73.7 | 66.7 |
Volume of FW | Input COD Concentration | Value (Average ± S.D. a) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gas Production Rate for 10 Days | Ultimate Methane Yield | ||||||
mL | g/L | mL/g VS/d | mL CH4/g CODadded | mL CH4/g VSadded | |||
38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | ||
5 | 1.3 | 124.8 ± 9.8 | 124.8 ± 11.3 | 318.2 ± 3.8 | 262.1 ± 4.4 | 568.3 ± 4.1 | 468.0 ± 1.8 |
10 | 2.5 | 51.7 ± 7.7 | 62.9 ± 7.8 | 211.8 ± 4.7 | 152.3 ± 3.7 | 378.2 ± 2.6 | 271.9 ± 1.1 |
15 | 3.8 | 22.0 ± 4.1 | 24.2 ± 5.5 | 28.9 ± 1.2 | 18.3 ± 2.4 | 51.6 ± 0.8 | 32.7 ± 0.6 |
20 | 5.0 | 17.3 ± 1.5 | 19.2 ± 2.4 | 24.2 ± 1.5 | 15.5 ± 2.1 | 43.2 ± 1.1 | 27.6 ± 0.6 |
TN Concentration | Value (Average ± S.D. a) | FA Concentration | pH in Serum Bottle | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gas Production Rate for 6 Days | Ultimate Methane Yield | |||||||||
mg/L | mL/Day | mL CH4/g CODadded | mL CH4/g VSadded | mg/L | - | |||||
38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | |
500 | 59.2 ± 10.1 | 57.8 ± 8.1 | 236.7 ± 7.7 | 240.6 ± 4.6 | 338.1 ± 6.1 | 343.7 ± 8.4 | 9.1 | 20.3 | 7.19 | 7.39 |
2000 | 46.8 ± 9.8 | 33.8 ± 7.6 | 228.3 ± 5.8 | 228.0 ± 4.8 | 326.1 ± 5.1 | 325.7 ± 3.1 | 235.9 | 528.9 | 7.45 | 7.59 |
3000 | 25.3 ± 8.8 | 22.5 ± 4.5 | 87.3 ± 6.1 | 100.8 ± 1.5 | 124.7 ± 4.8 | 144.0 ± 2.2 | 487.0 | 1032.8 | 7.27 | 7.46 |
4000 | 17.7 ± 4.5 | 15.1 ± 1.8 | 72.9 ± 0.5 | 88.2 ± 0.4 | 104.1 ± 3.1 | 126.0 ± 1.5 | 742.7 | 1535.9 | 7.42 | 7.45 |
5000 | 15.2 ± 1.1 | 11.6 ± 0.1 | 48.6 ± 0.1 | 95.1 ± 0.2 | 69.4 ± 0.8 | 135.9 ± 0.8 | 1040.9 | 2096.9 | 7.47 | 7.57 |
6000 | 5.5 ± 0.5 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 8.7 ± 0.1 | 6.9 ± 0.1 | 12.4 ± 0.8 | 9.9 ± 0.5 | 1361.6 | 2684.4 | 7.55 | 7.72 |
7000 | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1996.4 | 3656.4 | 7.84 | 7.87 |
Mixture Ratio | Correlation Coefficient | k | Value (Average ± S.D.a) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ultimate Methane Yield | Theoretical Methane Yield | ||||||||
FW:LM (Vol:Vol) | - | d−1 | L CH4/g CODadded | L CH4/g VSadded | L CH4/g VSadded | ||||
38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | - | |
10:1 | 0.9049 | 0.9732 | 0.082 | 0.074 | 0.14 ± 0.07 | 0.23 ± 0.06 | 0.28 ± 0.07 | 0.47 ± 0.07 | 0.56 ± 0.02 |
5:1 | 0.9711 | 0.9711 | 0.080 | 0.078 | 0.18 ± 0.07 | 0.25 ± 0.06 | 0.35 ± 0.07 | 0.50 ± 0.06 | 0.56 ± 0.01 |
2:1 | 0.9118 | 0.9118 | 0.074 | 0.073 | 0.12 ± 0.04 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.54 ± 0.02 |
FW | 0.9617 | 0.9875 | 0.067 | 0.063 | 0.20 ± 0.09 | 0.28 ± 0.07 | 0.32 ± 0.08 | 0.46 ± 0.05 | 0.55 ± 0.01 |
LM | 0.9901 | 0.9550 | 0.068 | 0.073 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.38 ± 0.04 | 0.57 ± 0.01 |
Mixture Ratio | Bu | P | Rm | λ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FW:LM (Vol:Vol) | L CH4/g VSadded | mL | mL/Day | Days | ||||
- | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C | 38 °C | 55 °C |
10:1 | 0.20 | 0.30 | 89.41 | 78.62 | 8.74 | 10.74 | 2.07 | 1.98 |
5:1 | 0.23 | 0.33 | 100.84 | 95.43 | 10.23 | 11.35 | 1.44 | 1.10 |
2:1 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 80.44 | 68.48 | 8.64 | 9.14 | 0.89 | 0.56 |
FW | 0.24 | 0.35 | 108.07 | 91.25 | 11.13 | 12.23 | 1.61 | 1.64 |
LM | 0.15 | 0.14 | 63.61 | 28.25 | 6.20 | 4.35 | 1.81 | 0.43 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, W.; Kim, Y.; Kim, H.; Kim, M. Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Livestock Manure at Various Mixing Ratios under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177653
Lee W, Kim Y, Kim H, Kim M. Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Livestock Manure at Various Mixing Ratios under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177653
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Wonbae, Youngo Kim, Ho Kim, and Moonil Kim. 2024. "Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Livestock Manure at Various Mixing Ratios under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177653