A Comparative Study of Biogas Production from Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Waste Characterization
2.2. Reactor Design
2.3. Inoculum and Synthetic Wastewater
2.4. Analytical Methods
2.5. Startup of Conventional and the Modified UASB Reactors
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Biogas, Methane, and Specific Methane Productions
3.2. COD Removal Efficiency of the R1 and R2 Reactors
3.3. Variation of the Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3-N) Concentration in the R1 and R2 Reactors
3.4. Variation in Alkalinity Ratio and pH Profile of the R1 and R2 Reactors
3.5. Variation in VFA of the R1 and R2 Reactors
3.6. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Analysis of Sludge in the R1 and R2 Reactors
4. Conclusions
- More investigations should be carried out on similar wastewater with high lipid content (palm oil mill effluent) in order to investigate the capability and efficiency of the system;
- Similar studies should be performed on thermophilic condition in order to examine the rate of biodegradability under varied OLR and HRT.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
BOD | biochemical oxygen demand |
COD | chemical oxygen demand |
CSWW | cattle slaughterhouse wastewater |
FOG | fats, oils and grease |
TN | total nitrogen |
TSS | total suspended solid |
VSS | volatile suspended solids |
UASB | upflow anaerobic sludge blanket |
VSS | volatile suspended solid |
IA | partial alkalinity |
TA | total alkalinity |
SMP | specific methane production |
UASB | upflow anaerobic sludge blanket |
HRT | hydraulic retention time |
OLR | organic loading rate |
References
- Jeguirim, M.; Limousy, L. Strategies for bioenergy production from agriculture and agrifood processing residues. Biofuels 2018, 9, 541–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Panwar, N.L.; Kaushik, S.C.; Kothari, S. Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1513–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramachandra, T.V.; Kulkarni, G.; Aithal, B.H.; Han, S.S. GHG emissions with the mismanagement of municipal solid waste: Case study of Bangalore, India. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 2017, 20, 346–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parravicini, V.; Svardal, K.; Krampe, J. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants. Energy Procedia 2016, 97, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flores-Juarez, C.R.; Rodríguez-García, A.; Cárdenas-Mijangos, J.; Montoya-Herrera, L.; Mora-Tovar, L.A.G.; Bustos-Bustos, E.; Rodríguez-Valadez, F.; Manríquez-Rocha, J. Chemically pretreating slaughterhouse solid waste to increase the efficiency of anaerobic digestion. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2014, 118, 415–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tock, J.Y.; Lai, C.L.; Lee, K.T.; Tan, K.T.; Bhatia, S. Banana biomass as potential renewable energy resource: A Malaysian case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 798–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arif, S.; Liaquat, R.; Adil, M. Applications of materials as additives in anaerobic digestion technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 97, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, P.D.; Mehta, C.M.; Carney, C.; Batstone, D.J. Recovery of energy and nutrient resources from cattle paunch waste using temperature phased anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinez, E.; Marcos, A.; Al-Kassir, A.; Jaramillo, M.A.; Mohamad, A.A. Mathematical model of a laboratory-scale plant for slaughterhouse effluents biodigestion for biogas production. Appl. Energy 2012, 95, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US EPA. Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category (40 CFR 432); EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
- Yung, T.; Hung, N.K.S. Physicochemical Treatment Processes; Handbook of Environmental Engineering; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadian, M.; Yousefi, N.; Van Ginkel, S.W.; Zare, M.R.; Rahimi, S.; Fatehizadeh, A. Kinetic study of slaughterhouse wastewater treatment by electrocoagulation using Fe electrodes. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 66, 754–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claudia, E.T.C.; Magali, C.C.; Alcina, M.F.X. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment: Evaluation of a new three-phase separation system in a UASB reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 81, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davarnejad, R.; Nasiri, S. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment using an advanced oxidation process: Optimization study. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 223, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Metcalf, L.; Eddy, H.P.; Tchobanoglous, G. Wastewater Engineering—Treatment and Reuse; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Rajab, A.R.; Salim, M.R.; Sohaili, J.; Anuar, A.N.; Salmiati, L.K. Performance of integrated anaerobic/aerobic sequencing batch reactor treating poultry slaughterhouse wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2017, 313, 967–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johns, M.R.; Harrison, M.L.; Hutchinson, P.H.; Beswick, P. Sources of nutrients in wastewater from integrated cattle slaughterhouses. Water Sci. Technol. 1995, 12, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, P.; Christiansen, K.; Hummelmose, B. Alternatives to Conventional Food Processing; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Musa, M.A.; Idrus, S.; Hasfalina, C.M.; Daud, N.N.N. Effect of organic loading rate on anaerobic digestion performance of mesophilic (UASB) reactor using cattle slaughterhouse wastewater as substrate. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Department of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Environmental Requirements: A Guide for Investors. 11; Department of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2010.
- Naidoo, S.; Olaniran, A.O. Treated wastewater effluent as a source of microbial pollution of surface water resources. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 11, 249–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Judd, S. Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors for Water and Wastewater Treatment; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiumenti, A.; Pezzuolo, A.; Boscaro, D.; Da Borso, F. Exploitation of mowed grass from green areas by means of anaerobic digestion: Effects of grass conservation methods (drying and ensiling) on biogas and biomethane yield. Energies 2019, 12, 3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiaoye, S.; Wenhai, L.; Faisal, I.H.; William, E.P.; Wenshan, G.; Hao, H.N. Resource recovery from wastewater by anaerobic membrane bioreactors: Opportunities and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 270, 669–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aryal, N.; Kvist, T. Alternative of Biogas Injection into the Danish Gas Grid System—A Study from Demand Perspective. ChemEngineering 2018, 3, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muradin, M.; Joachimiak-Lechman, K.; Foltynowicz, Z. Evaluation of eco-efficiency of two alternative agricultural biogas plants. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chan, Y.J.; Chong, M.F.; Law, C.L.; Hassell, D.G. A review on anaerobic-aerobic treatment of industrial and municipal wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2009, 155, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jing, Z.; Hu, Y.; Niu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.Y.; Wang, X.C. UASB performance and electron competition between methane-producing archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria in treating sulfate-rich wastewater containing ethanol and acetate. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 137, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carrillo-Reyes, J.; Celis, L.B.; Alatriste-Mondragón, F.; Razo-Flores, E. Decreasing methane production in hydrogenogenic UASB reactors fed with cheese whey. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 63, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, C.; Boe, K.; Angelidaki, I. Biogas production from potato-juice, a by-product from potato-starch processing, in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 5734–5741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, A.; Ghufran, R.; Wahid, Z.A. Role of calcium oxide in sludge granulation and methanogenesis for the treatment of palm oil mill effluent using UASB reactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 198, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Ni, J.; Zhen, G.; Kubota, K.; Li, Y.Y. Response of morphology and microbial community structure of granules to influent COD/SO42—Ratios in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor treating starch wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 256, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Zhen, G.; Ni, J.; Hojo, T.; Kubota, K.; Li, Y.Y. Effect of influent COD/SO42− ratios on biodegradation behaviors of starch wastewater in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 214, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nnaji, C.C. A review of the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Desalin. Water Treat. 2013, 52, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rosli, N.S.; Idrus, S.; Daud, N.N.; Ahsan, A. Assessment of potential biogas production from rice straw leachate in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Int. J. Smart Grid Clean Energy 2016, 5, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghaniyari-Benis, S.; Borja, R.; Monemian, S.A.; Goodarzi, V. Anaerobic treatment of synthetic medium-strength wastewater using a multistage biofilm reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 1740–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowmeyan, R.; Swaminathan, G. Evaluation of inverse anaerobic fluidized bed reactor for treating high strength organic wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 3877–3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marcos, A.C.; Al-Kassir, A.; Cuadros, F.; Yusaf, T. Treatment of slaughterhouse waste water mixed with serum from lacteal industry of extremadura in Spain to produce clean energy. Energies 2017, 10, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Basitere, M.; Rinquest, Z.; Njoya, M.; Sheldon, M.S.; Ntwampe, S.K.O. Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater using a static granular bed reactor (SGBR) coupled with ultrafiltration (UF) membrane system. Water Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borja, R.; Banks, C.J.; Wang, Z. Effect of organic loading rate on anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse wastewater in a fluidised-bed reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 1995, 52, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Liu, S.; Mi, L.; Li, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Yan, Z.; Liu, X. Effects of feedstock ratio and organic loading rate on the anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of rice straw and cow manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 189, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chávez, C.P.; Castillo, L.R.; Dendooven, L.; Escamilla-Silva, E.M. Poultry slaughter wastewater treatment with an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 1730–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labatut, R.A.; Angenent, L.T.; Scott, N.R. Conventional mesophilic vs. thermophilic anaerobic digestion: Atrade-off between performance and stability. Water Res. 2014, 53, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dennis, A.; Burke, P.E. Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion Handbook; Environmental Energy Company: Olympia, WA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Yenigün, O.; Demirel, B. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: A review. Process Biochem. 2013, 48, 901–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buendía, I.M.; Fernández, F.J.; Villaseñor, J.; Rodríguez, L. Biodegradability of meat industry wastes under anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Water Res. 2008, 42, 3767–3774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sakar, S.; Yetilmezsoy, K.; Kocak, E. Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock waste treatment—A literature review. Waste Manag. Res. 2009, 27, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tangkathitipong, P.; Intanoo, P.; Butpan, J.; Chavadej, S. Separate production of hydrogen and methane from biodiesel wastewater with added glycerin by two-stage anaerobic sequencing batch reactors (ASBR). Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 1077–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mata-Alvarez, J. Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes; IWA: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Fantozzi, F.; Buratti, C. Anaerobic digestion of mechanically treated OFMSW: Experimental data on biogas/methane production and residues characterization. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 8885–8892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morales-Polo, C.; Cledera-Castro, M.; Yolanda, M.S.B. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste: From waste generation and anaerobic process to its perspectives. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ugurlu, A.; Forster, C.F. The impact of shock loadings on the performance of thermophilic anaerobic filters with porous and non-porous packings. Bioresour. Technol. 1992, 39, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Zhao, Q.B.; Laurens, L.L.; Jarvis, E.E.; Nagle, N.J.; Chen, S.; Frear, C.S. Mechanism, kinetics and microbiology of inhibition caused by long-chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion of algal biomass. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2015, 8, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yuan, Y.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, B.; Wang, B.; Peng, Y. Long-term effect of pH on short-chain fatty acids accumulation and microbial community in sludge fermentation systems. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 197, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kundu, P.; Debsarkar, A.; Mukherjee, S. Treatment of slaughter house wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor: Performance evaluation and biodegradation kinetics. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 134872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palacio-Barco, E.; Robert-Peillard, F.; Boudenne, J.L.; Coulomb, B. On-line analysis of volatile fatty acids in anaerobic treatment processes. Anal. Chim. Acta 2010, 668, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Xiao, G.; Peng, L.; Su, H.; Tan, T. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 129, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briones, A.; Raskin, L. Diversity and dynamics of microbial communities in engineered environments and their implications for process stability. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2003, 14, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nettmann, E.; Bergmann, I.; Pramschüfer, S.; Mundt, K.; Plogsties, V.; Herrmann, C. Polyphasic analyses of methanogenic archaeal communities in agricultural biogas plants. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 2540–2548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gomes, D.R.S.; Papa, L.G.; Cichello, G.C.V.; Belançon, D.; Pozzi, E.G.; Balieiro, J.C.C.; Monterrey-Quintero, E.S.; Tommasoa, G. Effect of enzymatic pretreatment and increasing the organic loading rate of lipid-rich wastewater treated in a hybrid UASB reactor. Desalination 2011, 279, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varesche, M.B.; Zaiat, M.; Vieira, L.G.T.; Vazoller, R.F.; Foresti, E. Microbial colonization of poplyurethane foam matrices in horizontal-flow anaerobic immobilized-sludge reactor. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1997, 48, 534–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tommaso, G.; Ribeiro, R.; Varesche, M.B.A.; Zaiat, M.; Foresti, E. Influence of multiple substrates on anaerobic protein degradation in a packed-bed bioreactor. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vrieze, J.; Verstraete, W.; Boon, N. Repeated pulse feeding induces functional stability in anaerobic digestion. Microb. Biotechnol. 2013, 6, 414–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musa, M.A.; Idrus, S.; Man, H.C.; Daud, N.N.N. Performance comparison of conventional and modified upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors treating high-strength cattle slaughterhouse wastewater. Water 2019, 11, 806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Parameters | Unit | Average Value |
---|---|---|
pH | - | 6.9 ± 0.8 |
Temperature | °C | 27.6 ± 0.5 |
COD | mg/L | 32,000 ± 112 |
BOD5 | mg/L | 17,158 ± 95 |
TSS | mg/L | 22,300 ± 212 |
VSS | mg/L | 18,924 ± 318 |
FOG | mg/L | 1024 ± 34 |
TN | mg/L | 1865 ± 18 |
PO43− | mg/L | 49 ± 2 |
Protein | mg/L | 11,637.6 ± 18 |
NH3-N | mg/L | 38 ± 1 |
Alkalinity | mg/L as CaCO3 | 582 ± 14 |
Color | Pt-Co | 16,426.8 ± 334 |
Turbidity | FAU | 12,500 ± 76 |
Fixed Parameters | Units | Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Temperature | °C | 36 ± 1 | |||
HRT | d | 1 | |||
Experimental run | Day | Feed COD concentration (g L−1) | Corresponding OLR (g L−1d−1) | Dilution factor | Influent volume/flow rate |
Stage I | 1–15 | 3.5 | 1.75 | 9.2 | 6 L/d |
Stage II | 15–29 | 6.0 | 3 | 5.4 | 6 L/d |
Stage III | 29–47 | 10 | 5 | 3.2 | 6 L/d |
Stage IV | 47–63 | 20 | 10 | 1.6 | 6 L/d |
Stage V | 63–79 | 28 | 14 | 1.2 | 6 L/d |
Stage VI | 79–95 | 32 | 16 | 1 | 6 L/d |
Fixed Parameter | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HRT 24 h | |||||||||||||||||||
Run | Duration (Days) | Influent COD (g L−1) | OLR (g L−1 d−1) | Biogas Production (L/d) | Methane Content (%) | SMP (LCH4/gCOD added) | pH | Alkalinity (mg/L) R1 | Alkalinity (mg/L) R2 | Alkalinity Ratio (IA/PA) | NH3-N (mg/L) Effluent | ||||||||
R1,R2 | R1,R2 | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | IA | PA | IA | PA | R1 | R2 | R1 | R2 | ||
I. | 15 | 3.5 | 1.75 | 6.2 | 6.8 | 71 | 88 | 0.210 | 0.28 | 6.6 | 6.8 | 42 | 302 | 32 | 322 | 0.14 | 0.09 | 141 | 156 |
II. | 16 | 6.0 | 3 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 67 | 83 | 0.150 | 0.19 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 43 | 306 | 42 | 219 | 0.14 | 0.19 | 185 | 204 |
III. | 17 | 10.0 | 5 | 10.2 | 12.2 | 72 | 83 | 0.120 | 0.18 | 6.7 | 7.3 | 45 | 248 | 41 | 235 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 428 | 550 |
IV. | 16 | 20.0 | 10 | 8.0 | 27.0 | 44 | 89 | 0.020 | 0.21 | 4.2 | 7.3 | 51 | 58 | 35 | 175 | 0.88 | 0.20 | 163 | 651 |
V. | 16 | 28.0 | 14 | 5.8 | 22 | 33 | 64 | 0.010 | 0.08 | 4.4 | 6.8 | 68 | 61 | 32 | 185 | 1.11 | 0.17 | 104 | 712 |
VI. | 15 | 32.0 | 16 | 3.6 | 14 | 26 | 55 | 0.004 | 0.04 | 43 | 6.7 | 72 | 51 | 37 | 154 | 1.42 | 0.24 | 1590 | 753 |
© 2019 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Musa, M.A.; Idrus, S.; Harun, M.R.; Tuan Mohd Marzuki, T.F.; Abdul Wahab, A.M. A Comparative Study of Biogas Production from Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010283
Musa MA, Idrus S, Harun MR, Tuan Mohd Marzuki TF, Abdul Wahab AM. A Comparative Study of Biogas Production from Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(1):283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010283
Chicago/Turabian StyleMusa, Mohammed Ali, Syazwani Idrus, Mohd Razif Harun, Tuan Farhana Tuan Mohd Marzuki, and Abdul Malek Abdul Wahab. 2020. "A Comparative Study of Biogas Production from Cattle Slaughterhouse Wastewater Using Conventional and Modified Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 1: 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010283