Technological and Energetic Aspects of Multi-Component Co-Digestion of the Beverage Industry Wastes and Municipal Sewage Sludge
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Substrates and Inoculum
2.2. Laboratory Installation and Operational Set-Up
2.3. Analytical Methods
2.4. Kinetic Modelling
- Hyperbolic
- Modified Gompertz
- Cone
- Logistic growth model
- P(t) is the cumulative methane production (mL CH4 g VS−1);
- Pm is the methane production (mL CH4 g−1 VS);
- Rm is the is the maximum methane production rate (mL CH4 g−1 VS d−1);
- e is a constant (2.71828);
- λ is the lag phase (d);
- n is the dimensionless shape factor;
- k is rate constant (d−1).
- Pexp is the methane production achieved in the experiment (mL CH4 g−1 VS);
- Pmod is the methane production achieved in kinetic evaluation (mL CH4 g−1 VS);
- N is a number of measurements.
2.5. FT-IR/PAS Analysis
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Characteristics of Substrates and Organic Removal
3.2. Inhibitors Presence
3.3. Biogas and Methane Productions
3.4. Kinetic Evaluation
3.5. FT-IR/PAS Analysis
3.6. Energy Balance
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Olajire, A.A. The brewing industry and environmental challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 256, 102817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calabrò, P.S.; Paone, E.; Komilis, D. Strategies for the sustainable management of orange peel waste through anaerobic digestion. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 212, 462–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Bazilian, M.; Griffiths, S.; Kim, J.; Foley, A.; Rooney, D. Decarbonizing the Food and Beverages Industry: A Critical and Systematic Review of Developments, Sociotechnical Systems and Policy Options. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braddock, R.J.; Weiss, E. Handbook of Citrus By-Products and Processing Technology; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkins, M.R.; Suryawati, L.; Maness, N.O.; Chrz, D. Ethanol production by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces marxianus in the presence of orange-peel oil. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 23, 1161–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín, M.A.; Siles, J.A.; Chica, A.F.; Martín, A. Biomethanization of orange peel waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8993–8999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mussatto, S.I.; Dragone, G.; Roberto, I.C. Brewers’ spent grain: Generation, characteristics and potential applications. J. Cereal Sci. 2006, 43, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connolly, A.; Cermeño, M.; Crowley, D.; O’Callaghan, Y.; O’Brien, N.M.; FitzGerald, R.J. Characterisation of the in vitro bioactive properties of alkaline and enzyme extracted brewers’ spent grain protein hydrolysates. Food Res. Int. 2019, 121, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Negro, V.; Mancini, G.; Ruggeri, B.; Fino, D. Citrus waste as feedstock for bio-based products recovery: Review on limonene case study and energy valorization. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 214, 806–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezzadori, K.; Benedetti, S.; Amante, E.R. Proposals for the residues recovery: Orange waste as raw material for new products. Food Bioprod. Process. 2012, 90, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikram, S.; Huang, L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, J.; Yin, M. Composition and Nutrient Value Proposition of Brewers Spent Grain. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 2232–2242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naibaho, J.; Korzeniowska, M. The variability of physico-chemical properties of brewery spent grain from 8 different breweries. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales-Polo, C.; Cledera-Castro, M.d.M.; Revuelta-Aramburu, M.; Hueso-Kortekaas, K. Bioconversion Process of Barley Crop Residues into Biogas—Energetic-Environmental Potential in Spain. Agronomy 2021, 11, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Sanctis, M.; Chimienti, S.; Pastore, C.; Piergrossi, V.; Di Iaconi, C. Energy efficiency improvement of thermal hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion of Posidonia oceanica residues. Appl. Energy 2019, 252, 113457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales-Polo, C.; Cledera-Castro, M.; Hueso-Kortekaas, K.; Revuelta-Aramburu, M. Anaerobic digestion in wastewater reactors of separated organic fractions from wholesale markets waste. Compositional and batch characterization. Energy and environmental feasibility. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buller, L.S.; Sganzerla, W.G.; Michele, W.G.; Lima, M.N.; Muenchow, K.E.; Timko, M.T.; Forster-Carneiro, T. Ultrasonic pretreatment of brewers’ spent grains for anaerobic digestion: Biogas production for a sustainable industrial development. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 355, 131802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castilla-Archilla, J.; Thorn, C.; Pau, S.; Lens, P.N. Screening for suitable mixed microbial consortia from anaerobic sludge and animal dungs for biodegradation of brewery spent grain. Biomass Bioenergy 2022, 159, 106396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mata-Álvarez, J.; Dosta, J.; Romero-Guiza, M.S.; Fonoll, X.; Peces, M.; Astals, S. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 36, 412–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Creamer, K.S. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4044–4064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amha, Y.M.; Anwar, M.Z.; Brower, A.; Jacobsen, C.S.; Stadler, L.B.; Webster, T.M.; Smith, A.L. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion processes: Applications of molecular tools. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 999–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, B.; Flotats, X. Effect of limonene on batch anaerobic digestion of citrus peel waste. Biochem. Eng. J. 2016, 109, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez, E.J.; Rosas, J.G.; Sotres, A.; Morán, A.; Cara, J.; Sánchez, M.E.; Gómez, X. Codigestion of sludge and citrus peel wastes: Evaluating the effect of biochar addition on microbial communities. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 137, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sežun, M.; Grilc, V.; Zupančič, G.D.; Marinšek-Logar, R. Anaerobic digestion of brewery spent grain in a semi-continuous bioreactor: Inhibition by phenolic degradation products. Acta Chim. Slov. 2011, 58, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Panjičko, M.; Zupančič, G.D.; Zelić, B. Anaerobic Biodegradation of Raw and Pre-treated Brewery Spent Grain Utilizing Solid State Anaerobic Digestion. Acta Chim. Slov. 2015, 62, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sawatdeenarunat, C.; Surendra, K.C.; Takara, D.; Oechsner, H.; Khanal, S.K. Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: Challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 178, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taghizadeh-Alisaraei, A.; Hosseini, S.H.; Ghobadian, B.; Motevali, A. Biofuel production from citrus wastes: A feasibility study in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 1100–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, P.; Liu, D.; Pei, Z.; Zhao, L.; Shi, F.; Yao, Z.; Li, W.; Sun, Y.; Wang, S.; Yu, Q.; et al. Evaluation of lignin inhibition in anaerobic digestion from the perspective of reducing the hydrolysis rate of holocellulose. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 333, 125204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bochmann, G.; Drosg, B.; Fuchs, W. Anaerobic digestion of thermal pretreated Brewers’ spent grains. Environ. Prog. Sustain. 2015, 34, 1092–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bougrier, C.; Dognin, D.; Laroche, C.; Gonzalez, V.; Benali-Raclot, D.; Cacho Rivero, J.A. Anaerobic digestion of Brewery Spent Grains: Trace elements addition requirement. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1193–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín, M.A.; Fernández, R.; Serrano, A.; Siles, J.A. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of orange peel waste and residual glycerol derived from biodiesel manufacturing. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1633–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valenti, F.; Zhong, Y.; Sun, M.; Porto, S.M.; Toscano, A.; Dale, B.E.; Sibilla, F.; Liao, W. Anaerobic co-digestion of multiple agricultural residues to enhance biogas production in southern Italy. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Szaja, A.; Montusiewicz, A. Enhancing the co-digestion efficiency of sewage sludge and cheese whey using brewery spent grain as an additional substrate. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 291, 121863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, I.C.; Fonsec, A.; Morao, A.M.; Pinheirob, H.M.; Duarte, A.P.; Ferra, M.I.A. Evaluation of anaerobic co-digestion of spent brewery grains and an azo dye. Renew. Energy 2015, 74, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poulsen, T.G.; Adelard, L.; Wells, M. Improvement in CH4/CO2 ratio and CH4 yield as related to biomass mix composition during anaerobic co-digestion. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tewelde, S.; Eyalarasan, K.; Radhamani, R.; Karthikeyan, K. Biogas production from co-digestion of brewery wastes [BW] and cattle dung [CD]. IJLTAFS 2012, 2, 90–93. [Google Scholar]
- Malakhova, D.V.; Egorova, M.A.; Prokudina, L.I.; Netrusov, A.I.; Tsavkelova, E.A. The biotransformation of brewer’s spent grain into biogas by anaerobic microbial communities. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 2015–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, A.; Qin, Y.; Wu, J.; Ye, M.; Li, Y.Y. Characterization of biogas production and microbial community in thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and paper waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelidaki, I.; Alves, M.; Bolzonella, D.; Borzacconi, L.; Campos, J.L.; Guwy, A.J.; Kalyuzhnyi, S.; Jenicek, P.; van Lier, J.B. Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: A proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 59, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- American Public Health Association (APHA). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd ed.; APHA: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Panigrahi, S.; Sharma, H.B.; Dubey, B.K. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with pretreated yard waste: A comparative study of methane production, kinetic modeling and energy balance. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.Y.; Xia, Z.Y.; Gou, M.; Sun, Z.Y.; Huang, Y.L.; Jiao, S.B.; Dai, W.Y.; Tang, Y.Q. Production of volatile fatty acid from fruit waste by anaerobic digestion at high organic loading rates: Performance and microbial community characteristics. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 346, 126648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, S.; Wainaina, S.; Liu, H.; Soufiani, A.M.; Pandey, A.; Zhang, Z.; Awasthi, M.K.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Microbial dynamics during anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge combined with food waste at high organic loading rates in immersed membrane bioreactors. Fuel 2021, 303, 121276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, P.; Ge, J.W.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, S.; Su, H. The Fe3O4 nanoparticles-modified mycelium pellet-based anaerobic granular sludge enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste with high salinity and organic load. Renew. Energy 2021, 185, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano, A.; Siles López, J.A.; Chica, A.F.; Martin, M.; Karouach, F.; Mesfioui, A.; El Bari, H. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and orange peel waste. Environ. Technol. 2014, 35, 898–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 540–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piątek, M.; Lisowski, A.; Dąbrowska, M. The effects of solid lignin on the anaerobic digestion of microcrystalline cellulose and application of smoothing splines for extended data analysis of its inhibitory effects. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Monlau, F.; Sambusiti, C.; Barakat, A.; Quéméneur, M.; Trably, E.; Steyer, J.P.; Carrère, H. Do furanic and phenolic compounds of lignocellulosic and algae biomass hydrolyzate inhibit anaerobic mixed cultures? A comprehensive review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 934–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caroca, E.; Serrano, A.; Borja, R.; Jiménez, A.; Carvajal, A.; Braga, A.F.M.; Fermoso, F.G. Influence of phenols and furans released during thermal pretreatment of olive mill solid waste on its anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag. 2021, 20, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeresh, G.S.; Kumar, P.; Mehrotra, I. Treatment of phenol and cresols in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) process: A review. Water Res. 2005, 39, 154–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Levén, L.; Nyberg, K.; Schnürer, A. Conversion of phenols during anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste--a review of important microorganisms and impact of temperature. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenkranz, F.; Cabrol, L.; Carballa, M.; Donoso-Bravo, A.; Cruz, L.; Ruiz-Filippi, G.; Chamy, R.; Lema, J.M. Relationship between phenol degradation efficiency and microbial community structure in an anaerobic SBR. Water Res. 2013, 47, 6739–6749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakkali, F.; Averbeck, S.; Averbeck, D.; Idaomar, M. Biological effects of essential oils—A review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 446–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunatsa, T.; Xia, X. A review on anaerobic digestion with focus on the role of biomass co-digestion, modelling and optimisation on biogas production and enhancement. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 334, 126311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruiz, B.; Flotats, X. Citrus essential oils and their influence on the anaerobic digestion process: An overview. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 2063–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, J.; Yun, S.; Shi, J.; Wang, Z.; Abbas, Y.; Wang, K.; Han, F.; Jia, B.; Xu, H.; Xing, T.; et al. Role of biomass-derived carbon-based composite accelerants in enhanced anaerobic digestion: Focusing on biogas yield, fertilizer utilization, and density functional theory calculations. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 307, 123204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kainthola, J.; Kalamdhad, A.S.; Goud, V.V.; Goel, R. Fungal pretreatment and associated kinetics of rice straw hydrolysis to accelerate methane yield from anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 286, 121368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atelge, M.R.; Atabani, A.E.; Abut, S.; Kaya, M.; Eskicioglu, C.; Semaan, G.; Lee, C.; Yildiz, Y.Ş.; Unalan, S.; Mohanasundaram, R.; et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of oil-extracted spent coffee grounds with various wastes: Experimental and kinetic modeling studies. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 322, 124470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Karki, R.; Chuenchart, W.; Surendra, K.C.; Sung, S.; Raskin, L.; Kumar Khanal, S. Anaerobic co-digestion of various organic wastes: Kinetic modeling and synergistic impact evaluation. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 343, 126063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, C.; Yan, H.; Liu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, R.; Chen, C.; Liu, G. Bio-energy conversion performance, biodegradability, and kinetic analysis of different fruit residues during discontinuous anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag. 2016, 52, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedoić, R.; Špehar, A.; Puljko, J.; Čuček, L.; Ćosić, B.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Opportunities and challenges: Experimental and kinetic analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rendering industry streams for biogas production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 130, 109951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sedighi, A.; Karrabi, M.; Shahnavaz, B.; Mostafavinezhad, M. Bioenergy production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge using mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion: An experimental and kinetic modeling study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usmani, A.; Pangkumhang, B.; Wongaree, M.; Wantala, K.; Khunphonoi, R. Kinetic study of biogas production from anaerobic digestion of vinasse waste. Water Pract. Technol. 2021, 16, 886–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarto, S.; Hildayati, R.; Syaichurrozi, I. Effect of chemical pretreatment using sulfuric acid on biogas production from water hyacinth and kinetics. Renew. Energy 2019, 132, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, G.; Lu, X.; Kobayashi, T.; Kumar, G.; Xu, K. Anaerobic co-digestion on improving methane production from mixed microalgae (Scenedesmus sp., Chlorella sp.) and food waste: Kinetic modeling and synergistic impact evaluation. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 99, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Y.; Borrion, A.; Li, H.; Li, J. Effects of organic composition on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 244, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liew, B.; Morris, S.; Masters, A.; Netto, K. A comparison and update of direct kinematic-kinetic models of leg stiffness in human running. J. Biomech. 2017, 64, 253–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Villamil, J.A.; Mohedano, A.F.; Rodriguez, J.J.; De la Rubia, M.A. Anaerobic co-digestion of the aqueous phase from hydrothermally treated waste activated sludge with primary sewage sludge. A kinetic study. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 726–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grube, M.; Lin, J.G.; Lee, P.H.; Kokorevicha, S. Evaluation of sewage sludge-based compost by FT-IR spectroscopy. Geoderma 2006, 130, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Socrates, G. Infrared and Raman Characteristic Group Frequencies. Tables and Charts, 3rd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Abbasa, O.; Compère, G.; Larondelle, Y.; Pompeu, D.; Rogez, H.; Baeten, V. Phenolic compound explorer: A mid-infrared spectroscopy database. Vib. Spectrosc. 2017, 92, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, H.; Schrader, B.; Quilitzsch, R.; Steuer, B. Quantitative analysis of various citrus oils by ATR/FT-IR and NIR-FT Raman spectroscopy. Appl. Spectrosc. 2002, 56, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boughendjioua, H.; Djeddi, S. Fourier Transformed Infrared Spectroscopy Analysis of Constituents of Lemon Essential Oils from Algeria. AJOP 2017, 5, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- NIST Chemistry WebBook. p-Cymene. Available online: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C99876&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=2#IR-SPEC (accessed on 20 July 2022).
- Zapata, B.; Balmaseda, J.; Fregoso-Israel, E.; Torres-García, E. Thermo-kinetics study of orange peel in air. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2009, 98, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Series | Feedstock Composition | Component Volume | Additive Mass | Feedstock Volume: Additive Mass | VS Load in Feedstock | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sewage Sludge | Orange Pulp | Orange Peels | Brewery Spent Grain | ||||
L | g | L:g | g kg−1 | ||||
R1 | sewage sludge (control) | 0.4 | - | - | - | - | 14.21 ± 4.88 |
R2 | sewage sludge + orange pulp | 2.5 | - | - | 1:6.25 | 14.41 ± 4.49 | |
R3 | sewage sludge + orange pulp | 5.0 | - | - | 1:12.5 | 14.84 ± 4.61 | |
R4 | sewage sludge + orange peels | - | 1.5 | - | 1:3.75 | 14.68 ± 4.80 | |
R5 | sewage sludge + orange peels | - | 3.0 | - | 1:7.5 | 15.39 ± 6.09 | |
R6 | sewage sludge + orange peels + brewery spent grain | - | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1:3.75:3.75 | 16.57 ± 7.10 | |
R7 | sewage sludge + orange pulp + brewery spent grain | 2.5 | - | 1.5 | 1:6.25:3.75 | 16.05 ± 1.48 | |
R8 | sewage sludge + orange pulp + brewery spent grain | 5.0 | - | 1.5 | 1:12.5:3.75 | 16.31 ± 1.8 |
Parameter | Unit | Orange Peels | Orange Pulp | Brewery Spent Grain |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) | mg L−1 | 10,185 ± 304 | 11,750 ± 233 | 33,600 ± 678 |
Volatile fatty acids (VFA) | mg L−1 | 611 ± 20.2 | 432.5 ± 15.2 | 608 ± 10.9 |
pH | - | 4.35 ± 0.2 | 4.33 ± 0.1 | 5.01 ± 0.3 |
Alkalinity (ALK) | mg L−1 | 27.1 ± 7.28 | 35.3 ± 6.08 | 242.0 ± 2.83 |
Total solids (TS) | g kg−1 | 235.09 ± 0.50 | 155.18 ± 0.23 | 937.78 ± 0.32 |
Volatile solids (VS) | g kg−1 | 224.41 ± 0.87 | 149.28 ± 0.47 | 878.21 ± 0.77 |
%VS | % dry weight | 95.5 | 96.2 | 93.7 |
Total nitrogen (TN) | mg L−1 | 92.05 ± 15.49 | 111 ± 12.73 | 739.4 ± 93.7 |
Total phosphorus (TP) | mg L−1 | 16.87 ± 0.38 | 19.37 ± 0.89 | 433.25 ± 54.6 |
Ammonium nitrogen (N-NH4+) | mg L−1 | 4.57 ± 0.13 | 3.96 ± 0.17 | 2.83 ± 0.25 |
Ortho-phosphate phosphorus (P-PO43−) | mg L−1 | 14.7 ± 0.14 | 14.95 ± 0.88 | 223.75 ± 2.64 |
Phenol | mg L−1 | 60.1 ± 6.5 | 36.1 ± 4.24 | 49.9 ± 0.4 |
Limonene | µg g−1 TS | 297 ± 5.1 | 50.3 ± 2.1 | nd. |
Parameter | Unit | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ALK | mg L−1 | F | 844 ± 17.7 | 847 ± 24.5 | 854 ± 33.8 | 852 ± 25.5 | 876 ± 35.3 | 894 ± 52.2 | 996 ± 15.1 | 907 ± 24.4 |
D | 4547 ± 183.2 | 4893 ± 212.4 | 5240 ± 233.8 | 4942 ± 209.7 | 4984 ± 219.9 | 4131 ± 122.0 | 4796 ± 158.4 | 4636 ± 348.2 | ||
VFA | mg L−1 | F | 560 ± 15.2 | 566 ± 11.2 | 578 ± 18.4 | 540 ± 31.3 | 593 ± 61.7 | 642 ± 77.5 | 677 ± 51.3 | 804 ± 35.7 |
D | 239 ± 18.0 | 335 ± 16.8 | 325 ± 47.2 | 324 ± 47.4 | 338 ± 20.0 | 238 ± 17.6 | 252 ± 22.2 | 250 ± 22.1 | ||
pH | F | 6.23 ± 0.05 | 6.30 ± 0.04 | 6.22 ± 0.04 | 6.01 ± 0.14 | 6.04 ± 0.08 | 6.02 ± 0.08 | 6.08 ± 0.01 | 6.02 ± 0.01 | |
D | 7.44 ± 0.01 | 7.42 ± 0.01 | 7.41 ± 0.02 | 7.43 ± 0.02 | 7.43 ± 0.03 | 7.44 ± 0.02 | 7.45 ± 0.02 | 7.44 ± 0.01 | ||
phenol | mg L−1 | F | 7.4 ± 0.6 | 9.9 ± 1.9 | 8.4 ± 0.7 | 7.6 ± 0.7 | 9.7 ± 0.9 | 15.0 ± 2.3 | 24.4 ± 2.5 | 24.6 ± 2.4 |
D | 8.6 ± 0.64 | 9.5 ± 0.72 | 10.0 ± 1.1 | 10.1 ± 1.07 | 9.4 ± 0.75 | 9.5 ± 0.85 | 10.5 ± 0.97 | 10.1 ± 0.97 | ||
limonene | ppb | F | 51.9 ± 12.2 | 198.2 ± 21.0 | 246.0 ± 39.7 | 558.1 ± 38.18 | 1098.8 ± 20.9 | 835.1 ± 22.4 | 513.2 ± 34.4 | 689.5 ± 19.4 |
D | 17.0 ± 1.3 | 30.1 ± 7.6 | 37.6 ± 3.4 | 36.1 ± 3.5 | 51.1 ± 2.3 | 22.8 ± 2.6 | 37.7 ± 4.6 | 27.0 ± 9.9 | ||
p-cymene | ppb | F | 31.1 ± 4.2 | 43.7 ± 3.5 | 33.6 ± 3.6 | 35.5 ± 0.3 | 32.4 ± 2.3 | 37.7 ± 1.3 | 34.8 ± 0.8 | 33.7 ± 0.7 |
D | 16.7 ± 3.1 | 44.5 ± 2.1 | 44.7 ± 3.7 | 3797.6 ± 68 | 9024.5 ± 250 | 3119.3 ± 78 | 542.3 ± 21 | 143.6 ± 15.3 |
Model | Parameters | Unit | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 | R7 | R8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Modified Gompertz | Pm | mL g−1 VS | 337.3 | 296.7 | 305.6 | 323.7 | 323.9 | 267.7 | 302.8 | 376.9 |
Rm | mL g−1 VS d−1 | 59.00 | 44.33 | 53.67 | 64.66 | 64.00 | 50.86 | 61.63 | 69.82 | |
λ | d | −0.43 | −0.30 | −0.49 | −0.32 | −0.34 | −0.30 | −0.20 | −0.25 | |
R2 | - | 0.9885 | 0.9938 | 0.9847 | 0.9858 | 0.9891 | 0.9898 | 0.9904 | 0.9911 | |
RMSE | 9.2 | 7.0 | 11.0 | 11.5 | 9.6 | 7.4 | 8.7 | 10.6 | ||
Hyperbolic | Pm | mL g−1 VS | 403.2 | 373.3 | 364.2 | 382.4 | 380.6 | 318.8 | 359.5 | 453.7 |
k | d−1 | 0.368 | 0.259 | 0.378 | 0.420 | 0.430 | 0.388 | 0.405 | 0.360 | |
R2 | - | 0.9978 | 0.9959 | 0.9979 | 0.9964 | 0.9969 | 0.9962 | 0.9946 | 0.9954 | |
RMSE | 28.8 | 37.2 | 22.8 | 22.4 | 23.1 | 22.1 | 24.1 | 33.7 | ||
Cone | Pm | mL g−1 VS | 372.7 | 328.6 | 342.7 | 353.9 | 351.6 | 290.5 | 325.0 | 408.4 |
k | d−1 | 0.412 | 0.319 | 0.415 | 0.463 | 0.471 | 0.437 | 0.454 | 0.413 | |
n | - | 1.29 | 1.41 | 1.21 | 1.32 | 1.34 | 1.39 | 1.47 | 1.44 | |
R2 | - | 0.9996 | 0.9996 | 0.9980 | 0.9973 | 0.9992 | 0.9994 | 0.9988 | 0.9992 | |
RMSE | 11.2 | 11.4 | 10.4 | 6.0 | 6.4 | 5.8 | 4.1 | 7.6 | ||
Logistic growth model | Pm | mL g−1 VS | 334.3 | 293.3 | 302.7 | 320.8 | 321.5 | 265.4 | 300.1 | 373.4 |
Rm | mL g−1 VS d−1 | 55.30 | 42.12 | 50.29 | 61.88 | 59.99 | 48.28 | 59.49 | 66.86 | |
λ | d | −0.49 | −0.30 | −0.55 | −0.32 | −0.38 | −0.31 | −0.17 | −0.24 | |
R2 | - | 0.9797 | 0.9869 | 0.9752 | 0.9768 | 0.9807 | 0.9815 | 0.9827 | 0.9819 | |
RMSE | 11.0 | 9.0 | 12.7 | 13.2 | 11.0 | 8.7 | 10.2 | 12.6 | ||
Experimental data | BP | mL g−1 VS | 467.0 ± 9.4 | 506.3 ± 13.8 | 541.5 ± 15.5 | 575.8 ± 27.7 | 561.1 ± 11.4 | 463.4 ± 14.4 | 523.5 ± 12.8 | 552.2 ± 20.8 |
P | mL CH4 g−1 VS | 353.3 ± 14.2 | 308.9 ± 8.8 | 324.7 ± 11.2 | 343.6 ± 16.8 | 341 ± 6.9 | 280.5 ± 9.5 | 317.8 ± 6.6 | 395.2 ± 9.4 | |
GPR | mL g−1 VS d−1 | 22.3 ± 2.0 | 24.1 ± 3.3 | 25.8 ± 3.7 | 27.4 ± 1.6 | 26.7 ± 2.7 | 22.1 ± 2.4 | 24.9 ± 3.1 | 26.3 ± 2.9 | |
MPR | mL CH4 g−1 VS d−1 | 16.8 ± 1.2 | 14.7 ± 2.1 | 15.4 ± 2.7 | 16.3 ± 7.7 | 16.2 ± 1.7 | 13.3 ± 1.3 | 15.1 ± 1.6 | 18.8 ± 3.2 | |
Methane content | % | 62.3 ± 1.37 | 61.0 ± 0.38 | 59.8 ± 2.18 | 59.7 ± 0.98 | 60.7 ± 0.62 | 60.4 ± 0.93 | 60.8 ± 1.29 | 60.9 ± 0.93 |
Parameter | Unit | R1 Control | R5 | R8 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Characterisation data | ||||
VS | g kg–1 | 35.13 | 38.47 | 40.77 |
Feedstock density | kg m–3 | 947.8 | 949.7 | 952.4 |
VS load | kg d–1 | 4162 | 4567 | 4854 |
Methane yield | mL CH4 g−1 VS | 353 | 341 | 395 |
Daily methane production | m3 CH4 d–1 | 1471 | 1555 | 1918 |
Feedstock temperature | °C | 8 | 8 | 8 |
Feedstock flow rate | m3 d−1 | 125 | 125 | 125 |
Energy terms | ||||
Theoretical thermal energy | MJ d−1 | 52,648 | 55,680 | 68,675 |
Thermal energy needed for heating the feedstock | MJ d–1 | 14,175 | 14,175 | 14,175 |
Thermal energy needed for covering the heat loss | MJ d–1 | 3766.0 | 3766.0 | 3766.0 |
Thermal energy demand | MJ d–1 | 19,735 | 19,735 | 19,735 |
Profit of thermal energy | % | 166.8 | 182.1 | 248.0 |
Net thermal energy profits | % | − | 15.4 | 81.2 |
Daily energy production | kWh d−1 | 14,706 | 15,553 | 19,183 |
Energy production | kWh t−1 | 117.6 | 124.4 | 153.5 |
Power terms | ||||
Theoretical thermal power production | kW | 263.5 | 278.7 | 343.7 |
Theoretical electric power production | kW | 232.8 | 246.3 | 303.7 |
Profit of both theoretic thermal and electric power productions | % | − | 5.4 | 23.3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Szaja, A.; Montusiewicz, A.; Pasieczna-Patkowska, S.; Lebiocka, M. Technological and Energetic Aspects of Multi-Component Co-Digestion of the Beverage Industry Wastes and Municipal Sewage Sludge. Energies 2022, 15, 5395. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155395
Szaja A, Montusiewicz A, Pasieczna-Patkowska S, Lebiocka M. Technological and Energetic Aspects of Multi-Component Co-Digestion of the Beverage Industry Wastes and Municipal Sewage Sludge. Energies. 2022; 15(15):5395. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155395
Chicago/Turabian StyleSzaja, Aleksandra, Agnieszka Montusiewicz, Sylwia Pasieczna-Patkowska, and Magdalena Lebiocka. 2022. "Technological and Energetic Aspects of Multi-Component Co-Digestion of the Beverage Industry Wastes and Municipal Sewage Sludge" Energies 15, no. 15: 5395. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155395