Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production from Municipal Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Study between Fine Mesh Sieved Primary Sludge and Sedimented Primary Sludge
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Sample Collection and Analyses
- TS and VS
- pH
- C/N
2.3. Experimental Procedure
- Cms—TS concentration of MS sample;
- Mms—Mass of MS sample;
- Cpc—TS concentration of PC sample;
- Mpc—Mass of PC sample.
- Vbiogas—Volume of biogas produced daily (mL);
- Vr—Headspace volume (mL);
- P1—Headspace pressure after release of biogas (KPa);
- P2—Headspace pressure before release of biogas (KPa);
- Ta—Ambient temperature (K);
- Tr—Temperature of the reactor (K).
3. Results
3.1. Solids Concentration
3.1.1. Total Solids Concentration
3.1.2. Volatile Solids Concentration
3.2. Composition of Sludges
3.2.1. Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio
3.2.2. Initial pH of Sludges
3.2.3. Biogas Yield
4. Discussion
4.1. Solids Concentration
4.1.1. Total Solids Concentration
4.1.2. Volatile Solids Concentration
4.2. Composition of Sludge
4.2.1. Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio
4.2.2. pH
4.3. Biogas Production
Biogas Yield
4.4. Volatile Solids Reduction
5. Conclusions
- The main physiochemical characteristics, for MS and PC sludges, have been determined by the present study as: TS: 37.86 ± 0.08%, 2.61 ± 0.08%, VS: 83 ± 0.41%, 78.77 ± 1.91%, pH: 6.67 ± 0.08, 6.61 ± 0.10, C/N: 19.68 ± 0.69, 14.46 ± 1.23, respectively. The most obvious difference is the significantly lower of TS content, for PC sludge.
- PC sludge reaches its peak daily biogas yield 11 days from inoculation (44.20 mlbiogas/gvsd), while MS sludge maximizes the daily biogas yield at day 14, since inoculation (37.74 mlbiogas/gvsd).
- PC sludge exhibits a higher daily biogas production during the first 14 days of AD, while from day 15 and onwards, MS sludge has higher daily biogas production, indicating that PC sludge contains higher fraction of readily biodegradable compounds.
- Both sludges have similar cumulative biogas production yield, with PC sludge slightly surpassing that of MS sludge over 30 days of AD (442.29 mlbiogas/gvs versus 434.73 mlbiogas/gvs), reflecting that they both contain similar fractions of biodegradable compounds.
- Generally, both sludges exhibited a relatively poor VS reduction (below 50%). PC sludge exhibited a higher VS reduction, compared to MS sludge (45.06%. versus 32.39%).
- All things considered, both, PC and MS sludges have exhibited similar behavior with respect to biogas production potential, with PC sludge indicating a slightly better performance. Thus, selecting the MS technology instead of PC, gives all benefits of MS (i.e., lower footprint, high solids content of sludge) without compensating on biogas production potential.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Franchi, A.; Stedman, K.; Gikas, P. Enhanced primary solids removal from municipal wastewater by two steps filtration. In Proceedings of the IWA Regional Conference on Wastewater Purification and Reuse, Heraklion, Greece, 28–30 March 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Gikas, P. Commissioning of the gigantic anaerobic sludge digesters at the wastewater treatment plant of Athens. Environ. Technol. 2008, 29, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gikas, P. Towards energy positive wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 203, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siatou, A.; Manali, A.; Gikas, P. Energy Consumption and Internal Distribution in Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Plants of Greece. Water 2020, 12, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasimi, D.S.M.; de Kreuk, M.; Maeng, S.K.; Zandvoort, M.H.; van Lier, J.B. High-rate thermophilic bio-methanation of the fine sieved fraction from Dutch municipal raw sewage: Cost-effective potentials for on-site energy recovery. Appl. Energy 2016, 165, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kalderis, D.; Aivalioti, M.; Gidarakos, E. Options for sustainable sewage sludge management in small wastewater treatment plants on islands: The case of Crete. Desalination 2010, 260, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lema, J.M.; Suarez, S. Innovative Wastewater Treatment & Resource Recovery Technologies: Impacts on Energy, Economy and Environment; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 9781780407876. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization. World Health Statistics 2018: Monitoring Health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva. Available online: who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2018/en/ (accessed on 19 August 2019).
- Odirile, P.T.; Thukwi, I.; Dintwa, O.; Mbongwe, B. Faecal Sludge Management in Botswana: A Review of Current Practices and Policies Using the Case of Gaborone Low Income Areas. J. Environ. Prot. 2018, 9, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agrafioti, E.; Diamadopoulos, E. A strategic plan for reuse of treated municipal wastewater for crop irrigation on the Island of Crete. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 105, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, B.; Gikas, P.; Zhang, R.; Lord, J.; Jenkins, B.; Li, X. Characteristics and biogas production potential of municipal solid wastes pretreated with a rotary drum reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 1122–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koliopoulos, G.; Sklivaniotis, M.; Gikas, P. Fine mesh sieving of raw municipal wastewater for TSS and COD removal. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Athens, Greece, 5–7 September 2013; Available online: http://cest2013.gnest.org/sites/all/files/program_cest2013_draft.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2018).
- Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Orhorhoro, E.K.; Ebunilo, P.O.; Sadjere, G.E. Experimental determination of effect of total solid (TS) and volatile solid (VS) on biogas yield. Am. J. Mod. Energy 2017, 3, 131–135. Available online: http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajme (accessed on 22 August 2019). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.; Duan, X.; Chen, J.; Fang, K.; Feng, L.; Yan, Y.; Zhou, Q. Enhancing anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge by pretreatment: Effect of volatile to total solids. Environ. Technol. 2016, 37, 1520–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zupančič, G.D.; Grilc, V. Anaerobic treatment and biogas production from organic waste. In Management of Organic Waste; Kumar, S., Bharti, A., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, A.; Mondal, C. Biogas production from co-digestion of substrates: A review. Int. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2016, 5, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
- Parvaresh, A.; Shahmansouri, M.R.; Alidadi, H. Determination of carbon/nitrogen ratio and heavy metals in bulking agents used for sewage composting. Iran. J. Public Health 2004, 33, 20–23. Available online: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir/index.php/ijph/article/view/1911 (accessed on 30 July 2019).
- Li, C. Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Biowaste and of Co-Substrates. Doctoral Dissertation, Karlsruhe Institution of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosey, F.E.; Fernandes, X.A. Patterns of Hydrogen in Biogas from the Anaerobic Digestion of Milk-Sugars. Water Sci. Technol. 1989, 21, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, A.K.; Li, J.; Nies, L.; Zhang, L. Research advances in dry anaerobic digestion process of solid organic wastes. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 14242–14253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arshad, A.; Hashmi, H.N.; Qureashi, I.A. Anaerobic Digestion of CHL Orphenolic Wastes. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2011, 5, 149–158. [Google Scholar]
- Gerardi, M.H. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirel, B.; Scherer, P. The roles of acetotrophic and hydrogenotrophic methanogens during anaerobic conversion of biomass to methane: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2008, 7, 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meegoda, J.N.; Li, B.; Patel, K.; Wang, L.B. A review of the processes, parameters, and optimization of anaerobic digestion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ghasimi, D.S.M.; Tao, Y.; de Kreuk, M.; Abbas, B.; Zandvoort, M.H.; van Lier, J.B. Digester performance and microbial community changes in thermophilic and mesophilic sequencing batch reactors fed with the fine sieved fraction of municipal sewage. Water Res. 2015, 87, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruiken, C.J.; Breuer, G.; Klaversma, E.; Santiago, T.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. Sieving wastewater—Cellulose recovery, economic and energy evaluation. Water Res. 2013, 47, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pantawong, R.; Chuanchai, A.; Thipbunrat, P.; Unpaprom, Y.; Ramaraj, R. Experimental investigation of biogas production from water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes L. Emergent Life Sci. Res. 2015, 1, 41–46. Available online: https://www.emergentresearch.org/uploads/38/1784_pdf (accessed on 30 July 2019).
Property | Chania WWTP | Rethymno WWTP |
---|---|---|
Sewage sludge produced (m3/day) | 36 | 20 |
Solids Concentration (%) | 19.5 | 15 |
Cadmium (mg/kg) | 10 | 0.1 |
Chromium (mg/kg) | 22 | 224 |
Copper (mg/kg) | 155 | 90 |
Nickel (mg/kg) | 20 | 30 |
Lead (mg/kg) | 110 | 36 |
Zinc (mg/kg) | 670 | 480 |
Mercury (mg/kg) | - | 0.4 |
Property | Inoculum | Inoculum + Substrate |
---|---|---|
Volume of reactor (mL) | 1000 | 1000 |
Working Volume (mL) | 100 | 300 |
Headspace Volume (mL) | 900 | 700 |
PC Samples (Inoc. + Subst.) | MS Samples (Inoc. + Subst.) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Parameters | SC in | SC out | SC in | SC out |
Sample size (g) | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
TS (%) | 2.57 | 1.64 | 2.57 | 1.15 |
TS (g) | 7.72 | 4.92 | 7.72 | 3.45 |
VS (%) | 77.55 | 65.49 | 80.41 | 73.51 |
VS (g) | 5.99 | 3.22 | 6.21 | 2.54 |
VS Reduction (%) | 45.06 | 32.39 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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
Odirile, P.T.; Marumoloa, P.M.; Manali, A.; Gikas, P. Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production from Municipal Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Study between Fine Mesh Sieved Primary Sludge and Sedimented Primary Sludge. Water 2021, 13, 3532. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243532
Odirile PT, Marumoloa PM, Manali A, Gikas P. Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production from Municipal Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Study between Fine Mesh Sieved Primary Sludge and Sedimented Primary Sludge. Water. 2021; 13(24):3532. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243532
Chicago/Turabian StyleOdirile, Phillimon T, Potlako M Marumoloa, Anthoula Manali, and Petros Gikas. 2021. "Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production from Municipal Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Study between Fine Mesh Sieved Primary Sludge and Sedimented Primary Sludge" Water 13, no. 24: 3532. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243532
APA StyleOdirile, P. T., Marumoloa, P. M., Manali, A., & Gikas, P. (2021). Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production from Municipal Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Study between Fine Mesh Sieved Primary Sludge and Sedimented Primary Sludge. Water, 13(24), 3532. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243532