Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016
Biochemical methane
potential applied to solid
wastes - review
T. M. Cabrita1, M. T. Santos1, A. M. Barreiros1
1 ADEQ, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa - ISEL/IPL.
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 2
Contents
• Introduction
• Goals
• BMP publications
• BMP methods
• Factors affecting BMP tests
• BMP applied to solid substrates
• BMP conditions and results
• Conclusions
• Future work
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 3
Introduction
• Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a widely applied technology to treatsolid wastes and produce biogas
• In Europe, exist around of 120 full-scale plants to AD municipal solidwastes.
Central Sewage Sludge Treatment Plant Bottrop
http://blogs.qub.ac.uk/atbest/page/2/http://www.adp.pt/pt/sustentabilidade/inovacao-e-desenvolvimento---conheca-os-projetos-em-curso/?id=37
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 4
Introduction
• In Portugal (2013) biogas come from landfills (96 %), wastewatertreatment plants and solid waste treatment plants
• Represent 1 % of the renewable sources
Tratolixo, E.I.M.S.A. Valorsul, S. A.
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 5
Introduction
AD - optimization
How to increase the biogas production ?
Wastes from several sources or mixtures
BMP – Biochemical methane potential
• To obtain the biodegradability of different substrates ormixture of substrates;
• To choose potential substrates to anaerobic digestion
most widely used technique
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 6
Introduction
What is BMP test ?
Batch test
Substrates
Syringe
Rubber
ReactorInoculum
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 7
Present and evaluate the BMP factors, methodologies, solid organic substrates and results
Goal
• Substrate
BMP publications
How to do BMP test ?
• Inoculum • Methodology
With or withoutpre-treatment
SourceAmount
Operational conditionsGas measurement conditions
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 8
BMP publications
• Publications between 2008 and 2015 - keywords “anaerobic digestion” and “BMP”• Survey - Online Knowledge Library (B-on) with peer-reviewed publications.
*Results up until the end of April
0
100
200
300
400
500
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
AD
-BM
P -p
ublic
atio
ns
*
How much interest exists for BMP?
• From 100 to almost 500
• Great amount of databiodegradabilitycomparison fromdifferent solid wastesstill problematic
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 9
BMP methods
• Owen et al. (1979) presents the most popular method for BMPin the last 3 decades. Still used with modifications (e.g. volumereactor, inoculum source and concentration);
• Chynoweth et al. (1993) analysed the influence of 3 factors:inoculum source, inoculum/substrate ratio (I/S) and particlesize – inoculum active, I/S 2, particle size > 1 mm;
• Owens & Chynoweth (1993) also modified the Owen et al.(1979) methodology – substrate 2 g VS/L, medium withdifferent mineral concentrations and inoculum (fed of 1.6 gVS/L), bottles 275 mL (100 mL of inoculum);
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 10
BMP methods
• Angelidaki and Ahring (1993) referred the need to acclimate theinoculum to specific conditions like the ammoniaconcentration;
• Angelidaki and Ahring (1997) - bottles of 117 mL with 20 mL ofan adapted inoculum;
• Hansen et al. (2004) adapted and modified - bottles of 2 L(400 mL de inoculum and 100 mL of sample);
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 11
BMP methods
• Angelidaki and Sanders (2004) - a substantial uncertainty inBMP – AD is a complex process. Different units, e.g. L CH4/kg-waste, L CH4/L-waste, L CH4/kg-VS added or L CH4/kg-CODadded (P = 1 atm and T = 0 ºC);
• Angelidaki et al. (2009) - guidelines and advices for severalfactors - substrate, inoculum source, inoculum activity,medium blank and controls, replicates, mixing, datacollection, bottles volume (0.1 to 2 L), interpretation andreporting conditions;
• Other methods: technical guideline VDI 4630 (2006) and ISOguideline 11734 (1995).
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 12
Factors affecting BMP tests
ExperimentalConditions
Gas Measurement Systems
Volumetric methods
Manometric methods
GC
OperationalConditions
Physical
Reactor capacity
Temperature
Stirring
Incubation time
Chemical
Headspace gas
pH and alkalinity
Mineral mediumI/S ratio
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 13
BMP applied to solid substrates
• Approximately 70 different substrates (around 80 references)submitted to BMP tests;
• Solids contents expressed in different units such as g/L, g/kg, %,mg/L and in wet base;
• Total solids (TS) contents represented in: Percentage - 0.7 to almost 100 %; g/kg units - 47.3 to 991 g/kg; g/L - 3.97 to 331.33 g/L;
• Volatile solids (VS) contents presented in different bases, e.g.related with TS, dry mass and wet weight.
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 14
BMP applied to solid substrates
Substrate TS VS Reference
Brewery grain waste 24.2 % 23.0 % Kafle et al. 2013
Food waste 48,400 ± 2,700 mg/L 27,900 ± 1,300 mg/L Elbeshbishy et al. 2012
Organic fraction of
municipal solid waste461 g/kg 386 g/kg Nielfa et al. 2015
Two-phase olive mill
solid waste265 ± 3 g/kg 228 ± 2 g/kg Rincón et al. 2016
Livestock residues on-
farm42-45 wt%, wet basis 31-35 wt%, wet basis Yap et al. 2016
Secondary sewage
sludge from WWTP19.05 ± 1.21 g/L 13.99 ± 1.05 g/L
Abelleira-Pereira et al.
2015
Source-separated
organic household waste24-86 % ww 81-94 % TS Naroznova et al. 2016
Examples of solid substrates and solids contents
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 15
BMP conditions and results
• Several items were analysed (2011 to 2016): inoculum and substratesources, pre-treatment, reactor volume, headspace, I/S ratio,temperature, incubation time and measurement of biogas;
Reference Inoculum source Pre-treatment Reactor
(mL) I/S T (°C)
Incubation time (d)
Biogas Production
Apples et al. 2011 Digested sludge na 1,000 100
g/500 g MC 21 25-456.3 mL CH4/g ODM
Fernández-Cegrí et al. 2012 GS Chemical and
TC (75 ⁰C) 250 (EV) 2 VS/2.5 COD 35 7-10 0-273 mL CH4
/gCODadded
Ruggeri et al. 2015 CM NaOH, Salts, US, US+salts 250 na 30 App. 60 2-193 L CH4
/kgVS0
Naroznova et al. 2016
Collected from a WWTP na 1,000 2 VS 37 45
202-572 mL CH4/g
VSsubtrate
Examples of solid substrates and solids contents
na: not availableCM – Cattle manure; COD – Chemical oxygen demand; EV – Effective volume; GS – Granular sludge; MC – Mesophilic conditions; ODM – Organic drymatter; T – Temperature; TC – Thermochemical; US – Ultrasonic; VS – Volatile solids; WWTP – Wastewater treatment plant
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 16
BMP experimental conditions and results
Author Substrate origin Inoculum origin PretreatmentReactor
(mL)
Headspace volume
(ml)
Number of replicates I/S
Temperature (°C) Mixing rate
Incubation time (d) Measurement of biogas Biogas Production
Standard Conditions
Lalabut et al. 2011
Raw manures; Food residues; Invasive aquatic plants; Others (switchgrass, corn silage, corn
leachate, mouthwash, suspended FOG and settled FOG).
farm-based completely mixed anaerobic digester - 250 35 manual 40
cumulative pressure - pressure transducers
106.5-648.5 mL CH4/g VSadded
stp
Luna-delRisco
et al. 2011
Grass silage, maize silage, different mix silages (grasses and legumes, mix rate is not specified),
cow slurry, pig slurry, fermentation slops and grain mill
residues.
Anaerobic reactor of a WWTP - 575 375 triplicate 150 ml / 0.3 g TS 36
regularly once a day, manually 48-72
increase in pressure in the gas phase of test bottles using an absolute
pressure transducer. GC
Agricultural Substrates: 238-319 L CH4.kgVS-1
added; Food Industry Wastes: 335-
714 L CH4.kgVS-1added;
Cereal Industry Residues:
272-384 L CH4.kgVS-1added
0°C and 1 atm (stp)
Lesteur et al. 2011
MSW - cardboard, rice, rusk, potatoes, papers, vegetables,
bread and a waste built by mixing some of the simple wastes) and
lignocellulosic green wastes
active anaerobic sludge - 600 duplicate 0.5 35 35 every two days with Micro-GC
MSW (graphical analysis): 87-355 mL CH4.g-1 VS; Raw
samples: 20-400 mL CH4.g-1
VS
Apples et al. 2011
thickened sludge samples were collected from different WWTPs
Digested sludge originating from the
fullscale digester located at the WWTP
- 1000 triplicate 100 g I/500 g S mesophilic conditions
21 displacement of the liquid in the cylinders. GC-TCD
25-456.3 mL CH4/g ODM
Val del Rio et al.
2011aerobic granular sludge Thermal (60-210 °C) 570 170 1 g VS/VS 35 120 rpm 26
variation of pressure inside the glass flask by means of a pressure
transducer and GC169-404 mL-CH4/g-VSfed
Nieto et al. 2012
wastes from three agro-food industries (dairy, cider production,
cattle farming)
Anaerobic sludge from a municipal WWTP - 2,000 1,400 duplicate
0.67, 1, 1.33, 2 and 4.00 VS 35
continuously on a shaking-table 55
manually by apressure transmitter and GC-TCD
202-549 mL STP CH4·g
VS waste-1
STP, P=1 bar and T=0 ⁰C
Elbeshbishy et al.
2012
OFMSW and primary sludge of WWPT
1 - primary mesophilic AD at a WWTP; 2 - mesophilic
AD treating SSO , 3 -mesophilic AD treating primary and secondary
wastewater
- 260 60 triplicate0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4
mass VSS/massCOD
37 180 rpm app. 28at the end of the test using
appropriately sized glass syringes in the 5–100 mL range. GC-TCD
primary sludge: 221-283 mL CH4/g VSSsub; food waste: 440-1400 mL CH4/g VSSsub
Triolo et al. 2012
Herbaceous plants that do not have a persistent woody stem and nonherbaceous material such as
hedge and tree trimmings.
Fangel biogas plant 37ºC fed with 80% animal slurry
and about 20% organic industrial waste
-1,000
(working volume)
triplicate 3:1 TS 37A couple of times during a working
day, manuallyapp. 60 VDI and GC-TCD 104-388.9 CH4 N L kg VS-1
STP conditions
(273 K, 1.013 hPa)
Fernández-Cegrí
et al. 2012
The sunflower oil cake sample used in this study was collected
from a sunflower oil factory
Granular sludge taken from an industrial anaerobic
reactor 35 ⁰C
Chemical and Thermochemical (75 ⁰C) (Ca(OH)2,
NaOH, NaHCO3 and H2SO4)
250 (effective volume)
triplicate 2 VS/2.5 COD 35 300 rpmbetween 7
and 10
flushing the gas througha 2 N NaOH solution volume
displacement0-273 mL CH4 g-1 CODadded stp
Costa et al. 2012
Chicken feather waste and poultry litter were collected from a local
poultry industry
Anaerobic suspend sludge - municipal sludge digester. Anaerobic granular sludge -
brewery industry.
Thermochemical (20-90 ⁰C) (Ca(OH)2,
NaOH)
50 (working volume)
triplicate0.66, 0.71, 0.76 and
1.32 g VS/ g VS
37 and 65 (bioaugment
ation)80 GC/FID 45-123 L CH4 kg-1 VSadded stp
Eiroa et al. 2012
Solid fish waste - tuna, sardine, mackerel and needle fish.
suspended sludge - urban wastewater treatment plant. granular sludge - brewery
industry.
triplicate
0.15–0.18, 0.30–0.36 and
0.77–0.91 g VS/g VS; 0.4, 0.77 and 1.25 g VS/g VS; 0,71 and 0.83 g
VS/g VS
37
between 60 and 80 (graphics difficult to
read)
pressure transducer. GC-FID0.04-0.35 L CH4/g VSadded; Co-digestion (tuna:gorse): 0.16-0.21 L CH4/g VSadded
stp
Lim & Fox 2013
Thickened primary and secondary sludge was obtained from a
municipal activated sludge facility.
Anaerobic granular sludge was obtained from an
UASB treating industrial waste.
- 250 100 triplicate 1/1, 1/3 and 1/8 35 21the syringe method and equilibrating
the pressure with atmospheric conditions. GC-TCD
21.93-76.27 mL CH4/g VSadded
Cavaleiro et al. 2013
Two wastes from a meat-processing plant located in
Portugal were used: (i) greaves, the residue that remains after the rendering of pig tallow, and (ii)
rinds, the tough outer covering of bacon or pig meat.
Granular sludge from a brewery wastewater
treatment plant
NaOH, NaOH+temperature, NaOH+autoclaving, temperature, Enzyme
and Autoclaving+enzyme
(25-121 ⁰C)
160 80 triplicate
4 g VS g-1
CODsoluble+colloidal
and 1.3–3.3 g VS g-
1 CODtotal; untreated: 4 g VS
g-1 CODtotal
37 150 rpm
between 50 and 110 (graphics difficult to
read)
GC 305-919 LCH4@STP kg-1
VS of the original wastestp
Risberg et al. 2013
Dry (non-treated) and steam-exploded wheat straw. Two
batches of cattle manure, both obtained from a farm
biogas plant at mesophilic temperature with source-
sorted municipal household waste and grass
silage
- 1120 420 triplicate 2 VS na na 25 and 60 GC 0.15-0.33 N L CH4/g VS
Yan et al. 2013
Dewatered sludge withdrawn from a WWTP
digested sludge withdrawn from the mesophilic
anaerobic digester in the WWTP
mild thermal (50-120 ⁰C)
3000 (working volume)
triplicate
0,0014, 0.0015, 0.0016, 0.0078,
0.013, 0.016 and 0.022 gSS/mg
COD
100 rpm 30 water displacement method67.7-144.7 mLCH4/g VSadded
(for 20 days and without the untreated)
Wall el al. 2013
grass silage; Fresh slurry - dairy farm
digestate from two digesters food waste while
and mix of poultry and cattle manure
- 500 100 triplicate 2 I/S 37 each bottle individually
30flow measurement device which
measures gas through water displacement
239-400 L CH4 kg-1 VS stp
Miao et al. 2014
algal biomass - mixture of algae bloom and lake water. Swine
manure
Swine manure. Granular sludge
- 500 100 triplicate 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 VS
3530 s
on and 120 s off at 46 rpm
22
Biogas produced was first passed through a scrubbing tubing filled with
the alkali solution for CO2 and H2S removal, then transported to the gas
flow meter. GC-TCD
codigestion of blue algae with swine manure: 48.2-
212.7 mL CH4 g-1 VS; blue algae inoculated with
granular sludge: 32.8-73.5 mL CH4 g-1 VS
Yoon et al. 2014 wastes from a pig slaughterhouse
Inoculum was collected from a farm-scale biogas
plant that digests piggery slurry.
- 160 100 triplicate0.67, 1, 2 and 10
VS 38 manually daily 76
daily for the first 5 days and subsequently every 2 to 3 days by displacement of an acidified brine solution in a burette, recording the volume of displaced solution after
correcting for atmospheric pressure. GC-TCD
Digestive tract content: 0.357-1.076 Nm3/kg-VSadded; Intestine
residue: 0.511-0.848 Nm3/kg-VSadded; blood: 0.450-0.799 Nm3/kg-VSadded
stp
Shen et al. 2014
Bamboo waste from a chopstick production factory.
Anaerobic sludge collected from a mesophilic biogas
digester feed with dewatered sewage sludge from a local wastewater
treatment plant .
acid, alkaline, enzyme and alkaline aided
enzymena
triplicates (in some
cases duplicates)
2 37Intermittent, set at 1.5 Hz with 60 s on
and 60 s off30-33 na 25-303.3 ml CH4/g VS
Cano et al. 2014
biological sludge thickened - WWTP; OFMSW - synthetic mixture of foods; MSW sorted from a waste treatment plant;
grease waste a DAF - WWTP; spent grain from brewery
industry; cow manure from slaughterhouse.
WWTP mesophilic digested sludge
Thermal hydrolysis (120-170 ⁰C)
300 triplicate 1:1 VS 35 stirred in a horizontal shaker
app. 40Periodical monitoring analyses of
biogas production by pressure meter. GC
184-524 mLCH4/gVSin
Ferreira et al. 2014
Pig slurry
anaerobic inoculum used was taken from a pilot
sludge digester treating activated sludge
Thermal steam explosion (120-180 ⁰C)
300 190 triplicate 2 gVS/VS 35.1 constant mixing in a shaker table
app. 40 manually by a pressure transmitter. GC-TCD
159-329 mL CH4/gVSfedSTP – 0 ºC,
1 atm
Yong et al. 2015
Food waste and straw shredded to a small size
Anaerobic granular sludge -UASB reactor treating
starch processing waste water at 35 ⁰C
- 1000 400 triplicate 0.014 g VS /12 g VS
35 50 rpm 8 water dislocation method and GC-TCD 0.157-0.392 m3CH4/kg VSstp (0 ⁰C,1.013 x 105
Pa)
Suhr et al. 2015
Solid waste produced in recirculating aquaculture systems Digested cow manure - 540 340 triplicate 4, 8 and 16 g/g 35 24 GC 359 ± 29 mL CH4g−1TVS
stp (20 ºC, 1 atm.)
Nuchdang et al. 2015
variety of paragrass samples
Mesophilic anaerobic sludge was obtained from a
domestic wastewater treatment plant in Bangkok, Thailand. A portion of the sludge was acclimated to fibrous substrates in raw
palm oil mill effluent
- 100 40 1 g VS/g VS 32-35 80 periodically with syringes and GC 277 and 316 ml STP/g VSSTP: 0 ºC and 1 atm
Xue et al. 2015
Dewatered/high solid sludge from a municipal WWTP
pre-incubation at 35 ⁰C in a water bath for 2 d
Low-temperature thermal (60-90 ⁰C) and
high-temperature thermal (120-180 ⁰C) hydrolysis process
500 2/1 VS 37 120 rpm 28 GC/TCD0.94 -1.07 L biogas/g VS
removed
Abelleira-Pereira et al. 2015
Secondary sewage sludge - WWTP
Anaerobically digested sludge - mesophilic
anaerobic digester fed with mixed sludge from the local
WWTP
thermal hydrolysis and advanced thermal
hydrolysis (with hydrogen peroxide)
(90-170 ⁰C)
160 60 triplicate 2 35Constant mixing
by an orbital mechanical shake
28periodically with a manual pressure
transmiter and GC-TCD 227-327 mLCH4/gVSfed
stp (P=1 bar and T=0 ºC)
Carlsson et al. 2015
Composite slurry samples
Digestate collected from a codigestion plant treating SSOFMSW, manure and
industrial waste.
1000 700 5 replicates
2/1 VS 37 35 With gas tight syringe and GC-TCD 445-568 m3 N CH4/ton VS introduced
STP: 0 ºC and 1 atm
Kinnunen et al. 2015
wastewater treatment plant that treats pulp and paper industry
wastewater.
Mesophilically digested municipal sewage sludge Wastewater Treatment
Plant and digestate from CSTR
thermal (80-134 ⁰C) 120 60 2 VS/VS 35 35 water displacement and GC-FIDbetween 40 and 160 N L
CH4 kg-1 VS
normal temperatur
e and pressure
(NTP)Witarsa
& Lansing,
2015
Both unseparated manure and separated manure
BARC mesophilic digester treating the separated dairy
manure.250 120 triplicate
1 VS unseparated manure; 2 VS
separated manure
14 and 24 (in separated chambers)
no mixing 216at least once every week using a
graduated, gas-tight, wet-tipped 50mL glass syringe. GC-FID
107-479 mLCH4/g VS added stp (0 ◦C and 1 atm)
Yin et al. 2015
Pharmaceutical sludge obtained from a pharmaceutical factory
Inoculum sludge - digester from fecal sludge c
1000 0, 0.65, 2.58 and 10.32 TS
37 app. 55 water dislocation method and Biogas Analyzer (daily)
6.98-499.46 mL biogas / g TS pharmaceutical sludge
Rico et al. 2015
solid fraction (SF) of dairy manure. Raw manure slurry was separated
into solid and liquid fractions
screened liquid fraction (LF) of dairy manure
digested at 50 ⁰C500 1 VS
35 for manure and
LF. 50 for SF.
manually stirred once a day
80 pressure measurement and GC-TCD298 (manure), 343 (LF) and
265 (SF) L CH4 kg-1 VS
Ruggeri et al. 2015
Olive mill wastewaters (OMWW) and olive pomace (OP) Bovine manure
NaOH, Salts, Ultrasonic,
Ultrasonic+salts250 triplicate 30 70 rpm app. 60 water dislocation method and GC 2-193 L CH4 /kgVS0
Ebner et al. 2016
Commercial food waste. Dairy manure slurry
post solid separated effluent - complete mix anaerobic digester at
mesophilic codigested dairy manure with assorted
food wastes.
- 500 triplicate 2 gVS/gVS 37 Mixing at 10 s per minute.
33 continuously using the AMPTS II (Bioprocess Control) and GC-TCD
165-496 mL CH4/g VSaddedstp (0 ◦C
and 1 atm)
Khan et al. 2016
Hay (control and standard substrate), peel, stalk, flesh and
unpeeled banana
prepared as described previously (Bolduan et al.,
2011; Brulé, 2014).- 2000
four replicates 0.7 VS 37
1 min every 15 min by magnetic
stirrers35
according to a volumetric method and with a methane analyzer equipped
with an infrared sensor0.256-0.367 m3 CH4/kg VS
stp (0 °C, 1013.25
hPa)Naroznova et al.
2016
source-separated organic household waste
collected from a wastewater treatment plant - 1000
adjusted to 70% 2 VS 37 45 GC-FID 202-572 mL CH4/g VSsubtrate stp
Abudi et al. 2016
thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS) from wastewater
treatment plant. Rice straw (RS) wastewater treatment plant
Thermal and thermo-NaOH for TWAS (70-
90 ⁰C). NaOH and H2O2 for RS.
250 70 duplicate 0.5 TS 37 100 rpm 50 water displacement method and GC-TCD
184.63-401.89 mL biogas/gVSadded
Lu et al. 2016
Food waste from a canteenAnaerobic sludge - up-flow
anaerobic digester of a paper mill
Storage was used as a pretreatment. Food
wastes were separately stored for
0 to 12 days.
1000 triplicate 2:1 VS 35 hand-shaked before sampling
21/60
The biogas produced first flowed into a bottle with 3 mol/L NaOH to absorb CO2, and the remaining gas volume was measured by the principle of
water-displacement and buoyancy
311-571 mL CH4/g-VSadded; 285-696 mL CH4/g-VSadded
Rincón et al. 2016
two-phase olive mill solid waste (OMSW) or alperujo
full-scale anaerobic reactor treating brewery
wastewater at mesophilic temperature
steam-explosion (200 ⁰C). Afterwards a
liquid fraction (LF) and a solid fraction (SF) were obtained.
250 (effective volume)
triplicate 2 VS 35 500 rpm 23
liquid displacement passing the biogas through a 3N NaOH solution
to capture CO2 on the assumption that the remaining gas was methane.
(LF) 589±42 mL CH4/g VSadded; (SF) 263±1 mL
CH4/g VSadded; (Untreated) 366±4 mL CH4/g VSadded
-
Rincón et al. 2013
The two-phase OMSW used was collected from the Experimental
Olive Oil Factory
industrial anaerobic reactor treating brewery wastewater 35 ⁰C
Thermal (100-180 ⁰C)250
(effective volume)
duplicate 2 VS 35 500 rpm period of c.a. 20
liquid displacement passing the biogas through a 3N NaOH solution
to capture CO2 on the assumption that the remaining gas was methane.
373-392 mL CH4/g VSadded
Hernández-Shek
et al. 2016
Water hyacinth (WH) was harvested. Fruit and vegetable
waste (FVW) was collected from typical market
mesophilic anaerobic sewage sludge - upflow sludge blanket reactor
treating domestic wastewater.
- 500 100 triplicate 37 60liquid displacement technique and GC-
TCD
0.114 m3 biogas kg-1
VSadded (WH); 0.141 m3
biogas kg-1 VSadded
(WH+FVW)
Haak et al. 2016
float from a dissolved air flotation unit (DAF sludge) and waste
activated sludge (WAS) collected from a large refinery
active mesophilic AD at a municipal wastewater
treatment plant.
Ozonation in a bubble column setup 60
DAF sludge 2-10 gVS/gVSDAF; Treated DAF sludge 20–100 gVS/gVSDAF;
WAS 5 gVS/gVSWAS
mesophilic conditions constant 30-50
80-160 Lbiogas/kgCODadded
Ware & Power 2016
selected solid waste fractions from cattle, pig and chicken
slaughtering facilities.
granular mesophilic inoculum sourced from a
mesophilic Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) reactor treating dairy processing waste
Pasteurisation 1000 100 triplicate 2 VS 36-39 daily 30-50
directly through positive liquid displacement. To directly measure the
methane fraction of the biogas produced the biogas was passed
through an alkaline solution
465.34-515.47 mLCH4 gVS-1
(UP); 501.13-650.92 mLCH4
gVS-1 (P)
Pre-treatments - thermal and chemical
Inoculum source - sludge from WWTP
Reactor volume - 60 to 3,000 mLI/S - 2
Incubation time - 7 to 216 d
Biogas - pressure transducer, volume displacement and syringe
Methane content -GC
Results of BMP tests - very discrepant and difficult to compare
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 17
Conclusions
• BMP continues to be widely used to analyse the potential organicsolid wastes
• Several attempts were made in recent years to normalise the BMPtests
• The variability of the substrate sources and its characteristics andthe available resources imply adaptation of several operationalconditions tests.
• BMP results, namely the biogas or methane production should bepresented in comparable units.
M. T. Santos, Cyprus 2016 18
Future Work
• Application of cheaper BMP methodologies and with less wasteproduction;
• Continue the investigation concerning the availability of potentialsubstrates for anaerobic digestion;
• Promote the waste management – more waste valorisation andless waste to landfill;
• More biogas production - energy resource applications.