DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Performance of Anaerobic Co-digester of Swine Slurry and Food Waste

  • Yoon, Young-Man ;
  • Kim, Hyun-Cheol ;
  • Yoo, Jung-Suk ;
  • Kim, Seung-Hwan ;
  • Hong, Seung-Gil ;
  • Kim, Chang-Hyun
  • Received : 2010.11.12
  • Accepted : 2010.11.19
  • Published : 2011.02.28

Abstract

In order to assess the performance of co-digester using pig slurry and food waste at the farm scale biogas production facility, the anaerobic facility that adopts the one-stage CSTR of 5 $m^3\;day^{-1}$ input scale was designed and installed under the conditions of the OLR of 2.33 kg $m^3\;day^{-1}$ and HRT of 30 days in an pig farmhouse. Several operation parameters were monitored for assessment of the process performance. The anaerobic facility was operated in three stages to compare the performance of the anaerobic co-digester. In the Stage I, that was fed with a mix of pig slurry to food waste ratio of 7:3 in the input volume, where input TS content was 4.7 (${\pm}0.8$) %, and OLR was 0.837-1.668 kg-VS $m^3\;day^{-1}$. An average biogas yield observed was 252 $Nm^3\;day^{-1}$ with methane content 67.9%. This facility was capable of producing an electricity of 626 kWh $day^{-1}$ and a heat recovery of 689 Mcal day-1. In Stage II, that was fed with a mixture of pig slurry and food waste at the ratio of 6:4 in the input volume, where input TS content was 6.9 (${\pm}1.9$) %, and OLR was 1.220-3.524 kg-VS $m^3\;day^{-1}$. The TS content of digestate was increased to 3.0 (${\pm}0.3$) %. In Stage III, that was fed with only pig slurry, input TS content was 3.6 (${\pm}2.0$) %, and OLR was 0.182-2.187 kg-VS $m^3\;day^{-1}$. In stage III, TS and volatile solid contents in the input pig slurry were highly variable, and input VFAs and alkalinity values that affect the performance of anaerobic digester were also more variable and sensitive to the variation of input organic loading during the digester operation. The biogas produced in the stage III, ranged from 11.3 to 170.0 $m^3\;day^{-1}$, which was lower than 222.5-330.2 $m^3\;day^{-1}$ produced in the stage II.

Keywords

Anaerobic co-digestion;Pig slurry;Food waste;Performance;Organic loading

References

  1. Ahring, B.K. and I. Angelidaki. 2000. Methods for increasing the biogas potential from the recalcitrant organic matter contained in manure. Wat. Sci. Technol. 41(3):189-194.
  2. Angelidaki, I. and L. Ellegaard. 2003. Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 109:95-105. https://doi.org/10.1385/ABAB:109:1-3:95
  3. Angelidaki, I., K. Boe, and L. Ellegaard. 2005. Effect of operation conditions and reactor configuration of efficiency of full-scale biogas plants. Wat. Sci. Technol. 52(1-2):189-194.
  4. APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. American Public Health Assoc. Washington, DC.
  5. Azbar, N., P. Ursillo, and R.E. Speece. 2001. Effect of process configuration and substrate complexit on the performance of anaerobic processes. Wat. Res. 35 (3):817-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00318-3
  6. Boe, K. and I. Angelidaki. 2009. Serial CSTR digester configuration for improving biogas production from manure. Wat. Res. 43:166-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.09.041
  7. Bouallagui, H., H. Lahdheb, E.B. Romdan, B. Rachdi, and M. Hamdi. 2009. Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-substrates addition. J. Environ. Manag. 90:1844-1849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.002
  8. Callaghan, F.J., D.A. Wase, J.K. Thayanithy, and C.F. Foster. 1999. Co-digestion of waste organic solids: batch studies. Bioresour. Technol. 67:117-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00108-4
  9. Hansen, K.H., I. Angelidaki, and B.K. Ahring. 1998. Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Wat. Res. 32(1):5-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(97)00201-7
  10. Harikishan, S. and S. Sung. 2003. Cattle waste treatment and Class A biosolid production using temperature-phased anaerobic digester. Adv. Environ. Res. 7:701-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(02)00034-5
  11. Hartmann, H., I. Angelidaki, and B.K. Ahring. 2000. Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in full-scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Wat. Sci. Technol. 41:145-153.
  12. Hartmann, H., I. Angelidaki, and B.K. Ahring. 2000. Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in fullscale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Wat. Sci. Technol. 41:145-153.
  13. Hill, D.T. and J.P. Bolte. 2000. Methane production from low solid Concentration liquid swine waste using conventional anaerobic fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 74:241-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00008-0
  14. Karakashev, D., D.J. Batstone, and I. Angelidaki. 2005. Influence of the environmental conditions on the methanogenic composition of anaerobic biogas reactors. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:331-338. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.1.331-338.2005
  15. Kramer, J. 2004. "Agricultural Biogas Casebook -2004 Update." Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program, Council of Great Lakes Governors.
  16. Linke, B. 1997. A model for anaerobic digestion of animal waste slurries . Environ. Technol. 18:849-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593331808616604
  17. Paavola, T., E. Syväsalo, and J. Rintala. 2006. Co-digestion of manure and biowaste according to the EC animal by-products regulation and Finnish national regulation. Wat. Sci. Technol. 53(8):223-231. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.253
  18. Poggi-Varaldo, H.M., L. Valdes, F. Esparza-Garcia, and G. Fenandez-Villagomez. 1997. Solid substrate anaerobic co-digestion of paper mill sludge, biosolids, and municipal solid waste. Wat. Sci. Technol. 35:197-204.
  19. Sorensen, A.H., M. Winther-Nielsen, and B.K. Ahring. 1991. Kinetics of lactate, acetate and propionate in unadapted and lactate-adapted thermophilic, anaerobic sewage sludge: the influence of sludge adaptation for start-up of thermophilic UASB-reactors. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 34:823-827.
  20. Speece, R.E., M. Duran, G. Demirer, H. Zhang, and T. Distefano. 1997. The role of process configuration in the performance of anaerobic systems. Wat. Sci. Technol. 36:539-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00566-0
  21. Wilkie, A.C., H.F. Castro, K.R. Cubisnki, J.M. Owens, and S.C. Yan. 2004. Fixed-film anaerobic digestion of flushed dairy manure after primary treatment: wastewater production and characterization. Biosystems. 89(4):457-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2004.09.002
  22. Yoon, Y.M., C.H. Kim, Y.J. Kim, and H.T. Park. $2009^a$. The economical evaluation of biogas production facility of pig waste. Kor. J. Agr. Manag. Pol. 36(1):137-157.
  23. Yoon, Y.M., Y.J. Kim, and C.H. Kim. $2009^b$. The evaluation of economical efficiency to composting and liquefying process of biomass discharged in pig breeding. Agr. Econ. 31(6):39-62.
  24. Yu, Y., C. Lee, and S. Hwang. 2005. Analysis of community structures in anaerobic processes using a quantitative realtime PCR method. Wat. Sci. Technol. 52(1-2):85-91.
  25. Zhang, Y. and C.J. Banks. 2008. Optimizing inputs and outputs from anaerobic digestion processes by co-digestion of municipal waste streams with wastes from commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ISAd-sw. 24-28 May, hammamet, Tunisia.

Cited by

  1. Estimation of potential methane production through the mass balance equations from agricultural biomass in Korea vol.59, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13765-016-0224-1
  2. Biochemical Methane Potential of Agricultural Waste Biomass vol.44, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.5.903
  3. Study for Clean Energy Farming System by Mass and Energy Balance Analysis in the Controlled Cultivation of Vegetable Crop (Cucumber) vol.45, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2012.45.2.280
  4. The Determination of Anaerobic Biodegradability Rates Livestock Byproducts Using Double First-Order Kinetic Model vol.48, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2015.48.5.542
  5. Bioenergy and Material Production Potential by Life Cycle Assessment in Swine Waste Biomass vol.44, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.6.1245

Acknowledgement

Grant : Cooperative Research Program for Agricultural Science & Technology Development

Supported by : Rural Development Administration