ARTICLE IN PRESS

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 162 167

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Full-scale anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste and municipal sludge

evartb, Milenko Ros Gregor D. Zupanc ic a,, Natas a Uranjek-Z a
a b

National Institute of Chemistry, Hajdrihova 19, PO Box 660, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia Municipality of Velenje, Koros ka 37/b, 3320 Velenje, Slovenia

ar t ic l e i n f o
Article history: Received 8 May 2006 Received in revised form 6 July 2007 Accepted 10 July 2007 Available online 20 August 2007 Keywords: Anaerobic digestion Biogas production Organic waste Sludge digestion

abs tra ct
A full-scale experiment on the anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste from domestic refuse (swill) and municipal sludge is described. In a wastewater treatment plant of 50,000 population equivalents, two conventional mesophilic digesters with a combined volume of 2000 m3 and 20 days hydraulic retention time were used. The digesters usual inuent is waste sludge from wastewater treatment plants (a mixture of primary sludge and waste activated sludge) with an average organic loading rate of 0.8 kg m3 d1 of volatile suspended solids. In the experiment, organic waste was added to the digester inuent to increase the organic loading rate by 25% to 1.0 kg m3 d1 of volatile suspended solids. Biogas quantity increased by 80% and specic biogas production increased from 0.39 m3 kg1 volatile suspended solids inserted prior to the experiment to over 0.60 m3 kg1 volatile suspended solids inserted, peaking at 0.89 m3 kg1 volatile suspended solids inserted. The excess biogas was used in a boiler and a 50 kW combined heat and power engine. Electrical energy production increased by 130% and heat production increased by 55%. Volatile suspended solids degradation efciency increased from 71% to 81% with no increase of volatile suspended solids in the digester efuent. Virtually all of the organic waste was degraded. & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Anaerobic digestion has the potential for treatment of many kinds of organic waste (OW) mixtures, mostly in combination with municipal sludge. In recent years, such research has received much attention [13] due to its potential for increased output of biogas (renewable energy) in digestion plants and some economic benets in OW disposal. In the past, OW of domestic refuse (swill) has usually been a food source for domestic animals, mostly pigs. As a food source it was recognised as a possible source of pathogenic hazard [4] and was therefore banned for such use. This caused accumulation of increased quantities of OW, which are disposed of by landlling. Such handling is prohibited in
Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 4760 249; fax: +386 1 4760 300.

Slovenia by a decree on waste handling and pollution [5]. The alternatives offered are processing by anaerobic digestion or composting. Incineration is also an alternative, but due to the high moisture content, energy recovery is poor and such treatment is not very imaginative. Anaerobic digestion is therefore the most cost-effective way to efciently process wet OW for energy recovery [2]. Many authors have conducted research in this eld in recent years. There are many possible ways of successfully digesting OW of any kind, ranging from conventional mesophilic digestion, where the organic loading rate (OLR) is up to 3.7 kg m3 d1 of volatile suspended solids (VSS) [3], to two-stage digesters. Sosnowski et al. [6] and Gomez et al. [7] reported successful operation with an OLR of 3.34.3 kg m3 d1 of VSS. Gallert et al. [8] reported operating a

E-mail address: gregor.zupancic@ki.si (G.D. Zupanc ic ). 0961-9534/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.07.006

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 162 167

163

Nomenclature

BPR

CHP TCOD total chemical oxygen demand (mg l1) HRT hydraulic retention time, d OLR organic loading rate, kg of TCOD or VSS per m3 of
the digester per day (kg m3 d1)

biogas production rate, m3 per m3 of the digester per day (m3 m3 d1) combined heat and power

OW PE PS SBP

organic waste population equivalent primary sludge specic biogas productivity, m3 per kg VSS inserted (m3 kg1) total suspended solids (mg l1)

TSS VSS volatile suspended solids (mg l1) WAS waste activated sludge WWTP waste water treatment plant

single-stage digester with OLR values as high as 8.5 kg m3 d1 of total chemical oxygen demand (TCOD). In the municipality of Velenje, about 1200 m3 of wet OW (250 tonnes of dry matter) are collected annually. Instead of dumping this waste on a sanitary landll, its potential for biogas production was quickly realised and a 15-month fullscale pilot project was started to test the possibilities of OW co-digestion with municipal sludge. Our digesters are designed to process the OLR of 1.01.5 kg m3 d1 of VSS; therefore we had plenty of deviation to multiply the load with OW several times. The aim of the work was to investigate the possibilities for increasing the portion of renewable energy by adding the value to OW residues using anaerobic digestion as well as reduction of CO2 emission by replacement of fossil fuels (mostly natural gas) in the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) where the experiment was conducted with biogas.

2.

Materials and methods

overow and water from dewatering are not accounted for in the degradation efciency. These unaccounted solids are returned to the inuent of the WWTP. Normal digester operation is with municipal sludge only (a mixture of PS and WAS). The experiment involving addition of OW was conducted from January 2004 to March 2005. OW from domestic refuse was collected from households in the local area and brought to the WWTP two to three times weekly. Our aim was to slowly raise the digester OLR to achieve a steady state in 56 months. Therefore, 3 m3 of OW was fed to the digester according to OLR two to three times per week from January 2004 to August 2004. From August 2004 to March 2005 the digester was fed with more OW (up to 6 m3 per batch) to achieve a steady OLR, because the WWTP produced less sludge. The OW was fed to the digester at once in a batch. Prior to the experiment, the average OLR was 0.76 kg m3 d1 of VSS (0.9 kg m3 d1 of TCOD). We decided to plan the OLR increase gradually by 40%, since a digester overload and possible breakdown was just not affordable in a fully operating WWTP plant.

The municipality of Velenje operates a WWTP of 50,000 population equivalents (PE) with two mesophilic anaerobic digesters of a combined volume of 2000 m3. The digesters are fed with municipal sludge from the WWTP semi-continuously every 3 h from a sludge thickener. The VSS concentration in sludge ranges from 10 to 20 g l1, total suspended solids (TSS) concentration from 20 to 30 g l1, and TCOD of sludge between 18,000 and 30,000 mg l1. Sludge is a mixture of primary sludge (PS) and waste activated sludge (WAS). The average ratio is 60% of PS to 40% of WAS. The hydraulic retention time is 20 days. Biogas produced in the digesters is collected in a biogas storage unit and used online in a biogas boiler initially to cover all heat demands of all WWTP premises, and any surplus is used in a 50 kW combined heat and power (CHP) engine. The digesters and power set-up are shown in Fig. 1. TCOD, TSS and VSS of OW and municipal sludge (inuent and efuent) were monitored and analysed using standard methods [9]. The average values of OW inuent are shown in Table 1. Total inuent load is shown in Table 2 and inuent composition in Fig. 2. Biogas and pH were also continuously measured and monitored. We also monitored the electrical power output of the CHP engine and the heat power output of the biogas boilers and CHP combined. The degradation efciency presented in this paper is calculated from inuent solids and dewatered efuent solids. Solids in the digester

3.

Results and discussion

Fig. 2 shows the VSS content of inuent and efuent in the digester. We gradually increased the VSS load by 30% from the start of the experiment in January 2004 until September 2004. In the efuent there was no signicant change; therefore, we can conclude that practically all of the OW was degraded. With such a low OLR (Fig. 3) such a result can be expected. Table 1 shows that for most of the time over 90% of the OW inuent is volatile, most probably biodegradable, which is conrmed by the degradation efciency. In the year 2003 the average degradation efciency was 71%, while at the time of the experiment with OW (January 2004March 2005) it was 81%. After nishing the experiment the degradation efciency again decreased to 73.5%. Fig. 3 shows the OLR and biogas production. The average OLR in 2003 was 0.9 kg m3 d1 of TCOD (0.76 kg m3 d1 of VSS). At the time of the experiment we gradually increased the OLR to 1.44 kg m3 d1 of TCOD (1.01 kg m3 d1 of VSS). After the end of the experiment OLR decreased below 0.6 kg m3 d1 of TCOD (0.5 kg m3 d1 of VSS). The specic biogas productivity (SBP) prior to the experiment was 0.39 m3 kg1 VSS inserted. According to the OLR, biogas quantity increased on starting to add OW by 80%. SBP slowly increased to over 0.60 m3 kg1 (peaking in January 2005 at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
164
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 162 167

Fig. 1 Digesters and power set-up.

Table 1 Characteristics of OW inuent (average monthly) Date COD (mg l1)

199,600 196,950 298,800 189,000 144,500 298,500 309,550 290,800 268,800 219,800 239,750 239,150 146,150 223,300 184,350

Average quantity (m3 d1)

1.00 1.03 1.17 1.29 1.30 1.30 1.07 1.48 1.83 1.80 2.01 2.03 1.93 2.08 1.08

VSS load (kg d1)

187 173 277 228 150 212 254 253 401 310 384 369 185 343 185

TSS (g l1)
197 221 247 188 125 230 248 178 240 184 224 194 102 176 182

VSS (g l1)
187 206 237 177 115 220 237 171 219 172 191 182 96 165 171

Ratio VSS/TSS (%)

95 93 96 94 92 96 96 96 91 93 85 94 94 94 94

January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005

0.89 m3 kg1). BPR increased from 0.32 m3 m3 d1 prior to the experiment to 0.67 m3 m3 d1 in February 2005. Interestingly, after nishing the experiment in March 2005, biogas values did not return to the values before the experiment. SBP increased dramatically and BPR decreased slightly, but it remained signicantly higher than the values in 2003 (by 60%). After we stopped feeding the digester with OW at the end of March 2005, it took about 30 days for the biogas production to start decreasing. At this point, all of the OW

was most probably degraded. However, it seems that the activity of the digester biomass (which is reected in the SBP) needed an additional 5 months to decrease to the initial value of 2003. Throughout the experiment, the pH in the digester was monitored. The values were always between 7.1 and 7.5. Fig. 4 shows the daily quantity of biogas produced and the power output of the boiler and CHP engine. A 40% higher OLR resulted in 80% more biogas. The power set-up is designed to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 162 167

165

Table 2 Average monthly total VSS and TCOD load of sludge (PS+WAS+OW) Date Total VSS inserted (kg d1)
1399 1668 1366 1563 1761 1516 1481 1598 1445 1307 1680 1440

Total COD inserted (kg d1)

1588 1892 1550 1774 1998 1720 1680 1855 1640 1483 1989 1919

Date

Total VSS inserted (kg d1)

1226 1805 1788 1608 2012 1703 1964 1881 1569 1445 1538 1891

Total COD inserted (kg d1)

2124 2157 2273 2257 2574 2873 3350 2842 2271 2158 2370 2687

Date

Total VSS inserted (kg d1)

1434 1835 1455 1792 1891 1262 992 750 1020 1434

Total COD inserted (kg d1)

2362 3491 1742 2726 2682 1553 1184 868 1233 1597

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03

Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04

Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05

Fig. 2 Inuent and efuent VSS quantity and composition.

use gas in the boiler rst and surplus in the CHP engine. Therefore, it is to be expected that in winter months, electrical power would be rarely produced, as shown in Fig. 4, with production occurring only in the warmer months. During the experiment, 45% more heat energy and 130% more electrical energy was produced. It is also observed that during the period from June to November 2004 the CHP engine was in operation over 95% of the time. It has never happened before during WWTP operation that the CHP would be fully operational for such a long period. Even after November 2005, the CHP engine was operating more often than in

previous winter seasons. After nishing the experiment, electrical power production decreased to levels similar to those prior to the experiment. There is, however, a break in electrical power production in May 2004, which was the result of engine maintenance. On completing the experiment, our opinion, as well as that of many other authors [10,11], is that anaerobic digestion is the solution to handling OW. All the results clearly show that digesting OW (swill) is very benecial. There are almost no residual solids and degradation of OW VSS is very close to 100%. This is also reected in increased biogas production.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
166
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 162 167

Fig. 3 OLR and monthly average biogas production.

Fig. 4 Daily biogas production and power output.

OW is disposed of (virtually removed) and it is regenerated as energy very efciently.

 80% increased biogas quantity. BPR increased from 0.32 to

0.67 m3 m3 d1. SBP increased from 0.39 to a peak of 0.89 m3 kg1 VSS inserted. Electrical energy production increased by 130% and heat energy production increased by 55%.


4. Conclusions

A full-scale experiment on co-digestion of OW of domestic refuse (swill) with municipal sludge is presented. Results have shown that anaerobic digestion is the solution to handling OW (swill) and above all it is very benecial with little adverse impacts on the environment. The experiment gave the following results:

The authors hope that this experiment will encourage such practice in handling OW in the future.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all co-workers at the municipality of Velenje who helped in arranging and conducting the co-digestion experiment. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Anthony Byrne for revising English and grammar.

 Virtually complete degradation of OW. The results showed

no increase in efuent VSS during the experiment and degradation efciency increased from 71% to 81%.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY

32 (2008) 162 167

167

R E F E R E N C E S

[1] Hamzawi N, Kennedy KJ, McLean DD. Anaerobic digestion of co-mingled municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. Water Science and Technology 1998;38(2):12732. S, Llabre s P. Anaerobic digestion [2] Mata-Alvarez J, Mace of organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology 2000;74(1): 316. [3] Stroot PG, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L. Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditionsI. Digester performance. Water Research 2001;35(7):180416. [4] Van Knapen F. Control of trichinellosis by inspection and farm management practices. Veterinary Parasitology 2000;93(34):38592. [5] Decree on the input of dangerous substances and plant nutrients into the soil. Ofcial Journal of Republic of Slovenia, No. 68, November 1996, Ljubljana.

[6] Sosnowski P, Wieczorek A, Ledakowicz S. Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Advances in Environmental Research 2003;7(3):60916. mez X, Cuetos MJ, Cara J, Mora n A, Garc [7] Go a AI. Anaerobic codigestion of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal solid wastes: conditions for mixing and evaluation of the organic loading rate. Renewable Energy 2006;31(12):201724. [8] Gallert C, Henning A, Winter J. Scale-up of anaerobic digestion of the biowaste fraction from domestic wastes. Water Research 2003;37(6):143341. [9] APHA, AWWA, WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. Washington, DC, 1998. [10] Sharma VK, Testa C, Castelluccio G. Anaerobic treatment of semi-solid organic waste. Energy Conversion and Management 1999;40(4):36984. [11] Chynoweth DP, Owens JM, Legrand R. Renewable methane from anaerobic digestion of biomass. Renewable Energy 2001;22(1-3):18.