Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure: Effects

of food waste particle size and organic loading rate

Fred O. Agyeman, Wendong Tao
*
Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York,
1 Forestry Drive, 402 Baker Lab, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 November 2013
Received in revised form
11 December 2013
Accepted 12 December 2013
Available online 7 January 2014
Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Dairy manure
Dewaterability
Food waste
Mechanical pretreatment
Organic loading rate
a b s t r a c t
This study was to comprehensively evaluate the effects of food waste particle size on co-digestion of food
waste and dairy manure at organic loading rates increased stepwise from 0.67 to 3 g/L/d of volatile solids
(VS). Three anaerobic digesters were fed semi-continuously with equal VS amounts of food waste and
dairy manure. Food waste was ground to 2.5 mm (ne), 4 mm (medium), and 8 mm (coarse) for the three
digesters, respectively. Methane production rate and specic methane yield were signicantly higher in
the digester with ne food waste. Digestate dewaterability was improved signicantly by reducing food
waste particle size. Specic methane yield was highest at the organic loading rate of 2 g VS/L/d, being
0.63, 0.56, and 0.47 L CH
4
/g VS with ne, medium, and coarse food waste, respectively. Methane pro-
duction rate was highest (1.40e1.53 L CH
4
/L/d) at the organic loading rate of 3 g VS/L/d. The energy used
to grind food waste was minor compared with the heating value of the methane produced.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In 2011, more than 36 million tons of food waste was generated
in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2013). Food waste has higher biochemical
methane potential. Anaerobic digestion of food waste not only
produces methane for energy recovery, but also treats waste for
environmental and social benets (Fuchs and Drosg, 2013; Izumi
et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2013). However, mono-digestion of food
waste often leads to digester instability and even failure at higher
organic loading rates (OLR), especially under thermophilic condi-
tions, due to accumulation of volatile fatty acids and ammonia
(Banks et al., 2012; Banks et al., 2008; Ghanimeh et al., 2012; Nagao
et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012, 2013).
Animal feeding operations generate signicant amounts of an-
imal manure, which is typically applied to cropland (ASABE, 2010;
USDA, 2009). Concentrated animal feeding operations often do not
have adequate land to absorb all of their manure, having to consider
on-farm treatment. Anaerobic digestion is increasingly applied to
liquid manure to stabilize organic matter, reduce pathogens,
eliminate offensive odors, and recover energy from methane
(USDA, 2009; U.S. EPA, 2010). However, cattle manure contains high
contents of non-biodegradable substances and has low C/N ratios
(Frear et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012, 2013), thus having a low
methane yield in anaerobic mono-digestion of cattle manure (El-
Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Frear et al., 2010; Hartmann and
Ahring, 2005). Banks et al. (2011a) recommended on-farm co-
digestion of dairy cattle slurry and source-separated domestic food
waste as the most effective means of making dairy cattle slurry
digestion economically viable. Co-digestion of cattle manure and
food waste can increase biogas production and improve process
stability (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Zhang et al., 2012, 2013).
Hydrolysis is generally the rate-limiting stage in anaerobic
digestion of organic solid waste (Angelidaki and Sanders, 2004;
Izumi et al., 2010; Palmowski and Mller, 2000). Good contact
between biomass and substrate is a prerequisite for hydrolysis
because the organisms secreting hydrolytic enzymes are beneted
by adsorption to the surface of particulate substrates (Angelidaki
and Sanders, 2004). Methanogens in anaerobic digestion of
ushed dairy manure have high afnity to brous solids as well
(Frear et al., 2010). Reducing substrate particle size through pre-
treatment such as grinding could increase surface area available for
adsorption of hydrolytic enzymes and subsequently produce more
biogas (Izumi et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2000; Palmowski and Mller,
2000). However, excessive particle size reduction could over-
stimulate hydrolysis and acidogenesis, resulting in accumulation
of ammonia and volatile fatty acids which could become inhibitory
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 315 470 4928.
E-mail address: wtao@esf.edu (W. Tao).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Management
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j envman
0301-4797/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.016
Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274
to methanogens. The effects of particle size on anaerobic digestion
of food waste were investigated in two studies only through short
batch tests (Izumi et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2000). The effects of food
waste particle size have neither been addressed in continuously fed
ow-through anaerobic digesters, nor in co-digestion of food waste
and dairy manure. Moreover, the additional energy consumption to
produce ner particles and dewaterability of digester efuent has
not been reported along with the effect of particle size on methane
production. The major objective of this study was to assess the
effects of food waste particle size on anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and dairy manure in continuously fed anaerobic digesters at
different OLRs. The effects were assessed comprehensively in terms
of energy consumption for grinding food waste, biogas production
rate, specic methane yield, reduction efciency for volatile solids
(VS), and digestate dewaterability over four periods as OLRs were
increased stepwise from 0.67 g VS/L/d to 3 g VS/L/d.
Successful long-term mono-digestion of food waste has been
typically limited to OLRs below 2.5 g VS/L/d unless enhancement
measures such as supplementation of trace elements, solids return
and co-digestion are taken (Banks et al., 2011b, 2012; Ghanimeh
et al., 2012; Nagao et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012). A number of
studies have addressed methane production and ammonia inhibi-
tion in co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure at different
substrate combination ratios and OLRs (El-Mashad and Zhang,
2010; Hartmann and Ahring, 2005; Maran et al., 2012; Zhang
et al., 2012, 2013). Nevertheless, the combined effect of OLR and
food waste particle size in stable co-digestion of food waste and
dairy manure is unknown.
Treatment and disposal of digestate account for a great portion
of the operational cost of pilot- and full-scale anaerobic digestion
projects (Fuchs and Drosg, 2013). Digestate processing can become
a bottleneck to scaled-up applications (Gebrezgabhera et al., 2010).
Typically, digestate is separated into liquid and solids by ltration,
screw pressing, or centrifugation. However, dewaterability of
digestate has rarely been addressed. This paper evaluates digestate
dewaterability along with methane production and solid removal.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Setup and operation of anaerobic digesters
Three 2-L complete-mix anaerobic digesters were set up in a
laboratory. Each digester as shown in Fig. 1 was built with a
modied Duran GLS80 glass reactor with a magnetic impeller. A
Thermo scientic hotplate/stirrer was used to heat each digester
and drive its impeller at 140 rpm. The digestate temperature was
targeted at 36

C. The digesters were initially lled with bacterial
inoculum to a working volume of 1.8 L. The inoculum was made
from anaerobically digested sludge from a municipal wastewater
treatment plant and anaerobically digested dairy manure with
coarse materials (>2.06 mm) sieved out. The inoculum had a VS
concentration of 1.33%, with one half (by mass) from the digested
sludge and the other half from the digested manure. Compared
with food waste and dairy manure separately, it had a slightly basic
pH and generally balanced concentrations of macro- and micro-
nutrients (Table 1).
Based on earlier studies (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Zhang
et al., 2012, 2013), it appears that a VS ratio of manure to food
waste around 1 is the optimum combination for co-digestion of
cattle manure and food waste. The feedstock used in this study was
prepared by combining domestic food waste and dairy manure at a
VS ratio of 1 and stored frozen at 21

C in plastic tubes. Table 1
summarizes the characteristics of the feedstock and its two com-
ponents. The food waste was collected from a Sheraton Hotels
restaurant over ve days and ground through a MG800 Waring Pro
Professional meat grinder with three cutting plates having different
aperture diameters (2.5, 4, and 8 mm) for the three digesters, called
ne, medium and coarse food waste, respectively. Energy con-
sumption to grind food waste was recorded with a Watts up? PRO
electricity watt meter (Electronic Educational Devices, Inc., Denver,
CO, USA). Dairy manure was taken from a storage vessel of liquid
manure which was scraped from concrete lots of a large-size dairy
farm at Cayuga County of New York, USA.
The digesters were operated in a semi-continuous mode. The
feedstock was thawed in a refrigerator at 4

C and fed to the di-
gesters every 2 d. OLR was increased from 0.67 g VS/L/d to 1, 2, and
3 g VS/L/d stepwise over 178 d of operation. Digestate (67e90 mL)
was discharged every 6 d at the OLRs of 0.67 and 1 g VS/L/d, 4 d at
2 g VS/L/d, and 2 d at 3 g VS/L/d. This study aimed at dry digestion.
Only 25e45 mL of tap water was used to wash the feedstock stor-
age tubes and maintain the working volume after discharge.
Hydraulic retention time or solids retention time was 160 d at
the OLRs of 0.67 and 1 g VS/L/d, 80 d at 2 g VS/L/d, and 54 d at
3 g VS/L/d.
Hotplate/
stirrer
Discharge
Magnetically
stirred reactor
Gas exit
Gas
meter
Measuring
Biogas
sampling
Feeding
Fig. 1. Sketch of a bench-scale, semi-continuously fed anaerobic digester.
Table 1
Characteristics of inoculum and feedstock made from dairy manure and food waste.
Dairy
manure
Food
waste
Feedstock Inoculum
pH 6.6 4.4 6.6 7.7
Total volatile solids, % 9.68 29.3 14.6 1.33
Total dissolved solids, g/L 16.9 16.9 16.8 7.52
Crude protein, g/kg VS 167 266 273 335
Fat, g/kg VS 40 350 231 90
Non-ber carbohydrate,
g/kg VS
623 325 380 543
Neutral detergent ber,
g/kg VS
616 196 291 543
Total N, %TS 1.9 3.8 3.6 3.0
Total C, %TS 39.9 48.4 46.3 32.4
Orthophosphate, g P/L 0.78 No data No data 0.33
Total ammonia, g N/L 1.71 No data No data 1.68
Sulfur, g/kg TS 6.1 3.4 4.8 11.9
Total Ca, g/kg TS 20.6 1.7 13.3 26.0
Total Mg, g/kg TS 8.5 0.7 5.2 12.2
Total K, g/kg TS 23.8 9.6 18.0 20.3
Total Na, g/kg TS 7.25 10.1 8.9 12.1
Total Fe, mg/kg TS 705 41 374 18300
Total Zn, mg/kg TS 233 32 136 900
Total Cu, mg/kg TS 123 5 46 569
Mn, mg/kg TS 176 8 98 269
Mo, mg/kg TS 1.6 0.3 1.2 11.3
F.O. Agyeman, W. Tao / Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274 269
2.2. In-situ measurements and laboratory analyses
Each reactor had a head space of 0.69 L at the working volume of
1.8 L. Biogas production was recorded with in-line gas meters and
converted to daily production rate under standard conditions (stp:
0

C and 760 mm Hg). While sampling biogas, headspace temper-
ature was measured with a Hach H160 pH meter connected to an
ISFET pH stainless steel NMR tube probe. Biogas samples (0.1 mL
each) were collected with a gas-tight syringe through rubber septa
and diluted with air in 10-mL Wheaton serum vials. The biogas
samples along with air samples were analyzed for CH
4
and CO
2
percentages using a Shimadzu GC-2014 gas chromatograph system
with a ame ionization detector (Shimadzu Corporation, Tokyo,
Japan). Helium was used as carrier gas. The detection limits were
0.1 ppm for CH
4
and 10 ppm for CO
2
.
Digestate temperature and pH were measured with the pH
meter while collecting biogas samples. Digester efuent samples
were collected for determination of total solids and total volatile
solids concentrations, following Standard Methods 2540 B and E,
respectively (APHA, 1998). Total dissolved solids concentration was
measured with a Hach HQ40d meter. After separating suspended
solids in the digester efuent via centrifugation at 1600 g for
30 min, total ammonia concentration in the centrate was deter-
mined colorimetrically with a Hach DR 2800 spectrophotometer
(Hach Company, Loveland, Colorado, USA). Free ammonia concen-
tration in digestate was calculated with measured total ammonia
concentration, temperature and pH (Pitk et al., 2013). Time-to-lter
was determined with the small-volume Standard Method 2710H
(APHA, 1999) to reveal dewaterability of digester efuent.
The feedstock and its components as well as the inoculumwere
measured for pH, total solids, total volatile solids, total dissolved
solids, and total ammonia, using the same methods as mentioned
above. Crude proteins, fats, neutral detergent ber, and non-ber
carbohydrates were determined at Dairy One Forage Laboratory
(Ithaca, New York), following AOAC International standards. Total
carbon and nitrogen contents were determined for oven-dried
samples with an elemental analyzer (Calo Erba NC2500, Costech
Analytical Technologies Inc., Valencia, California, USA). Ortho-
phosphate in centrate of the inoculum and dairy manure
was determined colorimetrically with the Hach DR2800
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
)
d
/
L
/
L
(
e
t
a
r
n
o
i
t
c
u
d
o
r
p
s
a
g
o
i
B
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
OLR = 0.67 g VS/L/d 1.0 g VS/L/d 2.0 g VS/L/d 3.0 g VS/L/d
a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
B
i
o
g
a
s

y
i
e
l
d

(
L
/
g

V
S
)
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
OLR = 0.67 g VS/L/d 1.0 g VS/L/d 2.0 g VS/L/d 3.0 g VS/L/d
b)
Fig. 2. Variations of (a) biogas production rate and (b) specic biogas yield with food waste particle size (ne, medium, and coarse) and organic loading rate (OLR) in mesophilic co-
digestion of dairy manure and food waste.
F.O. Agyeman, W. Tao / Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274 270
spectrophotometer. The other macro- and micro-nutrients were
analyzed with an inductively coupled plasma radial spectrometer
after microwave digestion.
2.3. Statistical analysis
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to
determine whether there were statistically signicant differences
among the three digesters. The signicance level (p value) was set
at 5%. If there were signicant differences, least signicant differ-
ence (LSD) was calculated to further identify the pairs of means that
had signicant differences (Townend, 2002). Spearmans rank
correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship of
biogas production with digestate ammonia concentration, giving
correlation coefcient r. Spearman rank trend test was performed
with a backward elimination approach to identify the period of
stable operation at a given OLR (Townend, 2002).
3. Results and discussion
The rst 52 days of digester operation at the OLR of 0.67 g VS/L/
d was taken as a startup phase and not monitored regularly. Results
from 42 d of anaerobic digestion at each of the successive OLRs
were used to diagnose the effects of food waste particle size,
evaluate methane production and treatment performance, and
identify the optimum OLR. As illustrated in Fig. 2 for biogas pro-
duction rate and specic biogas yield, trend tests showed that it
took more than 19, 15, and 10 d to reach stable operation at the
OLRs of 1, 2, and 3 g VS/L/d, respectively. Whenever OLR was
increased, there was an increase in microbial biomass as reected
by the efuent VS concentrations (Fig. 3). Both biogas production
rate and specic yield increased over time initially and became
stable, likely as microorganisms were acclimated, at given OLRs
(Fig. 2).
3.1. Performance of co-digestion
The co-digestion in this study attained higher methane contents
in biogas (Fig. 4) compared with earlier studies on co-digestion of
cattle manure and food waste (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010;
Hartmann and Ahring, 2005; Zhang et al., 2012, 2013). Moreover,
this study achieved higher specic methane yields during the sta-
ble operation periods (0.46e0.63 L CH
4
/g VS) compared with those
in most earlier studies on co-digestion of food waste and cattle
manure (0.14e0.46 L CH
4
/g VS). The higher methane yield in this
study relative to those in the earlier studies could be attributed to
the long solids retention times associated with dry digestion and
the relatively higher lipid content of the feedstock in this study
(Table 1). This study also conrmed the synergistic effect of co-
digestion with the higher specic methane yields compared with
0.46 L CH
4
/g VS in mono-digestion of food waste without addition
of trace elements (Banks et al., 2011b, 2012; Ghanimeh et al., 2012;
Nagao et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2012, 2013) and 0.25 L CH
4
/g VS in
mono-digestion of cattle manure (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010;
Frear et al., 2010; Hartmann and Ahring, 2005; Zhang et al.,
2013). Specic methane yield in anaerobic digestion of food
waste has been limited mainly because of the operational
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
T
o
t
a
l

v
o
l
a
t
i
l
e

s
o
l
i
d
s

i
n

d
i
g
e
s
t
e
r

e
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

(
%
)
)
L
/
g
(
t
n
e
u
l
f
f
e
r
e
t
s
e
g
i
d
n
i
s
d
i
l
o
s
d
e
v
l
o
s
s
i
d
l
a
t
o
T
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
OLR (g VS/L/d) =
0.67 1.0 2.0 3.0
Fig. 3. Effects of food waste particle size (ne, medium, and coarse) on digester
efuent solid concentrations in co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste at
increasing organic loading rates (OLR).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
C
H
4
c
o
n
t
e
n
t

i
n

b
i
o
g
a
s

(
%
)
C
O
2
c
o
n
t
e
n
t

i
n

b
i
o
g
a
s

(
%
)
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
OLR = 0.67 g VS/L/d 1.0 g VS/L/d 2.0 g VS/L/d 3.0 g VS/L/d
Fig. 4. Dynamics of biogas composition in anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure and different particle sizes of food waste (ne, medium, and coarse).
F.O. Agyeman, W. Tao / Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274 271
instability at higher organic loading rates (Banks et al., 2012; Zhang
et al., 2012). High ber content is the main reason for low methane
potential of cow manure (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Frear et al.,
2010).
The methane production rates during the stable operation pe-
riods at the nal OLR of 3 g VS/L/d were 1.53, 1.41, and 1.40 L CH
4
/L/
d in the digesters with ne, medium and coarse food waste,
respectively. Like specic methane yield, the methane production
rates of co-digestion in this study were higher compared to those in
mono-digestion of food waste, 1.39 L CH
4
/L/d (Banks et al., 2011b,
2012; Ghanimeh et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013), and mono-
digestion of dairy manure, 0.10 L CH
4
/L/d (Zhang et al., 2013).
Most enzymes and co-enzymes need a minimal amount of
certain trace elements for their activation and activity (Appels et al.,
2008). As Table 1 shows, dairy manure generally has higher
concentrations of macro- and micro-nutrients than food waste.
Combination of dairy manure and food waste improves availability
of nutrients for anaerobic digestion of food waste. Such combina-
tion of digester feed also resulted in pH values (Fig. 5a) non-
inhibitory to methanogens (Angelidaki and Sanders, 2004) and
balanced C/N ratios.
It is challenging to separate solids from liquid in anaerobically
digested dairy manure, which has time-to-lter at 246e348 min
(Xia et al., 2012). Anaerobically digested sludge has time-to-lter at
a few minutes (Cheumbarn and Pagilla, 2000; Zhang et al., 2010).
The digesters in this study started up at their full working volumes
with anaerobically digested dairy manure and digested sludge,
which had time-to-lter (initial values in Fig. 6) slightly shorter
than that of anaerobically digested dairy manure. Time-to-lter
decreased considerably across the OLRs of 1, 2 and 3 g VS/L/d in
the co-digestion (Fig. 6), indicating improved dewaterability of
digester efuent compared with mono-digestion of dairy manure.
3.2. Effects of food waste particle size
Table 2 presents biogas production during the stable operation
periods. The average biogas production rates of the three digesters
were signicantly different (p 0.05) at the OLRs of 1 g VS/L/
d (LSD0.06 L/L/d), 2 g VS/L/d (LSD0.08 L/L/d), and 3 g VS/L/
d (LSD0.06 L/L/d). The three digesters had signicantly different
specic biogas yields (p 0.05) at the OLRs of 1 g VS/L/
d (LSD0.06 L/g VS), 2 g VS/L/d (LSD0.04 L/g VS), and 3 g VS/L/
d (LSD0.02 L/g VS) as well. The digester with ne food waste had
methane production rate 10e29% higher and specic methane
yield 9e34% higher than those with coarse food waste. Although
the biogas production rate and specic yield in the digester with
medium food waste fell between those with ne and coarse food
waste, the differences were only statistically signicant at the OLR
of 2 g VS/L/d. Food waste particle size did not make signicant
differences in methane content of biogas (p 0.30e0.63) except for
a signicantly lower average methane content in the digester with
coarse food waste at the OLR of 2 g VS/L/d (Table 2).
Energy consumed for grinding food waste to ne particles
was 0.130 Wh/g VS, 0.069 Wh/g VS to medium particles, and
0.054 Wh/g VS to coarse particles. The lower heating value of
methane is 10.67 Wh/L under the standard conditions (Metcalf and
Eddy Inc, 2003). Considering the specic methane yields at the OLR
of 3 g VS/L/d (Table 2), energy consumption for grinding amounted
to only 1.1e2.4% of energy carried by methane produced from
anaerobic digestion. It is, therefore, cost-effective to grind food
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
D
i
g
e
s
t
a
t
e

p
H
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
OLR (g VS/L/d) =
0.67 1.0 2.0 3.0
a)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
e
t
a
t
s
e
g
i
d
n
i
a
i
n
o
m
m
a
l
a
t
o
T
(
m
g

N
/
L
)
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
b)
OLR (g VS/L/d) =
0.67 1.0 2.0 3.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
e
t
a
t
s
e
g
i
d
n
i
a
i
n
o
m
m
a
e
e
r
F
(
m
g

N
/
L
)
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
c)
OLR (g VS/L/d) =
0.67 1.0 2.0 3.0
Fig. 5. Dynamics of (a) digestate pH; (b) total ammonia concentration; and (c) free
ammonia concentration in co-digestion of dairy manure and different particle sizes of
food waste (ne, medium, and coarse) at increasing organic loading rates (OLR).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
T
i
m
e
-
t
o
-
)
n
i
m
(
t
n
e
u
l
f
f
e
r
e
t
s
e
g
i
d
f
o
r
e
t
l
i
f
Time in operation (d)
Fine
Medium
Coarse
OLR (g VS/L/d) =
0.67 1.0 2.0 3.0
Fig. 6. Effect of food waste particle size (ne, medium, and coarse) on digester efuent
dewaterability in co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste.
F.O. Agyeman, W. Tao / Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274 272
waste into ner particles for greater methane yield in co-digestion
of food waste with dairy manure.
The effects of particle size on biogas production are attributed to
the larger specic surface area provided by smaller particles for
enhanced hydrolysis (Izumi et al., 2010; Palmowski and Mller,
2000). The optimum particle size for anaerobic mono-digestion of
food waste has been examined in different ranges. Kimet al. (2000)
reported that the maximum substrate utilization rate coefcient
doubled as the average particle size decreased from2.14 to 1.02 mm
in thermophilic batch digestion tests. Izumi et al. (2010) investi-
gated the effect of particle size in a narrow range (0.391e
0.888 mm) and found that the optimum particle size (0.718 mm)
resulted in 28% more biogas than that with the worst particle size
(0.888 mm) in mesophilic batch digestion tests. The effects of
particle size should be further addressed in a wider range with
regard to not only methane production, but also energy con-
sumption for particle size reduction and digestate dewaterability in
the future.
The long time-to-lter as presented in Fig. 6 manifests the dif-
culty to dewater the digester efuent. Nevertheless, there were
signicant differences in time-to-lter among the three digesters at
all the three OLRs (p 0.001; LSD7e10 min). The shortest was
recorded in co-digestion with ne food waste and the longest in co-
digestion with coarse food waste. This was consistent with the
positive impact of organic waste particle size on dewaterability of
digestate as Mata-Alvarez et al. (2000) reported.
3.3. Optimum organic loading rate
As Fig. 2 shows, biogas production rate increased with
increasing OLR. As Table 2 shows for the periods of stable operation,
however, biogas production rate increased by 101e116% when OLR
was increased from 1 to 2 g VS/L/d and only by 25e38% when OLR
was further increased from 2 to 3 g VS/L/d. Specic methane yield
peaked at the OLR of 2 g VS/L/d in the digesters with ne and
medium food waste. Similarly, earlier studies (Hartmann and
Ahring, 2005; Zhang et al., 2013, 2012) on co-digestion of cattle
manure and food waste at higher organic loading rates (3.3e
16 g VS/L/d) attained lower specic methane yield (0.14e0.41 CH
4
/
g VS). Therefore, the optimum OLR for deep co-digestion of dairy
manure and food waste was close to 3 g VS/L/d, although OLR could
be increased further for higher methane production rates.
Theoretical methane potential under the standard conditions
was estimated to be 0.53 L CH
4
/g VS for the feedstock in this study,
based on biochemical composition of the feedstock (Table 1) and
methane potentials of proteins, lipids and carbohydrates as sug-
gested by Angelidaki and Sanders (2004). The methane yields
experimentally determined in this study were 89e119% of the
estimated methane potential, suggesting little limitation of trace
elements and inhibition due to ammonia and volatile fatty acids.
Anaerobic digestion converts organic nitrogen to ammonia,
which exists in ionized ammonium and free ammonia, depending
on pH and temperature. Free ammonia inhibits more than ionized
ammonium to methanogens (Yenigun and Demirel, 2013). The
hydrophobic free ammonia may diffuse into cells, causing proton
imbalance and potassium deciency in microorganisms, particu-
larly in methanogens (Pitk et al., 2013). Ammonia could be carried
with liquid dairy manure and inoculum into mixed liquor and
produced in anaerobic digestion, resulting in inhibition to meth-
anogenesis at high OLRs. The inoculum and dairy manure in this
study had high total ammonia concentrations, 1.7 g N/L (Table 1). As
Fig. 5b shows, total ammonia concentration in the digester efuent
tended to increase up to 3090e3420 mg N/L after 178 d of opera-
tion. Free ammonia concentration increased rapidly to 202e
340 mg N/L at the OLR of 1 g VS/L/d, decreased at the OLR of 2 g VS/
L/d, then stabilized between 148 and 237 mg N/L at the OLR of
3 g VS/L/d (Fig. 5c). As reviewed by Yenigun and Demirel (2013),
ammonia inhibition to mesophilic anaerobic digestion with accli-
mated inoculum is triggered at very different concentrations,
mostly from 2800 to 6000 mg N/L total ammonia and 337e
800 mg N/L free ammonia (Yenigun and Demirel, 2013). Therefore,
ammonia concentration in this study might not be high enough to
signicantly affect biogas production. There were insignicant
correlations between biogas production rate and biogas yield
with either total ammonium or free ammonia concentrations
(r <critical r).
There were insignicant differences in efuent solids concen-
trations between the digesters (p 0.08e0.64). Total dissolved
solids concentrations were reduced by 40.7e42.6% and total vola-
tile solids concentrations by 80.9e82.7% on average in the three
digestersat at the OLR of 1 g VS/L/d. The concentrations of total
dissolved solids and total volatile solids in digester efuent
increased with the increasing OLRs (Fig. 3). At the end of the period
with the OLR of 3 g VS/L/d, the reduction efciencies decreased to
18.2e23.0% for total dissolved solids and 66.6e69.6% for total vol-
atile solids through the three digesters. Solids removal efciency at
the end of this study became moderate compared with that in
mono-digestion of food waste and dairy manure at similar OLRs
(Hartmann and Ahring, 2005; Nagao et al., 2012). This suggests
again that the optimum OLR is approximately 3 g VS/L/d for mes-
ophilic co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste.
4. Conclusions
Reduction of food waste particle size from8 to 2.5 mmincreased
methane production rate by 10e29% and specic methane yield by
Table 2
Biogas production in co-digestion of dairy manure with different particle sizes of food waste during stable operation periods at increasing organic loading rates
a
.
Biogas production rate (stp L/L/d) Specic biogas yield (stp L/g VS) CH
4
content in biogas (%) Specic CH
4
yield (stp L/g VS)
Organic loading rate 1 g VS/L/d from day 52 to day 94
Fine food waste 0.79 0.06 0.79 0.06 67.5 6.9 0.53 0.04
Medium food waste 0.74 0.08 0.74 0.08 63.7 11.7 0.47 0.05
Coarse food waste 0.72 0.05 0.72 0.05 64.2 4.2 0.46 0.03
Organic loading rate 2 g VS/L/d from day 94 to day 136
Fine food waste 1.69 0.05 0.85 0.02 74.1 5.3 0.63 0.02
Medium food waste 1.60 0.06 0.80 0.03 70.3 5.8 0.56 0.02
Coarse food waste 1.45 0.14 0.73 0.07 64.9 5.6 0.47 0.05
Organic loading rate 3 g VS/L/d from day 136 to day 178
Fine food waste 2.12 0.07 0.71 0.02 72.2 4.0 0.51 0.02
Medium food waste 2.03 0.06 0.68 0.02 69.5 5.4 0.47 0.01
Coarse food waste 2.00 0.09 0.67 0.03 69.8 4.5 0.47 0.02
a
Mean standard deviation.
F.O. Agyeman, W. Tao / Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274 273
9e34% in co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Dewater-
ability of digester efuent was signicantly improved by reducing
food waste particle size. The energy consumed to grind food waste
down to 2.5 mm was minor compared to the heating value of the
methane produced.
The co-digestion could be loaded up to 3 g VS/L/d without
ammonia inhibition while reducing more than 67% of volatile solids
and producing 1.40e1.53 L CH
4
/L/d. The highest specic methane
yields, however, were achieved at the OLR of 2 g VS/L/d.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a fellowship to Fred Agyeman from
Ford Foundation-IFP and Association of African Universities. The
research was partially supported by a U.S. EPA grant to Dr. Tao
(SU835331). We would like to thank Dr. Philippe Vidon, Mr. David
Kiemle, and Pat Rook for their help with biogas analysis. Our thanks
also go to Mr. Steve McGlynn at Twin Birch Diary and Mr. Paul Eno
at Sheraton Syracuse University Hotel for providing with the
feedstock materials.
References
Angelidaki, I., Sanders, W., 2004. Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of
macropollutants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 3, 117e129.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC.
Appels, L., Baeyens, J., Degreve, J., Dewil, R., 2008. Principles and potential of
the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog. Energ. Combust. 34,
755e781.
ASABE, 2010. Manure Production and Characteristics, ASABE Standards 2010: ASAE
D384.2 MAR2005 (R2010). American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Banks, C.J., Chesshire, M., Stringfellow, A., 2008. A pilot-scale comparison of mes-
ophilic and thermophilic digestion of source segregated domestic food waste.
Water Sci. Technol 58, 1475e1481.
Banks, C.J., Salter, A.M., Heaven, S., Riley, K., 2011a. Energetic and environmental
benets of co-digestion of food waste and cattle slurry: a preliminary assess-
ment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 56, 71e79.
Banks, C.J., Chesshire, M., Heaven, S., Arnold, R., 2011b. Anaerobic digestion of
source segregated domestic food waste: performance assessment by mass and
energy balance. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 612e620.
Banks, C.J., Zhang, Y., Jiang, Y., Heaven, S., 2012. Trace element requirements for
stable food waste digestion at elevated ammonia concentrations. Bioresour.
Technol. 104, 127e135.
Cheumbarn, T., Pagilla, K.R., 2000. Anaerobic thermophilic/mesophilic dual-stage
sludge treatment. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 126, 796e801.
El-Mashad, H.M., Zhang, R., 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy
manure and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4021e4028.
Frear, C., Wang, Z.-W., Li, C., Chen, S., 2010. Biogas potential and microbial popu-
lation distributions in ushed dairy manure and implications on anaerobic
digestion technology. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 86, 145e152.
Fuchs, W., Drosg, B., 2013. Assessment of the state of the art of technologies for the
processing of digestate residue from anaerobic digesters. Water Sci. Technol. 67,
1984e1993.
Gebrezgabhera, S.A., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Prins, B.A.M., Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M., 2010.
Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion e a case of green power biogas plant
in The Netherlands. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 57, 109e115.
Ghanimeh, S., Fadel, M.E., Saikaly, P., 2012. Mixing effect on thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 117, 63e71.
Hartmann, H., Ahring, B.K., 2005. Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste: inuence of co-digestion with manure. Water Res. 39,
1543e1552.
Izumi, K., Okishio, Y., Nagao, N., Niwa, C., Yamamoto, S., Toda, T., 2010. Effects of
particle size on anaerobic digestion of food waste. Int. Biodeter. Biodegr 64,
601e608.
Kim, D.H., Kim, I.S., Hyun, S.H., 2000. Effect of particle size and sodium ion con-
centration on anaerobic thermophilic food waste digestion. Water Sci. Technol.
41 (3), 67e73.
Maran, E., Castrilln, L., Quiroga, G., Fernndez-Nava, Y., Gmez, L., Garca, M.M.,
2012. Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge to increase
biogas production. Waste Manage. 32, 1821e1825.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Mac, S., Llabrs, P., 2000. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid
wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour.
Technol. 74, 3e16.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc, 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, fourth
ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
Nagao, N., Tajima, N., Kawai, M., Niwa, C., Kurosawa, N., Matsuyama, T., Yusoff, F.M.,
Toda, T., 2012. Maximum organic loading rate for the single-stage wet anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 118, 210e218.
Palmowski, L.M., Mller, J.A., 2000. Inuence of the size reduction of organic waste
on their anaerobic digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 41 (3), 155e162.
Pitk, P., Kaparaju, P., Palatsi, J., Affes, R., Vilu, R., 2013. Co-digestion of sewage sludge
and sterilized solid slaughterhouse waste: Methane production efciency and
process limitations. Bioresour. Technol. 134, 227e232.
Townend, J., 2002. Practical Statistics for Environmental and Biological Scientists.
John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, England.
USDA, 2009. Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy, Report to Congress. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 2010. Guide to Anaerobic Digesters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/agstar/operational.html (last updated on
April 20th, 2010).
U.S. EPA, 2013. Municipal Solid Wastes in the US: Facts and Figures. http://www.
epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm (last updated on June 17, 2013).
Xia, M., Tao, W., Shayya, W., Lu, Z., 2012. Passive solid-liquid separation of anaer-
obically digested dairy manure using two-stage ltration. Biosyst. Eng. 111,
392e397.
Yenigun, O., Demirel, B., 2013. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: A review.
Process Biochem. 48, 901e911.
Zhang, Z., Xia, S., Zhang, J., 2010. Enhanced dewatering of waste sludge with mi-
crobial occulant TJ-F1 as a novel conditioner. Water Res. 44, 3087e3092.
Zhang, Y., Banks, C.J., Heaven, S., 2012. Co-digestion of source segregated domestic
food waste to improve process stability. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 168e178.
Zhang, C., Xiao, G., Peng, L., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013. The anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 129, 170e176.
F.O. Agyeman, W. Tao / Journal of Environmental Management 133 (2014) 268e274 274