Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds

treating abattoir wastewater: Investigation of pond performance
and potential biogas production
Bernadette K. McCabe ⇑, Ihsan Hamawand, Peter Harris, Craig Baillie, Talal Yusaf
National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

 We report on the performance of a novel covered anaerobic pond system.

 Potential biogas production was estimated using BioWin modelling software.
 Ponds maintained stable operation; however, accumulation of crust was an issue.
 Modelling indicated that biogas yield can be influenced by decomposition efficiency.
 Configuration and operation of ponds can also impact potential biogas production.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Covered anaerobic ponds offer significant advantages to the red meat processing industry by capturing
Received 10 May 2013 methane rich gas as a fuel source for bioenergy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). This
Received in revised form 7 October 2013 paper presents the results of a novel-designed anaerobic pond system at an Australian abattoir in relation
Accepted 9 October 2013
to pond performance and potential biogas production. Key findings in assessing the effectiveness of the
Available online xxxx
system revealed that the covered ponds are capable of efficient wastewater decomposition and biogas
production. The primary issue with the covered ponds at the abattoir was the build-up of fat/crust that
Keywords:
prevented the accurate measurement of biogas and effective use of the cover. In the absence of field bio-
Anaerobic digestion
Wastewater
gas data the novel application of the computer modelling software BioWinÒ was carried out to simulate
Biogas chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal rates and subsequent biogas yield. The unique parameter used
Modelling to fit field data was the fraction of the inlet COD due to a superficial crust which did not follow anaerobic
BioWin digestion. Field data effluent COD removal rates were matched to simulated rates predicted by BioWin
Slaughterhouse when measured influent COD was reduced to 30%. Biogas modelling results suggest significant variation
in the economic benefit of biogas energy, with the quantity of biogas potentially varying tenfold (from
328 m3/d to 3284 m3/d) depending on site factors such as pond efficiency, pond configuration and oper-
ational practices.
Crown Copyright Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Anaerobic waste treatment ponds are widely adopted in the
meat industry as the first stage of secondary treatment of high-
strength abattoir wastewater and are an efficient means whereby
the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen de-
mand (COD) are reduced by around 90% during ideal conditions
[1]. They are the preferred option for treating agricultural waste-
water in Australia due to their relatively low initial cost, negligible
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 07 46 311 623; fax: +61 07 46 311 530.
E-mail addresses: Bernadette.McCabe@usq.edu.au (B.K. McCabe), Ihsan.
Hamawand@usq.edu.au (I. Hamawand), Peter.Harris@usq.edu.au (P. Harris), Craig.
Baillie@usq.edu.au (C. Baillie), Talal.Yusaf@usq.edu.au (T. Yusaf).
operating costs and simplicity of operation [2]. However, they have
a couple of issues including odour emissions and the generation of
methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG). The Australian red
meat processing industry has a high exposure to carbon pricing
due to wastewater methane emissions and its use of coal for steam
generation [3]. Consequently, the industry is beginning to install
covered anaerobic pond technology [4]. Despite higher initial infra-
structure costs when compared to uncovered anaerobic ponds,
covered anaerobic ponds offer significant advantages such as odour
control, intensification of the decomposition process and BOD re-
moval, an increase in feed rate and the potential for capturing
methane-rich gas as a fuel source for bioenergy and the reduction
in GHGs [4–6]. Energy obtained from the biogas can be used in an
internal combustion engine coupled to an electric generator to

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
2 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Nomenclature
ARE absolute relative error
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
COD chemical oxygen demand
DAF dissolved air flotation
EC electrical conductivity
FOG fats, oils and greases
GHG greenhouse gas
HDPE high density polyethylene
HRT hydraulic retention times
ML mega litre
produce electrical power, or simply be used in boilers. Also, the li-
quid fraction from this process can be used as liquid fertilizer [7].
Knowledge regarding the design of these ponds and the quan-
tity and quality of biogas captured remains largely undetermined.
Modelling has previously been used to predict biogas production
after calibration. In a study by Martinez et al. [8] modelling was
used to simulate slaughterhouse effluent waste degradation and
methane generation after it was demonstrated that the model
showed an accurate reproduction of the behaviour of an anaerobic
digester. Modelling the biogas production process can be used as
an indication of the process performance. This may identify actions
for better control of the process operation that positively impact
the biogas yield [9].
This paper firstly provides contextual background information
and proceeds to report on the performance of a novel designed
covered anaerobic pond system installed at an Australian abattoir
in relation to wastewater treatment and biogas production. The
study also reports on the novel application of BioWinÒ computer
modelling software to simulate biogas yield in a field-based situa-
tion and provides an economic assessment of biogas recovery and
use based on these modelled results.
2. Overview of operation and performance of anaerobic ponds
treating abattoir effluent
Red meat processing produces wastewater with a high pollu-
tant load consisting of paunch, manure, fats, oils and greases
(FOGs), and uncollected blood. These components contribute to a
high-strength waste which must be treated to reduce the BOD,
COD, FOGs and total suspended solids (TSS) [10]. FOGs are large
contributors to BOD and COD and while FOGs have the potential
to produce large quantities of methane [11], their recalcitrant nat-
ure generally results in a number of problems [12]. Some of the
problems include: clogging of pipes; foul odour generation; adhe-
sion to the bacterial cell surface and reducing their ability to treat
wastewater; and flotation of sludge and loss of active sludge
[13,14]. FOGs also tend to accumulate on the surface of ponds to
form a recalcitrant scum layer or ‘crust’ [15,16] which can hamper
attempts to accurately measure biogas. However, primary treat-
ment systems such as dissolved air flotation (DAF) units with
chemical treatment are capable of reducing FOGs by up to 89–
98% [5].
Anaerobic digestion is said to be working optimally when the
acid formation phase (hydrolysis and acidogenesis) and the meth-
ane production phase (acetogenesis and methanogenesis) occur
simultaneously in dynamic equilibrium [17]. Stability of the
anaerobic process is difficult to maintain because a balance
favourable to several microbial populations is necessary and the
comparatively stable nature of the acid formers and the fastidious
Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
OLR organic loading rates
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
SRT solid retention time
TA total alkalinity
tHSCW tonnes of hot standard carcass weight
TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen
TSS total suspended solids
VFA volatile fatty acid
nature of the methane formers creates a biosystem that is prone
to upset as a result of shock loads or temperature fluctuations
[18]. Therefore, for the design of an anaerobic pond to perform
optimally, it must be based on the limiting characteristics of
these microorganisms. Pond oxidation–reduction potential
(ORP), temperature, NH3 concentration, pH, volatile fatty acid
(VFA) to total alkalinity (TA) ratios (VFA/TA) are all parameters
which are indicative of pond performance and should be moni-
tored [1]. However, criteria for anaerobic pond design are poorly
defined and no widely accepted overall design equation exists
[19]. Previously, pond construction criteria for the red meat pro-
cessing industry has been derived from other industries, and this
has resulted in pond designs which have not necessarily been
suitable. Design is typically based on organic loading rates
(OLR) and hydraulic retention times (HRT) from pilot plants and
observations of existing pond systems [19]. Generally, the desired
goal is to achieve significant reductions in wastewater organic
load with the least HRT possible [15]. Anaerobic ponds are de-
signed based on an OLR to promote sedimentation of wastewater
solids and efficient anaerobic digestion to biogas. Compared with
anaerobic digesters, anaerobic ponds are designed for relatively
low OLRs [20]. Overloading of ponds has the undesirable effect
of accumulating inhibitory substances which inhibit biogas pro-
duction and reduce biogas yield. As a general rule, an increase
in organic loading must be balanced by an increase in HRT to
achieve equivalent treatment efficiency of the wastewater [21].
There is currently a lack of knowledge within the Australian
red meat processing industry regarding the design and operation
of anaerobic ponds and upgrading these to covered anaerobic
ponds to minimise GHG from wastewater treatment operations.
Also, there is a clear lack of published literature which details
biogas production using this technology with the recoverable
quantity and quality of biogas remaining largely unclear. In the
absence of meaningful field gas measurements it is difficult to as-
sess the feasibility of using covered anaerobic ponds to generate
bioenergy. Computer modelling software has become widely
adopted in wastewater engineering over the past two decades.
Although evolved principally as a research tool they are now used
more for design and optimisation of wastewater treatment plants
[22]. BioWin is a Windows based computer simulation model
which is increasingly used to predict anaerobic digestion pro-
cesses and subsequent biogas yield [23]. It is used primarily to
simulate wastewater treatment for domestic sewage and there
has been no application to meat processing waste to date. How-
ever, anaerobic ponds that treat abattoir effluent utilise the same
complex microbiological processes responsible for the anaerobic
decomposition of domestic wastewater. Thus there is great scope
to apply the tool in this situation given the uncertainty surround-
ing accurate biogas measurements due to crust and solid
accumulation.
 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
3. The case study of Churchill Abattoir: novel pond design and
cover construction
Churchill Abattoir Pty Ltd is a medium-sized meat processing
facility located in South East Queensland, Australia. The abattoir
slaughters and processes around 3000 head of cattle per week
resulting in around 660 tonnes of hot standard carcass weight
(tHSCW) per week.
In 2009 the abattoir started to investigate the use of covered
anaerobic ponds to reduce offensive odours and greenhouse gas
emissions with the subsequent capture of methane for bioenergy.
This prompted a re-design of the wastewater treatment system.
McCabe et al. [24] provides a detailed background of the novel
pond design and cover construction. Briefly, 5 smaller anaerobic
ponds were constructed, each 50 m in length, 20 m in width and
5 m in depth, with an effective volume of 2.2 ML each. This design
was selected for two main reasons, namely manageability for des-
ludging ponds and ease of removing and applying covers. A new
floating cover design was proposed whereby covers were attached
to a floating raft or truss which holds the cover off the surface of
the pond. HDPE pipe (100 mm) was used to form the skeleton of
the raft and these pipes were filled with expansive foam to stiffen
the structure and aid in floatation and HDPE mat was used as the
cover material.
4. Methods
4.1. Monitoring schedule and wastewater characterisation
Fig. 1 illustrates a schematic of the 5 pond layout. A total of
43 weeks of sampling was performed during two stages on ponds
A, B and E. Stage one consisted of 19 weeks and stage two
24 weeks. Sampling was conducted twice-weekly at the com-
mencement of the sampling campaign for 9 weeks and then
weekly thereafter. The monitoring schedule provided in Table 1
lists the parameters that were measured as part of the monitoring
protocol. Both on-site and laboratory analysis was conducted.
Wastewater samples for laboratory analysis were collected and
analysed by Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) group (Brisbane,
Wastewater from plant
Save-all
Anaerobic pond A Anaerobic pond B
Anaerobic pond C Anaerobic pond D
Anaerobic pond E Facultative anaerobic pond 2
Aerobic pond 3
Irrigated to crops
sample ports
Fig. 1. Schematic of pond layout indicating sampling points and flow of
wastewater.
Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
3
Australia). Measured parameters included COD, BOD, TSS, FOG,
ammonia as nitrogen (NH3–N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), alka-
linity, and volatile fatty acids (VFA). On-site wastewater analysis
involved the measurement of wastewater temperature, pH, EC
and ORP using a YSI professional plus field logger. Biogas was ana-
lysed for methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and hydrogen sulphide
content, as well as the remaining balance using a Geotechnical
instruments GA2000 landfill gas analyser which is capable of mea-
suring methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and oxygen to
within 98%.
Fixed ultrasonic flow meters (Dalian Zerogo RV-100F) were at-
tached to the external surface of the inflow pipes to ponds A and B.
Flow meter data was logged at a frequency of one minute and
stored on a CR1000 data logger. Sampling ports were installed as
shown in Fig. 1 and included inlets to pond A and B, and the outlets
of ponds A, B and E. Ponds A and B were the primary focus of mon-
itoring since these serve as the two primary ponds receiving all
incoming wastewater. These two ponds run in parallel and feed
into a further series of three anaerobic ponds; C, D and E. Ponds
C, D and E function as a single unit with bidirectional flow between
ponds, with flow direction dependent on pond level, although flow
is generally unidirectional C ? D ? E ? pond 2. The outflow of
Pond E was also monitored to further understand the operation
of the novel anaerobic pond system as a whole.
4.2. Biogas simulation
Due to the difficulties encountered in measuring biogas produc-
tion at the site, dynamic wastewater treatment modelling using
the software BioWin (EnviroSim Associated LTD, Canada) was
undertaken to estimate biogas production. BioWin is a Microsoft
Windows-based simulator which is used in the analysis and design
of wastewater treatment plants. BioWin uses a general Activated
Sludge/Anaerobic Digestion (ASDM) model which is referred to as
the BioWin General Model. BioWin is interface software which re-
quires input data to carry out the simulation. Parameters such as
flow rate, total COD, TKN, total P, total N, pH, alkalinity, inorganic
S.S., Ca, Mg, and DO are main characteristics of the wastewater re-
quired by BioWin. These values (either constant or variable with
time) are presented in a hypothetical setting which then re-creates
the anaerobic digestion process by the software. To enhance the
prediction of the software, the wastewater fractions such as readily
biodegradable, non-colloidal slowly biodegradable, unbiodegrad-
able soluble and particulate are requested. Moreover, process ki-
netic parameters such as hydrolysis rate with stoichiometric
parameters are essential for high accuracy predictions. Although,
kinetic and stoichiometric parameters are important input data
for the software, BioWin includes default values for these parame-
ters which have previously been found reliable in this study [25].
BioWin contains two operational modules which include a steady
state module and an interactive dynamic simulator. The steady
state module is used for simulating systems based on constant
conditions while the dynamic simulator allows the user to change
time varying inputs or changes in operational strategy which
Table 1
Sampling history for ponds A, B and E.
Pond Effluent Number Parameters
of
samples
A (uncovered) Inflow and 16 TSS, alkalinity, NH3–N,
outflow TKN, FOG, COD, BOD, VFA.
B (covered) Inflow and 40 pH, EC, ORP, temperature
outflow
E (uncovered) Outflow 17
4 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Anaerobic pond configuration at Churchill Abattoir.

reflect real conditions. Thus, dynamic modelling using BioWin was
deemed an appropriate tool for simulating the behaviour of the
covered anaerobic ponds in this study.
To simulate the anaerobic ponds at Churchill Abattoir, BioWin
was first calibrated against measured data from the field monitor-
ing programme. Data sets used in the calibration process included
effluent COD concentration and TSS concentration. The calibration
process was conducted using a relatively complete and parallel
data set for ponds B and E over 150 days. Data for Pond B was used
to test the skill of BioWin simulating a unit process while data for
pond E was used to test the skill in modelling the whole wastewa-
ter system. Fig. 2 shows the configuration of the 5 ponds at Chur-
chill Abattoir as represented by BioWin interface window.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Decomposition efficiency
The average flow data into ponds A and B is given in Tables 2
and 3. The average OLR for ponds A and B was 2.3 kgCOD m3 d1
and 3.4 kgCOD m3 d1 respectively with an average HRT of be-
tween 2 and 3 days. CSIRO [4] provides a recommended OLR of
0.05–0.08 kgCOD m3 d1 with a HRT of 20–40 days. Both BOD
and COD loading rates are outside these recommended operating
parameters which are expected given the short HRT for each of
the ponds. If, however, the 5 ponds are considered as an integrated
waste treatment system, ponds C, D and E are operating within de-
sign parameters. While the system appears to be operating within
design parameters there are components which are operating out-
side the criteria. This has obvious implications for the maintenance
of the pond system, particularly in regard to solids management.
During the stage one sampling period (Table 2) pond A achieved
73% COD removal while pond B achieved a lesser removal of 53%.
The total% COD removal of the 5-pond system was 84% based on
the outflow of pond E. The lower COD removal of pond B reflects
the OLR of this pond which was calculated at an average of
2.275 kgCOD m3 d, which was approximately double that of pond
A during the same time period (1.03 kgCOD m3 d). The COD re-
moval efficiency of pond B was not detrimentally affected when
pond A was taken off line for desludging at the end of stage one
monitoring. The higher OLR of pond B during the second sampling
period did not result in a corresponding decrease in solids removal
efficiency with the% COD removal maintained at 59% (Table 3). A
similar trend exists for BOD removal for the 3 ponds over the same
two sampling periods.

Table 2
Removal efficiencies of the five pond system during stage 1 sampling.

Parameter Number of samples Average Standard deviation Range Av% reduction

Pond A
Flow rate (m3/d) 79,200 503.29 11.65 10.04–899.38
Influent COD (mg/L) 15 7442.00 2678.12 2630–12,100
Effluent COD (mg/L) 23 2885.30 2220.68 798–9150 73.22
Influent BOD (mg/L) 15 3402.67 1109.87 1410–5150
Effluent BOD (mg/L) 24 1318.39 1203.00 188–4610 74.95
Influent TSS (mg/L) 15 3235.00 1353.16 1370–6830
Effluent TSS (mg/L) 23 1496.09 1568.08 292–5640 76.25
Influent FOG (mg/L) 15 491.87 259.52 73–962
Effluent FOG (mg/L) 24 111.30 816.54 <5–4080 85.26
Pond B
Flow rate (m3/d)a 142,560 658.44 15.78 15.16–1207.68
Influent COD (mg/L) 27 7051 2895.10 1040–12,100
Effluent COD (mg/L) 27 2696.30 870.97 1680–4710 53.47
Influent BOD (mg/L) 27 3273.04 1461.68 163–7020
Effluent BOD (mg/L) 27 852.26 184.13 575–1500 62.19
Influent TSS (mg/L) 27 2990.63 1573.18 457–6870
Effluent TSS (mg/L) 27 1196.15 755.13 567–4020 39.79
Influent FOG (mg/L) 27 618.74 509.83 5–2110
Effluent FOG (mg/L) 27 95.85 89.34 21–520 89.25
Pond E (Five-pond system) –a
Effluent COD (mg/L) 10 1155.20 265.98 672–1660 83.62
Effluent BOD (mg/L) 10 188.80 67.49 78–302 94.23
Effluent TSS (mg/L) 10 704.10 421.36 138–1700 76.46
Effluent FOG (mg/L) 10 29.40 26.3 8–98 95.25
a
% Total reduction for five-pond system.

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 5

Table 3
Removal efficiencies of the five pond system during stage 2 sampling.

Parameter Number of samples Average Standard deviation range Av% reduction

Pond B
Flow rate (m3/d)a 89,280 1019.30 820.04 21.57–3028.04
Influent COD (mg/L) 13 9216.15 5978.34 4330–24,200
Effluent COD (mg/L) 13 2898.92 1024.00 836–5020 58.89
Influent BOD (mg/L) 13 5087.69 6131.70 1060–24,500
Effluent BOD (mg/L) 13 714.62 436.91 246–1920 73.49
Influent TSS (mg/L) 13 3874.62 1533.58 1760–6130
Effluent TSS (mg/L) 13 1988.77 1292.53 824–5360 35.11
Influent FOG (mg/L) 13 1388.23 1310.21 136–4570
Effluent FOG (mg/L) 13 91.54 38.95 23–167 83.39
Pond E (Five-pond system) –a
Effluent COD (mg/L) 7 900.07 618.74 126–2150 72.94
Effluent BOD (mg/L) 7 88.79 33.33 5–130 77.67
Effluent TSS (mg/L) 7 413.64 220.47 210–867 77.89
Effluent FOG (mg/L) 7 27.71 45.75 49–143 91.98
a
% Reduction for five-pond system.

It was observed that both COD and BOD removal efficiencies

(particularly the latter) decreased over the two sampling periods
for the 5-pond system owing to the accumulation of crust and
sludge over this time. The COD and BOD of outflow samples of
pond E at the end of the second sampling period are 73% and
78% respectively. This compares to the earlier efficiencies of COD
and BOD removal of 84% and 94% at the end of the first sampling
period.
The suspended solids removal was more efficient for pond A
then pond B with 76% and 40% recorded respectively over the first
stage of monitoring. This probably contributed to the increase in
sludge build up that occurred in pond A leading to its subsequent
desludging at the end of its first 18 months of operation. The over-
all TSS removal of pond B was low over both stage one and stage
two monitoring periods and may indicate that the short HRT did
not permit adequate sedimentation of wastewater solids.
The removal of FOGS by the 5-pond system is 95% during stage
one (pond E data, Table 2) and is generally maintained throughout
stage two at 92% (pond E, Table 3). The increase in OLR for pond B
during the second stage of monitoring marginally decreased the
FOG removal efficiency from 89% to 83% and this would have con-
tributed to the slight decrease in FOGs removal efficiency of the
whole system at this time.
Figs. 3a and b shows the fat accumulated on uncovered pond A
and covered pond B respectively. Both ponds A and B accumulated
approximately 1 m of crust over the 2 year operation since these
two ponds received the majority of organic load. This crust accu-
mulation meant that a reduction in the effective volume of the

Fig. 3b. HDPE cover on pond B. Note the presence of the thick crust.

pond occurred over time which could impact on the bioconversion

efficiency of the two ponds.

5.2. Biogas quality

The quality of biogas based on the constituents methane (CH4),

Fig. 3a. Appearance of crust accumulation on uncovered pond A.
carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S)
produced from covered pond B are shown in Figs. 4a and b. It is
important to note that a spike in OLR occurred during April having
the effect of lowering CH4 and CO2 at this time. The levels of CH4
and CO2 returned to nominal levels after the shock loading event.

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
6 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 4. Pond B biogas major constituents (a) and minor constituents (b) during stage 1 and 2 sampling period.
Average CH4 content was 52%, while CO2 and O2 were 22% and 3%
respectively. The levels of O2 should be negligible; however, the
cover did become compromised at various stages of the monitoring
and did not achieve an air tight seal. Average H2S levels over the
same period were 686 ppm. To compare field results 3 samples
were sent to analytical labs (SGS, Sydney, Australia). These results
show that the CH4 values ranged from 59% to 62% with CO2 and O2
levels averaging 37% and 0.9% respectively. H2S levels ranged be-
tween 47 and 196 ppm.
5.3. Wastewater simulation
Wastewater decomposition efficiency was simulated using Bio-
Win by implementing a step-wise reduction in influent COD and
adjusting this to best match the measured effluent COD. The influ-
ent from the covered primary anaerobic pond (pond B) was used
for modelling purposes. In order to justify the reduction of the
COD input into BioWin, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for
the stoichiometric and the kinetic parameters of the software. It
was found that altering the parameters in BioWin did not improve
the results between simulated and measured data when the model
was operating under no COD reduction. Modified input COD data
established that a 30% reduction of influent COD was the best fit
for the model. In practice this means only 30% of the influent
COD was taking part in the anaerobic digestion process. The
remaining 70% of the COD can be accounted for through the accu-
mulation of fat and other undigested material (such as paunch) at
the top of the pond and undigested sludge at the bottom which
was consistent with observations at the site.
This first part of the modelling process demonstrated that Bio-
Win was able to accurately simulate a single anaerobic pond de-
spite the severe fluctuation in both the inflow rate and influent
water composition. Two methods were used to show the agree-
ment between the measured and predicted data. Two trends sim-
ilar to the predicted data were plotted. They represent a value of
20% above and below the predicted data and represents the agree-
ment between the predicted and measured data enclosed by ±20%
of the predicted data values. Absolute relative error (average)
(ARE) was also used to show the agreement between the measured
Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
and predicted data. The equation below was used to estimate the
ARE [26];
1 XN
jðmi  pi Þj
ARE ¼   100%
N i¼1 mi
where mi is the measured value of the output variable, pi predicted
value of the output variable and N number of the observations. Due
to the high complexity of the process, and as stated by other
researchers [26], an average relative error for the measured and
predicted data of 7–15% is sufficient for indication of correct dy-
namic calibration. In Liwarska’s case [26], it is worth mentioning
that monitored data was fitted to the simulated values over a period
of a few hours. In the current study, monitored data was fitted with
predicted BioWin data over a three month period, resulting in abso-
lute relative errors of between 14% and 21%. The slightly higher er-
ror in comparison to Liwarska’s case was attributed to high
fluctuation in the characteristic of the wastewater, the environment
condition around the ponds, thick crust formation and the long per-
iod of sampling. In light of these conditions it is fair to suggest that
an average error of 21% is quite reasonable.
The BioWin prediction of COD effluent from pond B is shown in
Fig. 5a. Predicted and measured COD results were graphed against
each other where the absolute relative error was found to be 14%.
This was considered to be very good, particularly when considering
the high fluctuation of the flow rate and varying composition of
influent to the pond. BioWin simulations were also able to demon-
strate similar skill with data collected at different dates and pond
temperatures as shown in Fig. 5b. In addition to COD BioWin was
able to show skill in simulating the effluent TSS. There was good
agreement between measured TSS and BioWin prediction at two
sampling period with an absolute relative error of 18% as shown
in Figs. 6a and b.
The next stage of the modelling process focused on the ability of
BioWin to simulate the 5-pond system. The 5-pond system was
configured in BioWin and measured effluent COD from Pond E
(which represents the final outflow) was plotted against BioWin
predictions of COD. As shown in Fig. 7a the measured COD of the
outlet wastewater from Pond E again correlates very well with
the BioWin predictions with an absolute relative error value of
 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 5. Measured and simulated effluent COD from Pond B for (a) stage 1 and (b)
stage 2 monitoring periods.
16%. In addition to the simulations of COD, TSS measured at the
outlet of pond E was also compared against the data predicted by
BioWin and is shown in Fig. 7b. Simulation of TSS gave an absolute
relative error value of 21%. This analysis and interpretation demon-
strates clearly the ability of BioWin to simulate both a single ele-
ment and the whole system of wastewater treatment at Churchill
Abattoir.
Further validation of the model is provided by comparing mea-
sured biogas quality (% methane) obtained from pond B with pre-
dicted BioWin results over a period of approximately 3 months.
Predicted and measured values were graphed against each other
where the absolute relative error was found to be 17% (Fig. 8). This
level of correlation gives further support for the validity of the soft-
ware in predicting biogas quality and provides additional confi-
dence in predicting pond efficiency.
Fig. 6. Measured and simulated effluent TSS from Pond B for (a) stage 1 and (b)
stage 2 monitoring periods.
5.4. Biogas production potential
Potential biogas production was estimated by simulating the
anaerobic processes within the ponds over 364 days to represent
annual biogas production. Measured data from the monitoring pro-
gram including flow rates and COD were used as inputs into the
BioWin simulations. To assess biogas production for the current
system and operation practices, two scenarios were modelled. Sce-
nario 1 represents a COD reduction efficiency of 85% (default set-
tings within BioWin) while scenario 2 represents a COD
reduction efficiency of 30%.
The data contained in Table 4 is a summary of the modelled re-
sults for potential annual production of biogas under the current

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
8 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Fig. 7. Measured and simulated effluent COD (a) and TSS (b) from Pond E during
stage 1 monitoring period.
configuration (refer to Fig. 2) and management of ponds at the
abattoir under an ideal circumstance (i.e. scenario 1) where the
efficiency of the pond is high and governed by 85% COD reduction
(default within BioWin). The data contained in Table 4 includes
minimum, maximum and average biogas production during this
period. Total annual biogas production of 431,404 m3 was found
by summing the simulated daily gas production of the 5-pond
system.
The calibration of the model however indicated that the ponds
are likely converting only 30% of the influent COD via anaerobic
digestion. The annual gas production at Churchill Abattoir is there-
fore most likely to be similar to the data presented in Table 5 (i.e.
scenario 2) which is based on a 30% reduction in COD resulting in a
significantly lower annual biogas yield of 120,000 m3 (equivalent
Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
to 0.0298 m3/m3/d). This compares with the study conducted by
Safley and Westerman [27] which measured 0.03–0.5 m3/m3/d
and is illustrative of the large range of biogas quantities which
can be produced by anaerobic ponds.
Modelling suggested other factors, despite ideal digestion (80–
90% COD reduction) are likely to significantly affect the process.
These include the HRT, solid retention time (SRT), temperature
and flow rate. The current design of the ponds through the model-
ling process was assessed to be operating at 30–40% efficiency
when combining these factors. It is important to note that this rep-
resents the final production yield of the ponds. It is reasonable to
expect that over the lifetime of the ponds the biogas production
yield will initially be much higher due to a greater useable volume
of the pond (i.e. before crust and sludge accumulation). The final
production yield of the pond could in fact be enhanced through
the routine removal of crust and sludge throughout the lifetime
of the ponds.
5.5. Alternative configurations and operational options
Previous lab based studies by Borja et al. [28] suggest that in-
creased biogas production can be achieved when the variables
affecting the performance of the anaerobic process (i.e. ponds)
are better controlled. To examine these possibilities and by exploit-
ing the functionality of BioWin, alternative configurations and
operational options were simulated to identify the impact on bio-
gas yield. As an example, a new configuration is shown in Fig. 9
which includes the addition of a clarifier to recycle the activated
sludge leaving the system. Simulation modelling of this system
by BioWin did show a significant improvement in the performance
of the ponds by increasing biogas yield.
Table 6 presents the biogas production from an alternative pond
configuration (scenario 3) where most of the inlet COD is consid-
ered as degradable materials (ideal scenario presented earlier).
The potential biogas production is around 3284 m3/d. Even by
reducing the amount of degradable COD to 30% (likely scenario
at Churchill presented earlier) the results shown in Table 7 (sce-
nario 4) demonstrates significant improvement in biogas produc-
tion (i.e. 572 m3/d from 328 m3/d). These figures indicate the
potential to significantly increase biogas production by a relatively
minor change in the configuration of the treatment system. In this
instance the last pond at Churchill (pond E) could be used as a clar-
ifier pond to recycle the activated sludge back into the top of the
system.
5.6. Cost analysis
Biogas has an energy content of (6.0–7.5) KW h/m3 which is
comparable to coal seam gas (9.9 KW h/m3), making it a very
important source of energy [29]. One of the most likely options
for biogas capture and use at Churchill Abattoir is via a combined
heat and power generation plant to offset electricity and heating
demands at the site. Based on the BioWin modelling results the
amount of biogas produced from the site is 120,000 m3/year
(328 m3/d). Each cubic metre of biogas contains the equivalent of
6 kW h or 21.6 MJ of energy. However, when biogas is converted
to electricity, via a biogas powered electric generator, approxi-
mately 35% of the total energy is converted to electricity due to
the efficiency of the generator. The remainder of the energy is con-
verted into heat, some of which can be recovered for heating appli-
cations. It is assumed that 35% of the total energy can also be
recovered for low grade heating purposes [30].
5.6.1. Energy offsets
Table 8 presents the amount of useable energy for the site
produced from biogas based on the assumptions described above.
 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 9

Fig. 8. Measured methane content in biogas vs. BioWin prediction, ARE 17%.

Table 4 Scenario (1) highlights the likely biogas production from the cur-
Scenario 1 – Total and individual Biogas production from the ponds at Churchill plant rent operation of the ponds (described earlier) and the opportunity
(Ideal: 85% efficiency).
to exploit biogas based energy on the site. Energy savings based on
Pond Biogas Production (m3/d) other BioWin modelling scenarios are also presented in Table 8.
production Assuming a conservative electricity price of $0.1/kW h, electric-
Min Max Average
(m3/year)
ity costs on site can be offset by $25,200 per annum. Given a coal
Pond A 130,639 119 556 362 price of $88/tonne, the total cost of coal is offset by $2,957 per an-
Pond B 136,821 37 742 380
num due to the recoverable heat energy from the biogas power
Pond C 58,264 61 228 161
Pond D 52,604 50 212 146 generation process. Combined, the total energy costs at Churchill
Pond E 48,344 49 184 134 can be offset by $28,157 (scenario 1) under current operating con-
Total biogas production m3per year 431,404 1183 ditions. It is important to note however that the potential is much
(Five-pond system)
greater depending on the operational configuration and perfor-
mance of the ponds. Based on the other BioWin modelling results,
energy costs could be offset by $49,040 by changing the operating
Table 5 configuration of the ponds at the current efficiency (scenario 2).
Scenario 2 – Total and individual Biogas production from the ponds at the Churchill
plant (30% efficiency). 5.6.2. Economic assessment of biogas recovery and use
Pond Biogas 3
Production (m /d) A rudimentary economic analysis was undertaken to assess the
production feasibility of biogas energy recovery and use at Churchill and for
Min Max Average
(m3/year) the scenarios described above. The economic assessment was
Pond A 48,881 59 103 94 based on a simple payback period (SPP) approach for a combined
Pond B 54,822 24 142 111 heat and power generation plant. The assessment was based on
Pond C 21,200 58 79 49 the following assumptions:
Pond D 19,552 18 71 45
Pond E 14,671 4 90 29
Total biogas production m3per year 120,000 328  The capital cost of the generation equipment plus
(Five-pond system) additional costs including design, planning and project
management is $1,200/kW.

Fig. 9. Alternative ponds’ configuration at Churchill Abattoir.

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
10 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Table 6 financial proposition however will be significantly different over

Scenario 3 – Total and individual Biogas production from the ponds at the Churchill the lifetime of the investment for each scenario and requires a
plant (ideal: 85% efficiency; alternate configuration).
more detailed analysis.
Pond Biogas Production (m3/d)
production
Min Max Average
(m3/year)
6. Conclusions
Pond A 311,510 198 1516 855
Pond B 375,046 544 1630 1030
Pond C 267,285 435 1091 734
The purpose of this study was to gauge covered anaerobic per-
Pond D 242,162 383 1007 665 formance in terms of both waste treatment efficiency and subse-
Pond E quent biogas production. Observations from this work indicate
Total biogas production m3per year 1,209,139 3284 that the successful design and operation of the covered anaerobic
(Five-pond system)
ponds is highly sensitive to the inclusion of FOGs in the effluent
stream entering the ponds. This problem is not unique to Churchill
Abattoir and is a systemic problem in the Australian red meat pro-
Table 7 cessing industry which hinders the successful uptake of technolo-
Scenario 4 – Total and individual biogas production from the ponds at the Churchill gies such as covered anaerobic ponds.
plant (30% efficiency; alternate configuration). This study reports on the novel application of computer model-
Pond Biogas Production (m3/d) ling using BioWin software to simulate COD removal rates and
production subsequent biogas yield. The application of wastewater modelling
Min Max Average
(m3/year) using BioWin in this study has provided some initial insights into
Pond A 66,952 216 270 184 how unbiodegradable portions of COD can affect predicted waste-
Pond B 64,169 128 302 176 water treatment and subsequent biogas yield. Due to the high
Pond C 40,849 49 278 112
strength nature of abattoir wastewater, the accumulation of crusts
Pond D 36,115 42 246 100
Pond E
on anaerobic ponds can result in limited ability to accurately ob-
Total biogas production m3per year 209,000 572 tain biogas measurements. The simulated results provide an initial
(Five-pond system) indication that BioWin may be a useful tool in determining biogas
yield in complex systems where it is difficult to obtain accurate
data. Once calibrated, BioWin was found to closely predict mea-
sured data, despite the severe fluctuation in both inlet flow and
Table 8
water quality parameters. In this instance BioWin was able to sim-
Energy saving at Churchill Abattoir plant. ulate the behaviour of the anaerobic ponds and simulated an aver-
age biogas yield of 328 m3/d. The modelling has shown that the
Scenario Biogas Useable Energy Energy Energy Energy
(m3/year) energy amt. amt. savings offset
total energy cost at Churchill Abattoir can be offset by $28,157 un-
from (GJ/ (kW h) ($) der current operating conditions. This includes electricity costs of
biogas year) $25,200 and cost of coal of $2,957 per annum. Modelling also sug-
1 431,404 Electricity 3261 905,948 $90,595 Electricity gests this can be significantly increased (by a factor of ten) with
heat 3261 905,948 $10,630 coal relatively minor changes to the system configuration and
2 120,000 Electricity 907 252,000 $25,200 Electricity operation.
heat 907 252,000 $2957 coal
In terms of industry benefits BioWin has the ability to be a use-
3 1,209,139 Electricity 9141 2,539,192 $253,919 Electricity
heat 9141 2,539,192 $29,793 coal
ful tool in the analysis of pond performance, that is, varying the de-
4 209,000 Electricity 1580 438,900 $43,890 Electricity fault parameters in BioWin has the potential to determine how
heat 1580 438,900 $5150 coal efficient the anaerobic pond is operating. For example, reducing
the hydrolysis rate’s default value in order to match the measured
data with BioWin prediction is an indication of low efficiency of
 The generator required is based on 100 kW per 40 m3/h of the anaerobic pond. This can be related to the pond design, low
biogas. degradability of the influent waste, and/or to microbiological as-
 Other lifetime costs for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) pects. The actual cause can then be determined via further simula-
is half of the initial capital cost. tion through altering other related parameters to aid in optimising
the amount of potential biogas produced.
The results from the SPP analysis are presented in Table 9 which
indicates a payback on the investment including an allowance for
life time O&M costs of 2.2 years. As a general guide and for this Acknowledgements
exercise an investment with a payback of less than 3 years is con-
sidered to be an attractive proposition for the Meat Processing The work described in this article was fully supported by the
Industry (pers. comm. Mike Spence June 2012). Given the analysis Australian Meat Processor Corporation (AMPC) and Meat and Live-
is based on proportional costs and returns relative to the quantity stock Australia (MLA). Support given by Mike Spence (Company
of biogas produced the SPP for both scenarios are the same. The Engineer, Churchill Abattoir) is gratefully acknowledged.

Table 9
Simple payback period (SPP) based on the investment in construction of a combined heat and power generation plant.

Scenario Biogas (m3/h) Power generator size (kW) Capital cost ($) O&M ($) Total costs ($) Offset ($) SPP (years)
1 49 123 $147,875 $73,938 $221,813 $101,225 2.2
2 14 34 $41,000 $20,500 $61,500 $28,157 2.2
3 137 342 $410,500 $205,250 $615,750 $283,712 2.2
4 24 60 $71,500 $35,750 $107,250 $49,040 2.2

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020
 B.K. McCabe et al. / Applied Energy xxx (2013) xxx–xxx 11

References [16] Wan C, Zhou Q, Fu G, Li Y. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of

thickened waste activated sludge and fat, oil and grease. Waste Manage
2011;31(8):1752–8.
[1] Mittal GS. Treatment of wastewater from abattoirs before land application—a
[17] Gujer W, Zehnder A. Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Water Sci
review. Bioresource Technol 2006;97(9):1119–35.
Technol 1983;15(8/9):127–67.
[2] Laginestra M, van-Oorschot. Wastewater treatment pond systems – an
[18] Chen Y, Cheng J, Creamer K. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A
Australian experience. Ozwater Paper 082. In: Proceedings of Australian
review. Bioresource Technol 2008;99(10):4044–64.
Water Association Conference. Melbourne, Australia; March 2009.
[19] EPA. Development document for the proposed effluent limitations guidelines
[3] MLA. Industry environmental sustainability review. Meat and Livestock
and standards for the meat and poultry products industry point source
Australia. Sydney, Australia; 2010.
category (40 CFR 432). Office of Water, U.S. Environmental protection agency,
[4] Meat Technology Update. Covered anaerobic ponds. Meat Technology Update
Washington, DC; 2002.
4/10; October 2010. <www.meatupdate.csiro.au>.
[20] John Green. Effluent treatment ponds, CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory; 1990
[5] Johns M. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing
<http://www.meatupdate.csiro.au/data/Waste_water_and_odour_05.pdf>.
industry: A review. Bioresource Technol 1995;54(3):203–16.
[21] Long JH, Aziz TN, De los Reyes III FL, Ducoste JJ. Anaerobic co-digestion of fat,
[6] Pöschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas
oil, and grease (FOG): A review of gas production and process limitations.
production and utilization pathways. Appl Energy 2010;87:3305–21.
Process Saf Environ 2012;90(3):231–45.
[7] Marcos A, Al-Kassir A, López F, Cuadros F, Brito P. Environmental treatment of
[22] Langergraber G, Reiger L, Winkler S, Alex J, Wiese J, Owerdieck C, Ahnert M,
slaughterhouse wastes in a continuously stirred anaerobic reactor: Effect of
Simon J, Maurer M. A guide for simulation studies of wastewater treatment
flow rate variation on biogas production. Fuel Process Technol
plants. Water Sci Technol 2004;50:131–8.
2012;103:178–82.
[23] Jones R, Parker W, Zhu H, Houweling D, Murthy M. Predicting the degradability
[8] Martinez E, Marcos A, Al-Kassir A, Jaramillo MA, Mohamad AA. Mathematical
of waste activated sludge. WEFTEC.08; 81st Annual Technical Exhibition and
model of a laboratory-scale plant for slaughterhouse effluents biodigestion for
Conference; 2008.
biogas production. Appl Energy 2012;95:210–9.
[24] McCabe B, Hamawand I, Baillie C, Pittaway P, Yusaf T. Assessing a new
[9] Thorin E, Lindmark J, Nordlander E, Odlare M, Dahlquist E, Kastensson J,
approach to covered anaerobic pond design in the treatment of abattoir
Leksell N, Pettersson C-M. Performance optimization of the Växtkraft biogas
wastewater. Australian Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering
production plant. Appl Energy 2012;97:503–8.
2013;10(1):81–93.
[10] Nakhla G, Al-Sabawi M, Bassi A, Liu V. Anaerobic treatability of high oil and
[25] McCabe B, Hamawand I, Baillie C. Investigating wastewater modelling as a tool
grease rendering wastewater. J Hazard Mater 2003;102:243–55.
to predict anaerobic decompoisition and biogas yield of abattoir effluent.
[11] Luostarinen S, Luste S, Sillanpää M. Increased biogas production at wastewater
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 2013. http://dx.doi.org/
treatment plants through co-digestion of sewage sludge with grease trap
10.1016/j.jece.2013.07.015.
sludge from a meat processing plant. Bioresource Technol 2009;100:
[26] Liwarska-Bizukojc E, Olejnik D, Biernacki R, Ledakowicz S. Calibration of a
79–85.
complex activated sludge model for the full-scale wastewater treatment plant.
[12] Petrury R, Lettinga G. Digestion of a milk-fat emulsion. Bioresource Technol
Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2011;34:659–70.
1997;61:141–9.
[27] Safley L, Westerman P. Biogas production from anaerobic lagoons. Biol Waste
[13] Cammarota M, Freire D. A review on hydrolytic enzymes in the treatment of
2013;23:181–93.
wastewater with high oil and grease content. Bioresource Technol
[28] Borja R, Banks C, Wang Z, Mancha A. Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse
2006;97:2195–210.
wastewater using a combination sludge blanket and filter arrangement in a
[14] Cirne D, Paloumet X, Bjornson L, Alves M, Mattiasson B. Anaerobic digestion of
single reactor. Bioresource Technol 1998;65(1–2):125–33.
lipid-rich waste – effects of lipid concentration. Renewable Energy
[29] Hamawand I, Yusaf T, Hamawand SG. Coal Seam Gas and Associated Water: A
2007;32:965–75.
review paper. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2013;22:550–60.
[15] UNSW CRC for waste management and pollution control. Treatment of
[30] ADIAC, Anaerobic Digestion Initiateve Advisory Committee of BC, <http://
abattoir wastewater using a covered anaerobic lagoon. Meat and Livestock
www.bcfarmbiogas.ca/Feedstockenergy/Energy> [accessed 29.07.13].
Australia. Sydney, Australia; 1998.

Please cite this article in press as: McCabe BK et al. A case study for biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir wastewater: Inves-
tigation of pond performance and potential biogas production. Appl Energy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.10.020