Article

Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with agro-wastes and energy crops: Comparison of pilot and full scale experiences

Department of Environmental Sciences, University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Dorsoduro 2137, I-30123 Venice, Italy.
Bioresource Technology (Impact Factor: 5.04). 09/2009; 101(2):545-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.08.043
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The paper deals with the benefits coming from the application of a proper process temperature (55 degrees C) instead of a 'reduced' thermophilic range (47 degrees C), that is often applied in European anaerobic co-digestion plants. The experimental work has pointed out that biogas production improve from 0.45 to 0.62 m(3)/kg VS operating at proper thermophilic conditions. Moreover, also methane content was higher: from 52% to 61%. A general improvement in digester behaviour was clear also considering the stability parameters comparison (pH, ammonia, VFA content). The second part of the study takes into account the economic aspects related to the capital cost of anaerobic digestion treatment with a 1 MW co-generation unit fro heat and power production (CHP). Moreover, the economic balance was also carried out considering the anaerobic supernatants treatment for nitrogen removal. The simulation showed how a pay-back-time of 2.5 yr and between 3 and 5 yr respectively could be determined when the two options of anaerobic digestion only and together with the application of a nitrogen removal process were considered.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: David Bolzonella, Jul 05, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
148 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Energy production from the anaerobic digestion of organic waste is widely recognized as a social and environmental opportunity, since it allows reducing waste disposal and making waste management economically profitable. However, profitability of these plants is strongly affected by the quantity and the quality of wastes, as well as by the availability of local subsidies. The key role of incentive policies in the economic success of investments in biomass to energy plants is highly recognised and has led EU governments to promote the deployment of these plants. Incentive policies adopted in EU countries differ significantly. In this paper, an evaluation model based on cost-benefit analysis is developed in order to identify the production-based incentive rates making investments in anaerobic digestion plant economically feasible without reducing social and environmental positive impacts. The model has been applied to the case of energy production plants from anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. In order to investigate the influence of the plant size on the investment profitability, different waste collection areas have been considered. Environmental performances of the plants have been evaluated by adopting a life cycle assessment approach. Results obtained confirm the environmental benefits achievable through the energy production from the anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. However, the current production-based incentive rates provided in most EU Countries revealed an inadequate balance between private and public interest, since they make profitable the investments only in case of small plants.
    Journal of Cleaner Production 05/2015; 104. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.021 · 3.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Palm pressed fiber (PPF) and cattle manure (CM) are the waste which can be managed properly by anaerobic co-digestion. The biogas production in co-digested PPF and CM at three volatile solids (VS) ratios of 3:1, 1:1, and 1:3 was investigated in a series of batch experiments at an organic loading rate of 30.0g VS/L under mesophilic (37±1°C) conditions. The highest daily biogas yield of PPF and CM only, was 90.0mL/g VSadded at day 12 and 23.4mL/g VSadded at day 7. For co-digestion of PPF/CM at mixing ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 1:3, there were 93.6mL/g VSadded at day 11, 86.8 and 26.4mL/g VSadded at day 8. VS removal rate for PPF, CM, and co-digestion at mixing ratio of 3:1, 1:1, and 1:3 were 91.1%, 86.0% and 71.0%, respectively. The anaerobic digestion of PPF and CM and their co-digestion systems were stable in operation with low range of volatile fatty acids (VFA)/TIC (total inorganic carbon) of (0.035-0.091). The main volatile fatty acids were propionic, and iso-butyric acids for PPF, iso-butyric and n-butyric acids for CM. The VFAs and ammonium inhibition were not occurred. The modified Gompertz model can be used to perform a better prediction with a lower difference between the measured and predicted biogas yields. A VS ratio of 3:1 is recommended for practice.
    Waste Management 08/2014; 34(11). DOI:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.015 · 3.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A co-digestion process was evaluated when mixing different ratios of agro-industrial residues, i.e. bovine slaughterhouse waste (SB); cow manure (M); various crop residues (VC); and municipal solid waste (MSW) by anaerobic batch digestion under thermophilic conditions (55 °C). A selected study case at mesophilic condition (37 °C) was also investigated. The performance of the co-digestion was evaluated by kinetics (k(0)). The best kinetic results were obtained under thermophilic operation when a mixture of 22% w/w SB, 22% w/w M, 45% w/w VC and 11% w/w MSW was co-digested, which showed a proper combination of high values in r(s)CH(4) and k(0) (0.066 Nm(3)CH(4)/kgVS*d, 0.336 d(-1)) during the anaerobic process. The effect of temperature on methane yield (Y(CH4)), specific methane rate (r(s)CH(4)) and k(0) was also analyzed for a specific study case; there a mixture of 25% w/w of SB, 37.5% w/w of M, 37.5% of VC and 0% of MSW was used. Response variables were severely affected by mesophilic conditions, diminishing to at least 45% of the thermophilic values obtained for a similar mixture. The effect of temperature suggested that thermophilic conditions are suitable to treat these residues.
    Water Science & Technology 02/2013; 67(5):989-95. DOI:10.2166/wst.2013.647 · 1.21 Impact Factor