Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.1.104

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

Yoon, Young-Man (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University)
Kim, Hyun-Cheol (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University)
Yoo, Jung-Suk (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University)
Kim, Seung-Hwan (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University)
Hong, Seung-Gil (National Academy of Agricultural Science, R.D.A.)
Kim, Chang-Hyun (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer / v.44, no.1, 2011 , pp. 104-111 More about this Journal
Abstract
In order to assess the performance of co-digester using pig slurry and food waste at the farm scale biogas production facility, the anaerobic facility that adopts the one-stage CSTR of 5 $m^3\;day^{-1}$ input scale was designed and installed under the conditions of the OLR of 2.33 kg $m^3\;day^{-1}$ and HRT of 30 days in an pig farmhouse. Several operation parameters were monitored for assessment of the process performance. The anaerobic facility was operated in three stages to compare the performance of the anaerobic co-digester. In the Stage I, that was fed with a mix of pig slurry to food waste ratio of 7:3 in the input volume, where input TS content was 4.7 (${\pm}0.8$) %, and OLR was 0.837-1.668 kg-VS $m^3\;day^{-1}$. An average biogas yield observed was 252 $Nm^3\;day^{-1}$ with methane content 67.9%. This facility was capable of producing an electricity of 626 kWh $day^{-1}$ and a heat recovery of 689 Mcal day-1. In Stage II, that was fed with a mixture of pig slurry and food waste at the ratio of 6:4 in the input volume, where input TS content was 6.9 (${\pm}1.9$) %, and OLR was 1.220-3.524 kg-VS $m^3\;day^{-1}$. The TS content of digestate was increased to 3.0 (${\pm}0.3$) %. In Stage III, that was fed with only pig slurry, input TS content was 3.6 (${\pm}2.0$) %, and OLR was 0.182-2.187 kg-VS $m^3\;day^{-1}$. In stage III, TS and volatile solid contents in the input pig slurry were highly variable, and input VFAs and alkalinity values that affect the performance of anaerobic digester were also more variable and sensitive to the variation of input organic loading during the digester operation. The biogas produced in the stage III, ranged from 11.3 to 170.0 $m^3\;day^{-1}$, which was lower than 222.5-330.2 $m^3\;day^{-1}$ produced in the stage II.
Keywords
Anaerobic co-digestion; Pig slurry; Food waste; Performance; Organic loading;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Yoon, Y.M., C.H. Kim, Y.J. Kim, and H.T. Park. $2009^a$. The economical evaluation of biogas production facility of pig waste. Kor. J. Agr. Manag. Pol. 36(1):137-157.
2 Yoon, Y.M., Y.J. Kim, and C.H. Kim. $2009^b$. The evaluation of economical efficiency to composting and liquefying process of biomass discharged in pig breeding. Agr. Econ. 31(6):39-62.
3 Yu, Y., C. Lee, and S. Hwang. 2005. Analysis of community structures in anaerobic processes using a quantitative realtime PCR method. Wat. Sci. Technol. 52(1-2):85-91.
4 Zhang, Y. and C.J. Banks. 2008. Optimizing inputs and outputs from anaerobic digestion processes by co-digestion of municipal waste streams with wastes from commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ISAd-sw. 24-28 May, hammamet, Tunisia.
5 Callaghan, F.J., D.A. Wase, J.K. Thayanithy, and C.F. Foster. 1999. Co-digestion of waste organic solids: batch studies. Bioresour. Technol. 67:117-122.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Hansen, K.H., I. Angelidaki, and B.K. Ahring. 1998. Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Wat. Res. 32(1):5-12.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Poggi-Varaldo, H.M., L. Valdes, F. Esparza-Garcia, and G. Fenandez-Villagomez. 1997. Solid substrate anaerobic co-digestion of paper mill sludge, biosolids, and municipal solid waste. Wat. Sci. Technol. 35:197-204.
8 Kramer, J. 2004. "Agricultural Biogas Casebook -2004 Update." Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program, Council of Great Lakes Governors.
9 Linke, B. 1997. A model for anaerobic digestion of animal waste slurries . Environ. Technol. 18:849-854.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Paavola, T., E. Syväsalo, and J. Rintala. 2006. Co-digestion of manure and biowaste according to the EC animal by-products regulation and Finnish national regulation. Wat. Sci. Technol. 53(8):223-231.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Sorensen, A.H., M. Winther-Nielsen, and B.K. Ahring. 1991. Kinetics of lactate, acetate and propionate in unadapted and lactate-adapted thermophilic, anaerobic sewage sludge: the influence of sludge adaptation for start-up of thermophilic UASB-reactors. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 34:823-827.
12 Hill, D.T. and J.P. Bolte. 2000. Methane production from low solid Concentration liquid swine waste using conventional anaerobic fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 74:241-247.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Harikishan, S. and S. Sung. 2003. Cattle waste treatment and Class A biosolid production using temperature-phased anaerobic digester. Adv. Environ. Res. 7:701-706.   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Hartmann, H., I. Angelidaki, and B.K. Ahring. 2000. Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in full-scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Wat. Sci. Technol. 41:145-153.
15 Hartmann, H., I. Angelidaki, and B.K. Ahring. 2000. Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in fullscale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Wat. Sci. Technol. 41:145-153.
16 Karakashev, D., D.J. Batstone, and I. Angelidaki. 2005. Influence of the environmental conditions on the methanogenic composition of anaerobic biogas reactors. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:331-338.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Angelidaki, I. and L. Ellegaard. 2003. Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 109:95-105.   DOI
18 Speece, R.E., M. Duran, G. Demirer, H. Zhang, and T. Distefano. 1997. The role of process configuration in the performance of anaerobic systems. Wat. Sci. Technol. 36:539-547.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Wilkie, A.C., H.F. Castro, K.R. Cubisnki, J.M. Owens, and S.C. Yan. 2004. Fixed-film anaerobic digestion of flushed dairy manure after primary treatment: wastewater production and characterization. Biosystems. 89(4):457-471.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Ahring, B.K. and I. Angelidaki. 2000. Methods for increasing the biogas potential from the recalcitrant organic matter contained in manure. Wat. Sci. Technol. 41(3):189-194.
21 Angelidaki, I., K. Boe, and L. Ellegaard. 2005. Effect of operation conditions and reactor configuration of efficiency of full-scale biogas plants. Wat. Sci. Technol. 52(1-2):189-194.
22 APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. American Public Health Assoc. Washington, DC.
23 Azbar, N., P. Ursillo, and R.E. Speece. 2001. Effect of process configuration and substrate complexit on the performance of anaerobic processes. Wat. Res. 35 (3):817-829.   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Boe, K. and I. Angelidaki. 2009. Serial CSTR digester configuration for improving biogas production from manure. Wat. Res. 43:166-172.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Bouallagui, H., H. Lahdheb, E.B. Romdan, B. Rachdi, and M. Hamdi. 2009. Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-substrates addition. J. Environ. Manag. 90:1844-1849.   DOI   ScienceOn