3.8 Article

Feasibility of OFMSW co-digestion with sewage sludge for increasing biogas production at wastewater treatment plants

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s41207-017-0031-z

Keywords

Anaerobic co-digestion; Biogas; OFMSW; Sewage sludge; Viscosity

Funding

  1. Swedish Energy Agency
  2. Linkoping University
  3. Scandinavian Biogas Fuels AB
  4. Tekniska Verken AB
  5. Nordvastra Skanes Renhallnings AB
  6. Kemira OYJ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sweden has the ambition to increase its annual biogas production from the current level of 1.9 to 15 TWh by 2030. The unused capacity of existing anaerobic digesters at wastewater treatment plants is among the options to accomplish this goal. This study investigated the feasibility of utilizing the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) as a co-substrate, with primary and waste-activated sewage sludge (PWASS) for production of biogas, corresponding to 3:1 ratio on volatile solid (VS) basis. The results demonstrated that co-digestion of OFMSW with PWASS at an organic loading rate of 5 gVS l(-1) day(-1) has the potential to increase the biogas production approximately four times. The daily biogas production increased from 1.0 +/- 0.1 to 3.8 +/- 0.3 1 biogas l(-1) day(-1), corresponding to a specific methane production of 420 +/- 30 Nml methane gVS(-1) during the laboratory experiment. Co-digestion of OFMSW with PWASS showed a 50:50 distribution of hydrogenotrophic and aceticlastic methanogens in the digester and enhanced the turnover kinetics of intermediate products (acetate, propionate, and oleate). Practical limitations potentially include the need for sludge dewatering to maintain a sufficient hydraulic retention time (17 days in this study), as well as additional energy consumption for mixing due to an increased sludge apparent viscosity (from 1.8 +/- 0.1 to 45 +/- 4.8 mPa*s in this study) at elevated OFMSW-loading rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available