Anaerobic Digestion

Taricska, Jerry R.; Long, David A.; Chen, J. Paul; Hung, Yung‐Tse; Zou, Shuai-Wen

doi:10.1007/978-1-60327-156-1_14

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anaerobic Digestion is the biological degradation of organic material under anaerobic conditions, generating biogas, which mainly consists of methane (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), as well as a residual organic fraction (i.e. digestate) [21,22]. Biogas can be upgraded to achieve a higher methane content of 50-70% which then makes it suitable for direct combustion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, digestate from AD systems can be utilised as bio-fertiliser, cultivation media, or soil conditioner [3,23]. According to Taricska [22], generally, AD systems incorporate one or two stages depending on their application. A single-stage AD system has only one digester, also known as a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A single-stage AD system has only one digester, also known as a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). These are considered more effective for waste fractions with a high moisture content (such as manure, food waste (FW), waste activated sludge (WAS), and silage) [22]. A twostage AD system typically involves two digesters which separate the two phases of the digestion process (acidification and methanogenesis) and is the preferred configuration for feedstocks with higher ligno-cellulosic content such as those described herein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two-stage AD system, however, requires more advanced control and operation, as well as higher capital costs. Furthermore, many other factors affect the performance of AD including temperature, pH, feedstock composition and concentration, nutrients, hydraulic retention time, organic loading rate, mixing, and toxicity [21,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Estimation of Biogas Production and the Emission Savings from Anaerobic Digestion of Fruit-based Agro-industrial Waste and Agricultural crops residues

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the biomethane potential of five agricultural crop residues (ACR's) (rice straw, vegetable waste, maize straw, coffee husk and oil palm empty fruit bunches (OPEFB)) and five Fruit-Based Agro-Industrial Wastes (FBAIW's) (jackfruit straw, banana, orange, apple and pineapple peel waste) were evaluated. The carbon and energy balance for each waste was also theoretically modelled for two biogas conversion scenarios (AD with CHP or biogas upgrading). A standard biomethane potential test (BMP) was operated over 30 days at 37 o C. Specific methane potential (SMP) of FBAIW's was generally higher than that of the ACR's, except for vegetable waste. Vegetable waste was identified as having the highest SMP (0.420 m 3 /kgVS added ). With respect to ACRs, OPEFB and coffee husk had the lowest SMP values of 0.185 and 0.181 m 3 /kgVS added , respectively. This was attributed to the higher lignin content of these wastes which can impact on biodegradation and subsequent biogas production. Theoretical estimations showed a positive energy balance for all wastes tested. In terms of exportable energy, apple peel waste was shown to have the highest exportable energy potential. The FBAIW's also exhibited greater emissions savings than ACR's (with the exception of vegetable waste). This study concluded that there is good potential to valorise these wastes using AD and that this could address the challenges of waste management and clean energy provision in Indonesia.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimation of Biogas Production and the Emission Savings from Anaerobic Digestion of Fruit-based Agro-industrial Waste and Agricultural crops residues

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the energy model, methane gas generates electricity 15.1 kWh/ kgCH 4 and a thermal efficiency of 45% estimated for steam turbine heat exchangers (Chang et al, 2014). The energy consumed by the AD itself was estimated from (i) 30 W/m 3 AD volume to maintain 37°C (Taricska et al, 2009;Liu and Liptak, 1997) and (ii) heating the AD influent to 37°C. From these considerations and the Monod hydrolysis rate of PS or WAS BPO (Ikumi et al, 2014), the AD needs to operate at the shortest possible SRT for maximum surplus energy and 10 d was selected for PS and 15 d for WAS.…”

Section: Description Of the Plant-wide Steady-state Model (Pwssm)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing water and resource recovery facilities (WRRF) for energy generation without compromising effluent quality

Ekama

2021

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary separation unit (PSU) splits the organic load on the water and resource recovery facility (WRRF) between the primary sludge (PS) anaerobic digester (AD), where energy can be generated, and the biological nutrient removal (BNR) activated sludge (AS) reactor, where energy is consumed. With a CHONP element mass-balanced plant-wide stoichiometric and kinetic steady-state model, this paper explores quantitatively the impact of four cases of increasing organics removal efficiencies in the PSU on (i) settled wastewater characteristics, (ii) balanced solids retention time (SRT) of the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) and University of Cape Town/Johannesburg (UCT/JHB) systems for lowest economical effluent N and P concentrations, (iii) reactor volume, (iv) energy consumption for aeration, pumping and mixing, (v) energy generation by AD of PS and waste activated sludge (WAS), (vi) N&P content of the PS and WAS AD dewatering liquor (DWL) and (vii) final effluent N and P concentrations with and without enhanced biological P removal (EBPR), and looks for an optimum WRRF layout for maximum energy recovery without compromising effluent quality. For the low biogas yield from the WAS AD, decreasing as the SRT of the BNRAS system gets longer and with the added complexity of N&P removal from the digested sludge DWL, makes AD of WAS undesirable unless P recovery is required. Because the wastewater biodegradable particulate organics (BPO) have a low N&P content, it is better to divert more biodegradable particulate organics to the PSAD with enhanced primary separation than digest WAS – the PSAD DWL can be returned to the influent with relatively small impact on final effluent N and P concentration.

show abstract