Lecture No: 18

Urban Waste to Energy from Landfill Biogas Projects and by Pyrolysis Plants
18.1. Introduction
The urban waste is usually dumped in so called municipal landfills or municipal
refuse dumps. These landfills are usually away from the city and occupy substantial land
areas. Urban waste is transported by road trucks and is dumped into the landfills. Landfill
waste gets fermented by natural bacterial decay (by anaerobic fermentation) and releases
methane rich fuel gas. This gas is called landfill gas or refuse-tip-gas. Obtaining the
methane rich fuel gas from landfills is the most economical and environmentally
attractive method of obtaining energy from urban waste. Landfill Gas is being used as a
renewable energy source in several countries in the world (Table 18.1).
Table 18.1 Landfill Gas Project Sites (1998)
Outlet
Country Boilers/ Kilns Electricity Purification Other Total Trials/
heating furnaces generation/ (pipeline) known schemes scheme
chp * vehicle fuel application planned
United states 7 1 22* 10 14 54 13
West Germany
UK 14+ 5 17 --- 7 43+ 1
Sweden
5 7 7** --- 2 19 6
Italy
Holland 2 --- 4++ --- 1 7 ---
Denmark
Canada --- --- 2 1 3 6 ---
France
Norway 1 --- --- --- 3 4 8
Switzerland
--- --- 3 --- --- 3 ---
Australia
Brazil 1 2 --- --- --- 3 ---
India
Chile 1 --- --- --- --- 1 ---
--- --- ---- ---- 1 1 1
1 --- ---- ---- --- 1 ---
--- --- 1 --- --- 1 1
--- --- --- 1 --- 1 ---
--- --- 1 --- --- 1 1
 --- --- --- 1 --- 1 1

Total 33 15 57 13 31 146 32
* one scheme generates electricity and sells gas.
+ includes one research project.
** two schemes generates electricity and also gas for heating.
++ Four schemes are recorded as “ Boiler, CHP”.

• CHP = combined heat and power.

Pyrolysis was tried for converting biomass from urban waste to energy. However,
the pyrolysis is used mainly for making wood-charcoal.
18.2. Applications of Landfill Gas
Landfill gas contains predominantly methane (54% by volume). The landfill gas
is used in following applications directly:
--- As a fuel for burning in boilers (without purification)
--- As a fuel for Kilns, Furnaces.
The purified methane obtained from landfill gas is used in following applications
---- As a vehicle fuel.
---As a fuel for diesel engines.
--- As a fuel for Diesel Engine, to produce electrical energy
---After upgrading, supplied as fuel gas to domestic consumers.
 URBAN WASTE RAW
FURNACES
LANDFILL
KILNS
GAS FOR
LANDFILL FILTERS & DOMESTI
GAS PURIFIERS
C FUEL
COLLECTIO

FUEL FOR IC
ENGINE
ENERGY FOR
ELECTRIC URBAN
POWER CONSUMERS

FROM

Fig 18.1 Application of Landfill gas (LFG).

12.3. Composition of Landfill Gas
The land-fill gas is generated by the fermentation of organic matter dumped in the
landfill. The process sis called anaerobic fermentation i.e. decomposition caused by
(anaerobe, the microorganisms) without need of oxygen. This process is suitable for
municipal manure. The process takes place at low temperatures up to 60°C and requires
moisture. The gases produced vary in composition with time taken by the process
(Fig.18.2). After a period of 2 months from starting, the landfill gas has mainly methane
(52%) and carbon dioxide (46%). During initial periods other gases like oxygen,
hydrogen, nitrogen etc. are released in different proportions.
 Fig.18.2 Composition of the landfill gas changing with time
During the decomposition, the temperature of the upper portion of the land-fill
rises to about 60°C. Landfill gas is not a pure methane carbon dioxide mix. It has several
other gases including some corrosive gases. For simple burning applications such as
furnaces and kilns, the landfill gas is used without separation of methane and other
constituents.
For domestic cooking gas, the landfill gas is converted to compressed Natural GAS
(CNG) or Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) by intermediate process. For use in vehicles as a
fuel, the methane gas is separated form the total landfill gas and is purified to pure
methane.
 Lecture No: 19
Gas production- factors- Composition of landfill gas

19.1. Gas production

If landfill gas is to be collected and managed either for energy production, flaring
or for other reasons it is important to know the quantities and composition of the gas. In
many cases predictions of future gas production and composition is desired. Of course the
large variations in process conditions between landfills means that there is a great deal of
uncertainty involved with estimating gas production, however, some general tendencies
and tools will be presented in the following sections.
19.1.1 Gas quantities
The total gas production from a typical enhanced bioreactor landfill will vary between
60-400 m3 per ton of waste with an average of 230 m 3 per ton (Gendebien, 1992). The
annual gas production from a landfill is also very variable both as a function of time and
between landfills. Gas production is in general controlled by:

• Landfill temperature

• Waste water content

• Waste composition

• Waste age

• Landfill top cover ( entrance of atmospheric air )

Different materials have different biogas potentials and waste composition

therefore has a very marked effect on gas production. It is possible to use Eq.5.2 to
estimate the theoretical biogas potential, however, it is in general not a very good
estimate of landfill gas production due to the mixed nature of the wastes and the
variability in landfill process conditions. Gas potentials may be estimated if the waste
composition is known using the data in Table 19.1. Gas potentials are typically lower in
landfills than what would be expected if the materials were processed in a biogas reactor
due to the intrusion of atmospheric oxygen into parts of the landfill.
Table 19.1. Gas production in Nm3 per ton dry matter for different biodegradable
wastes. Data from Ehring (1984)
Waste fraction Gas potential (55%
methane)
Food waste 191 – 344
Food waste with high bread content 135
Grass clippings 176
Leaves 60
Food and yard waste with high wood content 45 – 60
Newspapers 120
Magazines 100 – 225
Cardboard 317
Mixed paper 65 – 242
Sawdust 30
MSW 160

Waste age has influence on gas production because it takes some time before
newly deposited waste enters the methane phases. The gas production rate therefore will
vary through time depending on the succession of the phases. If the gas production as a
function of waste age is known for a particular landfill it is possible to estimate the
landfill gas production from the landfill as a function of time. Here the data in Fig 19.1
will be used as an example, however it is noted that it is best to use data from landfills
located in the same geographical area and are receiving wastes similar to the landfill in
question. Also the fitted function in Fig. 19.1 may not fully represent gas production rate
as a function waste age as data are only available for waste ages between 5 and 21 years.
But for the sake of illustration the data is adequate. The total annual gas production rate at
a given time T for a landfill receiving a waste quantity M each year can be estimated as:
T T

B(T) = ∫Mt . rT-t dt = ∑ Mi . r T-i

1 i=0
Where T is the landfill age (years) at the time of estimation, t is time (years), Mt
is waste mass received at the landfill in year t and rT-t is the annual gas production rate
per ton of waste with waste age T –t, i.e.., waste that was deposited in year t. considering
a landfill that receives 50,000 tons of wastes each year and assuming that the annual gas
production follows that in Fig. 7.8 ( with production rate equal to zero for waste ages
above 30 years) the total gas production will follow the curves shown in Fig 19.2 each
curve represents different time spans for deposition of waste at the landfill. It is seen that
the maximum gas production rate increases with the duration of the deposition period
until about 30 years. If wastes are deposited at the landfill for more than 30 consecutive
years the gas production will reach a maximum rate that will remain constant for some
time depending on the length of the deposition period. The shapes of the curves depend
upon the relation between the waste age and gas production rate (Fig.19.1). As discussed
earlier the shape of the curves in Fig. 19.2 is a function of the shape of the gas production
curve fitted in Fig. 19.1 and the results should therefore not be regarded as generally
applicable to landfills.

Fig 19.1. Annual methane production in m3 per ton waste for 86 landfills. Bars
indicate one standard deviation and the curve is fitted polynomial. In the cases of no
standard deviation only one measurement was available
Fig 19.2. Calculated landfill gas production rate at a landfill receiving 50,000 tons of
waste per year for different time periods

19.1.2. Gas composition

Landfill gas is mainly composed of methane and carbon dioxide. The gas may
also contain smaller amounts of other gases. When the gas is extracted from the landfill
atmospheric air can be sucked into the waste and may be mixed with the gas. The gas can
therefore contain smaller amounts of nitrogen and oxygen. Table 19.2 lists average
values for typical landfill gas component concentrations. Landfill gas can also contain
several other organic and inorganic trace components. Some of these compounds can be
toxic or are carcinogens.
Table 19.2. Typical landfill gas component concentrations
Gas Range Average
CH4 30 – 65 48
CO2 25 – 30 38
N2 5 – 30 12
H2 1–3 1
O2 0-5 1
The concentrations of these trace gases depends upon the composition of the
waste deposited at the landfill. The most important trace gases are vinyl chloride,
benzene, toluene, chloroform, and dichloromethane. These and other trace compounds
have been detected at European landfills. Typical concentration ranges of several trace
gases found in landfill gases are shown in Table 19.3. Not all trace compounds found in
landfill gas have been deposited at the landfill with the wastes. Several compounds are
formed as a result of the microbial degradation of other compounds in the landfill.
Table 19.3. Concentrations of common trace components found in landfill gas
(Willumsen 1988).
Compound Concentration range (ppm)
Vinyl chloride (VC) 0.03 – 44
Benzene 0.6 - 32
Chloroform 0.2 – 2
Dichloromethane 0.9 – 490
Toluene 4 – 197
Xylene 2.3 – 139
Ethylbenzene 3.6 – 49
Chlorodifluoromethane 6 – 602
Dichlorodifluoromethane 10 – 486
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.2 – 116
Perchloroethylene (PCE) 0.3 – 110
Ethanol 16 – 1450
Propane 4.1 – 630
Butane 20. – 626
Carbondisulfide 0.5 – 22
Methanediol 0.1 – 430
Hydrogensulfide 2.8 – 27.5
Chlorine 1 – 10

Many chlorinated compounds such as solvents are degraded under anaerobic

conditions by sequential dechlorination resulting in the formation of less chlorinated
compounds. An example is perchloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene (PCE) that has been
used widely as a degreasing agent in the metal industry. This compound is transformed
under anaerobic conditions to trichloroethylene (TCE) by microbial removal of one
chlorine atom as illustrated in Fig. 19.3. TCE can under anaerobic conditions be
transformed by further dechlorination into dichloroethylene (DCE), which can be
degraded both anaerobically or aerobically. Under anaerobic conditions DCE is
dechlorinated into vinyl chloride VC whereas it under aerobic conditions will be
mineralized all the way to CO2, H2O and HCl. Vinyl chloride is not very degradable
under anaerobic conditions and it will therefore disappear slower than parent compounds
PCE, TCE and DCE, PCE and TCE have no proven toxic or carcinogenic effects in
humans but VC has been shown to have both types of effects for humans and animals.
Under anaerobic conditions VC can be transformed into ethane, however, it is degraded
faster aerobically into CO2 and H2O. The products of anaerobic dehalogenation of PCE
are all on gas form at normal temperature and pressure. They will therefore appear
sequentially in both the landfill gas and the percolate if dehalogenation takes place in the
landfill. Figure 19.4shows measurements of PCE and it dehalogenation products in
landfill. It is evident in case (a) that no transformation takes place, as no intermediate
products appear. This is likely because no PCE degrading microorganisms are present in
the percolate. The slow decrease in PCE concentrations may be caused by evaporation of
PCE from the percolate. In case (b) degradation starts some lag period whereas in cases
(c) and (d) degradation proceeds rapidly. In case (b) Microorganisms capable of
degrading PCE are likely present in the percolate, however, they have not been exposed
to PCE prior to the experiment and therefore require some time to adapt to the new
substrate. In cases (c) and (d) microorganisms seem to be well adapted to PCE and
degradation of PCE and its intermediates is complete within 2 months. Most of the trace
compounds listed in Table 19.3 will be present both in percolate, in the gas phase and
adsorbed to the solids in the landfill. Some compounds adsorb very strongly and this will
slow the degradation and transport of these compounds within the landfill. Strongly
adsorbing compounds will therefore be more persistent in the landfill than non-sorbing
compounds. Volatile compounds will be present in the landfill gas in high concentrations
in the initial phases of the landfill life and concentrations will decrease as the compounds
are removed with the gas or percolate.
Fig 19.3. Sequential dechlorination and transformation of PCE to ethane under
anaerobic conditions

Fig 19.4. Sequential dehalogenation of PCE in four different landfill percolates

19.1.3. Gas utilization
If the landfill gas is collected it can be used as a source of energy by conversion to
electricity and heat. The most widespread method of energy production is to use the gas
to drive a gas engine that is coupled to a generator that in turn produces electricity. Some
plants also use part of the waste heat in the engine cooling water for heating nearby
homes and business. This is mostly used in Europe where as it is not seen very much in
USA. The waste heat normally amounts for at least 50% of the total energy contained in
the input gas. Normal plants based on gas engines are from 350 to 1200 kW in size. At
larger plants the energy conversion is based on gas or steam turbines. The gas is
sometimes also used in boilers for heating water only. This can be used for heating. One
reason that this approach is not widespread is that the price of electricity usually is higher
than that of heat. Also electricity is normally easy to sell via the power grid. Landfill gas
can also be used directly for instance in place of natural gas. The gas may be used in
brick or cement production or in local water heaters. The gas can also be cleaned to
match the quality of natural gas (mostly methane) by removal of primarily CO2. The gas
can then be distributed via existing natural gas network. This means that new energy
conversion plants are not needed. On the other-hand gas-cleaning plants are required. The
technology is not widespread mostly due to economic reasons. At certain locations the
gas is used in compactors, garbage trucks, buses or even cars. The economy in this type
of gas utilization depends upon costs and taxes on other fuels in the region as well as the
cost of constructing the gas collection and purification plant. The gas can also be used in
fuel cells where it is converted to electricity. This technology is still in the development
phase but it is expected that it will be used in the transport sector in the future.
In 1997 there were 550 landfill gas collection plants with energy production
worldwide (Willumsen, 1997). In Denmark there was 18 plants (1998) with a total
production of 110.000 Nm3 landfill gas per day, equivalent to 5.1 MW energy (heat and
power). This amounts to 0.1% of the total energy consumption in Denmark.

19.2. Percolate cleaning

Percolate contains many different organic and inorganic compounds. The
concentrations of these compounds often require treatment of the percolate before
discharge. Percolate from enhanced bioreactor landfills has typically much higher
concentrations of organic materials and salts than regular wastewater. Concentrations
may change rapidly following variations in precipitation and waste deposition patterns.
The percolate flow will typically follow the precipitation pattern with a smoother
variation. Old percolate is normally difficult to treat biologically as most of the
degradable material has disappeared. Below is listed different methods for cleaning
percolate. Cleaning in existing wastewater treatment plants can be done provided the
percolate is diluted well with wastewater. There should not be more than 5% percolate in
the mixture as there is a risk for overload with respect to organic matter, nitrogen or salts.
Physical chemical cleaning can be used for instance for pretreatment prior to biological
treatment or after biological treatment has been completed. Addition of precipitating
agents can be used for removing inorganic compounds (salts, heavy metals, turbidity and
color). pH adjustment and aeration can remove dissolved ammonia and aeration can also
remove methane that can be an explosion hazard if the percolate is discharged into the
sewer. Chemical oxidation with hydrogen peroxide has also been used for removal of iron
and it has also been used to oxidize sulfide to remove odor and reduce corrosion
problems in treatment facilities. Biological treatment of percolate is equivalent to
wastewater treatment where organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorous can be removed.
In old percolate a large fraction of the organic matter is difficult to degrade biologically
and more advanced methods are necessary. Methods such as activated carbon filters,
reverse osmosis and treatment with UV light can be used. Terrestrial methods such as
irrigation,. Root-zone filters and infiltration plants have proven effective as final
treatment methods (Christensen 1998) and are in some cases also useful as pretreatment
methods. The advantage of terrestrial methods is their low installation and maintenance
costs. There are however, problems with their efficiency in periods with low temperatures
or high flow rates.
 Lecture No: 20
Landfill Gas Collection System
Landfill sit is usually a void, valley or a former quarry in which the urban waste is
dumped. For example, a landfill site near Bedford, UK is a former brick quarry having
original void volume of 10 million m3 and covering 100 km2 land area. The site receives
about 1000 t of urban waste per day by rail, road from London.
The gas collection system consist of Wells comprising vertical pipes of 80 to 120
mm diameter with holes in the cylindrical body. The wells are driven in the landfill. The
well-pipes and collection pipes are of polythetene. Knockout drums are installed in the
pipelines for removal of water.
A typical landfill site has 20 to 40 wells and the collection pipe system. The wells
are connected to manifolds and the gas is collected from the manifolds and piping
system.
1. Gas Compression Equipment.
The gas if filtered before and after compressor. The compressor increases the
pressure required by the consumer device (e.g. diesel engine or a furnace). A single vane
type gas compressor may be provided. A typical rating is 690m3/h of gas at discharge
pressure of 1.3 bar. After compression the gas is passed through after cooler, baffle water
separator, fine filter etc, before feeding to the gas consumer device.
2. Gas Purification.
The landfill gas contains methane, carbon dioxide and many other impurities.
Purification of this gas is complex and expensive. The cheaper and effective methods of
purification have been developed recently (1990). These methods employ semi-
permeable membrane and molecular sieves. The purified methane can be used as a fuel
for transport vehicles.
3. Energy Conversion Equipment.
The landfill gas can be purified to pure methane and then used as a fuel for
internal combustion engine. The Internal Combustion Engine can drive pumping sets.
Alternatively, the Internal Combustion Engine can drive generator to produce electrical
energy. For examples, a typical land-fill gas site may have one to four spark ignition type
four stroke internal combustion engines. The engine drives a 350 kVA, 415 V generator.
The generator electric power is supplied to the distribution system at 6.6 kV via a step-up
transformer in the substation.
Technically, producing electricity from landfill gas project is more complex and
demanding than use of gas directly as a fuel. Before admitting into the IC Engine, the gas
should be cleaned, filtered and purified.
The plant demands
 More operational controls.
 Greater security at outlet of Landfill Gas System.
 Better operation and management of the total plant.
For producing electricity sufficient gas should be available continuously to operate
the plant throughout the year with a good plant load factor.
 Lecture No: 21

Anaerobic Digestion
The purpose of sludge digestion is to convert bulky, odorous sludges to a
relatively inert material that can be rapidly dewatered without obnoxious odors. The
bacterial process as summarized in Eq. 21.1,consist of two successive processes that
occur simultaneously in digesting sludge. The first stage consists of breaking down large
organic compounds and converting them to organic acids along with gaseous by-products
of carbon dioxide, methane, and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide. This step is
performed by a variety of facultative bacteria operating in an environment devoid of
oxygen, if the process were to stop there, the accumulated acids would lower the pH and
would inhibit further decomposition by “pickling” the remaining raw sludge. For
digestion to occur, second-stage gasification is needed to convert the organic acids to
methane and carbon dioxide.
Acid-splitting methane-forming bacteria are strict anaerobes and are very
sensitive to environmental conditions of temperature, pH, and anaerobiosis. In addition,
methane bacteria have a slower growth rate than the acid formers, and are very specific in
food supply requirements. For example, each species is restricted to the metabolism of
only a few compounds, mainly alcohols and organic acids, while carbohydrates, fats and
proteins are not available as energy sources.

CO2, CH4
H2S CH4
Organic matter Organic acids and ----- (21.1)
Acid-forming Acid-splitting CO2
bacteria methane-forming
bacteria

Stability of the digestion process relies on proper balance of the two biological
stages. Buildup of organic loading or a sharp rise in operating temperature. In either case,
the supply of organic acids exceeds the assimilative capacity of the methane-forming
bacteria. This imbalance results in decreased gas production and eventual drop of pH,
unless the organic loading is reduced to allow recovery of the second-stage reaction.
Digesters may generate foam as a result of over-feeding. Accumulation of toxic
substances from industrial wastes, such as heavy metals, may also inhibit the digestion
problems is often difficult to determine. Monitoring volatile solids loading, total gas
production, volatile acids concentration in the digesting sludge, and percentage of carbon
dioxide in the head gases are the methods most frequently employed to give advance
warning of pending failure. These measurements can also indicate the most probable
cause of difficulties. Gas production should vary in proportion to organic loading.
Volatile acids content is normally stable at a given loading rate and operating
temperature. The percentage of carbon dioxide should also remain relatively constant.
Monitoring digestion by pH, measurements is not recommended, since a drop in pH does
not precede failure but announces that it has occurred.
Table 21.1 lists the general operating and loading conditions for anaerobic
digestion.
Single-Stage Digestion
A photo of a single-stage fixed-cover anaerobic digester is shown in Figure 21.1.
the photo also shows ancillary equipment associated with digester heating: boiler, heat
exchanger, and sludge recirculation piping. Raw sludge is pumped into the tank through
feed pipes. Mixing pumps discharge at nozzles within the digester to keep the contents
from stratifying. Without mixing, sludge separates, with a scum layer on top, a middle
zone of supernatant water of separation underlain by actively digesting sludge, and a
bottom layer of digested concentrate. A limited amount of mixing is also provided by
withdrawing digesting sludge, passing it through a sludge heater, and returning it through
the inlet piping. Supernatant is withdrawn from anyone of a series of pipes extended from
the supernatant box. Digested sludge is taken from the tank bottom for dewatering. High-
rate digesters are completely mixed the contents do not tend to separate or develop a clear
supernatant, and the entire contents of the digester must be dewatered.
For digesters designed with floating covers, the cover floats on the sludge surface,
and liquid extending up the sides provides a seal between the tank wall and the side of the
cover.
Table 21.1.General Operating and Loading Conditions for Anaerobic Sludge Digestion
Temperature: Optimum 98oF (36.7oC)
General operating range 85o-99oF (29o – 37oC)
PH: Optimum 7.0 to 7.1
General limits 6.7 to 7.4
Gas production
Per pound of volatile solids added 8-12 cu ft (230- 340 litres)
Per pound of volatile solids destroyed 16-18 cu ft (450-510 litres)
Gas composition: Methane 65 to 69 percent
Carbon dioxide 31 to 35 percent
Hydrogen sulfide trace to 80 mg/l
Volatile acids concentration
General operating range 200 to 800 mg/l
Alkalinity concentration
Normal operation 2000 to 3500 mg/l
Volatile solids loading
Conventional single stage 0.02-0.05 lb VS/cu ft/daya
First-stage high rate 0.05-0.15 lb VS/cu ft/day
Volatile solids reduction
Conventional single stage 50 to 70 percent
First-stage high rate 50 percent
Solids retention time
Conventional single stage 30 to 90 days
First-stage high rate 15 to 20 days
Digester capacity based on design
equivalent population
Conventional single stage 4 to 6 cu ft/PEb
First-stage high rate 0.7 to 1.5 cu ft/PE

a
1.01b/cu ft/day = 16,000 g/m3 .d
b
1.0 cu ft = 0.0283m3
 Fig 21.1. Photo of a single-stage fixed-cover anaerobic digester

Gas rising out of the digesting sludge is collected in the gas dome and is burned as
a fuel in the sludge heater; often the excess is wasted to gas burner. The cover can rise
vertically from the landing brackets to near the top of the tank wall guided by rollers
around the circumference of keep it from binding. The volume between the landing
brackets and the fully raised cover position is the amount of storage available for digested
sludge; this is approximately one-third of the total volume.
Digestion in a single-stage floating-cover tank performs the functions of volatile
solids digestion, gravity thickening, and storage of digested sludge. When sludge is
pumped into the digester from the primary settling tanks, the floating cover rises, making
room for the sludge. Unmixed operation permits daily drainage of supernatant equal to
approximately two-thirds of the raw sludge feed. Being high in both BOD and suspended
solids, the withdrawn water is returned to the inlet of the treatment plant. Periodically,
digested sludge is removed for dewatering and disposal. In large plants, digested sludge
may be dewatered mechanically, however, in small installations it is frequently spread in
liquid form on farmland or is dried on sand beds and hauled to land burial. Weather often
dictates the schedule for land disposal, and, consequently, substantial digester storage
volume is required in northern climates.
 Typical operation lowers the cover to the landing brackets in the fall of the year to
provide maximum storage volume for the winter. Fixed-cover digesters, where sludge is
withdrawn as the digested sludge is displaced by the raw feed sludge, maintain a constant
volume. Fixed-cover digesters require holding tanks, sludge lagoons, or other locations
where displaced digested sludge can drain. Because the volume is constant and the cover
is fixed, these digesters can be mixed by roof-mounted turbine mixers.
The digester contents can be mixed using turbine mixers, externally mounted
pumps, and gas mixing in draft tubes. Turbine, roof-mounted mixers are very efficient at
mixing the entire tank contents. Rags can be removed by reversing the mixing direction.
External mixing pumps can be mounted in draft tubes inside or outside of the digester, or
in a pump piped to the digester. Figure 21.1 shows mixing pumps mounted outside of the
digester tank. Pump mixing is also very effective, but may require multiple discharge
points for large digesters. Gas mixing induces a flow within the draft tube to provide
mixing. Mixing requirements may be expressed in terms to power input or turnover time.
Typical values for power are 0.2 to 0.3-hp/1000 cu ft (0.005 to 0.008 kW/m 3). No
allowance is made for the efficiency of converting power into mixing. Turnover time is
calculated by taking the volume of the digester divided by the mixing flow rate. Typical
designs are based on turnover rates of 30 to 60 min.
Two-Stage Digestion
In this process, two digesters in series separate the functions of biological
stabilization from gravity thickening and storage shown in Figure 21.2. The first-stage
high-rate unit is completely mixed and heated for optimum bacterial decomposition.
These systems are available for installation in either fixed or floating-cover tanks. By
using a floating cover digested sludge does not have to be displaced simultaneously with
raw sludge feed as is required with a fixed-cover tank. In either case, however, the sludge
cannot be thickened in a high-rate process because continuous mixing does not permit
formation of supernatant.
Actually, the discharged sludge has a lower solids concentration than the raw feed
because of the conversion of volatile solids to gaseous end products. The second-stage
digester must be provided with either a floating cover or gas dome and have provisions
for withdrawing supernatant. The unit is often unheated, depending on the local climate
and degree of stabilization accomplished in the first stage. By minimizing hydraulic
disturbances in the tank, the density of the digested sludge and clarity of the supernatant
are both increased. Two-stage digestion may be advantageous in some plants, while
conventional operation may be better in others. The determining factors include the size
of the treatment plant, flexibility of sludge handling processes, method of ultimate solids
disposal, storage capacity needed, and interrelated element of climatic conditions. For
large plants with a number of digesters, series operation provides better utilization of
digester capacity, but for small plants with limited supervision the conventional operation
is frequently more feasible.

Fig 21.2. Two-stage anaerobic digestion is performed by two tanks in series.

(a) The first stage tank on the left is completely mixed for optimum digestion.
The second stage with a gas dome cover is for gravity thickening and storage
of digested sludge
(b) Photo of two-stage digesters at the Northeast wastewater treatment facility in
Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sizing of Digesters
Historically, conventional single-stage tanks have been sized on the basis of
population equivalent load on the treatment plant. Heated digester capacity for a trickling
filter plant processing domestic wastewater was established at 4 cu ft (0.11 m3) per capita
of design load. For primary plus secondary activated sludge, the total tank volume
requirement was increased to 6 cu ft (0.17 m3) per capita. These values are still used as
guidelines of sizing conventional digesters for small treatment works.
Total digestion capacity can be calculated for conventional single-stage operation
using Eq. 11-42. Application of this formula requires knowing the characteristics of both
the raw and digested sludges.
V1 + V2
V= T1 + V2 x T2 --------- (21.2)
2
where V = total digester capacity, gallons (cubic meters)
V1 = volume of daily raw sludge applied, gallons per day (cubic meters per day)
T1 = period required for digestion, days (approximately 30 days at a temperature
of 85 to 90o F or 30 to 35oC)
T2 = period of digested sludge storage, days
The volume needed for the high-rate unit in a two-stage digestion system is based
on a maximum volatile solids loading and minimum detention time. For new designs the
generally adopted maximum allowable loading is 0.08 1b VS/cu ft/ day (1300 g/m3 .d)
and the minimum liquid detention time is ten days. At these loadings and a temperature of
95oF, volatile solids reduction should be 50 percent or greater. No specific design criteria
are established for second-stage tanks in high-rate systems, since thickening and digested
sludge requirements depend on local sludge disposal procedures.
Start-up of Digesters
Anaerobic digestion is a difficult process to start because of the slow growth rate
and sensitivity of acid-splitting methane-forming bacteria. Furthermore, the number of
these microorganisms is very low in raw sludge compared with acid-forming bacteria.
The normal procedure for start-up is to fill the tank with wastewater and to apply raw
sludge feed at about one-tenth of the design rate. If several thousand gallons of digesting
sludge from an operating digester are used as seed, the new process cab be operational in
a few weeks. However, if only raw sludge is available, developing the biological process
may take months. Careful additions of lime added with raw sludge are helpful in
maintaining the pH near 7.0, but erratic dosage can result in sharp pH changes
detrimental to the bacteria. After gas production and volatile acids concentration have
stabilized, the feed rate is gradually increased by small increments to full loading. Daily
monitoring of this process involves plotting the daily gas production per unit of raw
sludge fed, percentage of carbon dioxide in the head gases, and concentration of volatile
acids in the digesting sludge.
 Lecture No:22

Energy Recovery from sago effluent – design and application

Physico-chemical characteristics of CSFE :

The CSFE characteristics ere analysed throughout the period of study for different
parameters and are shown in Table 22.1. Since the period of investigation extended from
off season to peak season, a wide variation was observed in all the parameters.

Table 22.1. Characteristics of CSFE

SI.No. Parameters Off-season Season
1. Total solids (TS), 2100– 3620 3900 – 4650
mg/I
2. Volatile solids (VS), 1700 – 2880 3320 – 3740
mg/I
3. Biochemical 556 – 2510 2650 – 4025
Oxygen Deman
(BOD), mg/I
4. Chemical Oxygen 1110 – 4880 5515 – 7060
Deman (COD) mg/I
5. Total Kjeldahi 58 – 75 80 – 94
Nitrogen, mg/I
6. Total organic 2550 – 2890 2900 – 3560
carbon, mg/I
7. Cyanide content, 0.3 – 0.55 0.65 – 0.9
mg/I
8. Threshold Odour 65 – 95 110 – 140
Number (TON)
9. PH 4.5 – 4.9 4.9 – 5.3
10. BOD : COD ratio 0.5 – 0.51 0.48 – 0.57
11. C : N ratio 44 – 38.5 36.3 – 37.9

Design and fabrication of anaerobic high rate reactors

The methodology adopted for the design and fabrication of the anaerobic high rate
reactors are outlined in the following section.
Selection of reactor configuration
In consideration of the recommendations of Guiot and Vander Berg (1984) and
Kennedy and Guiot (1986) that, a hybrid reactor can combine the advantages of upflow
anaerobic filter and UASB, it was decided to design and fabricate an Upflow Anaerobic
Hybrid reactor (UAHR). The expected advantages were an easy start-up and avoidance of
possible complications with sludge granulation. Single phase operation was selected
considering the recommendations of Lettinga and Hulshoff Pol (1980) that there is no
reason to go for a two phase system in the case of soluble wastes.

Media placement and selection:

It was decided to place the media on the upper 55 per cent of the reactor, height,
leaving 10 cm at the top from the liquid surface (Young, 1991).
Coconut shell was selected as the media to be compared with conventional PVC
pall rings in the UAHR. The media size was selected considering the recommendations of
Young (1991). The specific surface area around 100 m2 / m3 with a porosity over 85 per
cent was the consideration for selection. The PVC pall rings selected had dimensions of
25 mm (diameter) x 22 mm (length). Coconut shells were broken into pieces such that it
has an approximate specific surface area near to the recommendation. Coconut shells
were available as half pieces and each half piece was broken into 2 to 3 pieces and
screened to get a size 5 cm – 10 cm.

Estimation of media characteristics

The procedures adopted for the estimation of specific surface area, porosity and
bulk density for both media were as follows:
The PVC pall rings were filled in a cylindrical vessel of 30 cm diameter and the
bulk volume was measured for a known number of pall rings. The surface area of one pall
ring was physically determined by linear measurements.
Surface area of one pall ring(s), m2 x No. of pall rings (N)
Specific surface area (Ss), = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
m2 / m3 Bulk volume occupied by N number of pall rings, m3
 To determine the specific surface area of coconut shells, 100 numbers of half
shells were selected randomly and the surface area was linearly measured. The mean
surface area of one half shell was then obtained. These shells were then broken into
required size and were randomly filled in a cylindrical vessel of diameter 30 cm and the
bulk volume occupied was found out.

Surface area of one pall ring(s), m2 x No. of pall rings (N)

Specific surface area (Ss), = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
m2 / m3 Bulk volume occupied by N number of pall rings, m3

To determine the porosity (P), the PVC pall rings as well as coconut shell media
were filled in a cylindrical vessel with a predetermined volume of water. The media were
filled in the vessel so that they are submerged and filled up to the water level. The new
volume was noted down.

Initial volume of water

Porosity of media (P) % = --------------------------------------- x 100
Volume after filling with media

The bulk density was estimated by finding the weight of a known volume for both
types of media.

Dimensions of UAHRs
The procedure adopted for arriving at the dimensions of the pilot scale UAHRs
are given below.
Design daily feed = 50 l / day
Design HRT = 4 day
Reactor liquid volume = 50 x 4 = 200
 The reactor height was selected considering the previous studies and ease for
fabrication. Ozturk et al. (1993) used a 140 cm high UAHR with 60 per cent media. A
height of 1.9 m was selected for the pilot scale UAHR. A cylindrical cross section was
adopted since this is the most widely used one due to the enhanced uniformity in mixing
and flow.
Design media height, as percentage
Of reactor height = 55 per cent (Young, 1991)
Clearance between top liquid
Surface and media top level = 10 cm
1.9 x 55
Total height of media section = ----------- = 1.045 m ~ 105 cm
100

The bottom 40 cm height of the reactor was designed in a conical shaped to

enable mixing of feed and also easy sludge withdrawal (if necessary).

Total liquid volume, V = 0.2 m3

= Vol. Of media filled cylindrical portion
+ Vol. of no-media cylindrical portion
+ Vol. of conical portion

π P 1 π

0.2 = ( --- D2x 1.05 x --- ) + (0.4 x --- x --- D2 )

4 100 3 4

+ ( 0.45 x --- D2 )
4
 0.25465

D = √ -------------------------

0.0105 P + 1.5833

Where.
D = Diameter of the reactor, m

P = Porosity of media, per cent

But, a uniform diameter should be selected for both reactors, so as to get uniform
hydraulic parameters. Hence average porosity (P) was taken for the design purpose.

Gas holder

The Volume of gas holder was selected considering a biogas productivity of 3 lll
feed. A gas volume measurement schedule of once daily was assumed at HRTs upto 8 day
and as required thereafter.
200
Daily feed at 8 day HRT = ----- = 251
8

Gas production = 25 x 3 = 751

Hence, a gas holder volume of 80 l was selected. The gas holder was to be
designed in such a way that it provides a water seal like arrangement with provision for
up and down movement. Hence, a clearance of 5 cm was provided in between the outer
water jacket wall and the inner digester wall.

Diameter of gas holder = D + 0.05 m

 Diameter of water jacket = D + 0.05 + 0.05 = D + 0.1 m

Volume of gas hbolder, V (g) = 0.075 = (π (D+0.05)2/4) x H(g)

Where, H (g) is the effective gas holder

Gas production
Gas production rates are the most important indicators of reactor performance for
anaerobic reactors. Table 4.25 shows the gas production data of the UAHRs at PSS
periods of various HRTs. The mean daily gas production of reactor 1 increased from 58.6
l (15 day HRT) to 458.5 l (1 day HRT) showing 7.8 times increase, while reactor 2 had an
increase from 58.1 l to 474 l (8.2 times). At the same time specific gas production (l/kg
TS) decreased from 908.5 l (at 15 day HRT) to 574 l (at 1 day HRT) for reactor 1. For
reactor 2, the corresponding figures were 844.5 and 556 l/kg TS. The per cent decrease
over initial values were 6.8 and 34.1, respectively for reactors 1 and 2. The trend of
variation over different HRTs are illustrated in Fig.4.27. The maximum specific gas
productions obtained in this study were 3.5 and 3.3 fold higher than the highest value of
434.8 l / kg TS reduced obtained in batch digestion experiment for reactors 1 and 2,
respectively.
Specific gas production
A maximum specific gas production of 1108 l/kg VS and 1030 l/kg VS were
obtained for reactors 1 and 2, respectively at the longest HRT of 15 day. The
corresponding minimum values were 725 l/kg VS and 703 l/kg VS at the shortest HRT of
1 day. Chawla (1986) reported that a maximum gas production of 1000 l/kg VS is
achievable, assuming a VS reduction of 50 per cent. In the present study, the VS
reduction corresponding to the maximum specific gas production (reactor 1 at 15 day
HRT) was 76.2 per cent. Hence the maximum value of specific gas production was much
higher than the aove reported value. However, the maximum specific gas production
expressed as l/kg VS destroyed (1454 l) was lower than the maximum value of 2000 l/kg
VSdestroyed reported byChawla (1986). Lo and Liao (1986) also could get a biogas yield of
1048 l/kg VS for a mixture of screened dairy manure and winery waste which is similar
to the results of the present study.
 Specific gas productions in terms of BOD and COD also exhibited similar pattern
of steady decrease wich is depicted in Fig.4.27. The maximum values (at 15 day HRT)
were 1121.4 l/kg BOD and 604 l/kg COD for reactor 1. The corresponding values were,
1125 l/kg BOD and 561.7 l/kg COD for reactor 2. The minimum values obtained at
Table 22.2. Gas production at different HRTs

HRT
Parameters
15 11 8 6 4 2.5 1.67 1
Mean daily gas production, 1 Reactor 1 58.6 80 118.6 153.7 194.3 272.2 354.7 458.5
Reactor 2 58.1 78 125 162 198.3 271.7 356.5 475
Specific gas production, 1/kg TS Reactor 1 908.5 903.4 919.4 881.3 822 775 723 574
Reactor 2 844.5 826.3 901.9 871 787 726 680 556
Specific gas production, 1/kg VS Reactor 1 1108 1123.6 1140.4 1101.8 1028 993 909 725
Reactor 2 1030 1028.2 1113.1 1088.7 981 930 857 703
Specific gas production, 1/kg BOD Reactor 1 1121.4 1197.2 1064.9 1019.6 1053.1 1050.2 1042.6 825.0
Reactor 2 1125.0 1094.3 1052.0 1007.5 1007.6 982.7 982.4 799.6
Specific gas production, 1/kg COD Reactor 1 604.0 599.6 600.4 583.9 583.5 548.4 536.2 449.8
Reactor 2 561.7 548.1 593.2 576.9 558.3 513.2 505.2 436.0
Specific gas production, 1/1 feed Reactor 1 3.9 3.9 4.24 4.1 3.45 3.02 2.62 2.04
Reactor 2 3.63 3.6 4.16 4.05 3.3 2.83 2.47 1.98
Specific gas production, 1/m3 reactor Reactor 1 260.4 356 527 683 863 1210 1576 2038
Reactor 2 242.1 325 520.8 675 826 1132 1485 1975
Volumetric biogas production
The maximum biogas productivity obtained per litre of CSFE was 4.24 l/l and 4.16 l/l
(at 8 day HRT) for reactors 1 and 2, respectively (Table 22.2.). The corresponding minimum
values were 2.04 l/l and 1.98 l/l at 1 day HRT. From 15 to 8 day HRT period, the biogas
productivity increased due to the increased TS content of 4620 mg/l as against 4300 mg/l at
15 day HRT. There after the values showed a decreasing trend as depicted in Fig.4.28. This
could be attributed to the decrease in reactor performance at increased loading rates as well as
the lowering in strength of the feed. Fernandez (1999) could get 6 m 3 CH4/m3 of wastewater
wile treating citric acid factory effluent and this high volumetric productivity compared to the
present study might be due to the high strength of the wastewater.
The volumetric gas production (l / m3 of reactor volume) steadily increased from
260.4 at 15 day HRT to the maximum values of 2038 and 1975 l/m3 (1 day HRT) for reactors
1 and 2, respectively. The increase of volumetric biogas production was gradual upto 4 day
HRT and drastic from 4 day to 1 day HRT due to the sudden increase of HLR and OLR.

TS and VS reductions
The TS and VS reduction as per cent of influent concentration is shown in Table 4.26.
The maximum TS reduction of 60 per cent and 59.3 per cent occurred at 15 day HRT, for
reactors 1 and 2, respectively. The minimum TS reductions were 33.8 per cent and 32.4. The
TS reduction was almost steady upto 8 day HRT and there after it showed a steady decreasing
trend. The VS reduction also showed a similar trend. The maximum VS reductions were 76.2
and 75.9 per cents at 15 day HRT for reactors 1 and 2. The minimum values were 49.5 and 48
per cent at 1 day HRT. 1 day HRT were 825 l/kg BOD and 449.8 l/kg COD for reactor 1 and
799.6 l/kg BOD and 436 l/kg COD for reactor 2. It became evident from these parameters
that reactor 1 was superior to reactor 2 at PSS of all HRTs with respect to specific gas
productions expressed in terms of TS, VS, BOD and COD.
Dararatana (1991) got a very high specific biogas production of 0.98 m3/kg CODremoved
from cassava alcohol slop. The maximum specific biogas production of 0.604 m3 / kg COD
obtained in this study (reactor 1 at 15 day HRT) is equivalent to 0.628 m 3/kg COD removed

which is much lower than the above reported value.

According to the reports of FAO (1983), beef cattle wastes can produce 0.56-0.71m3
CH4/kg VS added. Hashimoto (1983) reported a value of 0.49 m3 CH4/kg VS added for swine
manure. Sarada and Nand (1989) could get 0.60 m 3 CH4/kg VS from tomato processing waste
while Viswanath and Nand (1994) got 0.53 m3 CH4/kg VS from silk industry wastes. In this
study, a methane productivity of 0.78 and 0.74 m3 CH4/kg VS were obtained for reactor 1 and
2, respectively at 15 day HRT. These values decreased to 0.47 and 0.45 m 3 CH4/kg VS for
reactors 1 and 2, respectively at 1 day HRT.
The values of specific gas production obtained at the longest HRT of 15 day were
higher than the values reported by these workers and the values obtained at the shortest HRT
of 1 day were lower or nearer to the ranges reported by other workers. This is due to the
difference in substrate and operating conditions. CSFE was a highly biodegradable material
with readily hydrolysable constituents like starch. The very dilute nature (maximum TS, 4650
mg/l) of the feed stock also helped in the well mixing of substrate solids which favoured easy
digestion. 15 day was a rather long HRT at which very high biodegradation efficiency could
be achieved.
BOD and COD reduction

The BOD and COD reduction of the UAHRs at PSS periods various HRTs are shown
in Table 22.3. A very high BOD reduction of 99 per cent and 98.9 per cent for reactors 1 and
2 were obtained at the longest HRT of 15 days. The maximum COD reduction were 96.2 and
96 per cents for reactor 1 and 2, respectively. Upto 6 day HRT, both the reactors exhibited
steady performance irrespective of the influent concentrations. There after a decreasing trend
was observed due to the increased loading rated. Ths change was sharp between 4 day HRT
and 2.5 day HRT because of the drastic change in HLR (60 per cent increase). The lowest
reduction of 78.9 and 77.4 per cent BOD and 77.4 and 76 per cent COD occurred at 1 day
HRT. Reactor 1 was found superior to reactor 2 in BOD and COD reduction at all HRTs.
Reactor performance at PSS of different HRTs
HRT
Parameters
15 11 8 6 4 2.5 1.67 1
TS Reactor 60 57.2 56.7 55.5 50.5 46.1 40.3 33.8
Reduction, 1
Reactor 59.3 56.8 55.6 55.1 49.5 44.9 38.1 32.4
%
2
VS Reactor 76.2 75.3 75.9 70.6 65.7 59.9 53.8 49.5
Reduction, 1
Reactor 75.9 74.7 75.4 69.9 64.5 58.6 52.4 48
%
2
BOD Reactor 99 98.6 98.8 98.6 95.6 87.5 83 78.9
Reduction, 1
Reactor 98.9 98.3 98.3 98.2 94.4 85.8 82.4 77.4
%
2
COD Reactor 96.2 96.4 96.2 96.1 93.2 86.3 81.8 77.4
Reduction, 1
Reactor 96 96.3 95.8 95.2 92 85 80.5 76
%
2
TVA Reactor 97.5 96.7 96 95.5 94.5 92.5 91.8 90.3
Reduction, 1
Reactor 96.9 96.1 95.6 95.5 93.9 91.9 91.1 89
%
2
TON Reactor 97.1 96.1 95.2 91.7 89.2 80 66.3 50
Reduction, 1
Reactor 96.4 94.8 94.5 93.1 88.5 79.1 63.2 37.8
%
2
CH4 Reactor 70 71 72 72 70.5 68 66 65
content of 1
Reactor 72 73 74 73 71 68.5 65 64
biogas, %
2