Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/304957255
CITATIONS READS
13 446
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Exploitation of the Potential of Municipal Solid Waste in Low Income Economies in Sub-Saharan Africa View project
Effect of Raw Sewage on Surface Water Quality in Opobo Town, Nigeria View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Asinyetogha Hilkiah Igoni on 07 July 2016.
INTRODUCTION
political development, and prosperity for future growth; including the rate of
production, state and level of delivery of social services, etc. Evidently the
energy should be available for use. However, the reverse of this expectation
seems the case in Nigeria, as Ilori (2000) states that “in Nigeria, domestic
a result of poor performance and low output of our refineries and power
high cost of energy in the country, which has recently been exacerbated by
the 2003 progressive deregulation policy and the current petroleum tax of
their petroleum (energy) product at whatever price suits them, with the
concomitant distress on both the country and her people. Whereas this
the trite economic concept of increasing price for a high demand with low
supply.
the use of fossil fuels, particularly petroleum products, which, despite that
the country does not even have the relevant and necessary technology and
non-renewable. FAO (1997) reports the interview with Gustapo Best, its
Senior Energy Coordinator, where he said that fossil fuels would only last
petroleum products has been contentious and confusing, and for its
mean that current production can be sustained for 42 years because all
oilfields decline as their reserves are depleted and that this depletion rate
varies from field to field. Even though the Russian – Ukrainian theory of
deposit, against the background that new and better technologies would
3
clear whether their improved technologies would also create the energy
Mathew Simmons, when he says, “any one who thinks that technology has
won the battle over depletion should review the oilfields in the UK sector of
the North Sea, where every scrap of technology has been used.
takes a considerable period (in the region of thousands of years) for their
thirsty people. This is why there is a shift in focus from the present use of
considerations.
Organic
Wastes
based on this mode of production that biogas has been severally defined.
5
that biogas is only produced artificially; but from what we now know, this is
not the case. It is not clear what would have limited the scope of this
definition, as it were, but from the conceptual framework of the study of the
of biogas. Itodo & Philips are actually not alone in this style of defining
style of definition probably derives from the fact that it is through the
which are probably the ones in use for biogas generation at the time of his
wood and bark residues, and human and animal manure, --- and is known
by such other names as swamp gas, marsh gas, ‘will o’ the wisp’ and gobar
gas” (Mattocks, 1984); and as Deep Green Energy (SeedTree, 2003), and
natural gas (Harris, 2003), and landfill gas (LFG) & sewage gas (Xuereb,
1997).
Constituents % Composition
Nitrogen (N2) 0 – 1%
Hydrogen (H2) 0 – 1%
They explain that biogas burns with a blue flame and has a heat value of
4500 – 5000 kcal/m2 when its methane content is in the range of 60 – 70%.
All the world over, biogas has been variously used for heating
(1997) reported that although the use of biogas for electricity generation
Tchobanoglous and Burton (1991) state that in large plants, digester gas
may be used as fuel for boiler and internal combustion engines, which are in
electricity. Despite the heating and electricity uses of biogas, the residues of
areas, the use of LFG makes the landfills slightly more socially
acceptable.
balance
In the past, the generation of biogas has been by the use of such
crop residues in an airtight container (GEMET, 2000). So, the general belief
is that “liquid manure systems work best for anaerobic digestion" in the
10
production of biogas. However, this is hardly the case, excepting that the
generation of biogas was indeed first associated with liquid wastes and
sludge; hence Kiely (1998) explained that “the unit treatment process of
agricultural and municipal waste waters and sludge”; but also noted that “in
generating biogas from “waste of large livestock farms (raw manure + wash
water), and the waste of the food and drinks industry” explained that the
generous with his description of waste, when he said that waste is material,
which has no direct value to the producer and so must be disposed of. This
could be why Bailie et al (1997) insist that “for practical purposes, the term
waste includes any material that enters the waste management system”. A
and central facilities established not only for final disposal of waste but also
11
for recycling, reuse, composting and incineration. They say “materials enter
retain them wishes to do so”. It is then possible, from this definition, to say
that the material that is disposed by the person to whom it has no direct
of matter as gaseous, liquid, and solid waste in which it occurs. This is why
Sincero and Sincero (1999) explained that a gas that is wasted is a gas
waste, such as polluted air from a process that is vented into the
waste. Hence, Ogunbiyi (2001) states that solid waste is a non-fluid type of
compared to the types of waste that can flow from one location to the other,
when they said solid waste refers to all waste materials except hazardous
waste, liquid waste and atmospheric emissions. However, Kiely (1998) says
solid wastes are those wastes from human and animal activities including
liquid wastes like paints, old medicines, spent oils etc. Thus, it is therefore
whichever manner the waste occurs, this study considers solid waste as
largely non-flowing.
public health, can all be caused by solid waste. Yet, a common way of
describing the relative toxicity of solid waste and indeed providing solution
(1997) say MSW comprises small and moderately sized solid waste items
MSW that seems to properly align with the basic inclination of this work is
that given by Byrne (1997), when he says that “municipal waste is the waste
mine).
refuse are generated on a daily basis in Port Harcourt and also improperly
discarded by residents, along the streets, and mainly at road junctions, and
even along major roads and in waterways and drain channels. Even though
there are official locations where residents should discard these wastes,
13
everywhere. Unfortunately, both the official and unofficial locations are still
improperly organised/managed.
Sincero, 1999). All these clearly show that the management of solid waste
could not be described as effective if, from the beginning, the waste is not
properly discarded for collection in a manner that would not impair the
in solid waste management, as, all the world over, particularly in developed
practices that would be ecologically friendly and protect public health. For
instance, the European Union (EU) Landfill Directive (1995) specifies the
14
type of waste acceptable at landfills. The same is told of the United States
(US) solid Waste Act of 1965, and the California Assembly Bill 939 of 1993
(Kiely, 1998). All these led to the concept of integrated management of solid
and goals.
basically collection and disposal. Even so, in the execution of these two
For instance, the function of collection could be after several days or weeks
when the wastes would have caused all their havoc; and the disposal could
said that “even where government has contracted out the clearing and
disposal of city refuse, the contractors have the irresponsible bad habit of
transporting the refuse in full loaded OPEN trucks and thereby littering the
streets with these refuse”. Akintola (1978) studied the overall refuse
management procedure in Ibadan city and concluded that the slow rate of
some refuse disposal agents to contend with the solid waste collection and
disposal assignment; but the high waste load and the absence of the waste
and asserted that the three methods of refuse disposal at the time, namely
indeed wondered aloud at how to contend with the situation and suggested
that “the only way to solve the problem of garbage is to blast them to the
recovery from municipal solid waste includes the conversion of solid waste
homes and factories, although the quantity and type of refuse vary. Oyinlola
(2001) cites the 1997 appraisal report of the Urban Development Bank of
Nigeria Plc; and states that the estimated average per capita waste
16
generation for the country is 0.45kg/day, and that for Port Harcourt
metropolis is 0.33kg/day.
Out of the total MSW generated Byrne (1997) says “Organic waste,
ranging from garden wastes to food scraps is still the main component”.
Also from the report of the Urban Development Bank of Nigeria Plc; it was
found that the organic components account for about 76% of total MSW. In
a study of the effect of household size, income level and food consumption
found that the organic component of the waste is about 91.67% of total
MSW. Little wonder then that the Oregon State Department of Energy
where ”biomass resources are any plant or derived organic matter available
animal and municipal wastes. Biomass resources can be burned for heat,
recycling and re-use potential of MSW has become prominent. This involves
conversion and transformation of the waste into a form that will reduce its
that “the more successfully man can use his own energy output to control
and put to use other forms of energy, the more he acquires control over his
17
environment and achieves goals other than those strictly related to animal
existence”.
the components of MSW, the waste could therefore be converted into some
form of energy, in line with the views of Oyinlola (2001). This transformation
to energy, even though Kottner (2002) says “that energy potential of waste
important to state, as Pickford (1977) had explained, that “the quality and
people”, and therefore “the solutions are location – specific” (Oluka 2001).
Kiely (1998) puts it more aptly when he says that “solid waste is non-
standard and typically no two wastes are the same. Even domestic waste
from a single house will vary from week to week and from season to
materials and quantities of their waste. Consequently, it has not been easy
for anybody to evolve an effective refuse collection and disposal system for
the country”
From the exposition thus far on the subject, the objectives of this
metropolis
waste
analysis, for the design of an anaerobic digester using solid wastes from
generating biogas.
particularly using the batch reactor, was a major constrain, as almost all
improvised.
A very wide gap exists between the energy supply (and demand) of
as a result of poor performance and low output of our refineries and power
generating plants”.
development in its 9th session, expresses the view that current pattern of
May 7, 2001). The Commission further identifies three options available for
resources base, Esan (2001) alerts that there has not been any special
those technologies which protect the environment, are less polluting, use all
more acceptable manner than the technologies for which they are
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
discarded without any further processing. First, the disposal of the waste
discarding the waste requires land, finance, time and complex technologies.
MSW in the metropolis into a useful biogas, achieving the discarding (or at
by-product, then it can easily be asserted that this study is worthwhile. But
even then, Hobson et al (1981) say that “burning and pyrolysis are not
household (papers, etc.) is mixed with wet vegetable matter and other
kitchen scraps. So, it is then obvious that the anaerobic digestion process is
more suitable.
23
CHAPTER 2
the absence of air (Sincero and Sincero, 1999) and “a biochemical process
and thus reducing pollution from the sewage sludge produced in several
treatment works; and Reynolds and Richards (1996) say it is the “biological
(MSW) and thus offers a more holistic definition when he says that
24
are the organic waste and the bacteria, interacting in an airtight enclosure
called anaerobic digester. The organic waste constitutes the ‘food source’
for the bacteria, which convert it into the various end products and by-
products. On the other hand, the bacteria involved in the process are
methanogenesis.
second set of organisms utilizes to form organic acids. Then in the final
(bacteria) are recognized in AD, and that it is the cumulative effect of all
these groups that ensures process continuity and stability. He then explains
soluble products, which are further converted into acetic acid, hydrogen and
Complex Polymers
Hydrolytic Hydrolysis
Bacteria Process
Amino Acids, Sugars Fatty Acids, Alcohols
Intermediate Products:
Acidogenic Propionate, Butyrate, Acidogenesis
Bacteria Valerate Process
reduction of COD. Eventually when the organic acids are broken down to
Figure 2.2.
4%
H2
24% 28%
Higher
76%
Complex organic CH4
organics acids
52% 72%
20%
Acetic
acid
From the acetic acid and hydrogen products of the above reaction, methane
When these expressions are combined, the generalized equation for the
if not complete elimination of the odour of the waste. Vassiliou (1997) says
magic the bad smell disappears and the pollution load (as measured by the
Biogas plants and technologies are not only, organic recycling plants. They
also serve as plants for mitigating pollution and controlling the environment”.
29
Hence, the Oregon State Department of Energy (2002) states that “in recent
animal waste odour and disposal has stimulated renewed interest in the
technology”.
and chemical sprays, the reduction of landfill area and the protection of
groundwater’.
Clearly, all these postulations tend to suggest, like the OSDE (2002)
explains, that ‘it is often the environmental reasons – rather than the
farmers to use digester technology’. They were, however, quick to add that
this is especially true in areas where electric power costs are low. They said
water pollution.
energy generation are significantly essential to the lives of the people; and
reliant on fossil fuels, namely crude oil products. This is why it is easy to
rather enunciate the position of Hobson et al (1981) when they said, “the
most effective gas production from waste usually gives most effective
pollution control”.
thermophilic)
value.
loads.
digesters, with many variations, including high solids digesters and two-
whereas a batch digester, which can be any suitably sized container or tank
of digester there is, they all can trap methane, and reduce feed coliform
Gas Gas
Abstraction Abstraction
Stabilized
Sludge
Digested Sludge
Sludge Withdrawal
withdrawal. They explain that when mixing is not being done, the digester
contents are stratified (as in Figure 2.3a). On the other hand, high rate
digester is just a closed container such as a drum, tank or pit in the ground
into which the digestible material is loaded. The container is then sealed to
the air. Some means must be found for trapping the gas which is given off”.
types:
Biogas Biogas
Sludge recycle
(a) Batch digester
(b) Plug flow digester with recycle
Gas
headspace
Biogas Biogas
Effluent
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Aerobic
Anaerobic
Sludge recycle
Gas
Gas
Influent
Influent or
Effluent
Fixed media
Influent or
Effluent
(a) Upflow/downflow anaerobic filter (b) Downflow stationary fixed film
Gas Gas
Gas
Effluent
Effluent Effluent
Media
No media
Recycle
Sludge Influent
Influent
Influent (e) Hybrid anaerobic sludge reactor
(d) Upflow anaerobic sludge
(c) Fluidized bed blanket (UASB)
batch reactor, plug-flow reactor and continuously stirred tank reactor, have
charged with the reactants, the contents well mixed and left to react, and
the plug-flow and CSTR, the feed to the reactor and the discharge from it
are continuous.
Kiely (1998) state that high solids digesters are particularly suited to the
situations and locality, and particularly the complexity of substrates and the
of waste in digesters. Therefore, they insist that “the only way is to do trial
given time. It is easily described as a non-flow system, for which reason the
composition of a batch digester is not uniform; and it is suited for use in high
36
Figure 2.6.
[So]
reactants are continuously fed into the reactor at one point, and the
another point of a well-mixed vessel. For these reasons the CSTR is also
mixed reactors”. Because of the thorough mixing in the CSTR, the contents
V, [X] [S]
7% and 9%.
In the 19th century Pasteur (Steadman, 1975) had written about the
the Chinese were known to have collected methane for power uses. At a
underground sewers.
among the oldest forms of biological wastewater treatment, and that its
history can be traced from the 1850s with the development of the first tank
specially built plant for producing methane from manure, was at Bombay in
in New Delhi in 1939, resulted in small prototype gas plants which were
installed for testing in ten villages around Delhi”. During the years 1956-7
the two tons of manure produced daily by the 1,000 animals owned by one
L. John Fry (Steadman, 1975) posed a serious disposal problem. Fry then
made from 50-gallon oil drums. Later, he built one very successful plant in
Tchobanoglous and Burton (1991) also explained that one of the first
installations in the United States using separate digestion tanks was the
generation at the farm level began in the United States in the early 1970s, .
Research Center (IDRC), when they said that “the viability of a particular
biodegradable organic wastes with the main aim of maximizing the value of
of the people. Digesters of 4,500m3 have been built for very large cattle
feedlot units in America (Hobson et al, 1981). A frequently cited case study
Pork LLC near Lamar, Colorado (McNiel, 2000). The Colorado Pork LLC
gallons per day of combine manure and flush water from the commercial
Hobson et al (1981) state that the greatest number of small digesters have
been built in India, China and Taiwan. They explain that the Indian digester
‘Gobar’ is Hindi for cow dung. It is also referred to as the Khadi design, and
is based on the principle that gas produced will lift a bell-shaped dome
located above the digestion vat (Mattocks, 1984). Substrate enters one side
Characteristically, its feedstock is usually cattle manure plus ‘night soil’, the
In Taiwan, the sunken tank, floating gas dome type digester, similar
to the gobar digester, has been designed (Chung Po, 1975, cited in
and vegetable wastes. Unlike the Indian design, the Chinese is completely
Notably, all these digesters, from the Colorado complete mix to the
Indian design, to the Taiwan and Chinese models, use one type of animal
excreta, manure or another; as Hobson et al, (1981) and Kiely (1998) noted
that investigations into the use of MSW are still at their preliminary stages.
initially from livestock farm waste (various manure, slurry and waste waters)
system was reported by Kiely (1998). It is the ‘Dranco’ process for organic
operation of the Dranco system was not elaborately stated, Kiely explains
that the process has a cycle time of 16 to 21 days, and biogas production is
60 per cent dry solids. The flow chart in Figure 2.13 shows the Dranco
Organic MSW
Press Heat
Dryer
50 l/d Stable
60 - 80 % DS compost
generating biogas from livestock wastes and manure (Itodo et. al., 1997;
Itodo and Awulu, 1999; Itodo and Phillips, 2001, etc). The closest research
applicability of the model to the reality of the solid waste situation in our
environment, and without any consideration for the economics and process
46
either in use or in contemplation for use for the anaerobic digestion of the
Dranco process Belgium Develop- The dranco process is used for the conversion
ment of the organic fraction of MSW to produce
energy and humus-like product, called humutex.
The digestion process is carried out in vertical
plug-flow reactor with no mechanical mixing, but
leachate from the bottom of the reactor is
recirculated. The dranco digester is operated at
high-solids concentrations and in the mesophilic
temperature range.
Bio-cell process Nether- Under The biocell process is batch system developed
Lands develop- to treat source-separated MSW (fruit, yard
ment wastes, and vegetable wastes and agricultural
wastes. The digester used was circular in
shape, 11.25m in diameter and 4.5m in height.
The digester feedstock, at a total solids
concentration of 30 percent, was obtained by
mixing the incoming source-separated organic
MSW with digested solids from previous
digestion run.
reactions, and their limitations of growth, and factors affecting their growth,
rate of growth or otherwise of the microbes required for the process. This
are decomposed, and also the rate of biomass sludge production. All these
variables affect reactor size and configuration; and also the residence
of the kind of waste (MSW) under consideration, because the high solid
49
content and usual large sizes of the waste predispose it to longer periods of
growth, and then substrate digestibility. Hobson et al, 1981, state that “the
time course and the kinetic model of the ‘dry digester’ is essentially that of
the batch culture”. However, a lot more possibilities exist for the treatment of
waste would be shredded to fine particles and diluted to meet the desired
product quality control. Thus Levenspiel (1999) insists that “the steady state
flow reactor is ideal for industrial purposes when large quantities of material
are to be processed, and when the rate of reaction is fairly high to extremely
high.
culture microbial systems by Monod (1949) and Novick and Szilard (1950).
Reynolds and Richards (1996) state that whereas the first approach uses a
50
Basically in batch cultures for both old and fresh charges, there is
usually a lag period after inoculation, during which the bacterial inoculums
substrate concentration is still relatively high, and later as first order when
environmental conditions.
d S
k S (2.5)
dt
51
any time, t.
S
Integrating In o k1t (2.6a)
Se
S kt
or log o 1
(2.6b)
Se 2.3
The time taken for the reaction to attain 50% completion or half its initial
S
In o k t 12 (2.7)
So / 2
In 2 0.69
Therefore t 12 (2.8)
k k
concentration for first order reactions is graphically shown on the next page.
52
Co
Concentration
Slope
as log C
Time (t)
process (Kiely, 1998; Sincero and Sincero, 1999). The rate equation
d X
rx X (2.9)
dt
where
d X
rx = = growth rate of biomass, mg/l/day
dt
t = time (days)
d X
x t
integrating: x X 0 dt (2.10a)
o
In X InX o t (2.10b)
[X ]
In t (2.10c)
o
[ X ]
exponential growth rate may not always be the case, particularly for the
(), which refers to the ‘fraction of the reactant converted to the product’
Xo X X
1 (2.11)
Xo Xo
dX
and d (2.12)
Xo
d
1 (2.13)
dt
d
t
0 1 0 dt (2.14a)
or ln1 t (2.14b)
X
and a plot of ln1 or ln against time is expected to produce a
o
X
Kiely, 1998; Reynolds and Richards, 1996, and Hobson et al, 1981, etc.),
55
equation:
max
S (2.15)
K s S
Therefore, substituting for ‘’ in equation (2.14b) now relates the fractional
conversion to both the maximum growth rate of biomass and the substrate
concentration thus:
ln1 max
S t (2.16)
K s S
culture. It shows that after an initial lag period for the bacteria to adapt to
the substrate. On the other hand, the declining growth phase arises from a
shortage of substrate; and this continues until the number of viable bacteria
56
death.
Concentration of biomass, X
Xo
So = Smax Sin = 0
Time, t
endogenous decay coefficient, then the model for the rate of increase of the
d X S X k X
max (2.17)
K s S
d
dt
57
rx max
S X k X (2.18)
K s S
d
also called the chemostat culture is a tank with inflow of medium and
that the theoretical model formulation for continuous culture was originally
described by a dilution rate (D) of the culture, which represents the inverse
of the detention time of medium and bacteria in the system (Hobson et al,
1981) and defined by Bailey and Ollis (1986) as the number of tank volumes
which pass through the vessel per unit time; and this corresponds to the
Therefore
Q 1
D = (2.19)
V
d X
From equation (2.9) X , it has been shown that the bacteria are
dt
Considering the dilution rate, then, the bacteria are also flowing out
given as:
d X
X D X (2.20)
dt
d S
Also the rate of change of the limiting substrate concentration in the
dt
culture will be
d S X
DSo DS (2.21)
dt Y
Y = yield factor
dS = output rate
X
= rate of substrate consumption by bacteria
Y
Substituting for '' in equation (2.20) from equation (2.15), and neglecting
d X S
max X DX (2.22)
dt K S S
59
and substituting for '' in equation (2.21) from equation (2.15) gives;
d S X S
DSo DS max (2.23)
dt Y K S S
d X d S
0 (2.24)
dt dt
max X
S DX 0 (2.25)
K S S
which gives
DK S
S D (2.26)
max
equation (2.23), the steady state mass balance on the substrate becomes
DSo DS
X S
0 (2.27)
Y
max
s
K S
from where,
X
Y S o K S
D
(2.28)
max D
60
Equations (2.26) and (2.28) show that the parameters S and X are clearly
Q
dependent on the flow rate D at steady state conditions.
V
X D 0 (2.29)
which shows that at steady state = D, implying that the rate of growth of
biomass equilibrates the rate at which the medium passes through the
steady state.
Dc as
S o
DC max (2.30)
K S S o
As ‘D’ tends to ‘Dc’, the culture will washout because [X] will drop drastically
since no substrate will be used for biomass growth because and [S] are at
their highest possible values. So, the critical dilution rate describes the level
of dilution at which the culture will washout before there was any digestion.
the organism (Reynolds and Richards, 1996). So, in terms of the net growth
ln1 max
S k t
d (2.31)
K s S
62
d S d X
(2.32)
dt dt
d S S X k X
U max (2.33)
K S S
d
dt
or
d[S ] 1
max
S X k X (2.34)
K S S
d
dt Y
½max
Ks Substrate Concentration, S
volatile acids, which limit growth at low concentrations and are inhibitory to
Hammer (1993) were more apt when they said that methane bacteria are
volatile acids, soluble salts, and metal cations. Following the limitations of
1
max (2.35)
K [S ]
1 S
[S ] Ki
k X
d[S ] 1 1
max
K s S d
(2.36)
dt Y 1
S Ki
predict process failure due to organic overloading as well as, hydraulic over
loading.
drop in pH.
65
generally are usually a function of the type of waste. Previous works that
are somewhat related to this study are seriously deficient in several regards,
process.
process.
(v) In Nigeria there had been no design or attempt that considered the
highlighted above, the following work was carried out in this work.
characteristics of MSW.
and consequently the net heat required for the desired isothermal
digester condition.
(iv) Development of models for the digestion process and design of the
anaerobic digesters
(v) Design and evaluation of batch and continuous-flow digesters for the
CHAPTER 3
models are generalized, and their use for the description of any digester
depends on the type, characteristics, and location of the waste. Hence the
et al, 2003; Agunwamba, 2001; Kiely, 1998; Reynolds and Richards, 1996;
Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991; Andrews, 1978, etc) state the general
Rate of
Rate of
Rate of Appearance or Rate of material
Accumulation
material flow Disapperarance flow out of
of materialin
int o Re actor of material due Re actor
Re actor
to Re action
(3.1a)
d[ X ]
Vr Q[ X o ] Vr net Q[ X ] (3.2)
dt
d[ X ]
where = rate of change of microorganism
dt
concentration in the reactor measured in terms
of mass (mixed liquor volatile suspended solids),
massMLVSS/unit volume. Time
Vr = volume of reactor
Xo = concentration of microorganisms in
influent, mass MLVSS/unit volume
[S ]
since net = max [ X ] kd [ X ] (3.3)
K s [S ]
d[ X ] [S ]
then, Vr Q[ X o ] Vr max [ X ] kd [ X ] Q[ X ] (3.4a)
dt K s [S ]
Vr Q [ X o ] [ X ] Vr max
d[ X ] [S ]
or [ X ] kd [ X ] (3.4b)
dt K s [S ]
This represents the general model for the anaerobic digestion process.
69
batch process where there is no flow (i.e. Q = 0), the first term of the right
d[ X ] [ S ][ X ]
Vbd m Vbd kd [ X ]Vbd (3.6a)
dt K s [S ]
or (eliminating Vbd)
d[ X ] [ S ][ X ]
m kd [ X ] (3.6b)
dt K s [S ]
and this represents the mass balance for the mass of microorganisms in the
batch reactor.
d[S ] k[ S ][ X ]
Vbd Vbd (3.7a)
dt K s [S ]
or (eliminating Vbd)
d[S ] k[ S ][ X ]
(3.7b)
dt K S [S ]
where
m
and k (3.8)
Y
dt K [S ]
s (3.9a)
d[S ] k[ S ][ X ]
dt Ks 1
(3.9b)
d[S ] k[ S ][ X ] k[ X ]
K s dS dS
dt (3.9c)
k[ S ][ X ] k[ X ]
t t Se Se
K s dS dS
t 0dt S k[S ][ X ] k[ X ]
So
(3.9d)
o
Ks S [S ] [Se ]
so that t ln o o (3.10)
k[ X ] S e k[ X ]
conversion (), which is also called the time for batch digestion, obtained
approximation, thus:
( Se So )
Then interval h (3.11a)
N
Ks S (N )
f (N ) (3.11c)
k[ X ]S ( N ) kd [ K s S ( N )]
71
so that t
h
S (0) 4S (1) 2S (2) (3.12)
3
- Tank Configuration
- Mixing Systems
- Heating Systems
Kiely explains the necessity to provide for adequate solids residence times,
The SRT is the average period of time required for the material to
also frequently referred to as the mean cell residence time or vice versa
classification of reactors, for the ‘first generation’ reactors of which the batch
reactor is a part, the SRT is equal to the HRT. He further states rather
emphatically that for digestion systems without recycle, the SRT is the same
as the HRT.
X
c (3.13b)
X
where
(kg)
time, c, there is a certain value of c below which the cells are washed from
the system faster than they can multiply, and therefore waste stabilization
does not occur. This critical value of c is called the minimum mean cell
1 YKS
kd (3.14)
m
C KS S
where:
1 YKS
kd (3.15)
m
C KS S
and the ratio of c to mc described as the process safety factor (SF), so
that
C
SF = (3.16)
Cm
where:
digesters. It expresses principally the mass of volatile solids added per day
i.e.
This of course leads to very low methane production. On the other hand
excessively low volatile solids loading rates can result in designs that are
signifies the amount of volatile solids reduced during the digestion process.
on the volume of fresh sludge added daily, the volume of digested sludge
produced daily, and the required digestion time in days (Reynolds and
Richards, 1996). They state that additional volume provision must be made
for the supernatant liquor, gas storage, and storage of digested sludge.
75
found that the volume of the remaining digesting sludge versus the
parabolic function (Reynolds and Richards, 1996). They also present the
2
V avg V1 V1 V2 (3.18)
3
where
t = retention time
Again the volume of total sludge in the digester (both digesting and digested
sludge) is given by
Vs = Vavg . td + V2 . ts (3.19)
where
Taking sludge volume to account for two-thirds (2/3) of the total volume
(Kiely, 1998), then the total volume of the batch digester will be:
76
Substituting equations (3.18 and 3.19) into this equation (3.20) gives the
following relationships.
3
V1 V1 V2 td V2t s
2
Vbd (3.21b)
2 3
3
Vbd V1 2V2 td V2ts (3.21c)
2 3
Vbd
1
V1 2V2 td 3V2ts (3.21d)
2
of course the relationship between the digester size parameters. There are
of the digester walls, and unloading the digester, eliciting their use in
the background of the type of waste, which has large particle sizes.
Therefore, with a known volume of digester tank the diameter and height of
Dbd 2
Abd (3.23)
4
Dbd
So, since H bd it follows that the digester volume will now be.
2
Dbd 2 Dbd
Vbd . (3.24a)
4 2
or
Dbd 3
Vbd (3.24b)
8
8Vbd
from where Dbd 3 (3.25)
3
8Vbd
and therefore H bd (3.26)
2
78
conveyor, has been prescribed for the batch design because of the
relatively high solids content (in terms of total solids concentration) of the
mixture. Writing about the screw-conveyor Raymus (1997) says “Almost any
explains that the power required for the screw-conveyor is composed of two
components, namely: that necessary to drive the screw empty and that
the second is dependent on the total weight of material conveyed per unit
time, conveyed length, and depth to which the trough is loaded. The latter
power item is in turn a function of the internal friction and friction on metal of
capacity of the auger to be able to use the Table to select appropriate power
D 2 d 2
QAUG 60 S n (3.27)
4
where:
S - pitch of auger, m
CSTR will actually be to adopt the form of the general model because the
overall characteristics of the CSTR including its flow regime was considered
d X S X k X
Vc QX o X Vc max (3.28)
K S S
d
dt
d X
Now, considering steady state condition, i.e. 0 , and assuming that
dt
becomes
QX Vc max
S X k X (3.29a)
K S S
d
or (eliminating [X])
Q Vc max
S k (3.29b)
d
K S S
Vc
But is defined as the mean cell residence time (c). Therefore
Q
1
max
S kd (3.30a)
C K S S
1 max S k d ( K S S )
or (3.30b)
c K S S
d S
Vc QSo rSVc Q S (3.31a)
dt
81
d S
Vc QSo S rsVc (3.31b)
dt
k S
rs X (3.32)
K S S
So, substituting for ‘rs’ in equation (3.31b) from equation (3.32) and
d S
assuming steady – state condition i.e. 0 gives
dt
k S
Q SO S X Vc 0 (3.33a)
K S S
V k S
or [ So ] [ S ] c X (3.33b)
Q K S S
k S
So S h X (3.33c)
K S S
cell residence time (c) for no cell recycle anaerobic system, and describes
([S o ] S e )(K s [ S e ]
h (3.34)
k[ S e ][ X ]
82
S
1 1
kd (3.35)
K S S max C
S
[ So ] [ Se ]
(3.36)
K S S h k [ X ]
S [Se ]
1 1
kd (3.37a)
h k[ X ] max C
h k 1
So S kd X (3.37b)
max c
max So S c
or X (3.38a)
k 1 kd c h
Y So S c
or X (3.38b)
1 kd c h
equation (3.8)
K S 1 k d c
S (3.39)
c Yk k d 1
So S
1 1 kd c
(3.40a)
X h Y c
83
or
So S
1 k
d (3.40b)
X h Y c Y
c Ks 1
(3.41)
1 k d c S Yk Yk
Considering the fractional conversion () of the substrate (S), defined as:
S S
o
(3.42a)
S o
then S
S (3.42b)
o
1
S S h
k S
X (3.43a)
1 K s S
S S 1 h
k S
X (3.43b)
1 K s S
h
K s S S S 1
(3.44a)
k S X 1
K S S S
h
1 k X S
(3.44b)
K s S
h
1 k X
or (3.44c)
84
Richards, 1996). The fixed cover variation will also be considered for the
Richards (1996) when they stated that “high-rate digesters usually have
fixed covers”.
models different from those of the batch digester will be presented here.
and Richards 1996 etc; state that the volume of a CSTR is defined as the
product of the rate of flow of the medium and the hydraulic retention time.
Vc = Qh (3.45)
K S S
Vc Q (3.46)
1 k X
rectangular’.
mixing as Tchobanoglous et al, 2003 state that “the conditions will depend
The diameter and height of the tank is related to the tank volume by
Vc = Ac x Hc (3.47)
where
mathematically as:
Dc 2
Ac (3.48)
4
86
1
Vc Dc 2 H c (3.49)
4
Dc
, then
2
1
Vc Dc
3
(3.50)
8
8Vc
or Dc 3 (3.51)
8 K S S
Dcf = 3 Q (3.52)
1 k X
and
2Q K S S
Hc 3 (3.53)
1 k X
Stafford et al (1980) presents the formula for the rate of gas diffusion
Q = K Ve3 Dc (3.54)
K - proportionality constant
87
They also reported that a velocity value of 0.18 m/s was found
(ii) On the other hand, the heat generated during substrate conversion
bonds in the reactants when compared to the energy required to break the
exercise are living organisms that respire, and expected to give off heat in
the process. Bailey and Ollis (1986) put it more aptly when they said “the
microbial metabolism”.
on the temperature of the system, i.e. to know whether or not it can maintain
the desired temperature and hence whether heat would be added to the
system or not.
from the perspective of a general energy balance of the entire system, thus:
(3.55a)
where
Vr = volume of reactor m3
t = time, s
QC p Tin T kVXH MC p
dT
(3.56a)
dt
QC p Tin T kVXH
dT
or MC p (3.56b)
dt
dT
For steady state isothermal condition, 0
dt
The right hand side of the equation represents the rate of heat
generation due to the reaction, described by Bailey and Ollis (1986) as the
rate is given by
1
Qgr Vb [ X ] (3.58)
Y
at steady state is
Qgr
[ S o ] [ S ]YS D
[ X ]k d
or (3.59b)
Vc Vc
flow system.
where
Vr = volume of reactor, m
YS
Y (3.60)
H S YS H C
91
where
heat must be required by the digester. The purpose of the additional heat
x Td TS x
100 1
QS P x Cp (3.61)
ps 24
where
digester surfaces, viz the walls, floor and roof. These heat losses through
the boundaries of the digester are usually determined using the empirical
Qh = UAT (3.62)
where
J/m2.s.oC
mathematically as:
where
This is given as
Q f U f . A f .Td Te (3.64)
where
Af = area of floor, m2
This is given as
where
Ar = area of roof, m2
Qc = Q w + Q f + Q r (3.66)
QT = Qs + Qc (3.67)
94
quantity of heat for the system described as the heat required by the
QN = QT - Qgr (3.68)
1
QN QT Vb [ X ] (3.69)
Y
Defining the specific digester heat requirement as the heat required per unit
QN
qt (3.71)
Vr
where
liquid inside the digester, the gas above the liquid, the thermal conductivity
of the wall of the digester and/or insulation material, and also the film
coefficient of the air outside of the digester wall, the earth beneath the floor
Rogers and Mayhew (1982) give the expression for the overall heat
r
In i
i 1
n
1 1 r 1
(3.72)
U' 2ro ha i 1 2ki 2rn h6
where
tube
tube heat exchanger, Kiely (1998) cites Coulson and Richardson (1991)
factors thus:
1 1 1 d /d d d d d
d o In o i o i o i (3.73)
U' hb hod 2k i hid ha
where,
Therefore, let Uwl and Uwg be the heat transfer coefficients for the
1 1 n
xi 1
U wl
hal
i 1 ki
hb
(3.74)
and
1 1 1 n
xi 1
U wg
hag
hb
i 1 ki
hc
(3.75)
where,
1 1 n
xi
Uf
hal
i 1 ki
(3.76)
97
perhaps as an insulator.
1 1 1 n
x 1
i (3.77)
U r hag hb i 1 ki hC
sludge is pumped at high velocity through the tubes, while water circulates
2003). They explain that the circulation promotes high turbulence on both
sides of the heat transfer surface and results in higher heat transfer
and Richards (1996), the use of an external heater, which heats the pumped
sludge outside the digester controls the problem of caking associated with
internally heated digesters, since any sludge caking will occur in the pipes in
the heat exchanger. It allows for de-caking of the pipes and enhances
Gas dome
Gas
Heated Supernatant
Sludge Gas
Line Liquor Line
Digested
(to flare)
mathematically as
qt M w C w Td To (3.78)
where;
qt
Mw (3.79)
C w Td To
The heat flow across the walls of a tube has been given by equation
(3.62) as
QN = UAT
For the externally heated digester, ‘A’ in the above equation is the surface
area with which heat is exchanged with the incoming sludge stream to the
Therefore,
QN
A = (3.80)
U Td TS
through which the incoming sludge flows), the length of the pipe in the hot
A = 2rl (3.81a)
A
or l = (3.81b)
2r
where
equation, which gives a fairly accurate estimate. The equation is of the form:
0.6
C
X Y 2 (3.82)
C1
This empirical formulation considers the price index of the base year
of manufacture of the digester with known cost. So the actual capital cost of
the proposed digester would be obtained relative to the price index of the
The first step in the estimation process is to use the relative price
indices of the respective years to determine what would have been the
actual cost of the digester with known cost and capacity in the current year.
Whitesides (2001) explains this when he said, “cost indices must be used
when basing the approximated cost on other than current prices”. He states
that the known cost of the digester must be multiplied by the ratio of the cost
I
Y Co (3.83)
Io
When this is related to the power factor equation, then, the estimated cost of
0.6
I C
X Co 2 (3.84)
I o C1
which cost 94,000.00 pounds as at 1980. So, using the cost indexes table of
Marshall and Swift in Peter and Timmerhaus (1981) (see Appendix V), and
extrapolating from 1980 to 1989, and up to 2005, the current price index for
1491
Therefore Y 94000
560
= £250,275.00
Andrews (1976), which was also represented by Buswell and Mueller (1952)
a b n a b n a b
C n H a Ob n H 2 O CO2 CH 4
4 2 2 8 4 2 8 4
(3.85)
feasibility of the reaction or the speed with which it may take place
volume of methane gas produced during the process, and after which the
Knowing that the molecular weights of C6H10O3 = 162, CO2 = 44, and CH4
= 6.173 moles
= 0.415 m3
This shows that 1 kg of the organic matter would yield 0.415 m 3 of CH4,
represented as:
becomes
occurs across a liquid gas interface with the interfacial area in this case
equation, thus:
dCg
KL
A
Cst Cm (3.88)
dt VL
104
Cg K L
A
C st Cm t (3.89)
VL
dC
Where - rate of diffusion, kg/m2 day
dt
KL - diffusion coefficient
VL - volume of liquid
Pm
C st (3.90)
Hc
Hc – Henry’s constant
Graef and Andrews (1973) suggest that for mesophilic digester Henry’s
Mm = Cg x Vg (3.91)
Mm
Vm (3.92)
m
60% methane and 40% other constituents, then the total volume of biogas
100
Vt Vm (3.93)
60
Vm
Vmv (3.95)
VS
Vm
Vmb (3.96)
1 R VS
3.6.4 Characteristics of Waste Effluent Concentration
concentration mg/l
Concentration of refractoryVS
R Re fractory fraction (3.98)
Concentration of inf luentVS
- fractional conversion
E
So Se 100 (3.100)
So
CHAPTER 4
which is the entire metropolis of Port Harcourt where the municipal solid
waste (MSW) is found, and the laboratory, using the ‘Reaction Kinetics
The materials used for this study included those for field and
laboratory experimentations.
(a) Materials for Field Investigation: - The materials used for the
and clamps.
108
Relevant data for the study were obtained using both primary and
and discussions with key actors, particularly in the area of solid waste
Department of the Rivers State Ministry of Health, and the Port Harcourt
City Local Government Council. On the other hand, the secondary source
included the use of literatures, maps, survey reports and public and private
records.
a curve and compared with the rate equation expected to describe the
process under investigation. With the data and the rate equations, based on
109
Monod kinetics, the kinetic coefficients describing the behaviour of the MSW
The study area is the Port Harcourt metropolis. The map of Port
Harcourt (Appendix X) was used to delineate the study area so that waste
Port Harcourt is the capital of Rivers State and the nerve center of
industrial activities, particularly oil and gas activities, in Nigeria. For this
Port Harcourt lies within latitude 05o 21’N and longitude 06o 57’E with
2000). So, temperatures and humidity are relatively high throughout the
year. The area is characterized by two distinct seasons viz, the wet and dry
110
seasons with 70% of the annual rains falling between April and August, and
22% spread over the three- (3) months of September to November. The
driest months are from December to March while the soil type consists
mainly of poorly drained silt clays mixed with sand (Ayotamuno et al, 2000).
metropolis, the city was delineated into zones in line with the services of the
and Gobo (2004). The companies have different sizes of disposal trucks,
and indeed loaded them disproportionately. Field survey of the four official
a week for four (4) weeks, noting the number of times of dumping of refuse
by the various companies and from the various designated zones. The sizes
of regular trucks used, while loaded, i.e. with the load configuration shown
in Figure 4.1, were also measured using a 30-meter tape. Because of the
overloading of the trucks and the eventual disconfiguration of the load out of
the trailers of the truck, the shape of the trailers with load is then as shown
below.
Waste Load
Trailer
truck was then estimated using the Simpson’s rule for the estimation of
volumes, also called the Prismoidal formula. The rule states as follows:
Vl =
d
A1 4 A2 2 A3 4 An 1 An (4.1)
3
d
which is also the same as saying (First area + Last area + 4 x sum of all
3
even areas + 2 x sum of all odd areas)
It is important to note that this rule applies only when there is an odd
number of cross-sections.
volume of waste generated in the city. When this was related to the
estimated population of the city, then the average per capita rate of refuse
commercial centers, in keeping with the scope of this research. This was
noting the various waste receptacles from where they collected wastes.
112
wastes from the different sources. This became necessary since the wastes
occur in composite form, and the different components have varying organic
and inorganic nature; and particularly because only the organic component
To sort the waste into its components, standard refuse bins were
used to collect and measure the waste by volume, which was then put on a
weighing scale to determine the mass of the waste, after knowing the mass
When the wastes were collected with the bin, they were weighed in
their composite form as-discarded, and then the same mass of waste was
components on the bases of their organic and inorganic character. After the
densities, and the “ratio of the ‘as-compacted’ density (c) to the ‘as-
113
discarded’ density (d) is the compaction ratio (r) (Sincero and Sincero,
1999), which was employed in the design of the digester for the waste.
c
i.e. r= (4.2)
d
calorific value of the waste and reactor sizing (Kiely, 1998). Sincero and
Sincero (1999) explain that the moisture content of organic matter must be
of moisture content was used to determine the waste moisture content; and
this was done on ‘wet and dry bases’ using the formula proposed by
W
Pd (100) (4.3)
Sd
W
Pw (100) (4.4)
Sw
- Volatile matter
The energy content of the waste was determined using the Khan, et
F - % of food by weight
The level of total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS) biochemical oxygen
determining the rate constants and other kinetic parameters for the design
Screw
Gas Hose
Clamp
Retort
Thermometer stand
Burette
Lagging
Material Graduated
cylinder
Digester Water
(with waste)
Work
bench
bournvita cans that have been cleaned of their previous content. This
suitable as the digester has only to be loaded once and may not even need
to be stirred. One or two litres could be big enough”. The containers were
which the gas hose and thermometer were fitted. The hose extending from
117
the digester top was connected to the tail of a burette, which in turn was
the digesters were then loaded with 2kg of organic MSW, which was diluted
to a 26.7% total solids (TS) concentration after metals, glass and other non-
The percentage total solids (TS) of the mixture was determined after
The pH was measured from a digital pH meter, and the substrate and
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and the mixed liquor volatile suspended
solids (MLVSS). From an ultimate analysis the carbon, (C) and nitrogen (N)
content were known from which the C: N ratio was computed. While the
Carbon was determined using the Wackley-Black method, the Nitrogen was
was used to measure the temperature inside the digester; and the ambient
within and outside the digester, in order that proper digester insulation
digesters were then made airtight with glue and other adhesives, and the
loaded once, and may not even need to be stirred. This view was
corroborated by Bailey and Ollis (1986) when they said that the batch
reactor is simple, needs little supporting equipment and is therefore ideal for
(1999) asserts that it is easy to interpret the result of the experimental batch
reactor.
applied to the design of continuous digesters? Bailey and Ollis (1986) made
then;
Cf
dC
tb
Co
f (C )
(4.7)
120
V C f Co
and tc (4.8)
F f (C f )
1
Geometrically, a plot of against C is used to depict the holding
f (C )
of this plot, where tb is the area under the curve from Co to Cf, and tc is the
1
f (c )
1
f (c f )
Co TB
Co Cf C
1
f (c )
tb
1
f (c f )
tc
Co Cr C
dc
f (c) (4.9)
dt
dc
slope = = f(c1)
C1 dt
c =c1
Consequently, from the reduced batch data a plot of f(c) against c can be
generated;
f(C)
D(c-co) = net rate of c removal by
inlet, effluent streams
F
slope = D
V
C
Co C* = concentration in
steady – state CSTR
Figure 4.5: Use of f(c) for CSTR design
straight line, representing the right hand side of the equation, with slope, D,
through the c axis at c = co. The intercept of this straight line with the f(c)
form, the dilution rate required to achieve a known concentration can also
be determined.
insist that batch data are useful in a qualitative sense for choosing a
background of the type of waste, the rate of waste generation and the local
considerations.
and this assessment has usually been done in terms of the solids content of
is used for liquid manure of less than 2 percent solids; ‘a complete mix
the ‘plug-flow digesters are suitable for ruminant animal measures having a
content of the waste they considered are such that the wastes are capable
of flowing on their own, or forming slurries with water and eventually flowing,
in Kiely (1998) had suggested the use of ‘high solids digester’, which was
digestion” though still largely theoretical with only some small units having
being built, “is always a batch process”. But the continuous-flow digesters,
generate methane from human, animal, and agricultural waste, and from the
although this had always required much more water to be added to the
and 7 percent. The diagram below shows the flow process in a low-solids
Gas
separator CH4
CO2
Pump
Slurry
Solids to Vacuum
landfill filter
Blending-mixing tank
Filtrate
Liquid-air
separator
Chemical or
sewage sludge
feed
To atmosphere
Figure 4.6: Flow diagram for the low-solids anaerobic digestion process
for the organic fraction of MSW
with slurries of between about 3 and 10% total solids (TS), much of which
concentration, they explained that “if these materials are to be used as feed
for a stirred tank digester, then they will have to be made into slurries.
the maximum thickness that can be pumped and piped even if the particle
size is small, and 7-8% TS may be the maximum which can be handled by
best suited for the generation of biogas from the organic component of
MSW.
digestion process in this work, the upper limit solids concentration of 10%
ranges are the mesophilic, 85 to 100oF (30 to 38oC), and the thermophilic
127
120 to 135oF (44 to 57oC) (Tchobanoglous and Burton, 1991); “but the rate
Burton, 1991). However, Kiely (1998) insists that “most digesters now
results”, which is why Kottner (2002) says that “the process of anaerobic
reaction rates and to provide more stable treatment”. Just in this same vein,
critical, stabilizing the temperature and keeping it stabilized are even more
day may force the methane producing organisms into periods of dormancy”.
biological activity in the mesophilic range between 5oC and 35oC doubles for
every 10oC– 15o C temperature rise. This is possibly why Kiely (1998) and
Viessman and Hammer (1993) agree that thermophilic digestion has not
apparently corroborating the view of Mattocks (1984), who after noting that
higher temperature.
temperature ranges (say 20o C) are not suitable for anaerobic digestion, as
acids is often rate limiting. If long chain fatty acids accumulate, foaming may
4.4.3 pH Control
the anaerobic digestion process. Viessman and Hammer (1993) were very
emphatic when they said that the hydrogen ion concentration of the culture
values close to 7 for optimum activity”. In the initial phase of the process,
the production of volatile fatty acids depress the pH, but the reaction of CO 2,
129
which is soluble in water, with hydroxide ions for bicarbonate ions, HCO 3-,
tend to restore the neutrality of the process pH, thus making the process
imbalance results in which the pH decreases, gas production falls off, and
the CO2 content of the gas increases. The overall effect, according to
process imbalance. He, however, cautions that care must be taken not to
apply excess lime, since this will result in precipitation of calcium carbonate;
adjustment.
small and it will take longer to decompose the available carbon. Excess
nitrogen, beyond the microbial requirements, is often lost from the process
130
as ammonia gas, (Richard, 1998b). It has variously been found that the
faster than the rate at which they convert nitrogen. So for optimum
operation, the ratio of the carbon to nitrogen should be about 30:1 in the raw
material. Richard (1998) says that usually, nitrogen is the limiting element
nitrogen source.
transformation of the waste, and also for equipment sizing for further
treatment. The relatively large particles sizes of MSW, which Kiely (1998)
activities, hence the necessity of the reduction of the particle size of the
MSW. Richard (1998b) says reducing particle size increases surface area,
microbial activity.
4.4.7 Mixing
mixing is even in the consideration that all the substrates are sludge. For a
solid matter like the MSW, and therefore a ‘dry solid’ digestion process,
important to state that even the mixing method of gas re-circulation may
also entail loss of valuable gas for use. However, the mixing methods of
the high and low-solids digesters, depending on the eventual total solids
et al, 2003; Kiely, 1998; Reynolds and Richards, 1996, etc) that the heat
(ii) to compensate for the heat losses through the walls, floor, and
(iii) to make up the losses that might occur in the piping between
within the psychrophilic range ( 20oC), and since “optimum temperature for
to the mesophilic range. This is why Reynolds and Richards (1996) insist
during winter, to maintain the digester temperature within the desired range.
This immediately implies that external heating of the digester is not very
digester are the microbial heat generation in the digester, and the heat flow
will actually depend on the cost of obtaining the feedstock, preparing the
MSW for digestion, and constructing and maintaining the plant. In fact
Tchobanoglous and Burton (1991) say, “Process costs (both capital and
and size of reactor”. In this regard the bio-kinetic and design models for the
reactor will directly affect the digester cost, particularly in terms of digester
and feedstock volumes to yield desired quantity of gas. The cost effective
consideration here is for a batch digestion. Steadman (1975) states that “the
tank or pit in the ground into which the digestible material is loaded”, - i.e. a
batch digester. The simplicity of the batch digester design clearly should
also extend to the process cost. The Oregon State Department of Energy
digester (i.e. a batch digester), a complete mix digester, and a plug flow
digester, states that the batch digester “is the least expensive of the three”.
The loading rate of organic materials into the digester greatly affects
volatile solids to be fed into the digester each day”. Volatile solids being the
134
portion of organic material solids that can be digested, while the remainder
of the solids is fixed. The fixed solids and a portion of the volatile solids are
depends on the types of wastes fed into the digester. This is indeed easy to
conjecture since the type of waste used for the process determines the level
and organic loads can upset the balance between acid fermentation and
acidogenic reactions can be much faster at high loadings and may increase
the reactor volatile fatty acids (VFA) and hydrogen concentrations and
When out of balabce, he explains that there could be too much substrate or
too little substrate, or too many organisms or too little organisms. Any of
that MSW, particularly in this part of the world, is a complex mixture of both
organic and inorganic materials. So, since the digestion process is for the
the organic components would have to be sorted from the inorganic ones.
Again, and importantly, the particle sizes of the organic waste are such that
will require reduction. These and many other processes the waste may
undergo before being fed into the digester are all classified as waste
pretreatment.
Ambient temperature 30 oC
136
= 1722.26 - 1078.99
= 643.30 m3
= 5841.16 + 2076.40
= 7917.56 m3
= 11876.34.99 m3
8 11876.34
Db 3
= 31.15 m
137
31.15
Hb
2
= 15.58 m
31.152
Ab
4
= 762.19 m2
would be
= 13.71 kg/m3
11mmHg
Cst
30769.23mmHg / mol / l
= 0.0003575 mol/l
= 0.00572 kg/m3
762.19
C g 0.0984 (0.00572 13.71) 9.08
7917.56
= 1.179 kg/m3
138
Mm = 0.1.179 x 3958.78
= 4667.40 kg
4667.40
Vm
0.644
= 7247.52 m3
100
Vt 7247.52
60
= 12079.20 m3
7247.52
Vmb
11876.34
7247.52
Vmv
86431.40
VS added
139
7247.52
Vms
(1 0.193) 86431.40
(1991) were used for the computation of the overall heat transfer coefficient
for the system. The wall heat transfer coefficient was given as 4.9 W/m 2 oC;
roof heat transfer as 4.7 W/m2 oC; and floor heat transfer coefficient as 2.85
W/m2 oC.
Using equation (4.5), and the data from field investigation, the energy
= 7.251 MJ/kg
= 1.733 kcal/g
= Hs
= 0.693 kcal/g
0.126
Also Ys
0.126 0.0475
0.3293
0.293
and Y
1.733 0.293(0.693)
= 0.192 g/kcal
thus:
1
Qgrb 7917.56 0.126 10.69
0.192
= 55,544.16 kcal/day
= 232.40 MJ/day
= 9.68 MJ/hr
100 1
Qsb 129,776.87 (35 30) 4200
26.7 24
= 425,298,731.30 J/hr
= 425.30 MJ/hr
= 37359.32 W
= 134493552 J/hr
= 134.49 MJ/hr
141
= 32,604.57 W
= 117,376,452.00 J/hr
= 117.38 MJ/hr
= 17,922.98 W
= 64,522,728.00 J/hr
= 64.52 MJ/hr
Qcb = Qw + Qf + Qr
= 316.39 MJ/hr
= 425.30 + 316.39
= 741.69 MJ/hr
= 741.69 – 9.69
= 732.00 MJ/hr
142
732.00
qtb
11876.34
= 0.0616 MJ/hr/m3
61635
M wb
4200(35 30)
= 2.94 kg/m3/hr
= 70.4 kg/m3/day
732000000
Ahb
17640(35 30)
= 8299.32 m2
and the length of heating pipe for a given radius of pipe (say 0.3 m) is
8299.32
lb
2 0.3
= 4402.36 m
(15.582 4.672 )
QAUG 60x x13.63x60x0.241x0.325
4
= 332935.91 tons
143
0.6
11876.34
X db 56,311,875
2 0.2303
= N 600,306,243.00
= 8.00 days
Vc = 24.95 x 8.00
= 199.6 m3
8 199.6
Dc 3
= 7.98 m
7.98
Hc
2
= 3.99 m
7.982
Ac
4
= 50.02 m2
= 1.854 kg/m3
11mmHg
Cst
30769.23mmHg / mol / l
= 0.0003575 mol/l
= 0.00572 kg/m3
50.02
C g 0.0984 (0.00572 1.854) 8.00
199.6
= 0.365 kg/m3
Mm = 0.365 x 199.6
= 72.85 kg
72.85
Vm
0.644
= 113.12 m3
100
Vt 113.12
60
= 188.53 m3
113.12
Vmc
199.6
113.12
Vmvc
20770.43
VS added
113.12
Vmsc
(1 0.193) 20770.43
(1991) were used for the computation of the overall heat transfer coefficient
for the system. The wall heat transfer coefficient was given as 4.9 W/m 2 oC;
146
roof heat transfer as 4.7 W/m2 oC; and floor heat transfer coefficient as 2.85
W/m2 oC.
Using equation (4.5), and the data from field investigation, the energy
= 7.251 MJ/kg
= 1.733 kcal/g
= Hs
= 0.693 kcal/g
0.126
Also Ys
0.126 0.0475
0.3293
0.293
and Y
1.733 0.293(0.693)
= 0.192 g/kcal
147
thus:
= 31.95 kcal/day
= 0.134 MJ/day
= 0.00558 MJ/hr
100 1
Qsc 31186.84 (35 30) 4200
10 24
= 272,884,850.00 J/hr
= 272.88 MJ/hr
= 2450.98 W
= 8,823,528.00 J/hr
= 8.82 MJ/hr
= 2138.36 W
= 7,698,096.00 J/hr
= 7.70 MJ/hr
148
= 1175.47 W
= 4,231,692.00 J/hr
= 4.23 MJ/hr
Qcc = Qw + Qf + Qr
= 20.75 MJ/hr
= 272.88 + 20.75
= 293.63 MJ/hr
= 293.63 – 0.00558
= 293.62 MJ/hr
293.62
qtc
199.6
= 1.471 MJ/hr/m3
1471000
M wc
4200 (35 30)
149
= 70.05 kg/m3/hr
= 1681.20 kg/m3/day
293620000
Ahc
17640(35 30)
= 3329.02 m2
and the length of heating pipe for a given radius of pipe (say 0.3 m) is
3329.02
lc
2 0. 3
= 1765.87 m
= 0.535 m3/s
0.6
199.6
X dc 56311875
230
= N 51,720,130.11
150
CHAPTER 5
5.1 RESULTS
2. Diobu, Mile 1 – 4
up to Wimpey Junction 390,000 Refcol Nigeria Limited
Leather
Organics
INORGANIC
Plastic 56 - 6.0 26 - 12
Digester Duration Initial MSW Effluent MSW Initial Microbial Effluent Microbial
no. of Concentration, Concentration, Concentration, Concentration, Xe
Digestion So (mg/l) Se (mg/l) Xo (mg/l) (mg/l)
, t (days)
- 0 462.12 - 32.05 -
Digester Duration of _ _
no. Digestion, t X Xt -In (Se/So) So - Se So - Se
/Xt In (So/Se)
/Xt
(days)
- 0 - 0 0 - - -
_
X = average cell mass concentration during the biochemical reaction-that is X = ½(Xo + Xt),
where Xo and Xt are the cell mass concentrations at the respective times t = 0 and t = t
(Reynolds and Richard, 1996)
5.2 DISCUSSION
solid waste is generated in the Port Harcourt metropolis, from which the per
to the population of the municipality. Also during the field investigation the
the first instance in terms of volume, using equation (4.1) and converted to
Table 5.1 shows the rate of solid waste generation in Port Harcourt
daily, which is 1,505,106kg (one million five hundred and five thousand one
hundred and six kilograms). The rate of generation of solid waste is indeed
1,356,000 (One million, three hundred and fifty six thousand) as per official
records of the Federal Office of Statistics (2003), then the kilogram per
capita per day generation of waste in the metropolis becomes 1.11. This
155
It is seen from Table 5.2 that the percentage by weight of the organic
components of the MSW is 69.3. The various individual items of the organic
component have also been classified into their weight percentages. These
digester volume and indeed the volumetric organic loading rate. They show,
for instance, that in relation to Table 5.1, the design for the digester volume
and loading rate must consider a daily organic waste load of 69.3% of
digester must be designed on the basis of the amount of waste that can be
collected and actually fed to the digester, not on the quantity of waste
produced”
But the volume and density of a given mass of MSW vary in their
shown in Table 5.2. With the average density values and using equation
222.2
1.30
171.4
Vd
Vc =
rc
8781.25
and Vc = = 6754.81m3
1.30
Vd – “as–discarded” volume
place of the true chemical content, and also some relevant chemical
elements that compose the waste. Laboratory results also include data
of the organic matter that is actually useful for the process. For instance, it
indicates the portion that is volatile, i.e. vaporizable, and from which it is
157
that the volatile matter of the MSW is 66.6% by weight of the organic waste.
of the organic waste are very useful in the determination of digester volume.
an indication of the rate at which the process progresses and helps in the
From Table 5.4, the average carbon content is 52%, and that of
nitrogen is 1.9%. These values give a carbon – nitrogen ratio of 27:1, which
range for efficient process operation. It is an indication that the waste has
for active decomposition. Mattocks (1984) says that “to act efficiently on the
kinetic parameters were determined. The Table 5.5 shows the result of the
reactor experimentation.
Figures AI-1 and AI-2 are curves, respectively for the degradation of
MSW and growth of biomass with time of digestion. It is seen that the
highest utilization of MSW occurred between days 5 and 10, before the
degradation became more and more sluggish up to day 25 when there was
was expected that MSW utilization would have been highest between 0 and
5 days given its abundance as the limiting component, but this was not the
growth of microbes during the same period. This is noteworthy because the
appreciated from Figure AI-3, which is an imposition of Figures AI-1 and AI-
2.
159
However, from Figure AI-2 it is clear that microbial growth was at its
Evidently, this growth was continuing even up to the 25th day, although a
noticeable decline in growth rate started from the 15th day, which again
limiting waste has become fairly constant. It is possible to assert that at this
point the available biodegradable volatile solids may have been depleted,
expressions are required for the description of the activities of the various
function of the relationship between the limiting substrate and the digestion
time.
was employed. This method of analysis requires that a plot of the negative
160
Se So against time, t, should yield a straight line, as in Figure AI-4.
The Figure AI-4 is a plot of - ln Se So against t, and it is evident that
the best fitting trend line of the resultant curve is a straight line, which
tended to pass through the origin. This, therefore, satisfies the condition for
process and characterized by certain rate parameters like the growth yield
of microbes (Y), the maximum rate of utilization of the waste (k), the
saturation constant (Ks), the endogenous decay coefficient (kd) and the
With the confirmation of the use of the first order rate equation for the
The slope of the curve represents the maximum rate of utilization of MSW
(k). The equation describing the curve was obtained from a statistical
Se
ln = 0.1883 t – 0.1926
So
From where
161
k = 0.1883 day-1
This value of k is strictly for the batch processing, and suggests that
growth of microbes. This tends to corroborate the earlier assertion that the
amount of the substrate was used in the course of the digestion. It is also
believed here that the composite nature of the MSW, incorporating some
With the method of Bailey and Ollis (1981) in the use of batch
Table 5.7, and the procedure for the determination of kinetic parameters
outlined by Viessman and Hammer (1999), the curves in Figures AI-5 to AI-
7 are obtained.
I 1
Figure AI-5 is a plot of against obtained by the linearization of
U Se
the steady state equation, and from the solution of the Microsoft chart
editor,
162
1 204.6
2.6189
U Se
1 Ks
from where, intercept of curve = and slope =
k k
Therefore,
1
= 2.6189,
k
or k = 0.382 day-1
Ks
and = 204.6
k
Ks = 204.6 x k
feed with seed biomass to prime the process but rather depended on a self-
further suggest that actual or practical digesters for MSW would require an
From Figure AI-7, the growth yield of microbes (Y) is obtained as the
slope of the curve and the intercept as the lyses coefficient (kd)
0.368
Slope = Y
0.4708
Y = 0.3293
This value of the growth yield coefficient gives the impression that more
cells are formed per unit of the MSW degraded. This is indeed traceable to
the use of the mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) as an index
= 0.126 day-1
conversion process.
164
of the percentage Total Solids in both batch (30%) and CSTR (10%)
processes, and considering also the large volume of the waste generated
0.33 and 0.125 to obtain the manageable percentage TS of 26.7 and 10 for
17.79 kg/m3; and that of the CSTR from 6.79 kg/m 3 to 2.41kgm3, at an
result of the low yield coefficient, and also the low maximum rate of
Also with the daily waste load of 26.7% and the sludge volume of
26.8% for the batch, and 10% and 26.8% respectively for the CSTR, the
volume of the digesters and their corresponding heights and diameters were
its performance, a programme was developed for the process using the
165
Microsoft Visual Basic Version 6.0 programming language, with which the
factors (0.2 -0.8), and percentage total solids concentrations (4 – 10% for
the CSTR, and 10 – 30% for the batch digester). The results of the
simulation tabulated in Tables AlIl-1 - AIll-6, and AlV-1 – AlV-5 have been
the volume of the digester; the volumes of methane and biogas; the time
microbial growth. The resulting curves from the above relationships were
analysed statistically using the Microsoft Chart Editor. From Figure 5.1, it is
observed that the volumes of biogas and methane produced were a linear
biodegradable fraction of the MSW. On the other hand, from Figure 5.2 the
conversion, thus:
in volume, up to a point when less and lesser volume would be required for
time of batch digestion and fractional conversion, generated from Figure 5.3
thus:
which shows that with increasing fractional conversion a point will also be
reached when less and lesser time would be used for the digestion of a
Also Figure 5.4 shows that the effluent concentration reduces with
concentration reduces.
equations.
Figures 5.2 and 5.5 it is seen that as the volume of the digester increases,
the cost also increases in the same manner as the volume, and described
volume of methane and hence biogas were also analysed. The results
models:
parameters is almost the same, except for model constants. Thus the
following models generated statistically from Figures 5.9 – 5.15 describe the
Bailey and Ollis (1981) say the relationship between batch and
analyzed for the same level of the total solids concentration (10%TS), and
conversion of 0.8, the biomass production per unit volume in the batch
digester is 9.994x10-5 kg/m3 (0.09994 mg/l) and is greatly lower than that of
0.007392 kg/m3 (7.392 mg/l) for the CSTR. This is also the case for the
m3 CH4 per m3 of digester for the batch, and 0.3989 m3 CH4 per m3 of
CSTR. Also the cost of the digester follows this trend, as the cost per unit
volume of batch digester is N0.046 and N0.26 for the CSTR. This shows
that the cost of a unit volume of CSTR is about 6 times more than that of a
per unit volume of digester, it shows that the cost of a unit volume of gas in
a batch digester is N0.43 against N0.65 for the CSTR, indicating that it cost
required to achieve the same level of microbial growth in the CSTR is lower
than that of the batch, which is an indication that “the continuous process
170
always provides a greater yield of cells per unit volume of cultivator vessel
At this point, it can easily be deduced that the initial cost investment
in a batch digester is higher than that of a CSTR, but the overall amount of
of 10%. However, it has been noted earlier that one of the major distinctions
that, whereas the batch digester is suitable for high solids processing, the
CSTR is suitable for low solids processing with an upper limit of 10%TS
between the percentage total solids (PTS) and volume of batch digester,
time of digestion and microbial concentration. Figure 5.17 shows that as the
PTS of 20% when the volume starts increasing. When this trend is related
believed that this point, which can more or less be described as a point of
generation.
Volume of gas produced, cubic meter
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000 Vm
6000 Vt
4000 Linear
(Vm)
Linear
2000
(Vt)
Linear
0 (Vm)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
11680
11660
11620
11600
11580
11560
11540
11520
11500
11480
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
9.1
9.08
9.06
Time of digestion, days
9.04
9.02
8.98
8.96
8.94
8.92
8.9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
25
15
meter
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
595000000
594000000
cost of batch digester, naira
593000000
592000000
y = 4E+06Ln(x) + 6E+08
591000000 R2 = 0.9843
590000000
589000000
588000000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
25
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Microbial growth, kg/cubic meter
11680
11660
Volume of batch digester, cubic meter
11640
11620
11600
11580
11560
11540
11520
11500
11480
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Microbial growth, kg/cubic meter
16000
14000
10000
8000
Vm
6000
Vt
0
11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700
Volume of batch digester, cubic meter
140
120
100
80
60
Vmc
40 Vtc
Linear (Vmc)
20
Linear (Vtc)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
202
200
8.1
Time of CSTR digestion, days
8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
52000000
51500000
51000000
Cost of CSTR, Naira
50500000
50000000
49500000
49000000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional conversion, dimensionless
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Microbial growth, kg/cubic meter
202
200
Volume of CSTR digester, cubic meter
198
196
194
192
190
188
186
184
182
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Microbial growth, kg/cubic meter
9.12
9.1
time of digestion, days 9.08
9.06
9.04
9.02
9
8.98
8.96
8.94
0 10 20 30 40
percentage total solids (%)
Figure 5.16: Relationship between Percentage Total Solids and Time of Digestion
30000
volume of batch digester, cubic meter
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 10 20 30 40
percentage total solids, (%)
25000
15000
10000
Vm
Vt
5000
Power (Vt)
0
0 10 20 30 40
percentage total solids, (%)
60
50
Se
Xe
Substrate and Microbial
40 Power (Xe)
Concentration, mg/l
Power (Se)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
percentage total solids, (%)
CHAPTER 6
6.1 CONCLUSIONS
the size and type of reactor and method of operation that are best suited for
a given treatment process. This work originally set out to design a digester
for the treatment of municipal solid waste (MSW) with a resultant production
with high solids wastes, and for low volume, the CSTR considers low-solids
wastes and for high volume; and the MSW in Port Harcourt metropolis is of
The high organic content of the MSW and the associated C : N ratio
that MSW is not easily degraded anaerobically, and its eventual degradation
is also not associated with high COD removal. This is easily attributable to
the composite nature of the waste and the associated level of refractory
the waste into its various components in order that only the organic portion
is treated.
both batch and continuous digesters. Upon simulation of the system over a
results of the batch digester showed that the time and volume required for
the CSTR would perform better in less time if it were operated with sludge
same amount of waste as the CSTR, and the initial cost of building a batch
digester is higher, the cost of a unit volume of CSTR is about 6 times more
than that of a batch digester; and the cost of producing the same quantity of
solids concentration then it is very easy to state that the batch digester is
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the finds and conclusions drawn from this work, the
Nigeria.
CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE
on the subject matter, while also modifying some hitherto erroneous wave of
thinking.
- Models that will ease the design of anaerobic batch digesters for the
concentration of 20%.
185
REFERENCES
Bailie, R. C., Everett, J. W., Liptak, B. G., Liu, D. H. F., Rugg, F. M. and
Switzenbaum, M. S. (1996); “Solid Waste”, In Environmental
186
Byrne, K. (1997): Environmental Science, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, Uk.
206 p
Tata Energy Research Institute, Teri, New Delhi, India. (1994): “Biogas: A
Source Of Rural Employment”. Tata Publications, New Delhi, India.
22p.
The Guardian Newspaper ‘World Leader’s Chart Fresh Path Way For
Sustainable Energy, Transport". Monday 7th 2001. Pp 31 & 45.
APPENDIX I
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Digestion time, t, days
500
400
350
300
MSW
mg/l
250 Micro.
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Digestion time, t, days
3
- ln (Se/So)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Digestion time, t, days
Figure AI-4: Plot for the verification of the process reaction order
194
45
35
30
25
day
20
15
10
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Inverse of effluent concentration, 1/Se, l/mg
0.6
Specific rate of MSW utilization, U, per day
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Effluent MSW concentration, Se, mg/l
Figure AI-6: Plot for verification of half saturation constant, Ks, value
195
0.25
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Specific rate of MSW utilization, U, per day
APPENDIX II
= 486,055.71kg/day
This now represents the mass fraction of the organic matter with 26.7% TS
= 69,145.12 kg/day
= 17,286.28 kg/day
= 34,806.16 kg/day
197
250
S gd
100 1.5(66.6)
= 1.251
100 1.251
S gw
73.3(1.251) (100 73.3)
= 1.057
100 1 1
486,055.71
26.7 1.057 1000
= 1722.26 m3/day
86431.40
So
1722.26
= 50.18 kg/m3
34806.16
100
129776.17
= 26.8%
100 1 1
34806.16
26.8 1.251 1000
= 103.82 m3/day
= 0.807
= 0.193
= 40.5 kg/m3
= 8.1 kg/m3
= 17.79 kg/m3
50.18 17.79
Percentage Stabilization, Eb 100
50.18
= 64.5%
kg/day
= 731,169.64 kg/day
= 311,868.36 kg/day
Now, this represents the mass of organic matter with 10% TS and 90%
moisture content.
VS = 66.6% TS = 20,770.43kg/day
FS = 13.5% TS = 4,210.22kg/day
= 16,616.34 kg/day
= 4154.09 kg/day
= 8364.31 kg/day
100 1.251
S gwc
90(1.251) (100 90)
= 1.02
100 1 1
311,868.36
10 1.02 1000
= 3,057.53 m3/day
20,770.43
Soc
3,057.53
= 6.79 kg/m3
8364.31
= 100
31,186.84
= 26.8%
200
100 1 1
= 8364.31
26.8 1.251 1000
= 24.95 m3/day
= 5.48 kg/m3
= 1.096 kg/m3
= 2.41 kg/m3
6.79 2.41
Percentage stabilization, Ec 100
6.79
= 64.5%
APPENDIX III
Table A III - 1: Summary of Batch Digester parameters at 10% TS (i.e. TS = 31186.84, and VS = 20770.43)
Se Xe td Vbd Eb Vm VT Vmb Qnb Ogrb Xdb
0.2 5.70 0.393 8.45 13867.30 16.13 351.92 586.53 0.025 272.48 0.624 658,807,320.43
0.3 5.15 0.574 8.69 14243.09 24.20 554.40 924.00 0.039 272.17 0.935 669,461,828.60
0.4 4.60 0.754 8.82 14444.77 32.27 758.43 1264.05 0.053 271.86 1.246 675,133,534.83
0.5 4.05 0.935 8.90 14574.41 40.18 963.58 1605.97 0.066 271.55 1.558 678,762,575.71
0.6 3.507 1.115 8.96 14668.43 48.40 1169.85 1949.75 0.080 271.24 1.871 681,386,384.17
0.7 2.958 1.296 9.01 14743.59 56.47 1377.45 2295.75 0.093 270.93 2.185 683,478,988.98
0.8 2.41 1.476 9.05 14809.47 64.54 1586.85 2644.75 0.107 270.61 2.501 685,309,846.40
Table A III - 2: Summary of Batch Digester parameters at 15% TS (i.e. TS = 54603.04, and VS = 36365.62)
Se Xe td Vbd Eb Vm VT Vmb Qnb Ogrb Xdb
0.2 12.957 0.853 8.79 12041.12 16.13 760.98 1268.29 0.063 317.54 1.175 605,289,757.08
0.3 11.710 1.263 8.91 12180.85 24.20 1166.72 1944.53 0.096 316.96 1.760 609,494,503.99
0.4 10.46 1.674 8.97 12254.28 32.27 1573.36 2622.27 0.128 316.37 2.346 611,696,331.81
0.5 9.22 2.084 9.00 12301.02 40.28 1980.79 3301.31 0.161 315.79 2.933 613,095,379.20
0.6 7.97 2.495 9.03 12334.81 48.40 2389.08 3981.80 0.194 315.20 3.520 614,105,071.19
0.7 6.725 2.905 9.05 12361.83 56.47 2798.47 4664.12 0.227 314.61 4.108 614,911,902.66
0.8 5.479 3.315 9.07 12385.61 64.54 3209.38 5348.96 0.259 314.02 4.697 615,621,371.01
202
Table A III - 3: Summary of Batch Digester parameters at 20% TS (i.e. TS = 83234.43, and VS = 55434.13)
Table A III - 4: Summary of Batch Digester parameters at 25% TS (i.e. TS = 117081.02, and VS = 77975.96)
Table A III - 5: Summary of Batch Digester parameters at 30% TS (i.e. TS = 156142.79, and VS = 103991.10)
Table AIII - 6: Batch Results at Various Percentage Total Solids (PTS) Concentrations
APPENDIX IV
Table AIV -5: CSTR Results For Various Percentage Total Solids (PTS) Concentration
PTS TS VS Sc Xe tdc Vcd Vmc Vtc Vmcs Qgrc Qnc Xdc
4 9971.44 6640.98 0.381 0.2604 8.40 66.98 6.29 10.48 0.0939 0.0131 218.12 26860958.08
6 16208.81 10795.07 0.861 0.5479 8.16 105.81 18.88 31.46 0.1784 236.33 236.33 35340686.40
8 23280.61 15504.89 1.536 0.9527 8.07 150.28 42.22 70.36 0.2809 0.1558 254.49 43621260.04
10 31186.84 20770.43 2.410 1.4765 8.03 200.22 79.86 133.10 0.3989 0.358 272.54 51816708.20
207
Capacity Diam. Diam Diam. Hanger Max. Size of Lumps Max. Feed Hp At Motor Max.
of of of Centers Torque section capacity
Flights Pipe Shafts, ft Peed Capacity, diam., 15-ft. 30-ft 45-ft 60-ft 75-ft at
in in in r/min in lb in Max Max. Max. Max. Max speed
Length Length Length Length Length listed
All Lumps Lumps
Lumps 20 to 10%
25% or less
5 200 9 2½ 2 10 ¾ 1½ 2¼ 40 7,600 6 0.43 0.85 1.27 1.69 2.11 4.8
10 400 10 2½ 2 10 ¾ 1½ 2½ 55 7,600 9 0.85 1.69 2.25 3.00 3.75 6.6
15 600 10 2½ 2 10 ¾ 1½ 2½ 80 7,600 9 1.27 2.25 3.38 3.94 4.93 9.6
12 2½ 2 12 1 2 3 45 7,600 10 1.27 2.25 3.38 3.94 4.93 5.4
12 3½ 3 16,400 1.27 2.25 3.38 3.94 4.93 11.7
Chemical
Marshal and Swift Nelson –Farrar Engineering
Installed-Equipment Eng. News Record Refinery Plant Cost
Indexes, 1926 = 100 Construction Index Construction Index
Year All- Process 1913 1949 1967 Index 1957 – 1959
Industry Industry = 100 = 100 = 100 = 1946 = 100
= 100
1975 444 452 2412 464 207 576 182
1976 472 479 2401 503 224 616 192
1977 505 514 2576 540 241 653 204
1978 545 552 2776 582 259 701 219
1979 599 607 3003 630 281 757 239
1980 560 675 3237 679 303 823 261
1981 721 745 3535 741 330 904 297
1982 746 774 3825 802 357 977 314
1983 761 786 4066 852 380 1026 317
1984 780 806 4146 869 387 1061 323
1985 790 813 4195 879 392 1074 325
1986 798 817 4295 900 401 1090 318
1987 814 830 4406 924 412 1122 324
1988 852 870 4519 947 422 1165 343
1989 895 914 4606 965 429 1194 355
1990 (JAN) 904 924 4673 979 435 1203 356
APPENDIX VlI
APPENDIX VIII
APPENDIX IX
APPENDIX X
APPENDIX XI