Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste: biogas versus
biofertilizer
PII: S0960-8524(17)30822-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.154
Reference: BITE 18180
Please cite this article as: Ma, Y., Yin, Y., Liu, Y., New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food
waste: biogas versus biofertilizer, Bioresource Technology (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2017.05.154
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste: biogas versus
biofertilizer
Abstract
This study explored two holistic approaches for co-digestion of activated sludge and
food waste. In Approach 1, mixed activated sludge and food waste were first
hydrolyzed with fungal mash, and produced hydrolysate without separation was
directly subject to anaerobic digestion. In Approach 2, solid generated after hydrolysis
of food waste by fungal mash was directly converted to biofertilizer, while separated
liquid with high soluble COD concentration was further co-digested with activated
sludge for biomethane production. Although the potential energy produced from
Approach 1 was about 1.8-time higher than that from Approach 2, the total economic
revenue generated from Approach 2 was about 1.9-fold of that from Approach 1 due
to high market value of biofertilizer. It is expected that this study may lead to a
paradigm shift in biosolid management towards environmental and economic
sustainability.
1
1. Introduction
has posed a global environmental challenge (Neumann et al., 2016; Pilli et al., 2015).
Anaerobic digestion has been commonly employed for sewage sludge stabilisation
and volume reduction with biogas as the end product. However, only about 30~35%
due to the lower hydrolysis efficiency of sewage sludge (Gossett and Belser, 1982).
On the other hand, it should also be noted that biogas produced from anaerobic
digestion has low economic value, while it may eventually become a burden for small
many countries (Anderson et al., 2016; Heimersson et al., 2017). For example, about
1484 WWTPs have anaerobic digestion units in the United States, while biogas
produced from most of which was simply flared due to relatively low electricity price
and high operation cost of the co-generation system (EPA, 2012). It had been reported
that the electric energy generated from anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge alone
could only cover about 33.3% of the total in-plant electrical energy consumption in
Singapore (Yin et al., 2016). To tackle such a challenging energy situation in WWTPs,
co-digestion of sewage sludge with food waste has received increasing attention.
Food waste is also a global challenge due to the rapid growth of food industry and
population (GUDO, 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2016), and it can cause
management measures are not in place (Chen and Gu, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). It
should be realized that food waste indeed is highly rich in organic matter and nutrients
(i.e. NPK), and can be used as a feedstock for producing various high-value products
(Girotto et al., 2015; Kiran et al., 2014). Although anaerobic digestion of food waste
2
has been practiced for biomethane production, excessive organic acids produced may
strongly inhibit anaerobic bacteria at a high organic loading. The recent study has
clearly shown that anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste is a
feasible and economically viable approach to greatly improve energy recovery (Koch
et al., 2016; Ratanatamskul et al., 2015; Tuyet et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2016). However,
prior hydrolysis of solid feeds, e.g. sewage sludge and food waste, indeed is a
methods for enhancing hydrolysis have been developed (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014;
Cano et al., 2015), among which enzymatic pretreatment has been believed to be an
generated from anaerobic digestion (e.g. 50~60% of total solids) still needs further
present anaerobic digestion practice. These clearly suggest that the current anaerobic
Therefore, two holistic approaches for co-digestion of food waste and sewage
sludge were developed and assessed in terms economic viability, process efficiency
and feasibility in this study: (i) anaerobic digestion of mixed sewage sludge and food
waste prior hydrolyzed by in-situ produced fungal mash with biogas as the sole end
product; (ii) anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge with hydrolyzate produced from
hydrolysis of food waste by fungal mash with biogas and biofertilizer as the end
products. It is expected that this study may offer new insight into anaerobic
co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste with the aims for both energy (e.g.
3
2.1. Sewage sludge and food waste
The food waste was taken from a refectory at Nanyang Technological University,
which contained 23.0±0.5% total solid (TS) and 22.3±0.4% volatile solid (VS). The
clarified activated sludge was collected from a municipal wastewater treatment plant
in Singapore with 7.7±0.1 g/L TS and 6.5±0.1 g/L VS. Inoculum anaerobic sludge
taken from the same plant had 12.7±0.2 g/L TS and 9.1±0.1 g/L VS. The
characteristics of the food waste and activated sludge used in this study were shown in
Table 1.
In this study, fungal mash rich in various hydrolytic enzymes was in-situ produced
AKBF 115 solid state fermentor (BINDER GmbH, Germany) with the control of
used for fungal mash production, which was inoculated with 10% (v/g) of
Aspergillus.oryzae solution (i.e. 0.1 ml/g dry substrate, equivalent to 106 fungal spores
per gram). The fermentor was operated at 30 °C for 7 days, and the oxygen content
and humidity were automatically controlled at 50% and 70%, respectively. The pH
and the moisture content of substrate were about 5.5 and 77%, without any specific
adjustment. The produced fungal mash was then directly used to hydrolyze food
Activated sludge and food waste were first concentrated by centrifugation at 10,000
rpm and 4ºC for 8 min. The harvested food waste and activated sludge were adjusted
4
to a total solid (TS) concentration of 30 g/L, respectively, which were further mixed
food waste and mixed activated sludge-food waste samples was filled respectively
into 500 mL Duran bottles (SCHOTT, German) with addition of 0.45 g dry weight of
fungal mash for hydrolysis at 100 rpm and 60ºC for 8 h. The biochemical methane
potential (BMP) tests were carried out in an automatic methane potential test system
sludge with 900 mg VS and 900 mg solid sample were added into the serum bottles
which were then was made up to a total volume of 300 ml by deionized water and
purged with nitrogen gas at 1 L/min for 5 min. Meanwhile, a blank bottle with the
inoculum only was also prepared. All the BMP tests were conducted at 35ºC and 100
SCOD and TN were determined by Hach kits (Hach, US). TS, VS were measured
according to standard methods (Rice et al., 2012). The FAN was quantified by
ninhydrin reaction method (Lie, 1973). The metal contents (e.g. Al, Cu, Mn, Zn, Mo,
K, Cd, Co, Cr, Pb, Ni, Hg and As) of various solid samples were quantified by a
Total carbon of dry solid was determined according to the method by Navarro et al.
(1993). TN and total phosphorus (TP) in solid samples were measured according to
(Chinese National Standard, 2010a, b). The methane production was logged
continuously and automatically by the flow cell array unit of AMPTS. All the analyses
5
Table 2 Experimental design of BMP tests for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1
and 2
(1)
(mL/g VS), Rmax is the maximum methane production rate (mL/g VS day); λ is lag
where -△Q is the potentially recoverable electric energy (kWh), M is the total
volume, i.e. 40 MJ/m3 (Gupta et al., 2015), A is the conversion coefficient of methane
chemical energy to electricity through combustion, i.e. 35% (McCarty et al., 2011),
and B is the conversion coefficient of energy (MJ) to electric energy (kWh), i.e. 0.28.
In this study, two approaches were developed for co-digestion of food waste with
activated sludge: (i) co-digestion of mixed food waste and activated sludge prior
hydrolyzed by fungal mash; (ii) co-digestion of activated sludge with liquor produced
from prior hydrolysis of food waste by fungal mash (Table 2). It can be seen from Fig.
1 and Table 3 that a methane yield of 742.8 mL CH4/g VS was obtained from
Approach 1 versus 649.3 mL CH4/g VS from Approach 2. However, the long lag
6
phase of about 24 h was observed in Approach 1 vis-à-vis 9 h in Approach 2 (Table 3).
These imply that the methane production could be completed much faster in Approach
2 (i.e. 6 days) than in Approach 1 (i.e. 9 days). More importantly, the digestion times
required in both approaches are significantly shorter than that (e.g. 15 to 25 days) in
pretreatment.
respectively. It can be seen that 954.1 L of methane and 2.0 kg of dry solid residue
the compositions detailed in Table 3 and 1.2 kg of dry solid residue were obtained
from Approach 2. These suggest that a total solid reduction of (3.8-2)/3.8=47.3% and
indicates that the contents of TN, TP as P2O5 in the residue from Approach 1, i.e.
co-digestion of mixed activated sludge and food waste with the pretreatment by
fungal mash, are significantly higher than the requirements for organic-inorganic
out that the heavy metal contents in this solid residue, including Cd, Pb and As, all
exceeded the limits set by the Chinese National Standard for fertilizer, i.e. GB8172-87
contents of Cu, Al and Zn were also found to be higher than the limits for the heavy
7
metal content in agricultural sludge (Tian et al., 2016). It is obvious that the solid
agricultural purposes. In fact, without proper disposal measure in place, such residue
may potentially cause environmental risks to crops, plants, soils and water body. As
such, agricultural use of anaerobically digested sludge has been banned in more and
more countries.
In Approach 2 (i.e. co-digestion of activated sludge with liquor produced from prior
hydrolysis of food waste by fungal mash), two streams of solid residues were
generated as shown in Fig. 2B. It appears from Table 4 that the contents of TN, TP as
P2O5 in the residue from hydrolyzed food waste can meet the requirements for
National Standard, 2009). Moreover, the contents of all the heavy metals detected in
this residue meet the standards for fertilizer. Other trace elements in the residue (e.g.
Zn, Co, Al, Cu, Mn, Ni, Mo etc.) were all below the limits in sludge for agricultural
use (Tian et al., 2016). In fact, these trace elements found have been believed to have
a positive effect on plant growth (Aller et al., 1990). It seems reasonable to consider
that the solid residue produced from hydrolysis of food waste in Approach 2 is a safe
activated sludge and liquor produced from the hydrolysis of food waste in Approach 2
had a quality similar to that produced from Approach 1, i.e. this solid residue had
higher heavy metals contents and should be banned from agricultural applications
even though its nutrients contents could meet the requirements for fertilizer.
In 2015, about 785,500 metric tonnes of food waste (i.e.180665 metric tonnes dry
food waste) and 196,000 metric tonnes of dry activated sludge were produced in
digested with only about 30-35% of VS reduction. From which, the electric energy
generated could only cover about 33.3% of the total in-plant electrical energy
consumption (Yin et al., 2016), while food waste in Singapore is mainly incinerated
after about 13% of recycling. These eventually lead to a significant loss of organic
matter and nutrients in food waste, without resource and energy recovery. In a long
term view, the current sludge and food waste management may not be substantial and
eco-friendly. For the purpose of illustration, the economic viability of the two
resource recovery and volume reduction according the activated sludge and food
from the co-digestion of 1 kg dry food waste mixed with 1 kg dry activated sludge
that was pretreated with fungal mash (Fig 2), equivalent to a potentially recoverable
electrical energy of 3.74 kWh as estimated by Eq. (2) (i.e. 0.9541 m3×40 MJ/m3×
of 1 kg dry food waste, 0.652 kg of biofertilizer was obtained, while the co-digestion
dry food waste further generated 544.1 L of methane. Given the situation of waste
activated sludge and food waste in Singapore (i.e. about 180665 metric tonnes of dry
food waste and 196,000 metric tonnes of dry activated sludge produced annually),
9
according to a food waste to sludge mixing ratio of 1:1 by dry weight, about 172
1 was applied, while about 118,000 tonnes of dry biofertilizer (0.652×180655 tonnes)
Although the total electric energy generated from Approach 1 is about 1.8-time
more than that from Approach 2 (Table 5). However, it should be realized that
such, the total revenue of from Approach 2 is about 1.9 times of that from Approach 1
due to the fact that biofertlizer has much higher market value than biomethane.
Moreover, about 62.5% of total solid reduction was achieved in Approach 2, while
and economically more attractive and beneficial than Approach 1. In the year of 2014,
Singapore produced about 571 million cubic meter of used water, while the global
specific energy consumption at Ulu Pandan water reclamation plant was about 0.52
kWh/m3 (Singapore PUB, 2014; Cao, 2011). These in turn suggest a total annual
energy consumption of 297 million kWh. As shown in Table 4, the electric energy
generated from Approaches 1 and 2 could completely offset the in-plant electrical
energy consumption. These imply that the current WWTPs can be transformed to a
adopted.
4. Conclusions
10
The two approaches developed in this study clearly showed that the co-digestion of
activated sludge and food waste pretreated with fungal mash offers a technically
feasible and economically viable option for proper management of activated sludge
and food waste. It was demonstrated that the current WWTPs may be eventually
adopting the proposed approaches. Consequently, this study opens a new window and
inspires new thinking for future activated sludge and food waste management towards
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by a research grant (Grant no: ETRP 1201 105-2) from the
11
References
Aller, A.J., Bernal, J.L., Nozal, M., Deban, L., 1990. Effects of selected trace
elements on plant growth, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 51,
447-479.
Anderson, E., Addy, M., Ma, H., Chen, P., Ruan, R., 2016. Economic screening of
Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Esposito, G., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P.N., 2014. Pretreatment
123, 143-156.
Cano, R., Pérez-Elvira, S.I., Fdz-Polanco, F., 2015. Energy feasibility study of sludge
Cao, Y.S., 2011. Mass Flow and Energy Efficiency of Municipal Wastewater
Chen, E., Gu, X.Y., 2012. Advance in disposal and resource technology of food waste.
Chinese National Standard (GB8172-87), 1987. Control Standards for Urban Wastes
for Agriculture Use. The State Standard of the People’s Republic of China Chinese
National Standard.
Fertilizer. The State Standard of the People’s Republic of China Chinese National
Standard.
The State Standard of the People's Republic of China Chinese National Standard.
12
Chinese National Standard (GB/T17767.2-2010), 2010b. Determination of
EPA., 2012. Case Study Primer for Participant Discussion: Biodigestion and Biogas.
Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., Cossu, R., 2015. Food waste generation and industrial uses: a
Gossett, J.M., Belser, R.L., 1982. Anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge.
GUDO, A.J., 2014. Global biomethanation potential from food waste-a review.
Gupta, R., Basile, A., Veziroglu, T.N., 2015. Compendium of hydrogen energy:
Heimersson, S., Svanström, M., Cederberg, C., Peters, G., 2017. Improved life cycle
modelling of benefits from sewage sludge anaerobic digestion and land application.
Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Ng, W.J., Liu, Y., 2014. Bioconversion of food waste to
Koch, K., Plabst, M., Schmidt, A., Helmreich, B., Drewes, J.E., 2016. Co-digestion of
37-41.
Lin, C.S.K., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Abderrahim, S.,
13
Clark, J.H., Koutinas, A.A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., 2013.
Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and
fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy & Environmental Science, 6,
426-464.
Ma, Y., Yin, Y., Liu, Y., 2016. A holistic approach for food waste management
Technology.
McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., Kim, J., 2011. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy
Singapore NEA, 2016. In: Agency NE (Ed.), Waste Statistics and Overall Recycling.
<http://www.nea.gov.sg/energy-waste/wastemanageme-nt/waste-statistics-and-over
all-recycling>.
Navarro, A.F., Cegarra, J., Roig, A., Garcia, D., 1993. Relationships between organic
matter and carbon contents of organic wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 44, 203–207.
Neumann, P., Pesante, S., Venegas, M., Vidal, G., 2016. Developments in
Pilli, S., Yan, S., Tyagi, R.D., Surampalli, R.Y., 2015. Thermal pretreatment of
prototype two-stage anaerobic digester for co-digestion of food waste and sewage
14
Rice, E.W., Baird, R.B., Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., 2012. Standard methods for the
DC.
Singapore PUB (Public Utilities Board) Report, 2014. Data available at: <http://222.
pub.gov.sg/general/usedwater/Pages/default.aspx>.
Tian, Y., Liu, S.J., Ma, L., Wang, Y.L., Chen. G.M., 2011. Review of heavy metals
Tuyet, N.T., Dan, N.P., Vu, N.C., Trung, N.L.H., Thanh, B.X., De Wever, H.,
co-anaerobic digestion for energy recovery from sewage and kitchen waste. Water
Yin, Y., Liu, Y., Meng, S., Kiran, E.U., Liu, Y., 2016. Enzymatic pretreatment of
activated sludge, food waste and their mixture for enhanced bioenergy recovery and
waste volume reduction via anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 179, 1131-1137.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of
food waste for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38,
383-392.
15
Figures
Fig.2. Mass balance on co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste. A: Approach
1; B: Approach 2.
.
16
Comulative methane yield (mL/g VS) 800
640
480
320
approach 1
160 Model fitted for approach 1
approach 2
Model fitted for approach 2
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Time (Day)
17
Fig.2. Mass balance on co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste. A: Approach
1; B: Approach 2.
.
18
Tables
Table 5 Economic analyses of the two approaches developed in this study: Singapore
situation
19
Table1
Characteristics of the food waste and activated sludge
a
Parameters Food waste Activated sludge
TN (wt %) 1.9±0.1 3.4±0.2
TP as P2O5 (wt %) 2.3±0.2 4.5±0.3
TK as K2O (wt %) 0.3±0.0 0.2±0.0
Total carbon (wt%) 50.2±0.2 44.2±0.7
Moisture (wt%) 77.0±0.3 93.1±0.5
Granularity (mm) ≤2 ≤2
Cd (mg kg-1) - 5.6±0.2
Hg (mg kg-1) - 2.3±0.1
-1
Pb (mg kg ) 49.2±0.5 162.3±0.7
-1
Cr (mg kg ) 53.5±0.3 72.4±1.2
-1
As (mg kg ) 24.1±0.2 119.6±0.4
-1
Cu (mg kg ) 6.2±0.1 1473.7±31.2
-1
Mo (mg kg ) 14.3±0.2 47.3±3.1
Al (mg kg-1) 63.4±0.3 4374.1±77.1
Mn (mg kg-1) 19.2±0.4 116.5±8.1
Zn (mg kg-1) 31.1±0.6 1511.3±34.4
Co (mg kg-1) 3.1±0.3 37.2±1.5
-1
Ni (mg kg ) 19.3±0.2 36.3±2.4
- Not detected;
a
Parameters is calculated by dry solid except granularity.
20
Table 2
Experimental design of BMP tests for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1 and 2
Tests Feed composition
Control Inoculum
Anaerobic digestion in Activated sludge + Liquid produced from food
Approach 1 waste pretreated with fungal mash
Anaerobic digestion in Mixed activated sludge and food waste pretreated
Approach 2 with fungal mash
21
Table 3
The parameters estimated for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1 and 2
Experiment
Bob Rmc
λa al yield
Samples (mL CH4/g (mL CH4 / g VS
(h) (mL CH4/g
VS) day)
VS)
Anaerobic digestion in
24.6 745.4 175.8 742.8
Approach 1
Anaerobic digestion in
9.1 654.7 157.7 649.3
Approach 2
a
Lag phase time
b
Estimated ultimate cumulative methane yield
c
Maximum methane production rate
22
Table4
Compositions of the solid residue produced in Approaches 1 and 2
a
Parameters GB8172-87 GB18877-2009 Residue from Residue from Residue from
anaerobic digestion hydrolysis anaerobic digestion
in approach1 in approach2 in approach2
I II
TN (wt %) 0.5 3 4.2±0.2 3.1±0.1 5.6±0.1
TP as P2O5 (wt %) 0.3 3 5.1±0.4 3.2±0.1 6.1±0.2
TK as K2O (wt %) 1.0 3 0.3±0.0 0.7±0.0 0.1±0.0
Total carbon (wt%) ≥10 ≥15 ≥25 38.7±0.5 50.1±0.4 38.2±0.3
Moisture (wt%) 25-35 ≤12 ≤12 93.1±0.6 86.5±0.4 92.5±0.6
Granularity (mm) ≤12 ≤5.6 ≤2 ≤2 ≤2
Cd (mg kg-1) 3 10 5.5±0.1 - 6.1±0.3
Hg (mg kg-1) 5 5 2.5±0.2 - 3.1±0.3
-1
Pb (mg kg ) 100 150 161.3±1.7 54.0±0.7 172.1±2.1
Cr (mg kg-1) 300 500 89.90±1.1 67.5±0.2 98.7±1.4
As (mg kg-1) 30 50 123.6±0.7 28.0±0.5 127.3±1.1
-1
Cu (mg kg ) * * 1543.7±33.9 5.9±0.1 1735.1±37.5
Mo (mg kg-1) * * 43.3±3.1 17.3±0.1 48.6±3.5
-1
Al (mg kg ) * * 4274.1±87.1 66.4±0.3 4644.6±97.4
Mn (mg kg-1) * * 137.6±10.1 25.2±0.5 166.6±11.3
-1
Zn (mg kg ) * * 1517.7±58.9 35.1±0.7 1434.5±73.6
Co (mg kg-1) * * 39.1±1.7 3.2±0.4 53.9±3.1
Ni (mg kg-1) * * 41.3±3.1 22.3±0.1 37.2±2.6
*Not standard required;
- Not detected;
a
Parameters is calculated by dry solid except granularity.
23
Table 5
Economic analyses of the two approaches developed in this study: Singapore situation
Electric Solid Revenue
Methane Biofertlizer (M SGD/yr) Total
energy reduction
(m3/yr) (kg/yr) Electricity Biofertlizer (M SGD/yr)
(kWh/yr) (%)
Approach 1 1.72×108 6.75×108 Nil 47.3 135 Nil 135
Approach 2 9.83×107 3.85×108 1.18×108 62.5 77 177 254
1 kWh=0.20 SGD; 1 kg biofertilizer=1.5 SGD
Highlights:
Two approaches for co-digestion of sludge and food waste were developed
Fungal mash was highly efficiency in hydrolysis of activated sludge and food waste
24