You are on page 1of 7

biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Mesophilic and thermophilic co-fermentation of cattle excreta


and olive mill wastes in pilot anaerobic digesters

M. Goberna a,*, M.A. Schoen b, D. Sperl a, B. Wett b, H. Insam a


a
University of Innsbruck, Institute of Microbiology, Technikerstrasse 25d, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
b
University of Innsbruck, Institute of Infrastructure, Technikerstrasse 13, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria

article info abstract

Article history: Cattle excreta and two-phase olive mill wastes (TPOMW) were codigested at a 3:1 ratio in
Received 28 April 2009 two 75 L continuous stirred tank reactors at 37  C and 55  C to analyse their biogas
Received in revised form production. The contribution of each residue to the total gas production at 37  C was
6 November 2009 evaluated in reactors digesting either 3:1 excreta:water or 3:1 water:TPOMW. The meso-
Accepted 11 November 2009 philic co-fermentation of cattle excreta with TPOMW at an organic loading rate (OLR) of
Available online 3 December 2009 5.5 g COD L1 d1 rendered 1096 mL biogas L1 sludge d1. This was 337% higher than that
of excreta alone. The methane yield resulting from the codigestion was 179 L CH4 kg1 VS
Keywords: loaded, of which 42% was attributed to the quarter of the reactor corresponding to TPOMW.
Animal waste Under thermophilic conditions, the codigestion yielded 17.3% more methane than meso-
Codigestion philically. In the reactor digesting TPOMW alone (OLR ¼ 3.8 g COD L1 d1) the ratio VFA/
Biogas alkalinity exceeded 0.8 after 21 d, leading to its acidification and inhibition of methano-
Methane genesis. Farm-scale digestion of animal excreta and TPOMW should be promoted in
Two-phase olive mill wastes Mediterranean countries as an environmentally sound option for waste recycling and
renewable energy production.
ª 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sustainable land-use system is unevenly distributed, i.e. most


plants are located in a few regions in central Europe, and thus
Biogas generated from the anaerobic digestion of animal the EU will encourage farmers to set-up biogas facilities all
excreta is increasingly used for the production of renewable over the territory to reduce the needs for energy imports and
energy. In Europe there are ca. 4240 farm-scale biogas plants improve the CO2 balance [3].
[1], which mainly treat cow, pig or poultry manure. These are However, cattle excreta are already-digested substances,
widespread and ready-to-use residues which yield sufficient rich in lignocellulose with a relatively low C/N ratio, and high
biogas to account for the energy consumption of the farm and water content [4]. Therefore, these have a low methane
its digester, as well as a net energy surplus that is fed into the production potential [4,5], and this threatens the economic
grid as green electricity. Furthermore, the stabilised end- viability of farm-scale biogas plants [1]. The anaerobic
product can be applied as an organic amendment to the biodegradation of cattle excreta renders 20 m3 biogas t1 (wet
agricultural soils. Land-spreading anaerobically digested weight), whereas 650 m3 t1 can be obtained from bakery
sludge instead of untreated manure reduces malodours, helps residues and up to 1200 m3 t1 from vegetable oils [6]. Co-
controlling pathogens, provides soils with a more balanced fermenting animal excreta with other residues is an option to
nutrient mix and higher nutrient bioavailability [2]. This increase their biogas production potential. Olive mill effluents

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ43 512 507 5995; fax: þ43 512 507 2928.
E-mail address: marta.goberna@uibk.ac.at (M. Goberna).
0961-9534/$ – see front matter ª 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.11.005
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346 341

(OME) are an interesting candidate to be used in Mediterra-


nean countries, where they are intensively produced [7,8].
OME can balance the C/N ratio of the N-rich excreta and
supplement them with fats, with their enormous biogas
production potential. On the other hand, the digestion of OME
alone is limited by their low pH, alkalinity and ammonia N
content [9], and by the presence of recalcitrant phenolic
compounds that can inhibit microbial growth [7]. High OME
digestion efficiencies can be achieved, even at high organic
loading rates, by pretreating the wastes [10,11] or supple-
menting them with nutrients and buffering solutions [12,13].
However, it is economically and environmentally more sound
to compensate the acidity and nutrient deficiency of OME by
their combined digestion with other biodegradable wastes
with complementary properties [13].
The anaerobic digestion of olive mill effluents has proven
feasible in combination with cattle manure, household waste,
sewage sludge [9], poultry manure [14], wine-grape and
slaughterhouse wastewater [15], and laying hen litter [16].
Most of these studies have been performed in 100–250 ml
serum vials or 1–2.5 L tank reactors using olive mill waste-
waters. Not much has been published, however, on the use of Fig. 1 – Schematic depiction of the pilot scale anaerobic
two-phase olive mill wastes (TPOMW), i.e. the paste produced reactors. Source: [26].
during oil extraction with a two-phase centrifugation system,
as a substrate for codigestion experiments. The volume of
TPOMW, containing the stone and pulp of the fruits and high
moisture, has increased together with the expansion of the This experimental set-up was designed to quantify the
two-phase technology after its adoption in the early 90s [7,8]. individual contribution of either cattle excreta or TPOMW
Appropriate TPOMW management and valorisation are still to and the possible benefits of co-fermenting these materials
be achieved and require further research. In this survey, we under mesophilic conditions. The influence of temperature
investigated the performance and biogas production of four was evaluated through the comparison of EX_OL37 with
75 L pilot anaerobic reactors digesting cattle excreta and EX_OL55, which was run at 55  C.
TPOMW, both separately and in co-fermentation. Excreta (mixed excrements and urine) were collected on 5
December 2007 from the storage tank located underneath the
cattle stable in the agricultural school in Rotholz (Tirol,
2. Materials and methods Austria). This was sieved (<5 mm) prior to its use to remove
straw and avoid blocking of reactor pipes. TPOMW was
2.1. Operation of the reactors and feeding solutions obtained from the agricultural cooperative COATO in Totana
(Murcia, Spain) on 7 December 2007 and transported to the
The experiment was performed in four anaerobic continuous laboratory in sealed tanks. TPOMW was not further pre-
stirred tank reactors (CSTR), which are 1.4 m high, 0.36 m in treated, so the material is representative of that resulting from
diameter and have a working volume of 75 L (Fig. 1). All reactors
were initially charged with 75 L cattle excreta (Table 1) and
heated up to 37  C. This start-up strategy had previously proven
successful [17,18]. Reactors were fed daily with 3.5 L d1 of
cattle excreta and an equivalent amount of effluent sludge was Table 1 – Physical and chemical properties of the feeding
removed, corresponding to a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of solutions.
21.4 d. These conditions were selected in order to simulate Parametera Excreta 3:1 excreta: 3:1 water:
those under which the full-scale BIO4GAS plant in Rotholz TPOMW TPOMW
(Tirol, Austria) is operated [19]. TS (% w/v) 4.7 11.0 7.5
Once steady state conditions, i.e. stable biogas produc- VS (% w/w of TS) 71.1 75.1 21.8
tion, were achieved in all reactors, cattle excreta were Total COD (g L1) 40.2 118.5 81.1
substituted by specific feed solutions at the same flow rate Soluble COD (g L1) 14.7 43.6 28.4
NH4–N (mg L1) 1204 831 BDLb
(3.5 L d1). The specific operation conditions for all reactors
pH 7.40 6.68 4.93
and the characteristics of the feed solutions are summarised
EC (mS cm1) 17.2 14.4 4.1
in Tables 1 and 2. Reactors EX_OL37 and EX_OL55 were fed Alkalinity (mmol Hþequ L1) 166 124 10
with a mixture of excreta:TPOMW at a ratio of 3:1 operated
a TS, total solids; VS, volatile solids; COD, chemical oxygen
at 37  C and 55  C, respectively. The other two reactors were
demand; NH4–N, ammonia nitrogen; EC, electrical conductivity.
loaded with either cattle excreta:water (EX37) or water:
b BDL: Below detection limit.
TPOMW (OL37) at a ratio of 3:1. Both were operated at 37  C.
342 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346

Table 2 – Operation of reactors. 3. Results


Reactor Feeding Temperature FFRb OLRc
solutiona ( C) (L d1) (g COD 3.1. Biogas quantity and quality
L1 d1)

EX_OL37 3:1 excreta:TPOMW 37 3.5 5.5 All reactors were run at 37  C and fed daily with cattle excreta
EX_OL55 3:1 excreta:TPOMW 55 3.5 5.5 at an equivalent feeding rate until a stable and similar biogas
EX37 3:1 excreta:water 37 3.5 1.4 production was reached, averaging 18.1  0.4 L d1
OL37 3:1 water:TPOMW 37 3.5 3.8 (mean  SD) with a methane content of 68.7  0.4% v/v. This
a TPOMW: Two-phase Olive Mill Wastes. steady state was maintained for three days (days 1–3 in Fig. 2)
b FFR: Feed Flow Rate. prior to the start of the experiment. In day 3, the temperature
c OLR: Organic Loading Rate. of reactor EX_OL55 was set to 55  C. In day 4 (solid line in
Fig. 2), the feeding with specific solutions was initiated (Tables
1 and 2).
Immediately after starting the specific load, reactor
the mill processing effluent line. Both materials were stored at EX_OL37 showed an increase in biogas production (Fig. 2). This
4  C until reactor start up on 19 December 2007. stabilised at day 8, i.e. four days after starting the load with
specific feeding solutions, until the end of the experiment
averaging 82.0  4.8 L d1. Methane content in the biogas was
2.2. Sampling of gas and sludge constant, with 62.8  1.2%. In EX_OL55, there was an increase
in biogas production with lower methane content from days
Reactors were operated with the specific feed solutions for 3–4, which was a direct effect from the temperature rise to
30 d. The volume of biogas produced was quantified using 55  C (Fig. 2). This was followed by a decrease in biogas
a gas meter located on top of each reactor (Fig. 1). Gas samples production and its CH4 content from days 4–7, which
were collected daily in gas-tight bags and gas composition progressively recovered from day 8 up to day 14 when it sta-
(CH4, CO2 and H2) measured using a Biogas Monitor BM 2000 bilised at 94.5  10.5 L biogas d1 with 62.0  1.5% methane
(Geotechnical Instruments, Leamington, UK). Three sludge content. During the stable period, non-stirring conditions due
samples (ca. 500 ml) were collected every 3.5 d from a tap to technical problems occurred, which resulted in a slight
located in the bottom of each reactor (Fig. 1). decrease in biogas production (dashed lines in Fig. 2). Reactor
EX37 remained stable throughout the experiment, its biogas
production averaging 17.7  1.7 L d1 with 64.8  1.2% CH4
(Fig. 2). Finally, reactor OL37 rapidly reacted to the initial
2.3. Analytic methods change in feed, reaching a maximum biogas production at day
8 (Fig. 2). Biogas production remained relatively high from
Total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), pH and electrical days 7–14 (59.5  3.1 L d1) and then decreased rapidly.
conductivity (EC) were determined following EU Horizontal Table 3 summarises the gas production parameters during
standards [20]. Total C and N contents were measured in an the steady state after the period corresponding to one HRT
automated CNHS analyser (TruSpec, LECO, Michigan, USA). (21.4 d). Data are average of three consecutive sampling dates.
Total and soluble chemical oxygen demand (COD) were ana- Reactor EX_OL37 produced 337% more biogas and 73.3%
lysed with the LCK 014 test kit and ammonia nitrogen (NH4–N) higher methane yield than EX37. Reactor EX_OL55 showed the
with the LCK 303 test kit (both from Hach Lange, Düsseldorf, highest biogas production and methane yield. These were,
Germany). Particulate COD was calculated as the difference respectively, 17.6% and 17.3% higher than those of EX_OL37.
between total and soluble COD. Determination of volatile fatty During this steady state, reactors EX_OL37 and EX_OL55 were
acids (VFAs) was performed within 24 h of sampling. Briefly, the most efficient in VS removal.
15 ml of sludge were centrifuged (14,000 rpm, 30 min) and the
0.2 mm filtered supernatant analysed for VFAs by High Pres-
3.2. Effluent sludge properties
sure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC Shimadzu LC-20A promi-
nence) using 20 ml injection volumes. VFAs were separated
At the start of the experiment, while feeding was performed
through an ion exclusion column (300  7.8 mm, Aminex
with excreta alone, the amount of total solids (TS) in the
HPX-87H) and photometrically detected at 210 nm. An iso-
effluent sludge of all reactors was approximately 4.0  0.1%, of
cratic flow (0.7 ml min1) with 5 mM H2SO4 was used as the
which 66.5  0.8% were volatile solids (VS). Total and soluble
running medium at 60  C for 90 min.
chemical oxygen demand (COD) averaged 27.0  0.6 g L1 and
7  0.7 g L1, respectively. TS, VS, total and soluble COD
increased together with the change in feed in the effluent
2.4. Multivariate analysis sludge of reactors EX_OL37, EX_OL55 and OL37 (except for TS
in OL37), whereas all parameters slightly decreased in EX37
Principal component analysis (PCA) based on a correlation (Table 3).
matrix was performed to inspect the relationship between The main volatile fatty acids (VFAs) detected in all reactors
biogas production, effluent sludge properties and the factors were acetate and propionate (Fig. 3). VFAs showed relatively
‘‘reactor’’ and ‘‘sampling date’’, using SPSS 15.0 for Windows. constant values in reactors EX_OL37 and EX37, their levels
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346 343

Fig. 2 – Biogas production (L dL1) and methane content in the biogas (% v/v) in the reactors (EX_OL37, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at
37 8C; EX_OL55, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at 55 8C; EX37, 3:1 excreta:water at 37 8C; OL37, 3:1 water:TPOMW at 37 8C). Solid line
indicates start of feeding with specific mixtures. Dashed lines indicate period under non-stirring conditions.

being always below 0.8 and 0.2 g VFA L1, respectively. Both the experiment to values averaging 0.9  0.03 g L1 and
reactors showed stable pH values above 7.6 throughout the 1.1  0.05 g L1, respectively. In EX37, NH4–N oscillated
experiment (Fig. 3). However, EX_OL55 and OL 37 reached between 1.1 and 1.3 g L1, whereas in OL37 it decreased
peaks of 4.8 and 3.8 g VFA L1. The increase in effluent VFAs in progressively to final values of 0.5 g L1. Alkalinity was highly
EX_OL55 was mainly due to the accumulation of acetate, and correlated with NH4–N (Pearson’s correlation
to a lesser extent propionate, after temperature was changed coefficient ¼ 0.80, p < 0.001) and followed similar temporal
from 37  C to 55  C on day 3. A subsequent decrease in pH was patterns (Fig. 4).
detected from an initial 7.8 down to 7.4. This reverted on day
13 after acetate levels started to stabilise. In reactor OL37, both 3.3. Principal component analysis
acetate and propionate progressively accumulated, which
was accompanied by a decrease in pH down to 6.5 (Fig. 3). The two principal components (PCs) extracted from the ordi-
Total ammonia nitrogen (NH4–N) averaged 1.3  0.03 g L1 nation of the data explained 76.6% of the total variance. Fig. 5A
in all reactors before the shift to the specific feed solutions on shows the distribution of the samples within the biplot that
day 4 (Fig. 4). In EX_OL37 and EX_OL55, NH4–N decreased on both PCs define. At the start of the experiment (day 4), all
day 11 (i.e. five days after changing the feed) until the end of reactors were located near to each other in the negative pole of
PC1, which was highly correlated with ammonia N (Fig. 5B). As
the digestion with the specific feed solutions proceeded, the
Table 3 – Steady state parameters after the period reactors followed divergent trajectories in the diagram. Both
corresponding to one HRT (21.4 d). Standard deviations reactors codigesting excreta and TPOMW (EX_OL37 and
are given in brackets for n [ 3. EX_OL55) followed similar trajectories irrespective of their
Parametera EX_OL37 EX_OL55 EX37 OL37 operating temperature. These moved towards the area of high
biogas production, and high levels of TS and COD, responding to
Gas production
the change of feed from excreta alone (OLR ¼ 1.9 g COD L1 d1)
Biogas production 1096 (81) 1289 (158) 251 (39) –
to excreta:TPOMW (OLR ¼ 5.5 g COD L1 d1). EX37 showed the
(mL L1 sludge d1)
Methane yield (L CH4 kg1 179 (18) 210 (30) 103 (16) – shortest trajectory, thus the most similar performance
VS added) throughout the experiment, towards the sector of low TS and
VS removed (%) 53.4 (1.7) 54.0 (1.8) 45.8 (6.3) – COD, due to the decrease in OLR from 1.9 (excreta) to
Effluent characteristics 1.4 g COD L1 d1 (diluted excreta). Finally, OL37 advanced in the
TS (% w/v) 5.2 (0.1) 5.2 (0.2) 2.9 (0.2) 3.4 (0.1) direction of the area correlated with low biogas production,
VS (% w/w of TS) 73.6 (0.6) 73.4 (0.6) 62.3 (1.9) 72.6 (1.5) alkalinity, pH and ammonia N, but high total C, total N and
Particulate COD (g L1) 27.9 (0.2) 26.0 (0.6) 16.5 (0.5) 22.4 (1.1) propionate.
Soluble COD (g L1) 10.9 (0.7) 16.9 (0.9) 5.5 (0.2) 13.1 (0.7)
Total C (g L1) 41.5 (2.4) 44.1 (3.6) 41.7 (2.2) 46.4 (2.5)
Total N (g L1) 3.5 (0.1) 3.5 (0.2) 3.2 (0.3) 3.4 (0.2)
EC (mS cm1) 16.1 (0.1) 16.7 (0.3) 15.3 (0.2) 10.8 (1.4) 4. Discussion
a TS, total solids; VS, volatile solids; COD, chemical oxygen
Four pilot reactors were used to evaluate the potential biogas
demand; EC, electrical conductivity.
production from the codigestion of cattle excreta and two-
344 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346

Fig. 3 – Acetate, propionate (g LL1) and pH in the reactors (EX_OL37, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at 37 8C; EX_OL55, 3:1
excreta:TPOMW at 55 8C; EX37, 3:1 excreta:water at 37 8C; OL37, 3:1 water:TPOMW at 37 8C).

phase olive mill wastes (TPOMW). Prior to the start of the filled with TPOMW instead of water. These values are well
experiment with specific feeding solutions and temperatures, above those reported previously in experiments using olive
the reactors were run with cattle excreta at 37  C until they mill wastewaters. Gelegenis et al. [14] obtained
operated similarly in terms of gas production, methane 520 mL biogas L1 reactor d1 from the digestion of poultry
content and sludge properties (day 4 in Fig. 5A). This demon- excreta and olive mill wastewasters (pH 1.6) at a ratio 3:1 in
strated that all four reactors function similarly if operated a 25 L reactor. This value was 25% higher than the biogas
under equal conditions. The diverse combinations of wastes produced by a similar reactor fed only with poultry excreta. Up
led to distinct reactor performance (Fig. 5). to 155% additional biogas was obtained in a batch experiment
The reactors codigesting excreta and TPOMW at 37  C in 100 ml vials when laying hen litter was digested with olive
(EX_OL37) and 55  C (EX_OL55), and the reactor digesting mill effluent compared to laying hen litter alone, at
excreta alone (EX37) operated stably and achieved a constant 10 g COD L1 load with 10% TS [16].
biogas production and methane yield. After the period corre- The methane yield of the mesophilic reactor codigesting
sponding to one HRT (21.4 d), 1096 mL L1 d1 biogas were cattle excreta and TPOMW at a ratio 3:1 was 179 L CH4 kg1 VS
produced from the sludge in EX_OL37 while EX37 yielded only loaded. A total 57.7% of this methane can be attributed to the
251 mL L1 d1. Therefore, 337% more biogas was produced three quarters of the reactor that were filled up with excreta,
when a quarter of the effective volume of the digester was considering the results from the excreta digesting reactor

Fig. 4 – Ammonia N (mg LL1) and alkalinity (mmol HD equiv LL1) in the reactors (EX_OL37, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at 37 8C;
EX_OL55, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at 55 8C; EX37, 3:1 excreta:water at 37 8C; OL37, 3:1 water:TPOMW at 37 8C).
biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346 345

grape industries resulted in 14–35% more biogas at 55  C than


at 37  C [15].
The mesophilic and thermophilic digesters were similarly
efficient in removing the pollutant load of the sludge (ca. 54%
of VS removed). These values are lower than those found in
the literature in codigestion experiments using other olive
mill effluents [9,14]. The calculated values do not fully agree
with those that should be expected from methane production.
A possible reason for this disagreement could be some sedi-
mentation of sludge in the tank affecting the effluent port at
the bottom of the reactor. Previous experiments in the same
digesters showed that stirring was enough to ensure an even
vertical distribution of the solids (unpublished data). Still,
some sedimentation could have occurred forced by the pieces
of olive stones in TPOMW. In the reactor digesting excreta
alone (EX37), VS removal efficiency averaged 45.8% after the
period corresponding to one HRT. These low values are
coherent with previous reports [5,21].
The reactor digesting TPOMW alone (OL37) at an OLR of
3.8 g COD L1 d1 showed a decrease in its buffering capacity,
together with the washout of the cattle excreta used to start it
up, until it collapsed. The reactor underwent a progressive
acidification during the experiment due to the increase in VFA
content together with the parallel decrease in its capacity to
neutralize acids. The ratio VFA/alkalinity, expressed in
equivalents of acetic acid/equivalents of calcium carbonate
was below 0.1 at the start of the experiment indicating process
stability [22]. However, the VFA/alkalinity ratio progressively
Fig. 5 – Biplot of the two main axes after principal
went up, exceeding 0.8 in the period after one HRT. This
component (PC) analysis, showing the relationship
threshold (VFA/alk  0.8) has been pointed before as an indi-
between the reactors (EX_OL37, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at
cator of imminent process failure [23]. The washout of nutri-
37 8C; EX_OL55, 3:1 excreta:TPOMW at 55 8C; EX37, 3:1
ents was discarded as a reason of reactor breakdown.
excreta:water at 37 8C; OL37, 3:1 water:TPOMW at 37 8C),
Ammonia N decreased sharply due to its negligible levels in
the sampling dates (days 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 25 and 28) and
the influent TPOMW. However, due to the degradation of N
the variables: biogas production (Biogas), methane
containing biopolymers, NH4–N was above 0.5 g L1 until the
production (CH4), total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), total
end of the experiment. Deficiencies in other nutrients (K, P,
chemical oxygen demand (CODtot), soluble COD (CODsol),
Ca, Mg, S, Fe) were not detected either. These were present at
acetate (Acet) and propionate (Prop) concentration, total C
similar levels in reactor digesting TPOMW alone and in all
(Ct), total N (Nt), C/N ratio (C/N), ammonia N (NH4–N), pH,
other reactors [24]. It is more likely that the process imbalance
alkalinity (Alk) and electrical conductivity (EC).
could be due to the supply with TPOMW of heavy metals and/
or phenolic substances that inhibit microbial growth [7,8].
(103.1 L CH4 kg1 VS). Thus, 42.3% of the total methane yield in Copper, a strong inhibitor of methanogenesis [25], was more
EX_OL37 (75.6 L CH4 kg1 VS) was produced from the use of available in the acidified reactor digesting TPOMW (192 ppm
TPOMW as a codigestate. dry weight) than in all other reactors [24].
The thermophilic codigestion of excreta and TPOMW yiel- Borja et al. [12] demonstrated that TPOMW can be
ded 1289 mL biogas L1 sludge d1, which is within the range successfully digested using a complex nutrient-trace solution
of 1250–1550 mL L1 d1 reported by Angelidaki and Ahring [9] in the start-up phase and increasing the OLR stepwise, thus
using 2 L CSTRs codigesting cattle excreta and oil mill efflu- allowing microbial acclimatisation. These authors obtained
ents at ratios 1:1 and 1:3 at 55  C with HRT ¼ 13 days and 0.84 L CH4 L1 d1 and a COD removal efficiency over 90% from
OLR ¼ 7.8 g COD L1 d1. Our reactor operated at 55  C the digestion of 40% diluted TPOMW (74.9% VS) with an OLR of
produced 17.6% more biogas than that run at 37  C. It is likely 3.24 g COD L1 d1 in a 1 L reactor. It should be tested whether
that an increased biogas production at the end of the experi- gradually increasing the TPOMW load of reactors digesting
ment in the thermophilic reactor was due to VFA accumula- animal excreta allows for a more efficient VS removal and an
tion during the non-stirring period. However, it should be even enhanced biogas production than that reported here.
noticed that the first of the three consecutive dates used for
the calculations of the steady state parameters fell within the
non-stirring period, so it is unlikely that biogas production 5. Conclusions
was overestimated. Our data fit those obtained in a batch
experiment with 160 ml serum vials, in which the codigestion High and stable methane production (179 L CH4 kg1 VS
of wastewasters from olive mill, slaughterhouse and wine- loaded) was obtained from the mesophilic codigestion of 3:1
346 biomass and bioenergy 34 (2010) 340–346

cattle excreta:two-phase olive mill wastes with an OLR of [10] Beccari M, Majone M, Riccardi C, Savarese F, Torrisi L.
5.5 g COD L1 d1 and a HRT of 21.4 d. The quarter of the Integrated treatment of olive oil mill effluents: effect of
reactor filled up with TPOMW, with its high biodegradability, chemical and physical pretreatment on anaerobic
treatability. Water Sci Technol 1999;40:347–55.
contributed to 75.6 L CH4 kg1 VS of the total methane yield.
[11] Hamdi M. Anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewaters.
The excreta buffered the low pH and alkalinity of the TPOMW, Process Biochem 1996;31:105–10.
allowing its anaerobic biodegradation without the need of any [12] Borja R, Rincón B, Raposo F, Alba J, Martı́n A. A study of
pre-treatment or chemical additive. Thermophilically, the anaerobic digestibility of two-phases olive mill solid waste
codigestion of both wastes rendered 17.3% more methane (OMSW) at mesophilic temperature. Process Biochem 2002;
than mesophilically. Reactor efficiency in terms of VS removal 38:733–42.
[13] Ergüder TH, Güven E, Demirer GN. Anaerobic treatment of
was higher (ca. 54%) thanks to the codigestion of the residues.
olive mill wastes in batch reactors. Process Biochem 2000;36:
The mixing ration should be optimized according to the
243–8.
precise composition of the input materials. [14] Gelegenis J, Georgakakis D, Angelidaki I, Christopoulou N,
Goumenaki M. Optimization of biogas production from olive-
oil mill wastewater, by codigesting with diluted poultry-
Acknowledgements manure. Appl Energ 2007;84:646–63.
[15] Fountoulakis MS, Drakopoulou S, Terzakis S, Georgaki E,
We thank the Agricultural School in Rotholz (Tirol, Austria) Manios T. Potential for methane production from typical
Mediterranean agro-industrial by-products. Biomass
and the cooperative COATO in Totana (Murcia, Spain) for
Bioenerg 2008;32:155–61.
providing us with the cattle excreta and TPOMW, respectively. [16] Azbar N, Keskin T, Yuruyen A. Enhancement of biogas
We also thank M.A. Sánchez Monedero, A. Roig and C. Mon- production from olive mill effluent (OME) by co-digestion.
dini for arranging the transport of TPOMW to our laboratory. Biomass Bioenerg 2008;32:1195–201.
We thank C. Mondini for providing nutrient and heavy metal [17] Schoen MA, Sperl D, Gadermaier M, Goberna M, Franke-
contents of the digestion end products and E.A. Eladawy for Whittle I, Insam H, Wett B. Comparison of biogas plant start-
providing Fig. 1. M. Goberna was supported by the Marie Curie up procedures based on lab- and full-scale data and on
numerical modelling. In: Proceedings of the Second
Actions (MEIF-CT-2006-041034). The support of the Tiroler
International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and
Zukunftsstiftung for the K-Regio Center BioTreaT is Waste. Venice; 2008.
appreciated. [18] Schoen MA, Sperl D, Gadermaier M, Goberna M, Franke-
Whittle I, Insam H, et al. Population dynamics at
digester overload conditions. Bioresour Technol 2009;
references 100:5648–55.
[19] Wett B, Schoen MA, Phothilangka P, Wackerle F, Insam H.
Model-based design of an agricultural biogas plant:
[1] Tabajdi CS. Draft report on sustainable agriculture and application of anaerobic digestion model no.1 for an
biogas: a need for review of EU-legislation (2007/2107 INI). improved four chamber scheme. Water Sci Technol 2007;55:
Brussels: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, 21–8.
European Parliament; 2007. [20] Van der Sloot H (coord.) Project horizontal: European
[2] US Environmental Protection Agency. Anaerobic digestion: standards in the field of soil, sludge and treated biowaste on
benefits for waste management, agriculture, energy, and the sampling, inorganic parameters, organic parameters,
environment. US Environmental Protection Agency, http:// biological parameters and hygienic parameters, CEN/BT Task
www.dcmnr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/287C17F6-13D2-48B9- Force 51. ULR: http://www.ecn.nl/horizontal/; 2006.
882C-2060512A573E/0/EPAappendix.pdf; 2005. [21] Güngör-Demirci G, Demirer GN. Effect of initial COD
[3] European Parliament. Sustainable agriculture and biogas: concentration, nutrient addition, temperature and microbial
a need for review of EU-legislation. Non-legislative resolution acclimation on anaerobic treatability of broiler and cattle
T6-0095/2008. Brussels: European Parliament; 2008. excreta. Bioresour Technol 2004;93:109–17.
[4] Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Methods for increasing the biogas [22] Sánchez E, Borja R, Travieso L, Martin A, Colmenarejo MF.
potential from the recalcitrant organic matter contained in Effect of organic loading rate on the stability, operational
manure. Water Sci Technol 2000;41:189–94. parameters and performance of a secondary upflow
[5] Demirer GN, Chen S. Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure in anaerobic sludge bed reactor treating piggery waste.
a hybrid reactor with biogas recirculation. World J Microb Bioresour Technol 2005;96:335–44.
Biot 2005;21:1509–14. [23] Zhao HW, Viraraghavan T. Analysis of the performance of an
[6] Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. anaerobic digestion system at the Regina wastewater
Biogasausbeuten verschiedener substrate. Bayerische treatment plant. Bioresour Technol 2004;95:301–7.
Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, http://www.lfl.bayern.de/ [24] Mondini C. Nutrient and heavy metal content of effluent
ilb/technik/10225/; 2004. sludge from reactors digesting cattle excreta and two-phase
[7] Borja R, Rincón B, Raposo F. Anaerobic biodegradation of olive mill waste. Gorizia, Italy: Centro di ricerca per lo studio
two-phase olive mill solid wastes and liquid effluents: kinetic delle relazioni trapiantae suolo, pers.com; April 2009.
studies and process performance. J Chem Technol Biot 2006; [25] Karri S, Sierra-Alvarez R, Field JA. Toxicity of copper to
81:1450–62. acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic activities of methanogens
[8] Roig A, Cayuela ML, Sánchez-Monedero MA. An overview on and sulfate reducers in anaerobic sludge. Chemosphere 2006;
olive mill wastes and their valorisation methods. Waste 62:121–7.
Manage 2006;26:960–9. [26] Eladawy EA. Modelling of anaerobic sewage sludge digestion –
[9] Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Codigestion of olive oil mill Sludge characterisation and process analysis. Innsbruck:
wastewaters with manure, household waste or sewage Institute of Environmental Engineering, University of
sludge. Biodegradation 1997;8:221–6. Innsbruck. PhD thesis; 2005.

You might also like