Bio-Energy Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Animal

and Farm Wastes

Muthanna Al Dahhan*+
Professor & Chairman, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
Professor of Nuclear engineering

Team: R. Varma, M. Vesvikar, K. Karim, R. Hoffman
D. DePaoli, K. Klasson, A. Winterberg, C. Alexander**

* Missouri University of Science and Technology
** Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
+ The work was performed at Washington University and ORNL
Advancing Excellence
Energy Summit University of Missouri System
Missouri S&T
April 22-23, 2009
Introduction and Motivation
Over1.8 billion tons of animal waste generated in USA
Unsafe and improper disposal of animal and farm wastes results in:
Land and surface & ground water pollution
Ammonia leaching
Methan emission causing greenhouse gas effect, 22 times worse than
carbon dioxide
Odors
Treatment of these wastes by anaerobic degradation Provides
bio-energy (methan, CH4) which can be used directly as fuel or to be
burnt to generate electrical power. It can also be converted to syngas
(H2 & CO) to be either generate electricity or to be converted to liquid
fuels and chemicals.
Bio-fertilizer
Reduces pollution
Reduces odor
The growth of livestock industry provides a valuable source of
affordable, sustainable, and renewable bioenergy while also requiring
safe disposal of large quantity of animal wastes (manure) generated at
diary, swine and poultry farms.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic biodigestion is a biological process in which
biodegradable organic materials are decomposed in the absence
of oxygen to produce methane and carbon dioxide.
If the VFAs are not utilized at the
rate they are produced, then it can
kill the methanogenic activity due
to lower pH

Stage 3
Methane
formation
Stage 1
Hydrolysis,
liquefaction
and
fermentation
Complex waste organics
Carbohydrates
Proteins
Lipids
Simpler, soluble organics
Propionate,
butyrate etc.
(long chain fatty
acids)
H
2
, CO
2
Acetate
CH
4
, CO
2

1
1
1 1
2 2
3
4 5
Bacterial groups:
1. Fermentative bacteria
2. H
2
-producing acetogenic
bacteria
3. H
2
-consuming acetogenic
bacteria
4. CO
2
-reducing methanogens
5. Aceticlastic methanogens
Stage 2
Hydrogen
and acetic
acid
formation
Slow step
(2 days)
Rate limiting
step
(>3.6 days)
pH sensitive
Slower
step (3.6
days)
The rate and favorable conditions for each anaerobic digestion step play an
important role in governing digester performance
VFA
VFA
Mixing is important to maintain an uniform environment, thus
effect of mixing on digester performance needs to be evaluated
Covered lagoon digesters are the most popular ones; however, their operation depends
on the climatic conditions and have very low performance.
High failure rate has been encountered: up to 70% in complete-mix and plug flow
digesters.





Reasons for failure of anaerobic digesters are not understood

Improper or insufficient mixing can be one of the reasons

Despite of anaerobic digestion being a slow reaction, mixing plays an important role. It:

Enhances microorganisms and substrate contact and distribution
Ensures uniform pH and temperature
Prevents deposition of denser solids at the bottom and flotation of lighter solids at the top
Helps to release biogas bubbles

The information available on mixing is contradictory, thus extent of mixing in digesters
is not understood properly

More reliable information of impact of mixing on digester performance can be obtained
by systematic and carefully planned experiments
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER: Status
Single particle CARPT
Effect of geometry and operating conditions o
Flow pattern
Velocity profiles
Turbulence quantities
Impact of scale on mixing intensity
MP - CARPT
Overcoming the shortcomings of
single particle CARPT in digester
Development
Validation
Implementation
Performance studies
(lab -
Impact of mixing intensity and scale
on performance
Biogas (methane) production
TS, VS and VFA
Single particle RPT
and Single Source CT
Laboratory and pilot plant scales,
Effect of design and operating variables on

Flow pattern

Velocity profiles
Turbulence quantities phase distribution and dead zones etc.

Impact of scale on mixing intensity
-
Overcoming the shortcomings of
single particle RPT and single source CT for
digesters
Development

Testing and Validation
Implementation
CFD
Modeling of anaerobic digester flow field
Closures evaluation
Validation
Effect of geometry and operating conditions
on the flow field
Impact of scale on mixing intensity
CFD
Modeling of anaerobic digester flow field
Closures evaluation
Validation
Effect of geometry and operating conditions
on the flow field
Impact of scale on mixing intensity
Performance and kinetics studies
Impact of mixing intensity and scale, on performance,
biogas(methane) production TS, VS and VFA
Biogas (methane) production
Kinetics
Commercial scale design and preparation
(lab - scale and pilot scale) (lab - scale and pilot scale)

Phase distribution
MRPT and DSCT
Lab, pilot plant and commercial scales



Overall Accomplishments on Bioenergy (Biogas) from Animal/Farm
Wastes Project ~ over 2.1 million dollars from DOE (2001-2007)
To advance understanding and design of anaerobic digesters by integrating hydrodynamics and
performance via implementing and developing advanced measurement and computational
techniques; systematically investigate operating and design parameters using the developed
techniques
Overall Objectives
1
st
Gamma Ray source
2
nd
Gamma Ray source
Three phase system
(GLS)
Detectors
] [ ln l
I
I
A
o
=
(

=
ij l l ij l
ij g g ij g
L A
L A
] [
] [
,
,


=
=
) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
, , ,
o
s ij g
o
s ij s ij s g
c c + =

ij g ij k ij K
A A R
, , ,
=
) (
,
) (
,
,
,
) (
,
) (
,
,
) 1 (
I
ij L
I
ij s l g
ij s
o
s
ij s
I
ij L
I
ij s g
ij g
R
R
R
R

+ = c
c
c
c
) (
,
) (
,
,
,
) (
,
) (
,
,
) 1 (
II
ij L
II
ij s l g
ij s
o
s
ij s
II
ij L
II
ij s g
ij g
R
R
R
R

+ = c
c
c
c
|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

o
s
II
ij l
I
ij l II
ij S G
o
s
I
ij S G
II
ij l
I
ij l II
ij S L G
I
ij S L G
ij s
R
R
R
R
R
R
R R
c c
c
) (
,
) (
, ) (
,
) (
,
) (
,
) (
, ) (
,
) (
,
,
ij ij s s s ij s ij g ij l ij g ij g s l g
L A A A ] [ ) 1 (
, , , , , ,
c c c c + + =

Equation for a three
phase system
Dual Source CT [Combining two single source -ray Tomography]
Varma and Al-Dahhan,
(2005)
Development of DSCT technique

Locations for the
Source Collimator
devices of
137
Cs and
60
Co sealed source

Detector Array
Plate
The Detector
Array Lead
Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators
inserted

Base
Plate

Circular Source
Plate
Photograph of the DSCT Setup

Locations for the Source
Collimator devices of
137
Cs and
60
Co sealed
source

Detector Array
Plate
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted

Base Plate

Circular Source
Plate
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
The Detector Array
Lead Shield with
Detector Lead
Collimators inserted
Detector Plate
motors
GLS Phantom
MRPT Vesvikar (2006)
Modified reconstruction algorithm for dual-particle tracking
Gamma peaks of Sc-46 and
Co-60 individually, together
and summation of individual
counts
MRPT
electronics
3-D schematic of the CT
3-D schematic of RPT
Implementation: Gas-Liquid-Solid System

air in
Stand holding
detectors and tank
detector
detector
detector
detector
tank Gassed liquid level
15.2 cm
3
4

c
m

2
2

c
m

distributor
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
radial locations (cm)
a
x
i a
l
l o
c
a
t
i o
n
s

(
c
m
)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
radial locations (cm)
a
x
i
a
l

(
l
i
q
u
i
d
/
s
o
l
i
d
)

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
c
m
/
s
)
Co-60 (single-particle) Co-60 (dual-particle)
Sc-46(single-particle) Sc-46(dual-particle)
Gas-Liquid-Solid system
Gas: Air
(superficial air velocity of 2.1 cm/sec)
Liquid: Water (represented
by Co-60 particle)
Solid: 300 micron glass spheres, 1%
by weight
(represented by Sc-46 )
Flow Patterns
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
radial locations (cm)
a
x
i a
l
l o
c
a
t
i o
n
s

(
c
m
)
Solid Liquid
Velocity profile
Two separate phases were tracked simultaneously using
MRPT successfully
Lab Scale Mimicked Digester Studies
Experimental set up with Multi-Orifice
Ring Sparger system (MORS)
Experimental set up with Single orifice
Sparger System (SOS)
22.5 mm
120.0
1 mm
25 holes (|1mm) are
equidistantly (14.4
o
apart) opened outward
and inward on the lower
face of the ring pipe at a
angle of 30
o
.
15.5 mm
19 mm
14.4o
Sparger Cross sectional
view giving details of
orifice
30 o
Details of the Multi Orifice
Ring Sparger (MORS)
Details Experimental Setup
BH=5.00 cm
Ddi=3.80 cm
DT = 15.30 cm
Dso=2.20 cm
0.3 cm ID Tube for gas inlet
0.5 cm ID support tube
for draft tube
Draft Tube
Multi-orifice ring sparger
4.5
Ld=14.0 cm
Front view of bioreactor
with MORS
Top view of draft tube
and MORS
Active Height
= 18.40 cm
Ddi = 3.8 cm
25.0
0
5 cm Level 2
for Tomography
10 cm Level 1
for Tomography
CT scans
done here
CT scans
done here
A
X X
D
di
= 3.80 cm
D T = 15.30 cm
support for draft tube
0.5 cm ID Tube
Draft Tube
4.0 cm
L d= 14.0 cm
Front view of bioreactor
with SOS
Top view of draft tube and
SOS
18.40 cm
D di = 3.8 cm
Gas inlet
25.0
0
5 cm. Level 2
for tomography
10 cm Level 1
for Tomography
Front View of Biodigester
Varma and Al-Dahhan, Biotech Bioengg 98(6), 2007
Digester mixed by gas recirculation offers following advantages
It eliminates moving parts inside the digester, which are difficult to maintain and clean. It requires less power input than other
mixing configurations .Shear stress levels are low in these reactors
Internal gaslift loop reactor (reactor mixed by gas recirculation) was selected for digester studies
Gaslift reactor is simple in design and is equipped with a draft tube and a sparger to facilitate liquid circulation
Digester applications has low liquid level to reactor diameter ratio (L/D~1) as opposed to L/D>2 for industrial applications in
aerobic fermentation. Hydrodynamic information of low L/D gaslift digesters is lacking and needs more research
Gas hold up distribution
Varma and Al-Dahhan 2007
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
7.35 4.41 1.46
Gas Flow Rate (cm/sec)
N
M
a
l


MORS Level 1 SOS Level 1 MORS Level 2 SOS Level 2

=
|
|
.
|

\
|

= =
n
j g
g j g
Mal
n
N
1
,
1
c
c c
o
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Superficial Gas Veocity in Draft Tube (cm/s)
M
e
a
n

G
a
s

H
o
l
d

u
p

i
n

D
r
a
f
t

t
u
b
e
MORS Level 1 MORS Level 2 SOS Level 1 SOS Level 2
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Multi Orifice Ring Sparger (MORS)
Single Orifice Sparger (SOS)
RPT Results: Velocity vector plot
Location of SOS
(a) MORS
(b) SOS
Counts from Detectors (t)
+
Distance - Count Map
Regression / Monte-Carlo Search
Instantaneous Positions
(x, y, z, t)
Mean Velocities
(x, y, z)
Ensemble (Time) Average
Time-Difference Between
Successive Locations
Instantaneous Velocities
(x, y, z, t)
Fluctuating
Velocities
(x, y, z, t)
MOS SOS
Details of 3D CFD Simulation
CFD software: CFX 5.7.1
Multiphase System
Dispersed phase: Air (Average bubble diameter=10mm)
Continuous phase: Water
Two fluid Euler-Euler model
Turbulence closure models
Air: Zero equation model Water: k-c model







Drag Force (dominant): Grace Model (Ranade, 2002)
Numerical Scheme: Finite Volume Technique
Surface Mesh: Delaunay mesh (Typically more than 100,000 volume elements were
created by volume meshing)
Time step and length scales: Automatic, generated by code
Simulations were performed for different bubble sizes ranging from 2 to 12 mm in diameter, no appreciable difference in the predictions was
observed.
The solution is mesh independent for the applied meshing.
( ) ( ) 0 = V +
c
c
o o o o o
U r r
t
Continuity:
Momentum:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
M U U r p r U U r U r
t
T
eff
+ V + V V + V = V +
c
c
) (
,
... ) Force Dispersion Turbulence (
) Force Mass Virtual ( ) Force Lift ( ) Force Drag (
+ +
+ + =
TD
VM L D
M
M M M M
o|
o| o| o| o|
=
=
o |
o| o
M M
3D CFD simulations were performed using CFX 5.7.1. k-c
turbulence model was used and only drag force was considered
CFD Predictions versus RPT Results
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
A
x
i
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
2 cm below draft tube (CFD)
2 cm below draft tube (CARPT)
center of draft tube (CFD)
center of draft tube (CARPT
2 cm above draft tube (CFD)
2 cm above draft tube (CARPT)
CFD Predictions
RPT results
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
r/R
A
x
i
a
l

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
Ug=0.024 cm/s (CFD)
Ug=0.048 cm/s (CFD)
Ug=0.072 cm/s (CFD)
Ug=0.024 cm/s (CARPT)
Ug=0.048 cm/s (CARPT)
Ug=0.072 cm/s (CARPT)
Location of draft tube
Axial liquid velocity profile (3 lpm)
Effect of gas flow rate (center of draft tube)
CFD predictions showed good qualitative agreement with RPT
data and the quantitative agreement was reasonable
Particle (or Cell) Tracking
RPT vs. CFD

A B
C D
Velocity field and streamlines for 25 degree conical
bottomed digester (A & B) without hanging baffle,
and (C & D) with hanging baffle.
Velocity field and streamlines for 45 degree conical
bottomed digester (A & B) without hanging
baffle, and (C & D) with hanging baffle
Performance of Anaerobic Digesters: Effect of Mixing in Lab-Scale Digesters
Type of Mixing Biogas production rate
(L/L/day)
Methane Yield
(L/ gm VS loaded)
% TS
reduction
% VS
reduction
1. Unmixed 0.92 0.19 41 35
2. Gas Mixed 1.07 0.21 49 39
3. Impeller Mixed 1.14 0.23 47 41
4. Slurry Recirculation 1.20 0.24 45 35
Mode/intensity of mixing or the geometry does not affect the performance of laboratory-
scale digester
Studies at large-scale digester needs to be performed to evaluate the true effect of
mixing on its performance
Performance of laboratory-scale digesters does not depend on
mixing. Is it true at all scales of operation?
Systematic lab-scale performance studies* were carried out to study the effect of the following
variables on the performance of 6 inch diameter (3.78 L) digesters (with same power input per
unit volume, 8 W/m
3
):
Geometry of digester
Intensity of mixing (1-3 lpm gas flow rate)
Percentage total solids in the feed (5% and 10%)
* Karim et al. 2005, Water Research, 39(15), 3597-3606 * Karim et al. 2005, Bioresource Technology, 96(16), 1771-1781
* Karim et al. 2005, Bioresource Technology, 96(14), 1607-1612 * Hoffmann R., 2005, Masters Thesis, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
Lab-Scale and Pilot-Scale Digesters
Lab-scale Digester Geometry Pilot-scale Digester Geometry
Volume: 3.78 L Volume: 97 L
Draft tube
diameter to
tank
diameter
ratio= 0.25
4 holes
4 holes
Laboratory-scale and pilot-scale digesters were geometrically
similar with volumetric scale-up ratio of 25
Lab and Pilot-Plant Digesters
6 inch diameter
3.78 L volume
18 inch diameter
97 L volume
Laboratory-scale & Pilot-scale studies were performed at WUSTL &
ORNL, Oak Ridge, TN
Digester Operation
Volume
Lab-scale: 3.78 L (6 inches)
Pilot-scale: 97 L (18 inches), volumetric scale-up ratio = 25, geometric scale-up ratio = 3
Feed
Treated cow manure with 6.6% VS, Volatile Solids (12% TS, Total Solids)
HRT: 16.2 days
Lab-scale: (0.46 L of slurry fed and 0.46 L of effluent withdrawn every other day)
Pilot-scale: (12 L of slurry fed and 12 L of effluent withdrawn every other day)
Operation
Mixed by gas recirculation
Unmixed (no external mixing is provided, some mixing is present due to the feeding and effluent
withdrawal mechanism and due to the evolution of biogas bubbles)
Gas flow rate (equivalent to energy input density of 8 W/m
3
, suggested by EPA)
Lab-scale: 1lpm
Pilot-scale: 9 lpm
Analysis
Total Solids, TS (drying sample in oven at 105 C)
Volatile Solids, VS (drying sample in furnace at 550 C)
Volatile Fatty Acids, VFA (GC)
Biogas production rate (Gas meter)
Biogas methane content (GC)

Digesters at both scales were operated and analyzed in same
fashion, fed with same waste and received equal power input
Cumulative Methane Production
L/L/day Lab-scale Pilot-scale
Mixed 0.86 0.41
Unmixed 0.83 0.20
y = 19.992x + 145.35
y = 39.953x - 99.439
y = 3.1355x - 52.616
y = 3.277x - 90.126
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (days)
P
i
l
o
t
-
s
c
a
l
e

M
e
t
h
a
n
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
L
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
L
a
b
-
s
c
a
l
e

M
e
t
h
a
n
e

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

(
L
)
Pilot-scale mixed
Pilot-scale unmixed
Lab-scale mixed
Lab-scale unmixed
Lab-scale unmixed
Pilot-scale mixed
Pilot-scale unmixed
Lab-scale mixed
The slope of the line represents the methane production rate in L/day. For fair comparison, the
biogas production is reported per unit volume of digester in the table below.
Laboratory-scale digesters perform better than pilot-scale ones.
Mixing affects the performance of pilot-scale digesters only.
Methane Generation in Pilot Plant
Cumulative methane production (in biogas)
over two residence time periods under steady
state operating conditions condition
Pilot Scale Energy Output vs. Energy Input for Mixing
Average methane production (lit/day) at steady state
conditions versus power input (obtained from gas flow rate)
General Remarks
Systematic and comprehensive investigations which integrate hydrodynamics and
anaerobic digester performance were performed for the first time.
New advanced measurement and non-invasive techniques were developed.
Lab scale digesters should be avoided for investigating the effect of mixing and
design parameters on anaerobic digestion.
In pilot-plant and commercial scales methane (Bioenergy) production improved
with improved mixing intensity.
An optimum mixing intensity exist that can maximize energy output with least
possible energy input for mixing. Beyond a point there are no returns in terms of
methane generation with increase in power input.
Pretreatment and process should be designed such that the settled solids should
be eluted from the system as increasing power to suspend solids doesnt improve
biogas production.
Additional investigation and funding are strongly recommended to advance and
simplify the technogly to a stage where the farmers can use it in farms to generate
energy and electrical power for their needs while treating the animal and farm
wastes.
Acknowledgement
DOE (DE-FC36-01GO11054)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Iowa Energy Center, CFX group