Advertisement

Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 78, Issue 4, pp 1067–1087 | Cite as

On the steady state optimization of the biogas production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion model

  • Térence Bayen
  • Pedro GajardoEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we study the optimization problem of maximizing biogas production at steady state in a two-stage anaerobic digestion model, which was initially proposed in Bernard et al. (Biotechnol Bioeng 75(4):424–438, 2001). Nominal operating points, consisting of steady states where the involved microorganisms coexist, are usually referred to as desired operational conditions, in particular for maximizing biogas production. Nevertheless, we prove that under some conditions related to input substrate concentrations and microorganism biology, characterized by their growth functions, the optimal steady state can be the extinction of one of the two species. We provide some numerical examples of this situation.

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion Biotechnology Steady state analysis Equilibrium Optimization 

Mathematics Subject Classification

78A70 65K10 93A30 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited considerably from advice and comments by Andrés Donoso (CETAQUA, Chile) and Jérôme Harmand (INRA, France), although they should not be held responsible for any mistake. The authors are very grateful to them. We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved this manuscript. The first author would like to thank INRA Montpellier and the UMR MISTEA for providing a half year delegation during the academic year 2017–2018. This research benefited from the support of FONDECYT grant (Chile) N 1160567 and Proyecto Redes 150011 (Chile). The second author was also partially supported by Basal Project CMM Universidad de Chile.

References

  1. Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A, Sanders W, Siegrist H, Vavilin VA (2002) The iwa anaerobic digestion model no 1 (adm1). Water Sci Technol 45(10):65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayen T, Rapaport A, Sebbah M (2014) Minimal time control of the two tanks gradostat model under a cascade inputs constraint. SIAM J Control Optim 52(4):2568–2594MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayen T, Cots O, Gajardo P (2018) Analysis of an optimal control problem related to the anaerobic digestion process. J Optim Theory Appl 178(2):627–659MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Benyahia B, Sari T, Cherki B, Harmand J (2012) Bifurcation and stability analysis of a two step model for monitoring anaerobic digestion processes. J Process Control 22(6):1008–1019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard O, Hadj-Sadok Z, Dochain D, Genovesi A, Steyer JP (2001) Dynamical model development and parameter identification for an anaerobic wastewater treatment process. Biotechnol Bioeng 75(4):424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daoud Y, Abdellatif NN, Harmand J (2017) Modèles mathématiques de digestion anaérobie: effet de l’hydrolyse sur la production du biogaz, https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01562353, working paper or preprint
  7. Donoso-Bravo A, Mailier J, Martin C, Rodríguez J, Aceves-Lara CA, Vande Wouwer A (2011) Model selection, identification and validation in anaerobic digestion: a review. Water Res 45(17):5347–5364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haddon A, Harmand J, Ramírez H, Rapaport A (2017) Guaranteed value strategy for the optimal control of biogas production in continuous bio-reactors. In: IFAC word congress 2017Google Scholar
  9. Heßeler J, Schmidt JK, Reichl U, Flockerzi D (2006) Coexistence in the chemostat as a result of metabolic by-products. J Math Biol 53(4):556–584MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Kelessidis A, Stasinakis AS (2012) Comparative study of the methods used for treatment and final disposal of sewage sludge in European countries. Waste Manag 32(6):1186–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim M, Ahn YH, Speece R (2002) Comparative process stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Res 36(17):4369–4385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Novick A, Szilard L (1950) Experiments with the chemostat on spontaneous mutations of bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci 36(12):708–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sbarciog M, Loccufier M, Vande Wouwer A (2011) On the optimization of biogas production in anaerobic digestion systems. IFAC Proc Vol 44(1):7150–7155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sbarciog M, Loccufier M, Vande Wouwer A (2012a) An optimizing start-up strategy for a bio-methanator. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35(4):565–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sbarciog M, Moreno JA, Vande Wouwer A (2012b) A biogas-based switching control policy for anaerobic digestion systems1. IFAC Proc Vol 45(15):603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith HL, Waltman P (1995) The theory of the chemostat, Cambridge studies in mathematical biology, vol 13. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; (dynamics of microbial competition) Google Scholar
  17. Weedermann M, Wolkowicz GS, Sasara J (2015) Optimal biogas production in a model for anaerobic digestion. Nonlinear Dyn 81(3):1097–1112MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Welz PJ, Holtman G, Haldenwang R, Le Roes-Hill M (2016) Characterisation of winery wastewater from continuous flow settling basins and waste stabilisation ponds over the course of 1 year: implications for biological wastewater treatment and land application. Water Sci Technol 74(9):2036–2050CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMAGUniv Montpellier, CNRSMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.MISTEA, Univ Montpellier, INRA, Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.Departamento de MatemáticaUniversidad Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations