Advertisement

Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 833–845 | Cite as

Modeling effects of granules on the start-up of anaerobic digestion of dairy wastewater with Langmuir and extended Freundlich equations

  • Pramod K. PandeyEmail author
  • Pius M. Ndegwa
  • J. Richard Alldredge
  • Marvin Pitts
  • M. L. Soupir
Original Paper

Abstract

The effects of granules-inocula on the start-up of anaerobic reactors treating dairy manure were studied in a batch-fed reactor. The effects of start-up period and ratio of granules to feed were analyzed. Results indicated that the effects of start-up period could be described by Langmuir model, while the Extended Freundlich model could be used to model the effects of ratio of granules to feed on cumulative biogas production. In addition, transmission electron microscopes (TEM) and scanning electron microscope analysis were conducted to elucidate the distribution of microbial population and micro-colonies in granules and manure. From the TEM micrographs analyses, the ratios the Syntrophobacter and methanogens in granule and manure were shown to be 1.57 ± 0.42 and 0.22 ± 0.20, respectively. These results demonstrated that granules-inocula could reduce the period required for onset of biogas by 25%.

Keywords

Start-up Anaerobic digestion Granules Dairy manure Langmuir model Extended Freundlich model SEM and TEM 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was conducted with financial support from Dr. Shulin Chen’s Research Program (Dr. Chen is a Professor of Biological System Engineering at Washington State University).

References

  1. 1.
    USDA-SCS (1992) Agricultural waste management field handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffin ME, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L (1998) Methanogenic population dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and biosolids. Biotechnol Bioeng 57:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Show KY, Wang Y, Foong SF, Tay JH (2004) Accelerated start-up and enhanced granulation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Water Res 38:2293–2304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vavilin VA, Angelidaki I (2005) Anaerobic degradation of solid material: importance of initiation centers for methanogenesis, mixing intensity, and 2D distributed model. Biotechnol Bioeng 89:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMahon KD, Stroot PG, Mackie RI, Raskin L (2001) Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions—II: microbial population dynamics. Water Res 35:1817–1827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fang HHP (2000) Microbial distribution in UASB granules and its resulting effects. Water Sci Technol 42:201–208Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt JE, Ahring BK (1996) Granular sludge formation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:229–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lettinga G, Van Velsen AFM, Hobma SW, Zeeuw W, Klapwijk A (1980) Use of the upflow sludge blanket (USB) reactor concept for biological wastewater treatment, especially for anaerobic treatment. Biotechnol Bioeng 22:699–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hulshoff Pol LW, De Castro Lopes SI, Lettinga G, Lens PN (2004) Anaerobic sludge granulation. Water Res 38:1376–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baloch MI, Akunna JC, Kierans M, Collier PJ (2008) Structural analysis of anaerobic granules in a phase separated reactor by electron microscopy. Bioresour Technol 99:922–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baloch MI, Akunna JC, Collier PJ (2007) The performance of a phase separated granular bed bioreactor treating brewery wastewater. Bioresour Technol 98:1849–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Batstone DJ, Keller J, Blackall LL (2004) The influence of substrate kinetics on the microbial community structure in granular anaerobic biomass. Water Res 38:1390–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhatti ZI, Furkukawa K, Fujita M (1995) Comparative composition and characteristics of methanogenic granular sludges treating industrial wastes under different conditions. J Ferment Bioeng 79:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cruz CCV, Da Costa ACA, Henriques CA, Luna AS (2004) Kinetic modeling and equilibrium studies during cadmium biosorption by dead Sargassum sp. biomass. Bioresour Technol 91:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sibbesen E (1981) Some new equations to describe phosphate sorption by soils. J Soil Sci 32:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hussein H, Ibrahim SF, Kandeel K, Moawad H (2004) Biosorption of heavy metals from waste water using Pseudomonas sp. Electron J Biotechnol 7:30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dianati-Tilaki RA (2003) Study on removal of cadmium from water environment by adsorption on GAC, BAC, and biofilter. In: Proceeding of the 7th international conference—diffuse pollution and basin management, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guibal E, Saucedo I, Jansson-Charrier M, Delanghe B, Cloirec P (1994) Uranium and vanadium sorption by chitosan and derivatives. Water Sci Technol 30:183–190Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Varzakas T, Arapoglou D, Israilides C (2006) Kinetics of endoglucanase and endoxylanase uptake by soybean seeds. J Biosci Bioeng 101:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dianati-Tilaki RA, Mahvi AH, Shariat M, Nasseri S (2004) Study of cadmium removal from environmental water by biofilm covered granular activated carbon. Iranian J Publ Health 33:43–52Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    APHA (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environmental Federation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howgrave-Graham AR, Wallis FM (1993) Quantification of bacterial morphotypes within anaerobic digester granules from transmission electron micrographs using image analysis. Biotechnol Tech 7:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dudley BT, Howgrave-Graham AR, Bruton AG, Wallis FM (1993) The application of digital image processing to quantifying and measuring UASB digester granules. Biotechnol Bioeng 42:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benguella B, Benaissa H (2002) Cadmium removal from aqueous solution by chitin: kinetic and equilibrium studies. Water Res 36:2463–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ratkowsky DA (1986) A statistical study of seven curves for describing the sorption of phosphate by soil. J Soil Sci 37:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lettinga G (1995) Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 67:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarty PL (2001) The development of anaerobic treatment and its future. Water Sci Technol 44:149–156Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sekiguchi Y, Kamagata Y, Nakamura K, Syutsubo K, Ohashi A, Harada H, Nakamura K (1998) Diversity of mesophilic and thermophilic granular sludge determined by 16S rRNA gene analysis. Microbiology 22:2655–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harmsen HJM, Akkermans ADL, Stams AJM, De Vos WM (1996) Population dynamics of propionate-oxidizing bacteria under methanogenic and sulfidogenic conditions in anaerobic granular sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:2163–2168Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macleod FA, Guiot SR, Costerton JW (1990) Layered structure of bacterial aggregates produced in an upflow anaerobic sludge bed and filter reactor. Appl Environ Microbiol 56:1598–1607Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morvai L, Mihaltz P, Czako L, Hollo J (1991) Application of UASB-reactors in industrial wastewater treatment: performance data and results in granulation control. Acta Biotechnol 11:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu W, Hickey RF, Zeikus JG (1991) Characterization of metabolic performance of methanogenic granules treating brewery wastewater: role of sulfate-reducing bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:3438–3449Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sow D, Ollivier B, Viaud P, Garcia JL (1989) Mesophilic and thermophilic methane fermentation of Euphorbia tirucalli. Microb Biotechnol 5:547–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fiebig K, Gottshalk G (1983) Methanogenesis from choline by coculture of Desulfovibrio spp. and Methanosarcina barki. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:161–168Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whitford MF, Teather RM, Forster RJ (2001) Phylogenetic analysis of methanogens from the bovine rumen. BMC Microbiol 1:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jarvis GN, Strompl C, Burgess DM, Skillman LC, Moore ER, Joblin KN (2000) Isolation and identification of ruminal methanogens from grazing cattle. Curr Microbiol 40:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stewart CS, Flint HJ, Bryant MP (1997) The rumen bacteria. In: Hobson PN, Stewart CS (eds) The rumen microbial ecosystem, 2nd edn. Blackie Academic and Professional, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McAllister TA, Okine EK, Mathison GW, Cheng KJ (1996) Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Can J Anim Sci 76:231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bergen WG (2004) Quantitative determination of rumen ciliate protozoal biomass with real-time PCR. J Nutr 134:3223–3224Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tokura M, Chagan I, Ushida K, Kojima Y (1999) Phylogenetic study of methanogens associated with rumen ciliates. Curr Microbiol 39:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Coleman GS (1979) Rumen ciliate protozoa. In: Levandowsky M, Hunter SH (eds) Biochemistry and physiology of protozoa, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Samsoon PALNS, Loewenthal RE, Wentzel MC, Marais G (1990) Effect of nitrogen limitation on pelletization in upflow anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) systems. Water Res 16:165–170Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fang HHP (1997) Inhibition of bioactivity of UASB biogranules by electroplating metals. Pure Appl Chem 69:2425–2429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stroot PG, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L (2001) Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions-I: digester performance. Water Res 35:1804–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lovely DR (1985) Minimum threshold for hydrogen metabolism in methanogenic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:1530–1531Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shea TG, Pretorius WA, Cole RD, Pearson EA (1968) Kinetics of hydrogen assimilation in the methane fermentation. Water Res 2:833–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ejlertsson J, Karlsson A, Lagerkvist A, Hjertberg T, Svensson BH (2003) Effects of co-disposal of wastes containing organic pollutants with municipal solid waste—a landfill simulation reactor study. Adv Environ Res 7:949–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raposo F, Banks CJ, Siegert I, Heaven S, Borja R (2006) Influence of inoculum to substrate ratio on the biochemical methane potential of maize in batch tests. Process Biochem 41:1444–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Raposo F, Borja R, Martín MA, Martín A, de la Rubia MA, Rincón B (2009) Influence of inoculum–substrate ratio on the anaerobic digestion of sunflower oil cake in batch mode: process stability and kinetic evaluation. Chem Eng J 149:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu Guangqing, Ruihong Z, El-Mashad HamedM, Renjie D (2009) Effect of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas yields of food and green wastes. Bioresour Technol 100:5103–5108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gonzalez-Fernandez Cristina, Pedro A, Garcia-Encina (2009) Impact of substrate to inoculum ratio in anaerobic digestion of swine slurry. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1065–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Barlaz MA, Schaefer DM, Ham RK (1989) Bacterial population development and chemical characteristics of refuse decomposition in a simulated sanitary landfill. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:55–65Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Karim K, Hoffmann R, Thomas Klasson K, Al-Dahhan MH (2005) Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: effect of mode of mixing. Water Res 39:3597–3606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Dubourguier HC, Archer DB, Albagnac G, Prensier G (1988) Structure and metabolism of methanogenic microbial conglomerates. In: Hall ER, Hobson PN (eds) Anaerobic digestion. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pramod K. Pandey
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pius M. Ndegwa
    • 2
  • J. Richard Alldredge
    • 3
  • Marvin Pitts
    • 2
  • M. L. Soupir
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Biosystems EngineeringIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations