Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematical Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Perhaps, because of this fact some authors consider the coexistence (represented by \(E^*_4(u)\)) as a desired operating point. Nevertheless, it could happen that the methane flow rate at \(E^*_2(u)\) (for some u where \(E^*_4(u)\) does not exist) could be greater than the methane flow rate evaluated in any \(E^*_4(u)\) (for u such that \(E^*_4(u)\) exists).

References

  • 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):65–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):2568–2594

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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):627–659

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1008–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):424–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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):5347–5364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2017

  • 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):556–584

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1186–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim M, Ahn YH, Speece R (2002) Comparative process stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Res 36(17):4369–4385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novick A, Szilard L (1950) Experiments with the chemostat on spontaneous mutations of bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci 36(12):708–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbarciog M, Loccufier M, Vande Wouwer A (2011) On the optimization of biogas production in anaerobic digestion systems. IFAC Proc Vol 44(1):7150–7155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbarciog M, Loccufier M, Vande Wouwer A (2012a) An optimizing start-up strategy for a bio-methanator. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35(4):565–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbarciog M, Moreno JA, Vande Wouwer A (2012b) A biogas-based switching control policy for anaerobic digestion systems1. IFAC Proc Vol 45(15):603–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • Weedermann M, Wolkowicz GS, Sasara J (2015) Optimal biogas production in a model for anaerobic digestion. Nonlinear Dyn 81(3):1097–1112

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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):2036–2050

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Gajardo.

Appendix: Expressions of curves \(C_1\)–\(C_2\)–\(C_3\) for Monod and Haldane kinetics

Appendix: Expressions of curves \(C_1\)\(C_2\)\(C_3\) for Monod and Haldane kinetics

In the AM2 model (Bernard et al. 2001), recall that \({\tilde{\mu }}_1\) and \({\tilde{\mu }}_2\) are Monod and Haldane respectively (see Example 1). We can then explicit the expressions defining the curves \(C_2\) and \(C_3\) given by (23)–(24) as follows. A preliminary inspection allows us to find that for Monod’s kinetics, one has

$$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1)= \frac{{\bar{\mu }}_1 S_{in}^1}{k_A+S_{in}^1}\quad \mathrm {and} \quad \frac{{\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1)}{{\tilde{\mu }}_1'(S_{in}^1)}=\frac{(k_A+S_{in}^1)S_{in}^1}{k_A}. \end{aligned}$$

For Haldane’s kinetics, \(S_2^*(u)\) is the lowest (positive) solution to the equation \({\tilde{\mu }}_2(S_2)=u\). It is easily seen that \(S_2^*(u)\) is the lowest root of a quadratic equation. This gives:

$$\begin{aligned} {} S_2^*(u):=\frac{k_I({\bar{\mu }}_2 -u) - \sqrt{{\varDelta }(u)}}{2u} \quad \mathrm {with} \quad {\varDelta }(u):=({\bar{\mu }}_2-u)^2 k_I^2 - 4k_M k_I u^2. \end{aligned}$$
(25)

The number \(S_2^*(u)\) is well defined provided that \(u>0\) and \({\varDelta }(u)>0\). In addition, differentiating the previous expression w.r.t. u gives

$$\begin{aligned} {} S_2^{* '}(u)=\frac{{\bar{\mu }}_2 k_I^2({\bar{\mu }}_2 -u) - \sqrt{{\varDelta }(u)}}{2u^2\sqrt{{\varDelta }(u)}}. \end{aligned}$$
(26)

For the curve \(C_2\), we can then conclude that a point \((S_{in}^1,S_{in}^2)\in C_2\) whenever:

$$\begin{aligned} S_{in}^2=S_2^*({\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1))+\frac{{\bar{\mu }}_1 S_{in}^1 S_2^{* '}({\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1))}{k_A+S_{in}^1}, \end{aligned}$$

since \({\tilde{\mu }}_2(S_2^*(u))S_2^{* '}(u)=1\). Similarly a point \((S_{in}^1,S_{in}^2)\) belongs to \(C_3\) whenever

$$\begin{aligned} S_{in}^2=S_2^*({\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1))+\frac{k_2S_{in}^1(k_A+S_{in}^1)}{k_1k_A}+\frac{{\bar{\mu }}_1 S_{in}^1 S_2^{* '}({\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1)) }{k_A+S_{in}^1}. \end{aligned}$$

These expressions are well defined because one has \({\tilde{\mu }}_1(S_{in}^1)<{\tilde{\mu }}_2({\tilde{S}}_2)\), and they define the curves \(C_2\) and \(C_3\) respectively.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bayen, T., Gajardo, P. On the steady state optimization of the biogas production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion model. J. Math. Biol. 78, 1067–1087 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-018-1301-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-018-1301-3

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation