Process efficiency simulation for key process parameters in biological methanogenesis

Sébastien Bernacchi; Michaela Weissgram; Walter Wukovits; Christoph Herwig

doi:10.3934/bioeng.2014.1.53

AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1(1): 53-71. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2014.1.53. Research Article Special Issues

Export file:

Format

RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
BibTex
Text

Content

Citation Only
Citation and Abstract

Process efficiency simulation for key process parameters in biological methanogenesis

Sébastien Bernacchi, Michaela Weissgram, Walter Wukovits, Christoph Herwig

1 Division of Biochemical Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, Gumpendorferstraße 1a, 1060 Vienna, Austria;
2 Division of Thermal Process Engineering and Simulation, Vienna University of Technology Getreidemarkt 9/166-2, 1060 Vienna, Austria

Received date: , Accepted date: , Published date:

Special Issues: Bioconversion for Renewable Energy and Biomaterials

Abstract Full Text(HTML) Figure/Table Related pages

New generation biofuels are a suitable approach to produce energy carriers in an almost CO₂ neutral way. A promising reaction is the conversion of CO₂ and H₂ to CH₄. This contribution aims at elucidating a bioprocess comprised of a core reaction unit using microorganisms from the Archaea life domain, which metabolize CO₂ and H₂ to CH₄, followed by a gas purification step. The process is simulated and analyzed thermodynamically using the Aspen Plus process simulation environment. The goal of the study was to quantify effects of process parameters on overall process efficiency using a kinetic model derived from previously published experimental results. The used empirical model links the production rate of CH₄ and biomass to limiting reactant concentrations. In addition, Aspen Plus was used to improve bioprocess quantification. Impacts of pressure as well as dilution of reactant gas with up to 70% non-reactive gas on overall process efficiency was evaluated. Pressure in the reactor unit of 11 bar at 65℃ with a pressure of 21 bar for gas purification led to an overall process efficiency comprised between 66% and 70% for gaseous product and between 73% and 76% if heat of compression is considered a valuable product. The combination of 2 bar pressure in the reactor and 21 bar for purification was the most efficient combination of parameters. This result shows Aspen Plus potential for similar bioprocess development as it accounts for the energetic aspect of the entire process. In fact, the optimum for the overall process efficiency was found to differ from the optimum of the reaction unit. High efficiency of over 70% demonstrates that biological methanogenesis is a promising alternative for a chemical methanation reaction.

Figure/Table

Supplementary

Article Metrics

Keywords: process simulation; biological methanogenesis; CO₂ fixation; overall process efficiency; bioprocess

Citation: Sébastien Bernacchi, Michaela Weissgram, Walter Wukovits, Christoph Herwig. Process efficiency simulation for key process parameters in biological methanogenesis. AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1(1): 53-71. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2014.1.53

References:

1. Klell M, (2010) Handbook of Hydrogen Storage. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.
2. Schill N, van Gulik WM, Voisard D, et al. (1996) Continuous Cultures Limited by a Gaseous Substrate: Development of a Simple, Unstructured Mathematical Model and Experimental Verification with Methanobacteriumthermoautotrophicum. Biotechnol Bioeng 51: 645-658.
3. Martinez Porqueras, E, Rittmann S, Herwig C (2012) Biofuels and CO₂ neutrality: an opportunity. Biofuels 3(4): 413-426.
4. Aspen Technology I, Aspen Plus V7.1. In. Aspen Technology, Inc, Burlington, USA, 2008.
5. Xu Y, Chuang KT, Sanger AR (2002) Design of a process for purification of Isopropyl Alcohol by Hydration of Propylene in a catalytic distillation column. J Trans Icheme 80:686-694.
6. Rittmann S, Seifert A, Herwig C (2012) Quantitative analysis of media dilution rate effects on Methanothermobactermarburgensis grown in continuous culture on H₂ and CO₂. Biomass Bioenerg 36: 293-301.
7. Foglia D, Ljunggren M, Wukovits W, et al. (2010) Integration studies on a two-stage fermentation process for the production of biohydrogen. J Clean Prod 18: s72-s80.
8. Foglia DWW, Friedl A, de Vrije T, et al. (2011) Fermentative Hydrogen Production: Influence of Application of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Bacteria on Mass and Energy Balances. Chem Eng Trans 25: 815-820.
9. Rittmann S, Herwig C (2012) A comprehensive and quantitative review of dark fermentative biohydrogen production. Microbial Cell Factories 11:115.
10. Dutta A, Dowe N, Ibsen K N, et al. (2009) An Economic Comparison of Different Fermentation Configurations to Convert Corn Stover to Ethanol Using Z. mobilis and Saccharomyces. Biotechnol Prog 26: 64-72.
11. Chen CC, Evans LB (1986) A local composition model for the excess Gibbs energy of aqueous electrolyte systems. Aiche Journal 32(3): 444-454.
12. dePoorter LMI, Geerts WJ, Keltjens JT (2007) Coupling of methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus methane formation and growth in fed-batch and continuous cultures under different H₂gassing regimens†. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 740-749.
13. Prapaitrakul W, Shwikhat A, King Jr AD (1987) The influence of pH on gas solubilities in aqueous solutions of sodium octanoate at 25°C. J. colloid. Interface Sci 115: 443-449.
14. DVGW, 2011. Hydrogen in the natural gas grid. Results of the workshop “Concepts for energy storage”, Essen, January 2011, DBI Gas- und Umwelttechnik (in German).
15. Enertrag, Combined cycle power plant Uckermark, 2009. Available from: https://www.enertrag.com/download/prospekt/wirkungsgrade.pdf (last access 29. Apr. 2013).
16. FVEE annual meeting, New Routes for the Production of Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) from Renewable Energy, Berlin (in German) 2010. Available from: http://www.fvee.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Themenhefte/th2009/th2009_05_06.pdf.
17. Sterner M, (2009) Bioenergy and renewable power methane in integrated 100% renewable energy systems. Limiting global warming by transforming energy systems. Kassel: Kassel University press.
18. Sterner M, Jentsch M, Holzhammer U (2011) Energy economical and ecological evaluation of a wind-gas project (in German). Available from: http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/sonstiges/ Greenpeace_Energy_Gutachten_Windgas_Fraunhofer_Sterner.pdf (last access 12.Jul.2013)
19. Dolfing J, Larter SR, Head IM (2008) Thermodynamic constraints on methanogenic crude oil biodegradation. J ISME 2: 442-452.
20. Cerbe G (2008) Basic principles of gas technology, gas procurement - gas distribution - gas utilization, 7 ed. Carl HanserVerlag GmbH & Co. KG.
21. Betterton EA (ed.) (1992) Henry's law constants of soluble and moderately soluble organic gases: Effects in aqueous phase chemistry. Wiley, New York, NY
22. Clegg S, Whitfield M (1995) A chemical model of seawater including dissolved ammonia and the stoichiometric dissociation constant of ammonia in estuarine water and seawater from -2 to 40°C. Geochim Cosmochim Ac 59(12): 2403-2421.
23. Riebesell U, et al. (2000) Reduced calcification of marine phytoplankton in response to increased atmospheric CO₂. Nature 407: 364-367.
24. Harned H, Davis R (1943) The Ionization Constant of Carbonic Acid in Water and the Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Water and Aqueous Salt Solutions from 0 to 50°. J Am Chem Soc 65: 2030-2037.
25. Ronnow PH, Gunnarson LAH (1981) Sulfide-Dependent Methane Production and Growth of a ThermophilicMethanogenic Bacterium. App Environ Microbiol 42: 580-584.
26. Bulatovic SM (2007) Chapter 8: Interaction of Inorganic Regulating Reagents. In: Handbook of Flotation Reagents. Elsevier 153-184.
27. Seifert AH, Rittmann S, Bernacchi S, et al. (2013) Method for assessing the impact of emission gasses on physiology and productivity in biological methanogenesis. Bioresour. Technol 136: 747-751.
28. Herwig C, Seifert AH (2014) Selektive Abtrennung von Wasserbeigleichzeltigerbiomasseund Medienkomponentenretention. Patentschrift AT 513 378 B1 2014-04-15
29. Meyer HP, Schmidhalter D (2014) Industrial Scale Suspension Culture of Living Cells. Chapter: Bacterial process by Sagmeister et al., Wiley-Blackwel.
30. DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability, Final report: System analyses power to gas. Tecnology review. Available from: http://www.dnv.com/binaries/DNV%20KEMA%20%282013%29%20-%20Systems%20Anal yses%20Power%20to%20Gas%20-%20Technology%20Review_tcm4-567461.pdf
31. Keener J, Sneyd J (2009). Mathematical Physiology: I and Cellular Physiology (2nd edition.). Springer 547.
32. Bernhardt G, Jaenicke R, Lüdemann HD, et al. (1988) High Pressure Enhances the Growth Rate of the Thermophilic Archaebacterium Methanococcus thermolithotrophicus without Extending Its Temperature Range. Appl Environ Microbiol 54: 1258-1261.
33. Seifert AH, Rittmann S, Herwig C (2014) Analysis of process related factors to increase volumetric productivity and quality of biomethane with Methanothermobacter marburgensis Appl Energ 132: 155–162.

show all references

This article has been cited by:

1. Simon K.-M. R. Rittmann, Arne H. Seifert, Alexander Krajete, Biomethanisierung — ein Prozess zur Ermöglichung der Energiewende?, BIOspektrum, 2014, 20, 7, 816, 10.1007/s12268-014-0521-3
2. Sébastien Bernacchi, Simon Rittmann, Arne H. Seifert, Alexander Krajete, Christoph Herwig, Experimental methods for screening parameters influencing the growth to product yield (Y_(x/CH4)) of a biological methane production (BMP) process performed with Methanothermobacter marburgensis, AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1, 2, 72, 10.3934/bioeng.2014.2.72
3. Grazia Leonzio, Process analysis of biological Sabatier reaction for bio-methane production, Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 10.1016/j.cej.2016.01.068
4. Sébastien Bernacchi, Alexander Krajete, Christoph Herwig, Experimental workflow for developing a feed forward strategy to control biomass growth and exploit maximum specific methane productivity of Methanothermobacter marburgensis in a biological methane production process (BMPP), AIMS Microbiology, 2016, 2, 3, 262, 10.3934/microbiol.2016.3.262
5. Annalisa Abdel Azim, Christian Pruckner, Philipp Kolar, Ruth-Sophie Taubner, Debora Fino, Guido Saracco, Filipa L. Sousa, Simon K.-M. R. Rittmann, The physiology of trace elements in biological methane production, Bioresource Technology, 2017, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.211
6. Bernhard Lecker, Lukas Illi, Andreas Lemmer, Hans Oechsner, Biological hydrogen methanation – A Review, Bioresource Technology, 2017, 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.176
7. Simon K.-M.R. Rittmann, Arne H. Seifert, Sébastien Bernacchi, Kinetics, multivariate statistical modelling, and physiology of CO 2 -based biological methane production, Applied Energy, 2018, 216, 751, 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.075
8. Lisa-Maria Mauerhofer, Patricia Pappenreiter, Christian Paulik, Arne H. Seifert, Sébastien Bernacchi, Simon K.-M. R. Rittmann, Methods for quantification of growth and productivity in anaerobic microbiology and biotechnology, Folia Microbiologica, 2018, 10.1007/s12223-018-0658-4
9. Johanny Pestalozzi, Claudia Bieling, Dirk Scheer, Cordula Kropp, Integrating power-to-gas in the biogas value chain: analysis of stakeholder perception and risk governance requirements, Energy, Sustainability and Society, 2019, 9, 1, 10.1186/s13705-019-0220-5

Reader Comments

your name: * your email: *

Copyright Info: 2014, Christoph Herwig, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Associated material

Metrics