Export file:

Format

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

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Comparison of performance in an anaerobic digestion process: one-reactor vs two-reactor configurations

1 Centro Tecnológico del Agua (CETAQUA), Los Pozos 7340, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile
2 Departamento de Matemática, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Avenida España 1680, Valparaíso, Chile

The present work compares two types of configurations for a two-reaction (acidogenesis and methanogenesis) anaerobic digestion model. These configurations are as follows: (i) a single bioreactor, where the acidogenesis and methanogenesis reactions occur inside and, (ii) two bioreactors connected sequentially, where each reaction occurs separately in each reactor. The mathematical models that describe the mentioned configurations are analyzed at steady state, comparing the following criteria: the stability of the processes (stability properties of desired equilibria) and soluble organic matter removal performance (substrate levels at steady states), concluding that separation of the reactions in two bioreactors does not improve the stability of the process nor the soluble organic matter removal capacity, unless the improvement of the growth functions of both microorganism populations is considerably important at the moment of separating them into two reactors.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

1. M. Cooney, N. Maynard and C. Cannizzaro, et al., Two-phase anaerobic digestion for production of hydrogen-methane mixtures, Biores. Technol., 98 (2007), 2641–2651.

2. R. Li, S. Chen and X. Li, Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with dairy manure in a two-phase digestion system, App. Biochem. Biotechnol., 160 (2010), 643–654.

3. D. J. Batstone, J. Keller and I. Angelidaki, et al., The iwa anaerobic digestion model no 1 (adm1), Water Sci. Technol., 45 (2002), 65–73.

4. O. Bernard, Z. Hadj-Sadok and D. Dochain, et al., Dynamical model development and parameter identification for an anaerobic wastewater treatment process, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 75 (2001), 424– 438.

5. M. Weedermann, G. S. Wolkowicz and J. Sasara, Optimal biogas production in a model for anaerobic digestion, Nonlinear Dynam., 81 (2015), 1097–1112.

6. Y. Daoud, N. N. Abdellatif and J. Harmand, Modèles mathématiques de digestion anaérobie: effet de l'hydrolyse sur la production du biogaz, 2017. https://hal.archives-ouvertes. fr/hal-01562353, Working paper or preprint.

7. M. Sbarciog, M. Loccufier and A. Vande Wouwer, On the optimization of biogas production in anaerobic digestion systems, IFAC Proceed. Vol., 44 (2011), 7150–7155.

8. M. Sbarciog, M. Loccufier and A. Vande Wouwer, An optimizing start-up strategy for a biomethanator, Bioprocess Biosys. Eng., 35 (2012), 565–578.

9. M. Sbarciog, J. A. Moreno and A. Vande Wouwer, A biogas-based switching control policy for anaerobic digestion systems1, IFAC Proceed. Vol., 45 (2012), 603–608.

10. B. Benyahia, T. Sari and B. Cherki, et al., Bifurcation and stability analysis of a two step model for monitoring anaerobic digestion processes, J. Process Control, 22 (2012), 1008–1019.

11. H. L. Smith and P. Waltman, The theory of the chemostat, vol. 13 of Cambridge Studies in Mathematical Biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, Dynamics of microbial competition.

12. T. Bayen and P. Gajardo, On the steady state optimization of the biogas production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion model, J. Mathemat. Biol., 78 (2019), 1067–1087.

13. T. Bayen, O. Cots and P. Gajardo, Analysis of an Optimal Control Problem Related to the Anaerobic Digestion Process, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 178 (2018), 627–659.

14. K. Postawa, Novel solutions in modeling of anaerobic digestion process-two-phase AD models development and comparison, In. J. Chemical React. Eng., 16.

15. Z. Chen, D. Hu and Z. Zhang, et al., Modeling of two-phase anaerobic process treating traditional chinese medicine wastewater with the IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1, Biores. Technol., 100 (2009), 4623–4631. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0960852409004830.

16. A. Novick and L. Szilard, Experiments with the chemostat on spontaneous mutations of bacteria, Proceed. Nat. Aca. Sci., 36 (1950), 708–719.

17. J. Heßeler, J. K. Schmidt and U. Reichl, et al., Coexistence in the chemostat as a result of metabolic by-products, J. Math. Biol., 53 (2006), 556–584.

18. J. Harmand, C. Lobry and A. Rapaport, et al., Le chémostat: Théorie mathématique de la culture continue de micro-organismes, vol. 1, ISTE Editions, 2017.

19. L. Baere and B. Mattheeuws, Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste in Europe: Status, experience and prospects, Waste Management, 3 (2012), 517–526.

© 2019 the Author(s), 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

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved