Anaerobic Digestion Models:

a Comparative Study ⋆
Elena Ficara ∗ Sonia Hassam ∗ Andrea Allegrini ∗
Alberto Leva ∗ Francesca Malpei ∗ Gianni Ferretti ∗
∗
Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32,
Italy (e-mail: ferretti@elet.polimi.it).

Abstract: Based on the adoption of object-oriented modelling and simulation tools, in this
paper a comparison between the ADM1 and the AMOCO models is investigated, mainly in
order to assess the performance of AMOCO for control design. The ADM1 model has been
calibrated with reference to the degradation of waste activated sludge, based on literature data,
and assumed as reference model. Then, in order to compare the outputs of the two models, some
variables of ADM1 have been lumped to match the relevant aggregated AMOCO variables. Since
AMOCO failed in predicting the steady state values relevant to the inorganic carbon species and
alkalinity, a new version of it has been developed, accounting for the dynamics of the inorganic
nitrogen concentration. Steady-state and dynamic simulations based on this new version showed
an improvement with reference to simulations obtained with ADM1.

Keywords: Models, Model approximation, Object modelling techniques, Plants, Waste

treatment.

1. INTRODUCTION be hardly used for design and control purposes. A large

Modelling of the anaerobic digestion process is of funda-
mental importance not only to design wastewater treat-
ment and biogas power plants, but also to study the
sensitivity of the plant behavior to operational parameters,
to monitor and control performance, and to assess the
feasibility of the use of new substrates, with varying char-
acteristics, biodegradability, and operational conditions.
In the literature, many models have been proposed for
specific applications or fermenters, fed with a very spe-
cific substrate, which can be roughly grouped into three
main categories. The simplest ones Graef and Andrews
(1974) are single-step models involving a single bacterial
population, with a limited description of inhibition ef-
fects. Models of intermediate complexity Bernard et al.
(2001) consider a higher number of processes and bacterial
populations, as well as a more accurate description of
inhibition factors. Finally, complex models Batstone et al.
(2002); Stemann et al. (2005) account for a large number
of processes and specific bacterial populations, along with
an in-depth description of the inhibition effects and of
relevant chemical equilibria.
The best known and the most sophisticated model, able to
describe the anaerobic degradation of various substrates
(even if designed considering activated sludge as sub-
strate), is the Anaerobic Digestion Model no. 1 (ADM1)
Batstone et al. (2002), developed by the IWA Task Group
for Mathematical Modelling and later modified by several
authors Blumensaat and Keller (2005); Gal et al. (2009)
to improve accuracy and robustness, and to fit other spe-
cific applications. While being very detailed, ADM1 can
⋆ This work has been performed within the project “La Fabbrica
della Bioenergia”.
number of parameters (about a hundred) depending on the
specific substrate need to be estimated, which is particu-
larly difficult in complex plant operations and also because
of the scarce data available in the literature. This has
motivated research on simpler models, focused for example
on a few number of processes or specifically designed for
particular substrates. Among them, the most important
is AMOCO Bernard et al. (2001), which reaches a good
compromise between simplicity and accuracy. AMOCO
has been developed mainly as a tool to monitor and control
the anaerobic digestion process rather than for accurate
numerical simulation.
In this paper, a comparison between ADM1 and AMOCO
is investigated, mainly in order to assess the performance
of AMOCO as a control design tool. First, ADM1 has
been calibrated with reference to the degradation of waste
activated sludge, considering data reported in Rosen et al.
(2006), and assumed as the reference model. Then, in order
to compare the outputs of the two models, some variables
of ADM1 have been lumped to match the relevant ag-
gregated AMOCO variables. The parameters of AMOCO
have been then calibrated by assuming the steady-state
ouputs of ADM1 as a reference. Since the values of the
concentrations of the two biomass families considered in
AMOCO, not measurable in normal operations, were avail-
able from ADM1 simulations, a different (and simpler)
identification procedure has been followed with respect to
the one proposed in Bernard et al. (2001). AMOCO how-
ever failed in predicting the steady state values relevant
to the inorganic carbon species and alkalinity. The reason
for this failure has been detected in the lack of description
of the balance of the inorganic nitrogen species. Conse-
quently, a new version of AMOCO has been developed,
accounting for the dynamics of the inorganic nitrogen con-
 Table 1. ADM1 liquid flow connector concentrations. Table 3. ADM1 dissociated acids and free ammonia
l l
concentrations.
C1 = Ssu Sugars C2 = Saa Amino acids
l l l l
C3 = Sf a Long chain fatty C4 = Sva Valeric acid C27 = Svam Valerate C28 = Sbum Butyrate
acids l l
C29 = Sprom Propionate C30 = Sacm Acetate
l l l l
C5 = Sbu Butyric acid C6 = Spro Propionic acid C31 = SHCO3 Bicarbonate C32 = SN H3 Free ammonia
l l
C7 = Sac Acetic acid C8 = SH2 Dissolved hydrogen
l l
C9 = SCH4 Dissolved C10 = SIC Total inorganic carbon
methane
Table 4. ADM1 biochemical processes.
l l
C11 = SIN Total inorganic C12 = Si Soluble inerts
1 Disintegration 2 Hydrolysis of carbohydrates
nitrogen
l l 3 Hydrolysis of proteins 4 Hydrolysis of lipids
C13 = Xc Composite C14 = Xch Carbohydrates
l l
5 Uptake of sugars 6 Uptake of aminoacids
C15 = Xpr Proteins C16 = Xli Lipids 7 Uptake of LCFA 8 Uptake of valerate
l l
C17 = Xsu Sugars degraders C18 = Xaa Aminoacid degraders 9 Uptake of butyrate 10 Uptake of propionate
l l
C19 = Xf a Long chain fatty C20 = XC4 Valerate and butyrate 11 Uptake of acetate 12 Uptake of hydrogen
acid degraders degraders 13 Decay of Xsu 14 Decay of Xaa
l l
C21 = Xpro Propionate C22 = Xac Acetate degraders 15 Decay of Xf a 16 Decay of XC4
degraders 17 Decay of Xpro 18 Decay of Xac
l l
C23 = XH2 Hydrogen C24 = Xi Particulate inerts 19 Decay of XH2
degraders
l l
C25 = Scat Cations C26 = San Anions
parameters, since they are computed from the properties
Table 2. ADM1 gas flow connector concentrations. of the influent. The organic matter undergoes a series of
subsequent degradation steps taking place simultaneously.
g g
C1 = SCO2
g
Carbon dioxide C2 = SCH4 Methane All the biochemical processes can be roughly grouped into
C3 = SH2 Hydrogen
four steps: the disintegration/hydrolysis of the composite
centration. Steady-state and dynamic simulations based material, leading to sugars, amino acids and long-chain
on this new model version showed an improvement with fatty acids (LCFA) formation; the acidogenesis, leading
reference to simulation obtained with ADM1. to volatile fatty acids (VFAs, including acetic, butirric,
propionic and valeric acid) formation; the acetogenesis,
2. THE ADM1 MODEL leading to acetic acid and hydrogen formation; and finally
the methanization. Along with the anaerobic biodegrada-
In a physical modelling approach the connection scheme tion, a series of physico-chemical conversion processes are
of the anaerobic digester model can be sketched as in Fig. involved. These are not biologically mediated and encom-
1, having two connectors for the liquid inflow and outflow pass ion association/dissociation and gas-liquid transfer.
and one connector for the gas outflow. The variables of In particular, the chemical equilibria and pH, determined
the liquid inflow or outflow connector are the volumetric by ion association/dissociation, are of great importance
flow rate q (m3 d−1 ), the concentrations of the soluble because they have a strong influence on the biodegrada-
and particulate species {Cil } and the temperature T (K), tion.
while the variables of the gas outflow connector are gas In this work, the ADM1 version proposed in Blumensaat
volumetric flow rate qg (m3N d−1 ), the concentrations of and Keller (2005); Rosen et al. (2006) is considered,
the gas species {Cig } and the temperature Tg (K). The which allows a more complete description of the anaerobic
concentrations {Cil } are described in Table 2, and are digestion than the original ADM1 Batstone et al. (2002).
all expressed in (kgCOD m−3 ), except for concentrations The model consists of a DAE system of 35 differential
of total inorganic carbon SIC , total inorganic nitrogen and 1 algebraic equation; 29 state variables are actually
SIN , cations Scat and anions San , which are expressed in the concentrations in the liquid outflow connector and
(kmol m−3 ), while the concentrations {Cig } are described in the gas connector and are listed in Table 1 and 2,
in Table 2, and are all expressed in (kgCOD m−3 ) apart the other 6 are given by the concentrations of ionized
from C1g = SCO2 , expressed in (kmol m−3 ). VFAs (kgCOD m−3 ), bicarbonate (kmolC m−3 ) and free
ammonia (kmolN m−3 ) and are reported in Table 3. The
q g
g algebraic variable is the hydrogen ion concentration SH
{C }
i
(kmolN m−3 ). The differential equations are given by the
T g
mass balances of the dynamic (state) variables, and involve
q in q out 19 biochemical processes, listed in Table 4, 3 gas-liquid
A D
{ C il } i n { C il } o u t transfer processes and 6 additional acid-base processes.
M o d e l
T in T out
Starting from the soluble and particulate matter (the time
unit is d) we have
Fig. 1. Connection scheme of the anaerobic digester model.
19
dCil qin l

X i = 1, . . . , 24
The liquid volume in the digester and the temperature = Ci,in − Cil + ρj υi,j , (1)
dt Vl i 6= 10, 11
must be controlled by acting on suitable control variables. j=1
However, in this work the focus is on the biochemical
process, so a single stage CSTR (Continuous Stirred-Tank where ρj (kgCOD m−3 d−1 ) is the kinetic rate for process
Reactor) with a constant volume and temperature and j and υi,j is the stoichiometric coefficient of the component
no biomass retention is considered. This means that the i involved in the process j. In turn, these latter quantities
temperature T = Top is actually a parameter as well as the are usually grouped in a Petersen matrix, where columns
the liquid volume Vl , while tHR being the hydraulic reten- are related to the state variables and rows are related to
tion time (days). The pH of the influent and the organic the processes, while an extra column contains the kinetic
loading rate rOL (kgCOD m−3 d−1 ) can be considered as equation corresponding to each process. In order to close
the inorganic carbon and nitrogen balances, additional where kp (m3N bar−1 d−1 ) is the outflow coefficient, pg
terms were introduced in the original Petersen matrix (bar) is the biogas pressure and patm (bar) is the atmo-
as suggested in Blumensaat and Keller (2005) and then spheric pressure. In turn, the biogas pressure is given by
developed in the literature by several authors. These terms the sum of the partial pressures of hydrogen, methane,
explicit the uptakes and releases in every process and carbon dioxide and water, thus
affects the differential equations relevant to SIC and SIN RTg RTg
l
(C10 l
and C11 ), thus p g = SH 2 + SCH4 + SCO2 RTg + pH2 O (10)
16 64

l
dC10
19 R being the gas constant.
qin l l

X ′
= C10,in − C10 + ρj υ10,j − ρT,10 (2)
dt Vl
j=1 3. THE AMOCO MODEL
19
l
dC11 qin l l

X
= C11,in − C11 + ′
ρj υ11,j (3) In the literature several anaerobic digestion models are re-
dt Vl
j=1 ported which are much simpler than ADM1. Among them,
′
where υ10,j ′
and υ11,j account respectively for the carbon the most important is AMOCO Bernard et al. (2001), de-
and nitrogen content of the components and ρT,10 is the veloped to support monitoring and control system design
gas transfer rate relevant to component C10 g
. For the sake for anaerobic digestion processes, rather than as a tool for
of brevity the Petersen matrix is not reported here, the numerical simulation of the process behaviour, and mainly
reader is deferred to Blumensaat and Keller (2005) or focused on the description of the anaerobic digestion of sol-
Allegrini (2010). Anions and cations dynamics is simply uble substrates or with a negligible particulate content. In
defined by the dilution effect of the reactor, since they are contrast to ADM1, AMOCO has not been largely applied
non reactive species, yielding in the research field, probably because of its limited range
of applicability.
dCil qin l l


= Ci,in − Ci , i = 25, 26 (4) Only two bacterial populations are considered (instead of
dt Vl
the seven considered by ADM1), in particular acidogenic
while the dynamics of the dissociated acid and free ammo- and methanogenic, while the hydrolysis and acetogenic
nia are given by phases are no longer considered explicitly. In the first step,
the acidogenic bacteria X1 (gVS L−1 ) consume the organic
dCil
= −ρA,i , i = 27, . . . , 32 (5) substrate S1 (gCOD L−1 ) and produce CO2 (mmol L−1 )
dt and volatile fatty acids S2 (mmol L−1 ). The population of
methanogenic bacteria X2 (gVS L−1 ) uses, in the second
where ρA,i (kgCOD m−3 d−1 ) is the acid-base kinetic
step, the VFAs as substrate for growth and produces CO2
rate relevant to component Cil Rosen et al. (2006). The and methane (the gaseous species). The model is thus
dynamic equations for the gas phase are defined by 6 differential equations: 2 for the mass-balances
dCig qg g Vl of the bacterial populations X1 and X2 , 2 for the organic
=− C + ρT,i , i = 1, 2, 3 (6)
dt Vg i Vg substrate S1 and the VFAs S2 and, finally, 2 for alkalinity
Z and inorganic carbon C. This provides
where Vg (m3 ) is the total gas volume inside the reactor
and ρT,i (kgCOD m−3 d−1 ) is the gas transfer rate relevant dS1 qin S1
= (S1,in − S1 ) − k1 µ1,max X1 (11)
to component Cig Rosen et al. (2006). The only algebraic dt VL S1 + KS1
equation, defining the charge balance dS2 qin S1
= (S2,in − S2 ) + k2 µ1,max X1
dt VL S1 + KS1
Sacm Sprom Sbum
Scat + SNH4 − SHCO3 − − − S2
64 112 160 (7) − k3 µ2,max X2 (12)
Svam Kw S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
− − San + Sh − =0
208 Sh dX1 qin S1
=− X1 + µ1,max X1 (13)
dt VL S1 + KS1
where SN H4 = SIN − SN H3 is the concentration of am- dX2 qin S2
monium and KW (kmol2 L−2 ) is the dissociation constant dt
=−
VL
X2 + µ2,max
S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
X2 (14)
of water, determines the molar concentration of hydrogen
dZ qin
ion SH , which in turn determines the pH = − log10 SH , = (Zin − Z) (15)
dt VL
which affects the dissociation of VFAs and ammonia. Two
dC qin S1
other main straightforward modifications were introduced. = (Cin − C) + k4 µ1,max X1
dt VL S1 + KS1
Firstly, in order to have a single variable describing the
S2
neutralization capacity of the solution inside the reactor, + k5 µ2,max X2 − r C (16)
S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
its alkalinity was calculated by
ϕ = C + S2 − Z + K H P T
A = Scat − San + SIN (8)
k6 S2
+ µ2,max X2 (17)
kLa S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
Secondly, to derive the pH of the influent substrate, the
rC = kLa (C + S2 − Z)
charge balance in (7) was calculated with reference to the p
influent composition. Finally, the biogas output flowrate ϕ− ϕ2 − 4KH PT (C + S2 − Z)
− kLa (18)
qg can be computed as 2
pg S2
qg = kp (pg − patm ) (9) rCH4 = k6 µ2,max X2 (19)
patm S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
 where ki , (i = 1, . . . , 6) are stoichiometric coefficients,
µi,max , (i = 1, 2) (d−1 ) are the maximum specific growth
rates, KS1 (gVS L−1 ) and KS2 (mmol L−1 ) are the half-
saturation constants, KI2 (mmol L−1 ) is the inibition con-
stant, KH is Henry’s constant for CO2 (mmol L−1 atm−1 ),
PT = 1 (atm) is the atmospheric pressure, kLa (d−1 ) is
the liquid-gas transfer coefficient, rC (mmol L−1 d−1 ) is
the carbon dioxide production rate and rCH4 (mmol L−1
d−1 ) is the methane production rate. The inorganic carbon
is assumed mainly composed of dissolved carbon dioxide
CO2 (mmol L−1 ) and bicarbonate B (mmol L−1 ), ne-
glecting the amount of carbonate in the normal operating
conditions, while the total alkalinity Z is defined as the
sum of dissociated acids in the liquid phase (bicarbonate
and VFAs, assumed as completely dissociated in the pH
range of interest).
Of course, AMOCO introduces a number of simplifica-
tions with respect to ADM1. The influent substrate is
considered to be already fully hydrolised, no particulate
compound is therefore taken into account. Inert fractions
(Xi and Si ) are not considered because the model does
not consider non biodegradable fractions. The nitrogen
balance is not taken into account nor it is included in
the computation of the alkalinity. The pH calculation is
based on the inorganic carbon equilibrium only and it has
no influence in any process: it is just a rough estimation
of the pH based on the bicarbonate chemical equilibrium
only, Finally, relevant inhibition effects are neglected, such
as excess of free ammonia or H2 inside the reactor.
4. MODEL TUNING
ADM1 requires a detailed substrate definition but, on the
other hand, the parameters monitored during the full-scale
process are limited (just a few online) and, usually, they
are macro-parameters describing aggregated information.
Substrate characterization methods have been studied
Zaher et al. (2003); Kleerebezem and Van Loosdrecht
(2006); Huete et al. (2006) but, in general, the complete
characterization of the substrate for ADM1 must be dealt
with case by case. The work by Rosen and Jeppsson
Rosen et al. (2006) reported an example of waste activated
sludge characterization used for steady-state simulation.
According to the authors, the input values may not be
completely realistic for all variables but they have been
chosen such that every input is active (i.e. non-zero) and
able to excite all internal modes of ADM1. For this reason
it was also chosen to be the benchmark substrate in this
work. All parameters of ADM1 were therefore set to the
values suggested in Rosen et al. (2006).
A major issue in the comparison between the outputs of
the two models is related to the need of lumping sev-
eral variables of ADM1 into single variables of AMOCO.
Omitting details for space reasons, and denoting with
the tilde the equivalent AMOCO variable obtained by
lumping ADM1 variables, the conversion formulas can be
summarized as
S̃1 = Ssu + Saa + Sf a + Xc + Xch + Xpr + Xli
S̃2 = 1000 (Sva /208 + Sbu /160 + Spro /112 + Sac /64) (21)
X̃1 = (Xsu + Xaa + Xf a + XC4 + Xpro )/1.55
X̃2 = (Xac + XH2 )/1.55 (23)
Z̃ = 1000 (Sva /208 + Sbu /160
+ Spro /112 + Sac /64 + SHCO3 ) (24)
C̃ = 1000 Sic (25)
q̃c = 1000 ρT,10 (26)
q̃CH4 = 1000 ρT,9 /64 (27)
The AMOCO parameters can be estimated based on
steady state measurements in different operating condi-
tions Bernard et al. (2001), replaced in our case by steady
state values obtained from ADM1, fed with the benchmark
substrate Rosen et al. (2006) at varying hydraulic retention
time. However, the simple linear least-square regression
proposed in Bernard et al. (2001) failed at high tHR due
to the absence of a decay term in the growth rate of
the biomasses. A first modification of AMOCO has been
therefore introduced, by adding a decay term for both
biomasses, estimated as the 10% of the maximum bacterial
growth rates µ1,max and µ2,max as
dX1 qin

S1

=− X1 + µ1,max − k d X1 (28)
dt VL S1 + KS1
dX2 qin
=− X2
dt VL

S2

+ µ2,max − kd X2 (29)
S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
where kd is a decay constant. As a consequence, the
linearity of the regression used for parameters tuning was
lost, while linear least-squares regression was still applied
to the estimation of the yield coefficients (ki , i = 1, . . . , 6).
Anyway, the steady state values computed by AMOCO
with the newly identified parameters were different from
those computed by ADM1. Indeed, the steady-state con-
centrations of substrates and biomasses where sufficiently
closed to the equivalent ADM1 values, whereas all vari-
ables concerning inorganic carbon (C, B, Z, CO2 , qc )
assumed much more different values. Note that also in
Bernard et al. (2001), comparing the modelling results
with experimental data, a bias was observed in total inor-
ganic carbon C and alkalinity Z, and it was ascribed to
the uncertainty in measurements of influent alkalinity. In
this work, to improve the description of the total inorganic
carbon inside the fermenter, a modification of AMOCO is
proposed and described in the next section.
5. AMOCO MODIFICATION ACCOUNTING FOR
THE ROLE OF NITROGEN
As a consequence of having neglected the nitrogen species,
AMOCO considers alkalinity Z as non-reactive and, conse-
quently, its dynamics is just described by the dilution effect
of the reactor (15). On the contrary, in ADM1 alkalinity
is given by eq. (8) and its dynamics reflects the sum of
the dynamics of the alkalinity constituents: bicarbonates,
VFAs, hydroxide ions and, above all, free ammonia. In fact,
from eqs. (7) and (8) one obtains
A = Scat − San + SIN (30)
(20)
so that if the inorganic nitrogen is neglected alkalinity
is given by the difference between cations and anions
(22) concentrations in the solution only, which are actually
non-reactive species in ADM1. Neglecting the contribution 1 .6

1 .4
1 .6

1 .4
of the nitrogen species and, in particular, their interac-

0
1

0
2
1 .2 1 .2

/X

/X
tion with the bicarbonate equilibrium, has also a direct

2
X

X
1 1

consequence on the calculation of the concentrations of 0 .8

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0
0 .8
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0
2 6
inorganic carbon species. In fact, a large amount of bi-
carbonate (HCO3− ) is required as counter-anion of am- 1 .5 4

0
1

0
2
/S
/S

2
1
monium (N H4+ ) released upon organic protein hydrolisis,
1 2

S
S
0
to form ammonium bicarbonate (N H4 HCO3 ). AMOCO 0 .5

1 .6
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0
1 .8
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0

was therefore modified by adding a new state variable N 1 .4 1 .6

accounting for the inorganic nitrogen, this of course entails

4
1 .4

H
1 .2

0
/rC

0
rc /rc
4
1 .2

H
rC
the introduction of new parameters describing the nitrogen 1
1
0 .8
content of the organic substrate S1 and of the biomasses, 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
T im e ( d a y s )
2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0
0 .8
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
T im e ( d a y s )
2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0

hence
Fig. 2. Responses of X1 /X10 a) X2 /X20 b) S1 /S10 c) S2 /S20
0
dN qin S1 d) qCH4 /qCH e) qc /qc0 f) to 50% perturbations to
= (Nin − N ) + [k1 NS1 − Nbac ] µ1,max X1 4
dt VL S1 + KS1 S1,IN . Solid line: ADM1 model, dotted line: AMOCO
S2 model, dashed line: AMOCO N model.
− Nbac µ2,max X2
S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2 1 .6 1 .6

1 .4 1 .4
+ kd Nbac µ1,max X1 + kd Nbac µ2,max X2 (31)

0
1 .2 1 .2

0
Z /Z

B /B
where NS1 is represented by the nitrogen content of 0 .8
1

0 .8
1

substrate S1 dependent on its protein content, which 1 .6

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0
1 .3
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0

would be released into the reactor liquor during the 1 .4 1 .2

0
2
acidogenic process; Nbac is the nitrogen content in the
0

/C O
1 .2 1 .1
C /C

2
C O
1
biomass, respectively uptaken from or released into the 0 .8 0 .9
1

reactor liquor during biomass growth or decay. 1 .6

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0
1 .1
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0

1 .4 1 .0 5

The new state variable N should be added to the original

0
0

1 .2

p H /p H
1
N /N

state variable Z to determine a new value of alkalinity Z ′ , 1 0 .9 5

to replace Z in eqs. (17) and (18). However, by summing 0 .8

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
T im e ( d a y s )
2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 .9
0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0
T im e ( d a y s )
2 5 0 3 0 0 3 5 0

eqs. (15) and (31) while still denoting with Z the alkalinity,
AMOCO may be simply modified, in order to account for
the contribution of the nitrogen species, by substituting
eq. (15) with
dZ S1
= D(Zin − Z) + [k1 NS1 − Nbac ] µ1,max X1
dt S1 + KS1
S2
− Nbac µ2,max X2
S2 + KS2 + S22 /KI2
+ kd Nbac µ1,max X1 + kd Nbac µ2,max X2
The model thus maintains the same number of state
variables of the original version, eq. (31) may be considered
just to evaluate the dynamics of the variable N , if of
interest.
6. COMPARISON BETWEEN ADM1 AND AMOCO
6.1 Steady-state analysis
After the ADM1 variables lumping procedure and the
parameter identification, steady-state computations were
run. Details are omitted for space reasons; suffice to say
that both models closely predict the behaviour of the
organic substrate, the biomass concentrations , the pH,
and the methane flow rate, with percentage differences
always below 15%, while the performance of both AMOCO
models with respect to the inorganic species is far less
satisfactory, owing to the simplifications adopted in the
description of the complex CO2 -producing fermentation
processes.
Fig. 3. Responses of Z/Z 0 a) B/B 0 b) C/C 0 c) CO2 /CO20
d) N/N 0 e) pH/pH0 f) to 50% perturbations to S1,IN .
Solid line: ADM1 model, dotted line: AMOCO model,
dashed line: AMOCO N model.
6.2 Dynamic simulation results
More than in the steady state, we are interested in the pre-
diction of the dynamic response by the simplified AMOCO
(32) models. Therefore, dynamic simulations of the digester
response to a 50% step increase followed by an equiva-
lent step decrease in the influent S1 concentration were
performed with all models. For comparison purposes, the
dynamic value of each state variable was referred to its
steady state one, thus computing a percentage variation
Y /Y 0 , where Y 0 is the steady-state value of variable Y .
This was meant to make it easier to compare dynamic
responses of variables having different, sometime remark-
ably, steady state values. Results are plotted in Figs. (2)
and (3).
For all models, biomasses concentration (X1 and X2 ) dy-
namics shows the typical response of first order systems,
coherently with the fact that unlimited growth of microor-
ganisms is described by a first order reaction. Slightly
faster responses are simulated by the two AMOCO models,
indicating that the calibration process has slightly over-
estimated the growth rate of these two lumped biomass
populations. Growing faster, those biomasses also reach
a slightly higher asymptotic concentration. More relevant
differences can be observed when considering the S1 and S2
dynamics. As for S1 , the ADM1 response is again that one
of a first order system, since X1 includes particulate com-
ponents whose hydrolysis to soluble organic matter is de-
scribed by ADM1 as a first order reaction. On the contrary,
this first order process is missing in both AMOCO ver-
sions, since the model was originally proposed to describe
the anaerobic degradation of soluble organic compounds,
as those taking place in UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge
Blanked) reactors. In AMOCO, S1 is used as the growth
substrate for X1 , therefore it initially increases in response
to the step increase in its influent concentration and is
later reduced thanks to the increased X1 concentration.
Generally speaking, the S1 concentration in both AMOCO
models follows the typical response of a soluble substrate
degraded biologically inside a CSTR. As for S2 , a major
difference can be observed between AMOCO models and
ADM1. This is related to the free ammonia inhibition on
the growth of methanogens (the most relevant X2 biomass)
that is taken into account in ADM1, but that is neglected
in the AMOCO ones. Being methanogens growth inhib-
ited, ADM1 predicts both a slower increase in X2 , and an
increase in its substrate S2 . Due to the commented differ-
ence in the methanogenic process, the methane production
dynamics is accordingly different, with less methane pro-
duced according to ADM1. When considering inorganic
components, differences are observed between the original
AMOCO and the modified one, the major one concerning
the alkalinity dynamics. AMOCO N correctly predicts the
alkalinity dynamic response, while the original AMOCO
does not consider alkalinity as a reactive species. As a
consequence, dynamic response for all inorganic carbon
species are better predicted by AMOCO N, although time
constants for AMOCO N are overestimated, possibly be-
cause of the already commented difficulty in estimating the
CO2 release by the acidogenic process. Having improved
the description of the alkalinity behaviour, also pH pre-
dictions are remarkably improved. Finally, the ammonium
dynamics is sufficiently well predicted by the AMOCO N
process, with a slightly faster release, that also causes the
higher steady state nitrogen concentration.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The simple AMOCO process, originally proposed to de-
scribe the anaerobic degradation of soluble organic matter,
was applied to describe the anaerobic degradation of the
more complex substrate that is waste activated sludge,
taking place in a CSTR. Its applicability to this case study
was checked by using ADM1 (Anaerobic Digestion Model
n. 1) that is, at present, the most comprehensive model for
the description of anaerobic digestion. To do that, a lump-
ing procedure to compare the many ADM1 variables to
the few AMOCO ones was proposed. Then, the AMOCO
parameters were calibrated according to synthetic data
series obtained by ADM1 simulations. Results show that,
despite the much simpler model structure, AMOCO was
able to well predict steady state values of biomasses and
methane production rates, while being less performing in
predicting the inorganic carbon species and pH values. Its
dynamic response to a step modification in the influent
concentration highlighted the major limits of this model.
First, it does not include a first order hydrolysis step, that
has a relevant impact in the simulation of the AMOCO
S1 variable. Moreover, it does not consider the inhibition
effects that some operative conditions may cause on the
degradation process, such as the free ammonia inhibition
on methanogens growth. Finally, due to simplifications in
the description of the physico-chemical processes, such as
the hypothesis of a non reactive alkalinity, the inorganic
species were also poorly predicted. As a first attempt to
improve the AMOCO performance, the release of ammo-
nium during the first degradation step was implemented,
leading to a remarkable improvement in the simulation
of the inorganic species. To further improve the AMOCO
performance and applicability to complex substrates, one
further first order hydrolysis step should be included,
which requires the implementation of one more state vari-
able.Also, the ammonia inhibition term may be added, as
well as the effect of the process pH on the methanogenic
process in order to couple the behaviour of the inorganic
species to that one of the biological system. These modi-
fications are expected to improve the model performance
without loosing its simple structure.
REFERENCES
Allegrini, A. (2010). Anaerobic Digestion Modelling: a
Comparison between ADM1 and AMOCO. Master’s
thesis, Politecnico di Milano.
Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S.V.,
Pavlostathis, S.G., Rozzi, A., Sanders, W.T.M., Siegrist,
H., and Vavilin, V.A. (2002). The IWA Anaerobic
Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1). Water Science and
Technology, 45(10), 65–73.
Bernard, O., Hadj-Sadok, Z., Dochain, D., Genovesi, A.,
and Steyer, J. (2001). Dynamical model development
and parameter identification for an anaerobic wastewa-
ter treatment process. Biotechnology and Bioengineer-
ing, 75(4), 424–438.
Blumensaat, F. and Keller, J. (2005). Modelling of two-
stage anaerobic digestion using the IWA Anaerobic
Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1). Water Research, 39(1),
171–83.
Gal, A., Benabdallah, T., Astals, S., and Mata-Alvarez, J.
(2009). Modified version of adm1 model for agro-waste
application. Bioresource Technology, 100(11), 2783–
2790.
Graef, S.P. and Andrews, J.F. (1974). Stability and control
of anaerobic digestion. Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 46(4), 666–683.
Huete, E., de Gracia, M., Ayesa, E., and Garcia-Heras,
J.L. (2006). ADM1-based methodology for the charac-
terisation of the influent sludge in anaerobic reactors.
Water Science and Technology, 54(4), 157–166.
Kleerebezem, R. and Van Loosdrecht, M. (2006). Waste
characterization for implementation in ADM1. Water
Science and Technology, 54(4), 167–74.
Rosen, C., Vrecko, D., Gernaey, K., Pons, M., and Jepps-
son, U. (2006). Implementing ADM1 for plant-wide
benchmark simulations in Matlab/Simulink. Water Sci-
ence and Technology, 54(4), 11–19.
Stemann, S.W., Ristow, N.E., Wentzel, M.C., and Ekama,
G.A. (2005). A steady state model for anaerobic diges-
tion of sewage sludges. Water SA, 31(4), 511–528.
Zaher, U., Rodrguez, J., Franco, A., and Vanrolleghem,
P.A. (2003). Application of the IWA ADM1 model to
simulate anaerobic digester dynamics using a concise set
of practical measurements. In Proceedings IWA Confer-
ence on Environmental Biotechnology, Advancement on
Water and Wastewater Applications in the Tropics, 12.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.