Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Treatment of chocolate-processing industry wastewater in a

low-temperature pilot-scale UASB: Reactor performance and in-situ biogas
use for bioenergy recovery
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra, M.A. Mier-Quiroga, M. Esparza-Soto *, M. Lucero-Chávez, C. Fall
Instituto Interamericano de Tecnología y Ciencias del Agua, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Carretera Toluca-Atlacomulco km 14.5, Unidad San Cayetano,
Toluca, C.P, 50200, México

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The main objectives of this research were twofold: a) to evaluate the performance of a low-temperature pilot-
Low-temperature UASB reactor scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor during the treatment of a chocolate-processing industry
Chocolate-processing industry wastewater wastewater (CIW) with high soluble chemical oxygen demand; and b) to evaluate the performance of two
Bioenergy recovery
thermal conditioning devices (TCDs) for bioenergy recovery through the in-situ biogas use. For 275 days, the
In-situ biogas use
Daily produced energy
UASB reactor was operated at low temperature (17–19 ◦ C), short hydraulic retention time (6.2 h) and variable
Energetic potential of wastewater total organic loading rate (OLRT) and soluble organic loading rate (OLRS) (10.3 ± 2.9 kg-CODΤ/m3/d and 7.9 ±
2.2 kg-CODS/m3/d, respectively). The produced biogas was burned in-situ with two TCDs, which mainly con­
sisted of an insulated combustion chamber, a heat exchanger and a Bunsen burner. The OLRT and OLRS removal
efficiencies were 59.5 ± 13.6% and 71.4 ± 13.2%, respectively, whereas the biogas production was in the range
of 119–834 L/d. In-situ burning of the produced biogas with the TCDs increased the influent temperature be­
tween 0.8 and 5.8 ◦ C, which improved the biogas production of the UASB reactor. The CIW energetic potential
was calculated based on the UASB reactor operational parameters, the calorific value of methane in biogas and
the daily CIW production (90 m3) of the studied factory. The estimated CIW energetic potential (13.59 MJ/
m3CIW) represents a sustainable source of energy, which could be enough to satisfy the power consumption of
25–42 households in Toluca Valley Metropolitan Area, Mexico.

1. Introduction be quite significant [4,5]. However, under low temperature conditions

Many wastewaters (WW) with low and medium organic matter
concentrations are discharged at low ambient temperatures, including
domestic WW and a large variety of industrial WW [1]. The anaerobic
on-site treatment is especially suitable for concentrated WW [2], such as
those from industrial activities. An appropriate option for the anaerobic
treatment of concentrated WW is the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor (UASB). As opposed to aeration-based treatments, such as acti­
vated sludge, which consume a lot of aeration energy, the UASB reactor
yields energy through the produced biogas [3]. The produced biogas is a
mix of several gases, mainly methane and carbon dioxide. The methane
has an added value because it can be burned to produce either electricity
or heat. If the influent chemical oxygen demand (COD) and the COD
removal efficiency (COD-RE) of an UASB reactor are high (>2300
mg-COD/L, 70%, respectively), the energy production from biogas could
(<20 ◦ C), the COD-RE and biogas production might significantly
decrease [6–8].
Operating temperature has a great impact in the COD-RE of UASB
reactors. WW anaerobic treatment works better at mesophilic (35–37
◦
C) and thermophilic (50–60 ◦ C) temperatures, mainly due to the
improved environmental conditions for anaerobic microorganisms [9].
In tropical countries, anaerobic WW treatment has been applied suc­
cessfully at full-scale and at ambient temperature without requiring
heating [10–13]. However, under psychrophilic temperatures (<20 ◦ C),
the biological and chemical reactions proceed much slower than under
mesophilic conditions, mainly due to a higher energy requirement for
biodegradation of organic matter [1]. Long lag-phase periods (165 days)
are required before biogas production begins during low-temperature
anaerobic treatment (15 ◦ C) [14]. However, Connaughton et al. [15]
reported a start-up period of only 21 days during the low-temperature

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mesparzas@uaemex.mx (M. Esparza-Soto).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105786
Received 3 April 2020; Received in revised form 2 September 2020; Accepted 14 September 2020
Available online 28 September 2020
0961-9534/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al.
anaerobic treatment of synthetic WW. It has also been reported that the
percentage of methane in biogas tends to decrease when operation
temperature drops from 24 to 14 ◦ C [16]. This behavior was also
observed by Masse et al. [17], who decreased the operation temperature
from 20 to 10 ◦ C during the treatment of swine manure in sequencing
batch reactors. If the percentage of CH4 in biogas decreases, the power
yield of the anaerobic treatment may decrease as well.
Large amounts of heat are required to operate anaerobic reactors at
mesophilic conditions in order to increase the COD-RE and the biogas
production; but in some cases, the additional methane produced may not
be enough to offset the additional heating costs [18], resulting in a
marginal or negative Net energy yield (NEY) [19]. This low NEY may
make the anaerobic treatment financially unfeasible [20]. Nevertheless,
psychrophilic anaerobic WW treatment is a suitable option for raw WW
discharged at low ambient temperatures [1].
There are several modified versions of the UASB reactor, such as the
expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) and EGSB-anaerobic filter (EGSB-
AF) reactors. This type of reactors has been successfully used at low
temperatures (15–18 ◦ C) in the treatment of synthetic industrial WW
[21–23] and raw industrial WW, such as brewery effluents [24]. How­
ever, these systems require recirculation of the effluent to increase the
liquid upflow velocity inside the reactor (5–32 m/h), which represents a
substantial energy consumption for the recirculation pump, and there­
fore the reduction of the NEY. Combined reactors with high energy
input, such as continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) and anaerobic
baffled reactors (ABF), have been used to improve biogas production
[25]. However, the use of CSTR implies mechanical mixing and in­
creases the energy requirements and power consumption, reducing the
NEY. If the raw biogas produced by an anaerobic reactor is burned
in-situ, a significant amount of energy could be produced to heat the
reactor itself [26]. Increasing the operating temperature of a psychro­
philic anaerobic reactor may improve its performance (COD-RE, biogas
and methane production, etc.) and the NEY.
Over the past 10 years, the use of bioenergy in anaerobic reactors
during the treatment of different wastes (industrial and municipal
wastewater, municipal and agricultural solid wastes, etc.) has been
studied on theoretical scenarios [27–32]. In order to fill this techno­
logical gap on in-situ bioenergy use, a practical case study is presented
herein. The performance of a 244-L low-temperature pilot-scale UASB
reactor treating chocolate-processing industry wastewater (CIW) and
the performance of two thermal conditioning devices (TCD) for the
in-situ use of biogas, were evaluated. This research was conducted at
highly adverse conditions, such as low temperature, short hydraulic
retention time (HRT) and variable applied total and soluble organic
loading rates (OLRTappl and OLRSappl, respectively), which are not rec­
ommended for anaerobic WW treatment. The key response variables
evaluated in the UASB reactor were the removal efficiency of total and
soluble organic loading rates (OLRT-RE and OLRS-RE, respectively) and
biogas production. The TCDs were evaluated in terms of daily utilized
energy (DUE) and heating efficiency; the energetic potential of CIW
(EPCIW) was also evaluated.
This study seeks to contribute to the body knowledge regarding the
alternative and potential sources of sustainable energy, especially for
temperate climate regions such as Toluca Valley Metropolitan Area,
which is an important industrial and population area in México.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Chocolate-processing industry wastewater (CIW)
The WW used in this research was from a chocolate-processing in­
dustry located in Toluca Valley (Toluca, Estado de México, México). The
CIW was produced during the cleanup of production lines. The CIW was
received in 10-m3 water transportation trucks and stored in 1- and 5-m3
containers at ambient temperature (11–19 ◦ C) for no more than 5 days.
Random physical-chemical characterization of CIW batches were
2
Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786
carried out during the experimentation period (Table 1).
2.2. Source of anaerobic biomass
The anaerobic biomass used in this research was the preexisting
biomass that was inside the UASB reactor, which had been treating the
same CIW for two years [33]. At the beginning of this research, the
anaerobic biomass was a well-settling mix of granular/flocculent sludge
with an initial total and volatile suspended solids (TSS and VSS,
respectively) concentration of 13,681 and 9925 mg/L, respectively, and
a VSS/TSS ratio of 0.73. The specific methanogenic activity (SMA) of
this anaerobic sludge, which was measured with CIW as substrate at low
temperature (20 ◦ C), was 0.14 g-COD-CH4/g VSS∙d [34].
2.3. UASB reactor operation
A 244-L pilot-scale UASB reactor (0.30 × 0.35 × 2.33 m) was con­
structed with 0.0125 m acrylic plates (Fig. 1). The UASB reactor was
insulated as previously described [35]. The UASB reactor was operated
at short HRT (6.2 ± 0.3 h). The CIW was fed into the reactor with a
diaphragm pump (Cole Parmer, USA) to keep the flow rate (Q) constant
(0.66 ± 0.04 L/min). The biogas production was quantified by the water
displacement method [36] using a 40-L glass container and a 4-L
inverted beaker (number 7, Fig. 1). Biogas composition was measured
on operation day 155 and 207. For practical purposes, the operating
temperature of the UASB reactor was considered as the temperature
measured after the TCD (number 10, Fig. 1).
2.4. Thermal conditioning devices
Three temperatures were measured around the UASB reactor and
TCDs: the storage temperature of the CIW (ST-T) gives an approximation
of the ambient temperature since the containers were not insulated
(number 1, Fig. 1); the UASB influent temperature (In-T) was measured
right after the TCD in the feeding line of the UASB reactor (number 10,
Fig. 1); the UASB effluent temperature (Eff-T) was measured at the top of
UASB reactor (number 5, Fig. 1). The influent temperature rise, due to
the TCD heating (ΔT), was calculated as the difference between In-T and
ST-T.
Two different TCDs (Fig. 2) and two operation stages (Table 2) were
tested in order to determine the best TCD in terms of heating efficiency.
The TCDs consisted mainly of an insulated combustion chamber, a heat
exchanger and a Bunsen burner (Fig. 2).
The daily produced energy (DPE) was calculated using equation (1):
DPE = CV × % CH4 × PB (1)
where: DPE is the daily produced energy (kJ/d); CV is the theoretical
calorific value of methane at STP (35.75 kJ/L); % CH4 is the percentage
of methane in produced biogas (84%); PB is the produced biogas
measured for each experimental stage at standard temperature and
Table 1
| Physical-chemical characterization of CIW.
CIW Parameter Units
pH 4.3 ± 0.6 (6)
Discharge temperature (◦ C) 21.8 ± 1.5 (6)
CODT (mg/L) 7372.5 ± 3160.8 (6)
CODS (mg/L) 5352.5 ± 2905.1 (6)
TSS (mg/L) 331.9 ± 359.2 (4)
VSS (mg/L) 296.4 ± 348.6 (4)
VFA (mg/L acetic acid) 381.4 ± 275.4 (4)
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) 821.8 ± 582.5 (4)
N–NH3 (mg/L) 4.2 (1)
PTOT (mg/L) 177.2 (1)
Average ± standard deviation. Number of samples (n) is shown between
parentheses.
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al.
Fig. 1. | Schematic diagram of the 244-L pilot-scale UASB reactor: 1. CIW
storage containers (5 and 1 m3); 2. Submersible centrifuge pump; 3. Influent
diaphragm pump; 4. Pilot-scale UASB reactor; 5. Gas – liquid – solid separator
device; 6. CO2 trap (empty for this investigation); 7. Biogas measurement and
hydraulic seal; 8. Humidity trap (empty for this investigation); 9. Flow control
valve; 10. Thermal conditioning device (TCD); 11. External lamelas settler.
pressure conditions (STP) of 273 K and 1 atm, respectively (L/d).
The daily utilized energy (DUE) by each TCD was calculated using
equation (2):
DUE = CP × ΔT × Q
where: DUE is the daily utilized energy from in-situ combustion of
biogas in each TCD (kJ/d); CP is the specific heat capacity of water
corrected for WW (90% of water CP) (3.8 kJ/L ◦ C); ΔT is the temperature
rise of the UASB influent due to the TCD heating (◦ C); and Q is the
average flow rate of the UASB reactor for each experimental stage (L/d)
(Table 5).
The heating efficiency of each TCD was calculated with equation (3):
Heating Efficiency =
DUE
× 100
DPE
The heating efficiency (%) is an approximation of how much energy
from the combustion of raw biogas was used in each TCD.
The NEY (kJ/d) for each stage was calculated by subtracting all the
energy outputs from the DPE, with equation (4):
NEY = DPE − DUE
In this context, for S-1, the energy used to run the 0.1 HP peristaltic
pump was considered as an extra energy output and was subtracted from
Fig. 2. |Thermal conditioning devices (TCDs) used to burn the produced biogas in-situ: a) warm water recirculation system; b) polystyrene-insulated wood com­
bustion chamber.
Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786
the DPE.
Additionally, the energetic potential of the CIW (EPCIW) was calcu­
lated using equation (5) [37]:
PB × % CH4
EPCIW = × CODS × CODS − RE × CV (5)
OLRSrem × VR
where: EPCIW is the energetic potential of the CIW (kJ/m3CIW); OLRSrem
is the removed soluble organic loading rate (kg-CODS/m3/d); VR is the
reactor volume (m3); CODS is the reactor influent CODS (g-CODS/LCIW)
and CODS-RE is the soluble COD removal efficiency (%). The other
variables are described in equation (1).
2.5. UASB reactor monitoring
Influent and effluent samples were collected six times a week for
determination of CODS and three times a week for (CODT). The collected
samples were filtered with glass-fiber filters (GF/C, Whatman, USA).
The filtrates were collected in 40-mL amber-glass vials [38] and were
processed the same day of sampling. Alkalinity and volatile fatty acids
(VFA) were measured once a month; ST-T, In-T, Eff-T, Q, biogas pro­
duction, influent and effluent pH were measured once a day, six days a
week.
2.6. Analysis
CODS and CODT were measured with a commercial COD Hach Kit
(2)
(method 435, high range COD, Hach, Co, USA); VFA and alkalinity were
measured according to the standard methods 5560 C and 2320 B,
respectively [39]; Temperature and pH were determined using a
potentiometer (YSI 63-10 FT, YSI, Yellow Springs, OH, USA). Biogas
composition was measured with a combined gas warning and measuring
device (Multitec® 560, Sewerin, Gütersloh, Germany). SST and SSV
were measured according to the standard methods 2540 D and 2540 E,
respectively [39].
(3) 3. Results and discussion
3.1. CIW characterization
Table 1 shows the physical-chemical characterization of the CIW.
The average CODS of the CIW was high (5352.5 ± 2905.1 mg/L) and
ranged from 2000 to 10,000 mg/L; the average CODS/CODT ratio was
(4) 72.6%, which indicated that most of the organic matter was soluble. The
CIW had low concentration of TSS and VSS (331.9 ± 359.2 and 296.4 ±
348.6 mg/L, respectively), which facilitated its treatment without a
primary sedimentation stage. The suspended solids were mostly
3
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786

particulate organics (average VSS/TSS ratio = 89.3%). Table 3

The COD:N:P ratio of the CIW was 30:0.02:1, whereas the COD:N:P | Average operational parameters of the UASB reactor during overall experi­
ratio recommended by Metcalf & Eddy [5] to ensure the anaerobic mental run.
biomass activity is 250:5:1. Following this conservative criteria, the Parameter Overall experimental run
PTOT was enough to satisfy the biomass requirements of this nutrient, but Total period (d) 0–275
the N–NH3 was not. Despite of the nitrogen deficiency, the CIW was not Influent temperature (In-T) (◦ C) 18.5 ± 2.9 (223)
amended with external nutrients. However, chocolate may contain an Effluent temperature (Eff-T) (◦ C) 17.6 ± 2.2 (223)
average of 2.5% of total nitrogen as proteins [40]. The deamination of Q (L/min) 0.7 ± 0.1 (223)
HRT (h) 6.2 ± 0.3 (223)
proteins occurs during the hydrolysis stage of anaerobic digestion,
Upflow velocity (m/h) 0.4 ± 0.1 (223)
liberating the amino group of the molecule, which transforms itself into pH influent 6.7 ± 0.2 (223)
ammonia or ion ammonium, necessary for the synthesis of new bacteria pH effluent 6.9 ± 0.2 (223)
[41]. The biomass concentration inside the reactor increased from 9925 CODT influent (mg/L) 2616.3 ± 708.1 (108)
to 11,308 mg-VSS/L (data not shown), supporting the decision of no CODT effluent (mg/L) 1092.8 ± 531.5 (108)
OLRTappl (kg-CODT/m3/d) 10.3 ± 2.9 (108)
external nutrient addition. OLRTrem (kg-CODT/m3/d) 6.0 ± 1.9 (108)
The pH of the raw CIW was lower (4.3 ± 0.6) than the optimum OLRT-RE, % 59.5 ± 13.6 (108)
recommended for anaerobic treatment (6.5–7.6) [42]. Therefore, the pH CODS influent (mg/L) 2026.5 ± 554.5 (216)
of CIW was increased to 6.7 ± 0.2 (Table 3) before entering the UASB CODS effluent (mg/L) 613.2 ± 375.7 (216)
OLRSappl (kg-CODS/m3/d) 7.9 ± 2.2 (216)
reactor by adding a sodium hydroxide solution (0.4–1 L of 33% w/w
OLRSrem (kg-CODS/m3/d) 5.5 ± 1.5 (216)
NaOH). Alkalinity was added as sodium bicarbonate to a concentration OLRS-RE (%) 71.4 ± 13.2 (216)
of 1.5–2.5 g/L. Biogas production @ STP (L/d) 432.3 ± 137.6 (223)
The CIW was fed into the reactor as it was received, except in two Methane content in biogas (%) 83 - 85 (2)
periods of time: during the first period of time (day 58–106), the CIW Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) 2249.4 ± 336.1 (8)
VFA (mg/L as acetic acid) 220.9 ± 125.5 (8)
was diluted because it had a high CODS (>7000 mg/L) and a lot of re­
agents were being used to increase its pH to 7. During the second period Average ± standard deviation. Number of samples (n) is shown between
(day 198–229), the CIW was also diluted because the operating tem­ parenthesis.
perature decreased (11–13 ◦ C) during winter and it had a negative
impact on the UASB reactor performance. In both cases, the CIW was larger HRT (>5 d) during the anaerobic digestion of potato leachate in a
diluted with tap water to an average CODS of 2000 mg/L and a minimum two-stage mixed-UASB system. Therefore, the HRT of 6 h selected for
of 1000 mg/L. this research was a suitable operational setting for the system.
Comparable HRTs have been used in the same UASB reactor during
3.2. Reactor temperature and HRT the treatment of cereal-processing industry WW and CIW, achieving an
OLRS-RE of 92 and 79% for HRT of 5.2 and 6.5 h, respectively [35,38].
The average operational parameters of the pilot-scale UASB reactor Connaughton et al. [15] has reported a similar OLRS-RE (82.7%) at short
are shown in Table 3. The reactor was operated at low temperature and HRT (4.9 h) and high OLRSappl (24.6 kg-COD/m3/d). This OLRSappl is
short HRT. The reactor Eff-T (17.6 ± 2.2 ◦ C) was always lower than the threefold the OLRSappl of our investigation (7.9 ± 2.2 kg-CODS/m3/d)
In-T (18.5 ± 2.9 ◦ C) due to heat losses along the reactor column, despite because a high recirculation rate and a high upflow velocity were used.
that the reactor was insulated with glass fiber and polystyrene plates. The higher OLRS-RE obtained by Connaughton et al. [15] could also be
Nevertheless, the temperature difference between In-T and Eff-T was in explained by the type of WW treated (synthetic, VFA-based,
average less than 1 ◦ C. nutrients-supplemented WW), which gave the optimal growth condi­
The average HRT (6.2 ± 0.3 h) remained stable for the 275 days of tions to the anaerobic biomass.
the experimental run. Although the HRT was shorter than that recom­
mended (10–14 h) for low-temperature WW treatment in UASB reactors 3.3. Soluble applied and removed organic loading rates
[5], the OLRS-RE (71.4 ± 13.2%) was within the range of OLRS-RE of
UASB reactors operated at similar HRT. This HRT was selected to The average OLRSappl (7.9 ± 2.2 kg-CODS/m3/d) (Table 3) had a high
demonstrate that anaerobic treatment of CIW was feasible under low standard deviation because the CIW was mostly fed to the reactor as it
operation temperature (18.5 ± 2.9 ◦ C) and short HRT; this HRT was also was received. The time series of the OLRSappl, the removed OLRS
selected in order to treat a large volume of CIW (Q = 950.4 ± 57.6 L/d) (OLRSrem) and the OLRS-RE are shown in Fig. 3, whereas the linear
with the 244-L UASB reactor. Kamyab et al. [43] reported that methane correlation between OLRSrem and OLRSappl is shown in Fig. 4. During the
yield (MY) was higher in short HRT conditions (1–5 d of HRT) than for 275 days of operation, the CIW quality in terms of CODS concentration

Table 2
|Operation stages of TCDs.
Stage Total period Description
(d)

S-1 0–109 A small combustion chamber (0.25 × 0.25 × 0.35-m) was built with 0.0125-m thick plywood and it was insulated with glass fiber (0.05-m) (TCDa) (
Fig. 2a).
Inside, a 1-L Erlenmeyer flask filled with tap water was heated with a Bunsen burner, which was continuously burning the produced biogas.
The warm tap water inside the Erlenmeyer flask was pumped with a 0.1 HP peristaltic pump (Cole Palmer, USA) through a 9-m copper long copper coil
(0.006-m diameter), which was inside a 70-L plastic container.
The 70-L insulated plastic container was filled with CIW, which was continuously flowing to the reactor inlet.

S-2 110–275 A second combustion chamber was built with 0.0125-m thick plywood (0.3 x 0.3 × 0.4 m) and it was insulated with 0.05-m polystyrene plates (TCDb) (
Fig. 2b).
An 8-L aluminum container was filled with tap water, insulated with polyester fiber and placed inside the combustion chamber.
An 8-m long copper coil (0.006-m diameter) was installed as heat exchanger inside the aluminum container.
The reactor influent was pumped through the copper coil.
The produced biogas was continuously burned with a Bunsen burner to heat the water in the aluminum container.

4
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786

24 100 Amini et al. [47] during the treatment of dairy WW with an upflow
OLRSappl & OLRSrem (kg-CODS/m3/d)

21 aerobic-anaerobic sludge blanket (UAASB) at 25–30 ◦ C, but at low

80 OLRSappl (1.9–3.4 kg-CODS/m3/d). Sumino et al. [48] treated municipal
18
sewage in a UASB reactor coupled to an aerated fixed-bed reactor at
15 ambient temperature (9.7–27.1 ◦ C), low OLRSappl (0.3–0.4

OLRS-RE (%)
60
12 kg-CODS/m3/d) and the UASB reactor removed 51–68% of the OLRSappl.
9 40 Gouveia et al. [49] obtained an OLRS-RE between 72.9 and 90.1%
during the treatment of municipal WW in a UASB reactor with an ul­
6
20 trafiltration membrane at low temperature (18 ± 2 ◦ C) and low OLRSappl
3 (0.8–4.7 kg-CODS/m3/d). As it can be seen, just a few investigations
0 0 have treated industrial WW at low temperature and medium OLRSappl in
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 UASB reactors.
Operation time (d)
OLRSappl OLRSrem OLRS-RE

3.4. Total applied and removed organic loading rates

Fig. 3. |Time series of the UASB reactor performance for OLRSappl, OLRSrem and
OLRS-RE. The period between vertical discontinuous lines (days 58–105 and
The OLRTappl and removed OLRT (OLRTrem) were calculated in terms
198–229) show the entrance of CIW diluted with tap water due to its high CODS
and winter season, respectively. of CODT (Table 3). Fig. 5 shows the linear correlation between OLRTrem
and OLRTappl. The OLRTrem and OLRTappl from other investigations car­
ried out in UASB, EGSB and AnMBR reactors operated at low tempera­
12 ture are shown in Table 4. These values were also graphed in Fig. 5. The
slope of the linear regression indicated an OLRT-RE of 61.11% was ob­
OLRSrem (kg-CODS/m3/d)

10 y = 0.7216x tained for this research (Fig. 5). This OLRT-RE is similar to 59.5%, which
R² = 0.7263 was mathematically calculated with the influent and effluent CODT data
8 (Table 3). The OLRT-RE calculated for the literature data was higher
(63.99%). However, the OLRTappl in this research were significantly
6 higher (4.1–16.9 kg-CODT/m3/d) than those found in literature
(0.6–6.4 kg-CODT/m3/d). This evidences that the 244-L pilot-scale
4
UASB reactor operated at higher OLRTappl than those reported in liter­
ature, but obtained similar OLRT-RE. On the other hand, the tempera­
2
ture range and the HRT applied in this investigation (17.6–18.5 ◦ C and
0 6.2 h, respectively) were within the ranges reported in the literature
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 (Table 4) (10–30 ◦ C and 3–16 h, respectively). However, the main
OLRSappl (kg-CODS/m3/d) achievement of this research was that despite the high OLRTappl, the
UASB reactor was stable and no inhibition or failure was observed for
Fig. 4. |Correlation between the OLRSrem and OLRSappl; the slope of the linear 275 days.
regression indicates the average OLRS-RE (72.16%).

3.5. Biogas production and methane yield

was highly variable. The OLRSappl ranged from 2.6 to 12.9 kg-CODS/m3/
d during the experimental run. Dilution with tap water was needed on The biogas production was corrected from the environmental con­
days 58 and 79 (Fig. 3), because a CIW batch with high CODs was ditions of Toluca Valley (average Eff-T = 17.6 ± 2.2 ◦ C and atmospheric
received. This dilution allowed to minimize the addition of NaOH and pressure = 0.74 atm at an altitude of 2650 m above the mean sea level)
NaHCO3 necessary to increase the pH up to 7. The pH dropped to 6.7 on to STP (273 K and 1 atm). The biogas production @ STP varied in the
these days, but even when most authors have recommended an optimum range of 119–834 L/d and showed a similar behavior as the OLRSrem: the
pH range between 7.0 and 7.5 [44], there was not a significant impact in biogas production increased and decreased as the OLRSrem did (Fig. 6a).
the reactor performance and the biogas production. Also, as shown in The correlation between biogas production @ STP and OLRSrem is shown
Table 3, there was no VFA accumulation in the UASB reactor effluent as in Fig. 6b. The linear regression showed a high R2 coefficient (0.8036).
alkalinity remained within an optimal range [5].
The average OLRS-RE of the experimental run (day 0–275) was 71.4
12
± 13.2%. This value is similar to the slope of the linear regression of the
correlation between OLRSrem and OLRSappl (72.16%) (Fig. 4). Despite the 10 y = 0.6111x
R2 coefficient of the linear regression was low (0.7263), the RE obtained R² = 0.575
OLRTrem (kg-CODT/m3/d)

with the OLR correlation was similar to that obtained mathematically 8

using the influent and effluent CODs data. The OLRS-RE is like that
obtained in the same reactor during other investigations (75–80%) 6
[33–35,38]. However, during those investigations, the OLRSappl were y = 0.6399x
not as high as the ones applied in this investigation (7.9 ± 2.2 4 R² = 0.776
kg-CODS/m3/d). Also, the authors worked with constant OLRSappl,
which were gradually increased in each experimental run. In this 2

research, the OLRSappl changed over short periods of time to see the
0
reaction capacity of the UASB reactor at continuously variable influent 0 3 6 9 12 15 18
CODS. This might explain the lower OLRS-RE obtained in this research. OLRTappl (kg-CODT/m3/d)
Other authors have reported higher COD and OLRS-RE (>86%) at Literature This research
low temperature (10–20 ◦ C), but those results can be attributed to the
use of synthetic WW and the application of low OLRSappl coupled with Fig. 5. |Linear correlation between OLR rem and OLRTappl for: ■ Results found
T

in literature for low temperature UASB, AnMBR, HUASB and EGSB reactors;
long HRT [26,45,46]. A similar OLRS-RE (71.27%) was obtained by
and ○ Results obtained in this research.

5
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786

Table 4
|OLRT-RE and MY reported for low temperature UASB reactors found in literature.
Reactor type WW type Temperature (◦ C) HRT (h) OLRTappl OLRTrem OLRT-RE (%) MY Reference
(kg-CODT/m3/d) (kg-CODT/m3/d) (L-CH4/kg-CODrem)

ASB DWW 12.5 8.1 1.8 0.9 48.0 23.2 [50]

12.5 6.0 2.4 1.2 52.0 19.6
12.5 4.0 4.4 1.6 37.0 16.0
UASB DWW 20 6.0 2.5 1.5 60.0 97.1 [51]
17.5 6.0 2.6 1.6 60.0 127.9
15 6.0 2.4 1.5 60.0 118.1
12.5 6.0 2.0 1.2 60.0 102.9
10 6.0 3.1 1.6 51.5 93.4
UASB MWW 17 10.0 1.5 0.9 60.0 126.0 [52]
19 10.0 1.5 1.0 64.0 129.0
19 8.0 1.9 1.2 65.0 117.0
19 6.0 2.5 1.6 61.0 120.0
UASB DS 25–30 12.0 0.9 0.6 65.5 91.0 [53]
UASB SCV 22 20–800 0.5–32.4 0.4–28.4 87.5 299 [54]
UASB DWW Ambient 8.0 0.6 0.3 53.4 NR [55]
8.0 1.1 0.7 62.9 NR
8.0 1.9 1.3 69.9 NR
8.0 3.3 2.8 85.6 NR
8.0 6.4 5.1 80.0 NR
UASB DS 15 6.0 2.5 0.8 31.8 192.5 [56]
15 6.0 2.5 0.8 32.2 269.5
15 6.0 2.7 1.0 37.1 322.0
UASB MWW 20 3.0 3.8 2.8 72.6 NR [57]
20 6.0 1.9 1.5 78.4 NR
20 9.0 1.3 1.0 81.7 NR
AnMBR DWW 15 16.0 0.7 0.6 92.0 181.2 [58]
HUASB SWW 12 12.0 1.0 0.7 74.0 352.3* [59]
12 12.0 1.0 0.8 77.0 352.5*
12 8.0 1.5 1.1 70.0 340.1*
EGSB SWW 10 18.0 1.3 1.2 90.0 38.0 [60]
10 12.0 2.0 1.7 86.0 57.0
10 12.0 2.0 1.5 74.0 122.9
10 12.0 2.0 1.7 84.0 66.6

DWW: domestic wastewater; MWW: municipal wastewater; DS: domestic sewage; SCV: sugar cane vinasse; SWW: synthetic wastewater NR – Not reported * Theoretical
values|.

The slope of the linear regression indicated that 78.8 L of biogas were
produced for each kg-CODS/m3 removed. This value was corrected by
the volume of the UASB reactor (0.244 m3) and the biogas yield was 900 30
obtained (322.95 L-biogas/kg-CODrem). The percentage of CH4 in biogas 800
Biogas production @ STP (L/d)

25

OLRSrem (kg-CODS/m3/d)
was 83 and 85%, on operation days 155 and 207, respectively (Table 3). 700
Therefore, the MY was 271.3 STP L-CH4/kg-CODrem. This calculated MY 600 20
was within the range reported in literature (16.0–352.5 STP L-CH4/kg- 500
15
CODrem) (Table 4). However, the calculated MY only represents the 400
77.5% of the theoretical MY @ STP (350 L-CH4/kg-COD), which is quite 300 10
similar to a MY recovery of 76.4% reported by Del Nery et al. [54]. The 200
5
calculated MY may have been lower than the theoretical MY due to the 100
loss of dissolved methane in the effluent [45] as the methane solubility 0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275
Operation time (d)
a) Biogas production @ STP OLRrem
Table 5 1000
| Average operational parameters of TCD’s for each experimental stage. 900
Biogas Production @ STP (L/d)

Parameter S-1 S-2 800

Total period (d) 0–109 110–275 700
OLRSappl (kg-CODS/m3/d) 7.7 ± 1.3 8.1 ± 2.6 600
Biogas production @ STP (L/d) 465.3 ± 66.8 459.6 ± 132.9 500
Q (L/d) 985.0 ± 57.9 937.4 ± 61.3
400
ST-T (◦ C) 17.0 ± 0.7 13.9 ± 1.7
300 y = 78.80x
In-T (◦ C) 19.3 ± 1.2 17.2 ± 2.2 R² = 0.8036
ΔT (◦ C) 2.3 ± 0.8 3.2 ± 0.9 200
Eff-T (◦ C) 19.1 ± 1.0 17.0 ± 2.1 100
DPE (kJ/d) 13,971.7 ± 2005.9 13,800.3 ± 3991.5 0
DUE (kJ/d) 8562.0 ± 2853.6 11,527.8 ± 3166.5 0 2 4 6 8 10
Heating efficiency (%) 61.4 ± 18.4 84.7 ± 12.4 b) OLRSrem (kg-CODS/m3/d)
Energy consumption of the 0.1-HP 6445.4 –
peristaltic pump (kJ/d)
Fig. 6. |a) Time series of the UASB performance for OLRSrem and biogas pro­
NEY (kJ/d) − 1035.8 2272.5
duction @ STP; b) Correlation between the biogas production @ STP and
the OLRSrem.

6
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786

increases as the temperature decreases (18.3 mg-CH4/L at 17.6 ± 2.2 ◦ C power consumption of 1.8 kW-h/d. The estimated cost of electrical
and 0.74 atm). power consumed was $ 2.24 USD per month ($ USD = 0.075 kW-h × 24
h/d × 30.416 d/month × $0.814 MXN/kW-h × $ 1 USD/$ 19.74 MXN)
or $ 27.09 USD per year (calculated for year 2019). Therefore, this
3.6. TCDs performance
electrical power consumption may reduce the NEY of the UASB reactor,
so the peristaltic pump was eliminated for the following experimental
Fig. 7 shows the UASB reactor temperature (In-T, Eff-T and ST-T) and
stage with TCDb.
the TCDs ΔT during the 275 days of operation. Unconventional high ΔT
The average ST-T during S-2 (day 110–275) was 13.9 ± 1.7 ◦ C. This
values were observed between days 25 and 60 due to water stratification
low temperature coincided with the transition from autumn to winter in
inside the 70-L container (Fig. 2a), where the heat exchanger was
Toluca Valley, leading to cooler ambient temperatures. The average STP
installed, which affected the measurement of the real temperature. In
biogas production during S-2 was 459.6 ± 132.9 L/d and it was slightly
order to decrease the experimental error of the collected data, such ΔT
lower, but not significant, than that during S-1 (465.3 ± 66.8 L/d). This
values were not considered in the final calculations. The ST-T began to
behavior was probably caused by the low In-T during S-2 (17.2 ± 2.2
decrease after day 142 due to the start of the autumn and winter season ◦
C). Despite these conditions (lower In-T and lower biogas production
in Toluca Valley (October to March) (Fig. 7). The lowest ST-T was
during S-2 than during S-1), the combustion of biogas allowed to obtain
reached on day 194 (11.1 ◦ C). Therefore, a 50-W electrical resistance
a ΔT of 3.2 ± 0.9 ◦ C. This ΔT was higher than that from S-1, leading to
was installed in the TCD to heat the UASB reactor influent. On day 214,
an increase in the heating efficiency of the TCD from 61.4 ± 18.4% (S-1)
the electrical resistance was withdrawn from the TCD. For the evalua­
to 84.7 ± 12.4% (S-2). This was probably due to lower heat losses in the
tion of the TCDs performance, the temperature data from day 194–214
TCD, because of a more effective insulation, even when the peristaltic
were not considered to avoid the interference of the 50-W electrical
pump was removed from the TCD.
resistance.
Unfortunately, these heating efficiencies cannot be compared with
The ΔT is an approximation of the heating capacity of the TCD as it
literature TCDs because they were homemade. As can be seen in Fig. 7,
burned biogas and heated the reactor influent. The TCDs ΔT varied from
ΔT showed the most stable behavior during the 165 days of S-2, despite
0.8 to 5.8 ◦ C (Fig. 7). Basically, the heat transfer occurred instantly as
a significant drop in ST-T (down to 12 ◦ C), which was observed on day
soon as the CIW entered the TCDs. The contact time between the reactor
259. This sudden drop in ST-T was attributed to the entrance of a cold
influent (through the copper coil) and the heated water (inside the
front to Toluca Valley, which caused a significant environmental tem­
aluminum container) was 51.5 s as the influent Q and the copper coil
perature drop.
length were kept constant.
The NEY for S-1 was negative (− 1035.8 kJ/d), whereas the NEY for
The average and standard deviation of In-T, Eff-T, ST-T, ΔT, Q,
S-2 was positive (2272.5 kJ/d). The TCDb from S-2 not only proved to be
OLRSappl and biogas production, as well as DPE, DUE and heating effi­
more efficient in terms of heating efficiency, but it also conducted to a
ciency for each experimental stage with the TCDs are shown in Table 5.
positive NEY. The NEY of 2272.5 kJ/d in S-2, represented almost the
The average DPE was always higher than the average DUE for both
16.5% of the DPE from the UASB reactor (13,800.3 kJ/d). For a UASB
TCDs. This was probably due to heat losses in each TCD. It was also
reactor operated in a low temperature region such as Toluca Valley
observed that the lower DUE, the higher the heat losses.
Metropolitan Area, a TCD has proved to be a useful system for bioenergy
As can be seen in Fig. 7 and Table 5, during S-1 (day 0–109), the ST-T
recovery and use in the reactor itself. TCDb increased the NEY by
had an average temperature of 17.0 ± 0.7 ◦ C and remained stable along
eliminating the peristaltic pump of the heating system.
the complete stage. S-1 was performed during summertime (July–Oc­
tober). The average ambient temperature in Toluca Valley during
summertime was temperate (21 ◦ C) due to rain season. ST-T was always 100
lower than the average ambient temperature because the CIW storage 90
containers, as well as the pilot-scale UASB reactor, were inside a hy­ 80
draulics laboratory, which had 15-m high ceiling and it did not have any 70
OLRS-RE (%)

heating. During S-1, the TCDa increased the In-T to 19.3 ± 1.2 ◦ C and 60
had a ΔT of 2.3 ± 0.8 ◦ C (Table 5). However, one of the main disad­ 50 y = 0.6162x + 70.175
vantages of the TCDa (Fig. 2a) was that it used of a peristaltic pump (1/ 40 R² = 0.0044
10 HP = 6445.4 kJ/d = 0.075 kW-h), which had an estimated electrical 30
20
25 15 10
0
20 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a) ∆T (°C)
Temperature (°C)

15 9
900
ΔT (°C)

Biogas production @ STP (L/d)

10 6 800
700
5 3 600
500
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 400
y = 71.47x + 245.21
Operation time (d) 300 R² = 0.4476
In-T Eff-T ST-T ΔT 200

Fig. 7. Time series of UASB temperatures during the experimental run (275 100
days) for: In-T (influent temperature after TCD at the inlet of UASB reactor); Eff- 0
T (effluent temperature of the UASB reactor); ST-T (storage temperature of the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CIW before TCD) and ΔT (the temperature rise of the UASB influent due to the b) ∆T (°C)
TCD heating was calculated as the difference between In-T and ST-T). The
vertical discontinuous line separates the two operation stages with the Fig. 8. | Correlation between: a) ΔT (◦ C) and the OLRS-RE (%); and b) ΔT (◦ C)
different TCDs. and the biogas production @ STP (L/d).

7
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al.
In order to evaluate if the TCDs (through the ΔT) improved the
performance of the UASB reactor, ΔT and OLRS-RE were correlated
(Fig. 8a) as well as ΔT and the biogas production @ STP (Fig. 8b).
With a nearly horizontal slope and a low correlation coefficient (R2
= 0.0044), the linear regression of ΔT vs OLRS-RE (Fig. 8a) showed no
influence of ΔT on the OLRS-RE of the UASB reactor. This was not the
case for the linear regression of ΔT vs biogas production @ STP (Fig. 8b)
in which the slope showed a positive linear correlation and a higher
determination coefficient (R2 = 0.4476). Also, the slope of the linear
correlation was positive, indicating that the reactor influent heating
improved the performance of the UASB reactor in terms of biogas pro­
duction. Despite the increase of the In-T, the reactor temperatures (In-T
and Eff-T) remained in the psychrophilic range in this investigation
(15–25 ◦ C). It has been observed that the performance of UASB reactors
can be enhanced with the increase of the operational temperature [57].
However, this temperature increase was done with an external heat
source (electric heater), increasing the power consumption and prob­
ably reducing the NEY [57]. Therefore, the in-situ use of the produced
biogas reduced the power consumption and increased the NEY, for the
pilot-scale anaerobic reactor operated at low ambient temperature used
in this investigation.
3.7. Energetic potential of CIW (EPCIW)
EPCIW was calculated considering the operational parameters of the
UASB reactor during overall experimental run (Table 3). The average
EPCIW was 13,597.3 ± 3706.0 kJ/m3CIW, (13.59 ± 3.70 MJ/m3CIW) with
a maximum and a minimum of 27,609.2 and 3701.8 kJ/m3CIW,
respectively. The maximum and minimum EPCIW corresponded to the
highest and lowest BP of 834.1 and 118.9 L/d, respectively. The average
EPCIW of 13.59 MJ/m3CIW was calculated for the operational conditions
of low temperature (17–18 ◦ C) and medium OLRSappl (7.9 ± 2.2 kg-
CODS/m3/d). The EPCIW obtained in this investigation was significantly
lower than the EP of sugarcane vinasse (144.0–187.2 MJ/m3) reported
by Fuess et al. [37]. However, the EP of sugarcane vinasse was calcu­
lated without considering the energy losses of the biogas conversion
systems (e.g., reciprocating engines, electrical generators, boilers and
turbines) [37]. On the other hand, the thermophilic UASB reactor was
operated at high OLR conditions (15–30 kg-COD/m3/d), which may
have improved the biogas production and the anaerobic biomass ac­
tivity, increasing the obtained EP.
The industry where the WW was obtained from, has an average daily
production of CIW of 90 m3 (2700 m3 CIW per month). Considering the
EPCIW obtained in this research, the power yield could reach up to
36,693 MJ or 10,192.5 kWh per month (122,310.0 kWh per year),
which represents a potential power source. The energy conversion effi­
ciency combined heat and power (CHP) plants for biogas is in the range
of 42–62% [61–63]. Considering an average biogas-to-electricity con­
version rate of 52%, the power yield of the produced biogas by the
psychrophilic UASB reactor could reach up to 63,601.2 kWh. In Mexico,
the annual average electricity consumption per household is between
1500 and 2565 kWh [64,65]. Therefore, the power yield from biogas
would be enough to satisfy the electricity requirements of 25–42
households in the Toluca Valley Metropolitan Area.
In addition, the produced heat during the biogas-to-electricity con­
version in the CHP could be redirected into the reactor in order to in­
crease its temperature. This may lead to a virtuous cycle of energy, since
an increase in the temperature of the reactor could also increase the
biogas production and, therefore, the NEY. For temperate climate re­
gions, such as Toluca Valley, this potential source of energy represents a
viable and attractive proposition for a sustainable development in the
area, especially considering that Toluca Valley is one of the most
polluted cities and the fifth most populated metropolitan area in Mexico
[66].
8
Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786
4. Conclusions
The 244 L pilot-scale UASB reactor, operated at low temperature
conditions and short HRT, removed 52–91% of the OLRSappl and 39–84%
of the OLRTappl. The biogas production varied between 119 and 834 L/
d STP. The biogas had 84% of methane. The OLRS-RE and the OLRT-RE
were similar to those reported in literature for anaerobic reactors
operated at low temperature and short HRT. In addition, the OLRSappl
and the OLRTappl in this research were significantly higher than those
parameters used in other investigations conducted at similar operational
conditions. Therefore, it demonstrated that the anaerobic treatment of
CIW is feasible under these settings.
The bioenergy recovery during the in-situ use of biogas allowed
increasing the reactor influent temperature between 0.8 and 5.8 ◦ C,
which led to increasing the performance of the UASB reactor in terms of
biogas production. The polystyrene-insulated wood combustion cham­
ber (TCDb) had the highest heating efficiency. The average EPCIW was
13.59 MJ/m3CIW, which is a sustainable potential source of energy
which could lead to satisfy the electricity requirements of several
households in Toluca Valley Metropolitan Area. For a country like
Mexico, where the cost of electricity production is high, the sustainable
production of energy from biogas should be further studied.
The DPE from biogas of the UASB reactor proved to be useful for
heating the reactor influent. This research allows to establish the design
bases for these systems on a larger scale. However, it must be taken into
consideration that on a larger scale, the materials and design of the TCD
must be adapted to the needs of the system, so it is necessary to carry out
further research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Consejo Mexiquense de
Ciencia y Tecnología (Student Scholarship Number 17EA0005) and the
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (Research Project Number
182696) for the financial support.
References
[1] G. Lettinga, S. Rebac, G. Zeeman, Challenge of psychrophilic anaerobic wastewater
treatment, Trends Biotechnol. 19 (2001) 363–370.
[2] G. Zeeman, K. Kujawa-Roeleveld, G. Lettinga, in: P. Lens, G. Zeeman, G. Lettinga
(Eds.), Decentralized Sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, Systems and
Implementation, IWA Publishing, London, 2001, p. 218.
[3] J.B. van Lier, N. Mahmoud, G. Zeeman, in: M. Henze, M. van Loosdrecht, G. Ekama,
D. Brdjanovic (Eds.), Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and
Design, IWA Publishing, London, 2008, p. 401.
[4] A.C. van Haandel, G. Lettinga, Anaerobic Sewage Treatment: a Practical Guide for
Regions with a Hot Climate, first ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1994.
[5] G. Tchobanoglous, H.D. Stensel, R. Tsuchihashi, F. Burton, M. Abu-Orf, G. Bowden,
et al., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy I AECOM,
fifth ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2014.
[6] S. Dev, S. Saha, M.B. Kurade, E.S. Salama, M.M. El-Dalatony, G.S. Ha, et al.,
Perspective on anaerobic digestion for biomethanation in cold environments,
Renew. Sust. Eneg. Rev. 103 (2019) 85–95.
[7] L. Daija, A. Selberg, E. Rikmann, I. Zekker, T. Tenno, T. Tenno, The influence of
lower temperature, influent fluctuations and long retention time on the
performance of an upflow mode laboratory-scale septic tank, Desalin. Water Treat.
57 (40) (2016) 18679–18687.
[8] J.B. van Lier, F.P. van der Zee, C.T.M.J. Frijters, M.E. Ersahin, Celebrating 40 years
anaerobic sludge bed reactors for industrial wastewater treatment, Rev. Environ.
Sci. Biotechnol. 14 (4) (2015) 681–702.
[9] M.H. Gerardi, The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters, first ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Hoboken, 2003.
[10] C.A.L. Chernicharo, M. dos Reis Cardoso, Development and evaluation of a
partitioned upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor for the treatment of
domestic sewage from small villages, Water Sci. Technol. 40 (1999) 107–113.
[11] Y. Kalogo, W. Verstraete, Technical feasibility of the treatment of domestic
wastewater by a CEPS-UASB system, Environ. Technol. 21 (2000) 55–65.
[12] B. Lew, I. Lustig, M. Beliavski, S. Tarre, M. Green, An integrated UASB-sludge
digester system for raw domestic wastewater treatment in temperate climates,
Biores. Technol. 102 (2011) 4921–4924.
[13] B. Lew, S. Tarre, M. Belavski, M. Green, UASB reactor for domestic wastewater
treatment at low temperatures: a comparison between a classical UASB and hybrid
UASB-filter reactor, Water Sci. Technol. 49 (2004) 295–301.
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al.
[14] G. Zeeman, K. Sutter, T. Vens, M. Koster, A. Wellinger, Psychrophilic digestion of
dairy cattle and pig manure: start-up procedures of batch, fed-batch and CSTR-type
digesters, Biol. Waste 26 (1988) 15–31.
[15] S. Connaughton, G. Collins, V. O’Flaherty, Development of microbial community
structure and activity in a high-rate anaerobic bioreactor at 18 ◦ C, Water Res. 40
(2006) 1009–1017.
[16] F. Witarsa, S. Lansing, Quantifying methane production from psychrophilic
anaerobic digestion of separated and unseparated dairy manure, Ecol. Eng. 78
(2015) 95–100.
[17] D.I. Masse, L. Masse, F. Croteau, The effect of temperature fluctuations on
psychrophilic anaerobic sequencing batch reactors treating swine manure, Biores.
Technol. 89 (2003) 57–62.
[18] C. Zhang, H. Su, J. Baeyens, T. Tan, Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 38 (2014) 383–392.
[19] R.K. Dhaked, P. Singh, L. Singh, Biomethanation under psychrophilic conditions,
Waste Manag. 30 (2010) 2490–2496.
[20] J.W. Lim, J.Y. Wang, Enhanced hydrolysis and methane yield by applying
microaeration pretreatment to the anaerobic co-digestion of brown water and food
waste, Waste Manag. 33 (2013) 813–819.
[21] G. Collins, A. Woods, S. McHugh, M.W. Carton, V. O’Flaherty, Microbial
community structure and methanogenic activity during star-up of psychrophilic
anaerobic digesters treating synthetic industrial wastewater, FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.
46 (2003) 159–170.
[22] R.M. McKeown, C. Scully, T. Mahony, G. Collins, V. O’Flaherty, Long-term (1243
days), low temperature (4-15 ◦ C), anaerobic biotreatment of acidified wastewaters:
bioprocess performance and physiological characteristics, Water Res. 43 (2009)
1611–1620.
[23] A. Siggins, A.M. Enright, V. O’Flaherty, Methanogenic community development in
anaerobic granular bioreactors treating trichloroethylene (TCE)-contaminated
wastewater at 37 ◦ C and 15 ◦ C, Water Res. 45 (2001) 2452–2462.
[24] S. Connaughton, G. Collins, V. O’Flaherty, Psychrophilic and mesophilic anaerobic
digestion of brewery effluent: a comparative study, Water Res. 40 (2006)
2503–2510.
[25] L. Jürgensen, E.A. Ehimen, J. Born, J.B. Holm-Nielsen, A combination anaerobic
digestion scheme for biogas production from dairy effluent—CSTR and ABR, and
biogas upgrading, Biomass Bioenergy 111 (2018) 241–247.
[26] G. Akila, T.S. Chandra, Performance of an UASB reactor treating synthetic
wastewater at low-temperature using cold-adapted seed slurry, Process Biochem.
42 (2007) 466–471.
[27] S. O-Thong, K. Boe, I. Angelidaki, Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of oil palm
empty fruit bunches with palm oil mill effluent for efficient biogas production,
Appl. Energy 93 (2012) 648–654.
[28] C. Shin, P.L. McCarty, J. Kim, L. Bae, Pilot-scale temperate-climate treatment of
domestic wastewater with a staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor (SAF-
MBR), Biores. Technol. 159 (2014) 95–103.
[29] F. Monlau, C. Sambusiti, N. Antoniou, A. Barakat, A. Zabaniotou, A new concept
for enhancing energy recovery from agricultural residues by coupling anaerobic
digestion and pyrolysis process, Appl. Energy 148 (2015) 32–38.
[30] Y. Chen, H. Liu, X. Zheng, X. Wang, J. Wu, New method for enhancement of
bioenergy production from municipal organic wastes via regulation of anaerobic
fermentation process, Appl. Energy 196 (2017) 190–198.
[31] F.C. Luz, S. Cordiner, A. Manni, V. Mulone, V. Rocco, Anaerobic digestion of coffee
grounds soluble fraction at laboratory scale: evaluation of the biomethane
potential, Appl. Energy 207 (2017) 166–175.
[32] B.V. da Rosa Pin, R.M. Barros, E.E.S. Lora, O.A. del Olmo, I.F.S. dos Santos, E.
M. Ribeiro, et al., Energetic use of biogas from the anaerobic digestion of coffee
wastewater in southern Minas Gerais, Brazil, Renew. Energy 146 (2020)
2084–2094.
[33] J.A. Avila-Arias, reportQuantification of Specific Methanogenic Activity and
Methane Production in an Anaerobic Bioreactor at Low Temperature, Doctoral
Thesis – Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, Estado de México,
México ((unpublished results)).
[34] S. Alcaraz-Ibarra, reportEffect of Temperature and Substrate on the Specific
Methanogenic Activity of a Psychrophilic Anaerobic Sludge, Master Thesis –
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, Estado de México, México
((unpublished results)).
[35] M. Esparza-Soto, C. Solis-Morelos, J.J. Hernández-Torres, Anaerobic treatment of a
medium strength industrial wastewater at low temperature and short hydraulic
retention time: a pilot-scale experience, Water Sci. Technol. 64 (2011) 1629–1635.
[36] J.A. Alvarez, I. Ruiz, M. Gomez, J. Presas, M. Soto, Start-up alternatives and
performance of an UASB pilot plant treating diluted municipal wastewater at low
temperature, Biores. Technol. 97 (2006) 1640–1649.
[37] L.T. Fuess, L.S.M. Kiyuna, A.D.N.F. Júnior, G.F. Persinoti, F.M. Squina, M.L. Garcia,
et al., Thermophilic two-phase anaerobic digestion using an innovative fixed-bed
reactor for enhanced organic matter removal and bioenergy recovery from
sugarcane vinasse, Appl. Energy 189 (2017) 480–491.
[38] M. Esparza-Soto, O. Arzate-Archundia, C. Solís-Morelos, C. Fall, Treatment of a
chocolate industry wastewater in a pilot-scale low-temperature UASB reactor
operated at short hydraulic and sludge retention time, Water Sci. Technol. 67
(2013) 1353–1361.
[39] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twenty-
first ed., American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/
Water Environment Federation, Washington D.C., 2005.
[40] S.T. Beckett, Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use, fourth ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, 2011.
9
Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786
[41] G. Bitton, Wastewater Microbiology, third ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
2005.
[42] B.E. Rittmann, P.L. McCarty, Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and
Applications, first ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2012.
[43] B. Kamyab, H. Zilouei, B. Rahmanian, Investigation of the effect of hydraulic
retention time on anaerobic digestion of potato leachate in two-stage Mixed-UASB
system, Biomass Bioenergy 130 (2019) 105383.
[44] J. Lu, Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge Using Thermophilic
Anaerobic Pre-treatment, Doctoral Thesis, Technology University of Denmark,
2006.
[45] W. Bandara, H. Satoh, M. Sasakawa, Y. Nakahara, M. Takahashi, S. Okabe,
Removal of dissolved methane gas in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
treating low-strength wastewater at low temperature with degassing membrane,
Water Res. 45 (2011) 3533–3540.
[46] S.A. Luostarinen, J.A. Rintala, Anaerobic on-site treatment of black water and dairy
parlour wastewater in UASB-septic tanks at low temperatures, Water Res. 39
(2005) 436–448.
[47] M. Amini, H. Younesi, A.A.Z. Lorestani, G. Najafpour, Determination of optimum
conditions for dairy wastewater treatment in UAASB reactor for removal of
nutrients, Biores. Technol. 45 (2013) 71–79.
[48] H. Sumino, M. Takahashi, T. Yamaguchi, K. Abe, N. Araki, S. Yamazaki, et al.,
Feasibility study of a pilot-scale sewage treatment system combining an up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and an aerated fixed bed (AFB) reactor at
ambient temperature, Biores. Technol. 98 (2007) 177–182.
[49] J. Gouveia, F. Plaza, G. Garralon, F. Fdz-Polanco, M. Peña, Long-term operation of
a pilot scale membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) for the treatment of municipal
wastewater under psychrophilic conditions, Biores. Technol. 185 (2015) 225–233.
[50] R.E. Yaya-Beas, E.A. Cadillo-La-Torre, K. Kujawa-Roeleveld, J.B. van Lier,
G. Zeeman, Presence of helminth eggs in domestic wastewater and its removal at
low temperature UASB reactors in Peruvian highlands, Water Res. 90 (2016)
286–293.
[51] L. Zhang, J. De Vrieze, T.L. Hendrickx, W. Wei, H. Temmink, H. Rijnaarts, et al.,
Anaerobic treatment of raw domestic wastewater in a UASB-digester at 10◦ C and
microbial community dynamics, Chem. Eng. J. 334 (2018) 2088–2097.
[52] E.S. León, J.A.P. Vargas-Machuca, E.L. Corona, Z. Arbib, F. Rogalla, M.F. Boizán,
Anaerobic digestion of municipal sewage under psychrophilic conditions, J. Clean.
Prod. 198 (2018) 931–939.
[53] H. Rizvi, S. Ali, A. Yasar, M. Ali, M. Rizwan, Applicability of upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactor for typical sewage of a small community: its biomass
reactivation after shutdown, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15 (2018) 1745–1756.
[54] V. Del Nery, I. Alves, M.H.R.Z. Damianovic, E.C. Pires, Hydraulic and organic rates
applied to pilot scale UASB reactor for sugar cane vinasse degradation and biogas
generation, Biomass Bioenergy 119 (2018) 411–417.
[55] A.A. Khan, I. Mehrotra, A.A. Kazmi, Sludge profiling at varied organic loadings and
performance evaluation of UASB reactor treating sewage, Biosyst. Eng. 131 (2015)
32–40.
[56] L. Zhang, T.L. Hendrickx, C. Kampman, G. Zeeman, H. Temmink, W. Li, et al., The
effect of sludge recirculation rate on a UASB-digester treating domestic sewage at
15◦ C, Water Sci. Technol. 66 (2012) 2597–2603.
[57] H. Rizvi, N. Ahmad, F. Abbas, I.H. Bukhari, A. Yasar, S. Ali, et al., Start-up of UASB
reactors treating municipal wastewater and effect of temperature/sludge age and
hydraulic retention time (HRT) on its performance, Arab. J. Chem. 8 (2015)
780–786.
[58] A.L. Smith, S.J. Skerlos, L. Raskin, Psychrophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor
treatment of domestic wastewater, Water Res. 47 (2013) 1655–1665.
[59] C. Keating, J.P. Chin, D. Hughes, P. Manesiotis, D. Cysneiros, T. Mahony, et al.,
Biological phosphorus removal during high-rate, low-temperature, anaerobic
digestion of wastewater, Front. Microbiol. 7 (2016) 226.
[60] K. Bialek, D. Cysneiros, V. O’Flaherty, Low-temperature (10 C) Anaerobic
Digestion of Dilute Dairy Wastewater in an EGSB Bioreactor: Microbial Community
Structure, Population Dynamics, and Kinetics of Methanogenic Populations,
Archaea, 2013.
[61] O. Dumont, R. Dickes, M. De Rosa, R. Douglas, V. Lemort, Technical and economic
optimization of subcritical, wet expansion and transcritical Organic Rankine Cycle
(ORC) systems coupled with a biogas power plant, Energy Convers. Manag. 157
(2018) 294–306.
[62] F. Curletti, M. Gandiglio, A. Lanzini, M. Santarelli, F. Marechal, Large size biogas-
fed Solid Oxide Fuel Cell power plants with carbon dioxide management: technical
and economic optimization, J. Power Sources 294 (2015) 669–690.
[63] S. Giarola, O. Forte, A. Lanzini, M. Gandiglio, M. Santarelli, A. Hawkes, Techno-
economic assessment of biogas-fed solid oxide fuel cell combined heat and power
system at industrial scale, Appl. Energy 211 (2018) 689–704.
[64] L.W. Davis, S. Martinez, B. Taboada, How effective is energy-efficient housing?
Evidence from a field trial in Mexico, J. Dev. Econ. 143 (2020) 102390.
[65] J. Lucero-Alvarez, I.R. Martin-Dominguez, The effect of solar reflectance, infrared
emissivity and thermal insulation of roofs on the annual energy consumption of
single-family households in Mexico, Indoor Built, Environ 28 (2019) 17–33.
[66] E.T. Romero-Guzman, H. Hernandez-Mendoza, A. Kuri-Cruz, L.R. Reyes-Gutierrez,
Airbone particulate material in metropolitan zone of Toluca Valley (Mexico) by
SEM and ICP-SFMS, Chem. Ecol. 34 (2018) 482–494.
Abbreviations
AF: Anaerobic filter
AnMBR: Anaerobic membrane bioreactor
S. Alcaraz-Ibarra et al. Biomass and Bioenergy 142 (2020) 105786

CIW: Chocolate-processing industry wastewater OLRTappl: Applied total organic loading rate
COD: Chemical oxygen demand OLRTrem: Removed organic loading rate
COD-RE: Removal efficiency of the chemical oxygen demand OLRT-RE: Removal efficiency of the total organic loading rate
DPE: Daily produced energy Q: Flow rate
DUE: Daily utilized energy SMA: Specific methanogenic activity
Eff-T: Effluent temperature of UASB reactor STP: Standard temperature and pressure conditions (273 K and 1 atm)
EGSB: Expanded granular sludge bed reactor ST-T: Storage temperature of CIW
HRT: Hydraulic retention time ΔT: Temperature rise of the reactor influent
In-T: Influent temperature of UASB reactor TCD: Thermal conditioning device
MY: Methane yield TSS: Total suspended solids
NEY: Net energy yield UAASB: Upflow aerobic-anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
OLRS: Soluble organic loading rate UASB: Upflow Anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
OLRSappl: Applied soluble organic loading rate VFA: Volatile fatty acids
OLRSrem: Removed soluble organic loading rate VSS: Volatile suspended solids
OLRS-RE: Removal efficiency of the soluble organic loading rate WW: Wastewater
OLRT: Total organic loading rate

10