Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD)

system evaluation and applications

by

Harikishan Santha

A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Major: Civil Engineering (Environmental Engineering)

Program of Study Committee:

Shihwu Sung (Major Professor)
Timothy G. Ellis
Thomas L. Richards

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

2002
 ii

Graduate College
Iowa State University

This is to certify that the master's thesis of

Harikishan Santha

has met the thesis requirements of Iowa State University

Signatures have been redacted for privacy

 lll

To my family
For my wonderful upbringing
And for your love and support

To my Kitty
For standing by me
And for you love and encouragement
 IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1

Background 1

Thesis Organization 4

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6

Anaerobic Digestion: Concepts 6

The Transition: Low-Rate to High-Rate Systems 8

Anaerobic Digestion: High-Rate Systems 10

Regulatory Update: PathogenNector Attraction Reduction Requirements 19

Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) 22

Advanced Anaerobic Digestion: Future of Agriculture 24

CHAPTER 3. PERFORMANCE OF TEMPERATU RE-PHASED ANAEROBIC

DIGESTION (TPAD) SYSTEM TREATING HIGH-STRENGTH 26
DAIRY CATTLE WASTES

Abstract 26

Introduction 27

Materials and Methods 29

Observations and Results 32

Discussion and Conclusions 37

References 39

Tables and Figures 42

 v

CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION OF A SEQUENTIAL FEEDING SCHEME FOR

TEMPERATURE-PHASED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION (TPAD) 54
SYSTEM TREATING MUNICIPAL SLUDGE

Abstract 54

Introduction 55

Materials and Methods 57

Results and Discussion 60

Conclus~ns 63

References 64

Tables and Figures 66

CHAPTER 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 80

Engineering Significance 80

Recommendations for Future Study 81

Conclusions 82

GENERAL REFERENCES 83

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 87
 VI

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Title Page

LITERATURE REVIEW

Table 1. Performance comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic

12
anaerobic digestion

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of phase separation 13

Table 3. Performance of acid-phased systems 14

Table 4. Overview of temperature-phased systems 17

Table 5. Alternatives for meeting Class A requirements 21

Table 6. Alternatives for meeting Class B requirements 21

Figure 1. Metabolic stages in the anaerobic digestion process 7

Figure 2. Class A time-temperature requirements 23

PERFORMANCE OF TEMPERATU RE-PHASED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

SYSTEM (TPAD) SYSTEM TREATING HIGH-STRENGTH DAIRY CATTLE 42
WASTES

Table 1. Average feed characteristics 43

Table 2. System performance at different runs 44

Table 3. Reduction of indicator organisms in the system 45

Table 4. Biogas volume and composition at different runs 46

Table 5. Nitrogen transformation in the system 47

Table 6. A comparative study 48
Figure 1. Schematic of the TPAD system 49

Figure 2. Individual reactor and system volatile solids removal 50

 Vll

Figure 3. Methane recovery at different loadings 51 ,

Figure 4. VFNAlkalinity and pH profiles for thermophilic/mesophilic

52
reactors

Figure 5. Phosphorus removal by lime 53

EVALUATION OF SEQUENTIAL FEEDING SCHEME FOR TEMPERATURE-

PHASED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SYSTEM (TPAD) TREATING MUNICIPAL 66
SLUDGE

Table 1. Characterist:-;s of the feed sludge (40:60 mixture of PS and 67

WAS from Mc.irshalltown WPCP, IA)

Table 2. Operational parameters of the reactor systems 68

Table 3. Reduction of indicator organisms in the reactor systems 69

Table 4. Solids reduction at different Runs: Sequential feed vs. Single- 70

stage mesophilic control

Table 5. Methane recovery from the wastes 71

Table 6. Nitrogen transformation in the TPAD system 72

Figure 1. Schematic of sequential TPAD system 73

Figure 2. Schematic of single-stage mesophilic system (control) 74

Figure 3. Operation of sequentially fed TPAD system 75

Figure 4. Sequential feeding time-scale 76

Figure 5. Volatile solids removal in the first-stage thermophilic reactor at 77
different SRTs: Sequentially fed vs. Semi-continuously fed

Figure 6. Biogas production profiles from the reactors at different SRTs 78

Figure 7. Volatile fatty acid and alkalinity profiles for TPAD and control 79
systems
 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Background

Growing awareness of environmental damage and public health concerns has led to

the implementation of more stringent environmental regulations, controls and policies on the

disposal of wastes with a shift in emphasis from "What has been taken out?" to "How much

is left?" The public interest in environmental quality makes waste management technology a

critical consideration and waste generators are force:d to adopt efficient and reliable waste

treatment processes that produce more-stable, less-odorous biosolids; and reduce

pathogens. Moreover, with the dwindling supply of fossil fuels, it is inevitable that we will

have to find an environmentally sustainable alternative energy source if humankind is going

to have a future on this planet. Thus, there is a need to move beyond regulatory compliance

and secure the energy future.

The quest for efficient waste treatment processes and cleaner forms of energy has

stimulated interest in anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion is no longer seen merely as

a complementary process augmenting aerobic treatment but has become an established

and proven technology demonstrating great flexibility in treating different types of waste

streams, ranging from wet to dry and from clean organics to "grey" waste (De Baere, 2000).

It offers substantial cost benefits from reduced waste biomass accumulation, lower nutrient

and energy requirements. Anaerobic digestion plays a dual role in waste treatment

converting organic wastes into stable organic soil conditioners or liquid fertilizers and

reducing the environmental impact of organic wastes prior to their disposal. In addition to

the pollution-control role, anaerobic digestion is often regarded as a source of renewable

energy in the form of methane gas. So, anaerobic digestion is seen as a process than can

convert a disposal problem into a profit center.

 2

Not all waste streams are amenable to anaerobic digestion; the process can degrade

only organic materials. Researchers have exploited varied feedstocks that range from

municipal and commercial wastes to agricultural residuals for anaerobic digestion. In many

countries, agricultural wastes, the manures and crop residues that are derived from food

production, are the largest source of wastes (Wheeler, 2000). Conversion of agricultural

residuals - animal manure in particular - into a renewable energy resource has been the

focus of intensive research for more than two decades. Where costs are high for agricultural

or animal waste disposal, and the effluent has economic value, anaerob1 ~ digestion and

biogas production can reduce overall operating costs.

A broad array of anaerobic digestion systems has been studied for the treatment of

livestock manures. The majority of these anaerobic digestion systems operate at mesophilic

temperatures (30-38°C). Though effective in reducing the organic content of wastes, studies

have reported the survival of pathogenic bacteria at mesophilic temperatures (Kearney et al.,

1993). The recently implemented 40 CFR Part 503 federal regulations, which classify

biosolids as Class A or Class B based on the density (numbers/unit mass) of pathogens,

restrict the land application or surface disposal of biosolids based on pathogen destruction

criteria (U.S.E.P.A, 1994). The mesophilic anaerobic digestion systems can achieve only

limited destruction of pathogens restricting the use of biosolids from the process and

significantly affecting the sustainability and cost effectiveness of the process. Moreover, the

recalcitrant organics in livestock manures may only be partially degraded at mesophilic

temperatures. There is a need for new and improved facilities if the biogas potential of the

waste streams is to be fully realized. Of late, there has been a "renaissance of digestion",

waste treatment facilities have shown widespread interest in upgrading the performance of

anaerobic digestion systems to handle difficult-to-digest feed solids more effectively,

 3

increase digester loadings, and improve operating economies by my increasing volatile

solids removal (Shimp et al., 2000).

Among the innovative advanced digestion systems, the Temperature-Phased

Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD), a patented process developed by Dr. Richard Dague and

coworkers at Iowa State University (ISU), holds much promise. The TPAD is a two-stage

anaerobic digestion system, which consists of two completely mixed reactors in series,

operated at higher thermophilic temperature (typically 55°C) in the first stage and lower

mesophilic temperature (commonly 35°C) in the second stage. Laboratory studies on

wastewater sludges suggested that the TPAD process could achieve improved pathogen

destruction, volatile solids removal, and gas production compared to conventional

mesophilic digestion (Han and Dague, 1997). Since its development in the mid nineties,

more than twenty full-scale TPAD systems have been set up in the United States for the

treatment of wastewater sludges. In spite of having marked advantages over many high-

rate single stage mesophilic systems in the treatment of municipal wastewater sludges,

performance of TPAD in the digestion of livestock manures has never been evaluated. Can

we present a viable solution to the waste disposal problems associated with agribusiness in

the form of TPAD technology? Bench-scale studies conducted at ISU Environmental

Laboratory sought to address this concern.

The TPAD is one of the many advanced treatment systems that has accomplished

the task of meeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR Part 503 rule for

reducing pathogens and producing Class A biosolids. There has been a growing school of

thought that production of Class A biosolids will be, in effect, a pre-requisite for land-based

management schemes. The temperature-phased system achieved near complete

destruction of total and fecal coliforms over a range of solid retention times from 11 to 28

days (Han et al., 1997). In spite of this, the TPAD process has not been listed in the U.S.
 4

EPA's treatment alternatives that meet Class A pathogen requirements. The temperature-

phased digestion does not satisfy the time-temperature requirements for classification as a

Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP). At 55°C, a batch holding time of 24 hours is

needed to satisfy the Part 503 time-temperature requirements (U.S. EPA, 1994). Sequential

batch operation could be one of the potential avenues for satisfying the time-temperature

regime for acceptance as a PFRP, and may be easily incorporated into the TPAD.

Laboratory studies were conducted at ISU to evaluate the stability and performance of a

sequ,~ntial batch TPAD scheme. The results from this study will be used to modify the

existing digesters at the Nine Springs treatment plant Madison (Wisconsin) to enable

operation in sequencing batch, TPAD mode.

Thesis Organization

The thesis is organized in five chapters. Chapter 1 is a general introduction

providing a brief preview of the research. Chapter 2 is the literature review, which

encompasses the previous work in the field and the need for this study. Chapters 3 and 4

are separate manuscripts covering different aspects of this research. The first manuscript

(Chapter 3) titled "Performance of Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD)

System Treating High Strength Cattle Wastes" presents the findings from the study

conducted to evaluate the performance of a completely mixed TPAD system treating dairy

cattle wastes. Chapter 4 is a manuscript titled "Evaluation of a Sequential Feeding Scheme

for Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) System Treating Municipal Sludge".

This paper focuses on adaptation of the TPAD process to meet the time-temperature

requirements specified by U. S. EPA for classification as a PFRP. The engineering

significance of the study alongside some recommendations for future study is presented in
 5

Chapter 5. The references for the manuscripts are listed at the end of the respective

manuscripts, whereas Chapters 1 and 2 are covered at the end of the thesis.
 6

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Anaerobic Digestion: Concepts

Anaerobic digestion is an environmentally friendly method of waste reduction and

energy recovery. The microbial consortia and biochemical reactions involved in the

anaerobic breakdown of organic wastes have now been elucidated. Complex organic

compounds are hydrolyzed by bacterial enzymes to simple organics, which are fermented

by acidogens to long chain fatty acids. The hyc. ·olysis and acidogenesis reactions are

together referred to as the acid-forming phase. No waste stabilization occurs during this

phase of treatment, but the organic matter is converted into a form suitable for uptake by the

acetogenic bacteria. The acetogens convert these organic acids to acetate, hydrogen and

carbon dioxide, which are readily utilized by the methane-forming bacteria to produce the

gaseous end products, methane and carbon dioxide (McCarthy, 1964; McCarthy and Smith,

1986). Figure 1 shows the overall reactions that take place during the anaerobic digestion

process.

A balance favorable to the different microbial populations is necessary to ensure

stability of the anaerobic process. The acid formers, which include the organisms that

solubilize organic solids through hydrolysis, are facultative anaerobes that thrive in a broad

range of environmental conditions. The slower growing methanogens are anaerobes and

are intolerant to changing environmental conditions such as temperature, pH, and substrate

composition. The rugged nature of the acid formers and the sensitive nature of the methane

formers create a bio-system that is easily upset (WEF, 1995).

The slow growth and consequent low rate of acid utilization by methane-formers

represents the rate limiting and the most sensitive step of anaerobic digestion process
 7

Complex Organic Compounds

(Carbohydrates, Proteins, Lipids)

HYDROLYSIS

l
Simple Organic Compounds
(Sugars, Amino Acids, Peptides)

ACIDOGENESIS

''
Long Chain Fatty Acids
(Propionate, Butyrate, etc.)

I
ACETOGENESIS

''
" '
Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Acetate
~-------r---~ HOMOCETOGENESIS

METHANOGENESIS METHANOGENESIS

Methane + Carbon Dioxide

Figure 1. Metabolic Stages in the Anaerobic Digestion Process

(Speece, 1996; McCarthy and Smith, 1986)
 8

(McCarthy, 1964; Gujer and Zehnder, 1983). Efficient waste treatment depends on the

methanogenic activity and most of the advanced anaerobic processes strive to tailor the

environmental conditions to meet the needs of methane-formers.

The Transition: Low-Rate to High-Rate Systems

Effective and reliable anaerobic waste treatment depends on control and

optimization of the environmental conditions for favorable microbial activity. Improved

understanding of the microbial species and biochemical reactions involved has made

anaerobic digestion process amenable to control. Applications of this knowledge have led

to several improvements in the design and operation of low-rate anaerobic digesters, which

seldom maintained conditions for optimum digestion.

Greater part of the low-rate anaerobic digesters reportedly operated at ambient

temperatures, rarely using an external heat source to increase the temperature of digesting

sludge (WEF, 1995). Operation at lower temperatures may adversely affect the rate of

metabolism of the microbial consortia. The effect may be more pronounced for the

temperature dependent methane-formers, resulting in an increase in the volatile fatty acids

concentration in the digester and a drop in pH below the narrow acceptable range (6.5 -

8.0) for methanogens (Speece, R. E., 1996). At higher temperatures, microorganisms grow

faster and the reactions proceed at faster rates, enhancing the overall process efficiency

(McCarthy, 1964; Water Pollution Control Federation, 1987). Most of the high-rate

anaerobic systems of today are operated at two optimum temperature levels, one in the

mesophilic range from 30 to 38 °C (85 to 100 °F) and the other in the thermophilic range

from 50 to 60 °C (122 to 140 °F). This ensures higher microbial growth rates and, in turn,

better sludge digestion.

 9

The low-rate anaerobic digesters did not employ sludge mixing other than the stirring

caused by rising gas bubbles. This was usually insufficient to ensure stable performance at

high loading rates. Grit and scum layer accumulation was observed at the bottom and top of

low-rate digesters due to inadequate mixing, reducing the effective digestion volume

(Benefield and Randall, 1980). Studies on traditional sewage digesters have linked poor

process performance to poor mixing (Brade and Noone, 1981; Sidwick, 1986). Proper

sludge mixing is beneficial for dispersing the substrate for better contact with the active

bioma,1s; reducing grit and scum accumulation and thermal stratification within the reactor.

It also dilutes any toxic substances in the influent that may inhibit microbial activity (WEF,

1995). To improve upon the low-rate digesters, sufficient mixing is ensured in modern high-

rate anaerobic digesters to increase the digestion efficiency and take full advantage of the

entire tank volume.

Even though better pathogen kills have been reported in intermittently fed

thermophilic anaerobic systems (Kennedy et al., 1997), a good number of high-rate

anaerobic systems are fed continuously or semi-continuously as it helps to maintain steady-

state conditions within the digester. Continuous feeding, in conjunction with improved

mixing and higher operating temperatures, allows the high-rate systems to be operated at

higher organic loading rates and retention times in the range of 10-15 days (Brade and

Noone, 1981). On the contrary, the risk of shock loading was higher in low-rate anaerobic

systems, which were fed intermittently. Taking into consideration the high sensitivity of

methanogens to substrate concentration, the low-rate systems were operated at low organic

loading rates and retention times in excess of 30 days (Hobson and Wheatley, 1993).

Recent years have seen improvements to the low-rate anaerobic systems leading to

the development of several high-rate systems, characterized by high temperature operation,

 10

auxiliary mixing and uniform feeding. These modifications seek to improve the performance,

efficiency and reliability of anaerobic digestion processes.

Anaerobic Digestion: High-Rate Systems

Anaerobic digestion systems, for processing organic wastes and recovering biogas,

have been making a slow transition from low-rate to high-rate operation not only to meet the

stringent federal regulations, but also to improve the process economics and treatment

efficiency by producing better quality end products. The increasing popularity of the high-

rate digestion systems can be attributed to

o increased digester loadings, reducing the size and cost of new facilities;

o increased volatile solids destruction and energy recovery, improving the operating

economies; and

o ability to handle difficult-to-digest feed solids, such as waste activated sludge and

livestock wastes.

Earliest improvements to the low-rate systems were single-stage digesters, operated

at mesophilic temperatures typified by auxiliary mixing and continuous or semi-continuous

feeding. At several installations, these high-rate digesters were plagued by problems such

as foaming, overloading etc. caused primarily due to the feed sludge characteristics (Ghosh

et al., 1995). The ensuing search to explore new high-rate alternatives to improve the

performance, efficiency and reliability of anaerobic digestion process has resulted in a series

of process variations. The process refinement, though far from over, has identified high-

temperature, phased, and staged anaerobic digestion systems as promising replacements

to the conventional high-rate digestion systems.

 11

High Temperature Operation

The majority of conventional high-rate anaerobic digesters designed for the

treatment of sludgy wastes were operated at mesophilic temperatures ranging from 30 - 38

°C. Thermophilic temperatures failed to gain acceptance due to its reported disadvantages

such as lower process stability and lack of control, higher energy requirements, and poorer

effluent quality (Ghosh, 1998; Ahring, 1995). The initial qualms over the stability of

operation at thermophilic temperatures have been proved false by later reports that

indicated that thermophilic digesters are just as stc.rble and operable as their mesophilic

counterparts (Ahring, 1994). A performance comparison of digestion at mesophilic and

thermophilic temperatures is presented in Table 1.

Anaerobic digestion at thermophilic temperatures improves substrate accessibility

and the treatment times approach one-third those of mesophilic digestion (Ahring, 1995).

Thermophilic digestion also ensures adequate sanitation of the treated biosolids by

deactivation or destruction of pathogens (Bendixen, 1994). This becomes increasingly

significant with the implementation of U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR 503

standards for pathogen reduction and Class A biosolids production. Faced by the

comprehensive sludge management regulations, treatment plants are looking at

thermophilic digestion as a viable process for meeting the treatment objectives (Aitken and

Mullennix, 1992).

Acid- Gas Phased Anaerobic Digestion

In conventional single-stage digesters, the bacterial consortia mediating the

hydrolytic-acidogenic and methanogenic phases of anaerobic digestion were confined to a

single vessel. The metabolic activities of these diverse bacterial groups may not be most

efficient under the operating conditions of a single digester, where conditions are often
 12

made favorable for the slow growing methanogens (Ghosh et al., 1995). To overcome this

limitation, phase isolation was suggested as a possible remedy by several researchers

(Ghosh, 1991; Bull et al., 1984). In acid-gas phased digestion, the hydrolysis-acidification

and acetogenesis-methanogenesis phases are separated physically so the respective

bacteria can be grown under the most desirable environmental conditions. Using this

approach, the first phase (acid generation phase) is maintained at an optimum pH range of

5.0-6.0 and operated at shorter retention times to maximize acid production. The second

reactor is operated at a neutral pH and longer retention times to favor tr e production of

biogas. The claimed advantages and speculated disadvantages of phase separation are

summarized in Table 2. While initial operation of the acid-gas phased digestion systems

were at mesophilic temperatures, operation at thermophilic temperatures have also been

attempted to attain U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Class A designation.

Table 1. Performance comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion

(Ghosh, 1998)

Performance Factor Thermophilic Digestion Mesophilic Digestion

Process Stability Lower Higher

Energy Requirement Higher Lower

Pathogen Reduction Higher Lower

Reduction in Organics Higher Lower

Biogas Production Higher Lower

Effluent Quality (odor, Lower Higher

Volatile fatty acids)

Dewaterability of digested Contradictory Reports Contradictory Reports

solids
 13

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of phase separation (Bhattacharya et al., 1996)

Advantages of phase separation

o Increased stability and better control of acid phase

o Higher organic loading rates

D Increased specific activity of methanogens leading to an increase in methane production

rates

o Increased overall COD and VS reduction efficiencies

Disadvantages of phase separation

o Hydrogen build-up in the acid phase reactor to levels inhibitory to acid formers

o Elimination of possible interdependent nutritional requirements of acid and methane

formers

The Woodridge-Green Valley Wastewater Treatment Plant (Du Page County, Ill) is

one of the few facilities in U. S. employing an acid-phase digester. After early operation of

the digesters in the meso-meso mode, the facility upgraded the gas phase digester to

thermophilic temperature to achieve Class A standards. A pilot-scale thermo-meso

configuration of the acid-gas phased system was also tested at the Belmont Wastewater

Plant, Indianapolis. All these configurations fared better than the conventional high-rate

systems (Schafer and Farrell, 2000). A comparison of the three different process

configurations is reviewed in Table 3. Since EPA has not allowed Class A designations for

continuous flow systems, the Du Page County plant has not obtained approval for producing

Class A biosolids. The batch operation at the Belmont plant met EPA's batch time and

temperature requirements for producing Class A biosolids.

The acid-gas phased systems exploit the diphasic nature of the anaerobic digestion

process, providing preferred environmental conditions for each predominant group of

bacteria in the two phases. The "phased" approach improved the organics stabilization and
 14

Table 3. Performance of acid-phased systems (Schafer and Farrell, 2000)

System Configurations
Parameters
Meso-Meso Meso-Thermo Thermo-Meso
DuPage County, Ill DuPage County, Ill Indianapolis

Scale of operation Full-scale Full-scale Pilot-scale

Input sludge Primarily WAS Primarily WAS PS +WAS

Feedil1g pattern Continuous Continuous Batch (2-4t/d)

VS fed (%VS/TS) 80% -80% -76%

SRT AP: 2 days AP: 1.5 days AP: 2 days

GP: 16 days GP: 12 - 13 days GP: 10 days

VSR 50% overall 55 - 65% overall 55 - 60% overall

VSR (single stage) <40% (20 days) <40% (20 days)

VFA (mgll acetate) AP: 5,000 -10,000 AP: 6,000 - 10,000 AP: 3,000 - 5,000
GP: 300 - 600 GP: 100 - 300 GP: 100 - 200

Acronyms

PS: Primary Sludge VSR: Volatile Solids Reduction

WAS: Waste Activated Sludge VFA: Volatile Fatty Acids
VS: Volatile Solids AP: Acid Phase
TS: Total Solids GP: Gas Phase
tld: times per day
 15

gasification rates and efficiencies and achieved greater pathogen kills relative to those

achieved by conventional high-rate systems (Ghosh et al., 1995).

Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion

The developing domain of high-rate digestion saw the advent of two-stage anaerobic

digestion in the seventies. In the former two-stage units, the first stage was a mixed and

heated reactor that functioned as the stabilization tank. The second stage was unmixed

serving the purpose of a sett1;ng tank for solid-liquid separation (U. S. EPA, 1979). Later

advancements in the field saw both the reactors being mixed and operated at mesophilic

temperatures. This allowed the solids to undergo additional stabilization in the second

reactor, which functioned as a holding tank. The performance evaluation of some full-scale

units showed only a marginal improvement in volatile solids removal and biogas production

over single-stage systems. However, the system was efficient in reducing odors and

producing stable biosolids lower in pathogen counts (Schafer and Farrell, 2000).

The implementation of U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR Part 503

regulations had far-reaching effects on the sludge management practices. For biosolids

destined for land application, pathogen destruction became the major performance criterion.

The wastewater treatment plants operating high-rate mesophilic systems averaged only 2

log fecal coliform density reduction suggesting that these facilities might experience

difficulties in meeting the Class A criterion (Stukenberg et al., 1994). Thermophilic digestion,

a process reportedly capable of reducing pathogens to Class A levels (Lee et al., 1989),

grew to be a promising choice for treatment facilities that tried to avoid disposal restrictions

and improve the marketability of the end product. In addition to higher pathogen kills,

digestion at thermophilic temperatures provides added benefits of greater volatile solids

removal and higher gas production yields compared to mesophilic digestion (Ghosh, 1998).
 16

Consequently, advocates of the process recommended temperature-phased digestion,

where one of the reactors is operated at thermophilic temperatures, as a reliable and

efficient alternative to single temperature digestion for producing Class A biosolids.

In spite of achieving better pathogen reduction and volatile solids removal than a

mesophilic system, thermophilic digestion on its own cannot guarantee the effluent quality or

process stability of a mesophilic unit (Garber 1977; Lee, 1989; Ghosh, 1998). The

temperature-phased digestion involves both thermophilic and mesophilic temperatures,

combining the advantages of both thermophilic anc mesophilic digestion processes while

avoiding the disadvantages of each process. The phases can occur in either order provided

sufficient retention time is allowed at each temperature to achieve optimal methane

production. Both meso-thermo and thermo-meso configurations of the temperature-phased

system have reported higher volatile solids removal over single-stage mesophilic systems

(Schafer and Farrell, 2000). Full- and pilot-scale performance reports of the two

configurations are summarized in Table 4. Though both the configurations are equally

effective in reducing volatile solids, the preferred order for temperature-phased systems is

thermophilic followed by mesophilic. This arrangement utilizes the mesophilic reactor as a

polishing stage alleviating the drawbacks of thermophilic process such as high volatile acid

concentration, odor-producing potential etc (Han and Dague, 1997).

Iowa State University: Leading the Way

Iowa State University is the leading promoter of Temperature-Phased Anaerobic

Digestion (TPAD) in the United States. Conceived and developed by Dr. Dague and co-

workers in the early nineties (Harris and Dague, 1993), the patented process (Patent No.

5525228) has found widespread applications in the field of sludge digestion.

 17

Table 4. Overview of temperature-phased systems (Schafer and Farrell, 2000)

System Configurations
Parameters
Meso-Thermo Thermo-Meso Thermo-Meso
Chicago, Ill Cologne, Germany Iowa State Univ.

Scale of operation Full-scale Full-scale Pilot-scale

Input sludge PS+WAS WAS PS +WAS

Feeding pattern Intermittent Continuous Every 2 hours

VS fed (%VS/TS) -61% -75-80%

SRT M: 8.1 days T: 7 days T: 8 days

T: 8.2 days M: 27 days M: 20days

VSR 55% overall 43% overall 50% overall

VSR (single stage) 49% (20 days) 34% (25 days) 40% (28 days)

VFA (mg/L acetate) T: 800 - 1,200

M: - 200

Acronyms

PS: Primary Sludge VSR: Volatile Solids Reduction

WAS: Waste Activated Sludge VFA: Volatile Fatty Acids
VS: Volatile Solids T: Thermophilic Phase
TS: Total Solids M: Mesophilic Phase
 18

The TPAD system consists of two completely mixed reactors operated in series ~ith

the first stage maintained at thermophilic temperatures (typically 55°C) and the second

stage controlled at mesophilic temperatures (typically 35°C). The process has proven

advantages over single-stage systems operated at either 55°C or 35°C with regards to

volatile solids reduction and biogas production and offers the scope of operation at higher

organic loadings than is possible with single-stage systems (Kaiser and Dague, 1994; Han

and Dague, 1997). Studies conducted at Iowa State University have also established TPAD

as a process capable of meeting the 40 CFR 503 standards for biosolids (Han and Dague,

1997).

The preliminary bench-scale experiments conducted at Iowa State University

characterized the advantages of TPAD system over other high-rate single-stage anaerobic

systems. Treating nonfat dry milk solutions, the system achieved better COD removals

compared to single-stage systems at equivalent system retention times (Kaiser et al., 1995;

Welper and Dague, 1996). In the following years, researchers studied the TPAD system for

stabilization of diverse waste streams including municipal (Han and Dague, 1997; Han et al.,

1997) and industrial sludges (Chao et al., 1999). Irrespective of the feed substrate, the

TPAD system was efficient in reducing the total and fecal coliform counts in the feed sludge

to limits meeting U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's 40 CFR Part 503 standards for

Class A biosolids (U.S. EPA, 1994). The temperature-phased system consistently achieved

higher volatile solids reduction than single-stage mesophilic systems and the volatile acid

concentrations in the effluent from TPAD system were also comparable to the acid levels in

effluents from single-stage mesophilic systems. The thermophilic methanogens that got

carried over to the mesophilic stage during the sludge digestion process further improved

the system efficiency by utilizing acetate under mesophilic conditions to produce methane

(Vanderburgh, 1998). The improved process efficiency coupled with the potential for
 19

producing Class A biosolids makes TPAD one of the advanced sludge digestion systems

that bodes well for the future.

While a general consensus is yet to be reached as to which advanced anaerobic

digestion process is the best; the TPAD process has certainly emerged as one of the

contenders. More than twenty wastewater treatment plants in the United States have

upgraded their mesophilic digesters for operation in the temperature-phased mode for

sludge digestion. Though the move to upgrade conventional anaerobic digestion processes

was nlcessitated by U.S. EPA's Part 503 regulations for Class A standards, a prerequisite

for land application of biosolids, the TPAD and other advanced sludge digestion processes

do guarantee improved system performance and efficiency.

Regulatory Update: PathogenNector Attraction Reduction Requirements

The Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR Part 503),

published by U.S. EPA in 1993 established minimum standards that must be met by sludge

digestion processes if the biosolids are to be land-applied.

Untreated sewage sludge contains a high number of organisms, such as certain

bacteria, protozoa, viruses and helminth ova, which can cause diseases through direct

human contact (Foess and Sieger, 1993). These organisms can also be spread by vectors

(birds, rats and other animals) exposed to the sludge. Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 503

regulations covers alternatives for limiting the pathogens in biosolids and options for

reducing the potential for biosolids to attract vectors (U.S. EPA, 1993; U.S. EPA, 1994).

Pathogen Requirements

The regulations designate biosolids as "Class A" or "Class B" depending on the

density of pathogens (numbers/unit mass) in the biosolids. The biosolids that have been
 20

treated to essentially eliminate pathogens meet Class A designation. If pathogens are

detectable, but have been reduced to levels that do not pose a threat to public health, the

biosolids meet Class B standards. Land application of Class B biosolids is subject to site

restrictions to prevent the public from potentially coming into contact with pathogens before

they have been reduced. No restrictions are imposed on the land application of Class A

biosolids (WEF, 1995).

The Part 503 regulations list six alternatives for treating biosolids so they can be

classified as Class A. These alternatives are summarized in Table 5. Common to each

alternative is the requirement that either the density of fecal coliform bacteria shall be less

than 1,000 Most Probable Number (MPN) per gram of total solids on a dry weight basis, or

the density of Salmonella sp. bacteria shall be less than 3 MPN per 4 grams of total solids

on a dry weight basis. Class B pathogen requirements can be met using one of the three

alternatives listed in Table 6 (U.S. EPA, 1994).

Vector Attraction Reduction

Besides the pathogen requirements, both Class A and Class B biosolids must

demonstrate reduced vector attraction. To meet these requirements, the Part 503 rule lists

twelve options that are designed either to reduce the attractiveness of biosolids to vectors or

prevent vectors from coming in contact with the biosolids (U.S. EPA, 1994).

In short, U.S. EPA's Part 503 requirements call for performance and operational

compliance. The performance compliance of a digestion process is evaluated in terms of

the number of indicator organisms in the biosolids. Operational compliance can be

accomplished by ensuring that "every particle" has been exposed to conditions known to be

effective in rendering the biosolids to be essentially pathogen-free.

 21

Table 5. Alternatives for meeting Class A requirements (U.S. EPA, 1994)

Alternative 1: Thermally Treated Biosolids

Biosolids must be subjected to one of the four time-temperature regimes.

Alternative 2: Biosolids Treated in a High pH-High Temperature Process

Biosolids must meet specific pH, temperature, and air-drying requirements.

Alternative 3: Biosolids Treated in Other Processes

Demonstrate that the process can reduce enteric viruses and viable helminth ova. Maintain
operating conditions used in the demonstration after pathogen reduction demonstration is
completed

Alternative 4: Biosolids Treated in Unknown Processes

Biosolids must be tested for pathogens - Salmonella sp. or fecal coliform bacteria, enteric
viruses, and viable helminth ova.

Alternative 5: Biosolids treated in a PFRP

Biosolids must be treated in one of the listed Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens
(PFRP)

Alternative 6: Biosolids Treated in a Process Equivalent to a PFRP

Biosolids must be treated in a process equivalent to one of the PFRPs, as determined by
the permitting authority

Table 6. Alternatives for meeting Class B requirements (U.S. EPA, 1994)

Alternative 1: The Monitoring of Indicator Organisms

Test for fecal coliform density as an indicator for all pathogens. The geometric mean of
seven samples shall be less than 2 million MPNs per gram total solids or less than 2 million
CFUs per gram of total solids.

Alternative 2: Biosolids Treated in a PSRP

Biosolids must be treated in one of the listed Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens
(PSRP)

Alternative 3: Biosolids Treated in a Process Equivalent to a PSRP

Biosolids must be treated in a process equivalent to one of the PSRPs, as determined by
the permitting authority
 22

Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)

Advanced sludge digestion systems, which are not certified by U.S. EPA as PFRPs,

have two routes to comply with the operational provision laid down in Part 503 regulations.

First option would be to satisfy the time-temperature criteria specified in Part 503 through

either batch or plug-flow operations (Alternative 1). The second daunting option would be to

obtain approval from the pathogen Equivalency committee for a PFRP equivalent process,

based on a comprehensive demonstration of the process capability to effectively reduce

pathogens to non-detectable levels (Alternative 6) (Shimp et al., 2001 ). -As' learnt from

previous experience (Huyard, 1999),· for most advanced systems the key to fulfilling the

requirements for Class A is to satisfy one of the time-temperature regimes listed by U.S.

EPA under Alternative 1.

Though experimentally proven to produce Class A biosolids, the TPAD process fails

to find a place in U.S. EPA's list of Class A alternatives. As can be seen from Figure 2, a

batch holding time of twenty-four hours is needed to satisfy the time-temperature

requirements for Class A pathogen control (U.S. EPA, 1993; Foess and Sieger, 1993). The

TPAD systems operating in continuous and semi-continuous modes do not comply with the

operational provision for Class A designation. Operation in the sequential batch mode can

be a promising option to overcome this limitation. In August 2000, Jefferson County

completed an expansion of existing digesters at Birmingham, Alabama to enable operation

in a sequencing batch, TPAD mode. However, the installation is designed for a batch

holding time of only 6 to 8 hours-considerably less than the 24 hours needed to satisfy the

503 time-temperature requirements at 55 °C (Shimp et al., 2001).

Growing recognition of the difficulties in complying with the Part 503 regulations is

eroding the initial enthusiasm shown by wastewater treatment plants in upgrading the

performance of conventional digestion processes. However, it has become imperative to

 23

device practical means for adapting an advanced digestion system like TPAD to meet the

operational requirements and performance requirements for Class A designation.

5.0 days
D(da s)• 131.700,000
y 1011•
t~temp. °C
This equation applies only to
sludge lllat is c: 7% solids
content.
I.Oday --~·---- ·---·--- · · - - -- - - .

lo
0 Ida S) = 50,070,000
y 10"'"
0.1 days -- t =temp. ·c
(2 4 hrs.) : This equation applies only
- to sludge that is < 7% solids.
with temp. > 50-C and
- t >30 min.

0.01 days - - - - ·
(14 min.) :

0.001 days ··-------- . _ .- .. ·-·-·····

(1.4 min.) - Time period from 15 seconds to
20 minutes applies only when
sludge Is heated by warm
gases or immiscible liquid.
I
Source: 40 CFR 503, Section 503.32

&5"C 10-c 1s·c es·c

T~mperature (t)

Figure 2. Class A time-temperature requirements (U.S. EPA, 1994)

 24

Advanced Anaerobic Digestion: Future of Agriculture

The development of many advanced anaerobic sludge digestion systems, intended

for use by wastewater treatment plants for the stabilization of sewage sludge, can be

associated with the enactment of severe sludge disposal regulations by U.S. EPA.

However, interest in these technologies for stabilization of agricultural residues has

increased recently due to its potential to address the environmental concerns related to

livestock wastes (Wheatley, 1990). The current manure management practices raise

appret 1ensions over excess nitrate levels in ground and surface water, excess levels of

phosphorus in surface water, accumulation of copper and zinc in soils, high counts of fecal

coliform bacteria and pathogens in ground and surface water, odor, airborne ammonia and

green house gases (Meyer, 2000). Though the Part 503 sludge disposal standards do not

apply to farm wastes, state and federal governments are requiring better nutrient

management plans and more accountability in livestock waste handling (Morse et al., 1995).

Anaerobic digestion offers a reliable method of reducing pollution from manures

while at the same time providing a return on the costs of pollution control in the form of

biogas (Parsons, 1986). An early evaluation of the conventional anaerobic digestion

processes showed relatively low volatile solids breakdown in the range of 15-30% for cattle

wastes (Hills, 1980), which brings forth the question of economics. A study on the

economics of conventional digesters concluded that the process could not be justified on

farms with less than one thousand heads of cattle unless the process was credited with

other benefits in addition to energy production (Hashimoto and Chen, 1980). Researchers

suggested the addition of high gas potential substrates to animal manure to improve the

economy of operation (Angelidaki and Ahring, 2000). In many European countries, co-

digestion of manure and industrial organic wastes is being widely practiced with

encouraging results (Danish Energy Agency, 1995). Lab-scale studies have also proposed
 25

co-digestion of cattle slurry with chicken manure for easing inhibition problems (Callaghan et

al., 1999). Despite the positive results, full-sc~le applications of co-digestion are scarce.

The search is ongoing for an economically feasible solution to the waste disposal

problems associated with livestock industries. Various high-rate anaerobic digestion system

configurations have been studied to improve the biogas production potential and fertilizer

value of animal manures (Hall et al., 1985; Chen et al., 1984; Sanchez et al., 1992).

However, many of these were plagued by deficiencies and had little success in

accomplishing their goals. Ir. this context, there is an apparent need for innovative high-

solid digestion technologies that can improve the overall economy of farming operation. The

TPAD system, which has proven advantages over other high-rate anaerobic digestion

processes in the treatment of municipal wastewater sludges, has never been evaluated for

the treatment of livestock wastes. The effort would be worthwhile if it could enhance the

economic viability of the manure management practices.

 26

CHAPTER 3. PERFORMANCE OF TEMPERATURE-PHASED

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION (TPAD) SYSTEM TREATING HIGH
STRENGTH DAIRY CATTLE WASTES

(A paper submitted to Environmental Science and Technology)

Harikishan Santha 1 and Shihwu Sung 2 •

Abstract

The performance of Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) system in the

stabilization of dairy cattle wastes at high solids concentrations has never been evaluated,

though the process has been established as a feasible alternative to conventional

mesophilic processes for the treatment of municipal wastewater sludges. In this study, the

TPAD system operating at a retention time of 14 days was subjected to varying Total Solids

(TS) concentrations (3.46 - 14.54%) of dairy cattle wastes. At TS concentrations lower than

12.20%, corresponding to system Volatile Solids (VS) loadings in the range of 1.87 - 5.82 g

VS/Uday, the system achieved an average VS removal of 40.2%. The maximum VS

destruction of 42.6% was achieved at a TS concentration of 10.35%. Methane recovery

from the wastes was consistently within 0.21-0.22 Ug VS fed. There was a drop in the

system performance with respect to VS removal and methane recovery at TS concentrations

higher than 10.35%. Volatile Fatty Acid/Alkalinity ratios less than 0.35 in the thermophilic

reactor and 0.10 in the mesophilic reactor were found favorable for stable operation of the

1 Graduate
student, Dept. of Civil & Construction Engineering, Iowa State University
Professor, Dept. of Civil & Construction Engineering, Iowa State University
2 Assistant

*To whom all correspondence should be addressed

 27

system. For the entire range of TS concentrations, the indicator organism counts in the

biosolids were within the limits specified by U.S.EPA in 40 CFR Part 503 regulations for

Class A designation. After digestion, nearly 80 - 85% of total phosphorus was associated

with the biosolids.

Keywords

Anaerobic, Biosolids, Dairy cattle, Class A, Temperature-Phased, Digestion

Introduction

Lately, the problem of livestock waste management has been of increasing concern

in the United States. The current manure management practices raise apprehensions over

high counts of fecal coliform bacteria and pathogens in ground and surface water, odor,

airborne ammonia, green house gases, spills etc. Continued sustainability of animal

agriculture and its allied industries will be largely dependent on the waste management

technology. Moreover, dwindling supplies of conventional energy sources have intensified

the need for alternative, affordable and renewable energy sources.

Anaerobic digestion offers a reliable method of reducing pollution from livestock

wastes while at the same time providing a return on the costs of pollution control in the form

of biogas without curtailing the nutrient value of the manures (Parsons, 1986). Different

configurations of anaerobic digestion systems were studied for the treatment of cattle

wastes in 1980s and 1990s. Majority of these systems, operated at mesophilic

temperatures (30-38 °C), stressed the need for long retention times in the reactor because

of the high fraction of recalcitrant organic matter present in cattle manure. Though effective

in reducing the organic content of wastes, an evaluation of mesophilic digestion processes

showed a relatively low volatile solids breakdown in the range of 15 - 30% for cattle wastes
 28

(Hills, 1980). Studies have also indicated the survival of pathogenic bacteria at mesophilic

temperatures (Kearney et al., 1993). Alternatively, operation at thermophilic temperatures

could improve the rate of degradation of complex organics and minimize chances of survival

of bacterial and viral pathogens (Bendixen, 1994). However, thermophilic operation has not

received wide spread acceptance due to its reported disadvantages such as poor process

stability, higher energy requirements, and poor effluent quality (Ahring, 1995). The qualms

over process stability could be avoided by combining the thermophilic and mesophilic

digestion processes into one, reaping the benefits of both while eliminating the problems

associated with these systems when operated independently (Han and Dague, 1997).

Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD), a patented process developed at

Iowa State University (ISU), is one of the innovative sludge digestion processes that

operates in the temperature-phased mode. It consists of a two-stage system, which

operates at high thermophilic temperatures (typically 55 °C) in the first stage and lower

mesophilic temperatures (typically 35 °C) in the second stage. The arrangement utilizes the

mesophilic reactor as a polishing stage alleviating the drawbacks of thermophilic process. It

has been shown to be a reliable and effective means of sludge stabilization that achieves

bioconversion and methane production rates higher than the existing mesophilic anaerobic

systems (Streeter, 1997). A series of bench-scale studies conducted at ISU have also

demonstrated that the system capability of producing class A biosolids, the highest ranked

stabilized sludge for surface disposal regulated by U.S.EPA (Han and Dague, 1997; Han et

al., 1997). In addition, the ability to treat higher solids and organic loadings at relatively

shorter hydraulic retention times (HRTs) indicates the fact that TPAD would be less than one

half the size of conventional systems currently in use.

The Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR) has been operated in the

temperature-phased mode for stabilization of livestock wastes (Zhang et al., 2000; Dugba et
 29

al., 1999). Developed at ISU by R. R. Dague and coworkers, the ASBR technology has

been found to be effective in treating dilute animal wastewater (Dague and Pidaparti, 1992;

Schmidt and Dague, 1993). However, at a given HRT, higher dilution translates into larger

digester volumes adversely affecting the economics of operation. The completely mixed

TPAD system is known to handle high-solid concentrations, but has never been evaluated

for animal wastes. This study tried to evaluate the performance characteristics of a

completely mixed TPAD system over an entire range of Total Solids (TS) concentrations and

Organ •.: Loading Rates (OLR).

Materials and Methods

Substrate: Source and Characteristics

Dairy manure (feces and urine) from cows weighing over 1000 lbs was obtained on a

bi-weekly basis from the ISU dairy. The high grain-finishing ration fed to the cattle was

primarily composed of alfalfa silage (30% by weight), corn silage (20% by weight), corn glut

(15% by weight) and ground corn grain (15% by weight). Manure scraped off concrete

floored pens had a TS concentration of 15 ± 1%. Prior to use, the manure was mixed with

the desired quantity of dilution water and macerated in a blender for 15 - 20 minutes. This

was done to reduce potential clogging of digester tubing. Angelidaki et al. (2000) have also

reported maceration as a physical means of reducing the association of lignin with

biodegradable cellulosic fraction of biofibers thereby improving the substrate accessibility to

bacteria. It is also one of the easier options to implement in full-scale plants. The blended

wastes were stored in a refrigerator until use to minimize substrate decomposition.

 30

Experimental Setup

Two bench-scale cylindrical Plexiglas ™ reactors fabricated in the Chemistry

Machine Shop at ISU were used in the study. The 20-L capacity first stage thermophilic

reactor had a working volume of 12 L and the 30 L second stage mesophilic reactor had a

working volume of 18 L. The reactors had ports for installation of the mixer, feeding,

decanting, gas release and sampling. In order to improve mixing, each reactor had four 1.3-

cm baffles running along the height of the reactor. The gas collection system consisted of a

gas reservoir, a gas observatiLin tube, a hydrogen sulfide scrubber with steel wool as the

scrubbing medium, a gas sampling port and a wet-tip gas meter. The reactor system was

operated in a constant temperature room maintained at 38 °C. The first stage thermophilic

reactor was set up in a 58 °C water-bath with a Fisher lsotemp 2100 (Fisher Company,

Pittsburgh) immersion circulator. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the experimental set-up.

Start-up and Operation

The thermophilic and mesophilic reactors were seeded with 10 L of actively digesting

sludge from an ongoing bench scale thermophilic reactor at ISU environmental lab and a full

scale mesophilic swine waste digester (Nevada, IA), respectively. The reactors were then

filled to their respective working volumes of 12 L and 18 L with hot tap water and purged

with methane gas. The reactor contents were maintained at the respective temperatures for

a week to allow temperature equilibration and utilization of substrate contained in the seed.

The TPAD system was operated in a semi-continuous mode feeding and collecting

samples at 4-hour intervals of time (6 times daily). The effluent from thermophilic reactor

was discharged into the mesophilic reactor followed by pumping of fresh feed into the

thermophilic reactor. Effluent was withdrawn from the reactors 5 minutes prior to feeding to

avoid the possibility of short-circuiting. The contents of the two reactors were mechanically
 31

mixed for 10 minutes every 30 minutes and temperature of the digesting sludge was

monitored daily.

The TPAD system was operated at a 14-day retention time with the thermophilic unit

conducted at 4 days and the mesophilic unit at 10 days. This was founded on the studies of

Han et al. (1997), who suggested an optimum system retention time of 11-17 days for TPAD

systems treating wastewater sludges. Single-stage systems studied by Hashimoto et al.

(1982) for the treatment of cattle wastes performed optimally at retention times in the range

of 4-6 days under thermophilic conditions and 10-15 de. ys at mesophilic conditions.

Analysis

In the daily operation of TPAD system, effluent pH from each reactor and biogas

production was recorded. The measured biogas volume was corrected to Standard

Temperature and Pressure (STP) conditions. The composition of biogas was analyzed

twice weekly. After the reactors had attained a quasi-steady state (assumed after a

minimum of 3 volume turnovers and less than 5% variation in biogas production during five

consecutive days of operation), the digested sludge was analyzed for TS, VS, Volatile Fatty

Acids (VFA), alkalinity, ammonia nitrogen and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). Methane

production and effluent characteristics were monitored until consistent results were

obtained.

Measurements of TS, VS, VFA, alkalinity, total phosphorus and TKN were made

twice weekly following the procedures listed in Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater (191h Edition, 1995). The biogas composition was analyzed using a

GOW-MAC Series 350 gas chromatograph equipped with a thermal conductivity detector.

The column was a 2.43 m by 0.64 cm SS 3508 Hayesep DB 80/100 and the operational

temperatures of the injection port, oven and the detector were 150, 50, and 100 °C,
 32

respectively. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flowrate of 140 ml I min. The

minimum amount of methane detectable was 1%. Gas detection tubes with a LP-1200

pump (RAE systems Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) were used for detection of hydrogen sulfide and

ammonia in the biogas. Samples were cooled and shipped overnight to a certified contract

laboratory (University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA) for pathogen analysis.

Observations and Results

To determine the extent of anaerobic biodegradation of dairy catt.e manure at

varying loads, the TPAD system was subjected to six different TS concentrations referred to

as Runs 1-6. Corresponding to the different TS concentrations, the organic loading rate to

the system varied from 1.87 to 7.70 g VS/Uday. The average feed compositions to the

reactor are summarized in Table 1.

Solids Reduction

The system performance with respect to solids destruction for the different Runs is

reviewed in Table 2. The performance dropped significantly as the total solids concentration

was increased to 14.54% (7.70 g VS/Uday). Operational problems were also encountered

due to foaming of the thermophilic reactor at higher loadings during Run 6. It is evident that

the system performance is heavily dependent on the performance of the thermophilic

reactor, while the mesophilic reactor improves the effluent quality by consistently achieving

additional 12-17% VS reduction. It is also interesting to note that the system achieved VS

removals greater than 38%, the value specified in the 40 CFR Part 503 regulations to

minimize vector attraction, at all but two of the TS concentrations studied. The maximum VS

removal of 42.6% was achieved at a TS concentration of 10.35% (5.82 g VS/UDay),

determined as the optimum loading for the system.

 33

Pathogen Destruction

Effluent quality data, presented in Table 3, shows the counts of indicator organisms

in the thermophilic and mesophilic effluents to be much lower than the limits specified by U.

S. EPA for Class A designation. The high pathogen destruction achieved by the system

could be attributed to the combined effect of high operating temperatures and high volatile

fatty acid concentrations in the thermophilic reactor (Kunte et al., 1998).

It is critical to determine the fate of bacterial pathogens in the animal wastes during

anaerobic digestion especially when there is a possibility of spread of infectious diseases

during land application of the digested slurry. To meet Class A standards, 40 CFR Part 503

Regulations require fecal coliform densities in the residual solids from anaerobic sludge

digestion systems to be less than 1000 MPN/g of TS and the Salmonella sp. densities to be

less than 3 MPN/4g of TS (U.S.E.P.A, 1992 and 1994). The TPAD process met and

exceeded the criteria for Class A biosolids at all TS concentrations.

Methane Recovery

From Table 4, the biogas production from the individual reactors was highest for Run

4. The biogas from the thermophilic and mesophilic reactors contained 58-62% by volume

of methane with carbon dioxide being the other major constituent. Methane production rates

from the thermophilic stage were higher than the mesophilic reactor in concordance with the

higher VS destruction achieved in the thermophilic reactor. The methane recovery from the

wastes calculated with respect to VS fed ranged from 0.21-0.22 L CH 4 /g VS fed for Runs 1

through 4 (Figure 2). In comparison to the thermophilic reactor, the mesophilic reactor

produced greater quantity of methane per gram of VS destroyed at all organic loadings.

This suggested that the thermophilic reactor was not efficient in converting all the
 34

intermediate products to methane. However, the second-stage mesophilic reactor readily

consumed these intermediates ensuring high effluent quality. Beyond the optimal loading of

5.82 g VS/UDay, there was a drop in the biogas production and methane recovery. The

system would be overloaded if operated at organic loadings in excess of 5.82 g VS/UDay at

14-day retention time. An unexpected drop was observed in the methane recovery per

gram of VS destroyed during Runs 5 and 6 possibly due to errors in the solids balance

calculations caused by foam accumulation in the thermophilic reactor.

Volatile Fatty Acids and Alkalinity

The concentration of VFAs in the feed and reactor effluents showed considerable

increase with increasing organic loading rates (Table 1 and Figure 3). Despite the high VFA

concentrations in the thermophilic effluent, the final effluent VFA concentrations were

relatively low for Runs 1-4. The mesophilic stage reduced the VFA concentrations in the

thermophilic effluent by 60-65%. This provides further evidence for the role of mesophilic

reactor as the polishing stage. However, the system was stressed during Runs 5 and 6 as

seen from the accumulation of VFAs in the reactor effluents and the deterioration in final

effluent quality.

In a properly functioning digester, the alkalinity existing in the digesting sludge

neutralizes the excess volatile acids to maintain the pH in the optimum range. As seen from

Figure 3, there was an increase in the VFA/Alkalinity ratio for both the reactors at organic

loadings greater than 5.82 g VS/UDay (10.35% TS). The alkalinity of the sludge was no

longer sufficient to neutralize the high VFA concentrations prevalent in the reactors and

there was a drop in the pH. It was concluded from the analysis of results that VFA/Alkalinity

ratios lower than 0.35 in the thermophilic reactor and 0.1 O in the mesophilic reactor are
 35

optimal for the stable operation of a TPAD system treating cattle wastes at high solids

concentrations.

Nutrient Transformation

One of the possible threats to successful operation of TPAD system is the relatively

high nitrogen content in cattle wastes. Ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in the range of

1,500 to 3,000 mg/l have been reported to be inhibitory to anaerobic digestion in the

mesophilic temperature range (McCarty, 1964). One of the current studies at Iowa State

University Environmental Laboratory (Tao et al., 2001) has reported ammonia-nitrogen

concentrations in the range of 4,000 mg/l as inhibitory to anaerobic digestion at

thermophilic temperatures.

In this study, the mesophilic reactor was operating at higher ammonia-nitrogen

concentrations as compared to the thermophilic reactor due to the conversion of organic

nitrogen to ammonia in the mesophilic reactor (Table 5). For Runs 5 and 6, the ammonia-

nitrogen concentrations in the mesophilic reactor were close to the inhibitory levels. The

drop in performance of the mesophilic system at higher organic loadings could be partially

attributed to ammonia inhibition. The variations observed in the TKN (Table 5) and total

phosphorus concentrations during the digestion process were not significant. Studies on the

mesophilic effluent showed that nearly 80 - 85% of total phosphorus was bound to the

biosolids (data not shown).

Phosphorus Removal by Lime

On the request of one of the funding agencies, removal of phosphorus at higher pH

values was studied with mesophilic effluent from Runs 3, 4 and 5. The soluble phosphorus

was precipitated as complex calcium phosphate by the addition of lime to the mesophilic
 36

effluent. According to Ripley (1974), the reactions between calcium and phosphates ca~ be

expressed as

At higher pH (7-12), the calcium phosphates become stable and are not hydrolyzed to

release phosphorus into solution.

The mesophilic effluent from runs 3, 4 and 5 co.1tained 913, 1,520 and 1,945 mg/L of

phosphorus, respectively. Prior to lime addition, approximately 80-85% of total phosphorus

was removed with the biosolids by centrifugation. Analysis of the supernatant after lime

addition showed that raising the pH of the effluent to 11 could remove approximately 75% of

the remaining phosphorus (Figure 5). Increasing pH above 11 had little effect on further

removal of soluble phosphorus.

Performance Comparison

Different configurations of high-rate anaerobic digestion systems were studied for the

treatment of cattle wastes in 1980s and 1990s. The performance of some of these systems

in comparison to the completely mixed TPAD system is summarized in Table 6. Most of the

systems studied for the stabilization of cattle wastes were operated at mesophilic

temperatures and needed very long retention times (more than 25 days) in the reactor to

achieve VS removals comparable to the completely mixed TPAD system operated at a

system retention time of 14 days. Some of the high-rate systems like the ASBR, packed-

bed and biofilm reactors are suitable for the treatment of dilute wastewaters but are

inadequate for high-solid wastes like livestock manures. Operation at long retention times
 37

or dilution is not always a viable option since long HRTs and dilution water can increase the

digester volumes, heating costs and the ultimate disposal costs of the effluent, adversely

affecting the economics of farm operation. The plug-flow reactors studied by Chen et al.

(1984) were plagued by scum accumulation problems while treating cattle wastes at high

solids concentrations. In this study, the completely mixed TPAD system achieved close to

38% VS reduction operating at a solids concentration as high as 12.2%. The methane

recovery from cattle wastes in the TPAD system was also comparable to the other reactor

configurations. Another parameter that has come under increased sci Jtiny by U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency is pathogen destruction. Only the ASBR operated in the

temperature-phased mode reported to have achieved the fecal coliform standards specified

in 40 CFR Part 503 regulations. The completely mixed TPAD system met and exceeded the

Class A limits for pathogen destruction at all the solids concentrations studied.

Conclusively, the TPAD system seems to be one of the technologies that could enhance the

economic viability of manure management practices.

Discussions and Conclusions

Anaerobic digestion of cattle wastes using the TPAD technology not only recovers

the energy by-product methane, but also retains the nutrient value of manure and provides

near pathogen-free biosolids. The arrangement of two reactors in series, with the

thermophilic unit as the first stage followed by the mesophilic unit, can take advantage of

both thermophilic and mesophilic conditions. The thermophilic first stage enhances the

hydrolysis of some of the recalcitrant organics in cattle wastes that makes it available for

acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria in the mesophilic stage. The thermophilic unit

operated at a higher temperature and VS loading, achieves higher VS destruction rate. The

second mesophilic stage completes the digestion process converting the partially digested
 38

organics to methane and carbon dioxide thus fully recovering the energy byproduct from

cattle wastes. Conventional mesophilic systems could be modified to two-stage systems by

upgrading one of the mesophilic for operation at thermophilic temperatures. In practice, it

would also be advisable to place an effluent heat exchanger on the first stage thermophilic

digester. This approach could reduce the temperature of thermophilic effluent to the

optimum mesophilic level and recover a portion of the energy used in raising the

temperature of the incoming waste stream to the thermophilic level. The TPAD process

provides sufficient energy to keep the digesters at operating temperature and still provide an

additional amount of net energy. However, it would be unwise to associate TPAD

technology with generation of electricity alone. The economic value of pathogen-free

residual solids and liquid end products has to be identified to make the process

economically attractive.

The following conclusions were drawn based on the results of this comprehensive study:

1. The TPAD system operated at feed concentrations ranging from 3.46-12.20% TS and a

system retention time of 14 days achieved an average VS reduction of 39.5%. The

thermophilic stage accounted for approximately 25-30% of the reduction in volatiles with

the mesophilic stage contributing an additional 10-15%.

2. At 14-day retention time, the maximum VS removal of 42.6% was achieved at an organic

loading of 5.82 g VS/UDay, which was established as the optimum loading to the

system.

3. Nearly 60% of the biogas produced was from the thermophilic stage, consistent with the

higher volatile solids destruction in the thermophilic reactor. The methane recovery from

the system ranged from 0.54-0.61 L CH 4/g VS destroyed within conditions of optimal

loading. The H2 S and NH 3 emissions from the two reactors were less than 1,500 ppm

and 25 ppm, respectively.

 39

4. At all organic loadings studied the treated biosolids from the process met Class A

pathogen standards specified in 40 CFR Part 503 regulations.

5. Though there was an increase in VFA concentration in the thermophilic reactor, the

mesophilic reactor maintained a good effluent quality under optimal loading conditions.

6. The ammonia nitrogen concentrations in the mesophilic reactor were found to be in the

inhibitory range for loadings greater than the optimum.

Refere11ces

Ahring, B. K. (1995) Methanogenesis in thermophilic biogas reactors. Antonie van

Leeuwenhoek 67, 91-102.

Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K (2000) Methods for increasing the biogas potential from the
recalcitrant organic matter contained in manure. Water Sci. and Tech. 41(3), 189-194.

Bendixen, H.J. (1994) Safeguards against pathogens in Danish biogas plants. Proceedings
of IAWQ 1h International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, Cape Town, South Africa,
629-638.

Chen, J. S., Frey, B., C., Bordie, H., L. (1984) Scum accumulation in plug flow digester -A
problem with flushed dairy manure. Transactions of the ASAE 27(6), 1894-1896.

Dague, R. R. and Pidaparti, S. R. (1992) Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor treatment of

swine wastes. Proceedings of 4fjh Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, 751-760.

Dugba, P. N., Zhang, R (1999) Treatment of dairy wastewater with two-stage Anaerobic
Sequencing Batch Reactor systems - thermophilic vs. mesophilic operations. Bioresource
Tech. 68(3), 225-233.

Hall, S., J., Hamkes, D., L., Hawkes, F.R., Thomas, A. (1985) Mesophilic anaerobic
digestion of high solids cattle wastes in a packed bed digester. J. Agric. Engng. Res. 32,
153-162.

Han, Y. and Dague, R. R. (1997) Laboratory studies on the temperature-phased anaerobic

digestion of domestic wastewater sludge. Water Environ. Res. 69(6), 1139-1143.
 40

Han, Y., Sung, S., Dague, R.R. (1997) Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion of
wastewater sludges. Water Sci. and Tech. 36(6-7), 367-374.

Hashimoto, A, G. (1982) Methane from cattle wastes: effects of temperature, HRT and
influent substrate concentration on kinetic parameter (K). Biotechnol. & Bioeng. 24, 2039-
2052.

Hills, D. J. (1980) Biogas from a high solids combination of dairy manure and barley straw.
Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 23(6), 1500-1504.

Kearney, T. E., Larkin, M. T, Frost, J. P., Levett, P. N. (1993) Survival of pathogenic

bacteria during mesophilic ana ~robic digestion of animal wastes. Journal of Appl. Bacterial.
75(3), 215-219.

Kunte, D. P., Yeole, T. Y., Chiplonkar, S. A, Ranade, D. R (1998) Inactivation of Salmonella

typhi by high levels of volatile fatty acids during anaerobic digestion. Journ. Of Applied
Microbial. 84, 138-142.

McCarty, P. L. (1964) Anaerobic Wsate Treatment Fundamentals, Part iii. Toxic Materials
and their Control. Public Works 95, 10, 91.

Parsons, D. J. (1986) The economics of the treatment of dairy cow slurry by anaerobic
digestion. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 33, 259-276.

Ripley, P. G. (1974) Nutrient removal: An American experience. Journal of Water Pollution

Control Federation 46(3), 406-416.

Sanchez, E., P., Weiland, P., Travieso, L. (1992) Effect of hydraulic retention time on the
anaerobic biofilm reactor efficiency applied to screened cattle waste treatment. Biotechnol.
Letters 14(7), 635-638.

Schmidt, C. G. and Dague, R. R. (1993) Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor treatment of

swine wastes at 20 °C, 25 °C, and 35 °C. Proc. of 4fjh Purdue Industrial Waste Conference,
541-549.

Singh, R., Malik, R., K., Tauro, P. (1985) Anaerobic digestion of cattle waste at various
retention times: A pilot plant study. Ag. Wastes 12, 313-316.
 41

Streeter, M. D., Dague, R. R., and Main, R. E. (1997) Evaluation of a field application,
Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion, Residuals and Solids Management. Proc. of the
Water Environment Federatio 71 51 Annual Conference and Exposition, Water Env. Fed.,
Chicago, IL, 181-190

Tao, L., Sung, S. (2001) Effect of ammonia inhibition in thermophilic anaerobic process.
Proc. of WEFIAWWAICWEA Joint Residuals and bioso/ids management conference, San
Diego, CA, Feb 21 - 24, 2001.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Technical Support Document for Reduction

of Pathogns and Vector Attraction in Sewage Sludge, EPA 922/R-93-004, November.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503
Biosolids Rule, EPA 832/R-93-003, September.

Zhang, R. H., Tao, J., and Dugba, P.N. (2000) Evaluating two-stage anaerobic sequencing
batch reactor system for animal wastewater treatment. Transactions of ASAE 43(6), 1795-
1801.
 42

LEGEND

Table 1. Average feed characteristics

Table 2. System performance at different runs

Table 3. Reduction of indicator organisms in the system

Table 4. Biogas volume and composition

Table 5. Nitrogen transformation in the system

Table 6. A comparative study

Figure 1. Schematic of the TPAD system

Figure 2. Individual reactor and system volatile solids removal

Figure 3. Methane recovery at different loadings

Figure 4. VFNAlkalinity and pH profiles for thermophilic/mesophilic systems

Figure 5. Phosphorus removal by lime

Table 1. Average feed characteristics

Characteristics RUN 1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUNS RUN6

TS(%) 3.46 5.23 8.17 10.35 12.20 14.54

VS(%) 2.62 3.97 6.30 8.15 9.42 10.78

pH 7.10 7.20 7.10 6.95 6.85 6.70

VF A (mg/L acetate) 2,070 ± 220 3,410 ± 300 6,250 ± 270 9,300 ± 200 10,250 ± 260 12,700 ± 310
~
VJ

Alkalinity (mg/L CaC03) 3,070 ± 250 4,640 ± 170 8,500 ± 220 7,000 ± 270 7,800 ± 210 9,300 ± 190

TKN (mg/L N) 740 ± 110 1,040 ± 160 1,700 ± 90 2,100 ± 200 2,950 ± 280 3,800 ± 240

NH3-N (mg/L N) 160 ± 50 220 ± 70 340 ± 60 450 ± 50 770 ± 90 1,230 ± 70

T - Phosphorus (mg/L P) -- -- 695 ± 30 905 ± 18 1,520 ± 70 1,945 ± 65

Table 2. System performance at different runs

System VS Loading VS Destruction (%)

Run (g VS/L/Day)
Thermophilic Stage Mesophilic Stage System

1 1.87 27.5 ± 1.5 16.8 ± 0.8 39.7 ± 2.0

2 2.84 27.5 ± 0.9 16.3 ± 0.6 39.2±1.4

3 4.50 28.4±1.0 16.2 ± 0.6 40.0 ± 1.6

4 5.82 31.4±1.1 14.7 ± 0.5 41.5±1.1

5 6.73 28.1±2.0 12.3±1.2 37.0 ± 2.4

..j:::.
6 7.70 21.8±1.9 9.5 ± 1.0 29.3 ± 2.1 ..j:>.

*VS destruction in the mesophilic reactor was calculated on the basis of VS concentration in the mesophilic feed
Table 3. Reduction of indicator organisms in the system

Fecal Coliforms (MPN*/g TS) Salmonella sp. (MPN*/4g TS)

Run
Raw Waste Thermo. Meso. Raw Waste Thermo. Meso.

1 1.1 x 105 <1 <1 -- <2 <2

2 1.0 x 106 <1 <1 1000 <2 <2

3 9.3 x 106 <1 <1 1150 <2 <2

4 1.0 x 10 7 <1 <1 1500 <2 <2

5 1.2 x 10 7 <25 <25 970 <2 <2

+:-
6 2.0 x 108 <25 <25 1300 <2 <2 Vi

*Most Probable Number

Table 4. Biogas volume and composition at different runs

Thermophilic Reactor Mesophilic Reactor

Run Composition Composition

Volume Volume
(Liters) (Liters)
CH4(%) H2S (ppm) NH3(ppm) CH4(%) H2S (ppm) NH3(ppm)

1 18.2±1.3 59 500 -- 12.7 ± 0.8 60 150

2 29.4 ± 1.9 60 500 -- 18.2±1.5 60 125

3 47.1±2.4 59 700 10 26.1±0.9 60 300 15

4 54.2 ± 1.1 61 1000 20 30.0±1.7 62 400 20

..j:::.

5 45.1±2.1 58 1200 25 21.3 ± 1.0 59 550 25 °'

6 26.4 ± 2.5 58 1300 25 14.8 ± 1.3 59 700 25
Table 5. Nitrogen transformation in the system

TKN and NH 3-N (mg/L N)

Thermophilic Effluent Mesophilic Effluent

Run
TKN NHrN TKN NHrN
1 660 ± 170 210 ± 30 640 ± 120 330 ± 40

2 1,000 ± 60 370 ± 80 980 ± 70 500 ± 70

3 1,630 ± 100 660 ± 50 1,600 ± 90 840 ± 60

4 2,000 ± 150 750 ± 70 1,950 ± 100 1,090 ± 60

5 3010 ± 280 1,320 ± 160 2,900 ± 210 1,925 ± 200 .j:::..

-.....]

6 3,920 ± 290 1,760 ± 190 3,840 ± 260 2,330 ± 190

Table 6. A comparative study

Parameter Performance Comparison

Digester-Type Plug-Flow Packed-Bed CSTR Biofilm 2-stage 2-stage TPAD

ASBR ASBR

Substrate Dairy Manure Manure and Cattle Screened Screened Dairy Dairy
Straw Wastes Cattle Dairy Manure Manure Manure
Wastes

Operating Temp. Mesophilic Mesophilic Mesophilic Mesophilic Thermo- Thermo- Thermo-

Me so Meso Meso

Operation Continuous Batch Daily fed Continuous Batch Batch Semi-

continuous

HRT (days) 16 40 25 8 6 3 14
+:.
00
TS(%) 10.1 26.3 8.5 4.3 3.5 2.8 10.35,12.20

vs(%) 9.0 21.0 7.0 3.0 2.4 1.8 8.15, 9.42

Loading 5.6 2.79 3.81 4.00 6.00 5.82, 6.73

(g VS/L/Day)

VS Reduction(%)* 25 25.7 38.4 30.0 38.9 22.0 41.5,37.0

Methane Recovery 0.17 0.25 0.24 0.30 0.10 0.22, 0.15

(L CH4/g VS fed)

Source Chen et al. Hall et al. Singh et al. Sanchez et Zhang et al. Dugba et al.
al. This study
(1984) (1985) (1985) (2000) (1999)
(1995)
 49

12

8 4 9 13

6 5 10 11

2
-
3

1 Feeding Tank 5, 10 Gas Indicators

2 Thermophilic Reactor 6, 11 Sulfide Scrubbers
3 Mesophilic Reactor 7, 12 Gas Sampling Ports
4, 9 Gas Bags 8, 13 Gas Meters

Figure 1: Schematic of the TPAD system

 50

OTHERMO.
45.0 1 DMESO.
40.0~ •OVERALL
I
35 . 0 ~
i
--- 30.01
~ !
c: 25.0 -1
0
+:l
u
::I
"'C
20.01
Cl)
~ 15.01

10.0 -I
I
5.0-1
0.0 I
1.87 2.84 4.50 5.82 6.73 7.70

Organic Loading Rate (g VS/Uday)

Figure 2. Individual reactor and system volatile solids removal at different organic
loadings
 51

0.70
i - VS destroyed
--vs fed
I
0.60 - I
'---------
"C
>-
Cl> '
~~ 0.50
Cl> ....
> I/)
0 Cl>
() "C 0.40
Cl> -
i:t: -g
Cl>~

c: "' 0.30 -
ca>
=~
Cl> 'It
:E J: 0.20 -
0
...I
0.10 -

0.00 -
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Organic Loading Rate (g VS/Uday)

Figure 3. Methane recovery at different organic loadings

 52

(A) Thermophilic Reactor

0.80 ~------------------- 7.60
VFA/Alk.-9--
0.70 - 7.50
pH
0 0.60 - 7.40
;:;
cu
0::: 0.50 7.30
~
:§
cu 0.40 7.20 pH
.¥
~ 0.30 -
<(
7.10
LL
> 0.20 - 7.0."l

0.10 - 6.90

0.00 ----,-------,....----,.---------------!
-!-, 6.80
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Organic Loading Rate (g VS/UDay)

(8) Mesophilic Reactor

0.30 - 7.80

VFA/Alk. ---- 7.70

0.25 -
pH --0-
0
;:; 7.60
cu
0::: 0.20
>-
;t::: 7.50
c: pH
0.15

-
cu
7.40
< 0.10
.¥

<(
LL 7.30
>
0.05 7.20

0.00 7.10
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Organic Loading Rate (g VS/UDay)

Figure 4. VFA/Alkalinity and pH profiles for Thermophilic/Mesophilic reactors

 53

OLR: 4.50 g VS/UDay

140.0 12
c: -
·-....I 120.0 - 10
I/) -
._ E 100.0 -
::I
o_
Cl
8
c. -c:
.r:. 80.0
I/) C'CI 6
o-C'CI
.r:. 60.0 pH
c. E 4
- Cl>
C'CI c.
40.0.
-
~I/) ::I
20.0 ! -o-Total Pl' 2
i ---.-pH
0.0 -~'========--~--...,.------,----~-----' 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Quantity of Lime (g)

OLR: 5.82 g VS/UDav

140.0 - . - - - - - - 12
·= 3
e
120.0 - 10
I/) -
2 100.0
8
0-
-g_ c: 80.0 .
6
_g
I/) C'CI
1ii 60.0 - pH
c. E 4
Cl> 40.0 -
~ ~ 20 _0 . 1-=:=:~taiPi 2
0. 0 '-·-·-------- 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Quantity of Lime (g)

OLR: 6.73 g VS/UDay

450.0 12
c: -
·-....I
400.0
~ c;, 350.0
- . 10
0 .§. 300.0 8
.r:.
c. -c: 250.0
-- 6
..
I/) C'CI
o-C'CI 200.0
.r:. - pH

-
c. E 150.0 - 4
Cl>
iii c. 100.0
0 ::I -2
I- I/) 50.0 -
0.0 0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Quantity of Lime (g)

Figure 5. Phosphorus removal by lime

 54

CHAPTER 4. EVALUATION OF A SEQUENTIAL FEEDING SCHEME

FOR TEMPERATURE-PHASED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION (TPAD)
SYSTEM TREATING MUNICIPAL SLUDGE

(A paper submitted to Environmental Science and Technology)

Harikishan Sa nth a 1 and Shihwu Sung 2 "

Abstract

The stability and performance of a sequential batch Temperature-Phased Anaerobic

Digestion (TPAD) scheme aimed at satisfying the Class A time-temperature requirements

(24 hours at 55 °C) were evaluated. The system, fed with a 40:60 mixture (dry weight basis)

of primary sludge and waste activated sludge at 5.5% total solids, achieved near complete

destruction of indicator organisms at three different system retention times studied. The

maximum volatile solids removal of 53.5% was achieved at a system retention time of 16

days. The methane recovery from the wastes ranged from 0.54 - 0. 72 liter methane per

gram of volatile solids destroyed, which was comparable to a single-stage mesophilic

system. The system did not show any effects of shock loading at the retention times studied

and the system performance was also comparable to a semi-continuously fed TPAD system.

Keywords

Sequential, Time-Temperature, Temperature-Phased, Class A, Primary sludge, Waste

activated sludge

1 Graduate
student, Dept. of Civil & Construction Engineering, Iowa State University
2 Assistant
Professor, Dept. of Civil & Construction Engineering, Iowa State University
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed
 55

Introduction

At present, nearly 50% of all biosolids from wastewater treatment plants in the U.S.

are recycled as fertilizer to agricultural land. The implementation of U. S. EPA's 40 CFR

Part 503 regulations has had far-reaching effects on the sludge management practices.

These regulations placed limits on the densities of pathogens in biosolids beneficially reused

through land application (U.S. EPA, 1993). With increasing quantities of biosolids to be

recycled every year, the restrictions on land application of biosolids were aimed at

encouraging the treatment facilit.es to upgrade the performance of conventional digestion

processes.

Anaerobic mesophilic digestion of sewage sludge was long seen as an economically

viable way of dealing with the disposal problems associated with biosolids. However, with

the implementation of Part 503 regulations, production of Class A or Class B biosolids

became a pre-requisite for land-based management schemes. Results from a survey

conducted by Stukenberg et al. (1994) indicated that conventional anaerobic systems

operating at mesophilic temperatures would experience difficulties in meeting the stringent

Class A requirements. This propelled widespread interest in upgrading the performance of

conventional mesophilic processes and incorporating additional treatment techniques like

pre-pasteurization of the feed etc. (Sadick, 2001) to meet the performance-based Class A

standards (Aitken and Mullennix, 1992). The performance compliance of the digestion

process was evaluated in terms of the number of indicator organisms in the biosolids. In

addition, the advanced treatment processes had to comply with the operational

requirements stated in 40 CFR Part 503 Regulations to be classified as a Process to Further

Reduce Pathogens (PFRP). To accomplish operational compliance, the process had to

ensure that "every particle" in the system has been exposed to conditions known to be

effective in rendering the biosolids pathogen-free (Shimp et al., 2001 ). The majority of high-
 56

temperature sludge digestion processes comply with the performance requirements, but

operational compliance has been hard to accomplish. The key to fulfilling the operational

requirements for Class A would be to satisfy one of the time-temperature regimes proposed

by U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1993).

The Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) process also fails to find a

place in U.S. EPA's list of PFRPs. Though experimentally proven to produce Class A

biosolids, most of the TPAD systems operate in continuous and semi-continuous modes,

which do not comply with the operational provision h•r Class A designation. The time-

temperature relationship shown in equation 1 applied to a TPAD system treating sludge

containing less than 7% Total Solids (TS), requires a batch holding time of 24 hours at 55 °C

(U.S. EPA, 1993).

D = time of contact in days

50,070,000
D= (Eq. 1)
10 0.14! t = temperature in degrees C

Hardly any of the continuously or semi-continuously operating TPAD systems meet

this time-temperature criterion. To gain acceptance as a PFRP, it becomes imperative to

device practical means for adapting the TPAD process to meet the operational requirements

for Class A designation. Operation in the sequential batch mode could be one of the

promising options to overcome this limitation. However, questions have been raised about

the stability of operation under the sequential scheme as the system may be subjected to

shock loading conditions (Chao, 1999).

In this study, the thermophilic stage of TPAD system was operated in a sequential

mode ensuring 24-hour batch holding time at 55 °C. The performance of the sequentially

operated system was evaluated and compared with a TPAD system fed semi-continuously
 57

with a mixture of Primary Sludge (PS) and Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) (50:50), studied

by Han et al. (1997). The system performance was also compared with a conventional

single-stage mesophilic reactor operated at a retention time of 16 days.

Materials and Methods

Feed Preparation

The substrate fed to the reactors was a 40:60 mixture (dry weight basis) of PS and

WAS, which were collected separately from the Marshalltown Water Pollution C:Jntrol Plant,

Iowa. After mixing in the desired weight ratio, the PS:WAS mixture was thickened to

approximately 5.5% TS in a laboratory centrifuge. The thickened sludge was stored in a

refrigerator at 4 °C before feeding to the reactors to maintain consistent feed characteristics.

The characteristics of the PS:WAS mixture used in the study are listed in Table 1.

The digestibility of WAS is reportedly lower than that of raw PS (Zack and Edwards,

1929). Presence of WAS in the feed has also been cited as one of the causes for low

volatile solids destruction and foaming in anaerobic digesters (Ross and Ellis, 1992). In this

study, a higher WAS content was used in the feed to ascertain the adaptability of sequential

TPAD system to the 'difficult-to-digest' fraction of wastes.

Experimental set-up

The laboratory set-up consisted of a TPAD unit with two first stage thermophilic

reactors operated at 56±1 °C followed by a mesophilic reactor at 36±1 °C. For the purpose

of comparison, a conventional single-stage mesophilic reactor was run simultaneously at

35±1 °C. The reactors were operated in a constant temperature room maintained at 37-38

°C. The first stage thermophilic reactors of the TPAD system were set up in a hot water
 58

bath maintained at 57-58 °C with a Fisher lsotemp 2100 (Fisher Company, Pittsburgh)

immersion circulator. Biogas from each reactor was handled separately in a gas collection

system consisting of a hydrogen sulfide scrubber, gas-sampling port and a wet-tip gas meter

(Precision Scientific, Bellwood, IL). Gasbags (plastic balloons) were installed in the gas line

for equalizing the gas pressure in the reactor during feeding and decanting. The schematic

of the experimental units and the gas handling devices for the two reactor set-ups used in

the study are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Start-up and Operation

The thermophilic and mesophilic digesters of the TPAD system were seeded with actively

digesting sludge from the TPAD unit at the Newton Water Pollution Control Facility, Iowa.

Sequential feeding of the TPAD system was started after a month long start-up period,

during which, the digesters were fed semi-continuously, feeding and decanting at 6-hour

intervals. The single-stage mesophilic control digester operated at a 16-day retention time

and an identical Organic Loading Rate (OLR) of 2.67 g VS/Uday had to be aborted due to

severe foaming. The reactor was later reseeded with digesting sludge from the mesophilic

anaerobic digesters at the Ames Water Pollution Control Facility (AWPCF), Iowa. The

reactor was restarted with a mixture of PS and trickling filter sludge (information on the exact

PS to WAS ratio is lacking) from AWPCF. During the re-startup period, the OLR was

gradually increased from 1.3 g VS/Uday to 2.67 g VS/Uday. The control digester was

operated in a semi-continuous mode, feeding and decanting at 4-hour intervals. The reactor

contents were mixed for 5 minutes every 15 minutes. It was decided to continue the control

run with feed sludge from AWPCF since sludge from the Marshalltown facility was posing

operational problems. Han et al. (1997) have also reported the failure of single-stage
 59

mesophilic digesters fed with a 50:50 mixture of PS:WAS (from Marshalltown facility) at a

20-day retention time.

The thermophilic reactors of the TPAD system were operated in a sequential batch

mode where each of the reactors was fed and decanted every alternate day. After feeding,

the contents in the thermophilic reactor were allowed to react for 24 hours. The transfer of

effluent (Decant Mode) from each thermophilic reactor to the mesophilic stage was made

over a period of 6 hours on alternate days. The thermophilic reactors were then fed

(Feedin~1 Mode) with the refrigerated feed semi-continuously over a period of 18 hours.

Operating two thermophilic reactors in parallel provided the advantage of near continuous

feeding (18 hours/ 24 hours) alternating between the two first stage digesters. The contents

of the thermophilic reactors were maintained (React Mode) for 24 hours before repeating the

cycle. The effluent discharged from the two thermophilic reactors on alternate days ensured

a daily supply of feed to the mesophilic stage, which was operated in a continuous mode. At

shorter retention times in the thermophilic reactors, a larger volume of reactor contents was

decanted into the mesophilic stage (one-fourth the reactor volume at 8 days, one-third the

reactor volume at 6 days) every alternate day, posing concerns of shock loading. All the

reactors of the TPAD system were mechanically mixed for 2 minutes at 15-minute intervals.

The operational scheme and the time scale for the sequential TPAD system are illustrated in

Figures 3 and 4.

Analvtica/ Methods

In the daily operation of the reactor systems, the effluent pH, temperature of the

digesting sludge and biogas production were monitored. The biogas composition was

analyzed twice weekly. After the reactors had attained a pseudo-steady state (assumed

after three volume turnovers and less than 5% variation in biogas production during three
 60

days operation), the digested sludge was analyzed for Total Solids (TS), Volatile S~lids

(VS), Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA), alkalinity, ammonia nitrogen and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

(TKN). Methane production and effluent characteristics were monitored until consistent

results were obtained.

Electronic pH meter (Cole-Parmer model 05669-20), calibrated at 25 °C with

standard pH buffers of 4.0, 7.0, and 10.0, was used for pH measurements. Measurements

of TS, VS, VFA, alkalinity, total phosphorus and TKN were made twice weekly following the

procedures listed in Standard l\t;ethods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (191h

Edition, 1995). The biogas composition was analyzed using a Gow Mac gas chromatograph

equipped with a thermal conductivity detector. The operational temperatures of the injection

port, oven and the detector were 150, 50, and 100 °C, respectively. Gas detection tubes

with a LP-1200 pump (RAE systems lnc.,Sunnyvale, CA) were used for detection of

hydrogen sulfide in the biogas. An ammonia electrode (Mettler-Toledo, type 15 230 3000)

was used for ammonia nitrogen measurements. Samples were cooled and shipped

overnight to a certified contract laboratory (University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA) for pathogen

analysis.

Results and Discussion

Though the primary objective of sequential TPAD system was to meet the time-

temperature requirement for classification as a PFRP, the system performance was also of

considerable interest. The system was evaluated for three different combinations of

thermophilic and mesophilic retention times. To evade conditions of shock loading, a

sufficiently long retention time of 8 days was maintained in the thermophilic reactor for the

first run. The mesophilic reactor was also conducted at 8 days as typical retention times for

mesophilic operation were found to exist in the range of 10 - 15 days (Han et al., 1997;
 61

Pfeffer et al., 1967). In the subsequent runs, the system was operated at lower thermophilic

and mesophilic retention times. The operatio.nal parameters of the TPAD system and the

control reactor for the three runs are summarized in Table 2. The performance of the

system was evaluated in comparison to a control single-stage mesophilic system operated

at 16-day retention time and also a semi-continuously fed TPAD system (Han et al., 1997).

Meeting U.S. EPA's Class A Standards

The thermophilic stage of the TPAD system opt~rated in the sequential mode was

found to comply with both performance and operational standards for classification as a

PFRP. At all retention times studied, the solids were retained in the thermophilic reactor for

24 hours, ensuring operational compliance. The effectiveness of the sequentially-fed TPAD

system in reducing the densities of indicator organisms to Class A standards can be

assessed from the performance data presented in Table 3. The system was able to achieve

near complete destruction of pathogens irrespective of holding times in the reactors. Also,

the VS reduction at all retention times was greater than 38%, the value specified in 40 CFR

Part 503 regulations for reduced vector attraction. The single-stage mesophilic system

could achieve only a 2 log reduction in the pathogen counts, which would only be sufficient

to meet Class B standards (2 million MPNs/g TS; U.S. EPA, 1994). The high temperature

operation in the thermophilic stage of TPAD system helps to meet the performance

standards, while the sequential scheme satisfies the time-temperature requirements at 55

°C for conforming to the operational provision.

Volatile Solids Reduction and Biagas Recovery

The VS removal achieved by the system at different solids retention times (SRT)

ranged from 50 - 54% (Table 4). The VS destruction by the system was marginally higher
 62

when the retention time in the thermophilic reactors was longer. This suggested that the

system performance relied on proper functioning of the thermophilic reactor. The

thermophilic reactor accounted for nearly 42 - 45% of the VS removal with the mesophilic

stage contributing an additional 10 - 15%. Comparing the performance of the first-stage

thermophilic reactors, the sequential batch operation was found to outperform semi-

continuous operation with respect to VS destruction (Figure 5). Typically, batch operations

give higher removal efficiencies. This suggested that the misgivings about shock loading

the first stage reactors under batch feeding modes were unfounded. The single-stage

mesophilic reactor accomplished 45 - 46% removal of VS. However, it should be noted that

the feed sludge to the control reactor was different from the one fed to the TPAD system.

The feed sludge from AWPCF presumably contained a higher fraction of PS as the solids

retention time in trickling filters are usually high.

The highest methane recovery of 0.72 L CH4 per gram of VS destroyed was

achieved at the longest system retention time of 16 days. Even at lower recoveries, the

system performance was comparable to the semi-continuously fed system studied by Han et

al. (1997), which recovered 0.50 L CH4 per gram of VS destroyed. At longer retention times,

the conversion of intermediates, such as VFAs, to methane is almost complete in the

thermophilic reactor. This can be construed from the biogas production profiles for the

thermophilic and mesophilic reactors plotted in Figure 6. Approaching end of the 48-hour

cycle, an appreciable drop was observed in the biogas production rate from the thermophilic

reactor conducted at 8 days. An 8-day retention time in the mesophilic reactor was

supposedly long for utilization of any substrate remaining from the thermophilic stage.

Consequently, retention time in the mesophilic reactor was halved to 4 days in Run 2. This

did not have any telling effect on the biogas production from the reactor. However, at a

thermophilic retention time of 6 days, the biogas production from the reactor at the end of
 63

the 48-hour cycle was high suggesting an incomplete conversion in the first stage. The

mesophilic reactor was maintained at 8 days for this run to complete the conversion of

thermophilic intermediates to methane. The biogas from the reactor contained trace

amounts of hydrogen sulfide (150 ppm from the thermophilic reactor and 25 ppm from the

mesophilic reactor).

Other Performance Parameters

Figure 7 illustrates the variation in VFAs and alkalinity in the reactor systems. At the

longer retention time, thermophilic reactor alone was able to bring down the VFA

concentration to levels close to the single-stage mesophilic reactor. The polishing role of

the mesophilic reactor was not utilized under these conditions. A shorter retention time in

the thermophilic reactor was found more appropriate in utilizing the mesophilic reactor

effectively. The effluent quality from the TPAD system was comparable to the single-stage

mesophilic control even at shorter retention times. This further placates any fears of

process upset due to batch operation of the system.

The mesophilic reactor operated at a higher ammonia-nitrogen concentration (Table

6) due to the additional breakdown of VS and consequent conversion of organic nitrogen to

ammonia. The alkalinity levels were also higher in the mesophilic reactor (Figure 7). The

variations observed in TKN (Table 6) and total phosphorus during the process were not

significant.

Conclusions

This study was aimed at adapting the TPAD system to satisfy the time-temperature

requirements for classification as a PFRF. To accomplish this objective, the thermophilic

stage of TPAD system was operated in a sequential batch mode ensuring a batch holding
 64

time of 24 hours at 55 °C. The following conclusions were drawn from the performance

evaluation of the system:

1. The TPAD system operated in the sequential batch mode achieved near complete

destruction of indicator organisms meeting the performance standards for Class A

designation. The VS removal by the system was greater than 38%, the limiting value for

reduced vector attraction.

2. The system did not show any effects of shock loading at any of the retention times

studi1.~d. The VS removal achieved by the system ranged from 50 - 54%. The first-

stage thermophilic reactor of the sequential TPAD system outperformed its counterpart

in a semi-continuously fed system (Han et al., 1997). The overall system performance

was heavily dependent on the functioning of the thermophilic reactor, which accounted

for more than 80% of the VS destruction.

3. The system recovered 0.54 - 0.72 L CH4'g VS destroyed, which was comparable to a

single-stage mesophilic system.

4. To utilize the second stage mesophilic reactor as the polishing step, the thermophilic

reactor must be operated at shorter retention times.

References

Aitken, M. D., Mullennix, R. W. (1992) Another look at thermophilic anaerobic digestion of

wastewater sludge, Water Environ. Res., 64, 915...919.

Chao, Shaw-Ming (1999) State of the art in Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion

(TPAD) of wastewater sludges, Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Han, Y., Sung, S., and Dague, R.R. (1997) Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion of
wastewater sludges, Water Science and Technology, 36(6-7),367-374.
 65

Pfeffer, J. T., Leiter, M., Worland, J. R. (1967) Population dynamics in anaerobic digestion,
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 39, 1305-1322.

Ross, R. D., Ellis, L. M. (1992) Laboratory-scale investigation of foaming in anaerobic

digesters, Water Environ. Res., 64, 154-162.

Sadick, T. (2001) Blue Plains WWTP Digestion: Building a flexible process to address
evolving trends, Proc. of ffh Annual Education Seminar: Trends and issues in bioso/ids
stabilization, Central States WEA, Madison, Wisconsin.

Shimp, G. F., Wallis-Lage, C., Sandino, J., Scalan, P. (2001) An Update on the
Development Status of Advanceu Digestion Processes, Proc of 74th Annual Meeting, Central
States WEA, Madison WI.

Stukenberg, J. R., Shimp, G., Sandino, J., Clark, J. H., Crosse, J. T. (1994) Compliance
Outlook: Meeting 40CFR Part 503, Class B Pathogen Reduction Criteria with Anaerobic
Digestion, Water Environ. Res., 66(3), 255-263.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503
Biosolids Rule, EPA 832/R-93-003, September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage
Sludge. Fed. Regist., 58, 32, 40 CFR Part 503.

Zack, S. I. and Edwards, G. P. (1929) Gas production from sewage sludge, Sewage Works
Journal, 1, 160.
 66

LEGEND

Table 1. Characteristics of the feed sludge (40:60 mixture of PS and WAS from

Marshalltown WPCP, IA)

Table 2. Operational parameters of the reactor systems

Table 3. Reduction of indicator organisms in the reactor systems

Table 4. Solids reduction at different Runs: Sequential feed vs. Single-stage·mesophilic

control

Table 5. Methane recovery from the wastes

Table 6. Nitrogen transformation in the TPAD system

Figure 1. Schematic of sequential TPAD system

Figure 2. Schematic of single-stage mesophilic system (control)

Figure 3. Operation of sequentially fed TPAD system

Figure 4. Sequential feeding time-scale

Figure 5. Volatile solids removal in the first stage thermophilic reactor at different SRTs:

Sequentially fed vs. Semi-continuously fed

Figure 6. Biagas production profiles from the reactors at different SRTs

Figure 7. Volatile fatty acid and alkalinity profiles for TPAD and control systems
Table 1. Characteristics of the feed sludge (40:60 mixture of PS and WAS from Marshalltown WPCP, IA)

Parameter Levels in the feed

Total Solids(%) 5.40 - 5.60

Volatile Solids(%) 4.25 - 4.40

Volatile Fatty Acids (mg/Las acetate) 1,800 - 2,200

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaC0 3 ) 2,000 - 3,000

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/Las N) 2,600 - 2,850

0\
-...)
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/Las N) 800 - 900

Total Phosphorus (mg/Las P) 770 - 890

pH 5.90-6.15

Fecal Coliforms (MPN/g TS) 106 - 108

Table 2. Operational parameters of the reactor systems

TPAD system Control Reactor

SRT (days)
System OLR SRT OLR
RUN
( g VS/L/day) (days) (g VS/L/day)
Thermo A Thermo B Meso

1 8 8 8 2.68 2.68

2 8 8 4 3.66 16

3 6 6 8 3.05 0\
00

SRT: Solids Retention Time

OLR: Organic Loading rate
Table 3. Reduction of indicator organisms in the reactor systems

TPAD S~stem
Indicator Organisms Class A Standards Feed Mesophilic Control
Thermo Meso

Fecal Coliforms
1,000 106 - 108 <1 <1 104 -106
(MPN**/g TS)

E.Coli 106 - 108

-- <1 <1
(MPN/g TS)

Salmonella
3 5 - 10 <1 <1
(MPN/4 g TS)
0\
\0
Table 4. Solids reduction at different Runs: Sequential feed vs. Single-stage mesophilic control

Sequential TPAD System

TS Removal (%) VS Removal(%)

SRT (days)
Thermo Meso System Thermo Meso System

16 35.3 ± 0.8 10.8 ± 0.5 42.2 ± 0.5 45.4 ± 0.5 14.8 ± 0.9 53.4 ± 0.7

12 35.3 ± 0.2 8.4 ± 0.4 40.8 ± 0.3 44.5 ± 0.2 10.9 ± 0.3 50.5 ± 0.4

14 35.0 ± 0.6 10.1 ± 0.4 41.8 ± 0.4 42.3 ± 0.5 13.9 ± 0.4 50.3 ± 0.6
-.....)
0

Single-stage Mesophilic Control*

SRT (days) TS Removal(%) VS Removal (%)

--
16 39.0 ± 0.8 45.7±1.1

*Feed sludge from AWPCF

SRT: Solids Retention Time
TS: Total Solids
VS: Volatile Solids
 Table 5. Methane recovery from the wastes

Volume of Biogas (Liters/Cycle**) Conversion Efficiency (L CHJg VS destroyed)

Run
TPAD system Control* TPAD system SC-TPAD system Control*

1 72.5 ± 2.5 0.72

2 64.5 ± 0.6 27.5 ± 0.7 0.59 0.5 0.75

3 74.2 ± 3.1 0.54

SC-TPAD: Semi-continuously fed TPAD system studied by Han et al. (1997) -....)

*Control reactor was operated at 16-day solids retention time

-
**Each cycle corresponds to 48 hours of operation
Table 6. Nitrogen transformation in the TPAD system

Feed Thermophilic Effluent Mesophilic Effluent

Run
TKN NH3-N TKN NH3-N TKN NH3-N

2,610 - 2,750 1,780- 1,910 2,580 - 2,650 1,850 - 1,940

2 2,600 - 2,850 800 - 900 2,500 - 2,650 1,740- 1,860 2,640- 2,720 1,790-1,920

3 2,540 - 2,810 1,460 - 1,670 2,600- 2,790 1,720-1,810

-....!
N
TKN: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, mg/Las N

NH 3-N: Ammonia-Nitrogen, mg/Las N

 Gas Gas Gas meter
Monitoring Monitoring
devices devices
Sampling
Port Gas
Monitoring
devices

H2 S Scrubber
I
______ _ ___ .J

FEED at 4°C
-..J
w

Effluent
•••
•• ••
•• •
•
cx:J [XJ CXl

Thermophilic Thermophilic Mesophilic Stage

Stage A (55°C) Stage B (55°C) (35°C)

Figure 1. Schematic of sequential TPAD system

 Gas meter

Sampling
Port

Gas Bag
H2S Scrubber

-...)
+:>.

••
Effluent
•••
••
FEED at 4°C
••
~
~

Mesophilic Reactor (35°C)

Figure 2. Schematic of single-stage mesophilic system (control)

 18 Hrs/2 Days 6 Hrs/2 Days

Thermo. 1
•

---~ Mesophilic
~1
~EEO
rs/Day _ 1 Hr/Day -.....)
6 Hrs/Dav Vl

1 •I Thermo. 2

18 Hrs/2 Days '\,_ / 6 Hrs/2 Days

Figure 3. Operation of sequentially fed TPAD system

 • DISCHARGE FEED D REACT

Thermophilic
1&2
(1 Cycle)
0 6 24 48
!~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~-'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'
-....J
°'

Mesophilic
(2 Cycles)

0 1 7 ~ ~
l~~~~--''--~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_j

Figure 4. Sequential feeding time-scale

 77

,-------------

111 SEQ-TPAD
1.sc-TPAD

46

44
-
~
~
c: 42
0
;;
(,)
:::::J 40
"C
Q)
~
38
en
>
36

34
8 6

Retention Time (Days)

Figure 5. Volatile solids removal in the first stage thermophilic reactor at different
SRTs: Sequentially fed vs. Semi-continuously fed
 78

Thermophilic Reactor

-er- SRT = 8 days

2.5 , - - - SRT =6 days

-!!?
Cl)

:J
vi
2

"'
-
Cl
0
iii 1.5
0
Cl)
E
::I
0
>

0 ·f----~K--.----~--~-~--~-~----~
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, Hours

Mesophilic Reactor

0.60 ··..--··--------···-·----------------------·----...,
j--0= S-RT =8 days (8/8)
0.50 . . - -- .. - 1-0-SRT =4 days (8/4)
- . - ···--··-----·---··;
~--=~~~_== 8 days (6/8)
!!?Cl)
~
.J 0.40
Ill
"'
Cl
~ 0.30 --
...
0
Cl)
E
::I
0
>

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time, Hours

Figure 6. Biogas production profiles from the reactors at different SRTs

 79

3000 10000

2500
8000

-.{
....ftS
Cl)
2000 0
....
Cl)
6000
0
ftS
u 0
ftS .............. -Ill

- -
I/)
I/)
ftS 1500 ftS
~
control
l 4000
~

....
D>
D
.. E

,. .. .
E 1000
•.•
r::i·

2000
500
control
0 ---- -~---,------------.----~--
0
Feed Thermo Mesa

D RUN 1 -VFA
• RUN2 ············ ALKALINITY
• RUN3

Figure 7. Volatile fatty acid and alkalinity profiles for TPAD and control systems
 80

CHAPTER 5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Engineering Significance

This study has established TPAD as one of the few processes capable of addressing

the environmental concerns associated with cattle wastes. High solids in cattle wastes has

often been one of the causes for the unsatisfactory performance of many conventional

treatment systems, which needed long retention times or dilution to achieve acceptable

levels of stabilization. Longer retention times and dilution translate to poor economics of

operation due to the larger reactor volumes. The TPAD process accomplished stabilization

of high-solid cattle wastes at retention times one half of those employed in conventional

systems. Moreover, the ability to meet Class A pathogen standards for biosolids makes it a

promising option for the future. Though Part 503 sludge regulations do not apply to

livestock wastes, there is a growing belief that public perception, negative media coverage

and other factors will drive the need to treat livestock manures to Class A standards. The

TPAD process achieves dual benefits of environmental pollution control providing pathogen-

free high nutrient biosolids and meeting national energy needs by recovering the energy by-

product methane from livestock wastes.

Tindale Farm (Wrightstown), one of the largest dairy operations in Wisconsin with

nearly 2,500 animals producing 60,000 gallons of manure each day, has already set-up a

first-of-its-kind TPAD installation that converts dairy cattle wastes into electricity and safe,

usable biosolids. The performance of the system during the start-up period is being

monitored. The knowledge gained can contribute to the use of TPAD technology for the

dairy industry nationally.

 81

In spite of being an effective treatment technology for achieving Class A pathogen

standards with a variety of high-solid waste streams, the TPAD process has not found

recognition as a PFRP. The majority of TPAD systems in operation are run continuously or

semi-continuously, which does not guarantee a batch holding time of 24 hours at 55 °C

specified by U.S. EPA for classification as a PFRP. Operating the TPAD system in a

sequential batch mode can not only satisfy the time-temperature requirements proposed by

U.S. EPA but also instill a certain degree of confidence in users of the technology. This can

also avoid additional capital costs incurred by treatment 5ystei:ns in adding processes like

pre- or post-pasteurization to meet the Class A standards.

Recommendations for Future Study

1. Effect of temperature variations in the second stage mesophilic reactor. It would be

interesting to study the effect of mesophilic temperature variations on the overall system

performance. Field reports have shown poor dewaterability of biosolids from a

mesophilic reactor operated at slightly higher temperatures.

2. How does a sequential batch TPAD system fare against a pre-pasteurization system

followed by mesophi/ic digestion? Interest in pre-pasteurization is growing along with

the recognition of the uncertainties of satisfying Class A requirements with TPAD system

operated in the continuous flow mode. An evaluative comparison of the new sequential

batch TPAD system with a pre-pasteurization system followed by conventional

mesophilic digestion would provide valuable information on the economics of operation

of the two systems.

3. Studies on nutrient recovery from the treated effluent: Anaerobic digestion has been

found to conserve the nutrients in the feed substrate. The possibility of recovering the

excess nutrients, especially in the case of livestock manures, needs to be explored.

 82

Conclusions

The TPAD process is a viable alternative to some of the existing high-rate treatment

technologies for cattle wastes. Anaerobic digestion of livestock wastes using TPAD

technology "brings us one step closer to the concept of holistic farming - where waste will

no longer exist, and everything will be recycled in a safe and sanitary way" (Shih, NC State

Univ.). If operated in a sequential batch mode, the system can also satisfy the time-

temperature requirements specified by U.S. EPA for classification as a PFRP.

 83

GENERAL REFERENCES

Ahring, B. K. (1995) "Methanogenesis in thermophilic biogas reactors," Antonie van

Leeuwenhoek, 67, 91-102.

Ahring, B. K. (1994) "Status on science and application of thermophilic anaerobic digestion,"

Proc. 1h IAWQ Int. Symp. Anaerobic Digestion, Cape Town, South Africa, 328-337.

Aitken, M. D., Mullennix, R. W. (1992) "Another look at thermophilic anaerobic digestion of

wastewater sludge," Water Environ. Res., 64, 915-919.

Bendixen, H. J. (1994) "Safeguards against pathogens in Danish biogas plants,"

Proceedings of IAWQ 1h International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, Cape Town,
South Africa, 629-638.

Benefield, L. D. and Randall, C. W. (1980) Biological process design for wastewater

treatment, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bhattacharya, S. K., Madura, R. L., Walling, D. A., Farrell, J. B. (1996) "Volatile solids
reduction in two-phase and conventional anaerobic sludge digestion," Wat. Res., 30(5),
1041-1048.

Brade, C. E. and Noone, G. P. (1981) "Anaerobic sludge digestion - Need it be expensive?,"

Wat. Po/Jut. Cont., 80(1), 70-90.

Bull, M.A., Sterritt, R. M., and Lester, J. N. (1984) "An evaluation of single- and separated-
phase anaerobic industrial wastewater treatment in fluidized bed reactors," Biotech.
Bioengng., 26, 1054-1059.

Callaghan, F. J., Wase, D. A. J., Thayanithy, K., Forster, C. F. (1999) "Co-digestion of waste
organic solids - batch studies," Bioresource Technol., 67(2), 117-122.

Chao, Shaw-Ming (1999) Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD) of waste

activated sludge from pulp and paper wastewater treatment, Thesis, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA.

Danish Energy Agency (1995) Overview report on biogas plants in Denmark, Danish Energy
Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark.
 84

Foess, G. W. and Sieger, R. B. (1993) "PathogenNector attraction reduction requirements

of the sludge rules," Water Engineering and Management, 140(6), 25-26. ,

Garber, W. F. (1977) "Certain aspects of anaerobic digestion of wastewater solids in the

thermophilic range at the Hyperion treatment plant," Progress of Water Technology, 8(6),
401-406.

Ghosh, S. (1998) "Temperature-Phased two-phase anaerobic digestion," Proc. of the Water

Environment Federation 71st Annual Conference and Exposition, Water Environment
Federation, Orlando, FL, 189-199.

Ghosh, S., Buoy, K., Dressel, L., Miller, T., Wilcox, G., Loos, D. (1995) "Pilot- and full-scale
two-phase anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge," Water Environ. Res., 67(2), 206-213.

Gujer, W. and Zehnder, A. J. B. (1983) "Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion,"

Water Sci. Tech., 15, 127-167.

Han, Y. and Dague, R. R. (1997) "Laboratory studies on the temperature-phased anaerobic

digestion of domestic wastewater sludge," Water Environ. Res., 69(6), 1139-1143.

Han, Y., Sung, S., and Dague, R.R. (1997) "Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of
wastewater sludges," Water Sci. Tech., 36(6-7), 367-374.

Harris, W. L. and Dague, R. R. (1993) "Comparative performance of anaerobic filters at

mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures," Water Environ. Res., 65(6), 764-771.

Hashimoto, A. G., Chen, Y. R. (1980) "Economic optimization of anaerobic fermenter

designs for heat production," Livestock wastes: a renewable resource, St. Joseph, Michigan:
ASAE, 129-132.

Hills, D. J. (1980) "Biogas from a high solids combination of dairy manure and barley straw,"
Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng., 23(6), 1500-1504.

Hobson, P. N. and Wheatley, A. D. (1993) Anaerobic Biotechnology: Modern Theory and

Practice, Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.,Essex, England.

Huyard, A., Ferran, B., Audie, J.M., Dieterlen, J., Adamick, J. and Noel, T. (1999) "Spiking a
two-phase anaerobic digestion pilot plant: An innovative approach to obtain a PFRP
 85

equivalency recommendation," Proceedings of the 7Z1d Annual Conference and Exposition,

Water Environment Federation, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Kaiser, S. K. and Dague, R. R. (1994) "The temperature-phased anaerobic biofilter

process," Water Sci. and Tech., 29(9), 213-223.

Kaiser, S. K., Harris, W.L., and Dague, R.R. (1995) "Initial studies on the temperature-
phased anaerobic biofilter process," Water Environ. Res., 67(7), 1095-1103.

Kennedy, M. (1997) "Reduction of wastewater sludge pathogens using second-stage

thermophilic digestion," Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 7dh Annual
Conference and Exposition, Water =:nvironment Federation, Chicago, IL.

Lee, K. M., Brunner, C. A., Farrell, J. B. and Eralp, A. E. (1989) "Destruction of enteric
bacteria and viruses during two-phase digestion, Journal of water Pollution Control
Federation, 61(8), 1421-1429.

McCarthy, P. L. (1964a) "Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals: Chemistry and

microbiology," Public works, September, 107-112.

McCarthy, P. L. and Smith, D. P. (1986) "Anaerobic wastewater treatment," Environ. Sci.

Tech., 20, 1200-1206.

Meyer, D. (2000) "Dairying and the environment," Journal of Dairy Sci., 83:7, 1419-1427.

Morse, D., Guthrie, J. C., and Mutters, R. (1995) "Anaerobic digester survey of California
dairy producers," Journal of Dairy Sci., 79, 149-153.

Parsons, D. J. (1986) 'The economics of the treatment of dairy cow slurry by anaerobic
digestion," Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 33, 259-276.

Schafer, P. L. and Farrell, J. B. (2000) "Anaerobic Digestion: Will Advanced Versions of this
Unwrap New Treatment Benefits?," Water Env. Tech., 12(11), 27-32.

Shimp, G. F., Wallis-Lage, C., Sandino, J., Scalan, P. (2001) "An update on the
development status of advanced digestion processes," Proc. of 74th Annual Meeting, Central
States WEA, Madison WI.
 86

Sidwick, J.M. (1986) Public Health Engineer, 14(1), 47

Speece, R. E. (1996) Anaerobic Biotechnology, Archae Press, Nashville, Tennessee.

Stukenberg, J. R., Shimp, G., Sandino, J., Clark, J. H., Crosse, J. T. (1994) "Compliance
outlook: meeting 40 CFR Part 503, Class B pathogen reduction criteria with anaerobic
digestion," Water Environ. Res., 66(3), 255-263.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503
Biosolids Rule, EPA 832/R-93-003, September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage
Sludge. Fed. Regist., 58, 32, 40 CFR Part 503.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (1979) Process Design Manual, Sludge treatment

and Disposal, Munic. Environ. Res. Lab., Cincinnati, Ohio.

Vanderburgh, S. R. (1998) Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Digestion of thickened

wastewater biosolids, Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Water Environment Federation (1995) Wastewater residuals Stabilization, Manual of

Practice FD-9, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.

Water Pollution Control Federation (1987) Anaerobic Sludge Digestion, Manual of Practice
No. 16, Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, VA.

Wei per, L. and Dague, R. R. ( 1996) "Laboratory studies on the temperature-phased

anaerobic sequencing batch reactor at high loadings," Proceedings of the Water
Environmnet Federation 691h annual conference and exposition, Water Environment
Federation, Dallas, Texas.

Wheatley, A. (1990) Anaerobic Digestion: A Waste Treatment Technology, Elsevier Science

Publishing Co., Inc., New York, NY.
 87

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I place on record my sincere gratitude to my major professor, Shihwu Sung, Assistant
Professor in Environmental Engineering, for his valuable counsel throughout my research
work. I would also like to thank my graduate committee members, Timothy G. Ellis and
Thomas L. Richards for their advice and suggestions during my thesis compilation. I am
indebted to all my friends and colleagues who were cooperative and helped me complete
this work satisfactorily. Last but not the least, I would like to thank Kathy and Sharon who
made my life as a researcher a lot easier.