Report On Biogas Production From Food Waste

Mixing Effect in Biogas Production from Food Waste
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Solid Waste Management

Solid Waste management is the collection, transport, processing or disposal, managing
and monitoring of waste materials. The term usually relates to materials produced by human
activity, and the process is generally undertaken to reduce their effect on health, the environment
or aesthetics. Solid Waste management is a distinct practice from resource recovery which
focuses on delaying the rate of consumption of natural resources (1).
India is having second largest population in the world after China, with more than 1.27
billion population contributing 17.6% of world’s total population. On the contrary, India is
sharing only 5% of world’s area accounting 3,185,263 km. Out of total population, 68% lives in
rural areas, while 32% lives in urban areas. Urban population is increasing day by day since last
few years. In modern society, industry becomes an essential part of everyday life. Developing
countries like India is in industrialization phase, which also contribute to urbanization. Large
numbers of people are migrating towards city area for better opportunities. In terms of GDP
(Gross Domestic Product), India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world with
7.30% GDP. It is expected that by 2030 India will be growing with GDP of 10%. Higher GDP
will result into improved living standards. Over-population, rapid industrialization, uncontrolled
urbanization and improved living standards thereby lead to increased rate of per capita waste
generation (2).
1.2 Food waste as biodegradable waste

Food waste (FW) (both precooked and leftover) is a biodegradable waste discharged from
various sources including food processing industries, households, hotelling and hospital sector.
According to FAO (food and agriculture organization), nearly 1.3 billion tonnes of food
including fresh vegetables, fruits, meat, bakery, and dairy products are lost along the food supply
chain (3).
The amount of FW has been projected to increase in the next 25 years due to economic
and population growth, mainly in the Asian countries. It has been reported that the annual
amount of urban FW in Asian countries could rise from 278 to 416 million tonnes from 2005 to
Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 1

2025. Approximately 1.4 billion hectares of fertile land (28% of the world’s agricultural area) is
used annually to produce food that is lost or wasted. Apart from food and land resource wastage,
the carbon footprint of food waste is estimated to contribute to the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions by accumulating approximately 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per
year. Conventionally, this food waste, which is a component of municipal solid waste, is
incinerated or dumped in open area which may cause severe health and environmental issues.
Incineration of food waste consisting high moisture content results in the release of dioxins
which may further lead to several environmental problems. Also, incineration reduces the
economic value of the substrate as it hinders the recovery of nutrients and valuable chemical
compounds from the incinerated substrate. Therefore, appropriate methods are required for the
management of food waste. Anaerobic digestion can be an alluring option to strengthen world’s
energy security by employing food waste to generate biogas while addressing waste management
and nutrient recycling (3).
Due to increasing needs for renewable energy generation and diversion of organic residuals
from landfills to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts,
treatment of food waste using anaerobic digestion technologies has become a more attractive
method for food waste management (4).
1.3 Biogas
Biogas typically refers to a mixture of different gases produced by the breakdown of
organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Biogas can be produced from raw materials such as
agricultural waste, manure, municipal waste, plant material, sewage, green waste or food waste.
Biogas is produced by anaerobic microorganisms, which digest material inside a closed system,
or fermentation of biodegradable materials. Biogas is primarily mixture of methane (CH4) and
carbon dioxide (CO2) and may have small amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), moisture and
siloxanes. The gases methane, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide (CO) can be combusted or
oxidized with oxygen. This energy release allows biogas to be used as a fuel; it can be used for
any heating purpose, such as cooking. It can also be used in a gas engine to convert the energy in
the gas into electricity and heat (5).

Table1.1: Composition of biogas (By FAO-1996)

COMPONENT CONCENTRATION (BY
VOLUME) in %
Methane (CH4) 55-60
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 35-40
Water (H2O) 2-7
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) 2
Ammonia (NH3) 0-0.05
Nitrogen (N) 0-2
Oxygen (O2) 0-2
Hydrogen (H2) 0-1
1.3.1 Characteristics of Biogas

Composition of biogas depends upon feed material. Biogas is an odorless and colorless
gas that burns with blue flame similar to LPG gas. Biogas is about 20% lighter than air has an
ignition temperature in range of 650°C to 750°C. Its calorific value is 20 Mega Joules (MJ) /m3
and it usually burns with 60% efficiency in a conventional biogas stove.
This gas is useful as fuel to substitute firewood, cow-dung, petrol, LPG, diesel, and
electricity, depending on the nature of the task, and local supply conditions and constraints, also
for electricity generation of lightening purposes (6).
1.3.2 Advantages of Biogas

a) Biogas is a renewable source of energy.
b) Biogas plants are easy to set up and require minimum capital investment on a small scale
basis.
c) Biogas is a modern source of energy for cooking and lighting.
d) Biogas has a positive influence on both climate change and the environment.
e) Easy to produce organic fertilizer.
f) It reduces the greenhouse effect.
g) It is to be considered non-polluting in nature.

h) Reduces Landfills, hence, decreased soil and water pollution.

i) Reduce cooking fuel expenses by as much as 90%.
j) Reduce household waste.
k) The use of biogas slows down deforestation and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
l) Job opportunities are created in these plants.
m) Due to uniform distribution of thermal efficiency is higher.
1.3.3 Disadvantages of Biogas

a) It is very difficult to enhance the efficiency of biogas systems.
b) Biogas contains some gases as impurities, which are corrosive to the metal parts of internal
combustion engines.
c) Generation of biogas is governed by temperature. Hence, it is not suitable for cold regions.
1.4 Application of Biogas

a) In Industrialized countries, power generation is the main purpose of most biogas plants;
conversion of biogas to electricity has become a standard technology (5).
b) Gas-grid injection is the injection of biogas into the methane grid (natural gas grid).
Injections includes biogas until the breakthrough of micro combined heat and power two-
thirds of all the energy produced by biogas power plants was lost (the heat), using the grid to
transport the gas to customers, the electricity and the heat can be used for on-site generation
resulting in a reduction of losses in the transportation of energy (5).
c) One of the advantages of biogas technology is that it can be established locally, without the
need for long-distance transportation or import of raw materials. Small or medium-sized
companies and local authorities can establish biogas plants anywhere (5).
d) Biogas can be used for electricity production on sewage works, in a CHP gas engine, where
the waste heat from the engine is conveniently used for heating the digester; cooking; space
heating; water heating; and process heating (7).
e) If compressed, it can replace compressed natural gas for use in vehicles, where it can fuel an
internal combustion engine or fuel cells and is a much more effective displacer of carbon
dioxide than the normal use in on-site CHP plants (7).
f) If concentrated and compressed, it can be used in vehicle transportation. Compressed biogas
is becoming widely used in Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany (7).

1.4 Biogas Production Process
1.4.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

Anaerobic digestion is the breakdown of organic material by a microbial population that
lives in an oxygen free environment. Anaerobic means literally "without air". When organic
matter is decomposed in an anaerobic environment the bacteria produce a mixture of methane
and carbon dioxide gas. Anaerobic digestion treats waste by converting the organic materials to
carbon dioxide and methane gas. Anaerobic digestion is widely used as a source of renewable
energy. The process produces a biogas, consisting of methane, carbon dioxide and traces of
other contaminant gases. Anaerobic digestion is a series of processes in which microorganisms
break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. It is used for industrial or
domestic purposes to manage waste and to release energy (8).
AD is considered as a sustainable option for the management of biomass wastes because
the production of renewable energy and the recycling of nutrients. Additionally, municipal
biodegradable waste (MBW) separated from Municipal Solid waste (MSW) and treated with
AD can significantly reduce the load of traditional disposal facilities, and subsequently prolong
their service life. It also decreases the secondary pollutants originated from the biodegradation
of organic wastes during landfill, incineration and composting (9).
1.4.2 Aerobic vs. Anaerobic Degradation

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of aerobic and anaerobic technology for
biowaste treatment are summarized in Table 1.2. Anaerobic processes have many advantages
over the corresponding aerobic processes.
Table 1.2: Comparison of aerobic and anaerobic biological waste treatments (10, 11)
Aerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion
Start Up  Short start up period.  Long start up period.
Process  Integrated P and N2 removal.  No significant P and N2
removal nutrient removal via
 Production of high excess post treatment.
sludge quantities.  Production of very little sludge
 Large reactor volume (5-20%).
necessary.  Small reactor volume can be

 High nutrients requirement. used.

 Low nutrient requirement.
Carbon  50-60% incorporated into  95% converted into biogas.
balance CO2; 40-50% incorporated  5% incorporated into microbial
into biomass. biomass.
Energy  60% of available energy is  90% retained as CH4, 3-5% is
balance used in new biomass; 40% lost as heat; 5-7% is used in
lost as process heat. new biomass formation.
Residue  Excess sludge production  Biogas, N2 mineralized to NH4
 No need for past-treatment post-treatment required for
removal of remaining organic
material and malodorous
compound.
Cost  Low investment costs.  Often moderated investment
 High operating costs for costs.
aeration, additional nutrient  Low operating due to low
and sludge removal and power consumption and
maintained. additional nutrient hardly
required.
State of  Established technology  Still under development for
development specific application.
1.5 The Biochemical Process of AD

Anaerobic digestion is often considered to be a complex process; the digestion itself is
based on a reduction process consisting of a number of biochemical reactions taking place under
anoxic conditions. Methane formation in anaerobic digestion involves four different steps:
hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. Generally in an anaerobic digestion
process, the rate limiting step can be defined as the step that causes process failure under
imposed kinetic stress. In other words, in a context of a continuous culture, kinetic stress is
defined as the imposition of a constantly reducing value of the solids retention time until it is

lower than the limiting value; hence it will result in a washout of the microorganism. Most
researchers report that the rate-limiting for complex organic substrate is the hydrolysis step due
to the formation of toxic byproducts (complex heterocyclic compounds) or non-desirable volatile
fatty acids (VFA) formed during hydrolysis step whereas methanogenesis is the rate limiting
step for easy biodegradable substrates (12).
Anaerobic digestion consists of four phases namely, Hydrolysis, Acidogenesis,
acetogenesis and methanogenesis; Figure 1.1 depicts the digestion process.
Fig 1.1: Anaerobic digestion phases (3).
Table1. 3: Microorganism cooperation in organic matter degradation (3).

Reaction Type Microorganism Active Genera Product
Fermentation Hydrolytic Bacteroides, Lactobacillus, Simple
bacteria Propionibacterium, Sphingomonas, sugars,
Sporobacterium, Megasphaera, peptides,
Bifidobacterium fatty acids
Acidogenesis Syntropic bacteria Ruminococcus, Paenibacillus, Volatile fatty
Clostridium acids
Acetogenesis Acetogenic Desulfovibrio, Aminobacterium, CH3COOH
bacteria Acidaminococcus

Methanogenesis Methanogens Methanosaeta, Methanolobus, CH4

(Archaea) Methanococcoides,
Methanohalophilus,
Methanosalsus, Methanohalobium,
Halomethanococcus, Methanolacinia,
Methanogenium, Methanoculleus
1.5.1 Hydrolysis
This is the first step in anaerobic digestion process, which is transformation of insoluble
organic materials and higher molecular mass compounds such as lipids, polysaccharides,
proteins, fats, nucleic acid etc. into soluble organic materials i.e. such as monosaccharide’s,
amino acids and other simple organic compounds. This step is carried out by strict anaerobes
such as bacterides, clostridia and facultative bacteria such as streptococci etc. This first stage is
very important because large organic molecules are simply too large to be directly absorbed and
used by microorganisms as a substrate/food source. To accomplish biodegradation, certain
microorganisms secrete different types of enzymes, such as extracellular enzymes, which “cut”
the larger molecules up into smaller pieces that the microorganism can then take into the cell and
use as a source of energy and nutrition. On the other hand other microorganisms are specialized.
Which, they secrete enzymes that break down either sugar or protein. Microorganisms that break
down different sugars are called saccharolytic, while those that break down proteins are called
proteolytic. There are different enzymes required for degradation of sugars, proteins, fats etc
(12).
1.5.2 Acidogenesis
The monomers produced in the hydrolytic phase are taken up by different facultative and
obligatory anaerobic bacteria and are degraded further into short chain organic acids such as
butyric acids, propanoic acids, acetic acids, alcohols, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The
concentration of hydrogen formed as an intermediate product in this stage influences the type of
final product produced during the fermentation process. For example, if the partial pressure of
the hydrogen were too high, it would decrease the amount of reduced compounds. In general,
during this phase, simple sugars, fatty acids and amino acids are converted into organic acids and
alcohols (12).

1.5.3 Acetogenesis
The products produced in the acidogenic phase are consumed as substrates for the other
microorganisms, active in the third phase. In the third phase, also called the acidogenic phase
anaerobic oxidation is performed. Products which cannot be directly converted to methane by
methanogenic bacteria are converted into methanogenic substrates, i.e. volatile fatty acids and
alcohols (VFA) are oxidized into methanogenic substrates like acetate, hydrogen and carbon
dioxide, VFA with carbon chains longer than one unit are oxidized into acetate and hydrogen. It
is important that the organisms which carry out the anaerobic oxidation reactions collaborate
with the next group, the methane forming microorganisms; this collaboration depends on the
partial pressure of the hydrogen present in the system. Under anaerobic oxidation, protons are
used as the final electron acceptors which lead to the production of H2. However these oxidation
reactions can only occur if the partial pressure of hydrogen is low, which explains why the
collaboration with the methanogens is very important since they will continuously consume the
H2, to produce methane. Hence during this symbiotic relationship inter-species hydrogen transfer
occurs. (12).
1.5.4 Methanogenesis
The fourth and final stage of AD is called methanogenesis. During this stage,
microorganisms convert the hydrogen and acetic acid formed by the acid formers to methane gas
and carbon dioxide. The bacteria responsible for this conversion are called methanogens and are
strict anaerobes. Waste stabilization is accomplished when methane gas and carbon dioxide are
produced. Only 30% of methane produced in this process comes from CO2 reduction carried out
by autotrophic methane bacteria. During this process H2 is used up, which creates good
conditions for the development of acid bacteria which give rise to short-chain organic acids in
acidification phase and consequently to too low production of H2 in acetogenic phase. A
consequence of such conversions may be gas rich in CO2, because only its insignificant part will
be converted into methane. Methane producing anaerobic bacteria likes Methanobacterium,
Methanococcus, Methanosarcina etc (5).

Fig 1.2: Schematic representation of course of anaerobic methane generation from

complex organic substances showing scanning electron micrograph of individual
microorganisms involved.
1.6 Process Parameters

For successful operation anaerobic digestion system it is necessary to maintain the pH,
Temperature, substrate, mixing, C/N ratio, loading rate etc at optimal rage. It also decides the
healthiest operation and ultimately the amount biogas produced.
1.6.1 Substrate
The biogas production depends upon substrate concentration, particle size, its volatile
solid contain, etc. The substrate used for biogas production is goat dungs (GD), chicken dungs
(CD), sewage sludge (SS), palm oil mill effluent (POME), Food waste (FW) etc. The substrate
characteristic like carbon to nitrogen ratio, its composition and its nutrient it describe the biogas
production. There is various type of substrate in the form of liquid and solid.

1.6.2 Temperature
Temperature is one of the most important environmental parameters for anaerobic
digestion. Biologically speaking, temperature determines if a certain kind of microorganisms can
survive or grow in the reactor and if they are living there with their highest activities. At
different temperature ranges, the microbial consortia are different. Anaerobic digestion can be
carried out by anaerobic psychrophiles, mesophiles, thermophiles and extreme thermophiles.
There is a direct relation between the process temperature & the HRT as summerised in
Table1.4.
Table 1.4: Thermal stage and typical retention times (13).
Thermal stage Process temperatures Minimum retention time
Psychrophilic < 20 °C 70 to 80 days
Mesophilic 30 to 42 °C 30 to 40 days
Thermophilic 43 to 55 °C 15 to 20 days
Many modern biogas plants operate at thermophilic process temperature as the thermophilic
process provides many advantages, compared to mesophilic and psychrophilic processes:
a) Effective destruction of pathogens.
b) Higher growth rate of methanogenic bacteria at higher temperature.
c) Reduced retention time, making the process faster and more efficient.
d) Improved digestibility and availability of substrates.
e) Better degradation of solid substrates and better substrate utilisation.
f) Better possibility for separating liquid and solid fractions.
The thermophilic process has some disadvantages:
a) Larger energy demand due to high temperature.
b) Higher risk of ammonia inhibition. (13).

1.6.3 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

It is the average time spent by slurry inside the digester before it comes out. In tropical
countries like India, HRT varies from 30–50 days while in countries with colder climate it may
go up to 100 days. Shorter retention time is likely to face the risk of washout of active bacterial
population while longer retention time requires a large volume of the digester and hence more
capital cost. Hence there is a need to reduce HRT for domestic biogas plants based on solid
substrates (13).
1.6.4 C/N Ratio
Microorganisms need both nitrogen and carbon for assimilation into their cell structures.
Various experiments have shown that the metabolic activity of methanogenic bacteria can be
optimized at a C/N ratio of approximately 25-30:1, whereby the optimum point varies from case
to case, depending on the nature of the substrate. Carbon to nitrogen ratio plays an important role
in biogas production. The C: N ratio of the biomasses varies widely between 32 to 82:1, whereas
the amount of cattle dung ranges from 21.8:1. It has been observed during various studies that
during digestion process micro-organism utilize carbon 25 to 30 times faster than nitrogen (13).
1.6.5 pH
The pH of bioreactor affects the microbial activity in anaerobic digestion and its
efficiency. The optimum pH range is 6.3 –7.8. Initially due to excess of carbon dioxide, pH
drops to 6.2 and after 10 days it starts rising and stabilizes between 7 and 8. Also, optimum range
of methanogenesis using food waste leachate was 6.5–8.2. The main reasons for pH variation are
volatile fatty acid (VFA), bicarbonate concentration, and alkalinity of the system. To control pH,
NaOH and NaHCO3 are used in anaerobic digestion for biomethanation from food waste. If
accumulation of base or acid occurs, the buffer capacity counteracts these changes in pH, up to a
certain level. When the buffer capacity of the system is exceeded, drastic changes in pH-values
occur its completely inhibiting the AD process (14).
There are various types of chemicals that could be introduced into anaerobic digesters for
alkalinity supplementation as summarized in Table 1.4

Table 1.5: Chemicals used for alkalinity supplementation (15).

Sr. No. Name Buffering cation
1 Sodium bicarbonate Na+
2 Potassium bicarbonate K+
3 Sodium carbonate (soda ash) Na+
4 Potassium carbonate K+
5 Calcium carbonate (lime) Ca2+
6 Calcium hydroxide (quick lime) Ca2+
7 Anhydrous ammonia (gas) NH4+
8 Sodium nitrate Na+
1.6.6 Loading Rate

Most industrial organic wastes contain a high fraction of easily degradable organic
matters, which results in high methane yield, however also leads to high VFA (volatile fatty
acid) production. It is therefore important to control OLR (organic loading rate) to maximize the
biogas production. Under-loading the process (with low feeding rate) gives low biogas
production rate. It is of course safer to run under-loading to prevent process failure, however it is
also uneconomical because the capacity of the process is not fully utilized. Increasing the
organic load leads to more biogas production, but also risk of overloading. Overloading of the
reactor, normally results in VFA accumulation. Thus, high concentration of VFA decreases pH
and makes VFA become more toxic to the methanogens, which can terminate the AD process.
That is to say, both under-load and overload introduces process imbalance in the anaerobic
digester. If the loading rate is correct the digestion is balanced, the pH of the content is
maintained at 7 to 8 and the gas is good quality. To maintain uniform gas production and to
minimize the possibility of upsetting the balance between the two bacteria processes in the
digester, the loading rate should be maintained as uniformly as possible. This is especially
important when one considers the effects of retention time and management practices on liquid
manure quantity and characteristics. When loading rate is too high it inhibits gas production, but
it may be possible to gradually increase the loading rate once the microbial population is
properly established.

Organic loading rate is a measure of the biological conversion capacity of the AD,
determines the amount of volatile solids feasible as an input in the AD system. Overloading of
the system can results in low biogas yield. This happens due to accumulation of inhibiting
substances such as fatty acids in the digester slurry (16).
1.6.7 Volatile Solids

Volatile solids are that portion of the total solid that are organic in composition. The
biological organisms utilize a portion of this material as a substrate and make volatile solids an
important parameter in estimating potential gas production. The amount of gas produced depends
on the amount of volatile solids added per day (16).
1.6.8 Nutrient Balance

Organic matter which is broken down by bacteria without oxygen will produce
significant quantities of methane gas (CH4). Efficient biodegradation requires nutrients and
sufficient nutrients are therefore important to microbial cell growth. Macro- nutrients such as
carbon, nitrogen, potassium phosphorus, sulphur and other elements are also required in trace
quantities. Other micro-nutrients such as Fe, Ni, Zn and Co in smaller amount are required for
optimal anaerobic microbial growth. Animal manure contains large quantities of well balanced
nutrient supply, but crop residues such as straw and some food processing wastes may lack some
of the nutritional requirements. The lack of specific elements required for bacterial growth will
limit gas production. However, from the economical point of view, in the large industrial scale
operation, according to different waste these supplements should be provided in order to reduce
the operational cost (17).
1.6.9 Substrate Solids Content

The mobility of the methanogens within the substrate is gradually impaired by increasing
solids content, and the biogas yield may suffer as a result. However, reports of relatively high
biogas yields from landfill material with high solids content may be found in recent literature. No
generally valid guidelines can be offered with regard to specific biogas production for any
particular solids percentage. Many substrates and various modes of fermentation require some
sort of substrate agitation or mixing in order to maintain process stability within the digester.

1.6.10 Mixing
Adequate mixing is very important in order to achieve successful anaerobic treatment of
organic rich wastewater. In another word, it enhances the anaerobic process rate by ensuring the
solid particles in suspension, transferring heat throughout the digester, reducing particle size
during the digestion process and releasing the biogas from the digester content. Prior to 1950s,
anaerobic digesters treating sewage sludge were not equipped with mechanical mixing and thus
caused the formation of scum layer at the surface. To overcome this problem, mixing is
employed to disrupt scum formation and enhance contact between microorganisms and
substrates. In modern anaerobic digesters, mixing could be achieved in various ways such as gas
injection, mechanical stirring and mechanical pumping. Generally for large scale applications,
agitator or mixer system is commonly used to mix substrate homogenously inside the bioreactor
and to provide a good contact between microorganisms and the substrate. The vigorous mixing is
turbulent flow in nature, is unsuitable for microorganism’s growth and consequently results in an
unsatisfactory methane production. This is basically due to the effect of high shear force on
separating the hydrolytic bacteria from their substrate.
A thin layer of scum must not necessarily have an adverse effect on the process. For
systems in which the digester is completely filled with substrate, so that any scum always
remains sufficiently wet, there is little or no danger that the extraction of gas could be impeded
by the scum. Some types of biogas systems can function well without any mechanical agitation
at all. Such systems are usually operated either on substrates with such a high solid content, that
no stratification occurs, or on substrates consisting primarily of solute substances.
In addition to high turbulent mixing, continuous mixing could also reduce the
performance of the biogas production .On the other hand the natural mixing could occur in the
digester due to the rising biogas and digested substrate, as digested particles are lighter than
undigested as they have tendency to move up. However as a general rule, optimal mixing is the
best mode of mixing. Mixing provides an adequate contact between the incoming fresh substrate
and the viable bacterial population. Furthermore, mixing ensures that solids remain in
suspension avoiding the formation of dead zones by sedimentation of heavy solid particles.
Some method of slow stirring of the digester contents is necessary for efficient and rapid
digestion. It is possible for the momentum of the daily load to give a stirring action. If the inlet

pipe is set so that the force of the ingoing load makes the contents swirl, then some stirring is
achieved (18). The most important objectives of agitation are:
a) Removal of the metabolites produced by the methanogens (gas).

b) Mixing of fresh substrate and bacterial population (inoculation).
c) Preclusion of scum formation and sedimentation.
d) Avoidance of pronounced temperature gradients within the digester.
e) Provision of a uniform bacterial population density.
f) Prevention of the formation of dead spaces that would reduce the effective digester volume.
1.7 Other Operational Considerations

For smooth working of anaerobic digesters some operational considerations should be
necessarily considered.
1.7.1 Scum Formation

As the gas rises through the slurry it carries some of the lighter particles, which come to
the top and form a scum. This scum always contains a certain amount of gas and therefore gas
can pass through it. The scum is lighter and stays on top, gradually building up in thickness until
it has to be removed, unless agitation is adequate. One method of removal is to scoop it out at
intervals through a trap door at the top of the digester. If paddles are used for agitation they
might also be used to minimize scum. Any material that floats, such as straw, hay or grass, is
undesirable in a digester. Therefore, when the slurry is mixed, remove anything that floats.
Floating material can also cause pump troubles unless it is chopped up finely before going into
the digester.
1.7.2 Sludge Recycling

As for any anaerobic treatment system designs, it is always desirable to maintain
optimum levels of microorganisms inside the digester in order to meet an appropriate ratio of
food-to-microorganisms (F/M) which results in an efficient bioconversion process. In order to
maintain high levels of biomass inside the digester, several strategies have been adopted by
many researchers. Among those, sludge recycling is probably the simplest strategy to increase
the biomass concentration in the digester. It was observed that by increasing the sludge recycling

rate during treatment at higher OLRs, the treatment process maintained stable with high COD
removal efficiency and satisfactory methane production.
The recirculation of digested slurry back into the reactor has been shown to improve the
gas production marginally, since the microbes washed away are reintroduced back into the
reactor, thereby providing an additional microbial population. The recycling of the digested
slurry along with filtrate has also been tried out to conserve water and to enhance biogas
production (13).
1.7.3 Inhibitory Substances

Inhibition in anaerobic digestion process by the presence of toxic substances can occur to
varying degrees, causing upset of biogas production and organic removal or even digester
failure. These kinds of substances can be found as components of the feeding substrate (organic
solid waste) or as byproducts of the metabolic activities of bacteria consortium in the digester.
The anaerobic digestion shows a wide variation in the inhibition/toxicity levels for most
substances. The main reason for these variations is the significant influence by microbiological
mechanisms such as acclimation, antagonism, and synergism (19).
Light metal ions, the light metal ions including sodium, potassium, calcium, and
magnesium are commonly present in the digestate of anaerobic reactors. They may be produced
by the degradation of organic matter in the feeding substrate or by chemicals addition for pH
adjustment. Moderate concentrations of these ions are needed to stimulate microbial growth,
however excessive amounts will slow down growth, and even higher concentrations can cause
severe inhibition or toxicity (20).
Several strategies to minimize the effect of inhibitory substances can be summarized as follows.
a) Removal of potential inhibitory/toxic substances from the feeding substrate.
b) Dilution of the feeding substrate in order to reduce the concentration of inhibitory substances
below the threshold.
c) Addition of chemicals to precipitate or insolubilize the inhibitory substances.
d) Change of the chemical form of inhibitory substances through pH control.
e) Addition of material that is antagonistic to the inhibitory substances in order to counteract the
inhibitory effect (20).

1.7.4 Sludge Removal

Some solids do not digest and accumulate at the bottom, so the design of the digester
should allow for their removal. A sludge pump may be used in larger installations. Access for
removal of sludge in smaller installations may be gained by way of a trap door in the lid, which
must be gas tight when not in use.
1.7.5 Seeding
Seeding generally is recommended as a start-up practice. Seeding consists of the addition
of actively digesting material to a new digester to ensure that a culture of methane producing
bacteria is present for start-up. It is often necessary to introduce enriched seeding bacteria into
the digester for starting up the anaerobic fermentation process. Generally digested sludge from a
running biogas plant or a municipal digester, material from well-rotted manure pit, or cow dung
slurry is used as seed. If during the operation volatile fatty acids are accumulated due to
overloading, this can be corrected by reseeding and temporarily suspending the feeding of
digester or by adding lime in requisite quantities. Addition of inoculum tends to improve both the
gas yield and methane content in biogas. It is possible to increase gas yield and reduce retention
period by addition of inoculums (13).
1.7.6 Particle size

Though particle size is not that much important parameter as temperature or pH of the
digester contents, it still has some influence on gas production. The size of the feedstock should
not be too large otherwise it would result in the clogging of the digester and also it would be
difficult for microbes to carry out its digestion. Smaller particles on the other hand would
provide large surface area for adsorbing the substrate that would result in increased microbial
activity and hence increased gas production (13).
1.8 Anaerobic Digesters

The goals of anaerobic digesters are to biologically destroy a significant portion of the
volatile solids in sludge and to minimize the decay of sludge. The main products of anaerobic
digesters are biogas and innocuous digested sludge solids. The fact that anaerobic digestion has
been used in practical situations for over 100 years demonstrates that it is a viable technology.
Problems can arise however, when there are external constraints such as limited capital and low
operational skills. The following is a summary of the main types of digester in common use.

1.8.1 Fixed Dome

A fixed dome plant consists of a digester with a fixed, non movable gas holder, which sits
on top of the digester. When gas production starts, the slurry is displaced into the compensation
digester. Gas pressure increases with the volume of gas stored and the height difference between
the slurry level in the digester and the slurry level in the compensation digester. The costs of a
fixed dome biogas plant are relatively low. It is simple as no moving parts exist. There are also
no rusting steel parts and hence a long life of the plant can be expected.
The plant is constructed underground protecting it from physical damage and saving space.
While the underground digester is protected from low temperatures at night and during cold
seasons, sunshine and warm seasons take longer to heat up the digester. No day/night
fluctuations of temperature in the digester positively influence the bacteriological processes. The
construction of fixed dome plants is labor intensive, thus creating local employment. Fixed dome
plants are not easy to build. They should only be built where construction can be supervised by
experienced biogas technicians.
Fig 1.3: Fixed Dome Digester.
1.8.2 Floating Dome

In the past, floating-drum plants were mainly built in India and are therefore referred to as
Indian drum biogas digesters or Indian floating cover biogas digesters. Floating-drum plants are
used chiefly for digesting animal and human feces on a continuous-feed mode of operation, i.e.
with daily input. They are used most frequently by small- to middle-sized farms (digester size: 5-
15 m3) or in institutions and larger agro-industrial estates (digester size: 20-100 m3). A floating-

drum plant consists of a cylindrical or dome-shaped digester and a moving, floating gas-holder,
or drum. The gas-holder floats either directly in the fermenting slurry or in a separate water
jacket. The drum in which the biogas collects has an internal and/or external guide frame that
provides stability and keeps the drum upright. If biogas is produced, the drum moves up, if gas is
consumed, the gas-holder sinks back.
Fig 1.4: Floating Dome Digester.
1.8.3 Plug Flow Digester

A plug flow digester vessel is a long narrow (typically a 5:1 ratio; 5 times as long as the
width) insulated and heated digester made of reinforced concrete, steel or fiber glass with a gas
tight cover to capture the biogas. These digesters can operate at a mesophilic or thermophilic
temperature. The plug flow digester has no internal agitation and is loaded with thick manure of
11–14 percent total solids. This type of digester works well with a scrape manure management
system with little bedding and no sand. Retention time is usually 15 to 20 days.
In theory, manure in a plug flow digester does not mix longitudinally on its trip through
the digester but can be imagined to flow as a plug, advancing towards the outlet whenever new

manure is added. When the manure reaches the outlet it discharges over an outlet weir arranged
to maintain a gas tight atmosphere but still allow the effluent to flow out. In actuality the manure
does not remain as a plug and portions of the manure flow through the digester faster than others
and some settles or floats and remains in the digester. Biogas produced by the digester is used to
heat the digester to the desired temperature. Excess biogas can be used to run an engine
generator.
Fig 1.5: Plug Flow Digester.
1.9 Mixing
In Industrial process engineering, mixing is a unit operation that involves manipulation of
a heterogeneous physical system with the intent to make it more homogeneous. Mixing is
performed to allow uniform heat and mass transfer to occur between one or more steams,
components or phases. Modern industrial processing almost always involves some form of
mixing (21).
The content of anaerobic digesters is mixed to ensure efficient transfer of organic
material and nutrients to the active microbial biomass. An even distribution of temperature and
buffering alkalinity, to release gas bubbles trapped in the reactor fluid and to prevent
sedimentation of particulate material. The mixing systems are however often expensive to install,
maintain and run. Generally energy inputs range from 10 to 100 Wh m-3. Energy input is
determined by the frequency of stirring, the type of reactor, the type of mixing system used, and
the total solids of the feedstock. Poor mixing and solid accumulation due to dead zones have
been observed in many cylindrical digesters. The effect of mixing on the degree of degradation
and the evaluation is complicated by difference in waste characteristics, organic loadings, mixing
system, reactor volumes etc. The formation of microbial aggregates has been shown to be of
great importance in AD. It has been postulated that propionate oxidizing bacteria and

methanogenic Achaea lives in close proximity in aggregates with hydrogen gas and formate as
electron carrier. For the reaction to be thermodynamically feasible, concentrations of the electron
carriers need to be low and therefore the high rate of propionate conversion observed can only be
explained by the short diffusion distance possible in obligate syntrophic aggregates. Excessive
mixing can disrupt the microbial aggregates, reducing the rate of oxidation of fatty acids and thus
lead to digester instability (23).
Fig 1.6: Mixer.
1.9.1 Type of Mixing

a) Liquid-Liquid Mixing
Mixing of liquids is an operation which occurs frequently in process engineering. The
nature of the liquid to be blended determines the equipment used for mixing. For single-phase
blending tends to involve low-shear, high-flow mixers to cause liquid engulfment, while multi-
phase mixing generally requires the use of high-shear, low-flow mixers to create droplets of one
liquid in laminar, turbulent or transitional flow regimes, depending on the Reynolds number of
the flow. Turbulent or transitional mixing is frequently conducted with turbines or impellers;
laminar mixing is conducted with helical ribbon or anchor mixers (22).
b) Liquid-Gas Mixing
Liquids and gases are typically mixed to allow mass transfer to occur. For instance, in the
case of air stripping, gas is used to remove volatiles from a liquid. Typically, a packed column is
used for this purpose, with the packing acting as a motionless mixer and the air pump providing
the driving force (22).

c) Solid-Liquid Mixing
Liquid–solid mixing is typically done to suspend coarse free-flowing solids, or to break
up lumps of fine agglomerated solids. An example of the former is the mixing granulated sugar
into water; an example of the latter is the mixing of flour or powdered milk into water (22).
d) Solid-Solid Mixing
Blending powders is one of the oldest unit-operations in the solids handling industries.
For many decades powder blending has been used just to homogenize bulk materials. Many
different machines have been designed to handle materials with various bulk solids properties
(22).
e) Gas-Gas Mixing
Gas blending is the process of mixing gases for a specific purpose where the composition
of the resulting mixture is specified and controlled. A wide range of applications include
scientific and industrial processes, food production and storage and breathing gases (22).
f) Gas-Solid Mixing
Gas–solid mixing may be conducted to transport powders or small particulate solids from
one place to another, or to mix gaseous reactants with solid catalyst particles. In either case, the
turbulent eddies of the gas must provide enough force to suspend the solid particles, which will
otherwise sink under the force of gravity (22).
Fig 1.7: Axial and Radial Mixing.

1.9.2 Type of Agitators

a) Paddle Agitators
This is one of the most primary types of agitators with blades that reach up to the digester
walls. Paddle agitators are used where a uniform laminar flow of liquids is desired.
b) Anchor Agitators
This simple agitator consists of a shaft and an anchor type propeller and can be mounted
centrally or at an angle. It is mainly used in reactors.
c) Radial Propeller Agitators
Radial agitators consist of propellers that are similar to marine propellers. They consist of
two to four blades that move in a screw like motion, propelling the material to be agitated
parallel to the shaft.
d) Propeller Agitators
A propeller agitator is shaped with blades tapering towards the shaft to minimize
centrifugal force and produce maximum axial flow. Propeller agitators are popular for simple
mixing jobs.
e) Turbine Agitators
Yet another type of process agitator is the turbine agitator. Turbine agitators can create a
turbulent movement of the fluids due to the combination of centrifugal and rotational motion.
f) Helical Agitators
These agitators have blades with a twisted mechanism, just like the threads of a screw.
The curves result in a vigorous motion of the fluids to be agitated. Helical agitators are most
useful for mixing viscous liquids.

Fig.1.8: Types of Agitators & Propellers.
1.9.3 Process technology and mixing techniques

Mixing in the digester content is carried out in a number of ways, continuous or
intermittent at different intensity. The type of mixing is partly governed by the reactor designs
chosen and this choice is in turn based on the type of substrate mix to be digested, the desired
loading rate and other parameter etc. Plug-flow digesters are often horizontal containers fed with
substrates with at a high solid content. The flow through the system is given by the feeding rate,
while no mixing is applied. In a CSTR the hydraulic retention time (HRT) is equal to the solids
retention time (SRT) and a HRT of at least 10 days is needed to keep an active methanogenic
population within the reactor. This reactor type is suitable for materials with high TS and
VS/suspended solids content and stirring is often performed by the use of impellers placed on a
central axis and often on several different levels in the digester. Also high pressure liquid or gas
mixing by the use of nozzles is applied. It is easier to obtain a proper mixing in egg-shaped
digesters, but they are more expensive to build. With gas and liquid mixing it is easier to avoid
dead zones. The main drawback is higher energy consumption, but it can be reduce.

An anaerobic filter is a process system for treating wastewater, where the active biomass
is fixed on a supporting matrix medium. An upward flow, where the wastewater comes in
contact with the fixed biofilm, is applied for mixing/contact of the organics with the active
biomass resulting in a high ratio between sludge- and hydraulic retention time. The upward flow
of the formed gas contributes to the mixing of the system. Limitations of anaerobic filters are
mainly due to destruction of the bed structure through an accumulation of non-biodegradable
solids, which leads to clogging and channeling. Therefore treatment of wastewater with high
solids content should be avoided. An interrupted flow can result in problems with the fluidization
once the system is restarted as the particles or granulated bed tends to clog together. Apart from
the mechanical/technical differences and difficulties linked to mixing, the shear thinning flow
behavior of many substrates and the high dry matter content contribute to the complexity to
reach proper mixing for a specific AD-system (23).
1.9.4 Effects of mixing on the biogas process

A certain degree of mixing is necessary to obtain a good contact between the substrate
and the microorganisms, but excessive mixing can reduce biogas production by disturbing
aggregation and granulation of the microorganisms. The minimal mixing improved methane
production by 13% compared to continuous mixing during AD of cattle manure in lab-scale
experiments. The effect of organic load and mixing intensities during the manure digestion in
batch experiments showed that minimally mixing (thoroughly shaken by hand for about 1 minute
every time a sample was taken) resulted in higher methane production. On the other side,
vigorous (110 times per minute with a 3.5 cm stroke) mixing resulted in low methane
production.
Many of the research paper reported that low speed mixing allowed digesters to better
absorb the disturbances of shock loadings compared to reactors with high speed mixing due to
sensitivity in the microorganism behaviors. Thus, reduction of mixing speed may be a tool for
process stabilization. In comparing continuously vs. intermittently mixed high loaded processes
stable conditions are more often obtained with the intermittent systems.
An extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) are complex high-molecular-weight mixtures
of polymers and includes proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids (DNA) and humic
substances, which are responsible for the formation of microbial aggregates. Measurement of
EPS can be indicative of the degree of microbial aggregation and be linked to the mixing

conditions of an AD-digester. This has been shown in AD of cattle manure, where an increased
mixing decreased the amount of EPS and, thus, likely also disturbed the microbial aggregates. It
suggests that minimal mixing results in larger aggregates as greater quantities of EPS were
required to maintain their structure. The large aggregates might lead to an increase in biomass
retention, which in turn could explain the increased gas production (23).
1.10 Project Objectives

The objectives of this project are:-
a) To study the effect of mixing in biogas production using food waste.
b) To study effect of speed of agitator.
c) Study of an Intermixing Effect in Biogas Digester.
d) To study the effect of pH and Temperature on biogas production.

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Food waste
Food waste is a growing issue, and the disposal of it is controversial, causing increased
food prices and the resources required food waste makes up an estimated 8.4% by weight of
municipal solid waste. The food waste includes uneaten food and food preparation leftovers from
residences, commercial establishments such as restaurants, institutional industrial sources like
school cafeteria, factory lunchrooms, etc (47).
Food waste is a widely diverse feedstock for biogas production. The amount of biogas
that can be generated from food waste is dependent on composition and moisture content. Food
waste with low moisture content will generate more biogas than food waste with high moisture
content. Fats and proteins also generate more biogas than carbohydrate (7).
While anaerobic digestion is possible on whole food waste, physical pre treatment helps
to reduce the particle size of the material. This allows the microbes to have better access to the
food and results in a faster overall process. An ideal pre treatment method would be to run the
food waste through an in-sink food disposal, which is already on-site at many restaurants, dining
halls, and grocery stores. The time required for digestion is dependent on both the composition
of the food waste and the configuration and operating conditions of the anaerobic digester (7).
2.2 Waste disposal problem

2.2.1 Waste collection
Overall MSW collection includes both formal and informal waste collection and indeed
there are twice as many people in the informal sector as those in the formal sector (World Bank,
2005). Unfortunately, these informal waste collection systems make it more difficult to regulate
and implement an efficient and standardized waste treatment system. Additionally, to seek for
solid waste may have a negative impact on the health and hygiene of these scavengers and waste
collectors (48).
2.2.2 Waste separation and recycling
Waste segregation before collection will reduce the amount of solid waste generation and
facilitate recycling of materials, as well as reduce the overall cost of waste disposal. To a certain
extent, the convenience of discarding waste is also responsible for the low rate of solid waste

separation. In terms of waste recycling, industrialized countries such as Germany, Sweden, Japan
and the United States have already achieved remarkable results in comprehensive utilization of
resources as well as solid waste management. First, recycling effort is labour-intensive, as most
recyclables are recovered through the disposal process by scavenging. Secondly, the waste, after
removing items with commercial value, may be of low caloric value, making it unattractive for
incineration. Moreover, residents in developed countries usually sort their recyclables
themselves, and send them to certain sites in their communities and pay the stipulated fee for
handling/disposal (48).
2.2.3 Sanitary landfill
According to North America and European standards (Word Bank, 2005) Landfills
should not meet best practices from either the design or management, and only rarely manage the
MSW. Considering, internationally standards only newly developed landfills are operating at
anywhere. In landfills Biogas, which is primarily composed of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide
(CO2), and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is generated by the biological degradation of organic matter,
and is a serious concern. It has been estimated that CH4 has 20 times greater global warming
potential than CO2 (48).
2.2.4 Incineration
In comparison with developed countries, the net caloric value of MSW in China is too
low for waste heat utilization. Because of the high concentration of foods waste and the moisture
content in the substrate it poorly suited to incineration. However, for incineration the minimal
heating value must on average be at least 7 MJ/kg. Heating value of MSW must never fall below
6 MJ/kg because the low heating value of MSW will affect the economics of incineration
especially for power generation. Reversely, the fly ash streams, particularly the residues from air
pollution control systems, are considered to be a hazardous waste in most counties and require
special handling and disposal. According to the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA),
fly ash should be pretreated before going to a suitable landfill (48).

2.3 Studies on Biogas Technology

In literature most of the works have been carried out for process intensification by
considering different process parameters. Different substrates have been used to check the
potential for biogas production. A number of technologies are presently emerging and
establishing themselves economically and environmentally as viable alternatives to the current
practice. The technologies may be broken down into the three main categories of biological
digestion, non-biological volume/weight reduction, and thermal processing. Here is a brief
summary of work related to biogas technology (48).
K. B. Cantrell et al (2008) reported waste-to-bioenergy generation opportunities from
livestock waste. The use of biological and thermo chemical conversion (TCC) technologies in
livestock waste-to-bioenergy treatments can provide livestock operators with multiple value-
added, renewable energy products. The primary objective of their work was to present
established and emerging energy conversion opportunities that can transform the treatment of
livestock waste from a liability to a profit centre (24).
H. Atashi et al (2010) reported on effect of operational and design parameters on
removal efficiency of a pilot-scale UASB reactor in a sugar factory. The best conditions reported
to removal the pollution loading was pH=7 and temperature range of 35 to 38°C. The optimum
retention time was 5 and 6 hours for medium COD of 800-1800 mg/l and 1800-2600 mg/l and
hydraulic rate was 0.67-0.875 m/s. The best efficiency for COD and TSS removal was obtained
about 90% and 72% (25).
R.T. Romano et al (2010) reported on anaerobic digestion of food wastes for biogas
production. Five types of food wastes were investigated as feedstock for a potential centralized
anaerobic digester system in the area of Sacramento, California to produce biogas energy.
Digestibility of the food waste, individually and in mixtures, was conducted at mesophilic (35℃)
and thermophilic (50℃) temperatures and at two foods to microorganism’s ratios (F/M) of 0.5
and 1.0, for 28 days. Alkalinity of about 2,500 mg CaCO3/L and pH above 7 was maintained by
adding 0.2 g NaOH/g VS. The results of their study indicated that it was necessary to use the
chemicals, such as NaOH, to control the pH of the single-stage anaerobic digester treating the
food waste (26).
D. Brown et al (2013) reported solid state anaerobic co-digestion of yard waste and food
waste for biogas production. Food and yard wastes are available year round at low cost and have

the potential to complement each other for SS-AD. The goal of their study was to determine
optimal feedstock/effluent (F/E) and food waste/yard waste mixing ratios for optimal biogas
production. Results showed that increased methane yields and volumetric productivities as the
percentage of food waste was increased to 10% and 20% of the substrate at F/E ratios of 2 and 1,
respectively (27).
R. Zhang et al (2010) reported biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and
food waste. The effect of manure-screening on the biogas yield of dairy manure was evaluated in
batch digesters under mesophilic conditions (35°C). The methane yields of fine and coarse
fractions of screened manure and unscreened manure after 30 days were 302, 228, and 241 L/kg
VS, respectively. The methane yield of the food waste was 353 L/kg VS after 30 days of
digestion. The predicted results from the model showed that adding the food waste into a manure
digester at levels up to 60% of the initial volatile solids significantly increased the methane yield
for 20 days of digestion (28).
S.V. Dhanalakshmi et al (2012) reported on biogas generation from vegetable waste in
anaerobic digester: an analytical approach, mixture of vegetable wastes was anaerobically
digested in a 500 ml capacity lab scale batch reactors. Carrot, beans and brinjal having pH 5.4,
5.8 and 5.7 and moisture content 89.8%, 90.29% and 89.4% respectively were chosen. Studies
were carried out by preparing the feed consisting of carrot, beans and brinjal in different
proportions to obtain organic load ranging from 0.06 gm VS to 0.47 gm VS. The application of
factorial (empirical) analysis using predictive models showed polynomial function seemed to be
more reliable in predicting gas production in anaerobic digestion of vegetable wastes (29).
X. Liu et al (2012) reported on pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion of municipal biomass
waste: For biogas production and GHG reduction. Food waste, fruit vegetable waste, and
dewatered sewage sludge were co-digested in a continuous stirred-digester reactor for biogas
production. Stable operation was achieved with a high biogas production rate of 4.25 m3/(m3 d)
at organic loading rate of 6.0 kg VS/(m3d) and hydraulic retention time of 20 day. They reported
that was anaerobic co-digestion is a promising alternative solution for MBW because it
contributes significantly to the sound management of municipal solid waste (30).
K. Ghani et al (2009) reported biogas production from municipal solid waste (MSW)
leachate. Laboratory scale digesters were operated for three sets of experiment was performed
using municipal solid waste leachate slurry with two different chemical oxygen demand

strengths namely 3000 and 21000 mg/L (referred as low and high strength, respectively). The
experiments were conducted at a controlled temperature of 35°C and pH ranging from 6.8 to 7.3
over 20 days period.
Results showed that the high and low strength samples performed quite similarly but with
different biogas production rate observed. From their study, they concluded that this method not
only contributed to renewable biogas production but also improved the effluent quality (31).
Overview of biogas technology is shown below:

Table 2.1: Overview on biogas technology.
Sr. No. System Concluding Remark References
1 Livestock waste The biological and thermo chemical K. B. Cantrell et al
conversion of livestock waste has (2008)
emerging energy conversion potential.
2 Wastewater from Usage of extra urea fertilizer caused an H. Atashi et al
sugar factory increase of pH about 7 then an (2010)
increase in the rate of granulation.
3 Food waste The continuously fed digester requires R.T. Romano et al
the additional chemical to maintain pH (2010)
at proper levels in the digester.
4 Yard waste and food Co-digestion of food waste with yard D. Brown et al
waste waste increased both methane yield (2013)
and volumetric productivity
considerably over only yard waste.
5 Dairy manure and Food waste addition to dairy manure R. Zhang et al
food waste digester significantly increased the (2010)
biogas yield.
6 Vegetable waste AD process had been sustainable S.V. Dhanalakshmi
technology for digesting the vegetable et al (2012)
wastes, produced in large amounts
during harvesting, handling,
transportation, storage, marketing and
processing.
7 Municipal biomass Anaerobic co-digestion is a promising X. Liu et al (2012)
waste alternative solution for (MSW)
because it contributes significantly to
the sound management of municipal
solid waste.
8 Municipal solid The high and low strength samples K. Ghani et al (2009)
waste leachate performed quite similarly but with
different biogas production rate.

2.4 Studies on mixing effect on Biogas production

In literature many researchers have worked on mixing in biogas production. Study of
mixing, type of mixing, type of propellers and agitator, speed of revolution, and mixing time
have been applied for mixing- continuous, batch, pilot, and industrial scale complex biochemical
systems. Mixing is applied to increase in biogas production. Here is a brief summary of work
related to mixing in biogas production.
Johan Lindmark et al (2014) reported on mixing inside an anaerobic digester is often
continuous and is not actively controlled. They studied evaluation of these effects and compare
three different mixing regimes, 150 RPM and 25 RPM continuous mixing and minimally
intermittent mixing. The results showed that a lower mixing intensity leads to a higher biogas
production rate and higher total biogas production in both cases. A lower mixing intensity of 25
RPM resulted in a higher biogas production rate and higher total biogas production during both
shock loads and minimal loading whereas decreased biogas production rate at the 150 RPM
mixing intensity was reported (32).
Carlos Rico et al (2011) reported the effect of mixing on biogas production of a1.5-m3
pilot continuous stirred digester reactor (CSTR) processing screened dairy manure. Mixing was
carried out by recirculation of reactor content with a mono pump. The experiment was conducted
at a controlled temperature of 37oC and hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of 20 and 10 days. The
effect of continuous and intermittent operation of the recirculation pump on biogas production
was studied. The data obtained showed that at a long HRT, the degree of mixing by recirculation
did not affect the operation of the reactor. Mixing more than required has got no sense because
reactor performance does not improve and the energy used to mix reactor content would be
wasted (33).
Christian Rojas et al (2010) conducted lab-scale experiments in a batch mode to
determine the biogas yield from lipid-rich waste and corn silage under the effect of stirring.
Semi-continuous experiments were carried out for the lipid-rich waste with/without stirring. The
results showed a significant stirring effect on the anaerobic digestion only when seed sludge
from a biogas plant was used as a starter.The absence of stirring had a similar effect on the
biogas production in batch reactor and continuous reactor, when the starter comes from digested

material of a biogas plant. Here, the properties of the substrate should also be taken into
consideration for mixing purpose (34).
Peter G. Stoot et al (2001) reported the feasibility of co-digestion of the organic fraction
of municipal solid waste, primary sludge, and waste activated sludge at mesophilic (37.8oC),
laboratory-scale digesters. In a first experiment, different startup strategies were compared using
four digesters, operated under continuously mixed conditions. Results demonstrated that
reducing the level of mixing improved digester performance. In addition, reduction of mixing
levels used as an operational tool to stabilize unstable digesters. High gas production rates (5.5 1
biogas/l active volume/day) and specific gas productions (0.49 1 biogas/g VS added/day) were
observed for these operational conditions. Continuous, vigorous mixing was found to be
inhibitory for reactors operated at a high organic loading rate (35).
K. C. Lin et al (1991) reported four laboratory-scale reactors were used to study the
effects of mixing intensity and mixing duration on the anaerobic treatment of potato-processing
wastewater at 20°C. The mixing intensities were set at impeller speeds of 20, 50, and 100 RPM.
Two mixing durations were studied: 45 and 15 min/hr. The levels of mixing intensity and mixing
duration used and their joint effect significantly affected reactor performance with respect to
organics and solids removals. The observed results suggest that when mixing duration was
reduced for the same cycle time, mixing intensity must be increased to achieve optimal removals
of organics and solids. Methane production rate (L/(m L day)) and methane yield (m3/kg COD
removed) were enhanced by mixing; however, both decreased when mixing duration was
reduced from 45 to 15 min/h (36).
Alawi Sulaiman et al (2009) reported that performance of a semi-commercial closed
digester treating palm oil mill effluent (POME) was studied at four different mixing regimes i.e.
natural mixing (NM), minimal horizontal mixing (MHM), minimal horizontal and vertical
mixing (MHVM) and vigorous mixing (VM). The chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal
efficiency recorded satisfactory result at higher than 90% when subjected to the first three
mixing regimes but reduced to the lowest of 85% when VM was applied. The MHM gave the
highest methane productivity at 1.4 m3 m-3 d-1 in comparison to NM at 1.0 m3 m-3 d-1 and
MHVM (minimal horizontal and vertical mixing) at 1.1 m3m-3d-1. This showed that minimal
mixing was sufficient to provide good contact between the substrate and microorganisms and to
release the entrapped biogas at the bottom of the digester (37).

Moonil Kimet et al (2002) reported the comparative process stability and efficiency of
mesophilic (35oC) and thermophilic anaerobic digestion (55oC) of four different reactor
configurations, which are: daily batch-fed single-stage continuously stirred digester reactor
(CSTR), continuously fed single-stage CSTR, daily batch-fed two-phase CSTR, and daily batch-
fed nonmixed single-stage reactor. When all reactors had the same conditions with OLR
increase, the continuously fed reactors showed the lowest gas production, while the non-mixed
reactors showed the highest gas production at both temperatures. During the start-up period,
stable pH, lower VFA concentrations, higher gas production, and stable VS removal of non-
mixed reactors at both temperatures clearly showed efficient performance between acid
producers and consumers (38).
Khursheed Karim et al (2005) reported the effect of biogas recycling rates and draft
tube height on six laboratory scale biogas mixed anaerobic digesters performance. The digesters
produced methane at 0.40–0.45 L per liter of digester volume per day. A higher methane
production rate was observed in unmixed digesters, while increased biogas circulation rate
reduced methane production.There was no difference in the performance of all six digesters with
different mixing conditions. However, it would be interesting to see if the mixing patterns inside
the digesters changed with the applied physical changes in the mixing conditions or not (39).
Prasad Kaparaju et al (2008) reported on the effect of mixing on anaerobic digestion of
manure at lab-scale and pilot-scale experiments at 55oC. The effect of continuous, minimal
(mixing for 10 min prior to feeding) and intermittent mixing (withholding mixing for 2 h prior to
feeding) on methane production was performed in three lab-scale continuously stirred digester
reactors. The study shows that mixing schemes and intensities have some effect on anaerobic
digestion of manures. Results from both lab-scale and pilot-scale experiments showed that
mixing strategies had some influence on process performance and methane production in CSTR
reactors treating cow manure. Hence concluded, vigorous mixing would result in delayed and
low methane production, especially under high initial substrate to inoculums ratio (40).
Sophia Ghanimeh et al (2012) reported the effect of mixing on the performance of
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste
during the start-up phase and in the absence of an acclimated seed. For this purpose, two
digesters were used under similar starting conditions and operated for 235 days with different
mixing schemes. As a result, the startup with slow mixing was faster and smoother

accomplishing a higher loading capacity of 2.5g VS/l/d in comparison to 1.9g VS/l/d for non-
mixing. Mixing equally improved microbial abundance from 6.6 to 10 g VSS/l and enhanced
solids and soluble COD removal. As such, slow mixing (100 RPM) enhanced the startup process,
the digester’s capacity and the system’s stability and treatment efficiency (41).
Rebecca A Hoffmann et al (2007) reported the effect of different mixing intensities on
the performance, methanogenic population dynamics, and syntrophic microbes in anaerobic
digesters treating cow manure from a dairy farm. Four continuously stirred digesters for
anaerobic digestion were operated at different mixing intensities of 1, 500, 500, 250, and 50
revolutions per min (RPM) over a 260 day period at a temperature of 34oC. The different mixing
intensities had no effect on the biogas production rates and yields at steady-state conditions. For
all four digesters, epifluorescence microscopy revealed decreasing microbial floc sizes beginning
at week 4 and continuing through week 26 after which no microbial flocs remained. Different
mixing intensities had no effect on continuously stirred digester performance at steady-state
conditions (42).
Rebecca Hoffmann et al (2005) reported the effect of mode of mixing (biogas
recirculation, impeller mixing, and slurry recirculation) and waste strength on the performance of
laboratory scale digesters. The experiments were conducted in eight laboratory scale digesters,
each having a working volume of 3.73 L, at a controlled temperature of 35 ± 2oC. Results
showed that the unmixed and mixed digesters performed quite similarly when fed with 5%
manure slurry and produced biogas at a rate of 0.84–0.94 L/Ld with a methane yield of 0.26–
0.31 L CH4/g volatile solids (VS) loaded. However, the effect of mixing and the mode of mixing
became prominent in the case of the digesters fed with thicker manure slurry (10%). Therefore,
mixing issue becomes more critical with thicker manure slurry. Mixing did not improve the
performance of the digesters fed with more dilute (5%) manure, as both unmixed and mixed
digesters (energy input of 8 W per m3 volume) performed the same under the studied conditions.
However, mixing seems help segregate volatile solids from inert solids, which would help to
keep light weight biodegradable deposits at the top of the heavier inert deposits, furthering
biodegradation. Based on the findings of this study, it can be concluded that mixing becomes
more critical with thicker manure slurries (43).
K. Thomas Klasson et al (2005) reported the effect of mixing (via biogas recirculation,
impeller mixing, and slurry recirculation) on biogas production for laboratory-scale digesters.

The experiments were conducted at a controlled temperature of 35oC and a hydraulic retention
time of 16.2 days. Results showed that the unmixed and mixed digesters performed quite
similarly when fed with 5% manure slurry and produced biogas at a rate of 0.84–0.94 L/L d. The
methane yield was found to be 0.26–0.28 LCH4/g volatile solids loaded. We found no effect of
mixing on digesters performance when fed with 5% manure slurry. However, the effect of
mixing and the mode of mixing became prominent when digesters were fed with thicker manure
slurry (10% and 15%) (44).
Roman L. Hruska et al (1982) reported on the effects of mixing duration and vacuum
on methane production rates from anaerobically fermented beef cattle wastes. The results
showed that continuously mixed fermentors produced significantly (P < 0.05) higher methane
production rates than fermentors mixed two hours per day. The CH4, production rate of the
vacuum fermentors was 5% higher than the conventional fermentors at four days HRT. The
results of these experiments compared well with predicted CH4, production rates. They reported
that there was little potential for increasing the fermentation rates of livestock wastes by
increased mixing or vacuum (45).

Overview of biogas technology is shown below:

Table 22: Overview mixing in biochemical processes.
Reference Capacity Temperature(0 Mixing Detail of mixing Feeding HRT( Biogas

C) mode mode days) producti
on(L/L
day)
Johan 1 L (0.7 Batch 33 Continuous 150RPM shaker - - 0.52
Lindmar L active Continuous 25RPM shaker less
k et al volume) 33 intermittent than 1 min/day - - 0.56
(2014)
Carlos 1500 L Pilot scale 37 Continuous 1000 L/h pump 30min 20 0.71
Rico et al Intermittent 30min 5times/da 20 0.70
(2011) Intermittent 10 times/day y 20 0.71
2.5 h/day
Christian 0.5 L(0.4 Batch 37 Continuous 60 RPM magnetic - - -
Rojas et active) stirrer
al (2010)
PETER 1L Lab scale 37 Continuous 135 RPM /2 min - 19.8 1.59
G.
STROOT
et al
(2001)
K. C. 7 L Lab scale 20 Unmixed Impeller mixing - 7 -
LIN et al intermittent 45min/h 20RPM
(1991)
Alawi 500000 Full scale 36 Natural Every 6 h 10 2.1
Sulaiman L Intermittent 30min every 6h 10 2.5
et al Intermittent 30min every 6h 10 2.1
(2009)
Moonil 1.1 Lab scale 55 Batch feed Magnetic stirrer - 20 0.70

Kimet al L(0.8L CSTR

(2002) active) Continuous Magnetic stirrer - 20 0.83
ly
Fed CSTR
Khurshee 3.73 L Lab scale Unmixed 1 L/min Alternate 16.2 0.84
d Karim 35 Biogas days
et al mixed 275 RPM 16.2 0.94
(2005) Impeller
mixed
Prasad 3.6 L Lab scale Continuous Stirrer 12 h 15 0.67
Kaparaju 55 Intermittent 10 min interval 15 0.75
et al Intermittent No mixing 15 0.68
(2008)
Sophia 14 L(9L Lab scale Continuous 100RPM - 240 -.
Ghanime active 55 Intermittent - 240 -.
h et al volume)
(2012)
Rebecca 4.5 L Lab scale Continuous 1500 Every 24 83 -
A 34 Continuous 500 h 83 -
Hoffman Continuous 250 83 -
n et al Continuous 50 83 -
(2007)
Rebecca 3.73 L Lab scale Biogas 1 L/min Alternativ 16.2 0.84
Hoffman 35 mixed 1 L/min e days 16.2 0.94
n et al Biogas 275 RPM 16.2 0.88
(2005) mixed
Impeller
mixed
K. 3.73 L Lab scale Continuous 1 L/min 16.2 0.68

Thomas 35 Continuous 1 L/min 16.2 0.67

Klasson Continuous 2 L/min 16.2 0.69

et al
(2005)
Roman 4 L(3 L Lab scale Continuous 220 RPM - 6 -
L. active 55 Intermittent 220 RPM 1h/d - 6 -
Hruska et volume) Intermittent 220 RPM 2h/d - 6 -
al (1982)

Chapter 3
EXPERIMENTAL RUN
The present project work has performed on pilot scale digester with single stage,
mesophilic conditions, to study the effect of mixing in biogas production. Propellers agitator
were used for present work. Propellers were made of plastic to reduce shear created by mixing. A
minimum daily monitoring and management is necessary to operate the plant. Which includes,
feed preparation and feeding the digester, taking a reading of manometer (water displacement),
making sure there are no contamination in feed stream. Daily monitoring of amount of gas
generated was calculated.
3.1 Substrate
Soybean seeds were used as a substrate for this experimental run. It was made available
from the Marketyard, Pune. Then soybean seeds were crushed in mill and made in powder form.
The typical composition of soybean flour is shown following in table 3.1.
Table no. 3.1: Composition of soybean flour is as follow (46).
Sr. No. Constituent Typical value (%)
1 Protein (N x 6.25) 50.5-53
2 Carbohydrates 34.2
3 Fibers 3.2-3.5
4 Ash 5.2-6.5
5 Fat 1.2-1.5
6 Protein dispersibility index 70-90
7 Color Light yellow
8 Flavor Specific
9 Odor Specific
10 Energy value 1.495 KJ/100gm
We used soybean flour for present work because it has a good amount of C/N ratio which one is
suitable C/N ratio for biogas production. Feed for digester was prepared by mixing 10 kg of
soybean flour was mixed with water to required amount (100 liters) and was added to digester
with Ammonium Chloride (NH4Cl) 148gm per digester. Same procedure was followed for
remaining two digesters. Ammonium Chloride (NH4Cl) used to adjust C/N ratio to 25 which was
reported optimum in literature.
Fig 3.1: soybean flour as a substrate.
3.2 Culture
The culture used for the project was a mixed culture consisting of Hydrolytic bacteria,
Acidogenic bacteria, Acitogenic bacteria and Methanogenic bacteria. The culture was brought
from digester working on food waste in Thyssenkrupp Industries, Pimpri-Chinchwad Pune.
3.3 Digester
Three digesters of volume 65cm3 (200 Lit) were made. Two digesters were fitted with a
propeller and the third was kept closed without any propeller. The outlet of the digester was
connected to a U-Tube Manometer where the difference in the pressure of the gas was observed
and noted at fixed interval of time. By using ideal gas law volume of biogas produced was
calculated. Similar arrangement was made for remaining digesters.

Fig 3.2: Digesters
3.4 Agitator
For digester 2 & 3 propeller type agitator was used and digester 1 was operated as
reference digester without agitator. Design of agitator was carried out by standard procedure.
The blade length 4x3 cm was made for mixing purpose and it was made from plastic. The
agitator blade is shown below.
Fig 3.3: Propellers type agitator was made.
3.5 Motor Arrangement

A gear motor was used to maintain speed of agitator. It was working on 12V with current
of 2 Amp using a DC power adapter. The speed controller connections were made to gear motor

to adjust the speed at different rpm. This motor was fixed on top of the shaft. By varying the
speed connections we could adjust the required rpm.
Fig 3.4: Motor connected with speed controller.
3.6 Experimental Runs

Run 1:
The 1st run was batch process in which the feed was once feed to the digester and left it
for 50 days. In this feed 10 kg of soybean flour was mixed with water to required amount (100
liters) and was added to the digester with Ammonium Chloride (NH4Cl) 148 gm per digester.
Similar procedure was followed for remaining two digesters. The agitation was necessary to
avoid any chunks and maintain the flow characteristic of slurry. The mixing time and speed are
as follow:
Table No. 3.2: Operating parameter mixing time and speed of shaft.
Digester Speed of shaft (rpm) Mixing time (min)
1 5 0
2 5 10 (once a day)
3 5 10-10 (twice in a day diff- 12hr)
Digester without any agitation was kept as it is and named as “Without agitation”. The other two
digesters had fixed with propeller and were named as “Propeller type agitation”. The speed of the
propeller was maintained at 5 RPM. The feed is then charge in to digester with the culture. The

run was carried out for a period of 50 days with C: N ratio of 25. Observations are shown in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Biogas Production by batch process at 5 RPM.
Days D1 (without mixing) D2 (once mixing) D3 (twice mixing)
1 0.001725 0.000848 0.000098
2 0.001539 0.000208 0.000147
3 0.00156 0.001338 0.000121
4 0.001948 0.000529 9.21E-05
5 0.001872 0.000329 0.000049
6 0.002389 0.001024 0.000693
7 0.002421 0.001382 0.001798
8 0.005762 0.000951 0.001735
9 0.004675 0.000804 0.00098
10 0.004469 0.000902 0.001882
11 0.004537 0.00098 0.001666
12 0.004214 0.001686 0.001823
13 0.002783 0.001999 0.000833
14 0.005811 0.002969 0.00097
15 0.003371 0.002166 0.001813
16 0.00343 0.00196 0.00196
17 0.002019 0.003812 0.002097
18 0.001695 0.001989 0.001911
19 0.001715 0.002342 0.000441
20 0.002156 0.002401 0.001715
21 0.002538 0.002509 0.002019
22 0.00196 0.002499 0.001029
23 0.001833 0.002362 0.00196
24 0.00195 0.002548 0.002754
25 0.001548 0.00246 0.001882
26 0.002019 0.002499 0.00246

27 0.001343 0.002107 0.000725

28 0.001558 0.002117 0.001744
29 0.002577 0.002313 0.00149
30 0.00196 0.001686 0.00196
31 0.001098 0.001382 0.002166
32 0.000833 0.001137 0.001303
33 0.000813 0.001245 0.001578
34 0.000843 0.00098 0.001323
35 0.000167 0.000676 0.000549
36 0.000617 0.001088 0.001176
37 0.000911 0.001009 0.000549
38 0.000098 0.000676 0.000098
39 0.00049 0.000921 0.000539
40 0.000529 0.00098 0.000892
41 0.000245 0.000725 0.000686
42 0.000333 0.000902 0.000882
43 0.00051 0.000872 0.00051
44 0.000392 0.001215 0.000529
45 0.002597 0.00639 0.000706
46 0.000098 0.000853 0.000392
47 0.000833 0.001225 0.000725
48 0.00099 0.001607 0.001264
49 0.000794 0.001196 0.000755
50 0.000539 0.001666 0.000784
Table 3.4: Cumulative Biogas Production at 5 RPM.

1 0.001725 0.000848 0.000098
2 0.003263 0.001055 0.000245

3 0.004824 0.002393 0.000366

4 0.006772 0.002922 0.000458
5 0.008644 0.003252 0.000507
6 0.011032 0.004276 0.0012
7 0.013453 0.005658 0.002999
8 0.019215 0.006608 0.004733
9 0.02389 0.007412 0.005713
10 0.028359 0.008313 0.007595
11 0.032896 0.009293 0.009261
12 0.03711 0.010979 0.011084
13 0.039893 0.012978 0.011917
14 0.045705 0.015948 0.012887
15 0.049076 0.018113 0.0147
16 0.052506 0.020073 0.01666
17 0.054525 0.023886 0.018757
18 0.05622 0.025875 0.020668
19 0.057935 0.028217 0.021109
20 0.060091 0.030618 0.022824
21 0.062629 0.033127 0.024843
22 0.064589 0.035626 0.025872
23 0.066422 0.037988 0.027832
24 0.068372 0.040536 0.030586
25 0.069921 0.042996 0.032467
26 0.071939 0.045495 0.034927
27 0.073282 0.047602 0.035652
28 0.07484 0.049718 0.037397
29 0.077418 0.052031 0.038886
30 0.079378 0.053717 0.040846
31 0.080475 0.055099 0.043012
32 0.081308 0.056235 0.044315

33 0.082122 0.05748 0.045893

34 0.082964 0.05846 0.047216
35 0.083131 0.059136 0.047765
36 0.083748 0.060224 0.048941
37 0.08466 0.061233 0.04949
38 0.084758 0.06191 0.049588
39 0.085248 0.062831 0.050127
40 0.085777 0.063811 0.051019
41 0.086022 0.064536 0.051705
42 0.086355 0.065438 0.052587
43 0.086865 0.06631 0.053096
44 0.087257 0.067525 0.053625
45 0.089854 0.073915 0.054331
46 0.089952 0.074767 0.054723
47 0.090785 0.075992 0.055448
48 0.091775 0.077599 0.056712
49 0.092568 0.078795 0.057467
50 0.093107 0.080461 0.058251
Run 2:
The 2nd run was semi-continuous process in which feed was given every day to the
digester for the 50 days. For digester feed 42.3 gm of soybean flour, mixed with water up to
required amount (1litres) and was added to all three digesters respectively. The ammonium
Chloride (NH4Cl) 0.6 gm was added to each digester as a salt. Similar procedure was followed
for remaining two digesters. The agitation was necessary to avoid any chunks and maintain the
flow characteristic of slurry. The mixing time and speed are as follow:
Table no. 3.5: Operating parameter mixing time and speed of shaft.
Digester Speed of shaft (RPM) Mixing time (min)
1 5 0
2 5 10 (once a day)

3 5 10-10 (twice in a day diff- 12hr)
Digester without any agitation was kept as it is and named as “Without agitation”. The other two
digesters had fixed with propeller and were named as “Propeller type agitation”. The speed of the
propeller was 5 RPM. The run was carried out for a period of 50 days with C: N ratio of 25.
Procedure:-
1. Firstly prepared slurry of soya flour (42.3 gm) with ammonium chloride (0.6 gm) adding
water of 1 lit, and then fed it to digester per day at fixed interval of time.
2. The slurry in the digester 2nd and 3rd was stirred in the morning at 10 am for uniform mixing
at 5 RPM. In both digesters stirring was done for 10 min.
3. After three and half hours a reading of manometer P1 and P2 (pressure in and out) was noted
and the amount of gas produced was calculated.
4. After taking reading then substrate and water was added, in all digesters. Biogas was
removed from digester before adding substrate.
5. When the feed was fed to the digester, same quantity of slurry removed from digester to
maintain the material balance and then the pH of that slurry was noted down.
6. Average room temperature was noted down.
7. After 12 hours 3rd digester was stirred at 5 RPM in the night at 10 pm for 10 min.
Observations of this run are shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Biogas Production by semi-continuous process at 5 rpm.
1 0.0004802 0.0008428 0.0004802
2 0.0005096 0.0009408 0.0007448
3 0.0007448 0.0011074 0.0006762
4 0.0004214 0.0009604 0.0004018
5 0.0010878 0.0013426 0.0008428
6 0.0014406 0.0020776 0.0012544
7 0.0013034 0.0024108 0.0014014
8 0.0015092 0.0023618 0.0016464
9 0.0018424 0.0024402 0.0016758

10 0.0024696 0.0028616 0.0019796

11 0.0021364 0.00245 0.0014406
12 0.0020874 0.00294 0.0014504
13 0.0020286 0.0027146 0.001519
14 0.0013524 0.0022148 0.0009408
15 0.001421 0.0018228 0.000931
16 0.0015582 0.0022442 0.0013426
17 0.001715 0.0023618 0.0014308
18 0.0009702 0.0014014 0.0005292
19 0.00196 0.0021952 0.0010094
20 0.0012838 0.0019404 0.0009212
21 0.0012642 0.0024402 0.0013916
22 0.0010584 0.0023814 0.0012348
23 0.0021168 0.0027146 0.0014406
24 0.0019306 0.0024402 0.0013524
25 0.0018424 0.0026656 0.0016072
26 0.0014602 0.0020384 0.0012544
27 0.0015288 0.0018424 0.0011858
28 0.0012642 0.0015386 0.0010976
29 0.0010682 0.0012936 0.0007154
30 0.0010682 0.0010584 0.0003822
31 0.0010682 0.0007448 0.0004116
32 0.0009408 0.0006468 0.0002352
34 0.0007056 0.0010388 0.0002646
35 0.000784 0.0010682 0.000245
36 0.0012838 0.0016758 0.0009604
37 0.001274 0.0016072 0.0010388
38 0.002205 0.0023422 0.0014112
39 0.0014994 0.00216286 0.0011858
40 0.0009898 0.0012642 0.0008036

41 0.001176 0.0017444 0.0009996

42 0.0015582 0.0021658 0.0011564
43 0.001813 0.0025578 0.0014896
44 0.0012838 0.0024598 0.001519
45 0.0022344 0.002646 0.0017052
46 0.002009 0.002597 0.0012446
47 0.0018032 0.002058 0.001127
48 0.0020188 0.0026068 0.0013034
49 0.0020874 0.0026362 0.0015974
50 0.0021364 0.00245 0.0015092
51 0.0020188 0.0025872 0.0015582
52 0.0013328 0.002058 0.001127
53 0.0013328 0.002058 0.0009506
54 0.0013622 0.0021364 0.001225
55 0.0017836 0.0023716 0.001323
56 0.0019992 0.0026264 0.0015582
Table 3.7: Cumulative Biogas Production at 5 RPM.

1 0.00048 0.000843 0.00048
2 0.00099 0.001784 0.001225
3 0.001735 0.002891 0.001901
4 0.002156 0.003851 0.002303
5 0.003244 0.005194 0.003146
6 0.004684 0.007272 0.0044
8 0.005988 0.009682 0.005802
9 0.007497 0.012044 0.007448
10 0.009339 0.014484 0.009124
11 0.011809 0.017346 0.011103
12 0.013945 0.019796 0.012544

13 0.016033 0.022736 0.013994

14 0.018061 0.025451 0.015513
15 0.019414 0.027665 0.016454
16 0.020835 0.029488 0.017385
17 0.022393 0.031732 0.018728
18 0.024108 0.034094 0.020159
19 0.025078 0.035496 0.020688
20 0.027038 0.037691 0.021697
21 0.028322 0.039631 0.022618
22 0.029586 0.042071 0.02401
23 0.030645 0.044453 0.025245
24 0.032761 0.047167 0.026685
25 0.034692 0.049608 0.028038
26 0.036534 0.052273 0.029645
27 0.037995 0.054312 0.030899
28 0.039523 0.056154 0.032085
29 0.040788 0.057693 0.033183
30 0.041856 0.058986 0.033898
31 0.042924 0.060045 0.03428
32 0.043992 0.060789 0.034692
33 0.044933 0.061436 0.034927
34 0.045639 0.062475 0.035192
35 0.046423 0.063543 0.035437
36 0.047706 0.065219 0.036397
37 0.04898 0.066826 0.037436
38 0.051185 0.069168 0.038847
39 0.052685 0.071331 0.040033
40 0.053675 0.072595 0.040837
41 0.054851 0.07434 0.041836
42 0.056409 0.076506 0.042993

43 0.058222 0.079063 0.044482

44 0.059506 0.081523 0.046001
45 0.06174 0.084169 0.047706
46 0.063749 0.086766 0.048951
47 0.065552 0.088824 0.050078
48 0.067571 0.091431 0.051381
49 0.069658 0.094067 0.052979
50 0.071795 0.096517 0.054488
51 0.073814 0.099104 0.056046
52 0.075146 0.101162 0.057173
53 0.076479 0.10322 0.058124
54 0.077841 0.105357 0.059349
55 0.079625 0.107728 0.060672
56 0.081624 0.110355 0.06223
Run 3:
The 3rd run was semi-continuous process in which the feed was once feed to the digester
and left it for 20 days. Second digester operated at 5 rpm for 5 min once a day and 3rd digester
for 15 min once a day. For digester feed 42.3 gm of soybean flour, mixed with water up to
required amount (1litres) and was added to all three digesters respectively. The ammonium
Chloride (NH4Cl) 0.6 gm was added to each digester as a salt. Similar procedure was followed
for remaining two digesters. The agitation was necessary to avoid any chunks and maintain the
flow characteristic of slurry. Observations are shown in Table 3.8
The mixing time and speed are as follow:
Table no. 3.8: Operating parameter mixing time and speed of shaft.
Digester Speed of shaft (RPM) Mixing time (min)
1 5 0
2 5 5 (once a day)
3 5 15(once a day)

Procedure:-
1. Firstly prepared slurry of soya flour (42.3 gm) with ammonium chloride (0.6 gm) adding
water of 1 lit, and then fed it to digester per day at fixed interval of time.
2. The slurry in the digester 2nd and 3rd was stirred in the morning at 10 am for uniform mixing
at 5 RPM. For 2nd and 3rd digester stirring was done for 5 and 15 min respectively.
3. After three and half hours took a reading of manometer P1 and P2 (pressure in and out) and
calculated the amount of gas produced.
4. After taking reading then added substrate and water in all digesters. Biogas was removed
from digester before adding substrate.
5. When the feed was fed to the digester, same quantity of slurry removed from digester to
maintain the material balance and then check the pH of that slurry.
6. Average room temperature was noted down.
7. After 12 hours 3rd digester was stirred at 5 rpm in the night at 10:10 pm.
Observations are shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9: Biogas Production by semi-continuous at 5 rpm.
Days D1 (without mixing) D2 (5 min) D3 (15 min)
1 0.000774 0.002166 0.000588
2 0.001254 0.002381 0.000666
3 0.001382 0.00244 0.000696
4 0.001852 0.002499 0.000676
5 0.002156 0.003244 0.000892
6 0.003165 0.003224 0.000921
7 0.003557 0.003293 0.00097
8 0.003548 0.003381 0.001088
9 0.003606 0.00345 0.001088
10 0.003675 0.003508 0.001196
11 0.003538 0.003577 0.001254
12 0.003518 0.003783 0.001274
13 0.00345 0.003861 0.001362

14 0.003489 0.004038 0.00145

15 0.003401 0.004292 0.00145
16 0.003538 0.004724 0.001646
17 0.003557 0.004714 0.001744
18 0.003312 0.004959 0.001784
19 0.003224 0.004871 0.001646
20 0.003312 0.005067 0.001744
Table 3.10: Cumulative Biogas Production at 5 RPM

Days D1 (without mixing) D2 (5 min) D3 (15 min)
1 0.000774 0.002166 0.000588
2 0.002029 0.004547 0.001254
3 0.00341 0.006987 0.00195
4 0.005263 0.009486 0.002626
5 0.007419 0.01273 0.003518
6 0.010584 0.015954 0.004439
7 0.014141 0.019247 0.00541
8 0.017689 0.022628 0.006497
9 0.021295 0.026078 0.007585
10 0.02497 0.029586 0.008781
11 0.028508 0.033163 0.010035
12 0.032026 0.036946 0.011309
13 0.035476 0.040807 0.012671
14 0.038965 0.044845 0.014122
15 0.042365 0.049137 0.015572
16 0.045903 0.053861 0.017219
17 0.049461 0.058575 0.018963
18 0.052773 0.063533 0.020747
19 0.055997 0.068404 0.022393
20 0.05931 0.073471 0.024137

3.7 Sample Calculation

For calculating Carbon and Nitrogen Content (C/N Ratio):
100 gm of Soybean has:
C = 48.558
N = 1.56
C/N = 48.55/1.56 =31.12
Thus Carbon to Nitrogen ratio is 31.12:1
Carbon Nitrogen Ratio is given as:

For Salt Addition:
Nitrogen content in 1 mole Ammonium Chloride (53.491gm) = 14gm
Now for 148gm addition of ammonium chloride we get 38.735gm of nitrogen
Carbon content in 10000gm (10kg each digester) of soybean flour = 48.55*100 = 4855gm
So now nitrogen content in 10000gm of soybean flour = (1.56*100) + 38.735 = 194.735gm
Carbon to nitrogen ratio= C/N = 4855/ 194.735
Carbon nitrogen ratio = 24.931: 1
Calculation for No. of moles (n)

P = 1atm
V= 100L
R = 0.0827 L atm mol-1 K-1
T= 25oC
By using Ideal Gas Law, P V= n R T
n = 4.057
Volume calculations
Assume 10 cm increase = 1.0098 atm (From Literature search)
Now using this pressure we again find “n”
P = 1.0098 atm
V= 100L
R = 0.0827 L atm mol-1 K-1

T= 25oC
n = 4.097449
Now volume of Gas produced

P = 1.0098 atm
R = 0.0827 L atm mol-1 K-1
T= 25oC
n = 4.097449
For 10 cm increase = 0.98 For 1 L = 1000 cm3
Therefore 1 cm increase = 0.098 Therefore 0.098 L = 98 cm3
Example:-
For a Closed digester without Agitation:
Difference in pressure in U-tube Manometer = 40 cm
Therefore Volume produced = 40 * 98 = 3920 cm3 = 0.003920 m3
Power Calculations:
Diameter of digester = 65 cm
Liquid level in digester =330 mm
Agitator = Pitch blade
Agitator Diameter (D) = 16.2cm = 0.162m
Density (ρ ) = 1100 kg/m3
Viscosity =1000 cp
Power Number (Np) = 2.14 (From Literature search)
Power calculations-
For Shaft speed (N) = 5 RPM = 0.083 RPS
Power Drawn (P),
P = Np.ρ.N2.D5 (For Laminar Flow)
P = 2.14 * 1100 * 0.0832 * (0.162)5
P = 1.809 * 10-3 kW
For Power Drawn per day

P = 1.809 * 10-3 * 24
P= 4.34 * 10-2 kW/day
Table 3.11: Power Drawn from Agitator at different speeds

Shaft Speed (N) Power Drawn Per Day
RPM RPS kW/day
5 0.083 4.34 * 10-2

Chapter 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Run 1
1) Mixing Effect at 5 RPM for Batch process.
0.007
D1 (without Mixing)
Biogas Production in m3
0.006 D2 (once mixing)

0.005 D3 (twice mixing)
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Days
Fig 4.1: Biogas Production at 5 RPM for Batch Process.

From above graph volume of gas produced in digester 1 (D1) was in the range of
0.001m3 to 0.002 m3. Whereas the volume of gas produced due to propeller type agitator was up
to 0.0025 m3 in Digester 2 (D2) and 0.0024m3 in Digester 3 (D3). Graph shows that exponential
phase start after 6 days when it gets anaerobic system in the digester, then it achieves steady
state. But here we can see that digester 2 (11-37 days) graph shows likely ideal graph. After the
exponential phase there was decrease in biogas production due to the decrease in the substrate
contains. It was observed that in all three digesters the quantity of gas produced was maximum in
Digester 1which was operated without mixing. While in digester 2 where mixing was carried out
for 10 min once in a day, the gas produced throughout the run was steady than the other two
digesters. Volume of gas produced in digester 3 where mixing was carried out twice a day, was
much lesser than other two digesters. Figure 4.1 shows that digester in due to mixing once its
stable process and twice mixing shows unstable. No significance difference was observed due to
different mixing frequencies in batch digesters.

2) Cumulative Graph for Run 1
0.1
0.09
Biogas Production in cm3
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
D1 (without Mixing)
0.02
D2 (once mixing)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Days
Fig 4.2: Cumulative Biogas Production at 5 RPM for Batch Process.

From above cumulative graph, it is observed that gas produced in digester 1 without
mixing was 0.093 m3 whereas for digester 2 in which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in
a day, was 0.080 m3 and for digester 3 where mixing was carried out twice a day, was 0.058 m3.
Due to less frequency of mixing, digester 2 shows stable biogas production as compare to
digester 1. For D3 there is fluctuation in the graph because of twice mixing per day. But Figure
4.2 shows that digester 1 gives maximum production than the other digesters 2 & 3.
4.2 Run 2
1) Mixing Effect at 5 RPM for Semi- Continuous process.
0.0035 D1 (without Mixing)

D2 (once mixing)
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Days
Fig 4.3: Biogas Production at 5RPM for Semi-Continuous process.

From above graph volume of gas produced in digester 1 (D1) was in the range of 0.00042
m3 to 0.00246 m3. Whereas the volume of gas produced due to propeller type agitator was up to
0.003 m3 in Digester 2 (D2) in which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in a day. The
volume of gas produced was 0.0016 m3 in Digester 3 (D3) where mixing was carried out twice a
day. This run is semi continuous process in which the substrate was added daily on small amount
to the digester. Graph shows that exponential phase is achieved after 2 days, and then it gives
fluctuations in the biogas production after achieving exponential phase. Amongst all three
digesters the quantity of gas produced was maximum in Digester 2 in which mixing are carried
out for 10 min once in a day. As compare to run 1 this run gives maximum production in digester
2, it means that mixing favors biogas production in semi continuous operation than batch
process.
2) Cumulative Graph for Run 2.
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
D2 (once mixing)
D3 (twice mixing)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Days
Fig 4.4: Cumulative Biogas Production at 5 RPM for Semi-Continuous process.

From figure 4.4 shows that volume of gas produced in digester 1(D1) was 0.041 m3
whereas for digester 2 (D2) in which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in a day, was 0.06
m3 and for digester 3 (D3) where mixing was carried out twice a day, was 0.033 m3. The total
amount of gas produced after the completion of the run for digester 1(D1) was 0.081 m3, for
digester 2 (D2) was 0.11 m3 and that for digester 3 (D3) was 0.06 m3. Among all digesters, the
digester 2 (D2) showed maximum gas production i.e. 0.110 m3. Due to mixing in digester shows
maximum biogas production rather than digester 1 (without mixing) and 3 (twice mixing a day).

3) pH effect on biogas production for semi-continuous.
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
D1 (without Mixing)
D3 (twice mixing)
0
4 5 5.5 5.7 6 6.3
pH Value
Fig 4.5: Effect of pH on biogas production.

In this run addition of the substrate was done in small amount every day and digesters
were operated in semi continuous manner. But due to addition of substrate everyday there was
decrease in pH level as food waste was its self acidic in nature. Decrease in pH affected biogas
production. Therefore addition of calcium carbonate was carried out to maintain the pH level,
Biogas production at different pH levels was shown in figure 4.5. From figure 4.5, it was
observed that, as pH increased the biogas production increased. Maximum biogas production
observed in digester 2 (D2) in which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in a day, as
compared to digester 1(without mixing) and 3(twice mixing a day) at pH 6.3 at mesophilic
conditions.
4) Temperature effect on biogas production for semi-continuous.
0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
D1 (without Mixing)
D3 (twice mixing)
0
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Temperature in 0C
Fig 4.6: Effect of Temperature on biogas production.

In this run biogas production at different temperatures were carried out at mesophilic
conditions. The digester was operated at mesophilic condition, which has range between 20oC to
40oC. From figure 4.6 it was observed that, the biogas production was stable in temperature
range 24oC to 26oC. Hence from figure 4.6 it was observed that the maximum biogas production
was obtained at 26oC in all three digesters. As the temperature increased biogas production was
also increased. Maximum biogas production observed in digester 2 (D2) in which mixing was
carried out for 10 min once in a day, as compared to digester 1(without mixing) and 3(twice
mixing a day).
4.3 Run 3
1) Mixing Effect at 5 RPM for Semi- Continuous process (changing mixing time).
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002

D2 (5 min)
D3 (15 min)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Days
Fig 4.7: Biogas Production at 5 rpm for Semi-Continuous process (changing

mixing time).
For this run only time of agitation was changed to 5 min for digester 2 (D2) and 15 min
for digester 3 (D3). Figure 4.7 shows that the volume of gas produced in digester 1(D1) operated
without mixing, was in the range of 0.0007 m3 to 0.003 m3. Whereas the volume of gas produced
in digester 2 in which mixing was carried out for 5 min once in a day, was in the range of 0.0021
m3to 0.0050 m3 and in digester 3 in which mixing was carried out for 15 min once in a day, was
in the range of 0.0005m3 to 0.0017 m3. From figure 4.7 it was observed that due to mixing in
digester 2 biogas production was maximum than another digester 1 (D1) & digester 3 (D3).

2) Cumulative Graph for Run 3
0.08
D1 (without Mixing)
0.07 D2 (5 min)
0.06 D3 (15 min)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Days
Fig 4.8: Cumulative Biogas Production at 5 RPM for Semi-Continuous process

(changing mixing time).
From figure 4.8 it was observed that the volume of gas produced in digester 1 (D1)
without mixing, was 0.024 m3. Whereas for digester 2 (D2) is 0.03 m3 and digester 3 (D3) is
0.0084 m3. The total amount of gas produced after the completion of the run for digester 1 (D1)
is 0.059 m3, for digester 2 (D2) in which mixing was carried out for 5 min once in a day, was
0.08 m3 and digester 3 (D3) in which mixing was carried out for 15 min once in a day, was 0.024
m3. Figure 4.8 shows that due to mixing volume of gas produced in digester 2 (D2) were higher
than digester 1(D1) & digester 3 (D3). Hence mixing fever biogas production in digester 2 (D2).
3) pH effect on biogas production.
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
D1 (without Mixing)
0.001 D2 (5 min)
D3 (15 min)
0
5.5 6 6.2 6.4 6.5 6.8 6.9
pH Value
Fig 4.9: Effect of pH on biogas production.

In this run addition of the substrate was done in small amount every day and digesters
were operated in semi continuous manner. But due to addition of substrate everyday there was
decrease in pH level as food waste was its self acidic in nature. Decrease in pH affected biogas
production. Therefore addition of calcium carbonate was carried out to maintain the pH level,
Biogas production at different pH levels was shown in figure 4.9. From figure 4.9, it was
observed that, as pH increased the biogas production increased. Maximum biogas production
observed in digester 2 (D2) in which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in a day, as
compared to digester 1(without mixing) and digester 3 (twice mixing a day) at pH 6.9 at
mesophilic conditions.
4) Temperature effect on biogas production.
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
D1 (without Mixing)
0.001 D2 (5 min)
D3 (15 min)
0
27.5 28 28.5 29
Temperature (OC)
Fig 4.10: Effect of Temperature on biogas production.

In this run biogas production at different temperatures were carried out at mesophilic
conditions. The digester was operated at mesophilic condition, which has range between 20oC to
40oC. From figure 4.10 it was observed that, the biogas production was stable in temperature
range 28oC to 29oC. Hence from figure 4.10 it was observed that the maximum biogas
production was obtained at 29oC in all three digesters. As the temperature increased biogas
production was also increased. Maximum biogas production observed in digester 2 (D2) in
which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in a day, as compared to digester 1(without
mixing) and 3(twice mixing a day).

4.4 Comparison of Runs.

4.4.1 For Digester 2 (With Once Mixing)
1) Comparison of Batch and Semi-continuous process.
0.007
0.006 Run 1 (10 min)

Run 2 (10 min)
0.005 Run 3 (5 min)
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Days
Fig 4.11: Biogas Production for Batch and Semi -continuous Process in Digester 2.
For digester 2 (with mixing) the above figure 4.11 shows that run 1 in which mixing was
carried out for 10 min once in a day operated batch mode, volume of gas produced was in the
range of 0.001m3 to 0.0025 m3. In run 2 in which mixing was carried out for 10 min once in a
day operated semi continuous mode, volume of gas produced was in the range 0.002m3 to 0.003
m3. In the Run 3 in which mixing was carried out for 5 min once in a day operated in semi
continuous mode, volume of gas produced was in the range in 0.003 m3 to 0.0051 m3.
As observed from figure 4.11 the run 3 was stable process with biogas produced was
larger than run 1 and run 2. Hence it was concluded that in biogas production mixing was
important when digester was operated at semi continuous mode and mixing minimum mixing
(i.e. 5 min) was produced higher biogas as compared with more mixing interval (i.e.15 min).

4.4.2 For Digester 3 (With Twice Mixing)

1) Comparison of Batch and Semi-continuous process.
0.003
Run 1 (10-10 min)

0.0025
Run 2 (10-10 min)
Run 3 (15 min)
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49
Days
Fig 4.12: Biogas Production for Batch and Semi -continuous Process in Digester 3.
For digester 3, the above figure 4.12 shows that run 1 in which mixing was carried out for
10 min twice in a day and operated batch mode, volume of gas produced was in the range of
0.001m3 to 0.0027 m3. In run 2 in which mixing was carried out for 10 min twice in a day and
operated semi continuous mode, volume of gas produced was in the range 0.0004m3 to 0.002 m3.
In the run 3 in which mixing was carried out for 15 min once in a day and operated semi
continuous mode, volume of gas produced was in the range in 0.0005 m3 to 0.0017 m3.
As observed from figure 4.12 the run 3 was stable process with biogas produced was
lesser than other run 1 and run 2. Hence it was concluded that in biogas production mixing
should not be maximums i.e. 15 min (run 3) and high mixing frequency (i.e. twice a day) was
more important in batch mode operations.

Chapter 6
CONCLUSION
Anaerobic digestion process has been widely used as food waste management for biogas
production to handle environmental changes as a renewable source. The process of anaerobic
digestion is strongly affected by environmental parameters like pH and temperature. However,
low mixing level can give a more stable process is shown by this experiment. The biogas
production rate was maximum in Run 3 for Digester 2 and was minimum in Run 2 & Run 1.
The run 1 was without mixing which gives good biogas production for starting few days
in batch but then it gets decrease in semi-continuous. Hence mixing is important for stable
process and high biogas production.
The biogas production mixing was important when digester was operated at semi
continuous mode and mixing, minimum mixing (i.e. 5 min) was produced higher biogas as
compared with more mixing interval (i.e. 15 min).
Biogas production mixing should not be maximums i.e. 15 min (run 3) and high mixing
frequency (i.e. twice a day) was more important in batch mode operations. But due to high
mixing frequency (i.e. twice a day) shows poor biogas production.
From the experimental result we concluded that the biogas production in non-mixing was
good in batch process but not stable, while in mixing process it was stable process in batch as
well as semi-continuous.
Hence we can say that minimum mixing shows good result as compare to the no mixing
and maximum mixing.

REFERENCES
1) Abhishek Nandan, Bikarama Prasad Yadav, Soumyadeep Baksi, Debajyoti Bose, 2017,
Recent Scenario of Solid Waste Management in India. World scientific news, (2017) EISSN
2392-2192.
2) Akhil S, Anuj N.K, Kunal V, Nadha K. Solid, Waste Management in Urban India. Fields of
View Report.
3) Kunwar Paritosh, Sandeep K. Kushwaha, Monika Yadav, Nidhi Pareek, Aakash Chawade,
and Vivekanand, 2017, Food Waste to Energy: An Overview of Sustainable Approaches for
Food Waste Management and Nutrient Recycling. Biomed Research International Volume,
Article ID 2370927.
4) Xiguang Chen, Rowena T. Romano, Ruihong Zhang, 2010, Anaerobic digestion of food
wastes for biogas production. Institute Journal Agriculture & Biological Engineering, 3(4):
61－72.
5) Holm-Nielsen, 2007, the future of Biogas in Europe.
6) V. Venugopalan, Dr. N. Balasundaram, S. Hemalatha, 2017, Comparative study on biogas
production from cow dung, food waste and organic wastes. International journal of civil
engineering and technology (IJCIET), Volume 8, Issue 2, 100–106, Articles ID: IJCIET-08-
02-010.
7) Biomethane from Biomass, Biowaste and Biofuels Bioenergy, 2008, American Society for
Microbiology Press, Washington, C P.195-205.
8) P. Burke, A. Dennis, 2001, Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion Handbook, Environmental
Energy Company Olympia, 17-30.
9) X. Liu, X. Gao, W. Wang, L. Zheng, Y. Zhou, Y. Sun, 2012, Pilot-scale anaerobic co-
digestion of municipal biomass waste: Focusing on biogas production and GHG reduction,
Renewable Energy, 44 -463-468.
10) H. J. Gijzen, 2001, Anaerobes, aerobes and prototroph, a winning team for wastewater
management, Water Science and Technology, 44 -123-132.
11) G. Lettinga, 2001, Digestion and degradation, air for life, Water Science and Technology, 44
-157-176.

12) Kayode Feyisetan Adekunle, Jude Awele Okolie, 2015, A review of biochemical Process of
anaerobic digestion. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology, 6, 205-212.
13) T. Seadi, D. Rutz, H. Prassl, M. Kottner, T. Finsterwalder, S. Volk, R. Janssen, 2008, Biogas
Handbook, University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, 70-95.
14) K. V. Kumar, V. Sridevi, K. Rani, M. Sakunthala, C. S. Kumar, 2013, A review on
production of biogas, fundamentals, applications & its recent enhancing techniques, Elixir
Chemical Engineering, 57 14073-14079.
15) M. Tabatabaei, A. Sulaiman, A. M. Nikbakht, N. Yusof, G. Najafpour, 2011, Influential
parameters on biomethane generation in anaerobic wastewater treatment plants, Alternative
Fuel, M. Manzanera (Ed.), InTech, Croatia, 227-262.
16) K. Stamatelatou, G. Lyberatos, C. Tsiligiannis, P. Pullammanappallil, S.A. Svoronos, S.
Pavlou, 1997, Optimal and suboptimal control of anaerobic digesters. Environmental
Modeling and Assessment, 2 -355-363.
17) R. Cresson, H. Carrere, J. P. Delgenes, N. Bernet, 2006, Biofilm formation during the start-
up period of an anaerobic biofilm reactor-impact of nutrient complementation, Biochemical
Engineering Journal, 30-55-62.
18) R. N. Meroney, P. E. Colorado, 2009, CFD simulation of mechanical draft tube mixing in
anaerobic digester digesters, Water Research, 43-1040-1050.
19) Y. Chen, J. J. Cheng, K. S. Creamer, 2008, Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A
review, Bioresource Technology, 99-4044- 4064.
20) M. Kayhanian, 1999, Ammonia inhibition in high solids biogasification: An over-view and
practical solutions, Environmental Technology, 20-355-365.
21) Claassen Pam, Lopez Contreras AM, Sijtsma L, 1999, Utilization of biomass for the supply
of energy carriers. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 52(6):741–755
22) Brinkman, J., Baltissen, T, and Hamelers, B, 2001, Development of a Protocol for Assessing
and Comparing the Quality of Aerobic Composts and Anaerobic Digestates, RDA/SR-97001.
Washington, DC: Resource Development Associates. Work performed by Bioclear
Environmental Biotechnology, Groningen, The Netherlands.
23) Anna Karlsson, Annika Björn, Sepehr Shakeri Yekta, Bo H. Svensson, 2014, Improment of
the biogas production process, Biogas Research Center (BRC) Report 2.

24) K. B. Cantrell, T. Ducey, S. R. Kyoung, P. G. Hunt, 2008, Review Livestock waste-to-

bioenergy generation opportunities, Bioresource Technology, 99-7941-7953.
25) H. Atashi, H. Ajamein, S. Ghasemian, 2010, Effect of operational and design parameters on
removal efficiency of a pilot-scale UASB reactor in a sugar factory, World Applied Sciences
Journal, 11-451-456.
26) X. Chen, R. T. Romano, R. Zhang, 2010, Anaerobic digestion of food wastes for biogas
production, International Journal Agriculture & Biological Engineering, 4-61-72.
27) D. Brown, Y. Li, 2013, Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of yard waste and food waste for
biogas production, Bioresource Technology, 127-275-280.
28) H. M. El-Mashad, R. Zhang, 2010, Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and
food waste, Bioresource Technology, 101-4021-4028.
29) S. V. Dhanalakshmi, R. A. Ramanujam, 2012, Biogas generation in a vegetable waste
anaerobic digester: an analytical approach, Research Journal of recent science, 1-41-47.
30) X. Liu, X. Gao, W. Wang, L. Zheng, Y. Zhou, Y. Sun, 2012, Technical note Pilot scale
anaerobic co-digestion of municipal biomass waste: Focusing on biogas production and
GHG reduction, Renewable Energy, 44-463 -468.
31) K. Ghani, A. W. Azlina, Idris, 2009, Preliminary study on biogas production of biogas from
municipal solid waste (msw) leachate, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 4-
374 – 380.
32) Johan Lindmark, Per Eriksson, Eva Thorin, 2014, The effects of different mixing intensities
during anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Waste
Management.
33) Carlos Rico Jose, Luis Rico Noelia Munoz, Beatriz Gomez, Inaki Tejero, 2011, Effect of
mixing on biogas production during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of screened dairy manure
in a pilot plant, Engineering Life Science,11, No. 5, 476–481.
34) Christian Rojas, Sheng Fang, Frank Uhlenhut, Axel Borchert, Ingo Stein, Michael Schlaak,
2010, stirring and biomass starter influences the anaerobic digestion of different substrates
for biogas production, Engineering Life Science, 10, No. 4, 339–347.
35) Peter G. Stroot, Katherine D. Mcmohan, Roderick I. Mackie and Lutgarde Raskin, 2001,
Anaerobic co-digestion of municipal solid waste and bio solid under various mixing
condition, Wat. Res. Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 1804–1816.

36) K. C. Lin and M. E. J. Pearce, 1999, Effects of mixing on anaerobic treatment of potato-
processing wastewater, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 18. 501-514.
37) Alawi Sulaiman, Mohd Ali Hassan, Yoshihito Shirai, Suraini Abd-Aziz, Meisam
Tabatabaei, Zainuri Busu and Shahrakbah Yacob, 2009, The effect of mixing on methane
production in a semi-commercial closed digester digester treating Palm Oil Mill Effluent,
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences.
38) Moonil Kima, Young-Ho Ahn, R.E. Speece, 2002, Comparative process stability and
efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Research 36-4369–
4385.
39) Khursheed Karim, K. Thomas Klasson, Rebecca Hoffmann, Sadie R, Drescher, David W.
DePaoli, M.H. Al-Dahhan, 2005, Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: Effect of mixing,
Bioresource Technology 96-1607–1612.
40) Prasad Kaparaju, Inmaculada Buendia, Lars Ellegaard, Irini Angelidakia, 2008, Effects of
mixing on methane production during thermophilic anaerobic digestion of manure: Lab-scale
and pilot-scale studies, Bioresource Technology 99-4919–4928.
41) Sophia Ghanimeh, Mutasem El Fadel, Pascal Saikaly, 2012, Mixing effect on thermophilic
anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Bioresource
Technology 117-63–71.
42) Rebecca A. Hoffmann, Marcelo L. Garcia, Mehul Veskivar, Khursheed Karim, Muthanna H.
Al-Dahhan, Largus T. Angenent, 2008, Effect of Shear on Performance and Microbial
Ecology of Continuously Stirred Anaerobic Digesters Treating Animal Manure,
Biotechnology Bioengineering, 100: 38–48.
43) Khursheed Karim, Rebecca Hoffmann, Thomas Klasson, M.H. Al-Dahhan, 2005, Anaerobic
digestion of animal waste: Waste strength versus impact of mixing, Bioresource Technology
96-1771–1781.
44) Khursheed Karim, Rebecca Hoffmann, Thomas Klasson, M. H. Al-Dahhan, 2005, Anaerobic
digestion of animal waste: Effect of mode of mixing, Water Research 39-3597–3606.
45) Andrew G. Hashimoto, 1982, Effect of Mixing Duration and Vacuum on Methane
Production Rate from Beef Cattle Waste, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. XXIV, Pp.
9-23.

46) Walter J. Wolf, 1970, Soybean Proteins: Their Functional, Chemical, and Physical
Properties, J. AGR. Food Chem., Vol. 18, No. 6.
47) S. Sedlacek, M. Kubaska, S. Lehotska and I. Bodík, 2010, Food waste – the source of biogas
production increase in the municipal WWTPs, SK-812 37 Bratislava, and Slovak Republic.
48) Dong Qing Zhang a, Soon Keat Tan b, Richard M. Gersberg c, 2010, Municipal solid waste
management in China: Status, problems and challenges, Journal of Environmental
Management 91-1623e1633.

Report On Biogas Production From Food Waste

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report On Biogas Production From Food Waste

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mixing Effect in Biogas Production from Food Waste

1.1 Solid Waste Management

1.2 Food waste as biodegradable waste

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 1

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 2

Table1.1: Composition of biogas (By FAO-1996)

1.3.1 Characteristics of Biogas

1.3.2 Advantages of Biogas

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 3

h) Reduces Landfills, hence, decreased soil and water pollution.

1.3.3 Disadvantages of Biogas

1.4 Application of Biogas

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 4

1.4 Biogas Production Process

1.4.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

1.4.2 Aerobic vs. Anaerobic Degradation

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 5

 High nutrients requirement. used.

1.5 The Biochemical Process of AD

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 6

Fig 1.1: Anaerobic digestion phases (3).

Table1. 3: Microorganism cooperation in organic matter degradation (3).

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 7

Methanogenesis Methanogens Methanosaeta, Methanolobus, CH4

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 8

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 9

Fig 1.2: Schematic representation of course of anaerobic methane generation from

1.6 Process Parameters

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 10

Psychrophilic < 20 °C 70 to 80 days

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 11

1.6.3 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 12

Table 1.5: Chemicals used for alkalinity supplementation (15).

1.6.6 Loading Rate

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 13

1.6.7 Volatile Solids

1.6.8 Nutrient Balance

1.6.9 Substrate Solids Content

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 14

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 15

a) Removal of the metabolites produced by the methanogens (gas).

1.7 Other Operational Considerations

1.7.1 Scum Formation

1.7.2 Sludge Recycling

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 16

1.7.3 Inhibitory Substances

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 17

1.7.4 Sludge Removal

1.7.6 Particle size

1.8 Anaerobic Digesters

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 18

1.8.1 Fixed Dome

Fig 1.3: Fixed Dome Digester.

1.8.2 Floating Dome

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 19

Fig 1.4: Floating Dome Digester.

1.8.3 Plug Flow Digester

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 20

Fig 1.5: Plug Flow Digester.

Chemical Engineering 2017 – 2018, VIT, PUNE 21

Fig 1.6: Mixer.