ARTICLE IN PRESS

BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY 32 (2008) 203 – 209

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

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

Production of methane from sugar beet silage

without manure addition by a single-stage
anaerobic digestion process

B. Demirel, P. Scherer
Lifetec Process Engineering, Faculty of Life Sciences, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Lohbrügger Kirchstrasse 65,
21033 Hamburg, Germany

art i cle info ab st rac t

Article history: Single-stage continuous anaerobic conversion of sugar beet silage without manure to
Received 23 July 2007 methane was investigated in this experimental work, using a laboratory-scale mesophilic
Received in revised form anaerobic biogas digester. The sugar beet silage had an extreme low pH of 3.3. The reactor
10 September 2007 was operated in a hydraulic retention time (HRT) range of between 95 and 15 days, and an
Accepted 15 September 2007 organic loading rate (OLR) range of between 0.937 and 6.33 g1 VS l1 d1. The highest
Available online 23 October 2007 specific gas production rate (spec. GPR) of 0.72 l g VS1 d1 could be obtained at 25 days of
HRT, with an average methane content of about 63%, at a pH of around 6.8. Since sugar beet
Keywords:
silage without the leaves is a poor substrate, in terms of the availability of the nutrients and
Anaerobic digestion
the buffering capacity, external supplementation of nitrogen and buffering agents has to be
Biogas
regularly performed, in order to achieve a stable and an efficient process. Sodium or
Biomass
potassium hydrogen carbonate addition seemed to function best in our case, among the
Methane
other agents used, to provide adequate buffering capacity and to keep the digester pH
Renewable energy
stable during the operation. Use of a new harvest (a new charge of substrate) also affected
Sugar beet
the spec. GPR values significantly.
& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction both operational and environmental parameters on the

Single-phase and high-rate two-phase anaerobic digestion
processes have often been used to treat soluble and solid
types of domestic and industrial wastes [1]. Biomass can
biologically be converted to methane and hydrogen by the
anaerobic digestion process.
There already exists recent literature about the applications
and benefits of the anaerobic digestion process to produce
renewable energy from various sources of biomass [2–7].
Furthermore, there also exist several works about continuous
anaerobic digestion of sugar beets for production of methane
[8–12]. On the other hand, for each particular biomass type to
be used, without any manure or sludge addition, the effects of
process performance of the anaerobic biogas digester
have to be individually determined, in order to achieve
a high conversion efficiency, since each substrate, even
different harvests of the same substrate, has its unique
characteristics.
Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to
investigate and determine the optimum operational (HRT
and OLR) and environmental (pH, the appropriate amount of
macro–micro-nutrients that should be available and the
adequate buffering capacity) conditions during long-term
fermentation of sugar beet silage to methane, without
addition of manure. Sugar beet was chosen as the sole
substrate, because it has gained interest as the regulatory

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 40 428756355; fax: +49 40 428756359.

E-mail address: Paul.Scherer@rzbd.haw-hamburg.de (P. Scherer).
0961-9534/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.09.011
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
204 BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY 32 (2008) 203 – 209

price was decreased by the EU in 2006, and now many farmers
are looking for an alternative use.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the reactor system
A laboratory-scale, single-stage continuous digester was used
in this experimental work. The schematic configuration of the
anaerobic biogas reactor is given in Fig. 1. The description of
the reactor was previously reported [13]. The reactor was
inoculated with 1/3 of sewage sludge, 1/3 of swine manure
and 1/3 of a compost suspension (without solids). Tempera-
ture was kept at 41–42 1C during the entire operation. The
reactor was fed once a day, manually. Biogas production was
measured daily, using a Milligascounters type MGC10 (Ritter,
Bochum, Germany). Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2)
compositions (v/v) were measured online, using infrared
sensors (BlueSens Gaz Analyzer, Herten, Germany). Tempera-
ture, pH and redox potential (ORP) were also continuously
measured online.
Feed
2.2. Substrate
Sugar beet silage (without the leaves) was used as the mono-
substrate. The general characteristics of the sugar beet silage
are given in Table 1. More data about the characteristics of the
sugar beet silage can also be found elsewhere [14]. Two
harvests of sugar beet silage were used during the entire
experimental work, and both harvests were obtained from
Soltau, Germany. Parallel analyses were carried out for
determination of each parameter. The substrate was stored
at 4 1C until further use. Since sugar beet silage is a poor
substrate, in terms of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and
buffering capacity, nitrogen was regularly provided to the
feed by external addition of ammonium hydrogen carbonate
(NH4HCO3) or ammonium chloride (NH4Cl), while sodium
hydrogen carbonate (NaHCO3), potassium hydrogen carbo-
nate (KHCO3), potassium hydroxide (KOH) or sodium carbo-
nate (Na2CO3) were used as buffering agents to provide
alkalinity and to keep the reactor pH stable. Stock solutions
of minerals were also prepared and added to the substrate,
to provide phosphate (5.2 mM, Na and K salts), calcium
(Ca, 1 mM), magnesium (Mg, 2 mM), zinc (Zn, 10 mM), manganese
(Mn, 2 mM), copper (Cu, 2 mM), wolfram (W, 1 mM), cobalt
(Co, 5 mM), nickel (Ni, 10 mM), selenium (Se, 0.4 mM), molybdenum
(Mo, 2 mM) and sulphur (S, 0.5 mM). All chemicals were reagent
grade, obtained from commercial sources (Merck, Darmstadt,
Germany).

2.3. Analytical methods

CH4 / CO2 QIR C
Mixed samples were regularly drawn from the reactor, and
Gas QIR M measured to determine volatile solids (VS), volatile sus-
C pended solids (VSS), ammonium (NH+4 ), phosphate (PO3 4 ),
volatile fatty acids (VFAs), alcohols and alkalinity. The VSS
content was measured according to DIN methods (DIN 38414-8)
Moisture [15], while alkalinity, ammonium and phosphate were
measured according to standard methods [16]. Total VS was
defined as the sum of VSS and volatile dissolved solids
(volatile dissolved solids was the sum of VFAs, lactic acid and

Temperature TIR Table 1 – Characterization of sugar beet silage as mono-

substrate
pH QIR Effluent
Parameter Unit Range Average
Redox QIR
pH 3.27–3.38 3.34
Volatile solids (VS) % 18.44–19.83 19.1
Ammonium (NH+4 ) mg l1 55–85 70.3
Biogas Reactor Phosphate (PO3 4 ) mg l1 2–15a/575–590b 8.5a/583b
10cm Acetic acid mg l1 13,965–28,732 21,657
Propionic acid mg l1 247–3083 1476
Isobutyric acid mg l1 29–294 137
Butyric acid mg l1 113–146 129.7
Isovaleric acid mg l1 32–63 47.5
Fig. 1 – Configuration of the laboratory-scale reactor. Valeric acid mg l1 7–70 38.5

Q ¼ quality of a measured value; M ¼ motor; W ¼ weight;

a
Substrate charge 1.
T ¼ temperature; R ¼ recorded values; I ¼ instrument; b
Substrate charge 2.
C ¼ controller.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY 32 (2008) 203 – 209 205

alcohols). VFAs and alcohols were determined using a HP 5890 1.00 80 4

Series II GC with a flame ionization detector and a BP 21
Bonded FFAP Fused Silica column. Hydrogen (H2) was used as

spec. GPR (l gVS-1 d-1)

Methane (CH4) (%)

0.75 60 3

vol. GPR (l l-1 d-1)

the carrier gas. Injection and detector temperatures were 240
and 260 1C, respectively.
CH4
0.50 40 2

3. Results and discussion spec. GPR

0.25 20 1
A summary of the operational and environmental parameters
vol. GPR
achieved at steady-state conditions for the entire experi-
0.00 0 0
mental study are given in Table 2. In Fig. 2, specific gas
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
production rate (spec. GPR), volumetric gas production rate
HRT (days)
(vol. GPR) and methane content (%) of the digester biogas at
different HRT levels are displayed. The average values of pH Fig. 2 – Specific gas production rate (spec. GPR), volumetric
and alkalinity at steady-state conditions at different HRT gas production rate (vol. GPR) and the methane (CH4) content
levels are shown in Fig. 3, while the concentrations of of digester biogas under steady-state conditions at different
ammonium (NH+4 ) and phosphate (PO3 4 ) during anaerobic hydraulic retention time (HRT) levels (for HRT of 25 days,
digestion of sugar beet silage are given in Fig. 4. results obtained only with substrate charge 2 are
The continuously driven anaerobic biogas digester was given here).
firstly operated at a HRT of 38 days, and external supplemen-
tation of stock solutions was started during this phase of the 8.0
experiments (reactor day 1259). Before these experiments 6000
were started, the reactor was operated with fodder beet silage Alkalinity
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3 l-1)

[2]. At 38 days of HRT, the anaerobic reactor exhibited spec. 7.5

GPR and vol. GPR levels of 0.5 l g1 VS d1 and 1.203 l l1 d1, 4500
respectively, with an average pH of 6.75. The methane content
of the digester biogas ranged between 46% and 57%, with an

pH
7.0
average of 53%. However, towards the end of period 1b the 3000
reactor pH started to decline, to 6.3–6.4, due to low buffering
pH
capacity of sugar beet silage (after reactor day 1500). No
1500 6.5
external addition of buffering agents was carried out at 38
days of HRT. In order to maintain a stable reactor pH, without
addition of any external buffering agents, HRT was increased
0 6.0
from 38 to 95 days, in the second period (2b). However, in spite
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
of a high HRT of 95 days, the digester pH still remained in a
HRT (days)
range of between 6.3 and 6.4. Therefore, ammonium hydro-
gen carbonate addition was started, in order to increase both Fig. 3 – Values of pH and alkalinity at different hydraulic
the buffering capacity and the ammonium (NH+4 ) content of retention time (HRT) levels during mesophilic anaerobic
the reactor. The ammonium content and the buffering digestion of sugar beet silage (for the old and new harvests
capacity (total alkalinity) of the reactor ranged from 150 to there exist two different steady-state conditions at 25 days
215 mg l1, and 1176 to 1478 mg CaCO3 l1, respectively, before of HRT; no alkalinity data are available for operation at 38
days of HRT).

Table 2 – A summary of the observed operational and environmental conditions for anaerobic digestion of sugar beet
silage

Period HRT Reactor Feeding spec. GPR OLR VSS reactor Temp. Redoxa
(days) days (mL) (l g VS1 d1) (g VS l1 d1) (%) (1C) (mV)

1b 38 1441–1488 150 0.50 2.447 2.50 42 265

2b 95 1568–1608 60 0.40 0.937 2.10 42 267
3b 50 1613–1656 114 0.53 1.780 2.25 42 281
4b 25 1659–1695 228 0.49 3.560 2.65 42 288
4c 25 1794–1849 228 0.72 3.968 1.88 42 272
5c 15 2024–2066 380 0.54 6.330 1.16 42 296

a
Corrected redox potential (ORP) values by 230 mV reference electrode are reported here.
b
Substrate charge 1.
c
Substrate charge 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
206 BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY 32 (2008) 203 – 209

external supplementation began. After external supply was tively, with a pH of about 6.9. These low levels of spec. and vol.
started, the reactor pH gradually increased, from 6.3 and 6.4, GPR could be attributed to a relatively high HRT employed
to 6.75, in about 2 weeks, and the steady-state conditions during this period of reactor operation. The methane content
could then be attained. At 95 days of HRT, the spec. GPR and of digester biogas ranged between 49% and 58%, with an
vol. GPR levels were 0.4 l g1 VS d1 and 0.37 l l1 d1, respec- average of 53%. Alkalinity ranged between 2548 and
5145 mg CaCO3 l1, while the ammonium concentration var-
ied from 678 to 1380 mg l1. Change in HRT affected both
1400 specific and volumetric GPR values adversely. However,
Change of substrate charge at HRT of 25 days
variation in HRT did not provide a more stable reactor pH,
1200 without the supplementation effect of the buffering agents.
Addition of NH4HCO3 obviously provided a stable reactor pH,
Concentration (mg l-1)

1000
with a high amount of buffering capacity, but seemed to have
800 no profound effect on increased biogas production rate.
SCh-2 SCh-1 SCh-1
In the following period (3b), HRT was decreased from 95 to
600 50 days. At steady-state conditions at 50 days of HRT, the
spec. GPR and vol. GPR levels of 0.53 l g1 VS d1 and
400 Ammonium 0.944 l l1 d1 were obtained, respectively, with a pH of 7.1
Phosphate
(on average). The methane content of digester biogas varied
200 between 50% and 58%, with an average of 54%. The alkalinity
ranged from 3440 to 4743 mg CaCO3 l1, while the ammonium
0
concentration varied between 1087 and 1320 mg l1. HRT
20 40 60 80 100
variation only had a slight effect on spec. GPR. Besides, the
HRT (days)
methane content also remained almost the same. In the
Fig. 4 – Concentrations of ammonium (NH+4) and phosphate following run (4b), HRT was further adjusted from 50 to 25
(PO3
4 ) in a mesophilic anaerobic biogas reactor during the days. During steady-state conditions, the spec. and vol. GPR
entire operation with sugar beet silage without manure levels were 0.49 l g1 VS d1 and 1.743 l l1 d1, respectively,
addition using substrate charges SCh-1 and SCh-2. with an average reactor pH of 7.27. The methane content of
digester biogas varied between 51% and 61% (57% on average),
and the alkalinity ranged from 5250 to 6825 mg CaCO3 l1.
Table 3 – A comparison of reactor output with substrate
During this period, NH4HCO3 addition was reduced, due to
charge 1 and 2, both at 25 days of HRT operation
high ammonium concentrations (between 2060 and
2674 mg l1). Change in HRT from 50 to 25 days seemed to
Parameter Substrate Substrate affect only spec. GPR slightly. These steady-state data at 25
charge 1 charge 2
days of HRT were obtained during use of the substrate charge
Spec. GPR (l g1 VS d1) 0.49 0.72 1 (Table 2). However, during the steady-state operation at 25
Vol. GPR (l l1 d1) 1.743 2.863 days of HRT, we had to use a new charge of substrate (a new
Methane (CH4) 51–61 58–67 harvest-substrate charge 2), because the old charge of
content (%) substrate ran out (reactor day 1695). Eventually, the reactor
pH 7.27 6.79

1.50 8.0 100

Methane (CH4) percentage (%)

1.25 7.5
80
spec.GPR (l gVS-1d-1)

Methane

1.00 7.0
60
pH

0.75 6.5
40
spec. GPR
0.50 6.0

20
0.25 5.5
pH

0.00 5.0 0
1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860
Reactor operation (days)

Fig. 5 – Spec. GPR, pH and methane values before (during steady-state conditions at 25 days of HRT before reactor day 1860)
and during the failure period (on reactor day 1860 at 15 days of HRT).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY 32 (2008) 203 – 209 207

output was obviously affected by this variation. During the
operation with the new charge of substrate at 25 days of HRT
(period 4c), external addition of NH4HCO3 was ceased (Fig. 4).
In order to provide adequate buffering capacity and a stable
reactor pH, sodium carbonate, calcium carbonate and potas-
sium hydroxide were used. However, calcium carbonate
addition caused excessive foam formation in the digester,
which led to clogging of gas outline and condensate trap.
Sodium carbonate was also avoided later, since sodium ions
could have a positive effect on methanogenesis [17,18].
The spec. and vol. GPR levels were 0.72 l g1 VS d1 and
2.863 l l1 d1, respectively, with an average reactor pH of 6.79,
at steady state for 25 days of HRT, using substrate charge 2,
with KOH addition. The methane content of digester biogas
varied between 58% and 67% (63% on average), and the
alkalinity ranged from 1580 to 2975 mg CaCO3 l1. The
ammonium concentration also varied between 77 and
505 mg l1. A slightly higher OLR was used with substrate
charge 2, because it had a higher VS content than that of
substrate charge 1. The new charge of substrate used
provided higher specific and volumetric gas production rates,
12000
VFA concentration(mg l-1)
and a higher methane content in digester biogas produced
(Table 3).
Higher ammonium concentrations between 2060 and
2674 mg NH+4 l1 due to external addition during substrate
charge 1 feeding caused free ammonia (NH3) concentrations
ranging between 464 and 593 mg l1. During substrate charge
2 feeding, lower ammonium concentrations could be main-
tained in the reactor, ranging from 77 to 505 mg l1, causing
even lower NH3 concentrations between 109 and 17 mg l1.
The formula reported by Gallert and Winter was used to
calculate NH3 concentrations from measured NH+4 concentra-
tions [19]. Previously, stable anaerobic digestion of swine
manure has been reported for ammonia concentrations at
6000 mg N l1, and inhibition of the biogas process occurred at
a free ammonia concentration of approximately 1100 mg N l1
[20]. Furthermore, it was recently reported that the optimum
growth conditions for Methanosaeta concilii, which is the most
ammonia-sensitive methanogen, were in the range of
250–1100 mg NH+4 l1 [21]. Therefore, it was unlikely to con-
clude that high ammonium or free ammonia concentrations
had an adverse effect on anaerobic digestion of sugar beet
silage.
In the following period (5c), HRT was decreased from 25 to
15 days (reactor day 1850). No external ammonium supply
was used at 15 days of HRT, in order to find out the minimum

Total VFA
amount of ammonium concentration required for anaerobic
10000 HAC
HPRO
conversion of sugar beet silage to methane. It was earlier
8000 HISOBUT reported that the ammonia concentration had to be kept in
6000 HBUT excess of at least 40–70 mg N l1, to prevent reduction of
HISOVAL bacterial activity [22]. KOH was still used to control digester
4000 HVAL pH. Within 10 days, the ammonium concentration in the
2000 reactor depleted, and in spite of pH control by KOH, the
reactor pH declined to 5.5 (on reactor day 1860). The spec.
0
GPR, pH and methane values before (during steady-state
1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920
conditions at 25 days of HRT, before reactor day 1860) and
Reactor operation (days)
during the failure period (on reactor day 1860 at 15 days
Fig. 6 – Concentrations of VFA during failure at 15 days of of HRT) are displayed in Fig. 5. The concentrations and
HRT and the following recovery periods during anaerobic
digestion of sugar beet silage.

Table 4 – Results of the batch tests at HAW Hamburg

Substrate NaHCO3 addition NaCl addition KHCO3 addition Gas yield

(mM) (mM) (mM) (ml STP)

Reactor effluent (blank) – – – 835

Reactor effluent+ SBS** – – – 1126
Reactor effluent (blank) 30 – – 894
Reactor effluent+ SBS** 30 – - 4962
Reactor effluent (blank) 60 – – 875
Reactor effluent+ SBS** 60 – – 5021
Reactor effluent (blank) 90 – – 743
Reactor effluent+ SBS** 90 – – 5500
Reactor effluent (blank) – 60 – 887
Reactor effluent+ SBS** – 60 – 2633
Reactor effluent (blank) – – 60 1001
Reactor effluent+ SBS** – – 60 2761

*Three-fold experiments were carried out at 37 1C; incubation time was 26 days [23].
**SBS ¼ sugar beet silage.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
208 BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY 32 (2008) 203 – 209

distribution of VFA during this failure and the following

Reference

This study
recovery periods are also shown in Fig. 6. The maximum

[10]
[11]
[12]
[8]
[9]
concentrations of acetic (HAC) and propionic (HPRO) acids
were determined to be 6238 and 3514 mg l1, respectively (Fig.
6). Even an alkalinity level of 2900 mg CaCO3 l1 could not
prevent decrease of pH, when the bacterial activity was
Methane

58-61%
inhibited. In order to recover the activity of the reactor at
71.9%
70%

63%
–

–
operation day 1861, HRT was firstly adjusted from 15 to 100
days. Then, it was further adjusted to 75, 50 and 25 days.
During this recovery phase, firstly NH4HCO3, and then KOH
were used to provide N and buffering capacity. After stable
0.31–0.36 m3 kg1 VSadded
0.36–0.41 l CH4 g1 d1

conditions had been maintained, HRT was finally adjusted to

504.1 ml g1 VS1

0.72 l g1 VS d1

1

15 days again.
591-670 l kg1
0.74 m kg VS
Gas yield

During operation at 15 days of HRT, KOH and KHCO3 were

used to provide buffering capacity, while ammonium chloride
3

(NH4Cl) was used to maintain the adequate amount of N

concentration in the reactor. Potassium hydrogen carbonate
(KHCO3) seemed to function better to provide the adequate
buffering capacity and to keep the reactor pH stable,
compared with KOH and Na2HCO3, during continuous experi-
1.2–1.4 m3 m3 d1
Gas production

ments. On the contrary, batch tests showed that Na2HCO3 was

14.1–45.0 l d1

17.5–24.6 l d1

2.863 l l1 d1

1

more favoured than KHCO3. In our laboratory at HAW

3
1m m d

Hamburg, NaHCO3 showed a stimulating effect over KHCO3,

–

in batch bottle tests carried out for a period of 3 weeks

3
Table 5 – A summary of experimental findings about continuous anaerobic digestion of sugar beets

(Table 4). The methods for these batch tests at HAW Hamburg
have been previously reported [23].
At steady-state conditions at 15 days of HRT, the specific
and volumetric GPR levels were determined to be only
0.6–1.2 days
17 days

20 days

25 days

0.53 l g1 VS d1 and 3.357 l l1 d1, respectively, with an aver-
HRT

age digester pH of 7.13. The methane composition of digester

biogas varied between 54% and 67% (60% on average). The
average concentrations of alkalinity and ammonium were
3268 mg CaCO3 l1 and 163 mg l1, respectively. A brief sum-
3.968 g VS l1 d1
2 kg VS m3 d1

mary of similar works from the literature is given in Table 5.

5–15 g l1 d1
3
Loading

1 kg VS m

However, most of these research works focused on anaerobic

–
–

digestion of sugar beet pulps.

Variation in concentration of ammonium (NH+4 ) was depen-
dent on external additions of ammonium hydrogen carbonate
or ammonium chloride. Therefore, sharp decreases could
Enzymatic hydrolysis applied as a pre-treatment before digestion.

sometimes be observed during the operation (Fig. 4). External

Temperature

addition of phosphate to the substrate was always the same

Thermo
Meso
Meso
Meso

Meso
Meso

(1 mM), so the variation in reactor phosphate concentration

was dependent only on the substrate. The new harvest
All the values are reported for the methane reactor.

(substrate charge 2) had a higher PO3 4 content than that of

substrate charge 1. Therefore, PO3 4 concentration increased
after introduction of the new harvest (after reactor day 1695,
Sugar beets+dairy manure

at 25 and 15 days of HRT). Decreases in reactor VSS content at

Sugar beet silagec
Sugar beet pulp
Sugar beet pulp
Sugar beet pulp

Sugar beet tops

25 and 15 days of HRT, respectively, could be attributed to

Substrate

higher substrate feeding flow rates (Table 2). There was no

effluent recycling system installed in the experimental set-
up; therefore, some bacterial washout at higher flow rates
could be expected. Furthermore, we could observe no
correlation between the redox potential (ORP) values and
Without the leaves.

the reactor behaviour during the entire operation.

a
Single-phase

Single-phase
Single-phase
Single-phase
Two-phaseb
Two-phase

4. Conclusions
Process

During single-phase mesophilic anaerobic conversion of

b
a

sugar beet silage as a mono-substrate (without addition of

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
BIOMASS AND BIOENERGY
manure) to methane, which had an extreme low pH of 3.4, the
highest spec. GPR and methane content in digester biogas
were obtained at a HRT of 25 days and a pH of around 6.8.
Since sugar beet silage without the top (leaves) is a poor
substrate, in terms of nutrient availability and buffering
capacity, external supplementation of nutrients, especially
nitrogen, and buffering agents (to provide adequate amount
of alkalinity) has to be carried out regularly, to achieve a
stable and an efficient digestion process. In order to provide
adequate buffering capacity and to keep pH stable, potassium
hydrogen carbonate seemed to function quite well. Besides,
change in substrate charge, with a relatively higher content
of phosphate (use of a different harvest), also affected
the reactor process performance significantly during the
operation.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Nils
Sharfenberg, Christian Rösner, Karsten Lehmann, Olaf
Schmidt and Monika Unbehauen for their help and support.
This project was supported by the BMBF KFZ 03SF 03171.
R E F E R E N C E S
[1] Demirel B, Yenigun O. Two-phase anaerobic digestion pro-
cesses: a review. Journal of Chemical Technology and
Biotechnology 2002;77:743–55.
[2] Scherer PA, Dobler S, Rohardt S, Loock R, Buttner B, Noldeke P,
et al. Continuous biogas production from fodder beet silage
as sole substrate. Water Science and Technology
2003;48:229–33.
[3] Angelidaki I, Heinfelt A, Ellegaard L. Enhanced biogas
recovery by applying post-digestion in large-scale centra-
lized biogas plants. Water Science and Technology
2006;54:237–44.
[4] Bohn I, Björnsson L, Mattiasson B. The energy balance in
farm scale anaerobic digestion of crop residues at 11–37 1C.
Process Biochemistry 2006;42:57–64.
[5] Nordberg A, Jarvis A, Stenberg B, Mathisen B, Svensson BH.
Anaerobic digestion of alfalfa silage with recirculation of
process liquid. Bioresource Technology 2007;98:104–11.
[6] Verma VK, Singh YP, Rai JPN. Biogas production from plant
biomass used for phytoremediation of industrial wastes.
Bioresource Technology 2007;98(8):1664–9.
[7] Elango D, Pulikesi M, Baskaralingam P, Ramamurthi V,
Sivanesan S. Production of biogas from municipal solid
waste with domestic sewage. Journal of Hazardous Materials
2007;141(1):301–4.
32 (2008) 203 – 209 209
[8] Labat M, Garcia JL, Meyer F, Deschamps F. Anaerobic
digestion of sugar beet pulps. Biotechnology Letters
1984;6:379–84.
[9] Stoppok K, Buchholz K. Continuous anaerobic conversion of
sugar beet pulp to biogas. Biotechnology Letters
1985;7:119–24.
[10] Hutnan M, Drtil M, Mrafkova L. Anaerobic biodegradation of
sugar beet pulp. Biodegradation 2000;11:203–11.
[11] Umetsu K, Yamazaki S, Kishimoto T, Takahashi J, Shibata Y,
Zhang C, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure and
sugar beets. International Congress Series 2006;1293:307–10.
[12] Svensson LM, Björnsson L, Mattiasson B. Enhancing perfor-
mance in anaerobic high-solids stratified bed digesters by
straw bed implementation. Bioresource Technology
2007;98:46–52.
[13] Scherer PA, Lehmann K. Application of an automatic fuzzy-
logic controller to digest anaerobically fodder beet silage at a
HRT of 6.5 days and with an OLR of 14 kg VS/(m3*d). In: Guiot
S, et al., editors. Proceedings of the 10th world congress of
anaerobic digestion, Montreal, 2004. p. 72–8.
[14] Hassan EA. Biogas production from forage and sugar beets.
PhD thesis, University of Kassel/Witzenhausen, 2003. p. 73–4.
[15] DIN 38414-8. German standard methods for the examination
of water, waste water and sludge; sludge and sediments
(group S); determination of the amenability to anaerobic
digestion (S8), 1985.
[16] APHA/AWWA/WPCF. Standard methods for the examination
of water and wastewater. 17th ed. Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association/American Water Works Associa-
tion/Water Pollution Control Federation; 1989.
[17] Perski HJ, Moll J, Thauer RK. Sodium dependence of growth
and methane formation in Methanobacterium thermoautotro-
phicum. Archieves of Microbiology 1981;130:319–21.
[18] Jarrell KF, Kalmokoff ML. Nutritional requirements of the
methanogenic archaebacteria. Canadian Journal of Micro-
biology 1988;34:557–76.
[19] Gallert C, Winter J. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of source sorted organic wastes: effect of ammonia
on glucose degradation and methane production. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology 1997;48:405–10.
[20] Hansen KH, Angelidaki I, Ahring B. Anaerobic digestion of
swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water Research
1998;32:5–12.
[21] Steinhaus B, Garcia ML, Shen AQ, Angenent LT. A portable
anaerobic microbioreactor reveals optimum growth condi-
tions for the methanogen Methanosaeta concilii. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 2007;73:1653–8.
[22] Takashima M, Speece RE. Mineral nutrient requirements for
high rate methane fermentation of acetate at low SRT.
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation
1989;61:1645–50.
[23] Scherer PA. Influence of high solid content on anaerobic
degradation tests measured online by a Milligascounters
station for biogas. In: van Velsen L, Verstraete W, editors.
Proceedings of the ninth world congress on anaerobic
digestion, Antwerpen, 2001.