ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
  
 
Home
Browse
Search
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields          Advanced Search
Result list |  previous  < 21 of 4,699 >  next 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
Related Articles
View More Related Articles
Thumbnails - selected | Full-Size Images
Article - selected
Figures/Tables - selected
References - selected
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.002 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
  Cited By in Scopus (5)
  Permissions & Reprints


Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestionnext term performance and stability with co-substrates addition

H. BouallaguiCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author, H. Lahdheba, E. Ben Romdana, B. Rachdia and M. Hamdia

aLaboratory of Microbial Ecology and Technology, National Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology, BP 676, 1080, Tunisia

Received 6 February 2008; 
revised 29 August 2008; 
accepted 1 December 2008. 
Available online 30 December 2008.

Abstract

The effect of fish previous termwastenext term (FW), abattoir wastewater (AW) and previous termwastenext term activated sludge (WAS) addition as co-substrates on the fruit and vegetable previous termwastenext term (FVW) previous termanaerobic digestionnext term performance was investigated under mesophilic conditions using four previous termanaerobicnext term sequencing batch reactors (ASBR) with the aim of finding the better co-substrate for the enhanced performance of co-previous termdigestion.next term The reactors were operated at an organic loading rate of 2.46–2.51 g volatile solids (VS) l−1 d−1, of which approximately 90% were from FVW, and a hydraulic retention time of 10 days. It was observed that AW and WAS additions with a ratio of 10% VS enhanced biogas yield by 51.5% and 43.8% and total volatile solids removal by 10% and 11.7%, respectively. However FW addition led to improvement of the process stability, as indicated by the low VFAs/Alkalinity ratio of 0.28, and permitted previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of FVW without chemical alkali addition. Despite a considerable decrease in the C/N ratio from 34.2 to 27.6, the addition of FW slightly improved the gas production yield (8.1%) compared to previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of FVW alone. A C/N ratio between 22 and 25 seemed to be better for previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of FVW with its co-substrates. The most significant factor for enhanced FVW previous termdigestionnext term performance was the improved organic nitrogen content provided by the additional previous termwastes.next term Consequently, the occurrence of an imbalance between the different groups of previous termanaerobicnext term bacteria which may take place in unstable previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of FVW could be prevented.

Keywords: previous termAnaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term; Stability; Sequencing batch reactor; Fruit and vegetable previous termwastenext term; Abattoir wastewater; previous termWastenext term activated sludge; Fish previous termwastenext term

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Material and methods
2.1. Reactors design and operational conditions
2.2. Wastes sources and characteristics
2.3. Technical analysis
2.4. Statistical analysis
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of co-substrates addition on the fermentation efficiency
3.1.1. Biogas production
3.1.2. Organic matter removal
3.1.3. Alkalinity, total VFAs and pH variation
3.2. Digesters performances
4. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References

1. Introduction

previous termAnaerobic digestionnext term is a well established process for treating many types of organic previous termwastes,next term both solid and liquid ([Pain et al., 1988], [Ralph and Keith, 1990], [Borzacconi et al., 1995], [Murto et al., 2004], [Neves et al., 2006] and [Yen and Brune, 2007]). This alternative allows the recovery of energy and a solid product that can be used as an amendment of soils ([Lawson, 1992] and [Gomez-Lahoz et al., 2007]). The nutrient content of the previous termanaerobicnext term compost is favourable and the content of pollutants is low ([Krugel et al., 1998], [Kubler et al., 2000] and [Elango et al., 2007]).

The easy biodegradable organic matter content of FVW with high moisture facilitates their biological treatment and shows the trend of these previous termwastesnext term for previous termanaerobic digestionnext term (Bouallagui et al., 2003). In general, hydrolysis is the rate limiting step if the substrate is in particulate form (Veeken and Hamelers, 1999). However, the previous termanaerobicnext term degradation of cellulose-poor previous termwastesnext term like FVW is limited by methanogenesis rather than by the hydrolysis. A major limitation of previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of FVW is a rapid acidification of these previous termwastesnext term decreasing the pH in the reactor, and a larger volatile fatty acids production, which stress and inhibit the activity of methanogenic bacteria ([Misi and Forster, 2001] and [Bouallagui et al., 2005]).

The addition of co-substrates with high nitrogen content is a solution to adjust nutrient content of FVW. The unbalanced nutrients of fish previous termwastenext term (FW), abattoir wastewater (AW) and previous termwastenext term activated sludge (WAS) characterised by a low C/N ratio were also regarded as an important limitation factor to previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of these organic previous termwastesnext term ([Mshandete et al., 2004], [Gomez et al., 2006] and [Gannoun et al., 2007]). Adding AW, FW and WAS in FVW feedstock to have a balanced C/N ratio was undertaken in this study. Their greatest advantage lies in the buffering of the organic loading rate, and previous termanaerobicnext term ammonia production from organic nitrogen, which reduce the FVW previous termanaerobic digestionnext term limitations.

Co-previous termdigestionnext term is a technology that is increasingly being applied for simultaneous treatment of several solid and liquid organic previous termwastesnext term ([Poggi-Varaldo et al., 1997], [Callaghan et al., 1999], [Alatriste et al., 2006] and [Perez et al., 2006]). It combines different organic substrates to generate a homogeneous mixture as input to the previous termanaerobicnext term reactor in order to increase process performance ([Hamzawi et al., 1998], [Viotti et al., 2004] and [Zhang and Banks, 2008]). It permits the exploitation of complementarity in previous termwastenext term characteristics e.g. avoidance of nutrients (N, P) addition when a co-digested previous termwastenext term contains nutrients in excess ([Gavala et al., 1996], [Pavan et al., 2005] and [Neves et al., 2008]). Several studies have shown that multi-component mixtures of agro-previous termwastes,next term rural previous termwastesnext term and industrial previous termwastesnext term can be digested successfully, although with some mixtures a degree of both synergism and antagonism occurred ([Misi and Forster, 2001], [Misi and Forster, 2002] and [Cavinato et al., 2008]).

The aim of this work was to examine the effect of AW, WAS and FW addition as co-substrates on the FVW previous termanaerobic digestionnext term performance in mesophilic condition using an ASBR. The criteria for judging the success of a co-previous termdigestionnext term were process stability, VS reduction, biogas production rate, and methane yield.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Reactors design and operational conditions

Four laboratory-scale previous termanaerobicnext term sequencing batch reactors (R1, R2, R3 and R4) of 2 l effective volume were used (Fig. 1). The temperature was controlled at 35 °C by a thermostatically regulated water bath. Peristaltic pumps were used to fill the reactors and to draw off the effluents after settling. Mixing in the reactors was done by a system of magnetic stirring. Each digester was initially inoculated with previous termanaerobicnext term sludge obtained from an active mesophilic digester of FVWs treatment plant (Bouallagui et al., 2007).



Full-size image (25K) - Opens new windowFull-size image (25K)

Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental ASBR system: (1) ASBR, (2) water bath and heating recirculation, (3) magnetic stirrer, (4) feedstock, (5) feeding pump, (6) discharge pump, (7) effluent stock, (8) sampling valve and (9) biogas collector.


The ASBR was operated with cycles including the following four discrete steps: (i) fill (15 min): 200 ml of different mixtures of previous termwastesnext term were added to the reactors at the beginning of a cycle, (ii) react (21 h): during this phase, the reactors were stirred and organic matter was converted to energy and new cells, (iii) settle (2 h and 30 min): settling started when the react phase was finished and (iv) draw off (15 min): at the end of the settling period, the volume of liquid added at the beginning of the cycle was drawn off from the reactors.

2.2. previous termWastesnext term sources and characteristics

The fruit, vegetable and fish previous termwastesnext term used in this study were collected from the group market of Tunis. After shredding to small particles and homogenizing, they were stored at 4 °C. WAS was collected from the activated sludge plant (Cherguia, Tunis) treating domestic and industrial wastewaters. It is composed of settled suspended biomass. The AW was collected from an abattoir factory (El Ouardia City, Tunis). Analysis of the raw FVW, FW, AW and WAS were carried out several times and the average compositions are shown in Table 1. The FVW consisted of homogenised courgettes, lettuce, tomatoes, apple, orange, pear, potatoes and carrot to give 8.3% TS with VS content of 93%. The feedstock was made up by adding a percentage by volume of water, AW, WAS and FW to FVW. Four feedstocks (W1–W4) (Table 2) which were prepared with average TS contents of 2.7%, 2.74%, 2.9% and 2.8%, were used to load R1–R4. Approximately, 90% of VS in the different feedstocks were given from FVWs.

Table 1.

Characteristics of raw previous termwastes.next term

FVWAWWASFW
TS (%)8.30.350.619.6
VS (% of TS)9360.381.560.2
TSS (g/l)46.30.464.953.7
tCOD (g/l)1623.811.7188.8
tCOD/VS2.11.82.41.6
pH4.27.26.936.1
Total Nitrogen (% of TS)2.112.15.45.4
Total Carbon (% of TS)7260.252.548.2
C/N34.25.1410.488.8

Table 2.

Characteristics of mixtures previous termwastes.next term

W1W2W3W4
TS (%)2.72.742.92.8
VS (% of TS)9290.186.589.5
TSS (g/l)14.114.818.722.6
tCOD (g/l)52.250.656.448.9
tCOD/VS2.12.052.251.95
pH4.35.44.945.1
Total Nitrogen (% of TS)2.13.12.62.5
Total Carbon (% of TS)7270.264.469.1
C/N34.222.5824.7627.6

2.3. Technical analysis

The biogas produced was measured daily by gas meter (Ritter – Bochum Langendreer, Germany) and its composition was estimated using an ORSAT apparatus (Bouallagui et al., 2003). Total solids (TS), total volatile solids (TVS), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, alkalinity and total volatile fatty acids (VFAs) were determined according to the APHA Standard Methods (1995). Total organic carbon (TOC) was measured by catalytic oxidation on a TOC Euroglace analyser. Total nitrogen (TN) was estimated by the Kjeldahl method.

2.4. Statistical analysis

In order to determine whether the observed differences between digesters performances were significantly different, data were subjected to the ANOVA tests (StatSoft Inc, 1997). Differences between co-substrates' addition effects (p and p1) were compared with 0.05.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect of co-substrates addition on the fermentation efficiency

3.1.1. Biogas production

The biogas production by the previous termdigestionsnext term of FVW alone and the co-digested previous termwastesnext term is shown in Fig. 2. Analysis of biogas production profiles for the substrates combinations showed that there were significant differences among the combinations tested. The results for co-digested substrates are better than those obtained from previous termdigestionnext term of FVW. The average biogas production rate varied between 1.53 l d−1 and 2.53 l d−1, with value being highest for both mixtures W2 and W3 and lowest for 100% FVW. The specific biogas productions for the four previous termdigestionnext term processes (R1–R4) were 0.403, 0.611, 0.580 and 0.436 l g−1 removal VS.



Full-size image (51K) - Opens new windowFull-size image (51K)

Fig. 2. Biogas rate and methane yield variation during previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of W1: 30%FVW/70%Water (▪), W2: 30%FVW/70%AW (up triangle, filled), W3: 30%FVW/70%WAS (□) and W4: 30%FVW/1.4%FW/68.6Water (×), under mesophilic condition and an HRT of 10 days.


The methane yields from FVW, which have been reported previously, are variable depending on the previous termwastenext term composition and the used reactor design. The reported range was from 0.16 to 0.4 m3 kg−1 VS added (Bouallagui et al., 2005). The results presented in this paper for FVW previous termdigestionnext term are therefore comparable with these earlier results.

The data for the co-previous termdigestionnext term may be also compared with earlier works. Callaghan et al. (2002) examined the co-previous termdigestionnext term of FVW with cattle slurry and chicken manure. The methane yields they obtained of 0.35–0.4 l g−1 VS added were very similar to those in the current study for FVW–AW co-previous termdigestion.next term Gomez et al. (2006) have also reported similar results for the previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of FVW and primary sludge. However the methane yield obtained from FVW and WAS previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term in two stages tubular digesters of 0.25 l g−1 VS added (Dinsdale et al., 2000) was lower than that is presented in this work.

The addition of AW, WAS and FW enhanced the biogas yield by 51.5%, 43.8% and 8.1%, respectively. Biogas yields for FVW:AW and FVW:WAS co-previous termdigestionsnext term are much greater thanks to the better C/N ratio of these feedstocks (Fig. 3). The ANOVA of the data indicated that digesters (R2 and R3) performance enhancement was statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 3). Despite a considerable decrease of C/N ratio from 34.2 to 27.6, the addition of FW slightly improves the gas production rate and biogas yield compared to previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of FVW alone (p1 > 0.05). The C/N ratios of the co-digested FVW:AW and FVW:WAS which ranged between 22 and 25 were within the C/N ratio (20–25) required for stable and better biological conversions reported by others on previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of organic previous termwastesnext term ([Parkin and Owen, 1986], [Mshandete et al., 2004] and [Yen and Brune, 2007]). Kayhanian and Hardy (1994) reported C/N ratios between 25 and 30 as being optimal. However, Kivaisi and Mtila (1998) argue that the C/N of approximately between 16 and 19 is optimal for methanogenic performance.



Full-size image (17K) - Opens new windowFull-size image (17K)

Fig. 3. Effect of C/N ratio variation on the VS removal efficiency (□) and biogas yield (▪).


Table 3.

Digesters performances.

R1R2R3R4p
OLR (g/l.d)2.48 ± 0.052.46 ± 0.12.51 ± 0.12.5 ± 0.04
VS inlet (g/l)24.8 ± 0.524.6 ± 125.1 ± 125.06 ± 0.4
VS outlet (g/l)5.85 ± 0.23.92 ± 0.13.66 ± 0.26.74 ± 0.3
VS removal (%)76.4 ± 0.9884.06 ± 1.285.4 ± 1.5173.1 ± 1.10.000
p1 = 0.000p1 = 0.000p1 = 0.006
Biogas production rate (l/d)1.53 ± 0.12.53 ± 0.22.49 ± 0.11.6 ± 0.090.000
p1 = 0.000p1 = 0.000p1 = 0.569
Biogas yield (l/g removal VS)0.4 ± 0.050.61 ± 0.030.58 ± 0.010.44 ± 0.030.000
p1 = 0.002p1 = 0.003p1 = 0.415
Biogas yield (l/g added VS)0.31 ± 0.020.51 ± 0.030.49 ± 0.010.32 ± 0.020.000
p1 = 0.001p1 = 0.001p1 = 0.712
VFAs (mg/l)750 ± 20300 ± 20520 ± 201900 ± 100
Alkalinity (mg/l)1300 ± 504400 ± 1004800 ± 1507000 ± 300
tVFAs/Alkalinity0.57 ± 0.010.07 ± 0.0050.11 ± 0.010.27 ± 0.0150.000
pH6.9 ± 0.37.33 ± 0.17.17 ± 0.157.57 ± 0.2
Ammonia (mg/l)120 ± 10900 ± 30700 ± 302200 ± 100

p: Indicated the statistical difference between all digesters performances (R1–R4).

p1: Indicated the statistical difference between digesters R1 and one of other digesters (R2–R4).


3.1.2. Organic matter removal

The total volatile solids destruction for the various co-digested substrates combinations is given in Table 3. The higher degradation efficiencies were obtained for the digesters treating FVW:AW and FVW:WAS and operated at an organic loading rate of 2.46 gTVS l−1 d−1 and 2.51 gTVS l−1 d−1, respectively. They were associated with the higher specific biogas production and a lower content of volatile solids in the digested effluent, which represents a lesser amount of output stabilised effluent with a better dewatering properties. The data of Table 3 showed that about 84–85.4% of TVS were degraded to methane and carbon dioxide with the co-previous termdigestionnext term of organic previous termwastes.next term These results are in agreement with those obtained by Fernández et al. (2005) and better than those obtained by Callaghan et al. (1999) and Dinsdale et al. (2000). It is very likely that the high degradation efficiency in the co-fermentation was due to an improved ratio of nutrients and better availability of the organic substances, which facilitate their assimilation by previous termanaerobicnext term flora and increases the degree of degradation (Krupp and Schubert, 2005). Furthermore, the AW addition improves the proteins availability that were used by previous termanaerobicnext term bacteria to produce new cells and enzymes.

3.1.3. Alkalinity, total VFAs and pH variation

In a well balanced previous termanaerobic digestionnext term process, total VFAs levels are low ([Fernández et al., 2005] and [Chen et al., 2007]). In this study all the combinations examined, except FVW–FW showed lower levels of total VFAs in their digested effluent at steady-state (Fig. 4). During the period days 1–25 high levels of total VFAs of up to 2800 mg l−l, 2000 mg l−1, 1500 mg l−1 and 2300 mg l−1 experienced in digesters treating W1, W2, W3 and W4, respectively, indicating that the reactors were not operating at their optimum. An average of 750 mg l−1, 300 mg l−1, 520 mg l−1 and 1900 mg l−1 total VFAs were found, respectively for the different digesters at steady-state. Total VFAs concentration remained at high level for the digester treating FVW–FW indicating a previous termdigestionnext term limitation accompanied by the lowest biogas yield and volatile solid removal. Although, the pH and the partial alkalinity of this reactor were high, indicating good process stability.



Full-size image (75K) - Opens new windowFull-size image (75K)

Fig. 4. VFAs, alkalinity and pH variation during previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of W1: 30%FVW/70%Water (▪), W2: 30%FVW/70%AW (up triangle, filled), W3: 30%FVW/70%WAS (□) and W4: 30%FVW/1.4%FW/68.6Water (×), under mesophilic condition and an HRT of 10 days.


An average value of total VFAs between 1330 and 1800 mg ll was also found in the effluent of a successful methanogenic reactor treating FVW with WAS as a co-substrate (Dinsdale et al., 2000). In contrast, levels of 55–505 mg l−l total VFAs were found in the reactors treating multi-component agro-previous termwastesnext term (Misi and Forster, 2001) indicating that higher and lower levels of total VFA are possible for organic previous termwastesnext term co-previous termdigestion.next term

The initial partial alkalinity ranged between 600 mg l−1 and 2400 mg l−1 while the final range was 1300 mg l−1 and 7000 mg l−1 (Fig. 4). The latter, demonstrated an increased partial alkalinity in the digesters compared to the initial values before previous termanaerobic digestionnext term stability. This provided further evidence that the co-previous termdigestionsnext term of FVW and co-substrates studied were successful. Previously, laboratory studies on mesophilic and thermophilic previous termanaerobicnext term organic previous termwastes digestionnext term reported a range of 2000–4000 mg l−1 partial alkalinity as being typical for properly operating digesters ([Chen et al., 2007] and [Sharma et al., 2000]). The initial values reported in this study fall within this range. However, the final values are higher than the reported values, especially for FVW–FW co-previous termdigestion.next term This increase could be due to generation of NH4+ during the previous termdigestionnext term of protein in fish previous termwastenext term which resulted in an increased digester buffering capacity and hence stability of the digesters. This is an interesting cost effective approach since no external buffer sources were added.

The pH was monitored continuously in the digesters. The evolution of the pH values obtained under different conditions is presented in Fig. 4. Despite the low pH of the feed substrate (4.3–5.4), the pH increased to its neutral value (between 6.9 and 7.57) due to the process stability and the activity of methanogenic bacteria. The outlet pH value increased with the addition of high nitrogen content co-substrate on the FVW. The highest values were obtained for the digester treating FVW–FW co-substrates due to a high partial alkalinity of 7000 mg l−1 and ammonia concentration of 2200 mg l−1.

One of the criteria for judging digester stability is the VFAs:Alkalinity ratio. There are three critical values for this ([Switzenbaum et al., 1990] and [Callaghan et al., 2002]). If this ratio was lower than 0.4, the digester should be stable. While, when the ratio ranged 0.4–0.8, some instability will occur on the digester performances. However, the ratio higher than 0.8, indicates a significantly instability. When FVW being digested alone (Fig. 5), the VFAs:Alkalinity ratio (0.57) did not rise above the criteria value of 0.4, implying that despite the results for the biogas yield and VS reduction, there was the potential for instability. Generally, FVW is thought of as being highly degradable, but it is essential that there is an adequate alkalinity (Gunaseelan, 1997). Lane (1984) suggested that, for a balanced previous termdigestionnext term of FVW, the alkalinity should not be less than 1500 mg l−1 and that the VFAs:Alkalinity ratio should be less than 0.7. The addition of AW, WAS and FW in the feedstock of FVW produced a decrease of VFAs:Alkalinity ratio in the digesters to be around 0.07, 0.11 and 0.27, respectively, showing better processes stabilities and buffer capacities. Consequently, the occurrence of an imbalance between the different groups of previous termanaerobicnext term bacteria which may take place in an unstable previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of FVW process could be prevented.



Full-size image (22K) - Opens new windowFull-size image (22K)

Fig. 5. VFAs/Alkalinity ratio variation during previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of W1: 30%FVW/70%Water (▪), W2: 30%FVW/70%AW (up triangle, filled), W3: 30%FVW/70%WAS (□) and W4: 30%FVW/1.4%FW/68.6Water (×), under mesophilic condition and an HRT of 10 days.


3.2. Digesters performances

The results of the digesters performances are shown in Table 3. Compared to methane yield for the pure FVW, co-previous termdigestionsnext term of the FVW–AW, FVW–WAS and FVW–FW enhanced the biogas yield by 51.5%, 43.8% and 8.1%, respectively. The better biogas yield (0.61 l g−1 removal VS) and VS removal (85.4%) were obtained by W2 and W3 co-previous termdigestions,next term respectively. This could be due to positive synergism in the previous termdigestionnext term medium, especially for FVW–AW, FVW–WAS combinations, supplying missing nutrients and reducing of inhibitory materials in feedstock by the co-substrates (Mshandete et al., 2004). The average CH4 content of the biogas produced from different treated previous termwastesnext term range between 64% and 66%. This range of methane content is closer to the range of 55–65% which is normally obtained from conventional previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of organic previous termwastesnext term conducted in single stage digesters.

The results of FVW–FW previous termdigestionnext term showed a decrease of biogas production rate due to the high amount of ammonia (2200 mg l−1) and total VFAs (1900 mg l−1). In fact, the total ammonia nitrogen and VFAs both are important intermediates and potential inhibitors in the previous termanaerobic digestionnext term process. High concentration of ammonia and VFAs in the digester would decrease the methanogens activity and further accumulation could inhibit the previous termanaerobic digestionnext term (Chen et al., 2007).

The estimated free ammonia (FA) concentrations based on pH and total ammonia for the four previous termdigestionnext term processes (R1–R4) were 3.2, 63.4, 34.4 and 264.5 mg l−1. It is generally believed that ammonia concentrations below 200 l−1 are beneficial to previous termanaerobicnext term process since nitrogen is an essential nutrient for previous termanaerobicnext term microorganisms (Liu and Sung, 2002). Gallert and Winter (1997) studied the previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of organic previous termwastesnext term and reported that methane production was inhibited 50% by 220 l−1 FA at 37 °C and by 690 l−1 FA at 55 °C, indicating that thermophilic flora tolerated at least twice as much FA as compared to mesophilic flora. Several mechanisms for ammonia inhibition have been proposed, such as a change in the intracellular pH and the inhibition of specific methane synthesising enzyme reaction (Calli et al., 2005). FA has been suggested to be the main cause of inhibition since it is freely membrane-permeable. The hydrophobic ammonia molecule may diffuse passively into the cell, causing proton imbalance, and/or potassium deficiency (Gallert et al., 1998).

4. Conclusion

An interesting option for improving yields of previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of solid previous termwastesnext term is co-previous termdigestion.next term Its benefits include improved balance of nutrients, synergistic effect of microorganisms, increased load of biodegradable organic matter and better biogas yield. Combination of FVW with other substrate like AW and WAS can significantly improve the previous termwastenext term treatment efficiency. This resulted in a highly buffered system as the high nitrogen content co-substrate contributed to high amount of ammonia. Fish previous termwastenext term was not as successful as a co-substrate for FVW previous termdigestion.next term As a consequence to the FW addition, the VS reduction deteriorated and the methane yield increased slightly. This appeared to be due to the concentration of ammonia. Results indicate that the ratio of C/N is a determining parameter which influenced the methane production and the organic matter bio-degradation. The biogas production yield was enhanced by 51.5% and 43.8% by the addition of AW and WAS, respectively to FVW feedstock. It was verified that these combinations could be a promising and practical alternative for the simultaneous recycling of different types of organic previous termwastesnext term with high stability. It seemed that carbohydrate rich substrates are good producers of VFAs and that protein rich substrate are yielding good buffering capacity. The high values for the methane yield and the VS reduction were indicatives for a high content of biodegradable organic matter in the co-substrate due to an improved ratio of nutrients and better availability of the organic substances.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the Ministry of Superior Education and Scientific Research and Technology, which has facilitated the carried work.

References

Alatriste et al., 2006 M. Alatriste, S. Felipe, C. Parviz, H. Huub, J. Ahring, K. Birgitte and R. Iranpour, previous termAnaerobicnext term codigestion of municipal, farm, and industrial organic previous termwastes:next term a survey of recent literature, Water Environ. Res. 78 (2006), pp. 607–636.

APHA Standard Methods, 1995 American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th ed., Washington DC.

Borzacconi et al., 1995 L. Borzacconi, I. López and M. Viñas, Application of previous termanaerobic digestionnext term to the treatment of agroindustrial effluents in Latin America, Water Sci. Technol. 32 (1995), pp. 105–111. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

Bouallagui et al., 2003 H. Bouallagui, R. Ben Cheikh, L. Marouani and M. Hamdi, Mesopholic biogas production from fruit and vegetable previous termwastenext term in a tubular digester, Bioresour. Technol. 86 (2003), pp. 85–89. Article | PDF (155 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (39)

Bouallagui et al., 2005 H. Bouallagui, Y. Touhami, R. Ben Cheikh and M. Hamdi, Bioreactors performance used in previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of fruit and vegetable previous termwastes:next term review, Process Biochem. 40 (2005), pp. 989–995. Article | PDF (149 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (70)

Bouallagui et al., 2007 Bouallagui, H., Rachdi, B., Hamdi, M., 2007. previous termAnaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of abattoir wastewater and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal previous termwastes.next term In: Proceedings of the International Conference: Technologies for Industrial Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Mediterranean Region, 24–26 May, Jerba, Tunisia.

Callaghan et al., 1999 F.J. Callaghan, D.A. Wase, J.K. Thayanithy and C.F. Forster, Co-previous termdigestion of wastenext term organic solids: batch studies, Bioresour. Technol. 67 (1999), pp. 117–122. Article | PDF (534 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (38)

Callaghan et al., 2002 F.J. Callaghan, D.A.J. Wasea, K. Thayanithya and C.F. Forster, Continuous co-previous termdigestionnext term of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable previous termwastesnext term and chicken manure, Biomass Bioenergy 27 (2002), pp. 71–77. Article | PDF (84 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (42)

Cavinato et al., 2008 Cavinato, C., Pavan, P., Bolzonella, D., Cecchi, F., 2008. Single phase extreme thermophilic (70 °C) previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid previous termwaste.next term In: Proceedings of the Fifth ISAD-SW, 24–28 May, Hammamet, Tunisia.

Chen et al., 2007 Ye Chen, Jay J. Cheng and S. Creamer Kurt, Inhibition of previous termanaerobic digestionnext term process: a review, Bioresour. Technol. 99 (2007), pp. 4044–4064.

Calli et al., 2005 B. Calli, B. Mertoglu, B. Inanc and O. Yigun, Effects of high free ammonia concentrations on the performances of previous termanaerobicnext term bioreactors, Process Biochem. 40 (2005), pp. 1285–1292. Article | PDF (425 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (28)

Dinsdale et al., 2000 R.M. Dinsdale, G.C. Premie, F.R. Hawkes and D.L. Hawkes, Two-stage previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestion of wastenext term activated sludge and fruit/vegetable previous termwastenext term using inclined tubular digesters, Bioresour. Technol. 72 (2000), pp. 159–168. Article | PDF (166 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)

Elango et al., 2007 D. Elango, M. Pulikesi, P. Baskaralingam, V. Ramamurthi and S. Sivanesa, Production of biogas from municipal solid previous termwastenext term with domestic sewage, J. Hazard. Mater. 141 (2007), pp. 301–304. Article | PDF (311 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

Fernández et al., 2005 A. Fernández, A. Sánchez and X. Font, previous termAnaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of a simulated organic fraction of municipal solid previous termwastesnext term and fats of previous termanimalnext term and vegetable origin, Biochem. Eng. J. 26 (2005), pp. 22–28. Article | PDF (343 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (33)

Gallert and Winter, 1997 C. Gallert and J. Winter, Mesophilic and thermophilic previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of source-sorted organic previous termwaste:next term effect of ammonia on glucose degradation and methane production, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 48 (1997), pp. 405–410. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (57)

Gallert et al., 1998 C. Gallert, S. Bauer and J. Winter, Effect of ammonia on the previous termanaerobicnext term degradation of protein by a mesophilic and thermophilic biowaste population, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 50 (1998), pp. 495–501. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (30)

Gannoun et al., 2007 H. Gannoun, N. Ben Othman, H. Bouallagui and M. Hamdi, Mesophilic and thermophilic previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of olive mill wastewaters and abattoir wastewaters in an upflow previous termanaerobicnext term filter, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46 (2007), pp. 6737–6743. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7)

Gavala et al., 1996 H.N. Gavala, I. Skiadas, V. Nikolaos, A. Bozinis and G. Lyberatos, previous termAnaerobicnext term codigestion of agricultural industries wastewaters, Water Sci. Technol. 34 (1996), pp. 67–75. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)

Gomez et al., 2006 X. Gomez, M.J. Cuetos, J. Cara, A. Moran and A.I. Garcıa, previous termAnaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal solid previous termwastes.next term Conditions for mixing and evaluation of the organic loading rate, Renew. Energy 31 (2006), pp. 2017–2024. Article | PDF (164 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (30)

Gomez-Lahoz et al., 2007 C. Gomez-Lahoz, B. Fernandez-Gimenez, F. Garcia-Herruzo, J.M. Rodriguez-Maroto and C. Vereda-Alonso, Biomethanization of mixtures of fruits and vegetables solid previous termwastesnext term and sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant, J. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox. Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 42 (2007), pp. 481–487. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (3)

Gunaseelan, 1997 V.N. Gunaseelan, previous termAnaerobic digestionnext term of biomass for methane production: a review, Biomass Bioenergy 13 (1997), pp. 83–114. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (78)

Hamzawi et al., 1998 N. Hamzawi, K.J. Kennedy and D.D. McLean, previous termAnaerobic digestionnext term of co-mingled municipal solid previous termwastenext term and sewage sludge, Water Sci. Technol. 38 (1998), pp. 127–132. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)

Kayhanian and Hardy, 1994 M. Kayhanian and S. Hardy, The impact of four design parameters on the performance of high solids previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of municipal solid previous termwastenext term for fuel gas production, Environ. Technol. 15 (1994), pp. 557–567. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (18)

Kivaisi and Mtila, 1998 A.K. Kivaisi and M. Mtila, Production of biogas from water hyacinth in a two-stage bioreactor, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 14 (1998), pp. 125–131. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19)

Krugel et al., 1998 S. Krugel, L. Nemeth and C. Peddie, Extending thermophilic previous termanaerobic digestionnext term for producing class A biosolids at the greater Vancouver regional districts annacis island wastewater treatment plant, Water Sci. Technol. 38 (1998), pp. 409–416. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)

Krupp and Schubert, 2005 M. Krupp and J.R. Schubert, Feasibility study for co-previous termdigestionnext term of sewage sludge with OFMSW on two wastewater treatment plants in Germany, previous termWastenext term Manag. 25 (2005), pp. 393–399. Article | PDF (439 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (10)

Kubler et al., 2000 H. Kubler, K. Hoppenheidt, P. Hirsch, A. Kottmair, R. Nimmrichter, H. Nordsieck, W. Mucke and M. Swerev, Full scale co-previous termdigestionnext term of organic previous termwaste,next term Water Sci. Technol. 41 (2000), pp. 195–202. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (13)

Lane, 1984 A.G. Lane, Laboratory scale previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of fruit and vegetable solid previous termwaste,next term Biomass 5 (1984), pp. 245–259. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24)

Liu and Sung, 2002 T. Liu and S. Sung, Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic aceticlastic methanogens, Water Sci. Technol. 45 (2002), pp. 113–120. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24)

Lawson, 1992 P.S. Lawson, Municipal solid previous termwastenext term conversion to energy, Biomass Bioenergy 2 (1992), pp. 319–330. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Misi and Forster, 2001 S.N. Misi and C.F. Forster, Batch co-previous termdigestionnext term of multi-components agro-previous termwastes,next term Bioresour. Technol. 80 (2001), pp. 19–28. Article | PDF (171 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (22)

Misi and Forster, 2002 S.N. Misi and C.F. Forster, Semi-continuous previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of agro-previous termwastes,next term Environ. Technol. 23 (2002), pp. 445–451. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

Mshandete et al., 2004 A. Mshandete, A. Kivaisi, M. Rubindamayugi and B. Mattiasson, previous termAnaerobicnext term batch co-previous termdigestionnext term of sisal pulp and fish previous termwastes,next term Bioresour. Technol. 95 (2004), pp. 19–24. Article | PDF (263 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

Murto et al., 2004 M. Murto, L. Bjornsson and B. Mattiasson, Impact of food industrial previous termwaste on anaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of sewage sludge and pig manure, J. Environ. Manag. 70 (2004), pp. 101–107. Article | PDF (155 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (43)

Neves et al., 2006 L. Neves, R. Oliveira and M.M. Alves, previous termAnaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of coffee previous termwastenext term and sewage sludge, previous termWastenext term Manag. 26 (2006), pp. 176–181. Article | PDF (138 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (15)

Neves et al., 2008 Neves, L., Oliveira, R., Alves, M.M., 2008. Co-previous termdigestionnext term of manure, food previous termwastenext term and intermittent input of fat. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ISAD-SW, 24–28 May, Hammamet, Tunisia.

Pain et al., 1988 B.F. Pain, V. Phillips and R. West, Mesophilic previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of dairy slurry on a farm scale: energy considerations, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 39 (1988), pp. 123–135. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

Parkin and Owen, 1986 G.F. Parkin and W.F. Owen, Fundamental of previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of wastewater sludge, J. Environ. Eng. 112 (1986), pp. 867–920. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (149)

Pavan et al., 2005 Pavan, P., Bolzonella, D., Fatone, F., Mata-alvarez, J., 2005. Thermophilic previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of agro-previous termwaste and wastenext term activated sludge: influence of the organic loading rate. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ISAD-SW, 29 August–1 September, Copenhagen.

Perez et al., 2006 M. Perez, R. Rodriguez-Cano, L.I. Romero and D. Sales, previous termAnaerobicnext term thermophilic previous termdigestionnext term of cutting oil wastewater: effect of co-substrate, Biochem. Eng. J. 29 (2006), pp. 250–257. Article | PDF (386 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)

Poggi-Varaldo et al., 1997 H.M. Poggi-Varaldo, L. Valdés, F. Esparza-García and G. Fernández-Villagómez, Solid substrate previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of paper mill sludge, biosolids, and municipal solid previous termwaste,next term Water Sci. Technol. 35 (1997), pp. 197–204. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (28)

Ralph and Keith, 1990 S. Ralph and R. Keith, previous termAnaerobic digestionnext term of crops and farm previous termwastesnext term in the United Kingdom, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 30 (1990), pp. 89–95.

Sharma et al., 2000 V.K. Sharma, C. Testa, G. Lastella, G. Cornacchia and M.P. Comparato, Inclined-plug-flow type reactor for previous termanaerobic digestionnext term of semi-solid previous termwaste,next term Appll. Energy 65 (2000), pp. 173–185. Article | PDF (179 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7)

StatSoft Inc, 1997 StatSoft Inc, Statistica for Windows, Computer Program Manual, StatSoft Inc., Tulsa (1997).

Switzenbaum et al., 1990 M. Switzenbaum, S. Giraldo, E. Gomez and R.F. Hichey, Monitoring of the previous termanaerobicnext term methane fermentation process, Enz. Microb. Technol. 12 (1990), pp. 722–730. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (47)

Veeken and Hamelers, 1999 B.A. Veeken and B. Hamelers, Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rate of selected biowise components, Bioresour. Technol. 69 (1999), pp. 249–254.

Viotti et al., 2004 P. Viotti, D. Genova and P. Falcioli, Numerical analysis of the previous termanaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of the organic fraction from municipal solid previous termwastenext term and wastewater: prediction of the possible performances at Olmeto plant in Perugia (Italy), previous termWastenext term Manag. Res. 2 (2004), pp. 115–128. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

Yen and Brune, 2007 Hong-Wie Yen and David E. Brune, previous termAnaerobicnext term co-previous termdigestionnext term of algal sludge and previous termwastenext term paper to produce methane, Bioresour. Technol. 98 (2007), pp. 130–134. Article | PDF (167 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (24)

Zhang and Banks, 2008 Zhang, Y., Banks, C.J., 2008. Optimising inputs and outputs from previous termanaerobic digestionnext term processes by co-previous termdigestionnext term of municipal previous termwastenext term streams with previous termwastesnext term from commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ISAD-SW, 24–28 May, Hammamet, Tunisia.


Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +216 22 524406; fax: +216 71 704329.
Result list | previous < 21 of 4,699 > next 
 
Home
Browse
Search
- selected
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.