Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Comparison of two mathematical models for correlating the organic matter removal efficiency with hydraulic retention time in a hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor treating molasses

Abstract

A modelling of the anaerobic digestion process of molasses was conducted in a 70-L multistage anaerobic biofilm reactor or hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor with six compartments at an operating temperature of 26 °C. Five hydraulic retention times (6, 16, 24, 72 and 120 h) were studied at a constant influent COD concentration of 10,000 mg/L. Two different kinetic models (one was based on a dispersion model with first-order kinetics for substrate consumption and the other based on a modification of the Young equation) were evaluated and compared to predict the organic matter removal efficiency or fractional conversion. The first-order kinetic constant obtained with the dispersion model was 0.28 h−1, the Peclet dispersion number being 45, with a mean relative error of 2%. The model based on the Young equation predicted the behaviour of the reactor more accurately showing deviations lower than 10% between the theoretical and experimental values of the fractional conversion, the mean relative error being 0.9% in this case.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Mosquera-Corral A, Belmar A, Decap J, Sossa K, Urrutia H, Vidal G (2008) Anaerobic treatment of low-strength synthetic TCF effluents and biomass adhesion in fixed-bed systems. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 31:535–540

  2. 2.

    Song KG, Cho J, Ahn KH (2009) Effects of internal recycling time mode and hydraulic retention time on biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal in a sequencing anoxic/anaerobic membrane bioreactor process. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 32:135–142

  3. 3.

    Diamantis V, Aivasidis A (2010) Two-stage UASB design enables activated-sludge free treatment of easily biodegradable wastewater. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 33:287–292

  4. 4.

    Tawfik A, El-Gohary F, Temmink H (2010) Treatment of domestic wastewater in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor followed by moving bed biofilm reactor. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 33:267–276

  5. 5.

    Gómez X, Cuetos MJ, Tartakovsky B, Martínez-Nuñez MF, Moran A (2010) A comparison of analytical techniques for evaluating food waste degradation by anaerobic digestion. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 33:427–438

  6. 6.

    Ganesh R, Rajinikanth R, Thanikal JV, Ramanujam RA, Torrijos M (2010) Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in fixed bed reactors. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 33:619–628

  7. 7.

    Martin MA, De la Rubia MA, Martin A, Borja R, Montalvo S, Sánchez E (2010) Kinetic evaluation of the psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of synthetic domestic sewage using an upflow filter. Bioresour Technol 101:131–137

  8. 8.

    Skiadas IV, Gavala HN, Lyberatos G (2000) Modelling of the periodic anaerobic baffled reactor (PABR) based on the retaining factor concept. Water Res 34:3725–3736

  9. 9.

    Barber WP, Stuckey DC (1999) The use of the anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res 33:1559–1578

  10. 10.

    Kuscu OS, Sponza DT (2006) Treatment efficiencies of a sequential anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR)/completely stirred tank reactor (CSTR) system at increasing p-nitrophenol and COD loading rates. Process Biochem 41:1484–1492

  11. 11.

    Grover R, Marwaha SS, Kennedy JF (1999) Studies on the use of an anaerobic baffled reactor for the continuous anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill black liquors. Process Biochem 34:653–657

  12. 12.

    Young JC (1991) Factors affecting the design and performance of upflow anaerobic filters. Water Sci Technol 24:133–155

  13. 13.

    Ghaniyari-Benis S, Borja R, Ali Monemian S, Goodarzi V (2009) Anaerobic treatment of synthetic medium-strength wastewater using a multistage biofilm reactor. Bioresour Technol 100:1740–1745

  14. 14.

    Galí A, Benabdallah T, Astals S, Mata-Alvarez J (2009) Modified version of ADM1 model for agro-waste application. Bioresour Technol 100:2783–2790

  15. 15.

    Martín-Santos MA, Siles J, Chica AF, Martin A (2010) Modelling the anaerobic digestion of wastewater derived from the pressing of orange peel produced in orange juice manufacturing. Bioresour Technol 101:3909–3916

  16. 16.

    Batstone DJ, Keller J, Newell RB, Newland M (2000) Modelling anaerobic degradation of complex wastewater, I: model development. Bioresour Technol 75:67–74

  17. 17.

    Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives (mini-review). Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:849–860

  18. 18.

    Stamatelatou K, Lokshina L, Vavilin V, Lyberatos G (2003) Performance of a glucose fed periodic anaerobic baffled reactor under increasing organic loading conditions: 2. Model prediction. Bioresour Technol 88:137–142

  19. 19.

    Marin J, Kennedy KF, Eskicioglu C, Hamoda MF (2007) Compartmental anaerobic baffled reactor kinetic model for treatment of dilute aircraft de-icing fluid. In: Wilson J (ed) Proceedings of the third IASTED international conference on environmental modelling and simulation, EMS, Honolulu, Hawaii (USA). Acta Press, August 20–22, pp 58–63

  20. 20.

    Kennedy K, Barriault M (2007) Treatment kinetics of aircraft deicing fluid in an anaerobic baffled reactor. J Environ Eng Sci 6:11–17

  21. 21.

    Xing J, Boopathy R, Tilche A (1991) Model evaluation of hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor treating molasses wastewater. Biomass Bioenergy 5:267–274

  22. 22.

    Soto M, Veiga MC, Mendez R, Lema JM (1989) Semi-micro COD determination method for high salinity wastewater. Environ Technol Lett 10:541–548

  23. 23.

    Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edn (1998) APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington, DC

  24. 24.

    Fannin KF (1987) Start-up, operation, stability and control. In: Chynoweth DP, Isaacson R (eds) Anaerobic digestion of biomass. Elsevier, London, pp 171–196

  25. 25.

    Kuscu OS, Sponza DT (2009) Kinetics of para-nitrophenol and chemical oxygen demand removal from synthetic wastewater in an anaerobic migrating blanket reactor. J Hazard Mater 161:787–799

  26. 26.

    Levenspiel O (2002) Modelling in chemical engineering. Chem Eng Sci 57:4691–4696

  27. 27.

    Martín A, Borja R, Banks CJ (1994) Kinetic model for substrate utilization and methane production during the anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewater and condensation water waste. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 60:7–16

  28. 28.

    Palmowski LM, Müller JA (2000) Influence of the size reduction of organic waste on their anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 41:155–162

  29. 29.

    Borja R, Rincon B, Raposo F, Sanchez E, Martin A (2004) Assessment of kinetic parameters for the mesophilic anaerobic biodegradation of two-phase olive pomace. Int Biodet Biodeg 53:71–78

  30. 30.

    Borja R, Martin A, Sanchez E, Rincon B, Raposo F (2005) Kinetic modelling of the hydrolysis, acidogenic and methanogenic steps in the anaerobic digestion of two-phase olive pomace (TPOP). Process Biochem 40:1841–1847

  31. 31.

    Scott Fogler H (1999) Elements of chemical reaction engineering. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River

  32. 32.

    Wehner JF, Wilhelm RH (1956) Boundary conditions of flow reactor. Chem Eng Sci 6:89–98

  33. 33.

    Zhou X, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Jiang M (2009) Simulation of sludge settling property in a novel outside cycle anaerobic reactor. Huagong Xuebao/CIESC J 60:738–743

  34. 34.

    Ren TT, Mu Y, Yu HQ, Harada H, Li YY (2008) Dispersion analysis of an acidogenic UASB reactor. Chem Eng J 142:182–189

  35. 35.

    Otton V, Hihn JY, Béteau JF, Delpech F, Chéruy A (2000) Axial dispersion of liquid in fluidised bed with external recycling: two dynamic modelling approaches with a view to control. Biochem Eng J 4:129–136

  36. 36.

    Breithaupt T, Wiesmann U (1998) Concentration profiles in rotating disc reactors: their mathematical model for the anaerobic digestion of acetic acid including an experimental verification. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 16:288–295

  37. 37.

    Tseng SK, Lin RT, Liau KL (1992) Verification of dispersion model on anaerobic reaction simulation. Water Sci Technol 26:2377–2380

  38. 38.

    Langenhoff AAM, Stuckey DC (2000) Treatment of dilute wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor: Effect of low temperature. Water Res 15:3867–3875

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Water Research Center of Greentech (Co., Ltd.), Shiraz and the R&D Center of Anshan Corporation. The authors also thank Dr. Daryoush Mehrparast and Dr. Anahita Parsnejad for their help.

Author information

Correspondence to R. Borja.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ghaniyari-Benis, S., Martín, A., Borja, R. et al. Comparison of two mathematical models for correlating the organic matter removal efficiency with hydraulic retention time in a hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor treating molasses. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 35, 389–397 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-011-0577-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Anaerobic digestion
  • Modelling
  • Hydraulic retention time
  • Organic matter removal efficiency
  • Hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor