POR DECISION JUDICIAL
NOTARIAL EN SU DESPACHO, Y REQUERIA UN TRAMITE, QUE DEBERIA HACER?
The final chapter of this thesis is focused around the representation of findings in respects to the previously experimentally modeled scenarios in chapter 3, 4, and 5. The aim is to provide a contextual layout for academics to decipher potential gaps that should be addressed in future research efforts. This will help to aid in furthering contributions to available literature desired in respects to co-digestion and pretreatment technology applications to WWTP AcoD.
6.1
Findings Revisited
The following findings summarize the major outcomes of this research:
1. The maximum biogas production potential of 363m3/day at an OLR of 1.54 kg- COD/m³/daywas achieved from the addition of the systems third AD unit being brought into operational capacity
2. The rise in biogas production with a lower OLR in the expansion scenario is assumed to be from more available contact surface area available for the microorganisms to undergo methanogenic decomposition by the addition of the third digester
3. The addition of the third digester increased operational system VSS destruction efficiency to 58%
4. Experimentation to include co-digestion practices into the existing operational design platform of the CKWWTP to review whether a positive correlation between biogas production rates and yields is conceivable by increasing the OLR is suggested.
5. The maximum biogas production potential of 15914m3/day was achieved from the addition of 100m³/day at an OLR of 5.24 kg-COD/m³/day
6. The current VSS destruction efficiency of the base scenario is 39%, while the maximum VSS destruction efficiency of the SSO addition with the 100m³/day was 71%
68
7. The inhibition ‘point’ of the SSO substrate was determined in this modeling scenario to be at an SSO addition of 125m³/day at an OLR of 6.70 kg-COD/m³/day. The system at the 125m³/day had a decline in VSS destruction efficiency to 19%, with a reduction in overall biogas production of 4210m³/day, in comparison to the 100m³/day simulation.
8. The maximum biogas production potential of 16707m³/day was achieved from the addition of both the 100m³/day at an OLR of 5.24 kg-COD/m³/day and pretreatment acidification technology
9. The current VSS destruction efficiency of the base scenario is 39%, while the maximum VSS destruction efficiency of the SSO addition with the 100m³/day with pretreatment was 81%
10. The recommendation for the installation of an acidification pretreatment combined with co-digestion of SSO substrate has experimentally shown potential to improve biogas production and VSS destruction.
6.2
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this research, the recommendations future research should include:
1. More co-digestion studies specifically utilizing source separated organics should be conducted for determining further optimization of OLRs associated with SSO to be implemented into various AD designs and plant sizes (small and large scale)
2. Further modeling and pilot study research into various substrate sources (FVW, manure, etc.) to determine potential increases to the readily biodegradable potential of substrates in AD, through the application of an acidification pretreatment is recommended.
69
References
1. Affes R, Palatsi J, Flotats X, Carrère H, Steyer JP, Battimelli A. Saponification pretreatment and solids recirculation as a new anaerobic process for the treatment of slaughterhouse waste. Bioresour Technol 2013;131:460–7.
2. Alatriste-Mondragon, Felipe, et al. "Anaerobic codigestion of municipal, farm, and industrial organic wastes: a survey of recent literature." Water Environment Research 78.6 (2006): 607-636.
3. Alkalay, D., et al. "Anaerobic treatment of municipal sanitary landfill leachates: the problem of refractory and toxic components." World journal of microbiology and Biotechnology 14.3 (1998): 309-320.
4. Ariunbaatar, Javkhlan, et al. "Pretreatment methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste." Applied energy 123 (2014): 143-156.
5. Astals S, Nolla-Ardèvol V, Mata-Alvarez J. Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate. Bioresour Technol 2012;110:63–70.
6. Astals S, Ariso M, Galí A, Mata-Alvarez J. Co-digestion of pig manure and glycerine: experimental and modeling study. J Environ Manag 2011;92: 1091–6.
7. Astals S, Nolla-Ardèvol V, Mata-Alvarez J. Thermophilic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol: process performance and digestate stability. J Biotechnol 2013;166:97– 104.
8. Banks CJ, Salter AM, Heaven S, Riley K. Energetic and environmental benefits of co- digestion of food waste and cattle slurry: a preliminary assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 2011;56:71–9.
9. Baroutian, N. Eshtiaghi, D.J. Gapes, Rheology of a primary and secondary sewage sludge mixture: dependency on temperature and solid concentration, Bioresour. Technol. 140 (2013) 227–233.
10. Bhattacharya, S. N. Flow characteristics of primary and digested sewage sludge, Rheol. Acta 20 (1981) 288–298.
11. Blank A, Hoffmann E. Upgrading of a co-digestion plant by implementation of a hydrolysis stage. Waste Manag Res 2011;29:1145–52.
70
12. Bujoczek, G., et al. "High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure." Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 76.1 (2000): 51-60.
13. Callaghan FJ, Wase DAJ, Thayanity K, Forster CF (2002) Continuous co-digestion of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 22:71–77.
14. Carrere H, Rafrafi Y, Battimelli A, Torrijos M, Delgenes JPP, Motte C. Improving methane production during the codigestion of waste-activated sludge and fatty wastewater: impact of thermo-alkaline pretreatment on batch and semi-continuous processes. Chem Eng J 2012;210:404–9.
15. Cesaro A, Naddeo V, Amodio V, Belgiorno V. Enhanced biogas production from anaerobic codigestion of solid waste by sonolysis. Ultrason Sonochem 2012;19:596–600. 16. Chen, Ye, Jay J. Cheng, and Kurt S. Creamer. "Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process:
a review." Bioresource technology 99.10 (2008): 4044-4064.
17. Conference and annual general meeting of the Nigerian Society of Engineers 2001:220–7. 18. Cuetos MJ, Fernández C, Gómez X, Morán A. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure
with energy crop residues. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 2011;16: 1044–52.
19. Cuetos M.J., Gómez X., Otero M., Morán A. Anaerobic digestion and codigestion of slaughterhouse waste (SHW): influence of heat and pressure pre-treatment in biogas yield. Waste Manag 2010; 30:1780–1789.
20. Demirel, B., Yenigu¨n, O., 2002. Two-phase anaerobic digestion processes: a review. J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 77, 743–755.
21. Demirer, G. N., and S. Chen. "Two-phase anaerobic digestion of unscreened dairy manure." Process biochemistry 40.11 (2005): 3542-3549.
22. Devlin, D. C., et al. "The effect of acid pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion and dewatering of waste activated sludge." Bioresource Technology 102.5 (2011): 4076-4082.
23. Dohányos, Michael, et al. "Improvement of anaerobic digestion of sludge." Water Science and Technology 49.10 (2004): 89-96.
71
24. Dupla, M., Conte, T., Bouview, J.C., Bernet, N., Steyer, J.P., 2004. Dynamic evaluation of a fixed bed anaerobic-digestion process in response to organic overloads and toxicant shock loads. Water Sci. Technol. 49 (1), 61–68.
25. Elawwad, Abdelsalam, Mohamed Abo-Zaid, and Minerva Edward. "Plant-wide simulation for a mega WWTP: A case study of Gabal El-Asfar WWTP, Egypt." The International Conference of Recent Trends in Environmental Science and Engineering (RTESE'17). 2017.
26. Elliot, A., and T. Mahmood. "Comparison of mechanical pretreatment methods for the enhancement of anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper waste." Water Sci Technol 84 (2012): 497-505
27. Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico a, Pirozzi F. Model calibration and validation for OFMSW and sewage sludge co-digestion reactors. Waste Manag 2011;31:2527–35.
28. Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico A, Pirozzi F. Modeling the effect of the OLR and OFMSW particle size on the performances of an anaerobic co-digestion reactor. Process Biochem 2011;46:557–65.
29. Frigon JC, Roy C, Guiot SR. Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure with mulched switchgrass for improvement of the methane yield. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2012;35:341– 9.
30. Gavala, Hariklia N., and Birgitte K. Ahring. "Inhibition of the anaerobic digestion process by linear alkylbenzene sulfonates." Biodegradation 13.3 (2002): 201-209.
31. Gavala, Hariklia N., et al. "Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Effect of pre-treatment at elevated temperature." Water research 37.19 (2003): 4561-4572.
32. General Environmental Multilingual Thesaurus (GEMET). Biomass Resources. <http://glossary.eea.eu.int./eeaglossary/biogas/>; 2000.
33. Ghosh, S., Pohland, F.G., 1974. Kinetics of substrate assimilation and product formation in anaerobic digestion. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 46, 748–759.
34. Gunaseelan, V. Nallathambi. "Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste feedstocks." Biomass and bioenergy 26.4 (2004): 389-399.
72
35. Hafez, Hisham, et al. "Simulating the impact of suppression of methanogenesis in continuous flow biohydrogen reactors." international journal of hydrogen energy 36.10 (2011): 5885-5894.
36. Hansen, Kaare Hvid, Irini Angelidaki, and Birgitte Kiaer Ahring. "Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia." Water research 32.1 (1998): 5-12.
37. Hartmann, Hinrich, and Birgitte K. Ahring. "Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: influence of co-digestion with manure." Water research 39.8 (2005): 1543-1552.
38. Harris P. Beginners guide to biogas, Available:
<http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/pharis/biogas/beginners/html/>; 2003.
39. Hidalgo D, Sastre E, Gómez M, Nieto P. Evaluation of pre-treatment processes for increasing biodegradability of agro-food wastes. Environ Technol 2012; 33:1497–503.
40. Hills DJ (1980) Biogas from a high solid’s combination of dairy manure and barley straw. T ASABE 23:1500–1504
41. Hills DJ, Roberts DW (1981) Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and field crops residues. Agric Wastes 3:179–189
42. Hobson PN, Bousfield S, Summers R. Methane Production from Agricultural and Domestic Wastes. London: Applied Science Publishers Ltd.; 1981, p. 269.
43. Iacovidou E, Ohandja DG, Voulvoulis N. Food waste co-digestion with sewage sludge— realising its potential in the UK. J Environ Manag 2012;112:267–74.
44.
Igoni AH, Eze CL, Ayotamuno MJ, Abowei MFN. Potentials of biogas generation from municipal solid-waste in the Port Harcourt Metropolis. Proceedings of the 1st annual conference of Science and Technology Forum, vol. 1(2). Uyo, Nigeria; 2005. pp. 67–72. 45. Igoni AH. Design of Anaerobic bio-reactors for the simulation of biogas production frommunicipal solid-waste. Ph.D. Thesis of the Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria; 2006. p. 261.
46. Igoni, A. Hilkiah, et al. "Designs of anaerobic digesters for producing biogas from municipal solid-waste." Applied energy85.6 (2008): 430-438.
73
47. Itodo IN, Phillips TK. Determination of suitable material for anaerobic biogas-digesters. In: Proceedings of the second international conference and 23rd annual general meeting of the Nigerian, vol. 23. Institution of Agricultural Engineers; 2001. pp. 437–41.
48. I.W. Sutherland, Exopolysaccharides in biofilms, flocs and related structures, Water Sci. Technol. 43 (6) (2001) 77–86.
49. Jain, Siddharth, et al. "A comprehensive review on operating parameters and different pretreatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015): 142-154.
50. Jenkins, S., Morgan, J., Sawyer, C., 1983. Measuring anaerobic sludge-digestion and growth by a simple alkalimetric titration. Res. J. Water Pollut. C 55 (5), 448–453.
51. J. Wingender, T.R. Neu, H.C. Flemming, Microbial Extracellular Polymeric Substances, Springler, Berlin, 1999.
52. Kabouris, John C., et al. "Methane recovery from the anaerobic codigestion of municipal sludge and FOG." Bioresource technology 100.15 (2009): 3701-3705.
53. Karouach, Fadoua, et al. "Effect of combined mechanical–ultrasonic pretreatment on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of household organic waste fraction in Morocco." Energy Reports 6 (2020): 310-314.
54. Kayhanian, Masoud, and Dan Rich. "Sludge management using the biodegradable organic fraction of municipal solid waste as a primary substrate." Water environment research 68.2 (1996): 240-254.
55. Kelleher, B.P., Leahy, J.J., Henihan, A.M., O’Dwyer, T.F., Sutton, D., Leahy, M.J., 2000. Advances in poultry litter disposal technology – a review. Bioresour. Technol. 83, 27–36. 56. K. Keiding, L. Wybrandt, P.H. Nielsen, Remember the water: comment on EPS colligative
properties, Water Sci. Technol. 43 (2001) 17–23.
57. Kopp, J., Muller, J., Dichtl, N., Schwedes, J., 1997. Anaerobic digestion and dewatering characteristics of mechanically disintegrated excess sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 36 (11), 129–136.
58. Koster, I. W., and G. Lettinga. "Anaerobic digestion at extreme ammonia concentrations." Biological Wastes 25.1 (1988): 51-59.
74
59. Kroeker, E.J., Schulte, D.D., Sparling, A.B., Lapp, H.M., 1979. Anaerobic treatment process stability. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 51, 718–727.
60. Krupp M, Schubert J, Widmann R. Feasibility study for co-digestion of sewage sludge with OFMSW on two wastewater treatment plants in Germany. Waste Manag 2005;25:393–9.
61. Labatut RA, Angenent LT, Scott NR (2011) Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour Technol 102:2255–2264 62. Lema JM, Omil F (2001) Anaerobic treatment: a key technology for a sustainable
management of wastes in Europe. Water Sci Technol 44:133–140
63. Li C, Champagne P, Anderson BC. Effects of ultrasonic and thermo-chemical pre- treatments on methane production from fat, oil and grease (FOG) and synthetic kitchen waste (KW) in anaerobic co-digestion. Bioresour Technol 2013;130:187–97.
64. Liwarska-Bizukojc, Ewa, and Rafal Biernacki. "Identification of the most sensitive parameters in the activated sludge model implemented in BioWin software." Bioresource technology 101.19 (2010): 7278-7285.
65. L. Spinosa, V. Lotito, A simple method for evaluating sludge yield stress, Adv. Environ. Res. 7 (2003) 655–659.
66. Luostarinen, Sari, Sami Luste, and Mika Sillanpää. "Increased biogas production at wastewater treatment plants through co-digestion of sewage sludge with grease trap sludge from a meat processing plant." Bioresource technology 100.1 (2009): 79-85.
67. Luste S, Heinonen-Tanski H, Luostarinen S. Co-digestion of dairy cattle slurry and industrial meat-processing by-products—effect of ultrasound and hygienization pre- treatments. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:195–201.
68. Luste S, Luostarinen S. Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing byproducts and sewage sludge – effect of hygienization and organic loading rate. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:2657–64.
69. Madu C, Sodeinde OA. Relevance of biomass in sustainable energy-development in Nigeria. Proceedings of the National Engineering.
70. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Macé S, Astals S. Codigestion of solid wastes: a review of its uses and perspectives including modeling. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2011;31:99–111.
75
71. Mata-Alvarez, Joan, et al. "A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013." Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 36 (2014): 412-427.
72. Mattocks R. Understanding biogas generation, Technical Paper No. 4. Volunteers in Technical Assistance. Virginia, USA; 1984. p.13.
73. Metcalf and EddyInc. Biological unit processes. In: Clark BJ, Morriss JM, editors. Wastewater engineering; treatment; disposal and reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill International Editions; 1991. p. 359-444.
74. Nasr, Noha El-Sayed. "Investigation of Bio-hydrogen Production Optimization from Synthetic and Real Wastes using Pure and Mixed Cultures." (2017).
75. Noike T, Endo G, Chang JE, Yaguchi JI, Matsumoto JI (1985) Characteristics of carbohydrate degradation and the ratelimiting step in anaerobic digestion. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:1482–1489.
76. Oregon State Department of Energy. Biomass Energy Technology [Online], Available: <http://www.oregondoe.org/>; 2002.
77. Pahl O, Firth A, MacLeod I, Baird J. Anaerobic co-digestion of mechanically biologically treated municipal waste with primary sewage sludge – a feasibility study. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:3354–64.
78. Parkin, G.F., Miller, S.W., 1983. Response of methane fermentation to continuous addition of selected industrial toxicants. In: Proceedings of the 37th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, West Lafayette, Ind.
79. Ponsa´ S, Gea T, Sa´nchez A (2011) Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with several pure organic co-substrates. Biosyst Eng 108:352–360.
80. Roeleveld, P. J., et al. "Sustainability of municipal waste water treatment." Water science and technology 35.10 (1997): 221-228.
81. Shafiei M, Kabir MM, Zilouei H, Sárvári Horváth I, Karimi K. Technoeconomical study of biogas production improved by steam explosion pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 2013;148:53–60.
76
82. Siegert I, Banks C (2005) The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochem 40:3412–3418
83. Slatter, P. T. Pipe flow of highly concentrated sludge, J. Environ. Sci. Health A Tox. Hazard Subst. Environ. Eng. 43 (2008) 1516–1520.
84. Skiadas, Ioannis V., et al. "Thermal pre-treatment of primary and secondary sludge at 70 C prior to anaerobic digestion." Water Science and Technology 52.1-2 (2005): 161-166. 85. Sosnowski, P., A. Wieczorek, and S. Ledakowicz. "Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes." Advances in Environmental Research7.3 (2003): 609-616.
86. Steadman P. Energy, environment and building: a report to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press; 1975. p. 287.
87. Sung, Shihwu, and Tao Liu. "Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic anaerobic digestion." Chemosphere 53.1 (2003): 43-52.
88. Taherzadeh MJ, Karimi K. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int J Mol Sci 2008;9:1621–51.
89. Tyagi, Vinay Kumar, et al. "Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW): Progress and challenges." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (2018): 380-399.
90. Weiland P (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 85:849–860
91. Weiland P, Hassan E (2001) Production of biogas from forage beets. In: van Velsen AFM, Vestraete WH (eds) Proceedings of 9th world congress on anaerobic digestion, pp 631– 633.
92. van Staikenburg, W., 1997. Anaerobic treatment of wastewater: state of the art. Microbiology 66, 589–596.
93. Vivekanand V, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJJ. Biogas production from the brown seaweed Saccharina latissima: thermal pretreatment and codigestion with wheat straw. J Appl Phycol 2011;24:1295–301.
77
94. Vivekanand V, Olsen EF, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ. Effect of different steam explosion conditions on methane potential and enzymatic saccharification of birch. Bioresource Technol 2013;127:343–9.
95. Xu, Fuqing, et al. "Anaerobic digestion of food waste–Challenges and opportunities." Bioresource technology 247 (2018): 1047-1058.
96. Xuereb P. Biogas – a fuel produced from waste,
<http://www.synapse.net.mt/mirin/newsletter/3836.asp/>; 1997.
97. Zhang P, Zeng G, Zhang G, Li Y, Zhang B, Fan M (2008) Anaerobic co-digestion of biosolids and organic fraction of municipal solid waste by sequencing batch process. Fuel Process Technol 89:485–489.
98. Zitomer DH, Adhikari P, Heisel C, Dineen D (2008) Municipal anaerobic digesters for co- digestion, energy recovery, and greenhouse gas reductions. Water Environ Res 80:229– 237.
99. Zubarev, Roman A., et al. "Electron capture dissociation for structural characterization of multiply charged protein cations." Analytical chemistry 72.3 (2000): 563-573.
78
Appendices
79
Appendix B: Modeling Output Findings
BioWin user and configuration data
Project details
Project name: Phase 1 Project ref.: BW1
Plant name: Chatham Kent User name: Connor Pritty Created: 2018-10-17 Saved: 2018-12-20
SRT: **** days
Temperature: 20.0°C Flowsheet
Configuration information for all Anaerobic Digester units
Physical data
Element name Volume [m3] Area [m2] Depth [m] Head space volume
2 Primary Digesters 4000.0000 888.8889 4.500 360.0
Operating data Average (flow/time weighted as required)
Element name Pressure [kPa] pH
80
2 Primary Digesters 103.0 -
Element name Average Temperature
2 Primary Digesters 35.0
Configuration information for all Effluent units
Configuration information for all COD Influent units
Operating data Average (flow/time weighted as required)
Element name Influent
Flow 219
Total COD mgCOD/L 29000.00
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mgN/L 1500.00
Total P mgP/L 500.00
Nitrate N mgN/L 0
pH 7.52
Alkalinity mmol/L 12.00
ISS Influent mgISS/L 1000.00
Calcium mg/L 20.00
Magnesium mg/L 10.00
Dissolved O2 mg/L 0
Element name Influent
81
Fac - Acetate [gCOD/g of readily biodegradable COD] 0.5760
Fxsp - Non-colloidal slowly biodegradable [gCOD/g of slowly degradable COD] 0.6000
Fus - Unbiodegradable soluble [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0200
Fup - Unbiodegradable particulate [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0900
Fna - Ammonia [gNH3-N/gTKN] 0.3330
Fnox - Particulate organic nitrogen [gN/g Organic N] 0.2500
Fnus - Soluble unbiodegradable TKN [gN/gTKN] 0.0200
FupN - N:COD ratio for unbiodegradable part. COD [gN/gCOD] 0.0350
Fpo4 - Phosphate [gPO4-P/gTP] 0.6000
FupP - P:COD ratio for unbiodegradable part. COD [gP/gCOD] 0.0110
FZbh - OHO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0238
FZbm - Methylotroph COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZaob - AOB COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZnob - NOB COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZaao - AAO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbp - PAO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbpa - Propionic acetogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbam - Acetoclastic methanogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbhm - H2-utilizing methanogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZe - Endogenous products COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 0
BioWin Album
82 Eleme nts Acetat e [mgCO D/L] Alkalini ty [mmol/ L] Filtere d COD [mg/L] ISS Total [mg/L] Particu late COD [mg/L] pH [] Total COD [mg/L] Total Kjelda hl Nitroge n [mgN/L ] Total N [mgN/L ] Total suspen ded solids [mg/L] Volatil e fatty acids [mg/L] Volatil e suspen ded solids [mg/L] Influen t 4343.0 4 12.00 15142. 64 1044.5 8 13857. 36 7.52 29000. 00 1500.0 0 1500.0 0 9918.9 2 4343.0 4 8874.3 4 2 Primar y Digest ers 125.74 121.51 754.34 1102.4 1 8295.0 2 7.37 9049.3 6 1500.0 0 1500.0 0 6498.3 8 131.16 5395.9 7 Digest er Effluen t 125.74 121.42 754.34 1102.4 1 8295.0 2 7.48 9049.3 6 1500.0 0 1500.0 0 6498.3 8 131.16 5395.9 7
BioWin user and configuration data
Project details
Project name: Phase 2 Project ref.: BW1
Plant name: Chatham Kent User name: Connor Pritty Created: 2018-10-18 Saved: 2018-12-20
Steady state solution SRT: --- days
83
Flowsheet
Configuration information for all Anaerobic Digester units
Physical data
Element name Volume [m3] Area [m2] Depth [m] Head space volume
3 Digesters 5920.0000 1315.5556 4.500 540.0
Operating data Average (flow/time weighted as required)
Element name Pressure [kPa] pH
3 Digesters 103.0 -
Element name Average Temperature
3 Digesters 35.0
Configuration information for all Effluent units
Configuration information for all COD Influent units
Operating data Average (flow/time weighted as required)
84
Element name Influent
Flow 219
Total COD mgCOD/L 29000.00
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mgN/L 1500.00
Total P mgP/L 500.00
Nitrate N mgN/L 0
pH 7.52
Alkalinity mmol/L 12.00
ISS Influent mgISS/L 1000.00
Calcium mg/L 20.00
Magnesium mg/L 10.00
Dissolved O2 mg/L 0
Element name Influent
Fbs - Readily biodegradable (including Acetate) [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.2600
Fac - Acetate [gCOD/g of readily biodegradable COD] 0.5760
Fxsp - Non-colloidal slowly biodegradable [gCOD/g of slowly degradable COD] 0.6000
Fus - Unbiodegradable soluble [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0200
Fup - Unbiodegradable particulate [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0900
Fna - Ammonia [gNH3-N/gTKN] 0.3330
Fnox - Particulate organic nitrogen [gN/g Organic N] 0.2500
Fnus - Soluble unbiodegradable TKN [gN/gTKN] 0.0200
FupN - N:COD ratio for unbiodegradable part. COD [gN/gCOD] 0.0350
85
FupP - P:COD ratio for unbiodegradable part. COD [gP/gCOD] 0.0110
FZbh - OHO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0238
FZbm - Methylotroph COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZaob - AOB COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZnob - NOB COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZaao - AAO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbp - PAO COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbpa - Propionic acetogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbam - Acetoclastic methanogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZbhm - H2-utilizing methanogens COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 1.000E-4
FZe - Endogenous products COD fraction [gCOD/g of total COD] 0
BioWin Album
Album page - Page 1
Eleme nts Alkali nity [mmol /L] Filtere d COD [mg/L] ISS Total [mg/L] Partic ulate COD [mg/L] Partic ulate TKN [mgN/ L] Acetat e [mgC OD/L] pH [] Total COD [mg/L] Total Kjelda hl Nitrog en [mgN/ L] Total suspe nded solids [mg/L] Volatil e fatty acids [mg/L] Volatil e suspe nded solids [mg/L] Acetic acid [mmol /L] Influe nt 12.00 15142 .64 1044. 58 13857 .36 348.5 9 4343. 04 7.52 29000 .00 1500. 00 10368 .42 4343. 04 9323. 84 0.09 3 Digest ers 124.7 5 710.2 3 1096. 70 5700. 61 236.6 0 107.4 5 7.36 6410. 84 1500. 00 4974. 86 111.8 0 3878. 16 0.00 Digest er Efflue nt 124.6 5 710.2 3 1096. 70 5700. 61 236.6 0 107.4 5 7.47 6410. 84 1500. 00 4974. 86 111.8 0 3878. 16 0.00
86
BioWin user and configuration data
Project details
Project name: Phase 3 Project ref.: BW1
Plant name: Chatham Kent User name: Connor Pritty Created: 2018-10-19 Saved: 2019-01-17
SRT: **** days
Temperature: 20.0°C Flowsheet
Configuration information for all Anaerobic Digester units
Physical data
Element name Volume [m3] Area [m2] Depth [m] Head space volume
3 Primary Digesters 5920.0000 1315.5556 4.500 540.0
87
Element name Pressure [kPa] pH
3 Primary Digesters 103.0 -
Element name Average Temperature
3 Primary Digesters 35.0
Configuration information for all Effluent units
Configuration information for all COD Influent units
Operating data Average (flow/time weighted as required)
Element name Influent
Flow 270
Total COD mgCOD/L 51000.00
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mgN/L 2500.00
Total P mgP/L 800.00
Nitrate N mgN/L 0
pH 7.50
Alkalinity mmol/L 12.00
ISS Influent mgISS/L 1300.00
Calcium mg/L 20.00
Magnesium mg/L 10.00
Dissolved O2 mg/L 0
88
Fbs - Readily biodegradable (including Acetate) [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.3100
Fac - Acetate [gCOD/g of readily biodegradable COD] 0.1640
Fxsp - Non-colloidal slowly biodegradable [gCOD/g of slowly degradable COD] 0.6000
Fus - Unbiodegradable soluble [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0780
Fup - Unbiodegradable particulate [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.0900
Fna - Ammonia [gNH3-N/gTKN] 0.4000
Fnox - Particulate organic nitrogen [gN/g Organic N] 0.2500
Fnus - Soluble unbiodegradable TKN [gN/gTKN] 0.0200