Departamento de Energias Renováveis Anaerobic digestion of OMW: Department of Renewable Energy anaerobic filter vs. hybrid LNEG – Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia National Laboratory of Energy and Geology
Anaerobic digestion of Olive Mill Wastewater: Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid Isabel Paula Marques
[email protected]
Marta Gonçalves and Paulo Freitas
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
IPaula
Silvio Tanaka
Olive tree
olives (fruit)
olive oil
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Olive oil industry Great economic and social importance: Mediterranean area [Olives are also cultivated: USA, Argentina, Australia and South Africa]
olives (fruit)
olive oil Olive Mill Wastewater 5 kg olives (OMW)
5 L OMW
1 L olive oil
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
OMW [three-phase extraction system]
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
OMW • generated in huge quantities • during a short period of the year • one of the most polluting agro-industrial effluents
OMW holds a great energetic potential (Biogas)
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Anaerobic digestion - OMW promising attempt to face the negative environmental impact
• • • • •
high organic matter of these effluent (200 kg COD m-3) lower: sludge volumes, space requirement and capital cost - aerobic proc., easily restarting after several mouths of shutdown, low energy requirement for operation, recovering the valuable end-product --- methane
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Olive Mill Wastewater - OMW • inhibiting substances (phenolic lipidic-LCFA) • unfavourable C/N ratio • acid pH render
OMW inappropriate direct biological treatment
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Reduce concentration and toxicity Olive Mill Wastewater
high dilutions physic
chemical addition of alkalis biological pre-treatments
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
OBJECTIVE: treat and recover the energetic potential of the raw OMW anaerobic digestion Successful digesting stability is obtained
“complementary substrate” concept Depart. of Renewable Energies - LNEG • without any pre-treatment • tap water dilution • chemical correction of OMW
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
OMW: composition + seasonal effluent
Another effluent:
continuously produced - same region + able to complement OMW
Piggery effluent
to secure a stable operation year-around
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
CQO
C/N
(kg/m3)
Olive oil
OMW
Swine
Piggery effluent
NH4+
pH
(kg/m3)
50 200
high
low
4-5
< 30
low
high
≈7-8
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Olive Mill Wastewater
dilute and to supplement (N, P) Piggery effluent
+ • decrease - inhibiting capacity • more favourable C/N ratio • pH values
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
OBJECTIVE: Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid
g as
g as
ef
ef
inf . UASB
inf
inf
.
Hybrid
Anaerobic filter
Fixe bed
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Operational difficulties gas
ef
inf .
inf.
UASB
Washout – overload concentrated effluents
Anaerobic filter
[concentrated effluents] Channelling - Column clogging
Packing bed material – Lab. AF classic problems
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Packing bed material – Lab.
good progress
several long-term experiments
no troubles as a result of a clogging process
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
OBJECTIVE: Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid
g as
g as
ef
inf
ef
inf
economic issue: least of packing material required
.
Hybrid
Anaerobic filter
Fixe bed
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
packing material = 30% reactor height Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Operational conditions Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid
60
53
53 41
OMW (% v/v)
40
27 20
8 0 0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Time (d) OMW.H
OMW.AF
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Operational conditions Hybrid
La (kgCOD m-3)
10 8 6 4 2 0 110
130
La (in)
150
La (OMW)
Time (d)
190
210
AF
10
La (kgCOD m-3)
170
8 6 4 2 0 200
220
La (in)
La (OMW)
240
260
280
300
320
Time (d)
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Results Gas 80 70 60
3
50 2
40 30
1
CH4 (%)
Biogas (m3 m m-3 d-1)
4
20 10
0
0 2
3
Biog-FA
Biog-H
4
CH4-FA
5
CH4-H
6
7
8
Loading rate, La (kg m3 d-1)
Gradual increase of biogas production – increment LA Good methane content
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Results 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2
CODt Inf. FA
3
4
CODt Inf. H
5
CODtr FA
6
7
CODr (%)
Influent (kg COD m-3)
COD removal: 27-41% OMW v/v
8
La in (kg m3 d-1)
CODtr H
AF ≠ H = COD removal
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Results. Solids removal: 27-41% OMW v/v AF
H
TS (%)
51-63
22-50
VS (%)
60-76
41-67
VSS (%)
66/80-96
5/55-69
Some comments are needed to better understand the finding
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Operational conditions Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid
60
OMW
(% v/v)
40
20
0 0
40
80
120
H overload OMW.H
160
200
240
280
320
Time (d)
OMW.AF
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Sharp change in sludge bed The blanket of biologic solids went upwards and penetrated the fixed bed section Some biomass was lost - not cause the failure
[18% OMW] La = 5.3-9.5 kg COD m-3 d-1 (31-55 kg COD m-3)
Gas - 1.3-2.1m3 m-3 d-1 COD removal - 57-65/69%
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
ability of resisting
H - overloading was tested - new influent
previous plan of work (27% OMW v/v)
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Operational conditions 60
OMW (% v/v)
40
20
0 0
40
80
120
160
200
240
280
320
Time (d) OMW.H
OMW.AF
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
CODr (%)
Influent (kg COD m m-3)
COD removal: + 53% OMW v/v
8
La (kg m3 d-1) Inf-FA
Inf-H
CODr-FA
CODr-H
≠ digesters behaviour = AF ↓ . H↑ Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
RESULTS H digester: remaining packing material - 1/3 height
Effective effects - accidental overload
The maintenance of a sufficient amount of biomass inside the unit allowed preventing the process failure
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
100
8
80
6
60
4
40
2
20
0
0 2
3
4
5
6
7
VFA rem (%)
VFA inf. (kg m-3)
VFA removal 10
8
La (kg m3 d-1) VFAin FA
VFAin H
VFAr FA
VFAr H
Hybrid: VFA = ≈ 4 times more concentrated
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Conclusions Anaerobic filter and hybrid: can be used to treat the raw OMW (without any pre-treatment or chemical correction)
AF ≠ H (27 and 41% OMW v/v) = COD and solids removal AF=69-83% vs. H=60-73% [overload (18% OMW v/v)]
H recovery process → packed bed material was effective in preventing the excessive loss of biomass
Confirmation → better performance of H than AF (53% OMW v/v) [COD removal: AF = 80 → 70%, H = 73-78%]
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Conclusions Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid Important issue related to the applicability of the Hybrid
Anaerobic digestion of Olive Mill Wastewater is the lower costs related to the amount of packing material
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid
Acknowledgements
financial support project PTDC/ENR/69755/2006 and the grant given to Marta Gonçalves SFRH/BD/40746/2007.
Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil
Departamento de Energias Renováveis Anaerobic digestion of OMW: Department of Renewable Energy anaerobic filter vs. hybrid LNEG – Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia National Laboratory of Energy and Geology
Anaerobic digestion of Olive Mill Wastewater: Anaerobic Filter vs. Hybrid
Isabel Paula Marques
[email protected]
Marta Gonçalves, Paulo Freitas
Thanks for your attention Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources 8-13 March 2009, Rio de Janeiro. Brasil