ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF OLIVE MILL WASTEWATER ...

13 downloads 339 Views 4MB Size Report
Anaerobic digestion of OMW: anaerobic filter vs. hybrid. OMW. [three-phase extraction system]. Bioenergy – II: Fuels and Chemicals from Renewable Resources.
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