Title: | Anaerobic digestion of raw and thermally hydrolyzed wastewater solids under various operational conditions |
Author(s): | Wilson CA; Tanneru CT; Banjade S; Murthy SN; Novak JT; |
Address: | "Greeley and Hansen, Richmond, VA 23235, USA. cwilson@greeley-hansen.com" |
DOI: | 10.2175/106143011x12928814444934 |
ISSN/ISBN: | 1061-4303 (Print) 1061-4303 (Linking) |
Abstract: | "In this study, high-solids anaerobic digestion of thermally pretreated wastewater solids (THD) was compared with conventional mesophilic anaerobic digestion (MAD). Operational conditions, such as pretreatment temperature (150 to 170 degrees C), solids retention time (15 to 20 days), and digestion temperature (37 to 42 degrees C), were varied for the seven THD systems operated. Volatile solids reduction (VSR) by THD ranged from 56 to 62%, compared with approximately 50% for MAD. Higher VSR contributed to 24 to 59% increased biogas production (m3/kg VSR-d) from THD relative to MAD. The high-solids conditions of the THD feed resulted in high total ammonia-nitrogen (proportional to solids loading) and total alkalinity concentrations in excess of 14 g/L as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Increased pH in THD reactors caused 5 to 8 times more un-ionized ammonia to be present than in MAD, and this likely led to inhibition of aceticlastic methanogens, resulting in accumulation of residual volatile fatty acids between 2 and 6 g/L as acetic acid. The THD produced biosolids cake that possessed low organic sulfur-based biosolids odor and dewatered to between 33 and 39% total solids. Dual conditioning with cationic polymer and ferric chloride was shown to be an effective strategy for mitigating dissolved organic nitrogen and UV-quenching compounds in the return stream following centrifugal dewatering of THD biosolids" |
Keywords: | *Anaerobiosis Calcium Carbonate/analysis Hydrogen-Ion Concentration Hydrolysis *Water Pollutants; |
Notes: | "MedlineWilson, Christopher A Tanneru, Charan T Banjade, Sarita Murthy, Sudhir N Novak, John T eng Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't 2011/11/12 Water Environ Res. 2011 Sep; 83(9):815-25. doi: 10.2175/106143011x12928814444934" |