DOCSLIB.ORG

Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Manure for Pollution ControlAnaerobic and Digestion Energy Production:of Livestock A Manure: Feasibility A Feasibility Assessment Assessment By Peter Ciborowski Minnesota Pollution Control Agency March 2001 Report prepared in completion of USEPA Grant CX 825639-01-0 Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement (CX 825639-01-0) to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, it may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred. 2 Conversion Factors Volume and Weight 1 cubic meter (m3) equals 35.315 cubic feet (ft3) 1ft3 equals 0.0283 m3 1 liter (l) equals 0.035 ft3 1 l equals 0.001 m3 1 m3 equals 1000 l 1 ft3 equals 28.317 l 1 kilogram (kg) equals 2.2046 lb. 1 lb. /ft3 equals 16 kg/m3 1 ft3/lb equals 0.062 m3/kg Manure 1 ft3 manure equals 62 lb. 1 kg solids/m3 equals 0.1% manure solids content Biogas 1 ft3 biogas equals 0.0716 lb. biogas 3 3 1 ft biogas equals 0.55 to 0.7 ft CH4 3 1 ft CH4 equals 0.04235 lb. CH4 3 1 ft CO2 equals 0.1154 lb. CO2 1 ft3 biogas equals 560 to 713 Btu 3 1 ft CH4 equals 1018 Btu Energy 1 kWh equals 3412 Btu 1 kWh equals 0.03412 mmbtu 1 mmbtu equals 293 kWh (thermal) 1 mmbtu equals 61.5 kWh (electric-diesel generation) 1 kWh (electric-diesel generation) equals 0.016 mmbtu or 26.67 ft3 biogas 3 Table of Contents Part 1. Technology Description and Literature review Introduction and General Description of the Technology Biochemistry of Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic Digestion in Waste Processing Farm Digester Applications Digester Applications in Minnesota Physical Make-Up of a Farm Digestion System Farm Digester Stability: Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Farm Digester Volatile Solids Degradability Pollution Control with Anaerobic Digestion Greenhouse Gas Control Aspects of Anaerobic Digestion Digester Effluent: Fertilizer Value and By-product Use Farm Biogas and Energy Potential from Anaerobic Digestion Digester Design Criteria for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Volumetric Productivity: Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Net Energy Aspects of Digester Feasibility: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digesters Recommended Design Criteria for Medium-Rate Farm-Based Digesters Operational Means to Relax Constraints to Farm Digester Biogas and Energy Productivity Digester Sizing for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Biogas Uses Digester Construction, Materials and Subcomponents Operating a CSTR, Plug Flow or Slurry-Loop Farm Digester Economics of Anaerobic Digestion for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digesters Alternative Reactor Design Part 2. Study Design Part 3. Inventory of Livestock on Minnesota Dairy and Swine Feedlots Dairy Inventory Swine Inventory Inventory for Swine Finishing Operations Inventory for Nursery Pig-to-Finishing Operations Inventory for Nursery Pig-Only Operations Inventory for Farrow-to-Wean Operations 4 Inventory for Farrow-to-Finish Operations Inventory for Farrow-to-Nursery Pig Operations Inventory for Farrow-and-Finish Operations Part 4. Economic Assessment of Digester Feasibility on Minnesota Feedlots Approach to the Economic Analysis of Digester Feasibility Dairy Assessment Swine Assessment Economic Assessment for Finishing Swine Operations Economic Assessment for Nursery Pig-to-Finishing Swine Operations Economic Assessment for Nursery Pig-Only Swine Operations Economic Assessment for Farrow-to-Finish Swine Operations Economic Assessment for Farrow-to-Nursery Pig Swine Operations Economic Assessment for Farrow-and-Finish Swine Operations Summary of Feasibility Assessment for Swine Production Part 5. Renewable Energy and Methane Control Potential Renewable Energy Analysis Methane Control Potential Part 6. Policy Options Conclusion Appendices List of Reviewers 5 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Anaerobic Digestion Figure 2. Schematic Representation of Farm Digester Set-up with a Conventional Medium- Rate Reactor Figure 3. Milk Cows on Minnesota Dairy Farms Figure 4. Milk Cows on Minnesota Dairy Farms by Herd Size Figure 5. Swine on Minnesota Swine Farms Table 1. Necessary Conditions for Mesophilic Digestion Table 2. Anaerobic Digester Types Table 3. Digester Type Suitability Based on Housing and Manure Management Table 4. Environmental Benefits of Digestion Table 5. Estimates of Anaerobic Digester Effects on Various Measures of Water and Air Pollution for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 6. Biogas Productivity per Head of Livestock for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Anaerobic Digesters Table 7. Biogas Productivity per Lactating Cow from Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 8. Anaerobic Digester Productivity per 1,000 lb. of Livestock Liveweight: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 9. Digester Biogas Productivity: Literature Point Estimates for Conventional Medium- Rate Farm Reactors Table 10. Potential Energy Production per Lactating Cow from Farm Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure Table 11. Potential Energy Production per Head of Livestock from Anaerobic Digestion with Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 12. Biogas Productivity in Relationship to Waste Type and Collection and Digester Configuration: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 13. Digester Productivity: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digestion Table 14. Digester Net Energy Status in Relation to Influent Manure Total Solids: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 15. Digester Net Energy Considerations: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digester Design Table 16. Design Parameters for Optimal CSTR Net Energy Production Table 17. Digester Design Parameters: Range of Estimates Typically Found in the Literature for Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 18. Operational Means to Raise Digester Biogas and Energy Productivity Table 19. Summary of Biological and Design Limits to Anaerobic Digestion, Conventional Medium Rate Farm Reactors Table 20. Approximate Digester Size in Relation to Waste for Processing: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digesters Table 21. Farm Digester Components: CSTR. Plug Flow and Slurry-Loop Design Table 22. Feasibility Thresholds for Various Physical Digester Parameters: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 23. Potential Sources of Public and Private Benefit from Anaerobic Digestion: Monetized and Nonmonetized Benefits 6 Table 24. Digester Capital Costs: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digestion, Dairy Feedlots Table 25. Digester Capital Costs: Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Digestion, Swine Feedlots, Slatted Floors, Below Barn Pit Storage Table 26. Estimates of Herd Size Thresholds for Economic Viability of Digester with Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 27. Estimates of Herd Sizes Not Economically Viability for Digester Deployment with Conventional Medium-Rate Farm Reactors Table 28. Preconditions for Successful Digester Deployment on Farm Table 29. Economic Factors in the Analysis of Anaerobic Digester Feasibility Table 30. Trends Favoring Digester Deployments in the US Livestock Industry Table 31. Summary Statistics for Dairy Herd, Dairy Manure and Volatile Solids Production, and Methane Generation: 1998 Table 32. Dairy Herd Inventory by Herd Size Table 33. Swine Production Systems Table 34. Swine Characteristics Table 35. Distribution of Swine in Minnesota Feedlots Table 36. Summary Statistics for Swine Producing Feedlots in Minnesota Table 37. Summary Statistics for Swine Production in Minnesota by Animal Type Table 38. Potential Methane Generating Capacity of Minnesota Swine Feedlots by Production Type and Manure Storage and Handling System Table 39. Summary Statistics for Finishing Swine Systems Table 40. Finishing Swine Inventory: All Manure Management Systems Table 41. Finishing Swine Inventory: Below Barn Pit Storage Systems Table 42. Summary Statistics for Nursery Pig-to-Finishing Swine Systems Table 43. Nursery-Pig-to-Finisher Inventory by Number of Finishers Table 44. Nursery Pig-to-Finisher Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Finishers Table 45. Nursery Pig-to-Finisher VS Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Finishers Table 46. Nursery Pig-to-Finisher Maximum Potential Methane Generation Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Finishers (in mmcf) Table 47. Nursery Pig-to-Finisher Emission Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Finishers (in mmcf of CH4) Table 48. Summary Statistics for Nursery Pig Swine Systems Table 49. Nursery Pig-Only Swine Inventory: All Manure Management Systems Table 50. Nursery Pig-Only System Inventory: Below Barn Pit Storage Table 51. Summary Statistics for Farrow-to-Wean Swine Systems Table 52. Farrow-to-Wean System Inventory: All Manure Management Systems Table 53. Farrow-to-Wean Systems Inventory: Below Barn Pit Storage Systems Table 54. Summary Statistics for Farrow-to-Finish Swine Systems Table 55. Farrow-to-Finish Inventory by Number of Sows Table 56. Farrow-to-Finish Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Sows Table 57. Farrow-to-Finish VS Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Sows Table 58. Farrow-to-Finish Maximum Potential Methane Generation Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Sows (in mmcf) Table 59. Farrow-to-Finish Emission Inventory for Below Barn Pit Storage Systems by Number of Sows (in mmcf of CH4) Table 60. Summary Statistics for Farrow-to-Nursery Pig Swine Systems 7 Table 61. Farrow-to-Nursery Pig System Inventory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sludge Management for Anaerobic Lagoons and Runoff Holding Ponds Amy Millmier Schmidt, Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ® ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Know how. Know now. G1371 (Revised April 2013) Sludge Management for Anaerobic Lagoons and Runoff Holding Ponds Amy Millmier Schmidt, Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer Annual sludge accumulation volume in an anaerobic This NebGuide defines critical issues to be addressed­ lagoon is estimated by the following equation (Natural by a sludge and sediment management plan for anaerobic Resources Conservation Service, 1992): lagoons and outdoor lot holding ponds. SV = 365 x AU x TS x SAR x T (Equation 1) Nebraska’s permit process for a Livestock Waste Control where: Facility (LWCF) requires a sludge and sediment management plan. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality AU = Number of 1,000 pound animal units (NDEQ) must approve this plan prior to issuing an NDEQ SV = Sludge volume in cubic feet operating permit to a livestock operation. T = Sludge accumulation time (years) TS = Total solids production per animal unit per Current Knowledge day (lb/AU/day) SAR = Sludge accumulation ratio (ft3/lb TS). See Preparing a sludge management plan should include Table I. recognizing our current knowledge of earthen structures. In this publication, an anaerobic lagoon refers to an impound- Table I. Sludge accumulation ratio (anaerobic lagoons only) and total ment with a permanent liquid pool for encouraging biological solids production for livestock. breakdown of manure and a storage volume. A runoff holding Total Solids Production (pounds/day/1,000 pond refers to an impoundment with a storage volume only pounds live weight) SAR for collecting storm water runoff from an outdoor lot such as Dairy 0.0728 a cattle feedlot.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study
    Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study A Research Report by Kansas State University June 23, 1999 Principal Investigators J.M. Ham, Department of Agronomy L.N. Reddi, Department of Civil Engineering C.W. Rice, Department of Agronomy Submitted in partial fulfillment of a contract between Kansas State University and the Kansas Water Office, Topeka, KS. Executive Summary Animal Waste Lagoon Water Quality Study J.M. Ham, L.M. Reddi, and C.W. Rice Kansas State University Report Period: May, 1998 to June, 1999 Anaerobic lagoons are used to collect, treat, and store waste at many concentrated animal operations (CAOs) in Kansas. Lagoons contain nutrients, salts, and other soluble chemicals that, in many cases, are eventually applied to crops as fertilizer. While waste is stored and treated in the lagoons, seepage losses from the sides and bottom of the containment could potentially affect soil and ground water quality. Of primary concern, is possible movement of nitrate-nitrogen into aquifers used to supply drinking water. Bacteria, which also are present in the waste, are another potential source for contamination. A comprehensive environmental assessment of lagoons requires three focus areas: (a) toxicity – what are the constituents in the lagoon waste that pose a threat to water quality and public health? (b) input loading – at what rate does waste seep from a lagoon under field conditions? and (c) aquifer vulnerability – how do soil properties, geology, and water table depth affect the risk of waste movement from the lagoon to the ground water? Researchers at Kansas State University (KSU), in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office, are conducting research to examine these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
    CHAPTER 5 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.0 INTRODUCTION The Clean Water Act requires EPA to consider a number of different factors when developing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for a particular industry category. These factors include the cost of achieving the effluent reduction, the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process changes, nonwater quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and factors the Administrator deems appropriate. One way EPA takes these factors into account is by breaking down categories of industries into separate classes of similar characteristics. The division of a point source category into groups called “subcategories” provides a mechanism for addressing variations among products, raw materials, processes, and other parameters that result in distinctly different effluent characteristics. Regulation of a category by subcategory ensures that each subcategory has a uniform set of effluent limitations that take into account technology achievability and economic impacts unique to that subcategory. The factors that EPA considered in the subcategorization of the CAFO point source category include: • Animal production processes • Waste management and handling practices • Wastes and wastewater characteristics • Waste use practices • Age of equipment and facilities • Facility size • Facility location EPA evaluated these factors and determined that
    [Show full text]
  • Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment
    Spring 1997 Vol. 8, No. 2 L SMALL A F N L O O I W T A S N C L E E S A U Pipeline R I N G H O Small Community Wastewater Issues Explained to the Public Lagoon Systems Can Provide Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment t is no wonder that one of the for homes on large lots in areas where other treatment more efficient, so that less land most popular methods for onsite systems or sewers are too costly or area is necessary, and aerators can be used to I wastewater treatment around the otherwise impractical. Lagoons also work upgrade some existing systems to treat more world is also one of the simplest well for many seasonal rental properties and wastewater. and least expensive. Lagoon systems use recreational areas, because they are able to Every lagoon system must be individually natural and energy-efficient processes to handle intermittent periods of both light and designed to fit its specific site and use. provide low-cost wastewater treatment. heavy use. Designs are based on such factors as the They are one of the most cost-effective type of soil, the amount of land area wastewater treatment options for many What are lagoon systems? available, the climate, and the amount of homes and communities. There are several different types and sunlight and wind in an area. In the U.S., most wastewater treatment names for lagoons and many possible Other important design considerations for lagoons are found in small and rural system designs. Lagoon systems include lagoon systems include the amount and type communities.
    [Show full text]
  • (Biogas) Lagoons
    (Biogas) lagoons H.-P. Mang Laggon - Pond 1. Artificial pool for storage and treatment of polluted or excessively hot sewage, liquid waste, etc. 2. Wastewater treatment lagoons are earthen impoundments that are engineered and constructed to treat as well as temporarily store wastewater. 3. In practice, the terms lagoons and ponds are used interchangeably. Treatment ./. Storage (1/2) 1. Wastewater treatment lagoons are different from wastewater storage or holding lagoons in that they are designed to function as biological reactors that allow effective degradation of organic compounds contained in the wastewater by various microorganisms. 2. Therefore, the physical, chemical, and biological environments in the treatment lagoons are controlled to achieve the intended purposes of wastewater treatment. Treatment ./. Storage (2/2) 3.Treatment lagoons are not pumped down below their treatment volume elevation except for maintenance purposes. 4.Storage lagoons are emptied regularly when the wastewater is pumped out for irrigation. Animal wastewater lagoons (1/2) 1. Animal wastewater lagoons have about 50 years of history. 2. Specific engineering design standards have been developed for animal wastewater lagoons. 3. Due to the high contents of nutrients and organics in the animal wastewater, the treatment capacity of wastewater lagoons is often limited, and effluent from the lagoons is not suitable for direct discharge into surface waters. Animal wastewater lagoons (2/2) 4. Due to the high organic content of animal wastewater, all the primary lagoons used for animal wastewater treatment are essentially anaerobic lagoons. 5. Vary in depth from 2.5 to 9 meter and are built as deep as the local geography allows to minimize the surface area and reduce odour emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Lagoons and Storage Structures for Dairy Manure
    CHAPTER 4 Management of Lagoons and Storage Structures For Dairy Manure John P. Chastain and Stephen Henry INTRODUCTION Most dairy buildings in South Carolina are designed to collect and transfer manure to an anaerobic lagoon or storage pond as a liquid or slurry. The two most popular collection and transfer systems are tractor scrape and flush. The floors of many milking centers are cleaned by scraping, with a high-pressure hose, or by flushing. The objectives of this chapter are to: (1) describe the concepts used to size treatment lagoons and manure storages, and (2) describe the management requirements for lagoons and storage structures. TYPES OF BACTERIA IN MANURE Selection of a type of storage structure and proper management requires an understanding of the basic types of bacteria that are present in manure. Bacteria growth can reduce the strength of some pollutants in manure (called treatment). Uncontrolled growth of certain bacteria will provide some treatment, but will greatly increase the frequency and amount of odor. Animal manure contains three types of bacteria: anaerobic, aerobic, and facultative. Anaerobic bacteria will only grow in manure that contains no oxygen. Aerobic bacteria can only thrive in manure with a sufficient level of dissolved oxygen. Facultative bacteria can live with or without oxygen. Most manure storage structures and treatment lagoons maintain the manure in an oxygen-free or anaerobic condition. Natural or mechanical aeration (addition of oxygen to manure) is required to promote the growth of aerobic bacteria. Aeration will suppress the growth of anaerobic bacteria. The organic matter in manure can be decomposed by all three types of bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Dairy Waste Treatment CIRCULAR ANR-963
    ALABAMA A&M AND AUBURN UNIVERSITIES ALA 'BAMA ,......>~ C OOJ>IlRATTVE Planning And Managing Lagoons For ExtenSIOn SYSTEM Dairy Waste Treatment CIRCULAR ANR-963 airy waste lagoons are sign and management the anaer­ flush system lagoons do not Dearthen structures designed obic lagoon can function for need to be located quite so close for biological treatment and years. Odor from a well-designed to the dairy waste source. long-term storage of dairy waste. and well-managed lagoon will be Good engineering practice, L'flgoons are specially construct­ only slightly musty; foul odor in­ as recommended in ASAE ed to prevent leakage of dairy dicates a malfunction requiring EP403.3, calls for lagoons to be waste to ground water. The la­ corrective action. no less than 300 feet from any goon system allows manure to Advantages of anaerobic la­ water supply used for human be handled with water-flushing goon systems are: consumption. Natural Resources systems, sewer lines, pumps, • Manure can be handled Conservation Service (NRCS) rec­ and irrigation equipment. The with water flushing systems, ommends 500 feet but will ac­ natural biological action on the sewer lines, pumps, and irriga­ cept 150 feet from an upslope waste results in less odor during tion equipment. well. Alabama Public Health De­ land application. Nitrogen con­ • The high degree of stabi­ partment, Division of Environ­ tent of the waste is reduced in lization reduces odors during mental Programs Management lagoons by as much as 80 per­ land application. (Milk Inspection), will not permit cent. This reduction minimizes lagoons to be closer than 100 • High nitrogen reduction land area needed for land appli­ feet from the water supply on a minimizes the land area required cation and enhances long-term grade A dairy.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing and Managing Livestock Waste Lagoons in Illinois
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository 11 1 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN ACES * ^Ml <"'' ^ '^ ^ - - ' no. /5^<^ Designing and Managing Livestock Waste Lagoons in Illinois I US^A^f # ,y <- 'J u V.J -i^STTQF^li'n--":-'^' by Ted Funk, Georgios Bartzis, and Jonathan Treagust University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Circular 1326 Designing and Managing Livestock Waste Lagoons in Illinois This circular was prepared by T. L. Funk, Extension Educator, Farm Systems, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Jonathan Treagust, and Georgios Bartzis, visiting scholars, Silsoe College, Silsoe, England. Introduction 1 Types of Lagoons 2 Aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative lagoons Anaerobic single-stage versus anaerobic multiple-stage lagoons Design Constraints for Proper Operation 4 Federal, state, and local regulations Loading and sludge accumulation rates Frequency of dewatering Water supply and drainage Species and expected values of manure production Soil and location Finding the Recommended Volume 6 Minimum design volume Livestock waste volume Dilution volume Determining the volume Finding the Right Dimensions 10 Depth Length-to-width ratio Side slopes Other Construction Constraints 12 Designing the earth embankment Designing the inlet and outlet Open channel versus pipe Outlet to next lagoon Designing the pumping system Placement Selecting equipment Operation and Maintenance 13 Starting up Breaking a crust Inspecting the lagoon Removing sludge Testing fertility Controlling odor Dewatering the lagoon Guaranteeing safety Worksheet Examples 15 Bibliography 17 Q(,3o 7 Introduction "^C^^ ^-fe \Vfy Growing environmental concerns and Pit systems store manure until it is returned to the land.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Environmental Quality Improvement from Implementation of Aerobic Waste Treatment Systems in Swine Farms
    Author's personal copy Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Waste Management 28 (2008) 759–766 www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman Greenhouse gas emission reduction and environmental quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste treatment systems in swine farms M.B. Vanotti a,*, A.A. Szogi a, C.A. Vives b a United States Department of Agriculture, ARS, Coastal Plains Research Center, 2611 W. Lucas St., Florence, SC 29501, USA b Agrosuper, Agricola SuperLimitada, Rancagua c.c. 333, Chile Accepted 6 September 2007 Available online 3 December 2007 Abstract Trading of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions is an attractive approach to help producers implement cleaner treatment tech- nologies to replace current anaerobic lagoons. Our objectives were to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from imple- mentation of aerobic technology in USA swine farms. Emission reductions were calculated using the approved United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) methodology in conjunction with monitoring information collected during full- scale demonstration of the new treatment system in a 4360-head swine operation in North Carolina (USA). Emission sources for the project and baseline manure management system were methane (CH4) emissions from the decomposition of manure under anaerobic conditions and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions during storage and handling of manure in the manure management system. Emission reductions resulted from the difference between total project and baseline emissions. The project activity included an on-farm wastewater treatment system consisting of liquid–solid separation, treatment of the separated liquid using aerobic biological N removal, chemical disinfection and soluble P removal using lime. The project activity was completed with a centralized facility that used aerobic composting to process the separated solids.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercialization of Anaerobic Contact Process for Anaerobic Digestion of Algae Gunjan Andlay
    COMMERCIALIZATION OF ANAEROBIC CONTACT PROCESS FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF ALGAE by GUNJAN ANDLAY Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY May 2010 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of _____________________________________________________Gunjan Andlay Master of Science candidate for the ______________________degree *. Claudia M. Mizutani, Ph.D. (signed)_______________________________________________ (chair of the committee) Christopher A. Cullis, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ Andrew K. Swanson, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ David J. Burke, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ April 2, 2010 (date) _______________________ *We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein. Dedicated to my parents, and family 2 Table of Contents List of tables ................................................................................................................................... 5 List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 7 List of abbreviations
    [Show full text]
  • Cost-Effective Treatment Using Lagoons PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION
    Cost-Effective Treatment Using Lagoons PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION DECEMBER 2013 Across the US, most wastewater treatment lagoons are found in small and rural communities. Lagoons are well suited for small cities and towns because they can cost less to construct, operate, and maintain than other systems. Lagoons come in many varieties and historically have played an important role as natural wastewater treatment systems. Lagoons operate by degrading wastes through various microbiological populations, and technology is becoming advanced with the development of innovative and alternative enhancements. This white paper provides general information on typical lagoon systems and offers some performance optimization techniques to help communities meet regulatory compliance. Types of Lagoon Systems Lagoon systems are generally classified into three types: anaerobic, facultative, and aerated. Multiple cell lagoon systems often use two or more of these types to provide for adequate treatment. Each type is described as follows: Anaerobic The word anaerobic means “without oxygen” and describes the conditions in- side this lagoon. These lagoon systems are typically used to treat high strength wastes, such as animal wastes from dairy and swine farms, and are often the first stage in a multiple stage treatment system. They are typically designed to hold the wastewater for 20 to 50 days and are deeper than other lagoons (i.e., 8 to 20 feet deep). Lagoons are well suited Inside an anaerobic lagoon, solids in the wastewater separate and settle into layers. The top layer consists of grease, scum, and floatables; this layer keeps for small cities and the oxygen out and a majority of the odors in.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrochemical Pretreatment of Distillery Wastewater Using Aluminum Electrode
    J Appl Electrochem (2010) 40:663–673 DOI 10.1007/s10800-009-0041-x ORIGINAL PAPER Electrochemical pretreatment of distillery wastewater using aluminum electrode B. M. Krishna • Usha N. Murthy • B. Manoj Kumar • K. S. Lokesh Received: 17 June 2009 / Accepted: 23 November 2009 / Published online: 11 December 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract Electrochemical (EC) oxidation of distillery Keywords Electrochemical oxidation Á wastewater with low (BOD5/COD) ratio was investigated Distillery wastewater Á Aluminum electrode using aluminum plates as electrodes. The effects of oper- ating parameters such as pH, electrolysis duration, and current density on COD removal were studied. At a current 1 Introduction density of 0.03 A cm-2 and at pH 3, the COD removal was found to be 72.3%. The BOD5/COD ratio increased from Distillery is recognized as one of the most polluting 0.15 to 0.68 for an optimum of 120-min electrolysis duration industries, and waste in the form of ‘‘spent wash’’ is indicating improvement of biodegradability of wastewater. among the worst pollutants produced by distilleries both The maximum anodic efficiency observed was 21.58 kg in magnitude and strength [1]. Most of the distilleries in COD h-1 A-1 m-2, and the minimum energy consumption India use cane molasses, a by-product of sugar industry as observed was 0.084 kWh kg-1 COD. The kinetic study raw material. For every liter of alcohol produced, results revealed that reaction rate (k) decreased from 0.011 molasses-based distilleries generate 8–15 L of wastewater to 0.0063 min-1 with increase in pH from 3 to 9 while the k characterized by high Biochemical Oxygen Demand value increased from 0.0035 to 0.0102 min-1 with increase (BOD), high Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and high in current density from 0.01 to 0.03 A cm-2.
    [Show full text]