Integrating Mineral Wastes in the Anaerobic Digestion of OFMSW for Improved Recovery of Renewable Energy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Integrating mineral wastes in the anaerobic digestion of OFMSW for improved recovery of renewable energy Burhan Shamurad [email protected] March 2020 A thesis submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Engineering, Newcastle University, UK ii Abstract This thesis investigated the effects of mineral wastes (MW) on laboratory-scale anaerobic reactors treating organic wastes. Different MW resources were used, incineration bottom ash (IBA), fly ash (FA) and boiler ash (BA), taken from a municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) plants, as well as a cement-based waste (CBW) from construction demolition wastes. The hypothesis was that these MW would provide trace elements (TEs) deficient in the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), and offer moderate alkalinity to prevent reactor acidification of mesophilic anaerobic digestion of the OFMSW. The control and operation of batch biomethane potential (BMP) reactors and continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs; single-stage and two-stage reactors), was studied under different feeding regimes, different organic loading rates and hydraulic/solid retention times, in order to determine potential benefits of mineral waste amendments and aqueous trace metal supplements on anaerobic digestion efficiency, methane productivity and process stability. Co-digestion of different solid MW and organic wastes in single-stage CSTR using a liquid- recycled feeding method (LRFM) enhanced process stability (pH of 6.8 – 7.2), increased methane production by 25 - 45%, and yielded 450 – 520 mL CH4/g VS (near to the theoretical maximum) compared to the control. Whereas draw-and-fill feeding method (DFFM) also enhanced digestibility but to a lesser degree. Pre-treatment of the OFMSW with the MW at 37oC improved substrate hydrolysis, and enhanced the performance and stability of the DFFM digestion processes further to values similar to those of LRFM reactors. Amending two-stage CSTRs with aqueous MW extracts provided the reactors with the necessary trace elements deficient in the OFMSW, maintained alkalinity and pH, and hence enhanced hydrogen/methane production and processes stability of both acidogenic and methanogenic reactors. Amendments of IBA, BA and CBW provided trace metals that supported anaerobic digestion processes without adverse effects; however, the metals released from FA provided much lower enhancement of the digestion processes, as some trace metal concentrations were within the toxic range for methanogenic processes. To elucidate and compare the effect and importance of commercial TE supplementation and substrate co-digestion techniques in improving organic waste anaerobic digestion, especially for the single-stage reactors with high organic loading rates, different CSTR feed compositions were studied. Different feedstocks were investigated including synthetic organic waste (SOW), SOW supplemented with TE, SOW supplemented with wheat straw (WS) and i SOW supplemented with WS and TE. Results showed that high methane yields (450 - 550 mL/g VS), higher microbial numbers and process stability at higher OLRs, were achieved in all reactors having TE supplementation compared to the equivalent reactors without TE supplementation. From analysis of molecular microbial data, the effect that different feeding methods, reaction times and WS co-digestion had on reactor performance was found to be associated directly with microbial community selection and stability. Different feeding regimes altered the microbial communities; Methanoculleus (hydrogenotrophic) and Methanosaeta (acetoclastic) were the most abundant methanogenic genera in the LRFM reactors, and the more metabolically versatile Methanosarcina genus dominated under DFFM. Interestingly, at 25% WS supplementation, the Methanosarcina were found to be acetoclastic (based on indicative coenzyme F420 measurements), but with no WS amendment with highest NH3-N levels the F420 values indicated a predominantly hydrogenotrophic metabolism. These results suggest that, WS co-digestion reduced biological stress on the anaerobic community by reducing the net concentration of ammonia in the feedstock. ii Acknowledgements The time of producing this thesis of my PhD degree was the hardest and most challenging period of my life, but I have enjoyed the experience by achieving as much as information, skills and knowledge as possible. To my colleagues, friends and the staff of the school of engineering at Newcastle university, you are supported me and provided me the happy environment to finish this study. To my wife Laila and my children Rozh, Ramyar and Diwa you worked hard and tolerated the difficulties to give me love and a happy foundation to finish this degree. Finally, to my supervisors Paul and Neil, your patience and support throughout will be remembered fondly. “Dei perfecta est” Better things will follow indeed! iii iv Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Motivation of the research ............................................................................................... 1 1.2. Thesis Overview .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Thesis Novelty ................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2. Research gap .......................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Aims ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2. Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 3. Literature review ................................................................................................... 8 3.1. Anaerobic digestion processes ........................................................................................ 8 3.1.1. Hydrolysis processes .............................................................................................. 11 3.1.2. Acidogenesis processes .......................................................................................... 18 3.1.3. Acetogenesis processes .......................................................................................... 18 3.1.4. Methanogenesis ...................................................................................................... 29 3.2. Parameters of anaerobic digestion ................................................................................. 32 3.2.1. Operational parameters ........................................................................................... 32 3.2.2. Substrate characteristics ......................................................................................... 37 3.2.3. Reactor configuration and operation ...................................................................... 43 3.3. Integrating mineral wastes into anaerobic digestion of organic waste .......................... 45 3.3.1. Mineral wastes of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) plants .................. 45 3.3.2. Mineral wastes from construction demolition waste (CDW) ................................. 48 3.4. Anaerobic co-digestion of the OFMSW with wheat straw ........................................... 49 3.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 50 Chapter 4. Materials and Methods ....................................................................................... 52 Chapter contents ................................................................................................................... 52 4.1. Reactor substrates .......................................................................................................... 52 4.1.1. Synthetic organic waste .......................................................................................... 52 v 4.1.2. Inoculum ................................................................................................................. 56 4.1.3. Mineral wastes ........................................................................................................ 57 4.1.4. Synthetic trace element solutions ........................................................................... 58 4.2. Metals analysis .............................................................................................................. 58 4.2.1. Total metals analysis .............................................................................................. 58 4.2.2. Soluble metal analysis ............................................................................................ 59 4.2.3. Elemental analysis by ICP-OES ............................................................................. 61 4.2.4. Quality control ........................................................................................................ 62 4.2.5. Alkalinity of mineral wastes ................................................................................... 62 4.2.6. Elemental composition analysis and theoretical methane yield ............................. 63 4.2.7. Estimation of theoretical