葉菜廢棄物與豬糞中溫厭氧共消化之研究

(1)

Department of Bio-Industrial Mechatronics Engineering College of Bioresources and Agriculture

National Taiwan University Master Thesis

Mesophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Vegetable Wastes and Swine Manure

Yu-Shan Lin

Advisor: Chu-Yang Chou, Ph.D.

105 7

July, 2016

(2)

404 個

個好個

好好

Angel 個

個個個

個⼈個好個

好個

個⼈好個好

Alison Jack (ISA Lille) Thanh Ly LE MINH Julien Castelin

好個好

⼀個個

好好

好個

個好

個個

個

個個個好

個好

好

(3)

(37±1°C) 個

好個

個 (HRT 12

10 8 ) 個 ( )

好

(Total solids, TS) 5%個 TS 4%個

(C/N) 30:1好個

HRT 5 個 (SM) (VW) (SM:VW

1:0 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1) 個

TS 5% 好

30% ( HRT 12 ) 個

(COD 5.5%個TS 7.81%個VS 15.77%)

(GPR 0.26 L/L/day個MPR 0.12 L CH⁴/L/day)好 HRT 5 個

(SM:VW 1:0) 個GPR MPR

1.70 L/L/day 1.06 L CH4/L/day 61.90%個COD TS VS

16.27% 14.40% 12.14%好個

4:1 個GPR MPR 1.49 L/L/day 0.77 L

(4)

CH4/L/day 51.33%個COD TS VS 16.95% 13.27% 11.73%好

33%個 2:1個

0.54 L CH4/L/day個COD 13.85% 個

個 (Sodium bicarbonate) pH

個 50%好個

個個

好

(5)

Abstract

In this study, the experiment of mesophilic (37±1°C) anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure (SM) and vegetable wastes (VW) was conducted to investigate the optimal operational condition and mixing ratio. The whole study includes two experiments. The first experiment was the co-digestion of digestate (the effluent of the primary digestion of swine manure) and vegetable wastes. This experiment was to evaluate if the gas production of digestate in the secondary digestion could be improved effectively after the supplement of proper carbon source under different hydraulic retention times (HRT) of 8, 10 and 12 days. The influent of the primary digestion was 5% TS swine manure, while the vegetable wastes used in the secondary digestion was controlled at 4% TS. Also, the carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N) of feed mixture of co-digestion was prepared and controlled at around 30:1. The second experiment was the co-digestion of swine manure and vegetable wastes. This experiment was to evaluate the gas production and the limit of adding vegetable wastes at different mixing ratios of 1:0, 4:1, 3:1, 2:1 and 1:1 (SM:VW) under a relative high organic loading rate of 5-day HRT. The influent substrates including both swine manure and vegetable wastes were prepared at around 5% TS before mixing and feeding.

The results of the first experiment showed that in test of adding 30% of vegetable wastes to the primary digestate as feeding mixture (12-day HRT) could improve the COD, TS and VS removal efficiencies of 5.5%, 7.81% and 15.77%, respectively, and also improve the gas production rate (GPR) and methane production rate (MPR) of 0.26 L/L/day and 0.12 L CH4/L/day, respectively. The results of the second experiment showed, at 5-day HRT, the test of using 100% swine manure (SM:VW is 1:0) had the

(6)

1.06 L CH4/L/day and 61.90%, respectively, and the COD, TS and VS removal efficiencies of 16.27%, 14.40% and 12.14%, respectively. In respect of adding vegetable wastes for co-digestion, the test of 4:1 (SM:VW) mixing ratio had the best gas production performance with GPR, MPR and methane content of 1.49 L/L/day, 0.77 L CH4/L/day and 51.33%, respectively, and the COD, TS and VS removal efficiencies of 16.95%, 13.27% and 11.73%, respectively.

The results also showed to maintain the system working, the highest proportion of the vegetable wastes could be added was 33%, i.e. SM:VW of 2:1. The MPR of 0.54 L CH4/L/day and TS removal efficiency of 10.87% was observed during this testing period.

Beyond this adding ratio of vegetable waste, imbalance of reactor would be occurred due to inhibition. To suppress the inhibition effect, addition of alkali (Sodium bicarbonate) to adjust the pH value of influent and reactor, the proportion of vegetable wastes could then lift up to 50%. In conclusion, the anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and vegetable wastes with high solids concentration influent and organic loading rate was successfully proved, and a high gas production could be achieved in this study.

Keywords: anaerobic co-digestion, swine manure, vegetable wastes, methane, wastewater treatment

(7)

... 1

... 2

Abstract ... 4

... 6

... 10

... 11

... 13

... 15

2.1 ... 15

2.1.1 ... 15

2.1.2 ... 16

2.2 ... 17

2.3 不 ... 21

2.3.1 ... 21

2.3.2 ... 22

2.3.3 ... 22

2.3.4 ... 22

(8)

2.3.5 ... 24

... 26

3.1 ... 26

3.1.1 ... 28

3.1.2 ... 29

3.2 ... 31

3.2.1 ... 31

3.2.2 ... 31

3.3 ... 31

3.3.1 ... 33

3.3.2 ... 34

3.4 ... 35

3.4.1 pH ... 35

3.4.2 ... 36

3.4.3 ... 36

3.4.4 ... 37

3.4.5 (TOC) ... 37

3.4.6 (TKN) ... 37

(9)

3.4.7 ... 38

3.5 ... 38

... 40

4.1 ... 40

4.1.1 R1 ... 42

4.1.2 R2 ... 49

4.1.3 R3 ... 55

4.1.4 R2 R3 ... 61

4.2 ... 65

4.2.1 Test 4 – ... 67

4.2.2 Test 5 – Test 7 ... 73

4.2.3 Test 4 – Test 7 ... 80

4.4 ... 84

4.5 ... 85

... 87

5.1 ... 87

5.2 ... 88

... 89

(10)

... 93

(11)

3-1 ... 27

3-2 ... 32

3-3 ... 33

3-4 ... 34

4-1 R1 ... 43

4-2 R2 ... 50

4-3 R3 ... 56

4-4 R2 R3 ... 63

4-5 A1 A2 ... 71

4-6 B1 B2 ... 72

4-7 T4 T5 T6 T7 ... 82

(12)

2-1 2015 在個2015有 .... 18

2-2 2015 在個2015有 ... 19

3-1 ... 28

3-2 ... 29

3-3 ... 30

3-4 ... 30

3-5 ... 35

4-1 ... 40

4-2 ... 41

4-3 R1 ... 45

4-4 R1 pH COD ... 46

4-5 R1 TS VS ... 47

4-6 R1 ... 48

4-7 R2 ... 52

4-8 R2 ... 52

4-9 R2 ... 53

(13)

4-10 R2 ... 54

4-11 R3 ... 57

4-12 R3 ... 58

4-13 R3 ... 59

4-14 R3 ... 60

4-15 R2 R3 ... 64

4-16 ... 66

4-17 ... 66

4-18 Test 4 ... 68

4-19 Test 4 ... 69

4-20 Test 4 ... 70

4-21 T5 T6 T7 ... 73

4-22 T5 T6 T7 pH COD ... 75

4-23 T5 T6 T7 TS VS ... 77

4-24 T5 T6 T7 ... 79

4-25 T4 T7 ... 83

4-26 HRT 12 10 8 5 ... 84

4-27 ... 86

(14)

個個好

2014 479 個 230

227 在個2015有好不個

個個

好

個 200 個

了 4000 個 2016

100 在

個2016有個不好

個不好

103 了個 2014

270 個 90 在Leaf vegetable有好個

14 在個2008有個

個個個

( 個2001)個個個好

個不 (

個2012)好

(15)

不個個

好個

個個個

個好

個

個個

好

(16)

2.1

2.1.1

個2014 14.7

個 282 好個

28.7% 12.7% 7.7% 7.5% 在個2015有好

個 2015

個 10 37% 13%在個

2015有好

在個Cabbage有個 37.6

個 2005 12%個 20%好2015

個 26.6% 20% 14% 好

在個Chinese cabbage有個

8.1 個 43% 個 25%好2015

個 47.9% 25.7% 10.5% 在個

2015有好

(17)

2.1.2

個 17 個

71.5%是89.5%個 13 個好

在有

在有在有

好個

個個

個在個

2008有個 2015

50%在個2015有個好

個59% 個12% 個7.4%

個5.4% 個3.8 個2.9%

個2.7% 個2.2% 在個2015有好

好

2000 63 個 35% 個

65% 個好

個好個

個好

(18)

個個個

個好

個

個個個

個

, 個好

個個

個

個 ( 個2001)好

2.2

(GHG) 個 20% (Watson

et al., 1996)好個 50%好

個個

46.4%好2015 個 549.6 個個

個 2014 4.9 個

0.9%好個個 2006 個

個個 2007

(19)

9.0% 85.5%好2015 2-1 個

個 25.99%好2015 2-2 個

200 4,147 在個2015有好

2-1 2015 在個2015有

在有 (%) 在有 (%)

1,425,499 25.99 1,219 15.73

1,271,666 23.19 1,822 23.51

773,151 9.65 748 9.65

569,031 10.38 703 9.07.

292,390 5.33 558 7.20

374,366 6.83 292 3.77

4,706,103 85.81 5,342 68.92

5,484,053 100 7,751 100

(20)

2-2 2015 在個2015有

在有在有在%有在有在%有

1-99 2,592 33.97 76,222 1.39

100-199 892 11.69 132,708 2.42

200-299 480 6.29 117,772 2.15

300-499 628 8.23 248,496 4.53

500-999 1,477 19.36 1,111,737 20.27

1000-1999 1,081 14.17 1,488,411 27.14

2000-4999 353 4.63 1,038,871 18.94

5000 128 1.68 1,269,836 23.16

Total 7,631 100.00 5,484,053 100.00

2014 227 個 47%好

個95% 個3.5% 個 1.2%

個 2.8 在個2015有好

1974 個

個個

好好

不個好

(21)

20 個

好 200 個 50( / )

50( / )

100( / ) 2000

好個

個個個

個好

2006 個 4 個

個個2015

個個

好你個

個

個在1有不 10 5

個在2有個在3有

個在4有個在5有

個 1 個個在6有

個在7有

(22)

個好在個個

好有 2016

15 在個2015有好

2.3

2.3.1

個個

好個個 :

在1有個個在2有不

個個個在3有

個個

好

個個

(Esposito et al., 2012)好

(23)

2.3.2

不個

(McCarty, 1964 ; Seadi et al., 2008)好個

個

個 72% 個 28%

(McCarty and Smith, 1986)好

2.3.3

個

個個

個不 ( 個2013)好

個不你個

個個好(Esposito et al., 2012)好

2.3.4

個個

(24)

好

個好

Fujita et al.在1980有個

個 C/N 7.4個不 25-35 個

在有個

個在 1-1有好

Alvarez and Lidén在2008有個

不個在Organic loading rate ,OLR有 1.3 g VS/L/day

個VS 50%~65%個在Methane yield有 0.3 L/g VS added

在 1-2有好

Kafle et al.在2013有個 HRT 30

個 25% 33%在 VS 有個OLR 1.6

g VS/L/day 個個Methane yield 0.19L CH4/g COD added個

33% 50% 個個

Methane yield 0.05L CH4/g COD added在 1-3有好

Mazareli et al.在2016有個

OLR 個

(25)

個 COD 85%個

90%個 70:30

1.08 L CH4/L/day個 COD 70%在 1-4有好

在1有在有在2有

在3有在4有

在5有 ( ) 在6有

在7有在8有在9有

在10有好

在1有在2有在3有

在4有在5有

在6有在7有

在8有 (Braun,

2002; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2000) 好

2.3.5

不個好

不個個好

(Khalid et al., 2011)好

(26)

個個

(Comino et al., 2010)好

個

(BOD) 個 (C/N ratio) 好個

好個 173

1000 好個

個個個

(Esposito et al., 2012)好

C/N ratio 25~35個不

(Scharer and Moo-Young, 1979)好 Wang (2009)

46% 個 10% 好 Wu et al. (2010) 個

個

16 20 25個 25 好

Hawkes (1980) 20 30 個

Sievers and Brune (1978) 16 好

(27)

3.1

個個

好

3-1 個好

個 (HRT 12 10 8 )

個不

個好個

(HRT 5 )個

個好

(28)

VW : (Vegetable wastes) 3-1

(29)

3.1.1

3-1 個 HRT —— Test 1

Test 2 Test 3 HRT 12 10 8 好 R1 R2

R3個 6 L 2.5 L 2.5 L好R1 TS 5% 個

個個 R2

R3 ——R2 100% 個 R3

3:1 好

3-2 個 3:2

好

3-1 Working

Volume (L) Substrate HRT (days)

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3

R1 6 TS 5% SM 12 10 8

R2 2.5 R1 digestate 12 10 8

R3 2.5 R1 digestate + TS 4%

VW 12 10 8

SM : (Swine manure)

VW : (Vegetable wastes)

(30)

3-2 Working Volume (L)

HRT

(days) Start - up

R1 6 12 3.6 L SM + 2.4 L AS

R2 2.5 12 1.5 L SM + 1 L AS

R3 2.5 12 1.5 L SM + 1 L AS

SM : (Swine manure)

AS : (Anaerobic sludge) 3.1.2

(HRT 5 )個

個好

4 個 A B 個個

3-3好A A1 A2個 Test 4 Test 5 Test 7 個

1:0 4:1 2:1 B B1 B2個 Test 4 Test 6

Test 8 個 1:0 3:1 1:1好

3

HRT 好Test 4 個

個個A B

Test 5 Test 6 好

3-4 個 3:2

(31)

3-3

Test Test notation Feed mixing ratio SM:VW

VW component (%)

Test 4

T4-A1 1:0 0%

T4-A2 1:0 0%

T4-B1 1:0 0%

T4-B2 1:0 0%

Test 5 T5-A1 4:1 20%

T5-A2 4:1 20%

Test 6 T6-B1 3:1 25%

T6-B2 3:1 25%

Test 7 T7-A1 2:1 33.3%

T7-A2 2:1 33.3%

Test 8 T8-B1 1:1 50%

T8-B2 1:1 50%

SM : (Swine manure)

3-4 Working Volume

(L)

HRT

(days) Start - up

3 5 1.8 L SM + 1.2 L AS

SM : (Swine manure)

AS: (Anaerobic Sludge)

(32)

3.2

3.2.1

個個好

3.2.2

個

TS 個 TS 5%個 -20 個

4 好

個 9:1

(Cabbage) (Chinese Cabbage) 個

個 TS 個 -20 個 4 個

好

3.3

3-1 個R1 R2 R3 個

(System model NO. 7553-80, Masterflex®, Cole-Parmer Instrument Co., IL,

USA) 個個

(33)

好R1 個 R2 個

3:1 R3 好

3-2

(34)

A1 A2 B1 B2個 3-3 個

個好

3-3

3.3.1

R1 7 L (Continuous flow stirred-

tank reactor, CSTR)個 (Working volume) 6 L好 R1 個

R2 R3 A1 A2 B1 B2 5 L CSTR個

2.5 L 2.5 L 3 L 3 L 3 L 3 L好個個

好個

37±1°C個個

個 3-4 好

(35)

3-4

3.3.2

(CAT. NO. 232-01, SKC Inc. USA) 個 (W-NK-0.5, Shinagawa Co., Tokyo, Japan)

個個個

個好 (Gas

production rate, GPR)個 (Gas sampling bulb) 個

在Gas chromatograph, -8700T, Taiwan有個

在Methane content有好

(36)

3.4

個 Standard Methods (APHA,

1992)個 3-5好 pH (Chemical oxygen

demand, COD) (Total solids, TS) (Volatile solids, VS)好

個在Total kjeldahl

nitrogen, TKN有在Total organic carbon, TOC有好

3-5

3.4.1 pH

pH meter (PHB-9901, AI-ON Industrial Corp., USA) pH 好

pH 4 pH 7 個

好

Parameters Method

COD Standard methods - 5220C TS Standard methods - 2540C VS Standard methods - 2540E TOC Walkley – Black method TKN Macro – Kjeldahl method

(37)

3.4.2

個 2.5 mL 個 1.5

mL COD digestion solution 3.5 mL 個 COD Reactor (HACH

Co., USA ) 2 個個 (DR/2000 direct reading

spectrophotometer, HACH Co., USA) 個 600 nm個

個 COD 好個

COD COD 個好

3.4.3

我 550°C (MF40, Channel, Taiwan) 30 個

(Tare, B)個 20 mL 我個 103°C

(DCM45, Channel, Taiwan) 個

( Tare+Dry, A)個好

TS, g/L = (A – B) × 1000/20 (3-1)

(38)

3.4.4

(103°C) 個 550°C 個2

( Tare+Dry, C )個好

VS, g/L = (A– C) × 1000/20 (3-2)

3.4.5 (TOC)

0.1 g 個 500 mL 個 10 mL 1N (K2Cr2O7)

20 mL 30 個 30 150 mL

10 mL 85% (H3PO4) 0.2 g (NaF) 30 (C6H5NHC6H5)

個 0.5 N 的 (Fe(NH4)2(SO4)2 6H2O) 好

3.4.6 (TKN)

1 mL 個個 10 mL (H2SO4)個

8 個個 60

mL個 30 mL 40 mL 個 0.01N

(HCl) 好

(C/N ratio)

(39)

3.4.7

個 (Methane, CH4) 個

(Gas chromatograph, -8700T, Taiwan) CH4 好

(Thermal conductivity detector, TCD) Porapaq Q (Supelco,

Inc., MO, USA) 個 (Helium) (Carrier gas)個

30 mL/min個 120 °C個 110°C 75°C個

CH4 個

99.9999% CH4 99.999% CO2

好 (MPR, methane production rate)好

3.5

SAS (9.4 )個

在Analysis of variance, ANOVA有在Duncan’s new multiple

range test, DMRT有好

ANOVA 個 F

5% 個 * 個 F

個在

有個 * F 5% 個 **

(40)

F 個 DMRT 個

好個

好 1955 Duncan 個

在個2010有好

(41)

4.1

4-1 個 (C/N ratio) 30個

60好 4-2 個 0-19 (Start-

up)個 20 HRT 12 (T1)個個 24

個 3 HRT 好 60 HRT 10 (T2)個

個 66 個 3 HRT 好 100 HRT

8 (T3)個個 104 個 3 HRT 個

130 好

R2 R1 個 (T1-R2) (T2-R2)

(T3-R2) 17 23 26好 R3 30個

個 (T1-R3) (T2-R3)

(T3-R3) 30% 20% 10%好

4-1

AS SM VW

pH 8.5 7.12 4.8

COD (g/L) 54.4 65.9 49.2

TS (g/L) 51.1 50.2 40.3

VS (g/L) 25.2 36.7 41.6

(42)

4-2

HRT (days)

Working

Volume(L) C/N ratio VW

Start-up ST 12 0 - 19 - 30 0%

Test 1

T1-R1 12

20-59

6 30 -

T1-R2 12 2.5 17 -

T1-R3 12 2.5 30 30%

Test 2

T2-R1 10

60-99

6 30 -

T2-R2 10 2.5 23 -

T2-R3 10 2.5 30 20%

Test 3

T3-R1 8

100 – 130

6 30 -

T3-R2 8 2.5 26 -

T3-R3 8 2.5 30 10%

(43)

4.1.1 R1

R1 6 L個 TS 5% (SM)好 4-1

pH COD TS VS COD TS VS

— 在Gas production rate, GPR有在Methane production rate, MPR有

在Methane content有好R1 4-3

個 4-4是4-6 R1 在Steady state有好

4-1 (ST) 個 0 8 個 10

個 20 個個 (T1)好

不個pH 個

個 pH

好 4-1 個 pH 個 T1

6.99 T3 6.62個 pH (ST) 個

T1 T3 個 0.03 個好

TS 5%個 4-1

COD TS VS 個 4-4 4-5

5% 好

(44)

(45)

4-1 (HRT) 個 COD TS

VS 好 HRT 12 T1 個 COD TS VS

46.35 g/L 41.69 g/L 25.43 g/L個HRT 10 T2 52.73

g/L 45.55 g/L 27.40 g/L個HRT 8 T3 60.13 g/L 46.87 g/L

27.84 g/L好個 DMRT 個 T1 T2

T3 COD TS VS 個 T1

T2 個 T3 — COD T1 31.43% T2

20.83%個 T3 9.32% TS T1 15.59% T2 8.21%個

T3 4.50% VS T1 26.43% T2 15.82%個 T3 7.11%好

HRT 個個

個個 R3 個

好

HRT 在GPR有個 T1

0.94 L/L/day T2 1.17 L/L/day個 T2 T3 1.19 L/L/day

好個 DMRT 個T1 T2

T3 個 67.73% 70.01% 71.53%

T1 0.64 L CH4/L/day T2 0.82 L CH4/L/day個 T3 0.85 L CH4/L/day好

(46)

4-4 R1 HRT 10 T2 個 0.12 L CH4/g COD added 0.25 L CH4/g VS added好

4-3 R1

Test HRT

(Days)

COD loading rate (g COD/L/day)

VS loading rate (g VS/L/day)

ST-R1 12 5.95±0.19 2.97±0.13

T1-R1 12 5.62±0.28 2.87±0.13

T2-R1 10 6.64±0.18 3.24±0.13

T3-R1 8 8.30±0.10 3.75±0.09

(47)

4-4 R1 pH COD

Test HRT

(Days)

pH COD (g/L)

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent COD Removal

Efficiency (%)

ST-R1 12 6.97±0.11 7.23±0.10 71.35±2.27 54.34±4.93 22.89±9.03

T1-R1 12 6.99±0.08 7.12±0.02 67.44±3.41 46.35±2.31 31.43±4.14^a

T2-R1 10 6.63±0.15 7.23±0.03 66.37±1.77 52.73±2.98 20.83±3.10^b

T3-R1 8 6.62±0.07 7.25±0.01 66.39±0.81 60.13±1.26 9.32±1.43^c

DMRT α = 0.05

(48)

4-5 R1 TS VS

Test ^HRT

(Days)

TS (g/L) VS (g/L)

Influent Effluent TS Removal

Efficiency (%) Influent Effluent VS Removal Efficiency (%)

ST-R1 12 52.12±1.89 43.89±1.20 16.22±4.40 35.67±1.60 26.66±0.68 25.82±3.94

T1-R1 12 49.15±2.10 41.69±5.73 15.59±4.09^a 34.40±1.55 25.43±0.86 26.43±3.28^a

T2-R1 10 49.51±2.20 45.55±2.73 8.21±2.47^b 32.40±1.28 27.40±1.75 15.82±2.59^b

T3-R1 8 49.04±1.39 46.87±1.20 4.50±1.79^c 30.01±0.70 27.84±0.51 7.11±2.33^c

DMRT α = 0.05

(49)

4-6 R1

Test HRT

(Days)

GPR (L/L/day)

Methane content (CH4%)

MPR (L CH4/L/day)

Methane yield - COD (L CH4/g COD added)

Methane yield - VS (L CH4/g VS added)

ST-R1 12 1.07±0.17 60.73±4.82 0.63±0.06 0.11±0.01 0.21±0.01

T1-R1 12 0.94±0.06^b 67.73±2.69^c 0.64±0.03^c 0.11±0.01^b 0.22±0.01^b

T2-R1 10 1.17±0.08â 70.01±0.78^b 0.82±0.06^b 0.12±0.01â 0.25±0.02â

T3-R1 8 1.19±0.04â 71.53±0.66â 0.85±0.03â 0.10±0.004^c 0.23±0.01^b

GPR: Gas production rate, MPR: Methane production rate

DMRT α = 0.05

(50)

4.1.2 R2

R2 2.5L 100% R1 R3

4-7

4-2 4-8 4-10

R2 3 R1

pH 10 10 20

(T1)

pH R2 T1 7.18

T3 7.41

(HRT) R1

R2 COD TS VS

T1 37.63 g/L 39.47 g/L 22.88 g/L T2 42.46 g/L 41.96 g/L 22.91 g/L T3 52.01 g/L 44.54 g/L 23.73 g/L

(51)

(52)

T1 T2 T3 COD 18.56%

19.13% 13.18% DMRT T1 T2 T3

TS 5.69% 8.47%^a 5.01% DMRT T1

T3 T2 VS T1 T2 DMRT

10.58% 16.02% T3

14.49% HRT 10

DMRT T1

T2 T3 T1 0.25 L/L/day T2

0.44 L/L/day T3 0.56 L/L/day T1 T2

T3 43.30% 51.24% 53.80%

T1 0.11 L CH4/L/day T2 0.22 L CH4/L/day T3 0.30 L CH4/L/day

COD VS 4-10 R2 T2 T3

T1 COD

0.042 L CH4/g COD added 0.040 L CH4/g COD added VS 0.08 L CH4/g VS added 0.09 L CH4/g VS added

(53)

4-7 R2

Test HRT

(Days)

ST-R2 12 4.53±0.41 2.22±0.06

T1-R2 12 3.86±0.19 2.12±0.07

T2-R2 10 5.27±0.30 2.74±0.17

T3-R2 8 7.52±0.16 3.48±0.06

4-8 R2

Test HRT

(Days)

pH COD (g/L)

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent COD Removal Efficiency (%)

ST-R2 12 7.23±0.10 7.33±0.07 54.34±4.93 39.09±4.52 30.05±10.9

T1-R2 12 7.12±0.02 7.18±0.04 46.35±2.31 37.63±2.75 18.56±4.62 ^a

T2-R2 10 7.23±0.03 7.26±0.04 52.73±2.98 42.46±2.06 19.13±4.28 ^a

T3-R2 8 7.25±0.01 7.41±0.04 60.13±1.26 52.01±1.55 13.18±1.79 ^b

(54)

4-9 R2

Test HRT

(Days)

TS (g/L) VS (g/L)

Efficiency (%) Influent Effluent VS Removal Efficiency (%) ST-R2 12 43.89±1.20 41.55±1.63 5.63±2.90 26.66±0.68 24.41±1.24 9.11±3.66 T1-R2 12 41.69±1.27 39.47±1.07 5.69±2.61 ^b 25.43±0.86 22.88±0.63 10.58±2.40 ^b T2-R2 10 45.55±2.73 41.96±2.53 8.47±1.82 â 27.40±1.75 22.91±1.31 16.02±3.14 â T3-R2 8 46.87±1.20 44.54±0.64 5.01±1.37 ^b 27.84±0.51 23.73±0.17 14.49±1.83 â

DMRT α = 0.05

(55)

4-10 R2

Test HRT

(Days)

GPR (L/L/day)

MPR (L CH4/L/day)

Methane yield - VS (L CH4/g VS added)

PT-R2 12 0.40±0.14 49.91±3.23 0.20±0.08 0.04±0.01 0.09±0.03

T1-R2 12 0.25±0.02 ^c 43.30±1.90 ^c 0.11±0.01 ^c 0.028±0.004 ^b 0.05±0.01 ^b

T2-R2 10 0.44±0.11 ^b 51.24±0.57 ^b 0.22±0.06 ^b 0.042±0.01 ^a 0.08±0.02 ^a

T3-R2 8 0.56±0.01 â 53.80±0.51 â 0.30±0.01 â 0.040±0.001 â 0.09±0.002 â

GPR: Gas production rate, MPR: Methane production rate

DMRT α = 0.05

(56)

4.1.3 R3

R3 R2 2.5L R1

30 4-11

4-3 4-12 4-14

R2 R3

R3 (ST) R2 3

R2 20

(T1) R3 R2

pH pH T1 T2 T3

30% 20% 10% R3 pH

6.57 6.74 6.75 R3 0.03

T1 7.14 T3 7.31

(HRT) R1

R3 COD TS VS

T1 35.63 g/L 35.72 g/L 20.31 g/L T2 41.26 g/L 39.43 g/L 23.27 g/L T3 46.56. g/L 40.17 g/L 24.22 g/L

(57)

(58)

T1 T2 T3 DMRT T1

COD 24.06% T2 18.55% T2 T3 18.67%

TS T1 13.50% 11.02% T2 T3

11.49% VS T1 26.35% T2

18.11% T3 14.63%

T1 0.51 L/L/day T2 0.50 L/L/day DMRT

T3 0.59 L/L/day T1 T2

T3 46.20% 55.87% 57.06%

T1 0.23 L CH4/L/day T2 0.28 L CH4/L/day T3 0.34 L CH4/L/day

4-14 R3 T1 T2 T3 COD

0.060 L CH4/g COD added 0.054 L CH4/g COD added

0.047L CH4/g COD added T1 T2 T3 VS 0.10 L CH4/g

VS added

4-11 R3

Test HRT

(Days)

ST-R3 12 4.53±0.41 2.22±0.06

T1-R3 12 3.90±0.20 2.28±0.06

T2-R3 10 5.08±0.25 2.85±0.15

(59)

4-12 R3

Test HRT

(Days)

pH COD (g/L)

Efficiency (%)

ST-R3 12 7.23±0.10 7.30±0.05 54.34±4.93 38.75±1.61 31.44±7.93

T1-R3 12 6.57±0.03 7.14±0.02 46.78±2.35 35.63±2.30 24.06±1.57 ^a

T2-R3 10 6.74±0.03 7.20±0.03 50.76±2.51 41.26±2.35 18.55±1.78 ^b

T3-R3 8 6.75±0.01 7.31±0.02 57.44±1.11 46.56±0.97 18.67±1.08 ^b

DMRT α = 0.05

(60)

4-13 R3

Test HRT

(Days)

TS (g/L) VS (g/L)

Influent Effluent Removal

Efficiency (%) Influent Effluent Removal

Efficiency (%)

ST-R3 12 43.89±1.20 40.67±2.05 7.46±4.01 26.66±0.68 23.65±1.18 11.83±3.00

T1-R3 12 41.11±1.06 35.72±1.51 13.50±3.16 ^a 27.40±0.73 20.31±1.08 26.35±3.01 ^a

T2-R3 10 44.11±2.17 39.43±1.18 11.02±3.32 ^b 28.52±1.46 23.27±0.95 18.11±3.98 ^b

T3-R3 8 45.97±0.97 40.17±1.42 11.49±3.09 ^b 28.37±0.50 24.22±0.63 14.63±2.80 ^c

DMRT = 0.05

(61)

4-14 R3

Test HRT

(Days)

GPR (L/L/day)

MPR (L CH4/L/day)

Methane yield - COD (L CH4/g COD add)

Methane yield - VS (L CH4/g VS add)

ST-R3 12 0.41±0.12 46.99±5.41 0.19±0.05 0.04±0.01 0.09±0.02

T1-R3 12 0.51±0.01 ^b 46.20±2.43 ^c 0.23±0.01 ^c 0.060±0.01 ^a 0.10±0.01 ^a

T2-R3 10 0.50±0.03 ^b 55.87±1.88 ^b 0.28±0.02 ^b 0.054±0.01 ^b 0.10±0.01 ^a

T3-R3 8 0.59±0.01 â 57.06±0.53 â 0.34±0.01 â 0.047±0.001 ^c 0.10±0.003 â

DMRT = 0.05

(62)

4.1.4 R2 R3

4-4 4-15 R2 R3 4-4

T1 HRT 12 R1

T1 R2 COD TS VS T1

R3 T2 T3 R2

R2 T1

HRT 12

R3

4-4 T1 30% R3

VS 15.77%

10%

HRT 10 T2 R1

R2 R3

20% R3

R2 R2

(63)

T3 HRT 8 R2

10% R3

R2 R3

R3 R2 T1

R2 DMRT

T1-R3 MPR

T1-R2 R2 R3

COD Methane yield T1-R3

0.060 L CH4/g COD added T2-R3 0.054 L CH4/g COD added R3 T3-R3 0.047 L CH4/g COD

added R2 T2-R2 0.042 L CH4/g

COD added T3-R2 0.040 L CH4/g COD added T1-R2 0.028 L CH4/g CODadded

(64)

(65)

4-15 R2 R3

Test

F value T1-R2 T1-R3 T2-R2 T2-R3 T3-R2 T3-R3

HRT=12d HRT=12d HRT=10d HRT=10d HRT=8d HRT=8d

RCOD (%) 21.64** 18.56 ^b 24.06 ^a 19.13 ^b 18.55 ^b 13.18 ^c 18.67 ^b

RTS (%) 25.90** 5.69 ^d 13.50 ^a 8.47 ^c 11.02 ^b 5.01 ^d 11.49 ^b

RVS (%) 63.71** 10.58 ^d 26.35 ^a 16.02 ^c 18.11 ^b 14.49 ^c 14.63 ^d

GPR (L/L/day) 110.2** 0.25 ^d 0.51 ^b 0.44 ^c 0.50 ^b 0.56 ^a 0.59 ^a

MPR (L CH4/L/day) 166.9** 0.11 ^e 0.23 ^d 0.22 ^d 0.28 ^c 0.30 ^b 0.34 ^a

Methane content (%) 197.6** 43.30^f 46.20 ^e 51.24 ^d 55.87 ^b 53.80 ^c 57.06 ^a

Methane yield – COD

(L CH4/g COD added) 58.02** 0.028 ^e 0.060 ^a 0.042 ^cd 0.054 ^b 0.040 ^d 0.047 ^c

Methane yield – VS

(L CH4/g VS added) 48.14** 0.05 ^c 0.10 â 0.08 ^b 0.10 â 0.09 ^b 0.10 â

RCOD: COD removal efficiency, RTS: TS removal efficiency, RVS: VS removal efficiency, GPR: Gas production rate, MPR: Methane production rate

ANOVA * —— * : p<0.05 5% , ** : p<0.01 1%

(66)

4.2

HRT = 5

Start-up 4-16

4 CSTR ——A1 A2

A Test 4 Test 5 Test 7 0%

20% 33.3% B1 B2 B Test 4 Test 6 Test 8

0% 25% 50% Test8

pH Test 8

3 HRT

4-17 0-30 Test 4

(Start-up) 16 30

31 A Test 5 20%

B Test 6 25% A 37

B 39 3 HRT 57 A

Test 7 33.3% B Test 8

(67)

4-16

AS SM VW

pH 8.5 7.12 4.4

COD (g/L) 58.4 65.9 59.4

TS (g/L) 56.1 50.2 50.3

VS (g/L) 22.2 36.7 41.6

AS: Anaerobic sludge SM: Swine manure

4-17

Test VW

Test 4

T4-A1 0%

0-30 0-16 17-30

T4-A2 0%

T4-B1 0%

T4-B2 0%

Test 5 T5-A1 20%

31-56 31-36 37-56

T5-A2 20%

Test 6 T6-B1 25%

31-56 31-38 39-56

T6-B2 25%

Test 7 T7-A1 33.3%

57-80 57-62 63-80

T7-A2 33.3%

Test 8 T8-B1 50%

57-80 66 --

T8-B2 50%

(68)

4.2.1 Test 4 –

Test 4 COD VS

13.36g COD/L/day 7.15g VS/L/day 4-18 4-20 Test 4

4-5 4-6 T4

16 30

Test 4 COD TS VS

55.96~57.49 g/L 43.04~44.51 g/L 31.18~31.75 g/L COD TS VS 14.98~17.28% 13.18~15.94% 11.45~13.04% GPR MPR

COD VS 1.64~1.75 L/L/day

0.99~1.11 L CH4/L/day 0.07~0.08 L CH4/g COD added 0.14~0.15 L CH4/g VS added A2

16 30

(69)

4-18 Test 4

VW: vegetable wastes,

DMRT α = 0.05

Test

VW Comtent

(%)

pH COD (g/L)

Efficiency (%) T4-A1

0 7.13

7.10±0.01

66.81

56.24±3.87 16.88±1.99 ^a

T4-A2 7.11±0.01 57.49±3.19 14.98±1.53 ^b

T4-B1 7.11±0.01 55.96±3.75 17.28±2.47 ^a

T4-B2 7.11±0.01 56.92±4.89 15.93±3.51 ^a

T4-Avg 0 7.13 7.11 66.81 56.65 16.27

(70)

4-19 Test 4

VW: vegetable wastes

DMRT α = 0.05

Test

VW Comtent

(%)

TS (g/L) VS (g/L)

Efficiency (%) Influent Effluent VS Removal Efficiency (%) T4-A1

0 51.34

43.04±1.62 15.94±3.47 ^a

35.76

31.18±0.93 13.04±1.13 ^a

T4-A2 44.51±2.61 13.18±2.22 ^b 31.64±0.88 11.74±1.01 ^bc

T4-B1 43.72±1.54 14.63±2.97 ^ab 31.44±0.90 12.31±1.57 ^ab

T4-B2 44.14±1.97 13.84±2.97 ^b 31.75±0.79 11.45±0.81 ^c

T4-Avg 0 51.34 43.85 14.40 35.76 31.50 12.14

(71)

4-20 Test 4

Test VW Content (%)

GPR (L/L/day)

MPR (L CH4/L/day)

Methane yield - COD (L CH4/g COD add)

Methane yield - VS (L CH4/g VS add) T4-A1

0

1.68±0.06^b 62.21±1.08^ab 1.04±0.05^b 0.078±0.002^b 0.15±0.006^b

T4-A2 1.64±0.07^b 60.54±1.23^c 0.99±0.04^c 0.074±0.004^c 0.14±0.007^c

T4-B1 1.75±0.09â 61.63±0.87^bc 1.08±0.05â 0.081±0.003â 0.15±0.005â

T4-B2 1.75±0.13â 63.23±0.69âb 1.11±0.07â 0.083±0.004â 0.15±0.008â

T4-Avg 0 1.70 61.90 1.06 0.08 0.15

VW: Vegetable wastes, GPR: Gas production rate, MPR: Methane production rate

DMRT = 0.05

(72)

(73)

(74)

4.2.2 Test 5 – Test 7

Test 5 – Test 7 4-21

4-22 4-24 Test 5 – Test 7

4-5 T5 37

37 56 T5 T6 39

39 56 T6 T7 63

63 80 T7

4-21 T5 T6 T7

Test VW content (%)

T5 20 12.87±0.28 7.17±0.24

T6 25 12.86±0.22 7.25±0.28

T7 33.3 13.58±0.08 7.31±0.07

(75)

T5 T6 T7 pH COD 4-22 T5

A A1 A2 T4 0% 20% pH

pH 6.64 pH T4 7.11 6.83 T6

B B1 B2 25% pH 6.61

pH 6.81 T7 T5 A

33.3% pH 6.45 pH T5 6.83

T5 COD 64.3 g/L COD 53.41 g/L A1 A2

COD 16.65% 17.24% Duncan’s T6

COD 64.41 g/L COD 55.05 g/L B1 B2 COD

14.7% 13.93% T5 T7 COD

67.97 g/L COD 58.46 g/L A1 A2 COD 13.92%

13.77% T6 COD

(76)

4-22 T5 T6 T7 pH COD

Test

VW Comtent

(%)

pH COD (g/L)

Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Removal Efficiency

(%) T5-A1

20 6.64 6.82±0.02

64.3 53.60±0.97 16.65±1.07^a

T5-A2 6.83±0.02 53.22±0.77 17.24±0.88^a

T5-Avg 20 6.64 6.83 64.3 53.41 16.95

T6-B1

25 6.61 6.81±0.02

64.41 54.80±0.58 14.7±0.87^b

T6-B2 6.80±0.02 55.30±0.82 13.93±0.62^b

T6-Avg 25 6.61 6.81 64.41 55.05 14.32

T7-A1

33.3 6.45 6.83±0.01

67.97 58.41±0.21 13.92±0.52^b

T7-A2 6.82±0.01 58.51±0.26 13.77±0.67^b

T7-Avg 33.3 6.45 6.83 67.97 58.46 13.85

VW: Vegetable wastes

DMRT α = 0.05

(77)

T5 T6 T7 TS VS 4-23 T4-T7 TS

50 g/L T5 TS 50.63 g/L TS 44.03 g/L

A1 A2 TS 12.35% 14.19% A2 A1

T6 TS 50.62 g/L TS 45.45 g/L B1 B2 TS

11.64% 9.77% T5 T7 TS

50.29 g/L TS 44.74 g/L A1 A2 TS 11.19%

10.55% T6 TS

VS VS

VS T5

VS 35.65 g/L VS 31.72 g/L A1 A2 VS

10.56% 12.9% A2 A1 T6 VS 35.77

g/L VS 32.97g/L B1 B2 VS 9.02% 8.61%

T5 T7 VS 36.56 g/L VS 33.22 g/L

A1 A2 VS 9.08% 8.86% T6 VS

(78)

4-23 T5 T6 T7 TS VS

Test

VW Comtent

(%)

TS (g/L) VS (g/L)

Influent Effluent Removal

Efficiency (%) Influent Effluent Removal Efficiency (%) T5-A1

20 50.63 44.49±0.91 12.35±0.47 ^bc

35.65 32.14±1.09 10.56±0.37^b

T5-A2 43.56±0.84 14.19±0.51^a 31.29±0.97 12.9±0.63^a

T5-Avg 20 50.63 44.03 13.27 35.65 31.72 11.73

T6-B1

25 50.62 44.98±0.83 11.64±0.61^cd

35.77 32.89±1.02 9.02±0.47^c

T6-B2 45.92±0.65 9.77±0.48^d 33.04±1.03 8.61±0.49^c

T6-Avg 25 50.62 45.45 10.71 35.77 32.97 8.82

T7-A1

33.3 50.29 44.58±0.44 11.19±0.95^cd

36.56 33.18±0.47 9.08±0.63^c

T7-A2 44.9±0.52 10.55±1.05^cd 33.26±0.39 8.86±0.49^c

T7-Avg 33.3 50.29 44.74 10.87 36.56 33.22 8.97

VW: vegetable wastes

DMRT α = 0.05

(79)

T5 T6 T7 4-24

T5 T6 T7

T5 A2 A1 A1 A2

1.44 L/L day 1.53 L/L day 50.47% 52.19 %

0.73 L CH4/L day 0.80 L CH4/L day COD 0.06 L CH4/g

COD added VS 0.11 L CH4/g VS added

T6 B1 B2

1.31 L/L day 1.30 L/L day 49.48% 50.46%

0.65 L CH4/L day 0.66 L CH4/L day COD 0.05 L CH4/g COD added VS 0.09 L CH4/g VS added

T7 A1 A2

1.21 L/L day 1.20 L/L day 44.39% 44.73%

0.54 L CH4/L day COD 0.04 L CH4/g COD added VS 0.07 L CH4/g VS added

(80)

4-24 T5 T6 T7

Test VW

Content (%)

GPR (L/L/day)

MPR (L CH4/L/day)

Methane yield - VS (L CH4/g VS added) T5-A1

20 1.44±0.01^b 50.47±1.09^b 0.73±0.02^b 0.06±0.002^b 0.10±0.006^b

T5-A2 1.53±0.04â 52.19±0.67â 0.80±0.03â 0.06±0.003â 0.11±0.001â

T5-Avg 20 1.49 51.33 0.77 0.06 0.11

T6-B1

25 1.31±0.01^c 49.48±1.21^c 0.65±0.01^c 0.05±0.001^c 0.09±0.004^c

T6-B2 1.30±0.01^c 50.46±1.05^bc 0.66±0.01^c 0.05±0.002^c 0.09±0.005^c

T6-Avg 25 1.31 49.97 0.66 0.05 0.09

T7-A1

33.3 1.21±0.02^d 44.39±0.74^d 0.54±0.01^d 0.04±0.002^d 0.07±0.003^d

T7-A2 1.20±0.02^d 44.73±1.19^d 0.54±0.02^d 0.04±0.002^d 0.07±0.003^d

T7-Avg 33.3 1.21 44.56 0.54 0.04 0.07

VW: Vegetable wastes, GPR: Gas production rate, MPR: Methane production rate

DMRT α = 0.05

(81)

4.2.3 Test 4 – Test 7

4-7 Test 4 ~ Test 7 0% 20% 25% 33.3%

4-25 T4 ~ T7

ANOVA * T4

T7 10 * F 5%

10 ** F 1% 4-26

F Duncan

pH 0% 7.11 20% 6.83

25% 33.3% T6 T7 6.81 6.83 T8

pH pH 6.81

COD TS VS 0% 20%

25% 33.3% 25%

COD 16.27% 16.95% 14.32% 13.85% TS

14.40% 13.27% 10.71% 10.87% VS 12.14% 11.73% 8.82%

8.97%

T4 T7 1.71 L/L/day 1.49 L/L/day

1.31 L/L/day 1.21 L/L/day 61.90% 51.33% 49.97% 44.56%

(82)

1.06 L/L/day 0.77 L/L/day 0.66 L/L/day 0.54 L/L/day COD 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 L CH4/g COD added VS

0.15 0.11 0.09 0.07 L CH4/g VSadded

(83)

(84)

4-25 T4 T7

Test

F value T4-A1 T4-A2 T4-B1 T4-B2 T5-A1 T5-A2 T6-B1 T6-B2 T7-A1 T7-A2

VW = 0% VW = 20% VW = 25% VW = 33.3%

RCOD (%) 8.67** 16.9â 15.0^bc 17.3â 15.9âb 16.6â 17.2â 14.6^bc 13.8â 13.9^c 13.8^c

RTS (%) 11.18** 15.9â 13.2^bc 14.6âb 13.8^bc 12.2^cd 14.1^b 11.3^de 9.7ê 11.3^de 10.7^de

RVS (%) 49.2** 13.0â 11.7^bc 12.3âb 11.5^c 10.5^d 12.9â 9.1ê 8.6ê 9.0ê 8.7ê

GPR (L/L/day) 123.25** 1.67^b 1.64^b 1.75 â 1.75â 1.44^d 1.53^c 1.32ê 1.31ê 1.23^f 1.20^f

MPR

(L CH4/L/day) 315.29** 1.04^b 0.99^c 1.08â 1.11â 0.73ê 0.80^d 0.65^f 0.65^f 0.55^g 0.54â Methane content

(CH4%) 305.7** 62.2âb 60.5^c 61.6^bc 63.2â 50.3ê 52.4^d 49.0^f 49.9êf 44.5^g 45.0^g

Methane yield – COD (L CH4/g COD add)

377.26** 0.078^b 0.075^c 0.081â 0.083â 0.051ê 0.056^d 0.050^f 0.051^f 0.040^g 0.040^g Methane yield – VS

(L CH4/g VS add) 357.42** 0.146^b 0.139^c 0.151âb 0.155â 0.101ê 0.112^d 0.089^f 0.09^f 0.075^g 0.074^g RCOD: COD removal efficiency, RTS: TS removal efficiency, RVS: VS removal efficiency, GPR: Gas production rate, MPR: Methane production rate

ANOVA * —— * : p<0.05 5% , ** : p<0.01 1%

(85)

4.4

4-26 T1-R1 T2-R1 T3-R1 T4-Avg(Avg A1 A2 B1 B2

) TS 50 g/L HRT

GPR MPR

HRT 10 VS HRT 5

MPR

4-26 HRT 12 10 8 5

Test HRT (Days)

Working Volume

(L)

OLR (g VS/L/day)

GPR (L/L/day)

MPR (L CH4 /L/day)

Methane yield

(L CH4/g VS added)

T1-R1 12 6 2.28 0.94 67.73 0.64 0.22

T2-R1 10 6 2.85 1.17 70.01 0.82 0.25

T3-R1 8 6 3.55 1.19 71.53 0.85 0.23

T4-Avg 5 3 7.15 1.70 61.90 1.06 0.15

(86)

4.5

4-

27 /

/

GPR MPR Mazareli App. 1-4

11.0 g COD/L/d VW 30% 5.2 g COD/L/d VW 20%

70% 30%

HRT 39 L

HRT

(87)

4-27

Material Operational conditions Influent Effluent Biogas

Ref.

Co-substrates Ratio ^OLR

(g COD/L/d)

OLR

(g VS/L/d) HRT ^COD

(%)

VS (%)

COD removal efficiency(%)

VS removal

efficiency(%) pH ^GPR

(L/L/day)

MPR (L CH4/L/day)

CH₄

(%)

SM:VW 67:33 13.58 7.31 5 6.8 3.7 13.85 8.97 6.8 1.21 0.54 45 This Study

SCSSW&SCSM

: FVW 67:33 - 0.13 30 - 4 - 52.4 7.4 0.08 0.04 56 App.1-2

SM:VW 70:30 11.0 - 2 2.2 17.1 - 7.4 1.86 1.08 58 App.1-4

SM:VW 70:30 4.1 - 4.5 2.2 93.3 - 7.8 0.03 0.01 33 App.1-4

SM:VW 70:30 0.2 - 6.5 2.2 96.2 - 7.9 0.01 0.01 71 App.1-4

SM:VW 75:25 12.86 7.25 5 6.4 3.6 14.32 8.82 6.8 1.31 0.66 50 This Study

SM: CS 75:25 - 3.84 16 - 6.14 - 46.4 7.1 1.17 0.79 67.3 App.1-1

SM:VW 80:20 12.87 7.17 5 6.4 3.6 16.95 11.73 6.8 1.49 0.77 51 This Study

SM:VW 80:20 5.2 - 2 1.1 34.4 - 7.3 1.41 0.99 70 App.1-4

SM:VW 80:20 3.1 - 4.5 1.1 89.6 - 7.5 0.40 0.30 75 App.1-4

SM:VW 80:20 0.2 - 6.5 1.1 94.1 - 7.3 0.03 0.02 73 App.1-4

SCSSW&SCSM

: FVW 83:17 - 0.13 30 - 4 - 54.2~67.3 7.7 0.07~

0.08 0.04 51~53 App.1-2 CS: corn stover

FVW: fruit and vegetable wastes SCSM: solid cattle and swine manure

SCSSW: solid cattle and swine slaughterhouse wastes SM: swine manure

(88)

5.1

1.

30%

HRT 12 OLR 3.90 g COD/L/day Methane yield 0.06 L CH4/g CODadded

0.03 L CH4/g CODadded

2.

33.3% pH 6.83 COD VS OLR 13.58 g

COD/L/day 7.31 g VS/L/day 13.85% 8.97 Methane yield

0.04 L CH4/g CODadded 0.07 L CH4/g VSadded

(89)

5.2

1. HRT 12 30%

1 30% HRT 10

HRT 10 8 5

2 HRT 12 33% 45% 50%

67% 75%

2.

33.3% pH

3. HRT

HRT

(90)

2013

2016 105 46 237-324

2015 103

2012

2015 104 105

2015

2010 36-74

2008

2016 2015

(91)

2001

2008 81(5):29-38

2008 96

2015

http://www.tapmc.com.taipei/price6.html 2015.4.5

Alvarez, R., G. Lidén. 2008. Semi-continuous co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste, manure, and fruit and vegetable waste. Renewable Energy. 33(4): 726-734.

APHA, AWWA and WEF, 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition.

Comino, E., M. Rosso, and V. Riggio. 2010. Investigation of increasing organic loading rate in the co-digestion of energy crops and cow manure mix. Bioresource Technology.

101(9): 3013-3019.

Esposito, G., L. Frunzo, A. Giordano, F. Liotta, A. Panico, and F. Pirozzi. 2012.

Anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology. 11 (4): 325-341.

Fujita, M., J.M. Scharer, M. Moo-Young. 1980. Effect of corn stover addition on the anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Agric Wastes. 2:177–184.

Hawkes, D. L. 1980. Factors affecting net energy production from mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Straford DA, Wheatley BI, Hughes DE (eds) Anaerobic digestion. 131-150.

Kafle, G.K., S.H. Kim. 2013. Anaerobic treatment of apple waste with swine manure for biogas production: Batch and continuous operation. Applied Eng. 103: 61-72.

(92)

Khalid, A., M. Arshad. M. Anjum, T. Mahmood, and L. Dawson. 2011. The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Management. 31(8): 1737-1744.

Mata-Alvarez, J., S. Mace, and P. Llabres. 2000. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource

Technology. 74(1): 3-16.

Mazareli, R.C.S., R.M. Duda, V.D. Leite, R.A. Oliveira. 2016. Anaerobic co-digestion of vegetable waste and swine wastewater in high-rate horizontal reactors with fixed bed.

Waste Management. 52: 112-121.

McCarty, P.L. 1964. Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals, Part One: chemistry and microbiology. Public Works. 95 (9): 107-112.

McCarty, P.L. and D.P. Smith. 1986. Anaerobic wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci.

Technol. 20(12):1200-1206.

Scharer, J.M., and M. Moo-YOUNG. 1979. Methane generation by anaerobic digestion of cellulose- containing wastes. Advances in Biochemical Engineering. 11:85-101.

Seadi, T. A., D. Rutz, H. Prazzl, M. Kottner, T. Finsterwalder, S. Volk, R. Janssen.

2008. Biogas handbook. 1^st ed. 21-23. Esbjerg: University of Sothern Denmark Esbjerg.

Shen, F., H. Yuan, Y. Pang, S. Chen, B. Zhu, D. Zou, Y. Liu, J. Ma, L. Yu, X. Li. 2013.

Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit and vegetable waste and food waste:

Single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresource Technology. 144:80–85.

Sievers, D. M., and D. E. Brune. 1978. Carbon/nitrogen ratio and anaerobic digestion of swine waste. Transactions of the ASAE. 21: 537-549.

Wang G. 2009. Biogas production from energy crops and agriculture residues.

Dissertation. Technical University of Denmark.

Wu, X., W. Yao, J. Zhu, and C. Miller. 2010. Biogas and CH⁴ productivity by co- digesting swine manure with three crop residues as an external carbon source.

Bioresource Technology. 101: 4042-4047.

(93)

Ye, J., D. Li, Y. Sun, G. Wang, Z. Yuan, F. Zhen, and Y. Wang. 2013. Improved biogas production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Management. 33(12): 2653-2658.

SAS. 2015. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Ver. 9.4. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc.

(94)

1-1 Fujita et al., 1980

Co-substrates ratio Working Volume (L)

OLR (g VS/L/day)

RT

(days) pH VS (%) C/N VS removal

efficiency (%) pH Methane yield (L CH₄/g VS add)

CH4

(%)

Pig manure: corn stover 75:25 30 3.84 16 6.6 6.14 10.3 46.4% 7.1 0.205 67.3

39°C conical, cylinder-type digester with an internal diameter of 23 cm, a circulation pump, a temperature controller

(95)

1-2 Alvarez and Lidén, 2008

Co-substrates Ratio (wet weight basis) Reactor OLR(g VS/L/d) HRT VS(%) C/N VS removal efficiency(%) pH Methane Yield

(L CH4/g VS added) CH4%

SCSSW : SCSM :

FVW : (Dilution)

2:2:3:93

35 °C 2 L semi- continuously

stirred stainless steel

digesters V=1.8 L

0.31 30 0.9 5.1 8.7 7.4 0.25 52

8:7:11:74 1.31 30 3.9 5.1 52.4 7.4 0.32 56

15:12:20:54 2.03 30 6.1 5.1 51.8 7.7 0.26 55

8:7:11:74 3.80 10 3.8 5.2 47.1 6.7 0.12 44

1:1:1:97 0.14 30 0.4 5.2 9.3 7.4 0.14 59

8:7:11:74 0.78 50 3.9 5.1 67.6 8.1 0.31 54

25:0:0:75 0.49 70 3.4 5.1 60.4 7.7 0.34 55

Ratio (VS basis)

100:0:0

0.13 30 4

3.4 34.5 7.7 0.06 45

0:100:0 8 38.8 7.4 0.21 56

0:0:100 9.3 19.2 4.4 0.002 2

50:50:0 4.8 51.7 7.7 0.26 57

0:50:50 8.3 56.6 7.4 0.32 50

50:0:50 4.4 53.8 5.3 0.04 25

33:33:33 5.1 52.4 7.4 0.32 56

67:17:17 4 67.3 7.7 0.27 51

17:67:17 6.3 54.2 7.8 0.32 53

17:17:67 6.6 67.4 7.8 0.35 51

SCSSW solid cattle and swine slaughterhouse wastes composed of 57.1% rumen, 33.5% blood, and 9.4% pig's paunch wastes. SCSM solid cattle and swine manure, 71% cattle manure, and 29% swine manure. FVW fruit and vegetable wastes. (14% Orange, 9.2% Banana, 8.6% Grapefruit, 7.5% Locoto, 6.4%

(96)

1-3 Kafle et al, 2013

Co-

substrates ratio Reactor Substrate loading (g VS/L)

HRT

(days) pH VS

(%) C/N COD removal

efficiency(%) pH Methane yield

(L CH4/g TCOD added) CH4

(%)

AW:SM

100:0 36.5°C Batch test 1.2 L glass bottles

WV=0.8L

2.5 - 8.22 13 28.1 79 7.77 0.25 49

0:100 2.5 - 8.25 3.85 2.7 84 7.9 0.27 81

0:100 36.5 Batch test 2.3 L glass bottles

WV=1.8L

5.0 - 8.2 3.85 2.7 81 7.77 0.26 76

33:67 5.0 - 8.25 6.87 11.1 83 7.8 0.27 67

OLR(g VS/L/d) 25:75

36-38°C Continuous test

5.5 L CSTR WV=4.5 L

1.0

30

- 6.14 9.05 - 7.85 0.24 76

25:75 1.0 - 6.14 9.05 - 7.76 0.20 76

25:75 1.4 - 6.14 9.05 - 7.37 NA NA

25:75 1.6 - 6.14 9.05 - 7.56 0.15 74

33:67 1.6 - 6.87 11.1 - 7.82 0.14 76

33:67 1.6 - 6.87 11.1 - 7.81 0.19 79

50:50 1.7 - 8.43 15.4 - 7.13 0.05 44

AW : Apple waste SM : Swine manure

(97)

1-4 Mazareli et al., 2016

Co-substrates ratio Working volume (L)

OLR (g COD/L/day)

HRT

(days) pH ^COD

(g/L) ^COD/N

COD removal

efficiency (%) pH

MPR (L CH4/ g CODadded)

CH4

(%)

SW : VW

100 : 0

39 5.5 2

6.8 11 18.1

62.6 7.4 0.11 80

86.5 0.9 4.5 95.1 7.2 0.14 83

128.9 0.1 6.5 96.6 7.4 0.1 81

90 : 10

39 4.0 2

5.7 8 13.9

16 7.2 0.16 73

86.5 1.5 4.5 92.7 7.3 0.13 77

128.9 0.1 6.5 95.3 7.4 0.2 82

80 : 20

39 5.2 2

5.7 11 22.5

-34.4 7.3 0.19 70

86.5 3.1 4.5 89.6 7.5 0.098 75

128.9 0.2 6.5 94.1 7.3 0.1 73

70 : 30

39 11.0 2

5.2 22 27.4

17.1 7.4 0.098 58

86.5 4.1 4.5 93.3 7.8 0.024 33

128.9 0.2 6.5 96.2 7.9 0.05 71

high-rate horizontal anaerobic reactors with fixed bed (HAFB) : totally filled with bamboo rings as biomass immobilization. The bamboo rings with 75%

empty space provided the support medium for fixed bed.

SW: swine wastewater

VW: vegetable waste (70% tomato and 30% banana)