Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-08
Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Fruit and Vegetable Waste: Single- Versus Two-Stage Reactor,and Modeling of the Liquid and Solid Fractions of the Residue
The treatment of fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) is commonly carried out in continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTR). The high solids and carbohydrate content in FVW cause excessive acidification during anaerobic digestion, affecting reactor stability and methane production. The two-stage process is a possible solution to minimize this issue. To verify the CSTR as a configuration for anaerobic digestion of FVW and to propose alternatives, this study aimed to compare the single-stage with a two-stage process. The experiment evaluated hydraulic retention time of 34, 22, and 16/12 days and organic loading rates of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0/2.5 kg chemical oxygen demand (COD)/m3·d on methane production. The two-stage system showed better performance than the single stage, resulting in a COD removal of 84% and a methane production rate of 0.459 L CH4/L·d. Furthermore, it was found that the two-stage system can lead to a reduction of 35% in the total reactor volume. In addition, the FVW digestion in a CSTR was compared with the modeling of the FVW liquid and solid fractions digestion. The modeling showed a higher potential for biomethane production with the liquid fraction (FVWL) than with raw FVW. The potential of biomethane production from the solid fraction was equal to the potential with raw FVW. Furthermore, implementing a high-rate reactor system with FVWL could significantly reduce the total volume by 82% compared with the CSTR while also increasing methane productivity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. New York; 2022.
2.
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Yearbook 2022. FAO: Rome; 2022; doi: 10.4060/cc2211en
3.
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme. Food Waste Index Report 2021. Nairobi; 2021.
4.
ScherhauferS, MoatesG, HartikainenH, et al.Environmental impacts of food waste in Europe. Waste Manag, 2018; 77:98–113; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.038
5.
O’ConnorJ, MickanBS, RinklebeJ, et al.Environmental implications, potential value, and future of food-waste anaerobic digestate management: A review. J Environ Manage, 2022; 318:115519; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115519
6.
Silva JúniorFdCGd, MenezesCA, de CavalcanteWA, et al.Characterization of fruits and vegetables waste generated at a central horticultural wholesaler: A case study for energy production via biogas. Industrial Biotechnology, 2022; 18(4):235–239; doi: 10.1089/ind.2021.0032
7.
CavalcanteWA, de MenezesCA, da Silva JúniorFCG, et al.From start-up to maximum loading: An approach for methane production in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor fed with the liquid fraction of fruit and vegetable waste. J Environ Manage, 2023; 335:117578; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117578
8.
XuF, LiY, GeX, et al.Anaerobic digestion of food waste—Challenges and opportunities. Bioresour Technol, 2018; 247:1047–1058; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.020
9.
MegidoL, NegralL, Fernández-NavaY, et al.Impact of organic loading rate and reactor design on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of mixed supermarket waste. Waste Manag, 2021; 123:52–59; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.01.012
10.
FagbohungbeMO, DoddIC, HerbertBMJ, et al.High solid anaerobic digestion: Operational challenges and possibilities. Environ Technol Innov, 2015; 4:268–284; doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2015.09.003
11.
WangF, ZhangC, HuoS. Influence of fluid dynamics on anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Environ Technol, 2017; 38(9):1160–1168; doi: 10.1080/09593330.2016.1220429
12.
EdwigesT, FrareLM, Lima AlinoJH, et al.Methane potential of fruit and vegetable waste: An evaluation of the semi-continuous anaerobic mono-digestion. Environ Technol, 2020; 41(7):921–930; doi: 10.1080/09593330.2018.1515262
13.
AssisTI, GonçalvesRF. Valorization of food waste by anaerobic digestion: A bibliometric and systematic review focusing on optimization. J Environ Manage, 2022; 320:115763; doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115763
14.
ScanoEA, AsquerC, PistisA, et al.Biogas from anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: Experimental results on pilot-scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power plant. Energy Convers Manag, 2014; 77:22–30; doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.09.004
15.
SrisowmeyaG, ChakravarthyM, Nandhini DeviG. Critical considerations in two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020; 119:109587; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.109587
16.
AgrawalA, ChaudhariPK, GhoshP. Anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste: A critical review of associated challenges. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2022; 30(10):24987–25012; doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21643-7
17.
ChenL, HeZ, YangL, et al.Optimal utilization of solid residue from phase-separation pretreatment before food waste anaerobic digestion. J Clean Prod, 2022; 372:133795; doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133795
18.
APHA, AWWA, WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 22nd ed. (RiceEW, BairdRB, EatonAD. Eds). American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA; 2012.
19.
DuBoisM, GillesKA, HamiltonJK, et al.Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem, 1956; 28(3):350–356; doi: 10.1021/ac60111a017
20.
MiyazawaM, PavanMA, MuraokaT, et al.Análise Química de Tecido Vegetal. In: Manual de Análises Químicas de Solos, Plantas e Fertilizantes Embrapa Informação Tecnológica; Embrapa Soils: Rio de Janeiro; 2009.
21.
SotoM, MéndezR, LemaJM. Methanogenic and non-methanogenic activity tests. Theoretical basis and experimental set up. Water Res, 1993; 27(8):1361–1376; doi: 10.1016/0043-1354(93)90224-6
22.
RipleyLE, BoyleWC, ConverseJC. Improved alkalimetric monitoring for anaerobic Digestion of high-strength wastes. J Water Pollut Control Fed, 1986; 58(5):406–411.
23.
DiLalloR, AlbertsonOE. Volatile Acids by Direct Titration. J Water Pollut Control Fed, 1961; 33(4):356–365.
24.
HarirchiS, WainainaS, SarT, et al.Microbiological insights into anaerobic digestion for biogas, hydrogen or volatile fatty acids (VFAs): A review. Bioengineered, 2022; 13(3):6521–6557; doi: 10.1080/21655979.2022.2035986
25.
ChewKR, LeongHY, KhooKS, et al.Effects of anaerobic digestion of food waste on biogas production and environmental impacts: A review. Environ Chem Lett, 2021; 19(4):2921–2939; doi: 10.1007/s10311-021-01220-z
26.
de VriezeJ, HennebelT, BoonN, et al.Methanosarcina: The rediscovered methanogen for heavy duty biomethanation. Bioresour Technol, 2012; 112:1–9; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.079
27.
AhringBK, SandbergM, AngelidakiI. Volatile fatty acids as indicators of process imbalance in anaerobic digestors. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 1995; 43(3):559–565; doi: 10.1007/BF00218466
28.
JoY, RheeC, ChoiH, et al.Long-term effectiveness of bioaugmentation with rumen culture in continuous anaerobic digestion of food and vegetable wastes under feed composition fluctuations. Bioresour Technol, 2021; 338:125500; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125500
29.
GaneshR, TorrijosM, SousbieP, et al.Single-phase and two-phase anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste: Comparison of start-up, reactor stability and process performance. Waste Manag, 2014; 34(5):875–885; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.02.023
30.
ArhounB, Villen-GuzmanMD, Vereda-AlonsoC, et al.Anaerobic co-digestion of municipal sewage sludge and fruit/vegetable waste: Effect of different mixtures on digester stability and methane yield. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng, 2019; 54(7):628–634; doi: 10.1080/10934529.2019.1579523
31.
WuY, WangC, LiuX, et al.A new method of two-phase anaerobic digestion for fruit and vegetable waste treatment. Bioresour Technol, 2016; 211:16–23; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.050
32.
WuY, MaH, ZhengM, et al.Lactic acid production from acidogenic fermentation of fruit and vegetable wastes. Bioresour Technol, 2015; 191:53–58; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.100
33.
BouallaguiH, TorrijosM, GodonJJ, et al.Two-phases anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: Bioreactors performance. Biochem Eng J, 2004; 21(2):193–197; doi: 10.1016/j.bej.2004.05.001
34.
ShenF, YuanH, PangY, et al.Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit & vegetable waste (FVW) and food waste (FW): Single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour Technol, 2013; 144:80–85; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.099
35.
Mtz.-ViturtiaA, Mata-AlvarezJ, CecchiF. Two-phase continuous anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Resour Conserv Recycl, 1995; 13(3–4):257–267; doi: 10.1016/0921-3449(94)00048-A
36.
Pham VanD, TakeshiF, Hoang MinhG, et al.Comparison between single and two-stage anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste: Kinetics of methanogenesis and carbon flow. Waste Biomass Valor, 2020; 11(11):6095–6103; doi: 10.1007/s12649-019-00861-0
37.
DinhPV, FujiwaraT. Biogas production and energy balance in a two-stage anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste: Thermophilic versus mesophilic. Fermentation, 2023; 9(7):601; doi: 10.3390/fermentation9070601
38.
VavilinVA, FernandezB, PalatsiJ, et al.Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic material: An overview. Waste Manag, 2008; 28(6):939–951; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.028
39.
PalmowskiLM, MüllerJA. Influence of the size reduction of organic waste on their anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol, 2000; 41(3):155–162; doi: 10.2166/wst.2000.0067
40.
BrowneJD, AllenE, MurphyJD. Improving hydrolysis of food waste in a leach bed reactor. Waste Manag, 2013; 33(11):2470–2477; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.06.025
41.
Da SilvaC, PecesM, FaundezM, et al.Gamma distribution function to understand anaerobic digestion kinetics: Kinetic constants are not constant. Chemosphere, 2022; 306:135579; doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.135579
42.
MainardisM, ButtazzoniM, GoiD. Up-Flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) technology for energy recovery: A review on state-of-the-art and recent technological advances. Bioengineering, 2020; 7(2):43; doi: 10.3390/bioengineering7020043
43.
RocamoraI, WaglandST, VillaR, et al.Dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste: A review of operational parameters and their impact on process performance. Bioresour Technol, 2020; 299:122681; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122681
