Effect of thermal pretreatment at 70 °C for one hour (EU hygienization conditions) of various organic wastes on methane production under mesophilic anaerobic digestion

Xiaojun Liu; Ikbel Souli; Mohamad-Amr Chamaa; Thomas Lendormi; Claire Sabourin; Yves Lemée; Virginie Boy; Nizar Chaira; Ali Ferchichi; Pascal Morançais; Jean-Louis Lanoisellé; Xiaojun Liu; Ikbel Souli; Mohamad-Amr Chamaa; Thomas Lendormi; Claire Sabourin; Yves Lemée; Virginie Boy; Nizar Chaira; Ali Ferchichi; Pascal Morançais; Jean-Louis Lanoisellé

doi:10.3934/environsci.2018.2.117

AIMS Environmental Science

2018, Volume 5, Issue 2: 117-129. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2018.2.117

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Effect of thermal pretreatment at 70 °C for one hour (EU hygienization conditions) of various organic wastes on methane production under mesophilic anaerobic digestion

1.
Univ. Bretagne Sud, UMR CNRS 6027, IRDL, F-56300 Pontivy, France
2.
Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia
3.
IUT de Lorient & Pontivy, Department of Chemical Engineering, F-56300 Pontivy, France
4.
Aridlands and Oases Cropping Laboratory, Medenine, Tunisia
5.
Rural Laboratory, National Institute of Agronomic of Tunisia, 1082, Tunis, Tunisia
6.
Univ. Bretagne Sud, EA 3884, LBCM, IUEM, F-56100 Lorient, France

Received: 12 March 2018 Accepted: 23 April 2018 Published: 03 May 2018

The impact of hygienization as mild thermal pretreatment on the methane production of various organic wastes was investigated, including digestate issued from hydrolysis tank, thickened sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant (MWWTP sludge) and from a mixed domestic-industrial wastewater treatment plant (D-I WWTP sludge), sludge from a meat-processing plant (MP sludge), sieving rejection from a pork slaughterhouse, pork liver, cattle slurry, cattle scraping slurry and date seeds. They were thermally pretreated at 70 °C for one hour and subsequently put into AD digesters incubated at 37 °C for individual methane potential test. The modified Gompertz model was employed to evaluate the kinetic parameters of methane production curves (R² = 0.944–0.999). The results were compared with the untreated samples. Significant enhancement of methane potentials induced by thermal treatment (p < 0.05) was observed when it comes to the pork liver (+8.6%), the slaughterhouse sieving rejection (+11.1%), the thickened MWWTP sludge (+12.5%) and the digestate issued from hydrolysis tank (+18.0%). The maximum methane production rates of the 4 substrates mentioned above were increased by thermal pretreatment as well (from 13.5% to 64%, p < 0.05). The lag time of the methane production was shortened for the digestate from hydrolysis tank and the MWWTP sludge (by 48.6% and 62.2% respectively, p < 0.05). No significant enhancement was obtained for the cattle slurry, the cattle scraping slurry and the D-I WWTP sludge. Additionally, the maximum methane production rate and the methane potential were reduced by thermal pretreatment for the MP sludge and the date seeds respectively (p < 0.05). In this paper, possible mechanisms were discussed to explain the different methane production behaviors of substrates after the mild thermal pretreatment.
- mesophilic anaerobic digestion,
- hygienization,
- mild thermal pretreatment,
- experimental study,
- modified Gompertz model
Citation: Xiaojun Liu, Ikbel Souli, Mohamad-Amr Chamaa, Thomas Lendormi, Claire Sabourin, Yves Lemée, Virginie Boy, Nizar Chaira, Ali Ferchichi, Pascal Morançais, Jean-Louis Lanoisellé. Effect of thermal pretreatment at 70 °C for one hour (EU hygienization conditions) of various organic wastes on methane production under mesophilic anaerobic digestion[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2018, 5(2): 117-129. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2018.2.117

Related Papers:

Abstract

The impact of hygienization as mild thermal pretreatment on the methane production of various organic wastes was investigated, including digestate issued from hydrolysis tank, thickened sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant (MWWTP sludge) and from a mixed domestic-industrial wastewater treatment plant (D-I WWTP sludge), sludge from a meat-processing plant (MP sludge), sieving rejection from a pork slaughterhouse, pork liver, cattle slurry, cattle scraping slurry and date seeds. They were thermally pretreated at 70 °C for one hour and subsequently put into AD digesters incubated at 37 °C for individual methane potential test. The modified Gompertz model was employed to evaluate the kinetic parameters of methane production curves (R² = 0.944–0.999). The results were compared with the untreated samples. Significant enhancement of methane potentials induced by thermal treatment (p < 0.05) was observed when it comes to the pork liver (+8.6%), the slaughterhouse sieving rejection (+11.1%), the thickened MWWTP sludge (+12.5%) and the digestate issued from hydrolysis tank (+18.0%). The maximum methane production rates of the 4 substrates mentioned above were increased by thermal pretreatment as well (from 13.5% to 64%, p < 0.05). The lag time of the methane production was shortened for the digestate from hydrolysis tank and the MWWTP sludge (by 48.6% and 62.2% respectively, p < 0.05). No significant enhancement was obtained for the cattle slurry, the cattle scraping slurry and the D-I WWTP sludge. Additionally, the maximum methane production rate and the methane potential were reduced by thermal pretreatment for the MP sludge and the date seeds respectively (p < 0.05). In this paper, possible mechanisms were discussed to explain the different methane production behaviors of substrates after the mild thermal pretreatment.

References

[1]	European Union (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off J Eur Union 5.
[2]	Roberts BN, Bailey RH, McLaughlin MR, et al. (2016) Decay rates of zoonotic pathogens and viral surrogates in soils amended with biosolids and manures and comparison of qPCR and culture derived rates. Sci Total Environ 573: 671–679. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.088
[3]	European Commission (2011) Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive. Off J Eur Union 54.
[4]	Franke-Whittle IH, Insam H (2013) Treatment alternatives of slaughterhouse wastes, and their effect on the inactivation of different pathogens: A review. Crit Rev Microbiol 39: 139–151. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2012.694410
[5]	Elving J, Vinnerås B, Albihn A, et al. (2014) Thermal treatment for pathogen inactivation as a risk mitigation strategy for safe recycling of organic waste in agriculture. J Environ Sci Health B 49: 679–689.
[6]	Sahlström L, Bagge E, Emmoth E, et al. (2008) A laboratory study of survival of selected microorganisms after heat treatment of biowaste used in biogas plants. Bioresour Technol 99: 7859–7865. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.09.071
[7]	Bagge E, Persson M, Johansson KE (2010) Diversity of spore-forming bacteria in cattle manure, slaughterhouse waste and samples from biogas plants. J Appl Microbiol 109: 1549–1565.
[8]	Gavala HN, Yenal U, Skiadas IV, et al. (2003) Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of primary and secondary sludge. Effect of pre-treatment at elevated temperature. Water Res 37: 4561–4572.
[9]	Luste S, Luostarinen S (2010) Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing by-products and sewage sludge-Effect of hygienization and organic loading rate. Bioresour Technol 101: 2657–2664. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.10.071
[10]	Climent M, Ferrer I, Baeza M del M, et al. (2007) Effects of thermal and mechanical pretreatments of secondary sludge on biogas production under thermophilic conditions. Chem Eng J 133: 335–342. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2007.02.020
[11]	Hejnfelt A, Angelidaki I (2009) Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse by-products. Biomass Bioenergy 33: 1046–1054. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.03.004
[12]	Grim J, Malmros P, Schnürer A, et al. (2015) Comparison of pasteurization and integrated thermophilic sanitation at a full-scale biogas plant-Heat demand and biogas production. Energy 79: 419–427. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.028
[13]	Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour Technol 99: 4044–4064. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057
[14]	Gibson AM, Bratchell N, Roberts TA (1987) The effect of sodium chloride and temperature on the rate and extent of growth of Clostridium botulinum type A in pasteurized pork slurry. J Appl Bacteriol 62: 479–490. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1987.tb02680.x
[15]	Parkin GF, Owen WF (1986) Fundamentals of anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludges. J Environ Eng 112: 867–920. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1986)112:5(867)
[16]	Kafle GK, Chen L (2016) Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manag 48: 492–502. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021
[17]	Luste S, Luostarinen S, Sillanpää M (2009) Effect of pre-treatments on hydrolysis and methane production potentials of by-products from meat-processing industry. J Hazard Mater 164: 247–255. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.08.002
[18]	Edström M, Nordberg A, Thyselius L (2003) Anaerobic Treatment of Animal Byproducts from Slaughterhouses at Laboratory and Pilot Scale. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 109: 127–138. doi: 10.1385/ABAB:109:1-3:127
[19]	Salminen E, Rintala J (2002) Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaughterhouse waste-a review. Bioresour Technol 83: 13–26. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00199-7
[20]	Carrere H, Antonopoulou G, Affes R, et al. (2016) Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion: From lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresour Technol 199: 386–397. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.007
[21]	Paavola T, Syväsalo E, Rintala J (2006) Co-digestion of manure and biowaste according to the EC Animal By-Products Regulation and Finnish national regulations. Water Sci Technol 53: 223–231. doi: 10.2166/wst.2006.253
[22]	Luste S, Luostarinen S (2011) Enhanced methane production from ultrasound pre-treated and hygienized dairy cattle slurry. Waste Manag 31: 2174–2179. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.04.012
[23]	Quideau P, Levasseur P, Charpiot A, et al. (2014) Intérêts conjugués d'une évacuation rapide des déjections animales et de leur méthanisation. Innov Agrono 34: 309–320.
[24]	Briones R, Serrano L, Younes RB, et al. (2011) Polyol production by chemical modification of date seeds. Ind Crops Prod 34: 1035–1040. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.03.012
[25]	Al-Farsi MA, Lee CY (2008) Optimization of phenolics and dietary fibre extraction from date seeds. Food Chem 108: 977–985. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.12.009

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)