Accepted Manuscript

New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste: biogas versus
biofertilizer

Yingqun Ma, Yao Yin, Yu Liu

PII: S0960-8524(17)30822-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.154
Reference: BITE 18180

To appear in: Bioresource Technology

Received Date: 30 March 2017

Please cite this article as: Ma, Y., Yin, Y., Liu, Y., New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food
waste: biogas versus biofertilizer, Bioresource Technology (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2017.05.154

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
New insights into co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste: biogas versus
biofertilizer

Yingqun Maa, Yao Yina, Yu Liua,b*

Correspondence to: Yu LIU. Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This study explored two holistic approaches for co-digestion of activated sludge and
food waste. In Approach 1, mixed activated sludge and food waste were first
hydrolyzed with fungal mash, and produced hydrolysate without separation was
directly subject to anaerobic digestion. In Approach 2, solid generated after hydrolysis
of food waste by fungal mash was directly converted to biofertilizer, while separated
liquid with high soluble COD concentration was further co-digested with activated
sludge for biomethane production. Although the potential energy produced from
Approach 1 was about 1.8-time higher than that from Approach 2, the total economic
revenue generated from Approach 2 was about 1.9-fold of that from Approach 1 due
to high market value of biofertilizer. It is expected that this study may lead to a
paradigm shift in biosolid management towards environmental and economic
sustainability.

Keywords: Food waste, activated sludge, anaerobic co-digestion, biomathane,

1
1. Introduction

Nowadays, sewage sludge produced from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)

has posed a global environmental challenge (Neumann et al., 2016; Pilli et al., 2015).

Anaerobic digestion has been commonly employed for sewage sludge stabilisation

and volume reduction with biogas as the end product. However, only about 30~35%

of total organic matter in sewage sludge could be anaerobically converted to methane

due to the lower hydrolysis efficiency of sewage sludge (Gossett and Belser, 1982).

On the other hand, it should also be noted that biogas produced from anaerobic

digestion has low economic value, while it may eventually become a burden for small

to medium size wastewater treatment plants, leading to underutilization of biogas in

many countries (Anderson et al., 2016; Heimersson et al., 2017). For example, about

1484 WWTPs have anaerobic digestion units in the United States, while biogas

produced from most of which was simply flared due to relatively low electricity price

and high operation cost of the co-generation system (EPA, 2012). It had been reported

that the electric energy generated from anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge alone

could only cover about 33.3% of the total in-plant electrical energy consumption in

Singapore (Yin et al., 2016). To tackle such a challenging energy situation in WWTPs,

co-digestion of sewage sludge with food waste has received increasing attention.

Food waste is also a global challenge due to the rapid growth of food industry and

population (GUDO, 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2016), and it can cause

contamination of recyclables, odour nuisance and vermin proliferation if proper

management measures are not in place (Chen and Gu, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). It

should be realized that food waste indeed is highly rich in organic matter and nutrients

(i.e. NPK), and can be used as a feedstock for producing various high-value products

(Girotto et al., 2015; Kiran et al., 2014). Although anaerobic digestion of food waste

2
has been practiced for biomethane production, excessive organic acids produced may

strongly inhibit anaerobic bacteria at a high organic loading. The recent study has

clearly shown that anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste is a

feasible and economically viable approach to greatly improve energy recovery (Koch

et al., 2016; Ratanatamskul et al., 2015; Tuyet et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2016). However,

prior hydrolysis of solid feeds, e.g. sewage sludge and food waste, indeed is a

rate-limiting step of anaerobic digestion. As such, many different pretreatment

methods for enhancing hydrolysis have been developed (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014;

Cano et al., 2015), among which enzymatic pretreatment has been believed to be an

efficient and eco-friendly method. However, a substantial amount of the digestate

generated from anaerobic digestion (e.g. 50~60% of total solids) still needs further

disposal via incineration or landfill (Yin et al., 2016). More importantly, no

value-added resource (e.g. N & P) in addition to biogas can be recovered in the

present anaerobic digestion practice. These clearly suggest that the current anaerobic

digestion should need to be reexamined in terms of energy and resource recovery.

Therefore, two holistic approaches for co-digestion of food waste and sewage

sludge were developed and assessed in terms economic viability, process efficiency

and feasibility in this study: (i) anaerobic digestion of mixed sewage sludge and food

waste prior hydrolyzed by in-situ produced fungal mash with biogas as the sole end

product; (ii) anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge with hydrolyzate produced from

hydrolysis of food waste by fungal mash with biogas and biofertilizer as the end

products. It is expected that this study may offer new insight into anaerobic

co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste with the aims for both energy (e.g.

biogas) and resource (e.g. biofertilizer) recovery.

2. Materials and methods

3
2.1. Sewage sludge and food waste

The food waste was taken from a refectory at Nanyang Technological University,

which contained 23.0±0.5% total solid (TS) and 22.3±0.4% volatile solid (VS). The

clarified activated sludge was collected from a municipal wastewater treatment plant

in Singapore with 7.7±0.1 g/L TS and 6.5±0.1 g/L VS. Inoculum anaerobic sludge

taken from the same plant had 12.7±0.2 g/L TS and 9.1±0.1 g/L VS. The

characteristics of the food waste and activated sludge used in this study were shown in

Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the food waste and activated sludge.

2.2. In-situ production of fungal mash

In this study, fungal mash rich in various hydrolytic enzymes was in-situ produced

from food waste by Aspergillus.oryzae as described previously (Ma et al., 2016). A

AKBF 115 solid state fermentor (BINDER GmbH, Germany) with the control of

dissolved oxygen (20~95%), humidity (10~80%) and temperature (10~70°C) was

used for fungal mash production, which was inoculated with 10% (v/g) of

Aspergillus.oryzae solution (i.e. 0.1 ml/g dry substrate, equivalent to 106 fungal spores

per gram). The fermentor was operated at 30 °C for 7 days, and the oxygen content

and humidity were automatically controlled at 50% and 70%, respectively. The pH

and the moisture content of substrate were about 5.5 and 77%, without any specific

adjustment. The produced fungal mash was then directly used to hydrolyze food

waste without further separation.

2.3. Hydrolysis and anaerobic co-digestion

Activated sludge and food waste were first concentrated by centrifugation at 10,000

rpm and 4ºC for 8 min. The harvested food waste and activated sludge were adjusted

4
to a total solid (TS) concentration of 30 g/L, respectively, which were further mixed

thoroughly by a blender according to 1:1 ratio by volume. 300 mL of the prepared

food waste and mixed activated sludge-food waste samples was filled respectively

into 500 mL Duran bottles (SCHOTT, German) with addition of 0.45 g dry weight of

fungal mash for hydrolysis at 100 rpm and 60ºC for 8 h. The biochemical methane

potential (BMP) tests were carried out in an automatic methane potential test system

(AMPTS) II (Bioprocess Control AB, Sweden). In these tests, 100 mL of anaerobic

sludge with 900 mg VS and 900 mg solid sample were added into the serum bottles

which were then was made up to a total volume of 300 ml by deionized water and

purged with nitrogen gas at 1 L/min for 5 min. Meanwhile, a blank bottle with the

inoculum only was also prepared. All the BMP tests were conducted at 35ºC and 100

rpm, as detailed in Table 2.

2.4. Analytical methods

SCOD and TN were determined by Hach kits (Hach, US). TS, VS were measured

according to standard methods (Rice et al., 2012). The FAN was quantified by

ninhydrin reaction method (Lie, 1973). The metal contents (e.g. Al, Cu, Mn, Zn, Mo,

K, Cd, Co, Cr, Pb, Ni, Hg and As) of various solid samples were quantified by a

Microwave Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer (MP-AES, Agilent 4100, America).

Total carbon of dry solid was determined according to the method by Navarro et al.

(1993). TN and total phosphorus (TP) in solid samples were measured according to

Chinese standard methods (GB/T 8572-2010; GB/T17767.2-2010), respectively

(Chinese National Standard, 2010a, b). The methane production was logged

continuously and automatically by the flow cell array unit of AMPTS. All the analyses

were done in duplicate.

5
Table 2 Experimental design of BMP tests for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1
and 2

2.5. Kinetics modeling

The methane production can be described by the modified Gompertz model:

(1)

where M is cumulative methane yield (mL/g VS), P is methane production potential

(mL/g VS), Rmax is the maximum methane production rate (mL/g VS day); λ is lag

phase (d); and t is reaction time (d).

2.6 Energy content calculation

The potential recoverable electric energy can be estimated as follow:

-△Q = M· (-△U) ·A·B (2)

where -△Q is the potentially recoverable electric energy (kWh), M is the total

methane production (m3), -△U is thecombustion energy of methane gas at a constant

volume, i.e. 40 MJ/m3 (Gupta et al., 2015), A is the conversion coefficient of methane

chemical energy to electricity through combustion, i.e. 35% (McCarty et al., 2011),

and B is the conversion coefficient of energy (MJ) to electric energy (kWh), i.e. 0.28.

3. Results and discussion.

3.1 Performances of anaerobic co-digestion in two approaches

In this study, two approaches were developed for co-digestion of food waste with

activated sludge: (i) co-digestion of mixed food waste and activated sludge prior

hydrolyzed by fungal mash; (ii) co-digestion of activated sludge with liquor produced

from prior hydrolysis of food waste by fungal mash (Table 2). It can be seen from Fig.

1 and Table 3 that a methane yield of 742.8 mL CH4/g VS was obtained from

Approach 1 versus 649.3 mL CH4/g VS from Approach 2. However, the long lag

6
phase of about 24 h was observed in Approach 1 vis-à-vis 9 h in Approach 2 (Table 3).

These imply that the methane production could be completed much faster in Approach

2 (i.e. 6 days) than in Approach 1 (i.e. 9 days). More importantly, the digestion times

required in both approaches are significantly shorter than that (e.g. 15 to 25 days) in

conventional anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge or food waste without enzymatic

pretreatment.

Fig.1. Cumulative methane production in Approaches 1 and 2.

Table 3 The parameters estimated for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1 and 2.

3.2 Overall mass balances in two approaches

Figs. 2A and 2B presented the overall mass balances in Approaches 1 and 2,

respectively. It can be seen that 954.1 L of methane and 2.0 kg of dry solid residue

were produced in Approach 1, while 544.1 L of methane, 0.65 kg of biofertilizer with

the compositions detailed in Table 3 and 1.2 kg of dry solid residue were obtained

from Approach 2. These suggest that a total solid reduction of (3.8-2)/3.8=47.3% and

(3.2-1.2)/3.2=62.5% in Approaches 1 and 2, respectively. Furthermore, Table 4

indicates that the contents of TN, TP as P2O5 in the residue from Approach 1, i.e.

co-digestion of mixed activated sludge and food waste with the pretreatment by

fungal mash, are significantly higher than the requirements for organic-inorganic

compound fertilizer and urban wastes for agriculture use (GB18877-2009;

GB8172-87) (Chinese National Standard, 1987, 2009). However, it should be pointed

out that the heavy metal contents in this solid residue, including Cd, Pb and As, all

exceeded the limits set by the Chinese National Standard for fertilizer, i.e. GB8172-87

and GB18877-2009 (Chinese National Standard, 1987, 2009). In addition, the

contents of Cu, Al and Zn were also found to be higher than the limits for the heavy

7
metal content in agricultural sludge (Tian et al., 2016). It is obvious that the solid

residue produced in Approach 1 could not be considered as biofertilizer or used for

agricultural purposes. In fact, without proper disposal measure in place, such residue

may potentially cause environmental risks to crops, plants, soils and water body. As

such, agricultural use of anaerobically digested sludge has been banned in more and

more countries.

In Approach 2 (i.e. co-digestion of activated sludge with liquor produced from prior

hydrolysis of food waste by fungal mash), two streams of solid residues were

generated as shown in Fig. 2B. It appears from Table 4 that the contents of TN, TP as

P2O5 in the residue from hydrolyzed food waste can meet the requirements for

utilization of urban wastes for agriculture (GB8172-87) (Chinese National Standard,

1987) as well as for organic-inorganic compound fertilizer (GB18877-2009) (Chinese

National Standard, 2009). Moreover, the contents of all the heavy metals detected in

this residue meet the standards for fertilizer. Other trace elements in the residue (e.g.

Zn, Co, Al, Cu, Mn, Ni, Mo etc.) were all below the limits in sludge for agricultural

use (Tian et al., 2016). In fact, these trace elements found have been believed to have

a positive effect on plant growth (Aller et al., 1990). It seems reasonable to consider

that the solid residue produced from hydrolysis of food waste in Approach 2 is a safe

biofertilizer. However, the solid residue generated after anaerobic co-digestion of

activated sludge and liquor produced from the hydrolysis of food waste in Approach 2

had a quality similar to that produced from Approach 1, i.e. this solid residue had

higher heavy metals contents and should be banned from agricultural applications

even though its nutrients contents could meet the requirements for fertilizer.

Fig.2. Mass balance on co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste. A:

3.3 Economic viability of the two approaches in Singapore.

In 2015, about 785,500 metric tonnes of food waste (i.e.180665 metric tonnes dry

food waste) and 196,000 metric tonnes of dry activated sludge were produced in

Singapore (Singapore NEA, 2016). Currently, waste activated sludge is anaerobically

digested with only about 30-35% of VS reduction. From which, the electric energy

generated could only cover about 33.3% of the total in-plant electrical energy

consumption (Yin et al., 2016), while food waste in Singapore is mainly incinerated

after about 13% of recycling. These eventually lead to a significant loss of organic

matter and nutrients in food waste, without resource and energy recovery. In a long

term view, the current sludge and food waste management may not be substantial and

eco-friendly. For the purpose of illustration, the economic viability of the two

approaches reported in this study was evaluated in terms of energy production,

resource recovery and volume reduction according the activated sludge and food

waste produced in Singapore. In Approach 1, 954.1 L of methane could be produced

from the co-digestion of 1 kg dry food waste mixed with 1 kg dry activated sludge

that was pretreated with fungal mash (Fig 2), equivalent to a potentially recoverable

electrical energy of 3.74 kWh as estimated by Eq. (2) (i.e. 0.9541 m3×40 MJ/m3×

0.35×0.28=3.74 kWh). In Approach 2, as shown in Fig. 2B, after 8-h ultra-hydrolysis

of 1 kg dry food waste, 0.652 kg of biofertilizer was obtained, while the co-digestion

of 1 kg of dry activated sludge with the liquor produced from hydrolysis of 1 kg of

dry food waste further generated 544.1 L of methane. Given the situation of waste

activated sludge and food waste in Singapore (i.e. about 180665 metric tonnes of dry

food waste and 196,000 metric tonnes of dry activated sludge produced annually),
9
according to a food waste to sludge mixing ratio of 1:1 by dry weight, about 172

million m3 methane (0.9541 m3/kg×180,655 tonnes) could be produced if Approach

1 was applied, while about 118,000 tonnes of dry biofertilizer (0.652×180655 tonnes)

and 98.3 million m3 methane would be obtainable from Approach 2. Detailed

economic analyses are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Economic analyses of the two approaches developed in this study:

Although the total electric energy generated from Approach 1 is about 1.8-time

more than that from Approach 2 (Table 5). However, it should be realized that

1.18×108 kg of biofertilizer can be produced in addition to energy in Approach 2. As

such, the total revenue of from Approach 2 is about 1.9 times of that from Approach 1

due to the fact that biofertlizer has much higher market value than biomethane.

Moreover, about 62.5% of total solid reduction was achieved in Approach 2, while

only 47.3% in Approach 1. These clearly suggest that Approach 2 is environmentally

and economically more attractive and beneficial than Approach 1. In the year of 2014,

Singapore produced about 571 million cubic meter of used water, while the global

specific energy consumption at Ulu Pandan water reclamation plant was about 0.52

kWh/m3 (Singapore PUB, 2014; Cao, 2011). These in turn suggest a total annual

energy consumption of 297 million kWh. As shown in Table 4, the electric energy

generated from Approaches 1 and 2 could completely offset the in-plant electrical

energy consumption. These imply that the current WWTPs can be transformed to a

powerful profit producer instead of consumer if the proposed approaches could be

adopted.

4. Conclusions

10
 The two approaches developed in this study clearly showed that the co-digestion of

activated sludge and food waste pretreated with fungal mash offers a technically

feasible and economically viable option for proper management of activated sludge

and food waste. It was demonstrated that the current WWTPs may be eventually

transformed to an energy and profit generator instead of an energy consumer by

adopting the proposed approaches. Consequently, this study opens a new window and

inspires new thinking for future activated sludge and food waste management towards

both energy and resource recovery.

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a research grant (Grant no: ETRP 1201 105-2) from the

National Environment Agency of Singapore

11
References

Aller, A.J., Bernal, J.L., Nozal, M., Deban, L., 1990. Effects of selected trace

elements on plant growth, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 51,

447-479.

Anderson, E., Addy, M., Ma, H., Chen, P., Ruan, R., 2016. Economic screening of

renewable energy technologies: Incineration, anaerobic digestion, and biodiesel as

applied to waste water scum. Bioresource Technology, 222, 202-209.

Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Esposito, G., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P.N., 2014. Pretreatment

methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Applied Energy,

123, 143-156.

Cano, R., Pérez-Elvira, S.I., Fdz-Polanco, F., 2015. Energy feasibility study of sludge

pretreatments: A review. Applied Energy, 149, 176-185.

Cao, Y.S., 2011. Mass Flow and Energy Efficiency of Municipal Wastewater

Treatment Plants. IWA Publishing

Chen, E., Gu, X.Y., 2012. Advance in disposal and resource technology of food waste.

Environ Study Monit, 3, 57-61.

Chinese National Standard (GB8172-87), 1987. Control Standards for Urban Wastes

for Agriculture Use. The State Standard of the People’s Republic of China Chinese

National Standard.

Chinese National Standard (GB18877-2009), 2009. Organic-Inorganic Compound

Fertilizer. The State Standard of the People’s Republic of China Chinese National

Standard.

Chinese National Standard (GB/T 8572-2010), 2010a. Determination of Total

Nitrogen Content for Compound Fertilizers Titrimetric Method after Distillation.

The State Standard of the People's Republic of China Chinese National Standard.

12
Chinese National Standard (GB/T17767.2-2010), 2010b. Determination of

Organic-Inorganic Compound Fertilizers—Part 2: Total Phosphorus Content. The

State Standard of the People's Republic of China Chinese National Standard.

EPA., 2012. Case Study Primer for Participant Discussion: Biodigestion and Biogas.

Technology Market Summit. EPA document number, 190S12005

Girotto, F., Alibardi, L., Cossu, R., 2015. Food waste generation and industrial uses: a

review. Waste Management, 45, 32-41.

Gossett, J.M., Belser, R.L., 1982. Anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge.

Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, 108, 1101-20.

GUDO, A.J., 2014. Global biomethanation potential from food waste-a review.

Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 16, 178-193.

Gupta, R., Basile, A., Veziroglu, T.N., 2015. Compendium of hydrogen energy:

hydrogen storage. Woodhead Publishing, Distribution and Infrastructure.

Heimersson, S., Svanström, M., Cederberg, C., Peters, G., 2017. Improved life cycle

modelling of benefits from sewage sludge anaerobic digestion and land application.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 126-134.

Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Ng, W.J., Liu, Y., 2014. Bioconversion of food waste to

energy: a review. Fuel, 134, 389-399.

Koch, K., Plabst, M., Schmidt, A., Helmreich, B., Drewes, J.E., 2016. Co-digestion of

food waste in a municipal wastewater treatment plant: Comparison of batch tests

and full-scale experiences. Waste Management, 47, 28-33.

Lie, S., 1973. THE EBC‐NINHYDRIN METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF

FREE ALPHA AMINO NITROGEN. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 79,

37-41.

Lin, C.S.K., Pfaltzgraff, L.A., Herrero-Davila, L., Mubofu, E.B., Abderrahim, S.,

13
 Clark, J.H., Koutinas, A.A., Kopsahelis, N., Stamatelatou, K., Dickson, F., 2013.

Food waste as a valuable resource for the production of chemicals, materials and

fuels. Current situation and global perspective. Energy & Environmental Science, 6,

426-464.

Ma, Y., Yin, Y., Liu, Y., 2016. A holistic approach for food waste management

towards zero-solid disposal and energy/resource recovery. Bioresource

Technology.

McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., Kim, J., 2011. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy

producer–can this be achieved? ACS Publications.

Singapore NEA, 2016. In: Agency NE (Ed.), Waste Statistics and Overall Recycling.

Data available at:

<http://www.nea.gov.sg/energy-waste/wastemanageme-nt/waste-statistics-and-over

all-recycling>.

Navarro, A.F., Cegarra, J., Roig, A., Garcia, D., 1993. Relationships between organic

matter and carbon contents of organic wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 44, 203–207.

Neumann, P., Pesante, S., Venegas, M., Vidal, G., 2016. Developments in

pre-treatment methods to improve anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Reviews

in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 15, 173-211.

Pilli, S., Yan, S., Tyagi, R.D., Surampalli, R.Y., 2015. Thermal pretreatment of

sewage sludge to enhance anaerobic digestion: a review. Critical Reviews in

Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 669-702.

Ratanatamskul, C., Wattanayommanaporn, O., Yamamoto, K., 2015. An on-site

prototype two-stage anaerobic digester for co-digestion of food waste and sewage

sludge for biogas production from high-rise building. International Biodeterioration

& Biodegradation, 102, 143-148.

14
Rice, E.W., Baird, R.B., Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., 2012. Standard methods for the

examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association,

American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation: Washington,

DC.

Singapore PUB (Public Utilities Board) Report, 2014. Data available at: <http://222.

pub.gov.sg/general/usedwater/Pages/default.aspx>.

Tian, Y., Liu, S.J., Ma, L., Wang, Y.L., Chen. G.M., 2011. Review of heavy metals

testing of organic fertilizer. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 27, 16-21.

Tuyet, N.T., Dan, N.P., Vu, N.C., Trung, N.L.H., Thanh, B.X., De Wever, H.,

Goemans, M., Diels, L., 2016. Laboratory-scale membrane up-concentration and

co-anaerobic digestion for energy recovery from sewage and kitchen waste. Water

Science and Technology, 73, 597-606.

Yin, Y., Liu, Y., Meng, S., Kiran, E.U., Liu, Y., 2016. Enzymatic pretreatment of

activated sludge, food waste and their mixture for enhanced bioenergy recovery and

waste volume reduction via anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 179, 1131-1137.

Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of

food waste for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38,

383-392.

15
Figures

Fig.1. Cumulative methane production in Approaches 1 and 2.

Fig.2. Mass balance on co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste. A: Approach
1; B: Approach 2.
.

16
Comulative methane yield (mL/g VS) 800

640

480

320

approach 1
160 Model fitted for approach 1
approach 2
Model fitted for approach 2
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Time (Day)

Fig.1. Cumulative methane production in Approaches 1 and 2.

17
Fig.2. Mass balance on co-digestion of activated sludge and food waste. A: Approach
1; B: Approach 2.
.
18
Tables

Table 1 Characteristics of the food waste and activated sludge

Table 2 Experimental design of BMP tests for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1

Table 3 The parameters estimated for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1 and 2.

Table 4 Compositions of the solid residue produced in Approaches 1 and 2

Table 5 Economic analyses of the two approaches developed in this study: Singapore
situation

19
Table1
Characteristics of the food waste and activated sludge
a
Parameters Food waste Activated sludge
TN (wt %) 1.9±0.1 3.4±0.2
TP as P2O5 (wt %) 2.3±0.2 4.5±0.3
TK as K2O (wt %) 0.3±0.0 0.2±0.0
Total carbon (wt%) 50.2±0.2 44.2±0.7
Moisture (wt%) 77.0±0.3 93.1±0.5
Granularity (mm) ≤2 ≤2
Cd (mg kg-1) - 5.6±0.2
Hg (mg kg-1) - 2.3±0.1
-1
Pb (mg kg ) 49.2±0.5 162.3±0.7
-1
Cr (mg kg ) 53.5±0.3 72.4±1.2
-1
As (mg kg ) 24.1±0.2 119.6±0.4
-1
Cu (mg kg ) 6.2±0.1 1473.7±31.2
-1
Mo (mg kg ) 14.3±0.2 47.3±3.1
Al (mg kg-1) 63.4±0.3 4374.1±77.1
Mn (mg kg-1) 19.2±0.4 116.5±8.1
Zn (mg kg-1) 31.1±0.6 1511.3±34.4
Co (mg kg-1) 3.1±0.3 37.2±1.5
-1
Ni (mg kg ) 19.3±0.2 36.3±2.4
- Not detected;
a
Parameters is calculated by dry solid except granularity.

20
Table 2
Experimental design of BMP tests for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1 and 2
Tests Feed composition
Control Inoculum
Anaerobic digestion in Activated sludge + Liquid produced from food
Approach 1 waste pretreated with fungal mash
Anaerobic digestion in Mixed activated sludge and food waste pretreated
Approach 2 with fungal mash

21
Table 3
The parameters estimated for anaerobic digestion in Approaches 1 and 2
Experiment
Bob Rmc
λa al yield
Samples (mL CH4/g (mL CH4 / g VS
(h) (mL CH4/g
VS) day)
VS)
Anaerobic digestion in
24.6 745.4 175.8 742.8
Approach 1
Anaerobic digestion in
9.1 654.7 157.7 649.3
Approach 2
a
Lag phase time
b
Estimated ultimate cumulative methane yield
c
Maximum methane production rate

22
Table4
Compositions of the solid residue produced in Approaches 1 and 2
a
Parameters GB8172-87 GB18877-2009 Residue from Residue from Residue from
anaerobic digestion hydrolysis anaerobic digestion
in approach1 in approach2 in approach2
I II
TN (wt %) 0.5 3 4.2±0.2 3.1±0.1 5.6±0.1
TP as P2O5 (wt %) 0.3 3 5.1±0.4 3.2±0.1 6.1±0.2
TK as K2O (wt %) 1.0 3 0.3±0.0 0.7±0.0 0.1±0.0
Total carbon (wt%) ≥10 ≥15 ≥25 38.7±0.5 50.1±0.4 38.2±0.3
Moisture (wt%) 25-35 ≤12 ≤12 93.1±0.6 86.5±0.4 92.5±0.6
Granularity (mm) ≤12 ≤5.6 ≤2 ≤2 ≤2
Cd (mg kg-1) 3 10 5.5±0.1 - 6.1±0.3
Hg (mg kg-1) 5 5 2.5±0.2 - 3.1±0.3
-1
Pb (mg kg ) 100 150 161.3±1.7 54.0±0.7 172.1±2.1
Cr (mg kg-1) 300 500 89.90±1.1 67.5±0.2 98.7±1.4
As (mg kg-1) 30 50 123.6±0.7 28.0±0.5 127.3±1.1
-1
Cu (mg kg ) * * 1543.7±33.9 5.9±0.1 1735.1±37.5
Mo (mg kg-1) * * 43.3±3.1 17.3±0.1 48.6±3.5
-1
Al (mg kg ) * * 4274.1±87.1 66.4±0.3 4644.6±97.4
Mn (mg kg-1) * * 137.6±10.1 25.2±0.5 166.6±11.3
-1
Zn (mg kg ) * * 1517.7±58.9 35.1±0.7 1434.5±73.6
Co (mg kg-1) * * 39.1±1.7 3.2±0.4 53.9±3.1
Ni (mg kg-1) * * 41.3±3.1 22.3±0.1 37.2±2.6
*Not standard required;
- Not detected;
a
Parameters is calculated by dry solid except granularity.

23
Table 5
Economic analyses of the two approaches developed in this study: Singapore situation
Electric Solid Revenue
Methane Biofertlizer (M SGD/yr) Total
energy reduction
(m3/yr) (kg/yr) Electricity Biofertlizer (M SGD/yr)
(kWh/yr) (%)
Approach 1 1.72×108 6.75×108 Nil 47.3 135 Nil 135
Approach 2 9.83×107 3.85×108 1.18×108 62.5 77 177 254
1 kWh=0.20 SGD; 1 kg biofertilizer=1.5 SGD

Highlights:

Two approaches for co-digestion of sludge and food waste were developed

Co-digestion with production of methane and fertilizer is more economically viable

62.5% of TS reduction in the co-digestion with production of methane and fertilizer

Fungal mash was highly efficiency in hydrolysis of activated sludge and food waste

24