Water Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: A study was conducted using a laboratory-scale anaerobic sequencing batch digester to investigate the
Received 15 November 2015 quantitative influence of organic loading rates (OLRs) on the methane production rate during digestion of
Received in revised form swine wastewater at temperatures between 15 C and 35 C. The volumetric production rate of methane
15 May 2016
(Rp) at different OLRs and temperatures was obtained. The maximum volumetric methane production
Accepted 28 June 2016
Available online 1 July 2016
rates (Rpmax) were 0.136, 0.796, 1.294, 1.527 and 1.952 LCH4 L1 d1 at corresponding organic loading rates
of 1.2, 3.6, 5.6, 5.6 and 7.2 g volatile solids L1 d1, respectively, which occurred at 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 C,
respectively. A new model was developed to describe the quantitative relationship between Rp and OLR.
Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
In addition to the maximum volumetric methane production rate (Rpmax) and the half-saturation con-
Swine wastewater stant (KLR) commonly used in previous models such as the modified StovereKincannon model and Deng
Model model, the new model introduced a new index (KD) that denoted the speed of volumetric methane
Volumetric methane production rate production rate approaching the maximum as a function of temperature. The new model more satis-
factorily described the influence of OLR on the rate of methane production than other models as
confirmed by higher determination coefficients (R2) (0.9717e0.9900) and lower bias between the
experimental and predicted data in terms of the root mean square error and the Akaike Information
Criterion. Data from other published research also validated the applicability and generality of the new
kinetic model to different types of wastewater.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.06.060
0043-1354/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Yang et al. / Water Research 102 (2016) 464e474 465
particularly for continuous microbial cultures. In contrast, the and at temperatures of 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 C. The aims were: (1)
amount of biogas (methane) formed during the conversion of to evaluate the methane production performance at gradually
organic matter by microorganisms in anaerobic digestion is the increasing OLR and to obtain the maximum volumetric methane
most common on-line and easily performed measurement production rate at each temperature, (2) to create a rational and
(Donoso-Bravo et al., 2011), and simultaneously reflects the activity suitable model with which to quantify the effect of OLR on the
of microorganisms and the rate and degree of biodegradation volumetric methane production rate, and (3) to evaluate the
because biogas production is directly proportional to substrate quantitative effect of temperature on methane production.
degradation. In many studies, biogas or methane production has
been used as the only measurement by which to estimate model 2. Materials and methods
parameters (Martín et al., 1994; Batstone, 2006; M€ ahnert and Linke,
2009; Ferna ndez-Rodríguez et al., 2013). 2.1. Swine wastewater and inoculum
Numerous types of mathematical models have been developed
to describe the methane production process of animal waste The swine wastewater used in this study was collected from a
digestion. Among them, the anaerobic digestion model 1 (ADM1) is farm located in Jianyang, Sichuan, China, 35 km away from the
the most advanced due to its precise predictability and strong laboratory. Samples were transported back to the laboratory
generality (Girault et al., 2011). The ADM1 model reflects the major immediately after collection and stored at 4 C. The concentration
processes that are involved in the conversion of complex organic of swine manure was adjusted to a volatile solids (VS) content of
substrates into methane and carbon dioxide and inert byproducts 0.80% by adding a certain amount of water before the start of an
(Batstone et al., 2002). However, the model requires a large number experiment.
of constants and coefficients that should be calibrated according to The inoculation sludge for the anaerobic digestion experiments
the characteristics of the substrates; such calibration requires the was obtained from a full-scale digester that treated swine waste-
use of special assays and computing skill, which is difficult for water from the same pig farm that served as the source of the
scientists and engineers dedicated to the plant operation and im- wastewater.
provements (Parker, 2005; Liu et al., 2008). Therefore, simplified
models that consist of only a few variables have been widely 2.2. Anaerobic digestion experiments
studied. The first-order rate equation (Yang et al., 2015) and the
modified Gompertz model (Kafle and Kim, 2013) have been applied As shown in Fig. 1, the methane fermentation experiments were
to batch assays and have satisfactorily predicted methane produc- performed in 1000 mL gas-tight glass reactors with a rubber plug
tion. Unfortunately, the data obtained from batch studies lacks and attached to an influent port, an effluent port and a pipe for
common, universal bases for comparison, and modeling results venting biogas. A 1000 mL wide-mouth glass bottle was used as a
from batch studies are usually provided in terms of the final values biogas gasholder, which was fitted with an influent-effluent port to
of the methane yields from substrates, rather than methane yields allow the entrance of biogas and the discharge of water. The di-
varying with hydraulic retention time (HRT). The volumetric gesters were connected by rubber tubes to the gasholder (Deng
methane production rate, as an important parameter for optimizing et al., 2012). Each digester was inoculated with 500 mL of anaer-
the design of a digester, is difficult to obtain using batch assays obic sludge at the beginning of the experiments. The digester was
(Brule et al., 2014). operated in draw-and-fill mode twice a day. Experiments were
Conversely, simplified models that are calibrated in continuous conducted at 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 C, and five water baths were
operation can more accurately reflect the actual anaerobic diges- used to maintain the temperature of the digesters. The anaerobic
tion of wastewater and seem to be qualified for design and opti- digesters were mixed manually twice a day.
mization of wastewater treatment plants (Batstone, 2006; Ekama, The OLRs in experiments were increased by reducing the HRT at
2009). Among the kinetic models that predict methane produc- a constant influent concentration until the maximum volumetric
tion based on continuous testing are the modified Sto- methane rate (Rpmax) was achieved (when the Rp stopped rising or
vereKincannon (Yu et al., 1998), CheneHashimoto (Chen, 1983) the deviations of the last two Rps were less than 5%). The difference
and Deng (Deng et al., 2014) models; all are derived assuming that of methane production rate under different temperatures resulted
digesters are operated at steady state conditions. The Chen and in different initial and final OLRs and loading intervals for the five
Hashimoto model was considered to be an appropriate model with temperatures that were studied. The OLRs applied were increased
which to describe the kinetics of methane production from swine by small increments in order to minimize any adverse effects of
wastewater and has been widely used (Pham et al., 2014). Yu et al. sudden increases in loading to obtain the Rpmax. The operating load
(1998) proposed a model to describe the kinetics of methane pro- range in the anaerobic digestion experiments at different temper-
duction based on the StovereKincannon model. The modified atures is listed in Table 1. There were different experimental runs
StovereKincannon model for methane production has been applied for different operation temperatures. A steady-state condition
to soybean wastewater (Yu et al., 1998), synthetic milk wastewater during each run was achieved when the deviations between the
(Ramakant et al., 2002) and synthetic wastewater containing para- observed values of daily methane production were less than 5% and
nitrophenol (Kuşçu and Sponza, 2009), but has been rarely used in each run had a duration of 2e3 times the corresponding HRT (in the
the study of swine wastewater anaerobic treatment. To describe the range of 5e40 days) or of 10 days (in the HRT range 1.1e3.3 days) at
variation in the volumetric methane production rate (Rp) as a steady-state condition. All treatments were conducted in duplicate.
function of the organic loading rate (OLR) in the temperature range The amounts of released biogas and the concentrations of methane
of 15e35 C, Deng et al. (2014) developed a reliable model capable were recorded on a daily basis. The gas produced in each digester
of closely matching observed methane production rates was measured using a water displacement device.
(R2 ¼ 0.989e0.999). However, the lack of widespread verification
and comparison of the fitting results of these models limits their 2.3. Analytical methods
application in biogas engineering.
In this study, the anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater was Analyses of chemical oxygen demand (COD), total solids (TS),
conducted at incremental OLRs by increasing the feed flow-rate and VS were carried out according to standard methods (APHA,
while maintaining a constant influent substrate concentration 1998), The determination of COD was accomplished by digesting
466 H. Yang et al. / Water Research 102 (2016) 464e474
Table 1
The operating load range in anaerobic digestion experiment at different Rpmax
temperatures. Rp ¼ (3)
1 þ eðKLR LrÞ
Temperature Organic loading rate (OLR)/g VS L1 d1
In Eqs. (1)e(3), Bo is ultimate methane yield (LCH4 g1 VSadded at
15 C 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6
infinite retention time); Lr is organic loading rate (OLR) (g VS
20 C 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4
25
C 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6
L1 d1); KC is a dimensionless parameter; KLR is the half-saturation
30
C 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 constant (g VS L1 d1); Rp is volumetric methane production rate
35
C 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 (LCH4 L1 d1); Rpmax is maximum volumetric methane production
Hydraulic retention time (HRT)/d rate (LCH4 L1 d1); Si is influent substrate concentration (g VS L1);
Q is HRT (days); and mmax is maximum specific microbial growth
15 C 40.0 20.0 13.3 10.0 6.7 5.0
20
C 10.0 6.7 5.0 4.0 3.3 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 rate (d1).
25 C 5.0 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.4
30 C 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.4
35 C 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1
samples in a microwave digestion system (WMX-Ш-B, China) fol- The parameters for each model were estimated by curve-fitting
lowed by ferrous ammonium sulfate titration. The TS content was using software (Origin version 8.0, OriginLab Corporation, North-
determined by heating samples in an oven (ZXRD-A5110, China) at ampton, MA, USA) that minimized the residual sum of squared
105 C, and VS content was determined by ignition of the residue errors between the experimental data and model predictions.
produced in a muffle furnace (KSL-1100X, China) at 550 C. The pH
of the wastewater was checked using a pH meter (inoLab pH 7200,
Germany). The composition of biogas was measured using a Biogas
Analyzer (ADOS Biogas 401, Germany).
2.6. Model evaluation
Table 2
Fitting results using data in this paper.
Temperature Model Rpmaxfrom experiment Rpmax from model KLR mmax KC KD R2 RMSE AIC
15 C Modified Stover-Kincannon 0.136 0.325 ± 0.085 1.591 ± 0.635 0.7816 0.011 41.046
Chen-Hashimoto 0.128 0.510 ± 0.451 1.908 ± 2.275 0.9754 0.005 48.733
Deng 1.000 ± 2.862 3.017 ± 2.225 0.7696 0.016 37.551
Modified Deng 0.137 ± 0.005 0.447 ± 0.023 5.024 ± 0.523 0.9918 0.002 54.248
20 C Modified Stover-Kincannon 0.796 3.084 ± 0.713 9.733 ± 2.883 0.9874 0.021 57.898
Chen-Hashimoto 0.904 1.060 ± 0.461 0.495 ± 0.344 0.9902 0.018 59.893
Deng 0.970 ± 0.031 1.858 ± 0.092 0.9875 0.021 57.967
Modified Deng 0.881 ± 0.036 1.656 ± 0.023 1.242 ± 0.523 0.9923 0.015 61.240
25 C Modified Stover-Kincannon 1.294 3.997 ± 1.099 10.839 ± 4.146 0.9718 0.045 33.105
Chen-Hashimoto 1.306 0.976 ± 0.095 0.159 ± 0.048 0.9921 0.024 40.698
Deng 1.350 ± 0.024 1.858 ± 0.079 0.9913 0.025 40.171
Modified Deng 1.395 ± 0.048 2.383 ± 0.105 0.882 ± 0.092 0.9926 0.020 40.821
30 C Modified Stover-Kincannon 1.527 4.501 ± 0.864 10.601 ± 2.879 0.9737 0.036 29.158
Chen-Hashimoto 1.534 1.246 ± 0.406 0.361 ± 0.231 0.9841 0.028 31.654
Deng 1.557 ± 0.057 2.417 ± 0.177 0.9740 0.034 29.814
Modified Deng 1.839 ± 0.235 2.754 ± 0.435 0.736 ± 0.163 0.9834 0.024 31.456
35 C Modified Stover-Kincannon 1.952 5.182 ± 1.128 11.383 ± 3.693 0.9606 0.055 25.001
Chen-Hashimoto 2.008 1.685 ± 0.367 0.407 ± 0.170 0.9782 0.041 27.953
Deng 1.936 ± 0.038 3.104 ± 0.112 0.9719 0.046 26.692
Modified Deng 2.055 ± 0.066 3.095 ± 0.096 0.715 ± 0.095 0.9900 0.024 31.277
mutation of Rp because of overloading. In other words, the Rpmax results for 15 C, producing predictions for Rpmax of 1.000 LCH4
and KLR values obtained from the modified StovereKincannon L1 d1 and the KLR of 3.017 g VS L1 d1 that were approximately
model will not provide an accurate basis for design of reactors and seven times as much as experimental values. This performance
for heating operation. These results demonstrate that the demonstrated that Rpmax and KLR alone were not capable of accu-
CheneHashimoto model and the Deng model matched the exper- rately adjusting the rate of change of Rp with organic loading rate
imental methane production data better than did the modified (Lr) at varying temperature, and that further revision of the Deng
StovereKincannon model. model was needed.
Although the CheneHashimoto model exhibited wellefitting
results as described above in terms of R2, RMSE and AIC, the 3.2.2. The development of a new model
magnitude of the parameters standard error values are much A parameter of KD was introduced to the Deng model as a co-
greater than the fitted values, and the ratio of the parameter esti- efficient of KLR and Lr. The new model, named the “modified Deng
mate to its standard error in was larger than that of the modified model”, is presented as Eq. (7).
StovereKincannon model and Deng model. It indicated that the
poor precision of fitted values was presented in parameters esti- Rpmax
mate in the CheneHashimoto model and parameters should be Rp ¼ (7)
1 þ eKD ðKLR LrÞ
recalibrated in order to gain a better representation of reality by
special efforts. In addition, the evaluation and verification of pa- The kinetic constants calculated from the modified Deng model
rameters such as (mmax) and Bo increased the difficulty of applica- are listed in Table 2. Compared to those of the other three models, a
tion and reduced the practicality of this model. Measuring the higher R2 was obtained using the modified Deng model, ranging
maximum specific microbial growth rate through experimental from 0.9834 to 0.9926, with an average of 0.9900. Likewise, the
methods is impractical due to the requirement of an infinitely short comparatively lower values of RMSE (average of 0.017) and AIC
retention time, which is not feasible for complex biomass (Momoh (average of 43.808) meant that the simulated data from the
et al., 2013). The evaluation of mmax through models based on modified Deng model were in good agreement with the experi-
substrate mass balance can be used as an alternative to experi- mental observations. Although the modified Deng model contains
mental measurement, but the measure of substrate concentration one more fitting parameter than do the other models, the lower AIC
increases the difficulty of application due to problems in differen- values illustrated that this increase did not reduce the simplicity of
tiating between bacterial volatile suspended solids and complex the modified Deng model. On the contrary, the modified Deng
biomass volatile solids. Moreover, the KC in the CheneHashimoto model provided a more satisfactory description of the anaerobic
model, as a dimensionless kinetic parameter, is difficult to deter- digestion process of swine wastewater at 15e35 C compared to the
mine experimentally. other models. Except at 30 C, the ratio of the parameter estimate to
Therefore, only the Deng model came close to meeting the four its standard error did not exceed 10 percent for any parameter in
principles required for adequate model structures: simplicity, the modified Deng model at studied temperatures, and was the
causality, identifiability and predictive capability (Spriet, 1985). smallest than other three models. The fitted values for Rpmax and
However, the Deng model demonstrated unsatisfactory fitting KLR agreed well with the experimental results at different tem-
peratures. As shown in Table 2, the RMSE of Rpmax predictions by
470 H. Yang et al. / Water Research 102 (2016) 464e474
Fig. 4. The relationship between kinetic constants of the maximum volumetric methane production rate (Rpmax), the half-saturation constant (KLR) and kinetic parameter (KD) and
temperature.
the modified Deng model and experimental observations was 0.158 Lr.
compared to a RMSE of 0.055 for the CheneHashimoto model. In Quantification of the effect of temperature on the biokinetic
fact, the Deng model can be viewed as a special form of the coefficients for anaerobic digestion can be accomplished using Eqs.
modified Deng model for which KD is equal to one. The values of KD (8)e(10) (Metcalf, 2003).
were found to be 5.024, 1.242, 0.882, 0.736 and 0.715 for 15, 20, 25,
30 and 35 C, respectively; thus, the KD values for 20e35 C were in RpmaxðT2Þ ¼ RpmaxðT1Þ q
ðT2T1Þ
(8)
close proximity, while the KD value for 15 C was far more than one.
This fact explains why the Deng model produced a poor fit to
ðT2T1Þ
experimental data at 15 C, but good fits for data at 20e35 C. KLRðT2Þ ¼ KLRðT1Þ q (9)
Table 3
Temperatureeactivity coefficient (q) of kinetic constants at different ranges of temperatures.
Range of temperature Temperatureeactivity coefficient for Rpmax Temperatureeactivity coefficient for KLR Temperatureeactivity coefficient for KD
wastewater was much more sensitive to variation in temperature accomplished using data from an own and single experiment;
from 15 to 20 C than to variation from 20 to 35 C. rather, data from a variety of studies are needed. For that reason, to
validate the modified Deng model, data were collected from pub-
lished studies on several different process typologies involving
3.2.4. The uncertainty of kinetic constants of new model
anaerobic processing of various types of wastewater (Table 4). The
The new model for the anaerobic digestion process was
sources of data were arbitrarily named Study I (Faisal and Unno,
analyzed by the parametric sensitivity method to determine the
2001); Study II (Borja et al., 2002); Study III (Kuşçu and Sponza,
influence of individual model parameters on the selected output
2009); Study IV (Pandian et al., 2011); and Study V (Xiao et al.,
variables. The relative parametric sensitivity value indicated the
2012). The Rpmax values in these studies were obtained by
most influential parameters in the process being the maximum
increasing OLR to match that used in the present study, and were:
volumetric methane production rate.
1.370 L L1 d1 (Study I), 0.560 L L1 d1 (Study II), 0.246 L L1 d1
(Study III), 1.756 L L1 d1 (Study IV) and 5.28 L L1 d1 (Study V). A
3.3. Model verification using data previously reported by other further comparison of all four models (modified Sto-
researchers vereKincannon, CheneHashimoto, Deng and modified Deng) was
conducted using the previously reported experimental data and
Validating a model for applicability and generality cannot be
Table 4
Data from other researchers.
Number Reference Substrate Reactor Temperature Influent COD Hydraulic Organic loading Volumetric methane
concentration/g retention rate/g COD L1 d1 production rate/LCH4
L1 time/d L1 d1
I Faisal and Palm oil mill wastewater ABR e 16 10.0 1.60 0.436
Unno (2001) 8.0 2.00 0.650
7.0 2.28 0.730
6.0 2.67 1.050
5.0 3.20 1.155
3.0 5.33 1.370
II Borja et al., wastewater derived from the A cone-shaped 15e19 C 11.3 20 0.57 0.206
2002 production of protein glass vessel 13.3 0.85 0.280
10 1.13 0.366
8 1.41 0.464
6.7 1.7 0.520
5.7 1.98 0.560
5 2.26 0.425
4.5 2.49 0.460
V Xiao et al., municipal biomass waste and CSTR 35 C 100 1.2 0.89
(2012) waste activated sludge 50 2.4 1.72
33 3.6 2.23
25 4.8 3.50
20 6 4.25
15 8 5.28
472 H. Yang et al. / Water Research 102 (2016) 464e474
Table 5
Validation and comparison of models using the data from other researchers.
III Modified Stover-Kincannon 0.424 ± 0.100 1.321 ± 0.608 0.9113 0.114 22.103
Chen-Hashimoto 0.173 0.263 0.902 ± 0.252 1.157 ± 0.417 0.9647 0.073 27.452
Deng 0.368 ± 0.103 1.169 ± 0.607 0.7546 0.126 20.880
Modified Deng 0.255 ± 0.013 0.630 ± 0.059 3.186 ± 0.599 0.9709 0.094 22.403
Table 6
Fitting results for the maximum volumetric methane production rate (Rpmax) using data from other researchers.
results of this comparison are listed in Tables 5 and 6. The fact that methane production rates at various temperatures and (OLRs), as
the influent COD concentration varied at different OLRs in Study IV well as the maximum volumetric methane production rates at each
(Pandian et al., 2011) and Study V (Xiao et al., 2012) increased the temperature. A kinetic study was carried out to improve anaerobic
difficulty of fitting the CheneHashimoto model; therefore, the data process control and design, and compared four methane produc-
from Studies IV and V were not used to verify the CheneHashimoto tion kinetic models: the Modified Stover-Kincannon model,
model. As shown in Table 5, for different types of wastewater, the CheneHashimoto model, Deng model and a new model developed
modified Deng model gave the best simulation of observed data as part of this research. Using data from this study and other pre-
(R2 ¼ 0.9258e0.9963), while the performance of other models viously published research, the new model was shown to yield the
varied with the type of wastewater. For example, the Deng model best simulation of observed methane production in terms of R2,
presented the worst fit (R2 of 0.7546) of all models for synthetic RMSE and AIC. As a result of this study, it can be concluded that the
wastewater (Study III), but better fitting of results for palm oil mill new model accurately describes the quantitative influence of OLRs
wastewater (Study I). Table 6 shows that predictions from the on the production rate of methane, and is superior to other
modified Deng model for Rpmax were better than those of other commonly used kinetic models. Further, the new model is widely
models. For the first three studies of I, II and III, the four models applicable to a variety of digestion process configurations and
were compared. The results indicated that the RMSE of the modi- wastewater, and can be used to improve the design and operation
fied Deng model was 0.043, followed by that of CheneHashimoto of anaerobic digestion facilities.
model (0.316). For all five studies, the three models were compared
excepting the CheneHashimoto model in which the Rpmax could Acknowledgment
not be achieved. The results showed that the RMSE of the modified
Deng model was 0.331, followed by an RMSE of 0.339 for the Deng This study was financially supported by the Natural Science
model. The results of these comparisons support the conclusion Foundation of China (Grant Number: 31572450) and the China
that the modified Deng model is characterized by applicability and Agriculture Research System (Grant Number: CARS-36-10B).
generality for a wide range of conditions.
Appendix
4. Conclusions
0.16 1.5
o
15 C o
-1 -1
1.4 25 C
-1 -1
V o l u m e t ri c m e t h a n e p ro d u c t i o n ra t e / L L d
0.14
V o l u m e t ri c m e t h a n e p ro d u c t i o n ra t e / L L d
1.3
0.12 1.2
OLR:
1.1
0.10 0.2
1.0
0.4
0.6 0.9
0.08
0.8 0.8 OLR:
1.2 0.7
0.06 1.6
1.6
0.6 2.4
0.04 0.5 3.2
4.0
0.4
0.02 4.8
0.3 5.6
0.00 0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time /d
Time /d
0.90
o 1.6
20 C
-1 -1
o
0.85 30 C
-1 -1
V o l u m e t ri c m e t h a n e p ro d u c t i o n ra t e / L L d
V o l u m e t ri c m e t h a n e p ro d u c t i o n ra t e / L L d
0.80 1.5
0.75 1.4
0.70 1.3
OLR:
0.65
0.8 1.2
0.60
1.2
0.55 1.1
1.6
0.50 1.0
2.0
0.45
2.4 0.9
0.40
2.8
0.35 0.8
3.2
0.30 3.6 0.7
0.25 4.0 0.6
0.20 4.4 OLR: 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6
0.15 0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time /d
Time /d
2.4
-1 -1
o
35 C
V o l u m e t ri c m e t h a n e p ro d u c t i o n ra t e / L L d
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2 OLR:
1.0
3.2
4.0
0.8 4.8
0.6 5.6
6.4
0.4 7.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time /d
Fig. 1. The volumetric methane production rates at different organic loading rates (OLR) and different temperatures. Note: the unit of OLR is g VS L1 d1.
References Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S., Pavlostathis, S., Rozzi, A.,
Sanders, W., Siegrist, H., Vavilin, V., 2002. The IWA anaerobic digestion model
no 1(ADM 1). Water Sci. Technol. 45, 65e73.
APHA, 1998. In: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
Borja, R., Gonz
alez, E., Raposo, F., Mill
an, F., Martín, A., 2002. Kinetic analysis of the
twentieth ed. W. American Public Health Association, DC, USA.
psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of wastewater derived from the production of
Batstone, D.J., 2006. Mathematical modelling of anaerobic reactors treating do-
proteins from extracted sunflower flour. J. Agric. Food Chen 50, 4628e4633.
mestic wastewater: rational criteria for model use. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol.
, M., Oechsner, H., Jungbluth, T., 2014. Exponential model describing methane
Brule
5, 57e71.
474 H. Yang et al. / Water Research 102 (2016) 464e474
production kinetics in batch anaerobic digestion: a tool for evaluation of Technol. 131, 6e12.
biochemical methane potential assays. Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 37, 1759e1770. Ma€hnert, P., Linke, B., 2009. Kinetic study of biogas production from energy crops
Chae, K., Jang, A., Yim, S., Kim, I.S., 2008. The effects of digestion temperature and and animal waste slurry: effect of organic loading rate and reactor size. Environ.
temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic diges- Technol. 30, 93e99.
tion of swine manure. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 1e6. Martín, A., Borja, R., Banks, C.J., 1994. Kinetic model for substrate utilization and
Chen, Y., 1983. Kinetic analysis of anaerobic digestion of pig manure and its design methane production during the anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewater
implications. Agric. Wastes 8, 65e81. and condensation water waste. J. Chem. Technol. Biot. 60, 7e16.
Deng, L., Chen, Z., Yang, H., Zhu, J., Liu, Y., Long, Y., Zheng, D., 2012. Biogas Masse , D.I., Droste, R.L., 2000. Comprehensive model of anaerobic digestion of
fermentation of swine slurry based on the separation of concentrated liquid swine manure slurry in a sequencing batch reactor. Water Res. 34, 3087e3106.
and low content liquid. Biomass Bioenerg. 45, 187e194. Metcalf, E.I., 2003. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Reuse. McGraw-Hill,
Deng, L., Yang, H., Liu, G., Zheng, D., Chen, Z., Liu, Y., Pu, X., Song, L., Wang, Z., Lei, Y., New York.
2014. Kinetics of temperature effects and its significance to the heating strategy Møller, H.B., Sommer, S.G., Ahring, B.K., 2004. Methane productivity of manure,
for anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater. Appl. Energ 134, 349e355. straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenerg. 26, 485e495.
Donoso-Bravo, A., Mailier, J., Martin, C., Rodríguez, J., Aceves-Lara, C.A., Momoh, O.Y., Anyata, B., Saroj, D., 2013. Development of simplified anaerobic
Wouwer, A.V., 2011. Model selection, identification and validation in anaerobic digestion models (SADM’s) for studying anaerobic biodegradability and kinetics
digestion: a review. Water Res. 45, 5347e5364. of complex biomass. Biochem. Eng. J. 79, 84e93.
Ekama, G.A., 2009. Using bioprocess stoichiometry to build a plant-wide mass Pandian, M., Huu-Hao, N., Pazhaniappan, S., 2011. Substrate removal kinetics of an
balance based steady-state WWTP model. Water Res. 43, 2101e2120. anaerobic hybrid reactor treating pharmaceutical wastewater. J. Water Sust. 1,
Faisal, M., Unno, H., 2001. Kinetic analysis of palm oil mill wastewater treatment by 301e312.
a modified anaerobic baffled reactor. Biochem. Eng. J. 9, 25e31. Panichnumsin, P., Nopharatana, A., Ahring, B., Chaiprasert, P., 2010. Production of
Ferna ndez-Rodríguez, J., Pe rez, M., Romero, L.I., 2013. Comparison of mesophilic methane by co-digestion of cassava pulp with various concentrations of pig
and thermophilic dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW: kinetic analysis. Chem. manure. Biomass Bioenerg. 34, 1117e1124.
Eng. J. 232, 59e64. Parker, W.J., 2005. Application of the ADM1 model to advanced anaerobic digestion.
Fongsatitkul, P., Elefsiniotis, P., Wareham, D.G., 2012. Two-phase anaerobic diges- Bioresour. Technol. 96, 1832e1842.
tion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: estimation of methane Pham, C.H., Triolo, J.M., Sommer, S.G., 2014. Predicting methane production in
production. Waste Manage. Res. 30, 720e726. simple and unheated biogas digesters at low temperatures. Appl. Energ 136,
Girault, R., Rousseau, P., Steyer, J.P., Bernet, N., Beline, F., 2011. Combination of batch 1e6.
experiments with continuous reactor data for ADM1 calibration: application to Ramakant, Satyanarayan, S., Kaul, S., 2002. Kinetics of an anaerobic moving bed
anaerobic digestion of pig slurry. Water Sci. Tech. 63, 2575e2582. reactor system treating synthetic milk wastewater. J. Environ. Sci. Health., Part A
Hill, D., 1982. A comprehensive dynamic model for animal waste methanogenesis. 37, 1737e1755.
T. ASAE 25, 1374e1380. Spriet, J., 1985. Structure characterization: an overview. In: Identification and Sys-
Kafle, G.K., Kim, S.H., 2013. Anaerobic treatment of apple waste with swine manure tem Parameter Estimation (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh IFAC/IFORS Sym-
for biogas production: batch and continuous operation. Appl. Energ 103, 61e72. posium. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 749e756.
€
Kuşçu, O.S., Sponza, D.T., 2009. Kinetics of para-nitrophenol and chemical oxygen Weiland, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Micro-
demand removal from synthetic wastewater in an anaerobic migrating blanket biol. Biot. 85, 849e860.
reactor. J. Hazard. Mater 161, 787e799. Xiao, L., Wei, W., Shi, Y., Lei, Z., Gao, X., Wei, Q., Zhou, Y., 2012. Pilot-scale anaerobic
Liu, C.-f., Yuan, X.-z., Zeng, G.-m., Li, W.-w., Li, J., 2008. Prediction of methane yield co-digestion of municipal biomass waste and waste activated sludge in China:
at optimum pH for anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid effect of organic loading rate. Waste Manage 32, 2056e2060.
waste. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 882e888. Yang, D., Deng, L.W., Zheng, D., Liu, G.J., Yang, H.N., Wang, L., 2015. Separation of
Lo, K., Liao, P., Gao, Y., 1994. Anaerobic treatment of swine wastewater using hybrid swine wastewater into solid fraction, concentrated slurry and dilute liquid and
UASB reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 47, 153e157. its influence on biogas production. Fuel 144, 237e243.
Ma, J., Yu, L., Frear, C., Zhao, Q., Li, X., Chen, S., 2013. Kinetics of psychrophilic Yu, H., Wilson, F., Tay, J.-H., 1998. Kinetic analysis of an anaerobic filter treating
anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treating flushed dairy manure. Bioresour. soybean wastewater. Water Res. 32, 3341e3352.