You are on page 1of 12

Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge with grease trap sludge and municipal MARK
solid waste as co-substrates☆

A. Grossera, E. Neczaja, , B.R. Singhb, Å.R. Almåsb, H. Brattebøc, M. Kacprzaka
a
Institute of Environmental Engineering, Czestochowa University of Technology, Brzeznicka St. 60 A, 42–200 Czestochowa, Poland
b
Department of Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Post Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway
c
Department of Energy and Process Engineering Industrial Ecology Programme Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim,
Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The feasibility of simultaneous treatment of multiple wastes via co-digestion was studied in semi-continuous
Co-digestion mode at mesophilic conditions. The obtained results indicated that sewage sludge, organic fraction of municipal
Sewage sludge waste (OFMSW) and grease trap sludge (GTS) possess complementary properties that can be combined for
Co-substrate successful anaerobic digestion. During the co-digestion period, methane yield and VS removal were significantly
Methane yield
higher in comparison to digestion of sewage sludge alone. Addition of GTS to digesters treating sewage sludge
Long chain fatty acids
resulted in increased VS removal and methane yield up to 13% (from 50 to 56.4) and 52% (from 300 to
456,547 m3/Mg VSadd), respectively. While the use of OFMSW as the next co-substrate in the feedstock, can
boost methane yield and VS removal up to 82% (300–547 m3/Mg VSadd) and approximately 29% (from 50% to
64.7%), respectively. Moreover, the results of the present laboratory study revealed that the addition of co-
substrates to the feedstock had a significant influence on biogas composition. During the experiment methane
content in biogas ranged from 67% to 69%. While, the concentration of LCFAs was increasing with the gradual
increase in the share of co-substrates in the mixtures, wherein only the oleic acid was higher than some
inhibition concentrations which have been reported in the literature. However, it did not significantly affect the
efficiency of the co-digestion process.

1. Introduction efficiency and biogas production, they rely on additional energy inputs.
An interesting option for improving anaerobic digestion yield is co-
Worldwide, the treatment of municipal wastewater produces large digestion. Co-digestion can be defined as the combined anaerobic
amounts of sewage sludge. While at the same time an increase of treatment of several wastes with complementary characteristics. Apart
interest in recovering energy from sewage sludge arises, mainly due to from increasing biogas production, co-digestion offers several other
the fact that it can be executed during the same operations comprising benefits. These are: increased loading of readily biodegradable organ-
of conventional sludge treatments such as landfilling and land applica- ics, improved C/N ratio, dilution of toxic substances and reduced
tion (Cao and Pawłowski, 2012). Sewage sludge is rich in organic treatment costs. Moreover, wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) may
matter with a composition comparable to plant tissues and is con- implement co-digestion of sewage sludge with other biodegradable
sidered biomass. wastes without changing (or with minimal changes) the plant design.
However, the first step of anaerobic digestion (hydrolysis) is This is because existing digesters at WWTP often are over dimensioned
considered rate limiting. Pre-treating sewage sludge prior to anaerobic (Bień et al., 2010; Neczaj et al., 2012). There are numerous laboratory-
digestion aims at enhancing hydrolysis and complete the degradation and full-scale examples reporting successful co-digestion of sewage
more fully. Several pre-treatments have been tested for this purpose. sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes (OFMSW)
These included chemical treatments, alkalization, Fenton and ozona- (Borowski, 2015; Grosser at al, 2013). In general, the addition of
tion, thermal, biological, ultrasound, microwave irradiation (Zawieja sewage sludge to OFMSW improves the C/N ratio of the mixtures, and
et al., 2015). Although the abovementioned methods can increase AD the production of biogas through anaerobic mesophilic digestion


This work was supported by Norway Grants in the Polish-Norwegian Research Programme operated by the National Centre for Research and Development "Innovation in recycling
technologies of sewage sludge and other biowaste - energy and matter recovery" [POL-NOR/201734/76/13].

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: enecz@is.pcz.czest.pl (E. Neczaj).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.02.007
Received 31 July 2016; Received in revised form 26 January 2017; Accepted 8 February 2017
0013-9351/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

increases. Another type of biodegradable wastes, which can be used as amount of GTS was selected based on literature (Davidsson et al.,
co-substrates for sewage sludge co-digestion, are fat rich-materials. For 2008; Silvestre et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2011; Girault et al., 2012) and
example, fat, oil, and grease (FOG) have been reported to increase unpublished results from own experiments (unpublished data). The
biogas production by 30% or more when added to the anaerobic amount of GTS was maintained constant until the end of the study. At
digester (Kabouris et al., 2009). However, during co-digestion of high- stage 3, the co-digestion of sewage sludge with GTS and organic
strength lipid wastes a wide assortment of operational challenges has fraction of municipal waste (OFMSW), took place. As in stage 2, the
also been reported. These are: process inhibition by long chain fatty addition of waste (OFMSW) was gradually increased up to 30% on VS
acids, sludge flotation, digester foaming, blockades of pipes and basis (by 10% every 10 days) and similarly like in the second stage,
clogging of gas collector (Worwąg et al., 2011). quantity of waste until the end of the experiment was maintained at
Several studies have shown that mixtures of agricultural, municipal this level. Like in the case of GTS the target level of OFMSW in the
and industrial wastes can be digested successfully and efficiently feedstock was selected based on own experiments (unpublished data).
together. However, there is no information regarding co-digestion of The process was carried out at mesophilic conditions (37 °C) in two
sewage sludge with organic fraction of municipal solid waste and grease glass reactors filled with 6 l of working liquid. The reactors were
trap waste. The semi-continuous experiments were conducted to constantly mixed (180 rpm) using mechanical stirrers and their
assess: 1) the possibility to digest these wastes together in one reactor; temperatures were controlled by a thermostatically regulated water
2) the feasibility of co-digestion of the mentioned wastes in order to bath. The produced biogas was collected by a gas collector (PVC tube
improve the efficiency of process (economic aspect). filled with water acidified to pH 3). The reactors were operated in a
Therefore, the aim of this investigation was to study the efficiency of draw-and-fill mode with a retention time of 20 days. The hydraulic
the anaerobic digestion of a waste mixture consisting of those three retention time (HRT) was set to 20 d, which is within operating range
types of waste. The efficiency of the AD was investigated on the basis of values reported in literature (spanning from 15 to 25 days) (Hartmann
biogas production and volatile solids reduction. The emphasis was also and Ahring, 2006; Nasir et al., 2012; Grosser et al., 2013). Moreover,
put on the fate of long chain fatty acid during anaerobic co-digestion. the 20-day HRT is estimated to simulate future full-scale operating
This resulted from the fact that these compounds may negatively affect conditions, the exact wastewater treatment plant, where the sludge
the anaerobic process. used in this experiment was obtained.
Experimental procedure was based on our previous works (Grosser
2. Materials and methods and Neczaj, 2016; Neczaj et al., 2012). Gradual addition of the chosen
components (GTS, OFMSW) in the subsequent phases of the experi-
2.1. Inoculum and substrate ment was done in order to adapt microorganisms to new environ-
mental conditions such as high concentration of LCFAs as well as high
Sewage sludge (mixtures of primary sludge (PS) and waste activated organic loading rate. This was essential especially in the case of the
sludge (WAS) as well as inoculum (digested sewage sludge) for all second phase of the experiment when the digester was fed with
experiments were obtained from a municipal wastewater treatment mixtures containing fat rich materials. Despite their high methane
plant (WWTP). The WWTP is located in the Silesian region (Poland) potential, due to production of intermediate compounds during
and has a treatment capacity of 314 835 population equivalent. The anaerobic decomposition, this material is considered in literature as
average wastewater flow entering WWTP is equal to 90,000 m3/d. The problematic (frequent failure of anaerobic mono-digestion of fat rich
sludge was collected at the plant every four weeks and kept at 4 °C prior material).
to use. At start-up the systems were inoculated with mesophilic-digested
Fat rich material - grease trap sludge (GTS) was obtained from a sludge from WWTP. The batch assay used in the first days was applied
meat processing plant (Silesian Region, Poland) specializing in meat to promote the development of an anaerobic community. According to
cutting (cows and pigs) and production of different meat products. Cavaleiro et al. (2009) and Griffin et al. (1998) gradual start-up of the
A simulated/synthetic OFMSW with a particle size of less than mesophilic digester promotes sludge acclimation and improves the
1 mm was used as a substrate. OFMSW was prepared just as described digestion process as such. Hence (in the first weeks of semi-continues
in studies by Sosnowski et al. (2008). Both co-substrates were frozen at digestion of sewage sludge) aliquots of sewage sludge were added
−25 °C in a laboratory freezer. GTS and OFMSW were thawed for 12 h stepwise to the reactors up to the total volume of 300 mL (based on the
at room temperature before preparing the feedstock for the reactors. HRT value and working liquid volume of reactors). Digested material
Synthetic OFMSW contained (by weight): 1) potatoes 55% (potato and feed were withdrawn at exact same time daily. The withdrawals
peelings: boiled potatoes −80:20% wt); 2) fruits and vegetables 28% were carried out using a peristaltic pump. The sewage sludge mixed
(citrus fruit skins and small pieces, banana skins, cabbages, apples, with increasing concentrations of GTS and OFMSW were introduced to
lettuce and carrots – of 15%, 10%, 40%, 28%, 2% and 5% wt, the reactors using a 100 mL syringe. These mixtures were prepared
respectively); 3) bread 5%; 4) paper 2%; 5) rice, pasta and buckwheat every 10 days. Feedstock (mixture of sewage sludge and the two other
groats 10% (25:60:15% weight). bio-wastes) was stored in sealed plastic bottles, and kept at 4 °C until
The characteristics of sewage sludge and co-substrates mixtures use. The bottles were equilibrated at room temperature for 24 h prior
used in the presented study are shown in Tables 1–3. to introduction into the reactors.
The effluent was monitored every five days while biogas production
2.2. Experimental procedure and composition every day. Influent characteristics were measured
once per 10 days.
The reported experiment was divided into three stages which were
implemented consecutively as shown in Fig. 1. During stage 1, the 2.3. Analytical methods
anaerobic digestion of only sewage sludge was conducted (the data
obtained in this stage of the experiment will be considered as the Total and volatile solids, chemical oxygen demand (COD), pH,
control phase to which the results of the next stages of the experiment alkalinity, volatile fatty acids (VFAs), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),
will be compared). While in the next stages sewage sludge was co- total carbon (TC), fat concentrations and ammonium nitrogen were
digested with the addition of different co-substrates. In the 2nd stage, analyzed according to the Standard Methods for the Examination of
the substrates were fed to the reactor as a mixture of sewage sludge and Water and Wastewater (APHA) (1999). The VFAs, pH, alkalinity,
grease trap sludge (GTS). In this stage the addition of GTS was ammonium nitrogen and CODsoluble were determined in supernatants
gradually increased from 5% to 30% on VS basis. The maximum after centrifugation at 12100 rcf for 15 min and then filtration through

250
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Table 1
Characteristics of sewage sludge and co-substrates mixtures used in study part 1.

Material Sewage sludge GTS OFMSW TS VS VS/TS pH


Percent of VS in feed (%) (%) - -

Inoculum – – – 1.8 ± 0.01 1.01 ± 0.01 0.56 7.90–7.91


GTS – – – 60.48 ± 0.07 57.35 ± 0.3 0.95 5.24–5.30
OFMSW – – – 17.5–20.13 16.74–19.27 0.96 –
Sewage – – – 2.4–3.93 1.83–2.88 0.71–0.78 5.29–6.77
sludge
M7 95 5 – 3.14 ± 0.02 2.39 ± 0.005 0.76 5.95
M8 90 10 – 3.37 ± 0.04 2.6 ± 0.01 0.77 5.78
M9 85 15 – 3.27 ± 0.03 2.51 ± 0.002 0.77 5.68
M10 80 20 – 3.43 ± 0.05 2.67 ± 0.01 0.78 5.71
M11 75 25 – 3.52 ± 0.05 2.78 ± 0.01 0.79 5.65
M12-M15 70 30 – 3.81–4.70 3.03–3.78 0.79–0.8 5.55–5.62
M16 60 30 10 4.59 ± 0.07 3.74 ± 0.01 0.81 5.47
M17 50 30 20 4.85 ± 0.08 4.05 ± 0.01 0.84 5.38
M18-M39 40 30 30 4.26–5.18 3.68–4.53 0.84–0.88 4.81–5.5

M1-M6 – feedstock in first stage of study (AD of sewage sludge alone).


M7-M39 – mixtures of sewage sludge with organic waste (M7-M15 with GTS; M16-M39 with GTS and OFMSW).

filter papers (3w). All measurements were done in triplicate.


Biogas production was measured daily by the water displacement
method. The methane percentage in biogas was determined using a Table 3
portable gas analyzer (NANOSENS DP-27 BIO+). All gas results were The concentration of nitrogen and carbon in the substrate.
calculated at standard temperature and pressure.
Material TC TKN C/N
Free ammonia (FA) concentrations were calculated according to the
formula described by Caicedo et al. (2000). Additionally, during the (mg/g TS) (mg/L)a (mg/kg TS)b -
semi-continuous process, long chain fatty acids were analyzed accord-
Sewage 365.65–434.75 159–426 18 900–42840 9.05–21.15
ing to procedures previously described in (Neczaj et al., 2012).
sludge
OFMSW 400.21–404.6 – 13533–14047 28.8–29.8
M7 431.5 ± 6 256 ± 2 35280 ± 840 12.23
2.4. Statistical analysis M8 436.5 ± 4.5 327 ± 4 34533 ± 855 12.64
M9 443.3 ± 2.4 350 ± 3 32387 ± 162 13.69
In this study the statistical analysis of the obtained data was carried M10 446.4 ± 4.2 378 ± 3 34533 ± 583 12.92
M11 471 ± 3.3 363 ± 2 35700 ± 990 13.19
out using the following methods: ANOVA and Pearson correlation
M12-M15 432.2–455.4 376–435 29027–36307 12.3–15.62
coefficients (with p < 0.05, p < 0.01 and p < 0.001) to estimate the M16 458.9 ± 1.6 451 ± 3 28233 ± 530 16.25
strengths of association between chosen results. In the case of ANOVA, M17 459.3 ± 0.7 469 ± 6 29400 ± 560 15.62
when analysis showed that statistically significant data were achieved M18-M39 451.9–484.7 241–449 17920–31920 14.15–27.02
(p < 0.05) a post hoc Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) was
M7-M39 – mixtures of sewage sludge with organic waste (M7-M15 with GTS; M16-M39
used.
with GTS and OFMSW).
All mentioned analyses were carried out using STATISTICA soft- a
– supernatant.
ware (STATISTICA 12 PL StatSoft, Inc). b
– total.

Table 2
Characteristics of sewage sludge and co-substrates mixtures used in study part 2.

Material VFA Alkalinity N-NH4+ COD

(mgCH3COOH/L) (mgCaCO3/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)a (mg/L)b

Inoculum 960 ± 17 2823 ± 6 659 ± 3 993 ± 59 19075 ± 233

Sewage 1594–4297 670–1427 155–407 2783–7115 31240–52773


sludge
M7 2600 ± 10 953 ± 12 223 ± 4 4057 ± 85 41500 ± 799
M8 3211 ± 10 1080 ± 10 303 ± 4 5050 ± 117 47510 ± 2088
M9 3394 ± 17 1143 ± 21 323 ± 3 6158 ± 341 51190 ± 1768
M10 3571 ± 36 1207 ± 12 345 ± 6 6283 ± 108 57480 ± 1837
M11 3286 ± 26 1093 ± 12 319 ± 6 6078 ± 179 54600 ± 2154
M12-M15 3469–4183 1110–1247 317–403 6330–7040 61480–87080
M16 4429 ± 10 1193 ± 23 303 ± 6 8428 ± 169 82288 ± 3840
M17 3971 ± 10 1050 ± 10 392 ± 1 10430 ± 153 77616 ± 3840
M18-M39 2514–5857 653–1460 192–366 14405–7453 43573–85520

M7-M39 – mixtures of sewage sludge with organic waste (M7-M15 with GTS; M16-M39 with GTS and OFMSW).
a
– supernatant.
b
– total.

251
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Fig. 1. Scheme of experiment.

3. Results and discussion with mixtures with a 30% addition of OFMSW the average VFAs
concentration in the effluent had a mean value of 599 ± 53 mg/L. Thus,
3.1. Feed characterization in contrast to literature reports (Sosnowski et al., 2008; Iacovidou
et al., 2012) the addition of food waste to sewage sludge did not
Significant differences between the raw co-substrates were observed increase the initial VFAs concentration which researchers explained
(Tables 1–3). TS content was 60 0.48%, 2.4–3.93% and 17.5–20.13 with rapid acidification of soluble organic matter in this waste. As
respectively for GTS, sewage sludge and OFMSW. Major differences shown in Fig. 1S VFAs gradually decreased due to their uptake by the
were also observed in concentration of organic matter in each of the anaerobic microorganisms (Iacovidou et al., 2012).
raw materials. For all co-substrates, the VS/TS ratio was higher than In the second stage, in the period with grease trap sludge addition
0.7, hence they were easily biodegradable (Borowski, 2015). As of 5–25% (VS basis) in the feed, alkalinity decreased. The opposite
expected, VS/TS ratio and COD increased with a bigger addition of trend was observed during the highest grease trap sludge addition.
co-substrates to the feedstock. The C/N ratio of OFMSW was higher Alkalinity was in the range of 2775–3269 mg/L in all reactor effluents.
(e.g. in study by Zhang et al. (2014) C/N ratio range of 13.2–22.4; Whereas during third stage a gradual decrease of this indicator was
while Dong et al. (2010) indicated a range of C / N ratio of 11.4–20.5), observed, reaching on average 2574 ± 345 mg/L during the highest
and similar to previously published data (e.g. Borowski (2015) who OFMSW addition.
reported a range of 25–38). In the sewage sludge, however, this ratio According to Borowski et al. (2015) as well as Wan et al. (2011),
ranged from 9.05 to 21.15, and 21.5 ± 0.03 on average for GTW.Only VFAs: alkalinity ratio higher than 0.4 indicates a lack of good balance
co-digestion mixtures with addition of OFMSW had a C/N ratio in the in the microbial population between acidogenic and methanogenic
range regarded as optimal for anaerobic digestion (15−30) (Zhang bacteria, whereas higher than 0.8 significant instability of the digester.
et al., 2014). Simultaneously, alkalinity for raw sewage sludge and At the beginning of the process, the ratio ranged from 0.8 to 4.5
mixtures were comparable. Content of fats in GTW was equal to 65% (Fig. 1S). After the 27 day of the process VFA: alkalinity ratio remained
VS, while the level this indicator recorded by Silvestre et al. (2011) was below critical value of 0.4 (0.28 ± 0.03 on average). In the next stages,
a wide range of 24% VS to 70% VS. the ratio of VFAs to alkalinity remained below the critical level given
above (Fig. 1S). The addition of grease trap sludge does not signifi-
cantly affect the average value of this indicator. In the second stage the
3.2. Semi-continuous experiment
ratio values varied between 0.24 and 0.34 (0.29 ± 0.01 on average).
While, in third stage this indicator was in the range of 0.15–0.31 (0.23
3.2.1. Variances of VFA, pH, alkalinity, COD free ammonia and
± 0.03 on average). It proves that the system had adequate buffering
ammonium ion concentration
capacity and consequently the conditions were favorable for anaerobic
The variations in VFAs, alkalinity and VFA: alkalinity ratio during
digestion. Additionally, it indicates that stable working parameters of
the experiment are shown in (Fig. 1S). High concentration of VFAs was
the bioreactor were achieved in all stages of the semi-continuous
observed in first days of sewage sludge digeston. The concentrations
experiment.
then fell gradually, and after the 27 day the VFAs concentration fell to a
In the first days of anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge fluctuations
level indicating stable process conditions (864 ± 74 mg/L on average).
of CODtotal similar as for the concentration of VFAs were observed. In
As found in literature, inhibition of anaerobic digestion may start at
the first three weeks of the process CODtotal sharply decreased from
VFAs concentration of 2500–4000 mg/L (Appels et al., 2008; Borowski
39,448 mg/L to approximately 22,000 mg/L. After the twenty-seventh
et al., 2015). After that day, alkalinity was also relatively stable, average
day, CODtotal ranged from 16,950 to 25,450 mg/L (2230 ± 2517 mg/L
values were around 3082 ± 48 mg/L. VFAs concentration during
on average). As expected, addition of both substrates in the feedstock
anaerobic co-digestion was lower than 950 mg/L. The addition of
resulted in an increase of CODtotal in the effluent due to the high
GTS did not cause significant changes in concentrations of VFAs. In the
biodegradability of this biowaste. Also, Pawłowska and Siepak (2009)
second stage (co-digestion of SS and GTS) during the period, when the
noted that an addition of sewage sludge to the waste layer lead to lower
addition of waste was gradually increased, the concentration of volatile
quality effluent which was illustrated by high values of analyzed
fatty acids was contained in the range of 741–994 mg/L. Whereas,
parameters e.g.: COD and BOD5. In the present study, this trend was
after reaching the target level of grease trap sludge in the co-digestion
predominant in the second stage of research. In this stage, CODtotal in
mixture (30% on VS basis), average VFAs concentration (for both
the semi-continuous experiment increased proportionally to the
reactors) was approximately 854 ± 48 mg/L. The addition of organic
amount of grease trap sludge in the co-digestion mixture (from
fraction of municipal waste (OFMSW) to feed resulted in an explicit
20,380 to 36,450 mg/L). Whereas, in the next phase of co-digestion
decrease of VFAs level (Fig. 1S). In the period, when reactors were fed

252
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

smaller variations in CODtotal concentration compared to the second increase of fat content in the feedstock, which is characterized by high
stage were noted. Values of this indicator were between 2588 and methane potential, much higher in comparison to proteins and
39,470 mg/L. carbohydrates Also, the improvement of the C/N ratio observed after
In the first stage pH was closely related to level of VFAs concentra- the addition of organic wastes had a positive impact on the methane
tion, value of this parameter increased steadily until it stabilized at yield (Weiland, 2010). The missing data (Fig. 2) during co-digestion is
7.82 ± 0.05 after day 27 (Fig. 2S). While, ammonium nitrogen con- due to episodes of unsealed reactor vessels.
centration was within the range of 659–735 mg/L. Enhanced methane yield during co-digestion of sewage sludge and
In the second and third stages, the pH value remained relatively GTS has been reported in a number of studies, and the explanations
stable. In both reactors average pH of the effluents was respectively are: increased biogas potential of the VS in the feedstock and increased
7.81 ± 0.06 and 7.85 ± 0.07 for the second stage and third stage. VS loading rates (Davidsson et al., 2008; Luostarinen et al., 2009;
In the second stage, average ammonium ion concentration (average Silvestre et al., 2011, Wan et al., 2011; Girault et al., 2012;Silvestre
for both reactors) increased from 623 to 795 mg/L with the increase of et al., 2014; Noutsopoulos et al., 2012; Pastor et al., 2013). A
grease trap sludge addition in the feedstock from 5% to 30% on VS comparison of results from the present study and other studies, are
basis (Fig. 2S). An opposite trend was observed after the introduction shown in Fig. 3. These studies (shown on Fig. 3) reported 15–143%
of the organic fraction of municipal waste into the reactors. The increase in methane yield compared to the period when reactors were
addition of OFMSW as a co-substrate to the sewage sludge digester feed by sewage sludge only.
caused a decrease in the concentration of ammonia nitrogen. The methane yield of 456 m3/Mg VSadd is very similar to the
A decrease of this indicator was especially noticeable in the first concentrations reported by Luostarinen et al. (2009) and Noutsopoulos
phase of the third stage of research; ammonium ion concentration et al. (2013), but much higher than those of Davidsson et al. (2008),
decreased sharply from 497 mg/L to 744 mg/L (value from 227 day of Silvestre et al. (2011). Differences in the process efficiencies displayed
the process). in Fig. 3 are probably related to the difference in waste origin,
The lowest concentration of ammonia ions in the third phase was operational parameters (for example HRT, OLR), type of sewage sludge
observed for the mixture with 30% addition of OFMSW (average for and differences in research scale.
both reactors 419 ± 78 mg/L, it was calculated for the period between It is difficult to compare the results from biogas production after co-
227 and 397 day of the experiment). digestion of sewage sludge, grease trap sludge and municipal solid
Similar trends were also seen for free ammonia concentrations waste, with other comparable studies, as relevant data have simply not
during the experiment. Free ammonium concentration at the first and been published. We can only verify the data from the process efficiency
second stage was slightly higher than in the third stage, with an average with data from the co-digestion of sewage sludge, the OFMSW or co-
of 54 mg/L, 52 mg/L and 40 mg/L, respectively. digestion of OFMSW and fat rich materials.
Described above ammonium ions and free ammonia are the two Like in the second stage, the co-digestion of sewage sludge, grease
principal forms of inorganic ammonia nitrogen in an aqueous solution. trap sludge and OFMSW was influenced by a combination of factors
However, free ammonia has been suggested to be the main cause of (such as temperature, OLR, HRT, moisture content, substrate/inocu-
inhibition of methanogenesis since it may diffuse passively into the lum ratio, etc.) during application. However, one of the most important
cells, causing a proton imbalance and/or potassium deficiency and factors influencing the anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste
alters the intracellular pH. It should be noted that, in all stages of the (MSW), is the variety of non-degradable components in different
study, the free ammonia concentration was below values considered batches of MSW, which is related to the partitioning and parts collected
inhibitory to mesophilic anaerobic digestion. The inhibition threshold for digestion. Parts of the MSW have a higher content of organic
values in literature varies within a wide range and depends on: material, with a low amount of non-biodegradable contaminants
substrate composition, operational conditions (for example: tempera- (plastic, metal and glass), while the organic fraction used in this study
ture, alkalinity) and acclimation period. In both reactors concentration was more contaminated (Grosser et al., 2013).
of free ammonia remained below the inhibition threshold for this The positive effect of sewage sludge co-digestion with an organic
indicator (the lowest concentration reported in literature is 70 g/m3) fraction of municipal solid waste on the process efficiency has been well
(Borowski, 2015; Yenigün and Demirel, 2013). documented (Hartmann and Ahring, 2006; Nasir et al., 2012; Grosser
et al., 2013). Selected results of these studies are summarized and
3.2.2. Biogas production and VS removal shown in Table 4.
Average methane yield of sewage sludge (calculated for the period Probably variation of methane yield observed during all experi-
from 27 to 70 process day) was 300 L/kg VSadd. This was similar to mental periods was due to fluctuation in OLR (organic loading rate).
previous reports (e.g. 271 L/kg VSadd (Davidsson et al., 2008); 278 L/ These changes in OLR can be caused by variations of VS content in
kg VSadd (Luostarinen et al., 2009); 252 L/kg VSadd (Wan et al., 2011); sewage sludge and to lesser extent by substrates content in the
249 L/kg VSadd (Silvestre et al., 2011); 304 L/kg VSadd (Girault et al., feedstock (small fluctuations) (Fig. 2). OLR was within the range of
2012) and 294 L/kg VSadd (Noutsopoulos et al., 2013)). For all stages, 1.15–1.35 g VS/Ld, during period, when reactors were fed with a
co-digestion process gave higher methane yield than anaerobic diges- mixture of sewage sludge and grease trap sludge (up to 25% VS basis)
tion of sewage sludge alone (Figs. 2, 3 and 3S). Co-digestion of sewage After the target level of grease trap sludge in the co-digestion mixtures
sludge and grease trap sludge (second stage) at a ratio of 30% increased was reached, OLR was gradually increased from 1.44 to 1.8 VS/Ld. In
the methane yield by approximately 52% compared to digestion of third stage assumed that the OLR will not be higher than 2.5 VS/Ld.
sewage sludge alone (from 300 to 456 m3/Mg VSadd). Also, the use of This was due to the fact that in literature the highest biogas yields were
OFMSW as a co-substrate significantly improved the efficiency of the obtained in mesophilic wet digestion processes at OLR lower than 2.5 g
sewage sludge anaerobic digestion by enhancing average methane yield VS/Ld (Hartmann and Ahring (2006) 2012 and Grosser et al. (2013).
up to 82% (from 300 to 547 m3/Mg VSadd) (Fig. 3S). These methane In the third stage, OLR was between 1.74 and 2.17 VS/Ld.
yields are considerably higher than reported in literature for organic The removal of VS is important for anaerobic digestion to be
fraction of municipal waste (Hartmann and Ahring, 2006; Nasir et al., effective, and it is a direct indicator of the metabolic activity of the
2012; Grosser et al., 2013). microorganism community. VS removal of sewage sludge by anaerobic
The increased methane yields can be explained by the increase of digestion is typically in the range of 30–52% (Davidsson et al., 2008;
readily biodegradable fraction (the readily available organic matter Luostarinen at al, 2009; Silvestre et al., 2011, Wan et al., 2011;
from co-substrates) in co-digestion mixtures. However, the main Noutsopoulos et al., 2013). In the first stage in both reactors VS
reason for the above mentioned enhancement may be linked with the removal was approximately 50% (average calculated for the period

253
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Fig. 2. Variation of methane yield (YM), organic loading rate (OLR) and VS removal during co-digestion process (GTS, OFMSW in percentage of VS in feedstock), where GTS – grease
trap sludge, OFMSW – organic fraction of municipal waste, addition of GTS in feedstock during second and third stages are marked with the color green, while addition of OFMSW in
the feedstock in the third stage is marked with the color brown; the dashed lines indicate periods of dispensing specific amounts of waste into the feedstock. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

from 27 to 70 process day). In the next stages, in comparison to the addition of OFMSW up to 30% resulted in an increased VS removal
control phase (digestion of sewage sludge alone) a significant increase (average of about 29.5% compared to control phase) (Fig. 4).
in VS removal was observed only for a mixture with addition of grease In the first stage in the digester during the stable operational
trap sludge higher than 15% (Figs. 2, 3S and 4). In the second stage, period, methane content was maintained at about 66%. The addition of
the highest VS removal was obtained for the mixture with 30% addition biowaste (GTS and OFMSW) had significantly affect the composition of
of GTS (average for both reactors 56%). Similar results were achieved biogas. It may be explained by the increased content of protein and fats
by Davidsson et al. (2008), Wan et al. (2011), Silvestre at al. (2011) and in the feedstock resulting from the addition of organic waste to the
Noutsopoulos et al. (2013) who reached the VS removal of 58, 54, 52 mixtures, which have a higher content of the mentioned organic
and 59 respectively (Fig. 4). Also, in this study it was shown that the compounds than sewage sludge. Especially that as reported by

Fig. 3. The maximum percentage increase of methane yield (ΔYM) compared to the control phase (anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge alone); where on x-axis is: 1-Luostarinen et al.
(2009); 2 - Davidsson et al. (2008); 3- Wan et al. (2011); 4-Silvestre et al. (2011); 5-Girault et al. (2012); 6 – Yalcinkaya and Malina, et al. (2015); 7-Noutsopoulos et al. (2013); 8-
Silvestre et al. (2014); 9 - Pastor et al. (2013); 10 - Present study - second stage (average for mixture SS: GTS 70:30 on VS basis); 11- Present study - third stage (average for mixture SS:
GTS:OFMSW 40:30:30 on VS basis). * YB for pilot scale digester.

254
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Table 4
Summary of selected co-digestion studies.

Substrate Mixture ratio Digester configuration Temp OLR (kg/m3d) Y (m3/kgadd) VSr (%) Improvement Reference

DS:FW 0.9:1.0a CSTR (SRT=20d) M 7.2a 0.33 (VS) 70 (VS) YM −72%e Dai et al. (2013)
VSr – 81%e
Ss: OW 80:20b CSTR M 1.02b 0.6 (VSS) 81 (VSS) YB −54%e Zupančič et al. (2008)
VSr – 14%e
c a
Ss: HS-OFMSW 1:1 CSTR(SRT=20d) M 2.11 0.32 (VS) 42 (VS) YM −73%f Borowski (2015)
CSTR(SRT=15d) M 2.51a 0.28 (VS) 29 (VS) YM −61%f
CSTR(SRT=20d) T 1.7a 0.22 (VS) 41 (VS) YM −18%f
CSTR(SRT=15d) T 2.67a 0.17 (VS) 31 (VS) –
STP-FOGW: SC-OFMSW 1:7a CSTR (HRT=14.5d) M 4.5a 0.35 (VS) 65 (VS) YM −46%f Martín-González et al. (2010)
OFMSW: AF 80:20c BMP test M Na 0.51 (VS) Na YM −33%f Ponsá et al. (2011)
OFMSW:VF 80:20c BMP test M Na 0.70 (VS) Na YM −83%f
MWS: GTW 77:23a CSTR M 1.58a 0.63(VS) 56 (VS) YM −27%e Razaviarani et al. (2013)
VSr – 27%e
d a
ABP: Ss 1:7 CSTR M 2.8 0.43 (VS) Na – Luste and Luostarinen (2010)
WAS: GIW 34.5:65.5a CSTR M 2.16a 0.75 (VS) 55 (VS) YM −317%e Wang et al. (2013)
VSr – 67%e
Ss: FOG 52:48a CSTR M 4.35a 0.45 (VS) 45 (VS) YM −195%e Kabouris et al. (2009)
VSr – 80%e

VSr – degradation efficiency; VS – volatile solids; VSS - volatile suspended solids; YM – methane yield; YB – biogas yield; M -mesophilic; T – thermophilic; OLR – organic loading
rate; CSTR – continuous stirred tank reactor; Na - non-detailed, BMP – biochemical methane potential test; Temp – temperature DS - dewatered sludge; FW - food waste; OW -
organic waste from domestic refuse (swill); HS-OFMSW - hydromechanically sorted organic fraction of municipal solid wastes; STP-FOGW - fat, oil and grease waste from sewage
treatment plants; SC-OFMSW - source collected organic fraction of municipal solid wastes; OFMSW – organic fraction of municipal waste; AF – animal fat; VF – vegetable fat;
MWS - municipal wastewater sludge; GTW – grease trap sludge; ABP – animal byproduct; GIW - Grease interceptor waste; WAS – waste activated sludge; FOG – fat, oil, grease
a
– VS based,
b
– VSS based,
c
– total solids based;
d
– wet basis
e
AD of Ss alone
f
AD of OFMSW alone

Fig. 4. The maximum percentage increase of VS removal compared to the control phase (anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge alone); where 1–11 –same reference numerals as in
Fig. 5.

Weiland (2010) the theoretical methane content in biogas produced 3.2.3. Long chain fatty acids
from carbohydrates is about 50%, whereas the values for protein and Long chain fatty acids are the key intermediates generated during
fats reach at least 67%. anaerobic digestion of food waste (Iacovidou et al., 2012; Mata-Alvarez
During co-digestion periods (second and third stage of experiment) et al., 2014) or fat rich materials (Worwąg et al., 2011; Mata-Alvarez
the methane content in biogas oscillated from 66% to 69%. Also in the et al., 2014). Furthermore, the accumulation of these compounds in the
literature, methane content in the biogas during co-digestion of sewage digester is considered to be the rate-limiting step of the anaerobic
sludge and grease waste was in a similar range as given above (66–69% digestion process (Zhang et al., 2014; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014). The
(Davidsson et al., 2008); 58–66% (Luostarinen at al, 2009); 63–69% main reason for the failure of anaerobic digestion of fat rich material is
(Girault et al., 2012). It should be noted that methane connect in biogas linked with the inhibitory effect of these acids (Chen et al., 2008) which
was higher than the values reported for the co-digestion of OFMSW is due to the adsorption of these acids onto the cell walls / membranes
with sewage sludge, which was probably due to the difference in of biomass and thus the disruption of the transportation processes
composition of this waste (Grosser et al., 2013). (Zhang et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2008). For this reason, it is very

255
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Fig. 5. Variation of the concentration of capric acid in the effluent, in the feedstock and degree of removal of this acid during the experiment, where: GTS – grease trap sludge, OFMSW
– organic fraction of municipal waste, addition of GTS in feedstock during second and third stages are marked with the color green, while addition of OFMSW in the feedstock in the
third stage is marked with the color brown; the dashed lines indicate periods of dispensing specific amounts of waste into the feedstock. (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 6. Variation of the concentration of lauric acid in the effluent, in the feedstock and degree of removal of this acid during the experiment, where: GTS – grease trap sludge, OFMSW –
organic fraction of municipal waste, addition of GTS in feedstock during second and third stages are marked with the color green, while addition of OFMSW in the feedstock in the third
stage is marked with the color brown; the dashed lines indicate periods of dispensing specific amounts of waste into the feedstock. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

important to monitor these compounds during the anaerobic digestion In the first stage (AD of sewage sludge alone) the concentrations of
process. As shown in Figs. 5–9, both in the effluent as well as in the palmitic acid and oleic acid in the effluents were contained in the range
feedstock introduced to the reactors, profiles of LCFAs are mainly of 5.12–23.5 mg/gTS (av. 11.62 ± 7.95 mg/gTS) and 1.55–14.39 mg/gTS
composed of palmitic acid and oleic acid. Although, in both of the (av. 6.29 ± 5.96 mg/gTS), respectively. Nonetheless, the highest values
mentioned waste streams palmitic acid was the most abundant LCFA. of these acids in this period was observed during the first days of the
A similar profile of long fatty acids was noted in food waste by Neves experiment. The concentrations then fell gradually, and after the
et al. (2009) and Zhang et al. (2014) as well as in sewage sludge and 37 day the VFAs concentration fell below 9 mg/gTS and 3 mg/gTS for
grease trap sludge by Grosser and Neczaj (2016). palmitic acid and oleic acid, respectively. As it is presented in Fig. 8 and

256
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Fig. 7. Variation of the concentration of myristic acid in the effluent, in the feedstock and degree of removal of this acid during the experiment, where: GTS – grease trap sludge,
OFMSW – organic fraction of municipal waste, addition of GTS in feedstock during second and third stages are marked with the color green, while addition of OFMSW in the feedstock
in the third stage is marked with the color brown; the dashed lines indicate periods of dispensing specific amounts of waste into the feedstock. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 8. Variation of the concentration of palmitic acid in the effluent, in the feedstock and degree of removal of this acid during the experiment, where: GTS – grease trap sludge,
OFMSW – organic fraction of municipal waste, addition of GTS in feedstock during second and third stages are marked with the color green, while addition of OFMSW in the feedstock
in the third stage is marked with the color brown; the dashed lines indicate periods of dispensing specific amounts of waste into the feedstock. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 9, the introduction of the co-substrate to the sewage sludge acid concentration and oleic acid concentration ranged from 34.89 to
digester, resulted in a noticeable increase in concentration of these 50.55 mg/gTS (av. 37.28 ± 16.04 mg/gTS) and from 16.95 to 27.86 mg/
compounds in the effluents as well as in the feedstock. In the second gTS (av. 20.19 ± 8.87 mg/gTS), respectively. During the third stage a
stage, addition of GTS to the feedstock led to an increase of palmitic further increase of these indicators was observed. The concentration of
acid concentration and oleic acid concentration in the effluents up to a palmitic acid was in the range of 14.26–32.82 mg/gTS (av. 21.79 ±
maximum of 30.73 mg/gTS (av. 19.6 ± 7.66 mg/gTS), 15.36 mg/gTS (av. 4.26 mg/gTS) in the effluents. While, concentration of oleic acid in the
9.37 ± 4.38 mg/gTS), respectively. Whereas in the feedstock palmitic same medium ranged of 5.68–15.92 mg/gTS (av. 11.3 ± 2.27 mg/gTS).

257
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Fig. 9. Variation of the concentration of oleic acid in the effluent, in the feedstock and degree of removal of this acid during the experiment, where: GTS – grease trap sludge, OFMSW –
organic fraction of municipal waste, addition of GTS in feedstock during second and third stages are marked with the color green, while addition of OFMSW in the feedstock in the third
stage is marked with the color brown; the dashed lines indicate periods of dispensing specific amounts of waste into the feedstock. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Also in the feedstock introduced to the digester in the third stage an of the mentioned LCFAs the highest concentration in the feedstock was
increase of concentration of these acid was observed. The concentra- observed during co-digestion of sewage sludge and GTS which is
tion of palmitic acid ranged from 41.21 to 55.24 mg/gTS (av. 44.22 ± logical, because these kind of wastes has the highest concentration of
4.75 mg/gTS) and oleic acid remained between 22.38–31.79 mg/gTS these acids). The variations of capric, myristic and lauric acid con-
(av. 25.3 ± 3.67 mg/gTS). centrations may be explained by the change in the feedstock composi-
The increase of the concentration of palmitic acid as well as oleic tion. In the sewage sludge, the contentof these acids is significant, while
acid in effluents and the feedstock during the co-digestion experiment for OFMSW an opposite trend was observed. For instance, Fernendez
may be linked with high concentration of these acids in the substrates et al. (2005) reported that in OFMSW the mentioned acids together
in the co-digestion mixture, especially in the case of GTS and to a lesser accounted for less than 3% of the total concentration of all monitored
extent in OFMSW. Girault et al. (2012) also observed an increase of LCFAs combined, while Casado et al. (1998) showed that in sewage
LCFAs with an increase in grease to sludge ratio in the feedstock. sludge the share of these acids is around 33%. Given this trend, it
It is very difficult to explain the degradation pathways of LCFAs seems logical that replacing 30% of sewage sludge on VS basis by
without the use of far more sophisticated tools than those used in this OFMSW in the third phase resulted in the reduction of these acids
study. However, much higher concentration of palmitic acid compared concentration in the feedstock. More pronounced variation in the
to other monitored long chain fatty acids as suggested by Novak and concentration of myristic acid than other acids may be associated with
Kraus (quoted by Girault et al., 2012 and Silvestre et al., 2011) might the production of this acid during degradation of LCFAs with aliphatic
be due to lower solubility of this acid, which automatically translates to tails of 16–18 carbon atoms (Lalman and Bagley, 2001).
its lower degradation. In addition, as demonstrated in the study by It was observed that removal of all LCFAs at the third stage was
Lalman and Bagley (2001), and Pereira et al. (2002), this acid is the lower in comparison to the results obtained in the first stage. However,
main intermediate degradation product of unsaturated fatty acids with the degree of removal of LCFAs was still high – 79.75%, 86.98%,
18 carbon atoms in the chain. Also, Beccari et al. (1998) using a system 72.66%, 53.87% and 57.6% for capric acd, lauric acid, myristic acid,
of two reactors with partial separation of the phases during the palmitic acid and oleic acid, respectively. Furthermore, the concentra-
purification of olive mill wastewater observed the conversion of oleic tion of almost all long chain fatty acids (independently of LCFAs type)
acid to palmitic acid, at the same time they also noted very fast ß- were below inhibition thresholds reported in literature, which varies
oxidation of stearic acid to the mentioned hexadecanoic acid. within a wide range depending on the type of anaerobic sludges, kind of
Stearic acid in the feedstock was detected only in the co-digestion LCFA as well as the bacterial groups (Fig. 10). The concentration of
period of this study. While in the effluent this acid was detected oleic acid found in this study was higher than inhibitory concentrations
sporadically. For this reason, variation of the concentrations of this reported by Perieira et al. (2002). Despite this fact, this acid did not
acid in the effluent, in the feedstock and the degree of removal of this impact the performance of anerobic co-digestion. Morover, in litera-
acid during the experiment is not shown in the figures. The remaining ture, there are numerous examples of adaptation of microorganism to
acids did not show a clear trend as it was observed for palmitic acid and high concentrations of LCFAs which are reported to reduce the
oleic acid. The concentration of capric acid in effluents decreased with performance of anaerobic digestion. For instance, study by
the increase of co-substrates (Fig. 5), while for myristic acid an Broughton et al. (1998), Fernández et al. (2005) Cuetos et al. (2008),
opposite trend was noted (Fig. 7). In turn the highest concentration as well as Alves et al. (2001) shown a feasibility for acclimation of
of lauric acid was observed in the second stage (Fig. 6). However, for all microorganisms to high concentration of long chain fatty acids.

258
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Fig. 10. Inhibition thresholds reported in literature in comparison to result achieved in this study; where on x-axis is: R1 – Koster and Cramer (1987); R2 – Pereira et al. (2005); R3 –
Angelidaki and Ahring (1992); R4 – Hwu and Lettinga (1997); R5 – Pereira et al. (2002).

3.2.4. Statistical analysis organic loading rate (F=65.71, p < 0.001 and F=41.76, p < 0.001,
Pearson's correlations between average values of selected para- respectively). While, an opposite trend was observed for volatile solids
meters as well as physical-chemical indicators are presented in Tables removal (F=4.81, p < 0.001 and F=15.31, p < 0.001, respectively).
5, 1S and 2S, while, the strength of the correlation as described using As expected, selected parameters used to evaluate AD performance
classification proposed by Evans (1996). These analyses implied that (Table 5) were positively correlated to each other in at least a moderate
both the addition of GTS as well as the addition OFMSW exhibited a degree.
statistically strong or even very strong positive correlation with the The concentration of VFAs showed a very strong positive correla-
main parameters for measuring anaerobic digestion performance, such tion with the ratio of VFAs to alkalinity, while this indicator was
as: methane yield, gas production rate and volatile solids removal significantly negatively correlated with pH (very strong correlation)
(Table 5). Additionally, mentioned additives were correlated with OLR free ammonia and VS removal (moderate correlation for both) as well
and concentration of methane in biogas. However, analysis of Pearson's as alkalinity, COD and ammonium ion (weak correlation for both)
correlations for the second parameter showed a moderate positive (Table 1S). While, alkalinity had a moderate correlation with the ratio
correlation with grease trap sludge (rxy=0.53) and a weak positive of VFAs to alkalinity, weak with pH and VS removal and strong with
correlation with organic fraction of municipal waste (rxy=0.29). The ammonium ions.
fact that correlation coefficients were higher for the addition of GTS A negative correlation was detected between the concentration in
than the addition of OFMSW could indicate that the composition of the feedstock of the following acids: palmitic acid, myristic acid, oleic
biogas was affected, mostly by the introduction of the first mentioned acid and stearic acid and the concentration of lauric acid and capric
group of waste. This is confirmed by the one way AVOVA (based on acid in the effluents (Table 2S). An opposite trend was observed, in the
Tukey HSD test, the obtained results were divided into two groups, first case of the relationship between the mentioned acids measured in the
included concentration of methane in biogas during AD of sewage feedstock and the concentration of palmitic acid which was determined
sludge alone, while second during co-digestion process) as well as in effluents (rxy ranged from 0.45 to 0.6). Moreover, the LCFAs
results of the main effects of ANOVA (F=26.16, p < 0.001 and F=0.53, concentration in feedstock were also positively correlated to each other.
p=0.66 for GTS and OFMSW, respectively). Moreover, grease trap
sludge in comparison to OFMSW has a stronger impact on methane
yield (F=69.68, p < 0.001 and F=26.15, p < 0.001, respectively) and 4. Conclusion

Co-digestion of SS, GTS and OFMSW provided significant benefits


Table 5 for biogas production and VS removal. It was found that anaerobic
Pearson correlation coefficients between addition of waste and selected parameters (av. treatment of SS and GTS at a ratio of 30% resulted in increased of YM of
values were used, n=398 or n=79*- pairwise deletion of missing data).
approximately 52% compared to digestion of SS alone. Moreover, the
GTS OFMSW YM GPR OLR Methane addition of OFMSW as a next co-substrate significantly improved the
addition addition efficiency of the sewage sludge AD process by enhancing average YM up
to 82%. Additionally, a significant increase of VS removal was observed
OFMSW 0.71
addition
during the experiment, average of about 29.5% compared to control
YM 0.86 0.75 phase. The addition of biowaste had significantly affect the composition
GPR 0.90 0.86 0.93 of biogas. While, the concentration of almost all LCFAs which are the
OLR 0.86 0.83 0.81 0.93 key intermediates of degradation of fat rich materials was below the
Methane 0.53 0.29 0.72 0.56 0.50
inhibition threshold. Despite the fact that the oleic acid concentration
VS removal 0.78* 0.83* 0.85* 0.91* 0.85* 0.53*
p < 0.001 p < 0.01 p < 0.05 was higher than the critical level reported by some Authors, a negative
impact on the performance of anaerobic digestion has not occurred.

259
A. Grosser et al. Environmental Research 155 (2017) 249–260

Funding Iacovidou, E., Ohandja, D.G., Voulvoulis, N., 2012. Food waste co-digestion with sewage
sludge–Realising its potential in the UK. J. Environ. Manag. 112, 267–274.
Kabouris, J.C., Tezel, U., Pavlostathis, S.G., Engelmann, M., Dulaney, J., Gillette, R.A.,
This work was supported by Norway Grants in the Polish- Todd, A.C., 2009. Methane recovery from the anaerobic codigestion of municipal
sludge and fog. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 3701–3705.
Norwegian Research Programme operated by the National Centre for Koster, I.W., Cramer, A., 1987. Inhibition of methanogenesis from acetate in granular
Research and Development "Innovation in recycling technologies of sludge by long-chain fatty acids. Appl Environ. Microbiol. 53 (2), 403–409.
sewage sludge and other biowaste - energy and matter recovery" [POL- Lalman, J.A., Bagley, D.M., 2001. Anaerobic degradation and methanogenic inhibitory
effects of oleic and stearic acids. Water Res. 35 (12), 2975–2983.
NOR/201734/76/13]. Luostarinen, S., Luste, S., Sillanpää, M., 2009. Increased biogas production at wastewater
treatment plants through co-digestion of sewage sludge with grease trap sludge from
a meat processing plant. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (1), 79–85.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Luste, S., Luostarinen, S., 2010. Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing by-products
and sewage sludge–Effect of hygienization and organic loading rate. Bioresour.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the Technol. 101 (8), 2657–2664.
Martín-González, L., Colturato, L.F., Font, X., Vicent, T., 2010. Anaerobic codigestion of
online version at doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.02.007. the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with fog waste from a sewage treatment
plant: Recovering a wasted methane potential and enhancing the biogas yield. Waste
References Manag. 30 (10), 1854–1859.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Güiza, M.S., Fonoll, X., Peces, M., Astals, S., 2014. A
critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013.
Alves, M.M., Vieira, J.M., Pereira, R.Á., Pereira, M.A., Mota, M., 2001. Effects of lipids Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 36, 412–427.
and oleic acid on biomass development in anaerobic fixed-bed reactors. Part II: oleic Nasir, I.M., Ghazi, T.I.M., Omar, R., 2012. Production of biogas from solid organic
acid toxicity and biodegradability. Water Res. 35 (1), 264–270. wastes through anaerobic digestion: a review. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 95 (2),
Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B., 1992. Effects of free long-chain fatty acids on thermophilic 321–329.
anaerobic-digestion. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37 (6), 808–812. Neczaj, E., Bień, J., Grosser, A., Worwąg, M., Kacprzak, M., 2012. Anaerobic treatment of
APHA, 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water And Wastewater 20th ed. sewage sludge and grease trap sludge in continuous co-digestion. Glob. NEST J. 14
American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. (2), 141–148.
Appels, L., Baeyens, J., Degrève, J., Dewil, R., 2008. Principles and potential of the Neves, L., Oliveira, R., Alves, M.M., 2009. Fate of LCFA in the co-digestion of cow
anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34 (6), manure, food waste and discontinuous addition of oil. Water Res. 43 (20),
755–781. 5142–5150.
Beccari, M., Majone, M., Torrisi, L., 1998. Two-reactor system with partial phase Noutsopoulos, C., Mamais, D., Antoniou, K., Avramides, C., Oikonomopoulos, P.,
separation for anaerobic treatment of olive oil mill effluents. Water Sci. Techol 38, Fountoulakis, I., 2013. Anaerobic co-digestion of grease sludge and sewage sludge:
53–60. the effect of organic loading and grease sludge content. Bioresour. Technol. 131,
Bień, J., Grosser, A., Neczaj, E., Worwąg, M., Celary, P., 2010. Co-digestion of sewage 452–459.
sludge with different organic wastes: a review. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2, 24–30. Noutsopoulos, C., Mamais, D., Antoniou, K.E., Avramides, C., 2012. Increase of biogas
Borowski, S., 2015. Co-digestion of the hydromechanically separated organic fraction of production through co-digestion of lipids and sewage sludge. Glob. NEST J. 14 (2),
municipal solid waste with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Manag. 147, 87–94. 133–140.
Broughton, M.J., Thiele, J.H., Birch, E.J., Cohen, A., 1998. Anaerobic batch digestion of Pastor, L., Ruiz, L., Pascual, A., Ruiz, B., 2013. Co-digestion of used oils and urban
sheep tallow. Water Res. 32 (5), 1423–1428. landfill leachates with sewage sludge and the effect on the biogas production.
Caicedo, J.R., van der Steen, N.P., Arce, O., Gijzen, H.J., 2000. Effect of total ammonia ApplEnergy 107, 438–445.
nitrogen concentration and pH on growth rates of duckweed (Spirodela polyrrhiza). Pawłowska M., Siepak J., 2009. Co-digestion of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge
Water Res. 34 (15), 3829–3835. in landfill [in]: Dudzińska, M., Pawłowski, L. (Eds.), Monographs of the Committee
Cao, Y., Pawłowski, A., 2012. Sewage sludge-to-energy approaches based on anaerobic of Environmental Engineering Polish Academy of Sciences, 60, Lublin, 3, 191–198
digestion and pyrolysis: brief overview and energy efficiency assessment. Renew. (in Polish).
Sust. Energ. Rev. 16 (3), 1657–1665. Pereira, M.A., Pires, O.C., Mota, M., Alves, M.M., 2005. Anaerobic biodegradation of
Casado, A.G., Hernández, E.J.A., Espinosa, P., Vı́lchez, J.L., 1998. Determination of total oleic and palmitic acids: Evidence of mass transfer limitations caused by long chain
fatty acids (C 8–C 22) in sludges by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. fatty acid accumulation onto the anaerobic sludge. Biotech. Bioeng. 92 (1), 15–23.
Chromatogr. A 826 (1), 49–56. Pereira, M.A., Pires, O.C., Mota, M., Alves, M.M., 2002. Anaerobic degradation of oleic
Cavaleiro, A.J., Salvador, A.F., Alves, J.I., Alves, M., 2009. Continuous high rate acid by suspended and granular sludge: identification of palmitic acid as a key
anaerobic treatment of oleic acid based wastewater is possible after a step feeding intermediate. Water Sci. Technol. 45, 139–144.
start-up. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (8), 2931–2936. Ponsá, S., Gea, T., Sánchez, A., 2011. Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of
Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a municipal solid waste with several pure organic co-substrates. Biosyst. Eng. 108 (4),
review. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (10), 4044–4064. 352–360.
Cuetos, M.J., Gómez, X., Otero, M., Morán, A., 2008. Anaerobic digestion of solid Razaviarani, V., Buchanan, I.D., Malik, S., Katalambula, H., 2013. Pilot-scale anaerobic
slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory scale: influence of co-digestion with the co-digestion of municipal wastewater sludge with restaurant grease trap waste. J.
organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Biochem. Eng. J. 40 (1), Environ. Manag. 123, 26–33.
99–106. Silvestre, G., Rodríguez-Abalde, A., Fernández, B., Flotats, X., Bonmatí, A., 2011.
Dai, X., Duan, N., Dong, B., Dai, L., 2013. High-solids anaerobic co-digestion of sewage Biomass adaptation over anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and trapped grease
sludge and food waste in comparison with mono digestions: stability and waste. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 6830–6836.
performance. Waste Manag. 33 (2), 308–316. Silvestre, G., Illa, J., Fernández, B., Bonmatí, A., 2014. Thermophilic anaerobic co-
Davidsson, A., Lövstedt, C., La Cour Jansen, J., Gruvberger, C., Aspergen, H., 2008. digestion of sewage sludge with grease waste: effect of long chain fatty acids in the
Codigestion of grease trap sludge and sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 28 (6), 986–992. methane yield and its dewatering properties. Appl. Energy 117, 87–94.
Dong, L., Zhenhong, Y., Yongming, S., 2010. Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of Sosnowski, P., Klepacz-Smolka, A., Kaczorek, K., Ledakowicz, S., 2008. Kinetic
water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW). Bioresour. investigations of methane co-fermentation of sewage sludge and organic fraction of
Technol. 101 (8), 2722–2728. municipal solid wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (13), 5731–5737.
Evans, J.D., 1996. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Brooks/Cole Wan, C., Zhou, Q., Fu, G., Li, Y., 2011. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of
Publishing, Pacific Grove. thickened waste activated sludge and fat, oil and grease. Waste Manag. 31 (8),
Fernández, A., Sanchez, A., Font, X., 2005. Anaerobic co-digestion of a simulated organic 1752–1758.
fraction of municipal solid wastes and fats of animal and vegetable origin. Biochem. Wang, L., Aziz, T.N., Francis, L., 2013. Determining the limits of anaerobic co-digestion
Eng. J. 26 (1), 22–28, (2005). of thickened waste activated sludge with grease interceptor waste. Water Res 47 (11),
Girault, R., Bridoux, G., Nauleau, F., Poullain, C., Buffet, J., Peu, P., Sadowski, A., Béline, 3835–3844.
F., 2012. Anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and greasy sludge from Weiland, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol.
flotation process: batch versus CSTR experiments to investigate optimal design. Biotechnol. 85 (4), 849–860.
Bioresour. Technol. 105, 1–8. Worwąg, M., Neczaj, E., Grosser, A., Krzemińska, D., 2011. Methane production from
Griffin, M.E., Mcmahon, K.D., Mackie, R.I., Raskin, L., 1998. Methanogenic population fat-rich materials. Civ. Environ. Eng. Rep. 6, 147–162.
dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters treating municipal solid waste and Yalcinkaya, S., Malina, J.F., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater
biosolids. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 57 (3), 342–355. sludge and un-dewatered grease trap waste for assessing direct feed of grease trap
Grosser, A., Worwąg, M., Neczaj, E., Kamizela, T., 2013. Co-digestion of organic fraction waste in municipal digesters. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 104, 490–497.
of municipal waste with different organic wastes: a review. In: Pawlowski, A., Yenigün, O., Demirel, B., 2013. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review.
Dzudzinska, M.R., Pawłowski, A. (Eds.), Environmental Engineering IV. Taylor and Process Biochem. 48 (5), 901–911.
Francis, London, 231–242. Zawieja, I., Wolny, L., Wolski, P., 2015. Influence of ultrasonic pretreatment on
Grosser, A., Neczaj, E., 2016. Enhancement of biogas production from sewage sludge by anaerobic digestion of excess sludge from the food industry. Annu. Set. Environ.
addition of grease trap sludge. Energ. Convers. Manag. 125, 301–308. Prot. 17, 351–366.
Hartmann, H., Ahring, B.K., 2006. Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
fraction of municipal solid waste: an overview. Water Sci. Technol. 53 (8), 7–22. waste for biogas production. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 38, 383–392.
Hwu, C.S., Lettinga, G., 1997. Acute toxicity of oleate to acetate-utilizing methanogens in Zupančič, G.D., Uranjek-Ževart, N., Roš, M., 2008. Full-scale anaerobic co-digestion of
mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic sludges. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 21 (4), organic waste and municipal sludge. Biomass-. Bioenerg. 32 (2), 162–167.
297–301.

260

You might also like