thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of winery...

Mesophilic and Thermophilic anaerobic co‐digestion of winery wastewater

sludge and wine lees: an integrated approach for wine industry

C. Da Ros1, C. Cavinato1, P. Pavan1, D. Bolzonella2

1Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca’Foscari of Venice, Calle Larga Santa Marta 30123 Venice, Italy.

2Department of Biotechnology, University of Verona, Strade le Grazie 15, 37134 Verona, Italy.

1

Trends in world wine production: stable production of 270 millions hL per year in the last 15 years

2

2014 wine production per country

3

2014 wine production per country: Europe leads

4

5

Environmental impacts of wine production ….Waste «pressure» …..

6

Wastewater(and then sludge)

Grape pomaceWastewater

(and then sludge)

8

Stalks


(and then sludge)

9

Stalks

Lees


(and then sludge)

Winery Wastes

Grape pomace62%

Lees14%

Stalks12%

Wastewater sludge12%

Ruggieri et al., 2009

Organic waste: 40‐60 kg/hl of wine produced

10

Wastewater200‐400 l/hl of wine produced

Integrated treatment of winery wastesby ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

11


12


13

VINASSES (AFTER DISTILLATION)

14

Why anaerobic digestion ??

15

Why anaerobic digestion ??> 8600

14,000 AD plants operating within EUSome 8,000 MW installed powerSome 300 plants for biomethane upgrade

16

Why anaerobic digestion ??

Digestate: a renewable fertilizer and carbon sequestrer

17

Mesophilic and Thermophilic anaerobicco‐digestion of winery waste and sludge

A pilot scale trial

Substrates characteristicsParameter Unit Waste Activated Sludge Wine Lees

average std.dev range average std.dev range

TS gTS/kgww 158.9 49.3 22.7‐267.8 62.0 27.9 12.3 ‐120.0

VS gVS/kgww 143.5 41.6 20.7 – 237.3 33.6 15.1 10.3 ‐73.0

VS/TS % 88% 3 79‐ 93% 57% 13% 29 ‐ 86%

COD mg/g TS 868 69.4 749‐1008 559 151 312 – 919

sCOD g/l nd nd nd 167 45 111 ‐204

TKN mg N‐NH4+/g TS 52.7 16.3 14.5 ‐80.3 30.3 12.7 9.7 ‐68.7

NH4+ mg N NH4

+/l nd nd nd 33.9 22.7 6.7 – 95.3

Ptot mg P‐PO43‐/g TS 7.3 2.0 2.5 ‐10.7 6.2 2.9 2.6 ‐ 14.3

Polyphenols mg HGal/l nd nd nd 1537 1189 260‐3,980

18

Substrates characteristicsParameter Unit Waste Activated Sludge Wine Lees

average std.dev range average std.dev range

TS gTS/kgww 158.9 49.3 22.7‐267.8 62.0 27.9 12.3 ‐120.0

VS gVS/kgww 143.5 41.6 20.7 – 237.3 33.6 15.1 10.3 ‐73.0

VS/TS % 88% 3 79‐ 93% 57% 13% 29 ‐ 86%

COD mg/g TS 868 69.4 749‐1008 559 151 312 – 919

sCOD g/l nd nd nd 167 45 111 ‐204

TKN mg N‐NH4+/g TS 52.7 16.3 14.5 ‐80.3 30.3 12.7 9.7 ‐68.7

NH4+ mg N NH4

+/l nd nd nd 33.9 22.7 6.7 – 95.3

Ptot mg P‐PO43‐/g TS 7.3 2.0 2.5 ‐10.7 6.2 2.9 2.6 ‐ 14.3

Polyphenols mg HGal/l nd nd nd 1537 1189 260‐3,980

19

Pilot scale anaerobic reactors

• Two parallel CSTR reactors• Volume reactors: 230 l• Organic load:

avg 3.2 kgCOD/m3d• HRT: avg 23 d• Temperature:

37°C & 55°C

20

Mesophilic process

44,555,566,577,588,59

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 100 200 300

pH

N‐NH4+(m

g/l)

time(d)

N‐NH4+ pH

start‐up

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 100 200 300

TS, V

S (g/kg)

time(d)

VS TSstart‐up

0102030405060708090

0 100 200 300

Polyph

enols (mgH

Gal/l)

time(d)

Polyphenols

start‐up

00,050,10,150,20,250,30,350,40,450,5

0 100 200 300

SGP(m3/kgCO

D))

time(d)

SGP

start‐up

Process was stable:pH 7.46 N‐NH4+: 400 mg N‐NH4+VFA < 200 mgCOD/lTotal alkalinity: 2,248 mgCaCO3/l

21

Mesophilic process

44,555,566,577,588,59

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 100 200 300

pH

N‐NH4+(m

g/l)

time(d)

N‐NH4+ pH

start‐up

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 100 200 300

TS, V

S (g/kg)

time(d)

VS TSstart‐up

0102030405060708090

0 100 200 300

Polyph

enols (mgH

Gal/l)

time(d)

Polyphenols

start‐up

00,050,10,150,20,250,30,350,40,450,5

0 100 200 300

SGP(m3/kgCO

D))

time(d)

SGP

start‐up

Improve of degradation efficiencies in the long period:

Biomass acclimatation

22

Mesophilic process

44,555,566,577,588,59

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 100 200 300

pH

N‐NH4+(m

g/l)

time(d)

N‐NH4+ pH

start‐up

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 100 200 300

TS, V

S (g/kg)

time(d)

VS TSstart‐up

0102030405060708090

0 100 200 300

Polyph

enols (mgH

Gal/l)

time(d)

Polyphenols

start‐up

00,050,10,150,20,250,30,350,40,450,5

0 100 200 300

SGP(m3/kgCO

D))

time(d)

SGP

start‐up

Average biogas producton: 0.39 m3/kgCOD

with 64‐73% of methane

23

Thermophilic process

4

4,5

55,5

6

6,57

7,5

88,5

9

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 50 100

pH

N‐NH4+(m

g/l)

time(d)

N‐NH4+

pH

start‐up

00,050,1

0,150,2

0,250,3

0,350,4

0,450,5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

SGP(m3/kgCO

D)

time(d)

SGP

start‐up

Volatile fatty acids accumulated (6 gCOD/l)VFAs in the bulk were composed mainly by acetic andpropionic acids (78% and 10% respectively)pH fell down to 5.3Specific gas production and methane content reduced

24

Was methanogenic activity inhibited by missing trace elements?

Takashimaiet al., 2011

25

Different addition of trace elements in the feed mixture

RUN 0 RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

Fe (mg/l) 0 4.3 3.01 2.15 0.86

Ni (mg/l) 0 0.46 0.32 0.23 0.09

Co (mg/l) 0 0.51 0.36 0.25 0.10

Values suggested by Takashima et al., 2011REFERENCE VALUE

70% of REFERENCE VALUE



26

Specific biogas production

00,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,91

0 100 200 300 400

SGP (m

3/kgCO

D)

time (days)55°C AVERAGE 37°C

start‐upRUN0

2°start‐up

RUN3RUN2

RUN1

RUN4

27

Comparison of operational conditionsParameter Unit 37°C

55°C

RUN0 RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4

Stability parameters

pH ‐ 7.38 6.7 7.91 7.78 7.82 7.9

TA mg CaCO3/l 2287 3673 3390 2439 3062 3023

N‐NH4+ mg N‐NH4

+/l 373 820 630 455 665 644

Digestate characteristics

TS gTS/kgww 24.7 31.9 21.3 19.8 22.1 20.3

VS gVS/kgww 14.3 19.5 12.1 13.3 11.6 11.5

VS/TS % 58 61 57 67 52 61

COD mg COD/gTS 614 671 613 680 602 556

sCOD mg COD/l 391 5394 852 740 870 882

TKN mg N‐NH4+/gTS 37.9 40.4 32.8 35.9 37.6 33.1

Ptot mg P‐PO43‐/gTS 8 11.1 10.2 11.3 9.8 8.5

Polyphenols mg HGal/l 26 153 66 61 57 ‐

Yields

SGP m3/kgCOD 0.386 0.390 0.454 0.386 0.381 0.347

COD removal % 79% ‐ 88% 73% 70% 65%

Stability parameter in the optimal range for anaerobic digestion

Higher polyphenols removal with metals

adition

Highest dosage of metals improved

biogas prodcution in comparison with mesophilic process

28

Digestate dewaterability:mesophilic & thermophilic with maximum metal augmentation

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10

CST (s)

conditioner dose (g/kgTS)

37°C 55°c meccanically filtrable

1

10

100

1000

0 2 4 6 8 10

SRF (x10

12 m

/kg)

conditioner dose (g/kgTS)

37°C 55°C meccanically filtrable

29

Final remarks• Winery waste sludge and wine lees could be easily co‐treated by mesophilic anaerobic digestion (SGP: 0.39 m3/kgCOD)

• Thermophilic digestion showed instability, with accumulation of acetic and propionic acids and methanogenic inhibition

• Addition of trace elements (Fe, Co and Ni) in thermophilic reactor improved process stability

• Dewaterability tests showed thatmesophilicdigestate performed better

• Higher costs for metals and flocculants for thermoAD should be kept in mind !

30

31

Organised by the Specialist Group on Winery Waste Management of the International Water Assocition

thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of winery...

Documents