Next Article in Journal
Remote Sensing Methodology for Roughness Estimation in Ungauged Streams for Different Hydraulic/Hydrodynamic Modeling Approaches
Next Article in Special Issue
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Modelling for Biogas Production in Pre-Commercialized Integrated Anaerobic-Aerobic Bioreactors (IAAB)
Previous Article in Journal
Human-Dominated Land Use Change in a Phosphate Mining Area and Its Impact on the Water Environment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cesspits as Onsite Sanitation Facilities in the Non-Sewered Palestinian Rural Areas: Users’ Satisfaction, Needs and Perception
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with Sewage Sludge: Simulation and Optimization for Maximum Biogas Production

1
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, Semenyih 43500, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Sungai Long Campus, Jalan Sungai Long, Cheras, Kajang 43000, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand
4
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand
5
Faculty of Bioengineering and Technology, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Jeli Campus, Jeli 17600, Kelantan, Malaysia
6
Department of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, Mathematical and Statistical Science, Institute of Autonomous System, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
7
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Planning, Universitas Pertamina, Komplek Universitas Pertamina, Jalan Sinabung II, Terusan Simprug, Jakarta 12220, Indonesia
8
Department of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, HICoE-Centre for Biofuel and Biochemical Research, Institute of Self-Sustainable Building, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(7), 1075; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071075
Submission received: 22 January 2022 / Revised: 2 March 2022 / Accepted: 9 March 2022 / Published: 29 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Quality Engineering and Wastewater Treatment Ⅱ)

Abstract

:
Anaerobic co-digestion (ACD), where two or more substrates are digested simultaneously, is able to prevent the problems associated with mono-digestion. The aim of this study is to develop a simulation model of ACD of food waste (FW) with sewage sludge (SS) for biogas production coupled with pre-treatment, sludge handling and biogas upgrading using SuperPro Designer v9.0. The Design Expert v13 is employed to perform optimization and evaluate the effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT), sludge recycle ratio, water to feed ratio (kg/kg) and SS to FW ratio (kg/kg) on the methane flow, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and volatile solids (VS). The results show that the methane yield of 0.29 L CH4/g COD removed, COD removal efficiency of 81.5% and VS removal efficiency of 69.2% are obtained with a HRT of 38.8 days, water to feed ratio (kg/kg) of 0.048, sludge recycle ratio of 0.438 and SS to FW ratio (kg/kg) of 0.044. Economic analysis has shown this study is feasible with a payback time of 6.2 years, net present value (NPV) of $5,283,000 and internal return rate (IRR) of 10.2%. This indicates that the ACD of FW and SS is economically feasible in a larger scale.

1. Introduction

The amount of food waste (FW) produced globally has increased vastly due to the growth in population and urbanization [1]. Pramanik et al. [2] outlined the statistics of Solid Waste Corporation Management of Malaysia (SWCorp) that 16,687 tons of food waste is produced daily in Malaysia. The development of the National Strategic Plan for Food Waste Management by the Malaysian government is to encourage the diversion and minimization of food waste into landfill by processing food waste to compost; the proper treatment of food waste and effective recovery of landfill gases [3,4]. Additionally, the COVID-19 virus outbreak caused the implementation of lockdown in different countries, resulting in the movement of workers being restricted, which caused the generation of food waste at the production level, since the crops were not harvested on time [5].
According to Lim et al. [6], the worldwide energy demand for 2030 is estimated to rise from current total of 472 quadrillion Btu to 678 quadrillion Btu. Therefore, this huge demand has caused an urgent need to replace the fossil fuel with alternative energy technologies such as biomass, wind and solar. Among all the renewable energy, biomass is one of the dominant energies used globally which can deliver a huge reduction in carbon emissions. Briquetting, gasification and anaerobic digestion are all possibilities, which transform the raw biomass into fuel products such as biogas [7]. Biogas is comprised of 60–70% methane, 30–40% carbon dioxide and trace amounts of hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia [8]. Biogas can be used in the generation of heat and electricity and also as biofuel to replace the non-renewable fossil fuel [9]. Biogas can be produced using different biodegradable wastes such as food waste, animal manure, forest and agriculture waste [10].
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is proposed as a low-cost and environmental friendly technology for renewable energy production as compared with landfill, incinerations and composting process [8,11]. The remaining digestate is turn into a nutrient rich sludge which can be sold as fertilizer [8,12]. Anaerobic co-digestion (ACD) of FW with other substrates is proposed to compensate for the problems occurring in the mono-digestion of food waste. ACD is used widely in most of the industry to prevent the low buffer capacity and the high carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N) problem associated with the mono-digestion of FW [13]. Mehariya et al. [14] reported that one of the best co-substrates for FW digestion is sewage sludge (SS). SS is rich in nitrogen and trace components but low in biodegradable organic content, therefore mono-digestion of SS results in low biomethane potential [15]. SS is one of the potential co-substrates in the ACD of FW as it is able to provide alkalinity and essential micronutrients in the digestion process to improve the acidization in the AD of FW [16]. SS has high amounts of active bacteria which make the co-substrate favorable to the formation of microorganisms in the AD process [13]. Moreover, the low carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio of 6–10 in the SS needs to be co-digested with substrates that have higher C/N ratio such as FW to compensate for the lack in organic substances and prevent any inhibition in the process. This is due to the fact that an optimal C/N ratio for the anaerobic digestion is in the range of 20-30 [17]. Thus, the ACD of these two substrates is an attractive approach in increasing the methane yield. Table 1 displays the composition of FW and SS.
The AD process can be influenced by several operating parameters such as the substrates’ composition, the mixing ratio of co-substrate, types of reactor as well as the environmental factors like temperature, hydraulic retention time (HRT), organic loading rate (OLR), pH and nutrients [20]. HRT is known as the average time needed for the liquid organic matter to spend in the digester [21]. Short retention time results in insufficient time for optimal substrate degradation process while prolonged retention time requires a large volume of reactor although the methane yield is higher [9]. According to Tyagi et al. [22], the optimum HRT for mesophilic digestion is 10–40 days whereas thermophilic digestion is 14 days. Besides that, the moisture content is one of the significant factors that affects the AD process. The methanogenic activity in high-solids sludge digestion increases when the initial moisture content increases from 90 to 96% in the AD of organic municipal solid waste under mesophilic conditions [23]. Nevertheless, lower volatile solids are reported in the substrate when the initial moisture content is higher as the re-addition of water into the digesters would cause the wash out of nutrients from microorganisms [23]. The ratio of sludge recycle significantly affects the AD performance. According to Jiang et al. [24], biogas yields increase from 0.17 to 4.03 L/(L.d) when the OLR increases from 0.75 to 9.00 g VS/(L.d) for AD of municipal solid waste. However, the biogas yield decreased to 3.8 L/(L.d) when OLR increased to 11 g VS/(L.d). This is because overfeeding organic solids into the anaerobic digester will cause the accumulation of VFAs and making the environment become less favorable for the micro bacteria to survive due to the decrease in pH level [13]. Different mixture ratios of the food waste and sewage sludge could affect the digestion performance as the ratio implies the nutrient balance in the mixture [17]. Chow et al. [17] reported that the optimum mixing ratio for the ACD of FW and SS is at a 60:40 ratio.
In order to predict the actual scenarios that happen in an AD process by using the minimum amount of time and resources, simulation work is preferred over the experimental work. Aguilar et al. [25] has carried out a study to investigate the feasibility of ACD of FW and primary sludge under the thermophilic and mesophilic conditions using ASPEN PLUS. However, the study is mainly focused on the power generation and heat recovery process. Thus, the main purpose of this paper is to develop the simulation model to determine the feasibility of the biogas generation from the ACD of FW with SS and examining the effect of HRT, water to feed ratio (kg/kg), sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio (kg/kg) on the methane flow, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and volatile solids (VS) removal efficiencies. The process includes the pre-treatment of substrates, AD process, and followed by biogas upgrading and sludge treatment. The simulation and optimization are modelled with SuperPro Designer v9.0 and Design Expert v13. Based on the results, the methane yield (L CH4/kg CODremoved) is calculated and compared with the literature values. Lastly, economic analysis is conducted to determine the feasibility of this study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. SuperPro Simulation Model for Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Sewage Sludge

The ACD process of FW and SS for biogas production is modelled using the SuperPro Designer v9.0. The simulation flowsheet for the anaerobic ACD of FW and SS is shown in Figure 1. The feed flowrate of 25,000 kg/h is used as the basis of this simulation work, as this is according to the statistics of food waste generated in Petaling Jaya one week before the implementation of the Movement Control Order (MCO) by the Malaysia government [26]. The FW and SS with a total flowrate of 25,000 kg/h were first mixed together and sent to the grinder (GR-101) and sterilizer (ST-101) for mechanical and thermal pre-treatment. The mass flowrate and composition of the two substrates used in the SuperPro simulations are shown in Table A1 (Appendix A). Pre-treatment needs to be employed in the digestion process to accelerate the hydrolysis rate for proteins and lipids and enhance the biogas productions, especially for the digestion process involving food waste due to presence of cellulose content [27]. According to Izumi et al. [28], when the mean particle size of substrates reduced from 0.843 mm to 0.391 mm, the total COD solubilization increase by 40%. Therefore, mechanical pre-treatment such as grinding need to be employed to increase the surface area for a better contact between the substrate itself and the bacteria [13]. Furthermore, thermal pretreatment is required to destroy the cytomembrane of substrate and thus accelerate the hydrolysis reactions and biogas yield [29]. Ma et al. [30] found out that the biogas production from FW is improved by 11% when the substrates undergoes heat treatment at 120 °C for 30 min. The increase in biogas yield by thermal pretreatment is due to the COD solubilization.
The pretreated substrates (Mixtures-2) are then mixed with water and sent to the anaerobic digester (AD-101) for biogas production. The digester is maintained at a temperature pf 35 °C for mesophilic conditions [31]. The biogas produced from the top of the anaerobic digester is sent to a bio trickling filter (TF-101) and a condenser (HX-101) for desulfurization and dehumidification for biogas upgrading purposes. The biogas upgrading process is significant to prevent the formation of carbonic acid and sulfuric acid due to the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and water (H2O) that increase the corrosion rate in the gas engine [32]. Acid is formed when the water reacts with H2S. As reported by Khoshnevisan et al. [33], the permissible H2S concentration in the biogas used for direct combustion purpose is 200–500 ppm. A biological approach such as bio trickling filtration (BTF) is employed in the desulfurization process due to its low operating condition (30–35 °C and 1 atm) [34]. The bio trickling filter bed is packed with sulfide-oxidizing bacteria (SOB) which H2S oxidized on the bed material [33]. According to Huertas et al. [35], the H2S removal efficiency using BTF system can be more than 95%. The biogas is saturated with water vapor which may cause condensation and reduce the combustion performance [36]. Biogas with relative humidity less than 80% is required for the high effectiveness of the gas engine [37]. The upgraded biogas can then be used as biofuel in a gas engine.
The digestate produced from the bottom is sent for aerobic digestion in the aerobic pond (AB-101) to further digest the organic matters under an oxygen-rich environment. High removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) can be achieved in the aerobic pond. Stoichiometry reactions of Equations (1) and (2) show the conversion of the organic matter which is carried out by the mixed bacterial cultures [38]. According to Butler et al. [39], the typical detention time for an aerobic pond is 2–6 days and with a BOD removal efficiency of 95%. The kinetics adopted in the anaerobic and aerobic digestion are shown in Table 2. Monod kinetics models are used in this study.
Organic   matter + O 2 + nutrients bacteria CO 2 + NH 3 + new   cells
Cells + 5 O 2 bacteria 5 CO 2 + 2 H 2 O + NH 3 + energy
Primary and secondary clarifiers (CL-101 & CL-102) are used before and after the aerobic pond as a waste-activated sludge treatment and act as the holding tank. The sludge leaving from the bottom of the aerobic pond is recycled back to the aerobic pond feed inlet. The recycled sludge is known as return activated sludge (RAS) [38]. Coagulant is added into the secondary clarifier to improve the performance of suspended solid removal. To ensure the wastewater meets the discharge effluent standards (Standard A), the granular media (GM) filter (GMF-101) is used to reduce the BOD to <20 mg/L and COD < 120 mg/L [42]. The sludge that leaves from the bottom of CL-101 is sent to a splitter (FSP-101) where a portion of it is recycled back to the AD-101 inlet and the remainder is mixed with the CL-102 sludge, prior to being sent to the belt press filter (BF-101) for dewatering process. Finally, the dewatered sludge is sent for drying in the sludge dryer (SLDR-101) before being sold as fertilizer.
The HRT used in the anaerobic digester, CL-101 sludge recycle ratio, the amount of water required to be added into the process and the amount of SS and FW in the feedstock is optimized in the subsequent stage. The base case simulations use 10 days of HRT and zero amount of water, recycled sludge and sewage sludge. The base case results are shown in Section 3.5 and compared with the optimized results. The specifications used in the process for each equipment is summarized in Table A2.

2.2. Process Optimisation

In this study, the optimum HRT, water to feed ratio (kg/kg), sludge recycle ratio and the SS to FW ratio (kg/kg) is determined using Design Expert v13 to give maximum methane flow, COD and VS removal efficiencies at the anaerobic digester. Response surface methodology (RSM) is employed. RSM is an optimization tool that involves complex calculation which can be used to analyze the interrelationship between the process variables and their influence on the process performance and quality [43,44]. In this study, optimization is conducted through the application of RSM uses the Box–Behnken Design (BBD) method to determine the number of experiments. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test the adequacy of the derived model and the significance of each of the process parameters on the response are discussed in Section 3. The model equation is derived using RSM which can be applied for the response estimation and determination of optimal conditions [38,39]. Table 3 shows the independent variables set in the Design Expert and their upper and lower bounds limits which are chosen based on the literature values [12]. The responses variables include methane yield (L CH4/g COD removed), COD removal efficiency (%) and VS removal efficiency.
There was a total of 29-run of BBD design points generated from the Design Expert v13 which includes 24 factorial experiments and 5 repeated runs at the center point (Table 3). The design matrix is shown in Table A3. The data for different experiments are entered into the SuperPro simulation manually and the results of methane flow (kg/h), COD and VS removal efficiencies are attained. The results for different trials are then analyzed using Design Expert. The effects of alteration of the process parameters and their impacts on the response variable are discussed. Subsequently, the methane yield is calculated using Equation (3) based on the methane flow and COD removal efficiency obtained from the simulations.
Methane   Yield   L   CH 4 / g   COD   removed = Q CH 4 Q in COD in   ×   COD   Removal   Efficiency
where QCH4 is the methane volumetric flowrate (L/h), Qin is the feedstock volumetric flowrate (L/h), CODin is the initial COD concentration (g/L). The methane mass flow obtained from the simulations is converted into volumetric flowrate using density of methane (0.627 kg/m3) at 35 °C.

3. Results and Discussions

In this section, the effect of the HRT, water to feed ratio, sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW mixing ratio on methane flow, COD and VS removal efficiencies based on the results from RSM are discussed. The ANOVA analysis and three-dimensional plot of the response surface are displayed to see the interactions between the process parameters. For all the responses, the experimental results were fitted to the second order regression polynomial equation. Subsequently, numerical optimization results which give the optimal conditions are shown. These optimum process parameters were used in the SuperPro simulations and the generated final results are discussed and compared with the base case results. Lastly, the results of economic analysis are summarized.

3.1. Effect of HRT, Water to Feed Ratio (kg/kg), Sludge Recycle Ratio and the SS to FW Ratio (kg/kg) on Methane Flow

Methane is the main product in the ACD process as it represents the performance of the entire digestion process as well as the economic feasibility. Therefore, the effect of the process parameters on the methane production needs to be studied. The ANOVA analysis for the response surface of methane flow is displayed in Table 4.
Models with p-value less than 0.05 are significant. From Table 4, it can be seen that the p-value for A, B, C, D, AC, AD, BC, CD, A2, B2 and D2 are less than 0.05. This concludes that these model terms significantly impact the methane flow. Conversely, for the model with p-value larger than 0.05, this indicates that the term is not significant. By examining the fit summary, it showed that the quadratic model is the best fit for the response. The second order polynomial model Equation (4) gives the relationship between the HRT, water to feed ratio, sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio from the experimental data and can be used as an estimation for the methane flow.
Methane   flow   = 661.78 + 44.94 A 224.65 B + 118.49 C 565.31 D + 0.21 AB 0.97 AC + 1.96 AD + 17.42 BC 2.20 * D + 27.86 CD 0.61 A   2 + 36.99 B   2 1.78 C   2 + 78.86 D   2
The perturbation plot shown in Figure 2 is used to monitor the change in the methane flow by changing one of the process parameters throughout its range whereas the other variables are kept constant. From Figure 2, it can be noticed that the change in HRT results in a larger deviation from the reference point compared to the other three ratios. This shows that HRT is the most sensitive parameter in methane flow response, a slight change in HRT results in large changes in the methane flow.
Figure 3 show the 3D surface graph plot of the significant models with a p-value of less than 0.05 in the ANOVA analysis. As shown in Figure 3a, methane flow increases when the HRT and sludge recycle ratio increases. Maximum methane mass flowrate is achieved when the HRT is at 40 days and the sludge from primary clarifier is fully recycled back to the anaerobic digester. The HRT must be long enough to avoid the methanogens being washed out from the digester and causing the process failure [45]. Long HRT promotes higher microorganism activity and higher biogas yield but excess HRT could lead to ammonic nitrogen accumulation and inhibition to anaerobic digestion [46,47]. According to Tyagi et al. [22], the optimum HRT for mesophilic digestion is 10–40 days. Figure 3a plot shows that the methane flow increased linearly with the HRT, and indicates that the response is in line with the optimum range.
Meanwhile, in order to enhance the methane production, the amount of sludge recycled needs to be high. This is because the organic matters in the anaerobic digester inlet increases, thus leading to more methane being produced. Magdalena et al. [48] reported that the anaerobic inhibition may occur if the feeding volume to the digester is too high, which results in shock loading of microorganisms and accumulation of VFA. However, the linear relationship between the sludge recycled ratio and methane flow throughout the entire range indicates that the simulated digester volume is capable of handling all the sludge leaving from the bottom of CL-101. From Figure 3b, the methane flow decreases along with the SS amount due to the amount of nutrients and production of VFA is not taken into account in the SuperPro simulations. For Figure 3c, it can be noticed that when more water is added into the AD process, lesser methane is produced. The results deviate from the literature findings where an increase in moisture content enhances the methane production. One of the reasons may be due to the decrease in the composition of organic contents.

3.2. Effect of HRT, Water to Feed Ratio (kg/kg), Sludge Recycle Ratio and the SS to FW Ratio (kg/kg) on Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Removal Efficiency

COD is a measurement of oxygen needed to oxidize the organic matter in water [49]. COD is one of the important characteristics in the digested sludge that is used for land application, as the COD levels need to comply with the local environmental standards [50]. Therefore, the COD concentration in the inlet and outlet need to be recorded and removal efficiency is calculated using Equation (5) [51]. The ANOVA analysis for the response surface of COD removal efficiency is displayed in Table 5.
COD   Removal   Efficiency % = Initial   COD Final   COD Initial   COD × 100   %  
The model terms of A; B; C; D; AC; AD; CD; A2; C2; and D2 are significant as the p-value is less than 0.05. This shows the COD removal efficiency is significantly affected by these model terms. Meanwhile, since AB; BC; BD; and B2 have a p-value larger than 0.05, therefore it can be said that these terms are not significant. The fit summary results generated from Design Expert shows that the response surface can be modelled using quadratic model. The second order polynomial model Equation (6) is used to estimate the value of COD removal efficiency.
COD   removal   efficiency = 62.53 + 1.16 A + 3.45 B + 1.70 C 12.58 D 0.08 AB 011 AC + 0.21 AD 0.70 BC + 1.70 BD + 3.72 CD 0.02 A 2 + 0.97 B 2 2.78 C 2 2.80 D 2
The perturbation plot for the COD removal efficiency response surface is shown in Figure 4. Similar to the perturbation plot for methane flow in Figure 2, the HRT gives the largest deviation in COD removal efficiency, indicating it is the most sensitive parameter.
Figure 5 displays the 3D surface plot for the COD removal efficiency response surface. The model terms shown in Figure 5a–c give significant results in ANOVA analysis. Even though the model terms in Figure 5d are insignificant, however it is shown to give the effect of the addition of water in the ACD process to the COD removal efficiency. From Figure 5a, it can be noticed that COD removal efficiency increased along with the HRT at constant sludge recycle ratio. This is because as the HRT increases, the methane production increases, conversion of carbon element to biogas is higher therefore the COD removal efficiency is higher [51]. This can also be used to explain Figure 5b where the COD removal efficiency is maximum at zero SS to FW ratio. However, the COD removal efficiency decreases when the sludge recycle ratio increases and the methane flow increases. This is due to the fact that, as the sludge is recycled, the amount of organic matter that contributes to the COD value in the anaerobic digester inlet stream increases. Therefore, with the same amount of organic matter being degraded as compared to zero recycle, the COD removal efficiency decreases. It can be noticed that the 3D surface plot in Figure 5c is flat which indicates that these two process parameters have a minimal effect on COD removal efficiency. From Figure 5d, the COD removal efficiency increases when the water to feed ratio increases from 0 to 1. This is due to the fact that the addition of water causes the COD concentration in the feed to be reduced.

3.3. Effect of HRT, Water to Feed Ratio (kg/kg), Sludge Recycle Ratio and the SS to FW Ratio (kg/kg) on Volatile Solids (VS) Removal Efficiency

Volatile solids (VS) is part of the total solids in the substrate [51]. VS represents the metabolic status of the microbial community in anaerobic system [50]. Equation (7) is used to calculate VS removal efficiency. The VS removal efficiency is known as the amount of volatile solids decomposed divided by the quantity of volatile solids being fed into the anaerobic digester [52]. Table 6 shows the ANOVA analysis for the VS removal efficiency response surface.
VS   Removal   Efficiency % = Initial   VS Final   VS Initial   VS ×   100   %  
From Table 6, it can be noticed that the p-value for all the model terms are less than 0.05, except for B2. This indicates that only B2 is not significant. The VS removal efficiency response surface can be modelled using a quadratic model based on the fit summary results using Equation (8).
VS   Removal   Efficiency = 53.53 + 0.89 A + 9.01 B + 0.89 C 11.52 D 0.09 AB 0.06 AC + 0.16 AD 2.23 BC + 2.96 BD + 2.09 CD 0.01 A 2 0.39 B 2 1.26 C 2 1.79 D 2
Figure 6 shows the perturbation graph for the VS removal efficiency response surface. Unlike the methane flow and COD removal efficiency, both the HRT and water to feed ratio have the dominant effect on the VS removal efficiency. Reason of this is discussed under the description for Figure 7.
Three of the model terms’ 3D plots are shown in Figure 7 to discuss the effect and interactions of each process’ parameters on the VS removal efficiency. Based on the ANOVA analysis in Table 6, all the model terms which involved two independent variables are significant. The curvature of the plot shown in Figure 7a is the largest. This indicates that both the HRT and water to feed ratio has a linear relationship and have a significant impact on the removal of VS. Hence, the maximum VS removal efficiency of 72.5% can be achieved using the longest HRT (40 days) and highest amount of water (25,000 kg/h). Lower VS is present in the digester and is reported when the moisture content is high, due to the possibility of the washing out of organic solids when water is added into the anaerobic digestion process [23]. The poorer VS present indicates a higher VS removal efficiency. Therefore, this explains the perturbation plot in Figure 6 which shows that the water to feed ratio has a significant effect on the VS removal rate. Furthermore, the VS concentration indicates the potential amount of biogas that can be produced from the substrates [51]. Hence, the longer the HRT, the higher the methane yield, the higher the VS removal efficiency. In Figure 7b, the VS removal efficiency decreases when the amount of SS increases. This is due to that fact that less biogas is produced when the amount of sewage sludge increases. Moreover, it can be seen from Figure 7c that the increase in the sludge recycle ratio only gives a very little increment in VS removal efficiency. This is owing to the little amount of VS remaining in the digested sludge and thus recycling the sludge only increases the small amount of VS in the digester. Therefore, the final and initial VS present in the substrate are almost the same. According to Lee et al. [53], the volatile solid removal efficiency for a bench scale ACD of FW and SS ranges between 46.6 and 61.7%. From the three figures above, it can be noticed that the VS removal efficiency rangesfrom 55% to 72.5%, regardless of how the parameters vary within their given range.

3.4. Numerical Optimization Results

The numerical optimization function in the Design Expert v13 is used to select the most optimum value for the HRT, water to feed ratio, sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio. The target of the study is set, which is to maximize the methane flow, COD and VS removal efficiencies in the ranges of 62.7 to 82.3% and 55.0 to 72.5%, respectively. Table 7 summarized the optimal value for the HRT, water to feed ratio, sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio and the estimated value for the methane yield, COD and VS removal efficiencies’ response.

3.5. Simulation Results

The process parameters value from Table 7 are entered into the SuperPro simulations with the water flowrate of 1186.2 kg/h, recycle ratio of 43.8% to the top stream for FSP-101 and residence time of 38.8 days in AD-101.
Table 8 shows the response parameters value obtained in the base case and optimized case and the percentage improvements is calculated. Based on Table 8, it can be concluded that the optimization results are successful since the improvement percentage is up to 52.6%. Methane yield generated from the AD of FW is normally ranging from 0.254 to 0.282 LCH4/g COD removed [54,55]. Besides, the methane yield for ACD of FW and sewage sludge is normally ranging from 0.18–0.38 L CH4 g−1 VSadded [17,56,57]. Thus, both the methane yield generated from the base case and the optimized case are shown to be comparable with the literature findings. By comparing the optimized case with the estimated response value shown in Table 7, the methane flow obtained from the SuperPro simulations is 1494.23 kg/h, which is less than 0.07% difference with the estimated value using Design Expert. This shows that the results are reliable. Meanwhile, the COD removal efficiency achieved is 81.5%. Furthermore, the VS removal efficiency of 69.2% indicates that the simulation process outperforms the bench scale data of 46.6 to 61.7%.
The simulated biogas composition before and after upgrading is summarized in Table 9. A comparison of the biogas composition before upgrading with the literature data in terms of molar percentage is displayed in Appendix A Table A4. Based on Table A4, it can be noticed that all the components’ compositions are in line with the literature values.
Besides that, the treated effluent is required to meet the discharge effluent standards that complied with the Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulations 2009 before discharging into the soil or water. Based on the simulated treated water characteristics shown in Table 10, it can be observed that the COD and BOD5 value of 14.04 mg/L and 8.78 mg/L meet the standard A discharge limit of 120 mg/L and 20 mg/L [42]. This concludes that the treated water is safe to discharge to the environment.

3.6. Economic Analysis

In this section, economic analysis for the anaerobic co-digestion of FW and SS is conducted. The economic calculations are completed using the economic evaluation functions in the SuperPro Designer. The purchase cost of the equipment is shown in Table A5.
The equipment data are based on January 2000 cost with a cost index of 435.8 and the cost is then adjusted to year 2021 in the SuperPro Designer. Generally, the lifetime for an AD plant is assumed to be 20 years [58]. Accordingly, the annual operating hours for modern chemical plants is 8000 h [59]. Thus, these two figures are used in the economic evaluations. Table 11 summarizes the unit cost for the products, raw materials and waste treatment used in the economic evaluations. The upgraded biogas, dried sludge and carbon credit are the revenue in the process plants. The BTF effluent, moisture from dehumidifier, aerobic emission, discharge solvent from belt filtration and GM filtration are categorized as aqueous waste which required further treatment before discharging into the environment. Food waste and sewage sludge are assumed to be zero cost as they are waste products that are required to be treated in order to reduce environmental issues.

3.6.1. Economic Analysis Results

Table 12 provides the summary of the economic evaluation for this project. With an annual total revenue of $13.4 million, the payback period achieved is 6.2 years with ROI of 16.0%. The net present value (NPV) is the sum of the present values of each individual cash flow over the 20 years of the project’s life. NPV takes into account the time value of money by investigating the estimated future cash flows and discounting them to the present time [65]. NPV is the major factor to determine whether the investment is feasible. For NPV < 0, it shows that the investment is unacceptable as it might not make a return in the future. The NPV at 7.0% interest for this project is $5.28 million, which shows that the project is an acceptable investment. Meanwhile, the internal rate of return (IRR) is defined as the discount rate which makes the NPV of the cash flow to be zero [66]. According to Seadi et al. [67], a biogas plant project with less than 9% IRR is not worth the investment. An IRR of 10.23% obtained in this co-digestion process proves that this project is worth continuing.

3.6.2. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is a method to determine the effects of uncertainties in the future on the viability of a project [64]. This analysis is performed by varying each of the parameters individually and the output is the parameter which has the most direct effect on the project viability, such as NPV. In this section, the unit price for the products (upgraded biogas, dried sludge and carbon credit) are varied with a range of ±20% of base cost while the capital cost is kept constant to determine the effect on NPV [64].
Figure 8 shows the sensitivity analysis of the ACD of FW and SS. The sales price of upgraded biogas, carbon credit and dried sludge is changed to determine the effect on NPV. From the diagram, it can be seen that the upgraded biogas is the most sensitive parameter. A slight alteration in the upgraded biogas sales price contributes significant changes to the NPV. Negative NPV is seen if the upgraded biogas unit price decreases by 10% or more. This is expected as the upgraded biogas selling price is the highest compared to the dried sludge and carbon credit, making it the major contribution to the total revenues as well as the NPV. Its selling price is 2.7 times and 51.4 times more than the dried sludge and carbon credit. It can be said that the project is no longer worth the investment if the selling price of biogas decrease is greater than 10% from its current price. Meanwhile, the changes in carbon credit unit prices have the least impact on the NPV. A horizontal line is discerned when the carbon credit prices vary by ±20%, indicating the effect is infinitesimal. This is due to a very low selling price of only $0.007/kg. The NPV is more sensitive to the dried sludge unit price than the carbon credit unit price, as the price is the second highest among all the three products.

4. Conclusions

The simulation model for biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge is developed using SuperPro Designer v9.0. The base case using 10 days of HRT, zero ratio of water to feed, sludge recycle and SS to FW is first simulated and the methane yield of 0.25 L CH4/g COD removed and COD and VS removal efficiencies of 70.9% and 59.4% are obtained. Response surface methodology (RSM) in the Design Expert v13 software is utilized to study the effect of the hydraulic retention time (HRT), water to feedstock (kg/kg) ratio, sludge recycle ratio and the sewage sludge to food waste ratio (kg/kg) on the methane mass flow, COD and VS removal efficiencies while Box–Behnken Design (BBD) is used to perform the optimization. Based on the optimization results, by using HRT of 38.8 days, water to feed ratio of 0.047, sludge recycle ratio of 0.438 and SS to FW ratio of 0.044 and a methane yield of 0.29 L CH4/g COD removed, COD and VS removal efficiencies of 81.5% and 69.2%, respectively, are achieved. The methane yield is 16% higher in the optimized case. Economic analysis is conducted and the results show that the project required a payback period of 6.24 years with ROI of 16.23%. The positive NPV of $5.28 million indicates that this project is feasible for investment. Lastly, sensitivity analysis is performed and the upgraded biogas selling price proves to be the most sensitive parameter affecting the NPV value. A comparable result of methane yield is achieved in this project with the literature value of 0.28 L CH4/g COD removed, concluding that this project is feasible for large scale biogas production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.L.C. and Y.J.C.; methodology, T.J.T. and J.W.L.; software, W.L.C.; validation, W.C.C., W.K. and K.K.; formal analysis, M.M.; investigation, H.D.; resources, I.W.K.S.; data curation, M.M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.J.C.; visualization, W.L.C.; supervision, Y.J.C.; project administration, Y.J.C.; funding acquisition, J.W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The financial supports received from Yayasan Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (YUTP) with the cost centers of 015LC0-126 and 015LC0-341 are gratefully acknowledged.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would want to express their deepest gratitude to Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia for supporting this research project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. FW and SS feed mass flow and composition in simulations.
Table A1. FW and SS feed mass flow and composition in simulations.
ComponentFood WasteSewage Sludge
Mass Flow (kg/h)Composition (wt %)Mass Flow (kg/h)Composition (wt %)
Moisture19,221.9280.3890.3083.80
Ash454.821.9040.373.80
Carbohydrates2576.3610.7610.040.95
Proteins939.223.92101.629.56
Lipids676.412.8320.081.89
Biomass68.940.290.000.00
Total23,937.64100.001062.41100.00
Table A2. Equipment specifications.
Table A2. Equipment specifications.
EquipmentParameterUnitValueSource
SterilizerSterilization temperature°C121[29]
Anaerobic digesterOperating temperature°C35[31]
Retention timeh931.2Optimisation
DehumidifierOperating temperature°C5[68]
Aerobic pondRetention timeh48[39]
Secondary clarifierCoagulant flowratekg/h40.4[69]
Table A3. Box–Behnken design matrix.
Table A3. Box–Behnken design matrix.
RunA: HRT (Days)B: Water to Feed RatioC: Sludge Recycle RatioD: Sewage Sludge to Food Waste Ratio
125010.5
2250.510
3400.500.5
42500.51
5400.50.51
64010.50.5
7250.50.50.5
8250.50.50.5
9100.510.5
10400.510.5
114000.50.5
122510.51
13250.511
14250.50.50.5
15100.50.51
162510.50
17100.50.50
1825100.5
19250.50.50.5
20250.501
2125000.5
22250.500
2325110.5
24400.50.50
251000.50.5
261010.50.5
27250.50.50.5
282500.50
29100.500.5
Table A4. Simulated biogas composition versus literature biogas composition.
Table A4. Simulated biogas composition versus literature biogas composition.
ComponentComposition (vol %)
LiteratureSimulations
Methane55–6559.16
Carbon dioxide35–4535.02
Hydrogen sulfide0–10.74
Moisture1–53.59
Table A5. Equipment purchase cost.
Table A5. Equipment purchase cost.
EquipmentCapacity MeasureUnit CapacityUnit Cost ($)Source
Anaerobic digesterVessel volume (L)14,162,231.271,696,000[70]
Bio-trickling filterSurface area (m2)0.219113,000[32]
DehumidifierCondensation area (m2)7.9645,000Simulations
Primary clarifierSurface area (m2)61.4573,000[32]
Secondary clarifierSurface area (m2)57.4173,000[32]
Aerobic pondVessel volume (L)1,132,596.36272,000[70]
Granular media filterVolume (L)0.4213,000[32]
Belt press filterBelt width (m)2.3775,000[32]
Sludge dryerEvaporative capacity (kg/h)1980.3342,000Simulations
Unlisted equipment -374,000Simulations

References

  1. Jeong, Y.; Hermanowicz, S.W.; Park, C. Treatment of food waste recycling wastewater using anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactor for biogas production in mainstream treatment process of domestic wastewater. Water Res. 2017, 123, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pramanik, S.K.; Suja, F.B.; Porhemmat, M.; Pramanik, B.K. Performance and Kinetic Model of a Single-Stage Anaerobic Digestion System Operated at Different Successive Operating Stages for the Treatment of Food Waste. Processes 2019, 7, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Martin-Rios, C.; Demen-Meier, C.; Gössling, S.; Cornuz, C. Food waste management innovations in the foodservice industry. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Green Technology Master Plan Malaysia 2017–2030, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (KeTTHA), 12 October 2017. Available online: https://www.pmo.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Green-Technology-Master-Plan-Malaysia-2017-2030.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2021).
  5. Aday, S.; Aday, M.S. Impact of COVID-19 on the food supply chain. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lim, J.S.; Manan, Z.A.; Alwi, S.R.W.; Hashim, H. A review on utilisation of biomass from rice industry as a source of renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3084–3094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Deepanraj, B.; Sivasubramanian, V.; Jayaraj, S. Experimental and kinetic study on anaerobic digestion of food waste: The effect of total solids and pH. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 063104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Xu, F.; Li, Y.; Ge, X.; Yang, L.; Li, Y. Anaerobic digestion of food waste—Challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1047–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tahri, A.; Kalloum, S.; Baba Amer, Z. Optimization of Hydraulic Retention Time for the Methanisation of Household Waste in the Town of Adrar (the south-west of Algeria). 2018. Available online: https://sphinxsai.com/2018/ch_vol11_no1/1/(75-82)V11N01CT.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  10. Smith, A.L.; Stadler, L.B.; Cao, L.; Love, N.G.; Raskin, L.; Skerlos, S.J. Navigating Wastewater Energy Recovery Strategies: A Life Cycle Comparison of Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor and Conventional Treatment Systems with Anaerobic Digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 5972–5981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cha, M.; Kim, S.; Park, C. Recent advances and future potential of anaerobic ceramic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: A review. Membr. Water Treat. 2020, 11, 31–39. [Google Scholar]
  12. Capson-Tojo, G.; Rouez, M.; Crest, M.; Steyer, J.-P.; Delgenès, J.-P.; Escudié, R. Food waste valorization via anaerobic processes: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. BioTechnol. 2016, 15, 499–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pramanik, S.K.; Suja, F.B.; Zain, S.M.; Pramanik, B.K. The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production from food waste: Prospects and constraints. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2019, 8, 100310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mehariya, S.; Patel, A.K.; Obulisamy, P.K.; Punniyakotti, E.; Wong, J.W. Co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge for methane production: Current status and perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 265, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Prabhu, M.; Mutnuri, S. Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2016, 34, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, Y.; Huang, T.; Li, X.; Huang, J.; Peng, D.; Maurer, C.; Kranert, M. Experiments and Modeling for Flexible Biogas Production by Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Sewage Sludge. Energies 2020, 13, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chow, W.L.; Chong, S.; Lim, J.W.; Chan, Y.J.; Chong, M.F.; Tiong, T.J.; Chin, J.K.; Pan, G.-T. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Wastewater Sludge: A Review of Potential Co-Substrates and Operating Factors for Improved Methane Yield. Processes 2020, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Tang, Y.-Q.; Koike, Y.; Liu, K.; An, M.-Z.; Morimura, S.; Wu, X.-L.; Kida, K. Ethanol production from kitchen waste using the flocculating yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain KF-7. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 1037–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Inoue, S.; Sawayama, S.; Ogi, T.; Yokoyama, S.-Y. Organic composition of liquidized sewage sludge. Biomass Bioenergy 1996, 10, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ward, A.J.; Hobbs, P.J.; Holliman, P.J.; Jones, D.L. Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7928–7940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Al Naami, A. Techno-economic Feasibility Study of a Biogas Plant for Treating Food Waste Collected from Households in Kartamantul Region, Yogyakarta. Master’s Thesis, KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Sweden, 2017. Available online: https://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1209090/FULLTEXT02.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  22. Tyagi, V.K.; Khan, A.A.; Jern, N.W.; Khursheed, A.; Kazmi, A.A. Post Treatments of Anaerobically Treated Effluents; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kang, A.J.; Yuan, Q. Enhanced Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste. In Solid Waste Management in Rural Areas; InTech: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jiang, J.; He, S.; Kang, X.; Sun, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Xing, T.; Guo, Y.; Li, L. Effect of Organic Loading Rate and Temperature on the Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste: Process Performance and Energy Recovery. Front. Energy Res. 2020, 8, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aguilar, M.C.; Wang, Y.; Roskilly, T.; Pathare, P.B.; Lamidi, R.O. Biogas from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and primary sludge for cogeneration of power and heat. Energy Procedia 2017, 142, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ismail, M.H.; Ghazi, T.I.M.; Hamzah, M.H.; Manaf, L.A.; Tahir, R.M.; Nasir, A.M.; Omar, A.E. Impact of Movement Control Order (MCO) due to Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) on Food Waste Generation: A Case Study in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ren, Y.; Yu, M.; Wu, C.; Wang, Q.; Gao, M.; Huang, Q.; Liu, Y. A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: Research updates and tendencies. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Izumi, K.; Okishio, Y.-K.; Nagao, N.; Niwa, C.; Yamamoto, S.; Toda, T. Effects of particle size on anaerobic digestion of food waste. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2010, 64, 601–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, B.; Park, J.-G.; Shin, W.-B.; Kim, B.-S.; Byun, B.-S.; Jun, H.-B. Maximizing biogas production by pretreatment and by optimizing the mixture ratio of co-digestion with organic wastes. Environ. Eng. Res. 2019, 24, 662–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Ma, J.; Duong, T.H.; Smits, M.; Verstraete, W.; Carballa, M. Enhanced biomethanation of kitchen waste by different pre-treatments. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 592–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kondusamy, D.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food waste for high rate methane production-A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1821–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lok, X.; Chan, Y.J.; Foo, D.C. Simulation and optimisation of full-scale palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment plant with biogas production. J. Water Process. Eng. 2020, 38, 101558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khoshnevisan, B.; Tsapekos, P.; Alfaro, N.; Diaz, I.; Fdz-Polanco, M.; Rafiee, S.; Angelidaki, I. A review on prospects and challenges of biological H2S removal from biogas with focus on biotrickling filtration and microaerobic desulfurization. Biofuel Res. J. 2017, 16, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Syed, M.; Soreanu, G.; Falletta, P.; Béland, M. Removal of hydrogen sulfide from gas streams using biological processes-a review. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 2006, 48, 2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Huertas, J.K.; Quipuzco, L.; Hassanein, A.; Lansing, S. Comparing Hydrogen Sulfide Removal Efficiency in a Field-Scale Digester Using Microaeration and Iron Filters. Energies 2020, 13, 4793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Petersson, A.; Wellinger, A. Biogas upgrading technologies-developments and innovations Task 37-Energy from biogas and landfill gas. IEA Bioenergy 2009, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sri, A.; Karsiwulan, D.; Yuwono, H.; Trisnawati, I.; Mulyasari, S.; Rahardjo, H.; Hokermin, S.; Paramita, V. Handbook POME-to-Biogas Project Development in Indonesia; Winlock International: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015; Available online: https://winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CIRCLE-Handbook-2nd-Edition-EN-25-Aug-2015-MASTER-rev02-final-new02-edited.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  38. Metcalf, I.; Eddy, T.; George, L.B.; Franklin, H.D.; Franklin, B. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: Berkshire, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Butler, E.B.; Hung, Y.-T.; Al Ahmad, M.S.; Yeh, R.Y.-L.; Liu, R.L.-H.; Fu, Y.-P. Oxidation pond for municipal wastewater treatment. Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wang, N.-X.; Lu, X.-Y.; Tsang, Y.-F.; Mao, Y.; Tsang, C.-W.; Yueng, V.A. A comprehensive review of anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes in relation to microbial community and enhancement process. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 507–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Liwarska-Bizukojc, E.; Bizukojc, M.; Ledakowicz, S. Kinetics of the aerobic biological degradation of shredded municipal solid waste in liquid phase. Water Res. 2002, 36, 2124–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulations 2009. 2009. Available online: https://www.doe.gov.my/portalv1/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Environmental_Quality_Sewage_Regulations_2009_-_P.U.A_432-2009.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2021).
  43. Said, K.A.M.; Amin, M.A.M. Overview on the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) in Extraction Processes. J. Appl. Sci. Process. Eng. 2016, 2, 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  44. Raghupathy, R.; Amirthagadeswaran, K.S. Optimization of casting process based on box behnken design and response surface methodology. Int. J. Qual. Res. 2014, 8, 569–582. [Google Scholar]
  45. Thenabadu, M. Anaerobic Digestion of Food and Market Waste; Waste Characterisation, Biomethane Potential and Bio Reactor Design: A Case Study in Sri Lanka. Master’s Thesis, University of Gavle, Sweden, 2010. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:854121/FULLTEXT02 (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  46. Liu, X.; Khalid, H.; Amin, F.R.; Ma, X.; Li, X.; Chen, C.; Liu, G. Effects of hydraulic retention time on anaerobic digestion performance of food waste to produce methane as a biofuel. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2018, 11, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kazimierowicz, J.; Dzienis, L.; Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M. Optimisation of methane fermentation as a valorisation method for food waste products. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 144, 105913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Magdalena, J.A.; Greses, S.; González-Fernández, C. Impact of Organic Loading Rate in Volatile Fatty Acids Production and Population Dynamics Using Microalgae Biomass as Substrate. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jain, S.; Singh, V.P. Chapter 13 Water quality modeling. In Developments in Water Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003; Volume 51, pp. 743–786. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hallaji, S.M.; Kuroshkarim, M.; Moussavi, S.P. Enhancing methane production using anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge with combined fruit waste and cheese whey. BMC Biotechnol. 2019, 19, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tak, B.-Y.; Tak, B.-S.; Kim, Y.-J.; Park, Y.-J.; Yoon, Y.-H.; Min, G.-H. Optimization of color and COD removal from livestock wastewater by electrocoagulation process: Application of Box–Behnken design (BBD). J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2015, 28, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Chastain, J.P.; Smith, W.B. Determination of the Anaerobic Volatile Solids Reduction Ratio of Animal Manure Using a Bench Scale Batch Reactor. In Proceedings of the 2015 ASABE International Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 26–29 July 2015; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lee, D.-J.; Lee, S.-Y.; Bae, J.-S.; Kang, J.-G.; Kim, K.-H.; Rhee, S.-S.; Park, J.-H.; Cho, J.-S.; Chung, J.; Seo, D.-C. Effect of Volatile Fatty Acid Concentration on Anaerobic Degradation Rate from Field Anaerobic Digestion Facilities Treating Food Waste Leachate in South Korea. J. Chem. 2015, 2015, 640717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Chua, K.H.; Cheah, W.L.; Tan, C.F.; Leong, Y.P. Harvesting biogas from wastewater sludge and food waste. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013, 16, 12118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Kazimierowicz, J.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M. Influence of the Heating Method on the Efficiency of Biomethane Production from Expired Food Products. Fermentation 2021, 7, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shoener, B.D.; Zhong, C.; Greiner, A.D.; Khunjar, W.O.; Hong, P.-Y.; Guest, J.S. Design of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for the valorization of dilute organic carbon waste streams. Energy Environ. Sci. 2016, 9, 1102–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Zhang, J.; Lv, C.; Tong, J.; Liu, J.; Liu, J.; Yu, D.; Wang, Y.; Chen, M.; Wei, Y. Optimization and microbial community analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge based on microwave pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Whiting, A.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy 2014, 70, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Couper, J.R.; Penney, W.R.; Fair, J.R.; Walas, S.M. Introduction. In Chemical Process Equipment, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yousuf, A.; Khan, M.R.; Pirozzi, D.; Wahid, Z.A.; Atnaw, S.M. Economic and Market Value of Biogas Technology. In Waste Biomass Management–A Holistic Approach; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 137–158. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yong, Z.J.; Bashir, M.J.; Hassan, M.S. Assessment of environmental, energy and economic prospective of anaerobic digestion of organic municipal solid waste in Malaysia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 463, 12054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rao, T.; Mustapa, S. A Review of Climate Economic Models in Malaysia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gebbie, P. Earth Tech Engineering. 2006. Available online: http://wioa.org.au/conference_papers/06_qld/documents/PeterGebbie.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  64. Towler, G.; Sinnott, R. Chemical Engineering Design: Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Ltd.: Waltham, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  65. Chans, S. An Analysis of the Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion on Small-Scale Dairies in Utah; Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  66. Mohammed, M.; Egyir, I.; Donkor, A.; Amoah, P.; Nyarko, S.; Boateng, K.; Ziwu, C. Feasibility study for biogas integration into waste treatment plants in Ghana. Egypt. J. Pet. 2016, 26, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Al Seadi, T. Biogas Handbook; University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg: Esbjerg, Denmark, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  68. De Arespacochaga, N.; Valderrama, C.; Mesa, C.; Bouchy, L.; Cortina, J.L. Biogas deep clean-up based on adsorption technologies for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell applications. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 255, 593–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rowe, J. Chemical Feed Calculations in Water Treatment Processes-Workforce LibreTexts. 2020. Available online: https://workforce.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Water_Systems_Technology/Water_151%3A_Water_Treatment_Plant_and_Operation_Processes_II_(Rowe)/01%3A_Chapters/1.01%3A_Chemical_Feed_Calculations_In_Water_Treatment_Processes (accessed on 9 May 2021).
  70. Smith, R. Chemical Process: Design and Integration; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Simulation flowsheet for anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with sewage sludge.
Figure 1. Simulation flowsheet for anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with sewage sludge.
Water 14 01075 g001
Figure 2. Perturbation plot of methane flow response.
Figure 2. Perturbation plot of methane flow response.
Water 14 01075 g002
Figure 3. 3D surface graph plot for methane flow as a function of (a) HRT and sludge recycle ratio; (b) HRT and SS to FW ratio; (c) water to feed ratio and sludge recycle ratio; (d) sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio.
Figure 3. 3D surface graph plot for methane flow as a function of (a) HRT and sludge recycle ratio; (b) HRT and SS to FW ratio; (c) water to feed ratio and sludge recycle ratio; (d) sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio.
Water 14 01075 g003
Figure 4. Perturbation plots for COD removal efficiency response.
Figure 4. Perturbation plots for COD removal efficiency response.
Water 14 01075 g004
Figure 5. 3D surface graph plot for COD removal efficiency as a function of (a) HRT and sludge recycle ratio; (b) HRT and SS to FW Ratio; (c) sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio; (d) HRT and water to feed ratio.
Figure 5. 3D surface graph plot for COD removal efficiency as a function of (a) HRT and sludge recycle ratio; (b) HRT and SS to FW Ratio; (c) sludge recycle ratio and SS to FW ratio; (d) HRT and water to feed ratio.
Water 14 01075 g005aWater 14 01075 g005b
Figure 6. Perturbation plots for VS removal efficiency response.
Figure 6. Perturbation plots for VS removal efficiency response.
Water 14 01075 g006
Figure 7. 3D surface graph plot for VS removal efficiency as a function of (a) HRT and water to feed ratio; (b) HRT and SS to FW ratio; (c) water to feed ratio and sludge recycle ratio.
Figure 7. 3D surface graph plot for VS removal efficiency as a function of (a) HRT and water to feed ratio; (b) HRT and SS to FW ratio; (c) water to feed ratio and sludge recycle ratio.
Water 14 01075 g007
Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis.
Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis.
Water 14 01075 g008
Table 1. Kitchen food waste and sewage sludge composition [18,19].
Table 1. Kitchen food waste and sewage sludge composition [18,19].
ComponentComposition (%)
Food WasteSewage Sludge
Moisture80.383.8
Total solids19.712.4
Ash1.93.8
Volatile solids18.89.7
Carbohydrates59.83.3
Protein21.833.4
Lipids15.76.6
Table 2. Kinetics’ parameters for anaerobic and aerobic digestion.
Table 2. Kinetics’ parameters for anaerobic and aerobic digestion.
ParameterµMax (1/h)Ks (mg/L)Source
Anaerobic digestion
Carbohydrates0.052465[40]
Protein0.033465[40]
Lipids0.029465[40]
Aerobic digestion0.12621.23[41]
Table 3. Upper and lower bound limits of the independent variables.
Table 3. Upper and lower bound limits of the independent variables.
Independent VariablesAnnotationUnitLower BoundUpper Bound
HRTAdays1040
Water to feed ratioB-01
Sludge recycle ratioC-01
Sewage sludge to food waste ratioD-01
Table 4. ANOVA analysis for methane flow response.
Table 4. ANOVA analysis for methane flow response.
SourcedfSum of SquaresMean SquaresF-Valuep-Value
Model141.17 × 10683,277.4018,008.96<0.0001Significant
A-HRT13.07 × 1053.07 × 10566,292.88<0.0001Significant
B-Water to Feed Ratio174,351.11 16,078.63<0.0001Significant
C-Sludge Recycle Ratio121,333.09 4613.34<0.0001Significant
D- SS to FW Ratio14.36 × 105 94,185.27<0.0001Significant
AB15.76 1.250.2904
AC178.73 17.030.0021
AD1860.51 186.09<0.0001
BC175.86 16.400.0023
BD11.21 0.26170.6201
CD1112.34 24.290.0006
A2189,639.28 19,384.74<0.0001
B21441.80 95.54<0.0001
C210.8471 0.18320.6777
D212134.19 461.52<0.0001
Table 5. ANOVA analysis for COD removal efficiency response.
Table 5. ANOVA analysis for COD removal efficiency response.
SourceSum of SquaresMean SquaresF-Valuep-Value
Model602.8243.06143.38<0.0001Significant
A-HRT314.14314.141046.07<0.0001Significant
B-Water to Feed Ratio20.1520.1567.11<0.0001Significant
C-Sludge Recycle Ratio17.4417.4458.07<0.0001Significant
D-SS to FW Ratio163.77163.77545.33<0.0001Significant
AB0.97080.97083.230.0974
AC2.912.919.680.0090
AD10.0510.0533.47<0.0001
BC0.12260.12260.40830.5348
BD0.72060.72062.400.1473
CD3.473.4711.540.0053
A269.5269.52231.49<0.0001
B20.32120.32121.070.3214
C22.822.829.410.0098
D22.882.889.580.0093
Table 6. ANOVA analysis for VS removal efficiency response.
Table 6. ANOVA analysis for VS removal efficiency response.
SourceSum of SquaresMean SquaresF-Valuep-Value
Model469.6433.55338.62<0.0001Significant
A-HRT191.64191.641934.49<0.0001Significant
B-Water to Feed Ratio109.60109.601106.30<0.0001Significant
C-Sludge Recycle Ratio9.149.1492.27<0.0001Significant
D- SS to FW Ratio113.95113.951150.25<0.0001Significant
AB1.221.2212.330.0043
AC0.78870.78877.960.0154
AD5.775.7758.26<0.0001
BC1.241.2412.500.0041
BD2.192.1922.130.0005
CD0.67440.67446.810.0228
A241.2841.28416.72<0.0001
B20.05250.05250.52980.4807
C20.55170.55175.570.0361
D21.121.1211.260.0057
Table 7. Summary of optimum value of independent variables and estimated response value.
Table 7. Summary of optimum value of independent variables and estimated response value.
HRT (Days)Water to Feed RatioSludge Recycle RatioSS to FW RatioMethane Flow (kg/h)COD Removal Efficiency (%)VS Removal Efficiency (%)
38.80.0470.4380.0441495.2581.869.2
Table 8. Base case and optimized case results.
Table 8. Base case and optimized case results.
ParameterBase CaseOptimized CasePercentage Improvements (%)
Methane flow979.06 kg/h1494.23 kg/h52.6
COD removal efficiency70.90%81.50%15.0
VS removal efficiency59.40%69.20%16.5
Methane yield0.25 L CH4/g COD removed0.29 L CH4/g COD removed16.0
Table 9. Simulated biogas composition before and after upgrading.
Table 9. Simulated biogas composition before and after upgrading.
ComponentBefore UpgradingAfter Upgrading
Mass Flow (kg/h)Composition (wt %)Mass Flow (kg/h)Composition (wt %)
Methane1494.2337.511494.23038.86
Carbon dioxide2349.7758.982349.77061.11
Hydrogen sulfide39.470.990.0010.00
Moisture100.622.521.0800.03
Total3984.08100.003845.08100.00
Table 10. Simulated treated water characteristics.
Table 10. Simulated treated water characteristics.
ParameterUnitValue
Ammoniakg/h39.47
Ashkg/h0.21
Biomasskg/h0.23
Carbohydrateskg/h0.00
Dead biomasskg/h0.33
Fatskg/h0.00
Proteinskg/h0.00
CODmg/L14.04
BOD5mg/L8.78
Table 11. Unit cost for products, raw materials and waste treatment.
Table 11. Unit cost for products, raw materials and waste treatment.
ItemUnitCategoryValuesSource
Upgraded biogas$/kgRevenue0.360[60]
Dried sludge$/kgRevenue0.132[61]
Carbon credit$/kgRevenue0.007[62]
Coagulant$/kgOperating Cost0.450[63]
Aqueous waste$/kgOperating Cost0.002[64]
Table 12. Summary of economics evaluation.
Table 12. Summary of economics evaluation.
ItemUnitValues
Total capital investment$19,694,000
Operating cost$/yr11,062,000
Total revenues$/yr13,445,000
Cost basis annual ratekg MP/yr30,760,628
Unit production cost$/kg MP0.36
Unit production revenue$/kg MP0.44
Gross margin%17.72
Return on investment (ROI)%16.02
Payback periodyear6.24
Internal rate of return (IRR)%10.23
Net present value (NPV)$5,283,000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheong, W.L.; Chan, Y.J.; Tiong, T.J.; Chong, W.C.; Kiatkittipong, W.; Kiatkittipong, K.; Mohamad, M.; Daud, H.; Suryawan, I.W.K.; Sari, M.M.; et al. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with Sewage Sludge: Simulation and Optimization for Maximum Biogas Production. Water 2022, 14, 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071075

AMA Style

Cheong WL, Chan YJ, Tiong TJ, Chong WC, Kiatkittipong W, Kiatkittipong K, Mohamad M, Daud H, Suryawan IWK, Sari MM, et al. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with Sewage Sludge: Simulation and Optimization for Maximum Biogas Production. Water. 2022; 14(7):1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071075

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheong, Wai Lin, Yi Jing Chan, Timm Joyce Tiong, Woon Chan Chong, Worapon Kiatkittipong, Kunlanan Kiatkittipong, Mardawani Mohamad, Hanita Daud, I. Wayan Koko Suryawan, Mega Mutiara Sari, and et al. 2022. "Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with Sewage Sludge: Simulation and Optimization for Maximum Biogas Production" Water 14, no. 7: 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071075

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop