Accepted Manuscript

Improvement through Low cost biofilm carrier in anaerobic tubular digestion in

cold climate regions

J. Martí-Herrero, R. Alvarez, M.R. Rojas, L. Aliaga, R. Céspedes, J. Carbonell

PII: S0960-8524(14)00833-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.115
Reference: BITE 13523

To appear in: Bioresource Technology

Received Date: 19 March 2014

Revised Date: 29 May 2014
Accepted Date: 31 May 2014

Please cite this article as: Martí-Herrero, J., Alvarez, R., Rojas, M.R., Aliaga, L., Céspedes, R., Carbonell, J.,
Improvement through Low cost biofilm carrier in anaerobic tubular digestion in cold climate regions, Bioresource
Technology (2014), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.05.115

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Improvement through Low cost
biofilm carrier in anaerobic
tubular digestion in cold climate
regions
Martí-Herrero Ja*, Alvarez R b, Rojas MR b, Aliaga Lc, Céspedes Rd, Carbonell Ja
a
Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics en Enginyeria (CIMNE)1, Building
Energy and Environment Group, Edifici GAIA (TR14), C/Rambla Sant Nebridi 22, 08222,
Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain.

*E-mail address: jaimemarti@cimne.upc.edu (J. Martí-Herrero).

1
http://www.cimne.upc.edu.
b
IIDEPROQ, UMSA, Plaza del Obelisco 1175, La Paz, Bolivia
c
Energising Development Bolivia (EnDev-Bolivia\GIZ). Bolivia
d
Estación Experimental de Choquenaira, UMSA, Viacha, Bolivia.

Abstract
The aim of this research is to evaluate the increase of biogas production with
low cost tubular digesters in cold climates using PET rings inside the reactor. Two
similar digesters have been operated and monitored in cold weather conditions and
have been fed with cow manure. Digestor 1 was filled with PET – rings as a biofilm
carrier, Digestor 2 was kept as a reference. Through the PET – rings the functional
surface could be increased by a factor 4.2. The results show that 44% more biogas per
KgSV has been produced with the biofilm carrier in use (0.33m3/kgSV) (reference
digester -0.23m3/kgSV), at an organic load rate of 0.26 kgSV/m3/d. The thermal
performance shows that with an adaptation of the low cost tubular digester the slurry
temperature can be raised up to 16.6 °C (average) by surrounding temperature of 6.1
°C (average) without using any active heating system.

1. Introduction
Anaerobic digestion is used to transform organic substrates and wastes into energy
(biogas) and a stabilized fertilizer (biol) . In more economically developed economies
are focused on high sophisticated digesters to produce electrical and thermal energy.

1
However, the most popular systems in the world use simpler technologiesand are
designed for household use. More than 50 million such systems have been
implemented, mainly in less developed economies (Ghimire, 2013; Bond and
Templeton, 2011; Chen et al, 2012; Martí-Herrero, 2014). For this study, low cost
anaerobic digestion technologies that do not require active mixing or heating devices
were investigated.

The most widespread low cost digester model in the world is the fixed-dome
digester, followed by the floating-dome (Chen et al, 2012). Both are very popular in
Asia and Africa. These two models are the main vectors in distribution and
investigation in several countries of both continents (Ghimire, 2013). They are
constructed using bricks and cement and have a semispherical shape (fixed dome), ora
cylinder shape (floating drum). In Latin America the most popular low cost technology
model is the tubular digester (also known as flexible, balloon, or plastic one). Different
tubular digester models are presently operated in the continent, most frequent are low
cost tubular digesters (Martí-Herrero, 2014).

The low cost household tubular digesters were developed by Preston and co-
workers (Botero and Preston, 1987; Bui Xuan An, et al, 1994) as a cheaper alternative
to the Taiwanese 'red mud' (Pound, et al, 1981). China and India had more than 10
million of these systems installed by 2007 (Abraham et al., 2007). Vietnam in particular
had over 20,000 units installed by 2006 (Zhu, 2006). Some Latin American countries
like Mexico, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica (Lansing et al. 2008), Peru (Ferrer et al.
2011) and Bolivia (Martí-Herrero, 2011, 2012) have adapted this low cost technology
to cold climate regions by only using solar heating [Martí-Herrero, 2007, 2011;
Perrigault et al, 2012].

According to a survey conduced by Martí-Herrero (2011), many operators face

the challenge that they do not reach the promised biogas yields. This is caused by two
common errors in traditional design methodology resulting in a reduction of the HRT
and further decreasing the biogas yield. Accurate design (Martí-Herrero and Cipriano,
2012), improvements of thermal performance (Perrigault et al, 2012) and higher rates
of load (Ferrer et al, 2011) have been the key solutions to optimize the technology and
biogas production of low cost tubular digesters.

This research shows that by adding low cost PET rings from cut up soda bottles
to a tubular digester, the performance can be improved. In addition a thermal analysis
is conducted showing that with an adaptation to tubular digesters similar results as
reported by Garfi et al (2011) and Perrigault et al. (2012) can be achieved at lower
surrounding temperatures.

2
2. Experimental design
The Research Center of Digesters, Biogas and Bioslurry ( CIB3: Centro de
Investigación en Biodigestores, Biogás y Biól) is located in Viacha (Bolivia), in the
Altiplano, 22km from La Paz city. The sight is situated 3,884 meters above sea level
(m.a.s.l.) in a cold climate region with strong, winds, and large differences in daily
temperature. The average highs during the day range from 15 to 20 ºC and the average
lows range from -15 to 3ºC with an atmospheric pressure around 460–500 mm Hg
(Alvarez and Liden, 2008). At the CIB3, 10 pilot low cost tubular digesters are operated
and monitored in real weather conditions.

2.1.Pilot low cost tubular digesters

Commonly low cost tubular household digesters are half embedded in a trench,
insulated with straw and covered by a small greenhouse (wall thickness 20 cm)
oriented east to west with the shed facing the sun (north). The general HRT is 81 days
(Pilot plants 90 days).

The pilot low cost tubular digesters have been designed following the
methodology reported by Martí-Herrero and Cipriano (2012). They are the same in
material, design and installation methodology to those 300 household systems
installed in farms of the Bolivian Altiplano (Marti-Herrero et al., 2014). The pilot
digesters are designed for a liquid volume of~ 1m3 and a length of 4.7m, compared to
the household systems with 6.4m3 of liquid volume and a length of 7m . A comparison
between pilot and household low cost tubular digesters is presented in Table 1. A 3 cm
thick straw insulation was employed in the trench . Two years later there was no straw
left in the trench : presumably it was decomposed.

2.2.Biofilm support
Two digesters are presented in this research. Digester D90 represents the
typical household digester working in the farms of the Bolivian Altiplano. It is
monitored and will act as a reference . The second digester, D90B, has been loaded
with 4kg of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) rings, which are cut from soda bottles.
The rings have a mean diameter of 6.5cm, and 6.5cm height, corresponding to a
265.5cm2 surface considering both sides of the ring. 870 rings from 435b half liter soda
bottles have been used. These rings have been introduced to D90B at the beginning of
the study, increasing the functional surface area by 23.1m2, (D90 – 7.1 m2). The total
increment of functional surface area able to form biofilm is 4.2 times larger than in the
reference reactor.

In addition it is assumed that the PET – rings act as a solid filter, , separating the
hydrahulic retention time from the solids retention time (SRT), resulting in an increase
of the SRT.

3
 2.3.Analytical Analysis
Biogas production has been recorded dayly in situ, using a commercial low
pressure diaphragm gas meter (G2.5 Metrix). Data from the initial load of the digesters,
has been recorded for 300 days. Biogas samples have been collected in Tedlar bags to
examine the methane and carbon dioxide concentrations, a gas chromatograph
(Shimadzu Model GC14B, Japan) equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD)
and a Carboxen-1010 plot Capillary column 30 m x 0.53 mm ID (Supelco, USA). The
injector, detector and oven temperatures have been 130, 200, and 100 ºC, respectively.
Helium has served as the carrier gas at a pressure of 300 kPa.

For the characterization of the influent and effluent, samples have been
collected once the digesters had a stable performance. Total solids (TS), volatile solids
(VS) and pH were determined according to standard methods (Clesceri et al., 2000).
The total solids (TS) content was determined after heating (105 ºC for 1 h), cooling,
desiccating, and weighing procedures that were repeated until the weight change was
less than 4%. Volatile solids were determined by ignition of the residue produced in TS
analysis to constant weight in a muffle furnace at a temperature of 550 ºC.

2.4.Temperature monitoring
The temperature of one of the digesters (D90) has been monitored at 5
different points: (1) greenhouse, (2) biogas, (3) 10cm below the slurry level, (4) 30 cm
below the slurry level and (5) at the exit pipe, as show in Figure 1- left. In addition,
ambient temperature and soil temperature at 1m depth has been recorded hourly. The
temperature records of the digester correspond to the summer season, from
November 2011 to March 2012 (104 days). While ambient temperature is provided for
the whole biogas production period (300 days) that includes the winter season.

2.5.Operation of digesters
The pilot digesters have been launched with water, and then continuously been
loaded with fresh cow manure every day. Biogas production started after day 20 and
stabilized at day 100. The characteristics of the fresh manure are shown in Table 2. The
digesters are loaded similar to household operated systems. This means that the
frequency, amount, and dilution is not exact for the monitored period. The digesters
are fed with fresh cow manure collected every morning from the nearby dairy stable,
and diluted with water in a ratio 1:3 (one part manure to three parts water). The
schedule for loading the digesters has been consciously charted, allowing the local
operator some freedom to load the digesters according to their time availability. The
operators, are aware that a daily loading failure means a double loading in the
following day. Thus, the load profile over 300 days of monitoring, resulted in 223 loads,
which correspond to 75%. This is very similar to the actual load of digesters operated
by farmers. This “under loading" of the digesters causes a longer HRT than originally
designed (90 days), with a result of 120.7 days for the whole monitored period: 114.7

4
for the first 100 days, and 124.2 for the last 200 days. This digester load schedule led to
a mean Organic Load Rate (ORL) of 0.264 Kgsv/m3/d for both digesters and the whole
monitored period: 0.278 for the first 100 days and 0.26 Kgsv/m3/d for the last 200 days.

3. Results and discussion

3.1.Climate and thermal behavior of digesters
The tubular digester was started in May 2011, including the biogas production,
the monitoring of the temperature was conducted in the summer season between
November 2011 to April 2012. To know the ambient temperature before the
monitored period, data from meteorological and hydrological Service of Bolivia
(SENAMHI) has been used. El Alto is sited at 20km from the CIB3, also in the Altiplano
plateau. The daily minimum and maximum ambient temperature is provided by
SENAMHI, and the daily mean ambient temperature can be extrapolated from this data
as the mean value. In the monitored period, the minimum daily temperature from the
CIB3 to El Alto has a typical error of 0.78ºC, 0.59ºC for the mean and 1.13ºC for the
maximum daily ambient temperature. The temperature given by SENAMHI for El Alto
can be used to describe the ambient temperature in the CIB3 laboratory. The only
difference is in the highest temperatures, due to the possibility of a solar overheating
by radiation during midday of the CIB3 ambient temperature sensor. In this case, the El
Alto maximum temperature will be considered as the proper temperature for the CIB3.

Figure 2 shows the minimum, maximum and mean daily ambient temperature
reported for El Alto by SENAMHI and those collected from the CIB3 laboratory. During
the winter season (from March to September), the mean temperature is around 7.8ºC,
while the minimum achieved values are under -5ºC at several nights, with a maximum
around 15ºC. During summer and the raining season (from September to March), the
minimum temperatures are almost always above 0ºC, the mean around 9ºC and the
maximum around 13ºC. Therefore the daily temperature range is higher in winter
(from -5ºC to 15ºC) than in summer (from 4ºC to 13ºC). For the monitored period at
the CIB3 laboratory, that corresponds to the summer season, the daily mean ambient
temperature is 9.9ºC, the mean daily minimum temperature is 4.7ºC and the maximum
one is 13.4ºC from El Alto.

The top of Figure 3 shows the temperatures collected in one low cost tubular
digester adapted for cold climate at the CIB3 laboratory. The greenhouse reaches
maximum temperatures of over 55ºC, and minimums of 5ºC, which is higher than the
ambient temperature. It can also been seen that some days the maximum temperature
of the greenhouse does not reach values higher than 30ªC, which is probably due to a
cloudy day during the wet season. The maximum biogas temperature varies from 20 ºC
to 40ºC, with a similar profile to the greenhouse temperature, with less daily amplitude

5
than in the greenhouse. The minimum biogas temperature range is very similar to that
of the maximum ambient temperature, being 8ºC higher that the mean ambient one.

At the bottom of Figure 3 the slurry temperature is shown. The three slurry
temperatures collected have been averaged since there are no significant differences
between them (less than 0.2ºC for the mean values), similar case to that reported by
Terradas-Ill et al (2014) .The slurry temperature shows a mean daily amplitude of 3ºC,
due to its thermal mass. The slurry has a mean temperature of 16.6ºC moving in a
range from 14 to 18.5ºC, and is constantly above the ambient one (9.9ºC). Even the
slurry minimum temperature is above the ambient maximum temperature. At the end
of the monitored period, some temperature data from 1m soil depth is presented
(daily mean average temperature). The soil temperature is almost flat, insensitive to
ambient temperature, keeping a mean value of 14ºC. This data shows that the mean
slurry temperature is +4ºC above of the mean soil temperature.

The winter period (March to September) is characterized by clear sunny days,

therefore high solar radiation is gained by the digester. In this period of time, the
temperatures of the digester were not collected, but slurry temperature can be
extrapolated from the daily maximum ambient temperature plus 1.5 ºC, as happened
in the summer season as a common routine. Consequently the slurry temperature in
winter could have a mean value of about 16.4 ºC, +10.3 ºC above the mean ambient
temperature for the same winter period (6.1ºC).

For a similar low cost tubular digester adapted to cold climate, Garfi et al (2011)
reported a mean slurry temperature about 20ºC, which is +2.1ºC higher than the mean
ambient temperature (17.9ºC). Also, Perrigault et al (2012) reported mean slurry
temperatures of 24.5ºC, +8.4ºC higher than the mean ambient temperature (16.1ºC),
for a similar digester in cold climate. This two cases show higher ambient temperatures
than the ones in the present research (6.1ºC for winter and 9.9ºC for summer season),
and in both cases the increase of slurry temperature above the ambient one is lower
than the results that are presented in this study (+10.3ºC for winter; +6.7ºC summer;
and +8.5ºC for the whole year), meaning that it is easier to gain temperature in sunny
colder climates that in warm ones. Perrigault et al. (2012) indicates that "the difference
in the increase of the slurry temperature over the ambient temperature (...) can only
be explained by the straw insulation", but in the present work no presence of straw
was found in the trench after two years, so mass and thickness of the greenhouse
adobe walls (smaller in the Garfi et al. case) and orientation east-west of the
greenhouses and digesters (north-south for Garfi et al. case) could be additional factors
that can really increase the slurry temperature and should be considered in the future.

3.2.Biogas production
The accumulative biogas production has been monitored for 300 days. It is
shown along with the max, min and mean ambient temperature, in Figure 4. At the

6
beginning, biogas production was slow and it took three months for its behavior to
stabilize. In the first three months the minimum temperature values were below -5ºC
and mean ambient temperature was around 5ºC. Later on, the biogas production
continued to have a minimum temperature below 0ºC after the first 100 days, but this
subsequently rose to 0ºC to 5ºC.

In order to characterize the biogas production of the digester, only data from
the 100th to the 300th day has been considered, as shown in Figure 4. To estimate the
Specific Biogas Production (SBP) [m3biogas/KgSV], the accumulative biogas production
(showed in Figure 5) is normalized to 1 atm and 0ºC, divided by the OLR [kgSV/d/m3]
and multiplied by the digester volume [m3], in order to get in the Y axis normalized
m3biogas·d/KgSV.. Results for SBP and Biogas Production Rate (BPR) [m3biogas/m3digester/d]
are presented in Table 3.

The resultant SBP of the D90 digester, 0.23 m3biogas/kgSV, is lower to those values
reported by Garfi et al. (2011) 0.34 m3biogas/kgSV and Ferrer et al (2011) 0.30
m3biogas/kgSV, for tubular digesters in high altitude cold climate load with cow manure
and similar slurry temperature (data from original papers have been normalized to 1
atm and 0ºC). The D90 BPR 0.06 m3biogas/m3digester/d is close to the range 0.11-0.07
m3biogas/m3digester/d reported by Garfi et al and Ferrer et al (normalized to 1 at, 0ºC).

For the D90B digester the results are highly promising: the SBP is 0.33
m biogas/kgSV , BPR is 0.09 m3biogas/m3digester/d and OLR equal to the D90. The PET rings
3

inside the D90B digester, lead to a 4.2 times higher biofilm surface than the reference
digester, resulting in 44% more biogas production per KgSV and 50% more biogas
production per digester cubic meter. Vartak et al (1997) report an increment of 21% of
biogas production when using polyester as a biofilm carrier at a slurry temperature of
10°C, but no differences where found with a control reactor when working at 37ºC.
Gong et al (2011) report the use of different biofilm carriers to improve biogas
production from cow manure anaerobic digestion in laboratory conditions, reporting
an increase of 43% of biogas production when using an activated carbon fiber over a
blank reactor. These results show that the present work reports a high increase of
biogas production using only PET rings from soda bottles as a biofilm carrier.

3.3.Biogas composition
The biogas composition is very similar for D90 and D90B (Table 4), with CO2
values similar to those reported by Ferrer et al (2011) - around 40%, and higher in
comparison to those from Garfi et al (2011) - 34-36% for similar digesters and
conditions. While Ferrer et al. suppose that the %CH4 can be deduced as 100-%CO2, in
the present results other gases have more than 10% presence in the biogas and so
must also be accounted for.

7
 3.4.Bio-slurry quality
The effluent of the digester D90 has 35% less TS and 36% less VS than the
influent, while D90B effluent shows that this system removes 57% of TS and 60% of VS
(Table 5). These data are in accordance with the results obtained from biogas
production and are reassuring, showing (as expected) that more solids are removed to
produce more biogas. 34% of the mineral solids of the influent is retained inside D90,
while 51% are retained in D90B. The doubt is whether the PET rings inside the D90B
lead to more bacteriological activity because of the biofilm, whether the PET rings
retain the solids inside the digester increasing the solid retention time (SRT) over the
HRT, or whether it is a mixture of both phenomena. Analysis of volatile fatty acids and
chemical oxygen demand are needed in future research in order to clarify which
phenomena (biofilm or higher SRT) is governing the increase of biogas production
when PET rings are added to the digester.

4. Conclusions
Low cost tubular digesters adapted to cold climate tend to produce less biogas
than expected. A new strategy has been evaluated adding PET rings inside the digester
in order to increase the area that works as a biofilm carrier and increase the solid
retention time over the hydraulic one. The results show that with PET rings inside a low
cost tubular digester in cold climate, increasing the internal area 4.2 times, 44% more
biogas is produced per KgSV and 50% more per m3 of digester. The thermal behavior of
the slurry indicates that passive solar gain can lead to a slurry temperature of 8.5ºC
above the daily mean ambient one.

Acknowledgements
Financial support to carry out this research was provided by the Endev-Bolivia
Program of the GIZ and Hivos, as well as with the collaboration of the Caribbean and
Latin American Biodigesters Net (RedBioLAC). The authors wish to acknowledge the
revision of the document by Mike Baker and Georg Lorber.

Bibliography
1. Abraham, R.E., Ramachandran, S., Ramalingam, V., 2007. Biogas: can it be an
important source of energy? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 14 (1), 67–71.

2. Alvarez, R., Lidén, G., 2008. The effect of temperature variation on

biomethanation at high altitude. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 7278–7284.

3. Botero R.B., Preston T.R., 1987. Biodigestor de bajo costo para la producción de
combustible y fertilizante a partir de excretas: Manual para su instalación,
operación y utilización. Cali, Colombia: CIPAV; 1987. 20p [cited March 2013].

8
 Available from
http://www.utafoundation.org/publications/botero%26preston.pdf

4. Bond T, Templeton MR. 2011. History and future of domestic biogas plants in
the developing world. Energy for Sustainable Development 15. pp 347-354.

5. Bui Xuan An, Ngo Van Man, Duong Nguyen Khang,

Nguyen Duc Anh and Preston T R. 1994. Installation and Performance of low-
cost polyethylene tube biodigesters on small scale farms in Vietnam. Proc.
National Seminar-workshop in sustainable Livestock Prod. on local feed
resources. Agric. Pub. House Ho Chi Minh, pp.95-103.

6. Chen l., Zhao L., Ren C., Wang F. 2012. The progress and prospects of rural
biogas production in China. Energy Policy 51. 58-63

7. Clesceri LS, Greeberg AE, Eaton AD. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health
Association (APHA); 2000.

8. Lansing S., Botero R., Martin J.F., 2008. Waste treatment and biogas quality in
small-scale agricultural digesters. Bioresource Technology; 99(13):5881-5890

9. Ferrer I., Garfí M., Uggetti E., Ferrer-Martí L., Calderon A., Velo E., 2011. Biogas
production in low-cost household digesters at the Peruvian Andes. Biomass and
Bioenergy;35:1166-1674

10. Garfí M, Ferrer-Martí L, Irene Perez I,Flotats X, Ferrer I. 2011. Codigestion of

cow and guinea pig manure in low-cost tubular digesters at high altitude.
Ecological Engineering 37. 2066– 2070

11. Ghimire P.C.,. 2013, SNV supported domestic biogas programmes in Asi and
Africa. Renewable Energy 49. 90- 94

12. Gong W., Liang H., Li W, Wang Z. 2011. Selection and evaluation of biofilm
carrier in anaerobic digestion treatmen of cattle manure. Energy 36: 3572-3578

13. Martí-Herrero J., 2007. Transfer of low-cost plastic biodigester technology at

household level in Bolivia. Livestock Research for Rural Development; 19(12),
Article #192. [cited March 2013]. Available from
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/12/mart19192.htm

14. Martí-Herrero J., 2011. Reduced hydraulic retention times in low-cost tubular
digesters: Two issues. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35 (10), pp:4481-4484

15. Martí-Herrero, J., Cipriano, J., 2012. Design methodology for low cost tubular
digesters. Bioresource Technology 108, 21–27.

9
 16. Perrigault, V Weatherford, J Martí-Herrero, D Poggio. 2012. Towards thermal
design optimization of tubular digesters in cold climates: a heat transfer model.
Bioresource Technology 124. 259–268

17. Martí-Herrero J, Chipana M, Cuevas C, Paco G, Serrano V, Zymla B, Heising K,

Sologuren J, Gamarra A. 2014. Low cost tubular digesters as appropriate
technology for widespread application: Results and lessons learned from
Bolivia. In Press. Renewable Energy.

18. Pound B., Bordas, F. and Preston, T. R., 1981. Characteristics of production and
function of a 15 cubic metre Red-Mud PVC biogas digester. Tropical Anim.
Prod. 6: 146-153.

19. Terradas-Ill, Cuong H. Pham CH, Triolo JM, Martí-Herrero J, Sommer SG. 2014.
Thermic Model to Predict Biogas Production in Unheated Fixed-Dome Digesters
Buried in the Ground. Environmental Science & Technology. Article ASAP.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es403215w

20. Vartak DR, Engler CR, McFarland MJ, Ricke SC. Attached-film media
performance in psychrophilic anaerobic treatment of dairy cattle
wastewater.Bioresour Technol 1997;62:79e84.

21. Zhu, Tracy, "Assessment of Small-Scale Biogas Systems and Their Widespread
Dissemination in Can Tho City, Viet Nam" (2006). Independent Study Project
(ISP) Collection. Paper 303.

Figure 1: Left: Design of a household digester (Martí-Herrero, et al, 2014), and the
location of temperature sensors. Right: Low cost tubular digester adapted for cold
climate inside a greenhouse with adobe walls.

Figure 2: Ambient temperatures from the CIB3 and El Alto during the monitored period

Figure 3: Top: Ambient, greenhouse and biogas temperatures of a digester in the CIB3.
Bottom: Ambient, slurry and soil (1m deep) temperatures

Figure 4: Left: Hourly greenhouse, biogas and soil temperatures respect the ambient
temperature. Right: Hourly Slurry temperature respect soil temperature.

Figure 4: Accumulative biogas production (local conditions) for D90 and D90B with the
daily minimum, maximum and mean ambient temperatures

Figure 5: Accumulative biogas production per Kgsv for D90 and D90B for the stabilized
period, and line fit for both cases showing the SBP as a slope (normal conditions: 1
atm, 0ºC)

10
Table 1: Comparison between household and pilot low cost tubular digesters for cold climate

Household digester Pilot digesters

Circumference of tubular plastic 4 2

Total volume (m3) 8.1 1.06- 0.87

Liquid volume (m3) 6.47 (80%) 0.85- 0.7 (80%)

Biogas volume (m3) 1.62 (20%) 0.21-0.17 (20%)

Designed HRT (days) 80.9 90

Length (m) 7 4.75

Top trench width (m) 1,05 0.3

Bottom trench width (m) 0,8 0.5

Depth (m) 1 0.6

Length/diameter 5.5 7.5

Straw Insulation thickness (m) 0 to 10 cm 3 cm

Greenhouse adobe walls Yes Yes

Greenhouse model Shed roof Shed roof

Longitudinal orientation E-W When possible Yes

Orientation greenhouse North North

11
Table 2: Parameters of the pilot digesters

D90 D90B

m2 of able area for carrier biofilm (m2) 7.1 30.2

Liquid Volume (m3) 0.85 0.7

Amount of manure (kg/day) 2.3 1.9

Amount of water (l/day) 7.1 5.8

Relation Manure:Water 1:3

Total Solids (%) manure 17

Volatile solids (%) manure wet weight 13

% of total possible loads 74.6

OLR (kgSV/m3/d) and real HRT (days) for full monitored period 0.264; 120.7

OLR (kgSV/m3/d) and real HRT (days) for first 100 days 0.278; 114.2

OLR (kgSV/m3/d) and real HRT (days) for last 200 days 0.26; 124.2

12
Table 3: Comparison of performance between D90 and D90B and other similar digesters

Slurry Temp OLR SBP* BPR*

reference [ºC] [kgSV/d/m3] [m3biogas/KgSV] [m3biogas/m3digester/d]

D90 16.6 0.26 0.23 0.06

D90B 16.6 0.26 0.33 0.09

Adapted from
16.3 0.34 0.335 0.11
Garfi et al (2011)

Adapted from
<25 0.22 0.30 0.065
Ferrer et al (2011)

* Normal conditions (1atm, 0ºC)

13
Table 4: Biogas composition for D90 and D90B

D90 D90B

%CH4 47.22 (3.46) 47.54 (2,83)

%CO2 39.08 (3.54) 39.63 (5,01)

%Others 13.70 (4.33) 12.83 (5,52)

(n) is the standard deviation

14
Table 5: Comparation of the bioslurry from D90 and D90B with the influent

Influent Effluent D90 Effluent D90B

%TS 4.13 2.69 (0.27) 1.79 (0.38)

%VS (dw) 77.04 76.90 (7.18) 73.89 (14.44)

%VS(ww) 3.18 2.05 (0.00) 1.28 (0.04)

PH 7.18 7.15 (0.02) 7.44 (0.03)

(dw): dry weight

(ww):wet weight

(n) is the standard deviation

15
Figure 1: Left: Design of a household digester (Martí-Herrero, et al, 2014), and the location of
temperature sensors. Right: Low cost tubular digester adapted for cold climate inside a
greenhouse with adobe walls.

16
 25.0

20.0

Temperature (ºC)
15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0
20/05/2011 19/07/2011 17/09/2011 16/11/2011 15/01/2012

Date

Ta_Alto Tmax_Alto Tmin_Alto Ta_cib3

Tmax_cib3 Tmin_cib3 day 100

Figure 2: Ambient temperatures from the CIB3 and El Alto during the monitored period

17
 60

50

40
Temperature (ºC)

30

20

10

24/11/2011 09/12/2011 24/12/2011 08/01/2012 23/01/2012 07/02/2012 22/02/2012

T_ambient Date Ta_max Alto Ta_min

T_greenhose Tg_max Tg_min
T_biogas Tb_max Tb_min

25

20
Temperature (ºC)

15

10

0
24/11/2011 09/12/2011 24/12/2011 08/01/2012 23/01/2012 07/02/2012 22/02/2012

Date
T_ambient Ta_max Alto Ta_min T_soil
T_slurry Tsl_max Tsl_min

Figure 3: Top: Ambient, greenhouse and biogas temperatures of a digester in the CIB3. Bottom:
Ambient, slurry and soil (1m deep) temperatures

18
 25

Temperature (ºC); biogas (m3)

20

15

10

-5

-10
20/05/2011 04/07/2011 18/08/2011 02/10/2011 16/11/2011 31/12/2011 14/02/2012

Date

Ta_Alto Tmax_Alto Tmin_Alto D90 D90B day 100

Figure 4: Accumulative biogas production (local conditions) for D90 and D90B with the daily
minimum, maximum and mean ambient temperatures

19
 70

60 y = 0.325x
R² = 0.998
day · m3biogas/KgSV 50

40

30

20 y = 0.226x
R² = 0.995
10

0
0 50 100 150 200
Days

D90 D90B Linear (D90) Linear (D90B)

Figure 5: Accumulative biogas production per Kgsv for D90 and D90B for the stabilized period,
and line fit for both cases showing the SBP as a slope (normal conditions: 1 atm, 0ºC)

20
Highlights

Low cost tubular digesters adapted to cold climate are monitored

Thermal performance of cold climate tubular digester is monitored

PET rings inside the reactor as biofilm carriers are evaluated

The biogas production is increased in 44% when PET rings are added to reactor

Passive solar design increased slurry temperature in +8.5ºC above the mean
ambient one

23