1 TITLE

3 The Effects of biogas production, BOD and TSS of the consolidation of heat

4 and mixing system in an anaerobic digester

7 AUTHORS AND AFFLIATION

8 Suhaili, Rhudymir H.
9 1
School of Graduate Studies, Mapúa University, Manila 1002, Philippines / rhudy2291@gmail.com

10

11 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

12 Alviar, Charles Edward L.

13 School of Graduate Studies, Mapúa University, Manila 1002, Philippines / aaaalviar12@gmail.com

14

15

16 Highlights

17  Heating and mixing process of anaerobic digestion have no significant effect on BOD treatment.

18  Methane at an optimum range is recovered in a shorter span around 14 days.

19  Simultaneous heating and mixing process in anaerobic digester increases biogas production.

20
21 ABSTRACT

22 Anaerobic digestion is an engineered process where biodegradable materials are decomposed in an

23 oxygen-free environment. Traditional set-ups take up long hydraulic retention time to retrieve biogas and treat

24 solid waste. This study aims to investigate the effects of the combination of the heating and mixing process (set-

25 up 1) against a purely mixing process (set-up 2) to biogas production, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),

26 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) reduction and the amount of greenhouse gas (Methane) that can be captured and

27 utilized in both set-ups. The slurry for both set-ups is exclusive to a combination of swine manure and tap water,

28 to which a manure-water ratio of 1:1.25 is utilized in the experiment. The two set-ups utilize thermophilic

29 bacteria which are being maintained at a given temperature and mixing rate. For experiment 1, both set-ups are

30 acclimatized for the bacteria to adapt to their respective conditions. Once either set-up produces biogas, the

31 observation period commenced (14 days). In experiment 2, (2) gallons of the slurry were flushed out for both

32 systems. Both followed by a (14 days) observation. In conclusion, set-up 1 gave a better biogas production.

33 BOD does not give a significant difference between the two set-up. The TSS showed a more favorable result

34 with set-up 2 however it is a result of the use of a small sampling port. Through this, an improved set-up was

35 recommended.

36 Word count : 4814

37 Keywords: Anaerobic digester, Biogas, BOD, COD, TSS, Methane, Renewable Energy

38 Declarations of Interest : None

39

40

41
42 1. Introduction
43

44 Increasing demand for energy and pollution in the modern world is a major concern which draws mankind

45 to shift to eco-friendly energy resources and avoid the use of fossil fuels. AD is a source of renewable energy

46 for the production of methane from organic waste such as dairy manure, MSW and agricultural waste. AD is a

47 biological process in which bacteria and microorganisms decompose the organic matter to simpler compounds

48 and further to biogas consisting of methane (55-70%) and CO2 (25-30%). ( Deublein & Steinhauser, 2011) It

49 is historically one of the oldest processing technologies used in a commercial application. Until the 1970s

50 anaerobic digesters are exclusively used in wastewater treatment plants. Anaerobic digestion could provide

51 solutions in such as energy production, waste treatment, nutrient recovery and Greenhouse gas reduction.

52 (Wilkie, 2005) Though it can provide solutions to some of the world issues, its main hindrance in usage is the

53 retention time for the process to be completed. Retention time is the time requirement needed to either generate

54 biogas or treatment of waste. The common anaerobic technologies and their corresponding retention time are

55 plug-flow digester (15-25 days), covered lagoons (40-60 days) and complete mix digester (15-25 days).

56 (AgSTAR, 2011)

57 The production of eco-friendly biogas as renewable energy through AD of renewable resources is a

58 sustainable alternative significantly leading to the alleviation of greenhouse gas emissions. Biogas is a valuable

59 source of energy use for electricity, heat production and as a fuel for transportation. (Barua & Kalamdhad, 2019)

60 However, due to long retention time against biogas production, its option as a primary usage for energy is still

61 questionable.AD undergo multiple types of processes simultaneously done in a single digester. The anaerobic

62 processes are hydrolysis, acetogenesis, acidogenesis, and methanogenesis.(Stewart, 2005) Effective

63 methanogenesis can be achieved by smooth and an adequate mixing provided that there is an adjacent

64 association between acetogens and methanogens. (Gerardi, 2003) However, several factors affect these

65 chemical and biochemical reactions. The temperature of the system affects the rate of bacterial growth and waste
66 degradation and thus the quantity of gas produced. (Burke, 2001) Thus, maintaining a stable temperature in the

67 anaerobic digester can be even more important than selecting an operating temperature. (Tchobanoglous et al.,

68 2014) To date, configurations of methane bioreactors are simpler, employing one or rarely two different

69 digesters as a “rational basis of design” even if it’s known that each digester has different characteristics to treat

70 the waste of specific characteristics. Thus utilizing one reactor in one configuration may limit the possible

71 combination of pathways, which may limit performance. (Neba et al.,2019) Nearly 44% of the biogas plant

72 failures are due to flaws in mixing. (Hopfner-Sixt & Amon, 2006) Adequate mixing provides a uniform

73 environment for anaerobic bacteria, which is one of the major factors in obtaining maximum digestion.

74 (Monteith et al., 1981;Strenstrom et al., 1983;Lema et al., 1991;Karim et al., 2005;Wu, 2014) Mixing increases

75 the rate kinetics of anaerobic digestion, accelerating the biological conversion process. Additionally, mixing

76 allows uniform heating of the reactor (Rowse, 2011). The efficiency of AD depends on many key factors like

77 substrate type, C/N ratio, HRT, pH value, temperature, OLR, mixing and hydrodynamic factors of anaerobic

78 digester. The hydrodynamics is a paramount element that contributes to the evolution, mass transfer, structure

79 and metabolism of the microbial community in an anaerobic digestion process. (Liu et al., 2002) Keeping the

80 constant temperature inside an anaerobic digester is one of the most important conditions for stable operation

81 and high biogas yield. Temperature fluctuations determined by season or weather conditions must be kept low

82 as possible. Large fluctuations of temperature lead to an imbalance of the anaerobic digester process, and in

83 worst cases leads to a failed digester process. To achieve and maintain a constant process temperature and to

84 compensate for eventual heat losses, digesters must be insulated and heated by external heating sources. (Seadi

85 et al., 2008)

86 The retention time of the effluent can drastically be improved using mechanical systems which can be seen

87 for the retention time between completely mix digesters and covered lagoons. This can further be improved by

88 adding a heating system to an anaerobic digester. The use of heat and mixing system goes hand-in-hand, this is
 89 due to the fact that if there is a localized heat source in the controlled environment it can affect the system by

90 killing bacteria nearby the heat source. Another effect of a localize evaporation of the wastewater causing it to

91 degrade the methane composition of biogas. Therefore, upon being paired up with a mixing system, the effluent

92 will be able to maintain a uniform temperature within the controlled environment. Through the utilization of

93 this biogas prevents the emergence of methane in the atmosphere through the combustion methane and

94 producing carbon dioxide to the environment instead. Though methane and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse

95 gases, based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the global warming potential (GWP) of methane

96 is 28 to 36 times much worst compare to carbon dioxide. AD is also beneficial through Biological Oxygen

97 Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solid (TSS) Reduction. BOD and TSS also post a threat to environmental

98 balance in an ecosystem. BOD reduction is a critical treatment done on waste to prevent competition for the use

99 of Oxygen in an eco-system. While TSS, on the other hand, may cause to block sunlight penetration for aquatic

100 plants which would prevent photosynthesis.

101 The Philippines is a well-known agricultural country, where it is typically growing crops and livestock. In

102 2015, world consumption of pork was 118,230 metric tons. In the Philippines alone, 1006 metric tons of pork

103 was consumed in the same year. Next, to chicken, pork has been consistently the most consumed meat in the

104 Philippines since 2000. (OECD, 2015) The most common livestock being grown in the Philippines is swine and

105 has been the biggest contributor to Philippine livestock production since 1980. (CountrySTAT, 2016) However,

106 due to a large amount of swine manure, substantial amounts of lands would be needed to reduce the excessive

107 nutrient application that otherwise would result in nutrient losses and underground water pollution.(Fan et

108 al.,2017; Ribaudo et al.,2003)

109 This study mainly covers the benefits of utilization of different set-ups in biogas production, Biological

110 Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) reduction and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation (in a form

111 of Methane). The study includes the start of the anaerobic digestion namely as the inoculation and/or
112 acclimatization stage. To determine the advantage of heating between the set-ups, both of them shall have

113 uniform retention time and organic loading rate. This study showcases the gap of start-up digesters where most

114 study only focuses on an experiment using the recommended loading rate and retention time when studying the

115 effects on biogas production, BOD reduction, TSS reduction, and biogas composition.

116 2. Materials and Methods

117

118 2.1 Materials Selection

119 For handling of manure and biogas, ITDI-DOST recommends an acrylic sheet with 3 to 5 mm in

120 thickness. For the heating element, stainless steel was used in this experiment due to the corrosive nature of the

121 slurry. A steel plate is used to serve as a platform for the anaerobic digester and at the same time also serves as

122 the motor mount. An aluminum impeller was produced with the use of investment casting due to its light-weight,

123 formability and good corrosion resistance. Brass fittings are accessories used to serve as inlets and outlets from

124 the digester to the gas receiver; and the gas receiver to the flaring torch. A chemical hose is employed for the

125 transport of primary compounds from digester to the gas receiver.

126 2.2 Design and Fabrication

127 2.2.1 Heat Load

128 The Heat load can be obtained through the summation of sensible heat and heat loss due to walls.

129 Sensible Heat is comprised of the mass of manure to be heated up, specific heat of manure, temperature

130 difference of the effluent to the slurry and the amount of time it takes to reach the target temperature. Heat loss

131 due to walls on the other hand is comprised of heat loss coefficient of material based on thickness, the area of

132 the walls exposed to the atmosphere and the temperature difference of the slurry to the atmosphere. Computation

133 for the following components of heat load are as follows:

134 QT = Q + QL (1) Equation for the total heat load

135 QS = m  Cp  Tt (2) Equation for the sensible heat

136 QL = U  A  T (3) Equation for the wall heat loss

137 The calculated heating element is .581 kW. However for this study, 1.00 kW has been used in consideration

138 with the commercial availability and material corrosion impact.

139 2.2.2 Mixing System

140 Mixing systems are essential in anaerobic digester to promote uniform heating and microbial growth.

141 Mechanically driven mixers are the most popular when designing continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) due

142 to their simplicity. Table 1 shows the design specification for the mixing system is comprised of determining

143 the dimensions of the impeller and shafting; and the size of the motor.

144 The pumping number of pitched blade impeller is 0.79. (Fořt et al, 2003) For a more thorough mixing

145 within the system, Reynold’s number used is 10,000. Plotting the Reynold’s number in against a pumping

146 number gives an Impeller Diameter is to Tank Diameter (D/T) ratio of 0.3. (Couper et al., 2010) A square prism

147 is used as the shape of digester. Impeller diameter is obtained given the tank diameter and the D/T ratio. Based

148 on the Eddy simulation, pitched blade impellers have D/T = 0.5, C/D =0.5 and fN = 0.186. (Roussinova et

149 al.,2000) Width of the impeller is to Impeller Diameter (W/D) of 1:4. (Chatsungnoen & Chisti, 2019) Hub

150 diameter is to shaft diameter ratio (Ds/ds) used is 2:1 where it is commonly used for commercial type impellers

151 (Hlaing et al., 2014) the blade thickness can be obtained through equation (4). Motor sizing is primarily based

152 on the density of the slurry, the amount of revolution and the impeller diameter (C/D) ratio and obtained using

153 eq.(5). Shaft design is based on the combined stress of torque and bending moment capacity is obtained through

154 eq.(6),eq. (7), eq. (8). The impeller is then attached to the shaft by means of Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welding.

1
P fL (D/2)-Ds /2 2
155 T = 0.981{ } (4)
𝑁nb sin ∝ [fL (D/2)]Wσb
156 P = Np  𝜌  N3  D5 (5)

P
157 Ts = (6)
2πN

0.048PLf
158 Ms = (7)
ND

1
16 √T2 + M2 3
159 dS = ( ) (8)
π σS

160
161 2.2 Experimental Set-up
162

163 Fig (1) and (2) shows the schematic diagram for the two digesters used in this experiment, set-up 1

164 (heating and mixing system digester) and set-up 2 (purely mixing system digester or a CSTR digester). Set-up

165 1 has temperature monitoring through an LM35 temperature sensor. The LM35 temperature sensor was

166 connected to a temperature controller. The controller was programmed to maintain the temperature of the slurry

167 between 40 to 50 deg. C by means of a relay switch, which turns on and off the heating element. For the motors

168 not to experience overheating, both set-ups have timed mixing process at 30-minute mixing and 10-minute rest

169 period. The set-up also has a timer controller to maintain the said mixing activities. The feed inlet was made up

170 of PVC fittings and a ball valve whilst the sampling port is made of plastic; the said materials were utilized

171 since they tend to have no recorded reaction with the slurry. The gas from the digester is transported to the

172 receiver tank by means of brass fittings and a chemical hose.

173 Table 2 shows the operation parameters for the two experiments done in this study. Each experiment

174 was done in 12 days. First, the two set-ups experienced acclimatization in their respective parameters. Once

175 either set-up were able to produce biogas, the tests and observation begun. The two digesters were subjected to

176 a series of tests in a span of two (2) weeks. The test methods in the study are guided in the next sub-topic. The
177 second experiment, two (2) gallon for each set-up was flushed out and replaced by an acclimatized slurry. The

178 second experiment have also undergone the same tests done in first experiment.

179 The manure is exclusive to swine manure and is to be supplied by a livestock farm in Sta. Rosa, Laguna.

180 The influent is introduced to the system on the same day that the third party laboratory collects the specimen.

181 The only pre-treatment done on the manure is crushing and watering. The manure was introduced to both

182 digesters in a manure to water ratio of 1:1.25 by volume.

183 2.4 Test Methods

184

185 Table 3 shows the four tests done in this experiment. First is for biogas production, which was mainly

186 computing the volume of biogas produced in the system through the height increase in the gas receiver with its

187 respective area. Both set-ups are assumed to have a pressure at atmospheric condition where the normal

188 conditions are at 27 degree Celsius and 101.325 kPa. For set-up 1 the mean temperature of the biogas is 45 deg.

189 C whilst for set-up 2 the average temperature is 27 deg. C. Second is for the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

190 occurrence in the system which was measured by means of Azide Modification Dilution Technique. Third is for

191 the Total Suspended Solids which are measured by Gravimetric Method. Fourth is for the Methane content for

192 the biogas which was measured by Gas Chromatograph – Thermal Conductivity. Due to the failure of

193 experiment for set-up 2, since it did not produce anymore biogas, pH test was done to determine the source of

194 failure.

195 2.5 Data Analysis

196 Biogas production, BOD and TSS to be measured are analyzed by the method Analysis of Variance

197 (ANOVA Analysis).(Al-badai et al.,2013) This statistical method determined whether the difference of the two

198 (2) set-ups have significant contribution for these parameters. A confidence level of 95.0 % was used throughout

199 the computational process.

200 3. Results and Discussion

201 3.1 Design and Fabrication Output

202 The design of the heating and mixing system of the digester was proven to be successful by not having

203 any form of leaks, good functionality and was able to satisfactorily quantify the data needed in the experiment.

204 The basic digester parts were patterned and guided by a technical expert in ITDI-DOST. The use of 3⁄4 inch

205 PVC fittings showed some difficulty in introducing feed to the system where there was a need for the manure

206 to be crushed thoroughly. There was no visual corrosion indication on the brass fittings used. The use of water

207 dispenser for the sampling port gave some difficulty on sample collection due to retrieval of sample specimen.

208 3.2 Biogas Production

209 Fig. (3) and (4) shows biogas production is superior for the heating-mixing set-up, not only did it have

210 quicker biogas production, but it also outperformed the mixing set-up in terms of volume output. Note that the

211 later part of the experiment, set-up 2 was no longer producing biogas. The upper portion of the slurry in set-up

212 2 started to turn reddish in color due to the result of dying bacteria. Also, the amount of loading rate was fixed

213 for both set-ups which caused set-up 2 to stall its production. Based on the ANOVA analysis, the results of the

214 biogas production have an F value is 145.518 whilst F critical is 4.03. Thus, giving great significance to the

215 difference of gas production.

216 3.3 Biological Oxygen Demand

217 Having an inoculation age of two (2) weeks, Fig. (5) and (6) shows the BOD of set-up 1 has significant

218 difference from that of set-up 2 particularly in day 1. Since there was a limitation for the sampling period with

219 the third-party laboratory, there was a significant drop in the amount of BOD. BOD reduction requires a longer

220 retention time as to its organic loading rate. The resulting graphs showed that the bacteria are capable of adapting

221 to its corresponding loading rate. Based on the ANOVA analysis, we could see that the F value is 0.1093 whilst

222 F critical 4.75. Thus, pointing out that the BOD reduction shows no significant effect in both set-ups. BOD
223 reduction does not rely on the exposure of the bacteria in heat. Thus, BOD reduction does not have a direct

224 correlation with biogas production.

225 3.4 Total Suspended Solids

226 Fig. (7) and (8) shows that set-up 1 has a greater amount of TSS compared with set-up 2. Set-up 1 even

227 reached a value of 24,000 mg/L in experiment 2 where 2 gallons were flushed for each set-up and replace them

228 with an inoculated slurry. Based on ANOVA analysis, the F value is 64.4962 whilst F critical is 4.75; therefore

229 giving TSS reduction a significant difference for both set-ups. Upon referring to the consistency of the slurry,

230 fig. (9) shows that set-up 1 has a better consistency compared with set-up 2. Hence, there is also a need to

231 consider the opening of the sampling port. In this set-up, the opening hindered the sample specimen to be

232 homogenous.

233 3.5 Biogas Composition

234 The amount of methane produced by the system was near mean value whereas in the literature common

235 values range between 50 to 75 % methane by volume. Table 4 shows the result of biogas gas chromatograph,

236 the system was able to produce biogas with methane content of 67.12 % by volume. Since the reference

237 laboratory lacks test for Hydrogen Sulfide, the assumed Hydrogen Sulfide Yield of 0.03 % by volume of the

238 biogas (Ahmad et al. 2015). This would result in a methane production of 67.10 % by volume in the biogas.

239 4. Conclusion

240 The two set-ups were developed having a 5-gallon capacity and having one set-up that has both mixing

241 and heating system (set-up 1) and the other with only a mixing system(set- up 2). Biogas production was shown

242 to be in favor with set-up 1 having a quicker biogas production and larger volume generated in each day. Also,

243 set-up 2 no longer developed biogas in the last part of the experiment due to excessive loading rate and minimal

244 retention time. BOD reduction appears to be insignificant in both set-ups as both data are near each other.
245 However, for period one experiment 1 where both set-ups have just undergone the inoculation process, set-up 1

246 is superior by a factor of 3. TSS reduction appears to be in favor of set-up 2. However, by visual observation,

247 there is a need for the improvement of the sampling port. The small opening of the port caused problems in the

248 retrieval of the specimen with the same consistency, the only retrievable part of the slurry is its liquid portion.

249 Due to this, the benefits of the improved set-up in terms of TSS cannot be concluded. The amount of methane

250 being arrested by the system served to be slightly above average compared with common outputs of previous

251 research. As an investigation for the methane production failure, overfeeding would result in scum production

252 and pH retardation. It is then supported by the pH testing done where the pH of the slurry came to a value of

253 3.65.

254 Declarations of Interest : None

255
256
257 Acknowledgments

258 Our team expresses gratitude to the following institutions; Mapua University School of Graduate Studies

259 and Department of Science and Technology - Industrial Technology Development Institute for its immense

260 technical support.

261
262
263 References

264 AgSTAR Program 2011 – US Environmental Protection Agency. Recovering Value from Wastes.
265 https://epa.gov/agstar
266 Al-badaii, F., Shuhaimi-othman, M., Gasim, M.B., 2013. Water Quality Assessment of the Semenyih River ,. J.
267 Chem. 3216, 112–122.
268
269 Barua, V.B., Kalamdhad, A.S., 2019. Biogas production from water hyacinth in a novel anaerobic digester: A
270 continuous study. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 127, 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.05.007
271
272 Burke, D.A.P.., 2001. Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion Handbook. Time 20, 156–161.
273
274 Chatsungnoen, T., Chisti, Y., 2019. Chapter 11 - Flocculation and electroflocculation for algal biomass
275 recovery, in: Pandey, A., Chang, J.-S., Soccol, C.R., Lee, D.-J., Chisti, Y. (Eds.), Biofuels from Algae
276 (Second Edition), Biomass, Biofuels, Biochemicals. Elsevier, pp. 257–286.
277 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64192-2.00011-1
278
279 CountrySTAT Philippines, 2016. Livestock and Poultry: Volume of Production (accessed 15.02.16).
280 http://countrystat.psa.gov.ph/?Cont=10&phid=1&ma=B20PNVLP
281
282 Couper, J.R., Penney, W.R., Fair, J.R., Walas, S.M.B.T.-C.P.E. (Revised S.E. (Eds.), 2010. 10 – Mixing and
283 Agitation. Gulf Professional Publishing, Boston, pp. 273–324.
284 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-372506-6.00022-8
285
286 Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A., 2011. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources.
287 https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632794
288
289 Fan, J., Xiao, J., Liu, D., Ye, G., Luo, J., Houlbrooke, D., Laurenson, S., Yan, J., Chen, L., Tian, J., Ding, W.,
290 2017. Effect of application of dairy manure, effluent and inorganic fertilizer on nitrogen leaching in clayey
291 fluvo-aquic soil: A lysimeter study. Sci. Total Environ. 592, 206–214.
292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.060
293
294 Fořt, I., Jirout, T., Sperling, R., Jambere, S., Rieger, F., 2002. Study of Pumping Capacity of Pitched Blade
295 Impellers. Acta Polytech. 42, 68–72. https://doi.org/10.14311/380
296
297 Gerardi, M.H., 2003. Anaerobic Food Chain, The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters. John Wiley & Sons,
298 Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471468967.ch5
299
300 Hlaing, N.N., Win, H.H., Htet, Z.M., 2014. Design and Significant Effect of a Centrifugal Pump by using
301 Various Blade Exist Angles 03, 3018–3024.
302
303 Hopfner-Sixt, K., Amon, T., 2006. Monitoring of Agricultural Biogas Plants in Austria - Mixing Technology
304 and Specific Values of Essential Process Parameters.
305
306 Karim, K., Hoffmann, R., Thomas Klasson, K., Al-Dahhan, M.H., 2005. Anaerobic digestion of animal waste:
307 Effect of mode of mixing. Water Res. 39, 3597–3606.
308 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.06.019
309
310 Lema, J.M., Méndez, R., Iza, J., Garcia, P., Fernández-Polanco, F., 1991. Chemical Reactor Engineering
311 Concepts in Design and Operation of Anaerobic Treatment Processes. Water Sci. Technol. 24, 79–86.
312 https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1991.0219
313
314 Liu, Y., Tay, J.-H., 2002. The essential role of hydrodynamic shear force in the formation of biofilm and granular
315 sludge. Water Res. 36, 1653–1665.
316
317 Monteith, H.D., Stephenson, J.P., 1981. Mixing Efficiencies in Full-Scale Anaerobic Digesters by Tracer
318 Methods. J. (Water Pollut. Control Fed. 53, 78–84.
319
320 Neba, A.F., Nana, A.Y., Addo, A., Morken, J., Østerhus, S.W., Seidu, R., 2019. Use of attainable regions for
321 synthesis and optimization of multistage anaerobic digesters. Appl. Energy 242, 334–350.
322 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.095
323
324 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2015. Meat Consumption (Indicator) (accessed
325 16.02.16). https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meatconsumption.htm#indicator-chart.
326
327 Ribaudo, M.O., Gollehon, N.R., Agapoff, J., 2003. Land application of manure by animal feeding operations:
328 Is more land needed? J. Soil Water Conserv. 58, 30–38.
329
330 Rowse, L.E., 2011. Design of Small Scale Anaerobic Digesters for Application in Rural Developing Countries.
331 University of South Florida.
332
333 Roussinova, V.., Grgic, B., Kresta, S.M., 2000. Study of macro-instabilities in stirred tanks using a velocity
334 decomposition technique. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. Vol. 78, 1040–1052.
335
336 Seadi, T., Ruiz, D., Prassl, H., Kottner, M., Finsterwaldes, T., Volke, S., 2008. Handbook of biogas, Handbook
337 of biogas.
338
339 Stenstrom, M.K., Ng, A.S., Bhunia, P.K., Abramson, S.D., 1983. Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid
340 Waste. J. Environ. Eng. 109, 1148–1158. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1983)109:5(1148)
341
342 Stewart, D., 2014. Co-products. Whisky 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-401735-1.00015-5
343
344 Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2014. Wastewater engineering : treatment and resource
345 recovery, 5th ed. ed. New York : McGraw-Hill Higher Education ; London : McGraw-Hill [distributor].
346
347 Wilkie, A.C., 2005. Anaerobic Digestion : Biology and Benefits. Dairy Manure Manag. Treat. Handl.
348 Community Relations 63–72.
349
350 Wu, B., 2014. CFD Simulation of Gas Mixing in Anaerobic Digesters. Comput. Electron. Agric. 109, 278–
351 286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.10.007
352

353

1 Nomenclature/Abbreviation
2
3 QT Total Heat Load (kW)

4 QS Sensible heat for the amount of mass in the digester (kW)

5 QL Wall heat loss of the digester (kW)

6 m Amount of mass of the slurry (kg)

7 Cp Sensible heat coefficient for the slurry (kJ / kg – K)

8 T Change of temperature of the slurry (K)

 9 U Wall Heat Loss Coefficient (W/ m2 – K)

10 A Area of the wall exposed to the atmosphere (m2)

11 t Estimated time for the slurry to reached the maximum temperature

12 T Blade thickness (m)

13 P Power of the motor (Watts)

14 N Rotational speed of the motor (rev/sec)

15 Nb no. of blades used for the impeller

16 Ds hub diameter (m)

17 α blade angle used (rad)

18 σb Allowable Stress, 168 for Aluminum (MPa)

19 C/D Clearance is to Impeller Diameter Ratio

20 W/D Width of the impeller is to Impeller

21 DS/ds Hub diameter is to shaft diameter ratio

22 Np Power number for the impeller (unit less)

23 ρ density of slurry (kg/m3)

24 D diameter of the impeller (m)

25 fL locational fraction, 0.8 pitched blade impellers (m)

26 TS Shaft Torque (N-m)

27 MS Shaft Bending Moment (N-m)

28 dS Shaft diameter (mm)

29

30 Acronyms
31 AD Anaerobic Digester

32 BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

33 TSS Total Solid Suspended

34 CSTR Continuous stirred tank reactor

35

36 Figures (All colors should be used for any figures in print)

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Fig. 1 Schematic Diagram for Set-up 1
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 Fig. 2 Schematic Diagram for Set-up 2
 70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89

90 Fig. 3. Biogas production vs Test Dates Volume at 27C and 101.325 kPa (Experiment 1)

91

92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108 Fig. 4. Biogas production vs Test Dates Volume at 27C and 101.325 kPa (Experiment 2)
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133 Fig. 5. BOD vs Test Dates (Experiment 1)
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 Fig. 6. BOD vs Test Dates (Experiment 2)
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176

177

178 Fig. 7. TSS vs Test (Experiment 1)

179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198 Fig. 8. TSS vs Test (Experiment 2)
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221

222 Fig. 9. Slurry consistency taken at 50 mm distance a) set-up 1 b) set-up

223
224
225
226 Tables
227
228
229
230 Table 1. Mixing System Design Specification

Heat Load, kW 1
Tank diameter, mm 300
Impeller diameter, mm 90
Impeller width, mm 25
Blade clearance, mm 45
Blade thickness, mm 1.776
Motor, W 60
Shaft Torque, N-m 8.58
Shaft Bending Moment, N-m 8.05
Shaft diameter, mm 10
231
232
233
234 Table 2. Operation Parameters for the Experiment
235
Set-up Parameter Set-up 1 Set-up 2
Feed Operations Semi-batch Semi-batch
Organic Loading Rate 150 grams/day 150 grams/day
Mixing RPM 110 90
Mixing time (On/Off) 30 min / 10 min 30 min / 10 min
Temperature 40 to 50 deg. C Ambient (approx. 28 deg. C)
236
237
238

239 Table 3. Tests done for each parameters of the experiment with test frequency

Parameter Test Method Frequency

Biogas Production Volume Computation Daily
Biological Oxygen Demand 5210 Azide Modification 3 days/week
Total Suspended Solids 2540 D. Gravimetric 3 days/week
Greenhouse Gas Composition Gas Chromatography Once
pH level pH meter Once
240
241

242 Table 4. Results of Biogas Gas Chromatograph

Biogas Content % Volume

Hydrogen n.d.
Oxygen + Argon 7.35
Nitrogen 25.53
Methane 67.12
243