TY - JOUR
T1 - From pre-treatment to co-treatment - How successful is ultrasonication of digested sewage sludge in continuously operated anaerobic digesters?
AU - Lippert, Thomas
AU - Bandelin, Jochen
AU - Xu, Yunqi
AU - Liu, Yu Chen
AU - Robles, Gabriel Hernández
AU - Drewes, Jörg E.
AU - Koch, Konrad
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/4
Y1 - 2020/4
N2 - The present study assessed the performance of ultrasonic co-treatment, i.e., the treatment of digested sewage sludge in continuously operated anaerobic digesters. Experiments were carried out using a non-sonicated control digester and a sonicated test digester. The test digester received side-stream sonication (∼10% of reactor volume per day) at a specific energy input of 2,000 kJ/kgTS. Treatment effects were monitored based on (i) specific methane production, (ii) (volatile) solids removal, and (iii) digestate dewaterability. Results revealed that co-treatment significantly enhanced average methane production (+6%), volatile solids removal (+9%), and solids reduction in the digestate (−5%). However, due to the only moderate enhancement and the relatively high energy input, the average cost recovery (i.e., the ratio between electricity costs and benefits due to additional methane and improved solids removal) was only 6%–9%, depending on the assumed disposal costs. Moreover, as sonication led to impaired digestate dewaterability (average increase in normalized capillary suction time of 14%), the cost recovery due to reduced residual sludge might be negated again by lower dewatering efficiency. Overall, co-treatment seemed not economical under the conditions investigated. To render co-treatments economically feasible, further research, especially exploring the potential of low energy input sonication, is required.
AB - The present study assessed the performance of ultrasonic co-treatment, i.e., the treatment of digested sewage sludge in continuously operated anaerobic digesters. Experiments were carried out using a non-sonicated control digester and a sonicated test digester. The test digester received side-stream sonication (∼10% of reactor volume per day) at a specific energy input of 2,000 kJ/kgTS. Treatment effects were monitored based on (i) specific methane production, (ii) (volatile) solids removal, and (iii) digestate dewaterability. Results revealed that co-treatment significantly enhanced average methane production (+6%), volatile solids removal (+9%), and solids reduction in the digestate (−5%). However, due to the only moderate enhancement and the relatively high energy input, the average cost recovery (i.e., the ratio between electricity costs and benefits due to additional methane and improved solids removal) was only 6%–9%, depending on the assumed disposal costs. Moreover, as sonication led to impaired digestate dewaterability (average increase in normalized capillary suction time of 14%), the cost recovery due to reduced residual sludge might be negated again by lower dewatering efficiency. Overall, co-treatment seemed not economical under the conditions investigated. To render co-treatments economically feasible, further research, especially exploring the potential of low energy input sonication, is required.
KW - (Volatile) solids removal
KW - Anaerobic digestion
KW - Methane production
KW - Sludge dewaterability
KW - Ultrasonic treatment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096962272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.128
DO - 10.1016/j.renene.2020.11.128
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85096962272
SN - 0960-1481
VL - 166
SP - 56
EP - 65
JO - Renewable Energy
JF - Renewable Energy
ER -