Assessment of sonotrode and tube reactors for ultrasonic pre-treatment of two different sewage sludge types

Jochen Bandelin, Thomas Lippert, Jörg E. Drewes, Konrad Koch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

The effectiveness of tube and sonotrode reactors for the sonication of sewage sludge under identical conditions was compared for the first time. Despite the considerable structural differences, sonication with each ultrasonic reactor led to an accelerated degradation rate and an increased methane production within the first five days for the majority of the sewage sludge samples tested. On closer examination, however, it becomes clear that the investigated sonication systems are not equally suitable for the substrates considered. While the use of a sonotrode proved to be particularly advantageous for the treatment of waste activated sludge (+25% methane yield at 300 kJ/kgTS), the use of a 2-inch tube reactor achieved the highest enhancement for low-intensity sonication in digested sludge (+22% methane yield at 300 kJ/kgTS). With increasing energy input, more chemical oxygen demand was solubilized, but this did not result in an increase in methane yield for all samples. Sonication of waste activated sludge led to a significant reduction in viscosity of up to 50%, and a reduction of up to 60% was observed after sonication of digested sludge with low energy inputs. The study, therefore, demonstrates that the choice of the most suitable sonication system essentially depends on the properties of the sludge to be sonicated.

Original languageEnglish
Article number105001
JournalUltrasonics Sonochemistry
Volume64
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2020

Keywords

  • Biogas production
  • Hydrophone
  • Sludge disintegration
  • Sludge viscosity
  • Sonotrode reactor
  • Ultrasonic tube reactor

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessment of sonotrode and tube reactors for ultrasonic pre-treatment of two different sewage sludge types'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this