Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Technical note

Comparative performance of a UASB reactor


and an anaerobic packed-bed reactor when treating
potato waste leachate
W. Parawiraa,b, M. Murtoa, R. Zvauyab, B. Mattiassona,*
a

Department of Biotechnology, Lund University, Center for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, P.O. Box 124,
SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
b
Department of Biochemistry, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
Received 30 November 2004; accepted 5 May 2005
Available online 10 August 2005

Abstract
The results presented in this paper are from studies on a laboratory-scale upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) reactor and an anaerobic packed-bed (APB) reactor treating potato leachate at
increasing organic loading rates from 1.5 to 7.0 g COD/1/day. The hydraulic retention times ranged
from 13.2 to 2.8 days for both reactors during the 100 days of the experiment. The maximum organic
loading rates possible in the laboratory-scale UASB and APB reactors for stable operation were
approximately 6.1 and 4.7 g COD/l day, respectively. The COD removal efficiencies of both reactors
were greater than 90% based on the total COD of the effluent. The methane yield increased
with increasing organic loading rate up to 0.23 l CH4/g CODdegraded in the UASB reactor and
0.161 CH4/g CODdegraded in the APB reactor. The UASB could be run at a higher organic loading rate
than the APB reactor and achieved a higher methane yield. Signs of reactor instability were decreasing
partial alkalinity and pH and increasing amounts of volatile fatty acids. The study demonstrated the
suitability of the UASB and a packed-bed reactor for treating leachate from potato waste.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; UASB; Anaerobic packed-bed; Potato waste; Leachate; Biogas; Methane yield

Abbreviations: UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; APB, anaerobic packed-bed; OLR, organic loading
rate; COD, chemical oxygen demand; PA, partial alkalinity; TA, total alkalinity; HRT, hydraulic retention time;
VFA, volatile fatty acids; TVFA, total volatile fatty acids; HAc, acetic acid; HPr, propionic acid; i- and n-BA,
isobutyric and butyric acid; i- and n-VA, isovaleric and valeric acid.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C46 4622 28264; fax: C46 4622 24713.
E-mail address: bo.mattiasson@biotek.lu.se (B. Mattiasson).
0960-1481/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2005.05.013

894

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

1. Introduction
Applications of anaerobic digestion have increased during the past 30 years. The
process involves the treatment of agricultural and industrial waste of varying types in the
production of biogas. Interest in the anaerobic treatment of agro-industry waste is
increasing because it is economical, has lower energy requirements and is ecologically
sound, among several other advantages, compared with aerobic treatment processes [1,2].
The process produces digested sludge, which is mainly used as fertilizer for crop
production since the nutrients in the raw material remain in the mineralized sludge as
accessible compounds [3]. Treating waste to yield fuel while recycling nutrients
constitutes a sustainable cycle.
Anaerobic digestion is a complex, natural, multi-stage process of degradation of
organic compounds through a variety of intermediates into methane and carbon dioxide,
by the action of a consortium of microorganisms [4,5].The interdependence of the bacteria
is a key factor in the anaerobic digestion process. Instability during both the start-up and
operation of the anaerobic degradation process can be problematic due to the low specific
growth rate of the methanogenic microorganisms involved [6]. Under conditions of
unstable operation, intermediates such as VFAs and alcohols accumulate at different rates
depending on the cause of the instability [4]. The most common causes of imbalance are
hydraulic or organic overloading, the presence of toxins and changes in the substrate
concentration. Several parameters are used as indicators of stress, such as variations in gas
production rate, gas composition, pH, PA and VFA concentration [79].
Increased stability and performance in anaerobic reactors can be achieved if the
microbial consortium is retained in the reactor. Two means of achieving this are to use
dense bacterial granula as in UASB reactors or a microbial biofilm attached to inert
carriers in packed-bed reactors. The packing medium in the packed-bed reactor and the
granular sludge in the UASB reactor serve as a filter preventing bacterial washout and also
providing a larger surface area for faster biofilm development and improved
methanogenesis [10,11]. Biofilm or fixed-film reactors depend on the natural tendency
of mixed microbial populations to adsorb onto surfaces and to form a biofilm. Many carrier
materials have been investigated regarding their suitability as supports for biofilm,
including cheap, readily available materials like sand, clay, glass, quartz and a number of
plastics [6,12,13].
The potential of the UASB process for treating mainly soluble liquid waste has been
demonstrated in both full-scale and pilot-scale UASB plants, as well as in numerous
bench-scale UASB experiments, with various types of waste from agro-food industries, e.
g. sugar, maize starch, wheat starch, brewery, slaughterhouse, dairy and vegetable canning
[10]. The use of packed-bed reactors to treat different kinds of wastewater has also been
reported, for example, dairy and brewery wastewater [12]. Although there has been a great
deal of research concerning the performance of high-rate reactors, there are few reports of
comparative experiments between various high-rate processes treating potato waste
leachate operated under similar conditions [14]. This study was carried out to compare the
performance of two types of bioreactors when treating high-strength leachate extracted
from potato at various OLRs. The same leachate was treated in both a small-scale UASB
reactor and an APB reactor with the overall aim of developing and comparing these

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

895

high-rate systems for biomethanation of potato waste. The results will serve as the basis
for alternative digester design such as two-stage processes.
More than 3000 tonnes of potato waste are produced in southern Sweden every year,
corresponding to a biogas energy potential of 11 GWh per year. The high organic content
and degradability of potato waste make it one potential source of renewable energy from
agricultural waste in southern Sweden [15]. The raw material can, however, be seen as
representative of many other kinds of starch-rich biomass for conversion to biogas.

2. Materials and methods


2.1. Experimental design
This laboratory-scale study was performed using two different reactor designs. One was
a UASB reactor with an active volume of 0.84 1 and a small funnel installed in the upper
part acting as a gas separator. The other was a glass APB reactor with an active volume of
0.7 1 filled up to 0.61 of its volume with plastic beads, with a rough surface to retain the
bacterial biomass [16]. The temperatures of the reactors were maintained at mesophilic
conditions (37 8C) by pumping water from an external thermostat through a water jacket
surrounding the reactors. The feed was introduced through the bottom of each reactor by
means of peristaltic pumps. The reactors were operated simultaneously using the same
feed. Their contents were recycled at a constant flow rate of 5 ml/h from the top to the
bottom of each reactor in order to provide good contact between the bacterial biomass and
the leachate.
2.2. Preparation of potato leachate used as substrate
Potatoes were grated into small particles ranging in size from 0.3 to 5.5 cm using a
kitchen blender (Moulinex Masterchef 350, France). Leachate was collected from 100 g
potato particles in 150 ml distilled water. The mixed potatoes and water were left to stand
for 20 min with intermittent mixing. The leachate was collected by sieving the mixture
(mesh size: 2 mm particle size) to remove larger solid particles. The leachate was diluted
with tap water to a concentration of approximately 20 g COD/l and was stored in a feed
tank maintained at 4 8C by a cooling water bath (Heto-Chillmaster model C B8-30 E,
Heto-Holden A/S. Allerod, Denmark) in order to minimize degradation of the
components. The leachate was agitated using a magnetic stirrer to prevent sedimentation
of particles. Feed batches of the leachate were made twice weekly. The main
characteristics of the leachate are given in Table 1. During the first 2 days of the
experimental period, the pH of the leachate was adjusted by addition of 12 g/l NaHCO3 to
prevent the pH of the reactor liquid dropping below 6.0.
2.3. Seed sludge
The inoculum used in the UASB reactor was granular sludge from a full-scale UASB
reactor processing papermill wastewater. A mixed mesophilic culture (with a total solids

896

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

Table 1
Characteristics of the potato leachate (with variability) used as substrate in the digesters
PH
TS (%)
VS (% of TS)
COD total (g/L)
Total carbon (% of TS)
Total Kjelldahl nitrogen (% of TS)
C/N ratio
Total phosphates (g/L)
Orthophosphates (g/L)

6.1G0.6
1.7G0.4
89.4G5.0
20.3G0.5
52.6G0.2
1.3G0.3
40.5G0.3
0.2G0.1
0.03G0.1

(TS) content of 1.7% w/w and a volatile solids (VS) content of 59% of TS) from Ellinge
wastewater treatment plant, Sweden, was used as the inoculum in the APB reactor.
2.4. Operational conditions
The OLRs applied to the reactors ranged from 1.5 to 7.0 COD/l/day corresponding to
hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 13.22.9 days. The OLR was increased gradually by
increasing the flow rate to each reactor. The OLR was increased when the reactors had
reached quasi-steady-state conditions at each OLR (since a true steady state could not be
achieved in the reactors under the conditions of the experiments). In every experimental run,
the systems were considered to be in quasi-steady-state when the methane yield was almost
constant, and the methane production rate was almost constant for at least six consecutive
days. This was usually achieved within three HRT cycles. The COD of the feed was
measured daily to ascertain the exact amount being added to the digester. At around the 60th
day in both the UASB and the APB the organic load increased to above 4.7 g COD/l/day due
to an increase in the amount of COD in the feed, causing a dramatic decrease in the partial
alkalinity (PA) and increased amounts of volatile fatty acids (VFAs). The organic loading
rate was reduced to 1.5 g COD/l/day for 12 h and the systems recovered.
2.5. Analytical methods
The systems were sampled every 2 days throughout the duration of the experiment and
analyzed with regard to pH, COD, VFAs, PA, TA, gas production and composition [17,
18]. Samples were also analyzed regarding total ammoniumnitrogen once a week. The
total and volatile solids were determined according to standard methods 2540 B and 2540
E (APHA, 1998). All analyses were performed in triplicate.
The titrimetric alkalinity of the sample was evaluated as PA by titration to pH 5.75, and
as TA by titration to pH 4.3 with 0.1 M HCl using a TitraLabe 80 titrator (Radiometer,
Copenhagen, Denmark) and expressed as mg CaCO3/l. Samples for alkalinity
measurements were centrifuged (WIFUG Lab. Centrifuges STUDIE-M, England) at
3000!g for 3 min and the supernatant was collected for analysis.
VFAs were analyzed with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
(Varian Star 9000, Varian, Walnut Creek, USA), with a BioRad column, Cat. 1250115

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

897

(Hercules, USA) for fermentation monitoring. The column temperature was 65 8C,
sulphuric acid (1 mM) was used as mobile phase and the liquid flow was 0.8 ml/min. Peak
detection was achieved with UV absorption at 208 nm and chromatograms were integrated
and plotted using Star chromatographic software. Samples for VFA analysis were,
centrifuged at 3000!g for 3 min and the supernatant was acidified with concentrated
sulphuric acid. The samples were stored at K20 8C until analysis. Before analysis, the
samples were thawed, filtered through a 0.45 mm filter (Minisart, Satorius AG, Gottingen,
Germany) and the filtrate was collected in HPLC sample vials.
The biogas composition was measured using gas chromatography, Varian 3350
(Walnut Creek, USA) fitted with a Hay sep Q 80/100 mesh column, a molecular sieve
column and a thermal conductivity detector. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow
rate of 12 ml/min. The column temperature was 70 8C and the injector and detector
temperatures were 110 and 150 8C, respectively. The compounds detected were methane,
carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen and oxygen. The biogas produced in the
reactors was collected in gas-tight bags and the volume was measured using a wet-type
precision gas meter (Schlumberger, Karlsruhe, Germany).
Dr Lange cuvette tests and a Lasa 100 spectrophotometer (Dr Bruno Lange GmbH,
Germany) were used for the following standard analyses: COD (LCK 114), total nitrogen
(LCK 338), total phosphates and orthophosphates PO4 (PO4P) (LCK 348). The amount of
NH4-nitrogen was measured on filtered samples (0.45 ml filter) (LCK 303).

3. Results
Regarding the performance of the reactors during digestion of the potato waste
leachate.
The methane yield was the same in both rectors at the same OLRs until the APB reactor
failed due to overloading (Tables 2 and 3). The methane yields in both reactors increased
linearly with increasing OLR up to 0.23 l CH4/g CODdegraded at 6.1 g COD/l day for the
UASB and 0.16 l CH4/g CODdegraded at 4.7 g COD/l/day for the APB reactor at stable
operation. When the OLR was increased to 7.0 g COD/l/day for the UASB and
6.1 g COD/l/day for the APB, the reactors became overloaded and failed. Signs of
process failure were the decrease in methane yield, pH and PA, and increasing
Table 2
Summary of results from the UASB reactor
OLR
(g COD/l/day)

Methane yield
(l CH4/
g CODdegraded)

Methane
content (%)

Volumetric
methane
productivity
(l/lreactor/day)

Total COD
reduction (%)

Ammonium
nitrogen (g/l)

1.5
3.0
4.7
6.1
7.0

0.05G0.01
0.11G0.02
0.17G0.01
0.23G0.02
Process overload

68
70
65
59

0.1G0
0.3G0.1
0.8G0.1
1.4G0.2

92G4.2
95G3.3
98G1.4
93G5.3

0.5G0.1
0.3G0.1
0.2G0.2
0.2G0.1

898

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

Table 3
Summary of results from the APB reactor
OLR
(g COD/l/day)

Methane yield
(l CH4/
g CODdegraded)

Methane
content (%)

Volumetric
methane productivity (l/
lreactor/day)

Total COD
reduction (%)

Ammonium
nitrogen (g/l)

1.5
3.0
4.7
6.1

0.04G0.01
0.07G0.02
0.16G0.01
Process overload

80
78
66

0.1G0.02
0.2G0.1
0.7G0.1

91G4.2
96G2.2
98G1.5

0.4G0.07
0.2G0.02
0.2G0.01

concentrations of VFAs. Foaming was also observed in the sludge bed of the UASB
reactor followed by incidental lifting of parts of the bed and a pulse-like eruption of the gas
from this zone. A great deal of biomass washout of poor-settling sludge flocs was observed
just before the system collapsed in the UASB reactor. The APB reactor failed after 10 days
upon changing the OLR from 4.7 to 6.1 g COD/l day.
At an OLR of 1.54.7 g COD/l/day the UASB reactor produced biogas with lower
methane content than the APB reactor. The average methane content in the biogas from
the UASB reactor was 70% and from the APB reactor 80%. The methane content in
both reactors decreased with increasing OLR and when overloaded sharply
decreased. The methane productivity increased with increasing OLR in both reactors,
UASB giving 1.4 l/lreactor/day at 6.1 g COD/l/day compared to 0.7 l/lreactor/day for the
APB reactor at 4.7 g COD/l/ day.
The COD reduction in both the UASB and the APB reactors with increasing OLR is
given in Tables 2 and 3 based on total COD. Both systems were very effective in removing
soluble COD from the potato leachate giving COD reductions above 90% from
1.5 g COD/l/day until process failure. The concentrations of ammoniumnitrogen in the
UASB and the APB reactors initially decreased with increasing OLR and then remained
rather constant at 0.2 g/L in both reactors.
With increasing OLR in the UASB reactor (Fig. 1) and APB reactor (Fig. 2), the PA and
TA decreased in both reactors throughout the period of the study; the pH inside both
reactors varied between pH 7 and 8 and for the UASB dropped to below 5 at 7.0 g COD/L/
day indicating an overload of the system; the PA decreased to zero at this OLR, also
indicating process overload; the TA increased when process failure occurred.
At increasing OLR in the UASB reactor (Fig. 1b) the system produced low amounts of
VFA at OLRs below 6.1 g COD/l/day, although there were some noticeable increases in
the amounts as soon as the OLR was changed and the system quickly recovered. Acetic
acid (HAc) was essentially the only volatile acid detected at the lower levels of OLR and
the absence of propionic acid (HPr) or branched-chain acids indicated a well-functioning
digester. There was a sharp increase in TVFA accumulation to very high levels when the
system collapsed. The TVFA and the individual VFA continued to increase even after
organic loading had been stopped for both reactors. The accumulation of VFA showed the
same pattern in the APB reactor as in the UASB reactor associated with a reduction in PA
and pH. In both reactors, half of the VFAs were HAc with the rest being HPr, i- and n-BA
and i- and n-VA.

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

899

Fig. 1. Alkalinity and pH (a) and VFAs (b) during anaerobic digestion of potato leachate in the UASB reactor at
different OLRs (g COD/l day) indicated by the arrows.

4. Discussion
The performance of the APB reactor was inferior to that of the UASB reactor in terms
of maximum possible OLR. This may be due to clogging and channeling which are more
likely to occur in upflow anaerobic filters than in UASB reactors [19]. Another possible
explanation was that the plastic carriers used were new and hence the APB reactor might
have required more time for establishment of the microbial biomass. Gijzen and Kansiime
[20] also reported better performance of the UASB reactor than that of polyurethane
carrier packed reactor when digesting VFAs.
Reactors are sensitive to particles in the feed, as they interfere with granule formation in
the UASBs and can cause clogging in the carrier beads of APB reactors. To minimize this
problem, the soluble compounds in the potatoes were leached out and used to feed the
high-tate reactors.
The problem of foaming in UASB reactors reported by other workers (e.g. [21]) was
also experienced in this study at OLRs above 6.0 g COD/l/day. The use of the granular
sludge UASB reactor at higher OLR than 6.0 g COD/l/day under the conditions employed

900

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

Fig. 2. Alkalinity and pH (a) and VFAs (b) during anaerobic digestion of potato leachate in the APB reactor at
different OLRs (g COD/l/day) as shown by the arrows.

gave poor segregation between granular (more settleable) and flocculant (less settleable)
sludges leading to sudden sludge flotation and reactor failure.
The UASB achieve a higher methane yield and could be run at a higher OLR than the
APB reactor as reported [22]. It was concluded that methane yield seems to be a
representative parameter for process monitoring. Many authors have determined the
methane yield of bioflim reactors under steady-state conditions, and reported different
results depending on the substrate and the operating conditions. A valid comparison
between data sets can only be made using experiments where the same wastewater and
reactors of comparable size, and the same operating conditions are used. The methane
yield, defined as the amount of methane produced for a given quantity of organic matter
removed as a result of the activity of the anaerobic microorganisms [22], obtained from the
APB reactor was similar to that reported by Mshandete et al. [14] during a study of the
influence of recirculation flow rate on the performance of anaerobic packed-bed-rectors
treating potato-waste leachate. Kalyuzhnyi et al. [21] obtained a methane yield of 0.3 l
CH4/g CODdegraded at an OLR of 6 g COD/l/day in a UASB treating potatomaize waste
water. In this study, the methane yields of both reactors were below the expected values of
0.35 l CH4/g CODdegraded [22]. The methane yields are normally constant during steady

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

901

state conditions for a given carbon substrate under anaerobic conditions, but probably true
steady state conditions were not achieved under these experimental conditions. Long
establishment of the microbial biomass, which requires consumption of organic matter
(carbon), thereby reducing the proportion of the substrate converted to methane, probably
reduced methane yield. Another possible explanation could be accumulation of organic
matter entrapped in reactors which was not represented in the effluent sampled and thus
higher COD removal was observed even when the OLR was increased, resulting in
underestimation of the methane yield.
There is a need to find means of improving the anaerobic digestion of potato waste
leachate and increasing the methane yield. One possible way of achieving this could be codigestion with waste with a high carbon content to improve the C/N ratio.
The decrease in the methane content in the biogas to an average of 50% at higher OLRs
of 7.0 g COD/l/day for the UASB and 6.1 g COD/l/day in the APB reactor was due to the
fact that the methanogenic reaction had become the rate-limiting step, as evidenced by the
accumulation of VFAs in the effluent. The accumulation of VFAs led to a reduction in pH,
a higher production of carbon dioxide and lower methane production.
The treatment of the leachate to reduce the organic matter worked well, indicating high
COD removal. Both reactors showed rapid adaptation to sharp changes in the OLR without
significant loss in the COD removal efficiency apparently due to the easily biodegradable
components such as carbohydrate and protein in the potato leachate [23,24].
Carbohydrates (mainly starch) usually make up the bulk of the organic load in this type
of feedstock. The high COD removal efficiency was comparable to those reported in the
literature [25,26]. Koster and Lettinga [27], reported 85% treatment efficiency using a
UASB to treat potato wastewater at an OLR rate of 5 g COD/l/day. The difference in
concentration of ammoniumnitrogen at the different OLRs could have been due to the
fact that different potato batches were used to prepare the leachate and these may have had
varying concentrations of ammoniumnitrogen.
The VFA concentration in the effluents was consistently low when the reactors were
operated at low OLRs. Low VFA concentration, particularly of long-chain fatty acids,
illustrated that the methanogenic step was not rate-limiting under these conditions and the
reactors were not under stress [28]. The accumulation of VFAs at overload indicated that
while the first steps of degradation, hydrolysis and acidogenesis were rapid, acetogenesis
from higher VFAs and methanogenesis from acetic acid were the rate limiting steps. The
concentration of VFAs has been recognized for a long-time as being an important
parameter in the control of the anaerobic process [29]. Signs of reactor instability were
decreasing PA, and pH, and increasing amounts of VFAs. The PA should be above
1200 mg/l for stable reactor operation [8]. Due to the low buffering capacity of the reactor
liquid, the bicarbonate was quickly consumed when VFAs were accumulating, resulting in
a decrease in pH [28,30].

5. Conclusions
The UASB reactor proved superior in its performance to the APB reactor in terms of
methane yield under quasi-steady state conditions. Both reactors had comparably high

902

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

COD removal efficiencies, being above 90% under the conditions used. Anaerobic
digestion of potato waste leachate under the conditions of the experiment resulted in a
lower methane yield than those obtained by other workers. Using potato leachate
feedstock, the UASB and APB reactors could be reliably operated at around 6 and 4.
7 g COD/l day, respectively. pH, PA and VFA concentrations were all useful for
indicating approaching process failure.

Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation
(SAREC).

References
[1] Landine RC, Virarahgavan T, Cocci AA, Brown GJ, Lin KC. Anaerobic fermentation-filtration of potato
processing wastewater. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1982;54:10310.
[2] Borja R, Martin A, Luque M, Alonso V. Kinetics of methane production from wine distillery wastewater in
an immobilized cell bioreactor using sepiolite as support medium. Resour Conserv Recycl 1994;10:31727.
[3] Francese AP, Aboagye-Mathiesen G, Olesen T, Cordoba PR, Sineriz F. Feeding approaches for biogas
production from animal wastes and industrial effluents. World J Biotechnol 2000;16:14750.
[4] Gujer W, Zehnder AJB. Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 1983;15:12767.
[5] Noykova N, Muller TG, Gyllenberg M, Timmer J. Quantitative analysis of anaerobic wastewater treatment
process: identifiability and parameter estimation. Biotechnol Bioeng 2002;78:89103.
[6] Bjornsson L, Mattiasson B, Henrysson T. Effects of support material on the pattern of volatile fatty acid
accumulation at overload in anaerobic digestion of semi-solid waste. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1997;47:
6404.
[7] Powell GE, Archer DB. On-line titration method for monitoring buffer capacity and total volatile fatty acid
levels in anaerobic digesters. Biotechnol Bioeng 1989;33:5707.
[8] Jenkins SR, Morgan JM, Zhang X. Measuring the usable carbonate alkalinity of operating anaerobic
digesters. Res J Water Pollut Control Fed 1991;63:2834.
[9] Bjornsson L, Murto M, Jantsch TG, Mattiasson B. Evaluation of new methods for the monitoring of
alkalinity, dissolved hydrogen and the microbial community in anaerobic digestion. Water Res 2001;35:
283340.
[10] Lettinga G. Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1995;67:
328.
[11] Picanco AP, Vallero MVG, Gianotti EP, Zaiat M, Blundi CE. Influence of porosity and composition of
supports on the methanogenic biofilm characteristics developed in a fixed bed anaerobic reactor. Water Sci
Technol 2001;44:197204.
[12] Anderson GK, Kasipgil B, Ince O. Comparison of porous and non-porous media in upflow anaerobic filters
when treating dairy wastewater. Water Res 1994;28:161924.
[13] Balaguer MD, Vicent MT, Paris JM. A comparison of different support materials in anaerobic fluidised bed
reactors for the treatment of vinasses. Environ Technol 1997;18:53944.
[14] Mshandete A, Murto M, Kivaisi AK, Rubindamayugi MST, Mattiasson B. Influence of recirculation flow
rate on the performance of anaerobic packed-bed bioreactors treating potato-leachate. Environ Technol
1997;25:92936.
[15] Parawira W, Murto M, Zvauya R, Mattiasson B. Anaerobic batch digestion of solid potato waste alone and
in combination with sugar beet leaves. Renew Energy 2004;29:181123.

W. Parawira et al. / Renewable Energy 31 (2006) 893903

903

[16] degaard H, Rusten B, Westrum T. A new moving bed biofilm reactorapplications and results. Water Sci
Technol 1994;29(10/11):15765.
[17] APHA-AWWA-WPCF. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. 20th ed.
Washington DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water
Environment Federation; 1998.
[18] Allen SE. Chemical analysis of biological materials. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications;
1989 p. 368.
[19] Lettinga Pol G, Hulshoff LW, Koster IW, Wiegant WM, De Zeeuw WJ, Rinzema A, et al. High-rate
anaerobic wastewater treatment using UASB reactor under a wide range of temperature conditions.
Biotechnol Genetic Eng Rev 1984;2:25384.
[20] Gijzen HJ, Kansiime F. Comparison of start-up of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor and a
polyurethane carrier reactor. Water Sci Technol 1996;34:50915.
[21] Kalyuzhnyi , Estrada de los Santos L, Martinez JR. Anaerobic treatment of raw and preclarified potatomaize wastewaters in a UASB reactor. Bioresour Technol 1998;66:1959.
[22] Michaud S, Bernet N, Buffie`re P, Roustan M, Moletta R. Methane yield as a monitoring parameter for the
start-up of anaerobic fixed film reactors. Water Res 2002;36:138591.
[23] Abeling U, Seyfried CF. Anaerobicaerobic treatment of potatostarch wastewater. Water Sci Technol
1993;28:16576.
[24] Hadjivassilis I, Gajdos S, Vanco D, Nicolaou M. Treatment of wastewater from the potato chips and snacks
manufacturing industry. Water Sci Technol 1997;36:32935.
[25] Nanninga HJ, Gottschal JC. Microbial problems with waste from potato-starch processing. Microbiol Sci
1986;3:17982.
[26] Zoutberg GR, Eker Z. Anaerobic treatment of potato processing wastewater. Water Sci Technol 1999;40:
297404.
[27] Koster IW, Lettinga G. Application of the upflow anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) process for treatment of
complex wastewaters at low temperatures. Biotechnol Bioeng 1985;27:14117.
[28] Cobb SA, Hill DT. Volatile fatty acids relationships in attached growth anaerobic fermenters. Trans Am Soc
Agric Eng (ASAE) 1991;34:256472.
[29] Ahring BK, Sandberg M, Angelidaki I. Volatile fatty acids as indicators of process imbalance in anaerobic
digesters. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1995;43:55965.
[30] Bjornsson L, Murto M, Mattiasson B. Evaluation of parameters for monitoring an anaerobic co-digestion
process. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2000;54:8449.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi