Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Simulation and Optimisation

of an Anaerobic Digester for
Wastewater Treatment and Methane Production
Kamran Khammadov [00859689], Yue Zheng Neo [00636426], Jun Hui Lee [00876672]

Abstract: This paper deals with the optimisation and cal- dynamics of the process components, and thus is adopted as
ibration of a two-reaction model of anaerobic digestion. A the primary operational strategy. To overcome the inherent
steady-state optimisation of the digester dilution rate was problem of instability, it is necessary to model, simulate and
carried out to obtain optimum values for bacteria concen- optimise such anaerobic digesters.
trations, which were used in the dynamic optimisation of The paper is organised as follows. The first section in-
the digester start-up process. Additional control of the volves modelling, simulation and dynamic optimisation of
digester alkalinity and a constraint on the methane frac- the process with the aid of GAMS and gPROMS. The sec-
tion were then added to refine the optimisation. The re- ond section focuses on enhancing the calibration of the
sults of 4 days of experiments in a 1-m3 digester were
model proposed by [1].
then used to improve the calibration of the model through
the conduct of a general sensitivity analysis to identify the
model parameters to be refined. MODELLING, SIMULATION AND OPTIMISATION OF
Keywords: dynamic optimisation; sensitivity analysis; AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTER
parameter estimation
Equations of a Dynamic Mass-Balance Model

INTRODUCTION Based on the paper [1], the dynamic mass-balance model of
an anaerobic digester is represented by Eqs. (1) to (6):
The anaerobic wastewater treatment, despite many of its
advantages over conventional aerobic wastewater treatment, dX 1
  1   D  X 1 (1)
has some potential limitations. One of them is the problem dt
of stability, or lack thereof, which makes it particularly im- dX 2
portant to implement an efficient control strategy.   2   D  X 2 (2)
Based on the work of Bernard et al. [1], the anaerobic di- dZ
gestion process consists of two reactions involving acido-  D  Z in  Z  (3)
genic bacteria X1 and methanogenic bacteria X2: dS1
 D  S1in  S1   k1 1 X 1 (4)
Acidogenesis k1S1 → X1 + k2S2 + k4CO2 (r1 = μ1 X1)
 D  S2in  S 2   k2 1 X 1  k3 2 X 2 (5)
Methanisation k3S2 → X1 + k5CO2 + k6CH4 (r2 = μ2 X2) dt
We considered an upflow anaerobic fixed-bed digester fed  D  Cin  C   qC  k4 1 X 1  k5 2 X 2 (6)
with industrial wine distillery wastewater similar to the one
described in [1]. It is assumed to be a continuous stirred-
tank reactor such that the biomass is uniformly distributed.
First, X1 consumes the organic substrate S1 and produces 1  1max (7)
CO2 and volatile fatty acid S2. S2 is mainly composed of S1  K S 1
acetate and is assumed to behave as pure acetate. Then, X2 S2
2  2 max (8)
consumes S2, forming CO2 and methane. Both gases are the S2
S2  K S 2  2
main components of the outlet gas and their flow rates are KI 2
denoted by qC and qM respectively. μ1 and μ2 are the specific qC  k L a  C  S 2  Z  K H PC  (9)
growth rates respectively. The total alkalinity Z, or the sum
of dissociated acids in the medium, can be used for monitor-    2  4 K H PT  C  S2  Z 
PC  (10)
ing or even as a control strategy for the plant. The dilution 2K H
rate of the reactor D, which represents the ratio of the influ- k6
  C  S2  Z  K H PT  2 X 2 (11)
ent flow rate to the reactor volume, directly influences the kL a


The start-up conditions will affect the yield  0  or selectivity of the desired product [2].65 days for a total duration of 26. the system of Eqs.01 0.247/day → 0/day Cin  50 mmol L1 Z in  40 mmol L1 0.256/day → 0. 0  t tf The existence of multiple steady states have several prac- tical implications. 0. This model can exhibit multiple steady states.0553/day → 0.0702 g/L and a methane Figure 1.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 2 .4 days.347/day in 0. The lower dilution rate and methane production show that a trade-off has to be made in order to meet the stricter COD abatement condition. The optimal solution is shown in Fig. 0 10 20 30 t (days) genic bacteria concentration of 0. KHAMMADOV ET AL. ξ (0)    desired state [2]. [1]: stable. The solution (Fig. a steady. we considered a digester fed with industrial wine dis- tillery wastewater with the following average compositions: 0. 1) is as follows.4 state methanogenic bacteria concentration of 0. respectively (as determined earlier for the case of 80% min- (2) and (5) is a chemostat model with Haldane-type kinetics. giving an optimal dilution rate of 0. This produced a D (d−1) constant 4.t.2 A repeated optimisation with the imposed constraint of 80% minimum COD abatement was carried out. using the same which has three steady states: one non-trivial and locally nomenclature used by Bernard et al. with a new minimum time of 26. the presence of washout 0. Different initial  0  conditions could lead to different steady states [2]. For instance.5 days: Here.250/day → 0.01 arising from multiplicity imposes constraints on the start-up   and control strategies required to maintain the system at a  40  s.0570 g/L and a corresponding COD abatement of 72. min tf D ( t ). 2. a steady-state methano.180 g/L.2555/day → 0. a steady-state acidogenic bacteria concentration of 0. Refining Control Parameterisation The control formulation was refined by changing the piece- wise-constant control parameterisation over 10 equidistant stages to a piecewise-linear control parameterisation over 100 stages. a steady-state acidogenic 0. which has two steady states: a trivial washout steady state A dynamic optimisation problem was formulated to deter- mine the optimal digester dilution rate in order for the two ( X1  0 and S1  S1in ) which is unstable.8 An unconstrained optimisation was performed using GAMS to obtain the optimal dilution rate of 0.262/day. Hence.196 g/L.229/day → S1in  5 g L1 S2in  0 mmol L1 0.6 order to maximise methane production. one non-trivial and unstable.248/day → 0.174 mmol/L per day.196 g/L and 0.489 mmol/L per day of methane. piecewise-constant control parameterisation over 10 equi- tion Under Steady-State Conditions distant stages. 0. ξ  Kr  Dξ  Q  F. Optimal solution for minimum-time start-up of the output of 4.0702 erate values that can be used in the subsequent dynamic optimisations. digester using the initial control parameterisation.775/day → 0/day → 0.    50  the initial guesses for the variables must be informed and X 1 (tf )  0. each stage lasting 2.3%. and a non-trivial biomass concentrations to reach 0. Based on Digester Dilution Rate for Optimal Start-Up via the paper [1]. imum COD abatement) in minimal time. and one trivial and sta- ble washout state ( X 2  0 and S2  S2in ).0 bacteria concentration of 0. (1) and (4) corresponds to Piecewise-Constant Control Parameterisation a classical chemostat model with Monod-type kinetics. The system composed of Eqs. 0  D (t )  1 The problem was implemented in gPROMS using a Optimal Dilution Rate to Maximise Methane Produc.0702 g/L steady state which is stable.196 realistic to obtain a non-trivial steady state which will gen- X 2 (tf )  0.

sharply to a constant 0/day. This is The optimal solution consists of three arcs. bioprocess models.4 ty indices are actually negative.e.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 3 . X 1 (0) and the computational effort [3]. a fine grid also has adverse impact on uncertainties associated with 1max . Sensitivity index of the optimal solution to uncer- As a large degree of uncertainty is typically associated with tainties (+10%) in the parameters/initial conditions. 0 μ1max μ2max X1 X2 p Sensitivity Analysis Figure 3. the dilution rate took its highest 14 value in the first arc to supply S1. The optimal control strategy can be interpreted as follows. 2max . sible. tional effort. Finally. for comparison purposes. X 2 (0) . as the basis for compari- D (d−1) or X1 (g/L) or X2 (g/L) or yM 6 son instead. the dilution rate decreased is indeed 10% higher than its current estimated value. Note that the sensitivi- 0. the dilution rate decreased to 0.e. This means that it is important to determine 1max as pre- Figure 2. 16 In the first reaction of the process. in the third arc. 6 sured that X1 and X2 increased gradually towards their de. i. In the first arc. and increased that the existing control structure is no longer the most effi- thereafter to 0. because a mere 10% increase in 1max would result in a sig- the dilution rate remained constant at 1/day. which means arc. 4 sired values at the end. As the optimal (coarse grid) first. Therefore. then a fine grid refinement is applied to achieve makes it difficult to directly compare the change in dilution better performance in terms of smoother control arcs and an rate profile following a 10% increment in the value of the improved performance index [3]. the optimal strategy is relatively insensitive yM S1 S2 to uncertainties in the other three parameters. the time horizon.6 4 p p 0.8 S1 (g/L) or S2 (mmol/L) 5 tf t SI   f  10tf 0. parameter or initial condition. an increase in the value 2 of the parameters or initial conditions results in a corre- 0. we re-determined the optimal digester dilution rate.0 tive function. and then decreased gradually to cient and cost-effective strategy if the actual value of 1max 0.043/day. When this optimisation has reached a solution is a variation of dilution rate with time which plateau. On t (days) D X1 X2 the other hand. the dilution rate was 2 zero since S1 and S2 had reached sufficient values to in- crease X1 and X2 to their steady-state values. In the second nificant reduction in minimal time required. For each parameter or initial condition. This is because a fine grid for the discretisation of the the optimal solution is to such modelling inaccuracies. Optimal solution for minimum-time start-up of the cisely as possible. Hence. the optimisation was solved using a piecewise- with each parameter or initial condition adjusted upwards linear control parameterisation over 10 equidistant stages by 10% from its nominal value one by one.17/day. It is evident that the key 0 10 20 30 parameter influencing D and hence tf the most is 1max . was computed as follows: 0. In the last arc. S1 was consumed to pro- duce X1 and S2. the absolute values 0. However. to limit the computa. minimising its uncertainty as far as pos- digester using the refined control parameterisation.1 3 The results are presented in Fig.276/day. However. The fluctuations observed in the second arc en. to ensure that the optimal strategy is robust. the dilution rate had to 10 be reduced in the second arc to ensure that X2 was able to SI 8 reach its desired steady-state value at the end of the time horizon.2 sponding decrease in minimal time required for start-up. SI.0 0 have been used in the plot instead. i. it is important to check how sensitive KHAMMADOV ET AL. To control vector in time enhances the quality of the control assess the sensitivity of the optimal solution obtained to the strategy. since the high 12 dilution rate caused X2 to decrease. 1 However. the sen- sitivity index. we decided to use the objec- 1. 3.

0 10 20 30 t (days) 1.t.   mise the control strategy in response to the uncertainty as. Digester Dilution Rate and Alkalinity for Optimal Start-Up While Maintaining ‘Healthy’ Methane Com- position The dynamic optimisation formulation earlier was modified to determine the optimal digester dilution rate and the opti- KHAMMADOV ET AL. Nevertheless. This should not incur too significant a  0   0  cost in practice. under D Zin the current control. except the minimal time required.2 lution rate and alkalinity feed concentration.8 0  D (t )  1 0  Z (t )  100 D (d−1) 0.196 X 2 (tf )  0.  40  s.0 concentrations and methane fraction. are shown in Fig. Optimal control strategy for 1max at nominal value and 10% higher. as evidenced by Z (t ) the close overlap between both profiles for most part of the 0. 0  t  tf structure.2 45 optimal start-up as determined earlier using a piecewise- linear control parameterisation over 100 equidistant stages 0.32 65 0.2 µ1max = 1. ξ (0)    sociated with 1max .6 PC (t )  0. are shown in Fig. 60 Zin (mmol/L) 0.0 70 µ1max = 1.01 time horizon. 0 10 20 30 Given that a typical methane composition for the biogas t (days) of a ‘healthy’ digester is between 40% and 60% vol.0 X 1 (tf )  0. 2.4 Start-Up 50 The methane composition of the biogas produced during 0. while keeping the 1max was 10% higher (Fig.01 made towards the end of the time horizon to further opti.92 days. namely the di- 0. methane fraction in the biogas above 50% vol at all times: ence between the two in terms of control values and control min tf D ( t ).4 The optimal solutions of the two controls. the biogas reached a ‘healthy’ methane Figure 5.6 D (d−1) 55 Methane Composition of Biogas during Optimal 0.    50  1. 5.5 for all t .8 Figure 4. except t  0 PT (t ) 0. The time elapsed before the desired methane fraction was achieved was deemed too long and the control strategy was inefficient. 6. or after about 60% of tion rate and digester alkalinity.0 40 is shown in Fig. minimum-time start-up of the digester. while the responses of the key variables. ξ  Kr  Dξ  Q  F. 3) indicates very little differ. a comparison of the control trajectories for mal digester alkalinity for the two biomass concentrations to the cases where 1max was at its nominal value and when reach their target values in minimal time. This means that only slight changes need to be 0.0702 0. biomass 0. Optimal solution with dynamic adjustment of dilu- composition only after 15.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 4 .

the effective liquid volume was estimat.0 9.0 0.08 0.20 1.000 L up-flow anaerobic fixed-bed digester with those in the experimental data. Z and pH.6 0 1 2 3 4 0. initial conditions. This pH 7.0 47.12 0. we wished to improve the for digester alkalinity. C and Z t (days) were used as initial conditions for the simulation. This can be attributed to insufficient refine- The influent flow rate and composition during this 4-day ment of the parameter values or inaccurate specification of experiment are summarised in Table I. We considered a set of real experimental data generated imum values obtained from the simulation correspond well on the same 1.6 at the end of the time period.2 7.6. the maintenance of the constraint on methane fraction caused the dilution rate to 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 deviate significantly from the stable value of around 0.266 → 1. due to the introduction of one new control and the me- thane fraction constraint. The Figure 6.0 reported in Table I and using the parameter values estimated 0 10 20 30 in [1]. Although the agreement is less calibration of the model of anaerobic digestion proposed by close for predictions of S1 and S2. where the 6. the as in [1]. S2. Apart from 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 t (days) t (days) a sharp deviation between days 10 and 12. System response to dynamic optimisation of dilu. Table I. S2. displaying inadequacies ed to be about 720 L for this experiment. C.04 0.2 before increasing gradually to reach a maximum value t (days) that did not exceed 0. in the model. Fig. Between days 10 and 12.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 5 .0 Period (day) 0. Figure 7. but the dilution rate took on the extreme values of 8 100 S2 (mmol/L) S1 (g/L) 0 and 1 within the first 6 days as a result of the variation of 4 50 alkalinity. Comparison between simulation results and meas- urements for S1. 0. Z.000 → 0. 2. 12 150 all shape. 140 160 The methane fraction in the biogas however displays an Z (mmol/L) C (mmol/L) 140 100 entirely different behaviour from that in Fig. with particularly good agreement seen In the second part of the project. providing X1 X2 yM four of the six initial conditions required by the model. The control arc had a similar over.2 to t (days) t (days) 180 180 again take on extreme values.6 tion was then maintained at this minimum value of 0. mental measurements significantly.266 → 2. rate. CALIBRATION OF AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODEL USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA The model correctly reproduces the general trend of the response trajectories.4 Simulation of Experiment and Comparison with Available Measurements 0.5 37.2 The model was simulated based on the influent conditions 0.8 CODin (g/L) 18.6 Zin (mmol/L) 98 98 195 98 yM 0. measurements. their maximum and min- [1]. the methane frac- 7.4 it increased slightly to 0.0 is in contrast with the behaviour seen in Fig. KHAMMADOV ET AL. 7 represents the simulation results 2 indicates a slight difference in the behaviour of dilution alongside the experimental data. Influent flow rate and composition.5 X1 (g/L) or X2 (g/L) VFAin (mmol/L) 103 103 206 103 TICin (mmol/L) 9 9 18 9 0. calculating the values of X1 and X2 that would produce re- sponse trajectories most similar to those of the experimental A comparison of these results with those obtained in Fig. On the other hand.362 → 4. with a sharp 120 60 100 initial increase followed by a steady drop to reach the min- 20 80 imum value dictated by the imposed constraint.8 methane fraction decreased to a minimum value of around 6.16 0.0 47. The initial measurement values of S1.0 18.5 until 7. 2. Due to the packing and the biomass colonisation simulated minimum values of C and pH differ from experi- inside the digester.000 Flow rate (L/h) 8.00 0. remaining two initial conditions have been estimated by tion rate and digester alkalinity.5 18.

KI2 and kLa.5 3 SIS1 SIS2 0. k5 and k6. k4.4 -0. the hydro.0 1. and the stoichiometric parameters k1. Sensitivity for the model parameters. SI y  tf duct a sensitivity analysis of the response trajectories to the 0  dt model parameters as the model contains a large number of This integral can be approximated by discretising the time parameters and not all of them can be estimated accurately horizon into N intervals and computing the average change: from the available experimental data.0 5 4 0.0 -0.3 SIX1 SIX2 -0. 13 parameters. hydrodynamic and stoichiometric parameters. X2. KS2. KS1. 1. k3.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 6 . S2.5 -0.5 0. The mean changes of S1.0 -2 -1.4 -1. 0 p y dt ters can be carried out.5 -0. with the largest magnitude of KHAMMADOV ET AL. X2. and the results are presented in Fig.0 -0.0 Figure 8.6 0.0 0. a refinement of the experimental parame. X1.0 2 1 -0. it is important to first con.5 0 -1 -1. C and Z are represented with respect to a 10% increase in the values of the kinetic. y p Sensitivity indices for the quantities S1.2 -0. However.8 0.5 -0.5 0. S2.8 -2. It can k2. Due to the dynamic nature of the model.3 0. SI y  N ic parameters µ1max.0 -1. C and Z N p y were calculated with respect to small variations in the kinet.8 -1. µ2max.0 0. X1. 8.0 0.0 -1.5 0.2 SIC SIZ 0.6 -0. Local Sensitivity Analysis of Response Trajectories parameter must be integrated over the time horizon in order to obtain the sensitivity indices as follows: In order to obtain better agreement between the model and t f y p experimental data. This above equation was applied to the six quantities and dynamic parameter α.5 7 6 1. be seen that the parameter which plays the largest role in the change in a quantity resulting from a small change in a influencing the model is α.5 -3 0.

as a statistical analysis of is sufficient to estimate the five parameters required. Plot of residuals of the five measured quantities. a comparison with experimental data shows affects the dynamics of the entire model.02 0 1 2 3 4 1max 0. statistics as summarised in Table III.2 0. inal parameters. This is due to insufficient measure- cept for 1max and k1 . where key quantities such as X1 and X2 are not experiment is carried out and parameter estimation repeated. Their 95% t. 7. Hence it can be established that it is not possible to obtain values are larger than the reference t-value (95%) of 1. The 95% confidence intervals for all the estimated param- eters are smaller than their estimated values. Z and pH. and k1 and k3 which have a not fit the measurement data much better than with the orig- strong influence on the gaseous flow rates. cation of initial conditions.65. µ2max.25 t (days) S1 S2 C Z pH Reference t-value (95%): 1. From this sensitivity analysis. that the new parameters only improve the agreement of the ters that display a high sensitivity index are µ1max and µ2max model to experimental measurements to a limited extent. Comparison between simulation results with esti- k1 mated parameters and measurements for S1. the experimental data. this is because it Furthermore. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 t (days) t (days) The results are presented in Table II.0430 10.65 Figure 10. This implies that if another identical ment data. which requires the relevant estimation the exception of alkalinity.0208 8.360 0 1 2 t (days) 3 4 2max d–1 0.14 155 Figure 9. 9 that the new simulation results do S1/X1 and S2/X2 respectively. C. as as they affect the rates of production and consumption of it can be seen from Fig. Nominal values and new estimates of parameters. k3 mmol/g 268 135 An analysis of the residuals (Fig.6 7. KHAMMADOV ET AL.74 0. the five parameters as mentioned earlier 100 20 80 were re-estimated for the given set of experimental data. 10) also indicates that The new estimates of the parameters are of somewhat the the estimation of the model parameters may be inadequate same order of magnitude as their nominal values reported in as the residuals are spread out over a wide range of values [1]. and there is likely to be sufficient data to estimate 0 0 these five parameters 0 1 2 t (days) 3 4 0 1 2 t (days) 3 4 180 180 140 160 Z (mmol/L) Parameter estimation and statistical analysis C (mmol/L) 140 100 120 60 Using gPROMS.167 6.432 0. a significantly better estimate of the model parameters using This implies that the amount of experimental data available the given set of experimental data. the confidence ellipsoids of all possible pairs of produce results which suggest an increase in agreement with parameters are quite large around the estimated point. it can be concluded that the 12 150 parameters to be selected for estimation are α. Parameters and their estimation statistics. simulation results with newly estimated parameters does not However.8  0.1 pH Parameter Unit Nominal value New estimate 6.5 1max d–1 1. available leading to significant uncertainties in the specifi- the estimates may not be easily reproducible. The other parame. 40 20 Parameter Value 95% Confidence 95% t-value Residuals interval 0  0. But this is insufficient to ascertain the robustness of the and are far from zero for all the measured quantities with parameter estimation.432 42.1 -40 k1 155 23. Z. Table III.167 0.0541 6. S2. Five parameters have been selected as there are S1 (g/L) five quantities of which experimental measurements are 4 50 available. ex. µ1max.sensitivity index across all the quantities. 7.49 -60 k3 135 18.4 Table II.9 6.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 7 .360 0. S2 (mmol/L) 8 100 k1 and k3.66 -20 2max 0.5 0.

we focused Z0 anion concentration (mmol/L) on modelling. 75:424–438. simulation and optimisation of the process. van Boxtel. 2008. r3 reaction rates (d–1) S1 . 2001. The sensitivity of the optimal solution to uncertainties  vector of the process variables in the model parameters was assessed. identification for an anaerobic wastewater treatment pro- cess. A study for multiple steady states of biochem- jectories was performed. [3] H. Boom. 86:130–141. G. The J. r2 . D. Steyer. Hadj-Sadok.B. The control parameterisation 1max maximum acidogenic bacteria growth rate (d–1) was further fine-tuned and the resultant optimal control 2 specific growth rate of methanogenic bacteria (d–1) strategy was interpreted from a physical process perspec-  2max maximum methanogenic bacteria growth rate (d–1) tive. A sensitivity analysis for the response tra. NOMENCLATURE B bicarbonate concentration (mmol/L) C. 6:51–57.-P. A. Genovesi. we have tried to address the problem of insta- yM methane fraction bility commonly associated with the anaerobic wastewater Z . The optimal dilution rate profile was determined in order for  fraction of bacteria in the liquid phase  mean fraction of acidogenic bacteria the digester to reach the desired steady-state biomass con. Bio- were re-estimated to improve the robustness of the model. A. chemical Engineering Journal. In the first part of the project.J. R. but to little avail.C. S1in organic substrate concentration (g/L) S 2 . Cin total inorganic carbon concentration (mmol/L) D dilution rate (d–1) d/dt time derivative k1 yield for substrate degradation k2 yield for VFA production (mmol/g) k3 yield for VFA consumption (mmol/g) k4 yield for CO2 production (mmol/g) k5 yield for CO2 consumption (mmol/g) k6 yield for CH4 production (mmol/g) K a . Hadiyanto. A new control strate- gy which involved the dilution rate and the alkalinity was devised to maintain the methane fraction in the biogas at REFERENCES above 50% vol at all times. [2] Y. perimental data. Z in total alkalinity (mmol/L) treatment process. and model of anaerobic digestion was further improved. Biotechnology & Bioengineering.M. 1 specific growth rate of acidogenic bacteria (d–1) centrations in minimum time. Chien.-S. Z. Food and Bioproducts Processing. Kb equilibrium constants (mol/L) KH Henry’s constant (mmol/L per atm) kL a liquid-gas transfer coefficient (d–1) K I2 inhibition constant (mmol/L) KS1 half-saturation constant (g/L) KS2 half-saturation constant (mmol/L) p parameter PC CO2 partial pressure (atm) PT total pressure (atm) qC carbon dioxide flow rate (mmol/L per d) qM methane flow rate (mmol/L per d) r1 . Dochain. In the second part of the project. Dynamical model development and parameter model was simulated and compared with the available ex. Bernard. Esveld. The five most sensitive parameters ical reactions under substrate and product inhibition. 2000. Control vector parameterization with sensitivity based refinement applied to baking optimization. S2in volatile fatty acids concentration (mmol/L) SI sensitivity index t time (d) tf final time (of time horizon) (d) KHAMMADOV ET AL.CONCLUSION X1 concentration of acidogenic bacteria (g/L) X2 concentration of methanogenic bacteria (g/L) In this paper. van Straten. D.: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODELLING 8 . the calibration of the [1] O.