Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

A comparison study on the high-rate co-digestion of sewage sludge and food

waste using a temperature-phased anaerobic sequencing batch reactor system
Hyun-Woo Kim a, Joo-Youn Nam b, Hang-Sik Shin c,⇑
a
Sweete Center for Environmental Biotechnology, The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University, 1001 S. McAllister Ave., Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, KAIST, 335 Gwahangno, Yuseong-gu, DaeJeon 305-701, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Assessing contemporary anaerobic biotechnologies requires proofs on reliable performance in terms of
Received 22 February 2011 renewable bioenergy recovery such as methane (CH4) production rate, CH4 yield while removing volatile
Received in revised form 16 April 2011 solid (VS) effectively. This study, therefore, aims to evaluate temperature-phased anaerobic sequencing
Accepted 27 April 2011
batch reactor (TPASBR) system that is a promising approach for the sustainable treatment of organic frac-
Available online 30 April 2011
tion of municipal solid wastes (OFMSW). TPASBR system is compared with a conventional system, mes-
ophilic two-stage anaerobic sequencing batch reactor system, which differs in operating temperature of
Keywords:
1st-stage. Results demonstrate that TPASBR system can obtain 44% VS removal from co-substrate of sew-
Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion
Co-digestion
age sludge and food waste while producing 1.2 m3CH4/m3system/d (0.2 m3CH4/kgVSadded) at organic load-
Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor ing rate of 6.1 gVS/L/d through the synergy of sequencing-batch operation, co-digestion, and
Sewage sludge temperature-phasing. Consequently, the rapid and balanced anaerobic metabolism at thermophilic stage
Food waste makes TPASBR system to afford high organic loading rate showing superior performance on OFMSW
stabilization.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction or excessive substances inhibiting anaerobes in food waste (Kim

In most societies, concerns over stabilizing organic fraction of
municipal solid wastes (OFMSW) are a serious issue and driving
tremendous investments every day for their efficient stabilization
and disposal. Anaerobic digestion technology is commonly sug-
gested as one of the most sustainable options to stabilize tremen-
dous amount of OFMSW (Ge et al., 2010) because this technology
recovers methane (CH4) gas, which can be utilized as a renewable
bioenergy (Lv et al., 2010). By capturing it, the technology not only
gives a useful by-product but also contributes to reducing a green-
house gas causing global warming (Lashof and Ahuja, 1990).
Management of sewage sludge from wastewater treatment
plants (WWTP) is important because its generation indispensably
increasing. Extended sewer distribution and new install of WWTPs
elevates its production rate, however, inefficiencies for conven-
tional anaerobic digestion are caused by low organic content
(volatile to total solids ratio, VS/TS) in a combined sewer system
and resisting cell walls of waste activated sludge. Co-digestion
with high organic contents such as food waste could be a reliable
option to enhance activity of anaerobic microorganisms. Proper
mixture brings synergistic and complementary effects, which off-
set the lack of carbon sources in sewage sludge and dilute harmful
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 350 3613; fax: +82 42 350 3610.
E-mail address: hangshin@kaist.ac.kr (H.-S. Shin).
et al., 2007).
To maximize stabilization efficiency of anaerobic digestion as
high as possible, efforts to enhance CH4 production have been
made. Particularly for OFMSW, sequencing-batch operational
scheme achieve high CH4 production and solid removal efficiency
as it can promotes longer retention of organic particles by gravity
settling indicating a separation of solids retention time (SRT) from
hydraulic retention time (HRT) and microbial activity using itera-
tive feast and famine nature during a whole batch sequence (Sung
and Dague, 1995).
For anaerobic microorganisms, the potential rate-limiting fac-
tors leading unbalance between acidogenesis and methanogenesis
include slow hydrolysis of organic particles. One key to success for
anaerobic digestion is to exploit a fast and balanced conversion
throughout all reaction pathways thus adapting thermophilic
anaerobic microorganisms may be promising since accelerated
reaction rates under thermophilic condition makes the anaerobic
metabolisms robust for a wide range of organic loading rate
(OLR) when the hydrolysis is a limiting-step (Kim et al., 2002; Sung
and Santha, 2003; Veeken and Hamelers, 1999). Moreover, high
temperature guarantees effluents conforming to the requirements
on pathogen destruction (Cabirol et al., 2002; Han and Dague,
1997; Riau et al., 2010; Rubio-Loza and Noyola, 2010).
Towards these goals, temperature phased anaerobic digestion
(TPAD) is one of the most attractive alternatives for a high-rate

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.088
 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279
production of renewable bioenergy (i.e., CH4) and a maximized sta-
bilization efficiency of OFMSW because it integrates both advanta-
ges of rapid thermophilic and stable mesophilic anaerobic
digestion simultaneously (Kim et al., 2002; Lv et al., 2010).
Although higher energy requirement for the maintenance of ther-
mophilic conditions was pointed out (Han et al., 1997), from the
kinetic point of view, this staged reactor system obtains a rapid
substrate conversion in the 1st-stage while effluent polishing oc-
curs in 2nd-stages by establishing a plug-flow pattern thus this
system results in a very low effluent concentration of VFA and a
high degree of biomass retention (van Lier et al., 2001).
If TPAD is combined with co-digestion and sequencing batch
operation, the systemic integration may yield extra dividends
simultaneously such as enhanced biodegradation of poorly digest-
ible OFMSW, decreased VFA concentrations in effluent even at high
OLR, increased system stability, and reduced fecal coliform levels.
Relevant literatures which have investigated this systemic integra-
tion are scarce.
In this study, therefore, long-term continuous flow experiments
combining a temperature-phased anaerobic sequencing batch
reactor (TPASBR) system with co-digestion strategy are performed
with various OLR to investigate the performance improvements on
the CH4 recovery and stabilization efficiency of co-substrate made
of sewage sludge and food waste. As a control experiment, a mes-
ophilic two-stage anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (MTSASBR)
system are also operated to provide a quantitative comparison
based on individual performance parameter. The main goals of this
research are to verify excellences in unique combination of TPAD,
sequencing-batch operation, co-digestion and to discuss the appli-
cability of TPASBR system for maximum stabilization of sewage
sludge and food waste with a high-rate production of a renewable
bioenergy under the wide range of OLR.
2. Methods
2.1. Experimental set-up
A TPASBR system was operated continuously as increasing OLR
(6.5 gVS/L/d) by using an optimal mixture of sewage sludge and
food waste suggested by Kim et al. (2007). The system was con-
sisted of two ASBRs, two gas collectors, a control panel with timers
and peristaltic pumps. Each reactor was 4.0 L in working volume
and the first thermophilic stage ASBR was followed by the second
mesophilic stage ASBR in series. The thermophilic stage was con-
trolled to 55 °C using a water bath circulator and a built-in water
jacket while the mesophilic stage was operated at 35 °C. The oper-
ating sequence was maintained by controlling three peristaltic
pumps with three timers on a control panel. The system was
placed in a constant temperature room (35 °C).
Table 1
Operational sequence of TPASBR and MTSASBR system.
Step 1st-stage ASBR
Period (h) Condition
Feed <1 Influent of substrate
React 17 Hydrolysis
Acidogenesis
Methanogenesis
Settle 5 Gravity settling
Decant <1 Effluent to 2nd-stage
Latter sequence
7273
As a control system for comparison, a mesophilic two-stage
anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (MTSASBR) system was oper-
ated simultaneously. We compare its co-digestion performance
with the TPASBR system applying similar OLR. The system is sim-
ilarly consisted of two mesophilic ASBRs and connected in series.
The first stage as well as the second stage is operated at the con-
stant temperature room (35 °C) using the same sequence with
the TPASBR system.
2.2. Operating procedures
Table 1 shows the mode of sequencing batch operation for
TPASBR and MTSASBR systems. In this operation, one cycle of each
reactor consisted of four sequences: fill (1 h), react (17 h), settle
(5 h), and draw (1 h). The 24 h cycle lasted continuously until the
end of experiments and all the sequence were managed by electri-
cal on/off switching timers managing controllers of peristaltic
pumps (Cole-Parmer, USA).
2.3. Inoculums
Inoculation was carried out for both TPASBR and MTSASBR sys-
tems using a seed sludge taken from a conventional egg-shaped
anaerobic digester in the D city WWTP. About 80% of digester
working volume was filled with inoculums and sparged with N2
before sealing. The pH, alkalinity, volatile suspended solids (VSS)
and VSS/TSS of the inoculum were 6.5–7.0, 567–611 mg/L as
CaCO3, 14.8 g/L and 0.75, respectively.
2.4. Feedstock preparation
Sewage sludge was sampled from a thickener at the same D city
WWTP, Korea. Average total solids (TS) concentration, volatile sol-
ids (VS) concentrations, VS/TS, and moisture content during overall
operational period were about 25 g/L, 15 g/L, 0.61, and 98%,
respectively.
Food waste was selectively collected from a dining hall of an
academic institute in D city, Korea. The food waste was addition-
ally crushed by an electrical blender to promote homogeneity of
substrate as well as disintegration of particulate organics. Average
total solids concentration, volatile solids concentrations, VS/TS, and
moisture content of food waste were 229 g/L, 218 g/L, 0.95, and
81%, respectively.
A previous study, which tested similar source of co-substrates
(Kim et al., 2007), revealed that optimal co-substrate condition is
attained when sewage sludge and food waste were mixed with a
VS ratio of 60:40. Due to seasonal and operational variation of sub-
strates taken from WWTP, solid concentration of sewage sludge
and food waste were adjusted to target concentrations by a manual
Step 2nd-stage ASBR
Period (h) Condition
Former sequence
? Feed <1 Influent from 1st-stage
React 17 Post-Hydrolysis
Post-Acidogenesis
Post-Methanogenesis
Settle 5 Gravity settling
Decant <1 Effluent
7274 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279
gravity settling or a dilution to meet the required sewage sludge
and food waste ratio and overall concentration as a designated
co-substrate. Prepared co-substrates filtered through a stainless
steel sieve (sieve openings of 2.00 mm equivalent to US Mesh No.
10) to screen deleterious particles and stored at 4 °C.
2.5. Startup and operating procedures
To cultivate thermophilic methanogens as a dominant species
in thermophilic stage of TPASBR, the seed sludge was directly accli-
mated at 55 °C. During about 1 week, we checked the increase of
biogas production in the collector and CH4 content (>50%) as an
acclimation period. Then the systems were operated at a HRT of
30 days by feeding co-substrates. Starting-up OLR was 0.5 gVS/L/
d for both TPASBR and MTSASBR. We continuously monitored
the systems more than 1 month until the CH4 contents of biogas
and CH4 production rate (MPR) was stabilized. We then increased
the OLR to next step by either reducing HRT (from 30 to 7 d) or
increasing substrate concentration (from 23 to 46 g VS/L) when
the system reached a global steady state.
2.6. Specific methanogenic activity and biochemical methane potential
The specific methanogenic activity (SMA) tests on each stage’s
biomass of both systems were performed in serum vials (125 mL)
following a method of Shin et al. (2001). Biomass samples were ta-
ken at each OLR for the SMA test. The SMA of the biomass was
measured for a substrate of 2000 mg/L as chemical oxygen demand
(COD); in this study, acetate, propionate, and butyrate were used
individually as precursor substrates of CH4.
Biochemical methane potentials (BMP) was also determined for
fresh co-substrates prepared following a method suggested by Kim
et al. (2007) modifying procedures of Owen et al. (1979) and Owens
and Chynoweth (1993) for sewage sludge and food waste. Variabil-
ity may have originated from small differences in acclimation to the
new conditions, inoculum size, carryover of nutrients with the
inoculums thus substrate controls were tested to exclude extra
BMP in inoculum. Average BMPs of TPASBR system for co-sub-
strates were 0.32 (thermophilic biomass) and 0.23 l CH4/gVS (mes-
ophilic biomass), respectively, while those of MTSASBR system
were 0.24 (1st-stage) and 0.18 l CH4/gVS (2nd-stage), respectively.
2.7. Analyses
The contents of CH4 and CO2 in the biogas were analyzed by a gas
chromatograph (GC, Gow Mac series 580) equipped with a thermal
conductivity detector (TCD) and a 2 m  2 mm stainless-steel col-
umn packed with Porapak Q (80/100 mesh). During the experi-
ments, 1.5 mL of liquid sample was collected at a proper timing
with a syringe. The sample was immediately filtered through
0.45 lm cellulose nitrate membrane filters (Whatman, USA) and
then stored at 4 °C for further analysis. For the determination of indi-
vidual VFA concentrations, a high performance liquid chromato-
graph (HPLC; Spectra Physics P2000) was used with an Aminex
HPX-87H (300 mm  7.8 mm) column and a UV (210 nm) detector.
Other analytical methods such as total solids (TS), VS, total sus-
pended solid (TSS), VSS, and COD were determined according to
Standard Methods (American Public Health Association et al., 2005).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. CH4 production rate
To verify the long-term performance of co-digestion, TPASBR and
MTSASBR systems were operated during 540 and 460 days, respec-
tively, in a sequencing-batch mode with increasing OLR step-wisely
at steady-state. Fig. 1 shows the dynamics of CH4 production rates
(MPR) for each reactor of TPASBR and MTSASBR systems treating
co-substrates of food waste and sewage sludge. In the TPASBR sys-
tem (Fig. 1a), the MPR of thermophilic stage linearly increases to
2.3 l CH4/L/d as OLR increases up to 6.1 gVS/L/d. The CH4 content
of the biogas was measured to be 57–68% at standard temperature
and pressure condition as dry gas basis. As can be seen, most biogas
was produced at thermophilic stage of TPASBR system, which indi-
cates the thermophilic methanogens are conducting rapid and dom-
inant methanogenesis. Effluent quality parameters for first stage
thermophilic reactor such as pH, total alkalinity, and total VFA con-
centrations as soluble COD were stable as 7.0–7.8, 2600–3200 mg/L
as CaCO3, and 710–1280 mg COD/L, respectively.
When OLR was further increased to 6.5 gVS/L/d, however, a
drastic pH drop (pH < 4.7) was observed and MPR decreased at
the same time. This reveals that maximum available OLR for
TPASBR system is 6.1 gVS/L/d. The accumulation of VFAs must have
induced instant pH drop as fast hydrolysis/acidogenesis of readily
biodegradable organics overwhelms methanogenesis, and corre-
sponding low pH inhibits the activity of thermophilic methanogens
eventually.
In the case of MTSASBR (Fig. 1b), the 1st-stage mesophilic reac-
tor shows inferior performance to that of TPASBR. When the OLR is
over 3.5 gVS/L/d, MPR starts to decrease by a pH drop. The maxi-
mum MPR of 1st-stage was limited to 0.9 l CH4/L/d at OLR of
3.5 gVS/L/d showing stable effluent quality. pH, total alkalinity,
and total VFA concentrations as soluble COD were 7.3–7.7, 2000–
3600 mg/L as CaCO3, and 298–419 mg COD/L, respectively. Slow
hydrolysis/acidogenesis might have been rate-limiting though
effluent VFA concentration of MTSASBR is comparably lower than
that of TPASBR.
In one hand, at OLR or 4 gVS/L/d, the methanogenesis of 2nd-
stage reactor seems to be activated as a complementary effect of
deteriorating quality in the 1st-stage effluent, which is an influent
of 2nd-stage. Therefore, the MTSASBR system was turned into con-
ventional two-phase ASBR system, which is consisted of an acido-
genesis reactor (1st-stage reactor) followed by a methanogenic
reactor (2nd-stage reactor). This transition, however, did not last
longer because it was apparent that the OLR eventually caused a
pH drop for 2nd-stage as well unless 1st-stage significantly re-
duced organics. In order to maintain steady-state, therefore, we
should relieve pH inhibition from 2nd-stage afterwards. Because
the overload in 1st-stage not only produced high amount of VFAs,
but also directly transported incompletely acidified organic solids,
the addition of alkalinity was inevitably necessary to ensure stable
methanogenesis keeping pH neutral. Thus we monitored pH of
2nd-stage and controlled it to be over 7 by using a pH controller.
In such a case, MTSASBR system could be operated even at high
OLR from 3.5 to 5.8 gVS/L/d though MPR is maintained only at
0.49–0.66 l CH4/L/d after the transition.
Fig. 1c compares system MPRs obtained from both systems
according to applied OLR on the basis of total volume. The TPASBR
system show approximately linear increases as OLR increases but
the MTSASBR system shows relatively consistent trends at most
of the OLR tested. Overall system MPR of MTSASBR ranges between
0.2 and 0.5 l CH4/L/d while that of TPASBR significantly increases
from 0.2 to 1.2 l CH4/L/d. The difference in system MPRs enlarges
as OLR increases. At OLR of 5.5 gVS/L/d, maximum available OLR
for MTSASBR, TPASBR shows about 3-fold higher system MPR
(1.1 l CH4/L/d) than MTSASBR (0.4 l CH4/L/d).
3.2. Volatile solids removal efficiency
Fig. 2 compares the removal efficiencies of volatile solids at
each OLR during long-term continuous operation of TPASBR and
 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279
Fig. 1. Variations of MPRs for: (a) TPASBR system, (b) MTSASBR system and (c) overall comparison of system MPRs according to OLR.
Fig. 2. Volatile solid removal according to organic loading rates: (a) TPASBR system
and (b) MTSASBR system.
MTSASBR systems. TPASBR system shows considerably higher effi-
ciency than MTSASBR system under the wide range of OLR. The
average VS removal efficiency of TPASBR system is gradually de-
creased from 76.5% to 44.2% as OLR increased from 1.2 to
6.1 gVS/L/d while those of MTSASBR system are gradually de-
creased from 62.2% to 34.2% as OLR increases from 1.2 to
5.8 gVS/L/d. It indicates that the thermophilic stage, the only differ-
ence between both systems, derives a significantly higher MPR as
well as VS removal efficiency. It corresponds to the reports that
7275
the application of thermophilic condition has distinct advantages
in rapid hydrolysis rate and accelerated biological conversion pro-
cesses even at the similar SRT (Lv et al., 2010; vanLier, 1996;
Veeken and Hamelers, 1999).
3.3. CH4 yield and conversion efficiency
As shown in Fig. 3, we extended our analysis to evaluate CH4
yields and CH4 conversion efficiencies at each OLR. Fig. 3a com-
pares calculated maximum average CH4 yield obtained by TPASBR
and MTSASBR systems. In the case of TPASBR system, CH4 yield is
about the same throughout OLR as 0.19 l CH4/gVSadded. For
MTSASBR system, it is clear that mesophilic 1st-stage gave a lower
CH4 yield at each OLR than did thermophilic stage (TPASBR sys-
tem). The average yield is maintained at 0.14 l CH4/gVSadded at low-
er OLR (<3.5 gVS/L/d), which is 32% lower than that of TPASBR, and
it gradually decreased to around 0.08 CH4/gVSadded widening the
gap as much as 54% (5.5 gVS/L/d).
During all the operational periods, the TPASBR system shows
consistent CH4 conversion efficiency, which is calculated based
on predetermined average BMP values of co-substrate. It is re-
corded as 52–75% of BMP values throughout the experiment until
the OLR reaches as high as 6.5 gVS/L/d (Fig. 3b). The maximum
recovery obtained in thermophilic stage of TPASBR system, which
occupies about 90% of total CH4 recovery in TPASBR system in all
the OLR tested. Remaining CH4 potential is consecutively recovered
in the mesophilic stage as a post-treatment.
For MTSASBR system, the efficiency for 1st-stage and 2nd-stage
are as low as 41% and 2%, respectively. Although the consistent
trend of CH4 conversion efficiency is observed only at lower OLR
7276 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279

Fig. 3. Comparisons on: (a) overall CH4 yields, CH4 conversion efficiencies: (b) TPASBR system and (c) MTSASBR system.

(63.5 gVS/L/d), further increase of OLR induced main methanogen-

esis switching from 1st-stage to 2nd-stage (Fig 3c). A stable meth-
anogenesis was not possible without additional alkalinity to buffer
pH drop thus the average CH4 yield and conversion efficiency were
gradually decreased to about 25% of BMP. Inevitably evolved CO2
by alkalinity addition and highly acidified influent flow may lower
CH4 contents of collected gas.
Fig. 4 illustrates daily CH4 recovery rate at various substrate
supply rates. CH4 recovery rate was converted to the COD basis
as each gram of CH4 was equivalent to 4 g of COD. Substrate utili-
zation rate was calculated based on the measured average unit
COD equivalent (=1.3 g COD/gVS) of co-substrate. In a linear
regression, the slope of TPASBR is 0.45, which means that 45% of
COD is recovered as CH4 among all the COD supplied. In the case
of MTSASBR, the slope indicates that 26% is recovered everyday
as CH4 only when the supply rate is lower than 40 g COD/d. For
higher COD supply rate, the recovery rate shows a plateau at
around the recovery rate of 8 g COD/d despite increase of COD sup-
ply. In both systems, the rest of COD presumably comprise carbon
dioxide in the biogas produced, soluble COD in the effluent, slowly Fig. 4. Mass balances on substrate supply rate and corresponding methane
recovery rate in TPASBR and MTSASBR systems.
biodegradable solids in effluent and anaerobic microbial growth
etc. Overall, the result verifies that TPASBR system can recover
tify rate-limiting OLR and to discuss variations on methanogenic
16% more CH4 than does MTASBR system as COD basis and also
activities of anaerobes in stages of both systems.
it can digest twice larger amount of COD a day.
For thermophilic biomass of TPASBR system (Fig. 5a), the average
SMA of acetate is 75 mL CH4/gVSS/d, which is about 32% and 127%
3.4. Specific methanogenic activity higher than those of butyrate (57 mL CH4/gVSS/d) and propionate
(33 mL CH4/gVSS/d), respectively. Fig. 5b shows the SMA of meso-
Fig. 5 demonstrates the results of specific methanogenic activity philic biomass depending on OLR. The SMA of mesophilic stage on
tests on the individual biomass of each reactor in TPASBR and acetate and butyrate is relatively lower. As OLR increases, the SMAs
MTSASBR systems. We conducted this SMA test using precursor of acetate and butyrate in the mesophilic reactor are kept lower than
substrates of CH4 such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate to iden- 40 mL CH4/gVSS/d on average. It indicates that the role of mesophilic
 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279 7277

Fig. 5. Specific methanogenic activities of biomasses from: (a) thermophilic of TPASBR system, (b) mesophilic of TPASBR system, (c) 1st-stage of MTSASBR system, and (d)
2nd-stage of MTSASBR system.

2nd-stage is mostly a post-treatment for further stabilization of un-

treated or remaining organic substances though it complements in-
stantly decreasing SMA of thermophilic stage as can be seen at the
OLR of 3 gVS/L/d. Until the loading rate of 6.1 gVS/L/d, the SMAs
seems to be limited by readily biodegradable substrates.
Fig. 5c shows the SMAs on the 1st-stage of MTSASBR system.
The average SMA for acetate, propionate, and butyrate were 74,
48, and 80 mL CH4/gVSS/d for 1st stage, respectively. As OLR in-
creases significant limitation on the methanogenesis is observed.
pH drop resulted from VFA accumulation is the most probable lim-
itation that seriously reduces the methanogenic activity of 1st-
stage. Although we can monitor partial methanogenic activities
in some cases, it appears after long lag-period.
The SMAs of 2nd-stage on acetate, propionate and butyrate
were as high as 63, 53, and 83 mL CH4/gVSS/d, respectively. Clearly,
2nd-stage SMAs shows effective methanogenesis even after the
phase transition of 1st-stage from methanogenesis to acidogenesis,
dominant methanogenic activity remains until 5.5 gVS/L/d. The
average SMAs after the transition deteriorates slightly due to the
Fig. 6. Ammonium and organic nitrogen content over TKN in effluents from each
suppressions by high OLR as 40, 26, and 44 mL CH4/gVSS/d for ace- reactor of TPASBR and MTSASBR systems.
tate, propionate, and butyrate, respectively. That represented that
an unbalance between VFA production (1st-stage) and VFA utiliza- system. The result show that higher protein degradation occurs in
tion (2nd-stage) limits the performance of MTSASBR in spite of thermophilic stage or TPASBR system as it gives high ammonia con-
additional alkalinity. tents among TKN. The initial proportion of ammonia (14.5%) over to-
Particularly, it was revealed that butyrate degrading activity of tal Kjehldal nitrogen drastically increased up to 47% after the
mesophilic methanogen was the highest while thermophilic meth- thermophilic stage of TPASBR system. In the case of 1st-stage of
anogen prefer acetate slightly more than butyrate. This is virtually MTSASBR system, however, the proportion increases only to 27%.
consistent with the observation that residual propionate (C3) was The final proportions of ammonium in the effluent reaches 53% for
frequently found in the effluent and the degradation of C4–C6 fatty the TPASBR system while 41% for the MTSASBR system. It means that
acids was dominant in the treatment of food waste due to fast protein degradation under thermophilic is more preferable. This re-
methanogenesis using acetate (C2) and butyrate (C4) (Han et al., sult is consistent with the results of Harris and Dague (1993), Orlygs-
2005; Shin et al., 2001). son et al. (1994), Song et al. (2004) and Kim et al. (2006) reporting the
Overall, results indicates that the dominance of thermophilic higher degree of protein destruction in thermophilic condition and
methanogens on SMA makes TPASBR system overwhelms higher levels of alkalinity in the thermophilic stage due to protein
MTSASBR systems and the following mesophilic reactor of the sys- degradation at increased OLR. Therefore, rapid degradation of pro-
tem successively polished the thermophilic effluent converting tein components in co-substrate must have prevented pH drop
remaining or slowly biodegradable substances to CH4. Co-operation effectively in thermophilic condition while sequencing batch opera-
between 1st- and 2nd-stage enables MTSASBR to recover CH4 prop- tion is retaining preteinous particulates longer periods of time. Con-
erly from co-substrate, however, pH inhibition by a OLR exceeding sequently, it may have contributed to a stable operation of TPASBR
3.5 gVS/L/d limits a systemic cooperation of MTSASBR stages. system at high OLR without additional alkalinity.

3.5. Enhanced protein degradation 3.6. Overall comparison

Fig. 6 illustrates variation of ammonium and organic nitrogen Table 2 compares overall performance data of TPASBR and
contents in effluents from each stage of TPASBR and MTSASBR MTSASBR systems together with similar parameter values in other
7278 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279

Table 2
Comparison of overall system performance data obtained in MTSASBR and TPASBR system and those in other literatures.

Item (Unit) Condition and result values

Process type Semi-continuous Semi-continuous Co-phase AD Completely-mixed TPAD MTSASBR TPASBR
TPAD TPAD
Operating temperature 55 (1st) 55 (1st) 35 (1st) 55 (1st) 35 (1st) 55 (1st)
(°C) 35 (2nd) 35 (2nd) 55 (2nd) 35 (2nd) 35 (2nd) 35 (2nd)
Substrate PS + WAS PS + OFMSW PS + WAS PS + WAS PS + WAS + food PS + WAS + food
waste waste
TS (%) 4.0 4.4 2.5b 4.9 3.7 5.9
VS/TS (%) 64.0 82.4 – 61.6 75.4 71.9
OLR (kgVS/m3/d) 2.10 2.40 4.8 4.8 3.50 6.1
HRT (d) 14 15 21 13 8 7
CH4 yield (m3/kgVSadded) 0.22 0.30 0.42c 0.39c 0.18 0.20
CH4 GPRa (m3/m3/d) 0.46 1.00 – 0.37 0.69 1.24
VS reduction (%) 45.0 69.8 58.8 32.0 41.6 44.8
Reference Han et al. (1997) Schmit and Ellis Song et al. Rubio-Loza and Noyola This study This study
(2001) (2004) (2010)
a
Gas production rate.
b
VS content.
c
m3/kgVSdestroyed.

literature. TPASBR system demonstrated excellent performance as References

it results in relatively high VS reduction (44.2%) and CH4 conver-
sion efficiencies (62.9%) against BMP at high OLR (6.1 gVS/L/d) in
a short HRT (7 days). CH4 yield was 0.20 m3/kgVSadded, while CH4
gas production rate was 1.24 m3/m3/d. TPASBR system over-
whelms all the other systems in its available OLR. MTSASBR system
deteriorates in most of the parameter values such as VS reduction
(41.6%), CH4 conversion efficiencies (56.6%), optimum organic
loading rate (3.5 gVS/L/d), and system HRT (8 days).
Considering significant inorganic or slowly biodegradable sub-
stances, which constitutes approximately 30% of co-substrates, in
food waste (i.e., cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin etc.) and in sewage
sludge (i.e., inorganic compounds, metals, sands etc.), TPASBR sys-
tem is demonstrating comparable performance when compared
with previous TPAD studies as listed in Table 2. Further optimiza-
tion will be necessary to improve performance of TPASBR system
such as volume ratio between stages and application of other
OFMSWs. Moreover, economic cost analysis for a larger scale sys-
tem will be essential to provide TPASBR system with a sound basis
for practical application. Overall, this study verifies that TPASBR
system offers a reliable and effective bioenergy recovery as well
as waste stabilization by combining co-digestion, sequencing batch
operation and temperature phasing techniques simultaneously.
4. Conclusions
TPASBR system demonstrates that the constraints of conven-
tional anaerobic digestion could be overcome by synergistic effect
of co-digestion strategy, sequencing-batch operation, and tempera-
ture phased operation treating co-substrate of food waste and sew-
age. The system allows higher VS removal efficiency (76.5–44.2%)
indicating balanced conversion of organics to CH4 at high OLR of
6.1 gVS/L/d. Results verify that the thermophilic stage of TPASBR
system plays a key role in obtaining higher performance due to sta-
ble SMA of thermophilic methanogen and alleviated alkalinity by
enhanced protein degradation. This guarantees enhanced treat-
ment of OFMSW while producing renewable bioenergy.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grants from Korea Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology through the National Research
Laboratory Program (No. M1-0203-00-0063) and the Brain Korea
21 project.
American Public Health Association, A., American Water Works Association, A.,
Water Environment Federation, W. 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 21 ed. APHA, Washington, DC.
Cabirol, N., Oropeza, M.R., Noyola, A., 2002. Removal of helminth eggs, and fecal
coliforms by anaerobic thermophilic sludge digestion. Water Science and
Technology 45 (10), 269–274.
Ge, H.Q., Jensen, P.D., Batstone, D.J., 2010. Pre-treatment mechanisms during
thermophilic-mesophilic temperature phased anaerobic digestion of primary
sludge. Water Research 44 (1), 123–130.
Han, Y., Dague, R.R., 1997. Laboratory studies on the temperature phased anaerobic
digestion of domestic primary sludge. Water Environment Research 69 (6),
1139–1143.
Han, Y., Sung, S.W., Dague, R.R., 1997. Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of
wastewater sludges. Water Science and Technology 36 (6–7), 367–374.
Han, S.K., Kim, S.H., Shin, H.S., 2005. UASB treatment of wastewater with VFA and
alcohol generated during hydrogen fermentation of food waste. Process
Biochemistry 40 (8), 2897–2905.
Harris, W.L., Dague, R.R., 1993. Comparative performance of anaerobic filters at
mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures. Water Environment Research 65
(6), 764–771.
Kim, M., Ahn, Y.H., Speece, R.E., 2002. Comparative process stability and efficiency of
anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Research 36 (17),
4369–4385.
Kim, H.W., Han, S.K., Shin, H.S., 2006. Simultaneous treatment of sewage sludge and
food waste by the unified high-rate anaerobic digestion system. Water Science
and Technology 53 (6), 29–35.
Kim, H.W., Shin, H.S., Han, S.K., Oh, S.E., 2007. Response surface optimization of
substrates for thermophilic anaerobic codigestion of sewage sludge and food
waste. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 57 (3), 309–
318.
Lashof, D.A., Ahuja, D.R., 1990. Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions
to global warming. Nature 344 (6266), 529–531.
Lv, W., Schanbacher, F.L., Yu, Z.T., 2010. Putting microbes to work in sequence:
recent advances in temperature-phased anaerobic digestion processes.
Bioresource Technology 101 (24), 9409–9414.
Orlygsson, J., Houwen, F.P., Svensson, B.H., 1994. Influence of hydrogenotrophic
methane formation on the thermophilic anaerobic degradation of protein and
amino acids. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 13 (4), 327–334.
Owen, W.F., Stuckey, D.C., Healy, J.B., Young, L.Y., McCarty, P.L., 1979. Bioassay for
monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water
Research 13 (6), 485–492.
Owens, J.M., Chynoweth, D.P., 1993. Biochemical methane potential of municipal
solid-waste (MSW) components. Water Science and Technology 27 (2), 1–
14.
Riau, V., De la Rubia, M.A., Perez, M., 2010. Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion
(TPAD) to obtain class A biosolids: a semi-continuous study. Bioresource
Technology 101 (8), 2706–2712.
Rubio-Loza, L.A., Noyola, A., 2010. Two-phase (acidogenic–methanogenic) anaerobic
thermophilic/mesophilic digestion system for producing Class A biosolids from
municipal sludge. Bioresource Technology 101 (2), 576–585.
Schmit, K.H., Ellis, T.G., 2001. Comparison of temperature-phased and two-phase
anaerobic co-digestion of primary sludge and municipal solid waste. Water
Environment Research 73 (3), 314–321.
Shin, H.S., Han, S.K., Song, Y.C., Lee, C.Y., 2001. Performance of UASB reactor treating
leachate from acidogenic fermenter in the two-phase anaerobic digestion of
food waste. Water Research 35 (14), 3441–3447.
 H.-W. Kim et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 7272–7279 7279

Song, Y.C., Kwon, S.J., Woo, J.H., 2004. Mesophilic and thermophilic temperature co-
phase anaerobic digestion compared with single-stage mesophilic and
thermophilic digestion of sewage sludge. Water Research 38 (7), 1653–1662.
Sung, S.W., Dague, R.R., 1995. Laboratory studies on the anaerobic sequencing batch
reactor. Water Environment Research 67 (3), 294–301.
Sung, S.W., Santha, H., 2003. Performance of temperature-phased anaerobic
digestion (TPAD) system treating dairy cattle wastes. Water Research 37 (7),
1628–1636.
van Lier, J.B., van der Zee, F.P., Tan, N.C.G., Rebac, S., Kleerebezem, R., 2001. Advances
in high-rate anaerobic treatment: staging of reactor systems. Water Science and
Technology 44 (8), 15–25.
vanLier, J.B., 1996. Limitations of thermophilic anaerobic wastewater treatment and
the consequences for process design. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek International
Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 69 (1), 1–14.
Veeken, A., Hamelers, B., 1999. Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rates of selected
biowaste components. Bioresource Technology 69 (3), 249–254.