DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.2021.20639

The Impact of Hydraulic Retention Time on the Biomethane Production from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) in Two-Stage Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor

1Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia

2Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Lampung, Lampung, 35145, Indonesia

3Center for Energy Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia

Received: 10 Oct 2018; Revised: 29 Aug 2020; Accepted: 3 Sep 2020; Available online: 12 Sep 2020; Published: 1 Feb 2021.
Editor(s): H Hadiyanto
Open Access Copyright (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by CBIORE
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Indonesia is currently the most significant crude palm oil (CPO) producer in the world. In the production ofCPO, 0.7m3 of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) is emitted as the wastewater for every ton of fresh fruit bunches processed in the palm oil mill.With the increasing amount of CPO production, an effective POME treatment system is urgently required to prevent severe environmental damage. The high organic content in the POME is a potential substrate forbio-methane production. The biomethane production is carried out by two groups of microbes, i.e., acidogenic and methanogenic microbes. Each group of bacteria performs optimally at different optimum conditions. To optimize the biomethane production, POME was treated sequentially by separating the acidogenic and methanogenic microbes into two stages of anaerobic fluidized bed reactors (AFBR). The steps were optimized differently according to the favorable conditions of each group of bacteria. Although perfect separation cannot be achieved, this study showed that pH control could split the domination of the bacteria, i.e., the first stage (maintained at pH 4-5) was dominated by the acidogenic microbes and the second stage (kept neutral) was governed by methanogens. In addition to the pH control, natural zeolitewas added as microbial immobilization media in the AFBR to improve the performance of the microorganisms, especially in preventing microbial wash out at short hydraulic retention time (HRT). This study was focused on the understanding of the effect of HRT on the performance of steady-state continuous AFBR. The first stage as the acidogenic reactorwas rununder acidic conditions (pH 4-5) at five different HRTs. In comparison, the second stage as the methanogenic reactorwasrun under the neutral condition at four different HRTs. In this work,short HRT (5 days) resulted in better performance in both acidogenic AFBR and methanogenic AFBR. The immobilization media was hence essential to reduce the risk of washout at such a short HRT. The two-stage system also resulted in quite a high percentage of soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD) removal, which was as much as 96.06%sCOD.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor ; Hydraulic Retention Time ; Immobilization Media ; Natural Zeolite ; Palm Oil Mill Effluent
Funding: Kemenristekdikti

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Short Communication
Language : EN
Recent articles
Performance Evaluation of Various Photovoltaic Module Technologies at Nawabshah Pakistan The Utilization of Water Hyacinth for Biogas Production in a Plug Flow Anaerobic Digester Household-Level Effects of Energy Insecurity on Welfare in Southern Africa: A Malawian Case Study The Impact of Hydraulic Retention Time on the Biomethane Production from Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) in Two-Stage Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor Preparation of Anode Material for Lithium Battery from Activated Carbon More recent articles
  1. Ayu, E. D., Halim, L., Mellyanawaty, M., Sudibyo, H., & Budhijanto, W. (2017). The Effect of Natural Zeolite as Microbial Immobilization Media in Anaerobic Digestion at Various Concentration of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). In AIP Conference Proceeding (Vol. 1840). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4982335
  2. Borja, R., & Banks, C. J. (1995). Anaerobic Digestion of Ice-Cream Wastewater : A Comparison of Single and Two-Phase Reactor System. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 54(3), 466-471. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00195122
  3. Cleseri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E., & Eaton, A. D. (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association (APHA). Washington D.C
  4. Córdoba, L. T., Rosa, A., & Bocanegra, D. (2008). Batch culture growth of Chlorella zofingiensis on effluent derived from two-stage anaerobic digestion of two-phase olive mill solid waste. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.2225/vol11-issue2-fulltext-1
  5. Demirer, G. N., & Chen, S. (2005). Two-phase anaerobic digestion of unscreened dairy manure. Bioprocess Chemistry, 40, 3542-3549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2005.03.062
  6. Deublein, D., & Steinhauser, A. (2008). Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources. (D. Deublein & A. Steinhauser, Eds.). Weinheim: WILEY-VCH
  7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527621705
  8. Garcia-Calderon, D., Buffiere, P., Moeltta, R., & Elmaleh, S. (1998). Anaerobic Digestion of Wine Distillery Wastewater in Down-flow Fluidized Bed. Water Research 32, 3593 - 3600. Water Research, 32, 3593-3600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00134-1
  9. Gonçalves, M. R., Costa, J. C., Marques, I. P., & Alves, M. M. (2009). Anaerobic Digestion of OMW : Intermittent Feeding Strategy and LCFA Oxidation Profile. Manuscript
  10. Guerrero, L., Omil, F., Mendez, R., & Lema, J. M. (1999). Anaerobic Hydrolysis and Acidogenic of Wastewater from Food Industries with High Content of Organic Solids and Protein. Water Research, 33(15), 3281-3290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00041-X
  11. Halim, L., Mellyanawaty, M., Cahyono, R. B., Sudibyo, H., & Budhijanto, W. (2017). Anaerobic Digestion of Palm Oil Mill Effluent with Lampung Natural Zeolite as Microbe Immobilization Medium and Digested Cow Manure as Starter. In AIP Conference Proceeding (Vol. 1840). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4982333
  12. Nicolella, C., Loosdrecht, M. C. M. van, & J.J. Heijnen. (2000). Wastewater Treatment with Particulate Biofilm Reactor. Journal of Biotechnology, 80(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00229-7
  13. Prasetyo, E., Sudibyo, H., & Budhijanto, W. (2017). Determination of the optimum hydraulic retention time in two-stage anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor for landfill leachate treatment. Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences, 49(3). https://doi.org/10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2017.49.3.7
  14. Ramadhani, L. I., Damayanti, S. I., Sudibyo, H., & Budhijanto, W. (2018). Kinetics of Anaerobic Digestion of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) in Double-Stage Batch Bioreactor with Recirculation and Fluidization of Microbial Immobilization Media. IOP Conference Series : Materials Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/316/1/012071
  15. Soetopo, R. S., Purwati, S., Setiawan, Y., & W, K. A. (2011). Efektivitas Proses Kontinyu Digestasi Anaerobik. Jurnal Riset Industri, V(2), 131-142
  16. Sowmeyan, R., & Swaminathan, G. (2008). Evaluation of inverse anaerobic fluidized bed reactor for treating high strength organic wastewater. Bioresource Technology, 99, 3877-3880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.021
  17. Walker, M., Zhang, Y., Heaven, S., & Banks, C. (2009). Potential Errors in the Quantitative Evaluation of Biogas Production in Anaerobic Digestion Processes. Bioresource Technology, 100, 6339-6346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.018
  18. Wangs, Z., & Banks, C. J. (2003). Evaluation of A Two Stage Anaerobic Digester for The Treatment of Mixed Abattoir Wastes. Process Biochemistry, 38(9), 1267-1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(02)00324-2

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.