Next Article in Journal
Application of Ultrasonic Atomization in a Combined Circulation System of Spray Evaporative Cooling and Air Cooling for Electric Machines
Previous Article in Journal
Diagnostics of a Domestic Hot Water Storage Tank under Operating Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Study on Hydrothermal Polymerization Catalytic Process Effect of Various Biomass through a Pilot Plant
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 9
Issue 10
10.3390/pr9101772
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microwave Radiation Influence on Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion in a Multi-Section Hybrid Anaerobic Reactor (M-SHAR)

by
Marcin Zieliński
1,
Marcin Dębowski
1,* and
Joanna Kazimierowicz
2
1
Department of Environment Engineering, Faculty of Geoengineering, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-720 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Department of Water Supply and Sewage Systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Bialystok University of Technology, 15-351 Bialystok, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2021, 9(10), 1772; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr9101772
Submission received: 13 September 2021 / Revised: 21 September 2021 / Accepted: 28 September 2021 / Published: 2 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomass Processing and Conversion Systems, Volume II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Whey is a primary by-product of dairy plants, and one that is often difficult to manage. As whey processing units are costly and complicated, only 15–20% of whey is recycled for use in the food industry. The difficulties in managing waste whey are particularly pronounced for small, local dairy plants. One possible solution to this problem is to use advanced and efficient digesters. The aim of this study was to present an innovative multi-section hybrid anaerobic bioreactor (M-SHAR) design and to identify how microwave radiation heating (MRH) affects methane fermentation of liquid dairy waste (LDW) primarily composed of acid whey. The MRH reactor was found to perform better in terms of COD removal and biogas production compared with the convection-heated reactor. The heating method had a significant differentiating effect at higher organic load rates (OLRs). With OLRs ranging from 15 to 25 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1, the M-SHAR with MRH ensured a 5% higher COD removal efficiency and 12–20% higher biogas yields.

1. Introduction

The dairy industry generates waste that is harmful to the environment by way of its properties and characteristics. High contents of its organic and biogenic compounds are particularly problematic [1,2]. It is estimated that one liter of processed milk can generate up to 10 dm3 of effluent [3]. Dairy processing plants have a diverse production profile, manufacturing milk, cheeses, yoghurts, butter, and so on, which means that the generated waste varies in composition as well [4,5]. Carbohydrates, proteins, and fats are the predominant constituents, followed by large quantities of residual detergents, acids, and bases from the washing and chemical cleaning process [6]. In addition, such waste has high concentrations of organic nitrogen as well as NH4+, NO2−, and NO3− ions. Its other constituents include phosphorus (in both organic and inorganic form) and the elements Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Co, Ni, and Mn [7].
A primary by-product of dairy plants—one that is often difficult to manage—is whey [8,9]. It is classified into three types based on its pH: acid whey with pH 4.3–4.6, casein whey with pH 4.6–4.7, and sweet (rennet) whey with pH 5.9–6.3 [10]. The most practical method of managing whey is to recycle it for use in the food industry. Whey protein is highly nutritious, with functional properties that are highly desirable for the food industry and widely used in the production of dietary foods for special purposes, as well as high-protein supplements [11]. Whey processing technologies include the following: separation of lactose by nanofiltration; demineralization via ion exchange or via electrodialysis; fractionation using membrane filtration; isolation of constituents via ion exchange in a fixed-bed bioreactor; isolation of constituents via ion exchange in a moving-bed membrane bioreactor; concentration; evaporation; and drying [12,13].
The high cost of a whey processing unit combined with technological complications means that only 15% to 20% of the waste output is reprocessed and recycled [14]. Waste whey can still be difficult to manage for small, local dairy plants [15]. Releasing non-processed whey into the environment can affect physical and chemical properties of soil and cause degradation of aquatic ecosystems [16,17].
The high organic load of waste whey causes numerous operational problems for treatment systems [18]. Another technological hurdle lies in the high seasonal variance in waste output, which correlates with the volume of milk supply for processing (much higher in summer than winter) [19]. Aerobic processes have proven to be inefficient owing to sludge bulking and excessive biomass growth [20]. They also require high investment costs and a large supply of energy for effluent aeration [21]. As such, anaerobic methods are usually preferred, offering better biodegradation performance for waste with high organic loads [22]. Lactose, the main carbohydrate in dairy waste, is readily metabolized by anaerobic bacteria [23]. Anaerobic reactors can quickly break down casein proteins without producing methane fermentation inhibitors. Anaerobic digestion of lipids is a more complicated process, proceeding in two stages [24]. Firstly, the lipids are hydrolyzed into glycerol and long-chain fatty acids, after which acetate and hydrogen are produced through β-oxidation [25]. Glycerol does not exhibit an inhibitory effect, unlike long-chain fatty acids, which can slow down methane production [26].
Dairy industry waste is neutralized by means of anaerobic methods in multiple types of advanced digesters [27]. These include UASB (upflow anaerobic sludge blanket), ABR (anaerobic baffled reactor), AMBR (anaerobic migrating blanket reactor), ASBR (anaerobic sequencing batch reactor), AnMBR (anaerobic membrane bioreactor), EGSB (expanded granular sludge bed), M-SHFAR (multi-section horizontal flow reactor), and FAF-R (fluidized active filling reactor) [28]. Though many existing methods are available, new improvements to processes are sought to neutralize dairy waste faster and more efficiently while increasing biogas production [28].
Microwave radiation heating (MRH) is one of such potential improvements. Microwave radiation (MR) is selective, meaning that it interacts exclusively with materials having specific dielectric properties, allowing microwaves to penetrate directly into the microbial biomass. MRH is volumetric, and can be stopped immediately by cutting off the power supply [29]. Microwave radiation can induce biological effects depending on the electromagnetic field intensity, wave frequency, wave type, modulation, and exposure duration [30]. Its effects on living organisms are divided into thermal and non-thermal ones [31,32]. The microwave radiation causes a transfer of energy, producing heat, but the outcomes of irradiation also refer to microwave-specific effects that do not result from increased temperature [33]. MR has been noted to affect the structure and function of cellular membranes, promoting genetic differentiation in microorganisms, which translates to an increased efficiency of effluent treatment [34]. Given these advantages, it may be possible—with the right technology—to use microwave radiation to control temperature conditions in anaerobic reactors [35].
The experiments conducted so far have proved a positive influence of the microwave pretreatment-based technologies on the anaerobic digestion effectiveness [36,37]. The highest effectiveness has been observed with methane fermentation of biomass feedstock [38], microalgae [39], wastewater, and sludge [40]. Other studies have also proven the positive influence of the microwaves radiation on the organic substance biodegradation and nutrient removal by active sludge under aerobic conditions [41,42]. Genetic studies have proven an influence of the microwave radiation on bacterial community variety [43,44]. Other investigations confirm the presence of non-thermal effects of microwaves [45,46]. An interesting issue, rarely analyzed, is the use of microwaves for reactors’ heating and intensification of biochemical changes in anaerobic digestion.
The aim of this study was to present an innovative multi-section hybrid anaerobic bioreactor (M-SHAR) design and to identify how microwave radiation heating (MRH) affects methane fermentation of liquid dairy waste (LDW) largely composed of acid whey. The study includes an analysis of organic matter biodegradation rates, as well as the volume and qualitative composition of the biogas produced.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The present study on LDW methane fermentation was carried out in an innovative M-SHAR. To assess the effect of MRH on methane fermentation, the experiment was separated into two stages with different types of reactor heating: MRH for stage 1 and water-jacket convection heating (WJH) for stage 2. Each stage was grouped into five series according to the organic load rate (OLR) maintained in the M-SHAR, which ranged from 5 to 25 kg COD∙m−3∙d−1. The methane fermentation was conducted under mesophilic conditions at 40 °C. The duration of the different experimental series varied depending on the hydraulic retention time. In each of the process variants, the M-SHAR minimum operation time was 10 times the time needed for complete exchange of the reactor’s active volume. The study design is given in Table 1.

2.2. Materials

The LDW consisted mainly of acid whey, but also contained waste milk, technological effluent from installation washing, and sewage. To achieve the intended OLR in the subsequent experimental series, the daily substrate flow rate was progressively increased. The LDW profile is given in Table 2.
The study used granular anaerobic sludge sourced from a full-scale dairy effluent treatment plant operated at OLR = 10 kgCOD∙m−3·d−1 and HRT = 24 h. The concentration of inoculum in the M-SHAR was ca. 40 g total solids (TS)·dm−3. The anaerobic sludge was loaded into the M-SHAR and filled the lower section. The inoculum was then stabilized over a period of 45 days to adapt to the experimental conditions. The characteristics of the anaerobic inoculum used in the study are given in Table 3.

2.3. Experimental Set-Up

2.3.1. M-SHAR Design

The M-SHAR consisted of a tank with an internal diameter of DC = 400 mm. The lower section (LS) of the M-SHAR (with the granular sludge) housed two centrally aligned partitions: an inner partition and a central partition to provide a meandering flow of liquid in the lower section. The upper section (US) with the biofilter (PVC, glass transition temperature 80 °C, density 1.28 g·cm−3, modulus of elasticity 3000 MPa, long-term use temperature min. −10 °C to max. 70 °C). The main dimensions of the M-SHAR are provided in Figure 1.
The LS outlet was blocked by a baffle with a gap Bs = 3 mm in width. Above the gap was a reactor outlet with a water seal and a suction nozzle for the pump recirculating the wastewater to the US (with an immobilized anaerobic biosludge bed). The filling of the US was set on a steel grid, located above a reversed cone. The narrow tip of the reversed cone fed into a central hose with a diameter of DR = 2.0 cm, the end of which was located 4.7 cm above the raw wastewater inlet of the lower section (Figure 2a). All structural components of the reactor were made of acid-proof steel (Figure 2b). The housing was made of a 2.0 mm thick steel sheet.

2.3.2. M-SHAR Functioning Principles

LDW was fed from the bottom of the reactor with an Allweiler ASL 10 pump at a constant flow (Figure 2). The feed rate ranged from 10 dm3∙d−1 to 50 dm3∙d−1, depending on the series. The treated LDW drained from the granular sludge section via a nozzle fitted halfway through the height of the reactor (Figure 2). A meandering flow of liquid was maintained in the granular sludge section: the wastewater flowed up, then downwards in the middle section, and up again through the outer partition into the outlet connector (Figure 2). The upper (granular sludge-filled) part was equipped with a sludge collector. The collector worked by limiting the flow of liquid via a conical baffle that formed a single system with the outer baffle. The combined baffles left only a 5 mm gap for the liquid to flow through (Figure 2). Above the collector baffle, outside of the outlet, was a suction inlet for the pump used to recirculate the liquid over the filling. The pump was an Allweiler ASL 10. The recirculated liquid was percolated through the filling placed on the support grate, on which the anaerobic biofilm was grown. After flowing through the bed layer, the wastewater was fed into a collecting funnel under the support grate, then discharged through a hose to the bottom of the granular sludge section (Figure 1).

2.3.3. Heating System

Microwave radiation was generated by a 1.6 kW magnetron at a frequency of 2.45 GHz. The complete microwave heating system was manufactured by Plazmatronika NT®, Wrocław, Poland. The magnetron operated at an efficiency of 52%. The magnetron on/off times were regulated by a temperature controller (two four-channel HI 98801 thermometers, Hanna Instruments, Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal). The microwave generator was located above the filling. MR was introduced to the M-SHAR interior with a wave-guide. A seal was fitted between the M-SHAR and the magnetron, allowing passage of the incoming MR without letting any biogas out. The seal was made of PVC, a material transparent to MR.
The control reactor was heated with a water jacket. To provide optimal temperature, a 40 dm3 tank for water with an electric heater was used (2000 W). The temperature inside the reactor was monitored and switched the circulating pump (capacity 4 m3∙h−1) in the water jacket. The entire reactor was insulated with a 50 mm layer of mineral wool. The temperature sensor for the control of the water circulation pump was located at the bottom filling layer.

2.3.4. Reactor Filling

The US of the reactor was filled with plastic carriers. The carriers were plastic balls, 30 mm in diameter, with grooves to increase the surface area (Figure 3). The filling parameters were as follows: total volume Vt = 30.0 dm3, surface area Fa = 0.1256 m2, specific surface area s = 315 m2∙m−3, single ball (carrier) diameter R = 30 mm, tongue width Bt = 1 mm, and groove width Bg = 1 mm.

2.4. Analytical and Statistical Methods

The temperature inside the reactors was constantly monitored. Temperature changes were recorded simultaneously in the upper and lower sections of the reactor, at four points each. The temperature was measured and recorded via two four-channel HI 98801 thermometers (Hanna Instruments, Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal). At each of the eight measurement points, temperature readouts were performed once every 60 min. Biogas output was measured using an Aalborg mass flow meter equipped with an instantaneous flow display and a totalizer. Biogas quality was assessed using a GC Agillent 7890 A gas chromatograph. Methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were monitored as well. The influent and effluent were analyzed once a day for COD using cuvette tests and a DR 2800 spectrophotometer with a mineralizer (HACH Lange, Düsseldorf, Germany). The VSS was determined gravimetrically (part E of EPA Standard Method 2540). The pH was measured using a VWR 1000 dm3 pH-meter. The titration method (Tritlab AT 1000, Hach, Düsseldorf, Germany) was used to determine the FOS/TAC ratio (volatile organic acid and buffer capacity ratio). The measurements were done once a day.
The Statistica 13.1 PL software package (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) was used for the analysis. Homogeneity of variance in groups was determined using a Levene’s test. Tukey’s HSD test was applied to determine the significance of differences between the series (p = 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

The LDW consisted mainly of acid whey, but also contained waste milk, techno-logical effluent from installation washing, and sewage. COD concentration of about 50 g∙dm−3 was claimed. In the research of Carvalho et al. (2013), a COD range of 50–102 g∙dm−3 was observed [47]. A high variability in LDW was presented in Escalante et al. (2017) experiments, where COD ranged between 65 and 140 g∙dm−3 [48]. In the Mainardis et al. (2019) [49] and Karadag et al. (2015) [50] studies, the concentration of COD was 79 g∙dm−3 and 60–68.6 g∙dm−3, respectively. Moreover, the BOD/COD ratio was shown to be above 0.5, indicating an easily degradable substrate [51].
The experiment showed that the efficiency of organic compound biodegradation was mostly determined by the OLR. The COD removal efficiency significantly decreased as OLR increased in the successive series. The highest efficiencies (more than 80%) were noted in series 1 and 2 for both heating variants (Figure 4). Incremental decreases in LDW biodegradation efficiency were observed in series 4, with 65% COD removal for stage 1 and 59% for stage 2 (Figure 4). The organic removal performance was the poorest in series 5 (less than 50%) (Figure 4). MRH was found to significantly affect COD removal within the OLR range of 15 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1 to 25 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1. In the series within this range, the MRH showed 5–6% higher LDW treatment performance than the WJH. The viability of treating dairy effluent with anaerobic beds was examined by Omil et al. (2003), who achieved near 90% COD removal at an OLR of 5–6 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1. Reducing HRT from 20 to 3 days did not produce significant changes in treatment performance [52]. Extremely high COD removal efficiency (98%) was achieved at OLR = 9.8 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1 by Mendez et al. (1989). However, the use of an anaerobic filter for neutralizing whey necessitated a very long HRT of 142 days [53].
Organic load removal was directly linked to the treatment performance and the OLR. The highest COD removal rate of over 1000 gCOD∙d−1 was observed for series 3–5, where the OLR ranged between 15 and 25 kgCOD∙m−3·d−1 (Figure 5). In the case of series 4 and 5, the values were significantly higher in stage 1, with COD removal rates almost 120 gCOD∙d−1 higher than in stage 2 (Figure 5). Series 1 performed the worst for both heating types, with COD removal rates approximating 440 gCOD∙d−1 (Figure 5). The OLR levels employed in various studies have varied greatly. For example, Najafpour et al. (2008) tested OLRs ranging from 7.9 to 45.42 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1, achieving 98% organic matter removal from whey at 35 °C [54]. Out of the many anaerobic reactor types covered in the literature, hybrid reactors are the closest match for the design used in the present study. They usually combine a UASB design with an anaerobic filter bed. Ramasamy et al. (2004) used such a design to degrade synthetic effluent with a COD of 10 g∙dm−3. The organic load rate ranged from 0.82 to 6.11 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1, and the hydraulic retention time from 4.1 to 1.7 d. With these process parameters, and under mesophilic conditions, COD removal efficiencies varied between 90% and 97% [55].
The highest biogas production was achieved in series 3, where the OLR was maintained at 15 gCOD∙dm−3∙d−1. The yields for this process variant averaged 433 dm3biogas∙d−1 in stage 1 and 384 dm3biogas∙d−1 in stage 2 (Figure 6). As was the case for series 4 and 5, the difference in daily biogas yields between these stages was statistically significant (p = 0.05). The poorest biogas production of less than 180 dm3biogas∙d−1 was observed for series 1 and, in this case, no significant discrepancies in biogas yields were observed between the two reactor heating types (Figure 6). With an OLR of 10 gCOD∙dm−3∙d−1 in series 2, the biogas production was quite stable and close to 317 dm3biogas∙d−1, regardless of the M-SHAR heating used (Figure 6).
Literature reports indicate that living organisms exposed to the unique environment of electromagnetic microwave fields are subject to various non-thermal effects [56,57]. Banik et al. (2003) showed that Methanosarcina barkeri DS-804 exposed to microwave radiation had higher colony counts and cell sizes. The experiment used a pure culture exposed to microwave at frequencies between 13.5 and 36.5 GHz for 2.0 h. The composition of the biogas produced by a pure Methanosarcina barkeri DS-804 culture changed depending on the microwave frequency. The methane content in the examined biogas reached values as high as 76.5% at a frequency of 31.5 GHz, and as low as 52.3% in the biogas produced by the control cultures, not exposed to microwave radiation. According to the authors, these findings indicate that microwaves induce specific metabolic activity that correlates with faster growth rates [58].
Another significant parameter used to measure fermentation performance is the biogas production coefficient, which describes the biogas yield per organic load removed. Its values were the highest in series 1 for both experimental stages, exceeding 400 dm3·kgCODremoved−1∙d−1 (Figure 7). The experiments revealed a linear correlation between higher OLRs and daily biogas production, the latter of which fell below 300 dm3·kgCODremoved−1∙d−1 in series 5 (Figure 7). Statistically significant differences in the biogas production coefficient were only found at OLR = 15 gCOD∙dm−3∙d−1 in series 3, i.e., 361 dm3·kgCODremoved−1∙d−1 and 342 dm3·kgCODremoved−1∙d−1 for stage 1 and stage 2, respectively (Figure 7).
The methane content of the biogas was directly linked to the OLR and decreased successively with the increase in OLR. In contrast, it was not found to be significantly affected by the heating method used. The methane fraction peaked in series 1 at almost 73% (Figure 8). In turn, a significantly reduced level of methane in biogas (below 50%) was recorded in series 4, where the reactor load was 20 gCOD∙dm−3∙d−1 in series 4 (Figure 8).
In assessing how the presented reactor design has performed, an important aspect to consider is the concentration of suspended solids in the reactor effluent. If the amount of outflowing biomass was to exceed the growth in the reactor, it would result in biomass leaching and reduced performance. The design of the sludge separator was identical in both reactors, and the choice of the heating method had no effect on the levels of suspended solids in the outflow. These levels were similarly low in series 1–3, ranging between 0.54 gDM·dm−3 and 0.912 gDM·dm−3 (Figure 9). Series 4 produced significantly higher values of ca. 1.60 gDM·dm−3, while the peak levels of suspended solids were recorded in series 5—around 3.8 gDM·dm−3 (Figure 9).
The effect of microwave radiation on biochemical processes has not yet been fully explored. Parker et al. (1996), investigating the effect of microwaves on the activity of hydrated lipase, found that the rate of enzymatic reaction for the irradiated enzyme was 2–3 times higher than in the conventionally heated system [59]. According to Dahl et al. (2007), most enzymes are inactivated as a result of rapid temperature fluctuations under microwave radiation. Nevertheless, immobilization was found to promote enzymatic transesterification of (R,S)-2-octanol and non-thermal effects of microwave radiation [60]. Other researchers have also noted that immobilization improves enzyme stability in microwave fields [61,62].
A study by Cydzik-Kwiatkowska et al. (2012) on the effect of microwaves on anaerobic biofilm found improved biodiversity after microwave exposure. The Shannon–Wiener index for a conventionally-heated submerged bed reactor was 1.74, but increased to 2.53 when microwave heating was employed. The H’ index for trickling-bed reactors was 1.74 (conventional heating) and 1.93 (microwave heating) [63].
The higher tolerance of the microwave-treated biomass to deteriorating environmental conditions may be attributable to differences in population structure. A FISH assay was performed to establish the abundance of specific Archaea—namely those of the family Methanosarcinaceae and genus Methanosaeta—as a percentage of total cells in the sampled biomass [64]. Two acetotrophic families of the order Methanosarcinales were counted. Methanosarcina have the most adaptable metabolism among the methanogenic organisms, whereas Methanosaeta can only produce methane from acetate. The inoculum sludge contained 14 ± 2.8% Methanosarcinaceae and 9.9 ± 4.7% Methanosaeta. The Methanosarcinaceae accounted for 3.2 to 7.2% of all micro-organisms across the experimental series, with the fraction being significantly higher in the microwave-heated series. The Methanosaeta fraction totaled 1.4 ± 1% in the control series at a temperature of 35 °C and a load of 1 kg COD∙m−3∙d−1, and was completely non-existent in the other experimental variants [64]. Table 4 presents the results of pH measurements and the values of the FOS/TAC ratio.
Significantly decreased effluent treatment and methane fermentation efficiencies were correlated with an observed pH decrease to 6.82 ± 0.12 and FOS/TAC ratio increase to 0.43 ± 0.05 in series 3. Han et al. (2001) [65] stated that neutral pH ensures optimal conditions for anaerobic processes. Chavarria et al. (2018) stated that methanogenic bacteria are inhibited in conditions of pH lower than 6.7 [66]. The optimum FOS/TAC ratio for anaerobic digestion stands between 0.3 and 0.4, in which the biogas production is at a maximum. A lower FOS/TAC ratio indicates that the micro-organisms in the system are starving and the digester should be fed with more substrate, whereas a higher FOS/TAC ratio denotes that the system is overfed [67]. When the OLR is too large, total volatile fatty acids (TVFAs) accumulate when the production rate in the system is higher than the consumption rate, resulting in an acid inhibition problem [68]. Then, the pH value and the CH4 volumetric yield decrease significantly [69]. Kazimierowicz et al. (2021) stated a significant influence of OLR on the methane fermentation efficiency of food waste products. It was found that OLR above 6 kg ODM·m−3·d−1 completely inhibited the process [70]. Cheng et al. (2018) found that OLRs have little adverse effect on effluent quality and organic matter removal efficiency, with an increase of OLR to 9.72 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1. However, when the OLR was further increased to 14.58 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1, the biogas production rate decreased significantly to 1.35 dm3∙dm−3∙d−1. COD, carbohydrate, and protein concentration in the effluent increased greatly, accompanied by a sharp decrease in the removal efficiency [71]. Sánchez et al. (2005) also proved that raising OLR may cause the increase in volumetric methane production, but also may contribute to the risk of system failure due to accumulation of VFAs and free ammonia in the system, as well as pH decrease [72].
High ammonia concentrations increase the pH, which inhibits the anaerobic digestion process [73]. Total ammonium nitrogen (TAN) is the sum of free ammonia nitrogen (FAN) and NH4+. In fermentation reactors, the forms of ammonia nitrogen can transform. High pH and temperature stimulate the conversion to FAN, which is the most toxic form of ammonia nitrogen [74]. It has the ability to penetrate the cell membrane of fermenting microorganisms, which ultimately leads to the inhibition of enzymatic activity [73]. Toxic concentrations of ammonium nitrogen depend on many technological and environmental factors, ranging from 53 mg∙dm−3 to 1450 mg∙dm−3 (FAN) and 1500 to 7000 mg∙dm−3 (TAN) [68].
In order to obtain in-depth knowledge on technological efficiency and obtain reliable and confirmed data related to investment and operating costs, it is necessary to conduct continuous studies on a pilot or semi-technical scale. An important and required stage is to raise the technology readiness level (TRL) to a higher stage. The effectiveness of the technology has to be proven in work in its final form and under expected conditions. This can be reliably verified in TRL 8. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system development. Examples include developmental test and evaluations of the system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design specifications. In order to obtain full and confirmed knowledge on both technological and economic aspects, it is necessary to build and ensure long-term operation of the installation in real conditions.

4. Conclusions

The heating method was found to have an impact on M-SHAR performance, with the MRH reactor performing better in terms of organic load removal and biogas production compared with the WJH. The effect of the heating method was significant at higher OLRs. The M-SHAR with MRH ensured a 5% higher COD removal efficiency and 12–20% higher biogas yields when OLR was maintained at 15 to 25 kg COD∙m−3∙d−1. However, it should be noted that methane content in the biogas was significantly determined by the OLR and was not affected by the heating method used. The present study indicates that MRH improves the stability and efficiency of methane fermentation at higher OLRs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Z. and M.D.; Data curation, M.Z.; Formal analysis, M.D.; Funding acquisition, M.D. and J.K.; Investigation, M.D. and J.K.; Methodology, M.Z. and M.D.; Project administration, M.Z.; Resources, M.D. and J.K.; Supervision, M.Z., M.D. and J.K.; Validation, M.Z.; Visualization, M.Z., M.D. and J.K.; Writing—original draft, M.D. and J.K.; Writing—review and editing, M.Z., M.D. and J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The manuscript was supported by Project financially supported by Minister of Education and Science in the range of the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2022, project no. 010/RID/2018/19, amount of funding: 12,000,000 PLN, and the work WZ/WB-IIŚ/2/2019, funded by the Minister of Education and Science.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Garg, S.; Rumjit, N.P.; Thomas, P.; Sikander; Lai, C.W.; George, P.J. Green Technologies for the Treatment and Utilisation of Dairy Product Wastes. In Sustainable Green Chemical Processes and Their Allied Applications; Nanotechnology in the Life Sciences; Inamuddin, I., Asiri, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kazimierowicz, J.; Bartkowska, I.; Walery, M. Effect of Low-Temperature Conditioning of Excess Dairy Sewage Sludge with the Use of Solidified Carbon Dioxide on the Efficiency of Methane Fermentation. Energies 2021, 14, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, Y.; Serventi, L. Sustainability of dairy and soy processing: A review on wastewater recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Karolinczak, B.; Dąbrowski, W.; Żyłka, R. Evaluation of Dairy Wastewater Treatment Systems Using Carbon Footprint Analysis. Energies 2021, 14, 5366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Żyłka, R.; Karolinczak, B.; Dąbrowski, W. Structure and indicators of electric energy consumption in dairy wastewater treatment plant. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 782, 146599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Yonar, T.; Sivrioğlu, Ö.; Nihan, Ö. Physico-Chemical Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewaters: A Review. In Technological Approaches for Novel Applications in Dairy Processing; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Marazzi, F.; Bellucci, M.; Fantasia, T.; Ficara, E.; Mezzanotte, V. Interactions between Microalgae and Bacteria in the Treatment of Wastewater from Milk Whey Processing. Water 2020, 12, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Dębowski, M.; Korzeniewska, E.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Zieliński, M. Efficiency of sweet whey fermentation with psychrophilic methanogens. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 49314–49323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rocha, J.M.; Guerra, A. On the valorization of lactose and its derivatives from cheese whey as a dairy industry by-product: An overview. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2020, 246, 2161–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, M.; Wang, G. Future Development of Whey Protein Production. In Whey Protein Production, Chemistry, Func- Tionality, and Applications; Guo, M., Ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 251–260. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ramírez-Rodríguez, L.C.; Díaz Barrera, L.E.; Quintanilla-Carvajal, M.X.; Mendoza-Castillo, D.I.; Bonilla-Petriciolet, A.; Jiménez-Junca, C. Preparation of a Hybrid Membrane from Whey Protein Fibrils and Activated Carbon to Remove Mercury and Chromium from Water. Membranes 2020, 10, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Smykov, I.T. Nanotechnology in the Dairy Industry. Benefits and Risks. In The ELSI Handbook of Nanotechnology: Risk, Safety, ELSI and Commercialization; Hussain, C.M., Ed.; Scrivener Publishing LLC: Beverly, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 223–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, W.-Q.; Wa, Y.-C.; Zhang, X.-F.; Gu, R.-X.; Lu, M.-L. Whey protein membrane processing methods and membrane fouling mechanism analysis. Food Chem. 2019, 15, 468–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ahmad, T.; Aadil, R.M.; Ahmed, H.; Rahman, U.; Soares, B.C.V.; Souza, S.L.Q.; Pimentel, T.C.; Scudino, H.; Guimarães, J.T.; Esmerino, E.A.; et al. Treatment and utilization of dairy industrial waste: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tanzi, G.; Tonsia, M.; Grilli, C.; Malpei, F. Dairy by-products valorisation with biomethane and biohydrogen production through lactose fermentation in Anmbr. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 57, 1819–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Jesus, C.S.A.; Ruth, V.G.E.; Daniel, S.F.R.; Sharma, A. Biotechnological alternatives for the utilization of dairy industry waste products. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Roufou, S.; Griffin, S.; Katsini, L.; Polańska, M.; Van Impe, J.F.M.; Valdramidis, V.P. The (potential) impact of seasonality and climate change on the physicochemical and microbial properties of dairy waste and its management. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 116, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. de Almeida Pires, T.; Cardoso, V.L.; Batista, F.R.X. Feasibility of Chlorella vulgaris to waste products removal from cheese whey. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shi, W.; Healy, M.G.; Ashekuzzaman, S.M.; Daly, K.; Leahy, J.J.; Fenton, O. Dairy processing sludge and co-products: A review of present and future re-use pathways in agriculture. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 128035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dąbrowski, W.; Żyłka, R.; Malinowski, P. Evaluation of energy consumption during aerobic sewage sludge treatment in dairy wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Res. 2017, 153, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Li, W.; Li, L.; Qiu, G. Energy consumption and economic cost of typical wastewater treatment systems in Shenzhen, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, 374–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Escalante, H.; Castro, L.; Amaya, M.P.; Jaimes, L.; Jaimes-Estévez, J. Anaerobic digestion of cheese whey: Energetic and nutritional potential for the dairy sector in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Coelho, M.M.H.; Morais, N.W.S.; Pereira, E.L.; Leitão, R.C.; dos Santos, A.B. Potential assessment and kinetic modeling of carboxylic acids production using dairy wastewater as substrate. Biochem. Eng. J. 2020, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. McAteer, P.G.; Christine Trego, A.; Thorn, C.; Mahony, T.; Abram, F.; O’Flaherty, V. Reactor configuration influences microbial community structure during high-rate, low-temperature anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 307, 123221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Salama, E.-S.; Saha, S.; Kurade, M.B.; Dev, S.; Chang, S.W.; Jeon, B.-H. Recent trends in anaerobic co-digestion: Fat, oil, and grease (FOG) for enhanced biomethanation. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2019, 70, 22–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Elsamadony, M.; Mostafa, A.; Fujii, M.; Tawfik, A.; Pant, D. Advances towards understanding long chain fatty acids-induced inhibition and overcoming strategies for efficient anaerobic digestion process. Water Res. 2021, 190, 116732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vialkova, E.I.; Sidorenko, O.V.; Glushchenko, E.S. Qualitative composition and local pretreatment of dairy wastewaters. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 687, pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Goli, A.; Shamiri, A.; Khosroyar, S.; Talaiekhozani, A.; Sanaye, R.; Azizi, K. A Review on Different Aerobic and Anaerobic Treatment Methods in Dairy Industry Wastewater. J. Environ. Treat. Tech. 2019, 6, 113–141. [Google Scholar]
  29. Romero-Zúñiga, G.Y.; González-Morones, P.; Sánchez-Valdés, S.; Yáñez-Macías, R.; Sifuentes-Nieves, I.; García-Hernández, Z.; Hernández-Hernández, E. Microwave Radiation as Alternative to Modify Natural Fibers: Recent Trends and Opportunities—A Review. J. Nat. Fibers 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Y.; Gu, Z.; Yang, S.; Zhang, A. Performance of a microwave radiation induced persulfate-hydrogen peroxide binary-oxidant process in treating dinitrodiazophenol wastewater. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 236, 116253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kazimierowicz, J.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M. Influence of the Heating Method on the Efficiency of Biomethane Production from Expired Food Products. Fermentation 2021, 7, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kou, X.; Li, R.; Hou, L.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S. Identifying possible non-thermal effects of radio frequency energy on inactivating food microorganisms. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 269, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Munir, M.; Nadeem, M.; Qureshi, T.M.; Leong, T.S.; Gamlath, C.J.; Martin, G.J.; AshokKumar, M. Effects of High Pressure, Microwave and Ultrasound Processing on Proteins and Enzyme Activity in Dairy Systems—A Review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 57, 102192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, H.; Zhao, Z.; Xiouras, C.; Stefanidis, G.D.; Li, X.; Gao, X. Fundamentals and applications of microwave heating to chemicals separation processes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 114, 109316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M.; Kisielewska, M.; Kazimierowicz, J. Evaluation of Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Wastewater in an Innovative Multi-Section Horizontal Flow Reactor. Energies 2020, 13, 2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zaidi, A.A.; Feng, R.; Malik, A.; Khan, S.Z.; Shi, Y.; Bhutta, A.J.; Shah, A.H. Combining Microwave Pretreatment with iron oxide nanoparticles enhanced biogas and hydrogen yield from green algae. Processes 2019, 7, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Zieliński, M.; Kisielewska, M.; Dudek, M.; Rusanowska, P.; Nowicka, A.; Krzemieniewski, M.; Kazimierowicz, J.; Dębowski, M. Comparison of microwave thermohydrolysis and liquid hot water pretreatment of energy crop Sida hermaphrodita for enhanced methane production. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 128, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Rusanowska, P. Influence of microwave heating on biogas production from Sida hermaphrodita silage. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 1290–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Szwarc, D.; Szwarc, K.; Rokicka, M. Impact of microwave heating on the efficiency of methane fermentation of algae biomass. Pol. J. Natur. Sc. 2017, 32, 561–571. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Krzemieniewski, M.; Brudniak, A.; Kisielewska, M. Possibility of improving technological effectiveness of dairy wastewater treatment through application of active fillings and microwave radiation. J. Water Chem. Technol. 2016, 38, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zieliński, M.; Zielińska, M.; Dębowski, M. Application of microwave radiation to biofilm heating during wastewater treatment in trickling filters. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 127, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Krzemieniewski, M. Nitrogen compounds transformation in the biological filter by means of direct energy supply to the biofilm. Environ. Technol. 2006, 27, 1369–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kostas, E.T.; Beneroso, D.; Robinson, J.P. The application of microwave heating in bioenergy: A review on the microwave pre-treatment and upgrading technologies for biomass. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Zhang, L.; Loh, K.-C.; Zhang, J. Jointly reducing antibiotic resistance genes and improving methane yield in anaerobic digestion of chicken manure by feedstock microwave pretreatment and activated carbon supplementation. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 372, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guo, C.; Wang, Y.; Luan, D. Non-thermal effects of microwave processing on inactivation of Clostridium Sporogenes inoculated in salmon fillets. LWT 2020, 133, 109861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bichot, A.; Lerosty, M.; Radoiu, M.; Méchin, V.; Bernet, N.; Delgenès, J.-P.; García-Bernet, D. Decoupling thermal and non-thermal effects of the microwaves for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 203, 11220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Carvalho, F.; Prazeres, A.R.; Rivas, J. Cheese whey wastewater: Characterization and treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 445–446, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Escalante-Hernández, H.; Castro-Molano, L.D.P.; Besson, V.; Jaimes-Estévez, J. Feasibility of the Anaerobic Digestion of Cheese Whey in a Plug Flow Reactor (PFR) under Local Conditions. Ingeniería, Investigación y Tecnología 2017, 18, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mainardis, M.; Flaibani, S.; Trigatti, M.; Goi, D. Techno-economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion of cheese whey in small Italian dairies and effect of ultrasound pre-treatment on methane yield. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Karadag, D.; Köroğlu, E.O.; Ozkaya, B.; Cakmakci, M. A review on anaerobic biofilm reactors for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Process Biochem. 2015, 50, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prazeres, A.R.; Carvalho, F.; Rivas, J. Cheese whey management: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 110, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Omil, F.; Garrido, J.M.; Arrojo, B.; Mendez, R. Anaerobic filter reactorperformance for the treatment of complex dairy wastewater AT industrial scale. Water Res. 2003, 37, 4099–4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mendez, R.; Blazquez, R.; Lorenzo, F.; Lema, J.M. Anaerobic treatment of cheese whey: Start-up and operation. Water Sci. Technol. 1989, 21, 1857–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Najafpour, G.D.; Hashemiyeh, B.A.; Asadi, M.; Ghasemi, M.B. Biological Treatment of Dairy Wastewater in an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge-Fixed Film Bioreactor American-Eurasian. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2008, 4, 251–257. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ramasamy, E.V.; Gajalakshmi, S.; Sanjeevi, R.; Jithesh, M.N.; Abbasi, S.A. Feasibility studies on the treatment of dairy wastewaters with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 93, 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Banik, S.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Ganguly, S. Bioeffects of microwave—A brief review. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 87, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nizhelska, O.I.; Marynchenko, L.V.; Piasetskyi, V.I. Biological Risks of Using Non-Thermal Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Innov. Biosyst. Bioeng. 2020, 4, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Banik, S.; Sharma, A.; Dan, D. Effect of microwave on cell biology of Methanosarcina Barkeri. J. Mycopathol. Res. 2003, 41, 217–219. [Google Scholar]
  59. Parker, M.C.; Besson, T.; Lamare, S.; Legoy, M.D. Microwave radiation can increase the rate of enzyme catalysed reaction in organic media. Tetrahedron Lett. 1996, 37, 8383–8386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dahl, J.A.; Maddux, B.L.S.; Hutchison, J.E. Toward greener nanosynthesis. Chem. Rev. 2007, 107, 2228–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Fang, Y.; Sun, S.-Y.; Xia, Y.-M. The weakened 1,3-specificity in the consecutive microwave assisted enzymatic synthesis of glycerides. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 2008, 55, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fernandes, P.; de Carvalho, C.C.C.R. Multi-Enzyme Systems in Flow Chemistry. Processes 2021, 9, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cydzik-Kwiatkowska, A.; Zieliński, M.; Jaranowska, P. Microwave radiation and reactor design influence microbial communities during methane fermentation. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 39, 1397–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zielińska, M.; Cydzik-Kwiatkowska, A.; Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M. Impact of temperature, microwave radiation and organic loading rate on methanogenic community and biogas production during fermentation of dairy wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 129, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Han, S.K.; Shin, H.S.; Song, Y.C.; Lee, C.Y.; Kim, S.H. Novel Anaerobic Process for the Methane and Compost from Food Waste. In Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Anaerobic Digestion, Antwerp, Belgium, 2–6 September 2001; pp. 645–650. [Google Scholar]
  66. Chavarria, A.M.; Rodríguez, W.; Saborío-Viquez, C. Continuous Anaerobic Biodigestion of the liquid substrate extrated from pineapple stubble in biodigesters of 0.1 and 4.6L. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2018, 18, 261–268. [Google Scholar]
  67. Logan, M.; Safi, M.; Lens, P.; Visvanathan, C. Investigating the performance of internet of things based anaerobic digestion of food waste. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 127, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ren, Y.; Yu, M.; Wu, C.; Wang, Q.; Gao, M.; Huang, Q.; Liu, Y. A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: Research updates and tendencies. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ma, X.; Yu, M.; Song, N.; Xu, B.; Gao, M.; Wu, C.; Wang, Q. Effect of ethanol pre-fermentation on organic load rate and stability of semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 299, 122587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kazimierowicz, J.; Dzienis, L.; Dębowski, M.; Zieliński, M. Optimisation of methane fermentation as a valorisation method for food waste products. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 144, 105913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cheng, H.; Hiro, Y.; Hojo, T.; Li, Y.-Y. Upgrading methane fermentation of food waste by using a hollow fiber type anaerobic membrane bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 267, 386–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sánchez, E.; Borja, R.; Travieso, L.; Martín, A.; Colmenarejo, M.F. Effect of organic loading rate on the stability, operational parameters and performance of a secondary upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactor treating piggery waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Akindele, A.A.; Sartaj, M. The Toxicity Effects of Ammonia on Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Lee, J.; Loh, K.; Dai, Y.; Tong, Y.W. Enhancement of biogas production in anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge by biological co-pretreatment. Energy 2017, 137, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 09 01772 g001 550
Figure 1. Main dimensions of the multi-section hybrid anaerobic reactor (M-SHAR).
Figure 1. Main dimensions of the multi-section hybrid anaerobic reactor (M-SHAR).
Processes 09 01772 g001
Processes 09 01772 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagram (a) and photograph (b) of the M-SHAR (1—microwave generator, 2—microwave generator seal, 3—LDW supply, 4—circulation pump, 5—US of bed, 6—outlet, 7—LS; sludge separation area, 8—sludge collector, 9—LS; granular sludge area, 10—central hose, 11—LDW metering pump, 12—water jacket used in stage 2).
Figure 2. Diagram (a) and photograph (b) of the M-SHAR (1—microwave generator, 2—microwave generator seal, 3—LDW supply, 4—circulation pump, 5—US of bed, 6—outlet, 7—LS; sludge separation area, 8—sludge collector, 9—LS; granular sludge area, 10—central hose, 11—LDW metering pump, 12—water jacket used in stage 2).
Processes 09 01772 g002
Processes 09 01772 g003 550
Figure 3. Filling of the US (with anaerobic biofilm).
Figure 3. Filling of the US (with anaerobic biofilm).
Processes 09 01772 g003
Processes 09 01772 g004 550
Figure 4. COD removal efficiency.
Figure 4. COD removal efficiency.
Processes 09 01772 g004
Processes 09 01772 g005 550
Figure 5. Daily COD removed.
Figure 5. Daily COD removed.
Processes 09 01772 g005
Processes 09 01772 g006 550
Figure 6. Daily biogas production.
Figure 6. Daily biogas production.
Processes 09 01772 g006
Processes 09 01772 g007 550
Figure 7. Daily biogas production per COD load removed.
Figure 7. Daily biogas production per COD load removed.
Processes 09 01772 g007
Processes 09 01772 g008 550
Figure 8. Methane fraction in the biogas.
Figure 8. Methane fraction in the biogas.
Processes 09 01772 g008
Processes 09 01772 g009 550
Figure 9. Concentration of suspended solids in the effluent.
Figure 9. Concentration of suspended solids in the effluent.
Processes 09 01772 g009
Table
Table 1. Study design.
Table 1. Study design.
Stage 1—Microwave Heating (MRH)Stage 2—Convection Heating (WJH)
Series 1OLR = 5 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1HRT = 10.0 daysQd = 10 dm−3∙d−1
Series 2OLR = 10 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1HRT = 5.0 daysQd = 20 dm−3∙d−1
Series 3OLR = 15 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1HRT = 3.3 daysQd = 30 dm−3∙d−1
Series 4OLR = 20 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1HRT = 2.5 daysQd = 40 dm−3∙d−1
Series 5OLR = 25 kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1HRT = 2.0 daysQd = 50 dm−3∙d−1
Table
Table 2. Profile of the liquid dairy waste (LDW) used in the study.
Table 2. Profile of the liquid dairy waste (LDW) used in the study.
ParameterUnitValue
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)mgO2∙dm−350,000 ± 250
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5)mgO2∙dm−332,700 ± 190
Total Nitrogen (TN)mgTN∙dm−32500 ± 112
Ammonium Nitrogen (AN)mgN-NH4∙dm−352 ± 7
Total Phosphorus (TP)mgTP∙dm−3520 ± 48
pH-7.12 ± 0.12
Table
Table 3. Characteristics of the anaerobic inoculum used in the study.
Table 3. Characteristics of the anaerobic inoculum used in the study.
ParameterUnitValue
Hydration%97.8 ± 0.30
Capillary suction times740 ± 24
Total solidsg∙dm−340.1 ± 1.2
Mineral solidsg∙dm−314.4 ± 0.9
Volatile solidsg∙dm−325.7 ± 1.1
Filtrate chemical oxygen demand (COD)mgO2∙dm−3830 ± 31.0
Orthophosphates in filtratemgP-PO4∙dm−399.3 ± 16.4
Total nitrogen (TN) in filtratemgTN∙dm−3148 ± 13.7
Ammonium nitrogen (AN) in filtratemgN-NH4∙dm−3131 ± 11.9
pH-7.49 ± 0.13
Table
Table 4. pH and FOS/TAC values depending on the variant of the experiment.
Table 4. pH and FOS/TAC values depending on the variant of the experiment.
SeriesOLR
[kgCOD∙m−3∙d−1]		Stage 1—Microwave Heating (MRH)Stage 2—Convection Heating (WJH)
pHFOS/TACpHFOS/TAC
157.29 ± 0.110.32 ± 0.037.27 ± 0.060.30 ± 0.01
2107.21 ± 0.080.34 ± 0.027.24 ± 0.090.33 ± 0.01
3157.02 ± 0.060.35 ± 0.046.99 ± 0.130.37 ± 0.04
4206.82 ± 0.120.43 ± 0.056.74 ± 0.040.47 ± 0.06
5256.57 ± 0.100.54 ± 0.036.49 ± 0.080.55 ± 0.02
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zieliński, M.; Dębowski, M.; Kazimierowicz, J. Microwave Radiation Influence on Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion in a Multi-Section Hybrid Anaerobic Reactor (M-SHAR). Processes 2021, 9, 1772. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr9101772

AMA Style

Zieliński M, Dębowski M, Kazimierowicz J. Microwave Radiation Influence on Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion in a Multi-Section Hybrid Anaerobic Reactor (M-SHAR). Processes. 2021; 9(10):1772. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr9101772

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zieliński, Marcin, Marcin Dębowski, and Joanna Kazimierowicz. 2021. "Microwave Radiation Influence on Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion in a Multi-Section Hybrid Anaerobic Reactor (M-SHAR)" Processes 9, no. 10: 1772. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/pr9101772

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop