(Luận văn thạc sĩ) establish an anaerobic batch system by using guideline VDI 4630 and determine the biogas yield of different substrates in food processing villages

VNU UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE - TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DRESDEN - ® Bui Dieu Linh ESTABLISH AN ANAEROBIC BATCH SYSTEM BY USING GUIDELINE VDI 4630 AND DETERMINE THE BIOGAS YIELD OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES IN FOOD PROCESSING VILLAGES MASTER THESIS Hanoi - 2011 VNU UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE - TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DRESDEN - ® Bui Dieu Linh ESTABLISH AN ANAEROBIC BATCH SYSTEM BY USING GUIDELINE VDI 4630 AND DETERMINE THE BIOGAS YIELD OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES IN FOOD PROCESSING VILLAGES Major: Waste Management and Contaminated Site Treatment Code: MASTER THESIS SUPERVISORS: ASSOC PROF DR NGUYEN THI DIEM TRANG PROF DR RER NAT DR H.C PETER WERNER Hanoi - 2011 Topic Establish an anaerobic batch system by using guideline VDI 4630 and determine the biogas yield of different substrates in food processing villages Task The first task is to establish an anaerobic batch system in Environmental Chemistry laboratory, Faculty of Chemistry, Hanoi University of Natural Sciences, Hanoi National University by using German guideline - VDI 4630 With this system, different inocula from various sources around Hanoi will be assessed their quality to choose the good one for next experiments with substrates Reference substrate is sodium acetate Substrates as wastes (cassava residues, rice residues, water hyacinth, pig manure) in Dai Lam village - a craft village of wine production and pig breeding will be sampled, prepared and fermented in free-oxygen environment The processing parameters are biogas production, biogas composition (CH4 and CO2), pH - value, TS (total solids), VS (volatile solids), COD (chemical oxygen demand) The biogas yield (per amount of substrate, per VS of inoculum, per COD of substrate) and the degradability of different substrates will be evaluated Objective The aim of this thesis is from learning the methods of guideline VDI 4630 to establish in practice an anaerobic batch system in the conditions of a Vietnamese laboratory Then it is to control this system to investigate the quality of inocula, the fermentability/ the biogas potential/ the specific biogas activity of different organic wastes from food processing and livestock of a Vietnamese craft village It is also close tied to the one objective of education and technology transfer of INHAND project (project funded by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research of Germany - BMBF; with the project coordinator Institute of Waste Management and Contaminated Site Treatment, Dresden University of Technology) about Integrated management of water, wastewater, waste and energy in craft villages in Vietnam.    I Contents Contents Contents ……………………………………………………………… II Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………… IV List of figures …………………………………………………………… V List of tables …………………………………………………………… VII Acknowledgements.……………………………………………………… IX Introduction……………………………………………………………… Theoretical Basics………………………………………………………… 2.1 Basics of Anaerobic Digestion……………………………………… 2.1.1 The four stages of decomposition………………………………… 2.1.2 Influence Factors of Digestion…………………………………… 2.1.3 Biogas potential of different substrates…………………………… 13 2.2 End products of fermentation………………………………………… 15 Materials and methods…………………………………………………… 17 3.1 VDI survey about batchtests for biogas yield determination………… 17 3.1.1 Scope and purpose of Fermentation batchtests…………………… 17 3.1.2 Methods of VDI 4630 in detecting the biogas yield……………… 17 3.1.3 Method of VDI 4630 in approaching the batchtests……………… 19 3.2 Analysis method ……………………………………………………… 19 3.2.1 Sampling………………………………………………………… 19 3.2.2 Sample preparation……………………………………………… 23 3.2.3 Determination of parameters: TS, VS, COD, and CH4 and CO2   II Contents content in biogas………………………………………………… 25 3.3 Experimental procedure……………………………………………… 30 3.3.1 Test condition and batch apparatus……………………………… 30 3.3.2 Method to calculate the biogas production, the biogas yield, the   biogas composition, the degree of degradation…………………… 37 Evaluation and discussion of the batch experiments………………… 41 4.1 Activity potential of different inocula………………………………… 41 4.2 Biogas production and biogas composition of different substrates… 47 4.2.1 Biogas yield (mlN/gVSinoculum, mlN/gCODsubstrate, mlN/ g substrate)… 47 4.2.1.1 Biogas yield of trial with inoculum 5……………………… 47 4.2.1.2 Biogas yield of trial with inoculum 5……………………… 50 4.2.1.3 Biogas yield review of different substrates with inoculum 5… 54 4.2.1.4 Biogas yield review of different substrates with inoculum 6… 56 4.2.2 Comparison of biogas yields with theory and literature………… 61 4.2.3 Biogas composition (CH4 and CO2 content)……………………… 64 4.3 Residue of biogas production………………………………………… 66 4.3.1 Degree of degradation of volatile solids………………………… 66 4.3.2 Degree of degradation of total solids…………………………… 69 4.3.3 Degree of degradation of COD total……………………………… 71 4.4 Error analyis……………………………………… 77 Conclusion………………… 80 References………………… 83 Annex- Data records I Statement under oath XI III Abbreviations Abbreviations abs absolute B Blank sample C/ CR Cassava residues sample COD Chemical oxygen demand Inoc Inoculum lN standard liter, volume under normal condition mlN standard milliliter, volume under normal condition P/ PM Pig manure sample R Reference sample RR Rice residues sample SA Sodium acetate SLR Sludge loading rate or sludge loading ratio TS Total solids VS Volatile solids W/ WH Water hyacinth sample   IV List of Figures List of Figures Figure 2-1: Four stages of anaerobic degradation (WEILAND, 2003) Figure 3-1: Test apparatus according to DIN EN ISO 11734: Gas volume measurement with a gas pressure measurement instrument (VDI 4630) ………………………………………………… 18 Figure 3-2: Gas volume measurement with a gas pressure measurement   instrument (S Meier, 2009) 18 Figure 3-3: Map showing position of Dai Lam village………………… 21 Figure 3-4: Water hyacinth at main sewer… 21 Figure 3-5: Rice residues and cassava residues sampling at households… 22 Figure 3-6: Pig manure at a small swine farm of a household …………… 22 Figure 3-7: Homogenizing cassava residues by blender…………………… 23 Figure 3-8: Homogenizing water hyacinth by blender…………………… 24 Figure 3-9: Filling the bottles by weighing method……………………… 30 Figure 3-10: Closing bottles with silicone stoppers 31 Figure 3-11: Creating the vacuum inside the bottles 31 Figure 3-12: Lovibond conditioning cabinet 32 Figure 3-13: K2000 Pressure table - EXTECH manometer 407910 32 Figure 3-14: MultiLabP4 33 Figure 3-15: MEMMERT drying cabinet 33 Figure 3-16: TDW muffle furnace 33 V List of Figures Figure 3-17: Lovibond ET 108 and MERK spectroquant TR320 block digesters 31 Figure 3-18: PI 722N instrument in measuring COD 34 Figure 3-19: Gas chromatograph Shimadzu GC-2010 34 Figure 4-1: Biogas yield without blank on different inocula [mlN Biogas/ g COD sodium acetate] 44 Figure 4-2: Biogas yield with blank on different inocula [mlN Biogas/ g COD sodium acetate] 45 Figure 4-3: Biogas yield with blank on inoculum of trial [mlN Biogas/ g VS Inoculum] 48 Figure 4-4: Biogas yield without blank on inoculum of trial [mlN Biogas/ g COD substrate] 49 Figure 4-5: Biogas yield with blank on inoculum of trial [mlN Biogas/ g VS Inoculum] 52 Figure 4-6: Biogas yield without blank on inoculum of trial [mlN Biogas/ g COD substrate] 52 Figure 4-7: Biogas yield with blank on inoculum of trial 6-7 [mlN Biogas/ g VS Inoculum] 54 Figure 4-8: Biogas yield without blank on inoculum of trial 6-7 [mlN Biogas/ g COD substrate] 55 Figure 4-9: Biogas yield with blank on inoculum of trial [mlN Biogas/ g VS Inoculum] 58 Figure 4-10: Biogas yield with blank on inoculum of trial [mlN Biogas/ g   COD substrate] 59 Figure 4-11: The corrected biogas composition of different samples 65 VI List of Tables List of Tables Table 2-1: Average composition of biogas (FNR, 2005) Table 2-2: Factors influencing the anaerobic degradation (WEILAND, 2001) modified Table 2-3: Micro-nutrients for the anaerobic degradation 10 Table 2-4: Inhibitory concentrations of various elements (WESSELAK, 2009) 11 Table 2-5: Inhibitory concentrations of various heavy metals (WESSELAK, 2009) Table 2-6: 12 Biogas composition and yield of different groups of substances (Biogas Guide 2006) 13 Table 2-7: Properties of renewable resources (FNR, 2005) 14 Table 3-1: Description about sources of six inocula 20 Table 3-2: Description of the batchtests for investigating the quality of six inoculums Table 3-3: Table 4-1: 37 Description of the experimental approach and parameters in trials investigating quality of six inocula Table 4-2: 36 Description of the batchtests for investigating the biogas potential of different substrates   42 Summary of biogas yield without blank and SLR on different inocula 46 Table 4-3: Description of the experimental approach and parameters in trial 47 Table 4-4: Summary of biogas yield and SLR of trial 49 Table 4-5: Description of the experimental approach and parameters in trial 51 VII List of Tables   Table 4-6: Summary of biogas yield and SLR of trial 53 Table 4-7: Description of the experimental approach and parameters in trial 56 Table 4-8 Summary of biogas yield and SLR of trial 60 Table 4-9: Comparison of biogas yields with theory 62 Table 4-10: Comparison biogas yields of water hyacinth samples with literature 63 Table 4-11: Biogas composition of different samples in trials 6, 7, 64 Table 4-12: Volatile solids of different samples 66 Table 4-13: Degree of degradation of volatile solids 68 Table 4-14: Total solids content of different samples 69 Table 4-15: Degree of degradation of total solids 70 Table 4-16: Chemical oxygen demand of different samples 72 Table 4-17: Degree of degradation of COD 73 Table 4-18: Degree of degradation of COD 75 Table 4-19: Degree of degradation of COD 76 VIII Conclusion Industrial areas (CEETIA), Hanoi University of Civil Engineering) But the collected amount of this sludge was limited, the batch test with inoculum was single determination, it was hard to confirm the results or continue other batch tests The third one was inoculum 6- digested sludge from cow dung from a household in Hai Duong province Moreover, these results were confirmed again by other notes from VDI 4630 The seeding sludge had volatile solids content (VS) greater than 50% of the solid content (TS) and equivalent to 1.5 – 2% the weight of fermentation batch However, the corrected biogas composition of inoculum after days was small (23%), and the corrected biogas composition of both inoculum 5, after 15 days were nearly 50% showed that the biomass of both inocula were not good enough The four substrates as cassava residues, rice residues, water hyacinth and pig manure were tested in three trials with inoculum (trial 6, 7) and inoculum (trial 9), in the range time of days (for cassava residues - trial 6; rice residues, water hyacinth, pig manure - trial 7) and 15 days (for water hyacinth - trial 6, all substrates - trial 9), in the range SLRs (0.3 in trial 6, and various in trial 7) The corrected concentrations of biogas in these four substrates through trials exhibited good quality of produced biogas With SLR = 0.3, the residence time of the four substrates should be 10- 15 days From detailed evaluations in chapter 4, the biogas yields and the anaerobic digestion speeds of cassava residues and rice residues were larger than water hyacinth and pig manure The fermentability of cassava residues and rice residues (almost containing readily fermentable substances and carbohydrates) was better than water hyacinth (containing lignin) and pig manure (containing protein, fats and even biotoxic substances as antibiotics, hormone growth stimulants, disinfectants from foodstuffs, cosmetic productions) due to their compositions Besides, the bigger SLRs (organic loading) were set up, the larger biogas yields per biomass could be achieved by these substrates, but also the greater ability of inhibition could happen (as in trial 7) Bui Dieu Linh 81 Conclusion With all above results, this thesis proved great potential of recovery of waste in Vietnam food processing village by biogas production and provided information for the dimensioning and the operation of 3- stage pilot plant to be established in framework of INHAND project The established anaerobic batch system using methods of VDI 4630 guideline in the Environmental Chemistry laboratory - Faculty of Chemistry - Hanoi University of Natural Sciences promises more feasible and more effective studies in the future More studies on improving the efficiency of batch system should be conducted ( eg, flushing bottles with nitrogen; improving measurement method; changing other kind of bottles with fitter bottlenecks; changing other kind of test apparatus, etc) More batch tests should be done to optimize the anaerobic fermentation process, such as finding better biomass supply (better quality inoculum), adjusting the SLR (from 0.20 to 0.50) to decide which rate will win higher biogas yield And it should be noted on a sufficient supply of trace elements for the methane bacteria and the nutrient ratio The biogas yields of other substrates or mixture of substrates as waste in a food processing village would be investigated by more batch tests The methane content of biogas should be determined at regular intervals during the fermentation course to specify the methane activity of different substrates Finally, the fermentation residue should be tested for utilization as safe fertilizer   Bui Dieu Linh 82 References References APHA (1999), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewate, the 20th edition, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation Bischofsberger, W., Dichtl, N., Rosenwinkel, K.-H., Seyfried, C.F., Böhnke, B (2005), Anaerobtechnik, Auflage, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Buswell, A.M und Müller, H.F.(1952), “Mechanism of methane fermentation”, Ind Eng Chem 44, pp 550–552 Boyle, W.C (1976), “Energy recovery from sanitary landfills – a review”, In: Schlegel, H.G und Barnea, S (Hrsg.): Microbial Energy Conversion: Oxford, Pergamon Press Brandenburg, Landesumweltamt (2008), Fachtagung Biogas 2008 Carina C Gunnarsson , Cecilia Mattsson Petersen (2007), “Water hyacinths as a resource in agriculture and energy production:A literature review”, Waste Management, 27, pp 117- 129 Dornack, Ch (2001), Thermophile Vergärung von Mischsubstraten, Dresdner Berichte Nr 18, TU Dresden, Institut für Siedlungs- und Industriewasserwirtschaft Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H Und Hofbauer, H (2009), Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Auflage, S76f s.l : Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Faulstich, M (1995), Praxis der biologischen Abfallbehandlung, in Berichte aus Wassergüte und Abfallwirtschaft, Technische Universität München FNR ( 2005), Handreichung Biogasgewinnung und-nutzung, Gülzow, Leizig Gronauer, A et al (2007), Sicherung der Prozessstabilität in landwirtschaftlichen Biogasanlagen, Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Bui Dieu Linh 83 References Maehnert, P (2007), Kinetik der Biogasproduktion aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen und Gülle, Dissertation, S.5 s.l : Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, 2007 Meier, S Yüceer, S Hinken, L Weichgrebe, D Rosenwinkel, K.-H (2009), Advanced Interpretation of Anaerobic Batch Tests Conclusions for the Practical Operation, Wasserwirtschaftliches Kolloquium – Bioenergie, the Institute for Water Quality and Waste Management, Leibniz University Hannover Roediger H, Roediger M, Kapp H (1990), Anaerobe alkalische Schlammfaulung, Auflage, R Oldenbourg Verlag, München/ Wien Scholwin, F et al (2006), Handreichung Biogasgewinnung und -nutzung, Kap.3 Anlagentechnik zur Biogasbereitstellung, Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe Truong Thanh Trung, Nguyen Van Thu and Joachim Clemens (2009), “Effects of different plants and their replacement levels to pig manure on in vitro biogas production by using syringe and flask systems”, SANSED – PROJECT Final Report, pp 104-110 VDI 4630 (2006), Guideline on Fermentation of organic materials Characterisation of the substrate, sampling,collection of material data, fermentation test, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Dusseldort 2006 NormCDStand 2006-06 Germany Weiland, P (2003), Notwendigkeit der Biogasaufbereitung, Ansprüche einzelner Nutzungsrouten und Stand der Technik Wesselak, V und Schabbach, T (2009), Regenerative Energietechnik, S 368 s.l : Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Bui Dieu Linh 84 Annex – Data records Annex Data record of batch fermentation test - Trial Inoculum Trial Inoculum Substrate Water Total Volume Bottle Total Sum Headspace VS Inoculum COD Substrate SLR (g COD Subs / g VS Inoc.) [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] [g] TS 53.367 [g/L] VS 38.707 [g/L] COD 78066.67 [mg/L] pH (input, 7.40 7.20 [-] output) Temperature 37.0 [°C] 110.05 111.01 0.00 0.00 162 161 768.1 768.28 272.29 272.50 496 496 4.26 4.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 [g/g] time [dd.mm.yy] 25/7/11 19:30 26/7/11 8:16 26/7/11 10:15 26/7/11 12:00 26/7/11 14:00 Bui Dieu Linh  delta t [h] 0.00 12.77 14.75 16.50 18.50 Inoculum (blank) Substrate: TS VS COD Cassava residues 1, Substrate: SLR = 0.3 120.9 [g/L] TS 110.2 [g/L] VS 161.875 [g/L] COD Water Hyacinth 1, SLR = 0.27 [g/L] [g/L] 10.403 [g/L] 7.60 [-] pH (output) 6.50 [-] pH (output) 7.80 [-] Temperature 110.10 7.05 152 765.31 269.36 496 4.26 1.16 37.0 [°C] Temperature 110.05 7.86 152.87 765.0 270.78 494 4.26 1.27 37.0 [°C] 110.02 7.55 155.26 768.5 272.83 496 4.26 1.22 Temperature 110.03 111.39 53.68 771.4 275.10 496 4.26 1.16 37.0 [°C] 110.92 111.29 49.28 758.4 271.49 487 4.29 1.16 0.27 0.30 presssure, total 0.50 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.58 Substrate: pH (output) 0.00 0.50 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.57 TS VS COD Sodium Acetate, SLR = 0.27 [g/L] 1092.5 [g/L] 163.875 [g/L] 0.51 0.82 0.87 0.92 0.99 0.50 0.87 0.92 0.96 1.02 I 0.29 0.27 10 0.51 0.88 0.93 0.98 1.03 0.27 11 0.50 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.50 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.73 Annex – Data records presssure, total time [dd.mm.yy] 26/7/11 16:00 27/7/11 7:48 27/7/11 9:48 27/7/11 11:48 27/7/11 13:48 27/7/11 15:48 28/7/11 8:20 28/7/11 10:25 28/7/11 12:10 28/7/11 14:05 28/7/11 16:15 29/7/11 7:56 29/7/11 9:56 29/7/11 11:56 29/7/11 13:56 29/7/11 15:56 30/7/11 8:00 30/7/11 10:00 30/7/11 12:00 30/7/11 14:00 30/7/11 16:00 1/8//2011 8:45 4/8/2011 7/8/2011 10/8/2011 Bui Dieu Linh  delta t [h] 20.50 36.30 38.30 40.30 42.30 44.30 60.83 62.92 64.67 66.58 68.75 84.43 86.43 88.43 90.43 92.43 108.50 110.50 112.50 114.50 116.50 157.25 230.83 308.73 364.50 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.6 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.6 0.6 0.56 0.59 0.65 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.58 0.59 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.61 1.04 1.16 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.22 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.19 1.2 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.04 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.29 1.31 1.39 1.42 1.42 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.43 1.43 II 10 1.05 1.17 1.21 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.38 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 1.41 1.39 1.38 1.33 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.36 0.72 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.88 11 0.75 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.96 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.13 1.25 1.29 1.3 Annex – Data records Data record of batch fermentation test - Trial Inoculum Trial Inoculum Substrate Water Total Volume Bottle Total Sum Headspace VS Inoculum COD Substrate SLR (g COD Subs / g VS Inoc.) TS VS COD pH input pH output Temperature 110.09 [g] 0.00 [g] 161 [g] Inoculum Sodium Acetate, Rice residues 1, Water Hyacinth 2, Substrate: Substrate: Substrate: Substrate: SLR = 0.41 (blank) SLR = 0.26 SLR = 0.45 53.0509 [g/L] TS [g/L] TS 92.9 [g/kg] TS 18.6 [g/kg] TS 38.2235 [g/L] VS 961.3 [g/L] VS 84.2879 [g/kg ] VS 15.9 [g/kg] VS 32500 [mg/L] COD 144.2 [g/L] COD 132.4 [g/L] COD 13.82 [g/L] COD 7.3 7.0/ [-] pH( output) 8.2/7.7 [-] pH ( output) 6.6/7.3 [-] pH ( output) 7.2/6.5 [-] pH ( output) 7.8 37.0 [°C] Temperature 37.0 [°C] Temperature 37.0 [°C] Temperature 37.0 [°C] Temperature 110.59 110.61 110.70 110.46 111.72 110.34 110.11 111.63 0.00 7.70 7.70 14.44 14.48 125.95 125.35 43.16 159 154 154 148.70 151.32 33.43 39.07 127.51 Pig manure 1, SLR = 0.75 102.9 [g/kg] 83.3 [g/kg] 74 [g/L] 6.6/7.4 [-] 37.0 [°C] 110.27 42.67 114.20 [g] 764.48 765.31 767.32 765.01 768.5 765.06 771.44 774.89 761.98 [g] [g] [g] [g] 272.29 492 4.21 0.00 272.50 493 4.23 0.00 272.23 272.48 496 495 4.23 4.23 1.11 1.11 273.60 491 4.22 1.91 277.52 491 4.27 1.92 269.72 495 4.22 1.74 274.53 497 4.21 1.73 282.30 267.14 493 495 4.27 4.21 3.18 3.14 [g/g] 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.26 0.26 presssure, total 10 0.74 12 0.75 21 time [dd.mm.yy] delta t [h] 3/8/11 20:30 4/8/11 8:20 4/8/11 10:20 4/8/11 13:45 4/8/11 15:30 4/8/11 17:55 Bui Dieu Linh  0.00 11.83 13.83 17.25 19.00 21.42 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.50 0.52 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.50 0.74 0.79 0.86 0.91 0.96 0.50 0.74 0.79 0.86 0.91 0.96 0.50 0.75 0.79 0.85 0.88 0.91 III 0.50 0.74 0.79 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.50 0.64 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.50 0.62 0.66 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.45 0.61 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.45 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.69 0.71 Annex – Data records time [dd.mm.yy] delta t [h] 5/8/11 8:12 35.70 5/8/11 10:21 37.85 5/8/11 12:18 39.80 5/8/11 14:21 41.85 5/8/11 16:21 43.85 6/8/11 7:45 59.25 6/8/11 9:45 61.25 6/8/11 11:45 63.25 6/8/11 13:45 65.25 6/8/11 15:45 67.25 7/8/11 8:14 83.73 7/8/11 10:14 85.73 7/8/11 12:14 87.73 7/8/11 14:14 89.73 7/8/11 16:14 91.73 8/8/11 8:30 108.00 8/8/11 10:40 110.17 8/8/11 12:40 112.17 8/8/11 14:40 114.17 8/8/11 16:40 116.17 8/9/2011 9:30 133.00 8/9/2011 11:30 135.00 8/9/2011 13:30 137.00 8/9/2011 15:30 139.00 8/9/2011 17:10 140.67 8/10/2011 8:40 156.17 Bui Dieu Linh  0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.59 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 1.24 1.24 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.24 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.26 1.25 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.26 1.19 1.23 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.26 1.26 1.26 presssure, total 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.25 1.27 1.36 1.39 1.40 1.42 1.42 1.55 1.58 1.59 1.6 1.6 1.67 1.7 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.8 IV 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.35 1.37 1.44 1.47 1.47 1.48 1.48 1.53 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.62 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.74 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 1.03 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.43 1.46 1.48 1.48 1.49 1.49 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.79 10 0.73 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.83 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.97 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.26 1.31 1.32 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.61 12 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 1.09 1.14 1.18 1.23 1.28 1.66 1.72 1.75 1.80 1.82 2.05 2.06 2.08 2.08 1.94 1.86 2.07 2.06 1.7 1.66 1.81 21 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 1.07 1.13 1.18 1.22 1.27 1.64 1.71 1.74 1.78 1.8 2.04 2.07 2.09 2.09 2.07 2.21 2.14 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.28 Annex – Data records Data record of batch fermentation test - Trial (Part 1) Inoculum Substrate: (blank) TS 57.88683508 [g/L] TS VS 35.17307293 [g/L] VS COD 38 [g/L] COD pH (in, out) 7.3/ 6.9 [-] pH (output) Temperature 37.0 [°C] Temperature 125.09 125.93 0.00 90.67 143.10 52.52 764.48 765.01 268.19 269.12 496 496 4.40 4.43 0.00 1.32 Inoculum Trial Inoculum Substrate Water Total Volume Bottle Total Sum Headspace VS Inoculum COD Substrate SLR (g COD Subs / g VS Inoc.) [mg] [ml] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [g] [g] time [dd.mm.yy] 20/9/11 12:00 21/9/11 11:11 21/9/11 13:11 21/9/11 15:15 21/9/11 17:15 22/9/11 9:30 22/9/11 13:30 22/9/11 15:30 delta t [h] 0.00 23.18 25.18 27.25 29.25 45.50 49.50 51.50 [g/g] 0.00 Bui Dieu Linh  0.30 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.57 Water Hyacinth 3, Pig Manure 2, SLR = Substrate: Substrate: SLR = 0.3 0.3 11.7032 [g/L] TS 41.0627 [g/L] TS 9.6327 [g/L] VS 32.6451 [g/L] VS 15 [g/L] COD 73 [g/L] COD 6.8 [-] pH (output) 6.9 [-] pH (output) 37.0 [°C] Temperature 37.0 [°C] Temperature 125.77 125.11 125.06 125.00 125.13 90.76 90.87 18.08 18.53 18.09 56.57 52.12 131.92 118.63 135.99 768.5 765.06 771.4 758.4 774.9 273.10 268.10 275.06 262.16 279.21 495 497 496 496 496 4.42 4.40 4.40 4.40 4.40 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.36 1.32 0.30 0.50 0.61 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.69 0.50 0.64 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.67 V 0.30 0.30 presssure, total 10 0.49 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.50 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.31 11 0.30 12 0.50 0.54 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.57 Sodium Acetate, SLR = 0.28 [g/L] [g/L] 163.4 [g/L] 7.7 [-] 37.0 [°C] 125.18 7.58 139.06 767.32 271.82 496 4.40 1.24 0.50 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.28 0.50 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.87 1.15 1.21 1.22 Annex – Data records time [dd.mm.yy] 22/9/11 17:30 23/9/11 8:30 23/9/11 10:30 23/9/11 12:30 23/9/11 14:30 23/9/11 16:05 24/9/11 13:30 24/9/11 15:30 24/9/11 17:30 25/9/11 8:15 25/9/11 10:15 25/9/11 12:15 25/9/11 14:15 25/9/11 16:15 26/9/11 8:15 26/9/11 10:15 26/9/11 12:10 26/9/11 14:10 26/9/11 16:10 27/9/11 8:10 27/9/11 10:10 27/9/11 12:10 27/9/11 14:10 27/9/11 16:10 28/9/11 13:00 28/9/11 15:00 28/9/11 17:00 Bui Dieu Linh  delta t [h] 53.50 68.50 70.50 72.50 74.50 76.08 97.50 99.50 101.50 116.25 118.25 120.25 122.25 124.25 140.25 142.25 144.17 146.17 148.17 164.17 166.17 168.17 170.17 172.17 193.00 195.00 197.00 0.58 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.86 0.88 0.90 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.08 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12 presssure, total 0.68 0.65 0.73 0.72 0.77 0.75 0.80 0.78 0.85 0.81 0.87 0.83 1.01 0.95 1.03 0.98 1.04 0.99 1.07 1.04 1.09 1.04 1.09 1.04 1.10 1.06 1.10 1.06 1.12 1.08 1.12 1.08 1.12 1.10 1.15 1.10 1.15 1.11 1.11 1.08 1.14 1.08 1.16 1.10 1.16 1.10 1.16 1.11 1.18 1.15 1.18 1.16 1.18 1.16 VI 10 11 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.69 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.74 0.86 0.88 12 0.94 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.23 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.25 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.26 1.26 1.28 1.22 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.25 1.23 1.23 1.20 Annex – Data records time [dd.mm.yy] 29/9/11 9:40 29/9/11 13:30 29/9/11 15:30 29/9/11 17:30 30/9/11 9:00 30/9/11 10:45 30/9/11 12:45 30/9/11 14:45 30/9/11 16:30 1/10/11 8:30 1/10/11 10:30 1/10/11 12:30 1/10/11 14:30 1/10/11 16:30 3/10/11 15:30 4/10/11 16:00 5/10/11 10:30 delta t [h] 213.67 217.50 219.50 221.50 237.00 238.75 240.75 242.75 244.50 260.50 262.50 264.50 266.50 268.50 315.50 340.00 358.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.75 0.80 0.77 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.15 1.18 1.18 1.15 presssure, total 1.20 1.16 1.22 1.18 1.23 1.19 1.18 1.19 1.14 1.20 1.15 1.20 1.15 1.21 1.15 1.21 1.15 1.22 1.14 1.21 1.14 1.21 1.14 1.21 1.14 1.22 1.13 1.22 1.19 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.15 1.15             Bui Dieu Linh  VII 10 11 0.78 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.83 12 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.23 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.17 1.14 Annex – Data records Data record of batch fermentation test - Trial (Part 2) Substrate: TS VS COD pH (output) Temperature Trial 13 Inoculum Substrate Water Total Volume Bottle Total Sum Headspace VS Inoculum COD Substrate SLR (g COD Subs / g VS Inoc.) Bui Dieu Linh  159.4662 144.5191 222.583 7.1 37.0 14 125.07 6.35 126.95 754.43 258.37 496 4.40 1.41 125.06 5.87 126.71 753.01 257.64 495 4.40 1.31 [g/g] 0.32 0.30 delta t [h] 0.00 15.00 17.00 19.00 21.00 22.58 44.00 14 0.50 0.73 0.73 0.81 0.84 0.85 1.15 Substrate: [g/L] [g/L] [g/L] [-] [°C] TS VS COD pH (output) Temperature 15 [mg] [ml] [mg] [mg] [mg] [mg] [g] [g] 13 time [dd.mm.yy] 22/9/11 17:30 23/9/11 8:30 23/9/11 10:30 23/9/11 12:30 23/9/11 14:30 23/9/11 16:05 24/9/11 13:30 Rice Residues 2, SLR = 0.3 16 125.07 6.11 127.88 754.85 259.06 496 4.40 1.36 0.31 presssure, total 15 0.50 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.86 1.11 VIII 91.4107 86.6258 180.9167 6.8 37.0 17 [g/L] [g/L] [g/L] [-] [°C] 18 125.31 11.91 124.78 753.23 262.00 493 4.41 2.15 125.10 7.10 127.77 751.99 259.97 492 4.40 1.28 125.06 7.18 131.91 753.57 264.15 489 4.40 1.30 0.49 0.29 0.30 16 0.48 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.84 0.87 1.16 Cassava Residues 2, SLR = 0.3 17 0.50 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.89 0.91 1.21 18 0.50 0.74 0.77 0.82 0.85 0.87 1.05 0.48 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.84 1.04 Annex – Data records time [dd.mm.yy] 24/9/11 15:30 24/9/11 17:30 25/9/11 8:15 25/9/11 10:15 25/9/11 12:15 25/9/11 14:15 25/9/11 16:15 26/9/11 8:15 26/9/11 10:15 26/9/11 12:10 26/9/11 14:10 26/9/11 16:10 27/9/11 8:10 27/9/11 10:10 27/9/11 12:10 27/9/11 14:10 27/9/11 16:10 28/9/11 13:00 28/9/11 15:00 28/9/11 17:00 29/9/11 9:40 29/9/11 13:30 29/9/11 15:30 29/9/11 17:30 30/9/11 9:00 30/9/11 10:45 30/9/11 12:45 Bui Dieu Linh  delta t [h] 46.00 48.00 62.75 64.75 66.75 68.75 70.75 86.75 88.75 90.67 92.67 94.67 110.67 112.67 114.67 116.67 118.67 139.50 141.50 143.50 160.17 164.00 166.00 168.00 183.50 185.25 187.25 13 1.18 1.14 1.27 1.31 1.32 1.28 1.27 1.32 1.32 1.34 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.47 1.45 1.43 1.36 1.38 1.40 1.38 1.42 1.42 1.43 presssure, total 14 1.14 1.18 1.30 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.41 1.39 1.43 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.51 1.47 1.45 1.49 1.50 1.51 1.50 1.51 1.51 1.54 IX 15 16 1.19 1.22 1.33 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.35 1.39 1.39 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.37 1.35 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.41 1.43 1.43 1.45 17 1.24 1.28 1.46 1.48 1.49 1.51 1.53 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.66 1.64 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.64 1.66 1.67 1.69 18 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.15 1.15 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.15 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.23 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.19 Annex – Data records time [dd.mm.yy] 30/9/11 14:45 30/9/11 16:30 1/10/11 8:30 1/10/11 10:30 1/10/11 12:30 1/10/11 14:30 1/10/11 16:30 3/10/11 15:30 4/10/11 16:00 5/10/11 10:30 7/10/11 15:00 delta t [h] 189.25 191.00 207.00 209.00 211.00 213.00 215.00 262.00 286.50 305.00 357.50 13 1.44 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.45 1.47 1.47 1.48 1.45 1.43 1.25 presssure, total 14 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.55 1.27 1.26 1.24             Bui Dieu Linh  X 15 16 1.45 1.46 1.46 1.45 1.42 1.43 1.43 1.20 1.30 1.38 1.39 17 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.56 1.40 1.38 1.35 18 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.23 1.18 1.16 1.14 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.13 State under oath Statement under oath I swear that all the data of my experiment presented in this thesis was truly from my practical investigation at Environment Chemistry laboratory, Faculty of Chemistry, Hanoi University of Natural Sciences, Hanoi National University and other information was carefully cited and I did this thesis by myself under the guide of my supervisors The work has not been published Hanoi, November 2011 Bui Dieu Linh   Bui Dieu Linh XI ... Topic Establish an anaerobic batch system by using guideline VDI 4630 and determine the biogas yield of different substrates in food processing villages Task The first task is to establish an anaerobic. .. UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE - TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DRESDEN - ® Bui Dieu Linh ESTABLISH AN ANAEROBIC BATCH SYSTEM BY USING GUIDELINE VDI 4630 AND DETERMINE THE BIOGAS YIELD OF DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES. .. substrate) and the degradability of different substrates will be evaluated Objective The aim of this thesis is from learning the methods of guideline VDI 4630 to establish in practice an anaerobic batch