1. Comparative Assessment of the
Methane Generation from Brewery and
Domestic Wastewater Using An Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor
Prepared By: Benjamin L. Moss, EIT
Masters of Science in Civil Engineering
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering of
Southern Polytechnic College of
Engineering and Engineering Technology
Kennesaw State University
May 2016
2. Acknowledgements
• My Family and Co-workers
• M.A. Karim Ph.D., P.E.
• Sam Beadles P.E.
• Faith Oncul Ph.D.
• Tien Mun Yee Ph. D.
• Shirnett Campbell
3. Benjamin L. Moss, EIT
2010 – Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering Technology (SPSU)
2016 – Bachelor’s of Science in Civil Engineering (KSU)
2016 – Master’s of Science in Civil Engineering (KSU)
Sierra Piedmont, Woodstock GA
Project Engineer – Facility Infrastructure & Environmental Compliance
ENVIRON International Corporation (RAMBOLL-ENVIRON), Atlanta, GA
Associate – Environmental Remediation and Sampling
O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Atlanta Georgia
Project Engineer – Facility Infrastructure and Environmental Compliance
Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Scientists and Engineers, Atlanta, GA
Water and Wastewater Assistant Engineer
4. Introduction
• Prior to The Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, many
industrial manufacturers discharged process water
directly to the ground or into the water system (Rouse,
1976)
• Today many industrial operations must operate
wastewater pre-treatment systems before discharging
wastewater to the municipal sewer system, which treats
the wastewater again before the wastewater is discharged
to receiving water bodies (Rouse, 1976).
5. Introduction
• The brewing industry often
fits into the pre-treatment
category, but additionally
discharges water that has
residual energy which can
be extracted and used for
several purposes
(Fillaudeau, Blanpain-Aver,
& Daufin, 2006).
Cost for
Treatment
Cost for
Business
Cost to
Consumer
6. What’s the point?
Energy In Energy Out Energy In Energy Out
Heating
Water
Running
Equipment
Water
Supply
BioGas and
Water Reuse
7. Objective of This Research
• To compare and estimate the energy generation potential
from brewery and domestic wastewater
• To determine a relationship of the energy generation and
the COD content of the wastewater
8. Outline
• The State of the Art
• Experimental Process
• Results and Discussions
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Question & Answer
10. Brewing Industry
• For the U.S., and many other countries the brewing
industry is an important economic segment (Fillaudeau,
Blanpain-Aver, & Daufin, 2006).
• The production of beer requires anywhere from three to
ten gallons of water per gallon of beer (Zupancic,
Skrjanec, & Logar, 2012)
• When the brewing process is complete residual energy
present in the wastewater can be harvested for provide
energy to other required industrial processes (Mao, Feng,
Wang, & Ren, 2015).
12. The Industry & Anaerobic Digestion
• The Biogas industry has expanded in recent years in the U.S., but
in Europe in 2012 there were over 13,800 biogas plants across
the continent and continued expansion of policies already in
effect will expand until 2020 (Allen, Wall, Herrmann, & Murphy,
2016).
• Anheuser-Busch InBev, Inc., operates anaerobic digesters at 10 of
the 12 breweries in U.S. (Agler, Aydinkaya, Cummings, Beers, &
Angenent, 2010)
• The advances in the industry have progressed significantly in
recent years, but additional research in needed (Mao, Feng,
Wang, & Ren, 2015).
13. Research Regarding Various Types
• The wastewater contains organic materials that has a high
energy potential (Fillaudeau, Blanpain-Aver, & Daufin, 2006)
• Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor
(Chen, Chang, Guo, Hong, & Wu, 2016)
• Fluidized-Bed Reactors & Sequencing Batch Reactors
(Zuppancic, Straziscar, & Ros, 2007)
• Granular Sludge Reactors
(Zuppancic, Straziscar, & Ros, 2012)
14. Unanswered Questions
• Cleaning additives mixed with the wastewater can have negative
effects on energy production (Rodriguez, Villasenor, &
Fernandez, 2013).
• Many different variables can affect the energy production
process rather than just this one potential (Kwietniewska & Tys,
2014).
• Therefore, additional research seems to be a dire need to
progress the science and expand upon significant advancements
in recent years (Mata-Alvarez, et al., 2014).
16. Brewery Wastewater
• Gas produced by brewery wastewater in anaerobic digesters is
typically composed of approximately 55-75% methane (CH4), 25-
40% carbon dioxide (CO2), and traces of hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
(Simate, et al., 2011).
Typical Gas Concentrations
Methane Carbon Dioxide Hydrogen Sulfide
17. UASB Reactor
• Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (USAB) reactors are one of the
more common reactors that are being used now-a-days and
especially with high strength wastes (Simate, et al., 2011).
• The sludge blanket is a result of dense biomass forming within
the tank which supports the loading of high strength wastes
(Tchobanoglous, Burton, & Stensel, 2003).
• Brewery wastewater is composed of approximately 55-75%
methane (CH4), 25-40% carbon dioxide (CO2), and traces of
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (Simate, et al., 2011)
18. UASB Reactor
• The entering fluid results in the
suspension of solids within the
in the reactor
• Turbulence created by the
incoming fluid creates gas
bubbles within the substrate
(diffused zone). The bubbles
rise to the top of the tank, and
collect entrained gases within
the fluid as they move upward.
View of installation of a UASB reactor in India
(Enviro, 2016)
41. 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
MethaneGas(L)/gCODremoved
CODRemoval(g)
Time (day)
Domestic COD Removed (g @ 0.25 mL/min) & Liters of Methane Gas produced at Ambient Temperature vs. Test Day
g COD removed/day L Gas Produced
Added 0.L of
Brewery Wastewtaer
Domestic WW COD/CH4 Production
42. y = 5.3177x - 11.174
R² = 0.7194
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CH4(L)/kgofCODRemoved
pH
Time (day)
Brewery Wastewater - Liter of CH4 @ Ambient Pressure Produced & pH during the test period
Brewery Effluent pH
Brewery WW
Linear (Brewery WW)
Brewery CH4 Production & pH
43. y = 164.94x + 17.002
R² = 0.6187
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
1 2 3 4 5
CH4(L)/kgofCODRemoved
pH
Time (day)
Domestic Wastewater - Liter of CH4 @ Ambient Pressure Produced & pH during the test period
Domestic Effluent pH
Domestic WW
Linear (Domestic WW)
Domestic CH4 Production & pH
44. y = -1.1738x + 13.203
R² = 0.3881
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
5.8
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
1 2 3 4 5
CH4(L)/kgofCODremoved
pH
Time (day)
Brewery Wastewater - L of CH4 @ Ambient Pressure Produced & pH during the test period
Brewery Effluent pH Brewery WW Linear (Brewery WW)
Domestic CH4 Production & pH
45. Conclusions
- A unit volume of brewery wastewater will produce more methane
gas using a UASB reactor than a unit volume of domestic
wastewater (@ 23˚C)
- It appears that domestic wastewater treated using an UASB
reactor operated at 23˚C converts COD to methane gas at a higher
rate than that of brewery wastewater treated in the same
conditions. This needs to be refined with more data as the data
for comparison were not in the same experiment duration.
- Operating a UASB reactor for brewery wastewater will require
chemical pH stabilization to raise the pH to balance the
production of VFAs and the conversion of VFAs to methane.
46. Conclusions
- An UASB reactor treating brewery wastewater operated at
23C˚ produced approximately 5.32 liters of methane gas at
ambient temperature and pressure per kg of COD removed
per day.
- An UASB reactor treating domestic wastewater operated at
23C˚ produced approximately 165 liters of methane gas at
ambient temperature and pressure per kg of COD removed
per day.
47. Recommendations
- Provide mixing for influent wastewater containers to
prevent decreasing COD over the test period.
- Increase temperature of the reactors to the Thermophilic
Range (> 35˚C) and compare the changes in pH of the
reactor.
- Stabilize pH throughout the experiment period to determine
a comparative gas production rate at ambient temperature
and pressure at a certain pH .
48. Recommendations
- Estimate the cost of the treatment process and provide a
cost benefit ratio analysis.
- Perform on-going study of micro-brewery wastewater
discharge to determine a more representative study of the
COD available.
Talk about the configuration of the reactors at this point.
The COD available difference of brewery and domestic wastewater
Large values of COD versus what was expected (based on previous research)
The difference in the lines. How much is available versus how much is being consumed
Reference Sodium Hydroxide, but let them know we will look at it in my detail in the coming slides.
Reference the gap between the lines again.
Mention the low COD values and the influent wastewater container
Mention how the 0.5L of brewery wastewater was added. 3 hours and 20 minutes at 0.25 mL/min
Talk about the brewery wastewater pH dropping across the test period. Below 6 wasn’t good, but below 5.5 was of large concern. Souring of the reactor
Talk about the Sodium Hydroxide added to bring up the pH
Talk about the sharp drop of pH after the addition of the brewery wastewater
Cost of chemicals do effect the overall efficiency of the reactors
Operating at higher temperatures could off-set the need for chemical pH control, but requires energy as well.
High concentrations at the beginning of the test, and high response
Day 6 the removal amounts and the % removal dropped.
Stabalization after the introduction of pH control
The pH dropped in the same portion of the test were the % removal dropped.
As the pH was stabilized the removal of COD did not increase, but did stabilize.
% removal was very stable during the first 5 days, until the influent COD concentrations dropped.
The bugs responded almost immediately once COD was introduced.
The removal dropped once the pH dropped below normal levels.
1) Is relatively stable until the second half of the test. High removal means a drop in pH.
