Accepted Manuscript

Title: Improving the energy efficiency of a pilot-scale

UASB-digester for low temperature domestic wastewater
treatment

Authors: Shengnan Xu, Lei Zhang, Shengle Huang, Grietje

Zeeman, Huub Rijnaarts, Yang Liu

PII: S1369-703X(18)30122-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.04.003
Reference: BEJ 6923

To appear in: Biochemical Engineering Journal

Received date: 22-1-2018

Revised date: 21-3-2018
Accepted date: 4-4-2018

Please cite this article as: Xu S, Zhang L, Huang S, Zeeman G, Rijnaarts H,

Liu Y, Improving the energy efficiency of a pilot-scale UASB-digester for low
temperature domestic wastewater treatment, Biochemical Engineering Journal (2010),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.04.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Improving the energy efficiency of a pilot-scale UASB-digester for low
temperature domestic wastewater treatment

Shengnan Xu a, Lei Zhanga,b, Shengle Huangb, Grietje Zeemanb,, Huub Rijnaartsb,*,

Yang Liua,*

T
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Donadeo
Innovation Centre for Engineering, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1H9, Canada

IP
b
Sub-department of Environmental Technology, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 17,

R
6700 AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands

SC
Lei Zhang and shengnan Xu contributed equally
*Corresponding

U
authors. Email: huub.rijnaarts@wur.nl, yang.liu@ualberta.ca
N
A
Graphical abstract
M
ED
E PT
CC
A
Highlights

 Settler addition to UASB-digester retained reactor performance and reduced

sludge recirculation by 50%.
 COD concentration of UASB sludge entering the digester was doubled with
the settler addition.
 The USD system achieved an average 49% COD removal and a 24% methane
conversion rate.

T
IP
Abstract

A pilot-scale UASB-Settler-Digester (USD) system was utilized to treat raw municipal

R
wastewater collected from a sewer system at 10°C. During the reactor operation, UASB

SC
sludge was continuously transferred from the UASB to a settler; concentrated sludge in
the settler was then transferred to a digester operated at 35°C. The results showed that
the settler with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 3 hours increased UASB sludge

U
chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentration from 14.5 ± 2.5 g/L to 29.9 ± 4.1 g/L.
With an HRT of 6 hours, the USD system achieved a mean COD removal of 49.2%;
N
and 23.9% influent COD was converted to methane. The specific methanogenic
activities at 35°C of the UASB and the digester sludge were 0.26 and 0.24 g CH4
A
COD/(g VSS d), respectively, and the stability values were 0.21 and 0.16 g CH4 COD/g
COD, respectively. The stability of the settled sludge was similar to that of the
M

recirculated UASB sludge. Compared to a UASB-digester system, the system with an

added settler achieved similar COD removal and methane production, but reduced
ED

sludge recirculation rate (from 16% to 8% of the influent flow rate), which led to a 50%
heating energy saving in the digester of the UASB-digester.
PT

Keywords: anaerobic domestic wastewater treatment, methanogenic activity, low

temperature, UASB-digester, energy saving
E
CC

1. Introduction

Domestic wastewater contains approximately 23.0 W/capita energy contained in

A

organic carbon, and 6 and 0.8 W/capita in NH4+-N and PO43--P, respectively [1].
Harvesting energy from low strength domestic wastewater is feasible and desirable.
To date, an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor has been intensively
studied and widely applied for anaerobic wastewater treatment. A UASB reactor can
be operated at a relatively short hydraulic retention time (HRT) (i.e. 6 hours in
Mahmoud et al. [2]) as compared to other anaerobic processes such as a continuous
stirred-tank reactor (CSTR), which saves footprint of wastewater treatment plants.
UASB reactor construction is simple and the reactor requires minimal maintenance
[3]. UASB reactors can maintain stable performance under various environmental
conditions such as hydraulic, temperature and organic loading conditions etc. [4, 5].
Compared with activated sludge system, anaerobic wastewater treatment saves energy
and operational cost, produces less wasted sludge and generates energy in the form of
methane.

UASB reactors have been applied predominantly in (sub)tropical regions because

hydrolysis of particulate organic solids and methanogenesis are not favoured at low
temperatures [6]. For example, specific methanogenic activity (SMA) was found to be

T
2–8 times higher at 37°C than at 12°C, and the first order hydrolysis constant rate was
about 7–14 times higher at 37°C than at 12°C [7]. Operation of such systems under

IP
low temperature conditions is challenging, mainly because of the slow hydrolysis of
complex and suspended organic materials and the low growth rate of methanogens [8,

R
9]. The need to heat the bulk wastewater to maintain mesophilic (> 20°C) conditions
leads to high energy consumption, requiring approximately 1.2 kWh of heat/m3 of

SC
water for every 1°C increase in temperature.

Low temperature anaerobic treatment of municipal wastewater is attractive in

U
moderate climate countries, as it has a potential to achieve an energy neutral
N
wastewater treatment plant. Therewith, low temperature anaerobic digestion has been
intensively studied in recent years. Most reported studies used synthetic wastewater,
A
consisting 100% soluble chemical oxygen demand (CODsoluble). Different types of
M

anaerobic reactors have been studied, including expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)
reactors, combinations of an EGSB with an anaerobic filter (AF), up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, anaerobic baffled reactors (ABR), anaerobic
ED

migrating blanket reactor (AMBR) and anaerobic membrane bioreactors [10-15].

Generally, these reactors achieved a high CODsoluble removal efficiency (in the range
of 70% to 90%) at temperatures between 4 and 25°C.
PT

Raw municipal wastewater contains a high fraction of suspended COD (CODsuspended),

E

which typically contributes to 55% of total COD [16]. Low hydrolysis rate of
CODsuspended under low temperature conditions has been identified as the major
CC

technical challenge for anaerobic digestion of raw municipal wastewater. Novel

reactors were developed to deal with the low CODsuspended reduction, e.g. an upflow
anaerobic solids removal reactor (UASR) [17], and a two-step anaerobic filter (AF) +
A

anaerobic hybrid (AH) reactor [18, 19]. These reactors enhanced CODsuspended removal
at low temperature mainly through enhanced organic particle capturing capacity due
to the reactor design. However, once particles were captured in these reactors, the rate
of hydrolysis was still limited which led to the low CH4 recovery and accumulation of
unstablized sludge.
Recently, a novel UASB-digester system was proposed and studied to enhance not
only the CODsuspended capturing capacity through enhancing bioflocculation in UASB,
but also CODsuspended hydrolysis rate through operating a digester for hydrolysis at
35°C [16]. In this configuration, wastewater particulate COD can be hydrolysed in the
mesophilic digester to provide enough organic substrate for methanogenesis.
Increased sludge recirculation and an optimized sludge transfer point have been
observed to improve both methane production and UASB stability [20, 21]. At an
HRT of 6 hrs, 52-60% COD removal and 40% methane production were achieved at
temperatures between 10-15°C [22]. However, high sludge recirculation requires a
significant amount of energy for digester heating. .

T
IP
Built upon our previous study, the current research is carried out with a novel reactor
design to maintain CODsuspended reduction under 10°C condition but to improve the

R
digester heating efficiency through concentrating UASB sludge and reducing the
sludge circulation. For the first time, a pilot scale UASB-settler-digester (USD)

SC
system was constructed and operated to treat municipal wastewater at 10°C condition.
Domestic wastewater was collected from the village Bennekom in the Netherlands
using a traditional domestic wastewater collection system. After sludge was

U
transferred from the UASB reactor to the settler, only the concentrated sludge in the
settler was recirculated to the digester. The present study shows the principle reducing
N
the heating energy requirements of the digester by increasing the concentration of the
UASB sludge.
A

2. Materials and method

M

2.1 Domestic wastewater

ED

Screened (< 3 mm) wastewater was collected from the domestic wastewater treatment
plant in Bennekom, the Netherlands. A stirred 4 m3 tank with temperature controlled
at 4°C (Mueller, the Netherlands) was used as a buffer tank to store the wastewater
PT

and to maintain its quality. The tank was refilled twice per week.

2.2 UASB-settler-digester (USD) set up and operation

E

The configuration of the pilot-scale USD system is shown in Fig. 1. The

UASB-digester used in this study was described in Zhang et al. [22]. The 150 liter
CC

UASB and the 50 liter digester were operated at 10 and 35°C, respectively. The liquid
height of the UASB reactor was 3 meters. Nine sludge ports along the height (30 cm
distance between each two, from port 1 (U1) to port 9 (U9)) were installed for sludge
A

sampling, discharge and recirculation. Prior to the present study, the UASB-digester
has been utilized for treating the same domestic wastewater for more than three years
[22]. The HRT of the UASB was maintained in the range of 6 - 7 hours. The sludge
recirculation rate between the UASB and the digester was approximately 80 L/d,
which accounts for 16% of the influent flow rate.
In the present study, the UASB-digester was operated in the same conditions as those
in the previous study, and a settler was designed and installed between the UASB and
the digester to concentrate the UASB sludge before it entered the digester. The radial
flow settler (Φ  H: 0.17 m  0.28 m) has a working volume of 10 L and a circular
zone volume of 4.5 L (Φ  H: 0.17 m  0.17 m). The study was divided into four
phases: Phase I: 0 - 72 d, UASB-digester operation mode; Phase II: 73 - 85 d, USD
operation mode without supernatant recirculation from settler to UASB; Phase III: 86
- 120 d, UASB-digester operation mode; and Phase IV: 121 - 221 d, USD operation
mode with supernatant recirculation from settler to UASB. HRT of the UASB and the
digester without the addition of the settler was 6 hours and 13 hours. The sludge was

T
mainly wasted from the U9 and the sludge bed was maintained lower than U9. As a

IP
result, SRT of the UASB-digester system was 121 d. After applying the settler, the
HRT of the UASB and the digester was 6 hours and 26 hours respectively.

R
As shown in Fig.1, the concentrated sludge was transferred from the settler to the

SC
digester at a rate of 40 L/d, which was half of the recirculation rate before applying
the settler; the remaining 40 L/d supernatant from the settler was discharged in phase
II and was recirculated to the UASB reactor port 3 in phase IV. In Phase II and IV, the
settler was operated under 3 hours’ batch cycles, and 8 batches per day. Sludge
U
recirculation was performed by peristaltic pumps and controlled by a timer. Each
N
batch of the settler operation included: (1) pumping ten liters UASB sludge from port
4 to the settler in 15 mins, and stopping for 30 mins; (2) mixing the settler sludge to
A
avoid floating sludge (15 mins); (3) settling (45 mins); (4) pumping five liters
concentrated sludge to the digester in 15 mins, and stopping for 75 mins. The mixing
M

of the settler sludge was accomplished by recirculating from its bottom to the top. The
settler would generate overflow when ten liters UASB sludge were pumped in and
combined with five liters supernatant. The overflow was collected by a buffer vessel
ED

and transferred to the UASB reactor. After the transfer, 2-3 L was remained as a base
volume to avoid pumping air into the UASB reactor. The digester sludge was pumped
to the UASB reactor when the step (4) started, and its sludge pumping rate was the
PT

same as from the settler to the digester (five liters in 15 mins).

Sludge VSS or COD measurement were collected within one batch cycle. The UASB
E

and digester sludge was collected before (1). The supernatant sample was collected
CC

after (1). The settler sludge sample was collected between (3) and (4). The sludge
scum in the settler was collected after (4) in the daily washing operation. The sample
in the buffer vessel was collected after pumping sludge to the UASB reactor.
A

The settler was emptied once a day in phase IV during 121–221 d to avoid sludge
accumulation. This was performed in step (4) settler operation; and the sludge in the
settler (around ten liters per day) was transferred to the digester by doubling the
working time of the pump; correspondingly. The working time of the sludge pump
from the digester to the UASB was doubled as well.

2.3 Batch experiments

Specific methanogenic activity (SMA)

SMA represents the maximum methane production rate in the anaerobic sludge. SMA
tests were performed according to Zhang, Hendrickx, Kampman, Temmink and
Zeeman [23]. Sludge samples (30 mL) were taken from each port in the UASB
reactor and were well mixed. SMA tests of the UASB sludge and the digester sludge
were both performed at 35°C. Acetate was used as substrate and the batch bottles
were placed in a shaker at 120 rounds per minute (rpm). The sludge in the
UASB-digester system treating the domestic sewage has been approved to be
mesophilic sludge, and its SMA value fitted the Arrhenius model as reported

T
previously [24]. The SMA at 10°C condition was around 10% of that at 35°C.
Therewith, SMA tests were only performed at 35°C in the present study.

IP
Stability

R
Stability refers to the amount of organic matter that can be biodegraded to methane in

SC
the sludge sample. Stability of the UASB sludge and digester sludge, expressed as g
CH4 COD/g COD, was determined according to the method described in Zhang,
Hendrickx, Kampman, Temmink and Zeeman [23]. The sludge samples were placed

U
in a shaker at 120 rpm after flushed with nitrogen to provide an anaerobic condition.
Methane production was monitored and stability testing stopped when no more
N
methane production can be detected. The experiment duration was around 30 d.
A
Dissolved methane in the effluent
M

At low temperatures, dissolved methane in the effluent accounts for a considerable

portion of methane production in the UASB. Dissolved methane concentrations in the
effluent were determined in triplicate following methods described in Zhang,
ED

Hendrickx, Kampman, Temmink and Zeeman [23].

2.4 Analytical methods

PT

The biogas production rate was measured with a gas meter (Ritter®, TG 05,
Germany). Gas composition was determined in case the influent wastewater quality
changed after refilling the influent storage tank. CH4, N2, O2, and CO2 were
E

quantitated by gas chromatography (Shimadzu® GC-2010, Japan) using the loop

CC

injection program described in Zhang, Hendrickx, Kampman, Temmink and Zeeman

[23].

Sludge COD, influent COD, and effluent COD were measured by cuvette tests (Hach
A

Lange®, USA). Sludge samples included: UASB sludge, digester sludge,

concentrated settler sludge, UASB port 4 sludge, and supernatant of the settler sludge.
Influent and effluent COD samples included: CODtotal, CODparticulate, CODsoluble, and
CODcolloid.

Raw domestic wastewater was utilized as the reactor influent, while the treated
wastewater from the top of the UASB was the effluent. Domestic wastewater,
sampled after passing the influent pump, was analyzed for total COD (CODt);
particulate wastewater COD (CODp) was calculated by subtracting CODt by the
filtrate COD of an 8 µm paper-filter (Whatman grade 40, Germany); and CODsoluble
was tested with the wastewater filtrate after filtration with a 0.45 µm membrane
(Whatman FP 30/ 0.45 CA, Germany). CODsuspended and CODcolloidal were calculated
according to CODsuspended = CODt - CODp and CODcolloidal = CODp - CODsoluble,
respectively. The dissolved methane was not included in the soluble COD
measurement. A mixture of UASB sludge from the ports U1 to U9 was sampled for
COD measurement.

Influent and effluent volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentrations were determined by gas

T
chromatography (Hewlett-Packard 5890, USA) using the program described in Zhang,
Hendrickx, Kampman, Temmink and Zeeman [23]. VFA samples were prepared by

IP
mixing 900 μL of 0.45 μm membrane-filtered influent or effluent and 100 μL of 15%
formic acid.

R
Volatile suspended solids (VSS) and total suspended solids (TSS) in the UASB, the

SC
digester, and the settler were determined according to a standard method described in
the American Public Health Association (2005) [25].

2.5 COD mass balance

U
N
COD mass balance was calculated before and after applying the settler to the
UASB-digester for 0 - 72 d and 120 - 183 d. The COD balance was determined during
A
120-183 d when the influent COD concentration was stable (481.6 ± 166.8 mg/L).
COD mass balance considers the following parameters: (1) gaseous methane COD
M

from the UASB; (2) dissolved methane COD in the effluent; (3) gaseous methane
COD from the digester; (4) effluent COD; (5) UASB discharged sludge COD (wasted
sludge was mainly discharged from the UASB reactor, and sludge was discharged
ED

from the digester only for sampling); (6) influent COD; (7) accumulated COD, which
is the difference between the sludge COD in the system at the end and the beginning
of the calculation period.
PT

2.6 Statistical analysis

E

Statistical analysis on the performance comparison was determined through an

analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) by using Microsoft Excel® software;
CC

Correlations were considered statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval (p

< 0.05).
A

3 Results

3.1 Methane production rate

As shown in Fig. 2A, the average production rates of dissolved and gaseous methane
in the UASB reactor in phase I 0-72 d before starting the settler were 4.3 ± 2.4 and
24.7 ± 5.4 g CH4-COD/d, respectively. In phase IV 121-221 d after the settler was
applied in the UASB-digester system, the average gaseous and dissolved methane
production in the UASB was 4.5 ± 4.3 and 24.5 ± 7.1 g CH4-COD/d, respectively.
The average methane production rates of the digester (Fig. 2 B) in phase I and in
phase IV were 32.4 ± 12.5 and 39.2 ± 11.3 g CH4-COD/d, respectively. The results
show that the 50% reduction in recirculation rates through the settler operation did not
cause any significant reduction in gaseous and dissolved methane production in the
UASB reactor (P=0.47). The slight variation of the methane production in the UASB
and the digester could be attributed to reactor influent COD concentration changes,
which were 490.3 ± 86.8 and 574.4 ± 256.8 mg/L, in phase I and IV respectively (Fig.
2).

T
The methane production rate from the digester decreased to 19.6 ± 4.9 g CH4-COD/d
in phase II, when the supernatant from the settler was not recirculated to the UASB

IP
reactor. The settler supernatant was observed to contain a considerable sludge VSS in
some batches, which caused a loss of COD from the system. This was also reflected

R
by the reduction of the sludge VSS contents and COD concentration for the UASB

SC
and the digester. from phase I to phase II, as shown in Table 1 and 2. The methane
production rate and sludge density were recovered in phase III, 86-120 d, after the
settler was by-passed and the system was operated under the UASB-digester mode.

U
After the recovery of the methane production, the settler was again applied in phase
IV, with settler supernatant recirculation.
N
3.2 Sludge COD concentrations
A
As shown in Table 1, the average COD concentration in the sludge transferred from
M

the UASB reactor to the settler was 14.5 g COD/L in Phase IV, while that of the
settled sludge was twice as high, viz. 29.9 g COD/L. Although the digester sludge
transfer rate was halved, a similar amount of COD was transferred from the settler to
ED

the digester. Consequently, the methane production in the USD in phase IV was
similar to that in Phase III.

The COD concentration of the settler supernatant was 2.2 g COD/L. Sludge retained
PT

in the settler in the form of scum has an average concentration of 38.4 g COD/L. The
solids accumulated in the buffer vessel as well, and the sludge concentration in the
buffer vessel was 24.7 ± 14.2 g COD/L, which indicates that recirculating the settler
E

supernatant to the UASB reactor helped to maintain the biomass in the system. UASB
CC

and digester sludge concentrations were maintained at 15.2 ± 2.0 and 20.0 ± 3.7 g
COD/L, respectively, in phase IV since the recirculation of the supernatant was
applied.
A

3.3 Methanogenic capacity and sludge density

The results in Table 2 show that the SMA and the stability of the UASB sludge were
not significantly affected (P = 0.05) by the settler application. The SMAs in the UASB
and digester sludge were 0.26 ± 0.06 and 0.24 ± 0.06 g CH4-COD/(g VSS d),
respectively in Phase IV. The stability of the settler sludge transferred to the digester
was 0.17 ± 0.03 g CH4-COD/ g COD, which was similar to the stability (0.21 ± 0.05 g
CH4-COD/ g COD) of sludge entering the settler from the UASB reactor and the
stability of the sludge retained in the settler (0.17 ± 0.02 g CH4-COD/ g COD). The
stability of the retained sludge in the buffer vessel was 0.13 ± 0.04 g CH4-COD/g
COD.

The sludge retained in the settler and buffer vessel had VSS concentrations of 17.2 ±
4 g/L and 10.8 ± 8 g/L, respectively; their total VSS amount were 82.6 and 26 g
respectively, in phase IV. The VSS amount in the settler and the buffer vessel
accounted for 6.6% and 2.1%, respectively, of the VSS in the USD system. As the
VSS in the buffer vessel was 2.1% of the total in USD system, the COD conversion

T
could be ignorable. The VSS concentration of the sludge in the UASB and digester
sludge followed the same trend as the sludge COD concentration, which decreased

IP
when applying the settler without recirculating the digester supernatant, and increased
after applying the supernatant recirculation to the UASB reactor.

R
3.4 COD removal efficiency and COD balance

SC
The average total COD removal efficiencies of the USD were 50.9 ± 9.0% (phase I)
and 49.2 ± 10.6% (phase IV), respectively, before and after applying the settler (in Fig.

U
3), which indicates that the removal efficiency of the total COD was not significantly
affected by settler application (P= 0.65). Similarly, the removal efficiency of the
N
average suspended COD, which was 80.5 ± 6.5% and 79.2 ± 11.7%, respectively,
before and after applying the settler in phase I and IV, was also not significantly
A
affected. However, the total colloidal COD removal efficiency decreased from 14.6%
M

in phase I to 6.5% after applying the settler in phase IV. The reduced colloidal COD
removal can be explained as follows. UASB treating domestic wastewater has limited
capacity for removal of colloidal COD [18]. The colloidal COD present in domestic
ED

wastewater is however highly biodegradable [26]. As colloidal COD was, probably

not settled in the settler, and transferred with the supernatant to the UASB reactor,
colloidal COD removal was reduced. The average soluble COD removal efficiency
decreased from 30.4 ± 8.8% in phase I to 20.6 ± 16.2% in phase IV. An average
PT

effluent soluble COD concentration of 96.7 ± 35.6 mg/L was achieved in phase IV,
which was similar to the previous study reported by Zhang et al. [22]. The slight
E

decrease of soluble COD removal in phase IV compared with that in phase I was
likely due to the observed strong influent soluble COD concentration fluctuation, i.e.,
CC

147.4 ± 32.5 mg/L in phase I and 123.0 ± 45.6 mg/L in phase IV. The decrease of
colloidal and soluble COD removal didn’t lead to a significant decrease in total COD
removal in phase IV due to the high fraction suspended COD in the influent (69%).
A

The effluent total COD concentrations were 247.4 ± 60.2 mg/L in Phase I and 264 ±
79.7 mg/L in Phase IV, respectively. Post treatment options for additional COD
removal should be considered [22, 27]. The anaerobic membrane reactor may provide
a better effluent quality as compared to the UASB-digester process. However,
anaerobic membrane bioreactors also suffer from inherent high membrane fouling
potential under anaerobic conditions, high operational costs and lack of operation
experience at the large scale, which limit their application in domestic wastewater
treatment.

The COD balance in the UASB-digester treating municipal wastewater at 10°C before
and after applying the settler is shown in Fig. 4. The total methane production
accounts for 31.5% of the total influent COD before starting the settler operation
(0–72 d). The methane production in the digester and the methane dissolved in the
UASB effluent were 19.5% and 10.0%, respectively. The total methane production
decreased to 23.9% of the total influent COD after applying the settler during
120–183 d. The COD accumulation in the digester sludge accounts for 4.7% of total

T
influent COD as the digester sludge concentration increased after applying the settler.
The COD gap from the system included (i) the lost dissolved methane in the settler,

IP
which was at most 2.8% based on our calculation using dissolved methane
concentration sludge volume/total methane production (42.4 mg CH4-COD/L × 40.0

R
L/d/ 246.6 g CH4-COD/d); (ii) the lost sludge due to practical issues, such as buffer

SC
tank overflow incidents during weekends; and (iii) COD reduction due to sulphate
reduction [14, 28].

4 Discussion

Energy saving. U
N
Herewith, a settler was applied to a UASB-digester to reduce the volume and heating
A
energy for the UASB sludge transferred to the digester. The volume of the settler
utilized in this study is equivalent to 7% of the UASB reactor volume. A recirculation
M

ratio of 16% was utilized in the present study because our studies showed that this
recirculation ratio led to the stable reactor operation (without settler) and stable
methane production under 10°C conditions. The addition of the settler, as shown in
ED

this study, could reduce the sludge recirculation rate by a half. It saves 50% heating
energy as compared to the no settler setup. The application of the settler can be
considered as a feasible addition to the UASB-digester system.
PT

Methane production. After the settler addition, the concentrated UASB sludge was
transferred to the settler. Although the sludge transfer rate to the digester was reduced
E

by half with settler addition, the COD removal efficiency and methane generation rate
was not compromised. With the settler, methane production can compensate ~30%
CC

heating for the recirculated low temperature UASB sludge, which was more than as
Zhang et al. [22] reported (20%).
A

It should be noted that the daily methane production (35.2 ± 9.6 g CH4-COD/d) from
the digester only accounts for 17.3% of the sludge methane production potential (0.17
Stability × 29.9 × 40 CODconcentrated sludge g CH4-COD/d), which indicates that the
digester can be further optimised. Optimization strategies may include increasing the
sludge retention time e.g.,decreasing the sludge recirculation rate, and increasing the
digester volume. A decreased sludge recirculation rate would allow an increased
retention time of the organic solids in the digester, which promotes the hydrolysis and
therewith the production yield of methane.

Operational consideration. Sludge scum was formed in the settler in this study.
Future reactor design should consider scum removal methods, e.g. by mechanical
mixing on the top of the settler. Further, the increased temperature in the settler (from
10°C in the recirculated sludge to 25°C in settlers) could lead to the dissolved biogas
release. Mixing could further increase the biogas loss. This issue may be reduced in
full-scale operation where the temperatures of the UASB reactor and the settler are
similar.

T
Scale-up. If the UASB-digester system is applied in a wastewater treatment plant,

IP
the primary clarifier can be eliminated, and organic solids are removed in the UASB
reactor. A more traditional progress can include a primary clarifier followed by a

R
UASB system, and the thickened primary sludge are transferred to a sludge digester.

SC
Compared with this process, the USD may save footprint as the settler is used for
concentrating only the UASB sludge instead of organic solids in the entire influent
flow.

U
When scaling up, the sludge in a full scale UASB reactor usually contains higher
N
sludge VSS concentrations, as compared to the bench- or pilot-scale reactors, because
a large scale UASB reactor has a better hydraulic condition. The sludge TSS
A
concentration at the bottom of the UASB is from 40-80 g/L, and at the top from 15-35
M

g/L [29]. The higher sludge concentration contributes to a reduction in the volumetric
sludge recirculation rate. The heating exchanger might help for further energy saving
in case the applied sludge recirculation is high.
ED

Conclusion

An assessment of the addition of a settler in a UASB-digester system, aiming at

PT

reducing operational energy demand for domestic wastewater treatment, was

conducted in the study. The main conclusions include:


E

With the addition of the settler, the COD concentration of UASB sludge
transferred to the digester increased from 14.5 ± 2.5 g/L to 29.9 ± 4.1 g/L, so
CC

increased approximately two-fold, which allowed for a twofold decrease of the

volumetric sludge transfer from UASB to digester.


A

Although the UASB sludge transfer rate to the digester was reduced by 50% (thus
significantly reduced sludge heating energy) with the settler addition, the
performance of UASB-digester and USD was similar.

 Total COD removal efficiency was 49.2 ± 10.6% treating domestic wastewater at
10°C, and methane production rates were 4.5 ± 4.3 (gaseous) and 24.5 ± 7.1
(dissolved) g CH4-COD/d from the UASB and 39.2 ± 11.3 g CH4-COD/d from the
digester.
 The SMA and the STA of the UASB sludge were not significantly affected (p =
0.05) by the settler application. The STA of the settler sludge transferred to the
digester was 0.17 ± 0.03 g CH4-COD/ g COD, which was similar to the STA (0.21
± 0.05 g CH4-COD/ g COD) of the sludge entering the settler from the UASB
reactor.

 The daily methane production from the digester was only 17% of the methane
production potential in the concentrated sludge transferred to the digester.
Therewith, it is expected that further optimization of the USD system will lead to
an energy neutral domestic wastewater treatment.

T
IP
Acknowledgement

R
Dr. Liu acknowledges the financial support from the Collaborative Research and
Development (CRD) grant and the Industrial Research Chair (IRC) Program on

SC
Sustainable Urban Water Development from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC), industrial partners including EPCOR Water
Services, EPCOR Drainage Operation, Alberta Innovates, and WaterWerx, and the
U
Canada Research Chair Program. The authors also acknowledge the support of the
N
Partners in Business program between the Netherlands and Canada, of the
Netherlands Ministries of Foreign and Economic Affairs.
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A
Literatures

[1] H. Gao, Y.D. Scherson, G.F. Wells, Towards energy neutral wastewater treatment:
methodology and state of the art, Environmental Science-Processes & Impacts, 16
(2014) 1223-1246.
[2] N. Mahmoud, G. Zeeman, H. Gijzen, G. Lettinga, Anaerobic sewage treatment in a
one-stage UASB reactor and a combined UASB-Digester system, Water Res., 38
(2004) 2348-2358.
[3] J.B. van Lier, F.P. van der Zee, C.T.M.J. Frijters, M.E. Ersahin, Celebrating 40 years

T
anaerobic sludge bed reactors for industrial wastewater treatment, Reviews in
Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 14 (2015) 681-702.

IP
[4] B. Ketheesan, D.C. Stuckey, Effects of hydraulic/organic shock/transient loads in
anaerobic wastewater treatment: A review, Critical Reviews in Environmental

R
Science and Technology, 45 (2015) 2693-2727.

SC
[5] A. Donoso-Bravo, G. Ruiz-Filippi, R. Chamy, Anaerobic treatment of low-strength
wastewater with a high fraction of particulate matter in an unconventional two-phase
ASBRs system, Biochem. Eng. J., 43 (2009) 297-302.

U
[6] M.T. Kato, J.A. Field, R. Kleerebezem, G. Lettinga, TREATMENT OF LOW
STRENGTH SOLUBLE WASTEWATERS IN UASB REACTORS, J. Ferment.
N
Bioeng., 77 (1994) 679-686.
[7] M. Gao, Z. She, C. Jin, Performance evaluation of a mesophilic (37 °C) upflow anaerobic
A
sludge blanket reactor in treating distiller's grains wastewater, J. Hazard. Mater., 141
(2007) 808-813.
M

[8] L. Zhang, R. Gao, A. Naka, T.L.G. Hendrickx, H.H.M. Rijnaarts, G. Zeeman, Hydrolysis
rate constants at 10–25 °C can be more than doubled by a short anaerobic
pre-hydrolysis at 35 °C, Water Res., 104 (2016) 283-291.
ED

[9] H. Ozgun, Y. Tao, M.E. Ersahin, Z. Zhou, J.B. Gimenez, H. Spanjers, J.B. van Lier,
Impact of temperature on feed-flow characteristics and filtration performance of an
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket coupled ultrafiltration membrane treating municipal
PT

wastewater, Water Res., 83 (2015) 71-83.

[10] S. Rebac, J.B. Van Lier, P. Lens, A.J.M. Stams, F. Dekkers, K.T.M. Swinkels, G.
Lettinga, Psychrophilic anaerobic treatment of low strength wastewaters, in:
E

Proceedings of the 1998 International Congress on Options for Closed Water Systems
CC

- Sustainable Water Management, Wageningen, NLD, 1999, pp. 203-210.

[11] S. Uemura, H. Harada, Treatment of sewage by a UASB reactor under moderate to low
temperature conditions, Bioresour. Technol., 72 (2000) 275-282.
A

[12] A.A.M. Langenhoff, D.C. Stuckey, Treatment of dilute wastewater using an anaerobic
baffled reactor: Effect of low temperature, Water Res., 34 (2000) 3867-3875.
[13] L.T. Angenent, G.C. Banik, S. Sung, Anaerobic migrating blanket reactor treatment of
low-strength wastewater at low temperatures, Water Environ. Res, 73 (2001)
567-574.
[14] J. Ho, S. Sung, Anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment of synthetic municipal
wastewater at ambient temperature, Water Environ. Res, 81 (2009) 922-928.
[15] P. Madden, F.A. Chinalia, A.M. Enright, G. Collins, V. O'Flaherty,
Perturbation-independent community development in low-temperature anaerobic
biological wastewater treatment bioreactors, Biotechnol. Bioeng., 105 (2010) 79-87.
[16] N. Mahmoud, G. Zeeman, H. Gijzen, G. Lettinga, Anaerobic sewage treatment in a
one-stage UASB reactor and a combined UASB-Digester system, Water Research, 38
(2004) 2347-2357.
[17] G. Zeeman, W.T.M. Sanders, K.Y. Wang, G. Lettinga, Anaerobic treatment of complex
wastewater and waste activated sludge - Application of an upflow anaerobic solid
removal (UASR) reactor for the removal and pre-hydrolysis of suspended COD,
Water Sci. Technol., 35 (1997) 121-128.

T
[18] T.A. Elmitwalli, K.L.T. Oahn, G. Zeeman, G. Lettinga, Treatment of domestic sewage in

IP
a two-step anaerobic filter/anaerobic hybrid system at low temperature, Water
Research, 36 (2002) 2225-2232.

R
[19] T.A. Elmitwalli, V. Sklyar, G. Zeeman, G. Lettinga, Low temperature pre-treatment of
domestic sewage in an anaerobic hybrid or an anaerobic filter reactor, Bioresour.

SC
Technol., 82 (2002) 233-239.
[20] Zhang, L., Hendricks, T.L. G., Kampman, C., Zeeman, G., Teemink, H., Li, G. W.,
Buisman, C.J. N., Sludge transfer point of a UASB-digester system: key to efficient

U
low temperature anaerobic sewage treatment, in: IWA, 2012.
[21] L. Zhang, T.L.G. Hendrickx, C. Kampman, G. Zeeman, H. Temmink, W. Li, C.J.N.
N
Buisman, The effect of sludge recirculation rate on a UASB-digester treating
domestic sewage at 15 °C, Water Sci. Technol., 66 (2012) 2597-2603.
A
[22] L. Zhang, J. Vrieze, T. Hendrickx, W. Wei, H. Temmink, H. Rijnaarts, G. Zeeman,
M

Anaerobic treatment of raw domestic wastewater in a UASB-digester at 10°C and

microbial community dynamics, Chem. Eng. J., (2017).
[23] L. Zhang, T.L.G. Hendrickx, C. Kampman, H. Temmink, G. Zeeman, Co-digestion to
ED

support low temperature anaerobic pretreatment of municipal sewage in a

UASB-digester, Bioresour. Technol., 148 (2013) 560-566.
[24] L. Zhang, T. Hendrickx, H. Rijnaarts, G. Zeeman, Effects of temperature and
PT

temperature shocks on specific methanogenic activity and affinity for acetate of

sludge exposed to varying temperature conditions (10-35°C), In preparation.
[25] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
E

Public Health Association, 2005.

[26] T.A. Elmitwalli, J. Soellner, A. De Keizer, H. Bruning, G. Zeeman, G. Lettinga,
CC

Biodegradability and change of physical characteristics of particles during anaerobic

digestion of domestic sewage, Water Res., 35 (2001) 1311-1317.
[27] A. Tawfik, A. Ohashi, H. Harada, Sewage treatment in a combined up-flow anaerobic
A

sludge blanket (UASB)-down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) system, Biochem. Eng. J.,
29 (2006) 210-219.
[28] L.C.S. Lobato, C.A.L. Chernicharo, C.L. Souza, Estimates of methane loss and energy
recovery potential in anaerobic reactors treating domestic wastewater, Water Sci.
Technol., 66 (2012) 2745-2753.
[29] A.v. Haandel, J.v.d. Lubbe, Handbook of Biological Wastewater Treatment: Design and
Optimisation of Activated Sludge Systems, IWA Publishing, 2012.
A
CC
EPT
ED
M
A
N
U
SC
RIP
T
Figures captions

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
Fig.1 Configuration of the UASB-settler-digester
M
ED
E PT
CC
A
 70
A Dissolved

Methane production rate of the USD reactor (g CH4 - COD/d)

60 Gaseous
Phase I Phase Phase Phase
50 II III IV

40
30
20
10
0
70
60

T
50

IP
40
30

R
20
10
B

SC
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Time (d)

U
Fig.2 Methane production rate in the USD reactor. A: UASB reactor, B: digester
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A
 R I
SC
Influent Effluent Removal efficiency

U
1500 1200 100
Phase

Suspended COD concentration (mg/L)

1200 Phase I II Phase
Phase 1100

Total COD concentration (mg/L)

IV

N
900 III

COD removal efficiency (%)

80
600
700
Phase Phase

A
500 IV
600
Phase I II Phase 60

400
III
500

M
40
300
400

300 200
20
ED 200

100
100

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
250 350
PT Colloidal COD concentration (mg/L)

Soluble COD concentration (mg/L)

300
200
250

150
E

200

150
CC

100

100
50
50
A

0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200 240

Time (d)

Fig.3 COD removal efficiency of the UASB-digester before and after applying the settler (colloidal and soluble COD removal efficiency are not shown).
 UASB effluent UASB gaseous Digester
Discharged sludge Effluent Accumulation

T
50.0% 51.3%
8.0% 4.7 %
14.3 %

IP
19.5%

R
1.2 %

SC
2%
8.4 %
10.0%

Before the settler was applied

(d 0-72)
U
During the settler was applied
(d 120-183)
N
Fig.4 COD balance in the UASB-digester before and after applying the settler
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

19
Tables

Table 1 Sludge COD concentrations during the operation of UASB-digester and USD system (g
COD/L)

Time (d) UASB Digester

Phase I
1-72 24.7 (6.3) 15.4 (1.1)
Before starting the settler.

T
Phase II

IP
Settler was applied without 72-85 11.9 7.9
recirculating its supernatant.
Phase III

R
Stopped the settler, same 86-120 18.0 14.4

SC
operation to phase one.
Phase IV
Settler was applied & 121-221 15.2 (2.0) 20.0 (3.7)
recirculating its supernatant.
U
N
Settler (Phase IV Settler was applied & recirculating its supernatant)
A
UASB to settler Settler to Settler to Sludge scum Sludge in buffer
(UASB port 4) digester buffer vessel in settler vessel
M

14.5 (2.5) 29.9 (4.1) 2.2 (2.5) 38.4 (7.9) 24.7 (14.2)
ED
E PT
CC
A

20
 Table 2 Methanogenic capacity of the USD system before and after starting the settler
C.: concentration g/L; Am.: amount g; SMA: g CH4-COD/(g VSS d) ; Stability g CH4-COD/g COD
Total
UASB Digester
Time system
(d)
VSS VSS VSS VSS
SMA Stability SMA Stability VSS Am.
C. Am. C. Am.

0.22 0.18 11.6 1059 0.27 0.15 7.7 387

Phase I 1-72 1446 (167)
(0.08) (0.04) (1.7) (154) (0.04) (0.02) (0.8) (39)

T
0.25 5.5 3.9
Phase II 73-85 - 501.9 - - 193.0 -
(0.07) (0.5) (0.7)

IP
Phase
86-120 0.35 0.30 7.1 555.2 0.31 0.23 6.0 302.2 857.4
III

R
Phase

SC
0.26 0.21 7.0 635 0.24 0.16 10.1 505
121-221 -
IV (0.06) (0.05) (1.7) (158) (0.06) (0.04) (1.7) (84)

Settler (in Phase IV)

Retained sludge U Retained sludge

N
UASB to Settler to
Total system
settler digester in settler in buffer vessel
A
VSS VSS VSS VSS
Stability Stability Stability VSS Am.
M

C. Am. C. Am.

0.17 17.2 82.6 0.17 10.8 26 0.13

0.18 (0.03) 1249 (215)
(0.03) (4) (19) (0.02) (8) (13) (0.04)
ED
E PT
CC
A

21