Anaerobic digestion (AD) of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) is a crucial waste management method for the diversion of organics from landfills to decrease greenhouse gas emissions while enabling energy recovery. A number of dry AD systems treating OFMSW have notably increased over the last two decades. In this study, mono-digestion of mechanically sorted OFMSW and co-digestion of OFMSW, chicken manure and WWTP sludge were evaluated using triplicate full-scale digesters. Results demonstrated that 5–6.6 m3biogas/m3reactor.day biogas could be produced at an organic loading rate (OLR) of 10.5–12 kg TVS/m3.day, with an HRT of 16–18 days. Beyond this threshold, further increases in OLR resulted in reduced gas production due to ammonia inhibition as a result of broiler chicken manure overload. Biogas yield decline started when the chicken manure content of the feed was increased to 10% (w/w) and accompanied with the VFA/TA ratio rising above 0.8. Process instability and a sharp drop in biogas productivity were observed when the feed contained more than 20% (w/w) chicken manure, where VFA/TA ratio exceeded 1.0. Results underline the importance of balancing different properties (e.g., degradability, carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio) of co-substrates to optimize the biogas yield and to ensure process stability.

  • Mono- and co-digestion of OFMSW with chicken manure and WWTP sludges for four years were evaluated.

  • Optimum organic loading rate was found between 12 and 14 kg TVS/m3.day.

  • Limit for chicken manure at the feeding was 10% (w/w) to prevent ammonia inhibition.

  • Biogas production decrease and process instability above 500 mg/L and above 1,000 mg/L of free ammonia concentration were observed, respectively.

Over the past two decades, municipal solid waste (MSW) management has undergone significant transformations. In the late 1980s, landfilling and mass burn incineration predominated as the primary disposal methods for MSW, with composting constituting a minor fraction due to quality challenges arising from contaminants like heavy metals and inert materials (De Baere & Mattheeuws 2013). Recycling efforts were limited mainly to paper, glass, and materials that were relatively easier to recover. However, since then, notable advancements have occurred across various waste management fronts. One standout development during this period has been the widespread adoption of anaerobic digestion (AD) technology for the treatment of organic fractions derived from MSW.

AD of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) minimizes landfill use and reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly. It is regarded as a highly established technology for managing and stabilizing food waste (Voelklein et al. 2016) under controlled conditions in contrast to landfilling, thus minimizing fugitive methane emissions from organic waste and maximizing renewable energy output.

Co-digestion of the OFMSW with other substrates is an attractive alternative for sustainable management of various waste streams produced in large amounts (Dereli et al. 2010; Ersahin et al. 2011). Most wastes with a high solid content, e.g., municipal sludge, animal manure, food waste, and agricultural residues contain significant amounts of biodegradable organic carbon. These organic-rich wastes and residues are ideal feedstocks for renewable energy generation through AD (Dereli et al. 2012).

Dry AD, also referred to as solid-state AD or high-solid AD, is recognized as a process specifically tailored for biogas production, where total solids (TS) content in bioreactors exceeds 20% (Rocamora et al. 2020). Dry AD systems emerged as more efficient alternatives to slurry digesters (wet AD systems), requiring less volume, higher organic loading rate (OLR), reduced water addition, lower energy consumption, and less sophisticated pre-treatment methods (De Baere & Mattheeuws 2013; Rocamora et al. 2020). However, these systems also come with certain drawbacks including prolonged degradation periods and the risk of inhibitory compounds building up, such as volatile fatty acids (VFAs), ammonia, and heavy metals, primarily due to the high total solid (TS) content (Ajay et al. 2011).

Continuous dry AD systems are preferred due to lower investment costs and less sophisticated pre-treatment systems compared to wet AD systems and due to higher biogas yields compared to batch dry AD systems (Bolzonella et al. 2006; Fernandez-Rodríguez et al. 2013). Although there are many laboratory (Patinvoh et al. 2017; Veluchamy et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2020) and pilot-scale (Gong et al. 2020) studies on continuous dry AD of various organic wastes in the literature, studies on OFMSW are limited for laboratory-, pilot- and full-scale plants. Basinas et al. (2021) and Rossi et al. (2022) researched continuous dry AD system treating OFMSW in laboratory scale, whereas Zou et al. (2022) and Seruga et al. (2020) have studied full-scale systems. Further attention on the relation between feedstock composition, OLR and mixing regimes is required for optimization of continuous dry AD systems (Rocamora et al. 2020). It is difficult to simulate the physical and chemical environments of the full-scale digesters in laboratory- and pilot-scale systems. The high TS and large sized impurity content of mechanically separated (MS)-OFMSW is mostly not possible to handle in small size feeding equipment and digesters. To overcome this problem, many studies dilute the substrate or reduce its particle size through grinding; however, this approach fails to accurately reflect the substrate's true rheological properties, settlement risk, or the biochemical conditions that influence metabolic reactions. The limited number of studies on full-scale similar plants in the past was primarily due to the low number of such installations. The number of full-scale plants has increased in recent decades, driven by advancements in technology and accumulated operational experience. While technological improvements have focused on feeding, mixing, and discharging systems, practical know-how has been developed in inoculum preparation and improved process control during both start-up and routine operation. Mixing technologies designed to withstand high viscosity from solids and impurities – particularly those using transversally arranged paddle agitators that prevent sinking or floating – played a key role in these improvements due to their enhanced mixing performance.

In Türkiye, there were two main drivers of the increasing capacity of AD plants. According to Turkish Landfill Regulation, MSW is not accepted to landfills without pre-treatment and the amount of MSW to be sent to landfill is limited to 40% of its weight by 2035 (MoEUCC 2010). AD is used for pre-treatment of MSW before landfills and to reach the landfill diversion targets. Turkish Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Resources to Generate Electrical Energy provides incentives such as feed-in tariff mechanisms for various renewable energy systems, including wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, and solar energy. Accordingly, AD plants had a 10-year purchase guarantee at a rate of 13.3 cents per kWh for electricity from biogas which provided sustainable financing for AD plants (MoENR 2005). However, in 2021, the incentive rate for new plants was reduced to an interval of 8.0–9.0 $cents per kWh and set in Turkish Lira (the local currency), exact buying price to be announced by government each year.

As a result of these drives, 24 AD facilities treating OFMSW were installed between 2011 and 2023 in Türkiye, where 21 of these plants were dry AD plants with 19 being continuous processes. One of the two main reasons for this popularity increase is due to the robustness of continuous dry AD systems to cope with high impurities in mechanically treated MSW. This advantage minimizes the pre-treatment investment and operational costs considerably for investing institutions and companies. The second reason is the flexibility of the technology to handle high OLRs resulting in high biogas productivity in smaller reactor sizes, which also optimizes the investment costs for these systems compared to wet AD or batch dry AD systems. Considering the waste management strategy of Türkiye in near future, a new incentive mechanism would be necessary for further development of the continuous dry AD system, which could be in the form of subsidized electricity buying price or establishment of gate-fee for treatment.

As highlighted previously, there are not many studies in literature that document long-term performance and efficiency of continuous dry AD plants treating MS-OFMSW and complementary co-substrates. This study demonstrates the performance of a full-scale continuous dry AD facility treating MS-OFMSW operated for approximately four years, exploring mono and co-substrates with varying organic loads in triplicate digesters. It provides valuable insights about the systems' response to challenges caused by the inert materials, high solid content and high ammonia concentrations during long-term operation (including the start-up period). The most valuable contribution of this study is to demonstrate long-term experiences gained through the operation of a full-scale continuous dry AD plant including (a) achievable OLRs and biogas productivity, (b) limits for adding nitrogen-rich co-substrates to maximize biogas production, (c) importance of physical conditions (e.g., TS content, viscosity) in high solids digesters. These aspects may not be fully replicable using bench- or pilot-scale test setups. Therefore, the results reported here provide valuable insights for scaling up dry AD systems more effectively.

Feedstock preparation

The studied full-scale AD plant was part of a mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) facility located in the northwest of Türkiye. In the facility, 1,000 tons/day mixed MSW were separated mechanically using manual and automatic separation for metal, plastic, paper, etc. After a bag opener and manual pre-sorting steps, waste was screened by a trommel screen. Around 0–70 mm fraction from the trommel screen and 0–40 mm fine of organic fraction from the ballistic separator were collected in feeding bunkers and fed to the digesters via belt conveyors. The equipment used in the mechanical separation and feeding process was manufactured by Disan Ltd. (Türkiye). The mechanical separation and anaerobic reactors of the MBT plant started to operate in January 2021. On the OFMSW feeding line, a hard particle separator (HPS) (Strabag, Austria) was installed later in September 2021 to reduce impurities before feeding to the AD system.

Description of the AD plant

The separated organic fraction was fed into a continuous dry AD system consisting of three parallel digesters. Each digester had a wet volume of 3,000 m3 and operated under mesophilic conditions (approximately 39 °C). The digesters were mixed mechanically with transversally arranged, slow rotating (1–2 rpm), paddle-type agitators (Strabag, Austria). The digestate was extracted from the digesters using vacuum pumps and fed to a solid–liquid separation system. The general flow diagram of the MBT facility, with indicated sampling points, is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1

MBT facility flow chart and sampling points.

Figure 1

MBT facility flow chart and sampling points.

Close modal

Sampling points and analytical methods

Daily samples were collected from the waste storage area, digester feed stream, and inlet, middle and outlet sections along the digesters. Samples from feed consisted of five samples per day, while samples from waste storage and the digester sections were taken once a day. Samples from the storage area and feeding bunker were collected directly from the waste piles, whereas digester samples were taken from sampling pipes embedded in the digester walls. The collected samples were analyzed in the plant laboratory for TS (APHA 2540 B), total volatile solids (TVS) (APHA 2540 E), total nitrogen (TN) (EN ISO 11905-1, ISO23697-1), ammonium (NH4-N) (AOAC 290.03), pH, temperature, VFAs and total alkalinity (TA) (APHA 2005). pH and temperature were measured with a HACH IQ150, where VFA and TA were measured with a HACH TIM 840 device. Free ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) was calculated from NH4-N measurements as suggested by Hansen et al. (1998) and El Hadj et al. (2009) using Equation (1):
(1)
where [NH3] is the free ammonia concentration (mg/L), [TNH3] is the total ammonia concentration (mg/L), and T (K) is the temperature (in Kelvin). Feed samples were analyzed for TS and TVS, where digester samples were analyzed for TS, TVS, TN, NH4-N, pH, T, VFA, and TA.

The quantity of waste fed to the reactors was measured by load cells of ZSFY-A30 T (KELI, China) installed in the automatic feeding bunkers. Biogas production was measured using Prosonic Flow B200 flowmeters (Endress + Hauser, Germany), and methane content was analyzed with an online biogas analyzer SWG 100 (MRU, Germany). All parameters were measured throughout the entire operation except for nitrogen analysis, which commenced after the start-up phase was completed. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests for OFMSW and co-substrates were conducted with Bioprocess Control AMPTS® II (Sweden) according to VDI 4630 standard (VDI 4630 2006). In the BMP tests, liquid fraction of the digestate sample taken from the plant's reactors were used as inoculum. For each substrate type, three samples were used, and average values of the result were taken. The BMP test equipment consisted of an incubation unit, a CO2 absorption unit and a gas measurement unit. The reaction bottles had a volume of 500 mL each. As control sample, starch was used. The tests were conducted at 39 °C for durations between 21 and 29 days depending on the substrate type. The tests continued until the daily biogas production equalled less than 0.5% of the total biogas production on three consecutive days. TS concentrations of the mixture were kept at <10%. The TVS concentration of the substrates and inoculum mixture was kept at 40 g VS/L. The VS-based inoculum to substrate ratio (ISR) was kept between 3 and 4 as per the standard and also recommended by Weinrich et al. (2018). BMP tests results were also used in the calculation of the biochemical biogas potential (BBP) by using the methane content of the biogas for each substrate (Dragoni et al. 2017).

Operation periods

The digesters were commissioned in sequence at the beginning of 2021. For the first commissioned digester (Digester 2) cattle manure was used as inoculum. The substrate to inoculum ratio was adjusted to 1:1. Digesters 1 and 3 were commissioned using the digestate from Digester 2 as inoculum. After commissioning at the beginning of 2021, start-up period took approximately three months (January to March 2021), followed by eight months of mono-digestion of OFMSW (April to November 2021). Then, the co-digestion period commenced in December 2021 to increase biogas production until the end of November 2024, lasting 35 months. Although data collection for this study finished in November 2024, co-digestion is still in progress in the facility.

Substrate properties and composition

During the mono-digestion period, only OFMSW was fed to the digesters. During the co-digestion period, the co-substrates used were broiler chicken manure (CM), flotation sludge from chicken slaughterhouse WWTP (C-Sludge), and municipal WWTP sludge (M-Sludge). Addition of the M-Sludge was a part of the plant's contractual agreement with the municipality, whereas addition of the C-Sludge was to increase biogas production only due to very high energy content of the material. To further raise the biogas production, CM from a nearby poultry farm was added to the reactor. Another benefit of CM addition was its high saw dust content which helped with the viscosity control in bioreactors. To prevent stratification and sedimentation during commissioning and occasionally when co-substrates lower the viscosity, sawdust can be used in dry AD plants. Figure 2 shows the monthly composition of substrate (w/w%) fed to the digesters during the start-up (1), mono-digestion (2), and co-digestion (3) periods.
Figure 2

Composition of the substrates (as wet weight), organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), chicken manure (CM), flotation sludge from chicken slaughterhouse WWTPs (C-Sludge), municipal WWTP sludge (M-Sludge) and sawdust fed to (a) digester 1, (b) digester 2, and (c) digester 3 during start-up (1), mono-digestion (2), and co-digestion (3) periods.

Figure 2

Composition of the substrates (as wet weight), organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), chicken manure (CM), flotation sludge from chicken slaughterhouse WWTPs (C-Sludge), municipal WWTP sludge (M-Sludge) and sawdust fed to (a) digester 1, (b) digester 2, and (c) digester 3 during start-up (1), mono-digestion (2), and co-digestion (3) periods.

Close modal

Operational parameters

Daily feed flow rates per digester ranged from 90–175 and 70–200 ton/day during mono- and co-digestion periods, with average values of 141 and 139 tons/day, respectively (Table 2). The corresponding hydraulic retention times (HRTs) were between 17–30 and 15–44 days, respectively, with an average of approximately 21 days for both periods. The average TS of the feed was 37 and 35% during the mono-digestion and the co-digestion, while the average TVS ratios were 52 and 64%, respectively, reflecting a significant increase in the co-digestion phase due to the higher organic content of co-substrates and the integration of HPS equipment.

Table 1

Feed and operational parameters for digesters

ParametersMono-digestionCo-digestion
Feed parameters   
Substrate OFMSW OFMSW + chicken manure + sludge from chicken slaughterhouse WWTP + municipal WWTP sludge + sawdust 
Daily feed, ton/day per digester 90–175 (141) 70–200 (139) 
TSfeeda, % 30–41 (37) 31–44 (35) 
TVSfeeda, %TS 45–55 (52) 46–73 (64) 
Operational parameters   
Wet digester volume, m3 3 × 3,000 3 × 3,000 
OLR, kg TVS/m3reactor.day 3.4–13.8 (9.1) 4.2–14.9 (9.9) 
HRT, day 17–30 (21) 15–44 (21) 
Digester temperature, °C 39.0–39.5 39.0–39.5 
ParametersMono-digestionCo-digestion
Feed parameters   
Substrate OFMSW OFMSW + chicken manure + sludge from chicken slaughterhouse WWTP + municipal WWTP sludge + sawdust 
Daily feed, ton/day per digester 90–175 (141) 70–200 (139) 
TSfeeda, % 30–41 (37) 31–44 (35) 
TVSfeeda, %TS 45–55 (52) 46–73 (64) 
Operational parameters   
Wet digester volume, m3 3 × 3,000 3 × 3,000 
OLR, kg TVS/m3reactor.day 3.4–13.8 (9.1) 4.2–14.9 (9.9) 
HRT, day 17–30 (21) 15–44 (21) 
Digester temperature, °C 39.0–39.5 39.0–39.5 

aAverage values are given in brackets.

Table 2

Physio-chemical properties and BMP results of OFMSW and co-substrates

Substrate typeTS (%)TVS (%)N as % TSBMP (Nml CH4/kgTVSfed)CH4 (%)BBP (Nml biogas/kgTVSfed)
OFMSW (before HPS addition) 43.3 ± 3.2 47.8 ± 4.5 1.3–2.3a 356 ± 52 56 635 ± 93 
OFMSW (after HPS addition) 39.3 ± 3.9 59.9 ± 6.8 1.3–2.3a 346 56 617 
Chicken manure 58.2 ± 8.5 80.3 ± 7.1 4.7 ± 3.8 270 60c 450 
Chicken slaughterhouse WWTP sludge 22.8 ± 3.9 86.3 ± 5.0 2.9 ± 1,2 694 ± 89 60c 1,218 ± 156 
Municipal WWTP sludge 17.5 ± 2.1 64.0 ± 6.7 3.8b 266 ± 48 65c 409 ± 74 
Sawdust 65.0 ± 5.6 98.2 ± 0.9 0,7 Negligible – – 
Substrate typeTS (%)TVS (%)N as % TSBMP (Nml CH4/kgTVSfed)CH4 (%)BBP (Nml biogas/kgTVSfed)
OFMSW (before HPS addition) 43.3 ± 3.2 47.8 ± 4.5 1.3–2.3a 356 ± 52 56 635 ± 93 
OFMSW (after HPS addition) 39.3 ± 3.9 59.9 ± 6.8 1.3–2.3a 346 56 617 
Chicken manure 58.2 ± 8.5 80.3 ± 7.1 4.7 ± 3.8 270 60c 450 
Chicken slaughterhouse WWTP sludge 22.8 ± 3.9 86.3 ± 5.0 2.9 ± 1,2 694 ± 89 60c 1,218 ± 156 
Municipal WWTP sludge 17.5 ± 2.1 64.0 ± 6.7 3.8b 266 ± 48 65c 409 ± 74 
Sawdust 65.0 ± 5.6 98.2 ± 0.9 0,7 Negligible – – 

During the mono-digestion period, due to inefficient pre-treatment of OFMSW, operational failures occurred once in Digester 1 (February 2022) and twice in Digester 2 (March 2021 and September 2021), causing interruption of operation for several months in each failure. During these failure periods, feeding was ceased and then restarted. The failures were mainly due to the blockage of mixers by large inert materials such as stones that could not be removed in the mechanical separation system.

OLR ranged between 3.4 and 13.8 kg TVS/m3.day during the mono-digestion period with an average of 9.1 kg TVS/m3.day. During the co-digestion period, OLR ranged from 4.2 to 14.9 kg TVS/m3.day, with a higher average of 9.9 kg TVS/m3.day. The digester temperature was controlled between 39.0 and 39.5 °C with automation (Table 1).

Performance evaluation

Total volatile solids removal

TVS removal is considered one of the indicators of AD performance (Kothari et al. 2014). In the full-scale plant, TVS removal was calculated as in Equation (2) and monitored continuously:
(2)
where TVSrem is the ratio of removed TVS (%), Qin is the total quantity of waste fed to the digesters in tons/day and Qout is the digestate quantity leaving the digesters (tons/day). TVSin is the TVS concentration of the feed and TVSout is the TVS concentration in the digestate (%).

Process efficiency

Dong et al. (2010) defined the efficiency of an AD process as the ratio of methane yield to the theoretical methane potential of the substrate. In the work of Ruile et al. (2015), degradation efficiencies of 21 full-scale biogas plants were evaluated by calculating the deviation of the observed biogas yields from the theoretical biogas potentials of the feedstock. To evaluate the efficiency of the system under different operational conditions and optimize the operational parameters such as OLR or co-substrate ratios accordingly, a process efficiency factor was defined in this study. The process efficiency (Peff) was determined as the ratio of observed biogas quantity per ton of TVS fed to the digester to the BBP results of the substrate mixture. BBP results were calculated by dividing the BMP value to the methane content for each substrate as shown in Equation (3):
(3)
where BMP is the measured biochemical methane potential in Nml CH4/kg TVS, BBP is the biochemical biogas potential in Nml biogas/kg TVS and CH4 is the volume by volume ratio of CH4 to biogas in %. Peff is calculated according to Equation (4):
(4)
where Peff is the process efficiency (%), SGP is the specific biogas production of the substrate mixture (Nm3/ton TVSfed) calculated by Equation (5). BBPmix (Nm3/TVS) is the calculated weighted average value of the BBP test results each substrate (Table 1) using their composition in the TVSfed Equation (6):
(5)
(6)

Properties of substrates

The physico-chemical characteristics, BMP test results and calculated BBP values for the OFMSW and each co-substrate are presented in Table 2. After the addition of the HPS system in the mechanical separation line, inert materials such as stones and glass were partially removed, resulting in a decrease in TS content and an increase in TVS/TS content.

Process parameters

General overview of process parameters for mono- and co-digestion periods

Table 3 outlines the average values of the main process parameters and yields observed in the reactors during the operation time, which lasted for almost four years. The results are grouped separately for mono-digestion and co-digestion periods.

Table 3

Process parameters and yields for digesters

ParametersMono-digestionCo-digestion
Process parameters   
pH 7.4–8.1 (7.7) 7.8–8.5 (8.0) 
VFA/TA 0.3–1.0 (0.5) 0.4–1.5 (0.6) 
TSreactor, % 19–30 (25) 19–31 (25) 
TVSreactor, % TS 29–49 (37) 29–54 (45) 
Yields   
Daily biogas production, Nm3/day 6,000–17,800 (13,000) 8,200–23,000 (16,700) 
Biogas production rate (GPR), Nm3/m3reactor.day 2.0–5.9 (4.3) 2.7–7.6 (5.6) 
Specific biogas production (SGP), Nm3/kgTVSfed.day 310–630 (492) 368–719 (563) 
CH4, % 54–60 (56) 50–65 (61) 
TVSremoval,34–71 (51) 30–68 (50) 
ParametersMono-digestionCo-digestion
Process parameters   
pH 7.4–8.1 (7.7) 7.8–8.5 (8.0) 
VFA/TA 0.3–1.0 (0.5) 0.4–1.5 (0.6) 
TSreactor, % 19–30 (25) 19–31 (25) 
TVSreactor, % TS 29–49 (37) 29–54 (45) 
Yields   
Daily biogas production, Nm3/day 6,000–17,800 (13,000) 8,200–23,000 (16,700) 
Biogas production rate (GPR), Nm3/m3reactor.day 2.0–5.9 (4.3) 2.7–7.6 (5.6) 
Specific biogas production (SGP), Nm3/kgTVSfed.day 310–630 (492) 368–719 (563) 
CH4, % 54–60 (56) 50–65 (61) 
TVSremoval,34–71 (51) 30–68 (50) 

Average values are given in brackets.

Organic loading rate

OLRs of the digesters are plotted against time in Figure 3. During the mono-digestion in 2021, OLR for Digesters 1 and 3 was first increased linearly to approximately 12 kg TVS/m3.day, then reduced to 6 kg TVS/m3.day and increased again linearly to the 14 kg TVS/m3.day level. The variations in OLR were mainly due to frequent failures in the mechanical separation system, which could not provide full daily load to digesters. In this period, Digester 2 was the most affected one and could not be operated efficiently due to restarting the process twice.
Figure 3

OLR of the digesters.

Figure 3

OLR of the digesters.

Close modal

During the first year of co-digestion (2022), OLR was maintained more stably and initially ranged between 10 and 13 kg TVS/m3.day, later reaching 14 kg TVS/m3.day. In 2023, OLR was first reduced to 10–12 kg TVS/m3.day, then further dropped to 6 kg TVS/m3.day (due to increased free ammonia nitrogen concentration from chicken manure overfeeding) followed by a rapid increase to 12 kg TVS/m3.day and a subsequent decrease to 7 kg TVS/m3.day levels.

By the end of 2023 and the beginning of 2024, OLR reached 14 kg TVS/m3.day by increasing the co-substrate dosing. At this high level of OLR, process instability was observed when the co-substrate type was changed from WWTP sludge to chicken manure in February and March 2024. As a precaution, chicken manure addition and OLR were decreased until May 2024. From this period onward, OLR was again increased by adding only WWTP sludge as co-substrate and was maintained between 9.5 and 13.0 TVS/m3.day until Fall 2024 (Figure 3).

When OLR was sustained between 10.5 and 12.5 kg TVS/m3.day using OFMSW alone or OFMSW and WWTP sludge mixture, the digester operation was more efficient and stable. In most of the monitored operation period, OLR was kept within this range for all digesters, although there were significant fluctuations over time. In a comparable study, Rocamora et al. (2020) reported OLR values up to 15 kg TVS/m3.day for full-scale continuous dry AD systems treating OFMSW.

Zou et al. (2022), in their study on a full-scale plant with continuous dry AD reactor treating household kitchen waste, observed that increasing OLR until 15 kg TVS/m3.day linearly in 120 days did not cause a serious problem in the process. When OLR reached 15 kg TVS/m3.day, deteriorations in the process were observed such as accumulation of VFA, decrease in the biogas production and sharp drop in the CH4 content in the biogas.

Biogas production

Biogas production showed a similar pattern with OLR (Figure 4), where it was showing responses to the fluctuations in OLR. At the start of the mono-digestion in 2021, biogas production was around 15,000 m3/day, then decreased to 12,000 m3/day and finally increased to 17,000 m3/day levels. During the first year of the co-digestion in 2022, biogas production increased linearly to over 20,000 m3/day levels. Following the OLR decrease due to overfeeding of chicken manure, it dropped to 10,000 m3/day, followed by a rapid increase to 17,000 m3/day and decrease to 14,000 m3/day levels. Biogas production reached 20,000 m3/day levels at the end of 2023 and up to 22,000 m3/day at the beginning of 2024 (weeks 164–166), when an instability occurred, and production dropped down to 19,000 m3/day due to decreased OLR (Figure 4). In the summer and fall of 2024, biogas production fluctuated between 20,000 and 22,000 m3/day. During the total operation time, biogas production mostly ranged between 10,000 and 20,000 m3/day and was optimized at approximately 18,000 m3day. This daily total production range corresponded to a gas production rate (GPR) of 3.3–6.6 m3biogas/m3reactor.day, with an optimum of 6.0 m3biogas/m3reactor.day. These results align with previous studies on dry AD systems treating OFMSW. In the study of Bolzonella et al. (2003), OLR was increased from 6.9 to 9.2 TVSfed/m3.day where GPR was stable at 2.8–2.9 m3/m3.day, respectively, under thermophilic conditions for mono-dry digestion of MS-OFMSW. In the same study, when co-digestion of MS-OFMSW and separately collected (SC)-OFMSW was studied, an OLR increase from 7.0 to 9.8 kg TVSfed/m3.day resulted in a GPR increase from 1.4 to 2.4 m3/m3.day. In the study of Seruga et al. (2020), GPR was calculated as 3.9 m3/m3.day for MS-OFMSW and as 4.2 m3/m3.day for source-separated (SS)-OFMSW in a full-scale continuous dry AD.
Figure 4

Biogas production from the digesters.

Figure 4

Biogas production from the digesters.

Close modal

During the mono-digestion period, methane content of the biogas ranged from 54 to 60%, with an average value of 56%. Meanwhile, during the co-digestion period, the variation was between 50 and 65%, with an average value of 61%. During the period of ammonia inhibition in week 122, lower methane contents was observed. Other than this period, average methane content was higher due to protein rich co-substrates.

The average biogas production during mono-digestion stage was calculated as 114 Nm3/ton OFMSW fed. This value is similar to the findings of Seruga et al. (2020) as 105.3 and 111.1 m3/ton for MS-OFMSW and SS-OFMSW, respectively, in a thermophilic full-scale continuous AD plant.

pH and acidification

During the mono-digestion the pH in digesters was around 7.4 initially, rising to 7.9 before stabilizing at 7.6 (Figure 5). During the first year of co-digestion (2022), pH reached a stable level of 7.7, fluctuating in 2023 around 8.0 due to increased free ammonia nitrogen concentration caused by overfeeding of chicken manure. At the beginning of 2024, a pH of 7.6 was observed during the maximized OLR period. During the rest of 2024 until October, pH showed a drop parallel to the decrease in chicken manure feeding.
Figure 5

pH concentrations in the digesters.

Figure 5

pH concentrations in the digesters.

Close modal
In this study, the VFA/TA ratio was relatively stable below 0.7 throughout the operation except during the overfeeding period with chicken manure with ratios higher than 10% w/w as co-substrate, which caused the VFA/TA ratio to reach 1.0 (Figure 6). Accumulation of VFAs in high loaded AD systems is frequently observed. In most cases, this accumulation does not inhibit the process due to the TA in the digester. It is noted in the study of Dong et al. (2010) that high TS content in dry AD systems may cause poor solid–liquid mass transfer and localized accumulation of VFAs resulting in process instability. On the other hand, some studies report that the poor mass transfer can in practice allow the dry AD systems to operate at higher VFA concentrations compared to wet systems (Fagbohungbe et al. 2015), as VFAs will come into contact with methanogens in a steady and slow flux avoiding shock inhibitions. Veluchamy et al. (2019) reported that a continuous dry AD reactor working with corn silage had stable operation with VFA/TA ratios up to 0.6. Zou et al. (2022) operated a similar reactor treating household kitchen waste and observed VFA/TA values between 0.5 and 0.8 at OLR lower than 15 kg TVS/m3.day. They reported VFA/TA ratios above 3.0 at higher OLRs which negatively affected process efficiency.
Figure 6

VFA/TA ratio in the digesters.

Figure 6

VFA/TA ratio in the digesters.

Close modal

Ammonia inhibition

When adding co-substrates to increase energy production, it is critical to balance elements such as carbon and nitrogen (Bouallagui et al. 2009; Karthikeyan & Visvanathan 2013). Excessive free ammonia nitrogen concentrations can inhibit microbial communities in digesters, leading to process instability and reduced biogas production (Jokela & Rintala 2003) and eventually to process failure (Chen et al. 2008). Angelidaki & Ahring (1994) observed poor process performance above 700 mg/L of free ammonia concentration during the digestion of cattle manure. In this study, during mono-digestion, NH4-N concentrations were observed between 1,300 and 2,000 mg/L with free ammonia nitrogen below 400 mg/L (Figure 8(c)).

During the first year of the co-digestion period in 2022, NH4-N concentrations reached 5,500 mg/L without affecting biogas production significantly as free ammonia nitrogen concentration remained below 700 mg/L. However, in 2023, NH4-N and free ammonia nitrogen concentrations increased to 6,000 and over 700 mg/L, respectively, due to overfeeding of chicken manure, which decreased biogas production. In spring 2023, at week 121, free ammonia nitrogen peaked at 2,000 mg/L, resulting in significant process instability and an increase in VFA/TA ratio, coupled with a drop in biogas production. Starting from 2023 summer until September 2024, free ammonia nitrogen concentrations were kept between 250 and 400 mg/L by controlling the substrate composition. As a result, the process performance was quite stable. In October and November 2024, the levels remained below 250 mg/L, lower than inhibition levels.

The nitrogen analysis of co-substrates showed that the majority of nitrogen at the digester inlet was originating from the broiler chicken manure (Table 2). When the ratio of chicken manure in the feed was evaluated throughout the entire operation period, free ammonia nitrogen concentration increase could be correlated with the increase of the CM ratio in the feed When the CM ratio exceeded 10% (w/w) in week 116, free ammonia nitrogen concentration also increased accompanied with an increased pH. Although the OLR value at this period was comparingly lower (6–8 TVS/m3.day), process instability was signaled by an increase in VFA/TS ratio and a decrease in the SGP. When the CM ratio peaked at 22% (w/w) in week 120, the highest free ammonia nitrogen concentration was observed at 2,027 mg/L with 2 weeks lag time. The VFA/TA average of the three digesters reached to 0.8, whereas in Digester 3 it reached to 1.0 in week 124, having even higher values in daily readings (Figure 6).

Process efficiency and optimization

Total volatile solids removal

Figure 7 illustrates the TVS removal for the digesters. The TVS removal efficiency for the three digesters ranged between 35 and 65%, where Digester 3 experienced a major drop in week 122 due to chicken manure overload. The TVS removal rate during the co-digestion period was, in general, higher than that of the mono-digestion period due to the higher biodegradable organic content of the feed. This could be seen in the weeks between 197 and 202, where Digester 1 was fed with lower amounts of co-substrates than the Digesters 2 and 3. Generally, lower removal rates were observed when the chicken manure ratio in the feed was higher than the threshold value of 10%.
Figure 7

TVS removal efficiency of the digesters.

Figure 7

TVS removal efficiency of the digesters.

Close modal
Figure 8

Average operation parameters for the three digesters. (a) Process efficiency and total biogas production; (b) OLR; and (c) CM ratio at feed and average free ammonia nitrogen concentration.

Figure 8

Average operation parameters for the three digesters. (a) Process efficiency and total biogas production; (b) OLR; and (c) CM ratio at feed and average free ammonia nitrogen concentration.

Close modal

Process optimization

The ratio of SGP to BBP of the feed mixture, also defined as process efficiency Peff (%), fluctuated between 85 and 95% throughout the whole operation period, with influences of changes in OLR, HRT, and moderate free ammonia nitrogen levels (Figure 8). During this period, SGP production fluctuated between 450 and 550 Nm3/ton TVSfed, where the level of BBP calculated was between 550 and 625 Nm3/ton TVSfed. However, between weeks 123 and 149, productivity in all digesters were below 80%, calculated by the average SPG of 560 to average BBP of 710. In Digester 3, which had the highest CM ratio of 25%, productivity values fluctuated between 65 and 75%. This corresponded to an interval of 460–530 Nm3/ton TVSfed for SPG. From week 150 until week 197, CM ratio remained below 10% and process instabilities were not observed. Peff was over 80% for all digesters in this period. When the free ammonia nitrogen level dropped below 250 mg/L and the OLR was maintained around 12 kg TVS/m3.day in October and November 2024, Peff was observed close to 90%.

When the main operation parameters such as the OLR and ratio of nitrogen-rich substrates can be controlled in the full-scale plant, TVS removal rates and consequent biogas yields could be optimized and values between 90 and 95% of the BBP test results could be achieved. This result could be useful for designing high solids AD systems treating MS-OFMSW in countries where SS collection is not applied.

Overall, this study provided valuable insights into the operation of continuous dry AD plants for the treatment of MS-OFMSW by analyzing a large dataset spanning approximately four years. An OLR of 10.5–12 kg TVS/m3.day with an HRT of 16–18 days was recommended, which could provide a GPR of 5.0–6.6 m3biogas/m3reactor.day. The results of the study highlighted the importance of optimizing substrate composition and OLR to attain a sustainable process. High nitrogen-containing wastes such as broiler chicken manure should be carefully introduced to AD to prevent ammonia inhibition. If readily degradable but high nitrogen-containing co-substrates are needed to increase biogas production due to availability of spare digester capacity or economic reasons, it is recommended to run experimental studies (batch or continuous reactors) to determine the optimal co-substrate mixing recipe. In the investigated full-scale plant, broiler chicken manure was used as co-substrate and the critical ratio at the feeding was observed to be 10% (w/w) to maintain a stable and efficient AD process.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Ajay
K. J.
,
Jianzheng
L.
,
Loring
N.
&
Liguo
Z.
(
2011
)
Research advances in dry anaerobic digestion process of solid organic wastes
,
African Journal of Biotechnology
,
10
(
65
),
14242
14253
.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajb11.1277
.
American Public Health Association (APHA)
(
2005
)
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
, 21st edn.
Washington, DC: American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation
.
Angelidaki
I.
&
Ahring
B. K.
(
1994
)
Anaerobic thermophilic digestion of manure at different ammonia loads: effect of temperature
,
Water Research
,
28
(
3
),
727
731
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(94)90153-8
.
Basinas
P.
,
Rusín
J.
&
Chamradova
K.
(
2021
)
Assessment of high-solid mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of mechanically-separated municipal solid waste
,
Environmental Research
,
192
,
110202
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110202
.
Bolzonella
D.
,
Battistoni
P.
,
Mata-Alvarez
J.
&
Cecchi
F.
(
2003
)
Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes: process behaviour in transient conditions
,
Water Science and Technology
,
48
(
4
),
1
8
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2003.0207
.
Bolzonella
D.
,
Pavan
P.
,
Mace
S.
&
Cecchi
F.
(
2006
)
Dry anaerobic digestion of differently sorted organic municipal solid waste: a full-scale experience
,
Water Science and Technology
,
53
(
8
),
23
32
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.232
.
Bouallagui
H.
,
Lahdheb
H.
,
Ben Romdan
E.
,
Rachdi
B.
&
Hamdi
M.
(
2009
)
Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-substrates addition
,
Journal of Environmental Management
,
90
,
1844
1849
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.002
.
Cecchi
F.
,
Pavan
P.
,
Bolzonella
D.
,
Mace
S.
&
Mata-Alvarez
J.
(
2011
)
Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste for methane production: research and industrial application
,
Comprehensive Biotechnology
,
6
,
463
472
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-088504-9.00332-9
.
Chen
Y.
,
Cheng
J. J.
&
Creamer
K. S.
(
2008
)
Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review
,
Bioresource Technology
,
99
,
4044
4064
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057
.
Chen
R.
,
Lia
Z.
,
Fen
J.
,
Zhaoc
L.
&
Yu
J.
(
2020
)
Effects of digestate recirculation ratios on biogas production and methane yield of continuous dry anaerobic digestion
,
Bioresource Technology
,
316
,
123963
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123963
.
Damaceno
F.
,
Buligon
E.
,
Pires Salcedo Restrepo
J.
,
Chiarelotto
M.
,
Niedzialkoski
R.
,
de Mendonça Costa
L.
,
de Lucas Junior
J.
&
de Mendonça Costa
M.
(
2019
)
Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of flotation sludge from broiler chicken slaughter and sweet potato: nutrients and energy recovery
,
Science of the Total Environment
,
683
,
773
781
.
De Baere
L.
&
Mattheeuws
B.
(
2013
) '
Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste in Europe-Status, experience and prospects
’,
Istanbul 3WCongress
.
Dereli
R. K.
,
Ersahin
M. E.
,
Gomec
C. Y.
&
Ozturk
I.
(
2010
)
Co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with primary sludge at a municipal wastewater treatment plant in Turkey
,
Waste Management & Research
,
28
,
404
410
.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09338227
.
Dereli
R. K.
,
Gomec
C. Y.
,
Ozabali
A.
&
Ozturk
I.
(
2012
)
The feasibility of a centralized biogas plant treating the manure produced by an organized animal farmers union in Turkey
,
Water Science & Technology
,
66
,
3
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.203
.
Dong
L.
,
Zhenhong
Y.
&
Yongming
S.
(
2010
)
Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW)
,
Bioresource Technology
,
101
,
2722
2728
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.007
.
Dragoni
F.
,
Giannini
V.
,
Ragaglini
G.
,
Bonari
E.
&
Silvestri
N.
(
2017
)
Effect of harvest time and frequency on biomass quality and biomethane potential of common reed (Phragmites australis) under paludiculture conditions
,
Bioenergy Research
,
10
,
1066
1078
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9866-z
.
El Hadj
T. B.
,
Astals
S.
,
Gali
A.
,
Mace
S.
&
Mata-Alvarez
J.
(
2009
)
Ammonia influence in anaerobic digestion of OFMSW
,
Water Science and Technology
,
59
(
6
),
1153
1158
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.100
.
Ersahin
M. E.
,
Gomec
C. Y.
,
Dereli
R. K.
,
Arikan
O.
&
Ozturk
I.
(
2011
)
Biomethane production as an alternative bioenergy source from co-digesters treating municipal sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes
,
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology
,
2011
, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/953065
.
Fagbohungbe
M. O.
,
Dodd
I. C.
,
Herbert
B. M. J.
,
Li
H.
,
Ricketts
L.
&
Semple
K. T.
(
2015
)
High solid anaerobic digestion: operational challenges and possibilities
,
Environmental Technology & Innovation
,
4
,
268
284
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2015.09.003
.
Fernandez-Rodríguez
J.
,
Perez
M.
&
Romero
L. I.
(
2013
)
Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW: kinetic analysis
,
Chemical Engineering Journal
,
232
,
59
64
.
Gong
H.
,
Liua
M.
,
Lia
K.
,
Li
C.
,
Xua
G.
&
Wang
K.
(
2020
)
Optimizing dry anaerobic digestion at pilot scale for start-up strategy and long-term operation: organic loading rate, temperature and co-digestion
,
Bioresource Technology
,
316
,
123828
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123828
.
Hansen
K. H.
,
Angelidaki
I.
&
Ahring
B. K.
(
1998
)
Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia
,
Water Research
,
32
(
1
),
5
12
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.07.066
.
Jokela
J. P. Y.
&
Rintala
J. A.
(
2003
)
Anaerobic solubilisation of nitrogen from municipal solid waste (MSW)
,
Environmental Science & Bio/Technology
,
2
,
67
77
.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RESB.0000022830.62176.36
.
Jurgutis
L.
,
Slepetiene
A.
,
Volungevicius
J.
&
Amaleviciute-Volunge
K.
(
2020
)
Biogas production from chicken manure at different organic loading rates in a mesophilic full scale anaerobic digestion plant
,
Biomass and Bioenergy
,
141
,
105693
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105693
.
Karthikeyan
O. P.
&
Visvanathan
C.
(
2013
)
Bio-energy recovery from high-solid organic substrates by dry anaerobic bio-conversion processes: a review
,
Bioresource Technology
,
113
,
294
302
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9304-9
.
Kothari
R.
,
Pandey, A. K., Kumar, S., Tyagi, V. V. & Tyagi, S. K.
(
2014
)
Different aspects of dry anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: an overview
,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
,
39
,
74
195
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.011
.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
(
2014
)
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse
.
Boston
:
McGraw-Hil
.
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MoENR)
(
2005
)
Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Sources to Generate Electrical Energy
.
Official Gazette, 18 May, No. 25819
.
Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change (MoEUCC)
(
2010
)
Regulation on the Landfilling of Waste
.
Official Gazette, 26 March, No. 27533
.
Öztürk
B.
,
Kuleyin
A.
&
Öbekcan
H.
(
2017
)
Samsun, Ordu, Giresun, Trabzon, Rize, Artvin, Gümüşhane Ve Bayburt İlleri Belediye Atiklari İçin Karakterizasyon Tayini Ve Bertaraf Yöntem Alternatifleri (in Turkish)
.
Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi
.
Rocamora
I.
,
Wagland
S. T.
,
Villa
R.
,
Simpson
E. W.
,
Fernández
O.
&
Bajón-Fernández
Y.
(
2020
)
Dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste: a review of operational parameters and their impact on process performance
,
Bioresource Technology
,
299
,
122681
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122681
.
Rossi
E.
,
Pecorini
I.
,
Ferrara
G.
&
Iannelli
R.
(
2022
)
Dry anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: biogas production optimization by reducing ammonia inhibition
,
Energies
,
15
,
5515
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15155515
.
Ruile
S.
,
Schmitz
S.
,
Mönch-Tegeder
M.
&
Oechsner
H.
(
2015
)
Degradation efficiency of agricultural biogas plants – A full-scale study
,
Bioresource Technology
,
176
,
341
349
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.053
.
Seruga
P.
,
Krzywonos
M.
,
Seruga
A.
,
Niedźwiecki
Ł.
,
Pawlak-Kruczek
H.
&
Urbanowska
A.
(
2020
)
Anaerobic digestion performance: separate collected vs. mechanical segregated organic fractions of municipal solid waste as feedstock
,
Energies
,
13
,
3768
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en13153768
.
Tchobanoglous
G.
&
Eddy
M.
(
2014
)
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery
, Vol.
1
.
Boston
:
Mcgraw-Hill
.
VDI-4630
(
2006
)
Fermentation of Organic Materials: Characterisation of the Substrate, Sampling, Collection of Material Data, Fermentation Tests
.
Düsseldorf
:
Verlag des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure
, p.
92
.
Veluchamy
C.
,
Gilroyed
B. H.
&
Kalamdhad
A. S.
(
2019
)
Process performance and biogas production optimizing of mesophilic plug flow anaerobic digestion of corn silage
,
Fuel
,
253
,
1097
1109
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.05.104
.
Voelklein
M. A.
,
Jacob
A.
,
O’ Shea
R.
&
Murphy
J. D.
(
2016
)
Assessment of increasing loading rate on two-stage digestion of food waste
,
Bioresource Technology
,
202
,
172
180
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.12.001
.
Weinrich
S.
,
Schäfer
F.
,
Bochmann
G.
&
Liebetrau
J.
(
2018
)
Value of batch tests for biogas potential analysis; method comparison and challenges of substrate and efficiency evaluation of biogas plants
. In:
Murphy
J. D.
(ed.)
IEA Bioenergy Task 37
.
Paris: International Energy Agency. ISBN: 978-1-910154-49-6
.
Zou
J.
,
Nie
E.
,
F.
,
Peng
W.
,
Zhang
H.
&
He
P.
(
2022
)
Screening of early warning indicators for full-scale dry anaerobic digestion of household kitchen waste
,
Environmental Research
,
214
,
114136
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114136
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).