Accepted Manuscript Title: Mechanisms of Foam Formation in Anaerobic Digesters Author: Bhargavi Subramanian Krishna R. Pagilla PII: DOI: Reference:

S0927-7765(14)00657-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.11.032 COLSUB 6756

To appear in:

Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

14-9-2014 29-10-2014 20-11-2014

Please cite this article as: B. Subramanian, K.R. Pagilla, Mechanisms of Foam Formation in Anaerobic Digesters, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.11.032 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.

Ac

ce

pt

ed

M

an

us

cr

i

*Graphical Abstract (for review)

Page 1 of 48

Highlights Interactions between uncontrolled and controlled factors contributing to AD foam are discussed.

cr

Nucleation type may be different for the two types of AD foam.

ip t

Bubble nucleation plays a role in AD foaming though the type of nucleation is under question.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

Due to the presence of biogas, AD foaming contributors are required for the foaming problem to be evident.

1

Page 2 of 48

Mechanisms of Foam Formation in Anaerobic Digesters Bhargavi Subramanian1, and Krishna R. Pagilla1,* 1

ip t

Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago IL 60616, USA

cr

* Correspondence to:

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

Prof. Krishna R. Pagilla, Ph.D., P.E., B.C.E.E. Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering 3201 S Dearborn Street Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, IL 60616, USA Phone: +1 312 567 5717 [email protected]

2

Page 3 of 48

1 2

Abstract An anaerobic digester (AD) is the most essential step to generate energy in the form of biogas from waste. AD foaming is widespread and leads to deterioration of the AD

4

process and operation. In extreme conditions, AD foaming poses a significant safety risk

5

and considerable economic impacts. It is, therefore, necessary to understand the

6

fundamentals of AD foaming to develop effective strategies that can help minimize the

7

foaming impacts. Several aspects of AD foaming have attracted considerable research

8

attention, however, the focused has been mainly on site specific causes and prevention.

9

Here, the available three-phase foam literature is reviewed with an emphasis on the

an

us

cr

ip t

3

fundamental aspects of bubble formation in AD: similarities between AD foams and other

11

“desirable” foams, surface rheology, physico-chemical aspects of carbon dioxide (CO2) in

12

digesters, dynamics of the gas-phase, pH, alkalinity and certain relationships between these

13

factors are discussed. All of the abovementioned fundamental aspects seem to be involved

14

in AD foam formation. However, the detailed relationship between these uncontrolled and

15

controlled factors, foam formation and its implications for process and operation of AD is

16

still inconclusive.

17

Keywords: Anaerobic digester foaming, three-phase foam, rapid volume expansion, bubble

18

formation.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

10

19 20 21

3

Page 4 of 48

Contents

23

1

Introduction

24

2

Background

25

2.1

Three phase AD foam fundamentals

26

2.2

Comparison between general three-phase foams and AD foams

27

2.3

Possible types of bubble formation in AD

28

3

Factors contributing to AD foam

29

3.1

Role of controlled and uncontrolled factors in AD foaming

30

3.1.1

Basic mathematical models for bubble growth

31

3.2

Mechanisms of AD foam nucleation

32

3.3

Contribution of the controlled and uncontrolled factors to AD foam formation

33

3.3.1

Contribution of the gas phase to foaming - role of methane

34

3.3.2

35

3.3.3

36

3.3.4

37

3.3.5

38

3.3.6

Interfacial phenomena between sludge solids, liquid and gas

39

4

Discussion

40

Acknowledgements

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

22

Physicochemical characteristics of CO2 in AD Particle size distribution and surface characteristics Sludge rheology

Temperature and pressure effects

4

Page 5 of 48

References

42

List of important abbreviations

43

AD

Anaerobic Digester

44

AS

Activated Sludge

45

EPS

Extracellular Polymeric Substances

46

OLR

Organic Loading Rate

47

PS

Primary Sludge

48

PS:WAS

Primary Sludge:Waste Activated Sludge (Ratio)

49

SRT

Sludge Retention Time

50

TS

Total Solids

51

VFA

Volatile Fatty Acids

52

VS

Volatile Solids

53

WAS

Waste Activated Sludge

54

WWTP

Wastewater Treatment Plant

56

cr

us an

M

d

te

Ac ce p

55

ip t

41

57 58 59 5

Page 6 of 48

60 61

1. Introduction Anaerobic digestion (AD) is the primary sludge stabilization and energy production method from wastewater wherein organic material is anaerobically converted to biogas

63

through a series of biochemical steps [1]. Consequently, it is the key to overall energy

64

sustainability of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). One of the most common

65

operating problems in AD process of WWTPs is foaming, leading to performance and

66

operating problems. AD foaming is a complex three-phase phenomenon (liquid-solid-gas)

67

contributed by surface active materials or surfactants (solids and soluble constituents) and

68

water present in the sludge, and biogas produced within the digester. Such foam is mostly

69

uncontrolled and bubble creation occurs when all of the three constituents are present at

70

minimum threshold levels. A certain degree of foaming is always present in all AD

71

systems, but becomes a problem when it begins to adversely affect the process, (popularly,

72

termed as foaming problem or episode). In general, the main impacts caused by AD

73

foaming episode are (i) reduced digester performance by removing active volume resulting

74

in lowered gas production and volatile solids (VS) destruction; (ii) tank mechanical and

75

structure failure due to persistent foaming episodes; (iii) significant maintenance required

76

for cleaning biogas piping and foam overspills; (iv) potential short-circuiting of pathogens

77

due to lower active volume in the digester. These impacts lead to economic losses of

78

varying magnitude in the form of biogas loss, digester cleaning costs after a foam incident,

79

digester downtime/active volume loss, repair costs, and personnel costs for cleanup and

80

additional maintenance [2,3].

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

62

6

Page 7 of 48

81

In practice, severe AD foaming may be caused by a combination of several factors, initiated by one or more primary causes. The complexity of the AD system and the foaming

83

phenomenon makes it difficult to correlate the type of foaming to a single cause directly.

84

However, the several causes discussed in this review have been popularly accepted to

85

cause/contribute to either type of foaming to various extents. Occurrence of biological

86

foaming due to filamentous foaming bacteria (mainly nocardioforms (Gordona amarae))

87

and/or Microthrix parvicella in the feed sludge originating from upstream biological

88

wastewater treatment process such as activated sludge (AS) has been a key contributor or

89

cause of AD foaming [2,5]. In addition to this biological cause, several others have been

90

listed in the literature and have been popularly accepted to cause/contribute to AD foaming

91

to various extent [2–11].

cr

us

an

M

Regardless of the cause/contributor, in spite of several decades of research,

d

92

ip t

82

mechanisms of formation and stabilization of foam are not clear and general criteria to

94

describe AD foam behaviour does not exist [12]. Therefore, the focus of this review is on

95

various ways in which gas bubbles can be formed and stabilized leading to foam in ADs,

96

which is an undesirable condition. The understanding of foam causing mechanisms is

97

important for AD foaming for various reasons: (i) to determine how and to what extent the

98

controlled and uncontrolled factors are related to each other and to foaming; (ii) to model

99

the bubble growth that leads to AD foam; (iii) to predict if the foam in a digester is

Ac ce p

te

93

100

excessive and will become a problem; and (iv) to develop prevention and control methods.

101

The ultimate objective of this review is to analyze mechanistic multidimensional

102

knowledge on AD foaming. Such knowledge can relate AD foam characteristics with 7

Page 8 of 48

process and operational factors better, and in solving the problems associated with AD

104

foaming.

105

2

Background

106

2.1

Three phase AD foam fundamentals

The various constituents required for three-phase foaming – liquid, surface active

cr

107

ip t

103

agents and solids, and gases (biogas) are present in all digesters at all times providing a

109

conducive environment for foam formation. Though gas bubbles are the primary

110

constituent in producing foams of any kind, surface properties of all the three phases

111

influence foaming potential and foam stability in three-phase foams. Mainly, particulates

112

stabilize foam by their attachment to the gas bubble surface, and by the flocculation of

113

particles in the bulk solution at increasing particle concentrations [13–15]. Foamability

114

increases with increasing particulate concentration until about 38% by weight in solution

115

after which particles aggregate and fewer particles attach to the bubbles [16]. It is not

116

certain whether this particle content threshold is applicable to all types of particles and all

117

solutions since AD sludge usually contains less than 6% solids by weight in the bulk. The

118

foamability of a three-phase system was observed to be directly proportional to particle

119

concentration and inversely proportional to particle size [13]. Hence, there must be a

120

particle concentration and particle size distribution where AD foams are more stable and

121

vice versa. Figure 1 presents a schematic of three-phase foam in which the particles and the

122

gas bubbles are relatively of the same size order. This visualization may be closer to AD

123

foams than in systems where gas bubbles are much larger than the particles such as in AS

124

foaming and detergent foams.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

108

8

Page 9 of 48

125

2.2

Comparison between general three-phase foams and AD foams In addition to biological wastewater treatment and AD, foam generation also takes

126

place in several industrial processes such as polymeric foam production [17], production of

128

carbonated drinks [18,19], and processed food like whipped creams, cakes, bread, etc. [20].

129

At the other end of the spectrum, bubble nucleation as foam also occurs in animals and

130

humans (decompression sickness) [21], nuclear waste processing [16], and in nature as gas

131

pressure driven eruption from volcanoes [22]. Thus far, published literature has only

132

compared AD foams to AS foam [7], though some of the abovementioned foams are quite

133

well understood. Though the specific mechanisms of bubble formation and stabilization are

134

different in the various foam applications vs. AD, gas/air bubbles and liquids are the

135

primary media in producing foams and surfactant molecules/solids are the stabilizing

136

agents.

cr

us

an

M

d

Decades of research has resulted in fairly well developed systems of three-phase

te

137

ip t

127

foams in various applications of “desirable foams” (whipped cream, cakes, carbonated

139

drinks etc.) in food and other areas. Reviewing literature from these fields where foam

140

formation is well developed has helped understand the behavior of three-phase foam in

141

general, and to a certain extent, is the first step in adding to the understanding of the more

142

complex digester foam. Each type of the foam structure in desirable foams is a result of

143

proper blends of constituents, bubble/particle sizes, air entrainment/overrun (amount of air

144

in the foam), temperature/pressure, blending/whipping time, etc. Most of the above-

145

mentioned parameters that are important for formation of foam structures are mostly

146

uncontrolled in digesters where the foam is “undesirable”, possibly explaining why

Ac ce p

138

9

Page 10 of 48

147

different digester foams have been anecdotally referred to be similar to either

148

detergent/soap lather, or gushing from a beer/carbonated beverage bottle, etc. Non-food foams such as detergent foams are similar to wine or beer foams because

ip t

149

of high air content [23]. Aerated foods such as bread or whipped cream contain much lower

151

air content than non-food foams. The constituent bubbles of such foams can have either one

152

or two interfaces, based upon constituents and process parameters. Bubble surface may

153

separate gas on the inside from the outside. These surfaces could be gaseous, liquid or solid

154

up to the interface [24]. Soap bubbles have two interfaces, one on the inside, and one on the

155

outside, with liquid in between. Bubbles in champagne or bread dough, have just one

156

interface [24]. However, it seems that AD foam bubbles could be of either type as

157

explained in this review; depending on whether it is a case of rapid volume expansion in the

158

digester or conventional digester foam (discussed in Section 2.3).

us

an

M

d

The particle-gas bubble system in AD is also different from most of the other three-

te

159

cr

150

phase foams. Almost all other foams involve smaller surface active particles/molecules

161

stabilizing larger bubbles in a controlled manner. In AD foam, the gas phase is the biogas

162

being produced or externally introduced into the digesters for gas mixing and contains

163

soluble carbon dioxide and less soluble methane. AD foams involve stabilization of smaller

164

bubbles by soluble surface active molecules and larger solids, in effect, behaving similar to

165

a dissolved gas flotation system rather than dispersed gas flotation seen in traditional three-

166

phase foams, including those found in foaming AS systems. Most probably, a combination

167

of both dissolved flotation and dispersed flotation exists in ADs, depending on pH and

168

solubility/pressure effects of the gas phase present in digesters. Since the biogas is forming

169

throughout the volume of the digester, the bubble size could vary throughout the depth of

Ac ce p

160

10

Page 11 of 48

the digester, with smaller bubbles at the bottom and larger ones at the top. Such a

171

phenomenon of gas evolution is attributed to formation of many types of desirable foams

172

[24].

ip t

170

In an AD, the presence of sludge solids (with or without hydrophobic filamentous

173

microorganisms) and soluble surface active materials act as stabilizers enhancing foam

175

stability, quite similar to proteins and other stabilizers added to commercially available

176

desirable foams.

177

2.3

us

Possible types of bubble formation in AD

an

178

cr

174

In the case of uncontrolled foam structures, occurring in AD, the most common visual classification of type of AD foam by plant operators is the size of bubbles and their

180

stability [26]. Foams with relatively large bubbles are short-lived when compared to foams

181

with smaller bubbles which appear to be more stable. The properties of these foams and

182

their mechanisms of their formation are not discussed in the literature. Consequently, it is

183

also highly unlikely that a unified theory can explain all these kinds of digester foams. This

184

discussion provides a brief insight into how different types of foam may be formed and

185

stabilized in digesters. Based on the extensive review of three-phase foam literature, two

186

types of foam bubbles could form in AD:

187

1. Conventional foaming – Accumulates at the gas/liquid interface in the digester. Three-

188

phase foam bubbles are formed in digesters with a coating of surface active material

189

making them stable. CO2 and methane formed as biogas continuously diffuses into existing

190

bubbles, entrapped during mixing [24] or getting attached to particles [19,27,28]. Bubbles

191

incorporated in the sludge could serve as nucleation sites for the gas produced during AD.

192

This type of bubble formation requires high concentrations of surfactants or solids with

Ac ce p

te

d

M

179

11

Page 12 of 48

hydrophobic filaments; whose quantitative threshold estimates are case-specific and

194

unknown. These bubbles contain much less gas and tend to have well separated spherical

195

bubbles, mainly due to the thin films surrounding the bubbles in the foam structure.

196

Following factors can potentially cause conventional foam events:

197

 Sludge feed characteristics: surface active agents in feed sludge; foam causing filaments

200

cr

 Volatile fatty acid (VFA) production during digestion - Imbalances between the

us

199

in feed sludge.

successive hydrolysis, acidogenesis and methanogenesis in AD process.

an

198

ip t

193

2. Rapid expansion events – Such bubbles are formed by pressure difference and gas

202

saturation in the digester. Solid particles and cell-wall fragments present in the digester may

203

act as nucleation sites [29]. The main difference between this type of foam and

204

conventional foaming is that gas holdup finally leads to the foam, in this case. It is

205

postulated in this review that foaming in the conventional sense involves the stabilization

206

step where surface active agents form a coating around the gas bubbles (more stable foam),

207

whereas here, the foam is stabilized by interacting simultaneously with surface active

208

material and particles (foam that is short lived). The digester contents appear to be rapidly

209

expanding in volume at an alarming rate, causing digester overflows. The total volume of

210

the digester can contract or expand according to the gas volume in the digester contents.

211

Rapid volume expansion events could be caused by changes in biogas volumes present in

212

the digester liquid rather than conventional three-phase foaming [30]. The source of bubble

213

formation in the case of rapid expansion events is bubble nucleation, as discussed in

214

subsequent sections of this review. The difference in the formation of these two types of

Ac ce p

te

d

M

201

12

Page 13 of 48

foams is attributed to the heterogeneity of the species at the interfaces in AD and

216

subsequent adsorption and interfacial interactions. The following controllable factors that

217

exacerbate gas holdup can potentially cause rapid expansion events:

218

 Inconsistencies in organic loading rate (OLR) – shock loads, slug feeds, inconsistent

ip t

215

feed rates.

cr

219

 Inconsistencies in gas production leading to sudden gas release.

221

 Sudden pressure changes.

222

 Inadequate, intermittent, excessive or non-optimal high intensity mixing which results

an

us

220

in dead zones and pockets of inhomogeneous material inside the digester.

223

Both of these types of foams have been reported in full scale digesters and attributed

M

224

to cause major foam episodes [30]. It is unknown if the two types of foaming events are

226

mutually exclusive or one can lead to another; based on filament, particulate and surface

227

active material thresholds. The bubble formation is mostly the same in both cases (gas

228

surrounded by liquid and solids/surfactants), but in the case of rapid expansion, it is gas

229

holdup (due to physical factors such as increase in gas pressure in the digester, etc.) that is

230

finally released out of the sludge.

231

3

te

Ac ce p

232

d

225

Factors contributing to AD foam In most desirable foams, bubbles are produced by (i) agitating, whipping, shaking or

233

beating (ii) by sparging or diffusing gas and (iii) bubble nucleation (depressurizing a gas

234

saturated liquid); where the liquid becomes less supersaturated as a result of the pressure

235

release. Then bubbles nucleate and grow to form foam. In AD, one or more of these sources

236

of bubbles are known to occur. Mixing/whipping/mechanical agitation is the most widely 13

Page 14 of 48

used means of formation of foam structures in several applications, and the bubble size and

238

stability is maintained by careful process control [24]. In AD, there are several sources of

239

mixing – natural and induced. The induced sources constitute the intended mixing system

240

(installed mixers and equipment). Major sources of natural mixing include gas evolution

241

during digestion as well as the inflow and outflow of sludge by pumping [31]. High

242

intensity induced mixing sources are implicated to cause gas entrapment and release of

243

bubbles, although the extent of their contribution is unclear. Bubble formation due to gas

244

release is considered uncontrolled; though gas release is related to loading; gas quality and

245

quantity are not directly controlled. The presence of CO2 in the digester at all times induces

246

bubble nucleation depending upon pressure, pH, etc. and is considered to be uncontrolled.

247

Therefore, such bubble creation through various means coupled with other inherent

248

characteristics could explain why only a fraction of the digesters experience foaming

249

despite these conditions being present in all digesters. Such inherent or uncontrolled factors

250

include:

251

 Surface characteristics, number of particles, and particle size distribution.

252

 Gas bubble size distribution, proportion of CO2/Methane, gas volume in liquid or foam.

253

 Natural mixing due to biogas production and convection.

254

 Nature and type of surfactants (in order to adhere to bubbles).

255

 Interfacial phenomena between sludge, liquid and gas.

256

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

237

The above discussion leads to the understanding that foam formation and stability,

257

may be a function of these uncontrollable factors or inherent qualities occurring in all

258

digesters, while influenced by the controlled factors. 14

Page 15 of 48

On the other hand, controlled factors deal with the actual causes and contributors of

259

foaming, which influence the abovementioned uncontrolled factors in various ways to

261

cause foaming. Table 1 presents a list of digester foaming causes from inlet to in-digester

262

conditions [32]. Such causes and contributors have been discussed in detail elsewhere and

263

will not be elaborated here. For the purposes of this review, we will consider how the

264

controlled and uncontrolled factors are related to each other and to AD foaming. The

265

underlying mechanisms of foaming cannot be completely explained without the potential

266

links between the groups of causes/contributors and uncontrolled factors. The following

267

sections will attempt to relate these groups of causes and mechanistically explain some of

268

these causes with respect to AD foam formation.

269

3.1

M

an

us

cr

ip t

260

Role of controlled and uncontrolled factors in AD foaming Though the formation of foam is different from single bubble dynamics, the first

271

step is bubble nucleation/formation. In general, the following non-independent steps are

272

involved in the foam formation:

273

 Bubble formation/nucleation.

274

 Bubble growth.

275

 Bubble detachment/coarsening.

276

 Bubble stabilization.

te

Ac ce p

277

d

270

Figure 2 depicts the process of AD bubble formation and the role of controlled and

278

uncontrollable factors. Bubble nucleation, subsequent growth and detachment of bubbles

279

due to biogas production in digesters lead to undesirable foam episodes, mainly influenced

15

Page 16 of 48

280

by the controlled factors in various ways. In the following sections, we will attempt to

281

explain the various ways in which these factors lead to AD foam.

282

3.1.1

ip t

Basic mathematical models for bubble growth Several published works have studied the generation and growth of bubbles in non-

284

Newtonian liquids containing dissolved gases and formulated basic equations for the steps

285

involved in bubble growth [33-37]. Single bubble growth dynamics are considered for most

286

models and use mass, momentum and diffusion equations.

us

A single spherical gas bubble is assumed to grow inside a non-Newtonian fluid

an

287

cr

283

within finite radius boundaries. Bubble growth is considered to be affected by parameters

289

such as pressure difference (ΔP), difference of gas concentration between the phases (ΔC),

290

flow index (n), coefficient of consistency (mf or k), shear stress ( rr ) and surface tension

291

(  ). Flow behavior index (n) varies according to fluid type - n1

292

(Dilatant) [12].

d

te

The bubble growth is determined by solving the governing equations for

Ac ce p

293

M

288

294

the mass transfer and the momentum transfer that happen continuously between nucleated

295

bubbles the surrounding digester contents [38,39]. The continuity equation

296

is given by [40]:

297 298

(Eqn 1)

Applying boundary conditions to the continuity equation, assuming that the inertial

299

forces are negligible and the pressure at the outer boundary is Psys(t), the momentum

300

equation for the solution-gas surrounding the bubble is [39]:

16

Page 17 of 48

(Eqn 2)

301

where Pbub(t, t’) is the pressure at time t of a bubble formed at time t’. All the τ

302

components are stress parameters in the r and θ directions and are determined by the

304

applicable rheological model of the system (discussed in Section 3.3.4 Rheology). During

305

the bubble growth process, the law of conservation of mass should be satisfied. The rate of

306

change of mass inside the gas bubble should be balanced by the mass of gas diffusing in or

307

out of bubble surface. Concentration of gas inside the bubble is increasing, while the

308

concentration in the bulk of the solution outside is decreasing [40]. It is assumed that the

309

gas is ideal. The concentration in the bulk around by a growing gas bubble is described by

310

the following diffusion equation [39, 40]:

M

te

(For r ≥ Rbub) , where D is the gas diffusivity in the bulk solution. Appropriate initial and final boundary conditions that can describe the AD foaming

313

system are required to solve the equations [39].

315

3.2

Ac ce p

314

316

(Eqn 3)

d

311 312

an

us

cr

ip t

303

Mechanisms of AD foam nucleation In general, bubble nucleation is of different types: homogeneous and heterogeneous

317

[41]. Homogeneous nucleation, which is spontaneous, typically occurs only if the

318

difference between the ambient and dissolved gas pressure is greater than 100 atm. [21].

319

Such high supersaturation values are unlikely in AD. Homogeneous nucleation involves

320

bubble formation in the bulk of a homogeneous solution. No gas nuclei should be present

321

prior to bubble formation [41]. Since gas bubbles form in several locations inside a digester

17

Page 18 of 48

322

simultaneously and are rising continuously to the surface, bubbles possibly do not form by

323

this nucleation mechanism. Heterogeneous nucleation usually requires supersaturation levels similar to

325

homogeneous nucleation [42]; however prior gas nuclei or cavities may be present. If the

326

AD is suddenly made supersaturated by pH variation (which influences CO2 solubility

327

dynamics) or pressure reduction, then it creates a bubble. It is assumed that the gas is

328

already not present in the digester and the formation of this first bubble is a heterogeneous

329

nucleation event. Once it is formed, the bubble then follows the steps outlined in Figure 2.

330

Then each bubble leads to a gas nucleus. Once this bubble forms, any subsequent bubble

331

production is due the presence of these nuclei or in other terms a cavity from which other

332

bubbles have nucleated. This type of nucleation that follows the initial heterogeneous

333

bubble formation is referred to as either type III or IV [43]. Sources in literature have

334

identified other sources of gas nuclei namely Type II (gas residues adsorbed on solid

335

“support”) and Type III (stabilized micro-bubbles) [44].

cr

us

an

M

d

te

Ac ce p

336

ip t

324

In AD, heterogeneous bubble nucleation may be driven by: 1) Change in

337

temperature, pressure, or surface tension 2) New gas phase nuclei may form due to

338

impurities or particulates. This bubble nucleation seemingly requires lower gas

339

supersaturation than homogeneous nucleation due to the heterogeneous environment inside

340

the AD [45,46]. As hypothesized earlier in this paper, in conventional foam, gas bubbles

341

have a layer of surface active material. In case of rapid expansion, the surfactant layer is

342

absent. This will determine how the gas nuclei form. Increased agitation by mixing in AD

343

also influences type of nucleation [47]. Certain kinds of crevices and bends provide

18

Page 19 of 48

344

additional nucleation sites for bubbles indicating that digester shape and configuration

345

aspects may influence foaming [48]. It appears that gas nuclei formation is slow and requires a considerable number of

ip t

346

nuclei to build up which could again be related to the presence of methane coupled with

348

CO2 in the digester gas. Bubbles in rapid expansion events seem to manifest faster as foam

349

(hence the name) when compared to conventional events. After a detailed review of the

350

nucleation mechanisms, the type of the nucleation mechanism is not obvious due to the

351

various controlled and uncontrolled phenomena occurring in AD. In fact, different

352

nucleation mechanisms may contribute to the two different types of foam events. But due

353

to the presence of CO2, possibility of supersaturation and bubble formation, it is evident

354

that nucleation is one of the methods of AD foam bubble formation.

M

an

us

cr

347

in the following section.

357

3.3

te

356

d

The roles of CO2 and methane in AD foam bubble formation are further discussed

355

Ac ce p

Contribution of controlled and uncontrolled factors to AD foam formation This section deals with how causes and contributors possibly influence uncontrolled

358 359

factors to aid in foam formation mechanisms.

360

3.3.1

361

Contribution of the gas phase to foaming - role of methane Gas phase in the digester mainly contains methane and CO2. Trace amounts of

362

hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, several non-methane volatile organic carbons (NMVOC),

363

volatile organic compounds (VOC), and siloxanes are also present [49]. The presence of the

364

former gases i.e., sparingly soluble methane along with CO2 affects bubble nucleation

365

mechanisms. The effects of the latter trace compounds on foaming are unknown and lacks

366

experimental data. Theoretically, in the presence of only CO2, the foaming phenomenon 19

Page 20 of 48

seems spontaneous, whereas due to the presence of methane, foam formation will be

368

slowed down due to lower rates of diffusion of methane gas [50]. Higher concentrations of

369

methane also result in smaller bubble sizes than if only CO2 was involved; thus increasing

370

the stability of the bubbles [51].

ip t

367

The solubility of methane in mesophilic conditions in the digester is one-twentieth

cr

371

of that of CO2 and has a coefficient of diffusion which is 4.5 times greater than that of CO2

373

[52,53]. The weight of methane is also much lesser than that of CO2 so it tends to rise-up

374

faster as bubbles in the digester. The concentration of dissolved CH4 will then be always

375

lesser than that of CO2 even during methanogenesis because it always forms bubbles [54].

376

Based on these properties, major portion of CH4 inside a digester will exist in the gas phase

377

as bubbles. CO2, on the other hand, based on the discussion in Section 3.3.2, exists in either

378

dissolved or gas form. Presence of methane in the digesters influences bubble nucleation

379

and stability because of low diffusion. The presence of two or more gases of very different

380

solubilities affects the bubble coarsening/detachment step of the bubble formation, in

381

particular [12].

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

372

To sum up, the mechanism of bubble formation in digesters is similar to carbonated

382 383

liquids but occurs much slowly. Due to the presence of methane, bubble nucleation

384

processes are not spontaneous and require a mechanism in order to initiate or enhance the

385

foaming cause [55]. Such an additional mechanism is termed as a contributor and it favors

386

the foam persistence if the potential to foam or a fundamental cause already exists in a

387

digester.

388

3.3.2

Physicochemical characteristics of CO2 in AD 20

Page 21 of 48

In the realm of pH governing AD, CO2 though present in lesser quantity than

390

methane governs the chemistry in the digester (carbon dioxide-bicarbonate system). CO2 is

391

also a prerequisite to any effervescence as seen from carbonated beverages, beer and

392

champagne. In AD, CO2 gas most likely influences bubble nucleation and thus rapid

393

volume expansion as discussed in this section.

cr

394

ip t

389

During the various steps of AD, when gas is produced above the saturation levels in the digester, it is released as bubbles by nucleation. Under the conditions existing inside

396

digesters, the driving force for such bubble growth depends on pressure difference, surface

397

area, diffusion constants, and gas solubility [56,27,28,57,58]. Digester contents become

398

supersaturated when the total dissolved gas pressure exceeds the solution pressure and a gas

399

bubble can easily form in this condition. The total dissolved gas is the sum of the partial

400

pressure of each gas species dissolved in solution. Saturation conditions inside the digester

401

vary based on the pH. Due to this reason, in the case of carbonated beverages, CO2 is

402

usually injected and solubilized under pressure in beverage cans and bottles.

an

M

d

te

Ac ce p

403

us

395

For example, at pH 7.0 about 80 % of carbonic acid is dissociated as HCO3-

404

(bicarbonate) at 25°C [59]. These bicarbonates can form precipitates. If more CO2 is

405

dissolved, more H2CO3 is formed and will be ionized to HCO3-. Any increase in H+ results

406

in pH decrease due to acidity. When the pH is lesser than the pKa1, H2CO3 is finally

407

dissolved in CO2 [60]. Accumulation of this acidity may ultimately cause a pH drop once

408

the alkalinity is completely exhausted. Otherwise AD is assumed to be naturally buffered

409

systems. Both pH and alkalinity are not directly thought to cause foaming though they play

410

an important part in bubble nucleation by influencing supersaturation. In digesters the

21

Page 22 of 48

411

desired pH is between 6 and 8 and the alkalinity is typically between 2,000-2500 mg/L as

412

CaCO3. Based on the pH inside the digester, the CO2 formed in methanogenesis could

414

dissolve or be released into the gas phase. Since one of the major reasons for foaming is the

415

presence of gas bubbles, pH fluctuations directly influence bubble nucleation. Dissolved

416

CO2 in the digester and gaseous CO2 molecules in the headspace of the digester eventually

417

are in equilibrium according to Henry’s law which states that the partial pressure of a given

418

gas above a solution is proportional to the concentration of the gas dissolved into the

419

solution, as expressed by the following relation [19]:

420

C = kHPCO2

421

where C is the concentration of dissolved CO2 molecules, PCO2 is the partial pressure of

422

CO2 molecules in the gas phase, and kH is its Henry’s law constant. Inside the digester,

423

dissolved and gaseous CO2 are in equilibrium; mostly keeping the gaseous pressure at a

424

stable level. The quantities of these components vary with pH of the system. Free CO2 can

425

transfer out into the headspace of the digester from the liquid interface when CO2 is in

426

equilibrium between free CO2 and carbonic acid [47]. The excess of CO2 being generated

427

in the digester escape as bubbles based on nucleation rate and form foam. CO2 chemistry

428

within a digester is governed by both Henry’s law (for CO2-dissolved gas molecules) and

429

the ideal gas law (for the gaseous CO2 in the headspace) [28], quite similar to a bottle of

430

carbonated beverage.

431

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

413

Under any loss of pressure events or significant variations in gas holdup, the

432

gaseous volume of CO2 under pressure in the headspace suddenly expands and in several

433

cases overflows. After this loss of seal in the digester and gushing, the pressure of gaseous 22

Page 23 of 48

CO2 maintained inside the digester falls. The thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed, and

435

the dissolved CO2 inside the digester escapes, to fulfill Henry’s law. If the excess of the

436

dissolved CO2 does not possess the necessary free energy to overcome the enthalpy of

437

formation of bubbles, then any source of external energy, e.g., high intensity AD mixing,

438

shaking, and/or particulates or surface active materials lowers the energy barrier. The size

439

of CO2 bubbles at this high pressure becomes critical. As a result, headspace volume

440

changes and leads to rapid rise just like a champagne or soda bottle when popped open after

441

shaking it and forms foam potentially becoming a rapid expansion foam event in the

442

digester [42].

cr

us

an

If the digester is undersaturated, free energy is not favorable for bubbles to be

M

443

ip t

434

thermodynamically stabilized. In case of saturation or supersaturation, the free energy has

445

to be supplied to achieve the critical radius of the bubble. Bubbles larger than this radius

446

will grow and those lesser will die. Rather than newer bubbles being generated in this case,

447

their mean size increases, because their nucleation is strongly dependent on supersaturation

448

[61]; as shown in Figure 3 [42]. The organic matter, hydrophobic components and solid

449

particles including inorganic bicarbonate precipitates formed in the digesters serve as

450

bubble nucleation sites and growth in the case of undersaturated digesters [62]. Bicarbonate

451

precipitates occur in areas of reduced partial pressure of CO2 which can result in

452

supersaturated conditions and release the CO2 to the gas phase similar to a rapid expansion

453

event [19, 47, 48].

454 455

Ac ce p

te

d

444

Mathematical formulations for critical radii for both types of bubble nucleation are expressed as [39]:

23

Page 24 of 48

(Eqn 4)

456

where Pbub is the pressure inside the bubble; Psys is the surrounding system pressure;

457

γlg is the interfacial energy at the liquid-gas interface. The free energy barrier for

459

homogeneous nucleation (Whom) is [63-66]:

cr

ip t

458

(Eqn 5)

us

460

From eqns 4 and 5, Rcr and Whom are functions of γlg and the degree of

461

supersaturation, which is defined as the difference between Pbub,cr and Psys.

an

462

For heterogeneous nucleation, the equation of Rcr is identical to that of

463

homogeneous nucleation but the maximum value of this critical radius is much lower than

465

the critical radius required for homogeneous nucleation. In case of the free energy barrier:

d

M

464

(Eqn 6)

te

466

where F is the energy reduction factor for heterogeneous nucleation, which depends

Ac ce p

467 468

on the geometry of the nucleation site [67]. These equations have been designed for

469

industrial applications that contain CO2 and non-Newtonian liquid systems similar to AD

470

sludge, where there are significantly lesser uncontrolled factors than AD foaming. In

471

developing equations for AD foaming, effect of more factors than just the geometry of the

472

nucleation site will have to be considered.

473

3.3.3

474 475

Particle size distribution and surface characteristics Even though the role of particle concentration and particle size has been explained

for other three-phase foams, similar effects in AD foaming have not been reported. In the 24

Page 25 of 48

presence of surface active substances and absence of particles, any foam developing in

477

digesters would rapidly collapse [68]. Yet whether this is the case remains unknown,

478

though digester foam collapses have been anecdotally reported by several WWTP operation

479

personnel, even in the presence of solid particles. The possibility of the sludge solids

480

aggregating in a digester leaving fewer particles for foam stabilization cannot be ruled out

481

and likely causes foam collapse. Smaller particle sizes also accelerate hydrolysis,

482

acidogenesis and the production of VFA resulting in organic overload to the digester.

483

Reduction of mean particle size of feed sludge cause increased VFA production and

484

reduced methane production [69]. Finer grit particles have an increased ability for gas

485

holdup compared to larger sized particles, in effect possibly aiding rapid volume expansion

486

[70].

cr

us

an

M

In AD, the particle size distribution of feed and that of the digester contents is likely

d

487

ip t

476

to be different [69]. In low sludge retention time (SRT) systems (highly loaded), the

489

particle size distribution in the digester might be strongly influenced by feed sludge

490

compared to that of high SRT systems. The digestibility of the sludge also plays a role in

491

the digester contents’ particle size distribution and concentration [71]. Several unpublished

492

reports state that digesters receiving feed with lower primary sludge: waste activated sludge

493

(PS:WAS) solids ratio tend to foam more compared to those with higher PS:WAS solids

494

ratio, which could be explained by particle size-concentration effects, but yet to be

495

experimentally determined due to the complexity of AD foam.

496

Ac ce p

te

488

The biogas production step (methanogenesis) itself is significant to foaming as the

497

concentration of gas bubbles, bubble size distribution as well as particle size distribution

498

has a role to play in foam formation. If the methanogenesis step is isolated from the other 25

Page 26 of 48

steps of AD, the physical absence of gas bubbles could reduce incidence of foaming, as in

500

standard two-phase or acid-phase digestion. Incidence of foam in the acid (first phase)

501

phase is potentially less due to: (i) less gas production; and (ii) lesser filament incidence

502

due to adverse conditions of low pH and higher VFAs [72]. Faster degradation rate of

503

Nocardia filaments in two-phase AD than in the single stage AD along with corresponding

504

lowered aeration foam potential has been reported [73]. However, if the reaction time in the

505

first phase is not sufficient to breakdown the foam-causing filaments to non-foaming state,

506

there could be excessive foaming in the acid phase stage of the two-phase digestion system

507

[2].

cr

us

an

Since the foamability of three-phase suspension is dependent on the particle

M

508

ip t

499

concentration (directly proportional) and size (inversely proportional) [13], the hydrolysis

510

of particulate organic matter and size distribution of both undigested and digested sludge

511

solids plays a significant role in AD foam formation. The initial steps in the AD process,

512

namely the hydrolysis and the acidogenesis are affected by physicochemical conditions

513

more than the biological factors. In acid-phase, the first stage consists of the hydrolysis and

514

the acidification step through careful operational control (mainly the SRT); which

515

influences particle size distribution (as discussed earlier in this section); in turn related to

516

foaming. While reduced foaming in such systems have been reported [74]; experiences of

517

plants with higher foaming in two-phase have also been reported citing operational issues

518

[75]. Limited full-scale data exists on two-stage treatment and its effects on the various

519

controlled and uncontrolled factors associated with foaming.

520 521

Ac ce p

te

d

509

Kinetics of foaming varies with the physicochemical properties of sludge due to the microbial adherence to sludges [76]. Recently, layering effects also have been linked to 26

Page 27 of 48

digestion performance [77]. Surface tension of sludge influences the microbial adhesion

523

phenomena. Methanogenic archaea rely on extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) to bind

524

to the sludge particles. The methanogens and acidogens form a layer on the surface of the

525

sludge, based on the surface tension of the liquid. If surface tension is low, the acidogens

526

are present in the outer layer and the hydrophobic methanogens are present in the inner

527

layers. If surface tension is high, methanogens are dominant on the surfaces, and biogas

528

bubbles produced adhere strongly to sludge, increasing sludge propensity to foam [76].

us

cr

ip t

522

Surface activity of sludge could be altered due to cationic polymers in feed leading

an

529

to foam [78] but this theory could not be corroborated in a full-scale study where the

531

polymer added for feed thickening did not have any effect of the foaming [79].

532

3.3.4

Sludge rheology

Rheology of sludge refers to flow of sludge with significant solids content. Digester

d

533

M

530

sludge has been characterized as either non-Newtonian fluid [80], Bingham plastic (high

535

solids up to 14% total solids (TS)), or viscoplastic non-Newtonian fluid (2.5-12% TS at

536

temperatures between 20-60°C) [81]. Rheological properties can affect foam stability due

537

to changes in yield stresses and apparent viscosity [82]. For instance, foams on low

538

viscosity liquids like beer are more short-lived than those on higher viscous ones such as

539

milk shakes or cappuccino. Higher viscosity sludge forms stable foams due to lesser

540

drainage of liquid from the bubble surfaces. Rheology changes during processes like

541

pumping or gas release/aeration, and making it difficult to measure real time inside

542

digesters. The pretreatment options used to enhance digestion also impact rheology due to

543

various forms of energy being applied to sludge. Many of these methods have been

544

reported to reduce foaming though mostly due to a decrease in the filamentous populations

Ac ce p

te

534

27

Page 28 of 48

545

[83-85]. No direct evidence is available to relate foaming to changes in rheology or other

546

uncontrolled factors. Irrespective of the type of foam bubbles formed surface tension, viscosity and

ip t

547

buoyancy forces impact bubble rise velocity. Sludge is viscous and needs more yield stress

549

to deform. Under these conditions, small bubbles are entrained in sludge; while larger

550

bubbles rise [86]. These entrained bubbles are similar to “sinking bubbles” in conjunction

551

with the presence of a sparingly soluble gas like methane in the case of AD [49,50,53].

552

Such type of bubbles could be evidence for the likes of “gas nuclei” [56], or

553

“microbubbles” [42,43] in AD.

554

3.3.5

us

an

Temperature and pressure effects

M

555

cr

548

Temperature could be a contributor to foaming events in digesters because of its impact on AD metabolism by hydrolysis and methanogenesis, and has a significant effect

557

on other factors such as gas transfer rates and settling characteristics of biosolids [87]. The

558

importance of temperature as an operational parameter (controlled) is more pertinent for

559

rapid volume expansion while its effects on filamentous bacteria or seasonal variations

560

(uncontrolled) are important with regard to conventional foam events. Temperature effects

561

on sludge properties such as viscosity or surface tension possibly impacts both types of

562

foam events.

te

Ac ce p

563

d

556

Bubble formation potential increases with temperature due to reduced Henry’s

564

constants and more rapid diffusion kinetics [88]. Bubble drag and bubble rise velocity are

565

impacted by temperature. Temperature produces changes in viscosity and the rheological

566

behavior, which in turn affects mixing, indirectly impacting gas holdup. Though

567

experimental evidence is lacking, inadequate mixing contributes lesser to foaming at higher 28

Page 29 of 48

temperatures than at lower ones [9]. High temperature of thermophilic digesters eliminates

569

foaming due to viscosity changes of fats, oils and grease at higher temperatures in foaming

570

digesters [9]. A few other studies attribute the diminished foaming to the effect of higher

571

temperatures on lowering viscosity of sludge hence increasing foam drainage and breakup

572

[89]. Temperature inside a digester may also be non-uniform due to improper mixing or

573

feed variations, which indicates that temperature indirectly is a cause of rapid volume

574

expansion, by different means.

cr

us

The solubility of CO2 in the digester contents depends on temperature (the lower the

an

575

ip t

568

temperature of the solution, the higher the gas solubility). Because the solubility of CO2

577

changes with temperature, the partial pressure of CO2 gas also strongly depends, in turn, on

578

the temperature. Digesters which feed infrequently with large volumes of colder feed

579

sludge may experience temporary temperature fluctuations that may aid gas dissolution into

580

the liquid phase. Depending on the duration of the intermittent feeding, there could be

581

changes in the gas phase pressure, particularly in fixed cover digesters.

d

te

Ac ce p

582

M

576

Digester pressure has not been implicated as a cause or contributing factor in

583

foaming in literature thus far. Gas phase pressure in the headspace of the digester and liquid

584

level impact bubble sizes and bubble rise velocity [90]. In digesters, pressure increases with

585

height of the liquid above and gas system pressures may be as high as 50 inches of water

586

column [30]. Slower bubble rise rates occur at higher pressure in the digester and slows

587

down coalescence leading to further bubble formation [90,91]. Such evidence from

588

literature point to lower bubble formation in the pressure ranges encountered in AD.

589

However, under these conditions, a significant volume expansion and subsequent gas

590

release in the form of foam from solution can occur when there is a sudden pressure drop. 29

Page 30 of 48

Presence of CO2 which is very soluble under higher pressure will be released under such

592

conditions. Therefore, it may be prudent to operate digesters at lower headspace gas

593

pressure, if possible, to minimize rapid expansion of sludge during withdraw-feed periods.

ip t

591

In summary, the role of digestion temperature in AD foaming seems to be mainly

595

due to indirect effects such as the gas production, biogas solubility, viscosity and surface

596

tension of the liquid phase in the digester. Pressure changes impact gas solubility and lead

597

to rapid volume expansion events.

598

3.3.6

us

cr

594

an

Interfacial phenomena between sludge solids, liquid and gas

The fundamental interfacial phenomena of AD foam are illustrated in Figure 4 [92].

599

These relationships can be identified from literature review but quantitative estimates for

601

AD foam are not available. The lack of such quantitative estimates is due to the

602

heterogeneity of the solid and liquid phase of wastewater.

d

M

600

Processes depicted in this schematic include: (i) the adsorption of different

te

603

constituents at the bubble interface, (ii) the interfaces between the solid, gas bubble, liquids

605

and various surface active components, (iii) processes occurring at the interface, (iv) the

606

surface rheological properties of all the constituent phases. The formation, stability, and

607

mechanical properties of foams depend on the interfacial physico-chemical characteristics;

608

further influenced by operational parameters, physical features and process characteristics

609

(v) Bubble nucleation defined by bubble sizes and stability and (vi) Subsequent foam

610

formation and its bubble size distribution and stability.

611

4

612 613

Ac ce p

604

Discussion This review has discussed the main fundamental factors and mechanisms in

explaining AD foaming. Much of the fundamental phenomena involved have been 30

Page 31 of 48

extended from other three-phase foam literature, as no direct investigations have been

615

reported on mechanistic understanding of foaming using the digester content matrix and

616

under AD conditions. Nevertheless, they form the current basic approach to understand AD

617

foaming. Though several sources of bubble formation have been reviewed for finding a

618

fundamental explanation for foaming, none of them led to a distinct answer as the

619

interactions between uncontrolled and controlled factors are numerous. In AD several

620

commonly used methods of foam creation are in effect. Bubble nucleation certainly plays a

621

role in AD foaming though the type of nucleation is under question. The type of nucleation

622

may be different for the two types of foam. Pre-existing gas nuclei or microbubbles are a

623

possibility given the nature of the digester contents but have not been detected in digesters

624

unlike other foams. Relative instantaneous concentrations of CO2 and CH4 may contribute

625

to foam dynamics in the digester though it has not been implicated to be a cause or

626

contributor to foaming thus far in popular literature. Due to the presence of methane,

627

bubble nucleation processes are not spontaneous and require a mechanism in order to

628

initiate or enhance the foaming cause. This may also be one of the reasons that contributors

629

are required for the foaming episode to manifest. The overall discussion emphasizes the

630

role of mixing as a contributor to AD foam. Mixing creates favorable conditions for AD

631

foaming by: (i) entrapping bubbles into which the gas formed can diffuse and serve as

632

nucleation sites for bubbles (ii) providing the necessary free energy thus lowering the

633

energy barrier leading to a rapid rise in the headspace volume due to foam.

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

614

634 635

Acknowledgements 31

Page 32 of 48

The authors gratefully acknowledge financial assistance for this work from Water

636 637

Environment Research Foundation (WERF), Alexandria, VA - Project INFR1SG10.

639

References

640

[1]

cr

K.R. Pagilla, K.C. Craney, W.H. Kido, Causes and effects of foaming in anaerobic

us

[2]

[3]

an

sludge digesters, Water Sci. Technol. 36 (1997) 463–470.

643 644

L. Appels, J. Baeyens, J. Degrève, R. Dewil, Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34 (2008) 755–781.

641 642

ip t

638

A. Westlund, E. Hagland, M. Rothman, Bulking and foaming caused by Microthrix parvicella at three large sewage treatment plants in the Greater Stockholm area, Water

646

Sci. Technol. 34 (1996) 281–287.

digesters by pre-treatment of the surplus-sludge, Water Sci. Technol. (2000) 235–241. [5]

J. Dalmau, J. Comas, I. Rodriguez-Roda, K. Pagilla, J. P. Steyer, Model development

[6]

Ac ce p

648 649

and simulation for predicting risk of foaming in anaerobic digestion systems,

650

Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 4306–4314.

651 652

Technol. 102 (2011) 6637–6643.

654

[7]

658

N. Ganidi, S. Tyrrel, E. Cartmell, Anaerobic digestion foaming causes - A review, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) 5546–5554.

656 657

N. Ganidi, S. Tyrrel, E. Cartmell, The effect of organic loading rate on foam initiation

during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal wastewater sludge, Bioresour.

653

655

M. Barjenbruch, H. Hoffmann, O. Kopplow, J. Tränckner, Minimizing of foaming in

d

[4]

te

647

M

645

[8]

N. Massart, R. Bates, G. Neun, The root cause of excessive anaerobic digester foaming, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. (2006) 1099–1117. 32

Page 33 of 48

661 662 663 664

G. Moen, Anaerobic digester foaming: causes and solutions, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. (2002) 303–310.

[10] K.R. Pagilla, D. Jenkins, W. Kido, Nocardia effects in waste activated sludge, Water

ip t

660

[9]

Sci. Technol. 38 (1998) 49–54.

[11] A.D. Westlund, E. Hagland, M. Rothman, Foaming in anaerobic digesters caused by

cr

659

Microthrix parvicella, Water Sci. Technol. 37 (1998) 51–55.

[12] D.L. Weaire, S. Hutzler, The physics of foams, Oxford University Press, 2001.

666

[13] S.K. Bindal, G. Sethumadhavan, A.D. Nikolov, D.T. Wasan, Foaming mechanisms in

669 670

an

[14] K. Vijayaraghavan, A. Nikolov, D. Wasan, D. Henderson, Foamability of Liquid

M

668

surfactant free particle suspensions, AIChE J. 48 (2002) 2307–2314.

Particle Suspensions: A Modeling Study, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 48 (2009) 8180–8185. [15] K. Vijayaraghavan, A. Nikolov, D. Wasan, B. Calloway, M. Stone, D. Lambert,

d

667

us

665

Foaming and antifoaming in a gas-liquid-finely divided particulate system, J. Chin.

672

Inst. Chem. Eng. 36 (2005) 37–41.

674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681

Ac ce p

673

te

671

[16] K. Vijayaraghavan, A. Nikolov, D. Wasan, B. Calloway, M.L. Crowder, M. Stone, Radioactive waste foams: Formation and mitigation, J. Environ. Eng. 132 (2006) 716– 724.

[17] M. Amon, C. Denson, A study of the dynamics of foam growth - Analysis of the growth of closely spaced spherical bubbles, Polym. Eng. Sci. 24 (1984) 1026–1034.

[18] G. Barker, B. Jefferson, S.J. Judd, Domestic carbonation process optimization, J. Food Eng. 52 (2002) 405–412. [19] G. Liger-Belair, R. Marchal, P. Jeandet, Close-up on bubble nucleation in a glass of champagne, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53 (2002) 151–153. 33

Page 34 of 48

683 684

[20] E.N.C. Mills, P.J. Wilde, L.J. Salt, P. Skeggs, Bubble formation and stabilization in bread dough, Food Bioprod. Process. 81 (2003) 189–193. [21] E.N. Harvey, D.K. Barnes, W.D. McElroy, A.H. Whiteley, D.C. Pease, K.W. Cooper,

ip t

682

Bubble formation in animals. I. Physical factors, J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. 24 (1944) 1-

686

22.

688

[22] Y. Zhang, Experimental simulations of gas-driven eruptions: Kinetics of bubble growth and effect of geometry, Bulletin of Volcanology. 59 (1998) 281–290.

us

687

cr

685

[23] J.F. Sadoc, N. Rivier, Foams and emulsions, Kluwer Academic Pub, 1999.

690

[24] G.M. Campbell, E. Mougeot, Creation and characterization of aerated food products, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 10 (1999) 283–296.

M

691

an

689

[25] E. Dickinson, An introduction to food colloids, Springer, 1992.

693

[26] L. Moeller, K. Goersch, J. Neuhaus, A. Zehnsdorf, R.A. Mueller, Comparative review

d

692

of foam formation in biogas plants and ruminant bloat, Energy Sustain. Soc. 2 (2012)

695

1–9.

697 698 699 700 701 702

Ac ce p

696

te

694

[27] G. Liger-Belair, G. Polidori, P. Jeandet, Recent advances in the science of champagne bubbles, Chem. Soc. Rev. 37 (2008) 2490–2511.

[28] G. Liger-Belair, M. Vignes-Adler, C. Voisin, B. Robillard, P. Jeandet, Kinetics of gas discharging in a glass of champagne: The role of nucleation sites, Langmuir. 18 (2002) 1294–1301.

[29] E. Illy, L. Navarini, Neglected Food Bubbles: The espresso coffee foam, Food Biophysics. 6 (2011) 335–348.

34

Page 35 of 48

703

[30] T. Chapman, S. Krugel, Rapid volume expansion an investigation into digester overflows and safety, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. (2011)

705

1016–1040.

707 708

[31] C. Zickefoose, R.J. Hayes, Operations Manual Anaerobic Sludge Digestion. EPA 430/9-76-001. USEPA, Washington DC, USA (1976).

cr

706

ip t

704

[32] B. Subramanian, K.R. Pagilla, Anaerobic digester foaming in full-scale cylindrical digesters - effects of organic loading rate, feed characteristics, and mixing,

710

Bioresour.Technol. 159 (2014) 182–192.

an

711

us

709

[33] R. P. Chhabra, J. Bangun, Wall effects on terminal velocity of small drops in Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 75 (1997) 817–822.

713

[34] R. P. Chhabra, S.C. Dhingra, Creeping motion of a Carreau fluid past a Newtonian

716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723

d

[35] R. P. Chhabra, J.F. Richardson, Non-Newtonian flow in the process industries,

te

715

fluid sphere, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 64 (1986) 897–905.

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. (1999).

Ac ce p

714

M

712

[36] D. Dhole, R. P. Chhabra, V. Eswaran, Mass transfer from a spherical bubble rising in power-law fluids at intermediate Reynolds numbers, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer. 34 (2007) 971–978.

[37] D. Rodrigue, R. P. Chhabra, D. De Kee, Drag on non-spherical particles in nonNewtonian fluids, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 72 (1994) 588–593.

[38] R.P. Chhabra, J.F. Richardson, Non-Newtonian flow and applied rheology: engineering applications, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. (2007).

35

Page 36 of 48

724

[39] S.N. Leung, Mechanisms of cell nucleation, growth, and coarsening in plastic foaming: theory, simulation, and experiment, PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto

726

(2007).

729 730

York. (1972).

cr

728

[40] J.C. Slattery, Momentum, energy, and mass transfer in continua. McGraw-Hill, New

[41] S.F. Jones, G.M. Evans, K.P. Galvin, Bubble nucleation from gas cavities - a review, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 80 (1999) 27–50.

us

727

ip t

725

[42] S. Deckers, K. Gebruers, G. Baggerman, Y. Lorgouilloux, J. Delcour, C. Michiels,

732

CO2-Hydrophobin structures acting as nanobombs in beer, Monatsschrift Für

733

Brauwissenschaft. 63 (2010) 54–61.

M

an

731

[43] Z. Shokribousjein, S.M. Deckers, K. Gebruers, Y. Lorgouilloux, G. Baggerman, H.

735

Verachtert, Hydrophobins, beer foaming and gushing, Cerevisia. 35 (2011) 85–101.

738 739 740 741 742

283.

te

737

[44] R.J. Gardner, The mechanism of gushing - a review, J. Inst. Brew. 79 (1973) 275-

Ac ce p

736

d

734

[45] P. Scardina, M. Edwards, Fundamentals of bubble formation during coagulation and sedimentation processes, J. Environ. Sci. 132 (2006) 575–585.

[46] P. Scardina, M. Edwards, Prediction and measurement of bubble formation in water treatment, J. Environ. Sci. 127 (2001) 968–973.

[47] S. Deckers, Modeling and biophysical characterisation of the primary gushing

743

mechanism in beer. Interaction between gaseous carbon dioxide and class II

744

hydrophobins, PhD Dissertation, University of Leuven (2013).

36

Page 37 of 48

[48] K. Loubière, G. Hébrard, Influence of liquid surface tension (surfactants) on bubble

746

formation at rigid and flexible orifices, Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensification.

747

43 (2004) 1361–1369.

749 750

[49] S. Rasi, A. Veijanen, J. Rintala, Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas production plants. Energy. 32 (2007) 1375–1380.

cr

748

ip t

745

[50] M.G. Devereux, W.T. Lee, Mathematical modelling of bubble nucleation in stout beers and experimental verification, Proceedings of the World Congress on

752

Engineering. (2011) 160–164.

755

an

754

[51] W.T. Lee, J.S. McKechnie, M.G. Devereux, Bubble nucleation in stout beers, Phys. Rev. E: Stat., Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys. 83 (2011) 1609-1614.

M

753

us

751

[52] I. Leifer, R.K. Patro, The bubble mechanism for methane transport from the shallow sea bed to the surface: A review and sensitivity study, Cont. Shelf Res. 22 (2002)

757

2409–2428.

759 760

te

[53] D.F. McGinnis, J. Greinert, Y. Artemov, S.E. Beaubien, A. Wüest, Fate of rising

Ac ce p

758

d

756

methane bubbles in stratified waters: How much methane reaches the atmosphere?, J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans. 111 (2006).

761

[54] W.T. Lee, M.G. Devereux, Foaming in stout beers, Am. J. Phys. 79 (2011) 991.

762

[55] J.E. Blatteau, J.B. Souraud, E. Gempp, A. Boussuges, Gas nuclei, their origin, and

763 764

their role in bubble formation, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 77 (2006) 1068–1076.

[56] S. Deckers, K. Gebruers, G. Baggerman, Y. Lorgouilloux, J. Martens, J. Delcour,

765

Dynamic light scattering (DLS) as a tool to detect CO2-hydrophobin structures and

766

study the primary gushing potential of beer, J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem.69 (2011) 144-

767

149. 37

Page 38 of 48

[57] G. Liger-Belair, C. Voisin, P. Jeandet, Modeling nonclassical heterogeneous bubble

769

nucleation from cellulose fibers: Application to bubbling in carbonated beverages, J.

770

Phys. Chem. B. 109 (2005) 14573–14580.

ip t

768

[58] J. Pellaud, Gushing: state of the art, Cerevisia. 27 (2002) 189–205.

772

[59] K.K. Sahu, Y. Hazama, K.N. Ishihara, Gushing in canned beer: The effect of

775

[60] V.V. Slezov, A.S. Abyzov, Z.V. Slezova, The nucleation of gas-filled bubbles in lowviscosity liquids, Colloid J. 66 (2004) 575–583.

us

774

ultrasonic vibration, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 302 (2006) 356–362.

an

773

cr

771

[61] T.G. Leighton, A.D. Phelps, D.G. Ramble, D.A. Sharpe, Comparison of the abilities

777

of eight acoustic techniques to detect and size a single bubble, Ultrasonics. 34 (1996)

778

661–667.

781 782 783 784 785 786

d

contacting a liquid-gas solution, J. Appl. Phys.Vol. 56 (1984) 491- 500.

te

780

[62] C.A. Ward, E. Levart, E, Conditions for stability of bubble nuclei in solid surfaces

[63] C.A. Ward, A. Balakrishnan, F.C. Hooper, On the thermodynamics of nucleation in

Ac ce p

779

M

776

weak liquid-gas solutions, J. Basic Eng. 92 (1970) 695-704.

[64] Y. Kagan, The kinetics of boiling of a pure liquid, Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 34 (1960) 92101.

[65] J.L. Katz, M. Blander, Condensation and boiling: corrections to homogeneous nucleation theory for nonideal gases, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 42 (1973) 496-502.

787

[66] R. Cole, Boiling nucleation. Advances in heat transfer. 10 (1974) 106–108.

788

[67] A.S. Tucker, C.A. Ward, Critical state of bubbles in liquid-gas solutions, J. Appl.

789

Phys. 46 (1975) 4801-4808.

38

Page 39 of 48

791 792

[68] F.L. de los Reyes, Challenges in determining causation in structure–function studies using molecular biological techniques, Water Res. 44 (2010) 4948–4957. [69] K. Izumi, Y. Okishio, N. Nagao, C. Niwa, S. Yamamoto, T. Toda, Effects of particle

ip t

790

size on anaerobic digestion of food waste, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 64 (2010) 601–

794

608.

797

2007.

us

796

[70] R.P. Chhabra, Bubbles, drops, and particles in non-Newtonian fluids, CRC Press LLC,

[71] Y. Zhang, C.J. Banks, Impact of different particle size distributions on anaerobic

an

795

cr

793

digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Waste Manage. 33 (2013)

799

297–307.

803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811

d

802

Environ. Eng. 137 (2011) 746-753.

[73] M. Hernandez, D. Jenkins, Mass and viability estimations of Nocardia in activated

te

801

[72] J. Kim, J. Novak, M.J. Higgins, Multistaged anaerobic sludge digestion processes, J.

sludge and anaerobic digesters using conventional stains and immunofluorescent

Ac ce p

800

M

798

methods, Water Sci. Technol. 29 (1994) 249–259.

[74] S. Ghosh, K. Buoy, L. Dressel, T. Miller, G. Wilcox, D. Loos, Pilot-and full-scale two-phase anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge, Water Environ. Res. (1995) 206– 214.

[75] S.R. Reusser, Proceed with caution in advanced anaerobic digestion system design, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. 14 (2009) 3065–3084. [76] J. Thaveesri, B. Liessens, W. Verstraete, Granular sludge growth under different reactor liquid surface tensions, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 43 (1995) 1122–1127.

39

Page 40 of 48

814 815 816

A. Kowalczyk, E. Harnisch, S. Schwede, M. Gerber, R. Span, Different mixing modes for biogas plants using energy crops, Appl. Energy. 112 (2013) 465–472.

[78] M.H. Gerardi, The microbiology of anaerobic digesters. Wastewater microbiology

ip t

813

77]

series. Willey-Interscience, New Jersey. (2003).

[79] A. Van Niekerk, J. Kawahigashi, D. Reichlin, A. Malea, D. Jenkins, Foaming in

cr

812

anaerobic digesters: A survey and laboratory investigation. J. - Water Pollut. Control

818

Fed. (1987) 249–253.

822 823 824

an

manure, Bioresour. Technol. 40 (1992) 149–156. [82] A. Prins, K. van’t Riet, Proteins and surface effects in fermentation: foam, antifoam and mass transfer, Trends Biotechnol. 5 (1987) 296–301. [83] M. Barjenbruch, H. Hoffmann, O.Kopplow, J. Tränckner, Minimizing of foaming in

830

Ac ce p

825

[81] A. Achkari-Begdouri, P.R. Goodrich, Rheological properties of Moroccan dairy cattle

M

821

52 (2009) 1371–1382.

d

820

[80] B. Wu, CFD analysis of mechanical mixing in anaerobic digesters, Trans. ASABE.

te

819

us

817

831

482.

826 827 828 829

832 833

digesters by pre-treatment of the surplus-sludge, Water Sci. Technol. (2000) 235–241.

[84] M. Barjenbruch, O.Kopplow, Enzymatic, mechanical and thermal pre-treatment of surplus sludge, Adv. Environ. Res. 7 (2003) 715–720.

[85] N. Alfaro, R. Cano, F. Fdz-Polanco, Effect of thermal hydrolysis and ultrasounds pretreatments on foaming in anaerobic digesters, Bioresour. Technol. 170 (2014) 477–

[86] P. Buffière, C. Fonade, R. Moletta, Liquid mixing and phase hold-ups in gas producing fluidized bed bioreactors, Chem. Eng. Sci. 53 (1998) 617–627.

40

Page 41 of 48

839 840 841 842 843 844

ip t

838

agitated vessel, AIChE J. 30 (1984) 945–951.

[89] B. Junker, Foam and its mitigation in fermentation systems, Biotechnol. Prog. 23

cr

837

[88] H. Hikita, Y. Konishi, Desorption of carbon dioxide from supersaturated water in an

(2007) 767–784.

[90] G.Q. Yang, B. Du, L.S. Fan, Bubble formation and dynamics in gas–liquid–solid

us

836

reuse. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill, New York. (2003).

fluidization—A review, Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (2007) 2–27.

an

835

[87] G. Tchobanoglous, F.L. Burton, H.D. Stensel, Wastewater engineering: treatment and

[91] R. Clift, J.R. Grace, M.E. Weber, Bubbles, drops, and particles, Courier Dover Publications, 2005.

M

834

[92] J.M. Rodríguez Patino, C. Carrera Sánchez, M.R. Rodríguez Niño, Implications of interfacial characteristics of food foaming agents in foam formulations, Adv. Colloid

846

Interface Sci. 140 (2008) 95–113.

848 849 850 851 852

te

Ac ce p

847

d

845

853 854 855 856 41

Page 42 of 48

857 858 859

ip t

860

cr

861 862

us

863 864

an

865

Figure captions

867

Fig.1. Schematic of general three-phase foam stabilized by solid particles.

868

Fig.2. Formation of AD foam bubbles and role of the controlled and uncontrolled factors.

869

Fig.3. Growth of bubbles in rapid volume expansion. Increasing size of bubbles rather than

870

new bubbles being formed.

871

Fig.4. Possible factors and relationships leading to bubble and foam formation. Mechanistic

872

and fundamental aspects of AD foam.

874 875 876

d

te

Ac ce p

873

M

866

877 878 879 42

Page 43 of 48

880 881

ip t

882 883

cr

884

us

885 886

an

887 888

Table 1. Classification of the causes of foaming [32]. Classification Causes Sludge feed characteristics Surface active agents in feed sludge Foam causing filaments in feed sludge Digestion process-related Organic loading aspects – overload and inconsistent characteristic loading PS:WAS solids feed ratio to digester VFA production - Imbalances between the successive hydrolysis, acidogenesis and methanogenesis, upstream fermentation in the WWTP Contributors Gas production rate/withdrawal variations Digester operating conditions Temperature; pressure changes Mixing intensity and patterns Digester configuration, shape and Digester shape and configuration physical features Sludge withdrawal and gas piping

890 891

Ac ce p

te

d

M

889

892 893 894 895 43

Page 44 of 48

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913

914 915 916 917

Figure 1. Schematic of general three-phase foam stabilized by solid particles.

44

Page 45 of 48

Ac ce p

te

d

M

an

us

cr

ip t

918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935

936 45

Page 46 of 48

937 938 939

Figure 2. Formation of AD foam bubbles and role of the controlled and uncontrolled factors.

ip t

Bubble Forming Zone

Explosion leading to Foam

us

cr

Bubble Size

Critical Diameter Size

942 943

te

941

Bubble Death Zone

Figure 3. Growth of bubbles in rapid volume expansion. Increasing size of bubbles rather than new bubbles being formed [adapted from 42].

Ac ce p

940

d

M

an

Time

46

Page 47 of 48

ip t cr us an M

d

947

te

946

Figure 4. Possible factors and relationships leading to bubble and foam formation. Mechanistic and fundamental aspects of AD foam [adapted from 92].

Ac ce p

944 945

47

Page 48 of 48

Mechanisms of foam formation in anaerobic digesters.

An anaerobic digester (AD) is the most essential step to generate energy in the form of biogas from waste. AD foaming is widespread and leads to deter...
658KB Sizes 1 Downloads 8 Views