Errata list for master thesis “Modelling temperature transition and co-digestion in VEAS biogas process”

Errata list for master thesis “Modelling temperature transition and co-digestion in

VEAS biogas process”

Veronika Mikelsone June 21

, 2021

This is a list of corrections for the master thesis “Modelling temperature transition and co- digestion in VEAS biogas process”. Only significant errors in the text and result data, and reference errors are included in this list. Minor spelling and grammatical mistakes are not included.

Abbreviation for different type of corrections:

Cor - Correction of language

Cit – Correction of reference source

Table 1: Corrections in the text like significant errors and reference errors.

Page Line Type of correction

Original text Corrected text

26 43 Cit [16] and [18] that EG under anaerobic…

[22]and [24] that EG under anaerobic …

31 21 Cor and Xi is particulate component I …

and Xi is particulate component i …

32 6 Cor Si is soluble component I … Si is soluble component i … 32 9 Cor converting the rest of MA … converting the rest of MS … 44 16 Cor production by using

ADM1_FTne …

production by using ADM1_FTnew … 44 17 Cor research papers (Kovalovzski

et al.).

research paper (Kovalovzski et al.).

45 2 Cor concentration from ADM1_FTne …

concentration from ADM1_FTnew

46 11 Cit points from experimental data [5] …

points from experimental data [20] …

47 2 Cit from research paper [5] … from research paper [20] … 47 10 Cit from research paper [5] … from research paper [20] … 48 15 Cit from research paper [5] … from research paper [20] … 49 2 Cit from research paper [5] … from research paper [20] … 49 11 Cit from research paper [5] … from research paper [20] … 65 6 Cor simulation has much higher

IN …

simulation has much higher NH4 …

65 8 Cor showing a decrease in IN … showing a decrease in NH4

… 69 4 Cor The simulated values of IN

…

The simulated values of NH4

…

69 6 Cor hand, has IN … hand, has NH4 …

69 8 Cor Figure 4.40: Comparison of IN …

Figure 4.40: Comparison of NH4 …

70 6 Cor for simulations 7.2 and 2.3. for simulations 7.2 and 7.3.

73 7 Cor The simulated IN … The simulated NH4 …

73 9 Cor values for the IN … values for the NH4 … 74 2 Cor Figure 4.47: IN concentration

…

Figure 4.47: NH4 concentration … 77 1 Cor simulated IN concentration.

In the figure, IN …

simulated NH4 concentration.

In the figure, NH4 … 77 9 Cor Figure 4.53: Comparison of

simulated IN …

Figure 4.53: Comparison of simulated NH4 …

77 13 Cor acetate, bicarbonate and IN

…

acetate, bicarbonate and NH4

…

79 4-5 Cor Figure 4.55: Comparison of simulated methane content in biogas from VEAS

thermophilic simulations with and without additional

sludge. Simulated methane content for simulations

Figure 4.55: Comparison of simulated methane content in biogas from VEAS

thermophilic simulations with and without additional

sludge. Simulated methane content for simulations 81 8 Cor Figure 4.59: Comparison of

simulated biogas flow

Figure 4.59: Comparison of simulated NH4 concentration 82 Table

4.8

Cor IN [%] NH4 [%]

84 9 Cor In the case with simulated IN concentration

In the case with simulated NH4 concentration 85 2 Cor Figure 4.65: Comparison of

simulated IN concentration

Figure 4.65: Comparison of simulated NH4 concentration 90 5 Cit from two research works

([22] and [24]).

from two research works ([20] and [34]).

91 40 Cit PG has a ThOD value of 1680 kg/m3 [12], …

PG has a ThOD value of 1680 kg/m3 [21], … 92 19 Cor from the results in chapters

4.3.2 and 0

from the results in chapters 4.3.2 and 4.4.2

94 5 Cit experimental data published in [22] …

experimental data published in [34] …

94 6 Cit fit to experimental data in [24] …

fit to experimental data in [20]

On the page 34, Table 3.1 is missing source for the values presented in the table. Mesophilic temperatures should have the reference to [33] (A. Donoso-Bravo et al.) in the report. For thermophilic – assumed values.

Wrong data was used in some of the figures of simulation results (cases 5.1-5.4 and 8.1 – 8.4) and all relevant tables and figures are corrected and presented below. The figures and tables have the same number and text as in the report.

Page 63:

Figure 4.30: Comparison of biogas flow from VEAS 2019 process data and VEAS process simulation to four VEAS process simulations with additional sludges.

Figure 4.31: Comparison of methane content in biogas from VEAS 2019 process data and VEAS process simulation to four VEAS simulations with additional sludges.

4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00 8000.00 9000.00 10000.00 11000.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Biogas flow [m3/day]

Time [day]

VEAS 2019 VEAS sim meso 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 62.00 64.00 66.00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Methane content [%]

Time [day]

VEAS 2019 VEAS sim meso 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Page 64:

Figure 4.32: Comparison of pH values from VEAS 2019 process data and VEAS process simulation to four VEAS simulations with additional sludges.

Page 65:

Figure 4.33: Comparison of acetate concentration from VEAS 2019 process data and VEAS process simulation to four VEAS simulations with additional sludges.

7.5 7.55 7.6 7.65 7.7 7.75 7.8 7.85 7.9

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

pH

Time [day]

VEAS 2019 VEAS sim meso 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Acetate concentration [kgCOD/m3]

Time [day]

VEAS 2019 VEAS sim meso 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Figure 4.34: Comparison of NH4 concentration from VEAS process simulation to four VEAS simulations with additional sludges.

Page 66:

Figure 4.35: Comparison of bicarbonate concentration from VEAS 2019 process data and VEAS process simulation to four VEAS simulations with additional sludges.

Page 66 - 67:

Table 4.3: Comparing some average results values from simulations with co-substrate against not altered VEAS process simulation. Average values calculated for the same time period for simulation 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and

VEAS process simulation.

Results compared Relative differences

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

NH4 concentration [kmol/m3]

Time [day]

VEAS sim 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

HCO3 concentration [kmol/m3]

Time [day]

VEAS 2019 VEAS sim meso 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

pH [%]

Acetate [%]

HCO3 [%]

NH4 [%]

Methane content [%]

Biogas flow [%]

VEAS sim meso to 5.1 0.99 693.71 3.48 28.89 0.44 -12.60 VEAS sim meso to 5.2 1.08 14.10 5.31 -8.80 0.79 -8.75 VEAS sim meso to 5.3 -0.18 -56.36 -9.89 -26.43 -2.97 -5.20 VEAS sim meso to 5.4 0.91 28.54 3.80 -2.39 -0.19 -8.24

Page 79:

Figure 4.54: Comparison of simulated biogas flow from VEAS thermophilic simulations with and without additional sludge.

4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Biogas flow [m3/day]

Time [day]

VEAS sim thermo 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Figure 4.55: Comparison of simulated methane content in biogas from VEAS thermophilic simulations with and without additional sludge.

Page 80:

Figure 4.56: Comparison of simulated acetate concentration from VEAS thermophilic simulations with and without additional sludge.

48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Methane content [%]

Time [day]

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 VEAS sim thermo 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Acetate concentration [kgCOD/m3]

Time [day]

5.3 8.3

Figure 4.57: Comparison of simulated bicarbonate concentration from VEAS thermophilic simulations with and without additional sludge.

Page 81:

Figure 4.58: Comparison of simulated pH from VEAS thermophilic simulations with and without additional sludge.

0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

HCO3 concentration [kmol/m3]

Time [day]

VEAS sim thermo 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

7.6 7.65 7.7 7.75 7.8 7.85 7.9 7.95

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

pH

Time [day]

VEAS sim thermo 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Figure 4.59: Comparison of simulated NH4 from VEAS thermophilic simulations with and without additional sludge.

Page 82:

Table 4.8: Chosen simulations compared by relative difference. Calculation of difference based on the average value taken for the same period for all simulations.

Simulations compared

Relative differences

pH [%]

Acetate [%]

HCO3

[%] NH4 [%]

Methane content [%]

Biogas flow [%]

5.1 to 8.1 1.58 -66.56 0.05 -6.99 -10.02 20.53

5.2 to 8.2 1.15 -9.04 -6.97 -1.30 -10.33 16.92

5.3 to 8.3 1.30 35.17 -5.70 5.16 -9.79 16.18

5.4 to 8.4 1.14 -14.10 -7.16 -1.67 -10.31 17.14

0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

NH4 concentration [kmol/m3]

Time [day]

VEAS sim thermo 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Page 87:

Figure 4.66: Methane yield for VEAS 2019 process and all simulations (blue mesophilic process, orange thermophilic).

Page 88:

Figure 4.67: Volume of methane (STP) produced per year by VEAS in 2019 and simulated production for all simulations (blue mesophilic process, orange thermophilic).

0.199 0.261 0.270 0.271 0.269 0.273 0.277 0.252 0.266 0.266 0.269 0.267 0.270 0.265 0.265 0.231 0.234 0.266 0.264 0.307

0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

m3CH¤/kgCOD 1308144 1715920 1777047 1830634 1863365 1895926 1918773 1518879 1602036 1599300 1620046 1608029 1626587 1595170 1593794 1562932 1582638 1748853 2167489 2522886

0 500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000

Nm3/year

Figure 4.68: Potential energy production from methane for VEAS 2019 and all simulations (blue mesophilic process, orange thermophilic).

Page 89:

Figure 4.69: Difference in simulated potential energy from methane compared to VEAS mesophilic simulation (blue mesophilic process, orange thermophilic).

56

74 77 79 80 82 83

66 69 69 70 69 70 69 69 67 68 75 94

109

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

GWh/year

0.0 3.6 6.7 8.6 10.5 11.8

-11.5 -6.6 -6.8 -5.6 -6.3 -5.2 -7.0 -7.1 -8.9 -7.8 1.9

26.3 47.0

-20.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

%