Abstract
The presented dataset in this data article provides quantitative data on the production of bioenergy (biogas and biomethane) from mesophilic batch anaerobic digestion (AD) of thermally hydrolyzed organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). The discussion and interpretation of the data are provided in another publication entitled “Hydrothermal Pretreatment of Source Separated Organics for Enhanced Solubilization and Biomethane Recovery” (Razavi et al., 2019). The data and information presented in the current data article include (1) the ratio of soluble to particulate chemical oxygen demand (COD) under different thermal hydrolysis condition, (2) the daily measured biogas and biomethane data, (3) the cumulative methane yield data in terms of mL CH4 produced per gram of volatile suspended solids (VSS) as well as feedstock added, (4) the ultimate methane yield data as well as the relative improvement in methane recovery compared to the control (non-hydrolyzed) digester, (5) the data of first-order organics biodegradation rate constants, (6) the procedure of measuring biogas composition via gas chromatography, (7) the procedure of converting the biogas/methane volume data acquired under the actual experimental condition (mesophilic temperature of 38 °C and atmospheric pressure) to the standard temperature (0 °C) and pressure (1 atm) condition, and (8) the procedure of determining the first-order kinetic rate constants.
Specifications table
| Subject area | Environmental engineering |
| More specific subject area | Anaerobic digestion, biological treatment, thermal hydrolysis, waste minimization, bioenergy |
| Type of data | Table, figures |
| How data were acquired | The gas chromatography was employed to determine the methane content of the produced biogas. A Hach spectrophotometer (model DR3900) was used the analysis the chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the samples calorimetrically. The volume of the produced biogas was measured manually with a Poulten & Graf Fortuna™ air-sealed glass syringe (capacity of 100 m) throughout the biochemical methane potential (BMP) assay. To analyze the soluble COD (SCOD), the samples were centrifuged for 20 min at 10,000 rpm using a Sorvall Legend XT centrifuge (Fisher Scientific, US). Then, the liquid fraction (supernatant) of the centrifuged samples was passed through 0.45 µm microfiber filters. The analysis including the analysis of ANOVA and the interactions analysis was done using Minitab Software 17. |
| Data format | Raw, analyzed |
| Experimental factors | Thermal hydrolysis parameters include temperature (°C), holding time (min), pressure (kPa), and severity index (–). All the digesters were operated at the mesophilic temperature of 38 °C. |
| Experimental features | Thermal hydrolysis experiments were conducted under wide ranges of temperature, retention time, and pressure so that it covers the severity index range of 3–5 commonly used in industrial applications. Fifteen different thermal hydrolysis conditions were applied to the OFMSW samples. The thermal hydrolysis temperature, pressure, and holding time ranged from 150 to 240 °C, 476 to 3367 kPa, and 5 to 30 min, respectively. The BMP test was performed using raw (non-pretreated) and thermally hydrolyzed OFMSW samples. The BMP assay as well as the sample analyses were performed in triplicates. |
| Data source location | Toronto, Canada |
| Data accessibility | Data are presented in this article |
| Related research article | A.S. Razavi, E. Hosseini Koupaie, A. Azizi, H. Hafez, E. Elbeshbishy, Hydrothermal pretreatment of source separated organics for enhanced solubilization and biomethane recovery, Bioresour. Technol. [1] |
Value of the data
-
•
The data explain the procedure for converting the gas volume data obtained under specific experimental conditions (e.g., specific temperature and/or pressure) into the values under a standard condition (e.g. 0 °C, 1 atm).
-
•
Data standardization provide the opportunity to compare the data acquired under different experimental conditions.
-
•
The dataset covering a wide range of thermal hydrolysis conditions might be used as a benchmark to validate the findings of other studies.
-
•
The data highlight the importance of selecting the optimum ranges of temperature, pressure, and retention time for thermal hydrolysis of OFMSW prior to the AD process.
-
•
The kinetics rate data provide valuable information regarding the rate of the anaerobic digestion thermally hydrolyzed OFMSW.
1. Data
The ratio of soluble to particulate COD in the raw and thermally hydrolyzed OFMSW samples are compared in Fig. 1. The experimentally measured biogas and biomethane production data throughout the BMP experiment are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The cumulative biomethane yield in terms of mL CH4/g VSS-added and L CH4/L feedstock-added are illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. The ultimate methane yield of the digesters fed with raw and thermally hydrolyzed substrates are compared in Fig. 4. The percentage improvements in the ultimate methane yield of the thermally hydrolyzed digesters in comparison with that of the control digester are shown in Fig. 5. The first-order specific biodegradation rate constants of the BMP digesters are presented in Fig. 6.
Fig. 1.
The ratio of soluble to particulate COD.
Table 1.
Daily biogas production data from the BMP digesters at a temperature of 38 °C (mL).
| Time (day) |
Severity index (SI) temperature (°C)-holding time (min) |
Control | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
3 |
3.5 |
4 |
4.5 |
5 |
||||||||||||
| 150 °C 30 min | 160 °C 20 min | 170 °C 10 min | 170 °C 30 min | 180 °C 15 min | 190 °C 10 min | 190 °C 20 min | 200 °C 10 min | 210 °C 10 min | 210 °C 20 min | 220 °C 10 min | 230 °C 05 min | 220 °C 30 min | 230 °C 15 min | 240 °C 20 min | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 42 | 54 | 43 | 59 | 47 | 31 | 36 | 26 | 30 | 28 | 27 | 43 | 37 | 45 | 42 | 49 |
| 4 | 99 | 110 | 111 | 111 | 105 | 68 | 74 | 54 | 63 | 65 | 56 | 79 | 89 | 78 | 71 | 93 |
| 7 | 199 | 209 | 210 | 215 | 207 | 124 | 134 | 104 | 119 | 107 | 96 | 116 | 152 | 118 | 105 | 153 |
| 9 | 345 | 355 | 359 | 367 | 356 | 179 | 197 | 160 | 175 | 164 | 149 | 166 | 220 | 176 | 158 | 209 |
| 13 | 433 | 451 | 464 | 473 | 459 | 274 | 321 | 292 | 284 | 309 | 246 | 344 | 250 | 324 | 323 | 360 |
| 15 | 557 | 577 | 596 | 607 | 598 | 424 | 485 | 439 | 428 | 453 | 348 | 496 | 340 | 430 | 440 | 465 |
| 17 | 692 | 711 | 743 | 758 | 740 | 620 | 672 | 624 | 606 | 622 | 500 | 634 | 650 | 560 | 556 | 600 |
| 20 | 741 | 755 | 802 | 815 | 805 | 760 | 825 | 794 | 765 | 761 | 695 | 733 | 763 | 690 | 690 | 660 |
| 22 | 768 | 783 | 831 | 846 | 837 | 815 | 874 | 846 | 813 | 831 | 777 | 782 | 806 | 760 | 764 | 680 |
| 27 | 787 | 803 | 851 | 865 | 854 | 857 | 924 | 894 | 854 | 878 | 835 | 823 | 824 | 836 | 829 | 713 |
| 30 | 826 | 844 | 882 | 897 | 886 | 889 | 945 | 920 | 889 | 906 | 865 | 851 | 857 | 856 | 859 | 735 |
| 35 | 855 | 873 | 915 | 933 | 920 | 920 | 970 | 942 | 922 | 917 | 888 | 871 | 890 | 880 | 864 | 765 |
| 38 | 860 | 885 | 919 | 936 | 924 | 941 | 977 | 956 | 944 | 927 | 909 | 891 | 895 | 888 | 886 | 780 |
| 41 | 864 | 891 | 924 | 939 | 939 | 958 | 982 | 969 | 951 | 936 | 915 | 897 | 901 | 900 | 884 | 785 |
Table 2.
Daily biomethane production data from the BMP digesters at a temperature of 38 °C (mL).
| Time (day) |
Severity index (SI) temperature (°C)-holding time (min) |
Control | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
3 |
3.5 |
4 |
4.5 |
5 |
||||||||||||
| 150 °C 30 min | 160 °C 20 min | 170 °C 10 min | 170 °C 30 min | 180 °C 15 min | 190 °C 10 min | 190 °C 20 min | 200 °C 10 min | 210 °C 10 min | 210 °C 20 min | 220 °C 10 min | 230 °C 05 min | 220 °C 30 min | 230 °C 15 min | 240 °C 20 min | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 27 | 35 | 28 | 38 | 31 | 20 | 23 | 17 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 28 | 24 | 29 | 27 | 32 |
| 4 | 64 | 72 | 72 | 72 | 68 | 44 | 48 | 35 | 41 | 42 | 36 | 51 | 58 | 51 | 46 | 60 |
| 7 | 129 | 136 | 137 | 140 | 135 | 81 | 87 | 68 | 77 | 70 | 62 | 75 | 99 | 77 | 68 | 99 |
| 9 | 224 | 231 | 233 | 239 | 231 | 116 | 128 | 104 | 114 | 107 | 97 | 108 | 143 | 114 | 103 | 136 |
| 13 | 281 | 293 | 302 | 307 | 298 | 178 | 209 | 190 | 185 | 201 | 160 | 224 | 163 | 211 | 210 | 234 |
| 15 | 362 | 375 | 387 | 395 | 389 | 276 | 315 | 285 | 278 | 294 | 226 | 322 | 221 | 280 | 286 | 302 |
| 17 | 450 | 462 | 483 | 493 | 481 | 403 | 437 | 406 | 394 | 404 | 325 | 412 | 423 | 364 | 361 | 390 |
| 20 | 482 | 491 | 521 | 530 | 523 | 494 | 536 | 516 | 497 | 495 | 452 | 476 | 496 | 449 | 449 | 429 |
| 22 | 499 | 509 | 540 | 550 | 544 | 530 | 568 | 550 | 528 | 540 | 505 | 508 | 524 | 494 | 497 | 442 |
| 27 | 512 | 522 | 553 | 562 | 555 | 557 | 601 | 581 | 555 | 571 | 543 | 535 | 536 | 543 | 539 | 463 |
| 30 | 537 | 549 | 573 | 583 | 576 | 578 | 614 | 598 | 578 | 589 | 562 | 553 | 557 | 556 | 558 | 478 |
| 35 | 556 | 567 | 595 | 606 | 598 | 598 | 631 | 612 | 599 | 596 | 577 | 566 | 579 | 572 | 562 | 497 |
| 38 | 559 | 575 | 597 | 608 | 601 | 612 | 635 | 621 | 614 | 603 | 591 | 579 | 582 | 577 | 576 | 507 |
| 41 | 562 | 579 | 601 | 610 | 610 | 623 | 638 | 630 | 618 | 608 | 595 | 583 | 586 | 585 | 575 | 510 |
Fig. 2.
The cumulative methane yields of the BMP digesters as mL CH4/g VSS-added.
Fig. 3.
The cumulative methane yields of the BMP digesters as L CH4/L feedstock-added.
Fig. 4.
The ultimate methane yield as mL CH4/g VSS-added.
Fig. 5.
Percentage improvement in ultimate methane yield compared to the control (non-pretreated) digester (%).
Fig. 6.
First-order specific biodegradation rate constant of the raw and thermally hydrolyzed digesters.
2. Experimental design, materials and methods
2.1. Procedure of volume data conversion to the standard temperature & pressure condition
The volume of the produced biogas/methane throughout the BMP assay under the mesophilic temperature of 38 °C and atmospheric room pressure was converted to the standard temperature & pressure condition (0 °C and 1 atm) using Eq. (1)
| (1) |
where,
: Biogas/methane volume of the at the standard temperature & pressure condition (mL)
: Actual recorded biogas/methane volume (mL)
: Actual atmospheric pressure at the time of recording the biogas/methane volume (atm)
: Standard pressure (1 atm)
: Standard temperature ()
: Digester temperature ()
2.2. Biodegradation kinetics rate calculation
The data regarding the rate of organics (COD, VSS, etc.) biodegradation through the digestion process were defined by the first-order reaction model [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Eq. (2) shows the kinetic reaction model used to calculate the first-order rate constants data for the TCOD degradation of the digesters.
| (2) |
in which , , and are respectively the organics removal rate (e.g., TCOD degradation rate in mg/L.d), the first-order specific biodegradation rate constant (1/d), and the remaining concentration of organics (e.g., TCOD concentration in mg/L) at time t. By integrating and rearranging Eqs. (2) and (3) will be obtained as follows:
| (3) |
in which is the ultimate biodegradable organics concentration (mg/L), and the rest of the parameters are as defined before.
2.3. Analytical procedure
The amount of the daily biogas production was measured manually using a 100 mL air-tight Poulten & Graf Fortuna™ glass syringe. The composition of the biogas produced throughout the BMP assay was measured in terms of CH4, CO2, and H2 gases using a gas chromatograph (Thermo Scientific Trace 1310). The Trace 1310 gas chromatograph was equipped with a packed column (model: TG-Bond Msieve 5A) with 30 m length and diameter of 0.53 mm. It was also utilized a thermal conductivity detector with oven, filament, and detector temperatures of 80, 250, and 100 °C, respectively. The analysis of COD was performed calorimetrically following the closed reflux methodology outlined by the Standard Methods [8]. A Hach spectrophotometer (model DR3900) was used for COD analysis and the measurements were done at the wavelength at 600 nm. The statistical analysis was performed using Minitab Software 17.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the financial support received from Southern Ontario Water Consortium (SOWC). The authors also thank the technical support from Disco Road organics processing facility in Toronto, Canada.
Footnotes
Transparency document associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2019.01.018.
Transparency document. Supplementary material
Supplementary material
.
References
- 1.Razavi A.S., Hosseini Koupaie E., Azizi A., Hafez H., Elbeshbishy E. Hydrothermal pretreatment of source separated organics for enhanced solubilization and biomethane recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 2019;274:502–511. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.E.H. Koupaie, Radio frequency sludge hydrolysis as an energy efficient alternative to microwave and conductive heating for advanced anaerobic digestion, in: School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada, 2017.
- 3.Mahmoodi P., Karimi K., Taherzadeh M.J. Hydrothermal processing as pretreatment for efficient production of ethanol and biogas from municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2018;261:166–175. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.03.115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Carrere H., Dumas C., Battimelli A., Batsone D.J., Delgenes J.P., Steyer J.P. Pretreatment methods to improve sludge anaerobic degradability: a review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010;183:1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.06.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Karthikeyan O.P., Trably E., Mehariya S., Bernet N., Wong J.W., Carrere H. Pretreatment of food waste for methane and hydrogen recovery: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018;249:1025–1039. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hosseini Koupaie E., Johnson T., Eskicioglu C. Comparison of different electricity-based thermal pretreatment methods for enhanced bioenergy production from municipal sludge. Molecules. 2018;23:1–15. doi: 10.3390/molecules23082006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Wang C., Xie S., Zhong M. Effect of hydrothermal pretreatment on kitchen waste for biodiesel production using alkaline catalyst. Waste Biomass Valorization. 2017;8:369–377. [Google Scholar]
- 8.APHA . Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. American Public Health Association; Washington, DC, USA: 2005. (WPCF) [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary material






