The need for more sustainable landfilling has increased interest in bioreactor landfills as a suitable tool for optimising degradation processes. Bioreactors can be categorised as follows: anaerobic, aerobic, semi aerobic and hybrid. The choice of a specific bioreactor can be strongly influenced by the desired treatment objectives (i.e., energy recovery, increased rate of waste stabilisation, washing) as well as by the specific site conditions (e.g., waste characteristics, climate and social/economic situation, regulations). However, the increased rate of waste stabilisation should be the primary driving principle in the bioreactor landfill design (Cossu, 2010). Full-scale bioreactor landfills are still uncommon and one of the reasons is the perception that the effectiveness of this technology is not well demonstrated. This paper aims to contribute to filling this knowledge gap by analysing and comparing the lab scale applications of different types of bioreactors available in the literature and providing a survey of the different methods by considering their respective advantages and disadvantages. Qualitative analysis of the main types of bioreactor landfills is provided according to a few selected characteristics (i.e. energy recovery, biochemical kinetics, technological complexity, costs). Considering landfill sustainability, the discussion is primarily focused on the quantification of the stabilisation capability of the different bioreactors which is calculated in terms of COD and ammonia removal kinetics. The results demonstrate that the optimisation of COD removal kinetics is the highest in aerated bioreactors, while ammonia removal kinetics is maximum in hybrid bioreactors (i.e., 6 and 10 times higher, respectively, compared to the anaerobic bioreactors).

BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS: COMPARISON AND KINETICS OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS

Grossule, Valentina
;
Morello, Luca;Cossu, Raffaello;Lavagnolo, Maria Cristina
2018

Abstract

The need for more sustainable landfilling has increased interest in bioreactor landfills as a suitable tool for optimising degradation processes. Bioreactors can be categorised as follows: anaerobic, aerobic, semi aerobic and hybrid. The choice of a specific bioreactor can be strongly influenced by the desired treatment objectives (i.e., energy recovery, increased rate of waste stabilisation, washing) as well as by the specific site conditions (e.g., waste characteristics, climate and social/economic situation, regulations). However, the increased rate of waste stabilisation should be the primary driving principle in the bioreactor landfill design (Cossu, 2010). Full-scale bioreactor landfills are still uncommon and one of the reasons is the perception that the effectiveness of this technology is not well demonstrated. This paper aims to contribute to filling this knowledge gap by analysing and comparing the lab scale applications of different types of bioreactors available in the literature and providing a survey of the different methods by considering their respective advantages and disadvantages. Qualitative analysis of the main types of bioreactor landfills is provided according to a few selected characteristics (i.e. energy recovery, biochemical kinetics, technological complexity, costs). Considering landfill sustainability, the discussion is primarily focused on the quantification of the stabilisation capability of the different bioreactors which is calculated in terms of COD and ammonia removal kinetics. The results demonstrate that the optimisation of COD removal kinetics is the highest in aerated bioreactors, while ammonia removal kinetics is maximum in hybrid bioreactors (i.e., 6 and 10 times higher, respectively, compared to the anaerobic bioreactors).
9788862650557
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11577/3295731
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 13
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact