Design of Stirred Digester with Optimization
of Energy and Power Consumption
Mahmood Mahmoodi-Eshkaftaki,a Rahim Ebrahimi,a and Abdollah Ghasemi-Pirbalotib
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering of Biosystems, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran;
Rahim.ebrahimi@gmail.com (for correspondence)
b
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord,
P.O. Box: 166, Iran
Published online 12 September 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ep.12451
The goal of the present study was to design a new stirred
digester according to laboratory experiments. For this pur-
pose, amount of methane produced from co-digestion of
municipal waste, kitchen waste, and cow manure in differ-
ent treatments was measured in laboratory conditions for
378C. The substrate characteristics such as both total and vol-
atile solids, pH, EC, amount of total carbon, nitrogen, phos-
phorus, potassium, and sulfate which can manage the
methane production were measured. The results showed that
the amounts of these characteristics were in suitable ranges
for biogas production. The laboratory experiment results were
then used to design an anaerobic digester for single-family
homes based on energy efficiency and mixing cost. As a
result, the digester diameter, digester height, slurry height,
baffle width, impeller diameter, blade width, blade length,
and volume of designed stirred digester were determined as
57, 90, 60, 4.75, 25, 4, 10 cm, and 229 L, respectively. Fur-
thermore, pitched blade turbine with six blades at 458 for
speed of 300 rpm not only required a low power but also
produced a high torque. Therefore, while the designed biogas
plant consumes low energy, it has high mixing cost.
Nowadays, the researchers in bio-system engineering focus
on the designing biogas plant according to the direct relation
among the power, torque, and energy. The novelty of the arti-
cle is not only an evaluation of main substrate characteris-
tics on methane production, but also design a new digester
with high methane content at suitable pressure based on the
best relation among the equipment dimensions of digester
determined using shape factors. Furthermore study of impel-
ler types and rotation speeds for providing high torque in low
power and reducing energy consumption indirectly, and
uses rule of thumb for power consumption to determine the
best impeller type and rotation speed. VC 2016 American Insti-
tute of Chemical Engineers Environ Prog, 36: 104–110, 2017
Keywords: anaerobic digestion, impeller, methane produc-
tion, rule of thumb
INTRODUCTION
Iran has abundant renewable energy resources, including
solar energy, wind power, geothermal energy, and biogas
resources. By developing such energy sources developing
country can reduce their dependence on oil and natural gas,
creating energy portfolios that are less vulnerable to price
C 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
V was obtained from Water and Wastewater Authority in
104 January 2017 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep
rises [1]. Over the past decade, a lot of researches on bio-
mass energy especially biogas have resulted in development
and establishment of industrial plants, powered via biogas
energy [1]. The researches focused on the development of
anaerobic digestion by combining the wastes, optimizing the
digester design and mixing process [2–6]. Some of researches
has been carried out on the biochemistry of anaerobic diges-
tion such as total solids (TS), total volatile solids (TVS), total
carbon (TC), nitrogen (TN), phosphorus (TP), sulfate (SO22 4 ),
potassium (TK), ratio TC/TN, pH, and temperature [2–4], and
good process monitoring can help control, optimize and
evaluate the biogas process very well.
Although many residues of cultivation are used in the
anaerobic digestion processes (maize, vegetable waste. . .) in
co-digestion with animal manure to improve biogas yields
[7,8]. Few examples exist about the co-digestion of cow
manure, municipal waste and kitchen waste [9–11], while in
countries these biomass are very popular. Therefore, effect
of co-digestion of these substrates on biogas production is
analyzed in this research in order to establish the best blend.
Not only a change in substrate combination but also
change in building digester can cause various problems in
anaerobic digestion, particularly with different mixing. While
there are little scientific literatures available to optimize a
digester with different impellers according to different
mechanical parameters, especially power consumption [12].
Most information about mixing systems in anaerobic
digestion is obtained from lab-scale experiments with model
substrates, which give some information about large-scale
processes. Scientific publications on large-scale biogas plants
relevant substrates are rare because the systems are very
complex. Therefore, the aims of the present work are: to set
up different treatments based on mixture proportions in lab-
scale digesters; investigate the influence of substrate charac-
teristics on biogas/methane production; design of the semi-
industrial biogas plant aligned by the results of the lab-scale
digesters; select suitable impeller type and rotation speed
based on energy optimization and mixing cost.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The biogas productions from preparing a slurry compris-
ing a combination of cow manure, municipal waste, and
kitchen waste diluted with tap water in the lab-scale
digesters were analyzed in this research. Municipal waste
secondary stage of purification with moisture content of
94%. Its concentration was 1.024 g/mL measured according
to the literature [8]. Cow manure was obtained from the
research farm of Shahrekord University, Iran with moisture
content of 65%. It was diluted with tap water until its con-
centration reach near the municipal waste concentration [11].
Kitchen waste was cut into particulates by cutter and grinded
into small fine particles by a home type coffee grinder. Its
moisture content was 52%. It was diluted with tap water until
its concentration reach near the municipal waste concentra-
tion, too. The diluted substrates were first made anaerobic in
the three particular vessels (1.8 L) shown in Figure 1 using
N2 99%. To this goal, N2 was injected to the vessels up to 5
min and the substrates was lasted 5 days. Then the prepared
substrates were co-digested in air tight glass reactors of vol-
ume 250 mL by butyl rubber stoppers in the different sub-
strate blends shown in Table 1 (7 treatments). Each
combination was repeated three times. The substrate blends
were made according to the substrate density to depend the
blends on substrate TS. In the previous researches the blends
depended on the volumetric fraction of each substrate which
is not very precise [8,9]. The trials were carried out under
mesophilic conditions (37 6 18C) within a water bath for a
period of 40 days, and methane (CH4) production were
measured.
The performance of biogas plants can be controlled by the
variation in substrate characteristics. Any drastic change in these
parameters can adversely affect the biogas production [13].
Therefore, the physical and chemical properties of prepared
substrates before and after of digestion were also analyzed.
Substrate Characteristics
The TS, TVS, pH, and EC were analyzed in accordance with
Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater
(CEN/TS 14774; CEN/TS 14775 and CEN/TS 15148). TC, TN, TP,
and TK were measured using titration method [14], Keldar appa-
ratus, Spectrophotometer, Flame photometer, respectively.
SO22
4 was determined using weighting. The CH4 content was
determined according to ppm and % Vol by a multifunction gas
detector brand GMI Ltd. model GT43 used in temperature limit
220–508C and 0–95% relative humidity.

Design a New Digester

Figure 1. Particular glass vessels for replacing the substrate
O2 with N2 to anaerobic early.
Table 1. Mixture the prepared substrates in lab-scale
digesters.
Municipal
Treatments waste (g)
1 200
2 0
3 0
4 66.67
5 100
6 0
7 100
The results obtained from the lab-scale digesters can be
extrapolated at large-scale pilot plant. For this purpose, a
typical industrial system is proposed for the large-scale
digester (Figure 2). It has a mixer and four baffle plates [15].
As it is shown digester diameter, slurry height, impeller diam-
eter, impeller depth, and distance between the impeller and
the slurry surface have been illustrated as parameters of Dt,
Z, Dim, a, and b in the figure, respectively. These parameters
were determined according to the assumptions reported in
the Pietranski [15] researches.
The selection of the motors is one of the important regu-
lations for the effective power consumption by a mixing sys-
Cow Kitchen tem as the motors are the largest part of the energy
manure (g) waste (g) consumers. The power consumed by a mixer in a process
fluid can be calculated with Eq. (1) [16].
0 0
200 0
0 200 NP Ns 3 Dim 5 SG
Pw 5 (1)
66.67 66.67 1:5331013
100 0
100 100 where Pw, NP, Ns, SG, and 1.53 3 1013 are power (hp), pow-
0 100 er number of impeller, impeller speed (rpm), specific gravity,
and conversion factor, respectively. As can be seen from the

Figure 2. The typical industrial system for a large-scale digester.

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep January 2017 105
equation, changes in Ns and Dim have a major impact on
required Pw to operate the impeller. The NP can be decided
depending on the slurry viscosity (l) indicated by the modi-
fied Reynolds number (NRe). The NRe is defined as Eq. (2)
[17].
Ns Dim 2 q
NRe 5 (2)
l
where q is density of slurry. Figure 3 is a typical power cor-
relation curve for mixed liquid batches [15]. Both of the axes
are defined in logarithmic scale. The x-axis is the NRe calcu-
lated by Eq. (3). The y-axis is the experimentally determined
NP. The plot indicates that at various stages of flow regimes;
laminar, transitional, and turbulent, the NP varies with the
NRe [17]. It can be seen from the plot, which as the NRe is
increased from early stages of turbulence (NRe > 10,000) to
increasingly larger NRe, the NP becomes constant [15,18]. The
NP constants in turbulence stage for the various impeller
types according to impeller shape factors listed in [15].
The higher torque (not necessarily higher Pw) equal with
the higher mixer cost. In flow-controlled mixing processes,
torque equal with mixer flow 3 a constant, which is in turn
equal to process result [19]. The torque required for any mix-
ing process will affect the size and type of mixer drive and
also have a direct impact on mixer shaft design.
Pw 3 73025
Torque5 (3)
Ns
The mixer shaft vibrates when subjected to outside forces. It
has a predetermined vibrational frequency (harmonic),
which remains constant as long as the composition of the
shaft and the shaft-impeller relationship is not altered. This
Figure 3. The impeller power number changes with Reyn-
olds number [15].
vibrational frequency is called natural frequency. A mixer
shaft must also deal with the forces of rotation. These speeds
(vibration and rational) are called “critical” because they are
the speeds at which the two frequencies reinforce one
another. This condition has the potential to set up destructive
force. The relationship of shaft length and impeller weight to
critical speed (Ncr) is given by the following equation [15].
 2 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Dsh u
uh E
Ncr 5146:4 t ih i (4)
Lsh Lsh 1bs pDsh 2 q 4:31We
Lsh 4 Lsh
where Dsh, Lsh, bs, We, and E are shaft diameter, shaft length,
bearing spacing, equivalent weight of impellers, and modu-
lus of elasticity, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Substrate Characteristics
The density of prepared substrates, municipal waste, cow
manure, and kitchen waste before the digestion were 1.068,
1.093, and 0.996 g/mL, respectively. Corresponding values
after 40 days of digestion were 1.005, 1.003, and 1.002 g/mL,
respectively. It was shown that the density of municipal
waste and cow manure decreased after digestion while the
density of kitchen waste increased. The reason for increasing
inhabitation of the density of kitchen waste is not fully
known, but it is suggested that it may be due to the fact of
solution the solid particles in water during the digestion.
Some of the physical and chemical parameters of the pre-
pared substrates have been reported in Table 2. The results
showed that TS and TVS of kitchen waste were lower than
the other substrates. These findings agreed with other
researches [20] in which having the kitchen waste lower TS
and TVS contents, possibly because the kitchen waste stream
contains food with higher moisture contents such as fruits. It
was shown that amount of TS of municipal waste, cow
manure, and kitchen waste decreased 46, 57, and 46% after
digestion, while amount of TVS of these substrates decreased
82, 92, and 85%, respectively. The results are near to those
reported in other researches [20,21]. They have reported that
among 58–99% of the TVS of a slurry were degraded to CH4
and carbon dioxide.
As it is reported in Table 2, amounts of the TK and
SO22
4 in the prepared substrates were little and have not been
a negative effect on biogas production [22]. The amounts of
TP, TN, pH in the substrates were in a suitable range for bio-
gas production reported in researches [9,13,14]. Furthermore,
amounts of TC, TN, TC/TN, TS, and TVS of the prepared
substrates were useful for high biogas production [9].

Table 2. Characteristics of prepared substrates before and after the digestion.

Before digestion After digestion

Municipal Cow Kitchen Municipal Cow Kitchen
Properties Waste manure waste waste manure waste
pH 7.62 7.50 8.20 7.42 7.91 8.35
EC (ds/M) 2.50 1.76 2.40 1.82 1.83 1.68
TC (%) 35.90 15.90 15.40 22.40 10.70 5.40
TN (%) 2.30 0.53 1.98 0.91 0.42 0.45
TC/TN 15.60 30.00 7.78 24.61 25.47 12.00
TK (ppm) 167.5 135.0 140.0 91.4 244.3 212.2
TP (ppm) 28.06 20.70 11.82 10.77 8.04 7.20
SO22
4 (ppm) 3.14 2.42 2.39 1.43 0.83 1.49
TVS (mg/L) 3346.43 3592.86 857.14 626.67 261.9 125.71
TS (mg/L) 7153.57 4839.29 3553.57 3815.24 1906.67 1895.24

106 January 2017 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep

Figure 4. CH4 yield by anaerobic co-digestion of prepared
substrates in different treatments.
CH4 Production from Co-Digestion
Figure 4 shows the CH4 content in the biogas obtained
using a digestion period of 40 days at the different mixture
ratios. The mean amounts of CH4 content for treatments 1–7
(Table 1) were 4363.25, 875.13, 169.13, 3424.38, 2911.88,
2714.38, and 193.5 ppm, respectively. As it is shown the CH4
content from municipal waste was the highest among the
treatments (treatment 1) and after that the 1:1:1 combination
of the three substrates (treatment 4) was more. The CH4 con-
tent was low in the first seven days of digestion, and thereaf-
ter rapidly increased over 85% within 22 days. The results
show that the highest CH4 yields for all treatments were
observed for 30–35 days of digestion which was agreed with
previous researches [23].
Design the Large-Scale Digester
The substrate characteristics and high CH4 yields deter-
mined in the lab-scale experiments were analyzed to design
a biogas plant based on the CH4 production for single-family
homes. For this obstacle, the equipment dimensions of the
large-scale digester (Figure 2) should be determined. The
lab-scale experiments showed that the most average of CH4
productions were 4363.25 ppm (0.436% Vol) for treatment 1
and after that 3424.38 ppm (0.342% Vol) for treatment 4
obtained during 22–40 days of digestion. The amount of gas
injected into the gas detector for each measurement five
days was 4 mL. Therefore, for CH4 content of 0.436% Vol the
CH4 production rate as Eq. (5) was equaled to 0.0009 m3/h,
3
and for CH4 content of 0.342% Vol it was 0:0007 mh .
CH4 production
Methane production rate5
amount of injection
(5)
0:436 L L m3
5 23 5109 50:9 50:0009
4310 5 day h h
By assuming that increase in biogas slurry amount will cause
to increase in CH4 production amount with the same rate,
the following calculation can be done.
The biogas consumption
3
in a home for lighting, heating,
and cooking is 1.5mh [24], which is 1666.67 times more than
biogas production in lab-scale digesters by treatment 1 and
2142.85 times more than biogas production from treatment 4.
As a results, the volume needing for the large-scale digester
is equal to 1666.67 3 250 mL 5 416.67 L for municipal waste
slurry and 535.7 L for slurry produced by 1:1:1 combination
of the substrates. These volumes are smaller than those
reported by other researches [8,20,21], as the designed vol-
ume is 1/3 lower than traditional digester volume. According
to standard sizes choose from tank market, a tank with 220 L
volume was selected for digester, which was nearly 1/2 the
calculated volume.
If it is assumed that 2/3 of digester volume is filled with
the prepared co-substrates, the CH4 production amount will
Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep
be 0.75 m3 equal to 33.48 mol in an hour (one mol of a gas
at STP occupies 22.4 L). The pressure of produced biogas in
the dead volume of digester (the remaining volume of
digester) based on Avogadro’s law is determined to be 16.85
bar, which is enough high for consumption.
The diameter, height, and wall thickness of selected cylin-
drical digester tank (220 L volume) were 57, 90, and 1 cm,
respectively. By using the digester tank size and the relations
exist among the dimensions of digester equipment, the
dimensions of large-scale digester details were determined as
described in Table 3. The dimensions were selected accord-
ing to standard sizes choose from markets.
Given that the material selected for the impeller is Alumi-
num, its E is equal to 70 Gpa and its density is 2.7 g/cm3.
Furthermore, Lsh, Dsh, bs, and We is suggested to 50, 2,
12.5 cm and 2 kg, respectively. By substitution these values
in Eq. (4), the Ncr was approximately equal to 46000 rpm,
which was much larger than rotation speeds of impellers
using in the anaerobic digesters. Therefore, the shaft and
impellers with the nearly same dimensions work safe.
The dimensions of digester were then used to calculate
the shape factors S1–S9 (Table 3) fully explained in literatures
[15,17,25,26]. The shape factors in association with impeller
types can be used to determine the NP, when it is constant.
For the NRe > 10,000, the NP becomes constant. As it is
shown in Eq. (2), the q and l of biogas slurry should be
determined to calculate the NRe.
The q of biogas slurry was determined by averaging of
three substrate densities (Eq. (6)) and l was determined in
378C according to literature [15] equal to 0:719 31023 Nm2S .
1:06811:09310:996
qmean 5 51:052 g=mL
3
(6)
qmean 1:052
SG5 5 51:058
qwater ð37 CÞ 0:994
By substitution the parameters in Eq. (2), the NRe for rotation
speed 30 rpm was equaled to 21:25 3 105 which is more
than 10,000. Therefore, the yielded flow is in turbulent flow
regime and NP becomes constant. The NP of some impellers
determined based on the shape factors has been reported in
Table 4. By substitution the parameters in Eq. (1), the power
required was calculated. This would be corrected back to the
mixer motor and account for efficiency losses in the motor,
gearbox, and bearings by using a safety factor of 1.5 [25]. To
select a motor for agitation it should be rounded up to the
next higher motor horsepower according to standard sizes
choose from markets [18].
In addition to power consumption, the rotation speeds at
which effective high torque is obtained are also very impor-
tant. The higher torque equal with the higher mixing cost.
As it is shown in Table 5, the torque increased as the rota-
tion speed increased. A 1 hp motor could be used to rotate
the mixer for the rotation speed lower than 300 rpm while
by increasing the speed up to 300 rpm, the power was pro-
gressively increased. To select a better motor for providing
the suitable power and torque, a rule of thumb was used
that has been utilized as a rough guide for quickly estimating
mechanical mixer power requirements for viscos fluids given
as Pw (hp)/V(1000 gal) [19]. The rule of thumb for power
consumption is ranged from 0.5–1, 2–5, and >5 for mild, vig-
orous, and intensive agitation, respectively [27,28]. Lettinga
already suggested in 1981 that minimal mixing may improve
high solids anaerobic digestion by providing a quiescent
environment for bacteria [27], while mixing at high loading
rates resulted in poor performance [16,29]. Intensive mixing
may prevent good performance of high solids anaerobic
digesters [30]. Therefore, we considered the high enough val-
ues of rule of thumbs bellow 5. The rule of thumbs selected
January 2017 107
Table 3. Designed dimensions for large-scale digester.

Dimensions of digester equipment Description Shape factor

Digester diameter (Dt) 5 57 cm Standard sizes in market S1 5 DDimt 52:3
Height of digester (Ht)5 90 cm Standard sizes in market S2 5 Daim 51:4
Impeller diameter (Dim) 5 25 cm 0:2Dt < Dim < 0:6Dt [15] S3 5 DLim
b
50:45
Slurry height (Z)5 60 cm Z5 23 3Ht [24] Dim
S4 5 Wb 55:5
Impeller ring diameter 5 5 cm According to [25] S5 5 DBt 512
Blade width (Wb) 5 4 cm Wb 5 Dim 2impeller 5ring diameter [28] S6 5 DZim 52:95
Blade length (Lb) 5 10 cm Lb 5 Dim 2impeller 2ring diameter S7 5 Number of blades
2
V 5229541:9 cm3 ð60:64 galÞ V 5 pD4t Z S8 5 Pitch and angle
2 3
Off-bottom (a) 5 25 cm 3 Dim < a < 2 Dim [15] S9 5 Number of baffles
Coverage (b)5 35 cm b 5Z-a [15]
Number of baffles 5 4
Baffle width (B) 5 4.75 cm B5 D12t [15]
Baffle angles 5 908
Baffle distance from bottom of digester 5 15.24 cm

Table 4. Power number of different impellers according to shape factors and Reynolds number [15].

Impeller NP
Marine propeller with four blades without pitch/angle 0.35
Curved full blade turbine with six blades without pitch/angle 2.7
Flat blade turbine with four blades without pitch/angle 6
Pitched blade turbine with six blades and 458 1.5
Flat paddle with two blades without pitch/angle 1.8

Table 5. Power required with safety factor of 1.5 and torque output for researched impellers and rotation speeds.

Pw (hp) Torque (Nm) Pw (hp)/V(1000 gal)

60 100 300 500 60 100 300 500 60 100 300 500
NP (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm) (rpm)
0.35 0.0004 0.002 0.048 0.221 0.465 1.293 11.631 32.308 0.007 0.033 0.787 3.623
1.5 0.0016 0.008 0.205 0.948 1.994 5.538 49.847 138.463 0.026 0.131 3.361 15.541
1.8 0.0019 0.009 0.246 1.138 2.393 6.646 59.816 166.155 0.031 0.147 5.033 18.655
2.7 0.0029 0.014 0.369 1.707 3.589 9.969 89.724 249.233 0.047 0.229 6.049 27.983
6 0.0066 0.030 0.819 3.792 7.976 22.154 199.387 553.851 0.108 0.492 13.426 62.164

The bold and underlined values mentioned the cases providing high torque in low power.

were 3.623 and 3.361 pertained to marine propeller with
four blades without pitch/angle at rotation speed of 500 rpm
and pitched blade turbine with six blades 458 at rotation
speed of 300 rpm, respectively. Corresponding values of
power required were 0.221 and 0.205 hp, and their torque
were 32.308 and 49.847 Nm. It is shown that the low power
requirement and high torque output pertained to 458 pitched
blade turbine with six blades at rotation speed of 300 rpm.
As a result the large-scale stirred digester was designed by
the dimensions of Dt, Ht, B, baffle distance from bottom of
digester, a, b, V , number of baffles, and baffle angles equal
to 57, 90, 4.75, 15.24, 25, 35 cm, 229 L, 4, and 908, respec-
tively. Furthermore, the best impeller type and rotation
speed were 458 pitched blade turbine with six blades (4 3
10 cm) and 300 rpm, respectively.
It can be concluded that using merged the laboratory
experimental results on small digesters, gas laws, and rela-
tions among the dimensions of digester equipment could
design a new large digester for production the CH4 by opti-
mizing the energy efficiency. Indeed, coupled these
parameters is a superior, cheaper, and faster method than
examine a large-scale digester. Therefore, this approach is an
appropriate method which not only can reduce the cost of
experiments and missed measurements but also can help the
researchers to improve the digesters and optimize the
energy.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the finding in this research, it can be concluded
that the lab-scale experimental results were efficient to design
an anaerobic industrial digester for production of biogas. The
lab-scale results in this research showed that anaerobic diges-
tion influenced by both substrate characteristics and substrate
blends. As the amounts of TC, TN, TC/TN, TK, TP, SO22 4 , pH,
TS, and TVS of the substrates were in a suitable range and the
prepared municipal waste and 1:1:1 combination of these sub-
strates could produce high CH4. By using the lab-scale experi-
mental results, gas laws, and relationship between digester
size and CH4 production, the dimensions of Ht, Dt, Z, B, Wb,
Lb, and V of large-scale designed digester were determined as

108 January 2017 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep
90, 57, 60, 4.75, 4, 10 cm, and 229 L, respectively. The volume 8. Chynoweth, D.P., Owens, J.M., & Legrand, R. (2001).
of the designed digester was lower than traditional digesters Renewable methane from anaerobic digestion of bio-
and produced biogas pressure was 2 times. Furthermore, the mass, Renewable Energy, 22, 1–8.
best impeller for the required process was 458 pitched blade 9. Salminen, E., & Rintala, J. (2002). Anaerobic digestion of
turbine with six blades and the best rotation speed was organic solid poultry slaughterhouse waste: A review,
300 rpm. It is therefore recommended that such anaerobic Bioresources Technology, 83, 13–26.
digestion system be increasingly employed in order to harness 10. Lopes, W.S., Leite, V.D., & Prasad, S. (2004). Influence of
these sources of “waste” energy and simultaneously protect inoculum on performance of anaerobic reactors for treating
the environment. municipal solid waste, Bioresources Technology, 94, 261–
266.
NOMENCLATURE 11. Torres-Castillo, R., Llabres-Luengo, P., & Mata-Alvarez, J.
a Off-bottom (2005). Temperature effect of anaerobic digestion of bedding
B Coverage straw in a one phase system at different inoculum concentra-
Bs Bearing spacing tion, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 54, 55–66.
B Baffle width 12. Kamarad, L., Pohn, S., Bochmann, G., & Harasek, M.
CH4 Methane (2013). Determination of mixing quality in biogas plant
Dim Impeller diameter digesters using tracer tests and computational fluid
Dt Digester diameter dynamics, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae
Dsh Shaft diameter Mendelianae Brunensis, 140, 1–13.
E Modulus of elasticity 13. Santosh, Y., Sreekrishnan, T.R., Kohli, S., & Rana, V.
Ht Digester height (2004). Enhancement of biogas production from solid
Lsh Shaft length substrates using different techniques: A review, Biore-
Lb Blade length sources Technology, 95, 1–10.
Ncr Critical speed 14. Rongping, L., Shulin, C., & Xiujiu, L. (2010). Biogas pro-
NP Power number of impeller duction from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with
NRe Reynolds number dairy manure in a two-phase digestion system, Applied
Ns Impeller speed Biochemistry & Biotechnology, 160, 643–654.
Pw Power 15. Pietranski, J.F. (2012). Mechanical agitator power require-
S Shape factor ments for liquid batches. PDHonline Course K103 (2
SO224 Sulfate PDH), 1–24.
SG Specific gravity 16. Mahmoodi-Eshkaftaki, M., Ebrahimi, R., Ghasemi-
TC Total carbon Pirbaloti, A., Khaksar, A.R., & Rahmani-Felavarjani, M.
TK Total potassium (2015). Design and force analysis of a stirred digester
TN Total nitrogen with curved full blade turbine by analytical and final ele-
TP Total phosphorus ment methods using Abacus software, Journal of
TS Total solids
Researches of Agricultural Machinery Mechanic, 3, 41–50.
TVS Total volatile solids
(In Persian).
V Digester volume
17. Harnby, N., Edwards, M.F., Nienow, A.W., & Edwards,
Wb Blade width
M.F. (1987). Mixing in the process industries (pp. 131–
We Equivalent weight of impeller
140), Boston: Buttersworth.
Z Slurry height
18. Aiba, S., Humphrey, A.E., & Millis, N.F. (1973). Biochemi-
l Viscosity
cal engineering (2nd Edition, pp. 174–175, 304). New
q Density
York: Academic Press.
LITERATURE CITED 19. McCabe, W.L., & Julian, C.S. (1976). Unit operations of
1. Sabetghadam, M. (2005). Energy and sustainable develop- chemical engineering (3rd Edition, pp. 222–244). New
ment in Iran. Sustainable Energy Watch, 1, 1–10. York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
2. Bolzonella, D., Innocenti, L., Pavan, P., & Cecchi, F. 20. Chen, X., Romano, R.T., & Zhang, R. (2010). Anaerobic
(2001). Denitrification potential enhancement by addition digestion of food wastes for biogas production, Interna-
of the anaerobic fermented of the organic fraction of tional Journal of Agriculture & Biological Engineering, 3,
municipal solid waste, Water Science and Technology, 61–72.
44, 187–194. 21. Bouallagui, H., Ben Cheikh, R., Marouani, L., & Hamdi,
3. Pavan, P., Battistoni, P., Bolzonella, D., Innocenti, L., M. (2003). Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and
Traverso, P., & Cecchi, F. (2000). Integration of wastewater vegetable waste in a tubular digester, Bioresources &
and OFMSW treatment cycles: From pilot scale to industrial Technology, 86, 85–89.
realization. The new full scale plant of Treviso (Italy). In: 22. Fang, C., Boe, K., & Angelidaki, I. (2011). Anaerobic co-
Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Environ- digestion of desugared molasses with cow manure;
mental Biotechnology, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. focusing on sodium and potassium inhibition, Bioresour-
4. Wilkie, A., & Colleran, E. (1986). Pilot-scale digestion of ces & Technology, 102, 1005–1011.
pig slurry supernatant using an upflow anaerobic filter, 23. Fantozzi, F., & Buratti, C. (2009). Biogas production from
Environmental Letter, 7, 65–76. different substrates in an experimental continuously
5. Gerardi, M.H. (2003). The microbiology of anaerobic stirred tank reactor anaerobic digester, Bioresources &
digesters. In Waste water microbiology series, New Jer- Technology, 100, 5783–5789.
sey: Wiley. 24. Niu, H., He, Y., Desideri, U., Zhang, P., Qin, H., & Wang,
6. Deublein, D., & Steinhauser, A. (2008). Biogas from S. (2014). Rural household energy consumption and its
waste and renewable sources: An introduction, Wein- implications for eco-environments in NW China: A case
heim: Wiley. study, Renewable Energy, 65, 137–145.
7. Gunasellan, V.N. (1997). Anaerobic digestion of biomass 25. Himmelblau, D.M. (1967). Basic principles and calcula-
for methane production: A review, Biomass & Bioenergy, tions in chemical engineering. In N.J. Englewood Cliffs,
13, 83–114. Appendix C: Steam tables: Prentice-Hall.

Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep January 2017 109
26. Yaws, C.L. (1999). Chemical properties handbook (pp. 56,
185, 472, 531). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
27. Lettinga, G. (1981). Anaerobic digestion for energy saving
and production. In W. Palz, P. Chartier, (Eds.), E.C. Con-
ference, Energy from biomass, London: Applied Science
Publishers.
28. Atmanli, A., Ileri, E., & Yilmaz, N. (2016). Optimization of
diesel–butanol–vegetable oil blend ratios based on
engine operating parameters, Energy, 96, 569–580.
110 January 2017 Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy (Vol.36, No.1) DOI 10.1002/ep
29. Amigun, B., & Von Blottnitz, H. (2009). Capital cost pre-
diction for biogas installations in Africa: Lang Factor
approach, Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy,
28, 134–142.
30. Akyol, C., Ozbayram, E.G., Ince, O., Kleinsteuber, S., &
Ince, B. (2016). Anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure
and barley: Effect of cow manure to barley ratio on
methane production and digestion stability, Environmen-
tal Progress & Sustainable Energy, 35, 589–595.