Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2018) 1e11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Aspen Plus process-simulation model: Producing biogas from VOC

emissions in an anaerobic bioscrubber


D. Bravo, F.J. Alvarez-Hornos,
n*
J.M. Penya-roja, P. San-Valero, C. Gabaldo
Research Group on Environmental Engineering (GI2AM), Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat de Val
encia, Av. de la Universitat s/n, 46100,
Burjassot, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A process-simulation model for a novel process consisted of an anaerobic bioscrubber was developed in
Received 25 September 2017 Aspen Plus®. A novel approach was performed to implement the anaerobic reactor in the simulation,
Received in revised form enabling it to be connected to the scrubber. The model was calibrated and validated using data from an
12 January 2018
industrial prototype that converted air emissions polluted with volatile organic compounds with an
Accepted 10 February 2018
Available online xxx
average daily concentration of 1129 mgC Nm
3 into bioenergy for more than one year. The scrubber,
which showed a removal efficiency within 83e93%, was successfully predicted with an average absolute
relative error of 5.2 ± 0.08% using an average height-to-theoretical-plate value of 1.05 ± 0.08 m and
Keywords:
Anaerobic reactor
1.37 ± 0.11 m for each of the two commercial packing materials used, respectively. The anaerobic reactor,
Aspen plus which treated up to 24 kg of chemical oxygen demand m
3 d
1 with efficiencies of about 93%, was
Biogas accurately simulated, both in effluent-stream characteristics and in the biogas stream. For example, the
Process simulation average absolute error between the experimental biogas production and the model values was
Scrubber 19.6 ± 18.9%. The model proved its capability as a predictive tool and an aid in design, resulting in savings
Volatile organic compounds of time and money for practitioners. In addition, the approach proposed can be expanded to other
bioprocesses that include unit operations.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction butanol (Granstro€ m et al., 2002). Today, these emissions must be

treated to follow the European Directive 2010/75/EU (European
Circular economy is attracting more interest from governments, Council, 2010). However, recently, a novel process, anaerobic bio-
industries, and researchers worldwide. Circular economy is a scrubber, has offered a circular economy approach that enables
strategy that attempts to change current linear material- and these emissions to be transformed into bioenergy (Waalkens et al.,
energy-flow model using a regenerative system in which resource 2015). In a previous work (Bravo et al., 2017), an on-site anaerobic
input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimized by bioscrubber installed in a flexographic facility was operated for 484
slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops days, controlling VOC emissions that had an average daily con-
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). The flexographic sector is one field in centration of 1129 mgC Nm
3. The VOC removal efficiency at the
which the loops could potentially be closed by recycling waste scrubber ranged from 83e93%, and the anaerobic reactor showed
gases into energy. Flexographic industrial facilities, which can excellent performance, treating organic loading rates (OLRs) of up
consume up to 1000 t of organic solvents per year, produce waste- to 24 kg of chemical oxygen demand (COD) m
3 d
1 with effi-
gas emissions that have relatively low concentrations (below ciencies of about 93% and producing a biogas stream that had
5 g m
3) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), mainly ethanol, methane content of 94 ± 3 %vol. This experimental study was the
ethyl acetate, isopropanol, n-propanol, 1-methoxy-2-propanol, n- first to demonstrate the potential of this new biotechnology,
propyl acetate, 1-methoxy-2-propyl acetate, acetone, and 1- although more in-depth knowledge of it is necessary to provide an
optimized system.
Models are considered useful tools to improve knowledge of
* Corresponding author. Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat de
bioprocesses, to study their responses against variations in pa-
ncia, Av. de la Universitat s/n, 46100, Burjassot, Spain.
Vale rameters, and to predict their overall performance (Okkerse et al.,
E-mail address: Carmen.Gabaldon@uv.es (C. Gabaldo
n). 1999; Zarook et al., 1997). In fact, process simulators are highly
URL: http://www.uv.es/giam

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.040
0301-4797/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Bravo, D., et al., Aspen Plus process-simulation model: Producing biogas from VOC emissions in an anaerobic
bioscrubber, Journal of Environmental Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.040
2 D. Bravo et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2018) 1e11

appreciated by industries and researchers because they can assumptions used to implement the anaerobic bioscrubber in
perform accurate predictions and sensitivity analyses in less time Aspen Plus®. In addition, a sensitivity analysis evaluated the effect
and much less expensively than can be done in real plants (Al- of the model's parameters on the predictions of both units. Finally, a
Rubaye et al., 2017; Rajendran et al., 2014), thereby aiding process case study showed the model's capability as a design tool.
design and optimization. One of the most powerful process simu-
lators is Aspen Plus®, an integrated process engineering software
program that performs steady-state and dynamic-process simula- 2. Materials and methods
tions. The software includes equipment-design and cost-evaluation
tools and incorporates rigorous property methods, thermodynamic 2.1. Anaerobic bioscrubber prototype
calculations, and the ability to use electrolyte equilibriums and a
wide range of unit operations. The process-simulation model developed in this study was
Regarding the application of simulators to the main unit oper- calibrated and validated using data obtained previously from an
ations of anaerobic bioscrubbers, Aspen Plus® is an established tool anaerobic-bioscrubber prototype installed on-site in a flexographic
for simulating and making predictions about absorption systems printing facility. This system was successfully operated for 484 days
(Azahari et al., 2016; Bhoi et al., 2015; Sutanto et al., 2017). to control VOC emissions that were mainly composed of ethanol
Regarding the modeling of anaerobic digestion processes, the (ET), ethyl acetate (EA), and 1-ethoxy-2-propanol (E2P) (Bravo
Anaerobic Digestion Model no.1 (ADM1), proposed in 2002 et al., 2017). The anaerobic bioscrubber consisted of two inter-
(Batstone et al., 2002), is considered the most advanced model for connected units: a scrubber of 2.0 m in packing-material height and
predicting, controlling, and optimizing the production of biogas 0.5 m in diameter that was assembled onto a 2-m3 tank and an
using anaerobic digestion processes. The ADM1 includes expanded granular sludge bed anaerobic reactor having a diameter
biochemical processes, including disintegration, hydrolysis, acido- of 1.59 m and a total water volume of 8.7 m3. The reactor was filled
genesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, and physicochemical with 3 m3 of granular sludge. Fig. 1 shows a scheme of the proto-
processes, including gas-liquid equilibriums and ion dissociations. type. The flexographic site runs two 8-h shifts each day from
Some extensions to the ADM1 have been proposed (Batstone et al., Monday through Friday and one 8-h shift on Saturday. A fraction of
2006), and the model has been used by a number of researchers to the VOC emissions from the factory was blown into the scrubber,
simulate various types of biogas-production processes from flowing counter-currently to a water stream. The airflow of this
different substrates for both labs and full-scale biogas plants (Hagos fraction varied from 184e1253 m3 h
1, and the average daily VOC
et al., 2017). concentration was 1129 ± 460 mgC Nm
3. The water stream con-
However, the complexity of the ADM1 model, with its large taining the solvents from the scrubber tank was supplemented
numbers of components, has led to the application of both with sodium carbonate for pH control and macro- and micro-
simplified versions of the model and to simpler models (Arzate nutrients prior to flowing into the anaerobic reactor, which oper-
et al., 2017; Kleerebezem and Van Loosdrecht, 2006). Indeed, the ated at 3 h of hydraulic residence time. The effluent from the
few available studies on the implementation of anaerobic digestion reactor was sent to the scrubber unit, meaning that the pilot plant
in Aspen Plus® have used simplified approaches to the anaerobic- worked in water-closed recirculation. During the study, three
digestion model. For example, Barta et al. (2010) conducted a different scrubber configurations were tested in the plant, as fol-
techno-economic evaluation of stillage anaerobic treatment in a lows: 1) a cross-flow structured packing material (KFP 319/619,
softwood-to-ethanol process. The author assumed stoichiometric ENEXIO, Germany, named Packing A) was used from days 0e95
degradation factors of 90% for soluble compounds, 50% for poly- (Stage I) and from days 266e484 (Stage V); 2) a vertical-flow
saccharides and water-soluble lignin, and 0% for nonsoluble lignin, structured packing material (KVP 323/623, ENEXIO, Germany,
with a yield of 0.35 Nm3 kg COD
1 for methane production. Nguyen named Packing B) was used from days 96e130 (Stage II) and from
et al. (2014) used the theoretical stoichiometric method based on days 181e265 (Stage IV); and 3) a spray column was used from days
the Buswell equation to evaluate the products of the anaerobic 131e180 (Stage III). More information of the commercial packing
digestion of food waste for their energy potential. Salman et al. materials can be found in supplementary section. Several liquid-to-
(2017) techno-economically evaluated biomethane production by air volume ratios ranging from 1.9  10
3e10.1  10
3 were set in
integrating pyrolysis and anaerobic-digestion processes, using the scrubber unit, resulting in superficial liquid velocities of from
stoichiometric factors for the methane produced from carbohy- 10.2 to 20.4 m h
1. The organic load (OL) fed to the anaerobic
drates, protein, and lipids. Rajendran et al. (2014) and Al-Rubaye reactor fluctuated according to modifications in the facility and the
et al. (2017) proposed a similar approach using Aspen Plus® operation of the scrubber and ranged from 0.37e6.96 kg COD h
1.
reactor blocks connected in series. Both studies defined the hy-
drolysis step in a stoichiometric reactor, using different conversion
grades for carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids; whereas the acido- Clean air Biogas
genesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis steps were carried out in Purge
continuous stirred tank reactors, defining the degradation kinetics Water
Effluent
SCRUBBER

in a homemade calculator block.

The purpose of the present study was to develop a process-
Tank
Centrifugal pump

simulation model of the anaerobic bioscrubber that would be a

useful tool for optimization and design. The simulation model was Polluted air EGSB
pH Control

calibrated and validated using experimental data obtained in a

Nutrients

previous study, in which a prototype of anaerobic bioscrubber was

operated during 484 days (Bravo et al., 2017). The two main process
Blower
units, the scrubber and the anaerobic reactor, were created in Bottom Tank
Aspen Plus®, which is capable of defining the gas-liquid equilib-
riums and the electrolyte chemistry. The anaerobic degradation Fresh water Tank
reaction kinetics of the acidogenesis and methanogenesis steps
were assumed as Monod-type expressions. This article includes the Fig. 1. Scheme of the anaerobic bioscrubber prototype.

Please cite this article in press as: Bravo, D., et al., Aspen Plus process-simulation model: Producing biogas from VOC emissions in an anaerobic
bioscrubber, Journal of Environmental Management (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.040