Cited by 63Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionBiofuel production and bioconversionMicrobial Fuel Cells and Bioremediation

Assessing the potential of waste activated sludge and food waste co-fermentation for carboxylic acids production

Open access
Vidal-Antich, C., Perez-Esteban, N., Astals, S., Peces, M., Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J.·2021·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

This study investigated waste activated sludge (WAS) and food waste (FW) co-fermentation in batch assays to produce carboxylic acids. Three mixtures (50%, 70% and 90% WAS in VS basis) were studied under different conditions: with and without extra alkalinity, and with and without WAS auto-hydrolysis pre-treatment. All tests were carried out at 35 °C, without pH adjustment and without external inoculum. Experimental results showed that co-fermentation yields, including volatile fatty acids and lactic acid, were always higher than WAS and FW mono-fermentation yields (ca. 100 and 80 mgCOD/gVS, respectively). Co-fermentation yields increased as the proportion of FW in the mixture increased, indicating that the improvement was primarily due to a higher FW degradation under co-fermentation conditions. The maximum co-fermentation yield was on average 480 mgCOD/gVS for the WAS/FW_50/50 mixture. The importance of pH on co-fermentation performance was evident in the experiments carried out with extra alkalinity, which showed that the proportion of WAS in the mixture should be high enough to keep the pH above 5.0. However, fermenters operational conditions should also prevent the enrichment of acetic acid consuming microorganisms. WAS auto-hydrolysis pre-treatment did not enhance co-fermentation yields but showed minor kinetic improvements. Regarding the product profile, butyric acid was enriched as the proportion of FW in the mixture increased and the concomitant pH decreased to the detriment of propionic acid. Propionic acid prevailed under neutral pH in the WAS mono-fermentation and the WAS/FW_90/10 mixture.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143763

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Co-fermentation of food waste and waste activated sludge at a 50/50 ratio at pH 5.3 and day 6 produced 47% butyric acid, 19% valeric acid, and 18% acetic acid.

    “The result of co-fermentation (WAS/food waste_50/50) profile shows that 47% butyric acid, 19% valeric acid and 18% acetic acid at day 6 and pH 5.3, while 40% acetic acid, 26% butyric acid and 15% propionic acid at pH 4.3 during the same fermentation period and conditions [87].”

    From Food Waste Biorefinery: Pathway towards Circular Bioeconomy (2021) · cites this paper as [87]

  • pH affects the concentration of acetic acid and lactic acid, and lower pH favors their accumulation in co-fermentation.

    “They observed pH affects the concentration of acetic acid and lactic acid and lower pH favors their accumulations [87].”

    From Food Waste Biorefinery: Pathway towards Circular Bioeconomy (2021) · cites this paper as [87]

  • Co-fermentation of food waste and waste activated sludge at a 50/50 ratio at pH 4.3 and day 6 produced 40% acetic acid, 26% butyric acid, and 15% propionic acid.

    “The result of co-fermentation (WAS/food waste_50/50) profile shows that 47% butyric acid, 19% valeric acid and 18% acetic acid at day 6 and pH 5.3, while 40% acetic acid, 26% butyric acid and 15% propionic acid at pH 4.3 during the same fermentation period and conditions [87].”

    From Food Waste Biorefinery: Pathway towards Circular Bioeconomy (2021) · cites this paper as [87]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vidal-Antich, C., Perez-Esteban, N., Astals, S., Peces, M., Mata-Alvarez, J., & Dosta, J.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • Aalborg University (DK)
Corresponding author
Astals, S.
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
757
Pages
143763
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3110631898
Cited by
63
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 7
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (RYC-2017-22372)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CTM2016-76275-R, PID2019-111284RB-I00)
  • Horizon 2020 (730349)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Microbial Fuel Cells and Bioremediation
Keywords
waste activated sludge, food waste, co-fermentation, carboxylic acids, volatile fatty acids, lactic acid, butyrate, propionic acid, acetic acid, pH effect, alkalinity, anaerobic fermentation, wastewater valorization
MeSH terms
Carboxylic Acids, Fatty Acids, Volatile, Fermentation, Food, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Refuse Disposal, Sewage, Bioreactors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review