Anaerobic Respirometry Studies of Fats, Oils, and Grease
Bryan Lipp and Christopher Schmit, P.E., Ph.D
Executive Summary
Fats, oils, and grease (FOG) from grease traps and interceptors is an abundant waste and
is increasingly considered as a candidate for co-digestion to increase biogas production. The City
of Sioux Falls, SD Water Reclamation Facility (SFWRF) initiated this project to investigate the
addition of FOG to their anaerobic digesters. Specifically, this study aimed to perform a
literature review to determine best practices, characterize FOG, and determine three different
parameters of the FOG and test digester sludge. A recent literature review on the co-digestion of
FOG with municipal primary and secondary sludges determined that the addition of FOGs to
municipal anaerobic digesters can result in a substantial increase in methane production (Long et
al., 2012).
This study utilized a respirometer operated in anaerobic mode to determine the three
FOG and digester sludge parameters. The sludge culture used was collected from the anaerobic
primary digesters at the SFWRF. The three tests performed were: biochemical methane potential
(BMP), anaerobic toxicity assay (ATA), and specific methane production (SMP). The tests were
performed at mesophilic temperatures (35 °C) to match the conditions at the SFWRF.
During this research project, the volume of methane that could be produced from adding
FOGs to the SFWRF anaerobic digesters was found, along with the inhibitory concentration of
FOG and the SMP of the test sludge before and after a 30 day daily addition of FOG to the test
anaerobic digester sludge. A FOG sample was also collected from a grease interceptor in Sioux
Falls and characterized in terms of pH, total solids, volatile solids, and COD.
The FOG portion of the grease interceptor waste sample collected is a very concentrated
waste, with the potential to create large amounts of methane in an anaerobic digester. The waste
had a low pH, high percentage of volatile solids, and an extremely high concentration of COD.
When FOG was added to the anaerobic digester sludge in a batch test, the reactor produced
approximately 760 mL methane per 1.0 mL FOG added, 860 mL methane per gram of VS added,
or 335 mL methane per gram of COD added. The activity of the biomass did not significantly
change over a period of 30 days in which FOG was added at a rate of 0.35 kg VS/m3·d. Finally,
an inhibitory concentration of FOG was reached at a concentration of 4.52 g COD/L or 1.77 kg
VS/m3.
The results of this research indicate that adding FOGs to the SFWRF anaerobic digesters
will most likely increase methane production significantly. While it is possible to add too much
and inhibit the anaerobic bacteria, this should not be a problem if the digester and digester feed
are closely monitored.
Introduction
FOG waste is a byproduct from the preparation of certain foods by restaurants, schools,
hospitals, and other food service facilities. FOG can be defined as the top floatable layer of
wastewater rich in lipids that is generated through food processing and cooking (Long et al.,
2012). FOG includes material that is composed of animal, vegetable, and mineral origin (US
EPA, 2004a).
In most municipalities, discharging FOG directly into the sanitary sewer system is
considered illegal because of problems associated with pipe blockages (Long et al., 2012). If
FOG enters the collection system, solid deposits can form on pipe walls, in manholes, and on
2
other sewer components through a physical or chemical reaction with calcium (He et al., 2011;
U.S. EPA, 2004a). These deposits reduce the cross sectional area of the pipes, therefore reducing
the flow capacity. This can ultimately lead to pipe blockages and sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs), incidents that occur tens of thousands of times per year in the United States, exposing
untreated wastewater to the public (US EPA, 2004b). The U.S. EPA has attributed 47% of
pipeline blockages and 23% of SSOs to FOG accumulation (U.S. EPA, 2004b). Not only are
FOG deposits in sewers a public health risk because of potential SSOs, they are a financial
burden to municipalities. Future costs associated with clearing sewer blockages in the United
States are expected to exceed $25 billion (Ducoste, 2013).
To remove FOG before entering the collection system, grease abatement devices (GADs)
such as grease traps and grease interceptors are installed in the sewer lines and at food
preparation facilities. These grease abatement devices use gravity to separate FOG from the rest
of the wastewater. Grease traps are typically installed directly below the sink inside of a facility,
and average 50 gallons in volume (Long et al., 2012). Grease interceptors are much larger than
grease traps, averaging between 1000 – 2000 gallons in volume. Grease interceptors are typically
installed outside of the facility below ground (Long et al., 2012).
GADs are placed in a manner that allows wastewater to flow through from one side to the
other, with enough detention time to allow solid particles to settle to the bottom and FOG to float
to the top. The three layers that form inside a GAD are food particles and other solids on the
bottom, wastewater in the middle, and FOG at the top (Wang et al., 2013). Collectively, the
contents of GADs are referred to as grease interceptor waste (GIW) or grease trap waste (GTW).
While the terms FOG and GTW have been used interchangeably, for the purposes of this
3
research GTW will refer to the entire contents of the GAD while FOG will refer to only the top
floatable layer inside of a GAD.
In a study completed by the National Renewable Energy Lab, the amount of FOG
generated per capita was determined by examining the FOG recovered from grease traps and
interceptors, as well as at local WWTPs in 30 United States metropolitan areas. The study
concluded that the average person produces 16 pounds of FOG per year, and this estimate may
be applied to the entire United States (Wiltsee, 1998). Assuming the specific gravity of FOG is
0.92, this equates to approximately 1.8 gallons per person per year. Because this estimate
includes FOG from GTW and FOG that has been mixed with wastewater that arrives at local
WWTPs, this is likely an overestimation of FOG that can be recovered. Once FOG is allowed to
mix with wastewater, it can be difficult to separate (Long et al., 2012). Another study of the
Raleigh, NC metropolitan area concluded that the average person in that area produces 18.7
gallons of GTW per year (Austic, 2010). This estimate includes the entire contents of the GAD,
of which an estimated 5% is FOG, equating to 0.94 gallons of FOG per person per year (Austic
2010). Averaging the results of these two studies yields 1.37 gallons per person per year.
Studies have shown that co-digestion of FOG in municipal anaerobic digesters can
increase biogas production from 32-82% (Bailey, 2007; Cockrell, 2008; Muller et al., 2010),
with smaller laboratory studies showing nearly 200% increase in digester gas production
(Kabouris et al., 2009a,b). The excess methane produced from the co-digestion of FOGs can help
offset the external energy use required by wastewater treatment plants. Along with the benefit of
increased biogas production, however, some detrimental effects have been observed during
studies such as inhibition of methanogenic bacteria, digester foaming, and pipe and pump
blockages, among others (Long et al., 2012).
4
Martin-Gonzalez et al. determined that FOG waste from WWTF increased the methane
formation potential when co-digested with the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes (2010).
Under mesophilic conditions and a feed ratio of 1:7 (FOG to organic fraction of municipal solid
waste), methane production increased from 0.38 L/g VSfeed to 0.55 L/g VSfeed in a 5-liter labscale reactor (Martin-Gonzalez et al., 2010). No inhibition due to long chain fatty acid (LCFA)
accumulation was observed (Martin-Gonzalez et al., 2010).
With the abundance of FOG presumed to be present in the City of Sioux Falls for use at
the SFWRF, the first goal of this study was to obtain a typical sample and characterize it in terms
of total and volatile solids, pH, and chemical oxygen demand (COD). Characterizing the FOG in
this manner would help the City determine how much FOG to add and how much methane could
be expected. The FOG sample collected for this task would also be used for testing in the
methods listed subsequently.
The first test performed that would utilize the anaerobic respirometer was be the BMP
test. This test yields the volume of methane produced from a certain volume of FOG. Next, the
SMP test was run to determine the activity of the anaerobic biomass (anaerobic digester) sample
being used in the study. The results are given in terms of COD equivalent of methane produced
per gram of biomass in the reactor per day. The next test run was the ATA. This test determines
the concentration of FOG which becomes inhibitory to the methanogenic bacteria. These results
will be helpful to the personal at the SFWRF because it will give a maximum concentration of
FOG that can be fed to the anaerobic digesters. Finally, the last test run involved the daily
addition of FOG to the anaerobic digester samples for 30 days. The SMP and rate of methane
produced from FOG can then be compared before and after the 30 day test to determine if the
methanogenic bacteria were able to acclimate to the FOG waste.
5
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted at the Water and Environmental Engineering Research Center
(WEERC) on the campus of South Dakota State University (SDSU) in Brookings, SD, beginning
during the summer of 2013. The bench-scale test utilized an RSA PF-8000 respirometer, shown
in Figure 1, operated in anaerobic mode with a heated water bath and reactor vessels filled with
SFWRF primary digester sludge as the test culture. Each reactor vessel also contained a 5 cm
magnetic stir bar, both nutrient and mineral bases, and sodium bicarbonate pH buffer solution.
The respirometer control module kept a record of gas production in each vessel via tubing from
each vessel to the control module. Since methane was the product of interest in this study, carbon
dioxide and moisture scrubbers were placed in the tubing line between each reactor vessel and
the control module. Moisture scrubbers were necessary to protect the control module from
corrosion. Test substrates were added to bottles through rubber septum caps by syringes
equipped with 20 gage needles.
Figure 1. Respirometer Setup
6
A grease interceptor waste (GIW) sample was collected from the grease interceptor of a
restaurant in the city of Sioux Falls, SD. The GIW sample, shown in Figure 2, formed into three
layers after collection: a top layer of FOG, middle layer of wastewater, and bottom layer of food
particles and other settleable material. In order to ensure the material was able to be moved
through the 20 gage needles and maintain consistent injections into the test vessels, only the top
layer of GIW (the FOG portion) was tested in this research. The FOG sample was characterized
in terms of total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), pH, and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Top layer: FOG
Middle layer: wastewater
Bottom layer: settleable
particles
Figure 2. GIW sample taken from a restaurant grease interceptor in the city of Sioux Falls, SD.
Three tests were performed using the respirometer: biochemical methane potential
(BMP), anaerobic toxicity assay (ATA), and specific methane production (SMP). To perform the
BMP test, a precisely measured volume of FOG was injected into stable reactor vessels and
allowed to be utilized by the anaerobic culture. The methane produced from the FOG was then
7
compared with the methane produced from a like amount of COD in the form of acetic acid,
which acted as a control. This test not only yielded the volume of methane that could be
produced, but also gave an estimate of the percent removal of COD that can be expected.
The SMP test was used to compare the activity of the existing biomass with the activity
of biomass that had been fed FOG daily for a period of 30 days. The test was completed by
adding a high concentration of readily biodegradable substrate (acetic acid) to stable reactor
vessels and measuring the methane production rate. The rate of methane production is the SMP,
and is expressed in terms of g CODCH4 /g VSS·d. The SMP results can also be used to determine
the percent of acetoclastic methanogens by weight in the biomass sample tested. The last test
performed in this study was the ATA. This test was completed by adding increasing
concentrations of FOG to the reactor vessels until a noticeable inhibition of methane production
was observed. This concentration is then the level at which the FOG becomes inhibitory to the
test biomass.
To ensure each sample reactor was stable, a measured amount of a readily biodegradable
substrate was added to each vessel, which was acetic acid in this case. Stable reactors should
produce between 350 – 400 mL methane per gram of COD added. Any reactor that yielded a
methane volume not within this range or not within 5% of this range was discarded. The reactors
within the acceptable range could then move on to the specific respirometer tests.
Results and Discussion
FOG Characterization
The FOG characterization results are shown below in Table 1. The FOG TS and VS were
determined to be 97.1% and 97.0% of wet weight, respectively, yielding a VS/TS ratio of 99.9%.
8
Table 1. FOG Characterization Results
Parameter
Result
pH (entire GIW sample, pH units)
4.32
Total Solids (% of wet weight)
97.1
Volatile Solids (% of wet weight)
97.0
VS/TS (%)
99.9
COD (mg/L)
2,260,000
The COD of the FOG was 2,260,000 mg/l and the pH of the GIW sample as a whole was 4.32.
This is a very strong waste in terms of volatile solids and COD, has the potential to create a large
amount of methane when anaerobically digested. Based on methanogenic bacteria yielding 350 –
400 mL methane per gram of COD destroyed, this waste has the potential to create up to 900
liters of methane during anaerobic digestion per liter of FOG.
These results compare well to previous studies. Long et al. summarized different FOG
characterization studies and found that all of the GTW samples studied had a pH range of 3.90 –
6.20 (2012). The total solids, volatile solids, and COD results were very different, but this may
be explained by them testing the entire contents of the grease trap or interceptor, while this study
only tested the top layer of FOG. The percentage of solids that were volatile (VS/TS) ranged
from 90% - 100% (Long et al., 2012).
Biochemical Methane Potential
A typical BMP test of the FOG sample is shown in Figure 3. For this test, 0.25 mL FOG
was injected. This test resulted in approximately 760 mL methane per 1.0 mL FOG added, 860
mL methane per gram of VS added, or 335 mL methane per gram of COD added. During this
9
Methane Produced (mL/g COD added)
400
350
300
250
200
Acetic Acid Control
150
FOG BMP
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
Time (Hours)
50
60
70
80
Figure 3. BMP of FOG sample. These curves are the average of the methane
production curves of all six vessels, and are plotted on top of each other to
show the average difference between the methane production of the control
substrate (acetic acid) and the test substrate (FOG).
test, six reactor vessels were used for test substrates and two were used as blanks. The six test
vessels were first injected with acetic acid to ensure stability, followed by FOG. All six test
vessels were found to be stable, and all six were then injected with the FOG sample. Figure 3
shows the results of this test in the form of methane production curves for the acetic acid control
and FOG sample. The two curves are an average of all six vessels and are plotted on top of each
other to show the difference in methane production between the control substrate (acetic acid)
and the test substrate (FOG). The FOG BMP curve in Figure 3 shows that not all of the FOG in
the form of COD was converted to methane. This is illustrated by the FOG BMP curve not
reaching the level of the acetic acid control curve. Figure 3 also shows that the FOG BMP
methane production curve is not as steep initially as the acetic acid control methane production
curve, meaning that methane was produced at a lower rate for FOG than it was for acetic acid. It
10
is also observed that while initially the methane production rate is high during the FOG BMP,
the methane production rate begins to slow at a time of 30 hours after the injection.
Specific Methane Production
Figure 4 shows the initial and final SMP of the test sludge. The initial SMP was
determined from injecting six reactor vessels with acetic acid before the start of the 30 day daily
addition of FOG, averaging the results, and is represented by the blue data series. From the
beginning of the test, the SMP sharply increases to over 0.025 g CODCH4 / g VS·d before
decreasing to below 0.010 g CODCH4 / g VS·d. It is not believed that this initial spike or the
initial spike in any of the three data series is the actual maximum SMP because the spikes don’t
fit the trend of the rest of the data. The initial SMP then slowly increases and reaches the
maximum of approximately 0.018 g CODCH4 / g VS·d at a time of 21 hours. From the maximum
SMP of approximately 0.018 g CODCH4 / g VS·d, the percentage of acetoclastic methanogens by
weight in the biomass is found by dividing by the maximum specific growth rate for acetic acid
conversion to methane, which is 6 g COD/g VSS·d (Young and Cowan 2004). This calculation
results in 0.30% acetoclastic methanogens by weight in the biomass. Because the initial amount
of acetoclastic methanogens present in the biomass is known, it can be compared to the SMP at
the end of the 30 day daily FOG injection to determine any change in the population of
acetoclastic methanogens.
During this 30 day period, 0.20 mL FOG was injected every 24 hours for 30 days, which
represents 0.18 g VS and a loading rate of 0.35 kg VS/m3·d. In the 30 day period, the methane
production in three of the reactor vessels significantly dropped, which may have been caused by
an over-loading of FOG. The other three reactor vessels finished the 30 day period without
significant methane production drops, and were again injected with acetic acid for SMP
11
0.025
Initial, Average
Final, Bottle #3
0.020
SMP (g CODCH4/g VS/d)
Final, Bottle #6
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time (Hours)
Figure 4. SMP of the sludge sample before and after the 30 day daily FOG addition.
determination. One of the reactors, reactor #1 did not produce an acceptable amount of methane
and was not included in the results. The other two reactors, #3 and #6, were within the acceptable
range and are therefore included in Figure 4. It can be observed that the results of the SMP in
reactors #3 and #6 were significantly different. Because of this, their data series were not
averaged as they were in the initial SMP, and are shown separately. The SMP of reactor #3
reaches its maximum point of approximately 0.012 g CODCH4 / g VS·d at a time of
approximately 22 hours. The SMP curve of this reactor is more drawn out and lower than the
other two SMP curves, meaning it took the methanogenic bacteria longer to consume all of the
acetic acid. The percentage of acetoclastic methanogens by weight in the biomass was calculated
to be 0.20%, lower than the initial 0.30% acetoclastic methanogens by weight.
12
The SMP of reactor #6 reaches its maximum point of approximately 0.023 g CODCH4 / g
VS·d at a time of approximately 13 hours. The SMP curve of this reactor is higher than the other
two SMP curves, meaning it took the methanogenic bacteria less time to consume all of the
acetic acid. The percentage of acetoclastic methanogens by weight in the biomass was calculated
to be 0.38%, which is higher than the initial 0.30% acetoclastic methanogens by weight.
The results of the specific methane production tests are somewhat inconclusive. Of the
six reactor vessels at the beginning of the 30 day daily FOG injection, only two could be used to
determine the final SMP. These two vessels had significantly different results, with the
maximum SMP of reactor #6 more than double than that of reactor #3, and the SMP of reactor
#6 was higher than the initial SMP while the SMP for reactor #3 was lower. This may indicate
that the FOG loading rate during the 30 day daily FOG addition was too high.
Anaerobic Toxicity Assay
The results of the ATA are shown in Figure 5. For this test, five increasing amounts of
FOG were injected into different reactor vessels. The amounts of FOG injected and their
corresponding equivalents and loading rates are listed in Table 2. It can be observed that the
smallest amount of FOG added resulted in the most methane produced per gram of COD added,
indicated by the blue data series. As the concentrations of FOG increased, the volume of
methane produced per gram of COD added continued to decrease. It can also be noted that the
final volume of methane produced per gram of COD added for the 1.13 g COD/L concentration
data series is nearly identical to the volume produced in the BMP test, as shown previously in
Figure 3. When the FOG concentration is increased to 4.52 g COD/L, the volume of methane
produced per gram of COD added decreases from 330 mL to 250 mL, a 24% reduction, which
13
Methane Produced (mL/g COD added)
350
300
250
200
1.13 g COD/L
4.52 g COD/L
150
11.3 g COD/L
22.6 g COD/L
100
45.2 g COD/L
50
0
0
50
100
150
Time (Hours)
200
250
300
Figure 5. ATA conducted with five different FOG concentrations.
Table 2. FOG Loading for ATA
mL FOG
g COD/L
g VS
kg VS/m³
0.25
1.00
2.50
5.00
1.13
4.52
11.3
22.6
0.22
0.88
2.21
4.42
0.44
1.77
4.42
8.84
10.0
45.2
8.84
17.7
indicates inhibition of the methanogenic bacteria is occurring. When the concentration of
FOG is increased to 11.3 g COD/L, the volume of methane produced per gram of COD added
decreases from 330 mL to 30 mL, which is an 82% reduction.
The next reactor vessel, which had a FOG concentration of 22.6 g COD/L, produced little
methane due to the large amount of FOG added. At the end of the test, this reactor vessel had a
ball of foam floating at the top of the test sludge that was about the size of a quarter. The final
14
reactor vessel, which had FOG concentration of 45.2 g COD/L, experienced significant foaming,
and nearly stopped producing methane after a thick layer of foam had collected on the surface.
The foaming was so significant that it filled the entire headspace of the reactor, and had the
consistency of a light paste.
The data clearly indicates that the lowest FOG concentration of 1.13 g COD/L (0.44 kg
VS/m3) produced the most amount of methane per gram of COD added. When the concentration
of FOG reached 4.52 g COD/L (1.77 kg VS/m3) , the methane produced per gram of COD added
decreased by 24%. This is important because it gives a concentration of FOG that can be used
effectively, and concentrations of FOG that should be avoided in the SFWRF anaerobic
digesters.
Wang et al. determined that the optimal feed rate for co-digestion of FOG and municipal
sludges to be 20% FOG, 80% thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS), which resulted in a VS
loading of 2.16 kg VS/ m³ (2013). They also found that inhibition occurred at a feed of 40%
FOG, 60% TWAS, or 3.54 kg VS/ m³ (Wang et al., 2013).
Conclusions
The goal of this research was to use anaerobic respirometry to determine the volume of
methane that could be produced from adding FOGs to the SFWRF anaerobic digesters. This was
found, along with the inhibitory concentration of FOG and the SMP of the test sludge before and
after a 30 day daily addition of FOG to the test anaerobic digester sludge. A FOG sample was
also collected from a grease interceptor in Sioux Falls and characterized in terms of pH, total
solids, volatile solids, and COD. Analysis of the data leads to the following conclusions:
15
1. The FOG portion of the grease interceptor waste sample collected is a very concentrated
waste, with the potential to create large amounts of methane in an anaerobic digester. The
waste had a low pH, high percentage of volatile solids, and an extremely high
concentration of COD.
2. When FOG was added to the anaerobic digester sludge in a batch test, the reactor
produced approximately 760 mL methane per 1.0 mL FOG added, 860 mL methane per
gram of VS added, or 335 mL methane per gram of COD added.
3. The activity of the biomass did not significantly change over a period of 30 days in which
FOG was added at a rate of 0.35 kg VS/m3·d.
4. An inhibitory concentration of FOG was reached at a concentration of 4.52 g COD/L or
1.77 kg VS/m3.
From the testing completed in this research project, I do believe that a full-scale FOG codigestion implementation could proceed. Foaming was only observed at very high concentrations
of FOG that could be easily avoided, and the potential for capturing more methane for heating or
electricity generation is very high. To ensure that inhibitory concentrations of FOG are not
reached, I would begin co-digesting at a FOG feed rate of 0.22 kg VS/m3·d. This rate was chosen
after close examination of Figures 3 and 5. As the figures show (red data series in Figure 3, blue
data series in Figure 5), the 0.25 mL of FOG that was injected in each case was nearly all utilized
by the sludge culture by approximately t = 50 hours. This can be seen by the curves leveling off
at these times. Therefore, an amount of FOG that would be utilized in a period of 24 hours would
be approximately half of the 0.25 mL of FOG that was used in these two instances, assuming that
16
the sludge culture would use the FOG waste at the same rate. Half of 0.25 mL FOG added to
each reactor vessel is equivalent to 0.22 kg VS/m3·d.
One of the challenges of implementing this plan would be monitoring the amount of FOG
entering the digesters. While it would be easy if it was only FOG being added, there would most
likely be large amounts of water from grease abatement devices as well. It may be difficult to
keep a homogenous mixture and know the concentration of volatile solids and/or COD because
these concentrations would change each time more waste is delivered to the holding tank.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the City of Sioux Falls for sponsoring this interesting research. It
was a good learning experience and yielded useful results. I would also like to thank Dr.
Christopher Schmit for his guidance during this project, Beverly Klein of the WEERC lab, and
Graduate Assistant Shahnaj Akter.
(Bailey, 2007; Cockrell, 2008; John C Kabouris et al., 2009a; John C. Kabouris et al.,
2009b; Martín-González, Colturato, Font, & Vicent, 2010; Muller et al., 2010; Young,
2004)
WORKS CITED
Austic, G. (2010). Feasibility study: Evaluating the profitability of a trap effluent dewatering
facility in the Raleigh area. For ECO Collections through the Biofuels Center of North
Carolina, 1-21.
Bailey, R. S. (2007). Anaerobic digestion of restaurant grease wastewater to improve methane
gas production and electrical power generation potential. Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, 2007(11), 6793-6805.
Cockrell, P. (2008). Greasing Digester-Gas Production. Water environment & technology, 20(1),
70-73.
Ducoste, J. (2013). Factors that influence the Formation of FOG Deposits in Sewer Collection
Systems. Paper presented at the EPA Research Forum, Arlington, VA, USA.
17
EPA, US. (2004a). Local Limits Development Guidance. (EPA 833-R-04-002A).
EPA, US. (2004b). Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs. (EPA 833-R04-001).
He, X., Iasmin, M., Dean, L. O., Lappi, S. E., Ducoste, J. J., & de los Reyes III, F. L. (2011).
Evidence for fat, oil, and grease (FOG) deposit formation mechanisms in sewer lines.
Environmental science & technology, 45(10), 4385-4391.
Kabouris, J. C., Tezel, U., Pavlostathis, S. G., Engelmann, M., Dulaney, J., Gillette, R. A., &
Todd, A. C. (2009a). Methane recovery from the anaerobic codigestion of municipal
sludge and FOG. Bioresource technology, 100(15), 3701-3705.
Kabouris, J. C., Tezel, U., Pavlostathis, S. G., Engelmann, M., Dulaney, J. A., Todd, A. C., &
Gillette, R. A. (2009b). Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal
Sludge and Fat, Oil, and Grease. Water Environment Research (10614303), 81(5), 476485. doi: 10.2175/106143008X357192
Long, J. H., Aziz, T. N., Reyes III, F. L., & Ducoste, J. J. (2012). Anaerobic co-digestion of fat,
oil, and grease (FOG): A review of gas production and process limitations. Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, 90(3), 231-245.
Martín-González, L., Colturato, L., Font, X., & Vicent, T. (2010). Anaerobic co-digestion of the
organic fraction of municipal solid waste with FOG waste from a sewage treatment plant:
Recovering a wasted methane potential and enhancing the biogas yield. Waste
Management, 30(10), 1854-1859.
Muller, C., Lam, P., Lin, E., Chapman, T., Devin-Clark, D., Belknap-Williamson, J., & Krugel,
S. (2010). Co-digestion at Annacis Island WWTP: Metro Vancouvers Path to Renewable
Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions. Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, 2010(14), 2706-2722.
Wang, L., Aziz, T. N., & de los Reyes III, F. L. (2013). Determining the Limits of Anaerobic
Co-digestion of Thickened Waste Activated Sludge with Grease Interceptor Waste.
Water Research.
Wiltsee, G. (1998). Waste grease resource in 30 US metropolitan areas. Paper presented at the
The Proceedings of Bioenergy 98 Conference, Wisconsin.
Young, J. C., and Cowan, R.M. (2004). Respirometry for Environmental Science and
Engineering. Springdale, AR: SJ Enterprises.
18