Figure 3.1: Fractionation of sludge total solid by Van Soest method. 84 Figure 3.2: Correlation circle (A), mean squared prediction error (PRESS) (B),
regression coefficient representation (C) and centered variables values of regression
coefficients (D) for the dimension 3 model with all the 12 parameters. 88 Figure 3.3: Mean squared prediction error (PRESS) (A), regression coefficient
representation (B) for the dimension 2 model with the most important parameters. 89 Figure 3.4: Mean squared prediction error (PRESS) (A) and regression coefficient
representation (B) for the PLS model 4 with the parameters of the Van Soest
characterization and SolOC and Ox. 91
Figure 3.5: Mean squared prediction error (PRESS) (A) and regression coefficient representation (B) for the PLS model 5 with the parameters of the biochemical
characterization and SolOC and Ox. 92
Figure 3.6: Calculated and experimental biodegradabilities for model calibration and model validation based on the biochemical characterisation and SolOC and Ox
(PLS model 5). 94
xii Chapitre 4. Influence de la solubilisation du substrat sur les performances de dégradation anaérobie thermophile en réacteur batch
Figure 4.1: Impact of treatment temperature on solubilisation of WAS. 107 Figure 4.2: Soluble compound concentrations during batch anaerobic digestion of
each sludge (batch 4). 108
Figure 4.3: Methane production and VFA concentrations during batch anaerobic digestions of (A) untreated WAS, (B) pretreated at 110°C, (C) pretreated at 165°C in
electric mode, (D) pretreated at 165°C in steam mode and (E) pretreated at 220°C. 111 Figure 4.4: Acetate (A), propionate (B) accumulation maximum rates and methane
(C) production specific maximum rates with different conditions of pretreatment
through batch experiments. 114
Figure 4.5: Variation des concentrations en composés solubles et débit de méthane au cours de la digestion anaérobie thermophile en condition batch d’une boue secondaire non traitée et prétraitée à 165°C (trait plein : concentration en DCO soluble moins la concentration en AGV totaux ; trait discontinu : concentration en
protéines solubles ; trait en pointillé : concentration en glucides solubles). 118 Chapitre 5. Modélisation des performances de digestion anaérobie thermophile en réacteur batch : la cinétique de Contois introduite dans le modèle ADM1
Figure 5.1: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for untreated WAS. Comparison of the proposed disintegration/hydrolysis model with standard ADM1 (red circles and thin plain line:
experimental data points, black dashed thin line: standard ADM1, black thick plain
line: modified ADM1) 133
Figure 5.2: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for 110°C pretreated WAS. Comparison of the proposed disintegration/hydrolysis model with standard ADM1 (red circles and thin plain line:
experimental data points, black dashed thin line: standard ADM1, black thick plain
line: modified ADM1). 136
Figure 5.3: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for 165°C pretreated WAS. Comparison of the proposed disintegration/hydrolysis model with standard ADM1 (red circles and thin plain line:
experimental data points, black dashed thin line: standard ADM1, black thick plain
line: modified ADM1). 137
Figure 5.4: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for 220°C pretreated WAS. Comparison of the proposed disintegration/hydrolysis model with standard ADM1 (red circles and thin plain line:
experimental data points, black dashed thin line: standard ADM1, black thick plain
line: modified ADM1). 138
Figure 5.5: Comparison between (A) measured VFA concentrations and simulated VFA concentrations (B) measured methane produced and simulated methane produced, for untreated and pretreated WAS. The simulation data come from
modified ADM1 model. 140
xiii Figure 5.6: Concentration en ammoniaque simulée par le modèle modifié ADM1
lors de la dégradation de la boue non traitée thermiquement. 144 Figure 5.7: Suivi des concentrations en NH4+
et en NH3 sur 45 j dans deux réacteurs dégradant une boue secondaire non traitée et prétraitée à 165°C et un réacteur non
alimenté en substrat. 145
Chapitre 6. Modélisation des performances de digestion anaérobie thermophile : introduction de la bioaccessibilité de la matière particulaire dans un modèle ADM1 modifié
Figure 6.1: Methane specific production of WAS untreated and pretreated at 165°C
and 220°C during the second feed of batch reactors (data from Chapter 4). 154 Figure 6.2: COD flows for a particulate substrate in dual-pathway disintegration
modified ADM1 model structure. 155
Figure 6.3: Simulated biomass concentrations for untreated WAS through the four
successive batch tests (A: batch test 1; B: batch test 2; C: batch test 3;
D: batch test 4). 157
Figure 6.4: Chart of heuristic method procedure for optimising the model parameter
values. 158
Figure 6.5: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for untreated WAS (A: batch 1; B: batch 2; C: batch 3 and D:
batch 4). (red circles and red thin plain line: experimental data; black thick plain
line: modified ADM1 with two hydrolysable composite fractions). 162 Figure 6.6: Simulated Xcs, acetate and C2 degrader concentrations for the third batch
test fed with untreated WAS. 163
Figure 6.7: Sensitivity of acetate, propionate concentrations and methane production in batch test 2 to Xcr disintegration parameters. (red circles and blue thin dotted line:
experimental data points; red thin plain line: simulation with initial values; red thick wide dotted line: simulation with an increment of +50 % on model parameter values;
blue thick small dotted line: simulation with a variation of –50 % on model
parameter values). 166
Figure 6.8: Sensitivity of acetate, propionate concentrations and methane production in batch test 2 to Xcs disintegration parameters. (red circles and blue thin dotted line:
experimental data points; red thin plain line: simulation with initial values; red thick wide dotted line: simulation with an increment of +50 % on model parameter values;
blue thick small dotted line: simulation with a variation of –50 % on model
parameter values). 167
Figure 6.9: Sensitivity of acetate, propionate concentrations and methane production in batch test 2 to propionate degradation parameters. (red circles and blue thin dotted line: experimental data points; red thin plain line: simulation with initial values; red thick wide dotted line: simulation with an increment of +50 % on model parameter values; blue thick small dotted line: simulation with a variation of –50 %
on model parameter values). 168
xiv Figure 6.10: Sensitivity of acetate, propionate concentrations and methane
production in batch test 2 to acetate degradation parameters. (red circles and blue thin dotted line: experimental data points; red thin plain line: simulation with initial values; red thick wide dotted line: simulation with an increment of +50 % on model parameter values; blue thick small dotted line: simulation with a variation of –50 %
on model parameter values). 169
Figure 6.11: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for WAS pretreated at 110°C (A: batch 1; B: batch 2; C: batch 3 and D: batch 4). (red circles and red thin plain line: experimental data; black thick
plain line: modified ADM1 with two hydrolysable composite fractions). 174 Figure 6.12: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs
experimental data for WAS pretreated at 165°C in electric mode (A: batch 1; B:
batch 2; C: batch 3 and D: batch 4). (red circles and red thin plain line:
experimental data; black thick plain line: modified ADM1 with two hydrolysable
composite fractions). 176
Figure 6.13: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs experimental data for WAS pretreated at 165°C in steam mode (A: batch 1; B: batch 2; C: batch 3 and D: batch 4). (red circles and red thin plain line: experimental data;
black thick plain line: modified ADM1 with two hydrolysable composite fractions). 178 Figure 6.14: Simulated individual VFAs, pH and cumulative CH4 production vs
experimental data for WAS pretreated at 220°C (A: batch 1; B: batch 2; C: batch 3 and D: batch 4). (red circles and red thin plain line: experimental data; black thick
plain line: modified ADM1 with two hydrolysable composite fractions). 180 Figure 6.15: Degradation rate dynamics for the fourth degradation batch test of
untreated and pretreated WAS samples (rates are expressed in kgCOD.m-3.d-1). 182 Figure 6.16: Simulated vs experimental Qbiogas, QCH4 and QC02 for pilot scale digester
in thermophilic condition with SRT changes. Comparison between the proposed model and the ADM1 standard model (red circles: experimental data points, black plain line: modified ADM1, black dashed line: standard ADM1, blue dashed thin
line: SRT). 185
Figure 6.17: Simulated vs experimental individual VFAs, total COD and pH for pilot scale digester in thermophilic condition with SRT changes. Comparison between the proposed model and the ADM1 standard model (red circles: experimental data
points, black plain line: modified ADM1, black dashed line: standard ADM1). 186 Figure 6.18: Simulated dynamic behavior of composite fractions for standard ADM1
model (Xc) and model with two hydrolysable fractions (Xcr and Xcs). 187 Figure 6.19: Variations du débit de méthane simulé et des concentrations en Xcr et
Xcs simulées pour le digesteur pilote en condition thermophile lors de l’arrêt de
l’alimentation. 190
xv
LISTE DES TABLEAUX LIST OF TABLES
Chapitre 1. Revue bibliographique
Tableau 1.1 : Tableau de bord environnement de Veolia Environnement entre 2005
et 2007. 8
Tableau 1.2 : Impact de traitements thermiques sur la digestion anaérobie de boues
d’épuration. 21
Tableau 1.3 : Protocoles de mesure du potentiel de méthane de substrats organiques
proposés dans la littérature scientifique. 45
Tableau 1.4 : Exemples de productions spécifiques obtenues sur des substrats
similaires et sur un même substrat d’alimentation analysé à différents instants t. 48 Tableau 1.5 : Méthodes de caractérisation de la matière organique de boues suivant
l’objectif de l’étude et les méthodes d’extraction utilisées. 54 Chapitre 2. Matériels et méthodes
Tableau 2.1 : Expériences réalisées au cours des travaux de la thèse. 72 Chapitre 3. Relation entre la caractérisation initiale de boues secondaires et leur
biodégradabilité anaérobie thermophile
Table 3.1: Wastewater treatment plant characteristics. 80
Table 3.2: Macroscopic parameters of sludge samples. 82
Table 3.3: Biochemical composition of sludge samples. 83
Table 3.4: Mean reduction (%) of measured components between input and output of
full scale anaerobic process. 86
Table 3.5: Methane potential and biodegradability of input sludge samples. 87 Table 3.6: PLS model for predicting biodegradability (BD) of sludge sample F output
pretreatment. 93
Chapitre 4. Influence de la solubilisation du substrat sur les performances de