Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s12257-011-0117-4
RESEARCH PAPER
1. Introduction
The production of renewable energy, utilization of by-
1045
1046
time (HRT) of 50 days over a 30-day period. These conditions led to the application of an organic loading rate
(OLR) of 0.7 kg VS/m3/day for R_SM, while the codigesting systems had an OLR of 1.4 kg VS/m3/day. Thereafter, the HRT was decreased to 30 day, equivalent to an
OLR of 1.2 kg VS/m3/day for R_SM, and 2.3 kg VS/m3/
day for co-digesting reactors. These operating conditions
were evaluated for four consecutive HRTs.
The daily production of biogas was measured using a
reversible liquid displacement device provided with a wet
tip counter. Gas and liquid samples were taken twice a
week to monitor biogas composition, pH, chemical oxigen
demand (COD), total solids (TS), VS, ammonia, and VFA
concentrations.
Characteristics
C/N
TS
VS
TKN(g/kg TS)
NH4+ (mg/L)
Cellulose (%)
Hemicellulose (%)
Lignin (%)
I
6.2
20.1a
13.6a
46.7
650
SM
Mz
1,010.2 64.7
1,055a 672b
1,035a 644b
1,032.2
8.2
1,282
23.6
29.7
7.4
Rs
Sf
60.1
397b
363b
8.6
40.5
21.6
16.6
52.6
888b
771b
9.7
23.7
15.2
12.0
Table 1. The ECRs showed a high C/N ratio, which indicates that these substrates may be suitable for co-digestion
with SM. However, the lignin content of these substrates
was also high. The presence of lignin may hinder the
break-down of organic matter, thus resulting in a fraction
of the substrate possibly remaining unavailable for microbial break-down.
Fig. 1A shows the results from batch digestion tests. SM
and Mz gave the highest CH4 yields from the batch digestion of individual substrates. The lower values obtained
for Rs and Sf may be associated with the higher lignin
content of these substrates. The anaerobic microflora probably could not access the organic material encapsulated
within lignin structures.
With regard to the shapes of curves obtained from digestion tests of individual substrates, an extended lag phase
was observed when digesting SM. This result may indicate
unfavourable conditions for anaerobic microflora. However,
once the organisms acclimatized, the digestion proceeded
at a high rate. A similar trend was reported by Lobato et al.
[26] when evaluating the digestion of SM under batch
conditions at a mesophilic temperature. These authors
obtained values for the two manures that they tested of 276
10 and 512 19 mL CH4/g VS added. Under similar
conditions Chae et al. [27] reported a yield of 403 mL
CH4/g VS added. The results obtained in the work being
reported here were in accordance with those findings, with
a value of 357 34 mL CH4/g VS added.
The CH4 potential of manure comes from the digestion
of the organic components in the feces and in the straw
used as bedding material, which are mainly carbohydrates,
proteins, and lipids. In theory, the CH4 yield from carbohydrates (415 mL/g VS) is lower than that from proteins
(496 mL/g VS) or lipids (1,014 mL/g VS) [28]. In view of
this, although no analysis of the protein and lipid content
was performed during the experiments, it can be assumed
that this substrate was composed mainly of carbohydrates
and proteins.
In contrast, when particulate substrates are being di-
1047
Fig. 1. (A) Methane (CH4) yield of individual substrates. Symbols: (--), maize (Mz); (--), rapeseed (Rs); (- -), sunflower (Sf); (- -),
swine manure (SM). CH4 yield of co-digestion mixtures of SM with (B) Mz, (C) Sf, and (D) Rs. (--), mixtures were prepared with a
content of volatile solids (VS) of 25% of energy crop residue (ECR); (- -), 50% VS of ECR; and (--), 75% VS of ECR.
1048
Fig. 2. Volatile fatty acid (VFA) profiles obtained from the digestion of Sf (A), Mz (B), and SM (C). Symbols: (- -), acetic acid; (- -),
propionic acid; and ( ), butyric acid.
Fig. 3. VFA profiles obtained during batch experiments from co-digestion of mixtures of SM with Rs (A1) 25% VS of ECR, (A2) 50%
VS of ECR, (A3) 75% VS of ECR, Sf (B1) 25% VS of ECR, (B2) 50% VS of ECR, (B3) 75% VS of ECR, and Mz (C1) 25% VS of
ECR, (C2) 50% VS of ECR, (C3) 75% VS of ECR. Symbols: (--), acetic acid; (- -), propionic acid; and ( ), butyric acid.
1049
build-up of VFAs.
On the basis of the results obtained from batch tests,
mixtures containing 50% of ECR were chosen for performing evaluations under semi-continuous operation. This
decision was based on the minor modifications observed in
CH4 yield obtained at this ratio as compared to the yield
from the digestion of SM alone, and also to avoid possible
solid build-up problems which may occur under continuous operation.
3.2. Semi-continuous operation
Daily biogas production is shown in Fig. 4A. During the
adaptation period (days 1 ~ 30), reactors were characterized by a limited output of biogas, which was in accordance
with the low OLR applied. Setting the operational conditions at a HRT of 30 days resulted in a gradual increase in
the production of biogas for all reactors evaluated. Codigestion systems presented a higher production of biogas
in comparison to that of R_SM. Fig. 4B shows the specific
gas production (SGP) for reactors. No improvement in the
SGP was observed from the addition of the co-substrates.
As such, the synergistic effects which may have been present under batch conditions were not registered under
semi-continuous operation. The higher production of
biogas obtained from co-digesting systems was explained
by the increase in OLR arising from the ECRs.
Biogas production was steady in all systems from day 60
onwards, with the exception of R_Rs. Over this period the
composition of the gas showed minor variations. However,
co-digestion with Rs was characterized by an upward trend
in the production of biogas from day 90 onwards. This
behavior is likely to be due to an accumulation of VS
Table 2. Main operational parameters of digesters studied R_Rs, R_Mz, R_Sf, and R_SM under semi-continuous operation (HRT of 30
days)
Parameters*
Biogas (L/day)
SGP biogas (m3/kg/VSfeed)
CH4 yield (m3/kg/VSfeed)
CH4 (%)
CO2 (%)
TS (g/L)
VS (g/L)
VS removal (%)
TS (g/L)end
VS (g/L)end
COD (g/L)
pH
Alkalinity (g/L)
NH4+-N (mg/L)
NH3-N (mg/L)
R_SM
1.6 0.1
0.46 0.03
0.33 0.03
71.5 1.2
28.5 1.2
39.0 3.9
22.2 2.9
36.6 8.4
35.0 0.4
20.0 0.3
28.6 4.9
8.0 0.1
17.5 0.4
4,580 254.2
418.9 55.5
R_Rs
3.5 0.3
0.51 0.04
0.34 0.03
65.9 3.2
34.1 3.2
60.1 9.1
41.8 9.1
40.3 13.0
136.0 4.1
113.0 4.5
61.2 3.7
7.9 0.1
18.1 1.0
.4438 281.0
332.8 52.4
R_Sf
2.7 0.2
0.39 0.03
0.26 0.02
65.0 2.9
35.0 2.9
60.5 3.6
38.7 2.5
44.7 3.6
87.0 3,2
55.0 2,2
52.7 2.6
7.9 0.1
17.3 0.4
4,368 331.5
319.5 28.7
R_Mz
3.2 0.1
0.46 0.02
0.30 0.01
63.1 2.0
36.9 2.0
54.8 1.4
33.4 1.9
52.3 2.7
91.0 5.0
70.0 4.8
41.2 2.5
7.9 0.1
17.0 0.5
4,440 259.1
346.6 32.4
1050
Fig. 5. VFA concentration of digesters studied A) R_Rs, B) R_Mz, C) R_Sf, and D) R_SM. Symbols: (--), acetic acid; (- -), propionic
acid; and ( ), butyric acid.
1051
7.
8.
9.
4. Conclusion
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported financially by project PSS
12000-2008-57/PROBIOGAS of the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation and by the European Regional
Development Fund [ERDF].
18.
19.
20.
21.
References
22.
1. Raven, R. P. J. M. and K. H. Gregersen (2007) Biogas plants in
Denmark: Successes and setbacks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
11: 116-132.
2. Weiland, P. (2006) Biomass digestion in agriculture: A successful
pathway for the energy production and waste treatment in Germany. Eng. Life Sci. 6: 302-309.
3. Tranter, R. B., A. Swinbank, P. J. Jones, C. J. Banks, and A. M.
Salter (2011) Assessing the potential for the uptake of on-farm
anaerobic digestion for energy production in England. Energy
Policy 39: 2424-2430.
4. Ward, A. J., P. J. Hobbs, P. J. Holliman, and D. L. Jones (2008)
Optimisation of the Anaerobic digestion of agricultural
resources. Bioresour. Technol. 99: 7928-7940.
5. lvarez, J. A., L. Otero, and J. M. Lema (2010) A methodology
for optimising feed composition for anaerobic co-digestion of
agro-industrial wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 101: 1153-1158.
6. Ashekuzzaman, S. M. and T. G. Poulsen (2011) Optimizing feed
23.
24.
25.
26.
composition for improved methane yield during anaerobic digestion of cow manure based waste mixtures. Bioresour. Technol.
102: 2213-2218.
Demirel, B. and P. Scherer (2011) Trace element requirements of
agricultural biogas digesters during biological conversion of
renewable biomass to methane. Biomass Bioenergy 35: 992-998.
Mondragn, F. A., P. Samar, H. H. J. Cox, B. K. Ahring, and R.
Iranpour (2006) Anaerobic codigestion of municipal, farm, and
industrial organic wastes: A survey of recent literature. Water
Environ. Res. 78: 607-636.
Statistical Office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT)
(2011). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/data/database.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino (MARM)
(2010).http:// www.marm.es.
Chen, Y., J. J. Cheng, and K. S. Creamer (2008) Inhibition of
anaerobic digestion processes: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 99:
4044-4064.
Hansen, K. H., I. Angelidaki, and B. K. Ahring (1998) Anaerobic
digestion of swine manure: Inhibition by ammonia. Water Res.
32: 5-12.
Kayhanian, M. (1994) Performance of a high-solids anaerobic
digestion process under various ammonia concentrations. J.
Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 59: 349-352.
Henze, M. (1995) Wastewater treatment: Biological and chemical processes. Environmental engineering, Springer, Berln, Germany.
Angelidaki, I. and B. K. Ahring (1994) Anaerobic thermophilic
digestion of manure at different ammonia loads: Effect of temperature. Water Res. 28: 727-731.
Mata-Alvarez, J., S. Mac, and P. Llabrs (2000) Anaerobic
digestion of organic solid wastes. An overview of research
achievements and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 74: 3-16.
Molinuevo-Salces, B., M. C. Garca-Gonzlez, C. GonzlezFernndez, M. J. Cuetos, A. Morn, and X. Gmez (2010)
Anaerobic co-digestion of livestock wastes with vegetable processing wastes: A statistical analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 101:
9479-9485.
Probiogas (2010) http://www.probiogas.es/
Hendriks, A. T. W. M. and G. Zeeman (2009) Pretreatments to
enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour.
Technol. 100: 10-18.
Palmowski, L. M. and J. A. Mller (2000) Influence of the size
reduction of organic wastes on their anaerobic digestion. Wat.
Sci. Technol. 41: 155-162.
Gmez, X., M. J. Cuetos, J. I. Prieto, and A. Morn (2009) BioHydrogen production from waste fermentation: Mixing and static
conditions. Renew. Energy 34: 970-975.
Cuetos, M. J., X. Gmez, M. Otero, and A. Morn (2008) Anaerobic digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory
scale: Influence of co-digestion with the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Biochem. Eng. J. 40: 99-106.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association, and Water Environment Federation (1998) Standard
methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th ed.,
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C, USA.
Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch
polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.74:
3583-3597.
Walkey, A. and I. A. Black (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed
modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37:
29-38.
Lobato, A., M. J. Cuetos, X. Gmez, and A. Morn (2010)
Improvement of biogas production by co-digestion of swine
1052