Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Albert V. Alvaran
Venice Anne Avendao
Rhonalyn T. Guiang
Marielle F. Mercado
Project Proponents
FELERMA G. URBANO
Research Adviser
01 July 2013
INTRODUCTION
Biogas production is a key technology for the sustainable use of agrarian biomass
as renewable energy source. High energy yields per hectare can be achieved through
biogas production. Biogas can be produced from a wide range of energy crops, animal
manures and organic wastes. Thus, it offers a high flexibility and can be adapted to the
specific needs of contrasting locations and farm managements. After anaerobic digestion,
the digestion residues can be used as a valuable fertilizer for agricultural crops (Amon et
al, 2007). In order to access the energy potential of the materials, the long chains must
firstly be broken down to their smaller components such as sugars being readily available
for other bacteria. This process is so called hydrolysis. The hydrolysis step degrades both
insoluble organic material and high molecular weight compounds such as lipids,
polysaccharides, proteins and nucleic acids, into soluble organic substances (e.g. amino
acids and fatty acids). The components formed during hydrolysis are further split during
acidogenesis, the second step. Volatile fatty acids are produced by acidogenic (or
fermentative) bacteria along with ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and other
by-products (Appeals et al., 2008). The third step is acetogenesis, where the carbonic
acids and alcohols are further digested by acetogens to produce mainly acetic acids as
well as hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Finally, methanogenesis produces methane by two
groups of methanogenic bacteria: the first group splits acetate into methane and carbon
dioxide and the second group uses hydrogen as electron donor and carbon dioxide as
acceptor to produce methane.
compressed into a liquid fuel or used as an industrial chemical base for creating other
products. In addition to biogas, anaerobic digesters can produce raw material by-product
streams that can be further refined into higher value products such as fertilizer.
To be able to support this study, the researchers gathered many related studies and
one of the studies were conducted by Gary Hawkins (2013) entitled Converting Onion
Waste into Energy as a Co-digestant with Dairy Waste. This study aimed to
investigate the feasibility of using culled onions in conjunction with dairy waste to
produce methane gas. The experiment used 90 liter down flow anaerobic filters to process
a 50/50 mix of onion juice and dairy waste. Results from this study indicate the codigestion of culled onions and dairy waste provides a good way to dispose of the waste
onions while at the same time producing a renewable energy that can potentially be used
in the packing shed where the onions are separated. The 50/50 blend of onion waste and
dairy waste has consistently returned an average of 15 liters of biogas (70-75% methane)
per 3 liters of mixed waste entering the digesters with a cleaning efficiency over 85%.
Another study conducted by M.R. Santos, A. P. De Leon, M. A. Macaraeg, J.G.
Rambaud and G.C. Tanawan (2013) entitled Utilization of Household and Market
Wastes for Biogas Production. This project aims to provide natural and effective
utilization of disposing organic wastes such as rotten fruits and vegetable and fish gills
and intestines as probable source of biogas. Approximately 93 liters of feedstock was
gathered and fermented for 15 days. The feedstocks were divided into three groups:
Treatment 1 (Organic waste + 2% inoculants), Treatment 2 (Organic wastes +4%
inoculants) and Treatment 3 (Organic waste + 6% inoculants). The methane content of
10
the biogas was measured using the methane analyser. The pressure content of the biogas
was measured with the use of pressure gauge that was attached to portable digesters.
Results revealed that Treatment 3 (Organic waste + 6% inoculants) had the highest
methane content with 55.59 %. It is significantly comparable to treatment 1 with 54.65%.
It is therefore concluded that rotten fruits, vegetables, fish gills and intestines can be
source of biogas.
Another study conducted by I.R. Ilaboya, F.F. Asekhame, M.O. Ezugwu, A.A.
Eraameh and F.E. Omufuma (2010) entitled Studies on Biogas Generation From
Agricultural Waste; Analysis of the Effects of Alkaline on Gas generation. The focus
of this study was to investigate the importance of biogas as an alternative energy sources.
A survey was done to ascertain the amount of biogas that can be generated from various
feed stock. A practical laboratory scale experimental design using agricultural waste was
also done to find out the effects of Alkaline (Noah) on the volume of biogas generated
using a mixture of pineapple, plantain and cassava peelings as the feed stock. Results
obtained reveal a high volume of gas generated when the operating conditions inside the
digester is maintained at moderately alkaline condition. Further findings also reveal that
the digester temperature remained within the range of 27 to 35.5C throughout the period
of experimentation.
Jia, et al. (2011) conducted a research entitled Bioethanol Production Process
with Simultaneous Biogas Production. In this study, purification of the waste water
from corn stover-based bioethanol production process with simultaneous biogas
production. They investigated a combined system, which was based on thermophilic
11
anaerobic digestion in a fluidized bed reactor (AFBR), an aerobic airlift loop reactor
(ALR), and a biological aerated filter (BAF). High strength distillery wastewater and high
ammonia nitrogen content pretreatment wastewater were used as the influents. In the
thermophilic anaerobic process (5455C), the methane yield of 280 10.1 ml/g-COD
removed was obtained at organic loading rate (OLR) of 14.1 0.21 g-COD/l day and
hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 48 h in the AFBR. Then co-digestion of anaerobic
effluent and pretreatment wastewater was carried out in the ALR. COD and NH4 +N
average removal rate of 88.5 1.5% and 96.7 1.2% were obtained at HRT of 10 h,
temperature of 3033C and superficial gas velocity ( g ) of 12 mm/s. The aerobic
effluent was finally purified in the BAF operated at ambient temperature and HRT of 5 h
with simultaneous removal of COD, NH4 +N and chroma. Final effluent with COD and
NH4 +N concentrations of 65.1 5.1 mg/l and 3.9 0.5 mg/l was obtained with other
main indexes satisfying the primary discharge standards for the ethanol industry in China.
The study of Wan Azlina Wan Ab Karim Ghani and Azni Idris (2009) entitled
Preliminary Study On Biogas Production Of Biogas From Municipal Solid Waste
(Msw) Leachate was conducted to investigate the effect of leachate chemical oxygen
demand strength on biogas (methane) production using Laboratory Scale Digester. Three
sets of experiment were performed using municipal solid waste leachate slurry with two
different chemical oxygen demand strength strengths namely 3000 and 21000 mg/L
(referred as low and high strength, respectively). The experiments were conducted at a
controlled temperature of 35C and pH ranging from 6.8 to 7.3 over 20 days period. The
process performance was evaluated based on the biogas production and pollutants
removal efficiencies. Results showed that the high and low strength samples performed
12
quite similarly but with different biogas production rate observed. The biochemical
oxygen demand in the effluent removed up to 80%, but the performance of other
parameters such as chemical oxygen demand, total suspended solid and volatile
suspended solid was slightly decreased which contributes 33 to 46%,21 to 37% and 20 to
35%, respectively. From this study, it can be concluded that this method not only
contributed to renewable biogas production but also improved the effluent quality.
Definition of Terms
Agricultural Waste this is example of organic waste; this waste includes onion waste
consisting trimmed leaves and culled onion bulb, and other farm crops that is
left by the farmer
Anaerobic Digestion the process of decomposition of organic matter by a microbial
consortium in an oxygen-free environment (Pain and Hepherd, 1995). It is a
process found in many naturallyoccurring anoxic environments including
watercourses, sediments,waterlogged soils and the mammalian gut. It can also
be applied toa wide range of feedstocks including industrial and municipalwaste
waters, agricultural, municipal, food industry wastes, andplant residues.
Biogas mixture of carbon dioxide and methane produce by decomposing organic
matter, it will typically contain carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor,
hydrogen sulfide and 50-75% of special gas called methane gas
Trimmed Onion Leaves this is example of onion waste, this is one of the factor why
onion waste reach in tons of tons of waste
Culled Onion Bulbs - one of the examples of onion waste; contains 89% of water
(H2O), 4% of sugar (C12H22O11), 1% of protein, 2% of fiber and 0.1% of
fat(Block, 2010).
13
Pig Manure one the most odorous dung; the leading problem of many smallholders;
contains bacteria such as methanogens which useful in biogas production.
Research Paradigm
The research paradigm that used in this study consists of three interacting major
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Production of biogas
14
Extraneous Variable
Amount of water
Kind and level of treatments
Types of digester used
Length of Fermentation
METHODOLOGY
15
plastic hose.The bottle lid was lined with thread seal tape and was sealed with screw cap.
The outer portion of the cap was further sealed using rubber tape to ensure that no gas
will escape through it.
The glass bottle that served as gas storage was filled with 1L water to determine
the amount of gas produced by water displacement method. The gas storage cap has two
holes which allow the entry of gas from the digester and the displacement of water to the
graduated cylinder. The water was colored with blue dye to see clearly the amount of
water displaced. The graduated cylinder holds the water that was displaced from the gas
storage bottle.
16
A 46cm long with 5mm diameter polyurethane plastic hose was installed
connecting two bottles to facilitate the transfer of gas from the digester to the gas storage
bottle. Another 10cm long plastic hose, with the same specifications, was fitted on the
digesters cap to act as gas sampling port. This is where methane concentration reading is
done.To facilitate displacement of water from gas storage bottle to the graduated cylinder,
a 60cm long hose was mounted. Displacement of water is not possible if there is gas leak.
To prevent gas leakage, a tubing clamp was fitted into the hose to prevent escape of gas.
Moreover, all caps were sealed with thread seal tape and rubber tape, and all hose fitted to
caps were sealed using quick dry epoxy.
Preparation of Waste Materials
Culled onion bulbs were finely diced while onion leaves were coarsely ground and both
were weighed according to set proportions (Tables 1 and 2) using Ohaus digital analytical
balance.The initial moisture content of the onion wastes was determined using Adam
Infrared Moisture Analyzer. The onion wastes were blended with water using Waring
Blender and poured to the digester with the aid of funnel. Then, the pig manure was
added and was stirred manually by shaking until the manure was dissolved. For each
batch, a control set-up which contains only pig manure and water was prepared in order
to compare the effect of co-digestion with onion wastes. The digesters were sealed
immediatelyand labeled. The operating volume of the digester was 800ml for all
treatments. The sludge from the digesters were placed in a big container and boiled for 1
hour to ensure that the bacteria present in the treatment will not cause contamination.
Characteristics of the Waste Sample
The average waste samples for diced onion bulb, ground onion leaves and pig
manure were taken using Adam Infrared Moisture Analyzer. Also, the initial pH and final
17
onion bulb and control for trimmed onion leaves was also prepared with three treatment
each and three replication each. This set-up was done to determine the effect of onion
waste in biogas production. The total average biogas produced for onion waste was
compared to the total average biogas produced for control set-up.
Experimental Design
Simple Complete Randomized Design (CRD) was applied to analyze the data
obtained from different treatment.
Table 1. Treatment combinations for the co-digestion of culled onion bulb and pig
manure.
Treatment
Combination
T1
Water, ml
Leaves, g
Manure, g
768
16
16
T2
768
9.6
22.4
T3
768
22.4
9.6
Table 2. Treatment combinations for the co-digestion of dried onion leaves and pig
manure
19
Treatment
Combination
T1
Water, ml
Bulbs, g
Manure, g
720
40
40
T2
720
24
56
T3
720
56
24
Mixture containing ratios of 50/50, 30/70 and 70/30 percent of culled onion
bulb or leaves to pig manure were used in this study. The ratio of water was constant with
90% and 96% of the digesters effective volume for culled onion bulbs and onion leaves,
respectively.
Thirty-six digesters with operating volume of 800ml were set up for all
treatments including the set-up for the control. All the treatments were ensiled for 42 days
under anaerobic condition. Homogenization of the waste sample is very important to
ensure representative sampling.
Statistical Analysis
The experiment was laid in Complete Randomized Design (CBD) and data were
analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Experimental Procedure
Sorting
Grinding
Drying
20
Chopping
Post-treatment of Sludge
Selected organic waste such as pig manure and onion waste consisting trimmed
leaves and culled onion bulb were evaluated as potential source of biogas. Trimmed
leaves and culled onion bulbs were collected in the vicinity of Science City of Muoz,
Nueva Ecija while fresh pig manure was collected nearby backyard pig raiser.
Characteristics of the Experimental Sample
21
Average Initial pH
Waste-Manure)
T1 (720-40-40)
7
T2 (720-24-56)
7
T3 (720-56-24)
7
Control (720-0-40)
8
Table 4. The average initial and final pH of onion leaves
Average Final
pH
8
8
5
8
As revealed in Table 3 and Table 4, the initial and final pH readings varied from
Treatment Combination (Water-Onion
Average Initial pH
Average Final
Waste-Manure)
pH
T1 (768-16-16)
7
8
T2 (768-9.6-22.4)
7
8
T3 (768-22.4-9.6)
7
5
Control (768-0-16)
8
8
7.0-8.0 for culled onion bulled and trimmed onion leaves. The optimal pH range to
produce biogas was 7.0-8.0. In this exact pH range, the methanogenic bacteria was on
active state and the rapid growth of microorganism has occurred. When the pH is less
than 7.0 or greater than 8.0, it is necessary to add up chemicals in order to get the pH
range of 7.0-8.0. Since, the initial pH of the treatment ranges from 7.0-8.0, the treatment
combination of waste sample was sufficient to produce biogas. Bulb-T 3 (Table 3) and
Leaves-T3 (Table 4), also shows that some pH decline to 5.0, which means, that those
treatment got the pH of 5.0 stop in producing biogas. Moreover, both table shows that
22
most of the treatments got the final pH of 8.0; this explains that those treatment
combinations have a possibility to produce biogas.
A range of pH values suitable for anaerobic digestion has been reported by
various researchers, but the optimal pH for methanogenesis has been found to be around
7.0 (Huber et al., 1982; Yang and Okos, 1987). Similarly, Lee et al. (2009) reported that
methanogenesis in an anaerobic digester occurs efficiently at a pH range of 6.5 to 8.2,
while hydrolysis and acidogenesis occurs at pH 5.5 and 6.5, respectively (Kim et al.,
2003).
b) Moisture Content and Temperature
The average moisture content of the experimental samples were 49.8 %, 10.7%
and 71.7% for diced onion bulb, ground onion leaves and pig manure, respectively. Due
to its dry property, the onion leaves absorb much of the water making the treatment hard
to mix. According to Department of Energy and Environment (2010), it is important to
get the moisture content of substrate, because this will be the basis for the needed water
in the substrate. Thats why leaves have a water content of 768mL, because it has the
moisture content of 10.7% in order to prevent concentrated substrate.
The average ambient temperature at the experimental area was 30 oC at daytime
and 29oC at night time. It is important to maintain a stable operating temperature, since
sharp and/or frequent fluctuations in temperature affect the bacteria, especially the
methanogens. Process failure can occur at temperature changes in excess of 1oC/day
(Turovskiy at al., 2006).
Biogas Yield
23
The amount of biogas produced was monitors by measuring the water displaced
weekly. The analysis was done on a weekly done on a weekly basis for six weeks,
analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze.
Treatment
T1
T2
T3
Control
1
684.00
858.00
343.50
813.80
Replicate
2
857.00
791.00
349.70
846.20
Mean
3
649.50
867.50
390.50
817.50
730.17a
838.83a
361.23b
825.83b
*Any means having the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level
Treatment
T1
T2
T3
Control
1
713.70
761.50
634.50
479.80
Replicate
2
838.50
827.60
554.00
530.80
Mean
3
844.30
630.00
513.50
390.30
798.83a
739.70a
567.33b
466.97b
*Any means having the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level
As shown in Table 5 and Table 6, T2 (Table 5) gave the highest biogas yield and
T3 (Table 5) gave the lowest biogas yield. Biogas produced in T 2 (Table 5) was 838.34mL
while in T3 (Table 5) was 361.23mL. T3 (Table 5) gave the lowest biogas yield because its
final pH is 5.0 which cause the production of biogas stops. Also, both tables show that all
24
25
Treatment
T1
T2
T3
Control
1
24.43
30.64
12.27
19.38
Replicate
2
30.61
28.25
12.49
20.15
Mean
3
23.20
30.98
13.95
19.46
26.08a
29.96a
12.90b
19.66c
*Any means having the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level
Treatment
T1
T2
T3
Control
1
16.99
18.13
15.11
11.42
Replicate
2
19.96
19.70
13.19
12.64
Mean
3
20.10
15.00
12.23
9.29
19.02a
17.61a
13.51b
11.12b
*Any means having the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level
As shown in Table 7 and Table 8, Control (Table 8) had the fastest rate of biogas
production and T2 (Table 7) had the slowest. The rate of biogas production of T 3 (Table 7)
was 11.12 while T2 (Table 7) was 29.96. As state in the previous results, T2 (Table 5) gave
the highest biogas yield but it gave the slowest rate of biogas production. This implies .
Also that the final pH of T3 (Table 3) and T3 (Table 4) was decline to 5.0 thats why two
26
of them got the short period of time. Hence, Bullb-T3 must consider being the fastest in
producing biogas because bulb was easy to decompose than leaves. Furthermore, BulbT3 has a ratio of 70/30 (720mL water, 56g culled onion bulb and 24g pig manure). This
implies that the higher mass of culled onion bulb, the faster its production of biogas.
According to Saravanan and Manikandan (2012) production of biogas was faster when it
has large amount of organic waste and mixed with manure.
27
Based on the findings, results showed that the highest biogas produced was
obtained from Bulb - T2 with a total amount of 834.84 ml for culled onion bulb and it was
comparable to Bulb T3 with 361.83 mL. Results also showed that culled onion bulb and
trimmed leaves with different pig manure ratio has significant effect on the production of
biogas. The results also showed that Leaves-Control is the fastest among other treatments
in producing biogas.
It is therefore conclude that onion waste and pig manure had high potential for
utilization of biodegradable source for biogas production. Furthermore, the more the ratio
of culled onion bulb mixed with pig manure, the more biogas was produced. The pH
value in methane production must be in range of 7.0-8.0 at ambient temperature.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3. Used of other animal manure such as buffalo, horse and cattle manure for
biogas production.
4. Determined the physico-chemical properties for further enrichment of the
5.
study.
Further studies be conducted on the biogas production using indigenous
materials.
LITERATURE CITED
Books
Newspaper
Pain, B.F., & Hepherd, R.Q., (1995). Anaerobic digestion of livestock wastes. In: Pain,
B.F., Hepherd, R.Q. (Eds.), Anaerobic Digestion of Farm Waste. NIRD Technical
Bulletins, Reading, pp. 914.
29
Periodicals
Alatriste-Mondragon, F., Samar, P., Cox, H.H.J., Ahring, B.K., Iranpour, R. (2006).
Anaerobic codigestion of municipal, farm, and industrial organic wastes: a survey
of recent literature. Water Environment Research, 78, 607636.
Angelidaki, I., & Ellegaard, L. (2003). Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in
centralized biogas plants status and future trends. Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology, 109, 95105.
Appels L., Baeyens J., Degrve J. & Dewil R. (2008). Principles and potential of the
anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Energy and Combustion Science,
34,755-781.
Bolzonella, D., Battistoni, P., Susini, C., & Cecchi, F. (2006). Anaerobic codigestion of
waste activated sludge and OFMSW: the experiences of Viareggio and Treviso
plants (Italy). Water Science and Technology, 53, 203211.
Callaghan, F.J., Wase, D.A.J., Thayanithy, K., & Forster, C.F. (1999). Co-digestion of
waste organic solids: batch studies. Bioresource Technology, 67, 117122.
30
Castillo, R.T., Luengo, P.L., & Alvarez, J.M. (1995). Temperature effect on anaerobic of
bedding manure in a one phase system at different inoculums concentration.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 54, 55-66.
Forster-Carneiro, T., Prez, M. & Romero, L. I. (2008). Influence of total solid and
inoculum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste.
Bioresource Technology, 99(15), 6994-7002.
Gomez, X., Cuetos, M.J., Cara, J., Moran, A., & Garcia, A.I. (2006). Anaerobic codigestion of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal
solid wastes conditions for mixing and evaluation of the organic loading rate.
Renewable Energy, 31, 20172024.
Hartmann, H., Ahring, B.K. (2005). Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste: influence of co-digestion with manure. Water Research,
39, 15431552.
Hills, D.J., Roberts, D.W. (1996). Conversion of tomato, peach and honeydew solid waste
into methane gas. Transactions of the Asae, 25, 820826.
Husted, S. (1995).Seasonal-variation in methane emission from stored slurry and solid
manures. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23, 585592.
Knol, W., Vandermost, M.M., & Waart, J.D. (1995). Biogas production by anaerobic
digestion of fruit and vegetable waste preliminary study. Journal of the Science
of Food and Agriculture 29, 822830.
Moller, H.B., Sommer, S.G., & Ahring, B.K. (2004a). Biological degradation and
greenhouse gas emissions during pre-storage of liquid animal manure. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 33, 2736.
31
Moller, H.B., Sommer, S.G., & Ahring, B.K. (2004b). Methane productivity of manure,
straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass & Bioenergy, 26, 485495.
Mshandete, A., Bjornsson, L., Kivaisi, A.K., Rubindamayugi, M.S.T., & Mattiasson, B.
(2006). Effect of particle size on biogas yield from sisal fibre waste. Renewable
Energy, 31, 23852392.
Romano, R.T. & Zhang, R.H. (2008). Co-digestion of onion juice and wastewater sludge
using an anaerobic mixed biofilm reactor .Bioresource Technology, 99, 631637.
Ruihong Zhang, Hamed M. El-Mashad, Karl Hartman, Fengyu Wang,Guangqing Liu,
Chris Choate, Paul Gamble. (2006). Characterization of food waste as feedstock
for anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology, 98 (2007, 929935.
Saravanan, M. and Manikandan K. (2012). Experimental study on biogas production in
batch type digester with different feed stocks. International Journal of Research
in Environment, 2(4), 132-135.
Tafdrup, S.,(1995). Viable energy production and waste recycling from anaerobic
digestion of manure and other biomass materials. Biomass & Bioenergy 9, 303
314.
Tanaka, S., Kobayashi, T., Kamiyama, K., Bildan, M. (1997). Effects of thermochemical
pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Water Science
and Technology 35, 209215.
Tiehm, A., Nickel, K., Zellhorn, M., Neis, U. (2001). Ultrasonic waste activated sludge
disintegration for improving anaerobic stabilization. Water Research 35, 2003
2009.
32
Thesis
Aurora, S.P. (2000). Microbial Digestion in Ruminants. Indian Council of Agricultural
Research, New Delhi.
Santos, M.R., De Leon, A. P., Macaraeg, M. A., Rambaud, J.G. and Tanawan , G.C.
(2013). Utilization of Huosehold and Market Wastes for Biogas Production.
Muoz, Nueva Ecija: Muoz National High School.
Websites
Block, E. (2009). Garlic and Other Alliums: The Lore and The Science. Retrieved May
28,
2010
from
http://www.amazon.com/Garlic-Other-Alliums-LoreScience/dp/1849731802.
Hawkins, G. (2010). Converting onion wastes into energy as co-digestion with diary
waste. Retrieved March 27, 2013 from http://www.extension.org/pages/67735/
converting-onion-waste-into-energy-as-a-co-digestant-with-dairy-waste.
Ilaboya, I.R. ,Asekhame, F. F., Ezugwu, M.O., Eraameh, A.A. and Omufuma, F.E.
(2010). Studies on Biogas Generation From Agricultural Waste; Analysis of the
Effects of Alkaline on Gas generation. World Applied Sciences Journal, journal 9,
pp. 537-545. Retrieved from http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj9(5)/13.
Wan Azlina Wan AbKarimGhani and AzniIdris (2009). Preliminary Study On Biogas
Production Of Biogas From Municipal Solid Waste (Msw) Leachate. Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4 pp. 374 380. Retrieved from
http://jestec.taylors.edu.my/Vol%204%20Issue%204%20December
%2009/Vol_4_4_374_380_Wan%20Azlina%20Wan%20Ab%20Karim%20Ghani
%20and%20Azni%20Idris.
33