Professional Documents
Culture Documents
b School
Received 27 March 2000; received in revised form 17 August 2001; accepted 12 September 2001
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion is a well established process for treating many types of organic waste, both solid and liquid. As such,
the digestion of cattle slurries and of a range of agricultural wastes has been evaluated and has been successful. Previous batch
studies have shown that based on volatile solids (VS) reduction, total methane production and methane yield, co-digestions
of cattle slurry (CS) with fruit and vegetable wastes (FVW) and with chicken manure (CM) were among the more promising
combinations. A continuously stirred tank reactor (18 litres) was used as a mesophilic (35 C) anaerobic reactor to examine
the e5ect of adding the FVW and CM to a system which was digesting CS. The retention time was kept at 21 days and
the loading rate maintained in the range 3.19 5:01 kg VS m3 d 1 . Increasing the proportion of FVW from 20% to 50%
improved the methane yield from 0.23 to 0:45 m3 CH4 kg1 VS added, and caused the VS reduction to decrease slightly.
Increasing the proportion of chicken manure in the feed caused a steady deterioration in both the criteria for judging digester
c 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
performance. This appeared to be caused by ammonia inhibition.
Keywords: Solid wastes; Fruit and vegetable wastes; Chicken manure; Anaerobic digestion; Co-digestion; Performance;
Inhibition; Cattle slurry
1. Introduction
Organic wastes are produced by a range of industries; for example, agriculture, food processing and
drink manufacture; and their quantities are appreciable. Dagnall [1] has reported that the waste produced
by the UK livestock industry (cattle, pigs and poultry)
amounts to about 34,000 tonnes of dry solids per day.
Agriculture and the food processing industry also generate a signiFcant amount of waste. In addition, domestic waste must be considered. In the UK, the solid
household wastes generated in 1995=96 were some
24 106 wet tonnes and it has been estimated that between 20% and 45% of this type of waste is organic
in nature [2].
Over the years, an array of ideas for the utilisation of these wastes have been put forward. These
have ranged from the chemical hydrolysis of the cellulose in refuse to provide a fermentation feed-stock
for the manufacture of single cell protein [3] to the
use of earthworms for the recycling of organic wastes
72
Banana skins
Broccoli stalks
Brussels sprouts
Grapefruit pieces
Grapefruit skins
Kiwi fruit skins
Orange skins
Potato skins
Rice
7.5
5.7
17.0
7.5
7.5
13.2
13.3
24.5
3.9
Table 2
Characteristics of the feed solids as sampled
pH
Total solids (g l1 )
Volatile solids (g l1 )
Ammoniacal-nitrogen
(mg kg1 )
Cattle slurry
Chicken manure
FVW
7.8
100 137
70 107
1040 1925
7.3
300 450
150 220
7000 12,800
4.2
167
156
10
73
Table 3
Organic loading rates (OLR) for the di5erent feed regimes
CS:FVW (wet weight)
OLR (kg VS m3 d 1 )
OLR (kg VS m3 d 1 )
100 : 0
80 : 20
70 : 30
60 : 40
50 : 50
3:62 0:15
4:22 0:10
4:52 0:11
5:22 0:10
5:01 0:07
100 : 0
70 : 30
50 : 50
25 : 75
10 : 90
3:19 0:14
3:83 0:19
3:97 0:26
4:44 0:21
4:75 0:42
74
0.5
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
TIME (weeks)
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
75
Overall, the anaerobic digestion process can be inhibited at low pH values. The inhibition of acetate and
propionate degradation by propionate (substrate inhibition) is also a recognised phenomenon [22,23]. The
concentrations of total VFAs produced by the digesters
are given in Table 4. They show that the lowest proportions of co-digestate, 30% CM and 20% FVW, caused
the VFA concentrations to increase only slightly
compared with the mono-digestion of CS. The higher
proportions produced signiFcantly higher concentrations of VFAs. However, as individual acid concentrations were not measured, it is not possible to judge
whether substrate or product inhibition was occurring.
The pH of the CM-based digestions did not show any
appreciable variation, staying in the range 7.88.0.
The digestions based on FVW did show a slight variation, with the pH decreasing from a value of 7.7
when the CS was being digested alone to one of 7.2
with the 50 : 50 feedstock. This implies that souring
of the digesters was not occurring.
One of the criteria for judging digester stability is
the VFA:alkalinity ratio. There are three critical values
for this [24,25].
0:4
0:40:8
0:8
76
Table 4
Volatile fatty acids generated during the di5erent co-digestions
Chicken manure
OLR
0
30
50
75
90
3.19
3.83
3.97
4.44
4.75
2192 342
2723 380
7990 625
9272 154
6369 598
4. Conclusions
When fruit and vegetable waste was co-digested
with cattle slurry with the feed containing 30% or more
FVW, high concentrations of volatile fatty acids were
produced. Despite this, mixtures of CS and FVW, with
proportions of FVW of up to 50% in the feed, gave
a good co-digestation in terms of methane yield, but
the VS reduction did decrease slightly.
Chicken manure was not as successful as a
co-digestate. As the amount of CM in the feed and
FVW
OLR
0
20
30
40
50
3.62
4.22
4.52
5.22
5.01
2202 357
2752 229
7458 1118
5320 813
7994 913
the organic loading was increased, the VS reduction deteriorated and the methane yield decreased.
This appeared to be due to the concentrations of free
ammonia present in the liquors.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Biotechnology and
Biological Science Research Council and their Fnancial support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Dagnall S. UK strategy for centralised anaerobic digestion.
Bioresource Technology 1995;52:27580.
[2] Ahring BK, Johansen K. Anaerobic digestion of source-sorted
household solid waste together with manure and organic
industrial waste. Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste, April 14 17, Venice,
Italy, 1992. p. 2038.
[3] Forster CF, Jones JC. The Bioplex concept. In: Birch GG,
Parker KJ, Worgan JT, editors. Food from waste. London:
Applied Science Publishers Ltd., 1976, p. 27889.
[4] Sharma N. Recycling of organic wastes through earthworms:
an alternative source of organic fertiliser for crop growth in
India. Energy Conserv Management 1994;35:2550.
[5] Mata-Alvarez J, MacUe S, LlabrUes P. Anaerobic digestion of
organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements
and perspectives. Bioresource Technology 2000;74:316.
[6] Wase DAJ, Thayanithy K. Biogas production. In: Dewi IA,
editor. Pollution control in livestock production systems. UK:
CAB International Ltd., 1992.
[7] Viswanath P, Devi SS, Nand K. Anaerobic digestion of
fruit and vegetable processing wastes for biogas production.
Bioresource Technology 1992;40:438.
[8] Viturtia AM, Mata-Alvarez J, Cecchi F, Fazzini G. Two-phase
anaerobic digestion of a mixture of fruit and vegetable wastes.
Biological Wastes 1989;29:18999.
77