Available online at http://www.urpjournals.

com

International Journal of Natural and Applied Science

Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

Original Article
Development of Biogas Processing from Cow dung, Poultry waste, and Water
Hyacinth
Md. Forhad Ibne Al Imam1*, M. Z. H. Khan2, M. A. R. Sarkar3, S. M. Ali1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Rajshahi University of Engineering & Technology
P. O. Kazla, Rajshahi-6204, Bangladesh
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, Jessore Science and Technology University, Jessore 7408, Bangladesh
3
Department of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Jessore Science and Technology University, Jessore 7408,
Bangladesh
*
Corresponding author: Md. Forhad Ibne Al Imam, E-mail: sujon_me@yahoo.com
Received 28 February 2013; accepted 12 March 2013
Abstract
Bangladesh is a tropical country and its temperature condition is very suitable for the fermentation of organic materials
throughout the year. Therefore, there is a great prospect of biogas to be used as an alternative source of energy in
Bangladesh. This study investigated biogas production from different fermentable materials by a small size model biogas
plant. A model of batch type fixed dome biogas plant is designed and constructed for producing about 0.5 -1.0 m3 of bio
gas. The fermentable materials were selected as cow dung, poultry waste and water hyacinth. Biogas from cow dung,
poultry waste and water hyacinth was analyzed and compared. It was observed that biogas production from cow dung,
poultry waste and water hyacinth is 0.034 m3/kg, 0.058 m3/kg and 0.014 m3/kg respectively. Poultry waste produced
maximum gas 0.026m3 at the 8th day whereas cow dung and water hyacinth produced maximum gas 0.0263 m3 and
0.012m3 respectively at the 26th day. Percentage of methane content (the main constituent) in biogas produced from
different fermentable materials is almost the same.
2013 Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Biogas, alternative energy, fermentable materials, fixed dome biogas plant.
1. INTRODUCTION source of energy in Bangladesh. Anaerobic digestion has
Worldwide energy crisis directed the attention to the been considered as waste-to-energy technology, and is
alternative sources of energy instead of underground fossil widely used in the treatment of different organic wastes, for
fuel. Achieving solutions to possible shortage in fossil fuels example: organic fraction of municipal solid waste, sewage
and environmental problems that the world is facing today sludge, food waste, animal manure, etc [4].
requires long-term potential actions for sustainable Anaerobic treatment comprises of decomposition of
development. In this regard, renewable energy resources organic material in the absence of free oxygen and
appear to be one of the most efficient and effective production of methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia and
solutions [1]. Biogas has globally remained a renewable traces of other gases and organic acids of low molecular
energy source derived from plants that use solar energy weight [5]. Raw materials for biogas fermentation such as
during the process of photosynthesis. Being a source of cow dung, poultry waste, water hyacinth, straw, weeds,
renewable natural gas, it has been adopted as one of the leaf, human and animal excrement, domestic rubbish and
best alternatives for fossil fuels after 1970s world energy industrial solid and liquid wastes are easily available in
crisis. Biogas is a colorless, flammable gas produced via Bangladesh. Biogas production systems have several
anaerobic digestion of animal, plant, human, industrial and benefits, such as (a) eliminating greenhouse gas, (b)
municipal wastes amongst others, to give mainly methane reduction of odor, (c) betterment of fertilizer, (d)
(50-70%), carbon dioxide (2040%) and traces of other production of heat and power. Usually efficiency of biogas
gases such as nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia, hydrogen plant varies with the type of digester, the operating
sulphide, water vapour etc. [2]. It is smokeless, hygienic conditions, and the type of material loaded into the
and more convenient to use than other solid fuels [3]. digester. Operating temperature is an important factor
Average temperature of Bangladesh ranges from 20 oC to influencing digester efficiency. A digester can operate in
30o C. This is an ideal temperature for the fermentation of three temperature ranges: (a) the low temperature,
organic materials. So biogas is a prospective alternative psychrophilic bacteria range, which is less than 35C; (b)

International Journal of Natural and Applied Science 2013; 2(1): 13-17

13
the medium temperature, mesophilic bacteria range, which
is 29 to 40C; and (c) the high temperature, thermophilic
bacteria range, which is 50 to 55C. Although higher
temperature range produces greater quantities of biogas, an
additional source of energy will likely be required to
maintain the digester contents at a constant higher
temperature. The content of biogas varies with the material
being decomposed and the environmental conditions
involved [6]. Potentially, all organic waste materials
contain adequate quantities of the nutrients essential for the
growth and metabolism of the anaerobic bacteria in biogas
production. However, the chemical composition and
biological availability of the nutrients contained in these
materials vary with species, factors affecting growth and
age of the animal or plant [6]. Various wastes have been
utilized for biogas production and they include amongst
others; animal wastes [7-9], industrial wastes [10], food
processing wastes [11], plant residues [12,13] etc. Biogas, a
product from the decomposition of organic materials by
methanogenesis, can be the alternative source of energy for
most developing countries. Methanogenesis can be carried
out in different types of digesters by anaerobic reaction
[14-22].
A model of batch type fixed dome biogas plant is designed
and constructed for small amount of biogas production.
Percentage of different constituents in biogas is also
analyzed. In this study biogas production from cow dung,
poultry waste and water hyacinth was investigated. In each
case 13.5 kg of raw materials are charged separately in the
digester for the production of biogas. This shows that the
production rate is highest for poultry waste when all
fermentation conditions are the same.
Model Biogas Plant:
Biogas digester is a device in which the digestion process
occurs. The organic feedstock is fed into the digester and
permitted to undergo degradation in a sealed oxygen-free
chamber. Figure 1 shows the digester of this study. It is
made of GP sheet. The main parts are: hopper through
which slurry is introduced in the digester, inlet pipe which
carries slurry from hopper to the digester, digester or
fermentation chamber, where fermentation processes
occurred. It has two parts: one is upper part used for the
storage of biogas known as gas tank, and the lower part is
joined with upper part by nut-bolt arrangement for easy
discharging of sludge. There is a gas pipe for the delivery
of the gas from the fermentation chamber. The gas flow is
controlled by a gas valve.
International Journal of Natural and Applied Science 2013; 2(1): 13-17
14
Figure 1: Biogas digester
Design of the digester
The digestion liquor (waste that is diluted) should be in the
range of 5 to 12 percent of total solids (TS), and most
favorable TS value of slurry for fermentation is 8%. A rule
of thumb for diluting cattle waste is 2.5 parts water for
every one part of relatively dry waste or one part water for
every one part of fresh manure. The standard value of gas
production yield from cow dung is considered
as0.037m3/kg. The model plant is primarily designed for0.5
m3 of total gas production from cow dung. This means that
about 13.5 kg of cow dung is needed. The TS content of
cow dung is 17%. Therefore, amount of TS of 13.5 kg of
cow dung is 13.5 0.17=2.3 kg. Now amount of slurry
(fermentable materials plus water) is found from the ratio
of amount of TS to the TS of slurry. If the fermentation
materials entering the digester are calculated by 8% of TS
concentration, the quantity of input mixed materials of
digester is 2.3/0.08=28.75 kg. That means 28.75-13.5
= 15.25 kg of water is to be added. This amount of water is
consistent to that described in the thumb rule for the
dilution of cattle waste. The approximate volume of 28.75
kg slurry is 28.75 liters. Usually maximum volume of the
slurry in the digester is about 80% to that of the total
volume of the digester. This gives the total volume of the
digester as 28.75/0.8=35.9 liters. But, this study also used
poultry waste as fermentable material. Therefore, provision
is made in the total volume of the chamber for that also.
Considering the poultry waste whose gas production yield
is 0.07 m3/kg and TS is 25%, the total volume of the slurry
for 13.5 kg becomes about 42 liters. For slurry volume 80%
of total volume, the total volume of the digester becomes
about 52 liters. There is an optimum relation between the
diameter D of the digester and the total volume Vas
D=1.3078V1/3, where f1/D=1/5, f2/D=1/8 and H=D/2.5 [2].
This gives D=0.49 m, H=0.19m, f1=0.1 m and f2=0.06 m.
The chamber dimensions are shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 2: Digester dimension
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Figure 3 shows experimental set-up with gas measuring
arrangements. There are three sections. First section (1) is
digester with gas pipe and valve. Second (2) and third (3)
sections are gas measuring and pressure measuring
sections. Biogas is produced in the digester and taken to the
measuring section through gas pipe and valve. Gas
measuring section needs little bit clarification. Gas was
collected by water displacement method. This arrangement
consists of a larger pot made of GP sheet and a smaller pot
of very low weight made of plastic. Two pipes were
inserted from the bottom of the larger pot. One is from
digester and the other from the manometer. The smaller pot
was placed over these two pipes inside the larger pot upside
down. Water was poured into the larger pot until water was
reached the top of the pipe. When water level touches the
bottom of the smaller pot, the air inside the smaller pot was
removed through the pipe with which the manometer was
connected. The gas pressure is measured by a U-tube water
manometer. Before the production of gases, the volume of
gas storage chamber and gas pipe lines are occupied by air.
When gas is produced in the digester it pushes the air into
the smaller pot of the gas measuring arrangement and the
pot is uplifted. Initially this air is taken outside the pot and Figure 4: Gas production from cow dung
after sometime biogas was collected and measured. The
volume of the gas was measured by the formula V=pr2h (r
is the radius of the cylindrical pot and h is the height of the
pot from the water surface). Throughout the experiment
the maximum gas pressure recorded by the manometer was
only about 4 cm of water which is only 0.48% of the
atmospheric pressure. For this reason the effect of pressure
was neglected in the volume calculation.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Cow Dung as Fermentable Material
Cow dung, coming from a rumen animal is known to
contain the native microbial flora that aids in faster biogas
production. It has also been reported severally that cow
dung is a very good starter for poor producing feedstocks
[23-25]. Figure 4 shows the gas production from cow dung. Figure 5: Gas production from cow dung in different time
The average temperature of the digester was about 33.5C. slots
It shows that the hydraulic retention time for cow dung is
40 days and gas production starts at the 5th day. Maximum
gas is produced at the 26th day which is 0.0263 m3. Figure 5
shows the gas production in volume percent in four slots of
hydraulic retention time. In first slot from 0-10 days about
10% gas is produced. From 11-20 days gas production
increases to about 35%. In the third slot from 21-30 days
the maximum gas is produced which is about 46%. Finally,
from 31-40 days gas production reduces to about 9% and
gas production ceases after the 40 day.
This is predicted because biogas production rate in batch
condition is directly equal to specific growth of
methanogenic bacteria [26]. It was reported by Chen Ye, et Figure 6: Components of biogas from cow dung
al [27] that high concentration of ammonia nitrogen is toxic
to anaerobes, which will decrease the efficiency of the 3.2. Poultry Waste as Fermentable Material
digestion and upset the process. This yield seems Figure 7 shows the gas production from poultry waste. The
particularly similar to that reported by [27] during the average digester temperature was about 30 C. It shows that
anaerobic digestion of beef manure in mixed and unmixed the hydraulic retention time for poultry waste is about 54
reactors. It is clear that cow dung is an effective feedstock days and gas production starts at the 1st day. Maximum gas
for anaerobic digestion and could significantly enhance the is produced at the 8thday which is 0.026 m3.
cumulative biogas production.

Figure 3: Experimental setup with gas measuring

arrangement Figure 7: Gas production from poultry waste
International Journal of Natural and Applied Science 2013; 2(1): 13-17
15

Figure 8: Gas production from poultry waste in different
time slots
Figure 8 shows the gas production from poultry waste in
four slots of hydraulic retention time. In first slot from 0-10
days maximum amount of gas about 25% is produced.
From 1120 days gas production decreases to about 22%. In
the third slot from 21-30 days the gas production is about
18%. From 31-40days gas production increases slightly to
about 21%. From 41-50 days gas production decreases to
about 12%. Finally, from 51-54 days gas production
reduces to about 1.8% and gas production almost ceases
after the 54thday.
3.3. Water Hyacinth as Fermentable Material
Figure 9 shows the gas production from water hyacinth.
The average digester temperature was about 32C. It shows
that the hydraulic retention time for water hyacinth is about
36 days and gas production starts at the 4th day. Maximum
gas is produced at the 26thand 27thwhich is0.012 m3.
Figure 9: Gas production from poultry waste
Figure 10: Gas production from poultry waste in different
time slots
Figure 10 shows the gas production from water hyacinth in
International Journal of Natural and Applied Science 2013; 2(1): 13-17
16
four slots of hydraulic retention time. In first slot from 0-10
days about 12% gas is produced. From 11-20 days gas
production increases to about 27%. In the third slot from
21-30 days the maximum gas is produced which is about
46%. Finally, from 31-36 days gas production reduces to
about 13%and gas production almost ceases after the 36 th
day. Constituents of biogas from water hyacinth were
found very similar to that from cow dung (Fig. not shown
here).
3.4. Comparison of Results
Figure 11 shows the total gas production from different
fermentable materials. The average digester temperature for
different fermentable materials is a little bit different,
although constant digester temperature is desirable for
proper comparison. This is due to the seasonal changes
during the investigation procedure. It shows that the total
gas production from 13.5kg of cow dung is 0.46 m3. This
means that 0.034 m3/kg of biogas is produced from cow
dung. The total gas production from poultry waste is almost
twice (0.79 m3) to that of cow dung. This gives 0.058 m3/kg
of biogas production from poultry waste. And total gas
production from water hyacinth is 0.19 m3 which is
equivalent to 0.014 m3/kg. This means that less amount of
poultry waste is needed for the same amount of biogas
production in comparison to cow dung and water hyacinth.
Figure 11: Total gas production from different fermentable
materials
Figure 12: Gas production (vol. %) from different
materials in different time slots
The biogas production was different for different substrates
because the bacteria responsible for the breakdown of
substrate were different. While amylolytic bacteria is good
for cow dung, proteolytic bacteria is best for poultry
manures. What is good for the farmers, based on this
study,
is poultry manures but the supply of these substrates can be
a problem at times. Cow dung users can have a continuous
supply of substrate from animals on a daily basis. This is
one reason that the use of cow dung can be recommended
for the long term use. For large farms where there is
continuous process of rearing poultry, biogas production by
this method would be the best as continuous organic
loading of reactors would make available adequate biogas
for lighting, cooking and other uses.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The result of this research on the production of biogas from
cow dung, poultry waste and water hyacinth has shown that
flammable biogas can be produced from these wastes
through anaerobic digestion for biogas generation. These
wastes are always available in our environment and can be
used as a source of fuel if managed properly. The study
revealed further that cow dung and poultry waste as animal
waste has great potentials for generation of biogas and its
use should be encouraged due to its early retention time and
high volume of biogas yields. Also in this study, it has been
found that temperature variation, pH and concentration of
total solid etc., are some of the factors that affected the
volume yield of biogas production. Biogas technology can
be a viable development option for developing countries for
energy production and substitution if properly managed and
marketed.
References
1. K. Kaygusuz, A. Kaygusuz, Renewable Energy. 25
(2002) 431-453.
2. S. M. Maishanu, M.Musa, A. S. Sambo, Nigerian
Journal of Solar Energy, 9 (1990) 183-194.
3. A. V. Buren, A Chinese Biogas Manual, Intermediate
Technology Publications Ltd., 1979.
4. R.Li, S. Chen, X. Li, Anaerobic co-digestion of
kitchen waste and cattle manure for methane
production, Energy Sources, 31 (2009) 1848-1856.
5. W. S. Lopes, V. D. Leite, S. Prasad, Influence of
inoculum on performance of anaerobicreactors for
treating municipal solid waste, Bio resource
Technology 94 (2004) 261-266.
6. W. Anunputtikul, S. Rodtong, The Joint International
Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environmental
(SEE), HuaHin, Thailand. 1-3 Dec, 2004, 238- 243.
7. E. E. Nwagbo, I. J. Dioha, M. A. Gulma, Nig. J. Solar
Energy, 10 (1991) 145 149.
8. A.A. Zuru, H. Saidu, E. A. Odum, O.A. Onuorah, Nig.
J. Renewable Energy, 6 (1998) 43 47.
9. R. Alvarez, R. Villica, G. Liden, Biomass and
Bioenergy, 30 (2006) 66-75.
10. E. O. Uzodinma, A. U. Ofoefule, J. I. Eze, N. D.
Onwuka, Trends Appl. Sci. Res. 2 (2007)554-558.
11. I.S. Arvanitoyannis, T. H. Varzakas, Crit. Rev. Food
Sci. Nut., 48 (2008) 205-247.
12. A. U. Ofoefule, E. O.Uzodinma, Niger. J. Solar
Source of support: Nil; Conflict of interest: None declared
International Journal of Natural and Applied Science 2013; 2(1): 13-17
17
Energy, 19 (2008) 57 62.
13. A. U. Ofoefule, E. O. Uzodinma, O. D. Onukwuli, Int.
J. Phy. Sci., 4(2009) 535-539.
14. J. Fry, Methane digesters for Fuel gas and fertilizer
with complete instructions for two working models,
Brea, CA, 1973.
15. United States Department of Energy, Methane (biogas)
from anaerobic digesters, Energy Savers fact sheet,
USDE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Washington DC, January, 2003.
16. J. Kramer, Agricultural biogas, Casebook prepared for
Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program,
Council of Great Lakes Governors, Resource
Strategies, Inc., Madison, WI, September, 2002.
17. D. Meyer, J. Lorimor, Field experiences with two Iowa
dairy farm plug-flow digesters, ASEA paper No.
034012, Iowa State Cooperative Extension, Ames, IA,
April, 2003.
18. M. Moser, R. Mattocks, S. Gettier, K. Roos, Benefits,
costs, and operating experience at seven new
agricultural anaerobic digesters, Apresentation for
Bioenergy '98, Expanding bioenergy partnerships,
Madison, WI, AGSTARUSEPA, Washington, DC,
October, 1998.
19. C. Nelson, J. Lamb, Final Report: Haubens child
Farms Anaerobic Digester Updated, The Minnesota
Project, St. Paul, MN, 200, 2003.
20. D. Jones, J. Nye, A. Dale, Methane generation from
livestock waste, Purdue Cooperative Extension, West
Lafayette, IN, September, 1980.
21. C. Engler, E. Jordan, M. McFarland, R. Lacewell,
Economics and environmental impact of biogas
production as a manure management strategy,
Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Texas A & M,
College Station, TX, 1999.
22. M. Ernst, J. Rodecker, E. Luvaga, T. Alexander, J.
Miranowski, Viability of methane production by
anaerobic digestion on Iowa swine farms, Swine
Research Report, ASL-R1693, Dept. of Economics,
Iowa State, University, January, 2000.
23. A. U. Ofoefule, E. O.Uzodinma, C. N. Anyanwu,
Trends in Applied Sciences Research, 5 (2010) 39-47.
24. S. N. Misi, C. F. Forster, Bioresource Technology, 80
(2001)19-28.
25. S. Yadvika, T. Sreekrishnan, R. S. Kohl,V. Rana,
Bioresource Technology, 95 (2004) 1-10.
26. A. Nopharatana, P.C. Pullammanappallil, W. P.
Clarke, Kinetic and dynamic modelling of batch
anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste in astirred
reactor, Waste management, 27 (2007) 595-603.
27. Y. Chen, J. J. Cheng, K. S. Creamer, Inhibition of
anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresource
Technology, 99 (2008) 4044-4064.