EFFECT OF HEATING, MIXING AND DIGESTER TYPE ON BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM BUFFALO DUNG

Abdel-Hadi, M. A.; Abd El-Azeem, S. A. M.

doi:10.21608/mjae.2008.190280

EFFECT OF HEATING, MIXING AND DIGESTER TYPE ON BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM BUFFALO DUNG

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ Assist. Prof. of Dep. Ag. Eng., Fac. of Ag., Suez-Canal U., 41522 Ismailia, Egypt.

² Assist. Prof. of Dep. Soil and Water, Fac. of Ag., Suez-Canal U., 41522 Ismailia, Egypt.

10.21608/mjae.2008.190280

Abstract

Egypt has 3.43 million head buffalo and they produce about 3.5 million-ton/year of dung as air-dried material. The uncontrolled handling and storage of dung causes loss of organic matter, environmental pollution, methane emissive and a bad smell. The anaerobic digestion is one of the common technologies used for recycling organic wastes. Laboratory bench-scale biogas digester 22 liter capacity and 17 liter digestion volume (3 horizontals and 3 verticals type) were used for batch anaerobic digestion system of 95 day hydraulic retention time of buffalo dung 6.30 OTS% to study the effect of temperature, mixing and digester type on biogas production and methane content. The obtained results show that the biogas produced ranged between 104.7 to 468.1 L kg^-1 organic total solid (OTS) while methane yield ranged between 69.2 to 284.1 L kg^-1 OTS. The highest biogas yield was observed in vertical digester (468.1 L kg^-1 OTS) compared to horizontal digester (353.1 L kg^-1 OTS) in the cases of mixing and heating treatments. Meanwhile, the horizontal digester produced biogas (293.2 L kg^-1 OTS) more than vertical digester (179.0 L kg^-1 OTS) without mixing under room temperature. Similarly, the degradation percent of buffalo dung (expressed as organic carbon degradation, %) was increased in vertical digester compared to horizontal digester with mixing and temperature treatments. Consequently, the biogas and methane production were positively correlated with the temperature. Therefore, the maximum biogas yield was recorded in vertical digester with heating and mixing conditions. Maximum enhancement in biogas production over the control could be well correlated with maximum reduction in OTS and C/N ratio of buffalo dung manure. Therefore, we concluded that the amount of biogas production was not only depending on the type of digester but also affected by other parameters, i.e. mixing and heating conditions of the digester. The quantitative variations in biogas production were related with OTS, C, N and C/N ratio of the buffalo dung used.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Biosystems Engineering

References

Angelidaki, I. and B. K. Ahring (1994). Anaerobic thermophilic digestion of manure at different ammonia loads: Effect of temperature. Water Res. 28 (3), 727–731.

Bitton, G. (1994). Wastewater Microbiology. Weley-Liss, New York, USA.

Chae, K. J.; Jang, Am; Yim, S. K. and S. Kim (2008). The effects of digestion temperature and temperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Bioresourse Technology, 99:1-6.

Chen, T.; Chynoweth, D. P. and R. Biljetina (1990). Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste in a nonmixed solids concentrating digestor. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 24–25, 533–544.

Demirci, G. G. and G. N. Demirer (2004). Effect of initial COD concentration, nutrient addition, temperature and microbial acclimation on anaerobic treatibility of broiler and cattle manure. Bioresource Technol. 93, 109–117.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Solarenergie e.V., (DGS) (2006). Study on Solar and Biomass Energy Potential and Feasibility in Lao PDR Asia Pro Eco project TH/Asia Pro Eco/05 (101302). International Solar Energy Society, Germany

DEV (1971). Deutsche Einheitesverfahren zur Wasser- und Schlammuntersuchungung. Verlag Chemie, S. 2-6, Weinheim, Germany

Dolfing, J. (1992). The energetic consequences of hydrogen gradients in methanogenic ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 101, 183–187.

El-Mashad, H. M.; Zeeman, G.; Van Loon, Wilko K. P.; Bot, G. P. A. and G. Lettinga (2004). Effect of temperature and temperature fluctuation on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. Bioresource Technology, 95:191-201.

Erickson, L. E.; Fayet, E.; Kakumanu, B. K. and L. C. Davis (2004). Anaerobic Digestion. National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, KansasStateUniversity

FAO (2001). Production yearbook. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Vol. 55

FAO (2005). Relevance of Biogas Technology to Nepal. SESSION TWO, Consolidated Management Services Nepal, FAO/TCP/NEP/4415-T

Hamdy, Y. A. (1998). The Current Situation of Egyptian Agricultural Wastes. Proceedings of Anaerobic Treatment of Solid Wastes Workshop, 4 may 1998, MansouraUniversity, Mansoura, Egypt. pp 1-5 (in Arabic)

Hansen, H. H.; Angelidaki, I. and B. K. Ahring (1999). Improving thermophilic anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Water Res. 33 (8), 1805–1810.

Iannotti, D. A.; Pang, T.; Troth, B. L.; Elwell, D. L.; Keener, H. M. and H. A. J. Hoitink (1993). A quantitative respirometric method for monitoring compost stability. Compost Science and Utilization, 1:52-65.

Kalia, A. K. and S. P. Singh (1998). Horse dung as a partial substitute for cattle dung for operating family-size biogas plants in a hilly region. Bioresource Technology 64 (1998) 63-66. Elsevier Science Ltd. UK

Kaparaju, P.; Buendia, I; Ellegaard, L. and I. Angelidakia (2007). Effects of mixing on methane production during thermophilic anaerobic digestion of manure: Lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Bioresource Technology

Karim, K.; Hoffmann, R. ; Klasson, K. T. and M. H. Al-Dahhan (2005). Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: effect of mode of mixing. Wat. Res. 39, 3397–3606.

Kayhanian, M. and S. Hardy (1994). The impact of four design parameters on the performance of high-solids anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste for fuel gas production. Environ. Technol. 15, 557–567.

Kim, I. S.; Kim, D. H. and S. H. Hyun (2002). Effect of particle size and sodium concentration on anaerobic thermophilic food waste digestion. Wat. Sci. Tech. 41, 67–73.

Kivaisi, A. K. and M. Mtila (1998). Production of biogas from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Mart) (Solms) in a two stage bioreactor. World J. Microbiol. Technol. 14, 125–131.

köttner, m. (2003). Integration of biogas technology, organic farming and energy crops. The future of biogas in Europe II, European biogas workshop. October 2nd to 4th, 2003,University of Southern Denmarkesbjerg / Denmark

Lehtomäki, A.; Huttunen, S. and J. A. Rintala (2007). Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. Department of Biological and Environmental Science, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Conservation and Recycling 51 (2007) 591–609.

Lema, J. M.; Mendez, R.; Iza, J.; Garcia, P. and, F. Fernandez-Polanco (1991). Chemical reactor engineering concepts in design and operation of anaerobic treatment processes. Wat. Sci. Tech. 24, 79–86.

Marchaim, U. (1992). Biogas processes for sustainable development. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Services Bulletin: No 95, 232 p.

Nanda, A. S. and T. Nakao (2003). Role of buffalo in the socioeconomic development of rural Asia: Current status and future prospectus. Animal Science Journal 74, 443–455.

Ndegwa, P. M. and S. A. Thompson (2001). Integrating composting and vermin composting the treatment and bioconversion of biosolids. – Biores. Technol. 76: 107–112.

Okeke, C. E. and V. A. Ezekoye (2006). Design, Construction, and Performance Evaluation of Plastic Biodigester. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology Volume 7. Number 2. November, Nsukka, Nigeria

Reinecke, A. J.; Viljoen, S. A. and R. J. Saayman (1992). The suitability of Eudrilus eugeniae, Perionyx excavatus and Eisenia foetida (Oligochaeta) for vermicomposting in Southern Africa in terms of their temperature requirements. – Soil Biol. Biochem. 24: 1295–1307.

Rofiqul, I. M; Rabiul, I. M and A. M. Rafiqul (2006). Renewable energy resources and technologies practice in Bangladesh, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, doi:10.1016/j.rser.

Shilpkar, P.; Shah, M. and D. R. Chaudhary (2007). An alternate use of Calotropis gigantea: Biomethanation. Current Science, VOL. 92, NO. 4, 435-437 pp

Smith, L. C; Elliot, D. J. and A. James (1996). Mixing in upflow anaerobic filters and its influence on performance and scaleup. Water Res. 30, 3061–3073.

Stroot, P. G.; McMahon, K. D.; Mackie, R. I. and L. Raskin (2001). Anaerobic codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions-I. Digester performance. Water Res. 35, 1804–1816.

Van Haandel, A. and G. Lettinga (1994). Anaerobic Sewage Treatment- A Practical Guide for Regions with Hot Climate. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, UK

Vandeviviere, P.; De Baere, L. and W. Verstraete (2002). Types of anaerobic digester for solid wastes. In J. Mata-Alvarez (Ed), Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes (pp. 111-137). London: IWA Publishing.

Vavilin, V. A. and I. Angelidaki (2005). Anaerobic degradation of solid material: Importance of initiation centers for methanogenesis, mixing intensity, and 2D distributed model. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 89 (1), 13-122.

Vedrenne, F.; Beline, F.; Dabert, P. and N. Bernet (2007). The effect of incubation conditions on the laboratory measurement of the methane producing capacity of livestock wastes. (in press). Bioresour. Technol. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11. 043.

Viesturs, U.; Teliseva, G.; Dobele, G. and T. Dizbite (1995). Energy production from biomass: World experience. Proceedings of the LatvianAcademy of Science. Section B, No 9/10 (578/579), The Latvian Academy of Science, Latvia (pp97-112).

Wittmaier, M. (2003). Co-fermentation of organic substrates in the decentralized production of regenerative energy. Workshop, "Technologies of Municipal Waste Treatment- Experiences and Challenges", Hanoi Uni. Sc., Vietnam.