EFFECT OF FERMENTATION MIXTURE AND PARTICLE SIZE ON BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM ORGANIC AND AGRICULTURAL WASTES

Awny, A.; Faid Allah, Reham S. A.

doi:10.21608/mjae.2018.95340

EFFECT OF FERMENTATION MIXTURE AND PARTICLE SIZE ON BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM ORGANIC AND AGRICULTURAL WASTES

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Lecturer; Agric. Eng. Dept.; Fac. of Agric.; Zagazig Univ.; Egypt.

10.21608/mjae.2018.95340

Abstract

Six digesters made from transparent plastic with a capacity of 10 l (digestion volume of 7.5 l) were used for producing biogas. Four different organic wastes were used (fresh cattle dung, cotton stalks, water hyacinth and sugar beet). The digesters were experimented under six different fermentation mixtures (A, B, C, D, E and F) and three different particle sizes (5, 10 and 15 mm) .Digesters performance was evaluated through measuring daily gas production, cumulative biogas production, methane production and chemical analysis for biogas slurry such as nitrogen percentage and pH value. The experimental results revealed that the maximum daily biogas production and cumulative biogas values were 8.03 l and 108.3l respectively and also the maximum methane production value was 6.16 l for mixture D and particle size of 5 mm. as the highest nitrogen percentage and pH values were 4.3% and 6.83 for the mixture C and B respectively and particle size of 5 mm.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Biosystems Engineering

References

Abdel-Hadi, M. A. and S. A. M. Abd El-Azeem (2008).Effect of heating, mixing and digester Type on biogas Production from buffalo dung.Misr J. Ag. Eng., 25(4): 1454-1477

Agricultural Economics Bulletin (2016). Ministry of Agriculture, Cairo, Egypt

Angelidaki, I. and B.K. Ahring (2000).Methods for increasing the biogas potential from the recalcitrant organic matter contained in manure. Water Sci Technol, 41(3):189–94.

Eltawil M. A. And E. B. A. Belal. (2009) evaluation and scrubbing of biogas generation from agricultural wastes and water hyacinth.Misr J. Ag. Eng., 26(1): 534- 560.

Esposito, G., L. Frunzo, A. Panico and F. Pirozzi (2011). Modeling the effect of the OLR and of MSW particle size on the performance of an anaerobic co-digestion reactor. Brocess Biochem 4(6):557-560

Ezekoye, V. A. and C. E. Okeke (2006). Design, construction, and performance evaluation of plastic biodigester and the storage of biogas. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 7(2), 176-184.‏

Faure, D. and A. M. Deschamps (1990). Physico-chemical and microbiological aspects in composting of grape pulps. Biological wastes, 34(3), 251-258.‏

Gosch A., M. Hildegart, W. Ursula and J. Walter. (1983). The anaerobic treatment of poultry manure, Animal Res. and Dev., 17: 62-73.

GTZ-GATE (1999). Biogas Digest (Volume I. Biogas Basics) GTZ-GATE.Eschborn, Germany. http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/04- 5364.pdf

Hartmann, H.; I. Angelidaki And B.K. Ahring (2000). Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate organic matter in full-scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration. Water Sci Technol ;41(3):145–53.

Kivaisi, A.K. and S. Eliapenda (1994). Pre-treatment of bagasse and coconut fibres for enhanced anaerobic degradation by rumen microorganisms. Renew Energy ;5(2):791–5.

Kouichi, I, Y. K. Okishio, N. Nagao, C. Niwa, S. Yamamoto and T. Toda (2010). Effects of particle size on anaerobic digestion of food waste. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 64: 601–608

Mshandete, A.; L.Björnsson; A. K. Kivaisi; M. S. Rubindamayugi and B. Mattiasson (2006). Effect of particle size on biogas yield from sisal fibre waste. Renewable energy, 31(14), 2385-2392.‏

Palmowski, L. M., and J. A. Müller (2000). Influence of the size reduction of organic waste on their anaerobic digestion. Water science and technology, 41(3), 155-162.‏

Raheman, H. And S. Mondal (2012). Biogas production potential of jatropha seed cake. Biomass and Bioenergy.Volume 37, 25-30

Ukpai, P. A. and M. N. Nnabuchi (2012) Comparative study of biogas production from cow dung, cowpea and cassava peeling using 45 litres biogas digester. Advances in Applied Science Research. 3 (3): 1864-1869.