Journal of Biosystems Engineering

Korean Society for Agricultural Machinery (한국농업기계학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Kinetic Study of the Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure at Mesophilic Temperature: A Lab Scale Batch Operation

  • Kafle, Gopi Krishna (Department of Biosystems Engineering, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Hun (Department of Biosystems Engineering, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2012.07.12
  • Accepted : 2012.08.26
  • Published : 2012.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The kinetic evaluation was performed for swine manure (SM) degradation and biogas generation. Methods: The SM was anaerobically digested using batch digesters at feed to inoculum ratio (F/I) of 1.0 under mesophilic conditions ($36.5^{\circ}C$). The specific gas yield was expressed in terms of gram total chemical oxygen demand (mL/g TCOD added) and gram volatile solids added (mL/g VS added) and their effectiveness was discussed. The biogas and methane production were predicted using first order kinetic model and the modified Gompertz model. The critical hydraulic retention time for biomass washout was determined using Chen and Hashimoto model. Results: The biogas and methane yield from SM was 346 and 274 mL/ TCOD added, respectively after 100 days of digestion. The average methane content in the biogas produced from SM was 79% and $H_2S$ concentration was in the range of 3000-4108 ppm. It took around 32-47 days for 80-90% of biogas recovery and the TCOD removal from SM was calculated to be 85%. When the specific biogas and methane yield from SM (with very high TVFA concentration) was expressed in terms of oven dried volatile solids (VS) basis, the gas yield was found to be over estimated. The difference in the measured and predicted gas yield was in the range of 1.2-1.5% when using first order kinetic model and 0.1% when using modified Gompertz model. The effective time for biogas production ($T_{Ef}$) from SM was calculated to be in the range of 30-45 days and the critical hydraulic retention time ($HRT_{Critical}$) for biomass wash out was found to be 9.5 days. Conclusions: The modified Gompertz model could be better in predicting biogas and methane production from SM. The HRT greater than 10 days is recommended for continuous digesters using SM as feedstock.

Keywords

References

  1. APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Assoc., Washington, DC.
  2. Asam, Z. U. Z., T. G. Poulsen, A. S. Nizami, R. Rafique, G. Kiely and J. D. Murphy. 2011. How can we improve biomethane production per unit of feedstock in biogas plants? Applied Energy 88:2013-2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.036
  3. Bhattarai, S., D. H. Kim and J. H. Oh. 2012a. Simulation and model validation of pneumatic conveying drying for wood dust particles. Journal of Biosystems Engineering 37(2):82-89. https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2012.37.2.082
  4. Bhattarai, S., J. H. Oh, S. H. Euh, G. K. Kafle and D. H. Kim. 2012b. Simulation and model validation of sheet and tube type photovoltaic thermal solar system and conventional solar collecting system in transient states. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 103:184-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2012.04.017
  5. De Gioannis, G., A. Muntoni, G. Cappai and S. Milia. 2009. Landfill gas generation after mechanical biological treatment of municipal solid waste. Estimation of gas generation rate constants. Waste Management 29: 1026-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.016
  6. Diaz, J. P., I. P. Reyes, M. Lundin and I. S. Horvath. 2011. Co-digestion of different waste mixtures from agroindustrial activities: Kinetic evaluation and synergetic effects. Bioresource Technology 102:10834-10840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.09.031
  7. EI-Mashad, H. M. and R. Zhang. 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresource Technology 101:4021-4028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.027
  8. Gonzalez-Fernandez, C., B. Molinuevo-Salces and M. C. Garcia-Gonzalez. 2011. Evaluation of anaerobic codigestion of microalgal biomass and swine manure via response surface methodology. Applied Energy 88: 3448-3453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.035
  9. Hansen, T., J. Schmidt, I. Angelidaki, E. Marca, J. Jansen, H. Mosbæk and T. Christensen. 2004. Method of determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Waste Management 24:393-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.009
  10. Hashimoto, A. G. 1983. Thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic fermentation of swine manure. Agricultural wastes 6:175-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-4607(83)90085-9
  11. Haug, R. T. 1993. The practical handbook of composting engineering. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis publisher.
  12. Hayward, G. and V. Pavlicick .1990. A corrected method for dry matter determination for use in anaerobic digester control. Biological Wastes 34: 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(90)90011-G
  13. Islam, M. N., K. J. Park and H. S. Yoon. 2012. Methane production potential of food waste and food waste mixture with swine manure in anaerobic digestion. Journal of Biosystems Engineering 37(2):100-105 https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2012.37.2.100
  14. Kafle, G. K. and S. H. Kim. 2011. Sludge exchange process on two serial CSTRs anaerobic digestions: Process failure and recovery. Bioresource Technology 102: 6815-6822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.013
  15. Kafle, G. K., S. H. Kim and B. S. Shin. 2012a. Anaerobic digestion treatment for the mixture of Chinese cabbage waste juice and swine manure. Journal of Biosystems Engineering 37(1):58-64. https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2012.37.1.058
  16. Kafle, G. K., S. H. Kim and K. I. Sung. 2012b. Batch anaerobic co-digestion of Kimchi factory waste silage and swine manure under mesophilic conditions. Bioresource Technology (In press).
  17. Kim, D. H. and S. H. Hyun. 2004. Kinetics of thermophilic anaerobic digestion and effects of propionate on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Journal of Environment Science and Engineering 6:58-63.
  18. S. H. and G. K. Kafle. 2010. Effective treatment of swine manure with Chinese cabbage silage through two serial anaerobic digestions. Journal of Biosystems Engineering 35(1):53-62. https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2010.35.1.053
  19. Korea Ministry of Environment (KME). 2005. The state of solid waste generation and treatment in 2005. Seoul, South Korea.
  20. Kreuger E, I. A. Nges and L. Björnsson. 2011. Ensiling of crops for biogas production: effects on methane yield and total solids determination. Biotechnology for Biofuels 4:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-4-44
  21. Kumar, S., A. N. Mondal, S. A. Gaikward, S. Devotta and R. N. Singh. 2004. Qualitative assessment of methane emission inventory from municipal solid waste disposal sites: a case study. Atmospheric Environment 38:4921-4929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.052
  22. Li, C., P. Champagne and B. C. Anderson. 2011. Evaluating and modeling biogas production from municipal fat, oil, and grease and synthetic kitchen waste in anaerobic co-digestions. Bioresource Technology 102: 9471-9480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.103
  23. Lo, H. M., T. A. Kurniawan, M. E. T. Sillanpää, T. Y. Pai, C. F. Chiang, K. P. Chao, M. H. Liu, S. H. Chuang, C. J. Banks, S. C. Wang, K. C. Lin, C. Y. Lin, W. F. Liu, P. H. Cheng, C. K. Chen, H. Y. Chiu and H. Y. Wu. 2010. Modeling biogas production from organic fraction of MSW co-digested with MSWI ashes in anaerobic bioreactors. Bioresource Technology 101: 6329-6335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.048
  24. Owen, W. F., D. C. Stuckey, J. B. Healy, L. Y. Young and P. L. McCarty. 1979. Bioassay for monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Research 13: 485-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(79)90043-5
  25. Raposo, F., R. Borja, M. A. Martín, A. Martín, M. A. de la Rubia and B. Rincón. 2009. Influence of inoculumsubstrate ratio on the anaerobic digestion of sunflower oil cake in batch mode: process stability and kinetic evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal 149: 70-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2008.10.001
  26. Richards, B. K., R. J. Uummings, T. E. White and W. Jewell. Methods for kinetic analysis of methane fermentation in high solids biomass digesters. 1999. Biomass and Bioenergy 1(2):65 73.
  27. Shin, J. D., S. S. Han, K. C. Eom, S. Sung, S. W. Park and H. Kim. 2008. Predicting methane production potential of anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and food waste. Environmental Engineering Research 13(2): 93-97. https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2008.13.2.093
  28. VDI 4630. 2006. Fermentation of organic materials: characterization of the substrate, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests. In: Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Ed.), VDI Handbuch Energietechnik, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 10772 Berlin, Germany.
  29. Zhang, L., Y. W. Lee and D. Jahng. 2011. Anaerobic codigestion of food waste and piggery wastewater: Focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresource Technology 102(8):5048-5059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.01.082
  30. Zhang, R. H., Y. Yin, S. Sung and R. R. Dague. 1997. Anaerobic treatment of swine waste by the anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Transactions of the ASAE 40(3):761-767. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.21307

Cited by

  1. Emissions of Odor, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Volatile Organic Compounds from Shallow-Pit Pig Nursery Rooms vol.39, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2014.39.2.076
  2. Modelling methane production kinetics of complex poultry slaughterhouse wastes using sigmoidal growth functions vol.104, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.045
  3. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models vol.48, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021
  4. Assessing the effect of different treatments on decomposition rate of dairy manure vol.182, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.056
  5. Effects of chemical compositions and ensiling on the biogas productivity and degradation rates of agricultural and food processing by-products vol.142, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.018
  6. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study vol.37, pp.5, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2012.37.5.302
  7. Effect of feed to microbe ratios on anaerobic digestion of Chinese cabbage waste under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions: Biogas potential and kinetic study vol.133, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.006
  8. Anaerobic digestion of Chinese cabbage waste silage with swine manure for biogas production: batch and continuous study vol.35, pp.21, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2014.919033
  9. Minimization of diauxic growth lag-phase for high-efficiency biogas production vol.187, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.002
  10. Study on Natural Organic Materials as Biofilm Carriers for the Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion pp.1877-265X, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00628-7
  11. Effect of Aerobic Hydrolysis on Anaerobic Fermentation Characteristics of Various Parts of Corn Stover and the Scum Layer vol.12, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030381