ประสิทธิภาพการผลิตแก๊สชีวภาพจากกระบวนการหมักร่วมของผักบุ้ง และขี้เลื่อยร่วมกับมูลแพะ

Anthika Sa-ngiamjai

Authors

Anthika Sa-ngiamjai Faculty of Science and Technology, Phranakhon Si Ayutthaya Rajabhat University, Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya, Thailand

Keywords:

Biogas, Water Morning Glory, Sawdust, Goat Dung, Pretreatment

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Current alternative energy development prefers the use of wastes and by-products from industrial processes, agricultural activities as well as weeds and manures as raw materials for the production of biogas. Nevertheless, production of biogas from a lignocellulosic material requires pretreatment of such a raw material to break down its structure, thus allowing microorganisms to more efficiently digest the material. In addition, use of manure as a substrate may lead to the reduction of costs involved in waste and by-product disposal and hence the reduced environmental impact. The objective of the present study was therefore to investigate the potential of producing biogas by co-fermentation of water morning glory and sawdust with goat manure under anaerobic condition and to compare the production of biogas with and without pretreatment of the substrates.

Methodology: Water morning glory and sawdust were pretreated with 2% (w/v) sodium hydroxide solution for 1 hour. Experiments were conducted in a 6-L single-stage anaerobic fermentation tank with a working volume of 3 L for 35 days. The materials were added only once at the start of each experiment. Three experiments with three replicates were conducted. The control experiment (goat manure: morning glory: sawdust at a ratio of 5:0:0), experiment without pretreatment (goat manure: morning glory: sawdust, at a ratio of 3:1:1) and experiment with pretreatment (goat manure: morning glory: sawdust, at a ratio of 3:1:1) constituted the three experimental series. Concentrations of methane (CH₄) (%vol), carbon dioxide (CO₂) (% vol), oxygen (O₂) (% vol) and hydrogen sulfide gas (H₂S) (ppm) were followed as these are the major compositions of biogas produced in the fermentation tank; such concentration evolutions were measured daily in order to compare the potential for biogas production between the experiments with and without pretreatment and to evaluate factors that affected biogas production.

Main Results: Pretreatment of the raw materials resulted in higher C/N ratios. The ratios belonging to the experiments with pretreatment, without pretreatment and control experiment were 12.34, 11.37, and 10.22, respectively. Pretreatment yielded the highest methane concentration of 34% vol. This was followed by the results of the experiment without pretreatment and the control experiment, where the methane concentrations were 25% and 23% vol, respectively.

Conclusions: When comparing between the experiments with and without pretreatment, the former generated methane (CH₄) at the maximum concentration of 34% vol. The pretreatment resulted in the increased efficiency, indicating that the alkaline pretreatment with sodium hydroxide solution enhanced the potential for biogas production and increased the efficiency of biomass degradation. This in turn affected the biogas production process of methane-producing microorganisms in such a way that they could more easily generate biogas.

Practical Application: The results could be beneficial for goat farmers who can use the proposed methods to facilitate self-generation of biogas within the farms. The methods may also be applicable with other kinds of biomasses and manures as well.

References

Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X. and Ren, G., 2015, “Review on Research Achievements of Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, pp. 540-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032

Yadvika, S., Sreekrishnan, T.R., Kohli, S. and Rana, V., 2004, “Enhancement of Biogas Production from Solid Substrates Using Different Techniques -A Review,” Bioresource Technology, 95 (1), pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.010

Yentekakis, I.V. and Goula, G., 2017, “Biogas Management: Advanced Utilization for Production of Renewable Energy and Added-value Chemicals,” Frontiers in Environmental Science, 5, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00007

Kadam, R. and Panwar, N.L., 2017, “Recent Advancement in Biogas Enrichment and Its Applications,”Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, pp. 892–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.167

Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F. and Fahl, F., 2018, “Biogas: Developments and Perspectives in Europe,” Renewable Energy, 129, pp. 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.006

Abbas, Y., Yun S., Mehmood A., Shah, F.A., Wang, K., Eldin, E.T., Al-Qahtani, W.H., Ali, S. and Bocchetta, P., 2023, “Co-digestion of Cow Manure and Food Waste for Biogas Enhancement and Nutrients Revival in Bio-circular Economy,” Chemosphere, 311, pp. 137018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137018

Maduang, T., Chunhachat, O. and Phawongrat, R., 2021, “The Effect on Morphological Change of Cellulose Fibers by Sonochemical-assisted Pretreatment of Lignocellusic Biomass,” RMUTSB Academic Journal, 6 (1), pp. 26-36. (In Thai)

Jun, S.K., Lee, Y.Y. and Tae, H.K., 2016, “A Review on Alkaline Pretreatment Technology for Bioconversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass,” Bioresource Technology, 199, pp. 42-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.085

Phattakamon, S., 2018., Potential of Biogas Production from Water Hyacinth Mixed with Brewer’s Grains by Two Stage Anaerobic Digester, Research Reports, Faculty of Engineering, Rajabhat Mahasarakham University, p. 44. (In Thai)

Yamsri, P., Rojanasaeng, N., Dararat, S. and Ngaophuthong, A., 2020, “Biogas Production from Sweet Sorghum with Leach-Bed Reactor,” The 19th National Environmental Conference, 27-29 May 2020, Chiang Rai, Thailand, pp. 97-104. (In Thai)

Kayhanian, M. and Tchobanoglous, G., 1992, “Computation of C/N Ratios for Various Organic Fractions,” Biocycle, 33, pp. 58–60.

Okeh, C.O., Onwosi, O.C. and Odibo, C.F., 2014, “Biogas Production from Rice Husks Generated from Various Rice Mills in Ebonyi State Nigeria,” Renewable Energy, 62, pp. 204-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.07.006

Abraham, A., Mathew, A.K., Park, H., Choi, O., Sindhu, R., Parameswaran, B., Pandey, A., Park, J.H. and Sang, B., 2020, “Pretreatment Strategies for Enhanced Biogas Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass,” Bioresource Technology, 301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122725

Babaei, A. and Shayegan, J., 2019, “Effects of Temperature and Mixing Modes on the Performance of Municipal Solid Waste Anaerobic Slurry Digester,” Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 17 (2), pp. 1077–1084.

El-Mashad, M.H., Zeeman, G., Loon, K.P.W., Bot, P.A.G. and Lettinga, G., 2004, “Effect of Temperature and Temperature Fluctuations on Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure,” Bioresource Technology, 95, pp. 191-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2003.07.013

Schiraldi, C. and De Rosa, M., 2014, “Mesophilic Organisms,” pp. 1,285-1,286, in E. Drioli and L. Giorno (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Membranes, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40872-4_1610-2

Gonde, L., Wickham, T., Brink, H.G. and Nicol, W., 2023, “pH-Based Control of Anaerobic Digestion to Maximise Ammonium Production in Liquid Digestate,” Water, 15 (3), p. 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030417

Singharat, K., Sangkarak, S., Pongsuk, O. and Junyapoon, S., 2017, “Biogas Production from Bakery Wastewater in Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion System,” KMITL Science and Technology Journal, 17 (1), pp. 103-112.

Utami, I., Redjeki, S., Astuti, H.D. and Sani., 2016., “Biogas Production and Removal COD–BOD and TSS from Wastewater Industrial Alcohol (Vinasse) by Modified UASB Bioreactor,” The 3rd Bali International Seminar on Science & Technology (BISSTECH 2015), 15-17 October 2015, Bali, Indonesia, pp. 1-5.

Chanatawon, J. and Poodnoi, N., 2017, Co-digestion of Coffee Grounds and Pretreated Coffee Husk with Cow Manure for Enhancing the Efficiency of Biogas Production,” The 13th Conference on Energy Network of Thailand, 31 May-2 June 2017, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 1112-1119. (In Thai)

Fernandez, A.V., Vargas, G., Alarco, N. and Velasco, A., 2008, “Evaluation of Marine Algae as a Source of Biogas in a Two-stage Anaerobic Reactor System,” Biomass and Bioenergy, 32 (4), pp. 338-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.10.005

Liebetrau, J., Weinrich, S., Sträuber, H. And Kretzschmar, J., 2017, “Anaerobic Fermentation of Organic Material: Biological Processes and Their Control Parameters,” pp. 1-30, in R.A. Meyers (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology, Springer, New York, p. 12,555. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2493-6_962-1

Karki, B.A., Nakarmi M.A., Dhital, P.R., Sharma, I. and Kumar, P., 2015, Biogas as Renewable Source of Energy in Nepal. Theory and Development, 3rd ed., Alternative Energy Promotion Center (AEPC), Kathmandu, p. 5.

Pomngern, K., Soh-salam, P. and Pawongrat R., 2015, “The Effects of Steam Pretreatment on Production of Biogas from Cattail (Typha angustifolia L.) with Cow Dung by Batch Fermentation Process,” Proceedings of the 12th KU-KPS Conference, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, pp. 549-558. (In Thai)

Attiya, K., Pairat, U. and Hanphon, P., 2021, “A Study of Biogas Production Potential from Napier Grass,” Proceedings of The 16th RSU National Graduate Research Coference, Rangsit University, Thailand, pp. 61-69. (In Thai)

Adanikin, B.A., Ogunwande, G.A. and Adesanwo, O., 2017, “Evaluation and Kinetics of Biogas Yield from Morning Glory (Ipomoea aquatica) Co-digested with Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes),” Ecological Engineering, 98, pp. 98-104.

Ipeghan, O. and Evelyn, V.O., 2013, “Biogas Production from Sawdust Waste, Cow Dung And Water Hyacinth - Effect of Sawdust Concentration,” International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management, 2 (6), pp. 91-93.

Madu, K.E. and Onwuamaeze, P.I., 2018, “Evaluation of Sawdust Concentration on Biogas Production from Sawdust Waste, Cow Dung and Water Hyacinth,” Journal of Industrial Technology, 3 (1), pp. 41–46.