Sustainable Energy
ISSN (Print): 2372-2134 ISSN (Online): 2372-2142 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/rse Editor-in-chief: Apply for this position
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
Sustainable Energy. 2017, 5(1), 32-37
DOI: 10.12691/rse-5-1-5
Open AccessArticle

Optimization of Biogas Production in Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure by the Use of Alkalinity Index to Monitor a Prototype Cylindrical Digester

Ondiba Hesborn Andole1, , Zhongfang Lei2, Zhenya Zhang2, James Raude3 and Christopher Kanali3

1Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

2Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

3School of Biosystems and Environmental Engineering, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya

Pub. Date: December 26, 2017

Cite this paper:
Ondiba Hesborn Andole, Zhongfang Lei, Zhenya Zhang, James Raude and Christopher Kanali. Optimization of Biogas Production in Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure by the Use of Alkalinity Index to Monitor a Prototype Cylindrical Digester. Sustainable Energy. 2017; 5(1):32-37. doi: 10.12691/rse-5-1-5

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is one of the best alternative sustainable technologies for energy production and recovery from organic solid wastes. Up to now dry AD has been commercialized in the treatment of municipal solid wastes. Little information could be found on the practical application of dry AD to manure wastes or waste activated sludge. This study aimed at testing the feasibility of using alkalinity to manage dry AD system for swine manure treatment and clarify its effect on the stability and efficiency of the newly-developed prototype cylindrical digester system. A prototype cylindrical digester with a diameter of 40 mm and a volume of 1.3 liters was designed and fabricated. It was operated under mesophilic conditions (38C). The alkalinity of manure was increased by 3000 g/L (R1) and 6000 g/L (R2) by adding sodium bicarbonate with the raw swine manure as the control (R0). Results showed that R1 and R2 maintained a relatively higher level of alkalinity during the whole operation compared to the control (R0). Only one peak appeared in biogas production for the control reactor (R0) which almost ceased on day 12, whereas R1 and R2 exhibited two biogas peaks. The 30 days’ biogas yield for R2 was 276.6 ml/g-VSadded while R1 was 204.8 ml/g-VSadded which corresponds to an increase by 2.7- and 1.7- fold respectively as compared to the control (R0). 2.2- and 4.1-fold increase in methane production was achieved in R1 and R2 respectively as compared to R0. This difference is most probably attributable to the high alkalinity in R1 and R2 that stabilized the digestion process and minimized the influence of pH variations on methanogenesis.

Keywords:
alkalinity dry anaerobic digestion prototype cylindrical digester swine manure

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

Figure of 10

References:

[1]  World Bank, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) database from the SE4ALL Global Tracking Framework led jointly by the World Bank, International Energy Agency, and the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. 2014. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator(Accessed 24th, December 2017)
 
[2]  The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2010.Renewable Energy Country Profiles. http://www.irena.org/home/index.aspx?PriMenuID=12&mnu=Pri(Accessed 20th, October 2016).
 
[3]  Lei Z., Zhang Z., Huang W., Cai W., 2015. Recent Progress on Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Wastes: Achievements and Challenges. Current Organic Chemistry19, 400-412.
 
[4]  De Baere L., 2000. Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste: State-of-the-art. Water Science and Technology 41(3), 283-290.
 
[5]  Liu G., Peng X., Long T R., 2006. Advance in High Solid Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste. Journal of Central South University of Technology 13, 416-420.
 
[6]  Liu Z G., Zhu H.G.,Wan G.B., Zhang Y., 2009. Effect of Ratio of Manure to Crop on Dry Anaerobic Digestion for Biogas Production. Journal of Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 25 (4), 151-157.
 
[7]  Li Y., Park S.Y., Zhu J., 2011. Solid-state Anaerobic Digestion for Methane Production from Organic Waste. Renewable Sustainable and Energy 15, 821-827.
 
[8]  Zickefoose C., Hayes R. B., 1976. Anaerobic Sludge Digestion: Operations Manual. EPA 430/9-76-001.
 
[9]  Erlon L. P., Claudio M.M., Campos.,Fabricio M., 2013. Physicochemical Study of pH, Alkalinity and Total Acidity in a System Composed of Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR) in series with Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB) in the Treatment of Pig Farming Wastewater. ActaScientiarum- Technology 35, 477-483.
 
[10]  Jenkins S.R., Morgan J.M., Sawyer C.L., 1983. Measuring Anaerobic Sludge Digestion and Growth by a Simple Alkalimetric Titration. Water Pollution Control Federation 55, 448-453.
 
[11]  Ripley L. E., Boyle W.C., Converse J. C., 1986. Improved Alkalimetric Monitoring for Anaerobic Digestion of High-strength Wastes.Water Pollution Control Federation 58, 406- 411.
 
[12]  Rozzi A., Di Pinto A.C., Brunetti A., 1985. Anaerobic Process Control by Bicarbonate Monitoring. Environmental Technology 6, 594-601.
 
[13]  Colin F., Ferrero G. L., Ferranti M. P., Naveau H., 1984. Anaerobic Digestion and Carbohydrate Hydrolysis of Waste. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London. 391-394
 
[14]  Switzenbaum M.S., Giraldo-Gomez E., Hickey R.F., 1990. Review: Monitoring of The Anaerobic Methane Fermentation Process. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 12, 722-730.
 
[15]  APHA, 2012. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22nd edition edited by E. W. Rice, R. B. Baird, A. D. Eaton and L. S. Clesceri. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF), Washington, D.C., USA.
 
[16]  Zhou J., Zhang R., Liu F., Yong X., Wu X., Zheng T., Jiang M.,Jia H., 2016. Biogas Production and Microbial Community Shift Through Neutral pH Control During the Anaerobic Digestion of Pig Manure. Bioresource Technology 217, 44-49.
 
[17]  Dai X., Li X., Zhang D., Chen Y., Dai L., 2016.Simultaneous Enhancement of Methane Production and Methane Content in Biogas From Waste Activated Sludge and Perennial Ryegrass Anaerobic Co-digestion: The Effects of pH and C/N Ratio. Bioresource Technology 216, 323-330.
 
[18]  Mah R., Xun L.Y., Boone D., Ahringn B., Smithn P., Wilkie A., 1990. Methanogenesisfrom Propionate in Sludge and Enrichment Systems. In: Microbiology and Biochemistry of Strict Anaerobes Involved in Interspecies Hydrogen Transfer. Springer, pp. 99-111.
 
[19]  Kim M., Ahn Y.H., Speece R., 2002. Comparative Process Stability and Efficiency of Anaerobic Digestion; Mesophilic vs. Thermophilic.Water Research 36, 4369-4385.
 
[20]  Boone D.R., Xun L., 1987. Effects of pH, Temperature, and Nutrients on Propionate Degradation by a Methanogenic Enrichment Culture.Applied Environment Microbiology 53, 1589-1592.
 
[21]  Pullammanappallil P.C., Chynoweth D.P., Lyberatos G., Svoronos S.A., 2001. Stable Performance of Anaerobic Digestion in The Presence of a High Concentration of Propionic acid. Bioresource Technology 78, 165-169.
 
[22]  Nielsen H.B., Uellendahl H., Ahring B.K., 2007. Regulation and Optimization of The Biogas Process: Propionate as a Key Parameter. Biomass Bioenergy 31, 820-830.