DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/ijred.8.3.253-259

Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Water Hyacinth (E. crassipes) with Ruminal Slaughterhouse Waste for Biogas Production

1Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, University of Nairobi; P.O. Box 10344-00100 Nairobi, Kenya

2Department of Environmental Science & Land Resources Management, South Eastern Kenya University; P.O. Box 170-90200 Kitui, Kenya

Received: 19 Jul 2019; Revised: 22 Sep 2019; Accepted: 21 Oct 2019; Available online: 30 Oct 2019; Published: 27 Oct 2019.
Editor(s): H Hadiyanto

Citation Format:
Cover Image
Abstract

The use of biomass as renewable energy source is of interest in reducing dependence on fossil fuels and associated impacts of climate change. Water hyacinth (WH), an invasive aquatic plant of environmental concern has large biomass that is available for biogas production. Co-digestion of this largely lignocellulose biomass with other substrates may correlate process parameters and improve biogas production. This study evaluated co-digestion of WH biomass with various mix proportions of ruminal slaughterhouse waste (RSW) at 24, 32 and 37°C in order to assess the optimum proportion and temperature. The rate of biomethanation increased with temperature from 0.23 at 24ºC to 0.75 and 0.96 at 32ºC and 37ºC, respectively, and similarly methane yield improved from 14 at 24ºC to 40 and 52 L/kg air dried water hyacinth at 32ºC and 37ºC respectively. A WH: RSW ratio of 30% showed optimum acclimatization and methane yield in a residence time of 60 days. The duration of the initial drop in pH that indicates hydrolysis stage decreased with increase in proportion of RSW, indicating faster hydrolysis and fermentation processes. Longer and stable latter alkaline pH zone suggested improved biomethanation and greater biogas production. Co-digestion with 30% RSW at 24ºC improved biogas yield by 75% from 8.05 to 14.09L/Kg biomass, methane component of biogas by 9% from 59 to 68% and reduced the retention time for substrate by 36%, suggesting synergy in co-digestion with respect to biogas quality. Changing the temperature from 24 to 32ºC increased the yield by 186% and reduced retention time by 73%. The results demonstrated synergy in co-digestion of the two substrates and the process dynamics that are useful in a possible process commercialization. ©2019. CBIORE-IJRED. All rights reserved

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Co-digestion; Biomass; Biogas; Water hyacinth; C/N ratio; Ruminal Slaughterhouse Waste.
Funding: University of Nairobi and Jomo Kenyatta University of Science and Technology

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Original Research Article
Language : EN
Recent articles
Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Water Hyacinth (E. crassipes) with Ruminal Slaughterhouse Waste for Biogas Production Microgrids for rural schools: An energy-education accord to curb societal challenges for sustainable rural developments Gasification of Pelletized Corn Residues with Oxygen Enriched Air and Steam More recent articles
Most cited articles
Determining the Optimum Tilt Angles to Maximize the Incident Solar Radiation - Case of Study Pristina Effect of Temperature on Plasma-Assisted Catalytic Cracking of Palm Oil into Biofuels Thermal effects investigation on electrical properties of silicon solar cells treated by laser irradiation Energy-Exergy Analysis of A Novel Multi-Pass Solar Air Collector With Perforated Fins Multi-Feedstocks Biodiesel Production from Esterification of Calophyllum inophyllum Oil, Castor Oil, Palm Oil and Waste Cooking Oil More cited articles
  1. Abdel-Hadi, M. A. (2008). A simple apparatus for biogas quality determination biological engineering Misr J. Ag. Eng., 25(3), 1055- 1066
  2. Aliyu S. and Zahangir M., (2016). Pretreatment Methods of Organic Wastes for Biogas Production. Journal of Applied Sciences, 16, 124-137
  3. Andersen A., Seeley J., and Aurand J., (2010). The Use of Gas Chromatography for Biogas Analysis, the American Physical Society, 2010. Available online: http://www.aps.org
  4. Aragaw T. and Andargie M., (2013). Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums, Int J Phys Sci, 8, 443-450
  5. Aurora, S.P., (1983). Microbial Digestion in Ruminants, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi
  6. Bajpai P., (2016). Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Biofuel Production. Springer Briefs in Green Chemistry for Sustainability, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0687-6_2
  7. Bett M., (2012). A review of techniques for management of invasive plant species. University of Eldoret. Unpublished version
  8. Boontian, N. (2014). Conditions of the Anaerobic Digestion of Biomass. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering, 8 (9)
  9. Budiyano, I. N., Widiasa, J. and Sunarso, S., (2010). Increasing biogas production rate from cattle manure using rumen fluid as inoculums. International Journal of Chemical and Basic applied Sciences, 10, 68-75
  10. Budiyano, I. N., Widiasa, J. and Sunarso, S., (2010). The kinetic of biogas production rate from cattle manure in batch mode. International Journal of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 3(3), 39-44
  11. Callaghan J.F, Wase A. J. D, Thayanithy, K., Forster F.C., (1999). Co-digestion of Waste Organic Solids: Batch Studies. Bioresource Technology, Vol. 67, 117-122 DO - 10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00108-4
  12. Callaghan J.F, Wase D.A.J, Thayanity K., Forster C.F., (2002). Continuous co-digestion of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 22,71–77
  13. Castillo, R.T., P.L. Luengo, and J.M. Alvarez (1995). Temperature effect on anaerobic of bedding manure in a one phase system at different inoculums concentration. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 54:55-66
  14. Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. (2008). Inhibition of anaerobic process, a review. Bioresour Technol 99,4044–4064
  15. Chin K.K. and Goh T.N., (1978). Bioconversion of solar energy: methaneproduction through water hyacinth. Symp Energy BiomassWaste 78,215–228
  16. Cuetos J., Gomez X., Otero M., Moran A., (2010). Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion of slaughterhouse waste (SHW): influence of heat and pressure pre-treatment in biogas yield Waste Manage 30,1780–1789
  17. Dias T, Fragoso R, Duarte E., (2014). Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cattle manure and pear waste. Bioresour Technol 164:420–423
  18. Earnest V.P. and Singh L.P. (2013). Biomethanation of vegetable and fruit waste in co-digestion process. Int. J. of Emerg. Technol. and Advanced Eng., 3(6), 493-495
  19. Edstrom M., A. Nordberg, L. Thyselius, (2003). Anaerobic treatment of animal byproducts from slaughterhouses at laboratory and pilot scale, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 109 127e138
  20. Esposito, G., Frunzo, L., Giordano, A., Liotta, F., Panico, A., Pirozzi, F., (2012). Anaeriobic co-digestion of organic wastes. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol DOI 10.1007/s11157-012-9277-8
  21. Feng, H., Hu, L., Mahmood, Q., Fang, C., Qiu, C., &Shen, D. (2009). Effects of temperature and feed strength on a carrier anaerobic baffled reactor treating dilute wastewater. Desalination, 239(1), 111-121
  22. Gangulya A., Blankchard R., Wheatley A., Kumar P.C., (2015). Optimization of Process Parameters for Catalytic Conversion of Solid Bio-waste during Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion Procedia. Environmental Sciences 35, 763 – 770
  23. Gomez X. and Cuetos M.J., (2006). Anaerobic co-digestion of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction of the municipal solid wastes: conditions for mixing and evaluation of the organic loading rate. Renewable energy, 31(12), 2017-2024
  24. Holman, J. P. (1995). Experimental methods for engineers, 6th ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill, p. 539-43
  25. Juliet B., Vasilije M., Philip L., (2016). Biomass resources and biofuels potential for the production of transportation fuels in Nigeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 63,172-192
  26. Konstandt, H. G. (1976). Engineering’s operation and economics of methane gas production. Seminar on Microbial Energy Conversion, Gottingen, Erich Goetze Verlag, Germany
  27. Kugelman I. J. (1971). Toxicity, Synergism, and Antagonism in Anaerobic Waste Treatment Processes. American-Standard, Inc., New Brunswick, N. J. K. K. CHIN Singapore Polytechnic, Singapore 2
  28. Kumar A. K. and Sharma S., (2017). Recent updates on different methods of pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstocks: a review. Bioresour Bioprocess. 4(1), 7
  29. Li J, Jha AK, He J, Ban Q, Chang S, Wang P., (2011). Assessment of the effects of dry anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung with waste water sludge on biogas yield and biodegradability. Int J Phys Sci 6:3679–3688
  30. Li Sun., (2015). Biogas Production from Lignocellulosic Materials. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, ISSN 1652-6880
  31. Malakahmad, A., Zain, S. M., and Basri, N. E. A. (2012). Biomethanation of kitchen waste and sewage sludge in anaerobic baffled reactor. Paper presented at the Humanities, Science and Engineering Research (SHUSER), 2012 IEEE Symposium on
  32. Njogu, P., Kinyua, R., Muthoni, P. and Nemoto, Y., (2015). Biogas Production Using Water Hyacinth (Eicchornia crassipes) for Electricity Generation in Kenya. Energy and Power Engineering, 7, 209-216
  33. O’Sullivan C., Rounsefell B., Grinham A., Clarke W., Udy J., (2010). Anaerobic digestion of harvested aquatic weeds: water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). cabomba (Cabomba caroliniana) and salvinia (Salvinia molesta). Ecol Eng 36:1459–1468
  34. Omondi, E.A., Ndiba, P.K. and Njuru, P.G. (2019). Characterization of water hyacinth (E. crassipes) from Lake Victoria and ruminal slaughterhouse waste as co-substrates in biogas production SN Appl. Sci. 1: 848
  35. Patil J.H., Raj M.A., Gavimath C.C., Hooli V.R., (2011). A comparative study on anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth with poultry litter and cow dung. Int J Chem Sci Appl 2(2):148–155
  36. Petrell RJ, Bagnall LO., (1991). Hydromechanical properties of water hyacinth mats. Aquacult Eng 10:133–147
  37. Prashant B., Suresh S., Kumar A. and Krishnakumar P. (2016). A Review on Enhancement of Biogas Yield by Pre-treatment and addition of Additives MATEC Web of Conferences 62 620
  38. Rao P.V. and Baral S.S., (2011). Experimental design of mixture for the anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge. Chem Eng J 172:977–986
  39. Reddy K.R. and Debusk W.F., (1985). Growth characteristics of aquatic macrophytes cultured in nutrient-enriched water. II. Azolla, Duckweed, and Salvinia. Econ Bot 39(2):200–208
  40. Siegert I., and C. Banks., (2005). The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors, Process Biochem 40:3412–3418
  41. Subhabrata A. Amit G., Bhattacharya A., Dey A., Chatterjee P. K., (2013). Enzymatic hydrolysis of water hyacinth biomass for the production of ethanol: Optimization of driving parameters. Indian journal of experimental biology. 51. 556-66
  42. Svetlana L. and Johan V., (2010). Biomass for Energy versus Food and Feed, Land Use Analyses and Water Supply. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Energy and Technology Report 022 ISSN 1654-9406
  43. Svetlana L., Johan V., (2009). Global Potential of Sustainable Biomass for Energy. SLU, Institutionen för energi och teknik, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Energy and Technology Report 013, ISSN 1654-9406
  44. Tag El-Din AR., (1992). Utilization of water hyacinth hay in feeding of growing sheep. Indian J Anim Sci 62(10):989–992
  45. Thomas, I. Kai, W. Juan, C. Ixcaraguá, L. Vera, B. Garabed, A. Gerd, B. and Irina, S., (2011). Comparison of different pretreatment methods for lignocellulosic materials. Part I: Conversion of rye straw to valuable products. Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Thermal Separation Processes, Eißendorfer Straße 38, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany volume 76, Pages 1485-1496
  46. Tufaner F.and Avsar Y., (2016). Effects of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: a review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2016) 13:2303–2312
  47. Vaidyanathan S., Kavadia K. M., Shroff K. C., Mahajan S. P., (1985). Biogas production in batch and semicontinuous digesters using water hyacinth. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:905–908
  48. Wei Wu., (2010). Anaerobic Co-digestion of Biomass for Methane Production: Recent Research Achievements. Accessed on. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.456.258
  49. Yadvika, Santosh S., Sreekrishnan T. R., Kohli S., Rana V. (2004) Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniques – a review. Journal of Bioresource Technology; 95:1–10
  50. Yiqing Y., (2016). Leading pretreatments for enhancing the degradability of lignocellulosic wastes and the final products. Department of biological technology Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman WA USA. Environmental Technology Reviews Pages 103-111
  51. Zhang Y., Banks C.J. and Heaven S. (2012). Co-digestion of source segregated domestic food waste to improve process stability. Bioresour. Technol., 114, 168–178

Last update:

  1. Sustainable Rural Development Perspective and Global Challenges

    Adedeji A. Adelodun, Temitope M. Olajire, Ochuko Mary Ojo. 2023. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.101568

  2. Identifying Advanced Biotechnologies to Generate Biofertilizers and Biofuels From the World’s Worst Aquatic Weed

    Amine Ezzariai, Mohamed Hafidi, Widad Ben Bakrim, Mulugeta Kibret, Fadoua Karouach, Mansour Sobeh, Lamfeddal Kouisni. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9 , 2021. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.769366

  3. Exploring the potential of anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and cattle dung for enhanced biomethanation and techno-economic feasibility

    Sameh Samir Ali, Tamer Elsamahy, Abdallah Abdelfattah, Ahmed M. Mustafa, Maha A. Khalil, Savvas Giannis Mastropetros, Michael Kornaros, Jianzhong Sun, Maha Azab. Fuel, 329 , 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125397

  4. Preliminary Observation of Biogas Production from a Mixture of Cattle Manure and Bagasse Residue in Different Composition Variations

    H Hadiyanto, Figa Muhammad Octafalahanda, Jihan Nabila, Andono Kusuma Jati, Marcelinus Christwardana, Kusmiyati Kusmiyati, Adian Khoironi. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 12 (2), 2023. doi: 10.14710/ijred.2023.52446

  5. Biogas optimisation processes and effluent quality: A review

    Abdul-Aziz Issah, Telesphore Kabera, Francis Kemausuor. Biomass and Bioenergy, 133 , 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105449

  6. Modeling anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth with ruminal slaughterhouse waste for first order, modified gompertz and logistic kinetic models

    Erick Auma Omondi, Peter Kuria Ndiba, Gloria Koech Chepkoech, Arnold Aluda Kegode. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 12 (3), 2023. doi: 10.14710/ijred.2023.52775

  7. Effects of substrates on the growth of BETA VULGARIS SUBSP. VULGARIS in hydroponic systems

    Ngo TUAN, Le LONG, Nguyen PHUC THİEN. Politeknik Dergisi, 26 (2), 2023. doi: 10.2339/politeknik.955013

  8. Eichhornia crassipes root biomass to reduce antibiotic resistance dissemination and enhance biogas production of anaerobic membrane bioreactor

    Hadi Fakhri, Duygu Nur Arabaci, Suleyman Ovez, Sevcan Aydin. Environmental Technology, 43 (26), 2022. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2021.1946160

Last update: 2023-10-01 09:49:41

No citation recorded.