Evaluation of Methane Yield on Mesophilic-Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Piggery Manure Mixed with Chaff for Agricultural Area

Abstract

A mesophilic-dry anaerobic digestion process is valid in treating high-concentration substrates containing low moisture content. It has merits of lower wastewater discharge and lower heat capacity required in maintaining reactor temperature as compared with a thermophilic-wet anaerobic digestion process. In fact, chaff can be easily obtained in farming areas and used as a mixture substrate as one of bulking agents for controlling moisture and supplying carbon. For this reason, this study applies the chaff to improve livestock manure, which contains high moisture content and is discharged from domestic pig farms. This study aims at verifying its feasibility for improving methane production efficiency on a basis of BMP (Biochemical Methane Potential) assay obtained through a series of experiments. Finding results were methane gas production and gas production per volatile solid (VS) added, and methane gas production among biogas production were increased as the chaff added in the piggery manure was increased. According to experimental results for improving the methane production efficiency, mixture of the chaff and the piggery manure played an important role in controlling the moisture content and improving the methane gas production rate, and also verified its feasibility in the mesophilic-dry anaerobic digestion process indicating relatively less difficulty for operation and management.

Share and Cite:

Kwak, D. , Kim, M. , Kim, J. , Oh, Y. , Noh, S. , So, B. , Jung, S. , Jung, S. and Chae, S. (2013) Evaluation of Methane Yield on Mesophilic-Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Piggery Manure Mixed with Chaff for Agricultural Area. Advances in Chemical Engineering and Science, 3, 227-235. doi: 10.4236/aces.2013.34029.

1. Introduction

A methane fermentation process has an advantage in treating organic contaminants for preventing environmental pollution when comparing a conventional aerobic treatment process. Naturally, the methane fermentation process has a combination limit of processes but it is relatively useful in aspects of energy production and resource collection. The methane fermentation process such as an anaerobic digestion process is a skill studied and used for a long time and is recently being magnified in a situation as an international concern focusing on climate change control and renewable energy demand. Especially, a biogas plant, one of the methane fermentation skills, has been used in many countries and known as one of effective strategy techniques for bio-fuel production [1].

Domestic livestock manure emission classified by livestock types has a component ratio as follows; 57.6% piggery manure (740,000 m3/d) and 42.4% cow manure (540,000 m3/d) [2], and dairy cow manure of the cow manure is emitted in the overcrowded area such as farms but few Korean native cattle are raised in small farmers and there are many bad cases in collecting and in treating Korean native cattle manure. The organic content is a raw matter to produce the methane and exists in the piggery manure as low as 2% to 5%. Thus, utilization of the piggery manure as a substrate is low and also it is known well that a stable operation of an anaerobic digestion tank is difficult because a fluctuation range of the organic content is large periodically and the moisture content is high enough [3].

The anaerobic digestion process is divided into a wet process and a dry process according to solid content or moisture content of the substrate used. Until the mid- 1980s, the wet process has been mainly applied in the field using waste matters within 10% solid content as the substrate. With EU as the center rapidly from the 1990s, however, the dry process has been developed to digest organic waste matters containing the solid content over 20% [4]. In treating the high-concentration substrate having low moisture content, the dry process requires low heat capacity to maintain the reactor temperature and discharges low wastewater after treatment [5]. However, it is not valid to put the livestock manure into the dry process directly because the livestock manure emitted from domestic piggery farms contains a great deal of moisture and the solid content of the livestock manure is very low. Meanwhile, the bulking agents such as rice straws, chaff, dead leaves fragments, sawdust, etc. are easy to obtain in the farm area and such agricultural byproducts have been used as the bulking agent for composing manure from old times and also as the carbon supplement for maintaining the proper C/N ratio. Practically, most of domestic livestock farms are located in the farming settlement that is producing a great deal of the bulking agent. In adopting the biogas plant in the domestic farming areas, the dry anaerobic digestion process is in a more advantageous situation than the wet process when considering realistic conditions, In Europe recently, studies on the dry digestion operation for the municipal organic solid waste are actively proceeding to reduce waste amounts for landfill and to produce the bio-energy [6,7]. However, previous studies mainly present that the operation results for high temperature (50˚C - 60˚C) conditions and continuous operation cases are also pretty rare [8].

To analyze the ultimate methane production rate (mL/gVSadded) caused by organic matters as the substrate for the anaerobic digestion process, it measures the methane amounts produced during the anaerobic batch incubation period and cumulative methane formula can be used to determine the methane production yield based on the observed data. Representative models such as Modified Gompertz model or Exponential model are used to analyze experiment data obtained through the methane production potential test [9,10]. Using those models described in Equations (1) and (2) as below, comparative studies are variously proceeding to determine the ultimate methane production yield of the substrates related to diverse components [11,12].

Modified Gompertz Model Equation [13]:

(1)

where, M: cumulative methane production yield (mLCH4/g-VS)

t: incubation time of an anaerobic digestion tank (days)

Mo: ultimate methane production yield (mL-CH4/g-VS)

Rm: maximum methane production rate (mL-CH4/gVS·day)

e: exp (1) = 2.71828182

λ: lag phase, days Exponential Model Equation:

(2)

where, B: cumulative methane production yield (mLCH4/g-VS)

t: incubation time of an anaerobic digestion tank (days)

Bo: ultimate methane production yield (mL-CH4/g-VS)

k: 1st order reaction rate constant (day−1).

With the purpose of energy resource recovery through the methane production due to the piggery manure in the farming area, this study conducts a series of experiments with the dry anaerobic digestion using the chaff. The chaff is easily obtained in the farming area as one of the byproducts and as the substrate to mix with the manure as well as to control the moisture. The anaerobic digestion has been conducted in the single-phase mesophilic condition, BMP (biochemical methane potential) assay has been applied to estimate the methane production potential due to the several mixture ratios between the piggery manure and the chaff based on the experimental results, and this study has been accomplished to find a way to improve the methane production efficiency.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Equipments and Operation Conditions

In experiments, a batchwise reactor of methane yield is prepared for single-phase anaerobic digestion as shown in Figure 1. For a dry methane production process of livestock manure as a main substrate, typical experimental conditions were adopted to examine gas production yield and responses characteristics. Experiments were set up to control pH if necessary and to incubate for 40 days as controlling to keep typical temperature for mesophilic digestion in a range of 35˚C ± 1˚C [14], and an additional agitator was excluded in the experiments.

Figure 1 describes a schematic diagram of a batchwise single phase digester for methane yield. 0.5 L serum bottles were set up to an incubator at a constant temperature. Operation conditions were monitored for every serum bottle in different mix proportions between piggery manure as a main substrate and chaff as a mixture substrate to control the moisture. Major items such as pH change and the gas production yield from the serum bottle were monitored due to each condition. The operator also

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of batchwise single phase digester for methane yield.

measured generating-capacity and methane content in gas collected in a teflon bag through an exhaust pipe in the middle of a gas-tight rubber stopper of the serum bottle at a constant time interval, every 3 days. Additionally, taking small amounts from all of samples and putting them into each 50 mL-tube, the operator measured its weight per VS (volatile solid) changed with operating under the same conditions.

Table 1 presents operation conditions and a substrate composition in the single phase digester. For two operation parameters such as the substrate concentration and the solid content, the methane production was estimated in different mixing ratios between the piggery manure and the chaff. All samples except a control group (marked as Run 1) were added trace elements in order to minimize unstable effects of microbial growth due to lack of essential elements in the anaerobic digester.  

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] P. Borjesson and B. Mattiasson, “Biogas as a Resource-Efficient Vehicle Fuel,” Trends Biotechnology, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2008, pp. 7-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.09.007
[2] H. J. Park, M. K. Song and C. K. Na, “Pretreatment Efficiency of Piggery Wastewater Using Coagulation-MAP Sedimentation,” Journal of Korea Society of Waste Management, Vol. 27, 2010, pp. 457-466.
[3] Y. M. Yoon, Y. J. Kim and C. H. Kim, “The Evaluation of Economical Efficiency to Composting and Liquefying Process of Biomass Discharged in Pig Breeding,” Agriculture Economics, Vol. 31, 2009, pp. 39-62.
[4] D. Bolzonella, L. Innocenti, P. Pavan, P. Traverso and F. Cecchi, “Semi-Dry Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: Focusing on the Start-Up Phase,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 86, No. 2, 2003, pp. 123-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00161-X
[5] P. Pavan, P. Battistoni and J. Mata-Alvarez, “Performance of Thermophilic Semi-Dry Anaerobic Digestion Process Changing the Feed Biodegradability,” Water Science and Technology, Vol. 41, 2000, pp. 75-81.
[6] N. Forster-Carneiro, M. Perez and L. I. Romero, “Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Wastes: Dry Thermophilic Performance,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 99, No. 17, 2008, pp. 8180-8184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.021
[7] B. Montero, J. L. Garcia-Morales, D. Sales and R. Solera, “Analysis of Methanogenic Activity in a Thermophilicdry Anaerobic Reactor: Use of Fluorescent in Situ Hybridization,” Waste Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009, pp. 1144-1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.010
[8] S. E. Oh, M. K. Lee and D. H. Kim, “Continuous Meso-philic-Dry Anaerobic Digestion of organic Solid Waste,” Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers, Vol. 31, 2009, pp. 341-345.
[9] J. J. Lay, Y. Y. Li and T. Noike, “Development of Bacterial Population and Methanogenic Activity in a Laboratory-Scale Landfill Bioreactor,” Water Research, Vol. 32, No. 12, 1998, pp. 3673-3679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00137-7
[10] W. F. Owen, D. C. Stuckey, J. B. Healy, L. Y. Young and P. L. McCarty, “Bioassay for Monitoring Biochemical Methane Potential and Anaerobic Toxicity,” Water Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, 1979, pp. 485-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(79)90043-5
[11] R. S. Daniel and J. M. Tiedje, “General Method for Determining Anaerobic Biodegradation Potential,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 47, 1984, pp. 850-857.
[12] I. Angelidaki, M. Alves, D. Bolzonella, L. Borzacconi, J. L. Campos, A. J. Guwy, S. Kaalyuzhnyi, P. Jenicek and J. B. van Lier, “Defining the Biomethane Potential (BMP) of Solid Organic Wastes and Energy Crops: A Proposed Protocol for Batch Assays,” Water Science and Technology, Vol. 59, No. 5, 2009, pp. 927-934. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.040
[13] M. H. Zwietering, I. Jongenburger, F. M. Rombouts and K. van’t Riet, “Modeling of the Bacterial Growth Curve,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 56, No. 6, 1990, pp. 1875-1881.
[14] T. L. Hansen, J. E. Schmidt, I. Angelidaki, E. Marca, J. Cour Jansen, H. Mosboek and T. H. Christensen, “Method for Determination of Methane Potentials of Solid Organic Waste,” Waste Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2004, pp. 393-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.009
[15] H. B. Mollera, S. G. Sommera and B. K. Ahringb, “Methane Productivity of Manure, Straw and Solid Fractions of Manure,” Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2004, pp. 485-495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.008
[16] J. K. Park, S. R. Jeong, J. H. Kang, Y. M. Ahn, H. E. Jin and N. H. Lee, “A Study on Optimization Condition for Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste with Livestock Wastes,” Journal of Korea Society of Waste Management, Vol. 29, 2012, pp. 356-364.
[17] S. H. Kim, H. C. Kim, C. H. Kim and Y. M. Yoon, “The Measurement of Biochemical Methane Potential in the Several Organic Waste Resources,” Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer, Vol. 43, 2010, pp. 356-362.
[18] S. Aslanzadeh, M. J. Taherzadeh and I. S. Horvath, “Pretreatment of Straw Fraction of Manure for Improved Biogas Production,” Bio-Resources, Vol. 6, 2011, pp. 5193-5205.
[19] J. G. Lin, Y. S. Ma, A. C. Chao and C. L. Huang, “BMP Tests on Chemically Pretreated Sludge,” Bioresources Technology, Vol. 68, No. 2, 1999, pp. 187-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00126-6
[20] P. Shanmugam and N. J. Horan, “Simple and Rapid Methods to Evaluate Methane Potential and Biomass Yield for a Range of Mixed Solid Wastes,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 100, No. 1, 2008, pp. 471-474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.06.027
[21] D. Jackowiak, D. Bassard, A. Pauss and T. Ribeiro, “Optimization of a Microwave Pretreatment of Wheat Straw for Methane Production,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 102, No. 12, 2011, pp. 6750-6756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.107
[22] J. C Converse, R. E. Graves and G. W. Evans, “Anaerobic Degradation of Dairy Manure under Mesophilic and Thernophilic Temperatures,” Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 20, 1977, pp. 336-340.
[23] J. E. Robbins, M. T. Armold and S. L. Lacher, “Methane Production from Cattle Waste and Delignified Strawt,” Infection and Immunity, Vol. 38, 1979, pp. 175-177.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.