Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 757–764 | Cite as

Dry anaerobic ammonia–methane production from chicken manure

  • Fatma Abouelenien
  • Yoshiaki Kitamura
  • Naomichi Nishio
  • Yutaka Nakashimada
Environmental Biotechnology

Abstract

The effect of temperature on production of ammonia during dry anaerobic fermentation of chicken manure (CM), inoculated with thermophilic methanogenic sludge, was investigated in a batch condition for 8 days. Incubation temperature did not have a significant effect on the production of ammonia. Almost complete inhibition of production of methane occurred at 55 and 65°C while quite low yields of 8.45 and 6.34 ml g−1 VS (volatile solids) were observed at 35 and 45°C due to a higher accumulation of ammonia. In order to improve the production of methane during dry anaerobic digestion of CM, stripping of ammonia was performed firstly on the CM previously fermented at 65°C for 8 days: the stripping for 1 day at 85°C and pH 10 removed 85.5% of ammonia. The first-batch fermentation of methane for 75 days was conducted next, using the ammonia-stripped CM inoculated with methanogenic sludge at different ratios, (CM: thermophilic sludge) of 1:2, 1:1, and 2:1 on volume per volume basis at both 35 and 55°C. Production of methane improved and was higher than that of the control (without stripping of ammonia) but the yield of 20.4 ml g−1 VS was still low, so second stripping of ammonia was conducted, which resulted in 74.7% removal of ammonia. A great improvement in the production of methane of 103.5 ml g−1 VS was achieved during the second batch for 55 days.

Keywords

Ammonia production Ammonia stripping Chicken manure Dry fermentation Methane fermentation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported in part by The Iwatani Naoji Foundation’s Research Grant.

References

  1. Angelidaki I, Ahring BK (1994) Anaerobic thermophilic digestion of manure at different ammonia loads: effect of temperature. Water Res 28:727–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angelidaki I, Ahring BK (1993) Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of livestock waste: the effect of ammonia. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 38:560–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1989) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 17th edn. American Public Health Association, Baltimore, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonmati A, Flotats X (2003) Air stripping of ammonia from pig slurry: characterization and feasibility as a pre- or post-treatment to mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Waste Manage (oxford) 23:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bujoczek G, Oleszkiewicz J, Sparling R, Cenkowski S (2000) High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure. Agric Eng Res 76:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Converse JC, Evans GW, Robinson KL, Gibbons W (1981) Methane production from a large-size on-farm digester for poultry manure. In: Livestock waste: a renewable resource, proceedings of the fourth International Symposium on livestock wastes—1980, ASAE, Amarillo, Texas, USA 122–125Google Scholar
  7. Delaune PB, Moore PA, Daniel TC, Lemunyon JL (2004) Effect of chemical and microbial amendments on ammonia volatilization from composting poultry litter. J Environ Qual 33:728–734Google Scholar
  8. Demirci GG, Demirer GN (2004) Effect of initial COD concentration, nutrient addition, temperature and microbial acclimation on anaerobic treatability of broiler and cattle manure. Biores Technol 93:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallert C, Winter J (1997) Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic waste: Effect of ammonia on glucose degradation and methane production. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 48:405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ginting D, Kessavalou A, Eghball B, Doran JW (2003) Greenhouse gas emission and soil indicators four years after manure and compost applications. J Environ Qual 32:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinrichs DM, Poggi-Varaldo HM, Olieskewicz JA (1990) Effect of ammonia on anaerobic digestion of simple organic substrates. J Environ Eng 116:698–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill DT (1983) Simplified monod kinetics of methane fermentation of animal wastes. Agricultural Wastes 5:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IARC (1997) The International Agency for Research on Cancer, An arm of the World Health Organization, in February, "Priority PBTs: Dioxins and Furans," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/pbt/dioxins.htm
  14. Kelleher BP, Leahy JJ, Henihan AM, O’dwyer TF, Sutton D, Leahy MJ (2002) Advances in poultry litter disposal technology—a review. Biores Technol 83:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koster JW, Lettinga G (1984) The influence of ammonium-nitrogen on the specific activity of pelletized methanogenic sludge. Agricultural Wastes 9:205–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krylova NI, Khabiboulline RE, Naumova RP, Nagel MA (1997) The influence of ammonium and methods for removal during the anaerobic treatment of poultry manure. J. Chem. Tech. Biotechnol 70:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liao PH, Chen A, Lo KV (1995) Removal of nitrogen from swine manure wastewaters by ammonia stripping. Biores Technol 54:17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lei X, Sugiura N, Feng C, Maekaaki T (2007) Pretreatment of anaerobic digestion effluent with ammonia stripping and biogas purification. J Hazardous Materials 145:391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MAFF (2008) Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Development and management of livestock excreta situation (http://www.maff.go.jp/j/chikusan/kankyo/taisaku/t_mondai/02_kanri/index.html)
  20. Magbanua JBS, Adams TT, Johnston P (2001) Anaerobic co-digestion of hog and poultry waste. Biores Technol 76:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morris GR, Jewell WJ, Casler GL (1975) Alternative animal waste anaerobic fermentation design and their costs. In: Proceedings of agricultural waste management conference, Cornell University, pp 317–335Google Scholar
  22. Nailia IK, Roustem EK, Rimma PN, Mark AN (1997) The influence of ammonium and methods for removal during the anaerobic treatment of poultry manure. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 70:99–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakashimada Y, Ohshima Y, Minami H, Yabu H, Namba Y, Nishio N (2008) Ammonia–methane two-stage anaerobic digestion of dehydrated waste-activated sludge. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 79:1061–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peigne J, Girardin P (2004) Environmental impacts of farm scale composting practices. Water Air Soil Pollut 153:45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Safely LM, Westerman PW (1992) Performance of a low temperature lagoon digester. Biores Technol 41:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Safely LM, Westerman PW (1994) Low-temperature digestion of dairy and swine manure. Biores Technol 47:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Su S, Beath A, Guo H, Mallett C (2005) An assessment of mine methane mitigation and utilisation technologies. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 31:123–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sung S, Liu T (2003) Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Chemosphere 53:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tiquia SM, Tam NFY (2002) Characterization and composting of poultry litter in forced-aeration piles. Process Biochem 37:869–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Turnell JR, Faulkner RD, Hinch GN (2007) Recent advances in Australian broiler litter utilization. World’s Poultry Science J 63:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yokoyama H, Waki M, Ogino A, Ohmori H, Tanaka Y (2007) Hydrogen fermentation properties of undiluted cow dung. J Biosci Bioeng 104:82–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatma Abouelenien
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Kitamura
    • 1
  • Naomichi Nishio
    • 1
  • Yutaka Nakashimada
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Biotechnology, Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of MatterHiroshima UniversityHigashi-HiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations