Advertisement

Effect of Temperature Variation on Codigestion of Animal Waste and Agricultural Residue for Biogas Production

  • Rafaela Franqueto
  • Joel Dias da SilvaEmail author
  • Michel Konig
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion and codigestion are processes that may aggregate economic value to the organic waste, not only through the production of biogas, as the main product, but also with a by-product, the digestate. The production of biogas (renewable and sustainable energy source) reduces GEE emissions, as well as the impact caused by waste disposal from the agribusiness sector. The present work aims at the potential optimization biogas production in rice residues (rice straw) in different proportions along with bovine residues (waste), under the effect of temperature increase (from 36 to 60 °C). Preliminary investigation consisted of sampling and drying the residues with analytical tests (TS, VS, COD, TOC, N, P, pH, moisture), which allowed the determination of the proportions to be used in experimental research. Then, anaerobic bench reactors (A, B, C, Control) in different proportions were monitored by means of BMP tests, in order to evaluate the potential of methane production in a period of 60 days. During this period, different temperatures were tested, varying from 36 to 60 °C, gradually increased by 2 to 2 °C, every three or 5 days, in order to adapt the anaerobic microorganisms, present in the waste mass. The three reactors presented different biogas production, which can be explained by the different temperatures proposed. Reactors A (ratio 1:1) and C (ratio 1:10) did not reach the proposed objective as their production level was below the production of the control reactor. The B reactor (3:1 ratio) was the one that presented the highest accumulated biogas production during the test period, with 76.95 NmL and the rice straw contribution of 7.55 NmL. As regarding to temperature, all reactors showed to adapt to the two conditions tested: mesophilic and thermophilic fact that demonstrates synergism among the residues tested. Despite the verified adaptability, the mesophilic condition was defined as the most favorable for biogas production because of its greater stability and lower energy cost. The BMP test has proven them to be a viable, easy-to-use, and inexpensive operational tool to monitor and determine biogas production potential for the waste used.

Keywords

Bovine waste Rice straw Anaerobic codigestion BMP Biogas 

Notes

Funding Information

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

References

  1. 1.
    Browne JD, Allen E, Murphy JD (2014) Assessing the variability in biomethane production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste in batch and continuous operation. Appl Energy 128:307–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li C, Zhou Y, Lu W et al (2019) Enhancement of the solid-state anaerobic digestion of rice straw by liquor supplementation. Bioresource Technol Rep 5:59–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2018.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matheri AN, Ndiweni SN, Belaid M et al (2017) Optimising biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:756–764.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bong CPC, Lim LY, Lee CT et al (2018) The characterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production during anaerobic digestion – a review. J Clean Prod 172:1545–1558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kocatürk-schumacher N, Bruun S, Zwart K et al (2017) Nutrient recovery from the liquid fraction of digestate by clinoptilolite. Clean Soil Air Water 45:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201500153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magrí A, Giovannini F, Connan R et al (2017) Nutrient management from biogas digester effluents: a bibliometric-based analysis of publications and patents. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14:1739–1756.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1293-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    PECCHI M, BARATIERI M (2019) Coupling anaerobic digestion with gasification, pyrolysis or hydrothermal carbonization: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 105:462–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jang HM, Ha JH, Kim M-S et al (2016) Effect of increased load of high-strength food wastewater in thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge on bacterial community structure. Water Res 99:140–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.051 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nghiem LD, Koch K, Bolzonella D et al (2017) Full scale co-digestion of wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 72:354–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burg V, Bowman G, Haubensak M. et al. Valorization of an untapped resource: energy and greenhouse gas emissions benefits of converting manure to biogas through anaerobic digestion (2018) Resources, Conservation and Recycling 136:53-62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu T, Zhou X, Li Z et al (2019) Effects of liquid digestate pretreatment on biogas production for anaerobic digestion of wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 280:345–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.147 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orrico ACA, Sunada N, Da S, De Lucas Junior J, Orrico Junior MAP et al (2015) Anaerobic codigestion of swine manure and levels of inclusion of discard oil. Agric Eng 35:657–664.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v35n4p657-664/2015 (in portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yao Y, Luo Y, Yang Y, Sheng H, et al. Water free anaerobic co-digestion of vegetable processing waste with cattle slurry for methane production at high total solid content (2014) Energy, v:309–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xie S, Hai FI, Zhan X, Guo W et al (2016) Anaerobic co-digestion: a critical review of mathematical modelling for performance optimization. Bioresour Technol 222:498–512.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.10.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gou C, Yang Z, Huang J et al (2014) Effects of temperature and organic loading rate on the performance and microbial community of anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and food waste. Chemosphere 105:146–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.01.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abouelenien F, Namba Y, Nishio N et al (2016) Dry Co-digestion of poultry manure with agriculture wastes. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 178:932–946.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-015-1919-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Esposito G, Frunzo L, Giordano A et al (2012) Anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 11:325–341.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-012-9277-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chiu SF, Chiu JY, Kuo WC (2013) Biological stoichiometric analysis of nutrition and ammonia toxicity in thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of organic substrates under different organic loading rates. Renew Energy 57:323–329.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply -Map Low-carbon pig farms: cleaner production technologies and economic recovery of pig production residues. Secretariat of Social Mobility, Rural Producer and Cooperativism. - Brasilia: MAPA, 2016. (in portuguese).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holm-Nielsen JB, Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P (2009) The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 100:5478–5484.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Institute of Applied Economic Research - IPEA. Diagnosis of organic residues of the agrossilvopastoril and associated agroindustries Sector, Research Report, Brasília, 2012. (in portuguese).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bley JRC 2015 Biogas: the invisible energy. 2nd ed. - São Paulo: CIBiogás; Foz do Iguaçu: ITAIPU Binacional, . (in portuguese).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Zen S, Barioni LG, Bonato DBB, et al. Brazilian beef cattle: environmental impacts and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Piracicaba, May 2008. http://www.cepea.esalq.usp.br/pdf/Cepea_Carbono_pecuaria_SumExec.pdf. Acessed 20 Ago 2018. (in portuguese)
  24. 24.
    Forster-Carneiro T, Berni MD, Dorileo IL, Rostagno MA (2013) Biorefinery study of availability of agriculture residues and wastes for integrated biorefineries in Brazil. Resour Conserv Recycl 77:78–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vardanega R, Prado JM, Meireles MAA (2015) Adding value to agri-food residues by means of supercritical technology. J Supercrit Fluids 96:217–227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2014.09.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang P, Whistler RL, Bemiller JN, Hamaker BR (2005) Banana starch: production, physicochemical properties, and digestibility - A review. Carbohydr Polym 59:443–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2004.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sellin N, Ricardo D, Marangoni C, Souza O (2016) Oxidative fast pyrolysis of banana leaves in fluidized bed reactor. Renew Energy 96:56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025. OECD Publishing.Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2016-en>. Accessed 23 jul. 2018.
  29. 29.
    Milanez AY, Guimarães DD, da Maia GBS et al (2018) Biogas of agroindustrial residues: panorama and perspectives. BNDES Sectoral 47:221–276 (in portuguese)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhullar NK, Gruissem W (2013) Nutritional enhancement of rice for human health: the contribution of biotechnology. Biotechnol Adv 31:50–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2012.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Manishankar P, Kudla J (2015) Cold tolerance encoded in one SNP. Cell 160Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brasileiro Institute of Geography and Statistics - IBGE. Agricultural Census 2017, preliminary results. https://censos.ibge.gov.br/agro/2017/templates/censo_agro/resultadosagro/index.html. Accessed Nov 16 2018. (in portuguese).
  33. 33.
    Company of Agricultural Research and Rural Extension of Santa Catarina - EPAGRI. Annual synthesis of the agriculture of Santa Catarina 2014-2015. http://docweb.epagri.sc.gov.br/website_cepa/publicacoes/Sintese_2015.pdf Acessed 16 Mar. 2017. (in portuguese).
  34. 34.
    Company of Energy Research (EPE). National Energy Balance 2017: Base year 2016 / Energy Research Company. - Rio de Janeiro: EPE, 2017. (in portuguese).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang K, Yin J, Shen D et al (2014) Anaerobic digestion of food waste for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production with different types of inoculum: Effect of pH. Bioresour Technol 161:395–401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.088 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation - MCTI. Annual estimates of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil, 2nd. edition, 2014. Available at: http://sirene.mcti.gov.br/documents/1686653/1706227/Estimativasd.pdf/0abe2683-e0a8-4563-b2cb-4c5cc536c336. Accessed November 17 2018. (in portuguese).
  37. 37.
    Vavilin VA, Fernandez B, Palatsi J, Flotats X (2008) Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic material: An overview. Waste Manag 28:939–951.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tsapekos P, Kougias PG, Egelund H et al (2017) Mechanical pretreatment at harvesting increases the bioenergy output from marginal land grasses. Renew Energy 111:914–921.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.04.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Valli L, Rossi L, Fabbri C et al (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions of electricity and biomethane produced using the BiogasdonerightTM system: four case studies from Italy. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 11:847–860.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Khalid MJZ, Waqas A, Nawas I (2019) Synergistic effect of alkaline pretreatment and magnetite nanoparticle application on biogas production from rice straw. Bioresour Technol 18:288–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.12.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vigueras-Carmona SE, Martínes Trujillo MA, García Rivero M et al (2016) Effect of particle size on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of thermally pre-treated waste activated sludge. Journal of Biotech Research 7:11–17Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    APHA. Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Enirnmental Federation, 22 th ed. Washington. 2012.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L et al (2009) Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: A proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci Technol 59:927–934.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xin L, Guo Z, Xiao X et al (2018) Feasibility of anaerobic digestion for contaminated rice straw inoculated with waste activated sludge. Bioresour Technol 266:45–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.06.048 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    YAN Y, ZHANG L, FENG L et al (2018) Comparison of varying operating parameters on heavy metals ecological risk during anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover. Bioresour Technol 247:660–668.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Andreoli CV, Ferreira AC, Chernicharo CA, Borges ESM (121) Drying and sanitation of sludge with biogas utilization. In: Cassini ST (ed) Organic solid waste digestion and biogas utilization. ABES, Rima, Rio de Janeiro, pp 165–2003 (in portuguese)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    USEPA. Air emissions from municipal solid waste landfills – Background information for proposed satandars and guidelines. United States Environmental Protection Agency.1991Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chandra R, Takeuchi H, Hasegawa T (2012) Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: a review in context to second generation of biofuel production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:1462–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Li D, Liu S, Mi L, Li Z et al (2015) Effects of feedstock ratio and organic loading rate on the anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of rice straw and cow manure. Bioresour Technol 189:319–326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ziganshin AM, Liebetrau J, Pröter J et al (2013) Microbial community structure and dynamics during anaerobic digestion of various agricultural waste materials. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97:5161–5174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4867-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hansen TL, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I, Marca E et al (2004) Method for determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Waste Manag 24:393–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Elbeshbishy E, Nakhla G, Hafez H (2012) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of food waste and primary sludge: influence of inoculum pre-incubation and inoculum source. Bioresour Technol 110:18–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Labatut RA, Angenent LT, Scott NR (2011) Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour Technol 102:2255–2264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hidalgo D, Martín-Marroquín JM (2015) Biochemical methane potential of livestock and agri-food waste streams in the Castilla y León Region (Spain). Food Res Int 73:226–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang B, Björn A, Strömberg S et al (2017) Evaluating the influences of mixing strategies on the Biochemical Methane Potential test. J Environ Manag 185:54–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Company of Agricultural Research and Rural Extension of Santa Catarina - EPAGRI. Numbers of the Catarinense Agropecuária, March / 2018. 2018. http://docweb.epagri.sc.gov.br/website_cepa/publicacoes/Numeros_Agropecuaria_Catarinense_marco_2018_site.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2018. (in portuguese).
  57. 57.
    Orrico ACA, Lopes WRT, Manarelli DM et al (2016) Anaerobic codigestión of bovine milk waste and discard oil. J Braz Assoc Agric Eng 36:537–545.  https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v36n3p537-545/2016 (in portuguese)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Barua VB, Rathore V, Kalamdhad AS (2019) Anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels with and without thermal pretreatment. Renew Energy 134:103–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kainthola J, Kalamdhad AS, Goud VV (2019) Optimization of methane production during anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and hydrilla verticillata using response surface methodology. Fuel 235:92–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.07.094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yenigün O, Demirel B (2013) Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process Biochem 48:901–911.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rajagopal R, Masse DI, Singh GA (2013) Critical review on inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour Technol 143:632–641.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Vrieze J, Gildemyn S, Vilchez-Vargas R et al (2015) Inoculum selection is crucial to ensure operational stability in anaerobic digestion. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:189–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6046-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cazier EA, Trably E, Steyer JP et al (2015) Biomass hydrolysis inhibition at high hydrogen partial pressure in solid-state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 190:106–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    WEI L, QIN K, DING J et al (2019) Optimization of the co-digestion of sewage sludge, maize straw and cow manure: microbial responses and effect of fractional organic characteristics. Sci Rep 9:2374.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38829-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Parawira W, Murto M, Zvauya R, Mattiasson B (2004) Anaerobic batch digestion of solid potato waste alone and in combination with sugar beet leaves. Renew Energy 29:1811–1823.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kafle GK, Kim SH (2013) Anaerobic treatment of apple waste with swine manure for biogas production: batch and continuous operation. Appl Energy 103:61–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Xia T, Huang H, Wu G et al (2018) The characteristic changes of rice straw fibers in anaerobic digestion and its effect on rice straw-reinforced composites. Ind Crop Prod 121:73–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gu Y, Chen X, Liu Z, Zhou X et al (2014) Effect of inoculum sources on the anaerobic digestion of rice straw. Bioresour Technol 158:149–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Carrere H, Antonopoulou G, Affes R, Passos F et al (2016) Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion: from lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresour Technol 199:386–397.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chen G, Liu G, Yan B et al (2016) Experimental study of co-digestion of food waste and tall fescue for bio-gas production. Renew Energy 88:273–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hassan M, Ding W, Umar M et al (2017) Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of goose manure with alkali solubilized wheat straw: a case of carbon to nitrogen ratio and organic loading rate regression optimization. Bioresour Technol 230:24–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sawatdeenarunat C, Nguyen D, Surendra KC et al (2016) Anaerobic biorefinery: current status, challenges, and opportunities. Bioresour Technol 215:304–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.03.074 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gu Y, Zhang Y, Zhou X (2015) Effect of Ca(OH)2 pretreatment on extruded rice straw anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 196:116–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Han F, Yun S, Zhang C et al (2019) Steel slag as accelerant in anaerobic digestion for nonhazardous treatment and digestate fertilizer utilization. Bioresour Technol 282:331–338.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Boušková A, Dohányos M, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I (2005) Strategies for changing temperature from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions in anaerobic CSTR reactors treating sewage sludge. Water Res 39:1481–1488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.12.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Liu C, Wachemo AKC, Tong H, Shi S et al (2017) Biogas production and microbial community properties during anaerobic digestion of corn stover at different temperatures. Bioresour Technol 261:93–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.076 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cabbai V, Ballico M, Aneggi E, Goi D (2013) BMP tests of source selected OFMSW to evaluate anaerobic codigestion with sewage sludge. Waste Manag 33:1626–1632.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.03.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lianhua L, Dong L, Yongming S et al (2010) Effect of temperature and solid concentration on anaerobic digestion of rice straw in South China. Int J Hydrog Energy 35:7261–7266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.03.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza MS et al (2014) A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew Sust Energ Rev 36:412–427.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rattanapan C, Sinchai L, Suksaroj TT et al (2019) Biogas production by co-digestion of canteen food waste and domestic wastewater under organic loading rate and temperature optimization. Environments 6:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6020016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Appels L, Asscheb AV, Willemsb K, Degrèvea J et al (2011) Peracetic acid oxidation as an alternative pretreatment for the anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge. Bioresour Technol 102:4124–4130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.070 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G (2015) Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew Sust Energ Rev 45:540–555.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    O’leary PR, Tchobanoglous G (2002. Cap. 14) Landfilling. In: Tchobanoglous G, Kreith F (eds) Handbook of solid waste management, 2nd edn. Mcgraw-hill, New York, pp 14.1–14.93Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schirmer WN, Jucá JFT, Schuler ARP, Holanda S et al (2014) Methane production in anaerobic digestion of organic waste from recife (Brazil) landfill: evaluation in refuse of diferent ages. Braz J Chem Eng 31:373–384.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-6632.20140312s00002468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Von Sperling, M. 2005 Introdução à qualidade das águas e ao tratamento de esgotos. Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental – UFMG. Editora FCO. Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Daiem MMA, Said N, Negm AM (2018) Potential energy from residual biomass of rice straw and sewagesludge in Egypt. Procedia Manufacturing 22:818–825.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM (1978) Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regional University of BlumenauBlumenauBrazil

Personalised recommendations