Advertisement

Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 899–908 | Cite as

Optimization of Methane Production from Rice Straw and Buffalo Dung by H2O2 and Ca(OH)2: Pretreatments and Its Kinetics

  • A. Alam NoonariEmail author
  • R. Bux Mahar
  • A. Razaque Sahito
  • K. Muhammad Brohi
Original Paper
  • 106 Downloads

Abstract

Rice straw (RS) residue consists of lignocellulosic biomass and is being mostly burned in the open air after harvesting in Pakistan. The atmospheric burning of RS is causing environmental degradation. While, the buffalo dung (BD) is suitable for production of methane because of containing various microbes and nutrients. In this study, the methane potential of anaerobic co-digestion of RS and BD was investigated. The RS was pretreated with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) prior to use in anaerobic digestion (AD) batch reactors. The ratio of RS to BD on the basis of the volatile solids (VS) was taken as 30:70, whereas the RS was shredded to particle size of 4 mm. The batch reactors were pretreated in serum cultural bottles with the separate H2O2 and Ca(OH)2 concentrations of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 0.5 and 0.6%. The co-digestion experiment was conducted in Semi-Automatic Methane Potential Test System (SAMPTS) under mesophilic conditions i.e., 37 ± 1 °C. The results show that both pretreatments remarkably degrade the RS and increases the production of methane as compared to the control. The highest methane was observed from the pretreatment concentration of 0.3% in case of H2O2 and 0.4% in the case of Ca(OH)2, whereas the methane production of 331.6 and 346.7 mL CH4 g−1 VS was observed, respectively. Moreover, in order the check the AD process dynamics, the kinetic coefficients were determined by using S-Gompertz and Cone models. On the basis of coefficient of determination, S-Gompertz model was better fitted as compared to the Cone model.

Keywords

Anaerobic co-digestion Hydrogen peroxide Calcium hydroxide Optimization Methane Kinetics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors are sincerely acknowledging to the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Islamabad, Pakistan for providing the financial assistance for this project (20.2479/R&D/HEC/12892) and also grateful to Mehran University of Engineering & Technology, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan, for its support to carry out this research work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declared that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, publication and authorship of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Adelard, L., Poulsen, T.G., Rakotoniaina, V.: Biogas and methane yield in response to co- and separate digestion of biomass wastes. Waste Manage. Res. 33, 55–62 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patel, M., Zhang, X., Kumar, A.: Techno-economic and life cycle assessment on lignocellulosic biomass thermochemical conversion technologies: a review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 53, 1486–1499 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guerrero, A.B., Aguado, P.L., Sánchez, J., Curt, M.D.: GIS-based assessment of banana residual biomass potential for ethanol production and power generation: a case study. Waste Biomass Valor. 7, 405–415 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khalid, A., Arshad, M., Anjum, M., Mahmood, T., Dawson, L.: The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste: review. Waste Manage. 31, 1737–1744 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khan, M.A., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W.S., Liu, Y.W., Zhou, J.L., Zhang, J., Liang, S., Ni, B.J., Zhang, X.B., Wang, J.: Comparing the value of bioproducts from different stages of anaerobic membrane bioreactors: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 214, 816–825 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Mashad, H.M.: Kinetics of methane production from the co-digestion of switchgrass and Spirulina platensis algae. Bioresour. Technol. 132, 305–312 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T.: Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 38, 383–392 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zahedi, S., Solera, R., Micolucci, F., Cavinato, C., Bolzonella, D.: Changes in microbial community during hydrogen and methane production in two-stage thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion process from biowaste. Waste Manage. 49, 40–46 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nzihou, A.: Waste and biomass valorization. Editorial. Waste Biomass Valor. 1, 1–2 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mirza, U.K., Ahmad, N., Majeed, T.: An overview of biomass energy utilization in Pakistan. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 12, 1988–1996 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mahar, R.B., Sahito, A.R., Uqaili, M.A.: Bio-methanization potential of waste agricultural biomass in Pakistan: a case study. Int. J. Biomass Renew. 1, 32–37 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan. Pakistan economic survey 2016-17. Available: http://finance.gov.pk/survey_1617.html
  13. 13.
    Nanda, A.S., Nakao, T.: Role of buffalo in the socioeconomic development of rural Asia: current status and future prospectus: review article. Ani. Sci. J. 74, 443–455 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carillo, P., Carotenuto, C., Cristofaro, D.F., Kafantaris, I., Lubritto, C., Minale, M., Morrone, B., Papa, S., Woodrow, P.: DGGE analysis of buffalo manure eubacteria for hydrogen production: effect of pH, temperature and pretreatments. Mol. Biol. Rep. 39, 10193–10200 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amjid, S.S., Bilal, M.Q., Nazir, M.S., Hussain, A.: Biogas, renewable energy resource for Pakistan. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 15, 2833–2837 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davidson, A., Jansen, J.C., Appelqvist, B.: Anaerobic digestion potential of urban organic waste: a case study in Malmo. Waste Manage. Res. 25, 162–169 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song, Z., Yang, G., Liu, X., Yan, Z., Yuan, Y., Liao, Y.: Comparison of seven chemical pretreatments of corn straw for improving methane yield by anaerobic digestion. PLoS ONE. 9, 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahito, A.R., Mahar, R.B.: Enhancing methane production from rice straw co-digested with buffalo dung by optimizing effect of substrate ratio, alkaline doze and particle size. J. Ani. Plant Sci. 24, 1076–1084 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, L., Chen, C., Zhang, R., He, Y., Wang, W., Liu, G.: Pretreatment of corn stover for methane production with the combination of potassium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide. Energy Fuels. 29, 5841–5846 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prabhu, M.S., Mutnuri, S.: Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste. Waste Manage. Res. 34, 307–317 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lijó, L., García, G.S., Bacenett, J., Fiala, M., Feijoo, G., Lema, J.M., Moreira, M.T.: Life cycle assessment of electricity production in Italy from anaerobic co-digestion of pig slurry and energy crops. Renew. Energy. 68, 625–635 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tanimu, M.I., Tinia, I., Ghazi, M., Harun, R.M., Idris, A.: Effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio of food waste on biogas methane production in a batch mesophilic anaerobic digester. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 5, 116–119 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosli, N.S., Idrus, S., Daud, N.N., Ahsan, A.: Assessment of potential biogas production from rice straw leachate in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB). Int. J. Smart Grid Clean Energy. 5, 135–143 (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mosier, N., Wyman, C., Dale, B., Elander, R., Lee, Y.Y., Holtzapple, M., Ladisch, M.: Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 673–686 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, F., Li, Y.: Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biogas production: a review. Progr. Energy Comb. Sci. 42, 35–53 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Song, Z., Yang, G., Guo, Y., Zhang, T.: Comparison of two chemical pretreatments of rice straw for biogas production by anaerobic digestion. Bio-Resources. 7, 3223–3236 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rabelo, S.C., Carrere, H., Filho, M.R., Costa, A.C.: Production of bioethanol, methane and heat from sugarcane bagasse in a biorefinery concept. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 7887–7895 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mel, M., Laili, N.W., Muda, W., Ihsan, S.I., Ismail, A.F., Yaacob, S.: Purification of biogas by absorption into calcium Ca(OH)2 solution, Conference Paper. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1566.6887 (2014)
  29. 29.
    Fernández-Cegrı, F., Raposo, F., Rubia, M.A., Borja, R.: Effects of chemical and thermochemical pretreatments on sunflower oil cake in biochemical methane potential assays. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 88, 924–929 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kondusamy, D., Kalamdhad, A.S.: Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food waste for high rate methane production: a review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2, 1821–1830 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krishania, M., Kumar, V., Vijay, V.K., Malik, A.: Analysis of different techniques used for improvement of biomethanation process: a review. Fuel. 106, 1–9 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Petric, I., Sestan, A., Sestan, I.: Influence of wheat straw addition on composing of poultry manure. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 87, 206–212 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st edn., Washington (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tanimu, I.M., Tinia, I., Ghazi, M., Harun, M.R., Idris, A.: Effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio of food waste on biogas methane production in a batch mesophilic anaerobic digest. Intr. J. Inn. Manage. Technol. 5 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gedefaw, M.: Biogas production from cow dung and food waste. Glob. J. Pollut. Hazard. Waste Manage. 3, 103–108 (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pind, P., Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.S.K., Lyberatos, G.: Monitoring and control of anaerobic reactors. In: Ahring, B.K. (ed.), Biomethanation II. Springer, pp. 135–182 (2003)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sun, H., Wu, S., Dong, R.: Monitoring volatile fatty acids and carbonate alkalinity in anaerobic digestion: titration methodologies. Chem. Engg. Technol. 39, 599–610 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Franke-Whittle, I.H., Walte, A., Ebner, C., Insam, H.: Investigation into the effect of high concentrations of volatile fatty acids in anaerobic digestion on methanogenic communities. Waste Manage. 34, 2080–2089 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cuetos, M.J., Gómez, X., Otero, M., Moŕan, A.: Anaerobic digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory scale: influence of co-digestion with the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. J. Biochem. Eng. 40, 99–106 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gelegenis, J., Georgakakis, D., Angelidaki, I., Mavris, V.: Optimization of biogas production by co-digesting whey with diluted poultry manure. Renew. Energy. 32, 2147–2160 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yunqin, L., Dehan, W., Shaoquan, W., Chunmin, W.: Alkali pretreatment enhances biogas production in the anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper sludge. J. Hazar. Mat. 170, 366–373 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parameswaran, P., Rittmann, B.E.: Feasibility of anaerobic co-digestion of pig waste and paper sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 124, 163–168 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Adiga, S., Ramya, R., Shankar, B.B., Patil, J.H., Geetha, C.R.: Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth, poultry litter, cow manure and primary sludge: a comparative study, 2nd International Conference. Biotechnol. Environ. Manage. 42, 73–78 (2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gaur, R.Z., Khan, A.A., Suthar, S.: Effect of thermal pre-treatment on co-digestion of duckweed (Lemna gibba) and waste activated sludge on biogas production. Chemosphere. 174, 754–763 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yusuf, M.O.L., Debora, A., Ogheneruona, D.E.: Ambient temperature kinetic assessment of biogas production from co-digestion of horse and cow dung. Res. Agric. J. 57, 97–104 (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pitt, R.E., Cross, T.L., Pell, A.N., Schofield, P., Doane, P.H.: Use of in vitro gas production models in ruminal kinetics. Math. Biosci. 159, 145–163 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Alam Noonari
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Bux Mahar
    • 2
  • A. Razaque Sahito
    • 1
  • K. Muhammad Brohi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Engineering & Management, MUETJamshoroPakistan
  2. 2.US-Pakistan Centers for Advanced Studies in Water, MUETJamshoroPakistan

Personalised recommendations