Advertisement

Experimental investigation on the effect of anaerobic co-digestion of cotton seed hull with cow dung

  • Venkateshkumar R. Email author
  • Shanmugam S. 
  • Veerappan A. R. 
Original Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Today’s world is facing a lot of troubles due to pollution that leads to global warming, acid rain formation, and improper climate change which affect the environment in aspects such as agriculture cultivation, deforestation (forest firing), and ecosystem destruction. The effective utilization of biomass such as cotton seed hull (CSH) can reduce the pollution and create the green and sustainable environment. The present study investigates the effect of biogas generation by anaerobic co-digestion of CSH material on cow dung (CD) without doing any pretreatment. Proper utilization of CSH material with CD of various blend ratios (CD: CSH) in batch digester has been kept at a temperature of 35 ± 2 °C at 90 rpm for digestion period of 45 days. The mono-digestion of CD, i.e., the blend ratio of 100:0 produces a biogas yield of 193 ml/g VS whereas the mono-digestion of CSH (blend ratio of 0:100) produces a yield of 33 ml/g VS. Among the other proportions, a maximum biogas yield of 86 ml/g VS has been obtained for the ratio 75:25. In the co-digestion of CD with CSH, the blend ratio 75:25 (CD:CSH) yields a higher biogas yield of 160% compared to mono-digestion of CSH, whereas the blend ratio 50:50 yields 12% increase of biogas yield compared to mono-digestion of CSH. It is also found that there will be a decrease of 30% biogas yield for the blend ratio of 25:75 compared with mono-digestion of CSH alone. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis has been done to study the surface morphology of unfermented CSH and fermented CSH along with various blend ratios.

Keywords

Anaerobic Co-digestion Biomass Cotton seed hull Biogas 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Energy Alternatives India (EAI). http://www.eai.in/ref/ae/bio/bio.html
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Hiloidhari M, Das D, Baruah DC (2014) Bioenergy potential from agricultural residue biomass in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:504–512.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. http://www.pib.nic.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1540923
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Crutzen PJ, Andreae MO (2006) Biomass burning in the tropics: impact on atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemical cycles. Science (80- ) 250:1669–1678.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.250.4988.1669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jat SL, Devi S, Gupta C (2017) Crop residue recycling for economic and environmental sustainability: the case of India. Open Agric 2:486–494.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI). https://www.mapsofindia.com/top-ten/india-crops/cotton.html
  9. 9.
    Metlet MOA and P (2001) Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. 15:955–966.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen VH, Topno S, Balingbing C et al (2016) Generating a positive energy balance from using rice straw for anaerobic digestion. Energy Rep 2:117–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bundhoo ZMA, Mauthoor S, Mohee R (2016) Potential of biogas production from biomass and waste materials in the Small Island Developing State of Mauritius. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:1087–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zamanzadeh M, Hagen LH, Svensson K, Linjordet R, Horn SJ (2017) Biogas production from food waste via co-digestion and digestion- effects on performance and microbial ecology. Sci Rep 7:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15784-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hagos K, Zong J, Li D et al (2017) Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76:1485–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luca C, Pilu R, Tambone F, Scaglia B, Adani F (2015) New energy crop giant cane (Arundo donax L.) can substitute traditional energy crops increasing biogas yield and reducing costs. Bioresour Technol 191:197–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riggio V, Comino E, Rosso M (2015) Energy production from anaerobic co-digestion processing of cow slurry, olive pomace and apple pulp. Renew Energy 83:1043–1049.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.05.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu Y, Dong J, Liu G, Yang H, Liu W, Wang L, Kong C, Zheng D, Yang J, Deng L, Wang S (2015) Co-digestion of tobacco waste with different agricultural biomass feedstocks and the inhibition of tobacco viruses by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 189:210–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li D, Liu S, Mi L, Li Z, Yuan Y, Yan Z, Liu X (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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ganesh R, Torrijos M, Sousbie P et al (2015) Effect of increasing proportions of lignocellulosic cosubstrate on the single-phase and two-phase digestion of readily biodegradable substrate. Biomass Bioenergy 80:243–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavi S, Kramer LE, Gomes LP, Miranda LAS (2017) Biogas production from co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable waste. Bioresour Technol 228:362–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    El-Mashad HM, Zhang R (2010) Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour Technol 101:4021–4028.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    AgSTAR. Increasing anaerobic digester performance with codigestion.In: United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/agstar/increasing-anaerobic-digestion-performance-codigestion
  23. 23.
    Zhang T, Liu L, Song Z et al (2013) Biogas production by co-digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoS One 8:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tufaner F, Avşar Y (2016) Effects of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: a review. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:2303–2312.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-1069-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stein RM, Malone CD (1980) Anaerobic digestion of biological sludges. Environ Technol Lett 1:571–588.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09593338009384014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sidik UH, Razali FB, Alwi SRW, Maigari F (2013) Biogas production through co-digestion of palm oil mill effluent with cow manure. 21:79–84.  https://doi.org/10.4314/njbas.v20i1.12
  27. 27.
    Volkan Aksay M, Ozkaymak M, Calhan R (2018) Co-digestion of cattle manure and tea waste for biogas production. Int J Renew Energy Res 8:1346–1353Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abdoli MA, Amiri L, Baghvand A et al (2014) Methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of maize and cow dung. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 33:597–601.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abduli MA (1995) Solid waste management in Tehran. Waste Manag Res 13:519–531.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X9501300603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cuetos MJ, Fernández C, Gómez X, Morán A (2011) Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with energy crop residues. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 16:1044–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-011-0117-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang Y, Xu L, Liang YG et al (2019) Evaluation of semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of corn stover and vegetable waste by a single-phase process. Waste and Biomass Valorization 10:1159–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0133-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yuan X, Ma L, Wen B, Zhou D, Kuang M, Yang W, Cui Z (2016) Enhancing anaerobic digestion of cotton stalk by pretreatment with a microbial consortium (MC1). Bioresour Technol 207:293–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
    Hall MB, Akinyode A (2000) Cottonseed hulls: working with a novel fiber source, Gainesville, pp 179–186Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang Z, Zhang G, Li W et al (2016) Enhanced biogas production from sorghum stem by co-digestion with cow manure. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:9153–9158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.02.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Isci A, Demirer GN (2007) Biogas production potential from cotton wastes. Renew Energy 32:750–757.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    APHA (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. American Public Health Association, Washington DcGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vivekanand V, Olsen EF, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2013) Effect of different steam explosion conditions on methane potential and enzymatic saccharification of birch. Bioresour Technol 127:343–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paritosh K, Mathur S, Pareek N, Vivekanand V (2018) Feasibility study of waste (d) potential: co-digestion of organic wastes, synergistic effect and kinetics of biogas production. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15:1009–1018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1453-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yusuf MOL, Ify NL (2011) The effect of waste paper on the kinetics of biogas yield from the co-digestion of cow dung and water hyacinth. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1345–1351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Garleb KA, Bourquin LD, Hsu JT, Wagner GW, Schmidt SJ, Fahey GC Jr (1991) Isolation and chemical analyses of nonfermented fiber fractions of oat hulls and cottonseed hulls. J Anim Sci 69:1255–1271.  https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6931255x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyTiruchirappalliIndia

Personalised recommendations