Skip to main content

Enhancement of biogas yield during anaerobic digestion of Jatropha curcas seed by pretreatment and co-digestion with mango peels

Abstract

The combustion of fossil fuels is accompanied with a number of alarming problems such as fossil fuel depletion, increase in their prices, and emission of greenhouse gases. Thus, the need for the alternative renewable biofuels was increased to replace non-renewable fossil fuels. The sustainable use of non-edible feedstocks and waste for production of biofuels is a potential approach for reducing dependency on fossil fuels and mitigating environmental pollution. In the current study, the effects of carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratios on methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of Jatropha curcas de-oiled seed kernel and mango peels were evaluated in continuous reactors. The biogas potential and effects of acid pretreatment on J. curcas fruit were also evaluated during anaerobic batch digestion. The methane yield of co-digested mango peels and seed kernel (1:4 weight ratio based on volatile solids) was 61%, 50%, 36%, and 25% higher compared with the methane yields of mango peels, seed kernel, mango peels/seed kernel (2:1 w/w), and mango peels/seed kernel (1:1 w/w), respectively. The methane yields of the co-digestion of mango peels and seed kernel at 1:4, 1:1, and 2:1 ratios were 52%, 39%, and 32% of the theoretical yields, respectively, illustrating the importance of adjusting C/N ratio with the right amounts of co-substrate. The biogas yield of pretreated fruit coat was 7%, 22%, 34%, 50%, and 74% higher than that of the seed kernel, fruit coat (non-pretreated), de-oiled kernel plus seed coat (pretreated) (1.7:1, by weight), seed coat (pretreated), and seed coat (non-pretreated), respectively. Additionally, pretreatment of fruit coat and seed coat resulted in 22% and 47% higher biogas yields compared with their non-pretreated counterparts. This study revealed key substrate selection and pretreatment methods for increasing methane production from common seed oil production and agricultural wastes.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data availability

All relevant data are included in this manuscript.

Abbreviations

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

C/N:

Carbon-to-nitrogen ratio

CHNS:

Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and sulfur

MP + JSK:

Mango peels plus Jatropha curcas seed kernel

NARC:

National Agriculture Research Council

NL:

Normalized liter

NmL:

Normalized milliliter

SK + SC(H3PO4):

Jatropha curcas deoiled seed kernel mixed with dilute acid treated seed coat

TS:

Total solids

VFA:

Volatile fatty acids

VS:

Volatile solids

References

  1. 1.

    Cui T, Li J, Yan Z, Yu M, Li S (2014) The correlation between the enzymatic saccharification and the multidimensional structure of cellulose changed by different pretreatments. Biotechnol Biofuels 7(1):134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-014-0134-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Xu N, Zhang W, Ren S, Liu F, Zhao C, Liao H, Xu Z, Huang J, Li Q, Tu Y (2012) Hemicelluloses negatively affect lignocellulose crystallinity for high biomass digestibility under NaOH and H2SO4 pretreatments in Miscanthus. Biotechnol Biofuels 5(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kim SB, Lee SJ, Lee JH, Jung YR, Thapa LP, Kim JS, Um Y, Park C, Kim SW (2013) Pretreatment of rice straw with combined process using dilute sulfuric acid and aqueous ammonia. Biotechnol Biofuels 6(1):109. https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-6-109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Li P, He C, Li G, Ding P, Lan M, Gao Z, Jiao Y (2020) Biological pretreatment of corn straw for enhancing degradation efficiency and biogas production. Bioengineered 11(1):251–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2020.1733733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Usmani Z, Sharma M, Gupta P, Karpichev Y, Gathergood N, Bhat R, Gupta VK (2020) Ionic liquid based pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced bioconversion. Bioresour Technol 304:123003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hendriks A, Zeeman G (2009) Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 100(1):10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.05.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Abraham A, Mathew AK, Park H, Choi O, Sindhu R, Parameswaran B, Pandey A, Park JH, Sang B-I (2020) Pretreatment strategies for enhanced biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 301:122725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dong L, Cao G, Tian Y, Wu J, Zhou C, Liu B, Zhao L, Fan J, Ren N (2020) Improvement of biogas production in plug flow reactor using biogas slurry pretreated cornstalk. Bioresour Technol Reports 9:100378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kumar A, Sharma S (2008) An evaluation of multipurpose oil seed crop for industrial uses (Jatropha curcas L.): a review. Ind Crop Prod 28(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2008.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Singh R, Vyas D, Srivastava N, Narra M (2008) SPRERI experience on holistic approach to utilize all parts of Jatropha curcas fruit for energy. Renew Energy 33(8):1868–1873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Raheman H, Mondal S (2012) Biogas production potential of jatropha seed cake. Biomass Bioenergy 37:25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.12.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hessami M-A, Christensen S, Gani R (1996) Anaerobic digestion of household organic waste to produce biogas. Renew Energy 9(1-4):954–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-1481(96)88438-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Saidi R, Liebgott PP, Hamdi M, Auria R, Bouallagui H (2018) Enhancement of fermentative hydrogen production by Thermotoga maritima through hyperthermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of fruit-vegetable and fish wastes. Int J Hydrog Energy 43(52):23168–23177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.10.208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ngan NVC, Chan FMS, Nam TS, Van Thao H, Maguyon-Detras MC, Hung DV, Van Hung N (2020) Anaerobic digestion of rice straw for biogas production. In: Sustainable Rice Straw Management. Springer, pp 65-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32373-8_5

  15. 15.

    Suryawanshi P, Satyam A, Chaudhari A (2013) Integrated strategy to enhance biogas production from mango peel waste. Global Nest J 15(4):568–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Chatha ZA, Muhammad U, Fatima F, Ali R (2019) Microbial study of mangoes and its control by non-thermal treatments. Pakistan J Phytopathol 31(2):207–210

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sluiter A, Hames B, Hyman D, Payne C, Ruiz R, Scarlata C, Sluiter J, Templeton D, Wolfe J (2008) Determination of total solids in biomass and total dissolved solids in liquid process samples. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, NREL Technical Report No NREL/TP-510-42621:1-6

  18. 18.

    Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I (2008) Strategies for optimizing recovery of the biogas process following ammonia inhibition. Bioresour Technol 99(17):7995–8001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yenigün O, Demirel B (2013) Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process Biochem 48(5-6):901–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2013.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kigozi R, Aboyade A, Muzenda E (2014) Sizing of an anaerobic biodigester for the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science (Vol. 2). http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2014/WCECS2014_pp659-663.pdf

  21. 21.

    Labatut RA, Gooch CA (2012) Monitoring of anaerobic digestion process to optimize performance and prevent system failure. In: In Proceedings of the Got Manure? Enhancing Environmental and Economic Sustainability 209. http://northeast.manuremanagement.cornell.edu/Pages/General_Docs/Events/Final.Proceedings.Document.pdf#page=213

  22. 22.

    Gerardi MH (2003) The microbiology of anaerobic digesters. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=kHRhlkmT0ggC

  23. 23.

    Sen K, Mahalingam S, Sen B (2013) Rapid and high yield biogas production from Jatropha seed cake by co-digestion with bagasse and addition of Fe+2. Environ Technol 34(22):2989–2994. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.798000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Haider MR, Yousaf S, Malik RN, Visvanathan C (2015) Effect of mixing ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum ratio on biogas production. Bioresour Technol 190:451–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Gámez S, González-Cabriales JJ, Ramírez JA, Garrote G, Vázquez M (2006) Study of the hydrolysis of sugar cane bagasse using phosphoric acid. J Food Eng 74(1):78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Badshah M, Lam DM, Liu J, Mattiasson B (2012) Use of an automatic methane potential test system for evaluating the biomethane potential of sugarcane bagasse after different treatments. Bioresour Technol 114:262–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Angelidaki I, Sanders W (2004) Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of macropollutants. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 3(2):117–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-004-2502-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kumar P, Srivastava VC, Jha MK (2016) Jatropha curcas phytotomy and applications: development as a potential biofuel plant through biotechnological advancements. Renew Sust Energ Rev 59:818–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Liang Y, Siddaramu T, Yesuf J, Sarkany N (2010) Fermentable sugar release from Jatropha seed cakes following lime pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis. Bioresour Technol 101(16):6417–6424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Larsson S, Palmqvist E, Hahn-Hägerdal B, Tengborg C, Stenberg K, Zacchi G, Nilvebrant N-O (1999) The generation of fermentation inhibitors during dilute acid hydrolysis of softwood. Enzyme Microb Tech 24(3-4):151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0229(98)00101-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lawford HG, Rousseau JD (1998) Improving fermentation performance of recombinant Zymomonas in acetic acid-containing media. In: Biotechnology for Fuels and Chemicals. Springer, pp 161-172. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1814-2_16

  32. 32.

    Yamamura M, Akashi K, Yokota A, Hattori T, Suzuki S, Shibata D, Umezawa T (2012) Characterization of Jatropha curcas lignins. Plant Biotechnol 29(2):179–183. https://doi.org/10.5511/plantbiotechnology.12.0515b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Becker K, Makkar HPS (1998) Toxic effects of phorbol esters in carp (Cyprinus carpio L). Vet Hum Toxicol 40:82–86

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Haq A, Siddiqi M, Batool SZ, Islam A, Khan A, Khan D, Khan S, Khan H, Shah AA, Hasan F (2019) Comprehensive investigation on the synergistic antibacterial activities of Jatropha curcas pressed cake and seed oil in combination with antibiotics. AMB Express 9(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-019-0793-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Hassan M, Oyewale A, Amupitan J, Abduallahi M, Okonkwo E (2004) Preliminary phytochemical and antibacterial investigation of crude extracts of the root bark of Detarium microcarpum. J Chem Soc Nigeria 29(1):26–29

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation,  Water Environment Federation.(1915) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, (vol 2). American Public Health Association. https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=7sRLAAAAMAAJ

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study is part of NRPU project (6195/Federal/NRPU/R&D/HEC/2016).

Funding

This study was funded by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and was part of NRPU project (6195/Federal/NRPU/R&D/HEC/2016). Abdul Haq was supported by postgraduate fellowship (HEC Indigenous Scholarship) granted by Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AH and MB designed this study. AH performed the experiments. AK, SK, AAS, FH, FdlR, and SA participated substantially in discussion and modifications. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Badshah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haq, A., Khan, A., Haji, K. et al. Enhancement of biogas yield during anaerobic digestion of Jatropha curcas seed by pretreatment and co-digestion with mango peels. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01064-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mono-digestion
  • Anaerobic digestion
  • Pretreatment
  • C/N ratio
  • Methane; Mango peels