Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of ternary models for prediction of biogas yield in a novel modular biodigester: a case of fuzzy Mamdani model (FMM), artificial neural network (ANN), and response surface methodology (RSM)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fuzzy Mamdani Model (FMM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Response Surface Methodology (RSM) models were adopted to model and optimise biogas production on assorted substrates of poultry wastes (PW) and cow dung in a modular biodigester system. The gas produced at retention time of 42 days was within the range of 50 to 52 ml/day. The temperature range was between the range of 20 and 40 °C, while the pH values were stable at optimal range of 8.0. The statistical analysis of the experimental result obtained from methane yield, using different computational technique, reveals that fuzzy Mamdani model reflect zero (0) values for average absolute deviation (AAD), mean average error (MAE), standard error of prediction (SEP), and root-mean-square error (RMSE) and average coefficient of determination (R2) of one (1.0). ANN result obtain showed AAD value of 0.00011991, MAE value of 0.000061538, SEP value of 0.0000044369, and RMSE value of 0.00022188 and R2 value of 1.0, and RSM result reveals absolute AAD of 0.0030, MAE of 0.0015, SEP of 0.00011092, RMSE of 0.0055, and R2 of 0.9998. It can be concluded from the result of the analysis that RSM gave a good prediction of the model while ANN and FMM models produced slightly better results. The result obtained from the FMM model seems marginally better and superior in terms of forecasting of biogas and methane production rate with satisfactory outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rasapoor M, Young B, Brar R, Sarmah A, Zhuang W, Baroutian S (2020) Recognizing the challenges of anaerobic digestion: critical steps toward improving biogas generation. Fuel 261:116497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Okwu MO, Samuel OD, Otanocha OB, Ojo E, Ogugu T, Balogun P (2020) Design and development of a bio-digester for production of biogas from dual waste. World J Eng, Emerald Insight. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-07-2018-0249

  3. Meisam T, Mortaza A, Elena V, Hamed KSP, Abdul SN, Hossein G, Alawi S, Saffora M, Keikhosro (2020) A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas production, Part 1: Upstream strategies. Renew Energy 146:1204–1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ndinechi MC, Onwusuru IM, Ogungbenro OA (2012) Economic potentials of animal dung as a viable source of biomass energy. Acad Res Int 2(1):83–89 www.journals.savap.org.pk

    Google Scholar 

  5. Olowoyeye J (2013) Comparative studies on biogas production using six different animal dungs. J Energy Technol Policy 3(10):1–6 www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JETP/article/download/8448/8413

    Google Scholar 

  6. Achebe CH, Onokpite E, Onokwai AO (2018) Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion of poultry droppings (PD) and cassava peels (CP): comparative study of optimal biogas production. J Eng Appl Sci 12:87–93

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chukwuma EC, Umeghalu ICE, Orakwe LC, Bassey EE, Chukwuma JN (2013) Determination of optimum mixing ratio of cow dung and poultry droppings in biogas production under tropical condition. Afr J Agric Res 8(18):1940–1948 http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Samyuktha S, Latha K, Sivanesan S (2015) Ratio optimization for biogas production from agricultural waste co-digested with sewage sludge. Int J Innov Res Eng Manag (IJIREM) 3(S1):154–156 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276412507

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Battistoni P, Cecchi F (2005) Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge: influence of the solid retention time in the wastewater treatment process. Process Biochem 40(3–4):1453–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2004.06.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ezekoye VA, Ezekoye BA, Offor PO (2011) Effect of retention time on biogas production from poultry droppings and cassava peels. Nig J Biotechnol 22:53–59 www.biotechsocietynigeria.org

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vaneeckhaute C, Fazli A (2020) Management of ship-generated food waste and sewage on the Baltic Sea: a review. J Waste Manag 102:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meng Y, Luan F, Yuan H, Chen X, Li X (2017) Enhancing anaerobic digestion performance of crude lipid in food waste by enzymatic pretreatment, Bio-resour. Technol. 224:48–55

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lin Y, Liang J, Zeng C, Wang D, Lin H (2017) Anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill sludge pretreated by microbial consortium OEM1 with simulta-neous degradation of lignocellulose and chlorophenols, Renew. Energy 108:108–115

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ali S, Abomohra AE-F, Sun J (2017) Effective bio-pretreatment of sawdust waste with a novel microbial consortium for enhanced biomethanation. Bioresour Technol 238:425–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chukwu VU, Oguoma O (2019) Application of artificial neural network model for cost optimization in a single, multi-destination system with non-deterministic inputs. Advances in Computational Intelligence, (LNCS, Volume 11, 507) Springer. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20518-8_45.

  16. Issah A, Kabera T, Kemausuor F (2020) Biogas optimization process and effluent quality: a review. Biomass Bioenergy, Science direct. 133:105449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Selvankumar T, Sudhakar C, Govindaraju M, Selvam K, Aroulmoji V, Sivakumar N, Govarthanan M (2017) Process optimization of biogas energy production from cow dung with alkali pre-treated coffee pulp. 3 Biotech 7:254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-017-0884-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Karaca F, Alagha O, Erturk F (2005) Statistical characterization of atmospheric PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations at a non-impacted suburban site of istanbul turkey. Chemosphere 59:1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ozkaya B, Demir A, Bilgili MS (2007) Neural network prediction model for the methane fraction in biogas from field-scale landfill bioreactors. Environ Model Softw 22(6):815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stik DPBTB, Domnanovich AM, Zani L, Braun R, Holubar P (2005) Prediction of trace compound in biogas from anaerobic digestion using the MATLAB neural network toolbox. Environ Model Softw 20:803–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Samuel OD, Okwu MO (2019) Comparison of response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) in modelling of waste coconut oil ethyl esthers production. Taylor and Francis. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1539138

  22. Abu QH, Bani HK, Shatnawi N (2010) Modeling and optimization of biogas production from a waste digester using artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:359–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. lamathi P, Selladuria V, Balamurugan K, Sathyanathan VT (2013) ANN-GA approach for predictive modeling and optimization of NOx emission in a tangentially fired boiler. Clean Techn Environ Policy 15:125–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sathish S, Vivekanandan S (2016) Parametric optimization for floating drum anaerobic bio-digester using response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Alex Eng J 55(4):3297–3307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zareei S, Khodaei J (2017) Modeling and optimization of biogas production from cow manure and maize straw using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. Renew Energy 114:423–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Safari M, Abdi R, Adl M, Kafashan J (2018) Optimization of biogas productivity in lab-scale by response surface methodology. Renew Energy 118:368–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kainthola J, Kalamdhad AS, Goud VV (2020) Optimization of process parameters for accelerated methane yield from anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and food waste. Renew Energy 149:1352–1359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Olabi AG, Nassef AM, Rodriguez C, Abdelkareem MA, Rezk H (2020) Application of artificial intelligence to maximize methane production from waste paper. Int J Energy Res

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun, Warri, Delta State, Nigeria

    Modestus O. Okwu, Olusegun D. Samuel & Omonigho B. Otanocha

  2. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Modestus O. Okwu & Lagouge K. Tartibu

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria

    Henry O. Omoregbee

  4. Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria

    Victor M. Mbachu

Authors
  1. Modestus O. Okwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olusegun D. Samuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Omonigho B. Otanocha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lagouge K. Tartibu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henry O. Omoregbee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Victor M. Mbachu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Modestus O. Okwu.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okwu, M.O., Samuel, O.D., Otanocha, O.B. et al. Development of ternary models for prediction of biogas yield in a novel modular biodigester: a case of fuzzy Mamdani model (FMM), artificial neural network (ANN), and response surface methodology (RSM). Biomass Conv. Bioref. 13, 917–926 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01113-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01113-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation