Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of biomethane potential of codigested sheep manure and kitchen refuse

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

Abstract

A study on the biomethanation potential of codigested sheep manure (SM) and kitchen refuse (KR) was carried out. Both the substrates varied in their C:N ratio, cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin contents, although they had very similar moisture and volatile solid (VS) contents. Anaerobic codigestion to balance the C:N ratio thereby making the process more efficient to help enhance biomethanation is a universally accepted strategy. Various combinations (80:20, 60:40, 40:60, 20:80) were used for biogas production alongside pure SM (100:0) and KR (0:100) to arrive at an efficient ratio using the digested slurry from an active biodigestor as the microbial inoculum. A 40-day experiment was set at 40 °C and pH 7.0 initial conditions, and the effect of the codigestion on the pH, volatile fatty acids (VFA) and the C:N ratio was evaluated. It was observed that the biogas and methane generation were maximal at SM:KR::40:60 combination with 7.0–7.5 pH, 23.3 C:N ratio, and a balanced VFA production and utilisation. The maximum cumulative biogas and methane generated were 2575 mL and 1660 mL, and the calculated biogas and methane generation based on the VS content were 209.35 and 135.13 mL/g VS. Based on the results obtained from the study, it is suggested that sheep manure and kitchen refuse codigestion could help enhance biogas production at 40:60 combination. Although reports on codigestion of other such biogasifiable substrates exist, similar studies could be tried for numerous other nonconventional organic biogasifiable substrates to validate their biomethanation potentials and enhancements.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Omer AM (2017) Identifying, developing, and moving sustainable communities through application of bioenergy for energy or materials: future perspective through energy efficiency. Int J Biotech Bioeng 3(3):33–56. https://doi.org/10.25141/2475-3432-2017-3.0033

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Ismail SAS (2019) Textbook for environmental studies: environmental science book. Educreation Publishing

  3. Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F (2018). What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank Publications

  4. Polprasert C, Koottatep T (2017) Organic waste recycling: technology, management and sustainability. IWA publishing

  5. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chandra R, Yadav S, Kumar V (2015) Microbial degradation of lignocellulosic waste and its metabolic products. Environ Waste Manag 249–298.https://doi.org/10.1201/b19243-11

  7. Wang P, Wang H, Qiu Y, Ren L, Jiang B (2018) Microbial characteristics in anaerobic digestion process of food waste for methane production–a review. Bioresour Technol 248:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Escamilla-Alvarado C, Pérez-Pimienta JA, Ponce-Noyola T, Poggi-Varaldo HM (2017) An overview of the enzyme potential in bioenergy-producing biorefineries. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 92(5):906–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Divya D, Gopinath LR, Christy PM (2015) A review on current aspects and diverse prospects for enhancing biogas production in sustainable means. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:690–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Almomani F, Bhosale RR (2020) Enhancing the production of biogas through anaerobic co-digestion of agricultural waste and chemical pre-treatments. Chemosphere 255:126805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xu F, Li Y, Ge X, Yang L, Li Y (2018) Anaerobic digestion of food waste challenges and opportunities. Bioresour Technol 247:1047–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cheah WY, Ling TC, Show PL, Juan JC, Chang JS, Lee DJ (2016) Cultivation in wastewaters for energy: a microalgae platform. Appl Energy 179:609–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Trisakti B, Manalu V, Taslim I, Turmuzi M (2015) Acidogenesis of palm oil mill effluent to produce biogas: effect of hydraulic retention time and pH. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 195:2466–2474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Khan UM, Ahring BK (2021) Improving the biogas yield of manure: effect of pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of the recalcitrant fraction of manure. Bioresour Technol 321:124427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khan MU, Ahring BK (2021) Anaerobic digestion of digested manure fibers: influence of thermal and alkaline thermal pretreatment on the biogas yield. Bioenerg Res 14:891–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-020-10190-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mirtsou-Xanthopoulou C, Skiadas IV, Gavala HN (2019) On the effect of aqueous ammonia soaking pre-treatment on continuous anaerobic digestion of digested swine manure fibers. Molecules 24(13):2469. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24132469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abraham A, Mathew AK, Park H, Choi O, Sindhu R, Parameswaran B, Sang BI (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 

  18. Banks CJ, Heaven S, Zhang Y, Baier U (2018) Food waste digestion: anaerobic digestion of food waste for a circular economy. In: Murphy JD (ed) IEA bioenergy task 37 2018:12

  19. Cu TTT, Nguyen TX, Triolo JM, Pedersen L, Le VD, Sommer LPD, SG, (2015) Biogas production from Vietnamese animal manure, plant residues and organic waste: influence of biomass composition on methane yield. Asian Austral J Anim Sci 28(2):280. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cestonaro T, de Mendonça Costa MSS, de Mendonça Costa LA, Rozatti MAT, Pereira DC, Lorin HEF, Carneiro LJ (2015) The anaerobic co-digestion of sheep bedding and ⩾50% cattle manure increases biogas production and improves biofertilizer quality. Waste Manage 46:612–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Achinas S, Li Y, Achinas V, Euverink GJW (2018) Influence of sheep manure addition on biogas potential and methanogenic communities during cow dung digestion under mesophilic conditions. Sustain Environ Res 28(5):240–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2018.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Singh PK, Srichandan H, Ojha SK, Mishra S, Naik K (2019) A comparative study of biogasification of wheat straw, sugarcane bagasse and pressmud. J of Environ Sci Health Part A 54(4):306–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2018.1548812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Singh PK, Verma SK, Ojha SK, Panda PK, Srichandan H, Jha E, Mishra S (2019) Intrinsic molecular insights to enhancement of biogas production from kitchen refuse using alkaline-microwave pretreatment. Sci Rep 9(1):5968. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42471-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nielfa A, Cano R, Fdz-Polanco M (2015) Theoretical methane production generated by the co-digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste and biological sludge. Biotechnol Rep 5:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2014.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cerón A, Cáceres KT, Rincón A, Cajigas AA (2019) Influence of pH and the C/N ratio on the biogas production of wastewater. Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia 9288–95. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20190627

  27. Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, Ren G, Han X (2012) Optimizing feeding composition and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 120:78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.06.058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang T, Liu L, Song Z, Ren G, Feng Y, Han X, Yang G (2013) Biogas production by co-digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoS ONE 8(6):e66845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Brown D, Shi J, Li Y (2012) Comparison of solid-state to liquid anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic feedstocks for biogas production. Biores Technol 124:379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jiang J, Li L, Cui M, Zhang F, Liu Y, Liu Y, Long J, Guo Y (2018) Anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste: the effects of source, concentration, and temperature. Biochem Eng J 135:91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2018.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Malesu VK, Mishra S, Ojha SK, Naik K, Singh PK, Nayak B (2016) Bioprospecting kitchen refuse as a suitable substrate for biogasification. Air Soil Water Res 9:ASWR-S32779. https://doi.org/10.4137/ASWR.S32779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL (2008) Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol 99(17):7928–7940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Okonkwo UC, Onokpite E, Onokwai AO (2018) Comparative study of the optimal ratio of biogas production from various organic wastes and weeds for digester/restarted digester. J King Saud Univ Eng Sci 30(2):123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2016.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mishra S, Singh PK, Dash S, Pattnaik R (2018) Microbial pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biomethanation and waste management. 3 Biotech 8(11):458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-018-1480-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ojha SK, Mishra S, Malesu VK, Singh PK, Naik K, Panda S, Besra L, Suar M (2014) In situ physicochemical and microbial changes during kitchen refuse biogasification. J Adv Microbiol 1:338

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ojha SK, Mishra S, Nayak SK, Suar M (2012) Molecular biology and biochemistry for enhanced biomethanation. Dyn Biochem Process Biotechnol Mol Biol© 2012 6:48–56

  37. Niu Q, Hojo T, Qiao W, Qiang H, Li YY (2014) Characterization of methanogenesis, acidogenesis and hydrolysis in thermophilic methane fermentation of chicken manure. Chem Eng J 244:587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.11.074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Avulapati MM, Anand TC, Ravikrishna RV (2012) Full chemical kinetic simulation of biogas early phase combustion in SI engines. Energy Fuels 27(1):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef3009458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pagés-Díaz J, Westman J, Taherzadeh MJ, Pereda-Reyes I, Horváth IS (2015) Semi-continuous co-digestion of solid cattle slaughterhouse wastes with other waste streams: interactions within the mixtures and methanogenic community structure. Chem Eng J 273:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Khoufi S, Louhichi A, Sayadi S (2015) Optimization of anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill wastewater and liquid poultry manure in batch condition and semi-continuous jet-loop reactor. Bioresour Technol 182:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Patil JH, Antony Raj MAL, Shankar BB, Shetty MK, Kumar BP (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and sheep waste. Energy Procedia 52:572–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. de Morais Andrade MM, Alencar BRA, Leite NP, Firmo ALB, Dutra ED, Sampaio EVDSB, Menezes RSC (2020) Biogas production from co-digestion of different proportions of food waste and fresh bovine manure. Biomass Convers Biorefin 1–8.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00833-8

  44. Rajput AA, Visvanathan C (2018) Effect of thermal pretreatment on chemical composition, physical structure and biogas production kinetics of wheat straw. J Environ Manag 221:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Izaurralde RC, Mcgill WB, Williams JR (2012) Development and application of the EPIC model for carbon cycle, greenhouse-gas mitigation, and biofuel studies (No. PNNL-SA-83721). Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)

  46. Mishra S, Ojha SK, Adhya TK (2019) Biochemistry and molecular biology of biomethanation. Biogas Technology 35–58. ISBN: 978–93–87973–52–7

  47. Hallaji SM, Kuroshkarim M, Moussavi SP (2019) Enhancing methane production using anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge with combined fruit waste and cheese whey. BMC Biotechnol 19(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chakraborty D, Karthikeyan OP, Selvam A, Wong JW (2018) Co-digestion of food waste and chemically enhanced primary treated sludge in a continuous stirred tank reactor. Biomass Bioenerg 111:232–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wu X, Yao W, Zhu J, Miller C (2010) Biogas and CH4 productivity by co-digesting swine manure with three crop residues as an external carbon source. Bioresour Technol 101(11):4042–4047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mohanty P, Singh PK, Adhya TK, Pattnaik R, Mishra S. (2021). A critical review on prospects and challenges in production of biomethanol from lignocellulose biomass. Biomass Convers Biorefin 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01815-0

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Govt. of India, for the fellowships to PKS and HS under the New National Biogas and Organic Manure Programme (NNBOMP). The authors extend their gratitude to their respective affiliations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bioenergy Lab and BDTC, School of Biotechnology, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Deemed-To-Be-University, Bhubaneswar, 751 024, India

    Puneet Kumar Singh, Haragobinda Srichandan, Sanjay Kumar Ojha, Sreyasi Pal, Jagriti Singh & Snehasish Mishra

  2. School of Biotechnology, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) Deemed-To-Be-University, Bhubaneswar, 751 024, India

    Ritesh Pattnaik

  3. Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh, Varanasi, 221005, India

    Sunil Kumar Verma

Authors
  1. Puneet Kumar Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haragobinda Srichandan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanjay Kumar Ojha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ritesh Pattnaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sunil Kumar Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sreyasi Pal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jagriti Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Snehasish Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Snehasish Mishra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Singh, P.K., Srichandan, H., Ojha, S.K. et al. Evaluation of biomethane potential of codigested sheep manure and kitchen refuse. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 13, 11879–11889 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01961-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-021-01961-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation