Anaerobic Digestion of Aquatic Plants for Biogas Production

  • Tülay Güngören MadenoğluEmail author
  • Nasim Jalilnejad Falizi
  • Habibe Serez
  • Nalan KabayEmail author
  • Aslı Güneş
  • Rajeev Kumar
  • Taylan Pek
  • Mithat Yüksel
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


Limited reserves of fossil fuel resources and negative environmental impacts increased energy demands toward renewable energy technologies. Bioenergy is one of the solutions, and biogas production from wastes and residues by anaerobic digestion (AD) is a promising technology. Municipal solid wastes, sludge from wastewater treatment plants, agricultural plant wastes, forestry residues and manure are the widely used sources in AD for biogas production. Aquatic plants can be evaluated as a renewable energy source. If waste and residues of these plants are not utilized in beneficial use, greenhouse gases (GHG) will be emitted through landfilling or direct combustion. Wastes should be converted to biogas with a high yield to decrease the quantity of wastes and biogas with a high-energy content. Substrate to inoculum ratio, temperature regime, C/N ratio, pH, volatile fatty acid and ammonia content are important process parameters for AD. Modified Gompertz, Cone and first-order equations are widely used model equations for kinetic parameters that are used in kinetic models (Monod, modified Andrew, Ratkowsky) for identification of optimum substrate concentration and temperature for each specific feed. This chapter evaluates effective process parameters on AD of aquatic plants for biogas production and application of kinetic analysis for assignment of optimum conditions.


Anaerobic digestion (AD) Aquatic plant Biogas Kinetic analysis, methane 



The authors acknowledge the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK, Project No: 114Y500) for the financial support. We also thank The Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkish Republic supporting our preliminary tests through the grant so-called SAN-TEZ (Project No: 0330.STZ.2013-2). We are grateful to IZSU Çiğli Advanced Biological Wastewater Treatment Plant, Izmir for giving us waste sludge for biogas production. We thank to Mr. G. Serin, M.Sc. students M. C. Akbas and B. Kaletas for assistance in laboratory studies. The authors acknowledge publisher “John Wiley and Sons” for permission of reuse of full article Güngören Madenoğlu et al. [7].


  1. 1.
    Liu X, Zhang S, Bae J (2017) The nexus of renewable energy-agriculture-environment in BRICS. Appl Energy 204:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    IRENA (2014) REmap 2030 global bioenergy supply and demand projections. Available via Google. Accessed 05 May 2019
  3. 3.
    Mishima D, Kuniki M, Sei K et al (2008) Ethanol production from candidate energy crops: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.). Bioresour Technol 99:2495–2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilkie A, Evans J (2010) Aquatic plants: an opportunity feedstock in the age of bioenergy. Biofuels 1:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meegoda JN, Li B, Patel K et al (2018) A review of the processes, parameters, and optimization of anaerobic digestion. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:E2224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wanwu LX, Khalid H, Zhu Z (2018) Methane production through anaerobic digestion: participation and digestion characteristics of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Appl Energy 226:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Güngören Madenoğlu T, Jalilnejad Falizi N, Kabay N et al (2019) Kinetic analysis of methane production from anaerobic digestion of water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes L.) with waste sludge. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 94:1893–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Sullivan C, Rounsefell B, Grinham A et al (2010) Anaerobic digestion of harvested aquatic weeds: water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), cabomba (Cabomba Caroliniana) and salvinia (Salvinia molesta). Ecol Eng 36:1459–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mallik MK, Singh UK, Ahmad N (1990) Batch digester studies on biogas production from Cannabis sativa, water hyacinth and crop wastes mixed with dung and poultry litter. Biol Waste 31:315–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vaidyanathan S, Kavadia KM, Shroff KC et al (1985) Biogas production in batch and semi-continuous digesters using water hyacinth. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:905–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nipaney PC, Panholzer MB (1987) Influence of temperature on biogas production from Pistia stratiotes. Biol Waste 19:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chunlan M, Yongzhong F, Xiaojiao W et al (2015) Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew Sust Energ Rev 45:540–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chuang YS, Lay CH, Sen B et al (2011) Biohydrogen and biomethane from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) fermentation: effects of substrate concentration and incubation temperature. Int J Hydrogen Energ 36:14195–14203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Córdoba V, Fernández M, Santalla E (2018) The effect of substrate/inoculum ratio on the kinetics of methane production in swine wastewater anaerobic digestion. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(22):21308–21317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serez H (2016) Wastewater treatment using energy plants at ITOB industrial zone and biogas production by anaerobic fermentation of the energy plants. M.Sc. thesis, Ege UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kainthola J, Kalamdhad AS, Goud VV (2019) Enhanced methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and Hydrilla verticillata and its kinetic analysis. Biomass Bioenerg 125:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang D, Deng LW, Zheng D et al (2015) Separation of swine wastewater into solid fraction, concentrated slurry and dilute liquid and its influence on biogas production. Fuel 144:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    González-Fernández C, García-Encina PA (2009) Impact of substrate to inoculum ratio in anaerobic digestion of swine slurry. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1065–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fagbohungbe MO, Herbert BMJ, Li H et al (2015) The effect of substrate to inoculum ratios on the anaerobic digestion of human faecal material. Environ Technol Innov 3:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bowen EJ, Dolfing J, Davenport RJ et al (2014) Low-temperature limitation of bioreactor sludge in anaerobic treatment of domestic waste-water. Water Sci Technol 69:1004–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wei RR, Cheng GW, Luo JJ et al (2010) Biogas and bio-energy production from anaerobic digestion of piggery manure at different temperatures. J Agric Mech Res 4:170–174Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaparaju P, Angelidaki I (2008) Effect of temperature and active biogas process on passive separation of digested manure. Bioresour Technol 99:1345–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee M, Hidaka T, Tsuno H (2009) Two-phased hyperthermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge with kitchen garbage. J Biosci Bioeng 108:408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang X, Lu X, Li F et al (2014) Effects of temperature and carbon-nitrogen (C/N) ratio on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure and rice straw: focusing on ammonia inhibition. PLoS ONE 9:e97265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kabay N (2016) Optimization studies at MBR treatment system of ITOB Organized Industrial Zone and Biogas Production by Cultivating Energy Plants in Wastewater-SAN-TEZ Project Supported by Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkish Republic (Project No: 0330.STZ.2013-2)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang T, Liu L, Song Z et al (2013) Biogas production by co-digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoSOne 8:e66845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Punal A, Trevisan M, Rozzi A et al (2000) Influence of C:N ratio on the start-up of up-flow anaerobic filter reactors. Water Res 34:2614–2619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yen HW, Brune DE (2007) Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and wastepaper to produce methane. Bioresour Technol 98:130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y et al (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 120:78–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhong W, Chi L, Luo Y et al (2013) Enhanced methane production from Taihu Lake blue algae by anaerobic co-digestion with corn straw in continuous feed digesters. Bioresour Technol 134:264–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang C, Xiao G, Peng L et al (2013) The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 129:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Buyukkamaci N, Filibeli A (2004) Volatile fatty acid formation in an anaerobic hybrid reactor. Process Biochem 39:1491–1494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cysneiros D, Banks CJ, Heaven S et al (2012) The effect of pH control and ‘hydraulic flush’ on hydrolysis and volatile fatty acids (VFA) production and profile in anaerobic leach bed reactors digesting a high solids content substrate. Bioresour Technol 123:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pham TN, Nam WJ, Jeon YJ et al (2012) Volatile fatty acids production from marine macroalgae by anaerobic fermentation. Bioresour Technol 124:500–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang Q, Peng L, Su H (2013) The effect of a buffer function on the semi-continuous anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 139:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Banks CJ, Humphreys PN (1998) The anaerobic treatment of a lingo-cellulosic substrate offering little natural pH buffering capacity. Water Sci Technol 38:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yokoyama H, Moriya N, Ohmori H et al (2007) Community analysis of hydrogen-producing extreme thermophilic anaerobic microflora enriched from cow manure with five substrates. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 77:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kim J, Park C, Kim TH et al (2003) Effects of various pretreatments for enhanced anaerobic digestion with waste activated sludge. J Biosci Bioeng 95:271–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee DH, Behera SK, Kim JW et al (2009) Methane production potential of leachate generated from Korean food waste recycling facilities: a lab-scale study. Waste Manage 29:876–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sung S, Liu T (2003) Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Chemosphere 53:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Syaichurrozi I, Budiyono B, Sumardiono S et al (2013) Predicting kinetic model of biogas production and biodegradability organic materials: biogas production from vinasse at variation of COD/N ratio. Bioresour Technol 149:390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Markou G, Georgakakis D (2011) Cultivation of filamentous cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in agro-industrial wastes and wastewaters: a review. Appl Energy 88:3389–3401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hansen KH, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK (1998) Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water Res 32:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Karlsson A, Ejlertsson J (2012) Addition of HCl as a means to improve biogas production from protein-rich food industry waste. Biochem Eng J 61:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Callander IJ, Barford JP (1983) Precipitation, chelation, and the availability of metals as nutrients in anaerobic digestion. II. Applications. Biotechnol Bioeng 25:1959–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhen G, Lu X, Kobayashi T et al (2015) Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and Egeria densa: performance assessment and kinetic analysis. Appl Energy 148:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kafle GK, Kim SH, Sung KI (2012) Ensiling of fish industry waste for biogas production: a lab scale evaluation of biochemical methane potential (BMP) and kinetics. Bioresour Technol 127:326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhang W, Wei Q, Wu S et al (2014) Batch anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions. Appl Energy 128:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Budiyono B, Syaichurrozi I, Sumardiono S et al (2014) Kinetic model of biogas yield production from vinasse at various initial pH: comparison between modified Gompertz model and first order kinetic model. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 7:2798–2805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Syaichurrozi I (2018) Biogas production from co-digestion Salvinia molesta and rice straw and kinetics. Renew Energ 115:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wang JL, Wan W (2009) Kinetic models for fermentative hydrogen production: a review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34:3313–3323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fernandez-Rodriguez MJ, Rincon B, Fermoso FG et al (2014) Assessment of two-phase olive mill solid waste and microalgae co-digestion to improve methane production and process kinetics. Bioresour Technol 157:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chen WH, Chen SY, Khanal SK (2006) Kinetic study of biological hydrogen production by anaerobic fermentation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 31(15):2170–2178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang JL, Wan W (2008) Effect of temperature on fermentative hydrogen production by mixed cultures. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33:5392–5397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tülay Güngören Madenoğlu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nasim Jalilnejad Falizi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Habibe Serez
    • 1
  • Nalan Kabay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aslı Güneş
    • 3
    • 4
  • Rajeev Kumar
    • 1
  • Taylan Pek
    • 5
  • Mithat Yüksel
    • 1
  1. 1.Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringEge UniversityBornova, IzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Biotechnology Division, Graduate School of Natural and Applied SciencesEge UniversityIzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Bayındır Vocational SchoolEge UniversityIzmirTurkey
  4. 4.Landscape Architecture DepartmentIzmir Democracy UniversityIzmirTurkey
  5. 5.ITOB-OSBIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations