Biohydrogen Production with Different Ratios of Kitchen Waste and Inoculum in Lab Scale Batch Reactor at Moderate Temperatures

  • S. K. Bansal
  • Y. Singhal
  • R. Singh


In this study, the effect of ratio of kitchen waste and inoculum like 80:20, 50:50, and 60:40 on biohydrogen production was studied. The volume of each batch reactor was 400 ml and all batch reactors were kept at 37 °C in incubator and the incubation time was 10 days. The maximum biohydrogen production was found in the 80:20 (kitchen waste: inoculum) batch reactor i. e. 13.3 % and this was on the 8th day of the start of batch reactor. The reduction in the various physical parameters in the 80:20 batch reactor was studied shows the progress in the reactors and the degradation in this reactor is high as compared to the other reactors i. e. TS-49.25 %; TDS- 68.75 %; VS-55.83 %; TSS-55.83 % and COD was 35.75 %. This study summarizes the comparative study of the biohydrogen production in the different ratios of inoculum and kitchen waste.


Municipal Solid Waste Batch Reactor Biohydrogen Production Kitchen Waste Dark Fermentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    A.V. Bridgewater, D. Meier and D. Radlein; Org. Geochem. 30 (1999) 1479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.V. Bridgewater; J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 51 (1999) 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Yokoi, T. Tokushige, J. Hirose, S. Hayashi and Y. Takasaki; Biotechnol. Lett. 20 (1998) 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Chittibabu, K. Nath and D. Das; Process Biochem. 41 (2006) 682–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.C. Hallenback and J.R. Benemann; Int. J. H. E 27 ( 2002) 1185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.B. Levin, L. Pitt and M. Love; International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Argun, F.K. Ilgi, K. Kapdan and R. Oztekin; Int. Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 33 (2008) 1813– 1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Zhu, W. Parker, R. Basnar , A. Proracki, P. Falletta, M. Beland, P. Seto; Int. J.H.E. 33 ( 2008) 3651– 3659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Steven, V. Ginkel, S.E. Oh and B.E. Logan; International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 1535 – 1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W.J. Long and W. Wei; Science in China Series B: Chemistry 51 (2008) 1110–1117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Wang and W. Wan. 34 (2009) 799–811.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.H.P Fang, T. Zhang and H. Liu; Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 58 (2002) 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.C. Chen, C.Y. Lin and J.S. Chang; Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 57 (2001) 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Public Health Association (APHA- AWWA), Standard methods of physical parameters.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.Y. Lin and C.H. Lay; Int. Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30 (2005) 285– 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Jayalakshmi, V. Sukumaran and Kurian Joseph; Proceeding of the international conference on sustainable solid waste management. 5–7 September 2007, Chennai, India, pp 356–362.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. K. Bansal
    • 1
  • Y. Singhal
    • 1
  • R. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceDayalbagh Educational InstituteDayalbagh, AgraIndia

Personalised recommendations