Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Productivity of biogas production from dragon fruit branches co-digested with pig dung

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

Abstract

This research aimed to appraise the promising biogas generation from dragon fruit branches co-digested with pig dung. Biochemical methane potential assay was employed for effective biogas production via the optimized ratio between branches and pig dung, the ratio between feedstock and inoculum, the ratio between solid mixture and water, the percentage of added seedings, and incubating temperatures. Each batch was operated for 17 to 22 days, depending on the quantities of branches, dung, inoculum, water, added seedings, and incubating temperature. The biogas productivity was substantially intensified in the first eight to fourteen working days before decreasing in the following days. The maximized accumulated biogas capacity (2628 mL) and biogas yield (63.71 mL/g volatile solid) were achieved under the optimal conditions of 50% branches and 50% pig dung (w/w), 1 g feedstock/2 mL inoculum, 1 g solid mixture/5 mL water, 20% added seedings, and 27 °C incubating temperature. Furthermore, this output (63.71 mL/g volatile solid) was boosted by 128.18% as compared to the biogas yield from sole dragon fruit branches at the anaerobic conditions of 1 g feedstock/1 mL inoculum, 1 g solid mixture/4 mL water, 10% added seedings, and 35 °C incubating temperature (27.92 mL/g volatile solid). Based on these outputs, dragon fruit branches are a promising material for biogas production, which gains economic profits for this plant and benefits sustainable development in green energy and waste valorization.

Graphical abstract

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available for the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

BMP:

biochemical methane potential

VS:

volatile solid

References

  1. Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W (2013) Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Management 33(1):220–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nikiema M, Somda M, Adéoti K, Traoré D, Baba-Moussa F, Toukourou F, Dianou D, Traore A, Somda M, Kifouli A, Ba-Ba-Moussa F, Fatiou T (2017) Optimization of biogas production from organic municipal waste: development of activated sludge as digesters inoculum. Journal of Environmental Protection 8:1674–1687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Energy Council (2016) World energy resources waste to energy. https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resources/weresources_waste_to_energy_2016.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2021

  4. Ma Y, Liu Y (2019) Turning food waste to energy and resources towards a great environmental and economic sustainability: an innovative integrated biological approach. Biotechnology Advances 37(7):107414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mofijur M, Kusumo F, Fattah IMR, Mahmudul HM, Rasul MG, Shamsuddin AH, Mahlia TMI (2020) Resource recovery from waste coffee grounds using ultrasonic-assisted technology for bioenergy production. Energies 13(7):1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Uddin MN, Siddiki SYA, Mofijur M, Djavanroodi F, Hazrat MA, Show PL, Ahmed SF, Chu Y-M (2021) Prospects of bioenergy production from organic waste using anaerobic digestion technology: a mini review. Front Energy Res 9(33)

  7. Zamri MFMA, Hasmady S, Akhiar A, Ideris F, Shamsuddin AH, Mofijur M, Fattah IMR, Mahlia TMI (2021) A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137:110637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zabed HM, Akter S, Yun J, Zhang G, Zhang Y, Qi X (2020) Biogas from microalgae: technologies, challenges and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 117:109503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs

    Google Scholar 

  10. The Government of Vietnam (2015) Approving the Vietnam’s renewable energy development strategy up to 2030 with an outlook to 2050, Vietnam

  11. Ming C, Rizwanul Fattah IM, Chan QN, Pham PX, Medwell PR, Kook S, Yeoh GH, Hawkes ER, Masri AR (2018) Combustion characterization of waste cooking oil and canola oil based biodiesels under simulated engine conditions. Fuel 224:167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mahlia TMI, Syazmi ZAHS, Mofijur M, Abas AEP, Bilad MR, Ong HC, Silitonga AS (2020) Patent landscape review on biodiesel production: technology updates. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118:109526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Balat M, Balat H (2009) Biogas as a renewable energy source—a review. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 31(14):1280–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Crane JH, Balerdi CF (2005) Pitaya (dragon fruit) growing in the Florida home landscape. University of Florida. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS30300.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2021

  15. Jiang Y-L, Liao Y-Y, Lin T-S, Lee C-L, Yen C-R, Yang W-J (2012) The photoperiod-regulated bud formation of red pitaya (Hylocereus sp.). HortScience Horts 47(8):1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reddy DAK (2021) Dragon fruit – a new introduction in the Indian market. Just Agriculture e-Magazine 1(8):12–15

    Google Scholar 

  17. Balendres MA, Bengoa JC (2019) Diseases of dragon fruit (Hylocereus species): etiology and current management options. Crop Protection 126:104920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hieu NT, Hoa NV (2015) Management strategies of major pitaya diseases in Vietnam. In: Improving pitaya production and marketing: international workshop proceedings, Fengshan, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, pp 129–142

  19. Tuan LNA, Du BD, Ha LDT, Dzung LTK, Van Phu D, Hien NQ (2019) Induction of chitinase and brown spot disease resistance by oligochitosan and nanosilica–oligochitosan in dragon fruit plants. Agricultural Research 8(2):184–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Md A, Som AW (2018) Performance study of dragon fruit foliage as a plant-based coagulant for treatment of palm oil mill effluent from three-phase decanters. Bioresources 13:4290–4300

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ismail O, Abdel-Aziz M, GhareebR M, Hassan YA (2017) Exploring the biological activities of the Hylocereus polyrhizus extract. Journal of Innovations in Pharmaceutical and Biological Sciences 4(1):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tsai Y, Lin C-G, Chen W-L, Huang Y-C, Chen C-Y, Huang K-F, Yang C-H (2019) Evaluation of the antioxidant and wound-healing properties of extracts from different parts of Hylocereus polyrhizus. Agronomy 9(1):27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Idris J, Md Som A, Musa M, Ku Hamid KH, Husen R, Muhd Rodhi MN (2013) Dragon fruit foliage plantbBased coagulant for treatment of concentrated latex effluent: comparison of treatment with ferric sulfate. Journal of Chemistry 2013:230860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tien NNT, Le NL, Khoi TT, Richel A (2022) Influence of location, weather condition, maturity, and plant disease on chemical profiles of dragon fruit (Hylocereus spp.) branches grown in Vietnam. Biomass Convers Biorefin 1–13

  25. Juárez-Cruz A, Livera M, Sosa-Montes E, Goytia-Jiménez M, González-Hernández V, Bárcena-Gama R (2012) Composición química de tallos inmaduros de Acanthocereus spp. e Hylocereus undatus (Haw.). Britton & Rose. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana publ. por la Sociedad Mexicana de Fitogenética 35:171–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ortiz-Hernández YD, Carrillo-Salazar JA (2012) Pitahaya (Hylocereus spp.): a short review. Comunicata Scientiae 3(4):220–237

    Google Scholar 

  27. Som AM, Ahmat N, Abdul Hamid HA, Azizuddin N (2019) A comparative study on foliage and peels of Hylocereus undatus (white dragon fruit) regarding their antioxidant activity and phenolic content. Heliyon 5(2):e01244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ameen F, Ranjitha J, Ahsan N, Shankar V (2021) Co-digestion of microbial biomass with animal manure in three-stage anaerobic digestion. Fuel 306:121746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Borowski S, Domański J, Weatherley L (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge. Waste Management 34(2):513–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sompong O, Boe K, Angelidaki I (2012) Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of oil palm empty fruit bunches with palm oil mill effluent for efficient biogas production. Applied Energy 93:648–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kougias PG, Kotsopoulos TA, Martzopoulos GG (2014) Effect of feedstock composition and organic loading rate during the mesophilic co-digestion of olive mill wastewater and swine manure. Renewable Energy 69:202–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu C, Li H, Zhang Y, Liu C (2016) Improve biogas production from low-organic-content sludge through high-solids anaerobic co-digestion with food waste. Bioresource Technology 219:252–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Macé S, Astals S (2011) Codigestion of solid wastes: a review of its uses and perspectives including modeling. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 31(2):99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsapekos P, Kougias PG, Angelidaki I (2015) Anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of mechanically pretreated meadow grass for biogas production. Energy & Fuels 29(7):4005–4010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kainthola J, Kalamdhad AS, Goud VV (2019) A review on enhanced biogas production from anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass by different enhancement techniques. Process Biochemistry 84:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. In: NREL Laboratory Analytical Procedure (NREL/TP-510-42621)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Standard Methods Committee of the American Public Health Association (2017) American Water Works Association Water Environment Federation 5220 chemical oxygen demand (COD). In: Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association

  38. Pham CH, Triolo JM, Cu TTT, Pedersen L, Sommer SG (2013) Validation and recommendation of methods to measure biogas production potential of animal manure. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 26(6):864–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Standard V (2018) 4630 (2006) Fermentation of organic materials, characterisation of the substrates, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation test. VDI-Handbuch Energietechnik, VDI-Handbuch Energietechnik

    Google Scholar 

  40. Obileke K, Nwokolo N, Makaka G, Mukumba P, Onyeaka H (2021) Anaerobic digestion: technology for biogas production as a source of renewable energy—a review. Energy & Environment 32(2):191–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Durán DA, Figueroa Á, Gualdrón MA, Sierra R (2018) Potential of tropical fruit waste in bioenergy processes and bioproducts design. 26th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, pp 166–174

  42. Rambo MKD, Schmidt FL, Ferreira MMC (2015) Analysis of the lignocellulosic components of biomass residues for biorefinery opportunities. Talanta 144:696–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Li Y, Zhang R, Liu G, Chen C, He Y, Liu X (2013) Comparison of methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Bioresource Technology 149:565–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Menardo S, Cacciatore V, Balsari P (2015) Batch and continuous biogas production arising from feed varying in rice straw volumes following pre-treatment with extrusion. Bioresource Technology 180:154–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Novais RM, Gameiro T, Carvalheiras J, Seabra MP, Tarelho LAC, Labrincha JA, Capela I (2018) High pH buffer capacity biomass fly ash-based geopolymer spheres to boost methane yield in anaerobic digestion. Journal of Cleaner Production 178:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Podmirseg SM, Seewald MSA, Knapp BA, Bouzid O, Biderre-Petit C, Peyret P, Insam H (2013) Wood ash amendment to biogas reactors as an alternative to landfilling? A preliminary study on changes in process chemistry and biology. Waste Management & Research 31(8):829–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gerardi MH (2003) The microbiology of anaerobic digesters, wastewater microbiology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Merlin Christy P, Gopinath LR, Divya D (2014) A review on anaerobic decomposition and enhancement of biogas production through enzymes and microorganisms. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 34:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Supaphol S, Jenkins SN, Intomo P, Waite IS, O'Donnell AG (2011) Microbial community dynamics in mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of mixed waste. Bioresource Technology 102(5):4021–4027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Yadvika S, Sreekrishnan TR, Kohli S, Rana V (2004) Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniques--a review. Bioresource Technology 95(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Abbasi T, Tauseef SM, Abbasi SA (2012) Biogas and biogas energy: an introduction Biogas energy. Springer, New York, NY, pp 1–10

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Yan C, Liu Y, Cui X, Cao L, Xiong J, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Ruan R (2022) Improving the efficiency of anaerobic digestion: domesticated paddy soil microbes enhance the hydrolytic acidification of rice straw and pig manure. Bioresource Technology 345:126570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pachaiyappan S, Elamvazhuthi P, Dhamodharan M, Seshadri S, Amm S (2014) Biogas production from water hyacinth blended with cow dung. Indian Journal of Energy 3(1):134–139

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mussatto SI, Fernandes M, Milagres AMF, Roberto IC (2008) Effect of hemicellulose and lignin on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose from brewer’s spent grain. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 43(2):124–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pham CH, Saggar S, Vu CC, Tate KR, Tran TTT, Luu TT, Ha HT, Nguyen HLT, Sommer SG (2017) Biogas production from steer manures in Vietnam: effects of feed supplements and tannin contents. Waste Management 69:492–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Zollitsch W, Mayer K, Gruber L (2007) Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure—influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 118(1):173–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Phuong NL, Quyen LTT, Huyen NTN, Huynh NTN, Trang NTD, Ngan NVC (2015) Biogas production from corn (Zea mays) stalks: effects of size. J Fish Sci Technol Special 69–75

  58. Neves L, Oliveira R, Alves MM (2004) Influence of inoculum activity on the bio-methanization of a kitchen waste under different waste/inoculum ratios. Process Biochemistry 39(12):2019–2024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL, Guwy AJ, Kalyuzhnyi S, Jenicek P, van Lier JB (2009) Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Science and Technology 59(5):927–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. El-Mashad HM, van Loon WKP, Zeeman G, Bot GPA, Lettinga G (2006) Effect of inoculum addition modes and leachate recirculation on anaerobic digestion of solid cattle manure in an accumulation system. Biosystems Engineering 95(2):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Xu SY, Karthikeyan OP, Selvam A, Wong JWC (2014) Microbial community distribution and extracellular enzyme activities in leach bed reactor treating food waste: effect of different leachate recirculation practices. Bioresource Technology 168:41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Dixon PJ, Ergas SJ, Mihelcic JR, Hobbs SR (2019) Effect of substrate to inoculum ratio on bioenergy recovery from food waste, yard waste, and biosolids by high solids anaerobic digestion. Environmental Engineering Science 36(12):1459–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hobbs SR, Landis AE, Rittmann BE, Young MN, Parameswaran P (2018) Enhancing anaerobic digestion of food waste through biochemical methane potential assays at different substrate: inoculum ratios. Waste Management 71:612–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Asante Sackey D, Tetteh E, Nkosi N, Boakye G, Ansah Amano K, Boamah B, Armah E (2018) Effects of inoculum to feedstock ratio on anaerobic digestion for biogas production. International Journal of Hydrology 2(5):567–571

    Google Scholar 

  65. Khadka A, Parajuli A, Dangol S, Thapa B, Sapkota L, Carmona-Martínez AA, Ghimire A (2022) Effect of the substrate to inoculum ratios on the kinetics of biogas production during the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Energies.

  66. Artanti D, Saputro R, Budiyono B (2012) Biogas production from cow manure. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development (IJRED) 1:61–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Jeppu GP, Janardhan J, Kaup S, Janardhanan A, Mohammed S, Acharya S (2022) Effect of feed slurry dilution and total solids on specific biogas production by anaerobic digestion in batch and semi-batch reactors. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 24(1):97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Putri DA, Saputro RR, Budiyono B (2012) Biogas production from cow manure. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development (IJRED) 1(2):4

    Google Scholar 

  69. Budiyono B, Widiasa IN, Seno J, Sunarso S (2010) The influence of total solid contents on biogas yield from cattle manure using rumen fluid inoculum. Energy Res J 1(1):6–11

  70. Liu Z, Lv J (2016) The effect of total solids concentration and temperature on biogas production by anaerobic digestion. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 38(23):3534–3541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Liotta F, d'Antonio G, Esposito G, Fabbricino M, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PN, Pirozzi F, Pontoni L (2014) Effect of total solids content on methane and volatile fatty acid production in anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste Management & Research 32(10):947–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Battista F, Fino D, Ruggeri B (2014) Polyphenols concentration’s effect on the biogas production by wastes derived from olive oil production. Chemical. Engineering Transactions 38

  73. Leite VD, Viriato CL, de Sousa JT, Lopes WS, de Oliveira EG (2018) Anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste: influences particle size and concentration total solids. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 44(2):153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Chandra R, Vijay VK, Subbarao PMV (2006) A study on biogas generation from non-edible oil seed cakes: potential and prospects in India. In: 2nd Joint International Conference on “Sustainable Energy and the Environment”, Bangkok, Thailand

  75. Elbeshbishy E, Nakhla G, Hafez H (2012) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of food waste and primary sludge: influence of inoculum pre-incubation and inoculum source. Bioresource Technology 110:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Li Y, Feng L, Zhang R, He Y, Liu X, Xiao X, Ma X, Chen C, Liu G (2013) Influence of inoculum source and pre-incubation on bio-methane potential of chicken manure and corn stover. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 171(1):117–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Moreno-Andrade I, Buitrón G (2004) Influence of the origin of the inoculum on the anaerobic biodegradability test. Water Science and Technology 49(1):53–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Pearse LF, Hettiaratchi JP, Kumar S (2018) Towards developing a representative biochemical methane potential (BMP) assay for landfilled municipal solid waste – a review. Bioresource Technology 254:312–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Filer J, Ding HH, Chang S (2019) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) assay method for anaerobic digestion research. Water 11(5):921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Xi Y, Chang Z, Ye X, Xu R, Du J, Chen G (2014) Methane production from wheat straw with anaerobic sludge by heme supplementation. Bioresource Technology 172:91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Jeihanipour A, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ (2011) Enhancement of solubilization rate of cellulose in anaerobic digestion and its drawbacks. Process Biochemistry 46(7):1509–1514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Levén L, Eriksson AR, Schnürer A (2007) Effect of process temperature on bacterial and archaeal communities in two methanogenic bioreactors treating organic household waste. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 59(3):683–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Luo G, De Francisci D, Kougias PG, Laura T, Zhu X, Angelidaki I (2015) New steady-state microbial community compositions and process performances in biogas reactors induced by temperature disturbances. Biotechnology for Biofuels 8(1):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Zhu X, Treu L, Kougias PG, Campanaro S, Angelidaki I (2018) Converting mesophilic upflow sludge blanket (UASB) reactors to thermophilic by applying axenic methanogenic culture bioaugmentation. Chemical Engineering Journal 332:508–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L (2003) Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 109(1):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Bouallagui H, Haouari O, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L, Hamdi M (2004) Effect of temperature on the performance of an anaerobic tubular reactor treating fruit and vegetable waste. Process Biochemistry 39(12):2143–2148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Suhartini S, Heaven S, Banks CJ (2014) Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pulp: performance, dewaterability and foam control. Bioresource Technology 152:202–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Ghasimi DSM, Tao Y, de Kreuk M, Zandvoort MH, van Lier JB (2015) Microbial population dynamics during long-term sludge adaptation of thermophilic and mesophilic sequencing batch digesters treating sewage fine sieved fraction at varying organic loading rates. Biotechnology for Biofuels 8(1):171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Kougias PG, Angelidaki I (2018) Biogas and its opportunities—a review. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 12(3):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project is granted by ARES (Belgium)–PRD 2019 “Innovation in disease control combined with the management and valorisation of dragon fruit culture waste” (Belgium–Vietnam).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Biomass and Green Technologies, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech - University of Liege, Passage des Deportés, 2, B-5030, Gembloux, Belgium

    Nguyen Ngoc Thanh Tien & Aurore Richel

  2. School of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, International University, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Nguyen Ngoc Thanh Tien, Hoang Gia Phuc, Hai T. H. Nguyen & Tran Tien Khoi

  3. Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Nguyen Ngoc Thanh Tien, Hoang Gia Phuc, Hai T. H. Nguyen, Ngoc Lieu Le & Tran Tien Khoi

  4. School of Biotechnology, International University, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

    Ngoc Lieu Le

Authors
  1. Nguyen Ngoc Thanh Tien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hoang Gia Phuc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hai T. H. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ngoc Lieu Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tran Tien Khoi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aurore Richel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Nguyen Ngoc Thanh Tien: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing of original draft, writing including review and editing, and visualization; Hoang Gia Phuc: methodology, formal analysis, and investigation; Hai T. H. Nguyen: methodology, formal analysis, investigation, and writing including review and editing; Ngoc Lieu Le: conceptualization, methodology, validation, resources, writing including review and editing, and supervision; Tran Tien Khoi: conceptualization, resources, validation, writing including review and editing, and supervision; Aurore Richel: conceptualization, validation, resources, writing including review and editing, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Nguyen Ngoc Thanh Tien, Ngoc Lieu Le, Tran Tien Khoi or Aurore Richel.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The authors declare that ethics approval was not required for this research.

Competing interests

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tien, N.N.T., Phuc, H.G., Nguyen, H.T.H. et al. Productivity of biogas production from dragon fruit branches co-digested with pig dung. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-03902-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-03902-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation