Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainability assessment of water hyacinth with swine dung for biogas production, methane enhancement, and biofertilizer

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

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion (AD) processes performed biogas production of crushed water hyacinth (WH) combined with swine dung (SD) was investigated in this study. AD carried out for 45 days at mesophilic temperatures ranging from 34 to 36 °C. Alkali (sodium hydroxide, NaOH) hydrolysis of WH was performed prior to batch dry AD at four different mild concentrations. Results revealed that NaOH pretreated samples produced a high yield of biogas than untreated (raw) samples. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was thus used to provide supporting confirmation on the main structural transformations that chanced in WH. The optimum WH concentration in the 1:1 ratio of co-digestion mixture with SD produced the highest methane yield, and the biogas composition of carbon dioxide, CO2 (29.08%), methane, CH4 (68.89%), and 1.09% of hydrogen sulfide, H2S. Upgraded biogas through chemical purification results revealed that CH4 and CO2 were 92.35% and 8.04%, respectively. Enhanced biogas high heating value was 36.83 MJ/m3 and low heating value 33.18 MJ/m3. Furthermore, the digestate has high nutrient concentrations that can potentially use as fertilizer; it contains nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium were 107.506, 18.838 and 39.552 g kg−1, respectively. The digestate from biogas fermenter was confirmed to be an efficient alternative fertilizer with high nutrients and environmentally-friendly comparing to chemical fertilizer.

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. Saengsawang B, Bhuyar P, Manmai N, Ponnusamy VK, Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y (2020) The optimization of oil extraction from macroalgae, Rhizoclonium sp. by chemical methods for efficient conversion into biodiesel. Fuel 274:117841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Khammee P, Ramaraj R, Whangcha NBP, Unpaprom Y (2020) The immobilization of yeast for fermentation of macroalgae Rhizoclonium sp. for efficient conversion into bioethanol. Biomass Conv Bioref. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00786-y

  3. Manmai M, Bautista K, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2019) Optimization of combined pretreatments on sugarcane leaves for bioethanol production. Maejo Int J Energ Environ Comm 1(1):30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y (2019) Optimization of pretreatment condition for ethanol production from Cyperus difformis by response surface methodology. 3 Biotech 9(6):218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramaraj R, Dussadee N, Whangchai N, Unpaprom Y (2016) Microalgae biomass as an alternative substrate in biogas production. IJSGE 4:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ramaraj R, Kawaree R, Unpaprom Y (2016) A newly isolated green alga, Pediastrum duplex Meyen, from Thailand with efficient hydrogen production. IJSGE 4:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y, Whangchai N, Dussadee N (2015) Culture of macroalgae Spirogyra ellipsospora for long-term experiments, stock maintenance and biogas production. Emergent Life Sci Res 1:38–45

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y, Dussadee N (2016) Cultivation of green microalga, Chlorella vulgaris for biogas purification. IJNTR 3:117–122

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tsai DDW, Ramaraj R, Chen PH (2016) Carbon dioxide bio-fixation by algae of high rate pond on natural water medium. Ecol Eng 92:106–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Unpaprom Y, Intasaen O, Yongphet P, Ramaraj R (2015) Biodiesel from green alga Scenedesmus acuminatus. IJSGE 4:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wannapokin A, Ramaraj R, Whangchai K, Unpaprom Y (2018) Potential improvement of biogas production from fallen teak leaves with co-digestion of microalgae. 3 Biotech 8:123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pantawong R, Chuanchai A, Thipbunrat P, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2015) Experimental investigation of biogas production from water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes L. Emergent Life Sci Res 1:41–46

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chuanchai A, Ramaraj R (2018) Sustainability assessment of biogas production from buffalo grass and dung: biogas purification and bio-fertilizer. 3 Biotech 8(3):151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vu PT, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2018) Impact and significance of alkaline-oxidant pretreatment on the enzymatic digestibility of Sphenoclea zeylanica for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol 247:125–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vu PT, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2017) Evaluation of bioethanol production from rice field weed biomass. ELSR 3:42–49

    Google Scholar 

  16. Unpaprom Y, Intasaen O, Yongphet P, Ramaraj R (2015) Cultivation of microalga Botryococcus braunii using red Nile tilapia effluent medium for biogas production. J Ecol Environ Sci 3:58–65

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dussadee N, Reansuwan K, Ramaraj R (2014) Potential development of compressed bio-methane gas production from pig farms and elephant grass silage for transportation in Thailand. Bioresour Technol 155:438–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environmental Federation, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  19. Snoeyink VL, Jenkins D (1980) Water chemistry. Wiley, New York

  20. Castro L, Escalante H, Jaimes-Estévez J, Díaz LJ, Vecino K, Rojas G, Mantilla L (2017) Low cost digester monitoring under realistic conditions: rural use of biogas and digestate quality. Bioresour Technol 239:311–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Okewale AO, Adesina OA (2019) Evaluation of biogas production from co-digestion of pig dung, water hyacinth and poultry droppings. Waste Dispos Sustain Energy 1:271–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Passos F, Solé M, García J, Ferrer I (2013) Biogas production from microalgae grown in wastewater: effect of microwave pretreatment. Appl Energy 108:168–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Thyø KA, Wenzel H (2007) Life cycle assessment of biogas from maize silage and from manure. Institute for Product Development, Lyngby

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tyagi VK, Lo S-L (2013) Microwave irradiation: a sustainable way for sludge treatment and resource recovery. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18:288–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Uche AM, Emmanuel OT, Paul OU, Olawale A, Frank KB, Rita OO, Martin OS (2019) Design and construction of fixed dome digester for biogas production using cow dung and water hyacinth. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 14(1):15–25

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barua VB, Rathore V, Kalamdhad AS (2018) Comparative evaluation of anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and cooked food waste with and without pretreatment. Bioresour Technol Rep 4:202–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Putra Y, Murni D, Kurniawan T (2014) Study of biogas production rate from water hyacinth by hydrothermal pretreatment with buffalo dung as a starter. Waste Technol 2:26–30

    Google Scholar 

  28. Albano Pérez E, Ruiz Téllez T, Ramos Maqueda S, Casero Linares PJ, Vázquez Pardo FM, Rodriguez Medina PL, Labrador Moreno J, López Gallego F, González Cortés J, Sánchez Guzmán JM (2015) Seed germination and risks of using the invasive plant Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laub.(water hyacinth) for composting, ovine feeding and biogas production. Acta Bot Gall 162(3):203–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Van Tran G, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2019) Methane productivity evaluation of an invasive wetland plant, common reed. Biomass Conv Bioref. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00451-z

  30. Ramaraj R, Dussadee N (2015) Biological purification processes for biogas using algae cultures: a review. IJSGE 4(1–1):20–32

    Google Scholar 

  31. De Vries JW, Vinken TM, Hamelin L, De Boer IJ (2012) Comparing environmental consequences of anaerobic mono-and co-digestion of pig manure to produce bio-energy–a life cycle perspective. Bioresour Technol 125:239–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. De Sanctis M, Chimienti S, Pastore C, Piergrossi V, Di Iaconi C (2019) Energy efficiency improvement of thermal hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion of Posidonia oceanica residues. Appl Energy 252:113457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Li Y, Zhang R, He Y, Zhang C, Liu X, Chen C, Liu G (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover in batch and continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). Bioresour Technol 156:342–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yu FB, Luo XP, Song CF, Zhang MX, Shan SD (2010) Concentrated biogas slurry enhanced soil fertility and tomato quality. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 60:262–268

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledged the Program in Biotechnology, Energy Research Center, School of Renewable Energy, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, for the research facilities to accomplish this experimental study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, 50290, Thailand

    Yuwalee Unpaprom

  2. Faculty of Fisheries Technology and Aquatic Resources, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, 50290, Thailand

    Tipsukhon Pimpimol

  3. Center of Excellence in Bioresources for Agriculture, Industry and Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand

    Kanda Whangchai

  4. School of Renewable Energy, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, 50290, Thailand

    Rameshprabu Ramaraj

Authors
  1. Yuwalee Unpaprom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tipsukhon Pimpimol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kanda Whangchai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rameshprabu Ramaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rameshprabu Ramaraj.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

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

Unpaprom, Y., Pimpimol, T., Whangchai, K. et al. Sustainability assessment of water hyacinth with swine dung for biogas production, methane enhancement, and biofertilizer. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 11, 849–860 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00850-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00850-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation