Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of biogas production from co-digestion of pig dung, water hyacinth and poultry droppings

  • Article
  • Published:
Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, biogas production from co-digestion of pig dung, water hyacinth, and poultry droppings was investigated. 500 ml bio-digesters were connected in series and water displacement method was used to estimate the amount of biogas produced. The ratio of the percentage weight distribution of pig dung to water hyacinth to poultry dropping was varied as: (0:40:60), (30:40:30), (15:40:45), (45:40:15), and (60:40:0) in digesters A1, B2, C3, D4 and E5, respectively. The highest biogas cumulative yield of 307 cm3 CH4/g was obtained in Digester C3. The gas chromatography analysis showed 22.50 wt% (CO2), 64.92 wt% (CH4) and 4.83 wt% (N2) which implied that the biogas produced can be used for cooking and heating of homes in rural and urban communities.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdeshahian P, Lim JS, Ho WS, et al. Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in malaysia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2016;60:714–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alfa I, Dahunsi S, Iorhemen O, et al. Comparative evaluation of biogas production from Poultry droppings, Cow dung and Lemon grass. Bioresour Technol. 2014;157:270–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test methods for moisture in activated carbon. Philadelphia: ASTM Committee on Standards; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anozie A, Layokun S, Okeke C. An evaluation of a batch pilot-scale digester for gas production from agricultural wastes. Energy Sources Part A. 2005;27:1301–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. APHA. Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed. Washington, DC, USA: Public health Association; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aritra D, Chanchal M (2015) Comparative kinetic study of anaerobic treatment of thermally pretreated source -sorted organic market refuse. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/684749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bayer EA, Lamed R, Himmel ME. The potential of cellulases and cellulosomes for cellulosic waste management. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2007;18:237–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen G, Zheng Z, Yang S, et al. Improving conversion of Spartina alterniflora into biogas by co-digestion with cow fece. Fuel Process Technol. 2010;91:1416–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cirne DG, Paloumet X, Bjornsson L, et al. Anaerobic digestion of lipid-rich waste: effects of lipid concentration. Renew Energy. 2007;32:965–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Elenwo EI, Akankali JA. The Estimation of Potential Yield of Water Hyacinth: a Tool for Environmental Management and an Economic Resource for the Niger Delta Region. J Sustain Dev Stud. 2016;9(2):115–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Graaf D, Fendler R (2010) Biogas production in Germany. Federal Environment Agency, p 29.

  12. Itodo IN, Awulu JO, Philip T. A comparative analysis of biogas yield from poultry, cattle and piggery wastes. Af J Environ Stud. 2000;2(1):152–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Iyagba ET, Mangibo IA, Mohammadd YS. The study of cow dung as co-substrate with rice husk in biogas production. Sci Res Essay V1. 2009;4(9):861–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kaster AK, Goenrich M, Seedorf H, et al. More than 200 genes required for methane formation from H2 and CO2 and energy conservation are present in Methanothermobacter marburgensis and Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus. Archaea. 2001. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/973848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lehtomäki A, Huttunen S, Rintala JA. Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: effect of crop to manure ratio. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2007;51(3):591–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li J, Jha AK, He J, et al. Assessment of the effects of dry anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung with waste water sludge on biogas yield and biodegradability. Int J Phys Sci. 2011;6(15):3723–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lima DMF, Rodrigues JAD, Boe K, et al. Anaerobic modeling for improving synergy and robustness of a manure co-digestion process. Braz J Chem Eng. 2016;33(4): 33(4):871–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza MS, et al. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;36:412–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mshandete AM, Parawira W. Biogas technology research in selected sub-saharan african countries a review. Afr J Biotech. 2009;8:116–25.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mudhoo A, Kumar S. Effects of heavy metals as stress factors on anaerobic digestion processes and biogas production from biomass Int. J Environ Sci Technol. 2013;10:1383–98.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Okewale AO, Babayemi K, Adesina OA. Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of corn cobs, pig and poultry droppings. J Engine Res Dev. 2018;1(2):273–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oloko-Obba M, Taiwo E, Ajala SO, et al. Performance evaluation of three different-shaped bio-digesters for biogas production and optimization by artificial neural network integrated with genetic algorith. Sustai Energy Technol Assess. 2018;26:116–24.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Owamah H, Alfa M, Dahunsi S. Optimization of biogas from chicken droppings with Cymbopogon citratus. Renew Energy. 2014;68:366–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Parawira W, Murto M, Zvauya R, et al. Anaerobic digestion of solid potato waste alone and in combination with sugar beet leaves. Renew Energy. 2004;29:1811–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramansu G, Pritam C, Sambhu Nath S, et al. An overview of physicochemical mechanisms of biogas production by microbial communities: a step towards sustainable waste management. Biotech. 2016;6(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0395-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Reungsang A, Pattra S, Sittijunda S. Optimization of key factors affecting methane production from acidic effluent coming from the sugarcane juice hydrogen fermentation process. Energies. 2012;5:4746–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sawatdeenarunat C, Surendra KC, Takara D, et al. Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and opportunities. Bioresour Technol. 2015;178:178–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sittijunda S. Biogas production from hydrolysate Napier grass by co-digestion with slaughterhouse waste water using anaerobic mixed culltures. KKU Res J. 2015;20:323–36.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tufaner F, Avşar Y. Effects of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: a review Int. J Environ Sci Technol. 2016;13:2303–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, et al. Optimizing feeding composition and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Biores Technol. 2012;120:78–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wellinger A, Murphy JD, Baxter D. The biogas handbook: science, production and applications. Cambridge: Elsevier; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Ye J, Li D, Sun Y, et al. Improved biogas production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Manag. 2013;33(12):2653–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun, Delta State, Nigeria

    Akindele O. Okewale

  2. Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Afe Babalola University, Ado Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria

    Olusola A. Adesina

Authors
  1. Akindele O. Okewale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olusola A. Adesina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olusola A. Adesina.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict 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

Okewale, A.O., Adesina, O.A. Evaluation of biogas production from co-digestion of pig dung, water hyacinth and poultry droppings. Waste Dispos. Sustain. Energy 1, 271–277 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-019-00018-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-019-00018-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation