Effects of initiating anaerobic digestion of layer-hen poultry dung at sub-atmospheric pressure

Efeitos do início da digestão anaeróbica da camada de esterco de aves à pressão sub-atmosférica

Abstracts

This study investigated the effects of initiating anaerobic digestion (AD) of dry layer-hen poultry dung at the sub-atmospheric pressure of -30 cmHg on biodegradation, biogasification, and biomethanation. The setup was performed as a batch process at an average ambient temperature of 29±2 ºC and a retention time of 15 days. Comparisons were made with two other experiments which were both begun at ambient atmospheric pressure; one was inoculated with digestate from a previous layer-hen dung AD, while the other was not inoculated. The bioreactors initiated at sub-atmospheric pressure, ambient atmospheric pressure without inoculum, and ambient atmospheric pressure with inoculum showed the following for biogas and biomethane yields respectively: 16.8 cm³ g-1 VS and 15.46 cm³ g-1 VS, 25.10 cm³ g-1 VS and 12.85 cm³ g-1 VS, 21.44 cm³ g-1 VS and 14.88 cm³ g-1 VS. In the same order, after AD, the following values were recorded for volatile solids and total viable counts (prokaryotes and fungi) in the digestates: 40.33% and 23.22 x 10(6) cfu mL-1, 43.42% and 22.17 x 10(6) cfu mL-1, 41.11% and 13.3 x 10(6) cfu mL-1. The feedstock showed values of 83.93% and 3.98 x 10(6) cfu mL-1 for volatile solids and total viable count respectively. There was a slight difference in the volatile solids of the digestates of the three bioreactors after AD. The pH recorded for the feedstock slurry before AD was 7.9 at 30ºC, while after AD, the digestates from all the three bioreactors showed the same pH of 5.9 at 29 ºC. Statistical analysis using ANOVA showed no significant difference in biogas yields of the feedstock for the three bioreactors (A, B, C). ANOVA showed no significant difference for biomethane yields in the bioreactors initiated at sub-atmospheric pressure and for those initiated at ambient atmospheric pressure with inoculums. However, it showed significant difference in the bioreactor initiated at sub-atmospheric pressure and that initiated at ambient atmospheric pressure without inoculums, and significant difference in the two sets of bioreactors initiated at ambient atmospheric pressure (with and without inoculum). Initiating AD at reduced atmospheric pressure (-30 cmHg) and the addition of inoculum at ambient atmospheric pressure both increased biomethanation, by 20.31% and 15.80% respectively. The AD initiated at sub-atmospheric pressure yielded the least amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), and improved biodegradation and biomethanation. The results also suggest that biomethane production is dependent on specific methanogenic growth. Analyzing the populations of methanogens isolated from the different bioreactors in relation to their biomethane yields suggests that Methanosarcina barkeri may have been largely responsible for the differences in biomethane yields.

alternative energy; biofuel; waste management

Os efeitos do início da digestão anaeróbica (DA) da camada de estrume seco de galinha à pressão sub-atmosférica de -30 cmHg na biodegradação, biogaseificação, e biometanização foram investigados. Foi realizado um processo em lote a uma temperatura ambiente média de 29 ± 2 ºC e um tempo de retenção de 15 dias. As comparações foram feitas com duas outras experiências; ambas foram iniciadas à pressão atmosférica ambiente, enquanto que uma foi previamente inoculada com digestores de uma camada de estrume de galinha AD, a outra sem inoculação. Os biorreatores foram iniciados à pressão sub-atmosférica, à pressão atmosférica ambiente sem inóculo, e à pressão atmosférica ambiente com inóculo e foram registradas as seguintes produções do biogás e do biometano, respectivamente: 16.8 cm³ g-1 VS e 15.46 cm³ g-1 VS, 25.10 cm³ g-1 VS e 12.85 cm³ g-1 VS, 21.44 cm³ g-1 VS e 14.88 cm³ g-1 VS. Na mesma ordem, depois do DA, no produto resultante da digestão foi registrado o seguinte para sólidos voláteis e contagem total de viáveis (procariotas e fungos): 40.33% e 23.22 x 10(6) cfu mL-1, 43.42% e 22.17 x 10(6) cfu mL-1, 41.11% e 13.3 x 10(6) cfu mL-1. Na matéria-prima foram registrados 83.93% e 3.98 x 10(6) cfu mL-1para sólidos voláteis e contagem viável total, respectivamente. Houve pequena diferença nos sólidos voláteis no material digerido dos três reatores após a DA. O pH registrado para a pasta de matéria-prima antes do DA foi de 7,9 a 30ºC, enquanto que após a DA, os digestores de todos os três reatores registrou o mesmo pH de 5,9 a 29 ºC. A Análise de variância não mostrou diferença significativa na produção de biogás da matéria-prima nos três biorreatores (A, B, C). Para a produção de biometano a ANOVA revelou que não houve diferença significativa nos biorreatores iniciados à pressão sub-atmosférica e aqueles iniciados à pressão atmosférica ambiente com inóculo, porém, houve diferença significativa nos biorreatores iniciados à pressão sub-atmosférica e naqueles iniciados à pressão atmosférica ambiente, sem inoculação, e diferença significativa nos dois conjuntos de biorreatores iniciados à pressão atmosférica ambiente (com e sem inóculo). Iniciando a DA à pressão atmosférica reduzida (-30 cmHg) e a adição de inóculo à pressão atmosférica ambiente, tanto por aumento biometanização 20,31 % e 15,80 %, respectivamente. A DA iniciada à pressão sub-atmosférica produziu a menor quantidade de dióxido de carbono (um gás de efeito estufa) e melhorou a biodegradação e biometanização. Os resultados obtidos sugerem que a produção de biometano é dependente de crescimento metanogênico específico. A análise das populações de isolados metanogênicos de diferentes biorreatores em relação às suas produções de biometano sugere que a espécie Methanosarcina barkeri pode ter sido em grande parte responsável pelas diferenças na produção de biometano.

energia alternativa; os biocombustíveis; gestão de resíduos

• ABBASI, T.; TAUSEEF S. M.; ABBASI S. A. Biogas energy New York: Springer, 2012. p. 11-23.
• ABUBAKAR, B.; ISMAIL, N. Anaerobic digestion of cow dung for biogas production. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, v. 7, n. 2, p. 169-172, 2012.
• ADELEKAN, B. A. Potentials of selected tropical crops and manure as sources of biofuels. Chapter 1. In: Biogas Rijeca: InTech Europe, 2012. Available in: http://www.intechopen.com/download/get/type/pdfs/id/31318 Access in: 13 Dec. 2013.
• AL SEADI, T.; RUTZ, D.; PRASSL, H.; KOTTNER, M.; FINSTERWALDER, T.; VOLK, S.; JANSSEN, R. Biogas handbook Esbjerg: University of South Denmark, 2008.
• BOUGRIER, C.; CARRERE, H.; DELGENES, J. P. Solubilisation of waste activated sludge by ultrasonic treatment. Chemical Engineering, v. 106, p. 163, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2004.11.013
• DELGENES, J. P.; PENAUD, V.; MOLETTA, R. Pretreatments for Enhancement of Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste. Chapter 8. In: MATA-ALVAREZ, J. (Ed.). Biomethanization of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes London: IWA Publishing, 2003. p.7.
• DEUBLEIN, D.; STEINHAUSER, A. Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2008. p. 100-128.
• DOMSCH, K. H.; GAMS, W.; ANDERSON, T. H. Compendium of soil fungi London: Academic Press, 1980.
• HENSYL, W. R.; FOLIFER, L. E. (Ed.). Manual of determinative bacteriology Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1994.
• JEDRZEJEWSKA, M.; KOZAK, K.; KRZEMIENIEWSKI, M. Effect of reduced pressure on anaerobic blood biodegradation. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, v. 5, n. 1, p. 87-93, 2006.
• JIANG, J.; DU, X.; NG, S.; ZHANG, C. Comparison of atmospheric pressure effects on the anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology, v. 101, n. 16, p. 6361-6367, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.068
• JURCOANE, S.; RADOI-MATEI, F.; TOMA, R.; STELIAN, P.; VINTILOIU, A.; DIGUTA, C. Hydrolysis of agricultural biomass by combined pretreatment and enzymatic methods in order to Produce Biofuels. Zootehnie si Biotehnologii, v. 42, n. 1, p. 58-63, 2009.
• INSAM, H.; WHITTLE, I.; GOBERNA, M. Microbes at work: from waste to resources. London: Springer, 2010. p. 40-47.
• HURST, C. J.; CRAWFORD, R. L.; KNUDSEN, G. R.; MCINERNEY, M. J.; STETZENBACH, L. D. (Ed.). Manual of environmental microbiology Washington, D.C.: ASM Press, 2002. p. 1008-1016.
• MIRAHMADI, K.; KABIR, M.; JEIHANIPOUR, A.; KARIMI, K.; TAHERZADEH, M. Alkaline pretreatment of spruce and birch to improve bio-ethanol and biogas production. BioResources, v. 5, n. 2, p. 928-938, 2010.
• MONNET, F. An introduction to anaerobic digestion of organic wastes Beauly: Remade, 2003. p. 1-24.
• MUTHANGYA, M.; MSHANDETE, A.; KIVAISI, A. Two stage fungal pre-treatment for improved biogas production from sisal leaf decortication residues. International Journal of Molecular Science, v. 10, p. 4805-4815, 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fijms10114805
• OFOEFULE, A. U.; UZODIMMA, E. O.; ANYANWU, C. N. Studies on the effect of anaerobic digestion on the microbial flora of animal waste 2: digestion and modeling of process parameters. Trends in Applied Sciences Research, v. 5, p. 39-47, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/tasr.2010.39.47
• OJOLO, S. J.; OKE, S. A.; ANIMASAHUN, K.; ADESUYI, B. K. Utilization of poultry, cow, and kitchen waste for biogas production: a comparative analysis. Iran Journal Environmental Health Science Engineering, v. 4, n. 4, p. 223-228, 2007.
• NDA-UMAR, U. I.; UZOWURU, M. G. Anaerobic co-digestion of fruit waste and abattoir effluent. Journal of Biological Science and Bioconservation, v. 3, n. 1, p. 26-34, 2011.
• NOPHARATANA, A.; PULLAMMANAPPALLIL, P. C.; CLARKE, W. P. Kinetic and Dynamic Modeling of Batch Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste in a Stirred Reactor. Waste Management, v. 27, p. 595-603, 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.04.010
• PALMOWSKI, L. M; MULLER, J .A. Influence of the Size Reduction of Organic Waste on their Anaerobic Digestion. Water Science Technology, v. 41, n. 3, p. 155-162, 2000.
• PAKARINEN, A.; MAIJALA, P.; JAAKKOLA, S.; STODDARD, F.; KYMALAINEN, M.; VIIKARI, L. Evaluation of preservation methods for improving biogas production and enzymatic conversion yields of annual crops. Biotechnology for Biofuels, v. 4, n. 20, p. 1-13, 2011.
• PILLAI, S. P. R. A comprehensive laboratory manual for environmental science and engineering New Delhi: New Age International Publishers, 2009. p. 7-11.
• SCHNURER, A.; JARVIS, A. Microbiological handbook for biogas plants Malmö: Avfall Sverige, 2010. p. 8-22.
• TIEHM, A.; NICKEL, K.; ZELLHORN, M.; NEIS, U. Ultrasonic waste activated sludge disintegration for improving anaerobic stabilization. Water Research, v. 35, p. 2003-2009, 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00468-1
• VINDIS, P.; MURSEC, B.; JANZEKOVIC, M.; CUS, F. The impact of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion on biogas production. Journal of Architecture Material and Manufacturing Engineering, v. 36, n. 2, 2009.
• WISTREICH, G. A. Microbiology laboratory Fundamentals and Applications. 2^nd Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2003. p. 139-256.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Jan 2014
• Date of issue
  Dec 2013

History

• Received
  02 Nov 2013
• Accepted
  12 Dec 2013