Biogas Production from Different Food Waste Using Small-Scale Floating Drum Type Anaerobic Digester

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4183431/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Biogas Production from Different Food Waste Using Small-Scale Floating Drum Type Anaerobic Digester

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4183431/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The generation of food waste poses an escalating societal challenge. Anaerobic digestion emerges as a sustainable and eco-friendly method for valorization and disposal. A small-scale floating drum-type digester was developed, operating in batch mode to harness biogas from three distinct food waste categories. Potato Waste (PW), Leftover Cooked Food (LCF), and Fish Waste (FW) were utilized as feedstock, maintained at an average temperature of 21°C for a retention time of 10 days, with cow manure serving as the inoculum source. The advances of the current work are built upon comparing biogas production volume and methane content from mono-anaerobic digestion of these various wastes. Examination of cow manure and different substrate samples offers insights into their composition, encompassing total solids, C/N ratio, and pH. Shredded raw wastes were wet-fed into the digester at a 1:1 waste/water ratio. Cumulative production of biogas and the methane fraction were monitored. The maximum cumulative biogas production per kg of waste was observed for LCF (73.5 L/kgWW), followed by FW (53 L/kgWW) and PW (37 L/kgWW). The maxium methane percentage occurred on the 7th to 8th day, with FW displaying the highest methane percentage (72%), trailed by LCF (54.6%) and PW (56%).

A Statement of Novelty

The novelty of this study lies in its multifaceted approach towards enhancing biogas production through mono-digestion of various organic waste materials. By focusing on the comparative analysis of these waste substrates in a controlled laboratory setting, using a simplified and efficiently designed floating drum digester, this research aims to shed light on their individual suitability for anaerobic digestion. Furthermore, the exploration extends to designing and deploying small-scale, decentralized anaerobic digestion systems tailored specifically for localized energy and waste management solutions, particularly beneficial in rural or off-grid areas. Through this integrated investigation, this study gives a comprehensive understanding of mono-digestion's contribution to biogas production and its implications for sustainable waste management practices.

Anaerobic digestion

Biogas

Floating digester

Fish waste

potato waste

Leftover Cooked Food

The global sustainable development strategy recommends energy diversification to guarantee a sustainable energy supply and social stability. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) food waste index report in 2021, about 931 Mt was wasted in restaurants, stores, and other public places in 2019 [1]. A significant portion of the waste is disposed into canals, rivers, or open areas without treatment or even incineration. This causes water, soil, and air pollution and disrupts the landscape.

According to statistics from the National Center for Social and Criminological Research, the average amount of food wasted per person in Egypt each year is roughly 91 kg and about 50% from the total amount of fruits and vegetables, 40% of fish, 30% of milk, and 10% of wheat are wasted. It is estimated that only sixty percent of the biomass waste produced in Egypt is collected, of which less than twenty percent is recycled or properly disposed [2]. This poses a serious risk to public and animal health.

Therefore, Waste to Energy (WTE) technology becomes inevitably essential to allow improved sanitation and renewable energy generation. The removal of organic waste from landfills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. methane) and other environmental effects such as land and water pollution. has drawn more attention to the development of alternative technologies to produce renewable energy as a result of rising energy demand and declining fossil fuel consumption [3]. WTE conversion has numerous advantages including energy production, pollution mitigation, and preventing the spread of diseases. Biogas production is a renewable, low-carbon energy resource for the rural communities that currently suffer from inadequate biowaste treatment and unreliable electricity provision.

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) technology is an important tool in converting organic waste into a low-carbon energy source: biogas. This process involves the biodegradation and stabilization of complex organic matter by a group of bacteria in the absence of oxygen, producing biogas that can be utilized for various purposes, including electricity generation, cooking, and provision of space heating [4]. The biogas production process provides different elements, including biowaste treatment, low-price fuel production, and soil biofertilizers. This has direct beneficiaries, especially in rural communities suffering from energy shortages. Biogas mainly consists of (50% − 75%) methane (CH₄) and (25% − 50%) carbon dioxide (CO₂) in addition to some trace gases depending on the types and quantities of the supplied feedstock. It has a calorific value of between 26 and 30 MJ/m³, depending on the percentage of methane in the biogas. This produced gas can be utilized in different heat and power applications [5, 6].

LCF is widely utilized as feedstock in anaerobic digestion due to its high calorific value, nutrients, and versatile biodegradability. Kuo et al. [7] found that using food waste instead of biosolids ,such as sewage sludge, would triple the methane production potential. The study of Cho et al. [8] on different types of food waste (cooked meat, boiled rice and fresh cabbage) revealed that the methane yield is different at the same temperature and retention time owing to the different degradability, water content, organic loading rate, and chemical composition of the materials.

Different studies are focused on anaerobic digestion [9–12], and made a comparative study between the mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digesters. They demonstrated the effect of temperature on biogas production from food waste. Agrahari and Tiwari [13] compared different ratios of kitchen waste to water using an aluminium biogas plant. The maximum biogas production obtained was about 0.26 m³ from 8 kg of kitchen waste at a waste-to-water ratio of (1:2) with a 48% maximum methane fraction. With other ratios of 1:1 and 1:1.4, there wasn’t any fraction of methane in the biogas produced.

Alam et al. [14] used a lab-scale dry anaerobic digester (DAD) and estimated the production of biogas from food waste. Three models of a lab-scale single-stage dry batch of digester were designed and experimentally compared. Two phases of collection and processing were used for food waste. The first phase, a uniform combination of sorted food wastes was created, and curd was added to the feedstock. In the second phase, the sorted food wastes were not shred, and a tiny quantity of livestock manure was mixed with feedstock using a rotator. The total biogas produced was only from the second phase and measured as 2079 ml, as it is noticed that there was no biogas production from the first phase during the residence time. The biogas produced was burned, and a blue flame was obtained, confirming the methane content.

Lou et al. [15] studied the performance of six small-scale digesters with different volumes from 1 m³ to 25 m³. The results demonstrated consistent high substrate degradation, with daily methane generation varying between 0.25 m³/kgVS and 0.46 m³/kgVS. Additionally, the results showed a positive linear relation between gas production and the organic loading rate (OLR) and a negative linear relation between gas production and the percentage of total solids.

Zhang et al. [16] discussed the effect of the thermophilic treatment process on gas production from the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. A solar pond is used to increase the temperature of the digester to 53^°C to improve gas productivity. The experiments were conducted in batch mode. The results showed that the utilization of a solar pond amplifies the hydrolysis process and the breakdown of soluble microbial compounds. Jin et al. [17] improved the efficiency of anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste by reducing the organic compounds using high temperatures and long heating duration. Further, it was shown that when the anaerobic digestion duration was longer than 50 h, the methane generation rate and methane yield increased significantly at moderate treatment temperatures (e.g. 70, 80 and 90 ºC).

PW and FW are also posing a significant environmental challenge due to their contribution to environmental pollution necessitating the adoption of sustainable solutions to mitigate their impact. PW can be effectively utilized in anaerobic digestion processes. Liang and McDonald [18] investigated the biogas production from the anaerobic digestion of pre-fermented potato peel waste and showed that a biogas containing about 60–70% methane could be obtained after 8–10 days. Bücker et al. [19] evaluated the relationship between the microbial community and the biogas production during the anaerobic digestion of two waste types, fish waste and fish crude oil waste. From their study, they found that the produced methane yield is higher by about 30% with fish waste compared to fish oil. This shows the great potential of fish residues as an alternative substitute for biogas production in mono-digestion processes.

Yulisa et al. [20] investigated the effect of Substrate-to-Inoculum ratio and temperature during start-up period of anaerobic digestion of fish waste. They studied the increase of the ratio from 0.5 to 3, on improving the methane production rate; however, as the ratio increased beyond 1, the methane yield decreased by as much as 21.7% and 39% at 35°C and 45°C, respectively. This decline was attributed to an imbalance between the processes of methanogenesis and acidification, which is caused by increased organic loading and the higher temperature affecting the degradation rate of the substrate.

In the present work, a comparison of the biogas production and methane content from the mono-anaerobic digestion of LCF, PW, and FW. While prior studies have explored kitchen waste and potato waste (mostly on peels and limited on fully spoiled), as well as fish and fish oil waste, the unique contribution of this work is in directly comparing the results of separate (mono) digestion processes for each waste type in a floating drum digester, rather than focusing solely on co-digestion scenarios of them.

2.1. Feedstock and inoculum

Different food waste types were employed in the current work; LCF, PW, and FW are used as feedstock. Cow manure, as a source of methanogenic bacteria, was fed into the digester as an inoculum to help in facilitating the anaerobic digestion process. Cow manure was supplied from a village in the south of Port Said city, and Both PW, LCF, and FW were provided by local sellers. The employed LCF is composed of leftover food including rice, pasta, cooked meat, cooked peas, and spinach.

An experimental examination was conducted on a fresh cow manure sample to ascertain the proportion of total solids (TS). The analysis revealed a TS percentage of 16%, determined by drying the sample at 105^oC for 24 hours and the nitrogen-carbon content was assessed using a Thermo Scientific™ FLASH 2000 CHNS Analyzer [21], revealing a C/N ratio of 24. The pH value of the sample was measured using a pH digital meter, CDS 107 series, with the initial pH of the fresh sample recorded as 8.1.

An electrical shredder is used to reduce the sizes of the food wastes. The shredding process enhances the efficiency of anaerobic fermentation and facilitates digestion prior to feedstock loading into the digester tank. Namely, shredding increases the surface area of the waste, making it easier to handle, transport, and process. It also helps in the uniform mixing of different waste types. After shredding, wastes were stored in a freezer at -5ºC before adding them to the digester.

2.2. Anaerobic Digestion Unit and Measuring Facilities

A small-scale anaerobic digestion system was built at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Port Said University. The system is a floating drum-type digester composed of a 230 L fermentation tank and a 137 L floating gas holder where biogas is produced. The unit is made of PVC and equipped with instrumentation for measuring the pressure, pH, temperature, and the volume of the produced biogas. A floating drum type has the advantages of being simple and easy to handle different substrates and direct monitoring of biogas production volume can be achieved through measurement of the displacement of the floating drum. In addition, the cost of constructing these types of digesters is relatively low. However, they have a limited lifespan, a relatively low capacity, and necessitate a consistent and feed source [22, 23]. A schematic diagram of the system is shown in Fig. 1.

The digestion system is coated in black paint to maximize solar irradiation absorption. Illustrated in Fig. 2, the digester comprises essential components: a main tank for housing all elements and feedstock, an inlet pipe for introducing the waste, a floating gas tank for gas accumulation, and an outlet port mounted atop the floating drum for collecting produced gases. Additionally, a rotating shaft functions as a manual stirrer for proper mixing within the digester. This shaft measures 80 cm in length, with each blade measuring 7 cm in length, 4 cm in width, and 4 cm in height, arranged in tiers of three blades each, welded at a 45° angle. The gap between consecutive tiers of blades is 15 cm. Processed digestate is extracted from the outlet pipe attached to the main tank.

The experimental work was carried out in the spring when the average temperature was measured using a K-type thermocouple TC-T-1/4NPT-G-120, Omega Engineering, located inside the digester to be 21 ℃ with measuring range of -200 to 1350°C and accuracy of ± 0.75% reading. The digestion was carried out in batch mode.

Firstly, the digester was loaded with 75 kg of cow manure as an inoculum with 75 L of water to produce the anaerobic microorganisms needed for biogas fermentation. The inoculum has a high population of various bacteria required for anaerobic degradation [21]. The digester gas holder is equipped with a manual stirrer to mix the slurry inside the digester to provide homogeneity. The stirring is made flexible; it occurs once or a few times a day to ensure there is no poor mixing area in the digester and also to break any formation of scum layer on the surface. The target hydraulic retention time was set at 6 weeks until the unit started to produce biogas.

Once the biogas production from the manure reached the maximum yield after the 11th week, different wastes were fed to the digester. The biogas flowrate was measured using a BF-2000 residential biogas flowmeter with an accuracy of < ± 1.5% and an error percentage in CH₄ reading of less than 5%. A biogas analyzer device (BIOGAS 5000, Geotech) is used to measure the volumetric percentage of the production biogas components (CH₄, CO₂, O₂, and other gases) with an accuracy of ± 0.5%.

The experiments were conducted to evaluate the biogas yield from the anaerobic digestion of food waste at ambient temperature. The first phase of the experiments was to investigate the ability to produce biogas in a small-scale digester by employing cow manure as an inoculum. The second phase focused on biogas production from three different food wastes fed into the digester. The volume of produced biogas was daily measured, and a gas analysis was carried out to check the volume fraction of methane in the produced gas. The termination of biogas production was assured before each supply of different waste as the activity of the micro-organisms was so weak after each process. This was obvious as the biogas production from cow manure after 15 weeks reduced to less than one L/ day.

The study of biogas production from anaerobic digestion has been conducted at temperatures ranging from 18–23 ℃ with an average value of 21℃; Fig. 3 shows the variation of the daily measured average temperature in the digester for the three types of the wastes.

3.1. Biogas and methane yield

The digester was monitored during the inoculation process for 12 weeks, with a focus on the hydraulic retention time. The maximum gas production was 57 L and observed on the 11th week, and the total cumulative biogas obtained was 334 L during the whole period as shown in Fig. 4.

After the completion of biogas production from cow manure, 7 kg of PW were added to the digester. The initial total solid (TS) percentage of the PW was 24% with a pH value of 5.2. pH values were measured during the digestion process, and they were in the range 6.2–7.1. The volume of the biogas produced was measured daily at 2:00 pm. The total cumulative biogas production was 37 L/kgWW in 10 days, as shown in Fig. 5. Methane production started from the second day of feeding the PW, and it quickly stabilised at a volume fraction of around 56%.

A 2 kg of LCF was then fed to the digester. Methane measurements were considered from the second day to ensure the stability and the homogeneity of the substrate and avoid any effect from the prior fermentation process. The initial TS percentage was 29% with a pH value of 4.5. Values for pH were between 6.0 and 7.4. The amount of the biogas produced was 73.5 L/kgWW. The average volume fraction of methane (50.8%) was found to be slightly less than that of the PW (52%) as depicted in Fig. 6.

Finally, 6 kg of FW were supplied to the digester with an initial TS percentage of 22% with a pH value of 6.1. pH values were measured in the substrate during the process and were between 6.3 and 7.8. The results showed that the total biogas produced in 10 days was 53 L/kgWW, as shown in Fig. 7, while the maximum methane volume fraction was recorded on the 7th day with nearly 72%.

The high production of biogas and methane level could result from high protein and lipids in FW, which can be easily degraded by microorganisms during anaerobic digestion [19]. In addition, FW may contain a higher concentration of essential nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which can stimulate the growth and activity of the microorganisms. This enhances the overall performance of the digester. However, some studies found that the high ammonia level in the digested FW would inhibit digestion later. It was assured by monitoring the pH value of the FW during the process that it was in the optimal range for biogas production [24, 25].

3.2. Cumulative biogas volume

Figure 8 shows the accumulated biogas produced for each food waste. The volume of biogas produced from the LCF (73.5 L/kgWW) was the highest among the other types of waste. Biogas produced from FW was 53 L/kgWW whilst it was 37 L/kgWW from PW. The balanced carbon-to-nitrogen ratio and high organic content of LCF could elucidate the higher biogas yield; anaerobic micro-organisms require a balanced supply of nutrients to efficiently degrade organic matter and produce biogas [26]. The mixture of rice, pasta, meat, peas, and spinach provides a more balanced nutrient composition compared to PW and FW, which may lack certain essential nutrients or have an unbalanced nutrient profile, impacting the microbial activity and biogas production.

3.3. Methane yield of LCF

In this section, a comparison of the anaerobic digestion results of LCF is established between the current work and the experimental work of Das et al. [27]. There are some common points between both studies that make this comparison valid. These points are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2

Comparison of the kitchen waste digestion of the current work and Das et al. [27].
Parameter	Current work	Das et al. [27]
Waste type	LCF	Kitchen Waste
Waste-to-water ratio	1:1	1:1
Temperature	ambient	ambient
Material	PVC	PVC fiber
Type biogas plant	floating type	floating type
Digester volume (L)	230	1000
Mass of feedstock (kg)	2	10
Days of gas production (Day)	10	10
Total biogas production (L/kgWW)	73.5	39.6

Figure 9 shows that the variation of the methane volume fraction with time in the present work is less compared to that of Das et al. [27]. Notably, the maximum volume fraction of methane was found to be in the 7th day in both studies. The fraction is then reduced beyond the peak value until the end of the duration. As shown in Table 2, the biogas produced from the current study is higher than that of Das et al. by about 46%. This difference could be due to different parameters including: the composition and the quality of the kitchen waste used. The variations in organic content and nutrient composition, or the presence of inhibitory substances can influence the biogas production. Further, more efficient mixing and improved contact between the microorganisms ensures uniform distribution of microorganisms and nutrients, promoting optimal anaerobic digestion and higher production rates of biogas.

The study utilized a small-scale anaerobic digester to evaluate the biodegradability of various food waste materials in wet and batch modes. PW, FW, and LCF were used in the experiment as substrates. Below are the key findings:

LCF produced the highest cumulative biogas compared to PW and FW, with a value of 73.5 L/kgWW of waste.
The high production of methane from LCF could be caused by the more favourable C:N which is known to be favourable for microbial growth and biogas production.
FW exhibited the highest methane gas content of 72%, surpassing that of PW and LCF.
The observed high methane content in FW may be attributed to its rich nutrient and lipid content, which enhances the overall efficiency of anaerobic digestion.

Potential pathways for maximising biogas production could be achieved via a co-digestion of different substrates, and nanomaterials addition. This would enhance the stability of anaerobic digestion systems by the effect of combining different and diverse organic feedstock and using catalysts, thus improving the degradation of organic matter and increasing biogas yields.

AD	Anaerobic Digestion
C/N	Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio
DAD	Dry Anaerobic Digester
FW	Fish Waste
LCF	Leftover Cooked Food
OLR	Organic Loading Rate
PW	Potato Waste
TS	Total Solids
UNEP	United Nations Environment Programme
VS	Volatile Solids
WW	Wet Weight

CRediT authorship contribution statement
Moustafa Shehata: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, writing original draft, Review and Editing.

Yasser Elsayed Elsayed Ahmed: Data curation, writing original draft, Review and Editing.

Mohammed S. Ismail: Conceptualization, Review and Editing.

Mark Walker: Conceptualization, Review and Editing.

Ayman Mohamed Ibrahim Mohamed: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Supervision, Review and Editing.

Ibrahim Abdel-Rahman Ibrahim: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Supervision, Review and Editing.

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐ The author is an Editorial Board Member/Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor/Guest Editor for [Journal name] and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article.

☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Data Availability

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Zhongming Z., Linong L., Xiaona Y., Wangqiang Z., and Wei L., UNEP food waste index report 2021. 2021.
Abou Taleb M. and Al Farooque O., Towards a circular economy for sustainable development: An application of full cost accounting to municipal waste recyclables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021. 280: p. 124047.
Ofoefule A.U., Nwankwo J.I., and Ibeto C.N., Biogas Production from Paper Waste and its blend with Cow dung. 2010.
Yang Y., Tsukahara K., Yagishita T., and Sawayama S., Performance of a fixed-bed reactor packed with carbon felt during anaerobic digestion of cellulose. Bioresource technology, 2004. 94(2): p. 197-201.
Shehata M., Ibrahim I.A., and Gad H.M., Combustion Characteristics of Natural Gas/Air Flat Premixed Laminar Flames in a Developed Matrix Burner. Scientific African, 2023. 20: p. e01659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01659.
Abanades S., Abbaspour H., Ahmadi A., Das B., Ehyaei M.A., Esmaeilion F., El Haj Assad M., Hajilounezhad T., Hmida A., and Rosen M.A., A conceptual review of sustainable electrical power generation from biogas. Energy Science & Engineering, 2022. 10(2): p. 630-655.
Kuo J. and Dow J., Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste and relevant air quality implications. Journal of the air & Waste management association, 2017. 67(9): p. 1000-1011.
Cho J.K., Park S.C., and Chang H.N., Biochemical methane potential and solid state anaerobic digestion of Korean food wastes. Bioresource technology, 1995. 52(3): p. 245-253.
Cavinato C., Bolzonella D., Pavan P., Fatone F., and Cecchi F., Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and source sorted biowaste in pilot-and full-scale reactors. Renewable Energy, 2013. 55: p. 260-265.
Ventura J.-R.S., Lee J., and Jahng D., A comparative study on the alternating mesophilic and thermophilic two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2014. 26(6): p. 1274-1283.
Guo X., Wang C., Sun F., Zhu W., and Wu W., A comparison of microbial characteristics between the thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digesters exposed to elevated food waste loadings. Bioresource technology, 2014. 152: p. 420-428.
Ryue J., Lin L., Liu Y., Lu W., McCartney D., and Dhar B.R., Comparative effects of GAC addition on methane productivity and microbial community in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Biochemical engineering journal, 2019. 146: p. 79-87.
Agrahari R.P. and Tiwari G., The production of biogas using kitchen waste. International Journal of Energy Science, 2013. 3(6): p. 408-413.
Alam M., Sultan M.B., Mehnaz M., Fahim C.S.U., Hossain S., and Anik A.H., Production of biogas from food waste in laboratory scale dry anaerobic digester under mesophilic condition. Energy Nexus, 2022. 7: p. 100126.
Lou X.F., Nair J., and Ho G., Field performance of small scale anaerobic digesters treating food waste. Energy for sustainable development, 2012. 16(4): p. 509-514.
Zhang G., Wu Z., Cheng F., Min Z., and Lee D.-J., Thermophilic digestion of waste-activated sludge coupled with solar pond. Renewable energy, 2016. 98: p. 142-147.
Jin Y., Li Y., and Li J., Influence of thermal pretreatment on physical and chemical properties of kitchen waste and the efficiency of anaerobic digestion. Journal of environmental management, 2016. 180: p. 291-300.
Liang S. and McDonald A.G., Anaerobic digestion of pre-fermented potato peel wastes for methane production. Waste management, 2015. 46: p. 197-200.
Bücker F., Marder M., Peiter M.R., Lehn D.N., Esquerdo V.M., de Almeida Pinto L.A., and Konrad O., Fish waste: An efficient alternative to biogas and methane production in an anaerobic mono-digestion system. Renewable Energy, 2020. 147: p. 798-805.
Yulisa A., Chairattanawat C., Park S.H., Jannat M.A.H., and Hwang S., Effect of Substrate-to-Inoculum Ratio and Temperatures During the Start-up of Anaerobic Digestion of Fish Waste. Industrial and Domestic Waste Management, 2022. 2(1): p. 17-29.
Elhenawy Y., El-Kadi S., Elsawy K., Abdelmotalip A., and AbdelrahmanIbrahim I., Biogas production by anaerobic digestion of cow dung using floating type fermenter. Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 2021. 9(2): p. 446-451.
Mahmudul H.M., Rasul M., Akbar D., Narayanan R., and Mofijur M., A comprehensive review of the recent development and challenges of a solar-assisted biodigester system. Science of The Total Environment, 2021. 753: p. 141920.
Vijayakumar P., Ayyadurai S., Arunachalam K.D., Mishra G., Chen W.-H., Juan J.C., and Naqvi S.R., Current technologies of biochemical conversion of food waste into biogas production: A review. Fuel, 2022. 323: p. 124321.
Ivanovs K., Spalvins K., and Blumberga D., Approach for modelling anaerobic digestion processes of fish waste. Energy Procedia, 2018. 147: p. 390-396.
Kébé N.N., Rieker C., Fall P.A., Diouf D., Ndiaye D., Mockenhaupt T., Beuel P., and Bursche J., Anaerobic Co-digestion of fish processing waste with cow manure and waste of market (rests of fruits and vegetables): A lab scale batch test. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 2021. 11(01): p. 45.
Choi Y., Ryu J., and Lee S.R., Influence of carbon type and carbon to nitrogen ratio on the biochemical methane potential, pH, and ammonia nitrogen in anaerobic digestion. Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 2020. 62(1): p. 74.
Das A.K., Nandi S., and Behera A.K., Experimental Study of Different Parameters Affecting Biogas Production from Kitchen Wastes in Floating Drum Digester and its Optimization. 2017, VI.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Biogas Production from Different Food Waste Using Small-Scale Floating Drum Type Anaerobic Digester

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Feedstock and inoculum

2.2. Anaerobic Digestion Unit and Measuring Facilities

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Biogas and methane yield

3.2. Cumulative biogas volume

3.3. Methane yield of LCF

4. Conclusions and Future Work

Abbreviations

Declarations

Data Availability

References

Status:

Version 1