IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i9p2491-d544328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Tannery and Slaughterhouse Wastewater for Solids Reduction and Resource Recovery: Effect of Sulfate Concentration and Inoculum to Substrate Ratio

Author

Listed:
  • Ashton B. Mpofu

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Bellville Campus, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa
    Institute of Applied Microbial and Health Biotechnology Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville Campus, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa)

  • Victoria A. Kibangou

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Bellville Campus, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa
    Institute of Applied Microbial and Health Biotechnology Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville Campus, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa)

  • Walusungu M. Kaira

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Bellville Campus, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa
    Institute of Applied Microbial and Health Biotechnology Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville Campus, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa)

  • Oluwaseun O. Oyekola

    (Department of Chemical Engineering, Bellville Campus, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa)

  • Pamela J. Welz

    (Institute of Applied Microbial and Health Biotechnology Institute, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Bellville Campus, Symphony Way, Cape Town 7535, South Africa)

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion is considered unsuitable for the bioremediation of tannery effluent due to process inhibition, mainly due to high concentrations of sulfur species, and the accumulation of H 2 S and/or NH 3 . This study using the standardized biochemical methane potential protocol showed that efficient processing is possible with slaughterhouse wastewater, provided sufficient functional biomass is present at the start of the process and the SO 4 2 − concentration is below inhibition threshold. Methanogenic activity (K = 13.4–17.5 and µm = 0.15–0.27) and CH 4 yields were high when reactors were operated ISR ≥ 3 and/or lower SO 4 2 − ≤ 710 mg/L while high SO 4 2 − ≥ 1960 mg/L and ISR < 3.0 caused almost complete inhibition regardless of corresponding ISR and SO 4 2 − . The theoretical optimum operating conditions (922 mg/L SO 4 2 − , ISR = 3.72) are expected to generate 361 mL biogas/gVS, 235 mL CH 4 /gVS with reduction efficiencies of 27.5% VS, 27.4% TS, 75.1% TOC, 75.6% SO 4 2 − , and 41.1% COD. This implies that tannery sludge will be reduced by about 27% (dry mass) and SO 4 2 − by 76%, with a fraction of it recovered as S 0 . The models displayed a perfect fit to the cumulative CH 4 yields with high precision in the order Logistic > Cone > modified Gompertz > first order.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashton B. Mpofu & Victoria A. Kibangou & Walusungu M. Kaira & Oluwaseun O. Oyekola & Pamela J. Welz, 2021. "Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Tannery and Slaughterhouse Wastewater for Solids Reduction and Resource Recovery: Effect of Sulfate Concentration and Inoculum to Substrate Ratio," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:9:p:2491-:d:544328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/9/2491/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/9/2491/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Appels, Lise & Lauwers, Joost & Degrève, Jan & Helsen, Lieve & Lievens, Bart & Willems, Kris & Van Impe, Jan & Dewil, Raf, 2011. "Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: Potential and research challenges," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4295-4301.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marcin Dębowski & Marcin Zieliński, 2022. "Wastewater Treatment and Biogas Production: Innovative Technologies, Research and Development Directions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-4, March.
    2. Young-Ju Song & Kyung-Su Oh & Beom Lee & Dae-Won Pak & Ji-Hwan Cha & Jun-Gyu Park, 2021. "Characteristics of Biogas Production from Organic Wastes Mixed at Optimal Ratios in an Anaerobic Co-Digestion Reactor," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alejandro Moure Abelenda & Kirk T. Semple & George Aggidis & Farid Aiouache, 2022. "Circularity of Bioenergy Residues: Acidification of Anaerobic Digestate Prior to Addition of Wood Ash," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Lane, Blake & Kinnon, Michael Mac & Shaffer, Brendan & Samuelsen, Scott, 2022. "Deployment planning tool for environmentally sensitive heavy-duty vehicles and fueling infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Palakodeti, Advait & Azman, Samet & Rossi, Barbara & Dewil, Raf & Appels, Lise, 2021. "A critical review of ammonia recovery from anaerobic digestate of organic wastes via stripping," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Mohamed A. Hassaan & Antonio Pantaleo & Francesco Santoro & Marwa R. Elkatory & Giuseppe De Mastro & Amany El Sikaily & Safaa Ragab & Ahmed El Nemr, 2020. "Techno-Economic Analysis of ZnO Nanoparticles Pretreatments for Biogas Production from Barley Straw," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-26, September.
    5. Kerstin Nielsen & Christina-Luise Roß & Marieke Hoffmann & Andreas Muskolus & Frank Ellmer & Timo Kautz, 2020. "The Chemical Composition of Biogas Digestates Determines Their Effect on Soil Microbial Activity," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Edwards, Joel & Othman, Maazuza & Burn, Stewart, 2015. "A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 815-828.
    7. Mohammadpour, Hossein & Cord-Ruwisch, Ralf & Pivrikas, Almantas & Ho, Goen, 2022. "Simple energy-efficient electrochemically-driven CO2 scrubbing for biogas upgrading," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 274-282.
    8. Saha, Chayan Kumer & Nandi, Rajesh & Akter, Shammi & Hossain, Samira & Kabir, Kazi Bayzid & Kirtania, Kawnish & Islam, Md Tahmid & Guidugli, Laura & Reza, M. Toufiq & Alam, Md Monjurul, 2024. "Technical prospects and challenges of anaerobic co-digestion in Bangladesh: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    9. Gahyun Baek & Jaai Kim & Jinsu Kim & Changsoo Lee, 2018. "Role and Potential of Direct Interspecies Electron Transfer in Anaerobic Digestion," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Safieddin Ardebili, Seyed Mohammad, 2020. "Green electricity generation potential from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion of farm animal waste and agriculture residues in Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 29-37.
    11. Ornelas-Ferreira, B. & Lobato, L.C.S. & Colturato, L.F.D. & Torres, E.O. & Pombo, L.M. & Pujatti, F.J.P. & Araújo, J.C. & Chernicharo, C.A.L., 2020. "Strategies for energy recovery and gains associated with the implementation of a solid state batch methanization system for treating organic waste from the city of Rio de Janeiro - Brazil," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1976-1983.
    12. Siwal, Samarjeet Singh & Zhang, Qibo & Devi, Nishu & Saini, Adesh Kumar & Saini, Vipin & Pareek, Bhawna & Gaidukovs, Sergejs & Thakur, Vijay Kumar, 2021. "Recovery processes of sustainable energy using different biomass and wastes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    13. Di Maria, Francesco & Micale, Caterina & Contini, Stefano, 2016. "Energetic and environmental sustainability of the co-digestion of sludge with bio-waste in a life cycle perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 67-76.
    14. Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar & Ferreira, Jorge A. & Sirohi, Ranjna & Sarsaiya, Surendra & Khoshnevisan, Benyamin & Baladi, Samin & Sindhu, Raveendran & Binod, Parameswaran & Pandey, Ashok & Juneja, Ankita & , 2021. "A critical review on the development stage of biorefinery systems towards the management of apple processing-derived waste," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. Mohammad Al-Addous & Motasem N. Saidan & Mathhar Bdour & Mohammad Alnaief, 2018. "Evaluation of Biogas Production from the Co-Digestion of Municipal Food Waste and Wastewater Sludge at Refugee Camps Using an Automated Methane Potential Test System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Md. Alhaz Uddin & Sk. Yasir Arafat Siddiki & Shams Forruque Ahmed & Zahidul Islam Rony & M. A. K. Chowdhury & M. Mofijur, 2021. "Estimation of Sustainable Bioenergy Production from Olive Mill Solid Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-11, November.
    17. Liu, Nuo & Wang, Quan & Jiang, Jianguo & Zhang, Haowei, 2017. "Effects of salt and oil concentrations on volatile fatty acid generation in food waste fermentation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1523-1528.
    18. Budzianowski, Wojciech M., 2016. "A review of potential innovations for production, conditioning and utilization of biogas with multiple-criteria assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1148-1171.
    19. Mollahosseini, Arash & Hosseini, Seyed Amid & Jabbari, Mostafa & Figoli, Alberto & Rahimpour, Ahmad, 2017. "Renewable energy management and market in Iran: A holistic review on current state and future demands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 774-788.
    20. Giovanni Alessandro Cappelli & Fabrizio Ginaldi & Davide Fanchini & Sebastiano Andrea Corinzia & Salvatore Luciano Cosentino & Enrico Ceotto, 2021. "Model-Based Assessment of Giant Reed ( Arundo donax L.) Energy Yield in the Form of Diverse Biofuels in Marginal Areas of Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:9:p:2491-:d:544328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.