IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i23p9137-d991514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Study of Methane Production in a One-Stage vs. Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion Process from Raw Tomato Plant Waste

Author

Listed:
  • Graciela M. L. Ruiz-Aguilar

    (Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales, División Ciencias de la Vida, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Irapuato 36500, Mexico)

  • Hector G. Nuñez-Palenius

    (Departamento de Agronomía, División Ciencias de la Vida, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Irapuato 36500, Mexico)

  • Nanh Lovanh

    (Food Animal Environmental Systems Research, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Bowling Green, KY 42101, USA)

  • Sarai Camarena-Martínez

    (Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales, División Ciencias de la Vida, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Irapuato 36500, Mexico)

Abstract

An anaerobic digestion process performed in two stages has the advantages of the production of hydrogen in addition to methane, and of further degradation of the substrate over the conventional process. The effectiveness of the implementation of this system for the treatment of lignocellulosic waste has been demonstrated. In 2020, more than 180 million tons of organic waste were generated worldwide from tomato crop production, posing a serious environmental risk. In the present investigation, methane production was compared in a two-stage system versus one-stage system from non-pretreated tomato plant residues. For this, different temperature (37 and 55 °C) and initial pH (5.5 and 6.5) conditions were evaluated during hydrogenesis and a constant temperature (37 °C, without pH adjustment) during methanogenesis. At the same time, a one-stage treatment (37 °C, without pH adjustment) was run for comparison purposes. The two-stage treatment in which the highest production of hydrogen, 12.4 mL/g VS, and methane, 252.3 mL/g VS, was observed occurred under the conditions of pH 6.5 and at 37 °C. However, this energy production was statistically similar ( p < 0.5) to the one-stage treatment (365.4 mL CH 4 /g VS). Furthermore, there were also no significant differences in the removal of volatile solids between the different treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Graciela M. L. Ruiz-Aguilar & Hector G. Nuñez-Palenius & Nanh Lovanh & Sarai Camarena-Martínez, 2022. "Comparative Study of Methane Production in a One-Stage vs. Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion Process from Raw Tomato Plant Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:23:p:9137-:d:991514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/9137/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/9137/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schievano, A. & Tenca, A. & Lonati, S. & Manzini, E. & Adani, F., 2014. "Can two-stage instead of one-stage anaerobic digestion really increase energy recovery from biomass?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 335-342.
    2. Nikolaidis, Pavlos & Poullikkas, Andreas, 2017. "A comparative overview of hydrogen production processes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 597-611.
    3. Ariunbaatar, Javkhlan & Panico, Antonio & Esposito, Giovanni & Pirozzi, Francesco & Lens, Piet N.L., 2014. "Pretreatment methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 143-156.
    4. Margarita Andreas Dareioti & Aikaterini Ioannis Vavouraki & Konstantina Tsigkou & Michael Kornaros, 2021. "Assessment of Single- vs. Two-Stage Process for the Anaerobic Digestion of Liquid Cow Manure and Cheese Whey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, August.
    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. Agnieszka A. Pilarska & Krzysztof Pilarski, 2023. "Bioenergy Generation from Different Types of Waste by Anaerobic Digestion," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-4, October.
    2. Graciela M. L. Ruiz-Aguilar & Juan H. Martínez-Martínez & Rogelio Costilla-Salazar & Sarai Camarena-Martínez, 2023. "Using Central Composite Design to Improve Methane Production from Anaerobic Digestion of Tomato Plant Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-15, July.

    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. Ghimire, Anish & Frunzo, Luigi & Pirozzi, Francesco & Trably, Eric & Escudie, Renaud & Lens, Piet N.L. & Esposito, Giovanni, 2015. "A review on dark fermentative biohydrogen production from organic biomass: Process parameters and use of by-products," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 73-95.
    2. Chatterjee, Biswabandhu & Mazumder, Debabrata, 2019. "Role of stage-separation in the ubiquitous development of Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 439-469.
    3. Sadeghi, Shayan & Ghandehariun, Samane, 2022. "A standalone solar thermochemical water splitting hydrogen plant with high-temperature molten salt: Thermodynamic and economic analyses and multi-objective optimization," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    4. Roberto Eloy Hernández Regalado & Jurek Häner & Elmar Brügging & Jens Tränckner, 2022. "Techno-Economic Assessment of Solid–Liquid Biogas Treatment Plants for the Agro-Industrial Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Zhen, Guangyin & Lu, Xueqin & Kato, Hiroyuki & Zhao, Youcai & Li, Yu-You, 2017. "Overview of pretreatment strategies for enhancing sewage sludge disintegration and subsequent anaerobic digestion: Current advances, full-scale application and future perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 559-577.
    6. Luz, Fábio Codignole & Cordiner, Stefano & Manni, Alessandro & Mulone, Vincenzo & Rocco, Vittorio, 2017. "Anaerobic digestion of coffee grounds soluble fraction at laboratory scale: Evaluation of the biomethane potential," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 166-175.
    7. Sarto, Sarto & Hildayati, Raudati & Syaichurrozi, Iqbal, 2019. "Effect of chemical pretreatment using sulfuric acid on biogas production from water hyacinth and kinetics," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 335-350.
    8. Thompson, T.M. & Young, B.R. & Baroutian, S., 2020. "Pelagic Sargassum for energy and fertiliser production in the Caribbean: A case study on Barbados," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    9. Qi, Chuanren & Cao, Dingge & Gao, Xingzu & Jia, Sumeng & Yin, Rongrong & Nghiem, Long D. & Li, Guoxue & Luo, Wenhai, 2023. "Optimising organic composition of feedstock to improve microbial dynamics and symbiosis to advance solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 351(C).
    10. Lin, Yunqin & Liang, Jiajin & Zeng, Chao & Wang, Dehan & Lin, Huanjia, 2017. "Anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill sludge pretreated by microbial consortium OEM1 with simultaneous degradation of lignocellulose and chlorophenols," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-115.
    11. Notodarmojo, Peni Astrini & Fujiwara, Takeshi & Habuer, & Pham Van, Dinh, 2022. "Effectiveness of oyster shell as alkali additive for two-stage anaerobic co-digestion: Carbon flow analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    12. Elena Rossi & Isabella Pecorini & Giovanni Ferrara & Renato Iannelli, 2022. "Dry Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: Biogas Production Optimization by Reducing Ammonia Inhibition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-17, July.
    13. Alves, Luís & Pereira, Vítor & Lagarteira, Tiago & Mendes, Adélio, 2021. "Catalytic methane decomposition to boost the energy transition: Scientific and technological advancements," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    14. Abadie, Luis Mª & Chamorro, José M., 2023. "Investment in wind-based hydrogen production under economic and physical uncertainties," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    15. Samuel Simon Araya & Fan Zhou & Simon Lennart Sahlin & Sobi Thomas & Christian Jeppesen & Søren Knudsen Kær, 2019. "Fault Characterization of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Stack," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Navas-Anguita, Zaira & García-Gusano, Diego & Iribarren, Diego, 2019. "A review of techno-economic data for road transportation fuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 11-26.
    17. Agnieszka A. Pilarska & Tomasz Kulupa & Adrianna Kubiak & Agnieszka Wolna-Maruwka & Krzysztof Pilarski & Alicja Niewiadomska, 2023. "Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste—A Short Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-23, August.
    18. Freida Ozavize Ayodele & Siti Indati Mustapa & Bamidele Victor Ayodele & Norsyahida Mohammad, 2020. "An Overview of Economic Analysis and Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas Conversion Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    19. Hegazy Rezk & Mokhtar Aly & Rania M. Ghoniem, 2023. "Robust Fuzzy Logic MPPT Using Gradient-Based Optimization for PEMFC Power System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Eljamal, Osama & Eljamal, Ramadan & Falyouna, Omar & Maamoun, Ibrahim & Thompson, Ian P., 2024. "Exceptional contribution of iron nanoparticle and aloe vera biomass additives to biogas production from anaerobic digestion of waste sludge," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).

    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:15:y:2022:i:23:p:9137-:d:991514. 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.