IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i17p6179-d1225410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anaerobic Digestion of Spoiled Maize, Lucerne and Barley Silage Mixture with and without Cow Manure: Methane Yields and Kinetic Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Shubham Dilip Sarode

    (School of Engineering and Built Environment, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia)

  • Deepak Kumar

    (School of Engineering and Built Environment, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia)

  • Divya Mathias

    (School of Engineering and Built Environment, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia)

  • David McNeill

    (School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD 4343, Australia)

  • Prasad Kaparaju

    (School of Engineering and Built Environment, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia)

Abstract

The effect of different inoculum-to-substrate ratios (ISRs) and feed mix (FM) ratios on the kinetics of methane production and yields during anaerobic digestion of spoiled silage mixture (SM) alone or co-digestion with cow manure (CM) was investigated in batch experiments at 37 °C. The silage mixture was prepared from spoiled silages of maize, lucerne and barley in equal proportions of 33% by wet weight. The effect of ISRs of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 showed that methane yields increased with an increased ISR ratio. At ISRs of 1, 2 and 4, methane yields of 262.18 ± 14.96, 387.77 ± 14.43 and 482.23 ± 38.47 NmL CH 4 /gVS added were obtained, respectively. Incubation at ISR 0.5 resulted in low methane yields (174.49 ± 9.29 NmL CH 4 /gVS added ) due to build-up of volatile fatty acids (VFAs). Further, co-digestion of spoiled SM with CM showed that the highest methane yields of 387.77 and 382.86 NmL CH 4 /gVS added were obtained at SM:CM feed mix ratios of 100–0 and 75–25, respectively. The corresponding volatile solids (VS) removal rates were 72.80% and 70.82%, respectively. However, the best synergistic effect was noticed at a SM:CM = 50–50 feed mix ratio. Thus, this study shows that anaerobic digestion of spoiled silages is feasible and co-digestion of spoiled silage mixed with cow manure at a SM:CM feed mix ratio of 75–25 is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Shubham Dilip Sarode & Deepak Kumar & Divya Mathias & David McNeill & Prasad Kaparaju, 2023. "Anaerobic Digestion of Spoiled Maize, Lucerne and Barley Silage Mixture with and without Cow Manure: Methane Yields and Kinetic Studies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:17:p:6179-:d:1225410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6179/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/17/6179/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaparaju, Prasad & Rintala, Jukka, 2005. "Anaerobic co-digestion of potato tuber and its industrial by-products with pig manure," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 175-188.
    2. Rodriguez, Cristina & Alaswad, Abed & El-Hassan, Zaki & Olabi, Abdul G., 2018. "Waste paper and macroalgae co-digestion effect on methane production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 119-125.
    3. Egwu, Uchenna & Onyelowe, Kennedy & Tabraiz, Shamas & Johnson, Emmanuel & Mutshow, Alexander D., 2022. "Investigation of the effect of equal and unequal feeding time intervals on process stability and methane yield during anaerobic digestion grass silage," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    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. Charalampos Toufexis & Dimitrios-Orfeas Makris & Christos Vlachokostas & Alexandra V. Michailidou & Christos Mertzanakis & Athanasia Vachtsiavanou, 2024. "Bridging the Gap between Biowaste and Biomethane Production: A Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Methodological Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-28, July.
    2. Amal Babu Puthumana & Prasad Kaparaju, 2024. "Impact of Organic Load on Methane Yields and Kinetics during Anaerobic Digestion of Sugarcane Bagasse: Optimal Feed-to-Inoculum Ratio and Total Solids of Reactor Working Volume," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-18, 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. Nassef, Ahmed M. & Olabi, A.G. & Rodriguez, Cristina & Abdelkareem, Mohammad Ali & Rezk, Hegazy, 2021. "Optimal operating parameter determination and modeling to enhance methane production from macroalgae," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 2190-2197.
    2. Ruth Chinyere Anyanwu & Cristina Rodriguez & Andy Durrant & Abdul Ghani Olabi, 2022. "Evaluation of Growth Rate and Biomass Productivity of Scenedesmus quadricauda and Chlorella vulgaris under Different LED Wavelengths and Photoperiods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, May.
    3. El Ibrahimi, Mohammed & Khay, Ismail & El Maakoul, Anas & Bakhouya, Mohamed, 2022. "Effects of the temperature range on the energy performance of mixed and unmixed digesters with submerged waste: An experimental and CFD simulation study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1092-1104.
    4. Sayed, Enas Taha & Abdelkareem, Mohammad Ali & Alawadhi, Hussain & Elsaid, Khaled & Wilberforce, Tabbi & Olabi, A.G., 2021. "Graphitic carbon nitride/carbon brush composite as a novel anode for yeast-based microbial fuel cells," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    5. Amal Babu Puthumana & Prasad Kaparaju, 2024. "Impact of Organic Load on Methane Yields and Kinetics during Anaerobic Digestion of Sugarcane Bagasse: Optimal Feed-to-Inoculum Ratio and Total Solids of Reactor Working Volume," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Luz, Fábio Codignole & Cordiner, Stefano & Manni, Alessandro & Mulone, Vincenzo & Rocco, Vittorio & Braglia, Roberto & Canini, Antonella, 2018. "Ampelodesmos mauritanicus pyrolysis biochar in anaerobic digestion process: Evaluation of the biogas yield," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 663-669.
    7. Alkasrawi, Malek & Al-Othman, Amani & Tawalbeh, Muhammad & Doncan, Shona & Gurram, Raghu & Singsaas, Eric & Almomani, Fares & Al-Asheh, Sameer, 2021. "A novel technique of paper mill sludge conversion to bioethanol toward sustainable energy production: Effect of fiber recovery on the saccharification hydrolysis and fermentation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    8. Noori M. Cata Saady & Fatemeh Rezaeitavabe & Juan Enrique Ruiz Espinoza, 2021. "Chemical Methods for Hydrolyzing Dairy Manure Fiber: A Concise Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Lehtomäki, A. & Huttunen, S. & Rintala, J.A., 2007. "Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 591-609.
    10. Rocha-Meneses, Lisandra & Raud, Merlin & Orupõld, Kaja & Kikas, Timo, 2019. "Potential of bioethanol production waste for methane recovery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 133-139.
    11. Youfei Zhou & Weijie Hu & Jun Sheng & Cheng Peng & Tianfeng Wang, 2023. "Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Buffalo Manure and Excess Sludge with Different Mixing Ratios under Thermophilic and Mesophilic Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, April.
    12. A. G. Olabi & Tabbi Wilberforce & Khaled Elsaid & Tareq Salameh & Enas Taha Sayed & Khaled Saleh Husain & Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem, 2021. "Selection Guidelines for Wind Energy Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-34, June.
    13. Onumaegbu, C. & Alaswad, A. & Rodriguez, C. & Olabi, A., 2019. "Modelling and optimization of wet microalgae Scenedesmus quadricauda lipid extraction using microwave pre-treatment method and response surface methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1323-1331.

    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:16:y:2023:i:17:p:6179-:d:1225410. 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.