IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2063-d499425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-Economic Assessment of On-Farm Anaerobic Digestion System Using Attached-Biofilm Reactor in the Dairy Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Jia Boh Tan

    (Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Nur Syakina Jamali

    (Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Wei En Tan

    (Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Hasfalina Che Man

    (Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Zurina Zainal Abidin

    (Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

Abstract

In this study, a techno-economic assessment of an on-farm biogas system using an anaerobic biofilm reactor utilizing cow manure as a fermentation substrate was evaluated. A projection model was developed using Microsoft Excel software with three outputs, the size and dimension of a bioreactor, experimental microbial kinetic studies, and the economic studies based on the experimental results. Characterization analysis of cow manure wastewater showed the total solid (TS), total volatile solid (TVS), total carbohydrate (TC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and pH values which were 10.95 g/L, 8.65 g/L, 6.65 g/L, 57.80 g/L, and 7, respectively. Using the modified Gompertz equation for the microbial studies, it was found that, at 37 °C and 20 days hydraulic retention time (HRT), the biogas yield was 934.54 mL/gVS, the volume of biogas produced was 11.28 m 3 /d, and 22.56 kWh of electricity was generated. The Gompertz prediction helps to determine the optimal HRT for the system so that the microorganisms are at their optimum stage to produce biogas. The economic analysis was done, and the results illustrated that, when the rate of cow manure produced was at 55 L/day.cow, the net present value (NPV) was RM 611,936.09, with a 13% internal rate of return (IRR), 0.14 return on investment (ROI), and 7.02 years of payback period (PP). By developing a techno-economic assessment that included all the necessary parameters such as sizing of the bioreactor, microbial kinetic studies, and economics of the plant, farmers could easily implement the system into their farms. This model showed that the anaerobic digestion system utilizing an attached biofilm with cow manure as a fermentation inoculum and substrate was applicable on an industrial scale to generate electricity and reutilize to the farm, at the same time generating additional income from the production of fertilizer.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia Boh Tan & Nur Syakina Jamali & Wei En Tan & Hasfalina Che Man & Zurina Zainal Abidin, 2021. "Techno-Economic Assessment of On-Farm Anaerobic Digestion System Using Attached-Biofilm Reactor in the Dairy Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2063-:d:499425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2063/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2063/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Qiao, Wei & Yan, Xiuyi & Ye, Junhui & Sun, Yifei & Wang, Wei & Zhang, Zhongzhi, 2011. "Evaluation of biogas production from different biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal pretreatment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 3313-3318.
    2. Akbulut, Abdullah, 2012. "Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from farm-scale biogas plant: Çiçekdağı case study," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 381-390.
    3. Sun, Qie & Li, Hailong & Yan, Jinying & Liu, Longcheng & Yu, Zhixin & Yu, Xinhai, 2015. "Selection of appropriate biogas upgrading technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 521-532.
    4. Karthik Rajendran & Solmaz Aslanzadeh & Mohammad J. Taherzadeh, 2012. "Household Biogas Digesters—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-32, 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. Padi, Richard Kingsley & Douglas, Sean & Murphy, Fionnuala, 2023. "Techno-economic potentials of integrating decentralised biomethane production systems into existing natural gas grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).

    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. Avaci, Angelica Buzinaro & Melegari de Souza, Samuel Nelson & Werncke, Ivan & Chaves, Luiz Inácio, 2013. "Financial economic scenario for the microgeneration of electric energy from swine culture-originated biogas," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 272-276.
    2. Maghanaki, M. Mohammadi & Ghobadian, B. & Najafi, G. & Galogah, R. Janzadeh, 2013. "Potential of biogas production in Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 702-714.
    3. Saadabadi, S. Ali & Thallam Thattai, Aditya & Fan, Liyuan & Lindeboom, Ralph E.F. & Spanjers, Henri & Aravind, P.V., 2019. "Solid Oxide Fuel Cells fuelled with biogas: Potential and constraints," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 194-214.
    4. Abdeshahian, Peyman & Lim, Jeng Shiun & Ho, Wai Shin & Hashim, Haslenda & Lee, Chew Tin, 2016. "Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 714-723.
    5. Meneses-Quelal Orlando & Velázquez-Martí Borja, 2020. "Pretreatment of Animal Manure Biomass to Improve Biogas Production: A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-28, July.
    6. Patrizio, P. & Leduc, S. & Chinese, D. & Kraxner, F., 2017. "Internalizing the external costs of biogas supply chains in the Italian energy sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 85-96.
    7. 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).
    8. Pellegrino, Sandro & Lanzini, Andrea & Leone, Pierluigi, 2017. "Greening the gas network – The need for modelling the distributed injection of alternative fuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 266-286.
    9. Khan, Muhammad Usman & Lee, Jonathan Tian En & Bashir, Muhammad Aamir & Dissanayake, Pavani Dulanja & Ok, Yong Sik & Tong, Yen Wah & Shariati, Mohammad Ali & Wu, Sarah & Ahring, Birgitte Kiaer, 2021. "Current status of biogas upgrading for direct biomethane use: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    10. Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar & Sarsaiya, Surendra & Wainaina, Steven & Rajendran, Karthik & Kumar, Sumit & Quan, Wang & Duan, Yumin & Awasthi, Sanjeev Kumar & Chen, Hongyu & Pandey, Ashok & Zhang, Zengqiang , 2019. "A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable circular bioeconomy: Technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and future perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 115-131.
    11. Hynek Roubík & Jana Mazancová & Phung Le Dinh & Dung Dinh Van & Jan Banout, 2018. "Biogas Quality across Small-Scale Biogas Plants: A Case of Central Vietnam," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
    12. Luo, Erga & Yan, Ru & He, Yaping & Han, Zhen & Feng, Yiyu & Qian, Wenrong & Li, Jinkai, 2024. "Does biogas industrial policy promote the industrial transformation?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Coultry, James & Walsh, Eilín & McDonnell, Kevin P., 2013. "Energy and economic implications of anaerobic digestion pasteurisation regulations in Ireland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 125-128.
    14. Orive, M. & Cebrián, M. & Zufía, J., 2016. "Techno-economic anaerobic co-digestion feasibility study for two-phase olive oil mill pomace and pig slurry," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 532-540.
    15. Stefan Heiske & Linas Jurgutis & Zsófia Kádár, 2015. "Evaluation of Novel Inoculation Strategies for Solid State Anaerobic Digestion of Yam Peelings in Low-Tech Digesters," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, March.
    16. Bidart, Christian & Fröhling, Magnus & Schultmann, Frank, 2014. "Electricity and substitute natural gas generation from the conversion of wastewater treatment plant sludge," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 404-413.
    17. Jun Hou & Weifeng Zhang & Pei Wang & Zhengxia Dou & Liwei Gao & David Styles, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas Mitigation of Rural Household Biogas Systems in China: A Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Zhang, Yuyao & Kawasaki, Yu & Oshita, Kazuyuki & Takaoka, Masaki & Minami, Daisuke & Inoue, Go & Tanaka, Toshihiro, 2021. "Economic assessment of biogas purification systems for removal of both H2S and siloxane from biogas," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 119-130.
    19. Kwon, Gihoon & Tsang, Daniel C.W. & Oh, Jeong-Ik & Kwon, Eilhann E. & Song, Hocheol, 2019. "Pyrolysis of aquatic carbohydrates using CO2 as reactive gas medium: A case study of chitin," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 136-143.
    20. Baena-Moreno, Francisco M. & Pastor-Pérez, Laura & Zhang, Zhien & Reina, T.R., 2020. "Stepping towards a low-carbon economy. Formic acid from biogas as case of study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2063-:d:499425. 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.