IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7653-d1470612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Livestock Manure at Various Mixing Ratios under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures

Author

Listed:
  • Wonbae Lee

    (Bioresource Center, Institute for Advanced Engineering, 51 Goan-ro, Yongin City 175-28, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea)

  • Youngo Kim

    (Technology Research Center, Hyundai Engineering & Construction, 75, Yulgok-ro, Seoul 03058, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea)

  • Ho Kim

    (Bioresource Center, Institute for Advanced Engineering, 51 Goan-ro, Yongin City 175-28, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea)

  • Moonil Kim

    (Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University ERICA Campus, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Ansan City 426-791, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

In this study, the optimum mixing ratio of food waste (FW) and livestock manure (LM) was investigated to improve the methane yield efficiency and prohibit the inhibition factors (organic loading rate and NH 4 + ) from inhibiting the anaerobic co-digestion of FW and LM under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. The research involved the following: (I) the analysis of the characteristics of FW and LM, (II) the evaluation of the potential and toxicity of the anaerobic digestion of I have confirmed that there is no problem. FW and LM using the biochemical methane potential (BMP) and anaerobic toxicity assay (ATA) tests, (III) the evaluation of the anaerobic co-digestion of FW and LM using the BMP test, and (IV) the evaluation of the optimum mixing ratio using mathematical modeling. The characteristics of FW and LM were analyzed to evaluate the theoretical methane potential and inhibition factor. The BMP test was carried out to evaluate the concentration of the biodegradable organic matter, biogas production rate, and methane yield. The ATA test was carried out to evaluate the impact of the inhibition concentration. Ultimately, mathematical models, such as a first-order reaction and a modified Gompertz model, were implemented to evaluate the optimum mixing ratio for the anaerobic co-digestion of FW and LM. FW had a higher concentration of degradable organic matter than LM. The initial operational parameters of the anaerobic digestion were determined to be appropriate at an organic matter concentration of less than 2.5 g/L and a TN concentration of 2,000 mg/L. In conclusion, as a result of evaluation through mathematical models, it was determined that anaerobic microorganisms were more sensitive to inhibitory factors under the thermophilic condition than under the mesophilic condition, and the optimum mixing ratio of FW to LM was 5:1 (vol:vol) based on kinetic results (k: 0.080; B u : 0.23 L CH 4 /g VS added ; P: 100.84 mL; R m : 10.23 mL/day; λ: 1.44 days).

Suggested Citation

  • Wonbae Lee & Youngo Kim & Ho Kim & Moonil Kim, 2024. "Comparison of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Livestock Manure at Various Mixing Ratios under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Temperatures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7653-:d:1470612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7653/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7653/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yao, Yao & Huang, Gordon & An, Chunjiang & Chen, Xiujuan & Zhang, Peng & Xin, Xiaying & Jian Shen, & Agnew, Joy, 2020. "Anaerobic digestion of livestock manure in cold regions: Technological advancements and global impacts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yu, Xinhui & Yan, Lei & Wang, Haipeng & Bi, Shaojie & Zhang, Futao & Huang, Sisi & Wang, Yanhong & Wang, Yanjie, 2024. "Anaerobic co-digestion of cabbage waste and cattle manure: Effect of mixing ratio and hydraulic retention time," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    2. Ferraz de Campos, Victor Arruda & Silva, Valter Bruno & Cardoso, João Sousa & Brito, Paulo S. & Tuna, Celso Eduardo & Silveira, José Luz, 2021. "A review of waste management in Brazil and Portugal: Waste-to-energy as pathway for sustainable development," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 802-820.
    3. Jaime Jaimes-Estévez & German Zafra & Jaime Martí-Herrero & Guillermo Pelaz & Antonio Morán & Alejandra Puentes & Christian Gomez & Liliana del Pilar Castro & Humberto Escalante Hernández, 2020. "Psychrophilic Full Scale Tubular Digester Operating over Eight Years: Complete Performance Evaluation and Microbiological Population," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Calise, Francesco & Cappiello, Francesco Liberato & Cimmino, Luca & Dentice d’Accadia, Massimo & Vicidomini, Maria, 2024. "A solar-assisted liquefied biomethane production by anaerobic digestion: Dynamic simulations for harbors," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    5. Paulina-Soledad Vidal-Espinosa & Manuel Alvarez-Vera & Andrés Cárdenas & Juan-Carlos Cobos-Torres, 2023. "Beneficial Microorganisms in the Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle and Swine Excreta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Tavera-Ruiz, C. & Martí-Herrero, J. & Mendieta, O. & Jaimes-Estévez, J. & Gauthier-Maradei, P. & Azimov, U. & Escalante, H. & Castro, L., 2023. "Current understanding and perspectives on anaerobic digestion in developing countries: Colombia case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    7. 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).
    8. Bhatnagar, N. & Ryan, D. & Murphy, R. & Enright, A.M., 2022. "A comprehensive review of green policy, anaerobic digestion of animal manure and chicken litter feedstock potential – Global and Irish perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    9. Hollas, C.E. & Bolsan, A.C. & Chini, A. & Venturin, B. & Bonassa, G. & Cândido, D. & Antes, F.G. & Steinmetz, R.L.R. & Prado, N.V. & Kunz, A., 2021. "Effects of swine manure storage time on solid-liquid separation and biogas production: A life-cycle assessment approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    10. Chunjiang An & Mengfan Cai & Christophe Guy, 2020. "Rural Sustainable Environmental Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-5, August.
    11. Joanna Kazimierowicz & Marcin Dębowski & Marcin Zieliński, 2022. "Effect of Pharmaceutical Sludge Pre-Treatment with Fenton/Fenton-like Reagents on Toxicity and Anaerobic Digestion Efficiency," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-22, December.
    12. Quetzalcoatl Hernandez-Escobedo & David Muñoz-Rodríguez & Alejandro Vargas-Casillas & José Manuel Juárez Lopez & Pilar Aparicio-Martínez & María Pilar Martínez-Jiménez & Alberto-Jesus Perea-Moreno, 2022. "Renewable Energies in the Agricultural Sector: A Perspective Analysis of the Last Three Years," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Joanna Kazimierowicz & Marcin Dębowski & Marcin Zieliński, 2022. "Effectiveness of Hydrogen Production by Bacteroides vulgatus in Psychrophilic Fermentation of Cattle Slurry," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, August.
    14. Cai, Mengfan & An, Chunjiang & Guy, Christophe, 2021. "A scientometric analysis and review of biogenic volatile organic compound emissions: Research hotspots, new frontiers, and environmental implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    15. Yin, J.N. & Huang, G.H. & Xie, Y.L. & An, Y.K., 2021. "Carbon-subsidized inter-regional electric power system planning under cost-risk tradeoff and uncertainty: A case study of Inner Mongolia, China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Huilong Lin & Yanfei Pu & Xueni Ma & Yue Wang & Charles Nyandwi & Jean de Dieu Nzabonakuze, 2020. "The Environmental Impacts of the Grassland Agricultural System and the Cultivated Land Agricultural System: A Comparative Analysis in Eastern Gansu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Rubén Agregán & José M. Lorenzo & Manoj Kumar & Mohammad Ali Shariati & Muhammad Usman Khan & Abid Sarwar & Muhammad Sultan & Maksim Rebezov & Muhammad Usman, 2022. "Anaerobic Digestion of Lignocellulose Components: Challenges and Novel Approaches," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-24, November.
    18. Shivangi Jha & Sonil Nanda & Bishnu Acharya & Ajay K. Dalai, 2022. "A Review of Thermochemical Conversion of Waste Biomass to Biofuels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-23, August.
    19. Garkoti, Pankaj & Ni, Ji-Qin & Thengane, Sonal K., 2024. "Energy management for maintaining anaerobic digestion temperature in biogas plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    20. Irfan, Muhammad & Elavarasan, Rajvikram Madurai & Ahmad, Munir & Mohsin, Muhammad & Dagar, Vishal & Hao, Yu, 2022. "Prioritizing and overcoming biomass energy barriers: Application of AHP and G-TOPSIS approaches," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(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:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7653-:d:1470612. 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.