JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Comparison of the Performance of Chamber and Bag Digesters for Solid State Anaerobic Digestion of Separated Solid Fraction of Swine Manure
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Comparison of the Performance of Chamber and Bag Digesters for Solid State Anaerobic Digestion of Separated Solid Fraction of Swine Manure
Lee, Jaehee; Lee, Seunghun; Kim, Eunjong; Jo, Hyunsoo; Ahn, Heekwon;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The performance of chamber and bag digesters for solid state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) of separated solid fraction of swine manure was investigated using lab-scale digester (4,460 mL total volume and 1,800 mL of effective volume) operating at for 63 days. The performance of two different digester types was evaluated in terms of the kinetic constants of methane production obtained from the Gompertz and Gaussian equations. Methane production potential of chamber and bag digester was 202 and VS. Time to produce 95% methane production potential (T95) and calculated effective anaerobic digestion time were 55.5 days and 41.8 days for chamber digester and 52.8 days and 43.5 days for bag digester, respectively. Our results reveal that the performance was not significantly different between chamber and bag digester.
 Keywords
Solid-state anaerobic digestion;Bag digester;Chamber digester;Swine manure;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Agnew, J., P. Lung, and B. Lung. 2011. Design and commissioning of a pilot-scale solid state anaerobic digester for the Canadian prairies. The Canadian Society for Bioeng. CSBE 11-404.

2.
Ahn, H.K., M.C. Smith, S.L. Kondrad, and J.W. White. 2010. Evaluation of biogas production potential by dry anaerobic digestion of Switchgrass-animal manure mixtures. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 160:965-975. crossref(new window)

3.
C.J., Sangeetha, Bala Murali Krishna, C., M.G.D.M. Cox, and T.C.A. De Haas. 2012. A study on flexi mobile digester using cow dung for energy production. Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Eng. ENVI18(1).

4.
Edelmann, W.E. 1986. Technical and social problems for the propagation of biogas in Rwanda. Biogas Technol. Transfer and Diffusion. 87-97.

5.
Kafle, G. K., and S. H. Kim. 2013. Anaerobic treatment of apple waste with swine manure for biogas production: Batch and continuous operation. Appl. Energy. 103:61-72. crossref(new window)

6.
Kang, H., and P. Weland. 1993. Ultimate anaerobic biodegradability of some agro-industrial residues. Bioresour. Technol. 43:107-111. crossref(new window)

7.
Korazbekova, K.U., and Zh.K. Bakhov. 2014. Performance of leach-bed reactor with immobilization of microorganisms in terms of methane production kinetics. J. Biol. Sci. 14(4): 258-266. crossref(new window)

8.
Kusch, S. 2013. Understanding and Managing the Start-up Phase in Dry Anaerobic Digestion. RCITD. 18(22):26-30.

9.
Moller, H.B., S.G. Sommer, and B.K. Ahring. 2004. Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fraction of manure. Biomass Bioenergy. 26:485-495. crossref(new window)

10.
Tritt, W.P. and H. Kang. 1991. Ultimate biodegradability and decay rates of cow paunch manure under anaerobic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 36:161-165. crossref(new window)

11.
Vo, C.N.N., H.T. Phan, and H.N. Vo. 2012. Review on the most popular anaerobic digester models in the Mekong Delta. J. Viet. Env. 2(1):8-19.

12.
Ward, A.J., P.J. Hobbs, P.J. Holliman, and D.L. Jones. 2008. Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour. Technol. 99:7928-7940. crossref(new window)