DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Substrate to Inoculum Ratio on the Biochemical Methane Potential of Piggery Slaughterhouse Wastes

  • Yoon, Young-Man (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University) ;
  • Kim, Seung-Hwan (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University) ;
  • Shin, Kook-Sik (Biogas Research Center, Hankyong National University) ;
  • Kim, Chang-Hyun (Department of Animal Life and Environment Science, Hankyong National University)
  • Received : 2013.08.29
  • Accepted : 2013.10.28
  • Published : 2014.04.01

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of substrate to inoculum ratio (S/I ratio) on the biochemical methane potential (BMP) and anaerobic biodegradability ($D_{deg}$) of different piggery slaughterhouse wastes, such as piggery blood, intestine residue, and digestive tract content. These wastes were sampled from a piggery slaughterhouse located in Kimje, South Korea. Cumulative methane production curves for the wastes were obtained from the anaerobic batch fermentation having different S/I ratios of 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. BMP and anaerobic biodegradabilities ($D_{deg}$) of the wastes were calculated from cumulative methane production data for the tested conditions. At the lowest S/I ration of 0.1, BMPs of piggery blood, intestine residue, and digestive tract content were determined to be 0.799, 0.848, and $1.076Nm^3kg^{-1}-VS_{added}$, respectively, which were above the theoretical methane potentials of 0.539, 0.644, and $0.517Nm^3kg^{-1}-VS_{added}$ for blood, intestine residue, and digestive tract content, respectively. However, BMPs obtained from the higher S/I ratios of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 were within the theoretical range for all three types of waste and were not significantly different for the different S/I ratios tested. Anaerobic biodegradabilities calculated from BMP data showed a similar tendency. These results imply that, for BMP assay in an anaerobic reactor, the S/I ratio of anaerobic reactor should be above 0.1 and the inoculum should be sufficiently stabilized to avoid further degradation during the assay.

Keywords

S/I Ratio;Biochemical Methane Potential;Piggery Slaughterhouse Waste;Anaerobic Digestion

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

References

  1. Angelidaki, I. and B. K. Ahring. 1992. Effects of free long-chain fatty acids on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37:808-812.
  2. Angelidaki, I., M. Alves, B. Bolzonella, L.Borzacconi, J. L. Campos, A. J. Guwy, S. Kalyuzhnyi, P. Jenicek, and J. B. van Lier. 2009. Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci. Technol. 59:927-934. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.040
  3. Angelidaki, I. and W. Sanders. 2004. Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of macropollutants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 3:117-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-004-2502-3
  4. APHA. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 20th Ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
  5. Beuvink, J. M., S. F. Spoelstra, and R. J. Hogendrop. 1992. An automated method of measuring the time course of gas production of feedstuffs incubated with buffered rumen fluid. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 40:401-407.
  6. Costa, J. C., S. G. Barbosa, M. M. Alves, and D. Z. Sousa. 2012. Thermochemical pre- and biological co-treatments to improve hydrolysis and methane production from poultry litter. Bioresour. Technol. 111:141-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.047
  7. Boyle, W. C. 1976. Energy recovery from sanitary landfills-a review. In: Microbial Energy Conversion (Ed. H. G. Schlegel and J. Barnea). Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK. pp. 119-138.
  8. Chen, Y., J. J. Cheng, and K. S. Creamer. 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 99:4044-4064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057
  9. Chynoweth, D. P., C. E. Turick, J. M. Owens, D. E. Jerger, and M. W. Peck. 1993. Biochemical methane potential of biomass and waste feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy. 5:95-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(93)90010-2
  10. Hansen, T. L., J. E. Schmidt, I. Angelidaki, E. Marca, J. C. Jansen, H. Mosbæk, and T. H. Christensen. 2004. Measurement of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Waste Manag. 24:393-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.009
  11. Hashimoto, A. G. 1989. Effect of inoculum/substrate ratio on methane yield and production rate from straw. Biol. Wastes 28:247-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7483(89)90108-0
  12. Kim, S. H., C.-H. Kim, and Y. M. Yoon. 2011. Bioenergy and methane production potential by life cycle assessment in swine waste biomass. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 44:1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.6.1245
  13. Lay, J. J., Y. Y. Li, and T. Noike. 1998. Mathematical model for methane production from landfill bioreactor. J. Environ. Eng. 124:730-736. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1998)124:8(730)
  14. Lin, J. G., Y. S. Ma, A. C. Chao, and C. L. Huang. 1999. BMP test on chemically pretreated sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 68:187-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00126-6
  15. Liu, C., B. Xiao, A. Dauta, G. Peng, S. Liu, and Z. Hu. 2009. Effect of low power ultrasonic radiation on anaerobic biodegradability of sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 100:6217-6222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.001
  16. Palatsi, J., J. Illa, F. X. Prenafeta-Boldu, M. Laureni, B. Fernandez, I. Angelidaki, and X. Flotats. 2010. Long-chain fatty acids inhibition and adaptation process in anaerobic thermophilic digestion: batch tests, microbial community structure and mathematical modelling. Bioresour. Technol. 101:2243-2251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.069
  17. Luste, S., S. Luostarinen, and M. Sillanpaa. 2009. Effect of pre-treatments on hydrolysis and methane production potentials of by-products from meat-processing industry. J. Hazard. Mater. 164:247-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.08.002
  18. Neves, L., R. Oliveira, and M. M. Alves. 2004. Influence of inoculums activity on the bio-methanization of a kitchen waste under different waste/inoculum ratios. Proc. Biochem. 39:2019-2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2003.10.002
  19. Owens, J. M. and D. P. Chynoweth. 1993. Biochemical methane potential of municipal solid-waste (MSW) components. Water Sci. Technol. 27:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1021/es00038a700
  20. Raposo, F., C. J. Banks, I. Siegert, S. Heaven, and R. Borja. 2006. Influence of inoculum to substrate ratio on the biochemical methane potential of maize in batch tests. Proc. Biochem. 41:1444-1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.01.012
  21. Raposo, F., R. Borja, B. Rincon, and A. M. Jimenez. 2008. Assessment of process control parameters in the biochemical methane potential of sunflower oil cake. Biomass Bioenergy 32:1235-1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.019
  22. Rodriguez-Abalde, A., B. Fernandez, G. Silvestre, and X. Flotats. 2011. Effects of thermal pre-treatments on solid slaughterhouse waste methane potential. Waste manag. 31:1488-1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.014
  23. Salminen, E., J. Einola and J. Rintala. 2003. The methane production of poultry slaughtering residues and effects of pre-treatments on the methane production of poultry feather. Environ. Technol. 24:1079-1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330309385648
  24. Williams, A., M. Amat-Marco, and M. D. Collins. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis of Butyrivibrio strains reveals three distinct groups of species within the Clostridium subphylm of gram-positive bacteria. Int. J. Syst. Bacterol. 46:195-199. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-46-1-195
  25. Vavilin, V. A., B. Fernandez, J. Palatsi, and X. Flotats. 2008. Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic material: an overview. Waste Manag. 28:939-951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.028
  26. VDI 4630. 2006. Fermentation of organic materials, characterisation of the substrates, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation test. VDI-Handbuch Energietechnik.
  27. Veeken, A. and B. Hamelers. 1999. Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rates of selected biowaste components. Bioresour. Technol. 69:249-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00188-6
  28. Zwietering, H. M., I. Jongenburger, F. M. Rombusts, and K. van't Riet. 1990. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56:1875-1881.

Cited by

  1. Effects of Substrate to Inoculum Ratio on Biochemical Methane Potential in Thermal Hydrolysate of Poultry Slaughterhouse Sludge vol.35, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5338/KJEA.2016.35.2.12
  2. Valorisation of the liquid fraction from hydrothermal carbonisation of sewage sludge by anaerobic digestion pp.02682575, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5375
  3. Struvite Precipitation as a Means of Recovering Nutrients and Mitigating Ammonia Toxicity in a Two-Stage Anaerobic Digester Treating Protein-Rich Feedstocks vol.21, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules21081011
  4. Analysis of the feasibility of fruit and vegetable wastes for methane yield using different substrate to inoculum ratios at Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan pp.1611-8227, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0799-1
  5. An Insight into the Anaerobic Co-digestion of Municipal Solid Waste and Food Waste: Influence of Co-substrate Mixture Ratio and Substrate to Inoculum Ratio on Biogas Production pp.1559-0291, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-018-2891-3
  6. Pilot-Scale Anaerobic Co-Digestion of the OFMSW: Improving Biogas Production and Startup vol.10, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061939
  7. Effect of increasing inoculum ratio on energy recovery from chicken manure for better use in Egyptian agricultural farms vol.5, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-018-0129-9
  8. Estimation of the characteristics with hydrothermal carbonisation temperature on poultry slaughterhouse wastes vol.36, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X18772085