Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2023, Vol. 10 Issue (3) : 424-436    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2023506
RESEARCH ARTICLE
ALKALINE PRETREATMENT AND AIR MIXING FOR IMPROVEMENT OF METHANE PRODUCTION FROM ANAEROBIC CO-DIGESTION OF POULTRY LITTER WITH WHEAT STRAW
Yuanhang ZHAN(), Jun ZHU, Yiting XIAO, Leland C. SCHRADER
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
 Download: PDF(4114 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

● Integration of alkaline pretreatment and air mixing for co-digestion was validated.

● Alkaline pretreatment enhanced hydrolysis of poultry litter and wheat straw.

● Cumulative methane yield was improved by 46.7% compared to the control.

● The cone model best fitted the methane yield kinetics with R 2 ≥ 0.9979.

● Total volatile solids removal was improved by 2.3 times in the digestate.

Alkaline pretreatment (AL) and air mixing (air) both have the potential to improve anaerobic co-digestion (Co-AD) of poultry litter with wheat straw for methane production. In this study, the effects of the combination of AL (pH 12 for 12 h) and air mixing (12 mL·d−1) on the Co-AD process were investigated. The substrate hydrolysis was enhanced by AL, with soluble chemical oxygen demand increased by 4.59 times and volatile fatty acids increased by 5.04 times. The cumulative methane yield in the group of Co-AD by AL integrated with air (Co-(AL + air)), being 287 mL·(g VSadded)−1, was improved by 46.7% compared to the control. The cone model was found the best in simulating the methane yield kinetics with R2 ≥ 0.9979 and root mean square prediction error (rMSPE) ≤ 3.50. Co-(AL + air) had a larger hydrolysis constant k (0.14 d−1) and a shorter lag phase λ (0.99 d) than the control (k = 0.12 d−1, λ = 2.06 d). The digestate improved the removal of total solids and total volatile solids by 2.0 and 2.3 times, respectively. AL facilitated substrate degradation, while air can enrich the microbial activity, together enhancing the methane generation. The results show that AL + air can be applied as an effective method to improve methane production from the Co-AD process.
Keywords sodium hydroxide      air injection      cumulative methane yield      kinetic modeling analysis      digestate     
Corresponding Author(s): Yuanhang ZHAN   
Just Accepted Date: 26 May 2023   Online First Date: 21 June 2023    Issue Date: 20 September 2023
 Cite this article:   
Yuanhang ZHAN,Jun ZHU,Yiting XIAO, et al. ALKALINE PRETREATMENT AND AIR MIXING FOR IMPROVEMENT OF METHANE PRODUCTION FROM ANAEROBIC CO-DIGESTION OF POULTRY LITTER WITH WHEAT STRAW[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2023, 10(3): 424-436.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2023506
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2023/V10/I3/424
Properties Poultry litter (%) Wheat straw (%) Inoculum sludge
TS 90.7 ± 0.0 96.7 ± 0.2 2.18% ± 0.01%
TVS 72.0 ± 0.3 92.6 ± 0.2 16.5 ± 0.5 g·L−1
TC 25.4 ± 1.3 45.0 ± 3.3 –
TN 3.37 ± 0.65 0.76 ± 0.03 205 ± 23 mg·L−1
pH – – 8.02
TAN – – 100 ± 5 mg·L−1
FAN – – 2.04 mg·L−1
Tab.1  Physiochemical properties of the substrate and the inoculum sludge
Model Equation Equation number Reference
First order P( t)=Ym× (1− e−kt) (2) [33]
Modified Gompertz P( t)=Ym× exp{ −e xp [ Rm× eYm(λ−t)+1]} (3) [34]
Cone P( t)=Ym1+(−kt)−n (4) [31]
Transfer P( t)=Ym× {1−e xp[−R m Ym(t− λ)]} (5) [32]
Chen and Hashimoto P( t)=Ym× (1− kCHH RT×μm+ kCH−1) (6) [32]
Tab.2  Summary of the kinetic models used to fit the cumulative methane yield from different reactors for the Co-AD of poultry litter and wheat straw
Fig.1  Changes in soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD, mg·L−1), volatile fatty acids (VFA, mg·L−1 HAc) in the substrate suspension of poultry litter and wheat straw by alkaline pretreatment (AL).
Fig.2  The variation of daily methane production (mL) (a), methane content (%) (b), and cumulative methane yield (mL·(g VSadded)−1) (c) in the experimental groups with the Co-AD of poultry litter and wheat straw.
Fig.3  Measured data of cumulative methane yield and the model fitting by the first kinetic model, the modified Gompertz model, and the cone model in experimental groups of control (a), Co-AL (b) and Co-(AL + air) (c); the transfer model, and the Chen and Hashimoto model for the experimental groups of control (d), Co-AL (e) and Co-(AL + air) (f) for Co-AD of poultry litter and wheat straw.
Model Kinetic parameters Groups
Co Co-AL Co-(AL+air)
Measured CMY (mL·(g VSadded)−1) 196 260 287
First-order model Ym (mL·(g VSadded)−1) 220 280 315
k (d−1) 0.082 0.10 0.09
R2 0.9590 0.9740 0.9792
rMSPE 12.5 12.2 12.3
AIC 183 182 182
BIC 184 182 183
Dif (%) 12.5 7.94 9.64
Modified Gompertz model Ym (mL·(g VSadded)−1) 196 260 286
Rm (mL·(g VSadded)−1·d−1) 16.6 21.9 21.5
λ (d) 2.06 1.05 0.99
R2 0.9987 0.9977 0.9956
rMSPE 2.25 3.65 5.66
AIC 66.1 100 131
BIC 67.5 101 132
Dif (%) –0.13* 0.16 –0.46*
Cone model Ym (mL·(g VSadded)−1) 204 275 308
k (d−1) 0.124 0.14 0.13
n 2.44 2.08 1.95
R2 0.9994 0.9979 0.9990
rMSPE 1.54 3.50 2.64
AIC 39.5 97.0 77.3
BIC 40.8 98.3 78.7
Dif (%) 4.39 5.89 7.32
Transfer model Ym (mL·(g VSadded)−1) 207 270 300
λ (d) 1.82 1.39 1.44
Rm (mL·(g VSadded)−1·d−1) 23.7 35.1 34.1
R2 0.9873 0.9941 0.9966
rMSPE 6.95 5.83 4.93
AIC 145 133 121
BIC 146 134 122
Dif (%) 5.90 3.99 4.53
Chen and Hashimoto model Ym (mL·(g VSadded)−1) 272 339 386
kCH 5.58 5.35 6.15
μm (d−1) 0.57 0.70 0.67
R2 0.9723 0.9794 0.9874
rMSPE 10.3 10.9 9.55
AIC 172 177 167
BIC 174 178 169
Dif (%) 38.8 30.6 34.5
Tab.3  Kinetic parameters of the first-order kinetic model, the modified Gompertz model, the cone model, the transfer model and the Chen and Hashimoto model for the Co-AD process in different experimental groups
Reactors digestate groups Control Co-AL Co-(AL + air)
pH 8.01 ± 0.02b 8.27 ± 0.03a 8.32 ± 0.01a
TS (%) 1.71 ± 0.03a 1.20 ± 0.01b 1.10 ± 0.02c
TVS (g·L−1) 14.1 ± 0.4a 7.59 ± 0.11b 7.00 ± 0.14c
sCOD (mg·L−1) 623 ± 52a 520 ± 28b 483 ± 32b
VFA (mg·L−1 HAc) 83.3 ± 4.1a 63.0 ± 0.8b 55.1 ± 1.7c
TAN (mg·L−1) 311 ± 10a 334 ± 6a 323 ± 7a
FAN (mg·L−1) 6.1 ± 0.1b 11.9 ± 0.5a 12.8 ± 0.1a
TA (mg·L−1 CaCO3) 375 ± 15c 1003 ± 42b 1106 ± 21a
VFA/TA (g HAc equivalent to g CaCO3 equivalent) 0.22 ± 0.00a 0.06 ± 0.00b 0.05 ± 0.00b
Tab.4  Parameters of the reactor digestate after the Co-AD process
Fig.4  Removal rates (%) of total solids (TS) and total volatile solids (TVS) in the digestate by the Co-AD process.
1 States Department of Agriculture (USDA) United . Poultry—Production and Value 2021 Summary. USDA, 2022
2 M D, Manogaran R, Shamsuddin Yusoff M H, Mohd M C, Lay A A Siyal . A review on treatment processes of chicken manure. Cleaner and Circular Bioeconomy, 2022, 2: 100013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcb.2022.100013
3 J, Lee D, Choi Y S, Ok S R, Lee E E Kwon . Enhancement of energy recovery from chicken manure by pyrolysis in carbon dioxide. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 164: 146–152
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.217
4 P, Abdeshahian J S, Lim W S, Ho H, Hashim C T Lee . Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, 60: 714–723
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.117
5 M, Khalil M A, Berawi R, Heryanto A Rizalie . Waste to energy technology: the potential of sustainable biogas production from animal waste in Indonesia. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2019, 105: 323–331
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.011
6 H, Nie H F, Jacobi K, Strach C, Xu H, Zhou J Liebetrau . Mono-fermentation of chicken manure: ammonia inhibition and recirculation of the digestate. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 178: 238–246
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.029
7 A G O, Paranhos O F H, Adarme G F, Barreto S Q, Silva S F Aquino . Methane production by co-digestion of poultry manure and lignocellulosic biomass: kinetic and energy assessment. Bioresource Technology, 2020, 300: 122588
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122588
8 F R, Amin H, Khalid H, Zhang S U, Rahman R, Zhang G, Liu C Chen . Pretreatment methods of lignocellulosic biomass for anaerobic digestion. AMB Express, 2017, 7(1): 72
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-017-0375-4
9 G A, Ogunwande J A, Osunade K O, Adekalu L A O Ogunjimi . Nitrogen loss in chicken litter compost as affected by carbon to nitrogen ratio and turning frequency. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(16): 7495–7503
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.02.020
10 J, Shen J Zhu . Methane production in an upflow anaerobic biofilm digester from leachates derived from poultry litter at different organic loading rates and hydraulic retention times. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 2017, 5(5): 5124–5130
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.09.049
11 A O, Wagner T, Schwarzenauer P Illmer . Improvement of methane generation capacity by aerobic pre-treatment of organic waste with a cellulolytic Trichoderma viride culture. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013, 129: 357–360
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.030
12 S, Zhou Y, Zhang Y Dong . Pretreatment for biogas production by anaerobic fermentation of mixed corn stover and cow dung. Energy, 2012, 46(1): 644–648
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.017
13 M, Badiei N, Asim J M, Jahim K Sopian . Comparison of chemical pretreatment methods for cellulosic biomass. APCBEE Procedia, 2014, 9: 170–174
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2014.01.030
14 X, Liu Q, Fu Z, Liu T, Zeng M, Du D, He Q, Lu B J, Ni D Wang . Alkaline pre-fermentation for anaerobic digestion of polyacrylamide flocculated sludge: simultaneously enhancing methane production and polyacrylamide degradation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2021, 425: 131407
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.131407
15 X, Liu M, Du Q, Lu D, He K, Song Q, Yang A, Duan D Wang . How does chitosan affect methane production in anaerobic digestion. Environmental Science & Technology, 2021, 55(23): 15843–15852
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04693
16 H, Xu Y, Li D, Hua Y, Zhao L, Chen L, Zhou G Chen . Effect of microaerobic microbial pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of a lignocellulosic substrate under controlled pH conditions. Bioresource Technology, 2021, 328: 124852
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124852
17 R, Zhu Y, Zhang H, Zou R B, Guo S F Fu . The effects of micro-aeration on semi-continued anaerobic digestion of corn straw with increasing organic loading rates. Renewable Energy, 2022, 195: 1194–1201
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.06.106
18 D, Nguyen S K Khanal . A little breath of fresh air into an anaerobic system: how microaeration facilitates anaerobic digestion process?. Biotechnology Advances, 2018, 36(7): 1971–1983
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.08.007
19 Q, Chen W, Wu D, Qi Y, Ding Z Zhao . Review on microaeration-based anaerobic digestion: state of the art, challenges, and prospectives. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 710: 136388
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136388
20 Y, Zhan J, Zhu Y, Xiao L C, Schrader Wu S, Xiao Robinson N Jr, Aka Z Wang . Employing micro-aeration in anaerobic digestion of poultry litter and wheat straw: batch kinetics and continuous performance. Bioresource Technology, 2023, 368: 128351
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128351
21 Y, Zhan X, Cao Y, Xiao X, Wei S, Wu J Zhu . Start-up of co-digestion of poultry litter and wheat straw in anaerobic sequencing batch reactor by gradually increasing organic loading rate: methane production and microbial community analysis. Bioresource Technology, 2022, 354: 127232
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127232
22 X, Liu S M, Zicari G, Liu Y, Li R Zhang . Improving the bioenergy production from wheat straw with alkaline pretreatment. Biosystems Engineering, 2015, 140: 59–66
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.09.006
23 M, Solé-Bundó C, Eskicioglu M, Garfí H, Carrère I Ferrer . Anaerobic co-digestion of microalgal biomass and wheat straw with and without thermo-alkaline pretreatment. Bioresource Technology, 2017, 237: 89–98
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.151
24 S F, Fu F, Wang X S, Shi R B Guo . Impacts of microaeration on the anaerobic digestion of corn straw and the microbial community structure. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2016, 287: 523–528
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.11.070
25 J W, Lim J Y Wang . Enhanced hydrolysis and methane yield by applying microaeration pretreatment to the anaerobic co-digestion of brown water and food waste. Waste Management, 2013, 33(4): 813–819
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.11.013
26 A Apha . Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. Washington D.C.: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, 1998
27 K, Li R, Liu C Sun . Comparison of anaerobic digestion characteristics and kinetics of four livestock manures with different substrate concentrations. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 198: 133–140
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.151
28 Y, Zhang Z, Yang R, Xu Y, Xiang M, Jia J, Hu Y, Zheng W, Xiong J Cao . Enhanced mesophilic anaerobic digestion of waste sludge with the iron nanoparticles addition and kinetic analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 683: 124–133
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.214
29 G K, Kafle L Chen . Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Management, 2016, 48: 492–502
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021
30 Z, Zahan M Z, Othman T H Muster . Anaerobic digestion/co-digestion kinetic potentials of different agro-industrial wastes: a comparative batch study for C/N optimisation. Waste Management, 2018, 71: 663–674
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.014
31 H M El-Mashad . Kinetics of methane production from the codigestion of switchgrass and Spirulina platensis algae. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 132: 305–312
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.183
32 R, Karki W, Chuenchart K C, Surendra S, Sung L, Raskin S K Khanal . Anaerobic co-digestion of various organic wastes: kinetic modeling and synergistic impact evaluation. Bioresource Technology, 2022, 343: 126063
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126063
33 P, Llabrés-Luengo J Mata-Alvarez . Kinetic study of the anaerobic digestion of straw-pig manure mixtures. Biomass, 1987, 14(2): 129–142
https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-4565(87)90015-1
34 J J, Lay Y Y, Li T Noike . Interaction between homoacetogens and methanogens in lake sediments. Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, 1998, 86(5): 467–471
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0922-338X(98)80153-0
35 H, Motulsky A Christopoulos . Fitting models to biological data using linear and nonlinear regression: a practical guide to curve fitting. Oxford University Press, 2004
36 D D, Nguyen B H, Jeon J H, Jeung E R, Rene J R, Banu B, Ravindran C M, Vu H H, Ngo W, Guo S W Chang . Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of model organic wastes: evaluation of biomethane production and multiple kinetic models analysis. Bioresource Technology, 2019, 280: 269–276
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.033
37 L, Li C, Chen R, Zhang Y, He W, Wang G Liu . Pretreatment of corn stover for methane production with the combination of potassium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide. Energy & Fuels, 2015, 29(9): 5841–5846
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b01170
38 M, Zheng X, Li L, Li X, Yang Y He . Enhancing anaerobic biogasification of corn stover through wet state NaOH pretreatment. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(21): 5140–5145
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.05.045
39 B, Shamurad N, Gray E, Petropoulos S, Tabraiz E, Membere P Sallis . Predicting the effects of integrating mineral wastes in anaerobic digestion of OFMSW using first-order and Gompertz models from biomethane potential assays. Renewable Energy, 2020, 152: 308–319
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.067
40 G, Zhen X, Lu T, Kobayashi Y Y, Li K, Xu Y Zhao . Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and Egeria densa: performance assessment and kinetic analysis. Applied Energy, 2015, 148: 78–86
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.038
41 F, Tang J, Tian N, Zhu Y, Lin H, Zheng Z, Xu W Liu . Dry anaerobic digestion of ammoniated straw: performance and microbial characteristics. Bioresource Technology, 2022, 351: 126952
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2022.126952
42 S A, Neshat M, Mohammadi G D, Najafpour P Lahijani . Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures and lignocellulosic residues as a potent approach for sustainable biogas production. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017, 79: 308–322
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.137
43 F, Zhen X, Luo T, Xing Y, Sun X, Kong W Li . Performance evaluation and microbial community analysis of microaerobic pretreatment on thermophilic dry anaerobic digestion. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 2021, 167: 107873
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2020.107873
[1] Yiting XIAO, Yang TIAN, Yuanhang ZHAN, Jun ZHU. DEGRADATION OF ORGANIC POLLUTANTS IN FLOCCULATED LIQUID DIGESTATE USING PHOTOCATALYTIC TITANATE NANOFIBERS: MECHANISM AND RESPONSE SURFACE OPTIMIZATION[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2023, 10(3): 492-502.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed