| Literature DB >> 25557826 |
T T T Cu1, T X Nguyen1, J M Triolo1, L Pedersen1, V D Le1, P D Le2, S G Sommer1.
Abstract
Anaerobic digestion is an efficient and renewable energy technology that can produce biogas from a variety of biomasses such as animal manure, food waste and plant residues. In developing countries this technology is widely used for the production of biogas using local biomasses, but there is little information about the value of these biomasses for energy production. This study was therefore carried out with the objective of estimating the biogas production potential of typical Vietnamese biomasses such as animal manure, slaughterhouse waste and plant residues, and developing a model that relates methane (CH4) production to the chemical characteristics of the biomass. The biochemical methane potential (BMP) and biomass characteristics were measured. Results showed that piglet manure produced the highest CH4 yield of 443 normal litter (NL) CH4 kg(-1) volatile solids (VS) compared to 222 from cows, 177 from sows, 172 from rabbits, 169 from goats and 153 from buffaloes. Methane production from duckweed (Spirodela polyrrhiza) was higher than from lawn grass and water spinach at 340, 220, and 110.6 NL CH4 kg(-1) VS, respectively. The BMP experiment also demonstrated that the CH4 production was inhibited with chicken manure, slaughterhouse waste, cassava residue and shoe-making waste. Statistical analysis showed that lipid and lignin are the most significant predictors of BMP. The model was developed from knowledge that the BMP was related to biomass content of lipid, lignin and protein from manure and plant residues as a percentage of VS with coefficient of determination (R-square) at 0.95. This model was applied to calculate the CH4 yield for a household with 17 fattening pigs in the highlands and lowlands of northern Vietnam.Entities:
Keywords: Biochemical Methane Potential; Biogas; Inhibition; Manures; Organic Wastes; Vietnam
Year: 2015 PMID: 25557826 PMCID: PMC4283175 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.14.0312
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Feed composition for animals in the study
| Animal manure | Feed characteristics |
|---|---|
| Sheep and goat | Guinea grass and elephant grass+concentrate feed (protein 14%, fiber10%) |
| Rabbit | Guinea grass and water spinach+concentrate feed (protein 16%, fiber 16%) |
| Cow and buffalo | Natural grazing on pastures |
| Chicken | Feed concentrate with protein 17% |
| Piglet | Feed concentrate with protein 15%, fiber 10% |
| Sow | Water spinach, banana tree+feed concentrate (protein 14.7%, fiber 11%) |
| Dairy cow | Guinea and elephant grass+feed concentrate (protein 14%, fiber 10%) |
Chemical composition of biomass in this study
| Substrate groups | Substrates | N = 3 | DM (% in fresh ) | VS | Protein | Lipid | Hemicellulose | Cellulose | Lignin | CH4 (NL kg−1 VS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal manure group | Piglet | Average SD | 19.40 (0.70) | 82.88 (0.18) | 24.73 (0.79) | 7.89 (0.40) | 17.88 (1.11) | 10.47 (0.62) | 6.88 (0.64) | 443.55 (13.68) |
| Sow | Average SD | 37.20 (1.11) | 75.83 (0.19) | 14.86 (0.59) | 2.10 (0.12) | 15.52 (0.46) | 12.86 (0.66) | 16.19 (0.34) | 177.73 (9.32) | |
| Cow | Average SD | 10.94 (0.94) | 73.01 (0.91) | 7.55 (0.41) | 3.63 (0.39) | 23.26 (0.76) | 17.51 (0.47) | 10.41 (0.90) | 222.08 (1.11) | |
| Buffalo | Average SD | 18.16 (0.16) | 64.42 (0.40) | 8.79 (0.34) | 2.16 (0.12) | 21.54 (0.57) | 19.84 (0.29) | 16.24 (0.47) | 153.01 (16.64) | |
| Rabbit | Average SD | 32.66 (0.49) | 39.49 (0.46) | 8.83 (0.27) | 2.08 (0.13) | 19.15 (0.36) | 15.93 (0.57) | 14.48 (0.47) | 172.84 (14.36) | |
| Sheep | Average SD | 25.39 (0.59) | 58.42 (0.39) | 10.18 (0.28) | 1.26 (0.07) | 26.12 (0.40) | 16.67 (0.54) | 15.21 (0.46) | 150.55 (14.19) | |
| Goat | Average SD | 35.26 (0.87) | 57.01 (0.03) | 10.18 (0.33) | 2.45 (0.08) | 19.51 (0.64) | 13.33 (0.40) | 14.58 (0.31) | 169.86 (9.68) | |
| Chicken | Average SD | 37.89 (0.33) | 66.70 (1.01) | 18.38 (0.38) | 2.35 (0.11) | 19.87 (0.63) | 11.09 (0.25) | 5.17 (0.18) | 173.18 (26.83) | |
| Dairy cow | Average SD | 15.98 (0.19) | 78.98 (0.06) | 12.09 (0.15) | 2.34 (0.10) | 27.56 (0.40) | 19.60 (0.73) | 11.03 (0.44) | 157.42 (7.84) | |
| Slaughter waste | Cattle | Average SD | 16.97 (1.16) | 82.56 (0.39) | 12.45 (0.65) | 5.04 (0.10) | 31.11 (0.99) | 20.39 (0.61) | 9.64 (0.51) | 326.60 (14.99) |
| Pig | Average SD | 16.20 (0.90) | 91.70 (0.12) | 17.49 (0.50) | 14.38 (0.43) | 14.18 (0.72) | 8.97 (0.25) | 7.95 (0.06) | 217.45 (3.10) | |
| Fish | Average SD | 60.00 (0.00) | 97.47 (0.40) | 15.00 (0.00) | 86.01 (0.00) | 0.52 (0.00) | 0.25 (0.00) | 1.08 (0.00) | 142.23 (27.32) | |
| Other waste | Household | Average SD | 21.81 (6.43) | 98.63 (0.08) | 11.18 (1.98) | 2.42 (1.27) | 54.21 (5.95) | 26.11 (2.74) | 5.01 (1.93) | 51.40 (9.86) |
| Shoe water | Average SD | 2.78 (0.01) | 31.94 (0.1) | 1.7 (0.02) | 2.2 (0.4) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.6 (0.7) | |
| Plant group | Water Spinach | Average SD | 7.13 (0.25) | 85.73 (0.25) | 28.45 (0.57) | 3.69 (0.22) | 27.25 (0.71) | 3.51 (0.38) | 21.36 (0.57) | 110.61 (13.16) |
| Duckweed | Average SD | 7.00 (0.56) | 72.02 (3.71) | 21.37 (0.74) | 3.79 (0.23) | 13.46 (0.59) | 8.79 (0.24) | 9.18 (0.24) | 340.67 (50.47) | |
| Grass | Average SD | 16.89 (0.44) | 88.03 (0.41) | 9.39 (0.35) | 1.52 (0.02) | 31.18 (0.20) | 27.87 (0.19) | 6.35 (0.06) | 220.53 (30.91) | |
| Cassava Residue | Average SD | 18.63 (0.40) | 98.07 (0.03) | 2.90 (0.20) | 0.80 (0.06) | 10.65 (0.45) | 8.87 (0.12) | 16.33 (0.59) | 33.46 (3.39) | |
| Inoculum | Average SD | 11.70 (0.02) | 58.72 (0.33) | 7.16 (0.04) | 0.82 (0.03) | 12.67 (0.15) | 15.74 (0.26) | 19.63 (0.07) | 51.17 (0.64) |
DM, dry matter; NL, normal litter; VS, volatile solid; SD, standard deviation.
% in DM.
Figure 1Summary of methane production potential from the BMP test of substrates. Error bars indicate the standard deviation for each substrate. BMP, biochemical methane potential.
Figure 2Cumulative methane production of each sample measured. (a) Cumulative methane production curves from the slaughter waste group; (b) cumulative methane production curves from the animal manure group; (c) cumulative methane production curves from the plant group. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Equation to predict BMP for animal manures and plant residues
| Substrates | Variables | Equations for BMP | R2 | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manure group | Lipid | 57.9+35×lipid | 67.9 | <0.005 |
| Lipid, lignin | 186+30.6×lipid−5.13×lignin | 95.8 | <0.001 | |
| Lipid, lignin, DM | 167+30.1×lipid−5.43×lignin+1.15×DM | 96.6 | <0.001 | |
| Lipid, lignin, cellulose | 201+31.5×lipid−3.85×lignin−1.88×cellulose | 96.6 | <0.001 | |
| Combined manure and plant group | Lipid | 78.4+33.4×lipid | 59.9 | <0.005 |
| Lipid, lignin | 198+31.2×lipid−5.51×lignin | 94.3 | <0.001 | |
| Lipid, lignin, protein | 192+26.1×lipid−5.97×lignin+1.88×protein | 95.5 | <0.001 |
BMP, biochemical methane potential; DM, dry matter; VS, volatile solid; NL, normal litter.
Lipid, lignin, protein, cellulose: % in VS.
NL CH4 (kg VS−1).
Figure 3Scatter diagram showing regression of predicted vs measured BMP from the combined model with a correlation coefficient of 95.5% (The 13 samples that didn’t inhibit the gas production were used in the comparison). BMP, biochemical methane potential.
Figure 4CH4 yield for a digester with 17 fattening pigs, 38.3 days HRT in lowland and highland area (NLCH4 per digester per month). HRT, hydraulic retention time; NL, normal litter.