| Literature DB >> 26404248 |
Leandro Janke1,2, Athaydes Leite3, Marcell Nikolausz4, Thomas Schmidt5, Jan Liebetrau6, Michael Nelles7,8, Walter Stinner9.
Abstract
Biogas production from sugarcane waste has large potential for energy generation, however, to enable the optimization of the anaerobic digestion (Entities:
Keywords: degradation rates; methane potential; nutritional requirements; process designing; sugarcane waste
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26404248 PMCID: PMC4613226 DOI: 10.3390/ijms160920685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Main characteristics of the sugarcane waste.
| Parameters | Units | Vinasse | Filter Cake ( | Bagasse ( | Straw ( | Recommendation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomous ( | Annexed ( | ||||||||||||
| AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | [ | [ | ||
| TS a | % FM d | 1.15 | ±0.12 | 3.44 | ±1.11 | 28.9 | ±3.77 | 55.4 | ±4.19 | 76.7 | ±21.6 | - | - |
| VS b | % TS | 76.0 | ±6.99 | 70.6 | ±3.84 | 74.2 | ±10.8 | 96.0 | ±2.70 | 86.3 | ±11.9 | - | - |
| COD c | g·L−1 | 22.1 | ±0.46 | 32.4 | ±10.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| C | % TS | 37.0 | ±4.24 | 39.0 | ±8.61 | 42.7 | ±6.95 | 47.6 | ±2.69 | 43.4 | ±4.78 | C:N 20–40:1 | - |
| N | % TS | 2.94 | ±0.35 | 2.31 | ±0.35 | 1.76 | ±0.24 | 0.41 | ±0.04 | 0.52 | ±0.21 | - | |
| P | % TS | 0.16 | ±0.05 | 0.35 | ±0.12 | 0.60 | ±0.25 | 0.04 | ±0.02 | 0.06 | ±0.03 | C:N:P:S 600:15:5:3 | - |
| S | % TS | 0.87 | ±0.49 | 2.12 | ±0.27 | 0.18 | ±0.02 | 0.05 | ±0.03 | 0.21 | ±0.06 | - | |
| Ca | mg·L−1 | 77.4 | ±24.3 | 655 | ±211 | 4139 | ±1667 | 704 | ±215 | 2981 | ±1656 | - | 100–200 |
| Na | mg·L−1 | 16.4 | ±9.39 | 24.5 | ±9.58 | 7.75 | ±5.98 | 11.3 | ±8.83 | 37.1 | ±25.1 | - | 100–200 |
| K | mg·L−1 | 1306 | ±708 | 6021 | ±565 | 740 | ±280 | 1651 | ±1036 | 5002 | ±2344 | - | 200–400 |
| Mg | mg·L−1 | 173.6 | ±72.4 | 771 | ±177 | 971 | ±259 | 409 | ±173 | 1140 | ±404 | - | 75–150 |
a total solids; b volatile solids; c chemical oxygen demand; d fresh matter; n = number of repetitions (each sample was analyzed in triplicate); AV = average values; SD = standard deviation.
Trace elements content of the sugarcane waste.
| Parameters | Units | Vinasse | Filter Cake ( | Bagasse ( | Straw ( | Recommendation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomous ( | Annexed ( | ||||||||||||
| AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | [ | [ | ||
| Fe | mg·kgTS−1 | 200 | ±177 | 488 | ±142 | 27,267 | ±24,625 | 2012 | ±1530 | 14,949 | ±23,435 | 100–5000 | 750–5000 |
| Ni | mg·kgTS−1 | 0.49 | ±0.03 | 2.30 | ±0.92 | 14.3 | ±5.81 | 4.04 | ±3.17 | 7.17 | ±5.22 | 5–20 | 4–30 |
| Co | mg·kgTS−1 | 0.55 | ±0.02 | 0.62 | ±0.46 | 3.36 | ±1.34 | 0.52 | ±0.25 | 2.87 | ±3.73 | <1–5 | 0.4–10 |
| Mo | mg·kgTS−1 | 0.48 | ±0.01 | 0.84 | ±0.20 | 1.03 | ±0.74 | 0.58 | ±0.37 | 0.71 | ±0.25 | <1–5 | 0.05–16 |
| W | mg·kgTS−1 | Nd | - | 0.08 | ±0.04 | 0.29 | ±0.50 | 0.19 | ±0.05 | 0.24 | ±0.05 | <1 | 0.1–30 |
| Mn | mg·kgTS−1 | 59.6 | ±5.94 | 194 | ±49.2 | 566 | ±188 | 43.4 | ±11.1 | 177 | ±85.1 | - | 100–1500 |
| Cu | mg·kgTS−1 | 3.62 | ±0.14 | 7.96 | ±4.03 | 43.8 | ±4.04 | 4.82 | ±1.93 | 10.7 | ±12.7 | - | 10–80 |
| Se | mg·kgTS−1 | Nd | - | 0.08 | ±0.06 | 0.01 | ±0.02 | 0.83 | ±0.12 | 0.19 | ±0.24 | - | 0.05–4 |
| Zn | mg·kgTS−1 | 36.8 | ±10.5 | 32.6 | ±4.45 | 132 | ±7.21 | 17.2 | ±10.1 | 10.1 | ±14.9 | - | 30–400 |
Nutritional values of the sugarcane waste.
| Parameters | Units | Vinasse | Filter Cake ( | Bagasse ( | Straw ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autonomous ( | Annexed ( | |||||||||||
| AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | AV | SD | |||
| Raw protein | - | g·kgTS−1 | 137 | ±5.17 | 159 | ±11.5 | 124 | ±12.8 | 17.9 | ±3.89 | 27.7 | ±8.36 |
| Raw fat | - | g·kgTS−1 | 0.72 | ±0.85 | 0.12 | ±0.10 | 39.5 | ±5.11 | 7.20 | ±3.27 | 9.18 | ±1.55 |
| Carbohydrate | NFC a | g·kgTS−1 | 372 | ±44.7 | 263 | ±69.9 | 118 | ±136 | 181 | ±216 | 107 | ±41.2 |
| Cellulose | g·kgTS−1 | 34.9 | ±11.7 | 60.9 | ±13.8 | 126 | ±19.2 | 357 | ±96.1 | 311 | ±88.1 | |
| Hemi-cellulose | g·kgTS−1 | 101 | ±27.5 | 243 | ±176 | 164 | ±16.3 | 233 | ±93.1 | 227 | ±14.5 | |
| Lignin | - | g·kgTS−1 | 56.5 | ±15.5 | 34.3 | ±3.03 | 116 | ±27.1 | 124 | ±38.2 | 162 | ±26.2 |
| Raw ash | - | g·kgTS−1 | 296 | ±82.0 | 238 | ±101 | 309 | ±125 | 78.3 | ±10.1 | 154 | ±120 |
| TKN b | - | g·kgTS−1 | 22.2 | ±0.78 | 49.6 | ±32.1 | 20.0 | ±2.09 | 2.90 | ±0.65 | 4.48 | ±1.36 |
a non-fiber carbohydrates; b Total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Figure 1Cumulative methane yield of the sugarcane waste during 35 days of BMP assays. (A) vinasse from autonomous (V-1) and annexed plants (V-2 and V-3); (B) filter cake (FC-1, FC-2 and FC-3); (C) bagasse (B-1 and B-2); (D) straw (S-1 and S-2), and S-2 ground to 2 mm.
Biochemical methane potential of the sugarcane waste after 35 days of assay.
| Substrates | Samples | Methane Yield * [NmL·gVS−1or NmL·gCOD−1] | Methane Yield [Nm3·tonFM−1] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Straw | S-1 | 234 ± 03 | 101 ± 01 | 0.091 |
| S-2 | 199 ± 23 | 126 ± 15 | 0.075 | |
| S-2 (2mm) | 252 ± 02 | 160 ± 01 | 0.102 | |
| Bagasse | B-1 | 326 ± 04 | 181 ± 02 | 0.119 |
| B-2 | 236 ± 05 | 119 ± 02 | 0.124 | |
| Filter cake | FC-1 | 281 ± 04 | 58 ± 01 | 0.159 |
| FC-2 | 245 ± 01 | 50 ± 01 | 0.178 | |
| FC-3 | 254 ± 08 | 54 ± 02 | 0.091 | |
| Vinasse | V-1 | 246 ± 15 | 05 ± 01 | 0.413 |
| V-2 | 302 ± 06 | 08 ± 01 | 0.209 | |
| V-3 | 273 ± 02 | 11 ± 01 | 0.107 |
* Methane yield of vinasse is given in NmL·gCOD−1.
Simulation of the hypothetical substrates conversion using CSTR system.
| HRT (Days) | Vinasse | Filter Cake | Bagasse | Straw | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V-1 | V-2 | V-3 | FC-1 | FC-2 | FC-3 | B-1 | B-2 | S-1 | S-2 | S-2 (2 mm) | |
| 5 | 0.67 | 0.51 | 0.35 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.34 |
| 10 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.48 | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.50 | |
| 15 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.60 |
| 20 | 0.89 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.67 | |
| 25 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 0.69 | 0.65 | 0.72 | ||
| 30 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.69 | 0.75 |
| 35 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.76 | 0.78 | 0.72 | 0.78 | ||
| 40 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.75 | ||
| 45 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.85 | 0.77 | 0.82 | ||
| 50 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.84 |
| 55 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.85 | |
| 60 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.86 |
| 65 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 0.87 |
| 70 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.86 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.88 |
HRT = hydraulic retention time; The results highlighted in bold correspond to approximately 80% of the substrate conversion at different HRT.
Figure 2Mass flows VS energy potential of the sugarcane waste. (A) The values liters or kilogram per ton of cane (L or kg·TC−1) refer to fresh matter according to data collected in two different sugarcane plants, except straw (dry matter) according to previous study [4]; (B) The values normal cubic meter of methane per ton of cane (Nm3·CH4·TC−1) were calculated based on the BMP results and data presented in Figure 2A.
Summary of the kinetic challenges for designing an anaerobic digestion process applied to the sugarcane industry.
| Aspects | Vinasse | Filter cake | Bagasse | Straw |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reactor type | Biomass immobilization system (e.g., UASB) | CSTR or combination with biomass immobilization system | CSTR with high HRT (>35 days) | CSTR with high HRT (>40 days) |
| Pre-treatment | Not necessary | Recommended | Highly recommended | Highly recommended |
| Macronutrients | Phosphorous addition to balance C:P ratio at autonomous plant | Sulfur addition to balance C:S ratio | Nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus addition to balance C:N:P:S ratio | Nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus addition to balance C:N:P:S ratio |
| Trace elements | Lack of Fe, Ni, Co, Mo, W, Mn, Cu, Se, and Zn | Lack of Mo, W, and Se | Lack of Fe, Ni, Co, Mo, W, Mn, Cu, Se, and Zn | Lack of Fe, Ni, Co, Mo, W, Mn, Cu, Se, and Zn |
| Major challenge | High sulfur content, especially at annexed plants | Storage in case of use during sugarcane offseason | Low biomass availability; High lignin content; | Substrate logistic; High lignin content |
Figure 3Energy potential of the vinasse and filter cake calculated for a hypothetical sugarcane plant. (A) Energy potential according to an autonomous sugarcane plant; (B) Energy potential according to an annexed sugarcane plant. Residual energy (highlighted by the dotted lines) is the difference in daily methane production between the potential energy of vinasse and filter cake.