| Literature DB >> 28066511 |
Robert Gumisiriza1, Joseph Funa Hawumba1, Mackay Okure2, Oliver Hensel3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uganda's banana industry is heavily impeded by the lack of cheap, reliable and sustainable energy mainly needed for processing of banana fruit into pulp and subsequent drying into chips before milling into banana flour that has several uses in the bakery industry, among others. Uganda has one of the lowest electricity access levels, estimated at only 2-3% in rural areas where most of the banana growing is located. In addition, most banana farmers have limited financial capacity to access modern solar energy technologies that can generate sufficient energy for industrial processing. Besides energy scarcity and unreliability, banana production, marketing and industrial processing generate large quantities of organic wastes that are disposed of majorly by unregulated dumping in places such as swamps, thereby forming huge putrefying biomass that emit green house gases (methane and carbon dioxide). On the other hand, the energy content of banana waste, if harnessed through appropriate waste-to-energy technologies, would not only solve the energy requirement for processing of banana pulp, but would also offer an additional benefit of avoiding fossil fuels through the use of renewable energy. MAIN BODY: The potential waste-to-energy technologies that can be used in valorisation of banana waste can be grouped into three: Thermal (Direct combustion and Incineration), Thermo-chemical (Torrefaction, Plasma treatment, Gasification and Pyrolysis) and Biochemical (Composting, Ethanol fermentation and Anaerobic Digestion). However, due to high moisture content of banana waste, direct application of either thermal or thermo-chemical waste-to-energy technologies is challenging. Although, supercritical water gasification does not require drying of feedstock beforehand and can be a promising thermo-chemical technology for gasification of wet biomass such as banana waste, it is an expensive technology that may not be adopted by banana farmers in Uganda. Biochemical conversion technologies are reported to be more eco-friendly and appropriate for waste biomass with high moisture content such as banana waste.Entities:
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Banana waste; Bioenergy; Biofuels; Biomass energy; Biomass valorisation; Waste-to-energy technologies
Year: 2017 PMID: 28066511 PMCID: PMC5210281 DOI: 10.1186/s13068-016-0689-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biofuels ISSN: 1754-6834 Impact factor: 6.040
Fig. 1A scheme of green processing technologies for waste valorisation [13]
Fig. 2Algorithm for convenient WtE technology selection [156]
Fig. 3Potential WtE technologies for valorisation of banana waste [30]
Fig. 4Key reaction steps and products from biomass combustion
Fig. 5The temperature overlapping of thermo-chemical conversion technologies
Fig. 6Sequential product generation during pyrolysis and gasification
Thermo-conversion processes and products
(Adapted from Bridgwater [32])
Fig. 7Major reactions of pyrolysis and gasification conversion technologies
Fig. 8A flow scheme of an integrated torrefaction process based on [19]
Advantages and disadvantages of different WtE technologies [90]
| Technology | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Anaerobic digestion | Energy recovery with the production of high grade soil conditioner | Unsuitable for wastes containing less organic matter |
| No power requirement for sieving and turning of waste pile | Requires waste segregation for improving digestion efficiency | |
| Enclosed system enables trapping the gas produced for use | ||
| Controls GHG emissions | ||
| Free from bad odour, rodent and fly menace, visible pollution and social resistance | ||
| Compact design needs less land area | ||
| Net positive environmental gains | ||
| Can be done in small scale | ||
| Landfill with gas recovery | Least cost option | Surface runoff during rainfall causes pollution |
| Gas produced can be utilised for power generation or direct thermal application | Soil and groundwater may get polluted by the leachate | |
| Skilled personnel not required | Yields only 30–40% of the total gas generated | |
| Natural resources are returned to the soil and recycled | Large land area required | |
| Can convert marshy lands to useful areas | Significant transportation costs | |
| Cost of pre-treatment to upgrade the gas to pipeline quality and leachate treatment may be significant | ||
| Spontaneous explosion due to methane gas buildup | ||
| Incineration | Most suitable for high calorific value waste | Least suited for aqueous, high moisture content, low calorific value and chlorinated waste |
| Units with high throughput and continuous feed can be set up | Toxic metal concentration in ash, particulate emissions, SOx, NOx, chlorinated compounds, ranging from HCL to dioxins | |
| Thermal energy for power generation or direct heating | High capital and O&M costs | |
| Relatively noiseless and odourless | Skilled personnel required | |
| Low lands are required | ||
| Can be located within city limits, reducing transportation costs | ||
| Hygienic | ||
| Pyrolysis/Gasification | Production of fuel gas/oil, which can be used for various purpose | Net energy recovery may suffer in waste with excessive moisture |
| Control of pollution superior as compared to incineration | High viscosity of pyrolysis oil may be problematic for its burning and transportation |
Fig. 9Heat generation during composting
Fig. 10Flow diagram of UNH heat recovery system [154]
Fig. 11Scheme of anaerobic biodegradation process of lignocellulosic substrate
Free energy values of key acetogenic and methanogenic reactions of anaerobic digestion
(Adapted from [42, 108])
| AD step | Reaction | ∆ |
|---|---|---|
| Acetogenesis | ||
| Propionate → Acetate |
| +76.1 |
| Butyrate → Acetate | CH3CH2CH2COO− + 2H2O → 2CH3COO− + H+ + 2H2 | +48.1 |
| Ethanol → Acetate | CH3CH2OH + H2O → CH3COO− + H+ + 2H2 | +9.6 |
| Lactate → Acetate |
| −4.2 |
| Formate → Acetate |
| −104.6 |
| Methanogenesis | ||
| Acetate → Methane |
| −31.0 |
| H2/CO2 → Methane | 4H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2H2O | −131.0 |
| Formate → Methane |
| −135.6 |
* Temperature 298 K, pH 7, 1 M for solutes and 1 atm for gases
Fig. 12The energetics and effects of hydrogen partial pressure on syntrophic degradation in anaerobic digestion
Adapted from [27]
Fig. 13Generalised scheme of major products from anaerobic digestion [163]
Some common pre-treatment methods for lignocellulosic biomass
(Adapted from [7, 91, 106, 160, 191])
| Pre-treatment method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Physical | ||
| Mechanical: Physical reduction in substrate particle size by grinding, milling, etc. | Reduced cellulose crystallinity and degree of polymerization | Usually negative energy balance |
| Increased surface area | ||
| Irradiation: Biomass undergoes high-energy radiation (i.e. γ-ray, ultrasound, electron beam, pulsed electrical field, UV, microwave heating) | Results in one or more changes to biomass | Slow |
| Increased surface area | Energy intensive | |
| Reduced cellulose crystallinity and polymerization | Prohibitively expensive | |
| Partial depolymerization of lignin | ||
| Steam explosion: Substrate particles rapidly heated by high-pressure saturated stream. Explosive decompression caused by quick release of pressure acids released aid in hemicellulose hydrolysis | Causes hemicellulose solubilization and lignin transformation | Destruction of a portion of the xylan fraction |
| Cost-effective | Generation of toxin compounds | |
| Hydrothermal: Substrate is subject to high-temperature/high-pressure water | Hemicellulose solubilization | High water and energy demand |
| Partial delignification | ||
| Chemical | ||
| Alkaline: Addition of base causes swelling, increasing internal surface of cellulose which provokes lignin structure disruption (NaOH, KOH, Lime, Mg(OH)2, NH4OH) | Lignin solubilization | Relatively long residence times required |
| Reduced cellulose crystallinity and degree of polymerization | Irrecoverable salts formed and incorporated into biomass | |
| Increased surface area | ||
| Can be done at ambient temperature | ||
| Relatively inexpensive | ||
| Acid: Addition of dilute or concentrated acid solutions result in hemicellulose hydrolysis (H2SO4, HCl, HNO3, H3PO4) | Hemicellulose hydrolysis and converted to fermentable sugars | Relatively expensive |
| Alters lignin structure | Corrosive | |
| With high acid concentration can be done at room temp. | High operational and maintenance costs | |
| Some inhibitory compounds formed | ||
| Catalysed stream explosion: Similar to steam explosion with addition of acid catalyst (SO2, H2SO4, CO2, oxalic acid) | Hemicellulose solubilization | Some inhibitory compounds formed |
| Portion of xylan fraction lost | ||
| Incomplete disruption of lignin-carbohydrate matrix | ||
| Ammonia fibre explosion (AFEX): Substrate is exposed to hot liquid ammonia under high pressure. Pressure is released suddenly breaking open biomass structure | Delignification | Hemicellulose not significantly removed |
| Increases surface area | Very high-pressure requirements | |
| Reduced cellulose crystallinity | Expensive | |
| Low formation of inhibitors | ||
| Wet oxidation: Dissolved oxygen oxidises substrate | Efficient removal of lignin | High cost of oxygen and alkaline catalyst |
| Low formation of inhibitors | High temps and pressures | |
| Exothermic | ||
| Organo-solvent extraction: Organic solvents are applied, with or without addition of an acid or alkali catalyst to degrade internal lignin and hemicelluloses bonds | Delignification | Solvent removal is necessary |
| Some hemicellulose solubilization | Relatively expensive | |
| Recovery of relatively pure lignin as by-product | ||
| Biological | ||
| Fungi and actinomycetes: Microorganisms degrade/alter biomass structure (white-, brown-, soft-rot fungi ) | Degrades lignin and hemicellulose | Low rate of hydrolysis |
| Low energy consumption | ||
Fig. 14Phase separation of anaerobic digestion system.
Adapted from [15]
Optimal environmental parameters for a stable anaerobic digestion
| Environment parameter | Stage of anaerobic digestion process | Optimal range | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Hydrolysis and acidogenesis (two-phrase anaerobic digestion) | 5.5–6.5 | [ |
| Methanogenesis (two-phase anaerobic digestion) | 6.5–8.5 | [ | |
| Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | 6.7–7.8 | [ | |
| (PH2) (Hydrogen Partial pressure) | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | 10−4–10−5 atm | [ |
| Alkalinity | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | 1200–2300 mg | [ |
| C:N ratio | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | 20–30 | [ |
| NH3-Nitrogen | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | 50–200 mg per litre | [ |
| Free NH3 | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | <150 mg per litre | [ |
| H2S | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | <200 mg per litre | [ |
| Heavy metals | Mixed reactor liquid (one-phase anaerobic digestion) | <10−4 M | [ |
Fig. 15Temperature ranges for anaerobic digestion; optima are 35 °C for mesophilic range and 55 °C for thermophilic range.
Adapted from [108]