Abstract
The study aims to evaluate two-stage anaerobic co-digestion of leachate and starch waste using anaerobic biofilm bioreactor to enhance methane production. The anaerobic digestion process was operated under the mesophilic condition at 35 ± 1 °C. Hydraulic retention time (HRT) applied to the acidogenesis and methanogenesis reactors were 5 and 25 days, respectively. The organic loading rate (OLR) used in the process of acidogenesis was 2.91 gram volatile solid /L.day, while methanogenesis was 0.58 gram volatile solid (VS) per liter per day. Results showed that two-stage process using biofilm was an effective method for operating anaerobic co-digestion of starch waste and landfill leachate in which the system produced higher methane yield at 125.11 mL methane (CH4) per gram volatile solid (VS) added (mL.CH4/g.VS.added) in comparison to the single-stage process (20.57 mL CH4/g.VS.added) and two-stage process (77.60 mL CH4/g.VS.added) without using biofilm. Two-stage process using biofilm also effectively reduced organic matters in the culture in which the system reached 61% BOD removal in comparison to the single-stage process and two-stage process without biofilm that only had 27.6 and 39.3% BOD removal, respectively. This study suggested that the two-stage process using biofilm would be the preferred technique for treating starch waste and landfill leachate.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
[1]
Chen, Y., Cheng, J. J., Creamer, K. S. (2008). Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresource technology, 99 (10), 4044–4064.
-
[2]
Yenigün, O., Demirel, B. (2013). Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: a review. Process Biochemistry, 48(5–6), 901–911.
-
[3]
Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Esposito, G., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P. N. (2014). Pretreatment methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Applied energy, 123, 143–156.
-
[4]
Koch, K., Helmreich, B., Drewes, J. E. (2015). Co-digestion of food waste in municipal wastewater treatment plants: effect of different mixtures on methane yield and hydrolysis rate constant. Applied Energy, 137, 250–255.
-
[5]
Khongkliang, P., Kongjan, P., Sompong, O. (2015). Hydrogen and methane production from starch processing wastewater by thermophilic two-stage anaerobic digestion. Energy Procedia, 79, 827–832.
-
[6]
Darwin , Cord-Ruwisch R., Charles W. (2018). Ethanol and lactic acid production from sugar and starch wastes by anaerobic acidification. Engineering in Life Sciences, 18, 635–642.
-
[7]
Xu, Z., Zhao, M., Miao, H., Huang, Z., Gao, S., Ruan, W. (2014). In situ volatile fatty acids influence biogas generation from kitchen wastes by anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology, 163, 186–192.
-
[8]
Wang, K., Yin, J., Shen, D., Li, N. (2014). Anaerobic digestion of food waste for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production with different types of inoculum: effect of pH. Bioresource Technology, 161, 395–401.
-
[9]
Yang, Yu, Meng Xu, Wall, J. D., Zhiqiang Hu. (2012). Nanosilver impact on methanogenesis and biogas production from municipal solid waste. Waste Management, 32, 5, 816–825.
-
[10]
Zhang, L., Lee, Y. W., Jahng, D. (2011). Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater: focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresource technology, 102(8), 5048–5059.
-
[11]
Demirel, B., Scherer, P. (2011). Trace element requirements of agricultural biogas digesters during biological conversion of renewable biomass to methane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(3), 992–998.
-
[12]
Bryant, M. P. (1979). Microbial methane production-theoretical aspects. Journal of Animal Science, 48, 193–201.
-
[13]
Scherer, P., Sahm, H. (1981). Effect of trace elements and vitamins on the growth of Methanosarcina barkeri. Acta Biotechnology 1, 57–65.
-
[14]
Schönheit, P., Moll, J., Thauer, R. K. (1979). Nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum requirement for growth of Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum. Archives of Microbiology, 123(1), 105–107.
-
[15]
Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S., Llabres, P. (2000) Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology, 74(1), 3–16.
-
[16]
Astals, S., Nolla-Ardèvol, V., Mata-Alvarez, J. (2012). Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: Biogas and digestate. Bioresource Technology, 110, 63–70.
-
[17]
Wang, X., Yang, G., Feng, Y., Ren, G., Han, X. (2012). Optimizing feeding composition and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresource technology, 120, 78–83.
-
[18]
Leung, C. C. J., Cheung, A. S. Y., Zhang, A. Y. Z., Lam, K. F., Lin, C. S. K. (2012). Utilisation of waste bread for fermentative succinic acid production. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 65, 10–15.
-
[19]
Cuetos, M. J., Gomez, X., Otero, M., Moran, A., 2008. Anaerobic digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory scale: influence of co-digestion withthe organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Biochem. Eng. J. 40, 99–106.
-
[20]
Park, S., Li, Y. (2012). Evaluation of methane production and macronutrient degradation in the anaerobic co-digestion of algae biomass residue and lipid waste. Bioresource Technology, 111, 42–48.
-
[21]
Xie, S., Wickham, R., Nghiem, L. D. (2017). Synergistic effect from anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic wastes. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 116, 191–197.
-
[22]
Pagés-Díaz, J., Pereda-Reyes, I., Taherzadeh, M. J., Sárvári-Horváth, I., Lundin, M. (2014). Anaerobic co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse wastes with agro-residues: synergistic and antagonistic interactions determined in batch digestion assays. Chemical Engineering Journal, 245, 89–98.
-
[23]
Zhang, W., Zhang, L., Li, A. (2015). Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with MSW incineration plant fresh leachate: process performance and synergistic effects. Chemical Engineering Journal, 259, 795–805.
-
[24]
Liao, X., Zhu, S., Zhong, D., Zhu, J., Liao, L. (2014). Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and landfill leachate in single-phase batch reactors. Waste Management, 34(11), 2278–2284.
-
[25]
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T. (2014). Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 383–392.
-
[26]
Maspolim, Y., Zhou, Y., Guo, C., Xiao, K., Ng, W. J. (2015). Comparison of single-stage and two-phase anaerobic sludge digestion systems–Performance and microbial community dynamics. Chemosphere, 140, 54–62.
-
[27]
Parawira, W., Read, J. S., Mattiasson, B., Björnsson, L. (2008). Energy production from agricultural residues: high methane yields in pilot-scale two-stage anaerobic digestion. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(1), 44–50.
-
[28]
Park, Y., Hong, F., Cheon, J., Hidaka, T., Tsuno, H. (2008). Comparison of thermophilic anaerobic digestion characteristics between single-phase and two-phase systems for kitchen garbage treatment. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 105(1), 48–54.
-
[29]
Salomoni, C., Caputo, A., Bonoli, M., Francioso, O., Rodriguez-Estrada, M. T., Palenzona, D. (2011). Enhanced methane production in a two-phase anaerobic digestion plant, after CO2 capture and addition to organic wastes. Bioresource Technology, 102(11), 6443–6448.
-
[30]
APHA, (2012) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.
-
[31]
Darwin , Cheng, J. J., Liu, Z., Gontuphil, J. (2016a). Anaerobic co-digestion of cocoa husk with digested swine manure: evaluation of biodegradation efficiency in methane productivity. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR Journal 18, 147–156.
-
[32]
Darwin, Fazil A., Ilham, M., Sarbaini Purwanto, S. (2017) Kinetics on anaerobic co-digestion of bagasse and digested cow manure with short hydraulic retention time. Research in Agricultural Engineering, 63(3), 121–127.
-
[33]
Darwin, Cheng J. J., Gontupil J. Liu, Z. M. (2016). Influence of total solid concentration for methane production of cocoa husk co-digested with digested swine manure. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management 17, 1, 71–90.
-
[34]
Khalid, A., Arshad, M., Anjum, M., Mahmood, T., Dawson, L. (2011). The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste management, 31(8), 1737–1744.
-
[35]
Kayhanian, M., Rich, D. (1995). Pilot-scale high solids thermophilic anaerobic Digestion of municipal solid waste with an emphasis on nutrientrequirements. Biomass Bioenergy 8, 433–444.
-
[36]
Sawayama, S., Tada, C., Tsukahara, K., Yagishita, T. (2004). Effect of ammonium addition on methanogenic community in a fluidized bed anaerobic digestion. J. Bioscience and Bioengineering 97, 65–70.
-
[37]
Hook, S. E., Steele, M. A., Northwood, K. S., Wright, A. D. G., McBride, B. W. (2011). Impact of high-concentrate feeding and low ruminal pH on methanogens and protozoa in the rumen of dairy cows. Microbial Ecology, 62(1), 94–105.
-
[38]
Van Kessel, J. A. S., Russell, J. B. (1996). The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 20(4), 205–210.
-
[39]
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Meng, L. (2009). Effects of volatile fatty acid concentrations on methane yield and methanogenic bacteria. Biomass and bioenergy, 33(5), 848–853.
-
[40]
Satyawali, Y., Balakrishnan, M. (2008). Wastewater treatment in molasses-based alcohol distilleries for COD and color removal: a review. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 481–497.
-
[41]
Angelidaki, I., Karakashev, D., Batstone, D. J., Plugge, C. M., Stams, A. J. (2011). Biomethanation and its potential. Methods in Enzymology, 494, 327–351.
-
[42]
Serna-Maza, A., Heaven, S., Banks, C. J. (2014). Ammonia removal in food waste anaerobic digestion using a side-stream stripping process. Bioresource Technology, 152, 307–315.
-
[43]
Basri, M. F., Yacob, S., Hassan, M. A., Shirai, Y., Wakisaka, M., Zakaria, M. R., Phang, L. Y. (2010). Improved biogas production from palm oil mill effluent by a scaled-down anaerobic treatment process. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 26(3), 505–514.
-
[44]
Lai, P., Zhao, H. Z., Zeng, M., Ni, J. R. (2009). Study on treatment of coking wastewater by biofilm reactors combined with zero-valent iron process. Journal of hazardous materials, 162(2–3), 1423–1429.
-
[45]
Wilkie, A. C (2005) Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: Design and process consideration. Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service, 176, 301–312.
-
[46]
Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Güiza, M. S., Fonoll, X., Peces, M., Astals, S. (2014). A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 36, 412–427.
-
[47]
Michaud, S., Bernet, N., Buffière, P., Roustan, M., Moletta, R. (2002). Methane yield as a monitoring parameter for the start-up of anaerobic fixed film reactors. Water Research, 36(5), 1385–1391.
-
[48]
Karadag, D., Köroğlu, O. E., Ozkaya, B., Cakmakci, M. (2015). A review on anaerobic biofilm reactors for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Process Biochemistry, 50(2), 262–271.
Prof. Felföldi, József
Institute: MATE - Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Institute of Food Science and Technology, Department of Measurements and Process Control
Address: 1118 Budapest Somlói út 14-16
E-mail: felfoldi.jozsef@uni-mate.hu
Indexing and Abstracting Services:
- SCOPUS
- CABI
| 2021 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
not indexed |
| Journal Impact Factor | not indexed |
| Rank by Impact Factor |
not indexed |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
not indexed |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
not indexed |
| Journal Citation Indicator | not indexed |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator |
not indexed |
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
8 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,141 |
| Scimago Quartile Score | Environmental Engineering (Q4) Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (Q4) Mechanical Engineering (Q4) |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
0,8 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 261/338 (Q4) Environmental Engineering 138/173 (Q4) Mechanical Engineering 495/601 (Q4) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,381 |
| 2020 | |
|---|---|
| Scimago H-index |
8 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,197 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Environmental Engineering Q4 Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Q3 Mechanical Engineering Q4 |
| Scopus Cite Score |
33/69=0,5 |
| Scopus Cite Score Rank |
Environmental Engineering 126/146 (Q4) Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 269/336 (Q3) Mechanical Engineering 512/596 (Q4) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,211 |
| Scopus Cites |
53 |
| Scopus Documents |
41 |
| Days from submission to acceptance | 122 |
| Days from acceptance to publication | 40 |
| Acceptance rate | 86% |
| 2019 | |
|---|---|
| Scimago H-index |
6 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,123 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Environmental Engineering Q4 Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering Q4 Mechanical Engineering Q4 |
| Scopus Cite Score |
18/33=0,5 |
| Scopus Cite Score Rank |
Environmental Engineering 108/132 (Q4) Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering 242/340 (Q3) Mechanical Engineering 481/585 (Q4) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,211 |
| Scopus Cites |
13 |
| Scopus Documents |
5 |
| Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences | |
|---|---|
| Publication Model | Hybrid |
| Submission Fee | none |
| Printed Color Illustrations | 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece |
| Article Processing Charge | 900 EUR/article |
| Regional discounts on country of the funding agency | World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100% |
| Further Discounts | Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100% |
| Subscription fee 2022 | Online subsscription: 148 EUR / 185 USD Print + online subscription: 172 EUR / 215 USD |
| Subscription fee 2023 | Online subsscription: 152 EUR / 185 USD Print + online subscription: 177 EUR / 215 USD |
| Subscription Information | Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content. |
| Purchase per Title | Individual articles can be purchased at the prices indicated. |
| Progress in Agricultural Engineering Sciences | |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Size | B5 |
| Year of Foundation |
2004 |
| Volumes per Year |
1 |
| Issues per Year |
1 |
| Founder | Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  |
| Founder's Address |
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 1786-335X (Print) |
| ISSN | 1787-0321 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2022 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2022 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2022 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2022 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2022 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| Aug 2022 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó
AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory