Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Biogas Production from Anaerobic Co-digestion of Cow Manure, Residual Edible Oil with Two Qualities of Waste Activated Sludge

Altmetrics

Downloads

143

Views

32

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

21 May 2024

Posted:

23 May 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The quality of waste activated sludge produced in urban wastewater treatment systems varies according to the efficiency of the operation of treatment units along the content of microflora and organic carbon. However, these represent a biogas-energy alternative through anaerobic co-digestion, contributing to reducing the environmental impacts caused by their inadequate disposal. Biogas production by the Two-stage production method in batch digesters was evaluated by two qualities of waste activated sludge (SLB50 y SLB90) and with a mixture of two co-substrates: cattle manure (CEV50 y CEV90) and residual edible oil with mixing, pH and temperature control. Bacteria in good quality sludge (SLB90) showed a faster adaptation of 2 days than those in low quality (SLB50) with 25 days lag phase. The highest CH4 production was for SLB90 (303.99cm3 d-1) compared to SLB50 (4.33 cm3 d-1); while cow manure sludge mixture (CEV90) contributed to increasing production of CH4 (42 422.8 cm3 d-1) compared to CEV50 (12 881.45 cm3 CH4 d-1), while in residual edible oil mixture they were 767.32 cm3 d-1 and 211.42 cm3 d-1 for CAV90 y CAV50, respectively. The addition of sludge co-substrates improves the nutrient balance, C/N rate and micro flora diversity; consequently methane production improves too; this methodology could be integrated into concepts of Circular economy.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Environmental Science

1. Introduction

Rapid economic growth in numerous cities has led to a high dependence on fossil fuels and gas for energy production, causing a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions [1,2]. On the other hand, liquid bio-fuels (biodiesel y bio-ethanol) have been part of the strategies for reducing emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. Likewise, biogas is another alternative considered as a source of renewable energy that can be used for the production of energy and heat, as well as, fuel for vehicles or for synthesis of chemicals or materials [3] and thus contributes to reducing emission of greenhouse gases.
Biogas is commonly produced using one-stage fermentation techniques, consisting in fermentation process and biogas production occurring in a single reactor. In this process, bacteria degrade complex organic compounds under an acidic environment, subsequently collaborating with methane-producing bacteria requiring a neutral pH environment. This process causes complex organic compounds degradation into simple organic compounds during the acetogenic stage, with these simple organic compounds converting, in parallel, into biogas at the methanogenic stage. Negative effects can occur with (one-stage) biodigestores due to the increase of organic load causing acetogenic bacteria to work more actively than methanogenic bacteria; When this occurs, inhibitors such as volatile fatty acids and hydrogen appear, decreasing biogas production [4]. To solve this problem, studies have proposed the use of anaerobic biodigesters using a two-stage production system, meaning, the separation of the acidification phase (acetogenesis stage) and the biogas formation stage (metanogenesis stage). This method has proven versatile since a better biogas production performance can be achieved even with a mixture of substrates, with pH being the variable to control in each reactor in which acetogenic (pH 5) and methanogenic (pH 7) fermentation occurs.
It is a fact that large cities present great challenges such as environmental sustainability and the creation of strategies for the treatment of waste produced by anthropogenic activities [5]. Although, the combustion of fossil fuel as an energy source is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, untreated waste biomass also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to soil and water pollution [6]. The Agenda for Sustainable Development proposes energy as an important component and support of economic growth [7]; Therefore, the use of organic waste (food waste, domestic sewage and biological sludge) can contribute to energy production and consequently to environmental sustainability.
In this context, the topic of study is that biogas production can vary in quantity and quality, depending on the raw material source (organic substrate); Since the diverse substrates (cow manure, food waste, agro-industrial waste, waste activated sludge, among others) used for biogas production have different chemical compositions [8,9,10]. Some of the control parameters considered to improve biogas production are: Water content, pH, nitrogen content, organic carbon content and C/N ratio. Studies suggest a minimum humidity requirement in the range of 81.9 % - 97.25% to carry out fermentation and a C/N rate of the raw material or mixture with substrates within the range of 20-30; meaning a lower C/N rate would cause the accumulation of ammonium, becoming toxic to bacteria [11]. Likewise, the mixture content of total solids will determine the efficiency of the process; the optimal value for continuous digesters is estimated to be 8-12% of total solids, while in discontinuous digesters it can be between 40-60%.
A relevant raw material for the production of biogas that is available and abundant is waste activated sludge obtained from wastewater treatment systems. According to Lee et al. [12] in the U.S., Many wastewater treatment systems spend between 40-50% of their budget for the treatment and disposal of waste activated sludge (WAS) and approximately 62 % of these WAS are treated in landfills or incinerated [13]. WAS management costs have increased due to rapid population growth and strict environmental regulations. In México, the generation of municipal wastewater for the years 2014 and 2016, indicated that each Mexican generated an average of 60 m3/year (~164 l/d) [14]. Therefore, the national volume of wastewater increased to 228.9 m3/s, concluding that water treatment at the national level is insufficient. The National Water Commission of Mexico (CONAGUA) estimates that worldwide between 80-95% of wastewater is discharged directly into rivers, lakes and oceans without receiving prior treatment. As a consequence of this, residual sludge remaining from the municipal wastewater is produced with considerable concentrations of organic matter, microorganisms, and other non-biodegradable toxic compounds.
However, these sludges with high concentrations of biodegradable organic matter could be used as a substrate in anaerobic digestion [15]. However, studies have considered that with these biowastes that have been previously processed by a biological system, the production of biogas is significantly lower than that of other substrates [16]. For this reason, the nutrient balance can be improved through the co-digestion of sludge with other organic substrates. The objective of this work is to evaluate the production of biogas using biological sludge from wastewater treatment systems with low and high removal efficiency, with a mixture of two co-substrates (cow manure and edible residual oil) in complete mixing reactors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Substrate and Co-Substrate Preparation

The substrate used was residual biological sludge (SLB) obtained from two aerobic biological treatment plants from urban wastewater (PTAR) from Ciudad del Carmen and Campeche. This geographical location in the southeast of Mexico places the city within the Flora and Fauna Laguna de Terminos Protection area, an ecosystem that is a refuge for many species of flora and fauna and is threatened by oil companies, fisheries and urban development [17]. The treatment plants were selected according to the removal efficiency (50 and 90%) of the biochemical oxygen demand (DBO). Approximately 20 L of sludge (SLB) were collected from biological reactors and kept refrigerated at 4°C for at least 2 to 4 days until use and subsequent analysis.
To evaluate the effect of the characteristics of the two biological sludges on the biogas production, they were mixed with two Co-substrates: 1) cattle manure (CEV), collected (20 Kg) from the location's livestock region (18° 37’ 47.30’’ N, 91° 56’ 36.12’’ W) preserved at room temperature (20-25 °C) until later use and the co-substrate 2) residual edible oil (CAV) was collected (700 mL) from restaurants, previously filtered to eliminate the presence of solid particles in the oil (food waste) stored 4°C. The analysis of the composition of SLB and CEV consisted of previously centrifuging approximately 200 mL of biological sludge (SLB) and 20 g of bovine manure (CEV) at 2500 rpm for 15 minutes at 17° C. These samples were dried in an oven at 40±5 °C for 48 hours [18], later on they were ground and stored in airtight glass containers to avoid humidity in the samples. Both SLB and CEV samples were analyzed by determining pH using a Thermo Orion Star A211 instrument; while organic carbon (CO), organic matter (MO), total nitrogen (NT) and total phosphorus (PT) were analyzed according to the techniques described by the official Mexican standard [19]. Total solids (ST) and volatile solids (SV) were determined by standard gravimetric methods according to Mexican standard [20].

2.2. Experimental Design

The experimental design was proposed for a two-stage anaerobic fermentation by separating the acidification phase (hydrolysis/acetogenesis) and the biogas formation stage (methanogenesis). The biogas production process was carried out in batch mode in triplicate in reactors with 1.5 L operating volume consisting in adding the raw material (biological-sludge) to each reactor with mixture volume ratio (v/v) sludge: water (1:1). The treatments (Table 1) were in triplicate and consisted of the installation of a control reactor (SLB) containing only sludge-biological substrate, another two series of reactors in triplicate were installed with SLB plus the addition of used vegetable oil (CAV) and beef manure (CEV), respectively, with a proportion of 25% of total volume of the bioreactor, in such a way as to allow correct mixing within the biodigester (Table 1).
Prior to the acetogenesis and methanogenesis processes, the raw material was fermented for 15 days at pH 7.0 regulated by the addition of Na2CO3 (10%) buffer. Subsequently, the first stage (acetogenic process) consisted of adjusting the pH of approximately 5.3-5.7 by adding solution of H2SO4 at 20% to fermented effluent at room temperature (26°C), which promotes the conversion of organic matter into short-chain organic acids (acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid), which are intermediate products of the anaerobic degradation of organic matter and are essential for the next stage of the process.
After a period of 14 days, the fermented effluent was neutralized to pH 7.0-7.5 with sodium carbonate solution (Na2CO3 al 10%), stimulating the methanogenic stage (second stage), where organic acids produced in the first stage (hydrolysis-acidogenesis) are transformed into biogas, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, by methanogenic bacteria. During the two-stage co-digestion process, different microorganisms are involved and pH is an important variable because acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria are highly sensitive to changes in acidity or alkalinity of the medium [21]. Thus, the system was monitored with pH control and agitation (approximately120 rpm) to maintain the optimal conditions of each stage. For the bio-digestion process of the matter, some factors were considered (Table 2), which allowed maintaining the ideal conditions for the production of biogas.
The reactors used were type Batch Corning® brand polycarbonate with a total volume of 3000 ml (1500 ml operating volume) with magnetic stirring. For each reactor, a pH electrode was incorporated that allowed daily monitoring of the acidity or alkalinity of the fermented medium. Likewise, the reactor maintained a direct connection to the methane flow sensor using Gas Flow Meter (Cole-Parmer, serie: 32908-51) (Figure 1).

2.3. Statistical Analyses

For statistical comparisons, the methane production rate for the different mixtures of raw materials was analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Statistic software (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). The Tukey test (P ≤ 0.05) was applied when results showed significant differences.

3. Results

Effect of Sewage Sludge and Co-Substrate

Anaerobic digestion is a widely used technology for the degradation and stabilization of organic matter. Under these conditions, the organic matter is oxidized and transformed into biogas. The metabolic process involves various reaction mechanisms where anaerobic bacteria intervene in the transformation through sequenced biological reactions. However, during the transformation stages, various inhibitors can intervene and affect the production of biogas and although they have been studied in bioreactors for better control, the manipulation of the variables aims to improve the transformation of organic matter and consequently the production of biogas, but this depends in most cases on the type of substrate, inoculum size, period of adaptability of the bacteria and the balance of nutrients.
The quantity and quality of biogas that can be produced will depend on the characteristics of the raw materials. One of the raw materials of greatest interest is the use of biological sludge produced from biological wastewater treatment plants. This waste is a promising material to be used for the production of biogas. It is of outmost importance within the circular economy objectives; however, it is not possible to generalize its use because one of the factors to consider is the origin and quality of the biological waste sludge. In the present study, two qualities of biological sludge (SLB50 y SLB90) were considered based on the operating efficiency of biological wastewater treatment plants. The result show that a low quality sludge (SLB50) can present a higher ST (44.91± 0.056 g L-1) compared to a high quality sludge (SLB90) (35.58± 0.055 g L-1); while the SV content tends to be inversely proportional to the ST content, which was observed with a higher SV content in SLB90 (24.24 ± 0.339 g L-1) compared to SLB50 (11.56± 0.346 g L-1) (Table 1), suggesting that treatment plants that function efficiently carry out efficient digestion of organic matter, providing a remaining substrate and bacteria with better adaptability (biological sludge) that could contribute to anaerobic digestion. The above was possible to confirm by the high content (%) of M.O and C.O in biological sludge (SLB90), which proposes greater bioavailability for the diversity of biogas-producing bacteria. Therefore, good quality biological sludge could be used as raw material and bacterial inoculum to achieve efficient biogas production in biodigesters (Table 1).
To evaluate the effect of co-substrates for improving the balance of organic matter and nutrients in biodigesters and methane production; the present study used two type of waste: Cow manure and Edible residual oil. In fact, unlike residual oil, cattle manure contributes a high content of ST and SV of +156± 0.02 g L-1 and 32.5± 0.02 g L-1, respectively (Table 1); therefore, the mixture with the co-substrate bovine manure (CEV) increases the content of M.O and C.O in CEV90, CEV50 reactors (Table 2).
This significant improvement in organic matter content, organic carbon and nitrogen resulted in the C/N ratio increasing from 3.080 obtained in SLB90 sludge to 23.16 in CEV90 reactors and for SLB50 sludge from 0.558 to 6.26 in CEV50 reactors (Table 2), while, the mixture of biological sludge with residual oil did not observe a significant increase due to the particular chemical properties of the oil. According to what is reported in the literature the C/N rate of the CEV90 mixture suggests a desirable range for anaerobic digestion process, with a recommended C/N rate of 20 -30 [22,23]. In the present study, the control of this variable limited the accumulation of ammonium in the reactors, which can be a toxic compound for bacteria.
According to Ellacuriaga et al. [21] excessive nitrogen levels within digesters can cause inhibition of methanogenesis; Therefore, it is recommended a range of 2.7 -3.1 g L-1 of nitrogen, becoming tolerant for previously adapted bacteria, while concentrations greater 4.0 g L-1 cause an inhibitory effect on methane production. This was confirmed in the present study for the CEV90 reactor showing low nitrogen content and indicating a potential use for methane production. Various studies have evaluated the effect of ammonium-nitrogen in anaerobic digestion systems and determined the high complexity between ammonium concentration, pH, temperature and acclimatization of the micro-flora [24,25,26]; For this reason, in the present study each of the variables in the two-stage anaerobic digestion system were controlled and the biogas production could be evaluated.
  • Biogas production
In the present study, the biosludge: co-substrate mixture was considered to evaluate the effect of biosludge quality on methane production. The average methane production (cm3 d-1) for only good quality sludge (SLB90) was higher (303.99cm3 CH4 d-1) compared to a low quality sludge (SLB50) of 4.33 cm3 CH4 d-1 (Table 3). An advantage of using SLB90 is being able to reduce the lag phase or adaptation by approximately 2 days, compared to low quality SLB50 sludge which showed a prolonged lag phase of 25 days (Table 3), suggesting that for anaerobic digestion purposes and methane production, it is proposed that sludge from treatment plants operate with high treatment efficiency since this could guarantee bioavailable M.O, C.O contents and bacteria with greater adaptability in the biodigesters.
In the present study, the highest accumulated methane production was obtained for the anaerobic digester (CEV90) with a mixture of biological sludge and cattle manure of 42 422.8 cm3 d-1; Compared to CEV50 digesters with a lower production of 12 881.45 cm3 d-1. On the other hand, the co-substrate residual edible oil (CAV), which has been present in significant quantities in the treatment plants, was evaluated in the anaerobic digesters, showing that the mixture (CAV90) showed a greater production of methane (767.32 cm3 d-1) with 5 days of adaptation, compared to the CAV50 digesters of 211.42 cm3 d-1 of methane produced and 11 days of adaptation. The results suggest that the residual edible oil present in treatment plants and biological sludge could provide a source of energy for bacteria, which can be observed in the increase in methane production unlike cultures only with sludge (SLB50 and SLB90) (Table 3).
The CEV90 treatment was the mixture with the highest methane production and was proposed to improve biogas production given that both sludge and bovine manure provide nutrients and carbon sources, which establishes a favorable (C/N) balance for methane production, coupled with that both substrates provide diversity of bacteria with high adaptability; Therefore, this treatment can be considered as part of the Circular economy to convert environmental damage into social and economic benefits for the use of waste biomass as a renewable energy source [21].
The production of methane obtained in the present analysis in the different mixtures of substrate with waste activated sludge showed an improvement in the production of methane, being higher in the digesters with a mixture of cow manure. The methane contents were higher than those reported by other studies (Table 4) in which municipal solid waste, vegetable waste, and food waste were used and with a mixture of cow manure and cattle slurry. This proposes sludge for two reasons; be a source of organic carbon and, on the other hand, provides a micro-flora with a high acclimatization capacity. Studies such as those reported by Díaz et al. [4] suggest that the use of activated sludge is possible to obtain an improvement in methane production of 63.6 ±1.1 % v/v. Similarly, Lee et al. [12] reported a methane production of 191.0 ±8 ml CH4 g-1 SV, similar to that reported by Cabbai et al. [27] de 248.7 ±4.13 ml CH4 g-1 VS. However, in the present study, unlike those reported by other authors, it can also be concluded that biological sludge from treatment plants with low operating efficiency does not significantly favor methane production in anaerobic biodigesters ((Figure 1).

4. Conclusions

The anaerobic co-digestion of a wide variety of waste has taken on great relevance in energy production issues and various control variables have been studied, in order to avoid the inhibition of methanogenic processes and optimize the obtaining of methane under solid conditions of production. The quantity and quality of methane that can be produced will depend on the characteristics of the raw material. One of the most interesting and abundant raw materials is the biological sludge produced by wastewater treatment processes, which have been proposed for the biogas production and included in the Circular economy objective; However, its use depends on the origin and quality level of the waste sludge. The contribution of carbon sources and micro-flora with a high capacity for adaptability are some of the advantages of sludge, coupled with the fact that they can be mixed with co-substrates, improving the C/N ratio by around 20-30, desirable for the anaerobic process digestion.
Good quality sludge (SLB90) can carry out methanogenesis with a reduced adaptation phase of 2 days, compared to low quality sludge (SLB50) with methane production after 25 days. Therefore, SLB90 sludge shows a higher production (303.99cm3 CH4 d-1) compared to SLB50 sludge (4.33 cm3 CH4 d-1). Methane production increases with the sludge cow manure mixture to levels of 42 422.8 cm3 CH4 d-1 and 12 881.45 cm3 CH4 d-1 for CEV90 and CEV50, treatments respectively; As with co-substrate residual edible oil of 767.32 cm3 d-1 and 211.42 cm3 d-1 for CAV90 and CAV50, respectively. The best mixture in the present study was waste sludge cow manure contributing both nutrients and carbon sources, with a balance of nutrients favorable for methane production, coupled with the contribution of microflora diversity with high adaptability. However, it can be concluded that biological sludge from treatment plants with low operating efficiency does not significantly favor methane production in anaerobic biodigesters.

Author Contributions

All authors participated together in contributing to this manuscript, including the conceptualization, methodology, research; writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Research Program on Climate Change (PINCC) for the support and financing of the project, “Climate Variability in the 20th century in the priority hydrological region Terminos Lagoon, Campeche”, with which this work is associated.

Data Availability Statement

The concentration of PAHs and granulometry data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article and could be made available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge the members of CAEC in Environmental Engineering and Universidad Autónoma del Carmen (UNACAR) and Department of the Doctorate in Industrial Engineering Universidad Internacional Iberoamericana A.C. for their encouragement and support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

References

  1. Bond, T.; Templeton, M.R. History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Romulo, H.G.J.; Jovani, T.S.; Fabio, N.P.; Cassiano, M.P.; Antonio, C.F. Biodigester location problems, its economic-environmental-social aspects and techniques: Areas yet to be explored. Energy Reports 2021, 7, 3998–4008. [Google Scholar]
  3. Díaz, I.; Pérez, S.; Ferrero, E.; Fdz-Polanco, M. Effect of oxygen dosing point and mixing on the microaerobic removal of hydrogen sulphide in sludge digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 3768–3775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Weiland, P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Oliveira, V.A.; Almeida, F.T.S.; Marotta, H.; Guiller, J.F.M.; Aparecida, C.F.R.; Fatima, D.C.; Batista, S.F. New compact biodigester model for organic waste treatment in urban residences and buildings. J. Environ. Eng. 2021, 147(2), 04020156. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wang, X.; Guo, M.; Koppelaar, R.H.E.M.; van Dam, K.H.; Triantafyllidis, C.P.; Shah, N. A Nexus Approach for Sustainable Urban Energy-Water-Waste Systems Planning and Operation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 3257–3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Fuso Nerini, F.; Tomei, J.; To, L.S.; Bisaga, I.; Parikh, P.; Black, M.; Borrion, A.; Spataru, C.; Castán Broto, V.; Anandarajah, G.; et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wainaina, S.; Awasthi, M.K.; Sarsaiya, S.; Chen, H.; Singh, E.; Kumar, A.; Ravindran, B.; Awasthi, S.K.; Liu, T.; Duan, Y.; et al. Resource recovery and circular economy from organic solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Loizia, P.; Neofytou, N.; Zorpas, A.A. The concept of circular economy strategy in food waste management for the optimization of energy production through anaerobic digestion. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 14766–14773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ribić, B.; Voća, N.; Ilakovac, B. Concept of sustainable waste management in the city of Zagreb: Towards the implementation of circular economy approach. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2016, 67, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Langer, S.G.; Gabris, C.; Einfalt, D.; Wemheuer, B.; Kazda, M.; Bengelsdorf, F.R. Different response of bacteria, archaea and fungi to process parameters in nine full-scale anaerobic digesters. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 12, 1210–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lee, E.; Bittencourt, P.; Casimir, L.; Jimenez, E.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Q.; Ergas, S.J. Biogas production from high solids anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, yard waste and waste activated sludge. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Seiple, T.E.; Coleman, A.M.; Skaggs, R.L. Municipal wastewater sludge as a sustainable bioresource in the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. SEMARNAT. Informe del Medio Ambiente. Sistema Nacional de Información Ambiental y de Recursos Naturales 2018. https://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx:8443/dgeia/informe18/tema/cap6.html.
  15. Kiselev, A.; Magaril, E.; Magaril, R.; Panepinto, D.; Ravina, M.; Zanetti, M.C. Towards Circular Economy: Evaluation of Sewage Sludge Biogas Solutions. Resources 2019, 8, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mattioli, A.; Gatti, G.; Mattuzzi, G.; Cecchi, F.; Bolzonella, D. Co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and sludge improves the energy balance of wastewater treatment plants: Rovereto case study. Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 980–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ruiz-Marin, A.; Campos-Garcia, S.; Zavala-Loria, J.; Canedo-Lopez, Y. Hydrological aspects of the lagoons of Atasta and Pom, Mexico, Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2009, 10,63-74.
  18. Salgado, L.D.; Marques, A.E.M.L.; Kramer, R.D.; de Oliveira, F.G.; Moretto, S.L.; de Lima, B.A.; Prodocimo, M.M.; Cestari, M.M.; de Azebedo, J.C.R.; de Assis, H.C.S. Integrated assessment of sediment contaminant levels and biological responses in sentinel fish species Atherinella brasiliensis from a sub-tropical estuary in south Atlantic. Chemosphere 2018, 219, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-021-RECNAT-2000, que establece las especificaciones de fertilidad, salinidad y clasificación de suelos. Estudios, muestreo y análisis. Diario Oficial de La Federación 2002.
  20. Norma Mexicana. NMX-AA-034-SCFI-2015. Análisis de Agua - Medición de Sólidos y Sales Disueltas en Aguas Naturales, Residuales y Residuales Tratadas - Método de Prueba. Diario Oficial de La Federación 2015. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/166146/nmx-aa-034-scfi-2015.pdf.
  21. Ellacuriaga, M.; García-Cascallana, J.; Gómez, X. Biogas Production from Organic Wastes: Integrating Concepts of Circular Economy. Fuels 2021, 2, 144–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yen, H.-W.; Brune, D.E. Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper to produce methane. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, X.; Yang, G.; Li, F.; Feng, Y.; Ren, G.; Han, X. Evaluation of two statistical methods for optimizing the feeding composition in anaerobic co-digestion: Mixture design and central composite design. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 131, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dareioti, M.A.; Dokianakis, S.N.; Stamatelatou, K.; Zafiri, C.; Kornaros, M. Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of agroindustrial wastewaters under mesophilic conditions in a two-stage process. Desalination 2009, 248, 891–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yenigün, O.; Demirel, B. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: A review. Process. Biochem. 2013, 48, 901–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chan, P.C.; Lu, Q.; de Toledo, R.A.; Gu, J.-D.; Shim, H. Improved anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and domestic wastewater by copper supplementation – Microbial community change and enhanced effluent quality. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 670, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cabbai, V.; Ballico, M.; Aneggi, E.; Goi, D. BMP tests of source selected OFMSW to evaluate anaerobic codigestion with sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1626–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rajendran, K.; Aslanzadeh, S.; Johansson, F.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Experimental and economical evaluation of a novel biogas digester. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 74, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nwaigwe, K.N.; Enweremadu, C.C. Comparative análisis of a locally developed biogas digester using selected substrates. In Vol. 1 of proc., ASME 2016 10th Int. Con fon Energy Sustainability and 14th Int. Conf. on Fuel Cell Science. Engineering and Technology. New York. ASTM.
  30. Walker, M.; Theaker, H.; Yaman, R.; Poggio, D.; Nimmo, W.; Bywater, A.; Blanch, G.; Pourkashanian, M. Assessment of micro-scale anaerobic digestion for management of urban organic waste: A case study in London, UK. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 107126 g001
Figure 1. Schematic diagram for the treatment of sewage sludge and biogas production in batch reactor.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram for the treatment of sewage sludge and biogas production in batch reactor.
Preprints 107126 g001
Preprints 107126 g002
Figure 1. Cumulative methane yields for batch reactors with only waste activated sludge (SLB) and different mixing substrate (CAV and CEV).
Figure 1. Cumulative methane yields for batch reactors with only waste activated sludge (SLB) and different mixing substrate (CAV and CEV).
Preprints 107126 g002
Table 1. Experimental design for biogas production on a laboratory scale.
Table 1. Experimental design for biogas production on a laboratory scale.
Reactor Clue Treatment
Substrate (control) SLB50 Biological sludge (Efficiency 50%)
Substrate (control) SLB90 Biological sludge (Efficiency 90%)
Co-substrate 1 CEV50 SLB50 + cattle manure (CEV)
Co-substrate 1 CEV90 SLB90 +cattle manure (CEV)
Co-substrate 2 CAV50 SLB50 +recovered vegetable oil (CAV)
Co-substrate 2 CAV90 SLB90 + recovered vegetable oil (CAV)
Table 2. Factors considered for methane production (cm3 CH4 min-1).
Table 2. Factors considered for methane production (cm3 CH4 min-1).
Control factors Units
pH 6-8
Mixture (sludge: water) 1:1
Co-substrate 25%
Agitation 120 rpm
Hydraulic holding time 30 days
Initial C/N ~20
Temperature 20-30 °C
Table 1. Composition (± standard deviation) of the two types of sewage sludge (SLB90 and SLB50) from wastewater treatment plant and cattle manure (CEV).
Table 1. Composition (± standard deviation) of the two types of sewage sludge (SLB90 and SLB50) from wastewater treatment plant and cattle manure (CEV).
Parameter Units SLB90 SLB50 CEV
pH - 7.04± 0.084 7.30± 0.014 7.4± 0.091
ST g L-1 35.58± 0.056 44.91± 0.056 156± 0.02
SV g L-1 24.24± 0.339 11.56± 0.346 32.5± 0.02
C.O % 18.82± 0.542 8.22± 0.433 18.99± 0.051
M.O % 32.46± 0.362 14.17± 0.544 32.74± 0.089
N.T % 20.11± 0.829 11.46± 1.965 1.11± 0.0003
P.T g kg-1 1.76± 0.016 1.74± 0.001 10.97± 0.001
C/N - 3.080 0.558 17.01
Table 2. Composition (± standard deviation) of the two types of sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plant with a mixture of co-substrates (cow manure and residual edible oil).
Table 2. Composition (± standard deviation) of the two types of sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plant with a mixture of co-substrates (cow manure and residual edible oil).
Parameter Units CEV90 CEV50 CAV90 CAV50
pH - 7.04± 0.084 7.30± 0.014 7.4± 0.091 7.4± 0.091
ST g L-1 27.85± 0.026 26.46± 0.056 22.87± 0.02 56.21± 0.02
SV g L-1 11.56± 0.029 23.15± 0.034 21.81± 0.02 45.16± 0.02
C.O % 23.39± 0.054 17.56± 0.423 18.55± 0.051 12.46± 0.051
M.O % 40.34± 0.32 30.28± 0.544 31.99± 0.089 21.48± 0.089
N.T % 2.52± 0.082 18.12± 0.465 4.74± 0.06 21.48± 0.06
C/N - 23.16 6.26 6.16 0.58
Table 3. Daily methane production (cm3 d-1) using biological waste sludge (SLB) with a mixture of cattle waste (CEV) and residual edible oil (CAV).
Table 3. Daily methane production (cm3 d-1) using biological waste sludge (SLB) with a mixture of cattle waste (CEV) and residual edible oil (CAV).
Day SLB90 CAV90 CEV90 SLB50 CAV50 CEV50
1 9.10 66.96 26.94
2 13.94 223.72 26.87
3 65.52 239.90 175.42
4 186.01 375.6 534.33
5 177.22 701.76 589.48
6 307 141.02 971.66 566.08
7 455.58 574.89 925.34 571.01
8 466.47 865.53 838.56 547.66
9 409.05 945.45 820.22 481.64
10 360.55 1266.76 870.57 420.98
11 350.26 969.79 1097.08 88.01 390.24
12 365.31 1305.41 1497.52 155.81 396.11
13 344.65 1410.62 1670.73 174.07 399.07
14 390.62 621.79 1909.77 175.55 343.15
15 413.67 619.52 2232.19 172.69 317.50
16 435.88 599.02 2325.74 165.21 321.53
17 428.84 523.44 2425.05 173.94 326.26
18 388.91 636.09 2255.23 214.02 364.84
19 342 498.14 2066.54 250.32 348.62
20 379.19 569.66 2097.6 219.91 333.18
21 384.21 540.48 1944.67 196.62 362.03
22 315.9 726.28 1873.15 187.69 403.05
23 296.19 929.47 1609.2 198.19 430.84
24 234.04 784.51 1742.88 223.74 463.14
25 88.07 782.4 1836.52 1.062 222.53 498.18
26 0.74 865.63 1853.66 2.843 235.04 569.71
27 - 742.56 1747.72 4.549 269.82 626.36
28 - 893.47 1427.95 5.628 283.32 654.67
29 - 881.76 1416.91 6.229 291.48 699.17
30 - 489.50 1358.4 5.68 330.54 693.39
∑CH4 7599.82a 19183.19b 42422.8c 25.99a 4228.5a 12881.45ab
Media 303.99 767.32 1414.09 4.33 211.42 429.38
SD 149.39 344.37 676.62 2.00 55.53 167.04
*different letters mean significant differences (Tukey P≤0.05); standard deviation (SD).
Table 4. Methane production reported in the literature under different predominant substrate and inoculum.
Table 4. Methane production reported in the literature under different predominant substrate and inoculum.
Digestion SLB90 CAV90 CEV90 [28] [29] [30] [5]
Predominant substrate
 Waste activated sludge waste edible oil
Waste activated sludge
 Municipal solid waste Vegetable
waste
Food waste		 Food
waste
Inoculum
 - Waste activated sludge Cow
manure		 Cow
manure		 Cow
manure		 Cattle slurry Bovine manure
Biogas yield
(m3 d-1)		 7.59x10-3 19.18x10-3 42.42 x10-3 9.3x10-3
56.95x10-3 		0.005 x 10-3 3.16 11.83 x 10-3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated