nach oben

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

Erschienen in:

07.11.2019 | Original Article

Experimental investigation on the effect of anaerobic co-digestion of cotton seed hull with cow dung

verfasst von: R. Venkateshkumar, S. Shanmugam, A. R. Veerappan

Erschienen in: Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery | Ausgabe 4/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Today’s world is facing a lot of troubles due to pollution that leads to global warming, acid rain formation, and improper climate change which affect the environment in aspects such as agriculture cultivation, deforestation (forest firing), and ecosystem destruction. The effective utilization of biomass such as cotton seed hull (CSH) can reduce the pollution and create the green and sustainable environment. The present study investigates the effect of biogas generation by anaerobic co-digestion of CSH material on cow dung (CD) without doing any pretreatment. Proper utilization of CSH material with CD of various blend ratios (CD: CSH) in batch digester has been kept at a temperature of 35 ± 2 °C at 90 rpm for digestion period of 45 days. The mono-digestion of CD, i.e., the blend ratio of 100:0 produces a biogas yield of 193 ml/g VS whereas the mono-digestion of CSH (blend ratio of 0:100) produces a yield of 33 ml/g VS. Among the other proportions, a maximum biogas yield of 86 ml/g VS has been obtained for the ratio 75:25. In the co-digestion of CD with CSH, the blend ratio 75:25 (CD:CSH) yields a higher biogas yield of 160% compared to mono-digestion of CSH, whereas the blend ratio 50:50 yields 12% increase of biogas yield compared to mono-digestion of CSH. It is also found that there will be a decrease of 30% biogas yield for the blend ratio of 25:75 compared with mono-digestion of CSH alone. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis has been done to study the surface morphology of unfermented CSH and fermented CSH along with various blend ratios.

Vorheriger Artikel Expression and characterization of a cold-adapted, salt- and glucose-tolerant GH1 β-glucosidase obtained from Thermobifida halotolerans and its use in sugarcane bagasse hydrolysis

Nächster Artikel Biohydrogen production from acidic and alkaline hydrolysates of paddy straw using locally isolated facultative bacteria through dark fermentation

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Energy Alternatives India (EAI). http://www.eai.in/ref/ae/bio/bio.html

Energy Alternatives India (EAI). http://www.eai.in/ref/ae/bio/tech/biomass_energy_technologies.html

Hiloidhari M, Das D, Baruah DC (2014) Bioenergy potential from agricultural residue biomass in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev 32:504–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.025CrossRef

Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. http://www.pib.nic.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1540923

Business world,India’s Cotton Fact Sheet @2017. http://www.businessworld.in/article/India-s-Cotton-Fact-Sheet-2017/21-09-2017-126710/

Crutzen PJ, Andreae MO (2006) Biomass burning in the tropics: impact on atmospheric chemistry and biogeochemical cycles. Science (80- ) 250:1669–1678. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.250.4988.1669CrossRef

Jat SL, Devi S, Gupta C (2017) Crop residue recycling for economic and environmental sustainability: the case of India. Open Agric 2:486–494. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0053CrossRef

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI). https://www.mapsofindia.com/top-ten/india-crops/cotton.html

Metlet MOA and P (2001) Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning. 15:955–966. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001382

10.

Nguyen VH, Topno S, Balingbing C et al (2016) Generating a positive energy balance from using rice straw for anaerobic digestion. Energy Rep 2:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2016.05.005CrossRef

11.

Bundhoo ZMA, Mauthoor S, Mohee R (2016) Potential of biogas production from biomass and waste materials in the Small Island Developing State of Mauritius. Renew Sust Energ Rev 56:1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.026CrossRef

12.

Zamanzadeh M, Hagen LH, Svensson K, Linjordet R, Horn SJ (2017) Biogas production from food waste via co-digestion and digestion- effects on performance and microbial ecology. Sci Rep 7:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15784-wCrossRef

13.

Hagos K, Zong J, Li D et al (2017) Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76:1485–1496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184CrossRef

14.

Luca C, Pilu R, Tambone F, Scaglia B, Adani F (2015) New energy crop giant cane (Arundo donax L.) can substitute traditional energy crops increasing biogas yield and reducing costs. Bioresour Technol 191:197–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.015CrossRef

15.

Riggio V, Comino E, Rosso M (2015) Energy production from anaerobic co-digestion processing of cow slurry, olive pomace and apple pulp. Renew Energy 83:1043–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.05.056CrossRef

16.

Liu Y, Dong J, Liu G, Yang H, Liu W, Wang L, Kong C, Zheng D, Yang J, Deng L, Wang S (2015) Co-digestion of tobacco waste with different agricultural biomass feedstocks and the inhibition of tobacco viruses by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 189:210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.003CrossRef

17.

Li D, Liu S, Mi L, Li Z, Yuan Y, Yan Z, Liu X (2015) Effects of feedstock ratio and organic loading rate on the anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of rice straw and cow manure. Bioresour Technol 189:319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.04.033CrossRef

18.

Ganesh R, Torrijos M, Sousbie P et al (2015) Effect of increasing proportions of lignocellulosic cosubstrate on the single-phase and two-phase digestion of readily biodegradable substrate. Biomass Bioenergy 80:243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.019CrossRef

19.

Pavi S, Kramer LE, Gomes LP, Miranda LAS (2017) Biogas production from co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable waste. Bioresour Technol 228:362–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.003CrossRef

20.

Matheri AN, Ndiweni SN, Belaid M et al (2017) Optimising biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:756–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.068CrossRef

21.

El-Mashad HM, Zhang R (2010) Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour Technol 101:4021–4028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.027CrossRef

22.

AgSTAR. Increasing anaerobic digester performance with codigestion.In: United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/agstar/increasing-anaerobic-digestion-performance-codigestion

23.

Zhang T, Liu L, Song Z et al (2013) Biogas production by co-digestion of goat manure with three crop residues. PLoS One 8:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066845CrossRef

24.

Tufaner F, Avşar Y (2016) Effects of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: a review. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:2303–2312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-1069-1CrossRef

25.

Stein RM, Malone CD (1980) Anaerobic digestion of biological sludges. Environ Technol Lett 1:571–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593338009384014CrossRef

26.

Sidik UH, Razali FB, Alwi SRW, Maigari F (2013) Biogas production through co-digestion of palm oil mill effluent with cow manure. 21:79–84. https://doi.org/10.4314/njbas.v20i1.12

27.

Volkan Aksay M, Ozkaymak M, Calhan R (2018) Co-digestion of cattle manure and tea waste for biogas production. Int J Renew Energy Res 8:1346–1353

28.

Abdoli MA, Amiri L, Baghvand A et al (2014) Methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of maize and cow dung. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 33:597–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.11783CrossRef

29.

Abduli MA (1995) Solid waste management in Tehran. Waste Manag Res 13:519–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X9501300603CrossRef

30.

Cuetos MJ, Fernández C, Gómez X, Morán A (2011) Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with energy crop residues. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng 16:1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-011-0117-4CrossRef

31.

Zhang Y, Xu L, Liang YG et al (2019) Evaluation of semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of corn stover and vegetable waste by a single-phase process. Waste and Biomass Valorization 10:1159–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0133-5CrossRef

32.

Yuan X, Ma L, Wen B, Zhou D, Kuang M, Yang W, Cui Z (2016) Enhancing anaerobic digestion of cotton stalk by pretreatment with a microbial consortium (MC1). Bioresour Technol 207:293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.037CrossRef

33.

World Atlas. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-cotton-producing-countries-in-the-world.html

34.

Hall MB, Akinyode A (2000) Cottonseed hulls: working with a novel fiber source, Gainesville, pp 179–186

35.

Zhang Z, Zhang G, Li W et al (2016) Enhanced biogas production from sorghum stem by co-digestion with cow manure. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:9153–9158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.02.042CrossRef

36.

Isci A, Demirer GN (2007) Biogas production potential from cotton wastes. Renew Energy 32:750–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.018CrossRef

37.

APHA (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. American Public Health Association, Washington Dc

38.

Vivekanand V, Olsen EF, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ (2013) Effect of different steam explosion conditions on methane potential and enzymatic saccharification of birch. Bioresour Technol 127:343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.118CrossRef

39.

Paritosh K, Mathur S, Pareek N, Vivekanand V (2018) Feasibility study of waste (d) potential: co-digestion of organic wastes, synergistic effect and kinetics of biogas production. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15:1009–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1453-5CrossRef

40.

Yusuf MOL, Ify NL (2011) The effect of waste paper on the kinetics of biogas yield from the co-digestion of cow dung and water hyacinth. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1345–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.12.033CrossRef

41.

Garleb KA, Bourquin LD, Hsu JT, Wagner GW, Schmidt SJ, Fahey GC Jr (1991) Isolation and chemical analyses of nonfermented fiber fractions of oat hulls and cottonseed hulls. J Anim Sci 69:1255–1271. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6931255xCrossRef

Titel: Experimental investigation on the effect of anaerobic co-digestion of cotton seed hull with cow dung
verfasst von: R. Venkateshkumar
S. Shanmugam
A. R. Veerappan
Publikationsdatum: 07.11.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery / Ausgabe 4/2021
Print ISSN: 2190-6815
Elektronische ISSN: 2190-6823
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00523-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2021

Kinetic study on the impact of acidity and acid concentration on the formation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF), humins, and levulinic acid in the hydrothermal conversion of fructose

Influence of acid-metal functions on product distribution in valorization of biomass-derived acetone and catalysts’ deactivation behaviour

Evaluation of the physico-chemical development of kitchen food wastes through torrefaction - a biodiversity case study

Effect of pyrolysis on basic functional groups of hydrochars

Correction to: Evaluation of bottom ash slagging risk during combustion of herbaceous and woody biomass fuels in a small-scale boiler by principal component analysis

Impact of bubble size on docosahexaenoic acid production by Crypthecodinium cohnii in bubble column bioreactor