Submitted:
15 April 2024
Posted:
16 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Factors Affecting on Anaerobic Digestion
2.1. Temperature
2.2. Pre-Treatment
2.3. pH
2.4. Mixing Ratio
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Experimental Set Up
3.2. Analysis of Methanogenic Performance
3.3. Pre-Treatment Methods Used
3.3. Taguchi Design of Experiments
3.3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Effect of Temperature
3.2. Effect of Microorganisms at Thermophilic Condition
3.3. Effect of Pretreatment on Biogas Production
3.4. Optimization of the Parameters Using Taguchi Design of Experiments
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Abdeshahian, P.; Lim, J.S.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T. Potential of Biogas Production from Farm Animal Waste in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 60, 714–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammad, N.; Mohamad Ishak, W.W.; Mustapa, S.I.; Ayodele, B.V. Natural Gas as a Key Alternative Energy Source in Sustainable Renewable Energy Transition: A Mini Review. Frontiers in Energy Research 2021, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gürsan, C.; de Gooyert, V. The Systemic Impact of a Transition Fuel: Does Natural Gas Help or Hinder the Energy Transition? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021, 138, 110552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabeyi, M.J.; Olanrewaju, O.A. Sustainable Energy Transition for Renewable and Low Carbon Grid Electricity Generation and Supply. Frontiers in Energy Research 2022, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habib, S.S.; Torii, S. Biogas as Alternative to Liquefied Petroleum Gas in Mauritania: An Integrated Future Approach for Energy Sustainability and Socio-Economic Development, Clean Technologies. 2024, 6, 453–470.
- Abbasi, T.; Tauseef, S.M.; Abbasi, S.A. Biogas and Biogas Energy: An Introduction. Biogas Energy 2011, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, W.; Long, F.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, D.; Wang, L.; Lesnik, K.L.; Cao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H. Performance Prediction of Zvi-Based Anaerobic Digestion Reactor Using Machine Learning Algorithms. Waste Management 2021, 121, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahota, S.; Shah, G.; Ghosh, P.; Kapoor, R.; Sengupta, S.; Singh, P.; Vijay, V.; Sahay, A.; Vijay, V.K.; Thakur, I.S. Review of Trends in Biogas Upgradation Technologies and Future Perspectives. Bioresource Technology Reports 2018, 1, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, C.; Liu, J.; Ye, M.; Zou, L.; Qian, G.; Li, Y.-Y. Towards Utmost Bioenergy Conversion Efficiency of Food Waste: Pretreatment, Co-Digestion, and Reactor Type. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018, 90, 700–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboudi, K.; Álvarez-Gallego, C.J.; Romero-García, L.I. Semi-Continuous Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Sugar Beet Byproduct and Pig Manure: Effect of the Organic Loading Rate (OLR) on Process Performance. Bioresource Technology 2015, 194, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhar, H.; Kumar, P.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, S.; Vaidya, A.N. Effect of Organic Loading Rate during Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste. Bioresource Technology 2016, 217, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deepanraj, B.; Sivasubramanian, V.; Jayaraj, S. Effect of Substrate Pretreatment on Biogas Production through Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 26522–26528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajiboye, O.K.; Ochiegbu, C.V.; Ofosu, E.A.; Gyamfi, S. A Review of Hybrid Renewable Energies Optimisation: Design, Methodologies, and Criteria. International Journal of Sustainable Energy 2023, 42, 648–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demollari, E. Temperature and Stirring Effect of Biogas Production from Two Different Systems. American Journal of Energy Engineering 2017, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Mashad, H.M.; van Loon, W.K.P.; Zeeman, G. A Model of Solar Energy Utilisation in the Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure. Biosystems Engineering 2003, 84, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trzcinski, A.P.; Stuckey, D.C. Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste Leachate Using a Submerged Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor at Mesophilic and Psychrophilic Temperatures: Analysis of Recalcitrants in the Permeate Using GC-MS. Water Research 2010, 44, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.K.; Oh, B.R.; Chun, Y.N.; Kim, S.W. Effects of Temperature and Hydraulic Retention Time on Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste. Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering 2006, 102, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashyap, D.R.; Dadhich, K.S.; Sharma, S.K. Biomethanation under Psychrophilic Conditions: A Review. Bioresource Technology 2003, 87, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fezzani, B.; Ben Cheikh, R. Two-Phase Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Olive Mill Wastes in Semi-Continuous Digesters at Mesophilic Temperature. Bioresource Technology 2010, 101, 1628–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briški, F.; Vuković, M.; Papa, K.; Gomzi, Z.; Domanovac, T. Modelling of Composting of Food Waste in a Column Reactor. Chemical Papers 2007, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, B.; Gikas, P.; Zhang, R.; Lord, J.; Jenkins, B.; Li, X. Characteristics and Biogas Production Potential of Municipal Solid Wastes Pretreated with a Rotary Drum Reactor. Bioresource Technology 2009, 100, 1122–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molnar, L.; Bartha, I. High Solids Anaerobic Fermentation for Biogas and Compost Production. Biomass 1988, 16, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, R.C.; Singh, R. A Simple Technique, Charcoal Coating around the Digester, Improves Biogas Production in Winter. Bioresource Technology 1993, 45, 151–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desai, M.; Madamwar, D. Anaerobic Digestion of a Mixture of Cheese Whey, Poultry Waste and Cattle Dung: A Study of the Use of Adsorbents to Improve Digester Performance. Environmental Pollution 1994, 86, 337–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hren, R.; Petrovič, A.; Čuček, L.; Simonič, M. Determination of Various Parameters during Thermal and Biological Pretreatment of Waste Materials. Energies 2020, 13, 2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamdi, M. Effects of Agitation and Pretreatment on the Batch Anaerobic Digestion of Olive Mil. Bioresource Technology 1991, 36, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Wang, D.; Wu, S.; Wang, C. Alkali Pretreatment Enhances Biogas Production in the Anaerobic Digestion of Pulp and Paper Sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2009, 170, 366–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mata-Alvarez, J.; Macé, S.; Llabrés, P. Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Wastes. an Overview of Research Achievements and Perspectives. Bioresource Technology 2000, 74, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalid, A.; Arshad, M.; Anjum, M.; Mahmood, T.; Dawson, L. The Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Organic Waste. Waste Management 2011, 31, 1737–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ward, A.J.; Hobbs, P.J.; Holliman, P.J.; Jones, D.L. Optimisation of the Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Resources. Bioresource Technology 2008, 99, 7928–7940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.H.; Behera, S.K.; Kim, J.W.; Park, H.-S. Methane Production Potential of Leachate Generated from Korean Food Waste Recycling Facilities: A Lab-Scale Study. Waste Management 2009, 29, 876–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Li, Z.; Bai, X.; Zhou, X.; Cheng, S.; Gao, R.; Sun, J. Study on Improving Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Cow Manure and Corn Straw by Fruit and Vegetable Waste: Methane Production and Microbial Community in CSTR Process. Bioresource Technology 2018, 249, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hills, D.J. Effects of Carbon: Nitrogen Ratio on Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure. Agricultural Wastes 1979, 1, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Li, Z.; Bai, X.; Zhou, X.; Cheng, S.; Gao, R.; Sun, J. Study on Improving Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Cow Manure and Corn Straw by Fruit and Vegetable Waste: Methane Production and Microbial Community in CSTR Process. Bioresource Technology 2018, 249, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stroot, P.G.; McMohan, K.D.; Mackie, R.I.; Raskin, L. Anaerobic co-digestion of solid wastes and biosolids under various mixing conditions. Water Research 2001, 35, 1804–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mol, S.K.; Sadiq, A. Material Parametric Optimisation of Wing Leading Edge Profile against Soft Body Impact. International Journal of Crashworthiness 2020, 27, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salem. , K.M.; Salem, S.C.; Sadiq, A. Crashworthiness Enhancement of Aluminum Alloy Used for Leading Edges of Wing and Empennage Structures. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2022, 35. [Google Scholar]












| Control parameters | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
| Temperature (0C) | 28 | 35 | 50 |
| pH | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Mixing ratio (CM:FW) | 1.5:0.5 | 1:1 | 0.5:1.5 |
| Retention Time (Weeks) | Average biogas yield from the reactors (mL) | ||
| A (28 0C) | B (35 0C) | C (50 0C) | |
| 1 | 12 | 0 | 16 |
| 2 | 20 | 29 | 38 |
| 3 | 40 | 72 | 46 |
| 4 | 48 | 156 | 56 |
| Factors affecting anaerobic digestion | Results | ||||
| Exp. No. | Temperature (0C) | pH | Mixing ratio | Biogas production (mL) | S/N ratio |
| 1 | 28 | 5 | 1.5:0.5 | 130 | 42.2789 |
| 2 | 28 | 6 | 1:1 | 120 | 41.5836 |
| 3 | 28 | 7 | 05:1:5 | 98 | 39.8245 |
| 4 | 35 | 5 | 1:1 | 228 | 47.1587 |
| 5 | 35 | 6 | 0.5:1.5 | 206 | 46.2773 |
| 6 | 35 | 7 | 1.5:0.5 | 250 | 47.9588 |
| 7 | 50 | 5 | 0.5:1.5 | 108 | 40.6685 |
| 8 | 50 | 6 | 1.5:0.5 | 140 | 42.9226 |
| 9 | 50 | 7 | 1:1 | 128 | 42.1442 |
| Level | Temperature (°C) | pH | Mixing ratio (CM:FW) |
| 1 | 116.0 | 155.3 | 173.3 |
| 2 | 228.0 | 155.3 | 158.7 |
| 3 | 125.3 | 158.7 | 137.3 |
| Delta | 112.0 | 3.3 | 36.0 |
| Rank | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Level | Temperature (°C) | pH | Mixing ratio (CM:FW) |
| 1 | 41.23 | 43.37 | 44.39 |
| 2 | 47.13 | 43.59 | 43.63 |
| 3 | 41.91 | 43.31 | 42.26 |
| Delta | 5.90 | 0.29 | 2.13 |
| Rank | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Source | DF | Adj SS | Adj MS | F-Value | P-Value | R2 |
| Temperature | 2 | 23171.6 | 11585.8 | 34.3 | 0.001 | 91.96 |
| pH | 2 | 22.2 | 11.1 | 0 | 0.997 | 0.09 |
| CM: FW | 2 | 1966.2 | 983.1 | 0.25 | 0.784 | 7.8 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).