Assessment of Anaerobic Co-Digestion Effects of Maize Cob and Poultry Manure on Biogas Yields and Their Digestate Characteristics

Main Article Content

M. S. Chomini
V. I. Joshua

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the effects of anaerobic co-digestion of maize cob and poultry manure on biogas yields and their digestate characteristics.

Place and Duration of Study: Department of Forestry Technology, Federal College of Forestry, Jos between March and April, 2018.

Methodology: Slurries of five co-substrate treatment ratios viz 0:1(T1), 1:3(T2), 1:1(T3), 3:1(T4) and 1:0(T5) of these wastes (in three replicates) were separately fed to 13.6L locally made batch-digesters. The anaerobic reactors were monitored for a 56 day retention period. Weekly biogas yields and some digestate characteristics were measured by standard methods.

Results: The cumulative biogas yields was in the order of T3(2481.3 mL/kg) >TI(2197.9 mL/kg) > T4(2163.0 mL/kg) > T2(2116.3 mL/kg) >T5(1713.2 mL/kg), in favor of the mixed substrates. While the percentage C:N reductions ranged from (12.94% - 81.80%), with T5 and T1 recording the highest and lowest values respectively. The chemical oxygen demand removal was in the order of T3(80.70%) > T4(58.00%) >T5(46.81%) >T1(34.15%) >T2(13.16%). The anaerobic digestion (AD) effected reductions in Mg, C, Ca, P, Mn, Zn, Fe, Pb and increase in Cu contents of the digestates across treatments. While the K contents increased in T2(36.72%), T3(229.79%) and T4(220.51%); %N in T3(9.94%), T4(113.19%) and T5(291.84%) and Na increased only in T4(4.55%). The Cu contents indicated % increase in the order of T5(487.5%) >T3(270.97%) >T2(268.10%) >T4(43.66%) >T1(35.82%).

Conclusion: The anaerobic co-digestion of these organic wastes had unlocked the alternative energy potentials, enhanced the bioremediation tendency, while promoting sustainable public health and environmental management.

Keywords:
Biogas, co-digestion, digestates, ; maize cob, poultry manure.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chomini, M. S., & Joshua, V. I. (2019). Assessment of Anaerobic Co-Digestion Effects of Maize Cob and Poultry Manure on Biogas Yields and Their Digestate Characteristics. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 41(6), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2019/v41i630424
Section
Original Research Article

References

Franke-Whittle IH, Confalonieri A, Insam H, Schlegelmilch M, Körner I. Changes in the microbial communities during co-composting of digestates. Waste Management. 2014;34:632–641.

Körner I, Amon B, Bade O, Balsari P, Bioteau T, Dabert P, Dach J, Deipser A, Kupper T, Ferreira LJM, Moller H, Mantovi P, Schnüre A, Soldano M, Ward A, Fabbri C. Anaerobic digestion and digestate utilization in Europe. In: Marques dos Santos Cordovil, C.S.C., Ferreira, L., (Eds.), RAMIRAN2010 – Treatment and use of organic residues in agriculture-challenges and opportunities towards sustainable management, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference, ISA-Press, Lissabon, Portugal, Art. 0177; 2010.

Babaee A, Shayegan J, Roshani A. Anaerobic slurry co-digestion of poultry manure and straw: Effect of organic loading and temperature. Journal of Environmental Health Sciences & Engineering. 2013;11:15.

Gupta PRS, Singh A, Sachan AS, Vidyarthi, Gupta A. A re'appriassal on intensification of biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. 2012;16:4908-4916.

Chomini MS. Comparative studies on biogas production from some selected indigenous substrates and the effects of their end-products on growth and performance of Zea mays L. (Maize). (Ph.D Thesis), University of Jos. 2017;292.

Salam B, Biswas S, Rabbi MS. Biogas from mesophilic anaerobic digestion of cow dung using silica gel as catalyst. 6th BSME International Conference on Thermal Engineering (ICTE 2014). Procedia Engineering. 2015;105:652–657.

Chomini MS, Ogbonna CIC, Falemara BC, Micah P. Effect of co-digestion of cow dung and poultry manure on biogas yield, proximate and amino acid contents of their effluents. 2015;8(11 Ver. I):48-56. e-ISSN: 2319-2380, p-ISSN: 2319-2372.
Available:www.iosrjournals.org

APHA. Standard method for examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C. 2005;1368.

AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 18th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington, DC. 2005;1168.

AOAC. Official methods of analysis. association of official analytical chemists, 15th Ed. Washington DC. USA. 1990;123-126.

Hammed TB, Soyingbe AA, Adewole DO. An abattoir waste water management through composting: A case study of alesinloye waste recycling complex. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 2011;6(2):67-78.

Li J, Jha AK, He J, Ban Q, Chang S, Wang P. Assessment of the effects of dry anaerobic codigestion of cow dung with waste water sludge on biogas yield and biodegradability. International Journal of the Physical Sciences. 2011;6(15):3723-3732.

Xie S, Lawlor PG, Frost JP, Hud Z, Zhan X. Effects of pig manure to grass silage ratio on methane production in batch anaerobic co-digestion of concentrated pig manure and grass silage. Bio resource Technology. 2011;102:5728–5733.

Jha AK, He J, Li J, Zheng G. Effect of substrate concentration on methane fermentation of cattle dung. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Challenges in Environmental Science and Computer Engineering. Wuhan, P. R. China. March 6-7. Part, 1. 2010;512-515.

El-Mashad HM, Zhang R. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresource Technology. 2010;101:4021–4028.

Lehtomaki A, Huttunena S, Rintala JA. Laboratory investigations on co- digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. Resource Conservation and Recycling. 2007;51(3):591-609.

Adelekan BA, Bamgboye AI. Comparison of biogas productivity of cassava peels mixed in selected ratios with major livestock waste types. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2009;4(7):571-577.

Karki BA, Gautam KM, Karki A. Biogas installation from elephant dung at Machan Wildlife Resort, Chitwan, Nepal. Biogas Newsletter. 1994;45:26-27.

Ghasimi SMD, Idris A, Chuah TG, Tey BT. The Effect of C:N:P ratio, volatile fatty acids and Na+ levels on the performance of an anaerobic treatment of fresh leachate from municipal solid waste transfer station. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2009;8(18):4572-4581.

Kacprzak A, Krzystek L, Ledakowicz S. Co-digestion of agricultural and industrial wates. Chemical Paper. 2010;64:127-131.

Macias-Corral M, Samani Z, Hanson A, Smith G, Funk P, Yu H, Longworth J. Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresource Technology. 2008;99:8288–8293.

Adelekan BA, Oluwatoyinbo FI, Bamgboye AI. Comparative effects of undigested and anaerobically digested poultry manure on the growth and yield of maize (Zea mays, L). African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2010;4(2):100-107.

Ofosu MA. Anaerobic digestion of shea waste for energy generation. Ph.D Thesis University of Cape Coast. 2009;1-179.

Bashir BH, Matin A. Sodium toxicity control by the use of magnesium in an anaerobic reactor. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management. 2004;8(1):17–21.

Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresources Technology. 2008;99:4044–4064.

Lebiocka M, Montusiewicz A, Depta M. Co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid waste in the aspect of heavy metals content. Middle Pomeranian Scientific Society of the Environment Protection Annual Set the Environment Protection. 2016;18:555-566.

Bhatnagar S, Kumari R. Bioremediation: A sustainable tool for environmental management – A review. Annual Review and Research in Biology. 2013;3(4):974-993.

Bishnoi N, Garima R. Fungus: An alternative for bioremediation of heavy metal containing wastewater: A review. Journal of Science Indigenous Research. 2005;64:93-100.

Isroi MR, Syamsiah S, Niklasson C, Cahyanto MN, Lundquist K, Taherzadeh MJ. Biological pretreatment of lignocelluloses with white-rot fungi and its applications: A review. Bioresources. 2011;6(4):5224-5259.

Baharuddin AS, Hock LS, Yusof MZM, Rahman NAA, Shah UKM, Hassan MA, Shirai Y. Effects of palm oil mill effluent (POME) anaerobic sludge from 500 m3 of closed anaerobic methane digested tank on pressed-shredded empty fruit bunch (EFB) composting process. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;9(16): 2427-2436.

Sobolev D, Begonia MFT. Effects of heavy metal contamination upon soil microbes: Lead-induced changes in general and denitrifying microbial communities as evidenced by molecular markers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2008;5(5):450-456.

Holtan-Hartwig L, Bechmann M, Høyås TR, Linjordet R, Bakken LR. Heavy metals tolerance of soil denitrifying communities: N2O dynamics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2002;34:1181-1190.

Gikas P. Kinetic responses of activated sludge to individual and joint nickel (Ni (II)) and cobalt (Co (II)): An isobolographic approach. J Hazard Mat. 2007;143:246–256.

Pamukoglu Y, Kargi F. Biosorption of copper (II) ions onto powdered waste sludge in a completely mixed fed-batch reactor: Estimation of design parameters. Bioresour. Technol. 2007;98:1155-1162.

Congeevaram S, Dhanarani S, Park J, Dexilin M, Thamaraiselvi K. Biosorption of chromium and nickel by heavy metal resistant fungal and bacterial isolates. J Hazard Mat. 2007;146:270–277.