Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Received: August 9th, 2012; Revised: October 12th, 2012; Accepted: October 30th, 2012
Purpose: The biogas productivity potential of fish waste (FW) was evaluated. Methods: Batch trials were carried out in 1.3 L
glass digesters kept in a temperature controlled chambers at 36.5˚C. The first order kinetic model and the modified
Gompertz model were evaluated for biogas production. The Chen and Hashimoto model was used to determine the critical
hydraulic retention time (HRT Critical) for FW under mesophilic conditions. The feasibility of co-digestion of FW with animal
manure was studied. Results: The biogas and methane potential of FW was found to be 757 and 554 mL/g VS, respectively.
The methane content in the biogas produced from FW was found to be 73% and VS removal was found to be 77%. There
was smaller difference between measured and predicted biogas production when using the modified Gompertz model
(16.5%) than using first order kinetic model (31%). The time period for 80%-90% of biogas production (T80-90) from FW
was calculated to be 50.3-53.5 days. Similarly, the HRT Critical for FW was calculated to be 13 days under mesophilic
conditions. The methane production from swine manure (SM) and cow manure (CM) digesters could be enhanced by
13%-115% and 17%-152% by mixing 10%-90% of FW with SM and CM, respectively. Conclusions: The FW was found to be
highly potential substrate for anaerobic digestion for biogas production. The modified Gompertz model could be more
appropriate in describing anaerobic digestion process of FW. It could be promising for co-digestion of FW with animal
manure.
Keywords: Biochemical methane potential (BMP), Co-digestion, Fish waste, Kinetic study, Mesophilic temperature
303
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
pure nitrogen for approximately 1.5-2.0 minutes to Biogas volume/mass measurement and
ensure anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic digesters composition analysis
were maintained at 36.5℃ in a temperature-controlled
The daily biogas production of each digester was
incubator. Batch test was carried out in duplicate, and the
determined by the volume of biogas produced, which
results were expressed as a mean. Each digester was
was calculated from the volume and pressure in the
mixed manually for one minute once a day just before the
headspace of the digester. The pressure was measured
gas volume measurement. Assays with inoculums alone
using a WAL-BMP-Test system pressure gauge (Type
were also used as controls. Biogas and methane produced
3150, Wal, Germany) (EI-Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Kafle
from inoculums were subtracted from the sample assays.
and Kim, 2012). Daily pressure differences were converted
into biogas volume using the following equation:
304
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
305
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
1 m dj 2 2
1 The equation (11) can be converted to equation (12).
RMSE = ( ∑ (
m j =1 Y j
) ) (8)
1 K G(t)
HRT = + CH (12)
where, μ m μ m G 0 − G(t)
m = Number of data pairs
th
j = j values When hydraulic retention time (HRT) was plotted as a
Y = Measured biogas production (mL) function of G(t)/(G0 – G(t)), a straight line was obtained
d = Deviations between experimental and predicted with the slope KCH/μm and the intercept 1/μm. The critical
biogas production hydraulic retention time (HRT Critical) indicating the time
when the washout of micro-organisms occurs is
numerically equal to the reciprocal of the maximum
Critical retention time
specific growth rate (Kafle and Kim, 2012):
Chen and Hashimoto’s model (Chen and Hashimoto,
1979; Chen and Hashimoto, 1980) was used to determine 1
HRTCritical = (13)
the critical retention time for FW (Tosun et al., 2004). This μm
model is a modification of the Contois model (Contois,
1959) and is based on fundamental biochemical principles
and has been found to be reliable predictive tool in Results and Discussion
applications regarding digestion of wastes with substantial
TS content (Fongsatitkul et al., 2012). Chen and Hashimoto’s Substrate characterization
model (equation (9)) can be described as follows: As shown in Table 1, the TS content of FW was 31.3%
306
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
307
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
308
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
(2009) also reported lower BR (up to 23%) than VS 0.019 and 14.1 days, respectively. High difference
destructions during anaerobic digestion of green waste. between measured and predicted biogas production was
The difference between BR and VS destructions may be found when using first order kinetic model (31.1%) than
due to an error in determination of VS concentration. modified Gompertz model (16.5%). Fig. 4 shows the
Hayward and Pavlicick (1990) reported that the excessive relation between measured and predicted biogas pro-
loss of VFAs and other volatile compounds during the duction with statistical indicators (R2 and RMSE value).
drying process of VS measurement can cause errors in The R2 value was calculated to be 0.909 and 0.826 when
determining the actual VS destruction. using first order kinetic model and the modified Gompertz
model, respectively. Similarly, RMSE value was calculated
Results of kinetic modeling to be 0.646 and 0.417 when using first order kinetic
The kinetic parameters estimated for FW using first model and the modified Gompertz model respectively.
order kinetic model and the modified Gompertz model Thus based on R2, RMSE and difference in measured and
are summarized in Table 5. The biogas production rate predicted biogas production, the modified Gompertz
constant (K) and lag phase (λ) for FW was calculated to be model was found to be better fitted to experimental
results and first order kinetic model is not recommended
for FW.
Table 5. Parameters estimated from first order kinetic model
It took 50.3-53.5 days for 80%-90% of total biogas
and modified Gompertz model for anaerobic digestion of FW production (T80-90). The effective time for biogas pro-
under mesophilic conditions duction (TEf) from FW was calculated to be 36.2-39.4
Units Value days. The higher difference in TEf and T80-90 was due to
a
First order kinetic model longer λ. The one reason for longer λ was due higher % of
Biogas production rate constant (K) 1/day 0.019 CP and EE in FW which has very slow rate of degradation
Standard error 0.010
R2 0.751
a
Experimental biogas production (60 days) mL 1515
Predicted biogas production (60 days) mL 1043
Difference between measured and
% 31.1
predicted biogas production
Modified Gompertz modela
Maximum biogas production rate (Rm) mL/d 32.9
Standard error 2.4
Lag phase (λ) days 14.1
Standard error 1.6
2
R 0.904
Experimental biogas production (60 days) mL 1515
b
Predicted biogas production (60 days) mL 1265
Difference between measured and
% 16.5
predicted biogas production
T50 days 41.3
T80 days 50.3
T90 days 53.5
T80-90 days 50.3-53.5
TEf days 36.2-39.4
a
At 95% confidence interval
T50 = Time period for 50% of total biogas production
T80 = Time period for 80% of total biogas production
T90 = Time period for 90% of total biogas production Figure 4. Plot of measured and predicted cumulative biogas
T80 -90 = Time period for 80-90% of total biogas production production from FW using (a) first order kinetic model; (b) modified
TEf = Effective biogas production duration (T80-90 -λ) Gompertz model.
309
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
310
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
from biogas plant working with animal manure (SM and sium 8:269-282.
CM) could be enhanced by addition of FW as co-substrate. Chen, Y. R. and A.G. Hashimoto. 1980. Substrate utilization
kinetic model for biological treatment processes.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 22(10):2081-2095.
Conflict of Interest Cirne, D. G., X. Paloumet, L. Bjornsson, M. M. Alves and B.
Mattiasson. 2007. Anaerobic digestion of lipid-rich
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article waste - Effects of lipid concentration. Renewable
was reported. Energy 32, 965-975.
Contois, D. E. 1959. Kinetics of bacterial growth: Relation-
ship between population density and space growth
Acknowledgements rate of continuous cultures. Journal of General Micro-
biology 21 (1):40-50.
This work was supported by a research grant from the De Gioannis, G., A. Muntoni, G. Cappai and S. Milia. 2009.
Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Landfill gas generation after mechanical biological
Korea. treatment of municipal solid waste. Estimation of gas
generation constants. Waste Management 29:1026-
1034.
References EI-Mashad, H. M. and R. Zhang. 2010. Biogas production
from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste.
AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th ed. Associa- Bioresource Technology 101:4021-4028.
tion of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC. Eiroa, M., J. C. Costa, M. M. Alves, C. Kennes and M. C. Veiga.
APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of 2012. Evaluation of the biomethane potential of solid
Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public fish waste. Waste Management 32:1347-1352.
Health Assoc., Washington, DC. FAO. 2005. Review of the scale of world marine fishery
Bhattarai, S., D. H. Kim and J.H. Oh. 2012a. Simulation and resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.
model validation of pneumatic conveying drying for Fongsatitkul, P., P. Elefsiniotis and D.G. Wareham. 2012.
wood dust particles. Journal of Biosystems Engineer- Two-phase anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction
ing 37(2):82-89. of municipal solid waste: estimation of methane
Bhattarai, S., J. H. Oh, S. H. Euh, G.K. Kafle and D. H. Kim. production. Waste Management & Research 30(7):
2012b. Simulation and model validation of sheet and 720-726.
tube type photovoltaic thermal solar system and Goring, H. K. and P. J. Van Soet. 1970. Forage fiber analysis.
conventional solar collecting system in transient states. Agric. Handbook. No. 379. ARS. USDA. Washington
Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 103:184-193. DC.
Bouallagui, H., H. Lahdheb, E. Ben Romdan, B. Rachdi and Gumisiriza, R., A. M. Mshandete, M. S. T. Rubindamayugi,
M. Hamdi. 2009. Improvement of fruit and vegetable F. Kansiime and A. K. Kivaisi. 2009. Enhancement of
waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability anaerobic digestion of Nile perch fish processing
with co-substrates addition. Journal of Environment wastewater. African Journal of Biotechnology 8(2):
Management 90:1844-1849. 328-333.
Callaghan, F. J., D. A. J. Wase, K. Thayanithy and C. F. Haug, R. T. 1993. The practical handbook of composting
Forster. 1999. Co-digestion of waste organic solids: engineering. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis publisher.
batch studies. Bioresource Technology 67:117-122. Hayward, G. and V. Pavlicick. 1990. A corrected method
Chen, X., R. T. Romano and R. Zhang. 2010. Anaerobic for dry matter determination for use in anaerobic
digestion of food wastes for biogas production. digester control. Biological Wastes 34:101-111.
International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Islam, M. N., K. J. Park and H. S. Yoon. 2012. Methane
Engineering 3(4):61-72. production potential of food waste and food waste
Chen, Y. R. and A. G. Hashimoto. 1978. Kinetics of methane mixture with swine manure in anaerobic digestion.
fermentation. Biotechnology Bioengineering Sympo- Journal of Biosystems Engineering 37(2):100-105.
311
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
Kafle, G. K. and S. H. Kim. 2011. Sludge exchange process Li, Y., X. L. Yan, J. P. Fan and J. H. Zhu. 2011. Feasibility of
on two serial CSTRs anaerobic digestions: Process biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of
failure and recovery. Bioresource Technology 102: herbal extraction residues with swine manure.
6815-6822. Bioresource Technology 102(11):6458-6463.
Kafle, G. K., S. H. Kim and K. I. Sung. 2012b. Batch Mshandete, A., A. Kivaisi, M. Rubindamayugi and B.
anaerobic co-digestion of Kimchi factory waste silage Mattiasson. 2004. Anaerobic batch co-digestion of
and swine manure under mesophilic conditions. sisal pulp and fish wastes. Bioresource Technology
Bioresource Technology 124:489-494 95(1):19-24.
Kafle, G. K. and S. H. Kim. 2012. Kinetic study of the Nges, I. A., B. Mbatia and L. Björnsson. 2012. Improved
anaerobic digestion of swine manure at mesophilic utilization of fish waste by anaerobic digestion
temperature: a lab scale batch operation. Journal of following omega-3 fatty acids extraction. Journal of
Biosystems Engineering 37(4):233-244. Environmental Management 110:159-165.
Kafle, G. K., S. H. Kim and B. S. Shin. 2012a. Anaerobic Rai, A. K., H. C. Swapna, N. Bhaskar, P. M. Halami and N. M.
digestion treatment for the mixture of Chinese cabbage Sachindra. 2010. Effect of fermentation ensilaging on
waste juice and swine manure. Journal of Biosystems recovery of oil from fresh water fish viscera. Enzyme
Engineering 37(1):58-64. and Microbial Technology 46:9-13.
Kaparaju, P. and J. Rintala. 2005. Anaerobic co-digestion Raposo, F., R. Borja, M. A. Martín, A. Martín, M. A. de la
of potato tuber and its industrial by-products with pig Rubia and B. Rincón. 2009. Influence of inoculum-
manure. Resources, Conservation and Recycling substrate ratio on the anaerobic digestion of sunflower
43:175-188. oil cake in batch mode: process stability and kinetic
Khanal, S. K. 2008. Anaerobic biotechnology for bioenergy evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal 149:70-77.
production: principles and applications. John Wiley Richards, B. K., R.J. Uummings, T. E. White and W. Jewell.
and Sons, Inc. pp. 59. Methods for kinetic analysis of methane fermentation
Kim, J. Y., S. M. Lee and J. H. Lee. 2012. Biogas production in high solids biomass digesters. 1999. Biomass and
from moon jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) using of the Bioenergy 1(2):65-73.
anaerobic digestion. Journal of Industrial and Engin- Sievers, D. M. and D. E. Brune. 1978. Carbon/nitrogen ratio
eering Chemistry 18:2147-2150. and anaerobic digestion of swine waste. Transactions
Kim, S. H. and G. K. Kafle. 2010. Effective treatment of of ASAE 21:537-541.
swine manure with Chinese cabbage silage through Tosun, I., M. T. Gönüllü and A. Günay. 2004. Anaaerobic
two serial anaerobic digestions. Journal of Biosystems digestion and methane generation potential of rose
Engineering 35(1):53-62. residue in batch reactors. Journal of Environmental
Kumar, S., A. N. Mondal, S. A. Gaikward, S. Devotta and R. Science and Health, Part A 39 (4):915-925.
N. Singh. 2004. Qualitative assessment of methane VDI 4630. 2006. Fermentation of organic materials:
emission inventory from municipal solid waste disposal characterization of the substrate, sampling, collection
sites: a case study. Atmospheric Environment 38: of material data, fermentation tests. In: Verein Deutscher
4921-4929. Ingenieure (Ed.), VDI Handbuch Energietechnik,
Lehtomäki, A., S. Huttunen and J. A. Rintala. 2009. Beuth Verlag GmbH, 10772 Berlin, Germany.
Laboratory investigations on co- digestion of energy Ward, A. J. and A. K. Løes. 2011. The potential of fish and
crops and crop residues with cow manure for fish oil waste for bioenergy generation: Norway and
methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. beyond. Biofuels 2(4):375-387.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 51:591-609. Zhang, L., Y. W. Lee and D. Jahng. 2011. Anaerobic
Li, R., S. Chen and X. Li. 2009. Anaerobic co-digestion of co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater:
kitchen waste and cattle manure for methane Focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresource
production. Energy Sources, Part A 31:1848-1856. Technology 102(8):5048-5059.
312
Kafle and Kim. Evaluation of the Biogas Productivity Potential of Fish Waste: A Lab Scale Batch Study
Journal of Biosystems Engineering • Vol. 37, No. 5, 2012 • www.jbeng.org
Appendix 1. Batch test results on fish waste, swine manure and cow manure in different literatures
Feed
Feed Feed characteristics Experimental conditions Results Literature
name
Loading
TS VS/TS TKN C/N Fat F/I (g VS/L) DP DT DV mL CH4/ CH4 VSR
(%) (% TS) (%TS) (days) (℃) (L) gVS (%) (%)
I F
Fish
FW 31.3 0.88 6.54 4.1 48.6 0.5 5.0 2.5 60 36.5 0.8 554 73 77 This study
waste
Chen et al.
FFW 55.8 0.98 - 3.0 28.6 0.5,1.0 1.5,3.0 3.0 30 36.5 0.5 510,920 59,69 81,82
(2010)
55.8 0.98 - 3.0 0.5,1.0 1.5,3.0 3.0 30 55 0.5 860,380 69,54 84,95
Nges et al.
FW 41.2 0.86 5.78 - - - 12 - 33 37 0.5 828 - -
(2012)
FS 37.7 0.83 6.92 - - - 12 - 33 37 0.5 742 - -
Eiroa et al.
28-37 0.74-0.85 9.0-10.2 - 6.8-36.9 1.1-1.3 - - 70-80 37 - 250-350 - 74-84
(2012)
FW
28-37 0.74-0.85 9.0-10.2 - 6.8-36.9 2.8-3.3 - - 70-80 37 - 70-250 - 49-72
28-37 0.74-0.85 9.0-10.2 - 6.8-36.9 5.7-6.5 - - 70-80 37 - 40-180 - 49-70
Mshandete
FW 32.2 0.55 5.85 9.0 12.6 0.05,1.6 57 - 29 27 0.6 390 -
et al. (2004)
Gumisiriza
FPW - - - - - 1.0 - - 36 28 0.36 560 - -
et al. (2009)
Swine Zhang et al.
SM 5.64 0.65 13.0 4.8 - - - - - - - 242 - -
manure (2011)
Xie et al.
SM 12.6 0.74 4.3 - - 90 35 0.80 280 - 61
(2011)
Li et al.
SM 29.2 0.80 19.3 14.4 - - - - 30 35 0.375 207 - -
(2011)
Ei-Mashad
Cow
CM 13.8 0.80 4.9 - - 2.4 2.1 5.0 30 35 0.50 241 66 45 and Zhang
manure
(2010)
Lehtomäki
CM 6.5 0.76 4.15 - - 1.0 - - 100 35 1.5 233 - -
et al. (2009)
Li et al.
CM 23.4 0.59 4.80 5.8 3.5 - - 8.4 35 35 - 144 - -
(2009)
I: Inoculum; F: Feed; DP: Digestion period; DT: Digestion temperature; VSR: VS removal; DV: Digester volume; FW: Fish waste; FS:
Fish sludge; FFW: Fish farm waste; FPW: Fish processing waste; SM: Swine manure; CM: Cow manure
313