Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Analysis of Agricultural Substrates for Nutritive Values and Biomethane Potential


Affiliations
1 National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faisalabad, Pakistan
 

Bio-methane from agricultural waste has enough potential to compete with other sources of energy. This study aims to examine the bio-methane potential of numerous agricultural wastes, including cotton waste, wheat bran, lentil straw, barley straw, rice bran and peanut peels straw with the aim to produce renewable energy and solve waste disposal issues. The proximate, ultimate and chemical composition analyses were performed to predict the theoretical biomethane potentials in silico. However, the potential was experimentally assayed at mesophilic conditions. Moreover, elemental and lignin based biodegradability of substrates have also been determined. The methane contents in biogas are in the range 57–64% and the yield varied from 216.3 (barley straw) to 317.6 (cotton waste) ml/g volatile solids. These results indicate that higher biodegradability of substrates resulted in higher methane production. The prediction of bio-methane potential from chemical composition, elemental composition and organic fraction were not as fit accurately as being assessed for methane potential. It merely provided the extent of biodegradability. During digestion, volatile fatty acids were produced, viz. acetic acid (58–63%), butyric acid (28–32%), propionic acid (6–13%) and converted into methane but limited concentrations of intermediate acids indicated similar microbial consortium in all digestions. Hence, it was also concluded that the lignin and hemicellulose content played a limiting role in digestion and posed negative impact on biogas production.

Keywords

Acid Detergent Fibre, Acid Detergent Lignin, Anaerobic Digestion, Neutral Detergent Fibre, Volatile Fatty Acids.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Wall, D. M., O’Kiely, P. and Murphy, J. D., The potential for biomethane from grass and slurry to satisfy renewable energy targets. Bioresour. Technol., 2013, 149, 425–431.

  • Bernet, N. and Beline, F., Challenges and innovations on biological treatment of livestock effluents. Bioresour. Technol., 2009, 100, 5431–5436.

  • Murphy, J. D. and Power, N. M., An argument for using biomethane generated from grass as a biofuel in Ireland. Biomass. Bioenergy, 2009, 33, 504–512.

  • Nizami, A. S. and Murphy, J. D., Optimizing the operation of a two-phase anaerobic digestion system digesting grass silage. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2011, 45, 7561–7569.

  • Neves, L., Oliveira, R. and Alves, M., Anaerobic co-digestion of coffee waste and sewage sludge. Waste Manage., 2006, 26, 176–181.

  • Gunaseelan, V. N., Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste feedstocks. Biomass. Bioenergy, 2004, 26, 389–399.

  • Weiland, P., Production and energetic use of biogas from energy crops and wastes in Germany. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol., 2003, 109, 263–274.

  • Appels, L. et al., Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and research challenges. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2011, 15, 4295–4301.

  • Spellman, F. R., Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations, CRC Press, 2013.

  • Faithfull, N. T., Methods in Agricultural Chemical Analysis: A Practical Handbook, Cabi, 2002.

  • Labconco, C., A Guide to Kjeldahl Nitrogen Determination Methods and Apparatus, Labconco Corporation, Houston, TX, USA, 1998.

  • Buswell, A. and Mueller, H., Mechanism of methane fermentation. Ind. Eng. Chem., 1952, 44, 550–552.

  • Lesteur, M., Bellon, V., Gonzalez, C., Latrille, E., Roger, J., Junqua, G. and Steyer, J., Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: a review. Process Biochem., 2010, 45, 431–440.

  • Nurk, L., Buhle, L. and Wachendorf, M., Degradation of fibre and non-fibre fractions during anaerobic digestion in silages of maize, sunflower and sorghum-sudangrass of different maturities. Bioenergy Res., 2016, 9, 720–730.

  • Raposo, F. et al., Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol., 2011, 86, 1088–1098.

  • Nielfa, A., Cano, R. and Fdz-Polanco, M., Theoretical methane production generated by the co-digestion of organic fraction municipal solid waste and biological sludge. Biotechnol. Rep., 2015, 5, 14–21.

  • Angelidaki, I. et al., Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water. Sci. Technol., 2009, 59, 927–934.

  • Apha, A., WEF, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 2005, 21, 258–259.

  • APHA, L., Clesceri, A. and Greenberg, A., Eaton. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (20th ed.), American Public Health Association, Washington, DC, 1998.

  • Chandler, J. A., Jewell, W. J., Gossett, J., Van Soest, P. and Robertson, J., In Predicting methane fermentation biodegradability, Biotechnol. Bioeng. Symp. (United States), Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY, 1980.

  • Das, L. K., Kundu, S., Kumar, D. and Datt, C., Fractionation of carbohydrate and protein content of some forage feeds of ruminants for nutritive evaluation. Vet. World., 2015, 8, 197–206.

  • Das, L. K., Kundu, S., Kumar, D. and Datt, C., Assessment of Energy Content of some Tropical Concentrate Feeds of Ruminants Using Model of National Research Council-2001. Ind. J. Sci. Technol., 2014, 7, 1999–2006.

  • Carpita, N. C., Structure and biogenesis of the cell walls of grasses. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 1996, 47, 445–476.

  • Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Zollitsch, W., Mayer, K. and Gruber, L., Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure – influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 2007, 118, 173–182.

  • Ferreira, G. and Mertens, D. R., Measuring detergent fibre and insoluble protein in corn silage using crucibles or filter bags. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 2007, 133, 335–340.

  • Chandra, R., Takeuchi, H. and Hasegawa, T., Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural crop wastes: A review in context to second generation of biofuel production. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 2012, 16, 1462–1476.

  • Ge, X., Matsumoto, T., Keith, L. and Li, Y., Biogas energy production from tropical biomass wastes by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol., 2014, 169, 38–44.

  • Luostarinen, S., Luste, S. and Sillanpaa, M., Increased biogas production at wastewater treatment plants through co-digestion of sewage sludge with grease trap sludge from a meat processing plant. Bioresour. Technol., 2009, 100, 79–85.

  • Triolo, J. M., Pedersen, L., Qu, H. and Sommer, S. G., Biochemical methane potential and anaerobic biodegradability of non-herbaceous and herbaceous phytomass in biogas production. Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 125, 226–232.

  • Sahito, A. R., Mahar, R. and Brohi, K. M., Anaerobic biodegradability and methane potential of crop residue co-digested with buffalo dung. Mehran Univ. Res. J. Eng. Technol., 2013, 32, 509–518.

  • Lehtomaki, A., Huttunen, S., Lehtinen, T. and Rintala, J., Anaerobic digestion of grass silage in batch leach bed processes for methane production. Bioresour. Technol., 2008, 99, 3267–3278.

  • Giordano, A.; Cantù, C. and Spagni, A., Monitoring the biochemical hydrogen and methane potential of the two-stage darkfermentative process. Bioresour. Technol., 2011, 102, 4474–4479.

  • Ali, S., Shah, T. A., Afzal, A. and Tabbassum, R., Evaluating the co-digestion effects on chicken manure and rotten potatoes in batch experiments. Int. J. Biosci., 2017, 10, 150–159.

  • Siegert, I. and Banks, C., The effect of volatile fatty acid additions on the anaerobic digestion of cellulose and glucose in batch reactors. Process Biochem., 2005, 40, 3412–3418.


Abstract Views: 358

PDF Views: 102




  • Analysis of Agricultural Substrates for Nutritive Values and Biomethane Potential

Abstract Views: 358  |  PDF Views: 102

Authors

Shehbaz Ali
National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Tawaf Ali Shah
National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Asifa Afzal
National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Romana Tabassum
National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Faisalabad, Pakistan

Abstract


Bio-methane from agricultural waste has enough potential to compete with other sources of energy. This study aims to examine the bio-methane potential of numerous agricultural wastes, including cotton waste, wheat bran, lentil straw, barley straw, rice bran and peanut peels straw with the aim to produce renewable energy and solve waste disposal issues. The proximate, ultimate and chemical composition analyses were performed to predict the theoretical biomethane potentials in silico. However, the potential was experimentally assayed at mesophilic conditions. Moreover, elemental and lignin based biodegradability of substrates have also been determined. The methane contents in biogas are in the range 57–64% and the yield varied from 216.3 (barley straw) to 317.6 (cotton waste) ml/g volatile solids. These results indicate that higher biodegradability of substrates resulted in higher methane production. The prediction of bio-methane potential from chemical composition, elemental composition and organic fraction were not as fit accurately as being assessed for methane potential. It merely provided the extent of biodegradability. During digestion, volatile fatty acids were produced, viz. acetic acid (58–63%), butyric acid (28–32%), propionic acid (6–13%) and converted into methane but limited concentrations of intermediate acids indicated similar microbial consortium in all digestions. Hence, it was also concluded that the lignin and hemicellulose content played a limiting role in digestion and posed negative impact on biogas production.

Keywords


Acid Detergent Fibre, Acid Detergent Lignin, Anaerobic Digestion, Neutral Detergent Fibre, Volatile Fatty Acids.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi2%2F292-299