Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of the feasibility of fruit and vegetable wastes for methane yield using different substrate to inoculum ratios at Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The existing disposal method of fruit and vegetable wastes along with other waste has degraded the urban environment of Pakistan. This study was carried out which analyzes the feasibility of fruit and vegetable wastes for methane generation. From vegetable markets and fruit shops, the samples of fruit and vegetable waste were collected, respectively, by standard methodology. After collection, samples were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, volatile fatty acids, lignin content and proximate as well as ultimate analysis. Methane potential of fruit and vegetable wastes was found in the range of 265–444 Nml/gVS and 248–471 Nml/gVS, respectively. Also, the effect of substrate to inoculum ratio was studied. Findings of study led to conclude that maximum methane production from fruit and vegetable wastes could be achieved using lower substrate to inoculum ratio and vice versa. Therefore, it is recommended that dumping of fruit and vegetable wastes with other waste should be banned in Pakistan. Also the government of Pakistan should take a step immediately for mechanizing a system to separate biodegradable waste at source of generation for methane production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmadifar M, Sartaj M, Abdallah M (2016) Investigating the performance of aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic bioreactor landfills for MSW management in developing countries. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 18:703–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li Y, Liu H, Su D, Yan F (2016) Characterization and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Biomass Valoriz 7:325–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nathan C, Pragasen P (2012) Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for the urban environment. Renew Ener 41:200–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pak-EPA (2005) Guidelines for solid waste management, Pak-EPA in collaboration with JICA, Ministry of Environment, PEP and UNDP

  5. Mahar A, Malik RN, Qadir A, Ahmed T, Khan Z, Khan MA (2007) Review and analysis of current solid waste management situation in urban areas of Pakistan. In: Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable solid waste management, pp 5–7

  6. Korai MS, Mahar RB, Uqaili MA, Brohi KM (2015) Assessment of municipal solid waste management practices and Energy recovery potential in Pakistan. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on environmental science and technology rhodes, 3–5 September, Greece

  7. Mahar RB (2014) Mapping needs and activities on waste management in Pakistan. Country report

  8. Masood M, Barlow CY (2014) Status of solid waste management practices in developing countries—a case study on Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manag 34:837–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Muhammad SH (2013) Comparison of solid waste management between Oslo (Norway) and Lahore (Pakistan), Norwegian university of life science, Department of Noragric, Master Thesis

  10. Essays UK (2013) Electricity from MSW at Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan. Environmental Science Essay. http://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-sciences/electricity. Accessed Jan 2016

  11. Korai MS, Mahar RB, Uqaili MA, Memon SA, Lashari IA (2016) Energy recovery from organic fractions of municipal solid waste: a case study of Hyderabad city, Pakistan. Waste Manag Res 34(4):327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Forster CT, Perez M, Romero LI (2008) Influence of total solid and inoculum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresour Technol 99:6763–6770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Ben CR, Hamdia M (2005) Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: review. Proc Biochem 40:989–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shi C (2012) Potential biogas production from fish waste and sludge. TRITA LWR Degree Project 12:37–42

    Google Scholar 

  15. Esposito G, Luigi F, Flavia L, Antonio P, Francesco P (2012) Bio-methane potential tests to measure the biogas production from the digestion and co-digestion of complex organic substrates. Open Environ Eng J 5:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sahito AR, Mahar RB, Brohi KM (2013) Anaerobic biodegradability and methane potential of crop residue co-digested with buffalo dung. Mehr Univ Res J Eng Technol 32(3):509–518

    Google Scholar 

  17. Young MY, Seung HK, Kook SS, Chang HK (2014) Effects of substrate to inoculum ratio on the biochemical methane potential of piggery slaughterhouse wastes. Asian Australas J Anim Sci 27(4):600–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Feng L, Li Y, Chen C, Liu X, Xiao X, Ma X, Zhang R, He Y, Liu G (2013) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of vinegar residue and the influence of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas production. Bioresources 8(2):2487–2498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lesteur M, Bellon MV, Gonzalez C, Latrille E, Roger JM, Junqua G, Steyer JP (2010) Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: a review. Process Biochem 45(4): 431–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen TH, Hashimoto AG (1996) Effects of pH and substrate: inoculum ratio on batch methane fermentation. Bioresour Technol 56(2):179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fernandez B, Porrier P, Chamy R (2001) Effect of inoculum-substrate ratio on the start-up of solid waste anaerobic digesters. Water Sci Technol 44(4):103–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Prasada PVR, Venkata KS, Sudhir JK (2010) Waste to energy: a case study of Eluru city, Andhra Pradesh, India. Intern J Environ Sci 1(2):151–162

    Google Scholar 

  23. Korai MS, Mahar RB, Uqaili MA (2014) Assessment of power generation potential from municipal solid wastes: a case study of Hyderabad City, Sindh, Pakistan. Pakistan J Anal Environ Chem 15(1):18–27

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zishen M, Charlotte S, Peter K (2014) Evaluating the biochemical methane potential (BMP) of low-organic waste at Danish landfills. Waste Manag 34:2251–2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prabhudessai V, Ganguly A, Mutnuri S (2004) Biochemical methane potential of agro wastes. J Energy 2013:350731. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/350731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gunaseelan VN (2004) Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy 26(4):389–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cabbai V, Ballico M, Aneggi E, Goi D (2013) BMP tests of source selected OFMSW to evaluate anaerobic co-digestion with sewage sludge. Waste Manag 33(7):1626–1632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico A, Pirozzi F (2011) Model calibration and validation for OFMSW and sewage sludge co-digestion reactors. Waste Manag 31(12):2527–2535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico A, Pirozzi F (2012) Enhanced bio-methane production from co-digestion of different organic wastes. Environ Technol 33(24):2733–2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vavilin VA, Angelidaki I (2005) Anaerobic degradation of solid material: importance of initiation centers for methanogenesis, mixing intensity and 2D distributed model. Biotechnol Bioeng 89(1):113–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico A, Pirozzi F (2011) Modelling the effect of the OLR and OFMSW particle size on the performances of an anaerobic co-digestion reactor. Process Biochem 46(2):557–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim SH, Han SK, Shin HS (2004) Feasibility of biohydrogen production by anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge. Int J Hydrog Energy 29(15):1607–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Raposo F, De la Rubia MA, Fernández-Cegrí V, Borja R (2012) Anaerobic digestion of solid organic substrates in batch mode: an overview relating to methane yields and experimental procedures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16(1):861–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Angelidaki I, Alves MM, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL, Guwy AJ, Van Lier JB (2009) Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci Technol 59(5):927–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sosnowski P, Klepacz-Smolka A, Kaczorek K, Ledakowic S (2008) Kinetic investigations of methane co-fermentation of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Bioresour Technol 99(13):5731–5737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. APHA (1995) Standard methods for wastewater analysis, 19th edn. APHA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  37. Patil JH, Raj MA, Muralidhara PL, Desai SM, Raju GM (2012) Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth using poultry litter as inoculum. Int J Environ Sci Dev 3(2):94–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Edward AM, Ugbebor J, Okeke J (2013) Computational model for biogas production from solid waste. J Environ 2:47–51

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang Y, Banks CJ (2013) Impact of different particle size distributions on anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 33(2):297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. APHA (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. APHA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kelly RJ, Shearer BD, Kim J, Goldsmith CD, Hater GR, Novak JT (2006) Relationships between analytical methods utilized as tools in the evaluation of landfill waste stability. Waste Manag 26(12):1349–1356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sosnowski P, Wieczorek A, Ledakowicz S (2003) Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Adv Environ Res 7(3):609–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Raposo F, Fernández-Cegrí V, De la Rubia MA, Borja R, Béline F, Cavinato C, Ganesh R (2011) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 86(8):1088–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhou YL, Zhang ZY, Nakamoto T, Li Y, Yang YN, Utsumi M, Sugiura N (2011) Influence of substrate-to-inoculum ratio on the batch anaerobic digestion of bean curd refuse-okara under mesophilic conditions. Biomass Bioenergy 35(7):3251–3256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gunaseelan VN (2009) Predicting ultimate methane yields of Jatropha curcus and Morus indica from their chemical composition. Bioresour Technol 100(13):3426–3429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Garcia-Peña EI, Parameswaran P, Kang DW, Canul-Chan M, Krajmalnik BR (2011) Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion processes of vegetable and fruit residues: process and microbial ecology. Bioresour Technol 102(20):9447–9455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Le Hyaric R, Chardin C, Benbelkacem H, Bollon J, Bayard R, Escudie R, Buffiere P (2011) Influence of substrate concentration and moisture content on the specific methanogenic activity of dry mesophilic municipal solid waste digestate spiked with propionate. Bioresour Technol 102(2):822–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Liotta F, d’Antonio G, Esposito G, Fabbricino M, Frunzo L, Van Hullebusch ED, Pirozzi F (2014) Effect of moisture on disintegration kinetics during anaerobic digestion of complex organic substrates. Waste Manag Res 32(1):40–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Babaee A, Shayegan J (2011) Effects of organic loading rates (OLR) on production of methane from anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste. In: Proceedings of the world renewable energy congress, Linköping, Sweden, pp 8–13

  50. Johari A, Hashim H, Mat R, Alias H, Hassim M, Rozzainee M (2012) Generalization, formulation and heat contents of simulated MSW with high moisture content. J Eng Sci Technol 7(6):701–710

    Google Scholar 

  51. Subramani T, Ponkumar S (2012) Anaerobic digestion of aerobic pretreated organic waste. Int J Mod Eng Res 2(3):607–611

    Google Scholar 

  52. Banu JR, Raj E, Kaliappan S, Beck D, Yeom IT (2007) Solid state biomethanation of fruit wastes. J Environ Biol 28(4):741–745

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mudhoo A, Mohee R, Bundhoo ZM, Surroop D (2013) Anaerobic digestion of vegetable wastes using biochemical methane potential assays. In: Climate-smart technol, pp 447–458

  54. Narayani TG, Priya PG (2012) Biogas production through mixed fruit wastes biodegradation. J Sci Ind Res 71:217–220

    Google Scholar 

  55. Orozco RS, Hernández PB, Morales GR, Núñez FU, Villafuerte JO, Lugo VL, Vázquez PC (2014) Characterization of lignocellulosic fruit waste as an alternative feedstock for bioethanol production. BioResources 9(2):1873–1885

    Google Scholar 

  56. Browne JD, Murphy JD (2013) Assessment of the resource associated with biomethane from food waste. Appl Energy 104:170–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Vavilin VA, Fernandez B, Palatsi J, Flotats X (2008) Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic degradation of particulate organic material: an overview. Waste Manag 28(6):939–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Angelidaki I, Ahring BK (1992) Effects of free long-chain fatty acids on thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 37(6):808–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Thamsiriroj T, Nizami AS, Murphy JD (2012) Why does mono-digestion of grass silage fail in long term operation? Appl Energy 95:64–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang Y, Walker M, Banks CJ (2010) Optimizing processes for the stable operation of food waste digestion. Tech Rep 208:35–57

    Google Scholar 

  61. Angelidaki I, Sanders W (2004) Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of macro pollutants. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol 3(2):117–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Raposo F, Borja R, Rincon B, Jimenez AM (2008) Assessment of process control parameters in the biochemical methane potential of sunflower oil cake. Biomass Bioenergy 32(12):1235–1244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Liu C, Xiao B, Dauta A, Peng G, Liu S, Hu Z (2014) Effect of low power ultrasonic radiation on anaerobic biodegradability of sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 100(24):6217–6222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yi J, Dong B, Jin J, Dai X (2014) Effect of increasing total solids contents on anaerobic digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and microbial characteristics analysis. PLoS One 9(7):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sahito AR, Mahar RB, Farooq A (2014) Effect of buffalo dung to the water ratio on production of methane through anaerobic digestion. Mehran Univ Res J Eng Technol 33(2): 237–244

    Google Scholar 

  66. Igoni AH, Abowei MFN, Ayotamuno MJ, Eze CL (2008) Effect of total solids concentration of municipal solid waste on the biogas produced in an anaerobic continuous digester. Agric Eng Int CIGR J X:1–11 (Manuscript EE 07 010)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Callaghan FJ, Wase DAJ, Thayanithy K, Forster CF (2002) Continuous co-digestion of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 22(1):71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Devinder D, Mona M, Hradesh R, Patil RT (2012) Dietary fiber in foods: a review. J Food Sci Technol 49:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Moller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK (2004) Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy 26(5):485–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sahito AR, Mahar RB, Brohi KM (2013) Anaerobic biodegradability and methane potential of crop residue co-digested with buffalo dung. Mehran Univ Res J Eng Technol 32:509–518

    Google Scholar 

  71. Triolo JM, Sommer SG, Møller HB, Weisbjerg MR, Jiang XY (2011) A new algorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during anaerobic digestion: influence of lignin concentration on methane production potential. Bioresour Technol 102(20):9395–9402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Yeqing LI, Ruihong Z, Guangqing L, Chang C, Yanfeng H, Xiaoying L (2013) Comparison of methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Bioresour Technol 149:565–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Institute of environmental engineering and management, Mehran UET, Jamshoro is acknowledged for providing facilities for performing experimental work in its laboratories.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Engineering and Management, MUET, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan

    Korai Muhammad Safar, Brohi Khan Muhammad & Memon Sheeraz Ahmed

  2. US-Pakistan Center for Advance Studies in Water, MUET, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan

    Mahar Rasool Bux

  3. Department of Electrical Engineering, MUET, Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan

    Uqaili Muhammad Aslam

Authors
  1. Korai Muhammad Safar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahar Rasool Bux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Uqaili Muhammad Aslam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brohi Khan Muhammad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Memon Sheeraz Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Korai Muhammad Safar.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Safar, K.M., Bux, M.R., Aslam, U.M. et al. Analysis of the feasibility of fruit and vegetable wastes for methane yield using different substrate to inoculum ratios at Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 21, 365–374 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0799-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0799-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation