Abstract
Methane production from swine wastewater was evaluated by using sewage sludge as inoculum in three substrate to inoculum ratios (SIRs) named A (1:1), B (3:1) and C (6:1), with the objective to identify the proportion that optimizes the performance of the process. Duplicated batch bioreactors of 1 L capacity under mesophilic conditions were used to carry out the experiment. The highest biogas yield was observed in A treatment (554 ± 75 mL/g volatile solid (VS)). Cumulative methane production decreased from 382 ± 22 to 232 ± 5 mL/g VS when SIR increased from 1:1 to 6:1. The first-order model and the modified Gompertz equation were used to model the experimental cumulative methane yield giving adjustments with coefficients of determination of 96 and 99% respectively. The effect of the SIR was analysed based on the kinetic parameters of the Gompertz equation, which are methane production potential, maximum methane production rate and lag-phase time. The best performance in terms of the kinetic parameters was obtained for treatment A; however, treatment B could still ensure a stable process. The use of higher inoculum concentration generated 463.1% higher methane production rate and required 77.3% shorter adaptation time (lag phase) in the SIR range studied. When higher SIR was used (e.g. 14:1, previous work), it could be observed that the Gompertz equation also adjusted adequately the experimental data (R 2 > 0.99) although the lag-phase time did not remain in a linear relationship with SIR but exponentially above SIR = 6:1. These results demonstrated that when a low amount of inoculum was used, the adaptation time of microorganisms resulted much higher than expected delaying the methane production and extending the time needed to achieve adequate performance of the process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L, Ahring BK (1993) A mathematical model for dynamic simulation of anaerobic digestion of complex substrates: focusing on ammonia inhibition. Biotechnol Bioeng 42:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260420203
APHA (1999) APHA: standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. DC. American Public Health Association, Washington
Bernet N, Béline F (2009) Challenges and innovations on biological treatment of livestock effluents. Bioresour Technol 100:5431–5436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.02.003
Bolzonella D, Innocenti L, Pavan P et al (2003) Semi-dry thermophilic anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: focusing on the start-up phase. Bioresour Technol 86:123–129
Cheng X, Zhong C (2014) Effects of feed to inoculum ratio, co-digestion, and pretreatment on biogas production from anaerobic digestion of cotton stalk. Energy Fuel 28:3157–3166
Chynoweth DP, Turick CE, Owens JM et al (1993) Biochemical methane potential of biomass and waste feedstocks. Biomass Bioenergy 5:95–111
Chynoweth DP, Wilkie AC, Owens JM (1998) Anaerobic processing of piggery waste: a review. In: ASAE Annual International Meeting. Orlando, Florida, pp 1–38
Córdoba V, Fernández M, Santalla E (2016) The effect of different inoculums on anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 4:115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.11.003
Cuetos MJ, Morán A, Otero M, Gómez X (2009) Anaerobic co-digestion of poultry blood with OFMSW: FTIR and TG-DTG study of process stabilization. Environ Technol 30:571–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330902835730
De Mes TZD, Stams AJM, Reith JH, Zeeman G (2003) Methane production by anaerobic digestion of wastewater and solid wastes. In Reith, Wijffels and Barten (ed) Bio-methane & Bio-hydrogen, Dutch Biological Hydrogen Foundation, The Hague, pp 58–102.
Drosg B (2013) Process monitoring in biogas plants. IEA Bioenergy. https://nachhaltigwirtschaften.at/resources/iea_pdf/reports/iea_bioenergy_task37_brochure_biogas_process_montoring.pdf?m=1469661329. Acceded 10 June 2017
FAO (2009) El estado mundial de la agricultura y la alimentación. La ganadería, a examen. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0680s/i0680s.pdf. Acccessed 20 June 2017
Feng L, Li Y, Chen C et al (2013) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of vinegar residue and the influence of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas production. BioResource 8:2487–2498
Forster-Carneiro T, Pérez M, Romero LI (2008) Influence of total solid and inoculum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresour Technol 99:6994–7002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.018
Fuess LT, Kiyuna LSM, Ferraz Júnior ADN et al (2017) Thermophilic two-phase anaerobic digestion using an innovative fixed-bed reactor for enhanced organic matter removal and bioenergy recovery from sugarcane vinasse. Appl Energy 189:480–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.071
García-Gen S, Rodríguez J, Lema JM (2015) Control strategy for maximum anaerobic co-digestion performance. Water Res 80:209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.029
Gerardi MH (2003) The microbiology of anaerobic digesters, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken
Han S, Liu Y, Zhang S, Luo G (2016) Reactor performances and microbial communities of biogas reactors: effects of inoculum sources. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100:987–995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-7062-7
Hansen TL, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I et al (2004) Method for determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Waste Manag 24:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2003.09.009
Jackowiak D, Bassard D, Pauss A, Ribeiro T (2011) Optimization of a microwave pretreatment of wheat straw for methane production. Bioresour Technol 102:6750–6756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.107
Jenkins S, Morgan J, Sawyer C (1983) Measuring anaerobic sludge digestion and growth by a simple alkalimetric titration. Water Pollut Control Fed 55:448–453
Kafle GK, Chen L (2016) Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manag 48:492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.021
Kavitha S, Rajesh Banu J, Vinoth Kumar J, Rajkumar M (2016) Improving the biogas production performance of municipal waste activated sludge via disperser induced microwave disintegration. Bioresour Technol 217:21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.034
Khanal SK (2008) Anaerobic biotechnology for bioenergy production principles and applications. John Wiley & Sons, Iowa
Lay J-J, Li Y-Y, Noike T (1996) Effect of moisture content and chemical nature on methane fermentation characteristics of municipal solid wastes. J Environ Eng Div 552:101–108. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.1996.552_101
Li C, Fang HHP (2007) Inhibition of heavy metals on fermentative hydrogen production by granular sludge. Chemosphere 67:668–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.11.005
Li Y, Zhang R, Liu X et al (2013) Evaluating methane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of kitchen waste, corn stover, and chicken manure. Energy Fuel 27:2085–2091. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400117f
Lin C, Shei S (2008) Heavy metal effects on fermentative hydrogen production using natural mixed microflora. Int J Hydrog Energy 33:587–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.09.030
Liu G, Zhang R, El-Mashad HM, Dong R (2009) Effect of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas yields of food and green wastes. Bioresour Technol 100:5103–5108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.081
Llabrés-Luengo P, Mata-Alvarez J (1987) Kinetic study of the anaerobic digestion of straw-pig manure mixtures. Biomass 14:129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-4565(87)90015-1
Mateescu C, Constantinescu I (2011) Comparative analysis of inoculum biomass for biogas potential in the anaerobic digestion. UPB Sci Bull Ser B Chem Mater Sci 73:99–104
MINAGRI (2014) Área Porcinos Anuario 2014. Dirección Nacional de Producción Ganadera. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadría y Pesca de la Nación. http://www.agroindustria.gob.ar/sitio/areas/porcinos/estadistica/_archivos//000005-Anuario/140000-Anuario%202014.pdf. Acccessed 16 June 2017
Molina F, Ruiz-Filippi G, Garcia C et al (2009) Pilot-scale validation of a new sensor for on-line analysis of volatile fatty acids and alkalinity in anaerobic wastewater treatment plants. Environ Eng Sci 26:641–649. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2007.0308
Moller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK (2004) Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy 26:485–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.008
Mu Y, Wang G, Yu H-Q (2006) Kinetic modeling of batch hydrogen production process by mixed anaerobic cultures. Bioresour Technol 97:1302–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.05.014
Neves L, Oliveira R, Alves MM (2004) Influence of inoculum activity on the bio-methanization of a kitchen waste under different waste/inoculum ratios. Process Biochem 39:2019–2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2003.10.002
Panichnumsin P, Nopharatana A, Ahring B, Chaiprasert P (2006) Anaerobic co-digestion of cassava pulp and pig manure : effects of waste ratio and inoculum-substrate ratio. In: The 2nd Joint International Conference on “Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE 2006). pp 1–6
Pellera F, Gidarakos E (2016) Effect of substrate to inoculum ratio and inoculum type on the biochemical methane potential of solid agroindustrial waste. J Environ Chem Eng 4:3217–3229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2016.05.026
Sanjaya AP, Cahyanto MN, Millati R (2016) Mesophilic batch anaerobic digestion from fruit fragments. Renew Energy 98:135–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.059
Santalla E, Córdoba V, Crozza D (2008) Estudio de Performance Ambiental, Contrato entre la Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires UNCPBA y el Banco Mundial (Contrato N° 7145486). Evaluación, diagnóstico y propuestas de acción para la mejora de las problemáticas ambientales y mitigación de gases de efecto invernadero vinculadas a la producción porcina, bovina (feedlots y tambos) y avícola. 209 pág. Informe para el Banco Mundial BIRF a través del Fondo Argentino de Carbono. Contrato UNCPBA – Banco Mundial N° 7145486 http://www.ambiente.gov.ar/?Idarticulo=6878. 2008
Shin J, Han S, Eom K et al (2008) Predicting methane production potential of anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and food waste. Environ Eng Resour 13:93–97
Swinnen IAM, Bernaerts K, Dens EJJ et al (2004) Predictive modelling of the microbial lag phase: a review. Int J Food Microbiol 94:137–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.01.006
Tamilarasan K, Kavitha S, Rajesh Banu J et al (2017) Energy-efficient methane production from macroalgal biomass through chemo disperser liquefaction. Bioresour Technol 228:156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.12.102
Triolo JM, Ward AJ, Pedersen L, Sommer SG (2013) Characteristics of Animal Slurry as a Key Biomass for Biogas Production in Denmark. In: Matovic MDBT-BN-SG and U (ed). InTech, Rijeka, p Ch. 12
Voß E, Weichgrebe D, Rosenwinkel KH (2009) FOS/TAC-Deduction, Methods, Application and Significance. InternationaleWissenschafts konferenz, Biogas Science 2009 – science meets practice. pp 2–4
Zeikus JG (1977) The biology of methanogenic bacteria. Bacteriol Rev 41:514–541
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible by the support of the Argentine National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET) and the National University of the Centre of Buenos Aires Province (UNCPBA). Authors would also give thanks to the local Cooperative of Electricity of Olavarría (Coopelectric) for the supply of the sewage sludge used in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Angeles Blanco
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Córdoba, V., Fernández, M. & Santalla, E. The effect of substrate/inoculum ratio on the kinetics of methane production in swine wastewater anaerobic digestion. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25, 21308–21317 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0039-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0039-6