Next Article in Journal
Creation of a Hydrodynamic Digital Model of a Laboratory Core Experiment of Surfactant Polymer Impact on Oil Recovery, in Order to Determine Parameters for Further Full-Scale Simulation
Previous Article in Journal
The Relationship between Chlorite and Reservoir Quality in the Huagang Formation, Xihu Depression, China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Study of Methane Fermentation of Cattle Manure in the Mesophilic Regime with the Addition of Crude Glycerine

1
Department of Rural Technical Infrastructure Systems, Institute of Technology and Life Sciences, National Research Institute, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland
2
Department of Mechanics, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, 03041 Kyiv, Ukraine
3
Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Mechanics, Institute of Engineering Thermophysics of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, 03057 Kyiv, Ukraine
5
Department of Mechanics, Polissia National University, 10008 Zhytomyr, Ukraine
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(9), 3439; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093439
Submission received: 11 April 2022 / Revised: 2 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022 / Published: 8 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Chemical and Biochemical Processes for Energy Sources)

Abstract

:
The urgency of the study is due to the need to increase the productivity of biogas plants by intensifying the process of methane fermentation of cattle manure in mesophilic mode by adding to it the waste from biodiesel production: crude glycerine. To substantiate the rational amount of crude glycerine in the substrate, the following tasks were performed: determination of dry matter, dry organic matter, and moisture of the substrate from cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine; conducting experimental studies on biogas yield during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine with periodic loading of the substrate; and development of a biogas yield model and determination of the rational composition of crude glycerine with its gradual loading into biogas plants with cattle manure. The article presents the results of research on fermentation of substrates in a laboratory biogas plant with a useful volume of 30 L, which fermented different proportions of crude glycerine with cattle manure at a temperature of 30 °C, 35 °C, and 40 °C. The scientific novelty of the work is to determine the patterns of intensification of the process of methane fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of different portions of crude glycerine. A rapid increase in biogas yield is observed when the glycerol content is up to 0.75%. With the addition of more glycerine, the growth of biogas yield slows down. The digester of the biogas plant, where experimental studies were conducted on the fermentation of substrates based on cattle manure with the addition of co-substrates, is suitable for periodic loading of the substrate. As a rule, existing biogas plants use a gradual mode of loading the digester. Conducting experimental studies on biogas yield during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine with periodic loading of the substrate makes it possible to build a mathematical model of biogas yield and determine the rational composition (up to 0.75%) of crude glycerine with its gradual loading in biogas plants. Adding 0.75% of crude glycerine to the substrate at a fermentation temperature of 30 °C allows to increase the biogas yield by 2.5 times and proportionally increase the production of heat and electricity. The practical application of this knowledge allows the design of an appropriate capacity of the biogas storage tank (gasholder).

1. Introduction

The lack of energy resources in the world determines the intensification of activities in the field of adaptation and operation of existing or new technologies for the production of clean and cheap energy from renewable sources [1,2]. Biofuels are used to replace petroleum fuels: biomass (wood, agricultural and processing waste, energy crops), fuel pellets, and biomass briquettes [3], including torrefied fuel pellets and briquettes [4], biodiesel, and biohydrogen. Biogas technologies are being actively introduced into production. The urgency of the study is due to the need to increase the productivity of biogas plants by intensifying the process of methane fermentation of cattle manure. Such manure is characterized by rather low productivity of biogas output, due to which modern biogas plants have low profitability [5]. In order to increase the yield of biogas from cattle manure, it is advisable to use as co-substrates—waste from agricultural and processing production, at the same time eliminating the need for their disposal. Such co-substrates include sediments of vegetable oils [6], soapstock [7], substandard flour [8], and extruded straw [9,10]. One of such co-substrates is crude glycerine, which is formed as a by-product of biodiesel production [11,12].
In [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], the compatible methane fermentation of cattle manure with crude glycerine was studied, while in [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34] also the fermentation of other substrates (sewage, maize silage, algae, etc.) with crude glycerine. The papers note that the use of crude glycerine as a co-substrate generally increases the yield of biogas. At the same time, the rate of biogas yield increased with the addition of 2% of crude glycerine [35], while the addition of 10% of crude glycerine to the substrate inhibited the rate of biogas yield [35,36].
Thus, there is a need for further research to substantiate the concentration of crude glycerine in the substrate based on cattle manure. The aim of this study is to increase the yield of biogas from cattle manure by adding crude glycerine in mesophilic mode.

2. Materials and Methods

An experimental study of the methods and regimes of cattle manure methane fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine for biogas production was carried out at a lab-scale biogas plant (Figure 1a) in the educational scientific laboratory of bioconversion in the agro-industrial complex of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine. The biogas plant includes a digester with a usable volume of 30 L and a gasholder (Figure 1b).
Biogas from the methane tank through the pipeline enters the gasholder, where it is stored. This installation uses a “wet” gasholder, which consists of two hollow cylindrical containers (the body and a cylinder-level gauge) as well as a guide. The body of the gasholder is filled with water, in which the hollow cylinder-level gauge floats like a boat. Biogas enters the inner cavity of the cylinder-level gauge, which rises above the body of the gasholder along with the guide that allows determining the presence and volume of gas in the gasholder. From the gasholder, biogas enters the gas stove by squeezing the mass of the cylinder-level gauge.
The digester (fermentation chamber) works with periodic substrate loading. To the substrate that consisted of 3.5 kg of cattle manure and 5 kg of water was added crude glycerine weighing 50, 100, 200, and 300 mL, or 0.6%, 1.2%, 2.3%, and 3.4% of the substrate mass, respectively. The 30 L digester was half loaded with the substrate (loading factor 0.5, loaded volume 15 L). When adding a new portion of the substrate, the fermented substrate was changed by half (emptying coefficient −0.5). The temperature regime of the digester during the study was 30 °C, 35 °C, and 40 °C (mesophilic mode). For control, experiments were performed without the addition of crude glycerine.
The output of biogas was recorded once a day after raising the cylinder-level meter of the gasholder (on the guide of the cylinder-level-meter-attached scale, calibrated in cubic centimeters).
The volume of biogas generated in the digester in the interval between readings of the gasholder–cylinder lifting is determined by the formula:
V b = π D g 4 H g
where Vb is the volume of biogas generated in the digester in the interval between the readings of the gasholder–cylinder lifting (cm3), Dg is the inner diameter of the cylinder-level gauge gasholder (cm), and Hg is the height of the cylinder-level gauge of the gasholder (cm).
The productivity of the digester on biogas is calculated by the formula:
Q b = V b Δ t
where Qb is the productivity of the biogas (cm3/h) and Δt is the time interval between readings of raising the cylinder-level gauge of the gasholder (h).
The time interval Δt between readings of raising the cylinder-level gauge of the gasholder is determined by the formula:
Δ t = 24 t 2 + t 1
where t2 is the reading time of the previous indicator of the cylinder-level gauge (h) and t1 is the reading time of the current level of the cylinder-level gauge (h).
The total amount of biogas obtained during the experiment was specified by the formula:
V G e n b = V b
where VGenb is the total amount of biogas obtained during the experiment (cm3).
The average yield of biogas during the experiment was calculated by the formula:
V A v b = V G e n b t G e n
where VAvb is the average biogas yield during the experiment (cm3/day) and tGen is the total time of the experiment (days).
In most literature sources, the yield of biogas from the substrate is estimated in L/kg COP. Therefore, to be able to compare the obtained results with the data from the literature, we converted the obtained results into the dimension of L/(h·kg COP). To do this, we determined the dry weight of the substrate, which is loaded into the digester, according to the formula:
M D M s = M s D M 100
where MDMs is the dry matter mass of the substrate (kg), Ms is the substrate mass (kg), and DM is the dry matter content in the substrate (%).
After that, the mass of dry organic matter of the substrate, which is loaded into the digester, is determined by the formula:
M D O M s = M D M s D O M D M 100
where MDOMs is the mass of dry organic matter of the substrate (kg) and DOMDM is the dry organic matter content in the dry matter of the substrate (%).
If the percentage of dry organic matter in the substrate is known, the mass of dry organic matter of the substrate, which is loaded into the digester, is determined by the formula:
M D O M s = M D M s D O M 100
where MDOMs is the mass of dry organic matter of the substrate (kg) and DOM is the content of dry organic matter in the substrate (%).
The hourly productivity of the biogas, referred to as the dry organic matter content in the substrate, is determined by the formula:
Q b / D O M h r = 10 3 Q b M D O M s
where Qb/DOMhr is the hourly productivity of the biogas, referred to as the content in the substrate of dry organic matter (L/(h⋅kg DOM)) and Qb is biogas productivity of the digester (cm3/h).
If the hourly productivity of the biogas, related to the dry organic matter content in the substrate, is multiplied by the time between readings of the cylinder-level gauge of the gasholder, the daily biogas productivity of the digester, related to the dry organic matter content in the substrate, is determined by the equation:
Q b / D O M d = Q b / D O M h r Δ t
where Qb/DOMhr is the daily biogas productivity of the methane tank, referred to as the dry organic matter content in the substrate (L/(h⋅kg DOM)) and Δt is the time interval between readings of raising the cylinder-level gauge of the gasholder (h).
The accumulated biogas yield is determined by the formula:
Q b a c = Q = 1 n Q b / D O M h r
where Qb ac is the accumulated biogas yield (L/(kg DOM)), i is summation index, and n is upper summation limit (days).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Experimental Study of Biogas Yield during Fermentation of Cattle Manure with the Addition of Crude Glycerine

The results of the experimental study of the dynamics of the rate of biogas output over time are shown in Figure 2.
A characteristic feature of fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine is a short fermentation period, which is 6–12 days. Moreover, the lower the fermentation temperature, the shorter the fermentation period. If the volume of glycerine is higher in the substrate, the fermentation is more intense. There have been cases of clogging of the digester exhaust pipe with manure due to intense foaming. To avoid this phenomenon, the digester was only half filled with the substrate. Diauxia is also a characteristic phenomenon in the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine.
The values of the maximum yield of biogas of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine in the periodic system of the digester loading are given in Table 1. The conversion factor of biogas yield from the dimension L/(h⋅kg DOM) to the dimension L/(h⋅kg) when adding 0.6% of glycerol to the substrate was 17.032 kg/(kg DOM); 1.2% glycerol, 15.867 kg/(kg DOM); 2.3% glycerol, 13.987 kg/(kg DOM); and 3.4% glycerol, 12.536 kg/(kg DOM).
The accumulated biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of glycerine is shown in Figure 3.
At low temperatures, the accumulated biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of glycerol was higher in comparison with the accumulated biogas yield during cattle manure fermentation only. Thus, at a fermentation temperature of 30 °C, the accumulated biogas yield was about 47 L/(kg DOM) during 10 days of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of 8% DOM glycerol, it was 83.4 L/(kg DOM) in the case of 14.8% DOM glycerol, it was 130.2 L/(kg DOM) with 25.7% DOM glycerol, it was 94.3 L/(kg DOM) with 34.2% DOM glycerol, and it was 39.8 L/(kg DOM) with fermentation of cattle manure alone. However, as the fermentation temperature increased, the accumulated biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation only gradually exceeded the accumulated biogas yield of the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of glycerol. Thus, at a fermentation temperature of 35 °C, the accumulated biogas yield was about 44.4 L/(kg DOM) during 10 days of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of 8% DOM glycerol, it was 88.3 L/(kg DOM) with 14.8% DOM glycerol, it was 111.7 L/(kg DOM) with 25.7% DOM glycerol, it was 146.5 L/(kg DOM) with 34.2% DOM glycerol, it was 85.2 L/(kg DOM) with 51% DOM glycerol, and it was about 50 L/(kg DOM) when fermenting only cattle manure. At a fermentation temperature of 40 °C, the accumulated biogas yield was 118.5 L/(kg DOM) during 10 days of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of 8% DOM glycerol, it was 137.9 L/(kg DOM) with 14.8% DOM glycerol, it was 173.2 L/(kg DOM) with 25.7% DOM glycerol, it was 217.4 L/(kg DOM) with 34.2% DOM glycerol, and it was about 140 L/(kg DOM) when fermenting only cattle manure. This phenomenon is explained not by the best biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation, but by the fact that this yield is stretched for a long time, and during cattle manure fermentation with glycerol, there is an intensive biogas yield for 3–5 days, after which it quickly stops.
The accumulated yield of biogas during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine is approximated by a polynomial.
Q accumul = b n t n + b n 1 t n 1 + b 1 t + b 0
where Qaccumul is the accumulated biogas yield (L/(kg DOM)), t is the fermentation time (days), and n is the degree of the polynomial.
The coefficients of the polynomial (Equation (12)) are given in Table 2.
Coefficients of determination of the approximated curves (Equation (12)) are given with the coefficients of the polynomial in Table 2. They are approaching 1, which suggests that the obtained regression equations fairly accurately reflect the experimental data.
When tested by Fisher’s test [37] (p. 201 (8.52)), the significance of the coefficients of determination was established. When tested by Student’s criterion [37] (p. 201 (8.55)), it was established that all coefficients b1 and b2 were significant. The coefficients b3 and b4 were unreliable (except for coefficient b3 for the regression equation, which describes the accumulated biogas yield at a fermentation temperature of 35 °C for the glycerol content in the substrate of 1.2%, which was significant). However, the results obtained by regression equation (Equation (12)), Table 2, without these unreliable coefficients, differed significantly from the experimental data, so these coefficients must be present in the regression equations. As a result of checking the significance of the coefficients of determination of the approximated curves (Equation (12)), Table 2, it was determined that they were significant.
Biogas obtained by fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine in the first few days of fermentation did not burn. Moreover, at lower fermentation temperature, increased the time in which no biogas combustion was observed. Thus, at a fermentation temperature of 30–35 °C, the absence of combustion in most cases was observed for 2–3 days, and at a temperature of 40 °C, it was for 1 day. In all cases, the next day after the start of combustion, biogas burned poorly, emitting less heat. Subsequently, the combustion of biogas stabilized with a combustion heat of 18–20 MJ/m3 for a fermentation temperature of 30–35 °C and 14–18 MJ/m3 for a fermentation temperature of 40 °C.

3.2. Simulation of Biogas Yield with Gradual Loading of the Digester Based on the Results of Experimental Studies of Biogas Yield with Periodic Loading

The digester of the biogas plant, where experimental studies were carried out on the fermentation of substrates based on cattle manure with the addition of co-substrates, is suitable for periodic loading of the substrate. The mode of the substrate’s gradual loading is quite difficult to realize. However, in practice, on existing biogas plants, the periodic loading mode of the digester is rarely used; more often, a gradual loading is used, when the substrate is loaded into the digester in small portions after a certain time (usually about 1 h). The biogas yield reaches the maximum value that can be achieved with a periodic loading system, and it is maintained at this level throughout the operation of the biogas plant. Therefore, based on experiments with the periodic loading system of the digester, it is possible to model the biogas yield with a gradual loading system. The biogas yield in a gradual loading system is close to the maximum biogas yield in a periodic loading system.
The simulated yield of biogas during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for the gradual loading of the digester is shown in Figure 4, and the values of the maximum biogas yield that were used to model the process are presented in Table 3.
The simulated yield of biogas during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for the gradual loading of the digester is approximated by the power function:
Q b mod = b 2 G b 1 + b 0
where Qbmod is simulated biogas output for the gradual loading of the digester (L/(kg DOM)), G is the content of glycerol in the substrate (%), and b0, b1, and b2 are coefficients of the power function.
The coefficients of the power function (Equation (13)) are given in Table 3.
Coefficients of determination of approximate functions (Equation (13)) describing the simulated biogas yield during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for the gradual loading of the digester at all investigated fermentation temperatures approached 1, which suggests that the obtained regression equations fairly accurately reflect the experimental data. When tested by Fisher’s test [37] (p. 201 (8.52)), the significance of the coefficients of determination was established for α = 5% for all investigated regimes and also for α = 1% for temperature regimes of the digester at 30 °C, 35 °C, and 40 °C. Student’s test [37] (p. 201 (8.55)) showed that the coefficients of the power function are significant.
Since we considered the simulated biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine for gradual loading of the digester depending on two variables, namely the glycerol content in the substrate, G, and the fermentation temperature T, Equation (13) with the coefficients, given in Table 3, can be approximated by the function of two variables:
Q b mod = [ 6.08 × 10 5 G 4 9.58 × 10 3 G 3 + 0.55894 G 2 14.29677 G + 135.659 ] × G ( 1.21 × 10 5 G 4 + 1.737 × 10 3 G 3 9.208 × 10 2 G 2 + 2.14187 G 17.899 ) + 4.15 × 10 6 G 3.1649
where Qbmod is the simulated biogas output for gradual loading of the digester (L/(h·kg DOM)), G is the glycerol content in the substrate (%), and G is the fermentation temperature (°C).
The coefficient of determination was R2 = 0.8654 of the regression equation, determined by Equation (14). It is not so close to unity to claim that the obtained regression equation accurately reflects the experimental data for the fermentation temperature of 30–40 °C and the glycerol content in the substrate is not more than 3.4%. However, greater accuracy was not achieved. When it was tested by Fisher’s test [37] (p. 201 (8.52)), the significance of the coefficient of determination was established. Student’s test [37] (p. 201 (8.55)) showed that all the coefficients of the approximation (Equation (15)) were significant, except for the coefficients 1.121 × 10−5 and 4.15 × 10−6, which were unreliable, but their removal can cause a significant difference between the experimental and calculated values. The response surface, built according to the regression equation (Equation (14)), is shown in Figure 5.
As can be seen from Figure 4 and Figure 5, with the addition of more crude glycerine, the biogas yield increased. However, it grew unevenly. When up to 0.75% of glycerine was added to the substrate, there was an intensive increase in biogas yield. With the addition of more glycerine, the growth of biogas yield slowed down. Thus, if at a fermentation temperature of 30 °C, an increase in the content of crude glycerine in the substrate from 0% to 0.75% causes an increase in biogas yield by 2.5 times, the increase in the content of crude glycerine in the substrate from 0.75% to 3.4%, i.e., by 25%, is only by 1.7 times. In addition, if the increase in crude glycerine in the substrate from 0% to 0.75% at a fermentation temperature of 40 °C causes an increase in biogas yield by 1.5 times, the increase in crude glycerine in the substrate from 0.75% to 3.4%, that is, by 25%, is only by 1.2 times.
Crude glycerine is a waste from biodiesel production. Currently, for several reasons, biodiesel production in Ukraine is developing at a slow pace. Therefore, to reduce the cost of valuable co-substrates, biogas producers, who have access to crude glycerine as a waste from biodiesel production, the resources of which are limited, are recommended to prepare a substrate with a content of not more than 0.75% of crude glycerine.

4. Conclusions

For increasing the efficiency of biogas production in the mesophilic regime, it is advisable to use crude glycerine, which is the waste from biodiesel production, as a co-substrate. Recycling crude glycerine causes problems for the biodiesel industry.
The scientific novelty of the work is the determination of the intensification patterns of the methane fermentation process of cattle manure based on the addition of different proportions of crude glycerine. An intensive increase in the biogas yield is observed if the glycerin content is 0.75% of the substrate. With the addition of more glycerine, the biogas yield decreases. Thus, at a fermentation temperature of 30 °C, the increase in the crude glycerine content in the substrate from 0% to 0.75% causes the biogas yield to increase by 2.5 times, while the increase in the crude glycerine content in the substrate from 0.75% to 3.4% causes the biogas yield to increase by only 1.7 times.
The increase in the crude glycerine content in the substrate from 0% to 0.75% at a fermentation temperature of 40 °C causes an increase in biogas yield by 1.5 times. In the case of the increase in the crude glycerine content in the substrate from 0.75% to 3.4%, the biogas yield grows by only 1.2 times.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; methodology, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; software, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; validation, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; formal analysis, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; investigation, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; resources, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; data curation, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; writing—original draft preparation, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; writing—review and editing, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; visualization, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; supervision, W.R., I.R., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; project administration, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R.; funding acquisition, W.R., I.R., V.P., L.T., K.B., W.J.W., S.S., Y.D., I.S., S.D., D.D. and K.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

COIchemical oxygen index
DOMdry organic matter
VSvolatile solids
DMdry matter
HRThydraulic retention time

References

  1. Hryniewicz, M.; Roman, K. Simulations of fuels consumption in the CHP system based on modernised GTD-350 turbine engine. J. Water Land Dev. 2021, 51, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hryniewicz, M.; Strzelczyk, M.; Helis, M.; Paszkiewicz-Jasińska, A.; Steinhoff-Wrzesniewska, A.; Roman, K. Mathematical models use to yield prognosis of perennials on marginal land according to fertilisers doses. J. Water Land Dev. 2021, 51, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Olugbade, T.; Ojo, O.; Mohammed, T. Influence of binders on combustion properties of biomass briquettes: A recent review. Bioenergy Res. 2019, 12, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Olugbade, T.O.; Ojo, O.T. Biomass torrefaction for the production of high-grade solid biofuels: A Review. Bioenergy Res. 2020, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lijo, L.; Gonzalez-Garcia, S.; Bacenetti, J.; Moreira, M.T. The environmental effect of substituting energy crops for food waste as feedstock for biogasproduction. Energy 2017, 137, 1130–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rogovskii, I.L.; Polishchuk, V.M.; Titova, L.L.; Sivak, I.M.; Vyhovskyi AYu Drahnev, S.V.; Voinash, S.A. Study of Biogas During Fermentation of Cattle Manure Using a Stimulating Additive in Form of Vegetable Oil Sediment. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2020, 15, 2652–2663. [Google Scholar]
  7. Polishchuk, V.M.; Shvorov, S.A.; Krusir, G.V.; Didur, V.V.; Witaszek, K.; Pasichnyk, N.A.; Dvornyk, Y.e.O.; Davidenko, T.S. Using soap waste from biodiesel production to intensify biogas generation during anaerobic digestion of cow dung. Probl. Energeticii Reg. 2022, 1, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Polishchuk, V.M.; Shvorov, S.A.; Tarasenko, S.Y.E.; Antypov, I.O. Increasing the Biogas Release During the Cattle Manure Fermentation by Means of Rational Addition of Substandard Flour as a Cosubstrate. Sci. Innov. 2020, 16, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Polishchuk, V.M.; Shvorov, S.A.; Zablodskiy, M.M.; Kucheruk, P.P.; Davidenko, T.S.; Dvornyk, Y.e.O. Effectiveness of Adding Extruded Wheat Straw to Poultry Manure to Increase the Rate of Biogas Yield. Probl. Energeticii Reg. 2021, 3, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Polishchuk, V.M.; Shvorov, S.A.; Flonts, I.V.; Davidenko, T.S.; Dvornyk, Y.e.O. Increasing the Yield of Biogas and Electricity during Manure Fermentation Cattle by Optimally Adding Lime to Extruded Straw. Probl. Energeticii Reg. 2021, 1, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Polishchuk, V.; Tarasenko, S.; Antypov Je Kozak, N.; Zhyltsov, A.; Okushko, O. Study of Methods of Biodiesel Neutralization with Aqueous Solution of Lymonic Acid. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, 6th International Conference—Renewable Energy Sources (ICoRES 2019), Krynica, Poland, 12–14 June 2019; Volume 154, p. 02007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Polishchuk, V.; Tarasenko, S.; Antypov Je Kozak, N.; Zhyltsov, A.; Bereziuk, A. Investigation of the Efficiency of Wet Biodiesel Purification. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences, 6th International Conference—Renewable Energy Sources (ICoRES 2019), Krynica, Poland, 12–14 June 2019; Volume 154, p. 02006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.; Saikawa, A.; Kan, T.; Qi, G.D.; Pan, Z.F.; Yamashiro, T.; Iwasaki, M.; Ihara, I.; Nishida, T.; Umetsu, K. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, meat and bone meal and crude glycerol: Process performance and digestate valorization. Renew. Energy 2018, 128, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simm, S.; Orrico, A.C.A.; Orrico, M.A.P.; Sunada, N.D.; Schwingel, A.W.; Lopes, W.R.T.; Lima Whittinghill, K.; Miranda de Vargas, F.; Sarolli Silva de Mendonça Costa, M. Contribute of crude glycerin to increase the efficiency of anaerobic digestion process of dairy cattle manure. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2018, 37, 1305–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Simm, S.; Orrico, A.C.A.; Orrico, M.A.P.; Sunada, N.D.; Schwingel, A.W.; Costa, M.S.S.D. Crude glycerin in anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cattle manure increases methane production. Sci. Agric. 2017, 74, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pazuch, F.A.; Siqueira, J.; Friedrich, L.; Lenz, A.M.; Nogueira, C.E.C.; de Souza, S.N.M. Co-digestion of crude glycerin associated with cattle manure in biogas production in the State of Parana, Brazil. Acta Sci. Technol. 2017, 39, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Regueiro, L.; Carballa, M.; Alvarez, J.A.; Lema, J.M. Enhanced methane production from pig manure anaerobic digestion using fish and biodiesel wastes as co-substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 123, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cremonez, P.A.; Feiden, A.; Teleken, J.G.; de Souza, S.N.M.; Feroldi, M.; Meier, T.W.; Teleken, J.T.; Dieter, J. Comparison between biodegradable polymers from cassava starch and glycerol as additives to biogas production. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2016, 37, 1827–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.; Yamashiro, T.; Ihara, I.; Iwasaki, M.; Nishida, T.; Umetsu, K. Farm-scale thermophilic co-digestion of dairy manure with a biodiesel byproduct in cold regions. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 128, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aguilar, F.A.A.; Nelson, D.L.; Pantoja, L.D.; dos Santos, A.S. Study of Anaerobic Co-digestion of Crude Glycerol and Swine Manure for the Production of Biogas. Rev. Virtual Quim. 2017, 9, 2383–2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alvarez, J.A.; Otero, L.; Lema, J.M. A methodology for optimising feed composition for anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 1153–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.; Saikawa, A.; Tarukawa, K.; Qi, G.D.; Pan, Z.F.; Yamashiro, T.; Iwasaki, M.; Ihara, I.; Nishida, T.; Umetsu, K. Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, meat and bone meal, and crude glycerol under mesophilic conditions: Synergistic effect and kinetic studies. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2017, 40, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Khuntia, H.K.; Chanakya, H.N.; Siddiqha, A.; Thomas, C.; Mukherjee, N.; Janardhana, N. Anaerobic digestion of the inedible oil biodiesel residues for value addition. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2017, 22, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ferreira, J.D.; Volschan, I.; Cammarota, M.C. Co-digestion of sewage sludge with crude or pretreated glycerol to increase biogas production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 21811–21821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ferreira, J.S.; Volschan, I.; Cammarota, M.C. Enhanced biogas production in pilot digesters treating a mixture of sewage sludge, glycerol, and food waste. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 6839–6846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maragkaki, A.E.; Fountoulakis, M.; Kyriakou, A.; Lasaridi, K.; Manios, T. Boosting biogas production from sewage sludge by adding small amount of agro-industrial by-products and food waste residues. For results 6th International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste. Waste Manag. 2018, 71, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Maragkaki, A.E.; Fountoulakis, M.; Gypakis, A.; Kyriakou, A.; Lasaridi, K.; Manios, T. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge with agro-industrial by-products for increased biogas production of existing digesters at wastewater treatment plants. Waste Manag. 2017, 59, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Nghiem, L.D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Manassa, P.; Fitzgerald, S.K.; Dawson, M.; Vierboom, S. Co-digestion of sewage sludge and crude glycerol for on-demand biogas production. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 95, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Athanasoulia, E.; Melidis, P.; Aivasidis, A. Co-digestion of sewage sludge and crude glycerol from biodiesel production. Renew. Energy 2014, 62, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Panpong, K.; Srisuwan, G.; O-Thong, S.; Kongjan, P. Anaerobic Co-digestion of canned seafood wastewater with glycerol waste for enhanced biogas production. Energy Procedia 2014, 52, 328–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Panpong, K.; Srisuwan, G.; O-Thong, S.; Kongjan, P. Enhanced biogas production from canned seafood wastewater by co-digestion with glycerol waste and wolffia arrhiza. Energy Procedia 2014, 52, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Chavalparit, O.; Sasananan, S.; Kullavanijaya, P.; Charoenwuttichai, C. Anaerobic co-digestion of hydrolysate from alkali pre-treated oil palm empty fruit bunches with biodiesel waste glycerol. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kacprzak, A.; Krzystek, L.; Ledakowicz, S. Co-digestion of agricultural and industrial wastes. For results 36-th International Conference of the Slovak-Society-of-Chemical-Engineering. Chem. Pap. 2010, 64, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oliveira, J.V.; Alves, M.M.; Costa, J.C. Design of experiments to assess pre-treatment and co-digestion strategies that optimize biogasproduction from macroalgae Gracilaria vermiculophylla. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 162, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Larsen, A.C.; Gomes, B.M.; Gomes, S.D.; Zenatti, D.C.; Torres, D.G.B. Anaerobic co-digestion of crude glycerin and starch industry effluent. Eng. Agric. 2013, 33, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Pokoj, T.; Gusiatin, Z.M.; Bulkowska, K.; Dubis, B. Production of biogas using maize silage supplemented with residual glycerine from biodiesel manufacturing. Arch. Environ. Prot. 2014, 40, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Förster, E.; Rönz, B. Methoden der Korrelations und Regressionsanalise; Verlag die Wirstschaft: Berlin, Germany, 1979; p. 302. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Lab-scale biogas plant: (a) general view and (b) principal scheme.
Figure 1. Lab-scale biogas plant: (a) general view and (b) principal scheme.
Energies 15 03439 g001
Figure 2. The rate of biogas yield during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine at the fermentation temperature: (a) 30 °C, (b) 35 °C, and (c) 40 °C.
Figure 2. The rate of biogas yield during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine at the fermentation temperature: (a) 30 °C, (b) 35 °C, and (c) 40 °C.
Energies 15 03439 g002
Figure 3. Accumulated biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine at the fermentation temperature: (a) 30 °C, (b) 35 °C, and (c) 40 °C.
Figure 3. Accumulated biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine at the fermentation temperature: (a) 30 °C, (b) 35 °C, and (c) 40 °C.
Energies 15 03439 g003
Figure 4. Simulated biogas yield during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for gradual loading of the digester.
Figure 4. Simulated biogas yield during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for gradual loading of the digester.
Energies 15 03439 g004
Figure 5. Response surface describing the simulated biogas yield for gradual loading of the digester during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine.
Figure 5. Response surface describing the simulated biogas yield for gradual loading of the digester during fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine.
Energies 15 03439 g005
Table 1. Maximum biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine for the periodic loading system (L/(h⋅kg DOM)).
Table 1. Maximum biogas yield of cattle manure fermentation with the addition of crude glycerine for the periodic loading system (L/(h⋅kg DOM)).
Glycerine Content in the Substrate, %Maximum Biogas Yield, L/(h⋅kg DOM), at the Methane Fermentation Temperature
30 °C35 °C40 °C
00.2170.3110.402
0.60.4450.6040.761
1.20.6620.7920.879
2.30.7520.9491.494
3.40.9311.2001.352
Table 2. Polynomial coefficients describing the accumulated biogas yield during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine.
Table 2. Polynomial coefficients describing the accumulated biogas yield during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine.
No.Glycerine Content in the Substrate, %Polynomial CoefficientsR2
b4b3b2b1b0
12345678
Fermentation temperature 30 °C
10--0.083.2−0.620.9982
20.6--−0.5711−50.9759
31.2--−0.6716.4−130.9693
42.3--0.3610.3−50.9955
53.4--0.18.9−40.9857
Fermentation temperature 35 °C
60---5.77−14.50.861
70.6--−0.267.21.30.9625
81.2-−0.1282.32−1.26−0.120.9982
92.3-−0.0431.14.364.70.988
103.4-−0.061.0410.420.9978
116.6--0.099.4−0.60.974
Fermentation temperature 40 °C
120-−0.0260.3314.3−7.70.9991
130.6--−0.2614.50.90.9981
141.2--−0.6921.2−3.60.997
152.3-0.034−2.541−150.9721
163.4--−1.235−200.9835
Table 3. Power function coefficients (Equation (13)) describing the simulated biogas yield during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for gradual loading of the digester.
Table 3. Power function coefficients (Equation (13)) describing the simulated biogas yield during the fermentation of cattle manure with the addition of crude glycerine for gradual loading of the digester.
Fermentation Temperature, °CPower Function CoefficientsR2
b2b1b0
300.3540.5680.2140.9826
350.4120.5530.3080.9802
400.5350.5810.3880.8821
450.3770.590.8590.8575
500.5040.3360.9760.9316
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Romaniuk, W.; Rogovskii, I.; Polishchuk, V.; Titova, L.; Borek, K.; Wardal, W.J.; Shvorov, S.; Dvornyk, Y.; Sivak, I.; Drahniev, S.; et al. Study of Methane Fermentation of Cattle Manure in the Mesophilic Regime with the Addition of Crude Glycerine. Energies 2022, 15, 3439. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093439

AMA Style

Romaniuk W, Rogovskii I, Polishchuk V, Titova L, Borek K, Wardal WJ, Shvorov S, Dvornyk Y, Sivak I, Drahniev S, et al. Study of Methane Fermentation of Cattle Manure in the Mesophilic Regime with the Addition of Crude Glycerine. Energies. 2022; 15(9):3439. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093439

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romaniuk, Wacław, Ivan Rogovskii, Victor Polishchuk, Liudmyla Titova, Kinga Borek, Witold Jan Wardal, Serhiy Shvorov, Yevgen Dvornyk, Ihor Sivak, Semen Drahniev, and et al. 2022. "Study of Methane Fermentation of Cattle Manure in the Mesophilic Regime with the Addition of Crude Glycerine" Energies 15, no. 9: 3439. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15093439

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop