Next Article in Journal
Best Practices for Training in Sustainable Greenhouse Horticulture
Previous Article in Journal
Monodispersed NiO Nanoparticles into SBA-15: An Efficient Nanocatalyst to Produce Ketone-Alcohol (KA) Oil by the Oxidation of Cyclohexane in Mild Conditions
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Effect of Temperature on Co-Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure and Empty Fruit Bunch: A Kinetic Parametric Study

HICoE-Centre for Biofuel and Biochemical Research (CBBR), Institute for Self-Sustainable Building (ISB), Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), Seri Iskandar 32610, Perak, Malaysia
Fundamental and Applied Sciences Department, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP), 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
Department of Biotechnology, Saveetha School of Engineering, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 602105, India
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5813;
Received: 30 January 2023 / Revised: 15 March 2023 / Accepted: 17 March 2023 / Published: 27 March 2023


The rapid growth of the Malaysian poultry and palm oil industries has led biomass waste generation in abundance specifically chicken manure and empty fruit bunch (EFB). Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a circular economy-based approach which converts chicken manure and EFB into biogas which can be utilized for heating and power generation. Operating temperature is an imperative consideration for AD hence the objective of the study is to evaluate the effect of different temperature profiles namely, psychrophilic (20 °C), mesophilic (35 °C) and thermophilic (50 °C) on AD of chicken manure and EFB. The kinetic parameters are also evaluated using five kinetic models to enable readers to comprehend the kinetic behaviours of the systems. The volume and composition of biogas is measured every five days for a 50-day retention time. The findings observed that mesophilic condition is the most favourable with cumulative methane, CH4 composition of up to 17.07%, almost two folds that of thermophilic (9.12%) and five folds that of psychrophilic (3.49%). The CH4 generation rate, Rb based on the modified Gompertz model which is deemed the best fit further supports these findings as the Rb under mesophilic condition is significantly higher (0.330 mL/gvs day) compared to psychrophilic (0.088 mL/gvs day) and thermophilic (0.120 mL/gvs day) conditions.

1. Introduction

The popularity of chicken meat amongst Malaysians has increased as of lately until the extend that it is the second most popular food item after rice [1]. Consequently, the poultry industry has grown significantly such that there is an abundance of chicken manure being produced [2]. It has been estimated that a chicken produces 0.08 to 0.1 kg of manure daily, corresponding to 3 to 4% of its body weight [3]. Similar to other livestock droppings, chicken manure is a nutrient rich organic waste that contains substantial amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium and is often utilized as an organic fertilizer in agricultural fields [4]. However, utilizing raw chicken manure as fertilizer leads to environmental pollution concerns such as enhanced greenhouse gas emissions, accumulation of harmful trace metals and eutrophication in water bodies. Such circumstances are due to norms which do not abide to the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) 1974 specifically on leachate characterization in which parameters such as the biological oxygen demand, pH and suspended solids are of utmost importance [5]. Apart from that, the odour concern triggered by raw chicken manure also attracts flies, pest and rodents which in addition to propagation of pathogens, posing a significant biohazard [6].
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a circular economy-based approach which converts biomass waste like chicken manure into biogas and biofertilizer which can further be upgraded into value added outputs that offer societal, environmental and economic benefits. Like any other intricate process, to execute the AD process well, a few variables need to be taken into account such as the pH, carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio and most importantly the temperature of the system. The downside of utilizing chicken manure as feedstock for AD is its rich nitrogenous content hence leading to inadequate C/N ratio for the process [7]. Accordingly, many past studies opt to execute AD of chicken manure with carbon rich co-substrates such as corn stover [8], sawdust [9] and food waste [10] such that the C/N ratio is balanced hence developing a co-anaerobic digestion (co-AD) system. Another domain of carbon rich biomass waste that has shown much potential to be exploited are energy crop residues such as sugarcane bagasse as well as oil palm frond and empty fruit bunch (EFB) which are abundant as the nation is the second largest palm oil contributor worldwide after Indonesia [11]. Cahyono, et al. [12] conducted a fundamental study to evaluate the feasibility of EFB as a co-substate in a co-AD system however did not delve into the effects of key parameters on the process. As such, operating temperature is an imperative factor to be taken into consideration when discussing about the AD process as it could exhibit major repercussions on the system including ammonia toxicity which retards the process [7]. Temperature considerations for AD fall under three domains namely psychrophilic anaerobic digestion (PAD), mesophilic anaerobic digestion (MAD) and thermophilic anaerobic digestion (TAD). The purpose of this study is to observe the effect of different temperature profiles on co-AD of chicken manure and EFB. This study is distinct compared to it’s precursors as it evaluates a co-AD system whereby chicken manure and EFB act as co-substrates instead of being the sole feedstock. Additionally, this study also employs five kinetic models namely the first order kinetic model, Monod model, Cone model, modified Gompertz model and Logistic function model to evaluate the co-AD system with respect to several kinetic parameters which are the maximum methane, CH4 generation potential, hydrolysis rate constant, maximum CH4 generation rate and lag phase duration. This insight is fruitful as it enables ease in foreseeing the behaviour of an AD system and to comprehend correlations with kinetic characteristics aiding in enhanced CH4 generation. In fact, these findings are especially crucial should there be measures to upscale the system for mass power generation [13].
Temperature constraints are especially essential to scrutinize as past studies stresses on its implications on the microbial community, process kinetics as well as stability and CH4 yield. PAD has caused decline in microbial growth, adversely affecting substrate utilization rates and deterring biogas generation [14]. TAD on the other hand observes decline in biogas quality due to presence of impurities such as ammonia which is not apt for methanogens [15]. In the case of AD of chicken manure and EFB as sole substrates, the findings have been fairly favourable for MAD [16,17] hence, the hypothesis of this study would be that in a single system, MAD yields enhanced biogas quality as compared to PAD and TAD. Accordingly, the study was conducted by adjusting the C/N ratio of the feedstock to 25 as this ratio is optimum for the AD process [18]. An optimum C/N ratio results in prolonged protein solubilization rate inducing low total ammonium concentration in the system. As such, the risk of ammonia inhibition can be deterred by adjusting the feedstock of the anaerobic biodigester to meet the optimal C/N ratio [19]. Feedstock with too high of a C/N ratio causes the system to be low on elemental nitrogen. Such circumstances pose a hurdle to maintain cell biomass resulting in rapid nitrogen decomposition by microbials leading to deterioration of biogas quality [20]. On the other hand, too low of a C/N ratio makes the system susceptible to ammonia inhibition due to insufficient carbon content [21]. The pH of the system is adjusted to 7.0 ± 0.1 as the optimum pH range for the AD process is 6.8 to 7.2 [22] while the solid-to-liquid ratio is set at 1:3 [12].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of Feedstock Materials

The raw materials utilized in this study are chicken manure, EFB and cow dung. The chicken manure is obtained from Dindings Poultry Development Center (DPDC) Sdn Bhd whereas EFB is acquired from FELCRA Nasaruddin Palm Oil Mill. The inoculum material utilized during the study is cow dung obtained from a Sikh settlement in Tanjung Tualang, Perak. The feedstock materials are acquired at most a week before the experimental setup and stored at 4 °C to sustain its freshness. The addition of the inoculum to the system enhances the process stability and efficiency of the AD process [12]. The EFB is shredded into loose fibrous form and dried at the temperature of 105 °C overnight in a BINDER drying oven (manufactured in Darmstadt, Germany). The dried EFB is then further refined (0.25 mm) using a RETCSH Cutting Mill SM 100 biomass grinder (manufactured in Germany). As for the chicken manure, it is crushed into powder-like form using a mortar and pastel.
Chicken manure, EFB and cow dung are characterized for its carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and moisture content. The elemental compositions and moisture content of the raw materials are measured using the Perkin Elmer EA Series II CHNS/O 2400 Analyzer (manufactured in Shelton, CT, USA) and Mettler Toledo HX-240 Moisture Analyzer (manufactured in Greifensee, Switzerland) respectively. The C/N ratio of the feedstock is computed using Equation (1) as shown below:
R = Q n C n × 100 M n Q n N n × 100 M n
where R is the C/N ratio, Q is the mass of material, C is the carbon content (%), N is the nitrogen content (%), M is the moisture content (%) and n is the number of samples.
Thermogravimetry analysis (TGA) on the feedstock is also executed using Perkin Elmer STA6000 Thermogravimetry Analyzer (manufactured in Shelton, USA) to evaluate the total volatile solid content. The system is set in the temperature range of 26 °C to 800 °C under nitrogen condition at a heating rate of 10 °C/min.

2.2. Batch Digester Setup and Experimental Design

The study is conducted in makeshift batch reactors developed using 1.5 L plastic bottles which acts as the main digester body as depicted in Figure 1. These makeshift digesters are made airtight and painted in black to prevent any form algae growth in the presence of sunlight which hinders the development of anaerobic condition. Bubble leak test (ASTM F2096) is performed as well to make sure there are no leakages throughout the tubes, fittings and connectors.
Chicken manure, EFB and inoculum are mixed following Equation (1) such that the C/N ratio is 25. The solid-to-liquid ratio is 3:1. The pH is modified to 7.0 ± 0.1 using phosphoric acid. The PAD (20 °C) setup is placed on the table bench whereas the MAD (35 °C) and TAD (50 °C) setups are placed in separate Grant GLS Aqua 18 Plus water baths (manufactured in Cambridgeshire, England) for temperature regulation.

2.3. Biogas Volume and Composition Analysis

The experimental setup is observed over a 50-day hydraulic retention time (HRT). The volume of biogas is recorded every 5 days via the water displacement technique using an inverted measuring cylinder as depicted in Figure 1. The generated biogas is then drawn out of the air space of the inverted measuring cylinder using a rubber suction ball and stored in a gasbag. Accordingly, the biogas composition is evaluated using the Shimadzu GC-8A Gas Chromatography (manufactured in Kyoto, Japan) with Thermal Conductivity Detector which uses a molecular sieve 5A (MS-5A) column. The carrier gas used is purified argon. The temperature of the column, injector and detector on the other hand are fixed at 100 °C with a pressure of 100 kPa [23]. The peak area of the chromatography is then mapped onto the calibration curve with coefficient of regression, R2 of 0.9996 constructed using pure CH4 injections from 0.5 up to 5.0 mL with 0.5 mL increments.

2.4. Kinetic Modelling and Statistical Indicators

The behaviour of a system going through AD process is evaluated via multiple parameters such as lag phase, hydrolysis rate constant, maximum CH4 generation potential and maximum CH4 production rate. These parameters are imperative to comprehend better the limitations of the system and interactions between the co-substrates in a co-AD system. For this study, first order kinetic, Cone, Monod, modified Gompertz and Logistics function models are applied as depicted in Equations (2)–(6).
B t = B o × 1 e x p k t
B t = B o 1 + k t n
B t = B o × k t 1 + k t
B t = B o × e x p e x p R b × e B o λ t + 1
B t = B o 1 + e x p 4 × R b × λ t B o + 2
where Bt stands for the simulated CH4 generated (mL/gvs), Bo depicts the maximum CH4 generation potential (mL/gvs), k stands for the hydrolysis rate constant (1/day), t is the retention time (days), n is a dimensionless shape factor, Rb is the maximum CH4 generation rate (mL/gvs day), λ states the lag phase duration (days) and e is the Euler’s function equal to 2.71828.
A nonlinear least-square regression analysis is executed using Polymath version 6.0 to determine the Bt, Bo, k, n, Rb and λ. The R2 and root mean square error (RMSE) are computed for each model to compare the accuracy of the studied models. R2 is determined from the Polymath version 6.0 software whereby a higher R2 indicates a better fit. RMSE on the other hand is inferred as the standard deviation between the predicted and measured values as depicted in Equation (7) with a lower RMSE being favourable.
R M S E = i = 1 n B t   e x p ,   i B t   m o d ,   i 2 n
where Bt (exp, i) is the CH4 generated in the experiment, Bt (mod, i) is the forecast CH4 generated obtained from the model and n is the number of data points.

3. Results

3.1. Biogas and Methane Generation

The cumulative biogas and CH4 generation over the 50-day HRT are depicted in Figure 2A,B respectively. Generally, biogas yield is directly proportional to the retention time until it achieves the point of nutrient exhaustion or depletion [24].
Figure 2A observes biogas production under all three temperature parameters increasing steadily for the first 40 days. On the contrary, in the remaining 10 days, biogas production for PAD and TAD plateaued, peaking at 69.69 and 43.71 mL/gvs respectively. Biogas volume for MAD on the other hand continues to rise up to 75.23 mL/gvs at the end of the 50-day HRT. Despite recording high biogas production for PAD in the first 40 days, a notable small quantity of CH4 is generated in comparison to MAD and TAD in the 50-day HRT as depicted in Figure 2B. MAD produced the most CH4, 12.85 mL/gvs cumulatively, although the pattern of CH4 production appeared to plateau from day 15 up to day 35 before it depicted steady increment up to day 50. The CH4 yield for PAD and TAD shows little to no significant increment from day 15 up to day 35 and from day 40 up to day 50 with the cumulative CH4 production at 2.43 and 3.99 mL/gvs respectively.
The CH4 production at 20 °C is notably unfavourable due to the nature of PAD that has been inferred to be instable [25]. The inclusion of EFB to improve the C/N ratio also proves to be a challenge for PAD as the composition of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin is high in EFB and they are naturally recalcitrant to microbial degradation [26]. Essentially, AD consist of four stages which are hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis. In the case of PAD, the hydrolysis stage is established as the rate-limiting step which justifies the pattern of CH4 generation, observing no apparent increment from day 15 onwards. Additionally, Rajagopal, et al. [27] also recommended to extend the retention time for PAD to improve CH4 production. Instead, CH4 production with respect to MAD and TAD have been studied exhaustively. Bayrakdar, et al. [28] pointed out that TAD better accommodates hydrolysis thus the limitation caused by the hydrolysis rate limit can be overcome. However, Yin, et al. [29] debunked that statement by observing that the rate limits for all four steps in AD of chicken manure is lower under MAD in comparison to TAD. Bi, et al. [16] also stood behind this finding by stating that MAD is more favourable in comparison to TAD. This is because chicken manure is an organic biomass waste with significant nitrogen content and in the case of TAD, high levels of total ammonium nitrogen have been observed [30]. Free ammonia nitrogen content, which makes a significant portion of total ammonium nitrogen rises as the temperature increases thus effectively, TAD is more prone to be jeopardized by ammonia inhibition in comparison to MAD [31]. In the case of EFB as the sole feedstock for AD, Lee, et al. [17] noted that despite the fact TAD observed CH4 production at an enhanced rate because of the shorter lag phase, the yield was lower compared to MAD. Furthermore, the higher dissociation constant of volatile organic acids during TAD also makes the system more vulnerable to inhibition as well [32]. Nonetheless, although EFB is known to have a low degradability rate due to its high lignin content, the CH4 enhanced favourably over time in the case of MAD and TAD. This is mainly due the composition of EFB which is rich with cellulose. The high cellulose content (23.7–65%) in the EFB leads to higher glucose formation through the hydrolysis process, in which it could be further converted to CH4 during methanogenesis [12,33].
The current study instead emphasizes on a co-AD system thus both chicken manure and EFB are responsible for the rate of CH4 production. As such, it can be inferred that ammonia inhibition is greater an issue to manage under TAD causing there to be an extended lag phase from day 15 onwards compared to MAD which plateaued from day 15 up to day 35, after which the CH4 production flourished. Overall, it can be deduced that in the case of optimized C/N ratio, co-AD of chicken manure and EFB under MAD is most favourable as it observed the most biogas generation with a significantly abundant CH4 content in comparison to PAD and TAD which can be converted into energy. These findings are also especially favourable with respect to the Malaysian climate should there be further initiatives for mass energy generation which could see the nation adopt multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) promoted by the United Nations, most notably SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy [34]. Additionally, such measures are also in line with the 11th Malaysia Plan observing a transformation into a carbon-neutral nation [35].
The results obtained are comparable to that of Chen, et al. [36] who evaluated pilot-scale AD of thermal hydrolysed sludge at thermophilic and mesophilic conditions with the latter observing significantly favourable results. Essentially, in their study, the effectiveness of the process is measured by the HRT required to achieve maximum biogas production in which MAD required 15 days, half of which demanded by TAD (30 days). In another study by Wu, et al. [37], although TAD observed higher biogas production, it was only under strict and stable conditions with much emphasis on low-solids feedstock to prevent ammonia inhibition which results in a more tedious and laborious effort.

3.2. Kinetic Analysis

A kinetic study is especially fruitful as it provides insight on the AD process such as the maximum CH4 generation potential, Bo as well as its constraints including the lag phase, λ which is a challenge to deduce without the aid of a systematic, mathematical approach. Figure 3A–E are the kinetic plots for first order kinetic, Cone, Monod, modified Gompertz and Logistics function models respectively while Table 1 portrays the computed kinetic parameters relevant to each model.
The polynomial regression models observe the relationship between cumulative CH4 generation as a function of co-AD of chicken manure and EFB. All five kinetic models depict a relative satisfactory fit with the experimental data as justified by the overall high R2 and low RMSE values. The modified Gompertz model however stood out as it exhibits the highest overall R2 (0.897–0.970) and lowest overall RMSE (0.040–0.365) in comparison to the other models. This suggests that the modified Gompertz model presents a more robust estimation of up to 97% with respect to the experimental data. This claim is in agreement with past studies associated with AD of kitchen waste [38] and cattle manure [39]; both of which observed the modified Gompertz model to be a more robust model which can be applied for better estimation of CH4 generation.
The maximum CH4 generation potential, Bo is depicted by all five models but considering the modified Gompertz model is the best fit, further inference is based on this model. The Bo for MAD is significantly higher (52.569 mL/gvs) in comparison to PAD (2.373 mL/gvs) and TAD (3.968 mL/gvs). This indicates the untapped potential of MAD in the current setup as it has only achieved approximately one fifth of its predicted CH4 generation potential. The maximum CH4 generation rate, Rb and lag phase duration, λ is portrayed by the modified Gompertz model as well as the Logistic function model and the values do not deviate significantly. With respect to both models, the Rb for MAD (0.336–0.330 mL/gvs day) is higher by more than two folds and three folds in comparison to TAD (0.112–0.120 mL/gvs day) and PAD (0.086–0.088 mL/gvs day) respectively. The significantly higher Bo and Rb is further testimony that MAD is more apt compared to PAD and TAD in the case of chicken manure and EFB acting as co-substrates in a single system. EFB being rich in cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin strains microbial degradation [23] posing a hurdle for PAD in addition to its instable nature [40]. On the other hand, TAD with chicken manure as the sole feedstock is highly prone to be subjected to ammonia toxicity as reported in a past study by Ao, et al. [41]. In the case of EFB as a single substrate, Lee, et al. [17] noted that although MAD enhances CH4 generation, TAD depicted higher Rb indicating shorter λ. Nonetheless, findings from the current study suggest that the nitrogen rich chicken manure has a greater effect on the co-digestive system and the effect of ammonia inhibition is too great of a challenge for the microabes hence deteriorating the Bo and Rb.
A downside for MAD is its λ which is 10.906–11.100 days based on the modified Gompertz model and Logistic function model, longer than PAD and TAD however objectively speaking the Bo and Rb makes up for this. The negative λ suggests that the CH4 generation started from day one which is also an indication of desirable condition for growth of microbes [42]. Pečar and Goršek [43] observed that MAD of chicken manure with sawdust and miscanthus exhibited a relatively short λ, at most 0.22 days but it is imperative to note that the lignocellulosic content of said carbon additives are relatively low compared to EFB. Li, et al. [44] on the other hand explored MAD of chicken manure solely and with kitchen waste and corn stover. Similar to the findings of the current study, although the λ is extended with the addition of kitchen waste and corn stover, the Bo is significantly enhanced indicating the untapped potential for abundant CH4 generation in said system. In another study by Lahboubi, et al. [45] using EFB as the single substrate for MAD, the λ was not more than 3.3 h however it is imperative to note that in said study the inoculum was put through an activation phase of 17 days before loaded with EFB so it is not realistic to compare both systems. Nonetheless, there are alternatives to reduce the λ such as maintaining the volatile fatty acid to alkalinity ratio below 0.4. Another option is to regulate the feed to microorganism ratio within 0.4 to 0.6 [46]. The λ is also associated to another variable which is the hydrolysis rate constant, k that is evaluated with respect to the first order kinetic model, Monod model and Cone model. The values do not deviate much but it is crucial to note that the R2 for the first order kinetic model and Monod model is relatively higher, 0.882–0.984 as compared to the Cone model, 0.840–0.975. Based on the first order kinetic model and Monod model, the k value for MAD is significantly lower, 0.004–0.006 day−1 compared to PAD (0.036–0.046 day−1) and TAD (0.029–0.039 day−1). However, in contrary with claims by Pramanik, et al. [47] suggesting that higher k values lead to improved biogas production rates, findings from the current study suggest otherwise with respect to Bo and Rb with the exception of the extended λs.

4. Conclusions

The study comprehensively evaluated biogas and CH4 generation under different temperature profiles with respect to five different kinetic models. The CH4 yield, computed with respect to the cumulative biogas generation for PAD, MAD and TAD are 3.49%, 17.07% and 9.12% respectively; indicating that MAD is favourable in comparison to the other two. Although the CH4 content plateaued from day 15 to 35, a significant increment is observed from day 40 onwards depicting the untapped potential of MAD. This is further justified by the Bo, observed from the best fit modified Gompertz model whereby the Bo for MAD is significantly higher, 52.569 mL/gvs as compared to PAD (2.373 mL/gvs) and TAD (3.968 mL/gvs). Poor CH4 yield for PAD is attributed to its instable nature in addition to high lignocellulosic content of EFB which posed an even greater challenge for microbial degradation. Microbes under TAD on the other hand is in jeopardy of ammonia inhibition due to the nitrogen rich chicken manure as well as the nature of elevated temperature conditions which encourage enhanced free ammonia concentrations. However, it is advantageous that TAD observes poor CH4 yield as there is no need for additional heating of the AD system which results in higher operating cost should the system be upscaled.

Author Contributions

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


This research is funded by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) through Prototype Research Grant Scheme, PRGS/1/2022/TK09/UTP/02/2.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study is available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available as it is confidential.


The authors recognize the support from the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) through HICoE Grant to Centre for Biofuel and Biochemical Research (CBBR).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Author Rashid Shamsuddin received research grant from the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE). The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.


  1. Chijioke, N.O.; Uddin Khandaker, M.; Tikpangi, K.M.; Bradley, D.A. Metal uptake in chicken giblets and human health implications. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2020, 85, 103332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Esteves, E.M.M.; Herrera, A.M.N.; Esteves, V.P.P.; Morgado, C.d.R.V. Life cycle assessment of manure biogas production: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abdeshahian, P.; Lim, J.S.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T. Potential of biogas production from farm animal waste in Malaysia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 60, 714–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bayrakdar, A.; Sürmeli, R.Ö.; Çalli, B. Dry anaerobic digestion of chicken manure coupled with membrane separation of ammonia. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 244, 816–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Aziz, S.Q.; Aziz, H.A.; Yusoff, M.S.; Bashir, M.J.K.; Umar, M. Leachate characterization in semi-aerobic and anaerobic sanitary landfills: A comparative study. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 2608–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Manogaran, M.D.; Shamsuddin, M.R.; Yusoff, M.H.M.; Lay, M. An overview on available treatment processes of poultry manure in Malaysia. AIP Conf. Proc. 2022, 2610, 040005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Manogaran, M.D.; Shamsuddin, R.; Mohd Yusoff, M.H.; Lay, M.; Siyal, A.A. A review on treatment processes of chicken manure. Clean. Circ. Bioecon. 2022, 2, 100013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mohd Johari, S.A.; Aqsha, A.; Osman, N.B.; Shamsudin, M.R.; Ameen, M.; Dol, S.S. Enhancing biogas production in anaerobic co-digestion of fresh chicken manure with corn stover at laboratory scale. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kok, H.Y.; Shamsuddin, M.R.; Aqsha, A. Anaerobic Treatment of Chicken Manure Co-digested with Sawdust. In Advances in Manufacturing Engineering; Emamian, S.S., Awang, M., Yusof, F., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 741–748. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chuenchart, W.; Logan, M.; Leelayouthayotin, C.; Visvanathan, C. Enhancement of food waste thermophilic anaerobic digestion through synergistic effect with chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 136, 105541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shamsuddin, R.; Singh, G.; Kok, H.Y.; Hakimi Rosli, M.; Dawi Cahyono, N.A.; Lam, M.K.; Lim, J.W.; Low, A. Palm Oil Industry—Processes, By-Product Treatment and Value Addition. In Sustainable Bioconversion of Waste to Value Added Products; Inamuddin, Khan, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 121–143. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cahyono, N.A.D.; Shamsuddin, M.R.; Ayoub, M.; Mansor, N.; Isa, N.H.M.; Gunny, A.A.N. Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure with energy crop residues for biogas production. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 765, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, L.; He, Q.; Zhao, X.; Wu, D.; Wang, X.; Peng, X. Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Correlation of kinetic parameters with operational conditions and process performance. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 130, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xu, X.; Sun, Y.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y. Bioaugmentation improves batch psychrophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure and corn straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 343, 126118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ye, M.; Zhu, A.; Sun, B.; Qin, Y.; Li, Y.-Y. Methanogenic treatment of dairy product wastewater by thermophilic anaerobic membrane bioreactor: Ammonia inhibition and microbial community. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 357, 127349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bi, S.; Qiao, W.; Xiong, L.; Ricci, M.; Adani, F.; Dong, R. Effects of organic loading rate on anaerobic digestion of chicken manure under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Renew. Energy 2019, 139, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lee, J.T.E.; Khan, M.U.; Tian, H.; Ee, A.W.L.; Lim, E.Y.; Dai, Y.; Tong, Y.W.; Ahring, B.K. Improving methane yield of oil palm empty fruit bunches by wet oxidation pretreatment: Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion conditions and the associated global warming potential effects. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 225, 113438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guarino, G.; Carotenuto, C.; Di Cristofaro, F.; Papa, S.; Morrone, B.; Minale, M. Does the C/N ratio really affect the Bio-methane Yield? A three years investigation of Buffalo Manure Digestion. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2016, 49, 463–468. [Google Scholar]
  19. Shi, X.; Lin, J.; Zuo, J.; Li, P.; Li, X.; Guo, X. Effects of free ammonia on volatile fatty acid accumulation and process performance in the anaerobic digestion of two typical bio-wastes. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 55, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ratanatamskul, C.; Manpetch, P. Comparative assessment of prototype digester configuration for biogas recovery from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rain tree leaf as feedstock. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 113, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tanimu, M.I.; Ghazi, T.I.M.; Harun, R.M.; Idris, A. Effect of carbon to nitrogen ratio of food waste on biogas methane production in a batch mesophilic anaerobic digester. Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol. 2014, 5, 116. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cioabla, A.E.; Ionel, I.; Dumitrel, G.-A.; Popescu, F. Comparative study on factors affecting anaerobic digestion of agricultural vegetal residues. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2012, 5, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  23. Hakimi, M.; Shamsuddin, R.; Pendyala, R.; Siyal, A.A.; AlMohamadi, H. Co-anaerobic digestion of chicken manure with the addition of Cymbopogan citratus, Mentha piperita and Citrus sinensis as fly deterrent agents: Biogas production and Kinetic study. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021, 15, 100748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Matheri, A.N.; Ndiweni, S.N.; Belaid, M.; Muzenda, E.; Hubert, R. Optimising biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 756–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akindolire, M.A.; Rama, H.; Roopnarain, A. Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion: A critical evaluation of microorganisms and enzymes to drive the process. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 161, 112394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ona, J.I.; Halling, P.J.; Ballesteros, M. Enzyme hydrolysis of cassava peels: Treatment by amylolytic and cellulolytic enzymes. Biocatal. Biotransform. 2019, 37, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  27. Rajagopal, R.; Bellavance, D.; Rahaman, M.S. Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of semi-dry mixed municipal food waste: For North American context. Proc. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 105, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bayrakdar, A.; Molaey, R.; Sürmeli, R.Ö.; Sahinkaya, E.; Çalli, B. Biogas production from chicken manure: Co-digestion with spent poppy straw. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 119, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yin, D.M.; Westerholm, M.; Qiao, W.; Bi, S.J.; Wandera, S.M.; Fan, R.; Jiang, M.M.; Dong, R.J. An explanation of the methanogenic pathway for methane production in anaerobic digestion of nitrogen-rich materials under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 264, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Niu, Q.; Takemura, Y.; Kubota, K.; Li, Y.Y. Comparing mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: Microbial community dynamics and process resilience. Waste Manag. 2015, 43, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, Z.; Wang, W.; He, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, G. Effect of ammonia on methane production, methanogenesis pathway, microbial community and reactor performance under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Renew. Energy 2018, 125, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Appels, L.; Baeyens, J.; Degrève, J.; Dewil, R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 755–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chang, S.H. An overview of empty fruit bunch from oil palm as feedstock for bio-oil production. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 62, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yong, Z.J.; Bashir, M.J.K.; Ng, C.A.; Sethupathi, S.; Lim, J.W.; Show, P.L. Sustainable Waste-to-Energy Development in Malaysia: Appraisal of Environmental, Financial, and Public Issues Related with Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste. Processes 2019, 7, 676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Vaka, M.; Walvekar, R.; Rasheed, A.K.; Khalid, M. A review on Malaysia’s solar energy pathway towards carbon-neutral Malaysia beyond Covid’19 pandemic. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, Z.; Li, W.; Qin, W.; Sun, C.; Wang, J.; Wen, X. Long-term performance and microbial community characteristics of pilot-scale anaerobic reactors for thermal hydrolyzed sludge digestion under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wu, Z.L.; Lin, Z.; Sun, Z.Y.; Gou, M.; Xia, Z.Y.; Tang, Y.Q. A comparative study of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge with high-solids content: Reactor performance and microbial community. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 302, 122851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gallipoli, A.; Braguglia, C.M.; Gianico, A.; Montecchio, D.; Pagliaccia, P. Kitchen waste valorization through a mild-temperature pretreatment to enhance biogas production and fermentability: Kinetics study in mesophilic and thermophilic regimen. J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 89, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mushtaq, M.; Zeshan; Zeeshan, M.; Nawaz, I.; Hassan, M. Effect of low levels of oxytetracycline on anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 349, 126894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gu, S.; Wang, R.; Xing, H.; Yu, M.; Shen, S.; Zhao, L.; Sun, J.; Li, Y. Effects of different low temperature conditions on anaerobic digestion efficiency of pig manure and composition of archaea community. Water Sci. Technol. 2022, 86, 1181–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ao, T.; Chen, L.; Chen, Y.; Liu, X.; Wan, L.; Li, D. The screening of early warning indicators and microbial community of chicken manure thermophilic digestion at high organic loading rate. Energy 2021, 224, 120201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khadka, A.; Parajuli, A.; Dangol, S.; Thapa, B.; Sapkota, L.; Carmona-Martínez, A.A.; Ghimire, A. Effect of the Substrate to Inoculum Ratios on the Kinetics of Biogas Production during the Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste. Energies 2022, 15, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pečar, D.; Goršek, A. Kinetics of methane production during anaerobic digestion of chicken manure with sawdust and miscanthus. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 143, 105820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, X.; Chen, C.; Xiao, X.; Feng, L.; He, Y.; Liu, G. Evaluating Methane Production from Anaerobic Mono- and Co-digestion of Kitchen Waste, Corn Stover, and Chicken Manure. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2085–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lahboubi, N.; Kerrou, O.; Karouach, F.; Bakraoui, M.; Schüch, A.; Schmedemann, K.; Stinner, W.; El Bari, H.; Essamri, A. Methane production from mesophilic fed-batch anaerobic digestion of empty fruit bunch of palm tree. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2022, 12, 3751–3760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kim, M.J.; Kim, S.H. Conditions of lag-phase reduction during anaerobic digestion of protein for high-efficiency biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 143, 105813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pramanik, S.K.; Suja, F.B.; Porhemmat, M.; Pramanik, B.K. Performance and Kinetic Model of a Single-Stage Anaerobic Digestion System Operated at Different Successive Operating Stages for the Treatment of Food Waste. Processes 2019, 7, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Figure 1. Diagram of experimental setup, published by Cahyono, et al. [12].
Figure 1. Diagram of experimental setup, published by Cahyono, et al. [12].
Sustainability 15 05813 g001
Figure 2. (A) Biogas generation and (B) Methane generation over 50-day hydraulic retention time.
Figure 2. (A) Biogas generation and (B) Methane generation over 50-day hydraulic retention time.
Sustainability 15 05813 g002
Figure 3. (A) First order kinetic, (B) Cone, (C) Monod, (D) modified Gompertz pand (E) Logistics function models.
Figure 3. (A) First order kinetic, (B) Cone, (C) Monod, (D) modified Gompertz pand (E) Logistics function models.
Sustainability 15 05813 g003
Table 1. Kinetic parameters of first order kinetic, Monod, Cone, modified Gompertz and Logistic function models for co-AD of chicken manure and EFB.
Table 1. Kinetic parameters of first order kinetic, Monod, Cone, modified Gompertz and Logistic function models for co-AD of chicken manure and EFB.
First Order Kinetic Model
SetupBo (mL/gvs)k (1/day)R2RMSEExperimental CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Computed CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Percent Difference (%)
Monod Model
SetupBo (mL/gvs)k (1/day)R2RMSEExperimental CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Computed CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Percent Difference (%)
Cone Model
SetupBo (mL/gvs)k (1/day)nR2RMSEExperimental CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Computed CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Percent Difference (%)
MAD150.2590.001 0.8520.8400.41512.84511.9966.610
Modified Gompertz Model
SetupBo (mL/gvs)Rb (mL/gvs day)λ (Days)R2RMSEExperimental CH4 Dield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Computed CH4 Dield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Percent Difference (%)
TAD3.9680.120−1.4350.9350.0963.988 3.8134.388
Logistics Function Model
SetupBo (mL/gvs)Rb (mL/gvs day)λ (Days)R2RMSEExperimental CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Computed CH4 Yield at Day 50 (mL/gvs)Percent Difference (%)
TAD3.8370.112−1.7970.9130.1123.988 3.7715.441
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Manogaran, M.D.; Hakimi, M.; Basheer Ahmad, M.H.N.; Shamsuddin, R.; Lim, J.W.; M Hassan, M.A.; Sahrin, N.T. Effect of Temperature on Co-Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure and Empty Fruit Bunch: A Kinetic Parametric Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5813.

AMA Style

Manogaran MD, Hakimi M, Basheer Ahmad MHN, Shamsuddin R, Lim JW, M Hassan MA, Sahrin NT. Effect of Temperature on Co-Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure and Empty Fruit Bunch: A Kinetic Parametric Study. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):5813.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Manogaran, M. Devendran, Mohd Hakimi, Mohammad Harith Nizam Basheer Ahmad, Rashid Shamsuddin, Jun Wei Lim, Muzamil Abdalla M Hassan, and Nurul Tasnim Sahrin. 2023. "Effect of Temperature on Co-Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure and Empty Fruit Bunch: A Kinetic Parametric Study" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 5813.

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