Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and crude glycerol derived from animal fat—Effect of hydraulic retention time

Anna Lymperatou; Ioannis V. Skiadas; Hariklia N. Gavala; Anna Lymperatou; Ioannis V. Skiadas; Hariklia N. Gavala

doi:10.3934/environsci.2018.2.105

AIMS Environmental Science

2018, Volume 5, Issue 2: 105-116. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2018.2.105

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and crude glycerol derived from animal fat—Effect of hydraulic retention time

Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Søltofts Plads 229, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark

Received: 28 February 2018 Accepted: 23 April 2018 Published: 27 April 2018

Crude glycerol (CG), an abundant by-product of bio-diesel production, has been identified as a suitable co-substrate for improving the biogas production of livestock manure through anaerobic digestion (AD). In this study, the potential of utilizing CG generated from the esterification of animal fats for biogas production was studied in both batch and continuous AD experiments, with emphasis on the importance of the hydraulic retention time (HRT). Batch experiments showed that the limiting step in the methane production rate during CG mono-digestion was the 1,3-propanediol uptake. Additionally, biochemical methane potential tests indicated that the addition of 1% w/w CG to swine manure-AD is more efficient in terms of percent of theoretical amount of methane obtained than the addition of 3% w/w. However, in continuous experiments, co-digestion of manure with 3% w/w CG did not exhibit any sign of inhibition within the HRTs tested (17–22 days). Moreover, a 222% increase of biogas productivity was observed with 3% CG supplementation at an HRT of 17 days, in contrast to a 146% increase at an HRT of 22 days. Based on this, and on the similar efficiency of soluble COD removal among the processes (ca. 93%), it was shown that it is possible to reduce the HRT without affecting negatively the efficiency of conversion of manure. Moreover, it was shown that CG from 2^nd generation biodiesel based on animal fat, is a suitable feedstock for boosting the methane production of manure-based biogas plants.
- anaerobic digestion,
- manure,
- crude glycerol,
- co-digestion,
- biogas,
- methane
Citation: Anna Lymperatou, Ioannis V. Skiadas, Hariklia N. Gavala. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and crude glycerol derived from animal fat—Effect of hydraulic retention time[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2018, 5(2): 105-116. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2018.2.105

Related Papers:

Abstract

Crude glycerol (CG), an abundant by-product of bio-diesel production, has been identified as a suitable co-substrate for improving the biogas production of livestock manure through anaerobic digestion (AD). In this study, the potential of utilizing CG generated from the esterification of animal fats for biogas production was studied in both batch and continuous AD experiments, with emphasis on the importance of the hydraulic retention time (HRT). Batch experiments showed that the limiting step in the methane production rate during CG mono-digestion was the 1,3-propanediol uptake. Additionally, biochemical methane potential tests indicated that the addition of 1% w/w CG to swine manure-AD is more efficient in terms of percent of theoretical amount of methane obtained than the addition of 3% w/w. However, in continuous experiments, co-digestion of manure with 3% w/w CG did not exhibit any sign of inhibition within the HRTs tested (17–22 days). Moreover, a 222% increase of biogas productivity was observed with 3% CG supplementation at an HRT of 17 days, in contrast to a 146% increase at an HRT of 22 days. Based on this, and on the similar efficiency of soluble COD removal among the processes (ca. 93%), it was shown that it is possible to reduce the HRT without affecting negatively the efficiency of conversion of manure. Moreover, it was shown that CG from 2^nd generation biodiesel based on animal fat, is a suitable feedstock for boosting the methane production of manure-based biogas plants.

References

[1]	Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P (2009) The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 100: 5478–5484. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046
[2]	Ayoub M, Abdullah AZ (2012) Critical review on the current scenario and significance of crude glycerol resulting from biodiesel industry towards more sustainable renewable energy industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16: 2671–2686. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.054
[3]	Anitha M, Kamarudin SK, Kofli NT (2016) The potential of glycerol as a value-added commodity. Chem Eng J 295: 119–130. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2016.03.012
[4]	Thompson JC, He BB (2006) Characterization of Crude Glycerol from Biodiesel production from multiple feedstocks. Appl Eng Agric 22: 261–265. doi: 10.13031/2013.20272
[5]	Astals S, Nolla-Ardèvol V, Mata-Alvarez J (2012) Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions : Biogas and digestate. Bioresour Technol 110: 63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.080
[6]	Castrillón L, Fernandez-Nava Y, Ormaechea P, et al. (2011) Optimization of biogas production from cattle manure by pre-treatment with ultrasound and co-digestion with crude glycerin. Bioresour Technol 102: 7845–7849. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.05.047
[7]	Fierro J, Martinez EJ, Rosas JG, et al. (2016) Co-Digestion of Swine Manure and Crude Glycerine : Increasing Glycerine Ratio Results in Preferential Degradation of Labile Compounds. Water, Air Soil Pollut 227: 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s11270-015-2689-7
[8]	Sarma SJ, Brar K, Bihan L, et al. (2013) Hydrogen production from meat processing and restaurant waste derived crude glycerol by anaerobic fermentation and utilization of the spent broth. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 88: 2264–2271. doi: 10.1002/jctb.4099
[9]	Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation) Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009R1069.
[10]	Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive Text with EEA relevance. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32011R0142.
[11]	Varrone C, Heggeset TMB, Le SB, et al. (2015) Comparison of Different Strategies for Selection/Adaptation of Mixed Microbial Cultures Able to Ferment Crude Glycerol Derived from Second-Generation Biodiesel. Biomed Res Int 2015: 1–14.
[12]	APHA (2005) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st ed. Washington DC: American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Pollution Control Federation.
[13]	Viana MB, Freitas AV, Leitao RC, et al. (2012) Anaerobic digestion of crude glycerol : a review. Environ Technol Rev 1: 81–92. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2012.692723
[14]	Kimura H, Yamamoto T, Iwakura K (2002) Biosynthesis of Polyhydroxyalkanoates from 1 , 3-Propanediol by Chromobacterium sp . Polym J 34: 659–665. doi: 10.1295/polymj.34.659
[15]	Biebl H (1991) Glycerol fermentation of 1,3-propanediol by Clostridium butyricum. Measurement of product inhibition by use of a pH-auxostat. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 35: 701–705.
[16]	Fountoulakis MS, Petousi I, Manios T (2010) Co-digestion of sewage sludge with glycerol to boost biogas production. Waste Manag 30: 1849–1853. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.011
[17]	Carrère H, Antonopoulou G, Affes R, et al. (2016) Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion: From lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresour Technol 199: 386–397. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.09.007
[18]	Usack JG, Angenent LT (2015) Comparing the inhibitory thresholds of dairy manure co-digesters after prolonged acclimation periods : Part 1 e Performance and operating limits. Water Res 87: 446–457. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.055
[19]	Lobato A, Cuetos MJ, Gómez X, et al. (2014) Improvement of biogas production by co-digestion of swine manure and residual glycerine. Biofuels 1: 59–68.
[20]	Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, et al. (2006) Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of manure : Effects of dairy systems and of glycerine supplementation. Int Congr Ser 1293: 217–220. doi: 10.1016/j.ics.2006.03.007
[21]	Astals S, Nolla-Ardèvol V, Mata-Alvarez J (2013) Thermophilic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol : Process performance and digestate stability. J Biotechnol 166: 97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.05.004

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)