Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of the effects of anaerobic co-digestion of water primrose and cow dung with swine manure on biogas yield and biodegradability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the potential of water primrose for biogas production in batch anaerobic digestion. To examine the ability of co-digestion with other substrates, cow dung and swine manure was chosen to mix with pretreated water primrose in a ratio of 1:1 (w/w, based on dry matter of water primrose). The pretreatment of water primrose was conducted by using sodium hydroxide at 2% concentration for one week. A modified Gompertz equation was employed to estimate parameters, including estimated biogas yield potential (Ym), maximum biogas production rate (Rm), and duration of lag phase (λ). The equation showed a good approximation of cumulative biogas production with a coefficient of determination (R2) over 0.997. The overall results indicate that all treatments had successfully produced biogas production in the range of 4285 to 6150 mL with methane (CH4) content above 50%. The maximum biogas yield of 6150 mL was obtained at co-digestion with cow dung and high methane content of 63.88%. This value was given 25.50 MJ/m3 for high calorific value (HCV) and 22.97 MJ/m3 of low calorific value (LCV).

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Y :

cumulative biogas production is the at the given time

t :

time

Y m :

biogas potential of the substrate

R m :

maximum biogas production rate

E :

exp (1) = 2.718

λ :

lag phase time

R 2 :

coefficient of determination

HCV:

high calorific value

LCV:

low calorific value

MC:

methane content in biogas

CH4 :

methane

CO2 :

carbon dioxide

CaO:

calcium oxide

COD:

chemical oxygen demand

TS :

total solids

VS:

volatile solids

VFAs:

volatile fatty acids

References

  1. Bhuyar P, Sundararaju S, Rahim MH, Ramaraj R, Maniam GP, Govindan N (2019) Microalgae cultivation using palm oil mill effluent as growth medium for lipid production with the effect of CO2 supply and light intensity. Biomass Convers Biorefin 26:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nguyen TV, Unpaprom Y, Manmai N, Whangchai K, Ramaraj R (2020) Impact and significance of pretreatment on the fermentable sugar production from low-grade longan fruit wastes for bioethanol production. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00977-7

  3. Khammee P, Ramaraj R, Whangchai N, Bhuyar P, Unpaprom Y (2020) The immobilization of yeast for fermentation of macroalgae Rhizoclonium sp. for efficient conversion into bioethanol. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00786-y

  4. Manmai N, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2020) Bioethanol production from sunflower stalk: application of chemical and biological pretreatments by response surface methodology (RSM). Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00602-7

  5. Saengsawang B, Bhuyar P, Manmai N, Ponnusamy VK, Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y (2020) The optimization of oil extraction from macroalgae, Rhizoclonium sp. by chemical methods for efficient conversion into biodiesel. Fuel 274:117841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kanget Zhao C, Qiao X, Cao Y, Shao Q (2017) Application of hydrogen peroxide presoaking prior to ammonia fiber expansion pretreatment of energy crops. Fuel 205:184–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sophanodorn K, Unpaprom Y, Whangchai K, Homdoung N, Dussadee N, Ramaraj R (2020) Environmental management and valorization of cultivated tobacco stalks by combined pretreatment for potential bioethanol production. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00992-8

  8. Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y (2019) Optimization of pretreatment condition for ethanol production from Cyperus difformis by response surface methodology. 3 Biotech 9(6):218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pantawong R, Chuanchai A, Thipbunrat P, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2015) Experimental investigation of biogas production from water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes L. Emergent Life Sci Res 1:41–46

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ramaraj R, Kawaree R, Unpaprom Y (2016) A newly isolated green alga, Pediastrum duplex Meyen, from Thailand with efficient hydrogen production. IJSGE 4:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  11. Unpaprom Y, Intasaen O, Yongphet P, Ramaraj R (2015) Cultivation of microalga Botryococcus braunii using red Nile tilapia effluent medium for biogas production. J Ecol Environ Sci 3:58–65

  12. Van Tran G, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2019) Methane productivity evaluation of an invasive wetland plant, common reed. Biomass Convers Biorefin 10:689–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00451-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Tran G, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2019) Effects of co-substrate concentrations on the anaerobic co-digestion of common reed and cow dung. AJARCDE 3(1):28–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chuanchai A, Ramaraj R (2018) Sustainability assessment of biogas production from buffalo grass and dung: biogas purification and bio-fertilizer. 3 Biotech 8(3):151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dussadee N, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2016) Grass silage for biogas production. Advances in Silage Production and Utilization 16:153

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ramaraj R, Dussadee N, Whangchai N, Unpaprom Y (2015) Microalgae biomass as an alternative substrate in biogas production. IJSGE 4:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y, Whangchai N, Dussadee N (2015) Culture of macroalgae Spirogyra ellipsospora for long-term experiments, stock maintenance and biogas production. Emergent Life Sci Res 1:38–45

    Google Scholar 

  18. Unpaprom Y, Pimpimol T, Whangchai K, Ramaraj R (2020) Sustainability assessment of water hyacinth with swine dung for biogas production, methane enhancement, and biofertilizer. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00850-72

  19. Vu PT, Unpaprom Y, Ramaraj R (2018) Impact and significance of alkaline-oxidant pretreatment on the enzymatic digestibility of Sphenoclea zeylanica for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol 247:125–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wannapokin A, Ramaraj R, Unpaprom Y (2017) An investigation of biogas production potential from fallen teak leaves (Tectona grandis). Emergent Life Sci Res 1:38–45

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wannapokin A, Ramaraj R, Whangchai K, Unpaprom Y (2018) Potential improvement of biogas production from fallen teak leaves with co-digestion of microalgae. 3 Biotech 8:123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zehnsdorf A, Moeller L, Stabenau N, Bauer A, Wedwitschka H, Gallegos D, Herbes C (2018) Biomass potential analysis of aquatic biomass and challenges for its use as a nonconventional substrate in anaerobic digestion plants. Eng Life Sci 18(7):492–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zwietering MH, Jongenburger I, Rombouts FM, Van’t Riet KJAEM (1990) Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl Environ Microbiol 56(6):1875–1881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li Y, Zhang R, He Y, Zhang C, Liu XC, Liu G (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover in batch and continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). Bioresour Technol 156:342–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zamanzadeh M, Hagen LH, Svensson K, Linjordet R, Horn SJ (2017) Biogas production from food waste via co-digestion and digestion-effects on performance and microbial ecology. Sci Rep 7(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Franceschi V (2001) Calcium oxalate in plants. Trends Plant Sci 6(7):331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Konyar ST, Öztürk N, Dane F (2014) Occurrence, types and distribution of calcium oxalate crystals in leaves and stems of some species of poisonous plants. Bot Stud 55(1):32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liang YG, Cheng B, Si YB, Cao DJ, Li DL, Chen JF (2016) Effect of solid-state NaOH pretreatment on methane production from thermophilic semi-dry anaerobic digestion of rose stalk. Water Sci Technol 73(12):2913–2920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhu J, Wan C, Li Y (2010) Enhanced solid-state anaerobic digestion of corn stover by alkaline pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 101(19):7523–7528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lu X, Jin W, Xue S, Wang X (2017) Effects of waste sources on performance of anaerobic co-digestion of complex organic wastes: taking food waste as an example. Sci Rep 7(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Akintokun AK, Abibu WA, Oyatogun MO (2017) Microbial dynamics and biogas production during single and co-digestion of cow Dung and rice Husk. Appl Ecol Environ Res 39(2):67–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Aragaw T, Gessesse A (2013) Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production using rumen fluid as inoculums. Int J Phys Sci 8(11):443–450

    Google Scholar 

  34. Xiao Y, Yang H, Yang H, Wang H, Zheng D, Liu Y, Deng L (2019) Improved biogas production of dry anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Bioresour Technol 29:122188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Du J, Qian YT, Xi YL, Jin HM, Kong XP, Zhu N, Ye XM (2019) The feasibility of shortening the pretreatment time for improvement of the biogas production rate from rice straw with three chemical agents. BioResources 14(2):3808–3822

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wei L, Qin K, Ding J, Xue M, Yang C, Jiang J, Zhao Q (2019) Optimization of the co-digestion of sewage sludge, maize straw and cow manure: microbial responses and effect of fractional organic characteristics. Sci Rep 9(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  37. Córdoba V, Fernández M, Santalla E (2016) The effect of different inoculums on anaerobic digestion of swine wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 4(1):115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Li X, Li L, Zheng M, Fu G, Lar JS (2009) Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with corn stover pretreated by sodium hydroxide for efficient biogas production. Energy Fuel 23(9):4635–4639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Widiasa IN, Johari S (2010) The kinetic of biogas production rate from cattle manure in batch mode. Int J Chem Mol Eng 4(1):75–80

    Google Scholar 

  40. Croce S, Wei Q, D’Imporzano G, Dong R, Adani F (2016) Anaerobic digestion of straw and corn stover: the effect of biological process optimization and pre-treatment on total bio-methane yield and energy performance. Biotechnol Adv 34(8):1289–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nguyen VH, Topno S, Balingbing C, Nguyen VCN, Röder M, Quilty J, Gummert M (2016) Generating a positive energy balance from using rice straw for anaerobic digestion. Energy Rep 2:117–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Özyuğuran A, Yaman S (2017) Prediction of calorific value of biomass from proximate analysis. Energy Procedia 107:130–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Li Y, Liu H, Yan F, Su D, Wang Y, Zhou H (2017) High-calorific biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste using a two-phase pressurized biofilm (TPPB) system. Bioresour Technol 224:56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bastidas-Oyanedel JR, Schmidt JE (2019) Biorefinery: integrated sustainable processes for biomass conversion to biomaterials, biofuels, and fertilizers. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany

  45. Arbon IM (2002) Worldwide use of biomass in power generation and combined heat and power schemes. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A 216(1):41–57

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledged the School of Renewable Energy, Program in Biotechnology, and Energy Research Center, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, and Center of Excellence in Bioresources for Agriculture, Industry and Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand, for the research facilities to accomplish this experimental study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Renewable Energy, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, 50290, Thailand

    Huyen Thu Thi Nong, Sermsuk Buochareon & Rameshprabu Ramaraj

  2. Sustainable Resources & Sustainable Engineering Research Lab, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, 50290, Thailand

    Huyen Thu Thi Nong, Yuwalee Unpaprom & Rameshprabu Ramaraj

  3. Program in Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Maejo University, Chiang Mai, 50290, Thailand

    Yuwalee Unpaprom

  4. Center of Excellence in Bioresources for Agriculture, Industry and Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand

    Kanda Whangchai

Authors
  1. Huyen Thu Thi Nong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuwalee Unpaprom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kanda Whangchai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sermsuk Buochareon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rameshprabu Ramaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rameshprabu Ramaraj.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nong, H.T.T., Unpaprom, Y., Whangchai, K. et al. Assessment of the effects of anaerobic co-digestion of water primrose and cow dung with swine manure on biogas yield and biodegradability. Biomass Conv. Bioref. 12, 857–867 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01115-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-01115-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation