Organic substrates evaluation based on biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetic

Li Chao; Liu Gangjin; Liu Jingxi; Chen Liumeng; Zhang Cheng; Dong Taili; Deng Liangwei

doi:10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.24.040

Volume 31 Issue 24

Dec. 2015

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE) > 2015 > 31(24): 262-268. > DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.24.040

Li Chao, Liu Gangjin, Liu Jingxi, Chen Liumeng, Zhang Cheng, Dong Taili, Deng Liangwei. Organic substrates evaluation based on biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetic[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2015, 31(24): 262-268. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.24.040

Citation:

PDF (2215 KB)

Organic substrates evaluation based on biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetic

1.
Key Laboratory of Development and Application of Rural Renewable Energy, Ministry of Agriculture, Chengdu 610041, China
2.
Nova Skantek 《Beijing》 Co., Ltd., Beijing 100012, China
3.
Institute of Applied Agricultural Microbiology, Jiangxi Academy of Agriculture Science, Nanchang 330200, China
4.
Shandong Minhe Biological Technology Co., Ltd., Penglai 265600, China

More Information

Received Date: July 07, 2015
Revised Date: November 19, 2015
Published Date: December 14, 2015

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract: The purpose of this paper was to develop a standardized method for substrate evaluation process in biogas plant or relevant anaerobic digestion laboratory, which could increase the efficiency, strictness and scientificity of current substrate evaluation process when the substrate evaluation test standard was absent. The substrate assessment method was proposed by analyzing the data of accumulated gas production and the degradation dynamics of substrates with the help of mathematical model. The first-order model, modified first-order model and Gompertz model were used to fit the biochemical methane potential (BMP) curve of wheat straw, separated stem and leaf of maize, dry and fresh alfalfa, chicken manure, food waste, dead chick and adult chicken respectively, and in the meantime the kinetic constant and the estimated maximum BMP of these 9 substrates were estimated. The simulation performances of these 3 models were statistically analyzed and compared to find the suitable model for the substrate evaluation process. The modified first-order model had the highest simulation precision of BMP curve while the first-order model showed the lowest precision. The Gompertz model showed a moderate simulation precision of BMP curve, and the maximum BMP value simulated by the Gompertz model was more close to the experiment value among the 3 models. The BMP1% (accumulated biogas production when single-day biogas production accounted for 1% of BMP) was raised in German guideline VDI 4630, which was a standardized way to define BMP value and corresponding necessary experiment time, thus avoiding the subjective judgment during evaluation process. In the meantime, when adopting the BMP1% as judging index, the accumulated methane production accounted for more than 90% of the ultimate accumulated methane production, and the necessary experiment period was reduced by 27.94%-70.58% compared with the whole experiment period. The BMP values (based on BMP1%) of 9 evaluating substrates, wheat straw, separated stem and leaf of maize, dry and fresh alfalfa, chicken manure, food waste, dead chick and hen, were 220.49, 241.01, 262.10, 310.84, 305.80, 508.41, 520.90, 630.7 and 618.05 mL/g (volatile solid, VS) respectively. Fat-containing substrates, like dead chick and hen, possessed the highest BMP. The kinetic constant generated from the model simulation was objectively referred to the degradation speed of substrate. The analysis results showed that among 9 substrates, the dry and fresh alfalfa had the highest kinetic constant, which meant they were very easy to degrade. The kinetic constants of other cellulosic substrates (except maize stalk and wheat straw), chicken manure and food waste were just lower than alfalfa, and they were also easy to degrade in anaerobic digestion process, while the degradation of dead adult chicken was the slowest because of the presence of oil. By comparing the simulation performance of the 3 models, the Gompertz model was recommended for the maximum BMP estimation and the modified first-order model was more suitable for kinetic constant estimation. The introduction of BMP1% improved the efficiency of substrate evaluation for biogas plants. As the substrate degradation speed was also one of the important factors for substrate evaluation, the comparison of substrate's kinetic constants was necessary as well.
- biogas,
- fermentation,
- kinetics,
- biochemical methane potential,
- substrates evaluation

FullText(HTML)

References (20)

References

[1]	程序，朱万斌. 产业沼气：我国可再生能源家族中的"奇兵"[J]. 中外能源，2011，16(1)：37－42.Cheng Xu, Zhu Wanbin. Industrial marsh gas-the cinderella in China's renewable energy mix[J]. Sino-Global Energy, 2011, 1(16): 37－42. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[2]	程序，崔宗均，朱万斌. 呼之欲出的中国生物天然气战略性新兴产业[J]. 天然气工业，2013，33(9)：141－148.Cheng Xu, Cui Zongjun, Zhu Wanbin. The upcoming bionatural gas in China: A strategic emerging industry[J]. Natural Gas Industry, 2013, 33(9): 141－148. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[3]	Esposito G, Frunzo L, Giordano A, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes[J]. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 2012, 11(4): 325－341.
[4]	Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Güiza M, et al. A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 36: 412－427.
[5]	Li Jiang, Wei Luoyu, Duan Qiwu, et al. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure with three crop residues for biogas production[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2014, 156: 307－313.
[6]	Moody L, Burns R, Wu-Haan W, et al. Use of biochemical methane potential (BMP) assays for predicting and enhancing anaerobic digester performance. in 44th Croatian & 4th International Symposium on Agriculture[C]// Opatija, Croatia: Faculty of Agriculture, University "Josip Juraj Strossmayer" in Osijek, 2009: 930－934.
[7]	成喜雨，李超，李兵，等. 物料产甲烷潜力分析技术及设备评述[J]. 可再生能源，2013，31(5)：72－79.Cheng Xiyu, Li Chao, Li Bing, et al. Technologies and equipments used for testing biochemical methane potential (BMP)-a review[J]. Renewable Energy Resources, 2013, 31(5): 72－79. (in Chinese with English abstract)
[8]	Str?mberg S, Nistor M, Liu J. Early prediction of Biochemical Methane Potential through statistical and kinetic modelling of initial gas production[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 176: 233－241.
[9]	Labatut Rodrigo A, Angenent Largus T, Scott Norman R. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(3): 2255－2264.
[10]	Long J H, Aziz T N, Francis L, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of fat, oil, and grease (FOG): A review of gas production and process limitations[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2012, 90(3): 231－245.
[11]	Menardo S, Gioelli F, Balsari P. The methane yield of digestate: effect of organic loading rate, hydraulic retention time, and plant feeding[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(3): 2348－2351.
[12]	Schievano A, D'Imporzano G, Orzi V, et al. On-field study of anaerobic digestion full-scale plants (Part II): New approaches in monitoring and evaluating process efficiency[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2011, 102(19): 8814－8819.
[13]	Cavaleiro A, Ferreira T, Pereira F, et al. Biochemical methane potential of raw and pre-treated meat-processing wastes[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2013, 129: 519－525.
[14]	Ponsá S, Gea T, Sánchez A. Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with several pure organic co-substrates[J]. Biosystems Engineering, 2011, 108(4): 352－360.
[15]	VDI. 4630, Fermentation of organic materials -Characterization of the substrate, sampling, collection of materials data, fermentation tests[J]. Verein Deutdcher Ingenieure, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2006.
[16]	Kreuger E, Prade T, Escobar F, et al. Anaerobic digestion of industrial hemp-Effect of harvest time on methane energy yield per hectare[J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2011, 35(2): 893－900.
[17]	Chen Y, Cheng Jay J, Creamer Kurt S. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99(10): 4044－4064.
[18]	Lagerkvist A, Morgan-Sagastume F. The effects of substrate pre-treatment on anaerobic digestion systems: A review[J]. Waste Management, 2012, 32(9): 1634－1650.
[19]	Fu Shanfei, Wang Fei, Yuan Xianzheng, et al. The thermophilic (55℃) microaerobic pretreatment of corn straw for anaerobic digestion[J]. Bioresource Technology, 2015, 175: 203－208.
[20]	Yang Dongyan, Pang YunzhiZ, Yuan Hairong, et al. Enhancing biogas production from anaerobically digested wheat straw through ammonia pretreatment[J]. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2014, 99(10): 576－582.

[1]	REN Jianjun, MAO Honggang, ZHU Lixia, XIA Xilong, ZHOU Rongrong, HAN Lili, MA Na, YIN Dongmin. Methane production potential and kinetic characteristics of the anaerobic digestion of erythromycin fermentation residues[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2024, 40(9): 199-208. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.202312092
[2]	Zhang Zhiwei, Qin Xiaobo, Fan Jianling, Wei Xianhu, Wan Yunfan, Wang Jinming, Liao Yulin, Lu Yanhong. Applicability and abatement potential assessment of alternate wet and dry CH4 mitigation technology in major rice cropping regions in Hunan Province of China[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2022, 38(Z): 232-239. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2022.z.027
[3]	Xu Wenqian, Dong Hongmin, Shang Bin, Chen Yongxing, Tao Xiuping. Experiment and calculation on the biochemical methane potential of typical livestock and poultry manure in anaerobic digestion[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2021, 37(14): 228-234. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2021.14.026
[4]	Yuan Lingli, Liu Yanping, Yuan Yu, Zhou Liye. Effect of storage time on physiochemical properties and methanogenesis potential of maize straw[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2019, 35(13): 210-217. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.13.025
[5]	Qiao Wei, Jiang Mengmeng, Zhao Jing, Wandera S.M, Dong Renjie ※. Methanogenesis kinetics of anaerobic digestion of acetate and propionate at mesophilic and thermophilic conditions[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2018, 34(21): 234-238. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2018.21.029
[6]	Du Jing, Chen Guangyin, Huang Hongying, Jin Hongmei, Xi Yonglan, Qian Yuting, Xu Yueding, Chang Zhizhou. Effect of fermenting material concentration on biogas yield in batch and continuous biogas fermentation with straws[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2015, 31(15): 201-207. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2015.15.028
[7]	Tang Xiumei, Chen Baiming, Zhang Leina, Gu Xiaokun. Analysis of cultivated land consolidation potential in China[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2012, 28(1): 219-224.
[8]	Wang Shouquan, Yan Qun, Miao Hengfeng, Ruan Wenquan. Effect of inoculum to substrate ratios on methane production in mixed anaerobic digestion of pig manure and blue-green algae[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2009, 25(5): 172-176.
[9]	Ding Yi, Zhang Jie, Li Haihua, Yue Jianzhi, Yang Shiguan, Zhang Bailiang. Kinetics model for decomposing substrate in treating piggery wastewater in IC reactor[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2008, 24(8): 236-239.
[10]	Li Xiaohua, Li Guohui, Zhang Yansheng. Effect of Inorganic salton the aceticlastic methanogensmethane fermentation kinetics[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2006, 22(14): 5-9.