Potential Evaluation and Modeling of Biogas Production from Apple Pomace

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 13, Volume 11, Issue 2 - Serial Number 22, 2021, Pages 305-316   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v11i2.80322

Authors

M. Sami; A. Akram^* ; M. Sharifi

Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The need to develop alternative energy sources especially renewable energy has become increasingly apparent with the incident of fuel shortages and escalating energy prices in recent years. With the advent of renewable energy, various studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of biogas production from agricultural waste. Considering the importance of retention time and methane production potential for designing industrial digesters, many studies on potential analysis and modeling of the digestion process of different products have been carried out by various researchers. These studies are valuable for the design and implementation of anaerobic digesters. Apple is one of the most popular fruits in many parts of the world and is widely cultivated in many temperate regions of the world. Considering the large volume of apple waste in Iran, this study was designed based on potential evaluation and modeling of biogas production from apple pulp.
Materials and Methods
In order to measure the potential of biogas production from apple pomace, a number of lab-scale digesters with a capacity of 600 ml and a working capacity of 400-500 ml were made. pH and C/N ratio were modified by adding NaOH and urea solution, respectively. Three different temperature treatments including psychrophilic (ambient temperature), mesophilic (37ºC), and thermophilic (47ºC) were applied to the substrate. Used pomace samples were collected from the output of an apple juice factory in southern Isfahan province, Iran. Anaerobic Biodegradability (ABD) was obtained by dividing the experimental methane production potential (BMP) obtained from the experimental results on the theoretical methane production potential. Three most common kinetic models of Gompertz, Logistic, and Richards were used to predict and stimulate the cumulative methane production of treatments.
Results and Discussion
Under ambient temperature, the digestive process took a longer time, and the time of maximum dilly biogas production was considerably more than the other two treatments. Statistically, production time and peak time of this treatment was higher than the other two treatments at 1% significance level. Maximum daily biogas production in the ambient treatment was observed on day 37th with a volume of 6.99 g-VS-1 ml, while maximum daily biogas production in the treatments of 37 °C and 47 °C were observed on days 22th (20.16 ml g-VS-1) and 20th (25.57 ml g-VS-1), respectively. In all three treatments, daily biogas production increased sharply in the first incubation days and after that reduced and then production increased again. In mesophilic and thermophilic treatments, the production of biogas modestly stopped after 35 days, but under the ambient temperature, the process of production continued after 55 days. The methane concentration of biogas in the psychrophilic treatment was significantly lower than the other two treatments at 1% level. Two treatments of 37°C and 45°C have a significant difference in methane yield at 1% level. Nevertheless, the production of biogas in two treatments was not statistically different. In all three treatments, the lowest pH was recorded after 7 days of production and the highest pH was recorded on days 34-40. All three kinetic equations were able to simulate the methane production process with high precision, although the results of the Logistic model provided higher accuracy. In the treatment 47 °C, the efficiency of the studied equations was higher than other treatments and models were able to predict the production process with higher accuracy. Results of the experiment show the high biochemical methane production potential of apple pomace (473.17 ml g-VS-1), which under laboratory condition of this study up to 63.9% of this potential (302.70 ml g-VS-1) was obtained. 
Conclusion
This study results are valuable for the design and implementation of industrial digesters. The results indicate the apple pomace has a high potential for the production of methane and its biodegradability is high. Apart from pH that is acidic, other apple pulp factors are appropriate for the activity of methanogenic bacteria. In terms of nutrients, apple pomace is also a good environment for the growth of anaerobic bacteria.

Keywords

Biogas; Methane; Modeling; Potential

References

1. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 15th ed. Methods 932.06, 925.09, 985.29, 923.03. Association of official analytical chemists. Arlington, VA, USA.

2. Ağdağ, O. N., and D. T. Sponza. 2007. Co-digestion of mixed industrial sludge with municipal solid wastes in anaerobic simulated landfilling bioreactors. Journal of hazardous materials 140: 75-85.

3. Agrahari, P. R., and D. Khurdiya. 2003. Studies on preparation and storage of RTS beverage from pulp of culled apple pomace. Indian Food Packer 57: 56-61.

4. Alzate-Gaviria, L. M., P. Sebastian, A. Perez-Hernandez, and D. Eapen. 2007. Comparison of two anaerobic systems for hydrogen production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and synthetic wastewater. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32: 3141-3146.

5. Angelidaki, I., and W. Sanders. 2004. Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of macropollutants. Re/Views in Environmental Science & Bio/Technology 3: 117-129.

6. Buffière, P., D. Loisel, N. Bernet, J. P. Delgenes. 2006. Towards new indicators for the prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties. Water Science and Technology 53: 233-41.

7. Chen, Z., D. Hu, Z. Zhang, N. Ren, and H. Zhu. 2009. Modeling of two-phase anaerobic process treating traditional Chinese medicine wastewater with the IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1. Bioresource Technology 100: 4623-4631.

8. Ding, H.-B. and J.-Y. Wang. 2008. Responses of the methanogenic reactor to different effluent fractions of fermentative hydrogen production in a phase-separated anaerobic digestion system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33: 6993-7005.

9. Doagoi, A., A. Ghazanfari Moghaddam, and M. H. Fooladi. 2011. Investigating and Modeling the Process of Biogas Production while Utilizing the Wastes of Damask Rose Distillation. Iranian Journal of Biosystems Engineering 42: 95-102. (In Farsi).

10. Dubrovskis, V., and I. Plume. 2017. Biogas from wastes of pumpkin, marrow and apple. Agronomy Research 15 (1): 69-78.

11. El-Mashad, H. M., and R. Zhang. 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresource Technology 101 (11): 4021-4028.

12. Fang, W., P. Zhang, G. Zhang, S. Jin, D. Li, M. Zhang, and X. Xu. 2014. Effect of alkaline addition on anaerobic sludge digestion with combined pretreatment of alkaline and high pressure homogenization Bioresource Technology 168: 167-172.

13. FAOSTAT. 2019. Apple production in 2017. Crops World Regions Production Quantity": UN Food & Agriculture Organization, Statistics Division.

14. Haji Agha Alizadeh, H., F. Rahimi Sardari, and S. A. Radmdar. 2014. Effect Of Reactor Temperature on the Rate of Biogas Production from Quail Manure. in First National Conference of Agriculture, Environment and Food Security. Jiroft. (In Farsi).

15. Hanssen, J. F., M. Indergaard, K. Østgaard, O. A. Bævre, T. A. Pedersen, and A. Jensen. 1987. Anaerobic digestion of Laminaria spp. and Ascophyllum nodosum and application of end products. Biomass 14: 1-13.

16. Hassan Dar, Gh., and S. M. Tandon. 1987. Biogas production from pretreated wheat straw, lantana residue, apple and peach leaf litter with cattle dung, Biological Wastes 21 (2): 75-83.

17. Heo, N. H., and S. C. Park, and H. Kang. 2004. Effects of mixture ratio and hydraulic retention time on single-stage anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 39: 1739-1756.

18. Hoseinzadeh, Y. 2013. Investigating the potential of biogas production from lettuce and cabbage waste in common digestion with cow manure. MSc thesis. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.

19. Labatut, R. A., L. T. Angenent, and N. R. Scott. 2011. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresource Technology 102: 2255-2264.

20. Laurinovica, L., J. Jasko, E. Skripsts, and V. Dubrovskis. 2013. Biochemical methane potential of biologically and chemically pretreated sawdust and straw. Pages 468-471. Proceedings of the 12th International Scientific Conference: Engineering for Rural Development.

21. Lay, J.-J., Y.-Y. Li, and T. Noike. 1998. Developments of bacterial population and methanogenic activity in a laboratory-scale landfill bioreactor. Water Research 32: 3673-3679.

22. Lesteur, M., V. Bellon-Maurel, C. Gonzalez, E. Latrille, J. Roger, G. Junqua, and J. Steyer. 2010. Alternative methods for determining anaerobic biodegradability: a review. Process Biochemistry 45: 431-440.

23. Lianhua, L., L. Dong, S. Yongming, M. Longlong, Y. Zhenhong, and K. Xiaoying. 2010. Effect of temperature and solid concentration on anaerobic digestion of rice straw in South China. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35: 7261-7266.

24. Lo, H., T. Kurniawan, M. Sillanpää, T. Pai, C. Chiang, K. Chao, M. Liu, S. Chuang, C. Banks, and S. Wang. 2010. Modeling biogas production from organic fraction of MSW co-digested with MSWI ashes in anaerobic bioreactors. Bioresource Technology 101: 6329-6335.

25. Lopes, W. S., V. D. Leite, and S. Prasad. 2004. Influence of inoculum on performance of anaerobic reactors for treating municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology 94: 261-266.

26. Nazari, A., and Nasiri, J. 2013. Types of anaerobic digesters for energy extraction from corrosive organic matter. Jornal of Renewable and New Energy 1 (2): 37-44.

27. Nopharatana, A., P. C. Pullammanappallil, and W. P. Clarke. 2003. A dynamic mathematical model for sequential leach bed anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Biochemical Engineering Journal 13: 21-33.

28. Owen, W., D. Stuckey, J. Healy Jr, L. Young, and P. McCarty. 1979. Bioassay for monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Research 13: 485-492.

29. Prabhudessai, V., A. Ganguly, S. Mutnuri. 2013. Biochemical Methane Potential of Agro Wastes. Journal of Energy (17): 1-7.

30. Rao, M., S. Singh, A. Singh, and M. Sodha. 2000. Bioenergy conversion studies of the organic fraction of MSW: assessment of ultimate bioenergy production potential of municipal garbage. Applied Energy 66: 75-87.

31. Raposo, F., R. Borja, B. Rincon, and A. Jimenez. 2008. Assessment of process control parameters in the biochemical methane potential of sunflower oil cake. Biomass and Bioenergy 32: 1235-1244.

32. Raposo, F., V. Fernandez‐Cegri, M. De la Rubia, R. Borja, F. Beline, C. Cavinato, G. Demirer, B. Fernandez, M. Fernandez‐Polanco, and J. Frigon. 2011. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study. Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 86: 1088-1098.

33. Rincon, B., C. J. Banks, and S. Heaven. 2010. Biochemical methane potential of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): Influence of growth stage and storage practice. Bioresource Technology 101 (21): 8179-8184.

34. Safley Jr, L., and P. Westerman. 1992. Performance of a low temperature lagoon digester. Bioresource Technology 41: 167-175.

35. Sahito, A. R., R. B. Mahar, and K. M. Brohi. 2013. Anaerobic biodegradability and methane potential of crop residue co-digested with buffalo dung. Mehran University Research Journal of Engineering & Technology 32: 509-518.

36. Salmani, F., A. Ehsan, and M. Salimi. 2017. The Feasibility of Building Two units Combined Heat and Power (CHP) With Biogas in Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant. Journal of Mechanical Engineering 47: 325-331. (In Farsi).

37. Shariatifar, M. 2014. Investigating the potential of biogas production from citrus and livestock waste. Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. (In Farsi).

38. Strömberg, S., M. Nistor, and J. Liu. 2014. Towards eliminating systematic errors caused by the experimental conditions in Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) tests. Waste Management 34: 1939-1948.

39. Symons, G., and A. Buswell. 1933. The methane fermentation of carbohydrates1, 2. Journal of the American Chemical Society 55: 2028-2036.

40. Waezi-Zadeh, M., A. Ghazanfari, and S. Noorbakhsh. 2010. Finite element analysis and modeling of water absorption by date pits during a soaking process. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B 11: 482-488.

41. Walker, M., Y. Zhang, S. Heaven, and C. Banks. 2009. Potential errors in the quantitative evaluation of biogas production in anaerobic digestion processes. Bioresource Technology 100: 6339-6346.

42. Xie, S., P. G. Lawlor, J. P. Frost, Z. Hu, and X. Zhan. 2011. Effect of pig manure to grass silage ratio on methane production in batch anaerobic co-digestion of concentrated pig manure and grass silage. Bioresource Technology 102: 5728-5733.

43. Zwietering, M., I. Jongenburger, F. Rombouts, and K. Van't Riet. 1990. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56: 1875-1881.