SpringerLink
Log in

Optimizing Methane Production from Co-digestion of Cassava Biomass and Winery Solid Waste Using Response Surface Methodology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Waste and Biomass Valorization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Renewable energy security for the future and better use of natural resources are key challenges that can be concurrently managed by a practical anaerobic co-digestion approach where substrates with a high carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio are combined with lower ones to create a balance of the nutrients during the production of methane. This study determined the optimal conditions for methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of cassava biomass (CB) and winery solid waste (WSW) using response surface methodology (RSM). A three-factor central composite design was used to set-up the anaerobic co-digestion experiments. The individual and interactive effects of temperature (25–45 °C), pH 6–8 and a range of substrate (CB/WSW) ratios (0–100) on the methane yield were explored. Optimisation using RSM showed a close fit between the predicted and experimental data as indicated by the coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.9521. The RSM model predicted a maximum methane yield of 346.28 mL CH4/g VSadded for the optimal conditions of pH 7, temperature of 35 °C ± 0.5 and 70/30 ratio of CB/WSW. The verification experiment produced 396 mL CH4/g VSadded, 12.6% higher than the predicted value at the same conditions. Although, there was a gap between the predicted and actual yield, the significance of the variables in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows the model could be relevant to similar research. The substrate ratio at 70 CB:30 WSW was the most significant factor during methane production. The RSM model proved successful in the optimisation process of methane yield.

Graphic Abstract

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CB:

Cassava biomass

WSW:

Winery solid waste

CCD:

Central composite design

RSM:

Response surface methodology

AD:

Anaerobic digestion

CH4 :

Methane

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

UN:

United Nations

C/N:

Carbon to nitrogen ratio

ZD:

Zebra dung

ARC:

Agricultural Research Council

RSA:

Republic of South Africa

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

TSs:

Total solids

VSs:

Volatile solids

TOC:

Total organic carbon

MC:

Moisture content

ICP:

Inductively coupled plasma

NaOH:

Sodium hydroxide

HCl:

Hydrochloric acid

VFA:

Volatile fatty acid

H2SO4 :

Sulphuric acid

References

  1. Bessou, C., Ferchaud, F., Gabrielle, B., Mary, B.: Biofuels, greenhouse gases and climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 31, 1 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1051/Agro/2009039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vasavan, A., de Goey, P., van Oijen, J.: Numerical study on the autoignition of biogas in moderate or intense low oxygen dilution nonpremixed combustion systems. Energy Fuels 32, 8768–8780 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b01388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balat, M., Balat, H.: Biogas as a renewable energy source—a review. Energy Sources A 41(14), 1280–1293 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Demuynck, M., Nyns, E.J., Palz, W.: Biogas Plants in Europe. A Practical Handbook. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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. 60, 714–723 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bundhoo, Z.M.A., Mauthoor, S., Mohee, R.: Potential of biogas production from biomass and waste materials in the Small Island Develo** State of Mauritius. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56, 1087–1100 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dobre, P., Nicolae, F., Matei, F.: Main factors affecting biogas production—an overview. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 19, 9283–9296 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Okudoh, V., Trois, C., Workneh, T.: The potential of cassava biomass as a feedstock for sustainable biogas production in South Africa. J. Energy Power Eng. 8, 836–843 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hansupalak, N., Piromkraipak, P., Tamthirat, P., Manitsorasak, A., Sriroth, K., Tran, T.: Biogas reduces the carbon footprint of cassava starch: a comparative assessment with fuel oil. J. Clean. Prod. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) Republic of South Africa: Cassava production guideline (2010). https://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Brochures/ProdGuideCassava.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2018

  11. WOSA: World Statistics. https://www.wosa.co.za/The-Industry/Statistics/World-Statistics/. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  12. Zacharof, M.P.: Grape winery waste as feedstock for bioconversions: applying the biorefinery concept. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 8(4), 1011–1025 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-016-9674-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang, Q., Hu, J., Lee, D.J.: Biogas from anaerobic digestion processes: research updates. Renew. Energy 98, 108–119 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Achina, S., Achinas, V., Gerrit, J.W.E.: A technological overview of biogas production from biowaste. Engineering 3, 299–307 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Weiland, P.: Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 849–860 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Okudoh, V., Trois, C., Workneh, T., Schmidt, S.: The potential of cassava biomass and applicable technologies for sustainable biogas production in South Africa: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 1035–1052 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Debabrata, B.: Introduction to energy from toxic organic waste for heat and power generation. In: Debabrata, B. (ed) Energy from Toxic Organic Waste for Heat and Power Generation, pp. 1–6. Woodhead Publishing (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102528-4.00001-8

  18. Ning, J., Zhou, M., Pan, X., Li, C., et al.: Simultaneous biogas and biogas slurry production from co-digestion of pig manure and corn straw: performance optimization and microbial community shift. Bioresour. Technol. 282, 37–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sawatdeenarunat, C., Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Oechsner, H., Khanal, S.K.: Bi anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 178, 178–186 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mkruqulwa, U.L., Okudoh, V.I., Oyekola, O.O.: Biomethane potential from co-digestion of cassava and winery waste in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Advances in Science, Engineering, Technology and Waste Management (ASETWM-17), 27–28 November, Parys, South Africa, pp. 107–122 (2017)

  21. Riaño, B., Molinuevo, B., García-González, M.C.: Potential for methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with winery wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 4131–4136 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.12.077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ziganshin, A.M., Liebetrau, J., Pröter, J., Kleinsteuber, S.: Microbial community structure and dynamics during anaerobic digestion of various agricultural waste materials. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97, 5161–5174 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4867-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Al Seadi, T., Drosg, B., Fuchs, W., Rutz, D., Janssen, R.: The Biogas Handbook: Science, Production and Applications Biogas Digestate Quality and Utilization. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fitamo, T., Boldrin, A., Boe, K., Angelidaki, I., Scheutz, C.: Co-digestion of food and garden waste with mixed sludge from wastewater treatment in continuously stirred tank reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 206, 245–254 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.01.085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Buckley, M., Wall, J.D.: Microbial energy conversion (2006). https://www.osti.gov/biblio/895093. Accessed 2 Feb 2018

  26. Wang, X., Lu, X., Li, F., Yang, G.: Effects of temperature and carbon–nitrogen (C/N) ratio on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure and rice straw: focusing on ammonia inhibition. PLoS ONE 9, 1–7 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Reungsang, A., Pattra, S., Sittijunda, S.: Optimization of key factors affecting methane production from acidic effluent coming from the sugarcane juice hydrogen fermentation process. Energies 5, 4746–4757 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3390/en5114746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sathish, S., Vivekanandan, S.: Parametric optimization for floating drum anaerobic bio-digester using response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Alex. Eng. J. 55(4), 3297–3307 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kainthola, J., Kalamdhad, A.S., Goud, V.V.: Optimization of methane production during anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and Hydrilla verticillata using response surface methodology. Fuel 235, 92–99 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.07.094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Reddy, P.R.M., Ramesh, B., Mrudula, S., Reddy, G., Seenayya, G.: Production of thermostable β-amylase by Clostridium thermosulfurogenes SV2 in solid state fermentation: optimization of nutrient levels using response surface methodology. Process Biochem. 39, 267–277 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Elibol, M.: Optimization of medium composition for actinorhodin production by Streptomyces coelicolor A3(2) with response surface methodology. Process Biochem. 39, 1057–1062 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen, X., Wang, J.H., Li, D.S.: Optimization of solid-state medium for the production of inulinase by Kluyveromyces S120 using response surface methodology. Biochem. Eng. J. 34, 179–184 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yusof, T.R.T., Che-Man, H., Abdul Rahman, N.A., Hafid, H.S.: Optimization of methane gas production from co-digestion of food waste and poultry manure using artificial neural network and response surface methodology. J. Agric. Sci. 6, 27 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n7p27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang, Q., Tang, L., Zhang, J., Mao, Z., Jiang, L.: Optimization of thermal-dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment for enhancement of methane production from cassava residues. Bioresour. Technol. 102(4), 3958–3965 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sarabia, L.A., Ortiz, M.C.: Response surface methodology. In: Comprehensive Chemometrics, vol. 1, pp. 345–390. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2009)

  36. Ellis, G.V., Schmidt, S.: Anaerobic digestion of zebra, elephant, wildebeest and impala drop**s―assessment of the presence of methanogens and biogas yields. In: International IWA Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste and Energy Crops (ADSW&EC), 28 August––1 September, Vienna, Austria, p. 5 (2011)

  37. Chong, M.L., Abdul Rahman, N., Yee, P.L., Aziz, S.A., Rahim, R.A., Shirai, Y., Hassan, M.A.: Effects of pH, glucose and iron sulfate concentration on the yield of biohydrogen by Clostridium butyricum EB6. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 34, 8859–8865 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. American Public Health Association, APHA: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, Washington, DC (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Da Ros, C., Cavinato, C., Cecchi, F., Bolzonella, D.: Anaerobic co-digestion of winery waste and waste activated sludge: assessment of process feasibility. Water Sci. Technol. 69, 269–277 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Carotenuto, C., Guarino, G., Morrone, B., Minale, M.: Temperature and pH effect on methane production from buffalo manure anaerobic digestion. Int. J. Heat Technol. 34, 623–629 (2016). https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.34S233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Luo, G., **e, L., Zou, Z., Zhou, Q., Wang, J.Y.: Fermentative hydrogen production from cassava stillage by mixed anaerobic microflora: effects of temperature and pH. Appl. Energy (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Henze, M.: Basic biological processes. In: Henze, M., Harremoes, P., Cour, Jansen J., Arvin, E. (eds.) Wastewater Treatment: Biological and Chemical Processes, pp. 65–129. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Chanathaworn, J.: Operating condition optimization of water hyacinth and earthworm bedding wastewater for biogas production. Energy Procedia 138, 253–259 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Van Kessel, J.A.S., Russell, J.B.: The effect of pH on ruminal methanogenesis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 20, 205–210 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Adelekan, B., Bamgboye, A.: Comparison of biogas productivity of cassava peels mixed in selected ratios with major livestock waste types. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 4, 571–577 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ghaly, A.E., Ramkumar, D.R., Sadaka, S.S., Rochon, J.D.: Effect of reseeding and pH control on the performance of a two-stage mesophilic anaerobic digester operating on acid cheese whey. Can. Agric. Eng. 42, 173–183 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Boontian, N.: Conditions of the anaerobic digestion of biomass. Int. J. Biol. Biomol. Agric. Food Biotechnol. Eng. (2014). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1096285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lin, Q., He, G., Rui, J., Fang, X., Tao, Y., Li, J., Li, X.: Microorganism-regulated mechanisms of temperature effects on the performance of anaerobic digestion. Microb. Cell Factories 15(1), 96 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tait, S., Astals, S., Batstone, D., Jensen, P.: Enhanced methane bioenergy recovery at Australian piggeries through anaerobic co-digestion 4C-113. Final report prepared for the Cooperative Research Centre for High Integrity Australian Pork, Queensland (2018). https://porkcrc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4C-113-Project-Final-Research-Report.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2018

  50. Schnürer, A., Jarvis, A.: Microbiological Handbook for Biogas Plants. Swedish Waste Management, Swedish Gas Centre, Malmö (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Yan, Z., Song, Z., Li, D., Yuan, Y., Liu, X., Zheng, T.: The effects of initial substrate concentration, C/N ratio, and temperature on solid-state anaerobic digestion from composting rice straw. Bioresour. Technol. 177, 266–273 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.089

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is based on the research supported in part by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa for the Grant, Thuthuka Unique Grant No. 99393. Our sincere thanks goes the staff of the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) Stellenbosch, the Language Editor Dr. Solani Ngobeni from the Centre for Scholarly Publishing, Mr. Taiwo Abiola for assistance in modelling and the Staff of the Research Directorate at Cape Peninsula University of Technology for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

    Vincent Okudoh

  2. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

    Unathi Mkruqulwa & Oluwaseun Oyekola

Authors
  1. Unathi Mkruqulwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Okudoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oluwaseun Oyekola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent Okudoh.

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

Mkruqulwa, U., Okudoh, V. & Oyekola, O. Optimizing Methane Production from Co-digestion of Cassava Biomass and Winery Solid Waste Using Response Surface Methodology. Waste Biomass Valor 11, 4799–4808 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00801-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00801-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation