Synergy of Siam weed (Chromolaena odorata) and poultry manure for energy generation: Effects of pretreatment methods, modeling and process optimization

被引：36

作者：

Dahunsi, S. O. ^{[1
]}

Oranusi, S. ^{[2
]}

Owolabi, J. B. ^{[3
]}

Efeovbokhan, V. E. ^{[4
]}

机构：

[1] Landmark Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Omu Aran, Kwara State, Nigeria

[2] Covenant Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Ota, Nigeria

[3] All St Univ, Coll Med, Kingstown, St Vincent

[4] Covenant Univ, Dept Chem Engn, Ota, Nigeria

来源：

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY | 2017年 / 225卷

关键词：

Biogas; Biomethane; Microorganisms; Optimization; Physicochemical; Weed; ANAEROBIC CO-DIGESTION; FINE SIEVED FRACTION; BIOGAS PRODUCTION; THERMAL PRETREATMENT; SEWAGE-SLUDGE; WASTE; MACROALGAE; METHANE; PEELS;

D O I：

10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.123

中图分类号：

S2 [农业工程];

学科分类号：

0828 ;

摘要：

The co-digestion of Chromolaena odorata with poultry manure was evaluated in this study. Two samples of the weed: (A: which was pre-treated with mechanical, chemical and thermal methods) and (B: which was pretreated using mechanical and chemical methods only) were separately digested with poultry manure. Biogas generation started from the 2nd to 4th and 4th to 7th day for samples 'A' and 'B' respectively. The most desired actual biogas yield from samples 'A' and 'B' were 3884.20 and 2544.70 (10(4) m(3)/kg VS) respectively and the gas composition was 68 +/- 2% Methane and 20 +/- 2% Carbon dioxide for sample A while it was 62 +/- 3% Methane and 22 +/- 2% Carbon dioxide for sample B. In all, there was a 38.06% increase in gas generation in 'A' over 'B'. The coefficient of determination (R-2) for the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) model (0.9009) was high suggesting high accuracy in the modeling and prediction. The worldwide usage of C. odorata is encouraged. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：409 / 417

页数：9

共 45 条

[1]

Adebayo R. A., 2010, International Journal of Agricultural Research, V5, P1100, DOI 10.3923/ijar.2010.1100.1106

[2] Comparative evaluation of biogas production from Poultry droppings, Cow dung and Lemon grass [J].

Alfa, I. M. ;

Dahunsi, S. O. ;

Iorhemen, O. T. ;

Okafor, C. C. ;

Ajayi, S. A. .

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 157 :270-277

[3] Assessment of biofertilizer quality and health implications of anaerobic digestion effluent of cow dung and chicken droppings [J].

Alfa, M. I. ;

Adie, D. B. ;

Igboro, S. B. ;

Oranusi, U. S. ;

Dahunsi, S. O. ;

Akali, D. M. .

RENEWABLE ENERGY, 2014, 63 :681-686

[4]

Alisi C. S., 2011, INT J BIOCH RES REV, V1, P69, DOI [DOI 10.9734/IJBCRR/2011/406, 10.9734/ijbcrr/2011/406]

[5]

APHA, 2012, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, P2012

[6]

Ayandiran T.A., 2014, EGYPT J AQUATIC RES, V40, P291, DOI DOI 10.1016/j.ejar.2014.09.002

[7]

Ayandiran T. A., 2016, J KING SAUD U SCI

[8] Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion: From lab-scale research to full-scale application [J].

Carrere, Helene ;

Antonopoulou, Georgia ;

Affes, Rim ;

Passos, Fabiana ;

Battimelli, Audrey ;

Lyberatos, Gerasimos ;

Ferrer, Ivet .

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 199 :386-397

[9]

Chuichulcherm S., 2016, J CLEAN PROD, P1

[10] Comparative biogas generation from fruit peels of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) and its optimization [J].

Dahunsi, S. O. ;

Oranusi, S. ;

Owolabi, J. B. ;

Efeovbokhan, V. E. .

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 221 :517-525

← 1 2 3 4 5 →