The Effect of Using Acidified Imperata cylindrica as a Co-substrate with Dairy Cow Manure on the Digesters Performance

A. R. Mustikasari, S. Sutaryo, N. Ufidiyati, A. Purnomoadi

Abstract

The objective of the current study was to examine the effect of the utilization of acidified cogon grass (CG) (Imperata cylindrica) as a co-substrate for the anaerobic digestion of dairy cow manure (DCM). Four continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) digesters with various substrate compositions, namely, T1 (100% DCM), T2 (95% DCM and 5% CG), T3 (95% DCM and 5% acidified CG using 4% H2SO4 solution), and T4 (95% DCM and 5% acidified CG using Wuluh star fruit (Averrhoa bilimbi L) filtrate), were operated. This study was conducted for 66 d or 3 hydraulic retention times (HRTs). Also, it evaluated the methane production of the digested slurry of each CSTR digester (batch-type) with five replications in each treatment. The results indicated that the methane production in T2, T3, and T4 in the unit of L/kg substrate increased by 35.52%, 41.95%, and 45.44%, respectively, compared with that in T1. Furthermore, the productions in T3 and T4 increased by 4.35% and 7.25%, respectively, compared with that in T2. The production from the slurries of CSTR digesters in units of L/kg substrate and L/kg volatile solid (VS) showed significantly different results (p<0.05). A neutral pH value was maintained so the anaerobic digestion process could occur optimally. The total ammonia nitrogen concentrations were low, and the volatile fatty acid concentrations were not significantly different (p>0.05). Therefore, with or without acidification, CG can be used as a co-substrate with DCM to enhance methane production.

References

APHA. 1995. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water, 19th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. pp. 2.53-2.59.
Begum, S., G. R. Anupoju, S. Sridhar, S. K. Bhargava, V. Jegatheesan, & N. Eshtiaghi. 2018. Evaluation of single and two stage anaerobic digestion of landfill leachate: effect of pH and initial organic loading rate on volatile fatty acid (VFA) and biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 251:364-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.069
Bołkowska, K., W. Mikucka, & T. Pokój. 2022. Enhancement of biogas production from cattle manure using glycerine phase as a co-substrate in anaerobic digestion. Fuel 317:123456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123456
Browne, J. D., S. R. Gilkinson, & J. P. Frost. 2015. The effects of storage time and temperature on biogas production from dairy cow slurry. Biosyst. Eng. 129:48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.09.008
Goshadrou, A. 2019. Bioethanol production from Cogongrass by sequential recycling of black liquor and wastewater in a mild-alkali pretreatment. Fuel 258:116141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116141
Haug, R. T. 1993. The Practical Handbook of Composting Engineering. Lewis Publisher, Ann Arbor. MI.
Hidayat, S., M. S. A. Bakar, Y. Yang, N. Phusunti, & A. V. Bridgwater. 2018. Characterisation and Py-GC/MS analysis of Imperata cylindrica as potential biomass for bio-oil production in Brunei Darussalam. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis. 134:510-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.07.018
Jury, C., H. L. Thomas, & H. Carrère. 2022. Life cycle assessment of two alkaline pretreatments of sorghum and miscanthus and their batch co-digestion with cow manure. Bioenerg. Res. 15:810-833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-021-10369-y
Mao, C., Y. Feng, X. Wang, & G. Ren. 2015. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45:540-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032
McVoitte, W. P. A. & O. G. Clark. 2019. The effects of temperature and duration of thermal pre-treatment on the solid-state anaerobic digestion of dairy cow manure. Heliyon 5:e02140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02140
Møller, H. B., V. Moset, M. Brask, M. R. Weisbjerg, & P. Lund. 2014. Feces composition and manure derived methane yield from dairy cows: Influence of diet with focus on fat supplement and roughage type. Atmos. Environ. 94:36-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.009
Muhammad, N., S. A. Muhmed, M. M. Yusoff, & J. Gimbun. 2014. Influence of solvent polarity and conditions on extraction of antioxidant, flavonoids, and phenolic content from Averrhoa bilimbi. J. Food Sci. Eng. 4:255-260.
Noorollahi, Y., M. Kheirrouz, H. F. Asl, H. Yousefi, & A. Hajinezhad. 2015. Biogas production potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50:748-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.190
Orhorhoro, E. K., P. O. Ebunilo, & G. E. Sadjere. 2017. Experimental determination of effect of total solid (TS) and volatile solid (VS) on biogas yield. American Journal Modern Energy 3:131-135. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajme.20170306.13
Oje-Adetule, B. T., S. Sutaryo, D. W. Pratama, & A. Purnomoadi. 2022. Utilization of pineapple crown to enhance methane production of dairy cow manure. Livestock Research Rural Development 35:3503.
Rajput, A. A. & C. Visvanathan. 2018. Effect of thermal pre-treatment on chemical composition, physical structure and biogas production kinetics of wheat straw. J. Environ. Manage. 221:45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.011
Sarto, S., R. Hildayati, & I. Syaichurrozi. 2019. Effect of chemical pre-treatment using sulfuric acid on biogas production from water hyacinth and kinetics. Renew. Energy 132:335-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.121
Sutaryo, S., A. N. Sempana, C. M. S. Lestari, & A. J. Ward. 2020. Performance comparison of single and two-phase biogas digesters treating dairy cattle manure at tropical ambient temperature. Trop. Anim. Sci. J. 43:354-359. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2020.43.4.354
Syaichurrozi, I. 2018. Biogas production from co-digestion Salvinia molesta and rice straw and kinetics. Renew. Energy 115:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.023
Syaichurrozi, I., P. K. Villta, N. Nabilah, & R. Rusdi. 2019. Effect of sulfuric acid pre-treatment on biogas production from Salvinia molesta. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 7:102857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.102857
Tampio, E. A., L. Blasco, M. M. Vainio, M. M. Kahala, & S. E. Rasi. 2018. Volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and methane from food waste and cow slurry: comparison of biogas and VFA fermentation procesess. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 11:72-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12556
Thygesen, O., S. G. Sommer, S. G. Shin, & J. M. Triolo. 2014. Residual biochemical methane potential (BMP) of concentrated digestate from full-scale biogas plants. Fuel 132:44-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.04.062
Tufaner, F. & Y. Avsar. 2016. Effect of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: A review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13:2303-2312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-1069-1
Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, & B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583-3590. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
Yellezuome, D., X. Zhu, Z. Wang, & R. Liu. 2022. Mitigation of ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion of nitrogen-rich substrates for biogas production by ammonia stripping: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 157:112043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.112043
Zheng, Y., J. Zhao, F. Xu, & Y. Li. 2014. Pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biogas production. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 42:35-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2014.01.001
Zhou, J., R. Zhang, F. Liu, X. Yong, X. Wu, T. Zheng, M. Jiang, & H. Jia. 2016. Biogas production and microbial community shift through neutral pH control during the anaerobic digestion of pig manure. Bioresour. Technol. 217:44-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.077

Authors

A. R. Mustikasari
S. Sutaryo
soeta@lecturer.undip.ac.id (Primary Contact)
N. Ufidiyati
A. Purnomoadi
MustikasariA. R., SutaryoS., UfidiyatiN., & PurnomoadiA. (2023). The Effect of Using Acidified Imperata cylindrica as a Co-substrate with Dairy Cow Manure on the Digesters Performance. Tropical Animal Science Journal, 46(3), 361-366. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2023.46.3.361

Article Details