The Effects Of Pretreatment On Biogas
Production From Maize Straw And Cattle
Manure

Karımou , Dauda

dc.contributor.advisor	Uğurlu , Ayşenur
dc.contributor.author	Karımou , Dauda
dc.date.accessioned	2019-11-26T13:41:01Z
dc.date.issued	2019-09-06
dc.date.submitted	2019-08-08
dc.identifier.citation	REFERENCES American Society of Agronomy. (2015, November 4). Moving manure beyond drug resistant bacteria: When it comes to cow manure, method matters. Science Daily. Retrieved June 21, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/release/2015/11/15110415136htm Angelidaki, I., & Ahring, B. K. (1994). Anaerobic thermophilic digestion of manure at different ammonia loads: effect of temperature. Water Research, 28(3), 727-731. APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed.American Public Health Association, Washington DC, USA; 2005. Archer, D. B., & Harris, J. E. (1986). Methanogenic bacteria and methane production in various habitats. In Society for Applied Bacteriology symposium series (Vol. 13, p. 185). Balat, M. and Balat, H. 2010. Progress in biodiesel processing. Applied energy. 87(6), 1815-1835. Balat, M. 2011. Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production – A review of current work. Energy conversion and management. 52(2), 1479-1492. Barakat, A., Monlau, F., Steyer, J.P. and Carrere, H. 2011. Effect of lignin-derived and furan compounds found in lignocellulosic hydrolysates on biomethane production. Bioresource Technology. 104(0), 90-99. Bernal, M. Pilar, et al. "Current approaches and future trends in compost quality criteria for agronomic, environmental, and human health benefits." Advances in agronomy. Vol. 144. Academic Press, 2017. 143-233. Brennan L., Owende P. (2010). Biofuels from microalgae-a review of technologies for production, processing, and extractions of biofuels and co-products. Renew. Sustain. Energ. Rev. 14, 557–57710.1016/j.rser.2009.10.009 Castrillón, L., Fernández-Nava, Y., Ormaechea, P., & Marañón, E. (2011). Optimization of biogas production from cattle manure by pre-treatment with ultrasound and co- digestion with crude glycerin. Bioresource technology, 102(17), 7845-7849. Cecilia S. 2013. Physical, chemical and Biological pretreatments to enhance biogas production from Lignocellulosic substrates. Doctoral dissertation DICA (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering), Environmental Section Doctoral Program in Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering, POLITECNICO DI MILANO Chen, X. and Khanna, M. 2012. Food vs. Fuel: The Effect of Biofuel Policies, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aas039 Chisti, Y. 2007. Biodiesel from microalgae. Biotechnology Advances. 25, 294-306. Costa, E., Cardoso, E. D., & Junior, D. B. L. (2018). Cherry tomato production on different organic substrates under protected environment conditions. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 12(1), 87. Dale, B.E. and Ong, R.G. 2012. Energy, wealth, and human development: why and how biomass pretreatment research must improve. Biotechnol Progress. 28:893–898. Demirbas A. (2007). Progress and recent trends in biofuels. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.33, 1–1810.1016/j.pecs.2006.06.001. De Vrije, T., de Haas, G.G., Tan, G.B., Keijsers, E.R.P. and Claassen, P.A.M. 2002. Pretreatment of Miscanthus for hydrogen production by Thermotoga elfii. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 27(11-12), 1381-1390. Dragone D., Fernandes, B., Vicente A.A. and Teixeira, J.A. 2010. Third generation biofuels from microalgae. Current Research, technology and Education Topics in Applied Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology, A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed). Ebringerová, A. and Heinze, T. 2000. Xylan and xylan derivatives - biopolymers with valuable properties, 1. Naturally occurring xylans structures, isolation procedures and properties. Macromolecular Rapid Communications. 21(9), 542-556. Ertem, F. C. (2011). Improving biogas production by anaerobic digestion of different substrates: calculation of potential energy outcomes. FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of United States, 2012. Available online. www.fao.org. (Accessed on the 23 rd of March 2019). Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. and Hawthorne, P. 2008. Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science. 319, 1235-1238.81 Fernandes, T.V., Bos, G.J.K., Zeeman, G., Sanders, J.P.M. and Van Lier, J.B. 2009. Effects of thermochemical pre-treatment on anaerobic biodegradability and hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology. 100(9), 2575-2579. Fengel, D. and Wegener, G. 1984. Wood: chemistry, ultrastructure, reactions, Wood: chemistry, ultrastructure, reactions. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin German Federal Republic, 613. Feng, Y., Zhao, X., Guo, Y., Yang, G., Xi, J., & Ren, G. (2012). Changes in the material characteristics of maize straw during the pretreatment process of methanation. BioMed Research International, 2012. Foust, T. D., Aden, A., Dutta, A., & Phillips, S. (2009). An economic and environmental comparison of a biochemical and a thermochemical lignocellulosic ethanol conversion processes. Cellulose, 16(4), 547-565. Furkan H. Isikgor et al., Lignocellulosic biomass: a sustainable platform for the production of bio-based chemicals and polymers. Polym. Chem., 2015, 6, 4497-4559 Galbe, M. and Zacchi, G. 2002. A review of the production of ethanol from softwood. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 59(6), 618-628. Gallert, C., & winter, J. (1997). Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic wastes: effect of ammonia on glucose degradation and methane production. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 48(3), 405-410. Grabber, J.H. 2005. How do lignin composition, structure, and cross-linking affect degradability? A review of cell wall model studies. Crop Science, 45(3), 820-831. Hansen, K. H., Angelidaki, I., & Ahring, B. K. (1998). Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water research, 32(1), 5-12. Huang, J., Yu, Z., Gao, H., Yan, X., Chang, J., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. (2017). Chemical structures and characteristics of animal manures and composts during composting and assessment of maturity indices. PloS one, 12(6), e0178110. IEA. 2008. From 1st to second generation Biofuel Technologies: An Overview of Current Industry and RandD activities, http://www.iea.org/papers/2008/2nd_Biofuel_Gen.pdf. 82 Lee K, Eisterhold ML, Rindi F,Palanisami S, Isolation and screening of microalgae from natural habitats in the midwestern United States of America for biomass and biodiesel sources. Nam PKJ Nat Sci Biol Med. 2014 Jul; 5(2):333-9. Jędrzejczyk, M., Soszka, E., Czapnik, M., Ruppert, A. M., & Grams, J. (2019). Physical and chemical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. In Second and Third Generation of Feedstocks (pp. 143-196). Elsevier. Jindo, K., Matsumoto, K., García Izquierdo, C., Sonoki, T., & Sanchez-Monedero, M. A. (2014). Methodological interference of biochar in the determination of extracellular enzyme activities in composting samples. Solid Earth, 5(2), 713-719. Kacurakova, M., Wellner, N., Ebringerova, A., Hromadkova, Z., Wilson, R. H. and Belton, P. S. 1999. Characterisation of xylan-type polysaccharides and associated cell wall components by FT-IR and FT-Raman spectroscopies. Food Hydrocolloids. 13(1), 35-41. Kim, S. and Holtzapple, M.T. 2005. Lime pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover. Bioresource Technology. 96, 1994–2006. Kleinert, M. and Barth, T. 2008. Towards a Lignocellulosic Biorefinery: Direct One-Step Conversion of Lignin to Hydrogen-Enriched Biofuel. Energy and Fuels. 22(2), 1371- 1379. Koundinya, V. (2009). Corn stover. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center [Online]. Available: http://www. agmrc. org/renewable_energy/corn-stover. Kumar, P., Barrett, D.M., Delwiche, M.J. and Stroeve, P. 2009a. Methods for Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass for Efficient Hydrolysis and Biofuel Production. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research. 48(8), 3713-3729. Li Y, Horsman M, Wu N, Lan CQ, Dubois-Calero Biofuels from microalgae. N Biotechnol Prog. 2008 Jul-Aug; 24(4):815-20. McMillan, J. D. (1992). Processes for Pretreating lignocellulosic biomass: A review (No. NREL/TP-421/4978). National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (United States).83 Merlin, G., & Boileau, H. (2013). Anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste: state of the art and future trends. Anaerobic digestion: types, processes and environmental impact. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Meyer, A. K. P., Ehimen, E. A., & Holm-Nielsen, J. B. (2018). Future European biogas: Animal manure, straw and grass potentials for a sustainable European biogas production. Biomass and bioenergy, 111, 154-164. Mitchell, D. 2008. A note on rising food prices, Policy Research Working Paper 4862, the World Bank, Developments Prospects Group, Washington, DC. N.A.Campbell (1996) Biology (4th edition). Benjamin Cummings NY. P.23 ISBN 0-8053-1957-3 Nigam, P.S. and Singh, A. 2010. Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science. 37(1), 52-68. Nigam P. S., Singh A. (2011). Production of liquid biofuels from renewable resources. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 37, 5 –6810.1016/j.pecs.2010.01.003 Ogbonna, E. (2017). A Multi-Parameter Empirical Model for Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion. Ohman, M., Boman, C., Hedman, H. and Eklund, R. 2006. Residential Combustion Performance of Pelletized Hydrolysis Residue from Lignocellulosic Ethanol Production. Energy and Fuels. 20(3), 1298-1304. Panagiotopoulos, I. A., Bakker, R. R., Budde, M. A. W., de Vrije, T., Claassen, P. A. M. and Koukios, E. G. 2009. Fermentative hydrogen production from pretreated biomass: A comparative study. Bioresource Technology. 100(24), 6331-6338. Pereira, M. A., Cavaleiro, A. J., Mota, M., and Alves, M. M. 2003. Accumulation of long chain fatty acids onto anaerobic sludge under steady state and shock loading conditions: Effects on acetogenic and methanogenic activity. Water Sci. Technol. 48:33-40 Puligundla, P., Oh, S. E., & Mok, C. (2016). Microwave-assisted pretreatment technologies for the conversion of lignocellulosic biomass to sugars and ethanol: a review. Carbon Letters (Carbon Lett.), 17(1), 1-10.84 Ramos-Suarez, J. L., Ritter, A., González, J. M., & Pérez, A. C. (2019). Biogas from animal manure: A sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 104, 137-150. Sambusiti, C., Monlau, F., Ficara, E., Carrère, H., & Malpei, F. (2013). A comparison of different pre-treatments to increase methane production from two agricultural substrates. Applied Energy, 104, 62-70. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J.,Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D. and Yu, T. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science. 319 (5867), 1238– 1240. Saqib A., Tabbssum M. R., Rashid U., Ibrahim M., Gill S. S., Mehmood M. A. (2013). Marine macroalgae Ulva: a potential feed-stock for bioethanol and biogas production. Asian J. Agri. Biol. 1, 155–163. Sawyer, C. N., McCarty, P. L., and Parkin G. F., 2003. Chemistry of Environmental Engineering and Science, 5 th edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA Taherzadeh, M.J. and Karimi, K. 2008. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve ethanol and biogas production: A review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 9(9), 1621-1651. Wang, H., Zhang, M., & Lv, Q. (2019). Removal efficiency and mechanism of Cr (VI) from aqueous solution by maize straw biochars derived at different pyrolysis temperatures. Water, 11(4), 781. Weijma, J., and Stams, A. J. M. 2001. Methanol conversion in high rate anaerobic reactors. Water Sci. Technol., 44(8):7-14 Woodard & Curran, Inc., in Industrial Waste Treatment Handbook (Second Edition), 2006 Zhang, Y., Ghaly, A. E., & Li, B. (2012). Physical properties of corn residues. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 8(2), 44-53. Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, F., & Li, Y. (2014). Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biogas production. Progress in energy and combustion science, 42, 35-53.85 Zishan, F., & Alayi, R. The Role of Biogas power plant in Generating Electric Energy and its Environmental effects.	tr_TR
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11655/11944
dc.description.abstract	ABSTRACT The main aim of this study was to determine the effects of physical and chemical pretreatments on biogas production from two agricultural wastes (maize straw and cattle manure). The total solids (TS) were 86.1% and 41.2% for the cattle manure and maize straw respectively while the volatile solids (VS) were 82.0% for cattle manure and 51.6% for maize straw (both interms of total biomass). 5% TS was used for both biomasses in the measurement of reducing sugars and the Biochemical methane potential (BMP) test. Solubility was determined by measuring the reducing sugar concentration using the Miller method (Miller 1959). Biomass samples were seeded with sludge seed on a 50:50 biomass to sludge ratio. The pH of the mixture was regulated to between 7.0 and 7.5 and placed in an incubator at 37 o C (mesophilic temperature range). Biogas measurements were done daily and carbon dioxide was measured once in a week. Two chemical pretreatment methods were applied on both biomasses; acid and alkaline pretreatments assisted with heat. The most effective pretreatment method for maize straw was alkaline pretreatment producing the highest concentrations of daily and cumulative biogas with an average increase of 163%. Acid pretreatment of maize straw lasted between 24 to 27 (the fewest number of days) compared to all other pretreatments applied. Physical pretreatment methods applied on maize straw include; comminution, microwave and liquid hot water pretreatment. The Microwave pretreated samples produced the highest increase in biogas production of about 3 folds. Cattle manure was pretreated with H 2 SO 4 , NaOH, microwave and liquid hot water (LHW). Acid pretreatment was more effective for cattle manure than maize straw with both acid concentrations increasing biogas production. Cattle manure samples treated at LHW 135 o C produced the highest cumulative amount of biogas resulting in a 103% increase. Microwave pretreatment was also very effective resulting in 97% increase in methane production which lasted for 32 days. Keywords: Biogas, pretreatment, lignocellulose, methane, maize straw, cattle manure.	tr_TR
dc.language.iso	en	tr_TR
dc.publisher	Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü	tr_TR
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess	*
dc.rights	Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States	*
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/	*
dc.subject	Biogas	tr_TR
dc.subject	Pretreatment	tr_TR
dc.subject	Lignocellulose	tr_TR
dc.subject	Methane	tr_TR
dc.subject	Maize straw	tr_TR
dc.subject	Cattle manure	tr_TR
dc.subject.lcsh	Konu Başlıkları Listesi::Bibliyografya. Kütüphanecilik. Bilgi kaynakları	tr_TR
dc.title	The Effects Of Pretreatment On Biogas Production From Maize Straw And Cattle Manure	tr_eng
dc.title.alternative	Mısır Artıkları ve Sığır Gübresinden Biyogaz Eldesinde Ön Arıtımın Etkisi	tr_TR
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis	tr_TR
dc.description.ozet	TÜRKÇE ÖZET Bu çalışmanın amacı, fiziksel ve kimyasal ön arıtımın tarım atıkları (mısır artıkları ve sığır gübre) üzerindeki etkilerini belirlemektir. Sığır gübresi ve mısır samanının toplam katı madde oranları sırasıyla %86.1 ve %41.2 olmuştur. Uçucu katı madde oranları ise sığır gübresinde %82 ve mısır samanında %51.6 olarak ölçülmüştür. Biyokimyasal metan potansiyeli ve indirgen şeker ölçümlerinde atıklar %5 TKM oranında kullanılmıştır. İndirgen şeker Miller (Miller, 1959) metodu kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Biokütle örnekleri çamurla 50:50 oranında karıştırılmıştır. Karışımın pH değeri 7.0-7.5 değerlerine ayarlanmış ve örnekler 37 o C (mezofilik) inkübatörde tutulmuştur. Biyogaz ölçümleri günlük yapılırken karbon dioksit ölçümleri haftada bir yapılmıştır. Kullanılan atıklara alkali ve asidik olmak üzere iki faklı ön arıtım metodu uygulanmıştır. Mısır samanı için en verimli ön arıtım metodu alkali ön arıtım olmuştur. Alkali ön arıtım sonrası günlük ve kümülatif biyogaz üretiminde %163’lük bir artış olmuştur. Asidik ön arıtım uygulanan mısır samanından biyogaz üretimi prosesi 24-27 (diğer ön arıtım işlemlerine göre daha az) gün sürmüştür. Mısır samanına ufalama, mikrodalga ve sıcak su gibi üç farklı fiziksel ön arıtım yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Bu yöntemler içerisinde mikrodalga yöntemi diğer yöntemlere göre 3 kat daha fazla biyogaz üretim verimi sağlanmıştır. Kullanılan sığır gübresine H 2 SO 4 , NaOH, mikrodalga ve sıcak su ön arıtım yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Asidik ön arıtım yöntemi mısır atıklarından farklı olarak sığır gübresi çalışmalarında daha verimli olmuştur. 135℃ sıcak ön arıtım yöntemi uygulanan sığır gübresinde kümülatif biyogaz üretiminde %103 artış olmuştur. Mikrodalga ön arıtım yöntemi de sığır gübresi çalışmalarında verimli olmuştur. Metan üretiminde % 97 artış yaşanmış ve biyogaz üretimi 32 günde tamamlanmıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Biyogaz, ön arıtma, lignoselüloz, metan, mısır saman, sığır gübresi.	tr_TR
dc.contributor.department	Çevre Mühendisliği	tr_TR
dc.embargo.terms	Acik erisim	tr_TR
dc.embargo.lift	2019-11-26T13:41:01Z