Dynamics of methane fermentation process and retention time for different agricultural substrates

A hydraulic retention time (retention) also known as HRT is one of the most important parameter in biogas plant exploitation. In practice, there are many substrates with different HRT used in agricultural biogas plant which makes difficulties in fermentation process optimization. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the efficiency of biomethane production and to determine the dynamics of the fermentation process expressed by reaching 60, 80, 90 and 100% of HRT. The results showed very big differences in efficiency of methane production as well as HRT duration between analyzed substrates. The total fermentation period (100% of HRT) for investigated substrates amounted average 31,5 day (range: 21-41 days). However production of last 10% of methane average out 28%. It proves very low dynamics of fermentation process in the last phase.

REFERENCES (14)

Witaszek K., Pilarski K., Czekała W., Mazur R.: Zasady doboru substratów do biogazowni rolniczej. Instal – Teoria i praktyka w instalacjach, 2013, Nr 5 (340).

Google Scholar

Czekała W., Pilarski K., Dach J., Janczak D., Szymańska M.: Analiza możliwości zagospodarowania pofermentu z biogazowni. Technika Rolnicza Ogrodnicza Leśna, 2012, nr 4.

Google Scholar

Czekała W., Witaszek K., Rodriguez Carmona P.C., Grzelak M.: Instalacje do przemysłowego kompostowania bioodpadów: wady i zalety. Technika Rolnicza Ogrodnicza Leśna, 2013, nr 1.

Google Scholar

Welland P.: Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2010, 85 (4), 849–860.

Google Scholar

Lewicki A., Pilarski K., Janczak D., Czekała W., Rodriguez Carmona P.C., Cieslik M., Witaszek K.: The biogas production from herbs and waste from herbal industry. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 2013, Vol. 58(1).

Google Scholar

Dach J., Pilarski K., Janczak D., Banasik P.: Koszty zagospodarowania pulpy pofermentacyjnej z biogazowni w kontekście projektu nowej ustawy o nawozach i nawożeniu. Technika Rolnicza Ogrodnicza Leśna, 2011, nr 3.

Google Scholar

Franchetti, M.: Economic and environmental analysis of four different configurations of anaerobic digestion for food waste to energy conversion using LCA for: A food service provider case study. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013, Vol. 123 (July): 42-48.

Google Scholar

Ward, A.J., Hobbs, P.J. Holliman, P.J., Jones, D.L.: Optimization of the anaerobic digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresource Technology, 2008, Vol. 99 (17), 7928-7940.

Google Scholar

Jędrczak A.: Biologiczne przetwarzanie odpadów. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Warszawa, 2008.

Google Scholar

10.

Chen Y., Cheng J.J.: Creamer Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review. Bioresource Technology, 2008, 99 (10), 4044–4064.

Google Scholar

11.

Hinken L., Urban I., Haun E., Weichgrebe D., Rosenwinkel K.H.: The valuation of malnutrition in the mono-digestion of maize silage by anaerobic batch tests. Water Science and Technology, 2008, 58 (7), 1453–1459.

Google Scholar

12.

Bohn I., Björnsson L., Mattiasson B.: The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic digestion of crop residues at 11–37°C. Process Biochemistry, 2007, 42 (1), 57–64.

Google Scholar

13.

Zhou Mo, Pilarski K.: The preliminary comparison of biogas productivity between maize silage and maize straw silage. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 2011, Vol. 56 (2), 88-91.

Google Scholar

14.

Angelidaki I., Ellegaard L.: Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in centralized biogas plants – status and future trends. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 2003, 109 (1–3), 95–105.

Google Scholar

Submit your paper

Instructions for Authors

eISSN:	2719-423X
ISSN:	1642-686X