Journals / Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 4

OPTIMIZATION OF CATTLE MANURE LIQUID FRACTION ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES: MODELLING BY TAGUCHI METHOD

Pages
1753–1766
Publication Date
2021-10-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, it was concluded that mixing speed has an increase of 29% on methane gas production.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the effect of different parameters (mixing speed, temperature, substrate/inoculation ratio) on the anaerobic digestion of cattle manure liquid fraction was analyzed and optimized with Taguchi method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:As a result, it was concluded that mixing speed has an increase of 29% on methane gas production.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, environmental pollution will be prevented.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bio-methane · cattle manure · anaerobic digestion

Abstract

In this study, the effect of different parameters (mixing speed, temperature, substrate/inoculation ratio) on the anaerobic digestion of cattle manure liquid fraction was analyzed and optimized with Taguchi method. As a result, it was concluded that mixing speed has an increase of 29% on methane gas production. Optimum operating conditions were determined as 120 rpm, 35 ˚C, and 1.5 S/I ratio. Under these conditions, 465 mL methane in 30 days was produced. 84% COD removal was provided. It has been observed that the liquid fraction of cattle manure can be decomposed under anaerobic conditions and transformed into energy rather than leaving it to the environment. It can be said that the farmers can efficiently digest the liquid part together with the municipal sewage sludge in the farms where solid-liquid separation is performed. Thus, environmental pollution will be prevented.

🔖

Cite This Article

ADAR, E. (2021). OPTIMIZATION OF CATTLE MANURE LIQUID FRACTION ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES: MODELLING BY TAGUCHI METHOD. Sigma Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 4, 1753–1766. https://ajindex.com/articles/418219

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. FAOSTAT (2020) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (Accessed date: 01.09.2020
  2. TSI(2020) Turkey Statistical Institute, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/Start.do (Accessed date: 01.09.2020
  3. Tufaner F., Avsar Y., (2019). Economic Analysis of Biogas Production From Small Scale Anaerobic Digestion Systems For Cattle Manure, Environmental Research and Technology, 2(1), 6-12
  4. Cetinkaya A.Y., (2018) Investigation of Biomethane Potential of Dairy Industry Wastewater, Journal of Polytechnic 21(2), 457-460
  5. Vindis P., Mursec B., Janzekovic M., Cus F., (2009) The Impact of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion on Biogas Production, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering 36(2), 192-198
  6. Nges I.A., Liu J., (2010) Effects of Solid Retention Time on Anaerobic Digestion of Dewatered-Sewage Sludge in Mesophilic and Thermophilic Conditions, Renewable Energy 35(10), 2200-2206
  7. Cavinato C., Fatone F., Bolzonella D., Pavan P., (2010) Thermophilic Anaerobic Co-digestion of Cattle Manure with Agro-wastes and Energy Crops: Comparison of Pilot and Full Scale Experiences, Bioresource Technology 101(2), 545-550 [8] Aich A., Ghosh S.K., (2016) Application of SWOT Analysis For The Selection of Technology For Processing and Disposal of MSW, Procedia Environmental Sciences 35, 209-228
  8. Sassi H.P., Ikner L.A., Abd-Elmaksoud S., Gerba C.P., Pepper I.L., (2018) Comparative Survival of Viruses During Thermophilic and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion, Science of The Total Environment 615, 15-19
  9. Kim M., Ahn Y.H., Speece R., (2002) Comparative Process Stability and Efficiency of Anaerobic Digestion; Mesophilic vs. Thermophilic, Water Research 36(17), 4369-4385
  10. Labatut R.A., Angenent L.T., Scott N.R., (2014) Conventional Mesophilic vs. Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion: A Trade-off Between Performance and Stability?, Water Research 53, 249-258
  11. Qi G., Pan Z., Sugawa Y., Andriamanohiarisoamanana F.J., Yamashiro T., Iwasaki M., Kawamoto K., Ihara I., Umetsu K., (2018) Comparative Fertilizer Properties of Digestates from Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure: Focusing on Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) and Environmental Risk, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 20(3), 1448-1457
  12. Coskun T., Manav N., Debik E., Binici M.S., Tosun C., Mehmetli E., Baban A., (2011) Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure, Journal of Engineerin