KINETIC MODELLING OF BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM CO-DIGESTION OF COW DUNG AND SUGARCANE PEELS
Abstract
Biogas production from agricultural residues offers a sustainable pathway for renewable energy generation and waste valorization. However, optimizing substrate combinations to maximize yield and process stability remains a major challenge. This study investigated the kinetics of biogas production from cow dung and sugarcane peels to determine optimal mixing ratios and assess co-digestion performance. Compositional analysis revealed higher organic matter (86 %) and carbon content (49.88 %) in sugarcane peels compared to cow dung (44 % and 25.52 %), suggesting their potential as a primary substrate. Five digesters with varying ratios were monitored over five weeks. The highest cumulative yield (4992 cm³) was obtained with 100% sugarcane peels, while the 75:25 sugarcane peel–cow dung mixture recorded the highest 24-hour production rate (1000 cm³), highlighting synergistic benefits. Kinetic modeling using first-order and modified Gompertz equations showed reduced lag time (microbial adaptation period before significant gas production begins.) which is 2 days vs. 4 days for cow dung alone and improved methane potential, confirming the advantages of co-digestion. The novelty of this work lies in establishing sugarcane peels, an underutilized agro-waste, as a viable primary feedstock, with cow dung enhancing both yield and start-up efficiency. Optimization identified the 75:25 ratio as the most efficient configuration. Scaling up this process could significantly reduce agricultural waste, lower rural energy costs, and provide decentralized clean energy solutions. Socioeconomically, adoption at community and industrial levels can create green jobs, support energy security, and promote circular bioeconomy models in regions with abundant sugarcane production.
References
Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA, 2017). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (23rd ed.). American Public Health Association.
Arthurson, V. (2009). Closing the global energy and nutrient cycles through application of biogas residue to agricultural landpotential benefits and drawbacks. Energies, 2(2), 226242. https://doi.org/10.3390/en20200226
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC., (2019). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (21st ed.). AOAC International.
Bremner, J. M. (1996). Nitrogen-Total. In Sparks, D. L. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods (pp. 10851121). Soil Science Society of America.
Hagos, K., Zong, J., Li, D., Liu, C., & Lu, X. (2017). Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 14851496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184
Karki, R., Pant, D., & Adhikari, S. (2020). Co-digestion of agricultural residues for biogas production: Current status and future perspectives. Renewable Energy, 146, 623-640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.048
Li, Y., Park, S. Y., & Zhu, J. (2018). Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from organic waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 821826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.042
Li, Y., Zhang, R., Liu, G., Chen, C., He, Y., & Liu, X. (2018). Comparison of methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Bioresource Technology, 261, 345352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.007
Mller, K., & Mller, T. (2012). Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: A review. Engineering in Life Sciences, 12(3), 242257. https://doi.org/10.1002/elsc.201100085
Murphy, J., & Riley, J. P. (1962). A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Analytica Chimica Acta, 27, 3136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)88444-5
Mussoline, W., Esposito, G., & Lens, P. (2013). Co-digestion of cow manure and agricultural residues: A review. Bioresource Technology, 136, 293299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.03.037
Mussoline, W., Esposito, G., Lens, P. N. L., Garuti, G., & Giordano, A. (2013). Design considerations for anaerobic digestion of various organic solid wastes: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 12(1), 144153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.007
Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Sparks, D. L. (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis: Part 3 Chemical methods (pp. 9611010). Soil Science Society of America.
Parikh, J., Channiwala, S. A., & Ghosal, G. K. (2005). A correlation for calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel, 84(5), 487494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2004.10.010
Tchobanoglous, G., Stensel, H. D., Tsuchihashi, R., & Burton, F. L. (2014). Wastewater engineering: Treatment and resource recovery (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Tucho, G. T., & Nonhebel, S. (2017). Biogas production from crop residues: A GIS based approach for sustainable energy in Ethiopia. Applied Energy, 114, 806815.
Wang, X., Yang, G., Feng, Y., Ren, G., & Han, X. (2020). Optimizing feeding composition and carbonnitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresource Technology, 120, 7883.
Yadvika, Sreekrishnan, T. R., Kohli, S., & Rana, V. (2004). Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniquesA review. Bioresource Technology, 95(1), 110.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., & Tan, T. (2014). Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 38, 383392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.038
Zhao, C., Yan, H., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: Challenges and opportunities. Bioresource Technology, 337, 125451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125451
Zhao, Y., Damgaard, A., & Christensen, T. H. (2021). Bio-waste co-digestion: Environmental and energy performance. Science of The Total Environment, 764, 142961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142961
Copyright (c) 2025 FUDMA JOURNAL OF SCIENCES
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
FUDMA Journal of Sciences
