The Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Cattle Manure

19/8/2014
The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

Shopping cart
Journals
Sign in
Help
Books
Bioresource Technology
Volume 129, February 2013, Pages 170176
Download PDF
Export
Other
More options...
export
Article outline
Search ScienceDirect
Abstract
Keywords
1. Introduction
2. Methods
3. Results and discussion
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
options
Show full outline
Advanced
search Zhang, Gang Xiao, Liyu Peng, Haijia Su
Cunsheng
, Tianwei Tan
Show m ore
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.138
Get rights and content
Abstract
This study assessed the anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure, in order to identify the key
parameters that determine the biogas and methane yield. Results of both batch and semi-continuous tests
Figures and tables
indicated that the total methane production is enhanced in co-digestion, with an optimum food waste (FM) to
cattle manure (CM) ratio of 2. At this ratio, the total methane production in batch tests was enhanced by
Table 1
41.1%, and the corresponding methane yield was 388 mL/g-VS. In the semi-continuous mode, the total
Table 2
methane production in co-digestion, at the organic loading rate (OLR) of 10 g-VSFW/L/d, increased by 55.2%,
Table 3
corresponding to the methane yield of 317 mL/g-VS. Addition of cattle manure enhanced the buffer capacity
(created by
and VFAs), allowing high organic load without pH control. The C/N ratio and the higher
biodegradation of lipids might be the main reasons for the biogas production improvement.
Highlights
The separate anaerobic digestion of food waste or cattle manure was hardly feasible. Co-digestion
produced significant quantities of biogas, with high methane content. Addition of cattle manure enhanced
the buffer capacity of anaerobic system. In co-digestion, the C/N ratio contributed to the improving biogas
production.
Keywords
Food waste; Cattle manure; Methane; Co-digestion; Buffer capacity
1. Introduction
Anaerobic digestion has been proven to be an efficient and green technology in disposing of sewage sludge,
crop residues, food waste and animal manure (Wan et al., 2011 and Li et al., 2009). Advantages are the
production of renewable energy in the form of biogas and the possibility to recycle valuable nutrients,
concentrated in the digestion residue (Zhang et al., 2012 and Angelidaki et al., 2003). Food waste has already
been considered as a very attractive feedstock for anaerobic digestion due to its high methane potential
(Zhang et al., 2011). Li et al. (2010) reported that the fat content of food waste is about 23%. Under specific
operating conditions, lipid-rich waste such as fat and oil will significantly contribute to the methane production
(Wan et al., 2011). However, long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) are formed during the degradation of fat and
lipids: the 18-C LCFAs (such as oleic and stearic acid) are inhibitory at concentrations exceeding 1.0 g/L
(Appels et al., 2008). LCFAs can moreover be toxic to both syntrophic acetogens and methanogens ( Hanaki
et al., 1981) and limit the transport of nutrients to cells due to being adsorbed on the microbial surfaces (
ADVERTISEMENT
Pereira et al., 2005). It was therefore difficult if not impossible to treat only FW by anaerobic digestion ( Resch
et al., 2011, Zhang et al., 2011 and Palatsi et al., 2011).
Anaerobic digestion was also found to be unstable when the cattle manure is used as mono-substrate due to
the low C/N ratio (58) (Li et al., 2009). It is therefore important to examine an alternative approach for
anaerobic digestion of FW or CM, co-digestion possibly helping to overcome the deficiencies of monodigestion. This co-digestion is studied in the present research.
The carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio is one of the important parameters influencing the digestion process
(Kumar et al., 2010). Zhu (2007) suggested that anaerobic digestion could be carried out efficiently when the
C/N ratio is 15. Kumar et al. (2010) found that a C/N ratio range from 13.9 to 19.6 is acceptable for digestion.
Anaerobic co-digestion of different organic materials may enhance the stability of the anaerobic process
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852412016471
1/22
19/8/2014

because of a better carbon to nitrogen (C/N) balance (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010 and Mshandete et al.,
2004). Co-digestion may moreover alleviate the inhibitory effect of high ammonia and sulfide concentrations
(Hartmann et al., 2003), and exhibit a more stable biogas production due to an improved buffer capacity
(Nayono et al., 2010). Although the increasing biogas production through anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and cattle manure has been reported, no study has been carried out to address the C/N ratio, the buffer
capacity and the removal of LCFAs in co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure.
The aim of this study is therefore threefold: (i) assess the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
and cattle manure; (ii) identify the key parameters influencing the increase of biogas and methane yield,
including the effect of the C/N ratio; and (iii) examine the extent of the buffer capacity and the removal of
LCFAs.
2. Methods
2.1. Collection of substrates and inoculums
Cattle manure was collected at a farm in Zaozhuang, Shandong province. Food waste was provided by the
mess of the Beijing University of Chemical Technology. The organic substrates of FW were selected
manually and ground into small particles (<3 mm) by a mill (SS3300, Waste King in USA). Both cattle
manure and food waste were stored in the freezer before digestion. The properties of the food waste and cattle
manure are shown in Table 1, and compared with literature data.
Table 1.
Properties of food w aste and cattle manure (mean value standard deviation).
Parameter
Food w aste
Cattle manure
Zhang et al. (2007)
This study
Li et al. (2009)
This study
pH
5.2 0.3
9.2 0.3
TS (w t.%)
30.9 0.1
18.5 0.1
17.1 0.6
16.3 0.1
VS (w t.%)
26.4 0.1
17.0 0.1
14.4 0.2
13.2 0.1
VS/TS ratio
0.85
0.92
0.84
0.81
Carbon, C (%, d.b.)
46.78 1.15
46.5 1.5
28 2.0
26.7 1.8
Nitrogen, N (%, d.b.)
3.16 0.22
2.2 0.3
4.8 0.5
5.1 0.6
C/N ratio
14.8
21.1
5.8
5.2
Fat (%, d.b.)
22.8
Na+ (%, d.b.)
3.45 0.20
1.44 0.1
K+ (%, d.b.)
0.9 0.11
2.30 0.04
1.27 0.1
Mg2+ (%, d.b.)
0.14 0.01
0.16 0.01
4.99 0.4
Ca2+ (%, d.b.)
2.16 0.29
0.03 0.01
2.27 0.3
Fe3+
766 402
100 23
150 30
Mn2+ (ppm)
(ppm)
60 30
110 95
950 232
Zn2+ (ppm)
76 22
160 30
250 42
Table options
2.2. Anaerobic digestion tests

2.2.1. Batch tests
Batch digestion tests were carried out in 1-L glass digesters at mesophilic temperature (35 1 C). The
effective volume of each digester was 0.8 L. In each digester, anaerobically treated activated sludge was used
as inoculum. It had been acclimated for 14 months in a 20-L tank in the laboratory. The TS and VS/TS of
inoculum were 3.2% (wet basis) and 46.9%, respectively. The inoculum and substrates were fully mixed
before being added to the digesters. Each digester was flushed for 5 min (300 mL/min) with inert gas (N2 ) to
create an anaerobic environment. Food waste, cattle manure, and their mixtures were separately examined,
in mono-digestion or co-digestion respectively. The characteristics of the different experiments are shown in
Table 2. In co-digestion, the amount of food waste in each digester was kept constant (8 g-VS/L), while
varying the amount of cattle manure added. The FW/CM ratios (based on VS) of digestion R1, R2, R3 were
designed as 2, 3 and 4, respectively, corresponding to the cattle manure amounts of 4.0, 2.7 and 2.0 g-VS/L.
In digestion R4, food waste was digested alone at the load of 8 g-VS/L, as the control group. Cattle manure
was digested as mono-substrate in digestion R5, R6 and R7 with the amounts of 4.0, 2.7 and 2.0 g-VS/L,
respectively. Thus, to determine the performance of co-digestion, the co-digestion of R1, R2 and R3 was
compared with mono-digestion groups of R4R5 (group 1), R4R6 (group 2) and R4R7 (group 3),
respectively. To evaluate the performance of co-digestion, anaerobic co-digestion was further carried out at
2/22
19/8/2014

high organic loads of 24 and 32 g-VSFW/L, with the optimum FW/CM ratio determined from preliminary
experimental results. The control group was also designed for comparison of co-digestion and monodigestion.
Table 2.
Experimental conditions and results in batch tests.
Item Digestion
FW
CM
FW/CM C/N
type
Unit
g-
g-
VS/L
VS/L
Biogas
Methane
Total
Initial
Final
production
yield
methane
pH
pH
mL/g-VS
mL/g-VS
mL
R1
Co-digestion
8.0
4.0
15.8 570
388
3725
7.5
7.5
R2
Co-digestion
8.0
2.7
17.1 526
352
3003
7.7
7.4
R3
Co-digestion
8.0
17.9 537
343
2744
7.4
7.4
R4
Mono-
8.0
21.1 621
410
2624
7.5
7.3
4.0
5.2
19
16
7.6
7.9
2.7
5.2
28
13
7.6
7.8
5.2
38
14
7.5
7.8
digestion
R5
Monodigestion
R6
Monodigestion
R7
Monodigestion
Table options
2.2.2. Anaerobic digestion in semi-continuous mode

The digester, the effective volume of each digester and the temperature in semi-continuous tests were the
same as during the batch tests. The FW/CM ratio in co-digestion was 2, determined as optimum ratio from
the preliminary results in batch operation. The experimental conditions in semi-continuous tests are shown in
Table 3. The OLR for co-digestion were 8, 10 and 12 g-VSFW/L/d, respectively, along with 4, 5 and 6 gVSCM /L/d added to each digester. The mono-digestion at the same OLR of food waste/cattle manure was
performed to compare its performance with co-digestion. Before each discharge and after feeding, the
activated sludge in digesters was fully mixed. The samples of effluent of each digester were taken for pH and
VFAs measurements.
Table 3.
Experimental conditions and results in semi-continuous tests.
Item FW
CW
Methane yield Methane content Total methane Initial pH Final pH
Unit
g-VS/L/d g-VS/L/d mL/g-VS/d
mg/L
R8
347
61.2
33.3
7.5
7.2
487
R9
10
277
58.0
33.2
7.6
7.0
512
R10 12
96
35.1
5.5
7.6
4.0
471
R11 8
388
62.3
55.9
7.4
7.3
630
R12 10
317
60.2
57.1
7.7
7.1
677
R13 12
139
39.7
14
7.6
4.3
632
R14 0
69
33.5
3.3
7.4
7.6
937
R15 0
60
32.9
3.6
7.4
7.6
1213
R16 0
55
32.7
4.0
7.4
7.7
1570
Table options
2.3. Biogas and VFAs measurements

Biogas was collected by water displacement method. The biogas volume was calculated daily and was
transformed into the volume at STP condition. Biogas samples were examined by gas chromatography (GC2014C, Shimadzu in Japan) to determine the CH4 and CO2 content. A thermal conductivity detector (TCD)
and a stainless steel column of TDX-01 (packed with carbon molecular sieve, 2 m 3 mm) were used in the
GC for biogas measurements. The temperatures of injection port, column and TCD were 160 C, 160 C and
180 C, respectively. Argon was used as carrier gas with a pressure of 0.3 MPa and a flow rate of 25 mL/min.
3/22
19/8/2014

The VFAs in the effluent were also measured by GC, using a hydrogen flame ionization detector (FID) and a
capillary column (DB-WAX, 30 m 0.32 mm, Agilent). The temperatures of the injection port and FID were
both 250 C. The temperature programming was: 95 C during 2 min; increase to 210 C at a rate of 30 C/min;
keep at 210 C for 2 min; increase to 230 C at a rate of 30 C/min; and maintain at 230 C during 3.5 min.
Nitrogen was used as carrier gas at a pressure of 0.4 MPa. The flow rates of nitrogen, hydrogen and air were
50 mL/min, 30 mL/min and 500 mL/min, respectively.
2.4. Chemical analysis

The pH, TS and VS of food waste and cattle manure samples were measured according to the standard
methods (APHA, 1998). Total carbon was determined by a TOC analyzer (TOC-V, Shimadzu in Japan). Total
nitrogen was determined by Kjeltec Nitrogen Analyzer. Fat was measured by Soxhlet extraction method. The
metal elements of food waste and cattle manure including K, Na Mg, Ca, Fe, Mn and Zn were analyzed before
anaerobic digestion by AAS (atomic absorption spectrophotometer, VarianSpectrAA55-B, Palo Alto, USA).
3. Results and discussion

3.1. Anaerobic digestion in batch tests
3.1.1. Mono- and co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure
The total biogas production and the corresponding CH4 and CO2 contents are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1A shows
that the total biogas production increased gradually in the digestion from R1 to R4, and 90% of the final biogas
production was produced in the initial 10 days. After 18 days of digestion, the total biogas production of R1,
R2, R3 and R4 were 5472, 4488, 4300 and 3974 mL, respectively. Lower methane production was obtained in
mono-digestions R5 to R7. Compared with mono-digestion of group 1 (R4R5), group 2 (R4R6) and group 3
(R4R7), the total biogas production in the co-digestion of R1, R2 and R3 were all enhanced. The highest
biogas production was obtained in digestion R1 where the FW/CM ratio is 2 (Table 2), accepted as the
optimum FW/CM ratio for co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure.
4/22
19/8/2014
Fig. 1.
Total biogas production (A), CH4 content (B) and CO2 content (C) in batch tests (R1: 8 g-VSFW/L + 4 g-VSCM /L; R2: 8 gVSFW/L + 2.7 g-VSCM /L; R3: 8 g-VSFW/L + 2 g-VSCM /L; R4: 8 g-VSFW/L; R5: 4 g-VSCM /L; R6: 2.7 g-VSCM /L; R7: 2 gVSCM /L).
Figure options
Fig. 1B and C show the productions of CH4 and CO2 in batch tests. The CH4 content increased sharply during
the initial 2 days. The CH4 content of biogas increased to 65% in co-digestion of R2R5 until day 2.
Thereafter, it increased gradually in the following days. The highest CH4 content was 79% in co-digestion of
R2. By contrast, a higher CO2 content was obtained at the initial of digestion. The CO2 content decreased
gradually along with the increase of CH4 content. The lowest CO2 content could reach a level of 21% in batch
tests.
Table 2 shows the results obtained from batch tests. The methane yields of R1 to R4 were 388, 352, 343 and
410 mL/g-VS, respectively. Although the methane yield of co-digestion was lower than that obtained in monodigestion, the total methane produced in co-digestion was obviously higher. The total methane production of
R1R4 (Table 2) were 3725, 3003, 2744 and 2624 mL, respectively. The methane production in R1, R2 and R3
was enhanced by 41.1%, 13.9% and 4.0%, respectively. This indicated that co-digestion of food waste and
cattle manure is an effective approach for methane improvement. Anaerobic co-digestion of two or more
substrates to increase biogas production/methane yield has been reported previously. Addition of press water
5/22
19/8/2014

and food waste in bio-waste digester not only increased biogas production rates but also improved the total
biogas production (Nayono et al., 2010). A higher methane production of 603 mLCH4 /g-VS was obtained in
the co-digestion of a mixture of 70% manure, 20% food waste and 10% sewage sludge at the OLR of 1.2 gVS/L day (Maran et al., 2012).
Table 2 shows the FW/CM and C/N ratios of feedstock in batch digestion. The C/N ratio of feedstock in R1
was 15.8 where the FW/CM ratio is 2. At this C/N ratio, the maximum biogas production and methane yield
were obtained. The results indicated that the optimum C/N ratio was 15.8, in-line with previous findings of
C/N = 15 (Huang et al., 2004), or 13.919.6 (Kumar et al., 2010). The C/N ratio of FW and CM were 21.1 and
5.2 (Table 2), respectively, and hence obviously and individually either higher or lower than the recommended
optimum. The correct C/N ratio of the feedstock is important towards optimizing the biogas and methane
production.
Table 1 shows the metal elements of food waste and cattle manure. The sodium and potassium content in
food waste and cattle manure, on dry base, were 3.45%, 2.30% and 1.44%, 1.27%, respectively. McCarthy
and McKinney (1961) reported the inhibition concentration of sodium and potassium was at 10 g/L when
acetate is used as pure substrate. Based on the data in Table 1, the total sodium and potassium
concentration at the OLR of 8 g-VSFW/L/d, with the C/N ratio of 2, were 0.33 g/L and 0.23 g/L, respectively.
The sodium and potassium concentration was far lower than the inhibition concentration. Moreover, the
concentrations of Mg, Ca, Mn, Zn in cattle manure were 4.99%, 2.27%, 950 ppm, 250 ppm, respectively.
Compared with cattle manure, the concentrations of trace elements were obviously lower in food waste.
Addition of cattle manure enhanced the trace elements concentration in anaerobic system. Many enzymes
and co-enzymes are in need of a minimal amount of certain trace element for their activation and activity
(Appels et al., 2008). The trace elements in cattle manure may have played an important role in enhancing
methanogen activity in anaerobic digestion. Co-digestion of food waste with piggery wastewater, Zhang et al.
(2011) also found that the trace element is the reason for improvement of co-digestion performance.
3.1.2. Stability of co-digestion

Fig. 2 shows the variations of methane yield and pH at high organic loads of 24 g-VSFW/L and 32 g-VSFW/L.
Fig. 2A indicates that anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure could proceed at high organic
loads. However, digestion failure was observed in mono-digestion of food waste at the two selected organic
loads. Fig. 2B shows that the pH value in both mono-digestion and co-digestion decreased gradually at day 1.
By contrast, the pH value of mono-digestion further decreased in the following days while, pH recovery was
observed in co-digestion at day 2. The pH values of food waste and cattle manure were 5.2 and 9.2 (Table 1),
respectively. The alkaline components of cattle manure might have neutralized the pH, and thus enhanced
the buffer capacity and stability of anaerobic system, allowing high organic load of 32 g-VSFW/L/d,
corresponding to the total organic load of 48 g-VS/L in batch digestion without specific pH control.
6/22
19/8/2014
Fig. 2.
Variations of methane yield (A) and pH (B) w ith time at high organic loads (24 and 32 g-VSFW/L/d).
Figure options
3.2. Anaerobic digestion in semi-continuous mode

3.2.1. Methane yield
Fig. 3 shows the response surface and contour plot of daily methane yield of mixture, food waste and cattle
manure in semi-continuous mode. Fig. 3A and B indicate that anaerobic co-digestion could proceed at the
OLR of 15 g-VS/L/d. The average methane yield, at the OLR of 15 g-VS/L/d, was 317 mL/g-VS (Table 3). The
daily methane yield decreased rapidly with the increase of OLR, e.g., at the OLR of 18 g-VS/L/d, the daily
methane yield decreased to 67 mL/g-VS at day 7. This result indicated that the maximum OLR for anaerobic
co-digestion is 15 g-VS/L/d in semi-continuous mode. Fig. 3C and D indicate that the maximum OLR for food
waste is 10 g-VS/L/d, corresponding to the average methane yield of 277 mL/g-VS (Table 3). Anaerobic
digestion failed at the OLR of 12 g-VS/L/d. Fig. 3E and F illustrate that the daily methane yield varied from
113 mL/g-VS to 50 mL/g-VS when cattle manure was digested at the OLR from 3 g-VS/L/d to 6 g-VS/L/d.
Compared with co-digestion, both the methane yield and the maximum OLR of mono-digestion were lower,
indicating that anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure could significantly improve the
maximum OLR and the methane yield.
7/22
19/8/2014
Fig. 3.
Response surface and contour plot of daily methane yield from mixture (A and B), food w aste (C and D) and cattle manure
(E and F).
Figure options
Table 3 shows the average methane yield of mono-digestion and co-digestion. The methane yield of monodigestion R8 (8 g-VSFW/L/d) and R9 (10 g-VSFW/L/d) were 347 and 277 mL/g-VS, respectively. With the same
OLR of food waste (Table 3), the corresponding methane yield of co-digestion were 388 (R11) and 317 mL/gVS (R12), respectively. The result indicated that addition of cattle manure could increase the methane yield in
semi-continuous mode. The total methane production in co-digestion increased by 52.7% and 55.2%,
respectively, corresponding to the OLR of 8 and 10 g-VSFW/L/d.
3.2.2. VFAs and ammonia

Fig. 4 shows the variation of total VFAs during the semi-continuous process. The VFAs concentration of R8
R13 increased steadily during the initial 3 days. Thereafter, the total VFAs concentration increased
continuously at the OLR of 12 g-VSFW/L/d (R10, R13), reaching 15.2 g/L and 13.5 g/L, respectively, at day 8.
VFAs accumulated due to the overloading of the system. A lower pH value (Table 2) as well as the inhibition
on biogas production (Fig. 3) was observed due to VFAs accumulation at the OLR of 12 g-VSFW/L/d. By
contrast, the VFAs concentration maintained at a stable level at the OLR of 8 and 10 g-VSFW/L/d (R8, R9,
R11, R12), e.g., at the OLR of 10 g-VSFW/L/d, the VFAs concentration was in the range from 6 to 7 g/L in codigestion. Compared with mono-digestion, the VFAs concentration in co-digestion was higher, indicating that
more VFAs were generated in co-digestion system. However, a higher final pH value (Table 2) was measured
in the co-digestion system compared with mono-digestion. This result again shows a higher stability of the
co-digestion system due to the increased buffer capacity, indicating that the addition of cattle manure to food
waste could stabilize anaerobic system.
8/22
19/8/2014
Fig. 4.
Variation of total VFA concentration w ith time in the semi-continuous process (R8: 8 g-VSFW/L/d; R9: 10 g-VSFW/L/d; R10:
12 g-VSFW/L/d; R11: 8 g-VSFW/L/d + 4 g-VSCM /L/d; R12: 10 g-VSFW/L/d + 5 g-VSCM /L/d; R13: 12 g-VSFW/L/d + 6 gVSCM /L/d).
Figure options
Ammonium ions or ammonia were produced from proteins and amino acids during anaerobic digestion. The
ammonia concentration during semi-continuous digestion is shown in Table 3. The ammonia concentrations
at the OLR of 8, 10 and 12 g-VS/L/d in mono-digestion were 487, 512 and 471 mg/L, respectively. The
corresponding ammonia concentrations were 630, 677 and 632 mg/L in co-digestion. Compared with monodigestion, the ammonia concentration in co-digestion effluent was obviously higher. An ammonia
concentration of 700 mg/L was considered to be an inhibitory concentration for methanogenic activity (Lay et
al., 1998). According to the ammonia concentration in Table 3, no ammonia inhibition occurred in codigestion. However, the ammonia concentration in R14, R15 and R16 was beyond 700 mg/L, meaning the
inhibition from ammonia might have occurred when cattle manure was digested alone. Table 2 and Table 3
illustrate that the final pH value of effluent in co-digestion was higher than the value in mono-digestion. These
results indicated that co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure improved the buffer capacity of anaerobic
system. In addition, the total organic nitrogen of FW and CM were 2.2% and 5.1% (Table 1), respectively.
Addition of cattle manure could increase the total organic nitrogen in co-digestion system, resulting in the
higher concentration of ammonia in co-digestion system. The higher ammonia neutralized the VFAs in
acidification. The ammonia and VFAs may have ionized in liquid phase. The reaction can be defined as
follows:
C x Hy C O O H C x Hy C O O - + H +
(1)
Turn
on
(2)
where CxHyCOOH presents the VFAs. Combine Eqs. (1) and (2), Eq. (3) was obtained
(3)
More VFAs will be neutralized at higher concentration of ammonia. Thus, the buffer system formed in codigestion, allowing high concentration of VFAs without pH decrease. Therefore, the higher ammonia
concentration may be the reason for buffer capacity improvement in co-digestion. Co-substrate could
enhance buffer capacity has been reported by the previous report. Nayono et al. (2010) found that addition of
press water or food waste to bio-waste digester lead to high buffer capacity. Digestion could be carried out at
very high loadings without pH control.
3.2.3. Characteristic of effluent

During the mono-digestion of food waste, yellow and white particles, of size from 1 to 5 mm, were observed in
the effluent. Liu et al. (2011) reported the particles to be agglomerated by calcium salts of long chain fatty
acids (LCFAs). According to Appels et al. (2008), LCFAs are well known to be inhibitory at low
concentrations. The inhibition from LCFAs could be alleviated in mono-digestion when the agglomerated
particles formed. Nevertheless, lipid-rich waste such as fat and oil are considered to be most attractive
organic source for biogas production due to its high methane potential. In theory, the methane potential of
lipids is 1014 mL/g-VS (Wan et al., 2011). The fat content of food waste is 22.8% (Table 1). Lot of fat may have
lost due to the formation of the agglomerated lipid particle in mono-digestion. By contrast, no agglomerated
particles were observed in the effluent of co-digestion, tentatively explained by the dilution of the FW lipids
when CM was added: more lipids could be digested by Syntrophomonadaceae and Clostridiaceae families
due to the dilution ( Hatamoto et al., 2007), increasing the total biogas production. The lipid-rich waste such
9/22
19/8/2014

as oil could be diluted in co-digestion has been reported previously. Angelidaki and Ahring (1997) reported
that oil mill effluent needed to be diluted before it was added to anaerobic digesters because of the rapid
decrease of pH in acidification. By contrast, by co-digestion with animal manure, oil mill effluent could be
digested without preliminary dilution. The higher biodegradability of lipids has been recognized as a main
reason for the increased biogas production.
4. Conclusions
Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure could enhance the biogas production and the
methane yield. The optimum C/N ratio was 15.8, corresponding to the FW/CM ratio of 2. The total methane
production at the optimum FW/CM ratio was enhanced by 41.1%, corresponding to the methane yield of
388 mL/g-VS. Addition of cattle manure enhanced the buffer capacity in the digesters, allowing high organic
loads in batch digestion without pH control. The C/N ratio and the higher biodegradation of lipids might be the
main reasons for the improved biogas production and methane yield during co-digestion.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Hi-Tech Research and Development Program of China (Grant number:
2008AA062401), the Natural Science Foundation of China (20876008, 21076009), the Project-sponsored by
SRF for ROCS, SEM (LXJJ2012-001) and the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University
(NCET-100212).
References
Angelidaki and Ahring, 1997 I. Angelidaki, B.K. Ahring
Co-digestion of olive oil mill wastewaters with manure, household waste or sewage sludge
Biodegradation, 8 (1997), pp. 221226
Angelidaki et al., 2003 I. Angelidaki, L. Ellegaard, B.K. Ahring

Application of the anaerobic digestion process
Adv. Biochem. Eng./Biotechnol. Biomethanat. II, 82 (2003), pp. 133
APHA, 1998 APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed. American
Public Health Association, Washington, DC, USA.
Appels et al., 2008 L. Appels, J. Baeyens, J. Degreve, R. Dewil

Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge
Prog. Energy Combust., 34 (2008), pp. 755781
El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010 H.M. El-Mashad, R.H. Zhang

Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste
Bioresour. Technol., 101 (2010), pp. 40214028
Hanaki et al., 1981 K. Hanaki, M. Nagase, T. Matsuo

Mechanism of inhibition caused by long-chain fatty-acids in anaerobic-digestion process
Biotechnol. Bioeng., 23 (7) (1981), pp. 15911610
Hartmann et al., 2003 H. Hartmann, I. Angelidaki, B.K. Ahring

Co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with other waste types
J. Mata-Alvarez (Ed.), Biomethanisation of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes, IWA Publishing
Company, Amsterdam (2003)
Hatamoto et al., 2007 M. Hatamoto, H. Imachi, Y. Yashiro, A. Ohashi, H. Harada

Diversity of anaerobic microorganisms involved in LCFA degradation in methanogenic
sludges revealed by RNA-based stable isotope probing
Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 73 (13) (2007), pp. 41194127
Huang et al., 2004 G.F. Huang, J.W.C. Wong, Q.T. Wu, B.B. Nagar
Effect of C/N on composting of pig manure with sawdust
Waste Manage., 24 (2004), pp. 805813
10/22
19/8/2014
Kumar et al., 2010 M. Kumar, Y.L. Ou, J.G. Lin

Co-composting of green waste and food waste at low C/N ratio
Waste Manage., 30 (2010), pp. 602609
Lay et al., 1998 J.J. Lay, Y.Y. Li, T. Noike

The influence of pH and ammonia concentration on the methane production in high-solids
digestion processes
Water Environ. Res., 70 (5) (1998), pp. 10751082
Li et al., 2010 R.P. Li, Y.J. Ge, K.S. Wang, X.J. Li, Y.Z. Pang
Characteristics and anaerobic digestion performances of kitchen wastes
Renewable Energy, Resources, 28 (2010), pp. 7680 (Chinese)
Li et al., 2009 X.J. Li, L.Q. Li, M.X. Zheng, G.Z. Fu, J.S. Lar
Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with corn stover pretreated by sodium hydroxide for
efficient biogas production
Energy Fuels, 23 (2009), pp. 46354639
Liu et al., 2011 Y.P. Liu, X. Chen, B.N. Zhu, H.R. Yuan, Q. Zhou, Y. Xia, X.J. Li
Formation and function of calcium stearate in anaerobic digestion of food waste
Chin. J. Environ. Eng., 5 (12) (2011), pp. 28442848 (in Chinese)
Maran et al., 2012 E. Maran, L. Castrilln, G. Quiroga, Y. Fernndez-Nava, L. Gmez, M.M. Garca
Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge to increase biogas production
Waste Manage., 32 (2012), pp. 18211825
McCarthy and McKinney, 1961 P.L. McCarthy, R.E. McKinney

Salt toxicity in anaerobic digestion
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 33 (1961), pp. 399408
Mshandete et al., 2004 A. Mshandete, A. Kivaisi, M. Rubindamayugi, B. Mattiasson

Anaerobic batch co-digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes
Bioresour. Technol., 95 (1) (2004), pp. 1924
Nayono et al., 2010 S.E. Nayono, C. Gallert, J. Winter

Co-digestion of press water and food waste in a biowaste digester for improvement of biogas
production
Palatsi et al., 2011 J. Palatsi, M. Vias, M. Guivernau, B. Fernandez, X. Flotats

Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste: main process limitations and microbial
community interactions
Pereira et al., 2005 M.A. Pereira, O.C. Pires, M. Mota, M.M. Alves
Anaerobic biodegradation of oleic and palmitic acids: evidence of mass transfer limitations
caused by long chain fatty acid accumulation onto the anaerobic sludge
Biotechnol. Bioeng., 92 (1) (2005), pp. 1523
Resch et al., 2011 C. Resch, A. Worl, R. Waltenberger, R. Braun, R. Kirchmayr

Enhancement options for the utilisation of nitrogen rich animal by-products in anaerobic
digestion
11/22
19/8/2014
Wan et al., 2011 C.X. Wan, Q.C. Zhou, G.M. Fu, Y.B. Li
Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of thickened waste activated sludge and fat, oil and
grease
Waste Manage., 31 (2011), pp. 17521758
Zhang et al., 2012 Y. Zhang, C.J. Banks, S. Heaven

Co-digestion of source segregated domestic food waste to improve process stability
Zhang et al., 2011 L. Zhang, Y.W. Lee, D. Jahng

Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater: focusing on the role of trace
elements
Zhang et al., 2007 R.H. Zhang, H.M. El-Mashad, K. Hartman, F. Wang, G. Liu, C. Choate, P. Gamble
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion
Bioresour. Technol., 98 (4) (2007), pp. 929935
Zhu, 2007 N. Zhu

Effect of low initial C/N ratio on aerobic composting of swine manure with rice straw
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 644452756; fax: +86 10 64414268.

Copyright 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
About ScienceDirect
Contact and support
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
Information for advertisers
Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V. except certain content provided by third parties. ScienceDirect is a registered trademark of
Elsevier B.V.
Cookies are used by this site. To decline or learn more, visit our Cookies page
Sw itch to Mobile Site
Recommended articles
Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste an

2012, Waste Management more
Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of yard waste

2013, Bioresource Technology
more
Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion o

2013, Bioresource Technology
more
View more articles
Citing articles (13)
Related book content
12/22
19/8/2014
13/22
19/8/2014
14/22
19/8/2014
15/22
19/8/2014
16/22
19/8/2014
17/22
19/8/2014
18/22
19/8/2014
19/22
19/8/2014
20/22
19/8/2014
21/22
19/8/2014
22/22

The Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Cattle Manure

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Cattle Manure

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

19/8/2014

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

Get rights and content

Figures and tables

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

Zhang et al. (2007)

Carbon, C (%, d.b.)

Nitrogen, N (%, d.b.)

Fat (%, d.b.)

Na+ (%, d.b.)

Mg2+ (%, d.b.)

Ca2+ (%, d.b.)

2.2. Anaerobic digestion tests

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

2.2.2. Anaerobic digestion in semi-continuous mode

Methane yield Methane content Total methane Initial pH Final pH

g-VS/L/d g-VS/L/d mL/g-VS/d

2.3. Biogas and VFAs measurements

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

2.4. Chemical analysis

3. Results and discussion

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

3.1.2. Stability of co-digestion

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

3.2. Anaerobic digestion in semi-continuous mode

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

3.2.2. VFAs and ammonia

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

3.2.3. Characteristic of effluent

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

Angelidaki et al., 2003 I. Angelidaki, L. Ellegaard, B.K. Ahring

Appels et al., 2008 L. Appels, J. Baeyens, J. Degreve, R. Dewil

El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010 H.M. El-Mashad, R.H. Zhang

Hanaki et al., 1981 K. Hanaki, M. Nagase, T. Matsuo

Hartmann et al., 2003 H. Hartmann, I. Angelidaki, B.K. Ahring

Hatamoto et al., 2007 M. Hatamoto, H. Imachi, Y. Yashiro, A. Ohashi, H. Harada

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

Kumar et al., 2010 M. Kumar, Y.L. Ou, J.G. Lin

Lay et al., 1998 J.J. Lay, Y.Y. Li, T. Noike

McCarthy and McKinney, 1961 P.L. McCarthy, R.E. McKinney

Mshandete et al., 2004 A. Mshandete, A. Kivaisi, M. Rubindamayugi, B. Mattiasson

Nayono et al., 2010 S.E. Nayono, C. Gallert, J. Winter

Palatsi et al., 2011 J. Palatsi, M. Vias, M. Guivernau, B. Fernandez, X. Flotats

Resch et al., 2011 C. Resch, A. Worl, R. Waltenberger, R. Braun, R. Kirchmayr

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

Zhang et al., 2012 Y. Zhang, C.J. Banks, S. Heaven

Zhang et al., 2011 L. Zhang, Y.W. Lee, D. Jahng

Zhu, 2007 N. Zhu

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 644452756; fax: +86 10 64414268.

Contact and support

Terms and conditions

Information for advertisers

Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste an

Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of yard waste

Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion o

View more articles

Citing articles (13)

Related book content

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure

The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure