Integrated Assessment of Methane Production from the Co-Digestion of Swine Wastewater and Other Organic Wastes

Izabelle de Paula Sousa, André Pereira Rosa (), Guilherme Kurtemback Almeida, Dilson Novais Rocha, Thiago de Alencar Neves and Alisson Carraro Borges
Additional contact information
Izabelle de Paula Sousa: Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36571-900, Brazil
André Pereira Rosa: Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36571-900, Brazil
Guilherme Kurtemback Almeida: Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36571-900, Brazil
Dilson Novais Rocha: Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36571-900, Brazil
Thiago de Alencar Neves: Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, Brazil
Alisson Carraro Borges: Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36571-900, Brazil

Sustainability, 2024, vol. 16, issue 14, 1-14

Abstract: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the co-digestion of swine wastewater (SW) and other co-substrates: grass residue (GR), food waste (FW), and poultry litter (PL). The comparisons were performed using the biochemical methane potential (BMP) test. The maximum accumulated methane (CH 4 ) production was submitted to a joint analysis of variance. Tukey’s test (α = 0.05) was used to compare the results of the treatments, and Dunnett’s test (α = 0.05) was used to compare the ratios (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100) (based on volatile solids—VS). In addition, both the synergistic effect and kinetic adjustment of some models were evaluated. The results indicated that the co-digestion of all substrates (GR, FW, and PL) with SW improved the methane production yield in comparison with mono-digestion (GR, FW, and PL). A positive synergistic effect was observed for the FW:SW (25:75 and 75:25). According to both Tukey’s and Dunnett’s tests (α = 0.05), the FW:SW ratio of 25:75 did not show statistical difference compared with the mono-digestion (SW), which exhibited the largest CH 4 production. Among the models evaluated, the modified Gompertz function presented the best fit. For the co-digestion treatments, the ratio of FW:SW of 25:75 exhibited the most promising potential for integrated management, demonstrating the best synergistic effect among the substrates. In this context, methane production from co-digestion equalled that of mono-digestion, while enabling integrated residue management.

Keywords: anaerobic digestion; food waste; poultry litter; grass residue; methane production (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/14/5938/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/14/5938/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:14:p:5938-:d:1433643

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().