Effect of different inoculations on biogas and methane production through anaerobia biodigeston using residues from the avícola sector
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X40560Keywords:
Biofertilizer, Feeding load, Poultry productionAbstract
The present study aimed to analyze the use of different digestates as inocula for the anaerobic digestion of poultry litter, evaluating the biogas and methane production. The inocula used were: bovine and porcine biofertilizer; with feeding loads of 0.67, 1.00 and 1.67 gVS L-1 day-1. Statistical analyses followed a split-plot design, where the main plot being inoculum and the feeding load as secondary. The experimental data were submitted to analysis of variance, at the level of 5% of significance. The following variable responses were considered: biogas production, specific biogas production as a function of volatile solids (VS) added to the biodigester, specific biogas production as a function of organic load, in terms of COD, and methane production. The highest rates of average biogas production, specific biogas production by VS added, specific production of biogas as a function of COD, and average methane production occurred with the use of bovine inoculum. Through the analysis of the total average percentage of methane production, productions of 63.0% and 54.5% for bovine and swine inoculum. Considering the results obtained, the use of bovine inoculum for the process of anaerobic digestion of poultry litter is recommended vinculado a produção de biogás e metano.Downloads
References
APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21th ed. Washinton, DC – EUA: Ed. American Public Health Association, 2005. 1600 p.
AQUINO SF, CHERNICHARO CAL, FORESTI E. Metodologias para determinação da Atividade Metanogênica Especifica (AME) em lodos anaeróbios. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, v. 12, n. 2, 2007, p. 192-201.
AQUINO SF, CHERNICHARO CAL. Acúmulo de ácidos graxos voláteis (AGVs) em reatores anaeróbios sob estresse: causas e estratégias de controle. Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, v 10, n 2, 2005, p.152-161.
AVILA VS, ABREU VMN, FIGUEIREDO EAP, BRUM PAR, OLIVEIRA U. Valor Agronômico da Cama de Frangos após Reutilização por Vários Lotes Consecutivos. Comunicado Técnico 466 – Embrapa, 2007, 4p.
BARCELOS BR. Avaliação de diferentes inóculos na digestão anaeróbia da fração orgânica de resíduos sólidos domésticos.2009. 75f. Dissertação Mestrado (Tecnologia Ambiental e Recursos Hídricos). Departamento de engenharia civil e ambiental da faculdade de tecnologia da universidade de Brasília, BRASÍLIA –DF,2009.
BOLAN NS, SZOGI AA, CHUASAVATHI T, SESHADRI B, ROTHROCK JRMJ, PANNEERSELVAM P. Uses and management of poultry litter. World's Poultry Science Journal, v. 66, 2010, p. 673-698.
BOUALLAGUI H, LAHDHEB H, BEN ROMDAN E, RACHDI B, HAMDI M. Improvement of fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-substrates addition. Journal of Environmental Management. Tunis, n.90, 2009, p. 1844-1849.
BRASIL. Instrução Normativa nº 8, de 25 de março de 2004. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento.
CARREAS N. O biogás. Programa de capacitação em energias renováveis – ONUDI. 2013, p.151.
CHERNICHARO CAL. Reatores anaeróbios: princípios do tratamento biológico de águas residuárias. 2 ed. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 1997.
CHOI IH, MOORE JRPA. Effect of Various Litter Amendments on Ammonia Volatilization and Nitrogen Content of Poultry Litter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. v.17, 2008, p.454–462.
COSTA JC, BARBOSA SG, ALVES MM, SOUSA DZ. Thermochemical pre- and biological co-treatments to improve hydrolysis and methane production from poultry litter. Bioresource Technology, 2012, p. 141–147.
DĘBOWSKI M, ZIELIŃSKI M, KISIELEWSKA M, KRZEMIENIEWSKI M, MAKOWSKA M, GRĄDKOWSKI M, TOR-ŚWIĄTEK A. Simulated dairy wastewater treatment in a pilot plant scale magneto-active hybrid anaerobic biofilm reactor (MA-HABR). Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 35(2), 2018, p. 553–561.
DI WU, LEI LI, XIAOFEI Z, YUN P, PINGJIN Y, XUYA P. Anaerobic digestion: A review on process monitoring. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. v. 103, 2019, p. 1-12.
DROSG, B. Process monitoring in biogas plants. IEA Bioenergy, ISBN 978-1-910154-03-8. 2017.
EUROSTAT. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics 2015 edition. European Statistics. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016.
FERNANDEZ CG, ENCINA PAG. Impacto of substrate to inoculum ratio in anaerobic digestion of swine slurry. Biomass And Bioenergy, v. 33, 2009, p. 1065-1069.
FERREIRA DF. SISVAR - Sistema de análise de variância. Versão 5.3. UFLA, 2010.
FLECK L, TAVARES MHF, EYNG E, ANDRADE MAM, FRARE LM. OPTIMIZATION OF ANAEROBIC TREATMENT OF CASSAVA PROCESSING WASTEWATER. Engenharia Agrícola, vol.37 no.3 Jaboticabal May/June 2017.
FUKAYAMA EH. Características quantitativas e qualitativas da cama de frango sob diferentes reutilizações: efeitos na produção de biogás e biofertilizante. 2008.99f. Tese Doutorado (Ciências agrarias e Veterinárias). Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, 2008.
FUKAYAMA EH, LUCAS JUNIOR J, AIRES AM, SILVA AA, OLIVEIRA, R. A. Produção de biogás utilizando cama de frangos de corte. I Simpósio Internacional sobre Gerenciamento de Resíduos de Animais Geração de Energia a partir de Resíduos de Animais. Florianópolis – SC, 2009.
GUERI MD, DE SOUZA, SNM, KUCZMAN O. Parâmetros operacionais do processo de digestão anaeróbia de resíduos alimentares: Uma revisão. BIOFIX Scientific Journal, 3(1), 17, 2017.
IZUDDIN WI, LOH TC, SAMSUDIN AA, FOO, HL. In vitro study of postbiotics from Lactobacillus plantarum RG14 on rumen fermentation and microbial population. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 47. 2018.
JANG HM, KIM KH, HÁ JH, PARK JM. Bacterial and methanogenic archaeal communities during the single-stage anaerobic digestion of high-strength food wastewater. Bioresource Tecnology , v. 165, 2014, p. 174-182.
KELLEHER BP, LEAHY JJ, HENIHAN AM, O’DWYER TF, SUTTON D, LEAHY MJ. Advances in poultry litter disposal technology – a review. Bioresource Technology. v. 83, 2002, p. 27–36.
KONRAD O, HASAN C, HICKMANN EV, MARDES M, FILHO MG, SILVA MC. A. Produção de biogás a partir de biomassas residuais provenientes do setor agroindustrial. Boletim Técnico - Universidade do Vale do Taquari - Univates, Dez. 2018.
KUNZ A, OLIVEIRA PAV. Aproveitamento de dejetos de animais para geração de biogás. Revista de Politica Agrícola. Ano XV, n.3, 2006.
LI Y, CHEN Y, WU J. Enhancement of methane production in anaerobic digestion process: A review. Applied Energy. v.240, 2019, p. 120 – 137.
MIAH MR, RAHMAN AKML, AKANDA MR, PULAK A, ROUF MD. A. Production of biogas from poultry litter mixed with the co-substrate cow dung. Journal of Taibah University for Science. V. 10, 2016, p. 497-504.
MILANEZ AY, GUIMARÃES DD, MAIA GBS, SOUZA JAP, LEMOS MLF. Biogás de resíduos agroindustriais: panorama e perspectivas. Caderno Biogás, Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social - BNDES Setorial, 47, 2018, p. 221-276.
MINITAB. Minitab for Windows Release 18. State College: Minitab Inc., 2018.
ORRICO JUNIOR MAP, SCHWINGEL AW, CENTURION SR, ORRICO ACA. Co-digestion of swine excreta associated with increasing levels of crude glycerin. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 45(3), 2016, p. 101–106.
ORRICO ACA, LOPES WRT, ORRICO M, SUNADA NS. Codigestão anaeróbia dos dejetos de bovinos leiteiros e óleo de descarte. Engenharia Agrícola, Jaboticabal, v.36, n.3, maio./jun. 2016, p. 537-545.
PARRA-OROBIO BA, TORRES-LOZADA P, MARMOLEJO-REBELLÓN LF. Anaerobic digestion of municipal biowaste for the production of renewable energy: Effect of particle size. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 34(2), 2017, p. 481–491.
PAULINO MTF, OLIVEIRA EM, GRIESER DO, TOLEDO JB. Criação de frangos de corte e acondicionamento térmico em suas instalações: Revisão. PUBVET, v.13, n.2, a280, Fev. 2019, p. 1-14.
PERES S, MONTEIRO MR, FERREIRA ML, NASCIMENTO JUNIOR AF, PALHA MLAPF. Anaerobic Digestion Process for the Production of Biogas from Cassava and Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge in Brazil. BioEnergy Research, Volume 12, Issue 1, March, 2019, p. 150–157.
RIBEIRO EM, BARROS RM, FILHO GLT, SANTOS IFdos, SAMPAIO LC, SANTOS TVdos, SILVA FGB, SILVA APM, FREITAS JVR. GHG avoided emissions and economic analysis by power generation potential in posture aviaries in Brazil. Renewable Energy. v. 120, 2018.
RIBEIRO EM, BARROS RM, FILHO GLT, SANTOS IFdos, SAMPAIO LC, SANTOS TVdos, SILVA FGB, SILVA APM, FREITAS JVR. Power generation potential in posture aviaries in Brazil in the context of a circular economy. Technologies and Assessments. v. 18, 2016, p. 153-163.
RIPLEY LE, BOYLE WC, CONVERSE JC. Improved alkalimetric monitoring for anaerobic digestion of high-strength wastes. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, v. 58, n. 5, p. 406-411, 1986.
SAGULA AL, DA COSTA LVC, DE LUCAS JUNIOR J. Diferentes diluições e uso de reciclo na biodigestão anaeróbia de cama de frango triturada e peneirada: ensaio batelada / different dilutions and use of recycle in the anaerobic biodigestion of crushed and sieved poultry litter: batch test.
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia de Biossistemas, 11(4), 2017, p. 373.
SALMINEN E, RINTALA J. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaughterhouse waste – a review. Bioresource Technology. v. 83, 2002, p. 13–26.
SANCHEZ E, BORJA R, TRAVIESO L, MARTIN A, COLMENAREJO MF. Effect of organic loading rate on the stability, operational parameters and performance of a secondary up flow anaerobic sludge bed reactor treating piggery waste. Bioresource Tecnology, v. 96, 2005, p. 335-344.
SANTOS NM, MALHEIROS R, TAVEIRA RZ. Disposição adequada de resíduos orgânicos geradas no setor de avicultura de produção de frango de corte por meio da compostagem. Anais. VIII Congresso Brasileiro de Gestão Ambiental. Campo Grande/MS, 2017.
SANTOS TMB, LUCAS JUNIOR J, SAKOMURA NK. Efeitos de densidade populacional e da reutilização da cama sobre o desempenho de frangos de corte e produção de cama. Revista Portuguesa de Ciências Veterinárias, 2005.
SHAH FA, MAHMOOD Q, SHAH MM, PERVEZ A, ASAD SA. Microbial Ecology of Anaerobic Digesters:The Key Players of Anaerobiosis. International Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2014, p. 21.
SILVA HW. Produção de biogás utilizando dejetos de vacas leiteiras – Uma alternativa viável para redução de impactos ambientais. Revista Técnico-Científica do CREA-PR, 13ª edição, Set. 2018.
SILVA MOS. Análises físico-químicas para o controle das estações de tratamento de esgoto. São Paulo: Cetesb, 1977.
SILVEIRA MA, KRETZER SG, NAGAOKA AK, ARROYO NAR, BAUER FC. Produção de biogás em biodigestores de tamanho reduzido abastecido com cama de aviário. Acta Tecnológica.v.9, n.2, 2014, p. 9-15.
SINDIVIAPAR. Anuário Paranaense da Avicultura 2018. Revista Avicultura do Paraná. Edição 2018.
SPERLING MV. Princípios básicos do tratamento de esgotos. Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, UFMG, v.2. 1996, p. 211.
SUN Y, CHENG J. Hydrolysis of lignocellulosic materials for ethanol production: a review. Bioresource Technolog. v. 83, n. 1, maio 2002, p. 1–11.
SUZUKI ABP, FEIDEN A, FERNANDES DM, MARTINS GL, FARIA RAP. Utilização de manipueira juntamente com sólidos da cama de aviário em biodigestores para geração de biogás. Ambiência Revista do Setor de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais. Guarapuava, v.8 n.3, 2012, p. 809 - 820.
TAVARES SG, FEIDEN A, CORREIA AF, SOARES CMT, GREGOLIN MRP. Influência das Variações Térmicas e Climáticas na Produção de Biogás. Nativa, 4(5), 2016, p. 287–295.
TESSARO AB, TESSARO AA, CANTÃO MP, MENDES MA. Potencial energético da cama de aviário produzida na região sudoeste do paraná e utilizada como substrato para a produção de biogás. Revista em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente, Maringá. v.8, n.2, 2015, p. 357-377.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - USDA. This report contains assessments of commodity and trade issues made by USDA staff and not necessarily statements of official U.S. government policy. 2019 Poultry and Poultry Products Semi-Annual Report. Number 1901, 2019.
YADVIKA, SANTOSH, SREEKRISHNAN TR, KOHLI S, RANA V. Enhancement of biogas production from solid substrates using different techniques - a review. Bioresource Technology. v. 95, 2004, p. 1–10.
YETILMEZSOY K. Integration of kinetic modeling and desirability function approach for multi-objective optimization of UASB reactor treating poultry manure wastewater. Bioresource Tecnology, v. 118, 2012, p. 89-101.
ZIGANSHIN AM, LIEBETRAU J, PRÖTER J, KLEINSTEUBER S. Microbial community structure and dynamics during anaerobic digestion of various agricultural waste materials. Bioenergy and Biofuels, v. 97, 2013, p. 5161-5174.
Published
Versions
- 2022-04-26 (2)
- 2020-06-29 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
