Efectos sinérgicos y antagónicos en codigestión anaerobia. Análisis de la cinética de rendimiento de metano

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20220473

Palabras clave:

Biogas, cinética, modelo matemático

Resumen

La digestión anaerobia (AD) es un proceso de descomposición de material orgánico en el que el producto principal es una mezcla gaseosa denominada biogás, la cual tiene potencial como combustible. Para mejorar el rendimiento del proceso la literatura propone varias alternativas tecnológicas, entre las cuales destaca la mezcla de sustratos, conocida como co-digestión anaerobia (ACoD). Esta alternativa se enfoca en mejorar la relación C/N y diluir componentes inhibitorios. La literatura destaca el incremento del rendimiento de metano por medio de la ACoD. En esta investigación se analizan los efectos de mezcla en la cinética de rendimiento de metano. Se emplearon artículos que reportan los coeficientes cinéticos en modelos de Cone y Gompertz modificado en mezclas binarias y ternarias. Se planteó un modelo aditivo, que empleó los coeficientes cinéticos de los monosustratos y consideró la suma de las aportaciones en cada mezcla. Posteriormente, para el análisis de los efectos de mezcla se comparan los resultados del modelo aditivo ajustados a los modelos de Cone y Gompertz modificado. La comparación realizada de los coeficientes del modelo aditivo con los experimentales consideró como relevantes variaciones del 10%. Esto permitió establecer que los efectos de mezcla pueden influir en el rendimiento de metano, así como en las constantes cinéticas del proceso.

|Resumen
= 728 veces | PDF (ENGLISH)
= 382 veces| | HTML (ENGLISH)
= 0 veces| | XML (ENGLISH)
= 0 veces|

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Nilo Bayardo Montesdeoca-Pichucho, Universidad Técnica de Manabí

Estudiante de Maestría en Ingeniería Química

Katiuska Garibaldi-Alcívar, Universidad Técnica de Manabí

Student, Chemical Engineering Msc

Ricardo José Baquerizo-Crespo, Universidad Técnica de Manabí

Magíster en Ingeniería Ambiental, Ingeniero Químico

Yunet Gómez-Salcedo, Universidad Técnica de Manabí

Escuela de Ingeniería Química. Facultad de Ciencias Matemáticas. Magíster en Ingeniería Ambiental

Osney Pérez-Ones, Universidad Tecnológica de La Habana José Antonio Echeverría

Profesor Asociado. Grupo de Análisis de Procesos, Facultad de Ingeniería Química

Ileana Pereda-Reyes, Universidad Tecnológica de La Habana José Antonio Echeverría

Profesor e Investigador, Centro de Estudios de Ingeniería de Procesos (CIPRO), Facultad de Ingeniería Química

Citas

M. Semilof and et al., “Driving commerce to the web—corporate intranets and the internet: Lines blur,” Communications Week, vol. 6, no. 19, Jul. 15, 1996. [Online]. Available: http://www.techweb.com/se/index.html

X. Du, Y. Tao, H. Li, Y. Liu, and K. Feng, “Synergistic methane production from the anaerobic co-digestion of spirulina platensis with food waste and sewage sludge at high solid concentrations,” Renewable Energy, vol. 142, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.062

J. Kainthola, A. Kalamdhad, and V. V. Goud, “Enhanced methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and hydrilla verticillata and its kinetic analysis,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 125, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.04.011

E. Lebon, H. Caillet, E. Akinlabi, D. Madyira, and L. Adelard, “Kinetic study of anaerobic co-digestion, analysis and modelling,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 35, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.05.047

J. H. Ebner, R. A. Labatut, J. S. Lodge, and A. A. W. an T. A. Trabold, “Anaerobic co-digestion of commercial food waste and dairy manure: Characterizing biochemical parameters and synergistic effects,” Waste Management, vol. 52, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.046

D. D. Nguyen, B. H. Jeon, J. H. Jeung, and E. R. R. J. R. B. et al., “Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of model organic wastes: Evaluation of biomethane production and multiple kinetic models analysis,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 280, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.033

J. Kim, J. Kim, and C. Lee, “Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, human feces, and toilet paper: Methane potential and synergistic effect,” Fuel, vol. 248, Jul. 15, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.081

C. Mao, J. Xi, Y. Feng, X. Wang, and G. Rend, “Biogas production and synergistic correlations of systematic parameters during batch anaerobic digestion of corn straw,” Renewable Energy, vol. 132, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.009

F. Xu, Y. Li, X. Ge, L. Yang, and Y. Li, “Anaerobic digestion of food waste – challenges and opportunities,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 247, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.020

H. M. El-Mashad, “Kinetics of methane production from the codigestion of switchgrass and spirulina platensis algae,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 132, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.183

K. Paritosh, S. Mathur, N. Pareek, and V. Vivekanand, “Feasibility study of waste (d) potential: co-digestion of organic wastes, synergistic effect and kinetics of biogas production,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 15, no. 5, Jul. 27, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-017-1453-5

G. Zhen, X. Lu, T. Kobayashi, G. Kumar, and K. Xu, “Anaerobic co-digestion on improving methane production from mixed microalgae (scenedesmus sp., chlorella sp.) and food waste: Kinetic modeling and synergistic impact evaluation,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 299, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.04.118

D. J. Batstone and P. D. Jensen. (2011) Treatiste on water science. [Elsevier version]. [Online]. [Online]. Available: https://acortar.link/4H6Nqs

K. Wagemann and N. Tippkötter, Eds., Anaerobic Digestion, ser. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology. Switzerland, AG: Springer, Cham., 2017, pp. 281–299.

Y. Ren, M. Yu, C. Wu, Q. Wang, M. Gao, and et al., “A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: Research updates and tendencies,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 247, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.109

K. R. Manchala, Y. Sun, D. Zhang, and Z. Wang, “Chapter two - anaerobic digestion modelling,” Advances in Bioenergy, vol. 2, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aibe.2017.01.001

Y. Li, Y. Jin, A. Borrion, H. Li, and J. Li, “Effects of organic composition on the anaerobic biodegradability of food waste,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 243, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.028

B. Xiao, Y. Qin, W. Z. J. Wu, H. Qiang, and et al., “Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of food waste: A comparison with single-stage digestions based on performance and energy balance,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 249, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.10.084

M. Semilof and P. V. Rao, “Synergistic effect in anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and dairy manure - a batch kinetic study,” Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, vol. 41, no. 17, Dec. 1, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1550536

S. Astals, D. J. Batstone, J. Mata-Alvarez, and P. D. Jensen, “Identification of synergistic impacts during anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 169, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.024

A. Donoso-Bravo, V. Ortega, Y. Lesty, H. V. Bossche, and D. Olivares, “Addressing the synergy determination in anaerobic co-digestion and the inoculum activity impact on bmp test,” Water Science &. Technology, vol. 80, no. 2, Aug. 27, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2019.292

F. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, A. Saikawa, K. Tarukawa, G. Qi, and Z. P. et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, meat and bone meal, and crude glycerol under mesophilic conditions: Synergistic effect and kinetic studies,” Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 40, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.05.008

S. Maamri and M. Amrani, “Evaluation and modelling of methane yield efficiency from co-digestion of waste activated sludge and olive mill wastewater,” Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, vol. 17, no. 2, Mar. 6, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://aloki.hu/pdf/1702_52595274.pdf

M. Yu, Minggao, W. Lihong, Y. Y. Ren, and C. F. W. et al., “Kinetic modelling and synergistic impact evaluation for the anaerobic co-digestion of distillers’ grains and food waste by ethanol pre-fermentation,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 25, Aug. 28, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-018-3027-6

C. Dennehy, P. G. Lawlor, T. Croize, Y. Jiang, L. Morrison, and et al., “Synergism and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid concentrations during food waste and pig manure anaerobic co-digestion,” Waste Management, vol. 56, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.032

Y. Pan, Z. Zhi, G. Zhen, X. Lu, P. Bakonyi, and et al., “Synergistic effect and biodegradation kinetics of sewage sludge and food waste mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion and the underlying stimulation mechanisms,” Fuel, vol. 253, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.084

M. Kouas, M. Torrijos, P. Sousbie, J. Harmand, and S. Sayadi, “Modeling the anaerobic co-digestion of solid waste: From batch to semi-continuous simulation,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 274, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.11.065

S. Xie, F. I. Hai, X. Zhan, W. Guo, H. H. Ngo, and et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion: A critical review of mathematical modelling for performance optimization,” Bioresource Technology, vol. 222, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.10.015

Y. Li, Y. Jin, H. Li, A. Borrion, Z. Yu, and et al., “Kinetic studies on organic degradation and its impacts on improving methane production during anaerobic digestion of food waste,” Applied Energy, vol. 213, Mar. 1, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.01.033

J. P. Díaz, I. P. Reyes, M. J. Taherzadeh, I. S. Horváth, M. Lundin, and et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse wastes with agro-residues: Synergistic and antagonistic interactions determined in batch digestion assays,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 245, Jun. 1, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.02.008

R. Baquerizo-Crespo, S. Astals, O. Pérez-Ones, and I. Pereda-Reyes, “Mathematical modeling challenges associated with waste anaerobic biodegradability,” in Advances in the Domain of Environmental Biotechnology, S. Singapur, Ed., 2021, pp. 357–392.

C. Brown. (1998) Applied multivariate statistics in geohydrology and related sciences. [Online]. Available: https://acortar.link/aLYKXZ

Descargas

Publicado

2022-04-18

Cómo citar

Montesdeoca-Pichucho, N. B., Garibaldi-Alcívar, K., Baquerizo-Crespo, R. J., Gómez-Salcedo, Y., Pérez-Ones, O., & Pereda-Reyes, I. (2022). Efectos sinérgicos y antagónicos en codigestión anaerobia. Análisis de la cinética de rendimiento de metano. Revista Facultad De Ingeniería Universidad De Antioquia, (107), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20220473

Número

Núm. 107 (2023): Revista Facultad de Ingeniería (Apr-Jun 2023)

Sección

Artículos

Licencia

Derechos de autor 2022 Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

Los artículos disponibles en la Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia están bajo la licencia Creative Commons Attribution BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Eres libre de:

Compartir — copiar y redistribuir el material en cualquier medio o formato

Adaptar : remezclar, transformar y construir sobre el material.

Bajo los siguientes términos:

Reconocimiento : debe otorgar el crédito correspondiente , proporcionar un enlace a la licencia e indicar si se realizaron cambios . Puede hacerlo de cualquier manera razonable, pero no de ninguna manera que sugiera que el licenciante lo respalda a usted o su uso.

No comercial : no puede utilizar el material con fines comerciales .

Compartir igual : si remezcla, transforma o construye a partir del material, debe distribuir sus contribuciones bajo la misma licencia que el original.

El material publicado por la revista puede ser distribuido, copiado y exhibido por terceros si se dan los respectivos créditos a la revista, sin ningún costo. No se puede obtener ningún beneficio comercial y las obras derivadas tienen que estar bajo los mismos términos de licencia que el trabajo original.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

1. Introduction

Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process that degrades organic matter and produces biogas and a digested sludge rich in nutrients [1-3] using anaerobic microorganisms in an environment free of gaseous oxygen and at a controlled temperature [4]. AD is a technology used to eliminate waste with a high organic fraction. It also reduces odors and greenhouse gas emissions, making it an attractive method for treating organic waste and satisfying energy demand [7,8]. Biogas is mainly composed of methane (CH4, 60%-70% composition) and carbon dioxide (CO2, 30%-40% composition) [9]. Due to the microbiological nature of the anaerobic digestion process, it is essential to study the effects of different factors on the kinetics of methane yield [10-12]. In AD, the degradation process is biological and divided into four metabolic stages: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis [Figure 1] [13-15].

Due to its high biodegradability, food waste (FW) is an adequate substrate for AD [16]. The composition of FW is mainly: carbohydrates (0.0-59.0% of total solids [TS]), proteins (1.4-38.9% TS), and lipids (0.1-41.5% of TS) [9].

The organic components (carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) have different theoretical methane ygields ranging from 0.200-0.670 Nm3CH4/kgVS (VS: volatile solids) and their biological stability depends on the degradation of organic matter[17,18]. The lipid-rich wastes present a high theoretical methane yield, with values of up to 1.014 Nm3CH4/kgVS, higher compared to carbohydrates (0.370 Nm3CH4/kgVS for glucose) and proteins (0.740 Nm3CH4/kgVS) [9]. However, the methane yields of real substrates are lower [5] due to their composition [19]; low organic load; acidification; nutrient imbalance; poor damping capacity; high concentrations of inhibitory or recalcitrant substances leading to unstable processes [12].

Anaerobic co-digestion (ACoD) is a strategy to reduce inhibitions and instabilities in the AD process. The mixture of two or more substrates compensates for nutrient deficiencies and reduces the concentrations of inhibitory and recalcitrant compounds [20,21]. Other uses of ACoD are pH stabilization, carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio optimization, as well as buffer capacity enhancement [22,24]. The implementation of ACoD reduces retention time, higher removal of volatile solids, and higher methane yield [25,26].

The mixture of residues rich in carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids present synergistic effects that improve the kinetics of the degradation process [17]. Synergistic effects refer to the increase in the amount of methane produced compared to the sum of the contributions of the substrates [1,21]. The C/N ratio is a fundamental parameter to define the synergistic effect on ACoD, since an optimal C/N ratio will allow the subsistence of microbial populations [22]. The literature calls antagonism the adverse effects caused by cosubstrates. For example, the increase in the organic load rate reduces biogas production [27]. Therefore, the implementation of mathematical models oriented towards estimating the mixing effect is a viable alternative to predict methane yield in ACoD [5]. Mathematical models have become a fundamental tool to predict system performance, improve production, as well as prevent failures and process instability [27]. The literature describes several models, among which kinetic models, statistical models, computational fluid dynamics models, and other models with algorithmic approaches stand out [28].

Currently, the focus on the kinetics of the anaerobic digestion process allows to evaluate the performance of AD systems and predict the methane production and, therefore, improve the understanding of the process [8,19]. The literature reports various kinetic models, oriented towards the estimation of process kinetic constants that can vary when different models and substrates are used [29]. Thus, for the development of a ACoD model for the prediction of the effect of the mixture of substrates, it is important to previously study the kinetics of the methane yield of each substrate independently [10].

For this reason, it is significant to evaluate the behavior of the ACoD of mixtures of organic waste to maximize the obtaining of methane. This research aims to analyze the mixing effects in the anaerobic digestion process by describing the kinetic coefficients obtained from an additive model and their comparison with experimental coefficients from the literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Data obtention

This investigation used data from four investigations [10,12,22,23]. These investigations presented information on the coefficients of the methane yield kinetic models adjusted for the digestion of monosubstrates and cosubstrates. The authors of the research carried out batch tests of the substrates: switchgrass (SG) and Spirulina platensis algae (SP) [10]; microalgae (M) and food waste (FW) [12]; cow manure (CM), meat and bone meal (MBM) and crude glycerol (CG) [22]; activated sludge residuals (ASR) and olive mill wastewater (OMWW) [23].

Table 1 presents the kinetic data for each substrate.

In general, the investigations evaluated the methane yield kinetics by the models: exponential, modified Gompertz, Fitzhugh, Cone, and the logistic equation.

Anaerobic digestion processes

Figure 1: Anaerobic digestion processes

Table 1:
Adjusted kinetic parameters for monosubstrates
Substrate Temperature (°C) Adjusted Model B 0 k n R m λ Reference
SG 35 Cone 129.95 0.090 2.04 NA NA [10]
SP 35 Cone 352.16 0.090 2.97 NA NA [10]
SG 50 Cone 174.75 0.160 2.57 NA NA [10]
SP 50 Cone 358.42 0.150 3.17 NA NA [10]
M 35 Cone 94.60 0.262 1.56 NA NA [12]
FW 35 Cone 679.80 0.126 1.30 NA NA [12]
CM 38 Gompertz 160.00 NA NA 30.00 1.23 [22]
MBM 38 Gompertz 370.00 NA NA 60.00 2.56 [22]
CG 38 Gompertz 610.00 NA NA 20.00 4.94 [22]
ASR 55 Gompertz 111.50 NA NA 10.30 2.18 [23]
OMWW 55 Gompertz 7.13 NA NA 0.99 3.05 [23]

NA: Not applicable

The fits of the experimental data of the substrates CM, MBM and CG [22]; ASR and OMWW [23] pointed towards the modified Gompertz model (1), unlike SG and SP [10]; M and FW [12] who pointed to Cone's model (2).

Where: B is the methane yield (Nml/gVS); B 0 is the maximum methane yield (Nml/gVS); k is the reaction kinetic constant (1/d); t is the digestion time (d); R m is the maximum methane rate production (ml/gVS/d); λ is the lag phase time (d); and n is the shape factor (adimensional). Table 2 presents the substrates mixtures and the adjusted parameters of the kinetic models.

2.2 Information processing

Pagés-Díaz, Pereda-Reyes [30] estimated the maximum methane yield of a mixture with the contributions of the volatile solid fractions of each substrate and their interactions. The evaluation of the methane yield kinetics of the mixtures considered a model (3) depending on the fraction provided by each substrate, and on the kinetic coefficients of each monosubstrate as mentioned by [31].

Where: X i is the volatile solid fraction contributed by the ith substrate in the mixture; B i corresponds to the methane yield of the ith substrate at a given time and according to the adjusted kinetic model (1) or (2).

Table 2:
Adjusted kinetic parameters for the cosubstrates
Mixture Substrates Proportion B 0 K n R m λ Reference
M1 SG:SP 0.87:0.13 (1) 147.08 0.10 1.98 NA NA [10] 
M2 SG:SP 0.67:0.33 (1) 200.53 0.10 2.43 NA NA [10] 
M3 SG:SP 0.87:0.13 (2) 201.76 0.17 2.25 NA NA [10] 
M4 SG:SP 0.67:0.33 (2) 239.20 0.18 2.34 NA NA [10] 
M5 M:FW 0.80:0.20 (1) 372.80 0.070 0.70 NA NA [12] 
M6 M:FW 0.60:0.40 (1) 420.30 0.147 1.32 NA NA [12] 
M7 M:FW 0.50:0.50 (1) 556.50 0.131 1.40 NA NA [12] 
M8 M:FW 0.40:0.60 (1) 601.40 0.137 1.40 NA NA [12] 
M9 M:FW 0.20:0.80 (1) 716.50 0.124 1.62 NA NA [12] 
M10 CM:MBM:CG 0.90:0.10:0.0 (1) 250.00 NA NA 50.00 0.85 [22] 
M11 CM:MBM:CG 0.67:0.33:0.0 (1) 260.00 NA NA 50.00 0.87 [22] 
M12 CM:MBM:CG 0.50:0.50:0.0 (1) 280.00 NA NA 30.00 0.60 [22] 
M13 CM:MBM:CG 0.34:0.66:0.0 (1) 330.00 NA NA 40.00 4.32 [22] 
M14 CM:MBM:CG 0.5:0.37:0.13 (1) 330.00 NA NA 40.00 4.32 [22] 
M15 CM:MBM:CG 0.5:0.25:0.25 (1) 370.00 NA NA 30.00 5.00 [22] 
M16 CM:MBM:CG 0.5:0.13:0.37 (1) 470.00 NA NA 30.00 8.74 [22] 
M17 ASR:OMWW 0.875:0.125 (2) 459.85 NA NA 19.72 10.77 [23] 
M18 ASR:OMWW 0.75:0.25 (2) 348.39 NA NA 9.91 13.14 [23] 
M19 ASR:OMWW 0.50:0.50 (2) 104.09 NA NA 4.99 5.07 [23] 
M20 ASR:OMWW 0.25:0.75 (2) 86.25 NA NA 2.80 4.18 [23] 
M21 ASR:OMWW 0.125:0.875 (2) 24.53 NA NA 1.63 4.83 [23]

(1): Mesophilic

(2): Thermophilic

NA: Not applicable

Finally, the processing of the methane yield values of the additive model included the adjustment of the results with the models (1) or (2) to compare with the adjusted coefficients from the percentage of variation (4).

Where v cal refers to the estimated parameter with the additive model and v exp is the parameter fitted with experimental values.

2.3 Results and discussion

The information collected from the kinetics of the monosubstrates allowed the evaluation of the model (3). Figure 2 presents the curves corresponding to the cases analyzed.

Figure 2(A) presents a similar behavior of the additive model and the experimental data without synergistic or antagonistic effects. In Figure 2(B), all the experimental curves place their maximum methane yields above those estimated by the models, which indicates a synergistic effect on the total methane production. Figures 2(C) and 2(D) present the modeled curves and the experimental data with different adaptation times and maximum methane yields. Table 3 presents the adjustment coefficients of the Cone (M1-M9) and modified Gompertz (M10-M21) models with the data obtained with the additive model, and their variation in relation to the experimental data.

Brown [32] considers that a variation of 30% is indicative of differences; this research considered coefficient variations from 10%. Although, negative coefficients of variation denote an increase in the experimental value, the analysis depends on the physical meaning of each parameter. Whereby, negative values of the coefficients B 0 , k, and R m , refer to synergistic effects. In the case of the coefficients n and λ, negative values ​​of the coefficient of variation indicate antagonistic effects.

According to El-Mashad [10], none of the mixes (M1-M4) presented synergistic or antagonistic effects and indicated the limitation of the hydrolysis process due to the content of structural carbohydrates of the SG (37% cellulose, 26.3% de hemicellulose, and 18.1% lignin), and their low protein content in comparison with the SP (8-16% carbohydrates and 46-71% proteins). The low methane production is due to the high content of lignin (24.9%). In the cases of mixtures M1-M4, the variations of B 0 , are lower than 10%; however, there are larger variations: 10% for k and n. Therefore, despite no synergistic or antagonistic effect on methane yield, there were effects on the reaction rate.

ACoD kinetics of experimental substrates (markers) and kinetics defined by the additive model (lines). (A) [10], (B) [12], (C) [22], (D) [23]

Figure 2: ACoD kinetics of experimental substrates (markers) and kinetics defined by the additive model (lines). (A) [10], (B) [12], (C) [22], (D) [23]

The shape factor (n) in M3 and M4 varied by 20%, referring to an early elevation of experimental data compared to the modeled curve. In addition, the thermophilic regime influenced the solubility and availability of nutrients. The variation of the values of n and k in the mixture M4 caused a displacement of the model, represented by the maximum methane yield after the experimental data.

In M5-M9 mixtures, [12] reported an increase in B 0 . In comparison with the model, the coefficient of maximum methane yield had a negative variation, with values between -21 to -43%, which denotes a synergistic effect. Zhen, Lu [12] attributes the synergistic effects in the mixtures to: (i) the high biodegradable fraction presented by the FW; and (ii) the increase in microbial load and diversity promoted the breakdown of the microalgae cell wall and biodegradability. The coefficients resulting from the additive model of the mixtures M5 and M9 present variations of the coefficients k and n. In the M5, M7, and M9 mixtures, a decrease is observed in their corresponding experimental values of k with a variation of 142.85%, 6.87%, and 4.83%, respectively. A high value of k did not imply higher methane productivity.

Regarding the coefficient n, only the M5 mixture decreased by 88.57%, reflected in the experimental curve that rises before the modeled curve. However, a higher fraction M in the mixture concerning FW reduced the form factor by half the estimated.

Andriamanohiarisoamanana, Saikawa [22] reported synergistic effects for mixtures M10-M16 on methane yield. Regarding the model, the binary mixtures M10-M13 (CM:MBM), increased the methane yield when the proportion of CM was higher than 67% in the mixture. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, Saikawa [22] considered that these effects were due to the low C/N ratio, mainly in the binary mixtures containing CM and MBM. This caused a decrease in the methane production rate and an increase in the lag phase time. In the M14-M16 mixtures, the increase in the C/N ratio by means of the addition of CG, increased the experimental values by 20% with respect to the estimated values of B 0 and R m . However, the increases in the lag phase time persisted with variations between 4 to 8 days.

Table 3:
Comparison of the adjusted kinetic coefficients

*NA: Not applicable

The M17-M21 mixtures presented increases in methane yields, with variations from 17% to 78%.

Maamri and Amrani [23] attribute the synergistic effect resulting from the increase in nutrients and trace elements by OMWW, which favored enzymatic processes. As in the previous cases, the starting point is the synergistic effect attributed to the C/N ratio. There are negative effects on the methane production rate, due to the oleic acid concentration present in OMWW; a prolonged lag phase time is also observed, due to the presence of polyphenolic compounds and long-chain fatty acids present in OMWW.

3. Conclusions

The literature analyzed related the synergistic and antagonistic effects directly to the methane yield. The methane yield kinetics obtained by means of the additive model makes it possible to establish that the mixture of substrates also influences lag phase times, methane production rates, and the first order constant.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Universidad Tecnológica de La Habana José Antonio Echeverría (Cuba) and Universidad Técnica de Manabí (Ecuador), for the support provided to this work that belongs to the research project entitled: “Estimación del rendimiento de metano en mezclas de residuos orgánicos”

References

  1. (). Driving commerce to the web-corporate intranets and the internet: Lines blur. Communications Week 6(19)
  2. , , , , (). Synergistic methane production from the anaerobic co-digestion of spirulina platensis with food waste and sewage sludge at high solid concentrations. Renewable Energy 142
  3. , , (). Enhanced methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and hydrilla verticillata and its kinetic analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 125
  4. , , , , (). Kinetic study of anaerobic co-digestion, analysis and modelling. Procedia Manufacturing 35
  5. , , , , (). Anaerobic co-digestion of commercial food waste and dairy manure: Characterizing biochemical parameters and synergistic effects. Waste Management 52
  6. , , , (). Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of model organic wastes: Evaluation of biomethane production and multiple kinetic models analysis. Bioresource Technology 280
  7. , , (). Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, human feces, and toilet paper: Methane potential and synergistic effect. Fuel 248
  8. , , , , (). Biogas production and synergistic correlations of systematic parameters during batch anaerobic digestion of corn straw. Renewable Energy 132
  9. , , , , (). Anaerobic digestion of food waste - challenges and opportunities. Bioresource Technology 247
  10. (). Kinetics of methane production from the codigestion of switchgrass and spirulina platensis algae. Bioresource Technology 132
  11. , , , (). Feasibility study of waste (d) potential: co-digestion of organic wastes, synergistic effect and kinetics of biogas production. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 15(5)
  12. , , , , (). Anaerobic co-digestion on improving methane production from mixed microalgae (scenedesmus sp., chlorella sp.) and food waste: Kinetic modeling and synergistic impact evaluation. Chemical Engineering Journal 299
  13. , (). . . .
  14. , (). . . Switzerland, AG: Springer, Cham.. .281-299.
  15. , , , , (). A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion: Research updates and tendencies. Bioresource Technology 247
  16. , , , (). Chapter two - anaerobic digestion modelling. Advances in Bioenergy 2
  17. , , , , (). Effects of organic composition on the anaerobic biodegradability of food waste. Bioresource Technology 243
  18. , , , (). Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion of food waste: A comparison with single-stage digestions based on performance and energy balance. Bioresource Technology 249
  19. , (). Synergistic effect in anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and dairy manure - a batch kinetic study. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 41(17)
  20. , , , (). Identification of synergistic impacts during anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes. Bioresource Technology 169
  21. , , , , (). Addressing the synergy determination in anaerobic co-digestion and the inoculum activity impact on bmp test. Water Science &. Technology 80(2)
  22. , , , , (). Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, meat and bone meal, and crude glycerol under mesophilic conditions: Synergistic effect and kinetic studies. Energy for Sustainable Development 40
  23. , (). Evaluation and modelling of methane yield efficiency from co-digestion of waste activated sludge and olive mill wastewater. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 17(2)
  24. , , , , (). Kinetic modelling and synergistic impact evaluation for the anaerobic co-digestion of distillers’ grains and food waste by ethanol pre-fermentation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25
  25. , , , , (). Synergism and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid concentrations during food waste and pig manure anaerobic co-digestion. Waste Management 56
  26. , , , , (). Synergistic effect and biodegradation kinetics of sewage sludge and food waste mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion and the underlying stimulation mechanisms. Fuel 253
  27. , , , , (). Modeling the anaerobic co-digestion of solid waste: From batch to semi-continuous simulation. Bioresource Technology 274
  28. , , , , (). Anaerobic co-digestion: A critical review of mathematical modelling for performance optimization. Bioresource Technology 222
  29. , , , , (). Kinetic studies on organic degradation and its impacts on improving methane production during anaerobic digestion of food waste. Applied Energy 213
  30. , , , , (). Anaerobic co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse wastes with agro-residues: Synergistic and antagonistic interactions determined in batch digestion assays. Chemical Engineering Journal 245
  31. , , , (). . , ed. . .357-392.
  32. (). . . .
* Data Availability Statement: the authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
** CITE THIS ARTICLE AS: N. B. Montesdeoca-Pichucho, K. Garibaldi-Alcívar, R. J. Baquerizo-Crespo, Y. Gómez-Salcedo, O. Pérez-Ones and I. Pereda-Reyes. ”Synergistic and antagonistic effects in anaerobic co-digestion. Analysis of the methane yield kinetics”, Revista Facultad de Ingeniería Universidad de Antioquia, no. 107, pp. 80-87, Apr-Jun 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.20220473
Funding: this work was supported by the Universidad Técnica de Manabí (PYTDOC1796-2019-FCMFQ0025)