Anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pulp after acid thermal and alkali thermal pretreatments

  • Halil ŞenolEmail author
  • Ünsal Açıkel
  • Volkan Oda
Original Article


In this study, biogas production was investigated in mesophilic conditions from sugar beet pulp (SBP). In untreated conditions, water dissolution rate was 15.5% and biogas production rate was 168.7 mL/g TS (total solid). Alkaline thermal pretreatments were applied at 100 °C with 3 N NaOH and KOH solutions. Amounts of alkaline and acid were added in an amount equal to 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 30% of the solids in the reactor. Acid thermal pretreatments were applied at 100 °C with 5% (v/v) H2SO4 and HNO3 solutions. The anaerobic digestion (AD) time was shortened by approximately 10 days after pretreatment. The highest biogas yield was 458.4 mL/g TS as a result of KOH thermal pretreatment. In this reactor, soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD) removal was 87.1%, and cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin removals were 32.4%, 28.6%, and 33.5% w/w, respectively. It was observed that the cumulative biogas production (CBP) successfully fitted the modified Richards (MR) model and modified Gompertz (MG) model.


Biogas Anaerobic digestion Alkaline thermal pretreatment Acid thermal pretreatment Modified Richards model Modified Gompertz model 



This study was supported by M-665 (PhD thesis project). Thank you for your contribution to the related institution.

Funding information

The financial support of this study was provided by the scientific research projects unit of the Cumhuriyet University (CUBAP-M-665). We would like to thank you for your contribution to the related institution.


  1. 1.
    Ebner JH, Labatut RA, Rankin MJ, Pronto JL, Gooch CA, Williamson AA, Trabold TA (2015) Lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of an anaerobic codigestion facility processing dairy manure and industrial food waste. J Environ Sci 49(18):11199–11208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Panda SK, Mishra SS, Kayitesi E, Ray RC (2016) Microbial-processing of fruit and vegetable wastes for production of vital enzymes and organic acids: biotechnology and scopes. Environ Res 146:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deublein D, Steinhauser A (2011) Biogas from waste and renewable resources: an introduction. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Şenol H, Elibol EA, Açıkel Ü, Şenol M (2017) Primary biomass sources for biogas production in Turkey. BEU J Sci 6(2):81–92Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stoyanova E, Forsthuber B, Pohn S, Schwarz C, Fuchs W, Bochmann GJB (2014) Reducing the risk of foaming and decreasing viscosity by two-stage anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pressed pulp. Biodegradation 25(2):277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fang C, Boe K, IJWr A (2011) Anaerobic co-digestion of by-products from sugar production with cow manure. Water Res 45(11):3473–3480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rezic T, Oros D, Markovic I, Kracher D, Ludwig R, Santek BJJMB (2013) Integrated hydrolyzation and fermentation of sugar beet pulp to bioethanol. J Microbiol Biotechnol 23(9):1244–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Patinvoh RJ, Osadolor OA, Chandolias K, Horváth IS, Taherzadeh MJ (2017) Innovative pretreatment strategies for biogas production. Bioresour Technol 224:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banks CJ, Lo H-M (2003) Assessing the effects of municipal solid waste incinerator bottom ash on the decomposition of biodegradable waste using a completely mixed anaerobic reactor. Waste Manage Res 21(3):225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demirel B, Yenigün O (2002) Two-phase anaerobic digestion processes: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 77(7):743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang Z, Keshwani DR, Redding AP, Cheng JJJB (2010) Sodium hydroxide pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis of coastal Bermuda grass. Bioresour Technol 101(10):3583–3585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koppar A, Pullammanappallil PJBT (2008) Single-stage, batch, leach-bed, thermophilic anaerobic digestion of spent sugar beet pulp. Bioresour Technol 99(8):2831–2839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aboudi K, Álvarez-Gallego CJ, Romero-García LI (2016) Biomethanization of sugar beet byproduct by semi-continuous single digestion and co-digestion with cow manure. Bioresour Technol 200:311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ziemiński K, Romanowska I, Kowalska-Wentel M, Cyran M (2014) Effects of hydrothermal pretreatment of sugar beet pulp for methane production. Bioresour Technol 166:187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ziemiński K, Kowalska-Wentel M (2015) Effect of enzymatic pretreatment on anaerobic co-digestion of sugar beet pulp silage and vinasse. Bioresour Technol 180:274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zwietering M, Jongenburger I, Rombouts F, Van’t Riet K (1990) Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. J Appl Environ Microbiol 56(6):1875–1881Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    APhA A (1988) WPCF, 1992 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pv VS, Robertson J, BJJods L (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. 74(10):3583–3597Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASTM A (2002) Standard test methods for chemical oxygen demand (dichromate oxygen demand) of waterGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang G, Li C, Ma D, Zhang Z, Xu G (2015) Anaerobic digestion of antibiotic residue in combination with hydrothermal pretreatment for biogas. Bioresour Technol 192:257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Steinmetz RLR, Mezzari MP, da Silva MLB, Kunz A, do Amaral AC, Tápparo DC, Soares HM (2016) Enrichment and acclimation of an anaerobic mesophilic microorganism’s inoculum for standardization of BMP assays. Bioresour Technol 219:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rani RU, Kumar SA, Kaliappan S, Yeom I-T, Banu JR (2012) Low temperature thermo-chemical pretreatment of dairy waste activated sludge for anaerobic digestion process. Bioresour Technol 103(1):415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang Q, Tang L, Zhang J, Mao Z, Jiang L (2011) Optimization of thermal-dilute sulfuric acid pretreatment for enhancement of methane production from cassava residues. Bioresour Technol 102(4):3958–3965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deepanraj B, Sivasubramanian V, Jayaraj S (2017) Effect of substrate pretreatment on biogas production through anaerobic digestion of food waste. Int J Hydrog Energy 42(42):26522–26528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bala R, Gupta GK, Dasgupta BV, Mondal MK (2019) Pretreatment optimisation and kinetics of batch anaerobic digestion of liquidised OFMSW treated with NaOH: models verification with experimental data. J Environ Manage 237:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salehian P, Karimi K, Zilouei H, Jeihanipour A (2013) Improvement of biogas production from pine wood by alkali pretreatment. Bioresour Technol 106:484–489Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taherdanak M, Zilouei H (2014) Improving biogas production from wheat plant using alkaline pretreatment. Fuel 115:714–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Safari A, Karimi K, Shafiei M (2017) Dilute alkali pretreatment of softwood pine: a biorefinery approach. Bioresour Technol 234:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kavitha S, Jayashree C, Kumar SA, Kaliappan S, Banu JR (2014) Enhancing the functional and economical efficiency of a novel combined thermo chemical disperser disintegration of waste activated sludge for biogas production. Bioresour Technol 173:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kim M, Kim B-C, Nam K, Choi Y (2018) Effect of pretreatment solutions and conditions on decomposition and anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass in rice straw. Biochem Eng J 140:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Patowary D, Baruah D Products(2018) Effect of combined chemical and thermal pretreatments on biogas production from lignocellulosic biomasses. Ind Crops Prod 124:735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang D, Ai P, Yu L, Tan Z, Zhang Y (2015) Comparing the hydrolysis and biogas production performance of alkali and acid pretreatments of rice straw using two-stage anaerobic fermentation. J Biosyst Eng 132:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ormaechea P, Castrillón L, Suárez-Peña B, Megido L, Fernández-Nava Y, Negral L, Marañón E, Rodríguez-Iglesias (2018) Enhancement of biogas production from cattle manure pretreated and/or co-digested at pilot-plant scale. Characterization by SEM. Renew Energ 126:897–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benesty J, Chen J, Huang Y, Cohen I (2009) Pearson correlation coefficient. In: Noise reduction in speech processing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Işik M, Sponza DT (2005) Substrate removal kinetics in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor decolorising simulated textile wastewater. Process Biochem 40(3-4):1189–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Syaichurrozi I, Rusdi R, Dwicahyanto S, Toron YS (2016) Biogas production from co-digestion vinasse waste and tofu-prosessing waste water and knetics. Int J Renew Energy Res 6(3):1057–1070Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Syaichurrozi I, Villta PK, Nabilah N, Rusdi R (2019) Effect of sulfuric acid pretreatment on biogas production from Salvinia molesta. J Environ Chem Eng, 7(1), 102857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ware A, Power N (2016) What is the effect of mandatory pasteurisation on the biogas transformation of solid slaughterhouse wastes? Waste Manage 48:503–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noori NA, Ismail ZZ (2019) Process optimization of biogas recovery from giant reed (Arundo donax) alternatively pretreated with acid and oxidant agent: experimental and kinetic study. Biomass Convers Biorefin:1–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Genetic and BioengineeringGiresun UniversityGiresunTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringCumhuriyet UniversitySivasTurkey
  3. 3.Finance Program DepartmentGiresun UniversityGiresunTurkey

Personalised recommendations