Advertisement

Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 336–344 | Cite as

Anaerobic co-digestion of hydrolysate from alkali pre-treated oil palm empty fruit bunches with biodiesel waste glycerol

  • Orathai Chavalparit
  • Setta Sasananan
  • Pratin Kullavanijaya
  • Chalermchon Charoenwuttichai
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 183 Downloads

Abstract

With an attempt to utilize bio-waste, oil palm empty fruit bunches (OPEFB) were investigated as feedstock for biogas production. Bench scale experiments were carried out employing a two-stage process for the digestion of pre-treated OPEFB with and without the addition of biodiesel waste glycerol (WG). Two continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTR) were operated for acid and methane production. Alkali pre-treated OPEFB were initially acidified to produce an acid hydrolysate solution. Different proportions of WG, between 0.4 and 0.8% (by volume of feed), were increased stepwise. The results indicated that the acidification of these pre-treated brunches generated approximately 4.25 g/L of volatile fatty acid at an optimum pre-treatment condition with soaking in 2% of NaOH for 48 h. This was an increase of 47% compared to the acidification of raw OPEFB. The maximum methane production was achieved with the addition of 0.4% WG, which yielded a gas production of 0.542 and 0.369 L g CODrem biogas and methane, respectively. These conditions can improve the gas yield of biogas and methane by a factor of 1.67 and 2.84, respectively. However, a higher supplementation of WG seemed to promote more instability, which was reflected by a lower methane concentration and organic removal efficiency.

Keywords

Alkali pre-treatment Biodiesel waste glycerin Co-digestion OPEFB Anaerobic digestion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund (2016), Chulalongkorn University (CU-59-002-IC).

References

  1. 1.
    Wangrakdiskul U, Yodpijit N (2015) Trends analysis and future of sustainable palm oil in Thailand. Int J Appl Sci Technol 8:21–32Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    USDA (2012) Thailand biofuels annual 2012 foreign agricultural service, global agricultural information networkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chavalparit O, Ongwandee M, Trangkaprasith K (2013) Production of pelletized fuel from biodiesel-production wastes: oil palm fronds and crude glycerin. Eng J 17:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelly-Yong TL, Lee KT, Mohamed AR, Bhatia S (2007) Potential of hydrogen from oil palm biomass as a source of renewable energy worldwide. Energy Policy 35:5692–5701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raghareutai T, Chavalparit O, Ongwandee M (2010) Development of environmental sustainability for the biodiesel industry in Thailand. Int J Sust Dev World 17(5):363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan HT, Lee KT, Mohamed AR (2010) Second-generation bio-ethanol (SGB) from Malaysian palm empty fruit bunch: energy and exergy analyses. Bioresour Technol 101:5719–5727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sudiyani Y (2009) Utilization of biomass waste empty fruit bunch fiber of palm oil for bioethanol production. In: Research workshop on Sustainable biofuel, Jakarta, Indonesia, pp 4–5Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piarpuzán D, Quintero JA, Cardona CA (2011) Empty fruit bunches from oil palm as a potential raw material for fuel ethanol production. Biomass Bioenerg 35(3):1130–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yacob S, Shirai Y, Hassan MA, Wakisaka M, Subash S (2005) Baseline study of methane emission from open digesting tank of palm oil mill effluent. Chemosphere 59:1578–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chavalparit O, Rulkens HW, Mol APJ, Khaodhiar S (2006) Options for environmental sustainability of the crude palm oil industry in thailand through environment of industrial ecosystem. Environ Dev Sustain 8(2):271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Purwandari FA, Sanjaya AP, Millati R, Cahyanto MN, Horváth IS, Niklasson C, Taherzadeh MJ (2013) Pretreatment of oil palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) by Nmethylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) for biogas production: structural changes and digestion improvement. Bioresour Technol 128:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu Y, Park B, Hwang S (2004) Co-digestion of lignocellulosics with glucose using thermophilic acidogens. Biochem Eng J 18:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Speece RE (1996) Anaerobic biotechnology for industrial wastewater. (TN) Archae Press, Nashville, p 394Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nieves DC, Karimi K, Horvth IS (2011) Improvement of biogas production from oil palm empty fruit bunches (OPEFB). Ind Crops Prod 34:1097–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O-Thong S, Boe K, Angelidaki I (2012) Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of oil palm empty fruit bunches with palm oil mill effluent for efficient biogas production. Appl Energ 93:648–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    She P, Jahim J, Harun S (2013) Enhancement of batch biohydrogen production from prehydrolysate of acid treated oil palm empty fruit bunch. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38(22):9592–9599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rebecca AS, Chen Y, Ratna RSS, Michael DB, Jason O (2007) A comparison of chemical pretreatment methods for improving saccharification of cotton stalks. Bioresour Technol 98:3000–3011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Macias-Corral M, Samani Z, Hanson A, Smith G, Funk P, Yu H, Longworth J (2008) Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresour Technol 99(17):8288–8293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Mashad HM, Zhang R (2010) Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour Technol 101(11):4021–4028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen G, Zheng Z, Yang S, Fang C, Zou X, Zhang J (2010) Improving conversion of Spartina alterniflora into biogas by co-digestion with cow feces. Fuel Process Technol 91(11):1416–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Diaz JP, Reyes IP, Lundin M, Horvath IS (2011) Co-digestion of different waste mixtures from agro-industrial activities; kinetic evaluation and synergetic effects. Bioresour Technol 102:10834–10840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li C, Champagne P, Anderson BC (2014) Anaerobic co-digestion of municipal organic wastes and pre-treatment to enhance biogas production from waste. Water Sci Technol 69(2):443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Astals S, Nolla-Ardevol V, Mata-Alvarez J (2012) Anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate. Bioresour Technol 110:11063–11070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Bodiroza V, Potsch E, Zollitsch W (2006) Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of manure: effects of dairy systems and of glycerine supplementation. Int Congr 1293:217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alvarez JA, Otero L, Lema JM (2010) The methodology for optimizing feed composition for anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial waste. Bioresour Technol 101:1153–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lovato G, Ratusznei SM, Rodrigues JAD (2016) Co-digestion of whey with glycerine in an AnSBBR for biomethane production. Appl Biochem Biotech 178:126–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kacprzak A, Krzystek L, Ledakowicz S (2010) Co-digestion of agricultural and industrial wastes. Chem Pap 64(2):127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fountoulakis MS, Petousi I, Manios T (2010) Co-digestion of sewage sludge with glycerol to boost biogas production. Waste Manage 30(10):1849–1853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holm-Nielsen JB, Lomborg CJ, Oleskowicz-Popiel P, Esbensen KH (2007) Online near infrared monitoring of glycerol-boosted anaerobic digestion processes: evaluation of process analytical technologies. Biotechnol Bioeng 99:302–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association (APHA). Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    TAPPI Press (1991) T 230 om-88, Viscosity of pulp. In: Fibrous materials and pulp testing. TAPPI test methods, Vol. 1. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Babel S, Fukushi K, Sitanrassamee B (2004) Effect of acid speciation on solid waste liquefaction in an anaerobic acid digester. Water Res 38(9):2417–2423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feijoo G, Soto M, Mendez R, Lema JM (1995) Sodium inhibition in the anaerobic digestion process: antagonism and adaptation phenomina. Enzyme Microb Tech 17:180–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Phukingngam D, Chavalparit O, Dararat S, Ongwandee M (2011) Anaerobic baffled reactor treatment of biodiesel-processing wastewater with high strength of methanol and glycerol: reactor performance and biogas production. Chem Pap 65(5):644–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Orathai Chavalparit
    • 1
    • 2
  • Setta Sasananan
    • 3
  • Pratin Kullavanijaya
    • 1
  • Chalermchon Charoenwuttichai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.Research Unit of Environmental Management and Sustainable Industry (EMSI), Faculty of EngineeringChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  3. 3.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringSrinakharinwirot UniversityOngkharakThailand

Personalised recommendations