Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 6458–6463
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /bior tech
Feasibility of biogas production from anaerobic co-digestionof herbal-extraction residues with swine manure
Yan Li a,b, Xi-Luan Yan a, Jie-Ping Fan a, Jian-Hang Zhu a,⇑, Wen-Bin Zhou a,⇑a Centre for Low-Carbon Biotechnology, School of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, Chinab State Key Laboratory of Food Science and Technology, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330047, China
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 16 February 2011Received in revised form 27 March 2011Accepted 29 March 2011Available online 2 April 2011
Keywords:Herbal-extraction residuesSwine manureAnaerobic co-digestionBiogas
0960-8524/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.03.093
⇑ Corresponding authors.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.-H. Zhu)
Zhou).
a b s t r a c t
The objective of this work was to examine the feasibility of biogas production from the anaerobicco-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure. Batch and semi-continuous experimentswere carried out under mesophilic anaerobic conditions. Batch experiments revealed that the highestspecific biogas yield was 294 mL CH4 g�1 volatile solids added, obtained at 50% of herbal-extraction res-idues and 3.50 g volatile solids g�1 mixed liquor suspended solids. Specific methane yield from swinemanure alone was 207 mL CH4 g�1 volatile solid added d�1 at 3.50 g volatile solids g�1 mixed liquor sus-pended solids. Furthermore, specific methane yields were 162, 180 and 220 mL CH4 g�1 volatile solidsadded d�1 for the reactors co-digesting mixtures with 10%, 25% and 50% herbal-extraction residues,respectively. These results suggested that biogas production could be enhanced efficiently by the anaer-obic co-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure.
� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Biomass is an abundant and renewable energy source whichcould be derived from all organic materials produced by humanand natural activities, including industrial wastes, municipal solidwastes, forestry wastes as well as agricultural wastes (Berndeset al., 2003; Wang and Keshwani, 2009). Among them, herbal-extraction residues (HER) is a specific kind of agricultural wastedue to the major importance of the Chinese herbal medicine indus-try in China (Wang et al., 2010). With the rapid development of theChinese herbal medicine industry, about 1.5 million tons of solidwastes, according to statistics, were produced annually after theextraction of medical active components from natural plants(Cheng and Liu, 2010). Because of its abundance in cellulose, hemi-celluloses, lignin as well as proteins, HER could be employed as arenewable energy source. Its environmentally friendly exploitationbecomes an important topic due to the increase in environmentalpollution and the shortage of energy resource. In addition, thereis little information in the literature about biogas digested fromHER or co-digested from the mixture of HER with other biomasses.
Anaerobic co-digestion has been defined as the treatment of amixture of at least two different biomasses with the aim of improv-ing process efficiencies (Álvarez et al., 2010). Nowadays, there is anincreasing interest in using anaerobic co-digestion process treating
ll rights reserved.
, [email protected] (W.-B.
industrial and agricultural organic wastes and swine manure forbiogas production (Kaparaju and Rintala, 2005; Riaño et al.,2011; Wu et al., 2010). The advantages of anaerobic co-digestionprocess often lie in balancing the carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio inthe mixture, macro and micronutrients, pH, inhibitors/toxic com-pounds as well as dry matter (Hartmann et al., 2003). Thus, themanure specific methane production potential could be improvedby co-digestion with other agro-residues (Chae et al., 2008;Lansing et al., 2010; Riaño et al., 2011). Moreover, the anaerobicdigestion of agro-residues is often associated with poor bufferingcapacity during anaerobic treatment and its inherent high C/N ra-tio. Anaerobic co-digestion of them with swine manure could over-come these problems by maintaining a stable pH within themethanogenesis range due to the inherent high buffering capacityof swine manure (Banks and Humphreys, 1998). Additionally,swine manure could present high ammonia content and a widevariety of nutrients needed by the methanogens during the anaer-obic process (Cheng, 2009). From another point of view, the co-digestion of agro-residues with swine manures would also aid inovercoming ammonia inhibition related to the digestion of pureswine manure. However, it is unclear whether some agro-residues,e.g., HER, might have adverse effects when added into a stabledigester for swine manure.
The objective of the present work was to investigate the feasi-bility of developing anaerobic co-digestion of HER with swinemanure for efficient biogas production. Batch experiments werecarried out based on a Central Composite Design. The influenceof the percentage of HER in the substrate and the substrate/inocula
Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 6458–6463 6459
ratio were evaluated in terms of methane yield. Finally, the effectof the feed component ratio of HER to swine manure on processperformance was investigated in a semi-continuously fed stirredtank reactor (CSTR) under mesophilic anaerobic conditions.
2. Methods
2.1. Origin of HER, swine manure and inocula
The HER investigated in this study was obtained from Jiangz-hong herbal medicine group (Jiangxi, China). Swine manure wasobtained from a pig farm (Jiangxi Evergreen Biotechnology Co.,Ltd.) located in Fengcheng (Jiangxi, China). The anaerobic sludgeused as inocula was collected from the anaerobic biogas digesterin Jiangxi Evergreen Biotechnology Co., Ltd., the mixed liquid sus-pended solids (MLSS) and pH value of which were 21 ± 1.3 g L�1
and 7.19 ± 0.6, respectively. The substrates and inocula were indi-vidually homogenized and subsequently stored at 4 �C for furtheruse. The characterization of each waste employed was shown inTable 1. All samples were collected in triplicate, and the averageddata of the measurements were presented.
2.2. Batch experiments
Batch experiments were carried out at 35 ± 2 �C for 30 daysbased on a Central Composite Design, which is a second order fac-torial design used when the number of runs for a full factorial de-sign is too large to be practical (Box and Wilson, 1951). This type offactorial design usually consists of a 2k factorial nucleus, five repli-cates of the central point and 2�k axial points, where k is the num-ber of factors evaluated. More specifically, in the present study thetwo factors selected were the solid concentration (SC), measured in
Table 1Composition of the substrates in batch experiments and semi-continuous digestion: herba
Parameters Batch experiments
HER SM
TOC (g kg�1) 164.8 ± 5.2 81.2VS (%) 32.2 ± 1.6 23.5TKN (g kg�1) 4.50 ± 0.17 5.64C/N ratio* 36.6 14.4pH value 5.69 ± 0.14 7.78Moisture content (%) 58.30 ± 1.20 70.8
* C/N ratio was defined as the ratio of TOC to TKN.
Table 2Codified, real values and responses for swine manure co-digestion with HER in batch exp
Treatmentsa Codified values Real values
SC (g VS g�1 MLSS) %HER SC (g VS g�1
T1 0 �1.4142 3.50T2 0 0 3.50T3 1 �1 5.20T4 1 1 5.20T5 0 1.4142 3.50T6 �1.4142 0 5.90T7 �1 1 1.80T8 0 0 3.50T9 0 0 3.50T10 �1 �1 1.80T11 0 0 3.50T12 1.4142 0 1.10T13 0 0 3.50
a Data are means of three replicates, except T2, T8, T9, T11 and T13 were performedb The unit is ml CH4 g�1 VS added.
terms of grams of volatile solid (VS) (g VS)/g of MLSS (g MLSS) ra-tio, and the percentage of HER in the substrate (% HER), measuredin terms of VS of HER in relation to the organic carbon of the feed.The selected range for factor one (SC) was 1.1–5.9 g VS g�1 MLSS.The selected range for factor two (% HER) was 0–100%. Factorial de-sign levels were codified from �1 to +1. The central point was rep-licated five times in order to estimate experimental error. Axialpoints ensure design rotatability and their distance to the centralpoint (a) was calculated according to Eq. (1).
a ¼ 2k=4 ð1Þ
The selected response for analysis was the methane yield(ml CH4 ml g�1ml VS added), calculated from the methane contentin biogas and the volume of biogas produced from per unit of VSadded. The variables, Xi, were coded as xi according to Eq. (2), suchthat X0 corresponded to the central value:
xi ¼ ðXi � X�i Þ=DXi; where i ¼ 1;2;3; . . . ; k; ð2Þ
where xi is the dimensionless coded value of an independent vari-able, Xi is the actual value of an independent variable for the ith test,X�i is the actual value of an independent variable at the centre pointand DXi is the step change (Chong et al., 2009; Riaño et al., 2011).All the evaluated levels were combined in 13 different treatments(T1–T13). Codified and real values for both factors are presentedin Table 2.
For predicting the optimal point, a second order polynomialfunction (linear regression) was performed Eq. (3):
Y ¼ b0 þ b1X1 þ b2X2 þ b11X21 þ b22X2
2 þ b12X1X2; ð3Þ
where Y represents the predicted response, b0, b1, b2, b11, b22, andb12, are the regression coefficients. X1 and X2 are the evaluated fac-tors (SC and %HER). The coefficient of determination (R2) was calcu-
l-extraction residue (HER) and swine manure.
Semi-continuous digestion
HER SM
9 ± 3.3 156.8 ± 7.2 71.24 ± 4.2± 1.2 31.9 ± 1.4 20.7 + 1.7± 0.22 4.65 ± 0.23 4.86 ± 0.19
33.7 14.7± 0.21 5.90 ± 0.25 7.59 ± 0.191 ± 1.90 59.20 ± 2.10 72.90 ± 1.70
eriments.
Real responseb Predicted responseb
MLSS) %HER
0.00 207 ± 9 19850.00 294 29414.64 216 ± 5 22985.36 254 ± 11 260
100.00 243 ± 10 24450.00 279 ± 9 28385.36 275 ± 6 27050.00 301 29450.00 297 29414.46 235 ± 12 23750.00 283 29450.00 282 ± 10 27050.00 298 294
once, respectively.
6460 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 6458–6463
lated to achieve the proportion of data variability that is explainedby the model, thus the quality of fit to the model. The p-values ofthe parameter estimation were used to validate the model and p-values less than 0.05 indicate the significant model terms. Multipleregression analysis for the data sets collected was performed usingDesign-Expert 7.1.6 Trial software.
The anaerobic assays were conducted in 29 bottles (500 mL)with an inocula volume of 150 mL and a total liquid volume of375 mL, respectively. All treatments were performed in three rep-licates, except Treatment 2 (T2), T8, T9, T11 and T13 was per-formed in one bottle, respectively. Two blanks containing 150 mLof inocula and 225 mL of distilled water were also run to determinethe endogenous biogas production of the anaerobic sludge. Thebottles were closed with a septum and the headspace flushed withpure N2 to remove the oxygen. The volume of biogas produced wasmeasured using water displacement method.
2.3. Semi-continuous digestion of different mixtures
Semi-continuous co-digestion of HER with swine manure wascarried out in two identical continuously stirred tank reactors(CSTRs) with a total volume of 10 L and a working volume of 7 L,namely R1 and R2. A water bath was used to maintain the temper-ature of the digesters at 35 ± 2 �C. Digesters were mounted sepa-rately on a mechanical stirrer, stirring continuously at 100 rpm.The outlets provided on the top of each digester were used forfeeding influent, withdrawing effluent and for collecting biogas.Biogas was daily measured by displacement of water.
Feeding VS was maintained constant during the whole experi-ment resulting in a VS loading rate of about 2.90 g VS L�1 d�1 underhydraulic retention time (HRT) of 30 days. Varied feeding VS ratiosof HER and swine manure were evaluated. After inoculating the di-gester with 7 L of digested anaerobic sludge, R1 was used to co-di-gest HER with swine manure in a feeding VS ratio of 75% swinemanure and 25% HER, whereas R2 was performed with swine man-ure alone. After 30 days, R1 was fed with swine manure and HER,in a feeding VS ratio of 50% swine manure and 50% HER, whereasthe feed in R2 was made up 90% swine manure and 10% HER.The digesters were fed once a day every weekday. Prior to eachfeeding, a volume equal to the feeding volume was removed tomaintain a constant digester volume. The characteristics of sub-strates are shown in Table 3.
The semi-continuous digestion experiments on R1 and R2 wereperformed two batches, respectively. And the composition of influ-ent and effluent were determined twice a week except the pHwhich was monitored daily. The results from the analysis of eachmixture at steady state were used for evaluating the effect of co-digestion on biogas production efficiency.
2.4. Analyses
Volatile solid (VS), total organic carbon (TOC), total Kjeldahlnitrogen (TKN), and pH (Sartorius basic pH meter PB-10, Germany)were performed in accordance with APHA Standard Methods
Table 3Characteristics of mixed feedstocks at varied different mixture ratio used in CSTR experim
Parameters HER (%)
0 1
Total organic carbon (g L�1) 30.20 ± 2.10 3VS (%) 8.9 ± 0.4 8Total nitrogen (g L�1) 2.10 ± 0.14 1C/N ratio 14.38 1pH value 7.48 ± 0.18 7
(1992). Samples from the beginning and the end of the experimentwere analyzed. All measurements were conducted in triplicate andthe averaged data were presented.
The volume of biogas produced was measured using water dis-placement method. The fraction of CH4 was periodically analyzedby a gas chromatograph (SP6890) provided by Lunan RuihongCompany (Shandong, China) equipped with a thermal conductivitydetector (Ruihong, Shandong, China) and a 2 m stainless steel col-umn (Ruihong, Shandong, China) packed with 5 Å molecular sieves(its pore size is about 5 Å). High purity nitrogen gas (99.99%) wasused as the carrier gas with a flow rate of 30 mL min�1. The tem-peratures of the injection port, oven and detector were 120, 50and 150 �C, respectively. Gas analyses were carried out two tothree times a week during the first 2 weeks of the experiments. A250 ll pressure-locked gas tight syringe (SP-6800A) (Ruihong,Shandong, China) was used for the gas sampling. All measurementswere conducted in triplicate and the averaged data werepresented.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Chemical characteristics of swine manure and HER
There were significant differences in the composition of the twobiomass wastes (Table 1). HER had higher C/N ratios in the range of33.7–36.6, as compared to swine manure, which presented C/N ra-tios in the range of 14.4–14.7. HER, as shown for pH values, wassignificantly acidic, whereas swine manure had a pH value ofaround 7.6. The characterization of the two wastes indicated thatco-digestion of HER with swine manure could be a good solutionto balance C/N ratio, overcoming the problems of digesting bothsubstrates separately.
3.2. Batch experiments
The experimental design data, real responses and predicted re-sponses were presented in Table 2. Regression analyses wereshown in Table 4 and resulted in the following second order poly-nomial Eq. (4):
YCH4 ¼ 294:20� 4:47 � ðSCÞ þ 16:11 � ð%HERÞ � 8:79 � ðSCÞ2
� 36:54 � ð%HERÞ2 � 0:50 � ðSCÞ � ð%HERÞ ð4Þ
The regression showed that the model was significant becausethe Model F-value of 23.30 was greater than the calculated one(0.0003). The determined R2 coefficient obtained was 0.9433,meaning that the model explained 97.15% of the variability data.Although the ‘‘Pred R-squared’’ of 0.7061 is in reasonable agree-ment with the ‘‘Adj R-squared’’ of 0.9028, the ‘‘Lack of Fit F-value’’of 2.51 implies the Lack of Fit is not significant relative to the pureerror. There is a 19.79% chance that a ‘‘Lack of Fit F-value’’ this largecould occur due to noise (Table 5).
Moreover, the 0.7061 correlation coefficient indicated that thecombination of both factors of SC and% HER had high importancein the yield of methane. p-values for the entire model terms were
ent. All parameters were measured in triplicate.
0 25 50
1.91 ± 2.22 33.89 ± 1.81 37.33 ± 2.15.7 ± 0.5 8.8 ± 0.4 8.6 ± 0.6.93 ± 0.09 2.84 ± 0.13 1.56 ± 0.116.54 18.33 23.9.59 ± 0.21 7.42 ± 0.13 7.30 ± 0.24
Table 4Regression of a full quadratic model for methane production.
Factor Coefficient estimate Degree of freedom Standard error 95% CI low 95% CI high VIF
Intercept 294.20 1 4.47 283.63 304.77A–A �4.47 1 3.53 �12.83 3.89 1.00B–B 16.11 1 3.53 7.76 24.47 1.00AB �0.50 1 5.00 �12.32 11.32 1.00A2 �8.79 1 3.79 �17.75 0.17 1.02B2 �36.54 1 3.79 �45.50 �27.58 1.02
Standard deviation = 10.00; R-squared = 0.9433; Adj R-squared = 0.9028; C.V.% = 3.75; Pred R-squared = 0.7061; Adeq precision = 14.118.
Table 5Analysis of variance for the regression model of methane production.
Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean value F prob > F p-Value Significance
Model 11639.45 5 2327.89 23.30 0.0003 SignificantA–A 159.82 1 159.82 1.60 0.2464B–B 2077.28 1 2077.28 20.79 0.0026AB 1.00 1 1.00 0.01 0.9231A2 537.18 1 537.18 5.38 0.0535B2 9286.88 1 9286.88 92.96 <0.0001Residual 699.32 7 99.90Lack of Fit 456.52 3 152.17 2.51 0.1979 Not significantPure error 242.80 4 60.7Cor total 12338.77
Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 6458–6463 6461
lower than 0.0003, except for the quadratic term associated withSC (Table 5), showing %HER and (%HER)2 are more significant mod-el terms, as compared to SC and SC2. As an overall, the second orderpolynomial model fitted the experimental results corresponding tomethane yield quite well. Here, the methane yield could be calcu-lated from the produced biogas volume and methane content inthe biogas.
The averaged methane yield of all treatments (29 bottles) was261.2 mL CH4 g�1 VS added. Methane content was above 58% (datanot shown) for all treatments. The highest specific methane yieldwas 294 mL CH4 g�1 VS added (the mean of five treatments), ob-tained at the value of 3.50 g VS g�1 MLSS and 50% for factors SCand% HER, respectively. The specific methane yield for HER andswine manure alone were 243 (T5) and 207 (T1) mL CH4 g�1 VSadded, respectively, both of which were lower than those obtainedfrom the mixture when HER content was 50%, showing the advan-tages of anaerobic co-digestion of mixed biomass wastes for biogasproduction.
Fig. 1 illustrated the accumulated methane production through-out the co-digestion time for T1, T3, T4, T5, T6 and Tm (the
Fig. 1. Accumulated methane production for HER and swine manure by anaerobicco-digestion in batch tests. All data were measured in triplicate.
accumulated methane production of Tm was the means of T2, T8,T9, T11 and T13), all of which SC were equal to or above3.5 g VS g�1 MLSS. The maximal methane production of 6.19 Lcould be obtained on day 12 for T1 with the 100% of swine manureas the digestion substrate, while the maximal methane productionof 7.25 L was delayed to be observed on day 22 for T5 with 100% ofHER as the digestion substrate. The delayed maximal methane pro-duction might be resulted from the higher C/N ratio of the sub-strate as well as the lower biodegradability of HER (Cheng andLiu, 2010), as compared to swine manure. As also shown inFig. 1, two-stage methane production could be observed when var-ied percentages of HER were co-digested with swine manure. Atthe end of the tests, the stabilization of the methane productionwas not really achieved, so methane production might have beenunderestimated. Meanwhile, all pH values were maintained inthe range of about 7.0, due to the buffer capacity of swine manure,as previously reported (González-Fernández et al., 2008).
With regard to treatments with a constant value for SC of3.50 g VS g�1 MLSS (T1, T5 and Tm), Tm with 50% HER presentedthe average maximum methane yield of 8.25 L on day 30. As com-pared to the anaerobic digestion of HER or swine manure alone, co-digestion of HER with swine manure improved methane produc-tion. As described above, the delayed methane production in Tmmight be due to the low biodegradability, partly resulted fromthe high C/N ratio of HER, as compared to swine manure, leadingto a two-stage production of methane in Tm. On the other hand,as shown in Table 2, with regard to treatments with a constant va-lue for %HER of 50%, a similar methane production level, in therange of 279–294 ml CH4 g�1 VS added, was observed from thethree levels of factor SC, indicated that factor SC seemed not toinfluence methane production obviously.
3.3. Semi-continuous single-stage digestion of different mixtures
Table 6 showed the performance data of CSTR treating the mix-ture of HER with swine manure, indicated that the highest biogasproduction could be achieved when 50% HER was added to themixed feedstock. As also can be seen from Table 6, the biogas pro-duction rate and the specific methane yield of SM alone were762 mL CH4 d�1 and 151 mL CH4 g�1 VS added d�1, respectively,
Table 6Performance data of CSTR treating the mixture of HER with swine manure.
HER%
0 10 25 50
Biogas production rate (mL d�1) 762 ± 14 783 ± 12 853 ± 16 1002 ± 17Methane content (%) 57.3 ± 0.9 60.2 ± 1.1 61.3 ± 1.2 63.8 ± 1.4Specific methane yield (mL g�1 VS added d�1) 151 ± 7 162 ± 6 180 ± 8 220 ± 6TOC reduction (%) 73.2 ± 2.2 62.7 ± 1.9 66.4 ± 2.8 65.7 ± 2.1
6462 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 6458–6463
and these values increased up to 1002 mL CH4 d�1 and220 mL CH4 g�1 VS added d�1 with 50% HER addition. The methanecontent increased from 57.3% with SM alone to 63.8% with a 50%HER addition. When the %HER was within the range of 0–50%,the reactor fed with higher concentrations of HER showed higherbiogas production rates, higher compositions in methane as wellas high specific methane yield. The specific methane yield in-creased 7.3%, 19.2% and 45.7% as compared to that obtained fromthe digestion of swine manure alone when 10%, 25% and 50% ofHER was added, respectively. These results were in accordancewith those found in literature (Amon et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2009;Cavinato et al., 2010; Gelegenis et al., 2007) that indicated thatanaerobic co-digestion could increase CH4 production of manuredigesters, depending on the operating conditions and the co-sub-strates used.
The higher methane yields achieved in co-digestion of HER withSM, as compared with those achieved with SM alone at the sameloading rate in the present study, were apparently due to the high-er methane potential of HER, as demonstrated by batch experi-ments. This high methane potential achieved by the co-digestionof HER was probably due to the high anaerobic biodegradabilityof the cellulose and sugars, the main components of HER. On theother hand, the main components in typical pig manures are carbo-hydrates, hemi-cellulose and cellulose followed by proteins, fatsand lipids and a small amount of lignin (4.4%) and starch (1.6%)(Iannotti et al., 1979). The biodegradability of pig manure has beenreported to be dependent upon the lignin content, which is notonly considered as refractory to anaerobic degradation, but also re-duces the availability of other components, especially cellulose(Gelegenis et al., 2007; González-Fernández et al., 2008; Liuet al., 2009).
Finally, NHþ4 -N concentrations in the present study were far toreach reported toxics levels of >4 g L�1 which would cause ammo-nia inhibition (De Baere et al., 1984; Cheng, 2009). The high con-tent of ammonia in swine manure makes it possible to degradeHER biologically without the addition of external alkalinity andwithout addition of external nitrogen source (Table 1). On theother hand, as reported by previous study, significant increasesin volumetric biogas production can be achieved by adding car-bon rich agricultural residues to the co-digestion process withswine manure (Wu et al., 2010). These authors found that theC:N ratio of 20:1 was the best in terms of biogas productivityin the anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with three cropresidues as an external carbon source. HER addition to swinemanure widened TOC:TKN ratio from 14.38 to 23.9 in 0% HERand 50% HER, respectively (Table 6). As mentioned, in this work,the swine buffer capacity contributed to the stability of theprocess.
Co-digestion in the present study should be considered as a pro-cess for the simultaneous treatment of two different biomasswastes and as a solution for the problems of ammonia inhibitiongenerally encountered during anaerobic digestion of pig manure.However, the process stability and efficiency have not been inves-tigated. Our following works should be focused on the process
optimization, especially in improving process stability via the elu-cidation and regulation of the microbial consortia.
4. Conclusions
Co-digestion of HER with swine manure is very promising forbiogas production. The specific methane yield increased 7.3%,19.2% and 45.7%, as compared to that obtained from swine manurealone when 10%, 25% and 50% HER was added, respectively. More-over, the addition of HER to the anaerobic digestion of swine man-ure increased methane content in the biogas. The results of thepresent laboratory study revealed that the use of HER as co-sub-strate in the anaerobic digestion of swine manure has the advan-tage of balancing the C/N ratio.
References
Álvarez, J.A., Otero, L., Lema, J.M., 2010. A methodology for optimising feedcomposition for anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes. Bioresour.Technol. 101, 1153–1158.
Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Bodiroza, V., Pösh, E., Zollisch, W., 2006.Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of manure: effects of dairysystems and of glycerine supplementation. Int. Congr. Ser. 1293, 217–220.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water andwastewater, 18th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Banks, C.J., Humphreys, P.N., 1998. The anaerobic treatment of ligno-cellulosicsubstrate offering little natural pH buffering capacity. Water Sci. Technol. 38 (4/5), 29–35.
Berndes, G., Hoogwijk, M., van den Broek, R., 2003. The contribution of biomass inthe future global energy supply: a review of 17 studies. Biomass Bioenergy 25,1–28.
Box, G.E.P., Wilson, K.B., 1951. On the experimental attainment of optimumconditions. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B. 13, 1–45.
Cavinato, C., Fatone, F., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., 2010. Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with agro-wastes and energy crops: comparison ofpilot and full scale experiences. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 545–550.
Chae, K.J., Jang, A., Yim, S.K., Kim, I.S., 2008. The effects of digestion temperature andtemperature shock on the biogas yields from the mesophilic anaerobicdigestion of swine manure. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 1–6.
Cheng, J., 2009. Anaerobic digestion for biogas production. In: Cheng, J. (Ed.),Biomass to Renewable Energy Processes. CRC Publisher, NY.
Cheng, X.-Y., Liu, C.-Z., 2010. Enhanced biogas production from herbal-extractionprocess residues by microwave-assisted alkaline pretreatment. J. Chem.Technol. Biotechnol. 85, 127–131.
Chong, M.L., Rahman, N.A., Rahim, R.A., Aziz, S.A., Shirai, Y., Hassan, M.A., 2009.Optimization of biohydrogen production by Clostridium butyricum EB6 frompalm oil mill effluent using response surface methodology. Int. J. HydrogenEnergy 34, 7475–7482.
De Baere, L.A., Devocht, M., Van Assche, P., Verstraete, W., 1984. Influence of highNaCl and NH4Cl salt levels on methanogenic association. Water Res. 18, 543–548.
Gelegenis, J., Georgakakis, D., Angelidaki, I., Mavris, V., 2007. Optimization of biogasproduction by co-digesting whey with diluted poultry manure. Renew. Energy32, 2147–2160.
González-Fernández, C., Nieto-Diez, P.P., León-Cofreces, C., García-Encina, P.A.,2008. Solids and nutrients removals from the liquid fraction of swine slurrythrough screening and flocculation treatment and influence of these processeson anaerobic biodegradability. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6233–6239.
Hartmann, H., Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., 2003. Co-digestion of the organic fractionof municipal waste types. In: Mata-álvarez, J. (Ed.), Biomethanization of theOrganic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes. IWA Publishing, UK.
Iannotti, E.L., Porter, J.H., Fischer, J.R., Sievers, D.M., 1979. Changes in swine manureduring anaerobic digestion. Dev. Ind. Microbiol. 20, 519–529.
Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2005. Anaerobic co-digestion of potato tuber and itsindustrial by-products with pig manure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 43 (2), 175–188.
Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 102 (2011) 6458–6463 6463
Lansing, S., Martin, F., Botero, R.B., Nogueira da Silva, T., Dias da Silva, E., 2010.Methane production in low-cost, unheated, plug-flow digesters treating swinemanure and used cooking grease. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4362–4370.
Liu, K., Tang, Y.-Q., Matsui, T., Morimura, S., Wu, X.-L., Kida, K., 2009. Thermophilicanaerobic co-digestion of garbage, screened swine and dairy cattle manure. J.Biosci. Bioeng. 107, 54–60.
Riaño, B., Molinuevo, B., García-González, M.C., 2011. Potential for methaneproduction from anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with winerywastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 4131–4136.
Wang, Z., Keshwani, D.R., 2009. Biomass resources. In: Cheng, J. (Ed.), Biomass toRenewable Energy Processes. CRC Publisher, NY.
Wang, P., Zhan, S.H., Yu, H.B., Xue, X.F., Hong, N., 2010. The effects of temperatureand catalysts on the pyrolysis of industrial wastes (herb residue). Bioresour.Technol. 101, 3236–3241.
Wu, X., Yao, W.Y., Zhu, J., Miller, C., 2010. Biogas and CH4 productivity by co-digesting swine manure with three crop residues as an external carbon source.Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4042–4047.
