Production of Bio Gas from Vegetable and Flowers Wastes Using Anaerobic Digestion

Article Preview

Abstract:

The present research paper describes about the anaerobic digestion of vegetable (Banana, Cauliflower, potato, and sweet potato) and flower wastes (Rose, sambangi, gulmohar, marigold, golden shower tree, silk tree mimosa) in a 1L capacity of anaerobic digestor using pig manure as an inoculums. The digester was operated in the ratio of 1:1 of substrate to inoculums at RT. The substrate concentrations are varied such as 5%, 7%, and 10% was used and amount of gas produced was analysed using digital pressure gauge. The results obtained showed that, marigold flower had given higher yield of biogas than vegetable wastes and the digestion period was less. The average biogas production potential of withered flowers was observed as 14.36 g/kg in 5 days, where in case of vegetable wastes it was 10.0234 g/kg in 6 days. The study showed that flowers which are available in abundant in India is thrown away within a day, in the environment. These feedstocks are good feed stock for the production of biogas. The generation of biogas from flowers and vegetable waste upholds the concept of waste to wealth in enhancing sustainability of development. The future research work is mainly focused on the characterization of the main component present in the bio-gas using sophisticated instruments.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

803-808

Citation:

Online since:

August 2015

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2015 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] W.F. Owen. Energy in Waste Water Trenrmenr, Prentice-Hall, India. (1982) 21-25.

Google Scholar

[2] Madsen M, Holm-Nielsen JB, Esbensen KH. Monitoring of anaerobic digestion processes: A review perspective. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 3141-3155.

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.04.026

Google Scholar

[3] Song Z, Yang G, Guo Y, Zhang T (2012). Comparison of two chemical pretreatments of rice straw for biogas production by anaerobic digestion. Bio-Resources. 7 (2012) 3223-3236.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.7.3.3223-3236

Google Scholar

[4] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 85(2010) 849-860.

DOI: 10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7

Google Scholar

[5] S.M. Maishanu, M. Musa and A. S Sambo, Nigerian J. Solar. Ener. 9 (1990) 183-194.

Google Scholar

[6] P.R. Bhat, H.N. Chanakya and N.H. Ravindranath, J. Energy Sustainable Dev. 1 (2001) 39-41.

Google Scholar

[7] W. Anunputtikul and S. Rodtong., The Joint International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environmental (SEE), Hua Hin, Thailand. 1, 238- 243 (2004).

Google Scholar

[8] E.E. Nwagbo, I.J. Dioha, M.A. Gulma, Nig. J. Solar Energy. 10 (1991) 145-149.

Google Scholar

[9] A.A. Zuru, H. Saidu, E.A. Odum and O.A. Onuorah, Nig. J. Renewable Energy, 6 (1998) 43-47.

Google Scholar

[10] R. Alvarez, R. Villica and G. Liden, Biomass and Bioenergy. 30 (2006) 66-75.

Google Scholar

[11] E.O. Uzodinma, A.U. Ofoefule, J.I. Eze and N.D. Onwuka, Trends Appl. Sci. Res. 2 (2007), 554-558.

Google Scholar

[12] I.S. Arvanitoyannis and T.H. Varzakas. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nut., 48 (2008) 205-247.

Google Scholar

[13] A.U. Ofoefule and E.O. Uzodinma, Niger. J. Solar Energy, 19 (2008) 57-62.

Google Scholar

[14] A.U. Ofoefule, E.O. Uzodinma and O.D. Onukwuli, Int. J. Phy. Sci. 4(2009) 535-539.

Google Scholar

[15] V.N. Guanaseelan, Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste feedstocks. Biomass and Bioenergy 26 (2004) 389–399.

DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.006

Google Scholar

[16] S.N. Misi, C.F. Forster, Batch co-digestion of multi-component agro-wastes. Bio-resource Technology. 80 (2001) 19-28.

DOI: 10.1016/s0960-8524(01)00078-5

Google Scholar

[17] R.H. Zhang, H.M. El-Mashad, K. Hartman, F. Wang, G. Liu, C. Choate, P. Gamble, Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bio-resource Technology 98 (2007), 929-935.

DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.039

Google Scholar