Review of Mathematical Models for the Anaerobic Digestion Process

Velázquez‐Martí, Borja; Quelal, Washington Orlando Meneses; Gaibor‐Chávez, Juan; Niño, Zulay

doi:10.5772/intechopen.80815

Cited by 30 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The kinetic of methane production in a reactor can be conveniently represented by a modified Gompertz function (Díaz et al, 2011; Velázquez‐Martí et al, 2018). Following Lay et al (1997) a modified three‐parameter Gompertz equation (Equation 1) was applied in this study to describe the dynamic of CH 4 production.

M_{()(, t)} = M_{truemax} \exp \{‐ \exp [(\frac{{eR}_{truemax}}{M_{truemax}}) (λ ‐ t) + 1]\},

where M (t) (ml CH 4 ‐STP g −1 VS) is the cumulative amount of CH 4 produced, in standard conditions for temperature and pressure (STP); t (days) is the elapsed time; M max (ml CH 4 g −1 VS) is the maximum cumulative CH 4 production; e (exp) is the Euler's number; R max (ml CH 4 day −1 g −1 VS) is the maximum CH 4 daily production rate; and λ is the lag time duration (days), that is the time of microbial adaptation before exponential CH 4 production begins.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass and methane yield of giant reed (Arundo donaxL.) as affected by single and double annual harvest

Ceotto

Vasmara²,

Marchetti³

et al. 2021

GCB Bioenergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The replacement of silage maize with giant reed as energy crop has been proposed as a mean for reducing the need of irrigation water as well as monetary and environmental costs of cultivation. Little is known about giant reed response to within‐season harvesting, and its effect on the methane production in anaerobic digestion. The effect of three harvest schedules on yield, biomass composition and methane production of giant reed was evaluated at one site of the Po Valley, northern Italy, for three consecutive years. In a completely randomized block design with four replicates the treatments applied annually were: (i) double harvest 1: first cut at the end of June + second cut at the beginning of October (DH1); (ii) double harvest 2: first cut at the end of July + second cut at the beginning of October (DH2); (iii) single harvest at the beginning of October (SH). The crop stand was established in the year 2015 and treatments were repeatedly applied in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. The SH treatment determined the highest average annual dry matter (DM) yield (59.0 Mg DM ha−1). The DM yield for treatments with double harvest was significantly lower, that is, −30% for DH1 and −15% for DH2. In terms of specific methane yield there was little advantage in harvesting biomass twice during the growing season. The average specific methane yield varied substantially between years (i.e. from 144 to 233 ml CH4 g−1 VS), and in every year the values tended to decrease with the ageing of harvested biomass. Methane yield per hectare, however, was driven by DM yield, thus SH also determined the highest average value (9110 m3 CH4‐STP ha−1). In conclusion, the single annual harvest at the end of the growing season is an ideal strategy for maximizing methane production from giant reed.

show abstract

M_{()(, t)} = M_{truemax} \exp \{‐ \exp [(\frac{{eR}_{truemax}}{M_{truemax}}) (λ ‐ t) + 1]\},

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomass and methane yield of giant reed (Arundo donaxL.) as affected by single and double annual harvest

Ceotto

Vasmara²,

Marchetti³

et al. 2021

GCB Bioenergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, the VS concentration of animal manure from the analyzed data is not so high, which means that the average ranges for the production of pretreated methane from cow, pig and poultry manure are 238, 271 and 328 mL/g VS, respectively. According to Velázquez et al [110], substrates with low, medium and high methane production are characterized by having productions between 150 and 300 mL/g VS, between 300 and 400 mL/g VS, and more than 450 mL/g VS, respectively. In this research, the average methane production of cow and pig manure corresponds to a low production, while the methane production of poultry corresponds to an average production.…”

Section: Effect Of Pretreatments On Cow Pig and Poultry Manurementioning

confidence: 99%

Pretreatment of Animal Manure Biomass to Improve Biogas Production: A Review

Quelal

Velázquez‐Martí

2020

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this research is to present a review of the current technologies and pretreatments used in the fermentation of cow, pig and poultry manure. Pretreatment techniques were classified into physical, chemical, physicochemical, and biological groups. Various aspects of these different pretreatment approaches are discussed in this review. The advantages and disadvantages of its applicability are highlighted since the effects of pretreatments are complex and generally depend on the characteristics of the animal manure and the operational parameters. Biological pretreatments were shown to improve methane production from animal manure by 74%, chemical pretreatments by 45%, heat pretreatments by 41% and physical pretreatments by 30%. In general, pretreatments improve anaerobic digestion of the lignocellulosic content of animal manure and, therefore, increase methane yield.

show abstract

“…Finally, the methane productions generated by camelids correspond to a medium‐high range according to the literature. Velázquez et al 100 . reported that methane productions of 150–300, 300–450, more than 450 mL CH 4 /g VS corresponds to a low, medium, and high classification respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the co‐digestion of agricultural lignocellulosic residues with manure from South American camelids

Meneses-Quelal

Gaibor‐Chávez

Niño

2021

Biofuels Bioprod Bioref

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the effects of the co‐digestion of agricultural residues with manure from camelids from the Andean zone. Different combinations of llama manure (LM) and vicuñas (VM) were made with amaranth (AS), quinoa (QS), and wheat (WS) residues. They were fermented using sewage sludge as inoculum. The co‐digestion was evaluated under mesophilic conditions for 40 days. The ratios of volatile substances of substrate / co‐substrate evaluated were 0:100; 25:75; 50:50, 75:25, and 100:0. Two substrate / inoculum ratios (SIR 1:1 and SIR1:2) were also evaluated. The results indicate that the maximum methane accumulation rate is obtained in SIR 1:1 for a VM‐AS ratio (25:75) with 540 mL/g volatile solid (VS). In general, the results did not increase with the increase in inoculum; rather, the tendency to improve methane yield is associated with an increase in the amount of agricultural residues, mainly AS. Regarding the kinetic modeling, the transfer model is the one that best adjusted the predicted values to those observed with an r2 between 0.991 and 0.999, and an RMSE value between 2.06 and 13.62 mL/g (volatile solid) VS. Finally, all the trials presented synergistic effects in their co‐digestion except the digesters formed by LM‐AS, LM‐QS and LM‐WS of SIR 1:2. These presented antagonistic effects in which the addition of the co‐substrate generated competition with the substrates, reducing methane production. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

show abstract

Review of Mathematical Models for the Anaerobic Digestion Process

Cited by 30 publications

References 39 publications

Biomass and methane yield of giant reed (Arundo donaxL.) as affected by single and double annual harvest

Biomass and methane yield of giant reed (Arundo donaxL.) as affected by single and double annual harvest

Pretreatment of Animal Manure Biomass to Improve Biogas Production: A Review

Effect of the co‐digestion of agricultural lignocellulosic residues with manure from South American camelids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About