Submit a Manuscript

European Journal of Sustainable Development Research

Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model
Srigan Moharir 1 * , Ameya Bondre 1, Salil Vaidya 1, Parth Patankar 1, Yashraj Kanaskar 1, Hemlata Karne 1
More Detail
1 Vishwakarma Institute of Technology, Pune, INDIA
* Corresponding Author
Full Text (PDF)
Research Article

European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 2020 - Volume 4 Issue 4, Article No: em0141
https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550

Published Online: 26 Sep 2020

Views: 1203 | Downloads: 584

Open Access
How to cite this article
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Moharir et al., 2020)
Reference: Moharir, S., Bondre, A., Vaidya, S., Patankar, P., Kanaskar, Y., & Karne, H. (2020). Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 4(4), em0141. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Moharir S, Bondre A, Vaidya S, Patankar P, Kanaskar Y, Karne H. Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model. EUR J SUSTAIN DEV RES. 2020;4(4):em0141. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Moharir S, Bondre A, Vaidya S, Patankar P, Kanaskar Y, Karne H. Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model. EUR J SUSTAIN DEV RES. 2020;4(4), em0141. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
Chicago
In-text citation: (Moharir et al., 2020)
Reference: Moharir, Srigan, Ameya Bondre, Salil Vaidya, Parth Patankar, Yashraj Kanaskar, and Hemlata Karne. "Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model". European Journal of Sustainable Development Research 2020 4 no. 4 (2020): em0141. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
Harvard
In-text citation: (Moharir et al., 2020)
Reference: Moharir, S., Bondre, A., Vaidya, S., Patankar, P., Kanaskar, Y., and Karne, H. (2020). Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 4(4), em0141. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
MLA
In-text citation: (Moharir et al., 2020)
Reference: Moharir, Srigan et al. "Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model". European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, vol. 4, no. 4, 2020, em0141. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
ABSTRACT
With the increase in population, the amount of food waste generated is increasing exponentially. Anaerobic digestion can serve the purpose of managing organic waste in an eco-friendly way. Microorganisms play a vital role in the process of anaerobic digestion. In this work, the effect of anaerobic digestion was analyzed using two organic cultures- Cow Dung and Horse waste which was in turn compared to an Industrial Culture with regards to the biogas produced over a cycle of 14 days. Between the two organic cultures, the volume of biogas produced by Horse waste was 35,366.03 cm3 which compared to the biogas produced by cow dung was considerably large. The use of Horse waste as potential biomass has the capacity to produce biogas which can be utilized as a biofuel. The experimental data were evaluated using mathematical models like the Modified Gompertz Model, Logistic Model, and First Order Kinetics Model. Of the three models used, Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model gave a good fit for the experimental data with 0.98 and 0.97 respectively as the Coefficient of Determination (R2). While the First Order Kinetics Model underperformed with an R2 value of 0.68. The Modified Gompertz gave accurate results which thus validated the experimental data.
KEYWORDS
anaerobic digestion biogas food waste horse waste Gompertz Model logistics function
REFERENCES
  • Anukam, A., Mohammadi, A., Naqvi, M. and Granström, K. (2019). A review of the chemistry of anaerobic digestion: Methods of accelerating and optimizing process efficiency. Processes, 7(8), 504. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7080504
  • Äüôú, Ö. (2003) ‘Typical Characteristics of selected raw materials’, (1), pp. 6–8. https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004
  • Awasthi, S. K., Joshi, R., Dhar, H., Verma, S., Awasthi, M. K., Varjani, S., Sarsaiya, S., Zhang, Z. and Kumar, S. (2018). Improving methane yield and quality via co-digestion of cow dung mixed with food waste. Bioresource technology, 251, 259-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.12.063
  • Caruso, M. C., Braghieri, A., Capece, A., Napolitano, F., Romano, P., Galgano, F., Altieri, G. and Genovese, F. (2019). Recent updates on the use of agro-food waste for biogas production. Applied Sciences, 9(6), 1217. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061217
  • Chakravarthi, J. (July 1997). Biogas and energy production from cattle waste. In IECEC-97 Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference (Cat. No. 97CH6203) (Vol. 1, pp. 648-651). IEEE.
  • Cucui, G., Ionescu, C. A., Goldbach, I. R., Coman, M. D. and Marin, E. L. M. (2018). Quantifying the economic effects of biogas installations for organic waste from agro-industrial sector. Sustainability, 10(7), 2582. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072582
  • Donoso-Bravo, A., Pérez-Elvira, S. I. and Fdz-Polanco, F. (2010). Application of simplified models for anaerobic biodegradability tests. Evaluation of pre-treatment processes. Chemical Engineering Journal, 160(2), 607-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.03.082
  • Gerber, M. and Span, R. (2008). An analysis of available mathematical models for anaerobic digestion of organic substances for production of biogas. Proc. IGRC, Paris.
  • Ghatak, M. D. and Mahanta, P. (2014). Comparison of kinetic models for biogas production rate from saw dust. Carbon, 63, 35.
  • Hills, D. J. and Roberts, D. W. (1981). Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and field crop residues. Agricultural Wastes, 3(3), 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-4607(81)90026-3
  • Horváth, I. S., Tabatabaei, M., Karimi, K. and Kumar, R. (2016). Recent updates on biogas production-a review. Biofuel Res. J, 10, 394-402. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2016.3.2.4
  • Jain, S., Wolf, I. T. and Wah, T. Y. (2014). Anaerobic digestion of food waste using artificially cultured and natural anaerobes under Mesophilic conditions. J Mater Environ Sci, 5(6), 1709-1714.
  • Kafle, G. K. and Kim, S. H. (2012). Kinetic study of the anaerobic digestion of swine manure at mesophilic temperature: a lab scale batch operation. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 37(4), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2012.37.4.233
  • Kalia, A. K. and Singh, S. P. (1998). Horse dung as a partial substitute for cattle dung for operating family-size biogas plants in a hilly region. Bioresource technology, 64(1), 63-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00159-4
  • Kumar, S., Smith, S. R., Fowler, G., Velis, C., Kumar, S. J., Arya, S., Rena, Kumar, R. and Cheeseman, C. (2017). Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. Royal Society open science, 4(3), 160764. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160764
  • Kusch, S., Oechsner, H. and Jungbluth, T. (2008). Biogas production with horse dung in solid-phase digestion systems. Bioresource technology, 99(5), 1280-1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.02.008
  • Li, P., Li, W., Sun, M., Xu, X., Zhang, B. and Sun, Y. (2019). Evaluation of biochemical methane potential and kinetics on the anaerobic digestion of vegetable crop residues. Energies, 12(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12010026
  • Manyi-Loh, C. E., Mamphweli, S. N., Meyer, E. L., Okoh, A. I., Makaka, G. and Simon, M. (2013). Microbial anaerobic digestion (bio-digesters) as an approach to the decontamination of animal wastes in pollution control and the generation of renewable energy. International journal of environmental research and public health, 10(9), 4390-4417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10094390
  • Mel, M., Ihsan, S. I. and Setyobudi, R. H. (2015). Process improvement of biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung and corn husk. Procedia Chemistry, 14, 91-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proche.2015.03.014
  • Nges, I. A. and Liu, J. (2010). Effects of solid retention time on anaerobic digestion of dewatered-sewage sludge in mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Renewable Energy, 35(10), 2200-2206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.02.022
  • Okonkwo, U. C., Onokpite, E. and Onokwai, A. O. (2018). Comparative study of the optimal ratio of biogas production from various organic wastes and weeds for digester/restarted digester. Journal of King Saud University-Engineering Sciences, 30(2), 123-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2016.02.002
  • Parameswaran, P. and Rittmann, B. E. (2012). Feasibility of anaerobic co-digestion of pig waste and paper sludge. Bioresource technology, 124, 163-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.116
  • Pavlostathis, S. G. and Giraldo‐Gomez, E. (1991). Kinetics of anaerobic treatment: a critical review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 21(5-6), 411-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389109388424
  • Pramanik, S. K., Suja, F. B., Porhemmat, M. and Pramanik, B. K. (2019). Performance and kinetic model of a single-stage anaerobic digestion system operated at different successive operating stages for the treatment of food waste. Processes, 7(9), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7090600
  • Strömberg, S., Nistor, M. and Liu, J. (2014). Towards eliminating systematic errors caused by the experimental conditions in Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) tests. Waste management, 34(11), 1939-1948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.018
  • Tjørve, K. M. and Tjørve, E. (2017). The use of Gompertz models in growth analyses, and new Gompertz-model approach: An addition to the Unified-Richards family. PloS one, 12(6), e0178691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178691
  • Ware, A. and Power, N. (2017). Modelling methane production kinetics of complex poultry slaughterhouse wastes using sigmoidal growth functions. Renewable Energy, 104, 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.045
  • Zwietering, M. H., Jongenburger, I., Rombouts, F. M. and van ‘t Riet, K. (1990). Modelling of the Bacterial Growth Curve, Appl.and Environ. Microbiol. 56 (6), 1875-1881. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.56.6.1875-1881.1990
LICENSE
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
All Rights Reserved © 2017-2021