TY - JOUR T1 - CO-FERMENTATION OF PROCESSED ORANGE WASTES WITH CATTLE MANURE TT - PORTAKAL İŞLEME ATIKLARININ BÜYÜKBAŞ HAYVAN GÜBRESİ İLE KO-FERMANTASYONU AU - Aybek, Ali AU - Albayram, Levent Gürsel AU - Üçok, Serdar PY - 2019 DA - November DO - 10.17780/ksujes.599960 JF - Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi JO - KSU J. Eng. Sci. PB - Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University WT - DergiPark SN - 1309-1751 SP - 109 EP - 117 VL - 22 LA - en AB - In this study, effectof cattle manure when it’s added into the different percentage of processedorange wastes (25%, 50%, 75%) been analyzed by HBT. Cattle manure collectedfrom the farms and processed orange waste collected from the fruit base juicecompanies then dried and ground in the standard laboratory conditions andproduced 5 materials (100% processed orange waste, 100% cattle manure; 25%processed orange waste+ 75% cattle manure; 50% processed orange waste+50%cattle manure; 75% processed orange waste+ 25% cattle manure) As a result ofthis study, the highest percentage of raw protein (12.06%) and percentage ofraw fat( or raw oil) (2.30%) produced from 100% processed orange waste, drymaterial percentage (90.75%) from 100% cattle manure, organic dry materialpercentage (95.56%) from 100% processed orange waste, ADF percentage (60.20%)100% cattle manure and NDF percentage (26.20%) 25% processed orange waste+75%cattle manure. Within 5 materials, the highest amount of methane was produced25 to 35 days. The highest amount of biogas (0.70 Nm3/kg ODM) andmethane (0.37 Nm3/kg ODM) produced with 75% processed orange waste+25% cattle manure. The highest amount of methane (53.77%) in biogas producedwith 50% processed orange waste+50% cattle manure. Based on this study, fermentation of processedorange waste with cattle manure statistically increased the production ofmethane and biogas in higher amount (P≤0.05). KW - Processed orange waste KW - Cattle manure KW - Co-fermentation KW - Biogas KW - HBT N2 - Bu çalışmada,büyükbaş hayvan gübresine portakal işleme atıklarının (kabuk ve posa) farklıoranlarda (%25, %50, %75) eklenmesinin biyogaz verimine etkisi, HBT (HohenheimBatch Yield Test) yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Bu kapsamda, büyükbaş hayvangübresi çiftlikten, portakal işleme atıkları ise meyve suyu işlemetesislerinden alınarak laboratuar ortamında kurutulup öğütülmüş ve beş materyal(%100 portakal işleme atıkları, %100 büyükbaş hayvan gübresi, %25 portakalişleme atıkları + %75 büyükbaş hayvan gübresi, %50 portakal işlemeatıkları + %50 büyükbaş hayvan gübresi, %75 portakal işlemeatıkları + %25 büyükbaş hayvan gübresi) meydana getirilmiştir. Yapılanaraştırma sonucunda en yüksek, ham protein oranı (%12.06) ve ham yağ oranı (%2.30)%100 portakal işleme atıkları materyalinden, kuru madde oranı (%90.75) %100büyükbaş hayvan gübresi materyalinden, organik kuru madde oranı (%95.56) %100portakal işleme atıkları materyalinden, ADF oranı (%60.20) %100 büyükbaş hayvangübresi materyalinden ve NDF oranı (%26.50) %25 portakal işleme atıkları + %75büyükbaş hayvan gübresi materyalinden elde edilmiştir. Ele alınan materyallerdeen yüksek metan üretimi 25 ile 35 günler arasında gerçekleşmiştir. Karışımmateryallerinde en yüksek biyogaz (0.70 Nm3/kg OKM) ve metan (0.37Nm3/kg OKM) üretim değerleri, %75 portakal işleme atıkları +%25 büyükbaş hayvan gübresi materyalinden oluşmuştur. Biyogazdaki metan oranı,en yüksek (%53.77) %50 portakal işleme atıkları + %50 büyükbaş hayvangübresi materyalinden elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada portakal işleme atıklarınınbüyükbaş hayvan gübresi ile ko-fermantasyonu, metan ve biyogaz üretimini istatikselolarak önemli düzeyde (P≤0.05) arttırmıştır. CR - Abbasi, T, Tauseef, S. M., Abbasi, S. A., 2012. Biogas and Biogas Energy: An Introduction. Biogas Energy, 1-10. CR - Acaroğlu, M., 2007. Alternatif Enerji Kaynakları. Nobel Yayın No: 1253, , ISBN 978-605-395-047-9, 609 p, Ankara CR - Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Zollitsch, W., Mayer, K., Gruber, L. 2007. Biogas production from maize and dairy cattle manure—influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 118 (1-4): 173-182. CR - Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B. K., 1993. Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock Waste: the Effect of Ammonia. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 38: 560-564. CR - AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC. US. CR - Aybek, A., Üçok, S., 2017. Determination and Evaluation of Biogas and Methane Productions of Vegetable and Fruit Wastes with HBT Method. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 10 (4): 207-215. CR - Brown, R.C., 2003. Biorenewable resources : engineering new products from agriculture. Iowa State Press, Ames, Iowa, 286 p. CR - Cassidy, D. P., Hirl, P. J., Belia, E., 2008. Methane production for ethanol coproduction in anaerobic SBRS. Water Sci Technol., 58 (4): 789-93. CR - Dinuccio, E., Balsari, P., Gioelli, F., Menardo, S., 2010. Evaluation of the biogas productivity potential of some Italian agro-industrial biomasses. Bioresource Technology, 101 (10): 3780–3783. Çallı, B., 2012. Atıklardan Biyogaz Üretimi. Türkiye Kimya Derneği -Genç Kimyacılar Platformu, http://eng.marmara.edu.tr/enve CR - Demirbaş, A. H., Demirbaş, I., 2007. Importance of rural bioenergy for developing countries. Energy Convers Manage, 48 (8): 2386-2398. CR - Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A., 2008. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources, p.1-450. CR - Haggerty, A. P., 2010. Biomass crops: production, energy, and the environment. Nova Science Publisher's, Hauppauge, N.Y., 323 p. CR - Jimenez, S., Cartagena, M. C., Arce, A., 1990. Influence of lignin on the methanization of lignocellulosic wastes. Biomass, 21, 43–54 CR - Klass, D., 1998. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. Academic Press, San Diego, USA, 651 p. CR - Mansourpoor, M., Shariati, A., 2012. Effect of mixture of alcohols on biodiesel properties which produced from waste cooking oils and compare combustion performance and emissions of biodiesels with petrodiesel. Adv Environ Sci, 4 (3): 153. CR - Manyi-Loh, C. E., Mamphweli, S. N., Meyer, E. L., Okoh, A. I., Makaka, G., 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. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 10 (9): 4390-417. CR - Matuszewska, A., Owczuk, ., M., Zamojska-Jaroszewicz, A., Jakubiak-Lasocka, J., Lasocki, J., Orlin´ ski, P., 2016. Evaluation of the biological methane potential of various feedstock for the production of biogas to supply agricultural tractors. Energy Conversion and Management, 125: 309-319. CR - McGowan, T., 2009. Biomass and alternate fuel systems: an engineering and economic guide. John Wiley & Sons Hoboken, New York, 264 p. CR - Ogunleye, O. O., Aworanti, O. A., Agarry, S. E., Aremu, M. O., 2016. Enhancement of animal waste biomethanation using fruit waste as co-substrate and chicken rumen as inoculums. Energy Sources, Part A: Recov. Utiliz Environ Effects, 38(11): 1653-60. CR - Onurbaş Avcıoğlu, A., Türker, U., Demirel Atasoy, Z., Koçtürk, D., 2011. Tarımsal Kökenli Yenilenebilir Enerjiler-Biyoyakıtlar. Nobel Yayınları, Yayın No: 72, ISBN 978-605-5426-71-2, 493 s, Ankara. CR - Öztürk, H. H., 2011. Bitkisel üretimde enerji yönetimi. Hasad Yayıncılık Ltd. Şti., ISBN: 978-975-8377-78-7, 248s, Istanbul CR - Ryckebosch, E., Drouillon, M., Vervaeren, H., 2011. Techniques for transformation of biogas to biomethane. Biomass Bioenergy, 35:1633–45. CR - Tiehm, K. N., Zellhorn, M., Neis, U., 2001. Ultrasonic waste activated sludge disintegration for improving anaerobic stabilization. Water Res., 35 (8): 2003-9.URL, 2017. Biyogaz. http://biyogaz.entmakina.com/biyogaz-nedir/. CR - Üçgül, İ., Akgül, G., 2010. Biyokütle Teknolojisi. Journal of YEKARUM, 1(1): 3-11. CR - Xiao, W.,Yao, W., 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: 4042-7. CR - Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., Lewis, B.A., 1991. Methods for dietary fiber. neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.. 74. 3583–3597. CR - VDI 4630, 2006. Fermentatıon of Organic Material, Characterisatıon of Substrate, Collectıon of Material Data, Fermentatıon Tests, VDI Gesellschaft Energietechnik. UR - https://doi.org/10.17780/ksujes.599960 L1 - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/858067 ER -