Maximizing Biogas Yield in Anaerobic Digestion: A Response Surface Methodology Approach

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 1103 - 1110, 15.07.2025

Koray Günay , Zehra Gülten Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.34248/bsengineering.1683991

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the eutrophication water and cattle manure wastes in the Güldürcek dam reservoir that meets the drinking water of Çankırı province in biogas production and to contribute to the economy of Çankırı province. Microwave pretreatment experiments were carried out but it was determined that it did not increase the biogas efficiency. In the study, it was determined that when eutrophication water was mixed with cattle manure by the RSM method and the mixing ratio was 1/1, the highest methane production was obtained at a rate of 83-86% in the first 8 and 24 hours under optimum conditions with anaerobic digestion at a temperature of 35 °C. The composition of the obtained biogas was measured as follows; carbon dioxide (CO2) 7.65%, oxygen (O2) 4.5%, hydrogen (H2) 0.018% and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) zero. Another point to be noted in the analysis results is that the H2S rate, which is formed as a result of anaerobic digestion and causes economic losses due to corrosion of metal equipment in the system, is zero. According to the RSM method, the most suitable model was found to be Quadratic. The high R2 value of the selected model (0.9649) supports the accuracy of the model.

Keywords

Biogas production, Anaerobic digestion, Eutrophication water, Cattle waste, Response surface methodology

Ethical Statement

No

Project Number

Çankırı Karatekin University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit project number MF210621D02.

Thanks

The authors declare that this work was supported by the Çankırı Karatekin University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit project number MF210621D02.

References

• Ahmad A, Yadav AK, Singh A, Singh DK. 2024. A comprehensive machine learning-coupled response surface methodology approach for predictive modeling and optimization of biogas potential in anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste. Biomass Bioenergy, 180: 106995.
• Afridi ZUR, Qammar NW. 2020. Technical challenges and optimization of biogas plants. ChemBioEng Rev, 7(4): 119-129.
• Akbay HEG. 2024. Anaerobic mono and co-digestion of agro-industrial waste and municipal sewage sludge: Biogas production potential, kinetic modelling, and digestate characteristics. Fuel, 355: 129468.
• Akindolire MA, Rama H, Roopnarain A. 2022. Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion: A critical evaluation of microorganisms and enzymes to drive the process. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 161: 112394.
• Aydoğmuş E, Dağ M, Yalçın ZG, Arslanoğlu H. 2022. Synthesis and characterization of waste polyethylene reinforced modified castor oil‐based polyester biocomposite. J Appl Polym Sci, 139(27): e52526.
• Bensegueni C, Kheireddine B, Khalfaoui A, Amrouci Z, Bouznada MO, Derbal K. 2025. Optimization of biogas and biomethane yield from anaerobic conversion of pepper waste using response surface methodology. Sustainability, 17(6): 2688.
• Bhujbal SK, Preetam A, Ghosh P, Vijay VK, Kumar V. 2025. Machine learning and response surface methodology for optimization of bioenergy production from sugarcane bagasse biochar-improved anaerobic digestion. Process Saf Environ Prot, 106907.
• Chanu TN, Nag SK, Koushlesh SK, Devi MS, Das BK. 2022. Greenhouse gas emission from inland open water bodies and their estimation process—an emerging issue in the era of climate change. Agric Sci, 13(2): 290-306.
• Dağ M, Aydoğmuş E, Yalçın ZG, Arslanoğlu H. 2023. Diatomite reinforced modified safflower oil-based epoxy biocomposite production: Optimization with RSM and assessment of outcomes by ANN. Mater Today Commun, 35: 106327.
• Djimtoingar SS, Derkyi NSA, Kuranchie FA, Yankyera JK. 2022. A review of response surface methodology for biogas process optimization. Cogent Eng, 9(1): 2115283.
• Efetobor UJ, Onokwai AO, Onokpite E, Okonkwo UC. 2024. Response surface methodology application for the optimization of biogas yield from an anaerobic co-digestion process. Environ, 10: 12.
• El Bari H, Habchi S. 2024. Enhancing biogas production from vinasse through optimizing hydraulic retention time and added load using the response surface methodology. Heliyon, 10(19).
• Ellacuriaga M, Cascallana JG, González R, Gómez X. 2021. High-solid anaerobic digestion: Reviewing strategies for increasing reactor performance. Environments, 8(8): 80.
• El-Jalil MH, Zinedine A, Faid M. 2008. Some microbiological and chemical properties of poultry wastes manure after lactic acid fermentation. Int J Agric Biol, 10(4): 405-411.
• Gong X, Aslam MU. 2024. The role of natural resources, and economic development in evaluating the environmental effects of biofuel and waste energy generation in the group of BRICS. Appl Energy, 372: 123846.
• Güven G, Perendeci A, Tanyolaç A. 2008. Electrochemical treatment of deproteinated whey wastewater and optimization of treatment conditions with response surface methodology. J Hazard Mater, 157(1): 69-78.
• Hoyos-Sebá JJ, Arias NP, Salcedo-Mendoza J, Aristizábal-Marulanda V. 2024. Animal manure in the context of renewable energy and value-added products: A review. Chem Eng Process-Process Intensif, 196: 109660.
• Humphrey I, Obot NI, Humphrey OF, Afuwape NF. 2024. Temperature and pH optimization in mesophilic anaerobic digestion for enhanced biogas production. Biofuels, 1-12.
• Jadhav P, Krishnan S, Patil R, Bhuyar P, Zularisam AW, Narayanamurthy V, Nasrullah M. 2024. Improving biogas production with application of trimetallic nanoparticle using response surface methods. Renew Energy, 234: 121199.
• Kalaiselvan N, Glivin G, Bakthavatsalam AK, Mariappan V, Premalatha M, Raveendran PS, Sekhar SJ. 2022. A waste to energy technology for enrichment of biomethane generation: A review on operating parameters, types of biodigesters, solar assisted heating systems, socio economic benefits and challenges. Chemosphere, 293: 133486.
• Kumar DJP, Mishra RK, Chinnam S, Binnal P, Dwivedi N. 2024. A comprehensive study on anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste: A review on configurations, operating parameters, techno-economic analysis and current trends. Biotechnol Notes, pp:15-16.
• Mishra RK. 2023. The effect of eutrophication on drinking water. Br J Multidiscip Adv Stud, 4(1): 7-20.
• Mohammadianroshanfekr M, Pazoki M, Pejman MB, Ghasemzadeh R, Pazoki A. 2024. Kinetic modeling and optimization of biogas production from food waste and cow manure co-digestion. Results Eng, 24: 103477.
• Monteiro JP, Cruzeiro C, Duarte MS, Pereira MA, Vilar VJ. 2024. Innovative waste activated sludge pre-treatment using a raceway pond reactor: Integration of low-temperature and solar radiation. Chem Eng J, 498: 155324.
• Moosavian SF, Noorollahi Y, Shoaei M. 2024. Renewable energy resources utilization planning for sustainable energy system development on a stand-alone island. J Clean Prod, 439: 140892.
• Nardi S, Schiavon M, Francioso O. 2021. Chemical structure and biological activity of humic substances define their role as plant growth promoters. Molecules, 26(8): 2256.
• Pourrostami Niavol K, Bordoloi A, Suri R. 2024. An overview of the occurrence, impact of process parameters, and the fate of antibiotic resistance genes during anaerobic digestion processes. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 31(29): 41745-41774.
• Qian S, Chen L, Xu S, Zeng C, Lian X, Xia Z, Zou J. 2025. Research on methane-rich biogas production technology by anaerobic digestion under carbon neutrality: A review. Sustainability, 17(4): 1425.
• Ramos-Suárez JL, Gómez D, Regueiro L, Baeza A, Hansen F. 2017. Alkaline and oxidative pretreatments for the anaerobic digestion of cow manure and maize straw: Factors influencing the process and preliminary economic viability of an industrial application. Bioresour Technol, 241: 10-20.
• Risberg K, Sun L, Levén L, Horn SJ, Schnürer A. 2013. Biogas production from wheat straw and manure–impact of pretreatment and process operating parameters. Bioresour Technol, 149: 232-237.
• Rocha-Meneses L, Zannerni R, Inayat A, Abdallah M, Shanableh A, Ghenai C, Kikas T. 2022. Current progress in anaerobic digestion reactors and parameters optimization. Biomass Convers Biorefinery, 1-24.
• Singh A, Rana MS, Tiwari H, Kumar M, Saxena S, Anand V, Prajapati SK. 2023. Anaerobic digestion as a tool to manage eutrophication and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Total Environ Sci, 861: 160722.
• Song Z, Yang G, Liu X, Yan Z, Yuan Y, Liao Y. 2014. Comparison of seven chemical pretreatments of corn straw for improving methane yield by anaerobic digestion. PLoS One, 9(4): e93801.
• Tamilselvan R, Selwynraj AI. 2024. Enhancing biogas generation from lignocellulosic biomass through biological pretreatment: Exploring the role of ruminant microbes and anaerobic fungi. Anaerobe, 85: 102815.
• Wang Z, He H, Yan J, Xu Z, Yang G, Wang H, Yuan X. 2024. Influence of temperature fluctuations on anaerobic digestion: Optimum performance is achieved at 45°C. Chem Eng J, 492: 152331.
• Wittwer RA, van der Heijden MG. 2020. Cover crops as a tool to reduce reliance on intensive tillage and nitrogen fertilization in conventional arable cropping systems. Field Crops Res, 249: 107736.
• Zhang J. 2024. Energy access challenge and the role of fossil fuels in meeting electricity demand: Promoting renewable energy capacity for sustainable development. Geosci Front, 15(5): 101873.