Conference Paper

Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters?

Volume: 4 Number: 4 December 31, 2021
EN

Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters?

Abstract

The volumetric production of biogas can be estimated through kinetic models, although many of them have not been validated adequately in full-scale systems with specific operational conditions in tropical countries. This study aimed to evaluate the applicability of these kinetic models to estimate methane production in pig farming operated with covered lagoon digesters (CLD, to inform: Chen-Hashimoto, First-order, Cone, Modified Gompertz, Modified Stover-Kincannon and Deng. The input data were obtained through the monitoring of two CLD in pig farming located in Minas Gerais-Brazil. The analyzed parameters were methane composition, the temperature of the substrate, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and volatile solids. The real production of methane (Pactual) was determined in relation to the electric power production at the internal combustion engine. The results obtained for Pactual and the models were compared through regression analysis (t-test, α=1%). All of the evaluated models overestimate the methane production in comparison with Pactual (405.0 m3 CH4 d-1). The smallest difference between the CH4 production and the measurement on the pig farm was obtained with Chen model, overestimating approximately 16.3%, while the highest estimate was 38.5% obtained with the Modified Stover-Kincannon model. The results showed the absence of statistical differences among the real data (monitored system) and the simulated data (p-value>0.01). The mathematical kinetic models are considered a reliable tool to evaluate the energetic potential of biogas in pig farming with CLD from operational simplicity and low cost.

Keywords

References

  1. [1]. USDA. (2020) Market and Trade Data: Meat Swine. United Sttates Department of Agricultural Service. [Online]. Available: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/topCountriesByCommodity.
  2. [2]. A. Kunz, M. M. Higarashi, and P. A. de Oliveira, “Tecnologias de manejo e tratamento de dejetos de suínos estudadas no Brasil,” Cad. Ciência Tecnol., vol. 22, pp. 651–665, 2005.
  3. [3]. M. L. Veroneze et al., M. L. Veroneze, D.Schwantes, A. C.Gonçalves, Al.Richart, J. Manfrin, A. da P. Schiller and T. B. Schuba. “Production of biogas and biofertilizer using anaerobic reactors with swine manure and glycerin doses,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 213, pp. 176–184, 2019.
  4. [4]. J. Á. Fernandes, “Variáveis microbiológicas e físico-químicas em biodigestores anaeróbios escala piloto alimentados com dejetos de bovinos leiteiros e suínos,” M. thesis, Federal University the Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, 2016.
  5. [5]. F. J. Andriamanohiarisoamanana, I. Ihara, G. Yoshida and K. Umetsu, “Kinetic study of oxytetracycline and chlortetracycline inhibition in the anaerobic digestion of dairy manure”, Bioresource Technology, 315, 123810, 2020.
  6. [6]. W. S. Neto, Cinética de processos fermentativos. In: Curso fermentation technology. Florianópolis, 1999.
  7. [7]. W. Zhang, Q. Wei, S. Wu, D. Qi, W. Li, Z. Zuo, R. and Dong, “Batch anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions”, Applied energy, 128, 175-183, 2014.
  8. [8]. D. D. Nguyen, B. H. Jeon, J. H. Jeung, E. R. Rene, J. R. Banu, B. Ravindran, and S. W. Chang, “Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of model organic wastes: Evaluation of biomethane production and multiple kinetic models analysis”, Bioresource technology, 280, 269-276, 2019.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Environmental Engineering

Journal Section

Conference Paper

Publication Date

December 31, 2021

Submission Date

April 20, 2021

Acceptance Date

October 6, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 4 Number: 4

APA
Lopes, J., Rosa, A., Sousa, I., Melo, S., Almeida, A., & Borges, A. (2021). Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters? Environmental Research and Technology, 4(4), 308-316. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.916002
AMA
1.Lopes J, Rosa A, Sousa I, Melo S, Almeida A, Borges A. Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters? ERT. 2021;4(4):308-316. doi:10.35208/ert.916002
Chicago
Lopes, Juciara, André Rosa, Izabelle Sousa, Silas Melo, Antonella Almeida, and Alisson Borges. 2021. “Which Kinetic Model Best Fits the Methane Production on Pig Farms With Covered Lagoon Digesters?”. Environmental Research and Technology 4 (4): 308-16. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.916002.
EndNote
Lopes J, Rosa A, Sousa I, Melo S, Almeida A, Borges A (December 1, 2021) Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters? Environmental Research and Technology 4 4 308–316.
IEEE
[1]J. Lopes, A. Rosa, I. Sousa, S. Melo, A. Almeida, and A. Borges, “Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters?”, ERT, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 308–316, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.35208/ert.916002.
ISNAD
Lopes, Juciara - Rosa, André - Sousa, Izabelle - Melo, Silas - Almeida, Antonella - Borges, Alisson. “Which Kinetic Model Best Fits the Methane Production on Pig Farms With Covered Lagoon Digesters?”. Environmental Research and Technology 4/4 (December 1, 2021): 308-316. https://doi.org/10.35208/ert.916002.
JAMA
1.Lopes J, Rosa A, Sousa I, Melo S, Almeida A, Borges A. Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters? ERT. 2021;4:308–316.
MLA
Lopes, Juciara, et al. “Which Kinetic Model Best Fits the Methane Production on Pig Farms With Covered Lagoon Digesters?”. Environmental Research and Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, Dec. 2021, pp. 308-16, doi:10.35208/ert.916002.
Vancouver
1.Juciara Lopes, André Rosa, Izabelle Sousa, Silas Melo, Antonella Almeida, Alisson Borges. Which kinetic model best fits the methane production on pig farms with covered lagoon digesters? ERT. 2021 Dec. 1;4(4):308-16. doi:10.35208/ert.916002