IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v10y2017i3p325-d92460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Biogas Substrate Recirculation on Methane Yield and Efficiency of a Liquid-Manure-Based Biogas Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Frauke P. C. Müller

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Livestock Technology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Nussallee 5, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Gerd-Christian Maack

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Livestock Technology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Nussallee 5, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Wolfgang Buescher

    (Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Livestock Technology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Nussallee 5, 53115 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

Biogas plants are the most complex systems and are heavily studied in the field of renewable energy. A biogas system is mainly influenced by biological and technical parameters that strongly interact with each other. One recommended practice when operating a biogas plant is the recirculation of the substrate from the second fermenter into the first fermenter, which extends the recirculation amount (RA) and, in turn, the recirculation rate (RR). This technique should be applied to support and secure the biogas process. In this investigation, the RA was varied, starting with the recommended “best practice” of 10.0 m 3 /d (RR 40%). Every ten days, the RA was reduced in steps of 1.5 m 3 /d, with 5.5 m 3 /d (RR 27%) being the final value. The basic question to be addressed concerns to what extent the RR influences the methane yield and thereby influence the efficiency of a manure-based biogas plant in practice. Diverting the “best practice” to a RR of 27% stabilised the fermentation process and lead to significantly higher methane yields with smaller standard deviations. In addition, with a reduced RR, the standard optimal acid concentration within the biogas substrate was approximately reached.

Suggested Citation

  • Frauke P. C. Müller & Gerd-Christian Maack & Wolfgang Buescher, 2017. "Effects of Biogas Substrate Recirculation on Methane Yield and Efficiency of a Liquid-Manure-Based Biogas Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-11, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:3:p:325-:d:92460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/3/325/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/3/325/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chynoweth, David P & Owens, John M & Legrand, Robert, 2001. "Renewable methane from anaerobic digestion of biomass," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-8.
    2. Asam, Zaki-ul-Zaman & Poulsen, Tjalfe Gorm & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Rafique, Rashad & Kiely, Ger & Murphy, Jerry D., 2011. "How can we improve biomethane production per unit of feedstock in biogas plants?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 2013-2018, June.
    3. Yuling Chen & Benjamin Rößler & Simon Zielonka & Anna-Maria Wonneberger & Andreas Lemmer, 2014. "Effects of Organic Loading Rate on the Performance of a Pressurized Anaerobic Filter in Two-Phase Anaerobic Digestion," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Solmaz Aslanzadeh & Karthik Rajendran & Azam Jeihanipour & Mohammad J. Taherzadeh, 2013. "The Effect of Effluent Recirculation in a Semi-Continuous Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Antonio Panico & Giuseppe D'Antonio & Giovanni Esposito & Luigi Frunzo & Paola Iodice & Francesco Pirozzi, 2014. "The Effect of Substrate-Bulk Interaction on Hydrolysis Modeling in Anaerobic Digestion Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krzysztof Pilarski & Agnieszka A. Pilarska & Piotr Boniecki & Gniewko Niedbała & Karol Durczak & Kamil Witaszek & Natalia Mioduszewska & Ireneusz Kowalik, 2020. "The Efficiency of Industrial and Laboratory Anaerobic Digesters of Organic Substrates: The Use of the Biochemical Methane Potential Correction Coefficient," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Achiraya Jiraprasertwong & Kornpong Vichaitanapat & Malinee Leethochawalit & Sumaeth Chavadej, 2018. "Three-Stage Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor (ASBR) for Maximum Methane Production: Effects of COD Loading Rate and Reactor Volumetric Ratio," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
    3. Spyridon Achinas & Johan Horjus & Vasileios Achinas & Gerrit Jan Willem Euverink, 2019. "A PESTLE Analysis of Biofuels Energy Industry in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Ola Eriksson, 2017. "Energy and Waste Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-7, July.
    5. Danijel Topić & Marinko Barukčić & Dražen Mandžukić & Cecilia Mezei, 2020. "Optimization Model for Biogas Power Plant Feedstock Mixture Considering Feedstock and Transportation Costs Using a Differential Evolution Algorithm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-22, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Budzianowski, Wojciech M., 2016. "A review of potential innovations for production, conditioning and utilization of biogas with multiple-criteria assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1148-1171.
    2. Theresa Menzel & Peter Neubauer & Stefan Junne, 2020. "Role of Microbial Hydrolysis in Anaerobic Digestion," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-29, October.
    3. Solmaz Aslanzadeh & Karthik Rajendran & Azam Jeihanipour & Mohammad J. Taherzadeh, 2013. "The Effect of Effluent Recirculation in a Semi-Continuous Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Lerato Shikwambana & Boitumelo Mokgoja & Paidamwoyo Mhangara, 2022. "A Qualitative Assessment of the Trends, Distribution and Sources of Methane in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, March.
    5. Lane, Blake & Kinnon, Michael Mac & Shaffer, Brendan & Samuelsen, Scott, 2022. "Deployment planning tool for environmentally sensitive heavy-duty vehicles and fueling infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    6. Notodarmojo, Peni Astrini & Fujiwara, Takeshi & Habuer, & Pham Van, Dinh, 2022. "Effectiveness of oyster shell as alkali additive for two-stage anaerobic co-digestion: Carbon flow analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    7. Zarzuelo, Carmen & López-Ruiz, Alejandro & Ortega-Sánchez, Miguel, 2018. "Impact of human interventions on tidal stream power: The case of Cádiz Bay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 88-104.
    8. Anna Lymperatou & Niels B. Rasmussen & Hariklia N. Gavala & Ioannis V. Skiadas, 2021. "Improving the Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure through an Optimized Ammonia Treatment: Process Performance, Digestate and Techno-Economic Aspects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Senghor, A. & Dioh, R.M.N. & Müller, C. & Youm, I., 2017. "Cereal crops for biogas production: A review of possible impact of elevated CO2," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 548-554.
    10. Di Corato, Luca & Moretto, Michele, 2011. "Investing in biogas: Timing, technological choice and the value of flexibility from input mix," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1186-1193.
    11. Surita, Sharon C. & Tansel, Berrin, 2015. "Preliminary investigation to characterize deposits forming during combustion of biogas from anaerobic digesters and landfills," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 674-681.
    12. Awasthi, Mukesh Kumar & Sarsaiya, Surendra & Wainaina, Steven & Rajendran, Karthik & Kumar, Sumit & Quan, Wang & Duan, Yumin & Awasthi, Sanjeev Kumar & Chen, Hongyu & Pandey, Ashok & Zhang, Zengqiang , 2019. "A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward sustainable circular bioeconomy: Technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and future perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 115-131.
    13. Jingura, Raphael Muzondiwa & Musademba, Downmore & Kamusoko, Reckson, 2013. "A review of the state of biomass energy technologies in Zimbabwe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 652-659.
    14. Katarzyna Ignatowicz & Gabriel Filipczak & Barbara Dybek & Grzegorz Wałowski, 2023. "Biogas Production Depending on the Substrate Used: A Review and Evaluation Study—European Examples," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-17, January.
    15. Costa, J.C. & Oliveira, J.V. & Alves, M.M., 2016. "Response surface design to study the influence of inoculum, particle size and inoculum to substrate ratio on the methane production from Ulex sp," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 96(PB), pages 1071-1077.
    16. O’Shea, Richard & Kilgallon, Ian & Wall, David & Murphy, Jerry D., 2016. "Quantification and location of a renewable gas industry based on digestion of wastes in Ireland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 229-239.
    17. Oreggioni, G.D. & Luberti, M. & Tassou, S.A., 2019. "Agricultural greenhouse CO2 utilization in anaerobic-digestion-based biomethane production plants: A techno-economic and environmental assessment and comparison with CO2 geological storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 1753-1766.
    18. Uusitalo, V. & Soukka, R. & Horttanainen, M. & Niskanen, A. & Havukainen, J., 2013. "Economics and greenhouse gas balance of biogas use systems in the Finnish transportation sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 132-140.
    19. Francesca Nardin & Fabrizio Mazzetto, 2014. "Mapping of Biomass Fluxes: A Method for Optimizing Biogas-Refinery of Livestock Effluents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-21, September.
    20. Browne, James & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Thamsiriroj, T & Murphy, Jerry D., 2011. "Assessing the cost of biofuel production with increasing penetration of the transport fuel market: A case study of gaseous biomethane in Ireland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4537-4547.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:3:p:325-:d:92460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.