Assessment of the Effect of Co-Digestion of Chicken Dropping and Cow Dung on Biogas Generation

Assessment of the Effect of Co-Digestion of Chicken Dropping and Cow Dung on Biogas Generation

Dr. Nnabuchi

Contact

M. N.

Contact

Akubuko

Contact

F. O

Contact

Augustine

Contact

G. Z. Ugwu

Contact

α Ebonyi State University

Assessment of the Effect of Co-Digestion of Chicken Dropping and Cow Dung on Biogas Generation

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

SFR3GUL8

Assessment of the Effect of Co-Digestion of Chicken Dropping and Cow Dung on Biogas Generation Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Biogas production from 5 batch digesters containing varying ratios of mixture of chicken droppings and cow dung was studied for a period of 30 days at ambient temperature. Results from this study show that co-digestion of chicken droppings and cow dung increased biogas yield as compared to pure samples of either chicken droppings or cow dung. The maximum biogas yield was attained with mixtures in the proportions of 1:4. Several regression models were used to adequately describe the cumulative biogas production from these digesters. The polynomial correlation with R2 = 0.98 seemed to be more reliable in predicting gas production in anaerobic digestion of animal wastes. This tool is useful in optimizing biogas production from energy materials, and requires further validation and refinement. Hopefully, this study advances this increasingly growing area of animal wastes research.

References

57 Cites in Article

Reference Format

R Alvarez,G Lide'n (2008). The effect of altitude.
Ezekoye, Ezekoye, V. A (1990). Biogas Generation From Plant and Animal Wastes, Its Purification, Compression and Storage/Usage.
A Angstrom (1924). Solar and terrestrial radiation. Report to the international commission for solar research on actinometric investigations of solar and atmospheric radiation.
Aoac (1990). Official methods of Analysis Association of Analytical Chemists.
B Akinoglu,A Ecevit (1990). Construction of a quadratic model using modified Angstrom coefficients to estimate global solar radiation.
D Ampratwum,A Dorvlo (1999). Estimation of solar radiation from the number of sunshine hours.
G Bujoczek,J Oleszkiewicz,R Sparling,S Cenkowski (2000). High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure.
P Bhat,H Chanakya,N Ravindranath (2001). Biogas plant dissemination.
I Budiyono,S Widiasa,S Johari (2010). The kinetic of Biogas production Rate from Cattle Manure in Batch Mode.
Pieter Beukering,Joyeeta Gupta (1999). Integrated Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries.
M Bori,S Adebusoye,A Lawal,A Awotiwon (2007). Production of biogas from banana and plantain peels.
L Castrillón,I Vázquez,E Marañón,H Sastre (2002). Anaerobic thermophilic treatment of cattle manure in UASB reactors.
P Chellapandi (2004). Enzymes and microbiological pretreatments of oil industry wastes for biogas production in batch digesters.
S Coppolino (1994). A new correlation between clearness index and relative sunshine.
Nadir Elagib,Martin Mansell (2000). New approaches for estimating global solar radiation across Sudan.
David Fulford (1988). Prelims - Running a Biogas Programme.
J Gelegenis,D Georgakakis,I Angelidaki,V Mavris (2007). Optimization of biogas production by co-digesting whey with diluted poultry manure.
B Garba (1996). Effect of temperature and retention period on biogas production from ligrocelluloscic material.
K Gray,K Sherman,A Biddlestone (1971). Unknown Title.
P Hobson,S Bousfield,R Summers (1981). Methane production from agricultural and domestic waste.
I Itodo,E Kucha (1998). An empirical relationship for predicting biogas yield from poultry waste slurry.
A Igoni,M Ayotamuno,C Eze,S Ogaji,S Probert (2008). Designs of anaerobic of digesters for producing biogas from municipal solidwaste.
I Itodo,E Lucas,E Kucha (1992). The effect of media material and its quality on biogas yield.
Wieger Knol,Michael Van Der Most,Jacobus De Waart (1978). Biogas production by anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste. A preliminary study.
N Krishna,D Sumitra,V Prema,D Somayaji,R Sarada (1991). Anaerobic digestion of canteen wastes for biogas production, process optimization.
Jhy Katima (2001). Production of biogas from water hyacinth: effect of subtrate concentration, particle size and incubation period..
A Kivaisi,J Mukisa (2000). Composition and Anaerobic Digestion of Single and Combined Organic Fractions of Municipal Solid Waste of Dar es Salaam..
A Kivaisi,M Mtila (2001). Production of biogas from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) (Mart) (Solms) in a two-stage bioreactor.
A Kivaisi (2002). Pretreatment of robusta coffee hulls and co-digestion with cow-dung for enhanced anaerobic digestion.
A Lawal,T Ayanleye,A Kuboye (1995). Biogas production from some animal wastes.
Alan Lane (1984). Production of aromatic acids during anaerobic digestion of citrus peel.
R Li,S Chen,X Li (1998). Anaerobic Co-digestion of Kitchen Waste and Cattle Manure for Methane Production.
Mata Alvarez,J Mtz-Viturtia,A Llabres-Luengo,P Cecchi,F (1993). Kinetic and performance study of batch two phase anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes.
A Mata,F Cecchi,P Pavan,P (1992). Anerobic digestion of the Barcelona central food market organic wastes: plant design and feasibility study.
D Machido,A Zuru,E Akpan (1996). Production of Biogas Using Water Waste Products (Water Hyacinth and Cow Dung).
P Matthew (1982). Gas production from animal wastes and its prospects in Nigeria.
Oiy Momoh,L Nwaogazie (2008). Effect of Waste Paper on Biogas Production from Co-digestion of Cow Dung and Water Hyacinth in Batch Reactors.
P Meynell (1982). Methane, planning a digester.
Å Nordberg,M Edström (2005). Co-digestion of energy crops and the source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste.
F Newland (1988). A study of solar radiation models for the coastal region of South China.
S Ojolo,A Bamgboye,B Ogunsina,S Oke (2008). Analytical approach for predicting biogas generation in a municipal solid waste anaerobic digester, Iran.
S Ojolo,R Dinrifo,K Adesuyi (2007). Comparative Study of Biogas Production from Five Substrates.
J Owens,D Chynoweth (1993). Biochemical methane potential of municipal solid waste (MSW) components.
A Ofoefule,E Uzodinma,C Anyanwu (2010). Studies on the Effect of Anaerobic Digestion on the Microbial Flora of Animal Wastes 2: Digestion and Modelling of Process Parameters.
J Patil,L Molayan,S Bhargav,S Sowmya (2011). Anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth with primary sludge.
M Rao,S Singh,A Singh,M Sodha (2000). Bioenergy conversion studies of the organic fraction of MSW: assessment of ultimate bioenergy production potential of municipal garbage.
D Ranade,T Yeole,S Godbole (1987). Production of biogas from market waste.
E Sánchez,R Borja,M López (1996). Determination of the kinetic constants of anaerobic digestion of sugar-mill-mud waste (SMMW).
S Sumitradevi,Krishna Nand (1989). Microbial pretreatment of mango peel for biogas production.
Samy Sadaka,Cady Engler (2000). Effects of Initial Total Solids on Composting of Raw Manure with Biogas Recovery.
M Vicenta,G Pacheco,Mla Alamis,P Anglo,B Tan,C Silverio (1984). A study of some factors affecting biogas production from pineapple peelings.
I Watson-Craik,K Sinclair,A James,Sulisti,E Senior (1993). Studies of the Refuse Methanogenic Fermentation by Use of Laboratory Systems.
P Welland (1993). One and two stp anaerobic digestion of solid agro-industrial residues.
(1993). Energy for Tomorrow's world: The Realities, the options and the Agenda for Achievements.
T Yeole,D Ranande (1992). Production of Biofuels from Animal Bedding: Biogas or Bioethanol? Influence of Feedstock Composition on the Process Layout.
M Yusuf,A Debora,D Ogheneruona (2011). Ambient temperature kinetic assessment of biogas production from co-digestion of horse and cow dung.
A Zuru,H Saidu,E Odum,O Onuorah (1998). Multiple Regression and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (1998): Performance in Kindergarten in the U.S..

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Dr. Nnabuchi. 2012. \u201cAssessment of the Effect of Co-Digestion of Chicken Dropping and Cow Dung on Biogas Generation\u201d. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - A: Physics & Space Science GJSFR-A Volume 12 (GJSFR Volume 12 Issue A7): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJSFR Volume 12 Issue A7
Pg. 31- 36

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJSFR

Print ISSN 0975-5896

e-ISSN 2249-4626

Keywords

anaerobic biogas chicken droppings cow dung Regression

Submission ReceivedAugust 11, 2012
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted September 8, 2012
Published September 23, 2012

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

October 17, 2012

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 112

Country: Nigeria

Subject: Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - A: Physics & Space Science

Authors: Dr. Nnabuchi, M. N., Akubuko, F. O, Augustine, C., G. Z. Ugwu (PhD/Dr. count: 1)

View Count (all-time): 162

Total Views (Real + Logic): 5047

Total Downloads (simulated): 2483

Publish Date: 2012 10, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 30 views
Month 2: 24 views
Month 3: 20 views
Month 4: 42 views
Month 5: 51 views
Month 6: 27 views
Month 7: 44 views
Month 8: 21 views
Month 9: 40 views
Month 10: 45 views
Month 11: 26 views
Month 12: 37 views
Month 13: 26 views
Month 14: 21 views
Month 15: 42 views
Month 16: 36 views
Month 17: 29 views
Month 18: 28 views
Month 19: 36 views
Month 20: 40 views
Month 21: 30 views
Month 22: 40 views
Month 23: 27 views
Month 24: 15 views
Month 25: 31 views
Month 26: 15 views
Month 27: 21 views
Month 28: 37 views
Month 29: 45 views
Month 30: 44 views
Month 31: 22 views
Month 32: 28 views
Month 33: 21 views
Month 34: 22 views
Month 35: 14 views
Month 36: 24 views
Month 37: 47 views
Month 38: 21 views
Month 39: 16 views
Month 40: 37 views
Month 41: 25 views
Month 42: 22 views
Month 43: 26 views
Month 44: 11 views
Month 45: 32 views
Month 46: 41 views
Month 47: 15 views
Month 48: 17 views
Month 49: 33 views
Month 50: 36 views
Month 51: 27 views
Month 52: 12 views
Month 53: 19 views
Month 54: 23 views
Month 55: 24 views
Month 56: 20 views
Month 57: 14 views
Month 58: 29 views
Month 59: 35 views
Month 60: 25 views
Month 61: 26 views
Month 62: 29 views
Month 63: 24 views
Month 64: 40 views
Month 65: 23 views
Month 66: 32 views
Month 67: 25 views
Month 68: 14 views
Month 69: 24 views
Month 70: 34 views
Month 71: 30 views
Month 72: 43 views
Month 73: 17 views
Month 74: 29 views
Month 75: 43 views
Month 76: 35 views
Month 77: 35 views
Month 78: 40 views
Month 79: 14 views
Month 80: 44 views
Month 81: 28 views
Month 82: 23 views
Month 83: 42 views
Month 84: 36 views
Month 85: 25 views
Month 86: 15 views
Month 87: 44 views
Month 88: 49 views
Month 89: 14 views
Month 90: 12 views
Month 91: 36 views
Month 92: 32 views
Month 93: 34 views
Month 94: 27 views
Month 95: 37 views
Month 96: 31 views
Month 97: 36 views
Month 98: 38 views
Month 99: 42 views
Month 100: 40 views
Month 101: 36 views
Month 102: 14 views
Month 103: 26 views
Month 104: 27 views
Month 105: 24 views
Month 106: 24 views
Month 107: 40 views
Month 108: 33 views
Month 109: 39 views
Month 110: 42 views
Month 111: 21 views
Month 112: 34 views
Month 113: 26 views
Month 114: 36 views
Month 115: 32 views
Month 116: 33 views
Month 117: 45 views
Month 118: 45 views
Month 119: 25 views
Month 120: 33 views
Month 121: 31 views
Month 122: 23 views
Month 123: 34 views
Month 124: 31 views
Month 125: 40 views
Month 126: 31 views
Month 127: 37 views
Month 128: 20 views
Month 129: 23 views
Month 130: 15 views
Month 131: 40 views
Month 132: 33 views
Month 133: 28 views
Month 134: 40 views
Month 135: 31 views
Month 136: 23 views
Month 137: 18 views
Month 138: 34 views
Month 139: 23 views
Month 140: 37 views
Month 141: 29 views
Month 142: 17 views
Month 143: 31 views
Month 144: 29 views
Month 145: 18 views
Month 146: 33 views
Month 147: 41 views
Month 148: 38 views
Month 149: 26 views
Month 150: 37 views
Month 151: 39 views
Month 152: 22 views
Month 153: 29 views
Month 154: 15 views
Month 155: 32 views
Month 156: 37 views
Month 157: 41 views
Month 158: 31 views
Month 159: 34 views
Month 160: 46 views
Month 161: 40 views
Month 162: 45 views
Month 163: 53 views

Total Views: 5047

Total Downloads: 2483

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]