Article Versions
Export Article
Open Access Peer-reviewed

Quadratic Yield Response of Methane Gas to Input Ratio of Organic Loading Rate and Hydraulic Retention Time during Microbial Digestion of Fruit Wastes

C. I. Nwoye1,, I. C. E. Umeghalu2, S. E. Ede3, N. I. Amalu4, W. C. Onyia3, N. E. Idenyi5

1Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria

2Department of Agric and Bioresoures Engineering

3Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Enugu State University of Science & Technology, Enugu, Nigeria

4Project Development Institute Enugu

5Department of Industrial Physics, Ebonyi State University, Abakiliki, Nigeria

Biomedicine and Biotechnology. 2014, 2(4), 93-101. DOI: 10.12691/bb-2-4-5
Published online: August 25, 2017

Abstract

The yield response of methane gas during microbial digestion of fruit wastes was evaluated based on the operational input ratio of organic loading rate (OLR) and hydraulic retention time (HRT). Computational analysis of generated experimental results indicates that the yield response was empirically a two-factorial quadratic model which was validated for predictive analysis and evaluation. The validity of the model; ζ = 2.1863 (ϑ/ɤ)2 - 2.4573 (ϑ/ɤ) + 0.72 was rooted on the core model expression ζ - 0.72 = 2.1863(ϑ/ɤ)2 – 2.4573 (ϑ/ɤ) where both sides of the expression are correspondingly approximately equal. Results of methane gas yield were generated using regression model and its trend of distribution was compared with that from derived model for the purpose of verifying its validity relative to experimental results. The results of the verification process show very close dimensions of covered areas and shapes designating methane gas yield, which precisely translated into significantly similar trend of data point’s distribution for experimental (ExD), derived model (MoD) and regression model-predicted (ReG) results. Methane gas yield per unit input ratio OLR/ HRT were evaluated from experimental, derived model & regression model predicted results as 1.0035, 0.9893 & 0.9574 m6 Kg -2 d2 respectively. Standard errors incurred in predicting methane gas yield for each value of OLR, HRT & OLR/HRT considered as obtained from experiment, derived model and regression model were 0.1237, 0.1032 & 0.0226%, 0.1214, 0.1055 & 0.0221 % and 0.122, 0.1032 & 2.5336 x 10-5 respectively. The operationally viable deviation range of model-predicted methane gas yield from the experimental results was 3.75-15.25 %. This translated into 84.75-96.26 % operational confidence and reliability level for the derived models, as well as 0.85–0.96 yield response coefficient of methane gas to the input ratio OLR/ HRT.

Keywords:

quadratic yield response, methane gas, input ratio of hydraulic retention time, organic loading rate, microbial digestion, fruit wastes
[1]  Mital, K. M. (1996). Biogas Systems: Principles and Applications, New Age International (P) Limited Publishers, New Delhi, p. 412.
 
[2]  Ramasamy, K. (1998). in Renewable Energy – Basics and Technology (ed. Gupta, C. L.), Auroville Foundation and Solar Agni International, Pondicherry, pp. 239-271.
 
[3]  Yeole, T. Y. and Ranade, D. R. (1992). Alternative Feedstocks for Biogas, 10-16.
 
[4]  Gadre, R. V., Ranade, D. R. and Godbole, S. H. (1990) Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 32, 45-49.
 
[5]  Ranade, D. R., Nagarwala, N. N., Dudhbhate, J. A., Gadre, R. V. and Godbole, S. H. (1990). Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 32, 63-65.
 
[6]  Smith, W. H., Wilkie, A. C. and Smith, P. H.(1992). TIDE, 2, 1-20.
 
[7]  Smith, P. H., Bordeaux, F. M., Wilkie, A., Yang, J., Boone, D., Mah, R. A., Chynoweth, D. and Jerger, D. (1998). in Methane from Biomass: A Systems Approach (eds Smith, W. H. and Frank, J. R.), Elsevier Applied Science, London, p. 500. PubMed 
 
[8]  Chynoweth, D. P., Turik, C. E., Owens, J. M., Jerger, D. E. and Peck, M. W.(1993). Biomass Bioenergy, 5, 95-111.View Article 
 
[9]  Sharma, S. K., Mishra, I. M., Sharma, M. P. and Saini, J. S. (1998). Biomass, 17, 251-263.View Article 
 
[10]  Sharma, S. K., Saini, J. S., Mishra, I. M. and Sharma, M. P.(1989). Biol. Wastes, 28, 25-32.View Article 
 
[11]  Krishnanand, K. (1994). Indian Food Ind., 13, 33-35.
 
[12]  Gunaseelan, V. N. (1997). Biomass Bioenergy, 13, 83-114.View Article 
 
[13]  Ramasamy, K., Ilamurugu, K., Sahul Hameed, M. and Maheswari, M. (1995). Tech. Bull., 5, 36.
 
[14]  Gunaseelan, V. N. (1994). Biomass Bioenergy, 6, 391-398.View Article 
 
[15]  Deshpande, P., Sarnaik, S., Godbole, S. H. and Wagle, P. M. (1979). Curr. Sci., 48, 490-492.
 
[16]  Mallick, M. K., Singh, U. K. and Ahmad, N. (1990). Biol. Wastes, 31, 315-319.View Article 
 
[17]  Chanakya, H. N., Ganguli, N. K., Anand, V. and Jagadeesh, K. S. (1995). Energy Sustain. Dev., 1, 43-46.
 
[18]  Anonymous, (1989). Final report submitted to Department of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Government of India, New Delhi.
 
[19]  Viswanath, P., Devi, S. and Krishnanand., Biores. Technol., 1992, 40, 43-48.View Article 
 
[20]  Nwoye, C. I., Asuke, F., Ijomah, A., Obiorah, S.(2012). Model for Assessment Evaluation of Methane Gas Yield Based on Hydraulic Retention Time during Fruit Wastes Biodigestion. Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering, 11: 947-952.
 
[21]  Nwoye, C. I., and Nwabanne, J. T. (2013). Empirical analysis of methane gas yield dependence on organic loading rate during microbial treatment of fruit wastes in digester. Advances in Applied Science Research, 2013, 4(1):308-318.
 
[22]  C. I. Nwoye, A. O. Agbo, K. C. Nnakwo, E. M. Ameh, and C. C. Nwogbu, “Reliability Level of Methane Gas Production Dependence on Organic Loading Rate and Hydraulic Retention Time during Biodegradation of Fruit Wastes.” International Journal of Environmental Bioremediation & Biodegradation 1, no. 2 (2013): 66-72.
 
[23]  Nwoye, C. I., (2008). Data Analytical Memory; C-NIKBRAN. PubMed 
 
[24]  Nwoye, C. I., and Nwabanne J. T. (2013). Empirical Analysis of Methane Gas Yield Dependence on Organic Loading Rate during Microbial Treatment of Fruit Wastes in Digester. Advances in Applied Science Research 4(1): 308-318.