Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Low cost digester monitoring under realistic conditions: Rural use of

biogas and digestate quality
L. Castro ⇑, H. Escalante, J. Jaimes-Estévez, L.J. Díaz, K. Vecino, G. Rojas, L. Mantilla
Grupo de Investigación en Tecnologías de Valorización de Residuos y Fuentes Agrícolas e Industriales para la Sustentabilidad Energética (INTERFASE), Escuela de Ingeniería
Química, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Carrera 27, Calle 9 Ciudad Universitaria, Bucaramanga, Colombia

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

A rural tubular digester was installed

and monitoring during under realistic
conditions.

Biogas production was enough to
supply 76% of energetic requirements.

A Colombian family from a rural area
saved 50 US$/month by using biogas
instead of propane.

Biogas digestate has a good quality
for agricultural systems.

Digestate required a post-treatment
for its final disposal.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this work was to assess the behaviour of anaerobic digestion of cattle manure in a rural
Received 10 March 2017 digester under realistic conditions, and estimate the quality and properties of the digestate. The data
Received in revised form 5 May 2017 obtained during monitoring indicated that the digester operation was stable without risk of inhibition.
Accepted 6 May 2017
It produced an average of 0.85 Nm3 biogas/d at 65.6% methane, providing an energy savings of 76%. In
Available online 10 May 2017
addition, the digestate contained high nutrient concentrations, which is an important feature of fertiliz-
ers. However, this method requires post-treatment due to the presence of pathogens.
Keywords:
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Anaerobic digestion
Biogas digestate
Cattle manure
Energy
Low-tech digester
Nutrients
Pathogens

1. Introduction environment. The community poverty rate is indicated by the type

Modern energy services are crucial to human prosperity and
national economic development. Currently, 1.2 billion people do
not have access to electricity and more than 2.7 billion people rely
on the traditional use of biomass for cooking (IEA, 2016). In devel-
oping countries, there is a link between energy, poverty, and the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pilicasmo84@gmail.com (L. Castro).
of fuel used for cooking. In Colombia, 52% of rural areas are known
as ‘‘non-interconnected”, and are difficult to access due to tertiary
roads (Escalante et al., 2016). In these zones, people use propane
gas as an alternative fuel for cooking. Nonetheless, there are draw-
backs to accessing this energy fuel, such as purchasing (USD $50/-
month on average), transporting costs from urban to rural areas
(USD $25/month on average), and risk in propane tank manage-
ment. To mitigate these disadvantages, the anaerobic digestion
(AD) process is a good candidate for improving the quality of life

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.035
0960-8524/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
312 L. Castro et al. / Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317
in the developing world. The tubular digester is widely used due to
its simple design and construction from readily available materials
(Kinyua et al., 2016a). Tubular digesters are mainly feed with cattle
manure at an organic loading rate between 0.3–2 kg VS/m diges-
ter*d (Garfí et al., 2016). However, problems reported from field
surveys indicate that users are not trained in proper tubular diges-
ter operation and biogas generation does not meet user
expectations.
Research on low-tech tubular digesters has focused on design,
construction, optimization in cold climates, odour control, water
pollution from animal facilities, and diminution of pathogens
(Garfí et al., 2016; Martí-Herrero et al., 2014). As example, low-
cost tubular digesters have been adapted to cold climates by add-
ing a greenhouse. This design acts as a solar heat collector, reduc-
ing heat losses to the ground. This configuration maintains the
slurry 8.4 °C above the mean ambient temperature (Perrigault,
2012). Moreover, Kinyua et al. (2016a) reviewed small-scale tubu-
lar anaerobic digesters treating livestock waste in the developing
world. They found that: (i) substrate characteristics, such as total
ammonium nitrogen (TAN) and pH varied from 0.086 to 1.4 g
NH4-N/l and 6.5–8.8, respectively; (ii) operation parameters, such
as Organic Load Rate (OLR) and temperatures ranged from 0.33
to 8.00 and 17 to 31 °C, respectively; and (iii) performance of tubu-
lar digesters yielded biogas at 0.012–0.50 Nm3 biogas/kg VSadded
and CH4 contents from 21 to 76%. Subsequently, Kinyua et al.
(2016b) investigated the performance of a tubular digester for
treating livestock waste in through experimental studies and bio-
process modelling; they found reductions of >75% in volatile solids
and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). In contrast, studies of
tubular reactors have emphasized the need to decrease pathogens
content at the end of the digestion process. An anaerobic process
removed 60% of Cryptosporidium parvum and 90% Giardia lamblia,
which are common pathogens in swine (Kinyua et al., 2016c).
However, the majority of studies analyse biodigester perfor-
mance with limited parameters. Generally, biogas production rate,
specific biogas production, and methane percentage are the most
studied variables. This represents a limited knowledge of opera-
tional conditions, biogas digestate, and microbiological behaviour
under real conditions. Here this study investigated the operational
dynamics and methanogenic activity in anaerobic transformation
of cattle manure in digester at real scale. Consequently, the aims
of this research were: (a) to assess the behaviour of anaerobic
digestion of cattle manure in a rural tubular digester under realistic
conditions, and (b) to estimate the quality and properties of the
biogas digestate.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site description
This study was carry out at a Colombian farm at an altitude of
959 m above sea level (m.a.s.l.) and a latitude of N 7°010 0.0700 W
73°080 13.300 with an average precipitation of 692 mm/m2. This
farm has three cow heads (Normande breed), with an average
weight of 210 kg. The cows are corralled 67% of the time. The farm
is 9 km from an urban area and has ‘‘tertiary roads” that limit
energy provision.
2.2. Sizing tubular digester and operational conditions
A low-cost digester was built with tubular polyethylene (caliber
8 and UV protection). Reactor dimensions were 1.3 m in diameter,
7.5 m in length, and 9.5 m3 total volume. Operational volume was
7.1 m3, corresponding to an average cattle manure production of
51 kg/d. The reactor was situated in a trapezoidal trench, upper
width: 1 m; bottom width 0.8 m; long: 7.5 m; and depth: 1 m.
The biogas produced was stored in a tubular polyvinyl reservoir,
5.1 m3 in volume (Martí-Herrero and Cipriano, 2012). Commercial
polyvinyl chloride used for water conduction was employed for
accessories and inlet and outlet pipes. The reactor was operated
with a continuous ORL of 0.7 kg VS/m3digester*d with a 1:3 cattle
manure to rainwater mixture. A hydraulic retention time (HRT) of
35 d was calculated according to operational volume. The environ-
mental temperature varied between 23 ± 5 °C.
2.3. Monitoring tubular digester
AD performance in a continuous tubular digester was moni-
tored over four months (29 April to 29 August 2016), measuring
biomethane potential (BMPinfluent), residual methane potential
(BMPeffluent), specific methanogenic activity (SMAinfluent), residual
methanogenic activity (SMAeffluent), organic matter content and
consumption (in terms of VS), volatile fatty acids (VFA), biogas pro-
duction, and methane concentration. The stability of the process
was evaluated using the VFA/TA ratio and pH.
2.4. Energetic and economic consideration
In order to determinate the economic saving using biogas (ESB;
S$), Eq. (1) was used to compare biogas with commercial gas
(propane).
ESB ¼ gbiodigester  PC ð1Þ
where PC is propane cost (US$). gbiodigester is the digester energetic
efficiency with respect to propane and is calculated as follows:
LCP biogas  Bflow
gbiodigester ¼  PC ð2Þ
LCP propane  Pflow
where LCPbiogas is the biogas low calorific power (MJ/m3), LCPpropane is
the propane low calorific power (MJ/m3; Li et al., 2017), and Bflow
and pflow are the volumetric biogas flow (m3/s) and volumetric pro-
pane flow (m3/s), respectively. LCPbiogas was determined as:
LCPbiogas ¼ LCP CH4  ð%CH4 Þbiogas ð3Þ
3
where LCPCH4 is the methane low calorific power (MJ/m ) and
ð%CH4 Þbiogas is methane percent in biogas.
2.5. Biogas digestate quality
In order to evaluate the digestate quality, two aspects were con-
sidered: (i) physicochemical characterization, including carbohy-
drates, lipids, proteins, K, Mg, Ca, Cl, Na, PO4-P, NH4-N and heavy
metals and (ii) microbiological analysis, including fecal coliforms,
helminth eggs and salmonella spp.
2.6. Analytical methods
Influent and effluent samples were collected every week over
the four months. Samples were carried to the laboratory on ice
and stored at 4 °C. BMP and residual methane potential tests were
carried out at 37 ± 2 °C following the guidelines described by
Angelidaki et al. (2009). SMAinfluent and SMAeffluent test were deter-
mined in accordance with Astals et al. (2015). The inoculum to
acetate ratio was 5.2 g VSinoculum g1 Ac. Analyses of volatile solids
(VS), proteins, and lipids were performed according to the standard
methods for the examination of wastewater (APHA, 2005). Carbo-
hydrates were estimated by subtracting the quantity of protein and
lipids from volatile solids (Galí et al., 2009). Total alkalinity (TA)
and VFA were measured by titration (Jobling et al., 2014). A pH
meter (691, Metrohm) was used to determine pH. Biogas produc-
 L. Castro et al. / Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317
tion was quantified daily in situ using a MetrexÒ model G2.5
flowmeter. Biogas measurements were normalized (1 atm; 25 °C)
according to Poling et al. (2001). Methane content was measured
using gas chromatography as described in APHA (2005). Emission,
atomic absorption, volumetric, colorimetric, and photometric
methods were used to determine physicochemical digestate prop-
erties (Kinyua et al., 2016c). Fecal coliform, helminth eggs and sal-
monella spp. indicators were determined using methods reported
in Rivera et al. (2012).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Specific methanogenic activity
The Colombian farm tubular digester was neither stirred nor
heated, and it was operated at local environmental temperatures
(23 ± 5 °C). Under these conditions, SMAinfluent (fresh cattle man-
ure) and SMAeffluent (biogas digestate) were 0.02 and 0.04 g COD/
g VS*d, respectively. Methanogenic activity was double in the efflu-
ent compared to the influent, which suggests that the archaea con-
tained in cattle manure satisfactorily adapted to the anaerobic
process. If microbial activity is compared to catalytic activity in a
chemical process, these results are considered successful. Com-
monly, stabilized cow manure SMA is low compared to other man-
ure. In the work of Regueiro et al. (2012), SMA activity was not
detected in cow manure digestate. In contrast, Quintero et al.
(2012) and Alzate-Moncada and Quintero (2016) used a pre-
acclimated cattle manure at 37 °C, reaching SMA values between
0.03 and 0.15 g COD/g VS*d respectively. In these studies, the
researchers employed a Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR)
digester. The present investigation demonstrates that with a tubu-
lar digester at the lower portion of the mesophilic range, cattle
manure is an ideal inoculum because of its capacity to promote
biogas production and its accessibility in rural areas.
3.2. Changes in control parameters in the low cost tubular digester
Regarding organic matter, the average VS of the influent
decreased from 33 ± 2 g VS/kg to 8 ± 0.4 g VS/kg (Fig. 1), indicating
76% removal, when the process was operated with a HRT of 35 d
and an OLR of 0.7 kg VS/m3digester*d. VS reduction implies a high
transformation of cattle manure, assuring anaerobiosis in the tubular
low cost digester. Investigations of tubular digesters with cattle
manure as raw material, carried out by Garfí et al. (2011) and
Lansing et al. (2008a), shown removals of VS between 22 to 80% with
Fig. 1. VS behaviour during monitoring.
313
HRT of 90 and 39 d and OLR of 0.34 and 1.01 kg VS/m3digester*d
respectively. These previous results are in agreement with our cur-
rent investigation, and show that VS reduction can be high even
when digesters are operated at low mesophilic temperatures (16–
27 °C).
VFA represents the easily biodegradable organic matter avail-
ability during anaerobic process. Fig. 2 shows that the VFA concen-
trations were between 1780 ± 102–660 ± 98 mg/l in the influent
and effluent, respectively. Sawatdeenarunat et al. (2017) reported
that anaerobically digested cattle manure is an ideal inoculum
for VFA production. In the currently research, the effluent VFA con-
centrations were under the inhibition limit concentration for con-
tinuous reactors (1500 mg/l; Søndergaard et al., 2015). This
indicates that the organic loading rate (OLR) was at the appropriate
operating condition for the anaerobic biochemical process.
The VFA/TA fluctuated between 0.52–0.94 mg Acetic Acid/mg
CaCO3 in the influent, while effluent values remained at
0.36 ± 0.07 mg Acetic Acid/mg CaCO3. This demonstrates the high
buffering capacity of cattle manure (Fig. 3a). VFA/TA values under
0.6 mg Acetic Acid/mg CaCO3 are adequate to process stability.
Anaerobic microbes are sensitive to temperature changes as
small as 1–3 °C. A variation in the temperature affects the stability
of the fermenting bacteria. This change in stability may cause pH
changes and decrease methane yield (Gerardi, 2003). The pH range
for a healthy and continuous AD process is 6.8–8.2 (Fotidis et al.,
2016). In the present study, the pH value for both the influent
and effluent was 7.47 ± 0.2 (Fig. 3b) at low mesophilic tempera-
ture. Therefore, the low cost digester was operating properly with-
out inhibition risk. Similar studies report pH ranges around 6.24–
7.7 and 6.58–7.61 for influent and effluent, respectively, for plug
flow digesters operating at temperatures between 16 and 27 °C
(Lansing et al., 2008a; Garfí et al., 2011).
3.3. BMP versus specific methane yield under realistic conditions
3.3.1. BMP and residual methane potential
The BMPinfluent and residual methane potential of the digestate
were 0.16 and 0.04 m3 CH4/kg VS, respectively (Fig. 4). The driving
force methane potential, 0.12 m3 CH4/kg VS, represents a favour-
able transformation of the composite cow manure into biogas in
the tubular digesters at realistic climate conditions. Cattle manure
presents BMP smaller yields than another manures due to cattle
manure having low lipid contents (2.44%). BMPinfluent values have
been reported as 0.19–0.32 m3 CH4/kg VS (Møller et al., 2014;
Fotidis et al., 2016; Kafle and Chen, 2016). Those higher reported
314 L. Castro et al. / Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317

Fig. 2. VFA changes in influent and effluent.

Fig. 3. (a) Volatile fatty acid/total alkalinity ratio (VFA/TA) and (b) pH variability during monitoring.

Fig. 4. Biomethane potential (BMP) in influent and effluent.

values are likely due to reactor type and operating conditions (e.g.,
temperature and stirring).
Residual methane recovery from digestate represents 6% of the
methane yield obtained in the tubular digester. This result is in
agreement with previous research, where losses from a biogas
plant are between 5–25% depending on HRT (Angelidaki et al.,
2005). In the case of digestate from cattle manure, Rico et al.
(2011) reported 4.2% of residual methane in the digestate from cat-
tle manure digester with a 20 d HRT and 2 kg VS/m3*d OLR. The
authors concluded that the biogas content in the digestate is inver-
 L. Castro et al. / Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317
sely proportional to the HRT. In current investigation HRT (35 d)
and OLR (0.7 kg VS/m3*d) were not response variables and
0.14 m3/d of digestate were produced.
Therefore, based on residual methane experiments and biogas
digestate rate, this research suggests implementing a degasifica-
tion process to recover the retained biogas, avoid disagreeable
odour emissions, and reduce greenhouse gas release.
3.3.2. Biogas production in the Colombian farm tubular digester
The digester start-up lasted 35 d in order to stimulate the
methanogen growth rate. In this period, biogas production fluctu-
ated between 0.08–0.65 Nm3/d (Fig. 5). During the continuous pro-
cess, biogas production stabilized at an average value of
0.85 Nm3 biogas/d with a quality of 65.6% of CH4; the cattle man-
ure acts as both substrate and inoculum. These results correspond
with the volatile solid removal (76%) and a favourable cattle man-
ure to rainwater ratio (1:3). Previous work investigating the design
and operation of the low cost tubular digester indicated that for
every 1 kg of cattle manure, 0.032 Nm3 biogas was produced
(Martí-Herrero and Cipriano, 2012). Based on this previous work,
biogas production of 1.0 Nm3 was expected in this study. However,
biogas production was 0.85 Nm3, suggesting a mass transfer that
retained 0.15 Nm3 of biogas in the digestate.
Martí-Herrero et al. (2015) defined BPR and SBP as digester and
anaerobic digestion process efficiencies, respectively. In this study,
a BPR of 0.13 m3biogas/m3digester*d and a SBP of 0.15 m3biogas/kg VS were
obtained with a 35 d HRT and 0.7 kg VS/m3digester*d OLR. Lansing et al.
(2008a) obtained efficiencies of 0.37 m3biogas/m3digester*d in the diges-
ter and 0.35 m3biogas/kg VS in AD process. Those values were higher
than the current study, due to differences in operating conditions
(1.01 kg VS/m3digester*d OLR and 39 d HRT). Otherwise, Garfi et al.
(2011), located the digester at 2800 m.a.s.l, and had a significantly
higher HRT (90 d) and reduced OLR (0.34 kg VS/m3digester*d), which
led to the efficiencies of 0.11 m3biogas/m3digester*d BPR and 0.32 m3biogas/
kg VS SBP. In comparison, this study had a lower efficiency in the
digester, probably due to the operating temperature range
(23 ± 5 °C). In summary, previous studies indicate that the overall
efficiency of the AD implementation, expressed as a function of the
rising BPR and SBP, depends on designing and controlling the HRT
and OLR variables.
The BMP test, is a key parameter in the design, economy, and
management of full-scale AD implementations. Many studies have
addressed differences in BMP tests in a variety of substrates (Bauer
et al., 2009; Nkemka and Murto, 2013; Wang et al., 2015). How-
ever, in those studies, comparisons between methane yield at the
laboratory and realistic scale were limited. In this study BMPinfluent,
under optimal conditions for AD, was 0.16 m3 CH4/kg VS and real
Fig. 5. Biogas production tracing.
315
specific methane yield was 0.10 CH4/kg VS. Real methane yield
represents 63% of the BMP test. These results indicate that the
AD implementation from cattle manure at full scale in a low cost
tubular digester was successful.
The volatile solids removed and BMP percent were 76% and 75%
respectively. The quantitative similarity of these variables indi-
cates that biomethane potential percent could be used as a control
parameter to evaluate tubular digester performance.
3.4. Energy and economic considerations
Table 1 shows the energy consideration for this experiment and
traditional energy source. In this study, the biogas produced could
replace 80% of the traditional fuel (propane). The biogas production
was enough to supply cooking requirements for five people for five
hours per day. While the propane gas yield is higher than biogas
yield, users (farmers) can save 76% in terms of energy and USD
$50/month in fuel and transport.
3.5. Digestate quality
Biogas digestate physicochemical characteristics include nutri-
ents, Na: 0.39 g/kg, Mg: 0.15 g/kg, Ca: 0.88 g/kg, and K: 1.58 g/kg;
macromolecules, lipids: 1.97 g/kg, carbohydrates: 8.51 g/kg, and
proteins: 3.46 g/kg; and heavy metals, Al: 0.02 g/kg.
Na concentration is an important factor to assess the suitability
of effluent irrigation. Large concentrations can inhibit the soil
hydraulic conductivity, reduce aeration, and induce soil hardening.
To assess the suitability of a treated effluent for agricultural use,
Na, Mg, and Ca concentrations in the digestate were used to deter-
minate the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). The SAR in the effluent
was 3.19, implying a low Na hazard (Clark and Mason, 2006;
Turner et al., 2010).
Macromolecules in the effluent indicate that the organic matter
(cattle manure) transformation was carried out successfully in the
digester, even at environmental temperatures of 23 ± 5 °C. Lipids,
carbohydrates and proteins in digestate represents the easily
decomposed fraction of organic matter for plants and are the main
food supply for various organisms in the soil. Digestate gradually
releases plant nutrients under microbial mineralization and acts
as soil amendment (Monlau et al., 2016). Digestate land applica-
tion can improve soil properties, which is represented in the
increase of crops yield. A yield increase between 15% and 28% have
been reported for organic cropping systems, where fertilization is
based on AD of crop residues or greenmanure (Stinner et al.,
2008; Gunnarsson et al., 2011; Möller and Müller, 2012). In terms
of soluble organic matter, the VFA concentration was
316 L. Castro et al. / Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317
Table 1
Energy considerations.
Parameter Unit Traditional Renewable
fuel energy
(Propane) (Biogas)
Low calorific power kJ/m3 46367 23616
Gas flow required for cooking m3/month 18 27
Energy available kJ/month 834606 637632
488 ± 105.91 mg/l. These results demonstrate that the digestate
characteristics prevented a negative priming effect on organic mat-
ter mineralization (Fontaine et al., 2003).
3.5.1. Phosphate and ammonium behaviour
Phosphorus (P) is essential for microorganism growth. The
usual forms of P in cattle effluents from anaerobic digesters are
inorganic polyphosphates and organic phosphates. During anaero-
bic metabolism, polyphosphates undergo hydrolysis and are con-
verted and solubilized to the ionic form, allowing PO4-P release
(Marti et al., 2008; Sathasivan, 2008). In the Colombian biogas
digester, the effluent phosphate concentration was
114 ± 14 mg PO4-P/l. This is in agreement with the results of
Huchzermeier and Tao (2012), who presented phosphate effluent
concentrations of 68.15 ± 27 mg PO4-P/l for cattle manure.
Güngör and Karthikeyan (2008) presented ranges between 28
and 58 mg PO4-P/l. Further, Lansing et al. (2008a) reached effluent
concentrations of 33.0 ± 2.9 mg PO4-P/l with a VS consumption of
68%. The phosphate concentrations reached in this study are plau-
sible due to the adequate organic matter consumption, 76% VS
removed, during the biochemical process. In addition, from an agri-
cultural perspective, P is an important plant macronutrient. Degra-
dation processes during AD improves P plant availability; plants
can easily absorb concentrations of PO4-P for favourable growth
(Nkoa, 2014).
Ammonium is attributed to organic matter mineralization and
is an indicator of AD stability. Concentrations below 200 NH4-
N mg/l are beneficial to anaerobic microorganisms, increase pH,
and improve methane percent CH4. However, at concentrations
above 1500 mg NH4-N/l, the activity of methanogens can be inhib-
ited (Gerardi, 2003; Lansing et al., 2008a; Lansing et al., 2008b).
Throughout our study, the ammonium content remained under
inhibitory levels: influent and effluent concentrations were 32 ± 5
and 96 ± 6 NH4-N mg/l, respectively. Under these conditions, the
pH maintained stability (7.47 ± 0.2) and biogas CH4 was 65.5%.
Lansing et al. (2008a) reported similar values for influent and efflu-
ent reactors for cow (20.5–18.5 NH4-N mg/l) and pig manure (37–
149 NH4-N mg/l). The methane percent in those cases reached
61.7% (pH = 6.7) for cattle manure and 63.9% (pH = 7.1) for pig
manure. Consequently, ammonium behaviour in this study vali-
dates the suitable operation of this tubular digester, allowing
stable pH values and proper methane content.
Additionally, phosphate and ammonium content in biogas
digestate are potential fertilizers, and digestate land application
can improve soil quality by increasing biomass and N-P content.
Some studies have reported that crop yields increase between
15% and 28% (Möller and Müller, 2012). Therefore, with the con-
centrations reached in this study, land application could benefit
plant yields (Lansing et al., 2008b). The nutrients and heavy metals
in the digestate are important properties for agricultural systems
and represent savings by replacing chemical fertilizers.
3.5.2. Digestate microbiological analysis
The results of the biogas digestate (effluent) microbiological
characterization indicate 1.06  106 CFU/gTS fecal coliforms, 24
HH/4 gTS helminth eggs, and an absence of salmonella spp. This
result confirms that the anaerobic digestion process decreases
the number of pathogens (Schievano et al., 2008). It is also compa-
rable with Goberna et al. (2011), who reported the absence of cul-
ture forms of salmonella after AD of cow manure from a biogas
plant, feed of 5 m3/d and HRT = 60 d. However, under these
research operational conditions, there are risks of spreading poten-
tially pathogenic microbes onto agricultural fields using anaerobi-
cally digested cattle manure as fertilizer. The presence of fecal
coliforms and helminth eggs demonstrate that the effluent cannot
be applied directly to crops designated for human consumption.
According to US EPA (2016), digestate is classified as Class B due
to its pathogen content, which poses a hazard to public health.
Therefore, post-treatments are required for final digestate disposal,
such as struvite precipitation. This post treatment is considered a
low cost technology and is affordable for rural areas habitants.
Struvite precipitation reduces the costs of digestate transport and
storage, and minimizes the spread of pathogens (Huchzermeier
and Tao, 2012).
Colombia has an economy based in many agricultural activities,
such as coffee, palm oil, sugar cane, and bananas, therefore it
requires an average of 2.2 Mt of chemical fertilizer annually. This
situation brings high costs and environmental problems, including
CO2 and NH3 emissions. Based on the results obtained in this
research, an alternative to mitigate those problems is using biogas
digestate, which could supply the chemical fertilizer demands.
4. Conclusions
A rural low cost tubular digester was monitored over four
months under realistic conditions. In this research, three main
advantages were found.

Environmental impact: 51 kg/d of cattle manure were stabilized
by AD.

Energy impact: the average produced biogas, 0.85 Nm3/d – 65.6%
CH4, can be used for cooking, saving USD $50/month in fuel and
transport or 76% in terms of energy.

Agricultural impact: the digestate (0.14 m3/d) presented high
contents of nutrients that are important for use as fertilizer,
generating agronomic benefits. However, the effluent requires
post-treatment due to the presence of pathogens.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Universi-
dad Industrial de Santander for partially supporting this study. We
would also like to express our thanks to the Marcella farm in San-
tander for providing the experimental location to install the tubu-
lar digester used in this study.
References
Alzate-Moncada, M., Quintero, M., 2016. Characterization of trophic groups
throughout an anaerobic digestion process with cattle manure slurry using a
low-cost method. Revista Ion 29 (1), 117–123.
Angelidaki, I., Boe, K., Ellegaard, L., 2005. Effect of operating conditions and reactor
configuration on efficiency of full-scale biogas plants. Water Sci. Technol. 52 (1–
2), 189–194.
Angelidaki, I., Alves, M., Bolzonella, D., Borzacconi, L., Campos, J., Guwy, A., Lier, J.V.,
2009. Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and
energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Sci. Technol. 59, 927–
934.
APHA, 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
APHA, Washington.
Astals, S., Baststone, D., Taid, S., Jensen, P., 2015. Development and validation of a
rapid test for anaerobic inhibition and toxicity. Water Res. 81, 208–215.
 L. Castro et al. / Bioresource Technology 239 (2017) 311–317
Bauer, A., Bösch, P., Friedl, A., Amon, T., 2009. Analysis of methane potentials of
steam-exploded wheat straw and estimation of energy yields of combined
ethanol and methane production. J. Biotechnol., 50–55
Clark, M., Mason, J., 2006. Water-quality characteristics, including sodium-
adsorption ratios, for four sites in the Powder River drainage basin, Wyoming
and Montana. Water Years, 2001–2004.
Escalante, H., Castro, L., Gauthier-Maradei, P., De La Vega, R., 2016. Spatial decision
support system to evaluate crop residue energy potential by anaerobic
digestion. Bioresour. Technol., 80–90
Fontaine, S., Mariotti, A., Abbadie, L., 2003. The priming effect of organic matter: a
question of microbial competition? Soil Biol. Biochem. 35 (6), 837–843.
Fotidis, I., Laranjeiro, T., Angelidaki, I., 2016. Alternative co-digestion scenarios for
efficient fixed-dome reactor biomethanation processes. J. Cleaner Prod. 127,
610–617.
Galí, A., Benabdallah, T., Astals, S., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2009. Modified version of ADM1
model for agro-waste application. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 2783–2790.
Garfí, M., Ferrer-Martí, L., Perez, I., Flotats, X., Ferrer, I., 2011. Codigestion of cow and
guinea pig manure in low-cost tubular digesters at high altitude. Ecol. Eng. 37
(12), 2066–2070.
Garfí, M., Martí-Herrero, J., Garwood, A., 2016. Household anaerobic digesters for
biogas production in Latin America: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60,
599–614.
Gerardi, M., 2003. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters. John Wiley & Sons.
Goberna, M., Podmirseg, S., Waldhuber, S., Knapp, B., García, C., Insam, H., 2011.
Pathogenic bacteria and mineral N in soils following the land spreading of
biogas digestates and fresh manure. Appl. Soil Ecol. 49, 18–25.
Güngör, K., Karthikeyan, K., 2008. Phosphorus forms and extractability in dairy
manure: a case study for Wisconsin on-farm anaerobic digesters. Bioresour.
Technol. 99 (2), 425–436.
Gunnarsson, A., Lindén, B., Gertsson, U., 2011. Biodigestion of plant material can
improve nitrogen use efficiency in a red beet crop sequence. HortScience 46 (5),
765–775.
Huchzermeier, M.P., Tao, W., 2012. Overcoming challenges to struvite recovery
from anaerobically digested dairy manure. Water Environ. Res. 84 (1), 34–41.
IEA, 2016. International Energy Agency. Retrieved 2017, from <http://
www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/>.
Jobling, B., Thai, S., Fritz, T., Esteves, S., Dinsdale, R., Guwy, A., 2014. An improved
titration model reducing over estimation of total volatile fatty acids in
anaerobic digestion of energy crop, animal slurry and food waste. Water
Environ. Res. 64, 162–170.
Kafle, G., Chen, L., 2016. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different
livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP)
using different statistical models. Waste Manage. 48, 492–502.
Kinyua, M., Rowse, L., Ergas, S., 2016a. Review of small-scale tubular anaerobic
digesters treating livestock waste in the developing world. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 58, 896–910.
Kinyua, M., Trimmer, J., Izurieta, R., Cunningham, J., Ergas, S., 2016b. Viability and
fate of Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia in tubular anaerobic
digesters. Sci. Total Environ. 554, 167–177.
Kinyua, M., Zhang, J., Camacho-Céspedes, F., Tejada-Martinez, A., Ergas, S., 2016c.
Use of physical and biological process models to understand the performance of
tubular anaerobic digesters. Biochem. Eng. J. 107, 35–44.
Lansing, S., Botero, R., Martin, J., 2008a. Waste treatment and biogas quality in
small-scale agricultural digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (13), 5881–5890.
Lansing, S., Víquez, J., Martínez, H., Botero, R., Martin, J., 2008b. Quantifying
electricity generation and waste transformations in a low-cost, plug-flow
anaerobic digestion system. Ecol. Eng., 332–348
Li, Y., Liu, H., Yan, F., Su, D., Wang, Y., Zhou, H., 2017. High-calorific biogas
production from anaerobic digestion of food waste using a two-phase
pressurized biofilm (TPPB) system. Bioresour. Technol., 56–62
Marti, N., Bouzas, A., Seco, A., Ferrer, J., 2008. Struvite precipitation assessment in
anaerobic digestion processes. Chem. Eng. J. 141 (1), 67–74.
Martí-Herrero, J., Cipriano, J., 2012. Design methodology for low cost tubular
digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 108, 21–27.
317
Martí-Herrero, J., Alvarez, R., Rojas, M., Aliaga, L., Céspedes, R., Carbonell, J., 2014.
Improvement through low cost biofilm carrier in anaerobic tubular digestion in
cold climate regions. Bioresour. Technol. 167, 87–93.
Martí-Herrero, J., Alvarez, R., Cespedes, R., Rojas, M., Conde, V., Aliaga, L., Danov, S.,
2015. Cow, sheep and llama manure at psychrophilic anaerobic co-digestion
with low cost tubular digesters in cold climate and high altitude. Bioresour.
Technol. 181, 238–246.
Möller, K., Müller, T., 2012. Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient
availability and crop growth: a review. Eng. Life Sci. 12 (3), 242–257.
Møller, H., Moset, V., Brask, M., Weisbjerg, M., Lund, P., 2014. Feces composition and
manure derived methane yield from dairy cows: influence of diet with focus on
fat supplement and roughage type. Atmos. Environ. 94, 36–43.
Monlau, F., Francavilla, M., Sambusiti, C., Antoniou, N., Solhy, A., Libutti, A.,
Monteleone, M., 2016. Oward a functional integration of anaerobic digestion
and pyrolysis for a sustainable resource management. Comparison between
solid-digestate and its derived pyrochar as soil amendment. Appl. Energy 169,
652–662.
Nkemka, V., Murto, M., 2013. Biogas production from wheat straw in batch and
UASB reactors: the roles of pretreatment and seaweed hydrolysate as a co-
substrate. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 164–172.
Nkoa, R., 2014. Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization
with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34 (2), 473–492.
Perrigault, T.W.-H., 2012. Towards thermal design optimization of tubular digesters
in cold climates: a heat transfer model. Bioresour. Technol. 124, 259–268.
Poling, B., Prausnitz, J., O’connell, J., 2001. The Properties of Gases and Liquids, vol. 5.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Quintero, M., Castro, L., Ortiz, C., Guzmán, C., Escalante, H., 2012. Enhancement of
starting up anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic substrate: fique’s bagasse as
an example. Bioresour. Technol. 108, 8–13.
Regueiro, L., Veiga, P., Figueroa, M., Alonso-Gutierrez, J., Stams, A., Lema, J., Carballa,
M., 2012. Relationship between microbial activity and microbial community
structure in six full-scale anaerobic digesters. Microbiol. Res. 167 (10), 581–589.
Rico, C., Rico, J., Tejero, I., Muñoz, N., Gómez, B., 2011. Anaerobic digestion of the
liquid fraction of dairy manure in pilot plant for biogas production: residual
methane yield of digestate. Waste Manage. 31 (9), 2167–2173.
Rivera, D., Plata, L., Guzman, C., Castro, L., Escalante, H., 2012. Application of solid
by-product generated in fique’s bagasse (furcraea macrophylla) anaerobic
digestion for soil improvement. Ion 25 (1), 25–34.
Sathasivan, 2008. Biological phosphorus removal process for wastewater treatment.
Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies-Encyclopedia of Life Support
Systems (EOLSS). Obtenido de http://www.eolss.net/Sample-Chapters C, 7.
Sawatdeenarunat, C., Sung, S., Khanal, S., 2017. Enhanced volatile fatty acids
production during anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass via micro-
oxygenation. Bioresour. Technol. 237, 139–145.
Schievano, A., Adani, F., Tambone, F., D’Imporzano, G., Scaglia, B., Genevini, P., 2008.
What is digestate? In: Adani, F., Schievano, A., Boccasile, G. (Eds.), Anaerobic
Digestion; Opportunities for Agriculture and Environment. University of Milan,
Milano, Italy, pp. 7–18.
Søndergaard, M., Fotidis, I., Kovalovszki, A., Angelidaki, I., 2015. Anaerobic co-
digestion of agricultural byproducts with manure for enhanced biogas
production. Energy Fuels 29 (12), 8088–8094.
Stinner, W., Möller, K., Leithold, G., 2008. Effects of biogas digestion of clover/grass-
leys, cover crops and crop residues on nitrogen cycle and crop yield in organic
stockless farming systems. Eur. J. Agron. 29 (2), 125–134.
Turner, J., Hattey, J., Warren, J., Penn, C., 2010. Electrical conductivity and sodium
adsorption ratio changes following annual applications of animal manure
amendments. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 1043–1060
US EPA, 2016, december 12. EPA. Retrieved December 16, 2016, from United States
Environmental Protection Agency: <https://www.epa.gov/biosolids>.
Wang, B., Strömberg, S., Li, C., Nges, I., Nistor, M., Deng, L., Liu, J., 2015. Effects of
substrate concentration on methane potential and degradation kinetics in batch
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 194, 240–246.