ACALA - STEM2.G4 - Gallus Gallus Domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES..A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS

Gallus gallus domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD
FOOD WASTES: A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS
A Research Project
BY:
CARIÑO, John Rain P.

LAGBANG, Marjun M.
QUINTANILLA, Verte Mae N.
TILLANO, Kristine Eve D.
GRADE 12 - STEM 2
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
GENERAL SANTOS CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Calumpang, General Santos City
March 2020
Gallus gallus domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD
FOOD WASTES: A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS
A Quantitative Research Submitted

to the Research Council
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement

of Practical Research 2 (Quantitative)
BY:
CARIÑO, John Rain P.

LAGBANG, Marjun M.
QUINTANILLA, Verte Mae N.
TILLANO, Kristine Eve D.
GRADE12 – STEM 2
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
GENERAL SANTOS CITY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
March 2020
iii
Abstract
This study focused on the production of biomethane gas from the chicken
droppings of Southern Venture Poultry Farm and Household Food Wastes from
Silway, San Juan, Dadiangas West, General Santos City. This is to utilize the
waste to energy technology and manage biodegradable wastes. This study had
three treatments and used a single-stage biodigester to generate biomethane gas.
Treatment 1 consisted 9 kilograms chicken droppings and 3 kilograms household
food wastes, treatment 2 was composed of 6 kilograms chicken droppings and 6
kilograms household food wastes and biodigester for treatment 3 was filled with 3
kilograms chicken droppings and 9 kilograms household food wastes. Operating
parameters such as pH level and temperature of the substrates were also
measured. The gathered data for the biomethane yield in each treatment was
analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Treatment 1 had an average yield
of 5 214.86 cm3 which was the highest among the three treatments and operated
at mesophilic condition ranging from 29.4 °C to 35.6 °C and its pH level was from
5.6 to 7. Treatment 2 had an average yield of 734.14 cm3 and operated also at
mesophilic temeperature range that was from 29.2 °C to 34.3 °C while treatment 3
had failed to produce biogas because of its very acidic condition since it had
operated in an average pH level of 5.5 and at mesophilic condition in which its
temperature ranged from 27.4 °C to 32.2 °C. From this result, the researchers
concluded that there were more biomethane gas that could be produced at 9:3
ratio of chicken droppings and household food waste. Moreover, statistics showed
that there was no significant difference between the biomethane yield in each
treatment.
iv
Acknowledgment
The researchers would like to extend their heartfelt gratitude to the following
people and being;
First and foremost, the researchers would like to give their thanks to the
Almighty God for His unceasing guidance and for continuously providing
strength, knowledge and wisdom that the researchers needed during the conduct
of their study.
Also, they are grateful of their research teacher Mr. Walter N. Acala, for his
unending support and for teaching the researchers the fundamental concepts of
making a research project and for sharing his knowledge in statistics.
Next, the researchers would also like to thank their research panel which
was composed of Ms. Rosemarie Santos, Ms. Ridaliza Magoncia and Ms.
Jimenea Alona for extending their critics and helpful suggestions in order to
improve this study.
Then, they would like to express also their heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Roger
V. Labor, their research coach for his valuable and constructive recommendations
during the planning and development of this research work and for sharing his
knowledge in the field of chemistry.
Moreover, they wanted also to give their thanks to their fellow classmates
and friends for extending their moral support for the success of this study. The
researchers sincerely appreciated all their effort.

v
Furthermore, nobody has been more important to them in the pursuit of this
project than the members of the family. They would like to thank their parents,
whose love and guidance are with them in whatever they pursue”
The Researchers
Table of Contents
Page
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv
Chapter I: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Scope and Delimitations 3
Significance of the Study 4
Chapter II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

A. Related Literature 6
B. Related Studies 16
C. Research Gaps 21
D. Conceptual Framework 21
Chapter III: METHODOLOGY

Research Design 24
Research Site Location and Duration 24
Map of the Location of the Study 25
Procedural Flowchart 26
Sampling Design 27
Materials and Instrumentation 30
Operationalization of Variables 35
Chapter IV: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Biomethane Gas Yield 36
pH Level 37
Temperature 39
Significant Difference of Biomethane Yield
between each Treatments 40
Chapter V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 41
Conclusion 42
Recommendations 42
REFERENCES 44
APPENDICES
A – Observation Sheet 52
B – Gathered Data 53
C – Statistical Analysis 54
D – Gantt Chart 55
E – Permit to Conduct Study 57
F – Letter to Southern Venture Poultry Farm 58
G – Letter to Gather Household Food Wastes 59
H – Letter to SHS Laboratory 60
I – Letter to Conduct at SHS Laboratory 61
J – Letter to the Laboratory of
Notre Dame Dadiangas University 62
K – Statistician’s Certificate 63
L – Budget Matrix 64
M – Pre-Experimental Phase 66
N – Experimental Phase 75
O – Post-Experimental Phase 82
CURRICULUM VITAE 83
List of Figures
No. Title Page
1 Conceptual Framework 23
2 Melecia Village 25
3 Procedural Flowchart 26
4 Single Stage Digester 27
5 Anaerobic Digester of Each Treatment 28
6 Experimental Research Design 29
7 Single Stage Digester Lay-out 31
8 Biomethane Yield in Each Treatment 36
9 pH Level in Each Treatment 37
10 Temperature in Each Treatment 39

List of Table
No. Title Page
3 Significant Difference of Biomethane Yield in Each Treatment 40

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Many households today use Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in cooking
food and heating purposes. According to World LPG Association, that as of 2016
the Philippines yearly demand of LPG was 1.43 metric tons, with 68 percent of it is
imported. The annual LPG demand in the country has increased by 10 percent
since year 2014. In addition, Philippine Statistics Authority has shown that LPG is
one of the widely used fuels in the country. According to them, it has increased by
56.7 percent in comparison to 1989 figures. However, LPG is derived from
petroleum which is a non-renewable fuel source. As defined by Abdullah (2017),
non-renewable resources are those with the smallest chance to be recovered
when depleted, such as petroleum, coal and natural gas.
Nevertheless, the use of anaerobic digestion technology would help to
supplement the demand of the country. Anaerobic digestion is a process of
breaking down of organic matter through bacteria found in manure in an air tight
chamber or container. Methane from biomass is safe to use. According to Msibi
and Komelius (2017), it improves health of rural low-income household by
providing them cleaner cooking fuel and a waste handling solution. Also, using
biomass to produce methane reduces the chance of deforestation by turning
human dependency on fuel woods into biomethane.

2
In this study, the researchers focused on the utilization of chicken droppings
in digesting household food wastes anaerobically to produce methane gas. They
had also examined the operating parameters of the, methane yield and the
significant difference between each treatments.
By producing biomethane gas through anaerobic digestion, low income
households and those LPG dependent household can save money from LPG price
hikes and developed a waste handling solution. This study would be very
beneficial as one of the solutions in handling biodegradable waste material and in
identifying renewable fuel source.
Statement of the Problem
This study sought to answer the following questions in order for the
researcher to determine the efficacy of using chicken droppings and household
food wastes in biomethane production:
1. What is the biomethane gas yield in the following ratio of chicken
droppings and household food wastes:
1.1 Treatment 1 (9 kilograms of chicken droppings and 3
kilograms of household food wastes);
kilograms of household food wastes); and
kilograms of household food wastes)?

3
2. What is the operating parameter of the substrates in each treatment in
terms of:
2.1 pH level; and
2.2 Temperature?
3. Is there a significant difference between the biomethane yield in the
different ratio of chicken droppings and household food wastes:
3.1 9 kilograms of chicken droppings and 3 kilograms of
household food wastes;
household food wastes; and
household food wastes?
Hypothesis
There was no significant difference between the biomethane yield in the
ratio of chicken droppings and household food wastes in each treatment.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study had focused mainly on the experimental determination of the
efficacy of chicken droppings and household food wastes in biomethane gas
production through anaerobic digestion. It also sought to determine the significant
difference between the biomethane gas produced in different treatments.
The study was conducted at Phase I Melecia Village, Calumpang, General
Santos City from October 2019 until February 2020. The household food wastes
4
used were collected from Silway San Juan, Dadiangas West, General Santos City.
The chicken droppings were collected from the Southern Venture Poultry Farm
located at Barangay Apopong, General Santos City.
Significance of the Study
The benefits and beneficiaries of this study are enumerated as follows:
Environmentalists. They would benefit from it and would promote the use
of alternative fuel since eco-friendliness is one of their concerns. They can also
recommend biomethane to be used in every households as a substitute to
petroleum based liquefied petroleum gas.
Low Income Workers. They can build their own design of digester and
feed it with their own food waste. The concept of this study would also help them
choose the type of manure to be used. In this way, they can have their way to
handle and manage their biodegradable solid wastes in their households.
Poultry Owners. The manures from their poultry would be very useful by
using it in anaerobic digestion. Problems in disposing manures can now be
handled in an eco-friendly way.
Researcher. They would benefit from it using the information of this study
to determine more qualities of biomethane. They can use the results in this study
to explore and search for more biomass with great potential in biomethane
production.
5
Future researchers. This is a big help to those researchers who also focus
in producing biomethane. They can cite this study as a reference for their own
study. They can also compare this study to their own research and re-examine the
yield that can be produced from household food wastes.

Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter contains information that are relevant to this study. It also
includes the review of literature, related studies and conceptual framework that are
necessary in supporting the concepts that govern this study.
A. Related Literature
Chicken Droppings
Today’s energy demanding life style, the need for exploring and exploiting
new resources of energy that are renewable and at the same time eco-friendly has
become maximizing the entire sources. Chicken droppings has been used for so
long as an organic fertilizer in most of the gardens. According to McCall (1980),
chicken droppings are important soil conditioner since they are rich in nutrients. In
fact, it contains much nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium which are highly
essential to plant growth. Droppings also increase the moisture-holding and
nutrient-holding capacity of the soil.
Furthermore, in the context of biogas technology the use of chicken
droppings provides higher gas yield. According to Yusof and Busato (2019), the
configuration of chicken droppings produces appropriate high methane
percentage, recovery of ammonium sulfate and high quality liquid chemical waste.
7
With this fact, chicken droppings can sustain energy and can maximize its
composition into resources.
Moreover, organic wastes such as chicken droppings provide significant
effect in reducing the environmental impact of wastes and in sustaining food
security (Rehman, 2019). In addition, chicken droppings established a platform to
recover energy and sustainable use of CO2 which can be essential in further use
of biogas (Lee and Kwon, 2017).
Abouelenien (2014) and Guo (2009) said that, potential methane production
can be enhanced in the mixture of agricultural waste and chicken droppings, which
differ in evaluation as it depends on the temperature. By that effectivity,
thermochemical pretreatment on biogas and methane yield are required to be
more effective and can increase its total yield (Ardic and Taner, 2005).
Simple advance treatment of natural chicken droppings by different
temperature became suitable for the production of methane which will be a basis
in creating biogas for sustainable usage (Konkol, 2019). Since manure extracted
from poultry farm were analyzed and used to prepare bacterial growth and
creating anaerobic condition for the production of biogas (James, 2018).
As of this time, there are many sources of methane that can be used just
like wastes from the cattle, pig and chicken which need to have specific time and
temperatures to produce biogas (Yaldiz, 2009).

8
Anaerobic Digestion
The process of bacterial breakdown of organic matter without the presence
of oxygen is called anaerobic digestion (AD). It is a biological process that produce
a gas, often referred to as biogas, which primarily consists methane and carbon
dioxide. These gases are produced from feedstock such as biosolids, livestock
manure, and wet organic matter (Rogoff and Screve, 2011).
According to them, the biogas is produced in three steps which starts with
the decomposition of plant or animal matter into molecules such as sugar through
the use of bacteria. The decomposed matter is then converted into organic acids.
These organic acids are then converted to methane gas.
Moreover, Labatut and Pronto (2018) stated that anaerobic digestion is
widely accepted worldwide which is also described as “waste to energy
technology”. It is used to convert huge amount of food waste, produced daily, into
methane. Moreover, methane can also be used to for heating purposes and
generate electricity in combined heat and power systems. In their study, food
waste is obtained from retail and commercial outlets, to food processors, farms
and food service enterprises.
On the other hand, bio-stimulation in anaerobic digestion increases biogas
production with the help of other materials in which it can enhance the production
in every treatment (Abdelsalam and Samer, 2019). Kuo (2017) and Karuppiah
(2019) agreed that biogas production through anaerobic digestion of food waste
9
could increase the use of renewable fuels throughout the country of California.
They were many consideration to be acquired in there side which are keeping up
the quality of biogas production in anaerobic digestion technique.
Based on the study of Siddique (2018), anaerobic digestion had been
popularly recognized as a biochemical method of biogas generation that can
transform into sustainable source of energy. It was also supported by Ren (2017)
which stated that this sustainable energy comes from the wastes with anaerobic
digestion method that has been practically applied in agricultural and industrial
waste treatment which recognized as an economical and effective way for waste
management.
As of now, anaerobic digestion in food wastes and other substances cannot
sustain significant environmental pollution and financial cost globally since the use
of anaerobic digestion method from producing biogas are not fully applied due to
technical, social and limited sources of knowledge (Xu, 2017).
Anaerobic Digester
Digester is made in various designs and types. The construction of digester
depends mainly in the cost of material and needs. Today, the most widely used is
the simple structured biogas digesters, where majority of which is used as
household digester and have been used for many years in rural regions around
the world in order to provide energy to farmers and families living in rural places
because of their low cost and can be operated simply (Teng et al., 2014).
10
They have also stated that the most common types of digesters used in
treating animal manure are fixed dome digester, floating drum digester, simple
structured biogas reactor and plug flow digester.
As explained by them, fixed dome digesters are composed of fermentation
chamber, feed and digestate pipes, and a fixed dome on top for biogas storage.
The fermentation unit where reaction happens and biogas storage chamber are
connected. However, this design of digester was seen of lower biogas productivity.
According to Parawira (2009), it is often the design of choice because of its
reliability, low maintenance requirements and long lifetime.
In addition, the other type of design as enumerated by the abovementioned
researchers is called floating drum digester which is similar to fixed dome digester.
It is an unpopular type of digester because of its high cost and requires frequent
maintenance. The storage in this type of digester is a floating drum which collects
the gas produced. Its drum that collects gas is placed on top of the digesting
chamber. Despite the higher cost, its advantage is provide gas at a constant
pressure and completely prevent methane leak.
According to Pavithran, Kannan, Jayasingh and Karthikeyan (2015), there
are other types of designs for anaerobic digester such as batch reactors, single
stage and two stage reactors. In batch reactors, wastes are deposited into the
system and all the decomposition steps are allowed to occur chronologically.
Meanwhile, single stage reactor is a design used anaerobic breakdown of organic
solid wastes which all reactions are allowed to happen simultaneously in a single
11
chamber. In two stage systems, two different reactor are used for acidogenesis
and methanogenesis. Among the three, single stage reactor is the most chosen
design because of its simplicity and low cost.
Moreover, test in two-phase digestion system had shown a high quality
stability, which were mainly distributed to the strong fellow capacity with two-phase
digestion system from the manure with food waste. With that, to produce a high
quality biogas, mixing strategies may vary since it depends on the combination of
high solids to gain the best anaerobic digestion which creates a good type of
biogas (Latha, 2018).
Biomethane
Energy is considered as one of the key component for all activities. The
scarcity of energy in every aspects make the future innovator think of another way
to deplete the wastes and produce a product that could help for the betterment of
the society (Mamun et al., 2018).
According to Cucchiella et al. (2015) and Gastaldi et al. (2017), biomethane
is an interesting source for sustainable energy systems, featuring great flexibility
that translates into multiple possible applications (vehicle fuel, combined
production of thermal and electrical energy, injection in the gas grid). Compared to
biogas, biomethane permits greater efficiency. Its use is not limited to the
immediate area of the plant and purification of the raw methane means greater
lifespans for the equipment.

12
Furthermore, Esposito et al. (2013) and Jingura et al. (2017) found out that
biomethane which has some sorts of biomass containing carbohydrates, proteins,
lipids, cellulose and hemicelluloses, as main components, are suitable to be used
as substrates for the production. Sewage sludge from aerobic wastewater
treatment, animal manure, harvest residues, organic wastes from agriculture-
related factories, meat and fish industrial wastes, dairy wastes, food waste,
collected municipal organic solid waste from markets and households and energy
crops are the substrate.
Since substrates contain such composition, it is efficient for the production
of biomethane because it has a potential, biodegradability and degradation
kinetics of organic substrates which are essential for assessing the suitability of
feed stocks for methane generation and the overall performance of the anaerobic
digestion process in biogas plants (Ugwu and Enweremadu, 2019).
Household Food Waste
The household food wastes being referred in this study is locally known as
“lamaw” which is commonly put in a container called lamawan. This food waste is
distinctly different from the food wastes used in studies mentioned in this chapter.
Food wastes are increasingly becoming a major problem in today’s society
imposing concerns relating to the economic and environmental problems.
According to Gustavsson et al. (2011) and the survey of Food and Agriculture
Organization of United Nations or FAO (2012), nearly one third of food produced is
wasted globally, equaling a total of 1.3 billion tonnes of food per year. These
13
include fresh vegetables, fruits, meat, bakery, and dairy products which are lost
along the food supply chain.
As stated by Schanes et al. (2018), since the food production is resource-
intensive, the lost food and wastes are indirectly accompanied by a great range of
environmental impacts, such as soil erosion, deforestation, water and air pollution,
as well as greenhouse gas emissions that occurs the processes of food
production, storage, transportation, and waste management.
By far, the largest proportion of food waste is from household consumption
(Banks et al. 2018). The amount proportioned of household food waste is
incalculable given that edible food might not simply be thrown in the trash, but
served to pets, composted in a bin or even dumped in a garden, as stated by
Porpino (2016).
Due to this reason, Kuo and Dow (2017) said that there are other ways to
eliminate and process these wastes. Food waste can be readily digested under
anaerobic conditions for capture of energy content, and the residuals may be
beneficially reused as fertilizer or soil amendment. Also, various biological matters
(substrates) can be used as feedstock in a domestic bio-digester, such as animal
waste, human excreta and kitchen/food waste, because of their availability at
household level (Msibi and Kornelius, 2017).
Moreover, food waste is mainly consists of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids,
and traces of inorganic compounds. Its composition varies in accordance with the
type of food waste and its constituents. Food waste consisting of rice and
14
vegetables is abundant in carbohydrates while food waste consisting of meat and
eggs has high quantity of proteins and lipids (Paritosh et al., 2017).
Humanity faces a great challenge in the 21st century in determining how to
best feed the world's population on a warmer and more crowded planet.
Increasing food production is one possible solution. However, increasing
competition for the use of land, water, and energy, in combination with increased
consumption of animal products, may limit how much more food can be produced
(Godfray et al., 2010).
As of this time, food waste especially the wastes coming from households
have the potential and contains some composition relating to the anaerobic
digestion in decreasing this kind of wastes.
pH Level
The concentration of hydrogen ions H+ in a solution may be expressed in
terms of the pH scale (Mortimer, 1986). It plays a pivotal role in identifying the
acidity or basicity of a solution.
In biomethane production, pH level plays an important role in determining
the acidity of the substrates in the reaction chamber. According to Pavithran et al.
(2015), pH level is one of the influencing parameter that dominates the growth of
microorganism in anaerobic digestion. They have found out that the growth of
bacteria is found to occur at the optimum pH. The optimum pH needed by

15
acidogenic bacteria is in 5-6.5, whereas the optimum pH for methanogens is
higher than 6.5.
According to Dobre, Nicolae and Matei (2014), in anaerobic digestion
processes are carried out at well-defined values of pH. The pH of the optimal
hydrolitic stage is between 5 - 6 and for methane production stage, the optimal pH
value varies between 6.5-8. If the pH value decreases below 6, methane
production is strongly inhibited. In the hydrolytic stage, the acidogenic bacteria
need a pH value ranging 5.5–7.0 and in the final stages, methanogenic bacteria
require a pH value that ranges between 6.5-8.0. A major limitation to the
processing of organic sub layers through the process of anaerobic digestion in a
single phase, is a lower value of pH in the reactor due to rapid acidification by
production of volatile fatty acids. This effect hinders and inhibits the activity of
methanogenic bacteria. At digesters operating in a single phase with full mixing of
the sublayer, the pH must meet the requirements of the populations of micro-
organisms.
Temperature
Temperature is considered as one of the most important parameters in
biogas production. The decrease in temperature may lead to the decrease in the
efficiency of the process and has an indirect effect on the rate of the reaction. The
rate of reaction will increase with increasing temperature. As the temperature
increases the amount of biogas produced also increases. The optimum

16
temperatures for psychophilic bacteria ranges between 0-15 °C, mesophilic ranges
from 15-45 °C and thermophilic ranges from 45-65 °C (Sanusi and Sukor, 2017).
Moreover, Pavithran et al. also highlighted the importance of temperature
as one of the influencing parameters in biogas production through anaerobic
digestion. This parameter depends mainly on the optimum degradation process.
Microorganisms can work from freezing to 70 °C.
B. Related Studies
Foreign Studies
Chicken droppings production in different country specifically in turkey
developed rapidly with the modern integrated facilities. In last decades, increase of
pollution was rampant caused by industrial poultry production (Unal, 2015).
In biomethane production, the usage of this gases was determined to be
used in transport fuel for different urban towns. Also the treatment were the
biomethane extracted to more reliable depending on the substance were given
(Shane, 2017). With the effect of this, there are also study which methane are
extracted from okra as a potential sources of biogas with overall performance in
anaerobic digestion in biogas plants. In this intent there are many potential method
on how biogas can be extracted and produce fluently (Ugwu and Enweremadu,
2019).
In addition, Nagy and Wopera (2012), produced biogas through pig manure
in anaerobic digestion. The pig manure was collected from Hungarian Agricultural
17
Company. The fermentation was carried at a temperature of 54 ºC. The produced
methane was 22 022 MJ/day.
Further, the study of Kuo (2017) produced a biogas from digestion of food
waste at relevant air quality implications. They have produced 18.5 ft3/lb or
equivalent to 1.15 m3 biogas/kilogram.
Moreover, Omar et. al (2017) conducted a study on biogas production
lasted for 17 days. The pH was maintained controlled at 6.97. The methane yield
was 184 L/kg. They used cattle manure in their digester to produce biomethane.
Meanwhile, cotton stalks, cotton seed hull and cotton oil cake was used to
produce biogas at a pH level of 7. It has been stated this condition of potential
hydrogen level produced a maximum amount of biogas with 382 and 357 mL/day
(Selimli et. al, 2015).
Moreover, Oyewole (2010) conducted a study using chicken droppings for
biogas production. The chicken droppings was found to have a pH level of 6.7. It
weighs 2.8 kg mixed with 3.7 liters warm water in the digester and left for
anaerobic digestion with a temperature of 28 °C. The biogas production has
started of 7 days and lasted for three weeks reaching an average amount of 72.2
cm2/kg/day. The optimum temperature for biogas production is 33°C which yielded
90 cm3/kg/day which is the highest volume obtained with a pH level of 7, this was
attained at the 14th day of production. The sludge (digestate) was used to fertilize
maize plant. It was found out that maize plant that grown in soil without sludge had
an average height of 711 mm while those had grown on the sludge had an
18
average height of 1564 mm after fourteen days. This suggests also that digestate
can be used as organic fertilizer.
Another study conducted by Nnabuchi, Akubuko and Amakom (2017),
made a comparative analysis on the biogas yield for chicken droppings and cow
dung. The highest yield of biogas was attained from chicken droppings with a
cumulative volume of 1.845 L while cow dung 0.830 L within 30 days. The chicken
droppings with a mass of 200 g and charged into digester which was diluted using
2.8 liters of water. The yield increased progressively until day 8 of the production
and gradually decreased after, the production had stopped after 25 th day of
production. The decrease of the biogas production could be the result of
unregulated pH and non-interval agitation of substrates.
In biogas production it is important to measure the biogas produced.
According to Deepanraj, Sivasubramanian and Jayaraj (2014), produced biogas
can be measured with water displacement technique. In addition to this, Ekkaand,
Sharma and Kumar (2016) also used the same method to measure the produced
biogas in their laboratory scale production. Furthermore, carbon dioxide (CO 2)
absorption method can be used to separate methane gas (CH4). Water and KOH
solution can be used to sequester CO2 from CH4 since carbon dioxide is an acid
and KOH is a base, the reaction will produce potassium carbonate (Pham, Triolo,
Cu, Pedersen and Sommer, 2013).
Aside from potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) can also be in
biogas CO2 absorptions. According to Mel, Sharuzaman and Setyobudi (2016),
studied the suitability of sodium hydroxide in for CO2 removal. The solution was
19
preapared first mixing water and sodium hydroxide at different concentrations.
NaOH concentrations are 4%, 9% and 14% by mass of 10 liters of water. They
have found out that sodium hydroxide has absorbed carbon dioxide as it showed
significant difference between the volume of biogas.
As stated by Divyang, Hemant and Pradeep (2016), biogas can be purified
and obtained methane from it using alkaline chemicals. They have suggested that
carbon dioxide can be remove from biogas through water and other chemicals.
Removing carbon dioxide using caustic solutions is called caustic scrubbing. CO 2
reacts with caustic solutions forming an irreversible carbonate and reversible
bicarbonate. This must be done in 40:60 ratios by weight of sodium hydroxide and
water, respectively. Also, potassium hydroxide can also be used to remove carbon
dioxide from biogas in similar way. Presence of other compounds like hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) can be removed also in sodium hydroxide since its reaction with
carbon dioxide will produce sodium carbonate to which hydrogen sulfide is also
reactive.
Aside from the studies mentioned above, the study conducted by Miah,
Rahman, Akanda, Pulak and Rouf (2015) also used water displacement technique
at an interval of 24 hours. The sample was measured with digital pH metre. Poultry
litter which was a mixture of rice hulls, sawdust, and chicken excreta of broilers
mixed with the co-substrate cow dung and poultry droppings was evaluated under
anaerobic conditions for the production of methane. There were four replicates
with different proportions of poultry litter. The anaerobic digestion was carried out
within 50 days and at a temperature of 32 ± 3 °C.

20
Local Studies
There were many journals that contain studies about chicken droppings
which is scientifically termed as Gallus gallus domesticus.
According to Rollo (2017), biogas is a flammable mixture of different gases
that are produced by the decomposition of biodegradable organic matters in the
absence of air (no oxygen) and the presence of anaerobic micro-organisms and it
can be produced from animal manure waste, wastewater, and solid waste through
anaerobic digestion. The removal of CO2 from biogas is an important process
because it reduces the heating value of gas and the power output. Through the
use of lab experiments, substrate composition for biogas production can be
determine and anaerobic digesters will produce renewable, sustainable and
affordable energy. Anaerobic process can also immobilize several pathogens
present in the raw manure that would otherwise be released into water bodies.
The digestate can be used as an organic fertilizer since many nutrients are
preserved in the process. Anaerobic digesters helps in utilizing the biogas from
manures in landfill and other sites that caters waste. Anaerobic process can also
immobilize several pathogens found in the raw manure that would otherwise be
released into water bodies. The digestate can be used as an organic fertilizer
since many nutrients are preserved in the process.
In relation to this, the study of Sabusap (2015) found out that the mixture of
animal wastes produced significant volume of biogas. By that, the decomposition
of animal wastes inside the digester is recommended for a longer period to further
ferment the wastes and to maximize gas production.

21
Research Gaps
In this study the researcher utilized the chicken droppings and household
food wastes in producing biomethane gas. There were different kinds of manure
used to digest organic matters. Some used cattle manure as what Omar et. al
(2017). Others researchers mentioned in this study like Nagy and Wopera (2012),
produced biogas through pig manure in anaerobic digestion. The study of Kuo
(2017), produced a biogas from digestion of food waste at relevant air quality
implications. Meanwhile, cotton stalks, cotton seed hull and cotton oil cake was
used to produce biogas at a pH level of 7 (Selimli et. al, 2015).
In this study the researchers had focused on the utilization of chicken
droppings and household food wastes locally known as “lamaw” in producing
biomethane gas which is very beneficial especially to the low income workers. The
are three different ratio of household food waste and chicken droppings in this
study. The researcher had calculated the volume of the biomethane produced
through water displacement technique and carbon dioxide absorption using base
solvent.
Conceptual Framework
This subchapter shows the conceptual framework of the study. The
independent variables of the study are the chicken droppings and household food
waste which was used for anaerobic digestion. The dependent variable was the
biomethane yield that was measured and analyzed quantitatively through water
displacement technique. The method used in this study were extracted from the
22
study of Pavithran, Kannan, Jayasingh and Karthikeyan (2015) and Pham, Triolo,
Cu, Pedersen and Sommer (2012).

23
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Chicken Droppings and

Household Food Wastes Biomethane Yield
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter shows the general procedure of the study. It includes the
research design, research site location and duration, procedural flowchart,
sampling design, materials and instrumentation and statistical tool employed in
this study.
Research Design
This study utilized the experimental research design as it was the most
appropriate and most applicable in this study. The design was able to help and
assist the researchers in determining the efficacy of producing biomethane gas
using chicken droppings and household food wastes. Moreover, there were three
(3) treatments for this study and the researcher used the single-stage digester for
anaerobic digestion.
Research Site Location and Duration
The chicken droppings were collected from Southern Venture Poultry
Farm located at Barangay Apopong, General Santos City. The biomass used in
the study was household food waste locally known as “lamaw” was collected from
the households of Silway San Juan, Dadiangas West, General Santos City. The
study was conducted in Melecia Village, Calumpang, General Santos City and
25
lasted for almost three months since gathering of materials until statistical
analysis.
Map of the Location of the Study
Figure 2. Melecia Village

26
Procedural Flowchart
This flowchart shows the step-by-step manner of the overall
experimentation. The researchers had followed the phases below that served as a
guide for the overall experiment.
PRE-EXPERIMENTAL PHASE
• Gathering of Materials
• Setting-up the digester
• Painting the Digester
• Collecting of Chicken droppings
• Collecting of Household Food
Waste
EXPERIMENTAL PHASE
• Mixing of Chicken Droppings and
Household Waste into the Digester
• Caustic Scrubbing
• Measuring Biomethane Yield
• Measuring of Operating
Parameters
POST-EXPERIMENTAL PHASE
• Data Gathering
• Statistical Analysis
• Results and Discussion
Figure 3. Research Procedure

27
Sampling Design
There were two samples used in this study which were the chicken
droppings collected from Southern Venture Poultry Farm, Brgy. Apopong and
household food wastes collected from Silway San Juan, Brgy. Dadiangas West,
both in General Santos City. The researcher used a single-stage reactor in which
all the major four processes of anaerobic digestion occur.
DIGESTER INLET GAS OUTLET GAS COLLETOR
OUTLET
DIGITAL
THERMOMETER
Figure 4. Single Stage Digester

28
Figure 5. Anaerobic Digester of Each Treatment

29
Experimental Research Design
This study had a research design regarding the three (3) treatments.
Substrate
• Chicken Droppings
Biomethane
• Household Food Waste
T1
Biomethane
Yield
T2
T3 Operating
Parameters
• pH level
• Temperature
LEGENDS:
T = Treatment
T1 = 9 kilograms chicken droppings and 3

kilograms household food wastes
T2 = 6 kilogram chicken droppings and 6
kilogram household food wastes
T3 = 3 kilogram chicken droppings and 9
kilograms household food wastes
Figure 6. Experimental Research Design

30
Experimental Layout
There were three (3) treatments in this study. Treatment one
consisted 9 kilograms chicken droppings and 3 kilograms household food wastes.
The second treatment consisted of 6 kilograms chicken droppings and 6
household food wastes. Then, third treatment was filled of 9 kilograms of chicken
droppings and 3 kilograms household food wastes. Three digesters with different
ratio had a total of 12 kilograms of substrates or mixtures each.
Materials and Instrumentation
The researchers used household food wastes and chicken droppings in
order to materialize the experiment. There were other materials and equipment
needed to continue the experiment. The researchers used drums as a reactor
chamber, electric drill, LPG rubber pipe which was used to connect the digester to
the gas collector, plastic pipes which was used to make inlet and outlet for the
digester, plumbing valves and plastic valves was used to control the flow of gases
in the whole system, digital pH meter and thermometer were used to monitor the
operating parameters of the substrates in each treatment. The researchers utilized
some laboratory apparatus and base catalyst such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
and calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] to purify the biogas produced and separate
methane from carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. These two gases were said to
be the major components of the biogas. The researchers used graduated cylinder
to measure the biomethane produced.

31
Experimental and General Procedure
I. Pre-Experimental Phase
A. Gathering of Materials
The researchers gathered all the needed materials to initiate the
experiment of this study. Materials such as pails, pipes, valves, plastic
drum, teflon, hose clip, tire interior, Erlenmeyer flask, beaker, rubber
stopper, glass tubing, alcohol lamp, gas burner, weighing scale (ranging 1
g – 1000 g), gloves, face mask, digital pH meter and digital thermometer
were gathered.
B. Setting-up of the Digester
The researchers constructed three digesters for anaerobic
digestion. Materials used were drum, valve, tire interior, pipes, hose clip,
digital pH meter and thermometer were used to construct the single
chamber digester. The construction lasted for three weeks. The researchers
used the lay-out shown in Figure 6 to construct the digester.
Figure 7. Single Stage Digester Lay-out

32
C. Painting the Digester
Anaerobic digesters must be painted. The researchers painted the
three digesters with color black so that the sunlight would not pass through
the digester. If light could pass through, the algae would grow inside the
digester and since it is heterotrophs it will photosynthesize thus producing
oxygen. The presence of oxygen within the digester would inhibit the
production of methane gas.
D. Collecting of Chicken Droppings
Chicken dropping was one of the primary organic matters used in
this study. This was used to serve as a source of bacteria which had
digested the household food wastes. This was collected from Southern
Venture Poultry Farm located at Barangay Apopong, General Santos City.
The researchers collected 18 kilograms of chicken droppings to meet the
three different ratio in each treatment.
E. Collecting of Household Food Waste
Household food wastes were collected from Silway San Juan,
Dadiangas West, General Santos City. The household food wastes
contains carbohydrates which was used by the bacteria from chicken
droppings to produce methane. The food waste being referred by the
researchers in this study is locally known as “lamaw”. The researchers also
collected 18 kilograms of household food wastes to suffice the needs of the
treatments.
33
II. Experimental Phase
A. Mixing of Chicken Droppings and Household Food Wastes into
the Digester
There were three digesters in this study; each digester
represented each treatment. Each digester was fed with mixtures of
chicken droppings and household food wastes in accordance with the
desired treatment. Treatment one was consisted of 9 kilograms of chicken
droppings and 3 kilograms of household food wastes. The second
treatment was consisted of 6 kilograms of chicken droppings and 6
kilograms of household food wastes. Then, the third treatment was filled
with 3 kilograms of chicken droppings and 6 kilograms of household food
wastes. All the digesters had 12 kilograms of mixture each.
B. Measuring of Operating Parameters
The operating parameters such as pH level and temperature of
each digester were also monitored. These parameters such as pH level
and temperature were recorded at the start of the digestion and then
measured weekly. Collected information was recorded in an observation
sheet.
C. Caustic Scrubbing
The digesters produced a mixture of gases, including methane,
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. These gases must be removed in
order to yield pure methane. Since, carbon dioxide is an acid it would react
with bases. Through related studies, the researchers used sodium

34
hydroxide to absorb the carbon dioxide. The researchers also used
calcium hydroxide to remove the presence of hydrogen sulfide.
D. Measuring of Biomethane Yield
The biomethane yield was measured using water displacement
technique after the process caustic scrubbing to remove the presence of
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. This process caused reaction
between carbon dioxide and sodium hydroxide and hydrogen sulfide and
calcium hydroxide removing impurities leaving pure methane. In a scaled
cylinder filled with water as the volume of biomethane became
concentrated at the top, the water was displaced. Thus, the researchers
had able to calculate the methane yield in each treatment. Gathered
information was recorded in an observation sheet.
III. Post-Experimental Phase
A. Data Gathering
In data gathering, all the information, results, and
experimental values were recorded in an observation sheet. This made the
data gathered organized and embodied all the numerical results from the
experiment.
B. Statistical Analysis
In analyzing the results of the experiment, the researcher
used Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) as a statistical tool to compare the
biomethane yield in each treatment. The weekly biomethane yield was

35
measured in the laboratory and operating parameters were also recorded
weekly.
Operationalization of Variables
The following terms were defined operationally to further give a
better perspective about the study and provide a clearer understanding on some
technically used words.
Chicken Droppings. It was the feces of the chicken was used in digesting the
household food waste in a single chamber digester without the
presence of air.
Anaerobic Digestion. A process in this study in which the household food waste
was broken down with the help of bacteria in chicken droppings within
an air tight digester.
Household Food Wastes. These were food wastes found in every household. It
is locally known as “lamaw”. These food wastes were commonly placed
in a container called lamawan. In this study, these were used as a
biomass.
Biomethane Gas. It refered to the methane gas produced from the decay of
household food waste using chicken droppings. It was the end product
of this study.
Chapter IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the results from the data gathered by the
researchers. The results are presented in graphical and tabular form with
corresponding explanation and interpretation. It also answers the particular
problems stated in the problem statement.
Figure 8. BIOMETHANE GAS YIELD IN EACH TREATMENT
Figure 1 shows that the volume of biomethane produced in treatment 1
(with 75% chicken droppings and 25% household food waste) has an average of
biomethane yield of 12 168 cm3 and the highest yield among the three treatments.
It can be seen from the graph that the biomethane yield from treatment 1 is
37
increasing continuously from 5th until 7th week. Treatment 2 (with 50% chicken
droppings and 50% household food wastes) has an average yield of 3 425.67 cm3
higher than treatment 3 (with 25% chicken droppings and 75% household food
wastes). It can also be seen from the graph that the second treatment has started
producing biomethane on the 6th week. Treatment 3 has an average biomethane
yield of 0 cm3. The failure of the third treatment to produce biomethane might be
due to some factors such as pH level of the substrates. According to Pavithran et
al. (2015), the optimum pH level for methanogenic bacteria is higher than 6.5.
Figure 9. pH LEVEL IN EACH TREATMENT
Figure 2 shows the measured pH level in each treatment. It can be seen
from the graph that treatment 1 has operated from a pH level of 5.6 to 7. It can be
seen that the pH level significantly decreased during the first three weeks that was
from day 7 to day 21. This indicates the acidogenesis process is occurring.
38
According to Raja and Wazir (2017), acidogenesis is one of the four processes in
anaerobic digestion in which fermentative bacteria further breaks down biomass
and organic matter into ammonia, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide,
shorter volatile fatty acids and organic acids. These bacteria make the
environment inside the digester acidic. Similarly, treatment 2 started in a pH level
of 5.2 and decreased significantly to 5.0 after 3 weeks. It can be seen also from
the graph that treatment 3 had operated at a very low pH level which means the
condition was very acidic inhibiting the methanogenic bacteria to survive.
Moreover, an increase in pH level was observed in all treatment on day 28.
Treatment 1 increased from 5.6 to 6.1 and continuously increased until day 42.
Treatment 2 increased from 5.0 to 5.8. Treatment 3 increased from 3.5 to 3.9 but
still very acidic. For treatment 1 and treatment 2, the methanogenesis is occurring
in which the increase in temperature indicates that organic acids were reduced
into carbonates and methane by the activity of the methanogens (Pavithran et al.,
2015). According to US Environmental Protection Agency (2012), lower pH level
that is acidic condition inhibits biogas production because methane-producing
bacteria cannot survive. This also agrees to the findings of Cioabla, Lonel,
Dumitrel and Popescu (2012), which states that the optimum pH level for
methanogens is from 6.5 to 8.0.

39
Figure 10. TEMPERATURE IN EACH TREATMENT
Figure 3 shows that treatment 1 has operated in a mesophilic range of
temperature that was from 29.4 °C to 35.6 °C. Treatment 2 had also operated in
mesophilic range of temperature that was from 29.2 °C to 34.3 °C. It can also be
seen that treatment 3 operated in mesophilic range of temperature. According to
Pavithran et al. (2015), bacteria that work in the temperature of 25 to 40 °C are
said to be mesophilic. Mesophilic bacteria have an optimum temperature of 35 °C.
Meanwhile, bacteria which work in temperature range of 50 to 65 °C are
thermophilic. The optimum temperature for these bacteria is less than 55 °C.
40
Table 1.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EACH TREATMENT
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 111557836.29 2 55778918.14 2.21 0.138 3.55
Experimental
Group 454001369.71 18 25222298.32
Total 565559206.00 20
Based on the results from table, the researchers failed to reject the null
hypothesis since the p – value > 0.05 and F critical > F value. Therefore, there is
no significant difference between the methane yield of treatment 1 and the other
treatments. According to Haryanto, Triyono and Wicaksono (2018), pH level is one
of the influencing parameters in the rate of biogas production. This means that the
lower the pH the longer the period of time needed for the digester to produce
biomethane and the slower the rate of production. The other treatments with very
acidic condition needs longer time to start producing biomethane and produce
higher yield.
Chapter V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and
recommendations in accordance with the analyses and interpretations of the
gathered data of the study.
Summary of Findings
1. The treatment 1 and treatment 2 had produced biomethane within 5 th to
6th weeks. Treatment 1 with a composition of 9 kilograms chicken
droppings and 3 kilograms household food wastes produced the highest
average yield which is 5 214.86 cm3 while treatment 2 produced an
average methane yield of 734.14 cm3.The third treatment did not
produce biogas because of its high acidic condition.
2. The pH level of treatment 1 had decreased significantly after 1 week,
indicating that acidogenesis was occurring. The pH level ranged from
5.6 to 7.1. In terms of temperature, it had operated in mesophilic
condition, 29.4 °C to 35.6 °C. Moreover, treatment 2 had also operated
in mesophilic temperature range (29.2°C – 34.3 °C) and pH level ranges
from 5.0 to 5.8 while treatment 3 operated in a very acidic condition at a
mesophilic range of temperature (27.4 °C 32.2 °C).
3. The biomethane yield of treatment 1, treatment 2 and treatment 3 had
statistically no significant difference with each other. Only treatment 1
and treatment 2 had produced biomethane while treatment 3 did not.

42
Conclusions
After thorough investigation of the study, the following conclusions had
been deduced:
1. Chicken droppings and household food wastes were able to produce
biomethane through single – stage anaerobic biodigester but in higher
concentration of chicken droppings.
2. Treatment 1 with greater amount of chicken droppings had the highest
biomethane yield, treatment 2 had also able to produce biomethane
while treatment 3 which operated at a very acidic condition had fail to
produce biomethane.
3. Operating parameters such as pH level and temperature greatly
influenced the production rate of the treatment.
4. The higher the amount of chicken droppings the higher the pH level the
greater the amount of biomethane produced and the faster its
production rate.
5. There was no significant difference between the biomethane yield of
treatment 1, treatment 2 and treatment 3.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions from the findings, the following are
recommended:
1. Use pH controlling substances such as sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)
to improve the production rate and avoid acid formation.

43
2. Add chicken droppings or animal manure to raise and stabilize the pH
level of the substrates in the digester.
3. Collect great amount of chicken manure and household food waste and
design a bigger digester for massive production.
4. Compress the methane gas in a tank using a compressor for safety
purposes.
5. Use a two – stage biodiegester to improve the production rate of the
mixtures in a very acidic condition.

44
References
Abdelsalam, E., and Samer, M. (2019). Biostimulation of anaerobic digestion
using nanomaterials for increasing biogas production. Reviews in
Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, Vol. 18 (3), pp. 525–
541. DOI: 10.1007/s11157-019-09505-0
Abouelenien, F. (2014). Enhancement of methane production from co-digestion
of chicken manure with agricultural wastes. Bioresource
Technology, Volume 159, Pages 80-87. DOI:
10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.050
Aguilar, Y. Tadiosa, E. and Tondo, J. (2014). A Comparative Study on
Wastewater Treatment Methods of Selected Multinational and
Local Beverage Companies in the Philippines and Their Effects on
the Environment. International Journal of Environmental Science
and Development, Vol.5 (6), pp. 570-574. DOI:
10.7763/IJESD.2014.V5.548
Ardic, I., and Taner, F. (2005). Effects of thermal, chemical and
thermochemical pretreatment to increase biogas production yield
of chicken manure. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin Vol. 14 (5),
pp. 373-380. ISSN: 1018-469
Banaticla, J. and Rivera, W.(2011) Detection and subtype identification of
Blastocystis isolates from wastewater samples in the Philippines.
Journal of water and health, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 128-137, 2011 Chapter
14 Waste Water from the Iron and Steel Industry and Mining
Banks, C., Heaven, S., Zhang, Y. and Baier, U. (2018). Food waste digestion:
Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste for a Circular Economy. IEA
Bioenergy Task 37.ISBN: 978-1-910154-58-8
Busato, C., and Pavan, P. (2019). Anaerobic membrane reactor: Biomethane
from chicken manure and high-quality effluent. Renewable
Energy, Vol. 145, pp. 1647-1657. DOI:
10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.088
Choe, K. et al. (1996). The economic benefits of surface water quality
improvements in developing countries: a case study of Davao,
Philippines Land Economics, pp. 519-537, 1996
Cioabla, A., Lonel, L., Dumitrel, G. and Popescu, F. (2012). Comparative Study
on Factors Affecting Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Vegetal
Residues. Biotechnol Biofuels. DOI: 10.1186/1754-68345-39
45
Cucchiella, F., Gastaldi, M., and D’Adamo, I. (2015). Profitability Analysis for
Biomethane: A Strategic Role in the Italian Transport Sector.
International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol. 5(2),
pp. 440-449. ISSN: 2146-4553
Deepanraj, B., Sivasubramanian, V. and Jayaraj, S. (2014). Solid
Concentration Influence on Biogas Yield from Food Waste in
Anaerobic Batch Digester. International Conference and Utility
Exhibition on Green Energy for Sustainable Development. DOI:
10.13140/2.1.2309.4405
Divyang S., Hemant,N. and Pradeep, A. (2016). Purification of Biogas using
Chemical Scrubbing and Application of Purified Biogas as Fuel for
Automotive Engines. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Vol. 5
(2015), pp. 1-7. ISSN: 2277-2502
Ekkaand, R., Sharma, V. and Kumar, A. (2016). The Study of Biogas
Production from Poultry Droppings Waste. International Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research Centre, Vol. 2 (2), pp. 90-96. ISSN:
2455-2275 (E)
Esposito, G., Frunzo, L., Giordano, A. et al. (2013). Anaerobic co-digestion of
organic wastes. Reviews in Environmental Science and
BioTechnology. DOI: 10.1007/s11157-012-9277-8
Ferrer, I. (2008). Increasing biogas production by thermal (70 °C) sludge pre-
treatment prior to thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Biochemical
Engineering Journal, Vol. 42(2), pp. 186-192. DOI:
10.1016/j.bej.2008.06.020
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2012). Towards the Future we want: End
Hunger and Make the Transition to Sustainable Agricultural and
Food Systems. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
Gastaldi, M., D’Adamo, I., and Cucchiella, F. (2017). Biomethane: A
Renewable Resource as Vehicle Fuel. Resources, Vol. 6 (58).
DOI: 10.3390/resources6040058
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir,
J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C. (2010).
Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science
80 (327), 812e818. DOI: 10.1126/science.1185383
Guo, O. (2009).Effect of temperature on gasification characteristics of mixture
of chicken feces and crop residue. Journal of Northwest A & F
46
University-Natural Science Edition 37 (6), 137-144, 2009. ISSN:

1671-9387
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R., and Meybeck,
A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
Hirokatsu , A., et al. (2000). Health assessment for mercury exposure among
schoolchildren residing near a gold processing and refining plant
in Apokon, Tagum, Davao del Norte, Philippines Science of the
Total Environment 259 (1-3), 31-43, 2000. DOI: 10.1016/0922-
338X(93)90092-M
James, J. H. (2018). The potential of biological methane generation from
chicken manure. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Volume
23(10). DOI: 10.1002/bit.260231013
Jingura, R. and Kamusoko, R. (2017). Methods for determination of
biomethane potential of feedstocks: a review. Biofuel Research
Journal, Vol. 14 (2017), pp. 573-586. DOI:
10.18331/BRJ2017.4.2.3
Kader, F., Baky, A., Khan, M. et al. (2015). Production of Biogas by Anaerobic
Digestion of Food Waste and Process Simulation. American
Journal of Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 3 (3), pp. 79-83. DOI:
10.12691/ajme-3-3-2
Karuppiah, T., et al. (2019). Biomass Pretreatment for Enhancement of Biogas
Production. Anaerobic Digestion, Chapter 5. DOI:
10.5772/intechopen.82088
Kiziloglua, M. and Dursunc, A. (2008). Effects of untreated and treated
wastewater irrigation on some chemical properties of cauliflower
(Brassica olerecea L. var. botrytis) and red cabbage (Brassica
olerecea L. var. rubra) grown on calcareous soil in Turkey
DOI.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.01.008
Konkol, I., Sołowski, G., & Cenian, A. (2019). Monosubstrate fermentation of
chicken manure after pretreatment using cold and hot water
extraction. Eco-Energetics: Technologies, Environment, Law and
Economy, pp. 78-84.DOI: 10.24426/eco-energetics.v2i2.111
Kuo, J. and Dow J. (2017). Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of ood
waste and relevant air quality implications. Jounal of the Air
& Waste Management Association, Vol. 67(9), pp.
1000-1011. DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326
47
Kuo, J. and Dow, J. (2017). Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food
waste and relevant air quality implications. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association, Vol. 67(9), pp. 1000-1011
Kuo, J., and Dow, J. (2017). Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of
food waste and relevant air quality implications. Journal of the Air
& Waste Management Association, Vol. 67 (9). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326
Latha, K. (2018). Mixing strategies of high solids anaerobic co-digestion using
food waste with sewage sludge for enhanced biogas production.
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 210, pp. 388-400. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.219
Lee, J. and Kwon E. (2017).Enhancement of energy recovery from chicken
manure by pyrolysis in carbon dioxide. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 164, pp. 146-152. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.217
Lefebvre, O. and Moletta R. (2006). Treatment of organic pollution in industrial
saline wastewater: A literature review. DOI:
10.1016/j.watres.2006.08.027
Li, R., and Chen S. (2009). Biogas Production from Anaerobic Co-digestion of
Food Waste with Dairy Manure in a Two-Phase Digestion
System. Vol. 160 (2), pp. 643–654. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-009-8533-z
Lucci, A. (2017). Regulatory Compliance Analyst with the City of Surprise, AZ,
one of 20 Water – Use It Wisely partners to offer water-saving
advice and programs.https://wateruseitwisely.com/journey-pipes-
happens-wastewater
Mamun, M., Tasnim, A., Bashar, S., and Uddin, J. (2018). Potentiality of
biomethane production from slaughtered rumen digesta for
reduction of environmental pollution. AIMS Energy, Vol. 6 (5), pp.
658–672. DOI: 10.3934/energy.2018.5.658
Mel, M., Sharuzaman, M. and Setyobudi, R. (2016). Removal of CO 2 from
Biogas Plant using Chemical Absorption Column. Advances of
Science and Technology for Society, AIP Conference
Proceedings. DOI: 10.1063/1.4958488
Miah, M., Rahman, A., Akanda, M., Pulak, A. and Rouf, M. (2015). Production
of Biogas from Poultry Litter Mixed with the Co-Substrate Cow
Dung. Institute of Fuel Research and Development :Journal of
48
Taibah University for Science, Vol. 10 (2016), pp. 497-504. DOI:

10.1016/j.jtusci.2015.07.007
Migo, V. and Kataoka, H. (2001). Decolorization of molasses wastewater
using an inorganic flocculant
Moe, C., et al. (1991) Bulletin of the World Health Organization 69 (3), 305,
1991
Mortimer, C. (1986). Chemistry (6th Ed.). Wadswort Publishing Company,
California: Belmoth. ISBN: 971-08-4043-6
Msibi, S. and Kornelius, G. (2017). Potential for domestic biogas as household
energy supply in South Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern
Africa, Vol. 28 (2), pp. 1–13. DOI: 10.17159/2413-
3051/2017/v28i2a1754
Nagy, G. and Wopera A. (2012). Biogas Poduction from Pig Slurry – Feasibility
and Challenges. Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 37 (2),
pp. 65-75. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28136872
Nnabuchi, M., Akubuko, O. and Amakom, C. (2017). Comparative Analysis of
Biogas Yield for Chicken Droppings and Cow Dung. Renewable
Energy and Sustainable Environment. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316141068
Ouano, E. (1986). Water Sci Technol Domestic Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal in the Philippines. Vol. 18 (7-8), pp. 23-32. DOI:
10.2166/wst.1986.0270
Oyewole, A. (2010). Biogas Production from Chicken Droppings. Science
World Journal, Vol. 5 (4), pp. 11-14. ISSN: 1597-6343
Parawira, W. (2009). Biogas Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa: Status,
prospects and constraints. Reviews in Environmental Science
Biotechnology, Vol. 8, pp. 187-200
Paritosh, K., Kushwaha, S., Yadav, M., et al. (2017). Food Waste to Energy:
An Overview of Sustainable Approaches for Food Waste
Management and Nutrient Recycling. BioMed Research
International. Vol. 2017, pp. 1-19. DOI: 10.1155/2017/2370927
Pavithran, D., Kannan, C., Jayasingh, T. and Karthikeyan, M. (2015). A Study
on the Influencing Parameters on Biogas Production from Jack
Fruit Waste Feedstock. International Journal of Engineering and
Management Research, Vol. 5 (2), pp. 10-13. ISSN (Online):
2250-0758
49
Pesigan, M. et al. (2010). Bacterial indicators of risk of diarrhoeal disease from

drinking-water in the Philippines. Studies in Environmental
Science, Vol. 5 (1979), Pages 217-227. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-
1116(08)71605-4
Pham, C., Triolo, J., Cu, T., Pedersen, L. and Sommer, S. (2013). Validation
and Recommendation of Methods to Measure Biogas Production
Potential of Animal Manure. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal
Sciences, Vol. 26 (6), pp. 864-873. DOI:
10.5713/ajas.2012.12623
Porpino, G. (2016). Household Food Waste Behavior: Avenues for Future
Research. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, Vol.
1 (1), pp. 42-51. DOI: 10.1086/684528
Recebeli, Z., Selimli, S., Ozkaymac, M. et al. (2015). Biogas Production from
Animal Manure. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology,
Vol. 10 (6), pp. 722-729.
Rehman, K.(2019).Enhanced bioconversion of dairy and chicken manure by
the interaction of exogenous bacteria and black soldier fly larvae.
Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 237, pp. 75-83. DOI:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.048
Ren, Y. (2017). A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion:
Research updates and tendencies. Bioresource Technology Vol.
247, pp. 1069-1076. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.109
Sabusap, A. (2015). Biogas production of selected animal wastes. Journal of
Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3. ISSN: 2545-9732
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., and Gozet, B. (2018). Food waste matters - A
systematic review of household food waste practices and their
policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182, pp.
978-991.DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030
Seyedmehdi, E., et al. (2019).Enzymatic Pretreatment of Chicken Manure for
Improved Biogas Yield.Frontiers in Water-Energy-Nexus—Nature-
Based Solutions, Advanced Technologies and Best Practices for
Environmental Sustainability, pp 357-358. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-
030-13068-8_89
Siddique, N. (2018). Achievements and perspectives of anaerobic co-digestion:
A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 194, pp. 359-371.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.155
50
Ugwu, S. and Enweremadu, C. (2019). Biodegradability and kinetic studies on

biomethane production from okra (Abelmoschus esculentus)
waste. S Afr J Sci, Vol. 115 (7/8). DOI: 10.17159/sajs.2019/5595
United Nations (2017). World Water Development Report, Wastewater: The
Untapped Resource – World. Agricultural Water Management
Volume 95 (6), pp. 716-724. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/naturalsciences/environment/water/
wwap/wwdr/2017-wastewater-the-untapped-resource/
Xu, F., and Li, Y. (2017). Anaerobic digestion of food waste – Challenges and
opportunities. Bioresource Technology. Vol. 247, pp. 1047-1058.
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.020
Yaldiz, O., et al. (2011). Methane Production from Plant Wastes and Chicken
Manure at Different Working Conditions of a One-stage Anaerobic
Digester. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects, Vol. 33 (19).
DOI:10.1080/15567030903419463
Yusof, R. et al. (2019).Evaluation of Hydrogen and Methane Production from
Co-digestion of Chicken Manure and Food Waste. Polish Journal
of Environmental Studies Vol. 28. DOI:10.15244/pjoes/86222
Zhang, C. (2014). Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas
production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume
38, pp. 383-392. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.038
Zouboulis, A. and Tolkou, A. (2015). Effect of Climate Change in Wastewater
Treatment Plants: Reviewing the Problems and Solutions. In:
Shrestha S., Anal A., Salam P., van der Valk M. (eds) Managing
Water Resources under Climate Uncertainty. Springer Water.
Springer, Cham
US Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Increasing Anaerobic Digester
Performance with Co-Digestion. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-
12/documents/codigestion.pdf
A
P
P
E
N
D
I
C
E
S
52
APPENDIX A
Observation Sheet
BIOMETHANE GAS YIELD IN EACH TREATMENT

Retention Time Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
(Weeks)
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
AVERAGE
pH Level and Temperature

(Day) pH Temperature pH Temperature pH Temperature
1st
7th
14th
21st
28th
35th
42nd
49th
53
APPENDIX B
Gathered Data
BIOMETHANE GAS YIELD IN EACH TREATMENT

(Weeks)
1st 0 cm3 0 cm3 0 cm3
2nd 0 cm3 0 cm3 0 cm3
3rd 0 cm3 0 cm3 0 cm3
th 3 3
4 0 cm 0 cm 0 cm3
5th 1 473 cm3 0 cm3 0 cm3
th 3 3
6 14 641 cm 1 418 cm 0 cm3
7th 20 390 cm3 3 721 cm3 0 cm3
3 3
AVERAGE 5 214 cm 734.14 cm 0 cm3
pH Level and Temperature

(Day) pH Temperature pH Temperature pH Temperature
1st 6.2 29.4 °C 5.2 31.6 °C 4.1 30.8 °C
7th 5.8 31.5 °C 5.2 34.3 °C 3.3 27.4 °C
14th 5.6 32.7 °C 5.2 30.8 °C 3.4 31.2 °C
21st 5.6 32.1 °C 5.0 29.2 °C 3.5 30.5 °C
28th 6.1 30.2 °C 5.8 30.5 °C 3.9 29.6 °C
35th 6.8 34.8 °C 5.7 32.7 °C 4.2 32.2 °C
42nd 7.0 35.6 °C 5.8 33.5 °C 4.4 31.7 °C
49th 6.9 33.0 °C 5.8 29.5 °C 4.4 30.4 °C
54
APPENDIX C
Statistical Analysis
Anova:
Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Treatment 1 7 36504 5214.857143 73652927.48
Treatment 2 7 5139 734.1428571 2013967.476
Treatment 3 7 0 0 0
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 111557836.285714000 2 55778918.14 2.211492285 0.138424 3.554557
Within
Groups 454001369.714286000 18 25222298.32
Total 565559206.000000000 20
55
APPENDIX D
Gantt Chart
56
57
APPENDIX E
Permit to Conduct Study

58
APPENDIX F
Letter to Southern Venture Poultry Farm
December 2019
OFFICER IN CHARGE
Southern Venture Poultry Farm
Brgy. Apopong, General Santos City
Dear Ma’am/Sir:
Greetings of Peace! In partial fulfillment of the requirements for STEM Strand Senior High
School Curriculum, the students of General Santos City National High School, would like
to ask for your permission to conduct their research study entitled “Gallus gallus
domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES: A
SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS”.
In connection with this, we would like to ask your poultry farm to allow us to gather the
chicken droppings as one of our feed stocks in conducting the study. We believe that you
are one with us in our enthusiasm to finish this requirement as a compliance for our
graduation. We hope for your positive response on this humble matter.
Your approval to conduct this study will be greatly appreciated. For further questions,
please contact us at 09364334317.
Thank you very much!
Respectfully yours,
MARJUN M. LAGBANG
Student Researcher
Noted by:
WALTER N. ACALA ROGER V. LABOR SHIRLEY D. REGALADO

Research Teacher Research Coach Grade Level Head
Attested by:
ROWELL LL. OTERO

Research Council Head
Approved by:
Officer in Charge
59
APPENDIX G
Letter to Gather Household Food Wastes
December 20, 2019
JUDITH BONGGOLTO
Purok Chairman
Silway San Juan, Dadiangas West
General Santos City
Dear Ma’am/Sir:
Greetings of Peace!
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for STEM Strand Senior High School Curriculum,
the student researchers of General Santos City National High School, would like to ask for
your permission to conduct their research study entitled, “Gallus gallus domesticus
(CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES: A SOURCE OF
BIOMETHANE GAS”.
In connection with this, we would like to ask your good office to allow us to gather
household food wastes as one of our raw materials from your vicinity. We believe that you
are one with us in honing the skills of 21st Century learners in the field of research. We
hope for your positive response on this humble matter.
Your approval to conduct this study will be greatly appreciated. For further questions,
please contact us at 09364334317.
Respectfully yours,
MARJUN M. LAGBANG
Student Researcher
Noted by:
Attested by:
ROWELL LL. OTERO

Approved by:
JUDITH BONGGOLTO
Purok Chairman
60
APPENDIX H
Letter to SHS Laboratory
January 31, 2020
ROGER V. LABOR
SHS Laboratory, In-Charge
General Santos City National High School
Dear Sir:
Greetings of Peace!
the student researchers of General Santos City National High School, would like to
conduct their study entitled, “Gallus gallus domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND
HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES: A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS”.
In connection with this, we would like to borrow the following laboratory equipment to
conduct an experiment as part of our study:
• Beaker (3 pieces – 250 mL)

• Erlenmeyer Flask (3 pieces – 250 mL)
• Bunsen Burner
• Graduated Cylinder (2 pieces – 100 mL & 1 piece – 10 mL)
• Safety Goggles (3 pieces)
• Alcohol Lamp
• Glass Tubing (1 piece)
• Clamp
• Pipette
Yours truly,
MARJUN M. LAGBANG
Student Researcher
Noted by:
ROGER V. LABOR
GSCNHS – SHS Laboratory In-Charge
61
APPENDIX I
Letter to Conduct at SHS Laboratory
February 2020
ROGER V. LABOR
SHS Laboratory, In-Charge
Dear Sir:
Greetings of Peace! In partial fulfillment of the requirements for STEM Strand Senior High
School Curriculum, the students of General Santos City National High School, would like
to ask for your permission to conduct their research study entitled “Gallus gallus
domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES: A
SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS”.
In connection with this, we would like to ask your good office to allow us to use your
laboratory and materials as one of our references and to conduct experimental study in
your vicinity. We believe that you are one with us in our enthusiasm to finish this
requirement as a compliance for our graduation and to develop our well-being. We hope
for your positive response on this humble matter.
Your approval to conduct this study will be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully yours,
MARJUN M. LAGBANG
Student Researcher
Noted by:

Attested by:
ROWELL LL. OTERO

Approved by:
ROGER V. LABOR
GSCNHS – SHS Laboratory In-Charge
62
APPENDIX J
Letter to the Laboratory of Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
February 2020
OFFICER IN CHARGE
Science Laboratory
Notre Dame of Dadiangas University
Maris Avenue, General Santos City
Dear Sir:
Greetings of Peace!
the student researchers of General Santos City National High School, would like to
conduct their study entitled, “Gallus gallus domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND
HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES: A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS”.
In connection with this, we would like to buy the following laboratory equipment to conduct
an experiment as part of our study:
• Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) – 100 mL

• Calcium Hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] – 100 mL
Yours truly,
MARJUN M. LAGBANG
Student Researcher
Noted by:
Laboratory In-Charge
63
APPENDIX K
Statistician’s Certificate
64
APPENDIX L
Budget Matrix
ORC
DATE QUANTITY UNIT DESCRPTION PRICE TOTAL
NO.
OCTOBER
3 PIECES AIR CHUCK 75 225
19,2019
OCTOBER BALL VALVE
2 PIECES 65 130
19,2019 PLAIN
0CTOBER 19, INTERIOR
3 PIECES 200 600
2019 TIRE
WATERLINE
OCTOBER
3 PIECES FEMALE 17.75 53.25
19, 2019
ADAPTER
WATERLINE
OCTOBER
3 PIECES MALE 17.75 53.25
19, 2019
ADAPTER
NOVEMBER
2 PIECES PVC PIPE 75 150
17, 2019
NOVEMBER
3 PIECES BARO 290 870
17, 2019
NOVEMBER PVC ¾
3 PIECES 15 45
23, 2019 FEMALE
NOVEMBER
3 PIECES PVC ¾ MALE 15 45
23, 2019
NOVEMBER
1 PIECES STEKWEL 150 150
23, 2019
NOVEMBER
1 PIECES TEFLON 20 20
23, 2019
NOVEMBER
4 PIECES HOSE 30 120
26, 2019
NOVEMBER
37 PIECES FACEMASK 2.95 109.15
27, 2019
NOVEMBER EXAMINATION
58 PIECES 3 174
28, 2019 GLOVES
DECEMBER
6 PIECES HOSE CLIP 10 60
01,2019
DECEMBER
3 PIECES AIR SHOCK 75 225
07,2019
DECEMBER
5 PIECES GI-LOCK 15 75
19, 2019
DECEMBER 1 PIECES NAN-SAG 135 135
65
19, 2019 EPOXY
DECEMBER
2 PIECES AIR B-VALVE 95 190
22, 2019
DECEMBER
2 PIECES GITI BALB 55 110
22, 2019
DECEMBER
4 PIECES HOSE 22 88
22, 2019
DECEMBER NON-SAG
1 PIECES 130 130
22, 2019 EPOXY
DECEMBER
1 PIECES GITI-VALVE 80 80
22, 2019
DECEMBER
5 PIECES HOSE CLIP 4 20
22, 2019
JANUARY 12,
1 PIECES TEFLON 25 25
2020
JANUARY 15, HOSE CLIPS
5 PIECES 10 50
2020 1/2
JANUARY 15,
2 PIECES AIR SHOCK 75 150
2020
JANUARY 27, SODIUM
1 100mL 125 125
2020 HYDROXIDE
JANUARY 27, CALCIUM
1 100mL 125 125
2020 HYDROXIDE
JANUARY 27, BOTTLE
2 PIECES 12 24
2020 CONTAINER
JANUAR 28, DIGITAL PH
3 PIECES 479 1437
2020 METER
THEMOMETE
JANUAR 28, R
3 PIECES 577.58 1732
2020 TEMPERATUR
E
TOTAL PHP
7525.65
66
APPENDIX M
Pre-Experimental Phase
Gathering of Materials
Exhibit 1: Gathering Chicken Droppings at Southern

Venture Poultry Farm
67
Exhibit 2: Gathering of Household Food Wastes (“Lamaw”)

68
Exhibit 3: Gathering the materials needed for setting-up the

digester
3 Baro Drums for 3 Treatments
Waterline Female & Male Adapter Plumbing Valve
Valve PVC Pipes

69
Hose Clip Hose
Tire Interior Weighing Scale
Safety Goggles pH Meter

70
Digital Thermometer
Laboratory Apparatuses
Erlenmeyer Flask Graduated Cylinder
Triple Beam Balance

71
Beaker Alcohol Lamp
Calcium Hydroxide [ Ca(OH)2 ] & Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

72
Setting-up the Digester
Exhibit 4: Making holes and cutting the PVC pipes for the inlet and outlet
pipes of the digester
73
Exhibit 5: Connecting the hose and valve to the digester
Exhibit 6: Connecting the tire interior to the hose of the digester

74
Exhibit 7: Setting-up the digital thermometer
Exhibit 8: Painting the whole digester with black paint

75
APPENDIX N
Experimental Phase
Exhibit 9: Measuring the Household Food Wastes (“Lamaw”)

76
Exhibit 10: Putting all the measured household food wastes into the digester
77
Exhibit 11: Measuring the Chicken Droppings

78
Exhibit 12: Putting all the measured chicken droppings into the digester
79
Exhibit 13: Adding 4 liters of water, then mix the measured chicken
droppings and household food wastes
80
Exhibit 14: Measuring the pH level and temperature

81
Exhibit 15: Removing CO2 through Caustic Scrubbing

82
APPENDIX O
Post-Experimental Phase
Exhibit 16: Data gathering through measuring the methane from the interior
83
CURRICULUM VITAE .
Personal Information:
Name: JOHN RAIN P. CARIÑO
Sex: Male
Age: 19 years old
Address: Purok Malambuon Calumpang General Santos City
Date of Birth: January 14, 2001

Place of Birth: Calumpang, General Santos City
Contact
Number:
09951000874
E-mail Address: Reaper4521@gmail.com
Mother’s Name: Jerelyn P. Carino
Mother’s
Occupation:
Housewife
Father’s Name: Julius S. Carino
Father’s
Fisherman
Occupation:
Educational Background:
Alliance Pre-School General Santos City
Pre-school: Dadiangas West, General Santos City
2006-2008
H. N. Cahilsot Central Elementary School
Elementary: Calumpang, General Santos City
2008-2014
Junior High
School:
2014-2018
Senior High
School:
2018- 2020
Achievements/Organizations:
2018-2019: Youth for Environment and Schools Organization (YES-O) Member
Learning Insights:
As I learn about this Experimental Research Study, I’ve encountered so many tasks to
do with. In creating a research paper, I need to go through a process in order to come
up objectivity on a certain study. And it also helps me improve my research skills in
order to be prepared for the future research disquisition.
84
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: MARJUN M. LAGBANG
Sex: Male
Age: 18 years old
Address: Von Ryan San Roque, Labangal, General Santos City
Date of Birth: June 13, 2001

Place of Birth: Kinangan, Malita, Davao Occidental (formerly Davao del Sur)
Contact
Number:
+63967-618-9475
E-mail Address: marjunlagbang@gmail.com
Mother’s Name: Maribeth T. Mariano
Mother’s
Occupation:
Housewife
Father’s Name: Danilo M. Lagbang
Father’s
Foreman
Occupation:
Purok Acharon Day Care Center
Pre-school:
Zone 1, Prk. Acharon, Labangal, General Santos City
Saavedra Saway Central Elementary School
Elementary:
Zone 4A, Saway, Labangal, General Santos City
Junior High Labangal National High School
School: Zone 4B, Saway, Labangal, General Santos City
Senior High
School:
Rizal St., Calumpang, General Santos City
2018-2020
2017-2018: Journalism Club – Sports Editor
2019-2020: UCSP Club – President
2019-2020: Debaters Club – Tuesday Meeting Coordinator
Learning Insights:
Research is a course that exposes students in a true experimental environment in which
students learn how to analyze numerical data and conclude accordingly. It enhances
student’s skills in analyzing situations and problems that need scientific and
mathematical intuition. Through scientific research, students are able to handle and
explain the meaning of both textual and numerical data.
85
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: VERTE MAE N. QUNTANILLA
Sex: Female
Age: 18 years old
Address: Lot 4 , block 5, NHA phase 1 , Greenville, Calumpang, G.S.C.
Date of Birth: March 08, 2002

Place of Birth: Papaya street, Malambuon, Calumpang
Contact
Number:
09223453492
E-mail Address: Vertequinz02@yahoo.com
Mother’s Name: Teresita N. Quintanilla
Mother’s
Occupation:
Teacher
Father’s Name: Oliver M. Quintanilla
Father’s
Teacher
Occupation:
Romana C. Acharon Central Elementary School
Pre-school: Calumpang, General Santos City
2006-2008
H.N Cahilsot Central Elementary School
Elementary: Calumpang, General Santos City
2008-2014
Junior High
School:
2014-2018
Senior High
School:
2018- 2020
2018-2019: Mathematics Club Officer (Asst. Treasurer)
Learning Insights:
I have learned many values and lessons in life that this subject taught me. I now know
how things are different from sociological and anthropological way and such.
86
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: KRISTINE EVE D. TILLANO
Sex: Female
Age: 18 years old
Address: Melecia Village,Prk. Emeliana,Brgy. Calumpang, General Santos City
Date of Birth: June 15,2001

Place of Birth: Diagan Hospital, General Santos City
Contact
Number:
09166591743
E-mail Address: krstnvdianatillano@gmail.com
Mother’s Name: Nenita D. Tillano
Mother’s
Occupation:
Forester I at DENR
Father’s Name: Antonio N. Tillano
Father’s
Forest Extension Officer at DENR
Occupation:
Christian Alliance Learning Center
Pre-school: Calumpang, General Santos City
2006-2008
Dadiangas West Central Elementary School
Elementary: Dadiangas West, General Santos City
2008-2014
Junior High
School:
2014-2018
Senior High
School:
2018- 2020
2019-2020: Mathematics Club Officer (Asst. Secretary)
Learning Insights:
Research is a lengthy process that taught me as an individual to be patient and
meticulous in doing the proper standards of the paper especially in the protocol of an
experimental study. This course made me realize and understand the true purpose of
doing research. We may be having difficulties in doing such but through this subject, we
can now have our future references for the next studies that may come.

ACALA - STEM2.G4 - Gallus Gallus Domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES..A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACALA - STEM2.G4 - Gallus Gallus Domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTES..A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gallus gallus domesticus (CHICKEN) DROPPINGS AND HOUSEHOLD

FOOD WASTES: A SOURCE OF BIOMETHANE GAS

CARIÑO, John Rain P.

A Quantitative Research Submitted

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement

CARIÑO, John Rain P.

three treatments and used a single-stage biodigester to generate biomethane gas.

Treatment 1 consisted 9 kilograms chicken droppings and 3 kilograms household

food wastes, treatment 2 was composed of 6 kilograms chicken droppings and 6

kilograms chicken droppings and 9 kilograms household food wastes. Operating

parameters such as pH level and temperature of the substrates were also

analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Treatment 1 had an average yield

operated in an average pH level of 5.5 and at mesophilic condition in which its

people and being;

making a research project and for sharing his knowledge in statistics.

improve this study.

knowledge in the field of chemistry.

researchers sincerely appreciated all their effort.

Chapter II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Chapter III: METHODOLOGY

Chapter V: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

No. Title Page

4 Single Stage Digester 27

5 Anaerobic Digester of Each Treatment 28

6 Experimental Research Design 29

7 Single Stage Digester Lay-out 31

8 Biomethane Yield in Each Treatment 36

9 pH Level in Each Treatment 37

10 Temperature in Each Treatment 39

No. Title Page

3 Significant Difference of Biomethane Yield in Each Treatment 40

Background of the Study

Many households today use Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) in cooking

56.7 percent in comparison to 1989 figures. However, LPG is derived from

petroleum which is a non-renewable fuel source. As defined by Abdullah (2017),

non-renewable resources are those with the smallest chance to be recovered

when depleted, such as petroleum, coal and natural gas.

Nevertheless, the use of anaerobic digestion technology would help to

supplement the demand of the country. Anaerobic digestion is a process of

chamber or container. Methane from biomass is safe to use. According to Msibi

and Komelius (2017), it improves health of rural low-income household by

biomass to produce methane reduces the chance of deforestation by turning

human dependency on fuel woods into biomethane.

In this study, the researchers focused on the utilization of chicken droppings

in digesting household food wastes anaerobically to produce methane gas. They

significant difference between each treatments.

By producing biomethane gas through anaerobic digestion, low income

beneficial as one of the solutions in handling biodegradable waste material and in

identifying renewable fuel source.

Statement of the Problem

researcher to determine the efficacy of using chicken droppings and household

food wastes in biomethane production:

1. What is the biomethane gas yield in the following ratio of chicken

droppings and household food wastes:

1.1 Treatment 1 (9 kilograms of chicken droppings and 3

kilograms of household food wastes);

1.2 Treatment 2 (6 kilograms of chicken droppings and 6

kilograms of household food wastes); and

1.3 Treatment 3 (3 kilograms of chicken droppings and 9

kilograms of household food wastes)?

2. What is the operating parameter of the substrates in each treatment in

2.1 pH level; and

3. Is there a significant difference between the biomethane yield in the