AKWA IBOM STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL/PETROCHEMICAL

ENGINEERING

PROJECT PROPOSAL ON

PRODUCTION OF BIOGAS FROM ORGANIC MUNICIPAL SOLID

WASTE

BY

EKONG RICHARD GEORGE

AK16/ENG/CPE/024

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

CHEMICAL/PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE BACHELOR OF

ENGINEERING DEGREE

JANUARY, 2022

1
 PRODUCTION OF BIOGAS FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

BY

EKONG, RICHARD GEORGE

AK16/ENG/CPE/024

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD

OF BACHELOR IN ENGINEERING (B.ENG) IN

CHEMICAL/PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Signed_____________________

MAYEN IBEH

Supervisor

JANUARY, 2022

Contents

2
CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4

1.1 Background of Studies.........................................................................................................4

1.2 Statement of Research Problem...........................................................................................5

1.3 Aim.......................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Objectives.............................................................................................................................6

1.5 Justification of Studies.........................................................................................................6

CHAPTER TWO.......................................................................................................................7

LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................7

2.1 Biogas Production................................................................................................................7

2.2 Stages of Biogas Production................................................................................................7

2.2.1 Hydrolysis......................................................................................................................8

2.2.2 Acidogenesis (Acid Formation)....................................................................................8

2.2.3 Acetogenesis (Acetic Acid Formation).........................................................................9

2.2.4 Methanogenesis (Methane formation).........................................................................10

2.3 Factors Affecting Biogas Production.................................................................................11

2.3.1 Temperature.................................................................................................................11

2.3.2 Oxygen........................................................................................................................12

2.3.3 pH Value......................................................................................................................12

2.3.4 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)...............................................................................12

2.3.5 Organic Loading Rate (OLR)......................................................................................13

3
 2.3.6 Mixing.........................................................................................................................13

2.3.7 Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA).........................................................................................13

2.3.8 Substrates.....................................................................................................................14

2.3.9 Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio (C/N)..........................................................................................14

2.4 Waste Production and Management...................................................................................15

2.4.1 Waste Production and Management in Nigeria...........................................................17

2.4.2 Biogas from fruit and vegetable solid waste (FVSW) and Organic MSW (OMSW). 19

2.5 Energy................................................................................................................................20

2.5.1 Energy Crisis in Nigeria..............................................................................................21

2.6 Extent of Past Research......................................................................................................23

MATERIALS AND METHODS.............................................................................................25

3.1Study Area...........................................................................................................................25

3.2 Materials.............................................................................................................................25

3.3 Methods..............................................................................................................................25

3.3.1 Substrate management.................................................................................................25

3.3.2 Design and Setup of process........................................................................................26

3.4 Collection of Data and Analysis........................................................................................26

3.4.1 Carbon/Nitrogen ratio..................................................................................................26

3.4.2 pH determination.........................................................................................................27

3.4.3 Temperature measurement..........................................................................................27

3.4.4 Biogas yield/production...............................................................................................27

4
 The biogas yield will be measured on daily basis................................................................27

3.4.5 Data analysis................................................................................................................27

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Studies

Waste is defined as any substances or item which is no longer considered useful and therefore

discarded (Azzi, 2017; EU, 2008; Huber, 2019). The definition above entails one’s prospect

5
towards appreciation, utilization and purpose when classifying an object as ‘trash’ or

‘treasure’, or as ‘waste’ or ‘resource’, respectively. The 21 st century has seen global increase

in consumption of goods which require substantial energy input, a growing number of

consumers and accumulating amounts of abandoned products and garbage (Huber, 2019).

Also, in a planet that is exposed to changing climate conditions and environmental

degradation, earth’s system capacity to provide live-supporting services for the human

species in the long-term are limited and already stressed (Steffen et al., 2015; Huber, 2019).

The fluctuating cost and the environmental effects of conventional sources (especially crude

oil) of energy have made recovery from organic residues and waste stream an ever more

attractive position (Sawyerr et al., 2019; Gulzow, 2010), For instance, by the end of 2022, the

US is expected to produce about 36 billion gallons of biofuels annually (Molino et al., 2018).

Furthermore, determined to tackle global issues and promoting an agenda for each country,

the United Nations announced the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which serves

as an action plan to foster people and planet through enhancing well-being and prosperity, as

well as reducing negative impacts and deterioration of natural systems (Rosa, 2017). Waste-

to-energy technologies is gaining more and more interest in both developing and emerging

countries, which deals with multiple challenges regarding waste management and energy

supply in the face of increasing demands by a growing number of people (Mutz et al., 2017).

The general technology of anaerobic digestion is well known and has been applied for years

(Sagagi et al., 2009). Biogas was produced as early as 3000 years ago from animal dung,

human sewage and organic waste consisting generally of household waste, agricultural waste,

human and animal waste (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). The production of

biogas is noncomplex and centralised technology with a low level of organic conversion into

biogas, (nearly 5–10 wt. %), based on the type of feedstock and the operative conditions

(Molino et al., 2013b; Molino et al., 2013a). The controlled decomposition of organic waste

6
in a biogas facility aggregates advantages of waste treatment, energy recovery and nutrient

recycling and is a promising technology to deal with contemporary issues of waste

management and energy recovery (Huber, 2019).

Biogas is a flammable gas composed mainly of a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide.

Biogas-generating technology is a favourable multi-purpose technology, at present: the

biogas that is generated can be used to meet energy requirements.

1.2 Statement of Research Problem

Energy is a fundamental input in the development of any human society. However, the

amount of energy required per capital to foster or sustain development depends largely on the

state of development, the local resources, the social and economical model chosen by the

country and other factors. Today most countries rely heavily on fossil fuel as source of

energy. The fluctuating cost and the adverse environmental effect of fossil fuel have made

countries to divert attention to renewable sources. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), consist of

everyday items that are discarded in the public. It can be food waste, agricultural waste etc.

Inability to properly manage this waste pose great threat to the environment.

1.3 Aim

This research is aimed at converting Organic Municipal Solid waste to biogas which is a

renewable source of energy

1.4 Objectives

The specific objectives of the research are:

i. Design and fabrication of digester and gas collector

7
 ii. Collection and sorting out of waste

iii. Produce biogas from the materials in (i and ii)

1.5 Justification of Studies

The controlled decomposition of organic waste in a biogas facility aggregates advantages of

energy recovery, proper waste management and nutrient recycling.

Biogas was produced as early as 3000 years ago from animal dung, human sewage and

organic waste consisting generally of household waste, agricultural waste, human and animal

waste. Since then, the technology of biogas production have been utilized and is seen as a

promising way to resolve the issue of energy crisis and waste treatment. In present times, the

waste to biogas technology have not been embraced by many nations, such as Nigeria and the

full potentials of the technology has not been met and utilized to meet the energy demand of

nations as well as save our planet. Hence the need for the study.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Biogas Production

Biogas is a colourless and flammable gas that is produced by the biological breakdown of

organic complex matter; occurring in the absence of oxygen, the biogas comes from

“biogenic materials (Umeghalu et al., 2012; Sawyerr et al., 2019). It is generated from

anaerobic digestion of biodegradable materials such as biomass, cow dung green waste and

agricultural residue such as cassava, sugar cane, vegetables, kitchen waste etc. (Ghosh, 2000).

8
This process is widely found in nature, taking place in moors, or at the bottom of lakes, in

slurry pits and in the rumen of ruminants. The organic matter is converted almost entirely to

biogas by a range of different microorganisms. Energy (heat) and new biomass are also

generated (Gulzow, 2010).

The resulting gas consists primarily of a mixture of methane (CH 4 50-75 vol. %) and carbon

dioxide (CO2 20-50 vol. %). It also contains small quantities of hydrogen (H 2 2-7 vol. %),

hydrogen sulphide (H2 approximately 2 vol. %), ammonia (NH3 0-0.05 vol. %) and other

traces gases such as nitrogen. The composition of the gas is essentially determined by the

substrates, the fermentation (digestion) process and the various technical design of the plant

(Kaltschmitt and Hartman, 2001; Gulzow, 2010).

2.2 Stages of Biogas Production

The process by which biogas is formed can be divided into number of steps which are

hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. The individual process of

decomposition (degradation) must be coordinated and harmonised with each other in the best

way to ensure that the process as a whole runs smoothly (Gulzow, 2010).

2.2.1 Hydrolysis

Hydrolysis is the first step in the process. The complex compound of the starting materials

(such as carbohydrates, proteins and fats) are broken down into simpler organic compounds

(example, amino acids, sugars and fatty acids). The hydrolytic bacteria involved in this stage

release enzymes that decompose the material by biochemical means (Gulzow, 2010). At the

end of the hydrolysis stage, a simple organic compound is produced (Sawyerr et al., 2019).

Enzymatic catalysis accelerates the hydrolysis process through oxidation of the organic

matter via a process called aerobic biological processes (Pisano, 2007). When the substrate

9
has been hydrolyzed, it becomes available for cell transportation and the fermentative

bacteria can then degrade these substrates during the acidogenesis stage. Optimization of the

hydrolysis process is, however, important to prevent inefficient degradation of the

macromolecules, which could impact negatively on the rate of digestion or other biological

activities, and consequently the biogas yield (Sawyerr et al., 2019). It is therefore important

to make sure that the culture of microorganisms is actively operational to allow the second

process (acidogenesis) to take place. Physicochemical treatments can also be used to promote

solubilization of organic matter. However, there should not be air intake in the system, as the

presence of air in the biomass will not allow the biomass to perform their duties as anaerobic

units (Gulzow, 2010).

2.2.2 Acidogenesis (Acid Formation)

Acidogenesis is the second stage where short-chain volatile fatty acids (VFA) such as acetic

acid, propionic acid, butyric acid are produced (Ellacuriaga et al., 2021). Lactic acid,

alcohols, hydrogen and carbon dioxide are also produced (Kalyuzhnyi et al., 2000). This is

carried out by the breaking down of products of the hydrolysis stage (via absorption and

degradation) by different obligate and facultative fermentative microorganisms (Sawyerr et

al., 2019). The acidogenesis stage involves the production of high concentration of hydrogen

by acid-producing bacteria called acidogenic microorganisms and is usually the fastest step in

a balanced anaerobic process (Gulzow, 2010). The degradation of organic matter to generate

biogas also depends on the complex interaction of various groups of bacteria, with the two

main groups being the acid-producing bacteria (acidogens) and the methane-producing

bacteria (methanogens). Therefore, bacteria is critical in sustaining the successful operation

of any anaerobic digester (White, 2011). This links the fermentation phase with the methane

10
production phase. Thus, more acid is produced to give birth to methanogens elements, which

produce methane gas (Sawyerr et al., 2019).

2.2.3 Acetogenesis (Acetic Acid Formation)

The process of acetogenesis transforms the organic acid that is produced during the second

stage into acetic acid, acid derivatives, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen (Sawyerr et al., 2019).

The hydrogen partial pressure is particularly important in this step. An excessively high

hydrogen content prevent the conversion of the intermediate products of acidogenesis, for

energy-related reasons (Gulzow, 2010). As a consequences, organic acids, such as propionic

acid, isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid and hexanoic acid, accumulate and inhibit the formation

of methane. For this purpose, the acetogenic bacteria (hydrogen forming bacteria) must co-

exist in a biotic community with the hydrogen consuming methanogenic archaea, which

consume hydrogen together with carbon dioxide during the formation of methane thus

ensuring an acceptable environment for the acetogenic bacteria (Wandrey et al., 1983)

2.2.4 Methanogenesis (Methane formation).

This is the final stage of biogas generation. During this stage, carbon dioxide-reducing and

hydrogen oxidizing methanogens convert hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methane, while

acetoclastic methanogens utilize acetate to produce methane (Parawira et al., 2004).

Methanogens (Archaea) utilize acetate, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and to a lesser extent

methanol, methylamines and formate, to form methane and carbon dioxide. These end

products are the primary substrates for the methanogenic bacteria to produce biogas, which

generally consists of 50–75% methane, 50–25% carbon dioxide and trace amounts of

nitrogen, hydrogen and hydrogen sulphide. Methanogenesis indicates the extent of biological

11

Starting Materials (Proteins,

activities in an anaerobic system and the state of the digestion. The more methane is

produced, the more the system is stable and well performing (Sawyerr et al., 2019).

Simple organic building blocks

(Amino acids, Fatty acids and sugars)

Acidogenesis

Lower fatty acids Other products

(propionic acid, butyric acid) (lactic acids, alcohols etc.)

Acetogenesis

Acetic acid H2 + CO2

Methanogenesis

Biogas (CH4 +CO2)

Plate 2.1; Schematic representation of anaerobic decomposition (Gulzow, 2010).

2.3 Factors Affecting Biogas Production

The four phases of anaerobic degradation take place simultaneously in a single stage process.

However, the bacteria involved in the various degradation phases have different requirement

in terms of habitat, a compromise has to be found in the process technology (Oechsner and

Lemmer, 2009).

2.3.1 Temperature

12
Small changes in temperature can cause significant decrease in activity of microbial and gas

production up to 30%; therefore, the temperature should be kept exactly in the range of +/2ºC

(Deublein, 2008). The bacteria involved are active within limited range of temperature,

especially methanogens that are the methane-producing bacteria (Özmen and Aslanzadeh,

2009). Anaerobic digestion can be carried out at three different temperature ranges, which

are psychrophilic (below 25ºC), mesophilic (30ºC – 42ºC) and thermophilic (43ºC – 55ºC)

(Deublein 2008). One can apply different temperatures in anaerobic digestion, which are

mesophilic in the hydrolysis stage while thermophilic condition in the methanogenic stage

(Al Seadi et al., 2008).

Thermal Stages Process Temperature Minimum retention time

Psychrophilic below 25°C 70 to 80 days

Mesophilic 25°C – 45°C 30 to 40 days

Thermophilic 45°C – 70°C 15 to 20 days

Table 2.1; Temperature range for Anaerobic digestion process (Kemausuor, 2015; Yeboah.

2015)

2.3.2 Oxygen

Oxygen is toxic to most anaerobic microorganisms. Its presence in an anaerobic reactor will

result in a significant decrease in the digestion rate. However, it is possible that facultative

anaerobes metabolize the dissolved oxygen before toxic effects are noticeable (Zinder and

Koch, 1984).

13
2.3.3 pH Value

The pH value of the material is one of the essential factors. Methanogenic bacteria are

sensitive to an acidic condition. This acidic condition could adversely affect the growth of

bacteria and the production of methane (Arsova, 2011). The microorganisms involved in

various stages of decomposition require different pH values for optimum growth. The pH

optimum for hydrolyzing and acid-forming bacteria is in the range from pH 5.2-6.3 (Weilnd

and Grundlgen der Methangarung, 2001). Regardless of whether the system is a single stage

or multi-stage the pH value is established automatically within the system by the alkaline and

acid metabolic products formed in the course of anaerobic decomposition (Kaltschmitt and

Hartman, 2001).

2.3.4 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT).

HRT indicates the mean residence time for solids and liquids wastes remaining in a digester

(reactor) to contact with the microbial biomass (Khanal, 2008a). The HRT can be understood

as the treatment time for a waste to undergo anaerobic digestion, the higher the HRT the

higher the removal efficiency because the biomass has enough time to be in close contact

with the waste, therefore removing high amounts of contaminants from the waste being

treated (Sawyerr et al., 2019).

HRT = VR/V (d)

Eqn 2.1; Hydraulic Retention time

[VR = reactor volume (m3); V = Volume of substrates added daily (m3/d)] (Gulzow, 2010).

2.3.5 Organic Loading Rate (OLR)

14
The OLR indicates how many kilograms of Volatile Solids [VS, or Organic Dry Matter

(ODM)] can be fed into the digester per m3 of working volume per unit time (Kaltschmitt and

Hartman, 2001). It is expressed as kg VS/(m3.d).

BR = m . c/VR .100 [kg VS/(m3.d)]

Eqn 2.2; Organic Loading Rate (Huber, 2016).

[m = amount of substrate loaded per unit of time (kg/d); c = concentration of organic matter

(Volatile matter) %VS; VR = reactor volume].

2.3.6 Mixing

Mixing has the effect of bringing a homogeneous environment and an effective use of the

entire digester volume. It has been observed to generally increase CH 4 yields and to render

the digester more stable (Forday and Greenfield, 1983).

2.3.7 Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA)

During start-up or when there is organic overloading of the digester, high concentrations of

VFA are generally observed. They are usually associated with toxicity and inhibitory effects

(Sawyerr et al., 2019).

2.3.8 Substrates

Many types of substrate (mostly biomass) can be used for biogas production. Complex

substrates take longer time to digest. Variety of feed-stocks that can be used for anaerobic

digestion range from organic residues from agriculture (crop residues), waste from animals

15
(manure), municipal organic waste, industrial waste, sewage sludge, by-products from

production of bioethanol and biodiesel, energy crops and algae etc. (Lantz et al., 2007).

2.3.9 Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio (C/N)

Carbon and nitrogen are the main requirements for the anaerobic bacteria. For good microbiological

activity, ratio of C:N =30:1. The variation in the proportion may slow down the digestion process

(Joshi, 2020)

The relationship between the amount of carbon and nitrogen present in organic materials is

expressed in terms of the Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) ratio. (Yeboah, 2016). Too low value of the

C/N ratio in the substrate causes an increase of ammonia production and this will increase the

pH value of the content in the digester which will affect methanogenesis process. Too high

value of the C/N ratio gives negative effect in protein formation, thus the nitrogen will be

consumed rapidly by methanogens for meeting their protein requirements and will no longer

react on the left over carbon content of the material. As a result, gas production will be low.

Based on studies, the metabolic activity of methanogenic bacteria is possible to be optimized

at a C/N ratio around 8 to 20. However, depending on the characteristics of the substrate, the

optimum point can vary (Özmen and Aslanzadeh, 2009). According to (Kivaisi and Mtila.

1998), the optimum C/N ratio for microbial activity involved in bioconversion of vegetable

biomasses to methane is 25-30. Materials with high C/N ratio could be mixed with those of

low C/N ratio to bring the average ratio of the composite input to a desirable level.

2.4 Waste Production and Management

When looking at literature related to the subject of waste, such as management system,

statistical reports, legislation documents or scientific papers, categories and classifications of

waste can vary, which eventually creates difficulties in identifying and comparing certain
16
waste. Analysis and discussion of waste quantities often refer to Municipal solid waste

(MSW), for which data is widely available on both local and global levels (Huber, 2019).

Plate 2.2; Current and projected global population (United Nations, 2017) and MSW

generation (Kaza et al., 2018; Huber 2019)

A growing number of people on the planet, as well as changing consumption patterns and

increasing wealth at the same time have led to concerning levels of waste generation in the

21st century (Fischedick et al., 2014). As illustrated in Fig 2.2, It is further projected that

generation of MSW per capita will increase in coming decades. Inadequate future plans for

handling such large amounts of waste pose high risks to both environment and humans (Kaza

et al., 2018; Huber, 2019).

Disposal and treatment of Waste differs from place to place. A global snapshot regarding

current treatment of waste contradicts the commonly acknowledged concept of a waste-

treatment hierarchy that is specified in the Waste Framework Directive of the European

Union (EU) (EU, 2008). According to this, waste disposal, i.e. land-filling and open dumping

is depicted as the least favourable option among all waste treatment alternatives as illustrated

in Fig 2.3.

17
Plate 2.3; Waste hierarchy according to the EU Waste Framework Directive (Huber, 2019)

Land-filling and dumping drive environmental degradation, pose health risks and cause

losses in the form of green house gas emissions and odours, soil and water contamination

through leaching and unused sources for energy, material and nutrient recovery (EC, 2016;

Fischedick et al., 2014; Ghasemi Ghodrat et al., 2018). Yet, about two thirds of the total

amount of MSW is treated that way, which is widely applied to address highly rising waste

generation per capita (Fischedick et al., 2014; Kaza et al., 2018). Food and green waste

represents the largest share of more than half the total MSW produced (by weight) across the

world (Kaza et al., 2018).

Organic waste (OW) in regards to biogas production can be classified into (i) municipal solid,

(ii) manure and (iii) agro-industrial (Di Matteo et al., 2017, p. 4; Valijanian et al., 2018, p.

97).

2.4.1 Waste Production and Management in Nigeria

18
With a population exceeding 180 million (National Bereau of Statistics, 2018), Nigeria

produces one of the largest of solid waste in Africa (Bakare, 2020). Despite the policies and

regulations, solid waste management in the country remains a massive challenge to the

authorities and the entire public.

Nigeria generates over 32 million tons of solid waste yearly, and only a fraction is collected

(Bakare, 2020). Most of these wastes are generated by households and in some cases, by local

industries, individuals and traders who litter the immediate surroundings. Food waste was

found to constitute close to 50 percent of overall municipal solid waste in Nigerian cities

(Nnaji, 2015; Aliyu, 2010). Improper collection and disposal of municipal wastes has led to

different levels of environmental challenge such as blockade of sewers, drain networks and

the choking of water bodies (George, 2010). Although, the country lacks a well-coordinated

waste management system, Solid Waste Management (SWM) is under the purview of

Ministry of Environment at the Federal and State levels and Environmental Health

Department at Local Government level under established legislations and guidelines relating

to waste management. Some of these legislations include: the Harmful Waste Act (Special

Criminal Provisions, etc of 1988), the National Environmental Standards and Regulations

Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act 2007 (NESREA Act, repealed the Federal

Environmental Protection Act of 1988), Environmental Impact Assessment act of 1992,

National Environmental (Sanitation and Wastes Control) Regulations, 2009 and the National

Environmental Protection Regulations (Pollution Abatement in Industries and Facilities

Generating Waste) (Nwosu and Chukwueloka, 2020).

The handling of SWM in Nigeria calls for immediate attention and the adoption of the best

practicable environmental approach towards preserving the environment. In achieving a

sustainable SWM strategy, all steps of the management process must be fully functional and

effective. They include; solid waste generation and characterization, solid waste collection

19
and transportation, and solid waste disposal/treatment (Federal Ministry of Environment,

2000).

S/N Solid Waste Management Strategy Constraint Benefit

1 Traditional Waste Management Strategy Heavy reliance on government Reasonably Cheap.

(TWMS). policies and authorities for No technical know-how
a.Generation/Characterisation implementation, Segregation is required.
b. Collection, of waste is nearly impossible,
c. Transportation and Disposal no coordination of the
different steps since they are
most times not exclusive,
Limited public and
environmental awareness,
corruption etc

2 Waste Minimisation Strategy (WMS) expensive, technical knowhow a. Cheap, no technical

a. Waste prevention is required, corruption, know-how is required. b.
b. Waste reduction c. reliance on the government No technical know-how
Waste reuse is required. c. No
d. Waste recycle/recovery technical know-how is
required. d. provides an
alternate source of
revenue and resource
while safeguarding the
environment.
3 Technological Strategy (TcS) a. Technical know-how is Easy and cheap source of
Application of Global Positioning required, Expensive, Hardware collection tool especially
System(GPS) and Software are limited when covering a large
b. Application of Geographical area and population,
Information System (GIS) saves time and energy
c. Application of Remote sensing

Table 2.2; Waste Management strategy (Nwosu and Chukwueloka, 2020).

2.4.2 Biogas from fruit and vegetable solid waste (FVSW) and Organic MSW (OMSW)

The organic fraction of MSW composition differs greatly. Many factors affect the

composition of MSW, including regional differences, climate differences, the extent to which

recycling is done, the frequency of collection, seasonal change, and cultural practices

(Tchobanoglous et al., 1977; Sawyerr et al., 2019). The sorting system of MSW is not the

only factor that influences the qualities. They are also influenced by various methods used for

quantifying the OMSW. The mechanical sorting of MSW is present in large amounts of

suspended, non-biodegradable solids and small pieces of plastic, wood and paper. OMSW

20
digestion at a mesophilic temperature (35°C) yields a maximum CH 4 ranging from 0.39 to

0.43 m3/kg VS MSW without paper and wood (Mata-Alvarez et al., 1990) and VS reduction

(VSr) ranging from 63 to 69%. The methane yield of OMSW ranged from 0.11 to 0.16 m 3

kg-VS and VSr was around 30% due to its high ash value (Mata-Alvarez et al., 1990).

The FVSW wastes are characterized by high percentages of moisture (>80%) and VS (>95%)

and have a very high biodegradability percentage. CH 4 yield of FVSW is very high. The

maximum OLR to obtain a stable digestion of a variety of FVSW ranges from 0.8 to 1.6 kg

VS mm3/d having an HRT of 32 days (Knol et al. 1978). According to the failure of the

digestion of peach waste is due to inadequate alkalinity levels at 3 kg/m3/d with 20 days HRT

(Hills and Roberts, 1982).

According to a study conducted by (Stewart et al., 1984) where the biogas yield from the

anaerobic digestion of banana, i.e. damaged fruit and stem, and potato waste was measured

(peelings and rejects). The digestion was done in a 20 litres continuous digester at a

temperature of 35°C. The greatest CH4 yields were obtained from the complete digestion of

the banana waste, which is almost a complete destruction of the VS. For a HRT of 20 days

with OLR 2.5 kg TS/m3/d, the CH4 yield for banana waste was 0.53 m3/kg VS at 100% VS

conversion

2.5 Energy

With the global population swelling and industrialisation on the rise in developing nations,

humanity’s hunger for energy has reached unprecedented levels. More than half of our energy

comes from fossil fuels extracted from deep within the Earth’s crust. It is estimated that since

commercial oil drilling began in the 1850s, we have sucked up more than 135 billion tonnes

of crude oil to drive our cars, fuel our power stations and heat our homes. That figure

21
increases every day. Burning of coal, oil and gas has been inextricably linked to the rising

levels of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere and is a leading contributor of climate

change.

“The energy industry is facing decades of transformation,” according to a recent report by the

World Energy Council. Yet the implications of the changes underway go far deeper. There

are political, economic and social issues at stake, but it may also require each of us to make

some fundamental shifts in our behaviour to. “There are still a lot of people around the world

– 1.2 billion or so – who do not have access to modern energy services,” explains Jim

Watson, director of the UK Energy Research Centre. There are still an estimated three billion

people around the world who cook and heat their homes using simple stoves or open fires that

burn wood, animal dung or coal. As developing nations become more industrialised, they will

need access to reliable electricity supplies. In countries where development is already

underway, energy use will soar as increasing wealth leads to a swelling middle class and the

lifestyle trappings that brings with it. But faced with global agreements to reduce the amount

of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere, how will we meet this growing demand

without dooming our ice caps and drowning low-lying regions beneath rising sea levels?

Currently there is no easy way to store the electricity produced by wind or solar energy for

appreciable periods of time. Technologies like capacitors and flywheels can provide stored

energy for a few minutes or hours. But electricity grids need to be finely tuned. They only

work when the amount of energy put in is the same as that drawn out. The supply must match

the demand. Biogas and biofuels are often seen as one of the most viable alternatives to fossil

fuels. Yet burning these fuels will not halt the release of greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere. And with the burgeoning extraction of shale oil and gas in many parts of the

world, it seems likely we will be reliant on fossil fuels for some time to come. (Gray, 2013)

22
2.5.1 Energy Crisis in Nigeria

For decades, Nigeria had been faced with several formidable energy crises that have not only

undermined her economic growth but also deprived over 50 million populations, the privilege

of sustainable and reliable access to electricity. In recent times, the Nigeria power sector had

witnessed a substantial decline in energy production, which forced many households and

businesses to rely on the fossil fuel-based generators to meet the energy demand. Currently,

the available generation capacity is constantly hovering between 3,500 and 5,000 MW for a

population of about 200 million people. This is an indication that there is a wide energy gap

between the demand and supply. However, Nigeria is gifted with diverse renewable energy

resources that are not being fully exploited to meet her energy future needs (Okubanjo et al.,

2020).

In 1929, Nigeria Electricity Supply Company was established with the main goal of

providing a secure and reliable supply of electricity across the country (Oyewo et al., 2018).

Further development in the sector led to the establishment of National Electricity Power

Authority (NEPA) in 1972 with the sole responsibility of generation, transmission, and

distribution of electricity. However, the NEPA had experienced several limitations that

significantly affected the generation, transmission, and distribution. As a result, the power

reform Act 2015 and the launch of the Roadmap for power sector reform in 2010 unbundled

NEPA into 18 companies and renaming to Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN)

(Sadiq et al., 2013). The total installed generation capacity at the end of 2018 was about

12,500 GWh, with 12.5% being generation from hydropower and fossil, 87.5% from a

thermal power plant, through 3,500 to 5,000 MW is available for supply. However, the

country’s total generation has not improved over the decades. The key constraints have been

attributed to an insufficient gas supply, poor management infrastructures (Okubanjo et al.,

2020).

23
Generation Fuel Type No. of Unit No. of Unit Installed Available Contribution to nation
Plant Available Capacity Capacity Grid % (approximation)
(MW) (MW)
Kanji Hydro 12 6 760 444 11.6
Jebba Hydro 6 4 578 431 11.1
Shiroro Hydro 6 4 600 508 13.1
Egbin Thermal 6 5 1320 914 13.1
Geregu Thermal 3 3 414 328 23.6
Omotosho Thermal 8 2 335 306 8.5
Olorunsog Thermal 8 2 335 260 7.9
o Thermal 20 12 912 466 6.7
Delta Thermal 10 1 1020 219 11.9
Sapele Thermal 20 3 294 234 5.7
Affam
Table 2.3; Nigeria power generation plants and their capacity utilization (2018) (F. G. of

Nigeria in conjunction with P. A. Advisory Power Team, 2015).

Sources Estimated Reserves

Large Hydropower 11,250 MW

Small Hydropower (<30 MW) 3,500 MW

Fuel wood 11 million hectares of forest land and wood land

Municipal waste 30 million tons/year

Animal waste 245 million assorted animals in 2011

Energy corps and Agricultural Residue 72 million hectares of agricultural land

Solar radiation 3.5–7.0 kwh/m2/day

Wind 2–4 m/s at 10 m height

Solar PV panels 7,000 MW

Geothermal 500 MW

Nuclear Power 64,000 MW

Biomass 79.3%

Table 2.4; Nigeria Renewable Sources (Oyedepo, 2014)

Renewable sources can add over 60,00MW of energy to Nigeria if looked into (Akorede et

al., 2017).

24
2.6 Extent of Past Research

S/N Title Author Methodology Gap

1. Preparation of Biogas from (Ubwa et al., 2013) The study investigated Limitation; didn’t
Plants and Animal Waste biogas potentials of six take
different plants, Cow Carbon/Nitrogen
rumen liquor, Cowpea, content of
and poultry waste. The feedstock
Slurry used was Remark; Take
prepared by mixing 60 carbon/Nitrogen
g of plants sample with into consideration
20 g of chicken to optimize yield
dropping in the ratio of
3:1 W/W (weight for
weight). These were
moistened with varying
volumes of pre –
warmed water at 37℃.

2. Small-scale biogas (Huber, 2019) A techno-economic Limitation; didn’t

production from organic assessment served to take
waste and application in quantify biogas and Carbon/Nitrogen
mid-income countries – a liquid digestate content of
case study of a Lebanese production rates, based feedstock
community. on available resources Remark; Take
of organic waste in the carbon/Nitrogen
research area. Costs into consideration
associated with to optimize yield
installation, operation
and maintenance of the
proposed facility have
been projected based on
present examples of
similar facilities in the
country
3. An Overview of Biogas (Sawyerr et al., 2019) This paper presents an Limitation; didn’t
Production: Fundamentals, overview of state-of- talk about
Applications and Future the-art and future Carbon/Nitrogen as
Research viewpoints related to a factor affecting
the Anaerobic digestion Biogas production
process for biogas Remark; Take
production. carbon/Nitrogen
into consideration
to optimize yield
4. Guide to biogas; from (Gulzow, 2010) This guide focuses on Limitation; didn’t
production to use large scale production talk about
of biogas and uses as Carbon/Nitrogen as
well as process designs a factor affecting
Biogas production
Remark; Take
carbon/Nitrogen
into consideration
to optimize yield
5. Production of biogas from (Yeboah, 2016)
fruit and vegetable wastes

6. Design Of Proposed (Joshi, 2020)

Automated Biogas Plant

25
CHAPTER THREE

26
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1Study Area

The study will be conducted at the department of Chemical/Petrochemical Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering, Akwa Ibom State University, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.

3.2 Materials `

The materials used for the experiment are as follows;

i. Digester

ii. Feedstock (poultry waste).

iii. Electronic beam balance.

iv. pH meter

v. Fittings and valves

vi. Hose

vii. Waste shredder (blender)

viii. PVC pipes

ix. Thermometer (liquid in glass)

x. Mixing tank

3.3 Methods

3.3.1 Substrate management

Substrate management consist of delivery, storage, preparation, and in-feed.

A. Delivery

The waste will be collected randomly from dumpsites, farms and sorted out.

27
 B. Preparation;

i. Slurry preparation

Slurry will be prepared from a weighed mixture of wastes (OMSW) by blending

using an electronic blender to aid in the easy and faster decomposition of the

feedstock.

ii. pH determination/preparation

A measured quantity of the sample slurry will be transferred into a beaker. The

slurry will be agitated and left for 24 hours at room temperature. The pH meter

will then be used to measure the slurry pH. A measured quantity of NaOH will be

added to help Neutralize the slurry.

3.3.2 Design and Setup of process

Digester Receiver Storage

A. Digester design

The digester (200 litres steel drum) will be fitted with a stirrer and a pressure gauge

B. Receiver design

C. Storage

3.4 Collection of Data and Analysis

3.4.1 Carbon/Nitrogen ratio

Laboratory analysis will be done to determine the carbon and nitrogen contents of the various

OMSW used.

3.4.2 pH determination

The pH of the slurry will be measured before and after addition of NaOH to the slurry

28
3.4.3 Temperature measurement

The temperature of the digester will be measured on daily basis using a thermometer

3.4.4 Biogas yield/production

The biogas yield will be measured on daily basis

3.4.5 Data analysis

MS EXCEL will be used in the graphical presentation and analysis of data collected.

REFERENCES

29
Azzi, E., (2017). Waste Management Systems in Lebanon - The benefits of a waste crisis

for improvement of practices. (Degree project in the field of Technology - Civil

Engineering And Urban Management And The Main Field Of Study The Built

Environment, Second Cycle, 30 Credits). KTH Royal Institute of Technology,

Stockholm.

Bailey, J., Ollis, D. (1986), Applied enzyme catalysis. Biochemical Engineering

Fundamentals, 2, 157-227

Bakare, W. (2020). Solid Waste Management in Nigeria. Retrieved March 31, 2020, from

https://www.bioenergyconsult.com/solid-waste-nigeria/

European Commission (EC), (2016). Biodegradable waste - Environment - European

Commission [WWW Document]. URL

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm (accessed 2.6.19).

Fischedick, M., Roy, J., Abdel-Aziz, A., Acquaye, A., Allwood, J., Ceron, J.-P., Geng,

Y., Kheshgi, H., Lanza, A., Perczyk, D., Price, L., Santalla, E., Sheinbaum, C., Tanaka,

K., (2014). Industry, in: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contri-

Bution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S.

Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.

Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (Eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Ghasemi Ghodrat, A., Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Mussatto, S.I., (2018). Waste

Management Strategies; the State of the Art, in: Tabatabaei, M., Ghanavati, H. (Eds.),

Biogas. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

319-77335-3_1

30
Ghosh, S. (2000), Bioconversion of Water Hyacinth Coastal Bermuda grass MSW-Sludge

Blends to Methane Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium

Gray R. (2013), The biggest energy challenges facing humanity. Grand Challenges. BBC

Futures.

Huber, S., (2019). Small-scale biogas production from organic waste and application in

mid-income countries – a case study of a Lebanese community. Master thesis in

Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, No. 2019/9, 48 pp, ECTS/hp

Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., (2001). Energie aus Biomasse. Grundlagen, Techneiken

and Verfahren; Springer Verlag; Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

Kalyuzhnyi, S., Veeken, A., Hamelers, B. (2000), Two-particle model of anaerobic solid

state fermentation. Water Science and Technology, 41, 43-40.

Kaza, S., Lao, L.C., Bhada-Tata, P., van Woerden, F., (2018). What a Waste 2.0 : A

Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development Series. World

Bank, Washington, DC

Knol, W., Van Der Most, M.M., De Waart, J. (1978), Biogas production by anaerobic

digestion of fruit and vegetable waste. A preliminary study. Journal of the Science of

Food and Agriculture, 29, 822-830

Mata-Alvarez, J., Cecchi, F., Pavan, P., Llabres, P. (1990), The performances of digesters

treating the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes differently sorted. Biological

Wastes, 33, 181-199. Mccarty, P.L. Smith, D.P. (1986), Anaerobic wastewater treatment

Molino, A., Larocca, V., Chianese, S., Musmarra, D. (2018), Biofuels production by

biomass gasification: A review. Energies, 11, 811-820

31
Molino, A., Migliori, M., Ding, Y., Bikson, B., Giordano, G., Braccio, G. (2013a), Biogas

upgrading via membrane process: Modelling of pilot plant scale and the end uses for the

grid injection. Fuel, 107, 585-592.

Molino, A., Nanna, F., Ding, Y., Bikson, B., Braccio, G. (2013b), Biomethane production

by anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Fuel, 103, 1003-1009.

Mutz, D., Hengevoss, D., Hugi, C., Gross, T., (2017). Waste-to-Energy Options in

Municipal Solid Waste Management - A Guide for Decision Makers in Developing and

Emerging Countries. German Corporation for International Cooperation [Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ)], Eschborn

Nguyen, H. (2012). Biogas Production from Solvent Pretreated Orange Peel. Master of

Science Thesis in the Master’s Program MPISC. Chalmers University Of Technology,

Goteborg, Sweden.

Özmen, P. and Aslanzadeh, S. (2009). Biogas production from municipal waste mixed

with different portions of orange peel. Master thesis in Applied Biotechnology.

University of Borås, Borås.

Philip, D.L. (2008). A Brief History of Biogas. The University of Adelaide,

Australiahttp://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/history/[Accessed 22/10/2015].

Rosa, W. (Ed.), (2017). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, in: A New Era in Global Health. Springer Publishing Company, New

York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02

Sagagi, B. S., B. Garba and Usman N. S. (2009). Studies on biogas production from fruits

and vegetable waste. Bayero journal of pure and applied sciences 2 (1): 115-118.

32
Speece, R.E. (1996), Anaerobic Biotechnology for Industrial Wastewaters. Nashville:

Archaea Press.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs,

R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace,

G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sorlin, S., (2015). Planetary

boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855–

1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Tchobanoglous, G., Eliassen, R., Theisen, H. (1977), Solid Wastes; Engineering

Principles and Management Issues. New York: McGraw-hill.

Umeghalu, C., Chukwuma, E., Okonkwo, I., Umeh, S. (2012), Potentials for biogas

production in Anambra State of Nigeria using cow dung and poultry droppings.

International Journal of Veterinary Science, 1, 26-30.

33