Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1 25

Potential Biogas Production Generated by Mono- and Co-digestion of

EREM 77/1 Food Waste and Fruit Waste (Durian Shell, Dragon Fruit and Pineapple
Journal of Environmental Research, Peel) in Different Mixture Ratio under Anaerobic Condition
Engineering and Management
Vol. 77 / No. 1 / 2021
Received 2020/02 Accepted after revision 2021/01
pp. 25–35
DOI 10.5755/10.5755/j01.erem.77.1.25234
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.77.1.25234

Potential Biogas Production

Generated by Mono- and Co-
digestion of Food Waste and Fruit
Waste (Durian Shell, Dragon Fruit
and Pineapple Peel) in Different
Mixture Ratio under Anaerobic
Condition
Sutharat Muenmee*
Faculty of Science, Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Rayong
Campus, Bankai, Rayong, 21120, Thailand
Green building research group, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangsue, Bangkok, 10800,
Thailand
Kanyarak Prasertboonyai
Faculty of Science, Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Rayong
Campus, Bankai, Rayong, 21120, Thailand

*Corresponding author: sutharat.m@sciee.kmutnb.ac.th

This work investigated the potential of generating biogas from mono-digestion of various substrates such as food
and fruit waste (e.g., durian shell, dragon fruit peel and pineapple peel) and co-digestion in different combinations of
a co-substrate as food waste as well as different types of fruit waste (durian shell, dragon fruit peel and pineapple
26 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1

peel). The mixture of food waste and fruit waste ratio varied as follows: 75:25, 50:50 and 25:75, which was based on
weight. The batch experiments were carried out using 125 ml anaerobic digesters and were incubated for 50 days.
For a mono-substrate, food waste produced the highest amount of methane gas (60.63 ± 1.02 ml/gvs) followed by
durian shell (34.93 ± 1.30 ml/gvs), pineapple peel (31.70 ± 1.60 ml/gvs), and dragon fruit peel (30.12 ± 1.20 ml/gvs),
respectively. The highest amount of methane gas came from food waste mixed with durian shell (FW75:D25), and it
was on a higher level than food waste mixed with dragon fruit peel (FW75:DF25) and pineapple peel (FW75:P25). The
highest methane gas production of co-digestion which was observed at the proportion of food waste and durian shell
was 75:25 and produced higher content of methane gas than the highest methane gas production of mono-digestion
(food waste) according to the high organic compound and optimum pH value in the system. The results showed that
the co-digestion of durian shell and food waste improved methane production and reduced the startup time compared
with their mono-digestion. On the other hand, pineapple peel was not suitable for co-digestion with food waste due to
a decreasing pH value in the system.
Keywords: co-digestion, anaerobic digestion, food waste, fruit waste.

Introduction
Continuously growing population in developing coun-
tries along with urbanization, economic development
and rapidly changing lifestyles have contributed to a
higher rate of municipal solid waste generation. At this
point, developing countries, especially Thailand, face an
increasing challenge in the management and disposal
of solid waste. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is gener-
ated in Thailand at a rate of approximately 0.3–1.44 kg/
capita.day (Troshinetz and Mihelcic, 2009). Food waste
contributes as the biggest component at all disposal
sites, ranging between 60% and 80%, followed by plas-
tic, paper, glass, textile and wood, and the composition
of MSW varies across provinces (Wangyao et al., 2010;
Suma et al., 2019). Besides, Thailand is a country with
one of the most abundant sources of tropical fruits in
the world according to the appropriate climate. The con-
sumption of different varieties of fruit produced in Thai-
land is always on the rise. Even though Thailand has a
high fruit consumption along with industrial processing
of edible parts, waste such as durian peel, dragon fruit
peel, pineapple leftovers along with other fruit residues
(primarily peel and seeds) are generated in large quan-
tities throughout big cities. The amount of fruit waste
generated highly depends on the seasons. While some
of Thai fruits are available year-round, others are sea-
sonal only (in spans of 3–6 months). For example, April
to August is durian season, May to October is dragon
fruit season, and April to June along with December to
January is pineapple season. Besides food waste, the
trend of fruit waste production is also increasing due to
the growing consumption.
Currently, there are several MSW disposal methods in use,
such as composting, incineration and landfills. The land-
fill is the most common disposal method in developing
countries. Landfill gases and leachate are produced when
municipal solid waste is buried in a landfill under anaero-
bic conditions. Methane is one of the many gases that is
produced from landfills and is then being released into the
atmosphere, which contributes to global warming.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is one of the preferred MSW dis-
posal technologies for the production of biogas and meth-
ane, which can be used as a source of alternative energy.
Moreover, the residue produced during the AD process
is a stabilized organic material that can be utilized as a
bio-fertilizer. Even though AD is considered an efficient
technology, this process presents some limitations. The
stability of the AD process can be influenced by the ac-
cumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFA) when MSW con-
tains plenty amounts of food waste (FW), and long-chain
fatty acids which interrupt methanogenic activity (Pavi et
al., 2017). In this case, the co-digestion of different feed-
stock is applied to deal with this limitation and enhance
methane yield (Pavi et al., 2017). The main advantages
of co-digestion are a better balance of nutrients in terms
of the C/N ration, the mineral requirement for equilibri-
um and an increase in buffering capacity of the system
to improve methane productions (Pavi et al., 2017; Korai
et al., 2018). Several previous studies used food waste
 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management
as the mono-substrate to produce biogas or for co-di-
gestion along with sewage sludge (Mehariya et al., 2018),
animal manure (Li et al., 2010), fruit, vegetable waste
(Shen et al., 2013), and agricultural waste (Yong et al.,
2015). Brown and Li (2013), who studied the co-digestion
of food waste and yard waste, found that it is possible to
increase methane yields and volumetric productivity by
tweaking the percentage of food waste, which leads to
an increase of yield from 10% to 20%. However, most
studies have focused on the use of animal manure and
sludge as the co-substrate with food waste, except for a
few studies, which involved fruit residual (Li et al., 2010;
Shen et al., 2013; Mehariya et al., 2018; Anika et al, 2019).
Anika et al. (2019), who determined the amount of po-
tential biogas produced from a combination of mango,
pawpaw and watermelon as well as their various com-
binations, found that a total volume of biogas produced
from co-digestion of watermelon and mango (5,103 cm3)
was higher than just mango (1,533 cm3) and watermel-
on (2,917 cm3). There have been many studies investi-
gating biogas production from the co-digestion of food
waste but less attention is being paid to the investiga-
tion of biogas production from the co-digestion of food
waste and different types of fruit waste. Therefore, this
study aimed to investigate potentials of biogas generat-
ed from mono-digestion of different substrates as food
waste and fruit residual (durian shell, dragon fruit peel
Table 1. Experimental conditions of the batch tests
Experiment Condition
(FW100)
(FW75:D25)
I (FW50:D50)
(FW25:D75)
(D100)
(FW75:DF25)
(FW50:DF0)
II
(FW25:DF5)
(DF100)
(FW75:P25)
(FW50:P50)
III
(FW25:P75)
(P100)
2021/77/1 27
and pineapple peel) as well as co-digestion of different
combinations of co-substrates, for example, food waste
and different types of fruit waste (durian shell, dragon
fruit peel and pineapple peel).
Methods
Substrate and inoculum preparation
Food waste was collected from a canteen of King Mon-
gkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok (Rayong
campus) along with the fruit residuals such as duri-
an peel, dragon fruit peel and pineapple peel that were
obtained from a local market. The food waste and fruit
residuals (durian, dragon fruit and pineapple peel) were
crushed in a blender while cow manure was used as in-
oculum. Before their characterization and use, feedstock
(food waste along with fruit residuals) and manure were
stored at a temperature of 4℃.
Experimental design
The batch test was divided into three experiments labelled
I, II and III. The experimental design for each portion is
shown in Table 1. The biogas potential of food waste (FW)
mixed with a different type of fruit waste, in particular du-
rian peel (D), dragon fruit peel (DF) and pineapple peel (P),
Feed composition (% weight basis)
Food waste 100%
Food waste 75% + durian peel 25%
Food waste 50% + durian peel 50%
Food waste 25% + durian peel 75%
Durian peel 100%
Food waste 75% + dragon fruit peel 25%
Food waste 50% + dragon fruit peel 50%
Food waste 25% + dragon fruit peel 75%
Dragon fruit peel 100%
Food waste 75% + pineapple peel 25%
Food waste 50% + pineapple peel 50%
Food waste 25% + pineapple peel 75%
Pineapple peel 100%
28 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1

was studied in Experiment I, II and III, respectively. The
batch experiment was conducted in a 125 ml serum bottle
with a working volume of 100 ml. The proportion of waste
mixing was varied on a weight basis.
For experiment I, the food waste-to-durian peel ratios
(FW/D) were 0:100, 25:75, 50:50, 75:25 and 100:0 on a
weight basis. Then, co-digestion digesters were operated
in 3 ratios as 25:75, 50:50 and 75:25, and the mono-di-
gestion of food waste and durian peel (FW/D = 0:100 and
100:0) was operated. The substrate-to-inoculum ratio (S/I)
was maintained at 2 based on volatile solids (VS), accord-
ing to the literature used (Achinas et al., 2019). After adding
the required amounts of inoculum and feedstock, each di-
gester was filled with distilled water to maintain a desig-
nated volume (100 ml). The initial pH was then adjusted to
7.0 ± 0.5. All serum bottles were sealed with a rubber stop-
per and aluminium caps as anaerobic conditions required.
All bottles were incubated under constant mesophilic tem-
perature (35 ± 1℃) for 50 days and shaken manually twice
per day during the experimental period of the assay.
For dragon fruit peel (experiment II) and pineapple peel
(experiment III), the procedure of feedstock preparation
(proportion of waste mixing) was the same as in exper-
iment I (Table 1).
Analytical method
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) and volatile solids (VS)
were analyzed following standard methods. The volume
of biogas produced was measured using the water dis-
placement method. The gas composition was analyzed
offline by using a gas chromatograph instrument (SCI-
ON 456-GC, Bruker) equipped with a flame ionization
detector (FID). The injector, detector and oven tempera-
tures were 200℃, 250℃ and 150℃, respectively. Helium
(99.995%) gas was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate
of 1.0 ml/min. The elemental composition of samples
was investigated: carbon and nitrogen were determined
using a CHNS-O elemental analyzer (TruSpec Micro,
LECO). The chemical properties of substrates were de-
termined, and their characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Characteristics of various substrates

Durian shell Dragon fruit peel Pineapple peel Food waste

Parameters
(D) (DF) (P) (FW)

Total Solid (%)a 21.36 ± 0.38 10.33 ± 0.04 14.91 ± 0.07 41.33 ± 0.28
Volatile solid (%) a
19.70 ± 1.86 8.21 ± 1.23 13.87 ± 1.52 35.41 ± 1.38
VS/TS (%) 92.23 79.48 93.03 85.68
Moisture content (%) a
78.64 ± 0.38 89.67 ± 0.04 85.09 ± 0.07 58.67 ± 0.28
pH 7.63 7.51 6.20 4.62
C (%)b
43.72 36.63 45.71 46.20
N (%) b
0.58 0.90 0.6 1.89
C/N Ratio 75.38 40.70 76.18 24.44
a As the total weight of samples; b As the TS of the samples

Results and Discussion

Characteristics of substrates
The detailed characteristics of the substrates are shown
in Table 2. The TS values of FW, D, DF and PA were
low and the moisture content of fruit residuals (78.64–
89.67%) was higher than food waste (58.67%). An in-
crease in the moisture content indicated an increase in
hydrolysis as well as a gradual complete breakdown of
the biomolecules that expectedly assisted in the higher
biogas production. The VS/TS ratio of FW and fruit re-
sidual were high (79.48–93.03%), which demonstrates
high organic and low ash content of TS, and these types
of waste were desirable for the anaerobic digestion. The
 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1 29

VS/TS ratio higher than 50% is considered as the one
with relatively higher organic content, which is more
suitable for anaerobic digestion to produce biogas, and
production of methane increases with an increase in
VS/TS ratio (Wang et al., 2016). The C/N ratio of fruit
residuals (40.70–76.18) was higher than that of food
waste (24.44). The optimal C/N ratio of the AD process
varied from 15 to 30; after that point, only food waste
was located in this range (Zhao et al., 2017). The initial
characteristics of the combined substrate after mixing
are shown in Table 3. All batch reactors had high or-
ganic content. The initial VS of all batch reactors was
9,130–11,980 mg/l, while the initial COD of all batch re-
actors was 5,300–8,800 mg/l. These results show that
all combined substrate ratios had a high potential for
biodegradation under anaerobic conditions.

Table 3. Initial characteristics of mixture the substrate at different ratios

Initial
Experiment condition
VS (mg/l) COD (mg/l)

(FW100) 9,595.00 ± 35.36 7,600.00 ± 565.68

(FW75:D25) 9,620.00 ± 70.71 6,200.00 ± 282.84
I (FW50:D50) 10,025.00 ± 63.64 6,000.00 ± 150.00
(FW25:D75) 11,980.00 ± 27.28 6,100.00 ± 141.42
(D100) 11,990.00 ± 70.71 5,900.00 ± 141.42
(FW75:DF25) 8,990.00 ± 42.43 6,400.00 ± 565.68
(FW50:DF0) 9,130.00 ± 70.71 5,400.00 ± 848.53
II
(FW25:DF5) 9,190.00 ± 42.43 5,300.00 ± 424.26
(DF100) 9,400.00 ± 28.28 6,100.00 ± 141.42
(FW75:P25) 10,100.00 ± 398.37 8,800.00 ± 110.00
(FW50:P50) 10,967.00 ± 611.25 7,733.00 ± 461.88
III
(FW25:P75) 11,700.00 ± 115.45 8,267.00 ± 461.88
(P100) 10,800.00 ± 210.25 6,933.00 ± 611.01

Effect of the substrate type and
proportion on pH
The pH was adjusted to 7 in all batch reactors at the start
of the experiment. The pH of all batch reactors was de-
creasing within the first 10 days and, after that, pH tended
to increase reaching a neutral level at 20 days except for
the batch reactors of FW (FW100), P (P100) and the mix-
ture of FW and P (FW75:P25, FW50:P50 and FW25:P75)
where pH was below 5 (Fig. 1). The drop in pH was ob-
served as a result of the production of volatile fatty acids
by acid-forming bacteria. The pH value fell sharply, which
confirms that hydrolysis and acidification occurred. With
the increase of pH value, the increase of gas formation
could be seen at this step (Fig. 2). For mono-substrate
digestion, the pH value of P (P100) digestion was the low-
est, followed by FW (FW100), DF (DF100) and D (D100)
within 10 days since pineapple peel contains weak acids
like citric acid and malic acid (Hajar et al., 2012). Beside
weak acids, pineapple peel also contains a high concen-
tration of fructose, glucose, sucrose and other nutrients
that are useful for acidogen growth (Hamalatha and
Anbuselv, 2013). Food waste is an abundant source of
an inexpensive organic substrate for fermentative VFAs
production because it contains a high level of organic
materials such as starches, proteins and lipids. Excess
volatile fatty acid (VFA) accumulation commonly occurs
in anaerobic digestion of high solid content in food waste
(Dhar et al., 2015). The result of mono-substrate diges-
tion was similar to co-substrate digestion. The mixture of
food waste with pineapple peel produced the lowest pH
(4.20–4.39) when compared with other types of fruit re-
sidual, while the duration of the acidogenesis process in-
creased with the addition of pineapple peel in the system.
 45 The pH
decreasing was adjusted
within the first 10to 7days
in all batch
and, after reactors
that, pH at tended
the starttoofincrease
the experiment.
reaching The pH oflevel
a neutral all batch
at 20reactors
days except was
56 decreasing
for the batch within the first
reactors 10 days
of FW and, after
(FW100), that, pHand
P (P100) tendedthe to increase
mixture of reaching
FW and aPneutral(FW75:P25,level atFW50:P50
20 days except and
67 for the batchwhere
FW25:P75) reactors
pH wasof FW below (FW100),
5 (Fig. 1). P (P100)
The drop and in the mixture
pH was of FW
observed as aand P (FW75:P25,
result of the production FW50:P50 and
of volatile
78 FW25:P75)
fatty acids by where pH was below
acid-forming 5 (Fig.
bacteria. The1). pHThe drop
value fellinsharply,
pH was which
observed as a result
confirms that of the production
hydrolysis of volatile
and acidification
89 fatty
occurred.acidsWithby acid-forming
the increase of bacteria.
pH value, Thethe pHincrease
value fell
of gassharply, whichcould
formation confirms
be seen thatat hydrolysis
this step (Fig. and2).acidification
For mono-
109 occurred. With the increase
substrate digestion, the pH of pH value,
value of the increase
P (P100) of gas
digestion wasformation
the lowest,could be seenby
followed at this
FW step (Fig. 2).
(FW100), DFFor mono-
(DF100)
30 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1
10
11 substrate
and D (D100) digestion,
withinthe 10pHdays value
sinceofpineapple
P (P100)peel digestion
contains wasweak
the lowest,
acids like followed
citric acidby FW (FW100),
and malic acid DF(Hajar (DF100)
et al.,
11
12 and
2012). D (D100) withinacids,
Beside weak 10 days since pineapple
pineapple peel also peel contains
contains a high weak acids like citric
concentration acid and
of fructose, malic sucrose
glucose, acid (Hajar and et al.,
other
12
13 2012).
nutrients Beside weak
that are acids,
useful forpineapple
acidogenpeel growth also(Hamalatha
contains a high and concentration
Anbuselv, 2013). of fructose,
Food waste glucose,is ansucrose
abundant andsource
other
13 nutrients
14contrast,
of anthe that are useful
inexpensive organic forsubstrate
acidogenfor growth (Hamalatha
fermentative VFAs and Anbuselv,because
production 2013). Food wasteaishigh an abundant source
In14 of addition organic
an inexpensive of durian shell (D) in the system Then the mixture ofitit FW contains
and Pa high level of organic
(FW75:P25, FW50:P50 and
15 materials such as starches, substrate
proteins and for lipids.
fermentative ExcessVFAsvolatile production
fatty acidbecause contains
(VFA) accumulation level ofoccurs
commonly organic in
reduced
15
16 the acidogenesis
materials
anaerobic such
digestion ofprocess
as starches, solidfrom
highproteins and20
content intofood
lipids. 10 days.volatile
Excess
waste (Dhar fatty
al.,acid
FW25:P75)
et 2015).(VFA)
did notaccumulation
The reachofmethanogenesis
result commonly digestion
mono-substrate occurs
(Fig. in2).
16
17 etanaerobic
Zhao al. similar
was (2017) digestion
found
to of high
that
co-substrate thesolid content
range
digestion. in food
alkalinity
The waste
value
mixture of (Dhar
food et al., with
waste 2015).pineapple
The resultpeel of mono-substrate
produced the digestion
lowest pH
The variation in the pH level of the the different substrates
of17
18durianwas similar to
(4.20–4.39)
digestion when co-substrate
after compared
30 days digestion.
with
wasother The
3,500 typesmixture of food
of fruit
to 11,250 waste
residual,
was
withthe
while
observed,
pineapple
durationpeel
and the
of the
pH
produced
acidogenesis
changed
lowest pH
process
progressively from
18
19 CaCO (4.20–4.39)
increased when
with compared
the alkalinity with
addition ofindicated other
pineapplehigher types of
peel inbufferfruit residual, while the duration of the acidogenesis
the system. In contrast, the addition of durian shell (D) in the process
mg19 3/l, andwith
increased higherthe addition of pineapple peel in the system. In
acidic contrast,
to slightly the addition
alkane of
betweendurian shell (D) in the
20 system reduced the acidogenesis process from 20 to 10 days. Zhao et al. (2017) found that the4.2 rangeandalkalinity
7.6 throughout
capacity
20
21 and of
system
value stability
reduced of
thean
durian digestion anaerobic
acidogenesis digestion
after 30process
days was from system.
20 to
3,500 10 days.
to 11,250 themg Zhao
CaCO
study et(Fig.
al. (2017)
3/l, and
found
higher
1). The thatshow
alkalinity
results the indicated
range
that alkalinity
higher began
digestion
21
While
22 the value of
trends
buffer durian
of pHand
capacity digestion
value after
changed
stability of an30indays wasdigestion
DF (DF100)
anaerobic 3,500and to system.
P11,250 Whilemg CaCO 3/l, and
thecondition
trends ofhigher
pH alkalinity
value changed indicated
indue
DF to higher
(DF100)
22 buffer capacity andthe
stability at an acid and later varied the digestion
23
(P100) and P (P100)
digestions digestions
were wereofthe
same, an same,
the anaerobic
duration digestion
the duration
of the ac- ofsystem. While theprocess
the acidogenic trends ofof DF
pH value changed
was shorter thanin in
DFthe (DF100)
P. The
23
24 and
pH P (P100)
of P (P100) digestions
and were
a mixture the same,
ofthan
FW in the
also duration
with P was of the of the
acidogenic different
process substrate
of DF was types
shorter
below 5 until 30 days; after that, the pH started to increase and
than inproportions.
the P. The This
idogenic
24 pH process
of P of DFand
(P100) wasa shorterof
mixture FW also thewithP. The
P waspHbelow 5 until 30 days; after that, the pH started to increase
25 slightly, but did not reach neutral by the end of the experiment. could beThen attributed
the mixtureto theofnature
FW andofPmaterial (FW75:P25, feed used,
of25
26P (P100) and but
slightly,
FW50:P50 a mixture
and not of
didFW25:P75) FW neutral
reach also
did notwithby Pthe
reach was endbelow
of the5experiment.
methanogenesis (Fig. 2).isThen the mixture of FW and P (FW75:P25,
which a contributing factor that affects both the diges-
26
27 30FW50:P50
until days;The after and FW25:P75)
that,
variation the pHpH
in the did
started
levelnotofreach
to increase
the methanogenesis
different substrates(Fig.
slight- was2).observed, and the pH changed progressively from
27 The variation in the pH level of the different substrates tion
was and microbialthe
observed, environments (Ahmadu et al., 2009).
ly,28but did
acidic
not to slightly
reach alkane
neutral bybetween
the end4.2 and experiment.
of the 7.6 throughout the study (Fig. 1).and pH changed
The results show that progressively
digestion began from
28
29 acidic to slightly alkane between 4.2 and 7.6 throughout the study (Fig. 1). The
at an acid condition and later varied due to the digestion of the different substrate types and proportions. This could results show that digestion began
29
30 at
bean acid condition
attributed and later
to the nature of varied
material duefeedto theused,digestion
which of is the different substrate
a contributing types
factor that and proportions.
affects This could
both the digestion and
Fig.
30 1. pH
be value change
attributed to with time of
the nature material feed used, which is a contributing factor that affects both the digestion and
31 microbial environments (Ahmadu et al., 2009).
31
32 microbial environments (Ahmadu et al., 2009).
32 8,0 Ex. I 8,0 8,0
Ex. II Ex. III
8,0 Ex. I 8,0 Ex. II 8,0 Ex. III
7,0 7,0 7,0
7,0 7,0 7,0
6,0 6,0 6,0
6,0 6,0 6,0
pHpH

pHpH

pHpH
FW 100% FW 100%
5,0 5,0 5,0
FW
FW 100%
75: D 25 FW 100%
75: DF 25 FW 100%
5,0 5,0 5,0
FW 75:
50: D 25
50 FW 75:
50: DF 25
50 FW 100%
75:P 25
4,0 FW
FW 50:
25: D
D 50
75 4,0 FW
FW 50:
25: DF
DF 50
75 4,0 FW 75:P
50: P25
50
4,0 FW 25: D 75
D 100% 4,0 FW 25: DF 75
DF 100% 4,0 FW 50:
25:PP50
75
D 100% DF 100% FW
P 10025: P 75
3,0 3,0 3,0
P 100
3,0 0 20 40 60 3,0 0 20 40 60 3,0 0 20 40 60
0 20 40
Time (day) 60 0 20 40
Time (day) 60 0 20
Time (day) 40 60
33 Time (day) Time (day) Time (day)
33
34 Fig. 1. pH value change with time:
34
35 Fig. 1. pH value change with time:
35
36 Cumulative methane yield
36
37 Cumulative methane yield
Cumulative
37
methane yield methane-forming bacteria to grow should be higher
38 The cumulative methane yields from a mixture of a mono-substrate and a co-substrate are shown in Fig. 2.
38 The methane
cumulative methane yields fromwas a mixture than 5.2 and 6.2, and respectively, for shown
an acceptable
in Fig. 2. level of
39 cumulative
The The methane volumeyields
of all from
batch areactors
mixture oflow
a mo-inof
thea first
mono-substrate
7 days of digestion a co-substrate
as a result of areacidic conditions,
39
40 The methane
thereafter volume
rapidly of all
increasingarebatch
to overreactors was
80%inwithin low 12in the first 7
days, enzymatic days of digestion
20 days andactivity as
23 days(Pramanika result of
in a mixtureetofal., acidic
food conditions,
2019).
wasteThen,
with low pH
no-substrate
40 andrapidly
thereafter a co-substrate
increasing shown
to over 80% Fig. 2.12
within The days,results
20 the
days and 23 days in occurring
a mixture ofhave
food waste with
41 durian shell, pineapple and dragon fruit, respectively. The in showed a lag
anaerobic phase
digestion mayin the batch
been reactors
caused by a
methane
41
42 volume
durian
of food shell,
waste, of all batch
pineapple
dragon and reactors
fruit dragon
and pineapple was
fruit, lowwhich
peel, in the
respectively. The
wasresults
long; showed
when a lag phase
it lag
comes occurring
to food waste and in the batchfruit
dragon reactors
peel, et al.,
42 of prolonged phase of microbial growth (Darwin
first thefood
43 7 days waste,
ofphase
lag dragon
digestion
was fruit
asdays
23 and for
a result
and pineapple
acidicpeel,
ofpineapple which
conditions,
peel, it waswas20long;
days.when
Thisitcan
comes to food waste
be explained by the andpHdragon
value fruit peel,
presented
43
44 the
in lag phase
Fig. 1. was 23 days and
Microorganisms are for pineapple
sensitive to pHpeel, it was 20et2019).
(Pramanik days.
al., Thiscan
This
2019). result
The is in line
bemethane
explained gas with thevalue
bygeneration
the pH study bywhen
Azouma et
presented
started
thereafter rapidly increasing to over 80% within 12 days,
44 in
45daysthe Fig. 1. Microorganisms
pH changed are sensitive to pH (Pramanik et al.,
al. 2019).
(2019), The methane
who anaerobic gas
studied biogas generation started
production when
fromandpineap-
2045 and
the pH23 days infrom
changed
acidic toofneutral.
a mixture food wasteThe acidic condition
withcondition
du- may slow down microorganism growth
46 convert organic from
wastesacidic
into to neutral.
end-products. The Theacidic
pH level requiredmay slow
ple
down anaerobic
for acid-forming
waste. It was found
microorganism
bacteria
that and
the
growth and
methane-forming
formation of methane
46
rian convert
47 shell, organic
pineapple
bacteria to growandwastes into
dragon
should be end-products.
fruit, than
higher TheandpH6.2,
respectively.
5.2 level
The required forforacid-forming
respectively, an acceptable bacteria
level and methane-forming
of enzymatic activity
47 bacteria
showedtoaetgrow shouldoccurring
be higher than started after 48 days of pineapple waste, and the meth-
results
48 (Pramanik lag
al.,phase
2019). Then, low in pH in5.2
the and
batch
the 6.2, respectively,
reac-
anaerobic digestion may forhave
an acceptable
been caused level
by aofprolonged
enzymaticlagactivity
phase
48 (Pramanik
of microbial
49 of food et al.,
growth2019). Then,
(Darwin low pH
etpineapple in the
al., 2019). This anaerobic
result digestion
anewith
is in line may have
concentration been
the study by Azoumacaused
of 41.7% by a prolonged
et al.was
(2019), lag
observed. phase
who studiedMoreover,
tors
49 of waste, growth
microbial dragon(Darwin
fruit andet al., 2019). peel,result
which
50 biogas production from pineapple waste.This
It was found is inthat
line with
the the study
formation by Azouma
of phase
methanewas etstarted
al.found
(2019), who
afterwhere studied
48 days of
was
50 long; when
biogas it comesfrom
production to food wastewaste. and dragon fruit that the formation of methane started after 48 days of peel
the shortest lag durian
51 pineapple waste, and thepineapple
methane concentration It was offound
41.7%was was added
observed. to Moreover,
the system. theThis
shortest lagindicates
result phase wasthat the
51 the
peel, pineapple
lag phase waste,
wasand23thedaysmethane
and for concentration
pineapple peel, of 41.7% was observed. Moreover, the shortest lag phase was
it was 20 days. This can be explained by the pH value 44introduction of durian peel in the system could enhance
presented in Fig. 1. Microorganisms are sensitive to pH biogas production.
(Pramanik et al., 2019). The methane gas generation For the mono-substrate, food waste gave the highest
started when the pH changed from acidic to neutral. The methane production (60.63 ± 1.02 ml/gvs) followed by
acidic condition may slow down anaerobic microorgan- durian shell (34.93 ± 1.30 ml/gvs), pineapple peel (31.70 ±
ism growth and convert organic wastes into end-prod- 1.60 ml/gvs), and dragon fruit (30.12 ± 1.20 ml/gvs), respec-
ucts. The pH level required for acid-forming bacteria and tively. Normally, food waste consists of carbohydrates
 11 found
found where
where durian durian peelpeel waswas added
added to to the
the system.
system. This This result
result indicates
indicates that that the the introduction
introduction of of durian
durian peel peel in in the
the
Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1 31
22 system could enhance
system could enhance biogas production. biogas production.
33 For
For the the mono-substrate,
mono-substrate, food food waste
waste gave gave the the highest
highest methane
methane production
production (60.63 (60.63 ± ± 1.02
1.02 ml/g ml/gvs ) followed by
vs) followed by
44 durian
durian shell shell (34.93
(34.93 ± ± 1.30
1.30 ml/gml/gvs ), pineapple peel (31.70 ± 1.60 ml/gvs),
vs), pineapple peel (31.70 ± 1.60 ml/gvs ), and
and dragon
dragon fruit fruit (30.12
(30.12 ± ± 1.20
1.20 ml/gml/gvs ),
vs),
55 respectively.
respectively. Normally,
Normally, food waste
food waste consists consists of carbohydrates (5.70%–53.00%), proteins (2.30%–28.40%), and
(5.70%–53.00%),
66 lipids proteins (2.30%–28.40%), and of carbohydrates
lipids (5.70%–53.00%),
can be explained by pH value; proteins lower (2.30%–28.40%),
pH of the pineapple and
lipids (1.30%–30.30%)
(1.30%–30.30%) (Pramanik (Pramanik et et al.,
al., 2019).
2019). Carbohydrates
Carbohydrates and and proteins
proteins have have aa higherhigher hydrolysis
hydrolysis rate rate because
because
(1.30%–30.30%)
77 of (Pramanik et al.,compared 2019). Carbohydrates peelal.,digestion interrupted anaerobic digestion, while a
of their
their rapid
rapid degradability
degradability compared with with lipids
lipids (Meng
(Meng et et al., 2015;
2015; Xu Xu etet al.,
al., 2018).
2018). Then, Then, it it isis important
important to to note
note
and88 proteins
that rapidly
have degradable
a higher carbohydrates
hydrolysis rate and lipid-rich
because of foodlower
waste pH
that rapidly degradable carbohydrates and lipid-rich food waste can produce a high volume of methane. The fruit related
can produce to athe
high accumulation
volume of of VFA
methane. that
The was
fruit
99 rapid
their and vegetable
vegetable waste
and degradability waste has
has high
compared high withcellulosic
lipidsand
cellulosic (Meng
and lignin
lignin et content,
toxic whereas
content, food
food waste
for methanogenic
whereas has
has higher
waste bacteria higherinlipid
lipid content
content because
the digesters. How-
because
10
10 2015;
al., of the
of the presence
Xu presence
et al., 2018). of animal
of animal fat
Then,fatitandand oil (Bong
oil (Bong ettoal.,
is important et al., 2018).
note As
2018).ever, for
As fora thethe residual
residualstudy
previous fruit
fruit hasdigestion,
digestion,
reported higher
higher and
thatand faster biogas
faster biogas
methane could
11 production in
in aa digester of
of durian
durian could be attributed
attributed to
11 rapidly
that production degradable digester
carbohydrates could
and be lipid-rich bethe
to the higher
higher availability
generated availability
under acidic of biodegradable
of condition.
biodegradable Darwin material
et al. in
material in the
the
(2019)
12
12 durian
durian shell.shell. In In contrast,
contrast, the the lowest
lowest methane
methane production
productionwho (31.70
(31.70 ±
± 1.60
1.60 ml/g
ml/g ) was found from the dragon fruit peel
vs) was found from the dragon fruit peel
vs
food
13 waste
digestioncan produce the a high volume of methane. The (40.70)studied treating tofu-processing wastewater by an-
13 digestion because because the VS/TS VS/TS ratio ratio of of dragon
dragon fruit fruit peelpeel (40.70) was was lower
lower thanthan those
those of of the
the durian
durian shell shell (75.38)
(75.38) and and
fruit
14 and vegetable
pineapple waste has high cellulosic and lignin aerobic treatment found that anaerobic digestion could
14 pineapple peel peel (76.18)
(76.18) as as inin Table
Table 2. 2. Moreover,
Moreover, the the action
action of of anaerobic
anaerobic bacteria
bacteria on on durian
durian shellshell was was faster
faster relative
relative
15
content,
15 to that
that of
towhereas of the dragon
thefood
dragon waste fruit peel
fruit has and
and pineapple
peel higher peel
peel which
lipid content
pineapple contained
whichreduce
contained more
organic lignin
lignin that
morewastes andmay
that not
not have
convert
may into been
have biogas
been completely
although
completely
16
16
because degraded
degraded during
of the presence the experimental
during theofexperimental
animal fat and period;
period; the lignin
the lignin
oil (Bong content of
the influent
et content durian
of durian shell,
wasshell, dragon
too acidic
dragon(pH fruit
5).peel and pineapple peel
fruit peel and pineapple peel
17
17 2018). was
wasAs 10.90%,
10.90%, 37.18% and 14.33%, respectively (Ferreira et al., 2009; Jamilah et al., 2011). The methane production
al., for the37.18% residual andfruit
14.33%,
digestion,respectively
higher (Ferreira
and For et al., 2009; Jamilah et al., 2011). The methane production
18
18 biogas volume
volumeproductionfrom
from pineapple
pineapple (31.70
(31.70 of ±
± 1.60
1.60 ml/g
ml/g ) and dragonco-digestion
fruit peel (30.12
vs) and dragon fruit peel (30.12 ± 1.20 ml/gvs
vs
of FW:D, ± 1.20 the ml/g
methane ) was production
not obviously
vs) was not obviously
at ra-
faster
19 different, in a digester durian could bewas tios ofthan
75:25, 50:50 and 25:75 were 65.77 ± 0.16, 48.93
19 different, although lignin content of pineapple peel was lower than that of dragon fruit peel and the VS/TS ratio of
although lignin content of pineapple peel lower that of dragon fruit peel and the VS/TS ratio of
attributed
20
20 to
pineapple the higher availability of biodegradable ma- ± 0.11,
pineapple peel (93.03) was higher than that of dragon fruit peel (79.48). These results can be explained by pH
peel (93.03) was higher than that of dragon fruit 36.50
peel ±
(79.48). 0.01 These ml/g ,
results
vs respectively.
can be The
explained range
by pHof
21 invalue;
21
terial value; lower
the durianlower pH pH of
shell.
of Inthe pineapple
thecontrast,
pineapplethe peel
peel digestion
lowest
digestion meth- interrupted
methane
interrupted anaerobic
content
anaerobic digestion,
that was
digestion, while
found
while aa lower
in all pH
lower FW:D
pH related
ratios
related to the
to was
the
22
ane accumulation
22 production
accumulation (31.70of of±VFA
VFA
1.60 ml/gthat
that waswas) toxic
toxic
was for
foundfor methanogenic
methanogenic
from the bacteria
bacteria
33.18 to in
in
50.18%the
the digesters.
digesters.
(Fig. 3). However,
However,
The highest aa previous
previous
methane study
study
contenthas
has
vs
23 reported that methane could
could be generatedVS/TSunder ratio acidic condition. Darwin et
et al.
al.in(2019)
23
dragon reported
fruit peel that methanebecause
digestion be the
generated under acidic condition. was
of (50.18%) Darwin found 75:25who
(2019) who studied
studied
ratio, which treating
treating tofu-
tofu-
is slight-
24
24 processing
processing wastewater
wastewater by
by anaerobic
anaerobic treatment
treatment found
found that
that anaerobic
anaerobic digestion
digestion could
could reduce
reduce organic
organic wastes
wastes and
and
dragon
25 fruit peel
convert into(40.70)
biogas was lower the
although than those was
influent of the too du-acidic ly(pHhigher
5). than the digestion of the durian shell alone
25 convert into biogas although the influent was too acidic (pH 5).
rian
26 shell (75.38) For and pineapple peel (76.18) as in Table (42.10%). Similarly, Shen et al. (2019) who studied bi-
26 For co-digestion
co-digestion of of FW:D,
FW:D, the the methane
methane productionproduction at at ratios
ratios of of 75:25,
75:25, 50:50 50:50 and and 25:75
25:75 were were 65.77
65.77 ± ± 0.16,
0.16,
2.27
27 48.93
Moreover, ±the0.11,action36.50of ± 0.01
anaerobic ml/g , respectively.
bacteria on durianThe range
ogas of methane
production
48.93 ± 0.11, 36.50 ± 0.01 ml/gvs, respectively. The range of methane content that was found in all FW:D ratios
vs content
from that
anaerobicwas found in
co-digestion all FW:D of ratios
durian
28
shell
28 was was
wasfaster33.18 to
to 50.18%
33.18relative 50.18% to that(Fig.
(Fig.of3).
3).theThe highest
Thedragon
highestfruit methane
peel content
methane shell (50.18%)
content with chicken
(50.18%) was found
found in
was manure 75:25
75:25 ratio,
in found which
which is
that methane
ratio, is slightly
content
slightly
29
29 higher
higher than
than the
the digestion
digestion of
of the
the durian
durian shell
shell alone
alone (42.10%).
(42.10%).
and pineapple peel which contained more lignin that may from co-digestion of durian shell with chicken manure Similarly,
Similarly, Shen
Shen et
et al.
al. (2019)
(2019) who
who studied
studied biogas
biogas
30
30 production
production from
from anaerobic
anaerobic co-digestion
co-digestion of
of durian
durian shell
shell with chicken manure found that methane content from co-
not have been completely degraded duringmanure the experi- at 1:3 ratio (48.40%) was higher than the digestionco-of
with chicken manure found that methane content from
31
31 digestion of durian shell with chicken
digestion of durian shell with chicken manure at 1:3 ratio at 1:3 ratio (48.40%) was higher than the digestion
(48.40%) was higher than the digestion of durian shell of durian shell
mental
32 period; the lignin content of durian shell, dragon durian shell alone (46.70%).
alone
32 alone (46.70%).
(46.70%).
33
fruit
33 peel and For FW:DF,
Forpineapple
FW:DF, peel the
the methane
was 10.90%,
methane production
production 37.18% at 75:25,
at and
75:25, For 50:50
50:50 and
and 25:75
FW:DF, ratios
ratios was
the methane
25:75 was 49.26
49.26 ±
production ± 0.15,
at 75:25,
0.15, 44.57
44.57 ±
± 0.12,
50:50 and
0.12,
34
14.33%,
34 39.92
39.92 ±
respectively0.11
± 0.11 ml/g ml/g vs ,
(Ferreira respectively.
et al., 2009;
vs, respectively.
The
The methane
Jamilah
methane et content
al., 25:75
content of
of all FW:DF
allratios
FW:DF wasratios
49.26was
ratios was
± 0.15,not obviously
not 44.57
obviously± 0.12, different
different
39.92 ± 0.11(46.77–
(46.77– ml/
35
35
2011). 47.74%)
47.74%)
The methane as
as shown
shown in
in Fig.
production 3.
3. For
Fig. volume For FW:P, from the
FW:P, the methane
methane production
pineapple production in
in all
gvs, respectively. all ratios
ratios
The methanewas
was low (12.29–15.26
low content
(12.29–15.26 ml/g
ml/gvs
of all FW:DF ). The
vs).ratios
The
36
36 methane gas produced from food waste mixed with durian shell (FW75:D25) was higher than in food waste mixed
(31.70 ±methane
1.60 ml/g gas produced
) and dragon fromfruitfoodpeelwaste(30.12 mixed± with 1.20 durianwas shell
not (FW75:D25)
obviously was higher
different than in food waste
(46.77–47.74%) as mixedin
shown
37
37 with
with dragon
vs
fruit
fruit peel
peel (FW75:DF25)
(FW75:DF25) and pineapple
pineapple peel (FW75:P25).
(FW75:P25). For For co-digestion
co-digestion of of foodfood waste
waste and and fruit
ml/g
38 was dragon
vs) waste not obviously different, althoughand lignin con- peel Fig. 3.feedFor FW:P, the methane production in all ratios
fruit
was
38 waste residuals, increasing
residuals, increasing the the proportion
proportion of of fruit
fruit residual
residual in in feed mixture
mixture can can contribute
contribute to to aa decrease
decrease in in methane
methane
tent
39
39 of pineapple
gas production peel was
due tolower
fruit than
residualthat of dragon
containing fruit
lignin, which
low presents
(12.29–15.26
gas production due to fruit residual containing lignin, which presents a degradation challenge for microorganisms. a degradation
ml/g vs ). challenge
The methane for microorganisms.
gas produced
40
peel
40 and Previous
the VS/TS
Previous work
workratio studies
studies of on the
the anaerobic
pineapple
on peel (93.03)
anaerobic degradation
degradation was of of lignin
from and
lignin foodlignin-derived
and waste mixedaromatics
lignin-derived with durian
aromatics have
have demonstrated
shell (FW75:D25)
demonstrated that
that
41
41
higher the
the lignin
than lignin
that of degradation
degradation
dragon fruit rate
rate under
under
peel anaerobic
anaerobic
(79.48). Theseconditions
results was
conditions was
was low.
low. Triolo
Triolothan
higher et
et al.
al.in(2012)
(2012)
food waste found
found that that
mixed lignin-rich
lignin-rich
with dragonsubstrates
substratesfruit
42
42 yielded
yielded less less methane
methane than than substrates
substrates containing
containing simple simple lipids,
lipids, carbohydrate
carbohydrate and and aa lowerlower concentration
concentration of of lignin.
lignin.
43
43 However,
However, modified modified lignin lignin suchsuch as as lignin
lignin with with aa high high degree
degree of of methoxylation
methoxylation could could be be degraded
degraded and and give
give riserise to
to
Fig.
44 2. Cumulative
methane
methane and and carbon
carbon dioxide
dioxide production
production under under anaerobic
anaerobic conditions
conditions (Ahring(Ahring et et al.,
al., 2015).
methane production
44 2015).
45
45
80
80
FW100
FW100
80
80 80
80 P 100
P 100
(ml/gvsvs) )

FW 75 : P 25
(ml/gvsvs) )
(ml/gvsvs) )

FW 75 : P 25
Ex.
Ex. II E
E xx .. II II II
FW 50 : P 50
Volume(ml/g

Ex.
Ex. II II FW 50 : P 50
Volume(ml/g
Volume(ml/g

FW 25 : P75
FW 25 : P75
60
60
60 60
CumulativeVolume

60 60
CumulativeVolume
CumulativeVolume

40
CH4 4Cumulative

40 40 40
CH4 4Cumulative
CH4 4Cumulative

40 40

FW100
20 FW100 20 FW 100 20
20
20 D100 20 FW 100
CH

D100 DF 100
CH

DF 100
CH

FW 75 : D 25
FW 75 : D 25 FW 75 : DF 25
FW 50 : D 50 FW 75 : DF 25
FW 50 : D 50 FW 50 : DF 50
FW 25 : D 75 FW 50 : DF 50
FW 25 : D 75 FW 25 : DF 75
00 00 FW 25 : DF 75 00
00 10
10 20
20 30
30 40
40 50
50 00 10 20 30 40 50 00 10 20 30 40 50
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
Time
Time (day) Time
46
46 (day) Time
Time (day)
(day) Time (day)
(day)
47
47 Fig.
Fig. 2.
2. Cumulative
Cumulative methane
methane production
production
48
48
49
49 In
In the
the case
case of
of co-digestion
co-digestion of
of food
food waste
waste and
and pineapple
pineapple peel,
peel, the
the methane
methane production
production volumes
volumes of of all
all
50
50 proportions
proportions did
did not
not seem
seem different
different due
due to
to aa low
low pH
pH value
value in
in the
the system.
system. The
The addition
addition of
of pineapple
pineapple peel
peel into
into the
the
51
51 proportion
proportion for
for the
the co-digester
co-digester system
system caused
caused aa decrease
decrease in
in methane
methane production,
production, which
which can
can be
be attributed
attributed to
to aa
55
32 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1

1 decrease in the pH value, even though pineapple peel contains a high concentration of fructose, glucose, s
peel (FW75:DF25) and pineapple peel (FW75:P25). For 12 and 2019).
decrease theCo-digestion
otherinnutrientspH value,
that areeven of
fortwo
though
useful or growth
pineapple
microbial more substrates
peel contains
(Hamalathaa high can be2013).
andconcentration
Anbuselv, of fructose, glucose, s
2 and other nutrients that are useful
it cameforto microbial growth (Hamalatha and Anbuselv, 2013).
co-digestion of food waste and fruit waste residuals,334in- of methane
By comparison,
used to
By comparison,dilute when
inhibitory
when in
gas production it came
methane production
compounds
to methane
co-digestion wasproduction
observed when
in mono-digestion
and enhance
in mono-digestion
the proportionand
and co-digestion,
bio-
of co-digestion,
food waste and
the highest v
thedurian
highestshe v
45
creasing the proportion of fruit residual in feed mixture of methane
gas This
at 75:25. gasisproduction
higher thanin
production. Theco-digestion
the results
highest was
methaneofobserved when the
thisproduction
gas study proportion
indicate
of of food
that
mono-digestion waste
(food and durian
waste) accordingshe
56 at 75:25.
high Thiscompound
organic is higher than the highest
and optimum pHmethane
value ingasthe production
system. TheofpH mono-digestion
values of durian(food
shellwaste) according
and food waste
can contribute to a decrease in methane gas production 67 withthe
high limitation
organic
the duriancompound of mono-digestion
and
shell located optimum pH valuearea
in the preferred ofof
in the thefood
system.
pH The waste
rangepHfor can
values be shell
of durian
methanogenic and(Rao
activity food et waste
al.,
78 with the durian shell
Mono-digestion
overcome of by located
food wasteincauses
the preferred
co-digestion lowwith area
buffer of the pH
capacity,
durian range which
although
shell, for methanogenic
it has high
pro- activity (Rao
biodegradability et al.,
of the sub
due to fruit residual containing lignin, which presents 89 Mono-digestion of food waste causes
For fruit residuals, mono-digestion of low
plantbuffer capacity,
residues although
often results in itslowdown
has high processes
biodegradability
due to of
its the sub
deficie
a degradation challenge for microorganisms. Previous 9
10 For vides
nutrients. In necessary
fruit residuals,
addition, complexnutrients
mono-digestion composition and
of plant andbuffering
residues
structure capacity
oftenfeatures
results in plantto
ofslowdown en-
processes
residues such as due to itscontent,
lignin deficie
10
11 nutrients.
content, In addition,
and cellulose complex composition
crystallinity make themand structure
resistant features of plant
to biological residues (Pramanik
processes such as lignin content,
et al., 2019
work studies on the anaerobic degradation of lignin11 and
12
hance
content,
digestionand
of two
the maximum
cellulose
or morecrystallinitymethane
substrates canmake bethem
production.
used toresistant to biological
dilute inhibitory processesand
compounds (Pramanik et al., prod
enhance biogas 2019
lignin-derived aromatics have demonstrated that12 13the digestion
The resultsof oftwo or study
this more substrates
indicate that canthe
be limitation
used to dilute inhibitory compounds
of mono-digestion of food and
wasteenhance
can bebiogas
overcomeprodu
13
14 The results
digestion withof this
durianstudy indicate
shell, which that the limitation
provides necessaryofnutrients
mono-digestion of food
and buffering waste to
capacity can be overcome
enhance the max
lignin degradation rate under anaerobic conditions 14 15
Fig.
was digestion 3. Methane gas volume and composition
with durian shell, which provides necessary nutrients and buffering capacity to enhance the max
methane production.
15
low. Triolo et al. (2012) found that lignin-rich substrates
16 methane production.
16 60 70
yielded less methane than substrates containing simple 60 70
50 60

Methane
lipids, carbohydrate and a lower concentration of lignin. 60

(%)(%)
50

Methane
50
40

content
50
However, modified lignin such as lignin with a high de- 40 40

production
content
30 40

production
gree of methoxylation could be degraded and give rise 30 30

Methane
20 30

Methane
20
to methane and carbon dioxide production under anaer- 20

(ml/g
10 20

(ml/g
10

vs) vs)
10
obic conditions (Ahring et al., 2015). 0
10
0

FW100
0 0

FW75:D25

FW50:D50

FW25:D75

D100

FW75:DF25

FW50:DF50

FW25:DF75

DF100

FW75:P25

FW50:P50

FW25:P75

P100
In the case of co-digestion of food waste and pineapple

FW100

FW75:D25

FW50:D50

FW25:D75

D100

FW75:DF25

FW50:DF50

FW25:DF75

DF100

FW75:P25

FW50:P50

FW25:P75

P100
peel, the methane production volumes of all proportions Ex. I Ex. II Ex.III
Ex. I Ex. II Ex.III
did not seem different due to a low pH value in the sys-
17
Methane production
Methane production
Methane content
Methane content
17
18 Fig. 3. Methane gas volume and composition
tem. The addition of pineapple peel into the proportion
18
19 Fig. 3. Methane gas volume and composition
for the co-digester system caused a decrease in meth- 19
20 Removal of organic matter
20
21 Removal of organic matter
ane production, which can be attributed to a decrease 22 in
21 Removal
The degradation ofoforganic
organic material matter in all the batch reactors was measured in terms of COD and VS re
22
23 (Table The
4).degradation of organic material
In the mono-substrate, in all theefficiency
COD removal batch reactors
of food waswaste
measured in terms
digestion wasof theCOD and follow
highest VS re
the pH value, even though pineapple peel contains a high
23 (Table 4).degradation
In dragon
the mono-substrate, COD removal efficiency ofthe
food waste digestion was trend
the highest
24 The
durian shell, fruit and ofpineapple
organic material
peel, respectively. in allThe COD batch
removal reac-
efficiency of the follow
co-su
concentration of fructose, glucose, sucrose and other24nu- durian
25 shell,todragon
was similar that offruit
the and pineapple peel,
mono-substrate. Therespectively.
COD removal Theefficiency
COD removal of FW:D efficiency trend of the co-su
(86.88%–88.71%) and F
25
26 was tors
similarwas
(86.79%–87.04%)to that measured
of the
was higher in terms
mono-substrate.
than of COD
The CODremoval
FW:P (60.73%–65.23%). and VS removal
efficiency
The VS removal (Ta-
of FW:D (86.88%–88.71%)
efficiency in all substrateand conF
trients that are useful for microbial growth (Hamalatha
26
27 (86.79%–87.04%)
(32.86%–46.27%) was higher
wasmono-substrate,than FW:P (60.73%–65.23%).
not different except for the VS removal The VS
efficiencyremoval efficiency
of P andof FW:P that were lowercon
in all substrate (10
27
ble 4).
(32.86%–46.27%)
In the
was not different except
COD
for the
removal efficiency
and Anbuselv, 2013). 28 12.54%). These results related to the methane gasVSproduction
removal efficiency
in Fig. 2 of P and FW:P
indicate that thethatmethane
were lower (10
produc
28
29 food
12.54%). waste
These digestion
results related to was
the the
methane highest
gas followed
production
FW:D and FW:DF was higher than in FW:P. COD and VS are removed by converting organic compouin Fig. 2by duri-
indicate that the methane produc
By comparison, when it came to methane production 30 in FW:D
29 methane; andthen,
an shell,
FW:DF was production
methane
dragon
higher thanpotential
fruit and
in FW:P.ofCOD
pineapple wasteand VS aretoremoved
is related
peel, the amount
respectively.
by converting organicincompou
of organic matter waste a
30
31 methane; then, methane
removal efficiency in theproduction
system. Also, potential
changes of inwaste
VS canis related to
be attributed the amount of organic of
to the breakdown matter in waste a
intermolecular
mono-digestion and co-digestion, the highest volume 31
32 of removal efficiency
Thebiomolecules
of the COD removal in the system.
like lignin, Also,
efficiency changes in VS
trend of the
cellulose, hemicellulose can be attributed to
and co-substrate the breakdown of
polymeric substances. COD and VS re intermolecular
methane gas production in co-digestion was observed 32
33 of the biomolecules
efficiency was higher like whenlignin, cellulose,
the optimum hemicellulose
substrate and polymeric
type and co-substrate substances.
proportion were CODprovided.and Low
VS m re
33
34 gas production and low COD removal efficiency were observed whereCOD
was
efficiency similar
was higher to
whenthat the of the
optimum mono-substrate.
substrate type and The
co-substrate re-peel
proportion
pineapple werewas provided.
added in Lowthems
when the proportion of food waste and durian shell 34 was gas
35 production
moval
although and peel
low had
efficiency
pineapple COD of removal
a highFW:D efficiency were transformation
(86.88%–88.71%)
potential of organic observed where pineapple
andduring
FW:DF the AD peel was added
processes in the st
according
35
36 although
VS pineapple
content. This canpeel
be had a highby
explained potential
the of organic
decrease of pH transformation
value in the during
system. Thetheacidic
AD processes
condition according
could potet
at 75:25. This is higher than the highest methane 36gas VS content.
(86.79%–87.04%) was higher ofthan FW:P (60.73%–
37 stimulate theThis can be
growth of explained
acid-forming by the decrease
bacteria pH value
to convert organicin the system.
material Theorganic
into acidic condition
acids suchcould pote
as volatil
production of mono-digestion (food waste) according 38 to stimulate
37 thelow
acid,65.23%).
while growth pH ofcould
The VSacid-forming
potentially
removal bacteria to convert
suppress
efficiency the in organicofmaterial
growth
all substrate into organic
methanogens. con-TheThe acids
optimal such as volatil
efficiency
38
39 acid, while low
methanogens pH could
is reached within potentially
the pH range suppress the growth
of 6.5–8.0, while inofthemethanogens.
case of acetogens, optimal
the efficiency
respective range
the high organic compound and optimum pH value 39
40
in ditions
methanogens
8.5 (Rao et al.,is(32.86%–46.27%)
reached
2010). Anwithin the pH
inhibition ofrangewas
methanogen notactivity
of 6.5–8.0, different
while in the
could except
case
affect for theofrespective
of acetogens,
the degradation the organic range
com
40
the system. The pH values of durian shell and food waste
41 8.5
and(Rao et al.,
thereby could2010).
limitAnthe inhibition
process of of methanogen
organic removalactivity could
during theaffect the degradation
anaerobic digestion asofdecreasing
the organicincom CO
41
42 and the
VS removal.
VS
thereby couldremovallimit studies
Previous
efficiency
the process of
haveofreported
P and
organic thatremoval FW:P that were
during the anaerobic
the percentage
lower
of substrate digestion as decreasing
degradation decreased in CO
wh
mixed with the durian shell located in the preferred area
42
43 VS (10.25%–12.54%).
removal.
culture was lowerPrevious
than studies
5.8, where These results
havethereported
inhibition related
thatmight have to
the percentagebeen the of methane
substratebydegradation
aggravated acidity in the decreased
culture whwh
of the pH range for methanogenic activity (Rao et43 44al., culture
44
was lower
was gas
wasthan
lower
lowerproduction
5.5than
(Hu5.8,
(Hu etin
than 5.5 depended
where
et al., 2004;
al.,Fig.
2004;
theDarwin
inhibition
2Darwin
indicate
might
et al.,
et al.,that
haveDespite
2009).
2009).
been aggravated
theet methane the type ofbythe
pro-
acidity in thethe
substrate, culture whe
performa
45 anaerobic digestion on the type of inoculum. WangDespite the type
al. (2014) haveofreported
the substrate,
that food thewaste
performa
hyd
2010). Mono-digestion of food waste causes low buff- 45
46 anaerobic
duction
obviously digestion
in FW:D
increased depended
when and onFW:DF
anaerobic the type of inoculum.
was
activated higher
sludge Wang
was than
used etas
al.in(2014)
the FW:P. haveCOD
inoculum reported that
relative to food waste
aerobic hyd
activated
46
47 obviously
at any pH increased
investigation.when anaerobic activated sludge was used as the inoculum relative to aerobic activated
er capacity, although it has high biodegradability of47the
48 and
at any pH VS are removed by converting organic compounds
investigation.
48
substrate. For fruit residuals, mono-digestion of plant
49 Table 4.methane;
The value of VS, COD initial and removal in different conditions
49
to then, methane production
Table 4. The value of VS, COD initial and removal in different
potential of waste
conditions
6
residues often results in slowdown processes due to its is related to the amount of organic matter 6 in waste and
deficiency in nutrients. In addition, complex composition the removal efficiency in the system. Also, changes in
and structure features of plant residues such as lignin VS can be attributed to the breakdown of intermolecular
content, pectin content, and cellulose crystallinity make bonds of the biomolecules like lignin, cellulose, hemicel-
them resistant to biological processes (Pramanik et al., lulose and polymeric substances. COD and VS removal
 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management 2021/77/1 33

efficiency was higher when the optimum substrate type
and co-substrate proportion were provided. Low meth-
ane gas production and low COD removal efficiency were
observed where pineapple peel was added in the system,
although pineapple peel had a high potential of organ-
ic transformation during the AD processes according to
high VS content. This can be explained by the decrease
of pH value in the system. The acidic condition could po-
tentially stimulate the growth of acid-forming bacteria
to convert organic material into organic acids such as
by acidity in the culture where pH was lower than 5.5
(Hu et al., 2004; Darwin et al., 2009). Despite the type of
the substrate, the performance of anaerobic digestion
depended on the type of inoculum. Wang et al. (2014)
have reported that food waste hydrolysis obviously in-
creased when anaerobic activated sludge was used as
the inoculum relative to aerobic activated sludge at any
pH investigation.

Table 4. The value of VS, COD initial and removal in different Conclusions
conditions
Food waste and fruit residuals such as durian shell,
VS Removal COD Removal dragon fruit and pineapple peel can be used as sub-
Experiment Condition
(%) (%) strates to produce biogas under anaerobic condition.
(FW100) 46.27 88.47 For mono-digestion, food waste as a substrate had the
(FW75:D25) 41.58 88.71 potential to provide high biogas yield and COD removal
efficiency in comparison with durian shell, dragon fruit
I (FW50:D50) 37.3 88.33
and pineapple peel.The co-digestion of food waste and
(FW25:D75) 33.60 86.88 durian shell improved methane production compared
(D100) 32.86 86.44 with their mono-digestion, while dragon fruit peel and
(FW75:DF25) 45.22 87.50 pineapple peel were not suitable for co-digestion with
food waste. The optimum mixing ratio of food waste
(FW50:DF0) 42.39 87.04
II to durian shell was 75:25, with the highest cumulative
(FW25:DF5) 41.02 86.79 methane yield of 65.77 ± 0.16 ml/gvs and methane con-
(DF100) 36.76 85.25 tent of 50.18%. The trend of COD removal efficiency was
(FW75:P25) 10.45 65.23 similar to methane gas production. However, increas-
(FW50:P50) 10.25 62.31 ing the fruit residual proportion could reduce methane
III production due to an increase in lignin content which
(FW25:P75) 11.29 60.73
may not have been completely degraded by the end of
(P100) 12.54 74.15 the experimental period. For co-digestion, the addition
of durian shell in the system could reduce the lag phase
volatile fatty acid, while low pH could potentially sup- and promote faster biogas formation, while pineapple
press the growth of methanogens. The optimal efficien- peel could increase the lag phase and inhibit biogas for-
cy of the methanogens is reached within the pH range mation. Biogas production heavily depends on the type
of 6.5–8.0, while in the case of acetogens, the respec- and proportion of the substrate, which affects both the
tive range is 5.0–8.5 (Rao et al., 2010). An inhibition of digestion and microbial environment.
methanogen activity could affect the degradation of the
organic compound and thereby could limit the process
of organic removal during the anaerobic digestion as
decreasing in COD and VS removal. Previous studies
Acknowledgements
have reported that the percentage of substrate deg- This research was funded by King Mongkut’s University
radation decreased when pH culture was lower than of Technology North Bangkok (Contract no. KMUTNB-
5.8, where the inhibition might have been aggravated 62-NEW-13).
34 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management
References
Achinas S.,Euverink G.J.W. (2019) Elevated biogas production from
the anaerobic co-digestion of farmhouse waste: Insight into the pro-
cess performance and kinetics. Waste Management & Research
37(12): 1240-1249.https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19873383
Ahmadu T.O., Folayan C.O., Yawas D.S. (2009) Comparative per-
formance of cow drug and chicken droppings for biogas pro-
duction. Nig.J.Eng. 16(1): 154-164.
Ahring B.K., Biswas R., Ahamed A., Teller P.J., Uellendahl H.
(2015) Making lignin accessible for anaerobic digestion by wet
explosion pretreatment. Bioresource Technology 175: 182-188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.10.082
Anika O.C., Akin-Osanaiye B.C., Asikong E.B., Edet U.O. (2019)
The potential of biogas production from fruit wastes (Water-
melon, Mango and Pawpaw). World Journal of Advance Re-
search and Reviews 1(3): 52-65. https://doi.org/10.30574/
wjarr.2019.1.3.0026
Azouma Y.O., Jegla Z., Reppich M., Turk,V., Weiss M. (2018)
Using agricultural waste for biogas production as sustainable
energy supply for developing countries. Chemical Engineering
Transactions 70: 445-450.
Bong C.P.C., Lim L.Y., Lee C.T., Klemes J.J., Ho C.S., Ho W.S.
(2018) The characterization and treatment of food waste for im-
provement of biogas production during anaerobic digestion-a
review. Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 1545-1558. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199
Brown D. and Li Y. (2013) Solid state anaerobic co-digestion
of yard waste and food waste for biogas production. Biore-
source Technology 127: 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.09.081
Darwin, Purwanto S., Rinaldi R. (2019) Removal of organic pol-
lutants from Tofu-processing wastewater through anaerobic
treatment process with short hydraulic retention time. Environ-
mental Research, Engineering and Management 75(1): 34-42.
https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.75.1.21532
Dhar H., Kumar P., Kumar S., Mukherjee S.. Vaidya A.N. (2015)
Effect of organic loading rate during anaerobic digestion of mu-
nicipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology 217: 56-61.https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.12.004
Ferreira A.C.H., Neiva J.N.M, Rodriguez N.M., Campos, W.E.,
Borges I. (2009) Avaliação nutricional do subproduto da agroin-
dústria de abacaxi como aditivo de silagem de capim-elefan-
te. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38: 223-229. https://doi.
org/10.1590/S1516-35982009000200002
Hajar N., Zainal S., Nadzirah K.Z., Siti Roha A.M., Atikah O.,
Tengku Elida, T.Z.M. (2019) Physicochemical properties anal-
2021/77/1
ysis of three indexes pinapple (Ananas Comosus) peel ex-
tract variety N36. APCBEE Procedia 4: 115-121. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apcbee.2012.11.020
Hamalatha R. and Anbuselvi S. (2013) Physichemical constit-
uents of pineapple pulp and waste. Journal of Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Research 5(2), 240- 242.
Hu Z. H., Wang G., Yu H. Q. (2004) Anaerobic degradation of
cellulose by rumen microorganisms at various pH values.
Biochemical Engineering Journal 21(1): 59-62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.bej.2004.05.004
Jamilah B., Shu C.E., Kharidah M., Dzulkifly M.A., Noranizan, A.
(2011) Physico-chemical characteristics of red pitaya (Hyloce-
reus polyrhizus) peel. International Food Reasearch Journal 18:
279-286.
Korai M.S., Mahar R.B., Uqaili M.A. (2018) The seasonal evolu-
tion of fruit, vegetable and yard wastes by mono, co and tri-di-
gestion at Hyderabad, Sindh Pakistan. Waste Management 71:
461-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.038
Li R., Chen S., Li X. (2010) Biogas production from anaerobic
co-digestion of food waste with dairy manure in a two-phase
digestion system. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 160: 643-65.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-009-8533-z
Mehariya S., Patel A.K., Obulisamy P.K., Punniyakotti E., Wong
J.W.C. (2018) Co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge
for methane production: Current status and perspective. Biore-
source Technology 265: 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2018.04.030
Meng Y., Li S., Yuan H., Zou D., Liu Y., Zhu B., Chufo A., Jaffar
M., Li X. (2015) Evaluating biomethane production from anaer-
obic mono- and co-digestion of food waste and floatable oil (FO)
skimmed from food waste. Bioresource Technology 185: 7-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.036
Pavi S., Kramer L.E. Gomes L.P. Miranda L.A.S. (2017) Biogas pro-
duction from co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste
and fruit and vegetable waste. Bioresource Technology 228: 362-367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.003
Pramanik S.K., Suja F.B., Zain S.M. and Pramanik B.K. (2019)
The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production from food
waste: Prospects and constraints. Bioresource Technology Re-
ports 8: 100310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100310
Rao P.V., Baral S.S., Dey R., Mutnuri S. (2010) Biogas generation
potential by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy devel-
opment in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
14: 2086-2094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.031
Shen F., Yuan H., Pang Y., Chen S., Zhu B., Zou D., Liu Y., Ma J., Yu
L., Li X. (2013) Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit
 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management
& vegetable waste (FVW)and food waste (FW): Single-phase
vs. two-phase. Bioresource Technology 144: 80-85. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.099
Shen J., Zhao C., Liu Y., Zhang R., Liu G., Chen C. (2019) Biogas
production from anaerobic co-digestion of durian shell with chick-
en, dairy, and pig manures. Energy Conversion and Management
198: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.099
Suma Y., Pasukphun N., Hongtong A., Keawdunglek V., Laor P.
and Apidechkul T. (2019) Waste composition evaluation for sol-
id waste management guideline in highland rual tourist area in
Thailand. Applied environmental research 41(2): 13-26. https://
doi.org/10.35762/AER.2019.41.2.2
Triolo J.M., Sommer S.G., Møller H.B., Weisbjerg M.R., Jiang X.Y.
(2011). A new algorithm to characterize biodegradability of bio-
mass during anaerobic digestion: Influence of lignin concentration
on methane production potential. Bioresource Technology 102(20):
9395- 9402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.026
Troshinetz A.M. and Mihelcic J.R. (2009) Sustainable recy-
cling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste
management 29: 915-923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.was-
man.2008.04.016
Wang K., Yin J., Shen D., Li N. (2014) Anaerobic digestion of food
waste for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production with different
This article is an Open Access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
2021/77/1 35
types of inoculum: effect of pH. Bioresource Technology 161:
395-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.088
Wang X, Duan X, Chen J, Fang K, Feng L, Yan Y, Zhou Q. (2016).
Enhancing anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge by
pretreatment: effect of volatile to total solids. Environmental
Technology 37(12): 1520-1529. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593
330.2015.1120783
Wangyao K., Towprayoon S., Chiemchaisri C., Gheewala S.H.,
Nopharatana A. (2010) Application of the IPCC Waste Model
to solid waste disposal sites in tropical countries: case study
of Thailand. Environ Monit Assess 164: 2549-261. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10661-009-0889-6
Xu F., Li Y., GeX., Yang L., Li Y. (2018) Anaerobic digestion of food
waste - challenges and opportunities https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2017.09.020. Bioresource Technology 247: 1047-1058.
Yong Z., Dong Y., Zhang X., Tan T. (2015) Anaerobic co-digestion
of food waste and straw for biogas production. Renewable En-
ergy 78: 527-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.033
Zhao C., Cui X., Liu Y., Zhang R., He Y., Wang W., Chen C., Liu
G. (2017) Maximization of the methane production from durian
shell during anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology 238:
433-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.184