Enhanced Anaerobic digestion of Brewers spent grain

Anaerobic digestion

1. M.TECH PRE-DATA PRESENTATION ENHANCED ANAEROBIC DIGESTION OF BREWERS’ SPENT GRAIN BY EDUNJOBI Tunde David B.TECH. CHEMICAL ENGINEERING (LAUTECH) (AAA1700162) Supervised by DR. O .O AGBEDE DR. ( Mrs.) O.A AWORANTI DR. A.O ADEBAYO NOVEMBER 2022 M.TECH ORAL EXANINATION PRESENTATION

2. OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION Introduction Background of study Problem Statement Aim and Objectives Justification of Study Scope of study Literature Review Research Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion and Recommendations Contributions to knowledge References 2 2

3. INTRODUCTION 3

4. BACKGROUND OF STUDY 4 Figure 1: Improving biogas production from ligno-cellulosic substrates Ligno-cellulosic substrate Trace metals, microorganism, pretreatment, co-digestion etc. Higher methane production Improve degradability Improve the process stability Shorten the lag phase Improve methane purity Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) Ligno-cellulosic substrates Anaerobic digestion of BSG substrate Improving of Anaerobic digestion of BSG

5. Slow degradation in biogas production from utilizing BSG as substrate ( Akunna , 2015) Probable formation of compounds that causes inhibition in biogas from BSG (Qiang et al., 2012 ) Lack of sufficient nutrient requirement of utilizing BSG as mono-substrate ( Akunna , 2015). PROBLEM STATEMENT 5

6. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES … C ontd The aim of this study is to determine the effects of co-digestion and trace metal on anaerobic digestion of brewers’ spent grain . 6 Aim 6

7. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES … C ontd The objectives of this research are to: characterize the selected organic waste (BSG, poultry manure and brewery wastewater sludge) as suitable feedstock in anaerobic digestion process. determine the effects of inoculum, co-substrate and trace metal on the lag phase as well as on the yield and quality of the biogas produced. determine the kinetic model that best describe the anaerobic digestion of BSG. Objectives 7

8. JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY BSG co-digesting with other manure can increase the degradability and improved nutrient balance. FeCl3 additives in anaerobic digesters has great tendencies to reduce H2S and VFAs biogas production The additives improve the start up of biogas production ( Abdelsalam et al., 2015). 8

9. Scope of study SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of the study will focus on: T he effect of inoculum, co-digestion and trace metal on the anaerobic digestion (AD) of BSG. The kinetic model that best described the AD digestion of BSG. 9 9

10. LITERATURE REVIEW 10

11. LITERATURE REVIEW Table 1 : Summary of Critiques on Literature Review Author Title Findings Remarks Adebayo et al. ( 2014) Anaerobic Co-digestion of c attle slurry with maize stalk at m esophilic Temperature The co-digestion of cattle slurry with maize stalk at ratio 3:1 performed best in terms of methane yield in organic dry matter. Trace metal was not used BSG and Poultry manure was not used as substrate . Kinetic model was not considered Abdelsalam et al. (2015) The effect of CoCl2, NiCl2 and FeCl3 additives on biogas and methane production FeCl3 trace metal at 10mg/L additives on cattle manure slurry as substrate, the results indicated that there is increment in biogas yield compared to control by 1.2 times. BSG was not used as substrate Co-digestion was not considered Kinetic model was not studied Aworanti et al. ( 2017) Biomethanization of the Mixture of Cattle Manure, Pig Manure and Poultry Manure in Co-Digestion with Waste Peels of Pineapple Fruit and Content of Chicken-Gizzard - Part II: Optimization of Process Variables Optimum values were found at Temperature of 55.2°C; total solid content of 6.25%; and feed/inoculums ratio of 1:2 BSG was not used as substrate Trace metal was not used Kinetic model was not studied 11

12. LITERATURE REVIEW Contd … Author Title Findings Remarks Lebiocka et al. (2019) Thermophilic Co-digestion of sewage sludge and BSG. Co-digestion of sewage sludge with BSG enhance the biogas and methane potential. Trace metal was not used Not operating at mesophilic condition Poultry manure was not used as co-substrate. Kinetic model was not studied Szaja et al. (2020) The effect of brewers’ spent grain application on biogas yields and kinetics in co-digestion with sewage sludge. The mono-digestion of BSG, indicated the decrease in kinetic constant values was observed. As compared to sewage sludge mono-digestion, reductions by 21 and 35 %. Trace metals was not used Poultry manure was not used as co-substrate. 12

13. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13

14. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 10 14

15. Table 2 : Composition of substrate fed into the batch digester 17 D1- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and water D2- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and inoculum (BWWS) D3- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and inoculum (BWWS) and poultry manure (PM) D4- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and inoculum (BWWS) and poultry manure (PM) D5- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and inoculum (BWWS) and 10 mg/L FeCl 3 D6- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and inoculum (BWWS) and 15 mg/L FeCl 3 D7- Brewers’ spent grain (BSG) and inoculum (BWWS) and poultry manure (PM) and 15 mg/L FeCl 3 Digester Substrate/Co-substrate BSG (g) PM (g) BWWS (g) FeCl 3 trace metal (mg/L) Water (g) Organic total solids (gOTS) D1(control) - 62.96 1500 53.32 D2 - 20.99 1500 53.32 D3 50:50 9.30 18.78 1500 53.32 D4 60:40 11.21 15.09 1500 53.32 D5 - 20.99 1500 10 53.32 D6 - 20.99 1500 15 53.32 D7 60:40 11.21 15.09 1500 15 53.32

16. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 16

17. Characterization of the selected organic waste (BSG, poultry manure and brewery wastewater sludge) as suitable feedstock in anaerobic digestion process. 17 OBJECTIVE ONE

18. Sample BSG PM Inoculum Total Solid (%FM) 91.76±0.11 52.38±0.04 2.85±0.04 Organic total solid (%DM) 92.31±0.2 80.07±0.05 83.16±0.05 Organic total solid (%FM) 84.70±0.02 41.94±0.002 2.37±0.002 pH 6.53±0.005 8.41±0.005 7.42±0.005 Nitrogen (%) 3.76±0.003 2.94±0.003 ND Phosphorus (%) 0.49±0.008 0.52±0.005 ND Potassium (%) 0.077±0.005 0.027±0.004 ND Cellulose (%) 21.55±0.08 15.63±0.14 ND Hemicellulose (%) 20.27±0.04 19.95±0.08 ND Crude protein (%) 23.52±0.02 18.38±0.11 ND Crude lipid (%) 3.85±0.02 1.57±0.077 ND Crude fibre (%) 12.12±0.29 10.05±0.13 ND Lignin (%) 15.05±0.15 2.51±0.36 ND Organic Carbon (%) 55.05±0.2 26.94±0.15 ND C/N 15/1 9/1 ND Ash content (%) 2.08±0.02 10.44±0.18 ND T able 3 : Physicochemical properties of the substrates and inoculum 18

19. T able 4 : Microbial composition in the feedstock   Bacteria Fungi Feedstock Organism Total Count (CFU/ml) Organism Total Count (CFU/ml)     BWWS Shigella Bacillus sp Pseudomonas Clostridium perfringens `   7.6 x 10 5 A. niger A. fumigatus `   1.6 x 10 3   BSG Bacillus sp Shigella Clostridium perfringens   1.3 x 10 5 Fusarium sp Aspergillus niger   1.4 x 10 3   PM E. coli Shigella Salmonella Bacillus sp     9.1 x 10 5 Fusarium sp Aspergillus flavies Aspergillus niger     2.4 x 10 4 19

20. Determination of the effects of inoculum, co-substrate and trace metal on the lag phase as well as on the yield and quality of the biogas produced. 20 OBJECTIVE TWO

21. Effect of inoculum on biogas and bio-methane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed 21 Figure 2: Daily production of (a) biogas yield with influence of inoculum (b) methane yield with influence of inoculum 21

22. Effect of inoculum on biogas and bio-methane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed 22 Figure 3 : Cumulative (a) biogas yield with influence of inoculum (b) methane yield with influence of inoculum 22

23. Effect of co-digestion on biogas and bio-methane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 4 :Daily production of (a) biogas yield with influence of co-digestion (b) methane yield with influence of co-digestion 23

24. Effect of co-digestion on biogas and bio-methane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 4 :Cumulative (a) biogas yield with influence of co-digestion (b) methane yield with influence of co-digestion 24

25. Effect of FeCl3 additives on biogas and bio-methane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 5 :Daily production of (a) biogas yield with influence of FeCl3 (b) methane yield with influence of FeCl3 25 (b)

26. Effect of FeCl3 additives on biogas and bio-methane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 6 :Cumulative (a) biogas yield with influence of FeCl3 (b) methane yield with influence of FeCl3 26

27. Effect of co-digestion and FeCl3 additives on biogas and biomethane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 7 :Daily production of (a) biogas and ( b) methane yield with influence co-digestion and 15 mg/L FeCl3 27 (b)

28. Effect of co-digestion and FeCl3 additives on biogas and biomethane yield of BSG Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 8 :Cumulative of (a) biogas and (b) methane yield with influence co-digestion and 15 mg/L FeCl3 28

29. Maximum biogas and biomethane production Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 9 :Comparison of Maximum biogas and bio-methane yield for the experiment cases 29

30. Determination of the kinetic model that best describe the anaerobic digestion of BSG 30 OBJECTIVE THREE

31. Kinetic study: Modified Gompertz model Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 10: Fitting of cumulative yield data for (a) biogas (b) methane to the Modified Gompertz model (effect of co-digestion) 31 (a) (b) Figure 11: Fitting of cumulative yield data for (a) biogas (b) methane to the Modified Gompertz model (effect of FeCl3) (a) (b) =0.9942 to 0.9990, RMSE=4.8213 to 15.2567   =0.9962 to 0.9973, RMSE=7.0118 to 9.4338   (a) (b) (a) (b)

32. Kinetic study: Modified Gompertz model Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 12: Fitting of cumulative yield data for biogas to the Modified Gompertz model (effect of co-digestion and FeCl3) 32 Figure 13: Fitting of cumulative yield data for methane to the Modified Gompertz model (effect of co-digestion and FeCl3 ) (a) =0.9890 to 0.9942, RMSE=15.2567 to 22.0466   =0.9962 to 0.9973, RMSE=4.7665 to 5.1209   (a)

33. Kinetic study: Logistic model Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 14: Fitting of cumulative yield data for (a) biogas (b) methane to the Logistic model (effect of co-digestion) 33 Figure 15: Fitting of cumulative yield data for (a) biogas (b) methane to the Logistic model (effect of FeCl3) (a) (b) (b) (a) (b) =0.9873 to 0.9957, RMSE=7.5778 to 22.5734   =0.9915 to 0.9957, RMSE=7.5778 to 16.3905   (a) (b)

34. Kinetic study: Logistic model Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 16: Fitting of cumulative yield data for biogas to the Logistic model (effect of co-digestion and FeCl3) 34 Figure 17: Fitting of cumulative yield data for methane to the Logistic model (effect of co-digestion and FeCl3 ) (a) =0.9831 to 0.9873 , RMSE=22.5734 to 27.8313   =0.9930 to 0.9954, RMSE=9.79791 to 11.7560   (a)

35. Kinetic study: Exponential rise to maximum model Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 12: Fitting of cumulative yield data for (a) biogas (b) methane to the Exponential rise to maximum model (effect of co-digestion) 35 Figure 13: Fitting of cumulative yield data for (a) biogas (b) methane to the Exponential rise to maximum model (effect of FeCl3) (a) (b) (a) (b) =0.9574 to 0.9819, RMSE=18.997 to 31.3937   =0.9574 to 0.9849, RMSE=16.3999to 25.5379   (a) (b) (a) (b)

36. Kinetic study: Exponential rise to maximum model Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 3: 3D plots for AGSB developed Figure 16: Fitting of cumulative yield data for biogas to the Exponential rise to maximummodel (effect of co-digestion and FeCl3) 36 Figure 17: Fitting of cumulative yield data for methane to the Exponential rise to maximum model (effect of co-digestion and FeCl3 ) (a) =0.9766 to 0.9819, RMSE=26.9830 to 32.1564   =0.9748 to 0.9802 , RMSE=19.4542 to 22.8621   (a)

37. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37

38. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES … C ontd T he presence of microbial activities in the inoculum (BWWS) added to BSG contributed to the performance of the anaerobic digestion process . Co-digesting of BSG with the co-substrate (PM) by bio-augmenting with inoculum effectively increased the yield of biogas and methane compared to the mono-digestion of BSG. The influence of FeCl 3 additives showed that the addition of trace metal is necessary for the microorganisms which were able to stimulate the methanogenic activity for the production of biogas. The modified Gompertz model best described the cumulative biogas and bio-methane yield with very high goodness to fit (R 2 ) and RMSE values compared to the logistic and exponential rise to maximum models. CONCLUSION 38

39. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES … C ontd Further study can be addressed to study the best or optimal concentration of FeCl3 additives to the anaerobic digestion of BSG. A potential increment of methane yield may need to be addressed concerning the addition of trace metals to the co-digestion of BSG and PM. There is also the need for a proper environmental impact assessment on the entire process with a consideration of economic feasibility. RECOMMENDATIONS 39

40. CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE 40

41. The additions of FeCl3 trace metal to BSG mono-digestion as well as BSG co-digested with PM for the production of biogas was reported in this research . The use of a kinetic model ( exponential rise to maximum, modified Gompertz and logistic model ), for the prediction of biogas production from FeCl3 trace metal additives to BSG mono-digestion and BSG co-digested with PM was reported in this research. 41

42. REFERENCES Abdelsalam , E., Samer , M., Abdel- Hadi M. A., Hassan H. E. and Badr , Y. (2015). The effect of CoCl2, NiCl2 and FeCl3 additives on biogas and methane production. Misr J. Agricultural Engineering, 32(2): 843 – 862 . Adebayo A. O., Jekayinfa S.O. and Linke , B. ( 2014 ). Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Cattle Slurry with Maize Stalk at Mesophilic Temperature . American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER ) , 3 (1): 80 - 88 . Aworanti , O. A., Agarry , S. E. and Ogunleye , O. O. (2017). Biomethanization of cattle manure, pig manure and poultry manure mixture in co-digestion with waste of pineapple fruit and content of chicken-gizzard- Part I: Kinetic and thermodynamic modelling studies. The Open Biotechnology Journal, 11: 36 - 53. DOI: 10.2174/1874070701711010036 Panjicko , M., Zupancic , G. D, Zelic , B. (2015). Anaerobic biodegradation of raw and pre-treated brewery spent grain utilizing solid state anaerobic digestion. Acte Chem Slov 62: 1 - 9. doi:10.17344/acsi.2015.1534 . Qiang, Hong., Lang, D-L. and Li, Y-Y. (2012). High-solid mesophilic methane fermentation of food waste with an emphasis on Iron (iii) chloride, Cobalt, and Nickel requirements. Bioresource Technology, 103: 21 - 27 . Szaja , A., Montusiewicz , A., Lebiocka , M., Marta, B. (2020). The effect of brewery spent grain application on biogas yields and kinetics in co-digestion with sewage sludge. 8: 10590 . 42

43. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING 40