See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333847075

Development of a Batch-Type Biogas Digester Using a Combination of Cow

Dung, Swine Dung and Poultry Dropping

Article  in  International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy · January 2019

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002

CITATION READS

1 121

2 authors:

Olawale Olugbenga Olanrewaju Obafemi Olutola Olubanjo

Federal University of Technology, Akure Federal University of Technology, Akure
19 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The project is on the use of alternative energy for irrigation activities on the farm. View project

Effect of gully erosion in Ilara-Mokin View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olawale Olugbenga Olanrewaju on 02 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy, 2019, 8, 15-31
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijcce
ISSN Online: 2168-1538
ISSN Print: 2168-152X

Development of a Batch-Type Biogas Digester

Using a Combination of Cow Dung, Swine Dung
and Poultry Dropping

Olawale O. Olanrewaju*, Obafemi O. Olubanjo

Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering and Engineering Technology,
Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria

How to cite this paper: Olanrewaju, O.O. Abstract

and Olubanjo, O.O. (2019) Development of a
Batch-Type Biogas Digester Using a Combi- The overdependence on crude oil in African countries warrants the need for
nation of Cow Dung, Swine Dung and Poul- alternative sources of energy. A 56-litre-capacity biogas digester was de-
try Dropping. International Journal of Clean signed, fabricated and evaluated. Investigations were made into the produc-
Coal and Energy, 8, 15-31.
tion of biogas from the mixture of cow dung, swine dung and poultry drop-
https://doi.org/10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002
ping. Standard equations and models were used in the design of the compo-
Received: April 24, 2019 nents of the manually operated digester. The digester temperature, ambient
Accepted: May 28, 2019 temperature and pH were monitored during the experiment. The proximate
Published: May 31, 2019 analysis showed that volatile solid, total solid and moisture content for the
mixed substrates at the initial stage were: 64.7%, 83.5% and 13.5% respective-
Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. ly. Similarly, at the digestion stage, the volatile solid, total solid and moisture
This work is licensed under the Creative content were: 54.1%, 22.6% and 74.4% respectively. Advancement of decom-
Commons Attribution International position leads to gradual increasing pH value from 7.2 to 7.4, which indicates
License (CC BY 4.0).
the stability of organic matter. The moisture content on a wet basis was in-
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
itially 13.5%. This value latter increased to 74.4%. On the average, 15 kg of
Open Access
mixed substrates with 25 litres of impure water produced biogas within 25
days of digestion. The gas produced from mixed substrates became flamma-
ble with blue flame after 16 days of production, indicating that the ratio of
methane gas generated with the three mixtures of fresh animal waste was
higher than other gases produced.

Keywords
Biogas, Renewable Energy, Cow Dungs, Swine Dungs, Poultry Droppings,
Slurry, Anaerobic Decomposition

1. Introduction
The rising cost of petroleum products is a serious problem facing most develop-

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 May 31, 2019 15 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy
O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

ing countries of the world including Nigeria. The extent of increase in industria-
lization and population has resulted in excessive energy demands from both ru-
ral and urban dwellers, raising the need for exploration of other natural sources
of energy [1]. Hence, conversion of agricultural wastes into biogas could be lee-
way to solving some of these energy problems [2] [3]. However, due to epileptic
electricity supply in Nigeria which has greatly reduced daily income and lead to
abnormal hike in foreign currency on daily market stock, it is therefore impor-
tant that Nigerians should embrace an alternative way by which electricity and
cooking gas can be generated [4] [5]. It is also important to be more conscious of
environmental sanitization, as indiscriminate disposal of waste results in health
issues and environmental disasters. The concept of waste management involving
the collection of generated waste into modified tanks for recycling purpose to
produce biogas, will be of great advantage to the nation’s rising population [6]
[7]. Furthermore, in accomplishing the sustainable developmental goal of en-
suring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy in Nigeria,
rural communities with farming as a major occupation, lacking access to elec-
tricity, can be brought to lime-light through the adoption of biogas system for
generation of energy for household usage. International Energy Agency reported
in EIA [8] that the electrification rate in Nigeria is 45 percent leaving approx-
imately 93 million people in Nigeria without access to electricity and 115 million
people in Nigeria relying on traditional biomass and waste as their main sources
of energy for domestic uses.
Achieving solutions to probable scarcity of fossil fuels and environmental
problems that the world is facing today requires long-term potential actions for
sustainable development [9] [10] [11]. The dependence on fuel wood for the
domestic energy supply has aggravated deforestation, with annual deforestation
rate estimated at 3%, which is equivalent to the loss of 410,000 hectares of fo-
rested land annually. Indoor air pollution from burning biomass in open fires,
usually without chimneys is a major concern, as it results in respiratory diseases
and premature deaths [2] [6]. Thus, the need for the utilization of more agricul-
tural wastes as an alternative energy source is apparent. Globally, there has been
an increasing call for diversification in oil production and consumption by
economist, environmentalist and health practitioners. However, Nigeria’s de-
pendence on oil remains unwavering, as it provides 10.04% of the Gross Domes-
tic Product, 92% of foreign exchange earnings, and about 78.5% of budgetary
revenues [12]. These petroleum products are not available and affordable to ru-
ral community to meet energy needs. Hence, these petroleum products are not
available and affordable to rural community to meet energy needs, hence, the
need for an alternative source of energy for domestic use [2] [13]. A possible al-
ternative to fossil fuels is the production of biogas by anaerobic digestion of re-
sidues, waste and energy crops. The use of cheap locally sourced materials and
its reduction of green gas emissions are of enormous advantage.
Globally, cow manure is used as feedstock for many digesters currently run-

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 16 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

ning to produce biogas (methane) for energy recuperation [5] [14]. Although
convenient and feasible, it has been recognized that using cow manure alone
may not achieve the most efficient production of biogas due to its inherent defi-
ciency of carbon (low carbon/nitrogen ratio). Mid-West Plan Service Publication
[15] reported the carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio of cow manure as eight (8) with
regards to the cow growth stages, this value is relatively low for an anaerobic di-
gester to function efficiently in the utilization of the manure nutrients and
maximization of methane yields. Dioha et al. [16] achieved an optimal C/N
range of 15.5/1 to 19/1 for cow manure digestion in terms of maximum methane
production by adding either urea or glucose to the flask digesters.
Several researchers have conducted several studies on the optimization of
biogas yield in Anaerobic digestion as reported by [1] [5] [7] [9] [13] [17] [18].
Similarly, swine manure has a C/N ratio of 6 - 8 [15]. The greatest methane
production is achieved when its C/N is adjusted to 25/1 using glucose. Particu-
larly, using urea and/or glucose to change the C/N ratio in digested content
cannot be an economically sustainable method to facilitate methane generation
from large scale digesters [16] [19]. However, the productivity of anaerobic di-
gestion process can be enhanced by optimizing the substrate C/N ratio. There-
fore, it is worth the effort to research alternative additives to accomplish the C/N
ratio modification in the digester feedstock. Crop residue such as maize husks
and cassava peels are produced in large quantity in Nigeria every year, which,
due to its organic nature can be a valuable alternative feedstock for biogas pro-
duction. The benefit of co-digesting plant material with animal manure can pro-
vide buffering capacity and a wide range of nutrients while the added plant ma-
terials with high carbon content can improve the C/N ratio of the feedstock, thus
potentially improving methane yields [20] [21] [22]. Because of its large unex-
ploited benefits for biogas production, via anaerobic digestion, crop residues
certainly deserve research attention for use as a feedstock for co-digesting with
cow manure.

1.1. Developments in Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste

Anaerobic digestion is a microbial process involving the biodegradation of or-
ganic matter by association of microorganisms in the absence of oxygen, result-
ing in the formation of biogas which consists of methane and carbon dioxide,
and effluent consisting of the remaining solids and liquids [23]. It occurs natu-
rally in wetlands, marshes and a principal agent in degradation of bio-waste in
landfills, it is also present ruminants’ digestive tracts [14] [24].

1.2. Stages Involved in Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic Digestion occurs in four stages which include: hydrolysis, acidogene-
sis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis. The degradation stages are carried out by
different consortia of microorganisms, which partly stand in syntrophic interre-
lation and place different requirements on the environment [23] [25].

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 17 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

1.2.1. Hydrolysis
During anaerobic digestion, hydrolysis is the first step in which long-chain or-
ganic molecules are broken down by hydrolytic bacteria into their constituent
monomers, complex polymers from organic biomass which are inaccessible to
microorganisms are broken down. During this process, hydrolytic bacteria are
able to secrete extracellular enzymes (cellulase, xylanase, amylase, protease, lipase)
that convert carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins into sugars, long chain fatty acids,
and amino acids, respectively [26] [27], products of this process are able to diffuse
through the cell membranes of acidogenic microorganisms [25]. Generally, hy-
drolysis is best achieved at an optimum temperature between 30˚C - 50˚C and
an optimum pH of 5 - 7 [28] [29].

1.2.2. Acidogenesis (Fermentation)

Acidogenic microorganisms absorb the products of hydrolysis through their cell
membranes, then ferment them into volatile fatty acids (VFAs) such as acetate,
propionate, and butyrate. Short-chain VFAs (i.e., propionate, butyrate, and vale-
rate) are converted into acetate via the process termed acetogenesis [25]. Acidoge-
nesis is perceived to progress at a quicker rate than all other stages of anaerobic
digestion [23]. The degradation of these compounds results in the production of
H2, CO2, alcohols, organic acids, organic-nitrogen compounds, and organic-sulfur
compounds. The most important of the organic acids is acetate since it can be used
directly as a substrate by methanogenic bacteria [29] [30] [31].

1.2.3. Acetogenesis (Acidification)

During acidogenesis, some of the acetate produced is already rendered into a
suitable substrate for acetoclastic methanogenesis [25]. However, other higher
VFAs produced are not accessible to the methanogenic microorganisms. Aceto-
genesis is the process by which these higher VFAs and other intermediates are
converted into acetate, with hydrogen also being produced [32].
Acetogenic bacteria break down low molecular weight volatile fatty acids and
alcohols into acetate, hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide. Acetate is not only pro-
duced through the fermentation of soluble organic compounds but also through
acetogenesis [33]. Hydrogen gas is a major product of this process and excessive
partial pressure is proven to be harmful to the acetogenic microorganism [30]
[34]. This conversion process can only be thermodynamically favourable if the
partial hydrogen pressure is kept low. However, due to the presence of hydro-
genotrophic methanogens, there is a rapid consumption of hydrogen, thereby
maintaining the hydrogen partial pressures at a favorable level to acetogenesis by
creating an exergonic reaction [35].

1.2.4. Methanogenesis (Methane Formation)

This is the final stage of anaerobic digestion, where the methanogenic microor-
ganisms produce methane by consuming all forms of intermediates compounds
found in the system. The methanogenic bacteria convert acetic acid and hydro-
gen into CO2 and methane. This microorganism requires a higher temperature

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 18 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

and pH than previous stages of anaerobic digestion [24]. Methane is formed

around 66% from acetate by means of acetate decarboxylation, proceeded by
acetoclastic methanogenic bacteria (e.g. Methanosaeta spp and Methanosarcina
spp.) and 34% from carbon dioxide reduction by hydrogen, catalyzed by hydro-
gen-utilizing (hydrogenophilic) methanogenic bacteria [28] [36]. These bacteria
are strict anaerobes and require a lower redox potential for growth than most
other anaerobic bacteria [20]. Methanogens tend to have a significantly slower
regeneration time than other microorganisms in anaerobic digestion, upwards of
5 - 16 days [23]. Although, Methanococcus maripaludis, among other hydroge-
notrophic species is reported to possess a doubling time of only two hours [31].
Chemical reactions during methanogenesis can be summarized as in (1) and (2)
below:
2CH 3 CH 2 OH ( l ) + CO 2( g ) → CH 4( g ) + 2CH3 COOH( l ) (1)

CH 3 COOH ( ag ) → CH 4( g ) + CO 2( g ) (2)

CO 2( g ) + 4H 4 → CH 4( g ) + 2H 2 O( l ) (3)

In digester, the termination in the supply of biogas signifies the end metha-
nogenesis, which can take between 25 - 40 days [19] [29]. The Volatile solid
content could then ben analyzed to assess the degree of digestion.
Bio-digestion is a complex fermentation process birth by the symbiotic asso-
ciation of different bacterial types. The activities and products of one set of bac-
teria support the other and vice versa [29]. Practically, fermentation processes
involve the metabolic actions of the various bacteria acting in synchronization. A
group of microorganisms serves as the substrate for the next resulting into sev-
eral interdependent, complex sequential and parallel biological reactions [27]
[37]. When the acid-producing bacteria use up the oxygen to create light com-
pounds, it creates an anaerobic environment for the methanogens as well as a
compound of low molecular weight. On the other hand, methane-producing
microorganisms use up the intermediates of the acid-producing bacteria from
the system thereby eliminating the possibility of creation of toxic conditions for
the acid-producing microorganisms.

1.3. Conditions for Anaerobic Digestion

Two of the most important factors for proper anaerobic digestion and methane
production are temperature and pH, irregularities of these factors result in chal-
lenges in digestion, particularly the rates of hydrolysis and methanogenesis. Di-
gesters perform well in warmer atmospheres [6] [10], although anaerobic diges-
tion is not absolutely terminated at a lower temperature, overall methane pro-
duction is reduced as methanogenesis is impeded. Selected chemicals such as so-
dium nitrate, lime, sodium (bi-)carbonate and quick lime can be added slowly to
adjust the pH of the system without having an adverse effect on the bacteria [31]
[38].
The solid concentration, which is the amount of fermentable material of the

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 19 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

feed in a unit volume of slurry, affects the rate of digestion as well. Increase in
slid content inhibits the mobility of methanogens within the substrate, affecting
the biogas yield [29]. Ordinarily, 6% - 9% solids concentration is best suited for
biogas production [13]. The amount of substrate fed per unit volume of digester
capacity per day, regarded as the loading rate has an impact on the rate of diges-
tion. Overloading of the digester will result in high gas yield initially which re-
duces abruptly due to inhibition, which is restraint in the multiplication of me-
thanogenic bacteria as compared to acidogenic bacteria thereby limiting the gas
produced.
In addition, in ensuring adequate growth of bacteria in anaerobic digestion, a
regular supply of organic substances as a source of carbon and nutrients is im-
portant, they also require certain mineral nutrients in addition to nitrogen, Sul-
phur, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. These elements are largely found in agri-
cultural residues and wastes [6]. The duration of retaining the slurry in the di-
gester influences the rate of digestion. The average time spent by the input slur-
ry, which is the Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT), if shorten could result in the
collapse in the bacterial population while achieving a longer HRT requires larger
digester volume [17] [30].
Furthermore, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in the digester influences the oper-
ation of the bacteria. An optimum carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio for anaerobic
bio-digestion is between 20:1 and 30:1 [16] [19]. In the situation of relatively high
ratio than the optimum range, methanogenic bacteria will exhaust the nitrogen ra-
pidly leaving the remaining carbon in the material, thereby reducing the gas pro-
duction. Conversely, for a relatively low ratio than the optimum range, a large
amount of ammonia will be formed, thereby raising the pH of the system above
8.5, and inhibiting the microbes limiting gas production. Also, the presence of
toxic substances such as mineral ions, heavy metals inhibits the activities of me-
thanogenic bacteria in the digester. However, a small quantity of mineral ions
(ammonium, Sulphur, sodium, potassium) can activate the growth of bacteria,
while a large amount of these ions will have a toxic effect [16] [31] [39].
Moreover, a continuous stirring of the digester content is vital in ensuring close
contact between the microorganisms and substance which ultimately improves the
digestion process. Agitation can be achieved by daily feeding of the digester in-
stead of periodicals mixing to create the same effect [1] [4] [7]. All processes in
anaerobic digestion do not require oxygen, and they are indeed very sensitive to
the presence of oxygen, as the breakdown of organic materials in the presence of
oxygen, will produce carbon-dioxide instead of the desired methane gas. Hence, an
air-sealed digester is essential for optimum digestion [39]. Additionally, an optim-
al moisture content, of about 90% of the total volume of feedstock is required for
the effective performance of bacteria in the digester [19] [20], as metabolic activi-
ties involved in the digestion of organic matter requires water. Excess water re-
duces the rate of production, while in adequate water results in accumulation of
acetic acids which inhibits the digestion process [14] [29].
This research is aimed to help our people to reduce the over-dependence on

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 20 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

liquefied fossil fuels, with the lowest possible cost. This project will also provide
an alternative mean of keeping our environment clean from animal waste. Oth-
ers include conservation of our natural resources like the forest, natural gas and
replenishment of the exploited farmland. The effluent, after gas has been
evolved, can be used as manure which is a good source of organic fertilizer for
the farmer. The gas produced by biogas is an alternative for energy production
and utilization thereby going a long way to conserving our natural gas [26]. It
will also serve as a means of managing our environment against unpleasant
odour by the evacuation of animal waste or dung that would have resulted in air
pollution, which would have impaired our breathing. This animal waste as re-
ported by several researchers possesses the potential to be used as biofuel (Table
1). Above all, this project will help to make cooking easy in our individual
homes and reduce excessive exposure to hot radiation caused by firewood.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
The Digester was filled with a mixture of the substrates from the combination of
Cow Dung (CD), Poultry droppings (PD), and Swine Droppings (SD). The
compositions of the Digesting Materials were collected from abattoir within
Akure metropolis and Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA) agricul-
tural research farm, each of which was measured in kilograms (5 kg) and mixed
with impure water to form slurry.
The digester is circular in shaped and consists of the inlet valve, the outlet
valve, the fermentation section and the stirrer as shown in Plate 1 below. The
stirrer is manually powered for even and easy stirring of the mixture to aid fer-
mentation. Also connected to the top of the digester is a pressure gauge to indi-
cate the amount of gas produced in the digester. Plate 1 showed the complete
system and how the units are interconnected. The biogas plant consists of two
major components (the digester tank and the storage tank) which were connected
by hose. The digester tank consists of inlet valve at the top, where the substrates
were loaded and also locked afterwards to prevent the escape of gas and

Table 1. Relative biogas generation from various materials.

Organic material Biofuel (L/Kg/dry matter)

Cow manure 40
Sheep manure 94
Savage sludge 65
Water lettuce 105
Eupatorium odoratum 256
Cassava leaf 55
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) 98
Poultry dung 128

Source: [7] [9] [21] [40].

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 21 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

Plate 1. Biogas digester.

for easy fermentation process to occur. It also has an outlet at the base of the di-
gester where the mixture of effluents and substrate is being released from the
tank for further use in crop fertilization. The digester tank also has a pressure
gauge at the top, this help to determine the amount of gas produced. The diges-
ter tank also has a filter that contains the filtering substance which helps in the
purification of the biogas produced. The gas produced is being controlled by a
set of valves attached to the digester. The gas produced is transported to the
burning point by the hose.

2.2. Design Consideration

Biogas digester is a convectional machine that would interact with different
waste such as plant and animal waste and also micro-organism in the process of
production, with some high degree of strength, pressure and precision, with
consideration for cost and maintainability. Ideally, the materials used for con-
struction should be durable and strong enough to retain its shape under pressure
and heat, and must be easy to dismantle and couple back during cleaning. The
factors like pressure which tends to blast the cylinder and corrosion by using
thick mild steel for the construction were considered.
High consideration was given to the strength in designing the biogas unit be-
cause of internal forces of the substrate to be used and pressure of the produced.
Torsional stress and strain factor were adequately considered. Also, the size was
taken into account to ensure the ease of moving the machine from one place to
another. The bearing capacity to withstand the internal load of the material and
external force of the environmental influence e.g. weather, and corrosion resis-
tance were reviewed. Cost of production of the biogas unit as well as affordabili-
ty of the unit, was also considered during design to encourage adoption of the
technology.

2.3. Design Analysis

The main objective of the design is for energy production, maximizing the pri-
mary variables such as biodegradability of the materials, concentration of the

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 22 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

feed, kinetic constants, Retention time, that affects the production of the biogas
is important [18]. In designing a biodigester, the total volume of digester, VT,
volume of gas storage, Vg, retention period, Rt and the amount and type of or-
ganic waste to be digested are majorly considered according to experiment car-
ried out by [6] [7] [41].

2.3.1. Digester Tank Capacity Determination

According to [7] and [9], the Total Volume of the digester, VT is the addition of
the Slurry volume, Vs and the storage capacity of the gas, Vg.
VT= Vs + Vg (1)

The digester was fed once, but the calculation was based on daily feeding with
the design criteria of 25 days retention period, 5 kg of CD, PD and SD each was
fed into digester, with an equal volume of water for mixing, waste and water are
in 1:1 [7]. 1 kg is equivalent to 1 liter; using 15 kg of waste. A total of 15 kg is fed
for 25 days at a rate of 0.6 kg/day.
Volume of Slurry, Vs = 15 ltrs of waste + 15 ltrs of water = 30 litres
Volatile solid loading rate is a measure of the biological conversion of the
anaerobic digestion system [29]. For the mixture of animal and kitchen waste,
the rate of biogas production is about 0.5 m3/kg of added volatile solid [42]. The
amount of biogas generated each day (m3/day) will be calculated using Equations
(2) and (3) below, on the basis of the daily substrate input (volatile solids con-
tent) and specific gas yield of the substrate [6] [29] [41], Hence;
Daily gas production
= volatile solids content × the specific gas yield ( solids ) (2)
3
=0.6 kg day × 0.50 m kg =0.3 ltrs day
Total volume of gas after 25 days
= 0.3 ltrs day × 25 days
= 7.5 litres (3)

Using Equation (1), the total volume of digester, Vo is given as 37.5 litres. The
maximum loading capacity of the digester must not exceed 80% of the total vo-
lume of the digester to at least give 20% of the total volume for slurry rise and for
biogas as reported by [6]. The total volume of VT is, thus, given in Equation (4):
Total volume of Digester, VT =Vo × 1.25 =37.5 × 1.25 =46.875 litres (4)

In designing a cylindrical digester tank of 48 litres capacity, with height 0.7 m.

Equation (5) is used below as used by [11], the diameter is given as 0.094 m
V = πr 2 h (5)

2.3.2. Shaft Design

In designing the shafts for the machine, considerations were given to the fol-
lowing factors:
 Since deflection is typically the design limiting issue, higher strength steel
such as low carbon steel was used.
 To minimize both deflection and stresses, the shaft length was kept as short
as possible and over hangs was also minimized.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 23 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

2.3.3. Design for the Diameter of Shaft/Stirrer

The diameter of shaft for the stirrer can be determined using the equation below:
16
( M t kt ) + ( M b kb )
2 2
=d3 (3.3)
πS s

where Ss = allowable shear stress of metal with key way = 40 × 106 N/m2
Mb = maximum bending moment = 25.61 N∙m
Mt = torsion moment = 22.3 N
kb = combined shock and fatigue factor applied to bending moment = 1.5
kt = combined shock and fatigue factor applied to torsional moment = 1.0 [4]

2.4. Methods
Collection of Substrates
The substrates (materials used for biogas production) are poultry droppings,
swine droppings and cow dung waste were collected locally within the Federal
University of Technology, Akure. The substrates were mixed together in the
same proportions with water of 15 litres, the individual substrate was weighed to
be 5 kilograms each, and these were mixed together and loaded into the digester.
An equal volume of water is used in mixing each substrate used (CD, PD and
SD) to form slurry.

2.5. Production of Biogas

The substrate was left in the digester for two weeks for anaerobic digestion; bio-
gas was produced after which it was stirred so that the gas can evolve. The stir-
ring is done by rolling the handle manually for about 5 to 10 minutes. The outlet
valve is then opened for collection of gas produced. Gases produced were burnt
using gas lit.

2.6. Measurement of Parameters of the Digester

The temperature of the digester was maintained within the allowable tempera-
ture ranges for optimum gas production being; mesophilic, cycrophilic and
thermophilic temperature ranges. Temperature reading was taken twice daily
both in the morning and evening, with a thermocouple placed inside the diges-
ter. Digital pH meter was used to measure the pH daily.

3. Results and Discussion

The feedstocks were analyzed for temperature, total solid, ash content, volatile
solid, pH, moisture content. The total solid, volatile solid and moisture content
were determined in accordance with the method provided in section 2540 E of
American Public Health Association—Standard Methods as executed by [6].

3.1. Analysis of Physiochemical Properties

Table 2 below shows the physicochemical properties of the mixed substrates
from laboratory analysis. Physicochemical properties of mixed substrate (fresh

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 24 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

Table 2. Physicochemical properties of Fresh mixture of Cow Dungs, Swine Dungs and
the Poultry Droppings.

Parameters Fresh Substrates Digested Substrates

Total solids (%) 83.5 22.6

Moisture content (%) 13.5 74.4

Volatile solids (%) 64.7 54.1

Ash content (%) 34.6 45.6

pH 6.6 7.2

Temperature (˚C) 30.3 29.5

chicken droppings, cow dung and swine dung) at exact day of digestion and after
the experiment are shown. The results of the physicochemical properties of mixed
substrates over a period of 25 days show a decrease in the total solids and volatile
solids from 83.50% to 22.60% and 64.70% to 54.10% respectively, which may be
due to the utilization of the wastes by the microorganisms. This is in agreement
with the result of [17] and [27], who explained that there was a reduction in the
total solids and volatile solids reduced as methane yield increases. The retention
period for biogas production was twenty-five days. This may be due to the accu-
mulation of acids, exhaustion of nutrient or production of auto-toxic substances
by the microbes because this process is a batch culture system.
It is obvious that the moisture, ash content and pH increased significantly (p <
0.05) while the total solids, volatile solids and the temperature reduced signifi-
cantly (p < 0.05) as also observed by Nwankwo et al. [11]. Although the total
solid content of the waste used was above the optimum range of 7% - 9% rec-
ommended by Nwankwo et al. [11] and Deepanraj, et al. [37] in order to avoid
overloading the system. However, the digestion process was efficient in remov-
ing the total solid.

3.2. Effects of Temperature and pH

Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the variation in pH and temperature of the mixed
substrate with respect to the retention time of 25 days respectively. pH reading
recorded was within the range of 6.7 - 7.4, with the mean pH at 6.90 ± 0.18.
From the experiment, it was revealed that the acidity in the digester caused the
very low yield of biogas in the first 7 days of retention. The result was compared
to some other results obtained previously by Musa and Raji [10] from the analy-
sis of biogas from three organic wastes, Ukpabi [30] who produced biogas from
cow dung and food waste, Nwanko et al. [11] who generated biogas from kitchen
waste and cow dung, and Otun et al. [7] who evaluated the production of biogas
from the co-digestion of animal, food and fruit waste.
During the early stage of decomposition, the acid-forming bacteria were
found to be breaking down the substrate with volatile fatty acids produced. This
changed the values of the general acidity for the digesting material with the value

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 25 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

7.6

7.4

7.2

7.0

pH of the slurry
6.8

6.6

6.4

6.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Retention Time(Days)

Figure 1. Variation of mixed substrates pH with retention time (Days).

35

33
Temperature (OC)

31

29

27

25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Retention Time(Days)

Figure 2. Variation of mixed substrate slurry temperature with retention time (Days).

of the pH falling below neutral [6] [38]. These changes assisted the microorgan-
isms in the system to perform well which led to an increase in the production of
the biogas. On the first week, the lower level of the pH recorded by mixed sub-
strates explains the first stage of anaerobic digestion-hydrolysis and acetogenesis.
Acetogenesis involves the conversion of volatile fatty acids present in the sub-
strate into simpler organic acids including acetic acid, propionic acid and etha-
nol. This acidic intermediate naturally causes a drop in the hydrogen ion con-
centration of the slurry in the bio-digester which was observed to fall as low as
6.2 after the first two weeks of digestion. As the weeks went by, the organic acids
produced during acetogenesis (majorly acetic acid) were acted upon by metha-
nogenic bacteria and hence broken down into methane and carbon dioxide; the
major constituents of biogas. The pH begins to rise as the acetic acid is con-
verted into biogas. It should be noted that pH affects the growth of microbes
during anaerobic fermentation/digestion. Otun et al. [7] reported that it is im-
portant to maintain the pH of an anaerobic digestion process between 6 - 8, in
order not to inhibit the growth of methanogens. It was also observed that the
changes in the pH value also resulted in changes in the volume of gas produced,
as consistency in the higher range of pH favours the methanogenic bacteria.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 26 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

These bacteria are inhibited in pH greater than 8 or less than 5 as reported by

Nwanko et al. [11] and Okewale [40].
Figure 2 shows the slurry temperature trend of the mixed substrates. The am-
bient temperature varied from 20˚C and 32˚C with the mean temperature at
29.26 ± 1.58˚C, this fluctuation is as a result of climatic conditions, which in
turn affects the slurry at each stage of digestion. The mesophilic (21˚C - 38˚C) is
the temperature range that was identified from the slurry temperature. This is
similar to the result observed by Otun et al. [7] and Nwanko et al. [11]. From the
results obtained, anaerobic bacteria thrive best at a mesophilic temperature of
about 34˚C [27] [40]. Temperature is observed by many biogas researchers as a
critical condition for anaerobic digestion, as methanogenic bacteria operate most
efficiently at temperatures 30˚C - 40˚C [37]. The ambient temperature affects
the rate of digestion due to the direct contact of the outside walls of the digester
and the atmosphere [13] [17]. It was observed that the volume of gas produced
increases with increase in temperature and as temperature drops, the rate of
biogas production declines to agree with Gaby [38].

3.3. Flammability of the Gas

Biogas is a flammable gas produced when organic materials are fermented under
anaerobic condition. It contains mainly methane and carbon (IV) oxide with
traces of hydrogen sulphide and water vapour. Biogas burns with a pale blue
flame and it has a calorific value of between 25.9 J/m-30 J/m, depending upon
the proportions of methane and other constituent gases [6] [11]. During the re-
search, an increase in the pressure gauge was observed after a week of retention,
indicating an occurrence of biochemical reaction due to microbial activities re-
sulting in the production of biogas. The combustibility of the biogas produced
was determined out by igniting matches near the gas opener as experimented by
[6] and [10]. The result gave a pop sound with flames. The test was repeated af-
ter 25 days of digestion. The test proved positive for the gas burnt with a blue
flame, producing no soothes.

4. Conclusion
The effective implementation of biogas digester for production of biogas from
the decomposition of agricultural waste offers a reliable solution for economic
development energy and environmental sustainability. A biogas digester con-
sisting of inlet opener, outlet opener, a stirrer handle, spikes and cylindrical
chamber was designed, fabricated and evaluated. The result of this research
showed that many of the microorganisms associated with the fermentation of
cow dung’, swine dung’ and poultry dropping originated from the substrate used
and it was established that temperature variation, PH and Concentration of To-
tal solid, are some of the factors that affected the volume yield of biogas produc-
tion. The biogas yield was dependent on the temperature of the environment
where the digester was placed. The pH on the other hand was affected by the

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 27 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

Carbon:Nitrogen (C:N) ratio of the mixed substrates. An increase in the amount

of gas produced with respect to the retention time of twenty-five (25) days,
yielding a reasonable amount of gas. The quantity and quality of biogas pro-
duced after the 25th day makes the biomass to be regarded as the best mixture
and the best C:N ratio for optimized biogas production. In conclusion, the
mixed substrates produced biogas faster than other substrates in mixture when
compared to findings from literatures. The cost of production of the digester was
N38, 805.75; this is considered a price affordable to the lower and middle class.
One of the limitations to the research and adoption of technology is the availa-
bility and regular supply of feedstock.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] Adebayo, A., Adeleke, S., Tiekuro, E. and Omugbe, E. (2019) The Production of
Biogas from Cow Dung for Powering a Motor Vehicle Tyre Tube. Journal of Energy
Research and Reviews, 2, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.9734/jenrr/2019/v2i229733
[2] Gujba, H., Mulugetta, Y. and Azapagic, A. (2015) The Household Cooking Sector in
Nigeria: Environmental and Economic Sustainability Assessment. Resources, 4,
412-433. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources4020412
[3] Ofoefule, A.U., Uzodinma, E.O. and Onukwuli, O.D. (2009) Biogas Development in
Africa. International Journal of Physical Science, 4, 535-539.
[4] Lawal, A.K., Ajuebor, F.N. and Ojosu, J.O. (2001) Characteristic of Piggery Wastes
Feeds Stock for Determination of Design Parameters to Biogas Digester Plant. Ni-
gerian Journal of Research and Review in Science, 2, 193-198.
[5] Onwuliri, F.C., Onyimba, I.A. and Nwaukwu, I.A. (2013) Generation of Biogas from
Cow Dung. Bioremediation and Biodegradation, S18, 002.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6199.S18-002
[6] Ajiboye, A.V., Lasisi, K.H. and Babatola, J.O. (2018) Evaluation of the Effect of So-
dium Hydroxide Solution on Biogas Yield of Anaerobic Digestion of Poultry Waste
and the Digestate. International Journal of Energy and Water Resources, 2, 23-31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-018-0003-2
[7] Otun, T.F., Ojo, O.M., Ajibade, F.O. and Babatola, J.O. (2015) Evaluation of Biogas
Production from the Digestion and Co-Digestion of Animal Waste, Food Waste
and Fruit Waste. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Research, 3,
12-24.
[8] EIA (2016) United State Energy Information Administration. Country Analysis
Brief: Nigeria.
https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis_includes/countries_long/Nigeria/ni
geria.pdf
[9] Babatola, J.O. (2008) Comparative Study of Biogas Yield Pattern in Some Animal
and Household Wastes. African Research Review, 2, 54-68.
https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v2i4.41081
[10] Musa, B. and Raji, H.M. (2016) Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Biogas

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 28 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

Produces from Three Organic Wastes. International Journal of Renewable Energy

Research, 6, 299-305.
[11] Nwankwo, C.S., Eze, J.I. and Okoyeuzu, C. (2017) Design and Fabrication of 3.60
m3 Household Plastic Bio Digester Loaded with Kitchen Waste and Cow Dung for
Biogas Generation. Scientific Research and Essays, 12, 130-141.
https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE2017.6516
[12] National Bureau of Statistics (2018) Nigerian Gross Domestic Product Report (Q4
and Full Year 2017).
[13] Okewale, A.O., Omoruwuo, F. and Ojaigho, R.O. (2016) Alternative Energy Pro-
duction for Environmental Sustainability. British Journal of Renewable Energy, 1,
18-22. https://doi.org/10.1051/rees/2016040
[14] Chibueze, U., Okorie, N., Oriaku, O., Isu, J. and Peters, E. (2017) The Production of
Biogas Using Cow Dung and Food Waste. International Journal of Materials and
Chemistry, 7, 21-24.
[15] MWPS (2000) Manure Characteristics. Mid-West Plan Service MWPS-18.
[16] Dioha, I.J., Ikeme, C.H., Nafi’u, T., Soba, N.I. and Yusuf, M.B.S. (2013) Effect of
Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio on Biogas Production. International Research Journal of
Natural Sciences, 1, 1-10.
[17] Nnabuchi, M.N., Akubuko, F.O., Augustine, C. and Ugwu, G.Z. (2012) Assessment
of the Effect of Co-Digestion of Chicken Dropping and Cow Dung on Biogas Gen-
eration. International Research Journal of Engineering Science, Technology and
Innovation, 1, 238-243.
[18] Ogur, E.O. and Irungu, P. (2013) Design of a Biogas Generator. International Jour-
nal of Engineering Research and Applications, 3, 630-635.
[19] Wu, X., Yao, W., Zhu, J. and Miller, C. (2010) Biogas and CH4 Productivity by
Co-Digesting Swine Manure with Three Crop Residues as an External Carbon
Source. Bioresource Technology, 101, 4042-4047.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.052
[20] McCarty, P.L. and Mosey, F.E. (1991) Modelling of Anaerobic Digestion Processes.
Water Science & Technology, 24, 17-33. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.1991.0216
[21] De Baere, L. (2000) Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste: State-of-the-Art. Water
Science and Technology, 41, 283-290. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2000.0082
[22] Manyi-Loh, C.E., Mamphwell, S.N., Meyer, E.L., Okoh, A.I., Makaka, G. and Simon,
M. (2013) Microbial Anaerobic Digestion (Bio-Digesters) as an Approach to the
Decontamination of Animal Wastes in Pollution Control and the Generation of
Renewable Energy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 10, 4390-4417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10094390
[23] Deublein, D.A. (2008) Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources: An Introduc-
tion. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken.
[24] Mata-Alvarez, J. (2003) Fundamentals of the Anaerobic Digestion Process. In: Ma-
ta-Alvarez, J., Ed., Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid
Wastes, IWA Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 202-209.
[25] Meegoda, J.N., Li, B., Patel, K. and Wang, L.B. (2018) A Review of the Processes,
Parameters, and Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion. International Journal of En-
vironmental Research and Public Health, 15, 2224.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102224
[26] Roddy, D.J. (2012) Biomass and Biofuels—Introduction. In: Sayigh, A., Ed., Com-
prehensive Renewable Energy, Elsevier, Hoboken, 1-9.

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 29 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-087872-0.00501-1
[27] Christy, P.M., Gopinath, L.R. and Divya, D. (2014) Microbial Dynamics during
Anaerobic Digestion of Cow Dung. International Journal of Plant, Animal and En-
vironmental Sciences, 4, 86-94.
[28] Azman, S. (2016) Anaerobic Digestion of Cellulose and Hemiceullose in the Pres-
ence of Humic Acids. Wageningen University, Wageningen.
[29] Kigozi, R., Aboyade, A. and Muzenda, E. (2014) Biogas Production Using the Or-
ganic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste as Feedstock. International Journal of Re-
search in Chemical, Metallurgical and Civil Engineering, 1, 54-64.
[30] Ukpai, P.A. and Nnabuchi, M.N. (2012) Comparative Study of Biogas Production
from Cow Dung, Cow Pea and Cassava Peeling Using 45 Litres Biogas Digester.
Advances in Applied Science Research, 3, 1864-1869.
[31] Aladjadjiyan, A., Penkov, D., Verspecht, A., Zahariev, A. and Kakanakov, N. (2016)
Biobased Fertilizers—Comparison of Nutrient Content of Digestate/Compost.
Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, 8, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.9734/JAERI/2016/25217
[32] Hansen, C.L. and Cheong, D.Y. (2013) Agricultural Waste Management in Food
Processing. In: Kutz, M., Ed., Handbook of Farm, Dairy, and Food Machinery En-
gineering, Academic Press, Cambridge, 609-661.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385881-8.00023-9
[33] House, D. (2006) Complete Biogas Handbook. 3rd Edition, House Press, Culver City,
CA, USA, 288 p.
[34] Gallert, C. and Winder, J. (2005) Bacterial Metabolism in Wastewater Treatment
System. In: Jördening, H.J. and Winter, J., Eds., Environmental Biotechnology:
Concepts and Applications, Wiley VCH, Weinheim, Chapter 1.
https://doi.org/10.1002/3527604286.ch1
[35] Stams, A.J.M. and Plugge, C.M. (2009) Electron Transfer in Syntrophic Communi-
ties of Anaerobic Bacteria and Archaea. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 7, 568-577.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2166
[36] Oyeleke, S.B., Onigbajo, H.O. and Ibrahim, K. (2003) Degradation of Animal
Wastes (Cattle Dung) to Produce Methane (Cooking Gas). Proceeding of the Eighth
Annual Conference of Animal Science Association of Nigeria, Enugu, 12-15 Sep-
tember, 168-169.
[37] Deepanraj, B., Sivasubramanian, V. and Jayaraj, S. (2014) Solid Concentration In-
fluence on Biogas Yield from Food Waste in an Anaerobic Batch Digester. Pro-
ceeding on International Conference and Utility Exhibition on Green Energy for
Sustainable Development, Pattaya, 19-21 March 2014, 1-4.
[38] Gaby, J.C., Zamanzadeh, M. and Horn, S.J. (2017) The Effect of Temperature and
Retention Time on Methane Production and Microbial Community Composition in
Staged Anaerobic Digesters Fed with Food Waste. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 10,
302. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-017-0989-4
[39] Verspecht, A. and Buysse, J. (2012) Improved Nutrient and Energy Management
through Anaerobic Digestion.
https://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/289/289712/final1-summary-inemad-final.pdf
[40] Okewale, A.O., Omoruwou, F. and Anih, C.E. (2018) Production of Biogas from
Co-Digestion of Cow Dung, Saw Dust and Maize Husk. Advances in Chemical En-
gineering and Science, 8, 113-123. https://doi.org/10.4236/aces.2018.83008
[41] Nkoi, B., Lebele-Alawa, B.T. and Odobeatu, B. (2018) Design and Fabrication of a
Modified Portable Biogas Digester for Renewable Cooking-Gas Production. Euro-

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 30 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

 O. O. Olanrewaju, O. O. Olubanjo

pean Journal of Engineering Research and Science, 3, 21-29.

https://doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2018.3.3.647
[42] Vögeli, Y., Lohri, C.R., Gallardo, A., Diener, S. and Zurbrügg, C. (2014) Anaerobic
Digestion of Biowaste in Developing Countries—Practical Information and Case
Studies. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/2014-biowaste-eawag.pdf

DOI: 10.4236/ijcce.2019.82002 31 International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy

View publication stats