Abstract

The present study assessed the feasibility of producing producing biogas from fallen
tree leaves. This study provides valuable insights into utilizing locally available
organic waste materials for biogas production and contributes to developing
sustainable biogas systems. Four species of tree leaves, namely Jackfruit (Artocarpus
heterophyllus), Mango (Mangifera indica), Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), and
Teak (Tectona grandis) were selected for this experiment. The study employed co-
digestion as a strategy, with cow-dung (Bos taurus) at 1% (w/v) added to the leaf
mixture. Urea was used to control the pH of the mix, and the experiment was
conducted in 2-litre digester bottles. The results revealed that the biogas yield from
the tree leaves was highly dependent on the species used. Teak leaves had the highest
methane yield at 64.3%, followed by Jackfruit leaves at 62.2%, and the lowest yield
was observed from Mango leaves. Adding of cow-dung to the mixture of tree leaves
enabled the biogas yield, confirming the significance of co-digestion for biogas
production. The study also found that pH control was crucial in optimizing biogas
yield, with urea effectively maintaining the pH within the desired range of 5.5 to 7.3.
1 Introduction

Renewable energy is becoming increasingly important as the world faces the

challenges of climate change and the need for sustainable energy sources. Biogas,
produced through anaerobic digestion, is a clean and renewable source of energy that
reduces greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to a more sustainable energy
system. In addition, the development of biogas and renewable energy systems can
also stimulate local economic growth and create job opportunities in rural areas. It is
essential to support the development of biogas and renewable energy systems in
Nigeria to help address the country's energy needs and contribute to a more
sustainable future

In Nigeria, fallen tree leaves are abundant in rural areas, with an energy shortage.
These leaves can be used as feed stocks for biogas production, providing a locally
available and sustainable energy source for rural communities. Using fallen tree
leaves for biogas production can help reduce waste, improve rural livelihoods, and
contribute to the overall energy security of the country.

Anaerobic digestion (AD), which entails decomposing complex organic matter (OM)
by various anaerobic microorganisms without oxygen, produces biogas. Methane
(CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and many other trace gases and impurities comprise
most of the biogas' chemical makeup. Biogas has a unique gas composition that
depends on the type of plant and substrate used and is only partially controllable.
However, as the methane concentration rises disproportionately towards the end of
the residence time, the AD process gets better with longer exposure times.

In the first stage, hydrolysis, complex organic compounds in the leaves are broken
down into simple sugars, amino acids, and fatty acids. In the acidogenesis stage, the
simple organic compounds are converted into volatile fatty acids (VFAs). In the
acetogenesis stage, the VFAs are further converted into acetic acid, CO2, and
hydrogen gas

Finally, in the methanogenesis stage, the acetic acid is converted into methane by
methanogenic bacteria.
The selection of leaves for the experiment was based on their availability and the
feasibility of collecting fallen leaves during specific seasons. Bangladesh has a high
abundance of tree species, and Mahogany, Teak, and Mango were identified as
among the most commonly available based on Drake et al.

The study by Md Hasanuzzaman et al. showed that Mahogany and Mango Trees
produced the highest volume of leaf litter.

The proximate analysis of Abiodun Bukunmi Aborisade et al on various plant leaves

indicated that Indian Coral Flower, Mango, and Jackfruit had the highest percentage
of organic matter.Thus, Mango, Jackfruit, Mahogany, and Teak were selected for this
experiment based on the criteria of availability and organic matter content Creating a
suitable environment for microorganism growth is critical for effective methane
generation. Previous research has indicated that pH values below 5.5 or above 7.4
negatively impact methane production . Zhou J et al. suggested that pH 7 is the most
optimal value for methane production. The addition of urea has been proven to
positively affect methane production from biomass by Liu and Ge

The next challenge in biogas production is finding the appropriate sample preparation
ratio. SP Jena et al. found that a 50g sample with a 500mL slurry solution yielded the
best results in terms of methane production, while MA Rouf et al. determined that a
6% pre-treated leaf sample with 2% cow dung was the optimal ratio for maximum
methane production.

Co-digestion is a process in which multiple feedstocks are combined and digested

together. This method can potentially increase biogas production as the
microorganisms involved in the digestion process can utilize the nutrients and energy
present in different feedstocks .

Co-digestion also has the added benefit of increasing the stability of the digestion
process and reducing the risk of process failure due to the presence of inhibitory
compounds. In addition, co-digestion can help to reduce the overall cost of biogas
production as it uses a broader range of locally available organic waste materials

Co-digestion has been acknowledged for its various advantages; however, an

incompatible feedstock mixing ratio can result in organic overloading, acidification,
and system failure, causing antagonistic effects.To overcome these challenges, it is
necessary to characterize the heterogeneous organic compounds in digester
feedstocks and understand their intrinsic biodegradability patterns.

The current literature on co-digestion primarily focuses on process

engineering ,microbial community structure, or individual feedstocks.

However, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding the compatibility of co-fed

substrates, particularly regarding the feasibility of co-digesting cow-manure with
various types of leaves. To address this gap, we conducted a study investigating the
compatibility of different co-fed substrates and their impact on the anaerobic
digestion process. Our findings offer valuable insight into identifying compatible co-
feedstocks for optimal organic waste management and guide future research
directions

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Leaves collection and processing

Leaves that had fallen in the vicinity of the campus were collected, sorted, and four
distinct types of leaves, namely Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), Mango
(Mangifera indica), Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), and Teak (Tectona grandis),
were selected for the experiment. The leaves were dried for 3 days to eliminate any
residual moisture. Subsequently, the dried leaves were pulverized into small particles
of 5mm diameter using a blender. The reduced particle size enhanced the surface area
of the leaves, thereby facilitating improved bacterial contact and subsequent
digestion. Fallen Leaves were collected from around the campus. The leaves were
sorted and four types of leaves were separated for the experiment, Jackfruit
(Artocarpus heterophyllus), Mango (Mangifera indica), Mahogany (Swietenia
macrophylla), and Teak (Tectona grandis). Then the leaves were dried for 3 days, so
that any exterior water particles could dry up. The leaves were smashed and ground to
small 5mm particles using a blender. The fine size of the particle allowed the bacteria
to have a greater contact area thus better digestion. The schematic of the digester
setup is shown in Fig. 1. It has two channel bottle cap. Both the channels are
connected with two way valve to enable us purging the air out of the bottle and
connecting to the analyzer for gas composition

Fig 1. Schematic Diagram of the Digester Setup

2.2 Digester construction

A plastic bottle with a capacity of 2 litres has been analyzed. The bottle
exhibits an overall height of 31.5 cm (12.4 inches) and a diameter of 11 cm
(4.33 inches). The bottle’s interior features two directional control valves,
which are fitted with full seals to prevent biogas from escaping into the
ambient atmosphere.

2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Experimental setup

A single bottle setup was established to investigate the presence of methane

in a plastic digester. To this end, a mixture of 50g leaf samples and 500 mL
of a 2% urea solution was prepared, as this ratio yielded optimal results. The
500 mL solution was then transferred into the plastic digestors. The bottles
were tightened to remove air using a vacuum pump and then kept inside the
box, covered with a black cloth at 35°C.

2.3.2 Start-up

The leaf water and urea mixture were transferred into the digestor and
vacuumed using a pump to initiate the digestion. It was kept for 30 days and
the gas percentage was monitored.

2.3.3 Inoculum: cow dung preparation

Cow-dung was collected and stored in a sealed plastic tank for 30 days to
facilitate the growth of bacteria. The tank was maintained under
atmospheric conditions to promote mesophilic conditions for the bacteria.
After 30 days, 5g of the cultured cow-dung was added to the plastic
digester, under monitoring. The storage of the cow-dung allowed the
bacteria to adapt to mesophilic conditions. At the same time, the addition to
the digester aimed to evaluate the impact of the bacteria on the system’s
functioning [20]. The 30-day storage period was deemed necessary for
optimal bacterial growth and adaptation.

2.3.4 Slurry preparation

Different reactors were used to digest other leaves as shown in Table 1.
Urea was added to maintain the C/N ratio and the pH level.

Table 1.Slurry preparation for digestors

Amount of Inoculum
Digestor Sample Urea after

30 days

Digestor 1 Mango Leaves 1g Urea 5g Cow-dung

Digestor 2 Teak Leaves 1g Urea 5g Cow-dung

Digestor 3 Jackfruit Leaves 1g Urea 5g Cow-dung

Digestor 4 Mahogany Leaves 1g Urea 5g Cow-dung

2.4 Data collection

Gasboard Analyzer-3200 Plus was used to analyze the gas at regular

intervals. For monitoring anaerobic digestion projects, Gasboard analyzer-
3200 plus is widely used. There are 4 different sensors, which are CH_4,
CO2, H2S, O2. The analyzer comes with companion software which allows
us to collect and store gas data. The data were recorded and stored using a
laptop. The data was taken for 45 days after the addition of cow-dung.
 3. Result and discussion

3.1. Biogas without inoculum

All the digestors were kept for 30 days for start-up. The gas was analyzed
during that period but no gas formation was observed. The leaves were not
showing many signs of digestion either. Methane Generation was observed
after the addition of Cow-dung as inoculum.

3.2. Biogas from mango leaves

Co-digestion of Mango Leaves and Cow-dung is shown in Fig.2. The

methane production was observed, but the percentage was deficient, at a
maximum of 7.48% after 15 days.

Fig 2. Concentration of CH4 and CO2 in Mango leaves Setup

 Fig 3. Concentration of CH4 and CO2 in Dry Teak Leaves Setup

3.3. Biogas from teak leaves

A co-digestion study was conducted using dry teak leaves and cow dung. As
shown in Fig. 3, the resulting mixture was monitored for methane production and
the results indicated a

5
production level of 64.3% methane, surpassing the minimum requirement of 60%
for utilization as fuel. The pH of the mixture was within the optimal range of 5-7
for methane production. The experiment demonstrated the potential for efficient
methane generation through the co-digestion of these organic waste materials.

3.4. Biogas from jackfruit leaves

This study investigated the co-digestion of dry jackfruit leaves and cow manure.
The results revealed in Fig. 4 that the successful generation of a desirable amount
of methane, with a content of 62.2%, surpassing the minimum requirement for
utilization as fuel. Additionally, the pH levels were maintained within the ideal
range of 5-7 for methane synthesis.

3.5 Biogas from Mahogany leaves

This experiment, which contained Dry Mahogany leaves and cow manure,
revealed co-digestion. This arrangement generated methane but not desired
amount. The methane level was 20.83% (<60%) as in the Fig. 5 depicted,
which is not adequate for burning as fuel. Although, the pH levels were
optimal for methane production, ranging from 5-7.
 Fig 4. Concentration of CH4 and CO2 in Jackfruit leaves Setup

Fig 5. Concentration of CH4 and CO2 in Mahogany Leaves Setup

4. Conclusion

By analyzing several parameters, this paper aimed to determine the best

method for producing biogas from leaves in Bangladesh. The experiment
centred on four distinct types of leaves: Jackfruit, mango, mahogany, and
teak. The type of leaves utilized in co-digestion substantially affects biogas
production. The methane production levels of teak and jackfruit leaves
exceeded 60%, whereas mango and mahogany leaves did not produce
desirable results. To determine the optimal conditions for maximum
methane production, the study considered various parameters, such as pH,
the addition of urea, and the sample preparation ratio. This study
demonstrated that using cow-dung inoculum improved the system's
functionality. This research contributes to developing sustainable energy
systems in Bangladesh by providing crucial insights into leaf biogas
production. Hopefully, this study will inspire additional research on
renewable energy sources and aid in addressing climate change-related
challenges. Researchers and policymakers in developing countries like
Bangladesh, where renewable energy sources are crucial for meeting the
rising energy demand and mitigating the adverse effects of climate change,
can use the findings as a reference.

References

1. M. S. Rahman, M. K. Majumder, and M. H. K. Sujan, “Adoption

determinants of biogas and its impact on poverty in Bangladesh,”
Energy Reports, vol. 7, pp. 5026– 5033, Nov. 2021, doi:
10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.08.027.

2. Avicenna, M. Mel, S. I. Ihsan, and R. H. Setyobudi, “Process

Improvement of Biogas Production from Anaerobic Co-digestion of
Cow Dung and Corn Husk,” Procedia
Chem, vol. 14, pp. 91–100, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.proche.2015.03.014.

3. S. Harirchi et al., “Microbiological insights into anaerobic digestion for

biogas, hydrogen or volatile fatty acids (VFAs): a review,”
Bioengineered, vol. 13, no. 3, pp.
6521–6557, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1080/21655979.2022.2035986.

4. D. Hocking, A. Hocking, and K. Islam, “Trees on farms in Bangladesh,”

Agroforestry
Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 231–247, Mar. 1996, doi: 10.1007/BF00055425.

5. Md. Hasanuzzaman and M. Hossain, “Leaf Litter Decomposition and

Nutrient
 Dynamics Associated with Common Horticultural Cropland Agroforest
Tree Species of Bangladesh,” International Journal of Forestry
Research, vol. 2014, pp. 1–10, 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/805940.

6. A. Bukunmi Aborisade, “Phytochemical and Proximate Analysis of

Some Medicinal Leaves,” Clin Med Res (N Y), vol. 6, no. 6, p. 209,
2017, doi:
10.11648/j.cmr.20170606.16.

7. B. F. Staley, F. L. de los Reyes, and M. A. Barlaz, “Effect of Spatial

Differences in Microbial Activity, pH, and Substrate Levels on
Methanogenesis Initiation in Refuse,” Appl Environ Microbiol, vol. 77,
no. 7, pp. 2381–2391, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1128/AEM.02349-10.

8. J. Zhou et al., “Biogas production and microbial community shift

through neutral pH control during the anaerobic digestion of pig
manure,” Bioresour Technol, vol. 217, pp. 44–49, Oct. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.077.

9. S. Liu, X. Ge, L. N. Liew, Z. Liu, and Y. Li, “Effect of urea addition on

giant reed ensilage and subsequent methane production by anaerobic
digestion,” Bioresour
Technol, vol. 192, pp. 682–688, Sep. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.03
10. S. P. Jena, S. Mishra, S. K. Acharya, and S. K. Mishra, “An
experimental approach to produce biogas from semi dried banana
leaves,” Sustainable Energy Technologies and
Assessments, vol. 19, pp. 173–178, Feb. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.seta.2017.01.001.

11. M. Rouf, M. Islam, T. Rabeya, and A. Mondal, “Anaerobic digestion of

mixed dried fallen leaves by mixing with cow dung,” Bangladesh
Journal of Scientific and

Industrial Research, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 163–168, Nov. 2015, doi:
10.3329/bjsir.v50i3.25579.

12. K. Hagos, J. Zong, D. Li, C. Liu, and X. Lu, “Anaerobic co-digestion

process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and perspectives,”
Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, vol. 76, pp. 1485–1496, Sep. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184.

13. S. Pavi, L. E. Kramer, L. P. Gomes, and L. A. S. Miranda, “Biogas

production from co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste
and fruit and vegetable waste,”

Bioresour Technol, vol. 228, pp. 362–367, Mar. 2017, doi:

10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.003.
14. T. Kunatsa and X. Xia, “A review on anaerobic digestion with focus on
the role of biomass co-digestion, modelling and optimisation on biogas
production and enhancement,” Bioresour Technol, vol. 344, p. 126311,
Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2021.126311.

15. W. L. Chow et al., “Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Wastewater Sludge: A

Review of Potential Co-Substrates and Operating Factors for Improved
Methane Yield,”
Processes, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 39, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.3390/pr8010039.

16. S. Xie, M. J. Higgins, H. Bustamante, B. Galway, and L. D. Nghiem,

“Current status and perspectives on anaerobic co-digestion and
associated downstream processes,”

Environ Sci (Camb), vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 1759–1770, 2018, doi:
10.1039/C8EW00356D.

17. R. Xu et al., “A critical review on the interaction of substrate nutrient

balance and microbial community structure and function in anaerobic
co-digestion,” Bioresour Technol, vol. 247, pp. 1119–1127, Jan. 2018,
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.095.

18. S. Mehariya, A. K. Patel, P. K. Obulisamy, E. Punniyakotti, and J. W. C.

Wong, “Co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge for methane
production: Current status and perspective,” Bioresour Technol, vol.
265, pp. 519–531, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2018.04.030.

19. V. K. Tyagi, L. A. Fdez-Güelfo, Y. Zhou, C. J. Álvarez-Gallego, L. I. R.

Garcia, and W. J. Ng, “Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of
municipal solid waste
 (OFMSW): Progress and challenges,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol.

93, pp. 380–399, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.051.

20. A. Kasinath et al., “Biomass in biogas production: Pretreatment and

codigestion,”

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 150, p. 111509, Oct.

2021, doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2021.111509.