The study aimed to evaluate and compare the co-digestion of swine wastewater (SW) and other co-substrates: grass residue (GR), food waste (FW), and poultry litter (PL). The comparisons were performed using the biochemical methane potential (BMP) test. The maximum accumulated methane (CH4) production was submitted to a joint analysis of variance. Tukey’s test (α = 0.05) was used to compare the results of the treatments, and Dunnett’s test (α = 0.05) was used to compare the ratios (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75, and 0:100) (based on volatile solids—VS). In addition, both the synergistic effect and kinetic adjustment of some models were evaluated. The results indicated that the co-digestion of all substrates (GR, FW, and PL) with SW improved the methane production yield in comparison with mono-digestion (GR, FW, and PL). A positive synergistic effect was observed for the FW:SW (25:75 and 75:25). According to both Tukey’s and Dunnett’s tests (α = 0.05), the FW:SW ratio of 25:75 did not show statistical difference compared with the mono-digestion (SW), which exhibited the largest CH4 production. Among the models evaluated, the modified Gompertz function presented the best fit. For the co-digestion treatments, the ratio of FW:SW of 25:75 exhibited the most promising potential for integrated management, demonstrating the best synergistic effect among the substrates. In this context, methane production from co-digestion equalled that of mono-digestion, while enabling integrated residue management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sousa et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: