Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Appraising different models for predicting biomethane potential: the case of avocado oil processing by-products

  • NOTE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomethane potentials (BMPs) for avocado oil processing by-products were determined using six different theoretical BMP prediction models and results were compared with empirical values found in literature. The by-products were classified as kernels, skins, decanter pomace and decanter wastewater prior to physicochemical characterisation and BMP calculation of individual by-products. The estimated BMP values for the different by-products ranged between 152 and 889 mLCH4/gVS using the different prediction models across substrates. These values compare favourably with biomethane potentials for popular biogas plant substrates such as cow manure and food waste-based floatable oil whose biomethane potentials are 150 and 847 mLCH4/gVS, respectively. Results from the nutritional based and statistically derived canonical mixtures theoretical BMP prediction models for kernels (289 mLCH4/gVS) closely matched empirical values (284 mLCH4/gVS) from literature. We conclude that anaerobic digestion for biogas production can be preliminarily considered as a viable waste-to-energy technology option for managing avocado oil processing by-products. The statistically derived (nutritional based) theoretical BMP prediction models offer the best approach for evaluating these substrates’ candidature for biomethane production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Woolf A, Wong M, Eyres L, McGhie T, Lund C, Olsson S, Wang Y et al (2009) Avocado oil. In: Moreau AR, Kamal-Eldin A (eds) Gourmet and health-promoting specialty oils. AOCS Press, Urbana, pp 73–125

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Lindaclark (2018) Global avocado oil market 2018 research report with 2025 forecast overview. In: Area-info.net. https://area-info.net/global-avocado-oil-market-2018-research-report-with-2025-forecast-overview/. Accessed 19 May 2020

  3. Marketwatch (2020) Avocado oil market 2020 global industry analysis, emerging technology, top countries data, growth factors, future trends, definition, sales revenue by forecast to 2024. In: Press Release. https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release. Accessed 19 May 2020

  4. Wong M, Eyres L, Ravetti L (2014) Modern aqueous oil extraction—centrifugation systems for olive and avocado oils. In: Farr WE, Andrew P (eds) Green vegetable oil processing, 1st edn. AOCS Press, Urbana, pp 19–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Paul S, Dutta A, Defersha F, Dubey B (2018) Municipal food waste to biomethane and biofertilizer: a circular economy concept. Waste Biomass Valoris 9:601–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0014-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Spence A, Madrigal EB, Patil R, Fernandez YB (2019) Evaluation of anaerobic digestibility of energy crops and agricultural by-products. Bioresour Technol 5:243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2018.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vintila T, Ionel I, Fregue TTR, Wächter AR, Julean C, Gabche AS (2019) Residual biomass from food processing industry in Cameroon as feedstock for second-generation biofuels. BioResources 14:3731–3745. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.14.2.3731-3745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kenasa G, Kena E (2018) Optimization of biogas production from avocado fruit peel wastes co-digestion with animal manure collected from juice vending house in Gimbi Town, Ethiopia. Ferment Technol 07:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-7972.1000153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gebreeyessus GD, Demessie BA (2014) Towards a sustainable use of food waste: Influence of urea on biogas production potentials of selected fruit wastes in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 13:172–184. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2014.060200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Streitwieser DA, Cadena IA (2018) Preliminary study of biomethane production of organic waste based on their content of sugar, starch, lipid, protein and fibre. Chem Eng Trans 65:661–666. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1865111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Holliger C, Alves M, Andrade D, Angelidaki I, Astals S, Baier U, Bougrier, et al (2016) Towards a standardization of biomethane potential tests. Water Sci Technol 74:2515–2522. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. County K, Langat K, Njogu P, Kamau J (2018) Biogas energy potential from co-digestion of vvocado pulp with cow manure in Kaitui Location. Int Res J Innov Eng Technol 2:28–34

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hamilton DW (2016) OSU Fact Sheet BAE-1762, anaerobic digestion of animal manures: methane production potential of waste materials. In: Oklahoma State University. https://osufacts.okstate.edu. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  14. Speier VMCJ, Rose PMB, Pragadeesh MMMS (2019) Variations in generation of vegetable, fruit and flower market waste and effects on biogas production, exergy and energy contents. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 21:713–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jingura RM, Kamusoko R (2017) Methods for determination of biomethane potential of feedstocks: a review. Biofuel Res J 14:573–586. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2017.4.2.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Triolo JM, Ward AJ, Pedersen L, Sommer SG (2013) Characteristics of animal slurry as a key biomass for biogas production in Denmark. In: Biomass now—sustainable growth and use. Intech, pp 307–326. https://doi.org/10.5772/54424

  17. Thomsen TS, Spliid H, Østergård H (2014) Statistical prediction of biomethane potentials based on the composition of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 154:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. APHA/AWWA/WEF (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Stand. Methods 1-541

  19. Raposo F, de la Rubia MA, Borja R, Alaiz M (2008) Assessment of a modified and optimised method for determining chemical oxygen demand of solid substrates and solutions with high suspended solid content. Talanta 76:448–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.03.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Raposo F, Fernández-Cegrí V, Rubia MA, Borja R, Béline F, Cavinato C, Demirer G et al (2011) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: Evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 86:1088–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Naroznova I, Møller J, Scheutz C (2016) Characterisation of the biochemical methane potential (BMP) of individual material fractions in Danish source-separated organic household waste. Waste Manag 50:39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Soest PJ (1963) Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds II. A rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. J Assoc Off Agric Chem 46:829–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jobling Purser BJ, Thai SM, Fritz T, Esteves SR, Dindale RM, Guwy AJ (2014) An improved titration model reducing over estimation of total volatile fatty acids in anaerobic digestion of energy crop, animal slurry and food waste. Water Res 61:162–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nielfa A, Cano R, Fdz-Polanco M (2015) Theoretical methane production generated by the codigestion of organic municipal solid waste and biological sludge. Biotechnol Rep 5:14–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rashama C, Ijoma G, Matambo T (2019) Biogas generation from by-products of edible oil processing: a review of opportunities, challenges and strategies. Biomass Convers Biorefin 9:803–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-019-00385-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boontian N (2014) Conditions of the anaerobic digestion of biomass. Int J Environ Ecol Eng 8:1036–1040

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lüttge U (2013) Fat-carbohydrate-protein: storage in plant seeds. Lipid Technol 25:79–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/lite.201300266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Achinas S, Euverink GJW (2016) Theoretical analysis of biogas potential prediction from agricultural waste. Resour Technol 2:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davidsson Å, Gruvberger C, Christensen TH, Hansen TL, Jansen JC (2007) Methane yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 27:406–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Strömberg S, Nistor M, Liu J (2014) Towards eliminating systematic errors caused by the experimental conditions in biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests. Waste Manag 34:1939–1948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ozbayram EG, Ince O, Kleinsteuber S, Ince B (2016) Anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and barley: effect of cow manure to barley ratio on methane production and digestion stability. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 35:589–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12250

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the South African Department of Science and Innovation (DSI) Grant number DST/CON 0197/2017 as well as the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) Grant number 2018/FUN/0166. Assistance in terms of laboratory space offered by University of South Africa (UNISA), University of Johannesburg (UJ) and Agricultural Research Council of South Africa (ARC) is gratefully appreciated. Opinions expressed and conclusions reached are those of the authors and not necessarily endorsed by the DSI, TIA, UNISA, UJ and ARC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Development of Energy for African Sustainability (IDEAS), 5th Floor, PhaPha Building, Cnr Pioneer and Christian De Wet Roads, Private Bag X6, Florida, 1710, South Africa

    Charles Rashama, Grace N. Ijoma & Tonderayi S. Matambo

Authors
  1. Charles Rashama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace N. Ijoma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tonderayi S. Matambo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Rashama.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rashama, C., Ijoma, G.N. & Matambo, T.S. Appraising different models for predicting biomethane potential: the case of avocado oil processing by-products. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23, 409–415 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01116-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01116-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation