BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM COW, HORSE AND CAMEL MANURES WITH DIFFERENT MIXTURE RATES BY ANAEROBİC FERMANTATION

Authors

  • Nurlan AKHMETOV Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Çevre Bilimleri Anabilim Dalı
  • İrfan AR

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10072561

Keywords:

Alternative Energy, Anaerobic Digestion, Animal Manures, Biogas

Abstract

In this study, experiments were carried out in order to determine the amount of biogas to be obtained by using cow, horse and camel manure in different mixing ratios in biogas production and optimum mixing rates in terms of biogas production. Laboratory-scale anaerobic fermentation experiments were carried out in laboratory in 500 mL glass bottles by batch fermentation method. The experiments were carried out under mesophilic temperature conditions (35 °C) for 34 days. In the experiments, 4% dry matter ratio, 10% inoculation rate and 3 different fertilizers and 10 different composition mixtures were formed. As a result of the data obtained from the experiments, it was determined that the highest biogas production was obtained with R7 mL with dry matter ratio of 4%, cow and horse manure ratio (50/50) and grafting rate of 10% with 192 mL / day. It was observed that the methane (CH4) content of the biogas obtained from the experiments varied between 2% and 46%. Despite the low biogas production, the highest methane (CH4) yield was obtained from R2 sample with 46% dry matter 4%, 100% horse manure and 10% inoculation rate. For biogas production under mesophilic conditions, the pH range should be between 6.8 - 7.8. Therefore, the pH of the reactor was controlled and no significant decrease in the pH ratio was observed. The pH value of all reactors was kept within the ideal range mentioned above, there were no conditions requiring intervention in the reactors for 34 days.

Published

2019-05-18

How to Cite

AKHMETOV, N. ., & AR, İrfan. (2019). BIOGAS PRODUCTION FROM COW, HORSE AND CAMEL MANURES WITH DIFFERENT MIXTURE RATES BY ANAEROBİC FERMANTATION . EJONS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 3(12), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10072561