Issue

Vol. 34 No. 10 (2022): Vol 34 Issue 10, 2022

Copyright (c) 2022 AJC

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kinetic Modeling of Peroxydisulfate Pre-Treatment of Algae Slurry (Pasir Gudang, Malaysia) for Increasing Methane Generation from Anaerobic Digestion: Fertilizer Recovery

https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2022.23809
Md. Nurul Islam Siddique
Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology & Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
B.K. Zaied
Faculty of Civil Engineering Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), 26300 Gambang, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia
Mohd. Zamri Bin Ibrahim
Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology & Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
W.B. Wan Nik
Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology & Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
Noraaini Binti Ali
Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology & Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia
Nazaitul Shila Rasit
Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology & Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), 21030 Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, Malaysia

Corresponding Author(s) : Md. Nurul Islam Siddique

m.nurul@umt.edu.my

Asian Journal of Chemistry, Vol. 34 No. 10 (2022): Vol 34 Issue 10, 2022

Abstract

This study looked into the possibility of using peroxydisulfate pretreatment to enhance biogas production from anaerobic fermentation of algal slurry. The results demonstrate that a peroxydisulfate added system with a dose of 0.02 g peroxydisulfate/g algal sludge TSS produces the most accumulative methane after 61 days of fermentation. At 0.02, 0.03, 0.06, 0.2, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 g peroxydisulfate/g algal sludge TSS cumulative methane generation was 1.16, 1.09, 1.15, 1.14, 1.09, 0.77, and 0.16 times higher than control. After 120 minutes of pre-treatment, the SCOD in the system continued to rise when the peroxydisulfate dosage was enhanced. To simulate the methane yield, a one-substrate model might be utilized. After dosing with peroxydisulfate, the hydrolysis rate reduced, and the maximum resultant and anticipated cumulative methane output was achieved with 0.02 g peroxydisulfate/g algal sludge TSS. After digestion, microcystin-LR in algae slurry was mostly eliminated. Heavy metals could be released from algae cells into the effluent as a result of the greater peroxydisulfate dosage. From the fermented effluent, sludge recapture was 0.09 m3 sludge/m3. The supplementation of peroxydisulfate to algae slurry may boost cumulative methane generation while also lowering microcystin-LR levels.

Keywords

Anaerobic digestion Algae slurry Methane Peroxydisulfate Microcystin-LR
Nurul Islam Siddique, M., Zaied, B., Zamri Bin Ibrahim, M., Wan Nik, W., Binti Ali, N., & Shila Rasit, N. (2022). Kinetic Modeling of Peroxydisulfate Pre-Treatment of Algae Slurry (Pasir Gudang, Malaysia) for Increasing Methane Generation from Anaerobic Digestion: Fertilizer Recovery. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 34(10), 2725–2731. https://doi.org/10.14233/ajchem.2022.23809
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. R.E.C. Amaral, J. Brito, M. Buckman, E. Drake, E. Ilatova, P. Rice, C. Sabbagh, S. Voronkin and Y.S. Abraham, Sustainability, 12, 5337 (2020); https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135337
  2. T. Wiedmann, M. Lenzen, L.T. Keyßer and J.K. Steinberger, Nat. Commun., 11, 3107 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y
  3. M.N.I. Siddique, M.S. Abdul Munaim and A.W. Zularisam, J. Clean. Prod., 106, 380 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.003
  4. P.K. Sadh, S. Duhan and J.S. Duhan, Bioresour. Bioprocess., 5, 1 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-017-0187-z
  5. W.W. McNeary and L.E. Erickson, J. Environ. Protec., 4, 9 (2013); https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013.411A002
  6. D. Liu, P. Wang, G. Wei, W. Dong and F. Hui, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 20, 60 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1052-4
  7. A.J. Ward, D.M. Lewis and F.B. Green, Algal Res., 5, 204 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.02.001
  8. M.N. Islam Siddique, Z.B. Khalid and M.Z.B. Ibrahim, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 8, 103569 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103569
  9. M.N.I. Siddique and Z.A. Wahid, Water Environ. Res., 90, 835 (2018); https://doi.org/10.2175/106143017X15131012153031
  10. S. Bleakley and M. Hayes, Foods, 6, 33 (2017); https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6050033
  11. L. Machado, G. Carvalho and R.N. Pereira, Biomass, 2, 80 (2022); https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass2020006
  12. T. Garoma and R.E. Yazdi, BMC Plant Biol., 19, 18 (2019);https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-018-1614-9
  13. Z.B. Khalid, M.N.I. Siddique, A. Nayeem, T.M. Adyel, S.B. Ismail and M.Z. Ibrahim, J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 9, 105489 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105489
  14. Y. Wan, X. Chen, Q. Liu, H. Hu, C. Wu and Q. Xue, Environ. Pollut., 293, 118586 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118586
  15. T. Hou, J. Zhao, Z. Lei, K. Shimizu and Z. Zhang, J. Clean. Prod., 314, 127942 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127942
  16. Z. Chen, J. Li, M. Chen, K.Y. Koh, Z. Du, K.Y.-H. Gin, Y. He, C.N. Ong and J.P. Chen, Water Res., 201, 117263 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117263
  17. X.-Y. Pei, H.-Y. Ren, G.-S. Liu, G.-L. Cao, G.-J. Xie, D.-F. Xing, N.- Q. Ren and B.-F. Liu, J. Hazard. Mater., 424, 127254 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127254
  18. C. Li, V. Goetz and S. Chiron, Sci. Total Environ., 806, 150768 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150768
  19. R. Li, M. Cai, Z. Xie, Q. Zhang, Y. Zeng, H. Liu, G. Liu and W. Lv, Appl. Catal. B, 244, 974 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2018.12.043
  20. R. Li, J. Kong, H. Liu, P. Chen, Y. Su, G. Liu and W. Lv, Chem. Eng. J., 331, 809 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.025
  21. S. Vinardell, S. Astals, K. Koch, J. Mata-Alvarez and J. Dosta, Bioresour. Technol., 330, 124978 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124978
  22. A. González-González, F. Cuadros, A. Ruiz-Celma and F. LópezRodríguez, Bioresour. Technol., 136, 109 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.031
  23. H. Zhou, D. Lu, S. Fang, C. Liu, Y. Chen, Y. Hu and Q. Luo, J. Environ. Manage., 287, 112294 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112294
  24. A. Singh, R. Sharma, D. Pant and P. Malaviya, Sci. Total Environ., 774, 145676 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145676
  25. Z. Zahan and M.Z. Othman, Bioresour. Technol., 281, 286 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.01.129
  26. S.D. Neve, S. Sleutel, S. Sleutel and G. Hofman, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst., 67, 13 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025113425069
  27. J.W.R. Chong, G.Y. Yew, K.S. Khoo, S.-H. Ho and P.L. Show, J. Environ. Manage., 293, 112782 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112782
  28. X. Li, G. Fang, L. Chen, R. Guo, D. Zou and Y. Liu, Biomass Bioenergy, 154, 106216 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106216
  29. R. Zhang, X. Lu, Y. Tan, T. Cai, Y. Han, D. Kudisi, C. Niu, Z. Zhang, W. Li and G. Zhen, Bioresour. Technol., 339, 125547 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125547
  30. Y. Li, Z. Wang, Z. Jiang, L. Feng, J. Pan, M. Zhu, C. Ma, Z. Jing, H. Jiang, H. Zhou, H. Sun and H. Liu, Bioresour. Technol., 344, 126353 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126353
  31. C. Yu, H. Pang, J.-H. Wang, Z.-Y. Chi, Q. Zhang, F.-T. Kong, Y.-P. Xu, S.-Y. Li and J. Che, Sci. Total Environ., 813, 151891 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151891
  32. J. Dou, J. Cheng, Z. Lu, Z. Tian, J. Xu and Y. He, Appl. Catal. B, 301, 120832 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2021.120832
  33. P. Malik and S.K. Saha, Sep. Purif. Technol., 31, 241 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5866(02)00200-9
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1 Download : 1