RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF PORTABLE ANAEROBIC DIGESTER (P.A.D.)

FOR DOMESTIC COOKING GAS GENERATION FROM RURAL HOUSEHOLD
FOOD WASTE AND COW MANURE

A Research Paper Presented to the

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Department

In Rizal Technological University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

In Mechanical Engineering Project Study 2

By:

Banagan, Madel M.

Bautista, Rose Ann L.

Bugaring, Jimuel C.

Cordova, Sean Verlimae M.

Fuentes, Jenelyn D.

Herrera, Jann Antoinette P.

Manalili, Johnry E.

2022
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

APPROVAL SHEET

i
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ii
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

ABSTRACT

iii
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET ................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................ ii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study ................................................................................... 3

Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 5

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 6

Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 7

Objectives of the Study ..................................................................................... 8

Significance of the Study................................................................................... 8

Scope and Delimitations of the Study................................................................ 9

Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Food Waste in General ................................................................................... 12

Food Waste in Philippines............................................................................... 13

Household Food Waste................................................................................... 13

Anaerobic Digestion ........................................................................................ 14

Anaerobic Digestion as Disposal Method for Food Waste ............................... 15

Various Designs of Anaerobic Digesters for Food Waste ................................ 16

iv
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Household Food Waste Management using Portable Anaerobic Digester....... 22

Biogas Production from Food Waste through Anaerobic Digestion ................. 22

Biogas as Cooking Gas................................................................................... 23

Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste with Additional Substrate

for Co-Digestion .............................................................................................. 26

Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manure ........................................................... 27

Cow Manure as Additive Substrate for Co-Digestion....................................... 30

Biogas from Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste

and Municipal Wastewater Sludge .................................................................. 32

Problems to Encounter from Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste

and Suggested Solutions ................................................................................ 35

Safety Precautions for Anaerobic Digester ...................................................... 36

Synthesis ........................................................................................................ 38

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Method............................................................................................ 39

Planning .......................................................................................................... 39

Data Gathering and Analysis of Data .............................................................. 40

Project Design ................................................................................................ 40

Control Narrative ............................................................................................. 42

Detailed Description ........................................................................................ 43

Construction.................................................................................................... 46

Materials and Specifications ........................................................................... 48

Testing ............................................................................................................ 49

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Statement of the Problem No. 1 ...................................................................... 52

v
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Statement of the Problem No. 2 ...................................................................... 54

Statement of the Problem No. 3 ...................................................................... 54

Statement of the Problem No. 4 ...................................................................... 56

Statement of the Problem No. 5 ...................................................................... 57

General Objective ........................................................................................... 58

Specific Objective No. 1 .................................................................................. 58

Specific Objective No. 2 .................................................................................. 59

Specific Objective No. 3 .................................................................................. 59

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings ...................................................................................... 60

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 61

Recommendations .......................................................................................... 62

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 63

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Illustrations/Figures ..................................................................... 72

Appendix B: User’s Manual ............................................................................. 74

Appendix C: Mathematical Calculation and Analysis ....................................... 76

Appendix D: Bill of Materials ........................................................................... 78

Appendix E: Curriculum Vitae ......................................................................... 80

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Materials and Specifications .................................................................... 49

Table 3.2. Amount of daily input food waste for a period of days .............................. 50

Table 3.3. Amount of biogas accumulated for a period of days ................................ 50

Table 3.4. Comparison of total cost between PAD

and industrial anaerobic digesters ............................................................ 50

vi
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Table 3.5. Comparison of output/input ratio between PAD

and industrial anaerobic digesters ............................................................ 51

Table 3.6. Percent decrease of landfilled of food waste if every household

utilizes PAD as disposal system for food waste........................................ 51

Table 4.1. Amount of daily input food waste for the first 10 days .............................. 52

Table 4.2. Amount of biogas accumulated for the first 5 days................................... 53

Table 4.3. Amount of biogas accumulated from 6th – 10th day of feeding ................ 53

Table 4.4. Comparison of total cost between PAD

and industrial anaerobic digesters ............................................................ 55

Table 4.5. Comparison of output/input ratio between PAD

and industrial anaerobic digesters ............................................................ 55

Table 4.6. Percent decrease of landfilled of food waste if every household

utilizes PAD as disposal system for food waste........................................ 57

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Research Paradigm.................................................................................. 6

Figure 3.1. Isometric view of PAD ............................................................................ 41

Figure 3.2. Back view (left), top view (middle) and

left side view (right) of Portable Anaerobic Digester ................................ 41

Figure 3.3. Portable Anaerobic Digester working design flow process...................... 42

Figure 3.4. Feedstock inlet of Portable Anaerobic Digester ...................................... 43

Figure 3.5. Pressure valve of Portable Anaerobic Digester ...................................... 44

Figure 3.6. Digestate chamber of Portable Anaerobic Digester ................................ 44

Figure 3.7. Gas line of Portable Anaerobic Digester ................................................. 45

Figure 3.8. Freon tank as biogas storage of Portable Anaerobic Digester ................ 45

Figure 3.9. Agitator of Portable Anaerobic Digester .................................................. 45

Figure 3.10. Sight glass of Portable Anaerobic Digester........................................... 46

vii
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Figure 3.11. Components of PAD digestion tank ...................................................... 46

Figure 3.12. Construction of PAD digestion tank ...................................................... 47

Figure 3.13. PAD front view (left) and isometric view (right) ..................................... 47

viii
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

From food production and its farming processes up to its distribution and
eventually to human consumption, food waste generation has attested to be inevitable.
Its inevitability for centuries has made it accumulate into large quantities and became
notably hard to eliminate. On this matter, food waste management agencies and
administrations have implemented particular methods to handle and dispose of food
waste such as incineration, commercial composting, animal feed, anaerobic digestion,
even including landfilling. Among these methods, landfilling has found to be the worst
and is highly not recommended because of its extremely harmful environmental
impacts: where tremendous amount of piled up food waste is deprived of oxygen hence
spoils its organic components even more, causing increased emissions of methane
gases to the atmosphere; as well as the dissolving of toxic constituents from rotten food
waste resulting to soil infertility.

Next to landfilling, incineration is also highly inadvisable as it pollutes air and

largely contributes to climate change as a consequence of its excessive emissions of
carbon dioxide. In addition to this, even the remnants of combusting waste through
incineration, as specified by Suzuki (2013), also contain highly toxic elements if not
disposed properly. Nevertheless, this method remains commonly operated in food
waste treatment sites.

Furthermore, a high percentage of widely generated food waste still remains

unmonitored, thus ending up abandoned and trapped in landfills anyway, due to
ineffective waste management systems of some industries. This large portion comes
especially from food waste produced by each household. As stated in the study of
Giordano & Franco (2021) in an international perspective, it was estimated that 61% of
the 931 million tons of food waste generated globally in 2019 came from households,
stating that a large section of them is often destined to and discarded in garbage bins

1
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

that would afterwards be disposed of in landfills. This perspective persuaded the

researchers to focus on addressing this major problem aiming to help lessen large
quantities of household food waste piled up in dumping sites.

Some households address food waste through organic waste composting

method which is recommended for everybody to comply with. However, majority of the
population are either not knowledgeable enough regarding its correct procedures and
its significance to environment, or are unaware of the negative impacts of improper
disposal of food waste, hence ends up throwing away food in trash to be collected then
by municipal food waste collection systems, where bulk amounts of food waste
collected are, again, unloaded on landfill sites. From this viewpoint, the researchers
have come up with a concept of a harmless system to dispose of food waste from each
household through the process of anaerobic digestion. Studies have verified anaerobic
digestion as the most effective treatment method of food waste as it converts and
reuses the energy emitted by the food waste into clean, renewable energy and does
not generate carbon footprints unlike other food waste disposal methods such as
incineration and landfilling.

Even so, these anaerobic digesters are expensive, rare and are too complex to
use, plus they are only commonly operated in large waste treatment plants. This
influenced the researchers to design and fabricate a distinct version of this device that
is easy to manage and maintain by any individual, suitable for domestic use. This
device is named by the researchers as Portable Anaerobic Digester (PAD). A typical
food waste anaerobic digester converts energy from food waste into biogas to be
utilized either as renewable energy for electricity generation or as cooking gas. In this
study, the researchers choose cooking gas as the final output as it can be handily
obtained and can be employed by households for their own benefits. The remnants in
the Portable Anaerobic Digester are in a form of slurry product that can be harmlessly
used as fertilizer.

Additionally, in anaerobic digesters, an additive substrate is preferably added

to food waste as the entire feedstock, to which this addition is known as co-digestion.

2
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Studies have confirmed co-digestion as a more effective technique for anaerobic

digestion than mono-digestion (with only a single substrate), since an additive substrate
helps and balances the digestion processes of the original substrate inside the digester.
In this paper, cow manure is used for co-digestion as studies had proved this type of
manure to contain sufficient nutrients to help with the successful generation of biogas.
This co-digestion approach adds effectiveness for the Portable Anaerobic Digester to
function properly and efficiently.

To sum up, the researchers’ design and fabrication of this Portable Anaerobic
Digester, with the right parameters and when used and maintained properly, may give
big contribution in reducing a huge deal of methane emissions from food waste into the
atmosphere by gradually eliminating large amount of food waste being disposed of in
landfills.

Background of the Study

Anaerobic digestion is the natural, biological breakdown of organic materials in

the absence of oxygen, which results in the production of biogas. Biogas is composed
of 60%–70% methane, 30%–40% carbon dioxide, and various trace gases. The
process takes place in a sealed airtight oxygen-free tank or known as an anaerobic
digester. Biogas digester dimensions and materials of construction are significant
aspects to consider during the design and fabrication phase.

Traditional designs for anaerobic digesters are categorized into floating and
fixed dome digesters. AD design has different shapes and sizes that are suitable for
specific purposes. The sizes are about 1000 m3, developed for industrial use and the
typical digester that ranges to small-medium size is about 5-15 m3. Nonetheless, the
disadvantages of the usual design of digester are incapable of being moved, difficult to
check when there's any leakage, high price of construction and any maintenance issue.
However, portable digesters are easy to maintain. Fixed and floating dome digesters
will be developed into portable bioreactors that the design can operate either
continuous, semi-continuous, or by batch mode (Abubakar et al., 2018).

3
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

The rising of the development and innovations of portable biodigesters was due
to the frequent setbacks observed from large digesters common only for industrial
plants use, such as immobility, high construction expenses, gas losses from metallic
gas chamber, complications in spotting underground leakages, and mainly accustomed
maintenance issues affiliated with conventional digester (fixed underground and/or
floating dome types) systems. To enhance current biogas digesters for better portability
and efficiency, there is a definite need to modify the materials and designs of existing
ones. In this case, the researchers experiment a more efficient and cost-effective
design that features portability characteristics relative to the size, materials used, the
design of digester and the important accessories employed, all suitable for domestic
use. The said design applies to each part of the digestion system right from the
chamber where the digestion takes place, up to the storage of the biogas output which
is to be accustomed as cooking gas for household use.

The advantages of using biogas as cooking gas where it was proved that a 1.0
m3 biogas is suitable to cook three times daily for 5-6 people based on recent studies
include: safe/harmless, burns significantly cleanly, produces fewer pollutants than other
common cooking fuel; provides heat in an instant without the need for pre-heating; able
to regulate the heat flow characteristically; is versatile and can also be used for lighting;
the slurry remnants of the feedstock used can be utilized as a nontoxic fertilizer for soil
and plants; and does not contain carbon footprints. However, the disadvantages of
facilitating an anaerobic digester for biogas-to-cooking-gas generation involve the
inevitably high cost of materials needed for its construction as well as the workload it
would require for its daily operation and maintenance. One disadvantage also includes
the difficulty of the storage of biogas. The researchers tend to address these downsides
by customizing and assembling a design of a portable anaerobic digester that would
significantly counterbalance the inconveniences caused by lack of effectiveness of
existing designs of this technology.

Mainly because of the food waste’s energy-rich content, immense availability

and continuously escalating quantity, it becomes the most favorable and reassuring
substrate for anaerobic digestion (Lin et al., 2013, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). There

4
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

still are several challenges anaerobic digestion has to deal with when considering food
waste as its substrate, in technical, economic and social aspects. Such obstacles
involve accumulation of volatile fatty acids, foam formation, relatively low buffer
capacity, high maintenance and high cost of operation where all these lead to process
instability and low-quality biogas and/or bioenergy production. It was stated that no
more than 2% of food waste in the U.S. is successfully anaerobically digested (Food
Waste Reduction Alliance, 2016, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). One solution for this is the
co-digestion of main and an additional substrate.

Based on recent studies, cow manure has found to be the most efficient co-
substrate for the anaerobic digestion of food waste in order to counterpart the said
challenges and disadvantages. In this study, cow manure is used as the additional
feedstock to balance the chemical digestion processes on food waste. As has been
proved from the study conducted by Lohani (2021), the biogas production from
anaerobic digestion of food waste based on the was higher in amount when compared
to mono-digestion of food waste without combining any substrate. From the said
experiment, 30% cow dung was added to the feedstock input and resulted to better
characteristics of the biogas output after the digestion process.

Conceptual Framework

In this study, the researchers aim to design and fabricate a portable anaerobic
digester for biogas generation from household food waste. Shown in a graphical
representation below is the flow of the entire study. This graphical presentation
visualizes the processes done in the study, from the gathering of input products to the
generation of its outputs.

5
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Construction of Feeding of Digester Extraction of Biogas

Portable Anaerobic
Digester Initial Feed: → To be
compressed and
Materials: → Cow manure then stored in
→ Water freon tank
→ High-density → To be used as
polyethylene Daily Feed: cooking gas
container, metal
sheet frame, → Food waste Extraction of Slurry
interior tire, PVC → Manual agitation remnants
pipes, pressure
valve, freon tank, Biogas Collection → To be used as
accessories soil/plant fertilizer
→ Several weeks
Software: before extraction
and storage of
→ SketchUp Pro biogas

Figure 1.1. Research Paradigm

The following inputs are listed where the beginning of the study takes place.
These materials will be fabricated to attain an airtight container. Components such as
agitator, pressure valve, and the use of SketchUp pro software are notably necessary
for the design and construction.

Through the process of breaking down organic matters of food waste and cow
manure, production of biogas takes place in digestion in a sealed container. With
appropriate testing methods, analysis and computation, the product outputs can be
used as biogas for emergency cooking gas and nutrient-rich fertilizer.

Statement of the Problem

This study intends to address the problem regarding the bulk amount of food
waste trapped in landfills. Since not all of the food waste produced by the population is
properly disposed of and monitored by its respective waste disposal treatment systems
and management, the researchers tend to build a device, a portable anaerobic
digester, that generates biogas from food waste which starts from and to be collected

6
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

from each household. Hence, in the end of this study, the proposed solution will answer
the following questions:

1. How much biogas, in volume, can the portable anaerobic digester produce in a day
per unit mass of food waste?
2. How much of the slurry product produced by the portable anaerobic digester, on a
mass basis, can be used as fertilizer in a day per unit mass of food waste?
3. What is the cost effectiveness of using portable anaerobic digester when compared
to the typical anaerobic digester used in food waste treatment plants with the same
useful input/output ratio?
4. How much in percentage will the amount of food waste be reduced and prevented
from ending up in landfills if each household were to utilize the portable anaerobic
digester?
5. Why is utilizing the portable anaerobic digester an effective solution to help reduce
the amount of greenhouse gasses in Earth’s atmosphere?

Hypotheses

1. The Portable Anaerobic Digester will produce a sufficient amount of biogas to be

utilized as cooking gas.
2. A significant amount of food waste will be reduced and prevented from ending up
in landfills if each household were to utilize the Portable Anaerobic Digester.
3. The Portable Anaerobic Digester is an effective solution to reduce the amount of
greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere.

Objectives of the Study

General Objective

The general objective of the study is to design and build a portable anaerobic
digester to be utilized as a disposal bin for household food waste.

Specific Objectives

7
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

This project aims to resolve the landfills of food waste, hence making it more
useful. In order to measure its effectiveness, the following objectives must be attained:

1. To help reduce a bulk amount of food waste releasing toxic gases into the
atmosphere.
2. To extract biogas from food waste to be utilized subsequently as cooking gas.
3. To be able to suggest the machine as an effective alternative trash disposal bin for
food waste in the household which can be easily facilitated and monitored.

Significance of the Study

The researchers tend to provide a solution to reduce improper disposal of food

waste in every household and aid contribution to environmental waste management by
providing a portable anaerobic digester that results in a fertilizer and useful emergency
biogas for cooking. This study is therefore significant to the following:

The Household owners in Residential Areas, as they are the ones who would
directly make use of the machine to lessen and properly dispose of food waste at home.
This study would resolve the problems that they encounter with regards to the
excessive food waste at home, the biogas product of the machine that may be used for
cooking, and the slurry as a fertilizer for the plants.

The LGU’s or Municipal Solid Waste Management, as they are the one who’s
in charge of collecting waste in every household and at the same time, ensuring the
protection of public health and the environment in accordance with RA 9003 or the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. A portable anaerobic digester will make it
easier for waste collectors to segregate the biodegradable waste with the other solid
waste.

The Consumers, for the machine, aims to produce a better quality and
inexpensive portable anaerobic digester that provides a clean and innovative way of
living by minimizing the food waste at their own comfort as it will help not only the nature
but also the planet.

8
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

The Environment, for the materials and the output of the machine are
environment-friendly that will greatly deal with the problems of food waste in waste
management, greenhouse gas effect, and climate change. This study would subject
sludge or the water, which are biogas wastes as a fertilizer for the plants, and biogas
that can be used for cooking.

The Researchers, as they will gain knowledge and better understanding in the
field of chemical engineering and will serve as an avenue for them to discover the
importance, innovative designs and parameters of this study.

The Future Researchers, for the study's outcome and innovative prototype will
give useful information that might be utilized as a source of inspiration for their next
research projects in this field.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

The general intent of this study is to resolve the excessive landfilling of food waste
in the Philippines by focusing only on reducing large quantities of household food waste
through an anaerobic digestion system. By building a portable anaerobic digester that
can be easily accessed by each household, food waste from each home within rural
areas is properly disposed of inside a sealed, airtight, oxygen-free tank that converts
energy from food waste into biogas. Furthermore, this biogas can be used as cooking
gas.

The design of anaerobic digester consists of a 30 L or 8 gallons digestion tank

that is made in solid materials, mainly high-density polyethylene material. The
anaerobic digester is divided into three main parts. The feedstock inlet has a width of
25.4mm, the same diameter of a typical household plate. Second is the digestate outlet
with a volume of 26 liters, which is used to store the feedstock input and is built as a
drawer compartment with an actual size of 295 mm x 325 mm x 320 mm for harvesting
the remnants of digestion process, which can be utilized as fertilizer. Third is the biogas
storage with a volume of 2.827 liters, a removable storage for biogas for easy cleaning
and maintenance.

9
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

This project is specifically designed for a household with an average of 5

members, so that food waste does not need to go through the landfills. This design will
not include any use of electricity. This design also delimits the type of food waste to be
input by disallowing solid substances that are hard to break down, such as bones,
huge-sized seeds, and the likes.

Definition of Terms

Anaerobic relates to or involves absence of free oxygen.

Anaerobic Digester is an enclosed, airtight chamber where organic matters of

a substance break down anaerobically.

Biogas is a mixture of gasses primarily consisting of methane and carbon

dioxide, produced from raw materials such as agricultural waste, manure, municipal
waste, plant material, green waste or food waste.

Biodegradable Waste is any trash that may decompose anaerobically, such

as food and agricultural waste.

Digester is a large vessel where biological and chemical reactions take place.

Fertilizer is a natural or artificial substance containing chemical elements that

improves growth and productiveness of plants.

Greenhouse gas is a harmful gas trapped in the atmosphere which makes it

one of the main causes of climate change.

Household is a house where its occupants are regarded as a unit.

Hydrolysis is a chemical process in which a molecule of water is added to a

substance.

Landfills a place to dispose of refuse and other waste material by burying it

and covering it over with soil, especially as a method of filling in or extending usable
land.

10
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Manure is an animal dung used for fertilizing land.

Methanogenesis is an anaerobic respiration that generates methane as the

final output of metabolism.

Sludge is a semi-solid, mud-like, byproduct of anaerobic digester.

Toxic Gasses are gasses that are harmful to living things; they can easily build
up in confined working spaces when the production process uses noxious gasses.

Portable means to be easily carried or moved, especially because being of

lighter or smaller version than usual.

Prototype is an experimental model of a proposed solution that may be used

to rapidly and inexpensively test or validate concepts, design assumptions, and other
parts of its conceptualization.

11
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter comprises relevant studies and literature gathered to guide the
researchers in familiarizing information and concepts similar to the present study.
These collected articles, ideas, methodologies and related reviews are classified into
respective categories for the convenience of readers and future researchers.

Food Waste in General

One of the major negative impacts of food waste in environmental aspect is

associated with the emissions of greenhouse gasses produced during various stages
of food production and distribution including harvesting, processing and improper
disposal of unconsumed food (Oelofse & Nahman, 2013, as cited in Oelosfe et al.,
2018). 76.3% of about 38 million tons of annually discarded food waste are disposed
of in landfills (USEPA, 2016, as cited in Xu et al., 2018).

At the global level, approximately one-third of the total food produced goes to
waste (Gustavsson et al., 2011, as cited in Giordano & Franco, 2021). An estimate of
a third and a half of total global food production was found to have not reached the end
of human consumption (Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2013, as cited in Oelosfe,
Muswema, & Ramukhwatho, 2018). Throughout the food supply chain, about 1.3 billion
tons of food production – approximately one-third of global food production quantity –
are wasted each year (FAO, 2011, as cited in Xu, Li, Ge, Yang, & Li, 2018).

In the U.S., the generation of food waste since 1974 has escalated by 50%.
(Posmanik et al., 2017, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). If no additional policy for food waste
prevention is implemented soon enough, the generated food waste in the European
Union is expected to increase in amount by 2020 to 139 million tons from around 98
million tons of food waste produced every year as of 2010 (European Communities,
2010, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). No less than 90 million tons of food production in
China are wasted annually, which will most likely keep increasing due to continuous

12
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

population growth and rising urbanization (Zhang et al., 2014, as cited in Xu et al.,
2018).

Food Waste in the Philippines

Food waste is one of the problems in the Philippines when it comes to waste
management. Due to the lack of practice of humans on waste management, food waste
will just be discarded in garbage bins. In the Philippines, food scraps are being
"recycled" and eaten. In some cases, they called it Pagpag. Pagpag is used for
leftovers from restaurants scavenged from garbage sites and dumps. Pagpag means
"to shake off", and refers to the act of shaking off the dirt from food that can still be
eaten. Scavengers will pick the food that they can still eat so the unpicked food will
remain on the dumpsites. Therefore, the rejected food will continue to increase
(Nograles, 2021).

Household Food Waste

In 2019, 61% of about 931 million tons of food waste produced globally came
from households (Forbes, Quested, & O’Connor, 2021, as cited in Giordano & Franco,
2021). It was found in a project conducted in 2013-2016 that the households within the
borders of EU have contributed to 53% of total production of food waste (European
Commission, 2019, as cited in Giordano & Franco, 2021). It was found that in the UK,
60% of the total household food waste is not inevitable, where “wasn’t used in time” as
well as “too much was cooked, prepared or served'' are principal reasons common in
the UK about why food is wasted and thrown away (Waste Resource and Action
Programme, 2012, as cited in Oelosfe et al., 2018).

Different environmental effects depend on how each household dispose of its

food waste – where it is preferable to most to compost food waste rather than disposing
it in a trash bin (Quested, Marsh, Stunell, Parry, 2013, as cited in Oelosfe et al., 2018).
In Ekurhuleni and Johannesburg municipalities, an average of 0.48 kg and 0.69 kg of
food waste is thrown away per household per week, including inedible portions,
respectively. These are about 8 kg and 12 kg per capita per annum, and between

13
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

25,198 tonnes and 51,462 tonnes from households per annum, respectively, stated in
a study conducted by Oelosfe et al., (2018). The study had proved that reduction of
household food waste disposed of in landfills have elevating significance to the
reduction of total quantity of food waste discarded in landfills.

According to the findings, bio-waste per capita generation ranges from 0.04 to
0.31 kg/day in households with 3–9 individuals, with a weighted average of 0.1122
kg/day. A five-member household can generate an average of 0.55 kg per day, of which
46% is food scrap, followed by kitchen waste-vegetables and fruits (41%) and kitchen
waste-raw meat and fish (4%), with yard/garden and wet papers accounting for 5% and
4%, respectively. Household generation had a favorable association with family size,
whereas per capita generation had a negative relationship. In addition, the survey
found that 51% of respondents do not dispose of their bio-waste at the source. (Elauria,
Jessie, Lunag, 2021).

Unconditionally, the stage in the food supply chain that contributes to greater
quantity of food waste generation actually comes from households. Household food
waste is often discarded to garbage bins for a very long time, consequently heightening
negative impacts to environmental factors. The significant connection of household
food waste to the general food waste quantity as well as its lack of research sources
and studies for a more efficient disposal and management system are the principal
reasons why interest in household food waste must be tended to by experts, to identify
causes, hence implementing measures to help reduce the bulk generation of
unattended amount of household food waste (Giordano & Franco, 2021).

Anaerobic Digestion

Anaerobic digestion of biomass wastes could have a huge impact on renewable

energy requirements. It is best suited to convert organic wastes from agriculture,
livestock, industries, municipalities and other human activities into energy and fertilizer.
These wastes obtained from different animals vary in chemical composition and
physical forms as a result of principal differences in the digestive physiology of the
various species, the composition and form of diet, the stage of growth of the animal

14
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

and lastly the management system of waste collection and storage. This process
occurs in an airtight chamber (biodigester) via four stages represented by hydrolytic,
acidogenic, and acetogenic and methanogenic microorganisms. The microbial
population and structure can be identified by the combined use of culture-based,
microscopic and molecular techniques. Overall, the process is affected by bio-digester
design, operational factors and manure characteristics. The purpose of anaerobic
digestion is the production of a renewable energy source (biogas) and an odor free
nutrient-rich fertilizer (Manyi-Loh et al., 2017).

The process of producing biogas and fertilizer through the anaerobic digestion
process requires an exceptional understanding of the fundamentals. Anaerobic
digestion is a chemical process that takes place at the microbial level. However, when
dealing with so much waste, the anaerobic digestion scale can be quite large. Facilities
that utilize anaerobic digestion to convert organic waste to energy are often referred to
as biogas plants or facilities. Biogas plants contain sequential processes that take a
waste product and transform it into an energy source (biogas) as well as an organic
fertilizer (digestate). The fuel produced by anaerobic digestion is referred to as biogas
which is made up primarily of carbon dioxide and methane. The methane makes this
gas combustible, and therefore, a valuable fuel source. The primary use for the
methane-rich biogas is electricity and heat generation in a CHP system. Alternatively,
the biogas can be cleaned and upgraded to almost entirely methane for natural gas
applications, referred to as an RNG, or further compressed to be used as a
transportation fuel, referred to as compressed natural gas (Sheffler, 2018).

Anaerobic digestion is one of the most environmentally friendly techniques of

treating organic waste, producing biogas that can be used to create energy and/or heat.
Methane (CH4) is produced at 40-60% of the generated biogas through methanogenic
activities under anaerobic conditions. In addition to biogas production, the nutrient-rich
digestate can be used as a soil conditioner, and the liquid effluent can be used for
irrigation (Manitoba, 2015).

Anaerobic Digestion as Disposal Method for Food Waste

15
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

In China, disposing of and incinerating food waste in landfills is still a majority.

Other than rapid urbanization and growing population in most less-developed
countries, factors like insufficiency of proper food waste management systems and the
high cost and maintenance of advanced technologies to be utilized for the disposal and
treatment operations, have significant impact on the continuous generation and
improper disposal of food waste. The total impact of Global Warming Potential of food
waste will rise significantly if these treatment methods and adjustments are still not
changed nor reduced as soon as possible, from 60 million tonnes in 2001 to about 164-
180 million tonnes in 2040. Also indicated, that an appropriate and effective way to
significantly reduce carbon emissions in China is improving the efficiency and
proportion of correct waste-to-energy proportions for food waste, where specific
applications are associated with the usage of anaerobic digestion technologies (Zhang
et al., 2020).

For the production of renewable energy, anaerobic digestion has been found to
be the most cost-effective technology, and is said to be the most suitable approach for
treatment of food waste with high-moisture and energy-rich contents (Romero-güiza et
al., 2016, as cited in Xu et al., 2018), when compared to other disposal methods such
as incineration, composting and landfilling – as they incorporate negative impacts to
environment (Lin et al., 2013, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). In terms of global
environmental pollution, food waste disposal in large quantities has found to be a
significant major factor. Despite the social and technical challenges imposed by the
use of anaerobic digestion technology for food waste management, it still proves to be
the best option when compared to other food waste disposal methods such as
incineration, composting and especially landfilling (Xu et al., 2018).

Various Designs of Anaerobic Digesters for Food Waste

Anaerobic digestion is a process of molecular breakdown of biodegradables by

the use of microorganisms under a controlled environment with the absence of oxygen
and the goal is to generate biogas from organic substances. The process will take place
in a sealed airtight oxygen-free tank or known as an anaerobic digester.

16
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Traditional designs for anaerobic digesters are categorized into floating and
fixed dome digesters. A.D design has different shapes and sizes that are suitable for
specific purposes. The sizes are about 1000 cu. meter is developed for industrials and
the typical digester is 1.2 cu. meters that range to small-medium size is about 5-15 cu.
meter. Nonetheless, the disadvantages of the usual design of digester: are incapable
of being moved, difficult to check when there's any leakage, high price of construction
and any maintenance issue. However, portable digesters are easy to maintain. Fixed
and floating dome digesters will be developed into portable bioreactors that the design
can operate either continuous, semi-continuous, or by batch mode (Abubakar et al.,
2018).

Another size of AD is a compact domestic biogas unit known by organic loading

rate (OLR) of feedstock or at least 465 liters volume required to meet 2 hours capacity
of cooking requirements. By using insulation to take bioreactors into high-temperature
zones, increase the speeding retention time (Hounslow, 2011). Digesters are typically
big in size and are utilized all around the world. An existing biogas digester must be
modified and re-engineered to fit into modern-day design for improved efficiency,
mobility, and safety. The floating drum and flexible balloon are digesters that will be
upgraded to become a thin-walled pressure vessel with a radius-to-thickness ratio
greater than 10. A series of tests were conducted to confirm that the prototype was built
to the specifications/standards. Smoke detector tests, pressure tests, gas leak tests,
and a unit test run were all used to ensure that the study goal was met (Lebele-Alawa.,
Nkoi., Odobeatu., 2015).

In a study conducted by Nwankwo et al. (2017), the input on the digester

contains 1:1 ratio or 50 percent cow manure and 50 percent kitchen waste. Most of the
kitchen waste is 50 percent cassava, yam peels, and vegetables. The result of the
study shows that the average biogas produced by a household food waste in a 3.60m³
plastic biodigester is about 0. 601 to 0.505 m³/day and can be used as a cooking gas
thrice a day of a family consisting of 3 to 4 members. It is concluded that there is a
significantly increase when it comes to moisture, ash, and protein contents. While its
fiber, fat, fatty acid, carbohydrate, the total solid and the volatile solid, carbon, chemical

17
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

and biochemical oxygen decreases significantly. Correspondingly, the amount of

biogas that may be utilized as cooking gas, depends on the number of family members
and the capacity of the digester.

For a family-size generation of biogas, a 3.6 m3 plastic digester, using 50% cow
dung and 50% kitchen wastes as feedstock, was designed and constructed to produce
an average of 0.601 to 0.505 m3 of biogas per day which is enough to cook three meals
a day for a family of 3-4 members, based on recent studies where it was proved that a
1.0 m3 biogas is suitable to cook three times daily for 5-6 people (Nwankwo et al.,
2017). After digestion, physico-chemical studies were conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the bio-digester. Properties of the wastes like moisture, ash and protein
contents significantly (p<0.05) increased, while other properties such as fibre,
carbohydrate, fat, volatile and total solid, free fatty acid, carbon, chemical and
biochemical oxygen demand significantly (p<0.05) decreased, as predicted from an
eminently efficient bio-digester. During digestion, the pH of 50% cow dung + 50%
kitchen wastes (cassava peel, yam peels and vegetable waste) increased from 6.71 to
6.81. After increasing from 6.71 on the day of charging to 6.81 on the eighth day,
digestion began to fluctuate between 6.68 and 6.85 for the remainder of the retention
period.

Moreover, it was revealed that during evenings, the production of biogas

generated much lower amount than that in the afternoon but was relatively higher in
the evening than in the morning, as observed critically on the temperature effects of
the atmosphere and the slurry itself to the biogas production. The atmospheric and the
slurry temperatures were within mesophilic (30 and 40°C) during afternoons, which
were above than those in the morning and evening. On the second day of digestion,
the digester started to produce biogas which amounted to 406 L, increasing each day
until the eighth day before it started to fluctuate between 572 and 718 L per day. On
the fourth day, flammability of the biogas was examined. The methane constituents of
the biogas significantly (p<0.05) increased to 65.65% whereas the carbon dioxide
contents significantly (p<0.05) decreased to 25.15%. Furthermore, the produced
biogas, depending on the substrate, would have been sufficient to cook 3 meals daily

18
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

for 5-6 persons if the capacity of a household bio-digester were expanded up to 6 m3

Nwankwo, et al. (2017).

To enhance current biogas digesters for better portability and efficiency, there is
a definite need to modify the materials and designs of existing ones. One way to
execute this is to replace the common floating drum and flexible balloon type of
digesters with thin-walled pressure vessels, following proper sizing calculations for
cylindrical pressure vessels utilizing the ASME codes and standards, mainly the radius-
thickness ratio being greater than 10 (r\t > 10). In this study, the vessel shell material
used is AISI 304 (Chromium-Nickel steel) with a maximum allowable pressure of 137
MPa. The feedstock used in this study is a mixture of 17 kg cow dung and 34 kg water
under temperatures of 32°C (Nkoi & Lebele-Alawa, 2018). The modified biogas
digester produced a biogas volume of 0.055 m3 within 12 days, and 0.1243 m3 for 30
days, at a volumetric rate of about 1.91×10-4 m3/hr. The calculated dimensions required
for an effective re-engineered digester are with a height = 1.05 m, 0.6 m and 1.6 m;
and minimum thickness for the vessel shell = 0.0267 mm, 0.025 mm and 0.0204 mm
for the digester, collector and storage tank respectively. For each tank, the maximum
allowable pressure should be 3.55 MPa, 4.69 MPa and 4.23 MPa inside each vessel,
respectively.

Additional to this design from the study of Nkoi & Lebele-Alawan (2018) includes
safety and control measures that features a smoke alarm detector (model: Ei100) for
effective fire protection. It has an electronic ionization sensor and louds up to three
meters at 85 decibels, and is stationed 300 mm below the top of the digester. To avoid
explosion, 0-2.5 barg pressure gauges are installed to read pressure within the bio-
digester system and storage tank. To release excess gases out of the system, relief
valves are stationed in the storage tank in order to avoid over pressurization. In this
study, cow dung was used as the biological waste mixed with water correspondingly
inside the airtight digester which would then generate biogas. One of the main
challenges in designing and modifying a biodigester is the explicit risk of gas leakage,
wherein any opening regardless of its size would emit the gas outside the whole
system, due to the bio-methane being eight times lighter than air. To ensure and

19
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

prevent this, gas leakage test is performed by the use of compressed air and soap
bubbles method. A globe valve is installed in the system to monitor the delivery of gas
flow from the digester with higher pressure to the gas collector which is lower in
pressure. Other tests performed in the system for effective results are pressure testing,
smoke detector test and a unit test run. The biogas generated from the system is
manually compressed through the use of bike pump before storing. This is an essential
feature of the digester due to the fluctuating nature of the biogas. The gas has to be
significantly compressed for continuous storing with the use of a modified bike pump
that would raise the pressure from 4.903 to 345 kPa of the methane gas in order to
correspond to the gas cookers and storage tank modern designs. At the top of the gas
collector, a ball valve is positioned at its top and is opened when enough gas has been
gathered. The crank of the pump is then raised and continually dropped which aims to
compress the gas after it is transferred into the storage tank through the globe valve.
The tank and collector valves are then closed after performing enough number of
strokes hence the distant accumulation of gas before repeating the storage process.

From the study conducted by Jyothilakshmi & Prakash (2016), their design has
a capacity of around 30 liters. For the first load of the feedstock slurry, cow dung and
water are mixed, filling the digester up to 80% of the capacity, making sure no air has
entered the digester in order to attain anaerobic conditions. After charging the digester
with the mixture, the inlet and outlet are then closed while leaving the gas valve that
connects to the gas collector open. As production of biogas took place during the
cycle’s first twenty days, the gas holder then moderately expanded. This beginning
stage of the cycle is considered as short-term only and serves as a batch reactor.
However, due to the prevalent content of carbon dioxide in the produced biogas, it did
not burn when it was taken for a trial. Thus, kitchen scraps and other domestic
biodegradable waste are added in the feedstock throughout the following stages of the
cycle.

Several weeks and numerous cycles after the first stage, when the digester was
finally working and able to produce combustible gas, the pH value had attained a steady
range of 6.5 but during experimental cycles, it remained unchanging. The temperature

20
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

also remained constant during the day between 35-40°C, and as during the night, 25-
30°C. Thus, these two specifications, in contemplation of the digester design
development, served as regular parameters and measures since they did not
significantly fluctuate as observed during the experiments. In this study, using only the
cow dung as feedstock, 0.68 kg volatile solid of this provides a volume of 0.18 m3 of
biogas. Therefore, the biogas yield from this digester equates to 0.264 m3 per kg of
volatile solid contents of cow dung slurry. On the other hand, when domestic waste is
used as the feedstock for this digester, 0.17 m3 of biogas is emitted from 0.68 kg volatile
solids of the said waste. Therefore, a volume of 0.425 m3 of biogas is yielded from
every 1 kg volatile solid of domestic waste slurry (Jyothilakshmi & Prakash, 2016).

The rising of the development and innovations of portable biodigesters was due to the
frequent setbacks observed from large digesters common only for industrial plants use,
such as immobility, high construction expenses, gas losses from metallic gas chamber,
complications in spotting underground leakages, and mainly accustomed maintenance
issues affiliated with conventional digester (fixed underground and/or floating dome
types) systems (Abubakar et al., 2018).

Conducted by Abubakar, et al. (2018), the substrate used in their study is dry
cow dung mixed with water in 1:4 ratio (cow dung: water). The synthetic plastic digester
with a capacity of 1000 L is filled with 632 liters of the feedstock slurry with a 368 liters
allowance to be utilized as a space for gas collection before harvesting and storing.
The first charging of feedstock to the digester took place in batch method. At every
interval of 2 days, feeding was done in continuous method after which gas is collected
at every two days interval. To determine if the biogas generated from the digester is
combustible, the gas was taken under a flame test procedure. In conducting this flame
test, the gas is collected into a 2 L urine pouch, then piped into a burner and sorted
with proper stoichiometry for oxygen-gas ratio control, then ignited. However, the flame
test failed at the first three attempts due to probably high content of carbon dioxide and
poor mixture ratio of oxygen and gas which resulted to low pressure of the gas
generated hence weak combustion structure. Nevertheless, as sufficient pressure and
combustion structure were supplied as the digestion process proceeds, the gas finally

21
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

ignited which indicates that carbon dioxide had been significantly reduced while the
methane content increased. In this study, the digester yielded a 30 L of biogas per day
with an average pH of 8.4 using dry cow dung, producing 80-90% methane content.
For the cumulative value, the biogas yielded 368L of volume over a period of 28 days
digestion, which could provide an energy of 3313 MJ, assuming that the biogas was
compressed before storing into a propane cylinder.

Household Food Waste Management using Portable Anaerobic Digester

Household waste management addresses the problem of sanitation and

hygiene in developing countries, humanitarian camps and heavily populated areas
such as prisons. Poorly managed waste often causes serious health problems and
premature death. Yet they represent a great source of energy and can be used in
agriculture as fertilizer. (Kouya-Takala, Nguimbous-Kouoh, Biyindi, Manguelle-
Dicoum., 2018). This sort of strategy has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions
while also increasing people's quality of life. Despite a lengthy history of research and
development into the construction and optimization of household digesters, nothing is
known or documented about their usage in decentralized communities (Surendra,
Takara, Jasinski, Khanal, 2013).

Biogas Production from Food Waste through Anaerobic Digestion

Food waste can cause harm to the environment through excessive production
of methane. However, food waste can be used as energy diverted from the main waste
stream. Other countries have started food waste segregation and using the organic
waste of composting in the anaerobic digester for energy production. Food waste has
four combinations: two reactors from meat and grain and two reactors from fruits and
vegetables. Meat and grain in addition to the sludge of 20% (MGR1 and MGR2) and
30% (MGR5 and MGR6) respectively as inoculum. while the fruits and vegetables
(FVR3 and FVR4) contain sludge of 20% and 30% (FVR6 and FVR7) respectively.
Throughout the operation period, pH, volume, COD, and VFA tests were performed on
the leachate, and composition and volume measurements were taken on the produced

22
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

gas. Based on the findings of the experiments, it was discovered that all of the
bioreactors had a long lag time (> 60 days) before producing methane (Latif, 2021).

Biogas produced during anaerobic digestion consists of 60%-70% methane,

30%-40% carbon dioxide, with traces of hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide. Several types
of biomasses are converted into biogas by anaerobic microbes during the digestion
process, while remnants from this conversion that are still rich in nutrients can be
utilized for agricultural land applications (Sheets et al., 2015, as cited in Xu et al., 2018).
Attempting to reduce the food waste is not only for knowledge but to recognize the
amount of waste according to food categories and degree of preparation. For example,
bread and baked products are less waste than fruits and vegetables that require peeling
and cleaning for home-cooked food. However, bread and baked goods are next to
fruits and vegetables among the most often wasted foods. The amount of wasted bread
and handling of the volume that has not been eaten is not well documented but bread
and baked goods can make a good feedstock for biogas production (Florkowski, 2017).

According to this study, biogas is the one of most effective alternative energy
sources produced through anaerobic digestion from raw materials such as agricultural
residues, animal waste, municipal wastes and industrial wastes. The energy generated
came from the sources of anaerobic digestion that reduces atmospheric methane
emissions and production of digestate. And also, it is generating energy, improving
sanitation, and supplying nutrient rich organic fertilizer. Despite the ready availability of
biogas resources, relatively few studies have focused on the economic assessment of
biogas plants in ascertaining the financial viability of installing biogas plants both at the
households and institutional level (Mohammed et al., 2017).

Biogas as Cooking Gas

Biogas is a suitable solid and gaseous cooking fuel serving rural communities
in developing countries. A biogas digester collects kitchen waste and uses anaerobic
digestion to convert it to biogas. Biogas is a renewable energy source that contains 50-
60% methane which can be used for cooking in the household (Ray et al., 2016). Solid
fuels are being used by 25% of the Chinese population for cooking. As a result, there

23
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

is a large market in China for small-scale household anaerobic digesters, which allow
for the effective digestion of agricultural and vegetable residues when co-digested with
other feedstock such as animal dung and kitchen waste. In rural China, more than 40
million household biogas digesters were in use, with 150 million people who benefit
from biogas. While the Chinese government has increased financing for Medium Level
Biogas Plants (MLPB) over household biogas in recent years because MLBPs separate
livestock farms or energy production from residential areas (Khan & Martin, 2016).

Liquid petroleum gas is the popular cooking gas that is made up of components
that are heavier than natural gas, which are butane (C4H10) and propane (C3H8)
(Oliveira, 2021). LPG is being sold in cylinders in bulk to be used indoors, such as in
the kitchen, or in businesses sensitive to pollutants, such as the manufacture of food
and glass, most commonly used among others, because it is one of the lightest
fractions of oil, clean burning, and emitting low levels of pollutants. However,
biomethane is produced by the refining and processing of biogas in anaerobic (oxygen-
free) conditions by decomposing organic materials as well as increasing pressure and
compression on it. Biogas quality varies depending on the biomass used in the bio-
digestion system. Demirbas (2017) explained that Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) use
amounts to roughly 10% of total gasoline and diesel consumption worldwide, and it is
mostly utilized for domestic and industrial reasons (pp. 601-610). LPG burns cleaner
with less carbon build-up and oil pollution.

This study is about biogas as an alternative to LPG. In our country, increasing

the amount of LPG is one of the biggest problems. Biogas are very favorable
throughout the year and the availability of the biodegradable waste is in bulk. There is
great need for the development of the plants which should be based on the Kitchen
waste, industrial waste and municipality waste treatment. The kitchen waste or food
waste from each household has a lot of potential to produce more biogases and it will
help to replace an LPG already utilized for cooking purposes. In many cities across
India, sewage treatment centers and organic waste treatment plants (those treating
organic municipal solid waste, for instance) already use anaerobic digesters to
generate biogas and electricity. Some of the industries that generate significant

24
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

amounts of solid or liquid organic waste also have installed digesters and gas engines
for electricity production (Singh, 2012).

Under this study, a huge amount of kitchen and food wastes are discharged
daily. Accordingly, collecting data has been made through direct measurement of the
waste using a balance at the disposal site and the waste that comes from the student’s
food and waste that comes from the kitchen is the major producer of the biogas
stove. The integration of biogas stove/mitad with a biogas burner that utilizes biogas
fuel for baking injera purpose is investigated. As a result, the over efficiency of the injera
baking stove is measured as the ability of mitad (injera baking stove) to convert the
energy from biogas (fuel) into energy gained by the baked injera. The burning efficiency
of the stove is measured as the capacity of the stove to convert the energy from biogas
fuel into heat energy (Khan, 2020).

Within anaerobic conditions, the breakdown of particular organic matters such

as solid waste, animal manure, sewage sludge and other biodegradable substances,
most certainly produces biogas, which generally contains methane, carbon dioxide and
other trace elements. Biogas can be an alternative source for fuel which effectively
replaces other fuel sources such as firewood (1 kg of firewood is equivalent to 0.2 m 3
of biogas), dried cow dung (1 kg of this is 0.1 m3 of biogas), 1 kg of charcoal equivalent
to 0.5 m3 of biogas, and 1 liter of kerosene which equates to 2 m3 of biogas. Typically,
biogas contains approximately 50-75% methane and 25-50% carbon dioxide,
depending on the source and substrates used in the anaerobic digestion process
(Biogas Basics, 2018).

A tube using the right material is vital for the transportation of produced biogas
from a digester to its storage then to the cooking area. For this system, the stove carries
a valve that would beforehand mix the biogas with the precise amount of oxygen, for
efficient consumption of energy during combustion, before combusting the mixture in
the burner (Cooking with Biogas, 2019). Furthermore, the advantages of using biogas
as cooking gas include: safe/harmless, burns significantly cleanly, produces fewer
pollutants than other common cooking fuel; provides heat in an instant without the need

25
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

for pre-heating; able to regulate the heat flow characteristically; is versatile and can
also be used for lighting; the slurry remnants of the feedstock used can be utilized as
a nontoxic fertilizer for soil and plants; and does not contain carbon footprints. However,
the disadvantages of facilitating an anaerobic digester for biogas-to-cooking-gas
generation involve the inevitably high cost of materials needed for its construction as
well as the workload it would require for its daily operation and maintenance. One
disadvantage also includes the difficulty of the storage of biogas.

Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste with Additional Substrate for Co-Digestion

According to Morales-Polo et al., (2018), the most apparent attainable and

reliable waste management solutions in environmental, social and economic aspects
for reviving and recycling both food waste and sewage sludge are anaerobic digestion
(mono-digestion for each substrate) and co-digestion of both substrates, for they
contain low emissions when utilized as renewable energy source. For stable microbial
degradation and proper development of various stages involved, certain parameters
do need to be strictly followed throughout the digestion process. Morales-Polo et al.,
(2018) also stated that in order to complement the stability of the anaerobic digestion
processes of sewage sludge, food waste is added for co-digestion as it boosts
enhancement to nutrient content, heightens alkalinity, weakens inhibitors and lessens
the formation of ammonia all at the same time. Using a correct and balanced proportion
of food waste to be utilized for co-digestion with sewage sludge is necessary for
digestion process stability and good quality biogas production, due to the complex
composition and wide variety of food waste. During the anaerobic digestion process,
compounds rich in protein may be fast when converted into biogas but within the
emission, other gases specifically sulphides and ammonia are released as well. To the
same degree, methane yield from carbohydrates, which have the fastest conversion
rate, reveals almost no change in amount. The highest quantity of biogas yield is
generated by lipids, however, accumulation of volatile fatty acids and long-chain fatty
acids together with foam formation arise during the discharge, hence leads to process
inhibition. However, when co-digesting food waste and sewage sludge, a buffer system
can be formed between ammonia and volatile fatty acids. Multi-stage systems become

26
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

practical solutions to inevitable challenges in technical aspects faced by anaerobic

digesters – mainly the accumulation of volatile fatty acids, foam formation and fast
acidification due to low buffer capacity – in order to maintain process stability and
minimize inhibition of methanogens.

The biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste based on the
study conducted by Lohani (2021), was higher in amount when compared to mono-
digestion of food waste without combining any substrate. From the said experiment,
30% cow dung was added to the feedstock input and resulted to better characteristics
of the biogas output after the digestion process. Lei Li et al. (2015) stated that the
mismatch between bacteria and methanogens might be partly responsible for the
deterioration of the process. These findings provide a theoretical framework for the
effective and stable operation of anaerobic digesters that handle FW, as well as a
deeper understanding of the microbial activities that induce process instability.

In bench-scale batch experiments over a 65-day period, the impact of co-

digestion versus mono-digestion on biogas and CH4 yield for a set of five biomass
materials (vegetable food waste, cow dung, pig manure, grass clippings, and chicken
manure) was investigated using 95 different biomass mixes of the five materials under
thermophilic conditions. The average biogas and CH4 yields were significantly higher
when the same materials were co-digested than when they were mono-digested. This
benefit was most noticeable in co-digestion trials involving three biomass types, despite
the fact that it was independent of the specific biomasses being co-digested (Adelard
& Poulsen, 2016, pp. 118-125). When co-digestion was used instead of mono-
digestion, the improvement in CH4 production was much more noticeable early in the
digestion process. Co-digestion appeared to increase the final CH4/CO2 ratio of the
gas generated if it was compared to mono-digestion, but the effect was small and not
statistically significant.

Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manure

According to Wilkie (2005)’s study on Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure:

Design and process consideration. Increased awareness and concern for correct

27
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

storage, treatment, and utilization of animal manure has resulted from rising production
and concentration of intensive livestock operations, as well as increased urbanization
of rural areas. Anaerobic digestion is a process in which a complex variety of microbes
converts organic materials into biogas, soluble nutrients, and new cell matter under
oxygen-free conditions, leaving salts and refractory organic waste behind. The findings
show that anaerobic digestion is a unique treatment option for animal agriculture
because it can help with a variety of challenges, including renewable energy, water
pollution, and air pollutants. Microbiologically, soluble and particulate organic waste is
transformed to biogas, a mixture of primarily methane and carbon dioxide, in anaerobic
digestion. Covered lagoons, complete-mix, plug-flow, and fixed-film digesters are
among the digester designs available for anaerobic digestion of dairy manure. This
necessitates an understanding of the technology as well as the impact that other site-
specific waste management practices can have on both the energy potential of the
feedstock and the efficient operation of the digester unit.

Meanwhile Safley Jr. and Westerman (1990)’s study on Psychrophilic

anaerobic digestion of animal manure: Proposed design methodology, a thorough
assessment of the literature on psychrophilic anaerobic digestion and the design of
anaerobic digesters for the treatment of animal manures was undertaken. In the
laboratory, anaerobic digestion of caged layer manure was investigated at low
temperatures (14–23°C). The digesters were run to see what temperature and loading
rate combinations produced the best methane yield. For temperatures of 14°C and
23°C, acceptable methane yields were obtained for loading rates ranging from 015 kg
VS/m day to 057 kg VS/m3 day. The results, along with data from similar tests in the
literature, were determined to be close to the van't Hoff-Arrhenius equation. The use of
this equation to determine appropriate loading rates for psychrophilic digesters based
on data from digesters operating at higher temperatures is then suggested.

Based on Moller et al. (2004)’s study on Methane productivity of manure, straw

and solid fractions of manure, in terms of volatile solids (VS), volume, and livestock
production, the methane productivity of manure was determined. Pig (516lkg−1VS) and
sow (530lkg−1VS) manure has greater theoretical methane productivity than dairy

28
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

cattle manure, and the ultimate methane production in terms of VS is significantly larger
in pig (356lkg−1VS) and sow dung (275lkg−1VS) than in dairy cattle manure
(469lkg−1VS), Sows (165m3CH4LU−1) have the lowest methane productivity when
measured in livestock units (LU), while the other animal categories are in the same
range (282–301m3CH4LU−1). Pre-treatment of manure via separation is a method of
separating manure into fractions with higher gas potential per volume. Three types of
fractions derived from manure separation were examined for their theoretical methane
potential and biodegradability. Due to the greater VS content, the volumetric methane
production of straw was found to be higher than that of total manure and solid fractions
of manure, implying that using straw as bedding material boosts volumetric as well as
livestock-based methane productivity.

According to the study by Westerholm et al. (2021), entitled, “Anaerobic

Digestion of Animal Manure and Influence of Organic Loading Rate and Temperature
on Process Performance, Microbiology, and Methane Emission from Digestates,” their
main goal was to see how important operational temperature and organic load were for
overall anaerobic degradation of cattle dung in terms of process performance, methane
output, digestate composition, and RMP. Biogas production from manure is very
beneficial in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing nutrient
recirculation. However, because of the low energy content and features of manure,
degrading efficiency is generally low, necessitating the creation of operational
strategies to improve biogas yield and economic benefits. The potential to improve the
performance of two full-scale biogas plants using cattle dung in mono-digestion or in
combination with poultry manure was studied in this study. Four continuously fed
laboratory-scale reactors were run in two-part sets, with one reactor in each set having
its temperature raised from 37–42°C to 52°C. Chemical and microbiological data were
used to assess the processes, as well as the residual methane potential (RMP) to
assess the possibility of increased methane emissions from the digestate. When
employing manure as the primary substrate for biogas generation, farmers want to
attain a high biogas yield and high nutritional levels in the digestate. High organic load
and thermophilic working temperature are two examples of ways to achieve these
objectives. The possibility of increasing residual methane potential from the digestate,

29
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

which could result in methane emissions during storage, is a significant aspect to

consider during digestion process optimization. For both analyzed processes, this
study demonstrated that altering the operating temperature from mesophilic to
thermophilic conditions was conceivable. Both mechanisms adapted to the changing
temperature, according to the microbiological studies, with identical alterations in the
taxonomic profile. Still, depending on the substrate mix, there were differences in
process performance.

Cow Manure as Additive Substrate for Co-Digestion

The combination of food waste, cow manure and pig manure has resulted to
more effective digestion of the substrates without losing methane contents. The
synergistic effect of these substrates, using the right ratio where it is recommended to
use less amount of food waste than that of the cow manure, has proved to accelerate
the digestion processes hence significantly improving the characteristics of the output
(Baek, et al., 2020). Manure compounds vary according to cow type and diet. The
percentages of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins were 7.9, 31.2, and 52.3,
respectively. This variation is primarily due to the daily carbohydrate, lipid, and protein
requirements for each cow type. High cows, for example, require 4 kg of protein per
cow per day, which is more than any other cow type. Younger cows, on the other hand,
consume only 0.4 kg of protein per cow per day.

The effectiveness of cow manure for biogas production with averaged

cumulative biogas yield and methane content observed was 0.15 L.kg-1 VS added and
47%, respectively (Hidayati et al., 2019, 4). Methane (50–75 percent) and carbon
dioxide (25–50 percent) are the two main components of biogas (Maghanaki et al.,
2013). Biogas from cow manure with 1 kg produced as much as forty (40) liters of
biogas, while chicken dung with the same amount produced seventy (70) liters
(Hidayati et al., 2019). Co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure, and wheat straw
was performed, and the results showed that co-digestion outperformed individual
digestion in terms of methane potential (Van et al., 2018). Co-digestion of pig manure
and food waste benefits methanogenic processes by providing a more balanced carbon

30
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

to nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the feedstock, increasing the system's buffering capacity,
avoiding the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs), and maintaining an optimal pH
for methanogens-digestion of pig manure and food waste benefits methanogenic
processes by providing a more balanced carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the feedstock,
increasing the system's buffering capacity, avoiding the accumulation of volatile fatty
acids (VFAs), and maintaining an optimal pH for methanogens-digestion of pig manure
and food waste benefits methanogenic processes by providing a more balanced carbon
to nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the feedstock, increasing the system's buffering capacity,
avoiding the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs), and maintaining an optimal pH
for methanogens. Wet co-digestion of pig manure and food waste produced distinct
synergistic effects on methane generation, with the specific methane yield (SMY)
increasing by more than 20% when compared to pig manure mono-digestion. Wet AD
systems are typically fed substrates with a total solid (TS) content of less than 10%,
implying that a huge quantity of water is required in digesters when dealing with high-
solid organic wastes (Wang et al., 2020).

Based on a study by Obileke et al. (2020) on Design and Fabrication of a Plastic

Biogas Digester for the Production of Biogas from Cow Dung, biogas digester
dimensions and materials of construction are significant aspects to consider during the
design and fabrication phase. The goal of this research is to offer a thorough
examination of the design and manufacturing of a 2.15 m3 pilot plastic biogas digester
for biogas production. To do so, a design equation was created that took into account
the digester's volume, intake and exit chambers, and digester cover plate, as well as
the digester's form. The digestion chamber of the biogas digester under investigation
was made of HDPE plastic, while the inlet and output chambers were made of bricks
and cement. The research was prompted by various flaws in previous designs, such
as leakage. A ventilation test was performed after manufacture to confirm that the
digester was leak-free. The results revealed a total volumetric methane gas yield of
2.18 m3 (54.50%) and a carbon dioxide yield of 1.77 m3 (44.25%), totaling 4.00 m3.
Furthermore, the percentage concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide were
discovered to be 60% and 30%, respectively. The created plastic biogas digester was
shown to be suitable for producing biogas using cow manure as a substrate.

31
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

The aim of the study conducted by Achinas and Euverink (2019) entitled
“Elevated biogas production from the anaerobic co-digestion of farmhouse waste:
Insight into the process performance and kinetics,” is to evaluate the anaerobic
digestion performance of various wastes (cow manure, food trash, and garden waste)
collected from a regional farmhouse. Batch reactors were set up under mesophilic
settings to see how ternary mixes affected the efficacy of the anaerobic digestion
process. In the batch experiments, different mixing ratios were used. This research
investigated the anaerobic digestion of three different waste streams and came up with
an effective mixing ratio for biogas production. In batch mode, three separate waste
streams and their ternary combinations were treated anaerobically. The treatment of
ternary mixtures improved the effectiveness of anaerobic digestion. The findings of the
experimental testing demonstrated that ternary digestion with a 40:50:10 CM: FW: GW
mixing ratio produced more biogas than mono-digestion of Food Waste. With the
addition of Food Waste, the strong recalcitrance of Cow Manure and Garden Waste
can be overcome. Small biogas units might also be a good solution for farmhouse
owners who want to transform biodegradable waste into biogas and fertilizer.

The region and length of the growing season have an impact on crop quantity
and quality (Rojas-Downing et al., 2017). However, its utilization is inefficient and
causes problems, particularly during the rainy season, when off-odor occurs (Manitoba,
2015). Rainfall is required to keep manure and soils moist, which stimulates microbial
activity and enzyme dispersion, while also approaching the digestion process
(Jacobson et al., 2015; Gliksman et al., 2017). Furthermore, rainfall may have
accelerated nutrient runoff from litter bags, which may have contributed to manure
mass loss (Zhu et al., 2020).

Biogas from Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Municipal Wastewater

Sludge

This study shows how much food waste is collected over the course of 36 days.
They seek advice from the Central Marin Commercial Food-to-Energy Program, which
is a collaboration between the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) and Marin

32
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Sanitary Service (MSS). The amount of food waste that needs to be collected is
expected to be up to 15 tons per day, based on all 500 food waste generators in the
area that participate in the program. Also collected is pre-consumer commercial food
waste, which is then carried to the MSS transfer station for processing using hoppers,
belts, and magnets, before being sent to CMSA for further treatment. The facility has
received about 15,000 gallons of FOG each day (56.7 m3/day) in the last few days, the
majority of which came from restaurants in the MSS service area, and as of July 2016,
the facility received approximately 7.5 tons of food waste per day up to 6 days per
week. Every morning, the FOG and food waste are usually collected. They were then
combined, ground, and recirculated for a few hours in the storage tank. Before being
fed into digesters, the slurry is screened, and they employed a drum screen paddle
mixer to help remove the materials that aren't easily digested. This usually happens in
the late afternoon. CMSA overvalued its 1958 anaerobic digestion system by installing
new mixers, covers, support systems, and biogas purification equipment in order to
upgrade co-digestion of FOG and food waste. A pump mixing system replaces the gas
mixing system. To adjust the pressure inside the digesters, the floating cover of each
digester must be replaced with a two-layer plastic membrane roof top with air in
between. The full-scale operation of anaerobic food waste co-digestion with municipal
sludge is now underway. It is viable, although it is still in its infancy. There is a scarcity
of scientific data on the quality of raw materials. biogas, as well as possible emissions
from biogas-based power generation. This investigation developed scientific data on
the quality and quantity of biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Food waste
digestion and municipal wastewater sludge, as well as their effects on air quality. This
biogas is used to generate biopower. The importance of conditioning/pretreatment and
how well it works biopower generation systems were also evaluated (Jeff Kuo and
Jason Dow, 2017).

The brownfield site lies near the St. Bernard Port on the Mississippi River in
Chalmette, Louisiana. The brownfield site is 39 acres in size; however, it has a mound
of hazardous wasted potliner (SPL) wastes in the center and south. This allows around
19 acres for construction on both sides of the mound, evenly split. Rail, water,
electricity, and natural gas pipelines are all located on or near the property. Municipal

33
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

solid wastes contain a considerable amount of organic food waste. Only 2.5 percent of
trash is diverted from landfills on a yearly basis. Within the study area, which included
the parishes of St. Bernard, Orleans, Plaquemines, and Jefferson, waste was
calculated for food processors, supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes,
and universities. The calculations were made using procedures employed in previous
Connecticut and Massachusetts state investigations. There is a lot of food waste in the
area, and large manufacturers are interested in finding alternative trash disposal
options.

There is a lot of food waste in the area, and large manufacturers are interested
in finding alternative trash disposal options. The study area's total food waste
generation is estimated to be 70,000 tons per year; however, not all wastes would be
suitable for a project. Based on assumptions about participation by different types of
food waste providers, a low scenario of 7,000 tons per year and a medium scenario of
15,000 tons per year were developed. Based on interactions with waste management
professionals, this analysis utilizes a $20/ton bioenergy facility tipping cost. haulers.
Because of their high moisture and organic content, food wastes are an excellent
candidate for AD. AD is the natural, biological breakdown of organic materials in the
absence of oxygen, which results in the production of biogas. Biogas is composed of
60%–70% methane, 30%–40% carbon dioxide, and various trace gases. Biogas can
be used in almost any equipment that is designed to run on natural gas. In wastewater
and manure treatment facilities, AD is extensively employed. There are few examples
of food waste digesters in the United States. Based on a review of the literature, a food
waste digester is expected to have significant installation and operational costs. The
average installed and running expenses are projected to be $561 per ton capacity and
$48 each ton processed. The EPA's Region 9 Co-Digestion Economic Analysis Tool
was used to conduct the financial analysis (CoEAT). The net present value (NPV),
which is a measure of a project's profitability, is expected to be -$6.7 million. The lack
of profitability is owing to low energy and landfill prices in Louisiana, as well as high
upfront and ongoing costs for anaerobic digester technology. The plant's revenues
aren't expected to be enough to cover costs in either scenario (Kristi Moriarty, 2013).

34
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Problems to Encounter from Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste and Suggested

Solutions

Mainly because of the food waste’s energy-rich content, immense availability

and continuously escalating quantity, it becomes the most favorable and reassuring
substrate for anaerobic digestion (Lin et al., 2013, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). Wider
varieties of substrates including those with impurities and even high-moisture contents
can be sufficiently accustomed during anaerobic digestion, in both small and large
dimensions of existing digesters regardless of its geological location and
circumstances, when compared to other technologies for bioenergy production (Appels
et al., 2011, as cited in Xu et al., 2018). There still are several challenges anaerobic
digestion has to deal with when considering food waste as its substrate, in technical,
economic and social aspects. Such obstacles involve accumulation of volatile fatty
acids, foam formation, relatively low buffer capacity, high maintenance and high cost
of operation where all these lead to process instability and low-quality biogas and/or
bioenergy production. It was stated that no more than 2% of food waste in the U.S. is
successfully anaerobically digested (Food Waste Reduction Alliance, 2016, as cited in
Xu et al., 2018).

According to Morales-Polo, del Mar Cledera-Castro, & Moratilla Soria (2018),

an attested way to intensify anaerobic degradation is the pre-treating of substrates,
which generally works by reducing the size of substrate particles for easier cell
obstruction, hence facilitating a more effective hydrolysis stage and elevating biogas
yield including its rate. Accumulation of volatile fatty acids occurs, however, from
overloading of hydrolysis when food waste is pre-treated excessively. Morales-Polo et
al., (2018) also added that through effective planning and arrangement methods for
correct sorting and characterization of food waste applicable at household and
industrial degrees, necessary guide factors – prediction of biogas formation,
development of anaerobic process, a correct nutrient balance assurance, lipid content
reduction and proper carbon to nitrogen ratio – can significantly be determined for
excellent results.

35
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Safety Precautions for Anaerobic Digester

In the biological manufacturing process of an anaerobic digester (AD), organic

feedstock such as waste, animal manures, sludges, cultivated energy crops, and other
organic feedstocks are used. The organic feedstock is transformed by microorganisms
using a multistep process to produce immediate products such as biogas and
digestate. Moving equipment, operating machinery, and human mistakes pose health
and safety threats to any production site (Westenbroek, 2019).

Biogas Dangers: Fire Explosion: Methane contains around 60% biogas and
generates an explosive combination in the air. There is also the possibility of an
explosion hazard if the biogas is diluted between 30% and 10% with air. Therefore,
keep open flames away from the digester. Also, make sure that huge engines and
electric generators are equipped with environmentally friendly components to avoid
sparks igniting the gas; Asphyxiation: This is caused by biogas, which necessitates the
storage of waste in a closed environment. It should be emphasized that entering a plant
with a suspected biogas leak as natural ventilation is prohibited since it cannot be relied
upon to dilute the explosion threats; Disease: Biogas is produced by anaerobic
digestion of manure, which occurs as a result of microorganisms found in animal waste,
some of which might cause infection. Animals, as we all know, carry bacteria, viruses,
and perhaps parasites. When dealing with waste products, remember to take the
necessary precautions by wearing personal protection equipment to avoid coming into
touch with the manure. After handling manure, wash your hands thoroughly before
eating or drinking, as well as before touching your eyes or other mucous membranes;
Confined space entry: Biogas constituents such as carbon dioxide, methane, and
hydrogen sulfide have the potential to cause asphyxiation as well as fire or explosion
in confined places. It's crucial to remember that even a few gallons of manure or other
organic waste in a tank or restricted space, under the correct circumstances, can
constitute a major health concern.

Manufacturer Warnings: For maintenance as well as servicing requirements and

availability, you should contact the manufacturer.

36
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Gas Sensors: It aids with the detection of threats such as explosions, asphyxia,
and poisonous gas. Disposable and electronic gas sensors are available. The
electronic sensors must be tested on a regular basis, and they feature a disposable
component that must be replaced on a regular basis. These sensors can only be used
by qualified personnel to determine whether or not a location is safe.

Personal Detective Equipment: If a person wishes to enter a location where

manure is stored, they must be equipped with the necessary personal protection
equipment, which includes a self-contained breathing device (SCBA). it requires the
operator to be certified in its use, which includes equipment-fit testing and medical
clearance.

The sections below outline the supplies and equipment that an AD facility
should have on hand for normal operations as well as in the event of an emergency.
The list is separated into supplies and equipment that must be kept on site so that staff
can get to them quickly and equipment that must be locally available and delivered to
the site within a few hours. It should be kept with the safety equipment, together with a
record of equipment inspections and expiration dates, as well as the equipment
manuals (Jenkins, 2012).

Materials certificates: One facility was said to have been built using substandard
tank bolts that collapsed during commissioning, causing a major land pollution problem;
Failures in materials and building control do not have to happen; excellent project
management should guarantee that the proper processes are followed to avoid them;
First maintenance: Explosions and poisonous gas occurrences are typical during the
emptying of digester tanks (after confining the gas). Welding and entering a biogas
tank's confined space both resulted in mishaps. Repairing spinning equipment that had
been contaminated by digester contents was also a factor. For first commissioning,
confined space training and industry-standard procedures are still required.

37
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Synthesis

Approximately one-third of global food production throughout the food supply

chain goes to waste each year, to which about 60% of this comes from households.
Reduction of household food waste disposed of in landfills have substantial significance
to the reduction of total quantity of food waste discarded in landfills, hence contributing
to a significant decrease in global carbon emissions from total solid waste generation.

A treatment method for these large amounts of food waste that has found to be
the cleanest, most efficient and most cost-effective is the anaerobic digestion. The
biogas produced during anaerobic digestion contains 60-70% methane and 30-40&
carbon dioxide, to which this portion of methane constituents can be utilized as cooking
gas for domestic use, while the remnants of the digested food waste can be used
harmlessly as plant and soil fertilizer. For higher quality of biogas output and greater
efficiency of the digester, cow manure has been proven as a highly effectual substrate
to be co-digested with food waste.

Several studies and experiments have been conducted to reform and re-
engineer the existing designs of anaerobic digesters in order to make the most of their
functionality and practicality. The researchers of this present study have found similar,
significant characteristics from respective researches that will guide them to the right
pattern. The originality that this study presents which has not been brought up yet by
other researchers is the modification of the size of a portable digester into the smallest
it could administer while still producing high quality output of biogas. This modification
also includes unique features of some parts of the device that will remarkably improve
its efficiency, which will be discussed more in the next chapters.

38
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the methods used by the researchers to obtain

information and gather the data needed to prove the feasibility of this research. This
chapter also tackles the research design, which includes the step-by-step process in
making the research more reliable. Included in this chapter are the methods used in
gathering data as well as the certain instruments used in attaining the objectives
mentioned in the previous chapters.

Research Method

This process describes the methodology and the procedures applied to

achieve the objectives of this study in designing and fabricating a portable anaerobic
digester. This research provides data, theoretical calculations through the researchers’
review of related literature. They also provide planning, project design, construction,
materials and specification that will be valuable and necessary in constructing the
prototype and portable digester. And the most important in this procedure is the
experimental and testing part of the designed portable anaerobic digester which proves
that this study is successful.

Planning

In this chapter, the researchers tend to layout specific methods and procedures
to be strictly followed in order to attain appropriate results when fulfilling the objectives
stated in the study. In doing so, the researchers outline first the variables and measures
needed in familiarizing with and building the foundation of the present study, by
demonstrating the project design. This design serves as the embodiment of the entire
outlook of the study. The data to be gathered are to be familiarized and well-studied in
order to collect the right input and derive the relevant outcomes needed in the research
study. The construction of this design has to follow the right parameters so there will
be no technical problems in the testing of the trials.

39
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Data Gathering and Analysis of Data

Testing and trials are performed and executed by the researchers in order to
attain the output required in the study. All the output are carefully listed and analyzed
by the researchers to support or give enough information and evidence for the
researchers to conduct a summary that either supports the hypotheses of the present
study or not.

The testing is done with corresponding variables to acquire information

depending on the time interval. The information gathered will help the researchers to
fully analyze all the given input into output. Testing serves as the tool for data recovery.
It is composed of three parts that contains each of the different sub-variables namely,
the dimension of the digester, and the daily input of the food waste and the addition of
chemicals used. The extent of existence for all variables in the research area is
measured on a given output of the digester.

Project Design

Anaerobic digesters design has progressed through time, from classic in-situ
concrete build to permanent dome, floating drum, and plug flow types, to portable tanks
and plastic drums. Anaerobic digesters are often larger in size and design, and they
require longer time to construct and assemble.

The researchers designed a strategy to reconstruct the anaerobic digester so

that it is as portable as feasible, requires low maintenance, is beneficial to the
environment, efficient, and uncomplicated to install and dismantle for the convenience
of every household user. The use of household food waste as feed enables this process
of waste disposal without the need for landfills. Carbon dioxide and water are
combustion byproducts with low particle counts, lowering dangerous and destructive
air pollutants. Waste-generated biogas will discourage conventional energy sources
alternatives, therefore reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The system's method is
waste-free since the digestion contents are suitable for use as fertilizer.

40
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Given the Philippines' climate, the PAD is intended to fit in a household and
adapt to any weather. The PAD is made up of major parts: the digestion tank or
digestate chamber, the biogas collector, the digestion outlet, the feedstock inlet, the
biogas outlet, the pressure regulator valve, and the biogas storage container. Its frame
is dark in color to aid heat retention on the tank. The PAD has a total capacity of 30L.

Figure 3.1. Isometric view of Portable Anaerobic Digester

Figure 3.2. Back view (left), top view (middle) and left side view (right) of Portable
Anaerobic Digester

41
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Control Narrative

To explain the process presented in the flow chart below, the cow manure
substrate mixed with water with a 2:1 (manure water) ratio firstly enters the digestate
chamber before closing the PAD drawer with bolts to ensure leakage prevention. The
PAD is then fed daily with feedstock through the feedstock inlet before closing the PAD
entirely to maintain its anaerobic processes. The mixture inside the digestion tank is
then regulated with the use of the installed agitator.

Figure 3.3. Portable Anaerobic Digester working design flow process

42
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

During the digestion process for days, the biogas generated from the mixture
gathers in the biogas collector after which when enough biogas under the appropriate
pressure has accumulated, compression takes place before storing them in the biogas
storage (freon tank) to prevent fluctuation of the biogas molecules. On the other side
of the flow process is the disposal of the remnants of the feedstock, called digestate.
Digestate are stored in the digestate chamber until it is ready to be recycled as fertilizer.

Detailed Description

The composition of Portable Biogas Digester (PAD) consists of various parts

necessary for the device to properly function and generate biogas and digestate
products effectively. These are feedstock inlet, pressure valve, digestate chamber, gas
line, biogas storage, agitator, sight glass, digestion tank, biogas collector and other
necessary accessories.

Feedstock inlet

Figure 3.4. Feedstock inlet of Portable Anaerobic Digester

The feedstock inlet is the opening part of the PAD where the input (household
food waste) is fed into the main body of the machine. It is mainly composed of a PVC
pipe that stretches out down to the bottom of the digestate chamber with a certain
allowance. The upper tip of the pipe has a lid that ensure prevention of gas leakage. A
funnel is to be utilized and inserted into the inlet when feeding the PAD with food waste
to provide easy convenience to the user.

43
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Pressure valve

Figure 3.5. Pressure valve of Portable Anaerobic Digester

The pressure valve is attached to the biogas chamber of the digestion tank. Its
function is to measure the pressure of biogas to determine if it has reached enough
pressure under a preferred value before transferring, compressing and storing the
biogas into its storage, necessary for the functionality of the output which is to be
utilized subsequently as cooking gas.

Digestate chamber

Figure 3.6. Digestate chamber of Portable Anaerobic Digester

The digestate chamber is the bottom half of the PAD and is built as a drawer
compartment. This is where the feedstock enters mixes with the cow manure for co-
digestion. After the anaerobic digestion process and the biogas has been harvested,
the digestate — the remnants of the feedstock after being anaerobically digested, or
sometimes called slurry product — is to be discharged from the machine by drawing
the compartment and transferring the contents to another container to be used
afterwards as fertilizer. The design of the compartment door is identical to that of the

44
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

doors of a refrigerator where it utilizes a door gasket, locking it with a number of bolts
to ensure leakage prevention and maintain constant pressure inside the tank.

Gas line

Figure 3.7. Gas line of Portable Anaerobic Digester

The gas line mainly consists of a PVC tube that conveys biogas from the biogas
chamber to the biogas storage.

Biogas storage

Figure 3.8. Freon tank as biogas storage of Portable Anaerobic Digester

The biogas storage container used where the final output of PAD is stored is a
freon tank.

Agitator

Figure 3.9. Agitator for Portable Anaerobic Digester

45
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

The agitator is attached to the digestate chamber to which its function is to

properly mix the newly fed food waste with the current slurry in the digestate chamber.
This feature is done manually.

Sight glass

Figure 3.10. Sight glass for Portable Anaerobic Digester

The sight glass mainly consists of tempered glass locked with bolts. Its purpose
is for the user to regularly observe and monitor the occurrence inside the digestion tank
and to be able to maintain its feedstock capacity in case of overflow.

Construction

The construction of the Portable Anaerobic Digester starts with the building of
the digestion tank which mainly composes of metal sheets welded and assembled
using the proposed dimensions. The bottom half of the tank is where a drawer for the
removable digestate chamber is built. The material used for digestate chamber is a
plastic container made of high-density polyethylene, framed with the black iron metal
sheets. The upper half of the tank serves as the biogas chamber where it collects the
generated gasses before leaving the tank through an LPG hose attached at its top
together with the inlet and the pressure valve. The attached LPG hose then connects
to the biogas collector which is a tire interior.

Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3

Figure 3.11. Components of PAD digestion tank

46
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

The three frames are then assembled into one, ensuring they are tightly welded
together and glued with sealants to avoid leakage of input and output substances.

Figure 3.12. Construction of PAD digestion tank

The drawer compartment for the digestate chamber is built separately as it is
attached with a gasket rubber seal at its top front to lock itself with the main tank while
it is closed to prevent gas leakage and opening it unintentionally. The handle for
opening and closing the drawer is also built separately before attaching it to the
chamber, which is an extension of the agitator built and coupled inside the drawer.

For the inlet, PVC pipe is used which stretches down to the bottom of the
digestate tank drawer while creating a bit of allowance. Funnel is used for easy feeding
of PAD through the inlet. A sight glass is built at the top of digestion tank sealed with
bolts and sealants. The biogas storage placed at the left side of the PAD. Freon tank
is used as the container for biogas storage.

PAD front view PAD isometric view

Figure 3.13. PAD front view (left) and isometric view (right)

47
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Materials and Specifications

The tables below show all the materials and specifications used in the entire
project. Functions are also described.

Materials Function Specifications Cost

Plastic It serves as an inside body Made of high-density

280 PHP
Bucket of feedstock storage. polyethylene.

To control the pressure from

the biogas chamber and
Pressure
reduce it to a preferred 0 to 72.5 psi 30 PHP
gauge
value before transferring
and storing into its storage

It serves as a seal for the

Rubber
drawer to avoid the gas leak Made of rubber
Sealing
from the machine while 340x295x235 mm
Strip
feeding.

It is the pathway from the PVC (polyvinyl chloride)

LPG Hose chamber to a biogas 1 metre length 120 PHP
storage. 8 mm of diameter

Metal It serves as housing for the Black iron

2,840 PHP
Sheets anaerobic digester 350x339x493 mm

Freon tank Used for biogas storage 1.5 kg 471 PHP

Mild steel
Ordinary rod Used as an agitator 180 PHP
13 mm D x 325 mm L

Tempered
It serves as a sight glass 230x110 mm
glass

It is use to seal each of the

28 pcs
Bolt Screw sides of sight glass and the
¼ x ¾ mm
feedstock drawer

Bearing Used for agitator to rotate it 2 pcs 120 PHP

Housing of bearing for the 70 mm outside diameter

Engineering
agitator to avoid having a 25 mm inside diameter 150 PHP
plastic
slurry 20 mm thickness

48
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Materials Function Specifications Cost

It is used to clamp and seal

Hose
the LPG hose and 2-way ½ inch 35 PHP
clamps
splitter.

Used fluid shutoff valve in

Ball Valve upstream oil and gas ½ inch
production

Used for detachable feed 1 inch diameter

Pipe 120 PHP
stock 605mm of length

It serves as a cover for

Pipe Cap detachable feed stock to 1 inch
prevent the smell.

Used to keep the screw

Washer from loosening to keep ¼ inch 90 PHP
sealed the drawer

It is used to sealed all the

Epoxy 150 PHP
sides of the PAD

used to sealed joint PVC

Neltex
pipe to prevent leak

LPG Hose
It is used to connect the two
2-way ½ inch 75
hoses into a single hose.
splitter

Table 3.1. Materials and Specifications

Testing

The outcomes from the testing to be conducted in the next chapters will be input
in the tables below. These obtained data and results are necessary to confirm if the
objectives of the study are achieved. The tables and patterns shown are based on the
available data and properties documented during the entire course of the study in order
to ensure that the methods used in obtaining results in this study are credible and
reliable for data gathering and confirmation.

49
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10

Daily input of
food waste
Average daily
input of food Total food waste / total number of days:
waste
Table 3.2. Amount of daily input food waste for a period of days

TRIAL/S
Feedstock
Retention Biogas
time (days) Food Waste Cow manure accumulated
(g) (kg) + water (L)

Biogas Combustibility: Failed / Succeeded

Table 3.3. Amount of biogas accumulated for a period of days

Industrial
Portable Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Digester
Digester
Retention time (days)
Unit input of feedstock
Unit output of biogas
accumulated
Total construction and
maintenance cost

Table 3.4. Comparison of total cost between PAD and industrial anaerobic digesters

50
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Industrial
Portable Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Digester (PAD)
Digester (IAD)
Unit input of feedstock
Unit output of biogas
Total monthly input of
feedstock
Total monthly output of
biogas
Output/Input ratio in
monthly basis

Table 3.5. Comparison of output/input ratio between PAD and industrial anaerobic digesters

Daily Monthly
Average food waste generated from
each household
Portion of household food waste that
ends up in landfills
Average amount of food waste used
as feedstock for P.A.D.
Reduced discarded food waste =
food waste thrown in landfills – food
waste disposed of in P.A.D.
Percent decrease = reduced
discarded food waste / total
discarded food waste in landfills
Table 3.6. Percent decrease of landfilled food waste if every household utilizes PAD
as disposal system for food waste

51
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DICUSSION

In this chapter, analysis of data generated from Portable Anaerobic Digester and
the obtained results will be discussed thoroughly to assess and evaluate the objectives
needed to attain in this study.

Statement of the Problem No. 1: How much biogas, in volume, can the portable
anaerobic digester produce in a day per unit mass of food waste?

As for the amount of food waste the PAD can accommodate:

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10

Daily input of
120 g 120 g 120 g 120 g 120 g 200 g 1000 g 900 g 500 g 500 g
food waste
Average daily Total food waste / total number of days:
input of food [120(5) + 200 + 1000 + 900 + 500(2)] g = 3700 g = 3.7 kg
waste 3.7 kg / 10 days = 0.37 kg / day

Table 4.1. Amount of daily input food waste for the first 10 days

For a 10-day batch, the PAD can accommodate an average amount of 0.37 kg
of food waste each day, including the feedstock starter for digester which are 12 kg of
cow manure plus 6 liters of water.

Concerning the volume of biogas induced from the PAD, the volume of the tire
interior where the biogas is gradually collected is calculated:

volume of tire interior = volume of biogas accumulated

volume of tire interior = (/4) (thickness)2 ×  (mean diameter)

volume = (/4) (3 inches)2 ×  (17 inches) = 377.512 in3

volume = 377.512 in3 × (0.0254 m / in)3 × (1000 L / m) = 6.186 L

If the contents of the tire interior are full, it occupies a volume of 6.186 L. To
tabulate the amount of biogas the PAD can generate after 10 days prior to the success
of the biogas combustibility:

52
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

TRIAL 1
Feedstock
Retention Biogas
time (days) Food Waste Cow manure accumulated
(g) (kg) + water (L)
1st 120 g 12 kg + 6 L Not full
nd
2 120 g 0 Not full
3rd 120 g 0 Not full
th
4 120 g 0 Not full
5th 120 g 0 Half-full
Biogas Combustibility: Failed

Table 4.2. Amount of biogas accumulated for the first 5 days

After 5 days of feeding the PAD with 120 grams of food waste each feed, the
biogas was tested for its combustibility although the biogas collector was only half-full.
The biogas failed to burn. On the following days, the researchers increased the amount
of food waste supplied to the PAD for another 5 days before the biogas collector was
fully occupied. The biogas was tested again and it succeeded to combust.

TRIAL 2
Feedstock
Retention Biogas
time (days) Food Waste Cow manure accumulated
(g) (kg) + water (L)
6th 200 g 0 Half-full
Three-quarter
7th 1000 g 0
full
Three-quarter
8th 900 g 0
full
9th 500 g 0 Full
10th 500 g 0 Full
Biogas Combustibility: Success

Table 4.3. Amount of biogas accumulated from 6th – 10th day of feeding

53
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

To get the volume of biogas the PAD can produce in a day per unit mass of food
waste:
total volume of biogas accumulated (v) = 6.186 L
total mass of food waste supplied (m) = 3.7 kg
v / m = 6.186 L / 3.7 kg = 1.672 L/kg ÷ 10 days = 0.167 L / kg-day
Therefore, using 12 kg of cow manure plus 6 L of water and 3.7 kg of food waste,
the PAD can generate 0.167 L of biogas per kilogram of food waste per day for 10
days.

Statement of the Problem No. 2: How much of the slurry product produced by the
portable anaerobic digester, on a mass basis, can be used as fertilizer in a day per unit
mass of food waste?

The portable anaerobic digester has a capacity of 30 liters overall, consisting of

digestate chamber and biogas chamber. It is initially fed with 12 kg of cow manure, 6
liters of water and then subsequently fed daily with food waste which amounted to a
total of 3.7 kg for 10 days. The mixture amounts to 21.7 kg of digestate. The slurry
output to be used as fertilizer after the digestion process is estimated to be 20 kg, the
approximate quantity of the remnants from the addition of feedstock, cow manure and
water after a portion of them had evidently evaporated and transformed into biogas.

To get that mass basis of the slurry product that can be used as fertilizer in a day
per unit mass of food waste:
m = total slurry product (in kg) ÷ total food waste used (in kg)

m = 20 kg ÷ 3.7 kg

m = 5.4 kg in a day per kilogram of food waste

An estimated amount of 5.4 kg of slurry product can be used as fertilizer in a day

per 1 kg of food waste.

Statement of the Problem No. 3: What is the cost effectiveness of using portable
anaerobic digester when compared to the typical anaerobic digester used in food waste
treatment plants with the same useful output/input ratio?

54
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

The table below represent the data that show the cost-effectiveness of using
portable anaerobic digester when compared to the typical industrial anaerobic digester.

Industrial
Portable Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Digester
Digester
Retention time (days) 10 days 36 days
Unit input of feedstock 0.37 kg/day 0.454 kg/day
Unit output of biogas
0.6186 L/day 3.785 L/day
accumulated
Total construction and $400,000 (Php 50/$1)
Php 8,965
maintenance cost = Php 20×106

Table 4.4. Comparison of total cost between PAD and industrial anaerobic digesters

Based on the data, the portable anaerobic digester (PAD) can accumulate a total
of 6.186 L of biogas for 10 days, discharging 0.6186 L/day while an industrial anaerobic
digester can accumulate 136.26 L of biogas for 36 days, discharging 3.785 L/day. For
the feedstock, the PAD requires 3.7 kg of food waste for 10 days while the industrial
digester requires a total of 16.344 kg of food waste for 36 days.

To compare the cost-effectiveness of the two types of digesters, the obtained

data should have the same output/input ratio. To derive this, both unit values will be
multiplied into monthly (30 days) basis as shown in the table below:

Industrial
Portable Anaerobic
Anaerobic
Digester (PAD)
Digester (IAD)
Unit input of feedstock 0.37 kg/day 0.454 kg/day
Unit output of biogas 0.6186 L/day 3.785 L/day
Total monthly input of
11.1 kg 13.62 kg
feedstock
Total monthly output of
18.558 L 113.55 L
biogas
Output/Input ratio in
1.672 L / kg fw 8.337 L / kg fw
monthly basis
Table 4.5. Comparison of output/input ratio between PAD and industrial anaerobic digesters

55
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

To be able to determine how much it would cost to construct an anaerobic

digester in able to produce one unit of L/kgfw ratio within a month:

PAD: (Php 8,965) / (1.672 L/kgfw) = Php 5361.84 per L/kgfw

IAD: (Php 20,000,000) / (8.337 L/kgfw) = Php 2,398,944.46 L/kgfw

Based on the calculations, there is a big difference of cost when choosing PAD
as an alternative device for food waste anaerobic digestion. It is evident from this
viewpoint that the use of PAD is more cost-effective than relying on the municipal
collection of food waste to be delivered to large waste treatment plants where it would
cost way more expensive to operate.

Statement of the Problem No. 4: How much in percentage will the amount of food
waste be reduced and prevented from ending up in landfills if each household were to
utilize the portable anaerobic digester?

For each year, about 1.3 billion tonnes of foods are wasted (fw) globally, 61%
of which comes from households (hh). Given that there are approximately 2.3 billion
houses (with an average of 4-5 members) in the world, and there are 365 days for one
year (yr):

0.61 × 1.3×109 tonnes × 1000 kg / tonne = 7.93×1011 kg / yr

(7.93×1011 kg / yr) × (1 yr / 365 days) × (1 / 2.3×109 hh) = 0.945 kg / hh-day

For each household, 0.945 kilogram of food is wasted per day. Based on recent
studies, an approximate of 66% of the residential sector’s wasted food was landfilled
on a yearly basis. Therefore:

0.66 × 7.93×1011 kg / yr = 5.2338×1011 kg / yr

(5.2338×1011 kg / yr) × (1 yr / 365 days) × (1 / 2.3×109 hh) = 0.623 kg / hh-day

Accordingly, an estimation of 0.623 kilogram of household food waste is

destined to be thrown in landfills each day.

56
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

To tabulate the daily and monthly amount of food waste reduced in landfills if
each household were to utilize the Portable Anaerobic Digester as a disposal bin for
food waste, and the percent decrease of total discarded food waste in landfills:

Daily Monthly
Average food waste generated from
0.945 kg 28.35 kg
each household
Portion of household food waste that
0.623 kg 18.69 kg
ends up in landfills
Average amount of food waste used
0.37 kg 11.1 kg
as feedstock for P.A.D.
Reduced discarded food waste =
food waste thrown in landfills – food 0.253 kg 7.59 kg
waste disposed of in P.A.D.
Percent decrease = reduced
discarded food waste / total 40.61% 40.61%
discarded food waste in landfills
Table 4.6. Percent decrease of landfilled food waste if every household utilizes PAD
as disposal system for food waste

From the data above, if each household with an average of 4-5 members per
unit were to install Portable Anaerobic Digester in their residences, approximately
40.61% of food waste discarded would be reduced and prevented from being landfilled
daily.

Statement of the Problem No. 5: Why is utilizing the portable anaerobic digester an
effective solution to help reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in Earth’s
atmosphere?

The researchers contend that using the Portable Anaerobic Digester (PAD) is an
efficient method not only to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the Earth's
atmosphere, but also to divert biodegradable or food waste from landfills. The Portable
Anaerobic Digester (PAD) reduces methane emissions by storing methane from
manure and food waste, which may subsequently be utilized as an emergency cooking
gas. Methane capture is critical because methane is a potent greenhouse gas that, if
allowed to escape into the environment, contributes to climate change. Promoting the

57
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

use of technologies such as anaerobic digestion will help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, which have a significant influence on the environment. Based from the
previous calculations, the PAD can effectively reduce a notable amount of landfilled
food waste, hence resulting to a considerable percentage of decrease in methane
emissions to atmosphere.

General Objective: The general objective of the study is to design and build a portable
anaerobic digester to be utilized as a disposal bin for household food waste.

Anaerobic digesters have long been utilized as an effective, clean way of

disposing solid wastes around the world for centuries. Various changes and
modifications have shaped the continuous evolution of this technology for the sole
purpose of greater improvement and higher efficiency of digesters. One of these is the
customization of portable anaerobic digesters for disposal of food waste. This modified
design still contains heavy disadvantages which when properly addressed, would have
generated more benefits and conveniences.

The researchers in this study have provided a serviceable solution to this through
fabricating a trash-bin sized anaerobic digester, using appropriate materials costing the
least it could accommodate while securing its functionality, designing it in such a
manner that maximizes its portability and compactness. This optimized design has
been proven effective in this study as shown from previous data and calculations which
show its cost-effectiveness, practicality, safety and efficacy.

Specific Objective No. 1: To help reduce a bulk amount of food waste releasing toxic
gases into the atmosphere.

In the past few years, the global warming contribution of food waste is almost
equivalent 87%. The percentage of food waste is the biggest cause of landfills. The
results of this present study show that 40.61% of food waste can be reduced and
prevented from being landfilled upon utilizing portable anaerobic digester. Hence, this
percent decrease certainly will lessen the supposed amount of methane gases to be
emitted from landfilled food waste into the atmosphere.

58
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Specific Objective No. 2: To extract biogas from food waste to be utilized

subsequently as cooking gas.

This study has proved that the design and fabrication of PAD is effective and is
able to produce an adequate quantity of combustible biogas. However, due to
insufficient amount of time given to the researchers to further experiment for the PAD’s
full capability, the researchers were not able to examine the capacity on how much the
total accumulated biogas can manage to cook and/or boil a specific amount of food
and/or liquids. In spite of not being able to assess the extent of cooking gas the PAD
can employ, its operation remains serviceable and functional in view of the fact that the
main end of this study is for a household unit to store and keep a container of spare
cooking gas for emergency purposes rather than a replacement to one.

Specific Objective No. 3: To be able to suggest the machine as an effective alternative

trash disposal bin for food waste in the household which can be easily facilitated and
monitored.

To be able to build an effective alternative trash disposal bin for household food
waste, the researchers started with designing a prototype that highlights unique and
distinctive features which would make the device convenient and manageable. The
researchers have succeeded in fabricating the proposed design. Additionally, the
researchers tend to emphasize certain features of the device that helped elevate the
feasibility of PAD such as the sight glass, agitator handle, the simplicity of the inlet
section and the small-scale size of the entire mechanism.

59
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter consists of summary of findings from obtained data and results,
conclusions, and recommendations for the future researchers and interested readers.
In this chapter, precise answers to the main objectives and problems to be addressed
through the researchers’ design and fabrication for Portable Anaerobic Digester have
been provided in a systematized manner.

Summary of Findings

The Portable Anaerobic Digester (PAD) is a 30 L small-scale type of anaerobic

digester (AD). Fabrication of AD is simply an enclosed structure made with an airtight
enclosure where the breakdown of feedstock substrates occurs. The anaerobic
digestion spoils the digestate slurry producing methane constituents, converting them
into biogas. The feedstock used for PAD are cow manure, water and food waste. With
the appropriate amount of cow manure and daily feedstock, the PAD can generate
methane gases in just a span of 1 to 2 weeks. The methane gas, when converted into
biogas, can be used for emergency cooking gas and the remnants can be used as soil
fertilizer. For safety purposes, the digester must be placed in a well-ventilated space or
open space. The PAD consists of the following parts and components: drawer
compartment for the digestate, black iron for the housing, PVC pipe, pressure gauge,
LPG hose, sight glass, agitator; and for necessary accessories: engineering plastic,
valves, bolts and nuts, sealants and gasket rubber. The produced biogas is collected
in a tire interior to be compressed and then stored in a freon tank.

For the first five days during the digestion process, feeding 120 grams of food
waste each day, the digester produced 3 liters of gas but failed to combust due to its
lack of methane content and the dominance of carbon dioxide content. On the 6th day,
200 grams of biogas was fed to the digester and still did not produce combustible
biogas. On the 7th day, 1 kilogram was fed to the device, while 900 grams were added
on the 8th and 500 grams both during the 9th and 10th day. The next day, the digester

60
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

had finally produced biogas that was combustible enough. The total volume of
produced biogas is equal to the volume of the used tire interior for biogas collection
which amounts to 6.186 liters.

Considering that the daily input of food waste is 0.37 kg including the initial
feedstock considered as the digestion starter which consists of cow manure and water
mixture (2:1 ratio for manure:water) weighing 12 kg and 6 kg, respectively, the PAD
can produce an average of 0.619 L of biogas per day for 10 days, or 0.167 L of it per
kg of food waste. Also, an estimated amount of 5.4 kg of slurry product can be produced
as fertilizer in a day per kg of food waste. Additionally, a major difference of cost
between PAD and regular waste treatment plants has determined PAD to be more cost-
effective. Furthermore, a remarkable 40.61% of landfilled food waste can be reduced
annually if households use PAD as disposal system for food waste. With this said, the
PAD is proficient in reducing a notable amount of landfilled food waste, resulting to a
considerable percentage of decrease in methane emissions to atmosphere.

Conclusions

The researchers have fulfilled the general objective of this study supported by
the gathered data and computed output which prove the functionality of the proposed
design. The researchers have succeeded in fabricating a portable anaerobic digester
suitable for domestic food waste disposal system. The researchers have succeeded in
fabricating the proposed design which features distinct attributes that make the device
feasible and convenient. In addition, this study has proved that this modification and
operation of PAD is effective in producing a suitable quantity of combustible biogas that
can be used as emergency cooking gas. Moreover, the environmental effect of the
usage of this device has a significant, positive impact with regards to the inevitable
heightening of greenhouse gases trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. Further, the use
of this PAD may also affect the LPG companies to lower their prices due to presumptive
high demand and replacement of alternative cooking fuel, which will benefit every
household in economical aspect.

61
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Recommendations

Due to lack of sufficient time during the entire course of the PAD experiment
and shortage of budget, regardless of its success as well as the accomplishment of the
objectives of this study, the following recommendations are nevertheless provided by
the researchers in order to maximize the functionality and effectiveness of PAD.

1. The researchers recommend the use of plastic drum or concrete instead of iron
as the housing for portable anaerobic digester since the produced biogas may
contaminate the unadvised material which will certainly cause corrosion.
2. If the PAD user wishes to replace the LPG at home to a convenient anaerobic
digester, increasing the capacity of the drum to 100-150 liters is recommended
in order to attain the appropriate amount of biogas needed for continuous usage
as cooking gas.
3. The researchers recommend the replacement of sight glass material from
tempered glass to a clear fiber glass for the user to be able to record the
digestion activity inside the digester more clearly and detail by detail. Also,
placing the sight glass on the side of the PAD is advised in order to properly
have a glimpse of the mixture level inside the digestate chamber.
4. To improve the portability of the PAD, the researchers suggest attaching of
wheels so that it can be moved around the area and avoid carrying due to its
heaviness, especially when there is already feedstock inside the PAD.
5. For the testing of biogas, the researchers advise allotting an adequate amount
of time during the experiment in order to achieve the full effectiveness of the
biogas from the PAD.
6. For the storage, placing the PAD in a well-ventilated area or in an open space
for safety purposes is highly suggested.
7. For biogas quality, the researchers advise getting the biogas tested in
recommended laboratories for quality testing of its methane contents. Due to
shortage of budget and resources, the researchers could not afford to have the
biogas output test its quality.

62
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdallah, M., Shanableh, A., Adghim, M., Saad, S., & Ghenai, C. (2018). Biogas
Production from Different Types of Cow Manure. Advances in Engineering
Technology & Sciences Multi-Conferences.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASET.2018.8376791

Abubakar, E., Sadiq, Y.O., Umar, A. A., & Wuritka, E.G. (2018). Designing Portable
Anaerobic Digester for the Production of Alternative Ceramic Fuel. Journal of
the Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka,
Nigeria, 6(2), 75. http://tbejournal.com/index.php/tbej/article/view/55/62

Achinas, S., & Euverink, G. J. W. (2019). Elevated biogas production from the
anaerobic co-digestion of farmhouse waste: Insight into the process
performance and kinetics. Waste Management & Research, 37(12), 1240–
1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19873383

Adelard, L., & Poulsen, T. (2016). Improving biogas quality and methane yield via co-
digestion of agricultural and urban biomass wastes. Waste Management, 54,
118-125.

Ahlberg-Eliasson, K., Westerholm, M., Isaksson, S., & Schnürer, A. (2021). Anaerobic
Digestion of Animal Manure and Influence of Organic Loading Rate and
Temperature on Process Performance, Microbiology, and Methane Emission
from Digestates. Frontiers in Energy Research, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.740314

American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 3, 79-83 Available

online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajme/3/3/2 © Science and Education
Publishing DOI:10.12691/ajme-3-3-2

Babatola, J.O. (2008). Comparative Study of Biogas Yield Pattern in Some Animal and
Household Wastes. An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, 2, 54-65.

63
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Baek, G., Kim, D., Kim, J., Kim, H., & Lee, C. (2020). Treatment of Cattle Manure by
Anaerobic Co-Digestion with Food Waste and Pig Manure: Methane Yield and
Synergistic Effect. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/YOWHAN/Downloads/ijerph-17-
04737.pdf

Biogas Basics. (2018, September 19). Energypedia.

https://energypedia.info/wiki/Biogas_Basics#:~:text=Biogas%20is%20compris
ed%20primarily%20of,anaerobic%20(without%20air)%20conditions

Cooking with Biogas. (2019, December 9). Energypedia.

https://energypedia.info/wiki/Cooking_with_Biogas#:~:text=Biogas%20burns%
20very%20cleanly%2C%20and,or%20waiting%20time%20is%20required.&te
xt=Biogas%20can%20be%20used%20for,can%20be%20used%20as%20fertil
izer

Demirbas, A. (2017). Fuel Properties of Hydrogen, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG),

and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for Transportation. Energy Sources, 601-
610.

Elauria, J., Lunag, M. Jr. (2021). Characterization and management status of

household biodegradable waste in an upland city of Benguet, Philippines.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10163-020-01167-3.

Florkowski, W. J., & Klepacka, A.M. (2017). Food Waste in Rural Households. AgEcon
Search. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/252812/files/SAEAFood%20waste%20p
osting%20Jan%2018.pdf

Giordano, C., & Franco, S. (2021). Household Food Waste from an International
Perspective. Sustainability. 13(9), 5122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095122

Gliksman, R. D., Seligmann, D. R., Sperling, N. O., Haenel, D. A. S., Arnone, J. A., &
Grünzweig, J. M. (2017). Biotic degradation at night, abiotic degradation at day:

64
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

positive feedbacks on litter decomposition in drylands. Glob Change Biol, 23,

1564-1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13465

Hidayati, S., Utomo, T. P., Suroso, E., & Maktub, Z. A. (2019). Technical and
technology aspect assessment of biogas agroindustry from cow manure: case
study on cattle livestock industry in South Lampung District. Journal Physics:
Conference Series: Earth and Environment Science, 230(2018), 18-20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/230/1/012072

Hounslow, E. (2011). Designing the ideal compact anaerobic digester for middle class
Sri Lanka. Retrieved December 12, 2021, from https://www.doc-
developpement-
durable.org/file/Energie/biogaz/61_AD%20for%20Sri%20Lanka%20Emily%20
Hounslow.pdf

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14,

Number 10, 2019 (Special Issue) © Research India Publications.
http://www.ripublication.com

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 11,
November 2018, pp. 2639–2648, Article ID: IJCIET_09_11_266 Available
online at
http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=11
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

Jacobson, K., Diepeningen, A. V., Evans, S., Fritts, R., Gemmel, P., Marsho, C., Seely,
M., Wenndt, A., Yang, X., & Jacobson, P. (2015). Non-Rainfall Moisture
Activates Fungal Decomposition of Surface Litter in the Namib Sand Sea. PLOS
ONE, 10(2015), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126977

Jenkins, A., Gornall, L., & Cripps, H. (2012). Lessons for safe design and operation of
anaerobic digesters. IChemE. https://www.icheme.org/media/9063/xxiii-paper-
67.pdf

65
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Khan, M. (2020). Investigation of Biogas Energy Yield from Local Food Waste and
Integration of Biogas Digester and Baking Stove for Injera Preparation: A Case
Study in the University of Gondar Student Cafeteria.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jen/2020/8892279/

Khan, M. E., & Martin, A. R. (2016). Review of biogas digester technology in rural
Bangladesh. Renewable & sustainable energy reviews.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.044

Kouya-Takala, G., Nguimbous-Kouoh, J. J., Biyindi, T.D., & Manguelle-Dicoum, E.

(2018). Biogas and Digestate Production in a Portable Anaerobic Digester by
Methanization. https://www.iaras.org/iaras/home/caijres/biogas-and-digestate-
production-in-a-portable-anaerobic-digester-by-methanization.

Kuo, J., & Dow, J. (2017). Biogas production from anaerobic digestion of food waste
and relevant air quality implications. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 67(9), 1000-1011.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2017.1316326

Latif, M. B. (2021). Effect of Sludge Content on Different Types of Food Waste

Degradation in Anaerobic Digester. Science Direct. Retrieved December 12,
2021, from https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-
ir/bitstream/handle/10106/29798/LATIF-THESIS-
2021.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Lebele-Alawa B., Nkoi, B., Odobeatu, B. (2015). Design and Fabrication of a Modified
Portable Biogas Digester for Renewable Cooking-Gas Production.  Retrieved
from https://www.ejers.org/index.php/ejers/article/view/647

Lei L., Qin H., Yao M., Xiaoming W., & Xuya P. (2015). Dynamics of microbial
community in a mesophilic anaerobic digester treating food waste: Relationship
between community structure and process stability. Key Laboratory of Three
Gorges Reservoir Region’s Eco-Environment.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852415004988.

66
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Lohani, S. (2021). Anaerobic Co-digestion of Food Waste with Cow Manure. Iranian
Journal of Energy and Environment, 11(2020).
https://doi.org/10.5829/ijee.2020.11.01.09.

Maghanaki, M. M., Ghobadian, B., Najafi, G., & Galogah, J. R. (2013). Potential of
biogas production in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
28(2013), 702-714.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113005613

Manitoba (2015). Properties of Manure. Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Development.

https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/environment/nutrient-
management/pubs/properties-of-manure.pdf

Manyi-Loh, C. E., Mamphweli, S. N., Meyer, E. L., Okoh, A. I., Makaka, G., & Simon,
M. (2017). Microbial Anaerobic Digestion (Bio-Digesters) as an Approach to the
(Placeholder1) Decontamination of Animal Wastes in Pollution Control and the
Generation of Renewable Energy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799523/

Mohammedal, M., Eryrib, S., Donkorc, A.K., Amoahd, P., Nyarkoc, S., Boatenge, K.K.,
& Ziwuc, C. (2017). Feasibility study for biogas integration into waste treatment
plants in Ghana.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110062116300940

Møller, H., Sommer, S., & Ahring, B. (2004). Methane productivity of manure, straw
and solid fractions of manure. Biomass and Bioenergy, 26(5), 485-495.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.008.

Morales-Polo, C., del Mar Cledera-Castro, M., & Moratilla Soria, B. Y. (2018).
Reviewing the Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste: From Waste Generation
and Anaerobic Process to Its Perspectives. Applied Sciences, 8(10), 1804.
https://doi.org/ 10.3390/app8101804

67
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Moriarty, K. (2013). Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste in St.

Bernard, Louisiana: A Study Prepared in Partnership with the Environmental
Protection Agency for the RE-Powering America’s Land Initiative: Siting
Renewable Energy on Potentially Contaminated Land and Mine Sites. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57082.pdf

Nograles, K. (2021). Collective action to combat food waste. Business World Online.
https://www.bworldonline.com/collective-action-to-combat-food-waste/

Nwankwo, C. S., Eze, J. I., & Okoyeuzu, C. (2017). Design and fabrication of 3.60 m3
household plastic bio digester loaded with kitchen waste and cow dung for
biogas generation. Scientific Research and Essays, 12(14), 130-141.
https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE2017.6516

Obileke K., Mamphweli, S., Meyer, E., Makaka, G., & Nwokolo, N. (2020). Design and
Fabrication of a Plastic Biogas Digester for the Production of Biogas from Cow
Dung. Journal of Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1848714

Oelofse, S., Muswema, A., & Ramukhwatho, F. (2018). Household food waste disposal
in South Africa: A case study of Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni. South African
Journal of Science, 114(5/6), 6. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2018/20170284

Oliveira, V. (2021). Biogas vs. other gases: What is the difference between LPG, NG,
CNG and Biomethane? Retrieved March 2022 from
https://cibiogas.org/en/blog-post/biogas-x-outros-gases-qual-a-diferenca-
entre-glp-gn-gnv-e-biometano/

Ona, I. J., Loya, S. M., Agogo, H. O., Lorungwa, M. S., & Ogah, R. (2019). Biogas
Production from the Co-Digestion of Cornstalks with Cow Dung and Poultry
Droppings. Journal of Agricultural Chemistry and Environment, 8(2019), 145-
154.

68
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Ray, N.H. S., Mohanty, M. K., & Mohanty, R. C. (2016). Biogas Compression and
Storage System for Cooking Applications in Rural Households. Retrieved
December 6, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R-Mohanty-
2/publication/305417679_Biogas_compression_and_storage_system_for_coo
king_applications_in_rural_households/links/5c4af1e2458515a4c73eec3f/Bio
gas-compression-and-storage-system-for-cooking-applications-in-rural

Rojas-Downing, M. M., Nejadhashemi, P. A., Harrigan, T., & Woznicki, S. A. (2017).

Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk
Management, 16(2017), 145-163.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221209631730027X

Safley Jr. L.M and Westerman P.W. (1990). Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of
animal manure: Proposed design methodology.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/026974839090014J?fbcli
d=IwAR1qwGu5GZ6EC-
l5J80yvU3XFWF_VDYHhpjKv0iQJMeXX6FeenSwbgpB_K4

Sheffler, K. (2018). Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production Feasibility Study.

https://www.uidaho.edu/-/media/UIdaho-Responsive/Files/current-
students/sustainability-center/resources/Reports/anaerobic-digestion-and-
biogas-production-feasibility-
study.pdf?la=en&hash=990B32E611B3F290A49C69E84ABE9125D4605D12

Singh, I. (2012). Use of biogas for cooking purpose in a technical institute.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315619640_USE_OF_BIOGAS_FO
R_COOKING_PURPOSE_IN_A_TECHNICAL_INSTITUTE_A_VIEW_POINT

Surendra, K.C., Takara, D., Jasinski, J., Khanal, S.K. (2013). Household anaerobic
digester for bioenergy production in developing countries: opportunities and
challenges. Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering,
University of Hawai'i.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09593330.2013.824012.

69
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

Ukpai, P.A., & Nnabuchi, M.N. (2012). Comparative Study of Biogas Production from
Cow Dung, Cow Pea and Cassava Peels Using 45 Liters Biogas Digester.
Pelagia Research Library, 2012. Retrieved from
www.pelagiaresarchlibrary.com

Van, D. P., Fujiwara, T., Pham Phu, S. T., & Hoang, M. G. (2018). Kinetic of Biogas
Production in Co-Digestion of Vegetable Waste, Horse Dung, and Sludge by
Batch Reactors. International Conference on Environment and Renewable
Energy (ICERE 2018), 159(2018).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/159/1/012041/pdf

Wang, Z., Jiang, Y., Wang, S., Zhang, Y., Hu, Y., Hu, Z.-H., Wu, G., & Zhan, X. (2020).
Impact of total solids content on anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and food
waste: Insights into shifting of the methanogenic pathway. Waste Management,
114(2020), 96-106.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X20303585

Westernbroek, P., & Martin, J. II (2019). Anaerobic Digesters and Biogas Safety. Farm-
Energy. https://farm-energy.extension.org/anaerobic-digesters-and-biogas-
safety

Wilkie, A. (2005). Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure: Design and process

consideration. Daily manure management: Treatment, Handling, and
Community relations.
https://betuco.be/biogaz/Anaerobic%20digestion%20of%20dairy%20manure%
20florida.pdf?fbclid=IwAR37mL_zbim6SI1C9NvkAiSA-
CeUHI76qyeSHU1JqrxOuFTgxhjJov4eQp8

Xu, F., Li, Y., Ge, X., Yang, L., & Li, Y. (2018). Anaerobic digestion of food waste –
challenges and opportunities. Bioresource Technology, 247, 1047-1058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.020

Zhang, H., Liu, G., Xue, L., Zuo, J., Chen, T., Vuppaladadiyam, A., & Duan, H. (2020).
Anaerobic digestion-based waste-to-energy technologies can halve the climate

70
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

impact of China’s fast-growing food waste by 2040. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 277, 123490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123490

Zhu, Y., Merbold, L., Leitner, S., Pelster, D. E., Okoma, S. A., Ngetich, F., Onyango, A.
A., Pellikka, P., & Butterbach-Bah, K. (2020). The effects of climate on
decomposition of cattle, sheep and goat manure in Kenyan tropical pastures.
Plant Soil, 451(2020), 325–343.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11104-020-04528-x.pdf

71
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

APPENDIX A
ILLUSTRATIONS/FIGURES

72
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

73
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

APPENDIX B
USER’S MANUAL

74
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

75
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

APPENDIX C
MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS AND ANALYSIS

76
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

77
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

APPENDIX D
BILL OF MATERIALS

78
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

79
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

APPENDIX E
CURRICULUM VITAE

80
 RIZAL TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY

81