Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels with and

without thermal pretreatment
Visva Bharati Barua a, *, Vidhi Rathore b, Ajay S. Kalamdhad a, c
a
Centre for the Environment, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG), Guwahati 781039, Assam, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, KIIT University, Bhubaneshwar 751024, Odisha, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG), Guwahati 781039, Assam, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study evaluates the effect of mixing ratio (1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5) and hot air oven pretreatment on the
Received 1 March 2018 anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels. Two sets of bio-chemical methane potential
Received in revised form (BMP) tests were performed concurrently. In set I, untreated water hyacinth was mixed with banana
10 August 2018
peels and in set II, water hyacinth was pretreated before co-digestion. Fixed amount of cow dung was
Accepted 4 November 2018
Available online 16 November 2018
added to each reactor as an inoculum. The anaerobic batch test revealed that set II, where pretreated
water hyacinth and banana peels was co-digested, demonstrated higher biogas production and better
quality of biogas than set I. Mixing ratio 2 and 1.5 were illustrated to be the optimal mixing ratio for set I
Keywords:
Water hyacinth
and II respectively. Both the sets illustrated higher biogas generation than mono-digestion of the sub-
Banana peels strates. Thus, anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels portrayed a synergistic action
Co-digestion by balancing the overall process.
Mixing ratio © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pretreatment
Biogas

1. Introduction
Decline in fossil fuel and environmental pollution caused due to
burning of fossil fuel is a major concern worldwide. It is of utmost
necessity to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel and find a suit-
able eco-friendly option. Anaerobic digestion seems to be a sus-
tainable alternative as it can transform organic wastes into biogas
(bioenergy) in the absence of oxygen with the assistance of robust
microorganisms thereby providing a solution to both organic waste
management and renewable bioenergy production. However,
anaerobic digestion is an extremely sensitive process because the
microorganisms involved in transforming organic wastes into
biogas requires certain operational environmental conditions in
order to flourish. The kind of substrate utilised is one of the major
parameter influencing the efficiency of biogas production due to
their chemical composition and biodegradability. Banana peels
which are basically organic waste products may serve as a good
feedstock for the production of biogas as they are rich in organic
matter and readily biodegradable. Readily biodegradable substrates
can also cause excess acidification. Odedina et al. [12] observed that
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: visvabharti@gmail.com (V.B. Barua).
methane yield from the ground banana peel and chopped banana
peel to be 330.6 and 268.3 mL CH4/g VS respectively. But during
continuous digestion of banana peels, mesophilic single stage
digester run at 20 day hydraulic retention time (HRT) failed at 2%TS.
Water hyacinth, on the other hand, is considered to be the world's
most dangerous aquatic weed; disturbing the aquatic ecosystem
and the livelihood or amusement activities of people. Water hya-
cinth and banana peels contain high moisture and easily available
in abundance throughout the world, therefore anaerobic digestion
of both water hyacinth and banana peels seems to be a feasible
option for the production of eco-friendly biogas. However, using
feedstock as mono-substrates is not recommended due to nutri-
tional imbalance and deficiency of varied range of microorganisms
[15,21]. Anaerobic co-digestion of two or more substrates is a
feasible alternative to surmount the drawbacks of mono-digestion
and perk up biogas production. Anaerobic mono-digestion of water
hyacinth would be rate limiting as the hydrolysis of lignocellulosic
cell wall will be very time consuming and restrain biogas produc-
tion. Anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth with banana peels
will be beneficial in diluting inhibitory substances, balance the
nutrients, accelerating the hydrolysis process, maintain reactor
equilibrium and improve biogas production because banana peels
contain relatively high level of nutrients, while water hyacinth does
not produce excess volatile fatty acid when compared to banana

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.018
0960-1481/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
104 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112

peels. Supplementary inoculum is fundamental to trigger the co- oven for 1 h at 90
C [4] for the BMP set up containing pretreated
digestion process as animal wastes (cow dung) have high nitro- water hyacinth (Set II).
gen, wide variety of nutrients and enhanced microbial activity
[10,22]. Syaichhurozi [18] observed highest biogas yield of 2.2. Inoculum
113.92 ± 6.90 mL/g VS was obtained from anaerobic co-digestion of
Salvinia molesta and rice straw for an ideal ratio of 40:60. Pavi et al. Cow dung was acquired from Amingaon village, situated in near
[13] observed increased methane yield from anaerobic co-digestion to the campus of IITG, Assam, India respectively. Utilisation of cow
of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable dung is essential to seed the co-digestion process as enhanced
waste when compared to the mono-digestion of each substrate. Ye microbial activity can be witnessed. Cow dung has a neutral pH
et al. [23] demonstrated that co-digestion of kitchen waste, pig (6.5e7.5) and a moisture content of 80e82%.
manure and rice straw illustrated the highest biogas yield of
674.4 L/kg VS for the ideal ratio of 0.4:1.6:1 which was 71.67% and
2.3. Anaerobic batch set up
10.41% higher than the mono-digestion of rice straw and pig
manure respectively. Nowadays, pretreatment of lignocellulosic
Two sets of BMP test were performed for the anaerobic co-
feedstock are also conducted before co-digestion to enhance biogas
digestion of water hyacinth with banana peels. Set I consisted of
production. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic feedstock ruptures the
the untreated water hyacinth and banana peels while set II con-
lignocellulosic complex allowing more easy microbial access of
sisted of pretreated water hyacinth and banana peels. In set II,
soluble organics. Zhang et al. [26] observed 10.1% more solid
water hyacinth was pretreated inside hot air oven at 90
C for 1 h
reduction in anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste acti-
[4][] before being introduced for the BMP test. The test was carried
vated sludge by biological co-pretreatment. Surra et al. [17]
out for the mixing ratios 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 in triplicate. The
observed significant increase (36.3%) in methane yield when co-
quantity of water hyacinth, banana peels and cow dung utilised was
digesting H2O2 pretreated maize cob waste with organic fraction
determined on the basis of volatile solids (VS) (Tables 2a and 2b).
of municipal solid waste. Alagoz et al. [2] reported highest cumu-
Food to microorganisms (F/M) ratio was fixed as 1. The water hy-
lative biogas production of 6351 mL when grape pomace and mi-
acinth and banana peels were considered as food while cow dung
crowave pre-treated wastewater sludge was co-digested.
was considered as an inoculum. The constant amount of inoculum
The present study is a comparative evaluation between; set I:
(50 g) was utilised. While mixing ratio is the amount of VS in water
anaerobic co-digestion of untreated water hyacinth and banana
hyacinth to the amount of VS in banana peels. Mixing ratio was
peels and set II: anaerobic co-digestion of pretreated water hya-
varying for each reactor in triplicate. Two reactors were supplied;
cinth and banana peels. Till date, no previous available literature
one with only cow dung and another with only water hyacinth
has reported the comparative feasibility of the co-digestion of
which were control 1 and control 2 respectively. Tests were con-
water hyacinth and banana peels with and without hot air oven
ducted in 1 L glass batch reactors and were supplied with essential
(thermal) pretreatment. The objective of this novel study was to
macro and micro nutrients besides the substrate and the inoculum.
examine the effect of various mixing ratios and hot air oven pre-
The total volume of each glass batch reactors was 700 mL. The re-
treatment on the anaerobic co-digestion process.
actors were sealed with rubber corks and connected to aspirator
bottles containing 1.5 N NaOH [6][]. To uphold anaerobic state, ni-
2. Materials and methodology trogen gas was flushed inside the reactor for 3 min. The experiment
was performed for 50 days for both set I and set II.
2.1. Substrate and co-substrate
2.4. Analytical methods
Water hyacinth was acquired from Amingaon industrial area
situated in close proximity to the campus of Indian Institute of VS, VFA and soluble chemical oxygen demand (sCOD) were
Technology Guwahati (IITG), India. While, banana peels were analysed. VS and sCOD analysis was performed according to stan-
assembled from the hostel mess of IITG, India. The initial physico- dard methods [3][]. VFA analysis was done by direct titration
chemical characteristics of the substrate and co-substrate have
been provided in Table 1. The leaves, stem and root of a mature
Table 2a
fresh water hyacinth plant were cut, pulverised and used in the
Quantity of water hyacinth, banana peels and cow dung used for the various mixing
ratio 13:69:45 for each and every experiment to retain homoge- ratios on the basis of VS.
neity. Even the collected banana peels belonged to the same species
Mixing ratio Water Hyacinth (g) Banana peels (g) Cow dung (g)
known as Musa acuminata (commonly known as Dwarf Cavendish)
to minimise compositional variation. Dwarf Cavendish peels were Control 1 e e 50
pulverised before being introduced into the anaerobic digester. The Control 2 50 e e
1.0 47 187 50
freshly pulverised water hyacinth was pretreated inside hot air
1.5 36 146 50
2.0 30 121 50
2.5 26 104 50
Table 1
Initial characterisation study of the substrate and the co-substrate.

Parameter Water hyacinth Banana peel Table 2b

Moisture content (%) 90 ± 5 80 ± 2 Quantity of VS for each corresponding mixing ratios of water hyacinth and banana
pH 5.8 ± 0.5 5.2 ± 0.5 peels.
sCOD (mg/L) 1600 ± 50 2150 ± 30
Mixing ratio Water Hyacinth (g) Banana peels (g) Cow dung (g)
VFA (mg/L) 750 ± 50 1175 ± 75
Acid soluble lignin (%) 1.77 ± 0.75 0.52 ± 0.5 1.0 4.1 4.1 8.2
Acid insoluble lignin (%) 6.33 ± 1 0.75 ± 0.5 1.5 4.92 3.28 8.2
Cellulose (%) 32.84 ± 5 12.55 ± 2 2.0 5.46 2.74 8.2
Hemicellulose (%) 24.7 ± 2 9.24 ± 1 2.5 5.85 2.35 8.2
 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112 105

method [5][]. For sample preparation, 5 g of the sample mixture, (Ar) was used as a carrier gas.
100 mL distilled water was added; which was then allowed to
blend by shaking in a horizontal shaker at 150 rpm for 2 h and 2.5. Kinetic model
filtered. The prepared filtered sample was then utilised for sCOD
and VFA analysis. Sample analysis was performed on weekly basis. Biogas production kinetics can be modeled using Gompertz
Daily biogas production was evaluated by liquid displacement equation to attain parameters establishing the highest methane
method (Fig. 1). As,CO2 can easily react with NaOH to generate production potential. This model was originally utilised to repre-
sodium carbonate. Therefore, 1.5 N NaOH is used as a substitute of sent bacterial growth in batch mode. Thus, modified Gompertz
water, in an attempt to absorb the produced CO2. Thymol blue was equation was utilised to the examined cumulative methane pro-
added to the NaOH solution as an indicator of alkalinity. The biogas duction assuming methane production is a function of bacterial
produced inside the anaerobic reactor flows on to the aspirator growth,
bottle kept under pressure having NaOH solution. The gas bubble
  
entering the aspirator bottle filled with NaOH, shoves out NaOH Rm  e
Y ¼ M  exp  exp ðl  1Þ þ 1 (1)
solution into a beaker due to the formation of excess pressure. The M
amount of NaOH shoved out of the aspirator bottle determines the
amount of biogas produced which is quantified by a measuring where Y signifies the cumulative methane production (mL) at time
cylinder. Biogas composition (CH4, CO2, H2 and N2) was analysed by t (d), M is the maximum methane production potential (mL CH4),
gas chromatography (GC) (Thermo trace GC Ultra) through thermal Rm is the maximum methane production rate (mL CH4 d1), l is the
conductivity detector (TCD) provided with a Porapak Q column of lag phase time (d) and e is a constant (2.71). The parameters M, Rm
182.88 cm length and 2.1 mm i. d. The injector, oven and detector and l were determined by curve-fitting using Matlab R2015b by
temperatures were set at 150, 60 and 200
C respectively. Argon reducing the residual amount of squared inaccuracy between the

(a)

170 control 1
160
150 control 2
140
Daily Biogas Produc on (mL)

130 1
120
110 1.5
100
90 2
80
70 2.5
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (Days)

(b)
200 control 1
180 control 2
Daily Biogas produc on (mL)

160 1
140 1.5
120 2
100 2.5
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Days)

Fig. 1. Showing the daily biogas generation for the various mixing ratios of (a) untreated water hyacinth and banana peel and (b) pretreated water hyacinth and banana peel.
106 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112

experimental data and the modeled curve. 3.2. Effect of anaerobic co-digestion and mixing ratios on biogas
production

During the methane potential assay, the effect of anaerobic co-

digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels was investigated by
3. Results and discussion
performing two sets of experimental study simultaneously with a
range of mixing ratios (1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5). Water hyacinth was
3.1. Characteristics of substrate and co-substrate
untreated in set I and pretreated thermally inside hot air oven in set
II. As banana peels are low in lignin content so it was not thermally
The initial physico-chemical characteristics of the substrate and
pretreated.
co-substrate are essential factors to be examined as it influences
The graphs of Fig. 1a and b correspond to the daily biogas gen-
the overall anaerobic process stability and biogas production. The
eration of a range of mixing ratios for both set I and set II respec-
initial physico-chemical characteristics study of the substrate and
tively. Biogas production began immediately after setting up the
co-substrate utilised were investigated and the results are provided
experimental assay for all the mixing ratios but in varying quantity.
in Table 1. The pH of water hyacinth and banana peel was observed
The cumulative biogas production enhanced progressively
to be in the acidic range. Cow dung was used as an inoculum in
throughout the anaerobic co-digestion phase. Biogas production
conjunction with the feedstock which facilitated in upholding the
was observed to be less quantitatively during mono-digestion of
pH of the anaerobic digesters. Both the substrate and co-substrate
the substrate when compared to co-digestion since co-digestion
has high quantity of moisture content and sCOD; which are
and mixing ratio acts in synergism to balance the nutrients and
favourable for the anaerobic digestion process. The presence of
to expand the existence of adaptable and dynamic microbial
lignin can be dissolved down by hot air oven pretreatment.

(a)
4000 control 1
3500 control 2
Cumula ve Biogas Produc on (mL)

1
3000
1.5
2500
2
2000 2.5
1500

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Days)

(b)

5000 control 1
4500 control 2
Cumula ve Biogas Produc on (mL)

4000 1
3500 1.5
3000 2
2500 2.5
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Days)

Fig. 2. Showing the cumulative biogas generation for the various mixing ratios of (a) untreated water hyacinth and banana peel co-digestion and (b) pretreated water hyacinth and
banana peel co-digestion.
 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112 107

Table 3 ratio 2 in set II exhibited lower biogas production when compared

Biogas composition of the ideal mixing ratios of set I and set II.
Compound Set I (%)
CH4 57.65 ± 0.2
CO2 31.87 ± 0.5
H2 7.35 ± 0.3
N2 2.45 ± 0.4
community. Mixing ratio 2, in set I displayed the maximum biogas
production of 170 ± 10 mL on the 16th day. While mixing ratio 1.5 in
set II displayed the maximum biogas production of 197 ± 10 mL on
the 11th day itself. In both set I and II, biogas production improved
as the mixing ratio increased upto 2 in set I and upto 1.5 in set II. In
set I, biogas production reduced for the mixing ratio 2.5 and in set II
for the mixing ratio 2. Hot air oven pretreatment of water hyacinth
in set II for the mixing ratio 2 must have amplified the quantity of
easily available simple soluble organics of the substrate. This
amplified quantity of easily available simple soluble organics of the
substrate inhibited the methanogenic bacteria to flourish due to the
accumulation of toxic intermediates (VFA). As a result, the mixing
to the mixing ratio 2 of set I. Syaichhurozi [18] observed highest
Set II (%) biogas production of 113.92 ± 6.90 mL on the 18th day from the co-
65.65 ± 0.5
digestion of Salvinia molesta and rice straw in the ratio 40:60. In
25.3 ± 0.9 Fig. 2a and b cumulative biogas production graphs, extensively
8.67 ± 0.8 lengthy hydrolysis phase was not observed during anaerobic co-
e digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels in both set I and II.
For both set I and II, constant quantitative improvement in biogas
production was observed throughout the start-up and the steady
stage. Until biogas production reduced by the end of 50 days and
steady stage was attained for each and every mixing ratio during
the anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels. In
set II mixing ratio 1.5 demonstrated the maximum cumulative
biogas production when compared to the other mixing ratios of set
II and all the ratios of set I respectively. Cumulative biogas gener-
ation of 4954 ± 12 mL was attained by the ratio 1.5 by the end of 50
days in set II. While mixing ratio 2 in set I exhibited the highest
cumulative methane production of 3948 ± 12 mL by the end of 50
days. Biogas with higher methane content suggests better quality of
biogas. Existence of 65% CH4, 14% CO2 and 21% other gases during
the anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth, cow dung and sewage

(a)

7000 control 1
control 2
6000
1
5000 1.5
sCOD (mg/L)

4000 2
2.5
3000

2000

1000

0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
Time (Days)

(b)

12000 control 1
control 2
10000
1
8000 1.5
sCOD (mg/L

2
6000
2.5
4000

2000

0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
Time (Days)

Fig. 3. Showing the variation in sCOD for the various mixing ratios of (a) untreated water hyacinth and banana peel co-digestion and (b) pretreated water hyacinth and banana peel
co-digestion.
108 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112

sludge was reported by Tasnim et al. [19]. Amplified percentage of lignocellulosic complex of water hyacinth in set II. While biogas
methane was detected for mixing ratio 1.5 in set II when compared production was relatively low in set I as the microorganisms found
to the mixing ratio 2 of set I (Table 3). This can be attributed to the it tough to break down the strong lignocellulosic network available
synergistic effect of both hot air oven pretreatment and anaerobic in the untreated water hyacinth.
co-digestion rather than anaerobic co-digestion alone. An appro-
priate mixing ratio assisted synergistically for enhanced biogas
3.3. Effect of co-digestion on sCOD, VFA and VS
generation in both set I and II by letting the methanogenic bacteria
flourish and balancing the nutrients. The illustration of compara-
Weekly analysis of the samples for sCOD, VFA and VS were
tively quicker degradation or improved digestion time (11 days) in
performed for all the mixing ratios of both the sets thereby
set II when compared to set I (16 days) may be attributed to the
demonstrating the modification undergone during anaerobic co-
effect of hot air oven pretreatment. As the quantity of simple sol-
digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels. Also the signifi-
uble organic matter present in water hyacinth to be digested
cance of an ideal mixing ratio was emphasised. As the time passed
anaerobically amplified after hot air oven pretreatment in set II. On
by, sCOD for both set I and II amplified for each and every ratio. In
the application of heat, the lignin present in water hyacinth dis-
both set I and II, sCOD amplified (Fig. 3a and b) with the amplifi-
solved down leading to easier and faster bioaccessibility of the
cation of VFA (Fig. 4a and b). Hydrolysis of carbohydrates generates
soluble organic compounds thereby improving biogas production.
VFA. Increase in VFA and sCOD was observed to take place simul-
Thermal pretreatment of water hyacinth assisted the microorgan-
taneously in both the sets and after achieving the maximum value,
isms to easily access the soluble organic matter available in the
it started to decrease. Increase in sCOD suggests the availability of

(a)

3500 control 1
control 2
3000
1
2500
1.5
VFA (mg/L)

2000 2
2.5
1500

1000

500

0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
Time (Days)

(b)
4500 control 1
4000 control 2
3500 1
3000 1.5
VFA (mg/L)

2500 2

2000 2.5

1500
1000
500
0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
Time (Days)

Fig. 4. Showing the variation in VFA concentration for the various mixing ratios of (a) untreated water hyacinth and banana peel co-digestion and (b) pretreated water hyacinth and
banana peel co-digestion.
 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112 109

increased quantity of soluble organic matter that can be readily
transformed to biogas by the versatile methanogenic micro-
organims Yu et al. [25]. Both sCOD and VFA concentration was
exhibited to be highest on the14th day in set I for each and every
ratio. Whereas, sCOD and VFA concentration was exhibited to be
highest on the 7th day in set II. Mixing ratio 2 in set I achieved a
highest VFA concentration of 3000 ± 11 mg/L whereas in set II for
the ratio 1.5 maximum VFA concentration was observed to be
3800 ± 10 mg/L. In the very beginning, the acidogenic bacterial
activity increased the VFA concentration, and the beginning of the
methanogenic phase led to the fall of VFA concentration Lin et al.
[9]. Although, higher concentration of VFA was exhibited during co-
digestion rather than the mono-digestion still superior stability
was exhibited during the anaerobic co-digestion process as the
addition of water hyacinth improved the buffer capacity. Similarly,
in set I ratio 1.5, accomplished a highest sCOD of 6200 ± 10 mg/L
whereas ratio 2 in set II accomplished a highest sCOD of
9400 ± 10 mg/L. Decline in sCOD was observed after 14 days and 7
days in set I and set II respectively as the simple soluble organic
matter was exhausting owing to the activity of the dynamic mi-
croorganisms in the digester. Highest sCOD was also reported by
Yin et al. [24] when mixed activated sludge and food waste pre-
treated with fungal mash was co-digested when compared to the
mono-digestion of substrate with and without pretreatment.
Decline in VS was illustrated with the increase in co-digestion
period, during weekly testing of the co-digested samples. Highest
decrease in VS of 45% (Fig. 5a) was displayed by the mixing ratio 2
in set I whereas in set II a highest decrease in VS of 53% was
exhibited by the mixing ratio 1.5 (Fig. 5b). Higher VS reduction
comparatively was exhibited by the mixing ratio 1.5 in set II when
compared to the mixing ratio 2 in set I. Abudi et al. [1] reported the
highest VS reduction of 76.9% due to the synergism during anaer-
obic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste with
thermo-alkaline pretreated thickened waste activated sludge and
H2O2 pretreated rice straw. Reduction in VS is an affirmative
consequence of anaerobic co-digestion process as it suggests the
increase of biogas production. In set I, bioaccessibility to the simple
soluble organic matter was restricted as the microbial activity was
limited in comparison to set II thereby exhibiting lesser reduction
in VS. Mixing ratio 1.5 in set II was illustrated to be the optimal
mixing ratio as the methanogenic bacteria were capable of thriving
well showcasing an improvement in the production of biogas. The

(a)
100
90
80
70
60
VS (%)

50
40 control 1
30
control 2
20
1
10
1.5
0
2
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
Time (Days) 2.5

(b)
100
90
80
70
60
VS (%)

50
40
30 control 1

20 control 2
10 1
0 1.5
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49
2
Time (Days)
2.5
Fig. 5. Showing the reduction in VS for the various mixing ratios of (a) untreated water hyacinth and banana peel co-digestion and (b) pretreated water hyacinth and banana peel
co-digestion.
110 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112

highest biogas production was represented by the mixing ratios production can be well simulated.
illustrating maximum VS reduction and vice versa.

3.5. Scaled up batch anaerobic digestion

3.4. Kinetic study
The aforementioned methodical investigation demonstrated
To establish the effectiveness of the ideal mixing ratio and confirmatory results and disclosed the ideal mixing ratio for both
pretreatment on the anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and set I and II; therefore the batch study was scaled up (20 L) with the
food waste, the cumulative methane production values were fitted purpose of verifying the operational conditions and variations to be
to Gompertz equation curve [8]. Table 4 summarises the results of encountered during scaled up process.
the kinetic study for both set I and II. The kinetic parameters of set I In both set I and II, biogas production commenced instantly and
and II used in BMP assay were determined where M of set II a sharp increase in the production of biogas was observed (Fig. 6a).
(6.3921 L CH4) was observed to be higher than set I (5.5190 L CH4). Still enormous improvement in biogas production in set II was
Both set I and II have R2 value above 0.90, indicating that methane credibly apparent (Fig. 6b). Cumulative biogas production from set I

Table 4
Kinetics values of untreated and hot air oven pretreated water hyacinth used in BMP test.

Substrate Mixing ratio M (L CH4) Rmax (L CH4 d1) l (d) R2 Y (L CH4)

Set I 2.0 5.5190 0.1000 0.0000 0.95 4.328

Set II 1.5 6.3921 0.0780 0.0000 0.93 5.017

(a)
5000
4500 Set I
Daily Biogas Produc on (mL)

4000 Set II
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (Days)

(b)

90000
Cumula ve Biogas Produc on (mL)

80000
70000
60000
50000
40000 Set I
Set II
30000
20000
10000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (Days)

Fig. 6. Showing (a) daily biogas production and (b) cumulative biogas production of set I and II in 20 L anaerobic batch digester.
 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112
Table 5
Comparison of the present study with the previous studies.
Reference Study
Naran et al. [11] Effect of pretreatment and anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated
sludge
Zou et al. [27] Ultrasonic pretreatment of maize straw and dairy manure followed by its co-digestion
Koyama et al. [7] Anaerobic co-digestion of alkali-pretreated submerged macrophytes and acidified food
waste
Passos et al. [14] Anaerobic co-digestion of coffee husks and microalgal biomass after thermal hydrolysis
Rahman et al. [16] Co-digestion of poultry droppings and briquetted wheat straw alkali pretreatment
Present study Co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peels
was examined to be 58000 ± 14 mL while a cumulative biogas
production of 81254 ± 10 mL was attained from set II in 60 days;
which is approximately 1.4 times higher than set I. The maximum
daily biogas production of 3080 ± 12 mL was achieved on 19th day
for set I whereas in set II highest daily biogas production of
4220 ± 15 mL on 10th day was attained. Specific methane yield for
set I was observed to be 253 ± 3 mL/g VS while for set II, specific
methane yield of 296 ± 9 mL/g VS was obtained. Table 5 provides a
comparative study of the amount of biogas obtained in the present
study to that in the previous studies by co-digestion of different
agricultural and plant residues using various pretreatments. The
result clearly indicates the improvement in the production of
biogas in set II. The dynamic deviation in the production of biogas
observed in set II was due to the easy availability of excessive
quantity of easily soluble organic compounds due to hot air oven
pretreatment of water hyacinth. Thitilertdecha et al. [20] reported
that the peel of fruits demonstrates the low methane potential
compared to their pulp due to the occurrence of the cellulose and
hemicellulose rigid network complex. Had the banana peels been
pretreated the crystalline cellulose would be converted to its
amorphous form, leading to more increase in biogas production in
set II. While in set I due to co-digestion of water hyacinth and ba-
nana peels the nutrients were balanced and the positive synergism
between the organic substrates led to the absence of lag phase but
due to the absence of easily bio-available soluble organics biogas
production was lesser. In short, the performance of the anaerobic
bacteria was lethargic in set I when compared to set II due to the
existence of recalcitrant lignin and crystalline cellulose in water
hyacinth.
4. Conclusion
Anaerobic co-digestion of water hyacinth and banana peel along
with pretreatment is an efficient way to improve the biogas pro-
duction and accelerate the hydrolysis period than mono-digestion.
Nevertheless pretreatment, co-digestion and an appropriate mix-
ing ratio altogether markedly improved the quantity of soluble
substrate, balanced the nutrients, buffered the toxic inhibitors,
quickened biodegradation and increased biogas production thereby
improving digester behaviour. The optimum mixing ratio was
observed to be 2 in set I whereas the optimum mixing ratio was
observed to be 1.5 in set II. Pretreatment of banana peels along with
water hyacinth can be recommended during anaerobic co-
digestion process in order to even more increase the bioavail-
ability of soluble organic matter.
References
[1] Z.N. Abudi, Z. Hu, N. Sun, B. Xiao, N. Rajaa, C. Liu, D. Guo, Batch anaerobic co-
digestion of OFMSW (organic fraction of municipal solid waste), TWAS
(thickened waste activated sludge) and RS (rice straw): influence of TWAS and
RS pretreatment and mixing ratio, Energy 107 (2016) 131e140.
111
Biogas produced
197 ± 16.7 mL/g VS
240.32 mL/gVS
274.8 mL/gVS
196 mL/gVS
227.87 ± 2.81 mL/gVS
For only co-digestion 253 ± 3 mL/gVS
whereas for pretreatment followed by
co-digestion 296 ± 9 mL/gVS
[2] B.A. Alago € z, O. Yenigün, A. Erdinçler, Ultrasound assisted biogas production
from co-digestion of wastewater sludges and agricultural wastes: comparison
with microwave pre-treatment, Ultrason. Sonochem. 40 (2018) 193e200.
[3] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water & Wastewater,
twentieth ed., American Public Health Association, Washington: DC, 2005.
[4] V.B. Barua, A.S. Kalamdhad, Biochemical methane potential test of untreated
and hot air oven pretreated water hyacinth: a comparative study, J. Clean.
Prod. 166 (2017) 273e284.
[5] R. DiLallo, O.E. Albertson, Volatile acids by direct titration, Water Pollution
Control Federation 33 (4) (1961) 356e365.
[6] A. Elliott, T. Mahmood, Pretreatment technologies for advancing anaerobic
digestion of pulp and paper bio-treatment residues, Water Res. 41 (2007)
4273e4286.
[7] M. Koyama, N. Nakahashi, K. Ishikawa, S. Ban, T. Toda, Anaerobic co-digestion
of alkali-pretreated submerged macrophytes and acidified food waste for
reduction of neutralizing agents, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 125 (2017)
208e213.
[8] K. Lee, P. Chantrasakdakul, D. Kim, H.S. Kim, K.Y. Park, Evaluation of methane
production and biomass degradation in anaerobic co-digestion of organic
residuals, Int. J. Biol. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2 (2013) 2277e4394.
[9] Y. Lin, J. Liang, C. Zeng, D. Wang, H. Lin, Anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper
mill sludge pretreated by microbial consortium OEM1 with simultaneous
degradation of lignocellulose and chlorophenols, Renew. Energy 108 (2017)
108e115.
[10] H. Mu, C. Zhao, Y. Zhao, Y. Li, D. Hua, X. Zhang, H. Xu, Enhanced methane
production by semi-continuous mesophilic co-digestion of potato waste and
cabbage waste: performance and microbial characteristics analysis, Bioresour.
Technol. 236 (2017) 68e76.
[11] E. Naran, U.A. Toor, D.-J. Kim, Effect of pretreatment and anaerobic co-
digestion of food waste and activated sludge on stabilization and methane
production, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 113 (2016) 17e21.
[12] M.J. Odedina, B. Charnnok, K. Saritpongteeraka, S. Chaiprapat, Effects of size
and thermophilic pre-hydrolysis of banana peel during anaerobic digestion,
and biomethanation potential of key tropical fruit wastes, Waste Manag. 68
(2017) 128e138.
[13] F. Passos, P. Henrique, M. Cordeiro, B.E.L. Baeta, S.F. Aquino, S.I. Perez-Elvira,
Anaerobic co-digestion of coffee husks and microalgal biomass after thermal
hydrolysis, Bioresour. Technol. 253 (2018) 49e54.
[14] S. Pavi, L. Eduardo, K. Luciana, P. Gomes, L. Alcides, S. Miranda, Biogas pro-
duction from co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and
fruit and vegetable waste, Bioresour. Technol. 228 (2017) 362e367.
[15] F.M. Pellera, E. Gidarakos, Microwave pretreatment of lignocellulosic agro-
industrial waste for methane production, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 5 (2017)
352e365.
[16] M.A. Rahman, H.B. Møller, C.K. Saha, M.M. Alam, R. Wahid, L. Feng, Anaerobic
co-digestion of poultry droppings and briquetted wheat straw at mesophilic
and thermophilic conditions: influence of alkali pretreatment, Renew. Energy
128 (2018) 241e249.
[17] E. Surra, M. Bernardo, N. Lapa, I. Esteves, I. Fonseca, J.P. Mota, Maize cob waste
pre-treatments to enhance biogas production through co-anaerobic digestion
with OFMSW, Waste Manag. 72 (2018) 193e205.
[18] I. Syaichurrozi, Biogas production from co-digestion Salviniamolesta and rice
straw and kinetics, Renew. Energy 115 (2018) 76e86.
[19] F. Tasnim, S.A. Iqbal, A.R. Chowdhury, Biogas production from anaerobic co-
digestion of cow manure with kitchen waste and Water Hyacinth, Renew.
Energy 109 (2017) 434e439.
[20] N. Thitilertdecha, A. Teerawutgulrag, N. Rakariyatham, Antioxidant and anti-
bacterial activities of Nephelium lappaceum L. extracts, LWT - Food Sci.
Technol. (Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft -Technol.) 41 (2008) 2029e2035,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2008.01.017.
[21] M. Wang, X. Zhang, J. Zhou, Y. Yuan, Y. Dai, D. Li, Z. Li, X. Liu, Z. Yan, The
dynamic changes and interactional networks of prokaryotic community be-
tween co-digestion and mono-digestions of corn stalk and pig manure, Bio-
resour. Technol. 225 (2017) 23e33.
[22] X. Wu, W. Yao, J. Zhu, C. Miller, Biogas and CH4 productivity by co-digesting
swine manure with three crop residues as an external carbon source,
112 V.B. Barua et al. / Renewable Energy 134 (2019) 103e112

Bioresour. Technol. 101 (2010) 4042e4047.
[23] J. Ye, D. Li, Y. Sun, G. Wang, Z. Yuan, F. Zhen, Y. Wang, Improved biogas
production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig
manure, Waste Manag. 33 (2013) 2653e2658.
[24] Y. Yin, Y.-J. Liu, S.-J. Meng, E.U. Kiran, Y. Liu, Enzymatic pretreatment of
activated sludge, food waste and their mixture for enhanced bioenergy re-
covery and waste volume reduction via anaerobic digestion, Appl. Energy 179
(2016) 1131e1137.
[25] Y. Yu, B. Park, S. Hwang, Co-digestion of lignocellulosics with glucose using
thermophilic acidogens, Biochem. Eng. J. 18 (2004) 225e229.
[26] J. Zhang, W. Li, J. Lee, K.-C. Loh, Y. Dai, Y.W. Tong, Enhancement of biogas
production in anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated
sludge by biological co-pretreatment, Energy 137 (2017) 479e486.
[27] S. Zou, X. Wang, Y. Chen, H. Wan, Y. Feng, Enhancement of biogas production
in anaerobic co-digestion by ultrasonic pretreatment, Energy Convers. Manag.
112 (2016) 226e235.