International Journal of Green Energy

ISSN: 1543-5075 (Print) 1543-5083 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljge20

Kinetic modelling of augmenting biomethane yield

from poultry litter by mitigating ammonia

Balaji Selvaraj, Senthilkumar Krishnasamy, Sakthivel Munirajan, Pasupathy

Sangareddy Alagirisamy, Mohanraj Dhanushkodi, Sukanya Gopalsamy &
Karthick Kumar Kuppusamy

To cite this article: Balaji Selvaraj, Senthilkumar Krishnasamy, Sakthivel Munirajan, Pasupathy
Sangareddy Alagirisamy, Mohanraj Dhanushkodi, Sukanya Gopalsamy & Karthick Kumar
Kuppusamy (2018): Kinetic modelling of augmenting biomethane yield from poultry litter by
mitigating ammonia, International Journal of Green Energy, DOI: 10.1080/15435075.2018.1529580

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2018.1529580

Published online: 10 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ljge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2018.1529580

Kinetic modelling of augmenting biomethane yield from poultry litter by mitigating

ammonia
Balaji Selvaraj a, Senthilkumar Krishnasamyb, Sakthivel Munirajanc, Pasupathy Sangareddy Alagirisamyd,
Mohanraj Dhanushkodie, Sukanya Gopalsamyf, and Karthick Kumar Kuppusamya
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore, India; bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Adhitya
Institute of Technology, Coimbatore, India; cDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Guntur, India;
d
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore, India; eDepartment of Mechanical
Engineering, Sasurie College of Engineering, Coimbatore, India; fDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Sri Krishna College of
Technology, Coimbatore, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this study, the kinetics of biogas production was studied by performing a series of the laboratory Received 10 November 2017
experiment with air stripped poultry litter. Four kilograms of Raw Poultry Litter is mixed with water in Accepted 25 September 2018
the ratio 1:3, respectively, and loaded inside the digesters and the samples are compared with Air KEYWORDS
stripped Poultry Litter for a retention time of 21 days. The modified Gompertz equation suitably Air stripped Poultry litter;
construes the cumulative biogas produced as a function of time. From the kinetics of the system, it is ammonia mitigation; biogas
inferred that the biogas production potential (A), maximum biogas production rate ðrm Þ, and lag phase production rate; kinetics of
period (λ) of Raw Poultry litter is 18.77 (l/kg of VS); 1.08 (l/kg of VS/day); 1.5 days, respectively, comparing biogas production; modified
with Air stripped Poultry Litter of 22.05 (l/kg of VS); 1.30 (l/kg of VS/day); 1 day, respectively. These gompertz equation
results show that biogas production can be enhanced efficiently by means of ammonia removal pre-
treatment process.

Introduction only provides valuable business, in turn at tail end it accumu-

lates a huge volume of wastes which is a serious matter of
Energy is required for human beings to sustain at every stage of life
discussion in recent times (Kirubakaran et al. 2007). Improper
for their shelter, food, transportation, and industrial activities
managed poultry wastes can cause severe harm to the envir-
(Herbert and Krishnan 2016). In the recent past, the global energy
onment by polluting water and air, which eventually reduce
consumption has been increased progressively in too many folds.
the quality of life (Abouelenien et al., 2010). Considering all
The rural energy demand is growing rapidly which is supplied by
advantages in converting poultry waste into energy, anaerobic
the fossil fuels predominantly such as coal, oil, gas. The use of fossil
digestion (AD) is found to be an economically viable, fruitful
fuel accompanies the emission of carbon compounds and other
technique which manages the wastes effectively resulting in
inorganic substances into the atmosphere which results in climate
the production of gaseous fuel and nutrient-rich manure
change, global warming and various health hazards (Panwar,
compared to any other technique used for waste treatment
Kaushik, and Kothari 2011). For independent and stable future
(Panwar, Kaushik, and Kothari 2011). The working and mon-
in energy production, exploration of new renewable energy
itoring the anaerobic systems are typical whose stability is
resources are the way to meet the energy demand (Demirbas and
always uncertain. The instability is observed as a reduction
Balat 2009). The biomass plays an important role among all other
in methane production rate, increase in Volatile Fatty Acid
renewable energy resources because it is the primary source for
(VFA) content causing failure of the digester. The high level
rural households. Biomass is used to produce heat by means of
of ammonia is identified as a major cause of digester failure
combustion directly or it can be converted into several forms of
since it inhibits the microbial activity directly by exterminat-
bio-fuel indirectly (Munda et al. 2012). Usage of biomass for
ing the microbial ambiance (Rajagopal, Massé, and Singh
energy production aids to uphold ecological balance by reducing
2013).
harmful emissions and purifying the environment, apart from the
Poultry litter comprises a huge amount of organic nitrogen
economic and social aspects (Saha, Biswas, and Pal 2014).
which mainly constitutes proteins and amino acids (60–80%)
While considering biomass sources, the wastes resulting
(Krylova et al. 1997 Kelleher et al. 2002). For the growth of
from livestock breeding has a significant role to play in energy
anaerobic organisms, the presence of nitrogen is inevitable
production (Okuo, Waheed, and Bolaji 2016). Poultry breed-
when the concentrations are within the limits (Strik,
ing plays a vital role in the rural economy, poultry farms are
Domnanovich, and Holubar 2006). While biological anaerobic
better organized, and it is progressing towards modernization
degradation of nitrogen, ammonia is evolved. As discussed,
than the rest of the livestock sector. The poultry breeding not

CONTACT Balaji Selvaraj balajimechanical05@gmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore, India
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/ljge.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. S ET AL.
the ammonia concentration while exceeding the limits of
0.7 g/l to 2.6 g/l will impede the microbial activity resulting
in low yield (Koster and Lettinga 1988). The ammonia pro-
duced inside the digester is basically in two forms, namely
Ammonium ions (NH4 +) and free ammonia (NH3). The high
concentrations of free ammonia can pass through the cell
membrane and into cell resulting in proton imbalance and
potassium deficiency, which ultimately reduce the microbial
population inside the digester and this makes the FA as an
utmost toxic element for the AD (Appels et al. 2008). On
another hand when the ammonium ion concentration exceeds
the limits, the degradation of organic compounds are hin-
dered and at the tail end, the ammonium ions are highly
corrosive in nature which leads to high maintenance and
handling costs. This drags the attention of the researchers to
lower the nitrogen content in the feedstock, in order to
mitigate the ammonia production inside the digester. It
finds it essential to have low ammonia levels for any treatment
and handling of poultry litter (Kelleher et al. 2002).
The common methods to reduce the ammonia inhibition
are dilution (Rajagopal, Massé, and Singh 2013), acclimation
(Abouelenien, Nakashimada, and Nishio 2009), addition of
phosphorite ore (Krylova et al. 1997), removing ammonia by
biogas recycle (Abouelenien et al. 2010), nitrification/denitri-
fication process, Anaerobic ammonia oxidization (Anammox)
(Dong and Tollner 2003), ammonia stripping (Gangagni Rao
et al., 2008) and co-digestion (Abouelenien et al., 2014).
Among these methods, stripping is used to get rid of ammo-
nia from the sample to be digested, and higher removal of
ammonia could be possible using this stripping method (Liao,
Chen, and Lo 1995). The chemicals are not needed for strip-
ping process due to that it was found to be economical and
efficient physical method. Removal of ammonia by stripping
is based on forcing the dissociation equilibrium of NH4
+/NH3 to favor the formation of free ammonia. It is a gaseous
molecule which is easily stripped out from aqueous solution.
The pH of the sample should be greater than 10 or/and
temperature should be raised to enhance the free ammonia
species. The addition of enormous alkalis (NaOH, CaO, KOH,
and Ca (OH) 2) needed to raise the pH. Thus, raising the
temperature is the primary choice to enhance the ammonia
disassociation (Markou 2015).
Many mathematical models have been developed, to describe
the bacterial growth curve in a batch culture of the anaerobic
system (Gibson, Bratchell, and Gibson 1987). Among them,
Modified Gompertz equation was the most suitable model for
defining bacterial growth. In this study, to remove nitrogen from
Poultry Litter (PL) by stripping, proteins or uric acid should be
first degraded down to ammonia. For this reason, PL could be
stored under dry anaerobic conditions for protein and uric acid
degradation to convert organic nitrogen to ammonia
(Abouelenien, Nakashimada, and Nishio 2009), followed by
ammonia stripping to reduce the nitrogen content. Laboratory
experiments performed in batch mode using 20-l biodigester. The
biogas production from Air Stripped Poultry Litter (APL) is com-
pared with Raw Poultry Litter (RPL). The results obtained from
these experiments were used to fit and check the fitness of the
Modified Gompertz equation (MGE) (Budiyono et al., 2010). The
objective of this study is to investigate the effect of ammonia
stripping in biomethanation of poultry litter. In addition, model-
ing the kinetics of cumulative biogas production was simulated
using the modified Gompertz model.
Materials and methods
Sample collection and preparation
Poultry litter was collected from a brooder house in Erode
district, Tamil Nadu, India. To increase the ammonia nitrogen
level by converting the proteins and uric acids, the collected
poultry litter was kept under anaerobic for 60 days maintained
at room temperature. After anaerobiosis, the treated poultry
litter was heated in an oven at 80°C and aerated for 24 hr for
ammonia removal which is known as air stripping.
Analytical methods
The organic carbon, ash content, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,
volatile solids (VS) and total solids (TS) present in the sample
was estimated by the standard methods and procedures. The
total solids were determined by drying the feedstock in the
hot air oven for 1 hr at 105°C. Volatile solids were determined
by heating the dried sample at 550°C for 2 hr in a muffle
furnace. pH was measured using a digital pH meter. The gas
generated was passed through the scrubbing apparatus and
then through the positive displacement wet-type gas flow
meters for measuring the daily biomethane production. The
temperature of the generated gas measured by using a
thermometer.
Digester design
The anaerobic digestion was conducted in a fixed dome type
digester in a batch mode operation. The digester is made up
of Poly Ethylene Terephthalate (PET) and it is designed to
have a volume of 22 l with a height–diameter ratio of 1.9. The
slurry inside the digester is mixed manually twice a day to
avoid scum formation during the period of the digestion. If
not, the scum formed will act as a membrane and hinder the
gas released out of the slurry to occupy the gas storage region
in the digester. The working volume of the digester was 16 l.
Two different fermentation slurry samples, sample 1 (4 kg of
RPL+ 12 l of water) and sample 2 (4 kg of APL + 12 l of
water) were prepared in 1:3 ratio. After loading the digester
the valves are shut airtight in order to ensure anaerobic
conditions in the headspace of anaerobic digesters. The gen-
erated biogas from the digester was collected on a daily basis
using a gas flowmeter. The gas scrubbing arrangement is
shown in Figure 1. The experiments were carried out at
mesophilic conditions for a hydraulic retention time of
21 days.
Model development for biogas production kinetic in
batch mode
The working and biomethane production from anaerobic diges-
tion can be enhanced by validated mathematical models developed
from mechanistic studies which give the better understanding of

Figure 1. Gas scrubbing arrangement.
the chemical kinetics of the microbial population involved in
anaerobic digestion (Yu et al., 2013). To interface the fundamental
characteristics of the digestion processes, modeling can be used
(Yu and Wensel 2013). To predict the methane production, oper-
ating conditions, system stability, effluent quality, understanding
of process mechanisms, and kinetics are required (Yu and Wensel
2013). From past studies, it is evident that the Modified Gompertz
equation is the most suitable model for describing bacterial growth
(Budiyono et al. 2010).
Modified Gompertz model
Modified Gompertz kinetic equation is a modified form of the
Gompertz equation which is generally used to simulate the
cumulative biogas production. This model assumes that
cumulative biogas production is a function of hydraulic reten-
tion time. The biogas production in batch condition is related
and corresponding to the specific growth rate of methano-
genic bacteria in the digester and it will follow modified
Gompertz equation (Budiyono et al. 2010).
n hr  e io
m
P ¼ Aexp  exp ðλ  tÞ þ 1  ð1Þ
A
where P is cumulative of the specific biogas production (l/kg
of VS), A is the biogas production potential (l/kg of VS), rm is
the maximum biogas production rate (l/kg of VS/day), λ is the
lag phase period or the minimum time required to produce
biogas (day), t is the hydraulic retention/cumulative time to
the feedstock for biogas production in days and e is mathe-
matical constant with value 2.7182. The data obtained from
the experimental study was checked for the fitness of
Modified Gompertz equation. This will aid to evaluate kinetic
models and other parameters that can be used to design and
scale-up of laboratory experiments into industrial size appli-
cations. The kinetics constant A, rm , and λ were determined
using a non-linear regression method for the best fittings with
the aid of POLYMATH software.
Results and discussion
This research step was focused on investigating the influence
of ammonia stripping on cumulative biogas production while
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 3
using poultry litter as feedstock. In addition, kinetics of biogas
production was studied using an appropriate model. The
physicochemical parameters of the sample were determined,
and the results are shown in Table 1. The initial volatile solids
(VS) of substrate ranged from 80% to 87%. This represents
that higher organic solids present in the sample which is
converted to biomethane.
It was observed that pH of the fermentation slurry was
varying during the biogas production throughout the
retention time. The pH is an important factor that affects
the digestion process. Low pH has been reported to inhibit
methanogenic bacteria that are responsible for biogas pro-
duction. pH value less than 5 or greater than 8 has been
reported to rapidly inhibit methanogenesis. It has been
reported that anaerobic bacteria required a natural envir-
onment and thus a pH ranging from 6.4 to 7.2 is needed
for optimum biogas production in accordance with the
conclusions of (Kaur and Chauhan, 2017). From
Figure 2, it is observed that pH of the RPL and APL are
in a near neutral range which is desirable for an effective
AD. From Figure 2, it is inferred that the enhancement in
the biomethane yield is due to the increased metabolic
activity of the anaerobes inside the digester which is due
to the consequence of the high concentration of hydrogen
ions in the digesting slurry. This slight shift towards alka-
linity will favor the microbial population to consume the
organic load more effectively.
Carbon to nitrogen ratio (C: N) is one of the important
factors that enhance biogas production from organic sam-
ples. The yield of biogas depends on the C/N ratio of the
various feedstocks. From the findings of Dalkilic et al. the
C/N ratio for optimum yield of biogas is in the range of
20–30 (Dalkılıc and Ugurlu 2015). The C: N ratio of RPL is
Table 1. Physicochemical parameters.
Constituent Raw poultry litter After air stripping
Organic Carbon % 47.07 47.17
Ash % 13.47 10.84
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) % 6.9 3.69
C/N 6.82 12.78
Total Solids (TS) % 17 20
Volatile Solids (VS) % 87.5 84.78
4 B. S ET AL.
Figure 2. Effect of pH on biogas production.
found to be 6.82:1. Because of low C/N ratio of RPL, higher
nitrogen content to carbon present thus results in ammonia
accumulation. This leads to an increase in pH again leads
to low methane production. For APL, C/N ratio is 12.78:1.
From the observation, it is clear that using air stripping as a
Figure 3. Daily biogas production.
pre-treatment method, the C/N ratio is increased by about
87.3% compared to RPL.
The daily biogas production (l/kg of VS) was measured by
using gas flowmeter and the values are plotted as shown in
Figure 3.

Figure 4. Cumulative biogas production.
From this, it is observed that the production of biogas was low
in both starting and ending days of the digestion process. This
indicates that the biogas generated in batch mode corresponds to
the specific growth rate of methanogenic bacteria. From Figure 3,
the peak biogas production was obtained on the 9th day in APL
and 12th day in RPL and biogas production is high until peak
biogas production day. This is due to the activities of acclimatized
methanogenic bacteria as they overcome the protective wall that
inhibits the cell destruction for conversion to biogas. On another
hand, it can also be interpreted as the degradation of lignin,
cellulose and hemicelluloses make accessible to the microorgan-
isms for conversion to biogas.
The cumulative biogas production observed for 21 days
is shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4, it is observed that
biogas production rate tends to follow sigmoid function
(S curve) as it normally occurs in the batch growth curve.
The APL exhibit higher cumulative biogas production
than RPL. The cumulative production at day 21 was
18.42 l/kg of VS for RPL and 21.42 l/kg of VS for APL,
respectively. The cumulative biogas production from APL is
significantly higher than RPL. This study shows APL was to
be capable of improving the yield of biogas production by
16.3% higher than digestion of RPL. The huge accumula-
tion of ammonia and nitrogen content is undesirable for
the biogas production in RPL. Whereas in APL, ammonia
content is reduced considerably using air stripping method.
Thus, high biogas production was observed in APL.
Kinetics of biogas production
The biogas production kinetics was studied by developing the
equation closest to fundamental for biogas production in a batch
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 5
system, with an assumption that biogas produced is a function of
bacterial growth. The modified Gompertz equation fit to equa-
tion (1) is shown in Figure 5 (RPL) and Figure 6 (APL). Kinetic
constants of U, A, and λ is shown in equation 1 can be deter-
mined using nonlinear regression.
Kinetic constants obtained are presented in Table 2. The raw
poultry litter gave the kinetic parameters of biogas production,
i.e., biogas production potential (A), maximum biogas produc-
tion rate ðrm Þ, and lag phase period or the minimum time
required to produce biogas (λ) are 18.77 (l/kg of VS); 1.08 (l/kg
of VS/day); 1.5 days, respectively. While stripped poultry litter
gave the kinetic parameters A, rm and λ are 22.05 (l/kg of VS);
1.30 (l/kg of VS/day); 1 day, respectively.
The biogas yield potential (P) which represents biogas
accumulated inside the digester for 21 days. The P is
maximum for APL of 21.42 l/kg of VS and minimum
for RPL of 18.42 l/kg of VS. This shows that using air
stripping as a pre-treatment method, biogas generation
increased. The maximum biogas generated per day is
known as the maximum biogas production rate (rm ).
The rm for RPL is 1.08 l/kg of VS/day and 1.30 l/kg of
VS/day for APL. The higher rm in APL indicates that
higher biogas generated during the digestion process. It
was observed that the stripping process will enhance the
biogas production rate considerably. The lag phase indi-
cates the found to be 1.5 days for RPL and 1 day for APL
because, in APL, the organic brood in the digesting slurry
is consumed rapidly compared to the RPL.
From Figures 5 and 6, it is clear that the Modified
Gompertz equation fits well to the experimental data. The
Gompertz equation gives the best fit which is described
by higher R2 for APL (0.999) and RPL (0.998).
6 B. S ET AL.

Figure 5. Kinetic models of Modified Gompertz fitted to cumulative biogas production data from raw poultry litter.

Figure 6. Kinetic models of Modified Gompertz fitted to cumulative biogas production data of Stripped poultry litter.

Table 2. Summary of Kinetic data.

Modified Gompertz parameters (Model)
Digester Experimental Biogas yield (l/kg of VS) A (l/kg of VS) rm (l/kg of VS/day) λ(days) R2
Raw poultry litter 18.42 18.77 1.08 1.5 0.998
Stripped poultry litter 21.42 22.05 1.30 1 0.999

Conclusion RPL gave the kinetic parameters of biogas production, i.e.,

biogas production potential (A), maximum biogas production
The kinetics of biogas production was studied by performing
rate ðrm Þ, and lag phase of 18.77 (l/kg of VS); 1.08 (l/kg of VS/
a laboratory experiment using APL compared with RPL.
day); 1.5 days comparing with APL of 22.05 (l/kg of VS); 1.30
Modified Gompertz equation best describes cumulative gas
(l/kg of VS/day); 1 day, respectively. The best performance of
produced as a function of retention time. From this study, the
biogas generation was observed in APL. From this study, it is

observed that optimizing biogas production from poultry
litter using air stripping as a pre-treatment method represents
a feasible and sustainable energy option.
ORCID
Balaji Selvaraj http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4974-7490
References
Abouelenien, F., et al. 2010. ‘Bioresource technology improved methane
fermentation of chicken manure via ammonia removal by biogas
recycle’, bioresource technology. Elsevier Ltd 101 (16):6368–73.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.071.
Abouelenien, F., et al. 2014. ‘Enhancement of methane production from
co-digestion of chicken manure with agricultural wastes’, bioresource
technology. Elsevier Ltd 159:80–87. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.050.
Abouelenien, F., Y. Nakashimada, and N. Nishio. 2009. ‘Dry mesophilic
fermentation of chicken manure for production of methane by repeated
batch culture’, journal of bioscience and bioengineering. The Society for
Biotechnology, Japan 107 (3):293–95. doi:10.1016/j.jbiosc.2008.10.009.
Appels, L., J. Baeyens, J. Degrève, and R. Dewil. 2008. Principles and potential
of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Progress in Energy and
Combustion Science 34 (6):755–81. doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2008.06.002.
Budiyono, et al. 2010. The kinetic of biogas production rate from cattle
manure in batch mode. International Journal of Chemical and
Biomolecular Engineering 3 (1):39–45.
Dalkılıc, K., and A. Ugurlu. 2015. Biogas production from chicken
manure at different organic loading rates in a mesophilic-thermopilic
two stage anaerobic system Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
120:315–22. doi:10.1016/j.jbiosc.2015.01.021.
Demirbas, M. F., and M. Balat. 2009. Progress and recent trends in
biogas processing. International Journal of Green Energy 6 (2):117–
42. doi:10.1080/15435070902784830.
Dong, X., and E. W. Tollner. 2003. Evaluation of anammox and deni-
trification during anaerobic digestion of poultry manure. Bioresource
Technology 86 (2):139–45. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(02)00154-2.
Gangagni, A., T. Sasi Kanth Reddy, S. Surya Prakash, J. Vanajakshi, J. Joseph,
A. Jetty, A. Rajashekhara Reddy, and P. N. Sarma. 2008. Biomethanation of
poultry litter leachate in UASB reactor coupled with ammonia stripper for
enhancement of overall performance. Bioresource Technology 99
(18):8679–84. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.04.016.
Gibson, M., N. Bratchell, and A. M. Gibson (1987) ‘The effect of sodium
chloride and temperature on the rate and extent of growth of
Clostvidiurn botulinurn type A in pasteurized pork slurry’.
Herbert, G. M. J., and A. U. Krishnan. 2016. ‘Quantifying environmental
performance of biomass energy’, renewable and sustainable energy
reviews. Elsevier 59:292–308. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.254.
Kaur, M., and S. Chauhan. 2017. Effect of different parameters on biogas
production. Internationl Journal of Innovative Research in Science and
Engineering 3 (01):112–16.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GREEN ENERGY 7
Kelleher, B. P., J. J. Leahy, A. M. Henihan, T. F. O’Dwyer, D. Sutton, and
M. J. Leahy. 2002. Advances in poultry litter disposal technology–A
review. Bioresource Technology 83 (1):27–36. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524
(01)00133-X.
Kirubakaran, V., V. Sivaramakrishnan, M. Premalatha, and P.
Subramanian. 2007. Kinetics of auto-gasification of poultry litter.
International Journal of Green Energy 4 (5):519–34. doi:10.1080/
15435070701583102.
Koster, I. W., and G. Lettinga. 1988. Anaerobic digestion at extreme
ammonia concentrations. Biological Wastes 25 (1):51–59. doi:10.1016/
0269-7483(88)90127-9.
Krylova, N. I., R. E. Khabiboulline, R. P. Naumova, and M. A. Nagel.
1997. The influence of ammonium and methods for removal during
the anaerobic treatment of poultry manure. Journal of Chemical
Technology & Biotechnology 70 (1):99–105. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
4660(199709)70:1<99::AID-JCTB684>3.0.CO;2-C.
Liao, P. H., A. Chen, and K. V. Lo. 1995. Removal of nitrogen from swine
manure wastewaters by ammonia stripping. Bioresource Technology
54:17–20. doi:10.1016/0960-8524(95)00105-0.
Markou, G. 2015. ‘Improved anaerobic digestion performance and biogas
production from poultry litter after lowering its nitrogen content’,
bioresource technology. Elsevier Ltd 196:726–30. doi:10.1016/j.
biortech.2015.07.067.
Munda, U. S., L. Pholane, D. D. Kar, and B. C. Meikap. 2012. Production
of bioenergy from composite waste materials made of corn waste,
spent tea waste, and kitchen waste co-mixed with Cow Dung.
International Journal of Green Energy 9 (4):361–75. doi:10.1080/
15435075.2011.621492.
Okuo, D. O., M. A. Waheed, and B. O. Bolaji. 2016. Evaluation of biogas
yield of selected ratios of cattle, swine, and poultry wastes.
International Journal of Green Energy 13 (4):366–72. doi:10.1080/
15435075.2014.961460.
Panwar, N. L., S. C. Kaushik, and S. Kothari. 2011. ‘Role of renewable
energy sources in environmental protection: A review’, renewable and
sustainable energy reviews. Elsevier Ltd 15 (3):1513–24. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2010.11.037.
Rajagopal, R., D. I. Massé, and G. Singh. 2013. ‘A critical review on
inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia’, biore-
source technology. Elsevier Ltd 143:632–41. doi:10.1016/j.
biortech.2013.06.030.
Saha, S., S. Biswas, and S. Pal. 2014. ‘Survey analysis, scope and applica-
tion of biomass energy in India’, Proceedings of 2014 1st International
Conference on Non Conventional Energy: Search for Clean and Safe
Energy, ICONCE 2014, (Iconce), Kalyani, India, pp. 136–41.
doi:10.1109/ICONCE.2014.6808698.
Strik, D. P. B. T. B., A. M. Domnanovich, and P. Holubar. 2006. A pH-
based control of ammonia in biogas during anaerobic digestion of
artificial pig manure and maize silage. Process Biochemistry 41
(6):1235–38. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2005.12.008.
Yu, L., and P. C. Wensel. 2013. Mathematical Modeling in Anaerobic
Digestion (AD). Journal of Bioremediation & Biodegradation s4.
doi:10.4172/2155-6199.S4-003.