Final Attachment Published A 5777 6089603e9087340b9bdcbbb1
Final Attachment Published A 5777 6089603e9087340b9bdcbbb1
ABSTRACT
Background: Pineapple peel wastes was seasonal which comprised of peels and rags. Their disposal posed a serious environmental
pollution. Since pineapple peel was rich in cellulose, hemicellulose and other carbohydrates it was found to be a potential substrate
for methane generation by anaerobic digestion.
Methods: Here pineapple peel and pulp wastes were collected. The hydraulic retention time of biogas (HRT) was monitored regularly
for nine days and at three days intervals in gas collection bladders (Hans Seamless latex valve bladders). The slurry collected was
periodically treated with phosphate solubilizers- Providencia rettgeri, a bacterial solubilizer and Meyerozyma gullerimondi, an yeast
solubilizer. The biometric parameters of Ananas comosus was tested after slurry application. The germination per cent of Passiflora
edulis were also calculated.
Result: The best combination of biogas slurry with maximum manorial content for phosphate solubilizers were treatment with cow
dung and fruit waste in the ratio 1:2 with high amount of magnesium: 0.0037%, followed by 0.075 N and 0.00054% P which was
selected for biometric observations for plants. Pineapple waste were good source for making biogas and slurry obtained could be
utilized as carriers for phosphate solubilising liquid fertilizers.
carrier for phosphate solubilizer- Providencia rettgeri, a and analysed. The Biogas composition in laboratory test
bacterial solubilizer and Meyerozyma gullerimondi, a (CH 4 , CO 2, H 2, H 2S and O 2) was measured using an
yeast solubilizer. automated gas analyser according to Brettschneider et al.
(2004). The slurry generated in each treatment were tested
MATERIALS AND METHODS for profiling the quantity of macronutrient and micronutrients
Anaerobic digestor present in it using FESEM-EDX and Elemental mapping.
The biogas plant was installed at the household premises Biometric observations of seedlings
at Mannuthy, Thrissur. The work was carried out in Pineapple Biometric observations were recorded biweekly for three
Research station Vazhakulam, Ernakulam and Nehru Arts months. Plant height, number of leaves per plant, plant girth
and Science College, Coimbatore in year 2019 to 2020. The was recorded. Vigour index was also calculated from the
floating drum biogas plant of 0.5 m3 (Plate 1) capacity was biometric observations (Kaur and Phutela, 2014).
used for anaerobic digestion of pineapple substrate. The Statistical analysis
substrates were added through the inlet pipe. The gas
produced inside the digestor was collected in gas holder Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Panse
and the bottom of the gas holder was dipped into the and Sukhatme, 1985) using statistical package ‘MSTAT-C’
substrates to create an anaerobic condition. The gas package (Freed, 2006). Wherever the F test was significant
(at 5% level) multiple comparison among the treatments
collected in the gas holder was used daily through gas outlet.
were done with Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT).
W hen substrates got completely digested, slurry flowed
through slurry outlet. Regular feeding had done with the
slurry at the rate of 1 litre per day to the biogas plant. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Composition of biogas
Inoculation of phosphate solubilizers
The optimum combination of cow dung and pineapple waste
The phosphate solubilizers selected were Providencia
for maximum gas production was standardized using
rettgeri, a bacterial solubilizer and Meyerozyma gullerimondi,
completely randomized design with five treatments and three
a yeast solubilizer isolated from rhizosphere soil of
replications for a period of 18 months. All the six treatments
pineapple plants from Vazhakulam, Ernakulam district,
were done separately on all five weeks of 6 months from
Kerala. The ratio of 610 4 CFU/ml of slurry was the
October 2018 to June 2020 at Mannuthy, Thrissur, Kerala.
inoculum used for both organisms. The fermentation was
The readings were taken every week.
carried out for overnight.
The highest methane content of 60.49% was recorded
Regular monitoring of biogas plant in T 4 which was on par with T 5 (63.81%) and T 3 (60.29%)
During the anaerobic digestion period, hydraulic retention and was significantly higher than T1 (50.00) and T2 (46.65).
time (HRT) and daily temperature inside the digester, volume From the results it is clear that co-digestion of cow dung
of gas produced and quantity of slurry generated were with fruit waste increased the methane content in 1:1.5 ratio.
determined regularly. Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) was With the increase of pineapple fruit waste proportion with
defined as the maximum time taken by the substrates for cow dung as 1:2 methane generations decreased to 50.86%
maximum gas production. The daily temperature of the (Fig 1a). It was evident that CO 2 concentration varied
biogas unit was noted by using digital thermometer for the significantly between the treatments. It was found to be
entire period of study. highest in T2 (50.86%) and the lowest in T4 (32.00%). The
recorded CO 2 concentration in T 6, T 1, T 3, T 5 were 45.37,
The gas volume was recorded every day. The gas
37.48, 37.31 and 34.47 respectively (Fig 1a).The major
produced was measured and used for burning the stove.
nutrients and heavy metal composition of biogas slurry and
The increase in height of the gas holder was recorded daily
substrate was shown in Table 1.
and volume of gas was calculated using the formula,
Hydraulic retention time (HRT) and volume of gas generated
V= r2h
W here The hydraulic retention time (HRT) was minimum (15 days)
V denotes volume, r denotes radius of gas holder and h in the treatment T3 (cow dung + fruit waste, 1:0.5) followed
denotes height increased after gas production. The slurry by T4 (cow dung + fruit waste, 1:1) with 17 days. The highest
output from the digester was also measured daily for all HRT of 28 days was observed in treatment T2 (fruit waste
the treatments using measuring cylinder (Enaboifo and alone) whereas the treatments T1 (cow dung alone) and T5
Adadu, 2020). (cow dung + fruit waste, 1:1.5) was recorded 23 days and
19 days. The HRT of T6 was 25 days (Fig 1b). The volume of
Analysis of biogas and biogas slurry gas was maximum (0.43 m3/day) in the treatment T4 (cow
The gas produced during the first three days was discarded dung + fruit waste, 1:1) which was followed by T3 (cow dung
for a stabilized biogas production. Biogas samples were + fruit waste, 1:0.5) with 0.41 m3/day. The lowest volume of
collected after nine days at three days intervals in gas 0.29 m3/day was observed in T2 (fruit waste alone) whereas
collection bladders (Hans Seamless latex valve bladders) the treatments T1 (cow dung alone) and T5 (cow dung + fruit
waste, 1:1.5) was recording 0.35 m 3/day and 0.39 of slurry (96 L) followed by T5 (78 L), T4 (62 L), T3 (57 L) and the
respectively and the total volume in the treatment T 6 was treatments T1 and T2 were on par recording 40 L (Fig 1c). The
0.36 m3/day (Fig 1 b). nutrients present in the slurry was recorded using FESEM-
Total quantity of slurry EDX. The FESEM analysis and EDAX for elemental analysis
The quantity of biogas slurry generated in each treatment of the crude extracts and its biofertilizers i.e., biogas slurry
was analysed. The T6 treatment recorded the highest quantity and biogas substrate were shown in Fig 2 and Fig 3.
Effect of different treatments on composition of biogas Total quantity of slurry generated in each treatment
80 150
40
50
20
0
0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 Treatments
A C
HRT(days) 20-30
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 10-20
0-10
B
Fig 1: A. Graph showing the different treatment on composition of biogas; B. Graph showing hydraulic retention time and
volume of gas as influenced by diffe rent treatments; C Graph showing the quantity of slurry generated in each treatment.
Fig 2: The FESEM Analysis of liquid biofertilizers and their crude extracts biogas slurry (a); biogas substrate(b).
cps/eV cps/eV
50 50
a
b
40 40
30 30
Cl
C O Na C O Na Cl
20 20
10 10
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
keV
keV
Fig 3: FESEM-EDX spectra for elemental analysis of the crude extracts and its biofertilizers.
(a): Biogas slurry BF; (b): Biogas substrate.
Ananas comosus (Pineapple) and Passiflora edulis soaked with pineapple fruit waste slurry recorded highest
(Passion fruit) vigour index (197.68). Coating with biogas slurry also
The germination studies of biogas slurry were done alone showed marginal improvement (177.44) compared to gober
in passion fruit seedlings since tissue culture pineapple gas slurry (Table 3, Fig 5a).
variety, MD 2 was selected to determine the biometric The length of pineapple plants (MD 2) was calculated
observations like length and leaf number of the plant and for 365 days with different batches of different plants. The
weight of the fruit. This MD2 pineapple plants treated with highest plant height (85.33 cm) was observed for pre-
biogas slurry at 15,30,45,60 DAP was shown in fig 4a, 4b, soaking treatment with biogas slurry (Table 4, Fig 5b). The
120 DAP in 4c, 365 DAP in 4d. The germination percent lowest height was recorded for pineapple plants coated with
was recorded higher for treatment, T3 (49.42%) which had gober gas slurry (69.33 cm). The plant stored in shade as
pre-soaking with biogas slurry having maximum manurial control without any treatments recorded 82.33 cm length
value (12 h) (Table 3, Fig 5a). The minimum per cent after 365 days.
(40.20%) was observed for storage in shade. The coating The effect of treatments on number of leaves of
treatments also followed the pre-soaking treatments but the pineapple plant were significant for 180 days after planting
effects were comparatively less. The passion fruit seeds pre- and found to be non-significant there after. The highest
Fig 4: a. Germination % of passion fruit seedlings; b. Pineapple MD2 plants treated with biogas slurry (15,30,45,60 DAP);
c. Pineapple MD2 plants treated with biogas slurry (120 DAP); d. Pineapple MD2 plants treated with biogas slurry (365 DAP).
Fig 5: a. Graph showing the germination % and vigour index of passion fruit seedlings; b. Graph showing the effect of biogas slurry
on the height of pineapple plant; c. Graph showing the effect of biogas slurry on the number of leaves of the pineapple plant.
A%
BDL
BDL
Nd
Nd
Pb
W%
Mg
nd
nd
(ppm)
BDL
BDL
e
T1 40.20 160.8e
Ni
b
T2 44.36 177.44b
A%
nd
nd
a
T3 49.42 197.68a
c
T4 42.76 171.04c
(ppm)
2.41
1.64
W%
Cr
Ca
nd
nd
d
T5 41.73 166.92d
A% CD (0.05) 0.559 0.919
nd
nd
(ppm)
ND
ND
K
nd
nd
plants treated with pineapple waste biogas slurry were
(ppm)
5.424
PO 4
4.2
nd
nd
K
nd
W%
nd
nd
S
nd: Not detected; W%: Weight per cent; A%: Atomic per cent; C: Crude extract; B: Liquid biofertilizer.
A%
nd
nd
Mg
nd
P
A%
nd
nd
nd
Cl
A%
nd
nd
Cl
nd
N
S%
ND
ND
nd
nd
nd
11.6
A%
waste to crops
Samples
Extracts
Biogas
Biogas
slurry
University, Coimbatore and Soil Science Department of Kaur, K. and Phutela, U.G. (2014). Improving paddy straw digestibility
Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur. This study was and biogas production through different chemical-microwave
financially supported by Fiber Tech Manufacturing and pre-treatments. Agricultural Science Digest. 34(1): 8-14.
Trading, Ajman-United Arab Emirates. Malik, R.K., Bishnoi, R.K. and Singh, R. (2001). Development of
underground solid state biogas plant of 2M3 capacity,
REFERENCES Agricultural Science Digest. 21(2): 79-82.
Bardiya, N., Somayaji, D. and Khanna, S. (1996). Biomethanation Mbuligwe, S.E. and Kassenga, G.R. (2004). Feasibility and strategies
of banana peel and pineapple waste. Bioresource Technology. for anaerobic digestion of solid wastes for energy production
58:73-76. in Dares Salaam city, Tanzania. Resources, Conservation
Boe, K. (2006). Online monitoring and control of the biogas process, Ph.D. and Recycling. 42: 183-203.
thesis, Institute of Environment and Resources, Technical Pimjai, N.W.S., Chureereat, P., Dudsadee, U. and Vilai, R. (2012).
University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. Anaaerobic digestion of pineapple pulp and peel in a plug-
Brettschneider, O., Thiele, R., Faber, R., Thielert, H. and Wozny, G. flow reactor. Journal of Environmental Management. 110:
(2004). Experimental Investigation and Simulation of the 40-47.
Chemical Absorption in a Packed Column for the System Rani, D.S. and Nand, K. (2004). Ensilage of pineapple processing
NH 3–CO2–H 2S– NaOH–H2O. Separation and Purification waste for methane generation, Waste Management. 24(5):
Technology. 29: 139. 523-528.
Conte, A., Scrocco, C., Brescia, I. and Del Nobile, M.A. (2009). Rehm, H.J., Reed, G., Puhler, A. and Stadler, P.J.W. (2000).
Packaging strategies to prolong the shelf life of minimally Biotechnology, 11(A), Environmental Processes, I(2),
processed lampascioni (Muscari comosum). Journal of Wiley, New York, USA.
Food Engineering. 90: 199-206. Turovskiy, I.S. and Mathai, P.K. (2006). Wastewater Sludge Processing.
Enaboifo, M.A. and Adadu, C.A. (2020). Comparative study of biogas John Wiley and Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
production from cocoa pod, maize husk, orange peels, Upadhyay, A., Lama, J.P. and Tawata, S. (2013). Utilization of
pineapple peels and coconut fiber co-digested with yeast. Pineapple Waste: A Review. Journal of Food Science and
Adan Journal of Agriculture. 1(01): 114-122. Technology Nepal. 6: 10-18.
Inthapanya, S. and Preston, T.R. (2013). Biochar marginally increases
biogas production but decreases methane content of the
gas in continuous-flow biodigesters charged with cattle
manure. Livestock Research for Rural Development.
25(189). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/11/sang25189.htm.