Enhancing anaerobic digestion of okra waste with the addition of iron nanocomposite (Ppy/Fe₃O₄)

References

• Uçkun Kiran E, Trzcinski AP, Liu Y. Enhancing the hydrolysis and methane production potential of mixed food waste by an effective enzymatic pretreatment. Bioresour Technol. 2015;183:47–52.
   Google Scholar
• World Energy Council 2018. World energy resources: biomass [cited 2018 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/resource/biomass/
   Google Scholar
• Hussein AK. Applications of nanotechnology in renewable energies – A comprehensive overview and understanding. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2015;42:460–476.
   Google Scholar
• FAOSTAT 2016. Okra, production quantity (tons)- for all countries. Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/faostat/en/data/QC. (Accessed: March 14, 2019)
   Google Scholar
• Duman N, Kocak ED, Merdan N, et al. Nonwoven production from agricultural Okra wastes and investigation of their thermal conductivities. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2017;254 :192007.
   Google Scholar
• Olaniyan AM, Omoleyomi BD. Characteristics of Okra under different process pretreatments and different drying conditions. J Food Process Technol. 2013;4(237):1–6. doi:10.4172/2157-7110.1000237
   Google Scholar
• Alam MS, Arifuzzaman Khan GM. 2007 Chemical analysis of okra bast fiber (Abelmoschus esculentus) and its physico-chemical properties. J Text Apparel, Technol Manag. 2007; 5(4) :1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Ugwu SN, Ugwuishiwu BO, Nwoke OA, et al. Kinetic studies on methane production from okra wastes using growth functions. Proceedings of the 3rd NIAE-SE Regional Conference, Univ. of Nig., Nsukka 2018 Aug 27–30; 63–71.
   Google Scholar
• Romero-Güiza MS, Vila J, Mata-Alvarez J, et al. The role of additives on anaerobic digestion: a review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2016;58:1486–1499. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.094
   Google Scholar
• Cai J, He Y, Yu X, et al. Review of physicochemical properties and analytical characterization of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain Energ Rev. 2017;76:309–322.
   Google Scholar
• Akunna JC. Anaerobic waste-wastewater treatment and biogas plants: a practical handbook. 2018. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group [cited June 2018]. Availablefrom: http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/book/10.1201/9781351170529.
   Google Scholar
• Li W, Khalid H, Zhu Z, et al. Methane production through anaerobic digestion: Participation and digestion characteristics of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Appl Energ. 2018;226:1219–1228.
   Google Scholar
• Hao X, Wei J, van-Loosdrecht MCM, et al. Analysing the mechanisms of sludge digestion enhanced by iron. Water Res. 2017;117:58–67.
   Google Scholar
• Liu R, Hao X, Wei J. Function of homoacetogenesis on the heterotrophic methane production with exogenous H2/CO2 involved. Chem Eng J. 2016;284:1196–1203. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.09.081.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao Z, Zhang Y, Li Y, et al. Comparing the mechanisms of ZVI and Fe3O4 for promoting waste activated sludge digestion. Water Res. 2018;144:126–133.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Feng Y, Yu Q, et al. Enhanced high-solids anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge by the addition of scrap iron. Bioresour Technol. 2014;159:297–304.
   Google Scholar
• Hashimoto AG. Pretreatment of wheat straw for fermentation to methane. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1986;28(12):1857–1866. 2004
   Google Scholar
• Abdelsalam E, Samer M, Attia YA, et al. Comparison of nanoparticles effects on biogas and methane production from anaerobic digestion of cattle dung slurry. Renew Energ. 2016;87:592–598.
   Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Zhang Y, Quan X, et al. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge digestion by the addition of zero-valent iron. Water Res. 2014;52:242–250. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.072.
   Google Scholar
• Casals E, Barrena R, García A, et al. Programmed iron oxide nanoparticles disintegration in anaerobic digesters boosts biogas production. Small. 2014. 2014;10:2801–2808. González E, et al. Elgado L, Busquets-Fité M, Font X, Arbiol J, Glatzel P, Kvashnina K, Sánchez A, Puntes V,
   Google Scholar
• Banfield JF, Zhang H. Nanoparticles in the Environment. Rev Mineralog Geochem. 2001. 2001;44(1):1–58. doi: 10.2138/rmg.2001.44.01
   Google Scholar
• Emerson D, Fleming EJ, McBeth JM. Iron-oxidizing bacteria: an environmental and genomic perspective. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2010;64(1):561–583. doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.112408.134208.
   Google Scholar
• Tang SCN, Lo I. Magnetic nanoparticles: essential factors for sustainable environmental applications. Water Res. 2013;47(8):2613–2632. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.02.039
   Google Scholar
• Chen C, Konishi Y, Nomura T. Enhancement of methane production by Methanosarcina barkeri using Fe3O4 nanoparticles as iron sustained release agent. Adv Powder Technol. 2018;29(10):2429–2433.
   Google Scholar
• Ram MS, Singh L, Suryanarayana MVS, et al. Effect of iron, nickel and cobalt on bacterial activity and dynamics during anaerobic oxidation of organic matter. Water, Air Soil Pollut. 2000;117(1/4):305–312.
   Google Scholar
• Zhuang L, Tang J, Wang Y, et al. Conductive iron oxide minerals accelerate syntrophic cooperation in methanogenic benzoate degradation. J. Hazard Mater. 2015;293:37–45.
   Google Scholar
• Tan J, Wang J, Xue J, et al. Methaneproduction and microbial community analysis in the goethite facilitated anaerobic reactors using algal biomass. Fuel. 2015. 2015;145:196–201.
   Google Scholar
• Baek G, Kim J, Lee C. Influence of ferric oxyhydroxide addition on biomethanation of waste activated sludge in a continuous reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2014;166:596–601.
   Google Scholar
• Noonari AA, Mahar RB, Sahito AR, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of canola straw and banana plant wastes with buffalo dung: Effect of Fe3O4 nanoparticles on methane yield. Renew Energ. 2019;133:1046–1054.
   Google Scholar
• Auffan M, Achouak W, Rose J, et al. Relation between the redox state of iron-based nanoparticles and their cytotoxicity toward Escherichia coli. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(17):6730–6735. 10.1021/es800086f.
   Google Scholar
• Suanon F, Sun Q, Mama D, et al. Effect of nanoscale zero-valent iron and magnetite (Fe3O4) on the fate of metals during anaerobic digestion of sludge. Water Res. 2016;88:897–903.
   Google Scholar
• Abdelsalam EM, Samer YA, Attia MA, et al. Influence of zero valent iron nanoparticles and magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles on biogas and methane production from anaerobic digestion of manure. Energ 2017;120:842–853. 2017
   Google Scholar
• Ali A, Mahar RB, Soomro RA, et al. Fe3O4 nanoparticles facilitated anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste for enhancement of methane production. Energ Sourc Part A: Recov Utilization, Environ Effects. 2017;39(16):1815–1822.
   Google Scholar
• Aigbe UO, Das R, Ho WH, et al. A novel method for removal of Cr(VI) using polypyrrole magnetic nanocomposite in the presence of unsteady magnetic fields. Sep Purif Technol. 2018;194:377–387.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaumik M, Maity A, Srinivasu VV, et al. Enhanced removal of Cr(VI) from aqueous solution using polypyrrole/Fe3O4 magnetic nanocomposite. J. Hazardous Mater. 2011. 2011;190(1–3):381–390.
   Google Scholar
• Kim YS, Kim YH. Application of ferro-cobalt magnetic fluid for oil sealing. J Magn Mater.2003;267(1):105–110.
   Google Scholar
• APHA. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Amen TWM, Eljamal O, Khalil AME, et al. Biochemical methane potential enhancement of domestic sludge digestion by adding pristine iron nanoparticles and iron nanoparticles coated zeolite compositions. J Environ Chem Eng. 2017;5(5):5002–5013. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2017.09.030
   Google Scholar
• Kafle GK, Kim SH, Sung KI. Ensiling of fish industry waste for biogas production: A lab scale evaluation of Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) and kinetics. Bioresour Technol. 2013;127:326–336.
   Google Scholar
• Ugwu SN, Enweremadu CC. Effects of pre-treatments and co-digestion on biogas production from Okra waste. J Renew Sustain Energ. 2019;11(1):013101.
   Google Scholar
• Talha Z, Hamid A, Guo D, et al. Ultrasound assisted alkaline pre-treatment of sugarcane filter mud for performance enhancement in biogas production. Int J Agric Biol Eng. 2018;11(1):231.
   Google Scholar
• Mahanty B, Zafar M, Han MJ, et al. Optimization of co-digestion of various industrial sludges for biogas production and sludge treatment: Methane production potential experiments and modeling. Waste Manage. 2014;34(6):1018–1024.
   Google Scholar
• Najafi B, Faizollahzadeh Ardabili S. Application of ANFIS, ANN, and logistic methods in estimating biogas production from spent mushroom compost (SMC). Resourc Conserv Recyc. 2018;133:169–178.
   Google Scholar
• Kigozi R, Muzenda E, Aboyade AO. Biogas technology: current trends, opportunities and challenges. in 6th Int’l Conf. on Green Tech, Reknewable Energy & Environmental Eng’g. (ICGTREEE’2014). Cape Town South Africa, p. 1–34
   Google Scholar
• Smith AD, Holtzapple MT. Investigation of the optimal carbon-nitrogen ratio and carbohydrate-nutrient blend for mixed-acid batch fermentations. Bioresour Technol. 2011;102(10):5976–5987.
   Google Scholar
• Ambuchi JJ, Zhang Z, Feng Y. Biogas enhancement using iron oxide nanoparticles and multi-wall carbon nanotubes. Intern Scholarly and Sci Res Innov. 2016;10(10):scholar.waset.org/1307–6892/10005619. 2016
   Google Scholar
• Xu SY, He CQ, Luo LW, et al. Comparing activated carbon of different particle sizes on enhancing methane generation in upflow anaerobic digester. Bioresour. Technol. 2015;196:606–612.
   Google Scholar
• Raposo F, Borja R, Martín MA, et al. Influence of inoculum-substrate ratio on the anaerobic digestion of sunflower oil cake in batch mode: process stability and kinetic evaluation. Chem Eng J. 2009;149(1-3):70–77.
   Google Scholar
• Kafle KK, Kim SH. Kinetic study of the anaerobic digestion of swine manure at mesophilic temperature: a lab scale batch operation. J Biosyst Eng. 2012;37(4):233–244. doi:10.5307/JBE.2012.37.4.233.
   Google Scholar
• Budiyono IS, Sumardiono S. Kinetic model of biogas yield production from vinasse at various initial pH: comparison between modified gompertz model and first order kinetic model. RJASET. 2014;7(13):2798–2805.
   Google Scholar
• Kafle GK, Chen L. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manage. 2016;48:492–502. 2016
   Google Scholar