Next Article in Journal
Accurate Real Time On-Line Estimation of State-of-Health and Remaining Useful Life of Li ion Batteries
Next Article in Special Issue
Process Optimisation of Anaerobic Digestion Treating High-Strength Wastewater in the Australian Red Meat Processing Industry
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of Video Object Detection: Datasets, Metrics and Methods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 21
10.3390/app10217825
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure: A Review

by
Yevhenii Shapovalov
1,*,
Sergey Zhadan
2,
Günther Bochmann
3,
Anatoly Salyuk
4 and
Volodymyr Nykyforov
5
1
Department of Knowledge systems creation, National Center of «Junior Academy of Science of Ukraine», 04119 Kyiv, Ukraine
2
Individual Entrepreneur “Dyba”, 03035 Kyiv, Ukraine
3
Institute for Environmental Biotechnology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria
4
Educational and Scientific Institute of Food Technology, National University of Food Technology, 01601 Kyiv, Ukraine
5
Department “Biotechnologies and Bioengineering”, Kremenchuk Mykhailo Ostrohradskyi National University, 39600 Kremenchuk, Ukraine
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(21), 7825; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app10217825
Submission received: 30 September 2020 / Revised: 29 October 2020 / Accepted: 30 October 2020 / Published: 5 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Industrial Application of Anaerobic Digestion)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Featured Application

The paper could be useful for further researches in the field of dry anaerobic digestion of high nitrogen-containing waste and it can be used for optimization of an industrial setting.

Abstract

Providing anaerobic digestion is a prospective technology for utilizing organic waste, however, for waste with a high content of nitrogen such as manure, dilution is necessary to decrease the ammonia inhibition effect which leads to the production of a huge effluent amount which is difficult to use. Dry anaerobic digestion has some advantages such as reduced reactor volume, higher volumetric methane yield, lower energy consumption for heating, less wastewater production, and lower logistic costs for fertilizers. These factors generate interest in using it for treatment of even high-nitrogen substrates. The purpose of this work was to analyze different dry anaerobic digestion technologies, the features of dry anaerobic digestion, laboratory studies on chicken manure dry anaerobic digestion, and methods of reducing inhibitors’ effects. Nowadays, there are no dry anaerobic industrial plants working on chicken manure. However, studies on dry anaerobic digestion of chicken manure have proven the possibility of methane production under fermentation of chicken manure with high total solids content, but the process has been described as being unstable. Co-fermentation, ammonium/ammonia removal, and adaptation of the microbial consortium have been used to decrease the effect of ammonia inhibition. A prospective way for ammonia concentration control is absorption using a non-volatile sorbent located in the reactor. It decreases ammonia content during wet anaerobic digestion by 33% and it is characterized by having a positive economic effect. Therefore, dry anaerobic fermentation of chicken manure is possible, but there is still no efficient way to provide it. The results of this article should be helpful in the selection of anaerobic digestion technology for treating chicken manure.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Poultry farming is one of the most advanced branches of the agroindustry complex. However, egg and chicken meat productions generate waste that needs to be utilizing. One of the most economically attractive methods for utilizing this waste is anaerobic digestion (AD). This approach produces biogas, which can be used for heating or electricity production.
Manure has a high content of organic nitrogen that is converted to ammonia (Table 1). Due to this fact, it is necessary to dilute manure with water. The amount of wastewater is directly proportional to the amount of water required for the predilution. The effluent can be used as organo-mineral fertilizer. However, in practice, using the effluent that is produced is complicated, due to the high capacity of modern poultry farms. Liquid fertilizer is difficult to store, transport, and to sell. Sometimes, it is necessary to keep effluent for periods during which it cannot be used as fertilizer. It may need to be preserved for up to a year [1,2]. Fertilizers placed in lagoons can pollute the environment [3,4]. Compared to traditional chemical fertilizers, transportation of an effluent is very expensive due to its high-water content. The distribution of a significant amount of liquid fertilizer among several small farms can be a problem [3]. Processing and reuse of liquid effluent from large biogas plants in an accessible and environmentally safe way, still remains to be an engineering problem [5].
Thus, the development of technologies that reduce water consumption and effluent formation seems to be relevant. The amount of effluent can be reduced by recirculation of the liquid phase or through a process with low moisture content. However, both approaches are known to have problems with inhibitors accumulation. This research is devoted to the analysis of different dry AD technologies, features of dry AD, laboratory studies of chicken manure dry AD, and methods of reducing inhibitors’ effects.

2. General Aspects of Dry Anaerobic Digestion

2.1. Dry and Wet Anaerobic Digestion

AD can be performed as dry AD and wet AD, i.e., at different moisture content values, because under a specific content of total solids (TS), the substrate loses its fluidity. There is no generally accepted distribution limit of moisture content for dry and wet fermentation. Some authors have defined this limit to be equal to 15% [7,8]. According to Li et al., AD was divided into wet, semi-dry, and dry with TS content ups to 10%, 10–15%, and more than 15%, respectively [9].
Similarly, there is an opinion among several authors that TS concentration during AD can be low (up to 15%), medium (15–20%), and high (20–40%) [10,11]. Lissens et al. pointed out that wet AD occurred at a TS concentration between 10 and 15%, and dry AD occurred at a TS concentration between 25 and 40% [12]. However, there was another opinion that dry AD reactors (ADR) were intended for digestion of substrates with a TS concentration between 20 and 40% [13,14,15]. According to Salyuk et al., the boundary between dry and wet AD for chicken manure was 16% of TS [16,17].

2.2. Advantages of the Dry Anaerobic Digestion

Dry AD technologies require from four to ten times [18,19] less water for dilution than wet AD technologies. Thus, advantages for dry ADR include reduced reactor volume, higher volumetric methane yields, lower energy consumption for heating, a positive energy balance, less wastewater, and, consequently, lower logistics costs for fertilizers [8,9,13,20,21,22], and only very dry substrates with a TS content of more than 50% require dilution [14]. One of the specific advantages of dry AD is the lack of foam [22]. Using dry ADR also guarantees decontamination of the effluent. Similar to wet AD, about 30% of energy is consumed for bioreactors heating [18].
Reduced costs for dry AD are a consequence of lower reactor volumes and savings on sorting equipment, as dry AD technologies are more stable and resistant to stones, glass, metals, plastics, and wood [13,20,22]. The process of fermentation requires removal of only very coarse particles with a size of more than 5 cm, which reduces the costs of sorting equipment [13].
The main problem of dry AD systems of municipal solid waste, agricultural waste, and food waste are mixing and transportation, but not biochemical constraints. Equipment for shipping of solids, as a rule, is more expensive than that for liquids. Shipping is carried out using conveyor belts, augers, and powerful pumps, especially designed for high-viscosity flows [22].
Perfect contact of biomass and a substrate may not be achieved due to a lack of mixing [23]. According to Abbassi-Guendouz et al., mixing was complicated when the TS content was more than 30% [24]. In addition, during dry anaerobic digestion, percolation was observed, and it was possible to intensify the process by adding straw and wood chips to save water, which could have led to an increase of the specific methane yield by 6% and 11% [25], respectively.
There are different types of processes in various parts of the reactor due to such mixing. Local inhibition and incomplete fermentation of the substrate can take place [24,26,27,28]. Additionally, because of mixing problems during dry AD, the process has a low rate of reaction, which may be caused by the delay of the dense substrate hydrolysis [2,24,27]. Kothari et al. [7] pointed out that inhibition of the process occurred at a TS concentration level of more than 40%, due to problems with contact between phases of the substrate and microorganisms. A high TS concentration and dense substrates can lead to obstacles with substrate heating [22].
Dry ADR requires more inoculum [8]. The dry AD process significantly depends on the activity of the inoculum, which, ideally, should be taken from biogas digesters used for fermentation of such substrates [29].

2.3. Inhibition of AD by Ammonia

The main problem of providing dry AD of chicken manure is inhibition due to the high content of nitrogen- [30] and sulfur-containing [31] compounds formatted in the process of hydrolysis. However, it has been determined that chicken manure digestion is primarily limited by the content of nitrogen-containing compounds [32,33,34], which can be present in a substrate in the forms of ammonium and non-dissociated ammonia [35]. Under dry AD, inhibition of anaerobic digestion by ammonia is much more intensive, which limits its use. However, the advantages of dry AD generate interest in its use with high-nitrogen substrates. Ammonia also causes engine corrosion and environmental pollution [36,37]. To decrease the effect of ammonia inhibition, it is necessary to provide an anaerobic digestion process with high hydraulic retention time (HRT) [38] and, consequently, low organic load rate (OLR) [39].
Ammonia has a strong inhibitory effect on methanogens, especially on acetate-utilizing methanogens [40]. The most sensitive to increasing ammonia concentration are representatives of Methanomicrobiales, particularly the Methanoculleus sp. [41]. Methanosaetaceae are also more sensitive to inhibition by ammonia than representatives of Methasorsarcinaceae [42].
According to Qiao et al., chicken manure consists of 35.16% C, 4.83% H, 30.12% O, 5.44% N, and 0.84% S and its gross formula is CH1.648O0.642N0.133S0.009. Therefore, decomposition of 1 g of volatile solids (VS) of chicken manure delivers 0.087 g of NH3 (0.072 N-NH4+) [43]. Therefore, the production of NH3 is estimated to be from 39 to 46 g/kg (32–38 N-NH4+ g/kg) in the case of 25% TS and 60–70% VS of chicken manure. According to McCarty [44], the anaerobic digestion is inhibited at any pH when ammonium content is more than 3 g/L. However, even a concentration of ammonium from 1.5 to 2.5 g/L causes inhibition [45]. It has been proven that the process is unstable when NH3-N content is more than 1 g/L [41]. Figure 1 shows potential ammonia content in case of full decomposition at different TS contents.
As shown in Figure 2, potential ammonium content in the case of full decomposition at conditions of dry anaerobic digestion (TS content more than 16 %) is much higher than the safe level.

Mechanism of Inhibition by Ammonia

The most toxic substance for anaerobic bacteria is non-dissociated ammonia. It is diffused inside a cell and ionized to NH4+. This process leads to pH imbalance inside and outside a bacteria cell, which provides incensing of cell energy usage, decreasing of fermentative activities, violation of the transport of substances, proton imbalance, or potassium deficiency [43,46,47]. Inhibition of anaerobic metabolism can also be due to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids [48]. Huang et al. found that an increase in ammonium concentration and increased temperature led to a decrease in the proteolytic activity of the anaerobic consortium [49].
It has been proven that increasing both temperature [50,51] and pH [30] has led to an increased inhibition effect by ammonia. Figure 2 shows the proportion of free ammonia depending on pH and ambient temperature.

2.4. Influence of Water Activity on Dry AD

There may not be enough free moisture to conduct dry AD with a high TS concentration in a substrate [29]. The production of biogas is reduced in proportion to a TS concentration increase from 10 to 25%. Anaerobic digestion is unstable at a TS concentration equal to 30%, and dry AD with a TS concentration of 35% is completely suppressed [52]. Even under thermophilic conditions (where moisture is extra bioavailable), the amount of biologically available water is insufficient [53]. The same effect on CH4 production of water availability is observing for anaerobic processes in soils [54].
Water activity is the ratio of the vapor pressure of the water in the material to that of pure water at a given temperature [55]. According to Corry, this is the availability of free water in the system [56]. It means that lower water activity of the substrate leads to decreasing available moisture for microorganisms [55]. Water distribution, which depends on both the water content and the water interactions with the medium compounds, determines water bioavailability and kinetic rates [57]. Biological activity can be used to estimate the possibility of using anaerobic digestion for treating waste [57]. The presence of biologically active water can affect population growth by increasing the entropy of the cell systems [58].
It has been proven that anaerobic digestion of substrates with a TS concentration of 20% lacked biologically active moisture due to low water activity for the formation of biogas by microorganisms at 20, 37, and 55 °C [29].
The activity of most microorganisms is inhibited when the water activity value is less than 0.6. Bacteria, unlike yeast and micromycetes, are less osmotolerant and their optimum growth is reached with a value of water activity in the range of 0.99–0.995 [55]. Bacteria growth is possible in the range of water activity of 0.85–1 [59]. According to Rockland and Beuchal [60], the value of water activity for high-speed hydrolysis should be more than 0.91.
An increase of TS concentration from 5 to 19% leads to a sharp decline in water activity from 0.956 to 0.93, and below the last value, water activity decreases more smoothly. Thus, the value of water activity at a TS concentration of 25% is 0.928, and at a TS concentration of 35%, it is 0.925 [61].
Water activity is affected by temperature. An increase in temperature leads to increased water activity. Thus, growth of microorganisms under thermophilic conditions is up to 60% more intense as compared with the mesophilic ones, in particular, due to higher water activity. There is more biologically active moisture at 55 °C than at 35 °C [29]. However, it is often impossible to use high temperatures, due to inhibition by ammonium, as described in Figure 3.
An increase in water activity under dry AD is possible by spraying water into the upper part of the reactor [29]. Thus, Rajagopal et al. [62] studied top-down and down-top modes of fluid motion under dry AD and found that the top-down mode improved biogas yield.

2.5. Inhibition of Dry AD

One of the principal disadvantages of dry AD is the absence of dilution of inhibitors [12,22]. Six et al. [63] reported that ammonium inhibition was not observed under fermentation of a substrate with a C/N ratio of more than 20. Several authors have pointed out that a C/N ratio between 20 and 30 was necessary to avoid inhibition, and the optimal ratio for the process was 25 [64,65]. High ammonium concentrations are obtained by hydrolyzing compounds containing organic nitrogen. Substrates to which it belongs are complicated for digesting [66]. However, the C/N ratio cannot be used as the main indicator of anaerobic digestion inhibition, because ammonia concentration leads to inhibition and increasing the C/N rate only leads to a decrease in ammonia concentration; the effect of co-fermentation is the same as dilution, i.e., reduction of ammonia content in a substrate.
One of the ways to reduce the effect of ammonium is to remove ammonia from the reactor [3]. However, it has been found that reduction of the inhibitory effect of ammonia was usually reached by reducing the TS concentration using water dilution which leads to an increase in reactor volumes, or by adding chemical reagents which increase the technology cost [67].
Microorganisms that carry out dry AD are more resistant to high ammonium concentrations than those that carry out wet AD. The effect of lower inhibition is supplemented by the worse mixing of inhibitors in the substrate [22]. Thus, Valorga reactors can withstand a load of ammonia up to 3 g/L at a temperature of 40 °C, and Dranco reactors can operate a load of 2.5 g/L at a temperature of 52 °C [22,68]. However, these data are not comparable due to different temperature regimes. Signs of inhibition of volatile fatty acids (VFA) appear at concentrations of acetic acid equal to 5 g/L and butyric acid exceeding 3 g/L [7].
Abbassi-Guendouz determined that anaerobic digestion at extremely high TS concentrations (more than 30%) led to a decrease in the specific surface area and a decrease in methane content [69]. Deublein and Steinhauser [26] argued that under these conditions, growth of microorganisms became suppressed. The influence of an increase in moisture content on the methane fermentation of chicken manure is shown in Figure 3.

2.6. The Efficiency of Dry AD

Fruteau de Laclos’s research showed that the biogas yield from a single-stage dry ADR that worked on municipal and garden waste was higher than in one that worked in wet conditions [68]. All dry AD technologies provide similar results of biogas production. They vary from 90 mL/g for garden waste to 150 mL/g for food waste [68,70]. This corresponds to a range from 210 to 300 mL/g of TS and about 50 to 70% degradation of TS, which is higher than for wet AD, where it ranges from 40 to 70% [71,72,73]. However, dry AD technologies have been studied less than wetAD [13].

2.7. Technologies of Dry AD

Dry AD can be carried out at an industrial scale when the TS content is 20% or higher, due to the accumulation of solid particles in reactors [22]. More than 90% of the reactors used in Europe are single-stage reactors. Dry and wet AD are distributed equally [70].
Dry AD can be carried out in continuous or batch mode. The companies that offer dry AD technologies that are available in the market, include Dranco, Kompogas, Valorga, and Biocel (see Figure 4). Additionally, installations are divided into stirred and unstirred. These technologies are intended for the digestion of organic components of municipal solid waste, agricultural waste, and food waste.
Dranco reactors are vertical containers that move and mix a substrate from the upper part to the bottom of the reactor [13,22]. They work at a TS concentration equal to 20 to 50% with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of the reactor in the range of 15 to 30 days [1]. The inoculate is preparing by mixing six parts of substrate with one part of effluent [15,22,74]. The substrate is loaded to the top of the reactor and moves to the conical bottom. After that, the effluent is withdrawn from the reactor, and then solid matter is dehydrated and pressed [13].
The technology works under thermophilic or mesophilic conditions [74,75]. Optimum thermal conditions for fermentation are from 55 to 60 °C. However, in practice, this temperature is not always provided due to inhibition by ammonium [13].
Rapport et al. [13] pointed out that the Dranco technology could provide a biogas yield that equalled 103 to 147 mL/g of wet mass, and Nichols et al. [1] noted that biogas yield ranged from 100 to 200 mL/g. The reactor that provides the Dranco process is shown in Figure 5.
Kompogas reactors are horizontal digesters, which operate continuously with a HRT between 15 and 20 days at a TS substrate content equal from 23 to 28% under thermophilic conditions [13,15]. The Kompogas reactors operate similarly to the Dranco reactors, with the difference that the substrate is mixed by a vortex flow in a horizontal position [13,76].
The horizontal position contributes to the homogenization, degassing, and mixing of particles in the reactor by using impellers [13,22,77]. Such systems require that the TS concentration in the substrate is controlled close to 23%. Particles such as sand and glass accumulate in the reactor when the TS concentration decreases, and it can lead to disruption of mixing when the TS content increases [76]. The biogas output ranges from 110 to 130 mL/g of wet mass [13].
Inhibition by ammonium is characteristic of fermentation of nitrogen-containing substrates. For example, inhibition is typical of systems for protein waste fermentation by Kompogas systems [78]. The reactor that provides the Kompogas process is shown in Figure 6.
The Strabag technology is very similar to the Kompogas technology but differs by the method of mixing. Mixing is providing by several transversal paddle agitators. This technology is devoted to processing the substrate with a TS content of 15–45% [79]. The reactor that provides the Strabag process is shown Figure 7 [80].
According to Rapport et al., the Valorga technology provides fermentation of the substrate with a TS concentration between 25 and 30% of TS with a HRT up to 3 weeks under thermophilic and mesophilic conditions [13]. Satoto noted that the technology operated at 25 to 32% with HRT between 18 and 25 days, and removed particles with a size of more than 80 mm [15].
The reactor consists of a vertical cylinder with an inner wall extending to about two-thirds of the tank diameter [13,15]. In this case, the substrate moves from one side of the wall to the other side through the partition [15].
Mixing is achieved by injecting the biogas under high pressure into the bottom of the reactor every 15 min through a network of biogas injectors [13,15,68]. Such mixing works satisfactorily, and consequently, there is no need for effluent recycling. The main disadvantage is that the biogas injectors can become clogged, and therefore they require careful maintenance. The Valorga technology is not suitable for relatively moist waste with a TS concentration lower than 20%, due to the probability of solid particles accumulating in the bottom of the reactor and clogging the injectors [22,81].
Biogas production for Valorga reactors is between 220 and 270 mL/g of municipal waste, which corresponds to 80–160 mL/g of wet substance [1]. The reactor that provides the Strabag process is shown in Figure 8.
One of the other popular types of reactors is the percolation reactors, and the most common type is Biocel [15]. Batch systems are the simplest and cheapest systems. Their main disadvantages are large areas, lower biogas output due to the process of percolation through channel formation, and clogging [22,82]. Biocel plants need ten times more area than continuous systems [82].
Batch systems are loaded once by substrate with a TS concentration of 30 to 40% with or without additions [15,22,83]. According to the Board, the process is stable at 25 to 35% of TS output [13]. The process is carried out in concrete reactors with a perforated floor in mesophilic conditions at a temperature from 35 to 40 °C [13,22,83]. The retention time of Biocel’s reactors is between 15 and 21 days [83].
Although Biocel reactors are simple “boxes”, they can provide from 50 to 100 times more biogas than landfills [22]. The higher efficiency is related to the fact that percolate is continuously recirculating, which promotes mixing of nutrients, acids, and moisture. In addition, periodic systems are more capable of operating at higher temperatures than those that are characteristic of landfills [15,22].
The main disadvantage of such reactors is the unevenness of gas output and biomass instability. In particular, this is due to the “substrate” and channels clogging, which causes problems with percolation and uneven distribution of moisture. This disadvantage is eliminated by limiting the height of the substrate, i.e., up to 4 m, and by partially mixing the substrate with a filler [13,22,83]. There is also a problem of lack of contact between bacteria and substrate. Such an effect is observed in studies with a TS concentration of more than 35% [12]. Reactors are explosive until opening, and therefore it is necessary to provide proper safety [22].
Investment costs are about 40% lower as compared with continuous-mode technologies [84]. As described earlier, the Biocel technology needs ten times more area than a continuous process because its reactors should be approximately five times smaller, and the reactor loading rate is two times less. Operating costs are similar to other types of fermentation [22]. The reactor that provides the Biocel process is shown in Figure 9.
Periodic systems are still not widely used but have several advantages, such as easy design and process control, resistance to coarse and solid particles, and low capital costs [85]. Therefore, periodic systems have high potential for implementation in both developing and developed countries, such as the United States [22,82]. A comparison of dry AD technologies is shown in Table 2.
The previously mentioned data and the industrial characteristics in general are all related to organic components of municipal waste or garden waste treatment; however, there are no data on the characteristics of full-scale anaerobic digesters providing dry fermentation of chicken manure. The technologies, potentially, can be used (with or without modification) to provide treatment for high-nitrogen substrates in the case of providing efficiency of technology. Therefore, it seems relevant to analyze the current state of studies devoted to dry anaerobic digestion of chicken manure and summarize its efficiency.

3. Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure

A study by Salyuk et al. proved the possibility of dry AD in the range of TS concentration from 16 to 28%. However, the process had a worse performance than wet AD, and there was a tendency to decreased efficiency with TS concentration increase. Moreover, the inhibition under thermophilic conditions was much more intensive than in the mesophilic conditions [16,17,87,88,89].
Bujoczek et al. [30] reported that adaptation of the anaerobic environment to high ammonia content did not occur at high TS concentrations (19.8% and above). During the dry AD study, methane production was not observing.
Webb et al. [39] investigated batch chicken manure fermentation at a TS concentration of about 16% at a temperature of 30 °C for 45 days. The authors determined that the process inhibited due to VFA and ammonium accumulation.
Farrow [23] conducted a study on chicken manure anaerobic digestion with a TS concentration between 15 and 47% at a temperature of 35 °C. The author reported that there was a biogas yield increase with a VS decrease. A chicken manure VS increase also led to an ammonia concentration increase. Thus, the lowest biogas yield was observed at a TS concentration of 47%. The biogas yield in mesophilic conditions was in the VS range from 100 mL/g at 47% of TS to 140 mL/g at 20% of TS with an ammonia content of 20.3 and 10.2 g/L, respectively. It was inferior at thermophilic temperatures as compared with mesophilic temperatures, due to ammonia.
Abouelenien et al. [90] investigated batch methanogenesis of dry chicken manure with a TS concentration of 22.5% at temperatures of 37, 55, and 65 °C. The authors found that the production of methane occurred only at a temperature of 37 °C. Methane production was about 5 mL/g VS, and ammonium content was about 7 g/L in the first batch [90].
The effect of temperature on chicken manure fermentation at a TS content of 22.25% has been studied. Abouelenien et al. [91] determined that heat did not affect ammonia production. However, a temperature decrease led to a VFA production increase. Thus, the highest VFA content was 84.74 g/L at 35 and 45 °C. There was no effect of temperature on biogas production, but increased temperature led to decreased methane concentration and to increased hydrogen content in biogas. Thus, the methane production was 1.2 mL/g of chicken manure (8.2 mL/g VS) at 35 °C and 0.9 mL/g of chicken manure (6.2 mL/g VS) at 45 °C. The methane concentration in biogas was 10% in both with a pH of 7.2. At higher temperatures, methane production did not occur [91].
Several authors have studied dry AD intensification by conducting control experiments. The data can be used to compare with studies of AD without intensification. Abouelenien et al. [67] studied chicken manure co-fermentation with agricultural wastes at 20% TS. Methane yields in the control experiment were 136.9 and 129 mL/g of VS at 35 and 55 °C, respectively. The highest ammonium and VFA contents were 3.99 and 17.6 g/L, respectively, under thermophilic conditions [67].
Farrow et al. [23,92] conducted a study on ammonia removal by producing struvite. The biogas yield was 470 mL/g VS in the control experiment at a TS concentration of 20% under mesophilic conditions (at 35 °C). Ammonium concentration was 2.46 g/L at the end of the study.
Methane yield in a control experiment by Markou’s study [93] was approximately 117 and 51 mL/g VS with a total nitrogen content of 8 and 10 g/L at a TS content of 15 and 20%, respectively, at 35 °C. The concentration of VFA was 6.5 g/L at a content of TS equal to 15%, and 16 g/L at a TS concentration equal to 20%.
Šinkora et al. [94] researched the process at 38 °C with a substrate TS concentration of about 23%. The authors determined that the optimal loading rate on the reactor was 4.2 g VS/(Lday). For such a loading rate, the average methane yield, over a time period of 32 days, was 246 mL/g VS with a methane concentration of 65.1%. Ammonia concentration was in the range from 1.35 to 2 g/L.
Rajagopal et al. [62] investigated chicken manure fermentation (with straw) at a TS concentration of 30%. Anaerobic digestion with a loading rate of 5.4 g VS/(kg inoculum*day) and 21.6 g VS/(kg inoculum*day) at 20 °C was conducted. The authors reported that methane yield was lower at a higher loading rate. The highest biogas yield was 162 mL/g VS with a methane content of 35% at the loading rate of 5.4 g VS/(kg*inoculum) under down-top mode.
Thus, some results of chicken manure dry AD were successful. Methane yield ranged from 5 to 247 mL/g VS, and the ammonium content ranged from 1.35 to 10.2 g/L in the studies. The highest methane yield was 247 mL/g VS in a study by Šinkora’s et al. [94], who reported the lowest ammonium concentration in the range of 1.35–2 g/L at 38 °C. The tendency for decreased methane yield decrease under increased ammonium content was observed. Table 3 presents the results of laboratory studies of chicken manure dry AD.
Consequently, the VS concentration and temperature increase led to a decrease of biogas yield and its quality. Chicken manure dry AD was characterized by inhibition, especially in thermophilic conditions, which was associated with a higher proportion of non-dissociated ammonia. However, methane production was possible under dry AD. Methane production from chicken manure under dry AD mesophilic conditions was lower than that obtained in wet AD. Methane production did not occur at thermophilic conditions at all, or it was remarkably weak.

4. Ways to Intensify Dry AD of Chicken Manure

4.1. Dry Anaerobic co-Fermentation of Chicken Manure

Dry AD can be intensified by ammonia effect reduction, provided by co-fermentation or ammonia removal. To enhance methanogenesis, it is possible to use different co-substrates with high carbon, and low nitrogen content means a high C/N ratio. Attempts to conduct chicken manure co-fermentation with various substrates under dry AD are shown in Figure 10.
Ahn et al. [95] investigated batch chicken manure co-fermentation with switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) in a ratio of approximately 1:2 with a TS concentration up to 16%, at a temperature of 55 °C. There was inhibition of methane production at ammonium and VFA concentrations of 15 and 9.4 g/L, respectively, at a pH of 5.5. The methane yield was 2 mL/g VS.
Shi et al. [96] conducted chicken manure co-fermentation with straw at a ratio of 2.5:1 and a TS concentration of 20%, in mesophilic conditions at a temperature of 35 °C. The total biogas yield was 4.34 mL/g VS for 15 days. The authors found that the degree of inhibition by ammonium under chicken manure co-fermentation with straw was lower (ammonium content was 0.935 g/L) than that under pig manure co-fermentation with straw (ammonium concentration was 2.729 g/L).
Kukkonen [97] conducted a study on the biological potential of methane production under chicken manure co-fermentation with kitchen waste (actual TS concentration was up to 0.5%) at 35 °C. The author noted that the methane yield under batch mode increased with an increased concentration of kitchen waste. It was possible to achieve a methane production potential of 398.5 mL/g of TS at the ratio of manure to kitchen waste of 1:31.5 (compared to 301 mL/g of TS until chicken manure monofermentation).
Abouelenien [67] conducted a study on chicken manure co-fermentation with agricultural wastes (manioc, coffee, and coconut production wastes) at a ratio of 14:11 and a TS concentration of 20% and at at temperatures of 35 and 55 °C. The authors researched co-fermentation in three stages. The end of each stage was determined by the end of biogas production. After that, the content of the reactor was unloaded by a half and was mixed with a fresh substrate. The results of the first stage were close to the process on an industrial scale [67].
Biogas yields of 406 and 323.4 mL/g of TS were obtained in the mesophilic and thermophilic conditions, respectively, in the first stage. The highest concentration of ammonium and VFA was 2.28 and 0.76 g/L, respectively, under thermophilic conditions.
A lower biogas yield was obtained in the second and third stages due to inhibitor accumulation. Thus, methane production in the third stage did not take place at all, both under thermophilic and mesophilic conditions. The ammonium content under manure co-fermentation was 5.35 g/L and 7.43 g/L, while VFA was 0.43 g/L and 0.47 g/L in thermophilic and mesophilic conditions, respectively [67].
Co-fermentation studies have also been conducted with pretreated chicken manure using the method described by Abouelenien et al. [3]. Methane production occurred in mesophilic conditions only under pretreated manure co-fermentation at the third step. However, the trend of ammonium accumulation remained. It is worth mentioning that the inhibitor accumulation was more specific for higher temperatures [3].
Callaghan et al. investigated cattle and chicken manure co-fermentation at a ratio of 7:2 at a TS concentration equal to 15% at 35 °C, under batch mode. A methane yield of 70 mL/g of VS was obtained. The ammonium content and the pH at the end of the process were 8.8 g/L and 9.3, respectively. The authors noted that increased chicken manure TS concentration led to a decrease in the process productivity [98].
Jantrania [55] investigated batch anaerobic poultry manure co-fermentation and corn production waste at a TS concentration between 25 and 35%, at 35 °C. A ratio of 2.5:1 of manure to maize waste was used. The author showed the positive effect of increasing the TS concentration on the process. Thus, the maximal methane yield was 42.95 mL/g of VS, with a methane concentration of 59% at a TS concentration equal to 35%. The ammonium concentration was about 20 g/L.
Farrow [23] was able to achieve an increase in biogas output by 22% and 44% while applying chicken manure co-fermentation with silage corn at the ratios of 5:1 and 1.35:1 of grease, respectively, at a TS concentration equal to 20%. The studies were carried out at a temperature of 35 °C. Thus, biogas yield of fermentation with maize silage was 473 mL/g of VS (methane concentration was 246 ml/g VS), and with oil waste, it was 560 mL/g of VS (methane concentration was 270 of mL/g of VS) [23].
A study by Salyuk et al. indicated the negative effect of increased glycerin concentration obtained after biodiesel production, on chicken manure co-fermentation at 35 to 55 °C. The substrate with the ratios of chicken manure to glycerol of 9:1, 8:2, and 7:3 at TS contents equal to 26, 22, and 18%, respectively, were used to provide fermentation. Methane production occurred only when the ratio of chicken manure to glycerol was 9:1 at all moisture content values. Moreover, the results in thermophilic conditions were much worse than in mesophilic conditions. The maximum methane and biogas outputs were observed at a TS concentration of 22%. Thus, the maximum methane output in the mesophilic conditions was 6.34 mL/g of VS with a methane concentration in the biogas of 13.3%, and in thermophilic ones, it was 1 mL/g of VS with 10% of methane. Probably, inhibition was due to substances after biodiesel synthesis [99]. In the works of Foucaul [100], the positive effect of glycerin after biodiesel production was achieved on the compatible fermentation with wastewater from poultry farms.
Patinvoh et al. [101] researched chicken manure co-fermentation with straw at a TS concentration equal to 22.29%, at a C/N ratio of 16.8:1, at 37 °C. They found that the optimum loading rate was 4.2 g of TS/(L*day). Under such a loading rate, the methane yield was 163 mL/g of TS with a methane content of 65.1%. Ammonium concentration was in the range from 1.35 to 2 g/L, and there was no VFA accumulation. The VFA accumulation took place for cases with higher loading rates. However, they found that the limiting factor of manure co-fermentation with straw was the cellulose hydrolysis [102].
Kukkonen [97] provided semi-continuous fermentation of chicken manure and kitchen waste at a ratio of 1:4 with a TS concentration of 26.5%, at a temperature of 35 °C. However, the chicken manure and kitchen waste ratio changed to 1:31.5 with a TS concentration of 18.24%, due to a possible ammonium accumulation. Methane production was stable at a loading rate from 1 to 3 g VS/(L*day). Ammonium and total nitrogen concentrations were 1.3 g/L and 3.3 g/L, respectively, under the loading rate of 3 g VS/(L*day). Methane yield was 388 mL/g VS, which corresponded to 98% of the theoretical value [97].
Chicken manure co-fermentation regularly has better results than chicken manure fermentation as a monosubstrate. The low methane yield was observed only for studies that used switchgrass (2 mL/g VS) [95], straw (4.34 mL/g VS) [96], and glycerol after biodiesel production (6.34 mL/g VS) [99]. In general, methane output in co-fermentation was in the range from 2 to 406 mL/g VS, and ammonia concentration was in the range from 0.935 to 20 g/L. The largest methane yield was 406 mL/g VS, which was demonstrated in the Abouelenien’s et al. study [67]. The results of the dry anaerobic co-fermentation of chicken manure with other wastes are presented in Table 4.

4.2. Dry AD under Ammonium Removal

In addition to co-fermentation, process intensification can be accomplished by reducing the ammonia effect. Ammonia binding, struvite formation, ion-exchange materials (zeolite, gluconate, and iron-contain clay [103,104,105,106]) additives, anammox, and denitrification have been used to reduce the ammonia effect [35,107]. However, these removal methods have disadvantages such as additional chemical usage and energy unattractiveness. Several authors have conducted studies to reduce the ammonium nitrogen effects on dry AD. Approaches to reduce the ammonium effect during dry AD are shown in Figure 11.
Markou et al. [93] provided pretreatment in anaerobic conditions for 60 days, at a temperature from 17 to 22 °C, to remove ammonia. After that, the samples were purged by air at 80 °C for 24 h. This method decreased ammonium concentration from 11.2 g/L to 1.86 g/L and total nitrogen from 52.5 g/L to 25.3 g/L. The ammonia nitrogen removal efficiency varied from 62 to 73%, and VFA removal ranged from 41 to 65%. The authors carried out such pretreated manure fermentation at a temperature of 35 °C, at TS concentrations equal to 5, 10, 15, and 20%. Methane yield was 151.3, 153.6, 168.5, and 115.2 mL/g VS at TS concentrations equal to 5, 10, 15, and 20%, respectively.
Farrow et al. [23,92] studied ammonia removal by employing struvite precipitation. The authors carried out research in a test reactor, in a reactor with struvite formation, and in a reactor with the addition of ammonia. Struvite formation and addition of ammonium occurred on the first, seventh, and fourteenth days.
The authors found that the highest biogas yield was 607 mL/g VS under the ammonia removal, which corresponded to an increase in biogas yield of 29%, and the lowest biogas yield was 360 mL/g VS in the reactor with ammonia accumulation, corresponding to a 30% decrease in biogas output. The lowest ammonium content was 0.66 g/L (as compared with 2.46 g/L in test one) in the experiment with struvite formation [23,92].
Another method proposed by Abouelenien et al. [91] was stripping. The approach was based on the stripping of ammonia from the substrate by humidified nitrogen. The process was carried out at a pH of 8–10 of chicken manure, and then brought to a pH of 7 using chloride acid. The authors carried out the removal of ammonia twice after the first fermentation at 65 °C for 8 days, and after the second fermentation at 35 and 55 °C for 75 days. After that, the final fermentation was performed for 55 days under the same conditions. Ammonia removal after the first fermentation reduced the ammonium nitrogen content from 17 g/L to 2.5 g/L, which corresponded to 85% efficiency. After the second fermentation, the ammonium removal was 74.7% [91].
Methane production did not occur in test reactors under either mesophilic or thermophilic conditions. The amount of produced methane was higher after the second ammonium removal than after the first one. The highest methane yield was 49 mL/g VS at the ratio of 1:2 of chicken manure to inoculum at 35 °C and 103.5 mL/g VS at the ratio of 1:1, at 55 °C [91].
One of the most effective methods of ammonia stripping was proposed by Abouelenien et al. [3]. Ammonia stripping was provided by vacuuming at a temperature of 55 °C and a pH of 8–9. The efficiency of ammonium removal was 82% (the initial ammonium concentration was 16 g/L). However, it was accompanied by moisture loss.
In this regard, the authors offered ammonia stripping using recirculation of the gas phase through the sulfate acid solution during anaerobic digestion. The efficiency of ammonia stripping was 31.4%, and it increased up to 55% when the biogas returned to the bottom with bubbling [3]. However, recycling of biogas through the bottom may be complicated under dry fermentation.
Habibulin studied the reduction of ammonia inhibition effect using the addition of minerals (ground phosphorites). The addition of the minerals in the quantity of 5% was optimal and led to an increase in methane production from 13 to 37 mL at an ammonium concentration of 2.6 g/L [108].
A study by Salyuk et al. proved the effectiveness of ammonia removal using a sorbent (phosphoric acid) located in the reactor and not in contact with the substrate. The main advantages of this technology are positive energy balance and producing additional mono- or diammonium phosphate fertilizer [109,110,111,112,113,114,115]. It potentially may be used for dry fermentation.
This method removed ammonium from 3 to 2 g/L, at a TS concentration of 10% and the process was describes as having higher stability. The methane content was 5% higher at the end of the process as compared with the control reactor [109,110].
The proposed methods produced ammonium removal efficiencies from 33 to 80%. The most effective method for ammonia stripping was vacuuming proposed by Abouelenien. However, these methods could decrease economic attractiveness due to additional costs. Ammonia stripping by the sorbent located within the reactor provided a lower ammonia removal rate, but the fermentation was stable without additional energy costs. The efficiency of ammonia removal under dry AD is presented in Table 5.
It is worth noting that there is an alternative way to reduce water consumption during digestion, which is using recirculation of the liquid phase. Several scientific papers have confirmed the possibility of liquid phase recycling [32,33,34,115,116,117]. In this case, the removal of inhibitors is needed.

4.3. Adaptation during Dry AD

One of the ways to decrease the ammonium effect on anaerobic microorganism is through adaptation of sludge. Adaptation of anaerobic microorganisms to high ammonium concentration has been studied by Abouelenien et al. [90]. The authors carried out fermentation studies using repeated batch cultures at temperatures of 37, 45, 55, and 65 °C. In each batch, half of the reactor capacity was taken out and it was filled with fresh substrate. In general, the authors provided nine batches of fermentation with a total duration of 418 days. The authors found that adaptation to high ammonium concentrations occurred only at 37 °C. The highest biogas and methane yields were 19 mL/g of chicken manure (108 mL/g VS) and 4.4 mL/g of chicken manure (25 mL/g VS), respectively, under the ninth batch of fermentation. There was an ammonium concentration of 14 g/L [90].

5. Conclusions

The main problem related to anaerobic digestion of chicken manure is the high content of ammonium, which is inhibiting, or even toxic, for microorganisms. This factor defines the lowest level of technology water consumption and, respectively, the quantity of effluent. Dry anaerobic digestion of chicken manure is a prospective way to decrease excess effluent production, however its valorization is characterized by low stability of the process, and therefore it is necessary to optimize the process. Co-fermentation, ammonia removal, and adaptation have been used to decrease the effect of ammonia inhibition. Co-fermentation studies are still characterized by low stability of the process (methane yield ranged from 2 to 406 mL/g VS). The most effective way to decrease ammonium content was vacuuming, which provided 80% efficiency of ammonium content removal, but led to reducing the economic efficiency of the technology. The perspective way to regulate ammonia is through absorption without volatile acid located in the reactor. It decreases ammonia content during wet anaerobic digestion by 33% and has a positive economic effect. Dry anaerobic fermentation of chicken manure is possible, but there is still no efficient way to provide it, and additional research is needed.

Author Contributions

Y.S. conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, contributed data or analysis tools, performed the analysis and wrote the paper; S.Z. conceived and designed the analysis, collected the data, contributed data or analysis tools and performed the analysis; G.B. collected the data, contributed data or analysis tools and performed the analysis; A.S. conceived and designed the analysis, performed the analysis and wrote the paper; V.N. collected the data, performed the analysis and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge editors and reviewers for their valuable suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nichols, C.E. Overview of Anaerobic Digestion Technologies in Europe. Biocycle 2004, 45, 47–53. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yakushko, S.I. Vyibor Tehnologicheskih Rezhimov v Ustanovkah Dlya Proizvodstva Biogaza (Selection of technological modes in plants for biogas production). VIsnik SumDU 2006, 89, 102–108. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  3. Abouelenien, F.; Fujiwara, W.; Namba, Y.; Kosseva, M.; Nishio, N.; Nakashimada, Y. Improved Methane Fermentation of Chicken Manure via Ammonia Removal by Biogas Recycle. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 6368–6373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mosey, F.; Jago, D. The Determination of Dissolved Sulphide Using a Sulphide-Selective Electrode. Water Res. Centre Tech. Rep. TR 1977, 53, 28. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kukić, S.; Bračun, B.; Kralik, D.; Burns, R.T.; Rupčić, S.; Jovičić, D. Comparison between Biogas Production from Manure of Laying Heners and Broilers. Poljoprivreda 2010, 16, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  6. Garófallo, R.; Ii, G.; Ribeiro, S.; Alexandre, C.I.; Mendes, R.; Ii, F. Biodigestão Anaeróbia de Dejetos de Poedeiras Coletados Após Diferentes Períodos de Acúmulo Anaerobic Biodigestion of Laying Hens Manure Collected after Different Periods of Accumulation. Ciência Rural 2012, 42, 1089–1094. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kothari, R.; Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Tyagi, V.V.; Tyagi, S.K. Different Aspects of Dry Anaerobic Digestion for Bio-Energy: An Overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 174–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, Y.; Park, S.Y.; Zhu, J. Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion for Methane Production from Organic Waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 821–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Chen, C.; Liu, G.; He, Y.; Liu, X. Biogas Production from Co-Digestion of Corn Stover and Chicken Manure under Anaerobic Wet, Hemi-Solid, and Solid State Conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 149, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Fernández, J.; Pérez, M.; Romero, L.I. Effect of Substrate Concentration on Dry Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW). Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 6075–6080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Raposo, F.; De La Rubia, M.A.; Fernández-Cegrí, V.; Borja, R. Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Organic Substrates in Batch Mode: An Overview Relating to Methane Yields and Experimental Procedures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 861–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lissens, G.; Vandevivere, P.; De Baere, L.; Biey, E.M.; Verstraete, W. Solid Waste Digestors: Process Performance and Practice for Municipal Solid Waste Digestion. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rapport, J.; Zhang, R.; Jenkins, B.; Williams, R. Current Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Used for Treatment of Municipal Organic Solid Waste; California Environmental Protection Agency: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  14. Oleszkiewicz, J.A.; Poggi-Varaldo, H.M. High-Solids Anaerobic Digestion of Mixed Municipal and Industrial Waste. J. Environ. Eng. 1997, 123, 1087–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Satoto, E.N. Anaerobic Digetion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production; KIT Scientific Publishing: Karlsruhe, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  16. Salyuk, A.I.; Zhadan, S.A.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Tarasenko, R.A.; Shapovalov, Y.B. Vliyanie Vodopotrebleniya Na Effektivnost Metanovogo Brozheniya Kurinogo Pometa (Influence of water consumption on the efficiency of methane fermentation of chicken manure). Int. Sci. J. Altern. Energy Ecol. 2015, 15, 53–58. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  17. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Salyuk, A.I.; Kotinskiy, A.V.; Tarasenko, R.A. The Reaserch of Dry Chicken Manure Methanogenesis Stability. Environ. Probl. 2019, 4, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Baeten, D. In-Reactor Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste Solids. In Science and Engineering of Compost—Design, Environmenal, Microbiological and Utilisation Aspects; Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 1993; pp. 111–130. [Google Scholar]
  19. Luning, L.; Van Zundert, E.H.M.; Brinkmann, A.J.F. Comparison of Dry and Wet Digestion for Solid Waste. Water Sci. Technol. 2003, 48, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guendouz, J.; Buffière, P.; Cacho, J.; Carrère, M.; Delgenes, J.P. Dry Anaerobic Digestion in Batch Mode: Design and Operation of a Laboratory-Scale, Completely Mixed Reactor. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1768–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schäfer, W.; Lehto, M.; Teye, F. Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Residues On-Farm -A Feasibility Study; MTT Agrifood Research Finland Distribution: Jokioinen, Finland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mata-Alvarez, J. Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes; IWA Publishing: Barcelona, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farrow, C. Anaerobic Digestion of Poultry Manure: Implementation of Ammonia Control to Optimize Biogas Yield; The University of Guelph: Guelph, ON, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Abbassi-Guendouz, A.; Brockmann, D.; Trably, E.; Dumas, C.; Delgenès, J.P.; Steyer, J.P.; Escudié, R. Total Solids Content Drives High Solid Anaerobic Digestion via Mass Transfer Limitation. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wedwitschka, H.; Ibanez, D.G.; Schäfer, F.; Jenson, E.; Nelles, M. Material Characterization and Substrate Suitability Assessment of Chicken Manure for Dry Batch Anaerobic Digestion Processes. Bioengineering 2020, 7, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Steinhauser, A.; Deublein, D. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Vavilin, V.A.; Shchelkanov, M.Y.; Rytov, S.V. Effect of Mass Transfer on Concentration Wave Propagation during Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste. Water Res. 2002, 36, 2405–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xu, F.; Wang, Z.-W.; Tang, L.; Li, Y. A Mass Diffusion-Based Interpretation of the Effect of Total Solids Content on Solid-State Anaerobic Digestion of Cellulosic Biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 167, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Li, C. Wet and Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Biowaste and of Co- Substrates; Karlsruhe Institute of Technology: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bujoczek, G.; Oleszkiewicz, J.; Sparling, R.; Cenkowski, S. High Solid Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2000, 76, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hansen, K.H.; Angelidaki, I.; Ahring, B. Improving Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Swine Manure. Water Res. 1999, 33, 1805–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nie, H.; Jacobi, H.F.; Strach, K.; Xu, C.; Zhou, H.; Liebetrau, J. Mono-Fermentation of Chicken Manure: Ammonia Inhibition and Recirculation of the Digestate. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 178, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, S.; Ni, P.; Li, J.; Sun, H.; Wang, Y.; Luo, H.; Dach, J.; Dong, R. Integrated Approach to Sustain Biogas Production in Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure under Recycled Utilization of Liquid Digestate: Dynamics of Ammonium Accumulation and Mitigation Control. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 205, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Belostotskiy, D.; Jacobi, H.; Strach, K.; Liebetrau, J. Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure as a Single Substrate by Control of Ammonia Concentration. In Proceedings of the 13th World Congress on Anaerobic Digestio composting, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 25–28 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rajagopal, R.; Massé, D.I.; Singh, G. A Critical Review on Inhibition of Anaerobic Digestion Process by Excess Ammonia. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 143, 632–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Appels, L.; Baeyens, J.; Degrève, J.; Dewil, R. Principles and Potential of the Anaerobic Digestion of Waste-Activated Sludge. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2008, 34, 755–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Martinez, J.; Dabert, P.; Barrington, S.; Burton, C. Livestock Waste Treatment Systems for Environmental Quality, Food Safety, and Sustainability. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5527–5536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Schnürer, A.; Nordberg, Å. Ammonia, a Selective Agent for Methane Production by Syntrophic Acetate Oxidation at Mesophilic Temperature. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 735–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Webb, A.R.; Hawkes, F.R. The Anaerobic Digestion of Poultry Manure: Variation of Gas Yield with Influent Concentration and Ammonium-Nitrogen Levels. Agric. Wastes 1985, 14, 135–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Koster, I.W.; Lettinga, G. Anaerobic Digestion at Extreme Ammonia Concentrations. Biol. Wastes 1988, 25, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moestedt, J.; Müller, B.; Westerholm, M.; Schnürer, A. Ammonia Threshold for Inhibition of Anaerobic Digestion of Thin Stillage and the Importance of Organic Loading Rate. Microb. Biotechnol. 2016, 9, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Karakashev, D.; Batstone, D.J.; Angelidaki, I. Influence of Environmental Conditions on Methanogenic Compositions in Anaerobic Biogas Reactors. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Qiao, W.; Hojo, T.; Niu, Q.; Li, Y.-Y.; Qiang, H. Mesophilic Methane Fermentation of Chicken Manure at a Wide Range of Ammonia Concentration: Stability, Inhibition and Recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 137, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McCarty, P.L.; Mckinney, R.E. Salt Toxity in Anaerobic Digestion. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1961, 33, 399–415. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hashimoto, A.G. Ammonia Inhibition of Methanogenesis from Cattle Wastes. Agric. Wastes 1986, 17, 241–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wittmann, C.; Zeng, A.P.; Deckwer, W.D. Growth Inhibition by Ammonia and Use of a PH-Controlled Feeding Strategy for the Effective Cultivation of Mycobacterium Chlorophenolicum. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1995, 44, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gallert, C.; Bauer, S.; Winter, J. Effect of Ammonia on the Anaerobic Degradation of Protein by a Mesophilic and Thermophilic Biowaste Population. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1998, 50, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kelleher, B.P.; Leahy, J.J.; Heniahan, A.M.; O’Dwyer, T.F.; Sutton, D.; Leahy, M.J. Advances in Poultry Litter Disposal Technology—A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Huang, W.; Zhao, Z.; Yuan, T.; Lei, Z.; Cai, W.; Li, H.; Zhang, Z. Effective Ammonia Recovery from Swine Excreta through Dry Anaerobic Digestion Followed by Ammonia Stripping at High Total Solids Content. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 90, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Braun, R.; Huber, P.; Meyrath, J. Ammonia Toxicity in Liquid Piggery Manure Digestion. Biotechnol. Lett. 1981, 3, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Parkin, A.G.F.; Speece, R.E.; Yang, C.H.J.; Kocher, W.M.; Parkin, G.F. Response Fermentation Industrial of Methane to Systems Toxicants. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1983, 55, 44–53. [Google Scholar]
  52. Fernández Rodríguez, J.; Pérez, M.; Romero, L.I. Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: Optimisation of the Semicontinuous Process. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 193–194, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fernández-Rodríguez, J.; Pérez, M.; Romero, L.I. Comparison of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Dry Anaerobic Digestion of OFMSW: Kinetic Analysis. Chem. Eng. J. 2013, 232, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Barbera, A.C.; Vymazal, J.; Maucieri, C. Greenhouse Gases Formation and Emission, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jantrania, A.R. High-Solids Anaerobic Fermentation of Poultry Manure; Ohio State University: Columbus, OH, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  56. Corry, J.E. The Water Relations and Heat Resistance of Microorganisms. Prog. Ind. Microbiol. 1972, 12, 73–108. [Google Scholar]
  57. García-Bernet, D.; Buffière, P.; Latrille, E.; Steyer, J.P.; Escudié, R. Water Distribution in Biowastes and Digestates of Dry Anaerobic Digestion Technology. Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 172, 924–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Buan, N.R. Methanogens: Pushing the Boundaries of Biology. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2018, 2, 629–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Scott, W.J. Water Relations of Food Spoilage Microorganisms. Adv. Food Res. 1957, 7, 83–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rockland, L.B.; Beuchal, L.R. Water Activity: Theory and Applications to Food. J. Hepatol. 2005, 20, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. English, C.W. Semi-Solid Anaerobic Fermentation of Cellulose to Ethanol; Cornell University: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rajagopal, R.; Massé, D.I. Start-up of Dry Anaerobic Digestion System for Processing Solid Poultry Litter Using Adapted Liquid Inoculum. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2016, 102, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Six, W.; De Baere, L. Dry Anaerobic Conversion of Municipal Solid Waste by Means of the Dranco Process. Water Sci. Technol. 1992, 25, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pang, Y.Z.; Liu, Y.P.; Li, X.J.; Wang, K.S.; Yuan, H.R. Improving Biodegradability and Biogas Production of Corn Stover through Sodium Hydroxide Solid State Pretreatment. Energy Fuels 2008, 22, 2761–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Parkin, G.F.; Owen, W.F. Fundamentals of Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Sludges. J. Environ. Eng. 2008, 112, 867–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Forster-Carneiro, T.; Perez, M.; Romero, L.I.; Sales, D. Dry-Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Fraction of the Municipal Solid Waste: Focusing on the Inoculum Sources. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3195–3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abouelenien, F.; Namba, Y.; Nishio, N.; Nakashimada, Y. Dry Co-Digestion of Poultry Manure with Agriculture Wastes. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2016, 178, 932–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. De Laclos, H.F.; Desbois, S.; Saint-Joly, C. Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Organic Waste: Valorga Full-Scale Plant in Tilburg, the Netherlands. Water Sci. Technol. 1997, 36, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Abbassi-Guendouz, A. Link Between Operating Parameters, Microorganisms and Performances of Dry Anaerobic Digestion; University of Montpellier II, Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc: Montpellier, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  70. De Baere, L. Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste: State-of-the-Art. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pavan, P.; Battistoni, P.; Mata-Alvarez, J.; Cecchi, F. Performance of Thermophilic Semi-Dry Anaerobic Digestion Process Changing the Feed Biodegradability. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Weiland, P. One- and Two-Step Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Agroindustrial Residues. Water Sci. Technol. 1993, 27, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Safley, L.M.; Westerman, P.W. Psychrophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manure: Proposed Design Methodology. Biol. Wastes 1990, 34, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Verma, S. Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes; Columbia University: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Baere, L.D. The DRANCO Process: A Dry Continuous System for Solid Organic Waste and Energy Crops. In Proceedings of theInternational Symposium on Anaerobic Dry Fermentation, Berlin, Germany, 20–22 February 2008; pp. 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vandevivere, P.; De Baere, L.; Verstraete, W.; De Baere, L.; Verstraete, W. Types of Anaerobic Digesters for Solid Wastes. In Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes; Mata-Alvarez, J., Ed.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2003; pp. 111–140. [Google Scholar]
  77. Den Boer, E. Mechanical-Biological Treatment of Municipal Waste in Poland Dominating Technologies and Their Efficiency in Diverting Waste from Landfills. Waste Manag. 2015, 5, 349–361. [Google Scholar]
  78. Edelmann, W.; Engeli, H. More than 12 Years of Experience with Commercial Anaerobic Digestion of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes in Switzerland. In Proceedings of the ADSW 2005 Conference Proceedings, Copenhagen, Denmark, 31 August–2 September 2005; Volume 1, pp. 27–33. [Google Scholar]
  79. Appressi, L. Biogas and Bio-Hydrogen: Production and Uses. A Review. Available online: https://amslaurea.unibo.it/9071/1/Research_B_-_Appressi.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2020).
  80. Guide to Biogas from Production to Use. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR). 2012. Available online: https://mediathek.fnr.de/broschuren/fremdsprachige-publikationen/english-books/guide-to-biogas-from-production-to-use.html (accessed on 30 September 2020).
  81. Chavez-Vazquez, M.; Bagley, D.M. Evaluation of the Performance of Different Anaerobic Digestion Technologies for Solid Waste Treatment. In Proceedings of the CSCE/EWRI of ASCE Environmental Engineering Conference, Niagara, ON, Canada, 5 June 2002; pp. 2–15. [Google Scholar]
  82. Williams, R.B.; Spiegel, L. UC Davis Technology Assessment for Advanced Biomass Power Generation; California Energy Commission: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ten Brummeler, E. Full Scale Experience with the BIOCEL Process. Water Sci. Technol. 2000, 41, 299–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ten Brummeler, E. Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste in the Biocel Process with a Full Scale Unit. In Proceedings of the Intertional Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste, Venice, Italy, 14–17 April 1992; pp. 557–560. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ouedraogo, A. Pilot Scale Two-Phase Anaerobic Digestion of the Biodegradable Organic Fraction of Bamako District Municipal Solid Waste. In Proceedings of the II International Symposium Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste, Barcelona, Spain, 15–18 June 1999; pp. 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  86. Cecchi, F.; Battistoni, P.; Pavan, P.; Bolzonella, D.; Innocenti, L. Digestione Anaerobica Della Frazione Organica Dei Rifiuti Solidi; Agenzia per la Protezione Dell’ambiente e per i Servizi Tecnici: Rome, Italy, 2005; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  87. Salyuk, A.I.; Zhadan, S.O.; Shapovalov, Y.B. Metanove Brodinnya Kuryachoho Poslidu u Termofil"nomu Rezhymi (Methane Fermentation of Chicken Manure in Thermophilic Mode). In Novi Ideyi V Xarchovij Nauci—Novi Produkty Xarchovij Promyslovosti; NUFT: Kiev, Ukraine, 2014; p. 708. [Google Scholar]
  88. Salyuk, A.I.; Zhadan, S.O.; Shapovalov, Y.B. Termofil’ne Metanove Brodinnya Kuryachoho Poslidu (Thermophilic Methane Fermentation of Chicken Manure). In Mizhnarodna Naukova konferenciya, Prysvyachena 130-Richchyu Nacional’noho Universytetu Xarchovyx Texnolohij; National University of Food Technologies: Kiev, Ukraine, 2014; p. 708. [Google Scholar]
  89. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Salyuk, A.I.; Kotinskiy, A.V. DoslIdzhennya StabIlnostI Metanogenezu Kuryachogo PoslIdu u Tverdofaznih Umovah (Investigation of the stability of chicken manure methanogenesis in solid phase conditions). Naukovi Pratsi Natsionalnogo Univ. Harchovih Tehnol. 2018, 24, 57–64. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar]
  90. Abouelenien, F.; Nakashimada, Y.; Nishio, N. Dry Mesophilic Fermentation of Chicken Manure for Production of Methane by Repeated Batch Culture. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2009, 107, 293–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Abouelenien, F.; Kitamura, Y.; Nishio, N.; Nakashimada, Y. Dry Anaerobic Ammonia-Methane Production from Chicken Manure. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 82, 757–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Farrow, C.; Crolla, A.; Kinsley, C.; McBean, E. Anaerobic Digestion of Poultry Manure: Process Optimization Employing Struvite Precipitation and Novel Digestion Technologies. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2017, 36, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Markou, G. Improved Anaerobic Digestion Performance and Biogas Production from Poultry Litter after Lowering Its Nitrogen Content. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 196, 726–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Šinkora, M.; Havlíček, M. Monitoring of Dry Anaerobic Fermentation in Experimental Facility with Use of Biofilm Reactor. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2011, 59, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Ahn, H.K.; Smith, M.C.; Kondrad, S.L.; White, J.W. Evaluation of Biogas Production Potential by Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Switchgrass-Animal Manure Mixtures. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2010, 160, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Shi, L.J.; Ban, L.T.; Liu, H.F.; Hao, J.C.; Zhang, W.Y. Study on Biogas Production by Dry Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Animal Manure and Straw. Adv. Mater. Res. 2011, 236, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kukkonen, T. Anaerobic Dry Fermentation of Dried Chicken Manure and Kitchen Waste; University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2014; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
  98. Callaghan, F.J.; Wase, D.A.J.; Thayanithy, K.; Forster, C.F. Co-Digestion of Waste Organic Solids: Batch Studies. Bioresour. Technol. 1999, 67, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Zhadan, S.O. KofermentatsIya Kuryachogo PoslIdu z VIdhodami Virobnitstva BIodizelyu (Co-fermentation of chicken manure with waste from biodiesel production). In III-th Mizhnarodniy Naukovo-Praktichniy Seminar Rozvitok Bioenergetichnogo Potentsialu V Silskomu Gospodarstvi; National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine: Kiev, Ukraine, 2018; pp. 90–93. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar]
  100. Foucault, L.J. Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Chicken Processing Wastewater and Crude Glycerol from Biodiesel. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  101. Patinvoh, R.J.; Kalantar Mehrjerdi, A.; Sárvári Horváth, I.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Dry Fermentation of Manure with Straw in Continuous Plug Flow Reactor: Reactor Development and Process Stability at Different Loading Rates. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Noike, T.; Endo, G.; Chang, J.-E.; Yaguchi, J.-I.; Matsumoto, J.-I. Characteristics of Carbohydrate Degradation and the Rate-limiting Step in Anaerobic Digestion. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1985, 27, 1482–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Ahmed, Z.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Stabnikov, V.; Zhadan, S.O.; Salyuk, A.I.; Saleem, S.; Ivanov, V. Large-Scale Application of Iron-Containing Mineral Resources in Environmental Engineering. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Sustainable Mineral Resource Development & Utilization, Novokuznetsk, Russia, 4–7 June 2019; Mehran University of Engineering and Technology: Jamshoro, Pakistan, 2019; p. 72. [Google Scholar]
  104. Stabnikov, V.; Ivanov, V. The Effect of Various Iron Hydroxide Concentrations on the Anaerobic Fermentation of Sulfate-Containing Model Wastewater. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2006, 42, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Stabnikov, V.P.; Ivanov, V.; Reshetnyak, L.R.; Toy, S.T. Influence of Iron Hydroxide on Anaerobic Treatment of Sulfate-Containing Wastewater. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2004, 26, 471–478. [Google Scholar]
  106. Ivanov, V.; Stabnikov, V.; Stabnikova, O.; Salyuk, A.; Shapovalov, E.; Ahmed, Z.; Tay, J.H. Iron-Containing Clay and Hematite Iron Ore in Slurry-Phase Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure. AIMS Mater. Sci. 2019, 6, 807–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Chen, Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Creamer, K.S. Inhibition of Anaerobic Digestion Process: A Review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4044–4064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Habibulin, R.E. Issledovanie i Razrabotka Intensivnoy Biotehnologi Anaerobnoy Pererabotki Kurinogo Pometa; Avtoreferat Dissretatsii (Research and Development of Intensive Biotechnology for Anaerobic Processing of Chicken Manure); Kazanskiy Gosudarstvennyiy Tehnologicheskiy Universitet: Kazan, Russia, 1995. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  109. Salyuk, A.I.; Zhadan, S.A.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Tarasenko, R.A. Metanovaya Fermentatsiya Kurinogo Pometa Pri Ponizhennoy Kontsentratsii Ingibitorov (Anerobic digestion of chicken manure at low concentrations of inhibitors). Mezhdunarodnyiy Nauchnyiy Zhurnal Altern. Energ. I Ekol. 2017, 04-06, 89–98. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zhadan, S.O.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Tarasenko, R.A.; Salyuk, A.I. Metanogenez Kuryachogo PoslIdu Pri PonizhenIy KontsentratsIYi IngIbItorIv (Anerobic digestion of chicken manure at low concentrations of inhibitors). In BIologIchnI DoslIdzhennya; Individual Entrpiser «Ruta»: Zhitomir, Ukraine, 2016; pp. 48–49. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17W9vrrxCiZ8Si8P59bTT5WM68UdDeU2Y/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 30 September 2020). (In Ukrainian)
  111. Zhadan, S.O.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Salyuk, A.I.; Shapovalov, V.B. SposIb Oderzhannya Tverdogo MIneralnogo Dobriva Pri MetanovIy Fermentatsiyi (The Method of Obtaining Solid Mineral Fertilizer by Methane Fermentation). Accepted Date: 10.03.2017, Ukrpatent No. 114655. 2016. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VDIGImJVc8t5wJpExrgaKux7jOyd0QIA/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 30 September 2020). (In Ukrainian).
  112. Zhadan, S.O.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Salyuk, A.I.; Shapovalov, V.B. SposIb Otrimannya BIogazu Ta Dobriva z VIdhodIv z Visokim VmIstom Azotu (The Method of Obtaining Biogas and Fertilizers from Waste with High Nitrogen Content). Accepted date: 10.03.2016, 2016 Ukrpatent 105080. 2016. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VDIGImJVc8t5wJpExrgaKux7jOyd0QIA/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 30 September 2020). (In Ukrainian).
  113. Zhadan, S.O.; Shapovalov, Y.B.; Salyuk, A.I.; Shapovalov, V.B. BIogazoviy Reaktor Dlya Pererobki VIdhodIv z Visokim VmIstom Azotu(Biogas Reactor for Processing Waste with High Nitrogen Content). Accepted Date: 25.03.2016. 2016. Ukrpatent 105418. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XQdfYSJlO3aQf2jsuuZyqM2zgj3id-2t/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 30 September 2020). (In Ukrainian).
  114. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Zhadan, S.O.; Salyuk, A.I.; Shapovalov, V.B. Anaerobniy Fermenter Dlya UtilIzatsIYi NItrogevmIsnih VIdhodIv(Anaerobic Digester for Utilization of Nitrogen-Containing Waste). Accepted Date: 10.08.2018. 2018. Ukrpatent No. 127615. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17TBqfSVPCvRbefRLogY_BB_g0j6Fn1hN/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 30 September 2020). (In Ukrainian).
  115. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Salyuk, A.I. The Liquid Phase Recirculation under Methanogenic Fermentation of Chicken Manure. Environ. Probl. 2018, 3, 203–209. [Google Scholar]
  116. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Zhadan, S.O.; Salyuk, A.I. Regulyuvannya KontsentratsIYi AmonIynogo NItrogenu Pri MetanovIy FermentatsIYi Kuryachogo PoslIdu v Umovah RetsirkulyatsIYi RIdkoYi Fazi (Regulation of ammonium nitrogen concentration during methane fermentation of chicken manure under liquid phase recirculation conditions). In VIdnovlyuvana ta Vodneva Energetika—2018; Polytechnic University: Kiev, Ukraine, 2018; pp. 180–183. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar]
  117. Shapovalov, Y.B.; Zhadan, S.O.; Salyuk, A.I.; Kotinskiy, A.V. Regulyuvannya KontsentratsIYi AmonIynogo Azotu Pri MetanovIy FermentatsIYi Kuryachogo PoslIdu v Umovah RetsirkulyatsIYi RIdkoYi Fazi(Regulation of ammonium nitrogen concentration during methane fermentation of chicken manure under liquid phase recirculation conditions). Naukovi Pratsi Natsionalnogo Univ. Harchovih Tehnol. 2018, 24, 65–72. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 10 07825 g001 550
Figure 1. Potential ammonia concentration in case of full decomposition at different total solids (TS) contents.
Figure 1. Potential ammonia concentration in case of full decomposition at different total solids (TS) contents.
Applsci 10 07825 g001
Applsci 10 07825 g002 550
Figure 2. The proportion of free ammonia depending on pH and ambient temperature.
Figure 2. The proportion of free ammonia depending on pH and ambient temperature.
Applsci 10 07825 g002
Applsci 10 07825 g003 550
Figure 3. Influence of TS increase on the methane fermentation of chicken manure.
Figure 3. Influence of TS increase on the methane fermentation of chicken manure.
Applsci 10 07825 g003
Applsci 10 07825 g004 550
Figure 4. Dry AD reactors available in the market.
Figure 4. Dry AD reactors available in the market.
Applsci 10 07825 g004
Applsci 10 07825 g005 550
Figure 5. The reactor that provides the Dranco process.
Figure 5. The reactor that provides the Dranco process.
Applsci 10 07825 g005
Applsci 10 07825 g006 550
Figure 6. The reactor that provides the Kompogas process.
Figure 6. The reactor that provides the Kompogas process.
Applsci 10 07825 g006
Applsci 10 07825 g007 550
Figure 7. The reactor that provides the Strabag process.
Figure 7. The reactor that provides the Strabag process.
Applsci 10 07825 g007
Applsci 10 07825 g008 550
Figure 8. The reactor that provides the Strabag process.
Figure 8. The reactor that provides the Strabag process.
Applsci 10 07825 g008
Applsci 10 07825 g009 550
Figure 9. The reactor that provides the Biocel process.
Figure 9. The reactor that provides the Biocel process.
Applsci 10 07825 g009
Applsci 10 07825 g010 550
Figure 10. Attempts to conduct chicken manure co-fermentation with different substrates under dry AD.
Figure 10. Attempts to conduct chicken manure co-fermentation with different substrates under dry AD.
Applsci 10 07825 g010
Applsci 10 07825 g011 550
Figure 11. Approaches to the effect of ammonium reducing during dry AD.
Figure 11. Approaches to the effect of ammonium reducing during dry AD.
Applsci 10 07825 g011
Table
Table 1. Comparison of dry anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies [6].
Table 1. Comparison of dry anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies [6].
ParametersMean ValueA Range of Values
g/kgTS, %g/kg
Water657–369–770
C28984.26224–328
Total N4613.4118.2–72
Organic N3811.08–
Ammonium14.44.200.21–29.9
NO3-N0.40.120.03–1.5
Total P20.76.0313.5–34
K20.96.0912.5–32.5
Cl24.57.146–60
Ca38.911.3436.2–59.6
Mg4.71.371.8–6.6
Na4.21.222–7.4
Mn0.30.090.26–0.38
Fe0.320.0090.08–0.56
Cu0.530.020.04–0.07
Zn0.350.100.29–0.39
As0.030.01–
Table
Table 2. Comparison of dry AD technologies.
Table 2. Comparison of dry AD technologies.
Technology TypeBiogas Production, mL/g Wet MassTemperature ConditionsHRT, DaysTS Content, %Specific Advantages/Disadvantages
Relatively Stirred
Dranco103–147 (100–200)Thermophili, mesophilic15–3020–50No very specific advantages/disadvantages
Kompogas110–130Thermophilic15–2025–32No very specific advantages/disadvantages
STRABAGNear to 103.44Thermophili, mesophilicno data15–45No very specific advantages/disadvantages
Valorga80–160Thermophili, mesophilic18–2525–32-/Clogging of injectors
Unstirred
BiocelTwice lower than continuous [86]Mesophilic15–2125–40Cheaper, simpler/occupies large areas, the problem of channel formation and clogging, the danger of explosion
Table
Table 3. Results of laboratory studies of chicken manure dry AD.
Table 3. Results of laboratory studies of chicken manure dry AD.
№TS Content, %Temperature, °CMethane Yield, mL/g VSAmmonium Content, g/LVFA Content, g/LAuthor
Batch Researches
116–2835, 502–2080.14–9.30.06–12.6Zhadan
222.53757no dataAbouelenien
3203514010,2no dataFarrow
420352173.5no dataFarrow
52035136.92.16.1Abouelenien
620551293.9917.6Abouelenien
725358.21672 **Abouelenien
825456.21672 **Abouelenien
92555, 6501648 **Abouelenien
10153511786.5Markou
112035511016Markou
122035470 *2.46no dataFarrow
1323382471.35–2no dataŠinkora
143020162no datano dataRajagopal
Continuous Researches
Not found
* biogas yield, mL/g VS. ** VFA content, g/kg.
Table
Table 4. Comparison of the co-fermentation of chicken manure with other wastes.
Table 4. Comparison of the co-fermentation of chicken manure with other wastes.
№Co-SubstrateThe Ratio of Chicken Manure to the Co-SubstrateTS Content, %Temperature, °CMethane Yield, mL/g VSMethane Content, %The of Ammonium Content, g/LThe VFA Content, g/LIntensification of Methane Yield, %Author
Batch Researches
1Switchgrass1:216552no data159.4no dataAhn
2Straw2.5:120354.34no data0.935no datano dataShi
3Corn2.5:1353542.955920no datano dataJantrania
4Glycerol (biodiesel)9:1, 8:2, 7:326, 22.18%35, 556.3413.3-no datano dataShapovalov
5Agriculture wastes14:112035406no data1.390.47no dataAbouelenien
6Agriculture wastes14:112055323.4no data2.280.76150Abouelenien
7Cattle manure2:7153570no data8.8no data195Callaghan
8Maize silage5:1 / 6.9:1203524652-no datano dataFarrow
Continuous Researches
9Kitchen waste1:426.535230no dataProcess significantly inhibitedno datano dataKukkonen
10Kitchen waste1:31.518.2435388no data1.3no datano dataKukkonen
11Strawno data22.293716365.12no dataPatinvoh
Table
Table 5. The efficiency of ammonia removal under dry AD.
Table 5. The efficiency of ammonia removal under dry AD.
MethodThe Efficiency of Ammonium Removal, %Improvement of Efficiency of Methane Yield, %Author
Purge by air62–73up to 124Markou
Struvite formation73135Farrow
Stripping by nitrogen74.7no dataAbouelenien
Vacuuming80no dataAbouelenien
Recirculation of the gas phase5540–73Abouelenien
Addition of mineralsno data185Habibulin
Removal from the gas phase in the reactor by the sorbent33 *5 *Salyuk
* data for wet fermentation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shapovalov, Y.; Zhadan, S.; Bochmann, G.; Salyuk, A.; Nykyforov, V. Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7825. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app10217825

AMA Style

Shapovalov Y, Zhadan S, Bochmann G, Salyuk A, Nykyforov V. Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure: A Review. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(21):7825. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app10217825

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shapovalov, Yevhenii, Sergey Zhadan, Günther Bochmann, Anatoly Salyuk, and Volodymyr Nykyforov. 2020. "Dry Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure: A Review" Applied Sciences 10, no. 21: 7825. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/app10217825

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop