4.8 Article

Anaerobic co-digestion of oil-extracted spent coffee grounds with various wastes: Experimental and kinetic modeling studies

Journal

BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY
Volume 322, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124470

Keywords

Defatted spent coffee grounds; Oil extraction; Anaerobic digestion; Kinetic study; Biofuels

Funding

  1. Unit of Scientific Research Project Coordination (BAP) at Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey [FOA-2018-8183]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that oil extraction from spent coffee grounds as a pre-treatment strategy has a positive impact on increasing methane yield. Moreover, co-digestion of defatted spent coffee grounds with spent tea waste, glycerin, and macroalgae showed potential advantages. Additionally, a triple mix of defatted spent coffee grounds, spent coffee grounds, and spent tea waste outperformed other mixed substrates.
The effect of oil extraction from spent coffee grounds as a pre-treatment strategy prior to anaerobic digestion besides assessing the feasibility of defatted spent coffee grounds co-digestion with spent tea waste, glycerin, and macroalgae were examined. Mesophilic BMP tests were performed using defatted spent coffee grounds alongside four co-substrates in the ratio of 25, 50, and 75%, respectively. The highest methane yield was obtained with the mono-digestion of defatted spent coffee grounds with 336 +/- 7 mL CH4/g VS and the yield increased with the increase in the mass ratio of defatted spent coffee grounds during co-digestion. Moreover, defatted spent coffee grounds showed the highest VS and TS removal at 35.5% and 32.1%, respectively and decreased thereafter. Finally, a linear regression model for the interaction effects between substrates was demonstrated and showed that distinctly mixing defatted spent coffee grounds, spent coffee grounds, and spent tea waste outperforms other triple mixed substrates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available