Loading…

Comparative Study on the Performance of Aboveground and Underground Fixed‐Dome Biogas Digesters

A comparative analysis of aboveground and underground biogas digesters is described in relation to their performance and effect of temperature, pH, and hydraulic retention time. The digestion chamber of the two biogas systems under study was fabricated using high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Chemical engineering & technology 2020-01, Vol.43 (1), p.68-74
Main Authors: Obileke, KeChrist, Mamphweli, Sampson, Meyer, Edson L., Makaka, Golden, Nwokolo, Nwabunwanne, Onyeaka, Helen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A comparative analysis of aboveground and underground biogas digesters is described in relation to their performance and effect of temperature, pH, and hydraulic retention time. The digestion chamber of the two biogas systems under study was fabricated using high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, while the inlet and outlet chamber were constructed with bricks. The performance of small‐scale digesters, particularly of the fixed‐dome type, should be improved. Cow dung served as substrate in the performance test. Biogas production from the two systems was measured by a customized gas temperature pressure measurement sensor. Evidently, the insulation provided to the underground digester helped to achieve a more stable internal temperature for the digester. The performance of aboveground and underground biogas digesters fed with cow dung was compared. The digestion chamber of the two biogas systems was fabricated using high‐density polyethylene plastic for temperature insulation. Such innovative insulation improved the performance of the underground digester. The design of biogas digesters using composite material is the first of its kind.
ISSN:0930-7516
1521-4125
DOI:10.1002/ceat.201900378