Dairy manure (DM), chicken manure (CM) and wheat straw were used to investigate the possibility of optimizing the methane (CH4) potentials in anaerobic co-digestion of multiple substrates. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to evaluate the individual and interactive effects of four variables [carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio, the feeding composition (DM/CM), initial substrate loading and inoculum-to-substrate ratio (ISR)] in the digestion process. All four variables had significant effects on CH4 potentials. Interactive effects of C/N and DM/CM ratios, C/N ratio and ISR, initial substrate loading and ISR were significant The optimum conditions were a C/N ratio of 26.31, a DM/CM ratio of 42.96:57.04, an initial loading of 15.90 g volatile solids (VS)/l and an ISR ratio of 2.34, with the maximum CH4 potential being 394 ml/g VS. The RSM model was appropriate for optimizing CH4 production in the process of anaerobic co-digestion of multiple substrates.
AgdagONSponzaDT (2007) Co-digestion of mixed industrial sludge with municipal solid wastes in anaerobic simulated landfilling bioreactors. Journal of Hazardous Materials140: 75–85.
2.
AghamohammadiNHamidiAAHasnainMZinatizadehAAL (2007) Powdered activated carbon augmented activated sludge process for treatment of semi-aerobic landfill leachate using response surface methodology, Bioresoure Technology98: 3570–3578.
3.
AhringBKAngelidakiIJohansenK (1992) Anaerobic treatment of manure together with industrial-waste. Water Science and Technology25: 311–318.
4.
AkhbariA (2011) Process modeling and analysis of biological nutrients removal in an integrated RBC-AS system using response surface methodology. Chemical Engineering Journal168: 269–279.
5.
AlvarezRLidenG (2008) Anaerobic co-digestion of aquatic flora and quinoa with manures from Bolivian Altiplano. Waste Management28: 1933–1940.
6.
AngelidakiIAlvesMBolzonellaDBorzacconiLCamposJLGuwyAJ. (2009) Defining the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Science and Technology59: 927–934.
7.
APHA (American Public Health Association) (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, DC: APHA.
8.
BabaeeAalal ShayeganJ (2011) Anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste. Transactions24: 1291–1296.
9.
BaşDBoyacıİH (2007) Modeling and optimization I: Usability of response surface methodology. Journal of Food Engineering78: 836–845.
10.
BanksCHumphreysP (1998) The anaerobic treatment of a ligno-cellulosic substrate offering little natural pH buffering capacity. Water Science and Technology38: 29–35.
11.
BoxGEPDraperNR (1987) Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. New York: Wiley.
CamposEPalatsiJFlotatsX (1999) Co-digestion of pig slurry and organic wastes from food industry. In: Mata-ÁlvarezJTilcheACecchiF (eds), Proceedings of the second international symposium on anaerobic digestion of solid waste. Barcelona, Spain. London, UK: IWA Publishing, pp.192–195.
14.
ChenHWuHY (2010) Optimization of volatile fatty acid production with co-substrate of food wastes and dewatered excess sludge using response surface methodology. Bioresoures Technology101: 5487–5493.
15.
CuetosMJFernandezCGomezXMoranA (2011) Anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure with energy crop residues. Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering16: 1044–1052.
16.
DemirbasA (2006) Biogas potential of manure and straw mixtures. Energy Sources Part a-Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects28: 71–78.
17.
El-MashadHMZhangRH (2010) Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresource Technology101: 4021–4028.
EskiciogluCGhorbaniM (2011) Effect of inoculum/substrate ratio on mesophilic anaerobic digestion of bioethanol plant whole stillage in batch mode. Process Biochemistry46: 1682–1687.
20.
Forster-CarneiroTPerezMRomeroLI (2008) Influence of total solid and inoculum contents on performance of anaerobic reactors treating food waste. Bioresource Technology99: 6994–7002.
21.
HabibaLHassibBMoktarH (2009) Improvement of activated sludge stabilisation and filterability during anaerobic digestion by fruit and vegetable waste addition. Bioresource Technology100: 1555–1560.
22.
HartmannHAhringBK (2005) Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: Influence of co-digestion with manure. Water Research39: 1543–1552.
23.
KayhanianM (1999) Ammonia inhibition in high-solids biogasification: An overview and practical solutions. Environmental Technology20: 355–365.
24.
KimHWShinHSHanSKOhSE (2007) Response surface optimization of substrates for thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and food waste. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association57: 309–318.
25.
LehtomakiAHuttunenSRintalaJA (2007) Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: Effect of crop to manure ratio. Resources Conservation and Recycling51: 591–609.
26.
MagbanuaBSAdamsTTJohnstonP (2001) Anaerobic co-digestion of hog and poultry waste. Bioresource Technology76: 165–168.
27.
MasonRLGunstRFHessJL (2003) Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments, Eight Applications to Engineering and Science. 2nd ed.New York: Wiley.
28.
MisiSNForsterCF (2001) Batch co-digestion of multi-component agro-wastes. Bioresource Technology80: 19–28.
29.
MshandeteAKivaisiARubindamayugiMMattiassonB (2004) Anaerobic batch co-digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes. Bioresource Technology95: 19–24.
30.
MuYWangGYuHQ (2006) Response surface methodological analysis on biohydrogen production by enriched anaerobic cultures. Enzyme and Microbial Technology38: 905–913.
31.
MurtoMBjornssonLMattiassonB (2004) Impact of food industrial waste on anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and pig manure. Journal of Environmental Management70: 101–107.
32.
OwenWStuckeyDHealyJYoungLMcCartyP (1979) Bioassay for monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Research13: 485–492.
33.
PoliaficoM (2007) Anaerobic digestion: Decision support software. Masters Thesis, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology, Ireland.
34.
ProcházkaJDolejšPMácaJDohányosM (2012) Stability and inhibition of anaerobic processes caused by insufficiency or excess of ammonia nitrogen. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology93: 439–447.
35.
SalminenERintalaJ (2002) Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaughterhouse waste – a review. Bioresource Technology83: 13–26.
36.
ShanmugamPHoranNJ (2009) Simple and rapid methods to evaluate methane potential and biomass yield for a range of mixed solid wastes. Bioresource Technology100: 471–474.
37.
ShiXYYuHQ (2005) Response surface analysis on the effect of cell concentration and light intensity on hydrogen production by Rhodopseudomonas capsulate. Process Biochemistry40: 2475–2481.
38.
UmetsuKYamazakiSKishimotoTTakahashiJShibataYZhangC, et al. (2006) Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure and sugar beets. International Congress Series1293: 307–310.
39.
WangXJYangGHFengYZRenGX (2012) Potential for biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of dairy and chicken manure with corn stalks. Advanced Materials Research347: 2484–2492.
40.
WuXYaoWYZhuJMillerC (2010) Biogas and CH4 productivity by co-digesting swine manure with three crop residues as an external carbon source. Bioresource Technology101: 4042–4047.
41.
XieSLawlorPFrostJHuZZhanX (2011) Effect of pig manure to grass silage ratio on methane production in batch anaerobic co-digestion of concentrated pig manure and grass silage. Bioresource Technology102: 5728–5733.
42.
ZinatizadehAALYounesiHBonakdariHPirsahebMPazoukiMNajafpourGDHasnainM (2009) Effects of process factors on biological activity of granular sludge grown in an UASFF bioreactor. Renewable Energy34: 1245–1251.
43.
ZinatizadehAALPirsahebMBonakdariHYounesiH (2010) Response surface analysis of effects of hydraulic retention time and influent feed concentration on performance of an UASFF bioreactor. Waste Management30: 1798–1807.
