Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bio-methane production from tomato pomace: preliminary evaluation of process intensification through ultrasound pre-treatment

  • NOTE
  • Published:
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effect of ultrasound pre-treatment (for 5, 15, and 30 min) on tomato pomace methane yield was evaluated. With respect to the control (238.0 m3CH4/tVS), no improvement was recorded for the substrates pre-treated at 80 µm (0.6 W/mL). 18.9% and 5% higher methane yields were, instead, recorded from the substrate pre-treated for 15 min with an ultrasound wave’s amplitude of 152 µm (0.9 W/mL) after 4 and 22 days of AD, respectively. However, the main achievement arising from the ultrasound application at 152 µm amplitude was the degradation kinetics speed up (89.7% faster maximum methane production rate after 15 min US). Nonetheless, the methane yield increase was not high enough as to compensate the electricity requirement of ultrasonication (between 3.3 and 19.5 MJ/kgVS) as verified through the energy assessment. The dataset that has been presented and discussed lead to preliminary considerations that may be useful in view of a possible scale-up of the process. When equipoising higher quantities of treated biomass and recovered methane, the process might turn economically convenient; however a new energy feasibility assessment and capex–opex evaluation would be required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. FAOSTAT (2018) Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture data. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. (Accessed 12 Feb 2020)

  2. Calabro PS, Greco R, Evangelou A, Komilis D (2015) Anaerobic digestion of tomato processing waste: effect of alkaline pretreatment. J Environ Manage 163:49–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cuna D, Pallara P, Miceli V (2018) Sottoprodotti dell'industria di trasformazione del pomodoro e tecnologie per la loro valorizzazione. Rapporto ENEA - Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile. RT/2018/7/ENEA. https://openarchive.enea.it/bitstream/handle/10840/9415/RT-2018-07-ENEA.pdf?sequence=1. (Accessed 23 Jan 2020)

  4. Ventura MR, Pieltain MC, Castanon JIR (2009) Evaluation of tomato crop by-products as feed for goats. Anim Feed Sci Tech 154(3–4):271–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bacenetti J, Duca D, Negri M, Fusi A, Fiala M (2015) Mitigation strategies in the agro-food sector: the anaerobic digestion of tomato puree by-products. An Italian case study. Sci Total Environ 526:88–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Allison BJ, Simmons CW (2017) Valorization of tomato pomace by sequential lycopene extraction and anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenerg 105:331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alnakeeb AN, Najim K, Ahmed A (2017) Anaerobic digestion of tomato wastes from groceries leftovers: effect of moisture content. Int J Curr Eng Technol 7:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Allison BJ, Cádiz JC, Karuna N, Jeoh T, Simmons CW (2016) The effect of ionic liquid pretreatment on the bioconversion of tomato processing waste to fermentable sugars and biogas. Appl Biochem Biotech 179(7):1227–1247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tiwari BK (2015) Ultrasound: a clean, green extraction technology. Trac-Trend Anal Chem 71:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mason TJ, Lorimer JP (2002) Applied sonochemistry: the uses of power ultrasound in chemistry and processing. Wiley, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Cárcel JA, García-Pérez JV, Benedito J, Mulet A (2012) Food process innovation through new technologies: use of ultrasound. J Food Eng 110(2):200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Elbeshbishy E, Nakhla G (2011) Comparative study of the effect of ultrasonication on the anaerobic biodegradability of food waste in single and two-stage systems. Bioresource Technol 102(11):6449–6457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kubota M, Hayashi M, Matsuda H, Serizawa H (2012) Enhanced decomposition of (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) acetic acid by combined ultrasonic and oxidative treatment. J Mater Cycles Waste 14(2):132–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Habarakada Liyanage TU, Babel S (2020) Thermal, ultrasonic and electrochemical pretreatment methods to enhance the solubilization of organic substance and methane generation in food waste. J Mater Cycles Waste 1:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mainardis M, Flaibani S, Trigatti M, Goi D (2019) Techno-economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion of cheese whey in small Italian dairies and effect of ultrasound pre-treatment on methane yield. J Environ Manage 246:557–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zeynali R, Khojastehpour M, Ebrahimi-Nik M (2017) Effect of ultrasonic pre-treatment on biogas yield and specific energy in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wholesale market wastes. Sustain Environ Res 27:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aylin Alagoz B, Yenigun O, Erdincler A (2018) Ultrasound assisted biogas production from co-digestion of wastewater sludges and agricultural wastes: Comparison with microwave pre-treatment. Ultrason Sonochem 40:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. AOCS (1997) Official method of analysis and recommended practices, 5th edn, Ba 6–84, Cd 8–53 and Ce 2–66. American Oil Chemists Society, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  19. Girotto F, Lavagnolo MC, Pivato A, Cossu R (2017) Acidogenic fermentation of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and cheese whey for bio-plastic precursors recovery–effects of process conditions during batch tests. Waste Manage 70:71–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Leighton TG (2007) What is ultrasound? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 93(1–3):3–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yasui K (2002) Influence of ultrasonic frequency on multibubble sonoluminescence. J Acoust Soc Am 112(4):1405–1413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Capote FP, De Castro ML (2007) Analytical applications of ultrasound (Vol 26). Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  23. Passos F, Astals S, Ferrer I (2014) Anaerobic digestion of microalgal biomass after ultrasound pretreatment. Waste Manag 34(11):2098–2103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Divyalakshmi P, Murugan D, Sivarajan M, Sivasamy A, Saravanan P, Rai CL (2018) Effect of ultrasonic pretreatment on secondary sludge and anaerobic biomass to enhance biogas production. J Mater Cycles Waste 20(1):481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Girotto F, Pivato A, Cossu R, Nkeng GE, Lavagnolo MC (2018) The broad spectrum of possibilities for spent coffee grounds valorisation. J Mater Cycles Waste 20(1):695–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Ginkel SW, Oh SE, Logan BE (2005) Biohydrogen gas production from food processing and domestic wastewaters. Int J Hydrogen En 30:1535–1542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rafieenia R, Girotto F, Peng W, Cossu R, Pivato A, Raga R, Lavagnolo MC (2017) Effect of aerobic pre-treatment on hydrogen and methane production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion process using food waste with different compositions. Waste Manag 59:194–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Parameswaran P, Rittmann BE (2012) Feasibility of anaerobic co-digestion of pig waste and paper sludge. Bioresource Technol 124:163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kafle GK, Chen L (2016) Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manag 48:492–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bundhoo ZM (2017) Effects of microwave and ultrasound irradiations on dark fermentative bio-hydrogen production from food and yard wastes. Int J Hydrogen Energ 42(7):4040–4050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Metcalf E (2003) Wastewater engineering treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ariunbaatar J, Panico A, Esposito G, Pirozzi F, Lens PN (2014) Pretreatment methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Appl Energ 123:143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Erden G, Filibeli A (2010) Ultrasonic pre-treatment of biological sludge: consequences for disintegration, anaerobic biodegradability, and filterability. J Chem Technol Biot 85(1):145–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Forster-Carneiro T, Isaac R, Pérez M, Schvartz C (2012) Anaerobic digestion. Pretreatments of substrates. In: Mudhoo A (ed) Biogas Production: Pretreatment Methods in Anaerobic Digestion. John Wiley&Sons, Canada, p 4

    Google Scholar 

  35. Trzcinski AP, Stuckey DC (2012) Determination of the hydrolysis constant in the biochemical methane potential test of municipal solid waste. Environ Eng Sci 29(9):848–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lay JJ, Li YY, Noike T, Endo J, Ishimoto S (1997) Analysis of environmental factors affecting methane production from high-solids organic waste. Water Sci Technol 36(6–7):493–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ojha KS, Burgess CM, Duffy G, Kerry JP, Tiwari BK (2018) Integrated phenotypic-genotypic approach to understand the influence of ultrasound on metabolic response of Lactobacillus sakei. PLoS ONE 13:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vatansever F, de Melo WC, Avci P, Vecchio D, Sadasivam M, Gupta A, Tegos GP (2013) Antimicrobial strategies centered around reactive oxygen species–bactericidal antibiotics, photodynamic therapy, and beyond. FEMS microbiol rev 37(6):955–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rasapoor M, Adl M, Baroutian S, Iranshahi Z, Pazouki M (2019) Energy performance evaluation of ultrasonic pretreatment of organic solid waste in a pilot-scale digester. Ultrason Sonochem 51:517–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Allison BJ, Simmons CW (2017) Valorization of tomato pomace by sequential lycopene extraction and anaerobic digestion. Biomass bioenerg 105:331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Grassino AN, Brnčić M, Vikić-Topić D, Roca S, Dent M, Brnčić SR (2016) Ultrasound assisted extraction and characterization of pectin from tomato waste. Food chem 198:93–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Francesca Girotto & Laura Piazza

  2. Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, 35131, Padova, Italy

    Maria Cristina Lavagnolo & Gulgun Acar

Authors
  1. Francesca Girotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Cristina Lavagnolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gulgun Acar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Piazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Girotto.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Girotto, F., Lavagnolo, M.C., Acar, G. et al. Bio-methane production from tomato pomace: preliminary evaluation of process intensification through ultrasound pre-treatment. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 23, 416–422 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01122-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01122-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation