Search

The purpose of this research is to determine the rates of biogas production that may be achieved by treating water hyacinth and cow dung in a biodigester utilising anaerobic conditions. Materials and Methods of Procedure: On day fourteen, a sample was taken from the biodigester to determine the waste items that it contained. These waste elements comprised water hyacinth and cow manure. For the purpose of determining the amounts of biogas produced by both groups, a smart biogas metre was utilised. Following the examination of two groups, each of which had a sample size of 14, the total sample size was found to be 28 with a significance level of 0.05, a confidence interval of 95 percent, and a power of 80 percent. Samples of water hyacinth and cow dung were collected using the biodigester over the course of fourteen days (N=14). The results of this experiment are presented below. It was found that the biodigester produced a lower amount of biogas from water hyacinth (10.43 m3) compared to cow manure (20.98 m3). The results of an independent sample T-test indicated that water hyacinth produced a lower amount of biogas compared to cow manure. When doing independent t-test samples, a p-value of 0.002 (p<0.05) indicates that there is a significant difference between the two groups. According to the findings of this study, the production of biogas from the anaerobic treatment of cow dung is more than that produced by water hyacinth. Based on the findings of the inquiry, the significance threshold was determined to be p=0.002 (p<0.05), which indicates that there exists a statistically significant difference between the two groups evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the biogas output from the anaerobic digestion of two different types of food waste: poultry waste and kitchen waste. REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES: The biodigester's waste samples, which included both poultry and food scraps, were collected on the fourteenth day. Both sets of participants had their biogas levels measured with high-tech biogas metres. With a significance level of 0.05, a confidence interval of 95%, and a G power of 80%, the total sample size was determined to be 28. There were two groups, each with a sample size of 14. RESULTS: The biodigester was monitored for fourteen days to gather waste samples, which included both chicken and kitchen waste (N=14). When compared to kitchen garbage, the biodigester yielded much more biogas from poultry waste (12.56 m3) (20.19 m3). When compared to kitchen garbage, the results showed that poultry waste created far less biogas. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups, according to the independent sample t-test, which yielded a p value of 0.098. CONCLUSION: These results show that the biodigester powered by chicken waste can generate more biogas than the biodigester powered by kitchen trash. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study's major purpose is to compare the amount of biogas produced by the anaerobic treatment of vegetable waste with that produced by cow dung through the use of a biodigester. Components and procedures: Samples of waste, including cow manure and vegetable waste, were collected and then subjected to anaerobic biodigesting for a period of fourteen days. For both groups, the volume of biogas was determined with the assistance of a smart biogas metre. Two groups, each having a sample size of fourteen individuals, and the total sample size was determined to be twenty-eight individuals (with a significance level of 0.05, a confidence interval of ninety-five percent, and a power of eighty percent). On the fourteenth day, the waste samples, which included both cow manure and vegetable waste, were digested in order to produce the highest amount of biogas possible. When compared to cow manure, the amount of biogas produced by the biodigester from vegetable waste was found to be higher (25.7 m3) (20.98 m3). Based on the findings of an independent sample T-test, it was determined that the amount of waste created by vegetable waste was greater than that of cow dung. The p result for the independent sample t-test is 0.092, which indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The findings of this study indicate that the anaerobic treatment of cow dung results in a lesser output of biogas when compared to the treatment of vegetable waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary purpose of this study is to assess the efficiency of biodigesters in the production of biogas through the application of anaerobic treatment to waste paper and canteen contents. Components and Methods of Research: The biodigester's waste, which included paper and garbage from the canteen, was collected for analysis on day 14. When determining the levels of biogas for both groups, a smart biogas metre was utilised. At a significance threshold of 0.05, a confidence interval of 95 percent, and a G-power of 80 percent, a total of 28 samples were determined, with 14 samples of each of the two groups being included in the analysis. According to the findings, the biodigester was given fourteen samples of waste materials throughout a span of fourteen days. These samples included garbage from canteens and paper, totaling fourteen samples. When compared to canteen waste, the biodigester produced 4.56 cubic metres of biogas from paper waste (10.20 m3). As a result of the investigation, paper waste produced a lower amount of biogas than canteen waste. As indicated by the p-value of 0.004 (p<0.05), the independent t-test samples demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the two groups. One other piece of evidence that demonstrates a statistically significant difference between the two sets of data is provided by this. A conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that the anaerobic treatment of canteen trash results in the production of more biogas than paper waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this research is to generate biogas by comparing the amount of biogas produced by anaerobic-treated kitchen waste to that of cow dung. This will be accomplished through the utilisation of a biodigester. Methodologies and Instruments for Research: The collection of waste samples from the biodigester took place on the fourteenth day. These samples contained both cow dung and garbage from the kitchen. A smart biogas metre was utilised in order to ascertain the levels of biogas that were present in both groups. There were two groups, each with a sample size of seven, for a total of fourteen individuals (with a significance level of 0.05, a confidence interval of ninety-five percent, and a power of eighty percent for the experimental design). Findings: Samples of cow dung and kitchen trash were collected from the biodigester over the course of fourteen days. The total number of samples collected was fourteen. More biogas was produced by the biodigester from cow dung (11.89 m3) than it did from rubbish from the kitchen (11.89 m3) (20.98 m3). In this study, the two groups that were analysed were found to have a statistically significant difference. This was determined by an independent sample T-test that was carried out using SPSS software. The p-value for this test was 0.025, which is less than the threshold of 0.05. When compared to cow dung, the findings demonstrated that kitchen trash created a significantly lower amount. The outcome of this study is that the anaerobic treatment of cow dung results in the production of more biogas than the treatment of rubbish from kitchens. It was established that the significance level of the study was p=0.025, which is lower than the threshold of 0.05 to be considered significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work intends to contrast the influence production capacity of Geobacter sulfurreducens and anaerobic-sludge (AS) operated two crater 'MFC' by means of public wastewater. The models were composed from MFC (G power 80%) through Geobacter sulfurreducens (N = 29) and AS (N = 29) and operated for ten days. A multimeter was used to measure the voltage generated and volumetric power density (PD), power, and current were calculated for both groups. The power production was found to be higher in Geobacter sulfurreducens (398 mW/m2) operated MFC compared to AS (99 mW/m2) due to its rich, diverse and efficient microorganisms. It was found that the Geobacter sulfurreducens operated MFC influence cohort (p<0.001), was considerably superior to AS, as per the independent sample t-test. This work demonstrates that Geobacter sulfurreducens operated by MFC are capable of generating more power than AS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compares the power generated for two chambers MFCs controlled by Pseudomonas aeruginosa as well as Pseudomonas fluorescens utilizing effluent from the food sector. Materials containing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (N = 20) as well as Pseudomonas fluorescens (N = 20) were collected using MFC (G power 80%) as well as incubated for 11 days. Utilizing a digital multimeter, voltages emission was determined, and spatial electrical weight, strength, and electricity were computed for every category based on the results. Because of its abundant, varied, and productive microbes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2473 mW/m3) controlled MFC was shown to produce more electricity than Pseudomonas fluorescens (1945 mW/m3). A separate investigation revealed that Pseudomonas aeruginosa powered MFC power production was substantially higher (p < 0.005) than Pseudomonas fluorescens. This work demonstrates that Pseudomonas aeruginosa operated MFC is capable of generating more power compared to Pseudomonas fluorescens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The major aim of this study is to compare the power generation of carbon felt electrode and carbon paper electrode operated Microbial fuel cells (MFC) using restaurant wastewater. Restaurant wastewater samples were collected from MFC with carbon felt electrode (N=13) and carbon paper electrode (N=13) operated for 10 days (G power 80%). Voltage was measured using a multimeter and current, power, power density was calculated from it for both groups. The Power generation was found to be high in MFC operated with carbon felt electrode (410 mW/m2) due to its active surface area, strong conductivity, and good biocompatibility compared to carbon paper electrode (121 mW/m2). The independent sample T-test was done which showed that the power generation of MFC operated with carbon felt electrode (p<0.001) found to be significantly higher compared with MFC operated with carbon paper electrode. The study shows that carbon felt electrode operated MFC is able to achieve higher power generation compared to carbon paper electrode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this work is to compare the power production capacity of Mesophilic and Psychrophilic conditions operated Double chamber microbial fuel cells (DMFC) using slaughterhouse wastewater. The wastewater samples collected from MFC operated with Mesophilic conditions (N=31) and Psychrophilic conditions (N=31) for 11 days (G power 80%). Multimeter was used to measure voltage and current, power and power density (PD) were calculated for both groups. The power production was found to be higher in MFC operated with Mesophilic conditions (671mW/m2)compared to Psychrophilic conditions (227 mW/m2). It was found that power generation of MFC operated with mesophilic conditions (P<0.001) was significantly higher compared with Psychrophilic conditions when carried out anIndependent sample t test. The study shows that MFC operated with Mesophilic conditions is able to generate more power compared to Psychrophilic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]