Comparison of Air Emissions from Raw Liquid Pig Manure and Biogas Digester Effluent Storages

doi:10.13031/trans.57.10292

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The variability of the feedstocks, digestate handling, transport, and storage in the local biogas plants and in tanks in the fields before the application could have caused changes in the digestate N content between the initial sampling time and the time of land application. It is well known that open stores (Wang et al, 2014), and the lack of semi-permeable materials to cover the tanks (Börjesson and Berglund, 2007) and protective gas-tight layers (Battini et al, 2014) can lead to large N losses, predominantly via NH 3 volatilization (Petersen and Sørensen, 2008;Fangueiro et al, 2015a), in comparison with the undigested feedstocks. Moreover, the pH of our digestate was 8.24 ± 0.01 at HF and 8.05 ± 0.01 at NW, and according to Muck and Steenhuis (1982), very high losses of NH 3 from digestate occurs above pH 8.0, and small losses below pH 6.0.…”

Section: Digestate and Soil Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Processing of Food Waste Based Digestate for Mitigating Nitrogen Losses in a Winter Wheat Crop

Sánchez‐Rodríguez

Carswell

Shaw

et al. 2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anaerobic digestion of food waste converts waste products into "green" energy. Additionally, the secondary product from this process is a nutrient-rich digestate, which could provide a viable alternative to synthetically-produced fertilizers. However, like fertilizers, digestate applied to agricultural land can be susceptible to both ammonia (NH 3 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) losses, having negative environmental impacts, and reducing the amount of N available for crop uptake. Our main aim was to assess potential methods for mitigating N losses from digestate applied to a winter wheat crop and subsequent impact on yield. Plot experiments were conducted at two UK sites, England (North Wyke-NW) and Wales (Henfaes-HF), to assess NH 3 and N 2 O losses, yield and N offtake following a single band-spread digestate application. Treatments examined were digestate (D), acidified-digestate (AD), digestate with the nitrification inhibitor DMPP (D+NI), AD with DMPP (AD+NI), and a zero-N control (C). Ammonium nitrate (NH 4 NO 3 ) fertilizer N response plots (from 75 to 300 kg N ha −1 ) were included to compare yields with the organic N source. Across both sites, cumulative NH 3 -N losses were 27.6% from D and D+NI plots and 1.5% for AD and AD+NI of the total N applied, a significant reduction of 95% with acidification. Cumulative N 2 O losses varied between 0.13 and 0.35% of the total N applied and were reduced by 50% with the use of DMPP although the differences were not significant. Grain yields for the digestate treatments were 7.52-9.21 and 7.23-9.23 t DM ha −1 at HF and NW, respectively. Yields were greater from the plots receiving acidified-digestate relative to the non-acidified treatments but the differences were not significant. The yields obtained for the digestate treatments ranged between 84.2% (D+NI) and 103.6% (D) of the yields produced by the same N rate from an inorganic source at HF. Advanced processing of digestate reduced N losses providing an environmentally sound option for N management.

show abstract

Section: Digestate and Soil Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Processing of Food Waste Based Digestate for Mitigating Nitrogen Losses in a Winter Wheat Crop

Sánchez‐Rodríguez

Carswell

Shaw

et al. 2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In manure stores, substantial amounts of N can be emitted as N 2 O (Hansen et al 2006;Külling et al 2003;Massé et al 2011;Wang et al 2014). Due to the low oxygen partial pressure in liquid slurry stores with a gas-tight cover, N 2 O emissions are negligible since oxygen is a prerequisite for N 2 O formation.…”

Section: Nitrous Oxide Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of anaerobic digestion on soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, N emissions, and soil biological activity. A review

Möller¹

2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

240

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainability in agriculture means the inclusion of several aspects, as sustainable agriculture systems must not compromise not only their ability to satisfy future needs by undermining soil fertility and the natural resource base but also sustainable agriculture has had to address a range of other issues including energy use, efficient use, and recycling of nutrients, the effects on adjacent ecosystems including the effects on water bodies and climate change. Organic manures are an important factor to keep the soil fertility level of soils. However, their management is often related to large emissions. In this context, anaerobic digestion is-similarly to composting-a treatment option for stabilization of biogenic wastes leading to a residual product called digestates, enabling the sanitation and the recycling and use as fertilizer. It is also a means to obtain energy from wastes as well as from dedicated energy crops. Therefore, anaerobic digestion potentially addresses several aspects of agricultural sustainability. This review discusses the current state of knowledge on the effects of anaerobic digestion on organic compounds in digestates and the most important processes influencing N emissions in the field, as well as the possible longterm effects on soil microbial biomass and soil fertility. The main findings are that (1) the direct effects of anaerobic digestion on long-term sustainability in terms of soil fertility and environmental impact at the field level are of minor relevance. (2) The most relevant effects of anaerobic digestion on soil fertility as well as on N emissions will be expected from indirect effects related to cropping system changes such as changes in crop rotation, crop acreage, cover cropping, and total amounts of organic manures including digestates. Furthermore, (3) the remaining organic fraction after anaerobic digestion is much more recalcitrant than the input feedstocks leading to a stabilization of the organic matter and a lower organic matter degradation rate after field application, enabling a similar reproduction of the soil organic matter as obtained by direct application of the feedstock or by composting of the feedstock. (4) Regarding emissions, the main direct effect of anaerobic digestion on a farm level is the influence on gaseous emissions during manure or digestate treatment and handling, whereas the direct effects of anaerobic digestion on a field level on emissions (NH 3 − and N 2 O − emissions, NO 3 -leaching) are negligible or at least ambiguous. (5) The main direct effects of anaerobic digestion on the field level are short-term effects on soil microbial activity and changes in the soil microbial community. Therefore, in terms of the effects on agricultural sustainability, potential cropping system-based changes induced by introduction of biogas plants are probably much more relevant for the overall performance and sustainability of the cropping system than the direct effects triggered by application of digestates in comparison to the undigested feedstock...

show abstract

“…Emissions associated with the avoided conventional management of animal slurry (methane, ammonia and nitrous oxide) as well as the emission from digestate were calculated with the factors provided by Amon et al (2006) [124] for cattle slurry and Wang et al [125] for pig slurry. Considering that, the digestate is applied as organic fertilizer during energy crops production or during the cultivation of fodder used to feed pigs and cattle no additional environmental credits were taken into account.…”

Section: Inventory Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anaerobic Digestion (AD) has been recognized as a viable solution to produce renewable energy and to reduce global warming especially when secondary feedstock and/or wastes are used. Several LCA studies analysed the environmental performances of biogas production systems. The results of this review highlight that the goal, scope, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology, feedstocks and geographical regions covered by the studies vary widely. Most studies are based in Europe, several in China and few in South and North America and in Africa. To better highlight how the choices on the feeding mix, the digestate storage, the surplus heat valorisation as well as the plant size can affect the environmental performances of agricultural AD plants four plants have been analyzed in this study. The results suggest that the energy crops production and the operation of anaerobic digesters, including digestate emission from open tanks, are the main contributors to the impacts from biogas electricity. This entails that it is environmentally better to have smaller plants using slurry and waste rather than bigger plants fed with energy crops. Recovering heat waste as well as covering of digestate tank would improve significantly the environmental sustainability of biogas electricity, and particularly the global warming category. We are pleased to enclose the revised version of our original manuscript of our paper entitled "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable" which can hopefully be published in Applied Energy.Many thanks to the reviewers for their comments; they helped us to improve the manuscript.We hope that the manuscript in the revised form is appropriate for publication in Applied Energy.On behalf of all the Authors, as corresponding Author, yours sincerely, Cover Letter Title: Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more sustainable Dear Editor, we would like to thank you for the reviewers' comments. We are grateful to all the reviewers for devoting their time to review our manuscript. As you can see, we have taken most of them into consideration to modify the paper. We hope that the paper in this current revised version can be accepted for publication. Below, we enclose an explanation of how we have addressed the questions raised. Reviewer #1The manuscript is working on the review of the environmental impacts of biogas production. It includes good results, an interesting methodology, and related to the scope of this Journal. I suggest to accept it after some minor revisions. Thank you for your positive comments and for useful suggestions.The authors should write about the difference between their study and the following research: * Hijazi, O., Munro, S., Zerhusen, B. and Effenberger, M., 2016. Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 1291-300. Done, we specified in the int...

show abstract

Comparison of Air Emissions from Raw Liquid Pig Manure and Biogas Digester Effluent Storages

Cited by 7 publications

References 45 publications

Advanced Processing of Food Waste Based Digestate for Mitigating Nitrogen Losses in a Winter Wheat Crop

Advanced Processing of Food Waste Based Digestate for Mitigating Nitrogen Losses in a Winter Wheat Crop

Effects of anaerobic digestion on soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, N emissions, and soil biological activity. A review

Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About