Biogas Production Optimization in the Anaerobic Codigestion Process: A Critical Review on Process Parameters Modeling and Simulation Tools
Table 4
Summary of the achievements with kinetic models.
Models
Cosubstrates
Achievements
Ref.
MGM and FOKM
Water hyacinth and food waste
The models give maximum biogas production, reaction kinetics, and production delay phase under different conditions, depending on the ultimate biogas production curve. Codigestion kinetics estimated and well fitted by MGM with a minimum deviation of 2.84–13.01%
The model is applied to assess the biokinetic parameters (hydrolysis kinetics, maximum biogas production, and maximum biogas production rate). The best kinetic results of the AD process were obtained by both models
The models described the evolution of gas production and reaction kinetics. Models described lag, exponential, and stationary phases. Except for MGM, all functions interpreted the gas production evolution well ( > 0.976)
Chicken litter (CL) with yogurt whey (YW), hay grass (HG), and wheat straw (WS)
The model explains optimum mixing ratios and gives maximum CH4 production rate and lag-phase time with reliable fitness. For all tests, the MGM was the best fit for measured data with > 0.931 and deviations between measured and predicted one as <9.93%
The model simulated biogas production, maximum biogas production rate, hydrolysis rate, and lag stage under various conditions with the best accuracy. Among these models, MGM was the best fitted in elucidating the methane production process ( = 0.984–0.998)
The model computes the potential biogas production, the maximum biogas production, and the production delay time under different conditions based on the ultimate production curve of yield. MRM best fitted to experimental data with high correlation > 0.981 and lower RMSE value = 0.589 for sheep manure
The models gave maximum gas production and evaluated the biokinetic parameters by nonlinear regression analysis. The lowest difference between experimental data and predicted data was observed in MGM (3.7–15.4%), followed by MLM (4.9–18.9%). The statistical indicators ( and RMSE) reflected the best fitness of MGM to experimental data with the highest (0.994–0.996) and lowest RMSE (3.7–15.4)
