Exploring Biogas and Biofertilizer Production from Abattoir Wastes in Nigeria Using a Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What is the potential for biogas and biofertilizer production using abattoir wastes in Nigeria?
- What are the socio-economic and environmental merits and demerits of adopting this technology?
- Why the very low level of the development and adoption of the technology in Nigeria?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Location, Data Collection Method and Quantifications
- Q = the quantity of slaughterhouse waste from waste records (t/kg);
- DOC = the degradable organic carbon expressed as a proportion of abattoir waste with default value (DV) = 0.12;
- DOCF = the fraction of degradable organic carbon dissimilated for the abattoir waste whose DV = 0.7; F1 = the fraction of methane produced from dumping sites, DV = 0.50;
- The value 1.336 is the rate that carbon is being converted to methane;
- R = annual recovery of methane, quantified in tons (here no recovered methane);
- OX = the oxidation factor, DV = 0.1 for well-managed and DV = 0 for unmanaged);
- The value 25 is the CH4 global warming potential;
- Qj = the amount of the given type of waste j (here is only abattoir waste);
- EFj = the biogas emission factor of the given waste type j, DV = 0.02 kg CO2 eq.
2.2. SWOT Analysis
2.3. SWOT Matrix Development and Identification of Factors
- -
- Identification of all internal aspects of biogas and biofertilizer production from the abattoirs, which might influence the project, followed by classification of favorable factors as strengths and unfavorable ones as weaknesses.
- -
- Identification of external factors that may influence the project, looking at the global and local scenarios in Nigeria, and classifying the negative factors as threats and the positive ones as opportunities.
3. Results
3.1. State of the Abattoirs Assessed—Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment
3.2. Estimate of Waste Generated, Biomethane, Electricity, Biofertilizer and Methane Emission Mitigation Potentials
3.3. SWOT Assessment and Analyses
4. Discussion
4.1. Site Specific Conditions and Effects on Products
4.2. Strengths
4.2.1. Feedstock Availability
4.2.2. Better Alternative Energy Source
4.2.3. Ability to Kill Pathogenic Organisms
4.2.4. Solution to Waste Disposal Problems
4.2.5. Suitability of the Climate
4.2.6. Reduction of GHG Emissions and the Use for Closing the Carbon Cycle
4.2.7. Existing Market for Products
4.3. Weaknesses
4.3.1. High Investment Costs
4.3.2. High Protein in Abattoir Wastes
4.3.3. Pathogens from Contaminated Materials
4.3.4. Lack of Continuity in Developing Technical Proficiency
4.3.5. Relative Novelty
4.3.6. Limited Access to Water
4.3.7. Oversimplification of the Biogas System
4.4. Opportunities
4.4.1. Energy Deficits and Rural Settings Favor Decentralization
4.4.2. Food Insecurity and Calls for Diversifying Nigeria’s Economy
4.4.3. Improved Public Health
4.4.4. Job Opportunities
4.4.5. Increased Economic Activity
4.4.6. Synergies with Global Climate Change Mitigation Goals
4.4.7. Logistic Support from the Public
4.5. Threats
4.5.1. High Lending Rate
4.5.2. Public Subsidies for Fossil-Based Energy and Fertilizers
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IEA. International Energy Agency. France. 2019. Available online: https://www.iea.org/countries/Nigeria/ (accessed on 10 December 2019).
- Energypedia. 2019. Available online: https://energypedia.info/wiki/Nigeria_Energy_Situation#cite_ref-JICA.2C_February_2007.2C_The_Master_Plan_Study_for_Utilization_of_Solar_Energy_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Nigeria.2C_Final_Report.2C_Volume_1.2C_p._3-20_8-0 (accessed on 22 December 2019).
- World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (WRI CAIT 4.0, 2017). GHG Emissions are Reported in Units of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents. Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) are the 100-Year GWPs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR); World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Knee, A. The Nature of Energy; Magazine of the World Conservation Union; International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources: Gland, Switzerland, 2007; pp. 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Sanusi, R.A.; Badejo, C.A.; Yusuf, B.O. Measuring household food insecurity in selected local government areas of Lagos and Ibadan, Nigeria. Pak. J. Nutr. 2006, 5, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
- Abu, O. Food security in Nigeria and South Africa: Policies and challenges. J. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 38, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Jiang, J.; Tian, G. The potential of fertilizer management for reducing nitrous oxide emissions in the cleaner production of bamboo in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2536–2544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemi, I.G.; Adeyemo, O.K. Waste management practices at the Bodija abattoir, Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2007, 64, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adeyemo, O.K.; Adeyemi, I.G.; Awosanya, E.J. Cattle cruelty and risks of meat contamination at Akinyele cattle market and slaughter slab in Oyo State, Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Heal. Prod. 2009, 41, 1715–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chukwu, O.; Adeoye, P.A.; Chidiebere, I. Abattoir Waste Generation, Management and the Environment: Minna, Nigeria. Int. J. Biosci. 2011, 1, 100–109. [Google Scholar]
- Oruonye, E.D. Challenges of Abattoir Waste Management in Jalingo Metropolis, Nigeria. Int. J. Resour. Geogr. 2015, 1, 22–23. [Google Scholar]
- Salminen, E.; Rintala, J. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaughterhouse waste—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinbami, J.-F.; Ilori, M.; Oyebisi, T.; Akinwumi, I.; Adeoti, O. Biogas energy use in Nigeria: Current status, future prospects and policy implications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2001, 5, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukehurst, C.T.; Frost, P.; Seadi, T.A. Utilization of digestate from biogas plants and biofertilizer, task 37. IEA Bioenergy 2010, 24. [Google Scholar]
- Amon, T.; Bredow, H.V.; Gromke, J.D.; Dohle, H.; Fischer, E.; Fischer, E.; Friehe, J.; Gattermann, H.; Grebe, S.; Grope, J.; et al. Guide to Biogas-from Production to Use; Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e. V. (FNR): Eschborn, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Cvetkovic, S.; Radoičić, T.K.; Vukadinović, B.; Kijevčanin, M.L. Potentials and status of biogas as energy source in the Republic of Serbia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amigun, B.; Von Blottnitz, H. Capacity-cost and location-cost analyses for biogas plants in Africa. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 55, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program. 2000. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/gpgaum.htm. (accessed on 28 March 2019).
- JGCRI/Joint Global Change Research Institute, GCAM v4.4 Documentation: Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM), Documentation for GCAM. 2018. Available online: http://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/. (accessed on 27 February 2019).
- Tolera, S.T.; Alemu, F.K. Potential of Abattoir Waste for Bioenergy as Sustainable Management, Eastern Ethiopia, 2019. J. Energy 2020, 2020, 6761328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kholif, A.; Elghandour, M.M.M.Y.; Rodríguez, G.; Olafadehan, O.; Salem, A.Z.M. Anaerobic ensiling of raw agricultural waste with a fibrolytic enzyme cocktail as a cleaner and sustainable biological product. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2649–2655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klintenberg, P.; Jamieson, M.; Kinyaga, V.; Odlare, M. Assessing Biogas Potential of Slaughter Waste: Can Biogas Production Solve a Serious Waste Problem at Abattoirs? Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 2600–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ware, A.; Power, N. Biogas from cattle slaughterhouse waste: Energy recovery towards an energy self-sufficient industry in Ireland. Renew. Energy 2016, 97, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adamu, A.A.; Mohammed-Dabo, I.A.; Hamza, A.; Ado, S.A. Predicting rate of biogas production from abattoir waste using empirical models. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 8, 1238–1245. [Google Scholar]
- Rabah, A.B.; Baki, A.S.; Hassan, L.G.; Musa, M.; Ibrahim, A.D. Production of biogas using abattoir waste at different retention time. Sci. World J. 2010, 5, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
- Ek, A.E.W.; Hallin, S.; Vallin, L.; Schnürer, A.; Karlsson, M. Slaughterhouse waste co-digestion—Experiences from 15 years of full-scale operation. World renewable energy congress 2011-Sweden. Bioenergy Technol. 2011, 9, 64–71. [Google Scholar]
- Hellman, J.; Ek, A.E.W.; Sundberg, C.; Johansson, M.; Svensson, B.H.; Karlsson, M. Mechanisms of increased methane production through re-circulation of magnetic biomass carriers in an experimental continuously stirred tank reactor. In Proceedings of the 12th World Congress on Anaerobic Digestion, Guadalajara, Mexico, 31 October–4 November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ngumah, C.; Ogbulie, J.N.; Orji, J.C.; Amadi, E.S. Biogas potential of organic waste in Nigeria. J. Urban Environ. Eng. 2013, 7, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kurttila, M.; Pesonen, M.; Kangas, J.; Kajanus, M. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—A hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Policy Econ. 2000, 1, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okello, C.; Pindozzi, S.; Faugno, S.; Boccia, L. Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach. Energies 2014, 7, 1171–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akinbomi, J.; Brandberg, T.; Sanni, S.A.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Development and dissemination strategies for accelerating biogas production in Nigeria. Bioresources 2014, 9, 5707–5737. [Google Scholar]
- Deublein, D.; Steinhauser, A. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 27–83. [Google Scholar]
- Schnurer, A.; Jarvis, A. Microbiological Handbook for Biogas Plants, 1-74. Swedish Waste Management U2009:03. Swed. Gas Cent. Rep. 2010, 207, 1–74. [Google Scholar]
- Burke, D. Dairy Waste Anaerobic Digestion Handbook; Environmental Energy Company: Olympia, WA, USA, 2001; pp. 1–57. [Google Scholar]
- Schirmer, W.N.; Jucá, J.F.T.; Schuler, A.R.P.; Holanda, S.; Jesus, L.L. Methane production in anaerobic digestion of organic waste from Recife (Brazil) landfill: Evaluation in refuse of diferent ages. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y.R. Engineering Properties of Beef-Cattle Manure; ASAE paper no. 82-4085; ASAE: Lisbon, Portugal, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- B-Sustain, Environmental and Social Benefits of Biogas Technology. 2013. Available online: http://www.bsustain.in/faqs.html (accessed on 22 May 2018).
- Dzene, I.; Romagnoli, F. Comparison of different biogas use pathways for Latvia: Biogas use in CHP vs. biogas upgrading. In In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Environmental Engineering 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania, 22–23 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kolios, A.; Read, G. A Political, Economic, Social, Technology, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE) Approach for Risk Identification of the Tidal Industry in the United Kingdom. Energies 2013, 6, 5023–5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jadidi, O.; Hong, T.S.; Firouzi, F.; Yusuff, R.M. An optimal grey based approach based on TOPSIS concepts for supplier selection problem. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2009, 4, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wind, Y.; Saaty, T.L. Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Manag. Sci. 1980, 26, 641–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; McConkey, B.G.; Ma, Z.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Cheng, L. Strengths, Weaknessness, Opportunities and Threats Analysis of Bioenergy Production on Marginal Land. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 2378–2386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kretschmer, W.; Bischoff, S.; Hanebaeck, G.; Muller, H. SWOT Analysis and Biomass Competition Analysis for SUPRABIO Biorefineries; IUS Institute for Environmental Studies, Weibel and Ness GmbH: Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Eze, J.I. Studies on Generation of Biogas from Poultry Droppings and Rice Husk from a Locally Fabricated Biodigester. Master’s Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria, 1995; pp. 64–65. [Google Scholar]
- Connaughton, S.; Collins, G.; O’Flaherty, V. Psychrophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digestion of brewery effluent: A comparative study. Water Res. 2006, 40, 2503–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nijaguna, B.T. Biogas Technology; Book 142 New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers 4835/24; Ansari Road: Daryaganj, New Delhi, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Olsen, J.E.; Larsen, H.E. Bacterial decimation times in anaerobic digestions of animal slurries. Boil. Wastes 1987, 21, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kearney, T.E.; Larkin, M.; Frost, J.; Levett, P. Survival of pathogenic bacteria during mesophilic anaerobic digestion of animal waste. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1993, 75, 215–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carlini, M.; Mosconi, E.M.; Castellucci, S.; Villarini, M.; Colantoni, A. An Economical Evaluation of Anaerobic Digestion Plants Fed with Organic Agro-Industrial Waste. Energies 2017, 10, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chukwuma, C.E.; Ndrika, V.I.O.; Chukwumuanya, E.O. Economic Viability of Bio-energy Plants for Location Analysis in Parts of Anambra State of Nigeria. JEAS 2018, 13, 40–53. [Google Scholar]
- Arnott, M. The Biogas/Biofertilizer Business Handbook. Appropriate Technologies for Development; Peace Corps Information Collection and Exchange Manual R-48: Washington, DC, USA, 1982; pp. 1–117. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook—World Bank Documents. Available online: https://www.google.de/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=wOT_WMWpFJDVXrzyiOgE#q=meat+processing+and+rendering+pollution+and+prevention+abatement+handbook1998 (accessed on 10 January 2017.).
- Marchaim, U. Biogas Processes for Sustainable Development; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1992; pp. 1–99. [Google Scholar]
- SNV. Biogas Support Program Fuels Rural Household Energy Supply in Nepal. A Paper for UNCTAD Expert Meeting on Green and Renewable Technologies as Energy Solutions for Rural Development; SNV: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- WBA. Biogas—An Important Energy Source; Factsheets; World Bioenergy Association (WBA): Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tumwesige, V.; Avery, L.; Austin, G.; Balana, B.; Bechtel, K.; Casson, E.; Davidson, G.; Edwards, S.; Eshete, G.; Gebreegziabher, Z.; et al. Small-Scale Biogas Digester for Sustainable Energy Production in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. 1st World Sustainability Forum 2011. Available online: www.wsforum.org. (accessed on 12 April 2015.).
- WHO. Household Air Pollution and Health. Fact Sheet No. 292. Available online: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/2016 (accessed on 5 August 2017).
- Alfa1, M.I.; Wamyil, F.B.; Daffi, R.E.; Igboro, S.B. Design, Development and Evaluation of Slaughterhouse Anaerobic Digestion Plant Model. Am. J. Eng. Res. 2017, 6, 70–74. [Google Scholar]
- Drosg, B.; Fuchs, W.; Al Seadi, T.; Madsen, M.; Linke, B. Nutrient recovery by biogas digestate processing. IEA Bioenergy Task 2015, 37, 1–40. [Google Scholar]
- Sindibu, T.; Solomon, S.; Ermias, D. Biogas and bio-fertilizer production potential of abattoir waste as means of sustainable waste management option in Hawassa City, southern Ethiopia. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2018, 22, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EC (European Commission). European Parliament Commission Regulation 2009/1069/EC. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009R1069 (accessed on 19 August 2020).
- Ochieng’ tieno, F.A. Anaerobic digestion of wastewaters with high strength sulfates. Discov. Innov. 1996, 8, 143–150. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Creamer, K.S. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4044–4064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lay, J.-J.; Li, Y.-Y.; Noike, T. Influences of pH and moisture content on the methane production in high-solids sludge digestion. Water Res. 1997, 31, 1518–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tada, C.; Yang, Y.; Hanaoka1, T.; Sonoda, A.; Ooi, K.; Sawayama, S. Effect of natural zeolite on methane production for anaerobic digestion of ammonium rich organic sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nordell, E.; Hallin, S.; Johansson, M.; Karlsson, M. The Diverse Response on Degradation Rate of Different Substances upon Addition of Zeolites. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste, Venice, Italy, 8–11 November 2010; ISBN 978-88-6265-008-3. [Google Scholar]
- Siegrist, H.; Vogt, D.; Garcia-Heras, J.L.; Gujer, W. Mathematical Model for Meso- and Thermophilic Anaerobic Sewage Sludge Digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 1113–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schnürer, A.; Nordberg, A. Ammonia, a selective agent for methane production by syntrophic acetate oxidation at mesophilic temperature. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 735–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esposito, G.; Frunzo, L.; Liotta, F.; Panico, A.; Pirozzi, F. BMP tests to measure the biogas production from the digestion and co-digestion of Complex organic substrates. Open J. Environ. Eng. 2012, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patil, V.S.; Deshmukh, H.V. A review on co-digestion of vegetable waste with organic wastes for energy generation. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 4, 83–86. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, R.; Lopez, J.; Suh, S. Barriers and drivers to renewable energy investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Environ. Invest. 2011, 2, 54. [Google Scholar]
- Sheahan, M.; Black, R.; Jayne, T.S. Are farmers underutilizing fertilizer? Evidence from Kenya. In Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil, 18–24 August 2012; pp. 18–24. [Google Scholar]
- Bassi, S.; Carvalho, M.; Doda, B.; Fankhauser, S. Decarbonizing the European Union Credibly, Effectively and Acceptably; Policy brief; Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Envir-News. Nigeria Adopts Carbon Pricing to Curb Global Emission. 2015. Available online: http://www.environewsnigeria.com/nigeria-adopts-carbon-pricing-curb-global-emission/2015 (accessed on 24 April 2017).
Positive | Negative | |
---|---|---|
Internal Environment | Strengths
| Weaknesses
|
External Environment | Opportunities
| Threats
|
Abattoir Assessed | Suleja | Minna | Lafia | Karu |
---|---|---|---|---|
Location/State | Niger | Niger | Nassarawa | FCT |
Slaughter (Cattle) | 180 | 60 | 45 | 135 |
Slaughter (Sheep and Goats) | 19 | 95 | 61 | 650 |
Item/Abattoir | Suleja | Minna | Lafia | Karu | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total no. of annual slaughter (Cattle) | 65,700 | 21,900 | 16,425 | 49,275 | 153,300 |
Total no. of annual slaughter (Sheep and Goats) | 6935 | 34,675 | 22,265 | 237,250 | 301,125 |
32TBW—353 kg/animal (103 t/y) (Cattle) | 23.19 | 7.73 | 5.80 | 17.39 | |
32TBW—28 kg/animal (103 t/y) (Sheep and Goats) | 0.19 | 0.97 | 0.62 | 6.64 | |
32Waste—35% TBW (103 t/y) (Cattle) | 8.12 | 2.71 | 2.03 | 6.09 | |
32Waste—35% TBW (103 t/y) (Sheep and Goats) | 0.07 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 2.33 | |
Total waste (103 t/y) | 8.19 | 3.05 | 2.25 | 8.41 | 21.89 |
33DM, 15% of total waste (103 t/y) | 1.23 | 0.46 | 0.34 | 1.26 | 3.28 |
24VS, 96.7% of DM (103 t/y) | 1.19 | 0.44 | 0.33 | 1.22 | 3.18 |
34BMP @ 700 m3/t vs. (103 m3) | 831.08 | 309.23 | 228.20 | 854.21 | |
75% factor BMP (103 m3) | 623.31 | 231.92 | 171.15 | 640.66 | 1667 |
32PE @ 3.73 kWh/m3CH4 (kW) | 265.23 | 98.69 | 72.83 | 272.61 | 709.36 |
Spent slurry in (103 m3) | 117 | 44 | 33 | 122 | |
PBF dry, (103 t/y) | 0.515 | 0.192 | 0.142 | 0.530 | 1.378 |
Vol. of slurry added daily (m3) | 320 | 121 | 89 | 334 | |
26Digester Capacity, 14 days HRT (m3) | 4500 | 1700 | 1250 | 4700 |
Abattoir | Waste | BMP | FO 0.4 kg | LPG 0.45 kg | D 0.5 kg | K 0.6 kg | P 0.7 kg | FW 3.5 kg |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(103 t/y) | (103 m3) | t | ||||||
Suleja | 8.19 | 623 | 249 | 280 | 312 | 374 | 436 | 2182 |
Minna | 3.05 | 232 | 93 | 104 | 116 | 139 | 162 | 812 |
Lafia | 2.25 | 171 | 69 | 77 | 86 | 103 | 120 | 599 |
Karu | 8.41 | 640 | 256 | 288 | 320 | 384 | 448 | 2242 |
Aggregate | 21.89 | 1667 | 667 | 750 | 834 | 1000 | 1167 | 5835 |
Identified Factor | Assessment/Finding |
---|---|
Feedstock availability | Karu abattoir had the highest feedstock value (8400 t/y), followed closely by Suleja (8200 t/y), while the abattoirs at Minna and Lafia had lower values (3000 and 2200 t/y, respectively). The corresponding digester capacities based on optimal 15% total solids were 4500, 1700, 1250, and 4700 m3. The total available feedstock which could be used for production of biogas and biofertilizer for all the study sites amounts to 21,900 t/y. |
Suitable climate | The region, i.e., study sites have characteristic optimum climatic condition for suitable anaerobic digestion processes. Operating temperature for AD range between 10 and 55 °C, with 35 and 55 °C being optimal for mesophilic and thermophilic digestion respectively [46]. Nigeria has a tropical climate with temperature ranges between 27–40 °C, suitable for the optimal performance of the digester, with no requirements to use the produced gas for heating the reactor, unlike in Europe [47]. |
Combined provision of better alternative energy and biofertilizer | Capable of generating a combined total of 710 kW. The electricity generation potentials for Karu, Suleja, Minna, and Lafia abattoirs were found to be 273, 265, 99, and 73 kW capacities, respectively. At the current average rate of 13.5 kg fertilizer per hectare in Nigeria, the 4 study sites have a combined potential to provide fertilizer for about 100 hectares. |
Kills pathogenic organisms | It has been demonstrated that a number of pathogenic organisms like S. enterica and M. paratuberculosis are reduced and inactivated in anaerobic environments [48,49]. |
Contributes in solving waste disposal problems | In all the abattoirs, the waste streams exist as a nuisance and managing them is a key challenge. The wastes could therefore be dedicated to AD in a way that takes care of interest groups. Harnessing these wastes as resources for production of biogas for energy and biofertilizer for improved soil fertility could contribute to curbing the environmental menace and addressing the problems of energy and food deficits in Nigeria. |
Reduction of GHG emission and useful for closing carbon cycle | Contributes to reducing GHG emissions emanating from direct disposal to the fields. Installation of ADs at the 4 sites depicts GHG reduction potential of 30 t CO2 eq. |
Existing market for products | Due to massive deforestation, there is limited forest resources and soil degradation. The traditional direct use of biomass for fuel is not sustainable. Moreover, there is increasing interest in more modern options such as cooking gas. |
Flexibility for small, medium and large plant | The possibility and capability to set up and run a biogas generating plant in small, medium, and large scales in particular Karu and Suleja abattoirs is advantageous for efficient use of resources in a sustainable and environment friendly manner. Minna and Lafia sites are more suited for small and medium plants to avoid the challenge of feedstock shortage. Yet, there is the benefits of economy of scale in biogas plant operation where larger capacity plant is more viable economically [50,51,52]. |
Identified Factor | Assessment/Finding |
---|---|
High investment cost | Chukwuma et al. [51] demonstrated higher value of profitability index for AD plant with bigger capacity. The cost of investment for AD plant is relatively high, several millions of Naira [51]. When built as small scales, such as petite backyard operations, biogas systems tend to be too costly, are hardly profitable, and rarely make significant contribution to the family or community [50,52]. |
Lack of equipment fabrication facilities for making the digesters and accessories | There are no refabricated digesters. For diverse applications ranging from cooking to electricity generation, there is need to have compatible equipment and accessories such as gas holder, gas bottles, pressure regulator, water trap, burner stove and lamp, biogas generating sets and biogas stoves and their accessories as well as installation materials, user training and after sales services. Unfortunately, these are lacking in Nigeria. |
Lack of continuity in developing technical proficiency | No strategic, sustained, and substantial research, development, and training on building robust technological capacity to set up and run such plants efficiently. No technical standards and codes for AD installation and maintenance and no established testing methodologies. |
Relative novelty, adoption may face dislikes, sensitization needed | Adopting, adapting, and advancing a new technology often requires proper sensitization, reorientation, and commitment from all stakeholders. Demonstration of the technology through pilot programs and marketing may be necessary in case there is the initial reluctance in adopting and adapting to new techniques and products like these. |
Limited of access to water | In all the study sites evaluated, tap water was available only at Karu site but regular water flow is usually interrupted by incessant power outage. This inadequate water supply has been noted as one of the challenges grabbled with by the abattoirs and the neighboring residents. |
High protein in abattoir wastes | The blood and meat trimmings are part of wastes which contribute to high protein content of the wastes. |
Pathogens from contaminated materials | Pathogens are present in the waste and can also arise from production processes [53], posing hazards while handling waste inputs to the digester. Spent substrates such as biofertilizer could also contain pathogens depending on the incidence of viable pathogenic organisms. in the input and spent substrates. |
Oversimplification of the biogas system | Considering it simply as a receptacle for wastes and a provider of gas and fertilizer may likely cause such failures, eventually resulting in deficient performance, leading to abandonment of the plant. |
Identified Factor | Assessment/Finding |
---|---|
Energy deficits and rural settings, favors decentralization | Frequent power nationwide and most rural settings do not have access to electricity and conventional cooking facilities such as LPG (cooking gas), kerosene, and electricity. |
Food insecurity and calls for diversifying Nigeria’s economy | Biofertilizer availability could contribute to providing a sustainable solution to the current food insecurity in Nigeria. Crop yields higher by 11–20% compared to controls have been reported after the application of spent digester effluent [54]. |
Improved public health | Some aerobic organisms are killed by the fermentation process in an anaerobic environment. Biogas systems could also serve as a better alternative for management of abattoir waste, which could otherwise be disposed in open fields forming breeding grounds for pathogenic organisms, therefore enhancing public health. |
Job opportunities | Going by Arnott’s [52] projection, job opportunities for about 790 people could be generated from AD plants producing a total of 1390 t of dry biofertilizers at the four study sites. |
Increased economic activities | The time spent for collecting and carrying wood by women and children could be swapped for education, more productive activities, or simply recreation and leisure time [55]. |
Synergizes global goals of climate mitigation | Estimates by this study shows the aggregate GHG reduction potential by installation of AD plants at the 4 sites is 30.71 t CO2 eq. Thus, installation of AD systems could contribute in GHG mitigation by preventing disposal to the open fields. The use of biogas in place of fossil-based alternatives further provides avenues for reduction of GHG emissions. |
Public logistic support | Gaining public support might be easy owing to the socio-economic benefits associated with AD systems. |
Identified Factor | Assessment/Finding |
---|---|
High lending/loan rat | Bank lending rates in Nigeria range from 16.91% to 29.26% and include stringent collateral requirements. This financial predicament may not be favorable for investing in AD, making it difficult for willing investors to start such a project despite its prospects. |
Public subsidies for fossil-based energy and fertilizer | In Nigeria, there are public subsidies for fossil-based energy and chemical fertilizers. This is a threat to the competitiveness of the AD system. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Audu, I.G.; Barde, A.; Yila, O.M.; Onwualu, P.A.; Lawal, B.M. Exploring Biogas and Biofertilizer Production from Abattoir Wastes in Nigeria Using a Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach. Recycling 2020, 5, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5030018
Audu IG, Barde A, Yila OM, Onwualu PA, Lawal BM. Exploring Biogas and Biofertilizer Production from Abattoir Wastes in Nigeria Using a Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach. Recycling. 2020; 5(3):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5030018
Chicago/Turabian StyleAudu, Idi Guga, Abraham Barde, Othniel Mintang Yila, Peter Azikiwe Onwualu, and Buga Mohammed Lawal. 2020. "Exploring Biogas and Biofertilizer Production from Abattoir Wastes in Nigeria Using a Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach" Recycling 5, no. 3: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5030018
APA StyleAudu, I. G., Barde, A., Yila, O. M., Onwualu, P. A., & Lawal, B. M. (2020). Exploring Biogas and Biofertilizer Production from Abattoir Wastes in Nigeria Using a Multi-Criteria Assessment Approach. Recycling, 5(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling5030018