Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Methane fermentation of the maize straw silage under meso- and

thermophilic conditions
Marta Cie
slik a, Jacek Dach b, *, Andrzej Lewicki b, Anna Smurzyn

ska b, Damian Janczak b,
Joanna Pawlicka-Kaczorowska a, Piotr Boniecki b, Paweł Cyplik a, Wojciech Czekała b,



Krzysztof Jo zwiakowski c
a
Poznan University of Life Sciences, Department of Biotechnology and Food Microbiology, Wojska Polskiego 48, 60-637 Poznan, Poland
b
Poznan University of Life Sciences, Institute of Biosystems Engineering, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-637 Poznan, Poland
c
skiego 7, 20-069 Lublin, Poland
University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Department of Environmental Engineering and Geodesy, kr. St. Leszczyn

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Under conditions of low funding for the production of “green energy” in Poland, it became necessary to
Received 2 November 2015 search for other e cheaper sources of biomass and the development of more efficient technologies. The
Received in revised form maize straw is waste material arising in the production of grain. Therefore currently has no wider
13 June 2016
application and the cost of acquisition is several times lower than in case of maize silage. This paper
Accepted 13 June 2016
Available online 23 June 2016
presents the results of research on biogas efficiency of the maize straw silage, the dynamics of the
fermentation process and the decomposition time of biomass under the meso- and thermophilic con-
ditions. Moreover, the exploitation costs of a biogas plant working on this substrate and maize silage
Keywords:
Maize straw silage
have been compared.
Methane fermentation It has been proved that thermophilic fermentation is significantly shorter (17%) than mesophilic and
Biogas permits to increase biogas production (8.6%) and methane content (9.3%). In turn, mesophilic fermen-
Mesophilic fermentation tation has more stable pH changes in comparison with the thermophilic technology. However, it is
Thermophilic fermentation related to inhibition of the propionic acid, which can be of great importance in case of continuous
fermentation. On the basis of energetic calculations it was shown that the substitution of the maize silage
with the maize straw silage allows for nearly three-fold costs reduction and thus increase of the biogas
plant profitability.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Intensive development of civilization in the world has led to a
sharp increase in energy consumption, reaching in 2013 the value
nearly three times higher than 50 years ago [1]. Due to the need of
intensification of energy generation from renewable sources, as
well as the need for dissemination of the methods to reduce the
emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, increasing
importance begins to play production and use of agricultural
biogas. According to the Iniyan and Sumathy forecasts the energy
from renewable sources will constitute 25% of the total energy
demand in India in 2020 [2]. A similar tendency, although in much
lower dimension also can be observed in Poland, where the number
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jdach@up.poznan.pl (J. Dach).
of biogas plants in the years 2001e2010 increased 10 times [3]. And
still, the biogas potential is used only marginally [4].
Nowadays the most commonly used substrate for methane
fermentation process in Central Europe is maize silage [5]. How-
ever, due to the conflict “energy vs. food”, the risks arising from the
crops monoculture and growing prices of this substrate, the alter-
native sources of biomass are increasingly looked for [6]. This
conflict has taken a particular form in Mexico, where people went
to the streets because allocation of maize for energy purposes,
increased the price of tortillas [7]. Therefore, an alternative is even
the use for energy purposes the waste materials from herbal in-
dustry [8], food industry and agriculture [9] or farming at the areas
unsuitable for crops intended for human consumption [10]. Huge
importance for the profitability of biogas investments under Polish
conditions (low subsidies to the prices of “green” energy) has also
the development of more efficient technologies, cheaper than
western ones, use of heat produced during biogas combustion [11]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.070
0360-5442/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1496 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502
List of abbreviations
Mg Megagram
FM Fresh Mass
TS Total Solids
VTS Volatile Total Solids
kW Kilowatt
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt-hour
VFA Volatile Fatty Acids
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
and digestate pulp management, i.e. as a high-grade field fertilizer
[12].
In the face of these challenges, an interesting substrate may be
maize straw silage which despite relatively low efficiency from Mg
of dry mass (350e400 m3) is characterized by a high ratio of
methane yield of the substrate price [13]. This is mainly due to the
fact that the maize straw has a higher dry mass than maize silage
and is three times cheaper. Moreover, this substrate is a waste
material arising in the production of grains, with no wider appli-
cation in agriculture and industry. Thus, anaerobic digestion, next
to composting, which apart from organic matter mineralization and
volume reduction [14] allows waste hygienisation [15] is an envi-
ronmentally friendly method for management of organic waste
materials [16]. Moreover, anaerobic digestion, despite the com-
posting process [17], allows not only matter but also energy to be
recovered from bio-waste [18].
Another factor influencing the profitability of the investment is
the use of the technology e mesophilic or thermophilic one. The
scientific community is not consistent as to the effect of the tem-
perature of the process on the efficiency of the biogas substrate.
Bojra et al. proved that in case of fermentation olive mill waste-
water the thermophilic process is more efficient [19]. Similar re-
sults were obtained by Kinnunen et al. Using as a substrate
Nannochloropsis micro alga [20]. Moreover, Kim et al. also while
studying the differences between the meso- and thermophilic
processes in various mixing systems and different number of
stages, using a dog food as a substrate have found that, in many
ways, higher temperature preferably affects methane fermentation
process [21]. In turn, research conducted by Gołkowska and Greger,
where the substrates were cellulose and maize silage, showed that
greater stability and higher methane efficiency is characteristic in
case of mesophilic process [22]. However an advantage of ther-
mophilic fermentation is shortening the decomposition time of the
biomass which was proved both in the aforementioned research
and in case of dry fermentation of municipal waste [23] and maize
straw [24].
The aim of the study was to compare the methane fermentation
of the maize straw silage under meso- and thermophilic conditions
by determining the dynamics of the process and the final efficiency
of the biogas. Moreover, the expectable incomes obtainable from
the sale of electricity and origin certificates have been summarized.
The calculations included the costs of the substrates needed to
power a biogas plant with a capacity of 250 kW operating on maize
straw silage and traditional maize silage.
2. Materials and methods
The research experiments were carried out in the Laboratory of

University of Life Sciences e the
Ecotechnologies in the Poznan
largest biogas laboratory in Poland (over 250 fermenters working in
temporary or permanent mode). The analysis of the biogas efficiency
of the substrate was based on a modified German norm DIN 38,414/
S8 and standardized biogas guidance issued by the Association of
German Engineers in Dresden VDI 4630. The efficiency of biogas
production is defined as maximum amount of biogas and bio-
methane production during fermentation of analysed substrate
under optimal, laboratory conditions Chemical analyses were made
in accordance with the Polish Standardization System. Research
methodology related to bio-waste was developed during several
grants implemented throughout the 6th EU Framework Programme
and Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education in 2006e2012.
2.1. The origin of the substrate and fermentation inoculum
The maize straw silage has been obtained from Przybroda
Agricultural-Orchard Experimental Farm belonging to the Poznan

University of Life Sciences (PULS). The mesophilic fermentative
inoculum was gained by separating the liquid fraction of the
digestate pulp from operating agricultural biogas plant. Thermo-
philic inoculum was prepared by progressive increase of the tem-
perature (1
C/week) of the water jacket in a tank containing the
mesophilic inoculum, the same as described above. In addition, the
inoculum has been feeding with the plant biomass providing an
access of nutrients in the soil for all groups of microorganisms
involved in the methane fermentation process. After reaching the
temperature of 55
C inoculum was stored in a heated tank and
feeding until the start of the proper experiment.
Both mesophilic and thermophilic inoculum had a similar share
of dry organic matter in the fresh mass, which was 1.58% in case of
mesophilic inoculum and 1.51% for the thermophilic one.
2.2. Methane production set-up
The experiment of biogas production was conducted through
anaerobic digestion in the set of multi-chamber biofermentor
(Fig. 1) constructed in the Laboratory of Ecotechnologies. This bio-
fermentor is commonly used for testing biogas efficiency for large
amount of biomass samples.
Methane fermentation was conducted in the glass reactors with
capacity of 2 dm3. The tested substrates were placed in the reactors
and then flooded with sufficient amount of inoculum. The reactors
purged with nitrogen (creation of anaerobic conditions) were
placed in a water bath with temperature of 39
C ± 1 (mesophilic
fermentation) or 55
C ± 1 (thermophilic fermentation) to ensure
optimal conditions for the methane fermentation process. Biogas
produced in each separate chamber was transferred to cylindrical
store e equalizing reservoirs, filled in with liquid resistant for gas
solubility. The samples were tested in 3 replications.
2.3. Physical and chemical analyses
In order to select the proper proportions between the tested
substrate and inoculum, the following parameters were examined:
Total Solids (PN-75 C-04616/01), Volatile Total Solids (PN-Z-15011-
3), pH (PN-90 C-04540/01) and conductivity (PN-EN 27888: 1999).
These parameters were essential for the calculation of the biogas
efficiency of the substrates into the units m3/Mg FM.; m3/Mg TS;
m3/Mg VTS. Moreover, every day, for the entire duration of the
experiment, the pH and conductivity of the fermentation samples
have been analysed.
2.4. HPLC analyses
Samples were centrifuged, filtered with a 0.45 mm-membrane
 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502
Fig. 1. Scheme of biofermentor for biogas production research (3-chamber section): 1 e water heater with temperature regulator, 2 e water pump, 3 e insulated conductors of
calefaction liquid, 4 e water coat, 5 e biofermentor with charge capacity 2 dm3, 6 e sampling tubes, 7 e biogas transporting tube, 8 e gas sampling valve, 9 e biogas volume-scale
reservoir.
syringe-driven filter (Milipore) and analysed by HPLC (Agilent
Technologies 1200 series) equipped with refractive-index detector.
Analyses were performed isocratically at a flow rate of 0.6 ml/min
on Rezex ROA-Organic Acid Hþ column (Phenomenex) at a constant
temperature of 40
C. 0.001 M H2SO4 was a mobile phase. Quali-
tative and quantitative identification of compounds such as lactic
acid, acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid was carried out
with an external standard method, using peak surface for calcula-
tion. ChemStation for LC 3D systems (Agilent) was used to analyse
the chromatographic data.
2.5. Gaseous samples
The measurement of daily biogas production was taken every
24 h with an accuracy of 0.01 dm3. Qualitative and quantitative
composition of the fermentation gases was determined by gas
analyser Geotech GA5000 company every time when the gas vol-
ume in the tube exceeded 450 ml (due to the analyser demand to
measure). GA5000 gas analyser had the following quality certifi-
cations: ATEX II 2G Ex ib IIA T1 Gb (Ta ¼ 10
C to þ50
C), IECEx,
CSA and calibration certificate UKAS ISO 17025.
It allowed the gases measurements in the ranges: O2 0e25%;
CO2 0e100%; CH4 0e100%; NH3 0e1000 ppm and H2S
0e10,000 ppm. Analyser calibration was made every week using
calibration gases supplied by the Air Product in the following
concentrations: 65% CH4, 35% CO2 (in one mixture); 500 ppm H2S
and 100 ppm NH3. Calibration of an oxygen sensor was performed
1497
in synthetic air.
According to the German norm DIN 38 414-S8 the criterion for
the completion of the tests was the moment when daily biogas
production amounted less than 1% of the total production obtained.
2.6. Energy calculations
Cost calculations were made on the basis of experimental
Przybroda biogas plant with capacity of 250 kW belonging to the
Poznan
University of Life Sciences. The price of the maize straw
silage was adopted at the level of 10 EUR/Mg (based on data from
the National Science Centre project no. N N313 270938 entitled
“The technology of harvest and storage of the maize straw as energy
biomass and structural substrate for composting”), while the price of
maize silage was 29 EUR/Mg (average cost for Wielkopolska re-
gion). Adopted for the calculations the prices of certificates of origin
and sale of electricity were based on data obtained from the Polish
Power Exchange and the Energy Regulatory Office on 25 November
2014, hence the price of electricity was 44 EUR/MWh, the green
certificate (certificate of origin of energy from renewable sources) e
40 EUR/MWh, while the yellow certificate (the certificate for the
production and use of heat from renewable energy sources) e 25
EUR/MWh.
In order to highlight the differences between the test substrate
and widely used maize silage, the actual biogas efficiency of the
maize silage was used, which is a substrate for mentioned biogas
plant [11]. Hence, adopted in the calculation the volume of the
1498 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502
biogas produced from Mg of fresh mass of the substrate was
218.40 m3 and methane concentration 55.26%.
The income from the electricity sale was calculated using the
following formula:
Ie ¼ Ee  SPe
where: Ie e income from the electricity sale [EUR], E  amount of
produces energy [MWh], SPe e electricity selling price [EUR/MWh].
The selling price of the electricity is composed of three com-
ponents, the price of co-called black energy, which is actual amount
of electricity sold to the grid, green and yellow certificate. Hence:
SPe ¼ SPbe þ SPGC þ SPYC
where: SPe e electricity selling price [EUR/MWh], SPbe e „black
energy” price [EUR/MWh], SPGC e green certificate price [EUR/
MWh], SPYC e yellow certificate price [EUR/MWh].
The amount of energy produced in the biogas plant per year was
calculated using below mentioned formula:
Ee ¼ VCH4  RaCH4  he
where: Ee e produced energy amount [MWh], VCH4 e produced
methane volume [m3], ReCH4 e methane energy efficiency ratio
[0,00917 MWh/m3], he e electrical efficiency of cogeneration unit
(for the purposes of these calculations 44% efficiency was assumed
for the unit offered by PAKTOMA, Polish manufacturer of modern
co-generation units for biogas plants).
The volume of produced methane was determined using the
following formula:
VCH4 ¼ Ms  Vb  CCH4
where: VCH4 e produced methane volume [m3], Ms e mass of the
substrate required to supply biogas plant for a period of one year
[Mg], Vb e produced biogas volume [m3], CCH4 e methane con-
centration in produced biogas [%]Whereas the biogas plant power
was calculated based on the quotient of produced energy and
cogeneration unit working time:
Ee
Pe ¼
ta
where: Pe e biogas plant power [MW], Ee e amount of energy
produced per year [MWh], ta e cogeneration unit working time [h]
(for these calculations 8300 h).
In order to calculate the demand for biomass needed to supply
the biogas plant of 250 kW (assuming complete attenuation of the
substrate) the above mentioned formulas have been converted into
the following form:
Pe  ta
Ms ¼
Vb  CCH4  ReCH4  he
where: Ms e mass of the substrate needed to supply the biogas
plant for a year [Mg], Pe e biogas plant power [MW], ta e cogen-
eration unit working time [h], Vb e volume of produced biogas [m3/
Mg], CCH4 e methane concentration in produced biogas [%], ReCH4 e
ratio of methane energy efficiency [0,00917 MWh/m3], he e elec-
trical efficiency of cogeneration unit [%].
The above mentioned models were used to define the ratio of
the costs of biomass obtainment to the incomes from the electricity
sale for Przybroda biogas plant.
3. Results
3.1. Initial parameters of the substrate and inoculum
At the beginning of the experiment, the physicochemical
(1) properties of the maize straw silage and two inoculants were
determined (Table 1).
As already mentioned earlier, those parameters were essential
to determine the proportion of the fermentation mixtures and
subsequent conversions of the biogas efficiency.
3.2. The dynamics of the biogas production
(2) During fermentation of the maize straw silage a significant
difference was observed in the dynamics between mesophilic and
thermophilic technology. Maize straw due to the high content of
lignocellulose material and very low content of simple sugars and
starch is a substrate difficult to silage. Therefore, the lactic acid
concentration in the biomass after silage is low [25], which corre-
sponds directly with lower biogas production on the first day of
methane fermentation (Figs. 2 and 3.).
During the fermentation under mesophilic conditions two
(3)
distinct peaks of biogas production were noted during 2nd and 11th
day of fermentation, in turn, in case of thermophilic fermentation
one large peak was observed on 6th day and three lower during
12th, 16th and 19th day. The collapse of biogas and methane pro-
duction between 3rd and 9th day under mesophilic conditions
indicates the process inhibition.
The subsequent multiple local peaks are due to the complex
construction of the tested biomass, as much shorter time is
required to convert i.e. glucose into biogas than proteins or fats.
Reduction of the peaks number under thermophilic conditions is
related to an intense rate of organic matter decomposition at a
(4) higher temperature, and thus overlap of the peaks. It is directly
related to the rapid secretion of the enzymes at 55
C and accel-
eration of the reaction with increasing temperature (van't Hoff rule
[22]).
The differences in the dynamics of biogas production at 39
C
and 55
C are additionally affected by slower rate of proliferation of
thermophilic microorganisms, and in particular the methanogens
[24]. This is evident in the first week of the process. Under meso-
philic conditions all fermentation steps were carried out in parallel
since the first day, whereas under thermophilic conditions a
(5)
distinct shift was noted in favour of hydrolysis when intense pro-
duction of carbon dioxide takes place.
Despite the initial very low methane concentration in the
thermophilic fermentation, its share in the produced biogas
reached 50% already on day 6 of the process, while under meso-
philic conditions it was on day 7 (Fig. 4). Total volume of the
methane produced by this time was similar for both technologies.
Whereas the volume of biogas was significantly higher for ther-
mophilic fermentation. This proves faster hydrolysis reaction at
55
C.
(6)
3.3. Changes of the pH, VFA and conductivity
The confirmation of the hydrolysis processes intensification and
acidogenesis under thermophilic conditions is also the dynamics of
the changes of pH and the concentration of the volatile fatty acids
(VFA) in both technologies (Figs. 5 and 6).
Mesophilic fermentation of the maize straw silage was charac-
terized by very high stability. The growth of pH observed on the
second day the process was due to the conversion of organic acids
(from the substrate) into methane. Due to the low content of the
readily biodegradable compounds and a high polymers proportion
 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502 1499

Table 1
The physicochemical parameters of the used inoculum and maize straw silage.

Inoculum/substate Total solids [% FM] Volatile total Solids [% TS] pH Conductivity [mS/cm]

Mesophilic inoculum 2.55 61.82 7.85 14.43

Thermophilic inoculum 2.82 53.48 8.09 20.30
Maize straw silage 46.06 80.07 4.86 2.83

Fig. 2. Daily biogas production during methane fermentation of the maize straw silage Fig. 5. The change of pH and volatile fatty acids concentrations in methane fermen-
under mesophilic conditions. tation of the maize straw silage under mesophilic conditions.

Fig. 3. Daily biogas production during methane fermentation of the maize straw silage Fig. 6. The change of pH and volatile fatty acids concentrations in methane fermen-
under thermophilic conditions. tation of the maize straw silage under thermophilic conditions.

Moreover, the reduction of daily production of biogas and methane

Fig. 4. Cumulative methane production from the maize straw silage calculated on Mg
of fresh mass.
in the maize straw silage, the process of hydrolysis and acido-
genesis proceeded relatively slow. At the same time the conversion
of the resulting acids to methane occurred.
It is worth to pay attention to the increased concentration of
propionic acid in mesophilic fermentation, between 3 and 10 day of
the process it ranged from 1.038 up to 1.474 g/dm3 (7th day).
has been also observed in those days, which could be related to
propionic acid inhibition. According to literature data, the inhibi-
tion of the activity of methanogens and process disturbance is
observed already at values between 0,9 g/dm3 [26] to 1,1 g/dm3
[27]. Increased concentration of this acid, along with the trace
content of others, is related to the slower propagation of microor-
ganisms converting propionic acid and also indicates higher affinity
of mesophilic microflora to the biodegradation of acetic acid, lactic
acid, and butyric acid [28].
Thermophilic fermentation (Fig. 6) was characterized by a more
rapid decrease of the sample alkalinity in the first days of the
process. This resulted directly from intensive hydrolysis and acid
genesis along with slow use of acids produced by methanogens. In
the initial stage of the methane fermentation there was observed
an increase of butyric acid concentration which resulted from the
decomposition of lactic acid and sugars contained in the substrate
[29].
It is estimated that 70e80% of methane is formed of acetic acid
and 6e35% of the propionic one [30]. This trend was also evident in
this experiment, where on the third day of the process the
maximum concentration of acetic acid was reported at 4553 g/dm3,
1500 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502
while the propionic acid e 0.810 g/dm3 in the 9th day. However,
considerably smaller amount of propionic acid in temp. 55
C than
temp. 39
C (0.810 g/dm3 vs 1.474 g/dm3) indicates the start of
alternative metabolic pathways in thermophilic fermentation using
identical substrate. Thus, the process temperature, except the
source of carbon [31] and micro- and macronutrients supplemen-
tation is a factor significantly affecting the direction of fermentation
[32].
Thermophilic technology also showed a tendency to faster in-
crease of pH, which indicates a significantly faster conversion of
organic acids to methane after multiplication of methanogenic
microflora. Under mesophilic conditions the system needs 8 days to
obtain maximum alkalinity, whereas under thermophilic condi-
tions only five days. However it is worth to highlight the fact that
such rapid changes in the conditions of fermentation, which were
recorded in the thermophilic fermentation may adversely affect the
stability of the process.
Based on the changes of conductivity of the tested liquids it can
be concluded the level of sample mineralization (Fig. 7). However,
the periodic changes in the electrical conductivity of the ferment-
ing pulp indicate the inaccuracy of the method. Misrepresentation
of indications is probably due to the fact that the conductivity is not
proportional to the concentration of the electrolyte. Instead, it de-
pends on the size of dissolved ions and the power of their solvation
[33].
In both technologies, the electrical conductivity of the fer-
menting pulp increased linearly during the experiment. The in-
dications recorded at the end of the process were about 2 mS higher
in relation to the indications recorded at the beginning of the
experiment. This proves a similar degree of mineralization of the
substrate in both technologies. Significantly higher conductivity of
the reaction mixture in thermophilic fermentation is related to the
startup parameters of used inoculum.
3.4. Hydraulic retention time
An increase of the process temperature also had a positive
impact on the rate of biomass decomposition. The total time
required for attenuation of the maize straw silage under thermo-
philic conditions was 5 days shorter (17%) compared to mesophilic
fermentation (Fig. 8).
In practice, keeping the substrate in the digester chamber up to
the total attenuation of the available organic matter is not applied.
This is due to the fact that the last period of fermentation, which is
characterized by low production of biogas, can last very long [34].
Thus, such a process would require the construction of much larger
tanks with non-ergonomic shape and economically unprofitable
heating of the fermenters with low productivity. In addition, it
should be noted that the differences in the dynamics of
Fig. 7. Conductivity change during methane fermentation of maize straw silage under
meso- and thermophilic conditions.
Fig. 8. Time required for attenuation of 80, 90 and 100% maize straw silage under
meso- and thermophilic conditions.
fermentation in different temperatures take even higher values in a
continuous process. Adapting of the inoculum to fermentation of a
specific substrate under constant conditions can shorten -recorded
for thermophilic conditions in the first week of the process-the
period of lower production of biogas. Thereby contributing to the
further shortening of HRT.
In order to reflect the situation possibly close to the industrial
scale, Fig. 8 shows also the time required for decomposition of 80%
and 90% of the substrate. In the first case thermophilic process has
been reduced by 12% compared to mesophilic one, while in the
second by 14%. From an economic point of view the differences are
significant and have a positive impact on the final economic bal-
ance of the installation working in temperature 55
C.
3.5. Biogas efficiency
Table 2 summarizes the biogas efficiency and proportional
methane concentration in the biogas from maize straw silage in
methane fermentation process under meso- and thermophilic
conditions.
The use of thermophilic fermentation technology resulted in an
increase of the methane and biogas yield from the maize straw
silage respectively 9.3% and 8.6%. The growth of the methane effi-
ciency of the biomass with a large share of lignocellulosic com-
plexes are confirmed in the research of Shi et al. [24]. The positive
yield of methane in the 55
C probably is due to the change of the
spatial structure of the substrate, thereby increasing the availability
of the biodegradable organic matter under anaerobic conditions
[35].
Furthermore, the reaction environments in meso- and ther-
mophilic technologies are characterized by a very diverse micro-
flora [36], which involves a use of different metabolic pathways
[37]. Indirect metabolites occurring in consequences of changes
may significantly differ, thus affecting the final yield and content of
biogas [38]. However, to be more likely to conclude about the dif-
ferences in the decomposition process of the maize straw silage it is
necessary to conduct further research including qualitative and
quantitative composition of the substrate, the composition of the
microflora and the concentration of the soluble organic matter.
3.6. Energy calculations
The results of simplified economic and energy calculations are
show in Table 3.
Because of closed lagoon system implemented in Przybroda
biogas plant, 100% degree of substrate fermentation has been
adopted for calculations.
The maize straw silage has a similar biogas efficiency compared
to conventional maize silage. This is due to the increased dry mass
content in the straw (approx. 45% vs. 30e35%). Therefore, for the
same energy effect the demand for the substrate calculated into Mg
of the fresh mass is similar. However, the substrate price should be
kept in mind. The price of maize silage is three times higher, and
 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502 1501

Table 2
Biogas efficiency of the maize straw silage.

Sample Methane Fresh mass Total solids Volatile solids

content [%]
Cumulative methane Cumulative biogas Cumulative methane Cumulative biogas Cumulative methane Cumulative biogas
[m3/Mg FM] [m3/Mg FM] [m3/Mg TS] [m3/Mg TS] [m3/Mg VS] [m3/Mg VS]

Mesophilic 51.59 105.28 204.06 228.58 443.07 285.46 553.32

fermentation
Thermophilic 51.93 115.07 221.56 249.83 481.06 312.00 600.76
fermentation

Table 3
The energy efficiency of the maize silage and maize straw silage as the substrates for biogas plant 250 kW.

Substrate Fermentation technology Substrate massa [Mg/year] Price [EUR/Mg] Substrate cost [EUR/year] Income from electricity sale [EUR/year]

Maize silage Mesophilic 4261 29 122,095 226,372

Maize straw silage Mesophilic 4885 10 48,432
Maize straw silage Thermophilic 4469 10 44,551
a
Substrate mass needed to power biogas plant in Przybroda (250 kW) assuming 100% fermented biomass according to the Formula (6).

therefore the annual cost of biomass needed to supply the biogas
plant 250 kW is 122 thousands EUR compared to 48 thousands and
45 thousands EUR in case of maize straw silage.
Calculating the income for Przybroda biogas plant only aspect of
the electricity sale was included. The heat produced during the
combustion of the biogas in cogeneration unit will be used to heat
the digester reactors and the surrounding farm buildings, which
additionally contributes to obtain the incomes from yellow
certificates.
Fig. 9 summarizes the annual cost of the substrate needed to
power Przybroda biogas plant and the revenues from the sale of
“black power” and associated certificates.
As shown in this graph, the share of the maize silage in the
revenues is 55% compared to 21% for maize straw silage fermented
under mesophilic conditions and 19% for the same substrate in the
thermophilic technology. Those results show that use of the whole
maize plant silage, especially in the current difficult branch of RES,
may be the reason for lack of profitability of the biogas plants.
It should be noted that the use of the maize straw silage, due to
the longer retention time than in case of maize silage, involves the
necessity of the construction of a larger fermentation tank.
4. Conclusions
Maize straw silage, due to its waste character and relatively low
price, is a good alternative substrate for biogas plant. However the
hydraulic retention time needed for complete fermentation is
longer than in case of maize silage because of higher content of
lignocellulosic fraction which is hardly decomposable. Thermo-
philic fermentation is significantly shorter (17%) than mesophilic
and permits to increase biogas production and methane content.
This is probably the effect of the looseness of the lignocellulose
complexes and increasing substrate accessibility for the bacteria, as
well as acceleration of chemical reactions and running of alterna-
tive metabolic ways in temperature of 55
C.
On the other hand, taking into account the stability of the pro-
cess, the mesophilic technology has more stable pH changes
compared to the thermophilic technology. However, it is related to
the propionic acid inhibition, which can have a great importance
for the constant fermentation. The reversed situation is in the
thermophilic fermentation, as it is characterized by a lower pH
stability, but in this technology does not occur the phenomenon of
the indirect metabolites process inhibition.
On the basis of energetic calculations it was shown that the
maize straw silage is a valuable biogas substrate in terms of energy
efficiency, comparable in FM with the efficiency of the whole plant
silage. The substitution of the maize silage with the maize straw
silage allows for nearly three-fold costs reduction and thus increase
of the biogas plant profitability. Therefore the use of maize straw
silage as a feedstock for biogas plant solves the problem between
food production and agricultural biogas production. However it is
necessary to conduct further optimization testing of the fermen-
tation of this substrate in a continuous system.
Acknowledgments
This paper was created as a result of the realization of the
project entitled “Technologies of methane emission reduction from
animal production in the context of GHG reduction” financed by the
Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (contract number:
N N313 271338; 2010e13).
References

[1] BP. Statistical review of world energy. 2013. http://www.bp.com/content/

Fig. 9. The annual cost of the substrate needed to power a 250 kW biogas plant in
combination with the income from the electricity sale.
dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf.
Downloaded May 2014.
[2] Iniyan S, Sumathy K. An optimal renewable energy model for various end-
uses. Energy 2000;25(6):563e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(99)
00090-0.
[3] Budzianowski WM. Sustainable biogas energy in Poland: prospects and
challenge. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16(1):342e9. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.161.
[4] Iglinski B, Buczkowski R, Iglinska A, Cichosz M, Piechota G, Kujawski W.
Agricultural biogas plants in Poland: investment process, economic and
environmental aspects, biogas potential. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16(7):4890e900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.04.037.
[5] Dach J, Czekała W, Boniecki P, Lewicki A, Piechota T. Specialised internet tool
for biogas plant modelling and marked analysing. AMR 2014;909:305e10.
1502 M. Cie
slik et al. / Energy 115 (2016) 1495e1502
DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.909.305.
[6] White EM, Latta G, Alig RJ, Skog KE, Adams DM. Biomass production from the
U.S. forest and agriculture sectors in support of a renewable electricity stan-
dard. Energy Policy 2013;58:64e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2013.02.029.
[7] Mathiesen BV, Lund H, Connolly D. Limiting biomass consumption for heating
in 100% renewable energy systems. Energy 2012;48:160e8. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2012.07.063.
[8] Lewicki A, Pilarski K, Janczak D, Czekała W, Rodrigues Carmona PC, Cie
slik M,
et al. The biogas production from herbs and waste from herbal industry. J Res
Appl Agric Engng 2013;58(1):114e7.
[9] Piwowar A, Dziku
c M, Adamczyk J. Agricultural biogas plants in Poland e
selected technological, market and environmental aspects. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;58:69e74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.153.
[10] Wünsch K, Gruber S, Claupein W. Profitability analysis of cropping systems for
biogas production on marginal sites in southwestern Germany. Renew Energ
2012;45:213e20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.03.010.
[11] Dach J, Boniecki P, Przybył J, Janczak D, Lewicki A, Czekała W, et al. Energetic
efficiency analysis of the agricultural biogas plant in 250 kWe experimental
installation. Energy 2014;69:34e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2014.02.013.
[12] Zhang X, Ruoshui W, Molin H, Martinot E. A study of the role played by
renewable energies in China's sustainable energy supply. Energy 2010;35:
4392e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.05.030.
[13] Mo Z, Pilarski K. Preliminary comparison of biogas productivity from maize
silage and maize straw silage. J Res Appl Agric Eng 2011;56(2):108e10.
[14] Janczak D, Marciniak M, Lewicki A, Czekała W, Witaszek K, Rodríguez
Carmona PC, et al. Bioreactor internet system for experimental data moni-
toring and measurement. Procedia Technol 2013;8:209e14. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.protcy.2013.11.029.
[15] Starzyk J, Czekała W. The influence of admixtures accelerating the pine bark
composting process on variation in the bacteriological state of composts. Arch
Environ Prot 2014;40(4):125e35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/aep-2014-0044.
[16] Białobrzewski I, Miks-Krajnik M, Dach J, Markowski M, Czekała W,
Głuchowska K. Model of the sewage sludge-straw composting process inte-
grating different heat generation capacities of mesophilic and thermophilic
microorganisms. Waste Manage 2015;43:72e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2015.05.036.
[17] Lewicki A, Dach J, Boniecki P, Czekała W, Witaszek K. The control of air hu-
midity and temperature in relationship with a biowaste composting process.
AMR 2014;909:455e62. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.909.455.
[18] Papurello D, Lanzini A, Tognana L, Silvestri S, Santarelli M. Waste to energy:
exploitation of biogas from organic waste in a 500 Wel solid oxide fuel cell
(SOFC) stack. Energy 2015;85:145e58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2015.03.093.
[19] Borja R, Martin A, Banks CJ, Alonso V, Chica A. A kinetic study of anaerobic
digestion of olive mill wastewater at mesophilic and thermophilic tempera-
tures. Environ Pollut 1995;88:13e8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(95)
91043-K.
[20] Kinnunen HV, Koskinen PEP, Rintala J. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic
laboratory-scale digestion of Nannochloropsis microalga residues. Bioresour
Technol 2014;155:314e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.115.
[21] Kim M, Ahn YH, Speece RE. Comparative process stability and efficiency of
anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Res 2002;36:
4369e85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00147-1.
[22] Golkowska K, Greger M. Anaerobic digestion of maize and cellulose under
thermophilic and mesophilic conditions e a comparative study. Biomass
Bioenerg 2013;56:545e54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.05.029.
[23] Ferna
ndez-Rodríguez J, Pe
rez M, Romero LI. Comparison of mesophilic and
thermophilic dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW: kinetic analysis. Chem Eng J
2013;232:59e64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.07.066.
[24] Shi J, Wang Z, Stiverson JA, Yu Z, Li Y. Reactor performance and microbial
community dynamics during solid-state anaerobic digestion of corn stover at
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour Technol 2013;136:
574e81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.02.073.
[25] Irlbeck NA, Russell JR, Hallauer AR, Buxton DR. Nutritive value and ensiling
characteristics of maize stover as influenced by hybrid maturity and gener-
ation, plant density and harvest date. Anim Feed Sci Tech 1993;41(1):51e64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(93)90094-Z.
[26] Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wang J, Meng L. Effects of volatile fatty acid concentrations
on methane yield and methanogenic bacteria. Biomass Bioenerg 2009;33(5):
848e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.01.007.
[27] Nielsen HB, Uellendahl H, Ahring BK. Regulation and optimization of the
biogas process: propionate as a key parameter. Biomass Bioenerg 2007;31:
820e30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.04.004.
€
[28] Oztürk M. Conversion of acetate, propionate and butyrate to methane under
thermophilic conditions in batch reactors. Water Res 1991;25(12):1509e13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(91)90181-O.
[29] Gottschalk G. Bacterial metabolism. second ed. New York: Springer; 1986.
[30] Tang YQ, Shigematsu T, Morimura S, Kida K. Dynamics of the microbial
community during continuous methane fermentation in continuously stirred
tank reactors. J Biosci Bioeng 2015;119(4):375e83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbiosc.2014.09.014.
[31] Kundu K, Bergmann I, Hahnke S, Klocke M, Sharma S, Sreekrishnan TR. Carbon
source e a strong determinant of microbial community structure and per-
formance of an anaerobic reactor. J Biotechnol 2013;168:616e24. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.08.023.
[32] Panichnumsin P, Ahring B, Nopharatana A, Chaiprasert P. Microbial commu-
nity structure and performance of an anaerobic reactor digesting cassava pulp
and pig manure. Water Sci Technol 2012;66:1590e600. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2166/wst.2012.358.
[33] Atkins PW. Chemia fizyczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; 2001.
[34] Bohn I, Bjo€rnsson L, Mattiasson B. The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic
digestion of crop residues at 11e37
C. Process Biochem 2007;42(1):57e64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2006.07.013.
[35] Rafique R, Poulsen TG, Nizami AS, Murphy JD, Kiely G. Effect of thermal,
chemical and thermo-chemical pre-treatments to enhance methane produc-
tion. Energy 2010;35(12):4556e61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2010.07.011.
[36] Guo X, Wang C, Sun F, Zhu W, Wu W. A comparison of microbial character-
istics between the thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digesters exposed
to elevated food waste loadings. Bioresour Technol 2014;152:420e8. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.11.012.
[37] Bouskova
A, Doha
nyos M, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I. Strategies for changing
temperature from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions in anaerobic CSTR
reactors treating sewage sludge. Water Res 2005;39:1481e8. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.12.042.
[38] Batstone D, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi S, Pavlostathis S, Rozzi A, et al.
The IWA anaerobic digestion model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci Technol
2002;45(10):65e73.