Authors : Moluno, A. N; Eme, L. C.; Ezeugwu, N.C.; Ohaji, E.C.

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/y99cyrdz

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jun1051

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study explores biogas production from agricultural waste as a sustainable energy alternative, focusing on regions rich in agro-waste. Using a Hierarchical Bayesian model, the research assesses the energy potential of pig dung, poultry droppings, cassava peels, and cow dung. Data were collected via anaerobic digestion in a 1-cubic-meter locally built digester, where biogas volume, methane content, and thermal efficiency were recorded. Cassava peels yielded the highest energy output (818.4 MJ/day), followed by poultry droppings (506.88 MJ/day), cow dung (348.48 MJ/day), and pig dung (13.64 MJ/day), demonstrating notable variability among feedstocks. The Hierarchical Bayesian Agricultural Yield Model (H-BAYM) captured overall and feedstock-specific impacts on biogas output. The global energy yield intercept was estimated at 417.53 MJ/day (SD = 59.74), with feedstock-specific coefficients ranging from 15.64 to 35.49 MJ/day. Regional effects varied from 41.02 to 63.08 MJ/day, reflecting local differences. The model's Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) of 135.7 indicated a good balance between model fit and complexity. Using Bayesian inference and Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), parameter uncertainties and interdependencies were reliably estimated. Cassava peels emerged as the most promising feedstock, and H-BAYM offers valuable insights for policymakers to plan region-specific biogas initiatives, advancing renewable energy goals in developing regions.

Keywords : Biogas Production, Agricultural Waste, Hierarchical Bayesian Model, Cassava Peels, Anaerobic Digestion, Renewable Energy, Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC).

References :

1. Abbasi, T., Tauseef, S.M. and Abbasi, S.A. (2012) Biogas Energy. Springer, New York, 1-10.
2. Achinas, S., Krooneman, J., & Euverink, G. J. W. (2019). Enhanced Biogas Production from the Anaerobic Batch Treatment of Banana Peels. Engineering, 5(5), 970–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.11.036
3. Balcioglu, G., Jeswani, H. K., & Azapagic, A. (2022). Evaluating the environmental and economic sustainability of energy from anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks in Turkey. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 32, 924–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.011
4. Banerjee, S., Carlin, B.P. and Gelfand, A.E. (2004) Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton.
5. Caruso, M. C., Braghieri, A., Capece, A., Napolitano, F., Romano, P., Galgano, F., … Genovese, F. (2019). Recent updates on the use of agro-food waste for biogas production. Applied Sciences (Switzerland). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061217
6. Catherine, C., & Twizerimana, M. (2022). Biogas production from thermochemically pretreated sweet potato root waste. Heliyon, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10376
7. Gao, M., Wang, D., Wang, H., Wang, X., & Feng, Y. (2019). Biogas potential, utilization and countermeasures in agricultural provinces: A case study of biogas development in Henan Province, China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.10.005
8. Gelman, A., and Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136
9. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D.B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis (3rd ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC.
10. Hoff, P. D. (2009). A first course in Bayesian statistical methods. Springer.
11. Kasinath, A., Fudala-Ksiazek, S., Szopinska, M., Bylinski, H., Artichowicz, W., Remiszewska-Skwarek, A., & Luczkiewicz, A. (2021). Biomass in biogas production: Pretreatment and codigestion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111509
12. Maghanaki, M. M., Ghobadian, B., Najafi, G., & Galogah, R. J. (2013). Potential of biogas production in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.021
13. Nwokolo, N., Mukumba, P., Obileke, K., & Enebe, M. (2020). Waste to energy: A focus on the impact of substrate type in biogas production. Processes. MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8101224
14. Otieno, E. O., Kiplimo, R., & Mutwiwa, U. (2023). Optimization of anaerobic digestion parameters for biogas production from pineapple wastes co-digested with livestock wastes. Heliyon, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14041
15. Robert, C., & Casella, G. (2011). Monte Carlo statistical methods (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4145-2
16. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P. and Van Der Linde, A. (2002) Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 64, 583-639. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353
17. Stagnati, L., Soffritti, G., Lanubile, A., & Busconi, M. (2017). Comparison of six methods for the recovery of PCR-compatible microbial DNA from an agricultural biogas plant. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 101(9), 3907–3917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-017-8152-5
18. Stangl, D. (2011). A First Course in Bayesian Statistical Methods by HOFF, P. D. Biometrics, 67(2), 674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0420.2011.01612.x
19. Sumardiono, S., Hawali Abdul Matin, H., Ivan Hartono, I., Choiruly, L., & Budiyono. (2022). Biogas production from corn stalk as agricultural waste containing high cellulose material by anaerobic process. In Materials Today: Proceedings (Vol. 63, pp. S477–S483). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.135
20. Szűcs, C., Kovács, E., Bagi, Z., Rákhely, G., & Kovács, K. L. (2021). Enhancing biogas production from agroindustrial waste pre-treated with filamentous fungi. Biologia Futura, 72(3), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42977-021-00083-3
21. Tshemese, Z., Deenadayalu, N., Linganiso, L. Z., & Chetty, M. (2023, February 1). An Overview of Biogas Production from Anaerobic
22. Digestion and the Possibility of Using Sugarcane Wastewater and Municipal Solid Waste in a South African Context. Applied System Innovation. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi6010013
23. Wieland, P. (2010). Biogas Production: Current States and Perspectives. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 85, 849-860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2246-7