Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood

Saddam Saleh Yusuf; Muhammad Ismail; Jibrin Abdullahi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood

Saddam Saleh Yusuf, Muhammad Ismail, Jibrin Abdullahi

Published in American Journal of Energy Engineering (Volume 8, Issue 3)

Received: 13 August 2020 Accepted: 26 August 2020 Published: 14 September 2020

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The increasing negative effects of hydro carbon fossil fuels on the environment has called for quest for alternative source of energy. Among the renewable energy sources, biogas has been evaluated as one of the most effective, efficient and environmentally benign sources of energy. This study evaluates the flammability of biogas produced from cow dung compared with firewood. The experiment was conducted batch wise in mixing ratio 1:1 at mesophilic temperature under 25 days retention time. Weighing balance was used to measure the cow dung and firewood. Biogas production and firewood flammability were measured using combustibility test in seconds using stopwatch. The total gas yield was burnt and recorded 5,088 seconds (1hour 24.8mins), on average 1kg of cow dung produces biogas that burns for 636 seconds (10.6mins), the gas burnt with clear blue flame revealing the effectiveness of water scrubbing method, while the 8kg of firewood was burnt 8,208 seconds (2hours 28mins). On average 1kg of wood fuel burns for 1,026 seconds (17.1 mins). Comparing the result in term of flammability and efficiency, Biogas could be used as waste management option, generate light and run vehicles and at the same time replace the use of firewood which produces toxic gases that are harmful to health, thus biogas is more efficient.

Published in	American Journal of Energy Engineering (Volume 8, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
Page(s)	26-33
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Biogas, Firewood, Combustibility Test, Waste Management

References

[1]	Alfa, M. L. [2013]. Comparative Study of Biogas Poduction from Cow Dung, Chicken Droppings and Cymbopogon citratus as Alternative Energy Sources in Nigeria. A MSc Dissertation Submitted to The School of Postgraduate Studies, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Nigeria.
[2]	Allam Z. [2019]. Enhancing Renewable Energy Adoption in Megacities through Energy Diversification, Land Fragmentation and Fiscal Mechanisms. Sustainable Cities and Society. 1-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101841.
[3]	Amigun, B., Parawira W., Musango J. K., Aboyade A. O. and Badmos A. S. [2012]. Anaerobic Biogas Generation for Rural Area Energy Provision in Africa.
[4]	Bashir, A. M. [2006]. Construction of suitable digester for biogas production in school laboratories. An unpublished Msc. Thesis submitted to the department of Biological sciences [Education], Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.
[5]	Benyi, X., Wenzhe, Z., Hao, Y., Yu Q., Jing, W., Junxin, L. and Yu-You L, [2018]. Biogas production by two-stage thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and paper waste: Effect of paper waste ratio, Renewable energy.
[6]	Blimpo, M. P., and Malcolm, C. [2019]. Electricity Access in Sub-Saharan Africa: Uptake, Reliability, and Complementary Factors for Economic Impact. Africa Development Forum series. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1596/978-1-4648-13610. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO availableat https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31333/9781464813610.pdf?seque nce=6&isAllowed=y.
[7]	Chatterjee, D. and Saha, S. [2018] Response of soil properties and soil microbial communities to the projected climate change. In Advances in Crop Environment Interaction [eds Bal, S. et al.] Springer, Singapore. pp. 87-136. 2.
[8]	Courtney, B. and Dorman, D. [2003]. World Wide Fossil Fuels. Chemistry Department of Louisiana State University.
[9]	Diagi, E. A., Akinyemi, M. L., Emetere, M. E., Ogunrinola, I. E. and Ndubuisi, A. O. [2019]. Comparative Analysis of Biogas Produced from Cow Dung and Poultry Droppings. Earth and Environmental Science. 331 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/331/1/012064.
[10]	Dow, K., Downing, T. [2006]. The Atlas of Climate Change: Mapping The World’s Greatest Challenge. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
[11]	Evbuomwan B. O and Okorji C. J [2018]. Determination of The Fuel Wood Properties of Selected Nigerian Wood Trees. Global scientific Journal, vol 6, 7, 1019-1033.
[12]	Ike, C. C., Ezeibe C. C., Anijiofor S. C., NikDaud N. N. [2018] Solid waste management in Nigeria: problems, prospects, and policies. The journal of solid waste management, vol. 44.
[13]	IPCC, [2014]. Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [eds Field, C. B. et al.], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–32.
[14]	Karki A., Dhital A., Amrit, M. N., Ram S., Isha K., Pankaj. [eds] [2015]. Biogas as Renewable Source of Energy in Nepal: Theory and Development.
[15]	LBS, [2002]. GM Well-to-Wheel analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicle systems-A European Study. 133 p., L-B-Systemtechnik GmbH, Ottobrunn Germany.
[16]	Li, H., Sun, B., Yuan, Y. and Yang, J. [2019]. Guanidine derivative polymer coated microbubble resonator for high sensitivity detection of CO₂ gas concentration. Optic Express, Vol. 27, No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.27.001991.
[17]	Monnet, F. [2003]. An Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste. A Report by Remade, Scotland.
[18]	Monshi, M. M., Aghaei, S. M and Calizo, I. [2017]. Doping and defect-induced germanene: a superior media for sensing H₂S, SO₂, and CO₂ gas molecules. Surf. Sci. 665, 96–102.
[19]	Musa, R. [2017]. Effects of additives on biogas production from cow dung and chicken dropping mixed with Digitaria smuts ii. A Master’s Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria.
[20]	Peng, F., Wang, S., Yu, W., Huang, T., Sun, Y., Cheng, C., Chen, X., Hao, J and Dai1, N. 2020]. Ultrasensitive ppb level H₂S gas sensor at room temperature based on WO₃/rGO hybrids. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-020-03067-6.
[21]	Rajput and Sheikh. [2019]. Effect of inoculum type and organic loading on biogas production of sunflower meal and wheat straw. Sustainable Environment Research. 29: 4.
[22]	Ramaraj, R and Unpaprom, Y, [2016]. Effect of temperature on the performance of biogas Production from Duckweed. Chemistry Research Journal, 1 [1]: 58-66.
[23]	Ren, B., Zhao, Y., Lyczko, N and Nzihou, A. [2018]. Current Status and Outlook of Odor Removal Technologies in Wastewater Treatment Plant. Waste and Biomass Valorization https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0384-9.
[24]	Shokravi, M. M and Nasirian, S. [2019]. Improved carbon dioxide gas sensing features of zinc oxide nanorods assisted by an organic fller for dynamic situations. Applied Physics A Material Science and Processing, 125: 730 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-019-3021-y.
[25]	Sunarso, J., Widiasa S. and Budiyono I. N. [2012]. The Effect of Feed to Inoculums Ratio on Biogas Production Rate from Cattle Manure Using Rumen Fluid as Inoculums. Internat. J. of Waste Resources, 2 [1]: 1-4.
[26]	UNEP United Nations Environment Programme [2019]. Review of Wood Fuel Biomass Production and Utilization in Africa: A Desk Study.
[27]	United Nations. [2017]. World Population Prospects: Key findings & advance tables. New York, NY: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
[28]	Verstraete, W., Morgan-Sagastume, F., Aiyuk, S., Waweru, M., Rabaey, K., Lissens, G. [2005]. Anaerobic digestion as a core technology in sustainable management of organic matter. Water Science and Technology, 52 [1-2], 59-66.
[29]	Wang, Q. Y., Tian, J., Kato, M. T., Rong, Y. J., He, Y. L. and Ji, F. [2018]. Anaerobic co-digestion of wastes from fruit processing and activated sludge reactor in juice production industry. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science186 [2018] 012042.
[30]	Yukalang, N., Clarke. B. and Ross, K. [2017]. Barriers to effective municipal solid waste management in a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 14, 1013.
[31]	Yukalang, N., Clarke. B. and Ross, K. [2018]. Solid Waste Management Solutions for a Rapidly Urbanization Area in Thailand: Recommendations Based on Stakeholder Input. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 15, 1302.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Saddam Saleh Yusuf, Muhammad Ismail, Jibrin Abdullahi. (2020). Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood. American Journal of Energy Engineering, 8(3), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Saddam Saleh Yusuf; Muhammad Ismail; Jibrin Abdullahi. Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood. Am. J. Energy Eng. 2020, 8(3), 26-33. doi: 10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Saddam Saleh Yusuf, Muhammad Ismail, Jibrin Abdullahi. Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood. Am J Energy Eng. 2020;8(3):26-33. doi: 10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11,
  author = {Saddam Saleh Yusuf and Muhammad Ismail and Jibrin Abdullahi},
  title = {Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood},
  journal = {American Journal of Energy Engineering},
  volume = {8},
  number = {3},
  pages = {26-33},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajee.20200803.11},
  abstract = {The increasing negative effects of hydro carbon fossil fuels on the environment has called for quest for alternative source of energy. Among the renewable energy sources, biogas has been evaluated as one of the most effective, efficient and environmentally benign sources of energy. This study evaluates the flammability of biogas produced from cow dung compared with firewood. The experiment was conducted batch wise in mixing ratio 1:1 at mesophilic temperature under 25 days retention time. Weighing balance was used to measure the cow dung and firewood. Biogas production and firewood flammability were measured using combustibility test in seconds using stopwatch. The total gas yield was burnt and recorded 5,088 seconds (1hour 24.8mins), on average 1kg of cow dung produces biogas that burns for 636 seconds (10.6mins), the gas burnt with clear blue flame revealing the effectiveness of water scrubbing method, while the 8kg of firewood was burnt 8,208 seconds (2hours 28mins). On average 1kg of wood fuel burns for 1,026 seconds (17.1 mins). Comparing the result in term of flammability and efficiency, Biogas could be used as waste management option, generate light and run vehicles and at the same time replace the use of firewood which produces toxic gases that are harmful to health, thus biogas is more efficient.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood
AU  - Saddam Saleh Yusuf
AU  - Muhammad Ismail
AU  - Jibrin Abdullahi
Y1  - 2020/09/14
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
T2  - American Journal of Energy Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Energy Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Energy Engineering
SP  - 26
EP  - 33
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2329-163X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
AB  - The increasing negative effects of hydro carbon fossil fuels on the environment has called for quest for alternative source of energy. Among the renewable energy sources, biogas has been evaluated as one of the most effective, efficient and environmentally benign sources of energy. This study evaluates the flammability of biogas produced from cow dung compared with firewood. The experiment was conducted batch wise in mixing ratio 1:1 at mesophilic temperature under 25 days retention time. Weighing balance was used to measure the cow dung and firewood. Biogas production and firewood flammability were measured using combustibility test in seconds using stopwatch. The total gas yield was burnt and recorded 5,088 seconds (1hour 24.8mins), on average 1kg of cow dung produces biogas that burns for 636 seconds (10.6mins), the gas burnt with clear blue flame revealing the effectiveness of water scrubbing method, while the 8kg of firewood was burnt 8,208 seconds (2hours 28mins). On average 1kg of wood fuel burns for 1,026 seconds (17.1 mins). Comparing the result in term of flammability and efficiency, Biogas could be used as waste management option, generate light and run vehicles and at the same time replace the use of firewood which produces toxic gases that are harmful to health, thus biogas is more efficient.
VL  - 8
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Saddam Saleh Yusuf

Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Physical Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
Muhammad Ismail

Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Physical Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
Jibrin Abdullahi

Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Physical Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Saddam Saleh Yusuf, Muhammad Ismail, Jibrin Abdullahi. (2020). Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood. American Journal of Energy Engineering, 8(3), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Saddam Saleh Yusuf; Muhammad Ismail; Jibrin Abdullahi. Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood. Am. J. Energy Eng. 2020, 8(3), 26-33. doi: 10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Saddam Saleh Yusuf, Muhammad Ismail, Jibrin Abdullahi. Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood. Am J Energy Eng. 2020;8(3):26-33. doi: 10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11,
  author = {Saddam Saleh Yusuf and Muhammad Ismail and Jibrin Abdullahi},
  title = {Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood},
  journal = {American Journal of Energy Engineering},
  volume = {8},
  number = {3},
  pages = {26-33},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajee.20200803.11},
  abstract = {The increasing negative effects of hydro carbon fossil fuels on the environment has called for quest for alternative source of energy. Among the renewable energy sources, biogas has been evaluated as one of the most effective, efficient and environmentally benign sources of energy. This study evaluates the flammability of biogas produced from cow dung compared with firewood. The experiment was conducted batch wise in mixing ratio 1:1 at mesophilic temperature under 25 days retention time. Weighing balance was used to measure the cow dung and firewood. Biogas production and firewood flammability were measured using combustibility test in seconds using stopwatch. The total gas yield was burnt and recorded 5,088 seconds (1hour 24.8mins), on average 1kg of cow dung produces biogas that burns for 636 seconds (10.6mins), the gas burnt with clear blue flame revealing the effectiveness of water scrubbing method, while the 8kg of firewood was burnt 8,208 seconds (2hours 28mins). On average 1kg of wood fuel burns for 1,026 seconds (17.1 mins). Comparing the result in term of flammability and efficiency, Biogas could be used as waste management option, generate light and run vehicles and at the same time replace the use of firewood which produces toxic gases that are harmful to health, thus biogas is more efficient.},
 year = {2020}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparative Study on the Rate of Flammability of Biogas and Firewood
AU  - Saddam Saleh Yusuf
AU  - Muhammad Ismail
AU  - Jibrin Abdullahi
Y1  - 2020/09/14
PY  - 2020
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
T2  - American Journal of Energy Engineering
JF  - American Journal of Energy Engineering
JO  - American Journal of Energy Engineering
SP  - 26
EP  - 33
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2329-163X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajee.20200803.11
AB  - The increasing negative effects of hydro carbon fossil fuels on the environment has called for quest for alternative source of energy. Among the renewable energy sources, biogas has been evaluated as one of the most effective, efficient and environmentally benign sources of energy. This study evaluates the flammability of biogas produced from cow dung compared with firewood. The experiment was conducted batch wise in mixing ratio 1:1 at mesophilic temperature under 25 days retention time. Weighing balance was used to measure the cow dung and firewood. Biogas production and firewood flammability were measured using combustibility test in seconds using stopwatch. The total gas yield was burnt and recorded 5,088 seconds (1hour 24.8mins), on average 1kg of cow dung produces biogas that burns for 636 seconds (10.6mins), the gas burnt with clear blue flame revealing the effectiveness of water scrubbing method, while the 8kg of firewood was burnt 8,208 seconds (2hours 28mins). On average 1kg of wood fuel burns for 1,026 seconds (17.1 mins). Comparing the result in term of flammability and efficiency, Biogas could be used as waste management option, generate light and run vehicles and at the same time replace the use of firewood which produces toxic gases that are harmful to health, thus biogas is more efficient.
VL  - 8
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download