Sky Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management Vol. 3(5), pp.

50 - 58, June, 2014

Available online http://www.skyjournals.org/SJSSEM
ISSN 2315-8794© 2014 Sky Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Potential of biogas production from palm oil mills’

effluent in Nigeria
Elijah Ige Ohimain* and Sylvester Chibueze Izah
Bioenergy and Environmental Biotechnology Research Unit, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science,
Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria.
Accepted 23 May, 2014

In the recent years, global energy demand has increased. Several bio-wastes are capable of producing energy
during treatment preferably through bio-methanation route, thereby preventing the challenges associated with
the disposal of the same. In Nigeria, several kiloliters/tonnes of palm oil mill effluent (POME) are produced
during processing of crude palm oil. This study evaluated the potential of biogas production from POME that is
being discharged into the environment without treatment. Historical study period of this paper remained from
2004 to 2013. Palm oil production data and literature on biogas production using different anaerobic bio-
digesters to convert POME to biogas was used for estimation. Projections of the production rate at three
scenarios (high, low and current status) were made. Among the several anaerobic bio-digesters evaluated,
Expanded Granular Sludge Bed (EGSB) reactor was found to produce the highest methane gas at the lower
hydraulic retention time. Four groups of microorganisms, including hydrolytic, acetogenic, acidogenic and
methanogenic bacteria, are capable of degrading complex polymers of POME to produce methane and carbon
dioxide as the principal gases. The concentration and yield of methane is depended on properties of the POME
including pH, mixing, operating temperature, nutrient availability and organic loading rates and microbial
activity. Thermophilic temperature range (45 to 65°C) and neutral pH provides good conditions for other
parameters to react well to produce the desired product. Based on the above criteria, it is estimated that Nigeria
3 3
has lost 312 million m of methane in 2004 which reached 367 million m in 2013 by wasting POME road side in
3
place of processing it through EGSB reactor. Projections depict that 555, 457 and 409 million m of methane gas
could be produced under high, low and current status production rates scenario respectively up to 2030, if
Nigeria harnesses the energy contained in POME. The biogas produced from POME could be useful in
generation of combined heat and power (CHP).

Key words: Anaerobic digestion, biogas, biogas reactors, energy from POME, methanogenic bacteria, microbial
amylase, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria is a country blessed with several energy petroleum products which have been largely reported as
resources including both renewable and non-renewable. the main cause of greenhouse gases leading to global
Over the years, the non-renewable resources have been warming is depleting in reserve. The renewable energy
the center of energy mix contributing to gross domestic resources include biomass, hydropower, solar, wind etc.
product of the country while creating employment. The biomass has a substantial advantage over other
Petroleum production dominated Nigeria on non- renewable resources due to their ability to mitigate
renewable resources. In the current situation, the carbon dioxide emissions through the mechanism of
photosynthesis and providing energy without any
interruption. In both developed and developing countries
like Nigeria, several feedstocks have emerged as having
*Corresponding author: E-mail:[email protected]. potential for energy production. These feedstocks include
 Ohimain et al. 51

4.8

4.6

million metric tonnes

4.4

4.2

3.8

3.6
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

year

Figure 1. The total FFB produced in Nigeria (2004 – 2013).

cassava, sugar cane, sweet sorghum and oil palm. Oil Nigeria, while Figure 2 shows the POME generated
palm is the most productive oil bearing crop in the world during oil palm processing in the last 10 financial years
that thrives in both tropical and subtropical regions (Izah starting from 2004 to 2013.
and Ohimain, 2013a). The crude palm oil produced has The POME discharged into the environment emits
found applications in food and biodiesel production greenhouse gases including methane and carbon
(Ohimain et al., 2012a; Izah and Ohimain, 2013b). During dioxide. Methane and carbon dioxide are produced under
oil palm processing, enormous wastes are generated that anaerobic conditions, but under aerobic condition, carbon
so far remained underutilized in palm oil mills in Nigeria. dioxide and water are produced. Basically greenhouse
These wastes from oil palm processing include both solid gases contribute to climatic change impacting on
(Empty fruit bunch, palm press fiber, palm kernel shell biodiversity that include change in the breading pattern,
and chaff) (Ohimain et al., 2013a; Ohimain and Izah, population and ecosystem deterioration. Methane gas is
2013a, 2014a) and liquid wastes (Palm oil mill effluents) 21 times deleterious compare to carbon dioxide (Energy
(Ismali et al., 2010; Ohimain and Izah, 2013b; Ohimain et Wise, 2011). Ohimain and Izah (2014b) reported that the
al., 2013c, 2012b,c). POME is generally discharged into possible contribution of methane and carbon dioxide from
the ecosystem the stream/water bodies in mills close to POME to greenhouse gases is rising and going on
rivers and find its way into the soil without adequate unnoticed. Figure 3 shows the possible methane and
treatment, while the unutilized solid waste is burnt on the carbon dioxide that could have been emitted from POME
road side adjacent to the mill leading to loss of energy in the last 10 years (2004 - 2013). The authors reported
and air pollution (Ohimain et al., 2013a). that the value could be significantly lesser since POME is
During palm oil production, large volume of water is discharged after processing in aerobic/oxidation ponds.
used, of which substantial quantity ends up as POME. POME is degraded by the activities of hydrolytic,
Ahmad et al. (2003) and Wu et al. (2009) reported that in acetogenic, acidogenic and methanogenic
the processing of one tonne of Fresh Fruit Bunch (FFB) microorganisms in anaerobic digestion. Biogas is
about 5 to 7.5 tons of water is used. Out of this water produced from POME using aerobic (open pond system)
quantity, as Ohimain and Izah (2013b), Singh et al. and anaerobic digester (closed pond/digester). High
(2010), Okwute and Isu (2007), Awotoye et al. (2011) and concentration of biogas is produced under anaerobic
Chavalparit et al. (2006) reported that about 50 to 79% conditions compared to aerobic state. In this regard,
ends up as POME. In Nigeria, over the years, several different anaerobic bio-digesters have been developed to
million tonnes of water is being used for oil palm capture methane gas from POME in different countries.
processing and a large quantity of the same ends up as These include:
POME, which is normally discharged into the ecosystem
untreated leading to loss of biodiversity including flora
and fauna especially fisheries (Sridhar and Adeoluwa, Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor,
2009; Awotoye et al., 2011). In addition to above losses Up-flow anaerobic sludge fixed-film (UASFF) reactor,
odor pollution is also associated with POME if discharged Modified anaerobic baffled reactor (MABR),
especially during the rainy season thereby causing Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR),
environmental nuisance to inhabitants of the region. Anaerobic pond, anaerobic digester,
Figure 1 shows the estimated values of FFB production in Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor,
52 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.

19
18.5
18

million, metric tonne

17.5
17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

Figure 2. The total POME generated in Nigeria (2004 – 2013).

350.00
300.00
250.00
million m3

200.00
150.00
Methane
100.00
Carbon dioxide
50.00
0.00

year

Figure 3. Methane and carbon dioxide emission from POME in Nigeria since the
past 10 years.

Ultrasonic Membrane Anaerobic System (UMAS), Microorganisms utilize the nutrient found in POME
Membrane Anaerobic System (MAS) and thereby reducing the organic reduction rate to produce
Anaerobic filtration. methane under anaerobic condition. The population of
the POME microorganisms could be a function of
During bio-methanation process, several factors including methane formation rate. Ujoji, (1997), Ohimain et al.
pH, mixing, operating temperature, nutrient availability (2012b) reported that POME microbial population range
6
and organic loading rates (Abdurahman et al., 2011, of 10 cfu/ml. Similarly, Ohimain et al. (2013c) reported a
5
2013; Poh and Chong, 2009), and microbial activity lower population of 10 cfu/ml in a semi-mechanized palm
influence the overall methane yield. In anaerobic oil mill in Nigeria. In most bioreactor, biogas production
digestion, the microorganisms in anaerobic/anoxigenic decrease at increasing HRT. Faisal and Unno (2001)
conditions help in the stabilization of the organic matter reported at HRT of 10 days biogas production per day
by converting it into methane and other useful product was 12.21% which increased to 42.11% at 3 days HRT
(Irvan et al., 2012). using MABR technology. Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)
 Ohimain et al. 53

indicates the average time the POME resides in a reactor 2010).

during biogas production. Several quantum of methane During anaerobic digestion, the microorganisms need
yield at varying HRT have been reported. nutrient to produce optimum yield. Several nutrients
Faisal and Unno (2001) reported optimum yield of including potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron,
methane (67.3%) at HRT of 3 days using MABR. cadmium, chromium, nitrogen etc are required for
Anaerobic digester produces 66.41% methane effective performance. Ohimain et al. (2012c, 2013c),
concentration at 6.5 days HRT (Chotwattanasak and Awotoye et al. (2011), Borja et al. (1996), Wood et al.
Puetpaiboon, 2011), UMAS produced 68.5% methane at (1979), Begum and Saad, (2013) have reported that
5.40 days HRT (Abdurahman et al., 2013), 68.7% POME is rich in nutrients. The authors reported that
methane at 5.70 days HRT using MAS technology POME contains high chemical oxygen demand (COD)
(Abdurahman et al., 2011). These HRT properties could and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). During reaction,
affect other biogas production such as bio-hydrogen. the COD and BOD are reduced to set standard values
Vijayaraghavan and Ahmad (2006) reported an average harmless to the environment on discharge. POME
hydrogen gas generation of 57% at 7 days HRT, 0.42L/g nutrient and other inhibitory materials lead to failure of the
COD destroyed, using anaerobic contact filter microbial consortia to adapt/acclimatize during anaerobic
technology. Ismali et al. (2010) reported that 52% digestion. According to Nayono (2010), acclimatization is
hydrogen is produced at 2 day HRT. the capacity of microorganism to reorganize their
The organic loading rate (OLR) is the quantity of metabolic resources to overcome the metabolic shock
organic matter that is fed into the digester over a period produced by the inhibitory substances when their
of time. Yejian et al. (2011) reported that EGSB reactor concentrations increase.
have a high efficiency in POME treatment at high and Also, Khong et al. (2012) stated that acclimatization
short OLR and HRT respectively. The authors reported a can be achieved by adding biomass to adjust the
CODremoval efficiency of 90.5% at HRT of 3 days and properties of the mixture in a certain proportion over a
3
OLR of 10.5 kg COD/m day, which led to 46%organic period of time. The authors stated that these could
matter of the POME forming methane. According to Poh enhance the tolerance level, lag phase reduction prior to
and Chong (2009), the organic loading rate of POME and methane production and overall decrease in toxicity build
HRT needs to be balanced to achievegood digester up. The nutrients especially light ions have the ability to
operation properties. The organic loading rate is often cause inhibition. Nutrient concentration is important for
challenged by the activities of hydrolytic and acidogenic the stimulation of microbial growth. Therefore, low level of
microorganisms which produce intermediary products these nutrients could reduce growth leading to inhibition.
fast. Methanogenesis is often very slow; therefore Heavy metals are toxic especially when they exceed their
methanogens would not be able to convert fatty acids to threshold value.
useful product swiftly. According to Chen et al. (2008), the toxicity is
The pH value of anaerobic digester determines the associated to the inability of heavy metals to activate
performance and stability of the system for the production extensive range of enzymes by binding the metals and
of methane. Methanogensis process influences the pH of protein molecules they contain. To a larger extent,
the reaction by swerving it away from normal. According inhibition is caused by reaction conditions including
to Abdurahman et al. (2011, 2013) these could be temperature and pH (Nayono, 2010).
resolved by adding NaOH to maintain the pH of the
system at optimum range (6.8 - 7.0), mixing to provide Internal temperature of the biogas reactor affects the
good contact between the POME and the biomethanation processes and the effectiveness of
microorganisms, reduce the formation of intermediate biogas production. In Nigeria during the point of
products and stabilizes the reaction environmental discharge of POME the temperature is estimated
conditions. The intermediate products like fatty acid can between 60 - 80°C. Several microorganisms including
enhance dropping of pH leading to system failure due to mesophilic (35°C) and thermophilic (55°C) have been
the activities of methanogens. Microorganisms during extensively studied for biogas production in anaerobic
biomethanation adapt to pH change toward acid or bioreactor. At thermophilic temperature, more methane
alkalinity. Though, most pH tends to move toward gas is produced as compared to mesophilic temperature
alkalinity during the process. Most methane producing under the same conditions. Irvan et al. (2012) reported
microorganisms during biomethanation produce optimum optimum methane concentration of 67% at HRT 4, 6 and
yield at the pH of 6.8 to 7.6. In Nigeria POME is usually 8 days using CSTR under thermophilic temperature
discharged at a pH of 5.21 – 6.56 (Awotoye et al., 2011; range. Yejian et al. (2011) reported that EGSB reactor
Ohimain et al., 2012c; 2013c). Nayono (2010) reported could produce 70% methane in 3 days HRT under
that optimum yield is attained at neutral pH (7.0). For mesophilic temperature range (20 to 45°C). Yeoh (2004)
adjusting the POME to required pH level bicarbonates of reported that methane concentration of 60% at 35°C and
sodium and potassium and lime are added due to their 65% at 45 - 55°C, though at varying temperature (i.e.
3
soluble properties and low harmful impact (Nayono, 45°C, 50°C and 55°Cat 0.60, 0.65 and 0.92 m /kg – BOD
54 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.

respectively) an increase of 42% and 53% in methane and 10 days HRT. 67.3% methane gas production is the
yield wasnoted when the temperature was raised to 55°C best because it has 27.4 methane gas rates (1 per day)
from 45°C and 50°C respectively. The author also stated at 3 days HRT (Faisal and Unno, 2001), Zinatizadeh et
that under mesophilic temperature range, on the other al. (2006) reported a methane gas in the range of 30 –
3
hand, the methane yield (0.47 m /kg – BOD added) was 84%. The authors stated that 61.41% methane
almost doubled, with a 96% increase. Therefore, concentration is the best due to lower HRT of 1.5 days
thermophilic bacteria are more vigorous in tolerating using UASFF. Yacob et al. (2006) reported that
temperature changes (Nayono, 2010). According to Yeoh anaerobic pond could produce 54.4% methane at 40
(2004) several energy resources are lost under days HRT. Yacob et al. (2005) reported that anaerobic
mesophilic temperature conditions. According to the digester could produce 36% methane gas at HRT of 20
author, Malaysia can generate about 5% renewable days. Chotwattanasak and Puetpaiboon (2011) have
energy demand using thermophic temperature as against similarly produced 70.3, 69.29, 66.83 and 66.41%
2% generated under mesophilic condition. methane gas at HRT of 14, 10, 7 and 6.5 days
The biogas produced through these respectively in anaerobic digester. Methane production
approaches/reactors has high combustion characteristics rate of 66.41% was the best due to lower HRT. Irvan et
i.e. high calorific value. Production of biogas is al. (2012) reported methane concentration of 67, 66 and
environment friendly and economically and socially 63% at HRT 4, 6 and 8 days respectively using CSTR at
desirable to produce energy for better living of the thermophilic temperature conditions. The authors
inhabitants hence should be sustained as long as palm reported that 67% methane concentration is the best
oil mills are producing palm oil and allied effluents. yield due to lower HRT of 4 days. Yejian et al. (2011)
Biogas produced from POME could be used for both heat reported that expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)
and power generation. The utilization of POME for biogas reactor could produce 70% methane in 3 days HRT
production could prevent the harmful environmental under mesophilic temperature conditions. Abdurahman et
impacts associated with the discharge into the al. (2013) reported that Ultrasonic Membrane Anaerobic
ecosystem. Biogas is a type of biofuel that environmental System (UMAS) could generate 79% 75.5% 70.2%
sustainable as compared to petroleum products. Energy 71.8% 70.6% and 68.5% at HRT of 480.3, 76.40, 20.3,
and environmental degradation are major problems 8.78, 7.36 and 5.40 days respectively. The authors
confronting humanity in the recent times. Due to the reported that 68.5% methane yield at 5.40 HRT is the
intense search of environmental friendly fuel and best due to the ability to produce 0.59 l/g. Abdurahman et
discharge that could reduce pollution or degradation, al. (2011) reported that Membrane Anaerobic System
biofuel stands as a means of achieving both ends. (MAS) could produce 74.2% 72.6% 69.7% 70.8% 69.1%
Therefore, this study evaluates potential of biogas and 68.7% methane at HRT of 400.6, 63.6, 20.4, 11.6,
captured from POME in Nigeria. Also, the study could be 8.86 and 5.70 days respectively. The authors reported
beneficial to the government, policy makers and that 68.7% methane at 5.70 days HRT is the most
individuals involved in renewable energy production and suitable due to the methane yield of 0.58 l/g. Borja and
combating the ill effect of greenhouse gas emissions in Banks (1994a) reported that UASB could produce 54.2%
Nigeria. methane in 3 days HRT. Borja and Banks (1994b)
reported that anaerobic filtration could produce 63%
methane in HRT of 15 days. Therefore, in this study the
METHODOLOGY anaerobic configuration that produced above 65%
methane concentration at <10 days HRT retention time
Baseline information used for this study was obtained was considered for the calculation of methane yield. The
from literature review. Data obtained were used to total potential of biogas that could have been produced in
estimate the biogas potential from POME that have Nigeria using various anaerobic bio-digester for the last
remained un-tapped in Nigeria from 2004 to 2013 and 10 years and projections up to 2029 based on the
future projections up to 2029 based on three projection scenarios (i.e high, low and current production status)
scenarios i. e. high, low and current production status. (Figure 4).

Estimation of total biogas using optimized anaerobic

system RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Biogas produced from anaerobic system is a mixture of Biogas which mainly consists of methane and carbon
65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide. It could be dioxide are produced in large amount during anaerobic
optimized to produce more at varying hydraulic retention digestion. Methane is the major product produced from
time (HRT) and anaerobic system. Faisal and Unno biomethanation process. Several configurations of
(2001) reported that MABR could produce 69.1, 68.0, anaerobic bioreactors have been utilized to produce
70.2, 67.3, 69.1 and 71.2% methane gas at 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 methane with high concentration at low HRT. Table 1
 Ohimain et al. 55

800
700
600
500
Million m3 400 High

300 Low

200 Current status

100 Historical data

2008

2013

2029
2004
2005
2006
2007

2009
2010
2011
2012

2017
2020
2023
2026
Year
Figure 4. Estimated potential of biogas production from POME in Nigeria (2004 –
2013) and project scenario (2017 – 2029).

Table 1. Potential methane yield from POME in Nigeria using various anaerobic bio-digesters based on historical data.
3
Year Biogas, m
MAS UMAS EGSB CSTR Anaerobic digester MABR
2004 306,303,243.8 305,411,513.3 312,099,375 298,723,687.5 296,093,135.6 300,061,256.3
2005 310,180,500.0 309,277,500.0 316,050,000 302,505,000.0 299,841,150.0 303,859,500.0
2006 314,057,756.3 313,143,468.8 320,000,625 306,286,312.5 303,589,164.4 307,657,743.8
2007 317,935,012.5 317,009,437.5 323,951,250 310,067,625.0 307,337,178.8 311,455,987.5
2008 329,566,781.3 328,607,343.8 335,803,125 321,411,562.5 318,581,221.9 322,850718.8
2009 329,566,781.3 328,607,343.8 335,803,125 321,411,562.5 318,581,221.9 322,850718.8
2010 329,566,781.3 328,607,343.8 335,803,125 321,411,562.5 318,581,221.9 322,850718.8
2011 329,566,781.3 328,607,343.8 335,803,125 321,411,562.5 318,581,221.9 322,850718.8
2012 352,830,318.8 351,803,156.3 359,506,875 344,099,437.5 341,069,308.1 345,640,181.3
2013 360,584,831.3 359,535,093.8 367,408,125 351,662,062.5 348,565,336.8 353,236,668.8

presents the quantity of methane gas that would have CSTR could have been used to treat POME to produce
3
been produced in Nigeria, if POME produced from palm 298 million m in 2004 of methane which could have
3
oil mills for the period of study i.e. from 2004 to 2013 reached 351 million m 2013 at days HRT. Projection
would have been collected and treated using various showed that using CSTR technology, Nigeria could
3
anaerobic bioreactors at different HRT and conditions. produce 531, 359 and 392 million m of methane at high,
Also projections made are presented in Table 2. low and current status projection category respectively by
The result indicated that Nigeria could have produced 2029.
3
306 million m in 2004 of methane which was estimated The use of UMAS technology could have generated 305
3 3
to have reached 360 million m in 2013, if MAS bioreactor million m in 2004 of methane, which could have reached
3
were used under 5.7 days HRT in MAS. At high, low and 359 million m in 2013 at HRT of 5.4 days, and
current status projection scenario, 544, 449 and 402 projections indicated that high, low and current status
3 3
million m of methane respectively could be produced up scenario could produce 543, 447 and 400 million m of
to 2030. methane respectively up to 2030.
Using EGSB treatment system, Nigeria would have The use of anaerobic bio-digester showed that 296
3 3
produced 312 million m of methane gas in 2004 which million m in 2004 of methane which could have reached
3 3
could have reached 367 million m in 2013 at 3 days 348 million m in 2013 at HRT of 6.5 days. High, low and
HRT, and it was projected to reach 555, 457 and 409 current status projection scenario indicated that Nigeria
3 3
million m at high, low and current status projection could produce 526, 434 and 388 million m of methane
scenario respectively by 2029. respectively up to 2030.
56 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.

Table 2. Potential methane yield from POME in Nigeria using various anaerobic bio-digesters in projection scenarios.
3
Year Biogas, m
MAS UMAS EGSB CSTR Anaerobic digester MABR
2017 (391,595,126.7) (390,455,111.8) (399,005,223.8) (381,904,999.9) (378,541,955.8) (383,615,022.3)
[376,712,009.0] [375,615,321.9] [383,840,474.9] [367,390,168.9] [364,154,942.0] [369,035,199.5]
{368,517,697.5} {367,444,865.8} {375,491,103.8} {359,398,627.9} {356,233,774.3} {361,007,202.5}
2020 (425,272,307.7) (424,034,251.4) (433,319,673.0) (414,748,829.9) (411,096,564.1) (416,605,914.2)
[393,692,291.7] [392,546,171.5] [401,142,073.1] [383,950,269.9] [380,569,215.3] [385,669,450.3]
{376,625,086.9} {375,528,562.9} {383,751,908.1} {367,305,397.7} {364,070,917.3} {368,050,048.7}
2023 (461,845,729.2) (460,501,200.1) (470,585,168.0) (450,417,232.2) (446,450,871.5) (452,434,025.8)
[411,369,075.9] [410,171,494.9] [419,153,352.5] [401,189,637.3] [397,656,773.4] [402,986,008.9]
{384,910,838.4} {383,790,283.2} {392,194,450.0} {375,386,116.4} {372,080,477.5} {377,066,949.8}
2026 (501,564,461.6) (500,104,303.0) (511,055,492.2) (489,153,113.9) (484,845,646.2) (491,343,324.8)
[429,839,547.4] [428,588,195.4] [437,973,338.3] [419,203,052.4] [415,511,562.8] [421,080,081.0]
{393,378,877.0} {392,233,669.2} {400,822,727.6} {383,644,610.7} {380,266,247.7} {385,362,422.4}
2029 (544,699,005.6) (543,113,273.4) (555,006,264.8) (531,220,282.0) (526,542,372.1) (533,598,880.3)
[449,139,343.7] [447,831,805.6] [457,638,341.5] [438,025,269.7] [434,168,032.3] [439,986,576.9]
{402,033,212.4} {400,862,810.0} {409,640,827.8} {392,084,792.3} {388,632,105.3} {393,840,395.8}
( ) = High; [ ] = Low; { } = Current status production rates projections.

In Malaysia, Yussof (2006) reported that 3.45 tons of dioxide while hydrogenotrophic methanogens uses
Fresh Fruit Bunch (FFB) could generate 1.55 GJ of hydrogen and carbon dioxide as electron donor and
biogas which is being utilized to solve energy and power acceptor respectively to produce methane. The authors
challenges. Under this study it is found that EGSB also reported that methanogens that could utilize
technique might be considered to be the best treatment hydrogen could also use formate as electron donor to
technology due to its ability to produce higher methane reduce carbon dioxide to methane.
gas at shorter HRT. Similarly, the anaerobic bio-digester Biogas have been produced using varying anaerobic
produced the least methane due to lower methane digestion, which utilizes microorganisms in anoxigenic
concentration and higher HRT. The production of conditions to produce methane and other inorganic
methane is carried out by four major steps including products and carbon dioxide as the principal gas using
hydrolysis, acidogensis, actogenesis and methanogensis. varying anaerobic digester (Irvan et al., 2012). According
The POME hydrolytic microorganisms such as Bacillus to Yejian et al. (2011), EGSB reactor, which is basically a
species (Ohimain et al., 2012b; 2013c) could breakdown modification of UASB treatment system, helps to
the complex polymer i.e. carbonhydrate, protein and lipid enhance substrate-biomass contact through expansion of
found in POME to respective monomers i.e sugar, amino the sludge bed and increase hydraulic mixing, reactor
acids and fatty acids (Lam and Lee, 2011). Beside, performance and overall stability. This technology has a
Bacillus species other hydrolytic enzymes of microbial superior performance in methane concentration at lower
origin such as protease, amylase, xylanase could convert HRT apart from UASFF compared to other treatment
the polymers to their smaller units under anaerobic technologies.
conditions. Ohimain et al. (2013c) have reported Bacillus UMAS is one of the suitable anaerobic treatment
species, Pseudomonas species and Staphylococcus technologies of POME due to its relative small volume as
aureus as amylase hydrolytic enzymes found in POME. compared to conventional digester. Abdurahman et al.
The POME acidogenic microorganisms such as Bacillus (2013) reported that UMAS has an enhanced and
species, Pseudomonas species, Staphylococcus aureus, successful system that could achieve high COD removal
E. coli and Desulfovibrio species (Ohimain et al., 2012b; efficiency in a short HRT. MABR has high HRT and
2013c; Ugoji, 1997) can degrade the sugar, amino acid proven to be successful for POME treatment. MABR is a
and fatty acids to produce acetate, hydrogen and carbon modified form of anaerobic baffled reactor which is simple
dioxide (Lam and Lee, 2011). and inexpensive to construct (Faisal and Unno, 2001).
This step is carried out by acteogensis where Biogas is basically a mixture of methane and carbon
propionate, butyrate, lactate and ethanol produced help dioxide. According to Faisal and Unno (2001) a 3630
to convert the monomers to acetate, hydrogen and COD/mg could produce 27.4 l of methane per day with
carbon dioxide. These products are acted upon by two 68.1% concentration under HRT of 3 days using MABR.
groups of methanogens including actetotrophic and Depending on the type of bioreactor used the
hydrogenotrophic microorganisms. According to Lam and concentration of the POME with its HRT could differs.
Lee (2011), Demirel and Scherer (2008) acetotrophic Abdurahman et al. (2011) have reported that under
3
methanogens converts acetate to methane and carbon steady state of 5.70 OLR, 13 kg COD/M /day could yield
 Ohimain et al. 57

optimum methane concentration of 68.7% using MAS. 930,00 (2013) (Ohimain and Izah, 2014b). Also
Irvan et al. (2012) reported methane generation per COD projections made indicate that, there could be a
in POME to yield 0.16 kg/COD at 3.94 HRT using significant increase in palm oil production in few years to
anaerobic digester with thermophilic anaerobic reactor. come due to intensive approach taken by stakeholder
Abdurahman et al. (2013) reported that 5.4 days HRT and government to reactivate the sector. These could
3
with 9.45 kg/COD/m /day substrate utilization rate to also lead to the production of high volume of POME. The
produce 68.5 methane concentration using UMAS. estimated quantity of POME for the period (2004 – 2013)
EGSB reactor operated at 35°C and HRT of 3 days, later is presented in Figure 2. Projections made could be
2 day, has its OLR increased from 1.45 to 16.5 kg higher which could lead to having higher biogas
3
COD/m /day showing COD removal of 90.5% at 3 days potentials from it under anaerobic condition.
3
HRT and OLR of 10.5 kg COD/m /day, which transform
only about 46% organic matter in POME to methane
(Yejian et al., 2011). Chotwattanasak and Puetpaiboon Conclusion
(2011) reported that at HRT of 6.5 days with OLR 8.70
3/
kg/COD/m day at 65% and 93% COD and BOD removal POME is rich in nutrients and microorganisms. The
respectively, 66.41% of methane gas will be generated. microorganisms are able to mineralize the nutrient
The authors also reported that under 7 days HRT, alongside with other pollution indicators like BOD and
3
corresponding to OLR 6.50 kg COD/m /day, a specific COD to produce biogas using various designs of
3
methane gas generation of 0.35 m CH4/kg/COD could be anaerobic bio-digesters and choosing the most
achieved with an average methane concentration of 67% appropriate one out of the lot. The study found that EGSB
using anaerobic digesters, which could be a cheap treatment technology is the best due to its ability to
source of energy for a gas engine to produce electricity. produce higher percentage of methane gas at higher
This could be successful due to high heating content. Foo concentrations and low HRT of POME respectively. The
and Hameed (2009) have reported the calorific value of capture of biogas from POME and potential utilization in
3
POME biogas as 34.5 MJ/m . During biogas conversion electricity generation and supplying cooking fuel could
to usable energy, a supporting power demand is reduce demand of convectional fossil fuel like kerosene
necessary for the cooling of the compressor system and and diesel. This could also increase renewable energy
it is estimated to account for 12% of the gross power share in Nigerian energy mix by management of POME,
generation, therefore producing a net power output of thereby reverting environmental degradation.
88% (Gopal and Ma, 1986 cited in Yeoh, 2004).
The potential for biogas could yield a positive result in
Nigeria due to large oil palm plantation across the country Acknowledgements
especially in southern Nigeria were they are found in both
wild and plantations. Oil palm industry is carried by three The authors which to thank Prof B.P. Gupta, Director,
scale of processors including smallholder (traditional), Vidhyapeeth Institute of Science and Technology,
semi-mechanized and mechanized scale. The semi- Bhopal, India and Eng. Pantea Emilia of University of
mechanized and mechanized processors account for Oradea, Faculty of Environmental Protection, Romania
about 20%, which is scarcely located across the major oil for their valuable suggestions and contributions.
palm processing states in Nigeria. The smallholder
dominates the oil palm estates and mills accounting for
about 80% of the oil palm coverage. According to PIND REFERENCES
(2011) several million smallholders plantation are spread
Abdurahman NH, Azhari NH, Rosli YM (2013). Ultrasonic Membrane
over an estimated area of 1.65 - 3.00 million ha (PIND, Anaerobic System (UMAS) for Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME)
2011). The estimate for oil palm plantations in Nigeria Treatment, In: International Perspectives on Water Quality
ranges from 169,000 ha (72,000 ha of estate plantations Management and Pollutant Control.http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54459.
Abdurahman NH, Rosli YM, Azhari NH, Tam SF (2011). Biomethanation
and 97,000 ha of smallholder plantations) to 360,000 ha
of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) by Membrane Anaerobic System
of plantations (PIND, 2011). Similarly recent report in (MAS) using POME as a Substrate, World Academy of Sci., Eng. and
2013 states that approximately 24 million hectares land is Technol., 51: 419 – 424.
ideal for oil palm plantation, but only about 3.0 million Ahmad AL, Ismail S, Bhatia S (2003). Water recycling from palm oil mill
effluent (POME) using membrane technology, Desalination, 157: 87-
hectares is put to use representing 12.5% (Business Day, 95.
2013). Of these, Niger Delta region have an estimated Awotoye OO, Dada AC, Arawomo GAO (2011). Impact of Palm Oil
range of 1.4 – 1.8 million hectares of oil palm plantation Processing Effluent Discharging on the Quality of Receiving Soil and
and over 1.1 million hectares of wild grove plantation. Rivers in South Western Nigeria, J. of Appl. Sci. Res., 7(2): 111 -
118.
The processing of fresh fruit bunch of oil palm lead to the
Begum S, Saad FM (2013). Techno-economic analysis of electricity
generation several metric tonnes of palm oil the range of generation from biogas using palm oil wastes, Asian J. of Sci. Res.,
790,000 (2004) 800 (2005), 810,000 (2006), 820,000 6(2): 290 – 298.
(2007), 850,000 (2008 to 2011), 910,000 (2012) and Borja R, Banks CJ (1994a). Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluents
using an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biomass and
58 Sky. J. Soil. Sci. Environ. Manage.

Bioener., 6: 381 – 389. Ohimain EI, Izah SC, Abah SO. (2013a). Air quality impacts of
Borja R, Banks CJ (1994b). Treatment of palm oil mill effluents by up smallholder oil palm processing in Nigeria. J. of Environ. Protection,
flow anaerobic filtration,”J. of Chem. Technol. and Biotechnol., 61: 4: 83-98.
103 – 109. Ohimain EI, Izah SC, Obieze FAU (2013b). Material-mass balance of
Borja R, Banks CJ, Sanchez E (1996). Anaerobic treatment of palm oil smallholder oil palm processing in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Advance
mill effluent in a two-stage up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) J. of Food Sci. and Technol., 5(3): 289-294.
system, J. of Biotechnol., 45: 125 – 135. Ohimain EI, Izah SC, Jenakumo N (2013c). Physico-chemical and
Business day (2013). Nigerian Oil Palm Industry (2013). microbial screening of palm oil mill effluents for amylase production.
http://businessdayonline.com/2013/08/reactivating-nigerias-oil-palm- Greener J. of Biol. Sci., 3(8): 314 – 325.
industry-2/. Assessed February 7th, 2014. Ohimain EI, Izah SC, Oyedeji AA (2012a). Employment effects of
Chavalparit O, Rulkens WH, Mol APJ, Khaodhair S (2006). Options for smallholder oil palm processing plants in Elele, Rivers State, Nigeria.
environmental sustainability of the crude palm oil industry in Thailand Int. J. of Appl. Res. and Technol., 1(6): 83 - 93.
through enhancement of industrial ecosystem, Environmental, Ohimain EI, Daokoru-Olukole C, Izah SC, Eke RA, Okonkwo, AC
Development and Sustainability 8: 271-287. (2012b). Microbiology of palm oil mill effluents. J. of Microbiol. and
Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008). Inhibition of anaerobic Biotechnol. Res., 2(6):852 – 857.
digestion process: A review, Bioresour. Technol., 99: 4044 – 64. Ohimain EI, Seiyaboh EI, Izah SC, Oghenegueke VE, Perewarebo TG.
Chotwattanasak J, Puetpaiboon U (2011). Full Scale Anaerobic (2012c). Some selected physico-chemical and heavy metal
Digester for Treating Palm Oil Mill Wastewater. J. of Sustainable properties of palm oil mill effluents. Greener J. of Phy. Sci., 2(4): 131
Energy & Environ., 2: 133- 136. - 137.
Demirel B, Scherer P (2008). The roles of acetotrophic and Okwute LO, Isu NR (2007). The environmental impacts of palm oil mill
hydrogenotrophic methanogens during anaerobic conversion of effluent (POME) on some physico-chemical parameters and total
biomass to methane: a review,”Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol., 7: 173 aerobic bioload of soil at a dump site in Anyigba, Kogi State, Nigeria.
– 190. Afr. J. of Agric. Res., 2(12): 656 – 662.
Energy Wise (2011). Optimising the Utilisation of Renewable Energy Poh PE, Chong MF (2009). Development of anaerobic digestion
Resources in the Oil Palm Industry,”http//: methods for palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment. Bioresour.
rank.com.myenergywise/?p=17. Accessed 18 November 2012. Technol., 100: 1 – 9.
Faisal M, Unno H (2001). Kinetic analysis of palm oil mill wastewater Singh RP, Ibrahim MH, Norizan E, Iliyana MS (2010). Composting of
treatment by a modified anaerobic baffled reactor. Biochem. Eng. J., waste from palm oil mill: a sustainable waste management practice.
9: 25 – 31. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol., 9: 331-344.
Foo KY, Hameed BH (2010). Insight into the applications of palm oil mill Sridhar MKC, AdeOluwa OO, (2009). Palm Oil Industry Residue.
effluent: A renewable utilization of the industrial agricultural waste. Biotechnology for Agro-industrial Residues Utilisation, Nigam P.S and
Renewable and Sustainable Ener. Rev., 14: 1445 – 1452. Pandey A. (eds.). Springer Science. Pp. 341 – 355.
Foundation for Partnership Initiatives in the Niger Delta (PIND), (2011). Ugoji EO (1997). Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent and its
A report on Palm Oil Value Chain Analysis in the Niger Delta. utilization as fertilizer for environmental protection. Renewable Ener.,
Gopal J, Ma AN, (1986). The comparative economics of palm oil mill 10(2-3): 291- 294.
effluent treatment and resource recovery systems. National Vijayaraghavan K, Ahmad D (2006). Biohydrogen generation from palm
Workshop on Recent Developments in Palm Oil Milling Technology oil mill effluent using anaerobic contact filter. Int. J. of Hydrogen
and Pollution Control. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”. Bangi: Palm Oil Ener., 31: 1284 – 1291.
Research Institute of Malaysia. Paper No. 14. Wood BJ, Pillia KR, Rajaratnam JA (1979). Palm oil mill effluent
Irvan (Provide initial), Trisakti B, Wongistani V, Tomiuchi Y (2012). disposal on land. Agric. wastes, 1: 103-127.
Methane Emission from Digestion of Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) in Wu TY, Mohammad AW, Jahim J, Anuar N (2009). A holistic approach
a Thermophilic Anaerobic Reactor. Int. J. Sci. and Eng., 3(1):32-35. to managing palm oil mill effluent (POME). Biotechnological
Ismali I, Hassan MA, Rahman NAA, Soon CS (2010). advances in the sustainable reuse of POME, Biotechnol. Advances,
Thermophilicbiohydrogen production from palm oil mill effluent 27(1): 40-52.
(POME) using suspended mixed culture. Biomass and Bioener., 34, Yacob S, Hassan MA, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S (2006).
42 – 47. Baseline study of methane emission from anaerobic ponds of palm oil
Izah SC, Ohimain EI (2013a). Microbiological quality of crude palm oil mill effluent treatment. Sci Total Environ., 366: 187–196
produced by smallholder processors in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. J. of Yacob S, Hassan MA, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S (2005).
Microbiol. and Biotechnol. Res., 3(2): 30 - 36. Baseline study of methane emission from open digesting tanks of
Izah SC, Ohimain EI (2013b). The challenge of biodiesel production palm oil mill effluent treatment. Chemosphere, 59:1575–1581.
from oil palm feedstock’s in Nigeria. Greener J. of Biol. Sci., 3(1): 1 - Yejian Z, Hairen Y, Xiangyong Z, Zhenjia Z, Li Y (2011). High-rate
12. Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Palm Oil Mill effluent (POME) in
Khong FC, Isa MH, Kutty SRM, Farhan SA (2012). Anaerobic treatment Expanded Granular Sludge Bed (EGSB) Reactor (2011) International
of produce water. World Academy of Sci. and Technol., 62: 798 – Conference on Agricultural and Natural Resources Engineering.
802. Advances in Biomed. Eng., 3-5: 214 – 219.
Lam MK, Lee KT (2011). Renewable and sustainable bioenergies Yeoh BG (2004). A Technical and Economic Analysis of Heat and
production from palm oil mill effluent (POME): Win–win strategies Power Generation from Biomethanation of Palm Oil Mill Effluent.
toward better environmental protection. Biotechnol. Advances, 29: Electricity Supply Industry in Transition: Issues and Prospect for Asia
124–141. 14-16 January 2004.
Nayono SE (2010). Anaerobic digestion of organic wastes for energy. Yusoff S (2006). Renewable energy from palm oil innovation on
Scientific Publishing. ISBN 978-3-86644-464-5. pp. 7 - 20. effective utilization of waste. J. of Cleaner Prod., 14:87-95.
Ohimain EI, Izah SC (2014a). Energy self-sufficiency of smallholder oil Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohamed AR, Mashitah MD, Abdullah AZ, Najafpour
palm processing in Nigeria. Renewable Ener., 63: 426 – 431. GD (2006). Pretreated palm oil mill effluent (POME) digestion in an
Ohimain EI, Izah SC (2014b). Potential contributions of palm oil mill up-flow anaerobic sludge fixed film bioreactor: a comparative study,
effluents to greenhouse gas emissions in Nigeria. Br. J. of Appl. Sci. IJE Transactions B: Applications, 19(1): 1 – 9.
and Technol.,In press
Ohimain EI, Izah SC (2013a). Gaseous emissions from a semi-
mechanized oil palm processing mill in Bayelsa state,
Nigeria,Continental J. of Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 4 (1): 15 – 25.
Ohimain EI, Izah SC (2013b). Water minimization and optimization by
small-scale palm oil mill in Niger Delta, Nigeria. J. of Water Res., 135:
190 – 198