<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    epe
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Energy and Power Engineering
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    1949-243X
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    1947-3818
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/epe.2024.169014
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    epe-135817
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Engineering
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    A Biogas Production Model from the Combination of Pig Manure and Cow Dung in N’Zérékoré City, Republic of Guine
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Madeleine
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Kamano
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Oumar
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Keita
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Ansoumane
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Sakouvogui
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"> 
      <sup>3</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Aboubacar
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Sangare
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"> 
      <sup>4</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="aff1">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Physics, Université de NZérékoré, NZérékoré, Guinea
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff2">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Hydrology, Université de NZérékoré, NZérékoré, Guinea
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff3">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Energy, Institut Supérieur de Technologie de Mamou, Mamou, Guinea
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff3">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Université de NZérékoré, NZérékoré, Guinea
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     09
    </day> 
    <month>
     09
    </month>
    <year>
     2024
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    16
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    09
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    293
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    312
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      1,
     </day>
     <month>
      August
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      6,
     </day>
     <month>
      August
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      6,
     </day>
     <month>
      September
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    This present research work focuses on the valorization of pig droppings for production of biogas in mono digestion and co-digestion with proportions of cow dung from the urban commune of N’Zérékoré. It was carried out in December 2020 in the Physics laboratory of the University of N’Zérékoré. The anaerobic digestion process took 25 days in an almost constant ambient temperature of 25˚C. Five digesters were loaded on 12/06/2020, two of which with 1 kg of pig dung and 1 kg of cow dung both in mono-digestion. The 3 other digesters in co-digestion with different proportions of pig manure and cow dung. The substrate in each digester is diluted in 2 liters of water, with a proportion of (1/2). The main results obtained are: 1) the evolution of the temperature and pH during digestion process, 2) the average biogas productions 0.61 liters for (D1); 1.20 liter for (D2); 1.65 liter for (D3); 1.51 liter for (D4) and 1.31 liter for (D5). The cumulative amounts of biogas are respectively: D1 (7.95 liters), D2 (15.60 liters), D3 (21.50 liters), D4 (19.65 liters) and D5 (17.05 liters). The total cumulative production is 81.75 liters at the end of the process. The originality of this research work is that the proposed model examines the relation between the daily biogas production and the variation of temperature, pH and pressure. The combustibility test showed the biogas produced during the first week was no combustible (contains less than 50% methane). Combustion started from the biogas produced from the 15th day and it is from the 20th day that a significant amount of stable yellow/blue flame was observed. The results of this study show the combination of pig manure and cow dung presents advantages for optimal biogas production.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Production
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Experimental
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Model
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Pig Manure
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Cow Dung
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Biogas
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      N’Zérékoré
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Republic of Guinea
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <p>Since the beginning of the industrial development, human activities have contributed considerably to the increase in the concentration of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. The breeding sector is one of the activities that have a strong impact on the natural environment, with the emission of the three main GHGs (CO<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>O). CH<sub>4</sub> represents nearly 44% of these emissions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-1">
     [1]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-2">
     [2]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>In 2011, the European Union issued a directive to reduce GHGs from 80% to 95% by 2050 in order to limit global temperature rise to a maximum of 2˚C. To achieve this objective, current fossil energy vectors must be replaced by renewable energies, such as biogas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-3">
     [3]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-4">
     [4]
    </xref>. Biogas is a flammable gas produced by the anaerobic digestion of animal, plant, human, industrial and municipal waste. It is mainly composed of methane (50% - 70%), carbon dioxide (20% - 40%) and traces of other gases (Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Ammonia, Hydrogen sulfide, etc.) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-5">
     [5]
    </xref>. The calorific value of biogas varies between 485 and 679 kWh/m<sup>3</sup>, its combustion temperature is between 800˚C and 1100˚C <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-6">
     [6]
    </xref>. In addition to waste treatment and reducing fossil fuel consumption, biomethanization has additional benefits for households practicing agriculture and breeding. This is particularly the case in many rural communities in the Republic of Guinea <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-7">
     [7]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-9">
     [9]
    </xref>. Valuation of these animal droppings could be considered as an economical and ecological solution <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-1">
     [1]
    </xref>. Environmental, cultural and socio-economic conditions favor pig breeding in Forest Guinea and in particular in the urban commune of N’Zérékoré. This breeding produces a large quantity of droppings and slurry every year, whose valuation remains a major problem <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-10">
     [10]
    </xref>. Assessment of the energy potential of pig dung for the production of biogas in the urban commune of N’Zérékoré in Guinea has been recently done <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-11">
     [11]
    </xref>. The combination of several organic materials (co-digestion) for the production of biogas is a technique favorable to microbial flora. The physicochemical parameters of methanizable waste have an influence on the yield and composition of biogas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-12">
     [12]
    </xref>. Assessment of the effect of mixing pig and cow dung on biogas yield is performed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-13">
     [13]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>The aim of this paper is to develop a model of biogas production from pig manure in mono and co-digestion with cow dung for the urban commune of N’Zérékoré. To achieve this objective we proceeded: 1) to the design of experimental biogas production devices (biodigesters and accessories), 2) to the substrates preparation, 3) to the loading of the biodigesters with substrate, 4) and to the monitoring of the parameters (pH, pressure, temperature, daily and cumulative production) and finally, to carry out the combustion test of the gas produced by each type of substrate. This paper is organized as follows. After the introduction section above, the Materials and Methods section is presented in which a description of the study zone is first made and the experimental method and devises allowing to produce biogas is presented. At the end the Results and Discussion Section is presented.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s2">
   <title>2. Materials</title>
   <sec id="s2_1">
    <title>2.1. Study Area</title>
    <p>The Prefecture of N’zérékoré is one of the 33 prefectures of Guinea. It is the largest city in Forestry Guinea, a region in the southeast of the Republic of Guinea. The city is also the capital Forest region. It is located between 7˚32 and 8˚22 north latitude and 9˚04 west longitude and extends over 47.3 km<sup>2</sup>. The distance to neighboring prefectures is 39 km for N’Zérékoré-Lola, 62 km for N’Zérékoré-Yomou, 125 km for N’Zérékoré-Beyla, 135 km for N’Zérékoré-Macenta. Nzérékoré is at an elevation of 480 m and its relief is rugged. The plateau is dominated by hills that are sometimes gneissic (Gonia) and sometimes quartz (Gboyéba). The city has three important mountains: Götö (450 m), Hononye and Kwéléyé (350 m). Sheep breeding, goats and pigs is practiced throughout the commune. The pig herd is the largest in all areas of the N’Zérékoré. Cattle are imported from neighboring communes intended directly for butchery. The Map of the urban commune of N’Zérékoré is in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
      Figure 1
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig1" position="float">
     <label>Figure 1</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 1. Map of the urban commune of N’Zérékoré.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId14.jpeg?20240909020755" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_2">
    <title>2.2. Tools and Materials</title>
    <p>To carry out this research, we used the following materials and equipment: plastic bottles, plastic flasks, cooler, gloves, graduated containers, electronic balance, analytical balance, valves, flexible pipes, clamps, liquid glue, Teflon, pH meter and temperature sensor. The physicochemical parameters of pig manure from N’Zérékoré are on average: humidity (53.83%); dry matter (44.26%); organic matter (81.39%); density (650.36%); Carbon (47.20%); Nitrogen (1.8%) and the ratio between Carbon and Nitrogen (26.22). For cow dung: humidity (82%); dry matter (22%); organic matter (52%); density (593.28%); Carbon (30.28%); Nitrogen (1.66%) and the ratio between Carbon and Nitrogen (18.27) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-11">
      [11]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-14">
      [14]
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s3">
   <title>3. Methods</title>
   <sec id="s3_1">
    <title>3.1. Substrates Preparation</title>
    <p>The experiment was carried out at the Physics laboratory of the University of N’Zérékoré from 4 to 25/12/2020. Loading of experimental digesters with substrates began on 06/12/2020. The loading of the experimental digesters with the substrates began on 06/12/2020, the preparation of which is done as follows.</p>
    <p>The substrate of pig manure and cow dung were each diluted in 2 liters of water in a ratio of (1/2) before being mixed in varying proportions and putting them in the different digesters as indicated in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref>.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table1">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
       Table 1
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-"></xref>Table 1. Proportions for the different digesters.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="31.44%">Mixture proportion in %*<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="31.44%">Mixture proportion in mass<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="14.35%">Digesters<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="22.76%">Digestion type<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="31.44%">100% pigmanure + 0% cowdung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="31.44%">1 kg pig manure + 0 g cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.35%">D1<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="22.76%">Mono-digestion<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">75% pig manure, 25% cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">750 g pig manure + 250 g cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.35%">D2<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.76%">Co-digestion<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">50% pig manure, 50% cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">500 g pig manure + 500 g cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.35%">D3<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.76%">Co-digestion<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">25% pig manure, 75% cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">250 g pig manure + 750 g cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.35%">D4<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.76%">Co-digestion<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">0% pig manure, 100% cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="31.44%">0 g pig manure + 1 kg cow dung<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="14.35%">D5<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.76%">Mono-digestion<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_2">
    <title>3.2. Experimental Devices and Set Up</title>
    <p>For the design of the digester (D), we used a plastic bottle of 4.5 liters and 124 g empty mass, two others of the same volume, one of which is considered as a gasometer filled with water and the other empty to collect the water which is emptied from the gasometer under the pressure of the biogas produced. They are graduated in centiliter using graph paper in order to quantify the gas produced. The same device was made for the different types of substrates (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>The hydrogen potential (pH) of the solutions was measured using a Consort brand pH meter equipped with a combined Ag/AgCl glass electrode. Calibration is carried out using pH buffer solutions.</p>
    <p>Monitoring of temperature variation in the different fermenters was carried out by a temperature sensor coupled to a millimeter.</p>
    <p>The daily and cumulative biogas production of each type of substrate was measured on the gasometer graduation (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>For a constant volume of the gasometer, increased pressure was a result of increased volume of biogas generated. The pressure can therefore be calculated by the relation between the pressure and the volume of an ideal gas.</p>
    <fig id="fig2" position="float">
     <label>Figure 2</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 2. Experimental devices.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId15.jpeg?20240909020802" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s4">
   <title>4. Results and Discussions</title>
   <p>In this section we will first show the results of the daily biogas production, daily temperature and pH evolution in each digester. Secondly the cumulative biogas production and pressure evolution is presented before performing the combustion test of the biogas produced by each type of substrate.</p>
   <sec id="s4_1">
    <title>4.1. Daily Biogas Production and Temperature Evolution</title>
    <p>The daily biogas production and temperature evolution in the five digesters are illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref>. It shows the biogas production did not start on the same day. After loading the digesters on 06/12/2020, we recorded the first production on the 4th day in digesters D1, D2 and D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 3(a)-(c)">
      Figures 3(a)-(c)
     </xref>) and the 2nd day in digesters D4 and D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(d)">
      Figure 3(d)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(e)">
      Figure 3(e)
     </xref>). The quantities are respectively: 0.15 liters for both (D1 and D2); 0.25 liters for (D3); 0.5 liter for (D4) and 1 liter for (D5). During the 25 days of digestion, the largest quantity of biogas was recorded on the 15th day in the digesters (D3 and D4) with a value of 2 liters (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(c)">
      Figure 3(c)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(d)">
      Figure 3(d)
     </xref>). The same value was recorded on the 19th day in digester D2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(b)">
      Figure 3(b)
     </xref>). The second largest value of biogas produced is 1.5 liters, recorded on the 8th day in digester D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(e)">
      Figure 3(e)
     </xref>). The smallest value 1 liter was recorded on the 11th day in digester D1 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(a)">
      Figure 3(a)
     </xref>). The daily average biogas production values are respectively: 0.32 liters for (D1); 0.62 liter for (D2); 0.86 liter for (D3); 0.79 for D4 and 0.68 liter for D5. It appears from these results the substrates in co-digestion with a high cow dung rate in (D3 and D4) remain the most productive. These results are in agreement with other research results <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-15">
      [15]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-17">
      [17]
     </xref>. The temperature in the digesters D1, D3 and D4 varied from 25˚C to 29˚C (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(a)">
      Figure 3(a)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(c)">
      Figure 3(c)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(d)">
      Figure 3(d)
     </xref>). It varied from 25˚C to 30˚C in digesters D2 and D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 3(b)-(e)">
      Figures 3(b)-(e)
     </xref>). The average temperature value in the digesters are respectively 26.9˚C for D1, 27.54˚C for D2, 27.64˚C for D3, 27.9˚C for D4 and 28.73 for D5. These results show the average temperatures in the different digesters are relatively the same, with the highest value in the digester (D5) corresponding to 28.73˚C, which contains 100% BV. This is one of the reasons that justifies the co-digestion of cow dung with other substrates for optimal biogas production <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-18">
      [18]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-21">
      [21]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Examining the curves of daily biogas production and temperature evolution, for digester D1 we remarked from the start of biogas production (4th day) to 14th day an inverse relation between biogas production and temperature. In fact, each increase in biogas production over a day interval corresponds to a stabilization (plateau) of the temperature over the same interval (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(a)">
      Figure 3(a)
     </xref>) while a stabilization (plateau) in biogas production over a day interval leads to an increase in temperature. From 15th day this trend is observed. For digester D3 a long period of temperature stabilization (plateau) is observed (from 6th to the 17th day) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(c)">
      Figure 3(c)
     </xref>) while biogas production increases and reaches its maximum value (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(c)">
      Figure 3(c)
     </xref>). From <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref>, it can be concluded the substrate in Digester D3 is the best mixture of pig manure and cow dung for optimal biogas production.</p>
    <fig-group id="fig3" position="float">
     <fig id="fig3" position="float">
      <label>Figure 3</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 3. Daily Biogas production and temperature evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5 Experimental devices.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId16.jpeg?20240909020803" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig3" position="float">
      <label>Figure 3</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 3. Daily Biogas production and temperature evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5 Experimental devices.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId17.jpeg?20240909020803" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig3" position="float">
      <label>Figure 3</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 3. Daily Biogas production and temperature evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5 Experimental devices.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId18.jpeg?20240909020803" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig3" position="float">
      <label>Figure 3</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 3. Daily Biogas production and temperature evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5 Experimental devices.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId19.jpeg?20240909020803" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig3" position="float">
      <label>Figure 3</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 3. Daily Biogas production and temperature evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5 Experimental devices.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId20.jpeg?20240909020803" />
     </fig>
    </fig-group>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_2">
    <title>4.2. Daily Biogas Production and pH Evolution</title>
    <p>The pH variation curves of the substrates is illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">
      Figure 4
     </xref>. The pH variation curves of the substrates (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 4(a)-(e)">
      Figures 4(a)-(e)
     </xref>) show that, during the digestion process, the pH varied from 5 to 8 in the five (5) digesters, with averages of 7.12 for the substrates of digesters (D1, D2 and D3) and 7.28 for the substrates digesters (D4 and D5). These average pH values are relatively similar and correspond to the neutral medium, which is favorable to the development of micro-organisms for an optimal production of biogas.</p>
    <p>During the 25 digestion days, three phases of pH evolution were observed for each type of substrate: an acidic phase (pH around 6) until the 7th day for all the digesters (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 4(a)-(e)">
      Figures 4(a)-(e)
     </xref>); a neutral phase (pH around 7) from the 8th to the 18th day for digesters D1, D2 and D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 4(a)-(c)">
      Figures 4(a)-(c)
     </xref>) and from 8th to 15th for digesters D4 and D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4(d)">
      Figure 4(d)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4(e)">
      Figure 4(e)
     </xref>); une phase basique (pH autour de 8) du 18eme au 25eme jour pour les digesteurs D1, D2 et D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 4(a)-(c)">
      Figures 4(a)-(c)
     </xref>) et 15eme au 25eme pour les digesteurs D4 et D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4(d)">
      Figure 4(d)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4(e)">
      Figure 4(e)
     </xref>). A basic phase (pH around 8) from the 18th to the 25th day for digesters D1, D2 and D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 4(a)-(c)">
      Figures 4(a)-(c)
     </xref>) and from 15th to 25th for digesters D4 and D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4(d)">
      Figure 4(d)
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4(e)">
      Figure 4(e)
     </xref>). It should be remembered the variation in pH is one of the indices for appreciation of biogas production in an anaerobic medium. The pH value for optimal biomethanization is around neutral (6.8 - 7.5) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-2">
      [2]
     </xref>. This demonstrates the pH values recorded during this study remain favorable to biomethanization bacteria.</p>
    <fig-group id="fig4" position="float">
     <fig id="fig4" position="float">
      <label>Figure 4</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 4. Daily Biogas production and pH evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId21.jpeg?20240909020804" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig4" position="float">
      <label>Figure 4</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 4. Daily Biogas production and pH evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId22.jpeg?20240909020804" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig4" position="float">
      <label>Figure 4</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 4. Daily Biogas production and pH evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId23.jpeg?20240909020804" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig4" position="float">
      <label>Figure 4</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 4. Daily Biogas production and pH evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId24.jpeg?20240909020804" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig4" position="float">
      <label>Figure 4</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 4. Daily Biogas production and pH evolution in the digesters. (a) Digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId25.jpeg?20240909020804" />
     </fig>
    </fig-group>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_3">
    <title>4.3. Cumulative Biogas Production</title>
    <p>The cumulative biogas production profiles are illustrated by the curves in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">
      Figure 5
     </xref>. The curves of cumulative biogas production of the five types of substrates are all characterized by low biogas production during the first week of digestion (latency phases), then an acceleration in production was observed from 8th to 19th day (exponential phase), then a slowdown of production during the last week of digestion (bearing phase) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-22">
      [22]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-23">
      [23]
     </xref>. The duration of these different phases depends on the nature of the substrate <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-24">
      [24]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-25">
      [25]
     </xref>. Latency phase: is the first phase (substrate liquefaction period). It corresponds to the progress of hydrolysis, acidogenesis and acetogenesis. In the present study, it lasted: 7 days for substrates in D1 and D2, with a production of 0.15 liters each of them, and 6 days for other substrates, including 0.25 liters in D3 and D4 and 0.50 liters in D5. Exponential phase: is the second phase, which corresponds to methanogenesis. It lasted: 12 days (from 8th to 20th day) for the substrate in D1; 14 days (from 8th to 22nd day) for the substrate in D2; 16 days (from 6th to 22nd) for the substrate in D3 and 20 days (from 4th to 22nd day) for the substrates in digesters D4 and D5. Bearing phase: is the third phase, it corresponds to a very low or stopping of the biogas production under the effect of substrate depletion. It starts respectively from 21st for the substrate in D1 and from the 23rd day for D2, D3, D4 and D5.</p>
    <fig id="fig5" position="float">
     <label>Figure 5</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 5. Cumulative biogas production profiles.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId26.jpeg?20240909020805" />
    </fig>
    <p>The diagrams in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">
      Figure 6
     </xref> show the cumulative biogas production during the 25 days of digestion for the substrates of the five digesters.</p>
    <p>The cumulative production of biogas from pig manure and cow dung substrates in the proportions indicated in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref> are: D1 (7.95 liters), D2 (15.60 liters), D3 (21.50 liters), D4 (19.65 liters) and D5 (17.05 liters) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">
      Figure 6
     </xref>). The cumulative production total is 81.75 liters. It appears from these results that the substrate of digester D3 (50% Pig manure and 50% Cow dung) has the highest cumulative value of biogas products (21.5 liters) following by D4 (25% Pig manure and 75% Cow dung), 19.65 liters showing thus the co-digestion substrates remain the most favorable in anaerobic digestion for optimal biogas production <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-26">
      [26]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-27">
      [27]
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig6" position="float">
     <label>Figure 6</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 6. Cumulative biogas production of substrates in the digesters.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId27.jpeg?20240909020804" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_4">
    <title>4.4. Cumulative Biogas Production</title>
    <p>After following the evolution of biomethanization parameters of substrates (temperature, pH), we presented in this subsection the cumulative biogas production and the evolution of the pressure generated by their production. This is illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">
      Figure 7
     </xref> for biogas from the five digesters. It is observed that the pressure curves from the five digesters are the same trends. During the digestion process, the pressure of cumulative biogas varied in the five (5) digesters with different average values. 3.15*10<sup>5</sup> Pascal for the substrate of digester D1 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(a)">
      Figure 7(a)
     </xref>); 1.61*10<sup>5</sup> Pascal for digester D2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(b)">
      Figure 7(b)
     </xref>); 1.16*10<sup>5</sup> pascal for digester D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(c)">
      Figure 7(c)
     </xref>); 1.28*10<sup>5</sup> pascal for digester D4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(d)">
      Figure 7(d)
     </xref>) and 1.48*10<sup>5</sup> pascal for digester D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(e)">
      Figure 7(e)
     </xref>).</p>
    <p>We observed three phases for the pressure curves (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 7(a)-(e)">
      Figures 7(a)-(e)
     </xref>). Phase 1: A rapid increase of pressure followed by rapid decrease (5th day to 7th day) for digester D1 and D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 7(a)-(c)">
      Figures 7(a)-(c)
     </xref>), (5th day to 9th day) for digester D2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(b)">
      Figure 7(b)
     </xref>), (3th day to 8th day) for digester D4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(d)">
      Figure 7(d)
     </xref>) and (3th day to 6th day) for digester D5 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(e)">
      Figure 7(e)
     </xref>); Phase 2: a small increase of pressure (7th day to 8th day) for digester D1 and D3 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 7(a)-(c)">
      Figures 7(a)-(c)
     </xref>), (9th day to 10th day) for digester D2 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(b)">
      Figure 7(b)
     </xref>), (8th day to 9th day) for digester D4 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7(d)">
      Figure 7(d)
     </xref>). This phase do not exist for digester D5; Phase 3: A decrease of pressure (10th day to 25th day) for digester D2, (8th day to 25th day) for digester D3, (9th day to 25th day) for digester D4, (6th day to 25th day) for digester D5, and (8th day to 14th day) for digester D1.</p>
    <fig-group id="fig7" position="float">
     <fig id="fig7" position="float">
      <label>Figure 7</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 7. Cumulative Biogas production and pressure evolution in the digesters. (a) digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId28.jpeg?20240909020805" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig7" position="float">
      <label>Figure 7</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 7. Cumulative Biogas production and pressure evolution in the digesters. (a) digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId29.jpeg?20240909020805" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig7" position="float">
      <label>Figure 7</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 7. Cumulative Biogas production and pressure evolution in the digesters. (a) digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId30.jpeg?20240909020805" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig7" position="float">
      <label>Figure 7</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 7. Cumulative Biogas production and pressure evolution in the digesters. (a) digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId31.jpeg?20240909020805" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig7" position="float">
      <label>Figure 7</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--(e)--Figure 7. Cumulative Biogas production and pressure evolution in the digesters. (a) digester D1, (b) digester D2, (c) digester D3, (d) digester D4, (e) digester D5.</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId32.jpeg?20240909020805" />
     </fig>
    </fig-group>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_5">
    <title>4.5. Biomethanization Parameters (Biogas Production, Temperature, pH) and Pressure Evolution</title>
    <p>In order to obtain an overview of their daily evolution, we represented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">
      Figure 7
     </xref>, the evolution the biomethanization parameters (biogas production, temperature, pH) and pressure of the cumulative biogas production for the substrates of the different digesters on the same graph. The results confirm the same interpretations of the <xref ref-type="fig" rid="figFigures 1-7">
      Figures 1-7
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>For daily biogas production (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8(a)">
      Figure 8(a)
     </xref>), it can be seen that during the 25 days of digestion, the largest quantity of biogas was recorded on the 15th day in the digesters (D3 and D4) with a value of 2 liters. The same value was recorded on the 19th day in digester D2. The second largest value of biogas produced is 1.5 liters, recorded on the 8th day in digester D5 and the smallest value 1liter was recorded on the 11th day in digester D1. For daily temperature evolution (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8(b)">
      Figure 8(b)
     </xref>), the temperature in the digesters D1, D3 and D4 varied from 25˚C to 29˚C. It varied from 25˚C to 30˚C in digesters D2 and D5. For daily pH evolution (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8(c)">
      Figure 8(c)
     </xref>), the pH variation curves of the substrates show that, during the digestion process, the pH varied from 5 to 8 in the five (5) digesters. For daily pressure evolution, it is observed the pressure curves in the five digesters are the same trends and during the digestion process, the pressure varied in the five (5) digesters with different average values.</p>
    <fig-group id="fig8" position="float">
     <fig id="fig8" position="float">
      <label>Figure 8</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--Figure 8. Biomethanization parameters (daily biogas production, temperature and pH) of the substrates in the digesters (a) (b) (c) and pressure (d).</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId33.jpeg?20240909020806" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig8" position="float">
      <label>Figure 8</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--Figure 8. Biomethanization parameters (daily biogas production, temperature and pH) of the substrates in the digesters (a) (b) (c) and pressure (d).</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId34.jpeg?20240909020806" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig8" position="float">
      <label>Figure 8</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--Figure 8. Biomethanization parameters (daily biogas production, temperature and pH) of the substrates in the digesters (a) (b) (c) and pressure (d).</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId35.jpeg?20240909020806" />
     </fig>
     <fig id="fig8" position="float">
      <label>Figure 8</label>
      <caption>
       <title>(a)--(b)--(c)--(d)--Figure 8. Biomethanization parameters (daily biogas production, temperature and pH) of the substrates in the digesters (a) (b) (c) and pressure (d).</title>
      </caption>
      <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId36.jpeg?20240909020806" />
     </fig>
    </fig-group>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_6">
    <title>4.6. Biogas Combustion Test</title>
    <p>Biogas is a mixture combustible gas if the methane content is greater than or equal to 50%. The combustion of biogas is characterized by the release of a yellow or blue flame depending on the methane content. A persistent blue flame confirms the presence of methane in significant proportion (50%) or more <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-28">
      [28]
     </xref>. The results obtained during this experimental study show that the biogas produced from the different types of substrates is combustible (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig9">
      Figure 9
     </xref>). The combustibility test revealed that the biogas produced by the substrates during the first two weeks was non-flammable. It was from the 15th day that the combustibility of the biogas produced began, and it is from the 20th day that a significant quantity of methane with a stable flame was observed. It appears from this test, the quantities of biogas produced by the substrates (50%PM + 50%CD, 25%PM + 75%CD and 0%PM + 100%CD) respectively in the digesters (D3, D4 and D5) were very combustibles (Figures 9(a)-(c)). These test results confirm the importance of co-digestion of pig manure with cow dung in different proportions for combustible biogas production <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135817-29">
      [29]
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig9" position="float">
     <label>Figure 9</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 9. Biogas combustion test.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/6202929-rId37.jpeg?20240909020807" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s5">
   <title>5. Conclusion</title>
   <p>This work allowed to develop an experimental biogas production model of Biogas using combination of pig manure and cow dung. The evolution of biomethanization parameters (pH, temperatures, daily and cumulative biogas production) and pressure of the substrates in the different digesters (D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5) were measured during biogas production process. The relation between the daily biogas production and the variation of temperature, pH were also examined as the relation between cumulative biogas production and pressure evolution. The average daily biogas production of the five types of substrates obtained during the 25 digestion days, are: 0.32 liters for D1; 0.62 liters for D2; 0.86 liters for D3; 0.79 for D4 and 0.68 liters for D5. The temperature in the digesters D1, D3 and D4 varied from 25˚C to 29˚C. It varied from 25˚C to 30˚C in digesters D2 and D5. The average temperature value in the digesters are respectively 26.9˚C for D1, 27.54˚C for D2, 27.64˚C for D3, 27.9˚C for D4 and 28.73 for D5. The pH varied from 5 to 8 in the five (5) digesters, with averages of 7.12 for the substrates of digesters (D1, D2 and D3) and 7.28 for the substrates digesters (D4 and D5). During the digestion process, the pressure of cumulative biogas varied in the five (5) digesters with different average values. 3.15*10<sup>5</sup> Pascal for the substrate of digester D1; 1.61*10<sup>5</sup> Pascal for digester D2; 1.16*10<sup>5</sup> pascal for digester D3; 1.28*10<sup>5</sup> pascal for digester D4 and 1.48*10<sup>5</sup> pascal for digester D5. The cumulative production of biogas from pig manure and cow dung substrates in the proportions indicated in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
     Table 1
    </xref> funded are: 7.95 liters for D1, 15.60 liters for D2, 21.50 liters for D3, 19.65 liters for D4 and 17.05 liters for D5. The combustibility test of biogas produced revealed the quantities of biogas produced by the substrates (50%PM + 50%CD, 25%PM + 75%CD and 0%PM + 100%CD) respectively in the digesters (D3, D4 and D5) were very combustibles. These test results confirm the importance of co-digestion of pig manure with cow dung in different proportions for combustible biogas production.</p>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sakouvogui, A. (2019) Evaluation du potentiel énergétique des déjections animales et des émissions de méthane en vue de la réalisation et de l’expérimentation d’un digesteur à Mamou (République de Guinée). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Gamal Abdel Nasser de Conakry.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mills, D.M. (2009) Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and US Health Impacts: What Can We Say? Journal of Occupational &amp; Environmental Medicine, 51, 26-32. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1097/jom.0b013e31817d32da
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Rosenfeld, D.C., Lindorfer, J. and Ellersdorfer, M. (2020) Valorization of Organic Waste Fractions: A Theoretical Study on Biomethane Production Potential and the Recovery of N and P in Austria. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 10, Article No. 39. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-020-00272-3
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Acharya, A. and Cave, L.A. (2021) Evaluating Elements of Demand-Side Policy Imperatives for Biogas from Waste Scheme Diffusion in the UK. Journal of Sustainable Development, 14, 13-28. &gt;https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v14n5p13
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sárvári Horváth, I., Tabatabaei, M., Karimi, K. and Kumar, R. (2016) Recent Updates on Biogas Production—A Review. Biofuel Research Journal, 3, 394-402. &gt;https://doi.org/10.18331/brj2016.3.2.4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Dupont, N. (2010) Valorisation du biogaz de fermentation: Combustion Catalytique. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Claude Bernard. &gt;https://theses.hal.science/tel-00816867/file/TH2010_Dupont_-_Nicolas.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sakouvogui, A., Barry, A.F., Balde, Y. M., Kante, C. and Keita, M. (2018) Sizing, Construction and Experimentation of a Chinese Type Digester in Mamou Prefecture (Republic of Guinea). International Journal of Engneering Science and Computing, 8, 18926-18933.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ojo, O.M. and Babatola, J.O. (2019) The Catalytic Effect of Termites in the Anaerobic Codigestion of Pig Manure and Water Leaf towards Biogas Production. European Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7, 1-8.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Barry, I., Sakouvogui, A., Keita, M., Dong, R. and Diallo, S.B. (2021) Evaluation of the Potential of Biogas and Methane a Party of the Cow Dung. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research, 5, 151-154. &gt;http://ijeais.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/1/abs/IJAMR210129.html
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Oulare, F., Cisse, F., Sakouvogui, A., Sidibe, A. and Keita, M. (2021) Evaluation of the Hydroelectric Potential of the Tokounouwaterfall, Kankan Prefecture, Guinea. International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Technovation, 4, 1-6.&gt;https://doi.org/10.34256/irjmt2131
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sakouvogui, A., Kamano, M. and Keita, M. (2021) Assessment of the Energy Potential of Pig Dung by the Production of Biogas in the Urban Municipality from N’Zérékoré in Guinea. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, 2, 374-376.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bauer, A., Moeller, L., Wedwitschka, H., Stinner, W. and Zehnsdorf, A. (2018) Anaerobic Digestion of Mixed Silage of Waterweed Biomass and Wheat Straw in a Long-Term Semi-Continuous Biogas Production Process. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8, Article No. 4. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-017-0145-9
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kasisira, L.L. and Muyiiya, N.D. (2009) Assessment of the Effect of Mixing Pig and Cow Dung on Biogas Yield. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 11, 1-7.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bodjui, O.A., Loissi, K. and Moussa, B. (2017) Evaluation of the Biogas Production Potential by Anaerobic Digestion of Fermentable Agricultural Residues in Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Waste Resources, 7, 1-6.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sakouvogui, A., Balde, Y.M., Barry, M.F., Kante, C. and Keita, M. (2018) Évaluation du potentiel en biogaz de la bouse de vache, de la fiente de poule et en codigestion à Mamou, République de Guinée. Afrique SCIENCES, 14, 147-157.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Usman, M.A., Olanipekun, O.O. and Ogunbanwo, O.A. (2012) Effect of Temperature on Biogas Generation from Lignocellulosic Substrate. International Journal of Re-search in Chemistry and Environment, 2, 68-71.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Babaee, A., Shayegan, J. and Roshani, A. (2013) Anaerobic Slurry Co-Digestion of Poultry Manure and Straw: Effect of Organic Loading and Temperature. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 11, Article No. 15. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-336x-11-15
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhao, C. (2011) Effect of Temperature on Biogas Production in Anaerobic Treatment of Domestic Wastewater UASB System in Hammarby Sjöstadsverk. Master’s These, Royal Institute of Technology.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref19">
    <label>19</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Otun, T.F., Ojo, O.M., Ajibade, F.O. and Babatola, J.O. (2016) Evaluation of Biogas Production from the Digestion and Codigestion of Animal Waste, Food Waste and Fruit Waste. International Journal of Energy and Environmental Research, 4, 8-21.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref20">
    <label>20</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ukpai, P.A. and Nnabuchi, M.N. (2012) Comparative Study of Biogas Production from Cow Dung, Cow Pea and Cassava Peeling Using 45 Litres Biogas Digester. Advances in Applied Science Research, 3, 1864-1869. &gt;http://edn.link/cm2nmf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref21">
    <label>21</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mahat, S.B., Omar, R., Man, H.C., Idris, A.I.M., Kamal, S.M.M., Idris, A., et al. (2020) Influence of Substrate to Inoculum Ratio (S/I) on the Treatment Performance of Food Processing Wastewater Containing High Oil and Grease (O&amp;G) in Batch Mode. Desalination and Water Treatment, 203, 267-278. &gt;https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.26231
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref22">
    <label>22</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ghatak, M.D. and Mahanta, P. (2014) Kinetic Assessment of Biogas Production from Lignocellulosic Biomasses. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Tech-nology, 3, 244-249. &gt;https://www.ijeat.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v3i5/E3232063514.pdf 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref23">
    <label>23</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Nwosu-Obieogu, K., Aguele, F.O., Onyenwoke, A. and Adekunle, K. (2020) Kinetic Model Comparison for Biogas Production from Poultry Manure and Banana Peels. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 4, em0117. &gt;https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/7595
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref24">
    <label>24</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Moharir, S., Bondre, A., Vaidya, S., Patankar, P., Kanaskar, Y. and Karne, H. (2020) Comparative Analysis of the Amount of Biogas Produced by Different Cultures Using the Modified Gompertz Model and Logistic Model. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 4, em0141. &gt;https://doi.org/10.29333/ejosdr/8550
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref25">
    <label>25</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Aragaw, T., Mebeaselassie, A. and Amare, G. (2013) Co-Digestion of Cattle Manure with Organic Kitchen Waste to Increase Biogas Production Using Rumen Fluid as Inoculums. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 8, 443-450.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref26">
    <label>26</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Li, Y., Zhang, R., Liu, X., Chen, C., Xiao, X., Feng, L., et al. (2013) Evaluating Methane Production from Anaerobic Mono-And Co-Digestion of Kitchen Waste, Corn Stover, and Chicken Manure. Energy&amp;Fuels, 27, 2085-2091. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400117f
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref27">
    <label>27</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Raji, W.A., Yerima, Y. and Alufar, P.T. (2018) Comparative Study on the Rates of Production of Biogas from Organic Substrates. Energy and Power Engineering, 10, 508-517. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2018.1012032
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref28">
    <label>28</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bong, C.P.C., Lee, C.T., Ho, W.S., Hashim, H., Klemes, J.J. and Hob, C.S. (2017) Mini-Review on Substrate and Inoculum Loadings for Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 56, 493-498.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135817-ref29">
    <label>29</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Luboya, K.E., Kusisakana, M., Luhata, W.G., Mukuna, K.B., Monga, M.J. and Luhata, L.P. (2020) Effect of Solids Concentration on the Kinetic of Biogas Production from Goat Droppings. Journal of Energy Research and Reviews, 5, 25-33. &gt;https://doi.org/10.9734/jenrr/2020/v5i230145
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>