Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890

Waste treatment and biogas quality in small-scale agricultural digesters

a,*
Stephanie Lansing , Raúl Botero Botero b, Jay F. Martin a

a
Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University, 590 Woody Hayes Drive,
Columbus, OH 43210-1057, United States
b
EARTH University, Apartado Postal 4442 – 1000, San Jose, Costa Rica

Received 22 June 2006; received in revised form 7 September 2007; accepted 25 September 2007
Available online 26 November 2007

Abstract

Seven low-cost digesters in Costa Rica were studied to determine the potential of these systems to treat animal wastewater and pro-
duce renewable energy. The effluent water has a significantly lower oxygen demand (COD decreased from 2968 mg/L to 472 mg/L) and
higher dissolved nutrient concentration (NH4-N increased by 78.3% to 82.2 mg/L) than the influent water, which increases the usefulness
of the effluent as an organic fertilizer and decreases its organic loading on surface waters. On average, methane constituted 66% of the
produced biogas, which is consistent with industrial digesters. Through principle component analysis, COD, turbidity, NH4-N, TKN,
and pH were determined to be the most useful parameters to characterize wastewater. The results suggest that the systems have the abil-
ity to withstand fluctuations in the influent water quality. This study revealed that small-scale agricultural digesters can produce methane
at concentrations useful for cooking, while improving the quality of the livestock wastewater.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Manure; Nitrogen; Renewable energy; Water quality

1. Introduction
In developing countries, water pollution and access to
energy resources present challenges to human health, envi-
ronmental health, and economic development. Small-scale,
economically feasible technologies that combine wastewa-
ter treatment and energy production can simultaneously
protect the surrounding water resources and enhance
energy availability. In developing countries, animal rearing
creates a resource that can be used in anaerobic digesters to
produce methane gas for cooking. In this study, seven agri-
cultural digesters in Costa Rica that used excreta from
bovines and swine were studied to determine the extent
of wastewater treatment and the quality of the produced
gas. The variability between these digesters was studied
to determine if management styles and wastewater strength
had an effect on wastewater treatment and the concentra-
tion of methane in the produced biogas. Biogas produced
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 918 749 1282; fax: +1 614 292 9448.
E-mail address: lansing.10@osu.edu (S. Lansing).
by the digester systems in this study was used to meet the
farmers’ energy needs for cooking.
Biogas is derived through anaerobic digestion of bio-
mass, such as animal wastes, municipal wastewater, and
landfill waste. Anaerobic digestion is a microbially medi-
ated biochemical degradation of complex organic material
into simple organics and dissolved nutrients. Digesters are
physical structures that facilitate anaerobic digestion by
providing an anaerobic environment for the organisms
responsible for digestion. Processing livestock manure
through anaerobic digesters captures methane, which can
be used as an energy source while reducing emissions of
this greenhouse gas.
Currently, digesters are concentrated in developing coun-
tries, with over 5 million household digesters constructed in
China and India alone (Huttunen and Lampinen, 2005).
Digesters built around the world vary in their design com-
plexity, construction materials, and costs. In developed
countries, digesters often are concrete stirred tank reactors
(CSTRs), in which a portion of the produced biogas is uti-
lized to heat the digester (Berglund and Börjesson, 2006).

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.09.090
5882 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890

In developing countries, many of the digesters do not have
mixing components, do not require continuous monitoring,
and are adaptable to any tropical climate (Chará et al., 1999;
Ong et al., 2000). The Taiwanese-model digesters are simple,
flow-through reactors consisting of a tubular polyethylene
bag, PVC piping, and plastic hosing to transport the biogas
from the digester (Fig. 1) (Chará et al., 1999; Botero and
Preston, 1987; An and Preston, 1999). The construction,
materials, and labor costs for construction of a Taiwanese-
model digester can vary from $34 USD in Vietnam (An
et al., 1997) to $150 USD in Costa Rica.
Biogas from Taiwanese-model digesters has been suc-
cessfully collected and used for cooking, eliminating the
need to buy propane or use firewood. By using biogas in
place of burning biomass, indoor air quality is dramatically
improved and deforestation is reduced (Chará et al., 1999).
The biogas from digesters is composed of 50–70% methane,
30–40% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases,
Fig. 1. Taiwanese-model digesters are flow-through reactors consisting of
a tubular polyethylene bag, PVC piping, and plastic hosing. The biogas is
transported from the digester to the kitchen/cooking area, where it is
utilized for up to 12 h of cooking per day. The length of the digester can
vary from 10 to 20 m, with a 5 m circumference. The wastewater to biogas
ratio is approximately 1:3 (Botero and Preston, 1987).
Table 1
Relative composition of biogas in a Taiwanese-model anaerobic digester
(Botero and Preston, 1987)
Gas component Percentage in digester (%)
Methane (CH4) 50–70
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 30–40
Hydrogen (H2) 1.0
Nitrogen (N2) 0.5
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1
Oxygen (O2) 0.1
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 0.1
as detailed in Table 1 (Botero and Preston, 1987; Erickson
et al., 2004; Erickson and Fung, 1998). Previous studies
have shown that small-scale digesters reduce the amount
of organic matter and solids in the animal wastewater by
55–90% (Chen and Shyu, 1996; Pedraza et al., 2001; Botero
and Hernández, 2005). In addition, the digester effluent has
little odor and an increased concentration of dissolved
nutrients, which provides farmers with an improved
organic fertilizer (Parsons, 1984; Botero and Preston,
1987: Chará et al., 1999; Sophea and Preston, 2001; Sophin
and Preston, 2001; Thy and Preston, 2003).
The majority of digester studies have been conducted on
technologically advanced, lab-scale digesters (Griffin et al.,
1998; Lettinga et al., 1999; Sterling et al., 2001; Collins
et al., 2003; Erickson et al., 2004; McMahon et al., 2004).
There has been a lack of experimental studies on Taiwan-
ese-model digesters because of their development as a prac-
tical, easy to implement technology for utilization in
tropical countries (Botero and Hernández, 2005). Studies
have shown that the Taiwanese model-digesters can pro-
duce biogas with methane concentrations above 60%, with
temperatures at or below the mesophilic range (20–40 °C)
(An and Preston, 1999; Botero and Preston, 1987). Most
previous studies have concentrated on the general success
of a single digester (Gowda, 1995; An et al., 1997; Moog
et al., 1997; Chará et al., 1999; Sophea and Preston,
2001; Sophin and Preston, 2001; Esquivel et al., 2002; Bote-
ro and Hernández, 2005). Rigorous water quality analyses
of the influent and effluent wastewater have rarely been
used on small-scale systems due their concentration in
remote areas of developing countries. This study strives
to statistically access the ability of multiple small-scale
digesters to treat animal wastewater and obtain biogas with
high methane levels.
In this study, twelve influent and effluent wastewater
parameters were analyzed to determine statistically signifi-
cant trends. The study was conducted on seven digester
sites to assess variability within these systems, which were
identical in construction materials, but differed in digester
length, wastewater management styles, wastewater source,
and hydrologic loading (Table 2). The objectives of this
study were to determine the following: (1) significant waste-
water characteristics in the treatment process that should
be monitored in the future; (2) the variability of water qual-
ity parameters and methane concentration between differ-
ent digesters.

Table 2
The characteristics for each of the seven digesters studied
Farm Elevation (m) Waste source Washes per day Washing time (min) Digester volume (m3) Digester retention time (days)
1 50 65 pigs 2 45 70 11.1
2 50 30 cows 2 20 60 19.3
3 50 40 pigs 2 30 40 16.2
4 70 12 pigs 1 20 40 44.4
5 250 7 pigs 2 10 40 51.3
6 350 5 pigs 3 5 25 91.4
7 250 3 pigs 2 15 25 55.6
 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890
2. Methods
2.1. Study site
The seven digesters studied were located in the Limon
Province of Costa Rica (10°N, 83°W). Four digesters were
located on small-production farms and three digesters were
located at EARTH University, an international undergrad-
uate university for the study of sustainable agriculture. The
digesters analyzed in this study were all Taiwanese-model
plastic digesters (Fig. 1). The digester varied in elevation
from 350 m (Farm 6) to 50 m (Farms 1, 2 and 3) (Table
2). All digesters used animal wastewater, with the majority
using swine manure (Table 2). Manure was washed directly
from the stalls into the digester. The frequency and amount
of wastewater used in each digester varied between the
seven farms, with an average stall-washing time of
15 min, 2 times a day. The retention time in each digester
varied from 11 to 91 days depending on the amount of
water used for stall washing and the digester volume (Table
2).
2.2. Analytical methods
Wastewater influent and effluent samples were collected
from each digester from July, 2005 to October, 2005. Tem-
perature, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and conductivity
measurements were taken on-site using a hand-held 556
MPS YSI probe. Four site visits were made to each farm.
TM
Three influent and three effluent wastewater samples were
collected from each digester during each site visit. In total,
at least twelve influent and twelve effluent samples were
taken from each digester. All wastewater analyses were
conducted at EARTH University’s Soil and Water Labora-
tory. Each sample was analyzed according to standard
methods (APHA, 1989) for the following: biochemical oxy-
gen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), tur-
bidity, total suspended solids (TSS), ammonium-nitrogen
(NH4-N), nitrate-nitrite (NOx-N), and orthophosphate
(PO4-P). In addition, samples collected during the final
two site visits were analyzed for total kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) (APHA, 1989).
An IR-30M hydrocarbon meter (Environmental Sensors
Co.) was used to detect on-site methane (CH4) concentra-
tions, and a Z-900 hydrogen sulfide (H2S) meter (Environ-
mental Sensors Co.) was used to detect on-site H2S
concentrations.
2.3. Statistical analysis
A principle component analysis (PCA) was conducted to
determine: (1) wastewater variables that were altered dur-
ing the digestion process, (2) examine redundancy of vari-
ables, and (3) identify the most important variables to
include in future analyses. PCA is a mathematical proce-
dure that reduces data dimensionality by transforming
correlated variables into uncorrelated variables called prin-
5883
ciple components. Each principal component accounts for
as much of the data variability as possible, with the first
component retaining the characteristics that contribute
the most to the variability (Jolliffe, 2002).
Multivariate analysis of variances (MANOVA) was con-
ducted to determine if there were significance differences in
the overall dataset. Individual analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and subsequent Tukey–Kramer multiple com-
parison analyses determined which wastewater variables
were significantly different between the seven farm digest-
ers. A multiple linear regression (MLR) was preformed
to compare the CH4 concentration to the wastewater vari-
ables that were determined to be significant from the PCA
analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted using
SASÓ (SAS Institute, Inc) or PC-ORDÓ software (McCune
and Medford, 1999).
Ten of the twelve environmental variables collected dur-
ing the study period were used in the statistical analyses
(temperature, pH, conductivity, COD, BOD5, turbidity,
TSS, NH4-N, PO4-P, and TKN). The high concentrations
of solids in digester influent samples interfered with the
DO and NOx-N analyses (APHA, 1989), and thus, these
results were not used in the statistical analyses. The follow-
ing environmental variables were log-transformed in order
to meet the assumptions of the PCA and MANOVA: con-
ductivity, turbidity, COD, BOD5, TSS, PO4-P, and TKN.
Before transformation, these variables had high skewness
(2.9–0.58), high kurtosis (11.1–0.69), were not normal, or
did not have homogeneity of variances. After transforma-
tion, the skewness (0.79–0.05), kurtosis (2.39–0.12), nor-
mality, and the homogeneity of variances improved, with
COD, BOD5, PO4-P, and TKN having homogeneity of
variance at the 0.05 significance level.
3. Results
3.1. Water quality improvements
During the digestion process, all of the organic matter
and solid variables showed significant decreases (ANOVA
p-values <0.001) (Tables 3 and 4). The average COD of
the influent wastewater decreased 84.1% from 2970 mg/L
to 472 mg/L, and the BOD5 decreased 79.4% to 96.2 mg/
L. The average turbidity decreased 90.5% from 1820
NTU to 172 NTU, and the TSS concentration decreased
85.6% L to 319 mg/L (Table 3). The average TKN concen-
tration decreased 45.7% from 306 mg/L to 166 mg/L (p-
value < 0.001).
Dissolved nutrient (PO4-P, NH4-N) concentrations and
conductivity increased as the wastewater moved through
the digester (Table 3), with the NH4-N concentration
increasing 78.3% to 82.2 mg/L (p-value < 0.001). The DO
concentration slightly increased in the digester, but both
the average influent (0.21 mg/L) and effluent (0.54 mg/L)
DO concentrations were anaerobic. The average pH
decreased from 7.34 to 6.64 (p-value < 0.001).
5884 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890

Table 3
Average influent and effluent data ± SE (n) for Taiwanese-model digesters (Farms 1–7)
Average influent Average effluent Percent decrease/increase
Temperature (°C) 26.2 ± 0.2 (74) 26.1 ± 0.1 (80) 0.4% decrease
Conductivity (mS/cm) 1.59 ± 0.1 (74) 1.73 ± 0.1 (80) 8.8% increase
pH 7.34 ± 0.1 (74) 6.64 ± 0.04 (80) 9.5% decrease
DO (mg/L) 0.21 ± 0.1 (73) 0.54 ± 0.1 (80) 157% increase
BOD (mg/L) 467 ± 40 (74) 96.2 ± 11 (80) 79.4% decrease
COD (mg/L) 2970 ± 260 (73) 472 ± 40 (79) 84.1% decrease
Turbidity (NTU) 1820 ± 200 (73) 172 ± 15 (80) 90.5% decrease
TSS (mg/L) 2210 ± 223 (72) 319 ± 56 (80) 85.6% decrease
NOx-N (mg/L) 0.92 ± 0.2 (71) 0.18 ± 0.03 (80) 80.4% decrease
PO4-P (mg/L) 13.3 ± 1.7 (74) 15.4 ± 1.4 (80) 15.8% increase
NH4-N (mg/L) 46.1 ± 5.1 (72) 82.2 ± 5.0 (79) 78.3% increase
TKN (mg/L) 306 ± 28 (35) 166 ± 13 (37) 45.7% decrease

Table 4
Individual ANOVA and MANOVA results for the differences between all influent and effluent values and the differences between individual farm influent
and effluent values are given below
Influent/effluent By farm: influent By farm: effluent
p-value (degree of freedom) F-stat p-value (degree of freedom) F-stat p-value (degree of freedom) F-stat
Temperature (°C) 0.672 (1,152) 0.18 <0.001 (6,28) 13.1 <0.001 (6,30) 5.85
Log(Conductivity) 0.003 (1,152) 8.92 0.004 (6,28) 4.12 <0.001 (6,30) 199
pH <0.001 (1,152) 77.1 <0.001 (6,28) 24.0 <0.001 (6,30) 19.9
Log(BOD5) <0.001 (1,152) 129 <0.001 (6,28) 5.91 0.001 (6,30) 5.63
Log(COD) <0.001 (1,150) 197 <0.001 (6,28) 10.1 0.017 (6,30) 3.12
Log(Turbidity) <0.001 (1,151) 272 0.005 (6,28) 3.95 0.005 (6,30) 4.01
Log(TSS) <0.001 (1,150) 156 0.010 (6,28) 3.52 <0.001 (6,30) 6.48
Log(PO4-P) 0.070 (1,152) 3.34 <0.001 (6,28) 10.7 <0.001 (6,30) 26.7
NH4-N (mg/L) <0.001 (1,149) 25.7 0.007 (6,28) 3.74 <0.001 (6,30) 72.7
Log(TKN) <0.001 (1,70) 25.5 0.222 (6,28) 1.48 0.023 (6,30) 2.92
MANOVA <0.001 (10,61) 54.2 <0.001 (60,104) 5.63 <0.001 (60,115) 9.61
Wilks’ k = 0.10 Wilks’ k < 0.001 Wilks’ k < 0.001
The p-value (degrees of freedom) and F-statistics are given for each ANOVA, and the p-value (degrees of freedom), approximate F, and Wilks’ k are given
for each MANOVA.

All the collected influent and effluent data from the

digesters at Farms 1 through 7 were used in the PCA and
MANOVA analyses. Axis 1 and axis 2 of the PCA analysis
had eigenvalues (3.85 and 2.59, respectively) above the bro-
ken stick values (2.93 and 1.93, respectively). Axis 1
explained 39% of the variance, and axis 2 explained 25%.
Together the two axes cumulatively explained 64% of the
variance (Fig. 2).
The PCA analysis shows that log(BOD5), log(COD),
log(TSS), and log(turbidity) are highly correlated in
multivariate space and have a high positive influence on
the location of axis 1. NH4-N, log(conductivity) and
log(PO4-P) are highly correlated and have a high positive
influence on the location of axis 2 and a negative influence
on the location of axis 1. The wastewater variables that
measure organic matter and solids (BOD5, COD, TSS,
and turbidity) were located opposite of the variables that
measure dissolved species (NH4-N, conductivity and PO4-
P) in multivariate space. Log(TKN) influences the location
of both axis 1 and axis 2, but is not clustered in multivar-
iate space with either the organic matter/solids or the dis- Fig. 2. Axis one and axis two of the digester principle component analysis
(PCA) for influent and effluent data from Farms 1–7. Axis one has an
solved species. eigenvalue of 3.85, and the percentage of variance explained is 39%. Axis
All of the environmental variables included in the PCA two has an eigenvalue of 2.59, and the percentage of variance explained is
influenced the location of the two axes, and thus, all the 25%.
 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890 5885

variables were used in the MANOVA analyses. The
MANOVA shows significant differences between farm
digester influent and effluent data (p-value < 0.001; Wilks
k = 0.10) (Table 4). The individual ANOVAs show signifi-
cant differences between influent and effluent values of all
the wastewater parameters at the 0.05 significance level,
except temperature and log(PO4-P) (Table 4). The individ-
ual ANOVAs with the largest F-statistics, and therefore the
largest contrast between influent and effluent concentra-
tions are log(turbidity) (F-stat = 272) and log(COD) (F-
stat = 197).
3.2. Water quality comparisons between individual farms
The data from each individual farm was compared to
examine differences between influent and effluent data
across the seven farms. For each wastewater variable, the
effluent and influent data from each individual farm were
averaged (Table 5), and these average influent and effluent
values were used in the PCA analysis comparing individual
farm digester influent and effluent water (Fig. 3). Axis 1
and axis 2 had eigenvalues (5.66 and 2.18, respectively)
above the broken stick values (2.93 and 1.93, respectively).
Axis 1 explained 57% of the variance, and axis 2 explained
an additional 21% of the variance. Together axis 1 and 2
explained 78% of the variance.
The farm digester effluent values have a positive influ-
ence on the location of axis 1, and the influent values have
a negative influence on axis 1. The effluent values are more
tightly correlated in multivariate space along axis 1 than
the influent values. Farm 2, which is the only farm digester
that utilized cow manure as a wastewater source for the
entire study, had the highest positive influence on axis 2.
The influent and effluent data from the digester on Farm
3 negatively influenced the location of axis 2. Farm 3 had
a low retention time (16 days), a high number of pigs
(40), and solid separation prior to the digester entrance
(Fig. 3 and Table 2).

Table 5
Average influent and effluent data ± SE (n) for Taiwanese-model digesters at Farms 1–7
Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3 Farm 4 Farm 5 Farm 6 Farm 7
Influent temp. 27.6 ± 0.3 (12) *H 28.4 ± 0.3 (12) *H 26.3 ± 0.3 (11) 23.8 ± 0.2 (11) 25.5 ± 0.2 (12) 25.7 ± 0.4 (10) 25.6 ± 0.4 (6)
(°C)
Effluent temp. 27.2 ± 0.2 (12) *H 27.8 ± 0.3 (12) *H 25.3 ± 0.1 (12) 25.2 ± 0.1 (12) 25.2 ± 0.2 (12) 25.8 ± 0.4 (8) 26.1 ± 0.2 (12)
(°C)
Influent cond 1.0 ± 0.2 (12) 1.3 ± 0.2 (12) 3.0 ± 0.2 (11) *H 2.4 ± 0.4 (11) 0.8 ± 0.1 (12) 1.0 ± 0.2 (10) 1.9 ± 0.7 (6)
(mS/cm)
Effluent cond 1.5 ± 0.02 (12) 0.9 ± 0.01 (12) *L 2.9 ± 0.1 (12) *H 1.6 ± 0.1 (12) 1.9 ± 0.1 (12) 2.1 ± 0.2 (8) 1.34 ± 0.1 (12)
(mS/cm)
Influent pH 8.4 ± 0.1 (12) *H 7.2 ± 0.1 (12) 6.8 ± 0.04 (11) 7.3 ± 0.2 (11) 7.1 ± 0.1 (12) 7.3 ± 0.1 (10) 7.2 ± 0.1 (6)
Effluent pH 7.1 ± 0.03 (12) *H 6.2 ± 0.1 (12) *L 6.8 ± 0.04 (12) 6.5 ± 0.03 (12) 6.7 ± 0.1 (12) 6.9 ± 0.1 (8) 6.4 ± 0.03 (12)
Influent BOD5 156 ± 25 (12) *L 373 ± 72 (12) 551 ± 74 (11) 887 ± 138 (11) 471 ± 91 (12) 275 ± 45 (10) 668 ± 62 (6)
(mg/L)
Effluent BOD5 115 ± 14 (12) 116 ± 12 (12) 87.3 ± 10 (12) 55.7 ± 8 (12) 126 ± 68 (12) 60.4 ± 10 (8) 102 ± 24 (12)
(mg/L)
Influent COD 957 ± 160 (12) *L 3220 ± 630 (12) 3580 ± 650 (10) 4220 ± 410 (11) 3600 ± 810 (12) 1310 ± 160 (10) 4680 ± 1050 (6)
(mg/L)
Effluent COD 418 ± 29 (12) 714 ± 83 (12) 294 ± 28 (12) 550 ± 121 (12) 194 ± 37 (12) 302 ± 69 (8) 802 ± 159 (11)
(mg/L)
Influent turb. 923 ± 201 (12) 2100 ± 730 (12) 1620 ± 450 (11) 2040 ± 310 (11) 2470 ± 560 (12) 561 ± 147 (9) 3590 ± 530 (6)
(NTU)
Effluent turb. 92.6 ± 5 (12) 279 ± 37 (12) 107 ± 15 (12) 195 ± 33 (12) 59.2 ± 10 (12) 153 ± 17 (8) 313 ± 57 (12)
(NTU)
Influent TSS 769 ± 135 (12) 2260 ± 660 (12) 2710 ± 610 (11) 3030 ± 410 (9) 3450 ± 720 (12) 1070 ± 230 (10) 2260 ± 390 (6)
(mg/L)
Effluent TSS 35.8 ± 10 (12) *L 241 ± 58 (12) 83.9 ± 16 (12) 964 ± 251 (12) 230 ± 76 (12) 411 ± 204 (8) 296 ± 92 (12)
(mg/L)
Influent PO4-P 8.61 ± 1.7 (12) 2.72 ± 2.2 (12) *L 32.8 ± 4.4 (11) 6.97 ± 1.1 (11) 17.7 ± 4.6 (12) 3.78 ± 1.0 (10) 27.0 ± 6.0 (6)
(mg/L)
Effluent PO4-P 17.5 ± 1.7 (12) 1.51 ± 1.5 (12) *L 26.4 ± 2.8 (12) 10.5 ± 1.1 (12) 8.11 ± 1.1 (12) *L 30.3 ± 5.2 (8) 18.6 ± 3.3 (12)
(mg/L)
Influent NH4- 60.8 ± 14 (12) 20.5 ± 2.6 (12) 106 ± 11 (11) *H 45.6 ± 13 (9) 14.2 ± 2.5 (12) 37.1 ± 12 (10) 37.8 ± 13 (6)
N (mg/L)
Effluent NH4- 84.5 ± 3.0 (12) 18.5 ± 1.8 (12) *L 129 ± 7.9 (12) 82.9 ± 3.9 (12) 96.7 ± 6.9 (12) 149 ± 8.6 (7) *H 42.0 ± 4.0 (12) *L
N (mg/L)
Influent TKN 286 ± 46 (11) 249 ± 21 (12) 490 ± 37 (2) 288 ± 4.9 (3) 306 ± 54 (3) 160 (1) 551 ± 230 (3)
(mg/L)
Effluent TKN 199 ± 26 (11) 108 ± 10 (12) 200 ± 5.5 (2) 219 ± 6.1 (3) 152 ± 29 (2) 228 (1) 177 ± 46 (6)
(mg/L)
*H and *L indicate the values are significantly higher or lower, respectively, than at least five of the other six farms based on Tukey–Kramer analyses.
5886 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890
Fig. 3. Axis one and axis two of the digester principle component analysis
(PCA) for influent and effluent data from Farms 1–7. Axis one has an
eigenvalue of 5.66, and the percentage of variance explained is 57%. Axis
two has an eigenvalue of 2.18, and the percentage of variance explained is
21%.
Statistical analyses (MANOVA and ANOVA) revealed
that there were significant differences between the influent
and effluent data from the seven farm digesters. MANOVA
analyses showed significant differences between both the
influent data (p-value < 0.001; Wilks k < 0.001) and the
effluent data (p-value < 0.001; Wilks k < 0.001) when com-
pared across individual farm digesters (Table 4). The
individual ANOVAs show significant differences at the
0.05 significance level between the influent data from each
farm digester for all environmental parameters, except
log(TKN), and significant differences between farm effluent
data for all environmental parameters. The individual
ANOVAs with the largest F-statistics were pH (24.0) for
influent analysis and log(conductivity) (198) for effluent
analysis. Subsequent Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison
analyses on the individual ANOVAs are detailed in Table 5.
3.3. Biogas quality – methane (CH4) concentration
The average methane concentration from the seven
digesters over the study period was 66.3% (663,000 ppm).
Hydrogen sulfide levels at all seven farms were below
0.01% (100 ppm) (Table 6). The highest CH4 concentration
was at Farm 3 (72.5%), which used swine manure and had
the highest TSS and COD loading rates (167 mg/L-day and
221 mg/L-day, respectively) (Tables 2, 5 and 6). The lowest
CH4 concentrations were found at Farm 2 (61.7%), which
used dairy manure, but had the second highest TSS and
COD loading rates (117 mg/L-day and 167 mg/L-day,
respectively), and Farm 7 (61.4%) which used swine man-
ure, and had the second lowest TSS loading rate
(40.6 mg/L-day).
Table 6
Average percentage of methane (CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the
produced biogas are given for the digesters at Farms 1–7
Percent methane (CH4) Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in ppm [%]
Farm 1 68.8% ± 11 (2) 84.2 ± 0.1 (2) [0.0084%]
Farm 2 61.7% ± 24 (2) 4.8 ± 3.4 (2) [0.0048%]
Farm 3 72.5% ± 0.4 (2) 84.4 ± 0.4 (2) [0.0084%]
Farm 4 68.4% ± 3 (2) 84.3 ± 0.1 (2) [0.0084%]
Farm 5 67.9% ± 0.5 (2) 0.37 ± 0.3 (2) [0.00004%]
Farm 6 63.9% ± 0.7 (2) 83.6 ± 0.6 (2) [0.0084%]
Farm 7 61.4% ± 0.7 (3) 42.5 ± 42 (3) [0.0043%]
The CH4 data are given in percentage ± SE (n), and the H2S data are given
in ppm ± SE (n), with the percent H2S in brackets.
Statistical analyses did not reveal any significant rela-
tionship between influent water quality and the percentage
of CH4 in the biogas (MLR p-value = 0.308; VIFs < 2.0).
Based on the PCA results and the variance inflation factors
(VIF), the variables included in the MLR were log(turbid-
ity), NH4-N, temperature, and pH. The MLR analysis
between CH4 and influent log(TKN) and log(NH4-N)
was also not significant (p-value = 0.283; VIFs = 1.2).
The MLR was conducted with average influent wastewater
variable values and CH4 concentrations from the digesters
at Farms 1–7.
Biogas production data is not presented here due to
problems getting reliable data with standard gas meters.
The small-scale digesters in this study did not have suffi-
cient pressure to allow for the biogas to pass through the
meters. Without meter interference, the farmers were able
to cook using the produced biogas for an average of six
hours a day.
4. Discussion
The digesters in this study consistently reduced organic
matter and solids by 79% to 91%, with COD decreasing
from 2968 mg/L to 472 mg/L. TKN decreased by 46% to
166 mg/L. Mineralization occurred during the digestion
process, increasing the average NH4-N concentration by
78.3% to 82.2 mg/L. The effluent water had a significantly
lower oxygen demand and higher dissolved nutrient con-
centration compared to the influent water, which increases
its usefulness as an organic fertilizer and decreases its
organic loading.
Enough biogas was produced during the digestion pro-
cess to allow for an average of 6 h of cooking per day.
The concentration of CH4 in the biogas averaged 66%.
The concentration of methane in the biogas from the
plug-flow, Taiwanese-model digesters analyzed in this
study were at levels comparable to the high-tech, com-
pletely stirred digester favored in developed countries
(Chen and Shyu, 1996; Kayhanian and Rich, 1995; Par-
sons, 1984). This study revealed that small-scale agricul-
tural digesters can produce methane at concentrations
useful for cooking, while improving the quality of the live-
stock wastewater. Further studies need to be conducted on
 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890
biogas production to fully understand the Taiwanese-
model digestion systems.
4.1. Reductions in organic matter and solids
The digesters analyzed in this study had high, statisti-
cally significant reductions of organic matter and solids
(Tables 3 and 4). Seventy-nine to 91% of the influent con-
centrations of BOD5, COD, TSS, and turbidity were
removed, which is greater than or approximately equal to
values reported for other Taiwanese-model digesters
(Chará et al., 1999; Esquivel et al., 2002; Pedraza et al.,
2001). Based on the PCA analysis, turbidity and COD have
the greatest influence on the data in multivariate space and
have the least amount of variability among the collected
effluent samples when compared to BOD5 and TSS
(Fig. 2 and Table 3). There is a large equipment cost asso-
ciated with conducting COD and turbidity tests, but the
simplicity of these test yields a lower likelihood of human
error (APHA, 1989; Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998). This
study showed that these four variables (COD, BOD5, TSS,
turbidity) are highly correlated and duplication may not be
necessary, unless environmental regulations specifically
require them. It has been recommended in the 2007 Proto-
col for Quantifying and Reporting the Performance of
Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manures that
COD and total solids analyses be used in future digesters
studies (USDA, 2007).
4.2. Nitrogen cycling in taiwanese-model digesters
TKN is a measure of both total organic nitrogen and
NH4-N in wastewater. The TKN decreased by an average
of 45% in the digesters studied. The total nitrogen levels
were likely reduced through microbial uptake and some
settling of solids within the digester. The PCA analysis
showed that TKN was positively correlated with organic
matter and negatively correlated with NH4-N in multivar-
iate space (Fig. 2). As the organic matter decreased in the
digestion process, the TKN also decreased, but at a slower
rate because the organic nitrogen was converted to NH4-N
through mineralization (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998).
Denitrification also likely occurred, as the average NOx-
N concentration decreased by 80.4% (from 0.92 to 0.18 mg/
L), but the loss of NOx-N is not reflected in the TKN
analyses (Table 3). The Anammox process is an unlikely
explanation for the total nitrogen removal due to the low
NOx-N concentration. In addition, previous studies have
shown that the microorganisms responsible for the Anam-
mox process are less competitive than denitrifying organ-
isms in anaerobic digesters (Dong and Tollner, 2003).
Nitrification, converting the NH4 to NOx, is unlikely to
have occurred during the digestion process due to the low
DO levels in the digester (>0.6 mg/L).
Settling of solids might have also contributed to the
decrease in TKN levels. Taiwanese-model digesters are
flow-through digesters, and therefore the contents of the
5887
digesters are not regularly emptied, as practiced in CSTRs.
The digesters in this study were 1–8 years old and none had
failed previously due to solid accumulation. Although it is
difficult to understand mass balances in flow-through
digestion systems, the 2007 Protocol for Quantifying and
Reporting the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems
for Livestock Manures suggests monitoring fixed solids
(FS) and total phosphorus (TP) to determine the amount
of solid accumulation in digesters, since FS and TP are
not transformed in the digestion process (USDA, 2007).
In future Taiwanese-model digesters studies, a better
understanding of solid accumulation, and thus nitrogen
cycling, could be gained using FS and TP data.
In most previous Taiwanese-model digester studies,
TKN was not directly measured because of high cost and
error rates (Peters et al., 2003), but reporting TKN values
could provide insights that are not revealed by testing
COD alone. Farms 1 and 3 had the highest TKN loadings
(25.3 and 30.2 mg/L-day, respectively), the lowest COD/
TKN ratios (3.3 and 7.3, respectively) and the highest
CH4 concentration in the biogas (68.8% and 72.5%,
respectively).
The higher TKN loadings at Farm 1 and 3 could have
also led to higher ammonification rates, which would
increase the pH levels of wastewater (Sterling et al., 2001)
and contribute to the increased methane quality at these
digesters (Table 5). Farm 1 had an effluent pH of 7.2, which
was significantly higher than the pH levels at the other
farms. Farm 3 also had a high effluent pH (6.8). The opti-
mal pH is 6.4–7.6, with maximum methane quality occur-
ring above pH 7 (An and Preston, 1999; Parsons, 1984).
The pH dropped an average of 0.7 units during the diges-
tion process due to the production of fatty acids during
digestion (Botero and Hernández, 2005), but the higher
NH4-N mineralization at Farms 1 and 3 could have kept
the pH near optimal levels and led to the greater percentage
of CH4 in the biogas.
Moderate concentrations of NH4-N can increase the pH
and increase CH4 production, but when NH4-N concentra-
tions increase above a certain threshold, the activity of
methanogens can be inhibited. Methane production inhibi-
tion has occurred with concentrations of NH4-N above
4920 mg/L, with 100% inhibition with NH4-N concentra-
tions above 8000 mg/L (Sterling et al., 2001; Sung and
Liu, 2003). The CH4 inhibition observed in these previous
studies occurred at NH4-N concentrations considerably
higher than the influent and effluent values found in this
study. Farm 6 had the highest concentrations of NH4-N
in the effluent (149 mg/L) and had a moderate percentage
of CH4 in the produced biogas (63.9%). Farm 2 had the
lowest (18.5 mg/L) NH4-N effluent concentration and a
low percentage of CH4 in the biogas (61.7%). In this study,
NH4-N concentration did not have a significant affect on
methane quality (p-value = 0.104). Further studies need
to be conducted in order to determine if there is a relation-
ship between TKN, NH4-N, pH, CH4, and biogas
production.
5888 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890
4.3. Increases in dissolved nutrients during digestion
NH4-N, conductivity, and PO4-P were highly correlated
in the PCA (Fig. 2). All farm digesters in this study had an
increase in NH4-N during digestion (Table 5). Conductivity
increased in some digesters but decreased in others (Table
5). Conductivity is useful as a general parameter of the
strength of dissolved species in wastewater, but the domi-
nant species contributing to the conductivity are not iden-
tified. PO4-P influent concentrations were not statistically
different from effluent concentrations. Nitrogen is taken
up by the microorganisms more readily than phosphorus,
and thus, the amount of nitrogen in the wastewater source
is more important than phosphorus to gauge microbial
community stability (Tchobanoglous et al., 2003). NOx-N
concentrations in the digester studied were always less than
1.0 mg/L, which was expected due to the low DO levels
(>0.6 mg/L). It is recommended that NH4-N be monitored
in future digester studies, while PO4-P, conductivity, and
NOx-N analyses were found to be less important in charac-
terizing the digester effluent.
The NH4-N concentration in the effluent determines the
usefulness of the digester effluent as an organic fertilizer,
and affects its potential impact on the quality of receiving
waters. Through this study, it was determined that the
effluent from Farm 6 would be more suitable to use as an
organic fertilizer due to the high NH4-N content, while
the effluent from Farm 2 (the bovine farm) would not be
as useful as fertilizer, but would have less effect on aquatic
life if discharged into nearby waters.
4.4. Methane quality
In this study, there were variations in the wastewater
influent concentrations (Table 5), the management styles,
and the elevations of the digesters (Table 2), but all the
digesters were able to achieve CH4 concentrations greater
than 60%, with an average concentration of 66%. While
there might have been differences in the quantity of biogas
produced, there was low variability in the CH4 concentra-
tions (61.4–72.5%) in the biogas when compared to the
high variability of the wastewater influent concentrations
(Tables 5 and 6). There was less variation in effluent water
quality when compared to influent water quality in the
PCA, which suggests that these digesters had the ability
to withstand fluctuations in influent water quality (Fig. 3).
In order to run a generator fueled with biogas, the CH4
concentration needs to be greater than 50% and the H2S
concentration needs to be less than 1%. All of the digesters
in this study meet these minimum criteria to power a gen-
erator. The ability of a farm manager to use a digester in
combination with a generator depends on the digester size,
the daily production of biogas, and ability to store biogas
when the generator is not in use. The digesters in this study
may have the potential to be upgraded for electricity gener-
ation based on the percentage of methane produced, but
capital costs to purchase the generator might negate the
economic value of these simple systems and complicate
their minimalist management. Further studies need to be
conducted to determine if enough biogas is produced to
provide an economic benefit.
5. Conclusions
The digesters in this study were effective at generating a
high quality biogas to meet the farmers’ cooking needs.
Organic matter and solids concentrations were consistently
reduced in the effluent waters and NH4-N concentrations
were increased. The methane production in these digesters
creates a number of indirect environmental and societal
benefits, including (1) a reduction in deforestation associ-
ated with firewood collection, (2) less hours devoted to fire-
wood collection, (3) eliminating the need to purchase
propane for cooking, (4) less organic matter in effluent
waters, (5) an organic liquid fertilizer, and (6) a reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.
Through statistical and analytical analyses, the most
important wastewater parameters that should be used for
characterization of the influent and effluent from Taiwan-
ese-model digester were determined. COD, turbidity,
NH4-N, pH, and TKN should be utilized in future studies
for proper characterization of the digester wastewater. In
addition, the 2007 Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting
the Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Live-
stock Manures recommends analyzing TP, FS, and total
solids (USDA, 2007). There were significant variations
among the wastewater influent and effluent values of the
seven different digesters analyzed in the study, but these
variations did not significantly influence the methane con-
centrations, but might have influenced the quantity of bio-
gas produced. The digester effluent concentrations
exhibited less variation than the influent concentrations,
which suggests that these systems have the ability to with-
stand fluctuations in influent wastewater quality.
The ability of the various small-scale digesters in this
study to treat a wide range of wastewater quality with vary-
ing management styles consistently is a testament to the
design of these simple digesters. This research is very timely
in that the majority of investigations on digesters have con-
centrated on large-scale systems, when in fact, the over-
whelming majority of digesters are small-scale systems
located in the developing world. There is still much to be
learned from these simple systems.
Further studies need to be conducted on biogas produc-
tion in Taiwanese-model digesters to access their ability to
generate electricity and compare their methane production
rate to the 0.3496 m3 per kg of COD destroyed seen in
large-scale digesters (USDA, 2007). Additionally, eco-
nomic, environmental, and social analyses need to be con-
ducted to determine if combining these digesters with
electrical generators would be beneficial for the rural,
small-scale farmers.
 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890
Disclaimer
‘‘This report was prepared as an account of work spon-
sored by an agency of the United States Government. Nei-
ther the United States Government nor any agency thereof,
nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informa-
tion, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or repre-
sents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial prod-
uct, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manu-
facturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or
imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
the United States Government or any agency thereof.
The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do
not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.’’
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the
Department of Energy [National Nuclear Security Admin-
istration] under award number (DE-FG02-04ER63834),
and the Ohio State University’s Targeted Investments in
Excellence ‘Carbon-Water-Climate’ Project. We would like
to thank the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Ohio
State University for funding this research, and the labora-
tory and DOE staff at EARTH University for their assis-
tance in the research, including Carlos Hernández, Jane
Yeomens, Jorge Vinicio Murillo Rojas, Marianela Castro
Valverde, Herbert Arrieta, Carlos Araya, Luis Emilio Pin-
eda, and Gerardo Cedeño. We also wish to thank the stu-
dent workers at the Ohio State University and EARTH
University, including Melanie Miller, Blanca Rivas, Marco
Güilcapi, and Joaquı́n A. Vı́quez. We would also like to
thank our partners at Central State University for their
assistance, including Sritharan Subramania and Bryan
Smith. Additional thanks are also extended to Richard
Fortner, David Hansen, and Pat Rigby for their adminis-
trative guidance.
References
An, B.X., Preston, T.R., 1999. Gas production from pig manure fed at
different loading rates to polyethylene tubular biodigesters. Livestock
Research for Rural Development 11 <www.cipav.org.conlrrdnlrrd11n
11nan111.htm>.
An, B.X., Preston, T.R., Dolberg, F., 1997. The introduction of low-cost
polyethylene tube biodigesters on small-scale farms in Vietnam.
Livestock Research for Rural Development 9 <www.cipav.org.
conlrrdnlrrd9n2nan92.htm>.
APHA, 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. American Health Association, Washington, DC.
Berglund, M., Börjesson, P., 2006. Assessment of energy performance in
the life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy 30, 254–
266.
5889
Botero, R., Hernández, C., 2005. Manejo productivo de excretas en
sistemas ganaderos tropicales. In: Revista INFOHOLSTEIN, Aso-
ciación de Criadores de Ganado Holstein de Costa Rica, San Jose,
Costa Rica.
Botero, R., Preston, T.R., 1987. Biodigestor de bajo costo para la
producción de combustible y fertilizante a partir de excretas. Manual
para su instalación, operación y utilización, Centro para la Investiga-
ción en Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria (CIPAV),
Cali, Colombia.
Chará, J., Pedraza, G., Conde, N., 1999. The productive water decon-
tamination system: a tool for protecting water resources in the tropics.
Livestock Research for Rural Development 11 <www.cipav.org.
conlrrdnlrrd11n11ncha111.htm>.
Chen, T.H., Shyu, W.H., 1996. Performance of four types of anaerobic
reactors in treating very dilute dairy wastewater. Biomass and
Bioenergy 11, 431–440.
Collins, G., Woods, A., McHugh, S., Carton, M.W., O’Flaherty, V., 2003.
Microbial community structure and methanogenic activity during
start-up of psychrophilic anaerobic digesters treating synthetic indus-
trial wastewaters. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 46, 159–170.
Crites, R., Tchobanoglous, G., 1998. Small and Decentralized Wastewater
Management Systems. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., USA.
Dong, X., Tollner, E.W., 2003. Evaluation of Anammox and denitrifica-
tion during anaerobic digestion of poultry manure. Bioresource
Technology 86, 139–145.
Erickson, L.E., Fayet, E., Kakumanu, B.K., Davis, L.C., 2004. Anaerobic
digestion. In: Carcass Disposal: A Comprehensive Review by the
National Agricultural Security Center Consortium USDA APHIS
Cooperative Agreement Project: Carcass Disposal Working Group.
National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS (Chapter 7).
Erickson, L.E., Fung, D.Y.C., 1998. Handbook on Anaerobic Fermen-
tation. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Esquivel, R.R., Méndiz y Cazern, M.D., Preston, T.R., Pedraza, G., 2002.
Apectos importantes al introducir biodigestores en explotaciones
lecheras a pequeña escala. Livestock Research for Rural Development
14 <www.cipav.org.conlrrdnlrrd14n13nviey143.htm>.
Gowda, M.C., 1995. Rural wastewater management in a southern Indian
village – a case study. Bioresource Technology 53, 157–164.
Griffin, M.E., McMahon, K.D., Mackie, R.I., Paskin, L., 1998. Metha-
nogenic population dynamics during start-up of anaerobic digesters
treating municipal solid waste and biosolids. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering 57, 342–355.
Huttunen, S., Lampinen, A. (Eds.), 2005. Bioenergy Technology Evalu-
ation and Potential in Costa Rica. University of Jyväskylä Printing
House, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Jolliffe, I.T., 2002. Principal Component Analysis. second ed.. Springer,
New York.
Kayhanian, M., Rich, D., 1995. Pilot-scale high solids thermophilic
anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste with an emphasis on
nutrient requirements. Biomass and Bioenergy 8, 433–444.
Lettinga, G., Rebac, S., Parshima, S., Nozhevnikova, A., van Lier, J.B.,
Stams, A.J.M., 1999. High-rate anaerobic treatment of wastewater at
low temperatures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65, 1696–
1702.
McCune, Medford, 1999. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data,
Version 4.20. MJM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA.
McMahon, K.D., Zheng, D., Stams, A.J.M., Mackie, R.I., Paskin, L.,
2004. Microbial population dynamics during start-up and overload
conditions of anaerobic digesters treatment municipal solid waste and
sewage sludge. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 87, 823–834.
Moog, F.A., Avilla, H.F., Agpaoa, E.V., Valenzuela, F.G., Concepcion,
F.C., 1997. Promotion and utilization of polyethylene biodigester in
smallhold farming systems in the Philippines. Livestock Research for
Rural Development 9 <www.cipav.org.conlrrdnlrrd9n2nmoog92.htm>.
Ong, H.K., Greenfield, P.F., Pullammanappallil, P.C., 2000. An opera-
tional strategy for improved biomethanation of cattle-manure slurry in
an unmixed, single-stage, digester. Bioresource Technology 73, 87–89.
5890 S. Lansing et al. / Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 5881–5890
Parsons, R.A., 1984. On-farm Biogas Production. Northeast Regional
Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, New York.
Pedraza, G.X., Chará, J., Conde, N., Giraldo, S., Giraldo, L., 2001.
Evaluación de los biodigestores en geomembrana (PVC) y plástico de
invernadero en clima medio para el tratamiento de aquas residuals de
origin porcino. Livestock Research for Rural Development 14
<www.cipav.org.conlrrdnlrrd14n11nPedr141.htm>.
Peters, J., Combs, S., Hoskins, B., Jarman, J., Kovar, J., Watson, M.,
Wolf, A., Wolf, N., 2003. Recommended Methods of Manure
Analysis. Cooperative Extension Publishing, Madison, WI.
Sophea, K., Preston, T.R., 2001. Comparison of biodigester effluent and
urea as fertilizer for water spinach vegetable. Livestock Research for
Rural Development 13 <www.cipav.org.conlrrdnlrrd13n 16nkean136.
htm>.
Sophin, P., Preston, T.R., 2001. Effect of processing pig manure in a
biodigester as an input for ponds growing fish in polyculture.
Livestock Research for Rural Development 13 <www.cipav.
org.conlrrdnlrrd13n16npich136.htm>.
Sterling Jr., M.C., Lacey, R.E., Engler, C.R., Ricke, S.C., 2001.
Effects of ammonia nitrogen on H2 and CH4 production during
anaerobic digestion of dairy cattle manure. Bioresource Technol-
ogy 77, 9–18.
Sung, S., Liu, T., 2003. Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic anaerobic
digestion. Chemosphere 53, 43–52.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., Stensel, H.D., 2003. Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. McGraw Hill, New York,
NY.
Thy, S., Preston, T.R., 2003. Effluent from biodigesters with different
retention times for primary production and feed of Tilapia (Oreochr-
omis niloticus). Livestock Research for Rural Development 15
<www.cipav.org.conlrrdnlrrd15n19nsant159.htm>.
USDA Rural Development, Association of State Energy Research and
Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI), and USEPA AgSTAR
Program. 2007. A Protocol for Quantifying and Reporting the
Performance of Anaerobic Digestion Systems for Livestock Manures.
<http://www.epa.gov/agstar/pdf/protocol.pdf>.