Resource-recovery processes from animal waste as best available technology

Abstract

Along with the world population increase, meat requirement has been also increasing; thus, massive livestock manure has been released leading to problems due to surplus nutrients. To overcome this situation, we should consider availing some nutrient removal or reuse technology. The commonest way to recover resources from livestock manure is by producing liquid fertilizer and compost. However, some technologies are required to make it easier and safer for transportation and handling of manure fertilizer due to various problems such as poor fertilization quality with low maturity, emission of odor, nutrient loss, and disharmony due to fluctuating seasonal and regional supplies and demands. In this study, available technologies for resource recovery from animal wastes were introduced with economic benefits, and an integrated system was proposed including energy flow. The system consisted of anaerobic digestion or microbial fuel cell, struvite precipitation for P recovery, nitrogen enrichment by mechanical vapor compression distillation, and incineration processes (optional). Consequently, the energy output from the system could be sufficient for operating the entire system without the need for extra energy input.

Full text

1 23
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management
Official Journal of the Japan Society of
Material Cycles and Waste Management
(JSMCWM) and the Korea Society of
Waste Management (KSWM)
ISSN 1438-4957
Volume 18
Number 2
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016)
18:201-207
DOI 10.1007/s10163-015-0422-7
Resource-recovery processes from animal
waste as best available technology
Yunhee Lee & Seong-Wook Oa

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Japan. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

SPECIAL FEATURE: REVIEW AGRO’ 2014
Resource-recovery processes from animal waste as best available
technology
Yunhee Lee
1
•Seong-Wook Oa
1
Received: 6 January 2015 / Accepted: 16 July 2015 / Published online: 5 August 2015
ÓSpringer Japan 2015
Abstract Along with the world population increase, meat
requirement has been also increasing; thus, massive live-
stock manure has been released leading to problems due to
surplus nutrients. To overcome this situation, we should
consider availing some nutrient removal or reuse technol-
ogy. The commonest way to recover resources from live-
stock manure is by producing liquid fertilizer and compost.
However, some technologies are required to make it easier
and safer for transportation and handling of manure fer-
tilizer due to various problems such as poor fertilization
quality with low maturity, emission of odor, nutrient loss,
and disharmony due to fluctuating seasonal and regional
supplies and demands. In this study, available technologies
for resource recovery from animal wastes were introduced
with economic benefits, and an integrated system was
proposed including energy flow. The system consisted of
anaerobic digestion or microbial fuel cell, struvite precip-
itation for P recovery, nitrogen enrichment by mechanical
vapor compression distillation, and incineration processes
(optional). Consequently, the energy output from the sys-
tem could be sufficient for operating the entire system
without the need for extra energy input.
Keywords Animal wastes Energy balance Energy
recovery Nutrient recovery
Introduction
Traditionally, livestock manure has been applied to crop-
land as a fertilizer in most countries. Along with the
increasing meat requirement, concentrated animal feeding
operation (CAFO) has been rapidly increasing; hence, large
amount of livestock manure has been released leading to
problems due to surplus nutrients. The surplus nutrients in
croplands can be transported to watersheds by surface
runoff or base flow of contaminated groundwater. To
reduce soil and groundwater pollution, we should consider
availing some nutrient removal or reuse technology.
Among the surplus nutrients, especially, recovery of
nitrogen from the livestock manure tends to be more dif-
ficult than that of phosphorus, which has relatively higher
adsorption characteristics to the soil. The high levels of
nitrogen have resulted in dissolved oxygen depletion and
accessible algae bloom (eutrophication), both being
harmful to fishes, animals, and human health [1].
Livestock manure problems due to the surpluses are
faced not only in Korea but also in many countries such as
most of Europe, Taiwan, Japan, and the USA. In the case of
Germany, manure management at regional level for envi-
ronmentally compatible treatment and utilization has been
strongly implemented in recent years. And France and
Brittany primarily focused on reducing nitrogen pollution of
soil to effectively manage the nitrate level in groundwater
based on the recommendations of the European Union (EU)
Directive for nitrate (below 10 ppm) [2]. According to the
EU Nitrate Directives (91/676/EEC), the maximum per-
missible limit for nitrogen from animal manure is 170 kg N/
ha/year [3]. As per the Water Framework Directive (2000/
60/EC), the maximum permissible limit for phosphate level
depending on soil phosphate condition is 55–100 kg P
2
O
5
/
ha/year (P
2
O
5
=P92.29) [4].
&Seong-Wook Oa
swoa@wsu.ac.kr
1
Department of Railroad Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Woosong University, Daejeon 300-718,
Republic of Korea
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207
DOI 10.1007/s10163-015-0422-7
Author's personal copy

Livestock density can be defined as livestock units
(LSU) per hectare of utilized agricultural area, and 1 LSU
corresponds to one dairy cow (650 kg). The livestock
density of EU-27 was shown to be 0.78 LSU/ha in 2007,
the level of which decreased by 4.9 % compared with 2003
[5]. However, the current livestock density in Republic of
Korea is estimated to be significantly high at 2.91 LSU/ha.
Conventionally, livestock manure has been treated to pro-
duce liquid fertilizer via aerobic (common practice in
Korea) or anaerobic digestion and compost, but surplus
nutrients released by the increase in the number of live-
stock breeding should be treated or recovered. Available
technologies for resource recovery from animal can not
only help in the production of fertilizers but also in nitro-
gen enrichment and phosphorus recovery from struvite
formation or incineration ash [6]. Thus, energy from the
animal waste can also be recovered via biogas production
by means of anaerobic digestion, heat energy recovery by
incineration, bio-electricity production using microbial fuel
cell (MFC) to resolve the above issues. Based on the
capacity of resource recovery, its efficiency, available
energy production, and economic analysis were analyzed in
this study.
Available technology for nutrients’ recovery
from animal waste
Fertilization
According to the record of Korean Statistical Information
Service [7], the manure produced from the livestock in
Korea, in 2013, has reached 106,520 ton/day, and the
amount of nitrogen produced from the livestock has reached
765 ton/day. When standard levels recommended by the
EU Directives are applied to the current nutrients’ emission,
the permissible limit for nitrogen from animal manure is
exceeded by about 105 % and the total phosphate level is
exceeded by about 130–230 % in South Korea.
The most common way to recover the resources from
livestock manure is producing liquid fertilizer and compost
by aerobic digestion or composting processes. In the case
of Dutch, the supply levels of nitrogen and phosphate from
livestock manure in 2012 were, respectively, 57 and 84 %,
and the replacement rates of synthetic fertilizer by nitrogen
and phosphate from livestock manure increased by about
5 % for nitrogen and 15 % for phosphate compared to
those in 2000 [8] through strict adoption of standards and
low-emission storage, and application rates of manure, etc.
However, chemical fertilizer is still used in many agricul-
tural farmlands because of easiness in handling. Accord-
ingly, the continued use of chemical fertilizer can lead to
soil nutrient excess and water pollution. There are several
methods to increase the fertilization value of the manure
and to reduce the use of chemical fertilizer, which enable
controlling the maturity and odor, minimizing the nitrogen
loss (*60 %) in the form of ammonia, and resolving the
disharmony due to the fluctuating seasonal and regional
supplies and demands.
When the livestock manure is used instead of chemical
fertilizer, the economic value of livestock manure is
defined as chemical fertilizer cost minus the transport and
treatment costs of livestock manure. For example, the
treatment cost for composting is $20–40/ton, and the
transport cost is $5–25/ton in the local area and
$50–100/ton in outside the region in Korea [9]. The com-
mercial chemical fertilizer cost is assumed as $660/ton for
N (Dongbu Farm Hannong Co., Ltd) and $3200 for P
(custom hydro nutrients, Halfa MKP). Therefore, the
compost produced from livestock manure instead of
chemical fertilizer has greater economic benefit due to the
difference in production costs.
Nitrogen enrichment
Liquid fertilizer and composts have several problems
including that these fertilizers should not be applied in
summer and winter; thus, the manure storage capacity for
about 7 months is required. However, securing a space for
the storage is difficult due to high water contents of over
90 % in pig and cattle manures, especially liquid fertilizer
from pig manure [10]. Besides, the inconsistent nutrient
concentration is also to a problem in the case of a fertilizer.
Thus, indiscriminate application of the manure to the farm
land would aggravate nitrate accumulation which con-
taminates underground water and watershed stream. Hence,
the surplus pig and cattle manure should be transported to
elsewhere; however, the manure is not suitable for long
distance transportation due to high cost (i.e., €5–20/ton in
the Netherlands and $50–100/ton in South Korea). One of
the solutions lies in the transportation of concentrated
fertilizer rather than as manure.
Vacuum evaporation as one of the treatment strategies is
a way to obtain concentrated nutrients which can reduce
transportation cost. Extremely limited research has been
performed on the evaporation of liquid livestock manure.
Bonmatı
´and Flotats [11] reported that condensate char-
acteristics and total ammonia nitrogen were strongly
dependent on initial pH of the slurry: over 98 % of nitrogen
could be recovered from pig slurry if its pH was maintained
below 5.5. Recently, Chiumenti et al. [12] reported 97.5 %
of total nitrogen remained in the enrichment, and the
concentration of total Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN) was
55,000 mg/kg at pH 5. Further, the energy consumptions in
full scale plant were estimated to be 5–8 kWh
e
/m
3
of
digestate and 350 kWh
t
/m
3
of evaporated water.
202 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207
123
Author's personal copy

The nutrient enrichment by vacuum evaporation tech-
nology has not been yet implemented in agricultural field
due to some mechanical troubles (e.g.,. slurry dewatering,
etc.), but the technology has big attraction due to its high
efficiency, securing high-quality fertilizer, and being easy
to transport. It makes the technology more cost effective.
Phosphate struvite
Struvite (MgNH
4
PO
4
6H
2
O) precipitation is a good strat-
egy to recover nutrients as a slow-releasing fertilizer and
for managing nutrient quality. Besides, the pelletized
struvite product allows for easy storage and transportation.
A number of studies were performed for handling the
digested slurry of livestock manure. Huang et al. [13]
reported that the presence of high contents of K
?
and Ca
2?
inhibits the struvite formation and that the Mg:N:P molar
ratio of 2.5:1:1 in 6-h reaction time at pH 8–8.5 provided
high efficiencies: 80 % of NH
3
–N and 96 % of PO
4
–P. The
total cost of reagents (MgCl
2
and Na
2
HPO
4
) and energy for
struvite precipitation was estimated as $10.3/m
3
of swine
wastewater. Capdevielle et al. [14] reported more than
90 % of phosphorus in swine wastewater was recovered in
optimal conditions, with low Mg:Ca ratio (2.25:1), high
N:P ratio (3:1), moderate stirring rate (45–90 rpm), and at
low temperature (below 20 °C). The struvite production
from swine slurry depended on molar ratios of Mg, N and
P; pH; temperature; and concentrations of Ca
2?
and K
?
[15].
Phosphate can also be recovered from residual ash after
incineration. Kaikake et al. [16] reported on the recovery of
phosphorus from incineration ash of chicken manure
(84.5 g P/kg) by acid dissolution–alkali precipitation. A
phosphate recovery rate of 92 % as CaHPO
4
2H
2
O was
recorded at pH 8. Thygesen and Johnsen [17] reported that
the incineration of dewatered pig slurry in a furnace
resulted in the yield of 123 g P/kg.
Available technology for energy recovery
from animal waste
AnD process and incineration
For handling manure to recover energy, conventionally
over the last three decades, animal manure digester system
has been installed on the farms worldwide. The biogas
production via anaerobic digestion (AnD) process has
significant advantages in terms of less biomass sludge,
pathogen removal, minimal odor emission, etc. According
to Lleleji et al.’s [18] study, the biogas productions from
dairy cattle manure, pig manure, and chicken manure by
AnD are 0.20–0.30, 0.25–0.50, and 0.35–0.60 m
3
/kg
VSS
dry
, respectively. The methane content was the highest
with pig manure (70–80 %) compared to those with dairy
cattle and chicken manure. The methane production yield
was affected by the growth stage of the animals, feed, type
of bedding, etc. [19]. The average heat releases obtained by
burning the methane via an internal combustion engine
with LHV (lower heating value) of 35.6 MJ/m
3
were
estimated to be about 393 MJ/ton from dairy cattle manure,
660 MJ/ton from pig manure, and 1716 MJ/ton from
chicken manure, respectively (Table 1). In spite of such
advantages and the economic feasibility of energy pro-
duction, a large number of AnD plants are no longer
operational due to poor operating and management skills.
Practically, it is difficult to allocate a skilled labor at each
farm to keep the system operated daily with consistency in
monitoring and management.
The net energy production methods by means of biogas
combustion via AnD process and by incineration were
compared. The moisture content of livestock manure
should be limited to a maximum of 65 % for incineration,
and the energy consumption for dewatering was assumed
as 0.02 MJ/kg of water mass [20]. The LHV value of wet
livestock manure at the 65 % moisture content is 3.43 MJ/
kg each for cattle and pig manures and 4.48 MJ/kg for
chicken manure by incineration, and the corresponding
values of heat released from livestock manures by incin-
eration are shown to be 833 MJ/ton from dairy cattle
manure and pig manure, and to be 2560 MJ/ton from
chicken manure (Table 1). The heat release from direct
incineration process of livestock manure is larger than that
from AnD process. However, the net energy production via
two processes should be considered based on the energy
consumption for treatment that maintains the temperature
to the required levels, for pumping and mixing the feed-
stock and for dewatering in the incineration process. Thus,
energy consumptions due to combustion for pumping,
blowing of biogas; moreover, all sorts of losses during
AnD process and additional loss due to moisture content,
energy consumption of electrostatic precipitator by fly ash
release, and flue gas treatment for incineration should be
also considered [20]. In case of using the combined heat
and power (CHP) unit for energy conversion, generally, the
electricity conversion efficiency is about 30 %, and heat
efficiency is about 55 % in AnD process, and the electricity
and heat consumptions for the treatment of the feedstock
are about 11 and 13 % of the heat release by biogas
combustion [21]. The net energy productions considering
the efficiencies is 240 MJ/ton for dairy cattle manure,
402 MJ/ton for pig manure, and 1047 MJ/ton for chicken
manure. In incineration process, the conversion efficiencies
for electricity and heat are about 20 and 40 %, respectively.
And the electrical energy consumption for dewatering was
based on the following conditions: 91.5 % moisture
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207 203
123
Author's personal copy

content of swine manure, electricity conversion efficiency
(20 %) in CHP, and water content after dewatering (65 %).
Therefore, the net energy productions from livestock by
incineration are 486 MJ/ton for dairy cattle manure,
486 MJ/ton for pig manure, and 1531 MJ/ton for chicken
manure, respectively (Table 1). Consequently, the net
energy production by incineration showed almost double
that for AnD process with dairy cattle manure, and that
from chicken manure by incineration showed the highest
value due to low moisture content that resulted in low
energy consumption for dewatering.
Bio-electricity generation using microbial fuel cell
Microbial fuel cell (MFC) is one of the innovative tech-
nologies employed to produce bio-electricity directly from
various organic matters such as landfill leachate [22], food
processing wastewater [23], brewery wastewater [24],
chicken waste [25], sewage sludge [26], cattle manure
[27], dairy manure [28,29], swine manure [30], etc. The
electrical efficiency depends on the designs, electrode
materials, anolytes (substrate), catholytes, electroactive
bacteria, and so on. The power outputs in case of using
livestock manure as a substrate are shown in Table 2.
Electrical power between 15.1 and 154.4 W/ton was
generated from the various livestocks, and the organic
removal efficiency was also shown to be significantly high
in several studies. The material costs of main components
in conventional MFC are carbon cloth (E-Tek): $620/m
2
;
platinum-coated carbon cloth (E-Tek, 0.5 mg/cm
2
): $2000/
m
2
; and Nafion membrane: $2500/m
2
[31], while those of
carbon felt ($13/m
2
) and non-woven cloth ($2/m
2
) are
relatively low [32].
Although the MFC has a huge advantage in directly
generating useful electrical energy without combustion or
turbine installation with no emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs), the technology is still facing practical difficulties
in field applications due to extremely high energy loss in
scaled-up process and the high-priced materials such as Pt
(platinum) and Nafion used to increase the system effi-
ciency. However, continuous studies by many researchers
to enhance the performance efficiency are increasing the
feasibility prospects for field application.
Energy balance from integrated system for livestock
manure management
An integrated system for resource and energy recovery
from swine manure as a target livestock manure was pro-
posed (Fig. 1). The entire system consists of pretreatment
equipment for liquid–solid separation, anaerobic reactors
such as AnD or MFC, struvite precipitation reactor for P
recovery, N concentrate reactor, bio-drying process, and
optional incineration process. We evaluated on the basis of
system with facility capacity of 100 ton/day and HRT
(hydraulic retention time) of 30 days. This is the normal
size of public treatment plant for swine manure in Korea.
In Fig. 1, the bold and thin arrows refer to energy pro-
duction and consumption flows, respectively. The details of
the energy flow are presented in Table 3. The amount of
energy consumption for solid–liquid separation of swine
manure was taken as 10.8 MJ/ton from Møller et al.’s
(2000) study [33]. The net energy production by biogas in
AnD process was shown as 402 MJ/ton considering elec-
tricity (30 %) and heat (55 %) conversion efficiencies in
CHP and auxiliary power consumption. The auxiliary
power that electricity and heat consumptions for treatment
in AnD process was assumed to be about 11 and 13 % of
the heat release from biogas combustion (158.3 MJ/ton)
[21]. Also, the amount of energy production from incin-
eration (500 MJ/ton) was calculated by heat release from
incineration (Table 1) considering electricity (20 %) and
heat conversion efficiency (40 %) in CHP. The electric
energy consumption for dewatering followed the value
Table 1 Potential energy production from livestock manure
Live-
stock
Moisture
(%)
Volatile
(%)
Gas
yield
(m
3
/kg
VSS
dry
)
CH
4
in the
gas
(%)
Total
amount of
CH
4
produced
(CH
4
m
3
/ton)
Heat release
by biogas
combustion
(MJ/ton)
Net
energy
prod. by
biogas
(MJ/ton)
LHV of
manure
for incin.
(MJ/kg)
Heat by
incin.
(MJ/ton)
Energy
consum.
for dewat.
(MJ/ton)
Net
energy
prod. by
incin.
(MJ/ton)
Dairy
cattle
manure
88–95 75–85 0.2–0.3 55–75 11 ±3 393 ±111 240 3.43 833 13.4 486
Pig
manure
85–95 70–80 0.25–0.5 70–80 19 ±9 660 ±311 402 3.43 833 13.4 486
Chicken
manure
70–90 70–80 0.35–0.6 60–80 48 ±18 1716 ±639 1047 4.48 2560 4.6 1531
204 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207
123
Author's personal copy

mentioned in Table 1. Other energy values were referenced
from various literatures. The highest energy is consumed
for N concentrate process by vapor compression (VC)
compared to that with mechanical vapor compression
(MVC). The MVC distillation is based on the principle that
if pressure of the steam by compression was raised, the
saturation temperature of the vapor also rises at the same
time. The raised temperature is used for heating source of
evaporator, which resulted in excellent energy saving effect
of about 1/30 [34]. With AnD as anaerobic process and N
concentrate process by MVC, the basic system including P
precipitation can be possibly operated by the only energy
produced from AnD process (net energy consumption:
228.8 MJ/ton \energy production by AnD: 560 MJ/ton)
under the premise of steady-state conditions. Moreover,
even in case of combined operation with additional incin-
eration process, the system can be operated properly with
sufficient energy production by AnD process. Besides,
surplus energy that can be recovered amounts to about
500 MJ/ton.
Table 2 Maximum power outputs from various livestock manures with microbial fuel cell
MFC
design
Material Livestock
manure
COD Concentration
(mg/L)
g
COD
(%) CE
c
(%) Power yield
(W/ton)
References
AS
a
Carbon felt with unwoven cloth Cattle manure
slurry
8000 42 28.8 16.3 [27]
Two
chamber
Carbon fiber with PEM
b
Dairy manure 6 % TS 33.1 ±3.3 17.3 ±0.6 15.1 [28]
AS
a
Stainless steel mesh with
graphite coating
Dairy
wastewater
2500–5000 91 26.9 20.2 [29]
AS
a
Carbon felt and carbon paper
with Pt catalyst
Swine
wastewater
60,000 76–91 37–47 67.1–154.4 [30]
a
Air–cathode single chamber
b
PEM-proton exchange membrane including Nafion
c
Columbic efficiency
Fig. 1 Integrated system for handling swine manure and energy flow
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207 205
123
Author's personal copy

Conclusion
A plenty of number of livestocks give us an affluent life,
while there remains a problem needing a solution with regard
to protecting our life and environment. There are several
technologies for manure management that could reduce the
environmental pollutant load and recover the resources.
Those technologies can be incorporated in various combi-
nations to enhance the efficiency. The integrated system
proposed in this study for resource recovery from livestock
manure which consists of AnD or MFC, struvite precipitation
for P, N concentrate by MVC, and incineration processes can
be deeply considered in concentrated animal feeding region
for protecting water environment. If we consider this inte-
grated system in practical application, the energy produced
from AnD process could be sufficient for operating the entire
system without the extra energy input for utilization under
the premise of guaranteeing steady-state operation. However,
we need to overcome the difficulties faced during the treat-
ment and control of swine manure with technologies
described in this integrated system in terms of system sta-
bility, cost-effectiveness, maintenance cost, etc.
References
1. Brandjes PJ, De Wit J, Van der Meer HG, Van Keulen H (1996)
Livestock and the environment finding a balance: environmental
impact of animal manure management. International Agriculture
Centre Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.fao.org/ag/
againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/IACman.PDF.
Accessed 5 Aug 2014
2. Anonymous (1988) Phosphate recovery from animal manure the
possibilities in the Netherlands, Van Ruiten Adviesbureau/Pro-
jectbureau BMA, for CEEP. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-
curation/research/projects/phosphate-recovery/VanRuiten.pdf.
Accessed 5 Aug 2014
3. EC (2010a) Water in EU legislation. European Commission.
http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/water/index_en.html. Accessed
5 Aug 2014
4. EC (2010b) Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC)
European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/
water-framework/index_en.html. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
5. Eurostat (2010) Cropping and livestock pattern statistics. Euro-
pean statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php/. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
6. Komiyama T, Kobayashi A, Yahagi M (2013) The chemical
characteristics of ashes from cattle, swine and poultry manure.
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 15(1):106–110
7. KSIS (2014) Korean Statistical Information Service. http://kosis.
kr/. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
8. CBS Statline (2012) Statistics Netherlands. Centraal Bureau voor
de Statistiek. http://statline.cbs.nl/. Accessed 6 Aug 2014
9. Hong JH (2009) A study on the manure management and effec-
tively utilization. J Korean Soc Livest Hous Environ 15(1):69–74
10. GOS (2006) Nutrient values of manure. Government of Sas-
katchewan in Canada. http://agriculture.gov.sk.ca/. Accessed 7
Aug 2014
11. Bonmatı
´A, Flotats X (2003) Pig slurry concentration by vacuum
evaporation: influence of previous mesophilic anaerobic digestion
process. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 53:21–31
12. Chiumenti A, Borso F, Chiumenti R, Teri F, Segantin P (2013)
Treatment of digestate from a co-digestion biogas plant by means
of vacuum evaporation: tests for process optimization and envi-
ronmental sustainability. Waste Manag 33:1339–1344
13. Huang H, Xu C, Zhang W (2011) Removal of nutrients from
piggery wastewater using struvite precipitation and pyro gener-
ation technology. Biores Technol 102:2523–2528
14. Capdevielle A, Sy
´korova E, Biscans B, Beline F, Daumer M-L
(2013) Optimization of struvite precipitation in synthetic bio-
logically treated swine wastewater—determination of the optimal
process parameter. J Hazard Mater 244–245:357–369
15. Cerrillo M, Palatsi J, Comas J, Vicens J, Bonmatı
´A (2015)
Struvite precipitation as a technology to be integrated in a manure
anaerobic digestion treatment plant—removal efficiency, crystal
characterization and agricultural assessment. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 90:1135–1143
Table 3 Energy consumption and production at each resource recovery process for swine manure management
Process Energy consumption (MJ/ton) Energy production (MJ/ton)
Basic process Solid–liquid separation 10.8
a
–
Anaerobic process Anaerobic digestion 158.3 560
Microbial Fuel cell – 45
b
P precipitation 20.1
c
–
N concentrate VC
d
1289 –
MVC
e
39.6 –
Optional process Incineration 270
f
500
Dewatering for incineration 13.4 –
a
Data from [33]
b
Data from [30]
c
Electricity consumption for pump and aeration [35]
d
Vapor compression; data from [11]
e
Mechanical vapor compression distillation; data from [36]
f
Data from [37]
206 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207
123
Author's personal copy

16. Kaikake K, Sekito T, Dote Y (2009) Phosphate recovery from
phosphorus-rich solution obtained from chicken manure incin-
eration ash. Waste Manag 29:1084–1088
17. Thygesen O, Johnsen T (2012) Manure-based energy generation
and fertiliser production: determination of calorific value and ash
characteristics. Biosyst Eng 113:166–172
18. Lleleji KE, Martin C, Jones D (2014) Bioenergy: biomass to
biofuels. In: Dahiya A (ed) Basics of energy production through
anaerobic degestion of livestock manure. Academic Press, Lon-
don, pp 287–295
19. Møller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK (2004) Methane produc-
tivity of manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass
Bioenergy 26:485–495
20. Horttanainen M, Luoranen M, Niskanen A, Havukainen J (2009)
On the criteria of treatment method selection for biodegradable
waste between combustion and anaerobic digestion, Twelfth
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari
21. Berglund M, Bo
¨rjesson P (2006) Assessment of energy perfor-
mance in the life-cycle of biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy
30(3):254–266
22. Greenman J, Galvez A, Giusti L, Ieropoulos I (2009) Electricity
from landfill leachate using microbial fuel cells: comparison with
a biological aerated filter. Enzyme Microb Technol 44:112–119
23. Mansoorian HJ, Mahvi AH, Jafari AJ, Amin MM, Rajabizadeh A,
Khanjani N (2013) Bioelectricity generation using two chamber
microbial fuel cell treating wastewater from food processing.
Enzyme Microb Technol 52(6):352–357
24. Wen Q, Wu Y, Cao D, Zhao L, Sun Q (2009) Electricity gen-
eration and modeling of microbial fuel cell from continuous beer
brewery wastewater. Biores Technol 100:4171–4175
25. Moqsud MA, Omine K, Yasufuku N, Hyodo M, Nakata Y (2013)
Microbial fuel cell (MFC) for bioelectricity generation from
organic wastes. Waste Manag 33:2465–2469
26. Yang E, Ren L, Pu Y, Logan BE (2013) Electricity generation
from fermented primary sludge using single-chamber air-cathode
microbial fuel cells. Biores Technol 128:784–787
27. Inoue K, Ito T, Kawano Y, Iguchi A, Miyahara M, Suzuki Y,
Watanabe K (2013) Electricity generation from cattle manure
slurry by cassette-electrode microbial fuel cells. J Biosci Bioeng
116(5):610–615
28. Zhang G, Zhao Q, Jiao Y, Wang K, Lee DJ, Ren N (2012)
Biocathode microbial fuel cell for efficient electricity recovery
from dairy manure. Biosens Bioelectron 31:537–543
29. Mardanpour MM, Esfahany MN, Behzad T, Sedaqatvand R
(2012) Single chamber microbial fuel cell with spiral anode for
dairy wastewater treatment. Biosens Bioelectron 38:264–269
30. Ichihashi O, Hirooka K (2012) Removal and recovery of phos-
phorus as struvite from swine wastewater using microbial fuel
cell. Biores Technol 114:303–307
31. Wang YP, Liu XW, Li WW, Li F, Wang YK, Sheng GP, Zeng
RJ, Yu HQ (2012) A microbial fuel cell-membrane bioreactor
integrated system for cost-effective wastewater treatment. Appl
Energy 98:230–235
32. Patra A (2008) Low-cost, single-chambered microbial fuel cells
for harvesting energy and cleansing wastewater. J US Stockholm
Junior Water Prize 3:72–85
33. Møller HB, Lund I, Sommer SG (2000) Solid-liquid separation of
livestock slurry: efficiency and cost. Biores Technol 74:223–229
34. Woo J (2012) A study on prediction and improvement of
mechanical vapor compressor in desalination system. Disserta-
tion, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea
35. Liu Y, Kwag JH, Kim JH, Ra C (2011) Recovery of nitrogen and
phosphorus by struvite crystallization from swine wastewater.
Desalination 277:364–369
36. Ettouney H (2006) Design of single-effect mechanical vapor
compression. Desalination 190:1–15
37. GLA (2008) Costs of incineration and non-incineration energy
from waste technologies. Greater London Authority. http://www.
london.gov.uk. Accessed 7 Aug 2014
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag (2016) 18:201–207 207
123
Author's personal copy