Modelling and Evaluation of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food‎Waste and Water Hyacinth: Biogas Yield, Pollutant Removal, ‎and Nutrient Dynamics

  • Authors

    • Shankar. B. S Department of Civil Engineering, Cambridge Institute of Technology, K.R. Puram, Bangalore-560036, Karnataka, India
    • Sreevidya Raman. S Department of Civil Engineering, Cambridge Institute of Technology, K.R. Puram, Bangalore-560036, Karnataka, India
    • Mahadeva Raju. G. K Department of Chemical Engineering, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, Bangalore-560078, Karnataka, India
    • Barnali Ghosh Department of Civil Engineering, East Point College of Engineering and Technology, Bangalore-560049, Karnataka, India
    https://doi.org/10.14419/gd6f7h41

    Received date: July 26, 2025

    Accepted date: August 30, 2025

    Published date: September 10, 2025

  • Anaerobic Digestion; Biogas; Food Waste; Hydraulic Retention Time; Nutrient Recovery; Water Hyacinth

  • Abstract

    This study investigates the anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and water hyacinth, using cow dung as a seeding material, to assess biogas ‎production and nutrient enhancement. Unlike previous studies, this work uniquely combines FW’s high biodegradability with WH’s nitrogen content in a controlled mesophilic system, using a bench-scale anaerobic digester to evaluate biogas yield and daily nutrient profiles ‎across varying substrate ratios: 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, and 0:100 (food waste to water hyacinth). Corresponding biogas volumes recorded ‎were ‘450 mL, 470 mL, 430 mL, and 380 mL’, respectively. The maximum biogas yield (900 mL) was obtained for the 70:30 ratio,    demon‎strating a synergistic effect that has not been previously quantified for this substrate pair. The study also incorporated partially degraded ‎waste to reduce the hydraulic retention time (HRT) and enhance biogas generation. The biodegradation process demonstrated substantial ‎reductions in pollution indicators: BOD reductions were 58%, 66%, 57%, and 63%, while COD reductions reached 68%, 80%, 73%, and ‎‎66% for the respective substrate ratios. Total solids decreased by 19%, 28%, 32%, and 40%. Additionally, the nutrient content, including ‎phosphate, sulphate, and nitrate of the digestate, was significantly enriched at the end of the digestion cycle, indicating its potential as a bio-‎fertilizer. These findings highlight the novelty of FW–WH co-digestion as a dual benefit approach for waste valorisation and decentralised ‎renewable energy generation, offering a scalable model for sustainable waste management in resource-constrained settings‎.

  • References

    1. Ahmadi-Pirlou, M., & Gundoshmian, T. M. (2021). The effect of substrate ratio and total solids on biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 23, 1938–1946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01264-x.
    2. Alao, M. A., Popoola, O. M., & Ayodele, T. R. (2022). Waste to energy nexus: An overview of technologies and implementation for sustainable development. Cleaner Energy Systems, 3, 100034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cles.2022.100034.
    3. Alsayed, M., et al. (2020). Enhanced anaerobic digestion by stimulating DIET reaction. Processes, 8(4), 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8040424.
    4. Angelidaki, I., Alves, M., Bolzonella, D., Borzacconi, L., Campos, J. L., Guwy, A. J., Kalyuzhnyi, S., Jenicek, P., & van Lier, J. B. (2009). Defin-ing the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy crops: A proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Science and Technolo-gy, 59(5), 927–934. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.040.
    5. APHA. (2017). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (23rd ed.). American Public Health Association.
    6. Bedoić, R., et al. (2020). Opportunities and challenges: Experimental and kinetic analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rendering industry streams for biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 130, 109951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109951.
    7. Bote, M. A., Naik, V. R., & Jagdeesh gouda, K. B. (2020). Production of biogas with aquatic weed water hyacinth and development of a briquette-making machine. Materials Science for Energy Technologies, 3, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mset.2019.09.001.
    8. Castro-Ramos, J. J., et al. (2022). Effect of the initial pH on the anaerobic digestion process of dairy cattle manure. AMB Express, 12, 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-022-01486-8.
    9. Deng, G., et al. (2022). Enhancement from anaerobic digestion of food waste by conductive materials: Performance and mechanism. ACS Omega, 7, 40782–40788. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c02934.
    10. Diniz, B. C., et al. (2025). Anaerobic digestion at high pH and alkalinity for biomethane production: Insights into methane yield, biomethane purity, and process performance. Bioresource Technology, 429, 132505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2025.132505.
    11. Ferdeș, M., et al. (2022). Food waste management for biogas production in the context of sustainable development. Energies, 15(17), 6268. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15176268.
    12. Ingabire, H., M’arimi, M. M., Kiriamiti, K. H., et al. (2023). Optimization of biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of fish waste and water hyacinth. Biotechnology for Biofuels and Bioproducts, 16, 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-023-02360-w.
    13. Kazimierowicz, J., Zieliński, M., & Dębowski, M. (2021). Influence of the heating method on the efficiency of biomethane production from ex-pired food products. Fermentation, 7(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7010012.
    14. Kulabako, R. N., et al. (2025). Enhanced biogas production from water hyacinth and cow dung with wood and faecal sludge biochar. Energy Nex-us, 17, 100342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2024.100342.
    15. Leung, D. Y. C., & Wang, J. (2016). An overview on biogas generation from anaerobic digestion of food waste. International Journal of Green En-ergy, 13(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2014.909355.
    16. Mahesh, M., Manjunath, A., Amaresh Kumar, K., Kale, S., Umesh, B., & Sreenivas, B. V. (2020). Socio-economic profile analysis of dairy farmers of Yadgir district of Kalyana Karnataka region. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, Sp9(4), 350–353.
    17. Mohamed Ali, A., et al. (2023). Production of biogas from food waste using the anaerobic digestion process with biofilm-based pretreatment. Pro-cesses, 11(3), 655. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11030655.
    18. Mohan, S. (2022). Production of biogas by using food waste. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 3, 390–394.
    19. Moshood, T. D., Nawanir, G., Mahmud, F., Mohamad, F., Ahmad, M. H., & Abdul Ghani, A. (2022). Sustainability of biodegradable plastics: New problem or solution to solve the global plastic pollution? Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 5, 100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crgsc.2022.100273.
    20. Nahar, G., Koley, A., Garai, S., Balachandran, S., & Ross, A. B. (2024). Enhancing biogas production through the co digestion of fish waste and water hyacinth using cow dung as an inoculum: Effect of FW/WH ratio. Applied Sciences, 14(21), 9880. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14219880.
    21. Njogu, P., Kinyua, R., Muthoni, P., & Nemoto, Y. (2015). Biogas production using water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) for electricity generation in Kenya. Energy and Power Engineering, 7(5), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.4236/epe.2015.75021.
    22. Nugraha, W., Syafrudin, S., & Pradita, L. (2020). Biogas production from water hyacinth. In IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91396.
    23. Nugraha, W. D., et al. (2020). Biogas production from water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes): The effect of F/M ratio. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 150, 012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/150/1/012019.
    24. O’Connor, J., Mickan, B. S., Yusiharni, E., Singh, G., Gurung, S. K., Siddique, K. H. M., Leopold, M., & Bolan, N. S. (2024). Characterisation and agronomic evaluation of acidified food waste anaerobic digestate products. Journal of Environmental Management, 355, 120565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120565.
    25. O’Connor, J., et al. (2024). Transforming waste to wealth: Impact of food waste-derived soil amendments and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on soil dynamics. Soil Use and Management, 40(3), e13093. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13093.
    26. O’Connor, J. R. (2024). Enhanced nutrient recovery from food waste anaerobic digestate (Doctoral thesis, University of Western Australia). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2023.129869.
    27. Oliveira, L. R. G., et al. (2021). Kinetics assessment and modelling of biogas production by anaerobic digestion of food wastes and acclimated sewage sludge. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 23, 1646–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01248-x.
    28. Pramanik, S. K., et al. (2019). Performance and kinetic model of a single-stage anaerobic digestion system for food waste. Processes, 7(9), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7090600.
    29. Romero Güiza, M. S., et al. (2016). Nutrient recovery technologies for anaerobic digestion systems: An overview. Revista ION, 29(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.18273/revion.v29n1-2016001.
    30. Usmani, A., et al. (2021). Kinetic study of biogas production from anaerobic digestion of vinasse waste. Water Practice & Technology, 16(3), 886–894. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    B. S, S. ., S, S. R. ., G. K, M. R. ., & Ghosh, B. . (2025). Modelling and Evaluation of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food‎Waste and Water Hyacinth: Biogas Yield, Pollutant Removal, ‎and Nutrient Dynamics. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(5), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.14419/gd6f7h41