Kinetic Study Of The Modified Gompertz Model On The Production Of Methane From Coffee Waste Through Anaerobic Digestion

IJEP 41(8): 876-883 : Vol. 41 Issue. 8 (August 2021)

S. Ait Lhaj Lahcen1,2*, S. Ibn Ahmed1, M. Aboulouafa1, M. Bakraoui2 and H. El Bari2

1. University Ibn Tofail Kenitra, Laboratory of Materials, Electrochemistry and Environment. Faculty of Sciences, Department of Chemistry, Morocco
2. University Ibn Tofail Kenitra, Laboratory of Renewable Energy and Environment. Faculty of Sciences, Morocco


The objective of this study was to carry out laboratory-scale experiments on the anaerobic digestion (AD) of coffee waste (CW) in semi-continuous mode, under mesophilic conditions (37°C) and using digesters infinitely mixed with a litre capacity. The AD of the CW gave a methanogenic potential of the order of 263.71 NmL CH4/g SV. Stability parameters affecting digestors, namely the pH and the alkalinity, which were controlled throughout the process, were within the optimal range. The experimental data were fitted by two kinetic models: first-order kinetic model and modified Gompertz model. The values of the correlation coefficient (R) obtained were of the order of 99.508% for the modified Gompertz model and 99.199% for the first order kinetic model. Thus, the modified Gompertz model gave the best fit with the experimental results. The kinetic study results show that CW substrate can be easily biodegraded by anaerobic digestion with a short lag time from 0.49-4.62 hr resulting in biogas production (volume – 13.57 mL CH4/g VS). The first-order kinetic and the modified Gompertz model results show that the difference between the predicted and measured methanogenic potentials is higher in the first-order kinetic model (1.79-26.62%) than in the modified Gompertz model (0.37-19.61%) following the applied load value. The modified Gompertz model showed the best fit for the substrate used.


Anaerobic digestion (AD), Coffee waste, Gompertz, Kinetic study, Semi continuous methanogenic potential


  1. Enden, J.C. and K.C. Calvert. 2003. Review of coffee wastewater characteristics and approaches to treatment. Coffee research report no. 50. Coffee Research Institute, Kainantu, Papua New Guinea.
  2. Joaneson, L. 2012. Valorization of the organic fraction of agricultural residues and other similar wastes using anaerobic biological treatments.
  3. Echeverria, M.C. and N. Marco. 2017. Valorisation of the residues of coffee agroindustry: Perspectives and limitations. Open Waste Manage. J., 10(1): 13-22. DOI: 10.2174/18764002017100100 13.
  4. Woldesenbet, A.G., B. Woldeyes and B.S. Chandravanshi. 2014. Characteristics of wet coffee processing waste and its environmental impact in Ethiopia. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci., 2(5): 2320-9356. DOI: 10.1007/s10163-019-00894-6.
  5. Kulandaivelu, V. and R. Bhat. 2012. Changes in the physico-chemical and biological quality attributes of soil following amendment with untreated coffee processing wastewater. European. J. Soil Biol., 50: 39-43. DOI: 10.1016/j. ejsobi.2011.11.0 11.
  6. Padmapriya, R., J.A. Tharian and T. Thirunalasun-dari. 2013. Coffee waste management-An overview. Int. J. Curr. Sci., 33(1): 9-16.
  7. Lenka, B., et al. 2017. Review: Utilization of waste from coffee production. Research papers faculty of materials science and technology in TRN 25(40). DOI: 10.1515/rput-2017-0011.
  8. Joute, Y., et al. 2016. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and banana waste: Effects of mixture ratio. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res., 14(2): 337-349.
  9. Karouach, F., et al. 2020. Effect of combined me chanical-ultrasound pretreatment mesophilic anaerobic overdigestion of organic waste fraction Morocco. Energy Reports 6. pp 310-314.
  10. Bakraoui. M., et al. 2020. Kinetic study and experimental productions of methane production from UASB reactor treating wastewater from recycled pulp and paper for the continuous test. Biomass Bioenergy. 139: 105604. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe. 2020.105604.
  11. Ioannis, A., et al. 2016. A review for coffee adsorbents. J. Molecular Liquids. 229: 555565. DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2016.12.096.
  12. Husain, A. 1998. The mathematical models of the kinetics of anaerobic digestion-A selected review. Biomass Bioenergy. 14(5-6): 561-571.
  13. Mani, S., J. Sundaram and K.C. Das. 2016. Process simulation and modeling: Anaerobic digestion of complex organic matter. Biomass and Bioenergy. 93: 158-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.07.0 18.
  14. Bakraoui, M., et al. 2019. Kinetics study of the methane production from experimental recycled pulp and paper sludge by CSTR technology. J. Material Cycles Waste Manage., 21: 1426-1436. DOI: 10.1007/s10163-019-00894-6.
  15. Kaintholaa, J., A.S. Kalamdhada and V.V. Gouda. 2019. Enhanced methane production from anaerobic co-digestion of rice straw and hydrilla verticillata and its kinetic analysis. Biomass Bioenergy. 125: 8-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.04.011.
  16. Damien, J.B., et al. 2015. Mathematical modelling of anaerobic digestion processes: Applications and future need. Rev. Env. Sci. Biotech., 14(4): 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s11157-015-9376-4.
  17. Lin, Y., et al. 2011. Kinetic study of mesophilic anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper sludge. Biomass Bioenergy. 35: 4862-4867. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.001.
  18. Serrano, A., et al. 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and strawberry extrudate under mesophilic conditions. Env. Tech., 35(23): 2920-2927. DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2014.925512.
  19. Borja. R., et al. 1993. Effect of natural zeolite support on the kinetics of cow manure anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenergy. 5(5): 395-400. DOI: 10.1016/0961-9534(93)90019-Z.
  20. Serrano, A., et al. 2013. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and orange peel waste. Env. Tech., 35(5-8)7: 898-906. DOI: 10.1080/095 93330.2013.855822.
  21. Serrano, M.A. 2011. Anaerobic co-digestion of residues from the Huelva agri-food sector, Department of Inorganic Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Cordoba.
  22. Wei, Q., et al. 2013. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of coffee grounds with and without waste activated sludge as co-substrate using a submerged AnMBR: System amendments and membrane performance. Biores. Tech., 150: 249-258. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.002.
  23. APHA. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (17th edn). American Public Health Association, Washington DC, USA.
  24. Bakraoui, M., et al. 2020. Biogas production from recycled paper mill wastewater by UASB digester: Optimal mesophilic conditions. Biotech. Reports. 25: e00402. DOI: 10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00402.
  25. Bakraoui, M., et al. 2020. Kinetics study of methane production from anaerobic digestion of sludge and wastewater recycled pulp and paper by different models simulation. Int. J. Smart Grid Clean Energy. 9: 170-179. DOI: 10.12720/sgce.9.1.170-179.
  26. Borja, R., et al. 1995. A kinetic study of anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewater at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures. Env. Poll., 88: 13-18. DOI: 10.1016/0269-7491(95)91043-K.
  27. Serrano, A., et al. 2014. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and orange peel waste. Env. Tech., 35(7): 898-906. DOI: 10.1080/095933 30.2013.855822.
  28. Zwietering, M.H., et al. 1990. Modeling of the bacterial growth curve. Appl. Env. Microbiol., 56: 1875-1881. Link: 0099-2240/90/061875-07$02.00/0.
  29. Wong, Y.M., et al. 2014. High efficiency bio-hydrogen production from glucose revealed in an inoculum of heat-pretreated landfill leachate sludge. Energy. 72: 628-635. DOI: 10.1016/ 05.088.
  30. Luz, F.C., et al. 2017. Anaerobic digestion of coffee grounds soluble fraction at laboratory scale: Evaluation of the biomethane potential. Appl. Energy. 207: 166-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.20 17.06.042.
  31. Montoya, A.C.V., et al. 2020. Improving the hydrogen production from coffee waste through hydrothermal pretreatment, co-digestion and microbial consortium bioaugmentation. Biomass Bioenergy. 137: 105551.
  32. Kivaisi, A. K. and M. S. T. Rubindamayugi. 1996. The potential of agro-industrial residues for production of biogas and electricity in Tanzania. WREC-IV World Renewable Energy Congress, Bd. Proceedings, 9(1-4): 917-921.
  33. Bombardire, Y.M.S. 2006. The potential of anaero bic digestion technology to treat coffee waste in Huatusco, Mexico. International Development Studies, pp 85.
  34. Bakraoui, M., et al. 2018. Modified Gompertz kinetic study of methane production from anaerobic digestion of recycled paper mill sludge. 26th European Biomass Conference and exhibition, Copenha-gen, Denmark. Proceedings, pp 849-854.
  35. Joute, Y., et al. 2016. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and banana waste: Effects of mixture ratio. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res., 14(2): 337-349. DOI: 10.15666/aeer/1402_337349.
  36. Borja. R., et al. 1995. Influence of different pretreatments on the kinetics of anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewater. Water Res., 29: 489-495. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(94)00180-F.
  37. Zhen, G., et al. 2014. Combined electrical-alkali pretreatment to increase the anaerobic hydrolysis rate of waste activated sludge during anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy. 128: 93-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121847.
  38. Nopharatana, A., P.C. Pullammanappallil and W.P. Clarke. 2007. Kinetics and dynamic modelling of batch anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste in a stirred reactor. Waste Manage., 27(5): 595-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.04.010.
  39. Huang, X., et al. 2016. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of aloe peel waste with dairy manure in the batch digester: Focusing on mixing ratios and digestate stability. Biores. Tech., 218: 62-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.06.070.
  40. Rodríguez, F.M.J., et al. 2014. Assessment of two-phase olive mill solid waste and microalgae co-digestion to improve methane production and process kinetics. Biores. Tech., 157: 263-269. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.096.
  41. Kafle, G. and L. Chen. 2016. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manage.,48: 492-502. DOI: 10.1016/j.was man.2015.10.021.
  42. Raposo, F., et al. 2009. Influence of inoculum-substrate ratio on the anaerobic digestion of sunflower oil cake in batch mode: Process stability and kinetic evaluation. Chem. Eng. J., 149: 70-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2008.10.001.
  43. Kafle, G.K., S.H. Kim and K.I. Sung. 2012. Ensiling of fish industry waste for biogas production: A lab scale evaluation of biochemical methane potential (BMP) and kinetics. Biores. Tech., 127: 326-336. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.032.