I
n
g
e
n
i
e
r
ía
B
i
o
s
i
s
t
e
m
a
s
Ingeniería. Revista de la Universidad de Costa Rica
Vol. 34, No. 1: 23-32, Enero-Junio, 2024. ISSN: 2215-2652. San José, Costa Rica
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia de Creative Commons. Reconocimiento - No Comercial - Compartir Igual 4.0 Internacional
Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple Leaves
Juice and Chicken Manure in Anaerobic Codigestion
Análisis tecno-económico de la producción de biogás a partir de jugo de rastrojo de piña
y gallinaza en codigestión anaerobia
Juliana Da Luz Castro 1 , Juan Pablo Rojas Sossa 2 , Mauricio Bustamante Román 3
1 University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. School of Biosystems Engineering,
email: juliana.daluz@ucr.ac.cr
2 University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. School of Biosystems Engineering,
email: juan.rojas_s@ucr.ac.cr
3 University of Costa Rica, San José, Costa Rica. School of Biosystems Engineering,
email: mauricio.bustamante@ucr.ac.cr
Recibido: 06/06/2023
Aceptado: 13/09/2023
Abstract
Pineapple, Ananas comosus, is one of the most important crops in Costa Rica, producing a prominent
1,7 % of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP); however, current methodologies to treat pineapple
leaves can cause potential public health problems due to proliferation of ies, as well as environmental
pollution and greenhouse gases emissions. The objective of this work was to use pineapple leaves juice to
evaluate the production of biogas in combination with chicken manure as substrates. Biochemical methane
potential assays were carried out using different proportions of juice and chicken manure (70/30, 80/20 and
90/10), as well as individual assays for each substrate. Results show that higher amounts of biogas were
produced in the systems with 70/30 and 80/20 proportions. In addition, a capital investment estimation was
carried out to evaluate the techno-economic feasibility with the Peters and Timmerhaus methodology. The
techno-economic analysis gives a payback time of 2,3 years which makes the project highly protable.
Keywords:
Anaerobic codigestion,
biogas, chicken manure,
pineapple leaves,
techno-economic
feasibility
Palabras Clave:
Biogás, codigestión
anaerobia, gallinaza,
prefactibilidad
tecno-económica,
rastrojo de piña.
DOI: 10.15517/ri.v34i1.55355
Resumen
La piña, Ananas comosus, es uno de los cultivos de mayor importancia en Costa Rica, produciendo
un prominente 1,7 % del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) nacional; sin embargo, metodologías actuales para
tratar los residuos de las hojas de las plantas pueden causar potenciales problemas en la salud pública debido
a proliferación de moscas, además de contaminación ambiental y aporte a los gases de efecto invernadero.
El objetivo del presente estudio fue la utilización del jugo de las hojas de la planta de piña para evaluar la
producción de biogás en combinación con gallinaza como sustratos. Se realizaron pruebas de potencial
de biometano con distintas concentraciones de jugo y gallinaza (70/30, 80/20 y 90/10), así como pruebas
con cada sustrato de manera independiente. Los resultados muestran que mayores cantidades de biogás se
produjeron en los sistemas con proporciones de 80/20 y 70/30. Adicionalmente, se realizó una estimación
de la inversión requerida, con el n de realizar un estudio tecno-económico mediante la metodología de
Peters y Timmerhaus. Del análisis tecno-económico, se concluye que el proceso es altamente rentable,
con un período de retorno de inversión de 2,3 años.
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 24
1. INTRODUCCIÓN
Pineapple (Ananas comosus) is a perennial crop widely
produced in tropical regions [1]. Costa Rica is one of the most
prominent producers. According to [2], during 2020, Costa Rican
production of pineapple reached 2 600 000 metric tons for a
cultivated area of 40 000 hectares.
Every two years, pineapple plants must be renovated to
start a new production cycle, which produces around 250 tons
of lignocellulosic material per hectare, mainly pineapple leaves
[3]; these residues must be treated before a new plantation.
Current practices include natural decomposition, chemical and
thermal burning, both non-environmentally friendly options. The
decomposing material is susceptible to pest development which
impacts nearby cattle and farming establishments [4]; in addition,
natural decomposition can take up to 13 months, reducing crop
productivity. During the burning of crop residues, soil nutrient
content is affected and there is an important effect on air pollution
[5], while herbicide treatments, without dosing controls, may
cause chemical leaching into nearby bodies of water as well as
the destruction of the soil microbiome [6].
Off-site treatment requires the generation of high value-added
products to compensate the transportation costs and make the
process feasible. Pineapple leaves have a solid portion consisting
primarily of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin (around 56 %
of total solids) [7], which is attractive for biofuel production
applications. Some off-site treatments that have been studied in
recent years include bioethanol production, composite materials,
and biochar or activated carbon production.
Bioethanol production consists of the yeast anaerobic
fermentation of sugars which requires mechanical extraction
of pineapple leaves juice [7] or a hydrolytic and/or enzymatic
pretreatment of the leaves to reduce long chain carbohydrates into
fermentable sugars. Hydrolytic pretreatment can be performed in
a basic medium, acidic medium or with hot water or steam [8]–
[11], and enzymatic pretreatment includes the use of cellulases
(mainly endo-1,4-β-D-glucanase, exo-1,4-β-D-glucanase/exo-
cellobiohydrolase and β-glucosidase) [12], [13]. Although
bioethanol is a suitable substitute for fossil fuels, there are several
limitations along the production process which makes it crucial to
generate new research strategies that improve process efciency
and economic costs [1]. Some of these limitations include the
low digestibility of biomass, carbohydrate degradation during
pretreatments and use of toxic chemicals, energy, and water [2].
Additionally, the fermentation broth requires a product separation
process which generates additional inputs and a high-energy
consumption.
Moreover, the use of pineapple bers for biomaterials has
been investigated for polymer composites for various applications
(automotive, biomedical, food packaging, etc.) [14]–[16] and other
engineering applications, such as construction materials [17],
[18]. The pineapple bers and extracts provide an improvement
for the mechanical properties, and their biodegradability is one of
the most sought-after characteristics for eco-friendly solutions.
These processes generally require previous drying steps, and the
separation and size reduction of the brous material are energy
intensive operations, as well as the use of toxic chemicals for the
pretreatments. In any case, further studies are needed to simplify
the processes and make them cost effective for the industrial
applications to be feasible [18]. Biochar and activated carbon are
carbonaceous materials obtained by thermochemical conversions
such as pyrolysis and torrefaction [19], [20] from sources such as
pineapple waste. Their applications on soil remediation and water
contaminants removal have been studied in recent years [21]–
[23]. The versatility of these materials, as well as the variety of
by-products generated, make this alternative economically feasible
in certain production conditions [24]; however, the process is energy
sensitive and depends on the characteristics of the biomass, as well
as the method used for the conversion and the operation parameters
selection (temperature, pressure and residence time) [25].
Other alternatives to use pineapple waste is the Aqueous-Phase
Reforming for the production of hydrogen [26] and hydrothermal
liquefaction of pineapple leaves to obtain biocrude [27]. However,
these alternatives are in a research-stage and require further studies
to be implemented on an industrial scale [28]. Another promising
alternative to treat the residues and generate a high value added
product is anaerobic digestion, which is a process that degrades
organic materials in the absence of oxygen to produce biogas, a
stable and high-energetic biofuel composed of methane and carbon
dioxide for energy generation applications [29]. This process has
the advantage of treating organic residues in a liquid medium,
removing the requirement of prior drying, which is fundamental
since the material has high water content of around 85 % [30]. To
obtain this liquid medium, [7] applied a mechanical extraction of
the pineapple leaves to obtain a juice containing 6,2 % of solids
that consist of 72,5 % carbohydrates [7]. The resulting digestate
consists of a nutrient rich broth with fertilizer applications, with
minimal further treatment required [31].
Furthermore, anaerobic digestion, being a microbial
degradation process, requires control over certain parameters
to ensure an efcient transformation of the residues. Some of
these conditions include temperature, pH, volatile fatty acids,
hydraulic retention time, and an appropriate carbon/nitrogen ratio
(20-35:1 (C/N)) [32]. Pineapple leaves can have a C/N ratio of
up to 41:1 [30], while pineapple leave juice has 14 % of crude
ber, which means codigestion with a nitrogen rich substrate
can be very benecial. Studies show that codigestion of two or
more substrates provides a synergistic effect reducing unfavorable
conditions and increasing methane yield [33].Synergistic effects
include an increase of bacterial diversity, which can speed up the
hydrolysis rate and methane yields, the liberation of ammonia
during protein degradation and fermentation, which, in combination
with ammonium ions in aqueous solution, has a buffer effect
maintaining pH values in an ideal range for anaerobic digestion
and a nutritional enhancement in the media that promotes the
reproduction and development of the anaerobic microbiome, while
a balanced distribution of carbohydrates, proteins and lipids are
considered to increase methane yields [34].
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 25
Previous studies show that pineapple production waste,
including peel, cores, pulp, and leaves, can have the technical
potential to generate biogas in a feasible process. During the study
of the production of biogas in a plug ow reactor using pineapple
pulp and peel, [35] determined that the increase of the concentration
of pineapple by-products in the feed from 2 % at a hydraulic
retention time of 7 days to 4 % at a hydraulic retention time of 10
days doubled the biogas production rate, which could be increased
up to 52 % more by recirculating the fermentation efuent at 40
% (v/v). [36] determined that pineapple peel and core codigestion
with cow manure resulted in the production of a biogas with more
than 60 % methane. This study revealed that a mix proportion of
1:1,5 (manure:fruit waste) yielded a higher methane content and
reduced the hydraulic retention time by 5 days [36]. In the case
of liquid by-products, [37] found that the anaerobic digestion of
squeezed pineapple liquid wastes (extracted from solid wastes) in
a hybrid reactor yielded up to 0,504 L/gCOD of biogas with 0,277
L/gCOD of methane. This study aims to implement an anaerobic
digestion process able to treat pineapple waste in the North and
Atlantic region of Costa Rica, in combination with chicken manure,
to provide a feasible solution to farmers while high value-added
products are generated. Anaerobic codigestion of pineapple leaves
juice with chicken manure could result in an increase on methane
production and a decrease in hydraulic retention time, compared
to each substrate digested on its own [36], [38].
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Substrate and inoculum
Chicken manure and pineapple leaves were obtained from the
northern production area of Costa Rica. The leaves were cleaned
prior to the juice extraction; an industrial extraction mill was used
to separate liquid and solid phases. The liquid portion was collected
and sieved to remove coarse solids. Substrates were refrigerated at
6 °C prior their use. Stabilized sludge from an anaerobic wastewater
treatment plant located in Moravia Costa Rica, (Latitude: 9.971;
Longitude: -84.055) was used as the inoculum. This sludge was
recovered with a pump from the tertiary treatment.
2.2. Biomethane potential tests
Biochemical methane potential tests were carried out in
200 mL serum bottles, with a 150 mL working volume, which
contained 130 g of inoculum and enough substrate to reach an
inoculum to substrate ratio of 2:1 (on VS basis), according to
[39]. Five different treatments were carried out, including the
3 substrate mixes (70/30, 80/20 and 90/10 for leaves juice and
chicken manure, respectively) and each substrate on its own. A
blank assay with only the inoculum was used to correct the methane
potential of the inoculum. All runs were carried out in triplicate
for a total of 18 samples. The working volume was adjusted by
adding distilled water and each bottle was sealed with a rubber
septum and a cap prior to ushing with nitrogen gas to displace
oxygen in the head space. All samples were incubated at 37 °C
with continuous stirring at 110 rpm for 30 days, monitoring gas
production daily by volumetric measurement.
2.3. Analytical methods
Total solids, volatile solids and pH determination were carried
out according to [40]. Biogas was quantied volumetrically by
direct measurement with graduated syringes. Volumes were
normalized for standard temperature (273 K) and standard pressure
(1 atm).
2.4. Techno-economic analysis
The scenario with more biogas productivity in the
experimental section is used to run a technoeconomic analysis with
a capital investment estimation, based on the delivered equipment
cost for a uid processing plant, according to the Peters and
Timmerhaus methodology [41]. The considered production process
is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Pineapple juice and chicken manure anaerobic codigestion
process diagram.
The leaves are collected and transported to the processing
plant, where the juice is extracted mechanically. Chicken manure is
also collected and transported to the processing plant. A mixed feed
of juice and chicken manure enters the reactor for the codigestion
process. The feed basis for the study was 250 tons of leaves per
day (corresponding to 730 hectares farm). The anaerobic digestion
reactor operates at 37 °C, with continuous stirring at 110 rpm, for
a hydraulic retention time of 15 days.
Capital investment was calculated adding direct and indirect
costs. These calculations were based on percentual estimates
recommended by [41] for a uid processing plant, using the
delivered equipment cost as basis. Equipment cost consists on
the cost of the extractor, obtained from [42], while the cost for
the anaerobic reactor was estimated using the Aspen Process
Economic Analyzer (APEA) included in the software Aspen Plus
V11. For this simulation, the composition of the feeds used is
shown in TABLE I.
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 26
TABLE I
PINEAPPLE LEAVES JUICE AND CHICKEN MANURE
COMPOSITIONS USED IN THE SIMULATION
Compound Pineapple leave
juice (%) [7]
Chicken
Manure (%) [43]
Hemicellulose - 0,1815
Lignin - 0,0361
Xylose 0,0160 -
Glucose 0,0106 0,0385
Protein 0,0087 0,1543
Fats 0,0022 0,0156
Water 0,9380 0,2981
Ammonia - 0,0024
Lactic acid - 0,0051
Acetic acid - 0,0067
Propionic acid - 0,0003
Butyric acid - 0,0012
Other carbohydrates 0,0184 -
Inert 0,0062 0,2602
The anaerobic digestion reactor was simulated as a
stoichiometric reactor, with a hydraulic retention time of 15 days.
The hydrolytic reactions were included according to the method
presented by [44], and the reactions adjusted to the components
present in the system (TABLE II).
TABLE II
HYDROLYTIC REACTIONS OCCURRING IN THE
ANAEROBIC DIGESTOR
Compound Reaction Conversion
Hemicellulose C5H8O4 + H2O → 2,5 C2H4O2
C5H8O4 + H2O → C5H10O5
0,7
0,6
Xylose C5H10O5 → C5H4O2 + 3 H2O0,6
Glucose C6H12O6 → 2 C2H6O + 2 CO20,5
Ethanol 2 C2H6O + CO2 → 2 C2H4O2 +
CH4
0,7
Protein C13H25O7N3S + 6 H2O → 6,5 CO2
+ 6,5 CH4 + 3 H3N + H2S0,7
Triolein C57H104O6 + 3 H2O → C3H8O3 +
3 C18H34O2
0,7
The acidogenic, acetogenic and methanogenic reactions are
presented in TABLE III. Fractional conversions were assumed to
adjust the biogas product as close as possible to the experimental
yield. All thermodynamic properties were calculated with the
NRTL model, adjusting missing parameters with UNIFAC model.
TABLE III
ACIDOGENIC, ACETOGENIC AND METHANOGENIC
REACTIONS OCCURRING IN THE ANAEROBIC
DIGESTOR
Compound Reaction Conversion
Acidogenic Phase
Glucose
C6H12O6 + 0.11 H3N → 0,11 C5H7NO2
+ 0,74 C2H4O2 + 0,50 C3H6O2 + 0,44
C4H8O2 + 0,69 CO2 + 1,03 H2O
0,5
Glycerol
C3H8O3 + 0,04 H3N + 0,03 CO2 +
0,0005 H2 → 0,04 C5H7NO2 +
0,94 C3H6O2 + 1,09 H2O
0,5
Acetogenic Phase
Oleic Acid
C18H34O2 + 15,23 H2O + 0,25 CO2 +
0,17 H3N → 0,17 C5H7NO2 +
8,70 C2H4O2 + 14,50 H2
0,5
Propionic
Acid
C3H6O2 + 0,06 H3N + 0,31 H2O →
0,06C5H7NO2 + 0,93 C2H4O2+
0,66 CH4 + 0,16 CO2 + 0,0006 H2
0,9
Methanogenic Phase
Acetic
Acid C2H4O2 + 0,02 H3N → 0,02 C5H7NO2
+ 0,95 CH4 + 0,07 H2O + 0,95 CO2
0,9
Hydrogen 14,50 H2 + 3,83 CO2 + 0,08 H3N →
0,08 C5H7NO2 + 3,42 CH4 + 7,50 H2O0,9
Operating costs include labor, raw materials, utilities, and
maintenance. Labor costs were based on the local minimum
salaries with an added 20 %, considering a labor burden of 90
% based on the current local rate. Raw material cost consist of
recollection and transport costs calculated according to [42],
adjusting diesel cost in Costa Rica to 1,33 US$ /L. Utilities consist
of electricity cost for heating and stirring the reactors, estimated
with the APEA tool, as well as operating pumps and extractor,
which were calculated from the energy balance, considering that
the electricity cost in Costa Rica is 0,15 US$/kWh. Maintenance
costs were estimated as 5 % of the total capital investment
according to [41]. The revenues for biogas were considered as
0,50 US$/kg, adjusting local LPG cost proportionally with the
heating value of each fuel. On all cases, it is considered that the
plant operates 360 days per year.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Biomass characterization and biogas production
The biomass characterization is shown in TABLE IV.
Characterization data is used to reach an inoculum to substrate
ratio of 2:1 (on VS basis) for the biomethane potential test.
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 27
TABLE IV
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUBSTRATES AND INOCULUM
USED FOR ANAEROBIC CO-DIGESTION
Sample
Moisture
Content,
MC (%)
Total
Solids, TS
(%)
Volatile
Solids, VS
(%)
VS/TS (%)
Inoculum 99,19 0,81 0,43 53,19
Pineapple
leaves juice 95,28 4,72 3,81 80,72
Chicken
Manure 34,36 65,64 52,03 79,27
Chicken manure was added to generate 3 substrate mixes
as shown in TABLE V. Due to its high content on total solids,
this addition resulted in an increment on the VS concentration,
compared to the original substrate (100 % pineapple leaves juice).
On TABLE VI is presented the pre-digestion and post-digestion
characterization of the BMP reactors.
TABLE V
MIXING PROPORTIONS USED FOR ANAEROBIC CO-
DIGESTION
Mix Pineapple leaves
juice (%)
Chicken
manure (%)
Theorical VS
(%)
1 70 30 18,28
2 80 20 13,46
3 90 10 8,63
TABLE VI
PRE-DIGESTION AND POST-DIGESTION
CHARACTERIZATION OF CULTURES EVALUATED IN
BMP TEST
Pilot
Reactor pHpreApHpost TSpre
(%)
TSpost
(%)
VSpre
(%)
VSpost
(%)
Inoculum 8,0 ±
0,15
8,2 ±
0,27
0,2 ±
0,17
0,1 ±
0,01
0,2 ±
0,05
0,1 ±
0,09
Chicken
Manure
8,2 ±
0,04
8,1 ±
0,09
0,2 ±
0,06
0,2 ±
0,01
0,2 ±
0,03
0,0 ±
0,01
Pineapple
leave juice
7,6 ±
0,06
7,8 ±
0,03
0,2 ±
0,20
0,2 ±
0,00
0,2 ±
0,08
0,1 ±
0,01
Mix 1 8,1 ±
0,06
7,9 ±
0,08
0,2 ±
0,03
0,2 ±
0,01
0,2 ±
0,02
0,0 ±
0,00
Mix 2 8,2 ±
0,04
7,8 ±
0,02
0,2 ±
0,02
0,2 ±
0,01
0,2 ±
0,00
0,0 ±
0,00
Mix 3 8,1 ±
0,04
7,8 ±
0,06
0,2 ±
0,02
0,2 ±
0,01
0,2 ±
0,01
0,0 ±
0,01
A: The pH of cultures was not adjusted.
Fig. 2 presents the methane production curves for the
different studied systems. As expected, the inoculum and 100
% pineapple leaves juice produce the least amount of biogas.
However, the 100 % chicken manure samples present an irregular
behavior. Biogas production starts out high and then there is a
lag period of almost 300 hours, before the production continues
growing. According to [45], lag periods have been observed in
chicken manure anaerobic digestion due to high concentrations
of Free Ammonia Nitrogen (FAN), which affect unacclimated
bacteria. Another possibility that explains this behavior is an
imbalance in acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria causing a
high production of volatile fatty acids which result in a lower pH
that reduce the methane production during this lag period [46].
These results coincided with the results presented by [47]. The
reactors with chicken manure reduced their pH, due probably to
higher VFA production. This behavior is typical in successful
anaerobic digestion processes. This change in pH was not observed
on the pineapple leave juice reactors. These reactors increased
their pH (0,13 on average). Also, is possible to observe that the
VS consumption is higher in the co-digestion reactors (68 % VS
reduction on average) in comparison with the reactors fed with
the chicken manure (31 %) or the pineapple leave juice (66 %).
Results also show that between 400 and 600 hours, samples
containing pineapple leave juice achieve a faster hydrolysis. These
results are to be expected since according to [48], bromelain
enzymes are present in all parts of the pineapple including the
stem, crown leaves and true leaves. Bromelain is a protease
which hydrolyzes proteins present in the juice and, in a higher
proportion, in the chicken manure [49]. Since chicken manure
protein content in relatively high, mixes 1 and 2 with a higher
chicken manure concentration, provide a higher biogas yield.
Fig. 2. Total biogas production during the biomethane potential test.
These results are in part a consequence of the enhanced
hydrolysis of the protein content, but also a result of the
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 28
codigestion. Anaerobic codigestion improves the digestibility
of carbohydrates present in the lignocellulosic material waste
and reduces ammonia accumulation avoiding process instability,
by balancing the carbon/nitrogen ratio in the substrate [50].
Experimental assays showed that mix 1 was able to produce an
average of 692 NL/kg VS, while mix 2 was able to produce 678
NL/kg VS. These differences between mix 1 and 2 are considered
non relevant (around 2 %) which leads to choose mix 2 as a better
system, because of its lower chicken manure content. In this case,
the primary objective of the anaerobic digestion process is to
utilize pineapple waste, so a higher pineapple leaf juice content
is desirable. On the other hand, chicken manure has a higher
acquisition cost, which makes mix 1 have a higher production
cost compared to mix 2.
3.2. Techno-economic Analysis
For the techno-economic analysis, a mass balance was carried
out to obtain the calculation basis for the economic feasibility
analysis. The extraction yield was calculated according to [20] and
the biogas production yield was estimated using the experimental
data available for the 80/20 mix. Digestate was not quantied
during these experiments, so it is not considered in the revenue,
but in a real application, this by-product can be sold for soil
remediation applications. The mass balance is presented in Fig. 3.
The pineapple leaves are collected in the eld and transported
to the processing plant, where the wet leaves are crushed with
a mechanical extractor to separate the juice from the wet ber.
During this process, [42] estimate a loss of 3 kg of wet leaves
per 60 kg of processed leaves, as well as a juice yield of 77 % of
the initial feed. This implies that the 250 ton/day of wet leaves
used as the calculation basis generate about 192 ton/day of juice.
Given that the juice is fed into the reactor in an 80 % proportion
with 20 % chicken manure, the process needs around 48 ton/day
of this solid residue.
The obtained juice and the chicken manure are pumped into
the reactor. The reactor, pumps and pipe system were selected
based on the 15 days of hydraulic retention time and daily feed
process. According to the experimental results, an estimate of
almost 22 000 m3/day of biogas are expected.
The described process is technically feasible according to the
experimental results shown in the previous section, but economic
feasibility is a crucial factor to determine the viability
of this waste management process. The economic evaluation
results, shown in TABLE VII, give a CapEx of US$ 1 283 382 for
the implementation of the processing plant. This is a relatively
low investment, considering that the OpEx is US$ 3 598 455,
which includes raw materials, electricity, maintenance, and labor.
Considering that a very large amount of biomass must be collected
and transported, raw materials cost is a signicant contribution
in the production cost. However, another high contribution to
the operation costs is utilities, which is to be expected since
mechanical extraction of the juice is an energy-intensive process
[42]. For these results, the equipment cost considers an anaerobic
reactor, with a heating system and stirring mechanism, the juice
extractor and a centrifugal pump.
Fig. 3. Mass balance for the anaerobic digestion of pineapple juice obtained
from the processing of 250 tons/day of pineapple leaves.
The payback time can be even more attractive since other
by-products, like ber and digestate can also be commercialized
as value-added products with low extra treatments required. These
preliminary results show great promise, but a detailed feasibility
study is recommended to reduce investment risks.
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 29
TABLE VII
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF ANAEROBIC CODIGESTION PROCESS FOR
192,5 METRIC TONS PER DAY OF PINEAPPLE LEAVES JUICE WITH 48,1
METRIC TONS OF CHICKEN MANURE
Category Cost Units Reference
Direct Costs
Equipment cost
Juice extra 50 000 US$ [42]
Centrifugal Pump 10 300 US$ [51]
Anaerobic reactor with mixer 69 400 US$ [52]
Total equipment cost 129 700 US$ -
Equipment local taxes and international delivery 194 550 US$ [41]
Equipment installation 91 439 US$ [41]
Instrumentation and controls (installed) 70 038 US$ [41]
Piping (installed) 132 294 US$ [41]
Electrical systems (installed) 21 400 US$ [41]
Buildings (with services) 35 019 US$ [41]
Yard improvements 19 455 US$ [41]
Service facilities (installed) 136 185 US$ [41]
Indirect costs
Engineering and supervision 64 202 US$ [41]
Construction expenses 79 765 US$ [41]
Legal expenses 7 782 US$ [41]
Contractor’s fee 42 801 US$ [41]
Contingency 85 602 US$ [41]
Fixed capital investment 1 110 232 US$ -
Working capital 173 150 US$ -
Total capital investment 1 283 381 US$ -
Operating costs
Labor 51 898 US$ /year -
Maintenance 64 169 US$ /year [41]
Utilities 1 520 647 US$ /year -
Raw materials 1 961 741 US$ /year -
Total operating costs 3 598 455 US$ /year -
Total Product Sales 4 166 590 US$ /year -
Net Revenue A568 135 US$ /year -
Payback Time 2,3 years -
A: Estimated revenue from biogas considers a sale price of US$ 0,49 per kg of biogas
(local cost of 1 MJ equivalent from a gaseous fuel)
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 30
4. CONCLUSION
Anaerobic codigestion of pineapple leaves juice with
chicken manure at a 70/30 proportion gives the highest amount
of biogas generation between the studied combinations, for
an average of 692 NL/kg VS, however the mix with an 80/20
proportion produced only 2 % less biogas on average. In both
cases, a higher biogas yield was obtained compared to the 100
% chicken manure (608 NL/kg VS) and 100 % pineapple leaves
juice (231 NL/kg VS). These results reinforce the increase in
biogas yield obtained during codigestion processes, as well as
the increased biodegradability, compared to the mono-digestion
alternative. The use of chicken manure balances the C/N ratio
and the pineapple leaves juice provides the mix with proteolytic
enzymes that increase the material degradation. According to
the results obtained in the techno-economic study, anaerobic
codigestion of these two substrates is technically and economically
feasible, resulting in a payback time of 2,3 years.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the University of Costa Rica
for the nancial support, as well as undergraduate assistants that
participated in the data gathering for the experimental section.
ROLES
Juliana Da Luz Castro: Data curation, Formal analysis,
Research, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Visualization
Juan Pablo Rojas Sossa: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Formal analysis, Fund acquisition, Research, Methodology,
Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing
Mauricio Bustamante Román: Conceptualization,
Data curation, Funding acquisition, Research, Methodology,
Project administration, Supervision, Validation – Verication,
Visualization, Writing – review and editing
REFERENCES
[1] N. Wali, “Pineapple (Ananas comosus),” in Nonvitamin
and Nonmineral Nutritional Supplements, Elsevier, 2019,
pp. 367–373. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812491-8.00050-3.
[2] FAOSTAT, “Statistical data for food and agriculture,”
United Nations Agency for Food and Agriculture. fao.org/
faostat/es/#data/QCL (accessed Nov. 11, 2022).
[3] L. A. González Alfaro, Manual técnico para el manejo de
rastrojos en el cultivo de piña. San José, Costa Rica: Min-
isterio de Agricultura y Ganadería, 2012.
[4] O. H. Ahmed, M. H. A. Husni, A. R. Anuar, and M. M.
Hana, “Economic Viability of Pineapple Residues Recy-
cling,” J. Sustain. Agric., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 129–137, Apr.
2003, doi: 10.1300/J064v21n04_07.
[5] O. H. Ahmed, M. H. A. Husni, A. R. Anuar, and M. M.
Hana, “Effect of Residue Management Practices on Yield
and Economic Viability of Malaysian Pineapple Produc-
tion,” J. Sustain. Agric., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 83–93, Jul. 2002,
doi: 10.1300/J064v20n04_06.
[6] M. A. Montiel Segura, “Uso de agroquímicos en la produc-
ción intensiva de piña en Costa Rica,” Rev. Pensam. Actual,
vol. 15, no. 25, p. 13, 2015.
[7] A. Chen et al., “Production of renewable fuel and val-
ue-added bioproducts using pineapple leaves in Costa
Rica,” Biomass Bioenergy, vol. 141, p. 105675, Oct. 2020,
doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105675.
[8] M. Córdoba-Pérez and M. E. Molina-Córdoba, “Determi-
nación del efecto de la concentración de la celulasa, ce-
lobiasa y de NaOH en la hidrólisis para la producción de
etanol a partir del rastrojo de la piña,” Rev Ing., vol. 24, no.
2, p. 18, 2014, doi: 10.15517/ring.v24i2.11767.
[9] S. Imman et al., “Optimization of sugar recovery from pine-
apple leaves by acid-catalyzed liquid hot water pretreat-
ment for bioethanol p→roduction,” Energy Rep., vol. 7, pp.
6945–6954, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.10.076.
[10] N. I. Nashiruddin, A. F. Mansor, R. A. Rahman, R. Md.
Ilias, and H. W. Yussof, “Process parameter optimization
of pretreated pineapple leaves ber for enhancement of
sugar recovery,” Ind. Crops Prod., vol. 152, p. 112514,
Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112514.
[11] R. Saini, C.-W. Chen, A. K. Patel, J. K. Saini, C.-D. Dong,
and R. R. Singhania, “Valorization of Pineapple Leaves
Waste for the Production of Bioethanol,” Bioengineering,
vol. 9, no. 10, p. 557, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3390/bioengineer-
ing9100557.
[12] M. Broda, D. J. Yelle, and K. Serwańska, “Bioethanol Pro-
duction from Lignocellulosic Biomass—Challenges and
Solutions,” Molecules, vol. 27, no. 24, p. 8717, Dec. 2022,
doi: 10.3390/molecules27248717.
[13] K. Vasić, Ž. Knez, and M. Leitgeb, “Bioethanol Production
by Enzymatic Hydrolysis from Different Lignocellulosic
Sources,” Molecules, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 753, Feb. 2021, doi:
10.3390/molecules26030753.
[14] J. L. Araya Navarro, “Producción de un biocompuesto a
base de almidón termoplástico de yuca amarga (Manihot
Esculenta Crantz) y nanocelulosa obtenida de rastrojo de
piña (Ananas Comosus),” B.S. thesis, Univ. Nac. de Cos-
ta Rica, Heredia, Costa Rica, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://repositorio.una.ac.cr/handle/11056/20527
[15] A. Saha, S. Kumar, D. Zindani, and S. Bhowmik, “Mi-
cro-mechanical analysis of the pineapple-reinforced
polymeric composite by the inclusion of pineapple leaf
particulates,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part J. Mater. Des.
Appl., vol. 235, no. 5, pp. 1112–1127, May 2021, doi:
10.1177/1464420721990851.
[16] J. Iewkittayakorn, P. Khunthongkaew, Y. Wongnoipla, K.
Kaewtatip, P. Suybangdum, and A. Sopajarn, “Biodegrad-
able plates made of pineapple leaf pulp with biocoatings
to improve water resistance,” J. Mater. Res. Technol.,
vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 5056–5066, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.
jmrt.2020.03.023.
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 31
[17] E. Solís Nicolas, J. R. Vega Baudrit, E. Rodríguez Rojas,
and L. C. Mesenguer Quesada, “Estudio del efecto de la
adición de nanocelulosa obtenida del desecho del rastrojo
de piña en mezclas para materiales de construcción,” Rev.
Iberoam. Polímeros, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 21–43, 2019.
[18] C. T. X. Nguyen, K. H. Bui, B. Y. Truong, N. H. N. Do,
and P. T. K. Le, “Nanocellulose from Pineapple Leaf and
Its Applications towards High-value Engineering Materi-
als,” Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 89, pp. 19–24, Dec. 2021, doi:
10.3303/CET2189004.
[19] N. Hagemann, K. Spokas, H.-P. Schmidt, R. Kägi, M.
Böhler, and T. Bucheli, “Activated Carbon, Biochar and
Charcoal: Linkages and Synergies across Pyrogenic Car-
bon’s ABCs,” Water, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 182, Feb. 2018, doi:
10.3390/w10020182.
[20] K. Weber and P. Quicker, “Properties of biochar,”
Fuel, vol. 217, pp. 240–261, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.
fuel.2017.12.054.
[21] D. Montenegro Quesada, N. Montero Rambla, R. A.
Hernández Chaverri, and J. Méndez Arias, “Evaluación del
uso de carbón activado producido a partir de rastrojo de
piña en la remoción de azul de metileno,” Ingeniería, vol.
Volumen Especial-Jornadas de Investigación, pp. 101–104,
2020.
[22] G. L. May Carrillo and M. D. Tun Caamal, “Producción
de biocarbón de rastrojo de piña (Ananas comosus) y su
aplicación en aguas residuales,” B.S. thesis, Univ. Earth,
Guápiles, Costa Rica, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://
repositorio.earth.ac.cr/handle/UEARTH/442
[23] K. Iamsaard, C.-H. Weng, L.-T. Yen, J.-H. Tzeng, C.
Poonpakdee, and Y.-T. Lin, “Adsorption of metal on
pineapple leaf biochar: Key affecting factors, mechanism
identication, and regeneration evaluation,” Bioresour.
Technol., vol. 344, p. 126131, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.
biortech.2021.126131.
[24] T. R. Brown, M. M. Wright, and R. C. Brown, “Estimat-
ing protability of two biochar production scenarios: slow
pyrolysis vs fast pyrolysis,” Biofuels Bioprod. Biorening,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 54–68, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1002/bbb.254.
[25] Y. X. Seow et al., “A review on biochar production from
different biomass wastes by recent carbonization technol-
ogies and its sustainable applications,” J. Environ. Chem.
Eng., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 107017, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.
jece.2021.107017.
[26] A. M. Ulate Brenes and J. Jaikel Víquez, “Evaluación
del efecto del pretratamiento del rastrojo de piña, para la
producción de hidrógeno vía reformado en fase acuosa
(APR).,” Rev. Ing., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1–21, Feb. 2021, doi:
10.15517/ri.v31i2.43545.
[27] R. Ulate Sancho, N. Montero Rambla, N. Hernández Mon-
tero, and E. Durán Herrera, “Licuefacción hidrotérmica del
rastrojo de piña para la obtención de biocrudo/Hydrother-
mal liquefaction of pineapple stubble to obtain biocrude,”
Ingeniería, vol. Volumen Especial-Jornadas de Investi-
gación, pp. 105–108, 2020.
[28] A. R. K. Gollakota, N. Kishore, and S. Gu, “A review
on hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass,” Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev., vol. 81, pp. 1378–1392, Jan. 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.178.
[29] A. Al-Wahaibi et al., “Techno-economic evaluation of bio-
gas production from food waste via anaerobic digestion,”
Sci. Rep., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 15719, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1038/
s41598-020-72897-5.
[30] M. A. Vargas-Vargas, R. A. Hernández-Chaverri, and A.
Jiménez-Silva, “Caracterización de la biomasa de piña
(Ananas comosus) y su valoración en la propagación mice-
lial del hongo shiitake (Lentinula edodes),” Yulök Rev. Inn-
ov. Académica, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 13–27, 2019.
[31] M. Samoraj et al., “The challenges and perspectives for an-
aerobic digestion of animal waste and fertilizer application
of the digestate,” Chemosphere, vol. 295, p. 133799, May
2022, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133799.
[32] S. K. Pramanik, F. B. Suja, S. M. Zain, and B. K. Praman-
ik, “The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production
from food waste: Prospects and constraints,” Bioresour.
Technol. Rep., vol. 8, p. 100310, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.
biteb.2019.100310.
[33] L. D. P. Castro-Molano, H. Escalante-Hernández, L. E.
Lambis-Benítez, and J. D. Marín-Batista, “Synergistic
effects in anaerobic codigestion of chicken manure with
industrial wastes,” DYNA, vol. 85, no. 206, pp. 135–141,
Jul. 2018, doi: 10.15446/dyna.v85n206.68167.
[34] L. R. Miramontes-Martínez et al., “Anaerobic co-digestion
of fruit and vegetable waste: Synergy and process stability
analysis,” J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc., vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 620–
632, May 2021, doi: 10.1080/10962247.2021.1873206.
[35] P. Namsree, W. Suvajittanont, C. Puttanlek, D. Uttapap,
and V. Rungsardthong, “Anaerobic digestion of pineapple
pulp and peel in a plug-ow reactor,” J. Environ. Man-
age., vol. 110, pp. 40–47, Nov. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jen
-
vman.2012.05.017.
[36] G. Unnikrishnan and V. Ramasamy, “Anaerobic Digestion
of Pineapple Waste for Biogas Production and Application
of Slurry as Liquid Fertilizer Carrier for Phosphate Sol-
ubilizers,” Indian J. Agric. Res., no. Of, Jun. 2021, doi:
10.18805/IJARe.A-5777.
[37] N. Pattharaprachayakul, N. Kesonlam, P. Duangjumpa, V.
Rungsardthong, W. Suvajittanont, and B. Lamsal, “Optimi-
zation of Hydraulic Retention Time and Organic Loading
Rate in Anaerobic Digestion of Squeezed Pineapple Liq-
uid Wastes for Biogas Production,” Appl. Sci. Eng. Prog.,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 468–476, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.14416/j.
asep.2021.04.004.
[38] A. Azevedo, J. Gominho, and E. Duarte, “Performance
of Anaerobic Co-digestion of Pig Slurry with Pineapple
(Ananas comosus) Bio-waste Residues,” Waste Biomass
Valorization, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 303–311, Jan. 2021, doi:
10.1007/s12649-020-00959-w.
DA LUZ, ROJAS, BUSTAMANTE: Techno-Economic Analysis of Biogas Production from Pineapple... 32
[39] Louis L Faivor and Dana M Kirk, “Statistical Verication
of a Biochemical Methane Potential Test,” in 2011 Louis-
ville, Kentucky, August 7 - August 10, 2011, American So-
ciety of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2011. doi:
10.13031/2013.37363.
[40] American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, and Water Environment Federation,
Standard Methods For the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 24th ed. Washington DC: APHA Press, 2023.
[41] M. S. Peters, K. D. Timmerhaus, and R. E. West, Plant
design and economics for chemical engineers, 5th ed. in
McGraw-Hill chemical engineering series. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill, 2003.
[42] C. Y. Liao, Y. J. Guan, and M. Bustamante-Román, “Tech-
no-Economic Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Pine-
apple Leaves Utilization in Costa Rica,” Energies, vol. 15,
no. 16, p. 5784, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15165784.
[43] R. Rivera Salvador, “Estudio cinético de la digestión anaer
-
óbica termofílica de pollinaza a escala piloto,” M.S. thesis,
Inst. Politec. Nac., CDMX, México, 2010.
[44] K. Rajendran, H. R. Kankanala, M. Lundin, and M. J.
Taherzadeh, “A novel process simulation model (PSM)
for anaerobic digestion using Aspen Plus,” Bioresour.
Technol., vol. 168, pp. 7–13, Sep. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.
biortech.2014.01.051.
[45] O. Yenigün and B. Demirel, “Ammonia inhibition in an
-
aerobic digestion: A review,” Process Biochem., vol. 48,
no. 5–6, pp. 901–911, May 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.proc-
bio.2013.04.012.
[46] J. D. Marin-Batista, L. Castro, and H. Escalante, “Efecto
de la carga orgánica de la gallinaza de jaula en el potencial
de biometanización,” Rev. Colomb. Biotecnol., vol. 17, no.
1, pp. 18–23, May 2015, doi: 10.15446/rev.colomb.biote.
v17n1.39971.
[47] A. N. Matheri, S. N. Ndiweni, M. Belaid, E. Muzenda, and
R. Hubert, “Optimising biogas production from anaerobic
co-digestion of chicken manure and organic fraction of mu-
nicipal solid waste,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 80,
pp. 756–764, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.068.
[48] T. P. Devi and L. R. Singh, “The Relative Bromelain Con-
tents in Different Parts of Pineapple Plant C. V. Queen,”
Indian J Hill Farmg, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 128–129, 2001.
[49] T. Kaur, A. Kaur, and R. K. Grewal, “Kinetics studies with
fruit bromelain (Ananas comosus) in the presence of cyste-
ine and divalent ions,” J. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 52, no. 9,
pp. 5954–5960, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s13197-014-1639-
5.
[50] K. Hagos, J. Zong, D. Li, C. Liu, and X. Lu, “Anaero-
bic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress,
challenges and perspectives,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 76, pp. 1485–1496, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.
rser.2016.11.184.
[51] Matches, “Centrifugal Pump Cost Estimate,” Process
Equipment Cost Estimates. https://matche.com/equipcost/
Default.html (accessed Jun. 04, 2023).
[52] Aspen Tech, “Aspen Process Economic Analyzer (APEA).”
https://www.aspentech.com/en/products/engineering/as-
pen-plus (accessed Jan. 29, 2023).
