Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Manufacturing
online 00 (2018) 825–832
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
Available
Procedia online www.sciencedirect.com
Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering, INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October
11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering,
2017, Tirgu-Mures, Romania INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October
2017, Tirgu-Mures, Romania
Potential energy from residual biomass of rice straw and sewage
Potential energy
Manufacturing from
Engineering residual
Society biomass
International of rice
Conference 2017,straw
MESICand
2017,sewage
28-30 June
2017,sludge
Vigo in Egypt
sludge in Egypt
(Pontevedra), Spain
a,b, a c
Costing Mahmoud
models for
Mahmoud
M. Abdel Daiema,b,*, Noha Saida, Abdelazim M. Negmc
capacity
M. Abdel Daiemoptimization
*, Noha Said ,in Industry
Abdelazim M.4.0:Negm Trade-off
between usedDepartment,
capacity ofand operational efficiency
a
Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University, ,Zagazig, 44519, Egypt
ab
Environmental
Civil Engineering
Engineering Department, College ofFaculty Engineering,
Engineering, Shaqra Zagazig University,
University, ,Zagazig,Saudi
11911, Duwadimi, 44519, Egypt
Arabia
c b
Civiland
Water Engineering Department,
Water Engineering College ofFaculty
Department, Engineering, Shaqra University,
of Engineering, 11911, Duwadimi,
Zagazig University, ,Zagazig,Saudi Arabia
44519, Egypt
c
Water and Water Engineering Department, Faculty ofa,*
Engineering, Zagazig
b University, ,Zagazig,
b 44519, Egypt
A. Santana , P. Afonso , A. Zanin , R. Wernke
a

a
University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
Abstract b
Unochapecó, 89809-000 Chapecó, SC, Brazil
Abstract
Sewage sludge and rice straw residues are produced with high amounts in Egypt. The possibility of using these residues as a
Sewage sludge
renewable energyandfor
riceheat
straw
andresidues
power are producedreplacing
generation with highfossilamounts
fuelsinand
Egypt. The disposal
solving possibilityproblems.
of using Theoretical
these residues as a
energy
renewable
potential from
Abstract energy
rice for heatand
straw andsewage
powersludgegeneration
were replacing
calculated fossil
in thisfuels
studyandviasolving
differentdisposal
processes.problems.
AnaerobicTheoretical energy
digestion, as a
potential
natural and from rice strawsource
eco-friendly and sewage sludge energy,
of renewable were calculated
was chosen in as
thisa study via different
case study processes.
and applied for sludgeAnaerobic
and mixture digestion, as a
of sludge
natural
and
Underriceand
the eco-friendly
strawconcept ofsource
with mixing ratiosof(2renewable
"Industry and
4.0", energy,
4%,production
rice was
straw chosen
toprocesses as awill
sludge based case study
on be
weight). and
pushedTheappliedbefor
digestion
to sludge
processand
increasingly wasmixture of sludge
performed using
interconnected,
and
batchrice
informationstrawbased
reactors with mixing
under on ratios
anaerobic
a real time(2 and
conditions
basis 4%,
and
and,rice straw to temperature
mesophilic
necessarily,sludge
much based aton
more weight).
(35 ± 1 °C).
efficient. TheThe
In digestion
results
this process
of
context, energywas performed
calculation
capacity using
showed
optimization
batch
that reactors
the direct under anaerobic
combustion conditions
represents the and mesophilic
highest temperature
technique for at (35 ±energy
recovering 1 °C). from
The results
rice of energy
straw. On calculation
the other showed
hand, the
goes beyond the traditional aim of capacity maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value.
that the direct
anaerobic combustion
digestion of sludge represents
with rice the highest
straw improvedtechnique
carbon fornitrogen
to recovering
ratio.energy from rice
Consequently, an straw.
increase Onin the
biogasother hand,
yield for the
4%
Indeed,
anaerobic
lean management
digestion
and continuous improvement approaches suggest capacity optimization instead 4% of
mixture reached six of sludge
times with rice
compared to straw improved
solo sludge. carbon to nitrogen
Furthermore, ratio.decrease
a significant Consequently, an increase
in pathogens in biogas
and organic yield for
contents of the
maximization.
mixture reached The study
six mixture of
times comparedcapacity optimization
to solowhich
sludge. and
Furthermore,costing models
a significant is an important research topic that deserves
digested sludge and was observed provide the possibility of usingdecrease in pathogens
the effluent and organic
of the digester contents of and
in the agriculture the
contributions
digested sludgefrom
land application. and both the
mixture
Moreover, waspractical
observed
the biogas
and
which
analysis
theoretical perspectives.
providethat
showed the possibility
methane was ofThis
usingpaper presents
the effluent
the highest
and(60-63%)
of the
component
discusses
digester a mathematical
infollowed
the agriculture and
by carbon
model
dioxide for capacity
land application.
which means management
Moreover,
that thethe
biogas based
biogas on from
analysis
produced different
showed costing
that
digestion methanemodels
of sludge and (ABC
was the andiscomponent
ricehighest
straw TDABC). A generic
(60-63%)
attractive source model energy.
followed
of renewable hascarbon
by been
developed
dioxide and
which it
meanswas used
that theto analyze
biogas
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. idle
produced capacity
from and
digestionto design
of sludge strategies
and rice towards
straw is the maximization
attractive source of of organization’s
renewable energy.
value.
© 2018The trade-off
The Authors.
Peer-review under capacityby
Published
responsibility ofmaximization
Elsevier vs operational
B.V. committee
the scientific efficiency
of the 11th is highlighted
International Conferenceand it is shown that
Interdisciplinarity in capacity
© 2018 The Authors.
Peer-review under Published by
responsibility of Elsevier B.V. committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in
the scientific
optimization
Engineering. might hide operational inefficiency.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
Engineering.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review underRice
Keywords: Biogas; responsibility
straw; Sewageof Sludge;
the scientific
Energy;committee
Egypt. of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference
Keywords: Biogas; Rice straw; Sewage Sludge; Energy; Egypt.
2017.

Keywords: Cost Models; ABC; TDABC; Capacity Management; Idle Capacity; Operational Efficiency

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +20-106-622-3760; fax: +20-552-310-103.
* E-mail
Corresponding
address:author. Tel.: +20-106-622-3760; fax: +20-552-310-103.
mmabdeldaim@zu.edu.eg
The cost
E-mail of idle
address: capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
mmabdeldaim@zu.edu.eg
in modern©production
2351-9789 systems.
2018 The Authors. In general,
Published it isB.V.
by Elsevier defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several©under
2351-9789
Peer-review ways: tons of production,
2018responsibility
The Authors. Published
of available
by Elsevier
the scientific B.V.hours
committee of manufacturing,
of the 11th etc. Interdisciplinarity
International Conference The management of the idle capacity
in Engineering.
Peer-review underTel.:
* Paulo Afonso. responsibility
+351 253of the761;
510 scientific committee
fax: +351 253 604of741
the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
E-mail address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.116
 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825 819
826 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832

1. Introduction

The sludge wastes from urban and industrial sewage reprocessing plants are residual biomass with serious effects
on the environment. Around 2 million tons of dry sludge are produced annually in Egypt, and due to the increasing
population density and the currently low capacities of wastewater treatment, a future increase in the number and
capacities of wastewater treatment plants can be expected, as consequence, the amount of produced sewage sludge is
also expected to increase [1]. These large quantities of sludge are disposed into the Nile River and the cities which
located far from the Nile River banks dispose the sludge in the nearest empty land beside treatment plants [2]. Thus
the utilization of sewage sludge as a renewable source of energy is important from the energetic as well as from the
environmental point of view.
The energy of sewage sludge could be recovered using different techniques such as incineration, gasification,
pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion and biochemical conversion [3]. However, the sludge incineration is rather expensive
due to the large quantities of polluted exhaust gases and the costs of an efficient and adequate gas treatment system
are very high [4]. Moreover, the pyrolysis and gasification of sewage sludge are very limited, and the process
performance is more complicated than incineration due to the presence of toxic organic pollutants, in addition, the
treatment process of the gases can be more complicated [4]. On the other hand, the production of ethanol from
sewage sludge through biochemical conversion is less attractive because of the complex separation system that is
necessary to separate ethanol selectively [4]. Otherwise, the application of anaerobic digestion process with energy
recovery is proven to be a promising option for sewage sludge stabilization in Egypt [1]. It has the lowest costs and
environmental impacts due to the energy recovery. Furthermore, the biogas production has a mitigation effect on
environmental impacts due to fossil-fuel substitution as well as an economic benefit due to the power generation [5].
Another waste which is produced with a high amount in Egypt is rice straw, its quantity generated annually
exceeds 3 million tons and this amount increases with increasing population growth and rice cultivation yield [6].
Field burning is the major practice for removing rice straw, but it results in the great impact on the greenhouse aspect
as gas emissions as well as air pollution and consequently affects public health [7, 8]. However, rice straw has a high
energy potential and thus can become a source of alternative energy that substitutes fossil energy [9] for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions as well as avoids the local pollution problems from open burning [10, 11]. Energy from
rice straw can be recovered through a different process such as combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic
digestion, and biochemical conversion processes [12-16].
However, previous studies showed that the combustion process for energy recovery from rice straw resulted in
operating problems in thermal conversion systems, such as high ash content, sintering, slag formation, and corrosion
problems [11, 17, 18]. Otherwise, many recent studies were applied on the pyrolysis, gasification and biochemical
conversion of rice straw and showed they're essential for energy recovery [19-23]. On the other hand, the recalcitrant
nature of the lignin during digestion has been the major hindrances for the feasibility of the anaerobic digestion of
rice straw alone, so, pretreatment of rice straw or co-digestion with another waste can assist to get rid of this problem
[24]. A recent study showed the significant effect of co-digestion of sewage sludge with rice straw on the biogas
produced [16].
The main objective of this study is to calculate the theoretical energy could be obtained from rice straw and
sewage sludge via different processes. Moreover, anaerobic digestion process has been chosen as a case study to
investigate the yield of biogas produced from sludge and mixture of sludge and rice straw with different mixing
ratios and to estimate the theoretical energy could be generated from the obtained biogas. Furthermore, organic and
pathogens contents will be studied before and after digestion process. In addition to, analyze the biogas samples will
be analyzed to investigate composition

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

Sewage sludge (waste activated sludge) obtained from Altal-Alkabeer wastewater treatment plant, Ismailia
Government, Egypt. Rice straw samples were collected from El-Sharkia Government, Egypt with an approximate
length of 1.0 m then rice straw was shredded to 1.0 cm.
820 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825
Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832 827

2.2. Lab model

Batch reactor unit consisted of a reactor connected to gas collector with P.V.C. tube, and the gas collector was
Batch reactor unit consisted of a reactor connected to gas collector with PVC tube, and the gas collector was
attached to an open jar by a tube with a valve to measure the volume of water collected due to the pressure of the
biogas produced. The reactor was placed in a glass basin equipped with a heater and thermostat to maintain a
constant temperature (35 ± 1 °C) as shown in Fig. 1. Three batch reactors were used in this experiment, Each
reactor contained 2.5 Kg sewage sludge, the first reactor contained sludge alone, however, the other two reactors
mixed with rice straw at ratios 2 and 4 % (rice straw to sewage sludge based on weight)

Fig. 1. A photograph of the three batch cells in lab.

2.3. Lab analysis

Total solids (TS), total volatile solids (TVS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total nitrogen (N), and total
carbon (C) samples were measured according to the procedure mentioned in the standard methods [25]. The pH was
measured using pH meter (pHep, HI 98107 pocket-sized pH Meter). The biogas produced was calculated by
measuring the volume of water displaced due to the pressure of biogas. Total bacteria was counted using plate count
agar medium while total coli-form and fecal coli-form were counted using McConkey medium according to [26].
Total bacteria plates were incubated at 30 °C for 48h., Total coli-form plates were incubated at 37° C for 24h., while
fecal coli-form plates were incubated at 44.5° C for 24h. Samples of biogas produced were analyzed using Gas
Chromatograph, LNG analyzer Varian 3800 cp (Liquefied natural gas analyzer) to determine its composition.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Rice straw

The dry rice straw which could be used as fuel energy according to CAPMAS [27] and Said et al. [28] is about 5
million ton in the year 2014. This amount can be converted to a valuable energy product such as gas through direct
combustion, biogas from anaerobic digestion, syngas through gasification or in the form of liquid as bio-oil from
pyrolysis and ethanol through biochemical conversion. The theoretical energy from this amount of rice straw
through the different available techniques was calculated as indicated in Table 1. It has been found that the direct
combustion represents the highest technique for recovering energy from rice straw followed by pyrolysis,
gasification, biochemical conversion and anaerobic digestion.
 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825 821
828 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832

Table 1. Theoretical energy calculation for rice straw through different techniques.
Process Product Product Yield Heating value MJ Calculated theoretical energy (GWhx103)
Pyrolysis Bio oil 68% Wt. 19.00 /Kg oil [14] 18.30
3 3
Gasification Syngas 1.84 m /Kg 6.01/m gas [15] 15.67
Biochemical Ethanol 416 L/dry ton* 19.6/L ethanol [12] 10.41
Direct combustion Gas --- 16.00/Kg straw [29] 22.67
Anaerobic digestion Biogas --- 6.81/Kg straw [29] 9.65
* Dry rice straw is 90 % weight

3.2. Sewage sludge

As concluded from the literature review that recovering the energy from sewage sludge using technologies such
as incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and biochemical conversion is not an attractive option due to the high cost
and complicated performance of the processes [4]. Otherwise, the application of anaerobic digestion process for
sewage sludge stabilization in Egypt is a promising option from the environment and economic point of views [1, 5].
Thus, the theoretical electrical energy through anaerobic digestion process from 1 kg of dry sewage sludge can be
calculated by 0.78 kWh/kg of dry sludge [1]. According to the estimated amount (2 million tons of dry sewage
sludge) produced annually in Egypt [1], the theoretical electrical energy was estimated with1560 GWh [28].

3.3. The Case study: Anaerobic digestion experiment

The physical and chemical characteristics of sewage sludge and rice straw are summarized in Table 2. As
indicated in the table, rice straw has high TS (93.63%), so classified as a solid waste. Meanwhile, sewage sludge has
a low TS (1.29%) and could be classified as a semi solid waste. Furthermore, rice straw has a higher TVS and
carbon content than those of sewage sludge. Moreover, C/N for rice straw was a round 10 times higher than that for
sewage sludge which increases the possibility of biogas production.
Cumulative biogas production was measured for the three reactors as illustrated in Fig. 2. The cumulative biogas
production from sludge solo reached to 8.1 litres after 60 days of digestion. Meanwhile, the total biogas produced
from the mixture with 2% mixing ratio reached to about 25.33 litres after 80 days and was almost three fold its
amount obtained from sludge only. Furthermore, the yield of biogas increased with increasing mixing ratio to 4% to
reach 46.51 litres (six times its amount obtained from sludge solo). This may be attributed to that the sewage sludge
has low C/N ratio (6.59) while rice straw has a much higher content of organic carbon content, higher C/N ratio
(72.9), and the optimal C/N ratio for anaerobic digestion should be in the range of 20-30; therefore, the addition of
rice straw to sludge increased C/N to reach 17.34 and 25.10 at 2 and 4% mixing ratio, respectively. In consequence,
a significant improvement in biogas production was detected [16, 30-32].

Table 2. Characterization of raw materials used in the experiments.

Parameter Sewage sludge Rice straw
pH 7.20 N.D
COD (g/L) 17.00 N.D
TS (%) 1.29 93.63
TVS (%) 0.84 69.38
C (%)* 25.70 37.90
N (%)* 3.90 0.52
C/N 6.59 72.90

N.D. Not determined

* Percentages from TS.
822 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825
Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832 829

Fig. 2. Cumulative biogas production from sludge (0%) and mixture (2% and 4%).

According to Ghazy et al. [1], the lower heating value of the digested gas is approximately 6.22 KWh/m3, the
electrical energy could be generated from the biogas produced from the sludge, and the mixture was calculated and
illustrated in Fig. 3. As indicated in the figure, the electric power could be obtained from the produced biogas yield
reached to 270x10-3 KWh/m3, in the case of 4% mixing ratio after 80 days of digestion.

300

250

200 >> 250

300
<< 250
150 << 200
<< 150
100 << 100
<< 50
50

4.0
80
60
2.0 40
20
0.0 0

Fig. 3. Electric power produced as a function of mixing ratio and time.

The addition of rice straw to sewage sludge increased the initial TS, TVS and COD contents, as indicated in Figs
4 and 5, due to the higher organic matter in the mixture comparing to sludge alone. These values decreased after
digestion due to the degradation of organic matters and conversion them into biogas by anaerobic bacteria activation
[33]. The destruction of COD for the three mixing ratio, 0%, 2%, and 4% was 14, 17, 27 g/L, respectively, these
results confirmed that the biogas production was the highest at 4% mixing ratio and followed by 2% and the lowest
one was for a sludge solo (0%), as showed in Fig. 2.
pH values vary during digestion process due to biological conversions, where acidogenic bacteria produce high
volumes of organic acids causing acid accumulation that could upset the system and eventually stop the production
of biogas. Under normal conditions, this pH reduction is buffered by the bicarbonate produced by methanogens and
 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825 823
830 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832

ammonia formation that guard against the accumulation of excess volatile acids. Consequently, pH values for the
digested materials showed no significant difference with respecting to their values before digestion, as shown in
Fig. 5. Moreover, these values were near to 7, which is required in anaerobic digestion for good performance and
stability, and to obtain maximal biogas yield [34].

Fig. 4. TS and TVS before and after digestion for the sludge (0%) and mixture (2% and 4%).

To study the effect of anaerobic digestion on pathogens content in sludge, bacterial measurements carried out on
raw sludge and the digested samples. These measurements included total bacterial count, total coli-form, and fecal
coli-form. Table 3 showed the bacterial measurements for raw sludge and digested sludge and mixture. It was found
that pathogens destruction was highly observed for mixed sludge compared to sludge only. This is in consistence
with the results of Ibrahim [35]. In the anaerobic digestion process, acidogenic bacteria produce organic acids which
tend to lower the pH of the anaerobic digester [36]. The decreasing in pathogens content may be due to the presence
of organic acids in anaerobic treatment which serve to inhibit the growth of pathogens [37]. It was noticed also the
digested samples have black color and burnt rubber odor so that there is a reduction in the odor after digestion. As
with odor reduction, high treatment efficiency has been shown to correlate with significant pathogen reduction [37].

Fig. 5. COD and pH before and after digestion for the sludge (0%) and mixture (2% and 4%).
824 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825
Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832 831

Table 3. Bacterial measurements for sludge and digested samples.

Measured Before digestion After digestion
Sludge Sludge 2% mixture 4% mixture
Total bacterial count CFU/ml) 14×106 13×105 15×104 11×104
Total coli-form (CFU/ml) 60×105 22×104 96×103 87×103
Fecal coli-form (CFU/ml) 16×105 12×104 05×103 03×103

Samples of biogas produced from reactors were collected and analysed to determine its composition. Table 4
shows the composition of the biogas production from the reactors. It has been found that the main component in
produced biogas was methane and followed by CO2. Moreover, it was observed that there was no significant effect
on methane content in produced biogas, similar results were found by Atta et al. [16] and Komatsu et al. [30].

Table 4. Composition of biogas production from the three reactors.

Components Composition %
Sludge 0% 2% mixture 4% mixture
Methane (CH4) 62.89 61.31 60.89
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 34.43 32.72 31.54
Others 2.68 5.97 7.57

4. Conclusions

The utilization of sewage sludge and rice straw as renewable sources of energy is important from the energetic as
well as from the environmental point of view. The results of this study showed the energy estimation from direct
combustion represented the highest technique for recovering energy from rice straw. The theoretical energy of the
annual amount of rice straw in Egypt through anaerobic digestion technique was estimated with 9650 GWh in
comparison with sewage sludge (1560 GWh). On the other hand, the presence of rice straw in the digester improved
carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N), consequently, increased the biogas yield for 4% mixture around six times compared
to solo sludge. Furthermore, a significant decrease in pathogens and organic contents of sludge and mixture was
observed after digestion which is beneficial for using the digested materials in the agricultural and land application.
Moreover, the biogas analysis showed that methane was the highest component (60-63%) followed by carbon
dioxide which means that the biogas produced from digestion of sludge and rice straw is attractive source of
renewable energy

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the teamwork at Environmental Engineering Department, Zagazig University for their
valuable suggestions and encouragement through this study.

References

[1] M. Ghazy, T. Dockhorn, N. Dichtl. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 57 (2009) 299–307.
[2] G.M. Rabie. J. Civil Environ. Eng. 6(209) (2016) 1-7.
[3] I. ZSIRAI. J Residuals Sci. Tech. 8(4) (2011) 165-179
[4] W. Rulkens. Energy & Fuels 22(1) (2007) 9-15.
[5] M. Ghazy, T. Dockhorn, N. Dichtl. I.W.T.C.-15, Alexandria, Egypt, 2011.
[6] D.A. Nakhla, M.G. Hassan, S. Haggar. Natural Science 5(6) (2013) 678-684.
[7] S.I. Mussatto, I.C. Roberto. Biotechnol. Prog. 20 (2004) 134-139.
[8] I. Wongjewboot, T. Kangsadan, S. Kongruang, V. Burapatana, P. Pripanapong. ICCCE, Kyoto, Japan, 2010.
[9] K. Lee, B. Kang, Y. Park, J. Kim. Energy Fuel 19 (2005) 2179-2184.
[10] T. Suramaythangkoor, S.H.Gheewala. Energy Policy 36 (2008) 3183-3187.
 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 818–825 825
832 Mahmoud M. Abdel Daiem et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 825–832

[11] N. Said, T. Bishara, A. García-Maraver, M. Zamorano. Waste Manag. 33 (2013) 2250-2256.

[12] H.F. Aly, E.M. Megeed. Report Submitted to UNIDO- IMC, Cairo-Egypt, 2008.
[13] K.T. Ewida, H. El-Salmawy, N.N. Atta, M.M. Mahmoud. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 8 (2006) 188-197.
[14] S. Jung, B. Kang, J. Kim. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 82 (2008) 240-247.
[15] C. Liang, S. Yi, C. Yi, L. Yong-hao, L. Fang, W. Wen-guang. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, 2009.
[16] N.N. Atta, A.A. El-Baz, N. Said, M.M. Abdel daiem. J Fundam. Renewable Energy Appl. 6(204) (2016) 1-7.
[17] F. Peng, H. Song, X. Jun, S. Lushi, Y. Tao, Z. Anchao, Z. Junying. Chin.J. Chem.Eng. 17 (2009) 522-529.
[18] N. Said, M.M. Abdel daiem, A. García-Maravera, M. Zamorano, Bioresources, 9(4) (2014) 6756-6764
[19] J. Park, Y. Lee, C. Ryu, Y. Park. Bioresour. Techno.155 (2014) 63-70.
[20] I.Y. Eom, J.Y. Kim, S.M. Lee, T.S. Cho, H. Yeo, J.W. Choi. Bioresour. Technol. 128 (2013) 664–672.
[21] B. Elsayed. Braz. J. Microbiol. 44(1) (2013) 225–234.
[22] H. Zhang, R. Xiao, B. Jin, D. Shen, R. Chen, G. Xiao. Bioresour. Technol. 137 (2013) 82–87
[23] R.S. El-Emam, I. Dincer. Progress in Clean Energy, Volume 1: Analysis and Modeling, Springer Inc., Switzerland, 2015, PP.57–71.
[24] C.H. Shu, R. Jaiswal, J.S. Shih. J. Bioprocess Biotech. 5(10) (2015) 1-7
[25] APHA, AWWA, WPCF. 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, American water works Association, and Water Pollution
Control Federation: Washington DC, 1998.
[26] W.F. Harrigan, E. McCance- Margaret E. Laboratory Methods in Microbiolog. Academic Press, London and New York, 1966
[27] CAPMAS, Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics. http://capmas.gov.eg/Pages/StaticPages.aspx?page_id=5034,2016.
[28] N. Said, S.A. El-Shatoury, L.F. Díaz, M. Zamorano. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 24 (2013) 84-91.
[29] D.M. Summers. University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA, USA, 2001.
[30] T. Komatsu, K. Kudo, Y. Inoue, and S. Himeno.Technical, Managerial, and Public Synergy, New Brunswick, 2007, pp. 24-27.
[31] H.W. Yen, D.E. Brunce. Bioresource Technol. 98 (2007) 130-134.
[32] P.G. Stroot, K.D. McMahon, R.I. Mackie, L. Raskin. Water Res.35 (2001) 1804-1816.
[33] U. Zaher, D. Cheong, B. Wu, S. Chen. Ecology Publication, NO. 07-07-024 (2007) 12-16.
[34] C.F. Liu, Z. Yuanx, G.M. Zeng, W.W. Liw, J. Li. Bioresource Technol. 99 (2007). 882-888.
[35] A.M.F. Ibrahim. Cairo University, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo, Egypt, 2006.
[36] G.K. Anderson, G. Yang. J. Environ. Eng. 118(4) (1992) 551-567.
[37] A.C. Wilkie.In: Dairy Manure Management: Treatment, Handling, and Community Relations", NRAES-176, 2005, pp.63-72.