Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14 Res. Agr. Eng.

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

Effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on biogas

production of sheep paunch manure

A.A. Lawal, A.U. Dzivama, M.K. Wasinda

Department of Agricultural and Environmental Resources Engineering, Faculty

of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria

Abstract

Lawal A.A., Dzivama A.U., Wasinda M.K. (2016): Effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on biogas production
of sheep paunch manure. Res. Agr. Eng., 62: 8–14.

Sheep paunch manure was anaerobically digested to study the effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on biogas production
rates and accumulation. Inoculum to substrate ratios of 1.37, 2.05 and 4.1 were digested in biodigesters labelled R1, R2 and
R3 respectively. Results showed that inoculum to substrate ratio had a significant effect on biogas production rates
and accumulation. Biogas production rates increased to peak in the order of R3 (0.30526 Nm3/kg volatile solids (VS)
days), R2 (0.15308 Nm3/kg VS d) and R1 (0.11009 Nm3/kg VS d) on the 5th day. The biogas production accumulation
increased from 0.57195 to 1.46784 Nm3/kg VS as the inoculum to substrate ratio increased. The result of regression
showed that coefficient of determination values for the linear equation ranged from 0.707 to 0.797, while the exponen-
tial equation had higher values that ranged from 0.7718 to 0.9929 showing better simulation. The modified Gompertz
equation showed better simulation of the biogas production accumulation than the first order kinetic equation due to
its higher coefficient of determination values.

Keywords: volatile solids; biogas production rate; biogas accumulation; modified Gompertz; first order kinetic, simulation

Biomass is one of the renewable sources of bio- several organic residues/wastes have led to the un-
energy capable of significant contribution to the derstanding of their inherent conversion potentials
global future energy supply (WEC 2004). Bioen- and kinetics that resulted in the design, develop-
ergy generated from diverse sources provides local ment, process control and optimisation of biodi-
energy needs, reduces dependence on fossil fuel gesters. But to fully utilise biogas potentials from
and help mitigate greenhouse gas effect. The main biomass materials, biogas production behaviour
concern limiting bioenergy utilisation is its relative and potentials of more organic residue/waste ma-
inefficient conversion technologies. However, an- terials are needed to be determined.
aerobic digestion of residue/waste materials from Several researches have been conducted to de-
agricultural crops, animal production and agro- termine biogas potential of different organic sub-
processing industries could be a simple, efficient strates. Buswell and Mueller (1952), Baserga
and low cost conversion technology. (1998) and Raposo et al. (2011) proposed an em-
Anaerobic digestion occurs when organic mate- pirical relationship that utilises the elemental or
rial is converted biologically in the absence of oxy- organic chemical compositions of biomass to esti-
gen to gaseous product called biogas (Angelidaki mate its theoretical maximum biogas yield. Hans-
2002). Studies on anaerobic digestion process of en et al. (2004), Wymyslowski et al. (2010), Feng

8
Res. Agr. Eng. Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

et al. (2013), Monch-Tegeder et al. (2013) and delivered to the laboratory for experiment and analy-
Zhang et al. (2013) investigated the biochemical sis. Three sub-samples of 100 g of SPM were collected
methane potential of solid organic waste, poul- and diluted to 15%, 10% and 5% d.m. and transferred
try slaughterhouse waste, vinegar residue, horse separately into 2 l glass bottles and stored at 5°C.
manure and goat manure with crop residue using Nutrient medium. A nutrient medium containing
batch method, respectively. They determined the the following nutrients and vitamins was prepared:
physicochemical compositions of substrate and (a) NaCl, MgCl2·6H2O, CaCl·2H2O;
developed an anaerobic assay for the biogas pro- (b) FeCl2·4H2O, ZnCl2, MnCl2·4H2O, (NH4)6Mo7O24;
duction. Chynoweth et al. (1993), Labatut et al. (c) folic acid and riboflavin.
(2008), Feng et al. (2013), Kheiredine et al. (2014) Stock solutions were prepared based on the rec-
also investigated the influence of inoculum to sub- ommendation of Angelidaki (2002). This involves
strate (I/S) ratio on biogas production by varying dissolving certain quantities of the chemicals in
the amount of substrate added to inoculum. Ef- group (a), (b) and (c) separately in 1 l of distilled
fects of temperature and pH were also investigated water. Samples of 10, 1 and 1 ml were collected
(Hashimoto et al. 1981). Simulation studies on bi- from stock solutions (a), (b) and (c), respectively,
ogas production and conversion kinetics for gelatin and then added to 988 ml distilled water to obtain a
solid waste, co-digested horse and cow dung, water nutrient medium used for the experiment.
hyacinth and vinegar residue were carried out by Physicochemical composition analysis. Fresh
Raghunathan et al. (2008), Yusuf et al. (2011), samples of inoculum and SPM were analysed for total
Adiga et al. (2012) and Feng et al. (2013), respec- solids (TS) and volatile solids (VS) content accord-
tively, and their results showed that different sub- ing to the standard method of the American Public
strates have different potentials and conversion ki- Health Association (APHA 1992). TS was determined
netics. The objectives of this study were to evaluate by oven drying the sample at 95°C until there was no
the effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on biogas change in weight. The TS was further oven dried for
production of sheep paunch manure (SPM) under 1 h at 550°C to determine the proportion of organic
mesophilic conditions and to simulate the biogas matter (VS) lost in the dried sample. The proportions
production rates and accumulation. of carbohydrate, crude protein, crude fat, crude fibre
and ash content of SPM substrate were determined
by proximate analysis at the Soil Science Laboratory,
MATERIAL AND METHODS University of Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Batch digestion test. The biogas unit consisted
Sample collection, conditioning and charac- of the following:
terisation. Inoculum. Two kilograms of fresh cow – 200 ml glass bottle and a thick rubber septum
dung sample was collected at the Animal Farm, with a flexible rubber tube fixed on the rubber
University of Maiduguri, Nigeria and taken to the septum through an opening used as biodigester,
Agricultural and Environmental Resources labo- – a thermostatically controlled water bath with a
ratory of the same institution for experiment. To plastic rack used for agitating and keeping biodi-
adapt the inoculum to mesophilic conditions, 200 g gesters in place,
of the cow dung was diluted in distilled water to – 100 and 10 ml plastic syringes and gas pressure
10% dry matter (d.m.) and transferred into a 4  l gauge,
glass bottle. The headspace of the 4 l glass bot- – 80% N2 and 20% CO2 gas mixture.
tle was flushed with a gas mixture of 80% N2 and Experimental procedure. Sixty millilitres (5.91 g
20%  CO2 and closed with a thick rubber septum VS) of the degassed inoculum was collected after it
which was held tight by a resin. The inoculum solu- was shaken and transferred into a biodigester unit
tion was then incubated in a water bath at 35 ± 1°C. using the 100 ml plastic syringe. Thirty millilitres of
During incubation, the inoculum solution was de- the solution of SPM substrate and 1 ml of the nu-
gassed completely by allowing gas build-up in the trient medium were collected and added to the in-
headspace to escape via a valve controlled tube. oculum in the biodigester unit . The combination of
Substrate. Two kilograms of fresh SPM was col- the inoculum, substrate and nutrient medium was
lected at an Animal Slaughter House, Maiduguri, Ni- prepared for the 15% (4.32 g VS), 10% (2.88 g VS)
geria. The sample collected was stored over ice and and 5% (1.44 g VS) concentrations of SPM substrate

9
Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14 Res. Agr. Eng.

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

in biodigesters labelled R1, R2 and R3. These con- Finally, the biogas production accumulation was
tained inoculum to substrate ratios of 1.37, 2.05 and simulated using first order kinetic and modified
4.1, respectively, while the control biodigester con- Gompertz equations (Eq. 3 and 4):
tained only inoculum. The biodigesters were flushed
Bf = BOf (1 – exp(–k × t)) (3)
with the 80% N2 and 20% CO2 gas mixture and
transferred into the water bath at 35 ± 1°C. The en- BG = BOG × exp{–exp[(μm × e/BoG)(λ – t) + 1]} (4)
tire biodigester units were agitated for 5 min twice
a day. The biogas produced was measured using the where:
gas pressure gauge twice daily at the initial stage and Bf, BG – biogas production accumulation for first
once daily toward the final stage of the process until order kinetic and modified Gompertz equa-
no more biogas was produced. After every measure- tions, respectively, at time (day)
ment, biogas accumulated was allowed to escape in BOf, BOG – max. biogas production for first order kinetic
order to avoid pressure build up that would exceed and modified Gompertz equations, respec-
the pressure gauge capacity. This experiment was re- tively (Nm3/kg VS)
peated 3 times and the average was calculated and k – first order kinetic constant
recorded as the average biogas produced. μm – max. biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)
Simulation of biogas production rate and ac- λ – duration of lag phase
cumulation. The biogas production rates of SPM e – constant that equals to 2.718282
were simulated using linear and exponential plots.
Eq. (1) was used for linear simulation under the Statistical analysis. Simple descriptive statistical
assumption that biogas production rate increased analysis was used to report averages and standard
linearly to its peak and then decreased linearly to deviations of the experimental data. ANOVA test
zero. The exponential equation (Eq. 2) was also was used to detect if there was a significant differ-
used to simulate increasing and decreasing stages ence of biogas production rate and accumulation
of biogas production rate under the assumption due to the effect of I/S ratio. Microsoft Excel soft-
that production rate increased exponentially to its ware was used to determine equation parameters
peak and then decreased exponentially. and to plot graphs.
Bl = al + bl × t (1)

Be = ae + be × exp(cet) (2) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

where: Characteristics of SPM and inoculum

Bl, Be – biogas production rates for linear and expo-
nential estimation (Nm3/kg VSd) at time (day), The results of physicochemical composition anal-
respectively ysis of SPM and inoculum are presented in Table 1.
t – time of digestion period (day) The ash content of SPM was 4.3% which resulted
al – intercept (Nm3/kg VSd) in a high VS/TS ratio of 93.7%. This ratio indicates
bl – slope (Nm3/kg VSd2) that SPM could be a suitable substrate for anaero-
ae – be are constants (Nm3/kg VSd) bic digestion. The pH level of SPM was within an-
ce – constant (d–1) and is negative for decreasing stage aerobic digestion range of 6 to 8.3.

Table 1. Physicochemical compositions of SPM and inoculum

Moisture Carbohy- Crude Crude Crude

TS VS VS/TS Ash
content pH drate protein fat fiber
(% w.b.) (% w.b.) ratio (% TS)
(%) (% TS) (% TS) (% TS) (% TS)
82.4 17.4 16.3 7.8 36 9.5 1.1 46 4.3
SPM 0.937
(2.43) (1.76) (2.44) (0.518) (2.91) (0.97) (0.44) (1.85) (0.84)
24.04 75.9 67.6
Inoculum 0.89 ND ND ND ND ND ND
(3.13) (3.51) (4.67)

numbers in parentheses are standard deviations; ND – not determined; VS – volatile solids; TS – total solids

10
 Res. Agr. Eng. Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

(a)
(b)
0.35
1.6
Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)

R1

Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VS d)Biogas production accumulation

0.30 1.4
R2
0.25 1.2
R3
1.0

(Nm3/kg VS)
0.20
0.8
0.15
0.6
0.10
0.4
0.05 0.2
0.35
0.00 R1 Experimental data 0.0
0 10 20 10
30 20
40 30 0.30 0 40
R2 Experimental data
Digestion period (day)
Digestion period (day)
0.25 R3 Experimental data
Fig. 1. Experimental data plots of biogas production (a) rate and (b)0.20 accumulation in R1,
____ Linear R2 andline
regression R3 biodigesters
VS – volatile solids; VSd – volatile solids/day; R1, R2, R3 – biodigesters
0.15
0.10
Biogas production rate and accumulation period; R3 biodigester exhibited the max. biogas
0.05
production rates followed by R2 and R1 biodigest-
The result showed no biogas produced from the ers (Fig.
0.00 1b). The peak (maximum) biogas produc-
controlled biodigester over the entire digestion pe- 0
tion rate occurred on the

2 5th day for 4all biodigesters
6

riod. Fig. 1 (a and b) show biogas production rates -0.05 3
in the order of R3 (0.30526 Nm /kg volatile solids
and accumulation
1.6 plots of SPM over the digestion (VS)-0.10
days), R2 (0.15308 3
Nmperiod
Digestion /kg VS days) and R1
(day)
3
period,
1.4 respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 1a (0.11009 Nm /kg VS days). ANOVA showed that
Biogas production accumulation

that R1, R2 and R3 biodigesters needed 30, 29 and inoculum:substrate (I/S) ratio had a significant ef-
1.2
27 days to complete digestion, respectively. It ap- fect (P < 0.0372) on biogas production rates.
1.0that as I/S ratio increased, digestion period
(Nm3/kg VS)

peared The total accumulated biogas produced was

decreased
0.8 and biogas production rates increased. found to be in the order of 1.46784, 0.88177 and
It can0.6also be observed that curves of biogas pro- 0.57195 Nm3/kg VS in R3, R2 and R1 biodigesters,
duction rates for R1, R2 and R3 biodigesters ex- respectively (Fig. 1b). Raghunathan et al. (2008)
0.4
hibited similar pattern over the entire digestion reported similar biogas production accumulation
0.2
(a) 0.0

––
(b)
0.35 0 10 20 30 40 0.14
R1 Experimental data
Digestion period (day)
Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)

Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)

0.30 R2 Experimental data 0.12

0.25 R3 Experimental data 0.10

0.20 ____ Linear regression line 0.08

0.15 0.06
0.10 0.04

0.05 0.02
0.00 0.00
0 2 4 6 0 10 20 30 40
–0.05 –0.02
–0.10 Digestion period (day) –0.04 Digestion period (day)

Fig. 2. Linear regression plots fitted in to experimental data plots of biogas production rates of (a) rising limb and (b)
falling limb in R1, R2 and R3 biodigesters
VSd – volatile solids/day; R1, R2, R3 – biodigesters

11

0.14
Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14 Res. Agr. Eng.

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

(a) (b)
0.35 R1 Experimental data 0.14

Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)

Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)

0.30 R2 Experimental data 0.12

R3 Experimental data 0.10
0.25
_____ Exponential regression line
0.20 0.08

0.15 0.06

0.10 0.04

0.05
0.02

0.00
0.00
0 2 4 6
0 10 20 30 40
–0.02
Digestion period (day) Digestion period (day)

Fig. 3. Exponential regression plots fitted into experimental data plots of biogas production rates of (a) rising limb and
(b) of falling limb in R1, R2 and R3 biodigesters
VSd – volatile solids/day; R1, R2, R3 – biodigesters

values (1.1 to 0.382 Nm3/kg VS) for gelatin solid equations (Eqs. 11 to 16) express the exponential


waste. Cumulative analysis of the results showed relationship between biogas production rates and
that 80% of biogas produced in biodigesters R1, R2 digestion period:
and R30.14accumulated on the 14th, 15th and 14th day
R1A: Be = 0.00533 + 0.00491exp(0.6144t),
Biogas production rate (Nm3/kg VSd)

of digestion
0.12
period, respectively.
Fig. 2 shows linear regression lines fitted to rising R2 = 0.9065 (11)
0.10 limbs plots of the experimental data of
and falling R2A: Be = 0.0118 + 0.00087exp(1.0175t),
biogas0.08
production rates in R1, R2 and R3 biodigest- R2 = 0.9822 (12)
ers, respectively. Eqs. (5) to (10) present the linear R3A: Be = 0.0154 + 0.00236exp(0.9642t),
0.06
relationship between biogas production rates and R2 = 0.9749 (13)
digestion
0.04 period:
R1D: Be = –0.0733 + 0.1111exp(–0.0146t),
R1A0.02
: Bl = 0.019t – 0.005, R2 = 0.784 (5)
R2 = 0.9929 (14)
0.00 2
R2A: Bl0= 0.025t – 0.014, R 20= 0.731 30 (6)
10 40 R2D: Be = 0.0236 – 1.14 × 10–7exp(–220.52t),
-0.02
R3A: Bl = 0.051t – 0.034, R2period
Digestion = 0.707
(day) (7) R2 = 0.9075 (15)

R1D: Bl = 0.001t – 0.035, R2 = 0.757 (8) R3D: Be = 0.0362 – 7.8 × 10–8exp(–107.82t),

R2 = 0.7718 (16)
R2D: Bl = 0.002t – 0.066, R2 = 0.797 (9)
R3D: Bl = 0.004t – 0.115, R2 = 0.766 (10) where:
Be – biogas production rates exponential estimation
where: (Nm3/kg VS)
A, D – subscripts represent rising and falling limbs

B1 – biogas production rates for linear estimation R2 of the exponential equation of biogas produc-
(Nm3/kg VSd) tion rates ranged from 0.7718 to 0.9929, where
t – time of digestion period (days) rising limbs showed better simulation than falling
limbs except for R1 biodigester. The exponential
The coefficient of determination (R2) values of regression appeared to show better simulation of
falling limbs showed better linear simulation than biogas production rates than the linear regression
rising limbs except for R1 biodigester. Exponential except for falling limb of R3 biodigester.
regression lines simulating biogas production rates First order kinetic and modified Gompertz plots
for both limbs are presented in Fig. 3. The following of the biogas production accumulation are present-

12
 -0.4

Res. Agr. Eng. Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

(a) R1 Experimental data (b)

1.8 R2 Experimental data 1.6

Biogas production accumulation (Nm3/kg VS)

Biogas production accumulation (Nm3/kg VS)

R3 Experimental data
1.6 1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2
_____ First order regression line _____ Modified Gompertz regression line
0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
–0.2 –0.2
Digestion period (day) Digestion period (day)
–0.4
Fig. 4. The first order kinetic plots (a) and modified Gompertz plots (b) fitted into experimental data plots of biogas
production accumulation
VS – volatile solids; R1, R2, R3 – biodigesters

ed in Fig. 4. First order kinetic constants (k) were BG – biogas production accumulation for modified
found to be in the order R1 (0.0926), R3 (0.0858) Gompertz equations
and R2 (0.0649), while the estimated biogas poten- t – time of digestion period (days)
tial increased as I/S ratio decreased (Eqs  17–19). e – constant (2.718282)


For the modified Gompertz equation, R3 bio-
1.6 had the max. biogas production rate (μ )
digester
Biogas production accumulation (Nm3/kgVS)

m
followed
1.4 by R2 and R1 (Eqs 20–22). Simulation re- CONCLUSION
sults of biogas production accumulation for SPM
showed1.2 that modified Gompertz equation had From the study carried out, the following conclu-
2 sions can be made:
higher1.0R values that ranged from 0.9965 to 0.999
compared to R2 values of first order kinetic equa- – The SPM had high volatile solids/total solids ratio.
0.8 – Biogas production rates and accumulation val-
tion that ranged from 0.9769 to 0.9827.
0.6 ues increased as I/S ratio from 1.37 to 4.1.
R1: Bf = 0.6308(1 – exp(–0.0926t)), – The exponential plot generally simulated biogas
0.4 R2 = 0.9827 (17) production rates better than the linear plot due
R2:0.2
Bf = 1.0985(1 – exp(–0.0649t)), to its higher value of coefficient of determina-
_____ Modified Gompertz regression line
2
R = 0.9812 (18) tion.
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 – The modified Gompertz plot better simulated
R3:-0.2
Bf = 1.6796(1 – exp(–0.0858t)), biogas production accumulation than the first
R2 = 0.9769 Digestion period (day) (19) order kinetic plot.
R1: BG = 0.5677exp{–exp[(0.0434e/0.5677) ×
× (0.4 – t)+1]}, R2 = 0.999 (20) References

R2: BG = 0.8965exp{–exp[(0.0631e/0.8965) × Adiga S., Ramya R., Shankar B.B., Jagadish H.P., Geetha
× (1.4 – t)+1]}, R2 = 0.999 (21) C.R. (2012): Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of water
R3: BG = 1.4639exp{–exp[(0.1257e/1.4639) × hyacinth, poultry litter, cow manure and primary sludge:
× (1.4 – t)+1]}, R2 = 0.9965 (22) A comprehensive study. In: International Conference on
Biotechnology and Environment Management. Singapore:

where: IACSIT, 42: 73–78.
Bf – biogas production accumulation for first order Angelidaki I. (2002): Anaerobic biodegradability of macro-
kinetic equations pollutants. In: Ligthart J., Nieman H. (eds): Workshop on

13
Vol. 62, 2016 (1): 8–14 Res. Agr. Eng.

doi: 10.17221/30/2014-RAE

harmonisation of anaerobic biodegradation, activity and Labatut R.A., Scott N.R. (2008): Experimental and predicted
inhibition assays, June 7–8, 2002, Lago d’Orta, Italy: 13–29. methane yields from the anaerobic co-digestion of animal
APHA (1992): Standard Methods for the Examination of manure with complex organic substrates. In: Proceedings
Water and Wastewater. Washington, DC, American Public of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Health Association. Engineering. St. Joseph.
Baserga U (1998): Agricultural co-fermentation biogas plants: Monch-Tegeder M., Lemmer A., Oechsner H., Jungbluth T.
in biogas from organic wastes and energy grass. FAT Re- (2013): Investigation of the methane potential of horse
ports, 512: 1–11. manure. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR
Buswell A.M., Mueller H.F. (1952): Mechanism of methane Journal, 15: 161–172.
fermentation. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 44: Raghunathan C., Velan M., Velmurugan B., Ramanujam R.A.
550–552. (2008): Studies on batch kinetics of anaerobic digestion of
Chynoweth D.P., Turick C.E., Owen J.M., Jerger D.E. (1993): solid waste (SINEWS) from gelatine industry. Journal of
Biochemical methane potential of biomass and waste Environmental Research and Development, 3: 456–463.
feedstocks. Biomass and Bioenergy, 5: 95–111. Raposo F. et al. (2011): Biochemical methane potential (BPM)
Feng L., Li Y., Chen C., Liu X., Xiao X., Ma X., Zhang R., He of solid organic substrates: evaluation of anaerobic biodeg-
Y., Liu G. (2013): Biochemical Methane potential (BPM) radability using data from an international interlaboratory
of vinegar residue and the influence of feed to inoculum study. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology,
ratios on biogas production. Bioresources, 8: 2487–2498. 86: 1088–1098.
Hansen T.L., Schmidt J.E., Angelidaki I., Marca E. Jansen WEC (2004): Renewable energy projects handbook. London,
J.C., Mosbaek H., Christensen T. H. (2004): Method for World Energy Council.
determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Wymyslowski M., Luczak M., Zawadzka A., Imbierowicz M.
Waste Management, 24: 393–400. (2010): Methane fermentation of poultry slaughterhouse
Hashimoto A.G., Varel V.H. Chen Y.R. (1981): Ultimate meth- waste. Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, 12: 15–18.
ane yield from beef cattle manure: effect of temperature, Yusuf M.O., Debora A., Ogheneruona (2011): Ambient tem-
ration constituents, antibiotics and manure age. Agricul- perature kinetic assessment of biogas production from co-
tural Wastes, 3: 241–256. digestion of horse and cow dung. Research in Agricultural
Kheiredine B., Derbal K., Bencheikh-Lehocine M. (2014): Engineering, 57: 97–104.
Effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on thermophilic Zhang T., Liu L., Song Z., Ren G., Feng Y., Han X., Yang G.
anaerobic digestion of the dairy wastewater. Chemical (2013): Biogas production by co-digestion of goat manure
Engineering Transactions, 37: 865–870. with three crop residues. PLOS ONE, 8: e66845.

Received for publication October 30, 2014

Accepted after corrections April 13, 2015

Corresponding author:

Mr. Abubakar A. Lawal, University of Maiduguri, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Agricultural

and Environmental Resources Engineering, Bama Road, P.M.B 1069, Maiduguri, Nigeria;
e-mail: [email protected]

14