• International Journal of Technology (IJTech)
  • Vol 10, No 8 (2019)

The Effect of Magnesium Sulfate Addition on Volatile Solid Destruction and Chemical Oxygen Demand Reduction of Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion

Khansa Luqyana Hapsari, Firyal Tharifa, Setyo Sarwanto Moersidik, Sandyanto Adityosulindro, Cindy Rianti Priadi

Corresponding email: crpriadi@ui.ac.id

Cite this article as:
Hapsari, K.L., Tharifa, F., Moersidik, S.S., Adityosulindro, S., Priadi, C.R., 2019. The Effect of Magnesium Sulfate Addition on Volatile Solid Destruction and Chemical Oxygen Demand Reduction of Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion. International Journal of Technology. Volume 10(8), pp. 1602-1608

Khansa Luqyana Hapsari University of Indonesia
Firyal Tharifa University of Indonesia
Setyo Sarwanto Moersidik Universty of Indonesia
Sandyanto Adityosulindro Universitas Indonesia
Cindy Rianti Priadi Universitas Indonesia
Email to Corresponding Author


Process instability often occurs in anaerobic digestion (AD) due to inhibitors, such as the high sodium content in food waste. Recent studies have reported that magnesium can reduce the sodium ion’s toxicity towards methanogens. This study aimed to analyze the effect of magnesium addition to Volatile Solids Destruction (VSD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) reduction, and biogas production in AD of food waste. The experiment consisted of two phases, the control phase and the experimental phase, without and with MgSO4, respectively. The control phase results were: average COD reduction, VSD, and methane yield up to 80.9%, 87.6%, 340 mL CH4/gr VS/day, respectively. The experimental phase results were: average COD reduction, VSD, and methane yield up to 78.5%, 83.9%, 125 mL CH4/gr VS/day, respectively. Overall, the study’s results showed that MgSO4 had a negative impact on VSD and methane yield. The addition of MgSO4 seemed to cause instability in the AD system, which resulted in a decrease in the VSD value and a decrease in the methane concentration. 

Biogas; COD; Inhibition; Methane; Solid waste; VSD


Waste management is a fundamental process for finding solutions to the problems arising from waste produced by individuals and industry (Pongrácz, 2002). Society’s awareness of environmental issues is considered to drive the search for waste disposal methods that are alternatives to landfills (Shukor et al., 2018). Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a widely used domestic waste processing method that is able to convert various biodegradable waste materials into energy (Wijayanti et al., 2018) through a biological anaerobic process that converts organic matter into biogas and digestate (Lin et al., 2018). In comparison to other aerobic technology, anaerobic processes, such as AD, offer several advantages, including low energy use and low sludge production; moreover, the produced biogas can function as an energy source. Furthermore, the anaerobic process does not have a strong odor because the process is carried out in an enclosed space (Abdel-Shafy & Richardson, 1996).

However, operational problems, such as instability in the system and fluctuating biogas productivity, are disadvantages of AD (Lin et al., 2018). Failure to maintain the balance between acid bacteria and methanogen bacteria is known to be the main cause of instability in the system (Demirel & Yenigün, 2002).  Furthermore,  various elements, such as sodium (Na),  are believed to inhibit AD processes (Chen et al., 2008). The amount of Na concentration that can cause inhibition can vary. This is influenced by the type of feedstock and the operating parameters, which might be different in each reactor (Anwar et al., 2016). According to Alhraishawi and Alani (2018), an NaCl concentration of 3,100 mg/L or more has the potential to inhibit AD processes.

To counter Na toxicity, a mechanism known as antagonism can be implemented (Kugelman & McCarty, 1965). Antagonism is achieved by the presence of another cation that reduces the toxicity of other types of cations, which can reactivate enzymes that have been damaged due to an excess amount of the toxic cation. This may induce a stimulatory effect from one type of cation, which, in this case, is magnesium (Mg), which could act as an antagonist cation against Na (Kugelman & McCarty, 1965). The study conducted by Bashir and Matin (2004) found that the handling of Na inhibition at a concentration of 9,000 mg/L can be done by adding Mg, which can reduce the toxic effects of Na. Hence, in our study, we further analyzed the effect of the addition of Mg on Na toxicity in anaerobic waste treatment. Toward that end, we evaluated the following parameters: Volatile Solids Destruction (VSD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) reduction.  Both VSD and COD reduction represent the efficiency of the AD process in reducing organic matter, depending on the methods and concentrations used in the process.

The increase in VSD is related to the increased production of biogas (Anwar et al., 2016). According to Budiyono et al. (2013), in an AD system, COD is consumed through microbial activity and is converted into methane (CH4). Both of these parameters are important because they represent the performance of the AD process. 


The results of this experiment demonstrated that the addition of MgSO4 did not improve the performance of the AD process. The addition of a significant amount of MgSO4 caused a significant decrease in VSD (p < 0.05), as seen in the VSD value of 83.9% ± 0.04% obtained in the experimental phase and the VSD value of 87.6% ± 0.07% obtained in the control phase. Moreover, the addition of MgSO4 caused a significant decrease in the CH4 yield (p < 0.05), as seen in the CH4 yield of 125±107.2 mL CH4/gr VS/day obtained in the experimental phase and the CH4 yield of 339±156.5  mL CH4/gr VS/day obtained in the control phase. However, in this experiment, the addition of MgSO4 did not significantly influence the efficiency of COD reduction, as seen in the COD reduction of 78.5% ± 0.2% in the experimental phase and the COD reduction of 80.9% ± 0.12% ??in the control phase. Further study on the synergistic effect of MgSO4 must be analyzed in a complex food waste AD environment.


This research and its publication are supported by the Superior Applied Research Grant 2019 from the Higher Education and Research Ministry Indonesia (number NKB-1728/ UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2019).

Supplementary Material
R1-CVE-3477-20191026221939.png Figure 1
R1-CVE-3477-20191026221951.png Figure 2

Abbassi-Guendouz, A., Brockmann, D., Trably, E., Dumas, C., Delgenès, J.-P., Steyer, J.-P., Escudié, R., 2012. Total Solids Content Drives High Solid Anaerobic Digestion via Mass Transfer Limitation. Bioresource Technology, Volume 111, pp. 55–61

Abdel-Shafy, H., Richardson, M., 1996. Environment Xenophobic. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Ahring, B., Ibrahim, A., Mladenovska, Z., 2001. Effect of Temperature Increase from 55 to 65? on Performance and Microbial Population Dynamics of an Anaerobic Digester Treating Cattle Manure. Water Research, Volume 35(10), pp. 2446–2452

Alhraishawi, A., Alani, W.K., 2018. The Co-fermentation of Organic Substrates: A Review Performance of Biogas Production under Different Salt Content. In: The Sixth Scientific Conference Renewable Energy and its Applications, IOP Publishing

Anwar, N., Wang, W., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Chen, C., Liu, G., Zhang, R., 2016. Effect of Sodium Salt on Anaerobic Digestion of Kitchen Waste. Water Science & Technology, Volume 73(8), pp. 1865–1871

Ashish, T., Oprakash, S., 2014. Study of Characteristics and Treatment of Dairy Industry Wastewater. Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Volume 2(1), pp. 16–22

Bashir, B.H., Matin, A., 2004. Sodium Toxicity Control by the Use of Magnesium in an Anaerobic Reactor. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, Volume 8(1), pp. 17–21

Boshoff, G., Duncan, J., Rose, P., 2004. Tannery Effluent as a Carbon Source for Biological Sulphate Reduction. Water Research, Volume 38(11), pp. 2651–2658

Budiyono, Syaichurrozi, I., Sumardiono, S., 2013. Biogas Production from Bioethanol Waste: The Effect of pH and Urea Addition to Biogas Production Rate. Waste Technology, Volume 1, pp. 1–5

Demirel, B., Yenigun, O., 2002. Two-phase Anaerobic Digestion Processes: A Review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology, Volume 77(7), pp. 743–755

Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S. 2008. Inhibition of Anaerobic Digestion Process: A Review. Bioresource Technology, Volume 99(10), pp. 4044–4064

Dogterom , P., Fu, C., Legg, T., Chiou, Y., Brandon, S., 2018. The Absolute Bioavailability and the Effect of Food on a New Magnesium Lactate Dihydrate Extended-release Caplet in Healthy Subjects. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, Volume 44(9), pp. 1481–1487

Grady, C., Daigger, G., Lim, H., 1999. Biological Wastewater Treatment, New York: Marcel Dekker

Hajarnis, S., Ranade, D., 1993. Revival of Ammonia Inhibited Cultures of Methanobacterium-bryantii and Methanosarcina-barkeri. Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering, Volume 76(1), pp. 70–72

Kavuma, C., 2013. Variation of Methane and Carbon Dioxide Yield in a Biogas Plant. MSc. Thesis, Graduate Program, Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden

Klauck, E., Hengge, R., 2012. ?S-Controlling Networks in Escherichia Coli. Bacterial Regulatory Networks, A.A. Filloux Caister Academic Press, U.K.

Kugelman, I.J., McCarty, P.L., 1965. Cation Toxicity and Stimulation in Anaerobic Waste Treatment. Water Pollution Control Federation, Volume 37(1), pp. 97–116

Kushkevych, I., 2016. Dissimilatory Sulfate Reduction in the Intestinal Sulfate-reducing Bacteria. Studia Biologica, Volume 10(1), pp. 197–228

Lin, L., Xu, F., Ge, X., Li, Y., 2018. Improving the Sustainability of Organic Waste Management Practices in the Food-energy-water Nexus: A Comparative Review of Anaerobic Digestion and Composting. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 89, pp. 151–167

Llorens, J.M., Tormo, A., Martínez-García, E., 2010. Stationary Phase in Gram-negative Bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, Volume 34(4), pp. 476–495

Lopez, R.J., Higgins, S.R., Pagaling, E., Yan, T., Cooney, M.J., 2013. High Rate Anaerobic Digestion of Wastewater Separated from Grease Trap Waste. Renewable Energy, Volume 62, pp. 234–242

Martínez-Alvarez, V., González-Ortega, M.J., Martin-Gorriz, B., Soto-García, M., Maestre-Valero, J., 2018. Seawater Desalination for Crop Irrigation—Current Status and Perspectives. In: Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Desalination Handboo, G. Gude, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 461492

Orhorhoro, E.K., Ebunilo, P.O., Sadjere, G.E., 2017. Experimental Determination of Effect of Total Solid (TS) and Volatile Solid (VS) on Biogas Yield. American Journal of Modern Energy, Volume 3(6), pp. 131–135

Pongrácz, E., 2002. Re-defining the Concepts of Waste and Waste Management Evolving the Theory of Waste Management. PhD. Thesis, University of Oulu

Radhakrishnan, K., 2011. Impacts of the Use of Magnesia Versus Iron on Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion and Odors in Wastewater. Master’s Thesis, Graduate Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

Rother, M., Sattler, C., Stock, T., 2011. Studying Gene Regulation in Methanogenic Archaea. Methods in Enzymology, Volume 494, pp. 91–110

Shukor, J.A., Omar, M.F., Kasim, M.M., Jamaludin, M.H., Naim, M.A., 2018. Assessment of Composting Technologies for Organic Waste Management. International Journal of Technology, Volume 9(8), pp. 1579–1587

Siregar, M.J., Priadi, C.R., 2017. Optimization of methane production by combining organic waste and cow manure as feedstock in anaerobic digestion. AIP Conference Proceedings Volume 1826, pp.020030

Tassakka, M.I.S., Islami, B.B., Saragih, F.A.N., Suwartha, N., Kristanto, G.A., Priadi, C.R., 2019. Optimum Organic Loading Rates (OLR) for Food Waste Anaerobic Digestion: Study Case Universitas Indonesia. International Journal of Technology, Volume 10(6), pp. 1105–1111

Wijayanti, D.F., Suwartha, N., Priadi, C.R., 2018. Effect of the Addition of Fat Oil and Grease (FOG) on the Performance of a Dry Anaerobic Digestion Food Waste Reactor. International Journal of Technology, Volume 9(2), pp. 267–274

Zabranska, J., Pokorna, D., 2018. Bioconversion of Carbon Dioxide to Methane using Hydrogen and Hydrogenotrophic Methanogens. Biotechnology Advances, Volume 36(3), pp. 707–720