Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 5 April 2011
Accepted 8 September 2011
Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Batch tests
Biochemical methane potential (BMP)
Experimental conditions
Methane yield
Solid organic substrates
a b s t r a c t
Anaerobic digestion is considered a competitive source for the production of renewable energy as far as
efciency and cost are concerned. To evaluate the anaerobic biodegradability of an organic substrate such
as feedstocks, a test known as biochemical methane potential (BMP) has been commonly used. Current
worldwide interest in using different organic substrates for anaerobic bioconversion is growing but there
is a lack of clear references and comparability as a result of multiple factors that affect BMP determination.
Several batch methods have been used to determine the methane potential. However, these technical
approaches vary signicantly from one reported method to the next another. In this review, the research
works on the inuence of different parameters of BMP determination have been discussed for critical
and comparative evaluation. In addition, the extensive literature previously published dealing with BMP
assays has been compiled and summarized focusing on two main subjects: rstly, methane yields of
substrates, and secondly, the description of the various experimental procedures used to achieve the
reported data.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factors affecting the performance of anaerobic batch tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Solid organic substrates (SOS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1.
Characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.2.
Particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.3.
Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Inoculum (INO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.1.
Origin/Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.2.
Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.3.
Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.4.
Pre-incubation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.5.
Acclimation/Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.6.
Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Experimental conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.1.
Gas measurement systems (GMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2.
Operational conditions (OpC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A.
Methane yields of solid organic substrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B.
Description of experimental BMP procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 954 689654; fax: +34 954 691262.
E-mail address: fraposo@cica.es (F. Raposo).
1364-0321/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.008
862
862
862
862
863
863
863
863
863
864
864
864
864
864
864
865
866
866
867
872
875
862
1. Introduction
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biochemical technological process
for the treatment of organic substrates such as sewage and industrial efuents, animal manures and solid substrates (energy crops,
agricultural residues and food wastes). This process has received
increasing attention in recent years. It involves the degradation
and stabilisation of complex organic matter by a consortium of
microorganisms leading to an energy-rich biogas which can be used
as renewable energy to replace fossil energy sources.
Literature shows that anaerobic digestion assays can be carried out in batch or continuous mode. Considering that continuous
set-up is more laborious and time-consuming than batch tests,
the latter have been more widely used. It is important to note
that the batch approach can be used for three purposes: anaerobic biodegradability, inoculum activity and inhibition. These terms
were dened with the aim of establishing a common terminology [1]. These three tests are based on the same principle the
measurement of biogas/methane production. However, the protocols available in the literature differ not only with regard to the
method used to quantify the gas produced during the test, but also
with regard to the experimental conditions adopted for incubating the inoculum. Extensive research has been carried out to study
the inuence of experimental conditions on the results for inoculum activity and inhibition assays. On the other hand, studies on
biodegradability, of which there have been much fewer, can be
placed into two main groups following the nature of the substrate:
(i) Micro-pollutants (chemical compounds and plastics). Test
methods for assessing anaerobic biodegradability of chemical substances have been previously described. Some of them
studied the inuence of key parameters such as compound
and inoculum concentrations and mineral medium composition [25]. Moreover, there are standards and guidelines for
anaerobic testing, reviewed by Mller et al. [6].
(ii) Complex organic substrates (manures, wastewaters, sludges,
solid wastes). The rst report of anaerobic biodegradability
assessment in batch mode was carried out by Owen et al. [7].
This test was developed to determine the biochemical methane
potential (BMP). There is less research available on the inuence
of key parameters in BMP of organic materials.
This review will focus on the AD of solid organic substrates
(SOS). Reviews have been previously published which include data
on AD experiments using solid substrates in batch and continuous mode [811]. In spite of the reviews published, the variety of
methods reported in the literature for determining BMP and the
discrepancies in approaches and results obtained for each experimental procedure emphasizes the need for an extended review.
The purpose of this review article is to integrate all of the anaerobic
biodegradability tests in batch mode for different solid substrates
which have been previously reported in the literature. The aim
of this review will be threefold: rstly, the text includes extensive information about the inuence of different factors affecting
the BMP results, secondly, the manuscript summarizes the important energetic data of methane potential (Appendix A) and thirdly,
the document gives a detailed report of the different experimental
procedures used in each case described (Appendix B).
2. Factors affecting the performance of anaerobic batch
tests
The general principle of all batch tests is the incubation of an
inoculum containing a variety of anaerobic microorganisms in a
suitable medium (water and minerals) at neutral pH and at specic
temperature range (normally mesophilic or thermophilic). Substrate is added to the medium and serves as a source of carbon
and energy for the microorganisms. After incubation, the degree of
degradation of the substrate is assessed at pre-set time intervals to
determine its extent and conversion rate. Blank controls (endogenous tests, with the inoculum alone added) are included so that the
gas produced from the organic matter contained in the inoculum
can be accounted for.
Certain factors have the potential to affect the biodegradability assays and, therefore, the biogas/methane production. They are
detailed in the following paragraphs:
2.1. Solid organic substrates (SOS)
Raw materials can be obtained from a variety of sources. Different groups of potential sources for methane production were
considered by Gunaseelan [8] such as the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), fruit and vegetable waste (FVW), grasses,
woods, terrestrial weeds, and aquatic (marine and freshwater)
biomass.
2.1.1. Characterisation
It is known that the anaerobic biodegradability of organic matter is related to its composition [1220]. Therefore, in order to
carry out a BMP assay it is essential to nd out exactly what the
characteristics of the substrate to be digested are.
Firstly, any uncertainty about the origin of the substrate tested
should be avoided. Therefore, when dealing with plants, crops or
other inhomogeneous materials, details on the part used for testing
should be included. For example, the BMP tests of various components of Jatropha curcus ranging from 80 to 968 mL CH4 g1 VSadded
[19]. Then, the description of the part used must be considered as
a key parameter.
Secondly, the general characteristics of the substrate to be
assayed should always be analyzed and the moisture, the total
solids (TS) and the volatile solids (VS) should be quantied and
controlled. It should be pointed out that some samples are problematic for TS and VS determination due to a possible loss of volatile
organic matter during the drying process, including at low temperature or freeze-drying [21]. It is important to note that although
specic methane yield on a VS basis is not a constant due to variations in organic matter composition, the VS content could be used
as a primary indicator of the methane potential. It is noteworthy to
mention that for energy crops and crop residues, the content and
availability of VS which are able to produce methane is inuenced
by factors related to biomass production such as location, climate,
variety, cultivation management and maturity stage at harvesting
time [15,20,22,23].
Further information about the nature of VS can be assessed taking into account:
(i) Component composition. Not all VS are equal and therefore
they exhibit different rates and extents of biodegradation
during AD. The organic substance can be subdivided into:
fats, proteins, carbohydrates and lignin. Proteins, lipids and
extracted fractions of carbohydrates are usually the soluble
parts, while the brous components represent the structural
lignocellulosic content, in which case solubilization is very difcult. So, biodegradability is limited by the crystallinity of the
cellulose and the lignin content [24].
(ii) Elemental composition. Another approach for characterisation
involves the quantication of the content of certain elements
(C, O, H, N and S). This information can be used to determine
the empirical formula of the substrate.
(iii) Chemical oxygen demand (COD). This parameter is commonly
used to characterize the total organic content of wastewater,
863
864
2.3.1.2. Manometric methods (Man). In a manometric respirometer, the biogas produced is conned inside the bioreactor and
hence generates proportional overpressure. An early manometric method was the Warburg respirometer [55]. Later, the method
was improved by introducing the use of a pressure transducer to
measure the gas production [56].
For this method, complementary biogas analyses are needed for
calculating methane production. The major difculty in accurately
quantifying the overall gas production arises from the solubility of
carbon dioxide in the digesting liquor as it is affected by pressure,
pH, the ratio of headspace to liquid volume, temperature and the
complex thermodynamic equilibrium established between carbon
dioxide and the carbonates/bicarbonates of calcium and magnesium [4].
Recently a digital pressure transducer, called OxiTop (WTW,
Germany) and originally developed for biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) measurements, has been reported as useful for
anaerobic biodegradability assays [57].
2.3.1.3. Gas chromatography (GC). Dolng and Bloemen [58] determined the SMA of a sludge based on the GC analysis of the
headspace of closed anaerobic vials. They sampled with a pressure lock syringe, which allows quantication independent of the
pressure prevailing in the reactor. The volume of methane can be
estimated based on the molar fraction of this gas in the headspace.
Hansen et al. [42] sampled only 10 mL of headspace gas during the full BMP test (0.2 mL every time), which represents less
than 0.7% of the headspace volume, and the results were, thus, not
signicantly affected by the change of headspace pressure.
2.3.2. Operational conditions (OpC)
2.3.2.1. Physical operational conditions.
2.3.2.1.1. Volume. The total reactor volume used for batch tests
is inversely related to the number of replicate samples that could be
tested at the same time using a prexed amount of sludge and substrate. The nature of the substrate can also inuence the selection
of the ideal volume, because the more homogeneous the material,
the smaller the volume of reactor required to determine methane
potential more accurately. The results of the extensive literature
review showed that a wide range of different total volumes were
utilised for anaerobic biodegradability batch assays, ranging from
0.1 to 120 L. However, the most common and useful volumes used
for BMP assays are lower than 1 L.
2.3.2.1.2. Temperature. Although anaerobic biodegradation
can take place within a wide range of temperatures, AD processes
strongly depend on temperature. Depending upon the temperature
at which the process is carried out, three temperature ranges can
be differentiated: thermophilic (4560 C), mesophilic (2045 C),
and psychrophilic (<20 C) [59]. The main problem at the low temperature is the decrease in the microbial consortia activity.
The majority of data in the literature refers to experiments performed at mesophilic temperature, with only some at thermophilic
temperature. The reason could be that the anaerobic digestion
process is efcient enough at 35 C and there is little to gain by
increasing the operational temperature when increased costs are
involved [11]. Taking into account the important inuence of temperature, comparatively few studies have been carried out to relate
its inuence on biodegradation assays in batch mode using solid
substrates [6062].
2.3.2.1.3. Stirring. Agitation of digesters can be carried out in a
number of ways: manual shaking, magnetic stirrers, orbital shaker,
etc. The main factors affecting the mixing method are intensity
and duration. The effect of mixing on the general performance of
anaerobic digestion is contradictory. The continuous mixing of the
content of the bioreactor favours contact between the substrate
and the microorganisms as well as the release of biogas into the
865
866
867
Methane Yield
Part
Size(mm)
Silage
Fresh wastes
Whole plant
<2
0.855
Peeling
Peels
Waste stem
Peeling
Whole plant silage
Straw
Waste silage
Waste
Residue
2
1020
2040
50100
10
Grain
Stalk
Whole fruit
2
2
Leaves
Stem
Leaves
Leaves silage
2
2
Leaves
Peeling
Leaves
Petiole
Pulp
Leaves
Stem
Leaves
Leaves
2
2
2
2
100 mesh
100 mesh
Whole plant
< 20
Fibres
Tops
Tops
Raw material
Leaves
Stems
Roots
Whole plant
10
0.855
2
2
2
2
3060 mesh
Stalks-wastes
Reference
[23]
[23]
[89]
[85]
[67]
[112]
[90]
[89]
[90]
[99]
[107]
[36]
[87]
[93]
[122]
[123]
[126]
[139]
[57]
[60]
[108]
[117]
[99]
[99]
[57]
[90]
[91]
[99]
[99]
[143]
[143]
[127]
[117]
[66]
[105]
[57]
[89]
[99]
[99]
[129]
[129]
[99]
[99]
[143]
[143]
[19]
[37]
[42]
[89]
[91]
[99]
[128]
[138]
[138]
[139]
[85]
[66]
[66]
[118]
[135]
[112]
[143]
[143]
[66]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[102]
[138]
[78]
868
Methane Yield
Name
Part
Cotton
Cotton
Cotton
Cotton
Crops-mixture
Cyperas
Dhub grass
Diapers
Faba bean
Fat-pork
Fish waste
Food packaging
Food waste
Food
Food
Food
Food
Food
Fruit and vegetable
Garbage
Garden pea
Gelatine
Giant knotweed
Gliciridia
Glucose
Glucose
Gracilaria spp.
Gracilaria tikvahiae
Grape
Grape
Grape
Grape
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass
Grass cuttings
Grass hay
Grassland
Green pea
Green wastes
Grey
Hydrilla
Ipomea stulosa
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jatropha curcus
Jerusalem artichoke
Jerusalem artichoke
Jerusalem artichoke
Kitchen waste
Kitchen waste
Kitchen waste
Ladies nger
Laminaria
Leather eshing
Lemon
Lettuce
Lucerne
Lupine
Lupine (white)
Lupine (yellow)
Macrocystis
Maize
Maize
Maize
Seed hull-wastes
Oil cake-wastes
Stalks
Residues
Silage
Whole plant
Size(mm)
50
10
Straw
Various
Leachate
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Waste
Pods
20 50
10 10 5
2
Leaves
2030
Stalk
Marc
Pressings
Peduncle
2
2
Shells
1020
waste
Whole plant
Leaves
Leaf lamina
Leaf petiole
Leaf entire
Green fruit
Yellow fruit
Brown fruit
Fruit hull
Seed testa
Seed kernel
Seed entire
De-oiled cake
Tops
Tops silage
13
Stalk
0.8
Pressings
Residues
Whole plant silage
2040
Mixture
< 0.2
< 0.2
0.8
0.53
Whole plant
Reference
[78]
[78]
[95]
[126]
[130]
[85]
[36]
[105]
[131]
[42]
[120]
[128]
[114]
[62]
[77]
[91]
[94]
[116]
[134]
[65]
[99]
[42]
[22]
[98]
[42]
[138]
[12]
[100]
[93]
[93]
[99]
[99]
[23]
[23]
[60]
[89]
[94]
[134]
[22]
[66]
[15]
[106]
[62]
[105]
[85]
[36]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[19]
[22]
[143]
[143]
[122]
[124]
[134]
[99]
[37]
[136]
[99]
[89]
[87]
[22]
[57]
[57]
[37]
[14]
[15]
[18]
Methane Yield
Part
Size(mm)
24
251349
315
364
64 (3)
250340
196233
345
300400
370410
317
229
363
378
328418
486
433
494
732
370523
310320
310
351381
482
94141
590
390
241
327341
300
326
190340
372
342
288
210420
92
58
250260
320
298573
200220
160250
495
353
230550d
92a
60530
187
450
450
450
157
50200a
186222
360
400
N.R.
297
115a
455
502
490
370
300a
84a
74a
217a
250
340
84369
109128
140152
194220a
230620
357
355
400
Silage
Bran
2
2040
10
various
10
2
2
2
2
2
Bran
Straw
Leaves
Leaves
Tops
Tops silage
Lamina
Sheat
0.8
2
2
< 20 mesh
shredded
< 20
0.8
250
Screw press
Disc screen
Shredding
10
Exterior peel
Peeling
Peeling
Peel
Pressings
Waste
Fruit bunches
2
2
<7
Shell
1020
Peel
Leafy shoot
Peel
2
2
869
Reference
[20]
[23]
[23]
[67]
[74]
[83]
[87]
[88]
[88]
[93]
[95]
[126]
[140]
[140]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[22]
[118]
[142]
[91]
[84]
[117]
[117]
[137]
[36]
[143]
[143]
[37]
[99]
[99]
[138]
[22]
[138]
[105]
[66]
[22]
[28]
[37]
[40]
[42]
[45]
[64]
[94]
[96]
[97]
[101]
[101]
[101]
[103]
[111]
[128]
[136]
[99]
[60]
[89]
[90]
[99]
[99]
[109]
[129]
[90]
[94]
[94]
[94]
[42]
[105]
[128]
[132]
[82]
[106]
[61]
[99]
[99]
[129]
870
Methane Yield
Name
Part
Size(mm)
Pomegranate
Pomegranate
Pomegranate
Pomegranate
Poplar (Populus sp)
Poplar (Populus sp)
Potato
Potato
Potato
Potato
Potato
Potato
Potato
Poultry slaughterhouse
Quinoa
Radish
Rape
Rape
Rape
Rape
Rape
Red clover
Reed canary grass
Reed canary grass
Rhubarb
Rhubarb
Rhubarb
Rice-boil
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rosebay willow
Rye-winter
Rye-winter
Ryegrass
Saccharum spp.
Salvinia
Salvinia
Sapota
Sapota
Sargassum spp.
Sargassum
Scirpas
Seaweed
Sisal bre waste
Sisal pulp
Sisal pulp waste
Sludge-kraft pulp mill
Sludge-sulte pulp mill
Sorghum
Sorghum
Sorghum
Sorghum
Sorghum
Sorghum
Sorghum
Sorghum
Spartina
Starch
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugar beet
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Sunower
Sunower
Sunower
Sweet clover
Sweet gum
Sweet pea
Peels
Rotten pulpy seeds
Whole rotten fruit
Pressings
2
2
2
2
0.8
312
430
342
420
230320
350420
320c
390
267
N.R.
332
377
323
550670
330
293304
240
800900
290
420
334
280300
340430
253351
320490
316
345
294
347367
347367
195
215
270290
340
200
140275
360
360
270310
242
50
244
327
150180
260390
66
90120
176216
320
120240
90b
320b
260390
362
367
407
480
538
228
280400
290
348
340
231
N.R.
430
481
360
381
230300
177
428454
107227
345
290
260
370
Waste
Peel
Pulp
Pulp
Peel-pulp
Fruit water
Waste
Shoots
Straw
Oil seed
2
310
310
Straw
Tops
10
Tops
Tops silage
Straw
Straw
Straw
Straw
Straw
Straw
Straw
50100
<2
Whole plant
Peels
Whole rotten fruit
2
2
0.8
Whole plant
23
2100
Leaf tissues + bres
0.8
2040
2
2
2
2
2
0.8
Leaves
Pulp
Pulp
Tail
Tops
Tops silage
2
35
13
Residue
De-oiled cake
Whole plant silage
<2
2040
Reference
[99]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[37]
[139]
[54]
[89]
[99]
[108]
[113]
[113]
[113]
[133]
[57]
[99]
[22]
[42]
[57]
[131]
[143]
[22]
[22]
[135]
[22]
[143]
[143]
[91]
[36]
[36]
[93]
[95]
[115]
[129]
[57]
[15]
[131]
[118]
[92]
[85]
[127]
[99]
[99]
[12]
[37]
[85]
[125]
[34]
[120]
[121]
[141]
[141]
[37]
[87]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[99]
[104]
[57]
[42]
[22]
[99]
[108]
[113]
[113]
[143]
[143]
[37]
[126]
[15]
[68]
[87]
[57]
[139]
[57]
mL CH4 / g TSadded .
mL biogas/g VSadded .
c
mL CH4 /g VSremoved .
d
mL biogas/g VSremoved .
N.R.not reported.
b
Methane Yield
Part
Residue
Size(mm)
10
10
10
Skins and seeds
Whole rotten fruit
Leaves
2
2030
Whole plant
Whole plant
Straw
Straw
Straw
Straw silage
Whole plant silage
Straw
Straw
Straw
0.8
1.612.7
0.0886
10
<1
<1
3060 mesh
<30 mesh
515
<40 mesh
<0.8
<20 mesh
Wastes
Wastes
871
Reference
[119]
[139]
[135]
[126]
[90]
[105]
[135]
[22]
[93]
[99]
[15]
[57]
[99]
[13]
[100]
[85]
[57]
[22]
[37]
[38]
[95]
[127]
[129]
[36]
[81]
[86]
[86]
[87]
[110]
[138]
[138]
[15]
[46]
[138]
[37]
[139]
[57]
[57]
[138]
[116]
[128]
872
INO
Source
GMS
VS
Co
(%)
[12]
MWTP
[13]
[14]
[15]
[18]
No inoculum
Energy crops
[19]
20 (%-vol)
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol (gas
meter)
Vol (syringe)
13.3 (g VS/L)
58
Digested
material
Manure + Veg
wastes
Cow manure
+ Byproducts
Vol (syringe)
79
[23]
[28]
[34]
20 (%-vol)
[37]
Sisal WW
sludge
Manure
(cattle)
MWTP
[38]
Various
[40]
[45]
[46]
[54]
MSW-leach
bed
Manure + Org
wastes
OFMSW
MWTP
MWTP
[57]
MWTP + distillery
[60]
Paper-mill
WW
Manure
(digested)
MWTP
meso/thermo
Rumen
(bovine)
Manure
(cattle)
Manure
(cow)
Rumen
(sheep)
Brewery
(UASB)
Maize silage
MWTP
[36]
[42]
[61]
[62]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[75]
[77]
48
59
65
57
2.1 (g VS/L)
37.2 (g VS/L)
Capacity (L)
Temp
TV
WV
0.282
0.100
35
30
1
1
20
35
38
38
37
Mixing
System
Type
TD
Times
60
TWB
TWB
10 s/10 min
0.5
2
0.4
1.5
35
35
TWB
Vol
(bag + meter)
GC
Vol (syringe)
1.5
35
TC
2
1
0.6
55
33
Vol (liq-disp)
37
0.250
0.100
35
55
35
TC
220
110
38
TC
Mixer
290 rpm
2040
0.5
55
TC
Batch (manually)
Ocassionally
50
1
0.5
0.500
1.5
0.3
35
35
37
TWB
TWB
Batch (manually)
Cont (stirrer)
Cont (shaker)
1/day
300 rpm
70 rpm
30
96
50
0.600
35
TC
Batch (manually)
0.600
2040
0.5/2
55
0.600
35 50
Man
105
Batch (manually)
Ambient
room
1/day
63
75
51
Vol (liq-disp)
11.3 (g VS/L)
MM
VS basis
Yes
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
2 (TS)
35
150
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
N2
N2
Yes
26
2.0
1.5
35
0.125
0. 050
39
15 (g VS/L)
Vol (liq-disp)
0.300
0.250
35
Batch (manually)
2/day
50
65
2 min/3h
56
46
N2
40
100 rpm
55
3040
Batch (manually)
1/day
25
0.35
Yes
[Ca(OH)2 ]
Yes
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
60
Cont (shaker)
15 (g VS/L)
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol (liq-disp)
2
1
1
0.500
35
50
Batch (manually)
1/day
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
He
Yes
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
N2
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
He
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
2 (%w/vol)
1
2
0.155.4
Yes
Yes
1.42.1
Yes
0.3
0.20.6
00.17
240
Cont (shaker)
100 rpm
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
N2
Cont (stirrer)
40 rpm
N2
8 15 s/day
1/day
30
28
He
155
TWB
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
365
3.25
35
20
15 (%-vol)
Adj
pH/Alk
50
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol (liq-disp)
Man
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol
(bag+meter)
Man
(Oxytop )
ISR
64
45
35
Vol (gas
meter)
Vol (gas
meter)
GC
Gas
(days)
0.075
60 (%-vol)
5652
0.135
20 (%-vol)
400 (mL)
Chemical-OpC
0.30.7
Yes
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
0.53
Yes
1.5
0.40.6
[20]
[22]
10 (%-vol)
Physical-OpC
Reference
INO
Source
GMS
VS
MWTP
[81]
Manure
(cattle)
Manure
(cattle)
MWTP
[82]
[83]
[84]
TV
WV
Vol (liq-disp)
0.250
0.100
35
TC
23
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]
[103]
[104]
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[109]
[110]
Vol (syringe)
0.119
0.050
35
TC
2
63
15 (g VS/L)
Manure
(cattle)
Manure
(cow)
Waste
mixtures
OFMSW
MWTP
Manure
(cattle) dung
Mixture
(codigestion)
OFMSW
Manure
(cow)
MWTP
0.250
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol (liq-disp)
GC
1
1
0.250
2.140
99 (%-w)
20 (%-vol)
30 (%-vol)
0.135
Vol
(bag+meter)
Vol
(bag+meter)
Vol (liq-disp)
20 (%-vol)
53
60 85
53
Adj
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
150
N2 -CO2
(7525%)
N2
35
N2
20
N2
30
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
Type
Times
(days)
35
TWB
Cont (stirrer)
0.120
35
TWB
Batch (manually)
TC
0.590
37
38
37
55
3.5
55
TWB
1522
0.050
30
37
35
TC
TC
45
28
100
2/day
pH/Alk
Batch (manually)
55
37
TWB
Vol (syringe)
32
Vol (syringe)
0.135
0.075
35
1.7
32
55
Vol (liq-disp)
0.250
0.100
2540
TC
Vol (liq-disp)
0.9
WB
Vol
(bag+meter)
Vol (liq-disp)
1.6
30
35
35
0.300
0.275
40
Vol (liq-disp)
0.300
0.275
40
Vol (gas
meter)
55
GC
0.118
0.040
55
Vol (syringe)
0.250
0.100
35
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
13
0.52
2/day
Yes
N2 -CO2
(7525%)
N2
1.32
40
2
Yes
1.1
0.5
0.060
0.0311
3 (TS)
TC
0.120
VS basis
Yes
35
42
40
35
MM
N2
40
0.8
ISR
Gas
35
10 (g VS/L)
10 (%-vol)
26
2.5
25 (%-w)
MWTP
Manure
(cattle)
Manure
(cattle)
Efuent
two-stage
MSW
Man
Vol (liq-disp)
Manure
(cattle) slurry
Various
Waste
mixture
Manure
(cattle)
Vegetable
wastes
Seaweeds
Manure + Org
wastes
Rumen (goat)
MWTP
Vol (liq-disp)
System
TD
Yes
120
60
Cont (shaker)
Yes
30
100
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
Batch (manually)
15 sec/day
58
50
Cont (shaker)
130 rpm
10
N2
919
60
237
N2
Yes
0.30.8
Yes
2535
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
N2
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
57
N2
Yes (NaOH)
Yes
3785
122
Static
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
60
45
0.82
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
N2
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
3.2
Yes
873
[111]
1090 (%-vol)
Mixing
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
60
Chemical-OpC
Temp
(%)
[78]
Physical-OpC
Capacity (L)
Co
INO
Source
GMS
VS
[115]
Rice
[116]
Pig
manure + Food
waste
Manure
(cattle)
Digested
material
Manure
(swine)
Sisal WW
sludge
Activated
sludge
Brewery
(UASB)
Brewery
(UASB)
Brewery
(UASB)
MWTP
[117]
[118]
[119]
[120]
[121]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[125]
[126]
TV
Vol (liq-disp)
20 (g VS/L)
60
3.3 (g VS/L)
810 (g VS/L)
52
55
4.9 (g VS/L)
65
Vol (liq-disp)
Vol (syringe)
Temp
WV
37.5
Mixing
System
WB
Type
Batch (mag
bar)
Cont (shaker)
0.500
0.250
35
22
0.100
0.060
55
0.100
0.050
35
TWB
35
TWB
TC
recirculation
TWB
Batch
(manually)
Cont (shaker)
Batch
(manually)
30
20
35
0.6
27
Vol (syringe)
0.5
0.3
37
Man
0.160
Man
0.160 120
Man
0.160
Vol
(bag + meter)
Man
0.5
0.3
37
0.2
30
Shaker
Man
0.200
0.100
38
Stirring
GC
0.275
0.100
35
Vol (liq-disp)
0.120
0.065
37
37
150 rpm
100
37
150 rpm
37
150 rpm
TWB
Cont (shaker)
0.750
[131]
[132]
69
GC
Man
0.100
1.130
0.025
0.800
42
35
[133]
MWTP
64
4080 (%-vol)
0.118
0.050
35
Cont (shaker)
[134]
[135]
MWTP
Manure,
silage and
byproducts
79
19 (g VS/L)
Man
Vol
(bag + meter)
1.140
1
0.750
35
Batch
(manually)
Vol (liq-disp)
0.500
0.400
35
10 (%-vol)
Vol (syringe)
0.260
36
0.130
N2
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
[138]
70
3285
Vol (liq-disp)
2/day
35
70 rpm
30
30
0.5
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
N2
7080
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
N2
67
100
N2
N2
27
N2 -CO2
(8020%)
Sampling
95
N2
Batch
(stirrer)
Batch
15/30 m
140 rpm
2/day
40
Cont
(mechanical)
15 rpm
60133
60
Cont (shaker)
0.420
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
(phosphate)
100 rpm
0.65
0.43
(TS)
0.14
Yes
0.74
12
Yes
1.5
Yes
90
TC
10
Yes (NaOH)
Sampling
TC
TWB
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes (NaOH)
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
70 rpm
77
50 (%-vol)
N2
N2
Manure
(cow)
Manure
MWTP
89
120
2529
[130]
Manure
(cattle)
MWTP
N2
5060
Manure (pig)
[137]
28
VS basis
3 (TS)
3/day
(1 min)
2/day
[129]
[136]
100 rpm
MM
28
[128]
20 (%-vol)
10/30 min
30
2838
Adj
pH/Alk
28
Cow
manure + Paper
mill
Primary
WAS + foodwaste
Primary WAS
[127]
Gas
(days)
Cont (mag
bar)
Vol (gas
meter)
Vol (gas
meter)
Vol (syringe)
80
TD
Times
ISR
Yes
34
Yes
3 (?)
12
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
1.81
1
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
Yes
56
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
2 (?)
0.03
0.04
1.14.3
Yes
[114]
Rumen
Vegetable+
Crops
MWTP
Chemical-OpC
Capacity (L)
Co
(%)
[112]
[113]
Physical-OpC
874
Reference
35
3
Vol (liq-disp)
Plant
material
[143]
[142]
Landll
leachate
Paper-mill
WW
MWTP
[140]
[141]
MWTP
[139]
Source: MWTP-municipal wastewater treatment plant; WW: wastewater; VS: Volatile solids; Co : Concentration (g VS/L); (%-w): % in weight; (%-vol): % in volume; GMS: gas measurement system; Vol: volumetric system; (liq-disp):
liquid displacement; Man: manometric system; GC:gas chromatography; TV: Total volume; WV: working volume; Temp: Temperature; TWB: thermostatic water bath; TC: thermostatic chamber; Mixing: Cont-continuously;
mag bar: magnetic bar; TD: Test duration; Adj: Adjustment of pH and/or alkalinity; MM: Mineral medium; (?): Units were not reported.
2536
Yes
(HCl/NaOH)
Yes
(NH4 OH)
2/day
Batch
(manually)
TC
35
0.600
1.175
3.3 (g VS/L)
Vol (liq-disp)
TWB
35
0.100
0.160
Man
1072
N2 /CO2 /H2
(80-10-10%)
N2
35
200 rpm
21
1/day
Batch
(manually)
Cont (shaker)
Vol (liq-disp)
2.5
1.5
35
TC
35
0.100
0.250
Man
20 (%-vol)
Co
(%)
VS
Source
INO
Reference
Yes
2
Yes
Yes
(NaHCO3 )
pH/Alk
N2 -CO2
(7030%)
N2
60100
TD
Gas
Type
C
WV
TV
Capacity (L)
GMS
Physical-OpC
Temp
System
Mixing
Times
(days)
Chemical-OpC
Adj
MM
ISR
VS basis
875
References
[1] Rozzi A, Remigi E. Methods of assessing microbial activity and inhibition
under anaerobic conditions: a literature review. Re-views in Environmental
Science and Biotechnology 2004;3(2):93115.
[2] Shelton DR, Tiedje JM. General method for determining anaerobic biodegradation potential. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 1984;47(4):8507.
[3] Battersby NS, Wilson V. Evaluation of a serum bottle technique for assessing the anaerobic biodegradability of organic chemicals under methanogenic
conditions. Chemosphere 1988;17(12):244160.
[4] Birch RR, Biver C, Campagna R, Gledhill WE, Pagga U, Steber J, et al.
Screening of chemicals for anaerobic biodegradability. Chemosphere
1989;19(1011):152750.
[5] Gartiser S, Wallrabenstein M, Stiene G. Assessment of several test methods
for the determination of the anaerobic biodegradability of polymers. Journal
of Environmental Polymer Degradation 1998;6(3):15973.
[6] Mller WR, Frommert I, Jrg R. Standardized methods for anaerobic
biodegradability testing. Re-views in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 2004;3(2):14158.
[7] Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy Jr JB. Bioassay for monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Research
1979;13(6):48592.
[8] Gunaseelan VN. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a
review. Biomass and Bioenergy 1997;13(12):83114.
[9] Prochnow A, Heiermann M, Plchl M, Linke B, Idler C, Amon T, et al. Bioenergy from permanent grassland a review: 1. Biogas. Bioresource Technology
2009;100(21):493144.
[10] Frigon JC, Guiot SR. Biomethane production from starch and lignocellulosic crops: a comparative review. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorening
2010;4(4):44758.
[11] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from organic waste. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
2011;15:8216.
[12] Bird KT, Chynoweth DP, Jerger DE. Effects of marine algal proximate composition on methane yields. Journal of Applied Phycology 1990;2(3):20713.
[13] Briand X, Morand P. Anaerobic digestion of Ulva sp. 1. Relationship
between Ulva composition and methanisation. Journal of Applied Phycology
1997;9(6):51124.
[14] Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Zollitsch W, Mayer K, Gruber L. Biogas
production from maize and dairy cattle manure-Inuence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Agricultural & Ecosystem Environmental
2007;118:17382.
[15] Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Machmller A, Hopfner-Sixt K, Bodiroza
V, et al. Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various
energy crops grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresource Technology
2007;98(17):320412.
[16] Gunaseelan VN. Regression models of ultimate methane yields of fruits and
vegetable solid wastes, sorghum and napiergrass on chemical composition.
Bioresource Technology 2007;98(6):12707.
[17] Schievano A, Pognani M, DImporzano G, Adani F. Predicting anaerobic biogasication potential of ingestates and digestates of a full-scale biogas
plant using chemical and biological parameters. Bioresource Technology
2008;99(17):81127.
[18] Schittenhelm S. Chemical composition and methane yield of maize
hybrids with contrasting maturity. European Journal of Agronomy
2008;29(23):729.
[19] Gunaseelan VN. Predicting ultimate methane yields of Jatropha curcus and
Morus indica from their chemical composition. Bioresource Technology
2009;100(13):34269.
[20] Oslaj M, Mursec B, Vindis P. Biogas production from maize hybrids. Biomass
and Bioenergy 2010;34(11):153845.
[21] Bufre P, Frederic S, Marty B, Delgnes JP. A comprehensive method for
organic matter characterization in solid wastes in view of assessing their
anaerobic biodegradability. Water Science and Technology 2008;58:17838.
[22] Lehtomki A, Viinikainen TA, Rintala JA. Screening boreal energy crops
and crop residues for methane biofuel production. Biomass and Bioenergy
2008;32(6):54150.
[23] Plchl M, Zacharias H, Herrmann M, Heiermann M, Prochnow A. Inuence
of silage additives on methane yield and economic performance of selected
feedstock. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal 2009; XI
(June) Manuscript 1123.
[24] Nizami AS, Korres NE, Murphy JD. Review of the integrated process for
the production of grass biomethane. Environmental Science and Technology
2009;43(22):8496508.
[25] Raposo F, de la Rubia MA, Borja R, Alaiz M. Assessment of a modied and
optimised method for determining chemical oxygen demand of solid substrates and solutions with high suspended solid content. Talanta 2008;76(2):
44853.
[26] Raposo F, Fernndez-Cegr V, De la Rubia MA, Borja R, Beltrn J, Cavinato C,
et al. Quality improvement in determination of chemical oxygen demand in
samples considered difcult to analyze, through participation in prociencytesting schemes. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 2010;29(9):
108291.
[27] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A,
et al. The IWA anaerobic digestion model no 1 (ADM1). Water Science and
Technology 2002;45(10):6573.
876
[28] Davidsson A, Gruvberger C, Christensen TH, Hansen TL, Jansen JLC. Methane
yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 2007;27(3):40614.
[29] Schittenhelm S. Effect of drought stress on yield and quality of
maize/sunower and maize/sorghum intercrops for biogas production. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 2010;196(4):25361.
[30] Angelidaki I, Alves M, Bolzonella D, Borzacconi L, Campos JL, Guwy AJ, et al.
Dening the biomethane potential (BMP) of solid organic wastes and energy
crops: a proposed protocol for batch assays. Water Science and Technology
2009;59:92734.
[31] Jerger DE, Tsao GT. Feed composition. In: Chynoweth DP, Isaacson R, editors.
Anaerobic Digestion of Biomass. Elsevier Applied Science; 1985. p. 65.
[32] Henze M, Harremos P, Jansen JLC, Arvin E. Wastewater treatment. Biological
and chemical processes. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 1997.
[33] Sanders WTM, Geerink M, Zeeman G, Lettinga G. Anaerobic hydrolysis kinetics
of particulate substrates. Water Science and Technology 2000;41:1724.
[34] Mshandete A, Bjrnsson L, Kivaisi AK, Rubindamayugi MST, Mattiasson B.
Effect of particle size on biogas yield from sisal bre waste. Renewable Energy
2006;31(14):238592.
[35] Llabrs-Luengo P, Mata-lvarez J. Inuence of temperature, buffer, composition and straw particle length on the anaerobic digestion of wheat straw pig
manure mixtures. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1988;1(1):2737.
[36] Sharma SK, Mishra IM, Sharma MP, Saini JS. Effect of particle size on biogas
generation from biomass residues. Biomass 1988;17(4):25163.
[37] Chynoweth DP, Turick CE, Owens JM, Jerger DE, Peck MW. Biochemical
methane potential of biomass and waste feedstocks. Biomass and Bioenergy
1993;5(1):95111.
[38] Moorhead KK, Nordstedt RA. Batch anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth:
effects of particle size, plant nitrogen content, and inoculum volume. Bioresource Technology 1993;44(1):716.
[39] Jash T, Ghosh DN. Studies on the solubilization kinetics of solid organic
residues during anaerobic biomethanation. Energy 1996;21(78):72530.
[40] Nopharatana A, Pullammanappallil PC, Clarke WP. Kinetics and dynamic modelling of batch anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste in a stirred
reactor. Waste Management 2007;27(5):595603.
[41] VDI 4630. Fermentation of organic materials. Characterisation of the
substrates, sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests. VDIHandbuch Energietechnik; 2006.
[42] Hansen TL, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I, Marca E, Jansen JLC, Mosbk H, et al.
Method for determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste.
Waste Management 2004;24(4):393400.
[43] Blok J, De Morsier A, Gerike P. Harmonisation of ready biodegradability tests.
Chemosphere 1985;14(1112):180520.
[44] Angelidaki I, Sanders W. Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of
macropollutants. Re-views in Environmental Science and Biotechnology
2004;3(2):11729.
[45] El-Mashad HM, Zhang R. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure
and food waste. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(11):40218.
[46] Rincn B, Banks CJ, Heaven S. Biochemical methane potential of winter wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.): inuence of growth stage and storage practice. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(21):817984.
[47] Souto TF, Aquino SF, Silva SQ, Chernicharo CAL. Inuence of incubation conditions on the specic methanogenic activity test. Biodegradation
2010;21(3):41124.
[48] Moreno-Andrade I, Buitrn G. Inuence of the origin of the inoculum
on the anaerobic biodegradability test. Water Science and Technology
2004;49:539.
[49] Neves L, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Inuence of inoculum activity on the biomethanization of a kitchen waste under different waste/inoculum ratios.
Process Biochemistry 2004;39(12):201924.
[50] Tait S, Tamis J, Edgerton B, Batstone DJ. Anaerobic digestion of
spent bedding from deep litter piggery housing. Bioresource Technology
2009;100(7):22108.
[51] ISO 11734. Evaluation of the ultimate anaerobic biodegradability of organic
compounds in digested sludge method by measurement of biogas production; 1995.
[52] ISO/DIS 14853. Plastics-determination of the ultimate anaerobic biodegradability in an aqueous system method by measurement of biogas production;
1999.
[53] Guwy AJ. Equipment used for testing anaerobic biodegradability and activity.
Re-views in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 2004;3(2):1319.
[54] Parawira W, Murto M, Zvauya R, Mattiasson B. Anaerobic batch digestion of
solid potato waste alone and in combination with sugar beet leaves. Renewable Energy 2004;29(11):181123.
[55] Umbreit WW, Burriss RH, Stauffer UF. Constant volume manometry the
Warburg. 4th ed. Burgess Berks; 1964.
[56] Gledhill W. Proposed standard practice for determination of the anaerobic
biodegradability organic chemicals. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing Materials; 1979.
[57] Pabn Pereira CP. Anaerobic digestion in sustainable biomass chains. Ph.D.
Thesis. Wageningen University; 2009.
[58] Dolng J, Bloemen WGBM. Activity measurements as a tool to characterize
the microbial composition of methanogenic environments. Journal of Microbiological Methods 1985;4(1):112.
[59] Saey Jr LM, Westerman PW. Performance of a low temperature lagoon
digester. Bioresource Technology 1992;41(2):16775.
877
[116] Lissens G, Thomsen AB, De Baere L, Verstraete W, Ahring BK. Thermal wet
oxidation improves anaerobic biodegradability of raw and digested biowaste.
Environmental Science and Technology 2004;38(12):341824.
[117] Mahamat AY, Gourdon R, Leger P, Vermande P. Methane recovery by anaerobic digestion of cellulosic materials available in Sahel. Biological Wastes
1989;30(3):18197.
[118] Mhnert P, Heiermann M, Linke B. Batch- and semi-continuous biogas production from different grass species. Agricultural Engineering International:
the CIGR Ejournal 2005;VII:111.
[119] Mass D, Gilbert Y, Savoie P, Blanger G, Parent G, Babineau D. Methane yield
from switchgrass harvested at different stages of development in Eastern
Canada. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(24):953641.
[120] Mshandete A, Kivaisi A, Rubindamayugi M, Mattiasson B. Anaerobic
batch co-digestion of sisal pulp and sh wastes. Bioresource Technology
2004;95(1):1924.
[121] Mshandete A, Bjrnsson L, Kivaisi AK, Rubindamayugi ST, Mattiasson B.
Enhancement of anaerobic batch digestion of sisal pulp waste by mesophilic
aerobic pre-treatment. Water Research 2005;39(8):156975.
[122] Neves L, Ribeiro R, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Enhancement of methane production
from barley waste. Biomass and Bioenergy 2006;30(6):599603.
[123] Neves L, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Anaerobic co-digestion of coffee waste and
sewage sludge. Waste Management 2006;26(2):17681.
[124] Neves L, Goncalo E, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Inuence of composition on the
biomethanation potential of restaurant waste at mesophilic temperatures.
Waste Management 2008;28(6):96572.
[125] Nkemka VN, Murto M. Evaluation of biogas production from seaweed in batch
tests and in UASB reactors combined with the removal of heavy metals. Journal of Environmental Management 2010;91(7):15739.
[126] Nzila C, Dewulf J, Spanjers H, Kiriamiti H, van Langenhove H. Biowaste energy
potential in Kenya. Renewable Energy 2010;35(12):2698704.
[127] OSullivan C, Rounsefell B, Grinham A, Clarke W, Udy J. Anaerobic digestion
of harvested aquatic weeds: water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), cabomba
(Cabomba caroliniana) and salvinia (Salvinia molesta). Ecological Engineering
2010;36(10):145968.
[128] Owens JM, Chynoweth DP. Biochemical methane potential of municipal
solid waste (MSW) components. Water Science and Technology 1993;27(2):
114.
[129] Paepatung N, Nopharatana A, Warinthorn S. Bio-methane potential of biological solid materials and agricultural wastes. Asian Journal on Energy and
Environment 2009;10(1):1927.
[130] Pakarinen O, Lehtomki A, Rissanen S, Rintala J. Storing energy crops for
methane production: effects of solids content and biological additive. Bioresource Technology 2008;99(15):707482.
[131] Petersson A, Thomsen MH, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Thomsen AB. Potential bioethanol and biogas production using lignocellulosic biomass
from winter rye, oilseed rape and faba bean. Biomass and Bioenergy
2007;31(1112):8129.
[132] Pommier S, Llamas AM, Lefebvre X. Analysis of the outcome of shredding
pretreatment on the anaerobic biodegradability of paper and cardboard materials. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(2):4638.
[133] Salminen E, Rintala J, Lokshina LY, Vavilin VA. Anaerobic batch degradation of solid poultry slaughterhouse waste. Water Science and Technology
2000;41:3341.
[134] Scaglione D, Caffaz S, Ficara E, Malpei F, Lubello C. A simple method to evaluate the short-term biogas yield in anaerobic codigestion of was and organic
wastes. Water Science and Technology 2008;58:161522.
[135] Seppl M, Paavola T, Lehtomki A, Rintala J. Biogas production from boreal
herbaceous grasses specic methane yield and methane yield per hectare.
Bioresource Technology 2009;100(12):29528.
[136] Shanmugam P, Horan NJ. Simple and rapid methods to evaluate methane
potential and biomass yield for a range of mixed solid wastes. Bioresource
Technology 2009;100(1):4714.
[137] Sharma SK, Saini JS, Mishra IM, Sharma MP. Mirabilis leaves a potential
source of methane. Biomass 1987;13(1):1324.
[138] Tong X, Smith LH, McCarty PL. Methane fermentation of selected lignocellulosic materials. Biomass 1990;21(4):23955.
[139] Turick CE, Peck MW, Chynoweth DP, Jerger DE, White EH, Zsuffa L,
et al. Methane fermentation of woody biomass. Bioresource Technology
1991;37(2):1417.
[140] Vervaeren H, Hostyn K, Ghekiere G, Willems B. Biological ensilage additives as
pretreatment for maize to increase the biogas production. Renewable Energy
2010;35(9):208993.
[141] Wood N, Tran H, Master E. Pretreatment of pulp mill secondary sludge
for high-rate anaerobic conversion to biogas. Bioresource Technology
2009;100(23):572935.
[142] Wu G, Healy MG, Zhan X. Effect of the solid content on anaerobic digestion of
meat and bone meal. Bioresource Technology 2009;100(19):432631.
[143] Zubr J. Methanogenic fermentation of fresh and ensiled plant materials.
Biomass 1986;11(3):15971.