Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Review

Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review

Camilla M. Braguglia , Agata Gallipoli, Andrea Gianico, Pamela Pagliaccia
Istituto di Ricerca sulle Acque (IRSA-CNR), Area della Ricerca RM1, Via Salaria km 29,300, 00015 Monterotondo, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

 More than 400 papers in the last 5 years have been published on FW into energy.
 Food waste complexity and composition affects anaerobic conversion.
 Scaling up of the AD process is fundamental to assess the real methane potential.
 Methanogenesis is often rate limiting step leading to pH drop and instability.
 Strategies to improve AD performances and stability are here reviewed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: hhh

Received 28 April 2017 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Received in revised form 23 June 2017
Accepted 24 June 2017
Available online xxxx

Keywords:
Food waste
Anaerobic digestion
Fermentation
Pre-treatment
Co-digestion

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Food waste characteristics and impact on AD process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Anaerobic conversion of FW into methane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.1. Batch AD tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3.2. Continuous AD tests for methane production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4. Anaerobic conversion of food waste into hydrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5. Strategies to improve the anaerobic digestion of food waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.1. Anaerobic co-digestion with other substrates to improve stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5.2. Food waste pre-treatments and impact on AD performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: braguglia@irsa.cnr.it (C.M. Braguglia).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
0960-8524/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
2 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
latin america
north africa, west and central asia
USA, Canada and Oceania
japan, china and south korea
europe
0 20
composition (%) of food waste at household
Cereals fruits and vegetables
Fig. 1. Composition (%) of Food Waste at household in different regions of the world.
1. Introduction
Food waste was defined by the UN Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization (FAO) and includes any healthy or edible substance that is
wasted, lost, degraded at every stage of the food supply chain.
Every year, between 1.3 and 1.6 billion tons of food, such as fresh
vegetables, fruit, and meat, bakery and dairy products, are lost
along the food-supply chain, and this accounts for one third of
the food produced globally for human consumption, affecting sev-
eral natural resources. Food waste, in fact, cost the global economy
around USD 990 billion annually, and consumes in fact about a
quarter of all the water used for agriculture purposes, and is
responsible for an estimated 8% of total anthropogenic global
greenhouse gas emission, contributing to biodiversity loss. An
ever-increasing amount of food waste (FW) is generated, owing
to population growth and rising living standards. Globally, around
2 billion tons of municipal solid waste are formed annually, of
which 3453% is organic biodegradable waste (defined as
OFMSW), mainly food waste which collected from households,
and restaurants, but the composition may vary from country to
country. The total FW quantity produced each year in Europe has
been estimated to be around 90 million tons Mt in 2012, of which
an estimated 47 Mt is collected from household (average of 92 kg
per capita). The United Kingdom generates most FW in Europe,
namely 14 Mt, corresponding to almost 135 kg per capita yearly
against the 62 kg per capita per year wasted in Italy. Annually, in
the United States the amount of food wasted is nearly 61 Mt, in
South Korea around 6.2 Mt and in China, despite the low food
waste per capita (55 kg annually), is 195 Mt. The EU Commission
estimates an increase in the FW amounts to 120 Mt by 2020, which
is mainly due to increased FW generation in households, that
almost doubled from 2004 to 2012, while FW from food manufac-
turing and agriculture showed decreasing trend. The composition
of the food wasted at household and food service level (restau-
rants, canteen, etc.) varies from region to region in the world. In
fact, as showed in Fig. 1, in Europe, FW is composed by 40% vegeta-
bles and fruit, 33% pasta and bread, 17% of dairy products (includ-
ing eggs) and 9% of meat and fish residues, while in Asia, in
particular in Japan, China and South Korea, FW is composed by a
56% of vegetables and fruits, 34% of rice and noodle, and only a
small fraction (around 10%) due to fish, meat residues, and dairy
products.
Although reduction is the most preferred option in the FW man-
agement hierarchy, subsequent approaches such as recovery in
terms of waste-to-energy also require attention and technical
development from the research community in order to promote
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
40 60 80 100
meat and fish milk and eggs
a comprehensive sustainable FW management system. In this con-
text, anaerobic digestion (AD) is considered as one of the best
environmental-friendly alternatives for the FW management,
because of its limited environmental footprints (Capson-Tojo
et al., 2016), high potential for energy recovery (Capson-Tojo
et al., 2016; Kuruti et al., 2017; Zamanzadeh et al., 2016;
Zhang et al., 2014) producing carrier material for biofertilizers
(Kuruti et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2013). In 2012, 90% of the FW trea-
ted in Europe was processed biologically with both AD and com-
posting according to the Eurostat waste treatment statistics. The
use of AD as a treatment for FWs and other organic wastes has
increased in Europe with a current reported capacity of almost 9
million tons per year in 2015 due to 290 full-scale plants (De
Baere and Mattheeuws, 2014) producing methane. Mesophilic
digesters operate at a temperature between 35 C and 40 C, while
thermophilic digesters operate between 50 C and 55 C. Mesophi-
lic digestion has always been predominant, because of the small
energy needs, and greater stability. Nevertheless, thermophilic
digestion has always played an important role in the digestion of
food waste (Montecchio et al., 2016). In recent years, different
novel reactor designs, such as for example two stage or multiple-
stage reactors have been investigated and developed to reach
stable conditions under high organic loading rates (OLRs) of food
waste or OFMSW (Dong et al., 2010). However, the AD of organic
waste generally relies on single-stage systems, which account for
more than 95% of Europes full-scale plants (De Baere and
Mattheeuws, 2014).
Investigating AD processes for FW conversion has become, for
all these reasons, an exciting research field. For this review, the dis-
tribution of the 410 peer-reviewed articles extracted from litera-
ture (Scopus database) in the last 5 years (20122017) containing
the fixed term food waste in the title combined with biogas
(56), or anaerobic digestion (113), or methane (56) or hydrogen
(54), or co-digestion (89) or pre-treatment (42) was analyzed also
on the basis of affiliations country of the authors.
China is unconditionally the most productive country with the
largest number of publications in this research field (more than
40% of the papers) followed by South Korea (12%), USA (10%) and
Japan (5%). In Europe, Italy and Spain researchers are the most
active in this field.
This review focuses on the anaerobic conversion of FW for
energy recovery, in terms of hydrogen and methane production,
reporting the most important results, performances and
developments taken mainly during the last decade as regards dif-
ferent reactor configurations (one or multi-stage, dry or wet) and
effects of inhibition compounds and parameters on AD, in batch
 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
or continuous mode. Different strategies to improve the anaerobic
conversion, including co-digestion and feedstock pre-treatments,
are also reviewed and discussed.
2. Food waste characteristics and impact on AD process
The FW composition clearly affects the physicochemical charac-
teristics of FW investigated in different regions in the world. Food
waste consisting of rice, pasta and and vegetables is abundant in
carbohydrates while food waste consisting of meat, fish and eggs
contains high quantity of proteins and lipids. However, FW pre-
sents general features that can be extrapolated worldwide, with
a moisture content of 7490%, high volatile solids fraction around
85 5%, and a mean acidic pH of 5.1 0.7 (Fisgativa et al., 2016;
Zhang et al., 2007. Typical FW is mainly composed of degradable
carbohydrates (4162%), proteins (1525%) and lipids (1330%).
On general, FW proved to have varying proportions of nutrients
and micronutrients and low presence of heavy metals, but the vari-
ability was very high (Fisgativa et al., 2016). FW typically has a rel-
atively low C/N ratio, varying between 13.2 and 24.50, lower with
respect to the optimal range of 2535 assuring efficient digestion
conditions (Capson-Tojo et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2008; Zhang
et al., 2007). In fact, an excessively high C/N ratio causes the
increase in acid formation inhibiting methane production, while
at low C/N ratio nitrogen is converted to ammonium at a faster rate
than it can be assimilated by the methanogens. For biodegradable
substrates, the optimum C/N ratio is in the range 2025. However,
for materials that are resistant to microbial degradation, the C/N
ratio can be also as high as 40. Due to its fundamental characteris-
tics such as wide availability, high biodegradable organic fraction
and in particular high carbohydrate content, FW has been consid-
ered an attractive economical source for energy production, and
substrate characteristics influenced largely the AD process perfor-
mances (Fisgativa et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2013a). Organic feed-
stocks undergo different degradation steps during the AD process
(Fisgativa et al., 2016; Patinvoh et al., 2017). Step one is hydrolysis,
where the feedstock is disintegrated by the action of a diverse
community of hydrolytic bacteria producing simple sugars, amino
acids, and fatty acids. This step has been reported as being the rate
limiting step for complex, hard biodegradable, organic substrates
(Ariunbaatar et al., 2014; Carlsson et al., 2012; Gianico et al.,
2013; Izumi et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2014), and can be accelerated
by pre-treating the substrate before digestion (see paragraph 5.2).
Step two is acidogenesis, where monomers from the hydrolysis are
fermented into short chain organic acids (acetic, propionic, butyric
and others), alcohols, together with hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
The products formed vary with the types of bacteria as well as
environmental conditions. Hydrogen, as the most valuable fermen-
tation product, is widely discussed in paragraph 4. Acidogenesis is
the fastest step in the AD process, so if the feedstock does not have
buffering capacity and the organic loading rate is too high, the
accumulation of volatile fatty acids can result in a pH drop, which
would inhibit the methanogens that produce methane in the final
step (Nagao et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). Step three is the ace-
togenesis, here the homoacetogenic microorganisms reduce hydro-
gen and carbon dioxide to acetic acid. In this step, the acetogenic
bacteria can only survive at a very low hydrogen concentration,
so excessive production of hydrogen from the acidogenesis step
can inhibit these bacteria. The last step is the methanogenesis,
where methane production takes place under strict anaerobic con-
ditions, by utilizing the intermediate products (as H2 and acetate)
from the preceding stages. Because of these complex succession of
biological steps and of the close connection of the degradation
phases, AD of organics is based on a delicate balance that may
affect the instability of the digesters treating food waste, and thus
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
3
the amount of methane produced. Acidification through reactor
overload is one of the most common reasons for process deteriora-
tion in anaerobic digesters, and occurs because of the accumulation
of volatile fatty acids fatty acids (VFAs) due to the kinetic uncou-
pling between acid producers and consumers (El-Mashad and
Zhang, 2010; Kawai et al., 2014; Nagao et al., 2012; Ventura
et al., 2014). Methanogenesis resulted therefore the rate-limiting
step, in particular for carbohydrate-rich FW anaerobic digestions,
opening controversial questions on the effective kinetic limiting
stage of complex heterogeneous organic material as food waste.
The pH is one of the most important parameters influencing AD,
because all the involved microorganisms are very sensitive to pH
variations, and each process step shows a different pH sensitivity.
For fermentative bacteria, a comprehensive pH range from 4 to 8.5
is suitable, while most methanogens work optimally in a pH range
from 6.5 to 7.2, with a methanogenesis step failure below pH of 5.5.
To ensure microorganisms activity, a good nutritional balance is
necessary, both in terms of carbon and nitrogen ratio, and of
micronutrients as Ca, K, Mg, Na, P and Fe, indispensable for
microorganisms. The feedstock total solids content (as conse-
quently also the volatile solids) affect the AD process of food waste.
So far, three main types of AD technologies have been developed
according to the total solids (TS) content of feedstocks: conven-
tional wet (<10% TS), semi-dry (1020% TS) and dry (2040% TS)
processes. Dry anaerobic digestion, so called high-solids technol-
ogy, facilitates the dry substrate manipulation with batch and
semi-continuous process, but higher structure cost may be present.
With specific reference to the full-scale industrial application, dur-
ing the last 5 years dry digestion accounts for about 70% of the
installed capacity, resulting in a cumulative market share of about
62% (De Baere and Mattheeuws, 2014). The predominance of dry
digesters was due to the reduced volume of reactors and wastew-
ater production. In the case of the biological production of hydro-
gen by fermentation, no full-scale applications have been realised
to date (De Gioannis et al., 2013).
3. Anaerobic conversion of FW into methane
Extensive effort has been devoted to the production of bio-
methane from FW through anaerobic processes, but its economic
viability is largely dependent on the efficiency of FW type, pre-
treatment and scale (Ma et al., 2017). Scale effect of anaerobic
digestion tests in batch and semi-continuous mode for the techni-
cal and economic feasibility of a full-scale digester treating FW is,
in our opinion, very important. Therefore, the first part of this
chapter is dedicated to batch systems and the second one is dedi-
cated to continuous reactors. The difference is extremely impor-
tant in particular by digesting complex heterogeneous feedstocks
as FW, where the organic load (in particular the readily biodegrad-
able one) affects significantly the performances of the process. In
fact, in batch systems, a reactor is loaded with feed and run to com-
pletion until methane production stops. Batch reactors benefit
from technical simplicity, low operating costs, and, last but not
least, short digestion times (in 2540 days, the test is completed).
On the contrary, in continuous systems, reactors are continuously
fed with the feedstock, allowing a steady-state to be reached in
the reactor with a constant methane yield, after 12 HRTs (hydrau-
lic residence time). Although continuous reactors have higher
operating costs due to storage and requirements, these reactors
are able to maintain and adapt microorganisms within the system,
thereby avoiding lag times associated with microorganism growth
in batch reactors, but methane yields depend strictly on the
organic load (OLR) and HRT applied. In fact, food waste feedstock,
generally rich of biodegradable organics, can rapidly lead to an
imbalance in the production-consumption of VFAs, overwhelming
4 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

Table 1
Methane yields from batch digestion of food waste.

Food Waste type Volume of Temperature Duration VS Methane yield (L CH4 Initial F/I CH4 Initial References
batch removal kg 1VSfed) (or load) (%) pH
reactors (%)
Synthetic FW 1L Meso 25 d N.R. 469 6.8 0.5 N.R. N.R. Ariunbaatar
et al. (2015)
Canteen FW 5L Meso 25 d N.R. 467 0.33 N.R. N.R. Browne and
Murphy
(2013)
Canteen FW 0.5 L Meso 25 d N.R. 529 0.33 N.R. N.R. Browne and
Murphy
(2013)
FW 35 L 30 C 60 d 42 314 0.57a 65 5.7 Dong et al.
(2010)
Waste sorted by waste company 1L Meso 30 d 82 353 10 2 gVS/L 54 N.R. El-Mashad and
Zhang (2010)
Source segregated FW N.R. Meso 40 d N.R. 434 40 (inoculum A); 0.30.4 N.R. 7.1 Facchin et al.
338 30 (inoculum B) (2013)
Source segregated FW + trace metal N.R. Meso 40 d N.R. 487 0.30.4 N.R. N.R. Facchin et al.
mix (50% of typical requirement) (2013)
a
Disposer grinded standard Japanese 2L Meso 16 d N.R. 417 N.R. N.R. 6.7 Izumi et al.
FW (2010)
Standard FW 2L Meso 45 d N.R. 435 0.33 N.R. 7.5 Kawai et al.
(2014)
Synthetic FW (+0.4 g ZVI/g VS FW) 0.25 L Meso 1221 h N.R. 495 8.5 40 gVS/L 60 N.R. Kong et al.
(2016)
Vegetable waste from supermarket Double stage Meso/Meso 55 d N.R. 445 18.9 N.R. N.R. L et al. (2012)
(1 L each)
Synthetic FW 0.5 L Meso 100 h N.R. 82 7.5 48 10 N.R. Nathao et al.
(2013)
Synthetic FW Double stage Meso/Meso 100 h N.R. 94 7.5 N.R. N.R. Nathao et al.
(0.5 L each) (2013)
Local waste management company 0.5 L Meso 30 d N.R. 492.7 9.3 0.5 N.R. N.R. Voelklein et al.
(2016)
Canteen FW 1L Meso 28 d N.R. 410 8 gVS/L 75 7.3 Zhang et al.
(2013a)
Restaurant FW 1L 50 C 25 d 93.6 510 1.6 65.6 7.2 Liu et al.
(2009)
Canteen FW 0.5 L Thermo 28 d 95.85 178a 1.5 54 8 Yang et al.
(2015)
Waste sorted by waste company 1L Thermo 28 d 81 435 2 gVS/L 73 7.6 Zhang et al.
(2007)

N.R. not reported.

a
Calculated from data provided in the manuscript.

the methanogenesis and eventually leading to the failure of the
process due to VFA accumulation and decrease in the pH. Alterna-
tively, nitrogen is released during the digestion process and,
depending on pH, OLR and temperature, this may lead to high con-
centrations of free ammonia (FAN) in the digester. Inhibition due to
high nitrogen content of the substrate has been reported (Chen
et al., 2008). The different feedstock composition and characteris-
tics are hence responsible of methane yields fluctuation depending
on the specific FW processed (Tables 1 and 2). In case of AD insta-
bility remedial measures were introduced, such as alkalinity addi-
tion (Liu et al. 2013; Ventura et al., 2014), feed interruption,
mixing, or trace elements addition (Facchin et al., 2013; Qiang
et al., 2013; Yirong et al., 2015).
3.1. Batch AD tests
Methane production varies with many factors such as inocu-
lum, volatile solids, ammonia, VFA, pH and temperature. A method
to source and determine the feasibility of a material to serve as a
substrate in anaerobic digestion is the Biochemical Methane Poten-
tial (BMP) test. Such a test monitors the gas production following
the incubation of an organic material with an anaerobic bacteria
mixture under well-controlled conditions. Because the BMP of
the organic material is very important in the design, installation,
and operation of an anaerobic digester, comprehensive protocols
for its determination have been proposed (Holliger et al., 2016).
Under mesophilic conditions biomethane potential is variable
between 200 and 570 mL CH4 g 1VSadded (Ariunbaatar et al.,
2014; Izumi et al., 2010; Kawai et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2012;
Zhang et al., 2007, 2013a) as summarized in Table 1.
Some papers reported relatively low methane yields ranging
from 100 to 250 mL CH4 g 1VSadded (Capson-Tojo et al., 2016;
Nathao et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2015;) probably due to acidification
during food waste digestion (Liu et al., 2009). An important factor
affecting the performances of batch AD is the substrate to inocu-
lum (S/I) ratio (or the inverse factor, namely inoculum to substrate
ratio, ISR) used. The major task in a one-stage batch reactor is to
prevent VFAs accumulation inside the inoculum particles beyond
their assimilative methanogenic capacity. This accumulation can
be prevented by increasing the amount of inoculum, in order to
overcome irreversible acidification during start-up (Kawai et al.,
2014). In single-stage batch tests, it is common practice to load
inoculum and substrate based on VS ratios (Pagliaccia et al.,
2016). Although theoretically, the S/I ratio has an effect only on
the kinetics, the influence of S/I on biomethane production has
been commonly investigated during batch tests, and specific stud-
ies on the effect of this ratio for different FW have been carried out
(Liu et al., 2009; L et al., 2012; Pagliaccia et al., 2016). It is worth
to note that methane yields, obtained from single-stage mesophilic
batch tests operated at S/I 0.5, range all between 417 and 529 L

Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Table 2
Best semi-continuous performances of single and two-stage anaerobic digestion systems in terms of methane conversion.
1 1 1
FW type/source one or two stage reactors (volume) Temperature HRT (d) OLR (g VS L d ; kg VS Duration VS removal Methane yield (L CH4 kg References
m 3d 1 (d) (%) VSfed)
Kitchen garbage 2(1 L; 5 L) Thermo/ 2; 10 N.R. 60 364 Chu et al. (2012)
thermo
Kitchen 1(5 m3) Meso N.R. 3.79 6 months 96 380 Grimberg et al.
(2015)
2(5 m3; 5 m3) Meso/meso N.R. 0.78 400 93 446
Dining hall raw food waste 2(8 L; 40 L) Thermo/ 2.87; 14.4 15 78.7 (as 470 Kobayashi et al.

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

thermo COD) (2012)
1 1
Dining hall 2(10 L; 40 L) Thermo/ 1.9/7.7 93 g COD L d ; 100 450.6 Lee et al. (2010)
thermo 8.4 g COD L 1d 1
Incoming FW at the WWTP 2(200 L; 380 L) Thermo/ 3.3/12.6 18.4/4.8 140 476 Micolucci et al.
thermo (2014)
Local waste management comp 1(3 L working volume) Meso 16 9.2 45 91.8 455 Nagao et al. (2012)
Synthetic 1(12 L working vol) Thermo 50 6.3 kg COD m3 day 1
38 72 430 2 Qiang et al. (2013)
Synthetic + TEs 1(12 L working vol) Thermo 30 6.3 kg COD m3 day 1
120 78 475 95
FW + fruit and vegetable waste 1(8 L) Meso 30 13.5 210 328544 Shen et al. (2013)
2(5 L; 8 L) Meso/meso 10/10 1stage: 2.010 210 198546
2stage: 1.05.0
Source segregated domestic food 1(1 L) Meso 78 3 100 77.7 483 13 Tampio et al. (2014)
waste
Food waste recycling company 2(10 L; 30 L) Meso/meso 5.0/15 3.2 195 78.5 380 Ventura et al. (2014)
2(10 L; 30 L) Meso/termo 5.0/15 4.4 109 81.7 440
2(10 L; 30 L) Thermo/ 5.0/15 4 43 79.2 370
meso
Local waste management comp 2(5 L; 5 L) Meso/meso 4/12 15; 5 N.R. 389.2 31.8 Voelklein et al.
(2016)
1(5 L) Meso 16 4 N.R. 316.4 17.9
Restaurant 2(450 L; 1500 L) 40 C/40 C 160 h(SRT); 22.65; 4.61 125 546 Wang and Zhao
26.67 d (2009)
1 1 *
Synthetic 2(1.6 CSTR; 1.3 AFBR; with Thermo/ 3.7/1.5 3.4/6.1 g COD L d 30 334.7( ) Yeshanew et al.
recirculation) meso (2016)
Source segregated domestic FW 1(5 L) Thermo N.R. 2 50 400 Yirong et al. (2015)
(with TEs)
Pasteurized 1(10 L) Meso 20 3 152 480 33 Zamanzadeh et al.
(2016)
1(10 L) Thermo 20 3 152 448 44
Canteen 1(1 L) Meso 25 7 N.R. 405 Zhang et al. (2013a)
Campus restaurant (with TEs) 1(6 L) Meso 40 4.5 22 460 Zhang et al. (2015a)

CSTR: continuous stirred tank reactor; AFBR anaerobic fixed bed reactor; N.R.: not reported; (*) in L CH4 kg 1
COD d 1
.

5
 Table 3

6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Best operating conditions and hydrogen yields from food waste fermentation, in single and dual stage.

Waste Inoculum Inoculum pre-treatment Operative conditions H2 Yield References

Reactor type Temperature HRT (h) Organic pH Duration
(C) Load
Single-Stage
1
FW Mesophilic Batch 35 NR S/I: 6 NR 44 h 39 mL g VSfed Pan et al.
1
anaerobic sludge 55 NR S/I: 7 44 h 57 mL g VSfed (2008)
Thermophilic
anaerobic sludge
FW hydrolysate Anaerobic sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 100C; t = 6 h) Batch (0.5 L) 37 NR NR 4.04.6 75 d 219.9 mL Han et al.
g 1VSfed (2015)
(1.56 mol
mol 1 glucose
added)
Heat pretreated FW None Batch (0.2 L) 35 NR NR Initial pH:8 100 h 1.92 mol mol 1 Kim et al.
(T = 90C; t = 20 min); Operational hexose added (2011)
pH:5

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

Alkali pretreated FW None Batch (0.3L) 37 NR NR 6.0 1.2 d 162 mL Jang et al.
(pH:12) g 1VSfed (2015)
(1.71 mol
mol 1 hexose
added)
FW (ultrasound pre- Anaerobic sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 90C; t = 20 Batch (0.125 L) 37 NR 4 gCOD 5.5 NR Max 149 mL Gadhe et al.
treatment) min) g 1VSS g 1VSfed (2014)
(FW TS = 8%;
UStime:15
min)
FW (pretreatment with T80 Sewage sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 100C; t = 15 Batch (0.18 L) 55 NR 70:30% NR 60 h 80.6 mL Elsamadony
and PEG6000) min) (v/v) g 1COD et al. (2015)
22.6 (VS/ (2.8% T80)
VS)a 82.4 mL
g 1COD
(1.7 g L 1 PEG)
85.6 mL
g 1COD
(2.8% T80 + 1.7
g L 1 PEG)
Kitchen waste Digested slurry Heat pretreatment (T = 100C; t = 30 Inclined plug flow n.r. HRT:168a 8.19 gVS 5.6 NR 72 mL g 1VSfed Jayalakshmi
min) reactor (150 L) pilot L 1d 1a et al. (2009)
scale
OFMSW (ultrasonic + acid None Batch (0.2 L) 37 NR NR Initial pH:5.5 360 h 118 mL Elbeshbishy
pretreated) g 1VSfed et al. (2011a)
OFMSW Anaerobic sludge Ultrasonic pre-treatment CSTR with ultrasonic 37 24 14.5 gVSS 56 45 d 332 mL Elbeshbishy
(Espec = 79 kJ kg 1TS) probe (2 L) L 1d 1 g 1VSSfed et al. (2011b)
continuous mode
Municipal food waste UASB reactor ABR (26 L) 35 38.4 29 5.05.2 250 d 245 mL Tawfik and El-
+ kitchen waste sludge for H2 (1.6 d) gCODtot g 1CODremoved Qelish (2012)
production L 1d 1 558 mL
g 1VSremoveda
FW Acidogenic sludge CSTR (3 L) 34 48 11.4 gVS 5.5 10 HRT 20.5 mL Redondas
Semi-continuous L 1d 1 g 1VSfed et al. (2012)
mode
FW hydrolysate WWTP sludge Aeration (30 d) CMISR (3.2 L) packing NR 6 40 kgVS >4 5d Best rate: 354 Han et al.
3
ratio:15% m d 1 mL h 1L 1 (2015)
of activated carbon 16 kgVS Best yield: 85.6
3
m d 1 mL g 1FW
 Table 3 (continued)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Waste Inoculum Inoculum pre-treatment Operative conditions H2 Yield References

Reactor type Temperature HRT (h) Organic pH Duration
(C) Load
1
FW + OFMSW (20:80) No SSRT 55 SRT:45.6 66 gVS 5.54 >3 SRT 38 mL g VSfed Angeriz-
(1.9 d) L 1d 1 Campoy et al.
(2015)
FW Anaerobic sludge CSTR (4.5 L) 55 120 23.6 NR NR 70.7 mL Algapani et al.
kgCOD g 1VSfed (2016)
m 3d 1
Two-Stage
1
FW No SCRD (200 L) 40 SRT:160 22.65 5.65.7 125 d 65 mL g VSfed Wang and
kgVS Zhao (2009)
m 3d 1
FW Anaerobic sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 90C; t = 30 Semi-continuous 55 45.6 39 (gCOD 5.45.7 100 d 114 mL Lee et al.
min) + acclimatization reactor (10 L) (1.9 d) L 1d 1) g 1VSfed (2010)
(2.5 mol mol 1
hexose)

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

FW Anaerobic sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 90C; t = 30 Semi-continuous 55 68.9 NR 5.45.6 110 147.3 mL Kobayashi
min) + acclimatization reactor (8 L) (2.87 d) g 1VSfed et al. (2012)
Kitchen garbage Anaerobic sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 70C; t = 30 CSTR (1 L) 55 2d NR 5.5 60 d 66 mL g 1VSfed Chu et al.
min) Semi-continuous (2012)
1
FW Full scale UASB Heat pretreatment (T = 90C; t = 30 Two stage batch 37 NR S/I : 7.5 Initial pH:6 45 h 55 mL g VSfed Nathao et al.
reactor sludge min) fermentation (2013)
(0.5 L)
Source-segregated FW WWTP mesophilic CSTR (1 L) 52 72 20 gVS 5.22 NR 117 mL Chinellato
(+2nd phase recycled digestate Semi-continuous L 1d 1 g 1VSfed et al. (2013)
sludge)
1 1
FW Mesophilic CSTR (5 L) 35 10 2 gVS l NR 55d 28 mL g VSfed Shen et al.
anaerobic sludge semi continuous d 1 (2013)
mode
1
OFMSW (+2nd phase No CSTR (200 L) Semi- 55 79.2 18.4 kgVS 5.2 310 d 60 mL g VSfed Micolucci
recycled sludge) continuous (3.3 d) m 3d 1 et al. (2014)
Source-segregated FW Anaerobic sludge Heat pretreatment (T = 120C; t = 20 CSTR (1.35 L) 35 96 9 gVS 5.5 NR 11.8 mL Voelklein
min) + 1 M HCl + acclimatization (20 Semi-continuous L 1d 1 g 1VSfed et al. (2016)
d) (tested (1.711.8)
range 6
15)
FW Anaerobic sludge CSTR (1.6 L) 55 88.8 3.4 gVS 5.05.3 53 115.2 mL Yeshanew
Semi-continuous (3.7 d) L 1d 1 g 1VSfed et al. (2016)
FW (no pretreatment) UASB granular Heat pretreatment (T = 80C; t = 15 Batch (1 L) 35 NR S/I: 0.3 6.0 88 ha 55.3 mL Rafieenia et al.
FW (aeration digestate min) g 1VSfed (2017)
pretreatment; air
flow = 5L h 1; t = 24 h) 44.4 mL
g 1VSfed

ABR: anaerobic buffled reactor; CSTR: continuous stirred tank reactor; CMISR: continuous mixed immobilized sludge reactor; SCRD: semi-continuous rotating drum; SSRT: semi-continuous stirred tank reactor; UASB: upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; NR: Not reported; v/v = volume/volume.
a
Calculated.

7
8 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
CH4 kg 1VSfed (Ariunbaatar et al., 2015; Browne and Murphy,
2013; Facchin et al., 2013; Kawai et al., 2014; Voelklein et al.,
2016) evidencing stability of the process (Table 1). Most studies
suggested that using S/I ratio below 1.0 was enough to prevent
acidification (Elbeshbishy et al., 2012; Kawai et al., 2014). Methane
yields lower than 100 L CH4 kg 1VSfed are generally related to the
extremely high S/I ratios applied, and short duration time
(Nathao et al., 2013). Liu et al. (2009) performed thermophilic
BMP assays on food waste at S/I ratios from 1.6 to 5.0 and reported
that anaerobic biodegradability decreased with the rise of S/I
ratios. However, when the inoculum was completely mixed with
the waste, methanogenesis was not initiated even at S/I of 0.9
(L et al., 2012). In contrast, when the inoculum was initially sep-
arated from the waste in a double-reactor system (and connected
by the controlled exchange of fermented waste), the waste could
be effectively transformed to methane even at S/I 18.9 (L et al.,
2012). The instability of the process due to acidification results also
directly affected by the amount of labile organic fraction (LOF)
immediately transformed to VFAs in the initial phase of AD
(Kawai et al., 2014). In fact, the methane yields from the same
FW, without LOF rich supernatant, were relatively stable in all S/I
conditions, although the maximum methane yield was lower com-
pared to the raw FW (Kawai et al., 2014). Moreover, excessive
reduction of the particle size of the substrate resulted in VFA accu-
mulation, and decreased methane production (Izumi et al., 2010).
The impact of the solubilized matter, in particular sugars, on VFA
accumulation and consequent process instabilities should be
therefore taken into account when feedstock pre-treatments are
selected and optimized (see paragraph 5.2), otherwise the strategy
can be detrimental rather than beneficial. Zero-valent iron signifi-
cantly enhanced the conversion of butyric acid to acetic acid dur-
ing AD of FW at very high initial loading rate (42.32 gVS L 1)
attaining a final CH4 yield of 380 mL g 1VSadded, suggesting inhibi-
tion of excessive acidification (Kong et al., 2016).
It is however also acknowledged that thermophilic process tem-
perature results in larger degree of imbalance and higher risk for
ammonia inhibition than mesophilic process temperatures, and
in fact only few studies have focused on the thermophilic AD of
FW (Liu et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2007). Contro-
versial results regard the impact of inoculum acclimation on
methane conversion rate during BMP tests. While Browne and
Murphy (2013) highlighted that for accurate BMP assessment the
inoculum should be sourced from a stable AD process and prefer-
ably acclimatized to the substrate, a recent published cross-
comparison of methodologies used in different laboratories evi-
denced that it was not necessary that the inoculum was specifically
adapted to the substrates to be tested (Holliger et al., 2016). Effect
of the inoculum source was observed also by Facchin et al. (2013)
where using the inoculum originated from a reactor co-digesting
FW and sludge generated more methane than using an inoculum
originated from an anaerobic reactor treating only FW. The pri-
mary parameter for the selection of inoculum is the soluble COD
concentration, which reflects the health status of the provenance
digester. In the study of Elbeshbishy et al., 2012, in fact, the FW
digester inoculum had five times higher soluble COD concentration
than the municipal sludge digester, suggesting important differ-
ences between the ratio of fermentative bacteria, i.e. hydrolyzers
and degraders to acidformers and methanogens between the two
inocula. The growth of methanogens is dependent on many ions
such as sodium, nickel, cobalt, iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium
and potassium cations and molybdate or tungstate and phosphate
anions. Various concentrations of different trace elements (TEs)
have been studied for the AD of FW. Facchin et al. (2013) achieved
a 4565% higher methane production yield from FW with supple-
mentation of TE (Co, Mo, Ni, Se, and W) cocktail, and stressed the
importance of Se and Mo for the biomethane production.
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
3.2. Continuous AD tests for methane production
The effectiveness of methane AD production from FW process-
ing is currently limited by solubilization and acidogenesis, in par-
ticular by semi-continuous fed reactors. The microbial
community and inoculum quality used for the start-up of an anaer-
obic reactor are also critical factors for successful biogas produc-
tion (Elbeshbishy et al., 2012; Capson-Tojo et al., 2016). In fact,
the slow growth of methanogens compared to acidogens makes
long acclimatization periods and gradual operational changes nec-
essary. Stable digestion can be assumed when the measured
parameters, such as the specific CH4 production, digestate VS con-
tent or pH levels are consistently maintained within 10% of their
average values, for a minimum period of one HRT. For all these rea-
sons, the semi-continuous tests need long time duration, but
sometimes literature data originate from too rushed digestion tests
with duration shorter than the applied HRT (see Table 2).
Table 2 summarizes the best performances in terms of methane
yields and VS removal (if available) for single and dual stage diges-
tion systems reported in literature. Stable AD of FW was usually
attained for HRT ranging between 16 and 40 days and OLRs lower
than 4.5 gVS L 1d 1 (Table 2). High buffer capacity, due to released
total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) allows AD to operate at higher
organic loading rates (OLRs), thus resulting in higher biomethane
production without experiencing a pH drop (Ariunbaatar et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, Chen et al. (2008) reported that TAN concen-
trations ranging from 1700 mg L 1 to 14,000 mg L 1 all decreased
methane yield by more than 50%, depending on feedstock, inocu-
lum source and operation parameters employed in the studies.
Serna-Maza et al. (2014) studied on the efficient performance
and stability of 35 L anaerobic digesters fed on food waste coupled
to side-stream ammonia stripping columns, but high stripping
temperature (70 C) and a pH of 10 are needed. Selenium, which
is present only in low concentrations in FW, has been shown to
be essential in recovering a digester suffering from a propionic acid
accumulation due to elevated ammonia concentrations, while at
higher organic loading rates additional cobalt is also required
(Yirong et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a).
Trace metals (Fe, Co, Ni) requirement per COD removed was
obtained experimentally for mesophilic and thermophilic high-
solid FW digestion evidencing higher Fe requirement per COD
removed operating in thermophilic conditions, probably because
of the high metabolic rates of thermophilic anaerobic microorgan-
ism. In fact, ratios of required Fe to Ni and Co were about two times
higher in thermophilic system than those in mesophilic system
(Qiang et al., 2013).
A novel approach was the application of a dual solidliquid
(ADSL) system, involving the use of two digesters for FSW (food
solid waste) and FLW (food liquid waste without waste oil) diges-
tion, where optimum OLRs for FSW, FLW and raw FW were 9, 4 and
7 gVS L 1d 1, and the corresponding methane yields 540, 390 and
405 mL g 1VS, respectively (Zhang et al., 2013a). Ghanimeh et al.
(2012) examined the effect of mixing and non-mixing strategies
on the performance of thermophilic digesters, and the digester
with mixing showed better stability minimizing VFA production.
Considering the option of operating at thermophilic conditions, lit-
erature data show that by increasing the temperature, the propor-
tion of the most toxic form of ammonia, namely FAN, also
increased, with detrimental effect on thermophilic process stability
and methane yields (Chen et al., 2008; Yirong et al., 2015;
Zamanzadeh et al., 2016). The acquisition of the conductivity and
the online alkalinity measure are robust indirect parameters to
predict the content and the variation of ammonia concentration
to avoid inhibitory issues (Micolucci et al., 2014). In the recent
years, considerable attention has been paid towards the develop-
ment of high rate bioreactors with maximum treatment efficiency,
 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
basically designed to minimize HRT and increase rate of biogas
production hence marking the fact that the reactor design has a
strong effect on digester performance. The performance of dry
AD of FW was investigated under mesophilic conditions using an
horizontal-type cylindrical reactor, and stable dry AD was achieved
by HRT control (more than 40 d) without the addition of alkali
agents, attaining average CH4 production rate of 2.51 0.17 m3 -
m 3 d 1 (Cho et al., 2013). The rapid acidification phenomena
observed at loading 4.9 kg VS m 3 d 1 to the high rate biomethana-
tion technology called Anaerobic gas lift reactor (AGR) was wor-
thy from the perspective of giving readily available soluble
compounds to the methanogens in the digester and decreasing
HRT for biodegradable organic matter removal (Kuruti et al.,
2017). However, this phenomenon could cause instability in the
digester due to pH drop unless buffering capacity of the digester
was enhanced externally. To overcome this problem, milk of lime
was added in the feed tank to maintain the pH of the feed slurry
around neutrality. Two-stage AD systems separate acid fermenta-
tion and methanogenesis for the purpose of optimizing reactor
conditions for the distinctly different microbes that carry out these
functions. The first stage (acid fermentation) is maintained at low
pH and short hydraulic residence times (HRT; 23 days) resulting
in a washout of acid-consuming organisms. The second stage
(methanogenesis) is operated at HRT of 2030 days and pH of 6
8, facilitating proliferation of slow-growing methanogenic archaea.
Two stage AD systems may be less susceptible to system overload-
ing with increased specific activity of methanogens resulting in a
higher methane yield (Shen et al., 2013; Wang and Zhao, 2009).
Optimizing two-stage conditions may result in the production of
hydrogen from the primary reactor and methane from the second
reactor, making it a very attractive bio-energy producing system.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the optimization of
such systems with reactors both at mesophilic and/or thermophilic
temperatures, optimizing HRT and OLR in particular of the first
reactor (see Table 3). Best operative conditions and results as
regards on hydrogen production are widely discussed in the next
paragraph. In terms of methane yields, the two-stage AD process
may provide unique benefits when treating high strength waste
such as FW at high load. In fact, by digesting FW with fruit and veg-
etable waste at low OLRs (<2.0 g VS L 1 d 1), single-phase AD
resulted better than two-phase AD in terms of CH4 production
(up to +4%), while at higher level of OLR two-phase digestion
achieved higher CH4 production (Shen et al., 2013). Single and
two-phase operations were compared also at higher scale using a
digester system consisting of 5 m3 reactors treating FW and higher
methane yields were obtained by two-phase mesophilic digestion
compared to the single-stage operation (380 vs 446 L CH4 kg VS 1
L 1), but it must be pointed out that the applied VS loading rate for
the single stage was significantly higher with respect to the two-
stage (Grimberg et al., 2015). Yan et al. (2016) optimized acido-
genic off-gas utilization in a methanogenic UASB reactor for uti-
lization of H2 and CO2 via direct hydrogenotrophic
methanogenesis and methane recovery increased up to 38.6%.
The introduction of external hydrogen into the anaerobic digester
and the consequent promotion of the hydrogenotrophic methano-
genic community is a challenging strategy for in situ biogas
upgrading.
High rate digester, based on two-stage technology, was
designed for the treatment of FW at TS concentration of 1821%,
operating at high HRT 100 days attaining an average biogas pro-
duction of 0.16 m3 kg 1 VS d 1 with 5060% of methane (Dahiya
and Joseph, 2015). Thermophilic temperatures have been effec-
tively applied in 2-stage systems digesting FW, obtaining high
methane yields and avoiding inhibition by optimization of OLRs
and HRTs applying methanogenic sludge recirculation (Chinellato
et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2010; Micolucci et al., 2014), while operating
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
9
two-stage thermophilic reactors without recirculation generated
low methane yields despite the low TS content of the feed (Chu
et al., 2012). Moreover, some studies have compared different
combinations of mesophilic and thermophilic conditions in each
of the stages. Ventura et al. (2014) reported the highest methane
yields with a mesophilic first stage and a thermophilic second
stage, but the process was found to be less stable at higher temper-
atures in the second reactor.
4. Anaerobic conversion of food waste into hydrogen
Among alternative energy carriers, hydrogen is recognized to
have an important role in the development of sustainable energy
systems, having the highest energy per unit weight (143 kJ kg 1)
of any known gaseous fuel. Dark fermentation (DF) of low value
waste biomass is the most feasible biological technology for hydro-
gen production due to its low energy requirements and high pro-
duction rates meeting the circular economy requirements. H2 is
produced via dark fermentation (DF), mediated by bacteria capable
of synthesizing hydrogen producing enzymes, such as hydroge-
nase. In general, biohydrogen is generated from carbohydrate
degradation through the acidogenesis and acetogenesis route, thus
FW represents a suitable feedstock. Different metabolic pathways
can occur during DF of FW, depending on the adopted operating
conditions, resulting in either H2 production or depletion. In carbo-
hydrates fermentation, hydrogen evolution is related to acetate
and butyrate pathways, which involve the production of, respec-
tively, 4 and 2 mol of molecular H2 per mol of glucose degraded
(i.e. 544 and 272 mL H2/g glucose at 25 C). However, in mixed
microbial cultures, different biochemical pathways leading to the
formation of other products (propionate, ethanol and lactic acid)
lower the H2 production (de Gioannis et al., 2013). As a result,
the actual hydrogen yield is always lower than the theoretical
one. Operational parameters including substrate type, inoculum
type and origin, pre-treatment type, temperature, pH, reactor con-
figuration, OLR and HRT are the main factors affecting the H2 con-
version rate (de Gioannis et al., 2013). Recently, a wide number of
scientific studies on H2 production through DF of FW has been pub-
lished; most of these experiments have been conducted at lab or
pilot scale (Jayalakshmi et al., 2009; Wang and Zhao, 2009), while
no data on full-scale hydrogen fermentation plants are currently
available. A broad range of operating conditions have been applied,
so that the reported results are difficult to compare and even con-
flicting (Table 3).
An attempt to discuss, critically, the relative importance of each
parameter, as well their mutual interactions, on H2 production
efficiency is here reported. For each operating parameter, the
results reported in Table 3 refer to the best H2 yield or optimal sys-
tem conditions for 2-stage processes.
The seed microorganisms used as inoculum represent a key fac-
tor for H2 fermentation. In fact, most researchers use mixed micro-
bial cultures, such as sludge, soil or compost, because of low costs,
easiness in control and high versatility (de Gioannis et al., 2013).
However, by using mixed microflora, the coexistence of H2- pro-
ducing and consuming bacteria should be considered. In order to
enrich the seed inoculum in hydrogen producers and to inactivate
the consumers, namely the hydrogenotrophic methanogens, inocu-
lum is generally pre-treated. This process step relies on the better
chance of hydrogen producer bacteria to survive when exposed to
harsh environmental conditions, due to their ability to form spores.
The reported pre-treatments are heat-shock treatment (HST), aer-
ation, addition of chemical compounds, acid or alkali treatment,
freezing and thawing. The most common approach is HST, which
is generally carried out at temperature of 80100 C for 10
30 min (Chu et al., 2012; Elsamadony et al., 2015; Gadhe et al.,
 Table 4

10
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Operative conditions and anaerobic performances of co-digestion of food waste with other substrates.

Co-substrates Pretreatment Process type Operative conditions Performances References

(Shredding excluded)
Temp HRT OLR or S/I Duration (d) VS CH4 yield (L H2 yield (L H2
(C) (d) removal CH4 kg 1 VS) kg 1 VS)
(%)
FW + Animal Waste
FW + PMa (VS ratio) None Batch (0.5 L) 37 S/I = 3 (VS based) 35 NR Dennehy et al. (2016)
(20/80) 54% 320
(40/60) 63% 443
(60/40) 68% 489
(80/20) 71% 521
FW + DMb (VS ratio) None Batch (1 L) 35 Initial 30 NR El-Mashad and Zhang
1
loading = 3 gVS L (2010)
(32/68) 60% 282
(48/52) 68% 311
FW + DMb (VS ratio) None CSTR (2 L) 36 80 2 gVS L 1
d 1
180 NR 630 (fine- NR Agyeman and Tao
grinded FW) (2014)

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

(50/50) 470 (coarse-
grinded FW)
FW + ChMc None CSTR (3.5 L) 35 35 2.5 gVS L 1
d 1
225 NR 508 NR Wang et al. (2014)
(Alternate feeding)
FW + CSf (VS ratio) None CSTR (75 L) 36 30 2 gVS L 1
d 1
308 NR 220 NR Zhang et al. (2012)
(20/80)
FW + CMd (w/w) None Induced Bed Reactor 55 20 5.53 gCOD L 1
d 1
40 82.5% 330 NR Castrilln et al. (2013)
(10/90) (19 L)
FW + CoMg None SBR (24 L) 20 NR 0.84.2 gVS L 1
d 1
205 (Cycle NR 477 88 NR Rajagopal et al. (2017)
(NR) length = 7d) (last 24 cycles)
FW + Sewage Sludge
FW + PSh + WASi (v/v) None Batch (0.1 L) NR S/I = 4 NR NR NR Zhu et al. (2008)
(75/12.5/12.5) (Volume based) 104
(50/25/25) 112
(25/37.5/37.5) 10
FW + SSj (TS ratio) Batch (0.4 L) 37 S/I = 5 (TS based) 35 NR Zhang et al. (2016)
(50/50) None 50% 297
(50/50) Microwaves 48.1% 311
FW + WASi (w/w) None Two-stage batch (0.1 L) 37 S/I = 2.3 55 (h) 18%50% 25106 Liu et al. (2013)
(Several tests with FW contents = 10%; S/I = 3.0 (VS based) 1000 (h) 22%32% 216354
20%; 30%; 40%; 54%; 85%)
FW + WASi (TS ratio) None CSTR (2 L) 16.7 2 gVS L 1
d 1
NR Gou et al. (2014)
d
(33.3/66.6) 35 160 d 62% 250
(33.3/66.6) 45 178 d 60% 290
(33.3/66.6) 55 188 d 58% 370
FW + DSk (VS ratio) None CSTR (6 L) 35 20 NR NR Dai et al. (2013)
(30/70) 6.3 gVS L 1 d 1 46% 258
(50/50) 7.2 gVS L 1 d 1 58% 332
(70/30) 7.6 gVS L 1 d 1 67% 380
FW + WASi (VS ratio) None Single-stage pilot CSTR 35 20 0.85 gVS L 1 d 1 350 46% 960 (biogas) NR Zhang et al. (2013b)
(16.5/83.5) (20 tonns)
FW + WASi (VS ratio) None Two-stage pilot CSTR 35 NR NR 350 48% 440 (biogas) NR
(16.5/83.5) (4.5 + 15.5 tonns)
FW + Green and Agro/Waste
FW + OHl (w/w) None Batch (0.3 L) 37 S/I = 0.6 30 49% 505 84 Pagliaccia et al. (2016)
 Table 4 (continued)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Co-substrates Pretreatment Process type Operative conditions Performances References

(Shredding excluded)
Temp HRT OLR or S/I Duration (d) VS CH4 yield (L H2 yield (L H2
(C) (d) removal CH4 kg 1 VS) kg 1 VS)
(%)
(67/33) Thermal (VS based) 53% 91 87
FW + GWm (VS ratio) None Batch (1 L) 50 S/I = 1.6 25 90.8% 430 NR Liu et al. (2009)
(50/50) 50 S/I = 3.1 82.5% 359
50 S/I = 4.0 80.8% 390
50 S/I = 5.0 60.2% 337
35 S/I = 3.1 48.7% 185
(VS/VSS based)
FW + Sn (w/w) None Batch (1 L) 35 Initial NR NR NR Yong et al. (2015)
1
loading = 5 gVS L
(20/80) 171
(60/40) 299
(80/20) 313
FW + RHo (VS ratio) None Batch (1 L) 37 S/I = 0.25 45 55% 557 (biogas) NR Rizwan Haider et al.
(2015)

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

(98/2) S/I = 0.5 48% 458 (biogas)
S/I = 1.0 31% 267 (biogas)
S/I = 1.5 27% 97 (biogas)
S/I = 2.0 24% 71 (biogas)
(VS based)
FW + MHp (w/w) None CSTR (5 L) 37 68 1 gVS L 1 d 1
120 80.7% 400 NR Owamah and Izinyon
(2015)
(75/25) 27 2.5 gVS L 1 d 1 120 76.5% 408
19 3.5 gVS L 1 d 1 120 74.3% 447
15 4.5 gVS L 1 d 1 120 78.3% 482
FW + FVWq (VS ratio) None One-stage CSTR (8 L) 35 30 Single stage: 1.0 210 NR 328544 Shen et al. (2013)
3.5 gVS L 1 d 1
(81/19) Two-stage CSTR (5 L 10 1stage: 2.0 140 528
+ 8 L) 10 gVS L 1 d 1
10 2stage: 1.0 210 198546
5.0 gVS L 1 d 1
FW + RTLr (w/w) None Pilot scale one stage 35 30 6.8 gVS L 1 d 1 112 80.4% 153 NR Ratanatamskul and
(2500 L) Manpetch (2016)
1 1
(95/5) Pilot scale two stage 30 9.5 gVS L d 89.2% 283
(1000 L + 2500 L)
s 1 1
FW + LW None High Solids Digester 35 175 2 gCOD L d 141 NR 229 NR Drennan and Di
(280 L) (SRT) Stefano (2014)
(FW and LW mixed to obtain constant
OLR and reactor TS = 20%)
FW + RHo None Pilot scale Plug-Flow 37 26 5 gVS L 1
d 1
27 82.4% 446 (biogas) NR Jabeen et al. (2015)
(80 L)
1 1
(mixed to obtain a C/N = 28) 25 6 gVS L d 52 73.1% 399 (biogas)
1 1
14 9 gVS L d 30 35.4% 215 (biogas)
FW + Other Waste
FW + GTWu None CSTR (6 L) 35 30 NR 180 77.4% 620 Wu et al. (2016)
(NR) TPADx (10 L) 55 6 73.3% 520
+ 35 + 24
TPADry (7.5 L) 55 3 78.8% 470 13.5
+ 35 + 12
v 1 1
FW + BW (v/v) None Acidogenic 35 2 18 gVS L d 47 29% 78.5 Paudel et al. (2017)
(70/30) CSTR (8 L) 35 1 35 gVS L 1 d 1 34 27% 73.6
35 0.5 71 gVS L 1 d 1 27 26% 80.5
35 0.33 106 gVS L 1 d 1 25 NR 99.8

(continued on next page)

11
 12
Table 4 (continued)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Co-substrates Pretreatment Process type Operative conditions Performances References

(Shredding excluded)
Temp HRT OLR or S/I Duration (d) VS CH4 yield (L H2 yield (L H2
(C) (d) removal CH4 kg 1 VS) kg 1 VS)
(%)
Methanogenic 35 20 1.24 gVS L 1 d 1 70 52.5% 728 Zhang et al. (2015b)
CSTR (30 L) 35 15 1.76 gVS L 1 d 1 80 44% 676
FW + FILw (VS ratio) None CSTR (0.3 L) 37 20 4.1 gVS L 1 d 1 70 78% 479
(77/23) 15 6.2 gVS L 1 d 1 70 76% 452
10 8.3 gVS L 1 d 1 70 72% 506

NR = Not Reported; S/I = Substrate/Inoculum ratio; w/w = weight/weight; v/v = volume/volume.

e
SS = Sewage Sludge; tOFMSW = Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste.
.
a
PM = Pig Manure.
b
DM = Dairy Manure.
c
ChM = Chicken Manure.
d
CM = Cattle Manure.
f

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

CS = Cattle Slurry.
g
CoM = Cow Manure.
h
PS = Primary Sludge.
i
WAS = Waste Activated Sludge.
j
SS = Sewage Sludge.
k
DS = Dewatered Sludge.
l
OH = Olive Husk.
m
GW = Green Waste.
n
S = Straw.
o
RH = Rice Husk.
p
MH = Maize Husk.
q
FVW = Fruit and Vegetable Waste.
r
RTL = Rain Tree Leafs.
s
LW = Landscape Waste.
u
GTW = De-oiled Grease Trap Waste.
v
BW = Brown Water.
w
FIL = Fresh Incineration plant Leachate.
x
TPAD = Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion.
y
TPADr = TPAD with biomass recycling.
 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
2014; Han et al., 2015; Jayalakshmi et al., 2009; Kobayashi et al.,
2012; Lee et al., 2010; Nathao et al., 2013; Rafieenia et al., 2017;
Voelklein et al., 2016;). Only few studies have been conducted
without inoculum pre-treatment with the aim of reducing costs
(Algapani et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2013; Tawfik and El-Qelish,
2012; Yeshanew et al., 2016). As FW itself is a source of indigenous
microorganisms, also some DF experiments were performed with-
out inoculum addition (Elbeshbishy et al., 2011a; Jang et al., 2015;
Kim et al., 2011; Wang and Zhao, 2009), by pre-treating the sub-
strate, aimed at selecting fermentative microorganisms, with the
suppression of lactic acid bacteria (LAB). Based on the results of
their previous tests, Kim et al. (2011), applied HST treatment to
FW without inoculum addition, as they found that high tempera-
ture pre-treatment depressed the lactate production, contem-
porarily increasing the H2/butyrate production. The effect of
alkali-shock was investigated by Jang et al. (2015) and maximal
H2 yield in batch was obtained by pre-treating the FW at pH 11
12; otherwise, when the batch process switched to continuous
mode, H2 production dropped significantly due to the increased
activity of H2-consumers.
Studies on H2 production from FW were performed both under
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions (Table 3). Many authors
agree that thermophilic conditions are suitable to optimize the
enzymatic activity of hydrogenase during fermentation by Clostri-
dia, to inhibit the activity of H2 consumers and to suppress the
growth of LABs, thus assuring higher H2 yields. Process tempera-
ture shows a significant effect on the metabolic pathways, dictat-
ing the composition of soluble microbial products (SMPs) in the
fermentation medium: lactate was found to be predominant at
35 C, while butyrate was the main product at 50 C. pH is consid-
ered one of the most crucial operational parameter in H2 fermenta-
tion, as it determines the hydrogenase activity, metabolic pathway,
and dominant microbial population. Optimal pH values have been
reported in the range of 5.06.5 when the predominant metabolic
pathways are those associate with acetate and butyrate produc-
tion. On the contrary, neutral or higher pH seemed to favour etha-
nol and propionate production. Moreover, if pH drops at very low
values (4.5) a metabolic shift could occur which leads to lactic
acid accumulation (zero-H2 pathway) and solvent production (sol-
ventogenesis). To avoid reactor acidification, the pH of the system
is usually maintained at the optimal operating value by buffer or
alkali solutions addition (Han et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2011; Jang
et al., 2015), particularly in continuous H2-producing reactors.
Moreover, the influence of initial pH was correlated to lag phase
duration, synthesis of enzymes and spore germination (in heat
pre-treated inoculum) and the maximal H2 production was
observed for initial pH around 8 (de Gioannis et al., 2013; Kim
et al., 2011). As discussed in the precedent paragraph, in 2-stage
AD systems, internal recirculation of the effluent from the metha-
nogenic phase has been proposed as an efficient strategy to control
pH in the optimal range for the hydrogen producing bacteria, thus
improving the efficiency and economics of the DF process
(Chinellato et al., 2013; Yeshanew et al., 2016). Nevertheless, con-
troversial results were obtained by Kobayashi et al. (2012) because
by the recirculation of active methanogenic sludge an inhibitive
effect on H2 production was observed, probably due to the high
hydrogen-consuming activity of microorganisms present in the cir-
culated sludge. Moreover, in long-term operation, special attention
must be paid also to the increase of ammonia concentrations in the
reactors as TAN is recycled. Most of the DF hydrogen production
studies have been performed by means of small laboratory vessels
or stirred reactors, under wet conditions, operated under batch,
semi-continuous or continuous mode. The organic load applied
to the reactor greatly affects the system performances, as it deter-
mines VFAs accumulation and pH changes, but also modifications
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
13
in the active biomass composition. Concerning batch systems, also
in the case of hydrogen production, some studies proved that S/I
ratio influences the efficiency of the process, and, contrary to what
was observed for methane yields, efficient H2 production are
strictly related to high S/I ratios (Nathao et al., 2013; Pan et al.,
2008;). Under thermophilic conditions, a maximum H2 yield of
57 mL g 1VS was obtained at S/I of 7, while under mesophilic con-
ditions the highest yield of 39 mL H2 g 1VS was attained at S/I of 6
(Pan et al., 2008). For semi-continuous and continuous operations,
the HRT is one of the most crucial parameter, controlling substrate
hydrolysis, conversion efficiency, but also the type of active micro-
bial population and the metabolic pathways established in the sys-
tem. It is generally assumed that short HRTs promote H2
production due to methanogens wash-out from the reactor, while
long HRTs favour the growth of methanogenic activity and non H2-
producing acidogens inside the active biomass. Therefore, both
OLR and HRT need optimization as controlling parameters to inhi-
bit the activity of H2 consuming bacteria in DF process. Comparing
the data reported in Table 3, most researchers, with very few
exceptions, have set HRT in the range 14 days (de Gioannis
et al., 2013; Redondas et al., 2012), operating at high OLRs from
8 to 40 kg VS m 3d 1. Nevertheless, hydrogen yield up to 38 L H2
kg 1VSfed was reported by Angeriz-Campoy et al. (2015) operating
a CSTR in thermophilic conditions at OLR 66 g VS L 1d 1 with a
mixture of food waste and OFMSW. The stepwise increase of the
OLR from 15.10 to 37.75 kg VSfed m 3d 1 may cause a decrease of
H2 production and, at the same time, an increase of lactic acid con-
centration by an integrated two-stage process (Wang and Zhao,
2009). Also Voelklein et al. (2016) noted a close correlation
between increasing OLRs of fermentation reactor (615 kg VS L 1-
d 1), with fixed SRT of 4 days, and high quantities of ethanol and
lactic acid in the fermentation broth. The continuous stirred tank
reactors (CSTR) is the most commonly used reactor type, as the
biomass is suspended and well mixed in the fermentation liquid,
this configuration guarantees an efficient substrate uptake by the
anaerobic bacteria. However, due to CSTR vulnerability to environ-
mental shocks, other types of reactors have been exploited, too.
Continuous mixed immobilized sludge reactor (CMISR) and anaer-
obic baffled reactor (ABR) were used, respectively, by Han et al.
(2015) and Tawfik and El-Qelish (2012) in order to enhance bio-
mass retention in the reactor by physical immobilization of sludge
through various carriers. These systems allow operating the reac-
tors at higher OLRs compared to CSTRs, maintaining a stable fer-
mentation process and representing a practical solution at
industrial scale. As regards to one stage H2 fermentation, higher
gas yields are generally reported in batch experiments rather than
with semi-continuous or continuous operations (Table 3). This is
probably related to the short period in batch fermentation, which
permits to easier re-establish proper environmental conditions in
the system, resulting in high H2 productions and yields. On the
contrary, for long term operations, the continuous feeding of a
low buffering capacity substrate as FW could likely lead to system
failure due to pH drop, low nitrogen input, and biomass metabolic
shifting. Unfortunately, even under optimized process conditions, a
considerable portion of the substrate energy content remains in
the effluent from the H2 fermentation, promoting research activity
and technological development towards the just mentioned two-
phase AD systems to improve the overall FW conversion yields
recovering both hydrogen, from first, and methane, from second
reactor. In two-stage systems, the first reactor is generally oper-
ated at lower OLRs with respect to those applied for one stage reac-
tors (Table 3), and H2 yields in two-stage systems operating at
thermophilic conditions vary between 60 and 150 mL H2 g 1VS,
and are significantly higher with respect to those obtained in
mesophilic ones.
14 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
5. Strategies to improve the anaerobic digestion of food waste
Complex heterogeneous organic materials such as FW range
from highly recalcitrant material to extremely biodegradable com-
pounds, so the best option to improve the AD performances is a
case-specific and properly designed strategy considering not only
FW characteristics and composition but also the final aim of the
study. In fact, feedstock pre-treatment is suitable in the case of
recalcitrant, lignocellulosic FW to improve AD performances when
hydrolysis is the rate limiting step, while, in the case of biodegrad-
able FW, the long-term digestion leads often to inhibition phenom-
ena due to intermediate accumulation suggesting the need of co-
digestion with other substrates to stabilize the entire process
(Wang et al., 2014). In the subsequent paragraphs both strategies
are reviewed and critically discussed.
5.1. Anaerobic co-digestion with other substrates to improve stability
Co-digestion of FW with other organic substrates has currently
attracted increasing interest, making AD more efficient, enhancing
biogas production, promoting synergistic effects of microorgan-
isms, stabilizing digestate and increasing its amount of key nutri-
ents (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Gou et al., 2014; Liu et al.,
2013; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014; Nghiem et al., 2017). In the liter-
ature of the last years, various organic waste streams have been
investigated to co-digest FW for biogas production, and the most
frequent are animal manures, sewage sludge, green waste and
agro-waste (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014). The mixture ratios are
selected in order to favor positive interactions as for instance the
right nutrients and moisture balance, to avoid inhibition and to
optimize methane production (Zhang et al., 2012). However, the
wrong combination of co-substrates can lead to negative results.
The most important literature results regarding co-digestion of
FW with different organic waste residues are summarized in
Table 4.
Generally, animal waste is considered an excellent co-substrate
because of its alkalinity, low C/N ratio and for its wide variety of
macro- and micronutrients needed by the anaerobic consortium
of microorganisms. Zhang et al. (2012) confirmed that the co-
digestion of FW with cattle slurry, in 20:80 ratio, permitted to
reach greater stability operating at OLR of 2 kg VS m 3 day 1.
Operating at the same OLR, Agyeman and Tao (2014) investigated
the effects of FW particle size on co-digestion with dairy manure
(50:50), finding that specific methane yield increased up to 630 L
CH4 kg 1VSfed feeding fine-grinded FW in mesophilic conditions.
Lowering the temperature to 20 C assured good methane yields
and stability by co-digesting FW and cow manure (Rajagopal
et al., 2017). It is worth to note that in most published papers,
the mixtures of FW and animal waste matter are typically com-
posed by low percentages of FW (ideal substrate for H2 production
due to the high content of sugars), consequently no data are avail-
able in the literature as regards hydrogen generation during co-
digestion. Another typical co-substrate of FW is sewage sludge,
characterized by low C/N ratio and low organic content that guar-
antee the C/N balance improving microbial activity and lowering
intermediate accumulation, as ammonia (Dai et al., 2013; Liu
et al., 2013)). In fact, during co-digestion batch tests no process
failure was reported and methane production increased signifi-
cantly (Naran et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2016). In semi-continuous
co-digestion of FW and WAS (33:67 ratio) the contemporary
increase of HRT from 160 d to 188 d and process temperature up
to thermophilic conditions affected positively the methane yield
and VS reduction rate (Gou et al., 2014). Operating a mesophilic
digester at shorter HRT (20 d) and high OLRs (up to 7.6 g VS L 1-
d 1), co-digestion with dewatered sludge assured stability and
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
higher methane yields, with respect to those observed with WAS
(Dai et al., 2013). As just highlighted for animal waste, also for sew-
age sludge hydrogen production from co-fermentation with FW is
still limited (Liu et al., 2013). Hydrogen yields ranging from 10 to
104 L H2 kg 1VSfed were obtained in batch mode with high S/I
(up to 4) treating different mixtures of FW, primary sludge and
WAS. As expected, the higher the FW content in the mixture, the
higher was the H2 yield (Zhu et al., 2008). Liu et al. (2013) obtained
up to 106 L H2 kg 1VSfed and 354 L CH4 kg 1VSfed with the 85% of
FW in a two-stage co-digestion batch system with WAS. Co-
digestion of FW with sewage sludge results advantageous where
spare digestion capacity of existing WWTPs is available (Mata-
Alvarez et al., 2014) offering beneficial synergies for the water
industry and authorities responsible for FW management (Zhang
et al., 2013b). Nevertheless, several bottlenecks as inert impurities
in FW, regulatory uncertainty, lack of suitable options for biogas
utilization, impact on bio-solids agricultural use, have been identi-
fied. A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore necessary to face
these challenges and to promote co-digestion as a key technology
for a circular economy (Nghiem et al., 2017). Besides sewage
sludge or animal manures, agro-food waste and green waste are
other possible co-substrates with FW, mainly because of the very
low cost associated with their collection (Chen et al., 2014). More-
over, the mono-digestion of lignocellulosic green/agro waste faces
different challenges, because of the poor nutrient content, long
retention times and potential high levels of inhibitory compounds
(Gianico et al., 2013). At the same time, the high content of recal-
citrant lignin in green/agro waste might reduce the biodegradable
rate of FW (Drennan and Di Stefano, 2014), thus reducing the risk
of VFAs accumulation (Chen et al., 2014; Rizwan Haider et al.,
2015). The relatively low biodegradability of landscape waste,
makes it an unsuitable substrate for-co-digestion with the aim to
increase the C/N ratio (Drennan and Di Stefano, 2014). Co-
digestion of FW with a substrate with high content of bioavailable
carbon is therefore recommended to allow AD at loading rates up
to 15 g COD L 1d 1. Jabeen et al. (2015) co-digested FW with rice
husk in a pilot scale plug-flow reactor and, biogas production, reac-
tor stability and VS removal efficiency decreased by OLR increase
and HRT reduction. Conversely, Owamah and Izinyon (2015)
obtained increasing methane yields (up to 482 L CH4 kg 1VS) by
increasing the OLR, up to 4.5 g VS L 1d 1, in a co-digestion of FW
with maize husk, probably due to the appropriate high FW fraction
(i.e. 75%). An increase in methane yields by increasing the FW con-
tent in batch mesophilic co-digestion with straw was reported by
Yong et al. (2015). As regards batch co-digestion, also in this case
an inverse correlation between CH4 yield and load (expressed as
S/I) was observed, during mesophilic and thermophilic co-
digestion of FW with green waste or rice husk (Liu et al., 2009;
Rizwan Haider et al., 2015). Interesting prototypes as single-stage
(2500 L) and two-stage (1000 L + 2500 L) anaerobic digesters treat-
ing FW and rain tree leaf have been developed and operated at high
OLRs, resulting in high VS removal efficiencies, but poor CH4 yields
(153 L CH4 kg 1VSfed and 283 L CH4 kg 1VSfed for single- and two-
stage) (Ratanatamskul and Manpetch, 2016). The feasibility of the
co-digestion process of FW with a further wide range of other co-
substrates has been widely investigated. Zhang et al. (2015b) stud-
ied the co-digestion with fresh leachate rich in trace elements and
alkalinity promoting therefore methane production assuring
buffering ability of AD system. Paudel et al. (2017) carried out a
two-stage co-digestion of FW with brown wastewater, obtaining
up to 99.8 L H2 kg 1VSfed in the first stage and up to 728 L CH4
kg 1VSfed in the second stage. The use of de-oiled gras trap waste
as co-substrate provided excellent conversion yields in single-
stage digestion process and in a temperature-phased process with
biomass recycling system (Wu et al., 2016).
 Table 5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Pre-treatment impact on solubilization and AD anaerobic digestion performances.

Type Substrate origin Pretreatment Pretreatment conditions Process type and parameters Solubilisation Results References
method
THERMAL
Source Autoclave T = 160 C; p = 6.2 bars T = 37 C; F/I = 1 (VS); Working +16% sCOD, +22% NH4-N 445 mLCH4/gVSfed vs 501 mL Tampio et al.
segregated volume = 0.4 L; CH4/gVSfed (-11%) (2014)
domestic FW Duration = 35 days
Cafeteria food Autoclave T max = 134 C; p max = 3.2 bar; T = 37 C; F/I = 0.6 (VS); pHi set +35% sCOD, +75% soluble sugars**; +58% 23 mLH2/gVSfed vs 5 mLH2/ Pagliaccia
waste Retention time = 20 min to 7 Working volume = 0.3 L; soluble proteins** gVSfed (+360%); 385 mLCH4/ et al. (2016)
Duration = 30 days gVSfed vs 446 mLCH4/gVSfed
( 14%)
University Autoclave T max = 121 C; Retention T = 35 C; Load = 0.8 gVS; No +27% sCOD, +19% soluble sugars 39.2 mLH2/gVSfed vs 0.4 mLH2/ Hu et al.
Canteen time = 15 min inoculum addition; Working gVSfed ** (+9700%) (2014)
volume = 0.03 L;
Duration = 5 days;
Kitchen waste Thermal T = 120 C; Retention time = 50 min T = 35 C; 2 phase system; 899 mLCH4/gVSfed ** vs Li and Jin
Working volume 607mLCH4/gVSfed ** (+48%) (2015)
acidogenic = 5.5 L;

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

Duration = 21 days;
Kitchen waste; Thermal T = 175 C; Retention time = 60 min T = 35 C; F/I = 0.2; pHi set to +114% soluble sugars **, +204% soluble 7.9% on methane yield Liu et al.
vegetable/fruit 7.5; Working volume = 0.25 L; proteins ** (kitchen waste); +312% soluble mLCH4/gVSfed (kitchen (2012)
residue Duration = 15 days; sugars **, +185% soluble proteins ** waste); 11.7% on methane
(vegetable/fruit residue) yield mLCH4/gVSfed
(vegetable/fruit residue)
Synthetic food Thermal T = 80 C; Retention time = 90 min T = 33 C; F/I = 0.5 (VS); 647 mLCH4/gVSfed vs 426 Ariunbaatar
waste (various) Working volume = 1 L; mLCH4/gVSfed (+52%) et al. (2014)
Duration = 220 days;
BATCH
Dining hall Microwave Microwave frequency = 2450 MHz; T = 37 C; F/I = 5 (TS); Co- 25% sCOD **, 52% soluble sugars **, +45% 316 mLCH4/gVSfed (ratio MW- Zhang et al.
Ambient pressure; Power = 600 W; digestion with sewage sludge soluble proteins** FW:SS 3:2) vs 71 mLCH4/gVSfed (2016)
Tmax = 100 C; No retention time (ratio FW:SS = 3:2 TS based) (only FW) (+347%)
Working volume = 0.4 L;
Duration = 35 days
M-OFMSW Microwave Microwave frequency = 2450 MHz; T = 33 C; Working +21% sCOD **, +12.5% soluble proteins **
+8% on total biogas Shahriari
(representative Tmax = 115 C; Ramp time = 40 min; volume = 0.155 L; production** et al. (2012)
of Canadian Retention time = 1 min Duration = 30 days*
kitchen waste)
MECHANICAL
Campus Ultrasounds Power = 1200 W; T = 37 C; F/I = 4 (COD/VSS); +7% sCOD 48 mLH2/gVSfed vs 15 mLH2/ Gadhe et al.
cafeteria Frequency = 20 kHz; Tmax = 30 C; pHi set to 5.5; Working gVSfed (220%) (2014)
Retention time = 15 min volume = 0.125 L;
Food waste Ultrasounds Energy intensity = 7300 kJ/kgTSS**; T = 35 C; F/I (VSS) = 60**; 206 mLCH4/gVSSremoved vs Naran et al.
treatment plant (various) Retention time = 30 min Working vol = 0.06 L; 137 mLCH4/gVSremoved (+50%) (2016)
Duration = 20 days
University HVPD (High Pulse voltage = 40 kV; Electrode T = 35 C; F/I = 0.5 (VS); pHi set +16% sCOD, +53% soluble sugars, +1149% 315 mLCH4/gCODremoved vs Zou et al.
Canteen Voltage Pulse distance = 5 mm; Pulse to 7; Working volume = 1 L; soluble proteins (40 kV, 5 mm, 300 Hz, 234mLCH4/gCODremoved (2016)
Discharge); frequency = 400 Hz; Retention Duration = 45 days * 30 min); +107% sCOD, +25% soluble sugars, (+35%)
(various) time = 30 min +171% soluble proteins (34 kV, 5 mm,
400 Hz, 30 min)

(continued on next page)

15
 16
Table 5 (continued)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),

Type Substrate origin Pretreatment Pretreatment conditions Process type and parameters Solubilisation Results References
method

BIOLOGICAL
University Enzymatic Glucoamylase loading = 10 U/ T = 35 C; F/I = 0.5 gVS/gVSS**; +1547% sCOD*,** 468 mLCH4/gVSfed vs 198 Kiran et al.
Cafeteria hydrolysis gdryFW T = 60 C; contact Working volume = 0.3 L**; mLCH4/gVSfed (+137%) (2015)
time = 24 h Duration = 30 days;
University Enzymatic Glucoamylase concentration = 2 g/L; T = 35 C; F/I = 5 (TS/VS)**; +25% sCOD*,** 817 mLCH4/gVSfed vs 610 Yin et al.
Canteen hydrolysis T = 60 C; contact time = 24 h Working volume = 0.16 L; mLCH4/gVSfed (+34%) (2016)
Duration = 30 days*;
Synthetic food Aeration Air flow rate = 5 L/h; Contact T = 35 C; F/I = 0.3 (VS); 2 19  33% on H2 production Rafieenia
waste time = 24 h phase system; Working mLH2/gVSfed; 10  +46% on et al. (2017)
volume = 1 L; methane production mLCH4/
Duration = 73 days* gVSfed according to food waste
type
CHEMICAL
Research Alkaline Reagent = 6 N KOH; pHfin = 12; T = 37 C; Load = 30 gCODcarb/ 162 mLH2/gVSfed (no control Jang et al.
institute Contact time = 6 h L; pHi set to 8.0; Working data were reported) (2015)

C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx

cafeteria volume = 0.3 L;
Duration = 28 h*
Campus Surfactants T80 concentration = 2.8%; PEG T = 55 C; F/I = 22.6 (VS)**; pHi 86 mLH2/gCODi vs 62 mLH2/ Elsamadony
restaurant concentration = 1.7 g/L T = 37 C; set to 7.0; Working gCODi (37%) et al. (2015)
Contact time = 8 h volume = 0.18 mL;
Duration = 60 h
COMBINATION
M-OFMSW Microwave H2O2 added = 0.38 g/gTS at 30% (v/ T = 33 C; Working +35% sCOD **, +101% soluble proteins** +6% on total biogas Shahriari
(representative + H2O2 v); Contact time = 1 h; Microwave volume = 0.155 L; production** et al. (2012)
of Canadian frequency = 2450 MHz; Tmax = 85 C; Duration = 30 days*
kitchen waste) Ramp time = 40 min; Retention
time = 1 min;
Organics Ultrasounds Power = 500 W; Frequency = 20 kHz; T = 37 C; No inoculum +30% sCOD *,**; +31% soluble sugars; +35% 118 mLH2/gVSfed vs 42 mLH2/ Elbeshbishy
Processing with acid Tmax = 30 C; specific energy addition; pHi set to 5.5; soluble proteins *,** gVSfed (+181%) et al.
Facility (various) input = 7900 kJ/kgTS; pHfin = 3.0 Working volume = 0.2; (2011a)
(1 N HCl); Contact time = 24 h at 4 C Duration = 15 days *

SEMICONTINUOUS
THERMAL
Source Autoclave T = 160 C; T = 37 C; +16% sCOD, +22% NH4-N 439 mLCH4/gVSfed vs 465 Tampio et al.
segregated p = 6.2 bars OLR = 4 kgVS/m3 d; mLCH4/gVSfed (-6%) (2014)
domestic FW HRT = 47 d (Untr 58 d);
duration = 162 days**;
Working volume = 11 L
Synthetic Microwave Microwave frequency = 2450 MHz; T = 35C; +19% sCOD** 1.50 LCH4/L
gVSremoved
d vs Shahriari
kitchen waste Tmax = 145C; OLR = 3.26 kgVS/ m3
d; 1.31 LCH4/L
gVSremoved
d et al. (2012)
Ramp = 2.7C/min 2 phase system; (+14.5%)
HRTacidogenic = 2d;
HRTmethanogenic = 7d;
Working volume = 0.3/0.6L
Duration = 20d*
MECHANICAL
Organics Ultrasounds Power = 500 W; T = 37C; +9% sCOD, +17% soluble sugars, +20% 247 mLH2/gVSSfed vs 180 Elbeshbishy
Processing Frequency = 20 kHz; CSTR reactor (HRT = 2 days; soluble proteins mLH2/gVSSfed (+37%) et al.
Facility Tmax = 30C; OLR = 14.5 for untreated and (2011b)
Specific energy input = 5000 kJ/kgTS; 13.4 gVSS/L
d for sonicated);
Retention time = 24 min Working volume = 2 L;
Duration = 45 days;
*
Deducted from the graph.
**
Calculated.
 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
5.2. Food waste pre-treatments and impact on AD performances
Every pre-treatment, in fact, acts with a different mechanism,
with several variables playing a role and it is therefore difficult to
compare them and to assess the ideal pre-treatment type because
of the lack of common and standardised protocols (Carlsson et al.,
2012). In this section, the pre-treatments applied to food waste
have been revised and evaluated taking into consideration both sol-
ubilisation and H2/CH4/biogas yields. Table 5 reports the best com-
bination of pre-treatment parameters, leading to the best
performance, i.e. the one that had the highest gain in H2/CH4/biogas
yield if compared to the control (untreated substrate).
As showed in Table 5 the solubilisation of organic matter (usu-
ally assessed by means of soluble COD measure) is not directly
related to the subsequent gain in CH4 or H2 yield, but sometimes
the correlation is even negative. This leads to an urgent need in
understanding more deeply the inner mechanisms of the various
pre-treatments on the substrate characteristics, so to understand
how the variable contents of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and
lignocellulosic fractions present in organic waste are associated
to pre-treatment. Moreover, most FW pre-treatments have been
still studied in lab scale batch reactors, while semi-continuous tri-
als are still very limited (Table 5). In this chapter, mechanical pre-
treatments aimed to reduce particle size such as grinding or
milling, and to screen FW (screw press, disc screens, magnets,
etc.) were not considered as they are already successfully imple-
mented in full-scale treatment plants.
Thermal pre-treatments have been extensively investigated and
are already implemented in full-scale for what concerns sewage
sludge and lignocellulosic biomasses. Its mechanism of action sig-
nificantly alters both physical and chemical properties, resulting
generally in increased solubilisation and improved digestate dewa-
terability and hygienization. Higher temperatures or longer reten-
tion times affect significantly the degree of solubilisation, but this
is not always connected to a final energy yield gain. At 160 C lig-
nin solubilisation starts, but at the same time lignin solubilisation
is responsible for the formation of inhibitory phenolic compounds.
For temperature higher than 170 C there might be also some con-
densation reactions (e.g. Maillard reactions) which turns out to be
hardly biodegradable or even refractory (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014).
So, for all these reasons, increased yields have been mostly
observed in the lower temperature range, and main results show
a decreased yield related to high T pre-treatment (Table 5), while
there is an increasing trend of CH4 yield at T < 120 C. Tampio
et al. (2014) and Liu et al. (2012), reported a 7.9  11.7% decrease
in methane yields after thermal pre-treatment at T > 160 C, even
though a high solubilisation degree. However, thermal pre-
treatments for H2 production seem to be a good option: a 92-fold
upgrade in hydrogen production by pure culture was obtained
(Hu et al., 2014) Most of the pure cultures tested (3 out of 4) were
efficient in utilizing FW to produce H2 and gave a substantial yield
gain even without pH control (Hu et al., 2014). Similar results were
reported for a single stage AD of pre-treated cafeteria FW, where
sugars solubilisation enhanced significantly H2 yield, affecting neg-
atively the successive CH4 yield because of the lack of bioavailable
substance just transformed (Pagliaccia et al., 2016). Microwave
(MW) pre-treatment is an appealing alternative method to conven-
tional heating because of lower energy requirements (no heat loss
through convection or conduction), and polarization of macro-
molecules chains leading to the hydrogen bonds breakage.
Nonetheless, results are not that satisfactory: despite an increase
of organics solubilisation with T, biogas gain at 115 C was only
8%, and AD process collapsed for the 175 C pre-treated samples
(Shahriari et al., 2012), highlighting that even MW pre-treatment
is prone to melanoidins formation. Also by semi-continuous tests,
the results were not satisfactory (Shahriari et al., 2013).
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
17
Mechanical pre-treatments are, in general, far less sensitive to
substrate specific characteristics and they exclude the risk of inhi-
bitory compounds formation, but they all require high-energy con-
sumption (electricity). Ultrasounds pre-treatment at 20 kHz acts as
mechanical pre-treatment by disrupting the biomass due to strong
mechanical shear forces. Gadhe et al.(2014) and Elbeshbishy et al.
(2011a) applied ultrasounds for H2 production enhancement
achieving +220% and +181% gain, respectively, by sonicating food
waste at high specific energy. Solubilisation was directly propor-
tional to sonication time and energy, but the degree of solubilisa-
tion was generally lower compared to that obtained with
thermal pre-treatment. FW pre-treatment for methane production
gave a +50% gain by sonicating the substrate at 7300 kJ kg 1TSS
(Naran et al., 2016). Anyway, specific methane yield of control
AD with untreated FW was very low, namely 137 mL CH4 g 1-
VSSrem versus a typical average value of 400 30 mL CH4 g 1 VSrem.
This might be due to the high value of the S/I chosen (60 on VSS
based), which might have led to inhibition of the process. Zou
et al. (2016) tried a first attempt of HVPD (high voltage pulse dis-
charge) on FW. It consists of a pulsed power supplier and a multi-
needle-to-plate reactor, which creates a rapidly pulsing (several
kHz), high-voltage electric field to disrupt and break up the cellular
membrane, complex organic solids, and macromolecules. HVPD
pre-treated FW samples generated more methane than the control,
and from the point of energy usage efficiency, output methane pro-
duction was calculated to be equal to 5.7 times than energy con-
sumption, which makes it more appealing than sonication.
Biological pre-treatments include both enzymatic and aerobic
methods (to enhance hydrolytic rate). Enzymatic pre-treatment
intensify the hydrolytic activity improving biogas production.
Interesting application of FW by fungal mash to obtain glucose-
rich hydrolyzate for ethanol production is reported elsewhere
(Capson-Tojo et al., 2016). Enzymes can be added to the substrate
prior to digestion as pre-treatment or directly in the digester. As
pre-treatment there is the inherent risk that released sugars are
rapidly consumed by the endogenous microorganisms present in
the FW, so a sterilisation step might be required but this option
is generally too expensive to be pursued in full-scale implementa-
tion. In full-scale scenario, adding the enzymes directly in the
digester is the most usual configuration (Carrere et al., 2016). Gen-
erally, even though enzymatic pre-treatments require much less
energy input than mechanical and thermal ones without chemicals
addition, cost, enzyme selectivity (lipase or glucoamylase) and pro-
cess efficiency remain major issues. Moreover the relatively long
contact time needed (24 h at least) might not be a feasible option
for full-scale plants, despite the high methane enhancement
obtained in batch tests (Kiran et al., 2015; Yin et al., 2016). Aeration
prior to anaerobic digestion is another option, in order to induce
faster hydrolysis rates, because of the higher production of hydro-
lytic enzymes, induced by an increased specific microbial growth
(Ariunbaatar et al., 2014). In addition, pre-aeration reduces accu-
mulation of VFAs, thus improving the start-up stability of AD.
Rafieenia et al. (2017) investigate aeration efficiency on different
synthetic FW types before two-stage AD highlighting that average
hydrogen production decreased, probably due to the low SRT (3 d)
in the first reactor and parallel consumption of the readily
biodegradable carbon for microbial cell growth during substrate
aeration. However, during the subsequent stage, CH4 production
was higher for pre-aerated protein- and carbohydrate-rich samples
than in non-pre-aerated ones; conversely, pre-aeration of the lipid
rich-substrate was not effective, causing a decrease of energy
potential compared to untreated sample.
Strong acids, alkalis or oxidants are commonly used reagents to
solubilise biopolymers favouring the availability of the associated
organic compounds for anaerobic conversion. Solubilisation levels
achieved with chemical pre-treatments are usually very high,
18 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
much higher with respect to those obtained with other pre-
treatments, but the risk of chemical contamination and recalcitrant
compounds formation should be considered. Because of the high
solubilisation capacity, chemical pre-treatment is not suitable for
easily biodegradable substrates such as FW: high rate carbohy-
drates degradation and subsequent VFA accumulation convey in
methanogenesis inhibition (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014). A different
approach using surfactants (Tween 80 and polyethylene glycol,
individually or combined) to modify substrate structure and to
improve enzymatic hydrolysis of particulate organic matter in
order to achieve higher H2 production was successfully reported
by Elsamadony et al. (2015). Pre-treatments are usually coupled
to lower the severity of each pre-treatment reducing the intrinsic
disadvantages as inhibition, recalcitrant products formation, long
retention times, specificity of the enzyme, energy costs. Combina-
tion is also applied in the case a single pre-treatment is not suffi-
cient to obtain the desired result due to its specific mechanism
of action. Elbeshbishy et al. (2011a) tried to couple ultrasonic with
acid, alkali and heat shock pre-treatment for H2 production with-
out using extra seed (FW was inoculum and substrate at the same
time). The only significant increase compared to the single pre-
treated sample was due to acid addition, resulting in +181% higher
hydrogen yield than the control. Even though results are promising
in this case, an economic analysis is needed to determine whether
the combination is energetically feasible and economically conve-
nient. As the pretreatment of FW is relatively new, no real cost esti-
mation has been reported in literature to date.
6. Conclusions
This review explored recent advances in the research field of
FW conversion into energy in the framework of the circular econ-
omy. It resulted that FW is a complex and heterogeneous substrate,
with variable biodegradability, and consequently AD results can
vary significantly during the scaling up of the process, from batch
BMP tests to semi-continuous performances. Prudence is needed
by pre-treating FW to improve solubilization, since hydrolysis is
not necessarily the limiting step, and the risks related to typical
acids accumulation may be emphasized. In situ methane enrich-
ment processes, as bubble columns for selective desorption of
CO2 need more applicative research.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the PRIN 2012 project titled
Advanced Processes to convert organic wastes in innovative, sus-
tainable and useful products co-financed by the Italian Minister of
University and Scientific Research (MIUR). Authors wish to thank
dr. Giuseppe Mininni and Prof. Fausto Gironi for their valuable
support.
References
Agyeman, F.O., Tao, W., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy
manure: effects of food waste particle size and organic loading rate. J. Environ.
Manage. 133, 268274.
Algapani, D.E., Qiao, W., Su, M., di Pumpo, F., Wandera, S.M., Adani, F., Dong, R.,
2016. Bio-hydrolysis and bio-hydrogen production from food waste by
thermophilic and hyperthermophilic anaerobic process. Bioresour. Technol.
216, 768777.
Angeriz-Campoy, R., lvarez-Gallego, C.J., Romero-Garca, L.I., 2015. Thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)
with food waste (FW): enhancement of bio-hydrogen production. Bioresour.
Technol. 194, 291296.
Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Frunzo, L., Esposito, G., Lens, P.N.L., Pirozzi, F., 2014.
Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by thermal and ozonation
pretreatment methods. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 142149.
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Ariunbaatar, J., Di Perta, E.S., Panico, A., Frunzo, L., Esposito, G., Lens, P.N.L., Pirozzi,
F., 2015. Effect of ammoniacal nitrogen on one-stage and two-stage anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Waste Manage. 38, 388398.
Browne, J.D., Murphy, J.D., 2013. Assessment of the resource associated with
biomethane from food waste. Appl. Energy 104, 170177.
Capson-Tojo, G., Rouez, M., Crest, M., Steyer, J.-P., Delgens, J.-P., Escudi, R., 2016.
Food waste valorization via anaerobic processes: a review. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Bio/Technol. 15 (3), 499547.
Carlsson, M., Lagerkvist, A., Morgan-Sagastume, F., 2012. The effects of substrate
pretreatment on anaerobic digestion: a review. Waste Manage. 32, 16341650.
Carrere, H., Antonopoulou, G., Affes, R., Passos, F., Battimelli, A., Lyberatos, G., Ferrer,
I., 2016. Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic
digestion: from lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresour. Technol.
199, 386397.
Castrilln, L., Maran, E., Fernndez-Nava, Y., Ormaechea, P., Quiroga, G., 2013.
Thermophilic co-digestion of cattle manure and food waste supplemented with
crude glycerin in induced bed reactor (IBR). Bioresour. Technol. 136, 7377.
Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 40444064.
Chen, X., Yan, W., Sheng, K., Sanati, M., 2014. Comparison of high solids to liquid
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 154,
215221.
Chinellato, G., Cavinato, C., Bolzonella, D., Heaven, S., Banks, C.J., 2013. Biohydrogen
production from food waste in batch and semi-continuous conditions:
evaluation of a two-phase approach with digestate recirculation for pH
control. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38, 43514360.
Cho, S.K., Im, W.T., Kim, D.H., Kim, M.H., Shin, H.S., Oh, S.E., 2013. Dry anaerobic
digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and
methanogenic community analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 131, 210217.
Chu, C.F., Xu, K.Q., Li, Y.Y., Inamori, Y., 2012. Hydrogen and methane potential based
on the nature of food waste materials in a two-stage thermophilic fermentation
process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37 (14), 1061110618.
Dahiya, S., Joseph, J., 2015. High rate biomethanation technology for solid waste
management and rapid biogas production: an emphasis on reactor design
parameters. Bioresour. Technol. 188, 7378.
Dai, X., Duan, N., Dong, B., Dai, L., 2013. High-solids anaerobic co-digestion of
sewage sludge and food waste in comparison with mono digestions: stability
and performance. Waste Manage. 33, 308316.
De Baere, L., Mattheeuws, B., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste in Europe status, experience and prospects in: Waste
Management, vol. 3 Recycling and Recovery, TK, 517526.
De Gioannis, G., Muntoni, A., Polettini, A., Pomi, R., 2013. A review of dark
fermentation hydrogen production from biodegradable municipal waste
fractions. Waste Manage. 33 (6), 13451361.
Dennehy, C., Lawlor, P.G., Croize, T., Jiang, Y., Morrison, L., Gardiner, G.E., Zhan, X.,
2016. Synergism and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid concentrations
during food waste and pig manure anaerobic co-digestion. Waste Manage. 56,
173180.
Dong, L., Zhenhong, Y., Yongming, S., 2010. Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion
of water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW).
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 27222728.
Drennan, M.F., Di Stefano, T.D., 2014. High solids co-digestion of food and landscape
waste and the potential for ammonia toxicity. Waste Manage. 34, 12891298.
Elbeshbishy, E., Hafez, H., Dhar, B.R., Nakhla, G., 2011a. Single and combined effect
of various pretreatment methods for biohydrogen production from food waste.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36, 1137911387.
Elbeshbishy, E., Hafez, H., Nakhla, G., 2011b. Ultrasonication for biohydrogen
production from food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36, 28962903.
Elbeshbishy, E., Nakhla, G., Hafez, H., 2012. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of
food waste and primary sludge: influence of inoculum pre-incubation and
inoculum source. Bioresour. Technol. 110, 1825.
El-Mashad, H.M., Zhang, R., 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy
manure and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 40214028.
Elsamadony, M., Tawfik, A., Suzuki, M., 2015. Surfactant-enhanced biohydrogen
production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) via dry
anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy 149, 272282.
Facchin, V., Cavinato, C., Fatone, F., Pavan, P., Cecchi, F., Bolzonella, D., 2013. Effect of
trace element supplementation on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food
waste in batch trials: the influence of inoculum origin. Biochem. Eng. J. 70, 71
77.
Fisgativa, H., Tremier, A., Dabert, P., 2016. Characterizing the variability of food
waste quality: a need for efficient valorization through anaerobic digestion.
Waste Manage. 50, 264274.
Gadhe, A., Sonawane, S.S., Varma, M.N., 2014. Ultrasonic pretreatment for an
enhancement of biohydrogen production from complex food waste. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 39, 77217729.
Ghanimeh, S., El Fadel, M., Saikaly, P., 2012. Mixing effect on thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 117, 6371.
Gianico, A., Braguglia, C.M., Mescia, D., Mininni, G., 2013. Ultrasonic and thermal
pretreatments to enhance the anaerobic bioconversion of olive husks.
Bioresour. Technol. 147, 623626.
Gou, C., Yang, Z., Huang, J., Wang, H., Xu, H., Wang, L., 2014. Effects of temperature
and organic loading rate on the performance and microbial community of
anaerobic co-digestion of waste activated sludge and food waste. Chemosphere
105, 146151.
 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
Grimberg, S.J., Hilderbrandt, D., Kinnunen, M., Rogers, S., 2015. Anaerobic digestion
of food waste through the operation of a mesophilic two-phase pilot scale
digester assessment of variable loadings on system performance. Bioresour.
Technol. 178, 226229.
Han, W., Liu, D.N., Shi, Y.W., Tang, J.H., Li, Y.F., Ren, N.Q., 2015. Biohydrogen
production from food waste hydrolysate using continuous mixed immobilized
sludge reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 180, 5458.
Holliger, C., Alves, M., Andrade, D., Angelidaki, I., Astals, S., Baier, U., Bougrier, C.,
et al., 2016. Towards a standardization of biomethane potential tests. Water Sci.
Technol. 74 (11), 25152522.
Hu, C.C., Giannis, A., Chen, C.-L., Wang, J.-Y., 2014. Evaluation of hydrogen producing
cultures using pretreated food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 1933719342.
Izumi, K., Okishio, Y., Nagao, N., et al., 2010. Effects of particle size on anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 64, 601608.
Jabeen, M., Zeshan, Yousaf, S., Rizwan Haider, M., Malik, R.N., 2015. High-solids
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rice husk at different organic loading
rates. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 102, 149153.
Jang, S., Kim, D.H., Yun, Y.M., Lee, M.K., Moon, C., Kang, W.S., Kwak, S.S., Kim, M.S.,
2015. Hydrogen fermentation of food waste by alkali shock pretreatment:
microbial community analysis and limitation of continuous operation.
Bioresour. Technol. 186, 215222.
Jayalakshmi, S., Joseph, K., Sukumaran, V., 2009. Bio hydrogen generation from
kitchen waste in an inclined plug flow reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34,
88548858.
Kawai, M., Nagao, N., Tajima, N., Niwa, C., Matsuyama, T., Toda, T., 2014. The effect
of the labile organic fraction in food waste and the substrate/inoculum ratio on
anaerobic digestion for a reliable methane yield. Bioresour. Technol. 157, 174
180.
Kim, D.H., Kim, S.H., Jung, K.W., Kim, M.S., Shin, H.S., 2011. Effect of initial pH
independent of operational pH on hydrogen fermentation of food waste.
Bioresour. Technol. 102, 86468652.
Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Liu, Y., 2015. Enhancing the hydrolysis and methane
production potential of mixed food waste by an effective enzymatic
pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 183, 4752.
Kobayashi, T., Xu, K.Q., Li, Y.Y., Inamori, Y., 2012. Effect of sludge recirculation on
characteristics of hydrogen production in a two-stage hydrogenmethane
fermentation process treating food wastes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 5602
5611.
Kong, X., Wei, Y., Xu, S., Liu, J., Li, H., Liu, Y., Yu, S., 2016. Inhibiting excessive
acidification using zero-valent iron in anaerobic digestion of food waste at high
organic load rates. Bioresour. Technol. 211, 6571.
Kuruti, K., Begum, S., Ahuja, S., Rao Anupoju, G., Juntupally, S., Gandu, B., Kumar
Ahuja, D., 2017. Exploitation of rapid acidification phenomena of food waste in
reducing the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of high rate anaerobic digester
without conceding on biogas yield. Bioresour. Technol. 226, 6572.
Lee, D.-Y., Ebie, Y., Xu, K.-Q., Li, Y.-Y., Inamori, Y., 2010. Continuous H2 and CH4
production from high-solid food waste in the two-stage thermophilic
fermentation process with the recirculation of digester sludge. Bioresour.
Technol. 101 (1), S42S47.
Li, Y.Y., Jin, Y.Y., 2015. Effects of thermal pretreatment on acidification phase during
two-phase batch anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. Renewable Energy 77,
550557.
Liu, G., Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Dong, R., 2009. Effect of feed to inoculum ratios
on biogas yields of food and green wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 51035108.
Liu, X., Wang, W., Gao, X., Zhiu, Y., Shen, R., 2012. Effect of thermal pretreatment on
the physical and chemical properties of municipal biomass waste. Waste
Manage. 32, 249255.
Liu, X., Li, R., Ji, M., Han, L., 2013. Hydrogen and methane production by co-digestion
of waste activated sludge and food waste in the two-stage fermentation
process: substrate conversion and energy yield. Bioresour. Technol. 146, 317
323.
L, F., Hao, L., Zhu, M., Shao, L., He, P., 2012. Initiating methanogenesis of vegetable
waste at low inoculums-to-substrate ratio: importance of spatial separation.
Bioresour. Technol. 105, 169173.
Ma, Y., Yin, Y., Liu, Y., 2017. A holistic approach for food waste management towards
zero-solid disposal and energy/resource recovery. Bioresour. Technol. 228, 56
61.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Giza, M.S., Fonoll, X., Peces, M., Astals, S., 2014.
A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and
2013. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 36, 412427.
Micolucci, F., Gottardo, M., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., 2014. Automatic process control
for stable bio-hythane production in two-phase thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 1756317572.
Montecchio, D., Gallipoli, A., Gianico, A., Pagliaccia, P., Mininni, G., Braguglia, C.M.,
2016. Biomethane potential of food waste: modeling the effects of mild thermal
pretreatment and digestion temperature. Environ. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09593330.2016.1233293.
Nagao, N., Tajima, N., Kawai, M., Niwa, C., Kurosawa, N., Matsuyama, T., Yusoff, F.M.,
Toda, T., 2012. Maximum organic loading rate for the single -stage wet
anaerobic digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 118, 210218.
Naran, E., Toor, U.A., Kim, D.J., 2016. Effect of pretreatment and anaerobic
codigestion of food waste and waste activated sludge on stabilization and
methane production. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 113, 1721.
Nathao, C., Sirisukpoka, U., Pisutpaisal, N., 2013. Production of hydrogen and
methane by one and two stage fermentation of food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 38, 1576415769.
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
19
Nghiem, L.D., Koch, K., Bolzonella, D., Drewes, J.E., 2017. Full scale co-digestion of
wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities. Renewable
Sustainable Energy Rev. 72, 354362.
Owamah, H.I., Izinyon, 2015. The effect of organic loading rates (OLRs) on the
performances of food wastes and maize husks anaerobic co-digestion in
continuous mode. Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 11, 7176.
Pagliaccia, P., Gallipoli, A., Gianico, A., Montecchio, D., Braguglia, C.M., 2016. Single
stage anaerobic bioconversion of food waste in mono and co-digestion with
olive husks: impact of thermal pretreatment on hydrogen and methane
production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (2), 905915.
Pan, J., Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Sun, H., Ying, Y., 2008. Effect of food to
microorganism ratio on biohydrogen production from food waste via anaerobic
fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33, 69686975.
Patinvoh, R.J., Osadolor, O.A., Chandolias, K., Srvri Horvth, I., Taherzadeh, M.J.,
2017. Innovative pretreatment strategies for biogas production. Bioresour.
Technol. 224, 1324.
Paudel, S., Kang, Y., Yoo, Y.-S., Seo, G.T., 2017. Effect of volumetric organic loading
rate (OLR) on H2 and CH4 production by two-stage anaerobic co-digestion of
food waste and brown water. Waste Manage. 61, 484493.
Qiang, H., Niu, Q., Chi, Y., Li, Y., 2013. Trace metals requirements for continuous
thermophilic methane fermentation of high solid food waste. Chem. Eng. J. 222,
330336.
Rafieenia, R., Girotto, F., Peng, W., Cossu, R., Pivato, A., Raga, R., Lavagnuolo, M.C.,
2017. Effect of aerobic pre-treatment on hydrogen and methane production in a
two-stage anaerobic digestion process using food waste with different
compositions. Waste Manage. 59, 194199.
Rajagopal, R., Bellavance, D., Rahaman, M.S., 2017. Psychrophilic anaerobic
digestion of semi-dry mixed municipal food waste: for North American
context. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 105, 101108.
Ratanatamskul, C., Manpetch, P., 2016. Comparative assessment of prototype
digester configuration for biogas recovery from anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and rain tree leaf as feedstock. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 113, 367374.
Redondas, V., Gmez, X., Garca, S., Pevida, C., Rubiera, F., Morn, A., Pis, J.J., 2012.
Hydrogen production from food wastes and gas post-treatment by CO2
adsorption. Waste Manage. 32 (1), 6066.
Rizwan Haider, M., Zeshan, Yousaf, S., Malik, R.N., Visvanathan, C., 2015. Effect of
mixing ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum
ratio on biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 190, 451457.
Serna-Maza, A., Heaven, S., Banks, C.J., 2014. Ammonia removal in food waste
anaerobic digestion using a side-stream stripping process. Bioresour. Technol.
152, 307315.
Shahriari, H., Warith, M., Kennedy, K.J., 2012. Anaerobic digestion of organic fraction
of municipal solid waste combining two pretreatment modalities e high
temperature microwave and hydrogen peroxide. Waste Manage. 32 (1), 4152.
Shahriari, H., Warith, M., Hamoda, M., Kennedy, K., 2013. Evaluation of single vs.
staged mesophilic anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste with and without
microwave pretreatment. J. Environ. Manage. 125, 7484.
Shen, F., Yuan, H., Pang, Y., Chen, S., Zhu, B., Zou, D., Liu, Y., Ma, J., Yu, L., Li, X., 2013.
Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit & vegetable waste (FVW) and
food waste (FW): single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour. Technol. 144, 8085.
Tampio, E., Ervasti, S., Paavola, T., et al., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of autoclaved and
untreated food waste. Waste Manage. 34, 370377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2013.10.024.
Tawfik, A., El-Qelish, M., 2012. Continuous hydrogen production from co-digestion
of municipal food waste and kitchen wastewater in mesophilic anaerobic
baffled reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 270274.
Ventura, J.-R.S., Lee, J., Jahng, D., 2014. A comparative study on the alternating
mesophilic and thermophilic two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. J.
Environ. Sci. 26, 12741283.
Voelklein, M.A., Jacob, A., OShea, R., Murphy, J.D., 2016. Assessment of increasing
loading rate on two-stage digestion of food waste. Bioresour Technol. 202, 172
180.
Wang, X., Zhao, Y., 2009. A bench scale study of fermentative hydrogen and
methane production from food waste in integrated two-stage process. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 34, 245254.
Wang, M., Sun, X., Li, P., Yin, L., Liu, D., Zhang, Y., Li, W., Zheng, G., 2014. A novel
alternate feeding mode for semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste with chicken manure. Bioresour. Technol. 164, 309314.
Wu, L.-J., Kobayashi, T., Kuramochi, H., Li, Y.-Y., Xu, K.-Q., 2016. Improved biogas
production from food waste by co-digestion with de-oiled grease trap waste.
Bioresour. Technol. 201, 237244.
Yan, B.H., Selvam, A., Wong, J.W.C., 2016. Innovative method for increased methane
recovery from two-phase anaerobic digestion of food waste through
reutilization of acidogenic off-gas in methanogenic reactor. Bioresour.
Technol. 217, 39.
Yang, L., Huang, Y., Zhao, M., et al., 2015. Enhancing biogas generation performance
from food wastes by high-solids thermophilic anaerobic digestion: effect of pH
adjustment. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 105, 153159.
Yeshanew, M.M., Frunzo, L., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P.N.L., Esposito, G., 2016. Production of
biohythane from food waste via an integrated system of continuously stirred
tank and anaerobic fixed bed reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 220, 312322.
Yin, Y., Liu, Y., Meng, S., Kiran, E.U., Liu, Y., 2016. Enzymatic pretreatment of
activated sludge, food waste and their mixture for enhanced bioenergy recovery
and waste volume reduction via anaerobic digestion. Appl. Energy 179, 1131
1137.
20 C.M. Braguglia et al. / Bioresource Technology xxx (2017) xxxxxx
Yirong, C., Heaven, S., Banks, C.J., 2015. Effect of a trace element addition strategy on
volatile fatty acid accumulation in thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food
waste. Waste Biomass Valorization 6, 112.
Yong, Z., Dong, Y., Zhang, X., Tan, T., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
straw for biogas production. Renewable Energy 78, 527530.
Zamanzadeh, M., Hagen, L.H., Svensson, K., Linjordet, R., Horn, S.J., 2016. Anaerobic
digestion of food waste effect of recirculation and temperature on
performance and microbiology. Water Res. 96, 246254.
Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., Gamble, P.,
2007. Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
Bioresour. Technol. 98, 929935.
Zhang, Y., Banks, C.J., Heaven, S., 2012. Co-digestion of source segregated domestic
food waste to improve process stability. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 168178.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013a. Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of
food waste in a dual solidliquid system. Bioresour. Technol. 145, 1016.
Zhang, Z.-L., Zhang, L., Zhou, Y.-L., Chen, J.-C., Liang, Y.-M., Wei, L., 2013b. Pilot-scale
operation of enhanced anaerobic digestion of nutrient-deficient municipal
sludge by ultrasonic pretreatment and co-digestion of kitchen garbage. J.
Environ. Chem. Eng. 1, 7378.
Please cite this article in press as: Braguglia, C.M., et al. Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 38, 383392.
Zhang, W., Wu, S., Guo, J., Zhou, J., Dong, R., 2015a. Performance and kinetic
evaluation of semi-continuously fed anaerobic digesters treating food waste:
role of trace elements. Bioresour. Technol. 178, 297305.
Zhang, W., Zhang, L., Li, A., 2015b. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with MSW
incineration plant fresh leachate: process performance and synergistic effects.
Chem. Eng. J. 259, 795805.
Zhang, J., Lv, C., Tong, J., Liu, J., Liu, J., Yu, D., Wang, Y., Chen, M., Wei, Y., 2016.
Optimization and microbial community analysis of anaerobic co-digestion of
food waste and sewage sludge based on microwave pretreatment. Bioresour.
Technol. 200, 253261.
Zhu, H., Parker, W., Basnar, R., Proracki, A., Falletta, P., Bland, M., Seto, P., 2008.
Biohydrogen production by anaerobic co-digestion of municipal food waste and
sewage sludges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33, 36513659.
Zou, L., Ma, C., Liu, J., Li, M., Ye, M., Qian, G., 2016. Pretreatment of food waste with
high voltage pulse discharge towards methane production enhancement.
Bioresour. Technol. 222, 8288.