Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A comprehensive review on operating parameters and different

pretreatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of municipal
solid waste
Siddharth Jain a,b,n, Shivani Jain c, Ingo Tim Wolf a, Jonathan Lee a, Yen Wah Tong a
a
NUS Environmental Research Institute, National University of Singapore, #02-01, T-Lab Building, 5A Engineering Drive 1, Singapore 117411, Singapore
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, 4-9 Mechanical Engineering Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G8
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Quantum Global Campus, Uttarakhand Technical University, Uttarakhand, India

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Municipal solid waste (MSW) management is becoming a serious issue in all over the world. Anaerobic
Received 1 June 2014 digestion (AD) is one of the technologies to convert that waste into useful form of energy. But megacities
Received in revised form like Singapore having limited resources, cannot fulll the cow dung or other animal manure require-
20 May 2015
ments in AD. Therefore there is a need to study critically the operating parameters and also the
Accepted 21 July 2015
pretreatment technologies available for treating the substrate so that one can get the maximum output
Available online 7 August 2015
with limited input. To fulll the need, the present paper deals with the review of various operating
Keywords: parameters and their effects on AD. This paper also reviews different pretreatment methods including
Biogas mechanical, thermal, chemical and biological methods to improve the effectiveness of AD of MSW.
Anaerobic digestion
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Operating parameters
Pretreatment
Municipal solid waste

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
2. Anaerobic digestion (AD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3. AD process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.1. Enzymatic hydrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.2. Fermentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.3. Acetogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.4. Methanogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4. Microbial communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.1. Hydrolytic bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.2. Fermentative bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.3. Acetogenic bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.4. Methane-forming (methanogenic) bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
5. Factors affecting the biodigestion or generation of gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.1. pH value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.2. Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.3. Total solid content of feed material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.4. Loading rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.5. Seeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.6. Uniform feeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.7. Diameter to depth ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.8. Carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.9. Nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

n
Corresponding author at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, 4-9 Mechanical Engineering Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G8.
E-mail address: arthjain2001@gmail.com (S. Jain).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.091
1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154 143

5.10. Stirring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5.11. Retention time or rate of feeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.12. Type of feedstocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.13. Toxicity due to end product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.14. Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.15. Acid accumulation inside the digester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6. Classication of anaerobic digesters/approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.1. Continuous and batch types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.1.1. Continuous plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.1.2. The batch plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.2. The dome and drum types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.2.1. The oating gas holder plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.2.2. Fixed dome digester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7. Biogas enrichment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.1. Biogas enrichment process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.2. Concept of alternative bio-CNG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
8. Biogas composition and energy and mass balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
8.1. Quality of biogas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
9. Substrate pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
9.1. Mechanical pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
9.2. Thermal pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.3. Chemical pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
9.4. Biological pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
10. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
11. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

1. Introduction
few years. Singapore's offshore landll accepts only inert wastes that
are inorganic. Therefore, almost no MSW is sent to the landll and
MSW amount from societies has increased over the last few
the majority of MSW is directed to incineration plants [2]. The
years, out of which, food waste contributes a considerable fraction.
remaining 1015% is sent for recycling via AD, followed by compost-
The food waste generated annually in Singapore was 542,700 t in
ing of the digestate material. But incineration also produces high
2006 and reached about 570,000 t in the year 2008 and 680,000 t in
amount of ash which again has to go for landlling. Also lots of
2011 [1]. Food waste management is a challenge faced by any
energy and cost are incurred in transporting the waste to incinera-
developing nation as untreated and unmanaged food waste creates
tion plants, therefore an idea has come into picture to digest the
odor, hygiene concerns and cause adverse environmental impacts
food waste anaerobically in decentralized manner so that on one
[13]. Singapore is a highly populated, industrialized city with
side we can reduce the amount of ash generated through incinerator
limited land area. Semakau Landll is Singapore's only landll for
and on the other side the heavy investment in transportation can be
waste disposal which is also going to be lled completely in the next
reduced. AD is considered as the most effective method for the
treatment of MSW [3]. In view of the increasing demand of the
anaerobic digestion technology, the present paper reported the
different aspects of AD along with the factors affecting the digestion
process and different approaches/digestion systems.
Pretreatment of substrate is the necessary step nowadays to
accelerate the AD and to obtain suitable by-products. A number of
review papers have been published in the recent past on different
pretreatment technologies, specially focused on pretreatment of was-
tewater sludge. The present paper has also attempted to report the
different pretreatment technologies and their effect on AD of MSW.

2. Anaerobic digestion (AD)

AD is a method to decompose organic matter with the help of

variety of anaerobic microorganisms under anaerobic or oxygen-
free conditions. The end product of AD includes biogas (6070%
CH4, 3040% CO2 and rest being the impurities) and an organic
residue. This technology has been successfully implemented in the
treatment of agricultural wastes, food wastes and wastewater
sludge due to its capability of reducing chemical oxygen demand
(COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) from waste streams
and producing renewable energy [47]. AD processes are classied
based on operating parameters and reactor design such as based
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of AD process [57,59]. on continuity it is batch versus continuous, based on operating
144 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
temperature it is psychrophilic, mesophilic and thermophilic,
based on reactor design it is plug-ow, complete-mix, and covered
lagoons and based on solid contents it is wet versus dry [811].
Nowadays, researchers are very much concentrated on solid state
anaerobic digestion (SSAD) due to the benets associated with the
process. SSAD is characterized by the high solid content of the feedstock
to be digested, which is generally greater than 1520% (TS%). Various
researchers have used different terms for SSAD such as dry fermenta-
tion or dry digestion [58]. SSAD has been found to be benecial over
liquid AD for a number of reasons which include smaller reactor
volume, lower energy requirements for heating, minimal material
handling and lower total parasitic energy loss. Biogas produced from
SSAD is comparable to the output of liquid AD. Due to the lower
moisture content of SSAD, the digestate can be used as fertilizer or can
be converted in pellets easily to use as fuel and due to this reason it is
much easier to handle than the efuent of liquid AD [1013].
3. AD process
AD is a synergistic process of a consortium of microbes which
can be classied along with a series of metabolic pathways. The
major reactions of the AD process are shown in Fig. 1. The whole
process is divided into following 4 steps [1131].
3.1. Enzymatic hydrolysis
This is the rst step of the AD process; in this step substrate
undergoes hydrolysis reaction that reduces the complex organic
polymers to simple soluble molecules with the help of extracel-
lular enzymes. During this reaction protein, lipids and carbohy-
drate polymers are hydrolyzed to amino acids, long-chain fatty
acids and sugars, respectively.
3.2. Fermentation
The reduced compounds are then converted to a mixture of
short chain volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and other minor products
such as carbon dioxide, hydrogen and acetic acid with the help of
fermentative bacteria.
3.3. Acetogenesis
Acetogenic bacteria further convert the organic acids to acetate,
carbon dioxide, and/or hydrogen which are used as direct sub-
strates for methane production.
3.4. Methanogenesis
The nal step of AD is methanogenesis, where a variety of
methanogenic bacteria consume acetate, carbon dioxide and
hydrogen to produce methane.
4. Microbial communities
The microorganisms that mainly work in the AD process are
classied as hydrolytic, fermentative, acetogenic and methano-
genic bacteria [1131].
4.1. Hydrolytic bacteria
In this reaction section (hydrolysis phase), hydrolytic microorgan-
isms condense the complex particulate compounds to soluble mono-
meric or dimeric substrates. Generally, most of the soluble organic
material within the reactor medium is renewed to volatile organic
acids through fermentation and eventually processed into biogas
through methanogenesis. Hence, hydrolysis reaction plays a crucial
role in controlling the rate of the reaction that ultimately determines
the biomass feedstock conversion potency. Cellulose, found in several
agricultural and municipal wastes, is an example of an insoluble
compound that undergoes enzymatic hydrolysis. Cellulolytic micro-
organisms like Cellulomonas, Clostridium, Bacillus, Thermomonospora,
Ruminococcus, Baceriodes, Erwinia, Acetovibrio, Microbispora, and Strep-
tomyces produce cellulases that hydrolyze cellulolytic biomass [14
18,30,31].
4.2. Fermentative bacteria
Fermentative bacterium unit is liable for consuming the solu-
bles created from hydrolysis reaction and producing numerous
intermediates like VFAs, carbon dioxide, hydrogen gas and alco-
hols. Among the products of fermentation, acetate and carbon
dioxide contribute the foremost to methane production [14
20,31].
4.3. Acetogenic bacteria
Acetogenic microorganisms or acetogens are differentiated
from acetate-forming fermentative microorganisms mainly as a
result of their capability to scale down carbon dioxide to acetate by
means of the WoodLjungdahl pathway. There are microorgan-
isms genera that are completely acetogenic, such as Acetobacter-
ium and Sporomusa, and there are also genera that contain both
acetogenic and nonacetogenic microorganisms, such as Clostri-
dium, Ruminococcus, and Eubacterium. A combination of the vital
role of acetate as a methanogen substrate as well as the ubiquity
and diversity of acetogens makes AD a naturally robust phenom-
enon. However, acetogens are obligate hydrogen producers that
cannot survive in high partial hydrogen pressures, thus a symbio-
tic relationship exists between acetogens that produce hydrogen
and methanogens that consume it [1318,30].
4.4. Methane-forming (methanogenic) bacteria
The group of methanogenic bacteria is formed of great obligate
anaerobic microorganisms and they are very penetrating to
environmental changes. They convert the nal products of acidic
and acetogenic fermentation into methane and carbon dioxide.
About 70% of the methane is found to produce by the degradation
of acetic acid and about 30% by a redox reaction of hydrogen and
carbon dioxide.
Although methanogenesis of acetic acids is the rate-limiting
step in the anaerobic fermentation of easily degradable sub-
stances, hydrolysis can be rate-limiting when frugally degradable
substances occur. Because of the complexity of the anaerobic
degradation mechanisms and the severe requirements of the
microorganisms, process operation is very important for fermen-
tation processes. To achieve optimized, undisturbed anaerobic
degradation, the speed of decomposition in the consecutive steps
is suggested to be equal [1421,30,31].
For efcient digestion, these acid formers and methane fer-
menters should be remained in dynamic equilibrium state. This
state is a very crucial factor which decides the efciency of
generation. It has been demonstrated that the methanogenic
microorganisms are sensitive to acidity changes. A pH value of
6.5 8 is the best for fermentation and normal gas production
[30,31]. If organic acids are formed at a faster rate than the limited
population of methane formers can adapt, then pH goes down
which is unfavorable to methane forming microorganisms.
In controlled digestion process, the environment should be
kept appropriate for the balanced growth of both acid forming and
 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
methane forming bacteria. The proper operation requires the
balance between the population of organisms, food supply, tem-
perature, pH and food accessibility.
It is generally found that there are three ranges of temperature
suggested by researchers which favor particular type of micro-
organism. The temperature ranges are (1) psicrophilic, about 20 1C,
(2) mesophilic, about 35 1C and (3) thermophilic, about 55 1C. It is
reported by various researchers that digestion at higher tempera-
ture continues more rapidly than at lower temperature.
5. Factors affecting the biodigestion or generation of gas
5.1. pH value
pH of a slurry changes at various stages of digestion. In the
initial acid formation stage in the fermentation process, the pH is
around 6 or less and much of CO2 is given off. In the later 23
weeks time, the pH increases as the volatile acid is digested and
CH4 is produced. To maintain a constant gas supply, it is necessary
to maintain a suitable pH range in the digester [3235].
The digester usually buffered if the pH is maintained between
6.5 and 7.5. In this range, the micro-organisms are very active and
biodigestion is very efcient. If the pH is less than 6.5 and/or more
than 7.5 then both of these conditions are detrimental to the
methanogenic organisms. It should always be noted that there
should not be any sudden upset in the pH by the addition of any
material which is likely to cause an imbalance in the bacterial
population [3235].
5.2. Temperature
There are two signicant temperature zones in anaerobic
digestion. It has been established that there are two types of
micro-organisms, mesophilic and thermophilic are responsible for
digestion at the two temperature ranges. The optimum mesophilic
temperature lies at about 35 1C, while the optimum thermophilic
temperature is around 55 1C [3638]. Besides this, there is other
temperature range which is psicrophilic (20 1C). In temperature
climates most of the sewage digestion tanks are heated to 35 1C so
as to reduce the time required for digestion and therefore the
capacity of the tank [37,38]. The thermophilic range has not been
put to use because of the problems associated with heating the
tank to such high temperatures. It must be understood that
temperature is a very important factor since it affects the bacterial
activity directly. Any gross deviation from a normal operating
temperature may result in the unsatisfactory performance of
digester.
But at the same time SS-AD under mesophilic conditions
exhibited a poor start-up performance, thermophilic operation of
AD was developed later and it has been established as a reliable
and accepted mode of SSAD. Operating SS-AD systems at thermo-
philic conditions (55 1C) can accelerate the AD process. It also
provides the added benet of increased pathogen reduction during
the anaerobic phase. The added amount of heat required for
thermophilic operation can be offset by the higher gas production
yields and rates [39,40].
5.3. Total solid content of feed material
An optimized SSAD process is able to treat more waste in terms
of dry mass than a liquid AD plant of the same size. The initial
substrate concentration inuences the mesophilic anaerobic
digestion of MSW at batch conditions. Fernandez et al. [41] have
reported that when the total solid concentration increased from
20% to 30%, the COD removal of the SSAD decreased from 80.69%
145
to 69.05%. The methane yield at 30% solids content was 17% less
than that at 20% solids content [41].
5.4. Loading rate
Loading rate is dened as the amount of raw material added or
fed to the digester per day per unit volume. Most municipal
sewage plants operate at a loading rate of 0.51.6 kg of volatile
solids/m3/day. Much higher rates are possible, but as with most
aspects of digesters, the optimum situation is a compromise. If a
digester is loaded too much raw material at a time, acid will
accumulate and fermentation will stop. The main advantage of
higher loading rate is that by stufng a lot into a little space, the
size and therefore the cost of the digester can be reduced [42,57].
5.5. Seeding
Although the bacteria required for acid fermentation and
methane fermentation are present in the MSW to some extent,
their numbers are not large. While the acid formers proliferate fast
and increase in numbers, the methane formers reproduce and
multiply slowly. It would be advantageous to increase the number
of methane formers. But beyond a certain concentration, the gas
production will decrease due to reduction of raw MSW fed to the
digester [43,57].
5.6. Uniform feeding
One of the prerequisites of good digestion is the uniform
feeding of the digester so that the micro-organisms are kept in a
relatively constant organic solid concentration at all times. There-
fore the digester must be fed at the same time everyday with a
balanced feed of the same quantity and quality [43,44].
5.7. Diameter to depth ratio
Research investigation reveals that gas production per unit
volume of digester capacity was maximum when the diameter to
depth ratio was in the range of 0.661.00. But reports from the
eld do not conrm this [7,37,39,57]. Digester of 16 ft depth and
45 ft diameter were reported to be working satisfactorily. One
reason may be that because in a simple unstirred single stage
digester the temperature varies at different depths. The most
actively digesting sludge is in the lower half of the digester and
this is less affected by changes in night and day temperature.
5.8. Carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio
Besides carbon the quantity of nitrogen present in the waste is
a crucial factor in the production of biogas. All living organisms
require nitrogen to form their cell proteins from a biological point
of view. The elements of carbon and nitrogen are the food of
anaerobic bacteria. Carbon is used for energy and nitrogen for
building the cell structure. Most of the literature recommends an
operating C/N ratio range of 20/130/1 with an optimal ratio of 25/
1 for anaerobic bacterial growth in an AD system [43]. Improper C/
N ratios could result in high Total Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN)
released and/or high VFA accumulation in the digester. Both TAN
and VFAs are important intermediates and potential inhibitors in
the AD process. High concentrations of TAN and VFAs in the
digester would decrease the methanogen activity and cause
possible failure of the AD process [4346].
The optimal C/N ratio varies with the type of feedstock to be
digested. Yen and Brune [47] used waste paper to balance the high
nitrogen concentration of algal sludge for methane production and
results showed that the optimized C/N ratio for the co-digestion
146 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
was 20/125/1. Romano and Zhang [48] recommended the C/N
ratio should be maintained at 15 for the co-digestion of onion juice
and digested sludge. When corn stover was inoculated with
digested sewage sludge, the digestion process worked well with
a C/N of 1518 but failed with a C/N of 21 or higher because the pH
dramatically decreased in the rst 7 days at 37 1C [4349].
5.9. Nutrients
The major nutrients required for the bacteria in the digester
are C, H2, O2, N2, P and S. Out of all these nutrients N2 and P are
always found in short supply and therefore to maintain proper
balance of nutrients an extra raw material rich in P and N2 should
be added along with MSW to obtain maximum biogas production
[50,51].
5.10. Stirring
Since bacteria in the digester have very limited reach to the
food, it is necessary that the slurry is properly mixed and bacteria
get their food supply. It is found that slight mixing improves the
fermentation; however, a violent slurry agitation retards the
digestion [57].
5.11. Retention time or rate of feeding
The period of retention of the material for biogas generation
inside the digester is known as the retention period. This period
will depend on the type of feed stock and temperature. Methane
organisms become double in 24 days. Retention time should not
be less than 24 days, otherwise bacteria may come out with the
slurry affecting the whole process of biogas production [7,8,16,17].
Hence in continuous type of plants the rate of feeding is an
important factor. Maximum gas production is achieved by daily
uniform feeding. The rate of feeding will depend upon the
retention period and type of feedstocks.
5.12. Type of feedstocks
In the past time anaerobic digestion was mostly linked with the
treatment of animal (pig, cattle and poultry) manure and sewage
sludge, but nowadays due to increased environmental concern
along with the demand for new waste management strategies and
renewable energy forms, the eld of applications for anaerobic
digestion has broadened and introduced industrial and municipal
wastes as well.
Agriculture waste, energy crop, municipal solid waste and some
of industrial wastes may be used as the feed material for a digester.
When feedstock is woody or contains more lignin then biodiges-
tion become difcult.
The feedstocks used for anaerobic digestion vary signicantly in
composition, uid dynamics, homogeneity and biodegradability. In
intensive animal farming, the excrement is commonly collected as
slurry. Cow and pig manure slurries are reported to contain total
solid contents in the range of 312% [11,35,50], however chicken
manure contains 1030% dry matter [23,43]. The dry matter
content of other agricultural wastes and by-products varies widely.
Some agro-industrial wastes may contain less than 1% TS, while
others contain high total solid contents (more than 20%).
Anaerobic digestion process is affected by components such
as straw, wood shavings, inorganic matter like sand, glass, metals
or polymeric components like plastics etc. These unwanted
materials often cause AD process failures. In particular long
straw particles and slime components in pig and cow slurry
can cause considerable scum layer formation which is difcult to
control during digestion.
The initial concentration of VFA varies with the type of feed-
stock slurry and with the waste handling and storage conditions.
The VFA concentration in pig slurry is higher than in cow slurry.
Usually the VFA content of animal slurries does not cause inhibi-
tory effects, but fast degradation of organic macromolecules like
proteins, fats and carbohydrates in agro-industrial wastes may
increase VFA concentrations to levels that cause reactor imbal-
ances, especially in combination with low pH-values.
Food wastes contain high amounts of organic soluble that can
be easily converted to VFAs. Excessive VFA conversion at an early
stage of digestion may cause a drastic drop in pH and inhibit the
methanogenesis process. In order to reduce the inhibition of
methane fermentation by organic acids produced rapidly at the
initial stage of anaerobic digestion, co-digesting carbohydrate-
rich feedstocks with other feedstocks or using a two-phase
digestion system has been proven to be effective. Lu et al. [52]
studied the codigestion of dog food with woodchips and sludge
with a total solid (TS) content of 43% at meso- and thermophilic
conditions. In the rst 2 weeks, pH decreased from 6.7 to 4.2 at
35 1C and to 5.8 at 55 1C because the original alkalinity
(3000 mg/L as CaCO3) was insufcient for pH buffering. Under
these different conditions, the nal dry mass conversion ratios
were 48% and 50%, respectively. When mixed Korean food
wastes with 20% TS were digested in a two-phase system at
37 1C, 8790% of TS were reduced, approximately 90% of the
initial volatile solid (VS) was converted to biogas, and the
methane yield reached 8688% of the biochemical methane
potential (BMP). When 70% food waste, 20% fecal matter, and
10% green algae were co-digested at 39 1C, a biogas yield of up to
90% was obtained [52].
5.13. Toxicity due to end product
The digested slurry, if allowed to remain in the digester beyond
a certain time, becomes toxic to the micro-organisms and might
cause fall in the fermentation rate.
Biological systems needs some trace elements like calcium,
magnesium, potassium etc. Production of biogas is reduced when
these elements are present in higher concentrations. Synthetic
materials are toxic to methanogenic bacteria [53].
5.14. Pressure
Some works conducted in National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur and other places indicated that
the pressure on the surface of slurry also affects the fermentation.
It has been reported to be better at lower pressures [5456].
Fig. 2. Schematic of single stage process conventional digester [57].
 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
Fig. 3. Schematic of double stage process conventional digester [57].
Fig. 4. Schematic of KVIC digester [57].
5.15. Acid accumulation inside the digester
Intermediate products such as acetic, propionic and butyric
acids are produced, during the process of biodigestion. This causes
a decrease in pH value which leads to the reduction in methane
formation rate [3235].
6. Classication of anaerobic digesters/approaches
6.1. Continuous and batch types
6.1.1. Continuous plant
There is a single digester in which raw material is charged
regularly and the process goes on without interruption except for
repair and cleaning etc. The continuous process may be completed
in a single stage or separated into two stages [5759].
(i) Single stage process: The entire process of conversion of
complex organic compound into biogas is completed in a
single chamber. This chamber is regularly fed with the raw
materials while the spent residue keeps moving out (Fig. 2).
(ii) Double stage process: The acidogenic stage and methanogenic
stage are physically separated into two chambers. Thus the
rst stage of acid production is carried out in a separate
147
chamber and only the diluted acids are fed into the second
chamber where bio-methanation takes place and the biogas
can be collected from the second chamber (Fig. 3).
There are relatively few commercial, operational multi-stage
AD units. It was expected that more of the multi-stage systems
would be in operation by now due to their higher loading
rates, improved process stability, and exibility, but the added
complexity and presumed expense of building and operating
commercial multi-stage systems have so far negated the yield
and rate enhancements [5759]. Nonetheless, the potential of
multi-stage digesters to improve performance has prompted
much research, and a few notable commercial multi-stage
digesters have been successful. Some of these use multiple
stages for reasons other than separating acidogenesis from
methanogenesis.
6.1.2. The batch plant
The feeding is between intervals, the plant is emptied once the
process of digestion is complete. In this type, a battery of digesters
are charged along with lime, urea etc. and allowed to produce gas
for 4050 days. These are charged and emptied one by one in a
synchronous manner which maintains a regular supply of the gas
through a common gas holder. The primary disadvantage of batch
digesters is uneven gas production and lack of stability in the
microbial population. Sequential and phased batch digesters
attempt to surmount these disadvantages, and preliminary lab
experiments have revealed complex population dynamics in these
systems resulting in the ability to separate useful fermentation
products such as hydrogen and organic acids [57]. Different
approaches of batch reactor are discussed in the following section.
6.1.2.1. Biocel reactor. The Biocel system was developed in the
1980s and 1990s as a part of the early research on high-solids
digestion of MSW [6,58]. The initial goal of the system was to
reduce cost by simplifying material handling and eliminating the
need for mixing while simultaneously achieving relatively high
loading and conversion rates. Success with the lab-scale system
led to construction of a pilot 5 m3 (1000 gal) reactor by the early
1990s which was used for more extensive testing of start-up,
heating, and leachate recycling [6,57].
6.1.2.2. Sequential Batch Anaerobic Composting (SEBAC). The SEBAC
system was developed in the early 1990s with the goal of
148 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
Fig. 5. Schematic of Fixed dome digester [57]. 1 Slurry for digestion, 2 xed
dome for gas storage/collection, 3 slurry inlet, 4 digestate slurry outlet, 5 gas
outlet from xed dome, and 6 digestate slurry outlet tank.
eliminating mixing and minimizing handling while maintaining
high conversion rates and system stability [6,57,59]. Similar to the
Biocel process, the SEBAC system consists of two- or three-batch,
leach-bed reactors with leachate recirculation by sprayer, but the
SEBAC digesters are loaded in sequence such that leachate can be
transferred between reactors as was not the case of Biocel reactor.
6.1.2.3. Anaerobic Phased Solids (APS) digester. Like the SEBAC
system, the APS digester uses batch loading to stimulate rapid
organic acid production in a two-stage digester system. However,
the APS digester system avoids the problems caused by using
leach bed reactors by combining high-solids reactors for the rst
stage with a low-solids mixed biolm reactor in the second stage
[6,5759].
6.1.2.4. BioConverter. The BioConverter digester is a single-stage,
sequentially batched system. However, in its fullscale application,
an equalization tank was used for pulping and metering feed into
the batch reactors and it has been reported that the pH of this tank
dropped, indicating that it may serve as a rst-stage hydrolysis
reactor [6,58,59].
6.2. The dome and drum types
There are numerous models of a biogas plant out of which
mainly two types are usually used [5759].
6.2.1. The oating gas holder plants
The oating gas holder disaster which is used in India is known
as KVIC plant. The xed dome digester is called the Chinese plant.
There are different shapes in both the designs, cylindrical, rectan-
gular, spherical etc. again, the digester may be vertical or hor-
izontal. They can be constructed above or underneath the ground.
The oating gas holder digester developed in India is of masonry
construction with the gas holder made of M.S. plate [57]. The gas
holder is separated from the digester. Rusting of gas holder as well
as the cost of the gas holder is the main drawback of this system
(Fig. 4).
With the introduction of xed dome Chinese model plant, the
oating drum plants became obsolete because of comparatively
high investment and maintenance cost [57].
The advantage of the oating drum design is the constant gas
pressure. This means that lamps, stoves and other appliances do
not need any further adjustments once they have been correctly
set. Another advantage is that the level of the gasholder has risen
above the digester pit is a clear indication of the available gas. The
high installation and maintenance costs have made this design
obsolete for domestic use (Fig. 5).
6.2.2. Fixed dome digester
The xed dome is also known as Chinese model biogas plant. It
consists of an underground brick masonry compartment (fermen-
tation chamber) with a dome on the top for gas storage. In this
design, the fermentation chamber and gas holder are combined as
one unit. This design eliminates the use of costlier mild steel gas
holder which is susceptible to corrosion. The life of xed dome
type plant is longer (over 20 years) compared to the oating drum
design [57].
The original Chinese model is usually completely made out of
concrete and constructed with the help of molds. Based on the
principles of xed dome model from China many different designs
have been made [57].
7. Biogas enrichment
Biogas is so far, has mostly been used as a fuel for cooking and
running stationary engines. However, its potential has not fully
utilized yet. There is a great enhancement in its utilization
potential particularly where bigger plants are in operation e.g.
institutional biogas plants in Goshalas, dairy farms or community
biogas plants in villages. Goshalas are running generally on charity
basis and most of Goshalas are not in sound nancial position.
Enrichment and bottling of biogas will help to improve it. India has
a vast potential of 6.38
1010 m3 of biogas per annum from 980
million tonnes of cattle dung produced. There are a number of
dairies, Goshalas, village communities having large number of
cattles which have potential of installing biogas enrichment and
bottling system. In urban areas, large quantities of biogas can be
produced in sewage treatment plants using anaerobic digestion
[60,61].
Biogas comprises 6065% methane, 3540% carbon dioxide,
0.51.0% hydrogen sulde and rest of water vapor. It is almost 20%
lighter than air. Biogas, like Liqueed Petroleum Gas (LPG) cannot
be converted to liquid state under normal temperature. Removing
carbon dioxide and compressing it into cylinders makes it easily
usable for transport applications, say three wheelers, cars, pick up
vans etc. and also for stationary applications at various long
distances. Already, CNG technology has become easily available
and therefore, bio-methane (enriched biogas) which is nearly
same as CNG, can be used for all applications for which CNG are
used [61].
7.1. Biogas enrichment process
A variety of processes are available for enrichment i.e. removing
CO2, H2S and water vapor. Commonly CO2 removal processes also
remove H2S. One of the easiest and cheapest methods is the use of
pressurized water as an absorbent liquid. In this method, the
biogas is pressurized and fed to the bottom of a scrubber column
where water is sprayed from the top. In counter-currently oper-
ated absorption process, the carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulde
present in the biogas is absorbed in down going water and
methane goes up and collected in vessel. However, water require-
ment in this process is high but it is the simplest method of
removing impurities from biogas [57].
7.2. Concept of alternative bio-CNG
Biogas contains a large proportion (about 40% by volume) of
carbon dioxide, a heavier and non-combustible gas and some
fractions of hydrogen sulde. Hence it is needed to enrich biogas
by removing these undesirable gases to save compression energy
and space in bottle and corroding effect, which can be done by
scrubbing. The scrubbing system is found to enrich methane about
 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154 149

Table 1
Mechanical pretreatment done by various researchers with their ndings.

S. Substrate Findings References

no.

1 Organic fraction of municipal Larger particle radius results in lower chemical oxygen demand (COD) degradation which further results in lower [67]
solid waste methane production rate
2 Food waste Particle size is inversely proportional to the maximum substrate utilization rate of the anaerobic microbes [68]
3 Pulp and paper Sonication pretreatment generated by a vibrating probe mechanically disrupts the cell structure and oc matrix [70]
4 Waste activated sludge High-frequency sound waves also cause the formation of radicals such as OHn, HOn2, Hn, which results in oxidation of [72]
solid substances
5 Municipal solid waste Rotary drum is found as an effective technology for OFMSW separation and pretreatment prior to AD, which could [73,74]
enhance the biogas production by 1836%
6 Organic fraction of municipal Davidson et al. found small variations in both methane yields per g VS (gram volatile solids) and content of methane [75]
solid waste in biogas after pretreatment
7 Organic fraction of municipal No signicant enhancement is found with mechanical pretreatment methods [76]
solid waste
8 Organic fraction of municipal Shredder with magnetic separation method yielded a higher (5.613.8% as compared to the other methods) methane [77]
solid waste production
9 Food waste The screw press pretreatment method also result in a loss of biodegradable materials and nutrients, even though it [78]
enhances the biogas production in general
10 Food waste Size reduction through a beads mill resulted in a 40% higher COD solubilization, which led to a 28% higher biogas [79]
production yield
11 Organic waste As the methanogens are sensitive to acidic intermediates, excessive size reduction may result in a decreased AD [80]
process performance
12 Municipal solid waste Electroporation pretreatment of OFMSW resulted in 2040% higher biogas production [81]
13 Sludge Liquefaction resulted in 1526% higher biogas production [64]
14 Organic fraction of municipal Sonication resulted in 16% higher cumulative biogas production as compared to untreated substrates [82]
solid waste
15 Organic solid waste Size reduction up to 0.35 mm resulted in a 20% increase, and no signicant difference was observed with further size [8386]
reduction
16 Sewage sludge Achieved a 25% increased VS reduction with HPH method [84]
17 Waste activated sludge Studied sonication of waste activated sludge (WAS) and obtained only a negligible increase in both VS destruction [8387]
and mesophilic methane production

95% or more depending upon biogas inlet and water injection biogas can be estimated by Eq. (1).
pressure. Biogas can be used for all applications designed for (
)
natural gas, assuming sufcient purication [60]. 4  1:5 U COD
%CH4 0:5  TOC
U 100 1
Enriched biogas is made moisture free by passing it through 8
lters after that it is compressed up to 200 bar pressure using a
where COD and TOC are the concentrations of Chemical Oxygen
three stage gas compressor. Compressed gas is stored in high
Demand and the Total Organic Carbon of the inuent, respectively.
pressure steel cylinders as used for CNG. There is large potential of
Maintaining the bioreactor at an adequate operational tem-
this technology in buses, tractors, cars, auto rickshaws, irrigation
perature requires heating the inlet stream and taking into account
pump sets and in rural industries. This will help to meet our
the losses of heat to the environment. By combining energy and
energy demand for rural masses thus reduces burden of petroleum
mass balances it can be calculated whether the energy recovered
demand, moves towards energy security and will improve eco-
from biogas is enough to operate the system.
nomic status by creating employment generation [61].

8.1. Quality of biogas

When organic material is anaerobically degraded the end

8. Biogas composition and energy and mass balance
This parameter is a fast indicator of operational problems in the
system. Under stable operational conditions, the end products in
the biogas are CH4 and CO2. Intermediate products such as H2 and/
or CO are frequently accumulated during perturbations. Therefore,
the presence of these compounds in the produced biogas can be
used to detect the perturbation stages [57,59,62].
A global mass balance performed to the bioreactor allows the
estimation of the amount of methane produced by the system
while the energy balance is a useful tool to calculate the energetic
requirement to maintain the bioreactor at the appropriated
temperature value [62,63].
The mass balance is done in terms of COD: 10% of the gap
between COD of the inlet and outlet liquid streams is accumulated
inside the bioreactor as biomass and 90% is converted into
methane. Based on practical experience, a ratio of 0.35 m3 CH4/
kg COD degraded can be considered as a realistic value to estimate
the methane production while the percentage of methane in the
products in the biogas are carbon in its most oxidized form
(CO2) and its most reduced form (CH4). The ratio between CH4
and CO2 depends on the oxidation sate of the carbon compounds
present in the organic material, i.e. the more reduced the organic
carbon content is, the more CH4 will be produced. If the composi-
tion of organic material is known and a biogas conversion is total,
the theoretical methane yield potential can be calculated. In
anaerobic digestion processes, different theoretical biogas percen-
tages in methane can be obtained depending on the degree of
reduction of the degraded substrate [5759].
The practical biogas yield obtained in the digester will always
be lower than the theoretical values, mainly due to the following
reasons: (a) a fraction of the substrate is utilized to synthesize
biomass (typically 510% of the organic material degraded);
(b) some of the substrate remains unconverted in the efuent
(Typically 10%); and (c) nutrient limitation [62,63].
Under favorable conditions and in the presence of high soluble
COD concentration in wastewater, a degree of conversion as
high as 9095% can be achieved. Conversion values in a range of
150 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154

Table 2
Thermal pretreatment done by various researchers with their ndings.

S. Substrate Findings References

no.

1 Organic fraction of municipal solid Leads to pathogen removal, improves dewatering performance and reduces viscosity of the digestate, with [88,9092]
waste, agriculture waste subsequent enhancement of digestate handling
2 Sludge, kitchen waste Disintegration of cell membranes, thus resulting in solubilization of organic compounds [9799]
3 Waste activated sludge Compared the different thermal pretreatment methods and found no signicant difference between steam [93]
and electric heating, whereas microwave heating solubilized more biopolymers
4 Anaerobic sludge, kitchen waste Higher rate of solubilization with microwave pretreatment can be caused by the polarization of [98,100]
macromolecules
5 Organic solid waste Thermal pretreatment at high temperatures ( 4 170 1C) might lead to the creation of chemical bonds and [72]
result in the agglomeration of the particles
6 Sludge Thermal pretreatment at temperatures below 100 1C did not result in degradation of complex molecules, but it [94]
simply induces the deocculation of macromolecules
7 Sludge Thermal pretreatment resulted in the solubilization of proteins and increased the removal of particulate [96]
carbohydrates
8 Sludge Thermal pretreatment of sludge even at lower temperature (70 1C) has a decisive effect on pathogen removal [65]
9 Sludge Negligible increase of biogas production from sludge pretreated at 70 1C for 60 min [101]
10 Sludge Biogas production was improved 20 times when applying a 60 min pretreatment at 90 1C [101]
11 Organic waste Achieved a maximal enhancement of 78% higher biogas production with a 60% methane content by [102]
pretreatment at 70 1C
12 Sludge 30% higher biogas production with a 69% methane content by pretreatment at 70 1C [97]
13 Sludge Obtained a 50% biogas volume increase with pretreatment at 70 1C prior to thermophilic AD [103]
14 Fruit and vegetable waste Obtained a 7.911.7% decrease of the biomethane production, respectively, due to the formation of [92]
melanoidins at 175 1C
15 kitchen waste Obtained a 24% increase of the biomethane production with FW pretreated at 120 1C [104]

3060% are obtained for highly particulate organic matter as
manures. The pH in the reactor plays an important role in the
biogas composition especially in the equilibrium of the CO2. CO2 is
highly soluble in water, thus it is partially dissolved in the liquid
phase of the reactor or converted to bicarbonate depending on the
pH value, and thus its concentration in the gas phase is always
lower than the theoretical value. On the other hand, CH4 is
practically insoluble in water and ends up in the gas phase.
In this way the percentage of methane in biogas can be used for
calculating the energetic requirements to maintain the bioreactor
at an appropriate temperature, according to mass and energy
balances [62,63].
9. Substrate pretreatment
9.1. Mechanical pretreatment
Mechanical pretreatment is dened as the breakdown or
crushing of the substrates particles and due to this there is an
increase in the surface area (specic) which will be responsible for
providing better contact between substrate and inoculum (anae-
robic bacteria) which will ultimately enhance the AD process
[6466]. Many researchers have done work in this area. Table 1
shows the mechanical treatment done by various researchers.
Researchers have suggested that a larger particle size outcomes
lesser methane production due to decrease in degradation of
chemical oxygen demand (COD) meaning thereby that particle
size is inversely proportional to the rate of maximum substrate
utilization [67,68]. There are many types of mechanical pretreat-
ment processes available and are used for different researches
such as sonication, lysis-centrifuge, liquid shear, collision, high-
pressure homogenizer, maceration, and liquefaction [69]. Hart-
mann et al. [69] reported that the effect of drenching is more on
AD process effectiveness. Sonication pretreatment is generated by
a vibrating probe mechanically which disrupts the cell structure
[70]. In ultrasonic pretreatment, the particle size reduces at low
frequency sound waves [71,72].
Rotary drums were found as an effective technology for
separation of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and also
for pretreatment of substrate before AD, which enhanced the
biogas production by 1836% [73,74]. Davidson et al. [75] found
minor variations in both methane yields per gram volatile solids
and composition of methane in biogas while studying the
methane potential of source-sorted organic fraction municipal
solid waste pretreated with different mechanical methods. Simi-
larly, Zhang and Banks [76] found no substantial improvement
with such pretreatment processes. Hansen et al. [77] reported the
effects of the mechanical pretreatment technologies on the quan-
tity and quality of sorted municipal solid waste and they found
that screw press pretreatment process resulted in a smaller
substrate particle size, while a shredder with magnetic separation
yielded a higher (5.613.8% as compared to the other methods)
methane production. However, Bernstad et al. [78] reported that
the screw press pretreatment method also results in a loss of
biodegradable materials and nutrients, even though it enhances
the biogas production in general.
Izumi et al. [79] have carried out the analysis to know the effect
of the particle size on food waste biomethanation. Size reduction
through a beads mill resulted in a 40% higher COD conversion,
which led to a 28% higher biogas production yield. However, it is
also reported that excess particle size reduction to smaller than
0.7 mm caused an accumulation of VFA. As the methanogens are
sensitive to acidic intermediates [80], too much size reduction may
result in decrease in pH value which results in decrease in AD
process performance.
Some researchers have conducted research on electroporation,
liquefaction and high frequency sonication pretreatment methods
to enhance performance of municipal solid waste AD process.
Electroporation pretreatment of MSW resulted in 2040% higher
biogas production [81], however, liquefaction resulted in 1526%
higher biogas yield [64], whereas 16% higher cumulative biogas
production is found using sonication pretreatment process as
compared to untreated substrates [82]. It is found that the higher
biogas production was as a result of solubilization of the substrate
particulates.
Maceration, sonication and high pressure homogenizer (HPH)
are reported as the simplest mechanical pretreatments for organic
solid waste. Size reduction of lignocellulosic substrates results in a
525% increased hydrolysis yield, depending on the mechanical
 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154 151

Table 3
Chemical pretreatment done by various researchers with their ndings.

S. Substrate Findings References

no.

1 Sludge alkali pretreatment is the preferred chemical method [106]

2 crop residues, fruit, vegetable waste Chemical pretreatment is not suitable for easily biodegradable substrates containing high amounts of [110]
carbohydrates
3 Lignocellulosic biomass Chemical pretreatment can have a clear positive effect on substrates rich in lignin [111]
4 Lignocellulosic biomass In alkali pretreatment specic surface area is increased and the substrates are easily accessible to [83,106,107]
anaerobic microbes
5 Rice straw Acid pretreatment is more desirable for lignocellulosic substrates [108]
6 Lignocellulosic biomass, organic fraction of During acid pretreatment, hydrolysis of hemicellulose occur into perspective monosaccharides, while [83,109]
municipal solid waste the lignin condensates and precipitates
7 Lignocellulosic biomass Acid pretreatment is an expensive process due to high cost of acids and the additional cost for [106,112,113]
neutralizing the acidic conditions prior to the AD process
8 Waste water Sodium is more toxic to propionic acid utilizing bacteria as compared to other VFA degrading bacteria [114]
9 Sludge The inhibitory level of the potassium ion starts at 400 mg/L, though anaerobic microbes are able to [115]
tolerate up to 8 g/L potassium
10 Organic waste The potassium ion is more toxic to thermophilic anaerobes as compared to mesophilic or psychrophilic [116]
anaerobes
11 Sludge The optimum concentrations of calcium and magnesium ions have been reported to be 200 mg/L and [117,118]
720 mg/L, respectively
12 Kitchen waste Excessive amounts of calcium ions can cause precipitation of carbonates and phosphates, which results [119]
in scaling of the reactors, pipes, and biomass
13 Sludge high concentrations ( 4100 mM) of the magnesium ion can cause disaggregation of methanogens [118]
14 Food waste Fe was the most effective metal for stabilization of the AD process [120]
15 Food waste Achieved a 4565% higher methane production yield from FW with supplementation of a trace metals [121]
16 Organic waste Achieved 100% of the potential production with alkaline (0.3 g NaOH/g TS) pretreated [122]

Table 4
Biological pretreatment done by various researchers with their ndings.

S. Substrate Findings References

no.

1 Organic fraction of municipal
solid waste
2 Solid potato waste
3 Brown water, food waste
4 Organic fraction of municipal
solid waste
5 Sisal pulp waste
6 Waste water
7 Sisal leaf decortication
residues
Physically separating the acidogens from the methanogens can result in a higher methane production [36]
Optimizing the rst hydrolysis stage could stimulate the acidogenic microbes to produce more specic enzymes, thus [125]
resulting in more extended degradation of substrates
Composting or micro-aeration prior to AD can be an effective method to obtain a higher hydrolysis [123]
Pretreatment by composting resulted in a higher specic microbial growth rate than by thermochemical pretreatment [126]
Observed a loss of potential methane production with a longer aerobic pretreatment [127]
Fungal pretreatment obtained a 53.3% COD removal efciency [128]
Aerobic incubation for 4 days resulted in a 3040% cumulative biogas increase with a higher (5066%) methane [129]
content

methods used [83]. Engelhart et al. [84] studied the effect of HPH
on the AD of sewage sludge and achieved a 25% increased VS
reduction.
9.2. Thermal pretreatment
Thermal treatment is found as one of the most common and
successful pretreatments for industrial scale application
[64,88,89]. Thermal pretreatment leads to pathogen removal with
improvement in dewatering performance and reduces viscosity of
the digestate, with subsequent enhancement of digestate handling
[88,9092]. Various researchers have suggested a wide range of
temperatures (50250 1C) to enhance the effectiveness of AD of
different organic solid wastes. Table 2 represents the thermal
treatment conducted by different researchers. Mottet et al. [93]
compared different thermal pretreatment methods and found no
signicant difference between steam and electric heating, whereas
microwave heating is found to solubilize more biopolymers.
Bougrier et al. [72] have suggested that thermal pretreatment at
high temperatures (generally more than 70 1C) might lead to the
creation of chemical bonds and result in the agglomeration of the
particles.
Researchers have reported that thermal pretreatment at tem-
peratures below 100 1C did not result in degradation of complex
molecules, but it simply induces the deocculating of macromo-
lecules [94,95]. Neyens and Bayens [96] have reported that
thermal pretreatment resulted in the solubilization of proteins
and increased the removal of particulate carbohydrates.
Liu et al. [92] studied the thermal pre-treatment of food waste
and fruit and vegetable waste at higher temperatures (around
175 1C) and reported a decrease of the methane yield, due to the
formation of melanoidins.
9.3. Chemical pretreatment
Chemical pretreatment is dened as the destruction of the
organic compounds by means of strong acids, alkalis or oxidants.
AD generally requires an adjustment of the pH by increasing
alkalinity, thus alkali pretreatment is the preferred chemical
pretreatment method [105]. Table 3 reports the thermal treatment
done by various researchers. During alkali pretreatment the basic
and the most important reactions that occur are solvation and
saphonication, which induce the enlargement of solids particles
[88]. As a result, the specic surface area is increased, the
substrates are easily accessible to anaerobic microbes [83,106,107].
152 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
Acidic pretreatments and oxidative methods are also used to
enhance the biogas yield and improve the hydrolysis rate. Acid
pretreatment is more useful for substrates with high lignocellu-
losic contents as it breaks down the lignin and also because the
hydrolytic microbes are capable of acclimating to acidic conditions
[108]. The most important reaction that occurs during acid pre-
treatment is the hydrolysis of hemicellulose into perspective
mono-saccharides, while the lignin condensates and precipitates
[83,109]. Strong acidic pretreatment may result in the production
of inhibitory by-products, such as furfural and hydroxymethylfur-
fural (HMF) [106,108]. Hence, strong acidic pretreatment is
escaped and generally pretreatment is done with dilute acids
combined with thermal methods.
The effect of chemical pretreatment depends on the type of
method applied and the characteristics of the substrates. Chemical
pretreatment is not suitable for easily biodegradable substrates
containing high amounts of carbohydrates, due to their acceler-
ated degradation and subsequent accumulation of VFA, which
leads to failure of the methanogenesis step [110].
9.4. Biological pretreatment
Biological pretreatment comprises both anaerobic and aerobic
methods. Table 4 reports the results of biological treatment
conducted by different researchers. Aerobic pretreatment, e.g.,
composting before AD can be an effective method to obtain a
higher hydrolysis of complex substrates due to the higher produc-
tion of hydrolytic enzymes due to increased specic microbial
growth [123,124].
Due to increasing universal alarms on the growing quantity of
waste as well as energy demand and global warming, there is a
need to develop advanced technologies for the quickening and
improvement of the AD process [130]. As dened above, pretreat-
ment methods can be categorized as mechanical, thermal, chemi-
cal and biological. Among the widely reported pretreatment
methods tested at lab scale, only few mechanical, thermal and
thermochemical methods were successfully applied at full scale to
offer advantages to AD process such as higher biogas yield,
retention time reduction, digestate quantity reduction etc. [131].
10. Discussion
The quantity of waste generated is increasing to a level that it is
difcult to manage. In addition to this, developing countries are
suffering with deciency in management capability to deal with the
increasing amount of waste. Common problems for MSW manage-
ment in developing countries of Asia include institutional decien-
cies, inadequate legislation and resource constraints. Long- and
short-term plans are lacking due to capital and human resource
limitations. Therefore there is a need for nancing instruments for
MSW management, training specialists and capacity-building.
On the other hand, municipal solid waste management is
becoming a critical problem in most of the megacities of the
world. Anaerobic digestion is one of the technologies to convert
that waste into useful form of energy. But countries like Singapore,
Shanghai and other megacities having limited resources cannot
fulll the cow dung or other animal manure requirements in
anaerobic digestion. Therefore there is a need to do research in the
eld of articial inocula to be used for anaerobic digestion. Other
than this the segregation and quality of waste is also the serious
concern while discussing the anaerobic digestion. The quality of
waste should be maintained constant while digesting anaer-
obically.
The various other potential environmental and health hazards
of the AD technology are not covered in the paper. However,
depending on the initial content of the feedstock, the digestate
and other by-products of the process may contain plastics, heavy
metals and other inorganic materials that may need further
treatment before introducing them to the environment (landll).
Another potential hazard may be brought by introduction of
genetically modied organisms to increase yield and efciency of
the process. Released to the environment, the organisms can cause
devastating consequences, such as reduction in natural species
diversity due to increased competition. While encouraging further
adoption of the AD technology, signicant research funds should
be directed towards exploring these issues.
11. Conclusion
It is observed that there is a potential of biogas production from
the municipal solid waste depends greatly on operating para-
meters. It is found that carbon to nitrogen ratio, temperature, pH
value and TS content play important roles in anaerobic digestion
and various researchers have done work to nd the optimum
range of these operating parameters. However, very limited data
has been found for other operating parameters such as diameter to
depth ratio, seeding, nutrients, stirring rate, feeding rate, toxicity
of the end product and pressure. Therefore there is need to study
the effect of these parameters on biogas production rate and
quality. Different digestion approaches were also discussed in the
paper and it is found that two step/multi-step anaerobic digestion
is the best approach for anaerobic digestion. This paper also
reviewed wide variety of substrate pretreatment technologies
before anaerobic digestion. Among the extensively reported pre-
treatment technologies, only limited mechanical, thermal and
thermochemical methods were effectively applied at full scale to
offer advantages to AD process such as higher biogas yield,
retention time reduction, digestate quantity reduction etc. The
nding of this review could be useful to increase the biogas yield
and to deal with the problems associated with the MSW manage-
ment in Singapore as well as other megacities of the world.
Acknowledgment
This project is supported under the Campus for Research Excel-
lence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) framework to study
sustainable solutions for coupled problems targeted at already-
stressed megacities and serve as inputs for strategic policy making
and near real-time environmental monitoring and response.
References
[1] NEA (National Environmental Agency). Solid waste management; 2009
http://app2.nea.gov.sg/redirection-page?aspxerrorpath=/index.aspx.
[2] Tan RBH, Khoo HH. Impact assessment of waste management options in
Singapore. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2006;56:24454.
[3] Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid
wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour
Technol 2000;74:316.
[4] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(10):404464.
[5] De Baere L. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste: state-of-the-art. Water Sci
Technol 2000;41(3):28390.
[6] Rapport J, Zhang R, Jenkins BM, Williams RB. Current anaerobic digestion
technologies used for treatment of municipal organic solid waste. Available
at:. California Environmental Protection Agency; 2008.
[7] Kwietniewska E, Tys J. Process characteristics, inhibition factors and methane
yields of anaerobic digestion process, with particular focus on microalgal
biomass fermentation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:491500.
[8] Guendouz J, Bufere P, Cacho J, Carrere M, Delgenes JP. High-solids anaerobic
digestion: comparison of three pilot scales. Water Sci Technol 2008;58(9):175763.
 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
[9] Luning L, van Zundert EHM, Brinkmann AJF. Comparison of dry and wet
digestion for solid waste. Water Sci Technol 2003;48(4):1520.
[10] De Baere L. Partial stream digestion of residual municipal solid waste. Water
Sci Technol 2008;57(7):10737.
[11] Zhang W, Wei Q, Wu S, Qi D, Li W, Zuo Z, et al. Batch anaerobic co-digestion
of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions.
Appl Energy 2014;128:17583.
[12] Kelleher BP, Simpson AJ, Rogers RE, Dearman J, Kingery WL. Effects of natural
organic matter from sediments on the growth of marine gas hydrates. Mar
Chem 2007;103(34):23749.
[13] Kalyuzhnyi S, Veeken A, Hamelers B. Two-particle model of anaerobic solid
state fermentation. Water Sci Technol 2000;41(3):4350.
[14] Pavlostathis SG, Giraldogomez E. Kinetics of anaerobic treatment. Water Sci
Technol 1991;24(8):3559.
[15] Gerardi MH. The microbiology of anaerobic digesters. New York: Wiley, John
& Sons; 2003.
[16] Veeken A, Hamelers B. Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rates of selected
biowaste components. Bioresour Technol 1999;69(3):24954.
[17] Boone DR, Chynoweth DP, Mah RA, Smith PH, Wilkie AC. Ecology and
microbiology of biogasication. Biomass Bioenergy 1993;5(34):191202.
[18] Lo YC, Saratale GD, Chen WM, Bai MD, Chang JS. Isolation of cellulose
hydrolytic bacteria and applications of the cellulolytic enzymes for cellulosic
biohydrogen production. Enzym Microb Technol 2009;44:41725.
[19] Kuhner CH, Frank C, Griesshammer A, Schmittroth M, Acker G, Gossner A,
et al. Sporomusa silvacetica sp. nov, an acetogenic bacterium isolated from
aggregated forest soil. Int J Syst Bacteriol 1997;47(2):3528.
[20] Chipasa K, Mdrzycka K. Behavior of lipids in biological waste water
treatment processes. J Ind Microbiol 2006:63545.
[21] Davidsson , Lvstedt C, la Cour Jansen J, Gruvberger C, Aspegren H. Co-
digestion of grease trap sludge and sewage sludge. Waste Manag
2008;28:98692.
[22] Schuppert B, Schink B. Fermentation of methoxyacetate to glycolate and
acetate by newly isolated strains of Acetobacterium sp. Arch Microbiol
1990;153(2):2004.
[23] van der Wielen PWJJ, Rovers GMLL, Scheepens JMA, Biesterveld S. Clostri-
dium lactatifermentans sp. nov., a lactate-fermenting anaerobe isolated from
the caeca of a chicken. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2002;52:9215.
[24] Gibreel A, Sandercock JR, Lan J, Goonewardene LA, Zijlstra RT, Curtis JM, et al.
Fermentation of barley by using Saccharomyces cerevisiae: examination of
barley as a feedstock for bioethanol production and value-added products.
Appl Environ Microbiol 2009;75(5):136372.
[25] Nyanga LK, Nout MJR, Gadaga TH, Theelen B, Boekhout T, Zwietering MH.
Yeasts and lactic acid bacteria microbiota from masau (Ziziphus mauritiana)
fruits and their fermented fruit pulp in Zimbabwe. Int J Food Microbiol
2007;120(12):15966.
[26] Tedesco S, Benyounis KY, Olabia G. Mechanical pretreatment effects on
macroalgae derived biogas production in co-digestion with sludge in Ireland.
Energy 2013;61:2733.
[27] Nkemka VN, Murto M. Exploring strategies for sea weed hydrolysis: effect on
methane potential and heavy metal mobilisation. Process Biochem
2012;47:25236.
[28] Canganella F, Kuk SU, Morgan H, Wiegel J. Clostridium thermobutyricum:
growth studies and stimulation of butyrate formation by acetate supple-
mentation. Microbiol Res 2002;157(2):14956.
[29] Worden RM, Grethlein AJ, Jain MK, Datta R. Production of butanol and
ethanol from synthesis gas via fermentation. Fuel 1991;70(5):6159.
[30] Schmidt S, Biegel E, Muller V. The ins and outs of Na bioenergetics in
Acetobacterium woodii. Biochim Biophys ActaBioenergetics 2009;1787:6916.
[31] Shankaranand VS, Ramesh MV, Lonsane BK. Idiosyncrasies of solid-state
fermentation systems in the biosynthesis of metabolites by some bacterial
and fungal cultures. Process Biochem 1992;27(1):336.
[32] Palatsi J, Laureni M, Andrs MV, Flotats X, Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I. Strategies
for recovering inhibition caused by long chain fatty acids on anaerobic
thermophilic biogas reactors. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:458896.
[33] Zonta Z, Alves MM, Flotats X, Palatsi J. Modeling inhibitory effects of long
chain fatty acids in the anaerobic digestion process. Water Res
2013;47:136980.
[34] Pereira MA, Cavaleiro AJ, Mota M, Alves MM. Accumulation of long chain
fatty acids on to anaerobic sludge under steady state and shock loading
conditions: effect on acetogenic and methanogenic activity. Water Sci
Technol 2003;48:3340.
[35] Sutaryo S, Ward AJ, Mller HB. Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of
separated solids from acidied dairy cow manure. Bioresour Technol
2012;114:195200.
[36] Hartmann H, Ahring BK. Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste: an overview. Water Sci Technol 2006;53(8):722.
[37] Kim M, Ahn YH, Speece RE. Comparative process stability and efciency of
anaerobic digestion, mesophilic vs. thermophilic. Water Res 2002;36(17):436985.
[38] Kuo WC, Lu HY. A complete resource recovery of the thermophilic anaerobic
digestion. In: Proceedings of 10th congress on anaerobic digestion, vol. 4;
2004. p. 16635.
[39] Hartmann H, Ahring BK. Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste: inuence of co-digestion with manure. Water Res
2005;39(8):154352.
153
[40] Mashad HM, Zeeman G, Loon WKP, Bot GPA, Lettinga G. Effect of tempera-
ture and temperature uctuation on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 2004;45:191201.
[41] Fernandez J, Perez M, Romero LI. Effect of substrate concentration on dry
mesophilic anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW). Bioresour Technol 2008;99(14):607580.
[42] Luste S, Luostarinen S. Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing by-
products and sewage sludge effect of hygienization and organic loading
rate. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:265764.
[43] Wang X, Yang G, Feng Y, Ren G, Han X. Optimizing feeding composition and
carbon-nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-
digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour Technol
2012;120:7883.
[44] Giuliano A, Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Cavinato C, Cecchi F. Co-digestion of
livestock efuents, energy crops and agro-waste: feeding and process
optimization in mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour Technol
2013;128:6128.
[45] Pang YZ, Liu YP, Li XJ, Wang KS, Yuan HR. Improving biodegradability and
biogas production of corn stover through sodium hydroxide solid state
pretreatment. Energy Fuels 2008;22(4):27616.
[46] Parkin GF, Owen WF. Fundamentals of anaerobic-digestion of waste-water
sludges. J Environ EngASCE 1986;112(5):867920.
[47] Yen HW, Brune DE. Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper
to produce methane. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:1304.
[48] Romano RT, Zhang RH. Co-digestion of onion juice and wastewater sludge using
an anaerobic mixed biolm reactor. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(3):6317.
[49] Zhu J, Li Y. Experimental study on solid state anaerobic digestion of organic
waste for methane production. In: Proceedings of 2009 annual ASABE
meeting; 2009.
[50] Astals S, Nolla-Ardvol V, Mata-Alvarez J. Anaerobic co-digestion of pig
manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate.
Bioresour Technol 2012;110:6370.
[51] Alburquerque JA, dela Fuente C, Bernal MP. Chemical properties of anaerobic
digestates affecting C and N dynamics in amended soils. Agric Ecosyst
Environ 2012;160:1522.
[52] Lu SG, Imai T, Ukita M, Sekine M. Start-up performances of dry anaerobic
mesophilic and thermophilic digestions of organic solid wastes. J Environ Sci
China 2007;19(4):41620.
[53] Chiu SF, Chiu JY, Kuo WC. Biological stoichiometric analysis of nutrition and
ammonia toxicity in thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of organic sub-
strates under different organic loading rates. Renew Energy 2013;57:3239.
[54] Cuetos MJ, Gmez X, Otero M, Morn A. Anaerobic digestion and co-
digestion of slaughter house waste (SHW): inuence of heat and pressure
pre-treatment in biogas yield. Waste Manag 2010;30:17809.
[55] Vivekanand V, Olsen EF, Eijsink VGH, Horn SJ. Effect of different steam
explosion conditions on methane potential and enzymatic saccharication of
birch. Bioresour Technol 2013;127:3439.
[56] Taherzadeh MJ, Karimi K. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve
ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int J Mol Sci 2008;9:162151.
[57] Rai GD. Non-conventional energy sources. Khanna Publishers; 2011.
[58] Abu-Dahrieha J, Orozco A, Groomb E, Rooney D. Batch and continuous biogas
production from grass silage liquor. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:109228.
[59] Verma S. Anaerobic digestion of biodegradable organics in municipal solid
wastes. Columbia University; 2002.
[60] Vijay VK. Demonstration of biogas purication and bottling technology
developed by IIT Delhi at Shri Madhav Govind Gaushala (Cattle Farm) in
Bhilwara (Rajasthan) India http://www.direc2010.gov.in/pdf/Demonstration
%20of%20Biogas%20Purication%20and%20Bottling%20Technology.pdf.
[61] Vijay VK. Water scrubbing based biogas enrichment technology by IIT Delhi
http://www.valorgas.soton.ac.uk/Pub_docs/Delhi_Aug_2013/Biogas%20Vehi
cle%203/biogas%20upgrading8-13.pdf.
[62] Gerber M. Modelling of material and energy balance of biogas production
process. In: Proceedings of 2nd GERG academic network event, Brussels;
June 2010.
[63] Zirkler D, Peters A, Kaupenjohann M. Elemental composition of biogas
residues: variability and alteration during anaerobic digestion. Biomass
Bioenergy 2014;67:8998.
[64] Carrere H, Dumas C, Battimelli A, Batsone DJ, Delgenes JP, Steyer JP, et al.
Pretreatment methods to improve sludge anaerobic degradability: a review.
J Hazard Mater 2010;183:115.
[65] Skiadas IV JP, Gavala HN, Lu J, Ahring BK. Thermal pre-treatment of primary
and secondary sludge at 70 1C prior to anaerobic digestion. Water Sci
Technol 2005;52:1616.
[66] Elliot A, Mahmood T. Comparison of mechanical pretreatment methods for
the enhancement of anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper waste. Water Sci
Technol 2012;84:497505.
[67] Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico A, Pirozzi F. Modeling the effect of the OLR and
OFMSW particle size on the performances of an anaerobic co-digestion
reactor. Process Biochem 2011;46:55765.
[68] Kim IS, Kim DH, Hyun SH. Effect of particle size and sodium ion concentra-
tion on anaerobic thermophilic food waste digestion. Water Sci Technol
2000;41:6773.
[69] Hartmann H, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Increase of anaerobic degradation of
particulate organic matter in full-scale biogas plants by mechanical macera-
tion. Water Sci Technol 2000;41:14553.
154 S. Jain et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52 (2015) 142154
[70] Elliott A, Mahmood T. Pretreatment technologies for advancing anaerobic
digestion of pulp and paper biotreatment residues. Water Res 2007;41:427386.
[71] Chua CP, Lee DJ, Chang B, You CS, Tay JH. Weak ultrasonic pre-treatment on
anaerobic digestion of occulated activated biosolids. Water Res
2002;36:26818.
[72] Bougrier C, Albasi C, Delgenes JP, Carrere H. Effect of ultrasonic, thermal and
ozone pretreatments on waste activated sludge solubilization and anaerobic
biodegradability. Chem Eng Process 2006;45:7118.
[73] Zhu B, Gikas P, Zhang R, Lord J, Jenkins B, Li X. Characteristics and biogas
production potential of municipal solid wastes pretreated with rotary drum
reactor. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:11229.
[74] Subramani T, Ponkumar S. Anaerobic digestion of aerobic pretreated organic
waste. Int J Mod Eng Res 2012;2:60711.
[75] Davidson A, Gruvberger C, Christensen TH, Hansen TL, Jansen JC. Methane
yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste
Manag 2007;27:40614.
[76] Zhang Y, Banks CJ. Impact of different particle size distributions on anaerobic
digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag
2013;33:297307.
[77] Hansen TL, Jansen JC, Davidsson A, Christensen TH. Effects of pre-treatment
technologies on quantity and quality of source-sorted municipal organic
waste for biogas recovery. Waste Manag 2007;27:389405.
[78] Bernstad A, Malmquist L, Truedsson C, Jansen JC. Need for improvements in
physical pretreatment of source-separated household food waste. Waste
Manag 2013;33:74654.
[79] Izumi K, Okishio YK, Niwa C, Yamamoto S, Toda T. Effects of particle size on
anaerobic digestion of food waste. Int Bio-deterior Biodegrad 2010;64:6018.
[80] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production
from organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:8216.
[81] Carlsson M, Anox Kaldnes AD. Electroporation for enhanced methane yield
from municipal solid waste. In: Proceedings of ORBIT 2008, 1315th October
2008, Wageningen, The Netherlands; 2008.
[82] Cesaro A, Belgiorno V. Sonolysis and ozonation as pretreatment for anaerobic
digestion of solid organic waste. Ultrason Sonochem 2013;20:9316.
[83] Hendriks ATWM, Zeeman G. Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of
lignocellulosic biomass: a review. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:108.
[84] Engelhart M, Kruger M, Kopp J, Dichtl N. Effects of disintegration on
anaerobic degradation of sewage excess sludge in down-ow stationary
xed lm digesters. Water Sci Technol 2000;41:1719.
[85] Ariunbaatar Javkhlan, Panico Antonio, Esposito Giovanni, Pirozzi Francesco,
Lens Piet NL. Pretreatment methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of
organic solid waste. Appl Energy 2014;123:14356.
[86] Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Methods for increasing the biogas potential from the
recalcitrant organic matter contained in manure. Water Sci Technol
2000;41:18994.
[87] Sandino J, Santha H, Rogowski S, Anderson W, Sung S, Isik F. Applicability of
ultrasound pre-conditioning of WAS to reduce foaming potential in meso-
philic digesters. Residuals Biosolids Manag 2005;17:81935.
[88] Carlsson M, Lagerkvist A, Morgan-Sagastume F. The effects of substrate
pretreatment on anaerobic digestion: a review. Waste Manag
2012;32:163450.
[89] Cesaro A, Belgiorno V. Pretreatment methods to improve anaerobic biode-
gradability of organic municipal solid waste fractions. Chem Eng J
2014;240:2437.
[90] Edelmann W, Baier U, Engeli H. Environmental aspects of the anaerobic
digestion of the OFMSW and agricultural wastes. Water Sci Technol
2005;52:5539.
[91] Val del Rio A, Morales N, Isanta E, Mosquera-Corral A, Campos JL, Steyer JP,
et al. Thermal pretreatment of aerobic granular sludge: impact on anaerobic
biodegradability. Water Res 2011;45:601120.
[92] Liu X, Wang W, Gao X, Zhou Y, Shen R. Effect of thermal pretreatment on the
physical and chemical properties of municipal biomass waste. Waste Manag
2012;32:24955.
[93] Mottet A, Steyera JP, Dlrisb S, Vedrenneb F, Chauzyc J, Carrre H. Kinetics
of thermophilic batch anaerobic digestion of thermal hydrolysed waste
activated sludge. Biochem Eng J 2009;46:16975.
[94] Protot A, Julien L, Christophe D, Partick L. Sludge disintegration during heat
treatment at low temperature: a better understanding of involved mechan-
isms with a multi-parametric approach. Biochem Eng J 2011;54:17884.
[95] Barjenbruch M, Kopplow O. Enzymatic, mechanical and thermal pretreat-
ment of surplus sludge. Adv Environ Res 2003;7:71520.
[96] Neyens E, Baeyens J. A review of thermal sludge pre-treatment processes to
improve dewaterability. Hazard Mater 2003;98:5167.
[97] Ferrer I, Ponsa S, Vasquez F, Font X. Increasing biogas production by thermal
(70 1C) sludge pretreatment prior to thermophilic anaerobic digestion.
Biochem Eng J 2008;42:18692.
[98] Marin J, Kennedy KJ, Eskicioglu C. Effect of microwave irradiation on anaerobic
degradability of model kitchen waste. Waste Manag 2010;30:17729.
[99] Bien JB, Malina G, Bien JD, Wolny L. Enhancing anaerobic fermentation of
sewage sludge for increasing biogas generation. J Environ Sci Health
2004;39:93949.
[100] Toreci I, Kennedy KJ, Droste RL. Evaluation of continuous mesophilic
anaerobic sludge digestion after high temperature microwave pretreatment.
Water Res 2009;43:127384.
[101] Appels L, Degreve J, Bruggen BV, Impe JV, Dewil R. Inuence of low
temperature thermal pre-treatment on sludge solubilization, heavy metal
release and anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:57438.
[102] Raque R, Poulse TG, Nizami A-S, Asam ZZ, Murphy JD, Kiely G. Effect of
thermal, chemical and thermo-chemical pretreatments to enhance methane
production. Energy 2010;35:455661.
[103] Climent M, Ferrer I, Baeza MM, Artola A, Vazquez F, Font X. Effect of thermal,
mechanical pretreatments of secondary sludge on biogas production under
thermophilic conditions. Chem Eng J 2007;133:33542.
[104] Ma J, Duong TH, Smits M, Vestraete W, Carballa M. Enhanced biomethanation of
kitchen waste by different pretreatments. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:5929.
[105] Li H, Li Chenchen, Liu W, Zou S. Optimized alkaline pretreatment of sludge
before anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2012;123:18994.
[106] Modenbach AA, Nokes SE. The use of high-solids loading in biomass
pretreatment a review. Biotechnol Bioeng 2012;109:143042.
[107] Lopez Torres M, del Espinosa Llorens Ma. Effect of alkaline pretreatment on
anaerobic digestion of solid wastes. Waste Manag 2008;28:222934.
[108] Mussoline W, Esposito G, Giordano A, Lens P. Anaerobic digestion of rice
straw: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2013;43:895915. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10643389.2011.627018.
[109] Mata-Alvarez J, editor. Biomethanation of the organic fraction of municipal
solid wastes; 2003. ISBN: 1 900222 14 0.
[110] Wang L, Mattsson M, Rundstedt J, Karlsson N. Different pretreatments to enhance
biogas production. Master of science thesis]. Halmstad University; 2011.
[111] Fernandes TV, Klaasse Bos GJ, Zeeman G, Sander JPM, Lier JB. Effects of
thermo-chemical pretreatment on anaerobic biodegradability and hydrolysis
of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:25759.
[112] Taherzadeh MJ, Karimi K. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve
ethanol and biogas production: a review. Int J Mol Sci 2008;9:162151.
[113] Kumar D, Murthy GS. Impact of pretreatment and downstream processing
technologies on economics and energy in cellulosic ethanol production.
Biotechnol Biofuels 2011;4:27.
[114] Soto M, Mendez R, Kema JM. Sodium inhibition and sulphate reduction in the
anaerobic treatment of mussel processing wastewaters. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol 1993;58:17.
[115] Bashir Basharat H, Asif M. Combined effect of calcium and sodium on
potassium toxicity in anaerobic treatment processes, JEAFChe 2004;3:670
6 http://www.aseanenvironment.info/Abstract/41015401.pdf.
[116] Chen Y, Chen JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:404464.
[117] Kugelman IJ, McCarty PL. Cation toxicity and stimulation in anaerobic waste
treatment. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1965;37:97116.
[118] Schmidt JE, Ahring BK. Effects of magnesium on thermophilic acetate
degrading granules in upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors.
Enzyme Microb Technol 1993;15:30410.
[119] Zhang B, Zhang SC, Shi HZ, Cai WM. The inuence of pH on hydrolysis and
acidnogenesis of kitchen wastes in two-phase anaerobic digestion. Environ
Technol 2005;26:32939.
[120] Zhang L, Jahng D. Long term anaerobic digestion of food waste stabilized by
trace elements. Waste Manag 2012;32:150915.
[121] Facchin V, Cavinato C, Fatone F, Pavan P, Cecchi F, Bolzonella D. Effect of trace
element supplementation on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food
waste in batch trials: the inuence of inoculum origin. Biochem Eng J
2013;70:717.
[122] Neves L, Ribeiro R, Oliveira R, ALves MM. Enhancement of methane produc-
tion from barley waste. Biomass Bioenergy 2006;30:599603.
[123] Lim JW, Wang J-Y. Enhanced hydrolysis and methane yield by applying
microaeration pretreatment to the anaerobic co-digestion of brown water
and food waste. Waste Manag 2013;33:8139.
[124] Zhang RH, Zhang ZQ. Biogasication of rice straw with an anaerobic-phased
solids digester system. Bioresour Technol 1999;68(3):23545.
[125] Parawira W, Murto M, Read JS, Mattiasson B. Prole of hydrolases and biogas
production during two-stage mesophilic anaerobic digestion of solid potato
waste. Process Biochem 2005;40:294552.
[126] Fdez-Guelfo LA, Alvarez-Gallego C, Sales Marquez D, Romero Garcia LI. The
effect of different pretreatments on biomethanation kinetics of industrial
organic fraction of municipal solid wastes (OFMSW). Chem Eng J
2011;171:4117.
[127] Mshandete A, Bjornsson L, Kivaisi AK, Rubindamayugi ST, Mattiasson B.
Enhancement of anaerobic batch digestion of sisal pulp waste by mesophilic
aerobic pretreatment. Water Res 2005;39:156975.
[128] Melamane X, Tandlich R, Burgess J. Anaerobic digestion of fungally pre-
treated wine distillery wastewater. Afr J Biotechnol 2007;6:19903.
[129] Muthangya M, Mshandete AM, Kivaisi AK. Enhancement of anaerobic
digestion of sisal leaf decortication residues by biological pre-treatment.
ARPN J Agric Biol Sci 2009;4:6673.
[130] Zhang C, Su H, Baeyens J, et al. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2014;38:38392.
[131] Mao C, Feng Y, Wang X, Ren G. Review on research achievement of biogas
from anaerobic digestion 2015;45:54055Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;45:54055.