Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 25372541

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

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

Substituting energy crops with organic wastes and

agro-industrial residues for biogas production
Andrea Schievano*, Giuliana DImporzano, Fabrizio Adani**
` degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 2, 20133 Milan, Italy
Dipartimento di Produzione Vegetale, Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 28 May 2008
Received in revised form
19 December 2008
Accepted 21 January 2009
Available online 28 February 2009

In this study, industrial and agro-industrial by-products and residues (BRs), animal manures (AMs), and
various types of organic wastes (OWs) were analyzed to evaluate their suitability as substitutes for
energy crops (ECs) in biogas production. A comparison between the costs of the volume of biogas that
can be produced from each substrate was presented with respect to the prices of the substrates in the
Italian market. Furthermore, four different feeding mixtures were compared with a mixture of EC and
swine manure (Mixture A) used in a full-scale plant in Italy. Swine manure is always included as a basic
substrate in the feeding mixtures, because many of the Italian biogas plants are connected to farms.
When EC were partially substituted with BR (Mixture B), the cost (0.28 V Nm3) of the volume of biogas
of Mixture A dropped to 0.18 V Nm3. Furthermore, when the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW) and olive oil sludge (OS) were used as possible solutions (Mixtures C and D), the costs of the
volume of biogas were 0.20 and 0.11 V Nm3, respectively. The negative price signies that operators
earn money for treating the waste. For the fth mix (Mixture E) of the OFMSW with a high solid
substrate, such as glycerin from biodiesel production, the resulting cost of the volume of biogas produced
was 0.09 V Nm3. By comparing these gures, it is evident that the biogas plants at farm level are good
candidates for treating organic residues of both municipalities and the agro-industrial sector in a costeffective way, and in providing territorially diffused electric and thermal power. This may represent
a potential development for agrarian economy.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic biogasication potential
Biofuels
Energy crops
Organic waste
Glycerin

1. Introduction
Biomass is a diffuse source of energy with low energy density.
Photosynthesis is the most effective route to convert solar energy
into biomass, while biomass is the most convenient form to store
solar energy. For this reason, energy from biomass is now considered as having the potential to provide the major portion of the
projected renewable energy needs of the future. However, the
extent to which this can be realized depends on scientic, technological, economic, and political factors (INTUSER, 2007).
Biogas production by anaerobic digestion (AD) of biomass, in
sync with other technologies, can help in partially replacing fossilfuel-derived energy and thereby in reducing environmental impact
Abbreviations: ABP, anaerobic biogasication potential; ECs, energy crops; BRs,
industrial and agro-industrial by-products and residues; AMs, animal manures; SM,
swine manure; OW, organic waste; OFMSW, organic fraction of municipal solid
waste; OS, olive oil sludge.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 02 503 16546; fax: 39 02 503 16521.
** Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 02 503 16545; fax: 39 02 503 16521.
E-mail addresses: andrea.schievano@unimi.it (A. Schievano), fabrizio.adani@
unimi.it (F. Adani).
0301-4797/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.013

by providing a clean and diffused fuel from renewable feedstock. In

some EU countries, such as Italy, Austria, and Germany, substrate
supply is often achieved by dedicated energy crops (ECs), such as
cereals and maize (EurObservER, 2007). The total arable land in the
EU is up to 100 million hectares, and nearly 20% of this land can be
assumed to be available for purposes other than food-crop
production during the coming decades, if the right crop-rotation
with food crops is applied (Amon et al., 2007). For farmers, ECs may
be an interesting option for using the set-aside land, because the
demand for agricultural products often comes to a rest (Hanegraaf
et al., 1998). Besides, from the use of abandoned agricultural land,
positive environmental impacts, such as carbon and nutrient
supply to soils, erosion and desertication prevention, and contributions to biodiversity and landscape values may accrue to that
area. Furthermore, the ECs completely utilize the land and the
agricultural resources, while the food crops require just a partial
use of the land (INTUSER, 2007). Good soil quality and fertilization
can also be achieved by applying digested slurries from AD plants.
This may improve the soil quality through its sustainable use and
provide an additional pathway for agrarian economy (Easterly and
Burnham, 1996).

2538

A. Schievano et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 25372541

However, a crop requires a high expenditure in terms of arable

land, energy (irrigation, machines, transport), and environmental
resources (groundwater). In addition, the use of pesticides and
chemical fertilizers may have negative impact on the groundwater
and soil quality. Furthermore, the energetic and economic balances
of the crops are badly affected by the use of chemical fertilizers,
because they are normally derived from oil or extracted using
fossil-energy sources (INTUSER, 2007). Therefore, the characteristics of different agricultural areas and the environmental impacts of
EC should be fully understood before making political choices
concerning EC (Hanegraaf et al., 1998).
Residual biomasses, such as industrial and agro-industrial byproducts and residues (BRs), animal manures (AMs), and sourceseparated organic wastes (OWs) represent the spatially diffused
sources of the substrate for its anaerobic biotransformation to
biogas. Every agro-industrial system produces a wide variety of
organic feedstock, such as lignocellulosic materials, crop residues,
vegetable oils, animal fats, protein-rich waste, pre-digested
wastewater sludges, animal slurries and manures, waste paper,
household waste, etc., as by-products.
Moreover, the liquid biofuel industry is developing rapidly and
increasing its production. The production of bioethanol and biodiesel provides a relatively large amount of co-products and wastes,
such as corn oil, corn gluten meal, corn gluten feed, soybean meal,
and glycerin (Kim and Dale, 2005). Glycerin is a co-product of
biodiesel production, which is expected to grow steadily in the
future. With the increase in the biodiesel production, it is presumed
that there would be a surplus of glycerin in the world market
(Adhikari et al., 2007). Furthermore, the economics of biodiesel
might also be inuenced by the way glycerin co-product is used
(Suppes, 2006).
Anaerobic co-digestion of EC and a variety of residual biomasses
may be a good integrated solution, particularly with wastes that are
unsuitable for direct disposal on land. Thus, the disposal problem of
such waste materials and the problem of improving the quality of
soils can simultaneously be solved in an environment-friendly way,
through a continuous control of digestates after anaerobic treatment (INTUSER, 2007).
The exploitation of this potential diffused-energy source may
provide a good opportunity for new-generation biogas plants
(Chynoweth et al., 2001). In Italy, 2.7 million tons of organic fraction
of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) was produced in 2006, which is
almost double the value of that in 2002, owing to the increased
source separation (APAT, 2007). Other studies reported that the
potential exploitable amount of OFMSW in Italy is 11 million tons
per year (CRPA, 2006). In fact, there is a noticeable difference
between the percentages of source-separated waste of northern
(40%), central (20%), and southern (10%) Italy (APAT, 2007). Besides,
180 million tons of animal slurries come from farm industry, along
with 24 million tons of BR, including industrial and agro-industrial
by-products, agricultural residues, and wastewater sludge (CRPA,
2006).
In Italy, both smallmedium-sized plants at farm level (50
1000 kW) and big centralized plants (110 MW) are good candidates for the use of the most available residual biomasses, such as
OW, AM, and BR. In the case of animal by-products, such as
butchery wastes, some difculties may arise for the small-sized
plants because of the additional cost owing to the sanitation
requirements (European Union, 2002). Thus, the substitution or
integration of EC with this type of residual biomass in biogas
production would allow more independence to the biogas plants
from public support, aid in cost reduction, biomass recycling, and
fuller integration between agrarian and industrial sectors.
The aim of this work was to evaluate the advantages of different
substrates used in a full-scale biogas plant situated in a farm in

northern Italy, by considering their potential biogas production and

their prices in the market during the year 2007. For feeding the
considered biogas plant, substitution of EC with some BR and OW
was proposed as an example for other similar applications.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Feedstock samples collection
Fifteen different organic materials, including swine manure
(SM) and a variety of ECs and BRs were collected. These substrates
constitute the feed of a full-scale biogas plant in northern Italy.
Based on the availability of feedstock in the Italian market, 17 other
substrates were sampled, focusing on more economically suitable
BRs and various AMs and OWs (Table 1).
All the 32 samples were dried for 24 h at 80  C (APHA, 1992),
shredded in a blender to pass through a mesh about 2 mm, and
stored at 4  C. Representative samples were used to carry out all the
analytical tests. Total solids (TSs) were determined according to the
standard procedures (APHA, 1998).
2.2. Feeding mixtures preparation
Mixtures A and B were prepared in the laboratory with a variety
of EC, BR, and SM, simulating two different feeds, which were
applied on the eld in the observed biogas plant. The EC of Mixture
B, in contrast to that of Mixture A, was partially substituted with
various BR, containing high solid contents, like glycerin, molasses,
olive oil production waste sludge (OS), and bakery residues (Table
2). Furthermore, three combinations of other considered substrates
were proposed (Mixtures C, D, and E) (Table 2). The SM was always
used as basic liquid feedstock, because it is very commonly used in
Italian biogas plants at farm level. Feedstock was mixed maintaining a ratio of about 1:1 on wet weight basis (w/w) between SM
and some other particular substrate (as in Mixtures A and B).
As an alternative to Mixture A, Mixture C was produced with
OFMSW, which is a diffused substrate in northern Italy where
source separation of municipal solid waste reaches 4050% (APAT,
2007). In Mixture D, glycerin was added to OFMSW and SM to
ascertain the chances of increasing the TS content and ABP of
Mixture C and to create an alternative to Mixture B. Glycerin was
added in the ratio of nearly 8% on fresh weight base, as prescribed
by Amon et al. (2006). Their study showed that 68% supplementation of glycerin to pig manure and maize silage resulted in
optimum methane production. However, higher glycerin contents
(12%) yielded decreased methane (Amon et al., 2006).
In Mixture E, OS was used, because it is easily available in
southern and central Italy, where more than 90% of total Italian
olive oil is produced (ISMEA, 2005); and besides, OFMSW is not
freely available in this market (APAT, 2007).
2.3. Anaerobic biogasication potential (ABP) assay
This biological test provides a direct measurement of the
maximum potential biogas that can be produced from any organic
matrix through mesophilic anaerobic digestion, by optimizing
process.
2.4. Seed inoculum preparation
Inoculum with stable methanogenic activity (CH4 >60% in
biogas, v/v) was obtained by using the output digestate of the
post digester of a full-scale biogas plant. The pH was around 7.8;
TS and VS contents were about 34% on wet-weight basis (w/w)

A. Schievano et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 25372541

2539

Table 1
Series of 32 organic matrixes studied and their characterization.
TSa
(%)

ABPb
(Nm3 biogas Mg1)

ABP Average
(Nm3 biogas Mg1)

ABP (literature data)

(Nm3 biogas Mg1)

Pricec
(V Mg1)

V m3
biogas

V m3
biogas average

EC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Mixed maize Flour

Rice our
Mixed maize silage
Sorghum
Sweet maize
Wheat
Barley straw
Wheat straw

32.7%
89.0%
30.0%
20.0%
26.6%
45.0%
36.0%
80.2%

268.9  20.9
789.5  1.8
235.3  8.2
149.8  4.7
218.8  2.7
316.9  8.0
190.4  4.9
534.9  17.9

338.1  217.1

370.2  227.8d

75.00
150.00
72.00
65.00
80.00
110.00
50.00
47.00

0.28
0.19
0.31
0.43
0.37
0.35
0.26
0.09

0.28  0.11

BR

Thresh of
beer production
Out-of-date
yoghurt
Wastewaters of
beer production
Waste potatoes
Molasses
Glycerin
Bakery residues
Olive oil
production sludge 1
Olive oil
production sludge 2
Mixed vegetable
oils sludge

26.0%

101.8  2.1

307.8  235.9

350.2  256.9d

20.00

0.20

0.12  0.11

14.5%

82.2  4.4

0.00

0.00

6.3%

29.5  0.2

10.00

0.34

20.0%
98.0%
98.0%
66.0%
27.6%

126.8  3.5
498.5  6.7
587.6  43.3
653.1  27.8
301.0  9.3

0.00
120.00
70.00
60.00
20.00

0.00
0.24
0.12
0.09
0.07

83.2%

521.9  5.0

20.00

0.04

24.1%

175.4  8.0

20.00

0.11

19.3%

46.4  0.9

0.00

0.00

3.3%

5.2  0.3

0.00

0.00

4.2%

10.4  0.4

0.00

0.00

37.1%
1.8%
23.5%

130.2  3.8
2.4  0.1
97.8 6.4

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

23.7%
26.4%

116.5 18.7
177.0  9.3

45.00
45.00

0.39
0.25

55.1%

454.9  24.2

45.00

0.10

48.1%

407.9  2.6

45.00

0.11

42.4%

360.1  10.0

45.00

0.12

19.0%
45.2%
35.0%

102.5  0.4
410.3  46.6
226.0  7.7

45.00
45.00
45.00

0.44
0.11
0.20

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

AM

19
20
21
22
23
24

OW

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Sludges of civil
wastewater plant
Pre-digested
swine manure
Fresh swine
manure
Rabbit feces
Cattle manure
Poultry feces
Mixed waste fruit
Mixed waste
vegetables
Mixed waste
cooked food
Mixed waste
fresh food
Meat and
sh waste
Butchery waste
Mixed OFMSW 1
Mixed OFMSW 2

48.7  53.9

281.9 142.5

49.5  24.2d

203  116e

0.00  0.00

0.22  0.13

Total solids.
Maximum anaerobic biogasication potential obtained in batch reactors under optimized methanogenic conditions (CH4 65  5% v/v).
Prices in the Italian market in the period JuneDecember 2007 (Camera di Commercio di Vercelli, 2007 and Cirelli, 2008). The prices did not take into account any
operational, management and investment cost related to their treatment in biogas plants.
d
Pietzsch, 2007.
e
Gunaseelan, 2007.
b
c

and 7080% on total-solid basis (TS), respectively. Digestate was

incubated at 37  1  C for 15 days before its use.
2.5. ABP assay
The ABP of all samples was determined following the procedure
of Schievano et al. (2008). In 100 ml serum bottles, 0.62 g of dried
sample was added to 37.5 ml of inoculum and 22 ml of deionized
water. The batch tests were carried out with 60 ml samples (about
3.5% TS) and 40 ml of headspace. The fresh feedstock and inoculum
percentages were mixed at 35% and 65%, respectively. Control
blanks were prepared using 60 ml of inoculum.
All the batches were sealed with Teon hermetic caps, ushed
with an N2 atmosphere, and incubated at 37  1  C, until no further

biogas production was detected (normally around 60 days). The

assay bottles were periodically analyzed for both quantitative and
qualitative determination of biogas production. Quantitative biogas
production was estimated by withdrawing the extra-pressure gas
with a 60-ml syringe. The biogas production of blank control
batches was subtracted from the biogas production of every
sample. Qualitative characterization of biogas was performed using
a gas chromatograph Carlo Erba Megaseries 5300, capillary column
25 m  0.32 mm diameter and ame ionization detector (FID) to
determine CH4:CO2 ratio (v/v) in the biogas. Nitrogen at 20 kPa
pressure was used as the carrier gas, and the temperatures of
injector and FID were 130  C and 150  C, respectively. The peak
areas obtained were compared with a standard gas mixture of CH4/
CO2 at a ratio of 60:40 (v/v). All the tests were carried out in

2540

A. Schievano et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 25372541

Table 2
Composition of the ve feeding mixtures.
Feeding mixtures
A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Mixed maize our

Rice our
Mixed maize silage
Sorghum
Sweet maize
Wheat
Barley straw
Wheat straw
Thresh of beer production
Out-of-date yoghurt
Wastewaters of beer production
Waste potatoes
Molasses
Glycerin
Bakery residues
Olive oil production sludge 1
Olive oil production sludge 2
Mixed vegetable oils sludge
Sludges of civil wastewater plant
Pre-digested swine manure
Fresh swine manure
Rabbit feces
Cattle manure
Poultry feces
Mixed waste fruit
Mixed waste vegetables
Mixed waste cooked food
Mixed waste fresh food
Meat and sh waste
Butchery waste
Mixed OFMSW 1
Mixed OFMSW 2

%FM

%TS

%FM

%TS

%FM

%TS

%FM

%TS

%FM

%TS

2.8%
5.6%
3.7%
9.3%
6.5%
7.5%
3.7%
3.7%

57.2%

4.8%
26.1%
5.9%
9.8%
9.1%
14.1%
11.7%
8.8%

9.7%

2.2%

8.6%

8.6%
1.3%
6.5%
2.2%

4.3%
3.7%
2.2%
3.2%

3.2%

54.0%

8.5%

7.7%

13.8%
4.6%
12.9%
2.5%

3.8%
16.0%
9.4%
9.5%

3.5%

7.8%

50.0%

50.0%

8.6%

91.4%

8.6%

48.3%

43.1%

33.6%

6.3%

60.1%

52.2%

47.8%

88.9%

11.1%

duplicates. The average methane content in the biogas, calculated

for all trials, was 65  5% (v/v).
2.6. Prices collection from Italian market
The price of each organic matrix was collected between June
and December 2007, following the market in northern Italy
(Camera di Commercio di Vercelli, 2007). The average values for the
observation period are presented in Table 1. Manures were
assumed to have null cost, as many biogas plants in northern Italy
are located in the animal farms. Many residues, especially OW, were
reported with negative prices, because many Italian municipalities
usually pay private operators (e.g., composting and AD) for their
disposal. A price of 45 V Mg1 was assumed for all the considered
kinds of OW, as the actual prices were reported in the range of 20
70 V Mg1 (Cirelli, 2008). The prices of all the considered
substrates were exclusive of any investment or management costs
of the biogas plants (e.g., pre-treatments, sanitation facilities,
additional structures, etc.).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of the set of single biomasses
Table 1 contains a description of all the considered organic
matrices, their TS contents, ABP, and prices in the Italian market.
The costs of biogas (V Nm3) were calculated to compare the
economic convenience of producing biogas from each organic
matrix (Table 1). All the costs were calculated using the maximum
biogas yields (ABP) (Table 1), which in some/many cases may not be
realistic with respect to full-scale production plants. Therefore, the

costs reported in Table 1 offer a rst screening and indication, and

must be adapted for full-scale plant application.
Many biomasses, such as all EC and some BR, showed slightly
higher productivity in terms of ABP, when compared with other
kinds of substrates. The quality of organic matter in BR and OW
was normally poor, probably owing to the transformation or
retention of easily degradable molecules like carbohydrates and
lipids during the industrial processes. Besides, some ECs (rice
our and wheat straw) and BRs (glycerin, molasses, etc.) had
high (6099%) solid contents than all OWs and AMs. All
manures and feces showed the lowest ABP, because they were
pre-digested materials and their water content was normally
high (Table 1).
The average prices in the market follow different trends
(Table 1). All the ECs have a high cost in the market, compared with
other biomasses, such as BR. An average cost of about 81 V Mg1
was observed for EC, and 34 V Mg1 for BR. On the other hand,
higher TS contents and ABP values were found for EC, and as
a result, some observed BR, such as molasses and wastewater of
beer production, gave higher costs per volume of biogas. The
average values were 0.28 V Nm3 of biogas for the considered set of
EC, and 0.12 V Nm3 for BR (Table 1).
The biodiesel by-product, i.e. glycerin, is a very interesting
substrate as it can produce a very low-cost biogas (0.12 V Nm3)
than most of the ECs, mainly because of its high solid content.
Besides, at temperatures higher than 35  C, glycerin remains as
uid and can be easily pumped into digesters, without creating
mechanical problems. Moreover, owing to its solubility in water,
glycerin is readily available to the microbial ora.
Even with lower biogas yields, AM and OW were observed to be
much more convenient in terms of costs, with null and negative

A. Schievano et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009) 25372541

4. Conclusions

Table 3
Series of ve analyzed feeding mixtures and their characterization.

A
B
C
D
E

2541

Ingestate mixtures

TSa
(%)

ABPb
(Nm3 biogas Mg1)

Pricec
(V Mg1)

V m3
biogas

SM EC
SM EC BR
SM OFMSW
SM OFMSW glycerin
SM OS

17.5%
24.0%
19.2%
26.3%
15.6%

112.1  13.6
149.0  5.0
110.5  3.7
144.1  17.9
96.8  14.3

31.56
27.26
22.50
13.36
10.43

0.28
0.18
0.20
0.09
0.11

Total solids.
Maximum anaerobic biogasication potential obtained in batch reactors under
optimized methanogenic conditions (CH4 65  5% v/v).
c
Prices calculated from the prices of the single substrates composing the mixture.

A variety of residual biomasses, such as various BRs, AMs, and

OWs, can substitute for ECs in AD for the purpose of biogas
production, and may thus facilitate future development of agrarian
economy. Biogas plants at farm level are good candidates for
treating organic residues of municipalities and the agro-industrial
sector in a cost-effective way and for providing territorially diffused
electric and thermal power.

values, respectively. An average of 0.22 V Nm3 was calculated for

OW. Nevertheless, it should be noted that many of the analyzed
biomasses must be used in co-digestion with other biomasses, to
equilibrate the nutrients to carbon ratio.
3.2. Characterization of the proposed feeding mixtures
The observed TS contents and ABP values of the ve feeding
mixtures are presented in Table 3. Any comparison between
different solutions must rst consider the biogas productivity and
subsequently, the cost of the biogas that can be produced.
Mixtures A and C showed almost the same biogas production
and TS content (Table 3), indicating that OW can be used as an ideal
substitute for EC without changing the AD process. On the other
hand, Mixtures B and D resulted in higher ABP values because of the
presence of some substrates with high solid contents (i.e., glycerin,
molasses, bakery wastes, and OS).
From the economic point of view, as expected, the costs of the
biogas produced (m3) were found to be higher when ECs were used.
In Mixture B, this was mitigated by the presence of some low-cost
and biogas-productive substrates. This indicates how most of the
BRs, combined with EC, can be potentially helpful in biogas-plants
management, because they can contribute in reducing the feedstock cost. A substantial difference in the cost (0.20 V Nm3)
characterized Mixture C, which in terms of biogas productivity, can
substitute Mixture A (Table 3). Mixture D proved to be an economic
version of Mixture B, because it resulted in negative-cost biogas
production (0.09 V Nm3), maintaining high ABP and TS content.
Mixture E entailed a reasonable cost (0.11 V Nm3) and may be an
ideal solution in the Mediterranean agricultural areas, like southern
Italy.
Mixtures C and D proved to be the most convenient, as they
ensured economical income for waste disposal. Mixture D
demonstrated lower benet, but indicated that glycerin and
other substrates with high solid contents can increase the ABP
(Table 3). At the same time, both the mixtures represent good
solutions for feeding a biogas plant and indicate that in the
future, agricultural farms may play an important role in organic
waste management and thereby earn additional income. Biogas
plants are good candidates for treating organic residues of both
municipalities and agro-industrial sector in a cost-effective way
and in providing territorially diffused electric and thermal
power. Besides, the agrarian sector may enrich soils with
organic matter and contribute to an environment-friendly
disposal of residues.

References
Adhikari, S., Fernando, S., Haryanto, A., 2007. Production of hydrogen by steam
reforming of glycerin over alumina-supported metal catalysts. Catalysis Today
129, 355364.
Amon, Th., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Bodiroza, V., Potsch, E., Zollitsch, W., 2006.
Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of manure: Effects of dairy
systems and of glycerine supplementation. International Congress Series 1293,
217220.
Amon, Th., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Machmuller, A., Hopfner-Sixt, K., Bodiroza, V.,
Hrbeck, R., Friedel, J., Potsch, E., Wagentristl, H., Shreiner, M., Zollitsch, W., 2007.
Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various energy crops
grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresource Technology 98, 32043212.
APAT (Agenzia per la Protezione dellAmbiente e per i servizi Tecnici), 2007. Rapporto Riuti 2007. Available at: http://www.apat.gov.it/ Accessed May 12, 2008.
APHA (American Public Health Association), 1992. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed. APHA, Washington, DC.
APHA (American Public Health Association), 1998. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. APHA, Washington, DC.
Camera di Commercio di Vercelli, 2007. Available at: http://www.vc.camcom.it/
Accessed May 13, 2008.
Chynoweth, D.P., Owens, J.M., Legrand, R., 2001. Renewable methane from anaerobic digestion of biomass. Renewable Energy 22 (3), 18.
Cirelli, A., 2008. Denizione del prezzo medio regionale del recupero e dello
smaltimento dei riuti urbani per tipologia e caratteristica degli impianti.
Available at: www.regione.emilia-romagna/ambiente/autoridrsu Accessed May
9, 2008.
CRPA (Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali), 2006. Available at: http://www.crpa.it/
Accessed May 10, 2008.
Easterly, J.L., Burnham, M., 1996. Overview of biomass and waste resources for
power production. Biomass and Bioenergy 10 (23), 7992.
EurObservER, 2007. European Barometer 2007 of Renewable Energies. Syste`mes
Solaires, Paris, 30 pp. Available at: http://www.eurobserv-er.org/ Accessed
December 12, 2008.
European Union, 2002. Guidelines form applications for new alternative methods of
disposal or use of animal by-products under regulation (EC) No 1774/2002. Available
at: http//ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/animalbyproducts/disposal0604_en.pdf/
Accessed December 12, 2008.
Gunaseelan, V.N., 2007. Regression models of ultimate methane yields of fruits and
vegetable solid wastes, sorghum and napiergrass on chemical composition.
Bioresource Technology 98, 12701277.
Hanegraaf, M.C., Biewinga, E.E., Van der Bijl, G., 1998. Assessing the ecological
and economic sustainability of energy crops. Biomass and Bioenergy 15 (4/
5), 345355.
INTUSER, 2007. Information network on the technology of utilization and
sustainability of energy resources, European Commission. Available at: http://
www.intuser.net/5/1/renewable_70.php Accessed May 10, 2008.
ISMEA, 2005. Il sistema competitivo del settore oleario in Italia. Panel agroalimentari ISMEA. Available at: http://www.ismea.it Accessed May 15, 2008.
Kim, S., Dale, B.E., 2005. Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized
for producing biofuels: bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass and Bioenergy 29,
426439.
Pietzsch, K., 2007. German and European Biogas Experience. Methane to Markets
Partnership Expo, 30 October1 November 2007, China World Hotel, Beijing,
China. Available at: http://www.methanetomarkets.org Accessed December 12,
2008.
Schievano, A., Pognani, M., DImporzano, G., Adani, F., 2008. Predicting anaerobic
biogasication potential of ingestates and digestates of a full-scale biogas plant
using chemical and biological parameters. Bioresource Technology, doi:10.1016/
j.biortech.2008.03.030.
Suppes, G.J., 2006. Biobased propylene glycol and monomers from natural glycerin.
EPA. Available at: http://epa.gov/greenchemistry/pubs/pgcc/winners/aa06.html
Accessed May 15, 2008.