Bioresource Technology 228 (2017) 362–367

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review

Biogas production from co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal

solid waste and fruit and vegetable waste
Suelen Pavi, Luis Eduardo Kramer, Luciana Paulo Gomes, Luis Alcides Schiavo Miranda ⇑
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Civil Engineering Post-Graduation Program, Av. Unisinos, 950, Bairro Cristo Rei, 93022-000 São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
University of the Sinos Valley, Post-Graduation Program in Civil Engineering, Environmental Sanitation Laboratory, Av. Unisinos, 950, 93022-750 São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil

h i g h l i g h t s

 The organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) was co-digested with fruit and vegetable waste (FVW).
 The highest cumulative biogas and methane yields were obtained with a 1/3 ratio of OFMSW to FVW.
 The digestion occurred in a stable manner for all OFMSW/FVW ratios tested.

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

Article history: The anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) and fruit and vegetable
Received 9 November 2016 waste (FVW) was evaluated in terms of biogas and methane yield, volatile solids (VS) removal rate and
Received in revised form 4 January 2017 stability of the process. The batch experiment was conducted in mesophilic conditions (35 °C), with four
Accepted 5 January 2017
different OFMSW/FVW ratios (VS basis) of 1/0, 1/1, 1/3, and 0/1. The methane yield from the co-digestion
Available online 10 January 2017
was higher than the mono-digestion for OFMSW and FVW. The optimal mixing ratio of OFMSW/FVW was
found to be 1/3. The average cumulative biogas and methane yield in this condition was 493.8 N mL/g VS
Keywords:
and 396.6 N mL/g VS, respectively, and the VS removal rate was 54.6%. Compared with the mono-
Anaerobic co-digestion
Biogas yield
digestion of OFMSW and FVW, the average increase in methane yield was 141% and 43.8%, respectively.
Methane yield Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Organic fraction of municipal solid waste
Fruit and vegetable waste

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
2. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
2.1. Substrates and inoculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
2.2. Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
2.3. Analytical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
3.1. Characteristics of substrates and biogas yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
3.2. Methane content and methane yeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
3.3. Measurement of pH, VS removal rate, NH4-N and VFA concentration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

⇑ Corresponding author at: University of the Sinos Valley, Post-Graduation

Program in Civil Engineering, Environmental Sanitation Laboratory, Av. Unisinos,
950, 93022-750 São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: su_pavi@hotmail.com (S. Pavi), kramerluis@hotmail.com (L.E.
Kramer), lugomes@unisinos.br (L.P. Gomes), lalcides@unisinos.br (L.A.S. Miranda).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.01.003
0960-8524/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Pavi et al. / Bioresource Technology 228 (2017) 362–367 363

1. Introduction sludge (Krupp et al., 2005), thickened waste activated sludge and
rice straw (Abudi et al., 2016), fat, oil and grease waste from sew-
The generation of heat and electricity through fossil fuels is age treatment plants (Martín-González et al., 2010). Others used
acknowledged for most of the greenhouse gases (GHG) released FVW as a single substrate (Bouallagui et al., 2003; Scano et al.,
into the atmosphere. Their negative impact could be reduced 2014; Mu et al., 2014) or combined with other co-substrates such
through better usage of the renewable energy sources (Di Maria as food wastes, (Fei and Xiufen, 2013), sewage sludge (Di Maria
et al., 2015). The energetic usage of biomass and organic residues et al., 2014; Fonoll et al., 2015), pig manure (Tenca et al., 2011),
performs a crucial role in the mitigation of GHG (Appels et al., and so on. However, information on co-digestion of OFMSW and
2011). The anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic wastes such as FVW are scarce in the literature.
manure, sewage sludge, the organic fraction of municipal solid In this context, this study performed the co-digestion of
waste (OFMSW) and fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) presents a OFMSW and FVW under mesophilic conditions, using anaerobic
double advantage, as it produces biogas and simultaneously treats biodigestive sludge as inoculum. The digestion of four different
the residues, reducing their disposal in sanitary landfills (Di Maria OFMSW/FVW ratios (VS basis) was evaluated in terms of biogas
et al., 2015; Appels et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2011). and methane yield, TVS removal rate, and stability of the process.
The global generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) has
grown annually, along with urbanization and consumption stan- 2. Materials and methods
dards. In 2010, nearly 1.3 billion metric tons of MSW were gener-
ated world-wide, and it is estimated that the annual generation 2.1. Substrates and inoculum
will have reached 2.2 billion metric tons by 2025 (Hoornweg and
Bhada-Tata, 2012). Using OFMSW as a substrate for AD is an envi- For this study, OFMSW and FVW were used as substrates. The
ronmentally correct option for the management of MSW (Ge et al., OFMSW was collected from residences in São Leopoldo city, Brazil.
2014). It was basically composed of raw food waste (carrot and chayote
Fruits and vegetable wastes (FVW) are a very important class of peels, lettuce and arugula leaves) and cooked (beans, rice, pasta,
residues because they are produced in considerable amounts in bread), besides egg shells and coffee powder. FVW was collected
agricultural activities, supermarkets and wholesale markets. Their in the fresh produce department of a supermarket in São Leopoldo
generation increases the operation costs of markets due to sales city, Brazil. It was elaborated in laboratory from a mixture of
losses and transport and disposal costs (Scano et al., 2014). More- banana (20%), papaya (20%), apple (10%), cabbage (12%), lettuce
over, equally as occurs with the OFMSW, as soon as the FVW are (12.5%), onion (12.5%), and potato (12.5%). After being collected,
disposed in landfills begins the natural biodegradation of the the OFMSW and the FVW were ground in a domestic food proces-
organic matter, which is responsible for generating GHG and lea- sor in order to reduce the particles size. When not immediately
chate (Zhu et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2011). used, the residues were stored in a refrigerator under a tempera-
The use of both residues as energy source meets the specifica- ture of 4 °C for later use.
tion of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament, which The inoculum (anaerobic sludge) was obtained from an experi-
establishes, following a hierarchy of residues, that the disposal in mental anaerobic digestion in pilot scale, treating food waste under
sanitary landfills must be the destiny only of the residues which mesophilic conditions. The inoculum was stored for 15 days in a
cannot be recycled, reused or recovered (Directive 2008/98/EC). container with semi-open lid after being collected, in order to
Although AD is considered an efficient technology for the treat- release the biogas present in this side. The characteristics of sub-
ment of OFMSW and the simultaneous production of biogas, this strates and inoculum are presented in Table 1.
process presents some limitations related mainly to the low rate The inoculum used in this study had high pH and bicarbonate
of biogas production, the long time required for the stabilization alkalinity content, indicating high buffering capacity. This buffer-
of organic matter and the low efficiency during VS removal ing capacity can help to maintain pH in an adequate range, refrain-
(Khalid et al., 2011). When OFMSW contains plenty amounts of ing the accumulation of VFA, which commonly occurs during the
food waste (FW), the stability of the AD process can be influenced digestion of OFMSW with high amounts of food waste (Dennehy
by the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFA) and long chain et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014a).
fatty acids which hinder methanogenic activity (Borowski, 2015;
Cho et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2008). AD of FVW as
2.2. Experimental setup
a single substrate is also a challenging task. The high simple sugars
content present in this feedstock often promotes fast acidification
The experiment was conducted in four batches in glass reactors
of biomass, thus hindering methanogenic activity (Scano et al.,
with working volume of 2 L. After feeding, each reactor was closed
2014). The co-digestion of OFMSW and FVW appears as an option
for controlling the AD stability process and maximizing biogas Table 1
production. Characteristics of OFMSW, FVW and inoculum used in the study. Values reported are
The co-digestion of different feedstocks has as main advantages the average and standard deviation of three measurements.
the balance of nutrients, C/N ratio equilibrium and the minerals Parameter OFMSW FVW Inoculum
and metals required for equilibrium, and increased buffering
TS (%) 19.94 (0.11) 19.54 (0.09) 6.18 (0.32)
capacity of the system. Therefore, co-digestion enhances process VS (%) 19.19 (0.45) 18.80 (0.88) 3.50 (0.13)
stability and performance of organic matter biodegradation, opti- pH 5.9 (0.05) 4.66 (0.01) 8.3 (0.02)
mizing the biogas and methane yield (Huang et al., 2016; Zhang Moisture (%) 80.06 (0.04) 80.46 (0.90) 93.74 (0.04)
Alkalinity (mg/L HCO3 ) 106.67 (11.55) 140.0 (12.72) 906.67 (120.55)
et al., 2014a,b; Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014; Khalid et al., 2011).
Total VFAa 232.0 (36.66) 216.0 (41.57) 728.0 (36.66)
Besides that, depending on the feedstock, the co-digestion pro- Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 1149.2 (112.3) 904.78 (174.49) 5547.36 (213.90)
duces a digestate with improved characteristics for use as agricul- NH4-N (mg/L) 6.05 (0.03) 7.36 (0.09) 3096.2 (28.51)
tural fertilizer. TOC (mg/g TS) 126.52 (5.32) 180.32 (12.13) 101.55 (3.36)
Several studies used OFMSW as single substrate to produce bio- Ptot (% TS) 0.056 (0.01) 0.18 (0.01) 1.44 (0.04)
gas (Li et al., 2011; Novarino and Zanetti, 2012) or in co-digestion Values between brackets refer to the standard deviation.
with food waste (FW) (Angeriz-Campoy et al., 2015), sewage a
Based on mg/L acetic acid equivalent [HAceq].
364 S. Pavi et al. / Bioresource Technology 228 (2017) 362–367

Table 2
Feeding conditions of the reactors.

Substrate Mass of VS (g) Mass (g)

OFMSW/FVW OFMSW FVW Inoculum Total OFMSW FVW Inoculum Total
1/0 (1/1)a 54.04 0 54.04 108.08 281.6 0 1545 1826.60
1/1(1/1)a 27.02 27.02 54.04 108.08 140.8 143.72 1545 1829.52
1/3(1/1)a 13.51 40.53 54.04 108.08 70.40 215.58 1545 1830.98
0/1(1/1)a 0 54.04 54.04 108.08 0 287.45 1545 1832.45
a
Values between brackets refer to the S/I ratio.

and biogas was measured though the water displacement method.
A similar method was used by Zhang et al. (2014b) and Huang et al.
(2016). The reactors were kept under thermostatic water bath with
temperature of operation fixed at 35 °C.
The mass of VS added to the reactors was the same for every
stage of the experiment, whereas the ratios of OFMSW/FWS were
changed. Four different OFMSW/FVW ratios were tested in tripli-
cates: 1/0, 1/1, 1/3, and 0/1. The mixtures were made based on
the VS. The substrate/inoculum (S/I) ratio used was 1/1, based on
the VS. This S/I proportion was selected according to previous
experiments. The feeding conditions of the reactors for each batch
can be seen in Table 2.
Each reactor was manually shaken for 1 min twice a day. Nearly
300 mL of biogas were collected daily in sampling bags for measur-
ing the amount of methane present in the biogas. Then, 50 mL of
digestate were collected from each reactor daily for the analysis
of pH. In the beginning of each batch, weekly and by the end of
each batch, 100 mL of digestate were collected for the analysis of
total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), alkalinity, volatile fatty acids
(VFA), ammonia (NH4-N), total nitrogen (TN) and total organic car-
bon (TOC). All analyzes were performed in triplicates for each reac-
tor, that is, the number of samples for each batch was equals 9. The
batch was considered finished when the production of biogas
ceased.
2.3. Analytical methods
The pH was measured using a digital pH measuring device with
combined electrode (Tecnal, Brazil). TS and VS were measured
according to procedure 2540 B of Standard Methods (APHA,
2012). Alkalinity to bicarbonates and VFA were analyzed through
the titration with H2SO4 0.1 N up to pH 4.3 and then NaOH up to
pH 7, in conformity with the method of DiLallo and Albertson
(1961). Ammonia concentration (NH4-N) was determined through
the titrimetric method, according to procedure 4500 NH3-C (APHA,
2012). The total nitrogen (TN) was determined by the sum of
ammoniacal nitrogen and organic nitrogen, also obtained accord-
ing to procedure 4500 NH3-C (APHA, 2012). The analyzes of TOC
were executed in an equipment which uses the method of oxida-
tion by catalytic combustion at high temperatures, in conformity
with procedure 5310 B of Standard Methods (APHA, 2012).
The efficiency of the VS removal was calculated, where the VS
removal rate (%) is given by the ratio between the amount of VS
reduced by the digester and the VS added to the digester. The daily
biogas yield and the cumulative biogas yield (NL/g VS) were calcu-
lated through the ratio between the volume of biogas produced
and the VS mass added to the reactor, by the formula: VSremoval =
(VSadded VSdigestate)/VSadded.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characteristics of substrates and biogas yield
The characteristics of reactors with different OFMSW/FVW
ratios are listed in Table 3. The VS concentration used in this exper-
iment ranged from 18.80% to 19.19%. The VS presented, on average,
around 96% of the TS content. This indicates a high potential of
organic transformation of these substrates during the AD pro-
cesses. The methane yield is also strictly related to the amount of
biodegraded VS (Buffiere et al., 2006). The C/N ration varied from
22 to 39 as the percentage of FVW increased. Generally, a C/N ratio
between 20 and 30 would be considered as the optimum condition
for AD (Li et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Therefore, only OFMSW
has an optimum C/N ratio (22). An optimum C/N ratio is needed for
AD because appropriate nutrient balance is required for the growth
of anaerobic bacteria and for maintaining stability within the reac-
tor (Zhang et al., 2014a). During the trials with four different ratios,
the optimum C/N ratio (22) did not display the highest biogas pro-
duction. This implies that the optimum C/N ratio for AD differs
according to the feedstock and the inoculum. The pH values kept
a slightly acid condition, ranging from 4.66 to 5.9 for every sub-
strate. This range of pH values is characteristic of food waste.
Fisgativa et al. (2016) reported a pH ranging from 4.4 to 5.8 when
analyzing 65 food waste samples. Besides having low pH, FVW dis-
play less alkalinity compared with OFMSW, as can be seen in
Table 2. This indicates that co-digestion can contribute to increas-
ing alkalinity and controlling a possible acidification during the
FVW digestion. Particularly, in this study, the inoculum character-
istics, with high pH ad alkalinity, helped balancing the pH of the
substrates and maintaining stability during the AD.
The average daily biogas yield and the average cumulative bio-
gas yield measured from three replicates of co-digestion of OFMSW
and FVW at mixing ratios (VS basis) of 0/1, 1/1, 1/3, and 0/1, for the

Table 3
Characteristics of reactors with different OFMSW/FVW ratios.

Parameter OFMSW/FVW ratio (VS basis)

1/0 1/1 1/3 0/1
TS (%) 19.94 (0.11) 19.74 (0.09) 19.64 (0.07) 19.54 (0.09)
VS (%) 19.19 (0.45) 18.99 (0.12) 18.90 (0.04) 18.80 (0.88)
pH 5.9 (0.05) 5.28 (0.02) 4.97 (0.01) 4.66 (0.01)
C/N ratio 22 (0.12) 30.5 (0.17) 34.7 (0.05) 39 (0.32)

Note: Values between brackets refer to the standard deviation of nine measurements.
 S. Pavi et al. / Bioresource Technology 228 (2017) 362–367 365

Fig. 1. Average daily biogas yield and average cumulative biogas yield measured from three replicates of co-digestion of OFMSW and FVW at mixing ratios (VS basis) of 1/0, 1/
1, 1/3, and 0/1.

Table 4
Average methane content and cumulative methane yield of reactors with different OFMSW/FVW ratios.

OFMSW/FVW Time (days) Cumulative biogas yield (NmL/g VS) CH4 (%) Cumulative methane yield (NmL/g VS)
1/0 15 215.0 (21.0) 76.5 (1.7) 164.5 (14.3)
1/1 18 433.9 (17.9) 80.8 (1.4) 350.6 (13.6)
1/3 17 493.8 (17.3) 79.7 (1.5) 396.6 (13.6)
0/1 12 350.0 (33.0) 78.7 (2.0) 275.9 (28.6)

Note: Values reported are the average and standard deviation of three measurements.

duration of each batch, are displayed in Fig. 1. The batches had dif-
ferent durations. The FVW AD as a single substrate had the small-
est duration (12 days). This had been expected, seeing that
hydrolysis and the consequent alcoholic fermentation of fruits
and vegetables occurs at a much higher speed than the other
organic substrates (Di Maria et al., 2014). In every condition, the
biogas production began immediately after feeding the reactors.
The mono-digestion residues resulted in an average biogas pro-
duction lower than the co-digestion residues. OFMSW in mono-
digestion (Fig. 1a) presented a smaller average cumulative biogas
yield. After 12 days of digestion, FVW (350 NmL/g VS) displayed
an average cumulative biogas yield 63% higher than OFMSW
(215 NmL/g VS). The average cumulative biogas yield of the
OFMSW/FVW co-digestion, ratio of 1/1 (Fig. 1b), was 433.9 NmL/
g VS. Under this condition, the average methane contained in bio-
gas was maximum (80.8%). Fig. 1c shows that the optimum mix-
ture ratio of OFMSW/FVW was 1/3, whose average cumulative
biogas yield was 493.8 NmL/g VS. This represents an increase of
130% and 41% with respect to the mono-digestion of OFMSW and
FVW, respectively. Regarding the OFMSW/FVW ratio of 1/1, the
average increase of cumulative biogas yield was 14%. These results
indicate synergy between the different substrates, considering that
OFMSW has an average cumulative biogas yield much inferior to
FVW, but the addition of OFMSW does not affect negatively the
cumulative biogas yield (Dennehy et al., 2016).
In the reactors that digested FVW singularly or combined with
OFMSW, the production of biogas was considerably higher during
the first 4 days of the experiment, wherein the peak of biogas pro-
duction was observed on day 2. The OFMSW/FVW ratios of 1/1, 1/3,
and 0/1 produced, until the 4th day of digestion, 68%, 45% and 71%
of the total biogas volume, respectively. This effect is connected to
the high concentration of simple carbohydrates in fruits and veg-
etables, which are rapidly biodegraded under anaerobic conditions
(Di Maria et al., 2014).
3.2. Methane content and methane yeld
As shown in Table 4, the average methane content of biogas
produced in all reactors ranged between 76.5% and 80.8%. The
co-digestion of OFMSW and FVW resulted in higher methane
366 S. Pavi et al. / Bioresource Technology 228 (2017) 362–367

positive actions and improve conversions of VFA into methane

(Huang et al., 2016). For the mono-digestion of FVW, the methane
yield obtained for this experiment was much inferior to the one
observed in the literature. Scano et al. (2014) and Lin et al.
(2011) reported average methane yields of 430 mL/g VS and
420 mL/g VS, respectively, for reactors digesting FVW. This may
be related to the types of fruits and vegetables present in the mix-
ture of residues.
The highest cumulative methane yield was obtained from the
co-digestion of OFMSW/FVW with the 1/3 ratio. The average
methane yield under this condition was 396.6 NmL/g VS. Com-
pared with the mono-digestion of OFMSW, an increase of 141%
of average methane yield was obtained from the 1/3 mixing ratio.
Compared with the mono-digestion of FVW, the increase of aver-
age methane yield was 43.8%. Regarding the 1/1 OFMSW/FVW
ratio, the methane yield displayed an increase of 13%. Therefore,
it can be assumed that a C/N ratio ranging from 30.5 and 34.7
would be considered an optimum condition for co-digestion of
OFMSW and FVW.
Fig. 2. Average cumulative methane yield of biogas measured from three replicates
of co-digestion of OFMSW and FVW for mixing ratios (VS basis) of 1/0, 1/1, 1/3, and
0/1.
3.3. Measurement of pH, VS removal rate, NH4-N and VFA
concentration

content, compared with the mono-digestion of these substrates.
This arises from the balanced supply of nutrients and the optimal
living environment for anaerobic microorganisms (Huang et al.,
2016). Actually, every OFMSW/FVW ratio displayed average con-
tents of methane superior to the ones reported by the literature.
Borowski (2015), found contents of methane in biogas between
55% and 60% for the mono-digestion of OFMSW and between
58% and 66% for the co-digestion of OFMSW and sewage sludge.
Regarding the AD of FVW, Bouallagui et al. (2003) reported 64%
methane contents in biogas, while Scano et al. (2014) reported
average methane contents of 75% in short time lapses. Although
Lin et al. (2011) reported lower average methane contents
(between 53.7% and 63.8%) they managed to obtain the highest
methane content of biogas produced from the co-digestion of
FVW and food waste with a proportion of 1/1.
The average cumulative methane yield from the co-digestion of
OFMSW and FVW, for mixing ratios (VS basis) of 0/1, 1/1, 1/3, and
0/1, for the duration of each batch, are shown in Fig. 2.
The lowest cumulative methane yield was obtained from the
mono-digestion of OFMSW. Forster-Carneiro et al. (2007) found
similar values (180 mL/g VS) for the mono-digestion of source-
sorted OFMSW. This low methane yield possibly results from the
conversion of organic matter into intermediate products such as
VFA, hinting that the co-digestion of OFMSW and FVW can produce
The AD process remained stable for every OFMSW/FVW ratio.
This stability occurred due to the characteristics of the inoculum
used, which was already acclimatized to the residue type.
The parameters monitored along this experiment are presented
in Table 5. An important parameter to inquire the stability process
of AD is its pH. In this experiment, the slightly acid condition of the
substrates pH (4.66–5.9) was balanced by the high pH value of the
inoculum (8.3). The initial pH ranged from 7.1 to 7.9 in all reactors
and that interval is acceptable for AD. At the end of the process, the
final pH values were 8.0 and 8.2. The co-digestion pH values did
not vary with respect to mono-digestion. The resistance to pH
change within the reactor depends on buffering capacity. It can
be considered high due to the high initial alkalinity observed in
every reactor, as presented in Table 5.
The average initial and final ammonia concentrations were
basically the same for every OFMSW/FVW ratio. The high ammonia
content (NH4-N) measured also contributed to the tamponade of
the system. The simultaneous presence of ammonia and bicarbon-
ate in the reactor led to the formation of another buffer system,
due to formation of NH4HCO3. However, high ammonia concentra-
tion can inhibit the methanogenic process (Cecchi et al., 2003; Lin
et al., 2011).
The VFA concentration is an important parameter affecting AD.
Researches demonstrated that concentrations of acetic acid

Table 5
Characteristics of each batch with different OFMSW/FVW ratios.

OFMSW/FVW ratio (VS basis)

1/0 1/1 1/3 0/1
Initial Initial Initial Initial
Final Final Final Final
pH 7.4 (0.1) 7.1 (0.04) 7.9 (0.2) 7.6 (0.2)
8.2 (0.2) 8.2 (0.04) 8.1 (0.3) 8.0 (0.02)
Alkalinity (mg/L HCO3 ) 866.7 (54.8) 731.1 (24.7) 860.0 (40.0) 851.0 (11.0)
917.8 (38.8) 942.2 (39.3) 986.7 (38.7) 1000.0 (43.6)
VFA (mg/L[HAceq]) 581.3 (47.7) 640.0 (39.8) 269.3 (33.5) 280.0 (52.3)
192.0 (33.9) 224.0 (50.9) 184.0 (31.7) 168.0 (31.7)
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 3348.3 (104.6) 3287.2 (100.5) 3526.6 (105.3) 3226.1 (119.5)
5133.5 (538.8) 4480.0 (184.9) 4243.7 (177.0 4618.9 (351.8)
NH4-N (mg/L) 1551.8 (12.3) 1551.4 (12.3) 1551.3 (12.3) 1551.1 (12.3)
2669.0 (45.5) 2691.4 (98.8) 2709.0 (130.0) 2728.3 (126.0)
VS removal (%) 17.4 (1.2) 29.8 (0.8) 54.6 (2.5) 16.0 (0.3)

Note: Values reported are the average, and the values between brackets refer to the standard deviation of nine measurements.
 S. Pavi et al. / Bioresource Technology 228 (2017) 362–367
exceeding 0.8 g/L lead to AD failure (Hill et al., 1987). In this exper-
iment, the VFA concentration was not measured above the limit.
The VFA concentration decreased along the digestion of every
OFMSW/FVW ratio. The reactors which digested higher amounts
of OFMSW (OFMSW/FVW ratio 1/0 and 1/1) reported higher initial
VFA concentration values. This happens due to high contents of
carbohydrates and fat matters in food waste (FW) from OFMSW
(Zhang et al., 2014a; Lin et al., 2011). Even so, the methanogenic
activity caused by the accumulation of VFA was not hindered.
The highest VS removal rate (54.6%) was achieved using the 1/3
mixture of OFMSW/FVW. The VS removal rate for the OFMSW/
FVW ratio of 1/1 was 29.8%. The VS removal rate when OFMSW
and FVW were used in mono-digestion was 17.4% and 16%,
respectively.
4. Conclusions
The co-digestion of OFMSW and FVW increased the cumulative
biogas yield and the cumulative methane yield compared with the
mono-digestion. The 1/3 mixing ratio of OFMSW/FVW (VS basis)
showed the optimal performance, reaching the highest average
cumulative biogas yield (433.9 NmL/g VS), highest average
methane yield (396.6 NmL/g VS) and the highest average VS
removal rate (54.6%). The digestion occurred in a stable manner
for all OFMSW/FVW ratios and no methanogenesis due to the accu-
mulation of VFA was detected. The stability was partially influ-
enced by the characteristics of the inoculum, which had already
been adapted to the substrate types.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge CAPES (Coordination for the Improve-
ment of Higher Level Personnel) for the scholarship (PROSUP)
provided.
References
Abudi, Z.N., Hu, Z., Sun, N., Xiao, B., Rajaa, N., Liu, C., Guo, D., 2016. Batch anaerobic
co-digestion of OFMSW (organic fraction of municipal solid waste), TWAS
(thickened waste activated sludge) and RS (rice straw): influence of TWAS and
RS pretreatment and mixing ratio. Energy 107, 131–140.
Angeriz-Campoy, R., Alvarez-Gallego, C.J., Romero-Garcia, L.I., 2015. Thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)
with food waste (FW): enhancement of bio-hydrogen production. Bioresour.
Technol. 194, 291–296.
APHA, 2012. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
APHA-AWWA-WEF, Washington, D.C..
Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degrève, J., Helsen, L., Lievens, B., Willems, K., Impe, J.V.,
Dewil, R., 2011. Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential
and research challenges. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15, 4295–4301.
Borowski, S., 2015. Co-digestion of the hydromechanically separated organic
fraction of municipal solid waste with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Manage.
147, 87–94.
Bouallagui, H., Ben Cheikh, R., Marouani, L., Hamdi, M., 2003. Mesophilic biogas
production from fruit and vegetable waste in tubular digester. Bioresour.
Technol. 86, 85–89.
Buffiere, P., Loisel, D., Bernet, N., Delgene, J.P., 2006. Toward new indicators for the
prediction of solid waste anaerobic digestion properties. Water Sci. Technol. 53,
233–241.
Cecchi, F., Traverso, P., Pavan, P., Bolzonella, D., Innocenti, L., 2003. Characteristics of
the OFMSW and behavior of the anaerobic digestion process. Chem. Inform. 34.
Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 4044–4064.
Cho, H.S., Moon, S.S., Lim, J.Y., Kim, J.Y., 2013. Effect of long chain fatty acids removal
as a pretreatment on the anaerobic digestion of food waste. J. Mater. Cycles
Waste Manage. 15, 82–89.
Dennehy, C., Lawlor, P.G., Croize, T., Jiang, Y., Morrison, L., Gillian, E., Gardiner, G.E.,
Zhan, X., 2016. Synergism and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid
367
concentrations during food waste and pig manure anaerobic co-digestion.
Waste Manage. 56, 173–180.
Di Maria, F., Sordi, A., Cirulli, G., Gigliotti, G., Massaccesi, L., Cucina, M., 2014. Co-
treatment of fruit and vegetable waste in sludge digesters. An analysis of the
relationship among bio-methane generation, process stability and digestate
phytotoxicity. Waste Manage. 34, 1603–1608.
Di Maria, F., Sordi, A., Cirulli, G., Micale, C., 2015. Amount of energy recoverable
from an existing sludge digester with the co-digestion with fruit and vegetable
waste at reduced retention time. Appl. Energy 150, 9–14.
DiLallo, R., Albertson, O.E., 1961. Volatile acids by direct titration. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 33, 356.
Directive 2008/98/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, 2008. Off. J. Eur.
Union.
Fei, P., Xiufen, Z.Y.Q.S.L., 2013. Effect of MnO_2-r-GO modified cathode on the
electricity generation performance of SMFC. Environ. Chem. 4, 4.
Fisgativa, H., Tremier, A., Dabert, P., 2016. Characterizing the variability of food
waste quality: a need for efficient valorisation through anaerobic digestion.
Waste Manage. 50, 264–274.
Fonoll, X., Astals, S., Dosta, J., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of
sewage sludge and fruit wastes: evaluation of the transitory states when the co-
substrate is changed. Chem. Eng. J. 262, 1268–1274.
Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., Sales, D., 2007. Dry-thermophilic
anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of the municipal solid waste: focusing on
the inoculum sources. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 3195–3203.
Ge, X., Matsumoto, T., Keith, L., Li, Y., 2014. Biogas energy production from tropical
biomass wastes by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 169, 38–44.
Hill, D.T., Cobb, S.A., Bolte, J.P., 1987. Using volatile fatty acid relationships to predict
anaerobic digester failure. Trans. ASAE 30, 496–501.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. World Bank, Washington.
Huang, X., Yun, S., Zhu, J., Du, T., Zhang, C., Li, X., 2016. Mesophilic anaerobic co-
digestion of aloe peel waste with dairy manure in the batch digester: focusing
on mixing ratios and digestate stability. Bioresour. Technol. 218, 62–68.
Khalid, A., Arshad, M., Anjum, M., Mahmood, T., Dawson, L., 2011. The anaerobic
digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Manage. 31, 1737–1744.
Krupp, M., Schubert, J., Widmann, R., 2005. Feasibility study for co-digestion of
sewage sludge with OFMSW on two wastewater treatment plants in Germany.
Waste Manage. 25, 393–399.
Li, Y., Park, S.Y., Zhu, J., 2011. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane
production from organic waste. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15, 821–
826.
Lin, J., Zuo, J., Gan, L., Li, P., Liu, F., Wang, K., Gan, H., 2011. Effects of mixture ratio on
anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China.
J. Environ. Sci. 23, 1403–1408.
Martín-González, L., Colturato, L.F., Font, X., Vicent, T., 2010. Anaerobic co-digestion
of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with FOG waste from a sewage
treatment plant: recovering a wasted methane potential and enhancing the
biogas yield. Waste Manage. 30, 1854–1859.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Güiza, M.S., Fonoll, X., Peces, M., Astals, S., 2014.
A critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and
2013. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 36, 412–427.
Mu, H., Zhao, Y.X., Hua, D.L., Zhang, X.D., Li, Y., Zhang, J., 2014. Comparision of
treatment performance for fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) by single-phase
and two-phase anaerobic digestion. Appl. Mech. Mater. 535, 572–576.
Novarino, D., Zanetti, M.C., 2012. Anaerobic digestion of extruded OFMSW.
Bioresour. Technol. 104, 44–50.
Scano, E.A., Asquer, C., Pistis, A., Ortu, L., Demontis, V., Cocco, D., 2014. Biogas from
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: experimental results on
pilot-scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power plant.
Energy Convers. Manage. 77, 22–30.
Tenca, A., Schievano, A., Perazzolo, F., Adani, F., Oberti, R., 2011. Biohydrogen from
thermophilic co-fermentation of swine manure with fruit and vegetable waste:
maximizing stable production without pH control. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
8582–8588.
Wang, X., Yang, G., Feng, Y., Ren, G., Han, X., 2012. Optimizing feeding composition
and carbon–nitrogen ratios for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-
digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 120,
78–83.
Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014a. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of
food waste for biogas production. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 38, 383–
392.
Zhang, W., Wei, Q., Wu, S., Qi, D., Li, W., Zuo, Z., Dong, R., 2014b. Batch anaerobic co-
digestion of pig manure with dewatered sewage sludge under mesophilic
conditions. Appl. Energy 128, 175–183.
Zhu, B., Gikas, P., Zhang, R., Lord, J., Jenkins, B., Li, X., 2009. Characteristics and biogas
production potential of municipal solid wastes pretreated with a rotary drum
reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 1122–1129.