Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Investigation of biogas production potential from mechanical separated

municipal solid waste as an approach for developing countries (case study:
Isfahan-Iran)
Seyed Mohammad Mehdi Noorbakhsh Dehkordi a, Ahmad Reza Taghipour Jahromi a, *,
Ali Ferdowsi a, Mohammad Shumal a, Ali Dehnavi a, b
a
Isfahan Municipality Waste Management Organization, Isfahan, 81661-96116, I.R, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Civil & Transportation Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, 81746-7344, I.R, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the most used methods for municipal solid waste (MSW) management is recovering energy from the
Developing countries organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) through anaerobic digestion (AD) system. Not only in
Municipal solid waste developed countries (with high source separation), but also in developing countries (with poor source separa­
Organic fraction of municipal solid waste
tion), this energy recovery technology can be interested. In many countries with mixed MSW like Iran, a me­
Physical and chemical analysis
chanical separation (trommel screen, magnet, etc.) is used as a simple and efficient method to separate OFMSW.
Anaerobic digestion
Bio-methane potential test In this study, three main goals are followed; firstly, Selection of a suitable AD system (wet anaerobic digestion
Isfahan (WAD) or dry anaerobic digestion (DAD) and mesophilic or thermophilic)) according to physical and chemical
composition of under-screen fraction of MSW and climate conditions. Secondly, evaluation of biogas energy
potential of under-screen fraction of Isfahan municipal solid waste (USFIMSW), as one of the major cities of Iran
is followed. Finally, it offers to use the results obtained in other developing countries with similar conditions in
Isfahan. The physical analysis shows that about 70% of Isfahan MSW consists of the organic fraction (OF) which
can be used in the AD system. Also, the value of total solid (TS), volatile solid (VS) and thereby VS/TS for the
under-screen fraction of MSW changes seasonally between about 29% and 35.5%, 21%–25.5% and 64%–84%,
respectively. The results show that in cities with a low source separation (due to the presence of hazardous
materials in the under-screen fraction of MSW), high TS and dry climate like Isfahan, the use of DAD is more
appropriate. According to bio-methane potential (BMP), TS and VS analysis, the average amount of methane
yield, without purification of USFSMSW, is about 322.7 Nm3/t VS which can be increased by various steps in pre-
treatment, feedstock preparation and co-substrate.

from OFMSW and producing a more suitable compost, is AD systems.

1. Introduction
1.1. General section
MSW management is one of the most important issues in developing
countries [1]. The production of compost from the OFMSW, and land­
filling are the most common methods of MSW management in devel­
oping countries, while in developed countries, MSW is used for
generating energy (Waste to Energy technology) [2]. OFMSW is biomass
which includes various materials such as food waste, paper, cardboard,
yard waste, leather and wood [3]. One of the famous and attractive
methods of MSW management [2,4,5], which includes energy recovery
The AD systems produce biogas [6] which approximately 60% (Vol) of it
includes methane. By purification, the percentage of methane in biogas
rises to over 99% (similar to the natural gas) and provides commercial
usage as a fuel for vehicle and boiler [7,8]. The percentage of methane in
biogas is influenced by a number of parameters, such as C/N ratio, pH,
temperature, retention time, AD system, using mixed feedstock and etc
[9–11]. Therefore, by a selection of the proper AD system, by optimi­
zation of the mentioned parameters and pre-treatment, the amount of
methane can increase in biogas [12–18]. Mechanical pretreatment in­
creases the surface area (specific) and will ultimately enhance the AD
process because provide better contact between substrate and inoculum
(anaerobic bacteria) [15,16]. Thermal and thermo-chemical

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ar.taghipourjahromi@alumni.iut.ac.ir, Ahmadreza.taghipour@gmail.com (A.R.T. Jahromi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109586
Received 25 September 2018; Received in revised form 3 November 2019; Accepted 8 November 2019
1364-0321/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Seyed Mohammad Mehdi Noorbakhsh Dehkordi, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109586
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Abbreviations OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

WS-OFMSW Water Sorted Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid
MSW Municipal Solid Waste Waste
OF Organic Fraction MBT Mechanical and Biological Treatment
OFMSW Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste WWAS Waste Water Activated Sludge
USFIMSW Under-Screen Fraction of Isfahan Municipal Solid Waste GC Gas Chromatography
AD Anaerobic Digestion TOF Total Organic Fraction
WAD Wet Anaerobic Digestion BY Biogas Yield
DAD Dry Anaerobic Digestion MY Methane Yield
TS Total Solid MP Methane Percentage
VS Volatile Solid MCV Methane Calorific Value
BMP Bio-Methane Potential CHPWH Combined Heat and Power Work Hour
VFA Volatile Fatty Acid WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
HBOA Higher Branch Organic Acids C&D Construction and Demolition debris
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand Ave Average
C/N Carbon/Nitrogen SD Standard Deviation

pre-treatments show satisfactory results because lead to pathogen
removal with improvement in dewatering performance and reduce the
viscosity of digestion [16,17]. The chemical pretreatments (by acid,
alkaline or oxidation reagent) are depending on the characteristics of the
substrates and not suitable for easily biodegradable substrates contain­
ing high amounts of carbohydrates [12,14,17]. The biological treatment
is used to enhanced hydrolysis of biomass [12,16]. Table 1 is shown the
effect of some pretreatment on the AD systems.
1.2. Biochemical process of anaerobic digestion
The AD system as the biogas production technology is a biochemical
process consisting of four steps (hydrolysis; acidogenesis; acetogenesis;
and methanogenesis) that will ultimately lead to the production of
biogas from natural organic materials such as OFMSW [16]. In the first
step, acidogenic bacteria hydrolyze insoluble organic polymers and
compounds to simple soluble molecules in water. The monomeric fatty
acid, amino acids and sugars are formed during the hydrolysis reaction
of lipids, proteins and polysaccharides, respectively [25]. In the second
step, by following the activities of acidogenic bacteria, the soluble
organic compounds convert to volatile fatty acid (VFA), alcohol, higher
branch organic acids (HBOA), acetic acid, carbon dioxide, water and
hydrogen. In the next step, the VFA, alcohol and HBOA split to
CH3COOH, CO2, H2O and H2 by acetogenic bacteria. In the final step,
two groups of methanogenic bacteria produce methane gas. The first
Table 1
The effect of some pretreatments on the AD systems.
Substrate Pretreatment Finding
OFMSW Mechanical The methane yield increased 5.6–13.8%,
by using a shredder with a magnetic
separation method
OFMSW Mechanical Sonication resulted in 16% higher
cumulative biogas production as compared
to untreated substrates
OFMSW Thermal Leads to pathogen removal, improves
dewatering performance and reduces
viscosity of the digestate
OFMSW Chemical The COD and Methane content increased
about 11.5% and 172% respectively.
OFMSW Thermal and The ultimate biogas production is high but
chemical the biogas production rates are low.
OFMSW Biological Pretreatment by composting resulted in a
higher specific microbial growth rate than
by thermochemical pretreatment
OFMSW Biological Physically separating the acidogens from
the methanogens can result in a higher
methane production
group known as acetoclastic methanogenesis, splits acetate into
methane and carbon dioxide. The second group known as hydro­
genotrophic methanogenesis uses use carbon dioxide and hydrogen to
produce methane [9,26].
1.3. The effect of physiochemical properties of the feedstock in biogas
production
In an AD system, the amount of biogas generated is highly dependent
to physiochemical characteristics of the primary feed such as total and
volatile solids, Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) ratio, temperature, chemical
oxygen demand (COD) and inhibitory substances. TS is defined as the
sum of organic and non-organic matters in primary feedstock. VS is a
part of TS which represents the available organic matters for bacteria.
The amount of methane generated in an AD system is directly related to
the amount of VS. The C/N ratio in an AD system is a very important
parameter. Based on different studies, the optimized C/N ratio is about
20–35 [27]. Low C/N ratios indicate a protein-rich feed which results to
increase in free ammonia and reduced pH in the AD system. The alka­
linity reduces the bacterial activity of methanogens and leads to a
reduced biogas generation (the inhibitory effect of ammonia) [28].
However, it’s noteworthy that methanogens can adapt to the amount of
ammonia in the environment if gradually increased [29]. On the other
hand, high C/N ratio results in the insufficient protein required for
bacterial activity and reduced biogas yield [30]. In addition to the
overall influence on AD process, C/N ratio is also important in choosing
whether to operate the system in mesophilic or thermophilic conditions.
The increase in the C/N ratio in primary feed results the system to move
from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions which is in favor of biogas
Ref. generation efficiency [31,32]. The COD of primary materials is another
[19] important parameter by which the amount of theoretical bio-methane
potential may be calculated [27]. Although Sulfur is an essential
element for methanogens, but the excess amounts of sulfate in primary
[20]
feed results in increased sulfate-reducing bacteria population and
increased generation of toxic gas of H2S in AD system. Thus, the popu­
[16] lation of methanogens and biogas generation is reduced [32].
[21] 1.4. Anaerobic digestion feedstock
[22] Since 1980, when the first industrial digester feeding with organic
and industrial waste was established in Europe, the number of digesters
[23]
with different feeds increased.
Knowing that characteristics of feedstock have dramatic impact on
[24] process and plant designing, lots of AD plant with various feedstock have
been established in the last decades. Based on the waste’s origin, AD
plant feedstock are divided as below [33]:

2
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al.
� Agricultural waste: animal manures and slurries/vegetable by-
products and residues/energy crops
� Industrial section: organic wastes, by-products and residues from
agro-industries, food industries, fodder and brewery industries,
organic-loaded waste waters and sludge from industrial processes,
organic by-products from biofuel production and bio-refineries, etc.
� Municipal waste: source-separated household waste, sewage sludge,
MSW and food residues.
OFMSW, the material used as AD feedstock in the 90s and after on, is
produced in treatment plants of MSW by mechanical separation unit,
which includes food waste, green waste, yard waste and other organic
residues. In different countries, OFMSW has different percentages of
MSW; 62% in eastern Asia as an example, and 27% in OECD countries
[18].
Generally, AD plants fed with OFMSW have been investigated in
several surveys based on treatment on feedstock and classified in two
categories:
1.4.1. - Source separated MSW
It is a kind of feedstock that is generated from food waste in kitchens
and segregated in advance at source and collected separately to AD
plants. Developed countries, which started source separation educating
more than 30 years ago and have enough infrastructure to collect it
separately, have lots of AD plants with this kind of feedstock [34].
1.4.2. - Mixed municipal solid waste
In developing countries like Iran and BRICS countries like Brazil and
India MSW is not separated thoroughly at source, thus organic and non-
organic fraction of MSW is collected together. The organic fraction in
this situation, providing that any separation occurs can be used as
feedstock in AD plants. Water separation and mechanical separation are
two main separation methods that can be used to produce OFMSW.
The water separation system relies on the buoyant and the sink force
of water and with the assistance of a series of machine like pulpers,
hammer mills, disc milling machine, separate light fraction, heavy
fraction and organic fraction of MSW in a batch mode. The biodegrad­
able fraction which is referred to as water sorted organic fraction of
municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW) is a mixture of kitchen waste, fruit
and vegetable waste, garden waste, waste paper, etc. In this type of
separation using water as a media for diluting is necessary and the water
should be recycled [35].
Mechanically separation relies on size sorting and mechanical rules
to separate pieces in MSW. Trommel screens, rotary drums and shred­
ders are equipment that can be used in the mechanical sorting of
OFMSW (MS-OFMSW) [36].
In 2000, more than 40 digestion plants were under operation near
mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) plants with MS-OFMSW or
WS-OFMSW technologies, and more than 35 digesters were working
with source separated municipal solid wastes in Europe [37]. The in­
crease in public awareness towards environmental issues and the de­
mand for finding appropriate waste management solutions in one hand,
and in the other hand, the technological development in high-rate
reactor configurations and complicated process control methods,
resulted in the improvement and the increase in the number of plants
[33].
In 2000, Mata-Alvarez et al. [38] has reviewed biomass resource
papers in Europe and concluded that there is a huge potential of OFMSW
for methane production all around the Europe. Having more than 50% of
biogas production from OFMSW lead to lots of studies have been done
for using MSWs as a feedstock of biogas plant beside other feedstock.
Therefore, it is important to know the other biomass resources in the
selected region that can be used as a co-substrate for AD systems. These
co-substrates can enhance biogas production and stabilize the biological
process of MSW anaerobic digestion [39]. If feedstock prepared in
MS-OFMSW has not enough purity, adding pure co-substrate can
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
enhance purity rate and leads to acceptable rate of impurity in feedstock
[34].
1.5. Wet and dry anaerobic digestion system
Based on the amount of TS in the primary feedstock, the AD system is
classified into wet WAD and DAD. The WAD system is used when the TS
of primary feedstock is lower than 15%, and the DAD is suitable for
primary feedstock with TS higher than 15% [40,41]. The DAD system
produces less biogas in comparison to the WAD systems at the same
retention time of primary feedstock in the reactor [42]. The WAD system
cannot be used for primary feedstock with TS higher than 15%, and in
this case the primary feedstock should be diluted with water [43]. On
the other hand, it should be noted that if an inhibitor exists in the pri­
mary feedstock (Such as batteries, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals in
USFIMSW), the use of WAD system is not suitable. Therefore, The WAD
or DAD system is usually selected according to the physical and chemical
characteristics of primary feedstock demonstrated at thermophilic and
mesophilic conditions [44].
1.6. Anaerobic co-digestions
Anaerobic co-digestions, digestion of mixed feedstock, have been
applied since 1970s and provide better availability of nutrients for mi­
crobial growth, prevent toxic compounds to inhibit process by dilution,
provide moisture balance and more buffering capacity to the mixture,
and also lead to positive synergic effect on process stability and higher
methane yield. Municipalities as the responsible body for some sources
of biomass can use various substrate in industrial scale in AD plants to
reduce capital expenditures and operating cost by sharing treatment
infrastructures and gaining more biogas [17,33].
In the various papers, the effects of different co-digestion feedstock
on biogas generation rate from MSW in AD system is studied [17,45–47].
According to the literature review, the co-digestion feedstock can
include primary sludge and activated sludge of waste water treatment
plants, slaughterhouse wastes, food wastes, waste cooking oils, manures,
etc. The maximum biogas production efficiency is achieved when mix­
ing MSW, waste water primary sludge and waste water activated sludge
(OFMSW: WWAS) with a 75:25 volumetric ratio (75% MSW, 12.5%
primary sludge and 12.5% activated sludge) [45]. Other co-digestion
feedstocks available in Isfahan include slaughterhouse wastes which
may result in s 35% increase in biogas generation rate.
1.7. The anaerobic digestion systems in the world and Iran
More than 17,000 WAD or DAD plants have been established in
Europe [46] and many resent researches were done in various countries
such as Nigeria [3], Pakistan [1], Saudi Arabia [8], Uruguay [25],
Bangladesh [26] Turkey [48] and South Korean [10] for production and
improvement of biogas from OFMSW.
Studies in some developing countries such as Saudi Arabia and
Pakistan show that there is a huge potential for using AD system in these
countries. In Saudi Arabia (with a better source separation than other
developing countries) about 30% of OFMSW separated from MSW with
mechanical handling systems which can use for the AD system [8]. In
only 10 major cities of Pakistan, which OFMSW is about 57% of mixed
MSW collected, the total estimated energy potential is equal to 242
million cubic-meters [1].
According to the considering mixed generating and collecting of
MSW in metropolitan cities of developing countries and spend a long
time to set up a culture of source segregation, use of mechanical sepa­
ration methods for reducing landfill is essential.
Because under-screen fraction of mechanical plants is impure,
finding an effective AD system to produce energy from these is impor­
tant. Therefore, in the present study Isfahan as a city in a developing
country having mixed MSW is studied as a case-study for evaluating the
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al.
effect of mechanical separation on biogas generation from MSW.
Iran, as a developing country, has enormous resources of oil and gas
and a huge demand for energy, whereas this kind of energy seems to be
unsustainable. In recent years, various legal frameworks have been
legislated for using renewable energy resources and constructing sus­
tainable power plants such as solar power, wind power and biomass
conversion plants. So, the main objectives of this research were to
include the physical and chemical analysis of USFIMSW separated by a
mechanical system, BMP study of USFIMSW, selecting dry or wet AD
system based on chemical/physical analyzes of USFIMSW and envi­
ronmental conditions. The final purpose is to improve and increase the
biogas production from the USFIMSW based on industrial auxiliary
feedstock in selected area (case study of Isfahan). The present case-study
can be interpreted as a solution for other cities or other countries having
the same condition in MSW generation, water resource, climate condi­
tion and energy demand same as Isfahan.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Regional studies
2.1.1. Municipal solid waste generation, collection and disposal in Isfahan
Isfahan, the capital of Isfahan Province with an area of 231 km2 and a
semi-arid weather (rainfall: 113 mm per year), is located about 340 km
south of Tehran, in the center of Iran. Isfahan had a population of
1,961,260 in the 2016 Census, and is the third most populous metro­
politan city in Iran. Isfahan Municipality has 15 districts to manage city
and 5 regions for MSW collection all around the city. MSW includes
refuse from households, yard wastes and green wastes of houses, market
wastes and street sweepings. This garbage is generated in residential and
commercial complexes in the city. In 2014, urban population in Iran was
55.51 million people generating 15.65 million tons of MSWs. Thus,
MSW generation rate per capita is calculated to be 0.75 kg/person/day
[49] and it is equal to 0.66 kg/person/day in Isfahan. About 80% of
Isfahan MSW is 1040 tons per day sent to MBT plant; also the rest is
source separated or directly landfilled. The mechanical preprocessing is
used as a way for separating OFMSW from nonorganic fraction of
municipal solid waste using bag opener system, rotating screen and
magnet system. In Fig. 1 mechanical treatment line of Isfahan MBT plant
is presented.
In the Isfahan MBT plant, the separation of MSW in the processing
lines is carried out using trommel screens with 70 mm mesh (for sepa­
rating OFMSW from non-OFMSW) after the bag opener. Then, the
Fig. 1. The mechanical treatment line of Isfahan MBT plant.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
electrical magnets separate metals of under screen fraction and up
screen fraction of Isfahan MSW in lines. After that, the recyclable ma­
terials are separated from up screen fraction of Isfahan MSW by hand
pickers in lines and the USFIMSW is used to produce compost by an
aerobic method. The photographs of the various processing machineries
and outputs of each process in Isfahan MBT were shown in Fig. 2.
The OFMSW is a major part of Isfahan MSW which is composted
through aerobic fermentation. Seeking to improve current waste man­
agement methods and also to reduce landfilling as well as moving to­
wards zero-waste strategy, Isfahan tries to implement different projects
amongst which is the use of the OFMSW as a feedstock for AD system.
2.1.2. Biomass availability in Isfahan
The most available resource of biomass in Isfahan is MSW that is
equal to 1040 tons/day, including organic fraction and leachate
(Table 2). Also, there is about 152 tons/day of green waste that is pro­
duced from green area of municipality.
Isfahan county, with an area of 15,706 km2, 2,200,000 populations,
and Isfahan city as its capital, has numerous agricultural and livestock
products and food industries supplying Isfahan peoples’ needs. It is
noteworthy that Isfahan city population is 86% of all population of the
county. Thus, the co-substrate for AD systems can be supplied from dairy
and food industries or slaughterhouses or farms located in the county
within a reasonable distance. In Tables 3 and 4, statistics related to
various industries wastes in Isfahan county, based on formal statistics of
agricultural organization is presented [50]. Based on new data in 2017,
there are 26.35 � 106 tons of residues from agricultural waste in Iran,
which have increased about 35% compared to agricultural waste re­
ported in 2008 [50].
In Table 4 [51], the amount of agricultural products such as wheat,
rice, corn and etc. with higher biogas potential is presented. Agricultural
waste of Isfahan County can be fed in a biogas plant with 550 tons per
day capacity or can be used as co-substrate in an AD plant.
2.2. Physical and chemical analysis of under screen fraction of Isfahan
municipal solid waste
The primary feedstock in an AD system may include compositions
with inhibitory effects on bacterial activity in biogas generation steps.
The excess amounts of heavy metals, drugs, cosmetics, nitrogen and
sulfate in primary feed results in reduced bacterial population and
reduced biogas generation efficiency. Thus, in addition to theoretical
calculations of the gas generation rate, the physiochemical analysis of
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. The photographs of the various processing machineries and outputs of each process in Isfahan MBT of MSW. a) MSW after discharging in receiving hall, b, c
and d) A loader loads waste bags into the conveyor and wastes go through bag openers, e) The trommel screens, g1)over-screen fraction, g2 and i2) Under-screen
fraction, h1 and h2) Magnetic separation. i1) Manual pickers, j1) mechanical treatment reject, j2) Composting site, k) Disk screen (multi-star), fine compost and
compost reject.

200 kg, respectively, by four quadrants method. After that, the reduced
Table 2
USFIMSW samples have been placed on a flat screen with 10 mm holes
Municipal biomass resources available in Isfahan.
and manually analyzed. For physical, chemical and BMP analysis, the
Title Unit Average fresh USIMSW was milled and sieved to a particle size about 400 μm.
Isfahan MSW ton/day ~1040 Afterwards, the physical/chemical properties of USFIMSW such as
Recyclable source separated ton/day ~110 TS, VS, pH, phosphate, sulfate, total nitrogen, heavy metals and etc.
Organic Fraction of MSW ton/day ~728 were measured according to the standard [52,53].
Leachate m3/day ~40
Green waste (from city green area) ton/day ~152

2.3. Bio-methane potential test of under screen fraction of Isfahan

primary feed and BMP tests are of great importance as well.
From 2016 onwards, the Isfahan MSW and USFIMSW components
were analyzed manually in each 2 months (at least). In Isfahan Munic­
ipal Solid Waste Management Organization plant, the USFIMSW was
separated from other fractions by the trommel screen and the metals
were separated through magnetic separation system. At first, to obtain a
homogeneous sample (USFIMSW), the sampling was conducted in four
different times during a day. Approximately, the weight of each sample
was two tons. Then, the weights of under-screen fraction of MSW sam­
ples, taken during the day, were reduced from eight tons to one ton and
municipal solid waste
For BMP test, the inoculum sludge was obtained from a 7000-m3
mesophilic anaerobic digester located in Isfahan municipal waste water
treatment (Isfahan, Iran). The large particles of this inoculum were
separated by using a 2 mm screen. Then, for consumption of residual
organic matters, the separated inoculum was stabilized for 6 days at
37 � C.
According to the Hansen et al. (2004) method, the BMP test of milled
and sieved fresh Isfahan OFMSW (with particle size about 400 μm) was
done [54]. The 118-mL sealable dark glass bottles were used as an AD

5
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3 (Porapak Q, Chrompack, Germany) was used for analyzing the methane
Waste of various industries based on formal statistics of agricultural organiza­ and carbon dioxide contents. The injector, column, and detector tem­
tion in Isfahan County. peratures were fixed at 100, 40, and 150 � C, respectively.
Slaughterhouse Numbers of Isfahan 51
Residues slaughterhouses 3. Result and discussion
Numbers of livestock 216,984 16,500
Slaughtered per year sheep cow and
calf
3.1. Municipal solid waste fraction of Isfahan
Average weight of carcass 20 kg 270 kg
Produced meet per year 4340 ton 4455 ton Table 5 shows the results of Isfahan MSW analysis in MBT plant
lamb beef during last two years (12 analyses from June 2016 to June 2018) and the
Residue Percentage of a head 35% 30%
average of them presented in Fig. 3.
(intestines, rumen)
Slaughterhouse Residues per 10.4 9.2 As shown in Fig. 3, on average 70% of Isfahan MSW is organic
day fraction, which is a little bit less than some other cities such as Rasht
Dairy farm Average milk production of 272,281 tons [55] and more than the capital Tehran [56]. Therefore, approximately
residues Isfahan Dairy farms 70% of the Isfahan MSW is useable in the AD system. This result (high
Daily average milk production 39.5 kg
amount of in MSW) suggested that the AD systems can be established
per head
Numbers of dairy cattle in 19,000 head next to the MBT plant like the Gac AD plant in Poland and the Ekopark3
Isfahan Barcelona in Spain [34].
Daily cattle manure per head 40 kg The major components of Isfahan OFMSW are carbohydrates, lipids,
Daily dairy cattle manure in 760 tons
proteins, and pectins which have good theoretical potential for pro­
Isfahan (after liquid separation
at farm) duction of bio-methane via AD system [57]. In the city of Isfahan there is
Daily cattle manure in Isfahan 1300 tons an average amount of 1040 tons of MSW per day. So there are about 728
Poultry farming The numbers of poultry farms 253 tons of organic matters per day for potential use in AD system. The
residues The numbers of poultry 24 amount of production and combination of MSW in different countries
packaging
until 2025 is predicted, in the global bank’s report [58]. According to
Chicken meat production per 10,795 tons
year this report, most of the MSW in developed countries consist of
Chicken dung produced per year non-organic fraction. Meanwhile, in the low and middle income coun­
WWTP sludge in WWTP sludge production per 240 tons tries, most of the MSW consist of organic fraction with a range of
Isfahan day (DS ¼ 20%)
45–85%. According to this report, the average OFMSW in developing
and developed countries are 64% and 28%, respectively. This difference
is related to the type of food packaging and the industrialization of food
Table 4 products in two groups of countries. The OFMSW in Isfahan, like other
The amount of agricultural products in Isfahan County [51]. cities in Iran [49] and other cities in the Middle East such as Muscat
Crop Production (tons) Residues (%) Residues (tons) [59], is about 70%, which is endemic to moderate middle-income
Wheat 154,000 50 77,000 developing countries [5].
Rice 520 25 130
Barley 31,500 20 6300 3.2. Components of under screen fraction of Isfahan municipal solid
Corn 270,000 30 81,000 waste
Potato 32,200 30 6600
Sugar beet 22,553 95 21,400
Grape 530 30 160 In order to use the organic fraction of Isfahan MSW in the AD process,
Apple 295 30 89 the purity of mechanical separated material (under-screen fraction of
Total 511,598 - 192,679 MSW) had to be determined. For this purpose, 12 analyses were done on
the USFIMSW. The results of the manual separation of under-screen
materials are presented in Table 6.
reactor. In this process, 20 mL of inoculum sludge and 0.25 g substrate
These results show that about 83 percentages (half of the fine and the
based on VS was diluted with 5 mL of distilled water. Then, the bottles
total bio-degradable) of the under-screen are composed of organic
were sealed and their headspaces were purged with nitrogen gas for
compounds. Approximately 16.4% of the under-screen fractions are
3 min. After that, the bottles were placed in the incubator at 37 � C for
neutral compounds (half fine, glass and Non degradable) and about
21–50 days based on the inoculum preparation and test condition. It is
0.27% of them are hazardous materials (Fig. 4).
noteworthy that 7 analyses were done during two years in different
Neutral compounds in the digester, reduce the volume of produce
seasons. The gas chromatography (GC) was applied for analyzing the
biogas per unit weight of the feedstock. For elimination of indecom­
produced methane and carbon dioxide composition every 3-day in the
posable materials, the various method such as mechanical, thermal and
primary 15 days and then every 2 or 5 days until the fiftieth day. For
biological pre-process can be used [16]. Some of the mechanical method
controlling the experiment, a mixture containing of glucose, inoculum,
cause to increase the purity of, alter the particle size and enhance the
and distilled water was used. All experiments were tested in triplicate.
biogas production process. For example, reduced the particle size to
0.35 mm cause to 20% increase in the produced biogas [16].
2.4. Instrumental The presence of 83% decomposable materials in the USFIMSW is
comparable with solid suspension waste in Canadian and European
The atomic absorption spectrometry (PerkinElmer model: An Ana­ cities [60]. According to the P. Bozano Gandolfi report [60], the wet
lyst 700) was investigated for detection of heavy metals. The value of pre-processing equipment functional parameters in the Dufferin manu­
total phosphor and nitrate were determined by using UV/Visible spec­ factory (Toronto, Canada) were investigated. In this manufactory, the
troscopy (JASCO, Model V530). The total nitrogen and ammonium were amount of introduced decomposable materials and indecomposable
measured by Kjeldahl instrument (Gerhard). The gas chromatograph materials are 80.17 and 19.83%, respectively. These indecomposable
(GC-2552, Teif Gostar Faraz 189 Co., Iran) was used for detection of materials can eliminate from the feedstock of the WAD system by
biogas composition equipped with a thermal conductivity detector applying the wet pre-processing equipment. Therefore, for enhancement
(TCD). The 3 m (length) � 3 mm (internal diameter) packed column of produce biogas and prevent from failed of WAD system, the wet

6
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
Physical characterization of Isfahan MSW during last two years (from June 2016 to June 2018).
Organic fraction Paper & Cardboard Metals Plastics Leather Glass Textile Nappy Hazards materials C&D other

Ava % 70.23 4.16 0.65 14.04 0.55 1.17 3.37 5.08 0.10 0.02 0.53
SD % 2.33 0.84 0.16 1.69 0.42 0.47 1.38 1.44 0.042 0.04 0.10

Average (Ave); Standard deviation (SD). Construction and demolition debris (C&D).

Fig. 3. The results of Isfahan MSW analysis in MBT plant during last two years.

low usage of water. This could be one of the major reasons for encour­
Table 6
aging Isfahan municipal waste management to use a DAD system in the
The results of the manual separation of USFIMSW in two last years.
city of Isfahan.
Part Ave (%) SD (%)

Bio-degradable 80.55 5.31 3.3. Total solid and volatile solid analysis of under screen fraction of
Non degradable 11.67 5.03 Isfahan municipal solid waste
Metal 0.16 0.11
Hazardous material 0.27 0.10
Fine 5.25 2.59
Table 7 shows the TS and VS value of under-screen fraction of Isfahan
Glass 2.10 0.44 MSW in different seasons in the two last years.
As shown in Table 7, the minimum and maximum value of TS for
USFIMSW are 29% and 35.5%, respectively, which is appropriate for the
pre-processing equipment must be used. Although, the percentage of DAD system based on different studies [40,41]. In the WAD, the TS
hazardous materials in the under-screen fraction of MSW are very low, content should be less than 15% [40,41,43]. Therefore, to use WAD,
but the bacteria in the WAD system die and the whole of the system water must be added to reduce TS which implies to need a great amount
failed if their come into the digestion and diffusion on its. Therefore, If of water (for USFIMSW: Approximately 1.5 tons of water for each ton of
the WAD system to be used, the whole of hazardous materials must be USFIMSW). Considering the water shortage crisis in Iran and particu­
eliminated or DAD system to be applied. In the DAD system, the diffu­ larly in Isfahan, it would be really a hard challenge to provide such
sion of hazardous materials and failed of the system are low due to the amount of water in the long-term. All in all, the TS results in various

7
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. The average of the important components of USFIMSW (manual separation; during last two years).

MSW and in result, the more is the biogas potential rate [63].
Table 7
Some extra pretreatment technologies such as pulpers, hammer
TS and VS value of USFIMSW in different seasons in two last years.
mills, shredders and screw press is used to improve the amount of VS/TS
TS (%) VS (%) VS/TS (%) for AD systems; for example, using a screw press pretreatment system
Winter 30.37 � 1.27 22.89 � 1.97 75.34 � 6.23 resulted in a smaller substrate particle size, while a shredder with
Spring 32.43 � 0.69 22.98 � 0.71 70.87 � 2.23 magnetic separation yielded a higher (5.6–13.8% as compared to the
Summer 34.28 � 0.25 23.35 � 1.52 68.09 � 4.43
other methods) methane production [19].
Autumn 34.03 � 1.43 24.46 � 1.20 71.87 � 3.66

season lead us to go towards using DAD system. Therefore, in regions 3.4. The chemical analysis of under screen fraction of Isfahan municipal
with dry climates in Iran (e.g. Isfahan and more than 75% of Iran area), solid waste
water consumption for primary feedstock dilution and using the WAD
system for higher methane yield, may not be justified. So, other solu­ Table 8 shows the results of the chemical analysis of Isfahan OFMSW
tions such as digestion of mixed feedstock should be considered to sample (10 analysis). As could be seen, the pH value in primary matters
enhance the higher methane yield. is 0.5–1.9 less than neutral pH value which is due to beginning of aerobic
According to the VS value of USFIMSW in the two last years bacterial activity (acidogens) in MSW from collection to screening in the
(Table 7), about 5% difference between minimum and maximum VS MBT plant (which takes about 7–10 h). Based on results obtained, the
values indicates a same difference in theoretical biogas generation rate
for MSW in different seasons in Isfahan [30]. Table 8
The biogas potential rate from the OFMSW based on different The results of the chemical analysis of Isfahan OFMSW sample in two last years.
collection methods and the resulting effects on TS and VS values and parameter unit Typical range
generated biogas, is classified into 3 categories of separately collected EC (1:10) ds/m 3.5–4.8
(SC), mechanically separated (MS) and source separated (SS) [61]. Organic Materials % 77–81
When MS selected, TS and VS values of (under-screen fraction) were in Organic Carbon % 39–46
the ranges of 51–95% and 29–57%, respectively. Since the values were pH (1:10) – 5.1–6.5
TN mg/kg (wet) 3200–6000
compared for Italia and some other European countries with an organic
PO2-
4 mg/kg (wet) 1700–3500
fraction ranging from 35 to 57% of all MSW, the significant difference Na mg/kg (wet) 1400–2300
between TS and VS values in Isfahan and values provided in the Ca mg/kg (wet) 4000–9000
mentioned study can be interpreted due to the 40% difference in their Mg mg/kg (wet) 500–1000
organic content. On the other hand, in European countries due to the K mg/kg (wet) 2000–3000
SO2- mg/kg (wet) 2500–3900
high volume of non-organic matters in MSW, using MS-OFMSW is not NO3
4
mg/kg (wet) 100–500
recommended as the feed for AD system. That’s while in Asian countries Cl mg/kg (wet) 3000–6000
with an average of 70% in MSW, it would be wise to use mechanical NHþ 4 mg/kg (wet) 80–250
equipment for processing and reaching a purity of 85% for the feedstock HCO3 mg/kg (wet) 4000–8000
Fe mg/kg (wet) 2000–4000
entering AD system [62].
Pb mg/kg (wet) 8–20
The amount of TS in USFIMSW is in the range of 30–34%, which is Ni mg/kg (wet) 2–4.5
the line with the reported organic content of MSW in Prague, Kolding, Cr mg/kg (wet) 6–12
Padova, Lisbon, Ankara and Udin. But the most important parameter in Cd mg/kg (wet) 0.1–0.6
feedstock of an AD system is VS/TS which the produced biogas is Hg mg/kg (wet) <0.2
Co mg/kg (wet)
depending on it. The VS/TS ratio in Prague, Kolding and Lisbon, is 71,
<0.2
Zn mg/kg (wet) 25–35
82 and 71%, respectively, which is in the same range reported for Cu mg/kg (wet) 8–10
Isfahan. The more VS/TS ratio is, the purer is the organic content of Mn mg/kg (wet) 25–35

8
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

average C/N ratio is about 91. The high C/N ratio in primary feedstock Table 10
indicates that: to produce biogas form Isfahan MSW, it is better to use Input data for calculating Isfahan potential of generating electricity from MSW.
mesophilic AD system [31,32]; and the biogas generation efficiency in Item Unit Value
AD system is low due to the lack of enough Nitrogen (resulting in a
Isfahan MSW Ton/day 1040
reduction in bacterial population) [27,30]. To increase biogas genera­ Working days day 365
tion efficiency from USFIMSW and using mesophilic system, the nitro­ Organic fraction % 70.23
gen content should increase by co-digestion with high-nitrogen content Annually average of Volatile solid rate % 23.42
axillary feedstock. Methane Yield Nm3CH4/tVS 322.72

The obtained ammonium in the feedstock is much less than to be able

to reduce acidogens activity in primary biogas generation phase [64].
The results of heavy metals analysis in USFIMSW indicate that their
values are in the standard range and have not any prohibiting effect on
bacterial activity [32].
The analysis results of other elements such as sodium, potassium,
magnesium, and calcium indicates that if using WAD technology, an
average amount of water of at least 2.5 times of the mass of the feedstock
would be required, so that these elements would not have any prohib­
iting effects on the biogas generation and to reach the maximum biogas
generation efficiency [32]. Thus, here is another reason to go towards
DAD technology for USFIMSW.
3.5. The bio-methane potential tests results of under screen fraction of
Isfahan municipal solid waste in the two last years
The results of BMP testing for USFIMSW in the two last year (7 an­
alyses) are presented in Table 9. As can be seen in this table, methane
generation rate from USFIMSW is 58.44%. The following formula (1)
can be used to calculate the total methane generation rate from Isfahan
OFMSW based on BMP.
�
Total Produced MethaneVS of BMP Nm3 CH4 ¼ TOF*BY*MP (1)
Also, based on test results, 900 � 300 gr/lit of H2S is observed in final
biogas. This amount of H2S is damaging for CHP motors and has cor­
rosive effects. Thus, before using the output biogas as the fuel in CHP
motors, the H2S content must be reduced, which implies the need to use
a desulphurization system in the final design.
In Table 11 some methane yield values from the digesting of organic
fraction of MSW were given. As seen from the table the methane yield of
OFMSW varies widely and it is between 165 and 770 L CH4/Kg VS [18].
Present study result for methane yield without purification, that is
322.7 Nm3/t VS, was found in the middle range in comparison with
reviewed literatures. The wide range of yield is originated from the
heterogenic texture of under-screen fraction of MSW and different ma­
terials in the samples took around the world. Nonorganic matters like
metal, glass, plastic and stone can be considered as an example for the
substances that can be found in under-screen fraction of MSW. The
impurities and the complexity in under-screen fraction of MSW cause
difficulty to predict the digestion performance and lead to the fluctua­
tion in BMP results [11]. According to chemical analysis of USFIMSW for
improving C/N ratio, increase stability and methane yield of AD system,
it is suggested to use available co-substrate in Isfahan such as sewage
sludge, animal manure and slaughterhouse waste or mixed of them.

where TOF is the total organic fraction in one year (365 days), BY is
biogas yield, and MP is methane percentage. TOF is calculated based on
daily MSW generated that is 1040 tons/day and the organic fraction rate
that is 70% and these parameters are presented in Table 10. Thus, the
average annual methane production rate is 18, 305, 204 m3.
Having the total annual methane production, and using the equation
(2), one can calculate the electrical generation power (in kW).
electrical energy generation powerðkWÞ ¼ ððTPM*MCV*etaCHPÞÞ ​ = ​ CHPWH
(2)
3.6. Investigation on effect of Mechanical separation and Co-substrate
Considering the valued provided previously, now one can calculate
the biogas generation potential in Isfahan after modifying process lines
and the addition of co-feedstock.
As mentioned before, available mechanical equipment in the Isfahan
plant (section 3-2) can separate the OFMSW from mixed MSW in Isfahan
and increase the purity of organic fraction from 70% to 83% (that was
called USFIMSW). But studies show that the optimized purity for using
under-screen fraction in dry AD system is at least 90%. To reach this

where MCV is methane calorific value which is 10 kWh/m3, CHPWH is Table 11

the annual combined heat and power work hour which is 8000 h with an The OF methane yield of Isfahan MSW in one stage laboratory digesters.
average efficiency of 39%. Thus, the approximate electrical energy
Methane yield, Temperature, Hydraulic retention time, days Ref.
generation power is 8.92 MW. L CH4/kg VS C0
Also, based on equation (3), the methane generation rate can be
275–410 55 15 [65]
calculated based on TS and VS analysis. This method is more reliable, 540–770 35 23–33 [66]
since the numbers of TS and VS tests are almost 10 times of the BMP 428–487 55 15 [19]
tests. 450 38 25 [67]
413–463 50 30 [68]
Total Produced MethaneVS ¼ TOF*MY*VSave (3) 478 35 90 [69]
417 37 40 [70]
where MY, VSave are methane yield, average volatile solid, respectively. 165 35 15 [71]
Therefore, average methane production based on average VS values is 564 26 240 [72]
371 35 [73]
20, 083, 390 m3 per year and the electrical energy generation is
–
425 50 28 [74]
9.79 MW. Thus, it is estimated that Isfahan MSW can generate the 785 37 50 [18]
electricity of about 8000 houses as a renewable and sustainable resource 322.7 37 50 Present study
of energy.

Table 9
The results of BMP testing for USFIMSW in the two last years.
parameter Biogas yield CH4 percentage Methane yield CO2 percentage H2S percentage
3 3
Unit Nm /t fresh waste mL/g-VS Nm /tVS mL/g-VS mL/g-VS
Value 117.88 � 27.92 58.44 � 4.08 322.72 � 75.88 41.69 � 3.92 0.09 � 0.03

9
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx

purity, two trommel screens and suction devices for separating plastic
bags and also other equipment such as hard particle separators may be
employed. In this case, methane yield would also increase linearly and
would reach approximately to a value about 505 � 15 Nm3/t VS by
increasing OF purity of USFIMSWM to 100% (Fig. 5). Also Fig. 5 shows
that by increasing OF purity of USFIMSWM, the standard deviation of
MY will be decreased. But the percentage and standard deviation of
methane produced in AD system are not related to OF purity of
USFIMSWM (Fig. 6).
One other way to increase, the biogas potential rate from MSWs is to
use co-feedstock (in section 1-6) using available organic sources (section
2-1-2) which seem to be readily available for such purpose. Studying
different co-digestion scenarios showed that a 140% and 135% increase
in the methane generation rate compared to CEB (calculated expected
biogas) is possible [45]. This increase is so significant that can be subject
of further studies in municipal anaerobic digesters.
However, it must be noted that the goal of the study is to manage the
organic fraction of Isfahan municipal solid waste and thus, the OFMSW
should remain as the main feedstock and only a little part should be
supplied from co-feedstock. Fig. 6. The effect of organic fraction purity of USFIMSW on the methane
concentration.
4. Conclusion
(from June 2016 to June 2018) shows that about 70% of Isfahan MSW is
The AD systems are one of the most appropriate methods for recy­ the organic component. After size separations of MSW (by a trommel
cling organic materials in MSW management which reduces the envi­ screen) and removal of metals compound (by a magnetic separator), the
ronmental effects of MSW and promotes achieving the renewable organic fraction of USFIMSW increase to 83% which can be used as the
energy. The present work studies the possibility of using AD technique in feedstock of AD system. The physical properties of USFIMSW include
Isfahan as an important and leading city in waste management in Iran especially high amount of TS (about 32.8%) and presence of hazardous
according to the physical and chemical properties of USFIMSW. After materials (0.27%). The chemical analysis of Isfahan OFMSW indicates
that, the followings are discussed in this manuscript: the C/N ratio is about 91% and the heavy metals are in standard range.
According to the results and the presence of Isfahan in a dry climatic
a) Which AD system (Dry or wet? mesophilic or thermophilic?) is zone, the use of the mesophilic DAD system by Nitrogen-rich co-diges­
suitable for Isfahan MSW management? tion feedstock is suggested. Also, the biogas experiment results show
b) How to increase the MY production and biogas potential rate of that the methane yield of USFIMSW is about 322.7 Nm3/t VS which can
USFIMSW (feedstock) in the AD system? be increased to ~505 by raising the purity of USFIMSW.
c) Suggesting an efficient AD system for cities with low source sepa­
ration of MSW and dry climate which use rotating screen and magnet 4.2. Suggestion for other developing countries with low source separation
for separating organic fraction of MSW. of MSW and dry climate and future research

MSW management is a major challenge in developing countries

which can be reduced by using AD technology. The AD systems not only
4.1. The result of biogas production from Isfahan municipal solid waste
reduce the environmental pollution of OFMSW, but also generate
renewable energy. Therefore, it may have an important effect on eco­
The physical and chemical analysis of Isfahan MSW in MBT plant
nomic and sustainable development in these countries. Since many cities
in developing countries have similar conditions to Isfahan in the
segregation in origin, applying trommel screen and magnet for OFs
separation, the results obtained here may find use in other developing
countries as well. As a result, if OFMSWs are used as feedstock in AD
system in developing countries, in addition to reduce environmental
pollution, it will lead to sustainable development. Therefore, the
following studies would be suggested for using OFMSW as feedstock of
AD systems.

1 Physical analysis of MSW and specifying the percentage and TS of

OFs in the MSW. By increasing the purity of OFMSW (AD feedstock),
the methane yield of biogas production will be increased. If TS of is
high, the use of the DAD system will be a priority, especially in
developing countries with dry climates.
2 Chemical analysis of OFMSW. The amount of C/N ratio is used to
choose between the mesophilic or thermophilic systems of AD. The
high C/N ratio in primary feedstock indicates that: to produce biogas
form OFMSW, it is better to use a mesophilic AD system and co-
digestion with high-nitrogen content axillary feedstock. The
amount of heavy metals over the standard range indicates that it has
a prohibition effect on bacterial activity.
Fig. 5. The effect of organic fraction purity of USFIMSW on the methane yield.

10
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al.
3 The BMP tests of under-screen fraction of MSW which show methane
generation rate and economic justification of the plan.
4 Identification of available auxiliary foods in the city for the AD
system that can be used to increase the biogas and methane yield
production.
Author contribution section
Seyed Mohammad Mehdi Noorbakhsh Dehkordi: Collected re­
view data and physical analysis, performed physical analysis, analyzed
data, co-wrote the paper., Ahmad Reza Taghipour Jahromi: Super­
vised the research and analysis, performed physical, chemical and bio-
chemical analysis, performed Gas Chromatograph, Atomic absorption
and UV/Vis spectroscopy analysis, data interpretation, co-wrote the
paper, provided critical feedback and helped shape the research,
analyzed data., Ali Ferdowsi: Collected and analyses physical data,
Performed physical analyses, Performed physical and microbial ana­
lyses, co-wrote the paper., Mohammad Shumal: Performed physical
analyses, analyzed data, co-wrote the paper., Ali Dehnavi: Performed
physical analyses, analyzed data, took the lead in writing the
manuscript.
Acknowledgment
This project is supported under the Isfahan Waste Management Or­
ganization and Isfahan Municipality framework to study sustainable
solutions for problems targeted at already-stressed megacities and serve
as inputs for strategic policy making and near real-time environmental
monitoring and response Sincere thanks are due to the Ministry of
Agriculture of Iran the statistics department activities.
References
[1] Raheem A, Hassan MY, Shakoor R. Bioenergy from anaerobic digestion in Pakistan:
potential, development and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;59:264–75.
[2] Malinauskaite J, Jouhara H, Czajczy� nska D, Stanchev P, Katsou E, Rostkowski P,
et al. Municipal solid waste management and waste-to-energy in the context of a
circular economy and energy recycling in Europe. Energy 2017;141:2013–44.
[3] Ogunjuyigbe ASO, Ayodele TR, Alao MA. Electricity generation from municipal
solid waste in some selected cities of Nigeria: an assessment of feasibility, potential
and technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:149–62.
[4] Rezaei M, Ghobadian B, Samadi SH, Karimi S. Electric power generation from
municipal solid waste: a techno-economical assessment under different scenarios in
Iran. Energy 2018;152:46–56.
[5] Coban A, Ertis IF, Cavdaroglu NA. Municipal solid waste management via multi-
criteria decision making methods: a case study in Istanbul, Turkey. J Clean Prod
2018;180:159–67.
[6] Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P. The future of anaerobic
digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5478–84.
[7] Matheri AN, Sethunya VL, Belaid M, Muzenda E. Analysis of the biogas
productivity from dry anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid
waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;81:2328–34.
[8] Hadidi LA, Omer MM. A financial feasibility model of gasification and anaerobic
digestion waste-to-energy (WTE) plants in Saudi Arabia. Waste Manag 2017;59:
90–101.
[9] Kothari R, Pandey AK, Kumar S, Tyagi VV, Tyagi SK. Different aspects of dry
anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;
39:174–95.
[10] Nguyen DD, Yeop JS, Choi J, Kim S, Chang SW, Jeon B-H, et al. A new approach for
concurrently improving performance of South Korean food waste valorization and
renewable energy recovery via dry anaerobic digestion under mesophilic and
thermophilic conditions. Waste Manag 2017;66:161–8.
[11] Fern�andez-Rodríguez J, P�erez M, Romero LI. Comparison of mesophilic and
thermophilic dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW: kinetic analysis. Chem Eng J
2013;232:59–64.
[12] Zhang Q, Hu J, Lee D-J. Biogas from anaerobic digestion processes: research
updates. Renew Energy 2016;98:108–19.
[13] Dahunsi SO, Oranusi S, Efeovbokhan VE. Optimization of pretreatment, process
performance, mass and energy balance in the anaerobic digestion of Arachis
hypogaea (Peanut) hull. Energy Convers Manag 2017;139:260–75.
[14] Zahedi S, Sales D, García-Morales JL, Solera R. Obtaining green energy from dry-
thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of municipal solid waste and biodiesel waste.
Biosyst Eng 2018;170:108–16.
[15] Gikas P, Zhu B, Batistatos NI, Zhang R. Evaluation of the rotary drum reactor
process as pretreatment technology of municipal solid waste for thermophilic
anaerobic digestion and biogas production. J Environ Manag 2018;216:96–104.
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
[16] Jain S, Jain S, Wolf IT, Lee J, Tong YW. A comprehensive review on operating
parameters and different pretreatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of
municipal solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:142–54.
[17] Tyagi VK, Fdez-Güelfo LA, Zhou Y, Alvarez-Gallego
� CJ, Garcia LIR, Ng WJ.
Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW):
progress and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;93:380–99.
[18] Guven H, Akca MS, Iren E, Keles F, Ozturk I, Altinbas M. Co-digestion performance
of organic fraction of municipal solid waste with leachate: preliminary studies.
Waste Manag 2018;71:775–84.
[19] Hansen TL, la Cour Jansen J, Davidsson Å, Christensen TH. Effects of pre-treatment
technologies on quantity and quality of source-sorted municipal organic waste for
biogas recovery. Waste Manag 2007;27:398–405.
[20] Cesaro A, Belgiorno V. Sonolysis and ozonation as pretreatment for anaerobic
digestion of solid organic waste. Ultrason Sonochem 2013;20:931–6.
[21] Torres ML, Llor� ens M, del CE. Effect of alkaline pretreatment on anaerobic
digestion of solid wastes. Waste Manag 2008;28:2229–34.
[22] Shahriari H, Warith M, Hamoda M, Kennedy KJ. Anaerobic digestion of organic
fraction of municipal solid waste combining two pretreatment modalities, high
temperature microwave and hydrogen peroxide. Waste Manag 2012;32:41–52.
[23] Güelfo LAF, Alvarez-Gallego
� C, M�arquez DS, García LIR. The effect of different
pretreatments on biomethanation kinetics of industrial Organic Fraction of
Municipal Solid Wastes (OFMSW). Chem Eng J 2011;171:411–7.
[24] Hartmann H, Ahring BK. Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste: an overview. Water Sci Technol 2006;53:7–22.
[25] Moreda IL. The potential of biogas production in Uruguay. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;54:1580–91.
[26] Halder PK, Paul N, Joardder MUH, Khan MZH, Sarker M. Feasibility analysis of
implementing anaerobic digestion as a potential energy source in Bangladesh.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:124–34.
[27] 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;34:491–500.
[28] Khalid A, Arshad M, Anjum M, Mahmood T, Dawson L. The anaerobic digestion of
solid organic waste. Waste Manag 2011;31:1737–44.
[29] Koster IW, Lettinga G. The influence of ammonium-nitrogen on the specific activity
of pelletized methanogenic sludge. Agric Wastes 1984;9:205–16.
[30] Jingura RM, Kamusoko R. Methods for determination of biomethane potential of
feedstocks: a review. Biofuel Res J 2017;4:573–86.
[31] Wang X, Lu X, Li F, Yang G. Effects of temperature and carbon-nitrogen (C/N) ratio
on the performance of anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, chicken manure
and rice straw: focusing on ammonia inhibition. PLoS One 2014;9:e97265.
[32] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review.
Bioresour Technol 2008;99:4044–64.
[33] Wellinger A, Murphy JD, Baxter D. The biogas handbook: science, production and
applications. Elsevier; 2013.
[34] Rolewicz-Kali� nska A, Oniszk-Popławska A, Wesołowska J, Ry� nska ED. Conditions
for the development of anaerobic digestion technologies using the organic fraction
of municipal solid waste: perspectives for Poland. Environ Dev Sustain 2016;18:
1279–96.
[35] Dong L, Zhenhong Y, Yongming S. Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of
water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW). Bioresour
Technol 2010;101:2722–8.
[36] Zhang Y, Banks CJ, Heaven S. Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable municipal
waste streams. J Environ Manag 2012;104:166–74.
[37] Monson KD, Esteves SR, Guwy AJ, Dinsdale RM. Anaerobic digestion of
biodegradable municipal wastes: a review. University of Glamorgan; 2007.
p. 971–8. 2007.
[38] Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An
overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour Technol 2000;74:
3–16.
[39] Macias-Corral M, Samani Z, Hanson A, Smith G, Funk P, Yu H, et al. Anaerobic
digestion of municipal solid waste and agricultural waste and the effect of co-
digestion with dairy cow manure. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:8288–93.
[40] Chiumenti A, da Borso F, Limina S. Dry anaerobic digestion of cow manure and
agricultural products in a full-scale plant: efficiency and comparison with wet
fermentation. Waste Manag 2018;71:704–10.
[41] Andr� e L, Lamy E, Lutz P, Pernier M, Lespinard O, Pauss A, et al. Electrical
resistivity tomography to quantify in situ liquid content in a full-scale dry
anaerobic digestion reactor. Bioresour Technol 2016;201:89–96.
[42] Abbassi-Guendouz A, Brockmann D, Trably E, Dumas C, Delgen�es J-P, Steyer J-P,
et al. Total solids content drives high solid anaerobic digestion via mass transfer
limitation. Bioresour Technol 2012;111:55–61.
[43] Bollon J, Benbelkacem H, Gourdon R, Buffi�ere P. Measurement of diffusion
coefficients in dry anaerobic digestion media. Chem Eng Sci 2013;89:115–9.
[44] Saady NMC, Mass�e DI. Impact of organic loading rate on the performance of
psychrophilic dry anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and wheat straw: long-term
operation. Bioresour Technol 2015;182:50–7.
[45] Ara E, Sartaj M, Kennedy K. Enhanced biogas production by anaerobic co-digestion
from a trinary mix substrate over a binary mix substrate. Waste Manag Res 2015;
33:578–87.
[46] De la Rubia MA, Villamil JA, Rodriguez JJ, Borja R, Mohedano AF. Mesophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with the
liquid fraction from hydrothermal carbonization of sewage sludge. Waste Manag
2018;76:315–22.
[47] Martín-Gonz� alez L, Castro R, Pereira MA, Alves MM, Font X, Vicent T.
Thermophilic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid wastes with FOG
S.M.M.N. Dehkordi et al.
wastes from a sewage treatment plant: reactor performance and microbial
community monitoring. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:4734–41.
[48] Melikoglu M. Vision 2023: assessing the feasibility of electricity and biogas
production from municipal solid waste in Turkey. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;
19:52–63.
[49] Rajaeifar MA, Ghanavati H, Dashti BB, Heijungs R, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M.
Electricity generation and GHG emission reduction potentials through different
municipal solid waste management technologies: a comparative review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;79:414–39.
[50] Ministry of agriculture-jihad. I.R.Iran. 2016. http://amar.maj.ir/. [Accessed 20
March 2017].
[51] Najafi G, Ghobadian B, Tavakoli T, Yusaf T. Potential of bioethanol production
from agricultural wastes in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1418–27.
[52] Council USC. Test methods for the examination of composting and compost.
Rokonkoma: Council UC; 2002.
[53] Radojevic M, Bashkin V. Practical environmental analysis. Royal society of
chemistry; 2007.
[54] Hansen TL, Schmidt JE, Angelidaki I, Marca E, la Cour Jansen J, Mosbæk H, et al.
Method for determination of methane potentials of solid organic waste. Waste
Manag 2004;24:393–400.
[55] Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B. Municipal solid waste
management in Rasht City, Iran. Waste Manag 2009;29:485–9.
[56] Rajaeifar MA, Tabatabaei M, Ghanavati H, Khoshnevisan B, Rafiee S. Comparative
life cycle assessment of different municipal solid waste management scenarios in
Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:886–98.
[57] Mahmoodi P, Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ. Efficient conversion of municipal solid
waste to biofuel by simultaneous dilute-acid hydrolysis of starch and pretreatment
of lignocelluloses. Energy Convers Manag 2018;166:569–78.
[58] Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a waste: a global review of solid waste
management. 2012.
[59] Palanivel TM, Sulaiman H. Generation and composition of municipal solid waste
(MSW) in Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. APCBEE Procedia 2014;10:96–102.
[60] DA RIFIUTI EDAB. PRODUZIONE di biogas E di energia. n.d, https://www.biotecs
istemi.it/media/cms/ATI2010.pdf.
[61] Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Mace S, Cecchi F. Dry anaerobic digestion of differently
sorted organic municipal solid waste: a full-scale experience. Water Sci Technol
2006;53:23–32.
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx
[62] Hartmann H, Ahring BK. Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal
solid waste: influence of co-digestion with manure. Water Res 2005;39:1543–52.
[63] Campuzano R, Gonz� alez-Martínez S. Characteristics of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste and methane production: a review. Waste Manag 2016;54:
3–12.
[64] Koster IW, Lettinga G. Anaerobic digestion at extreme ammonia concentrations.
Biol Wastes 1988;25:51–9.
[65] Davidsson Å, Gruvberger C, Christensen TH, Hansen TL, la Cour Jansen J. Methane
yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag
2007;27:406–14.
[66] Fongsatitkul P, Elefsiniotis P, Wareham DG. Effect of mixture ratio, solids
concentration and hydraulic retention time on the anaerobic digestion of the
organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag Res 2010;28:811–7.
[67] Koch K, Plabst M, Schmidt A, Helmreich B, Drewes JE. Co-digestion of food waste
in a municipal wastewater treatment plant: comparison of batch tests and full-scale
experiences. Waste Manag 2016;47:28–33.
[68] Li Y, Liu H, Su D, Yan F. Characterization and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2016;7:
325–30.
[69] Mata-Alvarez J, Llabr�es P, Cecchi F, Pavan P. Anaerobic digestion of the Barcelona
central food market organic wastes: experimental study. Bioresour Technol 1992;
39:39–48.
[70] Nagao N, Tajima N, Kawai M, Niwa C, Kurosawa N, Matsuyama T, et al. Maximum
organic loading rate for the single-stage wet anaerobic digestion of food waste.
Bioresour Technol 2012;118:210–8.
[71] Pavi S, Kramer LE, Gomes LP, Miranda LAS. Biogas production from co-digestion of
organic fraction of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable waste. Bioresour
Technol 2017;228:362–7.
[72] Rao MS, Singh SP, Singh AK, Sodha MS. Bioenergy conversion studies of the
organic fraction of MSW: assessment of ultimate bioenergy production potential of
municipal garbage. Appl Energy 2000;66:75–87.
[73] Verrier D, Roy F, Albagnac G. Two-phase methanization of solid vegetable wastes.
Biol Wastes 1987;22:163–77.
[74] Zhang R, El-Mashad HM, Hartman K, Wang F, Liu G, Choate C, et al.
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour
Technol 2007;98:929–35.