Bioresource Technology 156 (2014) 342–347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover in batch

and continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR)
Yeqing Li a, Ruihong Zhang a,c, Yanfeng He a, Chenyu Zhang a, Xiaoying Liu a, Chang Chen b,⇑,
Guangqing Liu a,⇑
a
Biomass Energy and Environmental Engineering Research Center, College of Chemical Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China
b
College of Life Science and Technology, Beijing University of Chemical Technology, Beijing 100029, China
c
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 Co-digestion of CM and CS were

investigated under batch and
continuous conditions.
 CSTR showed stable methane yield of
223 ± 7 mL/g VSadded at OLR of 4 g VS/
L/d.
 Post-digestion of digestate gave extra
energy yield up to 2.6 MJ/kg VSadded.
 Pyrolysis of digestate could produce
valuable pyrolysis gas with LCV of
10.9 MJ/m3.

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

Article history: Anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover in batch and CSTR were investigated. The
Received 6 November 2013 batch co-digestion tests were performed at an initial volatile solid (VS) concentration of 3 g VS/L, car-
Received in revised form 13 January 2014 bon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio of 20, and retention time of 30 d. The methane yield was determined to be
Accepted 15 January 2014
281 ± 12 mL/g VSadded. Continuous reactor was carried out with feeding concentration of 12% total solids
Available online 24 January 2014
and C/N ratio of 20 at organic loading rates (OLRs) of 1–4 g VS/L/d. Results showed that at OLR of 4 g VS/L/
d, stable and preferable methane yield of 223 ± 7 mL/g VSadded was found, which was equal to energy
Keywords:
yield (EY) of 8.0 ± 0.3 MJ/kg VSadded. Post-digestion of digestate gave extra EY of 1.5–2.6 MJ/kg VSadded.
Co-digestion
Chicken manure
Pyrolysis of digestate provided additional EY of 6.1 MJ/kg VSadded. Pyrolysis can be a promising technique
Corn stover to reduce biogas residues and to produce valuable gas products simultaneously.
Biogas digestate Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pyrolysis

Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; BMP, biochemical methane potential;

CM, chicken manure; C/N ratio, carbon to nitrogen ratio; CS, corn stover; CSTR,
continuously stirred tank reactor; DSFD, dried solid fraction of digestate; DTG,
derivative thermogravimetry; EY, energy yield; HCV, higher calorific value; HRT,
hydraulic retention time; LCV, lower calorific value; OLR, organic loading rate; S/I
ratio, substrate to inoculum ratio; TA, total alkalinity; TAN, total ammonia nitrogen;
TGA, thermogravimetric analysis; TS, total solids; VFA, volatile fatty acids; VMP,
volumetric methane productivity; VS, volatile solids.
⇑ Corresponding authors. Address: 503-3A Zonghe Building, Beijing University of
Chemical Technology, 15 North 3rd Ring East Road, Beijing 100029, China. Tel./fax:
+86 10 6444 2375 (C. Chen).
E-mail addresses: chenchang@mail.buct.edu.cn (C. Chen), gqliu@mail.buct.
edu.cn (G. Liu).
1. Introduction
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a complex bioconversion process
that can produce abundant benefits for treating organic wastes,
such as recovering energy in the form of biogas, producing organic
fertilizer, and controlling greenhouse gas emission (Luste et al.,
2012; Rapport et al., 2011; Romano and Zhang, 2008). AD has been
proven to be an economically feasible technology in full scale oper-
ations (Ten Brummeler, 2000). On a basis of feeding manner, AD
process can be classified as batch, fed-batch, semi-continuous,
and continuous types (Forster-Carneiro et al., 2008). Due to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.054
0960-8524/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 156 (2014) 342–347
intrinsical differences existed between batch and continuous
modes, it is difficult to compare results from different operating
modes. Generally, batch studies can be used to evaluate the biode-
gradability and methane production potential of organic sub-
strates. Continuous studies can be used to assess the stability
and performance of reactors, which is more useful for industrial
application. Data from batch biochemical methane potential
(BMP) tests can provide guidance such as ultimate methane yield
and hydraulic retention time (HRT) to continuous study (El-Ma-
shad and Zhang, 2010; Labatut, 2012).
Bioconversion of agricultural biomass is still a problem due to
the obstacle in utilization of lignocellulosic content and the subse-
quent low methane yield (Li et al., 2013a). Co-digestion of agricul-
tural wastes and animal manures could achieve a nutrient-balance
and increase specific methane yield. Increasing number of studies
for co-digestion of agricultural wastes and animal manures were
focused on pretreatment, optimal parameters, and evaluation of
methane production in batch mode (Hendriks and Zeeman, 2009;
Li et al., 2013b; Wang et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2008; Wu et al.,
2010). In China, chicken manure (CM) and corn stover (CS) are eas-
ily available agricultural wastes at low cost. Co-digestion of them
has been proved to be a promising way to produce biogas (Li
et al., 2013a). Considering that the continuously stirred tank reac-
tor (CSTR) is usually used in full-scale digestion and the knowledge
of process stability and performance of CSTR for the co-digestion of
CM and CS is still limited so far, it is thus worth to be studied in this
research.
Besides, with the number of biogas plants increased, a huge
amount of digestate was produced which also considered as an
environmental pollutant. A common biogas plant with a power
of 500 kW could discharge more than 10,000 t/year of digestate
with a total solid (TS) of approximately 10% (Kratzeisen et al.,
2010). Hence, finding a sustainable, economical, and safe utiliza-
tion of digestate is of great urgency. One of the most discussed
ways is applying digestate to agricultural land as organic fertilizer.
Nevertheless, the origins of feedstocks, various anaerobic pro-
cesses, and different operational managements will lead to differ-
ent content of nutrients or compositions in organic fertilizers
(Abubaker et al., 2012). Furthermore, application of digestate to
the soils may cause environmental pollution such as emitting
greenhouse gases (N2O and CH4) (Odlare et al., 2012). Thus, novel
process is needed to be studied to provide new ideas treating dig-
estate more efficiently and to recover energy and reduce the pollu-
tion. Among biomass utilization technologies, thermochemical
methods including pyrolysis and gasification are currently com-
mercially used (Xie et al., 2012). Pyrolysis technique is one of novel
and effective methods to convert biomass into liquid, char, and gas
in the absence of oxygen (Isahak et al., 2012). So far, no report on
pyrolysis of digestate from co-digestion of CM and CS has been
described.
The objectives of this research were to: (1) investigate the
methane production performance and process stability in both
batch and continuous reactors; and (2) discuss the feasibility of
using post-digestion and pyrolysis technology to dispose digestate
after co-digestion of CM and CS in CSTR.
2. Methods
2.1. Substrates and inoculum
Chicken manure was collected from a hennery located in Deq-
ingyuan Company, Beijing, China. Corn stover (CS) was obtained
from a corn field nearby the chicken farm in Yanqing County, Bei-
jing, China. Before being put into the reactor, CS was rubbed with a
kneading machine and cut into less than 3 cm pieces manually.
Inoculum used in this study was anaerobic sludge from a full-scale
343
biogas plant treating municipal wastewater (Xiaohongmen, Bei-
jing, China). The characteristics of substrates and inoculum are
shown in Table 1. Other parameters were presented by Li et al.
(2013b). Pure lignin used in this study was lignin alkali
(C30H25ClN6) purchased from Sigma–Aldrich Company (Sigma–
Aldrich, USA).
2.2. Batch tests
Batch digestion test was performed on the mixture of CM and
CS. Their mixture ratio was adjusted to carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N)
ratio of 20, which was identified as suitable for AD (Wu et al.,
2010; Zhong et al., 2013). The corresponding CM:CS ratio was
1:1.4 (on VS basis). The initial volatile solids concentration for
the batch digestion was 3 g VS/L and the substrate to inoculum
(S/I) ratio was adjusted to 0.5. The batch test was carried out in
triplicate, using 1 L batch digesters with an effective working vol-
ume of 500 mL at mesophilic temperature (37 °C). Three blank
reactors which contained the same amount of inoculum and water
were also used as corrections to minimize the background gas er-
ror from the inoculum. The specific feed method and anaerobic
operation conditions were described by Li et al. (2013a).
2.3. Continuous digestion test
For the continuous digestion study, a continuously stirred tank
reactor (CSTR) with a total volume of 11 L (height–diameter ratio
of 2) and a working volume of 9 L was used. Feedstocks were mix-
ture of CM and CS (CM:CS = 1:1.4, on a VS basis) and corresponding
carbon–nitrogen (C/N) ratio of 20. The feeding TS of feedstocks was
adjusted to 12%. The stirring intensity and frequency were 60 rpm
and 24 times per day (1 min for each mixing), respectively. The sys-
tem was launched in a batch mode with initial organic loading of
3 g VS/L. After digestion for 24 d, no obvious biogas production (less
than 0.4 L/d) was produced. Then the system was operated in a
semi-continuous mode by loading with the prepared feedstocks
of four organic loading rates (OLRs) (1, 2, 3, and 4 g VS/L/d) once a
day. No higher OLR was conducted based on the previous results
of batch digestion tests. At each OLR, the pH, biogas production,
and gas components were measured every day. Volatile fatty acids
(VFA), alkalinity, ammonia concentration, TS, and VS in digestate
were tested twice a week. For each OLR, when biogas production
was steady, which occurred after about 10 d of continuous diges-
tion, next higher level of OLR was operated. At the steady stage,
all parameters were measured every day. The whole system ran
for more than 140 d.
2.4. Post-digestion test
Digestate from continuous experiment at organic loading rate of
4 g VS/L/d was separated into liquid and solid fraction by a 18-
mesh sieve. Original digestate, liquid, and solid fractions of dige-
state were used, respectively, to investigate their performances
in a second-round anaerobic digestion (namely, post-digestion)
Table 1
Characterization of substrates and inoculum.
Parameter Chicken manure Corn stover Inoculum
TS (%)a 24.9 ± 2.3 88.8 ± 0.8 4.6 ± 0.3
VS (%)a 19.4 ± 1.0 83.6 ± 1.1 2.7 ± 0.2
VS/TS (%) 78.1 ± 3.1 94.1 ± 0.4 58.7 ± 0.2
C (%)b 36.2 ± 1.3 44.2 ± 1.7 34.3 ± 4.2
N (%)b 3.6 ± 1.1 0.7 ± 0.1 3.8 ± 1.1
C/N 10.1 ± 2.9 63.2 ± 8.5 9.3 ± 1.6
a
As total weight of sample.
b
As TS of sample.
344 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 156 (2014) 342–347

at batch scale. The initial VS loading, S/I ratio, and all operation
methods were the same as the batch test.
2.5. Pyrolysis test
In this section, solid fraction of digestate from continuous
co-digestion of CM and CS at organic loading rate of 4 g VS/L/d
was dried in 105 °C for 24 h. Then, dried solid fraction of digestate
(DSFD) was smashed to size of 40–80 mesh (0.2–0.45 mm). After
that, 50 g DSFD was put into pyrolysis tube reactor and a 50 L
gas bag was used to collect pyrolysis gas for further detection. After
connecting the equipment, argon gas was purged into the reactor
to assure anaerobic conditions. DSFD was pyrolyzed from ambient
temperature to 800 °C at the heating rate of 50 °C/min and main-
tain for 3 h. At the end of pyrolysis experiment, the weight of tar
(Wtar) and char (Wchar) were measured, respectively. The weight
of pyrolysis gas (Wgas) can be estimated by mass balance (shown
in Eq. (1)):
W gas ¼ W DSFD  W tar  W char ð1Þ
2.6. Analytical methods
The measurement of total solid (TS), volatile solid (VS), alkalin-
ity, and ammonia were determined according to APHA (1998).
Methods for determination of elemental compositions (C, H, O,
N), pH, crude protein, lipids, structural carbohydrates (cellulose,
hemicelluloses, and lignin), non-structural carbohydrates, volatile
fatty acid (VFA), biogas production, and biogas composition (CH4,
H2, and CO2) were reported previously (Li et al., 2013a,b) and de-
tailed in Supplementary material.
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of digestate was conducted
using a Differential Thermal Analyzer (TGA/DSC 1/1100 SF, MET-
TER TOLEDO, Switzerland). Lower calorific values (LCV) of methane
and pyrolysis gas were determined according to Lv et al. (2004):
LCV ðMJ=N m3 Þ ¼ ð30:0  CO þ 25:7  H2 þ 85:4  CH4
þ 151:3  Cn Hm Þ  0:42 ð2Þ
where CO, H2, CH4, CnHm represent the corresponding gas concen-
trations (%) of the product gas. Pyrolysis gas composition was ana-
lyzed using a 7890A gas chromatography (Agilent, USA) using the
methods previously reported by Li et al. (2013a).
Higher calorific values (HCV) of feedstocks were calculated as
follows (IFRF, 2011):
2.7. Statistical analysis
Results of this study were statistically analyzed using one way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) by using PASW statistics 17.0 (IBM,
USA) at a = 0.01 and a = 0.05. Graph and data processing were
completed by OriginPro 8.0 (OriginLab, USA).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Batch digestion tests
In the batch digestion tests, methane production started imme-
diately and the highest daily methane yield of 32 mL/g VSadded for
mixture of CM and CS occurred at day 4 (Fig. 1). After digestion
for 30 d, the cumulative biogas and methane yields of mixture were
509 ± 19 and 281 ± 12 mL/g VSadded, respectively. The time to
collect 90% of the total methane production was 19 d. To keep a
preferable biogas production rate, HRT of 22–25 d could be recom-
mended (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010). Based on the analysis of
elemental composition (Li et al., 2013b), theoretical methane
yield of co-substrates of CM and CS was determined to be
454 mL/g VSadded. Thus, the biodegradability (the experimental
methane yield divided by the theoretical methane yield) of this
co-substrates was 62 ± 3%. Total and volatile solids removal in the
batch digesters were 57 ± 2% and 59 ± 5%, respectively. The final
pH value, VFA/TA ratio, and TAN concentration were determined
to be 7.4, 0.02, and 0.89 g/L, respectively, indicating that the batch
tests performed well (Li et al., 2013b).
3.2. Continuous digestion test
The performance of CSTR for co-digestion of CM and CS was
evaluated under various organic loading rates (OLRs). As shown
in Fig. 2, during the run time, with the OLR increasing from 1 to
4 g VS/L/d, the pH in digester increased from 7.0 to 7.5. Meanwhile,
total alkalinity (TA) value also rose from 3.0 g CaCO3/L to approxi-
mately 7.0 g CaCO3/L. Higher pH and total alkalinity value could
get naturally buffered. Therefore, in this reactor, no inhibitory of
acidification was found during the whole period of digestion. On
the other hand, VFA to TA ratio during various runs was found to
be in the range of 0.03–0.20. According to Li et al. (2013b), a pre-
ferred VFA/TA ratio under 0.4 was essential and could be used to
judge digester stability. If the ratio of VFA to total alkalinity is less
than 0.4, digester should be stable. Furthermore, the TAN concen-

HCV ðMJ=kg TSÞ ¼ ð34:1  C þ 102  H þ 6:3  N þ 19:1  S

 9:85  OÞ=100 ð3Þ

where C, H, O, N, and S refer to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,

and sulphur content (%TS) in the feedstocks, respectively.
The relationship between LCV and HCV of a feedstock is related
by the following expression (IFRF, 2011):

Q L ¼ Q H  2:454  ðW þ 9HÞ ð4Þ

where QL and QH stand for lower calorific value (MJ/kg) and higher
calorific value (MJ/kg), respectively. W represents the moisture in
fuel (wt.%), and H is the hydrogen content (wt.%).
According to Eq. (2), LCV of methane was determined to be
35.87 MJ/N m3. Based on Eqs. (3) and (4), and VS/TS ratio of feed-
stocks (CM:CS = 1:1.4, on VS basis), HCV and LCV of feedstocks
were estimated to be 18.4 and 16.6 MJ/kg VS, respectively. Energy
yields in this study were calculated and compared based on LCV of Fig. 1. Daily and cumulative methane yields of co-digestion of CM and CS in batch
individual bioenergy carrier. tests.
 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 156 (2014) 342–347
Fig. 2. Parameters monitoring during the process of anaerobic co-digestion of CM
and CS in CSTR.
tration was recorded from 0.5 to 1.7 g/L with the OLR increased.
Higher TAN concentration could act as buffer which led to the
increase of alkalinity (Lahav and morgan, 2004). While inhibitory
effect would be found when TAN concentration was higher than
6 g/L (Hansen et al., 1998). In general, these results collectively
suggested that the co-digestion of CM and CS in CSTR performed
well. Parameters in stable stage can be found in Table 2.
At OLR of 1, 2, 3, and 4 g VS/L/d, biogas yields were 460 ± 8,
411 ± 4, 422 ± 9, and 445 ± 11 mL/g VSadded; methane contents in
biogas were 55.5 ± 0.6%, 50.9 ± 1.7%, 49.8 ± 0.7%, and 50.2 ± 0.7%;
and methane yields were found to be 255 ± 5, 209 ± 6, 210 ± 6,
and 223 ± 7 mL/g VSadded, respectively (Fig. 3). With the OLR in-
creased from 1 to 2 g VS/L/d, the methane content, biogas and
methane yields showed a relatively decline, suggesting that
increasing OLR can influence the activity of methanogens.
Whereas, as the OLR increased from 2 to 4 g VS/L/d, the biogas
and methane yields increased, which implied that microorganisms
gradually adapted higher OLR conditions. Statistics analysis
showed that biogas yields at OLRs of 2 and 3 g VS/L/d were very
significantly lower (p < 0.01) than biogas yields at OLRs of 1 and
4 g VS/L/d. And there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) be-
tween biogas yields at OLRs of 1 and 4 g VS/L/d. However, methane
content at OLR of 4 VS/L/d was lower than that of 1 VS/L/d, indicat-
ing that although methanogenic microorganisms were consider-
able active in OLRs of 1 and 4 g VS/L/d, the hydrolytic carbon
dioxide producing microorganisms were more active in OLR of 4
than that of 1 g VS/L/d, resulting in a lower methane yield at OLR
of 4 VS/L/d. Nevertheless, at OLR of 4 g VS/L/d, volumetric methane
productivity was very significant higher (p < 0.01) than that of at
OLR of 1–3 g VS/L/d (Table 2). Besides, at OLR of 1 g VS/L/d, the
HRT was quite long (90 d). While the HRT at OLR of 4 g VS/L/d
was only 22.5 d. Comprehensive consideration of the
processing efficiency and volumetric methane productivity, OLR
of 4 g VS/L/d was regarded favorable and satisfactory. For the
reduction of TS and VS, due to the heterogeneous nature of
co-substrates, the TS and VS concentrations in effluents changed
every day, which lead to higher values of TS and VS removal at
Table 2
Summary of the CSTR performance at steady-stage.
OLR HRT VMP pH TA
1.0 90 0.255 ± 0.005 7.24 ± 0.03 3.7 ± 0.2
2.0 45 0.418 ± 0.011 7.34 ± 0.13 4.8 ± 0.2
3.0 30 0.629 ± 0.018 7.41 ± 0.03 6.0 ± 0.4
4.0 22.5 0.895 ± 0.023 7.45 ± 0.03 6.8 ± 0.3
OLR, organic loading rate (g VS/L/d); HRT, hydraulic retention time (d); VMP, volumetric methane productivity (Lmethane/Lreactor volume); TA, total alkalinity (g CaCO3/L); TAN,
total ammonia–nitrogen (g/L); VFA, volatile fatty acids (g/L); VS removal, volatile solid removal (%); TS removal, total solids removal (%).
345
Fig. 3. Average biogas yield, methane yield, and methane content for continuous
digestion at steady-stage.
OLR of 1 and 2 g VS/L/d, and relatively high value of stand devia-
tion. Besides, at OLR of 4 g VS/L/d, lower TS and VS reduction indi-
cated that there was still room to improve the process efficiency.
Previous studies on anaerobic co-digestion of CM and CS are
summarized in Table 3. It has been proved that lower S/I ratio
was benefit to the biogas production and increasing digestion time
could obtain more methane yield (Raposo et al., 2011; Li et al.,
2013b,c). Under batch conditions, wet AD was superior to hemi-so-
lid or solid state AD based on their corresponding methane yields.
Under continuous conditions, methane yield was lower than that
of in batch tests. Generally, methane yields of co-digestion of CM
and CS were under 300 mL/g VSadded, which might be considered
not favorable as compared to other feedstocks with high energy
density and easily degradable substrates such as waste oil, food
and green wastes (Li et al., 2013c).
3.3. Post-digestion tests
Continuous test showed that at OLR of 4 g VS/L/d, biogas
and methane yields were determined to be 445 ± 11 and
223 ± 7 mL/g VSadded, respectively, with VS reduction of 55 ± 4%
(Table 2 and Fig. 3). To increase the methane production and VS uti-
lization, post-digestion of digestate was conducted in batch mode at
37 °C. After 22 d of digestion, methane yields of original digestate,
liquid, and solid fractions of digestate were determined to be 67,
41, and 73 mL/g VSadded, respectively (Fig. 4). Post-digestion gave
extra methane production of 18–33% as compared to that of at
OLR of 4 g VS/L/d.
Whereas, considering the theoretical methane yield of co-sub-
strate (454 mL/g VSadded), the effect of post-digestion is not satis-
factory. According to Cuetos et al. (2013) and Damartzis et al.
(2011), the difficulty that may be encountered when digesting a
substrate could be explained by analysis of derivative thermogravi-
metry (DTG) of a given substrate. For lignocellulosic biomass, usu-
ally, hemicellulose was thermal decomposed at temperature of
TAN VFA VFA/TA VS removal TS removal
0.8 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.0 0.04 ± 0.02 79 ± 2 71 ± 2
1.1 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 0.17 ± 0.03 70 ± 3 63 ± 2
1.3 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.10 ± 0.01 62 ± 3 56 ± 3
1.6 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 0.10 ± 0.02 55 ± 4 50 ± 5
346 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 156 (2014) 342–347

Table 3
Previous studies on anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and corn stover.

CM:CS ratio C/N S/I Particle size of Operation Digestion time Temperature Methane yield References
ratio ratio CS mode (d) (°C) (mL/g VSadded)
1:1a 16.8 1.5 60.42 mm Batch, wet 45 37 328 Li et al.
(2013a)
a
1:1 16.8 3.0 60.42 mm Batch, wet 45 37 302 Li et al.
(2013a)
1:3a 27.3 0.5 61 mm Batch, wet 30 37 298 Li et al.
(2013b)
1:3a 27.3 3.0 61 mm Batch, wet 30 37 219 Li et al.
(2013b)
a
1:3 27.3 3.0 61 mm Batch, hemi-solid 30 37 208 Li et al.
(2013b)
a
1:1 17.4 3.0 61 mm Batch, solid-state 30 37 148 Li et al.
(2013b)
1:1.4a 20.0 0.5 63 cm Batch, wet 30 37 281 This study
1:1.4a 20.0 ND 63 cm CSTR, wet 22.5b 37 223 This study

S/I ratio, substrate to inoculum ratio; CM, chicken manure; CS, chicken manure; C/N ratio, carbon to nitrogen ratio; CSTR, continuously stirred tank reactor.
a
On the basis of VS.
b
Hydraulic retention time.

Fig. 4. Cumulative methane yield of digestate in post-digestion test. Fig. 5. DTG curves corresponding to the temperature programmed combustion of
digestate and lignin at a heating rate of 10 K/min.

200–320 °C, cellulose was decomposed at temperature of 280–

380 °C, and lignin was reacted at 200–600 °C. Reaction of lignin
was a main factor since the contribution of this reaction to the
DTG curve was higher than those of cellulose and hemicellulose
(Cuetos et al., 2013). As seen in Fig. 5, lignin contributed the high
curve of DTG in digestate, indicating that high content of lignin still
existed in digestate. As is known that lignin is not biodegradable in
anaerobic condition (Triolo et al., 2011). Thus, digestate that con-
tains the non-digestable organic fraction, is difficult to be biode-
graded via AD. Other method should be applied to treat digestate
more effectively.
to the reported results of catalytic pyrolysis of pine sawdust (Xie
et al., 2012). Therefore, using the dried digestate as a feedstock
for pyrolysis could be a promising alternative. To reduce the cost
for transport or storage, digestate could be dried to a TS of approx-
imately 80% by using the waste heat of the power plant near the
biogas reactor (Kratzeisen et al., 2010). To make full use of pyroly-
sis products, bio-oil from pyrolysis of digestate could be used to re-
place traditional fossil fuel, bio-char could be applied as biological
adsorbent, or even, fast pyrolysis of digestate could be conducted
to produce more valuable bio-oil (Mohan et al., 2006).

3.4. Pyrolysis test 3.5. Evaluation of energy output

According to the pyrolysis test, products distribution of gas,
liquid, and solid phases was measured to be 40.0%, 32.1% and
27.9%, respectively, on the basis of TS. Higher gas proportion
showed good gasification ability. Pyrolysis gas yield was deter-
mined to be 461 mL/g TS (559 mL/g VS) and major gas composition
was determined to be 24.6% of H2, 27.4% of CO, 13.4% of CH4, and
31.1% of CO2. Hence, the corresponding major gas yield was calcu-
lated to be 138, 153, 75, and 174 mL/g VS, for H2, CO, CH4, and CO2,
respectively. The H2/CO ratio of this experiment was 0.9 and the
corresponding low calorific value (LCV) was 10.9 MJ/N m3 accord-
ing to LCV calculation formula (Lv et al., 2004). This was similar
According to Eqs. (3) and (4), and analysis of elemental content
(Li et al., 2013b), energy value of raw co-substrates was
estimated to be 16.6 MJ/kg VSadded (Fig. 6). Energy yield (EY) from
continuous co-digestion of CM and CS at OLR of 4 g VS/L/d was
8.0 MJ/kg VSadded. Post-digestion provided additional 2.4, 1.5, and
2.6 MJ/kg VSadded of EY from original digestate, liquid, and solid
fractions of digestate, respectively. While, pyrolysis of digestate
gave extra EY of 6.1 MJ/kg VSadded, which was remarkable higher
than that of post-digestion. The energy recovery efficiency from
co-digestion of CM and CS increased from 48% in the traditional
continuous AD process for methane production to 61% (continuous
 Y. Li et al. / Bioresource Technology 156 (2014) 342–347
Fig. 6. Energy yield in traditional (AD) and integrated process of chicken manure,
corn stover, and their digestate.
AD and post-AD of digestate) and 85% (continuous AD and pyroly-
sis of digestate) in the integrated utilization concept for producing
biomethane and pyrolysis syngas.
4. Conclusion
This study showed that co-digestion of CM and CS could be
performed in CSTR at OLR of 4 g VS/L/d with biogas and
methane yields, and VS reduction of 445 ± 11 mL/g VSadded,
223 ± 7 mL/g VSadded, and 55 ± 4%, respectively. Post-digestion of
digestate provided extra energy yield (EY) of 1.5–2.6 MJ/kg VSadded,
while pyrolysis of digestate gave additional EY of 6.1 MJ/kg VSadded.
Integrated utilization of digestate could increase energy recovery
efficiency up to 85%. Pyrolysis could be an attractive way to dis-
pose digestate and to produce valuable pyrolysis gas and extra
products.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Hi-tech R&D Program
of China (863 Program, 2012AA101803) and National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (51108016).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary material associated with this article can
be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2014.01.054.
References
Abubaker, J., Risberg, K., Pell, M., 2012. Biogas residues as fertilizers – Effect on
wheat growth and soil microbial activities. Appl. Energy 99, 126–134.
APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
18th ed. American Public Health Association, DC, USA.
Cuetos, M.J., Gómez, X., Martínez, E.J., Fierro, J., Otero, M., 2013. Feasibility of
anaerobic co-digestion of poultry blood with maize residues. Bioresour.
Technol. 144, 513–520.
Damartzis, T., Vamvuka, D., Sfakiotakis, S., Zabaniotou, A., 2011. Thermal
degradation studies and kinetic modeling of cardoon (Cynara cardunculus)
pyrolysis using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour. Technol. 102,
6230–6238.
347
El-Mashad, H.M., Zhang, R.H., 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy
manure and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4021–4028.
Forster-Carneiro, T., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., 2008. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion
of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol.
99, 6763–6770.
Hansen, K., Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., 1998. Anaerobic digestion of swine manure:
inhibition by ammonia. Water Res. 32 (1), 5–12.
Hendriks, A.T.W.M., Zeeman, G., 2009. Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of
lignocellolosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 10–18.
International Flame Research Foundation (IFRF), 2011. International Flame Research
Foundation Online Combustion Handbook. IFRF, Livorno, Italy, ISSN 1607-9116,
<http://www.handbook.ifrf.net/handbook/>.
Isahak, W.N.R.W., Hisham, M.W.M., Yarmo, M.A., Hin, T.Y., 2012. A review on bio-oil
production from biomass by using pyrolysis method. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev.
16, 5910–5923.
Kratzeisen, M., Starcevic, N., Martinov, M., Maurer, C., Müller, J., 2010. Applicability
of biogas digestate as solid fuel. Fuel 89, 2544–2548.
Labatut, R.A., 2012. Anaerobic biodegradability of complex substrates: performance
and stability at mesophilic and thermophilic conditions (Doctoral dissertation
of Cornell University), USA. <https://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/
1813/29168/1/ral32thesisPDF.pdf>.
Lahav, O., Morgan, B.E., 2004. Titration methodologies for monitoring of anaerobic
digestion in developing countries – a review. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 79,
1331–1341.
Li, Y.Q., Zhang, R.H., Liu, X.Y., Chen, C., Xiao, X., Feng, L., He, Y.F., Liu, G.Q., 2013a.
Evaluating methane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of
kitchen waste, corn stover, and chicken manure. Energy Fuel 27, 2085–2091.
Li, Y.Q., Zhang, R.H., Chang, C., Liu, G.Q., He, Y.F., Liu, X.Y., 2013b. Biogas production
from co-digestion of corn stover and chicken manure under anaerobic wet,
hemi-solid, and solid state conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 149, 406–412.
Li, Y.Q., Zhang, R.H., Liu, G.Q., Chang, C., He, Y.F., Liu, X.Y., 2013c. Comparison of
methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different
organic substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 149, 565–569.
Luste, S., Heinonen-Tanski, H., Luostarinen, S., 2012. Co-digestion of dairy cattle
slurry and industrial meat-processing by-products: effect of ultrasound and
hygienization pre-treatments. Bioresour. Technol. 104, 195–201.
Lv, P.M., Xiong, Z.H., Chang, J., Wu, C.Z., Chen, Y., Zhu, J.X., 2004. An experimental
study on biomass air-steam gasification in a fluidized bed. Bioresour. Technol.
95, 95–101.
Mohan, D., Pittman, C.U., Steele, P., 2006. Pyrolysis of wood/biomass for bio-oil: a
critical review. Energy Fuel 20 (3), 848–889.
Odlare, M., Abubaker, J., Lindmark, J., Pell, M., Thorin, E., Nehrenheim, E., 2012.
Emissions of N2O and CH4 from agricultural solids amended with two types of
biogas residues. Biomass Bioenergy 44, 112–116.
Raposo, F., De la Rubia, M.A., Fernandez-Cegri, V., Borja, R., 2011. Anaerobic
digestion of solid organic substrates in batch mode: an overview relating to
methane yields and experimental procedures. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. 16,
861–877.
Rapport, J.L., Zhang, R.H., Jenkins, B.M., Hartsough, B.R., Tomich, T.P., 2011. Modeling
the performance of the anaerobic phased solids digester system for biogas
energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 1263–1272.
Romano, R.T., Zhang, R.H., 2008. Co-digestion of onion juice and wastewater sludge
using an anaerobic mixed biofilm reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 631–637.
Ten Brummeler, E., 2000. Full scale experience with the biocel process. Water Sci.
Technol. 41, 299–304.
Triolo, J.M., Sommer, S.G., Moller, H.B., Weisbjerg, M.R., Jiang, X.Y., 2011. A new
algorithm to characterize biodegradability of biomass during anaerobic
digestion: influence of lignin concentration on methane production potential.
Bioresour. Technol. 102, 9395–9402.
Wang, X.J., Yang, G.H., Feng, Y.Z., Ren, G.X., Han, X.H., 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.
Ward, A.J., Hobbs, P.J., Holliman, P.J., Jones, D.L., 2008. Optimisation of the anaerobic
digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour. Technol. 99 (7), 7928–7940.
Wu, X., Yao, W.Y., Zhu, J., Miller, C., 2010. Biogas and CH4 productivity by co-
digesting swine manure with three crop residues as an external carbon source.
Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4042–4047.
Xie, Q.L., Kong, S.F., Liu, Y.S., Zeng, H., 2012. Syngas production by two-stage method
of biomass catalytic pyrolysis and gasification. Bioresour. Technol. 110, 603–
609.
Zhong, W.Z., Chi, L., Luo, Y.J., Zhang, Z.Z., Zhang, Z.J., Wu, W.M., 2013. Enhanced
methane production from Taihu Lake blue algae by anaerobic co-digestion with
corn straw in continuous feed digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 134, 264–270.