Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995

Review
Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion
of fruit and vegetable wastes
H. Bouallagui a,b,∗ , Y. Touhami a , R. Ben Cheikh b , M. Hamdi a
a UR-Procédés Microbiologiques et Alimentaires, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées et de Technologie (INSAT),
B.P. 676, 1080 Tunis, Tunisia
b Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis (ENIT), B.P. 37, 1002 Tunis, Tunisia

Received 2 December 2003; received in revised form 16 March 2004; accepted 28 March 2004

Abstract

This work reviews the potential of anaerobic digestion for material recovery and energy production from fruit and vegetable wastes (FVW).
These wastes contain 8–18% total solids (TS), with a total volatile solids (VS) content of 86–92%. The organic fraction includes about 75%
easy biodegradable matter (sugars and hemicellulose), 9% cellulose and 5% lignin. Anaerobic digestion of FVW was studied under different
operating conditions using different types of bioreactors. It permits the conversion of 70–95% of organic matter to methane, with a volumetric
organic loading rate (OLR) o f 1–6.8 g versatile solids (VS)/l day. A major limitation of anaerobic digestion of FVW is a rapid acidification
of these wastes decreasing the pH in the reactor, and a larger volatile fatty acids production (VFA), which stress and inhibit the activity of
methanogenic bacteria. Continuous two-phase systems appear as more highly efficient technologies for anaerobic digestion of FVW. Their
greatest advantage lies in the buffering of the organic loading rate taking place in the first stage, allowing a more constant feeding rate of the
methanogenic second stage. Using a two-stage system involving a thermophilic liquefaction reactor and a mesophilic anaerobic filter, over
95% volatile solids were converted to methane at a volumetric loading rate of 5.65 g VS/l d. The average methane production yield was about
420 l/kg added VS.
© 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fruit and vegetable wastes; Anaerobic digestion; Limitation step; Bioreactors performance

1. Introduction anaerobic digestion [4,6]. The main advantage of this pro-

Fruit and vegetable wastes (FVW) are produced in large
quantities in markets, and constitute a source of nuisance
in municipal landfills because of their high biodegradabil-
ity [1,2]. In the central distribution market for food (meat,
fish, fruit, and vegetables) Mercabarna (Barcelona), the to-
tal amount of wastes coming from fruit and vegetables is
around 90 tonnes per day during 250 days per year [3]. The
whole production of FVW collected from the market of Tu-
nis (Tunisia) has been measured and estimated to be 180
tons per month [4]. In India, FVW constitute about 5.6 mil-
lion tonnes annually and currently these wastes are disposed
by dumping on the outskirts of cities [5].
The most promising alternative to incinerating and com-
posting these wastes is to digest its organic matter using the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +216 22 524 406; fax: +216 71 704 329.
E-mail address: hassibbouallagui@yahoo.fr (H. Bouallagui).
cess is the production of biogas, which can be used to pro-
duce electricity [3,7,8]. A valuable effluent is also obtained,
which eventually can be used as an excellent soil condi-
tioner after minor treatments [9,10]. High organic loading
rates (OLR) and low sludge production are among the many
advantages anaerobic process exhibit over other biological
unit operations [11,12].
The successful application of anaerobic technology to
the treatment of solid wastes is critically dependent on the
development and use of high rate anaerobic bioreactors
[13,14]. The reactor design has a strong effect on digester
performance [15]. In recent years, a number of novel re-
actor designs have been adapted and developed allowing a
significantly higher rate of reaction per unit volume of re-
actor [16,17]. Different anaerobic processes, such as batch,
continuous one-stage, and continuous two-stage systems,
with a variety of methanizers like, continuously stirred
tank reactor (CSTR), tubular reactor, anaerobic sequencing
batch reactor (ASBR), upflow anaerobic sludge blanket

0032-9592/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2004.03.007
990 H. Bouallagui et al. / Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995
(UASB) and anaerobic filters have been applied to FVW
treatment. These processes differ especially in the way
the microorganisms are retained in the bioreactor, and the
separation between the acidogenic and the methanogenic
bacteria which reduce the anaerobic digestion limitations.
Methanogenic bacteria may have long mass doubling times
in anaerobic reactors and this makes it very difficult to
obtain fast acting reactors without retaining most of the
biomass normally washed out with the effluent [18,19].
The aim of this paper was to review the energetic potential
of FVW and to examine the performance of several groups of
anaerobic bioreactors used for anaerobic digestion of these
wastes.
2. Characteristics of FVW and anaerobic
digestion limitations
The putrescible FVW used in overall reported studies
were collected from food markets and Table 1 shows the
most important constituents of FVW in three works where
anaerobic digestion was operated [1,20,21]. The total initial
solid concentration of FVW is between 8 and 18%, with
a total volatile solids (VS) content of about 87%. The or-
ganic fraction includes about 75% sugars and hemicellulose,
9% cellulose and 5% lignin [20]. The easy biodegradable
organic matter content of FVW (75%) with high moisture
facilitates their biological treatment and shows the trend of
these wastes for anaerobic digestion [1,21]. However, com-
plex vegetable processing effluent, such as olive mill wastes
containing large amounts of phenolic and non-biodegradable
compounds are resistant to biological degradation [22]. Aer-
obic processes are not favoured for FVW treatment because
they require preliminary treatment to minimise the organic
loading rate [23]. The COD/N ratio of FVW is balanced,
being around 100/4 and therefore, no nitrogen was added to
the reactors. In fact the optimum C:N ratio for microbial ac-
tivity involved in bioconversion of vegetable biomasses to
methane is 100–128:4 [24].
Before being loaded to the reactors, FVW must undergo
some pre-treatments [5,9]. They were shredded to small
Table 1
Composition of different fruit and vegetable wastes
Wastes (g/kg) Potato peelings Salad waste
Total solids 119.2 79.4
Volatile solids 105.5 72.1
Total COD 126 97.8
Particulate COD 80.6 39.3
Total suspended solids 80 39
Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen – –
Cellulose 12.9 13.5
Sugars and hemicellulose – –
Lignin – –
References [21] [21]
particles and homogenized to facilate digestion. They were
also diluted to decrease the concentration of organic matter
and then to operate the reactors with optimal organic load-
ing rate [3,4]. Due to the lower pH of FVW, some authors
buffered these waste by the addition of sodium hydroxide
solutions [5,6]. Without any regulation, the pH quickly de-
creased and tended to inhibit the methanogenic bacteria [20].
Converti et al. pre-treated organic matter of FVW at high
temperature to improve the efficiency of their anaerobic di-
gestion [9], while Srilatha et al. pre-treated orange process-
ing waste by solid state fermentation using selected strains
of Sporotrichum, Aspergillus, Fusarium, and Penicillium to
improve biogas and methane productivity at higher OLR [5].
The biomethanation of FVW is accomplished by a se-
ries of biochemical transformations, which can be roughly
separated into four metabolic stages [25,23] (Fig. 1). First,
particulate organic materials of FVW like cellulose, hemi-
cellulose, pectin, and lignin, must undergo liquefaction by
extracellular enzymes before being taken up by acidogenic
bacteria [26]. The rate of hydrolysis is a function of factors,
such as pH, temperature, composition, and particle size of
the substrate and high concentrations of intermediate prod-
ucts [27,28]. After that, soluble organic components includ-
ing the products of hydrolysis are converted into organic
acids, alcohols, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide by acidogens.
The products of the acidogenesis are then converted into
acetic acid, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Finally, methane
is produced by methanogenic bacteria from acetic acid, hy-
drogen, and carbon dioxide as well as directly from other
substrates of which formic acid and methanol are the most
important [28].
In general, hydrolysis is the rate limiting step if the sub-
strate is in particulate form [29,30]. However, the anaerobic
degradation of cellulose-poor wastes like FVW is limited
by methanogenesis rather than by the hydrolysis [31,32].
These wastes, are very rapidly acidified to volatile fatty
acids (VFA) and tend to inhibit methanogenesis when the
feedstock is not adequately buffered [23]. In one-stage sys-
tems, all these reactions take place simultaneously in a sin-
gle reactor, while in two-or multistage systems, the reac-
tions take place sequentially in at least two reactors. In a
Green peas and carrots Mixture of FVW Mixture of FVW
179.4 90.4 84.4
171 82.9 77.5
185 104.5 –
123.9 – –
145 – 58.6
– 2 2.7
16.1 9.2 –
– 62 –
– 4.5 –
[21] [20] [1]
 H. Bouallagui et al. / Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995 991

Fig. 1. Reactions scheme for anaerobic digestion of particulate organic material of FVW [3,20,25,28,49].

well-balanced anaerobic digestion process, all products of
a previous metabolic stage are converted into the next one
without significant build up of intermediate products [33].
The overall result is a nearly complete conversion of the
anaerobically biodegradable organic material into end prod-
ucts like methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and
ammonia.
3. Anaerobic bioreactors used for FVW biomethanation
3.1. Batch systems
In batch systems, digesters are filled once with fresh FVW,
with or without addition of seed materials, and allowed to go
through all degradation steps sequentially. The hallmark of
batch systems is the clear separation between a first phase,
where acidification proceeds much faster than methanogen-
esis, and a second phase, where acids are transformed into
biogas [34].
Converti et al., tested the anaerobic batch digestion of
FVW, under both mesophilic and thermophilic conditions
[9]. The results showed that, under mesophilic and ther-
mophilic conditions, the mixture of vegetable wastes was
quickly digestible, and the first-order kinetic constant around
4.1 10−3 l/(h g) VSS was estimated for these materials.
Anaerobic batch digestion of mixed vegetable waste was
also carried out successfully at 5% total solid concentration
[35] (Table 2). Digestion of the waste after 47 days resulted
in 0.16 m3 biogas/kg TS added with a maximum gas produc-
tion rate on day 26. Whereas, Bouallagui et al., [36] and
Marouani et al., [37] showed that the anaerobic treatment of

Table 2
Performance data of different anaerobic processes applied for FVW treatment
Process Volume (l) Loading rate HRT (day) VS removal (%) Methane yield References
(gVS/(l day)) (litre/gVS)
Batch system 10 1.06 47 65 0.16 [35]
Batch system 5 0.9 32 58 0.26 [36]
Continuous one-stage CSTR 3 1.6 20 88 0.47 [3]
Continuous one-stage CSTR 16 3.6 23 83 0.37 [20]
Continuous tubular reactor 18 2.8 20 76 0.45 [4]
Two-stage system: solid bed hydrolyser 100 + 25 6.8 2.5 94 0.35 [52]
and UASB methaniser
Two-stage system: ASBR hydrolyser and 2.5 + 10 4.4 7 + 10 87.5 0.34 [21]
anaerobic filter methaniser
Two-stage system: CSTR 7 +4 5.65 2 + 2.3 96 0.42 [20]
hydrolyser and anaerobic
filter methaniser
992 H. Bouallagui et al. / Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995
FVW at 8% TS in a batch digester was inhibited by the VFA
accumulation and irreversible decreasing pH problems.
Batch systems have, up to now, not succeeded in taking
a substantial market share. However, the specific features
of batch processes, such as simple design and process con-
trol, robustness towards coarse and heavy contaminants, and
lower investment costs make them particularly attractive for
developing countries [34]. The dependence of the biometha-
nation yield on the starting level of digestible organic sub-
stances observed in batch digestion tests suggested the op-
erating conditions for the fed-batch or continuous digestion
of the materials under consideration.
Application of sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technol-
ogy in anaerobic treatment of FVW is of interest because of
its inherent operational flexibility, characterised by a high
degree of process flexibility in terms of cycle time and se-
quence, no requirement for separate clarifiers, and retention
of a higher concentration of slow-growing anaerobic bac-
teria within the reactor [38]. Research into the ASBR pro-
cess has been carried out by several investigators [39,40].
Satisfactory high solid content waste degradation and sus-
pended solid removal (90–93%) using the ASBR were re-
ported [41,42].
3.2. Continuous one-stage systems
About 90% of the full scale plants, currently in use in Eu-
rope for the anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of munic-
ipal solid wastes and biowastes, rely on continuous one-stage
systems [14]. However, a considerable amount of literature
has appeared concerning wastes treatment in two phases;
first an acid forming phase followed by a methanogenic
phase [43–45]. A likely reason for this discrepancy is that
two-and multistage systems afford more possibilities to the
researcher to control and investigate the intermediate steps
of the digestion process. Industrialists, on the other hand,
prefer one-stage systems because of their simpler designs
and lower investment costs.
Different experiments on vegetable wastes anaerobic di-
gestion were carried out using different one-stage systems
(Table 2). Mata-Alvarez et al. examined the performance of
the mesophilic one-stage completely stirred reactor (Fig. 2a)
for the treatment of the organic fraction of the wastes coming
from a large food market [3]. The maximum organic load-
ing rate (OLR) tested was below 3 kg TVS/(m3 day). The
OLR of 6 kg TVS/(m3 day) was found to be a limit condition
for a similar waste digestion [31]. Moreover, as mentioned
by Mata-Alvarez et al., this waste was presumably more
biodegradable, which meant a larger and faster VFA pro-
duction which stressed the validity of this OLR limit [32].
Overloading of digesters with FVW above 4 kg TVS/m3 day
was also reported by Lane to result in a fall in pH and gas
yield and an increase in the CO2 content of gas produced
using a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) [46].
A semi-continuously mixed tubular digester was tested
(Fig. 2b) [4,47]. The best results were obtained by applying
an HRT of 20 days with an OLR of 2.8 kg TVS/(m3 day).
The pH may fall in the hydrolysis shortly to 6.1, but it
remains most of the time at 7.2. When reducing the HRT to
10 days, the pH fell to 5 and inhibition was observed. The
most significant factor of the tubular reactor is its ability
to separate acidogenesis and methanogenesis longitudinally
down the reactor, allowing the reactor to behave as a system
of two phases.
In one-step anaerobic digestion of solid wastes, problems
may occur if the substrate is easily degradable because in
solid waste digestion, there is no possibility for the accu-
mulation/retention of biomass within the reactor, the slower
growing methanogens are overfed at higher loading rates [6].
In a one-stage system, combining acidogens and
methanogens in one vessel, hydrogen formed by acidogenic
metabolism is assimilated by the methanogens to reduce
carbon dioxide to methane and water [48]. On increasing the
feeding rate of the substrate, acidogenic activity, including
mainly acetate, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen production,
is increased, whereas the methanogenic population cannot
increase its activity to the same extent. At a loading rate,
were the hydrogen consuming reactions become saturated,
accumulation of hydrogen partially inhibits its further for-
mation and consequently more organic electron sink will
be formed, causing imbalances and cessation of methane
production [49,50].
3.3. Continuous two-stage systems
Both groups of acidogenic and methanogenic organisms
are different with respect to their nutritional requirements,
physiology, pH optima, growth, and nutrient uptake kinet-
ics, and their ability to withstand environmental stress fac-
tors [13]. With conventional digestion processes, by com-
bining acidogens and methanogens in one reactor, uniform
conditions are imposed on both groups. However, two-phase
anaerobic digestion implies a process configuration employ-
ing separate reactors for acidification and methanogenesis
connected in series, allowing optimisation of both processes
[51].
The two-phase anaerobic digestion of a mixture of
fruit and vegetable wastes was studied in different works
(Table 2). The two-step technology applied by Rajeshwari
et al., allowed the conversion of over 94% of vegetable
market waste into biogas (Fig. 2c) [52]. The raw waste
was acidified in a solid bed reactor. The leachate obtained
after completion of acidification phase was further treated
in an UASB reactor for biogas production. A different kind
of FVW have been subjected to two-phase anaerobic di-
gestion [21]. The hydrolysis–acidification step was carried
out in ASBR and methane fermentation was performed in
a fixed film reactor operated in the upflow mode (Fig. 2e).
The global degradation yield remained above 87% and the
biogas production yield was about 0.29 l per g of input total
COD. Using a two-stage system involving a thermophilic
 H. Bouallagui et al. / Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995 993

Fig. 2. Processes used for FVW anaerobic treatment: (a) continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) [3,6]; (b) tubular reactor [4,47]; (c) two-phase integrated
anaerobic solid bed hydrolyser (SBH) and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) [52]; (d) two-phase integrated anaerobic continuously stirred tank
reactor and fixed film reactor (FFR) [20]; and (e) two-phase integrated anaerobic sequencing batch reactor and fixed film reactor (FFR) [21].

liquefaction CSTR reactor and a mesophilic anaerobic filter,
more than 95% volatile solids were converted to methane
at a volumetric loading rate of 5.65 g VS/l d (Fig. 2d). The
methane production yield was about 420 l/kg added VS [20].
These authors generally found that phase-separated di-
gesters may offer the best choice for high efficiency, con-
cerning both depuration rates and energy recovery.
creasingly wide acceptance awarded to the fermentation pro-
cess, it appears necessary to include the treatment of the gen-
erated wastewater in the overall process and to grant it the
same priority as the fermentation step. The SBR technology
can successfully be used for carbon and nitrogen removals
with anoxic/aerobic processes. Garrido et al. reported that
98 and 99% removals were achieved with the conventional
SBR reactor for COD and nitrogen, respectively [55].

4. Post-treatment of anaerobic digestion effluent

Post-treatments are necessary if anaerobic effluents need
to be discharged into surface waters, because anaerobic di-
gestion alone is not able to produce effluents that can meet
the discharge standards applied in most industrialized coun-
tries, particularly for COD and nitrogen [53]. Up to now,
there is a definite lack of practical experience and know-how
in the treatment of those effluents [54]. In view of the in-
5. Conclusion
Anaerobic digestion represents a commercially viable
process to convert FVW to methane gas, a useful energy
source. The overall results of anaerobic digestion of FVW
suggest that the two-stage system is a promising process
to treat these wastes with high efficiency in term of degra-
dation yield and biogas productivity. This efficiency is
994 H. Bouallagui et al. / Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995
possible by the adaptation of each ecosystem to its own
substrate. The biochemical reactions involved in anaerobic
digestion of FVW are taken subsequently under conditions
similar to those of the rumen. It is appropriate to view the
gastrointestinal tract as an ecological system and that by
applying ecological principles, a better understanding of
distribution and interaction of organisms can be achieved,
and then it could help to design and construct a suitable
bioreactor for FVW anaerobic treatment.
References
[1] Viturtia A, Mata-Alvarez J, Cecchi F, Fazzini G. Two-phase anaerobic
digestion of a mixture of fruit and vegetable wastes. Biol Wastes
1989;29:189–99.
[2] Misi SN, Forster CF. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of
agro-waste. Environ Technol 2002;23:445–51.35.
[3] Mata-Alvarez J, Cecchi F, Llabrés P, Pavan P. Anaerobic digestion
of the Barcelona central food market organic wastes: experimental
study. Bioresour Technol 1992;39:39–48.
[4] Bouallagui H, BenCheikh R, Marouani L, Hamdi M. Mesophilic
biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in tubular digester.
Bioresour Technol 2003;86:85–9.
[5] Srilatha HR, Krishna N, Sudhakar Bada K, Madhukara K. Fungal
pretreatment of orange processing waste by solid state fermentation
for improved production of methane. Process Biochem 1995;30:327–
31.
[6] Mata-Alvarez J, Cecchi F, Llabrés P, Pavan P. Anaerobic digestion
of the Barcelona central food market organic wastes: plant design
and feasibility study. Bioresour Technol 1992;42:33–42.
[7] Verrier D, Ray F, Florentz M. Two-stage anaerobic digestion of
solid vegetable wastes: bench-scale studies.In: Proceedings of the
3rd International symposium of Anaerobic Digestion, Boston, USA,
17–19 August 1983.
[8] Ahring BK, Mladenovska Z, Iranpour R, Westermann P. State of
the art and future perspectives of thermophilic anaerobic digestion.
Water Sci Technol 2002;45:298–308.
[9] Converti A, DelBorghi A, Zilli M, Arni S, DelBorghi M. Anaerobic
digestion of the vegetable fraction of municipal refuses: mesophilic
versus thermophilic conditions. Bioprocess Eng 1999;21:371–6.
[10] Simeonov IS. Mathematical modeling and parameters estimation of
fermentation process. Biopress Eng 1999;21:377–81.
[11] Verrier D, Moletta R, Albagnac G. Anaerobic digestion of vegetable
canning wastewater by the anaerobic contact process: operational
experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of
Anaerobic Digestion, Boston, USA, 17–19 August 1983, p. 303–12.
[12] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki RI, Kalyuzhny SV, Pavlostathis
SG, Rozzi A. et al. The IWA anaerobic digestion model No 1.In:
Proceedings of the 9th World Congress Anaerobic Digestion 2001,
IWA Antwerpen-Belgium, 2–6 September 2001.
[13] Weiland P. One and two-step anaerobic digestion from the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste. Water Sci Technol 1993;27:145–
51.
[14] Lissens G, Vandevivere P, De Baere L, Biey EM, Verstrae W. Solid
waste digesters: process performance and practice for municipal solid
waste digestion. Water Sci Technol 2001;44:91–102.
[15] William PB, David CS. The use of the anaerobic baffled reactor
(ABR) for wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res 1999;33:1559–
78.
[16] Weiland P, Rozzi A. The start up, operation and monitoring of
high rate anaerobic treatment systems: discussers report. Water Sci
Technol 1991;24:257–77.
[17] Clarck PB. Anaerobic baffled reactors minimising sludge produc-
tion.In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress Anaerobic Digestion
2001, IWA Antwerpen-Belgium, 2–6 September 2001.
[18] Vandenberg L, Kennedy KJ. Comparison of advanced anaerobic
reactors. In: Proceedings of the 3th International Symposium of
Anaerobic Digestion, Boston, 1983.
[19] Moletta R. Différentes Approches de la Modélisation de la Fermen-
tation Méthanique. Bio-Sciences 1986;5:55–64.
[20] Verrier D, Ray F, Albagnac G. Two-phase methanization of solid
vegetable wastes. Biol Wastes 1987;22:163–77.
[21] Ruynal J, Delgenes JP, Moletta R. Tow phase anaerobic digestion
of solid waste by a multiple liquefaction reactors process. Bioresour
Technol 1998;65:97–103.
[22] Hamdi M. Anaerobic digestion of olive mill wastewater: a review.
Process Biochem 1996;31:105–10.
[23] Landine RC, Brown GJ, Cocci AA, Virara H. Anaerobic treatment of
high strength, high solids potato waste. Agric wastes 1983;17:111–
23.
[24] Kivaisi AK, Mtila M. Production of biogas from water hyacinth in a
two-stage bioreactor. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 1998;14:125–31.
[25] Knol W, Vander Most MM, Waart J. Biogas production by anaerobic
digestion of fruit and vegetable waste. A preliminary study. J Sci
Fed Agric 1978;29:822–30.
[26] Koster IW. Liquefaction and acidogenesis of tomatoes in an anaerobic
two-phase solid-waste treatment system. Agric Wastes 1984;11:241–
52.
[27] Hans K, Cosima S. Three-phase anaerobic digestion of organic
wastes. Water Sci Technol 1994;30:367–74.
[28] Veeken BA, Kalyuzhnyi S, Scharff H, Hamelers B. Effect of pH
and VFA on hydrolysis of organic solid waste. J Environ Eng
2000;126:1076–81.
[29] Adney WS, Rivard CJ, Ming SA, Himmel ME. Anaerobic digestion
of lignocellulosic biomass and waste. Cellulase and related enzymes.
Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1991;30:165–83.
[30] Veeken BA, Hamelers B. Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rate of
selected biowise components. Bioresour Technol 1999;69:249–54.
[31] Cecchi F, Traverso PG, Cescon P. Anaerobic digestion of organic
fraction of municipal solid waste: digester performance. Sci Total
Environ 1986;56:183–97.
[32] Mata-Alvarez J, Cecchi F, Llabrés P, Pavan P. Performance of di-
gesters treating the organic fraction of municipal solid waste differ-
ently sorted. Biol Wastes 1990;33:181–99.
[33] Kubler H, Hppenheidt K, Hirsch P, Cottar A, Nimmrichter R, Nord-
seick H, et al. Full scale co-digestion of organic waste. Water Sci
Technol 2000;41:195–202.
[34] De Baere L. Anaerobic digestion of solid waste: state-of-the-art.
Water Sci Technol 2000;41:283–90.
[35] Rajeshwari KV, Panth DC, Lata K, Kishore VVN. Studies on
biomethanation of vegetable market waste. Biogas Forum 1998;3:4–
11.
[36] Bouallagui H, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L, et Hamdi M. Fermen-
tation méthanique des déchets solides en batch. Premières journées
scientifiques de l’Association Tunisienne de Biotechnologie du 9–11
Février 2001.
[37] Marouani L, Bouallagui H, Ben Cheikh R, Hamdi M. Biomethanation
of green wastes of wholesale market of Tunis. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Environmental Pollution Control and
Waste Management 2002, 7–10 January 2002, p. 318–23.
[38] Suthaker S, Polprasert C, Droste RL. Sequencing batch anaerobic
reactors for treatment of a high-strength organic wastewater. Water
Sci Technol 1991;23:1249–57.
[39] Dague RR, Habben CE, Pidaparti SR. Initial Studies on the anaerobic
sequencing batch reactor. Water Sci Technol 1992;26:2429–32.
[40] Ruiz C, Torrijos M, Sousbie P, Lebrato MJ, Moletta R. The anaerobic
sequencing batch reactor process: basic principales for design and
automation. Water Sci Techol 2000;43:201–8.
 H. Bouallagui et al. / Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 989–995
[41] Archana S, Balag U, Devendra SH. A novel fed batch diges-
tion system for biomethanation of plant biomass. J Biosci Bioeng
1999;87:678–82.
[42] Hur JM, Chang D, Chung TH. Dynamic process response to sludge
thickening behaviours in the anaerobic sequencing batch reactor
treating high-solids-content waste. J Biosci Bioeng 1999;87:525–30.
[43] Lee JP, Lee JS, Park SC. Two-Phase methanization of food wastes
in pilot scalem. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 1998;77:585–93.
[44] Pavan P, Battistotini P, Cecchi F, Mata-Alvarez J. Two-phase anaer-
obic digestion of source sorted OFMSW: performance and kinetic
study. Water Sci Technol 2000;41:111–8.
[45] Sachs JV, Meyer U, Rys P, Feikenhauer H. New approach to control
the methanogenic reactor of a two-phase anaerobic digestion system.
Water Res 2003;37:973–82.
[46] Lane AG. Methane from anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable
processing waste. Food Technol Aust 1979;31:201–7.
[47] Bouallagui H, Haouari O, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L,
Hamdi M. Effect of temperature on the performance of an anaerobic
tubular reactor treating fruit and vegetable waste. Process Biochem
2003, in press.
[48] Poggi-Varalgo HM, Rodriguez-Vazquez R, Fernandez-Villagomez
G, Esparza-Garcia F. Inhibition of mesophilic solid-substrate anaer-
View publication stats
995
obic digestion by ammonia nitrogen. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
1997;47:284–91.
[49] Cohen A. Two-phase digestion of liquid and solid wastes. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 3th International Symposium of Anaerobic Digestion.
Boston, 1983, p. 123–38.
[50] Liu HW, Walter HK, Vogt GM, Holbein BE. Steam pressure disrup-
tion of municipal solid waste enhances anaerobic digestion kinetics
and biogas yield. Biotechnol Bioeng 2002;77:121–30.
[51] Llabrés-Luengo P, Mata-Alvarez J. The hydrolytic step in a dry
digestion system. Biol wastes 1988;23:25–37.
[52] Rajeshwari KV, Panth DC, Lata K, Kishore VVN. Novel process
using enhanced acidification and a UASB reactor for biomethanation
of vegetable market waste. Waste Manage Res 2001;1:292–300.
[53] Tilche A, Bortone G, Garuti G, Malaspina F. Post-treatments of
anaerobic effluents. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1996;69:47–59.
[54] Graja S, Wilderer PA. Characterization and treatment of the liquid
effluents from the anaerobic digestion of biogenic solid waste. Water
Sci Technol 2001;43:265–74.
[55] Garrido JM, Omil F, Arrojo B, Mendez R, Lema JM. Carbon and
nitrogen removal from a wastewater of an industrial dairy laboratory
with a coupled anaerobic filter-sequencing batch reactor system.
Water Sci Technol 2001;43:249–56.