Applied Sciences: Recent Updates On The Use of Agro-Food Waste For Biogas Production

applied
sciences
Review
Recent Updates on the Use of Agro-Food Waste for
Biogas Production
Marisa Carmela Caruso , Ada Braghieri * , Angela Capece, Fabio Napolitano, Patrizia Romano,
Fernanda Galgano , Giuseppe Altieri and Francesco Genovese
Scuola di Scienze Agrarie, Forestali, Alimentari ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi della Basilicata,
85100 Potenza, Italy; marisa.caruso@unibas.it (M.C.C.); angela.capece@unibas.it (A.C.);
fabio.napolitano@unibas.it (F.N.); patrizia.romano@unibas.it (P.R.); fernanda.galgano@unibas.it (F.G.);
giuseppe.altieri@unibas.it (G.A.); francesco.genovese@unibas.it (F.G.)
* Correspondence: ada.braghieri@unibas.it

Received: 28 February 2019; Accepted: 17 March 2019; Published: 22 March 2019
Abstract: The production of biogas from anaerobic digestion (AD) of residual agro-food biomasses
represents an opportunity for alternative production of energy from renewable sources, according to
the European Union legislation on renewable energy. This review provides an overview of the various
aspects involved in this process with a focus on the best process conditions to be used for AD-based
biogas production from residual agro-food biomasses. After a schematic description of the AD phases,
the biogas plants with advanced technologies were described, pointing out the strengths and the
weaknesses of the different digester technologies and indicating the main parameters and operating
conditions to be monitored. Subsequently, a brief analysis of the factors affecting methane yield
from manure AD was conducted and the AD of fruit and vegetables waste was examined. Particular
attention was given to studies on co-digestion and pre-treatments as strategies to improve biogas
yield. Finally, the selection of specific microorganisms and the genetic manipulation of anaerobic
bacteria to speed up the AD process was illustrated. The open challenges concern the achievement of
the highest renewable energy yields reusing agro-food waste with the lowest environmental impact
and an increment of competitiveness of the agricultural sector in the perspective of a circular economy.
Keywords: renewable energy; anaerobic digestion; agro-food waste; animal manure; plant
technologies; co-digestion
1. Introduction
According to the European Union (EU) Renewable Energy Directive [1], the production of energy
from renewable sources is becoming an urgent target to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases (GHG),
mainly derived from fossil fuel combustion [2]. This directive by establishing an overall policy for
the production and promotion of energy from renewable sources in EU, requires the EU to fulfil at
least 20% of its total energy needs with renewables by 2020, to be achieved through the attainment
of individual national targets. In addition, all EU countries have to warrant that at least 10% of
their transport fuels come from renewable sources by 2020. On 30 November 2016, the Commission
published a proposal for a revised Renewable Energy Directive to make the EU a global leader in
renewable energy production and use by meeting the target of at least 27% renewables in energy
consumption in the EU by 2030. The proposal specifies national renewable energy targets for each
country, which define how they plan to meet these targets by national renewable energy action plans.
Among non-conventional energy resources (e.g., solar, wind, hydro-wave, geothermal and
biomass) offering interesting opportunities as they are unlimited and cheap [3], biomass-produced
biogas is able to provide high quantity of energy with significant Greenhouse gases (GHG) savings,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217; doi:10.3390/app9061217 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 31
43 Among non-conventional energy resources (e.g., solar, wind, hydro-wave, geothermal and
44 biomass) offering interesting opportunities as they are unlimited and cheap [3], biomass-produced
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 2 of 29
45 biogas is able to provide high quantity of energy with significant Greenhouse gases (GHG) savings,
46 as compared with fossil fuels [4]. According to the European Directive 2009/28/EC, the term biomass
47 designates
as compared “the
withbiological
fossil fuelsorigin and biodegradable
[4]. According fractionDirective
to the European of products, waste and
2009/28/EC, theresidues from
term biomass
48 agriculture “the
designates (including
biologicalvegetal
originandandanimal substances),
biodegradable forestry
fraction and related
of products, wasteindustries
and residuesincluding
from
49 fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial
agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries including and municipal waste”.
50 Europe and
fisheries andCentral Asia generated
aquaculture, as well as392themillion tons of waste
biodegradable fractionin 2016, and about
of industrial and31municipal
percent ofwaste”.
waste
51 materials
Europe andis currently
Central Asiabeing recovered
generated through
392 millionrecycling and composting
tons of waste in 2016, and[5]. Thus,
about 31 the development
percent of waste
52 of a circular economy (CE) using innovative technologies to reuse and convert
materials is currently being recovered through recycling and composting [5]. Thus, the development agro-food waste, may
53 represent
of a circulara economy
multipurpose achievement
(CE) using innovative intechnologies
terms of renewable
to reuse and energy
convertproduction and waste
agro-food waste, may
54 reduction. According to [6], biomass conversion may be achieved by thermochemical
represent a multipurpose achievement in terms of renewable energy production and waste reduction. conversion
55 (used for dry
According wood
to [6], residues
biomass with C/N>
conversion may 30beand humidity
achieved less than 30%), combustion
by thermochemical (occurring
conversion (used for dryin
56 presence
wood of oxygen
residues with carbon
with C/N> oxidation),less
30 and humidity pyrolysis
than 30%),(used for biomass
combustion with less
(occurring than 15%
in presence of
57 humidity), biological conversion, including alcoholic fermentation and anaerobic
oxygen with carbon oxidation), pyrolysis (used for biomass with less than 15% humidity), biological digestion (used for
58 materials with
conversion, a C/N ratio
including < 30 and
alcoholic a humidity
fermentation and> 30%). In particular,
anaerobic digestionthe anaerobic
(used digestion
for materials with(AD)
a C/N of
59 biomass
ratio < 30provides a versatile
and a humidity renewable
> 30%). source of
In particular, theenergy, the biogas,
anaerobic useful
digestion (AD)asofa biomass
substitute for fossil
provides a
60 fuels for both power and heat production [7]. The EU sustainability criteria have
versatile renewable source of energy, the biogas, useful as a substitute for fossil fuels for both power been extended to
61 cover
and solid
heat biomass [7].
production andThe biogas used in large criteria
EU sustainability heat and power
have been plants
extended(above 20 MW
to cover solidfuel capacity)
biomass and
62 with a reduction in GHG emissions from biomass-based electricity and
biogas used in large heat and power plants (above 20 MW fuel capacity) with a reduction in GHG heat production to a level at
63 least 80% and 85% lower than fossil fuels by 2021 and 2026, respectively.
emissions from biomass-based electricity and heat production to a level at least 80% and 85% lower
64 than This
fossilreview
fuels by focuses
2021 andon the
2026,production of biogas obtained through AD from residual agro-food
respectively.
65 biomasses,
This review focuses on the production of biogasofobtained
analyzing the strengths and weaknesses the different types
through ADoffrom
substrates
residualand of plant
agro-food
66 technologies, as well as the most promising tools to improve AD efficiency,
biomasses, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the different types of substrates and of plant with the aim to identify
67 the best process
technologies, conditions.
as well as the most promising tools to improve AD efficiency, with the aim to identify the
best process conditions.
68 2. Microbial Processes of Anaerobic Digestion
2. Microbial Processes of Anaerobic Digestion
69 In anaerobic conditions, the digestion of different organic substrates operated by symbiotic
70 microorganisms
In anaerobictransforms
conditions,organic materials
the digestion into biogas,
of different a mixsubstrates
organic mainly constituted
operated by bysymbiotic
methane
71 (CH4) and carbon
microorganisms dioxide (CO
transforms 2) along
organic with into
materials nutrients,
biogas,additional
a mix mainlycellconstituted
matter, salts and refractory
by methane (CH4 )
72 organic
and matter.
carbon This(CO
dioxide process
2 ) is
along composed
with of four
nutrients, stages
additional (Figure
cell 1),
matter, where
salts specialized
and refractorybacterial
organic
73 consortia
matter. areprocess
This responsible for the first
is composed three
of four phases
stages of anaerobic
(Figure 1), wheredigestion (hydrolysis,
specialized acidogenesis
bacterial consortia are
74 and acetogenesis),
responsible whereas
for the first the of
three phases fourth step,digestion
anaerobic methanogenesis,
(hydrolysis,is performedand
acidogenesis byacetogenesis),
groups of
75 methanogenic
whereas archaea
the fourth step,[8].
methanogenesis, is performed by groups of methanogenic archaea [8].
1. CO2, H2 +
hydrogenotrophic
methanogens = CH4
electron sinks + 2. Acetate +
acetogenic bacteria =
aceticlastic
acetate, H2, CO2
Small units + methanogens = CH4
fermentative
microorganisms =
Complex substrates + electron sinks (VAFs),
hydrolytic H2, CO2
microorganisms=
small units
76
77 Figure 1.
Figure An overview
1. An overview of
of microbial
microbial processes
processes involved
involved in
in anaerobic
anaerobic digestion.
digestion.
2.1. Hydrolysis
78 2.1. Hydrolysis
Hydrolytic microorganisms (Clostridium, Micrococci, Bacteroides, Butyrivibrio, Fusobacterium,
79 Hydrolytic microorganisms (Clostridium, Micrococci, Bacteroides, Butyrivibrio,
Selenomonas, Streptococcus, among others) secrete enzymes, such as cellulase, cellobiase, xylanase,
80 Fusobacterium, Selenomonas, Streptococcus, among others) secrete enzymes, such as cellulase,
amylase, protease and lipase, that hydrolyze complex insoluble substrate, such as polysaccharides,
81 cellobiase, xylanase, amylase, protease and lipase, that hydrolyze complex insoluble substrate, such
into smaller units [9]. Cellulose is hydrolyzed to glucose, hemicelluloses are degraded into
monosaccharides, such as xylose, glucose, galactose, arabinose and mannose, whereas the anaerobic
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 3 of 29
digestion of solid lignocellulosic material represents the hydrolysis rate limiting step. However,
substrate pre-treatments may break the polymer and speed-up the process.
2.2. Acidogenesis
Acidogenesis is usually the fastest reaction of the process where long chain fatty acids and
amino acids, resulting from the previous step, are used as substrate for fermentative microorganisms
(Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella) to produce volatile fatty acids
(VAFs), such as acetic, propionic, butyric and other short-chain fatty acids, alcohols, H2 and CO2 .
A pH decrease is generally induced by the production of VFAs, which is a beneficial condition for
acidogenic and acetogenic bacteria with an optimal pH ranging between 4.5 and 5.5. The concentration
and proportion of individual VFAs produced in this stage is relevant to the entire process, as acetic
and butyric acids are the best precursors for methane formation.
2.3. Acetogenesis
The accumulation of electron sinks, such as lactate, ethanol, propionate, butyrate and higher
VFAs, may promote an increased hydrogen concentration in the medium, which cannot be consumed
directly by the methanogens and should be further degraded by the obligate hydrogen producing
acetogenic bacteria. This process is referred to as acetogenesis. Syntrophobacter (propionate-utilizing
acetogens) and Syntrophomonas (butyrate-utilizing acetogens) represent the major acetogens. These
groups of bacteria are strictly anaerobe as they rely on the acetyl coenzyme A pathway, containing
highly oxygen sensitive enzymes. The acetogenic bacteria can degrade the electron sinks to acetate,
carbon dioxide and hydrogen, and this transition is fundamental for the successful production of
biogas. During this degradation process, the anaerobic oxidation of butyrate and propionate has only
to occur in syntrophic association with H2 -utilizing methanogens, which consume H2 and CO2 for
methane (CH4) production, thus preventing the accumulation of H2 .
2.4. Methanogenesis
Methane is produced as a metabolic byproduct in anoxic conditions by the methanogenic
microorganisms Archaea. Methane production can occur following two different pathways:
1. hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis, the most common metabolic pathway, where CO2 and H2
are transformed into methane;
2. the aceticlastic methanogenesis, where acetate is directly converted to methane.
Hydrogenotrophic methanogens play a key role in the overall process as Archea maintain a low
partial pressure of H2 (<10 Pa), necessary for the metabolic activity of aceticlastic methanogens and
acetogens. Hydrogenotrophic methanogens, such as Methanospirillum hungatei, Methanoculles
receptaculi, grow faster (doubling time of 6 h) than the aceticlastic methanogens, such as
Methanosarcina thermophile, (doubling time of 2.6 days). As for pH value, the production of methane
is affected by the low pH value. In order to support the growth of both acidifying and methanogenic
bacteria, the pH value has to be above 6.6 and ideally 7–7.5 [10,11] as methanogens are very sensitive
to environmental changes and prefer a slightly alkaline environment (at pH below 6 methanogenic
bacteria cannot survive). Inhibitory compounds, such as sulphide, or lack of nutrients can negatively
affect the growth and activity of these microorganisms, resulting in the accumulation of VFAs and a
subsequent decrease in pH, which further inhibits the entire degradation process.
Biogas contains approximately 55–65% methane, 30–45% carbon dioxide, traces of hydrogen
sulfide and a percentage of water vapor. The composition of biogas and the methane yield depend on
the feedstock type; fats provide the highest biogas yield but require a long retention time, carbohydrates
and proteins show much faster conversion but a lower gas yield. The production of biogas from any
substrate, as well as by pH, is highly affected by its carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio, and temperature [12].
Nitrogen represents an essential element for the synthesis of amino acids. It is converted to ammonia
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 4 of 29
with buffering effects on the volatile acids produced by fermentative bacteria, thus preserving optimal
pH conditions for the process. The C/N ratio should be well balanced for a correct process and
to avoid the failure of anaerobic digestion [7,13]. The C/N value should be in the range 15–30,
with an optimal value of 25. If the C/N ratio is higher than 25, gas production will be low, whereas,
if the C/N ratio is lower than 25, it will result in a pH value higher than 8.5 with toxic effects on
methanogenic microbes [14]. A high C/N ratio can promote acid formation by inhibiting methane
production, whereas at a low C/N ratio nitrogen is converted to ammonium at a faster rate than it can
be assimilated by the methanogens [15], thus becoming toxic.
3. Anaerobic Digestion Plant Technologies

The EU is the world leader in biogas electricity production. The installed electric capacity raised
in Europe from 4158 MW in 2010 to more than 10,000 MW in 2017 reaching the total number of
17,662 biogas plants [16]. The growth has been mainly due to the building of plants running on
agricultural substrates. Agricultural plants are then followed by biogas plants running on sewage
sludge (2838 units), landfill waste (1604 units) and various other types of waste (688 units) [17].
Plant technology depends strongly on the properties of the organic substrates and on the sector in
which it is operated (biomasses, waste, sludge). The amount of available substrate affects the feeding
system (i.e., continuous, semi-continuous, batch).
A first classification of the process can be based on the dry matter content of the organic matrix
and on the temperature of the process. According to the dry matter content, the process may be divided
into dry, semi-dry and wet, with solid substances higher than 20%, between 20–10% and lower than
10%, respectively. Dry anaerobic digestion may be the most appropriate process for the degradation of
by-products with high total solid content, especially those coming from agriculture and food waste.
However, this process is not widely used yet, compared with the wet process. Dry fermentation may
potentially achieve a biogas yield similar to that obtained using the wet digestion process, although
design and management of the plants can profoundly affect the efficiency of the process. Rheology,
substrate heterogeneity, origin and maturity of inoculum, inhibition, co-digestion, pre-treatments
and microbial dynamics are the main aspects to be considered when the dry process is applied [18].
Other relevant features include retention time, loading rate, and recirculation of digestate and leachate.
Moreover, the operation of the plant requires relevant man labor, mainly related to loading and
unloading of the anaerobic cells [19]. As a consequence, anaerobic digestion plants relying on wet
anaerobic digestion are more common and preferred over those based on dry processes.
Anaerobic digestion can be carried out under mesophilic (about 35 ◦ C), thermophilic (about 55 ◦ C)
or, more rarely, psychrophilic conditions (below 20 ◦ C). The reaction temperature may affect the
kinetics, the specific biogas production and the overall efficiency (Table 1). The duration of the process,
in terms of hydraulic retention time, is 15–50 days, if the process takes place in mesophilic conditions,
14–16 days, if it takes place in thermophilic conditions, and 60–120 days in psychrophilic conditions.
According to several experiences at full-scale level, the mesophilic process is easier to control, for that
reason it is still the most common [20].
The AD process can be carried out in one or two stages, depending on the combination
or separation of hydrolysis/acidogenesis and acetogenesis/methanogenesis phases, respectively.
A two-phase configuration process in the case of food waste digestion significantly improves the
methanogenic process as the fermentation plays the role of “pre-treatment”, thus promoting the
conversion efficiency of the volatile fraction to biogas. According to [21], the payback time for
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a
two-phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
Anaerobic digestion systems were strongly improved in recent decades, through the introduction
of accelerants (metabolic stimulants for microorganisms) in order to accelerate and increase gas
production [22,23].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 5 of 29
R REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 32 5 of 32
R REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 32 5 of 32
Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
ee ammonia decreasing Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing
 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Table 1. Mesophilic versus thermophilic process *.
process  Less thermal energy required by  Bigger digesters size
ee ammonia decreasing Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing
 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
R REVIEW process
ess thermal energy required by
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Less thermal energy required by
 Bigger digesters size
Advantages 5 of 32  Bigger digesters size Drawbacks 5 of 32
Mesophilic  digester, even if larger digester size
Free ammonia decreasing  Less degradation efficiency
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
process
ess thermal energy required by  Less thermal energy required by
 Bigger digesters size  Bigger digesters size
gester, even if larger digester size 
digester, even if larger digester size
Less degradation efficiency  Less degradation efficiency
R REVIEW process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Less thermal energy required by
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Bigger digesters size
should be considered 5 of 32 Lower pathogen removing from
Higher retention time (30–50 days) 5 of 32
ee ammonia decreasing Mesophilic
gester, even if larger digester size  Less degradation efficiency
Free ammonia decreasing
digester, even if larger digester size Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Less degradation efficiency
ould be considered Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Lower pathogen removing from
should be considered  Lower pathogen removing from
Bigger digesters size 5 of 32
process
ess thermal energy required by  Less thermal energy required by
Less nitrate concentration in the
 Bigger digesters size  Less degradation efficiency
substrate, post‐treatment is needed
 Bigger digesters size
ould be considered
ee ammonia decreasing Mesophilic Less thermal energy required by
should be considered
Lower pathogen removing from
Free ammonia decreasing Lower pathogen removing from
ess nitrate concentration in the  Less nitrate concentration in the
digester, even if larger digester substrate, post‐treatment is needed
R REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  should be considered
sludge 5 of 
32 Lower pathogen removing from5 of 32
Higher viscosity of influent,
Mesophilic
gester, even if larger digester size
ess nitrate concentration in the
R REVIEW process
ess thermal energy required by Mesophilic  digester, even if larger digester size Less degradation efficiency
Less thermal energy required by
size should be considered 5 of 32  Bigger digesters size
substrate, post-treatment is needed
udge Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
process sludge  Higher viscosity of influent,  Higher viscosity of influent, 5 of 32
ould be considered
R REVIEW process  Less nitrate concentration in the
Better process stability
 Less
should be considered nitrate concentration
Lower pathogen removing from in 5 of 
32 substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Bigger digesters size
pre‐treatment is needed
ee ammonia decreasing
udge
Mesophilic 
 digester, even if larger digester size
sludge Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Free ammonia decreasing  Higher viscosity of influent,
etter process stability  Better process stability
the sludge
pre‐treatment is needed pre‐treatment is needed
pre-treatment is needed
ee ammonia decreasing Mesophilic
ess nitrate concentration in the sludge Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Less degradation efficiency
 substrate, post‐treatment is needed
 digester, even if larger digester size
Less nitrate concentration in the Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
 Less thermal energy required by
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Bigger digesters size
etter process stability
ould be considered process Better process stability
More clogging risk
 Lower pathogen removing from
R REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 32 Lower pathogen removing from 5 of 32
ee ammonia decreasing More clogging risk More clogging risk
R REVIEW
udge process  Bigger digesters size
sludge Higher viscosity of influent, 5 of 32  Bigger digesters size
Low methane yield
Low methane yield
ess nitrate concentration in the  Less degradation efficiency
More clogging risk
Less nitrate concentration in the  Less degradation efficiency
More clogging risk
R REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Bigger digesters size
Low methane yield
 digester, even if larger digester size 5 of 32  Low methane yield 5 of 32
Mesophilic
Thermophilic   Less degradation efficiency
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
Better process stability  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
ould be considered
udge  Lower retention
Low methane yield time
Higher viscosity of influent, (15–16 days) Low methane yield
Higher free ammonia concentration
 Higher free ammonia concentration
ee ammonia decreasing should be considered
sludge Higher retention time (30‐50 days) Lower pathogen removing from
ower retention time (15‐16 days)
R REVIEW
ould be considered Thermophilic
process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Less degradation efficiency
 Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
Small size of digesters
Lower pathogen removing from  Higher free ammonia concentration
5 of 32 Bigger digesters size
Higher thermal energy required,5 but
Low methane yield of 32
ee ammonia decreasing process
Mesophilic  should be considered
sludge

More clogging risk   Lower pathogen removing from
Higher thermal energy required,
More clogging risk
R REVIEW
ould be considered Thermophilic
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Better process stability
 Higher free ammonia concentration
Higher organic
Lower pathogen removing from 5 of  Higher free ammonia concentration
32 substrate, post‐treatment is needed
higher quantity of energy is 5 of 32
produced
mall size of digesters process
gester, even if larger digester size  
Less degradation efficiency   Higher thermal energy required,
Thermophilic  Higher organic load‐bearing
process substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  Higher free ammonia concentration
 Higher thermal energy required,
Less thermal energy required by substrate, post‐treatment is needed
but higher quantity of energy is
udge
Mesophilic
ess nitrate concentration in the  Small size of digesters
sludge
load-bearing capacity
Low methane yield
More clogging risk
substrate, post‐treatment is needed  Higher thermal energy required,
from biogas
Low methane yield
More clogging risk
igher organic load‐bearing
ould be considered  Higher organic load‐bearing
 but higher quantity of energy is
Higher
 efficiency
Lower pathogen removing from of degradation  but higher quantity of energy is
Higher nitrate concentration in
udge process
Mesophilic Thermophilic
ower retention time (15‐16 days)  Free ammonia decreasing

sludge
capacity Less degradation efficiency  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
More clogging risk
produced from biogas

process
Thermophilic
ould be considered process  Higher free ammonia concentration
 Higher organic load‐bearing
Low methane yield
Higher biogas production rate
Lower pathogen removing from Bigger digesters size
the sludge
Low methane yield
udge
pacity 
capacity Higher viscosity of influent,
produced from biogas produced from biogas
ould be considered
mall size of digesters
process
etter process stability process
gester, even if larger digester size  Higher efficiency of degradation
 Higher thermal energy required,
Higher organic load‐bearing
Higher pathogen removing
More clogging risk
More sensitive to
Low methane yield
Higher nitrate concentration in the
pacity
etter process stability Thermophilic  capacity produced from biogas
More clogging risk
environmental changes
igher efficiency of degradation
udge
gester, even if larger digester size  Higher efficiency of degradation
sludge from substrate
 Less degradation efficiency
More clogging risk  Higher free ammonia concentration
Thermophilic
igher organic load‐bearing 
 capacity
but higher quantity of energy is produced from biogas
More clogging risk
sludge
ould be considered
udge process Higher organic load‐bearing
 Higher efficiency of degradation
Lower
should be considered viscosity
Low methane yield
More clogging risk  Higher thermal energy required,
Decreased stability process
Low methane yield
igher biogas production rate   Higher biogas production rate
sludge sludge
ould be considered pre‐treatment is needed
Less
should be considered clogging
Low methane yield
 Higher pathogen removing from
Higher efficiency of degradation risk  Higher thermal energy required,
Larger investment
 Higher free ammonia concentration
udge
pacity process sludge
produced from biogas Low methane yield
More sensitive to environmental
Thermophilic  Higher pathogen removing from
igher biogas production rate
capacity
sludge
Low methane yield  produced from biogas
sludge
 More sensitive to environmental
igher pathogen removing from  Higher biogas production rate
Thermophilic  substrate
igher efficiency of degradation  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
Higher efficiency of degradation  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
sludge
changes
udge
pacity process
igher pathogen removing from 
sludge 
capacity Higher viscosity of influent,
Higher pathogen removing from
More clogging risk  Higher thermal energy required,
ubstrate The AD plants can Higher free ammonia concentration
substrate be divided
changes
Low methane yield into categories according  to the reactor type. The main groups,
changes
Low methane yield
udge
igher biogas production rate  
sludge
 Lower viscosity Higher viscosity of influent,
 sludge
capacity More clogging risk
Higher biogas production rate  Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
sludge
ubstrate ordered
igher efficiency of degradation according  Better process stability

substrate
to pre‐treatment is needed
changes
increasing innovation
Higher efficiency of degradation
Low methane yield and complexity,  pre‐treatment is needed
changes
are covered lagoons, conventional
ower viscosity
Thermophilic  Lower viscosity  Higher thermal energy required,
Higher free ammonia concentration   Higher free ammonia concentration
igher organic load‐bearing anaerobic reactors,  Better process stability
substrate pre‐treatment is needed
Less clogging risk
sludge Low methane yield
retention reactors and anaerobic  pre‐treatment is needed
changes
Low methane yield
Larger investment
igher pathogen removing from  Higher pathogen removing from
More sensitive to environmental  membrane reactors. Advantages and
More clogging risk
pacity
ower viscosity
ess clogging risk  Higher free ammonia concentration
Lower viscosity
sludge
 Less clogging risk but higher quantity of energy is
Larger investment 
sludge
Larger investment
pacity 171 process
drawbacks of each 
type of reactor
Small size of digesters are reported
Higher thermal energy required, in Table 2a.  Higher thermal energy required,
ubstrate
Thermophilic
ower retention time (15‐16 days)  Lower viscosity
common  Higher free ammonia concentration
substrate changes More clogging risk
sludge
changes
Low methane yield
ess clogging risk
igher pathogen removing from
171 The most  Higher thermal energy required,
Low methane yield
Less clogging risk
Larger investment
ADcarried
plants out are composed of one Larger investment
or more verticalon heated reactors withor an
pacity 172

The
process AD process
  can produced from biogas
be
 in
Low methane yield
Less clogging risk one
Higher nitrate concentration in the or two stages,  depending
Low methane yield
Larger investment the combination
ower viscosity 171  
Lower viscosity  Higher nitrate concentration in the
ubstrate
can 172
173 out
be carried internal
igher biogas production rate The
Thermophilic
in
separation
igher efficiency of degradation one AD mixing
of process
or two  system can Higher free ammonia concentration
based on aout
sludge
 changes
be carried
substrate
stages,
hydrolysis/acidogenesis depending wet
on
and process
in
the
but higher quantity of energy is one or operated
combination two stages,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis
Higher nitrate concentration in the or in Higher free ammonia concentration
mesophilic conditions.
depending phases,
sludge
changes This type
on the respectively.
combination A of
or
pacity
can be 171
172
173
174
carried out
Thermophilic
digester
The
in one AD is
or referred
process
two   capacity
 to
can
substrate
stages, aproduced from biogas
complete
sludge
be carried
depending
Higher organic load‐bearing stirred
out
on in
the tank
one reactor
or
combination two 
(CSTR)
stages,
or produced from biogas
and represents
depending
sludge
changes on the
the first generation
combination
but higher quantity of energy is or
sis/acidogenesis
ess clogging risk
mall size of digesters separation
process
ower viscosity
pacity 172
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis
and acetogenesis/methanogenesis
two‐phase configuration  Higher thermal energy required,
 Less clogging risk
Small size of digesters the and
process in phases,
Larger investment case
Lower viscosity
respectively.
of food waste A  digestion
Larger investment phases, respectively.
significantly
Decreased stability process improves the A
173
174
175
sis/acidogenesis
The
ofcase
separation
and
two‐phase
on process in the
process
methanogenic
AD
high-rate
of of process
anaerobic
hydrolysis/acidogenesis
configuration
food 
process waste can sludge
be carried
digesters,
process
digestion
 Higher pathogen removing from in
Higher efficiency of degradation out
which and
phases,
the
significantly
 Higher thermal energy required,
as the fermentation in
is
case one
widely or two
respectively.
of
plays food
improves
the used stages,
waste
role in
A
the
of  the depending
case
digestion of on the
co-digestion
phases,
significantly
“pre‐treatment”, thus
combination
of wastewater,
respectively.
improves
promoting or
A
the
pacity 171 173 Lower viscosity
capacity produced from biogas More sensitive to environmental
174
ubstrate 175
ess clogging risk
as the 176 separation
high-dense
two‐phase
on process in the case
methanogenic
fermentation conversion of of liquid
food
plays efficiency 
configuration
process
the role
waste of 
substrate but higher quantity of energy is
changes
Larger investment
Less clogging risk
animal manure
process
digestion
of “pre‐treatment”,
as the and
in
fermentation the and
organic
significantly case acetogenesis/methanogenesis
Higher nitrate concentration in the industrial
of
plays
thus to
More sensitive to environmental food
improves
the
promoting waste.
waste
role the
of  but higher quantity of energy is
changes
Larger investment
The main
digestion phases,
limitation,
significantly
“pre‐treatment”, thus respectively.
if no recirculation
improves
promoting A
the
can 172
be carried
174 out
ubstrate in
The one AD or two
process
  stages, can the
be volatile
sludge
depending
carried
fraction
on case
out the
in
changes
biogas.
combination
one or two According
or
stages,  sludge to [21], on
depending the payback
the combination
time for or
of
pacity
ower viscosity 175
176
177
171 two‐phase
is
as the
the volatile
fermentation performed,
methanogenic
plays
conversion
fraction configuration
is
process
the role
efficiency
to biogas. the
 According of 
substrate
Less clogging risk
failure as process
the to
of “pre‐treatment”,
capacity the in
retain
fermentation
volatile the
high
to [21], fraction
produced from biogas the
Decreased stability process thus of
microorganism
plays
to
payback
Lower viscosity
food
the
promoting
biogas. waste
role of
the
time According
for changes
Larger investment
digestion
concentrations significantly
inside
“pre‐treatment”, the
thus improves
reactor.
promoting
to [21], the payback time for
 Decreased stability process
In fact, the
the
ubstrate 173
sis/acidogenesis
175
176
and
separation acetogenesis/methanogenesis
a good
sludge
changes
anaerobic phases,
and respectively.
acetogenesis/methanogenesis A  sludge phases, respectively. A
of
can the
pacity
ower viscosity 177
178
172
be volatile
carried methanogenic
171 key
conversion
fraction factor
to process
forprocess
efficiency
biogas. capacity
According as the
of the fermentation
high-rate
volatile
to [21],
produced from biogas the
Decreased stability process plays
treatment
fraction
in payback
ster can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would
out The
in one AD or two Lower viscosity
stages, depending on the the
to or istwo
combination role
time of
the retention
biogas. According
for
or “pre‐treatment”,
of the
to slow-growing
[21], on
produced from biogas thus
the
Decreased stability process promoting
microorganisms.
payback the
time for
on 174
process in the case
two‐phase
ess clogging risk
176 of food waste
configuration can be
sludge
digestion carried
process out
significantly
in the case one
Larger investment
Less clogging risk improves
of food stages,
waste the sludge
depending
digestion the
significantly
Larger investment
combination
improves or
the
ower viscosity 177
178
172
179
173 conversion
A new efficiency
generation of
sis/acidogenesis process
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
and
separation acetogenesis/methanogenesis
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis of
can
the
reactor, volatile
such as fraction
the
Decreased stability process up
lysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a
The AD be carried out
phases,
and in one to
flow biogas.
anaerobic
or two
respectively. According
stages,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis A to
blanket
depending [21], the
(UASB)
on payback
the
phases, reactor
combination time
contains
respectively.
for
A a
or
ubstrate
as the 175
ess clogging risk
fermentation
177 methanogenic plays the process  Higher pathogen removing from
role substrate
of  as

changes
Larger investment
“pre‐treatment”,
Less clogging risk
the fermentation thus
More sensitive to environmental promoting
plays the role the
of  “pre‐treatment”,
changes
Larger investment thus
More sensitive to environmental promoting the
ubstrate
on 178
171
179
173
180
process introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would
in the well-settleable
174
igestion process [22]. Anaerobic
case
two‐phase methanogenic
separation of
of configuration
food Higher biogas production rate
digestion
waste sludge
changes sludge.
systems
of digestion
process The
were
significantly
in the formation
lysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a and strongly
case improves
of food of a dense
improved
waste the sludge
sludge bed
in recent
digestion permits
phases, the
decades,
significantly microorganism’s
respectively.
through
improves A
the
of the
ower viscosity 176
ess clogging risk
volatile
178
171
179
fraction
conversion to biogas.
efficiency  the According Larger investment
the
Lower viscosity to [21],
volatile the
fraction
Decreased stability process payback
to time
biogas. for  sludge
According to CSTR
[21], the compactness,
payback
Decreased stability process time for
can
ubstrate
ion be 172
180
174
carried
181
as the 175
igestion process [22].
systems out
were in
two‐phase
retention
introduction
fermentation methanogenic one
strongly inside
or
plays the two
The AD
Anaerobic process
improved
configuration Higher biogas production rate
stages,
substrate
digestion can sludge
system.be
of process
accelerants
role of The
depending
carried
changes
systems
in
process recent
(metabolic
 as the advantages
in on
out
were
fermentation the
in
decades,
the of
strongly
case
stimulants
thus of UASB
combination
one or two
through
food reactors
improved
waste
for role
promoting
plays the or
stages,
the
of over
changes
depending
in recent
digestion
 “pre‐treatment”,
microorganisms) are
on the
decades,
significantly
in order thus combination
More sensitive to environmental through
improves
to promoting
accelerate and higher
or
the
the
177
ower viscosity 179
172
180
can be 173
carried
181
175
sis/acidogenesis
ion 182
176
systems
ess clogging risk
rants
of (metabolic
the volatile
out
and
were in
loading
separation
introduction
stimulants
methanogenic one or
rates,
of two
The AD process
Anaerobic
strongly of for improved
increase gas production [22,23].
fraction
conversion to biogas.
efficiency 
accelerants
process
 stages,
stages,
lower
digestion
hydrolysis/acidogenesis  can depending
be
retention
Less clogging risk

microorganisms) as carried
systems
in times,
recent
Larger investment
(metabolic
the
According of to in
fermentation
[21],
on
out
lower
phases,
were
order
the
the
decades,
and
the volatile fraction
combination
in strongly
one or
operational two
respectively.
through improved
stimulants
to
payback
to for
accelerate
plays the role
time
biogas.
or
stages,
costs,
and A
the
of
for 
microorganisms) depending
lower sludge
in recent
Larger investment
in
“pre‐treatment”, on the
phases,
order
 Decreased stability process
According to [21], to
thus combination
production
decades, and
through
respectively.
the accelerate
promoting
payback time or
higher
the
A
and
the
for
ower viscosity
can
ubstrate be 178
180
173
carried
181 out in one or two  Decreased stability process
Lower viscosity
substrate depending
changes on the combination or changes
rants
n [22,23]. 174
sis/acidogenesis
182
176
ess clogging risk
on process
183
177 in the
(metabolic
171
and
separation
methane
case
introduction
stimulants
two‐phase acetogenesis/methanogenesis
Anaerobic of
production
of configuration
food
of accelerants
for
conversion efficiency digestion
waste of digestion
rates
microorganisms) the systems
(Table
(metabolic
process 2b).
Larger investment phases,
were and
Since
significantly
in
volatile the stimulants
order case
fraction respectively.
strongly
to to
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would improves
accelerate
of food
biogas. improved
the anaerobic waste A
microorganismsin
the digestion
for microorganisms)
and
According recent decades,
phases,
can form
in order
significantly
to [21], through
respectively.
granules
to accelerate
the payback time and
improves the
throughA
the
for
ubstrate 179
181
the 174
sis/acidogenesis
182 and acetogenesis/methanogenesis
 substrate
of changes
Less clogging risk phases, respectively. A  changes
Larger investment
on
as process
n [22,23]. 175
ess clogging risk
183
177 in the
fermentation
184
178
172
case
introduction
two‐phase
ordered
of configuration
self-immobilization
plays food
the
according waste
of process
accelerants
role
methanogenic of Larger investment
digestion
(metabolic
process
the cells,
as the
Lower viscosity
to
significantly
in
fermentation the
the stimulants
Decreased stability process case
performance
thus improves
of for role
food
promoting
plays
n be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
ower viscosity introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would
increasing innovation and the microorganisms)
waste
of
or complexity,
the
the
of digestion
 system in order
significantly
is highly
are to promoting
accelerate
dependent
thus
Decreased stability process improves upon and the
the
can
ion
on be 180
carried
systems
182
175
process in
out
were
the in
case The one AD
strongly
Anaerobic
of or
food process
two
improved stages,
digestion
waste can be
depending
in
digestion carried
recent
systems out
on the
in strongly
decades,
were
significantly one
combination two
through
improves stages,
improved or
the in covered
depending lagoons,
on
recent However,
decades, conventional
the combination
through with or
the
of the
the
increasing 183
176
ower viscosity
as fermentation
184
171
178
volatile
185
179
173 ordered
innovation
anaerobic
plays
granulation
fraction one to the
methanogenic according
and 
role
process
process,
biogas.
complexity,
reactors,
of of
According “pre‐treatment”,
as the
together
Lower viscosity
conversion efficiency to
sludge the
increasing
are fermentation
with
to [21],
volatile the
innovation
covered
retention the thus
fraction
lagoons, promoting
plays
characteristics
payback
reactors and the role
of
time
to conventional
biogas.
complexity,
anaerobic
the
of
the
for 
According “pre‐treatment”,
wastewater. thus
to [21],
are covered promoting
substrates
the payback
lagoons, time and
conventional the
for a
can
rants be carried
181
sis/acidogenesis
(metabolic
ess clogging risk two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
out in
separation
and
stimulants
introduction or two
for
of accelerants stages,
microorganisms)
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis depending
Less clogging risk
Larger investment
(metabolic on
in phases,
and
order the combination
to
stimulants respectively.
accelerate
for or
and A  membrane
microorganisms) reactors.
Larger investment
in phases,
order Advantages
to respectively.
accelerate A
and
of as the
the 183
176
fermentation
184
177
volatile
185
172
179 fraction
high plays
to the
biogas. role of
According
increasing
udge 186
180
retention ordered
innovation
anaerobic
reactors The according
and
AD complexity,
reactors,
process
anaerobic
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. to
sludge increasing
can are
be
membrane to [21],
innovation
covered
retention
carried the thus
conversion fractionefficiency
of particulate of the volatile
organic fraction
material
lagoons,
out
reactors.
promoting
payback
and
reactors in strongly
one or
Advantages time
to conventional
cannot biogas.
be
complexity,
anaerobic
two
the
for
According
treated
stages,
and using
are to
this[21],
covered
membrane
depending the
technology payback
lagoons,
reactors.
on the [23]. time and
conventional
Advantages
combination for
or
can
ion be 174
carried
systems
sis/acidogenesis
n [22,23]. 182
ess clogging risk
on process
171 in out
were
and
the in
two‐phase
case one
strongly
Anaerobic or two
improved
of configuration
food
increase gas production [22,23]. stages,
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a.
 digestion  depending
in
Less clogging risk
waste recent
systems
Larger investment
digestion
process in on
phases,
significantly
the the
decades,
were case combination
through
respectively.
of
improves
food improved
waste or
the
A
the  in recent
Larger investment
digestion decades,
significantly through
improves the
the
of the 184
177
volatile
185
178
180 fraction to
Anaerobic biogas. According
186
173 ordered according to
bioreactors
udge 187
181
retention anaerobic
reactors and reactors,
anaerobic sludge increasing to [21],
(MBR)
retention
membrane innovation the payback
technology
reactors
reactors.
separation
e of reactor are reported in Table 2a. of hydrolysis/acidogenesis
digestion systems were and and
Membrane is also
Advantages
strongly
time
complexity,
able
anaerobic tofor
and
improved are
promote covered
membrane the retention
in vertical
recent lagoons,
reactors.
phases, of
decades, the conventional
active
Advantages
respectively.
through biomass
and
A
the
rants
on as 175
sis/acidogenesis
(metabolic
process
the 183
171 in the
fermentation and
stimulants
introduction
case
methanogenic acetogenesis/methanogenesis
The most
of
plays for
of
food
the common
accelerants
process
role microorganisms)
waste
172 of AD plants
(metabolic
digestion
as
the in phases,
are composed
order
significantly
fermentation thus to
plays of
accelerate
for
improves
promoting
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, the one
role or
and A
the
of more
microorganisms) in
“pre‐treatment”, heated
order reactors
to
thus accelerate
promoting with an
and
the
can be 185
178
186
179
carried
181
n AD 188
182
plants out
are in
The
one AD or process
187
174 anaerobic reactors,
two sludge
stages,
(Table can
e of reactor are reported in Table 2a.
two‐phase
composed The
introduction most of
of common
configuration
one
accelerants or AD
more be carried
retention
depending
2c). The
plants
process membrane
vertical
(metabolic in are out
reactors
on
the in
the
within the system composed
heated case one
and
of
reactors
stimulants or two
anaerobic
combination
forms a selective
of
food
for one stages,
waste
with or
or
an more
microorganisms) depending
membrane
barrier, thus
vertical
digestion on
reactors.
allowing
heated the
significantly
in order combination
Advantages
certain
reactors
to components
improves
accelerate with or
and
an
the
and
on
n [22,23].
of as the
increasing 176
process
172
173
in
the volatile the
fermentation
184 case
internal
conversion
fraction
innovation
ordered
of
to
and food
mixing
plays the
biogas.
efficiency
complexity,
according
waste
system
role According of
to of digestion
based
the
are
increasing on
“pre‐treatment”, significantly
volatile a
to [21],
covered wet process
thus
fraction
the
lagoons,
innovation payback improves
to
and operated
promoting
biogas. the
time stages,
conventional
complexity, in
According
for mesophilic
are conditions.
to [21], on
covered the payback
lagoons, This type
time for
conventional of
can
m n AD be
based 186
179
180
carried
ion 188
175
sis/acidogenesis
182
systems
189
183
plants
on a are out in
separation
composed
internal
The
one
The
methanogenic
wet
AD or
of
most
Anaerobic
mixing
process
187 of two
common
one
process
operated
or
digestion
system
can
and
were acetogenesis/methanogenesis
toprocess
pass through
strongly improved while in AD
more be
retaining
in
based
as the
carried
depending the
recent
plants
vertical
systems
on a are
out
on
wet
fermentation
mesophilic and
phases,
others. in In
the
decades,
composed
heated
were one
reactors
strongly
process
conditions. plays
or of two
combination
respectively.
particular,
through one
with cells
improved
operated
the
This role
type or
A
the
or
an
of
of are
more
in
depending
retained,
in vertical
recent
mesophilic
“pre‐treatment”, heated the
phases,
while
decades,
conditions.
thus
combination
respectively.
inhibitory
reactors compounds,
through
This
promoting with or
A
an
type the of
of as the
the 177
fermentation
volatile
185 plays the role of
udge 173
retention
174
187
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of
fraction
reactors
anaerobic and anaerobic
reactors, sludge membrane
retention reactors.
reactors
promoting
to biogas. According to [21], the payback
Advantages
and time
anaerobic
the
for
and membrane reactors. Advantages and
ion
on
rants
m 180
188
181
sis/acidogenesis
systems
189
176
process
183 in
(metabolic
based 190
184
separation
and
two‐phase
were
the
on innovation
a wet case
such
stimulants
internal strongly
The
process
introduction asand of
most
of
Anaerobic
furan
mixing for hydrolysis/acidogenesis
configuration
improved
of common
food aldehydes
operated
accelerants waste
digestion
microorganisms)
system in process
AD in
and
based plants
digestion
systems in
recent
carboxylic
mesophilic on
(metabolic the
a are and
phases,
order
wet case
decades,
composed
significantly
were acids, acetogenesis/methanogenesis
to respectively.
process
conditions.
stimulants
conversion efficiency
a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of of the volatile fraction of food
through
of
improves
strongly
negatively
accelerate
to
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, operated
This for
biogas. waste
one
improved A
the
or
in affecting
type and of in
microorganisms)
According digestion
more in vertical
therecent phases,
significantly
heated
biological
mesophilic
to decades,
order
[21], the
respectively.
process,
in conditions.
to improves
reactors
through with
aretime
This
accelerate
payback type A
an
the
separated.of
and
for
of the
increasing 178
volatile fraction
high‐rate
ordered to biogas.
anaerobic
complexity,
according According
digesters,
to
186
174
are
increasing to [21],
which
covered the
is
lagoons,
innovation payback
widely
175
188 drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. and used time
conventional
complexity, for
the case
are of co‐digestion
covered lagoons, of wastewater,
conventional
ion
on
rants
n [22,23].
igesters, 181
systems
189
182
as process
(metabolic
190
177
184
191
185
which
two‐phase
in were
the case
methanogenic
stimulants
internal
introduction
However, strongly
of
plays configuration
food
mixing for
the
when improved
of process
role
accelerants
high‐rate
widely
ordered anaerobic
used
according
waste
microorganisms)
system
a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of
the fermentation the
in of process
in
digestion
as the
based
particulate
digesters,
the
to case (metabolic
increasing andin
recent
fermentation
on
which
of a the
order
wet
cellis
co‐digestion
innovation
case
decades,
significantly thus
stimulants
widely
is
of
plays
to
process food
through
improves
the
accelerate
operated
promoting
concentrations
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of of
and for
used
waste
role
in
wastewater,
complexity,
the
of
and
the
microorganisms)
areand high,
the
digestion
fouling
case
are of
significantly
in “pre‐treatment”,
mesophilic in
can order thus
conditions.
occur.
co‐digestion
covered to
lagoons, The improves
promoting
This
accelerate
of type
combination
wastewater,
conventional the
of of
and
udge 179
retention
n AD 175
plants
176
189 are high‐dense
reactors
anaerobic and liquid
anaerobic
reactors,
composed The most of one
common animal
sludge
187 or more
AD manure
membrane
retention
vertical
plants and
reactors.
reactors
heated
are organic
composed Advantages
reactors industrial
anaerobic
of with
one an
or waste.
membrane
more The
vertical main
reactors.
heated limitation,
Advantages
reactors if and
with no
an
rants
igesters,
imal as the
n [22,23]. 182
(metabolic
190
183
fermentation
191
178
of the manure
volatile
185
186
which and methanogenic
stimulants
conversion plays for
the process
role
efficiency
is anaerobic
widely
high‐dense membrane microorganisms)
192 high‐rate used
liquid of
the
animal
as
of the
technology
digesters, case fermentation
the volatile
is of which
manure
in
withorder
co‐digestion
and thus
fraction
specific
is plays
to
fraction to anaerobic
biogas. in According to [21], the widely
organic
anaerobic industrial
reactors, sludge waste. The
retention main
reactors of
organic
the
accelerate
promoting
to
payback biogas.
systems
used role
time
wastewater,
limitation,
and
of
and
the
According
for
if (coagulant
in
industrial
anaerobic the “pre‐treatment”,
case
waste.
no membrane to [21],
addition,
of The
thus
the
adsorbent
co‐digestion
main
reactors.
promoting
payback time
addition,
of wastewater,
limitation,
Advantages
the
for
if and use
no
m based 180
ion 188
systems
176
on a wet
177
recirculation
were Anaerobic
strongly
process
internal is performed,
improved
operated
mixing digestion
system in in
mesophilic
based the
systems
recent
on failure
a were to
decades,
conditions.
wet retain
strongly
process This high
through type
operated microorganism
improved the
of in recent
in case
mesophilic concentrations
decades,
conditions. inside
through
This type the
the
of
n [22,23].
of the
increasing
imal
med, is 190
183
191
184
volatile
193
187
manure conversion
fraction
innovation
high‐dense
and organic
ordered
recirculation to
and efficiency
biogas.
complexity,
liquid
industrial
according
is performed,
the failure to retain high According
192
179
186 high‐rate
of anaerobic animal
to of
digesters,
ster can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would the
are
waste.
increasing
the microorganism
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. is
volatile
to [21],
which
covered
manure The
the
fraction
the
is widely
lagoons,
and
main
innovation
failure organic
to to
concentrations
to
payback
granular materials improving aeration) lead
and biogas.
used
the time
conventional
limitation,
retain in
membrane
industrial According
for
the
if microorganism
complexity,
high
inside no
the to
waste.
are to
of
work [21],
The
covered the
co‐digestion
with high
main payback
lagoons, of
flow
limitation,
concentrations
time
wastewater,
rates and
if
conventional
inside
for
may
no
the
n
ion
rants AD 181
plants
systems
189
(metabolic
177
are reactor.
composed
were The
introduction
stimulants In
strongly fact,
most of
for
of one
common
improved
accelerants key
or
microorganisms)
178
factor
more
AD in for
vertical
plants
recent
(metabolic in a heated
are good
composed
decades,
order anaerobic
reactors
stimulants
through
accelerate
for high‐rate
with
one an more
or
the
microorganisms)
and treatment
vertical in is the to
heated
order retention
reactors
accelerate of and
with an
udge
med,
ey is 191
184
192
185
193
180
retention
194
188
factor the
for
increasing be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a
innovation
high‐dense
failure
a represent
reactors
recirculation
good to
anaerobic
reactor. and
retain
In
Anaerobic a
anaerobic
The most complexity,
liquid
further
anaerobic
is performed,
high
reactors,
fact, common the animal
187 ordered according to
improvement
microorganism
sludge
key
digestion
high‐rate are
membrane
AD is covered
manure
increasing the
retention
factor
systems of
for
treatment
plants the lagoons,
and
innovation organic
technology.
reactors.
failure to
concentrations
a reactors
good
were
are is the and conventional
Advantages
retain
anaerobic
strongly
composed retention industrial
complexity,
These
high
inside
anaerobic
of improved
of
one integrated
and
the
high‐rate
or waste.
microorganism are
membrane
more The
covered
systems
treatment
in recent
vertical main
lagoons,
show
reactors.
is the
decades,
heated limitation,
concentrations inside
Advantages
retention
through
reactors if
conventional
several advantages,
of
with no
the
and
type an
m ion
rants based
n [22,23].
igesters, 182
systems
on
(metabolic
190
178
which
179
were
internal
stimulants strongly
mixing improved
for system
is widely
high‐rate used
anaerobic microorganisms)
in the
digesters,
in
in based
mesophilic
case recent
on
of in decades,
slow‐growing microorganisms. A new generation of reactor, such as the up flow anaerobic sludge
a wet process operated a conditions.
wet
order
co‐digestion
which is process
to of
widely
through
This
accelerate type
operated
wastewater,
used
the
and
in and of
the in case
of co‐digestion This
of bewastewater, of
increasing
udge 192
185
193
186
retention
194
181
188 be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a
innovation
reactors
recirculation
anaerobic
such
ey 195
189
factor for a reactor.
good asand
In complexity,
anaerobic
is
reactors,
improved
fact,
anaerobic performed, the sludge
methane
key
high‐rate
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. are
membrane
is
factor covered
the
retention
production
for
treatment a lagoons,
reactors.
failure
reactors
and
good
is to
the
introduction of accelerants
ganisms. A new generation of reactor, such as the up flow anaerobic sludge
internal mixing system based (metabolic
on a wet
conventional
Advantages
retain
and
less
anaerobic
stimulants retention
process high
anaerobic
frequent
for
operated microorganism
fouling
high‐rate
of the
microorganisms)
in membrane
problems.
treatment
reactors.
in They
is the
order retention
to
conditions. inside
Advantages
can used
accelerate
This of
type the
toand
treat
and
of
rants
imal 183
(metabolic
191 stimulants
blanket (UASB) for microorganisms)
reactor
n [22,23].
179
manure
180
193 and
high‐dense contains a in order
well‐settleable to
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of accelerate
organic industrial
liquid animal waste.
manure The main
and limitation,
organic methanogenic and
if and
industrial no waste. sludge. The
The main formation
the limitation,
of a dense
if the
no
udge
ion
n
r AD 186
retention
194
187
182
systems
189
plants
196
190
contains a are two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
reactors
were
composed
blanket and
Anaerobic
195 reactor. In
strongly
(UASB) anaerobic
fact,
of improved
one
well‐settleable methanogenic digestion
the key
or
The most common reactor membrane
more
AD systems
factor
in
contains for
recent
vertical
plants
sludge. a reactors.
a were
good
decades,
heated
are composed
well‐settleable
The
Advantages
strongly
anaerobic
through
reactors
formation
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of improved
high‐rate
with
one
methanogenic
of a dense the
an
or more in recent
treatment
vertical
sludge. decades,
is
heated
The through
retention
reactors
formation of of
with
a dense an
n [22,23].
igesters,
increasing
med, is 184
which
192 sludge
is
the innovation
180
181
194
widely
high‐rate
ordered
failure to
recirculation bed
and permits
used
anaerobic
according
retain complexity,
high
is performed, in the
the
n be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, digesters, microorganism’s
case
to increasing
microorganism are is of co‐digestion
which
covered
the innovation is retention
widely
lagoons,
concentrations
failure to of
and inside
wastewater,
used
conventional
retain in
complexity,
inside
high the
the the
microorganism system.
case
are of
covered The advantages
co‐digestion of of
lagoons, conventional
concentrations inside UASB
wastewater, the
he n
rants
m r AD
based 187
plants
196
183
(metabolic
190
191
contains
microorganism’s are
on a innovation
a wet Anaerobic
ion 195
188
systems were
introduction
composed strongly
The
process
blanket
well‐settleable
internal
sludge
high‐rate most
(UASB)
bed of
of improved
accelerants
one
common
operated
mixing methanogenic
permits
inside
anaerobic
digestion
or
reactor
system the more
in
the
digesters, AD systems
in
mesophilic
contains recent
(metabolic
vertical
plants
sludge.
based on
microorganism’s
system. which a were
decades,
heated
stimulants for microorganisms) a in order
are
conditions.
well‐settleable
The
wet
The
strongly
stimulants
composed
formation
process
retention
retention advantages
is widely
through
reactors
to This for
accelerate
of
used
improved
with
one
type
methanogenic
a
operated dense
inside
of UASB
in
the
microorganisms)
an
and
or of
the more
in
the
in recent
vertical
sludge.
mesophilic
system.
case of The in
The decades,
order
heated to
formation
conditions.
The advantages
co‐digestion of
through
accelerate
reactors with
of of
This a and
dense
type
UASB
wastewater, an
of
imal
ey increasing
udge 185
manure
193
retention
181
factor
182
195
and
for a are
a wet
good organic
high‐dense
reactors
anaerobic
reactor. and
anaerobic
In industrial
liquid
complexity,
reactors,
anaerobic
fact, animal
sludge
high‐rate
the key waste.
are manure
membrane The
covered
retention
treatment
factor for main
and
lagoons,
reactors.
a reactors
is
good limitation,
organic
the to conventional
Advantages
and
retention
anaerobic if
industrial
anaerobic
of no
and
the
high‐rate waste.
membrane
treatment main
reactors. limitation,
Advantages
is formation
the to retention if
of no
and
the
m
he n AD
rants based
n [22,23]. 188
plants
196
189
(metabolic
on
is 184
191
microorganism’s introduction
composed
stimulants
internal
high‐dense mixing
retention of inside
of
for
liquid
accelerants
one
process
blanket (UASB) operated or
reactor
system
192 sludge bed permits the
animal
more
microorganisms)
in
the based (metabolic
vertical
mesophilic
contains
system. on a
microorganism’s
manure
in
a wet
The and
stimulants
heated
order
conditions.
well‐settleable reactors
process
retention
advantages
ordered according to increasing the innovation and
organic
for
accelerate
This
operated microorganisms)
with
type
methanogenic
inside
of UASB
complexity,
industrial
an
and of in
the sludge.
mesophilic
the waste. system.
are covered
in order
The
conditions.
The advantages
lagoons,
The concentrations
main
accelerate
of
This a
of type and
dense
UASB
conventional
limitation, of
if the
no
increasing
med,
udge 186
the innovation
retention
194 failure
reactors
182
and
to retain
recirculation complexity,
high
is performed,
anaerobic microorganism
183
196
are is covered
membrane lagoons,
concentrations
failure
reactors.
slow‐growing microorganisms. A new generation of reactor, such as the up flow anaerobic sludge to conventional
retain
Advantages inside
high and microorganism inside
m based
n [22,23].
igesters, 189
on
190
185
193
a increase gas production [22,23].
wet process
high‐rate
anaerobic
recirculation bed operated
permits
192
which anaerobic
reactors,
is common
performed, the
the in
digesters,
sludge
mesophilic
microorganism’s
case of
retention
is the
conditions.
sludge co‐digestion
which is the retention
is widely used in widely
reactors
failure of
and
This type
inside
wastewater,
used
to Advantages
retain in
anaerobic
high
of the
the membrane system.
case
microorganism The advantages
of co‐digestion
reactors. of UASB
of wastewater,
the Advantages
concentrations inside and
the
udge
ey 187
retention
factor
183
r increasing
contains
184
for a reactors
good
reactor.
n AD 195
plants are composed
a innovation The
well‐settleable
blanket and
anaerobic
In
most
(UASB) anaerobic
fact,
of one
methanogenic high‐rate
the key
or
reactor membrane
more
AD treatment
factor for
plants
vertical
sludge.
contains reactors.
are
The is
a heated
good
composed
a innovation retention
anaerobic
reactors
formation
well‐settleable of of
with
one
a and
the
high‐rate
or
dense
methanogenic an more treatment
vertical
sludge. is formation
heated
The retention
reactors a of
of with
dense an
igesters,
imal 190
which
186
193
manure
194 ordered
is
high‐rate
and The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
191
widely
organic
high‐dense according
and used
complexity,
anaerobic
industrial
liquid in to
the
animal increasing
digesters,
reactor. In fact, the or key case
are
waste. of
manure
factor co‐digestion
covered
which
The
for a a lagoons,
is
main
and
good widely and
of
limitation,
organic
anaerobic complexity,
wastewater,
conventional
used in
if
industrial the
no
high‐rate are
case
waste. covered
of lagoons,
co‐digestion
The main
treatment conditions. of conventional
wastewater,
limitation,
is the retention if no
of the
m
he n AD
based
igesters,
increasing
imal
188
plants
196
on
184
microorganism’s
185
which
manure
are
a slow‐growing microorganisms. A new generation of reactor, such as the up flow anaerobic sludge
wet composed
internal
process
sludge
ordered
is widely
innovation
anaerobic
and organic
mixing
retention
bed of
according
and used
one
operated
inside
permits
complexity,
reactors,
industrial
system
in to the
the
sludge
more
in
the based vertical
mesophilic
system. on
microorganism’s
increasing
case
are
waste. of
heated
conditions.
wet
The
innovation
co‐digestion
covered
retention
The
reactors
process
advantages
retention
lagoons,
reactors
main and This with
operated
of type
UASB
inside
complexity,
of conventional
wastewater,
limitation, anaerobic
if no
an
of in
the mesophilic
system.
are covered
membrane The advantages
lagoons,
reactors.
This
Advantages
type
of UASB
conventional of
and
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 6 of 29
high strength industrial and municipal wastewaters in order to achieve solids free effluents and a high
efficiency in pathogen removal. However, further investigations are being conducted to increase the
efficiency of anaerobic plants. The main issues to be addressed are module configuration, aeration
systems, control systems, surface modifications, low-energy membrane cleaning and fouling mitigation
methods [24]. Examples of novel strategies for mechanical cleaning are those based on the use of
granular medium, membrane vibration and electric field.
Table 2. Comparison among different digester
technologies.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing

5 of 32 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing 5 
of 32 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
process  Less thermal energy required by
(a) unstructured  Bigger digesters size
reactor versus conventional anaerobic reactor [22]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mesophilic
 Free ammonia decreasing  Free ammonia decreasing 
5 of
 Higher retention time (30‐50 days) 32 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Mesophilic process  Less thermal energy required by
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Description Advantages  Bigger digesters size
Drawbacks 5 of 32
Mesophilic
 Free ammonia decreasing  digester, even if larger digester size
 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Less degradation efficiency
Mesophilic
process 
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Bigger digesters size
Less thermal energy required by digester, even if larger digester size 5 of 32
 Free ammonia decreasing  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Less degradation efficiency
Mesophilic
process 
process
Mesophilic
Less thermal energy required by  Less thermal energy required by
Free ammonia decreasing  Bigger digesters size
Lowest gas production
digester, even if larger digester size digester, even if larger digester size
 Less degradation efficiency  Less degradation efficiency
process  Mesophilic
Less thermal energy required by  should be considered
Free ammonia decreasing   Least controlled system
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW process
digester, even if larger digester size  digester, even if larger digester size
 Less degradation efficiency 5 of
 Less degradation efficiency
 32 Bigger digesters size
Longest HRT
should be considered should be considered
 Low cost
Lower pathogen removing from Lower pathogen removing from
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Unstructured
Lagoons covered by
process
digester, even if larger digester size  Less thermal energy required by
sludge 5 of substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Cover maintenance and
should be considered Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Lower pathogen removing from
flexible polymeric digester, even if larger digester size Low tech
service life
5 of 32
Mesophilic  Less nitrate concentration in the
reactor
 Free ammonia decreasing sludge substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) 5 of 32
should be considered membranes   Easy to construct
Better process stability substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing
Less nitrate concentration in the should be considered
sludge  substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) 5 of  32 Lower pathogen removing from
Large footprint
process  sludge
Mesophilic
Less nitrate concentration in the  Bigger digesters size
 Free ammonia decreasing Higher viscosity of influent,
substrate, post‐treatment is needed  Lower pathogen removing from
Solids and
Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW sludge  Higher retention time (30‐50 days) Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk 5 of 32
process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW sludge
 Less thermal energy required by
Better process stability  Better process stability
Higher viscosity of influent, 5 of 32 substrate, post‐treatment is needed
nutrients accumulation
Mesophilic Free ammonia decreasing process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Less thermal energy required by
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Bigger digesters size
More clogging risk 5 of 32
process
Better process stability  Bigger digesters size
sludge
 Better process stability
pre‐treatment is needed 5 of substrate, post‐treatment is needed
 32 pre‐treatment is needed
Low methane yield
  Less degradation efficiency
Free ammonia decreasing  More clogging risk
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) 5 of 32

 digester, even if larger digester size
process should be considered Mesophilic
Less thermal energy required by More clogging risk
Better process
digester, even if larger digester size control
Lower pathogen removing from  Less degradation efficiency
Low methane yield
Mesophilic Free ammonia decreasing
Better process stability  sludge  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)   Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW should be considered Thermophilic  Free ammonia decreasing
Mesophilic  
More clogging risk
Higher process efficiency
Lower pathogen removing from 5 of  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
32 pre‐treatment is needed
Low methane yield
 digester, even if larger digester size  Less degradation efficiency
Thermophilic  Less thermal energy required by  32 Higher free ammonia concentration
Mesophilic Free ammonia decreasing process Higher retention time (30‐50 days) Bigger digesters size
process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Less nitrate concentration in the
should be considered Mesophilic
process   Bigger digesters size
Low methane yield
More clogging risk
Wide range of influent volumes 5 of
Small size of digesters 
Insufficient settle-ability causes
Low methane yield

process 

should be considered Thermophilic
Single tank

Low methane yield
Efficient quality control
Higher free ammonia concentration of  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
by poor self-immobilization and
Thermophilic
sludge process
Anaerobic  Small size of digesters
Low methane yield  Higher thermal energy required,
biological gas in the sludge
More clogging risk
fill-and-draw unit, Higher organic load‐bearing
Thermophilic substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  Higher free ammonia concentration
 32 Higher thermal energy required,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) digester, even if larger digester size
the effluent
 Higher free ammonia concentration 5 of but higher quantity of energy is
Low methane yield 5 of 32
Thermophilic
Mesophilic
process Free ammonia decreasing
sludge
sequencing batch process
used
Small size of digesters for treatment andSmall size of digesters

Higher thermal energy required, Channelling and clogging
Thermophilic reactor—ASBR Less thermal energy required by
should be considered Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  Higher organic load‐bearing
sludge Bigger digesters size
Flexibility of use
Lower pathogen removing from  Higher thermal energy required,
sludge
 Small size of digesters
process 
Thermophilic  Higher organic load‐bearing
fermentation capacity Higher viscosity of influent,
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)   Larger volume
process Less thermal energy required by
should be considered Bigger digesters size
Low input process and
Less nitrate concentration in the but higher quantity of energy is
Mesophilic  sludge
Free ammonia decreasing Mesophilic
OLR is variable  capacity   Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Requires some type of agitation
process  Small size of digesters
Thermophilic
process
 Higher efficiency of degradation
mechanical requirements
Less nitrate concentration in the 
substrate, post‐treatment is needed 5 of 32
 Higher organic load‐bearing Mesophilic
Less nitrate concentration in the Small size of digesters

capacity
sludge but higher quantity of energy is
More clogging risk
substrate, post‐treatment is needed Higher thermal energy required,
to improve mass
 32 Bigger digesters size transfer
 Higher organic load‐bearing  Higher efficiency of degradation
 Bigger digesters size  Higher thermal energy required,
process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW capacity
sludge process
process produced from biogas
Cost-effectiveness
Low methane yield
5 of More clogging risk
 capacity  but higher quantity of energy is
More clogging risk
Higher biogas production rate  produced from biogas
sludge
should be considered process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Higher efficiency of degradation
sludge
High biogas yield
Low methane yield 5 of Higher viscosity of influent,
Higher nitrate concentration in the 5 of 32
sludge
Thermophilic  Higher efficiency of degradation Mesophilic
capacity  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
 Higher biogas production rate
sludge Less degradation efficiency
Low methane yield
sludge

Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing
Higher efficiency of degradation   Low methane yield
capacity  Higher nitrate concentration in the 
 Higher nitrate concentration in the

Thermophilic  Higher biogas production rate Less nitrate concentration in the
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  digester, even if larger digester size
Higher free ammonia concentration Less degradation efficiency
sludge
Thermophilic  Higher pathogen removing from  Higher free ammonia concentration
should be considered process
Better process stability pre‐treatment is needed
Reliability for wastewater,
sludge
Low methane yield
Lower pathogen removing from 5 of 32 More clogging risk
System sensitivity to substrates
process
Mesophilic  Small size of digesters
sludge Mesophilic Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Better process stability More sensitive to environmental
Thermophilic  Higher efficiency of degradation
process Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
Higher biogas production rate  substrate  Higher free ammonia concentration
high-dense liquid animal
sludge 
sludge
changes
More clogging risk
Complicated operation for
process  sludge
Small size of digesters Intermittent or  should be considered
  Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
digester, even if larger digester size  More sensitive to environmental
Low methane yield
process  Higher pathogen removing from
Less nitrate concentration in the   More sensitive to environmental
Less nitrate concentration in the  32 Higher thermal energy required,
Thermophilic
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Higher biogas production rate
Free ammonia decreasing process
Higher organic load‐bearing substrate
 Lower viscosity
manure and organic
Low methane yield
sludge 5 of
 sludge
changes
More clogging risk
two-phases system
Complete
Mesophilic
process Small size of digesters continuous complete
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Higher pathogen removing from
Less degradation efficiency More sensitive to environmental
stirred
Higher organic load‐bearing Higher biogas production rate
substrate More sensitive to environmental
industrial waste
but higher quantity of energy is substrate, post‐treatment is needed
changes
process  substrate
sludge
Small size of digesters mixing
Thermophilic
digester, even if larger digester size in one or more
  
sludge  Low methane yield
changes
Less degradation efficiency   Not possible to retain high
process 
Thermophilic  Higher organic load‐bearing
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW tank capacity
Higher pathogen removing from   More clogging risk
Lower viscosity produced from biogas
 Lower pathogen removing from
Complete mixing  but higher quantity of energy is
Low methane yield
sludge
Mesophilic should be considered
 substrate
Free ammonia decreasing high-rate reactors,
Thermophilic substrate
 Less clogging risk but higher quantity of energy is
5 of 32 Larger investment
changes
microorganism concentration
 Higher free ammonia concentration
Thermophilic reactor—CSTR
Lower viscosity
process
Mesophilic
should be considered generally heated. Used  Higher free ammonia concentration
sludge
 Lower viscosity changes
More clogging risk
Possibility of
Low methane yield  32 Higher thermal energy required,
5 of
Rapid acidification with high
5 of 32

process  
capacity 171 Thermophilic
substrate


capacity
Less clogging risk

Lower viscosity Higher nitrate concentration in the
changes
substrate, post‐treatment is needed  
Larger investment
process 
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Lower viscosity process
for wet
Free ammonia decreasing process.   
substrate Bigger digesters size
two-phase/two-stage

Less clogging risk Low methane yield
system 
5 of  Higher thermal energy required,
changes
VFA production, due to mixing
32 Larger investment
Thermophilic  Less clogging risk  Higher thermal energy required,
 Higher efficiency of degradation  Bigger digesters size
Mesophilic
process Small size of digesters
171 process sludge
Less thermal energy required by Higher viscosity of influent,
capacity 172
process The AD process
Mesophilic
Lower viscosity  substrate can  be Larger investment
More clogging risk
sludge
carried out
Simplicity in one or two stages,
of construction
Decreased stability process More clogging risk
depending
and continuous
changes the combination or
on stirring
Mesophilic Higher efficiency of degradation
sludge
 Less clogging risk 171
172  be
Less clogging risk Higher nitrate concentration in the
Lower viscosity
Larger investment  Larger investment
More clogging risk
71 process
Thermophilic
 173
The
separation
Higher organic load‐bearing AD
of process  can
hydrolysis/acidogenesis Higher free ammonia concentration
sludge
carried
capacity out in
and one
 or two stages, 
acetogenesis/methanogenesis  depending on
produced from biogas the respectively.
phases,
Less degradation efficiency combination or A
process
Mesophilic Higher efficiency of degradation
sludge
Small size of digesters process
capacity 171
172
Less nitrate concentration in the  Lower viscosity  be Low methane yield
sludge Higher thermal energy required,
Larger investment Low methane yield
sludge
71
72
process
The AD process
process  173
174
can be carried
Small size of digesters two‐phase
out
Linear

The
separation
digester, even if larger digester size in AD
one of process
configuration
horizontalor two can 
 Less clogging risk
hydrolysis/acidogenesis  process
capacity

stages,
sludge
carried
Low VFA out in
depending in the on case one
concentration
and the
Less degradation efficiency of or
in two stages,
food waste
combination  or
acetogenesis/methanogenesis depending on
Larger investment
digestion the
phases,
significantly
Low methane yield combination
respectively.
improves the or
A
process Anaerobiccapacity 172
173
Better process stability  Higher pathogen removing from
 process produced from biogas
sludge
pre‐treatment is needed  digestion Not suitable for
More clogging risk low
71
72
73
Thermophilic

The AD of process  sludge 174
175
plug-
 Higher pathogen removing from
can be carried two‐phase
reactors,The
Thermophilic
substrate separation
methanogenic
out AD
withof process

configuration
no
or process can
capacity
Less clogging risk
as  the
be carried
the
changes effluent
in out
the in
case one
digester, even if larger digester size and of
fermentation plays or two
food stages,
waste
the role of depending
“pre‐treatment”, on the
phases,
Larger investment
significantly combination
suspended solidsthus promoting A
respectively.
improves or
the
separation hydrolysis/acidogenesis 171 and in agitation,
flowsubstrate 173
one two stages,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis depending on the
More clogging risk phases,
 Higher efficiency of degradation combination
respectively.
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  A
or Higher nitrate concentration in the
72
73
74 The
process AD 
process  can be 174
175
176
carried Thermophilic
separation
two‐phase
internal
methanogenic
out
process
Higher pathogen removing from in one of or hydrolysis/acidogenesis

configuration
process
two  for  the High degree
process
Higher biogas production rate in
as

stages, the fermentation
depending the ofcase
on
sludge
changes
and of
plays
the
retention
food
the waste
role
combination of
 digestion
or sludge phases,
significantly
Low methane yield respectively.
ofimproves
“pre‐treatment”, inthus promoting
hightime the A
separation of
two‐phase configuration hydrolysis/acidogenesis
capacity
reactor—APFR
substrate 171
Lower viscosity
172
process
174
conversion
and
in the The
Better process stability case AD efficiency
of food
process  waste of
substrate
can 
volatile
Small size of digesters fraction
More clogging risk
produced from biogas phases,
digestion
sludge
be carried
Process
changes significantly
out case
stability
Low methane yield in one to biogas.
respectively.
improves
or two According
stages, A Low to
changes [21],
efficiency the
the Lower pathogen removing from
More clogging risk payback
case
depending on the combination for
or
73
74
75 separation  Lower viscosity sludge
capacity 175
176
177
dry
in process
or
two‐phase
methanogenic
conversion
and
semi-dry
efficiency 
configuration
process
 role of  the
process
as in
volatile
acetogenesis/methanogenesis the
the fermentation fraction
produced from biogas phases, of
plays
to food
biogas. waste
the role According
respectively. of
the digestion
sludge significantly
A influent flow rate
to [21], thus
the with improves
promoting
inhibitors
payback
Higher thermal energy required, the
time for
two‐phase
methanogenic configuration
process
 substrate
172
as process the
173
the fermentation
Higher biogas production rate The
Thermophilic
separation
175
should be considered process.
Less clogging risk
case of
plays of food
AD the
process waste
of
 waste  the
Lower viscosity
digestion
sludge
sludge
can be carried
Low
changes
Higher organic load‐bearing significantly
retention out in thus
time
and one
Low methane yield
Larger investment
improves
promoting
or two stages,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis Higher free ammonia concentration
depending
 “pre‐treatment”, on the
phases,
Low methane yield combination
respectively.
substrate, post‐treatment is needed or
A
74
75
76 two‐phase
Thermophilic
process  176
177
178
Lower viscosity
process
of the 173
as the in methanogenic
conversion
the
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) case of process
efficiency
food 
as
of
 the fermentation
More clogging risk
volatile
digestion fraction
significantly plays
More sensitive to environmental to
fermentation plays the role of “pre‐treatment”,
Higher pathogen removing from thus the role According
biogas.
improves
promoting of
 the
sludge to [21], thus
the promoting
payback
More sensitive to environmental time the
for
conversion efficiency  Less clogging risk 174
volatile fraction to
separation
two‐phase
sludge 176
177 process
Higher pathogen removing from of biogas.
configuration  According
 substrate 
 the
process to in [21],
the the
and
case
payback
of
Larger investment food time
waste for
digestion phases,
significantly
the Higher thermal energy required,
changes
pre‐treatment is needed respectively.
but higher quantity of energy is improves A
the
71
75
76
77
Thermophilic
methanogenic
conversion  Lower viscosity
process
efficiency
 substrate
capacity
as the
of 178
179
the
174
conversion
fermentation
volatile Thermophilic plays efficiency
the  role
fraction to biogas. of
capacity
Less clogging risk volatile
sludge
of
According  “pre‐treatment”,
changes
fraction
to in [21],
Low methane yield the the thus to promoting
sludge
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a biogas.
payback time According for to [21], the payback time for
Larger investment
71
process 175
Less clogging risk
sludge
177
178
two‐phase
process 
as
substrate  process
Larger investment
the fermentation
More clogging risk case
Higher thermal energy required, of food
plays the waste
role of digestion significantly
changes thus improves the
promoting
72
76
77
78 The AD
conversion process
efficiency
 substrate can be
of the 179
 Higher biogas production rate
180
carried
volatile
171
175
out in one to or two
digestion
fraction
Anaerobic biogas. capacity
stages,
According sludge
Better process stability pre‐treatment is needed
depending
changes
Lower viscosity systems to [21],
were on
the the combination
payback
strongly time of
the improved
or produced from biogas
for but higher quantity of energy is
More clogging risk
in recent
71
sludge 176
process Less clogging risk
methanogenic
178
Lower viscosity conversion process
efficiency  the
as
substrate Larger investment
the fermentation plays
of volatile fraction
Decreased stability process to biogas. role According to [21], decades,
changes thus
the through
promoting
pre‐treatment is needed payback the
time the
for
72
73
77
78
79
Thermophilic
The AD
separation of process  can
hydrolysis/acidogenesis be 179
180
carried
181 out
and in
Anaerobic one or
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would two

two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. stages,
 digestion 
Lower viscosity Higher free ammonia concentration
Higher organic load‐bearing pre‐treatment is needed
depending
systems on
phases,
were
Low methane yield the combination
respectively.
strongly improved 
 or
A Decreased stability process
in recent decades, through the
71
72
  172
176
177
Lower viscosity
179
introduction
 Higher pathogen removing from The
conversion AD of accelerants
process
efficiency
 can
of   the (metabolic
volatile stimulants
More clogging risk
be carried out in
fraction
Decreased stability process one
to
 capacity
Less clogging risk
for
or two
biogas. microorganisms)
stages,
According
 depending
to in order
[21], on
the
Larger investment
Low methane yield
to
the accelerate
combination
payback time and
or
for
73
74
78
79
80 process
The AD
separation
two‐phase of process
digestion
configuration substrate
hydrolysis/acidogenesis 180
can process
be carried
181
182
Less clogging risk out in one
Anaerobic
in introduction
the case or two
digestion
and Higher biogas production rate
stages,
of
Small size of digesters food
of accelerants Lower viscosity
waste  digestion sludge
depending
changes
systems
Larger investment
(metabolic on strongly
phases,
were
significantly the respectively.
stimulants
Higher thermal energy required, combination
for improved
improves
microorganisms) or
the sludge
More clogging risk
in recent decades,
in phases,
order through and
to respectively.
accelerate the
72
73
Anaerobic
Thermophilic capacity
 substrate 173
177
178
systems increase gas production [22,23].
were
separation
180
strongly
of  improved
 waste  systems
hydrolysis/acidogenesis More clogging risk
in recent decades,
and through 
Less clogging risk Higher free ammonia concentration
Higher biogas production rate the Larger investment
sludge A
74
75
79
80
81
The AD
separation
two‐phase
methanogenic of process
digestion
configuration
of process
can
carried
181
182
Less clogging risk
as process
183
the out
fermentation
Higher pathogen removing from and in plays
Anaerobic
case
in Thermophilic
the
introduction one
of or two
food
of accelerants
the
digestion
depending
changes
Low methane yield
Larger investment
digestion
(metabolic
role of  “pre‐treatment”,
on thus
phases,
were
significantly the respectively.
stimulants
combination
strongly for improved
improves
promoting the
microorganisms) or
A Higher free ammonia concentration
in recent decades, through and
in order to accelerate
More sensitive to environmental the
71
73
Anaerobic
introduction
accelerants capacity 174
178
systems
Lower viscosity
179
(metabolic
171
were
stimulants
two‐phase strongly for
configuration improved
capacity
microorganisms)
Less clogging risk More clogging risk
in
process recent
in in decades,
order
the case
 Higher efficiency of degradation to
but higher quantity of energy is through
accelerate
of food waste and the produced from biogas
Low methane yield
Larger investment
digestion significantly improves the
74
75
76
80 separation
two‐phase
process of hydrolysis/acidogenesis
digestion
configuration 181
172
182
process
183
Small size of digesters the and case acetogenesis/methanogenesis
of of
food
accelerants
improved waste  “pre‐treatment”,
Low methane yield
digestion
(metabolic phases,
significantly
stimulants
Higher thermal energy required, respectively.
in introduction improves
for microorganisms) A More sensitive to environmental
the in order to combination
accelerate and
the
81
71 methanogenic
conversion process
efficiency as the
of the
184 fermentation
volatile The AD
plays process
the
fraction to biogas. role can
of be carried
According to out
[21], in
the one
thus or two
promoting
payback stages,
time for depending on the or
82
72
74
Anaerobic
introduction
Thermophilic
The AD of accelerants
process  substrate can systems
Lower viscosity
be 175
179
carried
171
were
ordered
(metabolic
180 out
methanogenic in strongly
stimulants
process according
one or for
two
process
Anaerobic 
to increasing
microorganisms) in
stages,
as
substrate
digestion
recent
depending
the innovation
fermentation
changes
systems were
decades,
on the and
Higher biogas production rate in order to through
complexity,
accelerate
combination
plays
strongly the role
improved and
of or are
in covered
sludge lagoons,
changes conventional
thus promoting
recent decades, through the
75
76
77
81
82
two‐phase
methanogenic
conversion configuration
process
efficiency  as
of 172
182
Less clogging risk
173
process
183
the
capacity
the 184 in the
fermentation
volatile
185

Thermophilic
The
fraction case of
AD
plays
to food
process
the
separation of biogas. waste
role can
of
According Low methane yield
Larger investment
digestion
be carried significantly
out
to [21], in
and
the one
thus improves
or two
promoting stages,
payback
 time the
for Higher nitrate concentration in the
depending on the
phases, combination
respectively. or
A
72
83
73
75
introduction
Thermophilic
separation
process
of accelerants
The AD process  Less clogging risk
can be 176
180
carried ordered
(metabolic
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis 181 stimulants
anaerobic
out in according
172 and
conversion Anaerobic
introduction
for
reactors,
one or two
efficiency
of accelerants
to increasing
microorganisms)
sludge
stages,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis of
 the
substrate
digestion sludge
retention
depending innovation
volatile
systems reactors
were
Larger investment
(metabolic on
phases,
fraction the
but higher quantity of energy is and
in order to complexity,
accelerate
anaerobic
combination
respectively.
to
strongly
stimulants biogas.
for
and
According
improved
microorganisms) or are
membrane covered lagoons,
reactors.
A More sensitive to environmental
changes to [21],
in recent the
decades,
in phases,
order payback conventional
Advantages and
time and
through
to respectively.
accelerate for
the
76
77
71
78
82
83
methanogenic
conversion
process
efficiency  as
of the 173
183
174
the
184 fermentation
volatile
185
Lower viscosity separation The
fraction
two‐phase AD
plays of
to the 
process

biogas.
186 ordered
process according role
 waste
can
of
According
Lower viscosity
to increasing Higher thermal energy required,
be carried
hydrolysis/acidogenesis to out
[21], in
and
the
sludge innovation one
thus or
payback
configuration  process in the case of
and
Higher free ammonia concentration two
promoting
food stages,
time
waste
complexity, 
the  the
for depending
digestion on the
significantly
are covered lagoons, combination
but higher quantity of energy is improves
conventional or
A
the
73
84
74
76
Thermophilic
ordered
two‐phase
process according  to
configuration 177
181
182
increasing
process
173
anaerobic
innovation
the
introduction
Small size of digesters case reactors,
and
of of complexity,
food
increase gas production [22,23]. accelerants
sludge
in drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a.
separation Higher efficiency of degradation
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis and acetogenesis/methanogenesis retention
 process are covered
digestion
(metabolic reactors
phases,
lagoons,
significantly
stimulants
anaerobic
respectively.
conventional
improves
for microorganisms) A sludge reactors. Advantages and
membrane
in phases,
order to respectively.
accelerate and
77
71
78
72
79
83
84
conversion

The efficiency
AD process  capacity
of
can the
be 174
184
175
volatile
185
carried separation
fraction
two‐phase
methanogenic
187 anaerobic
out
Higher organic load‐bearing in one of
to or 
biogas.
configuration
186 ordered according
process
reactors,
two According
Lower viscosity
to increasing
as
sludge
stages, produced from biogas
the to
in [21],
fermentation
retention
depending the
innovation and
the
case
reactors
on acetogenesis/methanogenesis
payback
the
but higher quantity of energy is of
and
plays food time
waste
complexity,
the role
anaerobic
combination of  for
digestion
are
membrane
or significantly
covered
“pre‐treatment”, lagoons,
thus
reactors. improves
conventional
promoting
Advantages A
the
and
74
85
75
77
ordered
two‐phase
process
anaerobic
reactors,  to
configuration
process sludge 178
182
increasing
as process
183
Less clogging risk
retention in drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a.
innovation
the
174 the
reactors
fermentation The case most
and
plays common
of food  role
complexity,
anaerobic
the
increase gas production [22,23]. substrate
capacity
waste AD
of plants
are
digestion
Less clogging risk
membrane are
covered composed
lagoons,
significantly
Larger investment
in reactors.
Higher organic load‐bearing thus
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, of one or
conventional
improves
Advantages
promoting and the more changes
vertical heated reactors with an
Larger investment
78
72
79
73
80
84
85 The AD process
separation of  substrate
can
185
176
carried
188
two‐phase
methanogenic
187 anaerobic
out
conversion in one configuration
 186 or process
reactors,
two
efficiency as
sludge
stages,
of
and acetogenesis/methanogenesis 
sludge
process
the fermentation
retention
changes
the depending
volatile the on case
reactors
fraction
phases, the
plays
and food
the
combination
to biogas. waste
role
anaerobic
respectively. of
According digestion
or
A to significantly
membrane [21], thus
reactors.
the improves
promoting
Advantages
payback time the
and
for
75
86
76
71
78
ordered
anaerobic Anaerobic
reactors,
process digestion
to
sludge
of systems
increasing
179
183
retention
as the
the
conversion efficiency capacity 184
volatile
171
175
were
innovation
internal
reactors
fermentation The
fraction
ordered
strongly
most
and
mixing
plays common
system
complexity,
anaerobic
the
to biogas.
according
improved
role of
According AD
Lower viscosity
to increasing
in
are on
based
Less clogging risk
membrane recent
plants are
covered
a [21],
to wet decades,
composed
lagoons,
process
reactors.
innovation
Higher efficiency of degradation the thus through
of
Advantages one
promoting
payback
and
or
conventional
operated
time of
complexity, and the
in more
the
for vertical
mesophilic heated
conditions.
Larger investment
are covered lagoons,
reactors with
This type of
conventional
an
79
73
80
74
81
85
86
Anaerobic
separation
two‐phase of of digestion
configuration 176
186
177
systems
189
process methanogenic
substrate 187
188 conversion
in are
the and
were The strongly
case most
of process
efficiency
common
food as
of
substrate
capacity
improved
waste AD the in fermentation
changes recent
plants
digestion a are phases, plays
the volatile fraction to
decades,
composed
significantly the role
biogas.
respectively.
through
of one
improves According
A
the
more changes to [21],
vertical thus
the
heated promoting
payback This time
reactors with the
for
an
76
87
77
72
79
introduction
anaerobic
conversion The most accelerants
reactors,
efficiency
common  sludge (metabolic
retention
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. 180
184
Lower viscosity
capacity
of AD
the volatile
185
171
plants
172
176
stimulants
internal
reactors
fraction
composed mixing
and
to
ordered
anaerobic Anaerobic for
anaerobic
biogas.
of
according
reactors,
microorganisms)
system
one
to According
or
digestion
increasing
sludge
based
membrane
more on
vertical
systems
sludge
retention
in
wet order
reactors.
to [21],
innovation the
heated
were
reactors
to
process accelerate
operated
Advantages
payback
reactors
strongly
and time
with
improved
complexity,
anaerobic
and in
for
an mesophilic
in
are
membrane recent
covered conditions.
decades,
lagoons,
reactors. through type the
conventional
Advantages
of
and
80
74
81
75
82
86
87 two‐phase The
introduction
methanogenic AD process
configuration
of 
Anaerobic accelerants
process

can
digestion
as be 177
187
178
carried
188
189
process
190
the in
(metabolic out
conversion
systems were
the
internal
fermentation

The
The in
case
stimulants one
AD
most
of
mixing
plays or
process
two
efficiency
strongly 
common
food
for
the stages,
can
of
improved
waste 
microorganisms) AD be
the depending
carried
volatile
plants
digestion
Less clogging risk
system
role of  based on are
a
“pre‐treatment”, in out
wet on in
fraction the
composed
significantly
order one
to
process
thus combination
to
in recent decades, or two
biogas.
through
of one
improves
accelerate
operated
promoting stages,
According
or and  or
the
more
in
the depending
to [21],
vertical
sludge
mesophilic on
the
heated
Larger investment the
conditions. combination
payback
reactors
This time
with
type or
for
an
of
77
88
78
73
80
The mixing
most common Lower viscosity
capacity
AD 181
185
plants digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of
high‐rate
on a are composed anaerobic
internal system
substrate 186
172
based
173
177 wet
anaerobic process
introduction one
of accelerants
operated
of of
reactors, digesters,
Lower viscosity
or
sludge in Decreased stability process
more which reactors
vertical
mesophilic
(metabolic
retention
changes is widely
heated
conditions.
stimulants and used
reactors
This
for in
with the
type an
microorganisms)
anaerobic of case of co‐digestion
Decreased stability process of
membrane in order
reactors. to wastewater,
accelerate
Advantages and
81
75
82
76
83
87
88
separation Anaerobic
introduction
methanogenic
conversion of
of digestion
accelerants
process
efficiency as
of 178
188
Less clogging risk
systems
189
(metabolic
190 separation
the
the 191 fermentation
volatile and
were The
stimulants
internal AD
mixing
plays process
strongly for
the
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. can
improved in
microorganisms)
system
role of be
based carried
Larger investment
in recent
on
“pre‐treatment”, in out
a [21],
wet in
phases,
and
decades,
order one
to
process
thus
fraction to biogas. According to the
or two
accelerate
operated
promoting
payback
stages,
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would respectively.
through
time and in A
the
the
for
depending
mesophilic on the
phases,
conditions. combination
respectively.
This type or
A
of
78
89
79
74
81
internal The most
mixing common system AD 171
based
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. plants
174
178
on a high‐rate
are
182
186 wet composed
high‐dense process
The most anaerobic
187
173
liquid
operated
increase gas production [22,23]. one digesters,
or
animal
 microorganisms)
separation of common
more which
vertical
sludge
manure
mesophilic
AD Larger investment
plants are
is widely
heated
and
conditions.
composed
and
used
reactors
organic This in
with
industrial
of one
the
type
or the
an
of case
waste.
more
of co‐digestion
The main of
vertical heated
phases,
wastewater,
limitation,
reactors if
with the
respectively. no
an
A
82
76
83
77
71
84
88
89
two‐phase
introduction configuration
of accelerants
conversion efficiency digestion of the 179
189
180
process
191
Lower viscosity in
(metabolic
190on
volatile two‐phase
the case
stimulants of
configuration
food
for
fraction Anaerobic to biogas.
192 high‐rate anaerobic
Less clogging risk
waste
According
digestion
digesters, process
digestion in significantly
the
in case
order
systems to
which [21],
were the of
to improves
food
accelerate
payback
strongly
is lagoons,
widely used waste
time
improved
in and for
the of case Larger investment
sludge
digestion
in of significantly
recent decades,
co‐digestion improves
of through
wastewater, the
79
90
80
75
82
ordered
internal according
mixing
high‐rate anaerobic
Anaerobic 
to
system
digesters, 172
increasing
based
183
187
188
174
179
innovation
a high‐dense
which
systems
175
wet
recirculation
is
were
internal
Higher pathogen removing from widely
The
and
process
substrate The AD
strongly
most
mixing
complexity,
liquid
operated
is
used performed,
process
common animal
in
system can
the
improved 
in
AD
are
sludge
case
based in covered
manure
mesophilic
is the
changes
be carried
of
plants
on
and
co‐digestion
recent
are
a wet
organic
conditions.
failure
out to
in
decades,
composed retain
one
process
More sensitive to environmental of
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, conventional
industrial
This
or high
two type
microorganism
stages,
wastewater,
through
of one
operated or the waste.
more
in
The
depending
vertical
mesophilic
main
on the
heated
conditions.
limitation,
combination
reactors
This
if the
with
type
no
or
an
of
83
77
71
84
78
72
85
89
90
methanogenic process
digestion
180
190
181
as the
171
191 two‐phase
fermentation
methanogenic plays configuration
ordered The according to increasing
193 introduction
innovation
high‐dense and
AD process can be carried out in one the
of process
Anaerobic
192 high‐rate anaerobic
accelerants
complexity,
liquid
or two role
digestion of
substrate
digesters,
animal
stages,
process
as “pre‐treatment”,
the
systems
are
sludge
in
fermentation
which
(metabolic
covered
manure
depending
the
were
is
and
case
thus
widely
stimulants
lagoons,
on organic
the
of
plays food
promoting
strongly the
used
for waste
role
improved
in
conventional
industrial
combination of
the the
microorganisms) digestion
or case
waste.
significantly
changes
in of
recent thus
decades,
co‐digestion
in
The order
main to improves
promoting
of through
wastewater,
accelerate
limitation,
the
the
if and
no
80
91
81
76
anaerobic
high‐rate
high‐dense
introduction reactors,
anaerobic
Anaerobic liquid  animal
of accelerants sludge
digesters, 173
retention
which
Less clogging risk
systems
189
175
manure
(metabolic
176
reactors
recirculation
184
188 reactor.
is
separation
were
and stimulants
ordered
internal
180
In
widely fact,
of
strongly
organic anaerobic
used
according
mixing industrial
for the Higher pathogen removing from
is hydrolysis/acidogenesis
performed, in key
the
improved
microorganisms)
to
system increasing membrane
based is
factor
case the
for
of reactors.
failure
a
in fermentation
waste. recent
on The
a in good
co‐digestion
Larger investment
wet and to
decades,
main
order
innovation Advantages
retain
anaerobic
to
process
More sensitive to environmental of high
through
limitation,
accelerate
and and
microorganism
high‐rate
wastewater,
if of
complexity,
operated and the
no
in
treatment
are covered
is the
phases,
lagoons,
conditions. inside
retention
respectively. of
conventional
This type the
A
of
83
84
78
72
85
79
73
86
90 conversion
ordered efficiency
according to of the 181
191
Lower viscosity
182
volatile
increasing
193
methanogenic
conversion
fraction
introduction
innovation
high‐dense Anaerobic to
and
anaerobic The AD process
reactors, can
sludge be carried
retention out in one of
or process
efficiency
biogas.
172
192 increase gas production [22,23].
reactors accelerants
complexity,
liquid
two
anaerobic
as
According
of
digestion
animal
stages,  the
the
volatile
systems to
(metabolic
are covered
manure
depending
membrane [21],
fraction
were the plays
stimulants
and lagoons,
on organic
reactors. the the
payback
to
strongly for role
biogas. time According
improved
microorganisms)
conventional
industrial
combination
Advantages and
for
or in
waste. to [21],
recent
in
The order
main thus
the
decades, to promoting
payback
accelerate
limitation, time
through if the
for
and
no
91
81
92
82
71
separation
high‐rate
high‐dense
introduction
recirculation of
liquid
of
is 
accelerants
performed,
substrate
anaerobic digesters,
animal 194
174
185
189 which
manure
(metabolic
190
176
recirculation
and and
reactor.
is
two‐phase
is the failure
The
widely
stimulants
anaerobic
AD
organic
to retain
process
is performed,

In fact,
used
industrial
configuration
for
high
reactors, the in can
key
the
Lower viscosity changes
be
is
factor
case carried
the
for
of a out
failure in
to
phases,
good
co‐digestion

microorganisms)
microorganism
sludge
substrate waste.
process
retention The
in in main
the case
order one
retain
More sensitive to environmental to
concentrations
reactors
or two
high
respectively.
anaerobic
of stages,
microorganism
high‐rate
wastewater,
limitation,
of food
accelerate
and inside
anaerobic if
waste and  A
no
the
depending
treatment on
is the
concentrations
the
digestion
membrane
reactors.
combination
inside
retention
improves
Advantages of
time and
or
the
the
77
84
85
79
73
86
80
74
87
91 ordered
anaerobic according
reactors,
separation of to 177
181
182
192
183
increasing
sludge
substrate
digestion
193
retention
194
high‐rate
conversion
innovation
recirculation
and anaerobic
efficiency
and complexity,
reactors anaerobic
is performed, digesters,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis of the are
membrane which
volatile
covered
changes
is
contains the is
failure widely
fraction
lagoons,
a reactors.
to
introduction of accelerants (metabolic stimulants used
biogas.
to anaerobic
phases, retain for in microorganism
conventional
Advantages
high
respectively.
the
According
microorganisms)
and A case of
to co‐digestion
[21],
in
concentrations of
the payback
order to wastewater,
accelerate
inside for
and
the
92
82
93
83
72
two‐phase
high‐dense Anaerobic
The
recirculation configuration
most common
liquid
is performed,
reactor. In fact, the animal
key 195
systems
process
AD 175
Less clogging risk
plants
manure
186
190
is
191
177
factor
Lower viscosity the in
for
separation
reactor.
a were
the
are
and composed
blanket
failure
methanogenic
good case In
organic
to of
fact,
strongly
of
(UASB)
retain
anaerobic
food
of
industrial
high
process
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, 
the key
improved
waste
one
reactor or
microorganism
as
high‐rate
factor
in
digestion
more
waste.
the for
recent
vertical
a The
fermentation
treatment
and
good
decades,
significantly
Larger investment heated
main
well‐settleable
is
through
improves
reactors
limitation,
concentrations
plays
the
Decreased stability process the high‐rate
with
inside
retention role if
methanogenic
in of of 
the
an
no
the treatment
sludge.
“pre‐treatment”, phases,
The thus respectively.
is formation
the retention
of
promoting a of
dense A
the
78
85
86
80
74
87
81
75
88
92 anaerobic The AD process
reactors, can
sludge be
substrate
two‐phase Anaerobic
The configuration
most common digestion 178
182
183
carried
193
184
retention
174
194
195
systems
process
AD plants in
high‐rate
high‐dense
out
reactor.
were
the
ordered
are composed in
case In
anaerobic
one
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a liquid
or
fact,
strongly
of two
food
according
of the
digesters,
Less clogging risk
animal
stages,
key
improved
waste
to
one increasing
or
which
manure
depending
changes is
and widely
on organic
the
reactors and 
anaerobic membrane reactors. used
Lower viscosity factor
in
digestion
more for
recent
vertical a good
significantly
innovation
heated anaerobic
decades, and
industrial
combination
Advantages
through
improves
the
and
high‐rate
complexity,
reactors with  or
an
case of The
co‐digestion
Larger investment
waste. main
treatment
are covered is the
lagoons,
of wastewater,
limitation,
retention if
of
conventional
no
93
83
94
71
84
73
introduction
methanogenic
internal
recirculation
reactor. In of
mixing
fact, accelerants
process system
the to
is performed, as
key 196
(metabolic
the
176
based
187
191
factor
Lower viscosity on
is the
for a two‐phase
fermentation
wet stimulants
blanket
failure
sludge
a good
conversion plays
process configuration
(UASB)
to bed
retain
anaerobic for
the
operated
high
permits
efficiency
192
178
ordered according increasing innovation The and
most complexity,
common
microorganisms)
role
reactor of in
microorganism
the
high‐rate
of process
mesophilic
contains
AD in
a
microorganism’s
the treatment
volatile
are covered
plants are
the
in case
order
conditions.
well‐settleable
concentrations
is of
to
thus
retention
the
fraction
lagoons,
composed to food
accelerate
promoting
This waste
type
methanogenic
inside
retention one of
biogas. and
or the
According
conventional
of
the digestion
of
more sludge.
system.
to significantly
The
The
[21],
vertical formation
advantages
the
heated
improves
payback
reactors of
of a UASB
time
with
the
dense
for
an
79
86
87
81
75
88
82
76
89
93
separation
introduction
methanogenic
internal The In of
most
of
mixing hydrolysis/acidogenesis
common system
accelerants
process AD
as 179
183
184
194
171
185
175
195
Less clogging risk
plants
196
(metabolic
the
based
high‐dense
recirculation
fermentation
on a wet stimulants
anaerobic
methanogenic
blanket plays
(UASB)
liquid
is performed,
ordered
a are composed according
of
for
the
reactors,
operated
process
animal
to
one in
microorganisms)
role
reactor of
sludge
as more
manure
is the
vertical
retention
mesophilic
the
contains
and
failure
in
fermentation
organic
to
and acetogenesis/methanogenesis phases,
heated
process order
reactors
retain
increasing
or Larger investment
a innovation thus
conditions.
well‐settleable and
industrial
reactors
to
plays
high
respectively.
accelerate
promoting microorganism
complexity,
with
anaerobic
This
the type
role
methanogenic and
of
A
an
the
waste.
are
membrane
of
The
covered
sludge.
main
The lagoons,
reactors.
thus
limitation,
Advantages
formation promoting
of of
if the
conventional
a UASB
no
and
the
dense
94
84
95
72
85
74
conversion
reactor.
blanket
anaerobic The
efficiency
fact,
(UASB)
AD process
reactors, reactor
the to of
key
can
sludge
the
be
volatile
177
factor
Lower viscosity
188
192
193
179
contains for
a
carried
retention
fraction
good
well‐settleable
out
reactors
internal in
to
sludge bed and
one
mixing
biogas.
permits
anaerobic
ordered according increasing innovation or 
complexity,
methanogenic
two
anaerobic
According
the
high‐rate
Less clogging risk
stages,
system are to
microorganism’s
treatment
covered
sludge.
depending
membrane
based on a
[21],
The
wet
the
is the
lagoons,
on
payback
retention
retention
formation
reactors. the
process
time
inside
of
conventional
of
combination
Advantages a
operated dense
and  for
the
or
in system.
mesophilic The
Larger investment advantages
conditions. This type of
80
87
88
82
76
89
83
77
90
71
94
two‐phase
internal configuration
Anaerobic
The most
mixing common
conversion efficiency digestion
system 180
184
185
process
195
Less clogging risk
AD 172
systems
186
plants
176
196
based
of contains
the on in
volatile
recirculation
reactor.
were
ordered
a are
anaerobic
wet
blanket
fraction
conversion
sludge
In
Anaerobic
is composed
strongly
process
The bed
is
fact,
according performed,
of reactor
reactors,
(UASB)
AD
to operated
process
biogas.
efficiency
permits
the
the case of food key
waste
digestion
improved
to
one
sludge
can in
increasing
or
According
the
is
factor the
digestion for
retention
mesophilic
contains
be
the carried
to
volatile
microorganism’s
failure
a were
Larger investment
systems
more in recent good to
significantly
decades,
a innovation
vertical heated
reactors
retain
anaerobic
strongly
conditions.
well‐settleable
out
[21], in
the
fraction and
one
to
retention
high
improves
through
This
or
payback two
biogas.
microorganism
high‐rate
improved
complexity,
reactors with
anaerobic
type
methanogenic
stages,
time
inside According the
an treatment
in
are
membrane
of
for
the recent
covered
sludge.
depending
concentrations
is the
decades,
lagoons,
reactors.
The
to [21],
system. The on
the the
inside
retention
through
Advantages
formation a of
conventional
of of
combination
payback
advantages time
the
the
and
dense
UASB or
for
95
85
96
73
86
75
high‐rate
sludge
separation The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
anaerobic
bed reactors,
permits
of 
digesters,
sludge
the
hydrolysis/acidogenesis 178 which
retention
180
171
microorganism’s reactors
and widely
blanket
anaerobic (UASB) reactor 189
193 a well‐settleable and
retention used
methanogenic
anaerobic in
inside

case
membrane
the of
sludge.
system. co‐digestion
The formation
reactors.
The of wastewater,
of
Advantages
advantages
phases,
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of a
of
respectively. dense
and
UASB A
81
88
89
83
77
90
71
84
78
91
72
95
methanogenic
introduction
internal
high‐rate of process
mixing accelerants
anaerobic system 181
185
Less clogging risk
as 186
the
196
173
187
(metabolic
based
digesters, 177 on reactor.
fermentation
introduction
stimulants
anaerobic
a separation
which wet
is
In
plays
process
widely
fact,
of
The most the
of for
operated the
accelerants
reactors, key
digestion
role of
microorganisms)
sludge
sludge bed permits the
common
used in the in factor
AD
for
(metabolic
retention
mesophilic
microorganism’s
plants
case of
a
Larger investment
in
are
good
Anaerobic systems were
order anaerobic
strongly
thus
stimulants
reactors
conditions.
and
composed
co‐digestion to promoting
accelerate
and
retention for high‐rate
improved
microorganisms)
anaerobic
This type
inside and
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would of of one or
wastewater, the treatment
in vertical
membrane
of
the
more recent
system. in is the
decades,
order
reactors.
The
phases,
heated
retention
to through
accelerate
Advantages
advantages of
respectively.
reactors
of the
and
UASB
with A
an
96
86
74
87
76
ordered
high‐dense
blanket
sludge The according
AD
bed
The liquid
(UASB) process
permits
most common
to
reactor increasing
animal
can
the be
two‐phase configuration AD 179
manure
190
194 a innovation
carried
contains
microorganism’s
195
181
172
process
plants in and
out
well‐settleable
the
are composed
high‐rate in and
organic
one
of or
retention complexity,
industrial
two
methanogenic
case food
of
anaerobic stages,
inside
waste
one or
digesters, the are
waste.
more
covered
depending
sludge.
system.
digestion The
vertical
which The
The lagoons,
main
on the
formation
advantages
significantly
heated
is widely
conventional
limitation,
combination
of of
improves
reactors
used if
a UASB
dense
with
in the no
or case
the
an of co‐digestion of wastewater,
82
89
90
71
84
78
91
72
85
79
92
73
96
conversion
high‐rate
ordered
high‐dense
anaerobic
The
efficiency
anaerobic
according
AD liquid
process
reactors,
of the
digesters,
to 182
186
187
volatile
174
188
increasing
animal
can
sludge be which
manure
carried
retention
blanket
introduction
fraction
is
two‐phase
innovation
and
out
reactors
The (UASB)
widely AD
to
and
internal mixing
organic
in one
of
process
biogas.
used
configuration
or complexity,
industrial
two
anaerobic
reactor
accelerants in
system can
According
178 The most common the
stages,
contains
AD be plants
case
process
are
based
waste. of a in
(metabolic
carried
to
depending
membrane
well‐settleable
[21],
are stimulants
out in one
the
composed
co‐digestion
covered
on a
The the
wet case
lagoons,
process
main
on
reactors. of
of methanogenic
payback for
or two
of microorganisms)
stages,
time
one or
wastewater,
food waste
conventional
operated
limitation,
the Advantages
combination if and
for
more
in
sludge.
depending
vertical
digestion
no
or mesophilic
The
in formation
order
on
heated
significantly to
the
conditions. reactors of with
accelerate
combination
improves
This
a dense
type and
or
an
the
of
87
75
88
77
83
recirculation
separation
sludge
methanogenic
internal bed
The of
most is
mixing performed,
permits
common
process the
system AD
as 180
is
191
195
196
173
182
the
based
183
187
the
plants failure
microorganism’s are
fermentation
on a wet and
composed
high‐dense
blanket
to retain
Anaerobic
plays
process
(UASB)
high
retention of
the
operated
liquid microorganism
inside
digestion
one
role or
of
animal
reactor the
more
in system.
systems
vertical
mesophilic
manure
contains
concentrations
The phases,
were advantages
heated strongly
thus
conditions.
and
a co‐digestion reactors
organic
well‐settleable
inside
respectively.
of
promoting
This UASB
improved
with
type
industrial
methanogenic
the
A waste.
an
the
of in recent
The
sludge. decades,
main
The through
limitation,
formation of of if the
a UASB
dense no
90
91
72
85
79
92
73
86
80
93
74 high‐rate
high‐dense
anaerobic
separation
reactor.
two‐phase The anaerobic
AD
In liquid
of process
reactors,
recirculation is performed, digesters,
the animal 188
179
can factor
sludge
hydrolysis/acidogenesis be
Anaerobic
fact,
configuration digestion
key which
manure
is carried
retention
the
systems
process for
in
sludge
separation
is and
internal
and
out
methanogenic
reactors
failure
a were
good
the in bed
widely
to one permits
of
175
189
mixing
organic used
of or
and
retain
strongly
case anaerobic industrial
two
process
anaerobic
high
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. in
system the
increase gas production [22,23]. the
stages,
food as
microorganism
improved
high‐rate
waste
microorganism’s
case
based
waste. of
on
depending
the in The wet
fermentation
membrane recent
treatment
digestion
and
on
reactors. retention
The most common AD plants a are composed
process
main the
concentrations
phases,
decades,
is the
significantly
of of inside
one
combination
plays the
Advantages
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of role
inside
respectively.
through
retention
improves
or
wastewater,
operated
limitation, if
of of
and the
more
in
no
or
the
system.
vertical
mesophilic
A
The advantages
phases,
heated
conditions.
thus respectively.
reactors
This
promoting with
type the A
an
of
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 7 of 29
Table 2. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW (b)  sludge retention reactor [22]
Bigger digesters size 5 of 32
process
Mesophilic 
Description
Free ammonia decreasing Advantages   Bigger digesters size
Drawbacks
5 of 32
Description
digester, even if larger digester size  Less degradation efficiency 5 of 32
Mesophilic
digester, even if larger digester size  Free ammonia decreasing
Less degradation efficiency  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
process
Mesophilic  Less thermal energy required by
 Free ammonia decreasing
should be considered  Lower pathogen removing from
Efficient process
Mesophilic
process
Free ammonia decreasing  Less thermal energy required by
Rapidly achieved steady-state 5 of
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  32 Bigger digesters size
Less nitrate concentration in the 
times due to mixing
process  Less nitrate concentration in the
Less thermal energy required by digester, even if larger digester size
Bigger digesters size  Less degradation efficiency
sludge Agitated reactor and a  Sufficiently short hydraulic
solid settling tank for should be considered retention time  Lower pathogen removing from
Dilute nature of the digestate
process  sludge
Anaerobic contact  Higher viscosity of influent,
should be considered Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
microorganism pre‐treatment is needed
Limited biomass washout
Lower pathogen removing from with limited organic 5 of 32
reactor—ACR
should be considered recycling, generally  in Less nitrate concentration in the
 pre‐treatment is needed
Low change in biogas
Lower pathogen removing from substrate, post‐treatment is needed
loading rate
Less nitrate concentration in the  Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
mesophilic condition. concentration and composition
 Better process stability Mesophilic
Less nitrate concentration in the  Free ammonia decreasing
sludge  substrate, post‐treatment is needed
More clogging risk 5 of  32 Higher viscosity of influent,
 should be considered
sludge
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Lower pathogen removing from
Good for OLR higher than
Low methane yield
Higher viscosity of influent, 5 of 32
5 of 32
Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW   Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
8 kg COD/m 3 /d with COD  Bigger digesters size
pre‐treatment is needed 5 of 32
sludge  Low methane yield
Mesophilic
Thermophilic  Better process stability
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
removal of 78–95%

 32 Less degradation efficiency
process
Mesophilic  Bigger digesters size
Free ammonia decreasing 5 of Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Mesophilic
Thermophilic  Free ammonia decreasing
Better process stability Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Higher free ammonia concentration
pre‐treatment is needed More clogging risk 5 of 32
process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Small size of digesters
sludge Mesophilic
Less thermal energy required by  Free ammonia decreasing
 Low methane yield
More clogging risk 5 of  32 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
process
should be considered  Bigger digesters size
Performance largely dependent 5 of 32
process  Small size of digesters
Less thermal energy required by  Bigger digesters size 32 Lower pathogen removing from
Low methane yield
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW More clogging risk 5 of
Thermophilic  Higher organic load‐bearing
Better process stability process
Mesophilic 

Low methane yield
Free ammonia decreasing  
on the dense bacterial granules
 Lower pathogen removing from  Higher free ammonia concentration
Compact and inexpensive
Mesophilic
process
 Higher organic load‐bearing
Free ammonia decreasing Thermophilic
digester, even if larger digester size  digester, even if larger digester size
 Bigger digesters size
Low methane yield
quality used as filter.
Thermophilic  capacity
Mesophilic Small size of digesters
Mesophilic
process
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  Higher thermal energy required,
Less reactor
in digester, even if larger digester size
More clogging risk volume
and space
 Bigger digesters size
Less nitrate concentration in the should be considered
substrate, post‐treatment is needed Long start-up period
process Up-flow
should be considered Dense sludge bed 
process sludge  Bigger digesters size
Higher flow velocity and
Lower pathogen removing from  Higher viscosity of influent,
Thermophilic  Higher efficiency of degradation
anaerobic process
digester, even if larger digester size  Higher free ammonia concentration
the bottom for the digester, even if larger digester size
Less degradation efficiency 5 of  32 Bigger digesters size
Less nitrate concentration in the but higher quantity of energy is
Low methane yield
Higher nitrate concentration in the Significant wash-out of sludge
process Less thermal energy required by
sludge bed Bigger digesters size
biogas production
 Higher organic load‐bearing
sludge Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
digester, even if larger digester size   Higher viscosity of influent,
Better process stability during initial phase
but higher quantity of energy is 5 of 32
process  wastewater-biomass
Higher efficiency of degradation  substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Higher nitrate concentration in the  Less degradation efficiency
Thermophilic reactor—UASB Small size of digesters
capacity
sludge
Higher organic load‐bearing  Higher thermal energy required,
Higher organic load
sludge
should be considered  substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Skilled operation
 Lower pathogen removing from
Better process stability contact sludge Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
pre‐treatment is needed  produced from biogas
should be considered capacity Lower retention time than AF 5 of More clogging risk
Higher organic load‐bearing  Free ammonia decreasing Higher viscosity of influent,
sludge
should be considered  32 Lower pathogen removing from
High fraction of particulate 5 of 32
process  Less nitrate concentration in the
capacity Mesophilic  sludge   Higher thermal energy required,
No effluent recycling
Less nitrate concentration in the needed Higher retention time (30‐50 days)

process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Less thermal energy required by 
Less nitrate concentration in the  Higher efficiency of degradation  Bigger digesters size
More clogging risk 5 of 32 pre‐treatment is needed
organic materials are
Higher pathogen removing from  substrate, post‐treatment is needed
More sensitive to environmental  Low methane yield
capacity  sludge
Less nitrate concentration in the  32 Bigger digesters size
 substrate
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW sludge process
Higher organic load‐bearing Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk 5 of not suitable
pre‐treatment is needed 5 of 32
Mesophilic
digester, even if larger digester size sludge  Less degradation efficiency
changes
Low methane yield 
 Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
Mesophilic 
sludge
substrate
Free ammonia decreasing Thermophilic
Higher efficiency of degradation    Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
changes
Higher nitrate concentration in the Higher free ammonia concentration
sludge
process 
 Lower viscosity Better process stability
capacity process
sludge
sludge  pre‐treatment is needed
Low methane yield
Higher viscosity of influent,  Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
Mesophilic  Higher biogas production rate
Free ammonia decreasing Mesophilic
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) sludge
 Higher pathogen removing from
Higher processing efficiency in
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) pre‐treatment is needed
 32 Higher thermal energy required,
Low methane yield
Thermophilic
process  Lower viscosity
Better process stability process
Low methane yield
sludge
terms
Better process stability of hydrolytic
More clogging risk
should be considered and 5 of 
Feasible in a long-term process
Thermophilic   Higher pathogen removing from
substrate
Less clogging risk
Better process stability 
Quadruple two-phase,digester, even if larger digester size
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  changes
Larger investment
More sensitive to environmental  Low methane yield
More clogging risk
process  Small size of digesters
process
anaerobic Thermophilic
two-stage reactor,  withsubstrate substrate, post‐treatment is needed
methanogenic power
More clogging risk
Higher organic load‐bearing  Higher free ammonia concentration
without significant disturbance
changes
Thermophilic Up-flow Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
Less clogging risk
Higher pathogen removing from  Higher free ammonia concentration
Larger investment
 Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
71 process
 Lower viscosity
substrate Thermophilic  
Low methane yield
sludge
Higher volume loading rate
More clogging risk
changes   substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Restricted use for
Mesophilic  Higher organic load‐bearing
solid-state
sludge AF section,
process used for
 Lower viscosity
digester, even if larger digester size  Less degradation efficiency
but higher quantity of energy is Low methane yield
 32 Higher thermal energy required,
Less degradation efficiency 5 of 32
71
72 process
The AD process reactor—UASS
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Small size of digesters
can be
substrate carried out
solid
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) in one
biomass, or two  Higher thermal energy required,
capacity
stages,
sludge
Low methane yield
Lower investment
depending
changes on the
costcombination 5 of
 or produced from biogas
colloidal substances
Low methane yield
Thermophilic Less clogging risk process
Lower viscosity    Larger investment
Low methane yield
Decreased stability process  Higher thermal energy required,
 Lower viscosity
72 process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Less thermal energy required by
Better process stability Thermophilic Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
 Less clogging risk Bigger digesters size
pre‐treatment is needed combination  or
5 of 32 Higher free ammonia concentration
Limited by its structure
73 The AD
separation
Thermophilic of process should be considered
capacity

can be carried with
out and
dry process.
in one or two
 should be considered
stages,

Simple operation
depending
Higher efficiency of degradation on the respectively.
phases,
but higher quantity of energy is A Lower pathogen removing from
Larger investment
71
73 process
 substrate
Small size of digesters Mesophilic
and management
changes  A Higher free ammonia concentration
74 Mesophilic
separation
two‐phase configuration
Thermophilic capacity
sludge
Less clogging risk
process in process and
the
Less nitrate concentration in the case acetogenesis/methanogenesis
of food  waste sludge produced from biogas
 digestion
Larger investment phases, respectively.
Small size of digesters significantly
More clogging risk
capacity improves the Higher viscosity of influent,
72
74
process
The AD process  be
capacity 171
can carried
sludge
Mesophilic
out
process in one or two  
stages, 
depending
produced from biogas on the
Higher viscosity of influent, combination or
sludge
75
71
Mesophilic
two‐phase
methanogenic
process  Less clogging risk
configuration
process
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW as process Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
in the case
the fermentation
Lower viscosity
Less thermal energy required by of food
plays the  role Less thermal energy required by
waste
of 
capacity

Larger investment
digestion
“pre‐treatment”, significantly
Decreased stability process thus
Bigger digesters size improves
promoting the
5 of
32 Higher thermal energy required,
More clogging risk
5 of 32
73
75
process

separation of 
sludge 172
should be considered The
and
process
Higher biogas production rate AD process 

acetogenesis/methanogenesis sludge 
SRT
can separated
Low methane yield
Higher efficiency of degradation from
be carried out in
phases,
sludge
Less thermal energy required by HRT
one or two
respectively. stages,  A pre‐treatment is needed
depending on the
Higher viscosity of influent, combination
Bigger digesters size or
76
71
72 methanogenic
conversion
process
The AD process
efficiency  Higher efficiency of degradation
as the
of the volatile
fermentation fraction
Better process stability plays the
to or  role
biogas.  waste
of
According but higher quantity of energy is
 “pre‐treatment”, to [21],
achieving good the thus
COD promoting
payback
and time the for More sensitive to environmental
or Less degradation efficiency
74
76 two‐phase process
configuration can be
capacity
 Less clogging risk 173carried
in out
separation in one of two
process the
Higher organic load‐bearing case of food  
stages,
hydrolysis/acidogenesis  depending
Larger investment
sludge on
and
digestion significantly
More clogging risk the
combination
improves  
the but higher quantity of energy is
Low methane yield phases,
More clogging risk respectively.
Higher nitrate concentration in the A
5 of 32
77
72
73 conversion
Thermophilic efficiency
process Less nitrate concentration in the
of the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW volatile Mesophilic
fraction
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) to or
biogas.
The AD Better process stability
can be carried
Free ammonia decreasing out in one two
capacity
 substrate  Higher free ammonia concentration
According substrate, post‐treatment is needed
solidsto
stages, depending [21], on
removal
pre‐treatment is needed the
digester, even if larger digester size the
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) payback
combination time for
5 of 32
or
sludge
75
71
Mesophilic
separation
methanogenic of process  capacity
hydrolysis/acidogenesis 174 and
two‐phase
as the fermentation acetogenesis/methanogenesis
digester, even if larger digester size configuration
plays the  role of  produced from biogas
sludge
process in
More clogging risk
phases,
the case respectively.
of food waste A changes
thus promoting the Higher free ammonia concentration
Microbe
digestion wash-out
significantly from
Lower pathogen removing from digester
improves 5 of 32
the
77
78  Higher pathogen removing from
Higher efficiency of degradation capacity Higher nitrate concentration in the
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) produced from biogas
 digestion
73 should be considered Thermophilic
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a Higher biogas production rate
Low sludge production
Low methane yield sludge
74
76 separation
process
two‐phase
process
efficiency 
capacity
 substrate
sludge
of the 175
process in process
volatile the and
methanogenic
Mesophilic
fraction
Less thermal energy required by case to  waste
of biogas.
food
process produced from biogas
as
According More clogging risk
changes
the
Free ammonia decreasing fermentation
to [21],
phases,
significantly
the plays respectively.
improves
payback the role
time of the

A
for
Low methane yield
Inadequate mixing
More clogging risk andpromoting the
72
78
79
74
75
The AD 
process Higher efficiency of degradation
can be carried out in one
Mesophilic
two‐phase configuration  Free ammonia decreasing
process in process
the case of or
food two
 
Lower viscosity
stages,
waste  Higher nitrate concentration in the
Possibility of separating
depending on the
Low methane yield
sludge
digestion
Small size of digesters significantly combination
improves
5 of

32
or
the Decreased stability process
settle-ability of the
77
73
79
Thermophilic
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW   substrate 176
as the fermentation
Compartments
Mesophilic
conversion
Thermophilic plays
digestion Better process stability
the
in one
efficiency Higher pathogen removing from
role of
of  “pre‐treatment”,
changes
the volatile
acidogenesis fraction thus
but higher quantity of energy is to promoting
biogas. 
According
5 of More sensitive to environmental
32 Higher free ammonia concentration
to [21], the payback
sludge time for
80
75
76 separation
Anaerobic
methanogenic
process process Lower viscosity
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. systems
as the
the
substrate
process
were
Anaerobic fermentation and strongly
digester, even if larger digester size plays the force
to 
substrate
improved
Less clogging risk
role of Low methane yield
 “pre‐treatment”,
in recent
sludge
changes phases,
to [21], decades, thus respectively.
through
promoting time the
the Low methane yield
changes
A Bigger digesters size
microbial granules
Larger investment
78
74
80
conversion
Thermophilic efficiency

digestion
of 177
volatile reactor,
fraction
Higher pathogen removing from baffled
to biogas.
Free ammonia decreasing  According
sludge substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Bigger digesters size the
and methanogenesis
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) payback for sludge
improved substrate changes
Mesophilic baffled
Lower viscosity  digestion Decreased stability process
81
76
77
process
two‐phase
Anaerobic
introduction
of accelerants
reactor—ABR
efficiency
sludge process
capacity systems
of the in process
(metabolic
171
volatile
Less clogging risk the
were
Higher biogas production rate case
stimulants
incoming
fraction
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) of biogas.
strongly
to food
for
wastewater waste
microorganisms)
According
in recent
sludge
Higher pathogen removing from to
sludge significantly
decades,
in order
More clogging risk
[21],
Larger investment the to
andpayback
improves
through
accelerate at and
time the Bigger digesters size
Incompatibility with certain
for Higher thermal energy required,
79
75
81
Thermophilic
Mesophilic  Lower viscosity
process sludge 178
should be considered Thermophilic
Free ammonia decreasing digester, even if larger digester size
High efficiency
Small size of digesters   “pre‐treatment”,
flexibility

types of wastewater
82
77
78 methanogenic
introduction
process of process
accelerants
increase gas production [22,23]. 
digestion
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW as the
substrate fermentation
(metabolic up
Less clogging risk
172
through
stimulants plays
a
Higher organic load‐bearing the
series
for  of
improved
role of 
microorganisms)
capacity
Lower viscosity
 be
changes in
high loading
Larger investment order
digester, even if larger digester size rates thus
but higher quantity of energy is to promoting
accelerate 5 and
of  the
32 More sensitive to environmental
71
80
76
82 process
Anaerobic  179
systems
were
blanked The AD process
strongly
sludge 
Higher efficiency of degradation Higher organic load‐bearing
can

Less clogging risk More sensitive to environmental
substrate carried
Low methane yield out in one or
in
should be considered recent decades,
Higher thermal energy required, two stages,
through  the but higher quantity of energy is
changes
depending
Long start-upon
Larger investment the combination or
phase
83
78
79
process
conversion
increase gas production [22,23]. Less nitrate concentration in the
substrate
efficiency of the volatile fraction to biogas. According
173
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a  Bigger digesters size
changes
Higher to tolerance
[21], the topayback
Larger investment
but higher quantity of energy is hydraulictime for changes More clogging risk
71
72
81
77
83

The
introduction AD of
process
accelerants can be
capacity
substrate 180
Lower viscosity
171
separation
carried out
(metabolic Anaerobic
in one
stimulants of
or for 
digestion
two substrate
stages, 
 systems
Less clogging risk
microorganisms)
capacity
sludge
Lower viscosity
hydrolysis/acidogenesis Less degradation efficiency
More clogging risk
depending
changes were
in
produced from biogas and
order acetogenesis/methanogenesis
on strongly
the improved
to combination
accelerate and  Higher nitrate concentration in the
Larger investment
Effluent phases,
requires
in recent decades,
 or Lower pathogen removing from
Decreased stability process respectively.
through the A
84
79
80
71 ordered
Mesophilic  to
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
Thermophilic according Higher organic load‐bearing
increasing innovation
sludge 174
Lower viscosity and complexity, andcovered
sludge
Higher organic load‐bearing organic shock
are
Less nitrate concentration in the lagoons,
loads conventional but higher quantity of energy is
More clogging risk
72
73
82
78
84
Anaerobic

The
separation AD process
 to digestion
capacity
increase gas production [22,23]. 181
systems
171
172
Less clogging risk
were
two‐phase
can be carried out
introduction
and in strongly
one configuration
or
of two
accelerants improved
stages,
 Lower viscosity
The acetogenesis/methanogenesis

 be
in
process recent
depending
(metabolic in
More clogging risk the
Lower sludge
Larger investment
decades,
on case
phases, the
stimulants
yields of through
food
combination
for waste
microorganisms)
respectively. the
or secondary
digestion
 A sludge in treatment
significantly
Low methane yield order
Decreased stability process to improves
accelerate the
and
85
80
81
72 anaerobic
process Anaerobic reactors, digestion should be considered
ordered according increasing
sludge retention
175
systems innovation
reactors
Lower viscosity were and process
AD
in strongly
complexity,
anaerobic
improved  membrane
can Lower pathogen removing from
are covered
carried
Low methane yield
Less nitrate concentration in the out lagoons,
in one
reactors.
Less clogging risk in recent decades, conventional
or two stages,
Advantages
through and the depending on the combination or
Larger investment
73
74
83
79
85
introduction
process The of of
AD accelerants
process
separation
two‐phase Small size of digesters
configuration 182
(metabolic
can process
be
capacity carried
172
Less clogging risk out
the stimulants
in methanogenic
and case one or for
two
process microorganisms)
Less thermal energy required by of
173 food capacity
stages,
as
sludge
waste 
depending in
the fermentation
digestion risk of
Larger investment order
on the
phases,
No clogging
significantly
Lower pathogen removing from to
plays accelerate
combination
the role
respectively.
and sludge
improves and
of
5 of or
the produced from biogas
32
A Low methane yield thus promoting the
86
71
81
82
73

anaerobic reactors, sludge
sludge retention

introduction of accelerants  176
The
reactors
separation
Thermophilic
(metabolic stimulants
AD
and
of process
anaerobic  can
for   be
Less clogging risk carried
Low methane yield out in
membrane reactors. one
microorganisms) and or two
Advantages stages,

and
in order to accelerate and  
depending phases, on the respectively.
combination or
Larger investment
More sensitive to environmental A
74
75
84
80
86
separation
Thermophilic
two‐phase
methanogenic
ordered  to
configuration
process
according as 183
171
Less clogging risk
process
173
the
increasing in the
fermentation
innovation
substrate 174
and
conversion case efficiency
of
and food 
complexity,
 of
waste
role of 
sludge Higher free ammonia concentration
the bed
sludge
digestion expansion
volatile
Larger investment
are
changes covered phases,
fraction
significantly
plays the thus
lagoons,
but higher quantity of energy is respectively.
to biogas.
improves
promoting 5
conventional of
According  32
A
the Higher viscosity of influent,
sludge to [21],
More clogging risk the payback time for
71
87
72
82
83
74
Anaerobic

The most
AD common
process  sludge
digestion AD systems
plants separation
were
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. Thermophilic
two‐phase
in are composed
can be 171carried out in one of
strongly
configuration
of or of two one
improved 
or  more
stages, Higher nitrate concentration in the
in recent
More clogging risk
vertical
depending and
decades,
process in the case
heated of
on the reactors
substrate, post‐treatment is needed through
food
combination waste
with 
acetogenesis/methanogenesis the Higher nitrate concentration in the
digestion
an
or phases,
significantly respectively.
pre‐treatment is needed improves A
the
75
76
85
71
two‐phase
methanogenic
Mesophilic
conversion
anaerobic configuration
process
efficiency
reactors, sludge
of 177
184
172
process
as the
the
174
volatile
retention process
Thermophilic the
fermentation
ordered The
fraction
reactors case
plays
AD
to
and food
the
according
process
biogas.
anaerobic waste
role
to of
increasing
can
substrate
According

sludge
digestion
 more Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
innovation
out the in
membrane to [21],
reactors. thus and
one improves
promoting
or
payback complexity,
two
Advantages the
5 of
stages,
time and
32 Higher thermal energy required,
for changes
are covered
depending lagoons,
on conventional
the combination or
81
87
72
88
73
83
84
process
introduction
The
internal
separation AD of
most process
mixing 
accelerants
common
 to system can AD
be 175
(metabolic
based
capacity
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis plants
carried
Lower viscosity on a two‐phase
are out
wet stimulants
composed
methanogenic
and in one
process or for
of 
configuration
process
two
operated  role
acetogenesis/methanogenesis Better process stability
microorganisms)
one or as
stages, in Higher thermal energy required,
process
the in
vertical
fermentation
depending
mesophilic the
in
produced from biogas on case
order
heated of
to
plays
the
conditions.
phases,
Decreased stability process food
accelerate
reactors
the
This waste
with
role
combination
respectively. type and
of 
the an pre‐treatment is needed
or
of Low methane yield thus
A Higher thermal energy required, improves
promoting the
75
76
77
86 ordered
methanogenic
Mesophilic
conversion
process according
process
efficiency system sludge
of 172
178
185
173
increasing
as the
the volatile
175
process
innovation
fermentation
anaerobic
separation The and
plays
AD complexity,
the
process
reactors,
of or Higher biogas production rate
in the
of
can
sludge
hydrolysis/acidogenesis sludge
be Buffer
are to capability
covered
carried
retention out in
fraction to biogas. According Higher viscosity of influent,
[21], the
reactors
and
to
lagoons,
Low methane yield thus resist
one conventional
promoting
or
payback
and two stages,
time
anaerobic
acetogenesis/methanogenesis for sludge
More clogging risk
depending
membrane on the Advantages
reactors.
phases, combination
respectively. or
and
A
72
82
88
73
89
74
84
process The mixing AD
of process
internal
separation Small size of digesters
 176
based methanogenic
can be carried out
on innovation
a conversion
Better process stability wet and in one
process  waste
process
two
operated
efficiency
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of as
stages,
Lower viscosity
of Higher thermal energy required,
More clogging risk
the fermentation
depending
mesophilic
volatile
various on
fraction
phases,
shocking plays
the
conditions. the
This role
combination
to
loads biogas.
respectively.
Lower type of
According the
or
of
A but higher quantity of energy is
to [21], the promoting
payback time the
for
85
76
77
78
87
two‐phase
ordered
Mesophilic
anaerobic
according
reactors,
efficiency   of process
substrate
the in
sludge 186
174
retention
volatile the
to 173
179
increasing It is
fraction
separation
Less clogging risk Thermophilic case
similar
reactors of
and
to
to
of food
two complexity,
anaerobic
biogas.
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would  
configuration substrate   digestion
changes
According
hydrolysis/acidogenesis 
two‐phase to significantly
are covered lagoons,
membrane reactors.
[21], the
and
Larger investment
process
Higher pathogen removing from in the case
improves
conventional
Advantages
payback
of food time
waste 
and
acetogenesis/methanogenesis  for More clogging risk
changes
digestion phases, respectively.
significantly
More sensitive to environmental improves A
the
73
83
89
74
90
75
85
process The
Thermophilic
separation
high‐rate
most common 
anaerobic
AD 176
plants are
as process
digesters, which
composed
177
conversion
is and
the
Higher organic load‐bearing case of
efficiency one
two‐phase configuration  sludge widely of food
used
or
of
waste
in the   the
more cost vertical
digestion
case and heated
volatile fraction
higher reactors
to
efficiency
phases,
in introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would
significantly
of co‐digestion
Low methane yield biogas.
in with
respectively.
improves
of wastewater, According an but higher quantity of energy is
Low methane yield
to [21], the payback time for
A produced from biogas
86
77
78
79
88
methanogenic
anaerobic
process
process
reactors,
system Internal
the
substrate
capacity 174
180 fermentation
retention
UASB
reactors
187 plays
reactors
Anaerobic and
two‐phase
The
methanogenic most
the 
anaerobic
configuration
 role
common
process
role of
digestion 
capacity
in
as
AD
changes
membrane
Less clogging risk More clogging risk
process
systems
the plants in reactors.
are
fermentation the
were
thus
case
composed of
strongly promoting
Advantages
food
of one
plays improves
the waste
improved
role or and
of  the
 more Larger investment
digestion
in significantly
recent decades,
vertical heated
Low methane yield thus improves
through
reactors the
with an
promoting
71
74
84
90
75
91
76
86
internal
ordered
two‐phase
high‐rate
methanogenic
high‐dense
mixing
configuration
according
anaerobic
process
liquid to
digesters,
as
animal 177
Lower viscosity
based
178
the
substrate on a process
wet
process
increasing in the
innovation
which
fermentation
manure is widely
working
and
process
case and
together,
plays
organic
operated
of used
food
complexity,
the
industrial
Lower viscosity
in the
of
capacity
mesophilic
polishing
waste sludge
are
case covered
of
changes
waste. The
conditions.
step
lagoons,
co‐digestion
one substrate main thus of This type
conventional
wastewater,
promoting
limitation, if the
of
no
changes
87 digestion based
78 conversion
process efficiency sludge
of the volatile fraction
181 Thermophilic to biogas. Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
According Higher viscosity of influent,
to [21], the
More clogging risk payback time for Higher free ammonia concentration
79
80
89
72
75
85
91
The most common
Thermophilic
Anaerobic circulationAD
capacity 188
176
plants
171
178
systems are composed
methanogenic
introduction
Lower viscosity internal
conversion
were mixing of
of
efficiency
strongly
179 system
process
accelerants or as
of
improved 
more
the vertical
fermentation
(metabolic
produced from biogas heated
the on
volatile
Reducing
in a wet
recent of process
fraction
extra
decades,
Lower pathogen removing from reactors
plays
stimulants
Higher free ammonia concentration to
mixing the
for
operated
biogas.
costs
through with
role of
According in
microorganisms) an
the “pre‐treatment”,
mesophilic
to [21], thus
the to promoting
in conditions.
order accelerate
This time
payback
Higher nitrate concentration in the type the
and
of
for
76
92
77
87
88
79
The
methanogenic
anaerobic
high‐dense
conversion
recirculation AD process
process
reactors,
liquid
efficiency digestion
is common
performed, can
as
sludge
animal be
the
of AD
the carried
manure
volatile
Less clogging risk it
fermentation
retention can
out
reactors
and
is the Thermophilic
failure separate
in one
plays
and
organic
to retain
reactor—IC 176
gas,
or
the two
anaerobic
industrial
fraction to biogas.
high stages,
role of in
one Less clogging risk
microorganism Low methane yield
depending
membrane
waste. The
According to [21],
Larger investment
Higher organic load‐bearing on
reactors.
main the
thus
Higher nitrate concentration in the combination
promoting
Advantages
limitation,
the payback
concentrations time
inside the
if and or
the
no
for Higher free ammonia concentration
Larger investment
80
81
90
73
76
The
internal
Anaerobic
introduction
high‐rate
most
mixing
of accelerants
anaerobic digesters, 182
plants
Lower viscosity
172
are
system 189
177
based on a
systems
179
(metabolic
which wet composed
process
conversion process of
operated
efficiency
were
liquidstimulants
is strongly
and
widely biomass for
to used
or
improved
microorganisms)
in the
more
Lower viscosity
of 
in case
the vertical
volatile
Highest
in recent
of OLR heated
fraction
in achieved
decades,
Higher organic load‐bearing but higher quantity of energy is
order
to co‐digestion
Low methane yield
reactors
to This
biogas.
through
to respectively.
accelerate
of
with
type
or wastewater, 
According
and
an
of
the Decreased stability process
to [21], the payback
Higher thermal energy required, time for
86
92
77
93
78
88
89
process
separation
conversion of
efficiency system 180
is hydrolysis/acidogenesis of based
the is volatile
the Less clogging risk
recirculation performed, the failure The AD process
to anaerobic
Anaerobic retain
reactor. In fact, Less nitrate concentration in the
key factor for a a good
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a high digestion
and
fraction acetogenesis/methanogenesis
biogas. can
According
microorganism
high‐rate be carried out in
Larger investment
systems concentrations
were one
[21], phases,
the payback
strongly
treatment is the two
retention stages,
time
inside
improved
of for
the depending
A sludge on the combination
in recent decades, through the or
71
80
81
82
91 internal
Thermophilic
introduction mixing
of accelerants 171
177
digestion 183
190
178 on
systems
173
(metabolic wet
process
were process
Anaerobic Higher biogas production rate
simultaneously
stimulants
high‐rate strongly operated
for
anaerobic improved  waste.
microorganisms)
digesters, Higher free ammonia concentration
mesophilic
Good
sludge
in forin
recent
which conditions.
low-strength
decades,
order
is widely
capacity to This
through
accelerate
used type
in the
and
the of Higher thermal energy required,
case of co‐digestion
produced from biogas of through
wastewater,
74
77
87
93
78
94
79
89
71
high‐dense
two‐phase liquid 
configuration substrate
animal 180
manure
181
Less clogging risk
process in and
separation
the organic
Anaerobic
case of
of food
reactor. The most
In fact, common the Less nitrate concentration in the
key AD plants
factor for
 Higher biogas production rate
capacity are
a composed
good
introduction anaerobic
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) of
of 
industrial
accelerants one Less clogging risk
waste changes
or
high‐rate
 case
The
Larger investment
digestion systems
digestion
More clogging risk main
were and
significantly
more vertical
treatment
(metabolic
produced from biogas heated
is the
stimulants
limitation,
strongly improves
reactors
retention
for if
improved
with
of 
microorganisms) no
the
an Larger investment
sludge
in recent phases,
decades, respectively.
in order to accelerate A
the
and
90
72
81
82
83
92
Thermophilic
introduction
process process
of accelerants
increase gas production [22,23]. can be
sludge 172
178
184
The AD
high‐rate anaerobic Higher organic load‐bearing
digesters, 191
179 which
is carried
(metabolic
174
Small size of digesters is
out widely
in
stimulants
ordered
high‐dense The one
AD used
or
according for  microorganisms)
two
process
liquid
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. in
to the
stages,
can
increasing
animal be wastewater
sludge of innovation
depending
carried
manure in
and
aton
higher
in “pre‐treatment”,
Higher pathogen removing from co‐digestion
order
out in
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a the to
one
organic
HRT
of
and wastewater,
combination
accelerate
or two
complexity,
industrial and
stages, the or More sensitive to environmental
depending
are
waste. covered
The on the
lagoons,
main combination
conventional
limitation, or
if and
no
75
78
88
94
79
95
80
71
90
72
recirculation
methanogenic
blanket (UASB)
is
process 
performed, as 181
182
171
the the failure
two‐phase
introduction
fermentation to plays
retain
internal mixing  system based
Lower viscosity
reactor contains on a wet
a well‐settleable process
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. of
the high
operated
increase gas production [22,23]. 
configuration

accelerants
methanogenic role microorganism
of  process
mesophilic in
Higher efficiency of degradation concentrations
the case
thus
conditions.
sludge. The formation of food
for inside
promoting
This waste
type
of a dense 
microorganisms) the digestion
of significantly
in order to improves
accelerate
Higher nitrate concentration in the the
91
73
82
83
84
93 high‐rate Anaerobic
high‐dense
separation
process The anaerobic
AD
of process
liquid
increase gas production [22,23]. digestion
reactor can
sludge
the animal
systems
digesters,
be 173
179
185
192
180
175
which
carried
manure
Small size of digesters were
is and
out
and
hydrolysis/acidogenesis separation in strongly
widely one
organic used
of or
recirculation
Anaerobic is digestion
two
industrial improved
acetogenesis/methanogenesis capacity
stages,
anaerobic reactors, performed, sludge  the
in
waste. recent
in the case of
depending
Low methane yield
retention
is the
systems The decades,
co‐digestion
on
main the
phases,
and
reactors
failure
were to of through
wastewater,
combination
limitation,
respectively.
and
retain
strongly anaerobic
high if of
acetogenesis/methanogenesis the
microorganism
improved or
no
membrane
in recent phases,
reactors. respectively.
Advantages
concentrations
decades, inside and
through A
the
76
79
89
95
80
96
81
72
91
73
ordered
reactor.
conversion
sludge
according
In
Anaerobic
bed
fact,
efficiency
permits
to
key
capacity
of the 182
increasing
factor
183
172 a innovation
for
volatile a were
digestion
the systems
microorganism’s
good
methanogenic
fraction and
anaerobic
to or
blanket (UASB) contains well‐settleable complexity,
process
biogas.
methanogenic high‐rate
as
substrate
According More sensitive to environmental
are covered
treatment
fermentation
sludge. to [21],
The lagoons,
is the
the plays
payback
formation
strongly
retention improved
inside  the but higher quantity of energy is
in
system. recent The decades,
advantages
conventional
retention
the
through a of
role
time
of of dense
UASB
for
the changes thus promoting the
92
74
83
84
85
94
introduction
high‐dense
separation
two‐phase
ordered
The
recirculation AD of accelerants
process
liquid
of
configuration
according
substrate
to
can
sludge
animal
is 
performed, be (metabolic
174
180
186carried
manure
193
181
is
process the
Less clogging risk
176
increasing in out
and
failure
the stimulants
and
two‐phase The in
to
case AD
one
organic
retain
of for
process
food two
high 
industrial
configuration
Anaerobic microorganisms)
acetogenesis/methanogenesis can
capacity
stages, 
microorganism
waste
digestion
innovation
reactor.
introduction and
In fact,
of complexity,
 the
accelerants key 
be carried
changes
depending
waste.
digestion The
Larger investment
process
systems
are
factor in
covered
for
(metabolic
in
a
order
out on in
main
phases, the
concentrations
significantly
the
were case
lagoons,
good
stimulants
to
one
of
strongly accelerate
or
food
anaerobic
two
combination
limitation,
respectively.
inside
improves if
waste
improved
conventional
for
and
stages,
high‐rate 
microorganisms)
or
no
A
the depending
sludge
digestion
in
treatment
on the combination
significantly
recent in decades,
is the
order improves
through
retention
to accelerate of
or
the
and
77
80
90
96
81
82
73
92
74
anaerobic
Thermophilic
high‐rate
sludge Anaerobic
introduction reactors,
anaerobic
bed permits
of 
accelerants sludge
digestion
digesters,
substrate 183
retention
184 which
the microorganism’s
(metabolic reactors
Better process stability conversion
173
systems were
is
ordered strongly
widely
stimulants
anaerobic
efficiency
of used
retention
according for inside
substrate
improved
in
to the the
increasing
microorganisms) membrane
of volatile
sludge
case
system.
changes recent reactors.
the fraction
in of innovation
in decades,
co‐digestion
The advantages
order
Advantages
to biogas.
of
and
to through
wastewater,
of UASB
complexity,
accelerate and
According
and the
the
changes
to
are covered [21], the payback
lagoons, time
conventional for
93
75
84
85
86
95
71
separation
recirculation
two‐phase
reactor.
methanogenic
ordered
anaerobic In of is hydrolysis/acidogenesis
fact,
configuration
process
reactors, reactor the to
key 175
181
187
process
capacity
as 194
182
factor
the
increasing
177
Lower viscosity
sludge retention in
for
separation
is fermentation
the failure
a the and
good
methanogenic
a innovation
introduction
reactors The to
case retain
of
and
most of hydrolysis/acidogenesis
food
anaerobic
plays the high
 role
process
complexity,
accelerants
common
anaerobic
Lower viscosity
microorganism
waste
high‐rate
of
as AD More clogging risk
digestion
treatment
the
are fermentation
covered
(metabolic
plants are and
phases,
concentrations
significantly
produced from biogas is the acetogenesis/methanogenesis
thus
composed
membrane
Higher efficiency of degradation reactors.
increase gas production [22,23]. pre‐treatment is needed plays
lagoons,
inside
improves
retention
promoting
the
of
Advantages a of
role
conventional
for one of
or and no
microorganisms) A
more vertical phases,
thus
in heated
order respectively.
to promoting
accelerate
reactors
A
the
with and an
78
81
91
82
83
74
93
75
blanket
high‐dense (UASB)
liquid
process  animal 184
contains
185
manure
well‐settleable
and
anaerobic organic methanogenic
of accelerants 174 ordered according
introduction (metabolic stimulants for
industrial
reactors, to increasing
microorganisms)

sludge
Lower viscosity sludge.
waste.
retention
Higher biogas production rate The The
innovation
in formation
Higher pathogen removing from order
main
reactors
More clogging risk and
to of
accelerate
limitation,
anaerobic dense
complexity, if and More sensitive to environmental
are covered
membrane lagoons,
reactors.
sludge conventional
Advantages and
94
76
85
86
87
96
two‐phase
reactor.
methanogenic
conversion
anaerobic configuration
In reactors,
fact,
process
efficiency the sludge key
capacity
as the
of 182
188
factor
the
195
183 two‐phase
process
176 in the
for conversion
a reactors
fermentation good case
volatile
Lower viscosity
retention
178 fraction
internal configuration
of
to
and
mixing food
anaerobic
plays the
biogas.
efficiency reactor
anaerobic
Higher biogas production rate waste
high‐rate
role
system of
of process
contains
According treatment
membrane
sludge
based on in
to
a a
the
“pre‐treatment”, [21], case
is the
the volatile fraction
reactors.
wet the
thus
process of food
improves
retention
promoting
payback
to biogas.
Advantages
operated waste
of
time in
According
and the digestion
for significantly
to [21],
mesophilic the improves
payback
conditions. of time
This type the
for
of
the
72
79 drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. 185 blanket (UASB) Less clogging risk well‐settleable
Low methane yield methanogenic Larger investment
sludge. The formation a dense
82
92
83
84
75
94
76
sludge The
recirculation most
bed is common
AD permits
process  to
performed, the
can AD
be plants
microorganism’s
186
175carried
Less clogging risk
is are out composed
anaerobic
the innovation
failure retention
in
to one or of
reactors,
retain two
high one
inside or
stages,
sludge more
microorganism
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, vertical
system.
depending
retention
Larger investment
More clogging risk The heated
on advantages
Higher efficiency of degradation Higher nitrate concentration in the
reactors the
concentrations reactors
combination
and with
of
anaerobic
inside UASB an
or
membrane
the changes reactors.
sludge Advantages
promoting and
95
77
86
87
88
73
ordered
methanogenic
blanket according
(UASB) process
efficiency  reactor increasing
as
of the
the 177
183
189
volatile
196
184
contains a methanogenic
fermentation fraction
plays
conversion process
complexity,
the
to permits
biogas.
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. 179 
methanogenic role as
substrate
of
According 
the
Less clogging risk are fermentation
covered
sludge. to [21],
The the plays
lagoons,
thus payback
formation
Higher organic load‐bearing but higher quantity of energy is
Low methane yield
the
promoting
of role
conventional
time
a of
dense  the “pre‐treatment”,
for Larger investment thus
More sensitive to environmental the
80
83
93
84
85
76
internal
separation
reactor.
The most
mixing
Anaerobic of common digestion
system
hydrolysis/acidogenesis AD
substrate plants
186
171
based
187 on
Less clogging risk are
sludge
176
systems composed
ordered
and bed of
according
a two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
a wet
Higher efficiency of degradation process operated one
to
In fact, the to
key factor for good anaerobic
most common
or
the in
increasing
the
were The strongly improved
high‐rate
more
AD
vertical
changes
microorganism’s
mesophilic heated
innovation
conditions.
Larger investment
treatment
plants are phases,
in recent decades,
is
reactors
retention
and with
inside
complexity,
This
respectively.
the payback
composed through
retention
of of
one type
of
or
an
the
of system.
are covered
A vertical
the
more
The advantages
lagoons,
heated
of
reactors time
UASB
conventional
with for an
95
77
71
96
78
87
88
89
ordered
Thermophilic
anaerobic
conversion
blanket
sludge The according
bed reactors,
efficiency
(UASB)
permits reactor increasing
sludge
of
the retention
the
185
innovation
volatile
178
184
190
contains
microorganism’s conversion
reactors
fraction
on a innovation
to
composed
high‐rate retention
most common AD plants are
complexity,
efficiency
anaerobic
biogas. digestion
methanogenic
of
anaerobic inside
one of
According
or
digesters,
are
the
membrane
sludge
more
covered
volatile
sludge.
system. to
Low methane yield
vertical
which The
The lagoons,
fraction
reactors.
[21], the
formation
advantages
heated
ordered according to increasing innovation
is widely to conventional
biogas.
Advantages
reactors
and time
a
of According
and
dense
UASB
with
complexity,
used in the for an to co‐digestion
[21], the payback
are
case covered
of lagoons, of conventional
wastewater,
74
81
84
94
85
86
77
internal
two‐phase
introduction
ordered mixing
configuration
of
according 
accelerants system
capacity
to 180
171
based
187
172
177
(metabolic
increasing a wet
anaerobic process
188
process in the Anaerobic
case
stimulants
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) The of
most
AD
and operated
reactors,
food
common
for
process
complexity, Lower viscosity
sludge
waste
can 
substrate in
microorganisms) AD mesophilic
retention
systems
digestion
plants are
in
be
are carried
covered conditions.
reactors
were
significantly
out strongly
composed
order
in
lagoons,
Higher free ammonia concentration to
one This
or of one
accelerate
two type
anaerobic
improved
improves
conventional or and
stages, of
the
more Decreased stability process
membrane
in vertical
recent
changes
depending reactors.
on the Advantages
decades,
heated through
reactors
This with
combination and
type the an
or
71
96
78
72
79
88
89
Thermophilic
anaerobic
sludge
process bed reactors,
permits
process
Lower viscosity
sludge
substrate
the
can retention
be 185
191
microorganism’s
186carried internal
reactors
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. out mixing
179 retention
The AD in one or anaerobic
two system
inside
stages, the Decreased stability process
based
membrane
sludge
changes on
system.
depending
in “pre‐treatment”,
a wet
The on process
reactors.
advantages
the operated
Advantages of
combination UASB in
or mesophilic conditions. of
90
75
82
85
95
86
internal
high‐rate
methanogenic
Thermophilic
mixing
anaerobic
process system based
digesters,
as 181
172
189
the on a anaerobic
Small size of digesters wet
introduction
fermentation
internal
process
188
173 which AD
plays
mixing
operated
high‐dense reactors,
liquid
of
the accelerants
process 
sludge
animal
is The widely used in the 
substrate
role
system can
of mesophilic
case
(metabolic
be carried conditions.
retention
manure reactors
and
of co‐digestion organic
stimulants
out in and
one
thus
based on a wet process of This
or for
two
promoting
operated
type
anaerobic
industrial
wastewater,
microorganisms)
stages, 
of
membrane
the
in
waste.
changes The
depending
mesophilic
reactors.
in main
order
on Advantages
limitation,
to
the
conditions. accelerate
combination
This
if and
type
no
and
or
of
87
78
72
79
73
80
89
90
anaerobic
blanket reactors,
(UASB) sludge
reactor 178
retention
contains
most common AD plants a separation
reactors
well‐settleable
are composed
process The AD
of process
Anaerobic digestion
separation hydrolysis/acidogenesis can be 180
186
192carried out
187
Less clogging risk
systems is and
were
of
and
in strongly
one or hydrolysis/acidogenesis
anaerobic
methanogenic
two digestion
of performed, one Lower viscosity
or  more
in stages,
improved
membrane
Less clogging risk sludge.
vertical
depending The and
reactors.
heated
on to acetogenesis/methanogenesis
formation
the
phases,
Larger investment
in recent decades,
Advantages
reactors of
combination a
with
respectively.
through
and
dense
or the
an
or Larger investment phases,
respectively. A
91
76
83
86
96
87
high‐rate
high‐dense
conversion anaerobic
liquid
efficiency  digesters,
animal
of the 182
173
189
174
Lower viscosity which
manure
190
volatile and
separation
Higher organic load‐bearing fraction Anaerobic
recirculation widely
The most
organic of
to is
used
common
industrial
biogas. the
According AD systems
is
case the
of
plants were
failure
co‐digestion
are
waste. The
to [21], main
and
the strongly
composed
retain
of food
limitation, improved
high microorganism
wastewater,
of one if
payback time more
no
for in vertical
recent decades,
concentrations
heated
phases, through
inside
reactors with the
respectively. an
A
88
79
73
80
74
81
90
91
sludge
internal
process
two‐phase
introduction
The bed permits
most
mixing common
separation of of
Anaerobic
configuration
accelerants
substrate
the
digestion
system
hydrolysis/acidogenesis AD 179
microorganism’s
based plants
171
181 on
systems
process
188
two‐phase
high‐rate
are composed configuration
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. retention
anaerobic
of the
a two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
187
193 in
(metabolic wet
were
the and process
The
stimulants strongly
case of operated inside
one
food
for
digesters,
or
improved
waste in
Lower viscosity
microorganisms)
process
changes
more system.
mesophilic
in
digestion
in
which
vertical
recent
the
The
is case
advantages
widely
heated
conditions.
phases,
decades,
significantly
in order
of
to
used
reactors
This waste
of
in
respectively.
through
improves
accelerate
UASB
with the
type and the digestion
an case of significantly
co‐digestion
of improves
of wastewater, the
92
71
77
84
87
88
high‐rate
high‐dense
recirculation anaerobic
liquid
The mixing is common system
performed, digesters,
animal 183
174
190
175
is which
manure
the introduction
is
reactor.
and
internal
failure
191 two‐phase widely
to most
In
organic
mixing
retain of
used
fact, accelerants
common
high system
industrial
configuration
substrate high‐rate anaerobic
in the
key
digesters,
AD (metabolic
case
factor
waste.
based
Less clogging risk
microorganism sludge of
plants for
on The a
wet stimulants
co‐digestion
a are composed
good
main
process
concentrations
anaerobic for
limitation,
process
changes in
which the
is case
widely of operated
food
used
microorganisms)
wastewater,
of one
inside or
high‐rate
if
waste
in the in more
no
the vertical
treatment
mesophilic in conditions.
Larger investment
digestion
case of
order
is the to
heated
significantly
co‐digestion
accelerate
reactors
retention
This of and
with
type
improves
of wastewater,
an
the
of
the
89
80
74
81
75
82
91
92
ordered
internal according
most  to AD 180
increasing
based plants
on
Less clogging risk
172 a methanogenic
innovation
are composed
high‐dense
wet and
process
Anaerobic
two‐phase
introduction
methanogenic Anaerobic
configuration
of process
increase gas production [22,23]. digestion
accelerants capacity systems
process
182
188
194
(metabolic
as factor
the
189 were
the
fermentation
Lower viscosity The strongly process
complexity,
of
liquid
operated
in increase gas production [22,23].
case
stimulants of food
AD
plays for
process
the
one or
improved
system waste as
animal
digestion  in
based
microorganisms)
role can
of
the
are
more
be in fermentation
manure
digestion covered
vertical
mesophilic
Larger investment
systems recent
carried
“pre‐treatment”, and
in decades,
a significantly
produced from biogas order
out
Decreased stability process in
plays
lagoons,
heated
organic
conditions.
were strongly
thus to
one
the role
conventional
reactors
through
improves
accelerate
or two
promoting
with
industrial
This type
improved of
and
stages, in the
an
of waste.
in The
recent
depending main thus
decades, promoting
limitation,
through
on the combination if no
the
or
93
72
78
85
88
89
high‐dense
recirculation
reactor. The In
AD liquid
is
fact, performed,
process the animal
key
can be manure
184
175
is carried
191
176
171
192 the and
internal
failure
for a out
ordered
methanogenic organic
to
in mixing
retain
one
high‐dense or
according industrial
high
two
process
liquid microorganism
high‐rate
stages,
to increasing
as
animal
waste.
the on
treatment
depending The wet main
Less clogging risk innovation
fermentation
manure and is
on process
concentrations
a wet
good anaerobic but higher quantity of energy is
the
the limitation,
plays
organic
operated
retention inside
combination
and the if of
of
complexity,
role
industrial
no
the
or mesophilic
are covered
waste. The
conditions.
Larger investment lagoons,
main thus This type the
conventional
promoting
limitation,
of
if and
no
90
81
75
82
76
71
83
92
93
anaerobic
internal
high‐rate
introduction
methanogenic reactors,
mixing
anaerobic
of system
accelerants
process
sludge
digesters,
as
of the 181
retention
based
183
189
Lower viscosity
195
on
which
(metabolic
the conversion
reactors
recirculation
fermentation
volatile
190 is widely
stimulants
separation
fraction plays efficiency
and
process
173
capacity introduction is
of anaerobic
operated
used
of
to performed,
accelerants
for
the in of
the in the
microorganisms)
role of
biogas.
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, According
volatile
membrane
mesophilic
is
case the
of
“pre‐treatment”, fraction
reactors.
conditions.
failure
co‐digestion
in order
to [21], and to
the thus to
retain
to biogas.
Advantages
of This
high
for
wastewater,
accelerate
promoting According
type and
microorganism
microorganisms)
and
payback time
of
the
for
to [21], the
phases,
payback
concentrations
in order to time
inside
accelerate
respectively.
for
the
A
94
73
79
86
89
90
recirculation
reactor. In of is
fact, performed,
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. is
185
176
the Less clogging risk
key factor the failure
for conversion
a good
high‐rate
171
192
177
to
separation hydrolysis/acidogenesis 172
193 is and
anaerobic
recirculation The
retain
anaerobic
anaerobic high
reactors,
efficiency
is performed,
microorganism
high‐rate
digesters,
sludge
of  the is treatment
which concentrations
blanket (UASB) reactor contains a well‐settleable
is widely
is the retain
Larger investment
retention
volatile
the phases,
reactors
fraction
failure to retention
used inside
methanogenic
in of
respectively.
and
to anaerobic
biogas.
high the A
According the
microorganism
sludge.
case of
membrane The formation
to co‐digestion
reactors.
[21], the of a dense
of wastewater,
Advantages
payback
concentrations of and
time
inside for
the
91
82
76
83
77
72
84
93
94
high‐rate
high‐dense anaerobic
liquid
conversion
ordered efficiency digesters,
animal
of the 182
174 which
manure
volatile
184
190
196
capacity reactor.
fraction
two‐phase widely AD
In to process
fact,
used
and organic industrial
biogas.
configuration
The AD process
according  to can be 191
increasing carried out
innovation in one
and or two
complexity,
the
in can
key
the
According
stages, 
be
factor
case carried
waste.
process for
of
depending
are to
in
covered
out
a the
good
co‐digestion
The [21], main
on
in
the
case one
the
lagoons,
or
anaerobic
of
payback
of food two
combination
stages,
high‐rate
wastewater,
limitation, time if
waste
conventional no
for depending
treatment
digestion
or
on
is the
the
significantly combination
retention
improves or
the
95
74
80
87
90
91
71
reactor.
blanket
two‐phase In fact,
(UASB)
configuration
Anaerobic the
reactor
key
digestion factor
substrate
172
193
178
contains
process
173
194
systems for
a in a good
ordered
high‐rate
sludge
186
177 well‐settleable
the
were
reactor. case
The
anaerobic
according
anaerobic
bed
Less clogging risk high‐dense of permits
liquid
strongly
AD
In methanogenic
food
process
fact,
high‐rate
to
waste increasing
digesters,
the
animal
improved
the can
key
treatment
changes
microorganism’s innovation
which
Larger investment
be sludge.
digestion
in
factor recent
carried
for a The
out
is
is the
widely
formation
significantly
decades,
good in one
retention
and
retention
manure and organic used
anaerobic
of
complexity,
in
inside
industrial
of with
improves
through
or two
the
a stages,
dense
high‐rate
the
the are
case
an waste.
covered
of
system.
depending
treatment
lagoons,
co‐digestion
The
The main
on the
is the
of
advantages conventional
wastewater,
of
limitation,
combination
retention
UASB
if the
of no
or
92
83
77
84
78
73
85
94
95
high‐rate
high‐dense
recirculation
ordered
anaerobic
The most common
anaerobic
liquid
according
of
reactors, reactor animal
is hydrolysis/acidogenesis
performed, to
AD
digesters, 183
plants
is
191
increasing
sludge
which
manure
175 the are is composed
separation
failure
methanogenic
a innovation
retention and
reactors
organic
to of
retain
185 and
separation 192
of high
process
complexity,
one
anaerobic
or
the more
industrial
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, microorganism
as the waste.
the
are
membrane
vertical
The
fermentation
covered
heated
widely used in case of co‐digestion
and
and sludge main
concentrations reactors
plays
lagoons,
phases,
reactors.
of wastewater,
limitation,
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, the inside
role
conventional
respectively.
Advantages
if of
and
no
A
phases,
thus respectively.
promoting A
the
96
75
81
88
91
71
92
72
blanket
sludge
methanogenic
introduction (UASB)
bed permits
of process 
accelerants the
as 187
178
contains
173
194
179
microorganism’s
the
174
195
anaerobic
high‐dense
well‐settleable
recirculation
fermentation
(metabolic
Lower viscosity The reactors,
plays liquid
retention
most methanogenic
is
the performed,
common sludge
animal
inside
role of 
retention
manure
sludge.
is the
system.
AD plants reactors
and
The
failure
The
are organic and
formation
to retain
advantages
stimulants
separation of for microorganisms)
hydrolysis/acidogenesis in order
and
Higher biogas production rate sludge thus
composed to anaerobic
industrial
of
high
promoting
of a
of
one
accelerate dense
microorganism
UASB
or and
membrane
the waste.
more The
vertical reactors.
main
heated
phases,
Advantages
limitation,
reactors if and
with
respectively.
no
the
an
A
93
84
78
85
79
74
86
95
96
internal
high‐dense
recirculation
reactor.
ordered
anaerobic
blanket The mixing
In AD liquid
is
process
fact,
reactors,
system
the
reactor
two‐phase configuration
(UASB)
animal
can
key
to
sludge be 184
based
is
176
factor
increasing
186
192
on
manure
the
carried
for
retention
193
process
contains
a
a in a wet
two‐phase
blanket
failure
out
good
ordered
innovation
conversion
reactors
the
well‐settleable
process
organic
to
in
case
(UASB)
retain
one operated
and or
anaerobic
according
and
of
industrial
configuration
high
two
complexity,
efficiency
anaerobic
food
methanogenic
reactor
stages,
high‐rate
to
waste
in
increasing
of the
mesophilic
waste.
process
contains
microorganism depending
treatment
are
the
membrane
digestion
The
in
covered
volatile
sludge.
conditions.
main
the
a innovation
is case
well‐settleable
concentrations
on
reactors. the
the
lagoons,
fraction
significantly
The formation
This
limitation,
of food
retention
and
to biogas.
Advantages
improves
of of
type
methanogenic
inside
combination if
waste
of
complexity,
conventional According
a UASB and
dense
of
no
the
the
digestion
or sludge.
are significantly
covered
to The lagoons,
[21], formation
the improves
of time
conventional
payback the
a dense
for
76
82
89
92
72
93
73
94
sludge
conversion bed permits
efficiency
increase gas production [22,23].  the
of the 188
179
microorganism’s
174
195
180
volatile
175
196
recirculation
reactor.
fraction
internal
Higher biogas production rate retention
In to
mixing is
fact, performed,
biogas.
two‐phase
blanket
185 for anaerobic Anaerobic configuration
(UASB)
recirculation is performed, is the failure to retain high inside
the
system key
reactor According
digestion
microorganism
is
based
sludge
process
contains
the
system.
factor
systems for
on to
a
failure
a
in The
a good
[21],
wet
the
to anaerobic
the
process
case
well‐settleable
were
retain
advantages
payback
of
strongly
concentrations
high
operated
food
microorganism
high‐rate
time
waste
methanogenic
improved
inside for
in
the treatment
mesophilic
digestion
sludge.
in recent
concentrations
is
conditions.
significantly
The formation
decades,
inside
the retention
This
of of
type
improves
a
through
the
dense of
85 The AD
reactor. In reactors,
separation
anaerobic process
fact,
of can
the sludge be
key factor
hydrolysis/acidogenesis carried out
methanogenic
sludge
a reactors
good in one
bed
and anaerobic
retention or two
process
permits stages,
the as
high‐rate
reactors,
and anaerobic sludge depending
the fermentation
microorganism’s
treatment
retention
membrane on the
plays
retention
is the and
phases,
reactors
reactors. combination
the
retention role
respectively.
anaerobic
Advantages of
of and or
A system. The thus
advantages promoting
membrane reactors. Advantages and of UASB the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 8 of 29
Table 2. Cont.
 Free ammonia decreasing  32 Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
5 of 32

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mesophilic 5 of
process  Mesophilic
Less thermal energy required by  Free ammonia decreasing
 (c)Bigger digesters size
membrane reactor [22]  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
process  Less thermal energy required by  Bigger digesters size
Mesophilic  Description Advantages 
Mesophilic
process 

Less thermal energy required by Drawbacks
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Description

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Less degradation efficiency
digester, even if larger digester size  Less degradation efficiency 5 of 32
process process
 Less thermal energy required by  Less thermal energy required by
5 of  32 Bigger digesters size
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW should be considered digester, even if larger digester size
Excellent adaptability for
Lower pathogen removing from 5 of  32 Less degradation efficiency
Biofilm to separate should be considered  Lower pathogen removing from
Clogging of filter media
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mesophilic
digester, even if larger digester size  
biomass to a new carbon source 5 of
Less degradation efficiency  32 Less degradation efficiency
Mesophilic Anaerobic
filter biomass from effluent,should be considered
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
and to organic load fluctuation  Lower pathogen removing from
Higher investment costs 5 of 32
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW  Less nitrate concentration in the 5 of 32 substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Mesophilic reactor—AF
Free ammonia decreasing at up-flow
process or  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
 Less thermal energy required by  Not suitable for wastewater
process should be considered
 sludge
Less thermal energy required by  Bigger digesters size
Simpler solution for
Less nitrate concentration in the 5 of 32 substrate, post‐treatment is needed
Mesophilic  Free ammonia decreasing down-flow condition
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW sludge  Higher viscosity of influent,
industrial application
with high suspended solids
 Higher viscosity of influent, 5 of 32
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Mesophilic  digester, even if larger digester size
Less nitrate concentration in the 5 of  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
32 Less degradation efficiency
Mesophilic  digester, even if larger digester size
Better process stability  substrate, post‐treatment is needed
sludge Less degradation efficiency
 Higher viscosity of influent,
process  Less thermal energy required by  Better process stability  Bigger digesters size pre‐treatment is needed
Free ammonia decreasing process  Less thermal energy required by
sludge  Less degradation efficiency
should be considered  Bigger digesters size
Membrane fouling, especially
sludge
should be considered Mesophilic
 digester, even if larger digester size  Free ammonia decreasing
Higher OLR
More clogging risk
Mesophilic
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Free ammonia decreasing  Higher retention time (30‐50 days)
Less degradation efficiency 5 of 
32 due to proteins at
More clogging risk
should be considered process   Bigger digesters size
Greater resistance to inhibitors
Small-inert particles  Less degradation efficiency
substrate, post‐treatment is needed low temperature
More clogging risk
process Anaerobic
should be considered  Bigger digesters size
Low methane yield
Good mass transfer efficiency
Lower pathogen removing from  32 Lower pathogen removing from
Low methane yield
Mesophilic digester, even if larger digester size
fluidized
bed
Free ammonia decreasing sludge   Less degradation efficiency
used as the medium fordigester, even if larger digester size
5 of  Fluidization is still an
More clogging risk
 32 Less degradation efficiency
Thermophilic reactor—AFBR
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW should be considered
sludge
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)   Higher free ammonia concentration
More effective than AF
More clogging risk
Higher viscosity of influent, 5 of Low methane yield
empirical science
bacterial
Less nitrate concentration in the attachment
Thermophilic  Lower retention time (15‐16 days) Less degradation efficiency
substrate, post‐treatment is needed  Higher free ammonia concentration
process should be considered
sludge
Free ammonia decreasing  Bigger digesters size
Better hydraulic circulation
 Better process stability
Low methane yield
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) 
Low methane yield
Process improvement at large
Mesophilic
process Better process stability
 Small size of digesters
sludge Thermophilic pre‐treatment is needed
Greater surface area
Higher viscosity of influent,  32 Higher free ammonia concentration
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW process
Free ammonia decreasing  Small size of digesters
Higher retention time (30‐50 days) 
5 of scale is needed
Mesophilic Better process stability Thermophilic  sludge  Higher free ammonia concentration
Less nitrate concentration in the  Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
process sludge
process  Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk
but higher quantity of energy is  Higher thermal energy required,
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW substrate, post‐treatment is needed
 Higher organic load‐bearing but higher quantity of energy is 5 of 32
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW sludge process  Bigger digesters size
 Small size of digesters Higher viscosity of influent,
Suitable for small-medium
More clogging risk  32 Higher thermal energy required,
5 of pre‐treatment is needed
Mesophilic
process  capacity
sludge
sludge
 Higher organic load‐bearing
Low methane yield
 produced from biogas
size industry
Low methane yield
capacity More clogging risk produced from biogas
process  digester, even if larger digester size
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Better process stability
Mesophilic
Less thermal energy required by  Bigger digesters size
 Higher organic load‐bearing
Low methane yield
Better process stability 
5 of  32 Higher free ammonia concentration
More clogging risk
 should be considered Thermophilic
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) capacity
Thermophilic  Higher efficiency of degradation
Mesophilic  Smaller footprint
More clogging risk
Lower pathogen removing from than
UASB produced from biogas
Better process stability Modification of UASB  pre‐treatment is needed
Low methane yield
Higher efficiency of degradation  Higher nitrate concentration in the
Thermophilic should be considered
sludge process
process  Higher free ammonia concentration
Higher
capacity mixing
More clogging risk due
 Higher efficiency of degradation
to higher
Low methane yield
More clogging risk
process
Mesophilic
Thermophilic  capacity
Small size of digesters reactor, used when
Lower retention time (15‐16 days)  
Low methane yield
up-flow velocity
sludge
More clogging risk
sludge
 Small size of digesters
process Better process stability
volumetric
Less nitrate concentration in the gas  Higher thermal energy required,
Thermophilic  Higher efficiency of degradation Low methane yield
Improved mass transfer and
Higher organic load‐bearing  32 Higher free ammonia concentration
5 of Less degradation efficiency
Low methane yield
Thermophilic  Higher pathogen removing from
sludge
Higher organic load‐bearing  Higher free ammonia concentration
production rate is low Higher biogas production rate Higher viscosity of influent,
Low methane yield sludge
process Expanded
Small size of digesters  Bigger digesters size
biomass activity
Higher pathogen removing from  More sensitive to environmental
sludge
Thermophilic  Higher organic load‐bearing process
and mixing is    Higher viscosity of influent,
More clogging risk  Suspended solids cannot be
sludge
process
Mesophilic granularBetter process stability Thermophilic  Higher pathogen removing from
sludge
capacity
Free ammonia decreasing capacity substrate, post‐treatment is needed
sludge
Higher organic and
Higher retention time (30‐50 days)  Higher free ammonia concentration
Thermophilic  substrate
insufficient  Higher free ammonia concentration
substrate changes
but higher quantity of energy is substantially removed
changes
process blanket—EGSB
capacity
sludge process  Higher thermal energy required,
hydraulic
Less nitrate concentration in the loadings
Low methane yield
Small size of digesters   Higher thermal energy required,
process  It
Higher organic load‐bearing can
 Lower viscosity
separate gas, 
substrate More clogging risk
Bigger digesters size changes
capacity liquid and solid  Lower viscosity  Higher thermal energy required,
Suitable for wastewater
produced from biogas  Decreased stability process
Thermophilic  substrate Higher organic load‐bearing
Better process stability  substrate  Higher free ammonia concentration
capacity
sludge More clogging risk
containing lipids and
Higher biogas production rate produced from biogas
changes
capacity
sludge
 Less clogging risk biomass  Higher organic load‐bearing

Lower viscosity Low methane yield
changes
sludge
Larger investment  sludge but higher quantity of energy is
Higher efficiency of degradation  Less clogging risk  Higher nitrate concentration in the
toxic/inhibitory compounds  Larger investment
process  capacity simultaneously 
Small size of digesters Low methane yield
Lower viscosity sludge  More sensitive to environmental
71 Thermophilic
Lower viscosity
should be considered  Less clogging risk More clogging risk
capacity Decreased stability process
Devices for precipitation
 Lower pathogen removing from  Larger investment
Thermophilic
 capacity
sludge 171
sludge
separation, extra degassing
Higher biogas production rate and  or sludge
72 The AD process
process  substrate Higher organic load‐bearing
can be 171
172carried out The
Less clogging risk
Less nitrate concentration in the in one
AD or two
process  be
substrate
stages, More sensitive to environmental
Low methane yield
depending
can Larger investment
sludge on in the
More clogging risk
changes
carried not out one combination
or two stages,
More clogging risk
Larger investment
changes
depending on the combination or
Better process stability  More sensitive to environmental
reflux required
73 process  substrate
separation of hydrolysis/acidogenesis 171
172
173 and
The AD acetogenesis/methanogenesis  be
sludge phases,
changes respectively.  sludge
Low methane yield
71 Thermophilic
capacity
separation
Lower viscosity
sludge of process can
carried out
Higher biogas production rate in one
hydrolysis/acidogenesis and or two stages,
Low methane yield
depending phases,
on the respectively.
Decreased stability process combination or A
74 two‐phase configuration  substrate 172
process
173
174 in separation
the The case AD of
of food
process waste
can
hydrolysis/acidogenesis  digestion
sludge
More clogging risk
changes
out in
and one improves
or two stages,
acetogenesis/methanogenesis the depending on the
phases, combination
respectively. or
A
72 The AD process
process  Lower viscosity
can be carried two‐phase
Higher organic load‐bearing out
Higher efficiency of degradation in
Thermophilic one configuration
or two 
 role stages, 
substrate  process
depending in the case
on
Lower retention time (15‐16 days) the of
Higher nitrate concentration in the food
combination waste  digestion
or changes significantly improves the
the More sensitive to environmental
75 Thermophilic 3.1.
methanogenic  Monitoring
substrate
capacity
as the 173
174
Less clogging risk andseparation
Controlplays
fermentation
175 two‐phase ofconfiguration
Plant
of the Efficiency
Less clogging risk
 “pre‐treatment”,
of changes
Larger investment thus
process in the and
case of promoting
food waste
Larger investment
digestion phases,
significantly respectively.
improves A
73 separation of hydrolysis/acidogenesis Higher pathogen removing from
Lower viscosity methanogenic process
and acetogenesis/methanogenesis as More sensitive to environmental
Low methane yield
the fermentation
Decreased stability process plays the
phases, respectively. A role of “pre‐treatment”, thus promoting the
76
71 conversion efficiency  Less clogging risk

substrate
capacity
of the 171
174
volatile
175 process
Higher organic load‐bearing fraction
176
two‐phase
methanogenic to  Lower viscosity
biogas.
configuration
process  process
According
substrate
as
changes
Larger investment
sludge
the to in [21],
fermentation the the
case payback
plays food
the time
waste
role for
of Decreased stability process
digestion
“pre‐treatment”, thus improves
promoting the
74 process

two‐phase configuration  An
Lower viscosity
Small size of digesters conversion
process management
optimal
substrate in the case of food efficiency
system waste 
of the
 digestion
for Decreased stability process
volatile
More clogging risk fraction
significantly
aHigher free ammonia concentration
biogas
changes plant to
should biogas.
improves
allow According the to [21],
a “pre‐treatment”,
certain the
flexibility payback time
incombination
terms of the for
77
71
72
Thermophilic Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
Less clogging risk
172
175
176
 Higher pathogen removing from
177
Lower viscosity out The
methanogenic
conversion AD process
process
 role
efficiency can
as
of  the
Larger investment
be
the carried
fermentation out in the
Decreased stability process one
plays
volatile fraction to or two
the
biogas. role stages,
of the
According depending
to [21], on the
thus
the promoting
payback time for or
75 The AD process
methanogenic process can be
as the
capacity carried
fermentation
Less clogging risk
Higher biogas production rate in plays
one or two
the Less clogging risk
stages,
of More sensitive to environmental
depending
Larger investment
sludge on thus combination
promoting or Larger investment
78
71
72
73 process
the  hydraulic
178
and
Small size of digesters organic
173
176 separation
conversion load
177
Lower viscosity of of substrates

efficiency of the and a certain
Low methane yield
volatile and
fraction diversification
Higher thermal energy required, to biogas.
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would According of the
to types of
phases,
[21], the substrates;
respectively.
payback time A
for
76 The AD
separation
conversion of process
efficiency  substrate can
hydrolysis/acidogenesis be
of the 171carried
volatile
Less clogging risk out in one
fraction
Higher biogas production rate to or two stages,
biogas.  sludge
According
capacity
depending
to [21],
Larger investment on
phases,
the the combination
and respectively.
payback time for or
A produced from biogas
79
71
72
73
74 The AD disposal
process 
 can of
capacity be 174
177
waste;
178carried maximization
179 two‐phase
out in one or of 
configuration
two organic
stages,  changes
Less clogging risk conversion
process
depending in the
produced from biogas efficiency
case
on the of food
 in
combination
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a waste 
biogas/biomethane; Larger investment
digestion
or production
significantly improves of the
77 separation
Thermophilic
two‐phase Lower retention time (15‐16 days)
 Less clogging risk
configuration 172
process and case
The acetogenesis/methanogenesis
in two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22].
the of food
Higher organic load‐bearing AD process waste
can Higher free ammonia concentration
 digestion
be carried phases,
significantly
Larger investment
out in one respectively.
improves
or two stages, A depending on the combination or
the
71
80
72
73
74 The
Anaerobic
AD of process
good digestion quality 175
178
systems
171
180 were
can be 179carried out
in methanogenic
digestate in strongly
one or process
biomethane; improved
digestion
two stages,
as reduction
the in recent
fermentation
Higher efficiency of degradation decades,
depending on sizethe
plays through
combination
and of the of the role
theimproved
plant of the
or
and operating thus reduction
costs; promoting
through the
75
78
71
separation
two‐phase
methanogenic hydrolysis/acidogenesis
configuration
process 
Lower viscosity
as process
substrate 173
the fermentation and case acetogenesis/methanogenesis
the Anaerobic of
plays food
the
process Higher efficiency of degradation
Small size of digesters separation of waste
role of

hydrolysis/acidogenesis digestion
sludge
systems
changes phases,
significantly
were thus
and
respectively.
strongly improves
promoting
A
the in recent phases,
decades, respectively. the
A
72
81
73
74
75
The AD
introduction
separation of process
of accelerants capacity
can
179
180
172
181carried
(metabolic out
and
conversion in plays
stimulants one or two
for stages,
microorganisms)
efficiency
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. of the produced from biogas
depending
volatile in on
order
phases,
fraction the
to combination
to accelerate
respectively.
biogas. and
According or
A to [21], the payback time and for
76
79
72
two‐phase
methanogenic
process
of
efficiency the

as process
the
environmental
of the 174
substrate in
volatile
Less clogging risk
the
fermentation impact.case
Anaerobic
The
introduction
fraction
two‐phase
of
AD
to food
the
process
of waste
digestion
role
accelerants

biogas.
configuration of
can
According digestion
systems
be carried
(metabolic
changes
process
significantly
were
out
to in [21],
 Larger investment in strongly
thus
one
stimulants
the the
case
improves
payback
of for
food
improved
promoting
or two stages, the
microorganisms)
time
waste for in
sludge
digestion
recent
depending in decades,
on
order the
significantly to through
combination
accelerate
improves
the
or
the
73
82
74
75
76
The AD
separation of process  Lower viscosity
two‐phase configuration can
180
181carried out
process
173
182 and
in separation
the in plays
case one
of or two
food stages,
waste
digestion  “pre‐treatment”,
depending
sludge on thus
phases, the respectively.
 digestion
systems significantly
were combination
strongly improves
Anaerobic improved or
A in recent decades, through and the
77
80
73
methanogenic
conversion process
efficiency  Several as the
of the
175 fermentation
volatile
parameters introduction
fraction
Higher efficiency of degradation to the
of of
biogas.
Anaerobic digestion systems were
methanogenic strongly
need toprocess be role
accelerants of
According
improved
monitored
as  the
(metabolic
in fermentation
recent
at stimulants
to full-scale
[21], the
and
decades, promoting
payback
Higher nitrate concentration in the for in time
level
plays through
the order
role of
the
microorganisms) for
the to promote in phases,
order
thethus to respectively.
accelerate
efficiency
promoting of the A
71
74
83
75
76
77
separation

two‐phase of
configuration Lower viscosity
181
process in the and case of food
methanogenic process as
substrate 182
the
174
183 fermentation plays the 
role of Decreased stability process
waste digestion
changes phases,
significantly
thus respectively.
introduction of accelerants (metabolic stimulants improves
promoting
for  A
the
microorganisms) More sensitive to environmental
in order to accelerate and
78
81
74
conversion
introduction efficiency
of 
accelerants
 process
of the
capacity volatile
Less clogging risk
176 fraction
(metabolic
in conversion
to biogas.
two‐phase configuration According
 to [21],
Larger investment
process in the the
case payback
of food
stimulants for biogas
efficiency microorganisms)
of the More sensitive to environmental
volatile in fraction
order to
to accelerate time
waste
toand
biogas. According
for
to [21], the payback improves the
time for
72
75
84
76
77 two‐phase
The according
methanogenic
ordered AD the
configuration
process
process to can
as the
the through
process
be 179
182
increasing
183carried
fermentation an
the
out
innovation adequate
case
in of
one
plays
and food
or two
the
complexity, waste
stages,
role of production,
sludge
digestion
depending
 “pre‐treatment”,
are covered on being
significantly the
thus
lagoons, related
improves
combination
promoting
and conventional
the improvement
or
the of biomass
78  Lower viscosity
79 conversion efficiency of volatile
175
184
Less clogging risk fraction to biogas.
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would According to [21],
Larger investment the payback
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, time for
82
71
75
73
177 methanogenic
ordered according process substrate
to as
increasing the fermentation
innovation
Decreased stability process plays the role
complexity,

of changes
are covered lagoons, thus promoting
conventional the
76
85
77
78
79
methanogenic
separation
conversion
anaerobic of process
quality,
efficiency
reactors, digestion substrate
as
sludge the
of best
hydrolysis/acidogenesis the 180 fermentation
environmental
183
volatile
retention
184 and
fraction
reactors plays
to
and the
conditions
biogas.
anaerobic
176
185 Anaerobic role
acetogenesis/methanogenesis of for
According
digestion changes
microorganism’s
membrane
systems to [21], the
reactors. thus
phases,
were promoting
growth,
respectively.
payback
Advantages
strongly
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, time
improved and
and the
for reduction
A are
in covered
recent of energy
decades, losses:
through the
80
83
71
72
76
Anaerobic
The AD process can be 178
systems
carried
ordered
conversion
anaerobic
were according
efficiency
reactors,
strongly
to increasing
of
sludge
improved
 waste the in innovation
volatile
retention
recent fraction
reactors
decades, and
to
out in one or two stages, depending on the
complexity,
biogas.
anaerobic
through
combination According
time the
membrane
the to [21], lagoons,
the
reactors. payback
or Decreased stability process
conventional
Advantages time for
and
74
77
86
78
79
80
conversion
two‐phase efficiency  Less clogging risk
configuration
operating of the volatile
181
184
process
parameters in fraction
the
of
ordered case
the to
of
powerbiogas.
food
185
177
186 introduction of
according
Lower viscosity
supply
accelerants to  digestion
According
increasing system; to
(metabolic [21],
Larger investment
digestionthe
significantly
stimulants
innovation payback
improves
temperature;
and for microorganisms)
complexity, for composition
are in
covered of
order the
to
lagoons, produced
accelerate
conventional
81
84
72
73
77 ordered Anaerobic
introduction
The
separation of
according
AD accelerants
process Lower viscosity
digestion
substrate
to systems
179
(metabolic
increasing
can
of hydrolysis/acidogenesis be anaerobic
were
stimulants
innovation
carried out in reactors,
strongly
and
one or for
complexity,
two sludge
improved
microorganisms)
stages,
and plays acetogenesis/methanogenesis
sludge
retention
in
changes
are recent
covered
depending reactors
in decades,
order
lagoons,
on
phases, to
the anaerobic
through
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. accelerate
conventional
combination
respectively. and membrane
the
or
A
reactors. Advantages and
75
78
87
79
80
71
81
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. as 182
185
the
186
178
187 fermentation composed the
The most common AD plants are of
anaerobic reactors, role
improved
one of more
Less clogging risk
sludge vertical
retention heated
reactors thus promoting
reactors
and with
anaerobic the an Larger investment
membrane reactors. Advantages with and
82
85
73
74
78
Anaerobic
introduction biogas;
of of
anaerobic
separation
two‐phase reactors,
configuration
digestion
accelerants
 sludge
hydrolysis/acidogenesis systems
quantity180
retention
Less clogging risk of
(metabolic were
biogas
reactors
process in the and strongly
introduced
Anaerobic
case and anaerobic into
of biogas.
food digestion
waste the
stimulants for microorganisms) in
membrane recent
engine; in decades,
pH
order
reactors.
Larger investment phases, ofto
systems
digestion were
significantly the
The most common AD plants are composed through
anaerobic
accelerate
of
Advantages one
respectively.
strongly or
improved
improves and
and the
A digestion
more
the recent process;
in vertical heated
decades, operating
reactors
through an
the
76
79
88
80
81
72
82
internal mixing
Anaerobic system of
digestion the
based 183
Lower viscosity
186
volatile
187 on
systems
179
188 a fraction
wet
were process to
strongly operated According
improved in Decreased stability process
mesophilic
in to [21],
recent the
conditions.
decades, payback This
through
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. time
type for
of
the
83
86
74
75
79
introduction
The
methanogenic
AD of accelerants
process
parameters
process
can
as
be (metabolic
171
181
of
the
carried
the gate stimulants
out in
The
valves
introduction
fermentation
one
most
plays
or
and for
two
common
two‐phase configuration process in the case of food
of
the
microorganisms)
stages,
internal mixing system
pumps;
waste
accelerants
role of
AD
based depending
plants
operating
digestion
(metabolic
in
are order
on
composed
on a significantly
wet
parameters
stimulants
to
the
process
thus
accelerate
combination
of
of one
operated
improves
for
promoting the or and or
more
in
microorganisms)
the
vertical
mesophilic
motor-generator in
heated
conditions.
group
order
reactors
to This with
(voltage,
accelerate type an
and of
71
77
80
89
81
82
73
83
Anaerobic
introduction of accelerants
 substrate 184
187
digestion systems
180
189 were
ordered The strongly
188
(metabolic stimulants according
most for
common improved
microorganisms)
to increasing
 AD in
changes recent
plants in
are decades,
order
innovation composed to
and through
accelerate
complexity,
of one or and the
more are covered
vertical lagoons,
heated conventional
reactors with an
84
87
75
76
80
separation
ordered
conversion The
methanogenic of
most hydrolysis/acidogenesis
according
common
process
current
efficiency to of AD
as
and 172
Less clogging risk
182
increasing
the
the plants
power
volatile are
fermentation and
internal
innovation The
composed
output,
mixing
Anaerobic and
AD
plays
operatingof
the
fraction to biogas.
system
digestion
complexity,
process one
role can
or
of
hours,
According
based
more on
systems
are
be a
covered
carried
vertical
emissions);
to
wet
Larger investment
[21],
phases,
were
out process
heated
the thus
global
respectively.
strongly operated
lagoons,
in one or
reactors improved
conventional
two
promoting stages,
with
self-consumption
payback time
in A
an
the
for
mesophilic
in recent
depending
of conditions.
decades,
on the
plant. The This
through
combination
reference type of
the
or
72
78
81
90
82
83
74
84 high‐rate Anaerobic
The AD process
anaerobic
increase gas production [22,23]. digestion systems
be
digesters, 185
188
can process
189
181
190carried
which were
out
is
anaerobic
internal in strongly
widely one or
introduction of accelerants (metabolic stimulants two
for
used
reactors,
mixing improved
stages,
microorganisms)
in the
sludge
system in on
case recent
depending
of
retention
based in decades,
on
order
co‐digestion
a reactors
wet the
to
process and through
combination
accelerate
of wastewater,
anaerobic
operated and the
or
in membrane
mesophilic reactors.
conditions. Advantages and
85
88
76
71
77 two‐phase
ordered
anaerobic
internal The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
configuration
according
reactors,
mixing  to
sludge
system 173
increasing
183
Lower viscosity
retention
of based in the
innovation
high‐rate
reactors
on a separation
wet case
introduction
process of
and food
complexity,
of
anaerobic
anaerobic
of biogas. waste
accelerants 
digesters,
operated digestion
are
membrane
in plant covered
(metabolic
which
mesophilic significantly
is lagoons,
stimulants
widely
reactors.
and improves
conventional
for
used
Advantages in the
and
microorganisms) case of in phases, respectively. of
order
co‐digestion to of This
accelerate type
wastewater, and A
81
73
79
82
91
83
84
conversion
introduction
separation
efficiency
parameter
of
of accelerants
the volatile
commonly
(metabolic
186
189
fraction
used
stimulants
and
to for According
microorganisms)
acetogenesis/methanogenesis operator in conditions.
to [21], the
isthus
order
phases,
payback
either
to This
by the biogas thetime
accelerate
respectively.
type
annualand of production
for or, alternatively,
A case of co‐digestion
75
85
86
89
77
72
78
high‐dense
ordered
methanogenic
anaerobic liquid
according
process
reactors, animal
to
sludge manure
190
increasing
as 174
the
retention
184
and
innovation
fermentation
high‐rate
reactors
two‐phase
organic
and
plays industrial
182
191 complexity,
the
anaerobic
anaerobic
high‐dense liquid
configuration
introducing a first digester can be less than 1.5 year. Therefore, the optimal conditions for AD would role of
digesters,
animal waste.
membrane
manure
process
The
covered
which
in
main
is
the lagoons,
widely
reactors.
and limitation,
organic
case of conventional
promoting
used
Advantages in
industrial
food
if
the
waste and no
the waste.
digestion The main
significantly of improves
wastewater,
limitation, if the
no
82
74
80
83
92
84
85
76
The AD
Anaerobic process
is the
performed,
can
digestion
operating be carried
systems
hours.
is volatile
191 the
out
ordered
were
AThe
failure
in
case
list
to
one or
according
two‐phase configuration  Less clogging risk
187
190
process in the two
of liquid
strongly
of food
the
recirculation retain high
stages,
to
waste increasing
improved
main  depending
digestion
in
parameters
microorganism innovation
Larger investment
recent on
significantly
is the
decades,
given
concentrations
combination
and complexity,
improves
through
inused
Table
inside 3. or
the are covered lagoons, conventional
86
87
90
78
73
79
ordered
anaerobic
conversion The according
reactors,
efficiency to increasing
sludge
of the 183
192
retention
175
high‐rate most common
anaerobic AD
digesters, 185
plants innovation
which high‐rate
reactors
fraction
high‐dense
are is composed
methanogenic
widely
and
most
to complexity,
common
anaerobic
anaerobic
biogas.
performed,
of
process
used
digesters,
According
animal
one
in or as
the
AD
more are
membrane
the covered
plants
which
manure
is
case the are
vertical
fermentation
of and
failure lagoons,
composed
is widely
reactors.
to co‐digestion
[21], the
organic conventional
of
Advantages
payback
recirculation is to
heated retain
reactors
plays one
in
time
industrial
of the high or
the
and more
for
microorganism
with
role
wastewater, of an case
waste. vertical
of The
“pre‐treatment”, heated
co‐digestion
main reactors
of
limitation,
concentrations
thus with
wastewater,
inside
promoting an
if the
no
83
75
81
84
93
85
71
86
77
separation
introduction
ordered
reactor.
of of
according
In fact, accelerants
the to
key (metabolic
increasing
192 for a
and
anaerobic
stimulants
innovation
good
reactors,
methanogenic process 188
191
as factor
the fermentation plays
and
anaerobic the
for
complexity, sludge
role of
microorganisms)
high‐rate retention
are covered
treatment in phases,
reactors
order thus
lagoons,
is the to respectively.
and anaerobic
promoting
accelerate
conventional
retention of
A
membrane
the reactors. Advantages and
87
88
91
79
74
80
anaerobic
internal
high‐dense
reactors,
mixing
liquid
sludge
Anaerobic
system
animal
retention
based 184
193
176
plants
186 on in
manure
reactors
internal
digestion
high‐dense
a are composed
ordered
reactor.
wet
conversion
and
mixing
is highly
according
In
process
organic
anaerobic
liquid
The most common AD recirculation is
of
fact,
operated
efficiency system
performed, sensitive
animal
one
the
industrial to or
key
of membrane
based
more
increasing
in to on
manure
is volatile
the a
process
in vertical
factor for
mesophilic
the
waste. The
reactors.
wet
and
failure process
heated
innovation
a fraction
good
conditions.
main
Advantages
disturbances.
organic
to anaerobic
retain operated
reactors
and industrial
high
This
to improves
biogas.
limitation, with
complexity, and
The
high‐rate
type
According
if the
in
microorganism
an mesophilic
biological
waste.
of are
no The
covered
treatment conditions.
process
main
to [21], lagoons,
is can
the payback
the This
reach
limitation,
concentrations type
inside if
of the
conventional
retention time of
no
for
84
76
82
85
94
86
72
87
78
two‐phase
ordered
Anaerobic
according
efficiency
anaerobic reactors, digestion
to of
sludge process
the systems
increasing
189
192
volatile
retention the
were
innovation
fraction
reactors case of
strongly
and
to
193
food
biogas.
anaerobic waste
improved
complexity, According digestion
membrane recent
covered significantly
to failure
[21], decades,
lagoons,
the
reactors. payback through
conventional
Advantages time and for
88
89
92
80
75
81
internal The AD
most
Anaerobic
process
common
is instability
mixing can
system as
digestion AD be 185
194
due
based 187
carried
plants
177 to aa
on
the
systems
are out
variety
wet
anaerobic
failure
were
in
recirculation
composed
to
one
of
process or
is two
performed,
of
reactor. In fact,
perturbations
retain
strongly operated
reactors,
high one
the stages,
or
key
sludge more
in
microorganism
improved
depending
is
factor
such the
vertical
for
mesophilic
retention
in a
as:are
recent
on to
heated
good the
overloading
conditions.
reactors combination
retain
reactors
anaerobic
and
recirculation performed, concentrations
decades,
high with
high‐rate
ofinside
This organic
type
anaerobic
is fermentation through
or
microorganism
an
of treatment
or vertical
membrane
the hydraulic concentrations
is the
rates;
reactors. inside
retention
presence
Advantages of the
with and
85
77
83
86
95
87
73
88
79
methanogenic
introduction
anaerobic of process
reactors, accelerants sludge the
(metabolic
retention
190
193
The
stimulants
reactors plays
most
and the
common
for
anaerobic
blanket The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
The (UASB) reactor contains
194 a a well‐settleable methanogenic
role of
microorganisms) “pre‐treatment”,
AD plants
membrane
sludge. in order
a reactors.
The
thus
composed to promoting
of
Advantages
formation of one
accelerate a or and
and
dense more heated reactors an
89
90
93
81
76
82
separation
internal
high‐rate
reactor.
introduction
most
mixing common
anaerobic
In of
fact,
of system
toxic
the
accelerants
AD
based
digesters,
key or
plants
186
195
178
188
factor on
which
inhibitory
for
(metabolic
are composed
high‐rate
and
reactor.
wet
blanket
a is
good
stimulants
In
process
(UASB)
widely of
anaerobic
fact,
operated
used
anaerobic for
one
the
reactor
in or
digesters,
key
the
high‐rate
more
in factor
contains
microorganisms) case vertical
nutrientswhich
for
mesophilic
of heated
is widely
phases,
good
a co‐digestion
treatment well‐settleable
in foris the
order the
reactors
used
anaerobic
conditions.
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. of
compounds; lack of growth This with
in
respectively.
methanogenic
wastewater,
retention
to accelerate of of
the
high‐rate
type an
A case
of
microorganisms;
and the
of co‐digestion
treatment
sludge. The deviationof wastewater,
is formation
the retention of
froma of the
dense
86
78
84
87
96
88
74
89
80
conversion
ordered
sludge The efficiency
according
most
bed common
permits to of the
increasing
the AD volatile
191
194
plants fraction
internal
innovation
microorganism’s
195 are composed to
mixing
and
retention
biogas.
be thermophilic hydrolysis/acidogenesis and mesophilic methanogenesis, which is consistent with a system
complexity,
of one
inside
According
or based
more
the are to
on [21],
a
covered
vertical
system. wet
The
the
lagoons,
heated payback
process time
operated
conventional
reactors
advantages with
of UASB
for
in
an mesophilic conditions. This type of
90
91
94
82
77
83
internal
two‐phase
high‐rate
high‐dense mixing
configuration
anaerobic
liquid system based
digesters,
animal 187
196
process
189
on
systems
which
manure a high‐dense
in wet
the
were
blanket
is The
sludge
and process
case
widely most
bed
organic operated
liquid
of permits
strongly
(UASB) food
Anaerobic digestion 179 used
common
industrial animal
waste
improved
reactor
in
the in
AD mesophilic
manure
digestion
in
contains
case recent
of
plants
microorganism’s
waste. conditions.
and
co‐digestion
are organic
significantly
a The decades,
well‐settleable
composed
main retention This
of improves
through type
industrial
methanogenic
wastewater,
of
limitation, one
inside or the
if of waste.
more
no The
sludge.
vertical
system. main
The limitation,
formation
heated
The reactors
advantages of of if no
a UASB
dense
with an
87
79
85
88
89
75
90
81
The mixing
most the
common optimal
anaerobic
internal reactors, sludge
system AD
based operating
plants
192
195
retention
196 on digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of
a are
reactors
wet temperature.
composed
process and of
anaerobic
operated one In
or order
more
in membrane to facilitate
vertical
mesophilic heated
reactors.
conditions. the management
reactors
Advantages
This with
type and an and toThe
of mesophilic favor the stability
91
92
95
83
78
84
methanogenic
high‐rate
introduction
high‐dense
recirculation
blanket is process
anaerobic
of
liquid
(UASB) accelerants
performed, as
digesters,
animal
reactor 188
the
180 which
(metabolic
manure
190
contains the recirculation
is fermentation
blanket
is
and
internal
failure
a innovation
plays
(UASB)
widely
stimulants
sludge bed
organic
to
well‐settleable mixing
retain
Anaerobic is performed,
the
used
for
permits
industrial
high role
reactor
system
methanogenic
of
in the
the
microorganisms)
microorganism
digestion is the
case
microorganism’s
waste.
based on
systems
sludge.
failure
contains of a The
co‐digestion
a in
wet main to
order retain
thus
well‐settleable to of
retention high
promoting
methanogenic
wastewater,
accelerate
limitation,
process
concentrations
were
The strongly
formation inside
operated
inside
of
microorganism
if
improved
a and
dense
the
no
in
the sludge.
system.
in recent concentrations
The formation
advantages
conditions.
decades, inside
of
This of
of through
a UASB
type the
dense of
the
88
80
86
89
90
76
91
82
ordered
internal according
mixing
Anaerobic of theto process,
system increasing
digestion based 193
196 on
systems
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. a high‐rate
full-scale
wet
were process anaerobic
and
plants
strongly complexity,
usually
operated
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of digesters,
improved in are
work which
covered
mesophilic
in with
recent is widely
lagoons,
expanded
conditions.
decades, used and
This
through in
conventional the
larger
type of
the case of
than co‐digestion
necessary wastewater,
hydraulic
92
93
96
84
79
85
high‐rate
conversion
high‐dense anaerobic
efficiency
liquid
recirculation
reactor.
sludge
ordered In
bed is
fact, performed,
permits to
according the digesters,
of the
animal
key
the 189
181
is
191
factor which
volatile
manure
the
for
microorganism’s
increasing
is
reactor.
failure widely
fraction
sludge
and
introduction
innovation to In
bed to
organic
retain
retention
and
used
fact,
biogas.
permits
of high the
industrial in
accelerants the
key
According
the
microorganism case
factor
waste. of
for
to
microorganism’s co‐digestion
a concentrations
[21],
The good
the
main of
anaerobic
payback
retention
a good anaerobic high‐rate
inside
complexity, the treatment
(metabolic
system.
are covered The is the
stimulants wastewater,
limitation,
retention
advantages
lagoons,
high‐rate
time
inside
inside
for if
of
microorganisms)
of UASB
conventional
for
the
no
the treatment
system. The
in is advantages
the to
order retention of
accelerate of
UASB the
and
89
81
87
90
91
77
92
anaerobic reactors, sludge retention high‐dense
reactors liquid
anaerobic
introduction
The most of accelerants
common 194
(metabolic stimulants for animal
microorganisms) manure
membrane and
in organic
reactors.
order to industrial
Advantages
accelerate and
and waste. The main limitation, if no
83
93
94
85
80
86
high‐rate
high‐dense
recirculation
reactor.
anaerobic
anaerobic
In is retention
liquid
fact, performed,
reactors, key AD
digesters,
the animal
sludge
timesplants
is
182
192
which
manure
190 (HRT),
the are composed
is
and widely
and low
organic of
used
organic one
industrial in or
the more
case
load
waste. vertical
of The
rates heated
co‐digestion
(OLR),
main reactors
both
failure
high‐rate to retain
anaerobic
retention high
factor for a were
good anaerobic
reactors and anaerobic microorganism
high‐rate
digesters, treatment
membrane which concentrations
is
is
reactors. the
widely of causing
limitation,
retention
used
Advantages
with
wastewater,
inside if
in of
the
and
an
a case
no
the reduced methane yield
of co‐digestion [25].
of wastewater,
90
82
88
91
92
78
93
84
Anaerobic
internal
high‐dense mixing
liquid digestion
system
animal systems
high‐rate anaerobic digesters,
based 195 which
on
manure a recirculation
is
wet
and strongly
widely
process
organic is
used
operated improved
performed,
industrial in the in in
is
case recent
the
of
mesophilic
waste. failure decades,
co‐digestion
The to retain
conditions.
main of through
high
wastewater,
This
limitation, type
if the
microorganism
of
no concentrations inside the
94
95
86
81
87
recirculation
ordered
blanket is
according
(UASB) performed, to
reactor AD 183
is
191
193
contains
the failure
blanket
a innovation to
well‐settleable retain
(UASB)
reactor. In fact, the key factor
In increasing
order for
to optimizea good anaerobic
the and
high‐dense high
process,
complexity,
liquid
methanogenic microorganism
reactor
high‐rate
even
animal contains
at
are high a
treatment
covered
manure
sludge. concentrations
well‐settleable
organic
and
The is the retention
loads,
lagoons,
organic
formation
The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups, inside
methanogenic
thewith of
a on-line
conventional
industrial
of dense the sludge.
monitoring
an waste.
The
The main formation
andlimitation, of
automatic a dense
if the
no
91
83
89
92
93
79
94
85
introduction
high‐dense The most of
liquid accelerants
common animal (metabolic
plants
manure
196
are stimulants
reactor.
composed
and In
organic for
fact,
of the
industrial
recirculation is performed, is the failure to retain high microorganisms)
one key
or more factor
microorganism waste. for
vertical
The in
a order
good
heated
main to accelerate
anaerobic
reactors
limitation,
concentrations inside if and
high‐rate no
the treatment is the retention of
95
96
87
82
88
reactor.
sludge In
bed
The
fact,
most process
permits
common
the
two‐phase anaerobic digestion process [22]. key
the factor
192
control
AD 194
for
plants
a good
sludge
techniques
microorganism’s ordered
are composed
anaerobic
bed permits
anaerobic
blanket reactors,
(UASB) sludge
reactor 184
retention
contains a reactors
well‐settleable
recirculation and anaerobic
methanogenic
is
should
retention
of
high‐rate
the
be
inside
to
one or used
the
increasing
more
treatment
microorganism’s
membrane
sludge.
is the
to
system. failure is
reactors.
The
efficiently
vertical The
innovation
the
to retention
retention
Advantages
formation
retain
advantages
heated and
reactors
inside
of
high
operate a
of of and
dense the
microorganism
the
UASB
complexity,
with an
system.
AD
are covered The advantages
concentrations
process. There
lagoons, of
inside
is noUASB
conventional the
92
84
90
93
94
80
95
86
internal
recirculation
ordered
high‐rate
reactor. mixing
is performed,
according
anaerobic
In fact, system
the to based
increasing
digesters,
key factor on
is the a slow‐growing microorganisms. A new generation of reactor, such as the up flow anaerobic sludge
a wet
failure
a innovation
which
for process
to
is widely
good retain operated
and used
anaerobic high
complexity, in the
high‐rate in case
microorganism mesophilic
are covered
of
treatment conditions.
concentrations
lagoons,
co‐digestion
is the This type
inside
of conventional
wastewater,
retention of of
the
96
88
83
89
blanket
internal
Anaerobic
(UASB)
bed permits
mixing standardized
digestion
reactor
system based 193
systems
the contains
185
sludge microorganism’s
195 on a
were
well‐settleable
reactor.
anaerobic
monitoringwet
strongly
retention
In
process fact,
reactors,
method, operated
improved
methanogenic
inside
the key
sludge
in terms the
in
in recent
sludge.
system.
factor offor
retention
mesophilic a The
The decades,
good
reactors and through
formation
advantages
anaerobic
conditions.
fundamental
of
This a
of dense
UASB
high‐rate
anaerobic
parameterstype
the
of treatment
membrane
and optimal is formation
the
reactors. retention
Advantages
frequency of
of a of the
and
93
85
91
94
95
81
96
87 anaerobic
high‐dense The AD plants can be divided into categories according to the reactor type. The main groups,
In fact,
reactors,
liquid the key
sludge
animal factor for
retention
manure blanket
a good
reactors
and (UASB)
reactor. anaerobic
and
organic
blanket (UASB) reactor
the contains a well‐settleable
reactor
anaerobic
industrial
methanogenic high‐rate contains
membrane
waste. a The
treatment
sludge.
well‐settleable
is
reactors.
main
The the methanogenic
retention
Advantages
limitation,
formation of of of
if
a UASB and
dense the
no sludge. The dense
89
84
90
introduction
sludge bed
The most of common
accelerants
permits AD 194
(metabolic
microorganism’s
186
plants
196 are stimulants
composed retention for
of microorganisms)
inside
one or the more system.
vertical in
The order to
advantages
heated accelerate
reactors
digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of with and an
94
86
92
95
96
82
88
ordered
high‐rate according
anaerobic to increasing
digesters, innovation
which sludge
is bed
widely and
recirculation
blanket
sludge bed (UASB) is performed,
permits reactor is the
the contains failure
a a
microorganism’s to
well‐settleable retain
retention
complexity,
permits
used
high
methanogenic in the
the
microorganism
inside the
are
case covered
microorganism’s
of
sludge.
system.
lagoons,
co‐digestion retention
concentrations
The
The formation
advantages
of conventional
inside
wastewater,
inside
of a
of dense
UASB
the
the system. The advantages of UASB
90
85
91
internal
high‐rate mixing
anaerobic system based
digesters, 195
187 on
which wet
blanket
is The process
(UASB)
widely most operated
common
used reactor
in the in
AD mesophilic
contains of a The
plants
case are conditions.
well‐settleable
composed
co‐digestion of This
of one type
methanogenic
wastewater, or of sludge.
more vertical The formation
heated reactors of with
a dense an
95
87
93
96
83
89
anaerobic
high‐dense
blanket
reactor.
sludge reactors,
In
bed liquid
(UASB)
The most
fact, common
permits the sludge
animal
reactor
key
the AD retention
manure
contains
plants
factor a
for
microorganism’s reactors
and
well‐settleable
are
a composed
good and
organic
anaerobic
retention anaerobic
industrial
methanogenic
of one or
high‐rate
inside membrane
waste.
more
the sludge.
vertical
treatment
system. reactors.
The main
The
heated
is the Advantages
limitation,
formation
reactors of
retention
advantages a if
with
of of and
dense
UASB no
an
the
91
86
92 high‐dense liquid animal 196
188
manure sludge
internal
and bed permits
mixing
organic system
industrial the microorganism’s
based
waste. on The
a wet retention
process
main inside
operated
limitation, if the
in
no system. The advantages
mesophilic conditions. This type of UASB of
96
88
94
84
90
recirculation
sludge bed
internal is
mixing performed,
permits the
system based is the
microorganism’s
on failure
a wet to retain
retention
process
ordered according to increasing innovation
high
operated
and used
complexity,
microorganism
inside in the mesophilic
system.
are covered
concentrations
The advantages
conditions.
lagoons,
inside
This of type
of conventional
UASB the
of
92
87
93 high‐rate
recirculation
reactor. The
anaerobic
most
In is common
fact, performed, the
digesters,
key AD 189
is which
the
plants
factor for are
a
is widely
composed
good of
in microorganism
one
the case
or
high‐rate more
of co‐digestion
failure to anaerobic
retain high vertical
treatment concentrations
heated
is the
wastewater,
reactors
retention inside
with
of the
an
89
95
85
91 digester is referred to a complete stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and represents the first generation of
blanket
anaerobic (UASB)
reactors, reactor
sludge contains
retention a well‐settleable
reactors and methanogenic
anaerobic sludge.
membrane The formation
reactors. of a dense
Advantages and
93
88
94 high‐dense
reactor.
internal In liquid
fact,
mixing the animal
key based
system 190
manure
factor on
and
for a high‐rate
a wet
good organic
anaerobic
process
industrial
anaerobic
operated digesters,
high‐rate in
waste. The
which
treatment
mesophilic
main
is the limitation,
is widely
conditions. used in
retention if
of the no case of co‐digestion of wastewater,
the
90
96
86
92
high‐rate
sludge bed anaerobic
permits digesters, which
the microorganism’s
drawbacks of each type of reactor are reported in Table 2a. is widely retention used in microorganism
inside the the case of co‐digestion
system. The advantages of This of type
wastewater,
UASB of
94
89
95 recirculation is performed, 191
is the failure
high‐dense to retain high
liquid
blanket (UASB) reactor contains a well‐settleable animal manure concentrations
and organic inside
industrial the waste. The main limitation, if no
91 high‐dense liquid animal manure and organic methanogenic industrial waste. sludge. The The formation
main of a dense
limitation, if no
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 9 of 29
measurement, as several variables are involved in the process. Generally, a very small number of
parameters are controlled, due to the complexity and cost of advanced monitoring.
Spanjers and Van Lier [26] visited approximately 400 full-scale AD plants, mostly used for
wastewater treatment. In 95% of them, in-situ and on-line monitoring was limited to pH, temperature,
water flow rate and biogas flow rate, level and pressure. Only 10% had continuous monitoring of
COD, TOC, VFAs, alkalinity and biogas composition. Madsen et al. [27] verified that many plants
operate on the basis of ex-situ analysis and only sensors for pH, redox potential and percentage
gas production were used either in situ or on-line. The main issue is the identification of the most
critical parameters for early detection of instability. For example, in Li et al. [28], a combination of
volatile fatty acids (VFAs), VFAs/total alkalinity (TA) and alkalinity per bicarbonate ion (BA)/TA was
proposed as a parameter setting for early warning. Li et al. [29] showed how the formation of hydrogen
H2 and hydrogen sulphide H2 S were also very sensitive to changes in organic load, and useful for
evaluating overload problems that would cause a pH decrease. Recurring problems are also related
to the type of sensors chosen and the best positioning to ensure correct monitoring and facilitate
maintenance. Several electrochemical, chromatographic and spectroscopic devices (UV, VIS, IR/NIRS)
can be used for on-line monitoring in order to generate early warning signals and permit specific
actions of correction. Among them, the most promising method is NIRS spectroscopy because a large
number of parameters can be measured at the same time [30]. However, in the case of small plants (i.e.,
below 100 kW) this method is still too expensive.
Together with specific sensors, an automatic control system is needed for process monitoring
purposes. According to Nguyen et al. [31], a simple monitoring system can be coupled to an advanced
control system (for example, adaptive method, fuzzy logic, neural network or hybrid systems), or an
advanced monitoring system can be coupled to a more simplified control (ON/OFF, Proportional
Integral Derivative control). The basic theory of advanced control is divided into feedback (e.g., cascade
control) and feed forward (adaptive control or predictive control). The advantage of feedback control
is its simplicity, but in that case the correction happens only after the error has occurred. Feed forward
system could be implemented to make correction before the disturbance affects the process. However,
these advanced control systems require complex algorithms and mathematical expertise.
In addition to the optimization of the AD plant and process, attention should be paid to the supply
chain of the substrate, most suitable pre-treatment techniques and final use and post-treatment of both
digestate and biogas. According to Grando et al. [32], a simple monitoring system can be coupled to
an advanced control system (for example, adaptive method, fuzzy logic, neural network or hybrid
systems), or used in order to check some relevant aspects of the biogas chain including pre-treatment
processes of new substrates, new uses of biogas for natural gas distribution networks, fuel cells and
fuel for vehicles (instead of just Combined Heat and Power).
3.2. Economic Considerations about Biogas Plant

Total costs for the realization of a biogas plant must be distinguished between initial cost (capital
cost) and operating cost. The capital costs are those necessary for the construction (components,
sensors, building work), and are strictly related to the characteristics of the plant (batch, continuous or
semi-continuous). For AD process, the following voices are taken into account: (a) feedstock handling
and storage; (b) building and operating the digester, with heat and power generation; (c) handling and
storage of the digestate.
Several studies reported the results of the estimation of total cost related to biogas plant and
equipment [33]. Capital cost could be estimated in a range between USD 300 and 800 per m3 , USD
2400–7500 per kWe and USD 5000–7500, referred to the digester volume, to the installed electric power,
and to the hourly produced biogas volume, expressed as Nm3 /h, respectively.
Considering the biogas upgrading, the investment cost varies from USD 1950 to 2600 per Nm3 /h,
for raw gas capacities larger than 800–1000 Nm3 /h. Generally higher costs are observed for smaller-scale
equipment [34].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 10 of 29
The operating cost of the plant depends both on the ordinary and extraordinary management
costs. The first cost item includes the cost for the production (for energy crops), management and
storage of substrates to convert, and the energy cost for operating the plant (e.g., maintaining a constant
temperature). The second cost item comprises the costs for periodic maintenance, commonly estimated
in the range 3–10% of the investment cost.
Incomes refer to the price recognized by the national Electrical Service Authority for the amount of
electricity introduced into the grid, plus any production incentives, now present in different countries,
but destined to disappear completely in the future.
As for plant technology, AD operating in wet conditions (≤10% dry matter) requires less capital
investment and anaerobic digesters based on wet biomass input typically convert 30% to 60% of the
biomass to methane.
In dry conditions (dry matter between 15–20%), facilities require less operating energy, due to the
total amount of water to be heated, if compared to wet conditions, and the system provides more gas
per unit of feedstock.
Moreover, digesters can operate in continuous flow or in batch flow, and digestion can occur
in single- or multiple-step digesters; although multiple digesters allow higher efficiencies for each
digestion phase, they require higher investment costs [35].
4. Agro-Food Substrates for Anaerobic Digestion
4.1. Livestock Manure

Manure from farming animals has been traditionally reused as fertilizer, providing a nitrogen
and phosphorous source for plants and crops. However, accumulation of carbon and leaching of
nitrogen and phosphorous may produce negative environmental impacts. After enteric methane
(CH4 ), manure represents the second largest source of GHG emissions in intensive dairy cattle [36]
and buffalo farms [37]. The total amount of methane released from animal manure is 18 million tons
CH4 per year [38] with a breakdown of 2200 to 12,000 g CO2 -eq for collection, 200 to 2400 g CO2 -eq for
transportation, 16,000 to 84,000 g CO2 -eq for storage, and 16,400 to 33,500 g CO2 -eq for land application,
depending on the practice and farm size [36]. In addition, volatilized ammonia (NH3 ) from manure
(up to 70% of excreted nitrogen) can remain as residual in water and terrestrial ecosystems or be
converted into N2 O emissions, contributing to both eutrophication and climate change [39].
Anaerobic digestion of animal wastes for biogas production, offers environmental benefits as it
can reduce GHG emissions related to manure management by more than 50% [40] and by replacing
on-farm fossil fuel-based processes with electricity produced through AD [41]. In addition, AD may
represent a supplementary source of income for farmers as renewable energy is produced and the
residual digestate has high fertilizing properties. One aspect to be considered is that AD has only
minor effects on substrate nitrogen content. Therefore, this process gives no advantages in terms of
compliance with the nitrates directive (91/676/EEC) [42].
Animal manure is a mixture of excreta (feces and urine) and materials added during management,
such as sand, water from cleaning, straw and other bedding materials and, as other material used as
biogas substrate, should satisfy different requirements in terms of suitability, digestibility and absence
of inhibitors and impurities [43]. Suitability of a substrate for AD depends on the levels of total solids
(TS) and volatile solids (VS), the carbon to nitrogen ratio (C/N) and pH. Livestock manure is usually
in a liquid form with a dry matter content (DM) of 1–10%. Dry matter content is a key parameter
to design the biogas reactor size and capacity [44]. Too diluted animal manure reduces economic
feasibility, whereas too high DM (e.g., higher than 15%) may cause operating problems. An optimal
DM content is about 10% and it may be corrected by co-digestion with other solid organic substrate
such as energy crops with the aim to enhance biogas yield [45].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 11 of 29
Table 3. Main parameters used to check the efficiency of anaerobic digestion plants [40].
Parameter Unit Description, Range and Measurement Method

Process stability
• 25–40 ◦ C (mesophilic systems—optimal 38–40 ◦ C)

• 45–65 ◦ C (thermophilic systems—optimal 55 ◦ C)
Temperature T ◦C • <25 ◦ C (psychrophilic or cold-rare systems)
Variations of only 2–3 ◦ C within the optimal range can
affect performance. Measurement during process by i.e.,
thermocouples
Neutral environment, between 6.5–7.5, acceptability 6–8.
pH -
Measured by pH meter or pH/redox electrode sensor
A significant increase highlights a malfunction; it can
lead to a drop in pH (acidosis), which also leads to an
Volatile Fatty Acids
mgAc/L irreversible block of the process. Typical range
VFAs
200–2000 mgAc/L. Measured by UV/FTIR-IR
spectrometer, gas chromatography or indirect by COD.
Buffer capacity of the system which contributes to
guarantee neutral pH. A stable system has values in the
Alkalinity TA mg CaCO3 /L range of 2500–5000 mg CaCO3/L.
Direct measure with NIRS or titration, indirect through
redox potential sensor and electrical conductivity
Ratio value < 0.3 indicates the stable operation of the
VFA/TA -
digester.
Reactor management
Operational pressure P mbar Measurement during process
Capacity
m3 /d or t/d Measurement of mass or volume per day
V
Reactor volume Vr m3 Determined by design/construction
Ratio between the volume of the reactor considered and
Hydraulic retention time
d the flow rate to the reactor. Calculation from process
HRT
data, indirect by measuring the incoming flow.
Ratio between the total mass of volatile solids in the
Sludge Retention Time
d reactor and the flow of solids extracted from the reactor.
SRT
Indirect by measuring concentration and flow rate SV.
Quantity of input substrate (influent flow rate),
calculated by concentration of organic substance and
referred to the volume unit of the reactor. Indirect
Organic Load rate OLR Kg or TS/m3 d
measurement by flow measure and organic substance
concentration (sample weight for ST, SV, or COD and
BOD measurement)
Function of the SV concentration in the influent flow rate
Substrate removal
% (kg/m3 )
efficiency
and SV concentration in the effluent flow rate (kg/m3 )
Output biogas flow. If connected to the flow and
concentration of the incoming substrate, it is called a
Biogas flow rate Nm3 /d or Nm3 /y
specific production (m3 /m3 ). Measurement during
operation by flowmeter.
Methane concentration
% CH4 - %CO2 - %H2S - O2 – other Measurement during
CH4 and biogas %
operation by electrochemical or IR spectroscopic method
composition
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 12 of 29
Table 3. Cont.
Parameter Unit Description, Range and Measurement Method

Plant efficiency
Calculated from biogas flow and methane concentration
Gross Energy kWh
using Low Heating Value
Electricity production kWh Measurement at power unit
Output to grid kWh Measurement after power unit
Efficiency of power unit % Calculation from operating data
Thermal/electric station
kWh Calculation from operating data
supply
Thermal/electric specific
kWh/m3 Calculation from operating data
station supply
Energy production kWh Sum of energy that can be used
Plant efficiency % Net energy drawn from gross energy
Plant availability % Percentage of hours a year in which it is fully functioning
Use % Ratio of the real input to the designed capacity
Total investment € All expenses
Funding € Pre-determined
Percentage of all subsidies in relation to the total
Funding percentage %
investment
Specific investment €/m3 Calculation from operating data . . .
Specific treatment cost €/m3 Calculation from operating data . . .
The concentration of substrate is a significant operating factor affecting the stability and methane
yield of the AD process of manure. Nevertheless, an excessive substrate concentration could slow
biogas process due to accumulation of inhibiting elements (i.e., total ammonia, free ammonia and
volatile fatty acids). A negative relationship between initial substrate concentration and methane
content in final biogas volume was observed by Alzate et al. [46]. Another study reported that
when substrate concentration was increased from 8 g VS/L to 64 g VS/L, the methane yield and
biodegradability were both decreased by 22.4%, 37.3%, 49.1% and 34.6% for pig, dairy, poultry,
and rabbit manures, respectively [47]. Although the levels of VS indicate the methane potential in a
substrate, they do not provide information on its degradability.
Thus, the ultimate methane yield from manure (Table 4), in addition to the process parameters of
the plant, may be affected by several variables, such as animal species, animal diet, and the related
nutrient digestibility and intestinal microorganisms, management system, amount and type of the
bedding material, along with the storage conditions prior to the AD process [48].
The trend of the AD process is also related to the different origin of livestock manures. In fact,
with horse, sheep, and goat manures, after gradual rise in gas production, the peak is reached up
to the 3rd week [49], while with pig manure this peak is achieved at the 4th week and in the cow
manure at the 5th week; after this time, there is a gradual decline in gas production in the cow manure.
The poultry manure provides a high amount of gas in the first week, this is then followed by a
sharp decline by the 3rd week, and subsequent weeks show alternate rises and falls in the rate of
gas production.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 13 of 29
Table 4. Characteristics of manure from different livestock species.
pH TS% VS% C/N BIOGAS YIELD

Cattle manure [47,50–56] 5.33 ÷ 8.30 9.4 ÷ 22.75 10.25 ÷ 93.11 10.5 ÷ 26.64 169 ÷ 270 mL/gVS
Pig manure [47,50–55] 6.9 ÷ 7.87 5.4 ÷ 92.10 26.93 ÷ 80.2 6 ÷ 18.91 318 ÷ 409 mL/gVS
Goat manure [55,57] 8.13 81.63 ÷ 97.1 64.01 16 ÷ 20 -
Sheep manure [54,58] 7.8 17.4 ÷ 37.03 16.3 ÷ 76.49 - 0.572 ÷ 1.468 Nm3 /kg VS
Poultry manure [47,51–55] 6.63 ÷ 7.95 42.9 ÷ 90.15 47.5 ÷ 84.46 3.8 ÷ 14.44 192 ÷ 377 mL/gVS
Horse manure [55,59] 8.25 33.49 ÷ 53.38 30.40 ÷ 46.65 22.63 ÷ 40.12 0.164 ÷ 0.212 Nm3 /kg VS
Rabbit manure [47] - 27.84 87.94 17.9 211 ÷ 323 mL/gVS
4.1.1. Cattle Manure

Although the anaerobic digestion of cow manure may give approximately 63% of biogas yield [60],
ruminant manure, in general, and cattle manure, in particular, may be conveniently used to prompt
the fermentation phase of AD, because it may provide the required methanogenic bacteria. However,
the fermentation of manure as single substrate provides low methane yield, due to a moderate
anaerobic biodegradability of about 45–50 % [61]. Moreover, the biogas production from cattle manure
is lower than that obtained from other farm animals, since cattle manure often contains an excess
of lignin complexes from fodder that are very resistant to AD [62]. Low biodegradability of animal
manure is often caused by large amounts of indigestible fractions such as lignocellulose, an element
of the plant cell wall, residual from animal digestion, and composed by hemicellulose, cellulose
and lignin. Lignin is a natural complex polymer and non-carbohydrate constituent of wood bond to
cellulose fibers and it provides mechanical strength and structural support to the plants. Lignocellulose
is very difficult to be degraded in anaerobic environments due to its rigid structure produced by lignin.
Numerous studies have reported that lignin content and the efficiency of enzymatic hydrolysis have
an inverse relationship [50].
Due to the different diets, dairy cow manure generally shows the most abundant amount of lignin
(i.e., around 18.0 %), whereas manure from beef breeds contains a lower amount of about 13% [50].
Other authors [47] found a content of lignin in dairy manure of 7.95%, while in pig and poultry manure
it was 1.83% and 1.7%, respectively.
Therefore, the extent of biogas production from cattle manure may be affected by management
and, in particular, by the diet of the animals as in most cases they are fed on large amounts of
substrates containing structural carbohydrates (cell wall components), which result in lower biogas
production [63]. On the contrary, feeding cattle diets containing high levels of concentrate increases
the biogas production from manure, due to the generation of higher levels of soluble organic-C during
anaerobic digestion [63,64]. Accordingly, Costa et al. (2016) [65] observed higher biogas yield in young
bulls fed on a high concentrate diet (80% concentrate + 20% forage) corresponding to high levels of
net energy.
Comparing organic and conventional management in dairy farms, Matos et al. [66] observed
higher biogas yield from cow manure produced by dairy herds under the conventional production
system compared to AD with cow manure under the organic production system. These differences in
methane yield may be due to the different diet fed to the animals, as in the conventional management
diets are based on concentrate that provided more appropriate substrates for the AD process than
organic diets, mainly based on roughage.
Animal nutrition also affects the composition of manure-derived bio-fertilizers, altering the levels
of the macronutrients N, P, and K [64].
Although high water content and high fraction of fiber make cow manure an unsuitable substrate
for the production of biogas as single substrate [67], it may be an excellent “carrier” substrate for the
mixed digestion of wastes, allowing AD of concentrated industrial waste, which could be not treated
separately [67]. Its suitability to be used as “carrier” substrate is due to high water content (70–90 %),
acting as solvent for dry waste materials, high buffering capacity [68] with beneficial effects on the pH
in the reactor, and the high level of nutrient for optimal bacteria growth [67].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 14 of 29
As to C/N ratio, Table 4 shows that C/N ratios of cattle manure can vary between 10.5 and 26.64.
The suitable range for a regular AD process is between 20 and 35 [69]. However, according to Zhu [70],
AD could be carried out efficiently even when the C/N ratio is 15 and Kumar et al. [12] observed that
any C/N ratio ranging from 13.9 to 19.6 might be adequate for digestion.
4.1.2. Horse Manure

The amount of organic matter (VS) in horse manure is 30–47% (Table 4). As for cow manure, horse
dung has a high proportion of slowly degradable lignocellulosic organic material, related to the diet,
bedding material used, and the frequency of stall cleaning. The studies on horse manure as a biogas
substrate focus on solid state anaerobic digestion (SS-AD) due to the high total solids and fibrous
content, which makes this manure unsuitable for continuous slurry-based biogas reactors [71]. SS-AD
is suitable for lignocellulosic material but shows drawbacks concerning low VFAs formation, ammonia
accumulation and difficult mixing [72]. Straw is the most widely used bedding material for horse stalls,
although, other materials such as sawdust, wood pellets and flax straw are also achieving interest [73].
Methane production from horse manure is very variable and is mainly affected by the feeding intensity
and by the type of the forages [45]. There are contrasting results about the effect of using different
bedding material on methane yield of horse [59,73,74]. The highest specific methane yields for horse
manure was achieved with straw pellets as bedding material. The storage of the manure resulted in
significantly lower methane yields [59]. However, due to the high total solid content, horse manure
may be used for mixed digestion with low solid content substrates [75]. In addition, the high C/N
ratio of horse manure makes it a good co-substrate for the AD of nitrogen rich substrates such as pig
and poultry manures [59].
4.1.3. Poultry Manure

Poultry manure has a high potential organic substrate (20% or more of DM) for treatment; however,
the higher nitrogen content compared to manure from other farm animals (Table 4) makes it problematic
for the AD process [76]. Ammonia inhibition is a common problem for the AD process using substrates
such as poultry litter [77], and swine manure [78]. The inhibitory effects of free ammonia on the
metabolism of methanogens were observed by several authors [79]. Commonly, to avoid ammonia
inhibition, poultry manure is diluted with water [80] to decrease the high percentage of total solids
(Table 4); however, this technique will decrease the biogas production per unit of fermenter volume,
and increase the consumption of water and the processing cost for the slurry discharge. In other studies,
the co-digestion of poultry manure with other types of livestock dung, such as cattle manure [81],
swine manure [82] or with other substrates, like rotten potatoes [83] has been evaluated. Alternatively,
in order to use chicken manure as a single substrate, the technical stripping of ammonia can be applied
to evaporate ammonia into the gas phase [84].
In addition, the use of diets integrated with exogenous enzymes and probiotics for broilers reared
in cages produced a high biogas yield, with possible benefits for the AD process, which may cause an
inducted positive artificial environment for the process [85]. It may be considered as a pre-treatment
stage, promoting the hydrolysis of substances present on the excreta and allowing higher performances
of the microbial population in the subsequent steps.
4.1.4. Pig Manure

The concentration of lignin in VS of most animal manure is larger than 10% except for pig fattening
slurry, whereas the lignin may be higher for sow slurry [50].
This manure is another source of organic matter used as substrate in AD for bacterial growth.
It has a high buffering capacity, protecting the digestion process against possible problems due to
the presence of volatile fatty acids and any consequent drop in the pH of the system. However,
due to its high nitrogen content relative to available organic carbon (Table 4), it may produce a toxic
level of ammonia; in addition, it has a large amount of water and very low VS concentration. These
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 15 of 29
characteristics make pig manure unsuitable for AD as single substrate. Thus, co-digestion with
additional substrates with high organic carbon should be considered [86]. Co-digestion with energy
crop residues such as maize, rapeseed or sunflower residues, for example, resulted in an increase of
the amount of biogas produced daily, particularly with maize residues [87].
4.1.5. Inhibitory Substances in Livestock Manure

In the AD process, acetogenic and methanogenic bacteria are different in many traits such
as physiology, nutritional needs, growth kinetics, and sensitivity to environmental conditions.
A modification in the balance between these two groups of microorganisms may cause reactor
instability and this problem is often caused by the presence of a large quantity of inhibitory substances.
Among the residues in manure showing inhibitory effects on the AD processes, antibiotics are the more
problematic and widespread as they are often used for therapeutic in and sub-therapeutic purposes in
confined animals [88], although the European Union (EU) has definitely banned the use of antibiotics
for growth promotion in animal feed since 2006 (Regulation EC No 1831/2003) [89], as antibiotic
residues in animal manure are of considerable concern for the potential development of antibiotic
resistant bacteria in the environment.
Contrasting results were obtained on the effect of antibiotic residues on methane yield.
For example, Masse et al. (2000) [90] found that penicillin and tetracycline could decrease methane
production, whereas other studies found that oxytetracycline (OTC) had a minor inhibitory effect on
methane production during the anaerobic digestion of dairy manure [91]. Low levels of antibiotics, such
as tylosin, lincomycin, sulfamethazine, and carbadox did not significantly affect methane production
from swine manure, whereas significant effects were observed at high antibiotic concentration [92,93].
Dairy manure and waste milk from cows treated with cefazolin for mastitis problems were conveniently
used as substrates for biogas production with significantly higher methane yield as compared with
dairy manure alone. Beneragama et al. [94] found that added cefazolin (10 mg·L−1 ) did not affect the
total and methane gas yields. Mitchell et al. [95] studied the effect of four common cattle husbandry
antibiotics (ampicillin, florfenicol, sulfamethazine, and tylosin) on AD biogas production and antibiotic
degradation resulting from the AD process. These authors found that the four antibiotics affected
the AD process differently. Although sulfonamides had no inhibitory impact, ampicillin did alter the
biogas production rate even if the total biogas production was not affected. However, the antibiotic
concentrations tested in that study were higher than those normally detected in mixed feedlot manure.
Heavy metal from mineral supplementation, such as Cu and Zn, may remain in manure and affect
methane production potential. In particular, Cu at about 2–6 mg/L had a positive effect on methane
yield, whereas concentrations over 8 mg/L reduced gas production [96]. According to Chen et al. [51],
the critical concentrations of Cu and Zn are much higher (57.9 mg/L and 53.3 mg/L, respectively) and
similar to the values (48–96 mg/L) reported from other authors [97].
4.2. Fruits and Vegetables Waste

Food waste in a supply chain can be classified as pre-consumer waste from agriculture, processing
and distribution and post-consumer waste from meal preparation and consumption. A conspicuous
part of fruit and vegetables wastes (FVW) consists of residual biomasses from the food-processing
industry [98].
Approximately 1728 million tons of fruit and vegetables have been produced worldwide in
2011 and around 15% of fruit and 25% of vegetables are wasted at the bottom of the production
chain (FAO, 2014) [99]. High amounts of FVW are produced daily in large cities worldwide, and the
effective disposal of such highly biodegradable waste is a challenge [100]. Fruit and vegetable wastes
are characterized by high moisture content and high biodegradable organic compounds [101,102]
(Table 5) [103–114] with a good potential as substrate for AD [115] leading to the production of biogas
and a residual digested material to be used as organic fertilizer [116]. Less than 20% of the amount
of FVW is used by AD, the remainder being either discarded, or used as animal feed or burnt with
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 16 of 29
negative effects, such as offensive odors, pollution of air, water and soil [117–119]. The ratio C/N in
FVW AD is often around 20 [91]; therefore, an additional nitrogen source should be used to obtain an
increased pH value of the substrate, a higher biogas yield with a methane content of 50% and a VS
removal of 80% [10].
Table 5. Characteristics of some fruit and vegetable waste (FVW).
pH TS% VS (%TS) C/N BIOGAS YIELD

Wheat waste
(straw, bran) [103, - 88.7÷91.0 88 87 -
104]
Barley straw 417 L/kg VS,
7.87 89.17÷90.5 94.04÷94.3
[105,106] 229 L methane/kg VS
Corn residue 641 L/kg VS,
5.05 81.8÷93.02 94.65÷97.50 51÷57
[105–107] 317 L methane/kg VS
416 L/kg VS,
Rice straw [105,107] 6.2÷8.14 88.7÷93.49 76.02÷91.9 50÷70.88
195 L methane/kg VS
Boiled rice [108] - 35 99 25.56 0.29 m3 methane/kg VS
Apple scraps [109] - 25 90 50.5 -
Fresh cabbage
- 5 84 9.73 0.28 m3 methane/kg VS
residue [108]
Tomato seeds and 424 L/kg VS,
4.7 32 97.8
skin [105] 218 L methane/kg VS
Sugar cane
- 93.51 83.91÷89.72 20.37 363 m3 /ton VS
bagasse [106]
Tea residue [106] - 90.96 86.64 - 385 m3 /ton VS
225–360 L/kg VS,
Grape marc [105,109] 3.58÷4.40 20.44÷60.90 88.66÷98 18.57÷29.23
98–116 L methane/kg VS
Brewery spent grain 392–491 L/kg VS,
5.08 21.1÷30 84÷96.5 11.25÷25
[13,110,111] 187–273 L methane/kg VS
Spent coffee grounds
- 32.37÷95.88 92.76÷93.84 35.3 -
[112,113]
Coffee cut-stems
- 88.56÷95.88 92.76 - -
[113]
Palm oil mill effluent
7.74 6.73 - - -
[114]
FVW (from
4.66 19.54 96.21 - -
supermarket) [100]
As for cow and horse manure, particular attention should be paid to vegetable matrices such as
cereal waste showing high fiber contents. Fiber content and composition (i.e., neutral detergent fiber,
acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin, hemicelluloses and celluloses) should be determined
in order to estimate the biogas potential of fiber rich biomasses [105]. However, in these cases,
pre-treatments should be used to enhance their digestion process.
Post-consumer waste and residual biomasses from the agro-food processing industry (e.g., low
quality fruits and vegetables, damaged production left in the field) can also be considered as promising
for AD. The world generates 2.01 billion tons of municipal solid waste annually.
When looking forward, global waste is expected to grow to 3.40 billion tonnes by 2050 [5] with
many environmental problems but with a great potential as biogas substrate. Food waste, deriving
from catering services, as well as the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, have been investigated
as potential matrices for anaerobic digestion. However, the process can have some limitations linked to
the long time required for the stabilization of organic matter and the low efficiency in VS removal [120].
As already stated for other matrices, co-digestion may represent a good strategy for improving the AD
process [121].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 17 of 29
5. Substrate Composition and Microbial Communities

Numerous authors reported that the diversity of microbial communities involved in AD is
correlated with the type of biomass. For example, Ziganshin et al. [122] evaluated the influence of
different agricultural waste materials, such as chicken manure combined with cattle manure, cattle
manure alone or in combination with maize straw or distiller grains, and Jatropha (an energy plant
widely used for commercial production of biodiesel) press cake on the composition of the microbial
communities involved in AD at laboratory scale. As control substrate, cattle manure combined with
maize silage, was used. Bacterial communities involved in the AD of the control substrate were rather
stable and similar to each other. Conversely, in bioreactor fed with special biomass, such as chicken
manure or Jatropha press cake, different communities indicating partial ammonia inhibition or other
inhibiting factors were found. AD of chicken manure is based on syntrophic acetate oxidation as the
aceticlastic methanogenesis is inhibited by dominant acetate-consuming process. However, the use
of Jatropha as substrate led to the enrichment of fiber degrading microorganisms belonging to the
genera Actinomyces and Fibrobacter. The most abundant bacterial phyla were the Firmicutes (mainly
Clostridia) and the Bacteroidetes, whereas the archaeal communities were dominated by methanogenic
Euryarchaeota belonging to the orders Methanomicrobiales and Methanosarcinales.
In all digesters, different clostridial phylotypes were found with variable proportions. However,
the highest prevalence of these species was observed in biogas plants fed with vegetable
biomass. In particular, Clostridium thermocellum and C. stercorarium were found to be the major
microorganisms involved in the hydrolysis of plant biomass [123]. C. thermocellum was studied in
detail for cellulosomes architecture and cellulose metabolism. In fact, cellulosomes are involved in the
AD of recalcitrant cellulose, with the release of compounds necessary for the growth of acetogens and
methanogens. Another clostridial family frequently found in all the bioreactors, in particular in the
reactors fed with maize straw or Jatropha press cake, was Ruminococcaceae. The functional role of
this group seems to be mainly the cellulolytic digestion of plant fibers based on the production of a
cellulosome enzyme complexes and cellulose adhesion proteins [124].
Wirth et al. [125] used a metagenomic analysis to study the complex interaction among microbial
communities involved in biogas production with the aim to understand the role played by microbes
that are unknown or undetermined in the available databases. These authors noted that in an anaerobic
fermenter fed with plant biomass and pig manure slurry, members of the Firmicutes and Bacteroides
phyla were mainly responsible for hydrolysis and secondary fermentation. In particular, many
Clostridium species, possessing cellulolytic and H2 -producing activities (both essential properties for
the efficient biomass degradation), were identified. In the Archaea domain, the most abundant
order was Methanomicrobiales that, during methanogenesis, used CO2 as a carbon source and
H2 as an electron donor, suggesting that hydrogenotrophic pathway, leading to CH4 formation,
may be more significant than previously recognized [126]. Methanoculleus marisnigri was the
principal species among the Archaeal habitants, confirming the results obtained in anaerobic digesters
operating under different conditions [127]. These findings showed that an optimized balance between
H2 producers and consumers was a critical parameter for the efficiency of the biogas microbial
community [125]. A study on the microorganisms involved in AD of fruit and vegetable waste
obtained from the central food distribution market in Mexico City [10], showed that the bacterial
sequences were distributed among three major phyla: Firmicutes (89.5%), Actinobacteria (6.9%),
and Bacteroidetes (2.3%). Within the phylum Firmicutes, the most prevalent were Bacilli (mainly
Lactobacillus species), followed by Clostridia, that were responsible for acidogenesis or syntrophic
acid degradation. The hydrogenotrophic methanogenic genus Methanobacteriales represented more
than 93% of the archaeal microorganisms in the digester. Hydrogentrophic methanogens dominated
the methanogenic community despite the fact that the digester was inoculated with cow manure,
which usually contains acetoclastic methanogens.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 18 of 29
6. Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of the AD Process
6.1. Co-Digestion
The combination of substrates affects both microbial activity and biogas composition of AD.
Co-digestion of different substrates allows the overcoming of many problems related to AD of the
single organic materials. As for manure, although it represents one of the most promising biomass
wastes for biogas production by AD, it provides low biogas yield, due to the low carbon content.
Integration of manure with other biomass substrates for co-digestion is a valid solution to increase the
economic benefits of this process. According to many studies, anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure
produces synergic effects such as buffering capacities on inhibition due to low pH, also supplying trace
elements and supporting necessary methanogenic bacteria [128]. Another advantage of co-digestion of
cattle manure with other organic materials is the improvement of the stability of the anaerobic process
because of a better C/N balance [129], while when cattle manure is used as mono-substrate, AD is
unstable due to the low C/N ratio (5–8) [130].
In addition, for FVW, co-digestion of these matrices together with livestock manure seems to be
the best strategy to improve the AD process and biogas yield. Ferrer et al. [131] yielded significant
methane increases of 41%, 44%, 28% and 12% by co-digestion of horse manure with tomato, pepper,
peach and persimmon, respectively.
Tomato residues are a valid matrix for the production of biogas [132], although imbalanced
nutrients, such as carbon and nitrogen, limit the use of this biomass as mono-substrate in AD [133].
Li et al. [133] mixed tomato residues with dairy manure and corn stover and gained the highest
methane yields with a mixture of 33% corn stover, 54% dairy manure and 13% tomato residue.
Macroalgae (MA) represent valuable substrates for co-digestion with many wastes, such as market
place wastes, in terms of biogas yield, due to the high carbohydrates content, high growth rates and
ability to absorb carbon dioxide [134,135].
Comparing the production of biogas and methane by co-digestion with that yielded by
mono-digestion of a set of five biomass materials (vegetable food waste, cow dung, pig manure, grass
clippings, and chicken manure), Poulsen and Adelard [136] found higher yields with co-digestion
than with mono-digestion of the same substrates. In another study [137], cow manure was processed
with food collected from restaurants (including rice, salad, fish, meat, vegetable soup and beans flour)
and fruit (orange, banana, plantain and pineapple peel) waste. The highest biogas yield was obtained
in combination with food waste followed by the co-digestion with fruit and food waste and by the
co-digestion with fruit waste only (16482.5, 9096.5, and 8390 mL of biogas, respectively).
Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste (FW) and cattle manure (CM) enhanced the methane yield
by 41.1%, with a methane yield of 388 mL/g-VS, as a consequence of a C/N ratio of 15.8, corresponding
to a FW/CM ratio of 2 [138].
Garcia-Pena et al. [10] by processing a mixture containing 50% food and vegetable waste and
50% residual meat, achieved a yield of methane twice that gained from processing food and vegetable
waste alone. In addition, Cabbai et al. [139] by mixing garbage from cafeterias, restaurant, houses,
fruit and vegetable markets and bread stores with civil sludge for anaerobic digestion, yielded 18–47%
more methane than that obtained digesting any single waste type. When FVW was co-digested with
artichokes, an increased biogas yield (65–70%) was obtained as compared with FVW alone [11].
Moreover, the co-digestion allows the decrease of the costs of processing several wastes at the
same time [140] and the treatment of two or more matrices at the same time has a lower impact than
their separate treatment [141].
Many studies focused on the assessment of the suitable proportion of the different substrates
co-digested in order to obtain the highest biogas yield. Deressa et al. [142], exploring the production of
biogas from FVW with cow manure (CM), in a ratio of 75/25, found that the co-digestion of FVW+CM
provided biogas (31–37 mL/g) without the need for nutrient or chemical addition to the system.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 19 of 29
Nagarajan et al. (2014) [143] found that co-digestion of vegetable wastes (i.e., beat root, carrot and
potato) with cow manure, in a ratio of 2/1, enhanced methane yield.
Similar results were found by Hubenov et al. [144] processing swine manure (SM) and a mixture of
FVW (40% of waste potatoes, 20% waste tomatoes, 20% waste cucumbers, and 20% waste apple). These
authors noted an increase of methane yield as a consequence of the increase of FVW in the organic
mixture with an optimal ratio of 70/30 (SM/FVW). In addition, Kafle et al. [115] investigating the
potential of anaerobic co-digestion of Chinese cabbage waste silage (CCWS) with SM, found positive
results of co-digestion by mixing SM and CCWS at a ratio of 75/25, while biogas yield significantly
decreased when CCWS content in the mixture increased to 67% and 100%.
Al Mamun and Torii [8] studied the co-digestion of cafeteria wastes (CW), vegetable wastes
(VW) and fruit wastes (FW) and found that the optimal mixing ratio to be used in AD (at mesophilic
temperature for 35 d) was 1:1:1.
6.2. Chemical Pre-Treatments

A high VS/TS ratio and hemicelluloses content have a positive impact on the biogas yield
while lignine has a negative effect [145]. Pandit et al. [146] found that the addition of rice straw
to the vegetable and food wastes may promote the growth of microorganisms responsible for
ligno-hemicellulose degradation with positive effects on the biogas production trough AD. However,
substrate pretreatments are often necessary to degrade lignin polymers to further increase biogas
productivity. For example, although straw has a positive effect on the methane yield by increasing the
C/N ratio, it belongs to the class of difficult-to-degrade lignocellulosic materials; thus, a pretreatment
stage is needed to improve the rate and degree of enzymatic hydrolysis during the degradation process.
Zhang et al. [147] assessed the co-digestion of urea-ammoniated rice straw and FW with an inoculum
of an anaerobic digester effluent. Urea pretreatment enhanced the hydrolysis of raw rice straw and
increased biogas production. Moreover, the addition of cobalt and nickel to the raw material showed a
positive effect on the reaction rate of co-digestion. In particular, the presence of nickel significantly
enhanced the stability of co-digestion and increased the methane content. Alkali pretreatment of cattle
manure with Ca(OH)2 was an effective method for improving the biogas production from dry manure
and the best condition was the treatment at 60 ◦ C and pH 12 for 12 h [148]. This treatment probably
increased the accessibility of microorganisms to the energy producing components (i.e., hemicellulose
and cellulose). When different pre-treatments were compared for AD of Chlorella protothecoides algal
biomass, methane yield was higher with sonication than with thermal and alkaline treatments [149].
Most chemical pretreatments have negative environmental effects, whereas
N-Methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO), a non-derivatizing solvent breaking the intermolecular
interactions in cellulose, does not generate toxic pollutants and it is recyclable. A study investigating
the effects of NMMO pretreatment on biogas production from horse and cattle manures, both
with a high content of straw, showed that this step improved the methane potential of pretreated
materials [150].
In spite of their efficiency, these pre-treatments are too expensive and they are not always necessary,
since some organic substrates, although particulate, once immersed in water, tend to solubilize
immediately. Panico et al. (2014) [151] proved that in an AD process fed with organic solid particles
with a porous texture and a chemical composition mainly made of simple carbohydrates, the hydrolysis
can be faster than expected. This kind of organic solid can be easily disintegrated in water, resulting in
immediate availability to microorganisms for their metabolism.
6.3. Microbiological Tools to Improve Biogas Production

The use of selected microorganisms can improve biogas production in different ways.
One of these applications is biological pre-treatment which is the most accepted pretreatment of
lignocellulosic materials as it requires low energy consumption, it is high specific, cost-effective and
environmentally-friendly. The microorganisms mostly used for pre-treatments of lignocellulosic
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 20 of 29
materials are white-rot fungi (Coriolus versicolor, Aspergillus sp, Trichoderma sp, Phanerochaete
chrysosporium and Penicillium camemberti), which are preferred to fermentative bacteria
(Pseudomonas sp, Cellulomonas sp, Streptomyces sp, Bacillus sp and Actinobacteria) [152]. These
microorganisms are the most efficient and extensive lignine degraders as they are able to decompose
lignin with little consumption of cellulose component.
Other microbiological approaches to increase the hydrolysis of the biopolymer complexes are
focused on “bioaugmentation” of the AD microbial community through enrichment with specific
functional components, taking advantage of the abilities of the inoculated community to encode either
specific cellulolytic enzymes (e.g., cellulase, b-glucosidase, xylanase) or multienzyme complexes (e.g.,
cellulosome) [153,154]. Other useful techniques are based on the use of microorganisms coming from
the rumen ecosystem. This substrate is first colonized by anaerobic ruminal fungi, characterized
by highly hydrolytic capabilities. Ferraro et al. [155] tested the use of bioaugmentation with
anaerobic ruminal fungi and a pool of hydrogen-producing fermenting bacteria on wheat straw and
mushroom spent straw with the aim of improving anaerobic digestion performance. Different process
configurations were applied and the final results revealed that the two-stage configuration allowed
an enhancement in CH4 production. Furthermore, results on microbial community confirmed the
efficiency of the bioaugmentation treatment, mainly related to the Methanosarcinales increase, mostly
composed by Methanosaeta. Other studies [156] used brewery spent grain as model lignocellulosic
substrate and some rumen bacteria (Pseudobutyrivibrio xylanivorans Mz5T, Fibrobacter succinogenes
S85, Clostridium cellulovorans and Ruminococcus flavefaciens 007C) in addition to microbial biomass
from biogas digester treating brewery wastewater. This study revealed that treatment of brewery
spent grain with P. xylanivorans Mz5T, C. cellulovorans and F. succinogenes S85 promoted biogas
production and significantly increased methane production, confirming that bioaugmentation is a
promising method for increasing methane production from this substrate.
Another microbiological method to enhance the biogas production is the use of animal manures,
such as cow dung, pig dung, poultry droppings, etc. as source of various kinds of microorganisms.
In particular, cow dung contains microorganisms capable of enhancing the degradation during
AD [157]. Different sources, such as sewage water, rumen fluid, sago industry effluent and termite
gut, can be used as carriers of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria [158,159]. Cellulosic materials can also
be used as source of specific microorganisms for AD [160]. The size of the inoculum is an important
factor influencing the degradation of total organic materials, with an increment of methane yield
when increasing substrate to inoculums ratio size. For example, Budiyono et al. [161] demonstrated
that a concentration of 50% rumen fluid increased substrate degradation, including lignocellulosic
materials as compared with lower concentrations. Recently, the use of selected microorganisms for
substrate degradation is increased as a consequence of the higher efficiency of the microbes used in the
process. Furthermore, the preparation of microbial consortium composed by selected microorganisms
increased not only the degradation level, but also the competence of microorganisms for degradation.
The use of special microbial consortia during a pilot scale study increased the efficiency of the process
by reducing the duration of fermentation, as a consequence of the action of more specific enzymes
secreted by these microbial consortia [162].
An alternative to the use of selected microorganisms to speed up the AD process is the genetic
manipulation of anaerobic bacteria. Although different approaches were tested, the most widely
accepted methods for genetic manipulation in bacteria were mutagenesis and conjugation.
The mutagenesis of wild strains may produce muted microorganisms with the desired degradation
capacity also reducing the time needed for biogas production. Different methanogenic strains,
mutated for the property of inhibitor-resistance, showed enhanced biogas production. In particular,
the degradation activity of mutant strains of methanogens, such as Methanococcus voltae PS,
Methanococcus maripaludis, Methanosarcina, and transformed strains of Clostridium sp., Klebsiella,
E. coli, Lactobacillus, was increased in comparison to wild strains [163,164].
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 21 of 29
7. Conclusions
The production of biogas from residual agro-food biomasses obtained through AD represents
a promising tool for alternative production of energy from renewable sources. The use of livestock
manure, and particularly that from ruminant species, may provide significant environmental benefits
by reducing GHG emissions related to manure management. Manure AD may also provide a
supplementary source of income for farmers as renewable energy is produced and the residual
digestate has high fertilizing properties. Similar advantages can be also attributed to AD of fruit
and vegetables waste in the perspective of a true circular economy. Currently, the most promising
aspects to consider in order to improve AD process for biogas production include advanced AD plant
technologies, such as the combination of anaerobic membrane technology with specific systems (e.g.,
coagulant addition, adsorbent addition, use of granular materials improving aeration) leading the
membrane to work with high flow rates and reduced fouling problems. In addition, on-line monitoring
of the process (e.g., through NIRS spectroscopy) should be performed to control the main process
parameters and allow efficient biogas production. As for manure from ruminant, improvement of
biogas yield may be achieved by feeding ruminants with diets containing high levels of concentrate,
due to the generation of higher levels of soluble organic-C during anaerobic digestion. However,
co-digestion of fruit and vegetable matrices with livestock manure seems to be the best strategy to
improve the AD of these high lignocellulose containing substrates. Alternatively, these substrates can
be subjected to pretreatment with non-derivatizing solvents (e.g., N-Methylmorpholine-N-oxide)
breaking the intermolecular interactions in cellulose without toxic pollutant residues. Another
advantageous technique to increase biogas yield in high lignocellulose containing substrates seems to
be the bioaugmentation with anaerobic ruminal fungi and a pool of hydrogen-producing fermenting
bacteria with an enhancement in CH4 production, using a two stage configuration. The improvement
of AD efficacy by inoculating specific microorganisms for biomass degradation, can be achieved
either with naturally occurring microorganisms or with genetically modified microorganisms. Both the
approaches have the advantages of enhancing the efficiency of the AD process, as these microorganisms
are able to reduce the duration of fermentation. However, further research focusing on the development
of engineered microorganisms with increasing degradation activity is needed.
Future perspectives to improve biogas production from AD of agro-food waste should take into
account the following aspects. Due to the origin and composition diversity of agro-food waste, which
gives specific properties to them, an improved and specific characterization is needed to combine
them in the correct proportion to enhance biogas production and process stability. To this aim the
cooperation between biogas plants and laboratories specialized in waste characterization may promote
AD efficiency. The seasonality of agro-food waste availability existing in areas characterized by small
farms may cause input variability, which can be solved by the cooperation among farms dealing with
different products. Communal plants could also contribute to the reduction of the economic and
environmental transport costs.
Author Contributions: This paper was built on ideas by each of the authors. All authors contributed to the
writing and editing of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments: This research was carried out in the framework of the project “Smart Basilicata “(Contract
n. 6386 - 3, 20 July 2016). Smart Basilicata was approved by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and
Research (Notice MIUR n.84/Ric 2012, PON 2007—2013 of 2 March 2012) and was funded with the Cohesion
Fund 2007-2013 of the Basilicata Regional authority.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the Promotion of the Use of
Energy from Renewable Sources and Amending and Subsequently Repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 22 of 29
2. Olivier, J.G.J.; Schure, K.M.; Peters, J.A.H.W. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Report
(2017); PBL Publication Number: 2674; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: The Hague,
The Netherlands, 2017.
3. Akinbami, J.F.K.; Ilori, M.O.; Oyebisi, T.O.; Akinwumi, I.O.; Adeoti, I.O.O. Biogas Energy use in Nigeria:
Current status. Future Prospects and Policy Implication. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2001, 5, 97–112.
[CrossRef]
4. Meyer-Aurich, A.; Schattauer, A.; Hellebrand, H.J.; Klauss, H.; Plochl, M.; Berg, W. Impact of uncertainties
on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production from agricultural resources. Renew. Energy
2012, 37, 277–284. [CrossRef]
5. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.C.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste
Management to 2050. Urban Development Series; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; License: Creative
Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO. [CrossRef]
6. Candolo, G. Biomasse vegetali: I possibili processi di conversione energetica. Agronomica 2005, 4, 31–38.
7. Weiland, P. Biogas production: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 849–860.
[CrossRef]
8. Al Mamun, R.; Torii, S. Anaerobic co-digestion technology in solid wastes treatment for biomethane
generation. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2015, 36, 462–472. [CrossRef]
9. Cirne, D.G.; Lehtomaki, A.; Bjornsson, L.; Blackall, L.L. Hydrolysis and microbial community analyses in
two-stage anaerobic digestion of energy crops. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 516–527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Garcia-Pena, E.I.; Parameswaran, P.; Kang, D.W.; Canul-Chan, M.; Krajmalnik-Brown, R. Anaerobic digestion
and co-digestion processes of vegetable and fruit residues: Process and microbial ecology. Bioresour. Technol.
2011, 102, 9447–9455. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Ros, M.; Frankle-Whittle, I.H.; Morales, A.B.; Insam, H.; Ayuso, M.; Pascual, J.A. Archaeal community
dynamics and abiotic characteristics in a mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion process treating fruit and
vegetable processing waste sludge with chopped fresh artichoke waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 136, 1–7.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Kumar, M.; Ou, Y.L.; Lin, J.G. Co-composting of green waste and food waste at low C/N ratio. Waste Manag.
2010, 30, 602–609. [CrossRef]
13. Mussatto, S.I. Brewer’s spent grain: A valuable feedstock for industrial applications. J. Food Sci. Agric. 2014,
94, 1264–1275. [CrossRef]
14. Mane, A.B.; Rao, B.; Rao, A.B. Characterisation of fruit and vegetable waste for maximizing the biogas yield.
Int. J. Adv. Technol. Eng. Sci. 2015, 3, 489–500.
15. Braguglia, C.M.; Gallipoli, A.; Gianico, A.; Pagliaccia, A. Anaerobic bioconversion of food Wastes into energy:
A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 37–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.F.; Fahl, F. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew. Energy 2018,
129, 457–472. [CrossRef]
17. Deremince, B.; Königsberger, S. Statistical Report; European Biogas Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
18. André, L.; Pauss, A.; Ribeiro, T. Solid anaerobic digestion: State-of-art, scientific and technological hurdles.
Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 247, 1027–1037. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. 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, 704–710.
[CrossRef]
20. Nges, I.A.; Liu, J. Effects of solid retention time on anaerobic digestion of dewatered-sewage sludge in
mesophiic and termophilic conditions. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2200–2206. [CrossRef]
21. Micolucci, F.; Gottardo, M.; Pavan, P.; Cavinato, C.; Bolzonella, D. Pilot scale comparison of single and
double-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1376–1385. [CrossRef]
22. Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion.
Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 45, 540–555. [CrossRef]
23. Horváth, I.S.; Tabatabaei, M.; Karimi, K.; Kumar, R. Recent updates on biogas production—A review.
Biofuel Res. J. 2016, 10, 394–402. [CrossRef]
24. Krzeminski, P.; Leverette, L.; Malamis, S.; Katsou, E. Membrane bioreactors—A review on recent
developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel configurations, LCA and market prospects. J.
Membr. Sci. 2017, 527, 207–227. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 23 of 29
25. Wandera, S.M.; Qiao, W.; Algapani, D.E.; Bi, S.; Yin, D.; Qi, X.; Dong, R. Searching for possibilities to improve
the performance of full scale agricultural biogas plants. Renew. Energy 2018, 116, 720–727. [CrossRef]
26. Spanjers, H.; van Lier, J.B. Instrumentation in anaerobic treatment–research and practice. Water Sci. Technol.
2006, 53, 63–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Madsen, M.; Holm-Nielsen, J.B.; Esbensen, K.H. Monitoring of anaerobic digestion processes: A review
perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3141–3155. [CrossRef]
28. Li, L.; He, Q.; Wei, Y.; He, Q.; Peng, X. Early warning indicators for monitoring the process failure of
anaerobic digestion system of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 17, 491–494. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Li, Y.; Jin, H.; Li, H.; Li, J. Study on indicators for on-line monitoring and diagnosis of anaerobic digestion
process of piggery wastewater. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2017, 8, 423–430. [CrossRef]
30. Stockl, A.; Lichti, F. Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) for a real time monitoring of the biogas process.
Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1249–1252. [CrossRef]
31. Nguyen, D.; Gadhamshetty, V.; Nitayavardhana, S.; Khanal, S.K. Automatic process control in anaerobic
digestion technology: A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 193, 513–522. [CrossRef]
32. Grando, R.L.; de Souza Antune, A.M.; da Fonseca, F.V.; Sánchez, A.; Barrena, R.; Font, X. Technology
overview of biogas production in anaerobic digestion plants: A European evaluation of research and
development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 44–53. [CrossRef]
33. Bauer, F.; Hulteberg, C.; Persson, T.; Tamm, D. Biogas Upgrading– Review of Commercial Technologies; SGC
Rapport; SGC: Malmö, Sweden, 2013; p. 270.
34. IRENA. Road Transport: The Cost of Renewable Solutions. Preliminay Findings; International Renewable Energy
Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2013.
35. Asam, Z.U.Z.; Poulsen, T.G.; Nzami, A.-S.; Raxique, R.; Kiely, G.; Murphy, J.D. How Can We Improve
Biomethane Production Per Unit of Feedstock in Biogas Plant. Appl. Energy 2013, 88, 2013–2018. [CrossRef]
36. Aguirre-Villegas, H.A.; Larson, R. Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure management
practices using survey data and lifecycle tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 169–179. [CrossRef]
37. Sabia, E.; Napolitano, F.; Claps, S.; De Rosa, G.; Braghieri, A.; Pacelli, C. Dairy buffalo life cycle assessment
as affected by heifer rearing system. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 647–655. [CrossRef]
38. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow
Environmental Issues and Options. In Proceedings of the Methane to Markets Partnership Expo, Beijing,
China, 30 October–1 November 2007.
39. Hristov, A.N.; Zaman, S.; Vander Pol, M.; Ndegwa, P.; Campbell, L.; Silva, S. Nitrogen losses from dairy
manure estimated through nitrogen mass balance and chemical markers. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 38, 2438–2448.
[CrossRef]
40. Amon, B.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Amon, T.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia
emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 153–162. [CrossRef]
41. Aguirre-Villegas, H.A.; Larson, R.; Reinemann, D.J. Effects of management and co-digestion on life cycle
emissions and energy from anaerobic digestion. Greenh. Gases 2015, 5, 603–621. [CrossRef]
42. European Commission. Council Directive Concerning the Protection of Waters Against Pollution Caused
by Nitrates from Agricultural Sources (91/676/EEC). 1991. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html (accessed on 21 March 2019).
43. Al Seadi, T.; Rutz, D.; Prassl, H.; Köttner, M.; Finsterwalder, T.; Volk, S.; Janssen, R. Biogas Handbook;
University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg: Esbjerg, Denmark, 2008.
44. Sommer, S.G.; Christensen, K.V.; Jensen, L.S. Environmental Technology for Treatment and Management of
Bio-Waste; Sommer, S.G., Christensen, K.V., Eds.; University of Southern Denmark, Faculty of Engineering,
Institute of Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology and Environmental Engineering & Lars Stoumann Jensen,
University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Life Science, Plant and Soil Science Laboratory, Department of
Agricultural Sciences, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 1871 Frederiksberg C, DENMARK; Syddansk Universitet: Odense,
Denmark, 2008.
45. Amon, T.; Amon, B.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Zollitsch, W.; Mayer, K.; Gruber, L. Biogas production from maize
and dairy cattle manure: Influence of biomass composition on the methane yield. Bioresour. Technol. 2007,
100, 5777–5782. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 24 of 29
46. Alzate, M.; Muñoz, R.; Rogalla, F.; Fdz-Polanco, F.; Pérez-Elvira, S. Biochemical methane potential
of microalgae: Influence of substrate to inoculum ratio, biomass concentration and pretreatment.
47. Li, K.; Liu, R.; Chen, S. Comparison of anaerobic digestion characteristics and kinetics of four livestock
manures with different substrate concentrations. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 198, 133–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Wang, K.; Li, X.; He, C.; Chen, C.; Bai, J.; Ren, N.; Wang, J. Transformation of dissolved organic matters in
swine, cow and chicken manures during composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 168, 222–228. [CrossRef]
49. Olowoyeye, J. Comparative studies on biogas production using six different animal dungs. J. Biol.
Agric. Health 2013, 3, 7–12.
50. Triolo, J.L.; Ward, A.J.; Pedersen, L.; Sommer, S.G. Characteristics of Animal Slurry as a Key Biomass
for Biogas Production in Denmark. In Biomass Now—Sustainable Growth and Use; Matovic, M.D., Ed.;
InTech—Open Access Publisher: London, UK, 2013. [CrossRef]
51. Chen, F.; Yu, G.; Li, W.; Liu, F.W.; Zhang, W.P.; Bu, Y.S.; Li, X. Maximal methane potential of different animal
manures collected in northwest region of China. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 202–208.
52. Fantozzi, C. Buratti, Biogas production from different substrates in an experimental Continuously Stirred
Tank Reactor anaerobic digester. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5783–5789. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Pham, C.H.; Triolo, J.M.; Cu, T.T.T.; Pedersen, L.; Sommer, S.G. Validation and recommendation of methods
to measure biogas production potential of animal manure. Asian Australas. J. Anim. 2013, 26, 864–873.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Andrade, W.R.; Xavier, C.A.N.; Coca, F.O.C.G.; Arruda, L.D.O.; Santos, T.M.B. Biogas production from
ruminant and monogastric animal manure co-digested with manipueira. Arch. Zootec. 2016, 65, 251–380.
55. Kafle, G.K.; Chen, L. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and
prediction of biochemical methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manag. 2016,
48, 492–502. [CrossRef]
56. Budiyono, B.; Widiasa, I.N.; Johari, S.; Sunarso, S. Increasing Biogas Production Rate from Cattle Manure
Using Rumen Fluid as Inoculums. Int. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 6, 31–38. [CrossRef]
57. Osman, G.A.M.; Elhasan, H.E.; Hassan, A.B. Effect of cow rumen fluid concentration on biogas production
from goat manure. Sudan. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 2, 1–7.
58. Lawal, A.A.; Dzivama, A.U.; Wasinda, M.K. Effect of inoculum to substrate ratio on biogas production of
sheep paunch manure. Res. Agric. Eng. 2016, 62, 8–14. [CrossRef]
59. Mönch-Tegeder, M.; Lemmer, A.; Oechsner, H.; Jungbluth, T. Investigation of the methane potential of horse
manure. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2013, 15, 161–172.
60. Yohaness, M.T. Biogas Potential from Cow Manure: Influence of Diet. Second Cycle, A2E; SLU, Department of
Microbiology: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010.
61. Rico, J.L.; Garcia, H.; Rico, C.; Tejero, I. Characterisation of solid and liquid fractions of dairy manure with
regard to their component distribution and methane production. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 971–979.
[CrossRef]
62. Monteiro, E.; Mantha, V.; Rouboa, A. Prospective application of farm cattle manure for bioenergy production
in Portugal. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 627–631. [CrossRef]
63. Costa, M.S.D.M.; Costa, L.A.D.M.; Lucas, J.D., Jr.; Pivetta, L.A. Potentials of biogas production from super
young bulls manure fed with different diets. Eng. Agric. 2013, 33, 1090–1098.
64. Orrico, M.A.P., Jr.; Orrico, A.C.A.; Lucas, J.D., Jr.; Sampaio, A.A.M.; Fernandes, A.R.M.; Oliveira, E.A.D.
Biodigestão anaeróbia dos dejetos da bovinocultura de corte: Influência do período, do genótipo e da dieta.
Rev. Bras. Zoot. 2012, 41, 1533–1538. [CrossRef]
65. De Mendonça Costa, M.S.S.; de Lucas, J., Jr.; de Mendonça Costa, L.A.; Orrico, A.C.A. A highly concentrated
diet increases biogas production and the agronomic value of young bull’s manure. Waste Manag. 2016,
48, 521–527.
66. Matos, C.F.; Paes, J.L.; Pinheiro, E.F.M.; De Campos, D.V.B. Biogas production from dairy cattle manure,
under organic and conventional production systems. Eng. Agríc. Jaboticabal 2017, 37, 1081–1090. [CrossRef]
67. Angelidaki, I.; Ellegaard, L. Co-Digestion of Manure and Organic Wastes in Centralized Biogas Plant: Status and
Future Trend; Environment and Resources, Technical University of Denmark: Lyngby, Denmark, 2003.
68. Tufaner, F.; Avsar, Y. Effects of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: A review. Int. J. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 2303–2312. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 25 of 29
69. Abbasi, T.; Tauseef, S.; Abbasi, S.A. Biogas Energy, Vol 2; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY,
USA, 2011.
70. Zhu, N. Effect of low initial C/N ratio on aerobic composting of swine manure with rice straw.
71. Böske, J.; Wirth, B.; Garlipp, F.; Mumme, J.; Van den Weghe, H. Anaerobic digestion of horse dung
mixed with different bedding materials in an upflow solid-state (UASS) reactor at mesophilic conditions.
72. Sawatdeenarunat, C.; Surendra, K.C.; Takara, D.; Oechsner, H.; Khanal, S.K. Anaerobic digestion of
lignocellulosic biomass: Challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 178, 178–186. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
73. Cui, Z.; Shi, J.; Li, Y. Solid-state anaerobic digestion of spent wheat straw from horse stall. Bioresour. Technol.
2011, 102, 9432–9437. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Wartell, B.A.; Krumins, V.; Alt, J.; Kang, K.; Schwab, B.J.; Fennell, D.E. Methane production from horse
manure and stall waste with softwood bedding. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 112, 42–50. [CrossRef]
75. Lopes, M.; Baptista, P.; Duarte, E.; Moreira, A.L.N. Enhanced biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion
of pig slurry and horse manure with mechanical pre-treatment. Environ. Technol. 2018, 2, 1–9. [CrossRef]
76. Bujoczek, G.; Oleszkiewicz, J.; Sparling, R.; Cenkowski, S. High solid anaerobic digestion of chicken manure.
J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2000, 76, 51–60. [CrossRef]
77. Gangagni Rao, A.; Sasi Kanth Reddy, T.; Surya Prakash, S.; Vanajakshi, J.; Joseph, J.; Jetty, A.; Rajashekhara
Reddy, A.; Sarma, P.N. Biomethanation of poultry litter leachate in UASB reactor coupled with ammonia
stripper for enhancement of overall performance. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 8679–8684. [CrossRef]
78. Hansen, K.H.; Angelidaki, I.; Ahring, B.K. Anaerobic digestion of swine manure: Inhibition by ammonia.
Water Res. 1998, 32, 5–12. [CrossRef]
79. Zhang, C.; Yuan, Q.; Lu, Y. Inhibitory effects of ammonia on methanogen mcrA transcripts in anaerobic
digester sludge. EMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2014, 87, 368–377. [CrossRef]
80. Niu, Q.; Qiao, W.; Qiang, H.; Li, Y.Y. Microbial community shifts and biogas conversion computation during
steady, inhibited and recovered stages of thermophilic methane fermentation on chicken manure with a
wide variation of ammonia. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 146, 223–233. [CrossRef]
81. Wang, X.; Yang, G.; Feng, Y.; Ren, G.; Han, X. Optimizing feeding composition and carbon–nitrogen ratios
for improved methane yield during anaerobic co-digestion of dairy, chicken manure and wheat straw.
82. Borowski, S.; Domanski, J.; Weatherley, L. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and poultry manure with
municipal sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 513–521. [CrossRef]
83. Ali, S.; Ali Shah, T.; Afzal, A.; Tabbassum, R. Evaluating the co-digestion effects on chicken manure and
rotten potatoes in batch experiments. Int. J. Biosci. 2017, 10, 150–159.
84. Nie, H.; Jacobi, H.F.; Strach, K.; Xu, C.; Zhou, H.; Liebetrau, J. Mono-fermentation of chicken manure:
Ammonia inhibition and recirculation of the digestate. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 178, 238–246. [CrossRef]
85. Praes, M.F.M.; de Lucas, J., Jr.; Hermes, R.; Sorbara, J.O.B.; Ferreira, M.S.; Cardoso, P.B.C.S. Effect of a broiler
diet containing probiotic and exogenous enzymes on the manure used for biogas production. In Proceedings
of the Conference on Sustainable Agriculture through ICT Innovation, Torino, Italy, 23–27 June 2013.
86. Gaworski, M.; Jabłoński, S.; Pawlaczyk-Graja, I.; Ziewiecki, R.; Rutkowski, P.; Wieczyńska, A.; Gancarz, R.;
Łukaszewicz, M. Enhancing biogas plant production using pig manure and corn silage by adding wheat
straw processed with liquid hot water and steam explosion. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 259. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
87. Cuetos, M.J.; Fernández, C.; Gómez, X.; Morán, A. Anaerobic Co-digestion of Swine Manure with Energy
Crop Residues. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2011, 16, 1044–1052. [CrossRef]
88. Hamilton, D.W. Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manure: Understanding the Basic Processes. Oklahoma Cooperative
Extension Service BAE-1747; Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State
University: Stillwater, OK, USA, 2014.
89. Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Additives for
Use in Animal Nutrition; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2003.
90. Masse, D.I.; Lu, D.; Masse, L.; Droste, R.L. Effect of antibiotics on psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of swine
manure slurry in sequencing batch reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 75, 205–211. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 26 of 29
91. Beneragama, N.; Moriya, Y.; Yamashiro, T.; Iwasaki, M.; Lateef, S.A.; Ying, C.; Umetsu, K. The survival of
cefazolin resistant bacteria in mesophilic co-digestion of dairy manure and waste milk. Waste Manag. Res.
2013, 31, 843–848. [CrossRef]
92. Álvarez, J.A.; Otero, L.; Lema, J.M.; Omil, F. The effect and fate of antibiotics during the anaerobic digestion
of pig manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 8581–8586. [CrossRef]
93. Shi, J.C.; Liao, X.D.; Wu, Y.B.; Liang, J.B. Effect of antibiotics on methane arising from anaerobic digestion of
pig manure. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 457–463. [CrossRef]
94. Beneragama, N.; Iwasaki, M.; Lateef, S.A.; Umetsu, K. The effect of cefazolin on biogas production from
thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure and waste milk. J. Natl. Sci. Found.
Sri Lanka 2015, 43, 369–376. [CrossRef]
95. Mitchell, S.M.; Ullman, J.L.; Teel, A.L.; Watts, R.J. The effects of the antibiotics ampicillin, florfenicol,
sulfamethazine, and tylosin on biogas production and their degradation efficiency during anaerobic digestion.
96. Ke, X.; Zhao, X.; Li, R.D. Effect of copper ions on pig manure anaerobic digestion. Renew. Environ. Resour.
2013, 31, 60–63.
97. Sun, J.P.; Zheng, P.; Hu, B.L.; Yu, Y. Cumulative inhibition of heavy metals to anaerobic digestion of piggery
wastewater. Acta Sci. Circumstantiae 2009, 29, 1643–1648.
98. Ji, C.; Kong, C.; Mei, Z.L.; Li, J. A Review of the Anaerobic Digestion of Fruit and Vegetable Waste.
Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 183, 906–922. [CrossRef]
99. FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2014: Latin America
and the Carubbean Food and Agriculture; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2014.
100. Boullagui, H.; Touhami, Y.; Cheikh, R.B.; Hamndi, M. Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit
and vegetable waste. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 989–995. [CrossRef]
101. Scano, E.A.; Asquer, C.; Pistis, A.; Ortu, L.; Demontis, V.; Cocco, D. Biogas from anaerobic digestion of fruit
and vegetable wastes: Experimental results on pilot-scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a
full-scale power plant. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 77, 22–30. [CrossRef]
102. Wang, C.; Zuo, J.; Chen, X.; Xing, W.; Xing, L.; Li, P.; Lu, X.; Li, C. Microbial community structures in an
integrated two-phase anaerobic bioreactor fed by fruit vegetable wastes and wheat straw. J. Environ. Sci.
2014, 26, 2484–2492. [CrossRef]
103. Almonani, F.; Shawaqfah, M.; Bhosale, R.R.; Kumar, A.; Khraisheh, M.A.M. Intermediate ozonization to
enhance biogas production in batch and continuous systems using animal dung and agricultural waste.
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2016, 30, 1–12.
104. Favaro, L.; Basaglia, M.; Casella, S. Processing wheat bran into ethanol using mild treatments and highly
fermentative yeasts. Biomass Bioenergy 2012, 46, 605–617. [CrossRef]
105. Dinuccio, E.; Balsari, P.; Gioelli, F.; Menardo, S. Evaluation of the biogas productivity potential of some
Italian agro-industrial biomasses. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3780–3783. [CrossRef]
106. Nzila, C.; Dewulf, J.; Spanjers, H.; Kiriamiti, H.; van Lagenhove, H. Biowaste energy potential in Kenya.
Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2698–2704. [CrossRef]
107. Zhou, J.; Yang, J.; Yu, Q.; Yong, X.; Xie, X.; Zhang, L.; Wei, P.; Jia, H. Different organic loading rates on
the biogas production during the anaerobic digestion of rice straw: A pilot study. Bioresour. Technol. 2017,
244, 865–871. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
108. Cho, J.K.; Park, S.C. Biochemical methane potential and solid state anaerobic digestion of Korean food
wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 1995, 52, 245–253. [CrossRef]
109. Ciuta, S.; Antognoni, S.; Rada, E.C.; Ragazzi, M.; Badea, A.; Cioca, L.I. Respirometrix Index and biogas
potential of different foods and Agricultural discarded biomass. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1311. [CrossRef]
110. Aliyu, S.; Bala, M. Brewer’s spent grain: A review of its potential applications. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011,
10, 324–331.
111. Okoye, B.O.; Igbokwe, P.K.; Ude, C.N. Comparative study of biogas production from cow dung and brewer’s
spent grain. Int. J. Res. Adv. Eng. Technol. 2016, 2, 19–21.
112. Luz, F.C.; Cordiner, S.; Manni, A.; Mulone, V.; Rocco, V. Anaerobic digestion of coffee grounds soluble fraction
at laboratory scale: Evaluation of the biomethane potential. Appl. Energy 2017, 207, 166–175. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 27 of 29
113. García, C.A.; Peňa, A.; Betancourt, R.; Cardona, C.A. Energetic and environmental assessment of
thermochemical and biochemical ways for producing energy from agricultural solid residues: Coffee
cut-stems case. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 160–168. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114. Abdul Aziz, N.I.H.; Hanafiah, M.M.; Yasreen, M.; Ali, M. Sustainable biogas production from agrowaste and
effluents—A promising step for small-scale industry income. Renew. Energy 2019, 132, 363–369. [CrossRef]
115. Kafle, G.K.; Bhattarai, S.; Kim, S.H.; Chen, L. Anaerobic digestion of Chinese cabbage waste silage with
swine manure for biogas production: Batch and continuous study. Environ. Technol. 2014, 35, 2708–2717.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
116. Abubaker, J.; Risberg, K.; Pell, M. Biogas Residues as Fertilizers effects on wheat growth and soil microbial
activities. Appl. Energy 2012, 99, 126–134. [CrossRef]
117. Shen, F.; Yuan, H.; Pang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhu, B.; Zou, D.; Liu, Y.; Ma, J.; Yu, L.; Li, X. Performances of
anaerobic co-digestion of fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) and food waste (FW): Single-phase vs. two-phase.
118. Liu, X.; Gao, X.; Wang, W.; Zheng, L.; Zhou, Y.; Sun, Y. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion of municipal
biomass waste: Focusing on biogas production and GHG reduction. Renew. Energy 2012, 44, 463–468.
[CrossRef]
119. Zhang, L.; Lee, Y.W.; Jahng, D. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater: Focusing on
the role of trace elements. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 5048–5059. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
120. Zuo, Z.; Wu, S.; Zhang, W.; Dong, R. Effects of organic loading rate and effluent recirculation on the
performance of two-stage anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 146, 556–561.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
121. Pavi, S.; Kramer, L.E.; Gomes, L.P.; Miranda, L.A.S. Biogas production from co-digestion of organic fraction
of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 228, 362–367. [CrossRef]
122. Ziganshin, A.M.; Liebetrau, J.; Pröter, J.; Kleinsteuber, S. Microbial community structure and dynamics
during anaerobic digestion of various agricultural waste materials. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013,
123. Zverlov, V.V.; Hiegl, W.; Köck, D.E.; Kellermann, J.; Köllmeier, T.; Schwarz, W.H. Hydrolytic bacteria in
mesophilic and thermophilic degradation of plant biomass. Eng. Life Sci. 2010, 10, 528–536. [CrossRef]
124. Morrison, M. Miron Adhesion to cellulose by Ruminococcus albus: A combination of cellulosomes and
Pil-proteins? FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2000, 185, 109–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Wirth, R.; Kovács, E.; Maróti, G.; Bagi, Z.; Rákhely, G.; Kovács, K. Characterization of a biogas-producing
microbial community by short-read next generation DNA sequencing. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2012, 5, 41.
[CrossRef]
126. Karakashev, D.; Batstone, D.J.; Trably, E.; Angelidaki, I. Acetate oxidation is the dominant methanogenic
pathway from acetate in the absence of Methanosaetaceae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 5138–5141.
[CrossRef]
127. Anderson, I.; Ulrich, L.E.; Lupa, B.; Susanti, D.; Porat, I.; Hooper, S.D.; Lykidis, A.; Sieprawska-Lupa, M.;
Dharmarajan, L.; Goltsman, E.; et al. Genomic characterization of methanomicrobiales reveals three classes
of methanogens. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, 5797. [CrossRef]
128. Rao, P.V.; Baral, S.S. Experimental design of mixture for the anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge.
Chem. Eng. J. 2011, 172, 977–986. [CrossRef]
129. El-Mashad, H.M.; Zhang, R.H. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure and food waste.
130. Li, X.J.; Li, L.Q.; Zheng, M.X.; Fu, G.Z.; Lar, J.S. Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with corn stover
pretreated by sodium hydroxide for efficient biogas production. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 4635–4639. [CrossRef]
131. Ferrer, P.; Cambra-Lopez, M.; Cerisuelo, A.; Penaranda, D.S.; Moset, V. The use of agricultural substrates to
improve methane yield in anaerobic co-digestion with pig slurry: Effect of substrate type and inclusion level.
Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 196–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Misi, S.N.; Forster, C.F. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of agro-wastes. Environ. Technol. 2002,
133. Li, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, D.; Li, G.; Lu, J.; Li, S. Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of tomato residues with dairy
manure and corn stover for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 217, 50–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 28 of 29
134. Oliveira, J.V.; Alves, M.M.; Costa, J.C. Design of experiments to asses pre-treatment and co-digestion
strategies that optimize biogas production from macroalgae Gracilaria vermiculophylla. Bioresour. Technol.
2014, 162, 323–330. [CrossRef]
135. Yoroklu, H.C.; Korkmaz, E.; Demir, N.M.; Ozkaya, B.; Demir, A. The impact of pretreatment and inoculums
to substrate ratio on methane potential of organic wastes from various origins. J. Mat. Cycles Waste Manag.
2018, 20, 800–809. [CrossRef]
136. Poulsen, T.G.; Adelard, L. Improving biogas quality and methane yield via co-digestion of agricultural and
urban biomass wastes. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 118–125. [CrossRef]
137. Otun, T.F.; Ojo, O.M.; Ajibade, F.O.; Babatola, J.O. Evaluation of biogas production from the digestion and
co-digestion of animal waste, food waste and fruit waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2015, 3, 12–24.
138. Zhang, C.; Xiao, G.; Peng, L.; Su, H.; Tan, T. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure.
139. Cabbai, V.; Ballico, M.; Aneggi, E.; Goi, D. BMP tests of source selected OFMSW to evaluate anaerobic
codigestion with sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1626–1632. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
140. Alatriste-Mondragon, F.; Samar, P.; Cox, H.H.J.; Ahring, B.K.; Iranpour, R. Anaerobic codigestion of
municipal, farm, and industrial organic wastes: A survey of recent literature. Water Environ. Res. 2006,
78, 607–636. [CrossRef]
141. Gil, J.A.; Márquez, P.; Gutiérrez, M.C.; Martin, M.A. Optimizing the selection of organic waste for
biomethanization. Environ. Technol. 2017, 10, 1–13. [CrossRef]
142. Deressa, L.; Libsu, S.; Chavan, R.B.; Manaye, D.; Debassa, A. Production of biogas from fruit and vegetable
wastes mixed with different wastes. Environ. Ecol. Res. 2015, 3, 65–71.
143. Nagarajan, G.; Rajakumar, S.; Ayyasamy, P.M. Vegetable wastes: An alternative resource for biogas and bio
compost production through lab scale process. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 379–387.
144. Hubenov, V.N.; Mihaylova, S.N.; Simeonov, I.S. Anaerobic co-digestion of waste fruits and vegetables and
swine manure in a pilot-scale bioreactor. Bulgarian Chem. Commun. 2015, 47, 788–792.
145. Di Maria, F.; Baratta, M. Boosting methane generation by co-digestion of sludge with fruit and vegetable
waste: International environment of digester and methanogenic pathway. Waste Manag. 2015, 43, 130–136.
[CrossRef]
146. Pandit, P.D.; Gulhane, M.K.; Khardenavis, A.A.; Purohit, H.J. Mining of hemicelluloses and lignin degrading
genes from differentially enriched methane producing microbial community. Bioresour. Technol. 2016,
147. Zhang, H.; Luo, L.; Li, W.; Wang, X.; Sun, Y.; Sun, Y.; Gong, W. Optimization of mixing ratio of ammoniated
rice straw and food waste co-digestion and impact of trace element supplementation on biogas production.
J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 745–753. [CrossRef]
148. Niasar, H.S.; Karimi, K.; Zilouei, H.; Salehian, P.; Jeihanipour, A. Effects of lime pretreatment on biogas
production from dry dairy cattle manure. Minerva Biotecnol. 2011, 23, 77–82.
149. Ayala-Parra, P.; Liu, Y.; Sierra-Alvarez, R.; Field, J.A. Pretreatment to enhance the anaerobic biodegradability
of Chlorella protothecoides algas biomass. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2018, 37, 418–424. [CrossRef]
150. Aslanzadeh, S.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Horváth, I.S. Pretreatment of straw fraction of manure for improved biogas
production. BioResources 2011, 6, 5193–5205.
151. Panico, A.; d’Antonio, G.; Esposito, G.; Frunzo, L.; Iodice, P.; Pirozzi, F. The Effect of Substrate-Bulk
Interaction on Hydrolysis Modeling in Anaerobic Digestion Process. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8348–8363.
[CrossRef]
152. Cesaro, A.; Belgiorno, V. Pretreatment methods to improve anaerobic biodegradability of organic municipal
solid waste fractions. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 240, 24–37. [CrossRef]
153. Azman, S.; Khadem, A.F.; Van Lier, J.B.; Zeeman, G.; Plugge, C.M. Presence and role of anaerobic hydrolytic
microbes in conversion of lignocellulosic biomass for biogas production. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2015, 25, 2523–2564. [CrossRef]
154. Mason, P.M.; Stuckey, D.C. Biofilms, bubbles and boundary layers—A new approach to understanding
cellulolysis in anaerobic and ruminant digestion. Water Res. 2016, 104, 93–100. [CrossRef]
155. Ferraro, A.; Dottorini, G.; Massini, G.; Mazzurco, V.; Signorini, A.; Lembob, G.; Fabbricino, M. Combined
bioaugmentation with anaerobic ruminal fungi and fermentative bacteria to enhance biogas production
from wheat straw and mushroom spent straw. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 260, 364–373. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217 29 of 29
156. Căter, M.; Fanedl, L.; Malovrh, S.; Marinšek Logar, R. Biogas production from brewery spent grain enhanced
by bioaugmentation with hydrolytic anaerobic bacteria. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 186, 261–269. [CrossRef]
157. Eze, J.I.; Agbo, K.E. Studies on the microbial spectrum in anaerobic biomethannization of cow dung in 10 m3
fixed dome biogas digester. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2010, 5, 1331–1337.
158. Sunarso, J.S.; Budiyono, W. The effect of feed to inoculums ratio on biogas production rate from cattle
manure using rumen fluid as inoculums. Int. J. Sci. Eng. 2010, 1, 41–45. [CrossRef]
159. Gomathi, V.; Ramasamy, K.; Reddy, M.R.V.P.; Ramalakshmi, A.; Ramanathan, A. Methane emission by gut
symbionts of Termites. Acad. J. Plant Sci. 2009, 2, 189–194.
160. Iyagba, E.T.; Mangibo, I.A.; Muhammad, Y.S. The study of cow dung as co-substrate with rice husk in biogas
production. Sci. Res. 2009, 4, 861–866.
161. Budiyono, I.N.; Widiasa, S.; Johari, S. The kinetic of biogas production rate from cattle manure in batch mode.
Int. J. Chem. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3, 39–44.
162. Mirdamadian, S.H.; Khayam-Nekoui, S.M.; Ghanavati, H. Reduce of fermentation time in composting
process by using a special microbial consortium. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2011, 76, 533–537.
163. Rother, M.; Metcalf, W.W. Genetic technologies for Archaea. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2005, 8, 745–751.
[CrossRef]
164. Senthilkumar, V.; Gunasekaran, P. Bioethanol production from cellulosic substrates: Engineered bacteria and
process integration challenges. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2005, 64, 845–853.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Applied Sciences: Recent Updates On The Use of Agro-Food Waste For Biogas Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied Sciences: Recent Updates On The Use of Agro-Food Waste For Biogas Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217; doi:10.3390/app9061217 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

3. Anaerobic Digestion Plant Technologies

3.2. Economic Considerations about Biogas Plant

4. Agro-Food Substrates for Anaerobic Digestion

4.1. Livestock Manure

Parameter Unit Description, Range and Measurement Method

• 25–40 ◦ C (mesophilic systems—optimal 38–40 ◦ C)

Parameter Unit Description, Range and Measurement Method

Table 4. Characteristics of manure from different livestock species.

pH TS% VS% C/N BIOGAS YIELD

4.1.1. Cattle Manure

4.1.2. Horse Manure

4.1.3. Poultry Manure

4.1.4. Pig Manure

4.1.5. Inhibitory Substances in Livestock Manure

4.2. Fruits and Vegetables Waste

Table 5. Characteristics of some fruit and vegetable waste (FVW).

pH TS% VS (%TS) C/N BIOGAS YIELD

5. Substrate Composition and Microbial Communities

6. Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of the AD Process

6.2. Chemical Pre-Treatments

6.3. Microbiological Tools to Improve Biogas Production

You might also like