Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Anaerobic digestion process and bio-energy in meat industry: A review

and a potential
Ihsan Hamawand
National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA), Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba 4350 QLD,
Australia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Greenhouse gases especially methane has been proven to have a significant effect on global warming
Received 27 November 2013 and climate changes. Large share of methane is emitted to the environment from wastewater treatment
Received in revised form plants mostly from uncovered anaerobic digesters. The estimated methane emission is approximately
23 November 2014
618 Mt carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2-e) globally. Methane emissions from uncovered anaerobic
Accepted 14 December 2014
digesters can be avoided by carrying out some modification to the treatment process and design. These
potential modifications were illustrated in details in this paper. The aims are to gain better under-
Keywords: standing of anaerobic digestion process and its performance. This paper is discussing and analysing the
Wastewater difficulties associated with anaerobic digestion process specifically in meat industry and many methods
Anaerobic digestion
to overcome these problems. There are many ways for enhancing the performance of anaerobic digestion
Biogas
process such as through simulation, co-digestion, addition of surfactants, pre-treatment and optimal
Co-digestion
Meat industry digester design. It is obvious that solving the problems associated with anaerobic process may raise
investors' interest in covered anaerobic digesters and as a consequence will remarkably reduce emission
of greenhouse gases. Anaerobic digester would not only function as a water treatment process but as a
resource of renewable energy as well.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2. Difficulties associated with digestion process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3. The main causes of these difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4. Research approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1. Co-digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1.1. Co-substrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.1.2. Waste sludge and surfactants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.2. Digester design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.1. Innovative design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.2. Influent flow rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.3. Volumetric organic loading rate (OLR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3. Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3.1. Potential usage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3.2. Available software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3.3. BioWin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.4. Pre-treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5. Anaerobic digestion process benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.1. Biogas utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.2. Digestate utilization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

E-mail address: Ihsan.hamawand@usq.edu.au

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.009
1364-0321/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
38 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1. Introduction
Climate change attributed to the greenhouse gases (GHGs)
emissions has been the focus of research in the last decade. These
researches were initiated by the Kyoto Protocol with the objective
of reducing GHGs emissions by 2008–2012 [1]. It was estimated
that global anthropogenic methane emissions for 2010 were
approximately 6875 Mt carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2-e). As
can be seen from Fig. 1, approximately 50% of these emissions
come from agriculture, coal mines, landfills, oil and natural gas
systems, and wastewater. Wastewater is contributing in the emis-
sions of 618 Mt carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2-e) globally [2].
The global methane emissions are projected to increase by 15% to
7904 Mt carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2-e) by 2020 (see fig. 1) [2].
Australia for example, based on the report submitted by the
Australian government to the United Nations framework conversion
on climate change in April 2012, wastewater contributed in 2.8 Mt
carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2-e) (20.1%) of total waste emission in
Australia alone (14.1 Mt CO2-e). The emission is mostly methane-
generated from anaerobic digestion process. Fig. 2 shows the amount
of methane released to the environment which is approximately 77%
of the total methane generated in 2010 [3]. It has been reported that
methane has greater global worming potency. It is 20 times more
effective than carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmo-
sphere [4]. Recovery is an efficient method of reducing global
methane emissions. Methane can be used to enhance economic
Fig. 1. Estimated and projected global methane emissions by source [2], 2010
and 2020.
Fig. 2. Amount of methane released to the environment compared to the recovered
[3].
growth, promote energy security, improve the environment, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions [4]. The recovering of biogas from
wastewater has been increasing worldwide, particularly in Europe
over the last 10 years [5]. It has become a mainstream commercial
fuel produced from passive methane capture at landfills, from urban
wastewater and effluent treatment plants and from energy conver-
sion methanisation plants fed with slurry, crop residues, food
processing waste, and household green waste. Despite the wide-
spread application of biogas technology worldwide, Australia has a
very limited portfolio of biogas projects [6].
The biogas industry is now moving beyond its historic focus on
waste treatment and management into energy generation, includ-
ing the use of purpose-grown energy crops in some countries.
German firms have led manufacturing and project development,
driven by strong domestic demand and a feed-in tariff (FIT) for
biogas. By the end of 2010, there were approximately 6800 biogas
plants in Germany [5]. Fig. 3 provides the number of operating
anaerobic digesters in selected European countries in 2011 as
provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Bioenergy
group. Biogas becomes an important resource of energy competi-
tive to the other gas resources such as natural gas and coal seam gas
and can significantly affect the energy economy in the world [7].
Table 1 is a summary of worldwide biogas plants based at wastewater
treatment facilities. It shows that biogas can be produced from both
agricultural/food and sewage wastewater treatment industries. The
energy gain can be as much as 2800 Mwe as in Germany.
However there are many successful applications of covered
anaerobic digesters, there are many difficulties that may arise with
different feedstocks [9]. This paper is addressing problems that
may associate with anaerobic digestion process especially in meat
industry and the methods of overcoming such difficulties. Increas-
ing the biogas production quantity and quality of anaerobic
digestion process may encourage variety of industries to invest
in the covered anaerobic digesters. Due to the extensive literature
review carried in this area, it has been found that biogas can be
enhanced dramatically through co-digestion, better design, pre-
treatment and adding innovative biodegradable surfactant.
Also, simulation may help to mitigate risks before the design put
under construction. Some hypothesis and an innovative anaerobic
Fig. 3. Number of operating anaerobic digesters in selected European countries [8].
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51 39

Table 1
Approximate number of biogas plants worldwide.

Country Approximate number of biogas plants Biogas yield/power generation Ref

Agriculture/food processing industry Sewage treatment industry

Germany 2012 47000, among this 2000 co-digestion 2800 MWe A

Denmark 2012 460 farm scale biogas plants, B
22 centralised biogas plants
Italy 2010 313 121 209 MWe C
Sweden 2012 14 farm plants 18 co-digestion plants 135 sewage treatment plants 1387 GWh /year D
France 2012 40 on farm, 7 centralized, 80 industrial 60 sewage sludge, MSW 10 By 2020, 270 million cubic metres of E
biogas will produced
Switzerland 2011 76 co digestion, 22 industrial WW 460 (60 co digestion) 4140 GWh/year F
Austria 2012 360 102.59 MW G
USA 2012 1800, 160 operational Ads Swine, Dairy, 104 60 MW H
Beef, poultry
China 2011 40 million rural household biogas projects 19 billion cubic meters I
and 4000 new large-sized biogas plants
nation-wide
Canada 2012 10 5 MW J
UK 2011 78 on-farm 220 75 MW K
Netherlands 2010 90 L
Poland 2011 10 57 7.245 MW M
Finland 2012 73 biogas production sites (including Total biogas production 139 million N
landfills) m3 (630 GWh)
Turkey 2011 37, 23 industrial and 13 landfill 1 201 million m3 annually 91 MW O
installed capacity annually
Ireland 2012 4 agri 15 industrial, sewage sludge, 100 Mm3 30–40 MWe P
municipal (biowaste), 7 landfill
No. Reference

A http://www.zernikeaustralia.com.au/pdf/18000_ExchangeNL_LR.pdf
Energy Fields, 2012, 2nd International CLAAS Symposium Biogas16–17 January 2012
B http://energy4farms.eu/biogas-plants-in-europe/biogas-plants-in-denmark/
C http://www.greengasgrids.eu/?q=node/230
http://act-clean.eu/downloads/D5.1_ITALY_National_Report.pdf
D http://energikontorsydost.se/userfiles/file/BiogasSydost/BioMethaneRegions/BasicDataonBiogas2012-komprimerad.pdf
http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country/reports/2012/Country%20Report%20Sweden_Tobias%20Persson_Moss_04-2012.pdf
E http://www.xergi.com/en/contact/newsletters/news4/november-2.html
http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country-reports/2012/Country%20Report%20France_Olivier%20Theobald_Moss_04-2012.pdf
F http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country-reports/2012/Country%20Report%20Switzerland_Nathalie%20Bachmann_Moss_04-2012.pdf
G http://www.fedarene.org/documents/projects/Biomethane/D212_CountrySpecificConditions/BMR_D…2.1.2_Conditions_Summary_EN_LEV.pdf
H http://ase.tufts.edu/uep/degrees/field_project_reports/2011/Team_6_Final_Report.pdf
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/04/biogas-technology-cow-power-catching-on-in-us
http://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_foodWaste.asp
I http://ase.tufts.edu/uep/degrees/field_project_reports/2011/Team_6_Final_Report.pdf
J http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/newsletter/2th%202012%20Newsletter%20Task%2037.pdf
K http://www.ukbiogas.enagri.info/UK_Biogas_2011_Sample%20Pages.pdf
http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/news/number-of-uk-biogas-plants-grows-by-a-third-in-one-year
L http://www.biogasin.org/files/pdf/Biogas_financing_in_Holland.pdf
M http://www.balticbiogasbus.eu/web/Upload/doc/Riga_20120201/6_Potential%20of%20biomethan%20production%20in%20BSR%20M%20Krupinski.pdf
N http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country-reports/2012/Country%20Report%20Finland_Outi%20Pakerinen_Moss_04-2012.pdf
O http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country/reports/april2011/Turkey_Country_Report.pdf
P http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/country-reports/april2011/Ireland_Country_Report.pdf

pond design have been discussed as a contribution to solve some
existence difficulties associated with this process.
2. Difficulties associated with digestion process
By investigating some of the anaerobic digesters in the meat
industry, it has been found that there is currently a lack of
knowledge within anaerobic process regarding the design, opera-
tion and upgrading these to covered anaerobic processes. Also, the
recoverable quantity and quality of such gas remains unclear.
Consequently there is a need for research into these areas to
encourage investors to invest in covered anaerobic digesters and
to mitigate the technical risks of the technology. For example, the
anaerobic ponds at Churchill Abattoir (Ipswich, QLD) were put
under study to gather information and understanding the above
issues. The purpose of the project was to obtain more deep
understanding of the process and the difficulties associated. Also
gauge the performance of the anaerobic digester in terms of both
waste treatment efficiency and subsequent biogas production.
Despite lots of efforts were spent to measure the biogas flow rate,
biogas quantity was unable to be accurately determined. This is
due to many substantial technical problems such as crust forma-
tion over the top of the ponds and lack in the design parameters
[10]. The crust layer over the pond led to remarkable damage to
the pond's cover. This also illustrated the poor performance of the
pond in regard to the wastewater treatment quality and quantity.
This problem is not unique to Churchill Abattoir and is a systemic
problem in the red meat processing industry which hinders the
successful uptake of technologies such as covered anaerobic
ponds. Similar results of CA WWTP have been reported with
Southern Meat (SM) covered anaerobic pond [11] and Oakey
Abattoir (Oakey City). In case of Churchill abattoir, comparing
the design parameters of the ponds such as pond's volume, flow
rate and organic loading rate, they are far away from any ideal
pond’s design to a large extent [12]. The design's parameters of the
40 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51

pond are conflicting with that recommended in the literature [13]. food/meat industry. In addition, it has been shown by many
There is an accumulation of very thick crust on its surface which researchers that some modification in the feeding components
reached in some places 1 m. Despite the efforts for many months (co-digestion), adding surfactant to the feeding stream, pond
to register the biogas production rate, it was unable to record it, design, pre-treatment and simulation may help to overcome many
this is likely due to shortage in the production. Once a simple difficulties may associate with the process. The following are
theoretical calculation is carried out using the measured reduction methods recommended to enhance the digestion process and
in COD, the results illustrated a potential of huge production of higher biogas production.
biogas. The theoretical biogas can be approximately as much as
6000 m3/day when considering ideal biogas production of 0.35 L/g
4.1. Co-digestion
COD reduction [13].
4.1.1. Co-substrate
Biogas can be produced from all kinds of feedstock as long as
3. The main causes of these difficulties
they contain substrates such as carbohydrates, proteins, fats and
cellulose. The theoretical gas production rate and yield are
While FOGs have the potential to produce large quantities of
dependent on the feedstock type. In practical, the retention time
methane, their recalcitrant nature generally results in a number of
and the design of the digestion system are also affecting the biogas
problems. Some of the problems attributed to the build-up of FOGs
production [22]. Co-digestion is the least expensive and easiest
include: clogging of pipes; foul odour generation; adhesion to the
method of optimization C:N ratio of the feedstock. Wastes with
bacterial cell surface and reducing their ability to treat waste-
low C:N are accompanied with high release of ammonia as much
water; and flotation of sludge and loss of active sludge [14]. FOGs
as 4289 mg/L. The highest biogas yield is associated with wastes
tend to accumulate on the surface of ponds to form a recalcitrant
had low concentration of ammonia and alkalinity of 1736 and
scum layer or crust [11,15]. However, primary treatment systems
8970 mg/L respectively [23]. In one study by Shanmugam and
such as dissolved air flotation units (DAF) are capable of reducing
Horan [23], they reported optimum biogas yield of 0.145 and
FOGs [16], this will also reduce the potential of large biogas
0.15 Nm L CH4/g VS reduction with wastes of C:N values of 15 and
production and create another type of waste.
20 respectively. The same results for the optimum value of C:N
The formed crust on the surface of anaerobic pond is partici-
were reported by many other researchers. The optimum condi-
pating in reduction the volume of the pond and the HRT [17]. This
tions were achieved at controlled pH of 6.5 and feedstock C:N ratio
means reduction in the pond’s efficiency. This crust as observed is
of 15. The study has showed that blended wastewater from leather
a mixture of fats and floated sludge which count in the COD
industry with municipal solid waste helped in reducing ammonia
measurement [10]. Lipids have a tendency to form floating
concentration and maximizes biogas production. The cumulative
aggregates and foam that may cause stratification problems due
biogas yield increased from 560 mL using leather wastewater
to the adsorption of lipids into the biomass [18]. Slaughterhouses
fraction alone, to 6518 mL with optimum blend [23]. Co-
are known for their high lipid (FOG) content [19]. Process stability
digestion has been proven to be able to overcome the long fatty
could be negatively affected with the higher FOG content due to
acid (LFA) inhabitation and biomass floating issues by many
potential LCFA inhibition led to digestion failure due to acidifica-
researchers [9]. Co-digestion is crucial to enhance biogas produc-
tion of the digester [15]. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion of
tion [9]. Co-digestion is highly recommended to be applied in
slaughterhouse wastes is attributed to the accumulation of high
wastes with high fat, oil and grease (FOG) content such as waste-
levels of ammonia. Ammonia is resulting from the degradation of
water from meat industry. This is due to low degradability of FOG
the high protein content of these wastes and to long chain fatty
and potential of long-fatty-acid (LFA) inhabitation [21].
acids (LCFA) accumulation as consequence of lipids degradation
Co-digestion using different substrates can help in minimizing
[18]. Fat, grease and oil (FOG) count for the highest amount of COD
the effect of the inhibitory compounds on the anaerobic process. It
among the food waste industries [20]. FOG is poorly biodegradable
also contributes in improving the stability, the performance of the
due to their low bioavailability, Lipids and long-chain fatty acids
process and digestion of the poorly digestible wastes such as fat or
resulting from lipid hydrolysis cause inhabitation of methanoginic
protein [24]. In another study by Bayr et al. [25], a batch and a
activity [10]. Also, FOG has a tendency to form floating aggregates
CSTR reactor with semicontinuous process were used to study the
and foam that may cause stratification problems due to the
co-digestion of rendering and slaughterhouse wastes. They
adsorption of lipids into the biomass [18]. Despite that, FOG counts
showed that co-digestion of these materials are possible at low
for the highest amount of chemical oxygen demand (COD) [20]
OLRs (organic loading rates) and at mesophilic conditions. The
and offers significantly greater biogas yields [21] among the food
study has showed a methane production potential of 262–572 dm3
waste industries. In order to increase the biogas production, FOG
CH4/kg VS added. The OLRs was between 1 and 1.5 kg VS/m3 day
as an added ingredient is highly recommended.
and HRT of 50 days at a temperature of 35 1C. The study has come
An urgent research is required in order to overcome the
to a conclusion that in the long term the stability of the process
difficulties associated with anaerobic digestion process to encou-
cannot be granted. Further research was suggested to study the
rage industries investment. Covered anaerobic digestion process
stability of the process and the inhabitation mechanism of
can contributes in remarkable advantages to meat industry. It is a
ammonia. Table 2 is a summary of many research have been
cheapest process for wastewater treatment, a source of renewable
conducted in the area of co-digestion mostly of abattoir waste. To
energy (biogas), a source of agricultural fertilizer (digestate) and
summarize co-digestion can offer several benefits such as opera-
can contribute in remarkable reduction in methane and carbon
tional advantages, improve nutrient balance, co-substrate hand-
dioxide release to the environment. Furthermore, it requires low
ling and fluid dynamics. Also, it may enhance the process
capital and operation costs.
economics through higher biogas yields and additional income
from the digestate [9].

4. Research approach
4.1.2. Waste sludge and surfactants
Anaerobic digestion process has proven to be an excellent The following section is a hypothesis based on the current
element for wastewater treatment specifically wastewater from literature review. The most and repeatedly co-digestion
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51 41

Table 2
Co-digestion studies using abattoir waste and other substrates from the food processing industry.

Industry waste used in co-digestion Reactor configuration Biogas yield and other comments References

Wastewater from leather industry with
municipal solids waste (MSW)
Fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) with
abattoir wastewater (AW)
Pig slaughterhouse by-products mixed
with pig manure
Fruit waste and abattoir effluent
Meat industry waste sludge (WS), cow
manure (CM), ruminal waste (RW) and
pig and cow waste slurries (PCS)
Mixture of solid and liquid (blood, washing
water, manure) and wastes of meat
industry
Solid slaughterhouse waste, fruit-vegetable
wastes and manure.
Slaughterhouse and other organic wastes
(food industry and residue from ethanol
production)
Cattle/pig meat and fatty waste added to
slaughterhouse wastewater treatment
plant
Slaughterhouse waste together with blood
(SB), manure (M), various crops residues
(VC) and municipal solid waste (MSW)
Poultry slaughterhouse waste mixed with
fruit and vegetable waste
Slaughterhouse waste (SHW) and the
organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW)
Co-digestion of slaughterhouse waste (SB)
with various crops (VC)
SB with MSW (municipal sewage waste)
SB with M (manure)
BMP, anaerobic batch reactors of 500 mL Biogas production was maximized from 560 mL using leather [23,26]
capacity waste fraction alone, to 6518 mL with optimum blend.
Laboratory-scale anaerobic sequencing batch Better biogas yield than those obtained from digestions of [27]
reactors ASBRs of 2 L effective volume AW and FVW separately
Semi-continuously fed CSTRs each with a total Biogas production increased from 3.3 dm3/day to [28]
capacity of 5 dm3 and a working volume of 5.5 dm3/ day, corresponding to an overall specific yield of
3.2 dm3 489 dm3/kg VS
4 L batch plastic containers The cumulative volume of biogas and methane produced for [29]
the 49 days retention period increased with increasing the
proportion of abattoir wastes
1 L batch reactors with an active volume of For example, the co-digestion experiment carried out with [24]
400 mL operated under mesophilic conditions 25% of WS and 75% of CM produced 11.7 L CH4/kg VSd, while
of 35 1C the mixture of 75% of WS and 25% of CM produced 29.2 L
CH4/kg VSd, respectively
2 L glass flask, the reactor was immersed in a N/A [30]
thermostatic water bath at 38 1C fitted with a
magnetic stirrer
Four
2 L laboratory scale reactors working Methane yields of 0.3 m3/kg VS added, with methane content [31]
semi-continuously at 35 1C in the biogas of 54–56%
Two continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTR) Yearly total production of 9.6 million Nm3 [32]
with a total volume of 7400 m3 and a hydraulic
retention time (HRT) of 45–55 days
Anaerobic batch tests of 1000 mL glass flaks 273–301 L CH4/kg COD in. [33]
(500 mL working volume)
Each reactor with 2 L capacity contained Substrate combinations of SB:M:VC:MSW with the mixing [34]
400 mL of inoculum under thermophilic ratios of 1:1:1:1 and 1:3:4:0.5 were shown to have best
conditions 55 C performance with methane yields of 664 and 582 NmL CH4/g
VS substrate
2 L sample vessel Semi-continuously-fed Biogas production was not successful [18]
digesters
Semi-continuously fed digesters at 34 1C The biogas yield of the co-digestion systems doubled that of [35]
the SHW digestion system alone, 8.6 L/day
BMP test [thermophilic conditions] 539 L CH4/kg VS loaded [36]
613 L CH4/kg VS loaded
576 L CH4/kg VS loaded

component has been used with FOG is waste activated sludge
(WAS) from industrial wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). In a
study by Wan et al.[15], a thickened waste activated sludge
(TWAS) obtained from the final clarifier in a WWTP was used as
a co-substrate with FOG. In this study it has been shown for a
certain ratio of FOG to TWAS the digestion was enhanced and
registered 137% increase in methane yield. Similar results to Wan
et al. [15] have been obtained by Martin-Gonzalez et al. [37] and
Silvestre et al. [38]. Martin-Gonzalez et al. [37] used the organic
fraction of municipal solid waste from sewage treatment plant as
co-substrate with FOG. They showed an increase in methane yield
by 145%. Silvestre et al. [38] reported an increase of 138% in the
methane yield when a combination of sewage sludge (SS), a
mixture of 70% primary sludge and 30% activated sludge, and
grease waste (GW) were mixed. TWAS from primary sludge (PS)
also used as a co-substrate with FOG by Kabouris et al. [39]. They
monitored 295% increase in methane yield. Shanmugan and Horan
[26] used wastewater from leather industry with biodegradable
fraction of municipal solids waste (MSW). They found that
ammonia concentration was reduced and biogas production was
maximized from 560 mL using leather wastewater fraction alone,
to 6518 mL with optimum blend. Many other studies have mon-
itored a great enhance in methane yield when waste activated
sludge (WAS) was used. Sewage sludge, a combination of 50%
waste activated sludge and 50% primary sludge from WWTP, was
used as a co-substrate with grease (GS) from grease trap in the
WWTP [40]. The same combination of sewage sludge and grease
was also used by Luostarinen et al. [41]. Moreover, Li et al. [42]
carried out anaerobic digestion experiments with a combination of
concentrated waste activated sludge (WAS), fats, oils and grease
(FOG) and synthetic kitchen waste (KW). The waste activated
sludge was collected from a WWTP. Zhu et al. [43] used a
combination of grease trap waste (GTW) with municipal waste
sludge from the dissolved air flotation unit which was fed with
primary and secondary sludge. All these studies have monitored
enhance in both bio-degradability of the FOG and methane yield
when mixed with WAS.
The main relevance between these studies is the using of
primary sludge (PS) and/or waste activated sludge (WAS) from
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) as the main component in
the co-digestion. The anaerobic digestion of FOG alone or in a
combination with co-substrate with more than 50% has resulted in
failure [15]. Addition of FOG to the WAS in an anaerobic co-
digestion process has shown an excellent potential of enhancing
the biodegradability and methane production and yield. Based on
above, it is hypothysed that the good performance of WAS as a co-
substrate in digestion of FOG may also be related to the adsorbed
surfactants on the sludge cells. It is well known that surfactant
tends to adsorb onto sludge in the wastewater treatment plant
[44]. It has been reported that anionic surfactant such as Linear
Alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) concentration in sludge is between
100 and 30,000 mg/kg [44]. Laboratory screening or digester tests
have shown that LAS, and many other sulfonate surfactant, does
not degrade under strictly anaerobic conditions [44]. Alcohol
ethoxylates (AE) is another surfactant that detected in sewage
sludge at concentration of 23–141 mg/kg [45]. The linear (C9–C18)
42 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51

Table 3
Summary of biogas yield in literature.

Industry waste used in Co-Digestion Reactor configuration Biogas yield References

Co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) with different kinds of pure BMP test [mesophilic conditions] 450 L CH4/ [48]
organic such as commercial vegetable (coconut) oil; animal fat; cellulose; and protein kgVS loaded
Co-digestion of animal by-products ABP (digestive tract content and drum sieve waste in the Constantly mixed reactor (CSTR) 430 L CH4/kg [49]
slaughterhouse was mixed with DAF sludge and grease trap sludge) mixture and sewage sludge [mesophilic conditions] VS loaded
Co-digestion of fat, oil and grease (FOG) with thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS) Semi-continuously fed reactor (CSTRs) 598 L/kg VS [15]
[mesophilic conditions] loaded
Co-digestion of primary sludge (PS), thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS), and polymer- Semi-continuously fed reactor (CSTRs) 449 L/kg VS [39]
dewatered FOG [mesophilic conditions] loaded
Co-digestion of sewage sludge (SS) was combined of 50% waste activated sludge and 50% primary BMP test 928 L/kg VS [40]
sludge from WWTP and sludge from grease traps (GS) loaded
Continuous pilot-scale digestion 360 L/kg VS
[mesophilic conditions] loaded
Co-digestion of mixture of sewage sludge from WWTP and grease trap sludge from a meat BMP test 788 L/kg VS [41]
processing plant loaded
Semi-continuously fed rector (CSTRs) 463 L/kg VS
loaded
Mesophilic conditions
Co-digestion of concentrated waste activated sludge (WAS), fats, oils and grease (FOG) BMP test [mesophilic conditions] 418 L/kg VS [42]
loaded
Co-digestion of seven different types of rendering plant wastes and three different slaughterhouse Continuously stirred tank reactors 720 L CH4/kg [25]
by-products including biosludge (sludge from wastewater treatment). Digested sludge from a (CSTRs) [mesophilic conditions] VS loaded
municipal wastewater treatment plant was used as inoculum.
Co-digestion of source collected organic fraction of municipal solid wastes (SC-OFMSW) with Constantly mixed reactor (CSTR) 550 L CH4/kg [37]
sewage treatment plants fat, oil, grease waste (STP-FOGW) [mesophilic conditions] VS loaded
Grease trapped waste (GTW) sample was taken from local restaurants and food processing BMP test [mesophilic conditions] 1061 L CH4/kg [43]
facilities mixed with septage. This then mixed with municipal sewage sludge (MWS) sample was VS loaded
taken from the stream of thickened sludge from a dissolved air flotation unit fed with primary
and secondary sludge.

are well biodegradable in anaerobic screening test with biogas
production of 4 70%. The biodegradability of AE may be the reason
for its low concentration in waste sludge. The biodegradability of
alcohol ethoxylates in a single anaerobic digester was determined
in the range of 54–74% [46]. The biodegradability of alcohol
ethoxylate decrease with increasing branching degree of the
alcohol [47]. It can be interpreted that the adsorption of these
two surfactants, linear alkylbenzene sulfonate and alcohol ethox-
ylates may have a significant effect on the ability of WAS in
digestate the FOG.
Table 3 shows many studies that have been carried out to
address the co-digestion of wastewater from meat industry and
sewage sludge. It is clearly demonstrate the advantage of sewage
sludge (more likely the absorbed surfactant) in enhancing the
efficiency of the digestion process and the biogas production.
Fat, oil and grease FOG is highly resistant to biodegradation and
contributes to the high COD levels. Anaerobic treatment alone is
not very efficient at eliminating FOG. Wahaab and El-Awady [50],
showed that the levels of fat, oil and grease in meat processing
wastewater did not comply with regulatory discharge standards
for the industrial wastewater into the sewage network after
anaerobic wastewater treatment using anaerobic sludge. The use
of a surfactant, more favourite bio-surfactant, may enable the
enhancement of anaerobic biodegradability of meat processing
wastewater by solubilizing the fat, oil and grease [20]. It has been
reported, that surfactant such as sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) at a
low concentration contributes in increasing of biogas production.
This was attributed to an increase of the bioavailability and
subsequent biodegradation of organic pollutants associated with
the sludge, promoted by the surfactant adsorption at the solid/
liquid interface [51]. Surfactants, either chemical or biochemical
are a chemical option which aims to improve the biodegradability
of fats, oils and greases by dissolving fats in the wastewater.
Biodegradable surfactants are more favourable than chemical
surfactants which may cause toxication toward the microbial
colonies in the digester [20]. Nakhla et al. [20] tested the impact
of a biosurfactant (BOD-balance) on the treatment of FOG-rich
rendering wastewater. The reduction of FOG concentration to
o800 mg/L increased total and soluble COD degradation rates by
106%. Results from the full-scale mesophilic anaerobic digestion
system indicated that the addition of the biosurfactant at doses of
130–200 mg/L decreased FOG concentrations from 66,300 to
10,200 mg/L over a 2-month-period. Linear alkylbenzene sulfo-
nates (LAS) are the most widely used synthetic anionic surfactants
in cleaning. In a study by Gavala and Ahring [52] showed that the
inhibitory effect of LAS is the main reason that anaerobic microbial
enrichments on LAS have not been succeeded yet. It has an
inhibitory action on the acetogenic and methanogenic step of
the anaerobic digestion process. They reported that the upper
allowable LAS to a municipal wastewater treatment plant that
employs anaerobic technology should be 14 mg LAS (gVSS)  1. In
another study by Garcia et al. [53], they showed that addition of
LAS to the anaerobic digesters increased the biogas production at
concentrations of 5–10 g/kg dry sludge but at higher surfactant
loads it caused inhibition of the methanogenic activity. Other
surfactants have been studied by Pérez-Armendáriz et al. [51],
they investigated the anaerobic biodegradability and inhibitory
effects on the methane production of three different surfactants,
two anionic: sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium dodecylben-
zene sulfonate (SDBS), and a cationic surfactant: trialkyl-
methylammonium chloride (TMAC), in two different anaerobic
sludges, granular and flocculent. The surfactants were tested at
five different concentrations, 5, 50, 100, 250 and 500 mg/L. SLS
was biodegraded at concentrations of 5, 50 and 100 mg/L with
flocculent sludge and at 100 and 250 mg/L with granular sludge.
However an inhibitory effect on methane production was observed
in both sludges at 500 mg/L. The results indicate that TMAC was
slightly degradable at 50 and 100 mg/L with the flocculent sludge,
and from 100 to 500 mg/L with the granular sludge. The results
also showed that SDBS was not biodegradable under anoxic
conditions. In regards to AE, it has been tested for biodegradability
and toxicity. All alcohol ethoxylates derived from straight chain
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51
primary or secondary alcohol undergo rapid and ultimate biode-
gradation in anaerobic digestion process. The toxicity of the AEO
increased with the length of the alkyl chain and decreasing EO-
chain length that means with increasing hydrophobicity [47]. To
the best of my knowledge, no study has been carried out to test its
effect on FOG degradation.
However, some physical pre-treatment such as the removal of
fat and grease using screens or dissolved air flotation (DAF) may be
a solution to reduce the difficulties associated with crust forma-
tion, it will contribute in reducing the influent organic matter to
the digester. This will not only reduce the biogas production but
also will generate another type waste which requires treatment
[39]. Further research into this field of FOG management should be
conducted to determine the impact on biogas production and
quality. To conclude, amending the wastewater with a biodegrad-
able surfactant may be a proper choice. This will contribute in
including the FOGs in the digestion process and prevent generat-
ing a new waste by-product. Further studies are required to test
the variety of surfactant in order to identify cheap, environmen-
tally friendly and efficient one.
4.2. Digester design
Digester design is typically based on organic loading rates and
hydraulic retention times from pilot plants and observations of
existing pond systems [54]. Hydraulic retention time refers to the
amount of time that a liquid with soluble compounds remains in a
pond or digester, and is highly variable depending on temperature
and wastewater composition [55]. Generally, the desired goal is to
achieve significant reductions in wastewater organic load with the
least hydraulic retention time (HRT) possible [11]. In a study by
Marcos et al. [56], they suggested an HRT of 18 days to achieve the
highest degradation. Generally the hydraulic retention time
recommended for anaerobic digester is 10–12 days which is
subjected to the BOD loading. For different consideration related
to the pond design and difficulties of controlling the composition
input to the pond, it is highly recommended to increase the HRT to
20 days [12]. There are many important factors that recommend
this value of HRT among them are eliminate short circuiting,
allowance for reduction of pond volume due to sludge and crust
build up and more tolerating shock load. There are many design
recommendations for anaerobic ponds have been declared by
research institutes and industry. For a low rate anaerobic reactor
such as ponds where temperature, mixing, SRT and other environ-
mental conditions are not regulated. The optimum loading rate
should be of 0.05–0.08 kg BOD/m3-day (see Table 4) [57]. In a
study by CSIRO [12] suggest that the anaerobic pond should be
designed to handle 200–300 kg BOD for each 1000 m3 of pond
volume [12]. In another study by Environmental Protection Agency
at United State the BOD loading rate suggested to be 0.04–
0.3 kg BOD/m3 [54] as shown in Table 5. The conclusion from
these studies, BOD loading should not exceed 0.3 kg BOD/m3 and
the HRT should not be less than 20 days.
Anaerobic digester is usually continuous flow stirred tank
reactor (CFSTR) for which hydraulic retention time (HRT) and
solid retention time (SRT) is nearly the same. Anaerobic treatment
of wastewaters requires long SRT to achieve better treatment
efficiency. The ratio of SRT/HRT  10–100 is required in order to
raise the efficiency of the process [12]. The high ratio allows the
slow growing methanogens to remain in the reactor for longer
time. To achieve a high SRT irrespective to HRT, one choice is to
add a clarifier (settling tank), this will allow the settled biomass to
be recycled back to the reactor. Another choice is to add baffles
and locate the inlets and outlets of the wastewater to avoid short-
circuiting and maximize solid retention time (SRT). This will be
very difficult in practice without tracer study [58]. In general, for
43
Table 4
Recommended design parameters for meat waste anaerobic
digesters [57].
Recommended design parameters are
Loading rate 0.05–0.08 kg BOD/m3 day
Hydraulic detention time 20–40 days
Depth 3–5 m
Length to breadth ratio 3:1
Freeboard 0.5 m min
Internal slope 2 –3:1 depending on soil
Table 5
Anaerobic digestion design criteria [54].
Criteria Range
Optimum water temperature ( C) o
30–35
PH 6.6–7.6
Organic loading 0.04–0.3 kg/m3 day
Detention time 1–50 days (temperature dependent)
Surface area 0.2–0.8 ha
Depth 2.4–6 m
Organic loading represents BOD5
square ponds, inlet location and baffles may be necessary to
prevent significant short-circuiting. Outlet location is also impor-
tant, sheltered positions are preferred and it is usually found in the
corners of square ponds [59].
4.2.1. Innovative design
Due to the difficulties associated with anaerobic digestion
especially in meat industry due to high concentration of fats, oils
and greases (FOGs) in the wastewater [60], an innovative design is
required. The formation of thick crusts on the top of anaerobic
digesters is the main problem. It causes reduction in the digester
efficiency due to excluding large amount of the organic matter
from the digestion process [60]. Due to the hot environment under
the cover and the large surface area of the pond these floated
matter build up and dry on the top of the pond. Also, it prevents
these organics matter from participating in the digestion process.
The build-up of the thick crust will lead eventually to breaking the
cover. The crust is not easy neither cheap to remove. The design of
a pond should consider easy ways of collecting crust and biogas.
Fig. 4 is a suggested pond's design (pilot-scale) that has a reduced
surface area using a partially submerged cover. The cover can be
manufactured from composite water-resistance materials. This
design can be applied to a small scale pond (3 m
6 m) beside
the actual pond and can be fed by a by-pass from the main feeding
pipe. The surface area can be reduced approximately to
0.5 m
3 m which makes collecting the crust on a regular base
easier. This design will be very useful in generating data in regard
the biogas production quantity, quality and crust mass balance.
This design will exclude the weather effects on the pond abso-
lutely and keep large proportion of the floated organic matter in
contact with water.
The design considerations/parameters of this new digester's
design are based on an easy and efficient ways of collecting the
crust. As shown in Fig. 4, the cover is submerged in the digester
and has inclined walls, this will help to direct the floating
materials including the crust to the middle of the digester. The
crust will accumulate at a relatively small surface area compare to
the surface area of the digester, this will not only assist in easier
collection of the crust but also keep the crust submerged in the
water until it collected. Keeping the floated materials submerged
44 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51

Fig. 4. Suggested Pond Design (reduced surface area anaerobic pond RSAP).

in the wastewater can enhance the degradability of these materi- Table 6

als. The crust can be collected either manually by opening the Examples of biogas plants in worldwide.
‘collection point’ cover, and removing the materials periodically.
Exp. no. Reactor volume (L) HRT (day) Flow rate Flow rate
Or can be removed using pumps at the end of the ‘crust removal’
(L/day) (m3/day)
pipe. As the cover will be submerged in the digester and clean
water will be placed on top of it, this will eliminate the digester's 1 1,000,000 10 100,000 100
cover damage due to weather conditions. Also, this design will 2 1,000,000 12 83,333.3 83.3
eliminate the rain from diluting and decreasing the HRT of the 3 1,000,000 14 71,428.5 71.4
4 1,000,000 16 62,500 62.5
digester. The rain water will mix with the clean water at the top of
5 1,000,000 18 55,555.5 55.5
the digester and the excess water will overflow from the digester 6 1,000,000 20 50,000 50
through the ‘rain water’ weir. This new design separates the clean
water above the top of the cover from the wastewater below the
cover. The generated biogas will also be directed to the middle of 4.2.3. Volumetric organic loading rate (OLR)
the digester to the ‘collection point’, where it will then be directed Due to the complexity of controlling the ratio between the
by a pipe to the storing/purification facility. A floating or an hydraulic retention time (HRT) and the solid retention time (SRT),
attached peer will be required if the crust will be collected the design parameter of any digester can be based on volumetric
manually or else can be used to access the ‘collection point’ cover organic loading rate (VOLR). The most appropriate way to find the
for monitoring purposes. The inlet wastewater flow is recom- volumetric organic loading rate (VOLR) in a pilot scale anaerobic
mended to be introduced to the digester at the bottom from one digester system is to measure it experimentally against the
side with high flow rate (using small influent pipe) to generate removal efficiency of chemical oxygen demand (COD) inside the
mixing action inside the digester in order to prevent sludge from digester [12]. The best VOLR will be the one which achieves the
accumulation at the bottom of the digester. The sludge will start to highest removal of COD from the digester. The volumetric organic
migrate to the other side of the buffer's wall when it reached a loading rate can be defined by the following equation. Eq. (2) was
certain concentration. This excess sludge can be collected from the rearranged to solve for the COD concentration of the influent (So).
other side of the buffer's wall where the wastewater is stagnant
V
VOLR
through a pipe at its bottom and recycle part of it to the digester. So ¼ : ð2Þ
Q
Finally, the clean water above the cover can be used as a fish farm
and it will give the digester a natural and an environmentally In this study a range of VOLR was selected based on literature
friendly appearance. [54,57], then used to predict the COD concentration accompanied
with a specific VOLR, reactor volume and flow rate. The BOD loading
to an anaerobic digester should not exceed 0.3 kg BOD/m3 day which
has been recommended by many studies [54,57]. As shown in
4.2.2. Influent flow rate Table 7, the VOLR is recommended to be in the range of 0.05–
In order to insure that the HRT is enclosed inside the recom- 0.08 kg BOD/m3 day [57]. In another study [54], the typical accep-
mended range, the HRT should be set as a constant value between table loading rates have been recommended in the range between
10 and 20 days. Based on this range of hydraulic retention time 0.04 and 0.3 kg BOD/m3 day, as can be seen in Table 7. Furthermore,
and the reactor volume, the flow rate to the reactor can be the value of the VOLR is dependent on the temperature inside the
predicted from Eq. (1) as following: digester, however there is no studies that addressing the VOLR and
V HRT against the digester's temperature. As can be seen in Table 7, the
Q¼ : ð1Þ HRT can vary between 1 and 50 days as results of different aspects
HRT
among them the digester's temperature.
Table 6 presents a range of flow rates for the recommended A range of values of VOLR was assumed between the minimum
range of HRT between 10 and 20 days. For example, for a pond of and the maximum values recommended by literature. The mini-
20 m long, 10 m wide and 5 m depth, the volume is around mum value considered was 0.04 kg BOD/m3 day and the max-
1000 m3.The table shows that the volumetric flow rate to the imum was 0.3 kg BOD/m3 day in order to investigate a vast range
reactor should be enclosed between 100 and 50 m3/day based on of applications. At each assumed value of the VOLR and a range of
the recommended HRT. influent flow rates, the COD concentration in the digester was
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51 45

Table 7 Table 8
Range of inlet flow rate to anaerobic reactor. Recommended design parameters for meat waste anaerobic digesters [12,25].

Parameters Study 1 Study 2 Exp. Reactor Flow rate VOLR Minimum, VOLR Maximum,
no. volume (m3/day) (kg BOD/ So, mg/L (kg BOD/ So (mg/L)
VOLR (kg BOD/m3 day) 0.05–0.08 0.04–0.3 (m3) m3 day) m3 day)
HRT (day) 20–40a 1–50a BOD CODa BOD CODa

a
Temperature dependent. 1 1000 100 0.04 400 800 0.3 3000 6000
2 1000 83.3 0.04 480 960 0.3 3600 7200
3 1000 71.4 0.04 560 1120 0.3 4200 8400
predicted based on Eq. (2). As shown in Table 8, the COD value can 4 1000 62.5 0.04 640 1280 0.3 4800 9600
vary from 800 to 12,000 mg/L depending on the flow rates and 5 1000 55.5 0.04 720 1440 0.3 5400 10800
6 1000 50 0.04 800 1600 0.3 6000 12000
the VOLRs.
Fig. 5 presents a correlation between the input flow rate and a
COD value assumed as double as BOD concentration.
the COD concentration of the inlet wastewater. The figure distin-
guishes a favourable area to operate anaerobic digester based on
both the acceptable range of inlet flow rate and the volumetric
organic loading rate. It is obvious, at low COD concentration
between 500 and 2000 mg/L, the relationship between the two
parameters is linear. As the inlet flow rate increases, the COD
concentration of the inlet wastewater is decreasing in a linear
pattern. In case of high COD concentration of the inlet fluid
between 6000 and 12,000 mg/L, the relationship is taking a curve
shape. This means that at low VOLR, high inlet flow rate can be
achieved without a large decline in the influent COD concentra-
tion. In contrast, at high VOLR, high flow rate can be achieved at
low influent COD concentration.
By fitting the curve of the high VOLR in Fig. 5 to a polynomial
equation, other lines representing different values of VOLR were
drawn using the fitted equation, as shown in Fig. 2. Each curve in
Fig. 6 represents a specific VOLR which is also can be presented as
a range of influent COD concentration. For example, for a waste- Fig. 5. The recommended range of COD concentration vs influent flow rate for a
water with COD concentration of 3600 mg/L, the second curve continuous digester, the doted area.
from the top (red colour) with a range of COD between 3000 and
6000 mg/L should be used to predict the suitable flow rate. This
can be done by drawing a horizontal line from the y-axis at COD
value of 3600 mg/L, then at the point of intersection of this line
with the curve, a vertical line should be drawn. The intersection of
the vertical line with the x-axis represents the value of flow rate
should this reactor operate at. For the case of wastewater with
COD content of 3600 mg/L, the VOLR is 0.15 kg BOD/m3 day, the
reactor should operate at a flow rate of 0.57 mL/min which
achieves an HRT of 12 days. Fig. 6 present an interaction relation-
ship between the HRT and the VOLR, for a specific value of VOLR,
the HRT is dependent on the COD concentration of the inlet
wastewater to the digester (So/VOLR ¼HRT). To run a digester at
a constant VOLR, a controller should be added to the system that
changes the inlet flow rate to the digester as a response to changes
in the COD concentration of the inlet flow.
To summarize Section 4.2, it is highly recommended to control
Fig. 6. Recommended COD concentration vs influent flow rate for a continuous
the flow rate of the wastewater to the digester in order to keep the digester, VOLR unit is in kg BOD/m3 day.
volumetric organic loading rate (VOLR) below the maximum value
of 0.3 kg BOD/m3 day and the hydraulic retention time HRT in the
range between 10 and 20 days. This in order to avoid many chemical and biological process. It may require two to four months
problems may results by not following these recommendations to start-up an anaerobic digester and an extra two to four months
such as; short circuit due to high flow rate and short HRT, build of to analyse the efficiency of the process [13]. In addition, large
crust due to high organic loading rate and reduce in biogas number of measurements over a long period of time is required.
generation due to wash out of the activated sludge at low HRT. Anaerobic digester requires a balance between the design para-
Table 9 in Section 4.3.1 shows the potential of generating biogas in meters of the digester, chemical and physical properties of the
the range of 660–1300 m3/day when these variables (HRT and inlet wastewater, conditions inside the digester and biological
VOLR) with others such as temperature are applied correctly. aspects of the activated sludge. These variables have to be in a
correct balance in order to accomplish optimum nutrient removal
4.3. Simulation and useful biogas generation rate. Due to complexity of anaerobic
digester, it is very difficult in practice to put all these variables in
4.3.1. Potential usage balance and/or to identify problems that may affects the process.
While an anaerobic digester is a very useful element in The recoverable quantity and quality of such gas remains unclear.
treatment of wastewater, anaerobic digestion is a very complicated Consequently there is a need to research these areas to mitigate
46 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51

Table 9
Real and simulated biogas production for real farm from literature [66].

Parameter Units Barham BioWin simulation, Corroll's BioWin simulation, Vestel farm BioWin simulation,
farm 50% COD farm 50% COD 50% COD
contribution contribution contribution

Flow rate m3/day 139 139 1182 1182 114 114

Digester volume m3 24479 24479 26487 26487 2854 2854
Depth m 6.1 6.1 7.3 7.3 4 4
HRT days 176 176 22.4 22.4 25 (design) 25
Loading rate kg BOD/m3/ 0.088 – 0.186 – 1.29 –
day
CODn mg/L 31500 31500 8500 8500 66000 66000
BODn mg/L 15474 15474 4175 4175 32421 32421
Type of digester Tem. range Ambient 5-32 Ambient tem. 5-32 Mesophilic (35 35
tem. oC7 2)
Optimum Biogas m3/day 940 925 793–850 993 663–1330 1454
production
Methane content in biogas % 63.7 7 4.7 63 68–80 80 Not reported 62

the technical risks associated with this technology. Modeling and parameters, loading rate, and wastewater characteristic in a
simulation may help to reveal and interpret these problems and at hypothetical digester and then select the design parameters that
the same time identify solutions [61,62,63]. provide optimum results.
In previous works by the author [64,65], BioWin software was
used to simulate chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal rates
4.3.2. Available software
and subsequent biogas generation rate from two abattoirs where
As wastewater treatment models become available, it was
crust (high FOG) accumulation was an issue, Churchil and South-
natural to package the models in software, the early simulations
ern meat abattoirs. In this study, it was shown by using simulation
were reported by Andrews and Graef (1971). Nowadays, there are
that a large percentage of influent COD was present as a surface
several simulator packages available in the market of wastewater
crust (floated at the surface), so it remained largely un-
treatment, such as Aquasim, BioWin, Simba, STOAT and WEST.
biodegradable. Field data effluent COD removal rates were
General purpose platforms like Matlab/Simulink are frequently
matched to simulated rates predicted by BioWin when measured
used for simulation of wastewater treatment system control [72].
influent COD was reduced to 30%, which inform that a significant
The opinion of many experts in the field of simulation of
portion of the inlet COD is not taking part in the anaerobic
wastewater treatment processes was considered in order to
digestion process. BioWin was able to predict approximate biogas
compare the software available in the market such as BioWin,
production rates of the pond, however it was impossible to do so
GPS-X and WEST. These experts are representing big wastewater
practically due to the high accumulation of crust. The simulation
treatment companies and have applied many software in their
provided a preliminary assessment of pond performance and also
wastewater plant design. It has been reported that BioWin
subsequent biogas production rates. Table 9 shows more examples
compare to GPS-X is a much more powerful simulation tool [13].
of using BioWin in analysing and predicting the potential biogas
BioWin can be used for complex and simple wastewater treatment
generated. In these examples the biogas generated were mea-
plants' analysis, in contrary, GPS-X can only be used for simple
sured, and as shown in the table, BioWin was able to predict very
wastewater treatment plants [73]. BioWin software includes the
close values of the generated biogas to that measured. Also,
kinetic model ASDM which is an excellent tool for modelling
BioWin showed that this quantity of biogas can be generated only
nitrogen and phosphorus conversions in anaerobic digester. Bio-
when 50% of the inlet COD is consumed. The other 50% as expected
Win, GPS-X and West are good simulation software, their usage is
is stored in the crust over the top of the digester similar to the
more dependent on the application. BioWin is very easy to use and
cases of Churchill and Southern meat abattoirs.
has decent modelling features but it may be little slow and lacks
BioWin software (EnviroSim Associates Ltd., Canada) is easy to
customization. WEST in the other hand is completely customizable
use, although it requires the user to have an extensive knowledge
and its speed is impressive [74] but it lacks steady state solver [75].
and experience in regards to wastewater treatment processes [67].
BioWin may be slow when simulating dynamic process, this is due
BioWin is a windows based computer simulation model developed
to the large numbers of process rates and state variables this
by EnviroSim Associated Ltd. It has been reported, BioWin has the
software is dealing with. GPS-X has a fast dynamic simulator, but
ability to design a simple and a complicated wastewater treatment
has less number of state variables and process rates variables [76].
plant whereas anaerobic digestion system is the main element of
Each simulator such as BioWin, GPS-X and West has their
the plant [68,69,70]. Prediction the behaviour of wastewater
strengths and weaknesses depend on the application required to
treatment systems despite its complexity or number of unit
be performed. These models' features such as speed, ability of
processes included becomes possible with BioWin simulation
customizing elements, data processing, data display, control
software. The dynamic behaviour of the wastewater system can
options, and built-in features are differs which makes each one a
be predicted under variable operation conditions and a wide range
powerful tools in different applications [77].
configuration of the process [71].
It will be valuable to be able to simulate the performance of an
anaerobic lagoon during the design stage before any construction 4.3.3. BioWin
or modification begins. Simulating the process will be very useful Simulation of anaerobic digestion process can be carried out
to reduce time and effort required in analysing and optimizing the using software such as BioWin ASDM model used by BioWin is
efficiency of anaerobic lagoons. Simulation can be used as an recognized by International Water Association (IWA) and it is
indirect tool to enhance biogas generation and COD removal by count for the most required parameters in a digestion process [78].
testing many parameters related to the digester such as design Many literatures have addressed BioWin as excellent tool for
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51
design and analysis of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). The
recent setting of the default parameters in BioWin was studied by
De Hass and Wentzel [79], they showed that the recent default
parameters are more realistic compared to the old versions. In one
study by Elbeshbishy et al. [80], they have achieved a very good
fitting of the experimental data with that predicted from BioWin
while using the default software kinetic coefficients and stoichio-
metric parameters. Also, the calibrated BioWin software was able
to predict properly most of the influent and effluent fractions such
as COD, BOD, TSS, and TKA. BioWin has been used to simulation
large systems of wastewater which are combined of many ele-
ments including anaerobic digester [81,65]. Furthermore, BioWin
was able to predict the biodegradability of organic compounds in
the same order of the experimental finding [82]. In another study
by Dhar et al. [83], however, all the kinetic and stoichiometric
parameters were kept at default values accept one the hydrolysis
rate. The methane production rate and VSS removal simulated by
BioWin were in good agreement with the measured data. More-
over, it has been reported that BioWin is able to simulate other
kinds of bioreactors successfully. In a one study by Eldyasti at el.
[84], they studied treating of landfill leachate in a pilot scale
circulating fluidized bed reactor. They illustrate that BioWin
prediction of many major wastewater effluent parameters such
as TKN, NH4-N, NO3-N, TP, PO4-P, TSS, and VSS with an average
percentage error (APE) of 0–20%. The study show the better
accuracy of BioWin compare to other software. BioWin was
calibrated by adjusting the wastewater fractions using measured
data experimentally [84]. In another study by Hafez et al. [85],
they showed that BioWin has skills in predicting biomass con-
centration in CSTR bioreactor with average percentage error
around 5%. Also, it successfully showed ability in predicting many
other parameters among them hydrogen production rates and
hydrogen yield compared to measured data with a low absolute
error of 4%. This has been done by calibrating the wastewater
fractions included in BioWin and decoupling the SRT from the
HRT. The model's process stoichiometry was first calibrated using
experimental data. Trial and error method was used to achieve the
best fit of the experimental data with that predicted by BioWin
[85]. A study by Blair et al. [86] used BioWin because it provides
the best estimate of biodegradation when compared with mea-
sured first-order rate constants.
It is obvious from the literature that BioWin can reliably be
used as a design and an analysis tool for wastewater treatment
plants especially with a suitable calibration [78]. However, to my
knowledge, BioWin has not been used to simulate industrial
ponds/lagoons (only by previous study of the author) and/or at a
lab-scale level.
4.4. Pre-treatments
Due to the high concentration of fat and grease in abattoir
wastewater, pre-treatment is required to reduce these insoluble
matters and/or increase its solubility. Physical mass transfer
from the solid (fat) to the liquid phase is limited due to its
hydrophobic characteristic [87]. And when degrade it presents
some long chain fatty acids to the solution which may inhibit
methanogenic organisms [88]. Pre-treatment such as the
removal of fat and grease using screens, settling tanks or
dissolved air flotation are important to eliminate future pro-
blems with crust formation and reduce maintenance costs. The
characteristics of abattoir wastewater before settling and after
24 h settling time was studied by Amuda and Alada [89], the
results show highest removal was achieved for the total sus-
pended solid (TSS) of around 65%. In a study by Massé and
Masse [90], they showed the efficiency of DAF units for many
slaughterhouses. The reduction of TCOD and SCOD were
47
approximately 22–35 and 0–16, respectively. In a combination
process of screening, settling and dissolved air flotation (DAF),
these processes can result in 75–80% BOD5 (SS and FOG)
removal from slaughterhouse wastewater. And had the addi-
tional advantage of removing large quantities of nitrogen and
phosphorus [91]. Another physical method is saponification or
exposure to low frequency ultrasound which may assist in
solubilising these recalcitrant organics [92]. Anaerobic baffle
reactors improve the efficiency of typical lagoon systems by
improving sludge distribution, mixing and the increases the
solid retention time [93]. Adding fibrous physical carriers have
also been studied, microbial biofilms attached to the carriers
were found to be more tolerant and less prone to being washed
out during shock loading [94].
Chemical pre-treatment of abattoir wastewater is another
method with better capability. Al-Mutairi et al. [95] investigated
the use of the coagulation/flocculation process to remove organic
matter from slaughterhouse wastewater by adding aluminium
salts and polymer compounds. The maximum chemical oxygen
demand (COD) removal efficiency was reported to be in the range
of 45–75%. In a study by Massé and Masse [90], they showed that a
chemical-DAF unit can reduce TCOD and SCOD by 58% and 26%,
respectively. The chemical used in this process was ferric chloride
coagulants. In another study by Masse et al.[96], sodium hydroxide
and three commercial lipases of plant, microbial and animal
origins were tested. In regards to NaOH addition, the study does
not recommend NaOH hydrolysis pretreatment for fat particles
due to the high doses of NaOH required and the resulting increase
in pH, alkaline. Recently, enzymatic products are becoming more
available commercially. The first enzyme was a pork pancreatic
lipase called pancreatic lipase 250 (PL-250, Genencor Interna-
tional, Rochester, NY). Pancreatic lipase 250 is claimed to be
efficient for hydrolysing triglycerides containing LCFAs with more
than 12 carbons, such as those in animal fat. The second enzyme
was a bacterial lipase extracted from Rhizomucor miehei called
lipase G-1000 (LG-1000, Genencor International, Rochester, NY).
Lipase G-1000 is reported to hydrolyse natural fats, such as oils,
beef tallow, butter fats and lard oil, with a preference for shorter
chain fatty acids (o 12 carbons). The third enzyme was a plant
lipase called EcoSystem Plus (ESP, Neozyme International, New-
port Beach, CA). Neozyme claims that ESP effectively breaks down
fat particles in aerobic or anaerobic environments. It was con-
cluded that PL-250 was the best pretreatment to hydrolyse fat
particles. Also, the tests have shown that pancreatic lipase
appeared more efficient with beef fat than pork fat, possibly
because beef fat contains less polyunsaturated fatty acids than
pork fat. In regards to the efficiency of these enzymes, for example,
in samples receiving 500 and 3500 mg/L of LG-1000, the SCOD
increased by 6% and 27%, respectively.
In a study by Jensen, et al. [97], they suggest that conventional
treatment processes such as anaerobic lagoons are not an opti-
mized treatment strategy. This is because of different anaerobic
biodegradability and degradation rates between streams within a
slaughterhouse. Therefore separate and specialized treatment of
red waste (rendering and slaughter floor) and green waste
(paunch and offal waste) is recommended.
Luste and Luostarinen [98] studied hygienization (70 1C,
60 min) of anaerobic co-digestion of a mixture of wastes from
meat-processing industry and of sewage sludge. They showed that
hygienization has improved the efficiency of the digestion process,
as an indication methane production raised to a level above the
highest OLR applied.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is another way of pre-treatment for
concentration of meat industry wastewater prior to treatment by
anaerobic digestion (AD). In a study by Beszédes et al. [99], AD
experiments were conducted on the RO concentrate and combined
48 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51

with appropriate pre-treatment methods. To find the best pre-
treatment method for highest biogas production, the effect of
grease mixing, alkaline and acidic condition combining thermal
pre-treatment were evaluated. The AD tests showed good decom-
position ability for the RO concentrate, and the highest biogas
production was achieved by the combination of alkaline condition
with heating at 70 1C.
It is obvious that pre-treatment of meat industry wastewater is
required in order to reduce/eliminate issues such as crust forma-
tion and inhabitation due to its high content of fat, grease and oil
(FOG). Removing the FOG from the wastewater and recycle it to
the rendering room may be a good solution to this issue. But,
enhancing the availability (solubility) of these materials for diges-
tion by any cost-effective method is preferable due to their high
biogas content.
receiving industrial waste from slaughterhouses and from proces-
sing edible oil, these two wastes were added to pig manure. The
biogas produced from these two reactors is purified by passing the
gas through two columns of bog iron ore (gasreinigung) which
then stored in a 75 m3, 20 mbar membrane storage tanks. The
purified biogas is 70% methane content which contributes in
production of 6.96 kWh/m3 in a gas engine/generator set com-
bined heat and power plant. Around 30% (2.1 kWh) of this energy
is transformed to electricity and the rest (4.2 kWh) in to heat [103].
Other examples from Europe, the biogas produced from anaerobic
ponds/lagoons/reactors from different WWTPs facilities in Europe are
illustrated in Table 9. The main uses of the biogas produced are a
source of energy for CHP-plant, Gas fired boiler, and/or CHP-plant/gas
boiler [104].

5.2. Digestate utilization

5. Anaerobic digestion process benefits
The digestate that resulted from anaerobic process has the
Biogas produced from waste materials can play significant role
potential to be used as bio-fertiliser. The quality of the digestate
in the future of energy demands globally. It comes with many
is essential in order to be accepted to replace mineral fertilisers in
advantages compared to other sources of bioenergy. Anaerobic
crop production. The features of high quality digestate are
digestion has been considered as the most energy efficient
nutrient content, PH, free of inorganic impurities, sanitized and
technology of bioenergy production, the added benefit is the
safe in regard to pathological and chemical content. The digestion
reduction in GHG emission. Furthermore, the digestate resulted
process cannot degrade all the contaminant compounds in the
from the process can contribute in reducing or substituting
feedstock to the digester. This requires excluding any feedstock
mineral fertilizer uses in agriculture industry [100]. Anaerobic
that may have potential to contaminate the digestate [105]. The
digester can generate revenue from sale of the process's products
digestate can also be sold as a dried fertilizer which reduces the
or offer savings by using the products on-site. Biogas can be sold
potential of any pathogenic problems. Also dying will participate
either as Methane or as electricity while the liquor and the fibre
in reducing the weight of the fertilizer and increase its shelf time
can be sold as rich organic fertilizers [101].
[106,107]. Table 10 shows many examples of utilization of
digestate around the world. The most common use of the
5.1. Biogas utilization digestate is as bio-fertilizer in farming industry. In many cases
the digestate dried and then sold as fertilizer and/or can be solid
Anaerobic process produces a mixture of gases such as as a liquid fertilizer directly which depend on the quality of the
methane, carbon dioxide and contains smaller amounts of hydro- digestate.
gen sulfide and ammonia. Biogas produced saturated with water
vapour and trace amount of other gases [100]. The mixture of
biogas can transformed into other kinds of energy such as thermal, 6. Conclusion
electrical or mechanical. The calorific value of the biogas mixture
is about 6 kWh/m3, this corresponds to about half a litter of diesel Anaerobic digestion is a very useful and cheap wastewater
oil [102]. As an example of utilization of biogas is the WWTP at treatment process. The added benefit is biogas and digestate as by-
Frankenförde, Germany. There are two anaerobic reactors in the products. Covered anaerobic digesters can offer many advantages
plant with capacity of 450 m3 for each reactor. The reactors among them are offset the cost of wastewater treatment plants,

Table 10
Examples of biogas plants in the worldwide.

Location Type Size and Substrate utilization Biogas Biogas utilization Digestate Electricity
capacity yield utilization generated

Germany Jühnde, 3000 m3 Whole plant silage and grass, liquid CHP plant with 700 kW 5000 MWh
Co-digestion, manure and wide diversity of crops and electrical and 750 kW thermal electricity per year
centralized even weeds power
plants
Italy CRPA co- Two 1200 m3 Cattle manure together with 86,131 Biogas is burned in two co- 154,885 KWh/
digestion completely agricultural residues and energy crops m3/month, generators (CHP) that can month
plant, onsite stirred tanks (forage, maize silage, onions and 0.730 m3/ supply 115 and 240 kW of
potatoes residue, beet pulps and other kg VS electrical power
seasonal biomasses).
Denmark Ribe Biogas 3
1745 m3, cattle, pig, poultry and mink slurry from 5.5 million CHP-plant/gas boiler Liquid 130,000 GJ of
Plant, 53 C livestock farms with waste from Nm3/year fertilizer energy annually
co-digestion, abattoirs, digestible fatty organic wastes
centralized from food and fish processing industries
plants and from medicinal industry and with
flotation sludge from a poultry abattoir
Sweden Linköping 2
3700 m3 Manure for pigs and cattle, abattoir 7.7 million Upgrade the biogas through Bio- Total biogas
biogas plant stirred tank waste, industrial organic waste, m3/year PSA-plant fertilizer production
digesters, HRT household waste, Others. (solid abattoir to farming 48,000 MWh/y
30 days waste is minced before it enter the Biogas delivered to
digester) vehicles
45,000 MWh/y
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51 49

Table 10 (continued )

Location Type Size and Substrate utilization Biogas Biogas utilization Digestate Electricity
capacity yield utilization generated

Switzerland Bern WWTP Three digesters, Sewage sludge. Fatty sludge from the 14 CHP-unit, energy use of the Drying the
each with a food industry is used as co-substrate. 400 Nm³/d sludge drying plant and to digester
volume of heat water boiler residuals
6000 m³.
Ukraine Blagodatnoe Slaughterhouse waste 20 t/day 2400 m3/
day
Russia Mokriy pig liquid manure 150 t/day þsilage 600 N el kW
Semenek 15 t / day
Greece Xanthi cattle liquid manure 300 t þdung 1063
5 t þsilage 5 t/day
USA Chino, Cattle manure, liquid waste from food 18.813 m³ CHP: 4
30 kWe Micro-gas- 1500 kWe
California, industry per day turbines
centralized
Canada Kensington, 4
5500 m³, Potato residues, oil, potato starch Biogas is used for heating 12 MWth
Prince steel tank purposes – hot water
Edward production
Island
Austria St. Martin/ Pig slaughtering process such as pig 4.7 MWh/ 80% of the heat demand in the
Innkreis, on blood, minced hind gut including d of slaughterhouseis covered by
farm content and fat from dissolved air electricity the biogas driven CHP
flotation and
7 MWh/d
of heat
Finland Kalmari farm 1000 m3 cow manure and confectionery by- CHP and Gas boiler, electricity Used as Electricity 75MWh/
mesophilic, products with smaller amounts of self-sufficient, electricity is bio- year Heat
continuous energy crops and mainly grass silage sold to the grid, and vehicle fertilizer 150 MWh/year
stirred reactor fuel sales exceeded Biomethane for
1000 MWh in 2011 traffic Fuel
1000 MWh/year
Netherlands Collaboration 2
2500 m3 50% organic manure and additional CHP unit Fertilizer 7 million kWh of
between the CSTR substrates such as corn, grass and waste electricity annually
municipality, Continuously products from the food industry
a local energy Stirred Tank
company and Reactor, HRT 50
a farm days
Location Reference

Germany http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/anaerobic/016bm_015_1993.pdf
http://www.stowa-selectedtechnologies.nl/Sheets/Sheets/Co.Digestion.html
Italy http://www.ramiran.net/doc08/RAMIRAN_2008/Piccinini.pdf
Denmark http://www.ub.edu/bioamb/PROBIOGAS/centralcodig_descrip2000.pdf
There are 18 example of centralized co-digestion plants in Denmark
http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/Success%20Story%20Ribe2012.pdf
Sweden http://www.biogasmax.eu/media/d2_11_biogasmax_iwes_vfinal_nov2010__095398400_1109_10022011.pdf
Switzerland http://www.biogasmax.eu/media/d2_11_biogasmax_iwes_vfinal_nov2010__095398400_1109_10022011.pdf
Ukraine http://zorg-biogas.com/upload/pdf/References_en.pdf
Russia http://zorg-biogas.com/upload/pdf/References_en.pdf
Greece http://zorg-biogas.com/upload/pdf/References_en.pdf
USA http://www.kriegfischer.de/texte/Industrial_Big_Biogas_Plant_North_America.pdf
Krieg & Fischer Ingenieure GmbH, 140 biogas plants in: Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland
Lithuania, Italy, Slovakia, Canada, USA, Spain, France
More examples at: http://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_foodWaste.asp
Canada http://www.kriegfischer.de/texte/Industrial_Big_Biogas_Plant_North_America.pdf
Austria http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/st_martin.pdf
Finland http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/success-story-kalmari2012.pdf
Netherlands http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/success_story_zeewolde2011.pdf

reduce GHGs emissions, achieve cleaner wastewater and save in
carbon tax, and generate revenue from both the biogas and
digestate. At the same time, anaerobic digestion is a complex
biological process where many variables have significant effects on
its performance. These variables can be related to the design of the
digester, process conditions, influent wastewater characteristic,
and pre-treatment processes. Anaerobic digestion processes in the
red meat industry facing challenges that hinder investments in
covered anaerobic digesters. This paper has addressed the diffi-
culties that associated with the digestion process in this industry.
It has been widely reported that FOGs is the main problem which
causes reduction in the process efficiency and formation of crust
which leads to breaking the digester cover and reduce biogas
production. This paper also addresses many methods to overcome
these problems such as co-digestion, use of surfactant, pre-
treatment, simulation and innovative design of the digester. The
most reasonable solution can be recommended as a result of
interpretation of literature is adding biodegradable surfactants and
innovative pond design. These two will contribute in including the
FOGs in the digestion process, increase biogas production and no
extra waste will be generated. Furthermore, simulation of such
process could reveal potential risks and associated costs not
caught in capacity planning.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the National Centre of
Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) at the University of Southern
Queensland (USQ) for providing facilities and resources in order to
50 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51
commence this review paper. The NCEA is a centre aims to develop
solutions for a sustainable and profitable rural sector through
applied engineering, research, training and commercialization.
References
[1] Yacob S, Hassan MA, Shirai Y, Wakisaka M, Subash S. Baseline study of
methane emission from open digesting tanks of palm oil mill effluent
treatment. Chemosphere 2005;59:1575–81.
[2] Global Methane Initiative (GMI). Global methane emissions and mitigation
opportunities fact sheet; 2013. Available at: 〈http://www.globalmethane.org/
documents/analysis_fs_en.pdf〉.
[3] Australian National Greenhouse Account (ANGA). National Inventory Report;
2010. p. 3. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/
greenhouse-acctg/  /media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/NationalInven
toryReport-2010-Vol-3.pdf〉.
[4] Methane as a Greenhouse Gas (MGHG). U.S. Climate Change Science
Program; 2006. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/
highlight1/CCSP-H1methane18jan2006.pdf〉.
[5] Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REPN21). Renew-
ables. Global Status Report; 2011. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.ren21.net/
REN21Activities/Publications/GlobalStatusReport/GSR2011/tabid/56142/
Default.aspx〉.
[6] Clean Energy Council (CEC). Review of the Australian bioenergy industry;
2011b. Published October 2011. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.cleanenergy
council.org.au/dms/cec/policy/submissions/Comm-on-Exposure-Draft-Reg
s-under-the-RET_Nov-2011/Comm%20on%20Exposure%20Draft%20Regs%
20under%20the%20RET_Nov%202011.pdf〉.
[7] Hamawand I, Yusaf T, Hamawand S. Coal seam gas and associated water: a
review paper. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;22:550–60.
[8] IEA Bioenergy Task 37. Country Report of Member Countries. UK; 2012.
Retrieved from: 〈http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/publications/coun
try-reports/2012/Country%20Report%20United%20Kingdom_Clare%20Luke
hurst_Moss_04-2012.pdf〉.
[9] Long JH, Aziz TN, de los Reyes III FL, Ducoste JJ. Anaerobic co-digestion of fat,
oil, and grease (FOG): a review of gas production and process limitations.
Process Saf Environ Prot 2012;90(3):231–45.
[10] Petrury R, Lettinga G. Digestion of a milk-fat emulsion. Bioresour Technol
1997;61:141–9.
[11] UNSW-CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control. Treatment of
abattoir wastewater using a covered anaerobic lagoon. Meat and Livestock
Australia Limited CAN; 1998.
[12] Green J. Effluent treatment ponds, CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory. CSIRO;
1990. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.meatupdate.csiro.au/data/Waste_water_
and_odour_05.pdf〉.
[13] Khanal SK. Anaerobic biotechnology for bioenergy production (principle and
applications). Wiley-Blackwell publishing; 2008.
[14] Cammarota M, Freire D. A review on hydrolytic enzymes in the treatment of
wastewater with high oil and grease content. Bioresour Technol.
2006;97:2195–210.
[15] Wan C, Zhou Q, Fu G, Li Y. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of
thickened waste activated sludge and fat, oil and grease. Waste Manag
2011;31(8):1752–8.
[16] Johns M. Developments in wastewater treatment in the meat processing
industry: a review. Bioresour Technol 1995;54(3):203–16.
[17] Edgerton B. Bioenergy commercialisation for Australia's dairy industry.
RIRDC Publication No. 09/164. Australian Government; 2009 (Retrieved
from:).
[18] Cuetos MJ, Gomez X, Otero M, Moran A. Anaerobic digestion and co-
digestion of slaughterhouse waste (SHW): influence of heat and pressure
pre-treatment in biogas yield. Waste Manag 2010;30(10):1780–9.
[19] Neves L, Oliveira R, Alves MM. Co-digestion of cow manure, food waste and
intermittent input of fat. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:1957–62.
[20] Mustafa Nakhla G Al-Sabawi, Amerjeet Bassi, Victor Liu. Anaerobic
treatability of high oil and grease rendering wastewater. J Hazard Mater
2003;B102:243–55.
[21] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour Techonol 2008;99(10):4044–64.
[22] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2010;85:849–60.
[23] Shanmugam P, Horan NJ. Optimising the biogas production from leather
fleshing waste by co-digestion with MSW. Bioresour Technol
2009;100:4117–20.
[24] Buendia IM, Fernandez FJ, Villasenor J, Rodriguez L. Feasibility of anaerobic
co-digestion as a treatment option of meat industry wastes. Bioresour
Techonol 2009;100(6):1903–9.
[25] Bayr S, Rantanen M, Kaparaju P, Rintala J. Mesophilic and thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of rendering plant and slaughterhouse wastes.
Bioresour Technol 2012;104:28–36.
[26] Shanmugam P, Horan NJ. Simple and rapid methods to evaluate methane
potential and biomass yield for a range of mixed solid wastes. Bioresour
Technol 2009;100(1):471–4.
[27] Bouallagui H, Rachdi B, Gannoun H, Hamdi M. Mesophilic and thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of abattoir wastewater and fruit and vegetable waste
in anaerobic sequencing batch reactors. Biodegradation 2009;20:401–9.
[28] Hejnfelt A, Angelidaki I. Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse by-products.
Biomass Bioenergy 2009;33:1046–54.
[29] Nda-Umar U, Uzowuru M. Anaerobic co-digestion of fruit waste and abattoir
effluent. J Biol Sci Bioconserv 2011:3.
[30] Marcos A, Al-Kassir A, Mohamad AA, Cuadros F, Lopez-Rodriguez F. Com-
bustible gas production (methane) and biodegradation of solid and liquid
mixtures of meat industry wastes. Appl Energy 2010;87(5):1729–35.
[31] Alvarez R, Liden G. Semi-continuous co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse
waste, manure, and fruit and vegetable waste. Renew Energy 2008;33
(4):726–34.
[32] Ek AEW, Hallin S, Vallin LSchnürer A, Karlsson M. Slaughterhouse waste co-
digestion – experiences from 15 years of full-scale operation. Seweden:
World Renewable Energy Congress; 2011.
[33] Palatsi J, Vinas M, Guivernau M, Fernandez B, Flotats X. Anaerobic digestion
of slaughterhouse waste: main process limitations and microbial community
interactions. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(3):2219–27.
[34] Diaz JP, Reyes IP, Lundin M, Horvath IS. Co-digestion of different waste
mixtures from agro-industrial activities: kinetic evaluation and synergetic
effects. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(23):10834–40.
[35] Cuetos MJ, Gomez X, Otero M, Moran A. Anaerobic digestion of solid
slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory scale: influence of co-digestion
with the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW). Biochem Eng J
2008;40(1):99–106.
[36] Siripong C, Dulyakasem S. Continuous co-digestion of agro-industrial resi-
dues [Master thesis]. University of Borås/School of Engineering; 2012.
[37] Martin-Gonzalez L, Colturato LF, Font X, Vicent T. Anaerobic co-digestion of
the organic fraction of municipal solid waste with FOG waste from a sewage
treatment plant: recovering a wasted methane potential and enhancing the
biogas yield. Waste Manag 2010;30(10):1854–9.
[38] Silvestre G, Rodriguez-Abalde A, Fernandez B, Flotats X, Bonmati A. Biomass
adaptation over anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and trapped grease
waste. Bioresour Techonol 2011;102(13):6830–6.
[39] Kabouris JC, Tezel U, Pavlostathis SG, Engelmann M, Dulaney J, Gillette RA,
et al. Methane recovery from the anaerobic codigestion of municipal sludge
and FOG. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(15):3701–5.
[40] Davidsson A, Lovstedt C, la Cour Jansen J, Gruvberger C, Aspegren H. Co-
digestion of grease trap sludge and sewage sludge. Waste Manag 2008;28
(6):986–92.
[41] Luostarinen S, Luste S, Sillanpaa M. Increased biogas production at waste-
water treatment plants through co-digestion of sewage sludge with grease
trap sludge from a meat processing plant. Bioresour Technol 2009;100
(1):79–85.
[42] Li C, Champagne P, Anderson BC. Evaluating and modelling biogas
production from municipal fat, oil and grease and synthetic kitchen
waste in anaerobic co-digestions. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(20):
9471–80.
[43] Zhu Z, Hsueh MK, He Q. Enhancing biomethanation of municipal waste
sludge with grease trap waste as a co-substrate. Renew Energy 2011;36
(6):1802–7.
[44] Berna JL, Cassani G, Hager CD, Rehman N, Lopez I, Schawanek D, et al.
Anaerobic biodegradation of surfactants – scientific review. . Munich: Carl
Hanser Publisher; 2007. p. 6 (Tenside Surf. Dept.).
[45] Cantero M, Soledad R, Perez-Bendito D. Determination of non-ionic poly-
ethoxylated surfactant in sewage sledge by coacervative extraction and ion
trap liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A
2004;1046:147–53.
[46] Bruno F, Curini R, Di Corcia A, Fochi I, Nazzari M, Saperi R. Determination of
surfactants and some of their metabolities in untreated an anaerobically
digested sewage sludge by subcritical water extraction followed by liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 2002;36:4156–61.
[47] Muller MT. Anaerobic biodegradation and toxicity of alcohol ethoxylates
[Thesis]. ETH Zurich; 2000.
[48] Ponsa S, Gea T, Sanchez A. Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste with several pure organic co-substrates. Biosyst Eng
2011;108(4):352–60.
[49] Luste S, Luostarinen S. Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing by-
products and sewage sludge – effect of hygienization and organic loading
rate. Bioresour Technol 2010;101(8):2657–64.
[50] Wahaab RA, El-Awady MH. Anaerobic/aerobic treatment of meat processing
wastewater. Environmentalist 1999;19:61–5.
[51] Pérez-Armendáriz B, Moreno Y, Monroy-Hermosillo O, Guyot J, González R.
Anaerobic biodegradability and inhibitory effects of some anionic and
cationic surfactants. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2010;85(3):269.
[52] Gavala HN, Ahring BK. Inhibition of the anaerobic digestion process by linear
alkylbenzene sulfonates. Biodegradation 2002;13:201–9.
[53] Garcia MT, Campos E, Sánchez-Leal J, Ribosa I. Effect of linear alkylbenzene
sulphonates (LAS) on the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Water Res
2006;40(15):2958–64.
[54] United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Wastewater
Technology Fact Sheet. Anaerobic Lagoons; 2002. Retrieved from: 〈http://
www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/mtbfact.htm〉.
 I. Hamawand / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 44 (2015) 37–51
[55] Monnet F. An introduction to anerobic digestion of organic wastes. Report
1-48; 2007. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.biogasmax.eu/media/introanaero
bicdigestion__073323000_1011_24042007.pdf〉.
[56] Marcos A, Al-Kassir A, López F, Cuadros F, Brito P. Environmental treatment
of slaughterhouse wastes in a continuously stirred anaerobic reactor: effect
of flow rate variation on biogas production. Fuel Process Technol
2011;103:178–82.
[57] Meat technology update (MTU). Retrieved from: 〈http://www.ampc.com.au/
site/assets/media/Factsheets/Climate-Change-Environment-Water-Waste-E
nergy-Sustainability/MTU_2010_Covered-anaerobic-ponds.pdf〉.
[58] CSIRO. Covered anaerobic ponds. Meat Technology Update; 2010. Retrieved
from: 〈http://www.meatupdate.csiro.au〉.
[59] Shilton A, Harrison J. Guidelines for the hydraulic design of waste stabilisa-
tion ponds. Palmerston North: Massey University; 2003.
[60] Battimelli A, Carrere H, Delgenes JP. Saponification of fatty slaughterhouse
wastes for enhancing anaerobic biodegradability. Bioresour Techonol
2009;100(15):3695–700.
[61] Lidholm O, Ossiansson E. Modeling anaerobic digestion – validation and
calibration of the Siegrist model with uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
[Master thesis]. Lunds University; 2008.
[62] Esposito G, Frunzo L, Giordano A, Liotta F, Panico A, Pirozzi F. Anaerobic co-
digestion of organic wastes. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol 2012;11(4):325–41.
[63] Esposito G, Frunzo L, Liotta F, Panico A, Pirozzi F. Bio-methane potential tests
to measure the biogas production from the digestion and co-digestion of
complex organic substrates. Open Environ Eng J 2012;5:1–8.
[64] McCabe B, Hamawand I, Baillie C. Investigating wastewater modelling as a
tool to predict anaerobic decomposition and biogas yield of abattoir effluent.
J Environ Chem Eng 2013;1(4):1375–9.
[65] McCabe B, Hamawand I, Harris Peter, Baillie C, Yusaf T. A case study for
biogas generation from covered anaerobic ponds treating abattoir waste-
water: Investigation of pond performance and potential biogas production.
Appl Energy 2014;114:798–808.
[66] Westerman Phil Veal Matt, Cheng Jay, Zering Kelly, Biogas anaerobic digester
considerations for swine farms in North Carolina, NC cooperative extension,
state university A&T state University. Published by North Carolina Coopera-
tive Extension. 〈http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/manure/
energy/digester.pdf〉.
[67] Claeys FHA. A generic software framework for modelling and virtual
experimentation with complex biological systems [PhD thesis]. Belgium:
Department of Applied Mathematics, Biometrics and Process Control, Ghent
University; January 2008. p. 303.
[68] Liwarska-Bizukojc E, Olejnik D, Biernacki R, Ledakowicz S. Calibration of a
complex activated sludge model for the full-scale wastewater treatment
plant. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2011;34:659–70.
[69] Li L, Andre G, Brent S, Glen R, Rob E. Process alternative comparisons assisted
with BioWin Modelling. Water Environ Found 2006 (WEFTEC.06).
[70] Rao PV, Baral SS, Dey R, Mutnuri S. Biogas generation potential by anaerobic
digestion for sustainable energy development in India. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2010;14:2086–94.
[71] De Hass DW, Wentzel MC. Calibration of the BioWin model for N removal:
Part 2, full-scale study. Water J 2002;29(7):51–5.
[72] Olsson G, Carlsson B, Comas J, Copp J, Gernaey KV, Ingildsen P, et al.
Instrumentation, Control and Automation in wastewater– from London
1973 to Narbonne 2013. In: proceedings 11th IWA conference on instru-
mentation, control and automation (ICA2013). Narbonne, France; 18–20
September 2013.
[73] Andres H. Senior Process Engineer at Hydromantis Environmental Software
Solutions, Inc. 〈http://www.hydromantis.com/〉. Water Environment Federa-
tion (WEF). Retrieved from: 〈http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Which-i
s-your-favourite-simulator-2689576.S.92199500〉.
[74] Benedetti L. WATERWAYS srl, Current Principal at Waterways srl, Past
Consultant at MOSTforWATER. Water Environment Federation (WEF).
Retrieved from: 〈http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Which-is-your-favourite-
simulator-2689576.S.92199500〉.
[75] Shaw A. Global Practice and Technology Leader in Sustainability and Waste-
water at Black &Veatch. Water Environment Federation (WEF). Retrieved
from: 〈http://bv.com/〉, 〈http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Which-is-your-fa
vourite-simulator-2689576.S.92199500〉.
[76] Frank K. Wastewater Process Engineer at AECOM. Water Environment
Federation (WEF). Retrieved from: 〈http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Whi
ch-is-your-favourite-simulator-2689576.S.92199500〉.
[77] Copp J., Primodal Inc. Wastewater Treatment Modelling specialists, 〈http://
www.primodal.com/〉. Water Environment Federation (WEF). Retrieved
from: 〈http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Which-is-your-favourite-simula
tor-2689576.S.92199500〉.
[78] Claeys F. A generic software framework for modelling and virtual experi-
mentation with complex biological systems [Ph.D. thesis]. Belgium: Depart-
ment of Applied Mathematics, Biometrics and Process Control, Ghent
University; January 2008. p. 303.
51
[79] De Hass DW, Wentzel MC. Calibration of the BioWin model for N removal:
Part 1. Deskt Study 2002;29(6):62–6.
[80] Elbeshbishy E, Nakevski A, Hafez H, Ray M, Nakhla G. Simulation of the
impact of SRT on anaerobic digestability of ultrasonicated hog manure.
Energies 2010;3:974–88.
[81] Lei L, Gharagozian A, Start B, Roth G, Emmett R. Process alternative
comparisons assisted with Biowin modeling. Water Environ Found 2006.
[82] Musson SE, Campo P, Tolaymat T, Suidan M, Townsend TG. Assessment of the
anaerobic degradation of six active pharmaceutical ingredients. Sci Total
Environ 2010;408:2068–74.
[83] Dhar BR, Elbeshbishy E, Hafez H, Nakhla G, Madhumita BR. Thermo-oxidative
pretreatment of municipal waste activated sludge for volatile sulfur com-
pounds removal and enhanced anaerobic digestion. Chem Eng J 2011;174:
166–74.
[84] Eldyasti A, Andalib M, Hafez H, Nakhla G, Zhu J. Comparative modeling of
biological nutrient removal from landfill leachate using a circulating flui-
dized bed bioreactor (CFBBR). J Hazard Mater 2011;187:140–9.
[85] Hafez H, El-Naggar MH, Nakhla G. Steady-state and dynamic modeling of
biohydrogen production in an integrated biohydrogen reactor clarifier
system. Int J Hydrog 2010;35:6634–45.
[86] Blair BD, Crago JP, Hedman CJ, Treguer RJF, Magruder C, Royer LS, et al.
Evaluation of a model for the removal of pharmaceuticals, personal care
products, and hormones from wastewater. Sci Total Environ 2013;444:
515–21.
[87] Pam Pittaway. Using covered anaerobic ponds to treat abattoir wastewater,
reduce greenhouse gases and generate bio energy. Published by Meat &
Livestock Australia Limited Locked Bag 991 North Sydney NSW 2059; 2011.
[88] Rinzema A, Boone M, van Knippenberg K, Lettinga G. Bactericidal effect of
long chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion. Water Environ Res 1994;66:
40–9.
[89] Amuda OS, Alade A. Coagulation/flocculation process in the treatment of
abattoir wastewater. Desalination 2006;196(1-3):22–31.
[90] Massé DI, Masse L. Characterization of wastewater from hog slaughterhouses
in Eastern Canada and evaluation of their in-plant wastewater treatment
systems. Can Agric Eng 2000;42(3):139–46.
[91] Arvanitoyannis I, Ladas D. Meat waste treatment methods and potential uses.
Int J Food Sci Technol 2008;43:543–59.
[92] Erden G, Buyukkamaci N, Filibeli A. Effect of low frequency ultrasound on
anaerobic biodegradability of meat processing effluent. Desalination
2010;259:223–7.
[93] Polprasert C, Kemmadamrong P, Tran F. Anaerobic baffle reactor (ABR)
process for treating a slaughterhouse wastewater. Environ Technol 1992;13:
857–65.
[94] Qi Peishi, Wang Boazhen, Fang Ma, Jinsong Zhang, Li Tingjun. Intensification
of a pond system by fibrous carriers. Water Sci Technol 1993;28:117–23.
[95] Al-Mutairi NZ. Coagulant toxicity and effectiveness in a slaughterhouse
wastewater treatment plant. Ecotoxicol Env Saf 2006;65(1):74–83.
[96] Masse L, Kennedy KJ, Chou S. Testing of alkaline and enzymatic hydrolysis
pretreatments for fat particles in slaughterhouse wastewater. Bioresour
Technol 2001:77.
[97] Jensen PD, Sullivan T, Carney C, Batstone DJ. Analysis of the potential to
recover energy and nutrient resources from cattle slaughterhouses in
Australia by employing anaerobic digestion. Appl Energy 2014;136:23–31.
[98] Luste S, Luostarinen S. Anaerobic co-digestion of meat-processing by-
products and sewage sludge – effect of hygienization and organic loading
rate. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:2657–64.
[99] Beszedes S, Pap N, Pongracz E, Hodur C, Keiski RL. Concentration of meat
processing industry wastewater by reverse osmosis and anaerobic digestion
of the concentrate. In: proceedings Venice 2010, third international sympo-
sium on energy from biomass and waste Venice, Italy; 8–11 November 2010.
[100] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2010;85(4):849–60.
[101] Anaerobic digestion of farm and food processing residue (ADoFPR). 〈http://
www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf〉.
[102] SSWM; 2009. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.sswm.info/category/implementa
tion-tools/reuse-and-recharge/hardware/energy-products-sludge/
biogas-electricit-0〉.
[103] Co-Digestion and Energy Production from Waste (CDEPW); 1993. Retreived
from 〈http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy/doc/anaerobic/
016bm_015_1993.pdf〉.
[104] Danish Centralized Biogas Plants (DCBP); 2000. Retrieved from:
〈http://www.ub.edu/bioamb/PROBIOGAS/centralcodig_descrip2000.pdf〉.
[105] IEA. Task37; 2012. Retrieved from: 〈http://www.ieabiogas.net/_download/
publitask37/digestate_quality_web_new.pdf〉.
[106] Hamawand I. Drying of sludge-lignite mixture in a rotary drum dryer
undersuperheated steam. In: proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Drying
Conference (ADC 2011). Tianjin, China; 18–20 September 2011.
[107] Hamawand I, Yusaf T. Particles motion in a cascading rotary drum dryer. Can
J Chem Eng 2013;92(4):648–62.