Accepted Manuscript

The characterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas

production during anaerobic digestion – a review

Cassendra Phun Chien Bong, Li Yee Lim, Chew Tin Lee, Jiři Jaromir Klemeš,
Chin Siong Ho, Wai Shin Ho

PII: S0959-6526(17)32508-8

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199

Reference: JCLP 10991

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 16 April 2017

Revised Date: 11 October 2017

Accepted Date: 18 October 2017

Please cite this article as: Cassendra Phun Chien Bong, Li Yee Lim, Chew Tin Lee, Jiři Jaromir
Klemeš, Chin Siong Ho, Wai Shin Ho, The characterisation and treatment of food waste for
improvement of biogas production during anaerobic digestion – a review, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.199

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
· The variation of the characteristic of food waste and biogas yield were
compared.
· The biogas yield from the mono- and co-digestion of different food waste
were compared.
· Co-digestion is more effective than mono-digestion for biogas production
from food waste.
· Thermal and mechanical treatments on food waste can increase biogas
production.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The characterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production during
anaerobic digestion – a review

Cassendra Phun Chien BONGa, Li Yee LIMa, Chew Tin LEEa*, Jiři Jaromir KLEMEŠb, Chin Siong
HOc, Wai Shin HOa

aFaculty of Chemical and Energy Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor
Bahru, Malaysia.
bSustainable Process Integration Laboratory – SPIL, NETME Centre, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Brno University of Technology - VUT Brno, Technická 2896/2, 616 00 Brno, Czech
Republic
cUTM Low Carbon Asia Research Centre, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

ctlee@utm.my

Abstract:
Anaerobic digestion is one of the major biological-based technologies for converting organic waste to
energy. The end-product of the process is the production of biogas that can be harvested as renewable
energy and a nutrient-rich digestate that can be transformed as biofertiliser. Food waste varies
seasonally and geographically, leading to a variation of biogas potential among different studies.
There is still a lack of study on the relationship among the variation of food waste characteristic, its
effect on the operational parameters and their inhibition value and its effect on the efficiency of the
methods for improving biogas production. This paper reviews the anaerobic digestion of food waste in
three sections: the characteristic of food waste reported in the literature, mono-digestion of food waste
and co-digestion of food waste with other feedstocks. This review aims to relate the characteristics of
food waste to biogas potential and to propose process improvement for enhanced biogas production.
Food waste showed variation in terms of bromatological analysis, where the carbohydrates was
reported to be around 11.8-74 %, protein was 13.8-18.1 % and lipid was 3.78-33.72 %. The biogas
yield for mono-digestion of food waste was 0.27-0.642 m3 CH4/ kg VS and for the co-digestion of
food waste with other substrates was 0.272-0.859 m3 CH4/ kg VS. It has been concluded that the
variation in the characteristic of food waste, in terms of physical and biochemical properties, can
affect the efficiency of the applied treatment for process improvement, including nutrient balance,
mechanical treatment, thermal treatment and two-stage configuration. Co-digestion remains an
effective method for biogas production from food waste. Thermal treatment can significantly increase
biogas production but excessive treatment can reduce the biodegradability of food waste. Mechanical
treatment is more effective in treating waste rich in cellulosic material.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction
The increasing production of municipal solid waste (MSW) and its sustainable management are a
major concern in many countries. A developing country like Malaysia, recorded an MSW generation
of 25, 000 t/d in 2012 (Johari et al., 2014), i. e. 9 Mt/y, from the 11 states and 2 federal territories in
Peninsular Malaysia. Big countries like China recorded 1,300 Mt of MSW in 2012 (Hoornweg and
Bhada-Tata, 2012). EU countries like Ireland recorded 3 Mt/y of MSW (Browne and Murphy, 2013).
Among the MSW, municipal biomass waste (MBW), including food waste (FW) and fruit-vegetable
waste (FVW), is the major composition.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is one of the biological treatments for organic waste which is receiving
increasing attention due to its high valorisation value for waste. AD of organic waste offers
opportunities for energy recovery and nutrient reclamation (Tampio et al., 2014). AD requires less
requirement for space and input energy to operate than landfilling, composting and incineration
(Ventura et al., 2014). The process feeds are organic waste such as FW, MSW or agricultural waste.
Esposito et al. (2012) performed a review on the anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) of substrates and the
effect of pre-treatment, focusing mainly on animal manure and crop residues. The paper revealed that
AcoD at a proper percentage of C- and N-rich substrates can significantly increase the biomethane
potential (BMP). Mata-Alvarez et al. (2014) performed a review of the papers published from 2010 to
2013 which emphasises on animal manures, sewage sludge and biowaste as the main substrate. The
paper concluded that agro-industrial waste and the organic fraction of MSW (OFMSW) are the most
reported co-subtrate for manure-based digesters whereas easily degradable substrates are still limited.
The paper also pointed the limited study of OFMSW as the main substrate whereas it has been widely
used as co-substrate for animal manure and sewage sludge. Jain et al. (2015) performed a
comprehensive review of different pre-treatment methodologies and operating parameters, including
pH, temperature, total solid (TS), organic loading rate (OLR), seeding, feeding, diameter to depth
ratio, carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio, nutrients, stirring, hydraulic retention time (HRT), toxicity,
pressure and biogas enrichment for the AD of MSW. The paper focused on the optimisation of AD
from MSW as megacities are short of animal manure that is commonly used for the AD. Mao et al.
(2015) concluded optimisation of biogas from the AD is the key future trend which could be achieved
by combining the factors affecting the efficiency of the process (i.e. temperature regime, pH, C/N
ratio, OLR, HRT) with the accelerants (i.e. selected biomass, inorganic additives).
For waste sources derived from MSW, the mechanical recovered OFMSW exhibited differences
against the source segregated MSW. The former showed stable digestion whereas the latter suffered
process instability due to high ammoniacal N and volatile fatty acid (VFA) (Zhang et al., 2012b).
Segregated waste like FW reported the similar observations. FW as the feedstock for the AD is
gaining attention due to the potential energy to be harvested. It also contributes to the circular
economy including improving farm income, avoided GHG emission through improved waste
management and reducing the needs of importing fertilisers (Banks et al., 2011). FW can originate
from food preparation or as fruit-vegetable waste. They are mostly characterised as easily
biodegradable, high moisture content, low pH and C/N ratio, which can give higher energy content
per dry mass (Dhar et al., 2016). FW is rich in energy content that can significantly improve the
biogas yield. Its application can be hindered by the high solids content and inconsistent chemical
composition due to its heterogeneous nature (Grimberg et al., 2015). The threshold limit of VFA
inhibition from MBW overload varies considerably depending on the process (Mata-Alvarez et al.,
2014).
Zhang et al. (2014) reviewed the AD of FW for biogas production focusing on the generation and
characteristic of FW, the key parameters during the AD of FW and pre-treatments. The study focuses
on AcoD as an effective method to overcome the limitation of mono-digestion of FW. The co-
substrate in the AcoD could supplement trace elements (TE) and enhance the AD performance of FW.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Zhang et al. (2011) reported a high CH4 yield of 0.396 m3/kg VS when Korean FW was co-digested
with the piggery wastewater that was rich in TE. The results highlighted the deficient of TE in Korean
FW. Ariunbaatar et al. (2014) performed a review on various pre-treatments for the AD of organic
solid waste and made a comparison among their efficiency regarding energy balance, environmental
sustainability and financial aspects. The study showed that thermal pre-treatment (< 110 °C) and two-
stage AD method are the most cost-effective.
These studies reviewed on the operational parameters during the AD of several kinds of organic waste.
Characterisation on the biomass feedstocks such as variable harvesting periods, high moisture content,
low energy density, high storage requirements and deterioration during storage is critical when
designing a biogas supply chain to bioenergy (Egieya et al., 2017). Campuzano and González-
Martínez (2016) reviewed the characteristic of the OFMSW through analysis of physical, chemical
and bromatological characteristic to biogas production. The study showed a high standard deviation
for the characteristic of FW from different studies but they did not discuss the effect of this
observation on the biogas yield of FW. Zhang et al. (2016) summarised 151 papers published in 2015
and presented the current trends for biogas from AD research, which are the AcoD of the substrate,
pre-treatment of the substrate, new operation configuration and the inhibition mechanisms and
operational stability. The substrate includes a wide variety of organic waste such as crop residues
(cane, sugar beet, olive pomace, straw), animal manure (cattle, cow, pig), FW and wastewater sludge.
There is still lack of study on the optimisation of AD production from FW arised from the varied
characteristics and the operational parameters. For example, thermal pre-treatment might be suitable
for food waste rich in protein but not for food waste rich in lipid. Some treatments may be effective in
one study but not in another study, which could be due to the variation in the waste composition and
quality. VFA could exhibit different inhibitory effects in protein-rich waste compared to the lipid-rich
waste. Different VFA species might exhibit different inhibitory value. For example, inhibition by
acetate was recorded at a concentration of greater than 0.8 g/L (Zhang et al., 2013). Long-chain fatty
acid (LCFA) such as oleate enxhibited inhibitory effect at a relatively low concentration of 0.050-
0.074 g/L (Alves et al., 2001).
This study reviews the AD of FW by mono-digestion or co-digestion (AcoD), focusing on the most
recent period from 2010-2017, with the following objectives:
(1) To study the variation in the characteristic on FW from different countries and originated source
and its effect on biogas yield.
(2) To investigate the strategies for improving the performance of mono-digestion and recent
achievements.
(3) To investigate the strategies for improving the performance of AcoD and recent achievements.
(4) To analyse the effectiveness of different strategies for improving the biogas production based on
variation in feedstock’s quality.

2. Methods
A range of papers reviewed was based on the keyword searches on Science Direct.com. The keywords
included anaerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion of food waste, biogas from food waste and
anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. This review focuses on the papers dealing with the AD of FW,
which includes food waste from canteen, restaurants, household (FW), kitchen waste (KW) and fruit-
vegetable waste (FVW). Throughout the paper, the term "feedstock" has been used to refer to FW,
KW and FVW in general. The review has been divided into the following sections:
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a) Characteristic of feedstock used in the AD, anaerobic mono-digestion of feedstock and

anaerobic co-digestion of feedstock. The papers were arranged in chronological order to
demonstrate advancing trend of AD in recent years (2010-2017). In the first section, the
characteristic of the feedstock used in different studies is compared and shown in Table 1.
The selected characteristic includes country, source, total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS),
VS/TS, carbohydrates, protein, lipid, cellulose, C/N and pH.
b) The second and third sections reviewed the methods for improving biogas yield with different
methods in the mono-digestion of FW and AcoD of FW with other feedstocks. Tables 2 and 3
show the highest biogas yield resulted from different treatments. Different units were used by
the previous authors to represent the yield of biogas or CH4 produced, mainly in L/g VS,
m3/kg VS, m3/t VS and L/g VS. In this paper, all data were recalculated and expressed in
m3/kg VS, a standardised unit to facilitate comparison and discussions. Finally, Table 4
presented the suitability of improvement strategies with FW of different quality as the main
substrate for mono-digestion and AcoD.

3. Biogas from food waste (FW) as feedstock

3.1 Characteristic of food waste (FW)
This section presents the similarities and variations in the characteristic of the feedstock that had been
used for AD through the keyword searches on Science Direct. Food waste is referred as the feedstock
in this study and includes three main categories:
(1) Food waste (FW) from hotels, restaurants, canteens and companies.
(2) Kitchen waste (KW) from domestic and commercial kitchens, eateries and restaurants.
(3) Fruit-vegetable waste (FVW) from market, fruit and vegetable distributors.
FW and KW are used interchangeably where they have both been used to describe waste originated
from certain places, such as the university canteen. The definition for FW and KW has not been
standardised and the term was used arbitrarily in the previous studies. The composition of FW is
known to vary geographically and seasonally (Zhang et al., 2014) with a BMP of 0.440-0.480 m3/ kg
VS added. The FVW is from the wet markets or industries, and it is often characterised by the high
lignocellulosic content.

FW has a higher BMP among the organic waste (Agyeman and Tao, 2014). FW as feedstocks offers
several advantages, including lower operation cost due to minimal collection and transportation cost
(Wang et al., 2014), high biodegradability, high BMP and high VS destruction. In mono-digestion,
FW is used as a sole substrate at a low OLR to achieve minimum retention time and stable biogas
production. The high OLR of FW is associated with process failure due to acid accumulation, excess
concentration of inhibitory compounds (e.g. NH3, VFA) and imbalance of nutrients (Dhar et al., 2016).

Li et al. (2017) reported a digester failure due to acidification on the third day during the mono-
digestion of FW. FW rich in solids encountered NH3 inhibition as methanogenesis could be
completely inhibited at a total ammoniacal nitrogen (TAN) of 9 g N/ L (Sun et al., 2016). The study
by Maria et al. (2014) found that at a high OLR greater than 2.46 kg VS/ m3·d, the germination index
(GI) decreased rapidly, indicating instability and potential phytotoxic substances. For OLR of lower
than 2.46 kg VS/ m3·d, the GI ratio was < 1, indicating high stability. In relation to TS, Hao et al.
(2016) stated that TS concentration is the most significant parameter on the microbial community. In
this study, high TS digester with high biogas production was found to be related to the abundance of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

both acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis whereas for those with low biogas production,
hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis is the predominant ones. The microbial community presence is
greatly influenced by inoculum, feedstock composting, feeding pattern (Hao et al., 2016) and
operational conditions, such as OLR, solid retention time (SRT), TS concentration, temperature and
reactor configurations (De Vriezt et al., 2015). In terms of temperature, Guo et al. (2014) reported that
mesophilic reactor exhibited stable performance at elevated OLR (1.0-2.5 g VS/ L·d) due to the high
functional redundancy in bacterial community integrated with acetoclastic methanogenesis as
compared to the weak interactions between the hydrogen-producer and hydrogenotrophic
methanogens dominant in thermophilic reactor. Recent studies also pointed out the inhibitory effect of
NaCl, originated mainly from the FW. At low concentration, NaCl improved hydrolysis and
acidification but inhibited methanogenesis whereas at high concentration, NaCl inhibited both
acidogenesis and methanogenesis (Zhao et al., 2017).
As identified by Yue et al. (2014), the key components of a biomass-to-biofuel supply chain are
seasonal supply and storage, pre-treatment option and biomass degradation and logistic to deliver high
quality of biomass. FW exhibits certain characteristic that may hinder its potential for optimising the
supply chain of feedstock to biogas to energy:

1. High solids content

FW has higher solid content as compared to the animal slurry and sewage sludge, due to the presence
of high organic matter (OM) and its size. The solids content in the feedstock limits the loading
capacity to a low OLR to prevent system failure from overloading and accumulation of inhibitory
compounds. FW as a feedstock is different from the traditional industry AD which focuses mainly on
animal slurry, sewage sludge and industrial wastewater, which is more liquid and has a low solid
content. Cow manure (CM) had a TS of 16.3 % and VS of 13.2 % (Zhang et al., 2013) where sewage
sludge (SS) had a TS of 7.4 % and VS of 49.0 % (Ros et al., 2015). FW has an average TS content of
27.59 % and VS content of 25.91 % (Sheng et al., 2013). The utilisation of the solid rich in OM is
dependent on its solubilisation and subsequent biodegradation by the microbes. Pre-treatment, thermal
pre-treatment and thermophilic AD have been used to increase the solubilisation of feedstock. A TS
content of < 25 % should be kept in order to prevent process failure (Yong et al., 2015).

2. High lipid content

Food waste, especially FW and KW, has high lipid content due to the presence of animal fat and oil
from the cooking practices. FVW has low lipid content but relatively high cellulosic content.
Theoretically, the hydrolysis of lipid will yield 1.014 m3 CH4/ kg VS where hydrolysis of protein and
carbohydrates yield 0.496 m3 CH4/ kg VS and 0.415 m3 CH4/ kg VS (Moller et al., 2004). FW had a
lipid content of 33.22 % (Yong et al., 2015) where KW and FVW were reported to have 21.6 % and
11.8 % (Wang et al., 2014). High lipid can cause process failure by the production of LCFA, a
formation of oil floc and absorption to microbial cells that inhibit the microbial action on OM
degradation and biogas production. Studies by Ponsá et al. (2011) and more recently by Wu et al.
(2016) reported that high loading of lipids can decrease the degradation of protein and carbohydrates.
However, it is still uncertain on the effect of the lipid content in the FW towards the biogas
production, as this could be influenced by various parameters, such as C/N, pH, microbial inoculant
(MI), presence of carbohydrates and proteins, lipids and more.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Low C/N and pH

FW has low C/N ratio and pH, where FW and KW have lower C/N and pH than FVW. FVW
composed of fruits, vegetables and their peelings that are rich in lignocellulose waste. Lignocellulosic
materials are more resistant to microbial attacks which slowdowns acidification. There has been
contradictory statement on the C/N ratio for FW and KW, some stated they have lower C/N ratio and
low pH, encouraging the rapid acidification of the system whilst others stated the high protein content
from the FW releases NH3 or NH4+ (Banks et al., 2011) which can either improve the system through
their buffering with the metabolic acids produced or become inhibitory to the process. The N content
and the protein content varied following different diet customs. The C/N value for this feedstock
varied from 10-30 with a pH generally less than 5.5. Sufficient N content leads to an increase of 20 %
in biogas production as compared to the reactor without N addition and suffers from N deficiency
(Garcia-Peña et al., 2011). Although the presence of NH3 can buffer acidification by elevating the pH,
the biogas production at pH 7 was reported to be 41.3 % higher than that of pH 8 (Zhou et al., 2016).

4. High biodegradability
FW is high in VS, especially FW and KW, which is susceptible to microbial attack. The fast
degradation of VS in the food waste leads to rapid acidification and VFAs accumulation. Low pH and
high acidity are inhibitory to methanogens. The optimal pH for acidogens and methanogens were
reported to be 4.5-5.5 and 5.5-6.5. The high biodegradability from the labile OM portion limited the
AD of FW by low OLR to prevent process instability and failure. AD with high OLR is characterised
by long HRT or even process failure. Strategies to overcome the rapid acidification during AD of FW
includes co-digestion, an addition of TE such as Zn and Fe, the process configuration, the use of
acclimatised MI, pH adjustment and more.

5. Variation in quality
It is still unclear of the cause and effect of the variations of FW characteristic among different sources.
Based on 102 samples, the characteristic of FW displayed high coefficient of variance (CV). FW has
an average pH of 5.1 (CV 13.9%), VS of 88.2 % (CV 9.3 %), BMP of 460.0 NL CH4/ kg VS (CV
19%), 36% of carbohydrates (CV 57.2 %), 26% of protein (CV 62.2 %), 15% of fats (CV 52.0 %), 25%
of lingo-cellulose (Fisgativa et al., 2016). It can be seen that the properties of FW varied significantly
with a high CV. Different authors dealt with FW in different parts of the world and environment
differently. The units to represent certain parameter vary among authors, for example, TS can be
represented in either % or g/ kg. Some parameters such as the carbohydates, protein, lipid and
cellulose content are not commonly reported. However, FW tends to vary geographically following
continent and collection source (Fisgativa et al., 2016). Seasonal variation in FW characteristic was
observed, including summer and winter (Fisgativa et al., 2016), long holiday and working period, and
festive seasons. As stated in the study by Yue et al. (2014), this leads to a problem when optimising
the supply chain for biogas to renewable energy as the feedstock supply is discrete seasonally but the
demand for energy, such as for transportation fuel, is all year round. Table 1 summarises the 20
papers that utilised different BMW for AD, with a majority being FW.
Table 1 Characteristic of MBW used in AD as reported in the literature from 2010-2017.
Ref Country Source Remark TS VS VS/ CAR PRO LIP CEL C/ N pH CH4 CH4
TS yield %
Tampio UK FW: Source- - compared between 247.5 229.9 92.8 - - - - - 4.96 0.501 -
et al., segregated autoclaved and g/ kg g/ kg 8 m3/kg
2014 FW from untreated FW VS
bio-waste
digestion
plant
Banks et UK FW: Source- -FW was shredded to 27.7 24.4 88.09 - - - - - - 0.642 62
al., 2011 segregated reduce the particle % % m3/kg
domestic size VS
kitchen waste

Browne Ireland FW: -source-segregated 29.4 95.3 59.0 18.1 19.0 - 14.2 4.1 0.529 -
and university -mixed cooked and % % % % % m3/kg
Murphy, canteen uncooked food VS
2013 -use acclimatised
microbes

Garcia- Mexico FVW: -include tomato, 98.9 96.4 97.48 - - - - - 4.02 0.42 53
Peña et Central food lettuce, papaya, g/kg g/kg m3/kg
al., 2011 distribution pineapple, banana VS
market and orange

Jabeen Pakistan FW: -removal of foreign 27.45 91.99 - - - - 16.8 - 0.446 -

et al., university materials and % % m3/kg
2015 canteen chopped to a size of VS
10 mm

Yan et China FW: -simulated waste 40.0 39.2 98.5 74.0 18.0 10.0 - - - - -
al., 2016 Simulated consists of bread, % % % % %
boiled rice, cabbage,
boiled pork, FW, CM
and anaerobically
 digested sludge

Yong et China FW: -foreign materials 20.05 19.86 99.05 33.22 14.03 25.25 7.4 28.4 7.17 0.26 50.4
al., 2015 university were removed and % % % % % % m3/kg
canteen, the FW was VS
dehydrated, then
crushed to a particle
size of 1-2 mm

Li and China FW: -FW was mixed and 18.66 93.64 - - - - 14.5 6.47 0.606 66.63
Jin, university ground with kitchen % % m3/kg
2015 canteen blender to a size of 1- VS
2 mm

Zhai et China KW: -KW was removed 23.19 95.69 - - - 2.84 31.2 4.2 0.859 -
al., 2015 university from foreign % % % m3/kg
canteen materials then VS
crushed into slurry
state

Chen et China FW: - impurities was 26.9 25.2 93.68 - - - - 22.0 4.51 0.326 80
al., 2014 university screened off and then % % m3/kg
canteen FW was ground VS
using a blender

Wang et China KW: -foreign materials 22.17 17.87 85.11 21.6 16.88 33.82 6.93 13.9 5.08 0.7 m3/ 60
al., 2014 university were removed and % % % % % % 8 kg VS
canteen the waste was
FVW: crushed and 7.94 6.74 84.88 11.8 13.8 3.78 24.5 17.2 5.28 0.64 m3/ -
university homogenised % % % % % % 1 kg VS
canteen

Sun et China FW: - materials was 197.12 170.43 86.46 100.54 29.17 40.72 - - - 0.267 -
al., 2014 university screened for foreign g/ kg g/ kg g/ kg g/ kg g/ kg m3/kg
 canteen materials and VS
FVW: crushed 91.56 77.28 84.40 64.17 10.18 2.39 - - -
farmers -the substrate used g/ kg g/ kg g/ kg g/ kg g/ kg
market were the mixture of
FW: FVW: WAS=
2:1:1

Sheng et China FW: -FW was screened for 27.59 25.91 93.91 - - - - 20.7 4.51 0.314 -
al., 2013 university foreign materials and % % 5 m3/kg
canteen ground VS

Zhang et China FW: - FW was selected 18.5 17.0 91.89 - - 22.8 - 21.1 5.2 0.347 61.2
al., 2013 university manually and ground % % % m3/kg
canteen into small particles VS
<3 mm by a mill

Wu et Japan FW: Institute -FW was shredded to 7.62 7.21 94.62 - 31.0 14.1 13.9 - 3.65
al., 2016 dining hall less than 5 mm % % g/ L g/ L g/ L

Kawai Japan FW: Garbage -compared between 4.4 4.1 93.18 - - - - - - 0.435 30-
et al., collection standard FW and FW % % m3/kg 60
2014 company and with labile fraction VS
adjusted to removed
standard FW

Ventura Korea FW: FW -foreign materials and 5.5 5.25 95.45 - - - - - 3.75 0.44 m3 70.7
et al., recycling coarse materials % % / kg
2014 company larger than 2 mm VSadded
were removed
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The analysis for the characterisation of FW differs among studies, however can be generally divided
into two groups. Group 1 parameters include the basic physical properties such as TS, VS, TS/VS, pH
and C/N ratio. Group 2 parameters include the biochemical properties such as TAN, NH3,
carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and cellulose. The comparison of these properties across different
studies is complicated due to two main reasons. Firstly, not all parameters were analysed and secondly,
authors reported the parameters using different units.
Based on Table 1, most of the feedstock used is FW from the restaurant, university canteens and
similar sources. There is an overlapping on the definition between FW and KW as both have been
referred to the food waste coming from university canteen. The reported value for TS and VS were
similar for FW and KW, which is between 20 - 30 %, with an exceptionally low value from Japan.
Wu et al. (2016) used the FW from an Institute dining hall and Kawai et al. (2014) used the FW from
garbage collection company, both studies had a TS content less than 10 %, as compared to the FW
collected from the university canteen in China which has a TS content of more than 20 %. There is
not much difference in the VS/TS ratio, with most of them exceeding 90, and some closely to 100,
indicating the high biodegradability of the waste. The pH varies widely among the FW, although in
general they could be categorised as low pH. The lowest pH recorded was 3.65 from the Institute
dining hall in Japan (Wu et al., 2016). For China, most of the FW used was from university canteens
and their pH varied within the range of 4.2-7.1.
Table 1 showed that using MBW as feedstock had biogas yield ranging from 0.3 - 0.8 m3/ kg VS. For
the bromatological analysis, the comparison is complicated due to the limited data. From the available
data, a significant difference is observed for the lipid content in China. Yong et al. (2015) reported a
lipid content of 25.25 % for FW from university canteen whereas Wang et al. (2014) reported a lipid
content of 33.82 % for KW from university canteen and a low lipid content of 3.78 % for FVW. The
high oil content of FW and KW due to Chinese dietary customs increases the retention time as a lipid
is harder to digest due to its poly-structure and increases the operating cost (Jin et al., 2016). High
lipid content and higher protein content in some of the studies lead to higher biogas production and
CH4 content. Yong et al. (2015) reported the lowest protein and lipid content (14.03 % and 25.25 %)
but highest carbohydrate content (33.22 %) as compared to Wang et al. (2014) with 33.82 % lipid,
16.88 % protein and 21.6 % carbohydrates. The former had 0.26 m3 CH4/kg VS production but the
later had 0.7 m3 kg/VS production, illustrating the energy potential contained in the high lipid content.
However, Liu et al. (2012) found that a total of 16.5 % of lipid improved the biogas production
without process inhibition during the AcoD of FW, FVW and dewatered sewage sludge. With lipid
content of 16.5 % as the threshold figure, both FW and KW are prone to lipid inhibition. On the
contrary, AD of FVW yielded 0.64 m3 CH4/kg VS production despite having only 3.78 % lipid
content.
FW can be summarised as a feedstock with high TS and VS, with high biodegradability, but low in
C/N, N content and pH. The physical properties such as in TS and VS did not differ significantly as
compared to the biochemical properties. The difference has been caused by the geographical and
seasonal changes, which is a typical feature for MSW. A better understanding between FW
biochemical characteristic and biodegradability could be important (Fisgativa et al., 2016) but there is
no standardisation in measuring all the parameters. Most authors measured biodegradability like TS,
VS and pH but not all reported on the carbohydrates, protein, lipid, TAN content which can greatly
influence the system’s behaviour.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2 The anaerobic mono-digestion of food waste (FW)

The mono-digestion utilises FW as the sole feedstock. FW is characterised as a feedstock with high
TS and VS, with high biodegradability, but low in C/N, N content and pH. To ensure long term biogas
production, the system will have either long HRT or low OLR. The OLR for mono-digestion of FW
has been kept lower than 2.5 g VS/d to ensure long term biogas production (Banks et al., 2012). This
limits the large-scale AD for FW as both high retention time and low OLR exerts high cost and lower
return, as compared to other feedstocks such as animal manure and sewage sludge that can be loaded
at higher OLR and shorter retention time.
This section presents the studies which performed anaerobic mono-digestion of FW and their
strategies to improve the process efficiency. The strategies involved thermophilic AD, two-stage
system, modification of initial pH, an addition of TE, thermal pre-treatment and use of acclimatised
microbes with the aims to increase biogas yield, increase CH4 content and at high OLR. Table 2
summarises the papers dealing with the anaerobic mono-digestion of FW as sole feedstock. The
biogas contains a mixture of gases, mainly with CH4, with a smaller amount of CO2, H2 and H2S. The
biogas yield is presented mostly in CH4 yield, but some are in biogas as the CH4 percentage of the
biogas was not reported in the extracted studies. The papers are further discussed under three
subsections: nutrient balance, two-stage and thermal pre-treatment.
Table 2 Operational parameters for the mono-digestion of FW and respective biogas yield as reported in the literature from 2010-2017.

Ref Feedstock AD mode OLR HRT T (°C) Biogas yield CH4 Remark
(d) (%)
Banks et FW: source- Continuous 2.5 kg 80 42 0.642 m3 62 -energy balance showed the potentially
al., 2011 segregated VS/m3· d CH4/ kg VS recoverable energy was 405 kWh/t of input
FW from added material;
domestic -high N content (TKN= 8.9 kg/t FW on a wet
kitchen weight basis) lead to the higher NH3
concentration that buffered the VFA
accumulation.

Browne FW: source Batch: BMP - - - 0.467 m3 - -the increase of 16 % in the specific methane
& segregated assay CH4/kg VS production (SMP) by using MI acclimatised to
Murphy, FW from FW as compared to the MI from mono-digestion
2013 university of grass silage and from farm digester;
canteen 0.433 m3 -wet samples yield 9 % higher SMP than dry
CH4/kg VS samples due to the presence of organic acids (lost
during drying);
0.529 m3 -22 % increase in BMP than wet samples due to
CH4/kg VS acclimatisation of MI.

Sheng et FW: batch - 20-25 35 0.315 m3 - -investigate the efficiency of NH3 removal from
al., 2013 university CH4 /kg VS FW digestate in the recirculated AD system via
canteen nitrification at increased concentration of TAN
from 0-4.5 g/L;
-lower TAN <1.54 g/L was beneficial whereas
higher TAN > 3.78g/L inhibited methanogenesis;
-CH4 yield reduced by 50.8 % when added NO3-
N exceeded 1.5 g/L;
-Low TAN increased CH4 yield by 11.8 %.

Ventura FW: from S2: 4.5 g 5 36+1 0.44 m3 70.7 -Alternating mesophilic (M) and thermophilic (T)
et al., waste Mesophilic COD/L· d CH4/kg VS two-stage AD systems: S1= MA-MM, S2= MA-
2014 recycling acidogenesis added TM, S3= TA-MM;
 company (MA) -methanogens thrive better in a thermophilic
environment than acidogens;
Thermophilic 15 55+1 0.44 m3 - acidogenesis is not associated with thermal
methanogenesis CH4/kg VS hydrolysis;
(TM) added -the increase in pH at an elevated temperature.

Tampio FW: source Semi- continuous 3 kg 78 37 0.483 m3 58 -comparison between autoclaved at 160 °C and
et al., segregated VS/m3· d CH4/kg VS untreated source; segregated FW at different
2014 domestic FW OLRs;
from a -the feedstock was ground and chopped;
biowaste -with TE supplementation;
digestion -with acclimated MI to allow rapid increases in
plant OLR;
-thermal treatment showed the reduction of
12.4 % in biogas production.

Kawai et FW: garbage Batch: 0.33 g VS - 37 0.435 m3 40 -the lag phase increased as the amount
al., 2014 collection Standard FW substrate/ CH4/kg VS of inoculum increased;
company and g VS -lower CH4 yields for the system experiencing
adjusted to inoculum either reversible or irreversible acidification;
standard FW -acidification affected the CH4 content, with
significant fluctuation between 1-60 %
(compared with 30 - 60 %).

Li and FW: - - 21 35 1.2 m3 74.92 -thermal treatment increased solubilisation rate

Jin, 2015 university biogas/kg based on TS and VS at 5-120 °C, about 49.12 %
canteen VS increase in VS, but at 140-160 °C removal rate
at 120 °C significantly dropped even though with higher
for 50 min hydrolysis of TS and VS recorded;
-higher thermal temperature enhanced biogas
production significantly, with 50.88 - 147 %
increase than raw KW;
-biogas yield and CH4 content were not
significantly affected by low or high-temperature
treatment.
Yong et FW: from Batch 5g VS/L 8 35 0.26 m3 54.68 -BMP for straw is 0.16 m3 CH4/kg VS.
al., 2015 university CH4/kg VS
canteen

Grimberg FW: from Single-phase 3.79 kg - 37.4 0.380 m3 58.6 -significant higher production of CH4 in two-
et al., university mesophilic VS/m3·d CH4/kg VS phase mesophilic digester but produced effluent
2015 canteen of similar quality, in terms of COD and VS.

Two-phase 0.78 kg - 37.4 0.446 m3 59.0 -fermentation reactor could be loaded at low
mesophilic VS/m3·d CH4/kg VS loading of 0.79 kg COD/m3·d with a pH of 5.2.

Wu et al., FW: dining CSTR - - - 0.60 m3 - -co-digestion with an increased CH4 yield of over
2016 hall from biogas/kg 30 %;
Institute VS -increased lipid loading decreased the capability
of the AD to degrade protein and lipid;
-more LCFA accumulation was responsible for
the reduced capability to remove lipid in the
AcoD.

Yan et - Upflow anaerobic - - - 0.27 m3 - -investigate the utilisation of acidogenic off-gas

al., 2016 sludge blanket, CH4/kg VS to improve the hydrogen availability for the
two-phase methanogenic reactor;
-acidogenic off gas utilisation improved the CH4
recovery up to 38.6 %.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Based on Table 2, the highest biogas field was from the system with thermal pre-treatment，which
yielded 1.2 m3 CH4/kg VS by Li and Jin (2015). However, Tampio et al. (2014) who performed
thermal pre-treatment at 160 °C showed a reduction of 12.4 % in biogas production. AcoD and
feedstock with high N content were reported to yield high biogas, which were 0.60 m3 CH4/kg VS by
(Wu et al., 2016) and 0.623 m3 CH4/kg VS as reported by Banks et al. (2011). Sheng et al. (2013)
reported a reduction of 50.8 % of CH4 yield when added NO3-N exceeded 1.5 g/L. Two-phase AD
performed by Grimberg et al. (2015) showed about 15 % increase in biogas production as compared
to single phase but similar CH4 content (i.e. ~60 %). Ventura et al. (2014) performed two-phase AD
but associated with thermophilic-mesophilic configuration. The best configuration resulted in a
similar biogas yield with Grimberg et al. (2015) but the CH4 content was significantly higher, i.e.
70 %. These had been common strategies to improve the biogas production from AD of FW, but some
reported significantly higher improvement whereas some reported certain inhibition. In this section,
the strategies to improve mono-digestion of FW is discussed from the perspective of nutrient balance,
pre-treatment and multi-stage configuration. AcoD is discussed separately in Section 3.3.

3.2.1 Nutrient balance and trace elements (TE)

N content plays a significant role on the stability of the AD as hydrolysis of N-rich substances
releases NH3 and NH4+ that could buffer with the VFA and organic acids from the hydrolysis of labile
OM. Garcia-Peña et al. (2011) found that no biogas was produced during the mono-digestion FVW,
which has a pH of 4.02, without pH control. A combination of microbial inoculant (MI), pH control
and N addition showed 83.3 % increment in biogas yield than control. The study showed a 53.3 %
higher than the above combination when meat residue was introduced as the N source, contributed by
the buffering system of NH3 from proteins hydrolysis.
For nutrient availability, an effect of nitrogen either in the form of TAN or total Kjedahl nitrogen
(TKN) has been popularly investigated. TAN or TKN can lead to inhibitory NH3 or NH4+
concentration and the dominant species is dependent on the pH. Different studies had shown different
inhibitory level of nitrogen. Sheng et al. (2013) observed a decrease of 50.8 % in CH4 yield when
TAN concentration is over 1.54 g/L. In the study of NH3 on AD of FW by Ariunbaatar et al. (2015),
they reported a drop of 31-35 % of the biomethane production when the TAN concentration is over
0.85 g/L. The inhibitory level of TAN inhibition can be triggered at a wide range of concentrations,
from 2,800 to 6,000 mg/L of total NH3 and 337-800 mg N/L free NH3 (Yenigun and Demirel, 2013).
The concentration and composition of VFAs are indicators of the metabolic status of an AD system
(Li et al., 2011) and the species is related to pH. At low pH, the main VFAs are acetate and butyrate
that inhibit methanogenesis (Pontoni et al., 2015). Similar to the different inhibitory concentration of
TAN in different studies, the inhibitory limit of VFAs and for different species were reported. Some
methanogens are more sensitive to TAN inhibition. Banks et al. (2012) pointed that inhibition on the
propionate-utilising bacteria will lead to an increase of the propionate in the system and cause direct
inhibition on the methanogens, suggesting propionic acid as the main VFA for an unstable system.
The study on the anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) of KW and FVW in the single-phase system found a
56.8 % increase of propionate from 21.8 mg/L to 1,576.3 mg/L when the OLR increased from 1.0 to
3.5 g VS/L-d, suggesting propionate as the responsible species for VFA inhibition (Wang et al., 2014).
A similar result was obtained where the experiment was carried out in a two-phase system, where
VFA concentration of 8,905.9 mg/L, with 69.4 % being propionate, when the OLR was increased to
5.0 g VS/L-d. Propionate is broken down to acetate by the propionate-utilising bacteria than the
acetate would be converted to methane through the acetoclastic methanogenesis pathway. Garcia-
Peña et al. (2011) reported an average concentration of 1,300 mg/L for total VFAs concentration,
dominated by acetate and butyrate, at the steady-state of the AcoD of FVW with meat residue (MR).
A VFA inhibitory effect with the concentration between 14,000-28,000 mg/L, with dominant species
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of lactic acid (~50 %) was observed in an overloading reactor whereas healthy reactor was dominated
by propionate and acetate, accounting for 50-70 % of the total VFAs, as reported by Ye et al. (2013).
High concentration of total VFA of 15,000 mg/L at the end of the monitoring period did not exert
significant inhibition on the volumetric biogas yield during the AD of the source-segregated FW by
Banks et al. (2011).
VFAs accumulation at high OLRs was related to the deficiencies in TE (Banks et al., 2012) as TE can
simulate better enzymatic activities. Different TE exhibits different effects during AD process. TE of
Fe, Co, Mo and Ni addition at moderate concentration yield of 0.504 m3 CH4/kg VS, which is 35.5 %
higher than compared. These TEs are found to be critical for facilitating hydrogenotrophic
methanogenesis at high NH3 condition (Banks et al., 2012). Excessive supplementation with Fe and Ni
greater than 1,000 mg/L and 50 mg/ L are toxic to the microbial community (Izumi et al., 2010).
Tampio et al. (2014) found a significant reduction of VFAs after addition of Se and Co when the
digester treating FW was overloaded under high OLR of 3 kg VS/ m3-d. AcoD with animal manure,
such as pig manure (PM) is an effective way for TE addition. In the study by Dennehy et al. (2016), it
was shown that the addition of PM which is rich in several TE plays an important role in preventing
VFAs and NH3 inhibition. The study also pointed possible inhibition on the degradation of butyrate
by the high concentration of Zn (1.67-2.16 mg/L).
The presence and concentration of nutrient are critical for the production of biogas. The addition of
protein-rich source can increase the buffering capacity against acid accumulation and increase of as
high as 50 % of biogas as reported by Garcia-Peña et al. (2011). However, studies also showed a 30-
50 % decrease in biogas production when the TAN concentration exhibited inhibitory effect. TE
supplementation is found to overcome system with high NH3 concentration. It is still uncertain which
TE is most effective in overcoming NH3 toxicity. TE is also found to be effective in overcoming VFA
inhibition. Similarly, there is still limited study on which TE is most effective against which VFA.
Many studies have pointed that propionate is the dominant VFA in the unhealthy AD system,
although some found lactate to be the main inhibitory VFA.
3.2.2 Pre-treatment
Thermal pre-treatment is used to increase the solubilisation of OM by thermal breakdown of large
OM into simple forms that are more readily accessible by microbes to increase the biogas yield. The
temperature range for thermal pre-treatment has been reported to be between 50 -250 °C among
various studies (Jain et al., 2015). Thermal pre-treatment is expected to significantly increase the
biogas production, but recent studies showed that the efficiency of thermal pre-treatment is dependent
on the type of waste, the temperature and the treatment time. These conditions are the principal
factors in determining whether the improvement in biogas production would outweighs the energy
consumption.

Tampio et al. (2014) study the effect of thermal pre-treatment by autoclave on the biogas production
of source-segregated FW at different OLRs. The comparison between the untreated one and the
treated ones (160 °C, 6.2 bar) showed no significant differences in CH4 content, where both were in
the range of 55-63 %. For biogas production, the untreated ones were 5-10 % higher than the
autoclaved ones at all temperature. The authors found high VFA inhibition at high OLRs but the
VFAs profile was different for non-autoclaved and autoclaved samples. The former was dominant of
acetate acid (~98%) and the later was dominant by propionate (~65 %). Thermal pre-treatment
affected the free NH3 concentration where NH3 was below 0.30 g/kg in the untreated FW and below
0.10g/kg in the autoclaved FW, indicating high NH3 volatilisation from the thermal pre-treatment.
Reactor with treated sample showed high OM solubility but lower biodegradability due to reduced
protein hydrolysis (Tampio et al., 2014), a formation of Maillard compound (Bougrier et al., 2008)
and low buffering capacity against VFA due to higher NH3 volatilisation (Tampio et al., 2014). The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Maillard compound is inhibitory to the process as it is toxic and hardly degradable (Tampio et al.,
2014). This is supported by the study of Li and Jin (2015) who combined thermal pre-treatment and a
two-stage, mesophilic system for mono-digestion of KW under two groups of temperatures,
mesophilic (55 °C, 70 °C and 90 °C) and thermophilic (120 °C, 140 °C and 160 °C), under two
treatment time of 50 min and 70 min. The treatment at 90 °C for 70 min and 120 °C for 50 min
showed higher OM solubilisation and biogas production, with the lowest being treatment with 140 °C
and 160 °C. Jin et al. (2016) performed AD of KW at moderate temperature (70 °C, 80 °C and 90 °C)
with high temperature (120 °C, 140 °C and 160 °C). Similar observation of high OM solubilisation
but low degradability was observed at high temperature. Thermal pre-treatment and prolonged heating
time can encourage the better dissolution of floating oil but the CH4 production rate at moderate
temperatures with digestion time over 50 h increased significantly at high temperature.

Thermal pre-treatment is a better strategy for increasing OM solubilisation than increasing biogas
production, notably the waste with higher complex compounds such as lipid and cellulose. A
moderate temperature in combination with moderate heating time resulted in the best combination. At
higher temperature, increasing in OM solubilisation is associated with higher NH3 volatilisation, lipid
degradation and formation of Maillard compound. Tampio et al. (2014) reported that the untreated
sample showed a 60 % NH3 concentration higher than the autoclaved samples. This indicated that
NH3 loss during autoclave might be the dominant reason associated with digester failure at high
temperature, where higher NH3 loss leads to higher vulnerability against acid accumulation.
3.2.3 Two-stage AD
Two-stage AD involves two separated reactors for acidogenesis and methanogenesis. This allows high
loading at the acidogenesis tank, with relatively low pH due to fast OM degradation and acid
accumulation, whilst not affecting the methanogenesis which requires an optimal pH of 6.5. Ventura
et al. (2014) pointed that a higher diversity of microorganisms was observed in the methanogenic
reactor from several studies. This design has rarely been used for mono-digestion of MBW as single-
stage AD and AcoD are more popular (Li and Jin, 2015).
Ventura et al. (2014) demonstrated the effect of temperature of two-stage system treating KW by
alternating between mesophilic and thermophilic for acidogenesis and methanogenesis reactors. The
highest CH4 production and CH4 content of biogas were obtained in the system with mesophilic-
acidogenesis and thermophilic-methanogenesis configuration. The relatively higher biogas production
and CH4 content (0.44 m3 CH4/ kg VSadded) as compared to other studies reviewed could be attributed
to the use of materials with size less than 2 mm and the high temperature that favours methanogenesis.
Methanogens may be more susceptible to sudden temperature change as a significant increase in VFA
and soluble chemical oxygen demand (COD) was observed when the reactor shifted from mesophilic
to thermophilic condition, but the fluctuation was not inhibitory (Ventura et al., 2014). Ariunbaatar et
al. (2015) studied the effect of ammoniacal N on one-stage and two-stage AD of FW in a
continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) system. The two-stage system was carried out at a higher
OLR at higher stability with better pH self-adjusting capacity, higher resistance to organic loading
shocks and higher conversion rate of OM to CH4. Optimal process configuration allows 100 % BMP
production in two-stage as compared to the 71 % in a single phase. However, the study pointed that
two-stage was more sensitive to VFAs inhibition as it requires more alkalinity to overcome NH3 and
propionate by the physically separated methanogens. Grimberg et al. (2015) compared the AD of FW
at mesophilic phase between single phase and two-stage pilot-scale digester at varied loadings. The
two-stage system had a 14.8 % higher CH4 production than single phase (0.446 vs. 0.380 m3 CH4/kg
VS) but no significant difference in the CH4 content in the biogas produced.

As a summary for the review on the mono-digestion (Section 3.2), nutrient balance, sufficient N and
TE addition can improve process stability under high loadings. Mono-digestion of FW is limited by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

VFAs accumulation. A wide range of inhibitory concentration of VFAs have been reported and the
dominant acid species for both healthy and stressed reactors varied among studies. A common
indictor is the VFA/alkalinity ratio where a ratio less than 0.3 – 0.4 indicating healthy reactor and a
ratio more than 0.6 indicating a stressed and overloaded reactor (Liu et al., 2009). The two-stage
configuration seems to be a promising method to overcome acid inhibition on the methanogenesis.
Microbial acclimatisation by feeding selected MI with the desired feedstock can greatly improve the
system performance, such as under high loading, higher tolerance for VFA inhibition, shorter lag
phase and higher biogas production. Due to the difference among the MI used, the acclimatisation
period and substrate to inoculant ratio, coupled with the variation in food waste characteristic among
different studies, the inhibitory level for the inhibitory species such as TAN, NH3 and VFA can be
triggered at a variety of range. Further researches are needed to understand the potential of
acclimatised MI to overcome process inhibition under high loadings or changes in input feedstock.
Thermal pre-treatment at high temperature (> 120 °C) can effectively increase the solubilisation but
not necessarily on its biodegradation due to the susceptibility of acidogens at high temperature, the
release of Maillard compound and other inhibitory compounds from the improved solubilisation of
OM. Thermal pre-treatment is more suitable on feedstock with high cellulosic content such as
agricultural and green waste (GW), the increased solubilisation would not lead to over loading.
3.3 The anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) of food waste (FW)
AcoD of FW with other substrates is a common strategy to improve process performance, especially
for high solids. AcoD of FW with cattle slurry and card packaging waste to overcome C/N imbalance
and TAN in the digestate (Zhang et al., 2012a). AcoD of FVW, dewatered sludge and FW yielded a
high biogas production of 0.425 L/d at a high loading rate of 6.0 kg VS/m3·d (Liu et al., 2012). Zhang
et al. (2017) performed biological co-pretreatment during the AcoD of FW and waste activated sludge
(WAS), which resulted in an increase of 24.6 % and 10.1 % for biogas production and solids
reduction. Li et al. (2017) performed a unique configuration where the FW was first co-digested with
chicken manure and then co-digested with grass in the second stage. The two-stage configuration
could increase biogas yield and VS removal by 83.25 % and 57.3 % as compared to the mono-
digestion of FW, with a CH4 yield of 0.115 L/kg VS at a high OLR of 4 g VS/L·d. AcoD is subjected
to the influence of high solid concentration. Liu et al. (2016) demonstrated the relationship between
solid concentration and FW loading. In the low TS system of 4.8 % solid content, the FW portion
must be lower than 50 % to avoid VFA accumulation. In the high TS system with 14 % solid content,
the FW portion could reach 50 % as the optimum FW blend.
AcoD is effective to improve the performance of AD due to the complementary effects in providing
higher buffering capacity and better nutrient balance. This allows high OLRs and maximum biogas
output from a more stable AD system (Garcia-Peña et al., 2011). It offers simultaneous management
for two to three types of waste and provides economic advantages due to sharing of equipment,
disposal of waste and handling of residues (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2001). Table 3 summarises the papers
dealing with AcoD of food waste with other substrates and the effectiveness of co-digestion. The
biogas contains a mixture of gases, mainly with CH4, with a smaller amount of CO2, H2 and H2S. The
biogas yield is presented mostly in CH4 yield, but some are in biogas as the CH4 percentage of the
biogas was not reported in the extracted studies. The papers are further discussed under three
subsections: choice of substrate, pre-treatment and two-stage.
Table 3 Operational parameters for AcoD of FW with other organic wastes and their respective biogas yield as reported in the literature from 2010-2017.

Ref Feedstock Co- Mixing AD mode OLR HRT T Biogas CH4 Remark
substrate ratio (d) (°C) yield (%)

Garcia FVW: MR 50 : 50 Batch 98.9 g 30 30 0.42 m3 53 -FVW contained higher soluble

- Peña from TS/ CH4/kg carbohydrates than protein;
et al., market kg residues TS - highest yield when cow manure was used
2011 as inoculum, along with buffering salts and
addition of NH4Cl (83% increment
compared to control).

Ye et KW RS KW: - - 45 37 0.674 m3 - -reactor B gave highest biogas yield of

al., PM: biogas 674.4 L/kg VS (56.92 %) but reactor C
2013 PM RS= gave the highest CH4 content of 60.20 %
0.4 : 1.6: with 576.2 L/kg VS, reactor B= 0.4:1.6:1
1 and reactor C= 0.8:1.2:1 for KW:PM:RS.

Zhang FW: CM: farm batch - - 35 0.388 m3 - -optimum mixing at 2, AcoD enhanced CH4
et al., university CH4/kg production by 41.1 % in batch and 55.2 %
2013 canteen VS in semi-continuous mode;
-CM provided buffering capacity and
allows high organic loading without pH
Semi- 10 g FW 0.317 m3 - control;
continuous VS/ L-d CH4/kg -acclimated microbes.
VS
Agye FW: DM: 1 : 1 on Semi- 0.67-3 g 178 36 0.4- 0.64 60- -FW was ground to 2.5 mm (fine), 4 mm
man hotel Large size VS basis continuous VS/ L· d m3 CH4/ 80 (medium) and 8 mm (coarse) with fine
& restaurant dairy farm kg VS particles having the highest SMP;
Tao, - stepwise increased of OLR from 0.67 to 1,
2014 2 and 3 g VS/L· d over 178 d of operation;
-digestate dewaterability was improved
with reduction of size.
-optimal OLR near to 3g VS/L-d.
Wang KW FVW 8:5 Two-phase: 2.0 g 10 35 0.725 m3 60 -AcoD was performed in a lab scale and
et al., Acidification VS/L·d CH4/kg pilot scale for batch, single-phase and two-
2014 VS phase;
-Two-phase can handle high OLR of 5.0 g
VS/L·d compared to low OLR of 3.5 g
VS/L·d;
-no significant difference in the CH4
content across different OLRs.

Chen FW: GW: 40 : 60 batch 5g VS 24.5 37 0.272 65.5 -6 different mixing ratios were investigated
et al., university around feedstock m3/kg VS - 70 on VS basis
2014 canteen campus (air -CH4 yield from SSAD (20-20 % TS) was
dried for 48 higher than LAD (5-10 % TS);
h then -methanogenesis was inhibited when TS is
ground to 5 greater than 25 % due to overloading and
mm sieve) excess of NH3;
-CH4 content varied from 65.6- 70 % at
varying TS of 5-25 %.

Sun et FW: FVW: 2:1:1 Semi- - 25 35 0.706 64 -Investigated the increasing effect of VS
al., university farmers continuous m3/kg VS concentration of lipid from 0-75 %;
2014 canteen market CSTR -Lipid concentration at 65 % inhibited the
process where CH4 yields increased with
WAS: increasing lipid concentration, provided
municipal lipid concentration was < 60 %;
wastewater -daily CH4 production decreased by 95 %
treatment when lipid concentration exceeded 65 %.
plant

Jabeen FW: Rice husk: Mixed to Pilot plant 6 kg VS/ - 37 0.446 m3 - -investigated the plant operating at high
et al., university local rice get a single-stage, m3d biogas/kg OLR: 5, 6 and 9 kg VS/m3·d; highest
2015 canteen huller C/N plug flow VS specific biogas yield and VS removal at
ratio of OLR=5 kg VS/m3·d;
28 -VS removal efficiency decreased with
increased in organic loading rate and
 decrease in HRT;
-instability VFA: alkalinity > 0.94 at OLR
of 9 kg VS/ m3·d.

Zhai KW: CM: 1:1 Batch TS 8 % 45 35 0.859 m3/ - -study the effect of initial pH where 6.0
et al., university livestock kg VS leads to digester failure and 7.5 was
2015 canteen farm recommended;
-investigated for pH 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5 and
8.0.

Yong FW: Straw: 5:1 Batch 5 g VS/L 8 35 0.392 m3 67.6 -MPY increased by 39.5 % and 149.7 %
et al., university From CH4/kg than the mono-digestion of FW and straw
2015 canteen maize, VS respectively;
sorgos and -straw has high C/N 43.4 complemented
wheat FW with low C/N 28.4;
-optimal straw size at 0.3 – 1 mm.

Wu et FW De-oiled - CSTR: -3 - - - 0.60 m3/ - -investigate the use of de-oiled GTW to

al., grease trap system: kg VS improve biogas
2016 waste single – -co-digestion increased biogas yield by
(GTW) stage, two- 19 %;
stage and -the mesophilic increased degradation of
two-Stage-R lipid-lipid/TS at 40 % can prevent
inhibition caused by lipid.

Denne FW PM PM : Batch 5.2 g VS - 37 0.521 - Optimal mixing ratio at 1 : 4

hy et KW= 1 : No VFA or NH3 inhibition observed due to
al., 0, 4 : 1, acclimatised MI.
2016 3 : 2, 2 :
3, 1 : 4,
0 : 1.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.3.1 Nutrient balance and trace element (TE): Choice of co-substrate

N-rich products such as animal manure and MR have long been the desirable co-substrate, especially
with agro-industrial and OFMSW (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014). CM contains high contents of non-
biodegradable substances, high fibre content and has low C/N ratios, thus having a low CH4 yield in
the mono-digestion (Frear et al., 2010). FW and animal manure complement each other for
maximising biogas production. Co-digestion at the correct ratio allows high OLRs without an addition
of TE as shown in the study by Agyeman and Tao (2014). The AcoD of FW and CM with high lipid
content and long SRT gave an increment of 27 % and 60.3 % compared to mono-digestion of FW and
CM. Zhang et al. (2013) who studied the AcoD of FW and CM showed 41.1 % and 55.2 %
improvement as compared to mono-digestion of FW in batch and semi-continuous reactor. The
complementary effect of CM is attributed to balance C/N ratio, higher pH for buffering capacity and
the presence of TE to stimulate the activity of enzyme and co-enzymes. TE can facilitate the synthesis
of essential coenzymes or cofactors in the methanogenic pathways (Zhang et al., 2015). The optimal
mixing ratio of FW:CM at 2 : 1 allows high loadings of 15 g VS/L-d and produces the CH4 yield of
0.317 m3 CH4/kg VS, without VFAs and NH3 inhibition (>700 mg/L). CM is enriched with
methanogens which are adaptive to the anaerobic condition for AD. High loadings of CM may be
needed due to the higher presence of methanogens than hydrolysis bacteria and the change of
environment from cellulosic-rich feedstock to FW.
Recent studies have acclimatised the MI, such as CM, with FW prior to their inoculation to AD to
increase their adaptation to high loadings. Dennehy et al. (2016) who acclimatised the microbes with
60 % FW and 40 % PM for six months showed no VFAs inhibition at all mixing ratio. The improved
performance was attributed to the acclimatised microbes and the presence of TE, including Fe, Cu,
Mn and Zn from the PM. A similar result was demonstrated by Tampio et al. (2014) during the
anaerobic digestion of autoclaved and untreated FW, where the MI was fed with either untreated FW
or autoclaved FW for an acclimatisation period of 18 d. The paper concluded that the stable digestion
of the FW was attributed by the supplementation of TE where rapid increases in OLR without process
disturbance is due to the acclimated MI.
Another popular co-substrate is agricultural waste such as rice straw (RS) or GW, they are rich in a
cellulosic material which is non-readily biodegradable, which counter the fast degradation of readily
biodegradable OM in biowaste. Yong et al. (2015) found a mixing ratio of 5: 1 for FW: straw
increased the biogas production by 39.5 % and 149.7 % as compared to their mono-digestion. A
similar effect was observed in the study by Chen et al. (2014) found a 33.9 % increase in biogas
production at an optimum ration of 40: 60 for FW: GW, compared to the mono-digestion of GW. The
author stated the high potential of the high solid system in producing 15-20 % higher CH4 yield and
with 3.8 - 4.6 times higher biogas volumetric productivity than the liquid system. The TS content has
to keep under 25 % to avoid overloading and excess NH3 that inhibit methanogenesis.
Lipid has the highest theoretical biogas and BMP as a single substrate. During AcoD, over-loading
with lipid is found to inhibit carbohydrate and protein degradation. This is shown in the study by
Ponsá et al. (2011), who studied on the specific degradation of several pure substrates, including
vegetable oil, animal fats, cellulose and protein during their mono-digestion and AcoD with OFMSW.
Highest biogas yield was found with the AcoD with vegetable oil followed by animal fat but sugar
and protein degradation decreased significantly when using animal fat as co-substrate. Highest
degradation of sugars and proteins were recorded when cellulose is used as co-substrate, followed by
vegetable oil. The effect of oil was studied by Wu et al. (2016) using de-oiled GTP as co-substrate for
FW under the mesophilic condition, temperature based AD TPAD and temperature-based AD-
recycling. AcoD is able to increase the biogas yield by 19 % with high COD removal (~80 %) but
increasing lipid loadings decrease the degradability of protein and lipid. High lipids hydrolysis yield
LCFA which can be inhibitory by damaging cells and exerting stress on the microbial community
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Wang et al., 2013). The analysis showed AcoD requires more alkalinity as a buffer than mono-
digestion as mesophilic temperatures favour the degradation of lipid and conversion of lipid to LCFA
which resulted in lipid accumulation in both digesters (Wu et al., 2016). The study showed that the
increasing concentration of lipase led to enhanced hydrolysis of lipid but subsequent inhibition on its
further degradation and the methanogenesis process due to the formation of LCFA (Cirne et al., 2007).
The lipid concentration in the digested substrate can have an impact on both the biogas yield and
biogas content. Sun et al. (2014) studied the effect of lipid concentration during the AcoD of MBW
and WAS. The biogas production increased significantly when the lipid concentration was lower than
60 % on a VS basis, with a VFA/ alkalinity ratio of 0.2 - 0.6. The maximum CH4 yield was 0.706 m3
kg/VS with 64 % CH4. At high lipid loadings with concentration over 65 %, the pH is below 5.2 with
a VFA/alkalinity ratio of 2.0, the biogas produced are majorly H2, CO2 and acetate. CH4 was not
produced as methanogenesis was inhibited by LCFAs, especially oleic acid (Alves et al., 2001). The
accumulation of acetate acid favours acetoclastic methanogenesis which increases the production of
CO2 but decreases in CH4 production (Sun et al., 2014).
Fat-rich and protein-rich feedstocks are more suitable as co-substrate for biogas as CH4 content from
fat and protein hydrolysis are higher as compare to carbohydrate-rich feedstock. As cellulosic material
requires higher retention time to be broken down if without pre-treatment, using lignocellulose-based
materials would need post-treatment, such as composting, for continue waste stabilisation (Ponsá et
al., 2011).
AcoD is capable to increase the biogas significantly. The substrate used for the AcoD with FW is
mainly either animal manure or lignocellulosic based agirucltural waste. Based on Table 2 and 3, the
yield of biogas from co-digestion is around 0.272-0.859 m3 CH4/kg VS, where the biogas yield from
FW mono-digestion is 0.27-0.642 m3 CH4/kg VS, with exceptionally maximum at 1.2 m3 CH4/kg VS.
This indicated the high biogas potential from FW. The highest yield was reported by Zhai et al. (2015)
where FW was co-digested with CM. The lowest yield was reported by Chen et al. (2015) with a
biogas production of 0.272 m3 CH4/kg VS where FW was co-digested with GW, but had a highest
CH4 content of 70 %. Animal manure improved the system by supplementing N source and TE.
Lignocellulosic waste improved the system due to their slower biodegradability, by preventing rapid
acidification from the rapid hydrolysis of labile OM. Depending on the type of substrate added to the
co-digestio with FW, the biogas production has been increased from as low as 19 % (Wu et al., 2016)
to as high as 55.2 % (Zhang et al., 2013), with a CH4 content of approximately 60 %.

3.3.2 Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment for size reduction of the substrates are a widespread practice where increasing of the
surface to area ratio allows better contact between microbes and food for effective utilisation. From
the comprehensive review on the effect of operation parameters and different pre-treatment
methodologies by Jain et al. (2015), particle size reduction contributes to increasing substrate
utilisation rate and higher COD solubilisation. Recent studies pointed that size reduction, in the case
of DM (Frear et al., 2010), beyond optimum size can lead to system's instability where smaller
particles were more readily to be degraded and accelerated the acidification process. Excessive NH3
can be produced from the hydrolysis of N-rich product and VFA accumulation from rapid hydrolysis,
where both are inhibitory to biogas production. Due to the low biogas potential, GW as co-substrate
led to a decrease in CH4 content but has higher biogas production efficiency. Similar findings were
found during the mono-digestion of FW where excessive bead milling leads to decrease in CH4 due to
excessively high organic loading (Izumi et al., 2010).
Based on Table 3, the yield of biogas from AcoD is around 0.272-0.859 m3 CH4/kg VS whereas
mechanical pretreatment resulted in 0.4-0.64 m3 CH4/kg VS by Agyeman and Tao (2014) and 0.392
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

m3 CH4/ kg VS by Yong et al. (2015). Agyeman and Tao (2014) reported a 10 % and 93 % increase
in biogas production by size reduction as compared to the mono-digestion of FW and DM whereas
Yong et al. (2015) reported a 40 % and 149.7 % increase as compared to the mono- digestion of FW
and straw. The mechanical treatment might not be a necessaity to treat FW but it would be important
for the FW that is rich in cellulosic material (e.g. vegetables).

3.3.3 Two-stage AcoD

Two-stage for AcoD, especially for FW, is limited. Wang et al. (2014) performed batch, single phase
and two-stage configuration during the AcoD of FVW and KW with the optimum ratio of 5 : 9. Single
phase showed the higher CH4 productivity of 0.725 m3 CH4/kg VS over two-stage but two-stage
allows higher OLR of 5.0 g VS/L-d compared to the 3.5 g VS/ L-d in a single phase. The pilot scale,
however, experienced serious inhibition when the OLR was increased to 3.5 g VS/L-d due to the high
concentration of VFA of 2,302 mg/L.
As a summary of the review for AcoD, under Section 3.3, the synergistic effect of the co-substrate is
due to adjusted nutrient, including higher N and cellulosic materials, higher pH and presence of TE.
AcoD remains an effective method for improving the biogas yield of the selected feedstocks.
Agricultural waste and animal manure remain the most popular co-substrate used during the AD of
FW. Animal manure is a good source for TE addition to overcome VFA inhibition. The application of
two-stage in AcoD is limited. The effect of TE on the two-stage system against high loadings and
shock loadings will require further studies. AcoD usually does not require further process
configuration as the substrates offer complimentary effect but the optimal combination among these
strategies remain an interesting element for the future work.
Table 4 presents the comparison of the methods to improve the process performance during mono-
digestion and AcoD with FW as the main substrate. Table 4 also highlights the suitability of these
methods to improve the process performance during mono-digestion and AcoD with FW of different
quality.
Table 4 A matching of suitability of improvement strategies with FW of different quality as the main substrate for mono-digestion and AcoD.

Remark Nutrient balance Pre-treatment: Thermal treatment and pre-treatment Two-stage

mechanical

Positive Inclusion of N source can Less than 2mm for better Increase the solubilisation of OM and lipids, Allows high loadings at
increase the buffering degradability to increase cease buffering capacity by NH3 acidogenesis tank without
capacity; biogas production. volatilisation. inhibiting the methanogenesis
TE such as Se, Co is found to tank.
stabilise the digester at high
OLR.
Negative N/A Possible process Producing inhibitory product, presence of More sensitive to VFA
inhibition due to elevated lipids or LCFA decrease the inhibition;
overloading by increasing degradation of protein and carbohydrates. Require more buffering
degradability. capacity.

Additional Dominated with acetate and N/A Treatment at moderate temperature gave N/A
butyrate in stable digester better result than high temperature.
whereas unstable digester is
dominated with lactate, acetate
and propionate.
Suitability: Commonly to adjust initial pH Reduction in size might Allows better solubilisation of lipid and Suitable for waste rich in
Mono- to prevent inhibitory lead to overloading as break down of lipid flocs. protein where elevated NH3
digestion acidification, especially for food waste is generally For waste rich in protein and carbohydrates, can provide additional
food waste with low pH and with high the elevated lipid concentration can decrease buffering capacity against the
low protein. biodegradability. their degradation. acids accumulated in
For waste rich in protein and carbohydrates acidogenesis tank.
but low lipid, elevated temperature increases
NH3 volatilisation which increase buffering
capacity against acidification.

Suitability: Nutrient balance is achieved Suitable if the co- Limited study. Limited study.
Co- by the addition of co-substrate, substrate used is rich in
digestion e.g. animal manure, sewage cellulosic material, like
sludge. GW, agricultural waste
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Among all the improvement strategies, thermal pre-treatment at moderate temperature yielded highest
biogas production. NH3 loss might be the primary reason for the reduction in biogas production at
high temperature. A difference of 5-30 % in biogas production was observed between moderate
temperature and high temperature. There have been limited studies on the two-stage mono-digestion
of FW. Based on the available studies, the two-stage system had a 14.8 % higher CH4 production than
single phase (0.446 vs. 0.380 m3 CH4/kg VS) but no significant difference in the CH4 content in the
biogas produced. AcoD of FW commonly achieved higher biogas yield (0.272-0.859 m3 CH4/kg VS)
compared to the mono-digestion of food waste (0.27-0.642 m3 CH4/kg VS). Biogas yield in AcoD
was dependent on the co-substrate used and the ratio of FW against the co-substrate. The major
limitation from the mono-digestion of FW is due to acid accumulation which requires the addition of
protein-rich source to increase the buffering capacity. AcoD has reported an increase of as high as 50 %
of biogas by some studies. Animal manure improved the system by supplementing N source and TE.
Lignocellulosic waste improved the system due to their slower biodegradability and by preventing
rapid acidification from the rapid hydrolysis of labile OM. Depending on the type of substrate added
to the AcoD with FW, the biogas production increased from as low as 19 % to 55.2 %, with a CH4
content of approximately 60 %. Mechanical pre-treatment is a promising strategy to increase the
biodegradability of the co-substrate, such as GW, straw and manure.

4. Conclusions
The AD of food waste offers high valorisation value for waste to energy. The AD can reduce the
GHG footprint of FW by capturing CO2 and CH4 onsite while offering additional carbon credit
through the generation of renewable energy. FW characteristic exhibited variation among different
countries and cities. TS of FW is around 10-30 % whereas all have similar TS/VS ratio >90,
indicating their high biodegradability. For bromatogical analysis, FW from different location showed
variation. Among the available studies, the carbohydrates were reported to be around 11.8-74 %, the
protein was 13.8-18.1 % and lipid was 3.78-33.72 %. For the mono-digestion of FW, the biogas yield
was around 0.27-0.642 m3 CH4/kg VS. Thermal pre-treatment resulted in the highest biogas yield of
1.2 m3 CH4/kg VS, provided under proper treatment temperature and treatment time. Excessive heat
treatment lead to increased solubility but decreased biodegradability, due to the production of
inhibitory compounds. Effective strategies to improve the performance under high loadings include
nutrient balance, sufficient N supplementation and TE addition are recommended for the future
research. For the AcoD of FW with other substrates, the biogas yield was around 0.272-0.859 m3 CH4/
kg VS. Animal manure and GW are popular co-substrates for FW where the AcoD has increased the
biogas production from FW for 19-55 % as found among the studies. Animal manure provided N
source and TE to overcome VFA inhibition at high OLR whereas non-readily degradable GW
prevents acid accumulation from rapid degradation of FW. The mechanical treatment might not be a
necessity to treat FW but it would be important for the FW that is rich in cellulosic material. There is
still limited study on the two-stage AcoD.
The effective utilisation of this technology would, however, require further studies on the variation of
the quantity and quality of the available FW, as well as the suitability between the variation of the
characteristics and its respective improvement method. The mechanisms, for example, eating habits,
waste handling and collection techniques, leading to the variation of feedstock following different
geographical and seasonal patterns, was not identified in this study. The limited report on the
bromatological information on the FW, thus the effect of variation in carbohydrates, protein, lipid on
increasing or inhibiting biogas production is hard to determine. The study showed a slight increase of
lipid can increase biogas production, provided the degradation of lipid does not inhibit the degradation
of carbohydrates and protein. Further research is necessary to categorise FW under categories with
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

significantly high, moderately or low biogas production, especially on the basis of lipid, which has the
highest theoretical biogas yield.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the research grants from the Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE) Malaysia with grant no. 7301.4B145 and from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) with
the grant no. 2546.14H65, 2546.12H89 and 2501.10H28. The authors would also like to thank UTM
for providing the Ainuddin Wahid Scholarship for supporting the postgraduate study. The authors also
acknowledged the funding and support from JICA-JST-SATREPS entitled “Development of Low
Carbon Scenarios in Asian Region” and by the EU project Sustainable Process Integration Laboratory
– SPIL, funded as project No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000456, by Czech Republic Operational
Programme Research and Development, Education, Priority 1: Strengthening capacity for quality
research.
Reference
Agyeman F.O., Tan W., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure: Effects of
food waste particle size and organic loading rate. Journal of Environmental Management 133, 268-
274.
Alves, M.M., Mota Viera, J.A., Álvarez Pereira, R.M., Pereira, A., Mota, M., 2001. Effect of lipid and
oleic acid on biomass development in anaerobic fixed-bed reactors. Part 2: oleic acid toxicity and
biodegradability. Water Resource 35, 255-263.
Ariunbaatar J., Panico A., Esposito G., Pirozzi F., Lens P.N.L., 2014. Pre-treatment methods to
enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Applied Energy 123, 143-156.
Ariunbaatar J., Di Perta E.S., Panico A., Frunzo L., Esposito G., Lens P.N.L. Pirozzi F., 2015. Effect
of ammoniacal nitrogen on one-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste
Management 38, 388-398.
Banks C.J., Chesshire M., Heaven S., Arnold R., 2011. Anaerobic digestion of source-segregated
domestic food waste: Performance assessment by mass and energy balance. Bioresource Technology
102, 612-620.
Banks, C.J., Zhang, Y., Jiang, Y. and Heaven, S. 2012. Trace element requirements for stable food
waste digestion at elevated ammonia concentration. Bioresource Technology 104: 127-135.
Browne J.D., Murphy J.D., 2013. Assessment of the resource associated with biomethane from food
waste. Applied Energy 103, 170-177.
Bougrier, C., Delgenès, J.P., Carrère, H., 2008. Effects of thermal pretreatments on five different
waste activated sludge samples solubilisation, physical properties and anaerobic digestion. Chemical
Engineering Transaction 139, 236-244.
Campuzano R., González-Martínez S., 2016. Characteristics of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste and methane production: A review. Waste Management 54, 3-12.
Chen X., Yan W., Sheng K., Sanati M., 2014. Comparison of high-solids to liquid anaerobic co-
digestion of food waste and green waste. Bioresource Technology 154, 215-221.
Cirne D.G., Paloumet X., Björnsson L., Alves M.M., Mattiasson B., 2007. Anaerobic digestion of
lipid-rich waste: Effects of lipid concentration. Renewable Energy 32, 965-975.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dennehy C., Lawlor P.G., Croize T., Jiang Y., Morrison L., Gardiner G.E., Zhan X., 2016. Synergism
and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid concentration during food waste and pig manure anaerobic
co-digestion. Waste Management 56, 173-180.
De Vrieze J., Saunders A.M., He Y., Fang J., Nielsen P.H., Verstraete W., Boon N., 2015. Ammonia
and temperature determine potential clustering in the anaerobic digestion microbiome. Water
Research 75, 312-323.
Dhar H., Kumar P., Kumar S., Mukherjee S., Vadiya A.N., 2016. Effect of organic loading rate during
anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste. Bioresource Technology 217, 56-61.
Egieya J., Čuček L., Isafiade A., Kravanja Z., 2017. Synthesis of supply networks over multiple time
frames: a case study of electricity production from biogas. Proceedings of the 27th European
Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering (ESCAPE 27), 1st-5th October, Barcelona, Spain.
Esposito G., Frunzo L., Giordano A., Liotta F., Panico A., Pirozzi F., 2012. Anaerobic co-digestion of
organic wastes. Review in Environment Science and Biotechnology 11, 325-341.
Fisgativa H., Tremier A., Dabert P., 2016. Characterizing the variability of food waste quality: A need
for efficient valorisation through anaerobic digestion. Waste Management 50, 264-274.
Frear C., Wang Z.W., Li C., Chen S., 2010. Biogas potential and microbial population distributions in
flushed dairy manure and implications on anaerobic digestion technology. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology 86, 145-152.
Garcia-Peña E.I., Parameswaran P., Kang D.W., Canul-Chan M., Krajmalnik-Brown R., 2011.
Anaerobic digestion and co-digestion processes of vegetable and fruit residues: Process and microbial
ecology. Bioresource Technology 102, 9447-9455.
Grimberg S.J., Hilderbrandt D., Kinnunen M., Rogers S., 2015. Anaerobic digestion of food waste
through the operation of a mesophilic two-phase pilot scale digester- Assessment of variable loadings
on system performance. Bioresource Technology 178, 226-229.
Guo X., Wang C., Sun F., Zhu W., Wu W., 2014. A comparison of microbial characteristics between
the thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digesters exposed to elevated food waste loadings.
Bioresource Technology 152, 420-428.
Hao L., Bize A., Conteau D., Chapleur O., Courtois S., Kroff P., Quéméner E.D.L, Bouchez T.,
Mazéas L., 2016. New insights into the key microbial phylotypes of anaerobic sludge digesters under
different operational conditions. Water Research 102, 158-169.
Hoornweg D., Bhada-Tata P., 2012. What a waste: A global review of solid waste management. The
World Bank 2012, No 15, Urban Development Series Knowledge Paper.
<siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-
1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf > accessed 07.04.2017
Izumi K., Okisho Y., Nagao N., Niwa C., Yamamoto S., Toda T., 2010. Effects of particle size on
anaerobic digestion of food waste. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 64, 601-608.
Jabeen M., Zeshan, Yousaf S., Haider M.R., Malik R.N., 2015. High-solids anaerobic co-digestion of
food waste and rice husk at different organic loading rates. International Biodeterioration &
Biodegradation 102, 149-153.
Jain S., Jain S., Wolf I.T., Lee J., Tong Y.W., 2015. A comprehensive review on operating parameters
and different pre-treatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 52, 142-154.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jin Y., Li Y., Li J., 2016. Influence of thermal pretreatment on physical and chemical properties of
kitchen waste and the efficiency of anaerobic digestion. Journal of Environmental Management 180,
291-300.
Johari A., Alkah H., Hashim H., Ahmed S.I., Mat R., 2014. Municipal solid waste management and
potential revenue from recycling in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science 8, 37-49.
Kawai M., Nagao N., Tajima N., Niwa C., Matsuyama T., Toda T., 2014. The effect of the labile
organic fraction in food waste and the substrate/inoculum ratio on anaerobic digestion for a reliable
methane yield. Bioresource Technology 157, 174-180.
Li W., Loh K.-C., Zhang J., Tong Y.W., Dai Y., 2017. Two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste
and horticultural waste in high-solid system. Applied Energy (in press). Available online 10th May
2017. Doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.042
Li Y., Jin Y., 2015. Effects of thermal pretreatment on acidification phase during two-phase batch
anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. Renewable Energy 77, 550-557.
Li Y., Yan X.L., Fan J.P., Zhu J.H., Zhou W.B., 2011. Feasibility of biogas production from
anaerobic co-digestion of herbal extraction residues with swine manure. Bioresource Technology 102,
6458-6463.
Li W., Loh K.-C., Zhang J., Tong Y.W., Dai Y., 2017. Two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste
and horticultural waste in high-solid system. Applied Energy. In press. Doi:
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.042.
Liu C., Li H., Zhang Y., Liu C., 2016. Improve biogas production from low-organic content sludge
through high-solids anaerobic co-digestion with food waste. Bioresource Technology 219, 252-260.
Liu G., Zhang R., El-Mashad H.M., Dong R., 2009. Effect of feed to inoculum ratios on biogas yields
of food and green wastes. Bioresource Technology 100, 5103-5108.
Liu X., Gao X., Wang W., Zheng L., Zhou Y., Sun Y., 2012. Pilot-scale anaerobic co-digestion of
municipal biomass waste: Focusing on biogas production and GHG reduction. Renewable Energy 44,
463-468.
Maria F.D., Sordi A., Cirulli G., Gigliotti G., Massaccesi L., Cucina M., 2014. Waste Management 34,
1603-1608.
Mata-Alvarez J., Dosta J., Romero-Güiza M.S., Fonoll X., Peces M., Astals S., 2010. A critical
review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 36, 412-427.
Mao C., Feng Y., Wang X., Ren G., 2015. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic
digestion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 45, 540-555.
Moller H.B., Sommer S.G., Ahring B.K., 2004. Methane productivity of manure, straw and solid
fractions of manure, Biomass and Bioenergy 26, 485-496.
Ponsá S., Gea T., Sánchez A., 2011. Anaerobic co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste with several pure organic co-substrates. Biosystems Engineering 108, 352-360.
Pontoni L., Panico A., Salzano E., Frunzo L., Iodice P., Pirozzi F., 2015, Innovative parameters to
control the efficiency of anaerobic digestion process, Chemical Engineering Transactions 43, 2089-
2094.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Ros D.C., Micolucci F., Cavinato C., Bolzonella D., Pavan P., Cecchi F., 2015. Anaerobic codigestion
of algal material with two different co-substrates, biowaste and sewage sludge: Process yield and
behaviour comparison. Chemical Engineering Transaction 43, 493-499.
Sheng K., Chen X., Pan J., Kloss R., Wei Y., Ying Y., 2013. Effect of ammonia and nitrate on biogas
production from food waste via anaerobic digestion. Biosystems Engineering 116, 205-212.
Sun C., Cao W., Banks C.J., Heaven S., Liu R., 2016. Biogas production from undiluted chicken
manure and maize silage: A study of ammonia inhibition in high solids anaerobic digestion.
Bioresource Technology 218, 1215-1223.
Sun Y., Wang D., Yan J., Qiao W., Wang W., Zhu T., 2014. Effects of lipid concentration on
anaerobic co-digestion of municipal biomass wastes. Waste Management 34, 1025-1034.
Tampio E., Ervasti S., Paavola T., Heaven S., Banks C., Rintala J., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of
autoclaved and untreated food waste. Waste Management 34, 370-377.
Ventura J.R.S., Lee J., Jahng D., 2014. A comparative study on the alternating mesophilic and
thermophilic two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Journal of Environmental Sciences 26,
1274-1283.
Wang L., Shen F., Yuan H., Zou D., Liu Y., Zhu B., Li X., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen
waste and fruit/vegetable waste: Lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Waste Management 34, 2627-2633.
Wang, Q., Peng, L., Su, H., 2013, The effect of a buffer function on the semi-continuous anaerobic
digestion, Bioresource Technology, 139, 43-49.
Wu L.J., Kobayashi T., Kuramochi H., Li Y.Y., Xu K.Q., 2016. Improved biogas production from
food waste by co-digestion with de-oiled grease trap waste. Bioresource Technology 201, 237-244.
Yan B.H., Selvam A., Wong J.W.C., 2016. Innovative method for increased methane recovery from
two-phase anaerobic digestion of food waste through reutilization of acidogenic off-gas in
methanogenic reactor. Bioresource Technology 217, 3-9.
Ye J., Li D., Sun Y., Wang G., Yuan Z., Zhen F., Wang Y., 2013. Improved biogas production from
rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Management 33, 2653-2658.
Yenigun O., Demirel B., 2013. Ammonia inhibition in anaerobic digestion: A review. Process
Biochemistry 48, 901-911.
Yong Z., Dong Y., Zhang X., Tan T., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and straw for
biogas production. Renewable Energy 78, 527-530.
Yue D., You F., Snyder S.W., 2014. Biomass-to-bioenergy and biofuel supply chain optimisation:
Overview, key issues and challenges. Computers and Chemical Engineering 66, 36-56.
Zhai N., Zhang T., Yin D., Yang G., Wang X., Ren G., Feng Y., 2015. Effect of initial pH on
anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cow manure. Waste Management 38, 126-131.
Zhang L., Lee Y.-W., Jahng D., 2011. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery wastewater:
Focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresource Technology 102, 5048-5059.
Zhang Y., Banks C.J., Heaven S., 2012a. Anaerobic digestion of two biodegradable municipal waste
streams. Journal of Environmental Management 104, 166-174.
Zhang Y., Banks C.J., Heaven S., 2012b. Co-digestion of source segregated domestic food waste to
improve process stability. Bioresource Technology 114, 168-178.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Zhang C., Xiao G., Peng L., Su H., Tan T., 2013. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle
manure. Bioresource Technology 129, 170-176.
Zhang C., Su H., Baeyens J., Tan T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for
biogas production. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 38, 383-392.
Zhang J., Li W., Lee J., Loh K.-C., Dai Y., Tong Y.W., 2017. Enhancement of biogas production in
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge by biological co-pretreatment.
Energy. In press. Doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.163.
Zhang W., Zhang L., Li A., 2015. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by trace elements
supplementation and reduced metals dosage by green chelating agent [S,S]-EDDS via improving
metals bioavailability. Water Research 84, 266-277.
Zhou J., Zhang R., Liu F., Yong X., Wu X., Zhang T., Jiang M., Jia H., 2016. Biogas production and
microbial community shift through neutral pH control during the anaerobic digestion of pig manure.
Bioresource Technology 217, 44-49.
Zhang Q., Hu J., Lee D.J., 2016. Biogas from anaerobic digestion process: Research updates.
Renewable Energy 98, 108-119.
Zhao J., Liu Y, Wang D., Chen F., Li X., Zeng G., Yang Q., 2017. Potential impact of salinity on
methane production from food waste anaerobic digestion. Waste Management. In press. Doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.016.