3rd International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
Anaerobic Co-digestion of Cafeteria, Vegetable and
Fruit Wastes for Biogas Production
Muhammad Rashed Al Mamun䙆 and Shuichi TORII
Department of Advanced Mechanical System Engineering, GSST, Kumamoto University,
2-39-1 Kurokami, Kumamoto, 860-8555 Japan
E-mail address: rashedshahi@gmail.com, torii@mech.kumamoto-u.ac.jp
Abstract—Biogas, a renewable, efficient and carbon-neutral form of
energy source, could be a very well substituent of fossil fuels which
are depleting very fast. Here we reported to determine the optimal
biogas production from variable mixing ratios and methane yields
without bacteria inoculums added using batch anaerobic digesters at
mesophilic conditions. The digestion was carried out in 200 L
polypropylene digesters. The mixing ratio used were CW:VW:FW
(0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0) for cafeteria
waste (CW), vegetable waste (VW) and fruit waste (FW) respectively.
The results showed that the co-digestion significantly influenced the
biogas production and methane yield. The maximum biogas yield
was obtained to be CW:VW:FW (0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0
and 1.0:1.0:1.0) were 33.92, 35.52, 36.55 and 43.87 L/day, at the 25th,
24th, 24th, and 21th day respectively. The higher cumulative biogas
yields were obtained from the CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0) mixture
ratio than those from the CW:VW:FW (1.5:0.5:1.0, 1.0:1.5:0.5, and
0.5:1.0:1.5). The average methane yield from CW:VW:FW
(0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0) were 59.95%,
60.07%, 61.41%, and 63.61%, respectively. The biogas and methane
yields obtained in this work for the cafeteria (CW), vegetable (VW)
and fruit wastes (FW) mixture were in the order of (1.0:1.0:1.0 >
1.5:0.5:1.0 > 1.0:1.5:0.5 > 0.5:1.0:1.5). Thus, optimum mixing ratio
suggested by the study which gave maximum yields within 35 day
hydraulic retention time for biogas production which holds promise
for the future energy crisis recovery.
Keywords—Anaerobic digestion, Biogas, Methane, Cafeteria waste
(CW), Vegetable waste (VW), Fruit waste (FW)
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the burning problems faced by the world today is
energy crisis, management of solid wastes and change in
global climate. Rapid growth of population and uncontrolled
and unmonitored urbanization has created these serious
problems [1]. Solid disposal treatments such as incineration
and pyrolysis have an air pollution problem with high initial
investment cost [2]. It is predicted that the conventional (oil,
coal, natural gas etc.) energy may last for another six to seven
decades which has lead to global climate change,
environmental degradation and human health problems [3]. In
this regard, renewable energy resources appear to be one of
the most efficient and effective solutions [4]. Biomass has
globally remained a renewable energy source derived from
plants that use solar energy during the process of
photosynthesis. Biogas originated biomass through anaerobic
digestion being a source of renewable gas; it has been adopted
‹,(((
ICRERA 2014
Milwakuee, USA 19-22 Oct 2014
as one of the best alternatives for conventional fuels in the past
two decades. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a waste-to-energy
technology biological process that produces biogas by bacteria
under poor or no oxygen conditions [5]-[8]. It is a colorless,
flammable gas produced from variety of substrates, such as
animal manure, plant, human, energy crops, industrial and
municipal wastes amongst others, to give mainly methane (50-
70%), carbon dioxide (20-40%) and traces of other gases such
as nitrogen, hydrogen, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, water
vapour etc. [9]. It is smokeless, hygienic and more convenient
to use than other solid fuels [10]. The digesters are incubated
at mesophilic (25–35Ԩ) or thermophilic (45–60Ԩ) conditions
for a certain period of time. It is a multi-step biological
process where the organic carbon is mainly converted to
carbon dioxide and methane [11]. The process can be divided
into four steps: hydrolysis/liquefaction, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis and methanogenesis. Fig. 1 shows the
mechanism pathway of anaerobic digestion process.
Hydrolysis is very important for the anaerobic digestion
process since polymers cannot be directly utilized by the
fermentative microorganisms. It is achieved through the action
of hydrolytic enzymes. In this step fermentative bacteria
convert the insoluble complex organic matter, such as
cellulose, into soluble molecules such as sugars, amino acids
and fatty acids in order to allow their transport through
microbial cell membrane. Proteases, secreted by proteolytic
microbes, convert proteins into amino acids; celluloses and/or
xylanases, produced by cellulytic and xylanolytic microbes,
hydrolyze cellulose and xylose (both complex carbohydrates)
into glucose and xylem (both sugars), respectively; finally
lipases, created by lipolytic microbes, convert lipids (fats and
oils) into long-chain fatty acids and glycerol [12,13]. In the
second step facultative and anaerobic bacteria convert of
sugars, amino acids and fatty acids to hydrogen, acetate,
carbon dioxide, VFAs such as propionic, butyric and acetic
acid, ketones, alcohols and lactic acid. Even though a simple
substrate such as glucose can be fermented, different products
are produced by the diverse bacterial community. Reaction:
(1), (2) and (3) show the conversion process of glucose to
acetate, ethanol and propionate, respectively.
C6H12O6 + 2H2O ĺ 2CH3COOH + 2CO2 + 4H2 (1)
C6H12O6 ĺ2CH3CH2OH + 2CO2 (2)
C6H12O6 + 2H2 ĺ 2CH3CH2COOH + 2H2O (3)
In an equilibrated system, most of the organic matter is
converted into readily available substrates for methanogenic
369
3rd International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Milwakuee, USA 19-22 Oct 2014

microbes (acetate, hydrogen and carbon dioxide), but a

significant part (approximately 30%) is transformed to short
chain fatty acids or alcohols and degradable organic matter is
removed in this stage [14]. By-product of amino acids
fermentation, ammonia and hydrogen sulphide are released
that can be inhibitory for anaerobic digestion [13].
Acetogenesis is the conversion of certain fermentation
products such as VFAs with more than two carbon atoms,
alcohols and aromatic fatty acids into acetate and hydrogen by
obligate hydrogen producing bacteria [15]. In this stage,
acetogenic bacteria, also known as acid formers, convert the
products of the first phase to simple organic acids, carbon
dioxide and hydrogen. The principal acids produced are acetic
acid (CH3COOH), propionic acid (CH3CH2COOH), butyric
acid (CH3CH2CH2COOH), and ethanol (C2H5OH). The
products formed during acetogenesis are due to a number of Fig. 1. Mechanism Pathway of Anaerobic digestion
different microbes. While hydrogen producing acetogenic Process [24]
bacteria produce acetate, H2 and CO2 from volatile fatty acids
and alcohol, homoacetogenic bacteria create acetate from CO2 The methane yields were 0.48, 0.29, 0.28, and 0.47 L/g VS for
and H2 [16]. But most of the acetate is created by hydrogen- cooked meat, boiled rice, fresh cabbage and mixed food
producing acetogenic bacteria [14]. An acetogenesis reaction wastes, respectively. Zhang et al., analyzed the nutrient
is shown below: content of food waste from a restaurant, showing that the food
C6H12O6 ĺ 2C2H5OH + 2CO (4) waste contained appropriate nutrients for anaerobic
microorganisms, as well as reported a methane yield of 0.44
Finally in methanogenesis step, methanogenic bacteria include L/g VS of food waste in batch digestion test under
methanobacterium, methanobacillus, methanococcus and thermophilic conditions (50Ԩ) after 28 days [23]. The
methanosarcina are required to anaerobic digestion system. objective of this study was to find the optimum mixing ratios
According to the type of substrate utilized methanogenesis for improved production of biogas using co-digestion with the
divided into two groups: help of cafeteria, vegetables, and fruits wastes under
1. Hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis. Hydrogen and carbon mesophilic conditions in batch mode digester. The
dioxide are converted into methane according to the digestibility was evaluated in terms of biogas and methane
following reaction: yield from the three mixing ratio under different conditions of
CO2 + 4H2ĺ CH4 + 2H2O (5) PH, temperature, and digestion time. This paper has been
2. Acetotrophic or aceticlastic methanogenesis. Methane is focused and monitored the optimum conditions for the biogas
formed from the conversion of acetate through the production without inoculums added.
following reaction:
CH3COOH ĺCH4 + CO2 (6) II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Methanosarcina spp. and methanothrix spp. (also, A. Collection of Wastes Biomass
methanosaeta) are considered to be important in AD both as
acetate and H2/CO2 consumers. Approximately 70% of the Cafeteria (food) waste for the research work was collected
from the cafeteria of Kumamoto University. The vegetable
methane is produced from acetate while the remaining 30% is
produced from the reduction of carbon dioxide by hydrogen and the fruit wastes were collected from the Kokai vegetable
market kumamoto, Japan. The collected materials was stored
and other electron donors [17]-[19].
According to Bouallagui et al. (2005), fruit and vegetable at 4Ԩ and used for the experiment.
wastes are high biodegradable substrates; about 70–95% of the B. Preparation of Digestion Slurry
organic matter could be converted into biogas [20]. The
Cafeteria, vegetable and fruit wastes were weighed and
methane yield depended not only on the fruit and vegetable
thoroughly mixed in the ratio of Cafeteria waste (CW):
variety but also on the different fruit parts within the same
Vegetable waste (VW): Fruit waste (FW) 0.5:1.0:1.5,
variety. The stable gas production is obtained in anaerobic co-
1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0, were diluted with tap
digestion of wasted tomatoes and cattle dung for biogas
water at 1:1 ratio, mixed properly to obtain homogenous
production [21]. This study shown that a conversion of 72.5%
conditions. All wastes were crushed separately into small
of the organic solids fed into the digester at 20 days hydraulic
particle sizes with the help of mechanical crusher and were
retention days was obtained. The average gas yield was 220
adjusted to 8% by diluting with water. According to the ratio
dm3/Kg VS added. They used 7% total initial solids and later
the prepared samples fed into batch type digesters for 35 days
diluted to 3.5% to avoid clogging. Cho et al. conducted batch
hydraulic retention time (HRT) to determine the effect of
digestion tests of food wastes at 37Ԩ and 28 days retention
mixture ratio.
time [22].

ICRERA 2014 370

3rd International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications
Fig. 2. Schematic for production of biogas
C. Laboratory Experimental Design
The lab scale experimental setup was installed using four
200 L polypropylene namely digester, water chamber cum gas
collector, and expelled water collector for every observation.
The prevailing temperature range was 26 to 36°C during the
period of study. The digester was interconnected with water
chamber by a 13 mm diameter hose pipe which was used to
allow the produced gas to flow through it to the water chamber
and hence expelled the same volume of water from the water
chamber, which was then used to flow through another 6 mm
diameter pipe to the water collector. The one end of the gas
pipe was inserted just at the top of the digester and the other
end bottom of the water chamber. One end of the water pipe
was inserted at the top of the water chamber and the other end
of the pipe was inserted into the water collector. The digesters
used for the experiment was made air tight by rubber gasket,
which is durable and potable for waste management. Other
materials used for the experiment include graduated plastic
bucket, glass flask and beaker for measuring the volume of
gas, gas pressure gauge, thermometer, digital pH meter. Biogas
production was monitored and measured for 35 days. The
experimental set up used for the research is shown in Fig. 2.
D. Data Collection
In this study the volume of produced gas was measured by
water displacement method. Data was collected every day at
5:00 PM in the Thermal Engineering laboratory at Kumamoto
University till the generation of gas.
E. Observations
Four observations were done feeding the digesters with
different mixing ratio of CW, VW and FW. After feeding, the
digesters were left for anaerobic digestion and gas was started
to generate on the first operating day and that was almost
terminated within 34/35th operating day of the digester.
Produced gas was allowed to flow through the gas pipe and
accumulated in the gas collector above water surface, which
caused to expel the same volume of water from water chamber
and allowed to flow through the water pipe to the water
collector. Volume of the gas was measured directly by
ICRERA 2014
Milwakuee, USA 19-22 Oct 2014
measuring the volume of the expelled water in the water
collector by a measuring 2.0 L beaker by every day. Each
observation was continued till the flow of the expelled water
was terminated. The Gas composition was analyzed by using a
gas chromatography (GC-8AIT / C-R8A SHIMADZU
Corporation, JAPAN).
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Biogas Production Profile
Daily biogas production rates under mesophilic conditions
are graphed from Fig. 3 to Fig. 6. In mesophilic temperature
biogas production rose steadily in the first 21-25 days.
However, in all reactors, by the end of the 35 days of digestion
biogas production was minimal. Fig. 3 shows that the gas
production from mixing ratio CW:VW:FW (0.5:1.0:1.5). It
shows that the hydraulic retention time 35 days and gas
production starts from the first day. From the beginning gas
production sharply increased with some small peak until at the
25th day. Maximum gas was produced at the 25th day which is
33.92 L/day. The average gas production from this ratio was
13.52 L/day.
The daily biogas production rates from the ratio of
CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.5:0.5) is shown in Fig. 4. Under the 35
days hydraulic retention time the maximum gas was produced
35.52 L/day at the 24th day and the average gas production
was 16.10 L/day. In this study, gas production almost ceases
after the 35th day. It is clear that gas production from
CW:VW:FW (0.5:1.0:1.5) less than CW:VW:FW
(1.0:1.5:0.5). Fig. 5 shows that the maximum gas was
produced 36.55 L/day at the 24th day with high fluctuations
due to pH and temperature variation. However, the average
gas production from the ratio CW:VW:FW (1.5:0.5:1.0 ) was
17.33 L/day. In this experiment, gas production from
CW:VW:FW 1.5:0.5:1.0 was greater than CW:VW:FW
(0.5:1.0:1.5) and CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.5:0.5).
CW:VW:FW 0.5:1.0:1.5
40
35
Biogas production (l/day)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Digestion time (day)
Fig. 3. Daily biogas production rate from different mixing ratio.
371
3rd International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Milwakuee, USA 19-22 Oct 2014

was below those of the other three ratios. This optimum

CW:VW:FW 1.0:1.5:0.5
condition must be responsible due to balance nutrients and
40
fewer amounts of the volatile fatty acids (VFA) produced
35 during the acidogenic step. for the quick production of biogas
Biogas production (l/day)

30 by CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0) digester among the various

25 mixtures. The result shows that, the maximum gas is produced
20 at the 21th day which is 43.87 L/day and the average gas
15 production from the ratio CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0) was 19.76
10 L/day. Biogas production yield seems to be lower at the
5 beginning and at the end of each digestion mixture. The
0 general trend is predicted due to the biogas production rate in
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 batch condition directly corresponds to specific growth rate of
Digestion time (day) methanogenic bacteria in the bio-digester [25]-[27].

Fig. 4. Daily biogas production rate from different mixing ratio.

B. Cumulative Results Study
The cumulative biogas production tends to obey sigmoid
function (S curve) for all digesters are shown in Fig. 7. Within
CW:VW:FW 1.5:0.5: 1.0 the first week of observation, biogas production was increased
40 slightly low. The results shows that at the first 5 days of gas
35 production for the different mixing ratio, the CW:VW:FW
Biogas production (l/day)

30
(1.0:1.0:1.0) ratio of digester had the highest biogas yield
25
(14.20 L/day). This might be due to mixing of all substrates at
equal mixing ratio provided balanced nutrients, buffering
20
capacity, appropriate C/N ratio and sufficient anaerobic
15
microorganisms. However, the final cumulative biogas
10 productions by the co-digestion of cafeteria, vegetable and
5 fruit wastes at different mixing ratios CW:VW:FW
0 (0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0) were
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 7980, 9868, 10898 and 11837 L, respectively. This means that
Digestion time (day) the cumulative average biogas productions from CW:VW:FW
(0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0) were 228,
Fig. 5. Daily biogas production rate from different mixing ratio. 281, 311 and 338 L/day, respectively. The highest total
volume of biogas was produced of CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0)
equal mixing ratio; this is higher than the slurry produced by
CW=1:VW=1:FW=1 other mixing ratio. The CW:VW:FW (0.5:1.0:1.5), digester
50
had the least gas yield of 7980 L; this could be attributed to
45 suboptimum substrate ratio. Biogas yield was significantly
influenced by co-digestion of the three substrates. The order of
Biogas production (ml/day)

40
35 gas production is CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0 > 1.5:0.5:1.0 >
30 1.0:1.5:0.5 > 0.5:1.0:1.5).
25
20
15 CW:VW:FW 0.5:1.0:1.5 CW:VW:FW 1.0:1.5:0.5
10
CW:VW:FW 1.5:0.5: 1.0 CW=1:VW=1:FW=1
5
Cumula tive bioga s production (l/da y)

0 800
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 700
Digestion time (day) 600
500
400
Fig. 6. Daily biogas production rate from equal mixing ratio.
300
200
Biogas production started immediately from the first day for 100
CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0) is illustrated in Fig. 6. The data 0
obtained from this experiment shows that increasing trend of 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

biogas yield with little bit fluctuations. The higher value of Digestion time (day)
daily biogas production rate was obtained at ratio of
CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0) in the first day of digestion then Fig. 7. Cumulative biogas yield of all samples with
different mixing ratio.

ICRERA 2014 372

3rd International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Milwakuee, USA 19-22 Oct 2014

C. Methane Production Rate during digestion period However, the pH increased to its normal operating value after
Under different mixing conditions from various VFAs metabolism. The average PH of 6.9 was recorded at the
biodegradable materials produced biogas content methane end of the experiment. Also the variation of daily temperature
profile illustrated in Fig. 8. The result shows that the highest during the study period is presented in Fig. 9.The daily mean
methane content for the mixing ratio of CW:VW:FW temperature was recorded during the digestion process. The
(0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0) were temperature remained at mesophilic range throughout the
63.89%, 68.7%, 65.87%, and 69.89% on the 25th, 23th, 21th experimental time. The lowest temperature reading of 26ºC
and 20th day respectively during the digestion process. was obtained on the 8th, 12th and 23th day while the highest of
However, the average methane contents were 59.95%, 36ºC was recorded on the 26th day of the digestion process.
60.07%, 61.41%, and 63.61%, respectively from the cafeteria, The average temperature of 30.22ºC was recorded at the end
vegetable and fruit wastes, at mixing ratio of CW:VW:FW of the 35 day hydraulic retention time (HRT).
(0.5:1.0:1.5, 1.0:1.5:0.5, 1.5:0.5:1.0 and 1.0:1.0:1.0) under
mesophilic conditions. IV. CONCLUSIONS

D. pH and Temperature profile
Fig. 9 presents that the average demonstrated pH profile by all
experimental mixing ratios was typical of a digester operating
under stable condition. A decrease trend of pH in the process
was observed in the first few days of the digestion and this is
due to high volatile fatty acid (VFA) formation [28]. The
initial pH was 6.5, an increases fluctuation in pH was
observed after a sharp drop in the first week of fermentation.
CW:VW:FW 0.5:1.0:1.5
CW:VW:FW 1.5:0.5: 1.0
80
Metha ne contents of bioga s (%)
The results demonstrate that under mesophilic conditions
biogas yields are influenced by the mixing ratio: the equal
ratio the higher biogas yield. This positive relation might be
due to high methanogenic activity and/or the number of
methanogens, in the digesters, that could result in the fewer
amounts of the volatile fatty acids (VFA) produced during the
acidogenic step. The maximum biogas and methane
production potential for the biodegradable biomass mixture is
in the order of CW:VW:FW (1.0:1.0:1.0 > 1.5:0.5:1.0 >
1.0:1.5:0.5 > 0.5:1.0:1.5). On average, higher methane
contents biogas were obtained from the CW:VW:FW
CW:VW:FW 1.0:1.5:0.5
(1.0:1.0:1.0) mixture ratio than those from the CW:VW:FW
CW=1:VW=1:FW=1 (1.5:0.5:1.0, 1.0:1.5:0.5, and 0.5:1.0:1.5). It is important to
point out that without bacteria inoculum biogas produced in a

70 significant amount under batch digester is possible. The data

60 obtained from this study could be used as a basis for designing
50 large scale anaerobic digesters for treatment of cafeteria,
40 vegetable and fruit waste and their mixture. Successful
30 digestion of these substrates is a means of providing
20 renewable energy and environmental friendly waste
10 management system.
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Digestion time (day) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledged the extended help of Thermal Engineering
Fig. 8 Methane yields in biogas during the digestion process
laboratory under the Department of Advanced Mechanical
System Engineering, Kumamoto University, Japan for
providing the facility for experimentation.
Temp. (0C) Digester PH

40 7.4 REFERENCES
35 7.2 [1] S.V. Dhanalakshmi, and R.A. Ramanujam, “Biogas generation in a
vegetable waste anaerobic digester: An analytical approach,” Research
Temperature (o C)

30 7
25 Journal of Recent Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 41-47, March 2012.
P H value

6.8 [2] D. Elango, M. Pulikesi, P. Baskaralingam, V. Ramamurthi, and S.

20 Sivenesan, “Production of biogas from municipal solid waste with
6.6
15 domestic sewage,” J. Hazar. Mat., vol. 141, no. 1, pp. 301-304, 2007.
10 6.4 [3] I.N. Budiyano, J. Widiasa, and S. Sunarso, “Increasing biogas production
6.2 rate from cattle manure using rumen fluid as inoculums,” International
5
Journal of Chemical and Basic & Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 68-
0 6 75, 2010.
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 [4] K. Kamil, and K. Abdullah, “Renewable energy and sustainable
development in Turkey,” Renewable Energy, vol. 25, pp. 431–453, 2002.
Digestion time (day) [5] L. Rongping, C. Shulin, and L. Xiujin, “Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen
waste and cattle manure for methane production,” Energy Sources, vol.
Fig. 9. Daily temperature and PH profile during digestion process 31, no. 20, pp. 1848-1856, 2009.

ICRERA 2014 373

3rd International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications Milwakuee, USA 19-22 Oct 2014

[6] M. Madsen, J.B. Holm-Nielsen, and K.H. Esbensen, “Monitoring of

anaerobic digestion processes: A review perspective,” Renew Sustain
Energy Rev, vol. 15, pp. 3141–3155, 2011.
[7] Z. Song, G. Yang, Y. Guo, and T. Zhang, “Comparison of two chemical
pretreatments of rice straw for biogas production by anaerobic
digestion,” BioResources, vol. 7, pp. 3223–3236, 2012.
[8] P. Weiland, “Biogas production: current state and perspectives,” Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol, vol. 85, pp. 849–860, 2010.
[9] S. M. Maishanu, M. Musa, and A. S. Sambo, “Biogas Technology: The
output of the sokoto energy research centre,” Nigerian J. of Solar
Energy, vol. 9, pp. 183-194,1990.
[10] A. V. Buren, “A Chinese Biogas Manual,” Intermediate Technology
Publications Ltd., 1979.
[11] I. Angelidaki, L. Ellegaard, and Ahring B.K., “Applications of the
anaerobic digestion process,” In: Ahring, B.K. Biomethanation II edition.
Springer Berlin, pp. 1- 33,2003.
[12] Madigan, M., Martinko, J., Dunlap, P., Clark, D., Brockbiology of
microorganisms. Benjamin cummings, 2008; 12:11-68.
[13] Salminen, E., Rintala, J., Semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of solid
poultry slaughterhouse waste: effect of hydraulic retention time and
loading. Water research, 2002; 36:3175-3182.
[14] Angelidaki, I., Sorensen, A., Schmidt, J., Notes for the course 12133:
environmental biotechnology, technical university of Denmark, Lyngby,
Denmark, 2007.
[15] Boe, K., Online monitoring and control of the biogas process, Ph.D.
thesis, Technical university of Denmark, 2006.
[16] Sterling, Jr., Lacey, M., Engler, R., Ricke, C., Effects of ammonia
nitrogen on H2 and CH4 production during anaerobic digestion of dairy
cattle manure, Bioresource technology, 2001;77:9-18.
[17] Smith, P., Mah, R., Kinetics of acetate metabolism during sludge
digestion. Applied microbiology, 1966; 14: 368-371.
[18] Hashimoto, A., Chen, Y., Varel, V., Theoretical aspects of methane
production: state of- the-art in livestock waste: a renewable resource,
Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on livestock wastes.
ASAE publication, Amarillo, 1981: 86-95.
[19] Bitton, G., Overview of co-digestion study, Wastewater microbiology.
John Wiley and sons, 2005; 3:1-13.
[20] H. Bouallagui, Y. Touhami, R. Ben Cheikh, and M. Hamdi, “Bioreactor
performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes”,
Process Biochemistry, vol. 40, pp. 989–995,2005.
[21] M. Saev, Koumanova B, and Simeonov Iv. “Anaerobic co-digestion of
wasted tomatoes and cattle dung for biogas production,” Journal of the
university of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, vol. 44, no. 1, pp.
55-60, 2009.
[22] J. K. Cho, S. C. Park, and H. N. Chang, “Biochemical methane potential
and solid state anaerobic digestion of Korean food wastes,” Bioresour
Technol, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 245–253,1995.
[23] R. Zhang, H. M. El-Mashad, K. Hartman, F. Wang, G. Liu, and C.
Choate, “Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic
digestion,” Bioresour Technol, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 929–935,2007.
[24] E. Salminen, and J. Rintala, “Semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of
solid poultry slaughterhouse waste: effect of hydraulic retention time
and loading,” Water research, vol. 36, pp. 3175-3182, 2002.
[25] A. Gupta, R. Chandra, P. M. V. Subbarao, and V. K. Vijay, “Kinetics of
batch biomethanation process of jatropha and pongamia oil cakes and
their co-digested subtrates,” J. Scient. Ind. Res., vol. 68, pp. 624-629,
2009.
[26] A. B. Rabah, A. S. Baki, L. G. Hassan, M. Musa, and A. D. Ibrahim,
“Production of biogas waste at different retention time,” Sci. World J.,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 23-26, 2010.
[27] P. L. Luengo, J. M. Alvarez, “Influence of temperature, buffer,
composition and straw particle length on the anaerobic digestion of
wheat straw-pig manure mixtures,” Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27-37, 1988.
[28] M. S. Rao, S. P. Singh, A. K. Singh, and M. S. Sodha, “Bioenergy
conversion studies of the organic fraction of MSW: assessment of
ultimate bioenergy production potential of municipal garbage,” Applied
Energy, vol. 66, pp. 75-78, 2000.

ICRERA 2014 374