Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Enhancing biogas and methane production from leaf litter of neem by

co-digestion with vegetable waste: Focus on the effect of tannin
M.B. Muhammad a, *, 1, R. Chandra b
a
Department of Mechanical and Automobile Engineering, Sharda University, Greater Noida, 201306, India
b
Centre for Rural Development and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110 016, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Leaf litter of neem (LLN) represents a critical part of organic waste trashing our immediate environment. The
Leaf litter of neem current solution for its management is unsatisfactory. This paper presents a new approach to treat the waste. It
Biogas production examines the effect of LLN on biogas composition produced from vegetable waste (VW) and cattle dung (CD).
Biogas composition
Anaerobic co-digestion of LLN with VW (R1), mono-digestion of VW (R2), mono-digestion of LLN (R3), and co-
Anaerobic digestion
digestion of VW with CD (R4) were conducted under mesophilic conditions. R1 and R4 produced higher biogas
and methane than R2. The introduction of LLN to VW improved biogas and methane yields by 87.27 and 91.47%
and reduced H2S by 146.73% compared to R2. The maximum methane content of R1 suffices for electricity and
heat generation. It can help in comprehending another way of managing LLN and optimization of process
conditions.

1. Introduction
To supplement fossil fuel with renewable sources is central to the
goal of reduced emissions of anthropogenic GHG and improved energy
supply. Although the recent policies target to advance biofuel produc­
tion [1–4], the process increasingly claims agricultural land and enor­
mous quantities of other resources. Since biological litter also leads to
GHG emission, conversion to renewable energy presents a double
advantage.
LLN and VW are such organic wastes. Food wastes are disposed of at
nearly every step of the supply chain. The speeding up of urbanization
and industrial growth can sharply increase the amount from 2.78 billion
to 4.16 billion tons in Asian countries by 2025 [5].Vegetable waste is
generated in large quantities. The landfill emits a foul odor and attracts
vectors. Neem tree (Azadirachtaindica) is recognized as the most valu­
able tree on the face of the earth, attaining up to 20 m in height and a
girth of 2.5 m [6]. It grows rapidly and attains adulthood in 3 years,
living a long productive life span of 145–200 years [7].South Asian and
sub-Saharan Africa constitutes the main habitation. It grows in Fiji,
Mauritius, Caribbean Island, West Indies, South Pacific, Cuba, US,
Australia, and Mexico. The tree is usually planted along road sides,
gardens, and habitations at the recommended spacing of 8 × 8 m. In
Arizona, they are grown to resist frost at − 8 OC. More than 300,000 were
planted in dry areas of North-East Brazil to enhance forestation [8].
Neem is getting prominence in tropical America, the Middle-East and
Australia. Being a tough and multipurpose tree, it is ideal for refores­
tation programs and for restoring debased, semiarid and bone-dry ter­
rains. It is valuable as windbreaks and in regions of low precipitation
and high wind speed. In the Majjia Valley in Niger, more than 500 km of
windbreaks involved twofold columns of the tree planted to secure
millet crops which brought about 20% expansion in grain yield.
The color of the leaves varies from yellow, light to dark green (Fig. 1)
and the length measures 6–8 cm. The study of the neem materials has
gained prominence due to the potential to produce valuable chemicals
and extracts.
An estimate of 80 million neem trees is found globally [8].Contrarily,
the tree sheds its leaves, making the environment unclean. Therefore
LLN is hugely available waste in our backyard, sidewalks, and streets. A
large amount is burnt or discarded resulting in an environmental
pollution. Direct bio-methanation of LLN is difficult because of inherent
anti-microbial properties. Although the falling of leaves and the subse­
quent decomposition recycles nutrients to the terrestrial ecosystem, the
process is slow and time-consuming. Additionally, waste recycling alone
is unable to significantly respond to these issues. Effective waste

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bellomustapha84@gmail.com, 2016015554.mustapha@dr.sharda.ac.in (M.B. Muhammad).
1
Department of mechanical engineering, Sharda University, Plot No. 32, 34, Knowledge Park III, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201310.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2021.106007
Received 17 October 2020; Received in revised form 15 January 2021; Accepted 7 February 2021
Available online 24 February 2021
0961-9534/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.B. Muhammad and R. Chandra Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007

management ought to combine eco-friendly and profitable treatment 2. Materials and methods
while reclaiming beneficial substances.
Land-filling, incineration, composting, and Auto-thermal Thermo­ 2.1. Collections, characterization, and preparation of the materials
philic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD) remain the most common methods to
treat MSW. These techniques fail to preserve our environment. For Vegetable wastes were carefully collected from the kitchen mess; it
example, the incineration releases environmentally hazardous com­ was predominantly beetroot, carrot, and mustard green. Others, in small
pounds like dioxins, SO2, NOx, causing acid rain and environmental quantities, include cucumber peel, tomatoes, bottle gourd, onions, and
pollution. Unlike anaerobic digestion, it does not reserve nutrients and eggplant. Plastic materials were manually separated. Water was then
the structure of biomass. ATAD treatment results in an elevated con­ added to make Total Solid (TS) 10%. The LLN was collected during the
sumption of oxygen and energy. Composting sends GHG to the atmo­ winter. It was dried, and pulverized to 1 mm. All the samples were stored
sphere. Because of these drawbacks, anaerobic digestion remains the according to the standard procedure [14]. CD was collected from the
potential candidate to manage the waste. The process converts the cattle barn. CHNS (O) analyzer was used for the ultimate analysis of the
biodegradable waste into organic fertilizer and the valuable gas appli­ substrates while proximate studies were conducted according to [15].
cable as a vehicle fuel or for the co-generation of electricity and heat. Table 1 presents the results. All analyses were performed in triplicate.
Biogas is alternative energy widely used for cooking purposes in rural
areas. This prevents deforestation and saves trees that would have been 2.2. Experimental setup
used as fuel-wood. On that account, biogas production offers the po­
tential to curtail one of the world’s most prevailing challenges of pre­ The experimental setup consisted of two 20 L transparent plastic
serving our environment. bottles of 39.7 heights and 25.4 cm diameter each, used as the digester
However, the significant requirement for energy for proper storage and the water tank (Fig. 2).The experiments were operated as a batch
and the incomplete combustion due to the presence of CO2 remains the system. Larger volume (12 L) of the digester and hence the substrates
downside. This reduces the heating value to 5.72 kWh (at 57.5 CH4 were used to produce biogas sufficient for daily analysis with Geotech
concentration) compared to 9.94 of pure CH4 and flame velocity to 0.25 GA5000 biogas analyzer. All the bottles were initially rinsed with the
as opposed to 0.34 m/s of natural gas. Therefore, biogas combustion is pure nitrogen gas before being fed with the desired substrate and proper
characterized by low thermal efficiencies, and in some cases significant sealing with M-Seal. CD was used as inoculums for all the reactors. The
emission of hydrocarbons (HC) [9]. The presence of hydrogen sulfide in inoculums to substrate ratio used were 1:4. The reactors were then
biogas limits its application. Removal or reduction becomes necessary. placed, at convenient intervals, inside a temperature control room for
Given the above limitations, methods for improving the quality via the retention time of 30 days. Process temperature was maintained at 38
co-digestion with cheap and abundant additives receive considerable to 40 0C and the TS concentration at 8 to10%. Mesophilic conditions
attention over the past few decades [10]. Biogas production from CD were used because it is easier and cheaper to establish and most of the
was enhanced by the addition of Brassica compestries [11]. The addition anaerobic digesters operate under this conditions. The pH values of the
of 2% w/v urea to the semi-dried banana leaves produced a maximum
methane concentration of 65.28 % [12]. Co-digestion of untreated rice Table 1
straw with raw pig wastewater also improved methane concentration Proximate and ultimate composition of the feed materials.
[13]. Nevertheless, the effect of neem leaves is inadequately assessed. Neem Cattle Vegetablewaste References
Initial studies of LLN considered it as a poor substrate for leaves dung
bio-methanation [14]. It is not yet known LLN can produce a consid­
C (%) 39.13 36 40.31
erable proportion of methane. This paper, however, aims to improve H (%) 5.93 4.6 5.95
bio-methanation by enhancing system stability and biogas quality N (%) 1.44 1.48 2.07
(reducing the proportion of CO2 and H2S and increasing methane con­ Sulfur 0.081 1.2 0.6
tent) for potential application in an internal combustion engine. C/N ratio 27.17 23.73 19.47
Total solids (%) 90 17.5 16
Volatile solids (%) 74 75 90
Acid detergent lignin 122 20.6 [14]
(g kg− 1)
Total Tannins (g kg− 1) 21 [14]
Total saponin (g/kg) 40.12 [29]

Fig. 1. Leaf litter of neem.

2
M.B. Muhammad and R. Chandra Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007

Fig. 2. Schematic of experimental setup.

substrates were determined using a digital pH meter (INSIF ELEC­
TRONICS IE-702). Other operation conditions were kept the same for all
the reactors. The volume of biogas was measured by means of a simple
water displacement method. It was corrected to the standard temperate
(0 ◦ C) and pressure (1 atm) conditions [15].
Valve 1 remained carefully closed during gas sampling. Biogas was
daily withdrawn from the water tank via valve 2 for the analysis. While
valves 1 and 3 were closed, the water tank was being topped up through
valve 2. All the digesters were run in duplicate. Table 2 indicates the
operating parameter of the reactors.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of LLN on the production of biogas, methane, hydrogen sulfide,
and carbon dioxide
Anaerobic digestion functions according to the substrate’s charac­
teristics and biodegradability. VW is generally considered highly
biodegradable, but this biodegradability is only crucial without high
acidity. Owing to the significant presence of sugars in beetroot and
carrot [16,17], VW showed rapid acidification which translates to the
lowest biogas and methane yield compared to the other samples. This
result confirmed a number of studies on anaerobic digestion of vegetable
waste [18,19]. The co-digestion of VW with CD (R4), with LLN (R1)
each, produced higher biogas and methane than R2 and R3. This is
because in each case the introduction of the co-substrate neutralized the
simple sugars of VW, improved buffer capacity, and the overall C/N
ratio, resulting in a favorable environment for the microorganisms.
Therefore, biogas and methane yields and concentration increased by
87.27, 91.47, and 33.98% in the case of R1 compared to R2. It is also in
line with the previous results – synergic effect of desugared molasses
with cow manure, sugar beet leaves with the solid potato waste [20],
fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) with CD and chicken slurry [21], rice
straw with kitchen waste [22], food waste with agro-industrial
by-products [23], FVW with the organic fraction of MSW [24], FVW
with sewage sludge [25], and with food waste [26]. In each case, the
co-digestion produced higher biogas and methane yields than the
mono-digestion of the substrates.
In the same way, R4 showed a 94.90, 97.37, and 49.56% percent
increase in biogas yield, methane yield, and methane concentration
compared to R2. These values are as well higher than that of R1. Because
the other operational parameters like temperature, agitation, and pH (no
important variation in pH for all the samples was observed except for R2
showing significant acidity) that might affect anaerobic digestion were
kept constant; and since the saponin content in R1 (1.372 % dry basis)
was enough to hinder the methanogenic process [27], the difference in
biogas and methane production between R4 and R1 could be explained
by the adverse action of saponin in R1 on the microorganisms. Corre­
spondingly, the amount 0.75% of saponin from dried fruits of Sapin­
dussaponaria typically decreased methane production by 10.5%. It is
established, up to 1.8% of the total tannin or 0.06% of the saponin on VS
basis hinders anaerobic digestion [27]. This is consistent with [14,28,
29] findings of LLN’s poor methane potential owing to its anti-microbial
properties. However, solid-state anaerobic digestion of untreated fallen
fronds exhibited 31.67% lower methane yield (MY) than we observed
from R3 [30]. Although the authors did not identify the fallen leaves,

Table 2
Basic operating parameters of the digesters.
Parameters Unit VW + LLN (50:50) VW LLN VW + CD (50:50) CD

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Hydraulic Retention Time Days 30 30 30 30 30
Operating temperature oC 38 to 40
Equivalent total solid kg 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
Equivalent Volatile solids kg (g/L) 1.015 (70.52) 1.015 (70.52) 1.015 (70.52) 1.015 (70.52) 1.015 (70.52)
Water: Substrate ratio 16:10 6:10 38:10 1:1 1:1
TS % 10 10 10 10 10
a
cattle dung was used as inoculums.

3
M.B. Muhammad and R. Chandra
they improved methane yield by 24-fold by treating the substrate with
3.5% NaOH at a 6.2 substrate/inoculums ratio.
Methane yield is one of the important parameters for judging an-
aerobic digestion. Methane yield observed from R4 (0.368 Nm3/kg
VS) and R1 (0.114) falls within the reported range 0.11 to 0:42 m3 kg− 1
VS added observed from anaerobic co-digestion of fruit and vegetable
waste with CD [21]. [31] found methane yield of 0.30 Nm3/kg VS from
the co-digestion of vegetable waste and cattle manure. Comparing with
the crop residues, anaerobic digestion of untreated wheat straw resulted
in 0.1884 and 0.0784 Nm3/kg VS specific biogas and methane yields
[32]; and 0.14 and 0.0598 from rice straw [33]. The feedstock was
subjected to hydrothermal treatment before digestion. It is noteworthy;
biodegradation of crop residues is mostly inhibited by the lignocellulosic
structure rather than antimicrobial properties.
It is now clear, because of the effect of saponin in R1, the co-digestion
of VW with LLN produced lower biogas and methane compared to R4
even though R1 contained a higher amount of VS and better C/N ratio
(Fig. 3). It is pertinent, for the anaerobic digestion of VW under
convenient conditions the amount of VS is positively correlated with the
cumulative biogas and methane production [21].
The LLN contains a substantial amount of saponin. The saponin alters
fermentation by inhibiting protozoan. The symbiosis of methanogens
and protozoan is firmly established [34]. Additionally, tannin adversely
affects methanogenesis either by directly suppressing the methanogens
or indirectly reducing hydrogen. They (tannin) react with proteins to
form complexes. These tannin-protein complexes are resistant to bio­
logical degradation [34]. The CD (R5) contains a significant number of
proteins. Hence, its co-digestion with LLN in R1 could produce a sub­
stantial amount of the complexes which in turn decrease digester per­
formance compared to R4.
Because VW also contains a protein that can form complexes with
LLN’s tannin, R1 produced slightly lower biogas than R3 (Fig. 3).
Therefore, R1 exhibited reduced biogas yield by 0.0 56% but increased
methane yield by 93.67% compared to R3. Similarly, mono-digestion of
lemongrass produced lower biogas than CD and poultry droppings but
yielded higher methane [35]. Then again, a significant amount of pro­
tein with the absence of tannin means better performance of R4 and R5
compared to the other samples.
Although the studies on the complex interactions and dynamics
among the diverse microbes in anaerobic digestion are not well groun­
ded, methanogens constitute the basis for methanogenesis and equally
sensitive to sudden adjustments in process conditions. Hence, an abrupt
introduction of the major antioxidants present in the LLN (Methyl 14-
methylpentadecanoate) [36] may also startle the beneficial bacteria;
causing an ecological imbalance in the interaction of the diverse archaea
and impede methanogenesis in R1 and R3.
Because of the limitations of conventional molecular technology
approaches that restrict detailed analysis of consortia, microbial com­
munities can be identified by the operational conditions and the
Fig. 3. Comparison between biogas and methane yields of the substrates.
4
Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007
performance of the reactor. For instance, the pH range can be used to
classify a group of microorganisms present in the reactor. The optimum
range for Methanogenic Archaea is between 6.5 and 7.2. They barely
tolerate too acidic or basic environment. Except for R2, We found the
average pH in each digester as 6.8. These findings and the production of
the considerable proportion of methane in R1, R4, and R5 evidenced the
presence of methanogens in the reactors. Since the reactors operated in
mesophilic conditions, the methanogens were mesophiles. Among the
methanogens, methanobacteriales are the dominant bacteria in the
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes representing 93% of
the population [31]. Anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste showed the
dominance of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes [31]. Methanosaeta and
Methanosarcinaare are consistently present during anaerobic fermen­
tation [37]. While the reaction progressed, the number of Meth­
anosarcina increased and the number of Methanosaeta decreased [37].
With regards to R2, the fermentative microorganisms are relatively
less sensitive and can tolerate a wider range of pH between 4.0 and 8.5
[38]. The consortia in R2 might be dominated by these micro-organisms,
suggesting that acetic acid decomposition was significantly performed
by the Methanosarcina. Since R2 showed rapid acidification, the
dominant bacteria might be firmicutes. Firmicutes is the main bacteria
present during acidification [37]. Bacteroidales, Clostridiales, and
Syntrophobacterales are mainly the bacteria that degrade lignin and
cellulose. Similarly, Integration of LLN in R1 and R3 and the successful
decomposition could mean the presence of these microorganisms in the
reactor.
Fig. 4b shows daily biogas and methane production for all the re­
actors. The generation of biogas much increased for all the samples
within the first twenty-four hours but drastically dropped afterward.
Biogas production in R3 and R5 stabilized after the 7th day, and because
the organic materials were scarce, began to decline on the 22nd of the
HRT. Ample biogas production after 5 days was reported by [32] for the
possible reason that methanogens consume volatile acids more during
this HRT. Though R3 yielded somewhat higher biogas than R2, the
digester formed the least methane yield related to the other samples
because of its adverse-bacterial properties [39,40]. R4 produced the
highest biogas and methane within the initial 15 days of HRT.
Fig. 4a illustrates methane concentration in the biogas for all the
reactors. For R2, the values settled at 10 and 17% during the first two
days and 0 and 1.8% for R3. This scenario shows rapid acidification
because the digester accumulates VFA at the start of the process. From
day 5, the methane contents in R2 enhanced and stabilized at 40%. For
reactors, R1, R4, and R5; it increased and reached a peak of 52.0, 67, and
55%. On average, the percentage of methane from all the reactors
ranged between 1.85% and 56.7%. We found the highest concentration
of methane from R4 because it contained a significant amount of protein
and carbohydrate coupled with the absence of LLN’s tannin and saponin.
Protein degrades to produce more proportion of methane (80%) than
lipids (70%) and carbohydrate (50%) [33].
The CO2 yield and the average concentration was in the order of R4
> R3 > R1 > R2 > R5 and R3 > R1 > R5 > R1 > R2. With regard to the
biogas composition, a large amount of methane means a low proportion
of CO2 and vice versa. Compared to the other samples, R1 and R3 pro­
duced higher methane concentrations but a low proportion of CO2.
Methanogens convert volatile fatty acid, especially acetic acid, or CO2
and H2 to methane.
Fig. 3 presents the average percentage of H2S observed from each
sample in order of R5 > R4 > R2 > R1 > R3. The mean values of H2S in
R1 and R3 were significantly below the range obtained from the liter­
ature (392 ppm) for the anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable waste
[19]. On the contrary, the mean amount of H2S observed from R5 ex­
ceeds that value and almost the same as R4. Sulfur-containing com­
pounds, mostly proteins, form H2S during an-aerobic digestion [41]. It is
not only toxic gas for various microbial consortia but also forms com­
plexes with metals, culminating in the limited bioavailability of trace
elements crucial for microbial activity [42]. The proportion of H2S in
M.B. Muhammad and R. Chandra Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007

Fig. 4. Daily biogas and methane production.

biogas can be reduced by controlling the use of substrate rich in protein.
The higher measure of H2S in CD (R5) compared to the other substrates
(Table 1) follows the significant proportion of protein. The co-digestion
of CD with VW (R4) again increased H2S by 36.49% compared to the
mono-digestion of VW (R2). LLN (R3) has low protein and sulfur content
and hence produced the lowest concentration of H2S. Correspondingly,
the introduction of LLN to VW (R1) compromised the sulfur content and
reduced H2S by 146.73% compared to R2.
Furthermore, higher biogas production could mean a substantial
amount of H2S and vice versa. Mono-digestion of LLN (R3) yielded low
biogas and lowest H2S as well. In the same way, R5 and R4 produced the
highest biogas and thus, H2S. A reduced amount of H2S in R1 is still
attributable to the low formation of hydrogen gas. Since about 0.1–2.0%
(v/v) H2S in biogas limit its application [43], its proportion in all the
samples is below the range to cause significant damage.

Fig. 5. Cumulative biogas and methane production.

5
M.B. Muhammad and R. Chandra
3.2. Cumulative biogas, methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide
yields
Fig. 5 illustrates the cumulative biogas and methane productions.
The cumulative biogas production curve is used to evaluate the degra­
dation rate of the substrates. Very steep curves denote excellent avail­
ability and degradability of VS, while flat curves mean slow feedstock
availability or slight inhibition [44]. Accordingly, the reactors R4 and
R5 performed successfully without inhibition while R2 and R3 failed. R1
exhibited modest inhibition. Biogas production in this reactor can be
improved by increasing the amount of influent VW.
R1 to R5 produced the total biogas of 260.85, 43.85, 326.13, 528.94,
and 363.30 L within the HRT of 30 days. The cumulative CO2 for the
reactors were 116.49, 17.21, 187.98, 197.77, and 151.43 L. The amount
1.015, 1.34, 1.26, 0.825 and 0.92 kg of VS fed caused specific biogas
yield of 0.257, 0.033, 0.259, 0.641, and 0.395 Nm3/kg VS and specific
methane yield of 0.113, 0.01, 0.005, 0.368, and 0.196 Nm3/kg VS for
R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 at the normal (N) conditions (T = 273.15 K, P =
101,325 Pa). The highest methane yield corresponds to [20]’s maximum
values (0.32 L CH4/g VS degraded) obtained from co-digestion of solid
potato waste with sugar beet leaves at the initial inoculum-to-substrate
ratio of 1.5.
Reduction of waste volume and mass is one principle for judging
waste management techniques. The volatile solids removal efficiencies
were 60.23, 10.75, 29.63, 73.36, and 46.32% for the five reactors. R4
showed the highest waste reduction because of the favorable environ­
ment for the bacteria to feed on the VS.
Biogas composition in R4 can cause 46.3% power deterioration of
5.9 kW stationary diesel engines converted into spark-ignition running
at 12.65 compression ratio and 35◦ ignition advance of TDC compared to
diesel as original fuel. It could have produced a maximum brake power
of 2.661 kW and induced the brake-specific gas consumption of 3550 g/
kWh [45].
3.3. Effect of C/N ratio
C/N ratio is a critical aspect to improve biogas production. The ni­
trogen content of the feedstock not only makes the cell system of mi­
croorganisms but also promotes the synthesis of amino acids, nucleic
acids, and proteins [46]. A proper extent of nitrogen forms ammonia,
which counteracts the volatile acids generated by the methanogens.
More nitrogen turns the substrate basic, difficult for the microorganisms.
A scant amount of nitrogen means insufficient ammonia to neutralize
excess fatty acid. Since the microorganisms consume more carbon than
ammonia, the C/N ratio of 20–30:1 was reported as optimum [47]. A
very high C/N ratio advances rapid nitrogen consumption by metha­
nogens and releases more carbon in the slurry. Low C/N ratio forms
excess ammonium ion. Both cases hinder biogas production [47].
The C/N ratio of the substrate ranges from 27.17 to 19.47. VW has
the lowest ratio below the optimum range, suggesting a poor environ­
ment for bacterial activities. LLN shows a better C/N ratio but poor
nutrients concentration. The C/N ratio of CD is closer to the optimum
than that of the alternative samples and shows significant cumulative
biogas and methane yield (Fig. 5). The C/N ratio of LLN is again closed
to the best, which leads to considerable biogas production though
insignificant methane yield.
4. Conclusions
The experiment confirmed LLN as a suitable co-substrate to VW. Co-
digestion of VW with CD yielded higher biogas and methane than with
LLN. We attributed the reduction to the LLN’s considerable saponin
content. Anaerobic digestion of LLN as a single substrate yielded
comparatively low biogas and methane therefore not recommended for
methane production. To eliminate the adverse effect of saponin and
tannin on anaerobic digestion, the proportion of the former in the
6
Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007
reactor should be below 0.06% and 1.8% for the latter.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the Centre for Rural Development and
Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India, for
generously providing the necessary facility. I thank Professor R. M
Mehra, professor N. B Singh, and Dr. H. Payal for the support.
References
[1] S.C. De Vries, G.W.J. Van De Ven, M.K. Van Ittersum, K.E. Giller, L. Zea, Resource
use efficiency and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops ,
processed by first-generation conversion techniques, Biomass Bioenergy 34 (2010)
588–601, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.001.
[2] J. Heinimö, M. Junginger, Production and trading of biomass for energy - an
overview of the global status, Biomass Bioenergy 33 (2009) 1310–1320, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.05.017.
[3] Y.Y. Deng, M. Koper, M. Haigh, V. Dornburg, Country-level assessment of long-
term global bioenergy potential, Biomass Bioenergy 74 (2015) 253–267, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.12.003.
[4] V.D. Azasi, F. Offei, F. Kemausuor, L. Akpalu, Bioenergy from crop residues: a
regional analysis for heat and electricity applications in Ghana, Biomass Bioenergy
140 (2020) 105640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105640.
[5] B. Xing, Y. Han, X.C. Wang, S. Cao, J. Wen, Bioresource Technology
Acclimatization of anaerobic sludge with cow manure and realization of high-rate
food waste digestion for biogas production, Bioresour. Technol. 315 (2020)
123830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123830.
[6] NEEM Indica), (Azadirachta, (n.d.) 1–14, http://www.oilseedcrops.org/wp-cont
ent/uploads/2012/11/Indian-Neem-Growth.pdf.
[7] M. Nayeem-Shah, S. Gajalakshmi, S.A. Abbasi, Direct, rapid and sustainable
vermicomposting of the leaf litter of neem (Azadirachta indica), Appl. Biochem.
Biotechnol. 175 (2014) 792–801, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-1339-7.
[8] O. Koul, Neem: A Global Perspective, Neem Today New Millenn, 2006, pp. 1–19,
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2596-3_1.
[9] K. Abdul Rahman, A. Ramesh, Effect of reducing the methane concentration on the
combustion and performance of a biogas diesel predominantly premixed charge
compression ignition engine, Fuel 206 (2017) 117–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2017.05.100.
[10] C. Agabo-García, M. Pérez, R. Solera, Adaptation of thermophilic sludge-inoculum
to co-digestion with Sherry-wine distillery wastewater, Biomass Bioenergy 139
(2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105628.
[11] S. Satyanarayan, P. Murkute, Ramakant, Biogas production enhancement by
Brassica compestries amendment in cattle dung digesters, Biomass Bioenergy 32
(2008) 210–215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.09.008.
[12] S.P. Jena, S. Mishra, S.K. Acharya, S.K. Mishra, An experimental approach to
produce biogas from semi dried banana leaves, Sustain. Energy Technol.
Assessments. 19 (2017) 173–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.01.001.
[13] W. Mussoline, G. Esposito, P. Lens, G. Garuti, A. Giordano, Design considerations
for a farm-scale biogas plant based on pilot-scale anaerobic digesters loaded with
rice straw and piggery wastewater, Biomass Bioenergy 46 (2012) 469–478,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.07.013.
[14] K. Pal, A.K. Patra, A. Sahoo, P.K. Kumawat, Evaluation of several tropical tree
leaves for methane production potential, degradability and rumen fermentation in
vitro, Livest. Sci. 180 (2015) 98–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
livsci.2015.07.011.
[15] R. Chandra, V.K. Vijay, P.M.V. Subbarao, T.K. Khura, Production of methane from
anaerobic digestion of jatropha and pongamia oil cakes, Appl. Energy 93 (2012)
148–159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.10.049.
[16] J. Wruss, G. Waldenberger, S. Huemer, P. Uygun, P. Lanzerstorfer, U. Müller,
O. Höglinger, J. Weghuber, Compositional characteristics of commercial beetroot
products and beetroot juice prepared from seven beetroot varieties grown in Upper
Austria, J. Food Compos. Anal. 42 (2015) 46–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jfca.2015.03.005.
[17] G. Waldenberger, S. Huemer, P. Uygun, P. Lanzerstorfer, O. Ho, J. Weghuber,
U. Mu, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis Compositional characteristics of
commercial beetroot products and beetroot juice prepared from seven beetroot
varieties grown in Upper Austria, J. Food Compos. Anal. 42 (2015) 46–55, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.03.005.
[18] Y. Jiang, S. Heaven, C.J. Banks, Strategies for stable anaerobic digestion of
vegetable waste, Renew. Energy 44 (2012) 206–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2012.01.012.
[19] E.A. Scano, C. Asquer, A. Pistis, L. Ortu, V. Demontis, D. Cocco, Biogas from
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: experimental results on pilot-
scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power plant, Energy
Convers. Manag. 77 (2014) 22–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2013.09.004.
[20] W. Parawira, M. Murto, R. Zvauya, B. Mattiasson, Anaerobic batch digestion of
solid potato waste alone and in combination with sugar beet leaves, Renew. Energy
29 (2004) 1811–1823, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.02.005.
[21] F.J. Callaghan, D.A.J. Wase, K. Thayanithy, C.F. Forster, Continuous co-digestion
of cattle slurry with fruit and vegetable wastes and chicken manure, Biomass
Bioenergy 22 (2002) 71–77, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(01)00057-5.
M.B. Muhammad and R. Chandra
[22] J. Ye, D. Li, Y. Sun, G. Wang, Z. Yuan, F. Zhen, Y. Wang, Improved biogas
production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure,
Waste Manag. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.05.014.
[23] A.E. Maragkaki, M. Fountoulakis, A. Kyriakou, K. Lasaridi, T. Manios, Boosting
biogas production from sewage sludge by adding small amount of agro-industrial
by-products and food waste residues, Waste Manag. 71 (2018) 605–611, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.04.024.
[24] S. Pavi, L.E. Kramer, L.P. Gomes, L.A.S. Miranda, Biogas production from co-
digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable
waste, Bioresour. Technol. 228 (2017) 362–367, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2017.01.003.
[25] F. Di Maria, A. Sordi, G. Cirulli, G. Gigliotti, L. Massaccesi, M. Cucina, Co-treatment
of fruit and vegetable waste in sludge digesters. An analysis of the relationship
among bio-methane generation, process stability and digestate phytotoxicity,
Waste Manag. 34 (2014) 1603–1608, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.05.017.
[26] J. Lin, J. Zuo, L. Gan, P. Li, F. Liu, K. Wang, L. Chen, H. Gan, Effects of mixture ratio
on anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China,
J. Environ. Sci. 23 (2011) 1403–1408, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(10)
60572-4.
[27] G. Goel, H.P.S. Makkar, Methane mitigation from ruminants using tannins and
saponins, Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44 (2012) 729–739, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11250-011-9966-2.
[28] R. Bhatta, M. Saravanan, L. Baruah, C.S. Prasad, Effects of graded levels of tannin-
containing tropical tree leaves on in vitro rumen fermentation, total protozoa and
methane production, J. Appl. Microbiol. 118 (2015) 557–564, https://doi.org/
10.1111/jam.12723.
[29] S.K. Sirohi, N. Pandey, N. Goel, B. Singh, M. Mohini, P. Pandey, P.P. Chaudhry,
Microbial activity and ruminal methanogenesis as affected by plant secondary
metabolites in different plant extracts, Environ. Eng. (2009) 52–58.
[30] L.N. Liew, J. Shi, Y. Li, Enhancing the solid-state anaerobic digestion of fallen
leaves through simultaneous alkaline treatment, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011)
8828–8834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.005.
[31] M. Gulhane, P. Pandit, A. Khardenavis, D. Singh, H. Purohit, Study of microbial
community plasticity for anaerobic digestion of vegetable waste in Anaerobic
Baffled Reactor, Renew. Energy (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.08.021.
[32] R. Chandra, H. Takeuchi, T. Hasegawa, R. Kumar, Improving biodegradability and
biogas production of wheat straw substrates using sodium hydroxide and
hydrothermal pretreatments, Energy 43 (2012) 273–282, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2012.04.029.
[33] R. Chandra, H. Takeuchi, T. Hasegawa, Hydrothermal pretreatment of rice straw
biomass: a potential and promising method for enhanced methane production,
Appl. Energy 94 (2012) 129–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2012.01.027.
[34] T. Satyanarayana, S. Kumar, D. Mukund, A. Aspects, Advancing Frontiers in
Mycology & Mycotechnology, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9349-5.
Biomass and Bioenergy 147 (2021) 106007
[35] I.M. Alfa, S.O. Dahunsi, O.T. Iorhemen, C.C. Okafor, S.A. Ajayi, Comparative
evaluation of biogas production from Poultry droppings, Cow dung and Lemon
grass, Bioresour. Technol. 157 (2014) 270–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2014.01.108.
[36] M.A. Hossain, W.A.S. Al-Toubi, A.M. Weli, Q.A. Al-Riyami, J.N. Al-Sabahi,
Identification and characterization of chemical compounds in different crude
extracts from leaves of Omani neem, Integr. Med. Res. 7 (2013) 181–188, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jtusci.2013.05.003.
[37] C. Ji, C.X. Kong, Z.L. Mei, J. Li, A review of the anaerobic digestion of fruit and
vegetable waste, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 183 (2017) 906–922, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12010-017-2472-x.
[38] A. Rabii, S. Aldin, Y. Dahman, E. Elbeshbishy, A review on anaerobic co-digestion
with a focus on the microbial populations and the effect of multi-stage digester
configuration, Energies 12 (2019), https://doi.org/10.3390/en12061106.
[39] J. Jerobin, P. Makwana, R.S. Suresh Kumar, R. Sundaramoorthy, A. Mukherjee,
N. Chandrasekaran, Antibacterial activity of neem nanoemulsion and its toxicity
assessment on human lymphocytes in vitro, Int. J. Nanomed. 10 (2015) 77–86,
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S79983.
[40] M. Rossi, M.F. das G. Fernandes da Silva, J. Batista, Secondary metabolism as a
measurement of efficacy of botanical extracts: the use of Azadirachta indica (neem)
as a model, in: F. Perveen (Ed.), Insectic. - Adv. Integr. Pest Manag., Fist, InTech,
São Carlos, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5772/27961.
[41] B. Khoshnevisan, P. Tsapekos, N. Alfaro, I. Díaz, M. Fdz-Polanco, S. Rafiee,
I. Angelidaki, A review on prospects and challenges of biological H2S removal from
biogas with focus on biotrickling filtration and microaerobic desulfurization,
Biofuel Res. J. 4 (2017) 741–750, https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2017.4.4.6.
[42] M. Westerholm, J. Moestedt, A. Schnürer, Biogas production through syntrophic
acetate oxidation and deliberate operating strategies for improved digester
performance, Appl. Energy 179 (2016) 124–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.06.061.
[43] S. Sahota, V.K. Vijay, P.M.V. Subbarao, R. Chandra, P. Ghosh, G. Shah, R. Kapoor,
V. Vijay, V. Koutu, I.S. Thakur, Characterization of leaf waste based biochar for
cost effective hydrogen sulphide removal from biogas, Bioresour. Technol. 250
(2018) 635–641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.11.093.
[44] B. Drosg, R. Braun, G. Bochmann, T. Al Saedi, Analysis and characterisation of
biogas feedstocks, in: Biogas Handb. Sci. Prod. Appl., First, Woodhead Publishing
Limited, Cambridgeshire, 2013, pp. 52–84, https://doi.org/10.1533/
9780857097415.1.52.
[45] R. Chandra, V.K. Vijay, P.M.V. Subbarao, T.K. Khura, Performance evaluation of a
constant speed IC engine on CNG, methane enriched biogas and biogas, Appl.
Energy (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.04.032.
[46] D. Barik, S. Murugan, Assessment of sustainable biogas production from de-oiled
seed cake of karanja-an organic industrial waste from biodiesel industries, Fuel 148
(2015) 25–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.01.072.
[47] R. Chandra, H. Takeuchi, T. Hasegawa, Methane production from lignocellulosic
agricultural crop wastes : a review in context to second generation of biofuel
production, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 1462–1476, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.035.