Journal Pre-proof

A review on the prospective use of chicken manure leachate in high-rate

anaerobic reactors

Yasmani Alba Reyes, Ernesto L. Barrera, Ke-ke Cheng

PII: S2213-3437(20)31044-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104695
Reference: JECE 104695

To appear in: Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering

Received Date: 10 July 2020

Revised Date: 2 October 2020
Accepted Date: 26 October 2020

Please cite this article as: Alba Reyes Y, Barrera EL, Cheng K-ke, A review on the prospective
use of chicken manure leachate in high-rate anaerobic reactors, Journal of Environmental
Chemical Engineering (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104695

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. 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.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

A review on the prospective use of chicken manure leachate in high-rate
anaerobic reactors
Yasmani Alba Reyes1, 2, Ernesto L. Barrera2, Ke-ke Cheng 1*

1
China-Latin America Joint Laboratory for Clean Energy and Climate Change, School of Chemical
Engineering and Energy Technology, Dongguan University of Technology, 523808, China

2
Centre for Energy and Industrial Processes Studies (CEEPI), University of Sancti Spiritus, Ave de
los Martires 360, 60100, Sancti Spiritus, Cuba

of
* Corresponding author

Ke-ke Cheng *

ro
Phone number:
E-mail: chengkeke@dgut.edu.cn

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

1
Graphical abstract

of
ro
-p
re
lP

Highlights:

 Recent advances in chicken manure leaching were introduced.

na

 Strategies to improve anaerobic digestion using high-rate anaerobic reactors were reviewed.
 CFD is an appropriate tool for modeling leachate systems.
 The biorefinery concept through anaerobic digestion in the Cuban context was discussed.
ur
Jo

2
Abstract

The global production of chicken arises over the world, which leads to increasing manure generation
and environmental problems. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a well-known process to produce biogas
from biomass. Chicken manure (CM) is considered as a feedstock for biogas production due to its
high organic load, but there are some challenges to be considered, such as the heterogeneity and the
high solid content. To overcome these issues, pretreatments techniques that enhance biogas
production could be used. In this context, the use of the leachate process for CM pretreatment could
be a novel alternative producing an easily biodegradable liquid substrate for AD. High-rate anaerobic

of
reactors (HRAR), as mature technologies in the market, represent an opportunity for its technological
simplicity and economy. Improvements of AD with leaching pretreatment were studied considering

ro
the use of HRAR as recent achievements to produce biogas and perspectives in the world. For
mathematical modeling, the leaching process with CM as substrate, Computational Fluid Dynamics

-p
(CFD) methods are presented as a numerical simulation tool for a better understanding of the process.
The integration of the leaching-efficient AD process in a biorefinery approach in a developing country
re
using CM as a substrate could diversify its productions, in addition to reducing emissions to the
environment. The results obtained became a tool for decision-makers and researchers about the
lP

implementation of leaching pretreatment prior to high-efficiency technologies for CM management

in Poultry Farms to obtain the highest benefits, not only in Cuba but also in other developing countries
with a similar situation. Production of biogas from CM is a technical solution that contributes to
na

substitute fossil fuels by renewable energy.

ur

Keywords: Chicken manure, Anaerobic digestion, Leaching pretreatment, High-rate anaerobic

reactors
Jo

3
Nomenclature

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GDP Gross Domestic Product

AD Anaerobic Digestion

CM Chicken Manure

HRAR High Rate Anaerobic Reactors

VFA Volatile Fatty Acids

of
TS Total Solids

VS Volatile Solids

ro
TAN Total Ammonia Nitrogen

FAN Free Ammonia Nitrogen

-p
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

CODT Chemical Oxygen Demand Total

re
CODS Chemical Oxygen Demand Soluble

OLR Organic Loading Rate

lP

HRT Hydraulic Retention Time

LR Leachate Recirculation

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamic

na

UDFs User-Defined Functions

AnSBR Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor

ur

EGSB Expanded Granular Sludge Bed

CSTR Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor

Jo

UASB Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket

LBR Leach Bed Reactor

ASBR Advanced Sequencing Batch Reactor

IC Internal Circulation

ODM Organic Dry Matter

4
1. Introduction
The irrational consumption of fossil fuels due to the industrial development causes greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O) and scarcity of energy carriers so that the use of alternative
energy sources is a goal over the world [1]. This scenario predicts an increase in renewable resource-
based energy generation to satisfy the growing demand in the next decades [2]. In this context,
biomass could play an important role as it is considered as a renewable source of high energetic
potential and one of the most sustainable worldwide [3]. Specifically, due to bioenergy potential, it
could satisfy demands from sectors such as energy, transport, and construction [4]. Bioenergy is

of
referred among several alternative energy sources, specifically gaseous biofuels (biogas, biomethane,
hydrogen, and synthesis gas). Besides, it is described as suitable for electricity and/or heat generation,

ro
as well as for automotive transport, taking into consideration the lower pollution emissions compared
to fossil fuels, generating jobs and boosting the local and national economies [5, 6].

-p
The livestock sector is very dynamic, reaching twenty trillion animals and contributing to 40-50% of
agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [7]. Intensified livestock production, despite bringing
re
economic benefits, leads to an increase in GHG emissions, deforestation and biodiversity loss [8].
According to FAO [9], poultry showed the highest growth in the last 50 years, reaching a fivefold
increase in production. Worldwide, the production of chicken and eggs reaches 72 and 58 million t y-
lP

1
respectively, generating 606 million t CO2-eq y-1 in emissions [10].
Poultry production generates large amounts of wastes (manure, litter, on-farm mortalities, and
na

hatchery wastes). According to its nutrient content [11], they are traditionally applied to the soil
without pretreatment, causing uncontrolled odor and GHG emissions to the ecosphere (0.023 kg head
y-1 [12]), nitrates and phosphorous leachates to the groundwater, and to the surface water, along with
ur

soil contamination by pathogens, mainly Staphylococci and Enterobacteriaceae (114.11 and

154.10E+06 Colony Forming Unit g-1) [13-16]. For that reason, a concern about the negative
Jo

environmental impacts of excessive fertilization using animal manure has been growing, being
combustion and anaerobic digestion (AD), alternatives for improving the environmental profiles [17-
21].
AD is reported as the technology for biomass conversion into high-efficiency fuel in terms of net
energy gain [22] and efficient use of all biodegradable compounds (proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates)
[23]. Chicken manure (CM) contains feces and urine, which represents a high amount of
biodegradable organic matter that could be stabilized through AD, along with biogas production [14,
5
24], and biofertilizer (digestate rich in macronutrients and micronutrients, e.g. NPK, Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn,
and Mo respectively) [25, 26].
In Cuba, there are around 26 million chicken heads [27], spread over 220 farms throughout the
country and most of them having from 20 to 183 thousand of chicken heads [28], generating from 3
to 27 tons of CM daily [29, 30]. If it is assumed that CM production is between 0.08–0.1 kg d-
1
chicken-1 [29, 30] and one kg of CM produces 9.01E-03 m3 CH4 d-1 in anaerobic conditions [31], then
it could be estimated an increase in electricity production in the country from 2.97E+03 to 3.72E+03
GWh per year (considering 40% of electrical efficiency [32]). Thus, CM is considered an unsolved
problem and a priority for the National Poultry Group in Cuba and alternatives strategies may be
advantageous in reducing this problem.

of
Despite its high organic matter content, AD of CM has been historically challenged due to: a)
substrate heterogeneity, b) high solid content and c) inhibition processes due to the high concentration

ro
of ammonia nitrogen [33]. CM heterogeneity, specifically feathers and indigestible particulate matter,
difficulties mechanical mixing, as well as a build-up of indigestible material within the digester. For

-p
that reason, the utilization of conventional reactors (e.g. continuously-stirred tank reactors, CSTRs)
is challenging [33]. In cases of high concentrations of solids (>25% of Total Solids, (TS)) [34], high
re
dilutions are necessary to feed conventional AD mixing technologies (e.g. long shafted paddle mixing,
pumped mixing, gas mixing, wall mounted draft-tube mixing and submersible mixers) taking into
lP

consideration their operational requirements [35]. For implementations in conventional bioreactors,

large dilutions often result unfeasible economically speaking due to: larger digester requirements
(increased capital cost, e.g. reactor volume increase up to 16 times compared to conventional
na

digesters), increased heating costs [34] and increased volumes of digestate (resulting in increased
waste transport costs, dewatering costs and storage space requirements) [24]. Besides, the high
nitrogen content (3-5% N, dry weight) in CM, mainly as uric acid, causes ammonia accumulations
ur

and unbalance of the substrate C/N ratio, leading to process inhibition and failure [33, 36].
By leaching CM, a liquid substrate with low suspended solid content could be feed high-rate
Jo

anaerobic reactors (HRAR) [33, 37]. Leaching helps to provide water, microorganisms, nutrients, and
to dilute intermediate AD products (mainly volatile fatty acids (VFAs), NH4+, and H2) in addition to
potential toxins (e.g. Total Volatile Acids and alkalinity) [38, 39]. In the last forty years, third-
generation HRAR were widely used for AD processes, reaching high loading rates up to 40 g of
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) per liter-day [40]. HRAR technologies are economically attractive
as it operates at high organic loads, decreasing sludge production and save energy. These

6
characteristics make this technology feasible and sustainable for the treatment of liquid waste with a
high organic load [41]. Modeling and simulation are one effective way to predict the behavior and
analyze the performance of the process accurately. The dynamic modeling of the leaching process
can help to foresee the species concentration along the reactor, besides, providing a comprehensive
understanding of the variation of the conditions of the process, influencing the characteristics of the
output liquid before the AD process.
Scarce studies have been conducted on leaching as a pretreatment of CM focused on the production
of biogas with the main purpose of reducing its solids content and increasing CH4 yield. Sakar,
Yetilmezsoy and Kocak [42] reviewed different configurations of HRAR using livestock manure as
a substrate focused mainly on operational parameters (hydraulic retention time (HRT), organic

of
loading rate (OLR) and temperature). The authors remarked the necessity to reduce the TS in CM and
concluded the technology most used is UASB. Rao, Reddy, Prakash, Vanajakshi, Joseph, Jetty,

ro
Reddy and Sarma [37] based their study on decreasing the TS by leaching before an ammonia stripper
in order to enhance the performance of the UASB reactor. A leachate was anaerobically digested from

-p
an LBR coupled with a membrane ammonia separation was studied by Bayrakdar, Sürmeli and Çalli
[43], obtaining the performance of the inhibition substances during the process (total ammonia
re
nitrogen (TAN) and VFA). Shen and Zhu [44] investigated the use of poultry litter leachate prior to
an up-flow anaerobic biofilm reactor concluding that high solid content impacts negatively over the
lP

reactor parameters. The former studies were focused mainly on the AD process and the leaching stage
was studied preliminarily. In reference to the leaching of CM as a substrate for AD, to date the authors
find no detailed review reference about studies of the theoretical aspects, modeling and technical
na

elements such as the use of high efficiency reactors.

Consequently, the objective of this article is to summarize the current leachate processes that could
be applied as a previous step during the AD of CM, in addition to deep on the state of the art of HRAR
ur

using CM leachate as a liquid substrate for AD. The present review will provide useful information
for public policy decision-makers and researchers about the aforementioned aspects and help to build
Jo

environmentally-friendly schemes in poultry farms.

2. CM as a substrate for AD
AD is the biological conversion of organic and occasionally inorganic substrates, by a complex
ecosystem of microorganisms, with the absence of oxygen. During this process, the organic matter is
converted mainly to CH4, CO2, and microbial biomass. In general, the characteristics (physical and
chemical composition) of CM depends mainly on diet, growth stage and animal housing system.

7
Additionally, environmental factors might influence manure generation (e.g. temperature, ventilation,
and relative humidity [45]), the type and the period the manure is storage as well the recollection
method used [46].
CM is characterized by high levels of nitrogen caused mainly by the urine and feces excretion frequent
route in monogastric animals (chickens). Although nitrogen is a necessary nutrient for microbial
growth, its inhibitory effect on the microbial community is well described in AD processes [47].
Nitrogen, as a principal product of purine metabolism, is eliminated by chickens as a non-protein
nitrogenous compound (uric acid form). Fecal matter contributes 30% of the total nitrogen, and the
rest corresponds to urinary (70%) [48]. Uric acid represents the main component of urinary nitrogen
(88%), representing almost 62% of the total nitrogen [48].

of
A remarkable fraction of the organic matter contained within CM can be converted into CH4, which
can be used for energy purposes and as raw material for producing high-added value products in a

ro
sustainable path. In this regard, the introduction of the biorefinery concept in Poultry Farms through
biotechnological and thermochemical processes could be a solution to minimize waste generation,

-p
produce new products and novel solutions from a biorefinery perspective [49].
The compositions of CM produced during farming in different regions are presented
re
in Table 1. The constituents considered are TS, volatile solids (VS), TAN, free ammonia nitrogen
(FAN), NH4+-N, total chemical oxygen demand (CODT), soluble chemical oxygen demand (CODS),
lP

pH, VFA and C/N ratio.

Table 1
Composition of typical CM in different regions (in fresh matter).
na

Turkey* China* China* Germany*

Constituents Units [25] [50] [51] [52]
ur

TS % 26 41.90 20.06 47.30

VS (% TS) % 17.50 35.38 14.03 31.20

Jo

TAN mg kg-1 - 9940 4646.50 4415.50

FAN mg kg-1 - 24.60 - 1094.1

NH4+-N mg L-1 4600 - - -

CODT mg kg-1 215000 - - -

CODS mg kg-1 45000 27150 - -

8
 pH - 8.10 6.63 8.64 8.07

VFA mg L-1 - 111495 7327.40 -

C/N - - 3.80 12.78 6.74

*Not specified the source of the CM (laying hens or broilers)

The use of CM as a substrate for AD is not feasible when one of the parameters is out of the range.
For example, Table 1 are referred CM from Turkey, China, and Germany based on fresh matter.
Values of TS above 10% are referred to as a negative impact on the methane generation affecting the
process efficiency [48], where, Webb and Hawkes [53] reported optimal values between 4-6%.

of
Bujoczek, Oleszkiewicz, Sparling and Cenkowski [48] found a strong correlation between TS and
methanogenic activity using CM as a substrate. As TS increases, the organic load increases as well,

ro
while the CH4 generation decreases [54], confirming that the dilution factor can be crucial for digester
performance. The content of volatile solids (VS) in CM (more than 61% of TS) gives information

-p
on the organic matter content of the feedstock.
Studies confirmed that inhibition of the AD process begins at a high concentration of TAN [55]
re
(values up to 3000 mg kg-1 [56]). However, there are references of biogas plants that operate with
TAN up to 6500 mg L-1 [57]. Table 1 shows values above the limit considered inhibitory for FAN,
when Niu, Qiao, Qiang, Hojo and Li [58] reported values around 650 mg kg-1 that could affect the
lP

methanogenesis stage, passing through the cell wall, dropping the pH and inhibiting enzymatic
reactions [55], however, Fuchs, Wang, Gabauer, Ortner and Li [57] referred a range for free ammonia
na

levels between 800-900 mg kg-1 [59]. Despite the importance of the ammonia in bacterial growth, is
referred as an inhibitory substance in concentration up to 13000 mgNH4+-N L-1 [60], however, are
referenced by Hobson and Shaw [61] and McCarty [62] lower values for ammonia concentration
ur

(2500 and 3000 mgNH4+-N respectively).

In poultry rearing, there are referred different characteristics between laying hens and broilers manure,
Jo

based mainly on feed composition and the manure removal technology [63, 64]. Due to the use of a
litter-based system, broiler manure often has a high TS content (>60%) and it is expected to a high
VS content (>75%). Laying hens manure has typically a lower TS content (26%) and a similar VS
concentration (>75%), mainly due to the keeping methods, rich in straw as bed [65, 66]. TN
concentration in broiler manure tends to be lower compared with laying hen manure (less than 56%),
influenced by lower presence of organic nitrogen (undigested proteins, uric acid, and urea), which

9
regulates the amounts of NH4+-N [67]. However, C/N ratio is expected to be higher in laying hens,
mainly for the addition of low-N litter in the broiler production system [67]. Similar biogas yield was
reported for laying hens and broilers, reaching values around 410 L kgVS-1, however biogas methane
content in broilers (54%) is little less than laying hens (65.1%) [66], likely because the lower
biodegradability of the material, the influence of inhibiting compounds or the animal diets [68].
Sulfur is one of the basic nutrients for methanogens [55]. Substantial sulfur content in CM is related
to the presence of feathers, broken eggs, and animal body residues [69, 70]. The recommended sulfur
level inside the reactor varies between 1-25 mg S L-1 [55] and inhibition of anaerobic process can
occur with total sulfide (H2S+HS-) are in the range between 100-800 mg S L-1 [71]. In AD process,
hydrogen sulfide is obtained by the degradation of amino acids and proteins, as a result of the

of
conversion of mainly mineralized sulfur [72]. It is related only to the free-form of hydrogen sulfide
as a potential poison for the microbiota, due to mainly the capacity to penetrate through the cell wall,

ro
inhibiting the anaerobic processes [73]. This mechanism is regulated by pH, which means that at
lower pH, an inhibition in metabolic activity of anaerobic bacteria is more expected [47, 55]. The

-p
authors related in Table 1 did not report the sulfur content in CM, however, a toxicity of hydrogen
sulfide can occur due to the capability of easily enter into the cell wall, affecting the enzyme systems
re
[55]. Sürmeli, Bayrakdar, Molaey and Çalli [74] described as a common sulfur content, values around
0.06% of TS (40 mg S L-1), influenced strongly by residues of broken eggs. These authors concluded
lP

that to reduce the inhibitory effect of sulfide inside the reactor using CM as feedstock, it is
recommended a total sulfide concentration below 100 mg L-1 inside the reactor. To prevent sulfide
toxicity failure inside the anaerobic reactor, it is recommended a feedstock dilution, although this
na

brings with it an increase in water consumption [55].

The typical CM composition shows high organic matter composition, expressed both in COD and
CODS always below 100 kg m-3, considered optimal for AD. For a natural AD process, a pH between
ur

6.5-8 is required [75], showing an alkaline behavior of the substrate, needing a neutralization stage
prior AD process. Niu, Qiao, Qiang and Li [76] found a direct relationship between TAN and VFA,
Jo

the latter causing inhibition in a process over 25000 mg L-1. It also shows an unbalanced C/N ratio
inappropriate for AD (below 13), due to a range for a suitable AD it is referred by literature between
13 to 28 [77, 78].
Bujoczek, Oleszkiewicz, Sparling and Cenkowski [48] concluded that high solid concentration in
feedstock inhibits methane generation, decreasing linearly as TS increases. This behavior is due to
the remarked impact of TS over the increase of ammonia and VFA concentrations inside the reactor.

10
To overcome this issue, a CM dilution is advisable. Similar to this, Dalkılıç and Uğurlu [79] suggested
that due to the dilution of the substrate that reduce ammonia concentration in the digester and then its
inhibitory effects, influencing positively the methane yield. Atuanya and Aigbirior [80] recommended
the reduction in colloidal solids before feeding a slurry waste from poultry farm to a UASB reactor
when OLR is above 4.5 kg COD m-3 day-1. Dalkılıc and Ugurlu [31] associate stirring problems in
mixing and heating at high TS using diluted chicken manure in an acidogenic at lab scale reactor,
decreasing biogas production. Niu, Takemura, Kubota and Li [81] established 5000 mg kg-1 of TAN
as a threshold for a good performance of the high solid digester. Up to these values, the reactor
performance is corrupted, completely inhibited after reaching a TAN of 16000 mg kg-1. Similar
behavior was found with the performance at 10% TS of a mesophilic reactor, recovered after an

of
inhibition process (TAN 16000 mg kg-1), while a thermophilic reactor collapse [76]. Additionally, it
was referred that a dilution process after an ammonia inhibition fails to recover the prior steady-state

ro
performance [56].
In general, CM could be considered as a substrate in the AD process due to its high fraction of

-p
biodegradable matter. However, special concern about high TS values and nitrogen concentration in
different forms needs to be considered regarding its limiting performance in conventional digestion
re
systems [82]. To improve the characteristics of the substrate, there are common pretreatments
methods reported in the literature.
lP

3. Typical pretreatments processes

In recent years different technologies for biomass pretreatment have been developed to increase the
availability of livestock manure for AD. As alternatives for leaching pretreatment, there are traditional
na

and established pretreatments (physical, chemical and biological) that have been tested with good
results [23, 83-86]. Table 2 summarize these pretreatments with its main characteristics.
3.1. Physical pretreatments: Mechanical pretreatments break cells through a physical force,
ur

increasing the available specific surface and reducing the depolymerization degree. This lead to an
increment of the total hydrolysis yield of lignocellulose (5-25%), depending on the characteristics of
Jo

the biomass, duration of the milling and kind of milling; and besides this, reduces the technical
digestion time up to 59% [87]. A recommended particle size for hydrolysis is 1-2mm [88]. González-
Fernández, León-Cofreces and García-Encina [89] compared AD process of untreated swine manure
with its solid and liquids fractions by screening. Analyzing the solid fraction and untreated manure,
a decreasing of biogas production was observed. Meanwhile, liquid fraction increase its

11
biodegradability and the CH4 content because that organic matter in this fraction is in soluble form
and more available for microorganism degradation [90].
Ultrasound pretreatment has been tested with liquid effluents using frequency over 20 kHz, causing
cavities or liquid-free bubbles that can implode, producing cavitation [91]. Several factors impact
disintegration like ultrasonic density and intensity, sludge concentration and pH. It is reported that
this pretreatment reduces the apparent viscosity and increased capillary suction time. Zhang, Xing
and Lou [92] confirmed that higher energy ultrasound was more efficient for sludge treatment than
lower energy ultrasound and with the augmentation of the sonication treatment intensity, an increase
of the mass sludge reduction and an inactivation degree could happen. Show, Mao and Lee [93]
suggested that the elimination of organic matter by low-frequency ultrasound sonication has a direct

of
relationship with the proportion of TS in the sludge, being 47% for 2% TS in the sludge while
reaching 39% for 1% TS. Braeutigam, Franke and Ondruschka [94] evaluated the effect of ultrasound

ro
on CM with a reaction time of 2 min and amplitude of 63µm, increasing biogas yield (45%) from 186
NL kg-1Organic Dry Matter (ODM) to 271 NL kg-1ODM. Besides, it was found a relationship

-p
between an augmentation of reaction time and amplitude of energy input with biogas yield.
Microwave technology has been successfully tested in waste water treatment, improving the
re
hydrolysis step [95]. A frequency of 2.5 GHz, can successfully break down the extracellular
polymeric substances and divalent cation network in biosolids [96].
lP

Pulse electrical field pretreatment aims at intensification by enhancing the hydrolysis process in
additional stage previous to the main digestion, increasing biosolids digestion and methanogenesis,
sending high-voltages greater than 20 kV thousands of times per second across the substrate [97].
na

Neshat, Mohammadi and Najafpour [98] studied the effect of light intensity in the AD of cattle
manure leachate. The results revealed that an increase in CH4 yield six times over control sample was
reached and when increases the light intensity, decrease CH4 yield but always over the control sample.
ur

To change the structure or the composition of the substrate, improving the hydrolysis rate by breaking
down the lignocellulose and increasing to enzymatic attack, high temperature was also been evaluated
Jo

by Raju, Sutaryo, Ward and Møller [99]. It was tested in isochoric conditions under temperatures
between 100 and 225℃, were pig manure reported the higher CH4 yield starting with 125℃ and CM
obtained the better performance by 200℃; above temperatures, no changes were observed. A higher
CH4 yield and degradation rates were obtained when applied thermal-explosion was applied to pig
manure in ranges between 150-180℃ and 5-60 min [100]. The higher CH4 potential was determined
in 170℃ and 30 min, with 329 mL CH4 g-1VSfed, when untreated substrate reached a value of 159 mL

12
CH4 g-1VSfed. Dewatered pig manure was pretreated, showing biogas production in a temperature
range between 25-100℃. The better performance of CH4 yield was found at 100℃ (475 L kg-1VS),
reaching 30% more biogas than untreated sample [101].
3.2. Chemical pretreatment: According to Carrère, Dumas, Battimelli, Batstone, Delgenès, Steyer
and Ferrer [84], ozonation is wide use as a chemical method to increase CH4 yield and partial
solubilization. When reacting with ozone, unsaturated organic compounds of lignin are degraded,
being degraded to a lesser extent, saturated ones such as carbohydrates [102]. Bougrier, Battimelli,
Delgenes and Carrere [103] studied the ozonation biodegradability of sludge, reaching an increase of
biogas production 2.4 times greater compared to the untreated substrate. Another agent used as
oxidative is hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) [104]. However, when H2O2 with a concentration of 2 gH2O2

of
g-1VSSinfluent is used to treat municipal sludge, did not appreciably affect CH4 production [104].
Autohydrolysis can be another pretreatment to consider, generally used in temperatures around 55℃,

ro
with a limited amount of oxygen, to improve the fluidity, ensuring biodegradability and reducing total
treated volume [105]. Souza, Carvajal, Donoso-Bravo, Peña and Fdz-Polanco [106] found positive

-p
effects in CH4 production using autohydrolysis pretreatment, on the performance of continuous
sludge digesters. Schumacher, Pröter and Liebetrau [107] investigated the effect of autohydrolysis in
re
CM in different temperatures and time ranges, obtaining that the effect on the CH4 yield was not
appreciable.
lP

Acid pretreatment of dairy manure was evaluated by Jin, Hu and Wen [108] concluding that anaerobic
digestibility of pretreated substrate was reduced, probably due to inhibitory effects of sulfur and
Maillard side reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars. González-Fernández, León-
na

Cofreces and García-Encina [89] studied the influence of chloride acid in the biodegradability of
swine manure, obtaining that this agent did not affect the CH4 production and biodegradability,
reaching values around 69%.
ur

The alkaline pretreatment causes swelling of the organic particles, enhancing the biodegradability in
the solid phase that may cause a better enzymatic attack [109]. Therefore, the buffer capacity added
Jo

could help VFA neutralization, reducing the inhibitory effects in AD [95]. The reagents most used in
alkaline pretreatment are sodium hydroxide (NaOH), calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), potassium
hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide, but a high concentration of Na+ or K+ may lead to AD inhibition
[110]. Costa, Barbosa, Alves and Sousa [111] reported the pretreatment of poultry litter and chicken
feathers with NaOH and Ca(OH)2 at different pressure and temperatures, obtaining similar CH4 yield
for both reagents, reaching 0.09 L g-1VS added of poultry litter and chicken feather.

13
3.3. Biological pretreatment: Biological pretreatment has as the main goal the intensification by
improving the hydrolysis process in additional stage before the main digestion process, where the
most used temperature ranges are mesophilic and hyper-thermophilic (60-70℃) [84]. Forgács,
Alinezhad, Mirabdollah, Feuk-Lagerstedt and Horváth [112] studied a biological pretreatment of
chicken feathers using recombinant Bacillus megaterium obtaining a CH4 yield of 0.4 Nm3 kg-1dry
feathers, that means an increase of 222% compared to untreated feathers. Besides, it was obtained an
improve of 155% of CH4 yield (0.31 Nm3 kg-1dry feathers) using the native keratinase producing
Bacillus licheniformis after one day of treatment. Patinvoh, Feuk-Lagerstedt, Lundin, Horváth and
Taherzadeh [113] reported CH4 yield of 199 mLCH4 g-1VS using bacteria granules (Bacillus subtilis
strain), enhancing CH4 yield when using sludge and granules by 292 and 105% respectively. The last

of
option it was considered with the better performance from the total broth, achieving 124% of CH4
yield more than the same untreated inoculum. Hasegawa, Shiota, Katsura and Akashi [114] used the

ro
thermophilic bacteria Bacillus stearothermophilus for solubilizing organic sludge (reaching a VSS
removal of 40%), generating an increase of CH4 production by 1.5 (from 200 to 300 mL g-1VS in)
compared with the untreatable sludge.

-p
3.4. Combination of pretreatments: In literature are found two combinations of pretreatments:
re
thermochemical and biological cotreatment with thermochemical pretreatment. Ardİc and Taner [115]
reported successful effect solubilizing solid CM particulates and an increase of biogas and CH4
lP

production for one hour at room temperature, using NaOH as a reagent, despite its biodegradability
limitations. Additionally, Rafique, Poulsen, Nizami, Murphy and Kiely [101] referred an increase of
CH4 production in pig manure around 72% at 70℃ using Ca(OH)2 compared to untreated manure.
na

Besides, these authors remarked the pertinency of the thermochemical pretreatment compared to
thermal and chemical pretreatment along with an increase of CH4 production (+41%) was observed
using poultry litter as substrate, reaching values of 145 LCH4 kg-1VS with biological cotreatment as
ur

bioaugmentation strains with thermochemical pretreatment using NaOH and lime at different
temperatures [111].
Jo

3.5. Nitrogen reduction systems: Before AD, it is well described in the literature the necessity to
remove nitrogen due to its toxic impact over the process [116, 117]. Nitrogen content of CM is higher
than other animal manures, owing to ammonia excess produced from the hydrolysis of uric acid, urea
and nitrogen material (proteins), affecting negatively on methanogenic activity [51]. According to
Niu, Qiao, Qiang, Hojo and Li [58], CH4 content and biogas production in monodigestion of CM
decreased when TAN concentration is over 6000 mg L-1. Although continuously operated anaerobic

14
digesters are not running, there are some physic-chemicals ammonia removal techniques, like ion
exchange [118], ammonia stripping [36, 51, 119], zeolite adsorption [120] and struvite precipitation
[121, 122]. Co-digestion with low nitrogen waste and diluting CM with another TS substrates, it is a
established process to decrease ammonia inhibition effects, even though not always could be effective
[36, 58].
A novel strategy adding trace elements (Fe2+ and Ni2+) was studied by Bi, Westerholm, Qiao, Mahdy,
Xiong, Yin, Fan, Dach and Dong [123] in the AD of CM, assessing the microbial activity under an
inhibition environment. Trace elements enhance CH4 production and reduce VFA, mainly focused on
acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic activities, attributed to the relative increment of Methanosarcina
colonies, which can change its metabolism between the routes that use acetate and hydrogen.

of
Following this direction, Molaey, Bayrakdar, Sürmeli and Çalli [124] assessed a rich-nitrogen CM
adding different trace elements. A double increase of CH4 yield was obtained (0.26 m3 kg-1VS) when

ro
selenium was added alone compared to non-trace element digestor, due to the stimulation of
hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis occurred at high TAN levels. Another study affirmed that

-p
nanoparticles enhance AD using poultry litter in lower concentration (<100 Fe, 12 Ni, and 5.54 Co
mg L-1), increasing biogas production efficiency [125].
re
Previous authors agree that dilution in CM with TS values below 10% is considered an attractive
alternative to improving the AD process.
lP
na
ur
Jo

15
Table 2

of
Traditional pretreatments for livestock manure in AD

Pretreatment Process Purpose Relevant economic issues References

ro
Increase substrate solubility
Disruption of cell walls structure and decrease of

-p
Milling, ultrasonic, crystallinity High electric energy consumer [127]
microwave, electric Depolymerize biomass structure [126] Maintenance may be expensive [91] [97, 128-136]
Physical
pulse Breaks down large aggregates

re
Reduces complex organic molecules to simpler
forms
Autohydrolysis
water),
(ozone),
(sodium
lP
(hot Hydrolyzation of cellulose
ozonation High removal of lignin
alkaline Rupture of rigid cell wall structure [137]
hydroxide, Increase of internal surface area
High energy demand
Relative high cost of reagents
na
[107, 139-143]
Chemical ammonia lime, calcium Reduction in degree of polymerization Possible inhibition
hydroxide, potassium Degradation of lignin structure [138]
hydroxide)
ur
Jo

16
 Fungi (brown, white
and soft-rot), enzyme

of
product [86]
Log time is required [85, 144]
(Clostridium Demethylation or hydroxylation of lignin
Corrosion issues

ro
cellulolyticum, Disruption of cellulose and hemicellulose [111-113]
Biological Enzyme-substrate specificity
Caldicellulosiruptor Hydrolyzation of fibrous proteins (e.g. keratin)
Extra stage required
saccharolyticum and

-p
Clostridium
thermocellum)

re
High capital cost
Thermochemical Split complex polymers
High space [115, 145]
Biological cotreatment- Lignin and carbohydrates are breakdowns,
Combination Possible formation of recalcitrant
thermochemical releasing free sugars

lP compounds
na
ur
Jo

17
4. Leaching as a pretreatment to reduce TS

Leaching is the preferential dissolution of one or more components of a solid mixture by contact

with a liquid solvent [146]. This liquid passes through the cap of the solid or through the open

solid site. In other words, leachate is a soluble mineral and organic compounds formed as a solvent

into the solid layers, extracting selectively different compounds, starting a mass transfer through

complex interactions between the biogeochemical and hydrological reactions, producing a liquid

active phase with high moisture content [147]. Leachate improves the microbiota medium,

providing water, nutrients, microorganisms, dispersion of the inoculum, pH buffering agents and

enhance the AD process diluting intermediate products (mainly NH4+, VFA, and H2) including

of
potential toxins [148-151]. The products obtained are leachate and leached solid.

For dilution, freshwater use is common [76, 152]. High solids content (>25% w/w [34]) is a critical

ro
factor affecting AD of CM, and high organic matter is associated to high N concentrations in CM

[57], being leaching a convenient approach to obtain liquid leachate with high organic matter
-p
content previous to digestion [153]. Additionally, a diluted CM with high OLR in the feedstock

can prevent ammonia inhibition in AD process [52] and other inhibitory substances (e.g. CaCO3
re
and Total Volatile Acids) [39]. Besides, a water addition could reduce HRT, impacting positively

in investment cost [154] and energy consumption [155]. In this direction, a relationship between
lP

theoretical methane yield and HRT is established, a decrease of HRT causes an increase of

theoretical methane yield [44, 156]. It is referred for poultry litter leachates a decrease of methane
na

yield when OLR increases, mainly caused by the low C/N ratio in leachates [44]. Degueurce,

Tomas, Le Roux, Martinez and Peu [157] affirmed that active leachates biologically treated from
ur

manure produced double methane equivalent compared with inert leachates and suggested that

specific leachate sourcing does not affect the AD process, due to the microbial community in the
Jo

substrate itself is appropriate for biogas conversion.

It is established that leachate recirculation (LR) impacts positively in AD, enhancing cumulated

CH4 volume during the process [158], improving methanogenic activity to the substrate, providing

a convenient pH along with a promotion of buffered environmental for AD and helping to reach

an efficient acetogenesis and methanogenesis stage [157]. LR promotes solid degradation in two

aspects: moisture moves through the biomass bed and changes the content of water [159]. The
18
mechanism of greater importance in the process is the acids transport to methanogens (acetic acid

as the main precursor of methanogenesis), being considered as more relevant than the inverse

process because the fresh biomass would be inactivated as a result of the inhibition of the acid

[160]. Pre-aeration can limit acidification in particular [161], due to the exchange between fresh

batches and stabilized fresh residues [162, 163] by the addition of a buffer [39] and neutralizing

leaching in the acid medium [161]. The isolation of acidification and methanogenesis stages can

be a way to eliminate the imbalance between them, being considered as a strategy of high

efficiency and stability but with an increase in complexity and capital costs [164], less

recommended for small systems.

of
According to Degueurce, Trémier and Peu [35], the main parameters that affect the most CH4

yield in an LR approach are the leachate/substrate (L/S) ratio, the volume of leachate recirculated

ro
and recirculation interval time. Kusch, Oechsner and Jungbluth [165] studied LR alternatives in a

batch reactor, obtaining a good result under discontinuous recirculation and non-favorable under
-p
continuous recirculation. Besides, under very little recirculation, the methanogenesis stage could

be retarded and under intensive recirculation activity, the digestion process may fail and also the
re
inhibition could increase due to the accumulation of VFA or ammonia [166]. Continuous LR with

a 1:1 L/S ratio could be effective with a higher CH4 production [167]. Frequent injections are
lP

recommended immediately after the CH4 production peak to better external VFA consume [168].

4.1. Leaching handling techniques: A good solid-liquid contact it is essential to achieve leachate
na

with high organic matter [159]. There are two main leaching handling techniques in the literature:

spraying or trickling the liquid over the solid and immersing the solid completely in the liquid or
ur

flood-and-drain [146].

4.1.1. Spraying or trickling: The dispersion of the leachates helps the dilution and transport of the
Jo

intermediate metabolites through the liquid phase and also allows them to be washed out from the

system (Fig. 1A) [149]. The method of percolation is used when solids are too thick to be easily

suspended by immersion [169]. Shewani, Horgue, Pommier, Debenest, Lefebvre, Gandon and

Paul [38] studied the percolation using spraying water through cow manure previous dry AD batch

process. The authors modeled the main hydrodynamics parameters like the period for water

exchange from macro and micro-porosity, in addition to the porosity and the permeability of the
19
medium. It was suggested that a multiphase porous medium approach could fit the dynamic water

retention when the leachate is injected uniformly over the surface of the solid substrate bed. The

same substrate was used by Shewani, Horgue, Pommier, Debenest, Lefebvre, Decremps and Paul

[170] that evaluated a solute transfer between static and dynamic water during percolation using

water spraying. Dependence between the transfer rate of the solute on the macro and micro-

porosity ratio was found, thus reducing the exchange surface and the efficiency of the washed

solute. A study was conducted by Degueurce, Trémier and Peu [35] evaluating the influence of

different parameters over CH4 production rates with dairy cow manure and cattle manure as a

substrate. Better results were obtained when recirculating small leachate amounts and extending

of
the interval between recirculation, independently of L/S ratio. The effect of the leaching

temperature was studied by Liao, Frear, Oakley and Chen [171] in a leach bed system with dairy

ro
manure as a substrate. It was found as the optimal operation conditions for temperature and flow

rate, 50℃ and 4 L h-1 kg dry solids respectively, consuming an equal share of fresh and recycled
-p
water. Two steps for water use were obtained: first step, 1h with recycled water and the second

step with 3h with tap water. Yap, Astals, Jensen, Batstone and Tait [172] obtained better residual
re
CH4 potential for trickling leachate compared to immersing of livestock residues (732 and 582

LCH4 kg-1VSfed respectively), suggesting the possibility to separate methanogenic step for further
lP

leachate efficiency.

4.1.2. Immersing or flood-and-drain: Immersing occurs when the feedstock is submerged into the
na

liquid at all time and the recirculation may occur depending on the process design. As the main

advantage is that all of the feedstock is immersed, allowing fast solubilization for the soluble
ur

substrate [173]. It is referred that the component separation in a stirred system with leachates it

becomes easier compared to a trickling system passing through biomass, due mainly to deficient
Jo

ion diffusion in a non-flooded matrix and a lack of mixing [174]. One of the main differences

between the immersing or flood-and-drain technology compared with CSTR is the HRT, reaching

values between 10-25 days in CSTR depending on the biodegradability of feedstock [175], while

immersing requires 4-8 hours only [107]. Appreciable biodegradation should not occur due to the

lower exposure time when CSTR is used as flood-and-drain technology. Chaump, Preisser,

Shanmugam, Prasad, Adhikari and Higgins [153] reported the use of leaching of poultry litter for
20
AD using water at room temperature for 4 hours obtaining an increase in 74% in CH4 potential

(0.24-0.30 L g-1VS) than the whole litter, showing the potential of this strategy. When increasing

solids loading during leachate preparation, the production of biogas grows, however low levels of

inhibition may appear (Fig. 1B). Ammonium is reported as the main inhibitor linked to high levels

of nutrients in the feedstock [176]. A study was conducted by Kusch, Oechsner and Jungbluth

[177] comparing the two leachate handling techniques (spraying and immersing) in mesophilic

conditions for six weeks of horse dung as substrate. Despite both leachate handling techniques

enhance the degradability of the substrate, it was obtained the higher volumetric CH4 production

in the immersing system. Moreover, it is required less digester volume in the prior system despite

of
both techniques showed the same CH4 yield per kg of VS added. Another method to increase CH4

production is called autohydrolysis, considered as an alternative to thermal pretreatment.

ro
Autohydrolysis is a biological response of heat-induced microorganisms that accomplish these

requirements [178]. A study was conducted by Schumacher, Pröter and Liebetrau [107] evaluating
-p
the influence of autohydrolysis of CM over biogas yield in a batch test. The authors evaluated two

different working times (four and eight hours) and six temperatures ranges (5, 20 and 40℃ in both
re
cases) obtaining better results for eight hours and similar CH4 yield in three temperatures.
lP
na
ur
Jo

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the leachate handling techniques. A: spraying or trickling with LR

and B: immersing or flood-and-drain.

21
4.2. Challenges in leachate pretreatment: There are some technical, economic and environmental

issues related to leaching pretreatment. Feedstock dilution carries on difficulties. It reduces the

organic matter concentration, as well as AD efficiency. A large volume of the digester is required

to achieve an extensive bioconversion at given hydraulic retention time. For example, Nie, Jacobi,

Strach, Xu, Zhou and Liebetrau [117] reported water consumption of 9 L kg-1CM to dilute

feedstock from 30% TS to 3%. Water consumption arises, requiring recirculation and recovery

technologies, leading to more energy consumption. When reloading the digester, the production

of CH4 fluctuates, causing instability in the system. Digestate increase in quantities, the rising cost

associated with residues transportation. Little knowledge of the potentialities of the leached solid

of
was found in literature, being a research necessity for further studies. For these reasons, to enhance

AD and make this process feasible, it is necessary to select an efficient technology. HRAR are

ro
very attractive according to their high efficiency and stability, as well as its economic feasibility.

4.3. Modeling leaching process: The leaching process is a complex phenomenon affected by
-p
physical and chemical interactions, that take place varying in time and space. Computational Fluid

Dynamic (CFD) model is a powerful tool with the potential to model and simulate processes with
re
the interaction of hydrodynamic and chemical issues. This model constitutes a solid option for

modeling process based on the conservation of mass, momentum, species, and energy in a
lP

demarcated region [179]. CFD gives pertinent information about species concentration along the

reactor which, combined with a deep knowledge of chemical reaction involved in process and
na

hydrodynamics models, an accurate prediction of chemical species in output leachate can be

obtained. In recent years, CFD has been used to simulate leaching complex flows such as stirred
ur

systems [180-182] and percolation [183, 184]. The application of CFD to the study of biomass

leachate systems (manure) is still in the initial phase. The complexity of the physical-chemical
Jo

processes and the suitability of mathematical models is becoming more understandable from the

development of powerful and fast fluid dynamics software capable of providing convenient results

in a short space of time. The study of the fluid dynamics conditions inside the leaching system is

vital to understand the sampling results and correctly interpret the concentrations of the species in

different areas in the control volume.

22
The interaction between different parameters is complex so it becomes necessary some

simplifications [185]. The composition of leachate is an important parameter to be modeled for

later use as a substrate in the AD process in HRAR [153]. That depends heavily on the age of

the manure, decrease VS/TS and C/N ratio in time, and the increase in carbon, nitrogen and

hydrogen concentration [153]. More than half of crude protein in CM is in form non-nitrogen

protein like uric acid, urea, creatine, and creatinine, due mainly to the inefficiency of monogastric

systems of chicken [186]. Respecting the chicken feed, it is reported that N and P remain in CM

between 65-70% [187] and 50-90% [188] respectively. N composition is as follows: 80-10-2-8%,

corresponding to uric acid, N-NH3-, N-protein and other N-compounds like urea, nucleosides, etc.,

of
respectively [186]. Around 86% of N in CM correspond to an organic source, the remaining

portion (14%) it is in inorganic form, mainly NH4-N and NO3-N [189]. Uric acid (C5H4N4O3) is

ro
one of the substances found in leachate, obtained by the chicken excretion [153]. It is reported that

the main source of P in the chicken diet comes from monocalcium phosphate (Ca(H2PO4)2) and
-p
dicalcium phosphate (CaHPO4) [190], being the first with highest biological value [191]. Besides,

Sharpley and Moyer [192] reported that around 90% of P in CM is in an inorganic source, but only
re
6% could be water extracted [189]. Calcium is essential for microorganisms grown [55]. Low

calcium concentration (100-200 mg L-1) impacts beneficial to granules formation in the UASB
lP

reactor, and above this level becomes inhibitory [193]. Next, it is described the chemical mass

balanced equations for solubilization and solvation with water:

na

C5H4N4O3 + O2+H2O→10CO2 + 8HN3 (1)

NH3 + H2O ↔NH4++OH- (2)

ur

Ca(H2PO4)2 + H2O→ Ca(H2PO4)2 ·H2O (3)

CaHPO4 + H2O → CaHPO4 ·H2O (4)

Jo

The anaerobic microorganism prefers a pH range between 6.8 to 8.5 for a good performance in

AD [194]. It is referred that slurries from poultry manure with 5 and 10% TS behave slightly acid

(6.4 and 6.3, respectively [195]). Leachate pH and oxidation/reduction potential are governed by

the solid phase (the predominant phase). Frequently, the dissolution of the more soluble major

minerals governs the strength of the leachate.

23
Porous media are characterized as its porosity and permeability as main parameters [196].

Investigations of the interactions between the physical, chemical and biological processes provide

knowledge that can be applied to solve the problems. Such investigations can be carried out with

the aid of numerical models. CM is considered as a high porosity substrate due to its high fiber

(~32% DM [197]) and calcium composition [198, 199], allowing water flow fast through the pores.

An agitated systems with a high degree of particles in suspension and low degree of sedimentation,

it is typical to reach high degrees of mass transfer and mixing [200]. PH in equilibrium is ruled by

the major soluble phase (dissolution), for low L/S ratio, initial and equilibrium pH differs, and for

high L/S values, initial pH and equilibrium perform similarly. Borisover and Graber [201] provide

of
a sorption model in natural organic matter that describes the penetration of solute and/or solvent

molecules into different contacts (inter and intra-molecular) in organic matter. Fellner and Brunner

ro
[202] modeled the leachate generation in porous media (landfill systems) considering a

heterogeneous flow, taking into account two domains: a channel domain with high hydraulic
-p
conductivity and matrix domain of slow water movement with high water retention capacity.

It is reported that particle shape and size influence biomass particle hydrodynamics. Several
re
authors assumed spherical shape in modeling [203], carrying large errors and results [204]. In this

point of view, Gerhardter, Prieler, Schluckner, Knoll, Hochenauer, Mühlböck, Tomazic and
lP

Schroettner [205] affirmed, when a non-spherical particle is considered, errors calculating was

reduced from -59 K to 2 K.

na

For a porous landfill system, Fytanidis and Voudrias [183] evaluated a using the Navier-Stokes-

Brinkman equations for an ¨Euler-Euler¨ multiphase approach, simulating the rheological

ur

characteristics of aeration in a multiphase system. Suito, Horikawa, Moroizumi and Ono [184]

simulated a groundwater flow fields and convection-diffusion of contaminants in a landfill system

Jo

adopting Navier-Stocks equations in 3D groundwater flow, reducing Darcy´s equations and it is

considered a relationship between saturation and relative permeability proposed by Brooks and

Corey [206]. A 3D multiphase flow approach and multicomponent transport was studied by Feng,

Cao, Li, Chen and Zheng [207], combining CFD techniques with User-Defined Functions (UDFs).

In this study, a hydrodynamic and biochemical behavior are modeled simultaneously with on-and-

off dosing cycles of LR until steady-state conditions are reached.

24
Most leaching scenarios, Darcy´s law is a convenient approximation for fluid flow through porous

media. However, for very fine-grained, Darcy´s law it is not applicable, then dimensionless

Reynolds (Re) number is used. Darcy´s law is effective when Re is between 1-10. Khan [185]

suggested the use of Richard´s equation [208] for one-dimensional flow of water through porous

media in combination with Darcy´s law, due to its possibility to be assessed with a waste stream

with a limited data base.

Agitated and static systems differ only in energy added to the system, enhancing mass transfer

between solid and liquid in one or two orders in magnitude [200]. LR may not reach the

equilibrium state with the solid phase at the top of the vessel complexing the scenario. A selection

of
of a convenient stirred system impacts on the accuracy of the CFD model, with the proper selection

of grid resolution, discretization scheme, impeller rotation and turbulence model [180]. In this case,

ro
the former authors agreed with Aubin, Fletcher and Xuereb [209], reporting that small grids and

high-order discretization schemes are essential to reduce numerical errors in modeling turbulence.
-p
Besides, Deglon and Meyer [180] showed that k-ɛ turbulence model can accurate to the fluid flow

with the main condition of small grids approach. A model was developed by Kasat, Khopkar,
re
Ranade and Pandit [182] for liquid-phase mixing in solid-phase, simulating with use of k-ɛ

turbulence model. Besides, the authors affirmed that with a low rpm (n=120), no additional drag
lP

on the moving liquid occurs and there is not suspended off to the bottom of the reactor which,

therefore, leads to a higher mixing speed. It was pointed out by Wadnerkar, Utikar, Tade and
na

Pareek [181] that turbulence dispersion force affects negligible due to a low solid volume fraction

and to achieve a homogenized solid-liquid system with low loading stirred tank, it is convenient
ur

the use of a low impeller speed.

In this framework, modeling of the complex-structural CM leaching system geometry becomes a

Jo

challenging issue and to overcome this; it is necessary to gather information respecting to,

hydrological transport of fluid through porous media, LR parameters and kinetics of reactions that

take part in the process.

In general, CFD tool could predict the species concentration along the reactor in different regions

of the grid, but some issues need to be addressed using leachate, 1) a comprehensive model that

considers the flow through the porous media with the species in a multi-phase transfer system, 2)
25
the kinetics calculation inside the reactor (solubilization and solvation) for different conditions and

3) the optimal stirring rate to ensure the correct mixing of liquid-solid interphase and to

reduce ¨dead zones¨ inside the reactor. A prediction of these conditions will need to be achieved

by a system validation of experimental measures.

5. High rate anaerobic reactors (HRAR)

Selection of an appropriate and adequate leachate treatment technology is dependent on the

substances that it needs to be wash-off from the substrate. AD is normally used as a treatment to

reduce organic matter in high strength wastewaters like leachate [210]. AD system election

strongly depends on the substrate characteristics, proper design, simple operation [211] and

of
economic feasibility [212]. HRAR are mature technologies for the use of low TS and high

efficiency using wastes as substrate. The most commonly used referred in literature are then

ro
analyzed above.

5.1. Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (AnSBR): AnSBR is considered a promising alternative
-p
to treat liquid residues with high probability to achieve high solids retention and organic removal

retention, better effluent quality and gives attractive quality control [213]. An 83% of COD
re
removed from landfill leachate is transformed into CH4, reaching values between 64 and 85%,

specific loading rates from 0.17 to 1.85 g COD g-1VSS d and specific volumetric rates from 0.4
lP

to 9.4 g COD L-1d [214]. Kennedy and Lentz [215] studied the AnSBR removal efficiencies of

CODS from landfill leachate, obtaining values between 71 and 92% at OLR between 0.6 and 18.4
na

g COD L-1d.

5.2. Expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB): To date, EGSB expanded bed reactors are the most
ur

demanded devices in the AD market. This system has higher loading potential than conventional

UASB systems, avoiding high liquid and gas upflow velocity in the expanded bed reactors and
Jo

the mass transfer limitation (caused by short-circuiting in the sludge bed) [216]. Nowadays, most

anaerobic bioreactors, with a continuous supply of substrates and dense granular sludge, has been

applicated to wastewater treatment, starch, sugar, dyeing and swine wastewater [217, 218].

Depending on the inlet liquid, the OLR can reach values up to 40 kgCOD m-3d [216] and remove

COD from 92 to 97% at low organic loading rates (6.5 kg COD m-3d) [219]. A removal up to 70%

26
of CODT for biogas production of 0.15 Nm3 CH4 kg-1CODT were obtained using swine manure

liquid fraction as substrate with a lab-scale EGSB for 273 days and HRT of 3.8 days [220].

5.3. Continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR): Due to its easy handling and reduced costs, CSTR

is the main industrial-scale reactor used [82]. Solid content inside reactor affects the efficiency,

mainly the reactor mixing methods and process dynamic. In this case, Angelidaki, Chen, Cui,

Kaparaju and Ellegaard [221] suggested the appropriate TS content inside the reactor between 10

and 50 g L-1. Liu, Zhou, Zhang and Zhu [222] working with a CSTR effluent of CM, it was

reported removal of CODT and CODS up to 80%. Also, obtaining a decrease in reactor efficiency

when OLR increased to 4.0-4.6 kgCOD m-3d. Sürmeli, Bayrakdar, Molaey and Çalli [74] studied

of
the effect of the sulfur load in a CSTR using CM as substrate, obtaining an OLR from 0.5 to 2.5

kg VS m-3d and the CH4 yield was 0.63 m3 kg-1 VS. This result showed that with the acclimation

ro
of the microbial consortium at high TAN, digestion of CM is convenient. A study carried out by

Wang, Pei, Qiu, Yao, Zhang and Qiang [223] with CM as the main source in a continuous CSTR
-p
for 150 days under mesophilic conditions, obtained an increase on biogas yield until VS reached

11.5 gVS L-1d. However, when VS increased, AD performance was affected, increasing TAN
re
(2560 mg L-1), pH (8.2) and alkalinity (15000 mg L-1), decreasing volumetric biogas product rate,

CH4 content and VS removal efficiency (0.30 L L-1d, 45% and 40% respectively). A lab-scale
lP

CSTR with CM was operated by Zhang, Lang, Pan, Jiang, Liebetrau, Nelles, Dong and Dong [52]

at 38℃ with OLR of 6 gVS L-1d with different HRT. A better HRT performance was obtained at
na

30 days, improving the biogas yield up to 6.1% (392.3 mL g-1VS), however, when HRT is

reduced from 10 to 5 days, a deterioration of digester performance was observed. Bayrakdar,

ur

Sürmeli and Çalli [15] obtained a complete inhibition at ORL of 3.85 kgVS m-3d using CM as

feedstock and suggested for stable CH4 production, a TAN concentration below 4000 mg L-1 at
Jo

the higher OLR (3.56 kgVS m-3d).

5.4. Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB): An increased attention is being paid to the

granulation of the anaerobic sludge, taking into account its possibilities [224]. UASB is referred

as an efficient organic matter removal technology, reaching values between 80-90% with OLR

over 50 kg COD m-3d [225] due mainly to the stable formation of granules inside the reactor [225,

226]. Rao, Reddy, Prakash, Vanajakshi, Joseph, Jetty, Reddy and Sarma [37] studied the ammonia
27
removal treating poultry litter leachate with a UASB reactor, achieving better performance in

COD reduction, CH4 yield, HRT and OLR (96%, 0.26 m3 CH4 kg-1CODremoved, 12 h and 8.5 COD

m-3d, respectively) compared with the reactor without a stripper. Yetilmezsoy, Ilhan, Sapci-

Zengin, Sakar and Gonullu [227] showed a remarkable performance of poultry manure wastewater

treatment system for 216 days with 10% TS in a laboratory batch study. The results presented a

daily biogas production between 4.23 to 29.4 L d-1 and a CODT removal efficiency between 75

and 94%. However, the applicability to the full scale of these values (10% TS) is limited due to

the clogging of the influent distribution system. A liquid fraction of hen manure was studied by

Kalyuzhnyi, Fedorovich and Nozhevnikova [228]. Under mesophilic temperatures and with the

of
initial OLR of 1 gCOD L-1d, increased to 11-12 gCOD L-1d, it was obtained a biogas production

of 3.5-3.6 L L-1d with the highest OLR and with a COD reduction of 70-75%. Yetilmezsoy and

ro
Sakar [229] considered a UASB reactor treating poultry manure wastewater under mesophilic

conditions, different organic and hydraulic conditions. These authors concluded with a best COD
-p
reduction efficiency of 88.2% under different volumetric removal rates and hydraulic conditions

(4.26 kgCOD m-3 d and 0.55-3.78 kgCODremoved m-3d respectively).

re
5.5. Leach Bed Reactor (LBR): Usually, in LBR operation, the liquid solvent (water as the most

used) pass through the packed waste bed, followed by the collector of the underflow (leachate) in
lP

the bottom. It is reported by Farrow, Crolla, Kinsley and McBean [33] that a high density of solid

waste as a substrate can lead to clogging the LBR, for that reason, is common the use of bulking
na

agents. The former authors compared different kind of bulking agents (sawdust, plastic hollow

spheres, full plastic particles, wood ships and bottom ash), obtaining that bottom ash and wood
ur

ships are better considering the organic leaching and CH4 yield. However, these bulking agents

bring more reactor volume, an issue that increases capital cost in large scale implementation.
Jo

Karim [230] referred to the convenience of LBR configuration since it allows treatment of

leachate without disrupting the microbial community. Shen and Zhu [231] concluded that LBR

with two agitation systems of poultry litter including hydrolyzer, reach better results in solids

destruction with TS and VS was 92.4 and 91.9% compared to 52.8 and 48.7% without agitation.

Also suggested that agitation reduce the time to reach a stable concentration compared with the

same substrate loading schemes. Bayrakdar, Sürmeli and Çalli [43] referred the use of CM
28
leachate in AD with TS>14% for 75 days using an LBR compared to the same reactor, but with a

membrane ammonia separation system included, obtaining that, despite having a lower

performance of the ammonia removal system, biogas yield reached 0.121 m3 kg-1VS. El-Mashad,

van Loon, Zeeman, Bot and Lettinga [212] reported the production of CH4 using LR with cattle

manure at 16% TS under mesophilic conditions (40 and 50℃) for 60 days. The volume increases

of LR at high temperatures, improved contact between the substrate and biomass, increasing the

production of CH4 to 0.7 LCH4 LReactor-1d-1. A CH4 production rate of 1.38 NLCH4 d-1 was

obtained by Riggio, Torrijos, Vives, Esposito, Van Hullebusch, Steyer and Escudié [168] with an

injection of 360 mL flush-1 in mesophilic conditions between 15 to 35 days and these authors

of
remarked that, leachate flush-rate influence little in methanogenesis lag-phases. Additionally, the

authors emphasized the necessity to increase leachate flush rate conditions during the acidification

ro
stage to achieve degradation kinetics fast enough. High solid dairy manure was analyzed in a batch

process, obtaining no VFA and ammoniacal nitrogen toxic level. Thus, in 70 days of operation, it
-p
was found a biogas yield of 0.215m3 kg-1VSadded [232]. Ramm, Abendroth, Pérez, Herrmann,

Sebök, Geißler, Vilanova, Porcar, Dornack and Bürger [233] conducted a study showing the
re
feasibility of LBR with CM as substrate, were an increasing of VFA formation (between 13 to

19%) was obtained removing nitrogen as pretreatment in AD.

lP

5.6. Advanced sequencing batch reactor (ASBR): In ASBR operation, four stages are considered:

feed, react, settle and decant in a cyclic mode [234]. SRT and HRT are separate at the same time,
na

which leads to achieving a longer SRT, while the liquid leaves the reactor in less time [235].

ASBR can treat more substrate volume per unit compared to traditional digesters, and this
ur

characteristic makes this technology suitable to treat and recover biogas from very diluted animal

waste (<1% TS, [236]), reducing the volume digester [234]. A study was carried by Yang, Deng,
Jo

Wang, Zheng, Liu, Wang and Huang [237] using swine manure wastewater for biogas production

at mesophilic conditions, comparing different reactor configurations (ASBR, Upflow Solid

Reactor and Anaerobic Sludge Bed-Filter) in a range of 2-10 g TS L-1d-1. The better performance

was obtained using ASBR for CH4 production of 1.679 L L-1d-1 with OLR of 8 gTS L-1d-1. Liquid

pig manure was studied by Hamilton, Steele and Ndgewa [238] in mesophilic operation in a

laboratory scale and a farm reactor system, obtaining a specific biogas yield produced between
29
0.14 to 0.16 L mg-1COD and 0.21 L mg-1COD respectively. The reduction of organic matter

loading was in a range of 60-80%. A decreasing of CH4 yield was found by Masse, Masse and

Croteau [239] when psychrophilic temperatures were applied to swine manure. Values of 20, 15

and 10℃ were studied obtaining a CH4 yield of 0.218 and 0.080 (for 15 and 10℃) L g-1CODTfed,

while COD removal also tended to reduce when temperatures diminish. Lozecznik, Sparling,

Oleszkiewicz, Clark and VanGulck [240] obtained that the removal of organic and inorganic

clogging constituents (COD, VFA, Fixed Suspended Solid and Ca2+) from methanogenesis step

of leachate, avoid the accumulation inside the recirculation system in bioreactors. Also, it was

remarked that methanogenesis of leachate prior recirculation could control clogging inside pipes

of
and produces additional clean energy.

5.7. Internal circulation (IC): IC reactor is based on the gas lift concept [241], and it works like

ro
two UASB reactors in tandem with two sets of three separation modules [242]. These reactors

configuration can reach an OLR up to 35 kg COD m-3d-1 [243]. Liu, Zhou, Zhang and Zhu [222]
-p
operated a mesophilic reactor, digesting an effluent from a CM continuous CSTR, reaching OLR

of 1.5-3.5 kgCOD m-3d-1, CODT between 70 and 80%, CODS around 80% and volumetric biogas
re
production rate of 1.2 m3 m-3d-1. Besides, Zhang, Liu, Hu, Zhao and Zhang [244] report that IC

performed stable and efficient for piggery wastewater in mesophilic conditions when the organic
lP

load reached up to 20.6 kgCOD m-3d-1, HRT of 16 hours and COD efficiency of 88%.

5.8. Two AD stages: Two AD stages have been employed successfully for CH4 production from
na

various sources of biomass, especially manure. These systems provide efficiency and stability

compared to a single stage. They consist of two different reactors in series, separating the
ur

fermentation and methanogenesis stage physically. The VFA production takes place in the first

phase, derived from acid fermentation and the second phase, VFA are transformed into CH4 and
Jo

CO2 [245]. As main benefit using two-stage digester over conventional digester is the reduction

of the total digestion time, reducing economic costs (reactor size and capital costs) and increasing

efficiency (effluent quality, CH4 yield, volatile solid reduction and process stability) [245]. Also,

a combination of two different reactors (LBR/plug flow) using leachate as feedstock allows, 1)

collect the leachate and 2) keep in active the microbial consortium [230]. Horan, Yaser and Wid

[246] referred to as used in two-stages digesters with the combination of LBR-UASB

30
(acidogenesis-methanogenesis respectively) and CSTR-CSTR. The VFA overloading in the first

stage is reduced in the second stage, improving biogas yield and biomass conversion [247]. Liu,

Zhou, Zhang and Zhu [222] studied a CSTR-IC coupled using CM as substrate, obtaining a COD

removal of IC effluent up to 80% and reported a beneficial effect in sludge retention time using a

recirculation loop as removal of nondegradable matter. Neshat, Mohammadi and Najafpour [248]

studied a hybrid bioreactor (UASB-Upflow Anaerobic Packed Bed Photo-bioreactor, UAPBP)

using cattle manure leachate. The authors concluded that high COD removal was reached (up to

33.03 kgCOD m-3d-1) with HRT of 1.8 days, the CH4 yield was up to 0.30 m3CH4 kg-1CODremoved.

Also alleged, when HRT decreases around 37%, and OLR increases up to 5%, the system behaved

of
stable with CH4 yield of 0.27-0.30 m3CH4 kg-1CODremoved. Another work coupling two semi-

continuous series reactors, LBR-LBR was carried out by Hall, Hawkes, Hawkes and Thomas [232]

ro
obtaining better results compared to batch experiments of single reactors, increasing in 22% the

biogas yield. Besides, series mode operation of reactors are recommended by authors, due to the
-p
possibility of treating the substrates continuously in further stages without requirements of a start-

up and seeding controlled procedure. Poggi-Varaldo, Alzate-Gaviria, Pérez-Hernández, Nevarez-

re
Morillón and Rinderknecht-Seijas [162] compared the behavior of two different sets of reactors:

LBR-LBR and UASB-LBR for liquid substrate, obtaining a faster overall start-up and an increase
lP

of removal efficiency of organic matter and CH4 pseudo-yield (2.8 VS basis and 95% respectively)

for the former. Yang, Wang, Luo and Zeng [249] referred the positive impacts over biogas
na

production of LBR-CSTR arrangement in mono-digestion of pig manure, increasing 1.24 times

compared with control CSTR mainly due to the particle shape, facilizing the attachment of
ur

biological bacteria and the hydrolysis of the substrate.

6. Benefits and drawbacks of leachate in HRAR

Jo

A good performance of poultry litter was obtained by Rao, Reddy, Prakash, Vanajakshi, Joseph,

Jetty, Reddy and Sarma [37] in a UASB reactor. It presented an efficient behavior considering the

COD removal, reaching values up to 90% with no ammonia removal before AD. CH4 yield was

between 0.14 to 0.21 m3CH4 kg-1CODremoved when OLR variated in a range of 5.4 to 13.6 kg COD

m-3d-1. The authors referred that, when an increase of OLR occurs, CH4 yield and COD reduction

decreased (44% and 32% respectively) in an OLR range between 10.5 to 13.6 kg COD m-3d-1, re-
31
increasing abruptly reaching again values close to 92% of COD removal. As a main highlight, this

behavior happens by decreasing the HRT, while pH is maintained in a range of 6.7 to 7.3. This

suggested that a ¨one-off¨ overload could occur, accumulating VFA concentration, increasing the

digester instability [250]. Besides, it is referred by Angelidaki, Ellegaard and Ahring [251] that

high OLR could increase inhibition points.

In case of an LBR operated with CM, Bayrakdar, Sürmeli and Çalli [43] concluded that

differences between the retention time between LBR and CSTR, are due to low contact between

liquid phase (leachate) and solid phase (CM) in the first, always tested in laboratory conditions. It

was affirmed that in a larger scale (pilot plant or real-scale), the distribution the liquid over the

of
solid could be solved. High inoculum/substrate (I/S) ratio impacts negatively in CH4 production,

attributed mainly to inhibition caused by high ammonia concentration. Authors also reported

ro
positive influence in ammonia separation, reducing its concentration (lower than 2000 mg L-1)

even a natural increase of TAN due to LR and with that conditions, CH4 production increased in
-p
values from 2 L d-1kg-1VS to 9-11 L d-1kg-1VS when TAN were kept below 4500 mg L-1. That

results agree with Bayrakdar, Molaey, Sürmeli, Sahinkaya and Çalli [14] that reached the best
re
CH4 yield with TAN concentrations bellow 4000 mg L-1. Higher TAN concentration increased

VFA inside the digester [15]. There was an increase of VFA concentration in both experimental
lP

design (with and without ammonia removal technology), remarking in the former a maximum of

the behavior between 10 to 20 days, followed by an asymptotic trend until the end of the
na

experiment. Another influence of VFA was observed in pH behavior, showing a direct relationship

between both parameters.

ur

In general, HRAR using CM leachate as feedstock showed good results. An average COD removal

efficiency reached was up to 92%. Ammonia concentration behaved as a critical issue in AD

Jo

performance, influencing in CH4 yield, VFA concentration and pH. When an increase of OLR

occurs, COD removal increase too and COD removal efficiency remain high when HRT decreases.

7. Economic considerations for leachate treatment coupled with HRAR

The economic assessment of leaching system coupling with HRAR is hampered by the general

lack of data. AD from livestock it is not only a promising source of bioenergy, but also it is a

convenient process to reduce externalities, encouraging governments to take a strategic position

32
on its use and generalization. However, the adoption of AD technologies carries out uncertainties

due to high and complex capital investment.

Around the world, AD varies in type and conditions of raw material, the scale of the digester,

government incentives, operating conditions and possible uses of its products [252]. Despite of a

lot of information about strategies using liquid waste with low TS values in HRAR, the economical

assessments that clarify the feasibility of the process is scarce. The economy in biogas production

depends strongly on the final use of products [253]. It is usually the comparison between input and

output energy to reach a preliminary economic benefit (together pretreatment and AD operation)

and not considering feedstock collection and transportation. AD economy is related to the national

of
legal situation. Regularly, capital costs are the main contributor in AD economy. Operating cost

vary from $20 to $110 t-1 depending on the plant technology [252]. Besides, the per cent of LR

ro
and unitary cost may influence in the economy [254]. LR plays an important role in reducing the

cost. As the per cent of recirculation increase (50 to 100%), the final cost decrease in 14% [254].

Leaching as a
-p
pretreatment, can increase energy consumption, cost (e.g. capital cost) and even

carbon footprint in the process [255]. For that reason, cost-benefits may convenient to achieve a
re
feasible process.

CM leachate economy in HRAR depends on several factors. The possibility of sale the different
lP

products and its price, it is a big issue to consider. Besides, environmental benefits could be added

as economics profits (e.g. replacements of fossil fuels, reduction of GHG), always depending of
na

the specific scenario [256]. Synergistic management between pretreatment-AD plant could impact

positively in the economic status of these systems. Berge, Reinhart and Batarseh [254] remarked
ur

the necessity to treat the leachate on-site, because if it is digested anaerobically off-site, the cost

increase three times. Following this idea, the AD plant layout may be crucial reducing costs.
Jo

Generally, manure costs are negligible due to the installation of AD plants nearly poultry farms;

however, in case of transportation from outside, it could be considered [252]. Besides, as manure

is considered high weight content substrate and low biogas yield compared with another feedstock,

capital costs could arise [257].

Incentives and subsidiary politics can encourage households and large-scale biogas producers to

potentiate AD technologies use, for example, in some Asian countries the government support
33
these programs with good results [258]. Shortly are presented as major challenges of the AD

industry: reducing capital costs and obtain financing incentives, diversify co-products and markets

and assess possible scenarios: on-farm versus centralized digester [6].

In general, it is reported that biological treatments present low capital and operating costs. It is

referred to high efficiency, moderate operational costs and adequate space requirements for

leachate coupled with HRAR (e.g. UASB) [259].

7.1. Future trends of biogas toward sustainable bioeconomy in Cuba

The biorefinery concept in the developing countries could help to change its linear economy into

a circular economy and also to promote public health and a better environment. This goal would

of
be achieved through more advanced biorefinery technologies, changing fossil fuel consumption

by renewable sources [260]. Cuba is a developing country, and a sustainable economy is one of its

ro
main objectives. According to the policy for the Perspective Development of Renewable Energy

Sources (RES) and the Efficient Use of Energy, this country pretends an increase of 14% of energy
-p
generation of its energy matrix using biomass as raw material. For that reason, the growth of AD

plants is expected in the next 10 years. The biorefinery concept is one step forward to achieve a
re
bio-based economy, increasing biofuels industries to diversify biorefineries. According to

Sawatdeenarunat, Nguyen, Surendra, Shrestha, Rajendran, Oechsner, Xie and Khanal [49], AD
lP

could be an interesting approach within the context of the anaerobic biorefinery, integrating and

maximizing synergies between technologies and processes. There are other arguments, for
na

example, biorefineries create new employments opportunities; these solutions contribute to

satisfying residents´ cleaner production demands and improve company and product image [261].
ur

That concept gives a broader look than electricity and heat (in Cuba almost all biogas produced is

used with energy purposes [262]), including chemical/material/nutrient management pathways,

Jo

impacting positively in a regional bioeconomy [263].

Livestock manure is one of the most substrates in the country (Fig. 2); within this, CM reaches

values between 7.48E+05 to 9.35E+05 t y-1 [28]. Also, environmental benefits of AD using CM

as feedstock are in the form of reducing spontaneous digestion of untreated organic matter,

especially GHG emission, achieving a reduction around 2.52E+04 t CO2-eq y-1 [264].

34
 Goat Chicken
Sheep
3% 4%
2%
Pig cattle
8%

Bovine cattle
57%
Horse cattle
26%

Fig. 2. Livestock manure potential in Cuba [27].

of
Leaching pretreatment and AD are expected to be the central piece of the biorefinery approach.

ro
Leached solid with a high content of lignin is sent to physic-chemical processes. It is well known

a wide range of products that could be obtained in a biorefinery approach, where are included: bio-
-p
CH4, bio-H2, fertilizer, organic acids and extracts, animal feeds and biodiesel, depending on the

conditions of the current scenario (Cuba) (Fig. 3). Table 3. shows the estimation of production per
re
year.
lP
na
ur
Jo

35
Fig. 3. Biorefinery network for CM expected in Cuban case (modified from Bioenergy [265]).

Table 3

CM as feedstock for biogas production.

Product Production estimation per year References

Bio-CH4 (m3) 1.92E+07 [266-269]

Bio-H2 (m3) 4.20E+07 [267]

Fertilizer (kg) 2.49E+07 [269, 270]

Organic acids and extracts (kg) 6.51E+06 [270, 271]

of
Animal feed (kg) 1.04E+07 [270, 272]

Biodiesel (kg) 5.06E+07 [273, 274]

ro
The current Cuban scenario is given to change. AD in the biorefinery concept identifies CM as a
-p
potential substrate to contribute to regional bioeconomy. The application of anaerobic biorefinery

concepts is a convenient tool for decision-makers to enhancing local/national priorities to develop

re
micro and macroeconomy. The development of rural economies increases due to small-facilities

associated with the AD biorefinery concept that could be applied to obtaining valorized chemical
lP

products from CM. The necessity to increase the added value of products, the generation of

renewable energy and diversify production, as well as the necessary emissions reduction of
na

pollutants produced by fossil fuels, encourage the decision-making and specialists to step forward,

looking at biorefinery approach as an opportunity.

There are important challenges in the Cuban context such as 1) technological change, the AD
ur

technology in Cuba in widespread over the country but in ineffective systems (e.g. fixed dome

digesters) with COD removal efficiency around 50%, forecasting a technology transition to third-
Jo

generation anaerobic digester in few years; 2) sustainable supply chains, CM production in

Chicken Farms are regular, so substrate it is available all year. Almost all Chicken Farms are far

from the industrial zones and each other’s, decentralizing the preprocessing and conversion

facilities by regions with three main conversion facilities with all process; 3) process integration,

biogas produced on-site in most cases is used for energy requirements, and if there is a surplus, it

36
is exported to the national grid, for that reason, chemical products, and feed could be a novel

approach, competing with well-established traditional fossil-fuel products. The future direction of

the biorefinery is the integration of multiple platforms or process following the principles of a

typical oil refinery; and 4) political support, despite to the inclusion of biogas production into the

General Policy Principles for Foreign Investment in 2017, it is regarded into a secondary place,

taking into account the livestock manure potential spread over the country. Strategies to encourage

biogas production may be adopted. Feed-in tariffs policies are a necessity to incentive small and

big producers to generate electricity using biogas as fuel and to stimulate to use of the digestate as

a substitute for synthetic mineral fertilizer. In general, in the case of CM as a biorefinery concept,

of
it is necessary to become a profitable process by itself, to avoid government subsidy and to be able

to compete with fossil-fuel products.

ro
Conclusions

CM is considered a feasible substrate for biogas production, but there are some important issues
-p
to think. High TS in the feedstock is a critical parameter to increase CH4 yield and to improve

digester efficiency. The leaching process is considered a simple process and a novel treatment to
re
dilute de substrate, being considered as an alternative to enhance prior AD. HRAR are regarded as

efficient technologies to produce biogas, reaching COD removal up to 96% in feedstock with high
lP

CH4 yield. Considering this novel approach and future direction in the Cuban chicken industry,

implementing technologies with high efficiency to optimize the AD process is recommended. In

na

addition to leaching, there are conventional pretreatments techniques (physical, chemical,

biological and combined) that could be taking into account as alternatives. It was demonstrated
ur

that the CFD tool could be effectively applied for specific leaching systems, taking into account

the hydrodynamic and chemical reactions that occur within the scheme. Despite its advantages as
Jo

a convenient tool for modeling porous media, more investigation is needed to overcome them.

Therefore, the economic aspects reflect current challenges and help address future solutions to

improve both technical and economic aspects. There is great potential for the Cuban context by

applying the concept of biorefinery, using leaching as an integrated pretreatment to an HRAR

technology, thus transforming livestock waste into high value-added products. Biorefinery concept

considering CM as a substrate has potential in the Cuban context. Of course, there are challenges,
37
but the results are useful to inform the decision-makers to impulse a circular economy in a

developing country scenario. For the authors, there are some future targets of biogas production

from CM leachate that could be taking into account: study the impact of recirculation from HRAR

liquid stream in leaching process; obtain hydrodynamic, kinetic and thermodynamic data to be

applied to different mathematical models, together with operational parameters; and to assess

economically and environmentally the process applying strategic approach like Life Cycle

Assessment.

Declaration of interests: none

of
Acknowledgements

ro
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Guangdong Innovation Research Team for

Higher Education (2017KCXTD030), the High-level Talents Project of Dongguan University of

-p
Technology (KCYKYQD2017017), and the Cuban Program ¨Sustainable Development of the
re
Energy Renewable Resources¨, project P211 LH003068 (Bioconversion of agro-industrial waste

leachates in high rates bioreactors).

lP

References

[1] Y.Y. Deng, K. Blok, K. van der Leun, Transition to a fully sustainable global energy system,
na

Energy Strategy Reviews 1 (2012) 109-121.

[2] P. Abdeshahian, N.K.N. Al-Shorgani, N.K. Salih, H. Shukor, A. Kadier, A.A. Hamid, M.S.
ur

Kalil, The production of biohydrogen by a novel strain Clostridium sp. YM1 in dark fermentation

process, international journal of hydrogen energy 39 (2014) 12524-12531.

Jo

[3] P. Abdeshahian, J.S. Lim, W.S. Ho, H. Hashim, C.T. Lee, Potential of biogas production from

farm animal waste in Malaysia, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 60 (2016) 714-723.

[4] S.R. Naqvi, S. Jamshaid, M. Naqvi, W. Farooq, M.B.K. Niazi, Z. Aman, M. Zubair, M. Ali,

M. Shahbaz, A. Inayat, Potential of biomass for bioenergy in Pakistan based on present case and

future perspectives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1247-1258.

38
[5] A.K. Boulamanti, S.D. Maglio, J. Giuntoli, A. Agostini, Influence of different practices on

biogas sustainability, Biomass and Bioenergy 53 (2013) 149-161.

[6] N. Korres, P. O'Kiely, J.A. Benzie, J.S. West, Bioenergy production by anaerobic digestion:

using agricultural biomass and organic wastes, Routledge2013.

[7] M. Herrero, B. Henderson, P. Havlík, P.K. Thornton, R.T. Conant, P. Smith, S. Wirsenius, A.N.

Hristov, P. Gerber, M. Gill, Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector, Nature

Climate Change 6 (2016) 452.

[8] P. Smith, H. Haberl, A. Popp, K.h. Erb, C. Lauk, R. Harper, F.N. Tubiello, A. de Siqueira Pinto,

M. Jafari, S. Sohi, How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without

of
compromising food security and environmental goals?, Global change biology 19 (2013) 2285-

2302.

ro
[9] FAO, Nitrogen inputs to agricultural soils from livestock manure -552 New statistics.

Integrated crop management Vol. 24 p. 17, Rome, 2018.

-p
[10] M. MacLeod, P. Gerber, A. Mottet, Greenhouse gas emissions from pig and chicken supply

chains, AGA/FAO2012.
re
[11] R. Thangarajan, N.S. Bolan, G. Tian, R. Naidu, A. Kunhikrishnan, Role of organic

amendment application on greenhouse gas emission from soil, Science of the Total Environment
lP

465 (2013) 72-96.

[12] P. Jun, M. Gibbs, K. Gaffney, CH4 and N2O emissions from livestock manure, IPCC,
na

Background Papers: IPCC Expert Meetings on Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty

Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
ur

Programme. Technical Support Unit, 2002, pp. 321-338.

[13] N. Mortola, R. Romaniuk, V. Cosentino, E. Maximiliano, P. Carfagno, P. Rizzo, B. Patricia,

Jo

N. Riera, R. Marcos, M. Butti, Potential use of a poultry manure digestate as a biofertiliser:

Evaluation of soil properties and Lactuca sativa growth, Pedosphere 29 (2019) 60-69.

[14] A. Bayrakdar, R. Molaey, R.Ö. Sürmeli, E. Sahinkaya, B. Çalli, Biogas production from

chicken manure: Co-digestion with spent poppy straw, International Biodeterioration &

Biodegradation 119 (2017) 205-210.

39
[15] A. Bayrakdar, R.Ö. Sürmeli, B. Çalli, Dry anaerobic digestion of chicken manure coupled

with membrane separation of ammonia, Bioresource technology 244 (2017) 816-823.

[16] K. Plewa, E. Lonc, Analysis of airborne contamination with bacteria and moulds in poultry

farming: a case study, COPD 4 (2011) 5.

[17] P. Billen, J. Costa, L. Van der Aa, J. Van Caneghem, C. Vandecasteele, Electricity from

poultry manure: a cleaner alternative to direct land application, Journal of Cleaner Production 96

(2015) 467-475.

[18] D. Edwards, T. Daniel, Environmental impacts of on-farm poultry waste disposal—A review,

Bioresource Technology 41 (1992) 9-33.

of
[19] N.S. Bolan, A. Szogi, T. Chuasavathi, B. Seshadri, M. Rothrock, P. Panneerselvam, Uses and

management of poultry litter, World's Poultry Science Journal 66 (2010) 673-698.

ro
[20] L. Hamelin, M. Wesnæs, H. Wenzel, B.M. Petersen, Environmental consequences of future

biogas technologies based on separated slurry, Environmental science & technology 45 (2011)

5869-5877.
-p
[21] B. Kelleher, J. Leahy, A. Henihan, T. O'dwyer, D. Sutton, M. Leahy, Advances in poultry
re
litter disposal technology–a review, Bioresource technology 83 (2002) 27-36.

[22] D. Deublein, A. Steinhauser, Biogas from waste and renewable resources. An Introduction.
lP

WILEYVCH, Weinheim, Alemania, 2008.

[23] R. Chandra, H. Takeuchi, T. Hasegawa, Methane production from lignocellulosic agricultural

na

crop wastes: A review in context to second generation of biofuel production, Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 1462-1476.

ur

[24] F. Abouelenien, Y. Nakashimada, N. Nishio, Dry mesophilic fermentation of chicken manure

for production of methane by repeated batch culture, Journal of bioscience and bioengineering 107
Jo

(2009) 293-295.

[25] R. Sürmeli, A. Bayrakdar, B. Çalli, Removal and recovery of ammonia from chicken manure,

Water Science and Technology 75 (2017) 2811-2817.

[26] C. De la Fuente, J. Alburquerque, R. Clemente, M. Bernal, Soil C and N mineralisation and

agricultural value of the products of an anaerobic digestion system, Biology and Fertility of Soils

49 (2013) 313-322.
40
[27] ONEI, Anuario estadístico de Cuba. Agricultura, ganadería, silvicultura y pesca, La Habana,

Cuba, 2019.

[28] NPG, Personal communication with the National Poultry Group, Cuba, Sancti Spiritus, 2018.

[29] K. Kaygusuz, Renewable and sustainable energy use in Turkey: a review, Renewable and

sustainable energy reviews 6 (2002) 339-366.

[30] A.O. Avcioğlu, U. Türker, Status and potential of biogas energy from animal wastes in Turkey,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 1557-1561.

[31] K. Dalkılıc, A. Ugurlu, Biogas production from chicken manure at different organic loading

rates in a mesophilic-thermopilic two stage anaerobic system, Journal of bioscience and

of
bioengineering 120 (2015) 315-322.

[32] P. Kumaran, D. Hephzibah, R. Sivasankari, N. Saifuddin, A.H. Shamsuddin, A review on

ro
industrial scale anaerobic digestion systems deployment in Malaysia: Opportunities and

challenges, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 56 (2016) 929-940.

-p
[33] C. Farrow, A. Crolla, C. Kinsley, E. McBean, Anaerobic digestion of poultry manure: Process

optimization employing struvite precipitation and novel digestion technologies, Environmental

re
Progress & Sustainable Energy 36 (2017) 73-82.

[34] G. Demirer, S. Chen, Anaerobic biogasification of undiluted dairy manure in leaching bed
lP

reactors, Waste management 28 (2008) 112-119.

[35] A. Degueurce, A. Trémier, P. Peu, Dynamic effect of leachate recirculation on batch mode
na

solid state anaerobic digestion: Influence of recirculated volume, leachate to substrate ratio and

recirculation periodicity, Bioresource technology 216 (2016) 553-561.

ur

[36] F. Abouelenien, W. Fujiwara, Y. Namba, M. Kosseva, N. Nishio, Y. Nakashimada, Improved

methane fermentation of chicken manure via ammonia removal by biogas recycle, Bioresource
Jo

Technology 101 (2010) 6368-6373.

[37] A.G. Rao, T.S.K. Reddy, S.S. Prakash, J. Vanajakshi, J. Joseph, A. Jetty, A.R. Reddy, P.

Sarma, Biomethanation of poultry litter leachate in UASB reactor coupled with ammonia stripper

for enhancement of overall performance, Bioresource technology 99 (2008) 8679-8684.

41
[38] A. Shewani, P. Horgue, S. Pommier, G. Debenest, X. Lefebvre, E. Gandon, E. Paul,

Assessment of percolation through a solid leach bed in dry batch anaerobic digestion processes,

Bioresource technology 178 (2015) 209-216.

[39] N. Sanphoti, S. Towprayoon, P. Chaiprasert, A. Nopharatana, The effects of leachate

recirculation with supplemental water addition on methane production and waste decomposition

in a simulated tropical landfill, Journal of Environmental Management 81 (2006) 27-35.

[40] J. Heijnen, A. Mulder, W. Enger, F. Hoeks, Review on the application of anaerobic fluidized

bed reactors in waste-water treatment, The Chemical Engineering Journal 41 (1989) B37-B50.

[41] J. van Lier, F. van der Zee, C. Frijters, M. Ersahin, Development of anaerobic high-rate

of
reactors, focusing on sludge bed technology, Anaerobes in Biotechnology, Springer2016, pp.

363-395.

ro
[42] S. Sakar, K. Yetilmezsoy, E. Kocak, Anaerobic digestion technology in poultry and livestock

waste treatment—a literature review, Waste management & research 27 (2009) 3-18.
-p
[43] A. Bayrakdar, R.Ö. Sürmeli, B. Çalli, Anaerobic digestion of chicken manure by a leach-bed

process coupled with side-stream membrane ammonia separation, Bioresource technology 258
re
(2018) 41-47.

[44] J. Shen, J. Zhu, Methane production in an upflow anaerobic biofilm digester from leachates
lP

derived from poultry litter at different organic loading rates and hydraulic retention times, Journal

of environmental chemical engineering 5 (2017) 5124-5130.

na

[45] D. Lynch, A.M. Henihan, B. Bowen, D. Lynch, K. McDonnell, W. Kwapinski, J.J. Leahy,

Utilisation of poultry litter as an energy feedstock, Biomass and bioenergy 49 (2013) 197-204.
ur

[46] X. Shen, G. Huang, Z. Yang, L. Han, Compositional characteristics and energy potential of

Chinese animal manure by type and as a whole, Applied energy 160 (2015) 108-119.
Jo

[47] M.H. Gerardi, The microbiology of anaerobic digesters, John Wiley & Sons2003.

[48] G. Bujoczek, J. Oleszkiewicz, R. Sparling, S. Cenkowski, High solid anaerobic digestion of

chicken manure, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 76 (2000) 51-60.

[49] C. Sawatdeenarunat, D. Nguyen, K. Surendra, S. Shrestha, K. Rajendran, H. Oechsner, L. Xie,

S.K. Khanal, Anaerobic biorefinery: current status, challenges, and opportunities, Bioresource

technology 215 (2016) 304-313.

42
[50] K. Li, R. Liu, C. Sun, Comparison of anaerobic digestion characteristics and kinetics of four

livestock manures with different substrate concentrations, Bioresource technology 198 (2015)

133-140.

[51] K. Li, R. Liu, Q. Yu, R. Ma, Removal of nitrogen from chicken manure anaerobic digestion

for enhanced biomethanization, Fuel 232 (2018) 395-404.

[52] W. Zhang, Q. Lang, Z. Pan, Y. Jiang, J. Liebetrau, M. Nelles, H. Dong, R. Dong, Performance

evaluation of a novel anaerobic digestion operation process for treating high-solids content chicken

manure: Effect of reduction of the hydraulic retention time at a constant organic loading rate,

Waste Management 64 (2017) 340-347.

of
[53] A. Webb, F.R. Hawkes, The anaerobic digestion of poultry manure: variation of gas yield

with influent concentration and ammonium-nitrogen levels, Agricultural Wastes 14 (1985) 135-

ro
156.

[54] K. Singh, K. Lee, J. Worley, L. Risse, K. Das, Anaerobic digestion of poultry litter: a review,

Applied engineering in agriculture 26 (2010) 677-688.

-p
[55] Y. Chen, J.J. Cheng, K.S. Creamer, Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a review,
re
Bioresource technology 99 (2008) 4044-4064.

[56] Q. Niu, K. Kubota, W. Qiao, Z. Jing, Y. Zhang, L. Yu‐You, Effect of ammonia inhibition
lP

on microbial community dynamic and process functional resilience in mesophilic methane

fermentation of chicken manure, Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 90 (2015)

na

2161-2169.

[57] W. Fuchs, X. Wang, W. Gabauer, M. Ortner, Z. Li, Tackling ammonia inhibition for efficient
ur

biogas production from chicken manure: Status and technical trends in Europe and China,

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 97 (2018) 186-199.

Jo

[58] Q. Niu, W. Qiao, H. Qiang, T. Hojo, Y.-Y. Li, Mesophilic methane fermentation of chicken

manure at a wide range of ammonia concentration: stability, inhibition and recovery, Bioresource

Technology 137 (2013) 358-367.

[59] R. Nakakubo, H.B. Møller, A.M. Nielsen, J. Matsuda, Ammonia inhibition of methanogenesis

and identification of process indicators during anaerobic digestion, Environmental Engineering

Science 25 (2008) 1487-1496.

43
[60] S. Sung, T. Liu, Ammonia inhibition on thermophilic anaerobic digestion, Chemosphere 53

(2003) 43-52.

[61] P. Hobson, B. Shaw, Inhibition of methane production by Methanobacterium formicicum,

Water Research 10 (1976) 849-852.

[62] P.L. McCarty, Anaerobic waste treatment fundamentals, Public works 95 (1964) 107-112.

[63] J.L. Pereira, Assessment of ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from broiler houses in

Portugal, Atmospheric Pollution Research 8 (2017) 949-955.

[64] H. Keener, D. Elwell, D. Grande, NH3 emissions and n–balances for a 1.6 million caged layer

facility: manure belt/composting vs. deep pit operation, Transactions of the ASAE 45 (2002) 1977.

of
[65] S. Kukić, B. Bračun, D. Kralik, R.T. Burns, S. Rupčić, D. Jovičić, Comparison between

biogas production from manure of laying heners and broilers, Poljoprivreda 16 (2010) 67-72.

ro
[66] J. Ramos-Suarez, A. Ritter, J.M. González, A.C. Pérez, Biogas from animal manure: A

sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

104 (2019) 137-150.

-p
[67] E.C. Miola, P. Rochette, M.H. Chantigny, D.A. Angers, C. Aita, M.O. Gasser, D.E. Pelster,
re
N. Bertrand, Ammonia Volatilization after Surface Application of Laying‐Hen and Broiler‐

Chicken Manures, Journal of environmental quality 43 (2014) 1864-1872.

lP

[68] Y. Wang, W. Xue, Z. Zhu, J. Yang, X. Li, Z. Tian, H. Dong, G. Zou, Mitigating ammonia

emissions from typical broiler and layer manure management–A system analysis, Waste
na

Management 93 (2019) 23-33.

[69] I. Sinkiewicz, A. Śliwińska, H. Staroszczyk, I. Kołodziejska, Alternative methods of

ur

preparation of soluble keratin from chicken feathers, Waste and biomass valorization 8 (2017)

1043-1048.
Jo

[70] D. Thyagarajan, M. Barathi, R. Sakthivadivu, Scope of poultry waste utilization, IOSR

Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences 6 (2013) 29-35.

[71] G.F. Parkin, N.A. Lynch, W.-C. Kuo, E.L. Van Keuren, S.K. Bhattacharya, Interaction

between sulfate reducers and methanogens fed acetate and propionate, Research Journal of the

Water Pollution Control Federation (1990) 780-788.

[72] C.E. Boyd, Water quality: an introduction, Springer Nature2019.

44
[73] A.P. Annachhatre, S. Suktrakoolvait, Biological sulfate reduction using molasses as a carbon

source, Water Environment Research 73 (2001) 118-126.

[74] R.Ö. Sürmeli, A. Bayrakdar, R. Molaey, B. Çalli, Synergistic effect of sulfide and ammonia

on anaerobic digestion of chicken manure, Waste and Biomass Valorization 10 (2019) 609-615.

[75] E.L. Barrera, H. Spanjers, J. Dewulf, O. Romero, E. Rosa, The sulfur chain in biogas

production from sulfate‐rich liquid substrates: a review on dynamic modeling with vinasse as

model substrate, Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 88 (2013) 1405-1420.

[76] Q. Niu, W. Qiao, H. Qiang, Y.-Y. Li, Microbial community shifts and biogas conversion

computation during steady, inhibited and recovered stages of thermophilic methane fermentation

of
on chicken manure with a wide variation of ammonia, Bioresource technology 146 (2013) 223-

233.

ro
[77] R.T. Romano, R. Zhang, Co-digestion of onion juice and wastewater sludge using an

anaerobic mixed biofilm reactor, Bioresource technology 99 (2008) 631-637.

-p
[78] V.N. Gunaseelan, Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste

feedstocks, Biomass and bioenergy 26 (2004) 389-399.

re
[79] K. Dalkılıç, A. Uğurlu, Influence of hydraulic retention time and reactor configuration during

fermentation of diluted chicken manure, Applied biochemistry and biotechnology 181 (2017) 157-
lP

176.

[80] E.I. Atuanya, M. Aigbirior, Mesophilic biomethanation and treatment of poultry waste-water
na

using pilot scale UASB reactor, Environmental monitoring and assessment 77 (2002) 139-147.

[81] Q. Niu, Y. Takemura, K. Kubota, Y.-Y. Li, Comparing mesophilic and thermophilic
ur

anaerobic digestion of chicken manure: microbial community dynamics and process resilience,

Waste management 43 (2015) 114-122.

Jo

[82] R. Chamy, C. León, E. Vivanco, P. Poirrier, C. Ramos, Anaerobic monodigestion of poultry

manure: determination of operational parameters for CSTR, Water Science and Technology 65

(2012) 53-59.

[83] P. Bohutskyi, E. Bouwer, Biogas production from algae and cyanobacteria through anaerobic

digestion: a review, analysis, and research needs, Advanced biofuels and bioproducts,

Springer2013, pp. 873-975.

45
[84] H. Carrère, C. Dumas, A. Battimelli, D. Batstone, J. Delgenès, J. Steyer, I. Ferrer,

Pretreatment methods to improve sludge anaerobic degradability: a review, Journal of hazardous

materials 183 (2010) 1-15.

[85] I. Muhammad Nasir, T.I. Mohd Ghazi, Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass from animal

manure as a means of enhancing biogas production, engineering in life sciences 15 (2015) 733-

742.

[86] C. Rodriguez, A. Alaswad, K. Benyounis, A.-G. Olabi, Pretreatment techniques used in

biogas production from grass, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 68 (2017) 1193-1204.

[87] J. Delgenes, V. Penaud, R. Moletta, Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal

of
Solid Wastes, IWA Publishing London, 2002.

[88] L. Kratky, T. Jirout, Biomass size reduction machines for enhancing biogas production,

ro
Chemical Engineering & Technology 34 (2011) 391-399.

[89] C. González-Fernández, C. León-Cofreces, P.A. García-Encina, Different pretreatments for

-p
increasing the anaerobic biodegradability in swine manure, Bioresource Technology 99 (2008)

8710-8714.
re
[90] J. Rico, H. García, C. Rico, I. Tejero, Characterisation of solid and liquid fractions of dairy

manure with regard to their component distribution and methane production, Bioresource
lP

Technology 98 (2007) 971-979.

[91] A. Wellinger, J.D. Murphy, D. Baxter, The biogas handbook: science, production and
na

applications, Elsevier2013.

[92] C. Zhang, X.-H. Xing, K. Lou, Rapid detection of a gfp-marked Enterobacter aerogenes under
ur

anaerobic conditions by aerobic fluorescence recovery, FEMS microbiology letters 249 (2005)

211-218.
Jo

[93] K.-Y. Show, T. Mao, D.-J. Lee, Optimisation of sludge disruption by sonication, Water

Research 41 (2007) 4741-4747.

[94] P. Braeutigam, M. Franke, B. Ondruschka, Effect of ultrasound amplitude and reaction time

on the anaerobic fermentation of chicken manure for biogas production, biomass and bioenergy

63 (2014) 109-113.

46
[95] A. Mudhoo, Biogas production: pretreatment methods in anaerobic digestion, John Wiley &

Sons2012.

[96] J.-H. Ahn, S.G. Shin, S. Hwang, Effect of microwave irradiation on the disintegration and

acidogenesis of municipal secondary sludge, Chemical Engineering Journal 153 (2009) 145-150.

[97] M.B. Salerno, H.-S. Lee, P. Parameswaran, B.E. Rittmann, Using a pulsed electric field as a

pretreatment for improved biosolids digestion and methanogenesis, Water environment research

81 (2009) 831-839.

[98] S.A. Neshat, M. Mohammadi, G.D. Najafpour, Effect of illumination intensity on

photosynthesis assisted anaerobic digestion of cattle manure leachate for enhanced biogas

of
production, Chemical Engineering Journal 338 (2018) 8-14.

[99] C.S. Raju, S. Sutaryo, A.J. Ward, H.B. Møller, Effects of high-temperature isochoric pre-

ro
treatment on the methane yields of cattle, pig and chicken manure, Environmental technology 34

(2013) 239-244.
-p
[100] L. Ferreira, T. Souza, F. Fdz-Polanco, S. Pérez-Elvira, Thermal steam explosion

pretreatment to enhance anaerobic biodegradability of the solid fraction of pig manure,

re
Bioresource technology 152 (2014) 393-398.

[101] R. Rafique, T.G. Poulsen, A.-S. Nizami, J.D. Murphy, G. Kiely, Effect of thermal, chemical
lP

and thermo-chemical pre-treatments to enhance methane production, Energy 35 (2010) 4556-4561.

[102] K. Kratzl, P. Claus, G. Reichel, Reactions of lignin and lignin model compounds with ozone,
na

Tappi 59 (1976) 86-87.

[103] C. Bougrier, A. Battimelli, J.-P. Delgenes, H. Carrere, Combined ozone pretreatment and
ur

anaerobic digestion for the reduction of biological sludge production in wastewater treatment,

Ozone: Science and Engineering 29 (2007) 201-206.

Jo

[104] J.A. Cacho Rivero, N. Madhavan, M.T. Suidan, P. Ginestet, J.-M. Audic, Enhancement of

anaerobic digestion of excess municipal sludge with thermal and/or oxidative treatment, Journal

of environmental engineering 132 (2006) 638-644.

[105] A. Carvajal, M. Peña, S. Pérez-Elvira, Autohydrolysis pretreatment of secondary sludge for

anaerobic digestion, Biochemical engineering journal 75 (2013) 21-31.

47
[106] T.S. Souza, A. Carvajal, A. Donoso-Bravo, M. Peña, F. Fdz-Polanco, ADM1 calibration

using BMP tests for modeling the effect of autohydrolysis pretreatment on the performance of

continuous sludge digesters, Water research 47 (2013) 3244-3254.

[107] B. Schumacher, J. Pröter, J. Liebetrau, The influence of the pre-treatment of chicken manure

with auto-hydrolysis or pressure swing conditioning on nitrogen content and biogas production,

International Conference “Progress in Biogas IV”Stuttgart, Germany, 2017.

[108] Y. Jin, Z. Hu, Z. Wen, Enhancing anaerobic digestibility and phosphorus recovery of dairy

manure through microwave-based thermochemical pretreatment, Water research 43 (2009) 3493-

3502.

of
[109] R.A. Baccay, A.G. Hashimoto, Acidogenic and methanogenic fermentation of causticized

straw, Biotechnology and bioengineering 26 (1984) 885-891.

ro
[110] A. Mouneimne, H. Carrere, N. Bernet, J. Delgenes, Effect of saponification on the anaerobic

digestion of solid fatty residues, Bioresource technology 90 (2003) 89-94.

-p
[111] J. Costa, S. Barbosa, M. Alves, D. Sousa, Thermochemical pre-and biological co-treatments

to improve hydrolysis and methane production from poultry litter, Bioresource technology 111
re
(2012) 141-147.

[112] G. Forgács, S. Alinezhad, A. Mirabdollah, E. Feuk-Lagerstedt, I.S. Horváth, Biological

lP

treatment of chicken feather waste for improved biogas production, Journal of Environmental

Sciences 23 (2011) 1747-1753.

na

[113] R.J. Patinvoh, E. Feuk-Lagerstedt, M. Lundin, I.S. Horváth, M.J. Taherzadeh, Biological

pretreatment of chicken feather and biogas production from total broth, Applied biochemistry and
ur

biotechnology 180 (2016) 1401-1415.

[114] S. Hasegawa, N. Shiota, K. Katsura, A. Akashi, Solubilization of organic sludge by

Jo

thermophilic aerobic bacteria as a pretreatment for anaerobic digestion, Water science and

technology 41 (2000) 163-169.

[115] I. Ardİc, F. Taner, Effects of thermal, chemical and thermochemical pretreatments to

increase biogas production yield of chicken manure, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 14 (2005)

373-380.

48
[116] G. Markou, Improved anaerobic digestion performance and biogas production from poultry

litter after lowering its nitrogen content, Bioresource Technology 196 (2015) 726-730.

[117] H. Nie, H.F. Jacobi, K. Strach, C. Xu, H. Zhou, J. Liebetrau, Mono-fermentation of chicken

manure: ammonia inhibition and recirculation of the digestate, Bioresource technology 178 (2015)

238-246.

[118] T. Wirthensohn, F. Waeger, L. Jelinek, W. Fuchs, Ammonium removal from anaerobic

digester effluent by ion exchange, Water Science and Technology 60 (2009) 201-210.

[119] D.-M. Yin, W. Qiao, C. Negri, F. Adani, R. Fan, R.-J. Dong, Enhancing hyper-thermophilic

hydrolysis pre-treatment of chicken manure for biogas production by in-situ gas phase ammonia

of
stripping, Bioresource technology 287 (2019) 121470.

[120] I.A. Fotidis, P.G. Kougias, I.D. Zaganas, T.A. Kotsopoulos, G.G. Martzopoulos, Inoculum

ro
and zeolite synergistic effect on anaerobic digestion of poultry manure, Environmental technology

35 (2014) 1219-1225.
-p
[121] K. Yetilmezsoy, F. Turkdogan, A. Gunay, T. Yilmaz, M. Kaleli, Medicinal plants grown in

soil amended with struvite recovered from anaerobically pretreated poultry manure wastewater,
re
JAPS, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 23 (2013) 261-270.

[122] Y.D. Yilmazel, G.N. Demirer, Nitrogen and phosphorus recovery from anaerobic co-
lP

digestion residues of poultry manure and maize silage via struvite precipitation, Waste

management & research 31 (2013) 792-804.

na

[123] S. Bi, M. Westerholm, W. Qiao, A. Mahdy, L. Xiong, D. Yin, R. Fan, J. Dach, R. Dong,

Enhanced methanogenic performance and metabolic pathway of high solid anaerobic digestion of
ur

chicken manure by Fe2+ and Ni2+ supplementation, Waste Management 94 (2019) 10-17.

[124] R. Molaey, A. Bayrakdar, R.Ö. Sürmeli, B. Çalli, Anaerobic digestion of chicken manure:
Jo

Mitigating process inhibition at high ammonia concentrations by selenium supplementation,

Biomass and Bioenergy 108 (2018) 439-446.

[125] A. Hassanein, S. Lansing, R. Tikekar, Impact of metal nanoparticles on biogas production

from poultry litter, Bioresource technology 275 (2019) 200-206.

[126] P. Berglund Odhner, I. Sárvári Horváth, M.M. Kabir, A. Shabbauer, Biogas from

lignocellulosic biomass, Rapport SGC, sgc. camero. se (2012).

49
[127] R. Cano Herranz, Pretreatment tecnologies to enhance solid wastes anaerobic digestion,

(2014).

[128] B.E. Rittmann, H.-s. Lee, H. Zhang, J. Alder, J.E. Banaszak, R. Lopez, Full-scale application

of focused-pulsed pre-treatment for improving biosolids digestion and conversion to methane,

Water Science and Technology 58 (2008) 1895-1901.

[129] S. Schwede, Z.-U. Rehman, M. Gerber, C. Theiss, R. Span, Effects of thermal pretreatment

on anaerobic digestion of Nannochloropsis salina biomass, Bioresource technology 143 (2013)

505-511.

[130] C. González-Fernández, B. Sialve, N. Bernet, J. Steyer, Thermal pretreatment to improve

of
methane production of Scenedesmus biomass, Biomass and bioenergy 40 (2012) 105-111.

[131] H. Choi, S.-W. Jeong, Y.-j. Chung, Enhanced anaerobic gas production of waste activated

ro
sludge pretreated by pulse power technique, Bioresource Technology 97 (2006) 198-203.

[132] Z. Sapci, The effect of microwave pretreatment on biogas production from agricultural

straws, Bioresource technology 128 (2013) 487-494.

-p
[133] F. Passos, M. Hernandez-Marine, J. García, I. Ferrer, Long-term anaerobic digestion of
re
microalgae grown in HRAP for wastewater treatment. Effect of microwave pretreatment, Water

research 49 (2014) 351-359.

lP

[134] H. Hartmann, I. Angelidaki, B.K. Ahring, Increase of anaerobic degradation of particulate

organic matter in full-scale biogas plants by mechanical maceration, Water Science and
na

Technology 41 (2000) 145-153.

[135] E. Elbeshbishy, S. Aldin, H. Hafez, G. Nakhla, M. Ray, Impact of ultrasonication of hog

ur

manure on anaerobic digestability, Ultrasonics sonochemistry 18 (2011) 164-171.

[136] A. Mshandete, L. Björnsson, A.K. Kivaisi, M.S. Rubindamayugi, B. Mattiasson, Effect of

Jo

particle size on biogas yield from sisal fibre waste, Renewable energy 31 (2006) 2385-2392.

[137] P. Kumar, D.M. Barrett, M.J. Delwiche, P. Stroeve, Methods for pretreatment of

lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis and biofuel production, Industrial & engineering

chemistry research 48 (2009) 3713-3729.

[138] A. Hendriks, G. Zeeman, Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic

biomass, Bioresource technology 100 (2009) 10-18.

50
[139] V. Vivekanand, P. Ryden, S.J. Horn, H.S. Tapp, N. Wellner, V.G. Eijsink, K.W. Waldron,

Impact of steam explosion on biogas production from rape straw in relation to changes in chemical

composition, Bioresource technology 123 (2012) 608-615.

[140] S. Heiske, N. Schultz-Jensen, F. Leipold, J.E. Schmidt, Improving anaerobic digestion of

wheat straw by plasma-assisted pretreatment, Journal of Atomic and Molecular Physics 2013

(2013).

[141] M. López Torres, M.d.C. Espinosa, R. Escobedo Acosta, Estudio comparativo del

pretratamiento químico para mejorar la digestión anaerobia de residuos sólidos, Revista CENIC.

Ciencias Biológicas 36 (2005).

of
[142] D.K. Johnson, R.T. Elander, Pretreatments for enhanced digestibility of feedstocks, Biomass

recalcitrance: Deconstructing the plant cell wall for bioenergy (2009) 436-453.

ro
[143] P. Keymer, I. Ruffell, S. Pratt, P. Lant, High pressure thermal hydrolysis as pre-treatment to

increase the methane yield during anaerobic digestion of microalgae, Bioresource technology 131

(2013) 128-133.
-p
[144] M. Taherzadeh, K. Karimi, Pretreatment of lignocellulosic wastes to improve ethanol and
re
biogas production: a review, International journal of molecular sciences 9 (2008) 1621-1651.

[145] T. Fernandes, G.K. Bos, G. Zeeman, J. Sanders, J. Van Lier, Effects of thermo-chemical
lP

pre-treatment on anaerobic biodegradability and hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass,

Bioresource technology 100 (2009) 2575-2579.

na

[146] R.E. Treybal, A. García Rodríguez, Operaciones de transferencia de masa, 2da ed.1988.

[147] H.A. Aziz, M.N. Adlan, M.S.M. Zahari, S. Alias, Removal of ammoniacal nitrogen (N-NH3)
ur

from municipal solid waste leachate by using activated carbon and limestone, Waste management

& research 22 (2004) 371-375.

Jo

[148] M.S. Bilgili, A. Demir, B. Özkaya, Influence of leachate recirculation on aerobic and

anaerobic decomposition of solid wastes, Journal of hazardous materials 143 (2007) 177-183.

[149] V.A. Vavilin, S.V. Rytov, L.Y. Lokshina, S.G. Pavlostathis, M.A. Barlaz, Distributed model

of solid waste anaerobic digestion: effects of leachate recirculation and pH adjustment,

Biotechnology and Bioengineering 81 (2003) 66-73.

51
[150] S. Xie, P.G. Lawlor, J.P. Frost, G. Wu, X. Zhan, Hydrolysis and acidification of grass silage

in leaching bed reactors, Bioresource technology 114 (2012) 406-413.

[151] A.K. Jha, J. Li, L. Nies, L. Zhang, Research advances in dry anaerobic digestion process of

solid organic wastes, African Journal of Biotechnology 10 (2011) 14242-14253.

[152] E. Bruni, A.J. Ward, M. Køcks, A. Feilberg, A.P.S. Adamsen, A.P. Jensen, A.K. Poulsen,

Comprehensive monitoring of a biogas process during pulse loads with ammonia, Biomass and

bioenergy 56 (2013) 211-220.

[153] K. Chaump, M. Preisser, S.R. Shanmugam, R. Prasad, S. Adhikari, B.T. Higgins, Leaching

and anaerobic digestion of poultry litter for biogas production and nutrient transformation, Waste

of
Management 84 (2019) 413-422.

[154] T. Schmidt, A.M. Ziganshin, M. Nikolausz, F. Scholwin, M. Nelles, S. Kleinsteuber, J.

ro
Pröter, Effects of the reduction of the hydraulic retention time to 1.5 days at constant organic

loading in CSTR, ASBR, and fixed-bed reactors–performance and methanogenic community

composition, biomass and bioenergy 69 (2014) 241-248.

-p
[155] F. Di Maria, A. Sordi, G. Cirulli, C. Micale, Amount of energy recoverable from an existing
re
sludge digester with the co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste at reduced retention time,

Applied energy 150 (2015) 9-14.

lP

[156] P. He, M. Li, S. Xu, L. Shao, Anaerobic treatment of fresh leachate from a municipal solid

waste incinerator by upflow blanket filter reactor, Frontiers of Environmental Science &
na

Engineering in China 3 (2009) 404.

[157] A. Degueurce, N. Tomas, S. Le Roux, J. Martinez, P. Peu, Biotic and abiotic roles of leachate
ur

recirculation in batch mode solid-state anaerobic digestion of cattle manure, Bioresource

Technology 200 (2016) 388-395.

Jo

[158] D.T. Sponza, O.N. Ağdağ, Impact of leachate recirculation and recirculation volume on

stabilization of municipal solid wastes in simulated anaerobic bioreactors, Process Biochemistry

39 (2004) 2157-2165.

[159] S. Chugh, W. Clarke, P. Pullammanappallil, V. Rudolph, Effect of recirculated leachate

volume on MSW degradation, Waste Management & Research 16 (1998) 564-573.

52
[160] D.J. Martin, Mass transfer limitations in solid-state digestion, Biotechnology Letters 21

(1999) 809-814.

[161] V.A. Vavilin, S. Jonsson, J. Ejlertsson, B.H. Svensson, Modelling MSW decomposition

under landfill conditions considering hydrolytic and methanogenic inhibition, Biodegradation 17

(2006) 389-402.

[162] H.M. Poggi-Varaldo, L.M. Alzate-Gaviria, A. Pérez-Hernández, V.G. Nevarez-Morillón, N.

Rinderknecht-Seijas, A side-by-side comparison of two systems of sequencing coupled reactors

for anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste, Waste management &

research 23 (2005) 270-280.

of
[163] A. Suna Erses, T. Onay, Accelerated landfill waste decomposition by external leachate

recirculation from an old landfill cell, Water science and technology 47 (2003) 215-222.

ro
[164] G. Lissens, P. Vandevivere, L. De Baere, E. Biey, W. Verstraete, Solid waste digestors:

process performance and practice for municipal solid waste digestion, Water science and

technology 44 (2001) 91-102.

-p
[165] S. Kusch, H. Oechsner, T. Jungbluth, Effect of various leachate recirculation strategies on
re
batch anaerobic digestion of solid substrates, Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag 9 (2012) 69-88.

[166] S. Xu, A. Selvam, O.P. Karthikeyan, J.W. Wong, Responses of microbial community and
lP

acidogenic intermediates to different water regimes in a hybrid solid anaerobic digestion system

treating food waste, Bioresource technology 168 (2014) 49-58.

na

[167] S.Y. Xu, O.P. Karthikeyan, A. Selvam, J.W. Wong, Microbial community distribution and

extracellular enzyme activities in leach bed reactor treating food waste: Effect of different leachate
ur

recirculation practices, Bioresource technology 168 (2014) 41-48.

[168] S. Riggio, M. Torrijos, G. Vives, G. Esposito, E.D. Van Hullebusch, J.-P. Steyer, R. Escudié,
Jo

Leachate flush strategies for managing volatile fatty acids accumulation in leach-bed reactors,

Bioresource technology 232 (2017) 93-102.

[169] D. Ernest, J. Henley, J.D. Seader, Separation Process Principles: Chemical and Biochemical

Operations, John Wiley & Sons Inc, United States of America, 2011.

[170] A. Shewani, P. Horgue, S. Pommier, G. Debenest, X. Lefebvre, S. Decremps, E. Paul,

Assessment of solute transfer between static and dynamic water during percolation through a solid
53
leach bed in dry batch anaerobic digestion processes, Waste and biomass valorization 9 (2018)

2081-2089.

[171] W. Liao, C. Frear, K. Oakley, S. Chen, Leaching-bed reactor for producing stabilised plant

growing media from dairy manure, Biosystems engineering 106 (2010) 278-285.

[172] S. Yap, S. Astals, P. Jensen, D. Batstone, S. Tait, Pilot-scale testing of a leachbed for

anaerobic digestion of livestock residues on-farm, Waste management 50 (2016) 300-308.

[173] A. Nizami, T. Thamsiriroj, A. Singh, J. Murphy, Role of leaching and hydrolysis in a two-

phase grass digestion system, Energy & Fuels 24 (2010) 4549-4559.

[174] D. O'keefe, D. Chynoweth, Influence of phase separation, leachate recycle and aeration on

of
treatment of municipal solid waste in simulated landfill cells, Bioresource Technology 72 (2000)

55-66.

ro
[175] L.F.-. Güelfo, C. Álvarez-Gallego, D.S. Márquez, L.R. García, Destabilization of an

anaerobic reactor by wash-out episode: effect on the biomethanization performance, Chemical

engineering journal 214 (2013) 247-252.

-p
[176] J. Shen, J. Zhu, Optimization of methane production in anaerobic co-digestion of poultry
re
litter and wheat straw at different percentages of total solid and volatile solid using a developed

response surface model, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 51 (2016) 325-334.
lP

[177] S. Kusch, H. Oechsner, T. Jungbluth, Biogas production with horse dung in solid-phase

digestion systems, Bioresource technology 99 (2008) 1280-1292.

na

[178] A. Mahdy, L. Mendez, M. Ballesteros, C. González-Fernández, Autohydrolysis and alkaline

pretreatment effect on Chlorella vulgaris and Scenedesmus sp. methane production, Energy 78
ur

(2014) 48-52.

[179] P. Basu, Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory, Academic
Jo

press2010.

[180] D. Deglon, C. Meyer, CFD modelling of stirred tanks: Numerical considerations, Minerals

Engineering 19 (2006) 1059-1068.

[181] D. Wadnerkar, R.P. Utikar, M.O. Tade, V.K. Pareek, CFD simulation of solid–liquid stirred

tanks, Advanced Powder Technology 23 (2012) 445-453.

54
[182] G. Kasat, A. Khopkar, V. Ranade, A. Pandit, CFD simulation of liquid-phase mixing in

solid–liquid stirred reactor, Chemical Engineering Science 63 (2008) 3877-3885.

[183] D.K. Fytanidis, E.A. Voudrias, Numerical simulation of landfill aeration using

computational fluid dynamics, Waste management 34 (2014) 804-816.

[184] H. Suito, Y. Horikawa, T. Moroizumi, Y. Ono, Simulation of Flows of Groundwater and

Contaminants around Landfill Sites, (2006).

[185] T.A. Khan, Review of existing landfill leachate production models, Journal of Engineering

and Applied Sciences 19 (2000) 137-144.

[186] A.R. El Boushy, A.F. van der Poel, Dried Poultry Waste, Handbook of Poultry Feed from

of
Waste, Springer2000, pp. 31-74.

[187] B. Mohan, R. Kadirvel, A. Natarajan, M. Bhaskaran, Effect of probiotic supplementation on

ro
growth, nitrogen utilisation and serum cholesterol in broilers, British poultry science 37 (1996)

395-401.
-p
[188] R. J.P., W. U., F. R., Donnees de bases pour la fumure des grandes cultures et des herbages

en Suisse, Revued Suisse d’agriculture 33 (2001).

re
[189] A. Sharpley, N. Slaton, T. Tabler, K. VanDevender, M. Daniels, F. Jones, T. Daniel, Nutrient

analysis of poultry litter, (2009).

lP

[190] L. Lin, X.-d. LIAO, X.-g. LUO, Nutritional strategies for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus and

trace mineral excretions of livestock and poultry, Journal of integrative agriculture 16 (2017) 2815-
na

2833.

[191] P.W. Waldroup, Nutritional approaches to reducing phosphorus excretion by poultry,

ur

Poultry Science 78 (1999) 683-691.

[192] A. Sharpley, B. Moyer, Phosphorus forms in manure and compost and their release during
Jo

simulated rainfall, Journal of environmental quality 29 (2000) 1462-1469.

[193] H. Yu, J. Tay, H.H. Fang, The roles of calcium in sludge granulation during UASB reactor

start-up, Water Research 35 (2001) 1052-1060.

[194] A. Dennis, P. Burke, Dairy waste anaerobic digestion handbook, Environmental Energy

Company 6007 (2001) 20.

55
[195] I. Itodo, J. Awulu, Effects of total solids concentrations of poultry, cattle, and piggery waste

slurries on biogas yield, Transactions of the ASAE 42 (1999) 1853.

[196] D.A. Nield, A. Bejan, Convection in porous media, Springer2006.

[197] S. Chen, W. Liao, C. Liu, Z. Wen, R.L. Kincaid, J.H. Harrison, D.C. Elliott, M.D. Brown,

A.E. Solana, D.J. Stevens, Value-added chemicals from animal manure, Pacific Northwest

National Lab., Richland, WA (US), Environmental Molecular …, 2003.

[198] E. Kebreab, J. France, R. Kwakkel, S. Leeson, H.D. Kuhi, J. Dijkstra, Development and

evaluation of a dynamic model of calcium and phosphorus flows in layers, Poultry science 88

(2009) 680-689.

of
[199] J. Lee, D. Choi, Y.S. Ok, S.-R. Lee, E.E. Kwon, Enhancement of energy recovery from

chicken manure by pyrolysis in carbon dioxide, Journal of cleaner production 164 (2017) 146-152.

ro
[200] A.J. Chandler, T.T. Eighmy, O. Hjelmar, D. Kosson, S. Sawell, J. Vehlow, H. Van der Sloot,

J. Hartlén, Municipal solid waste incinerator residues, Elsevier1997.

-p
[201] M. Borisover, E.R. Graber, Simplified link solvation model (LSM) for sorption in natural

organic matter, Langmuir 18 (2002) 4775-4782.

re
[202] J. Fellner, P.H. Brunner, Modeling of leachate generation from MSW landfills by a 2-

dimensional 2-domain approach, Waste Management 30 (2010) 2084-2095.

lP

[203] S. Mousavi, A. Jafari, S. Chegini, I. Turunen, CFD simulation of mass transfer and flow

behaviour around a single particle in bioleaching process, Process Biochemistry 44 (2009) 696-
na

703.

[204] A. Ullah, K. Hong, Y. Gao, A. Gungor, M. Zaman, An overview of Eulerian CFD modeling
ur

and simulation of non-spherical biomass particles, Renewable Energy 141 (2019) 1054-1066.

[205] H. Gerhardter, R. Prieler, C. Schluckner, M. Knoll, C. Hochenauer, M. Mühlböck, P.

Jo

Tomazic, H. Schroettner, Modelling convective heat transfer to non-spherical particles, Powder

technology 343 (2019) 245-254.

[206] R. Brooks, T. Corey, HYDRAU uc properties of porous media, Hydrology Papers, Colorado

State University 24 (1964) 37.

56
[207] S.-J. Feng, B.-Y. Cao, A.-Z. Li, H.-X. Chen, Q.-T. Zheng, CFD modeling of hydro-

biochemical behavior of MSW subjected to leachate recirculation, Environmental Science and

Pollution Research 25 (2018) 5631-5642.

[208] L.A. Richards, Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums, Physics 1 (1931)

318-333.

[209] J. Aubin, D.F. Fletcher, C. Xuereb, Modeling turbulent flow in stirred tanks with CFD: the

influence of the modeling approach, turbulence model and numerical scheme, Experimental

thermal and fluid science 28 (2004) 431-445.

[210] R.C. Contrera, K.C. da Cruz Silva, D.M. Morita, J.A.D. Rodrigues, M. Zaiat, V. Schalch,

of
First-order kinetics of landfill leachate treatment in a pilot-scale anaerobic sequence batch biofilm

reactor, Journal of environmental management 145 (2014) 385-393.

ro
[211] G. Lettinga, Digestion and degradation, air for life, Water Science and Technology 44 (2001)

157-176.
-p
[212] H.M. El-Mashad, W.K. van Loon, G. Zeeman, G.P. Bot, G. Lettinga, Effect of inoculum

addition modes and leachate recirculation on anaerobic digestion of solid cattle manure in an
re
accumulation system, Biosystems Engineering 95 (2006) 245-254.

[213] R. Dague, C. Habben, S. Pidaparti, Initial studies on the anaerobic sequencing batch reactor,
lP

Water Science and Technology 26 (1992) 2429-2432.

[214] H. Timur, I. Özturk, Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor treatment of landfill leachate,
na

Water Research 33 (1999) 3225-3230.

[215] K. Kennedy, E. Lentz, Treatment of landfill leachate using sequencing batch and continuous
ur

flow upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, Water Research 34 (2000) 3640-3656.

[216] J. Van Lier, F. Van Der Zee, N. Tan, S. Rebac, R. Kleerebezem, Advances in high rate
Jo

anaerobic treatment: staging of reactor systems, Water Science and Technology 44 (2001) 15-25.

[217] J.J. Ambuchi, Z. Zhang, L. Shan, D. Liang, P. Zhang, Y. Feng, Response of anaerobic

granular sludge to iron oxide nanoparticles and multi-wall carbon nanotubes during beet sugar

industrial wastewater treatment, Water research 117 (2017) 87-94.

[218] X. Lu, G. Zhen, A.L. Estrada, M. Chen, J. Ni, T. Hojo, K. Kubota, Y.-Y. Li, Operation

performance and granule characterization of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor
57
treating wastewater with starch as the sole carbon source, Bioresource technology 180 (2015) 264-

273.

[219] D. Zhang, W. Verstraete, The anaerobic treatment of nitrite containing wastewater using an

expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor, Environmental technology 22 (2001) 905-913.

[220] R. López-Fernández, C. Aristizábal, R. Irusta, Ultrafiltration as an advanced tertiary

treatment of anaerobically digested swine manure liquid fraction: A practical and theoretical study,

Journal of membrane science 375 (2011) 268-275.

[221] I. Angelidaki, X. Chen, J. Cui, P. Kaparaju, L. Ellegaard, Thermophilic anaerobic digestion

of source-sorted organic fraction of household municipal solid waste: start-up procedure for

of
continuously stirred tank reactor, Water research 40 (2006) 2621-2628.

[222] Z.-G. Liu, X.-F. Zhou, Y.-L. Zhang, H.-G. Zhu, Enhanced anaerobic treatment of CSTR-

ro
digested effluent from chicken manure: the effect of ammonia inhibition, Waste management 32

(2012) 137-143.
-p
[223] F. Wang, M. Pei, L. Qiu, Y. Yao, C. Zhang, H. Qiang, Performance of Anaerobic Digestion

of Chicken Manure Under Gradually Elevated Organic Loading Rates, International Journal of
re
Environmental Research and Public Health 16 (2019) 22-39.

[224] H.H. Fang, H. Chui, Y. Li, Microbial structure and activity of UASB granules treating
lP

different wastewaters, Water Science & Technology 30 (1994) 87-96.

[225] L. Hulshoff Pol, The phenomenon of granulation of anaerobic sludge, Landbouwuniversiteit

na

te Wageningen, 1989.

[226] R. Frankin, Full-scale experiences with anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater, Water
ur

Science and Technology 44 (2001) 1-6.

[227] K. Yetilmezsoy, F. Ilhan, Z. Sapci-Zengin, S. Sakar, M.T. Gonullu, Decolorization and COD
Jo

reduction of UASB pretreated poultry manure wastewater by electrocoagulation process: A post-

treatment study, Journal of hazardous materials 162 (2009) 120-132.

[228] S. Kalyuzhnyi, V. Fedorovich, A. Nozhevnikova, Anaerobic treatment of liquid fraction of

hen manure in UASB reactors, Bioresource Technology 65 (1998) 221-225.

58
[229] K. Yetilmezsoy, S. Sakar, Development of empirical models for performance evaluation of

UASB reactors treating poultry manure wastewater under different operational conditions, Journal

of Hazardous materials 153 (2008) 532-543.

[230] A.H.A. Karim, Evaluation of a trickle flow leach bed reactor for anaerobic digestion of high

solids cattle manure, Colorado State University, 2013.

[231] J. Shen, J. Zhu, Kinetics of poultry litter in a leach bed reactor with agitation based on two

mechanisms: Enzymatic hydrolysis and direct solubilization, Biochemical Engineering Journal

135 (2018) 115-122.

[232] S. Hall, D. Hawkes, F. Hawkes, A. Thomas, Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of high solids

of
cattle waste in a packed bed digester, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 32 (1985) 153-

162.

ro
[233] P. Ramm, C. Abendroth, A.L. Pérez, C. Herrmann, S. Sebök, A. Geißler, C. Vilanova, M.

Porcar, C. Dornack, C. Bürger, Ammonia removal during leach-bed acidification leads to

-p
optimized organic acid production from chicken manure, Renewable Energy (2019).

[234] P. Ndegwa, D. Hamilton, J. Lalman, H. Cumba, Effects of cycle-frequency and temperature

re
on the performance of anaerobic sequencing batch reactors (ASBRs) treating swine waste,

Bioresource Technology 99 (2008) 1972-1980.

lP

[235] R. Zhang, Y. Yin, S. Sung, R. Dague, Anaerobic treatment of swine waste by the anaerobic

sequencing batch reactor, Transactions of the ASAE 40 (1997) 767-767.

na

[236] T. Abbasi, S. Tauseef, S. Abbasi, Biogas capture from animal manure, Biogas Energy,

Springer2012, pp. 41-62.

ur

[237] H. Yang, L. Deng, L. Wang, D. Zheng, Y. Liu, S. Wang, F. Huang, Comparison of three

biomass-retaining reactors of the ASBR, the UBF and the USR treating swine wastewater for
Jo

biogas production, Renewable Energy 138 (2019) 521-530.

[238] D.W. Hamilton, M.T. Steele, P.M. Ndgewa, The anaerobic sequencing batch reactor

(ASBR), an advanced anaerobic digester for dilute live swine production byproducts, Animal

Production Technology. International Conference of Agricultural Engineering-CIGR-AgEng 2012:

Agriculture and Engineering for a Healthier Life, Valencia, Spain, 8-12 July 2012., CIGR-

EurAgEng, 2012.
59
[239] D.I. Masse, L. Masse, F. Croteau, The effect of temperature fluctuations on psychrophilic

anaerobic sequencing batch reactors treating swine manure, Bioresource Technology 89 (2003)

57-62.

[240] S. Lozecznik, R. Sparling, J.A. Oleszkiewicz, S. Clark, J.F. VanGulck, Leachate treatment

before injection into a bioreactor landfill: Clogging potential reduction and benefits of using

methanogenesis, Waste Management 30 (2010) 2030-2036.

[241] W. Driessen, L. Habets, N. Groeneveld, New development in the design of upflow anaerobic

sludge bed reactors, 2nd Specialized IAWQ Conference on Pretreatment of Industrial

Wastewaters, 1996, pp. 16-18.

of
[242] C. Mao, Y. Feng, X. Wang, G. Ren, Review on research achievements of biogas from

anaerobic digestion, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 45 (2015) 540-555.

ro
[243] D.T. Mutombo, Internal circulation reactor: pushing the limits of anaerobic industrial

effluents treatment technologies, Proceedings of the 2004 Water Institute of Southern Africa

(WISA) Biennial Conference, 2004, pp. 608-616.

-p
[244] J. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Hu, Q. Zhao, B. Zhang, Characterization of IC Reactor in Treating
re
Piggery Wastewater, Journal of Agro-Environment Science 23 (2004) 777-781.

[245] N. Azbar, R.E. Speece, Two-phase, two-stage, and single-stage anaerobic process
lP

comparison, Journal of Environmental Engineering 127 (2001) 240-248.

[246] N. Horan, A.Z. Yaser, N. Wid, Anaerobic Digestion Processes: Applications and Effluent
na

Treatment, Springer2018.

[247] B. Demirel, O. Yenigun, T.T. Onay, Anaerobic treatment of dairy wastewaters: a review,
ur

Process Biochemistry 40 (2005) 2583-2595.

[248] S.A. Neshat, M. Mohammadi, G.D. Najafpour, Photosynthesis assisted anaerobic digestion
Jo

of cattle manure leachate in a hybrid bioreactor: An integrated system for enhanced wastewater

treatment and methane production, Chemical Engineering Journal 330 (2017) 616-624.

[249] J. Yang, D. Wang, Z. Luo, W. Zeng, Anaerobic mono-digestion of pig manure in a leach

bed coupled with a methanogenic reactor: Effects of the filter media, Journal of Cleaner Production

234 (2019) 1094-1101.

60
[250] B.K. Ahring, Methanogenesis in thermophilic biogas reactors, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

67 (1995) 91-102.

[251] I. Angelidaki, L. Ellegaard, B.K. Ahring, A mathematical model for dynamic simulation of

anaerobic digestion of complex substrates: focusing on ammonia inhibition, Biotechnology and

bioengineering 42 (1993) 159-166.

[252] J. Vasco-Correa, S. Khanal, A. Manandhar, A. Shah, Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy

production: Global status, environmental and techno-economic implications, and government

policies, Bioresource technology 247 (2018) 1015-1026.

[253] C. Cowley, B.W. Brorsen, Anaerobic Digester Production and Cost Functions, Ecological

of
economics 152 (2018) 347-357.

[254] N.D. Berge, D.R. Reinhart, E.S. Batarseh, An assessment of bioreactor landfill costs and

ro
benefits, Waste Management 29 (2009) 1558-1567.

[255] Y. Van Fan, J.J. Klemeš, C.T. Lee, S. Perry, Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste:
-p
energy and carbon emission footprint, Journal of environmental management 223 (2018) 888-897.

[256] R. Cossu, R. Stegmann, Solid Waste Landfilling. Concepts, Processes, Technology,

re
Elsevier2019.

[257] G. Redman, A detailed economic assessment of anaerobic digestion technology and its
lP

suitability to UK farming and waste systems, Centre TA, DECC, NNFCC, editors.: The Andersons

Center (2010).
na

[258] K. Surendra, D. Takara, A.G. Hashimoto, S.K. Khanal, Biogas as a sustainable energy source

for developing countries: Opportunities and challenges, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
ur

Reviews 31 (2014) 846-859.

[259] M.A. Kamaruddin, M.S. Yusoff, H.A. Aziz, Y.-T. Hung, Sustainable treatment of landfill
Jo

leachate, Applied Water Science 5 (2015) 113-126.

[260] A. Nizami, M. Rehan, M. Waqas, M. Naqvi, O. Ouda, K. Shahzad, R. Miandad, M. Khan,

M. Syamsiro, I. Ismail, Waste biorefineries: enabling circular economies in developing countries,

Bioresource technology 241 (2017) 1101-1117.

[261] L.A. Pfaltzgraff, E.C. Cooper, V. Budarin, J.H. Clark, Food waste biomass: a resource for

high-value chemicals, Green Chemistry 15 (2013) 307-314.

61
[262] E.L. Barrera, E. Rosa, H. Spanjers, O. Romero, S. De Meester, J. Dewulf, A comparative

assessment of anaerobic digestion power plants as alternative to lagoons for vinasse treatment: life

cycle assessment and exergy analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016) 459-471.

[263] I. Vázquez-Rowe, K. Golkowska, V. Lebuf, C. Vaneeckhaute, E. Michels, E. Meers, E.

Benetto, D. Koster, Environmental assessment of digestate treatment technologies using LCA

methodology, Waste management 43 (2015) 442-459.

[264] S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe, 2006 IPCC guidelines for national

greenhouse gas inventories, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Hayama, Japan2006.

[265] I. Bioenergy, Sustainable and synergetic processing of biomass into marketable food & feed

of
ingredients, chemicals, materials and energy (fuels, power, heat), Wageningen, The Netherlands

(2014).

ro
[266] M.K. Awasthi, S. Sarsaiya, S. Wainaina, K. Rajendran, S. Kumar, W. Quan, Y. Duan, S.K.

Awasthi, H. Chen, A. Pandey, A critical review of organic manure biorefinery models toward
-p
sustainable circular bioeconomy: Technological challenges, advancements, innovations, and

future perspectives, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 111 (2019) 115-131.
re
[267] L.B. Braga, J.L. Silveira, M.E. Da Silva, C.E. Tuna, E.B. Machin, D.T. Pedroso, Hydrogen

production by biogas steam reforming: A technical, economic and ecological analysis, Renewable
lP

and Sustainable Energy Reviews 28 (2013) 166-173.

[268] J. Liu, D. Cui, C. Yao, J. Yu, F. Su, G. Xu, Syngas methanation in fluidized bed for an
na

advanced two-stage process of SNG production, Fuel processing technology 141 (2016) 130-137.

[269] M. Hussein, K. Burra, R. Amano, A. Gupta, Effect of oxygen addition in steam gasification
ur

of chicken manure, Fuel 189 (2017) 428-435.

[270] Z. Wen, W. Liao, S. Chen, Hydrolysis of animal manure lignocellulosics for reducing sugar
Jo

production, Bioresource Technology 91 (2004) 31-39.

[271] I. Baumann, P. Westermann, Microbial production of short chain fatty acids from

lignocellulosic biomass: current processes and market, BioMed research international 2016 (2016).

[272] J. Villadsen, J. Nielsen, G. Lidén, Bioreaction engineering principles, Springer Science &

Business Media2011.

62
[273] M.I. Schnitzer, C.M. Monreal, G. Jandl, The conversion of chicken manure to bio-oil by fast

pyrolysis. III. Analyses of chicken manure, bio-oils and char by Py-FIMS and Py-FDMS, Journal

of Environmental Science and Health, Part B 43 (2008) 81-95.

[274] W. Chen, D.J. McClelland, A. Azarpira, J. Ralph, Z. Luo, G.W. Huber, Low temperature

hydrogenation of pyrolytic lignin over Ru/TiO 2: 2D HSQC and 13 C NMR study of reactants and

products, Green Chemistry 18 (2016) 271-281.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

63