Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00833-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Biogas production from co-digestion of different proportions of food

waste and fresh bovine manure
Monaliza Mirella de Morais Andrade 1 & Bárbara Ribeiro Alves Alencar 2 & Nathalia Pereira Leite 1 &
Alessandra Lee Barbosa Firmo 3 & Emmanuel Damilano Dutra 1 & Everardo Valadares de Sá Barretto Sampaio 1 &
Rômulo Simões Cezar Menezes 1

Received: 13 March 2020 / Revised: 17 June 2020 / Accepted: 19 June 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
The present study aimed to evaluate the process of anaerobic co-digestion of different proportions of food waste and fresh bovine
manure. The experiments were carried out in the laboratory (using 250-mL reactors) and in a pilot-scale biodigester (8 m3). The
laboratory experiment was conducted with batch feed systems testing three food waste (FW) and bovine manure (BM) ratios: 0:1,
1:2, and 3:1 (equivalent to 0, 33, and 75 % of food waste in the digester substrate, respectively). The pilot-scale biodigester had a
continuous feed system and received a 1:2 FW:BM mixture ratio. The highest accumulated biogas production in the laboratory
was 273 mL g-1 of volatile solids (VS) in the treatment with the 1:2 FW:BM ratio. Concentrations of volatile fatty acids (VFA)
greater than 8 g L-1 inhibited methane production, except in the treatment without food waste. In the pilot-scale biodigester,
concentrations of VFA were below the inhibitory threshold, and the biogas and methane yields were 271 L kgVS-1 and 220 L
kgVS-1, respectively. Therefore, food waste can be successfully co-digested with fresh bovine manure in continuous feed
digesters, with an initial organic load rate of at least 2.74 kgVS m-3 day-1. Future studies should aim to test progressive increases
in food waste load to identify the threshold for inhibition.

Keywords Organic residues . Anaerobic digestion . Biodigesters . Methane

1 Introduction composting and anaerobic digestion. These processes not on-

The proper treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste
are a challenge due to the high proportion of organic matter in
its composition. The recycling and treatment of this organic
fraction to recover energy are rapidly emerging as effective
waste management strategies, diverting it from landfills, and
generating income [1]. Currently, the most used treatment
processes for the organic fraction of solid waste are
* Monaliza Mirella de Morais Andrade
monaliza.mirella@gmail.com
1 ganic residues, seeking an adequate nutritional supply, the
Research Group on Biomass Energy, Department of Nuclear Energy,
Federal University of Pernambuco, Av. Prof. Moraes Rego, 1235,
Cidade Universitária, Recife, PE 50740-540, Brazil
2
Interdepartmental Research Group in Metabolic Engineering,
Department of Genetics, Federal University of Pernambuco,
Recife, PE 50670-901, Brazil
3
Federal Institut of Pernambuco, Recife, PE 50670-901, Brazil
ly represent an alternative to reduce the environmental impact
caused by the inadequate disposal of these organic wastes but
can also produce methane and biofertilizer [2–4]. Therefore,
they represent an opportunity to recover energy and nutrients
from organic residues.
The process of anaerobic digestion can be influenced by
several factors, which may inhibit the production of methane
[5]. Due to the high content of readily biodegradable ingredi-
ents, food wastes are rapidly hydrolyzed, and this can lead to
the accumulation of volatile fatty acids (VFAs), especially
propionic acid, which can result in the failure of the process
in a short period of time [6, 7]. An alternative to obtaining a
better biogas yield is to co-digest food waste with other or-
dilution of toxic compounds, and an increase of the biodegrad-
able organic matter load [3, 8]. These organic residues can
also be a ready source of inocula, providing microorganisms
to accelerate the hydrolysis of organic compounds and biogas
production and, consequently, reducing the residence time of
the substrate in the biodigester and the time of operation [9].
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Several sources of inocula can be used in anaerobic
biodigesters, such as sewage treatment plant effluent, stabilized
effluents from operating anaerobic biodigesters, or manure from
cattle or other ruminants [10–12]. Anaerobic sludge from sewage
plants may be difficult to be obtained in many locations, requir-
ing prior authorization from the management company of the
sewage treatment plant and transportation to the place of biogas
production, sometimes distant and difficult to access. Obtaining
inoculum from substrate stabilization takes time and requires an
appropriate area to store food waste before feeding to the
biodigester [13], and some regions may not have operating
biodigesters to supply stabilized effluents. On the other hand,
fresh animal manure, in particular from ruminants, is a ubiquitous
substrate in most areas of the world, and the co-digestion of food
waste with fresh manure can be performed in a stable manner
without the addition of anaerobic sludge [14]. Bovine manure,
for example, in addition to being a good nitrogen source, has
microbial communities that can assist in anaerobic digestion.
Therefore, the use of fresh manure eliminates the cost and time
to obtain inoculum from sewage plants or from substrate stabili-
zation and facilitates the adoption of anaerobic biogas production
in rural properties and small remote communities.
However, the co-digestion of food waste with different
sources of inoculum may affect the biodegradability results,
as a consequence of different microbial communities and sub-
strate chemical composition [13]. Little has been published
about the behavior and the possibility of co-digesting without
the addition of adapted inoculants, such as sewage sludge or
stabilized biodigester effluents. Considering this lack of infor-
mation, the objective of this study was to evaluate the process
of anaerobic co-digestion of different proportions of food
waste and fresh bovine manure both in batch feeding digesters
in laboratory assays and in a pilot-scale (8 m3) continuous
feeding system biodigester.
the food preparation, such as rice, beans, and meats, were the
same almost every day, but there was some variation in minor
components, such as fruit type, so that the proportions of the
components in the food waste had some daily variation. Once
a week, all the waste generated during the day in the restaurant
was collected and piled on a large plastic canvas in a screening
yard. The waste was then mixed and removed from the pile by
applying the blocking technique, according to NBR 10007 [15],
in which the waste contained in two opposite quadrants is sepa-
rated and mixed again, repeating the process until a uniform
sample of approximately 2 kg was obtained. The samples were
ground in a food grinder and dried in a forced ventilation oven at
40 ° C. The dry mass was milled, sieved in a 2-mesh screen, and
stored in a screw-cap plastic container containing silica gel until
the time to feed the small scale biodigesters (AD1). A subsample
was analyzed in relation to its chemical composition (Table 1).
Food waste collected daily in the restaurant was also used to
feed the pilot-scale biodigester (AD2). After sorting and removing
inorganic materials, the organic wastes were ground in knife mills
and transferred to the feed box coupled to the biodigester for
dilution with water and subsequent pumping into the biodigester.
Two sources of bovine manure were used in the experi-
ments. Manure from the first source, denominated as manure
1, was used in the AD1 experiment, and it was collected at a
dairy farm where the animals were kept in a semi-intensive
system (feeding both in the pasture and in the barn). Sampling
was performed at dawn in three barns where the animals were
kept confined at night. Portions were deposited in 5-L plastic
bags and kept under refrigeration at 4 °C for a few hours until
the moment of use in the experiment, which was setup on the
same day of manure collection. Manure from the second
source (manure 2) was used in the pilot-scale biodigester
Table 1 Characterization of food waste (FW) collected at the restaurant
and bovine manure (BM) used in anaerobic co-digestion

Parameters FW BM
2 Material and methods
Moisture (%) 70.8 85
Two experiments were performed at different scales. The first pH 4.8 7.9
experiment consisted of batch tests conducted in 250-mL glass Alkalinity (mg·L-1) 128 Nd
bottles at 36 °C, hereafter referred to as “AD1” (anaerobic Total solids (%) 29.2 15
digester 1). The second experiment was conducted on a pilot- Volatile solids (%) 92.5 54
scale (8 m3) tubular model biodigester (referred to as “AD2”). Total carbon (%) 46.8 43.8
Total nitrogen (%) 4.04 1.69
2.1 Collection and preparation of food waste and C/N 11.6 25.9
manure samples Hydrogen (%) 5.6 5.11
Sulfur (%) 1.5 -
Food waste samples were collected at the restaurant of the COD (mgO2 L-1) 116.13 -
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) in Recife, Phosphorus (%) 0.096 -
Pernambuco, Brazil, from January to December 2016. The food Potassium 0.30 -
waste contained mainly rice, beans, meats, pasta, vegetables, Calorific power (Jg-1) 18660 17123
fruits, cereals, and fats, together with wastes from vegetable prep-
aration, such as peels, stems, and roots. The basic components of Nd, not determined
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
(AD2) and was obtained at the experimental station of the
Agronomic Institute of Pernambuco - IPA, in São Bento do
Una municipality. The herd of dairy cattle is raised in an
intensive system (fed exclusively in the barn). The manure
samples were collected after pilling the feces deposited in
the barn floor of the farm and homogenizing it with a hoe.
The collected manure was stored in 200-L plastic barrels and
transported immediately (3 h of travel by truck) to be added to
the biodigester feed tank at UFPE.
Before the beginning of both incubation experiments, the
manure was diluted 1: 1 (v/v) with non-chlorinated water to
decrease the concentration of solids in the substrate and to
facilitate pumping. The compositions of the food waste and
bovine manure samples are presented in Table 1.
2.2 Experimental setup of the batch tests (AD1)
The small-scale anaerobic co-digestion experiment was per-
formed using batch-type biodigesters, following the method-
ology adapted from Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP)
and originally proposed by Owen et al. [16]. The biodigesters
were 250-mL borosilicate flasks, with an effective volume of
150 mL. Each flask had a nylon cap with one valve for biogas
collection, connected to one 1 kgf cm-2 manometer, with a 0.2
kgf cm-2 scale, and screwed with a ring rubber seal.
The experiment was set up as a completely randomized
design, with three replicates, and three treatments, corre-
sponding to 0, 33, and 75 % of food waste and the com-
plementary proportions of fresh manure (100, 67, and
25%) in the digester substrate (on a volatile solids basis,
gvs). These proportions were based on the study by Zhang
et al. [17] and corresponded to ratios of 0:1, 1:2, and 3:1 of
food waste to manure.
After feeding the digesters, the pH of the manure and food
waste mixture was adjusted to approximately pH = 7.0 with
calcium carbonate. Each digester was closed and, to ensure
anaerobic conditions, N2 was circulated for 2 min while man-
ually stirring in order to remove the oxygen present in the
internal gas atmosphere and dissolved in the solution.
Subsequently, each digester was wrapped in aluminum foil
to prevent exposure of the substrate to the light, which could
harm the microorganisms and alter the biodegradation pro-
cess. The digesters were maintained in a bacteriological oven
at 36 ± 2 °C for 65 days.
Biogas production was checked daily by the displacement
of the manometer pointer coupled to the cap of each reactor.
The volume of biogas produced was calculated from the dif-
ference in daily pressure using the equation described by El-
Mashad and Zhang [18]:
P⋅V hs ⋅C
Vb ¼
R⋅T
where Vb (mL) is the volume of daily biogas production; P
(mbar) is the pressure difference; Vhs (mL) is the headspace
volume; C is the molar volume (22.41 L mol-1); R is the
perfect gas universal constant (83.14 L mbar K-1 mol-1); and
T (°K) is the absolute temperature.
2.3 Experimental setup of the pilot-scale biodigester
(AD2)
The pilot-scale experiment was conducted in a continuous
8 m3 biodigester, tubular model, made with flexible PVC
laminates, structured with black polyester fabric (Table 2).
The study was carried out at the Experimental Biorefinery
of Organic Solid Wastes of the Federal University of
Pernambuco, Brazil. Since the restaurant produces, on av-
erage, 1000 kg of food waste daily, the anaerobic diges-
tion system was defined to be continuous, with daily feed-
ing. The digestion technique was single phase, anaerobic,
wet, with a working temperature in the mesophilic stage
of 36 ± 1 °C and a retention time of 27 days. The pilot-
scale biodigester was previously fed with bovine manure,
diluted with non-chlorinated water in a proportion of 1: 1
(g:g), and operated for 30 days. After this period, the
biodigester started to be fed with food waste.
The pilot-scale biodigester operated with an organic load of
2.74 kgVS m-3 day-1. The stability of the system was evaluat-
ed for 30 days, performing weekly measurements of pH and
VFA concentration in samples collected through the lateral
flanges of the biodigester. The performance of the anaerobic
digestion system was evaluated by quantifying the daily bio-
gas production, with weekly determination of the biogas
methane concentration, quantified collecting the gas through
a gas line–coupled valve, and storing it in gas-impermeable
plastic bags.
2.4 Analytical methods
Total solids (TS) and volatile solids (VS) contents were deter-
mined according to the APHA [19]. The pH of the food waste
samples was determined using a portable pH meter (Digimed)
Table 2 Mass and volume of the substrates used to feed the pilot-scale
biodigester (8 m3)
Description Bovine manure1 Food waste2
Fresh substrate 1600 kg 70 kg day-1
Total solids 200 kg 11.9 kg day-1
Water 1.61 m3 0.07 m3 day-1
Volume of substrate added 1.68 m3 0.08 m3 day-1
Total volume 3.29 m3 0.15 m3 day-1
1
Single application at the beginning of the study; 2 Daily additions

after diluting them with distilled water in a ratio of 1: 2.5
(mass basis), under horizontal shaking for 10 min, and waiting
for 30 min before reading. Elemental analysis (C, H, N, S) was
performed using an EA300 Euro Vector elemental analyzer.
Phosphorus was determined by colorimetry method in a
spectrophotometer and potassium by flame photometry in a
Digimed photometer, according to the methodology for plant
and organic residue analysis [20]. Carbon and nitrogen were
determined by combustion at 925 °C in a CHNS-O elemental
analyzer, using BBOT, cysteine, sulfonyl amide, and methio-
nine as standards.
Characterization of the biogas (in terms of CO2 and CH4)
was performed by gas chromatography, in GC-Master equip-
ment with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD), using a
Porapak “N” column, with an oven temperature of 60 °C
and sample injection of 100 μL. The standard gas used for
calibration consisted of 60% (v/v) CH4 and 40% CO2.
Data of each analyzed variable were submitted to analysis
of variance (ANOVA), and the averages were compared by
the Tukey test at the 0.05 probability level.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Small-scale reactors with batch feeding (AD1)
The initial pH in the mixtures added to each reactor did not
differ significantly in the treatments with the different propor-
tions of food waste in the digester substrate (Fig. 1). In all
treatments, the pH decreased during the digestion, but the
reduction was less pronounced in the treatment without food
Fig. 1 Initial and final pH in an
anaerobic co-digestion systems of
bovine manure (BM) and differ-
ent proportions of food waste
(FW) in batch feeding small-scale
digesters (AD1). Means followed
by the same letters are not signif-
icantly different at the 5% signif-
icance level by the Tukey test
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
waste (FW 0%), which was still neutral (7.06) at the end of the
experiment. In the treatment with the highest proportion of
food waste (FW 75%), the pH became excessively acidic
(4.16). Therefore, the co-digestion of manure and food resi-
dues is a viable alternative to alleviate the inhibition caused by
excessive acidification, provided that the proportion of food
residues is less than 50% [21]. Similar pH values have been
reported by Zhai et al. [22], with pH values dropping to a
minimum of 4.8 in anaerobic reactors with a sludge and ma-
nure ratio of 1:1, and by Khairuddin et al. [8], with a minimum
pH of 4.5 with food waste and anaerobic sludge in a 2:1 ratio.
They suggested that the buffering capacity of the stabilized
inoculum increases with the increase in the incubation time of
the substrate and residue mixture.
The reduction of VS did not differ among treatments,
reaching around 98% in all of them. The degradation of VS
in anaerobic digestion systems varies widely [23], depend-
ing on the chemical composition of the food waste and the
type of manure used, 9.01 and 8.21 g L-1 in the digesters
containing food waste (FW 33% and FW 75%) (Table 3),
while in the biodigester without food waste, the concentra-
tion was below 1 g L-1. The stability of the VFA concen-
tration in the absence of food waste may have occurred
because the C/N ratio was equal to 25.9, within the 20 to
30 range, suggested as ideal [24], contributing to the prop-
er release of NH3 and providing the concentration of VFA
was equilibrium of the system with the formation of acids
as intermediates in the digestion of manure.
Other studies have suggested that severe inhibition of
methane production may occur due to the accumulation of
VFA as long as the waste content in the biodigester exceeds
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Table 3 Reduction of volatile solids (VS) and accumulation of volatile
fatty acids in an anaerobic co-digestion systems of bovine manure (BM)
and different proportions of food waste (FW) in batch feeding small-scale
digesters (AD1)
FW proportions VS reduction (%) VFA (g L-1)
FW 33% 99.0 a ± 1.15 9.01 a ± 3.61
FW 75% 98.6 a ± 0.57 8.21 a ± 0.55
FW 0% 98.2 a ± 0.57 0.052 b ± 0.15
Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the
5% significance level by the Tukey test
50 % [21]. In the present study, only the treatment without
food waste (FW 0%) had a VFA concentration (0.052 g L-1) in
a range considered adequate for a stable anaerobic digestion
system [25], which demonstrates that even a relatively low
proportion (33%) of food waste inhibited the process in the
small-scale batch feeding digesters. Therefore, we observed
that the stabilization of the anaerobic digestion process, even
with a food waste proportion lower than 50%, might require
intervention to contribute to the buffering capacity. This inter-
vention could be the addition of a base, co-digestion with
higher ratios of an alkaline substrate, or maybe recirculation
of the effluent.
The accumulated biogas production was favored by the
addition of food waste, compared with the treatment which
received only manure (Fig. 2), and the production was higher
in FW 33% than in FW 75% (273 and 232 mL gVS-1, respec-
tively). The lower production was probably related to the pH
decrease observed in FW 75%, due to the food waste propor-
tion exceeding 50% [17]. The accumulated yields are lower
than those reported with co-digestion of food waste and ma-
nure with the addition of anaerobic sludge: El-Mashad et al.
Fig. 2 Accumulated biogas
production in anaerobic co-
digestion systems of bovine ma-
nure (BM) and different propor-
tions of food waste (FW) in batch
feeding small-scale digesters
(AD1)
[18] reported productions of 570 to 621 mL gVS-1 and
Marañón et al. [26] 644 to 880 L kgVS-1. Our lower yields
could be due to the high acidification in the digesters with the
addition of food waste and the absence of a stabilized inocula.
The biogas production in all treatments peaked in the first
10 days of incubation. In FW 33%, about 60 mL gVS -1 biogas
production peaks were observed until the fifth day, being re-
duced to 16.3 mL gVS-1 around the 15th day, and tending to
stabilize from the third week until the end of the assay, with an
average yield of 6.2 mL gVS-1. Biogas production in FW 75%
reached 14.0 mL gVS-1 on the first 3 days of incubation,
decreasing to an average of 7.5 mL gVS-1 around the sixth
day, 6.2 mL gVS-1 on the sixteenth day, and tending to stabi-
lize from the twentieth day on, with an average production rate
of 5.3 mL gVS-1. The rapid reduction in the biogas production
rate may indicate that the available organic matter was rapidly
degraded and may have favored the accumulation of volatile
fatty acids, jeopardizing methane production (Fig. 3).
The behavior of the biogas production curve in the FW
75% treatment differed from those of the other treatments.
Production peaked at 11.5 mL gVS-1 and then decreased to
66% of this average, increasing approximately 6% by the
thirteenth day. The trend towards production stability oc-
curred after about one and a half months, with averages be-
tween 5.6 and 4.2 mL gVS-1. These low values may be due to
acidification during the first digestion stage, which is not com-
patible with the normal growth of methanogenic organisms
[27]. These results corroborate those of Li et al. [28], who
reported that the substrate/inoculum ratio was the main factor
affecting anaerobic digestion during the initial phase of the
process. The possible inhibition of methanogenesis due to
acidification caused by the accumulation of VFA and low
pH values was irreversible.
 Biomass Conv. Bioref.

Fig. 3 Daily biogas production

rate in an anaerobic co-digestion
system of bovine manure (BM)
and different proportions of food
waste (FW) in batch feeding
small-scale digesters (AD1)

Accumulated biogas production stabilized at different mo-
ments for the different treatments, ranging from 57 days in
FW 33% to 62 days in FW 75%. Anaerobic digestion with
high concentrations of solids (> 15%), such as those in FW
33% and FW 75%, which operated with 15 and 20% of total
solids, respectively, require inoculum application, due to the
long time required for stabilization of biogas production [24].
Khairuddin et al. [8], co-digesting different ratios of food
waste and bovine manure, with the application of inoculum
and total solids concentration around 20%, reported 40 days
for stabilization of biogas production. Zhai et al. [22] reported
a period of 45 to 56 days to stabilize biogas production in
digesters with 23% of total solids. However, establishing the
ideal inoculum selection for anaerobic digestion of food resi-
due is still a problem due to the heterogeneity of residues [10].
3.2 Pilot-scale digester (AD2)
In the first 2 weeks of digestion, the concentration of VFA was
reduced from 1346 to 1214 g L-1, while the pH increased from
6.49 to 6.71 (Table 4). In the third week, the pH decreased to
6.54 and increased again in the last week of digestion,
reaching the same value observed in the second week (6.71).
Table 4 Weekly
variation of pH and Weeks pH VFA (mg L-1)
accumulation of volatile
fatty acids (VFA) in a 1 6.49 1346
pilot-scale anaerobic 2 6.71 1214
continuous digestion of 3 6.54 1526
food wastes and bovine
manure (AD2) 4 6.71 1515
As a consequence, in the third week, the VFA concentration
increased to 1526 g L-1 and decreased to 1515 g L-1 in the last
week. The variation in pH mentioned above is within the
optimal range to maintain a stable process of anaerobic diges-
tion [29]. Similarly, the process of methanogenesis operates
best at a pH range from 6 to 8, which favors the proliferation
of slow-growing methanogenic arches [30].
The biogas yield ranged from 130 to 330 L kg VS-1, with
the production peak on the 17th retention day, after which it
oscillated to reach a new but lower peak (260 L kg VS-1 ) on
the 20th retention day (Fig. 4). Since the biodigester was fed
with food waste collected daily in the restaurant and its com-
position was slightly heterogeneous on a daily basis, we hy-
pothesize that the volume and composition of the biogas
formed may have varied in part as a response to the quality
of the waste. The average biogas yield was 39 L kg -1 of the
food waste, on a fresh weight basis, lower than those reported
by Rapport et al. [31], in the range of 100 to 150 L kg -1, and
by Grimberg et al. [30], with a mean yield of 120 L kg -1. The
low yield may be related to the short retention time and or to
the food waste composition. This result points out to the need
to monitor, during the feeding of the biodigester, the propor-
tion of the main types of components that make up the food
waste, which may significantly affect its chemical composi-
tion. In the present study, we have a value of the average
chemical composition of the food waste, based on composite
samples taken during several days, but do not have data on the
daily variation of food waste quality.
The concentration of methane in the biogas of the pilot-scale
biodigester varied between 58 - 60%, which is in the same
range of other studies with similar experimental setup.
However, the average methane yield in our pilot-scale
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
Fig. 4 Daily production of biogas
and methane in a pilot-scale an-
aerobic continuous digestion sys-
tem s of food waste (FW) and
bovine manure (BM)
Volume (m3 kgVS-1)
biodigester was low, varying from 75.4 to 198 L kg VS-1, with
peak production on the 17th retention day, after which it fluc-
tuated to reach a new, but smaller peak (135 L kg VS-1) in the
20th day of retention (Fig. 4). The methane concentration in
most similar studies reported in the literature generally varies
between 60 and 64% (volume), with an average yield of around
220 L kgVS-1. Grimberg et al. [30] reported similar methane
concentrations (from 59 to 60%) but higher yields, reaching up
to 380 L kgVS day-1, in 5 m3 biodigesters, single-stage food
treatment and a load of 3.79 kgVS m-3 day-1. This higher vol-
umetric organic load suggests that the increase in the organic
load may favor the increase in methane concentration. Zeshan
et al. [32], working with pilot-scale biodigesters with organic
loads of 2.60 and 10.65 kgVS m-3 day-1 and retention time of
54 and 13 days, observed a maximum methane yield of 327 L
kgVS-1 and a minimum of 121 L kgVS-1. They pointed as
possible reasons for the maximum yield the inversely propor-
tional relation between volumetric organic load and retention
time. Therefore, it can be inferred that the 30 days of the present
study did not allow the maximum methane yield to be reached
in this pilot-scale biodigester.
4 Conclusions
Co-digestion of food waste with fresh bovine manure in batch
feeding systems did not provide sufficient buffering to the
system to prevent excessive acidification and accumulation
of VFA, resulting in methanogenesis inhibition with propor-
tions of food waste of 33 and 75% in the digesters. In the pilot-
scale digester, the continuous feed system with an organic
volumetric load of 2.74 kgVS m-3 day-1 was able to avoid
excessive acidification and accumulation of VFA, which re-
sulted in a methane yield of 220 L kgVS-1 during the 30-day
trial. Therefore, food waste can be successfully co-digested
with fresh bovine manure in continuous feed digesters, with
an initial organic load rate of at least 2.74 kgVS m-3 day-1.
Future studies should aim to test progressive increases in food
waste load to identify the threshold for inhibition.
Funding information The authors acknowledge the CNPq, for financial
support CHAMADA UNIVERSAL– MCTI/CNPq N° 14/2014
(Processo 454423/2014-4) and the doctoral scholarship grant (Processo
141364/2014-9) to this research. This work is part of the National
Observatory of Water and Carbon Dynamics in the Caatinga Biome -
NOWCDCB, supported by FACEPE (grants: APQ-0296-5.01/17;
APQ-0498-3.07/17 ONDACBC; APQ-0532-5.01/14), CNPq (grants:
441305/2017-2; 465764/2014-2), and CAPES (grants: 88887.136369/
2017-00).and FINEP (CT-Infra 01/2013 - REF 0648/13 - SUGERE).
References
1. Fernández J, Pérez M, Romero LI (2010) Kinetics of mesophilic
anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste:
influence of initial total solid concentration. Bioresour Technol 101:
6322–6328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.046
2. Fischer G, Prieler S, van Velthuisen H, Bernds G, Faail A, Londo
M, de Wit M (2010) Biofuel production potentials in Europe: sus-
tainable use of cultivated land and pastures. Biomass Bioenergy 34:
173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.07.009
3. Khalid A, Arshad M, Anjum M, Mahmood T, Dawson L (2011)
The anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Manag 31:
1737–1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.021
4. Lisboa MS, Lansing S (2013) Characterizing food waste substrates
for co-digestion through biochemical methane potential (BMP) ex-
periments. Waste Manag 33:2664–2669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2013.09.004

5. Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS (2008) Inhibition of anaerobic
digestion process: a review. Bioresour Technol 99:4044–4064.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.01.057
6. Wang K, Yin J, Shen D, Li N (2014) Anaerobic digestion of food
waste for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) production with different types
of inoculum: effect of pH. Bioresour Technol 161:395–401. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.088
7. Zhang R, El-Mashad H, Hartman K, Wang F, Liu G, Choate C,
Gamble P (2007) Characterization of food waste as feedstock for
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2006.02.039
8. Khairuddin N, Manaf LA, Halimoon N, Ghani WAWA (2015) K.,
& Hassan. M. A, High solid anaerobic co-digestion of household
organic waste with cow manure. Procedia Environmental Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.10.031
9. Xu SY, Karthikeyan OP, Selvam A, Wong JWC (2012) Effect of
inoculum to substrate ratio on the hydrolysis and acidification of
food waste in leach bed reactor. Bioresour Technol 126:425–430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.12.059
10. Koch K, Lippert T, Drewes JE (2017) The role of inoculum’s origin
on the methane yield of different substrates in biochemical methane
potential (BMP) tests. Bioresour Technol 243:457–463. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.142
11. Boulanger A, Pinet E, Bouix M, Bouchez T, Mansour AA (2012)
Effect of inoculum to substrate ratio (I/S) on municipal solid waste
anaerobic degradation kinetics and potential. Waste Manag 32:
2258–2265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.024
12. Liu C, Li H, Zhang Y, Liu C (2016) Improve biogas production
from low-organic-content sludge through high-solids anaerobic co-
digestion with food waste. Bioresour Technol 219:252–260. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.130
13. Raposo F, Fernández-Cegrí V, De la Rubia MA, Borja R, Béline F,
Cavinato C, Demirer G, Fernández B, Ferández-Polanco M, Frigon
JC, Ganesh R, Kaparaju P, Koubova J, Méndez R, Menin G, Peene
A, Scherer P, Torrijos M, Uellendahl H, Wierinck I, Wilde V
(2011) Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic sub-
strates: evaluation of anaerobic biodegradability using data from an
international interlaboratory study. J Chem Technol Biotechnol.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2622
14. Vázquez-Rodríguez GA, Beltrán-Hernández RI, Coronel-Olivares
C, Rols JL (2011) Standardization of activated sludge for biodeg-
radation tests. Anal Bioanal Chem 401:1127–1137. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00216-011-5212-z
15. ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS –
ABNT NBR 10007: Amostragem de resíduos sólidos. 2004
16. Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JB, Young LY, McCarty PL (1979)
Bioassay for monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaer-
obic toxicity. Water Res 13:485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-
1354(79)90043-5
17. Zhang C, Xiao G, Peng L, Su H, Tan T (2013) The anaerobic co-
digestion of food waste and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 2013:
170–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.138
18. El-Mashad HM, Zhang R (2010) Biogas production from co-
digestion of dairy manure and food waste. Bioresour Technol
101:4021–4028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.01.027
Biomass Conv. Bioref.
19. APHA – AWWA - WEF American Public Health Association,-
American Water Works Association () -Water Environment
Federation (). Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. Washington. United States. 1998.
20. Tandon, H. L. S. Methods of analysis of soils, plants, waters,
fertilisers & organic manures. Fertiliser Development and
Consultation Organisation, 2005.
21. Tian H, Duan N, Lin C, Li X, Zhong M (2015) Anaerobic co-
digestion of kitchen waste and pig manure with different mixing
ratios. J Biosci Bioeng 120:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.
2014.11.017
22. Zhai N, Zhang T, Yin D, Yang G, Wang X, Ren G, Feng Y (2015)
Effect of initial pH on anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and
cow manure. Waste Manag 38:126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2014.12.027
23. Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J (2011) Solid-state anaerobic digestion for
methane production from organic waste. Renew Sust Energ Rev
15:821–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.042
24. Dhamodharan K, Kumar V, Kalamdhad AS (2015) Effect of dif-
ferent livestock dungs as inoculum on food waste anaerobic diges-
tion and its kinetics. Bioresour Technol 180:237–241. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.12.066
25. Rena,Y., Yua, M., Wua, C., Wanga, Q., Gaoa, M., Huanga, Q.,
Liuc, Y., A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic diges-
tion: research updates and tendencies. Bioresour Technol (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.109, 247, 1069, 1076
26. Marañón E, Castrillón L, Quiroga G, Fernández-Nava Y, Gómez L,
García MM (2012) Co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste
and sludge to increase biogas production. Waste Management.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.05.033
27. Zhang C, Su H, Baeyens J, Tan T (2014) Reviewing the anaerobic
digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renew Sust Energ
Rev 38:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.038
28. Li L, Peng X, Wang X, Wu D (2018) Anaerobic digestion of food
waste: a review focusing on process stability. Bioresour Technol
248:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.012
29. Yu H-Q, Fang HHP (2002) Acidogenesis of dairy wastewater at
various pH levels. Water Sci Technol 45:201–206. https://doi.org/
10.2166/wst.2002.0331
30. Grimberg SJ, Hilderbrandt D, Kinnunen M, Rogers S (2015)
Anaerobic digestion of food waste through the operation of a
mesophilic two-phase pilot scale digester - assessment of variable
loadings on system performance. Bioresour Technol 178:226–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.001
31. Rapport JL, Zhang R, Jenkins BM, Hartsough BR (2011) &
Tomich. T. P, Modeling the performance of the anaerobic phased
solids digester system for biogas energy production. Biomass and
Bioenergy. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.28885
32. Zeshan Karthikeyan, O. P., & Visvanathan C (2012) Effect of C/N
ratio and ammonia-N accumulation in a pilot-scale thermophilic dry
anaerobic digester. Bioresour Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2012.02.028
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.