Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology Reports

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/bioresource-technology-reports

The anaerobic digestion process of biogas production from food waste: T

Prospects and constraints
⁎
Sagor Kumar Pramanika, Fatihah Binti Sujaa, Shahrom Md Zaina, Biplob Kumar Pramanikb,
a
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The unrestrained release of huge quantities of food waste (FW) has become a significant concern because it
Anaerobic digestion causes intensive environmental pollution. However, FW is a proper substrate that can be treated by anaerobic
Biogas digestion (AD) due to its excellent biodegradability and high-water content. Studies have demonstrated that the
Co-digestion AD process of turning FW into biogas is an effective solution for FW treatment. This manuscript reviews the
Food waste
characteristics of FW, the biological process and biochemical reaction involved in the AD process, various op-
Pre-treatment
erational parameters and classification of the AD process, and the co-digestion and pre-treatment of the AD
process for biogas production. Both co-digestion and pre-treatment processes could improve the FW hydrolysis
rate and methane production. However, further improvement of this technology is required to assess its eco-
nomic feasibility. Challenges and future perspectives of biogas production from FW are also discussed to improve
the performance of AD technology.

1. Introduction
The quantity of food losses and waste has grown enormously in the
past few years because of the rapid growth of the world economy and
population. It is estimated that approximately 33.3% of food produced
globally for human consumption is lost or wasted through the food
supply chain (i.e., 1.6 gigatons of food per year) which has a production
value of $750 billion (Ma and Liu, 2019; Slorach et al., 2019). The
waste of food is a non-productive use of scarce resources (land, water
and fertiliser) and leads to environmental degradation (Gokarn and
Kuthambalayan, 2017; Slorach et al., 2019). Baroutian et al. (2018)
reported that the total amount of FW produced by a single person is
160–295 kg/year all over the world. Food is wasted during the food
supply chain. The chain includes agricultural production, processing,
distribution, consumption and post-harvest handling stages (Gustavsson
et al., 2011; Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). It can be noted that de-
veloped countries tend to have major losses (70 to 80%) associated with
the retail and consumer stages, whereas food wastage is higher at the
immediate post-harvest stages in developing countries (Gokarn and
Kuthambalayan, 2017). Papargyropoulou et al. (2014) revealed that the
quantity of food losses and waste not only fluctuated between devel-
oped and developing countries but also varied in low-income countries
having poor producers and customers. A recent report developed by
Magnet (2018) noted that annual FW generation reached 361, 278,
157, 154, 74.7, 51, and 44 kg per person in Australia, America, Japan,
Germany, United Kingdom, India, and China, respectively.
Since FW creates harmful impacts at the environmental level, ap-
propriate management and treatment of FW have become the major
objective of numerous countries across the world. One of the main
environmental impacts of FW is associated with the embedded carbon
from the earlier life cycle phases of food before it became waste.
Moreover, activities related to food production such as agriculture
(including land-use change), processing, manufacturing, transportation,
storage, refrigeration, distribution and retail have an embedded GHG
effect (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). The same study reported that
agriculture is associated with approximately 22% of all GHG emissions
compared to livestock production (about 18%). The final disposal of FW
in landfills has also given rise to major environmental pollutions. Clercq
et al. (2017) showed that considerable amounts of GHG including
methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced when FW is
disposed of in landfills. They showed that the emission of GHG into the
atmosphere contributes to global warming; methane is a potent GHG
with a greenhouse effect that is 25 times more powerful than CO2.
Slorach et al. (2019) reported that global food loss and waste generate
annually 6.7% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. Papargyropoulou
et al. (2014) demonstrated another environmental effect associated
with FW, which is the disturbance of the biogenic phases of phosphorus
and nitrogen, applied as fertilisers in agriculture.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: biplob.pramanik@rmit.edu.au (B.K. Pramanik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.100310
Received 9 July 2019; Received in revised form 19 August 2019; Accepted 20 August 2019
Available online 21 August 2019
2589-014X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
There are several old technologies for treating different types of
wastes (e.g., animal manure, household food waste, agricultural crop
residue, and organic industrial waste) around the world. Historical
evidence indicates that, the anaerobic digestion process is one of the
oldest technologies. Granado et al. (2017) reported that the concept of
anaerobic digestion has been introduced around 1870 through the de-
velopment of the septic tank system. In 1939, the first anaerobic di-
gestion plant was constructed in the USA for treating organic fraction of
municipal solid waste, whereas several anaerobic digestion plants were
constructed over the last few decades in Europe (Karthikeyan et al.,
2018). The development of anaerobic digestion technology has im-
proved very rapidly after the energy crisis in the 1970s (Deepanraj
et al., 2014). Currently, anaerobic digestion technology is being used
not only for the treatment of organic wastes but also for the treatment
of wastewater. For installing large-scale biogas plants, Germany and
Switzerland are the pioneer countries in the global biogas industry
(Karthikeyan et al., 2018). The United States has about 2100 current
operational anaerobic digestion plants, whereas Asia has the largest
number of small-scale household anaerobic digesters that are used in
rural areas for lighting and cooking (Vasco-correa et al., 2018). They
also pointed out that socio-economic hurdle, existing infrastructure,
policymakers, technology availability and consistency are the main
differences in the development of anaerobic digestion plants around the
world.
AD is an excellent alternative for FW treatment compared to waste
treatment, energy supply, and environmental protection (Leung and
Wang, 2016). There are numerous benefits related to the AD process
such as decreased GHG emission, digestate for application in agronomy,
small footprint production, and the generation of high-quality renew-
able fuel (Ariunbaatar, 2014). However, the drawbacks of the AD
process such as relatively high capital costs, long retention time, and
the required control of certain key parameters (e.g., pH, temperature,
feed rate, alkalinity) prevents it from being widely implemented
(Ariunbaatar, 2014). Herein, the objective of this paper is to review the
characteristics of FW, the biological process and biochemical reaction
involved in the AD process, various operational parameters and clas-
sification of the AD process, and the co-digestion and pre-treatment of
the AD process for biogas production. This paper also discusses the
challenges and future perspectives of enhancing biogas production from
FW and maintaining the AD process effectively.
2. Characteristics of FW
FW is characterised by complex components and organic material.
There are several types of FW such as fruit and vegetable waste,
household and restaurant FW, brewery waste, and dairy waste (Xu
et al., 2018). Studies have found that the composition of FW varies
based on geographical changes, seasonal changes, cooking procedures,
and consumption patterns (Meng et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2018). They
reported that FW consists of various organic components such as pro-
teins, carbohydrate polymers (starch, cellulose, hemicelluloses, and
lignin), lipids, and organic acids. Fisgativa et al. (2016) studied 102
different FW samples and reported that the characteristic of FW dis-
played high coefficient of variance (CV). They indicated that the var-
iations of 24% of the studied characteristics were described by the
geographical change, seasonal change and the type of collection source.
They observed that FW has an average pH of 5.1 (CV 13.9%), carbon
and nitrogen ratio of 18.5% (CV 31.8%), 36% of carbohydrates (CV
57.2%), 26% of protein (CV 62.2%), 15% of fats (CV 52.0%), and
biomethane potential of 460.0 NL CH4/kg VS (CV 19%).
As mentioned in Table 1, the percentage range of degradable car-
bohydrates, proteins, and lipids is (5.7%–53%), (2.3%–28.4%), and
(1.3%–30.3%), respectively. Meng et al. (2015) and Xu et al. (2018)
indicated that carbohydrates and proteins have a higher hydrolysis rate
due to its rapid degradability compared to lipid. Thus, quickly de-
gradable carbohydrates and lipid-rich food wastes can produce high
2
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
methane yields. Bong et al. (2018) reported that fruit and vegetable
waste has low lipid content but relatively high cellulosic content,
whereas FW and kitchen waste have high lipid content because of the
presence of animal fat and oil. Studies have reported that fruit and
vegetable waste had a lipid content of 11.8%, whereas FW and kitchen
waste were reported to have 33.22% and 21.6% of lipid content, re-
spectively (Wang et al., 2014; Yong et al., 2015). Y. Li et al. (2017a)
reported that FW rich in lipids could produce a higher amount of me-
thane compared to carbohydrates and proteins. However, high lipid
content can cause system failure due to the formation of long-chain
fatty acids. This occurs when the mass transformation of soluble or-
ganics into bacteria decreases due to the destruction of the cellular
membrane (Leung and Wang, 2016). Y. Li et al. (2017a) stated that FW
rich in carbohydrate content will affect the carbon and nitrogen ratio
(C/N), and thus, nutrient restrictions and quick acidification could
occur due to increased organic matter.
The total solids and volatile solids of each type of FW fall in the
ranges of 10.7%–41% and 10%–34.4%, respectively (Table 1), in-
dicating that water accounts for 60%–90% in fruit and vegetable waste,
kitchen waste and FW. FW is considered to be a readily biodegradable
organic substrate because of its large quantity of moisture content
(Zhang et al., 2014). The characteristics of FW also define the relative
quantities of organic carbon and nitrogen present in the FW. The C/N
ratio for each type of FW was found to vary in the range of 12.7–28.84,
and displayed an acidic pH of 4.1–6.5 (Table 1). The methane pro-
duction of every category of FW fall in the range of 346–551.4 mL/
g VSadded (Table 1), which is higher compared to cow manure (233 mL/
g VSadded), grass silage (306 mL/g VSadded), and oat straw (203 mL/
g VSadded) (Huttunen and Rintala, 2007).
3. Biological process and biochemical reaction involved in the AD
process
Anaerobic digestion is a biological process, which breaks down
complex organic matter into simpler chemicals components in the ab-
sence of oxygen. During this process, a gas that is mainly composed of
CH4 and CO2, also referred to as biogas, is produced as the end products
under ideal conditions. A minor quantity of hydrogen sulphide (H2S),
ammonia (NH3), and other gases are also present when biogas is pro-
duced in the AD plant (Monnet, 2003). The AD process can be divided
into four stages i.e. hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and metha-
nogenesis, as it is a multi-step biochemical process (Zhang et al., 2014).
In the AD procedure, various kinds of bacteria degrade the organic
substance continuously in a multi-step method and via parallel reac-
tions. Microorganisms play an essential role in the AD process, and the
bacterial groups are dissimilar among the phases of hydrolysis, acid-
ification, and methane production (P. Wang et al., 2018). Li et al.
(2015) investigated the relationship between microbial community
structure and process stability and compared the microbial community
structure in both stable and deteriorative phase using 454-pyr-
osequencing. They reported that bacteria are responsible for the de-
gradation of FW to intermediate metabolites which can be later used by
methanogens. They concluded that acid-producing bacteria such as
Acholeplasma and Actinomyces increased dramatically at deteriorative
phase compared with stable stage, which may be the failure indicator in
anaerobic digester treating FW. In hydrolysis, insoluble complex poly-
mers comprising carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, and other organics are
converted into smaller soluble molecules. It can be noted that hydro-
lysis is a comparatively slow stage and therefore can limit the rate of the
entire AD process, especially when FW is used as the feedstock (Kothari
et al., 2014; Leung and Wang, 2016; Ostrem, 2004; A. Zhang et al.,
2015; Zhang et al., 2014). In acidogenesis, monomers and dissolved
compounds such as sugars, amino acids, and fatty acids resulting from
hydrolysis are converted into simple molecules with a small molecular
weight such as volatile fatty acids (i.e., propionic, butyric, acetic acid),
alcohols, and different kinds of gases (CO2, H2, and NH3) (A. Zhang
S.K. Pramanik, et al. Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310

Table 1
Characteristics and methane potential of some food waste reported in literatures.
Source TS (%) VS (%) VS/TS (%) C/N ratio pH Carbohydrates (%) Proteins (%) Lipids (%) Methane yield (mL/g VS) Reference

KW 24.9 23.1 92.8 18.24 – 49 17.3 23 501 J. Jiang et al. (2018)

FVW 13.8 12.88 93.4 4.5 7.74 3.28 2.87 516 Edwiges et al. (2018)
FW 20 19.26 96.3 15.5 – 47.6 24.1 28.3 548.1 Li et al. (2018)
19.2 18.45 96.1 12.7 – 41.3 28.4 30.3 541.1
20.9 20.02 95.8 14 – 38.4 26.3 25.3 545.3
FW 10.86 10.22 94 15.18 4.16 5.71 2.29 1.31 460 Xiao et al. (2019)
FW 25.94 24.59 94.7 17.5 – 48 15.1 10.6 346.2 Shi et al. (2018)
FW 10.69 10.06 94 – 4.18 5.69 2.29 1.30 477–459 Xiao et al. (2018)
FW 24.3 22.5 92.6 23.11 5.02 – 3.38 – 386.7–551.4 Liu et al. (2017)
FW 19.1 18.53 97 17.7 – 10.8 4 3.7 536.19 Y. Li et al. (2017a)
17.2 16.72 97.2 13.4 – 9.4 4.5 2.9 441.23
20.5 19.78 96.5 17.8 – 11 3.6 5.3 531.30
19.7 19.05 96.7 16.8 – 10.1 4.3 4.7 537.37
19.6 18.91 96.5 15.4 – 9.3 4.6 5 533.01
20.0 19.26 96.3 15.5 9.2 4.6 5.5 544.95
AFW 41 34.44 84 – – 52 12 25 – Naroznova et al. (2016)
VFW 24 22.32 93 – – 53 5 14 425
KW 19.1 17.80 93.2 14.41 4.5 11.8 2.5 3.5 372.1 Li et al. (2016a)
FW 23.2 21.7 93.5 4.4 13.7 2.9 6.5 425.2 W. Zhang et al. (2015)
FW 20.05 19.21 95.81 28.4 – 33.22 14.03 25.25 381 Yong et al. (2015)
FW 29.4 28.01 95.3 14.2 4.1 – 18.1 19 529 Browne and Murphy (2013)
FW 18.1 17.1 94 13.2 6.5 11.2 3.3 2.3 479.5 Zhang et al. (2011)

Note: FVW: fruit and vegetable waste, KW: kitchen waste, FW: food waste, AFW: animal food waste, VFW: vegetable food waste.

et al., 2015). In acetogenesis, acetogenic bacteria use volatile fatty acids
for their growth and the growth of these bacteria is slow with a dou-
bling time of 1.5 to 4 days (Kothari et al., 2014). The concentration of
products created in this phase differs according to the type of bacteria
as well as culture circumstances such as temperature and pH (Ostrem,
2004). Methanogenesis is the final step in the anaerobic digester, where
the methanogens use acetic acid, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide to
produce methane gas. Most methanogen bacteria require an optimum
pH range between 6.5 and 7.5 (Leung and Wang, 2016). The four steps
of anaerobic biodegradation process such as hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, and the bacteria involved in each
stage of the AD process, are schematically displayed in Fig. 1.
4. Parameters affecting the AD process of biogas production
Different categories of bacteria are engaged in the AD process. The
bacteria need an environment that has reached equilibrium to produce
biogas from FW. Leung and Wang (2016) reported that a stable process
could be achieved if the bacteria stayed in an ideal condition. Fluc-
tuations in environmental conditions could interrupt the micro-
organism's equilibrium, which could perhaps impede or even close
down the AD process (Ostrem, 2004). Therefore, operational conditions
(such as temperature, pH and VFA, the ratio of carbon and nitrogen,
retention time, and organic loading rate) in the AD process need to be
continuously observed and maintained within optimum ranges. The
effect and optimised range of these parameters on biogas production
are explained in the following section.
4.1. Temperature
Methane production is highly influenced by temperature, which
affects bacterial performance within an anaerobic digester. Both me-
thanogenic and volatile acid-forming microorganisms are affected by
temperature. Changes in temperature extensively influence the perfor-
mance of methanogenic microorganisms compared to the operating
temperature (Gerardi, 2003). The AD process can take place at various
temperatures, which are normally classified into three types, i.e. psy-
chrophilic, mesophilic, and thermophilic temperatures. The mesophilic
and thermophilic temperature ranges are between 20 and 40 °C (usually
35 °C) and 50 and 65 °C (typically 45 °C), respectively (Kothari et al.,
2014). A lower temperature reduces methane production, FW
utilisation rates, and bacterial development (Khalid et al., 2011). The
same study reported that cell energy fatigue and intracellular substance
leakage could occur due to this lower temperature. They also indicated
that AD operating under mesophilic conditions offers higher stability
and requires lower energy cost compared to the thermophilic condition.
AD operating under thermophilic condition provides several benefits
such as the higher growth of methanogenic bacteria at a higher tem-
perature, reduced retention time, destruction of pathogens, enhanced
digestibility and better degradability of solid substrates, besides dif-
ferentiating liquid and solid portions (Dobre et al., 2014; A. Zhang
et al., 2015). However, the drawbacks of the thermophilic condition
must be considered. There are several demerits of the thermophilic
condition such as a greater amount of disproportion and higher energy
requirement because of the associated high temperature (A. Zhang
et al., 2015).
4.2. pH and VFA
pH is the most significant parameter that affects the performance
and stability of an anaerobic digester. Microorganisms are sensitive to
pH. This is because every group of bacteria needs a different pH range
for their growth (Appels et al., 2008). The ideal pH range for hydrolysis,
acetogenesis, and methanogenesis is almost 6.0, 6.0–7.0, and 6.5–7.5,
respectively (Leung and Wang, 2016). Gerardi (2003) reported that the
pH required for acid-forming bacteria and methane-forming bacteria
is > 5.0 and 6.2, respectively, for acceptable enzymatic activity. Me-
thanogenic bacteria display better performance in a pH range of 6.8–7.2
(Yadvika et al., 2004). CH4 production was found to be 75% more ef-
ficient with a pH of > 5.0 (Yadvika et al., 2004). Krishna and
Kalamdhad (2014) indicated that other main factors contribute to the
fluctuation of pH such as alkalinity, volatile fatty acid (VFA), the
quantity of CO2 production, and the concentration of bicarbonate
(HCO3) during the AD process. They reported that the relationship
between VFA and HCO3 concentrations should be controlled, as it helps
in adjusting the optimum pH during the AD process. For a stable and
well-buffered digestion process, it is important to maintain at least
1.4:1 (molar ratio) of HCO3/VFA or a buffering capacity of
70 meq CaCO3/L (Appels et al., 2008). Volatile fatty acids are short-
chain fatty acids (acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, and valeric
acid), which are the primary intermediate products produced from the
AD of FW (Zhang et al., 2014). Xu et al. (2014) and Shi et al. (2018)

3
S.K. Pramanik, et al. Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310

Food Waste

Complex polymers
pH= 5.5-6.0
Hydrolysis

Carbohydrates Proteins Lipids

Clostridium, Acetivibrio, Clostridium, Proteus, Clostridium, Fermentative

Staphylococcus, Bacteroides Peptococcus, Vibrio, Micrococcus,
Bacteroides, Bacillus Staphylococcus bacteria
Acidogenesis
pH= 6.0-7.0

Monomers

Sugars Amino acids LCFA

Clostridium, Lactobacillus, Escherichia, Staphylococcus, Acidogenic

Eubacterium limosum, Micrococcus, Bacillus, Sarcina, Veillonella,
Pseudomonas, Desulfovibrio, Desulfuromonas, bacteria
Streptococcus
Desulfobacter, Selenomonas, Streptococcus
Acetogenesis
pH= 6.0-7.0

VFAs and Clostridium, Syntrophobacter,

Syntrophomonas
alcohols

Acetogenic
Clostridium, Syntrophobacter, Syntrophomonas bacteria

Acetate oxidizing bacteria

Acetate H2, CO2
Homoacetogenic bacteria

Methanobacterium, Methanocalculus,
Methanogenesis

Methanosarcina, Methanospirillum, Methanobrevibacter, Methanoplanus, Methanogenic

pH= 6.5-7.5

Methanosaeta Methanoregula, Methanococcus, archaea

Methanoculleus

Acetotrophic Hydrogenotrophic
CH4, CO2
methanogens methanogens

Fig. 1. Four biological steps and the respective bacterial groups engaged in every phase of the AD process. Information collected from Deepanraj et al. (2014),
Gonzalez-Fernandez et al. (2015), Kothari et al. (2014), Leung and Wang (2016), and P. Wang et al. (2018).

reported that methane production was inhibited completely when the
concentrations of VFA fell in the range of 5800 to 6900 mg/L.
4.3. Carbon and nitrogen ratio
The C/N ratio represents the relationship between the quantity of
carbon and nitrogen present in FW. An optimum C/N ratio is required
for an effective AD process (Kothari et al., 2014). Zhang et al. (2014)
reported that the C/N ratio greatly influences the stability of the AD
process. This is because the optimal C/N ratio not only helps to main-
tain a suitable environment, but it also helps to control proper nutrient
balance through the development of microorganisms. The microbial
population could increase gradually if the quantity of nitrogen is low in
the FW, and thus, more time will be required to decompose the existing

4
 S.K. Pramanik, et al.

Table 2
Comparison of different anaerobic digestion process for food waste.
Process Reactor volume and type Inoculum Operating condition Methane yield (mL/ VS removal (%) Reference
g VS)

Single-stage 2 L semi-continuous CSTR, Anaerobic sludge OLR = 5 g VS/L day, HRT = 20 days, pH = 7.7 494 74.7 Jo et al. (2018)
mesophilica
Two-stage 0.5 L and 2 L semi-continuous CSTR, OLR = 4 g VS/L day, HRT = 25 days, pH = 7.5 511 78.9
mesophilic
Single-stage 230 L CSTR, thermophilicb Anaerobic sludge OLR = 3.5 kg VS/m3 day, HRT = 20 days 450 93.6 Micolucci et al. (2018)
Two-stage 200 and 760 L CSTR, thermophilic 550 96.2
Single-stage 4 L semi-continuous CSTR, Mesophilic anaerobic sludge HRT = 30 days, pH = 8.31, TVFA = 0.87 g HAc/L 477 83.22 Xiao et al. (2018)
thermophilic
Two-stage 2 L and 8 L semi-continuous CSTR, HRT = 30 days, pH = 3.83 and 8.17, TVFA = 1.64 and 459 82.02
thermophilic 1.08 g HAc/L
Single-stage 1 and 20 L semi-continuous, Anaerobic seed sludge OLR = 1.6–10 g VS/L, pH = 5.1–7.8 199 30.1 Zhang et al. (2017)
Two-stage mesophilic 249 44.2
Three-stage 307 83.5

5
Single-stage 5 m3 reactor, mesophilic Anaerobic sludge OLR = 3.79 kg VS/m3/day, pH = 7.32 380 96 Grimberg et al. (2015)
Two-stage OLR = 0.78 kg VS/m3/day, pH = 5.2, 8.4 446 93
Single-stage 6 L CSTR, mesophilic Mesophilic seed sludge OLR = 2.4 g VS/L/day, pH = 7.77, HRT = 30 days 440 74.1 Wu et al. (2015)
Temperature-phase two- 1.5 L thermophilic CSTR, 6 L OLR = 14.2 and 2.6 g VS/L/day, pH = 5.36 and 7.59, HRT = 3 440 80.1
stage mesophilic CSTR and 12 days
Mesophilic 3 L continuous CSTR Anaerobic seed sludge OLR = 7.75 g VS/L/day, HRT = 10 days, pH = 7.64 350 – Q. Li et al. (2017)
Thermophilic OLR = 5.19 g VS/L/day, HRT = 15 days, pH = 7.86. 407
Mesophilic 500 mL laboratory-scale bottle (semi- Mesophilic sewage sludge OLR = 1.5 g VS/L/day, HRT = 20 days 371 94.7 Liu et al. (2017)
Thermophilic continuous) Thermophilic sewage sludge OLR = 2.5 g VS/L/day, HRT = 20 days 541 93
Batch 75 L upflow anaerobic reactor, Seed sludge OLR = 6.1 kg COD/m3/day, HRT = 30 days, pH = 7.5 266a 80.9b Park et al. (2018)
Continuous mesophilic OLR = 7.9 kg COD/m3/day, HRT = 13 days, pH = 7.5 326a 71.2b
Batch 1 L glass digesters, mesophilic Anaerobic activated sludge OLR = 8 g VS/L, pH = 7.5 388 – Zhang et al. (2013)
Continuous OLR = 10 g VS/L, pH = 7.1–7.7 317
Wet 6.0 L continuous reactor, mesophilic Mesophilic seed sludge OLR = 2.35 kg VS/m3/day, SRT = 20 days, pH = 7.39 370 80.1 Yi et al. (2014)
Dry OLR = 9.41 kg VS/m3/day, SRT = 20 days, pH = 7.82 480 85.6

a
L/kg COD.
b
COD removal.
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
FW, resulting in lower CH4 yield. In contrast, ammonia inhibition could
occur, preventing microbial growth, especially if the concentration of
nitrogen is more than the microbial necessity (Kothari et al., 2014;
Leung and Wang, 2016). It is found that microorganisms use carbon
25–30 (Yadvika et al., 2004), 25–35 (Krishna and Kalamdhad, 2014) or
30–35 (Leung and Wang, 2016) times quicker than nitrogen during the
AD process. Therefore, the optimum ratio of C/N in the substrate should
be almost 20–30:1 (Yadvika et al., 2004) 25–30:1(Krishna and
Kalamdhad, 2014) or 30–35:1 (Leung and Wang, 2016). The co-diges-
tion of organic substrates with animal manure, lignocellulosic biomass,
and sewage sludge can be used to enhance the C/N ratios (Khalid et al.,
2011).
4.4. Retention time
Retention time is one of the major parameters, which needs to be
repeatedly observed in the anaerobic digesters. Retention time is the
time needed for the complete degradation of organic matter or the
average time organic matter remains in a digester (Deepanraj et al.,
2014; Mao et al., 2015). There are two important types of retention
times involved in the AD system: solid retention time (SRT) and hy-
draulic retention time (HRT). SRT is the average time that the bacteria
spend in the digester, whereas HRT is the average time that the liquid
sludge spends in the digester (Deepanraj et al., 2014). According to Mao
et al. (2015), bacterial development rate related to retention time de-
pends on process temperature, substrate composition, and organic
loading rate; the shorter the HRT, the higher the value of organic
loading rate. A retention time of 10–40 days is necessary to treat or-
ganic waste in mesophilic temperature, while a lesser retention time
could be used in thermophilic temperature (Kothari et al., 2014).
Yadvika et al. (2004) described that high capital cost and large reactor
volume are the main requirements for a longer HRT. However, shorter
HRT offers insufficient time for the optimal degradation of the sub-
strate. Yadvika et al. (2004) noted that HRT varies with climate change.
For example, for tropical countries and in cold weather, HRT fluctuates
from 30 to 50 days and 100 days, respectively. SRT maintains the
bacterial population in the reactor, which could result in waste stabi-
lisation (Dobre et al., 2014). A portion of the microbial community is
removed every time sludge is withdrawn, resulting in a stable condition
and the prevention of process failure (Appels et al., 2008). A long SRT
helps permit biological acclimation to toxic compounds, and this can be
achieved by increasing both the volume of the digester and the con-
centration of the bacteria (solids) (Gerardi, 2003). Chen et al. (2018)
observed that the CH4 yield reduced with higher SRT and the highest
CH4 yield was achieved at an SRT of 6 days, compared to 7.5 days and
10 days. Fernández-Rodríguez et al. (2014) reported that the maximum
CH4 yield was achieved at an SRT of 5–8 days compared to SRTs of
4 days and 3 days. They also indicated that SRTs lower than 4 days were
inappropriate for a single-stage dry AD of organic fraction of municipal
solid waste, which would render the process unbalanced.
4.5. Organic loading rate
Organic loading rate (OLR) is a significant operational parameter
that affects the CH4 yield. OLR is defined as the amount of dry organic
solids, which can be fed into the digester per day per unit volume of
digester capacity (Kothari et al., 2014). If the reactor is overfed beyond
the suitable OLR, inhibitory substrates such as fatty acids could be ac-
cumulated and CH4 production could be reduced. This is because micro
bacteria cannot survive in an acidic condition in the AD system. System
failure can also occur due to overfeeding. This is turn affects CH4
production rate, which is highly dependent on OLR (Kothari et al.,
2014). Hence, it is important to control the OLR of the digester. Leung
and Wang (2016) demonstrated that lower OLR and longer HRT might
prompt organic overload, and thus, CH4 production could be reduced.
This is likely due to the insufficient buffering capability in the digester.
6
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
On the other hand, higher OLR causes shorter HRT, which may result in
microorganism washout, and this could lead to lower biogas production
(Leung and Wang, 2016). Hu et al. (2018) reported that the thermo-
philic reactor can be adapt to a wide range of OLR (3.0–14.4 kg-COD/
m3/day) compared to the mesophilic reactor (OLR of 3.0–7.3 kg-COD/
m3/day) in anaerobic FW treatment. Liu et al. (2017) pointed out that
the optimal OLR on AD of FW under thermophilic and mesophilic
condition was 2.5 and 1.5 g-VS/L/day, respectively.
5. Classification of the AD process of FW
The classification of the anaerobic reactor when treating FW de-
pends on the temperature, feeding type, and moisture content of the
FW. Single-stage and two/multi-stage processes have also influenced
the performance of the AD process (Table 2) (Deepanraj et al., 2014).
Mesophilic or thermophilic, batch or continuous process, or wet or dry
digestion are the various categories of the AD process, which are further
described in the following sections.
5.1. Wet and dry digestion
The AD process can be categorised as wet or dry digestion based on
the total solid concentration in FW. The anaerobic digestion of food
waste is termed as a dry process if the total solid concentration of the
food waste stays between 20 and 40%, whereas the anaerobic digestion
of food waste is considered as a wet process when the total solid con-
centration of the food waste is < 15% (Kothari et al., 2014; Deepanraj
et al., 2014). Kothari et al. (2014) noted that most of the AD plants
constructed during the 1980s depended on the wet system, whereas
new plants constructed in the last decade are mostly based on the dry
process. They also noted that the HRT, OLR, and volatile solid removal
rate of the dry process were 14–60 days, 12–15 kg VS/m3/day, and
40%–70%, respectively, whereas the HRT, OLR, and volatile solid de-
struction rate of the wet process were 25–60 days, < 5 kg VS/m3/day,
and 40%–75%, respectively. It is important to note that a higher cost for
digestate dewatering post-treatment and higher reactor volume are
required for the wet process compared to the dry process. Kothari et al.
(2014) noted a higher biogas production rate in the dry process com-
pared to the wet process. Yi et al. (2014) examined dry (total
solid = 20%) and wet (total solid = 5%) processes of AD during food
waste treatment, and found that the CH4 production (0.48 L/g VS) and
volatile solid reduction (85.6%) were higher in the dry process com-
pared to the wet process. They also found that the dry process allowed a
higher VFA concentration and OLR compared to the wet process, re-
sulting in a decreased possibility of inhibition of the AD technique. The
comparison of dry versus wet digestion process has shown that the dry
process had a more advantageous energy balance and economic per-
formance compared to the wet process. However, complete mixing of
the waste is not possible in dry process, and, thus, the ideal contact of
microorganisms and substrate cannot be guaranteed. Conversely, wet
process offered several important benefits including greater flexibility
over the type of feedstock accepted, dilution of inhibitory substances by
process water and necessity of less sophisticated mechanical equip-
ment. Overall, dry digestion process was more cost-effective, and it had
greater biogas productivity than wet process.
5.2. Mesophilic or thermophilic digestion
The AD process can take place at various temperatures, usually
classified into mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures. As mentioned
in Section 4.1, mesophilic and thermophilic digesters usually operate at
20–40 °C (usually 35 °C) and 50–65 °C (usually 45 °C), respectively.
Thermophilic microorganisms are more sensitive to temperature
changes compared to mesophilic bacteria. Banks et al. (2008) compared
the thermophilic condition with the condition for source-segregated
domestic FW. They found that the AD under thermophilic conditions
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
displayed better volatile solid removal efficiency and biogas yield
compared to mesophilic conditions. They also found that the VFA
concentration of the thermophilic reactor (45,000 mg/L) was higher
than that of the mesophilic reactor (28,000 mg/L). Q. Li et al. (2017)
also compared the thermophilic digestion and mesophilic digestion of
FW and waste activated sludge mixture. They found that the thermo-
philic system (407 mL/g VSadded) yielded better CH4 production com-
pared to the mesophilic system (350 mL/g VSadded). This was likely due
to the high transformation ratio from protein to ammonium in the
thermophilic reactor.
5.3. Batch and continuous system
A reactor that is fed at one time with fresh FW and the addition of
inoculum (such as anaerobic sludge) from other reactors followed by its
closing down for a certain period to degrade substrate anaerobically is
called a batch system. Batch digesters have several benefits such as
being technically simple and having low investment cost and main-
tenance requirements and minimum parasitic energy loss (Kothari
et al., 2014). On the other hand, for the continuous process, fresh FW is
continuously loaded in the reactor and the same quantity of digested
FW is removed. Studies have reported that biogas recirculation or
mechanical agitators could be used in the continuous process to agitate
the FW and inoculum continuously (Kothari et al., 2014; Deepanraj
et al., 2014). Biogas production can be kept almost constant and/or
continuous due to the constant input of FW. Park et al. (2018) studied
the effect of feeding mode for the AD of FW, and reported that the
continuous feeding of diluted FW yielded constant performance com-
pared to the batch feeding of undiluted FW. They also noted that the
potential CH4 yield was 2.78 L CH4/L/day at an OLR of 8.6 kg COD/m3/
day during continuous feeding of diluted FW, whereas the potential
CH4 yield was 1.51 L CH4/L/day at OLR of 6.1 kg COD/m3/day during
batch feeding of undiluted FW.
5.4. Single-stage and two/multi-stage process
The single-stage process occurs when four metabolic phases—hy-
drolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis—take place in
one reactor. Low OLR, long retention time, a pH range between 6 and 7,
low CH4 production, less investment, and less maintenance cost are the
major features of the single-stage process (Xu et al., 2018). The main
limitation in the single-stage reactor is the presence of acidogenic mi-
croorganisms (i.e., decreases pH) that result due to the quick acid-
ification of FW during the acid formation phase, which disturbs the
methanogenic bacterial groups. This is likely due to the lack of an op-
timum environmental condition inside the single-stage reactor, which is
required for the growth of all participating bacteria (Deepanraj et al.,
2014; Xu et al., 2018). However, adjusting the feeding rate via mixing
and adding a buffer in the single-stage reactor could be a solution to
manage the methanogenic microbial community in the reactor (Monson
et al., 2007). The addition of buffer (NaHCO3) reduced volatile solid
and biodegradation time, which resulted in higher biogas productions
compared with the performances of the other non-chemically buffered
cultures studied (Abdulkarim and Evuti, 2010). Chen et al. (2015)
studied the effects of four alkalinity sources (i.e. lime mud from pa-
permaking, waste eggshell, CaCO3 and NaHCO3) on the stability of
anaerobic digestion from food waste. They reported that adding a
buffer in the feeding stage promoted process stability and methane
production compared to the non-chemically buffered sample. It is worth
noting that approximately 95% of Europe's full-scale plants usually
operate in a single-stage anaerobic process when treating organic waste
(Nagao et al., 2012).
The two-process or multi-stage process occurs in separate anaerobic
reactors. The first reactor is used for hydrolysis, acidogenesis, and
acetogenesis, whereas the second reactor is mainly employed for me-
thanogenesis. Studies have shown that the acidification stage is evident
7
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
in operating conditions of low HRT (2–3 days) and acidic pH (5.5–6.5),
in which the acidification stage must be maintained, whereas high HRT
(20–30 days) and optimum pH (6–8) are required for the development
of gradually growing methanogenic bacteria (Xu et al., 2018). Hagos
et al. (2017) reported the several benefits of the two-stage process such
as increased CH4 production, high OLR, improved process stability,
higher possibility of managing pathogens, and enhanced rate of volatile
solid removal efficiency. They also noted that complex maintenance,
high capital, and operational cost were the major drawbacks of the two-
stage process. Xiao et al. (2018) compared the performance and energy
recovery of single-stage and two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion
(TAD) of FW. They found that single-stage and two-stage TAD both
exhibited better performance with an HRT of 30 days. However, single-
stage TAD achieved slightly higher CH4 yield and volatile solid removal
rate compared to the two-stage TAD. They also noted that single-stage
TAD recovered more energy than the two-stage TAD. Another study by
Micolucci et al. (2018) found that the two-stage TAD of FW displayed
clearly enhanced biogas production and organic matter destruction
compared to the single-stage system. The volatile solid and augmen-
tation removal rate of the two-stage process was increased by 17% and
16%, respectively. They also indicated that the digestate dewatering
post-treatment cost in the two-stage TAD was lesser than in the single-
stage, whereas the two-stage TAD produced more net energy than the
one-stage TAD. Zhang et al. (2017) established a compact three-stage
anaerobic digester for FW in which a three-stage anaerobic digestion
process was used, consisting of three independent chambers including
the hydrolysis stage, acidification stage, and wet methane-production
stage. They found that the three-stage AD obtained 24%–54% more CH4
yield with an OLR of 10 g VS/L compared to the one-stage and two-
stage AD. The three-stage AD also achieved a high volatile solid re-
moval efficiency of 83.5%.
6. Factors that improve the anaerobic digestion process
6.1. Co-digestion
Co-digestion is defined as two or more types of organic waste, which
are mixed and treated simultaneously. This process is extensively
practiced nowadays to avoid the problems associated with the mono-
digestion of FW (Shi et al., 2018). Anaerobic co-digestion has numerous
advantages which are displayed in Fig. 2 (Mehariya et al., 2018; Tyagi
et al., 2018). However, there are a few disadvantages of co-digestion
including transport costs (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2000). The effect of co-
digestion of FW with different substrates is summarised in Table 3. The
mono-digestion of FW often results in low buffer capacity and a high C/
N ratio. This is likely due to the high biodegradability of the substrate
(Leung and Wang, 2016). Therefore, animal manure can be considered
as a suitable co-substrate due to its wide variety of nutrients and high
buffer capacity, which could enhance the maximum allowable OLR (up
to 10 kg VS/m3/day) and offer a more stable environment for anaerobic
bacteria (Xu et al., 2018). Sewage sludge is considered to be an ex-
cellent co-substrate because of its low organic load and high trace
element content (Mehariya et al., 2018). Studies have reported that
large amounts of active bacteria present in sewage sludge are favorable
for the development of various groups of microorganisms engaged in
the AD process (Xu et al., 2018). The same study reported that CH4
yield was enhanced by 1.4 times after the addition of sewage sludge
into FW. The main substrate for co-digestion was primary sludge and
waste activated sludge, where most of the plants operated at 35 °C
temperature (except for the Camposampiero and Kurobe plants). The
electricity generation of the East Bay MUD plant was 11 MW, which
was higher than the Rovereto (0.4 MW), Camposampiero (0.4 MW),
Treviso (0.125 MW), Moosburg (0.38 MW), and Kurobe (0.095 MW)
plants (Nghiem et al., 2017).
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
Fig. 2. Primary benefits associated with co-digestion of food waste. Information collected from Mehariya et al. (2018) and Tyagi et al. (2018).
6.2. Pre-treatment
The performance of the AD process can be enhanced with the help
of a pre-treatment method. As mentioned in Section 3, among the
biological stages, hydrolysis is the main rate-limiting step in the AD of
FW. This is because every stage directly influences both the food
availability and mass transfer of the AD process. Zhang et al. (2014)
reported that the rate of hydrolysis is affected by particle size, com-
position, and substrate component during the biodegradation of gran-
ular substrates and high molecular compounds. According to
Ariunbaatar et al. (2014), FW needs to be pasteurised or sterilised be-
fore the AD process, and pre-treatment might be the best option for
achieving more energy recovery along with eradicating the additional
cost for pasteurisation/sterilisation. Liu et al. (2019) reported that most
biogas plants apply thermal pasteurisation according to the appropriate
regulations. Although the design and the operational approach of the
thermal pasteurisation differ from one biogas plant to another, when it
comes to commercially viable technology, CambiTHP™ and Biothelys®
are the global leading provider of thermal hydrolysis, advanced anae-
robic digestion and biogas solutions for sewage sludge and organic
waste management (Panigrahi and Dubey, 2019). Regarding techno-
economic feasibility, 6–25% of the total primary energy production can
be achieved in European biogas plants through thermal pasteurisation
8
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
(Liu et al., 2019). Karthikeyan et al. (2018) showed that the aim of
using pre-treatment is to increase the biogas yield along with en-
hancement of the hydrolysis rate kinetics for proteins and lipids. They
also reported that the pre-treatment process could decrease harmful
composites, which could disturb the AD process. In principle, pre-
treatment can minimise the quantity of sludge and enhance the re-
duction of organic substances. Numerous pre-treatment methods have
been used for the AD of FW (Table 4). Among the pre-treatment
methods include chemical, thermal, ultrasonic, mechanical, and biolo-
gical methods, which are further discussed in the following paragraph.
Mechanical pre-treatment is aimed at enhancing the specific surface
area and minimising the particle size of organic polymers (Ren et al.,
2018). An increased surface area offers excellent communication be-
tween the substrate and anaerobic microorganisms, which can in turn
increase the performance of the entire AD process (Ariunbaatar et al.,
2014; Ren et al., 2018). The principle of ultrasonic pre-treatment de-
pends on the cavitation process, which is produced from massive hydro-
mechanical shear force through high-intensity ultrasonic waves and
sludge disruption (Deepanraj et al., 2017). Increased ultrasonic pre-
treatment time has many physical and chemical impacts on the sub-
strate such as free radical (e.g., HO2%, OH% and H%) production, re-
duction in partial pressure, micro-bubble production, disintegration of
the cell walls, moderate spreading, and solubilization of solid organic
 S.K. Pramanik, et al.

Table 3
Comparison of operational parameters for anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with other substrates and their respective methane production.
Feedstock + Co-substrate Mixing ratio Reactor type Inoculum Operating conditions Methane yield Reference
(mL/g VS)

Cucumber residues + pig manure + corn stover 3:5:2 (wet basis) 1 L glass reactor (batch) Anaerobic sludge Temperature = 35 °C, C/N = 14.5, VFA/alkalinity 305.4 T. Wang et al.
ratio = 0.76 g/L (2018)
FW + pig manure 50:50 (VS basis) 1 L glass digester (batch) Solid digestate Temperature = 37 °C, pH = 7.6–8.7 252 Y. Jiang et al.
(2018)
Municipal food waste + dairy cow slurry 67.8:32.2 (wet 15 L CSTR (continuous) Anaerobic digestate OLR = 5.04 g VS/L, HRT = 17.5 days, 444.7 Morken et al.
weight) temperature = 37 ± 2 °C, pH = 7.64 (2018)
FW + sludge 1:3 (VS basis) Glass bottle (batch) N/A Temperature = 35 ± 2 °C, pH = 5.8–7.5, C/N = 6.29 435.5 Y. Wang et al.
(2018)
Potato waste + cabbage waste 1:1 (VS basis) 5 L CSTR (semi-continuous) Anaerobic granular OLR = 3 kg VS/(m3 day), temperature = 37 ± 1 °C, 360 Mu et al. (2017)
sludge C/N = 20.1
Kitchen waste + cow manure 1:1 (wet weight 1 L lab-scale anaerobic Anaerobic sludge OLR = 8% TS, HRT = 45 days, temperature = 35 °C, 179.8 Zhai et al. (2015)
basis) digester (batch) pH = 7.5.
FW + garden waste + mixed sludge 67.5:22.5:10 (VS 7.5 L CSTR (semi- Anaerobic sludge OLR = 2.55–7.79 g VS/L, HRT = 30–10 days, 424–356 Fitamo et al.

9
basis) continuous) temperature = 55 °C. pH = 7.84–7.79 (2016)
FW + straw 5:1 1 L bottle reactor (batch) Anaerobic granular OLR = 5 g VS/L, HRT = 8 days, temperature = 35 °C, 392 Yong et al. (2015)
sludge C/N = 30.9
FW + green waste 40:60 (VS basis) 500 mL glass bottle (batch) Anaerobic sludge OLR = 5 g VS feedstock, HRT = 24.5 days, 272.1 Chen et al. (2014)
temperature = 37 ± 1 °C, C/N = 15.8
Organic fraction of municipal solid waste + fruit and 1:3 (VS basis) 2 L glass reactor (batch) Anaerobic sludge Temperature = 35 °C, pH = 7.4–8.2, C/N = 34.7, 396.6 Pavi et al. (2017)
vegetable waste (FVW) alkalinity = 860–986 mg/L HCO3−
FW + cattle manure N/A 1 L glass digesters (batch) Anaerobic activated OLR = 8 g VS/L, temperature = 35 ± 1 °C, C/N = 15.8, 388 Zhang et al. (2013)
sludge
FVW + slaughterhouse waste + manure 11:8:7 (% wet 2 L stainless steel digesters Anaerobic slurry OLR = 1.3 kg VS/(m3 day), HRT = 30 days, 320 Alvarez and Lidén
weight) (semi-continuous) temperature = 35 ± 1 °C, pH = 7.4 (2008)
Food waste + wheat straw 9:1 (VS basis) 6 L CSTR (continuous) Mesophilic anaerobic OLR = 3 kg VS/(m3 day), temperature = 35 ± 1 °C, 344 Shi et al. (2018)
sludge pH = 7.1–7.5
Food waste + wheat straw 5:5 (VS basis) 6 L CSTR (continuous) Thermophilic anaerobic OLR = 3 kg VS/(m3 day), temperature = 55 ± 1 °C, 370 Shi et al. (2018)
sludge pH = 7.1–7.5
FW + waste activated sludge 3:1 3 L CSTR (continuous) Anaerobic seed sludge OLR = 7.75 g VS/L/day, HRT = 10 days, 350 Q. Li et al. (2017)
temperature = 35 °C, pH = 7.64
FW + waste activated sludge 3:1 3 L CSTR (continuous) Anaerobic seed sludge OLR = 5.19 g VS/L/day, HRT = 15 days, 407 Q. Li et al. (2017)
temperature = 55 °C, pH = 7.86.
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
 Table 4
Comparison of pretreatment methods to enhance AD of food waste.
Pretreatment conditions Inoculum AD reactor type and condition Methane/biogas yield Effects of pretreatment References

Acetic acid (0.2 M), 62.5 °C, and 30 min Anaerobic sludge 250 mL serum bottle (batch), 53.58 mL CH4/g VSinitial Dilute acetic acid pretreatment improves the surface Saha et al. (2018)
S.K. Pramanik, et al.

Thermal conditions: 70 min at 55–90 °C and 50 min at
120–160 °C
Ultrasound: specific energy applied for sonication was
1040 kJ/kg TS
Enzyme conditions: Lipase-I, Lipase-II, and Lipase-III
were hydrolyzed in the conditions of 0–36 h,
50–2000 μL and 30–50 °C.
Ultrasonic (20 kHz and amplitude of 80 μm). Sonication
times was 9, 18, 27 min and specific energy was
pH = 7.0 ± 0.2, 37 °C, 86 days
Anaerobic seed sludge 250 mL glass bottles, 35 °C,
21 days
– 18.75 L induced bed reactor
(continuous), 55 ± 1 °C,
40 days
Anaerobic seed sludge Scrum bottle (batch),
35 ± 1 °C, 60 days
Anaerobic digestate 1000 mL glass reactor (batch),
35 °C, 25 days
The cumulative biogas production
increased linearly.
520 L CH4/kg VS
Maximum biomethane production was
189 mL for AF + Lipase II
Maximum methane yield = 237 mL/g VSin
(sonication time = 18 min)
roughness and porosity of pretreated FW for better
bacterial accessibility compared to untreated FW.
Crystallinity index was increased by 56% and
maximum recovery of sugar was 95%. Methane
production enhanced by 10%.
Thermal pretreatment displayed no major impact on Y. Li et al.
the final content of protein, but it reduced the fat, oil, (2017b)
and grease (FOG) potential by 7–36% and improved
the lag phase for degradation of protein (35–65%) and
FOG (11–82%). The removal efficiency of VS, FOG, and
crude protein enhanced exponentially.
Ultrasound pretreatment improves the biodegradability Ormaechea et al.
and the feasibility of biogas plants. COD removal was (2017)
> 90%. Methane production was enhanced by about
70%. They also concluded that lower specific energy
was more efficiencies that high specific energy.
Enzyme pretreatment could improve hydrolysis rate Meng et al.
and biomethane production rate. Methane production (2017)
rate was increased by 80.8–157.7%, 26.9–53.8%, and
37.0–40.7% for AF, VO, and FG, respectively. Lipase-I
and Lipase-II could display the optimal hydrolysis
performance at 24 h, 1000–1500 μL and 40–50 °C.
Methane yield improved by > 80%. TS and VS Zeynali et al.
reduction was increased compared to untreated FVW. (2017)

10
1175, 2380, 3560 kJ/kg TS Longer sonication time consumes more energy than
shorter sonication time.
Alkali concentration was 40–190 mEq/L, and time was Sewage sludge 2 L glass AD vessel (batch), 864.2 mL CH4/g VSdestructed Methane production increased up to 20% compared to Junoh et al.
1–6 h mesophilic temperature, without pretreatment. COD solubilization was (2016)
pH = 7.0, 35 days optimised at 166.98 mEq/L Ca(OH)2.
Commercial enzymes (carbohydrate, protein, and lipid Granular sludge 2.7 L UASB reactor, 35 ± 2 °C, 0.35 L-CH4/g-SCOD Combination of enzymatic hydrolysis of FW and Moon and Song
were used at a rate of 1:2:1, pH 4.5, 50 °C and 75 days methane fermentation increases the hydrolysis rate by (2011)
150 rpm for 24 h) reducing HRT, resulting in high methane production.
SCOD removal efficiency was > 95% and high
methane content (67–75%).
Ultrasound (specific energy applied for sonication was Mesophilic and 5 L CSTR, 36 °C and 55 °C Maximum methane production was Ultrasound pretreatment not only improves energy Quiroga et al.
7500 kJ/kg TS) thermophilic 0.85 L CH4/L day at 36 °C and 0.82 CH4/ production but also allows functioning at lower (2014)
digestates L day at 55 °C retention times. Methane production increase of up to
31% and 67% for mesophilic and thermophilic
temperature compared to without pretreatment.
Physical (2.5 mm–8.0 mm) Anaerobic sludge 2 L complete-mix anaerobic 570 mL CH4/g VS (for 2.5 mm), Lower food waste particle size improves digestate Agyeman and
digesters (semi-continuous), 515 mL CH4/g VS (for 4.0 mm) and dewaterability and hydrolysis. Methane production Tao (2014)
36 °C, 140 rpm 465 mL CH4/g VS (for 8 mm) enhanced by 10–29%.
Physical (Bead mill) 300 rpm Mesophilic anaerobic 2 L glass reactor (batch), 439 mLbiogas/g-TCOD Bead mill pretreatment successfully increased Izumi et al.
1000 rpm sewage sludge 37 ± 1 °C, 80 rpm, 16 days 503 mLbiogas/g-TCOD solubilization by almost 40% and methane yield by (2010)
1000 rpm 455 mLbiogas/g-TCOD 28%. Excessive size reduction of the substrate caused
4000 rpm 470 mLbiogas/g-TCOD VFAs accumulation, resulting in reduced methane
20,000 rpm 455 mLbiogas/g-TCOD yield.
40,000 rpm 404 mLbiogas/g-TCOD
Thermal (120 °C) 10 min Anaerobic sludge 250 mL glass bottles (batch), 112 mL CH4/mL Anaerobic biodegradability for liquid phase and Li et al. (2016b)
30 min 35 °C 152 mL CH4/mL methane production rate can be improved after thermal
40 min 168 mL CH4/mL pretreatment. This pretreatment also helps to recycle
50 min 161 mL CH4/mL the floating oil.
60 min 129 L CH4/mL
(continued on next page)
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
 Table 4 (continued)

Pretreatment conditions Inoculum AD reactor type and condition Methane/biogas yield Effects of pretreatment References

Thermal (70 min) 55 °C Anaerobic sludge 5.5-L airtight Plexiglas reactors 939 mLbiogas/g Biogas production from kitchen waste cannot be Li and Jin (2015)
70 °C (batch), 35 °C, 1135 mLbiogas/g increased significantly by the low and high thermal
S.K. Pramanik, et al.

90 °C 1173 mLbiogas/g pretreatment temperature. Large amount of methane

Thermal (50 min) 120 °C 1200 mLbiogas/g was generated and large amount of VS, crude fats and
140 °C 885 mLbiogas/g proteins were degraded at 90 and 120 °C, with
160 °C 909 mLbiogas/g treatment durations of 70 min and 50 min.
Thermal conditions: 70 °C, time, 2 h Anaerobic microbial Hybrid anaerobic solid-liquid 0.29 dm3 CH4/g VSremoved Thermal pretreatment of food waste increased the Wang et al.
sludge system (batch), 35 °C, 14 days 0.30 dm3 CH4/g VSremoved concentration of methanogens, which helps to increase (2006)
Thermal = 150 °C, 1 h methane production. It also decreases the VFA
production and enhances the VS & COD removal.
Alkali = 0.4 N NaOH, pH = 12.7, 1 h Anaerobic seed sludge 120 mL serum bottle (batch), 339.2 mL CH4/g VSSremoved Methane production after alkali, thermal, and Naran et al.
Thermal = 120 °C for 30 min 35 ± 1 °C, 20 days at 80 rpm 480.8 mL CH4/g VSSremoved ultrasonic pretreatment increased by 25%, 77%, and (2016)
Ultrasonic (energy intensity of 360 kJ/L, 30 min) 423.6 mL CH4/g VSSremoved 56%, respectively. The solubilization of VS and COD
can be increased by alkali, thermal, and ultrasonic
pretreatment that consequently enhanced the methane
production.
pH 2 (10 N HCl), 24 h Thermophilic 1.2 L Erlenmeyer reactor 0.16 Lbiogas/g CODremoval Biogas production reduced by 54% because of the Ma et al. (2011)
Thermal condition: 120 °C (1 bar) anaerobic sludge (batch), 55 ± 2 °C, 40 days 0.36 Lbiogas/g CODremoval formation of inhibitors in acid pretreatment, whereas
Pressure: pressurized until 10 bar and depressurized 0.52 Lbiogas/g CODremoval biogas production in thermal and pressure-depressure
with CO2, few minutes pretreatment increased by 3% and 49%, respectively.
COD solubilization in acid, thermal, and pressure-
depressure method increased by 13 ± 7, 19 ± 3, and
12 ± 7%, respectively.
Commercial enzymes: 10 U/g dry FW for glucoamylase, Anaerobic sludge Batch, 35 °C and 150 rpm. 457.3 mL CH4/g VS Enzymatic pretreatment with fungal mash was Kiran et al.
at 60 °C, 100 rpm, 24 h displayed to be more effective compared to commercial (2015)
Fungal mash: 10 U/g dry FW for glucoamylase, at 60 °C, 468.2 mL CH4/g VS enzymes. Methane yield and production rate with

11
100 rpm for 24 h fungal mash were almost 2.3 and 3.5-times higher than
control, VSS removal was 80.4 ± 5%.
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
substances (Ma et al., 2018). Ultrasound pretreatment has been widely
implemented in full-scale anaerobic digesters. Sonix and Sonolyzer,
Biosonator, MaXonics, and Hielscher are the five most commonly ap-
plied commercially available systems (Panigrahi and Dubey, 2019;
Tyagi et al., 2014). The full-scale studies of ultrasonic pre-treatment
proposed that net energy benefit up to seven times greater than the
energy applied (Tyagi et al., 2014). Rasapoor et al. (2019) studied the
energy performance of an ultrasonic pre-treatment of food waste in a
pilot-scale digester. They found that biogas production improved up to
59% and 80% for 500 and 1500 g VS/m3 day organic loading rate, re-
spectively compared to the untreated food waste. Energy analysis dis-
played a better energy gain and energy benefit was achieved due to the
ultrasonic pre-treatment. Thermal pre-treatment aims to improve
anaerobic dewatering and digestibility features. Ariunbaatar et al.
(2014) reported that thermal pre-treatment is a process of producing
heat, which disrupts the cell structure. This process offers better hy-
drolysis of sugars and increases the pH of the slurry, as well as reduces
the toxicity effects, pathogens loads, and viscosity of the FW slurry
(Karthikeyan et al., 2018).
Chemical pre-treatment primarily depends on strong to mild che-
mical agents to change the physico-chemical and biological properties
of FW (Karthikeyan et al., 2018). Alkaline pre-treatment was found
more suitable for the elimination of lignin, whereas acid pre-treatment
was reported to be efficient in solubilizing hemicellulose (Rodriguez
et al., 2017). Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH),
aqueous ammonia (NH3·H2O), calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), and am-
monia hydroxide (NH4OH) are the most common alkalis, which have
been used to increase the performance of the AD process (Ma et al.,
2018; Rodriguez et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2014). Inhibitory effects of
accompanying cations present in some reagents (e.g., potassium, so-
dium, magnesium, and calcium) cannot be neglected. These accom-
panying cations inhibit the activity of some methanogenic micro-
organisms, since the chemicals are added mostly as salts or hydroxides
of these cations (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014). They reported that 0.2 g/L
and 0.72 g/L are the optimum concentrations of calcium and magne-
sium, respectively. Whereas, the maximum tolerable limit of potassium
and sodium is up to 8 g/L and < 5 g/L, respectively for anaerobic mi-
croorganisms.
Acid pre-treatment can be performed either by using a concentrated
acid or a dilute acid (Zheng et al., 2014). Generally, high-concentration
acid pre-treatment is carried out at low temperatures, whereas low-
concentration acid pre-treatment is conducted at high temperatures.
Both organic and inorganic acid such as hydrochloric acid, sulphuric
acid, phosphoric acid, acetic acid, nitric acid, and hydrogen peroxide
are generally used for acid pre-treatment to enhance the AD perfor-
mance of FW (Ma et al., 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2017; Zheng et al.,
2014). Strong acid pretreatment is commonly avoided, since it may
result in the formation of inhibitory by-products, like hydroxyl methyl
furfural (HMF) and furfural (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014; Mao et al., 2015).
Dilute acid is more favored, since it has some advantage including less
corrosive, less expensive, and less toxic (Panigrahi and Dubey, 2019).
They pointed out that dilute acid needs less quantity of neutralizing
reagents and it doesn't need expensive material for digester construc-
tion.
Biological pre-treatment is a generally slow process that requires
longer retention time and the microbes utilise the free and readily
available sugars as main carbon source throughout the pre-treatment
period (Karthikeyan et al., 2018). Commercial enzymes are expensive,
and have been used to increase the hydrolysis of starch in FW
(Karthikeyan et al., 2018; Kiran et al., 2015). However, the pre-treat-
ment of FW with a single commercial enzyme seems to be less efficient
than when multiple commercial enzymes are used (Kiran et al., 2015).
To increase the economical aspect of the enzymatic hydrolysis of FW,
different types of FWs have been used to create enzymes such as cel-
lulases, proteases, lipases, amylases, and pectinases mainly via solid-
state fermentation. Karthikeyan et al. (2018) noted that the use of crude
12
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
enzymes is favorable in terms of energy economy compared to the use
of a commercial enzyme.
7. Challenges and future perspectives
The AD of FW still faces numerous challenges, although this process
is already a comparatively advanced and broadly used technology for
treating animal manure, sewage sludge, and wastewater. It has been
found that low biogas production could occur due to the deficiency of
short process control and optimisation. Toxic intermediate composites
can be formed at the time of digestion, which is one of the main
technical challenges. Other challenges include VFA accumulation, high
financial cost (operation and transportation), low buffer capacity, and
process instability (Xu et al., 2018). These are due to the pH drop at an
initial phase of the digestion and inhibition of ammonia, long-chain
fatty acids, and hydrogen sulphide. The deficiency of appropriate re-
actor design is another important challenge, where the design of the
reactor is still commonly carried out through rule of thumb (Appels
et al., 2011). Overall, the FW characterisation, biodegradability, de-
velopment of bacterial activities, accessibility, improvement in CH4
production, and nutritional balance are considered the key challenges
for the efficient production of biogas (Hagos et al., 2017).
7.1. Future perspectives
i. Municipal solid waste is one of the major sources of food waste and
municipal solid waste is a heterogeneous mixture of different types
of organic and inorganic waste. Several problems can be occurred
due to the presence of undesired materials in the reactor, which
could lead to the shutdown of the reactor. This problem can be
solved through the separation of food waste from municipal solid
waste. The separation of food waste from municipal solid waste is
not practiced in many countries. In the future, proper steps should
be taken for the separation of food waste from municipal solid
waste, as it helps to improve renewable energy production along
with the municipal solid waste management.
ii. Anaerobic digestion is a biological process and therefore, food waste
is continuously broken down by anaerobic microorganisms and
transformed into biogas. Every phase of anaerobic digestion is
carried out by dissimilar groups of microorganisms and each group
of microorganisms cannot survive without their individual re-
spective optimum environment. The correlation between the dy-
namic behaviour of the bacterial communities and food waste
composition has not been completely studied. Further investigation
is necessary to determine the impacts of numerous aspects on the
micro-ecology, bacterial development features, and structure and
dynamic behaviour of the numerous bacterial groups. This needs to
be investigated cautiously at different steps of the anaerobic di-
gestion process during biogas production from food waste under
various circumstances (e.g., high salt, high oil and fat).
iii. The anaerobic co-digestion process is extensively practiced nowa-
days to avoid the problems associated with the mono-digestion of
food waste and co-digestion process helps to increase biogas pro-
duction compared to mono-digestion. Most wastewater treatment
plants using anaerobic digestion for the treatment of sewage sludge,
and food waste can be used as co-substrate with sludge to these
existing plants in the future. This can help not only to recover high
energy but also to eradicate the high capital cost for constructing
new biogas plants. Therefore, further studies should be performed
in order to determine the optimal operating factors for the devel-
opment of the large-scale co-digestion system.
iv. The performance of anaerobic digestion and the degradation rate of
food waste could be enhanced using different pre-treatment
methods. More research is therefore needed not only for process
optimisation but also for the suitable characterisation of the food
waste structure. This includes reducing the production of inhibitory
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
or less biodegradable compounds for chemical pre-treatment, in-
creasing the hydrolysis rate for biological pre-treatment, and
minimising the higher energy consumption for thermal and ultra-
sonic pre-treatments. It is noticed that most of the studies on pre-
treatment are confined to laboratory scale and results obtained from
those studies may not be suitable for pilot scale systems. In the long-
term development perspective, further researches should be con-
ducted from laboratory to pilot scale systems in order to maximize
the accuracy of results in energy and mass balance calculations.
v. Food waste-based bio-refinery concept needs to be developed soon,
as the anaerobic digestion of food waste faces several problems
associated with the minimum cost of the final product and max-
imum expense of the feedstock transportation, reactor structure,
and performance. Food waste-based bio-refinery may produce en-
zymatic bioremediation, a variety of high-value products (e.g.,
bioplastics, bio-oil, lactic acid, wax, biosurfactants or bio-lu-
bricants), nanoparticles and bioenergy (e.g., biodiesel, bioethanol).
Currently, the food waste-based bio-refinery is still in the initial
phase of theoretical research. In the near future, the food waste-
based bio-refinery concept is expected to play an important part in
material, chemical, and energy production.
vi. Biogas comprises of CH4, CO2, various gases (e.g., H2S), impurities
(e.g., siloxanes), and portions of water vapour. Biogas is a pure and
eco-friendly renewable energy source, which can replace fossil fuels
in electricity production through combined heat and power. Biogas
technology needs to be upgraded not only for usage as a vehicle fuel
and as a fuel cell but also for injection into natural gas grids.
Pressure swing adsorption, water scrubbing, amine scrubbing,
cryogenic and membrane separation are the biogas upgrading
technologies which are available in the commercial level. Biological
and hybrid methods-based technologies are still under develop-
ment. Further research should be focused on the economic aspect
and technological advancement in biogas upgrading processes.
8. Conclusions
Anaerobic digestion is one of the most significant technologies in
treating food waste via its transformation into biogas. The two-stage
anaerobic digestion process could increase methane production.
However, the co-digestion of food waste could help to enhance the
stability of the anaerobic digestion process along with achieving a
higher energy production. Food waste hydrolysis can be increased via
numerous pre-treatment technologies, which can in turn improve me-
thane production. However, further research needs to be done on the
anaerobic digestion of food waste for not only to advance the process
design and optimisation but also to achieve economic cost.
Declaration of competing interest
No conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (KK-
2018-016).
References
Abdulkarim, B.I., Evuti, A.M., 2010. Effect of buffer (NaHCO3) and waste type in high
solid thermophilic anaerobic digestion 2. pp. 980–984.
Agyeman, F.O., Tao, W., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure:
effects offood waste particle size and organic loading rate. J. Environ. Manag. 133,
268–274.
Alvarez, R., Lidén, G., 2008. Semi-continuous co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste,
manure, and fruit and vegetable waste. Renew. Energy 33, 726–734.
Appels, L., Baeyens, J., Degrève, J., Dewil, R., 2008. Principles and potential of the
anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 34,
755–781.
13
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
Appels, L., Lauwers, J., Degrve, J., Helsen, L., Lievens, B., Willems, K., Van Impe, J.,
Dewil, R., 2011. Anaerobic digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and
research challenges. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 4295–4301.
Ariunbaatar, J., 2014a. Methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of food waste. Agric. Sci.
Univ. Paris-Est. 123, 143–156.
Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Esposito, G., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P.N.L., 2014. Pretreatment
methods to enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Appl. Energy 123,
143–156.
Banks, C.J., Chesshire, M., Stringfellow, A., 2008. A pilot-scale comparison of mesophilic
and thermophilic digestion of source segregated domestic food waste. Water Sci.
Technol. 58, 1475–1481.
Baroutian, S., Munir, M.T., Sun, J., Eshtiaghi, N., Young, B.R., 2018. Rheological char-
acterisation of biologically treated and non-treated putrescible food waste. Waste
Manag. 71, 494–501.
Bong, C.P.C., Lim, L.Y., Lee, C.T., Klemeš, J.J., Ho, C.S., Shin, H.W., 2018. The char-
acterisation and treatment of food waste for improvement of biogas production
during anaerobic digestion – a review. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1545–1558.
Browne, J.D., Murphy, J.D., 2013. Assessment of the resource associated with biomethane
from food waste. Appl. Energy 104, 170–177.
Chen, X., Yan, W., Sheng, K., Sanati, M., 2014. Comparison of high-solids to liquid
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and green waste. Bioresour. Technol. 154,
215–221.
Chen, S., Zhang, J., Wang, X., 2015. Effects of alkalinity sources on the stability of
anaerobic digestion from food waste.
Chen, Y., Xiao, K., Jiang, X., Shen, N., Zeng, R.J., Zhou, Y., 2018. Long solid retention
time (SRT) has minor role in promoting methane production in a 65 °C single-stage
anaerobic sludge digester. Bioresour. Technol. 247, 724–729.
Clercq, D.D., Wen, Z., Gottfried, O., Schmidt, F., Fei, F., 2017. A review of global stra-
tegies promoting the conversion of food waste to bioenergy via anaerobic digestion.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 79, 204–221.
Deepanraj, B., Sivasubramanian, V., Jayaraj, S., 2014. Biogas generation through anae-
robic digestion process-an overview. Res. J. Chem.Environ 18, 80–93.
Deepanraj, B., Sivasubramanian, V., Jayaraj, S., 2017. Effect of substrate pretreatment on
biogas production through anaerobic digestion of food waste. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy
42, 26522–26528.
Dobre, P., Nicolae, F., Matei, F., 2014. Main factors affecting biogas production - an
overview. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 19, 9283–9296.
Edwiges, T., Frare, L., Mayer, B., Lins, L., Mi Triolo, J., Flotats, X., de Mendonça Costa,
M.S.S., 2018. Influence of chemical composition on biochemical methane potential of
fruit and vegetable waste. Waste Manag. 71, 618–625.
Fernández-Rodríguez, J., Pérez, M., Romero, L.I., 2014. Dry thermophilic anaerobic di-
gestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes: solid retention time opti-
mization. Chem. Eng. J. 251, 435–440.
Fisgativa, H., Tremier, A., Dabert, P., 2016. Characterizing the variability of food waste
quality: a need for efficient valorisation through anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag.
50, 264–274.
Fitamo, T., Boldrin, A., Boe, K., Angelidaki, I., Scheutz, C., 2016. Co-digestion of food and
garden waste with mixed sludge from wastewater treatment in continuously stirred
tank reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 206, 245–254.
Gerardi, M.H., 2003. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters.
Gokarn, S., Kuthambalayan, T.S., 2017. Analysis of challenges inhibiting the reduction of
waste in food supply chain. J. Clean. Prod. 168, 595–604.
Gonzalez-Fernandez, C., Sialve, B., Molinuevo-Salces, B., 2015. Anaerobic digestion of
microalgal biomass: challenges, opportunities and research needs. Bioresour.
Technol. 198, 896–906.
Granado, R.L., Maria, A., Antune, D.S., Valéria, F., 2017. Technology overview of biogas
production in anaerobic digestion plants: a European evaluation of research and
development. 80, 44–53.
Grimberg, S.J., Hilderbrandt, D., Kinnunen, M., Rogers, S., 2015. Anaerobic digestion of
food waste through the operation of a mesophilic two-phase pilot scale digester -
assessment of variable loadings on system performance. Bioresour. Technol. 178,
226–229.
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Otterdijk, R. van, Meybeck, A., 2011. Global
food losses and food waste - extent, causes and prevention. Glob. Food Losses Food
Waste “Food Agric. Organ. United Nations (2011)” Rome, Italy ((Accessed 23 August
2017)).
Hagos, K., Zong, J., Li, D., Liu, C., Lu, X., 2017. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas
production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 76,
1485–1496.
Hu, Y., Kobayashi, T., Qi, W., Oshibe, H., Xu, K.Q., 2018. Effect of temperature and or-
ganic loading rate on siphon-driven self-agitated anaerobic digestion performance for
food waste treatment. Waste Manag. 74, 150–157.
Huttunen, S., Rintala, J.A., 2007. Laboratory investigations on co-digestion of energy
crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane production: effect of crop to
manure ratio. 51, 591–609.
Izumi, K., Okishio, Y. ki, Nagao, N., Niwa, C., Yamamoto, S., Toda, T., 2010. Effects of
particle size on anaerobic digestion of food waste. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 64,
601–608.
Jiang, J., Li, L., Cui, M., Zhang, F., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Long, J., Guo, Y., 2018a. Anaerobic
digestion of kitchen waste: the effects of source, concentration, and temperature.
Biochem. Eng. J. 135, 91–97.
Jiang, Y., Dennehy, C., Lawlor, P.G., Hu, Z., Zhan, X., Gardiner, G.E., 2018b. Inactivation
of enteric indicator bacteria and system stability during dry co-digestion of food
waste and pig manure. Sci. Total Environ. 612, 293–302.
Jo, Y., Kim, J., Hwang, K., Lee, C., 2018. A comparative study of single- and two-phase
anaerobic digestion of food waste under uncontrolled pH conditions. Waste Manag.
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
78, 509–520.
Junoh, H., Yip, C., Kumaran, P., 2016. Effect on Ca(OH)2 pretreatment to enhance biogas
production of organic food waste. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 32, 012013.
Karthikeyan, O.P., Trably, E., Mehariya, S., Bernet, N., Wong, J.W.C., Carrere, H., 2018.
Pretreatment of food waste for methane and hydrogen recovery: a review. Bioresour.
Technol. 249, 1025–1039.
Khalid, A., Arshad, M., Anjum, M., Mahmood, T., Dawson, L., 2011. The anaerobic di-
gestion of solid organic waste. Waste Manag. 31, 1737–1744.
Kothari, R., Pandey, A.K., Kumar, S., Tyagi, V.V., Tyagi, S.K., 2014. Different aspects of
dry anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: an overview. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 39,
174–195.
Krishna, D., Kalamdhad, A.S., 2014. Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food waste
for high rate methane production – a review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2, 1821–1830.
Leung, D.Y.C., Wang, J., 2016. An overview on biogas generation from anaerobic di-
gestion of food waste. Int. J. Green Energy 13, 119–131.
Li, Y., Jin, Y., 2015. Effects of thermal pretreatment on acidification phase during two-
phase batch anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. Renew. Energy 77, 550–557.
Li, L., He, Q., Ma, Y., Wang, X., Peng, X., 2015. Dynamics of microbial community in a
mesophilic anaerobic digester treating food waste: relationship between community
structure and process stability. Bioresour. Technol. 189, 113–120.
Li, Y., Jin, Y., Li, J., Li, H., Yu, Z., 2016a. Effects of thermal pretreatment on the bio-
methane yield and hydrolysis rate of kitchen waste. Appl. Energy 172, 47–58.
Li, Y., Jin, Y., Li, J., 2016b. Enhanced split-phase resource utilization of kitchen waste by
thermal pre-treatment. Energy 98, 155–167.
Li, Y., Jin, Y., Borrion, A., Li, H., Li, J., 2017a. Effects of organic composition on meso-
philic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 244, 213–224.
Li, Q., Li, H., Wang, G., Wang, X., 2017b. Effects of loading rate and temperature on
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and waste activated sludge in a high frequency
feeding system, looking in particular at stability and efficiency. Bioresour. Technol.
237, 231–239.
Li, Y., Jin, Y., Li, J., Li, H., Yu, Z., Nie, Y., 2017c. Effects of thermal pretreatment on
degradation kinetics of organics during kitchen waste anaerobic digestion. Energy
118, 377–386.
Li, Y., Jin, Y., Li, H., Borrion, A., Yu, Z., Li, J., 2018. Kinetic studies on organic de-
gradation and its impacts on improving methane production during anaerobic di-
gestion of food waste. Appl. Energy 213, 136–147.
Liu, C., Wang, W., Anwar, N., Ma, Z., Liu, G., Zhang, R., 2017. Effect of organic loading
rate on anaerobic digestion of food waste under mesophilic and thermophilic con-
ditions. Energy and Fuels 31, 2976–2984.
Liu, X., Lendormi, T., Lanoisell, J., 2019. Overview of hygienization pretreatment for
pasteurization and methane potential enhancement of biowaste: challenges, state of
the art and alternative technologies. 236.
Ma, J., Duong, T.H., Smits, M., Verstraete, W., Carballa, M., 2011. Enhanced biometha-
nation of kitchen waste by different pre-treatments. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
592–599.
Ma, Y., Liu, Y., 2019. Turning food waste to energy and resources towards a great en-
vironmental and economic sustainability: an innovative integrated biological ap-
proach. Biotechnol. Adv (Article in press).
Ma, C., Liu, J., Ye, M., Zou, L., Qian, G., Li, Y.Y., 2018. Towards utmost bioenergy con-
version efficiency of food waste: pretreatment, co-digestion, and reactor type. Renew.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 90, 700–709.
Magnet, 2018. Food waste around the world. https://www.magnet.co.uk/advice-
inspiration/blog/2018/February/food-waste-around-the-world/.
Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X., Ren, G., 2015. Review on research achievements of biogas
from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 45, 540–555.
Mata-Alvarez, J., Macé, S., Llabrés, P., 2000. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes.
An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 74,
3–16.
Mehariya, S., Patel, A.K., Obulisamy, P.K., Punniyakotti, E., Wong, J.W.C., 2018. Co-
digestion of food waste and sewage sludge for methane production: current status and
perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 265, 519–531.
Meng, Y., Li, S., Yuan, H., Zou, D., Liu, Y., Zhu, B., Chufo, A., Jaffar, M., Li, X., 2015.
Evaluating biomethane production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of food
waste and floatable oil (FO) skimmed from food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 185,
7–13.
Meng, Y., Luan, F., Yuan, H., Chen, X., Li, X., 2017. Enhancing anaerobic digestion per-
formance of crude lipid in food waste by enzymatic pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol.
224, 48–55.
Micolucci, F., Gottardo, M., Pavan, P., Cavinato, C., Bolzonella, D., 2018. Pilot scale
comparison of single and double-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 1376–1385.
Monnet, F., 2003. An introduction to anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. Remade
Scotl. Rep. 1–48.
Monson, K.D., Esteves, S.R., Guwy, A.J., Dinsdale, R.M., 2007. Anaerobic Digestion of
Biodegradable Municipal Wastes: A Review.
Moon, H.C., Song, I.S., 2011. Enzymatic hydrolysis of foodwaste and methane production
using UASB bioreactor. Int. J. Green Energy 8, 361–371.
Morken, J., Gjetmundsen, M., Fjørtoft, K., 2018. Determination of kinetic constants from
the co-digestion of dairy cow slurry and municipal food waste at increasing organic
loading rates. Renew. Energy 117, 46–51.
Mu, H., Zhao, C., Zhao, Y., Li, Y., Hua, D., Zhang, X., Xu, H., 2017. Enhanced methane
production by semi-continuous mesophilic co-digestion of potato waste and cabbage
waste: performance and microbial characteristics analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 236,
68–76.
Nagao, N., Tajima, N., Kawai, M., Niwa, C., Kurosawa, N., Matsuyama, T., Yusoff, F.M.,
Toda, T., 2012. Maximum organic loading rate for the single-stage wet anaerobic
14
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 118, 210–218.
Naran, E., Toor, U.A., Kim, D.J., 2016. Effect of pretreatment and anaerobic co-digestion
of food waste and waste activated sludge on stabilization and methane production.
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 113, 17–21.
Naroznova, I., Møller, J., Scheutz, C., 2016. Characterisation of the biochemical methane
potential (BMP) of individual material fractions in Danish source-separated organic
household waste. Waste Manag. 50, 39–48.
Nghiem, L.D., Koch, K., Bolzonella, D., Drewes, J.E., 2017. Full scale co-digestion of
wastewater sludge and food waste: bottlenecks and possibilities. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 72, 354–362.
Ormaechea, P., Castrillón, L., Marañón, E., Fernández-Nava, Y., Negral, L., Megido, L.,
2017. Influence of the ultrasound pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of cattle
manure, food waste and crude glycerine. Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom) 38,
682–686.
Ostrem, K., 2004. Greening waste: anaerobic digestion for treating the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste. Dep. Earth Environ. Eng. Fu Found. Sch. Eng. Appl. Sci.
Columbia Univ. 1–59.
Panigrahi, S., Dubey, B.K., 2019. A critical review on operating parameters and strategies
to improve the biogas yield from anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal
solid waste. Renew. Energy 143, 779–797.
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, K., Wright, J., Ujang, N., Bin, Z., 2014. The
food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food
waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115.
Park, J.H., Kumar, G., Yun, Y.M., Kwon, J.C., Kim, S.H., 2018. Effect of feeding mode and
dilution on the performance and microbial community population in anaerobic di-
gestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 248, 134–140.
Pavi, S., Kramer, L.E., Gomes, L.P., Miranda, L.A.S., 2017. Biogas production from co-
digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste and fruit and vegetable waste.
Bioresour. Technol. 228, 362–367.
Quiroga, G., Castrillón, L., Fernández-Nava, Y., Marañón, E., Negral, L., Rodríguez-
Iglesias, J., Ormaechea, P., 2014. Effect of ultrasound pre-treatment in the anaerobic
co-digestion of cattle manure with food waste and sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 154,
74–79.
Rasapoor, M., Adl, M., Baroutian, S., Iranshahi, Z., Pazouki, M., 2019. Energy perfor-
mance evaluation of ultrasonic pretreatment of organic solid waste in a pilot-scale
digester. Ultrason. - Sonochemistry 51, 517–525.
Ren, Y., Yu, M., Wu, C., Wang, Q., Gao, M., Huang, Q., Liu, Y., 2018. A comprehensive
review on food waste anaerobic digestion: research updates and tendencies.
Bioresour. Technol. 247, 1069–1076.
Rodriguez, C., Alaswad, A., Benyounis, K.Y., Olabi, A.G., 2017. Pretreatment techniques
used in biogas production from grass. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 68, 1193–1204.
Saha, S., Jeon, B.H., Kurade, M.B., Jadhav, S.B., Chatterjee, P.K., Chang, S.W.,
Govindwar, S.P., Kim, S.J., 2018. Optimization of dilute acetic acid pretreatment of
for mixed fruit waste increased methane production. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 411–421.
Shi, X., Guo, X., Zuo, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, M., 2018. A comparative study of thermophilic
and mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and wheat straw: process sta-
bility and microbial community structure shifts. Waste Manag. 75, 261–269.
Slorach, P.C., Jeswani, H.K., Cuéllar-franca, R., Azapagic, A., 2019. Environmental sus-
tainability of anaerobic digestion of household food waste. J. Environ. Manag. 236,
798–814.
Tyagi, V.K., Lo, S., Appels, L., Dewil, R.A.F., 2014. Ultrasonic treatment of waste sludge: a
review on mechanisms and applications 1220–1288.
Tyagi, V.K., Fdez-Güelfo, L.A., Zhou, Y., Álvarez-Gallego, C.J., Garcia, L.I.R., Ng, W.J.,
2018. Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW):
progress and challenges. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 93, 380–399.
Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Liu, Y., 2015. Enhancing the hydrolysis and methane pro-
duction potential of mixed food waste by an effective enzymatic pretreatment.
Bioresour. Technol. 183, 47–52.
Vasco-correa, J., Khanal, S., Manandhar, A., Shah, A., 2018. Anaerobic digestion for
bioenergy production: global status, environmental and techno-economic implica-
tions, and government policies. Bioresour. Technol. 247, 1015–1026.
Wang, J.Y., Liu, X.Y., Kao, J.C.M., Stabnikova, O., 2006. Digestion of pre-treated food
waste in a hybrid anaerobic solid-liquid (HASL) system. J. Chem. Technol.
Biotechnol. 81, 345–351.
Wang, L., Shen, F., Yuan, H., Zou, D., Liu, Y., Zhu, B., Li, X., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion
of kitchen waste and fruit/vegetable waste: lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Waste
Manag. 34, 2627–2633.
Wang, P., Wang, H., Qiu, Y., Ren, L., Jiang, B., 2018a. Microbial characteristics in
anaerobic digestion process of food waste for methane production–a review.
Bioresour. Technol. 248, 29–36.
Wang, T., Yang, Pupu, Zhang, X., Zhou, Q., Yang, Q., Xu, B., Yang, Pinghua, Zhou, T.,
2018b. Effects of mixing ratio on dewaterability of digestate of mesophilic anaerobic
co-digestion of food waste and sludge. Waste and Biomass Valorization 9, 87–93.
Wang, Y., Li, G., Chi, M., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Jiang, S., Cui, Z., 2018c. Effects of co-di-
gestion of cucumber residues to corn stover and pig manure ratio on methane pro-
duction in solid state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 250, 328–336.
Wu, L.J., Kobayashi, T., Li, Y.Y., Xu, K.Q., 2015. Comparison of single-stage and tem-
perature-phased two-stage anaerobic digestion of oily food waste. Energy Convers.
Manag. 106, 1174–1182.
Xiao, B., Qin, Y., Wu, J., Chen, H., Yu, P., Liu, J., Li, Y.Y., 2018. Comparison of single-
stage and two-stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste: performance,
energy balance and reaction process. Energy Convers. Manag. 156, 215–223.
Xiao, B., Zhang, W., Yi, H., Qin, Y., Wu, J., Liu, J., Li, Y., 2019. Biogas production by two-
stage thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and paper waste: effect of
paper waste ratio. Renew. Energy 132, 1301–1309.
Xu, Z., Zhao, M., Miao, H., Huang, Z., Gao, S., Ruan, W., 2014. In situ volatile fatty acids
S.K. Pramanik, et al.
influence biogas generation from kitchen wastes by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour.
Technol. 163, 186–192.
Xu, F., Li, Y., Ge, X., Yang, L., Li, Y., 2018. Anaerobic digestion of food waste – challenges
and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 247, 1047–1058.
Yadvika, Santosh, Sreekrishnan, T.R., Kohli, S., Rana, V., 2004. Enhancement of biogas
production from solid substrates using different techniques - a review. Bioresour.
Technol. 95, 1–10.
Yi, J., Dong, B., Jin, J., Dai, X., 2014. Effect of increasing total solids contents on anae-
robic digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and micro-
bial characteristics analysis. PLoS One 9.
Yong, Z., Dong, Y., Zhang, X., Tan, T., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
straw for biogas production. Renew. Energy 78, 527–530.
Zeynali, R., Khojastehpour, M., Ebrahimi-Nik, M., 2017. Effect of ultrasonic pre-treatment
on biogas yield and specific energy in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable
wholesale market wastes. Sustain. Environ. Res. 27, 259–264.
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.
15
Bioresource Technology Reports 8 (2019) 100310
Zhang, L., Lee, Y.W., Jahng, D., 2011. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and piggery
wastewater: focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresour. Technol. 102,
5048–5059.
Zhang, C., Xiao, G., Peng, L., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013. The anaerobic co-digestion of food
waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 129, 170–176.
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.
Zhang, W., Zhang, L., Li, A., 2015a. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with MSW
incineration plant fresh leachate: process performance and synergistic effects. Chem.
Eng. J. 259, 795–805.
Zhang, A., Shen, J., Ni, Y., 2015b. Anaerobic digestion for use in the pulp and paper
industry and other sectors: an introductory mini-review. Bioresources 10,
8750–8769.
Zhang, J., Loh, K.C., Li, W., Lim, J.W., Dai, Y., Tong, Y.W., 2017. Three-stage anaerobic
digester for food waste. Appl. Energy 194, 287–295.
Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Xu, F., Li, Y., 2014. Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for en-
hanced biogas production. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 42, 35–53.