Accepted Manuscript

Review

Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: A critical review

Camilla M. Braguglia, Agata Gallipoli, Andrea Gianico, Pamela Pagliaccia

PII: S0960-8524(17)31049-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.06.145
Reference: BITE 18382

To appear in: Bioresource Technology

Received Date: 28 April 2017

Revised Date: 23 June 2017
Accepted Date: 24 June 2017

Please cite this article as: Braguglia, C.M., Gallipoli, A., Gianico, A., Pagliaccia, P., Anaerobic bioconversion of
food waste into energy: A critical review, Bioresource Technology (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.
2017.06.145

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Anaerobic bioconversion of food waste into energy: a critical review
Camilla M. Braguglia*,braguglia@irsa.cnr.it, Agata Gallipoli, Andrea Gianico, Pamela
Pagliaccia

Istituto di Ricerca sulle Acque (IRSA-CNR), Area della Ricerca RM1, Via Salaria km
29,300 (00015 Monterotondo), Italy
*Corresponding author.

Keywords: Food waste; Anaerobic digestion; Fermentation; Pre-treatment; Co-digestion

1. Introduction

Food waste was defined by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and

includes any healthy or edible substance that is wasted, lost, degraded at every stage of

the food supply chain. Every year, between 1.3 and 1.6 billion tons of food, such as

fresh vegetables, fruit, and meat, bakery and dairy products, are lost along the food-

supply chain, and this accounts for one third of the food produced globally for human

consumption, affecting several natural resources. Food waste, in fact, cost the global

economy around USD 990 billion annually, and consumes in fact about a quarter of all

the water used for agriculture purposes, and is responsible for an estimated 8 % of total

anthropogenic global greenhouse gas emission, contributing to biodiversity loss. An

ever-increasing amount of food waste (FW) is generated, owing to population growth

and rising living standards. Globally, around 2 billion tons of municipal solid waste are

formed annually, of which 34–53% is organic biodegradable waste (defined as

1
OFMSW), mainly food waste which collected from households, and restaurants, but the

composition may vary from country to country. The total FW quantity produced each

year in Europe has been estimated to be around 90 million tons Mt in 2012, of which an

estimated 47 Mt is collected from household (average of 92 kg per capita). The United

Kingdom generates most FW in Europe, namely 14 Mt, corresponding to almost 135 kg

per capita yearly against the 62 kg per capita per year wasted in Italy. Annually, in the

United States the amount of food wasted is nearly 61 Mt, in South Korea around 6.2 Mt

and in China, despite the low food waste per capita (55 kg annually), is 195 Mt. The EU

Commission estimates an increase in the FW amounts to 120 Mt by 2020, which is

mainly due to increased FW generation in households, that almost doubled from 2004 to

2012, while FW from food manufacturing and agriculture showed decreasing trend. The

composition of the food wasted at household and food service level (restaurants,

canteen, etc.) varies from region to region in the world. In fact, as showed in Figure 1,

in Europe, FW is composed by 40% vegetables and fruit, 33% pasta and bread, 17% of

dairy products (including eggs) and 9% of meat and fish residues, while in Asia, in

particular in Japan, China and South Korea, FW is composed by a 56% of vegetables

and fruits, 34% of rice and noodle, and only a small fraction (around 10%) due to fish,

meat residues, and dairy products.

Although reduction is the most preferred option in the FW management hierarchy,

subsequent approaches such as recovery in terms of waste-to-energy also require

attention and technical development from the research community in order to promote a

comprehensive sustainable FW management system. In this context, anaerobic digestion

(AD) is considered as one of the best environmental-friendly alternatives for the FW

management, because of its limited environmental footprints (Capson-Tojo et al., 2016),

high potential for energy recovery (Capson Tojo et al., 2016; Kuruti et al., 2017;

Zamanzadeh et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2014) producing carrier material for biofertilizers

1
(Kuruti et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2013;). In 2012, 90% of the FW treated in Europe was

processed biologically with both AD and composting according to the Eurostat waste

treatment statistics. The use of AD as a treatment for FWs and other organic wastes has

increased in Europe with a current reported capacity of almost 9 million tons per year in

2015 due to 290 full-scale plants (De Baere and Mattheeuws, 2014) producing methane.

Mesophilic digesters operate at a temperature between 35°C and 40°C, while

thermophilic digesters operate between 50°C and 55°C. Mesophilic digestion has

always been predominant, because of the small energy needs, and greater stability.

Nevertheless, thermophilic digestion has always played an important role in the

digestion of food waste (Montecchio et al., 2016). In recent years, different novel

reactor designs, such as for example two stage or multiple-stage reactors have been

investigated and developed to reach stable conditions under high organic loading rates

(OLRs) of food waste or OFMSW (Dong et al., 2010). However, the AD of organic

waste generally relies on single-stage systems, which account for more than 95% of

Europe’s full-scale plants (De Baere and Mattheeuws, 2014).

Investigating AD processes for FW conversion has become, for all these reasons, an

exciting research field. For this review, the distribution of the 410 peer-reviewed articles

extracted from literature (Scopus database) in the last 5 years (2012-2017) containing

the fixed term “food waste” in the title combined with biogas (56), or anaerobic

digestion (113), or methane (56) or hydrogen (54), or co-digestion (89) or pre-treatment

(42) was analyzed also on the basis of affiliation’s country of the authors.

China is unconditionally the most productive country with the largest number of

publications in this research field (more than 40% of the papers) followed by South

Korea (12%), USA (10%) and Japan (5%). In Europe, Italy and Spain researchers are

the most active in this field.

This review focuses on the anaerobic conversion of FW for energy recovery, in terms of

hydrogen and methane production, reporting the most important results, performances

1
and developments taken mainly during the last decade as regards different reactor

configurations (one or multi-stage, dry or wet) and effects of inhibition compounds and

parameters on AD, in batch or continuous mode. Different strategies to improve the

anaerobic conversion, including co-digestion and feedstock pre-treatments, are also

reviewed and discussed.

2. Food waste characteristics and impact on AD process

The FW composition clearly affects the physicochemical characteristics of FW

investigated in different regions in the world. Food waste consisting of rice, pasta and

and vegetables is abundant in carbohydrates while food waste consisting of meat, fish

and eggs contains high quantity of proteins and lipids. However, FW presents general

features that can be extrapolated worldwide, with a moisture content of 74-90%, high

volatile solids fraction around 85±5 %, and a mean acidic pH of 5.1±0.7 (Fisgativa et

al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2007. Typical FW is mainly composed of degradable

carbohydrates (41-62%), proteins (15–25 %) and lipids (13–30 %). On general, FW

proved to have varying proportions of nutrients and micronutrients and low presence of

heavy metals, but the variability was very high (Fisgativa et al., 2016). FW typically has

a relatively low C/N ratio, varying between 13.2 and 24.50, lower with respect to the

optimal range of 25-35 assuring efficient digestion conditions (Capson Tojo et al., 2016,

Chen et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2007). In fact, an excessively high C/N ratio causes the

increase in acid formation inhibiting methane production, while at low C/N ratio

nitrogen is converted to ammonium at a faster rate than it can be assimilated by the

methanogens. For biodegradable substrates, the optimum C/N ratio is in the range 20-

25. However, for materials that are resistant to microbial degradation, the C/N ratio can

be also as high as 40. Due to its fundamental characteristics such as wide availability,

high biodegradable organic fraction and in particular high carbohydrate content, FW has

been considered an attractive economical source for energy production, and substrate

characteristics influenced largely the AD process performances (Fisgativa et al., 2016;

1
Zhang et al., 2013a). Organic feedstocks undergo different degradation steps during the

AD process (Fisgativa et al., 2016; Patinvoh et al., 2017). Step one is hydrolysis, where

the feedstock is disintegrated by the action of a diverse community of hydrolytic

bacteria producing simple sugars, amino acids, and fatty acids. This step has been

reported as being the rate limiting step for complex, hard biodegradable, organic

substrates (Ariunbataar et al., 2014a, Carlsson et al., 2012; Gianico et al., 2013; Izumi et

al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2014), and can be accelerated by pre-treating the substrate before

digestion (see paragraph 5.2). Step two is acidogenesis, where monomers from the

hydrolysis are fermented into short chain organic acids (acetic, propionic, butyric and

others), alcohols, together with hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The products formed vary

with the types of bacteria as well as environmental conditions Hydrogen, as the most

valuable fermentation product, is widely discussed in paragraph 4. Acidogenesis is the

fastest step in the AD process, so if the feedstock does not have buffering capacity and

the organic loading rate is too high, the accumulation of volatile fatty acids can result in

a pH drop, which would inhibit the methanogens that produce methane in the final step

(Nagao et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2014). Step three is the acetogenesis, here the

homoacetogenic microorganisms reduce hydrogen and carbon dioxide to acetic acid. In

this step, the acetogenic bacteria can only survive at a very low hydrogen concentration,

so excessive production of hydrogen from the acidogenesis step can inhibit these

bacteria. The last step is the methanogenesis, where methane production takes place

under strict anaerobic conditions, by utilizing the intermediate products (as H2 and

acetate) from the preceding stages. Because of these complex succession of biological

steps and of the close connection of the degradation phases, AD of organics is based on

a delicate balance that may affect the instability of the digesters treating food waste, and

thus the amount of methane produced. Acidification through reactor overload is one of

the most common reasons for process deterioration in anaerobic digesters, and occurs

because of the accumulation of volatile fatty acids fatty acids (VFAs) due to the kinetic

1
uncoupling between acid producers and consumers (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010;

Kawai et al., 2014; Nagao et al. 2012; Ventura et al., 2014). Methanogenesis resulted

therefore the rate-limiting step, in particular for carbohydrate-rich FW anaerobic

digestions, opening controversial questions on the effective kinetic limiting stage of

complex heterogeneous organic material as food waste. The pH is one of the most

important parameters influencing AD, because all the involved microorganisms are very

sensitive to pH variations, and each process step shows a different pH sensitivity. For

fermentative bacteria, a comprehensive pH range from 4 to 8.5 is suitable, while most

methanogens work optimally in a pH range from 6.5 to 7.2, with a methanogenesis step

failure below pH of 5.5. To ensure microorganisms activity, a good nutritional balance

is necessary, both in terms of carbon and nitrogen ratio, and of micronutrients as Ca, K,

Mg, Na, P and Fe, indispensable for microorganisms. The feedstock total solids content

(as consequently also the volatile solids) affect the AD process of food waste. So far,

three main types of AD technologies have been developed according to the total solids

(TS) content of feedstocks: conventional wet (< 10% TS), semi-dry (10–20% TS) and

dry (20-40% TS) processes. Dry anaerobic digestion, so called ‘‘high-solids’’

technology, facilitates the dry substrate manipulation with batch and semi-continuous

process, but higher structure cost may be present. With specific reference to the full-

scale industrial application, during the last 5 years dry digestion accounts for about 70

% of the installed capacity, resulting in a cumulative market share of about 62 % (De

Baeere et al., 2014). The predominance of dry digesters was due to the reduced volume

of reactors and wastewater production. In the case of the biological production of

hydrogen by fermentation, no full-scale applications have been realised to date (De

Gioannis et al., 2013).

3. Anaerobic conversion of FW into methane

Extensive effort has been devoted to the production of biomethane from FW through

anaerobic processes, but its economic viability is largely dependent on the efficiency of

1
FW type, pre-treatment and scale (Ma et al., 2017). Scale effect of anaerobic digestion

tests in batch and semi-continuous mode for the technical and economic feasibility of a

full-scale digester treating FW is, in our opinion, very important. Therefore, the first

part of this chapter is dedicated to batch systems and the second one is dedicated to

continuous reactors. The difference is extremely important in particular by digesting

complex heterogeneous feedstocks as FW, where the organic load (in particular the

readily biodegradable one) affects significantly the performances of the process. In fact,

in batch systems, a reactor is loaded with feed and run to completion until methane

production stops. Batch reactors benefit from technical simplicity, low operating costs,

and, last but not least, short digestion times (in 25-40 days, the test is completed). On

the contrary, in continuous systems, reactors are continuously fed with the feedstock,

allowing a steady-state to be reached in the reactor with a constant methane yield, after

1-2 HRTs (hydraulic residence time). Although continuous reactors have higher

operating costs due to storage and requirements, these reactors are able to maintain and

adapt microorganisms within the system, thereby avoiding lag times associated with

microorganism growth in batch reactors, but methane yields depend strictly on the

organic load (OLR) and HRT applied. In fact, food waste feedstock, generally rich of

biodegradable organics, can rapidly lead to an imbalance in the production-consumption

of VFAs, overwhelming the methanogenesis and eventually leading to the failure of the

process due to VFA accumulation and decrease in the pH. Alternatively, nitrogen is

released during the digestion process and, depending on pH, OLR and temperature, this

may lead to high concentrations of free ammonia (FAN) in the digester. Inhibition due

to high nitrogen content of the substrate has been reported (Chen et al., 2008). The

different feedstock composition and characteristics are hence responsible of methane

yields fluctuation depending on the specific FW processed (Tables 1 and 2). In case of

AD instability remedial measures were introduced, such as alkalinity addition (Liu et al.

1
2013; Ventura et al. 2014), feed interruption, mixing, or trace elements addition

(Facchin et al., 2013; Qiang et al. 2013, Yirong et al., 2015).

3.1 Batch AD tests

Methane production varies with many factors such as inoculum, volatile solids,

ammonia, VFA, pH and temperature. A method to source and determine the feasibility

of a material to serve as a substrate in anaerobic digestion is the Biochemical Methane

Potential (BMP) test. Such a test monitors the gas production following the incubation

of an organic material with an anaerobic bacteria mixture under well-controlled

conditions. Because the BMP of the organic material is very important in the design,

installation, and operation of an anaerobic digester, comprehensive protocols for its

determination have been proposed (Holliger et al., 2016). Under mesophilic conditions

biomethane potential is variable between 200 and 570 mL CH4 g-1VSadded (Ariunbaatar

et al., 2014; Izumi et al., 2010; Kawai et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2007;

Zhang et al., 2013a) as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Methane yields from batch digestion of food waste

Some papers reported relatively low methane yields ranging from 100 to 250 mL CH4 g-
1
VSadded (Capson Tojo et al., 2016; Nathao et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2015;) probably due

to acidification during food waste digestion (Liu et al., 2009). An important factor

affecting the performances of batch AD is the substrate to inoculum (S/I) ratio (or the

inverse factor, namely inoculum to substrate ratio, ISR) used. The major task in a one-

stage batch reactor is to prevent VFAs accumulation inside the inoculum particles

beyond their assimilative methanogenic capacity. This accumulation can be prevented

by increasing the amount of inoculum, in order to overcome irreversible acidification

during start-up (Kawai et al., 2014). In single-stage batch tests, it is common practice to

load inoculum and substrate based on VS ratios (Pagliaccia et al., 2016). Although

theoretically, the S/I ratio has an effect only on the kinetics, the influence of S/I on

biomethane production has been commonly investigated during batch tests, and specific

1
studies on the effect of this ratio for different FW have been carried out (Liu et al.,

2009; Lü et al., 2012; Pagliaccia et al, 2016). It is worth to note that methane yields,

obtained from single-stage mesophilic batch tests operated at S/I ≤ 0.5, range all

between 417 and 529 L CH4 kg-1VSfed (Ariunbataar et al., 2015; Browne and Murphy,

2013; Facchin et al., 2013; Kawai et al., 2014; Völklein et al., 2016) evidencing stability

of the process (Table 1). Most studies suggested that using S/I ratio below 1.0 was

enough to prevent acidification (Elbeshbishy et al., 2012; Kawai et al., 2014). Methane

yields lower than 100 L CH4 kg-1VSfed are generally related to the extremely high S/I

ratios applied, and short duration time (Nathao et al., 2013). Liu et al. (2009) performed

thermophilic BMP assays on food waste at S/I ratios from 1.6 to 5.0 and reported that

anaerobic biodegradability decreased with the rise of S/I ratios. However, when the

inoculum was completely mixed with the waste, methanogenesis was not initiated even

at S/I of 0.9 (Lü et al., 2012). In contrast, when the inoculum was initially separated

from the waste in a double-reactor system (and connected by the controlled exchange of

fermented waste), the waste could be effectively transformed to methane even at S/I

18.9 (Lü et al., 2012). The instability of the process due to acidification results also

directly affected by the amount of labile organic fraction (LOF) immediately

transformed to VFAs in the initial phase of AD (Kawai et al., 2014). In fact, the

methane yields from the same FW, without LOF rich supernatant, were relatively stable

in all S/I conditions, although the maximum methane yield was lower compared to the

raw FW (Kawai et al., 2014). Moreover, excessive reduction of the particle size of the

substrate resulted in VFA accumulation, and decreased methane production (Izumi et

al., 2010). The impact of the solubilized matter, in particular sugars, on VFA

accumulation and consequent process instabilities should be therefore taken into

account when feedstock pre-treatments are selected and optimized (see paragraph 5.2),

otherwise the strategy can be detrimental rather than beneficial. Zero-valent iron

significantly enhanced the conversion of butyric acid to acetic acid during AD of FW at

1
very high initial loading rate (42.32 gVS L-1) attaining a final CH4 yield of 380 mL g-
1
VSadded, suggesting inhibition of excessive acidification (Kong et al., 2016).

It is however also acknowledged that thermophilic process temperature results in larger

degree of imbalance and higher risk for ammonia inhibition than mesophilic process

temperatures, and in fact only few studies have focused on the thermophilic AD of FW

(Liu et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2007). Controversial results regard the

impact of inoculum acclimation on methane conversion rate during BMP tests. While

Browne and Murphy (2013) highlighted that for accurate BMP assessment the inoculum

should be sourced from a stable AD process and preferably acclimatized to the

substrate, a recent published cross-comparison of methodologies used in different

laboratories evidenced that it was not necessary that the inoculum was specifically

adapted to the substrates to be tested (Holliger et al., 2016). Effect of the inoculum

source was observed also by Facchin et al. (2013) where using the inoculum originated

from a reactor co-digesting FW and sludge generated more methane than using an

inoculum originated from an anaerobic reactor treating only FW. The primary parameter

for the selection of inoculum is the soluble COD concentration, which reflects the

“health status” of the provenance digester. In the study of Elbeshbishy et al., 2012, in

fact, the FW digester inoculum had five times higher soluble COD concentration than

the municipal sludge digester, suggesting important differences between the ratio of

fermentative bacteria, i.e. hydrolyzers and degraders to acidformers and methanogens

between the two inocula. The growth of methanogens is dependent on many ions such

as sodium, nickel, cobalt, iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium and potassium cations and

molybdate or tungstate and phosphate anions. Various concentrations of different trace

elements (TEs) have been studied for the AD of FW. Facchin et al. (2013) achieved a

45–65% higher methane production yield from FW with supplementation of TE (Co,

Mo, Ni, Se, and W) cocktail, and stressed the importance of Se and Mo for the

biomethane production.

1
 3.2 Continuous AD tests for methane production

The effectiveness of methane AD production from FW processing is currently limited

by solubilization and acidogenesis, in particular by semi-continuous fed reactors. The

microbial community and inoculum quality used for the start-up of an anaerobic reactor

are also critical factors for successful biogas production (Elbeshbishy et al., 2012;

Capson-Tojo et al., 2016). In fact, the slow growth of methanogens compared to

acidogens makes long acclimatization periods and gradual operational changes

necessary. Stable digestion can be assumed when the measured parameters, such as the

specific CH4 production, digestate VS content or pH levels are consistently maintained

within 10% of their average values, for a minimum period of one HRT. For all these

reasons, the semi-continuous tests need long time duration, but sometimes literature

data originate from too rushed digestion tests with duration shorter than the applied

HRT (see Table 2).

Table 2. Best semi-continuous AD performances of single and two-stage systems in

terms of methane conversion

Table 2 summarizes the best performances in terms of methane yields and VS removal

(if available) for single and dual stage digestion systems reported in literature. Stable

AD of FW was usually attained for HRT ranging between 16-40 days and OLRs lower

than 4.5 gVS L-1d-1 (table 2). High buffer capacity, due to released total ammoniacal

nitrogen (TAN) allows AD to operate at higher organic loading rates (OLRs), thus

resulting in higher biomethane production without experiencing a pH drop (Ariunbataar

et al., 2015). Nevertheless, Chen et al. (2008) reported that TAN concentrations ranging

from 1700 mg L-1 to 14000 mg L-1 all decreased methane yield by more than 50%,

depending on feedstock, inoculum source and operation parameters employed in the

studies. Serna-Maza et al. (2014) studied on the efficient performance and stability of

35L anaerobic digesters fed on food waste coupled to side-stream ammonia stripping

columns, but high stripping temperature (70°C) and a pH of 10 are needed. Selenium,

which is present only in low concentrations in FW, has been shown to be essential in
1
recovering a digester suffering from a propionic acid accumulation due to elevated

ammonia concentrations, while at higher organic loading rates additional cobalt is also

required (Yirong et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015a).

Trace metals (Fe, Co, Ni) requirement per COD removed was obtained experimentally

for mesophilic and thermophilic high-solid FW digestion evidencing higher Fe

requirement per COD removed operating in thermophilic conditions, probably because

of the high metabolic rates of thermophilic anaerobic microorganism. In fact, ratios of

required Fe to Ni and Co were about two times higher in thermophilic system than those

in mesophilic system (Qiang et al., 2013).

A novel approach was the application of a dual solid–liquid (ADSL) system, involving

the use of two digesters for FSW (food solid waste) and FLW (food liquid waste

without waste oil) digestion, where optimum OLRs for FSW, FLW and raw FW were 9,

4 and 7 gVS L-1d-1, and the corresponding methane yields 540, 390 and 405 mL g-1VS,

respectively (Zhang et al., 2013a). Ghanimeh et al. (2012) examined the effect of

mixing and non-mixing strategies on the performance of thermophilic digesters, and the

digester with mixing showed better stability minimizing VFA production. Considering

the option of operating at thermophilic conditions, literature data show that by

increasing the temperature, the proportion of the most toxic form of ammonia, namely

FAN, also increased, with detrimental effect on thermophilic process stability and

methane yields (Chen et al. 2008; Yirong et al., 2015; Zamanzadeh et al., 2016). The

acquisition of the conductivity and the online alkalinity measure are robust indirect

parameters to predict the content and the variation of ammonia concentration to avoid

inhibitory issues (Micolucci et al., 2014). In the recent years, considerable attention has

been paid towards the development of high rate bioreactors with maximum treatment

efficiency, basically designed to minimize HRT and increase rate of biogas production

hence marking the fact that the reactor design has a strong effect on digester

performance. The performance of dry AD of FW was investigated under mesophilic

1
conditions using an horizontal-type cylindrical reactor, and stable dry AD was achieved

by HRT control (more than 40d) without the addition of alkali agents, attaining average

CH4 production rate of 2.51 ± 0.17 m3 m-3 d-1 (Cho et al., 2013). The rapid acidification

phenomena observed at loading 4.9 kg VS m-3 d-1 to the high rate biomethanation

technology called ‘‘Anaerobic gas lift reactor” (AGR) was worthy from the perspective

of giving readily available soluble compounds to the methanogens in the digester and

decreasing HRT for biodegradable organic matter removal (Kuruti et al., 2017).

However, this phenomenon could cause instability in the digester due to pH drop unless

buffering capacity of the digester was enhanced externally. To overcome this problem,

milk of lime was added in the feed tank to maintain the pH of the feed slurry around

neutrality. Two-stage AD systems separate acid fermentation and methanogenesis for

the purpose of optimizing reactor conditions for the distinctly different microbes that

carry out these functions. The first stage (acid fermentation) is maintained at low pH

and short hydraulic residence times (HRT; 2–3 days) resulting in a washout of acid-

consuming organisms. The second stage (methanogenesis) is operated at HRT of 20–30

days and pH of 6–8, facilitating proliferation of slow-growing methanogenic archaea.

Two stage AD systems may be less susceptible to system overloading with increased

specific activity of methanogens resulting in a higher methane yield (Shen et al., 2013;

Wang and Zhao, 2009;). Optimizing two-stage conditions may result in the production

of hydrogen from the primary reactor and methane from the second reactor, making it a

very attractive bio-energy producing system. Numerous studies have been conducted on

the optimization of such systems with reactors both at mesophilic and/or thermophilic

temperatures, optimizing HRT and OLR in particular of the first reactor (see Table 3).

Best operative conditions and results as regards on hydrogen production are widely

discussed in the next paragraph. In terms of methane yields, the two-stage AD process

may provide unique benefits when treating high strength waste such as FW at high load.

In fact, by digesting FW with fruit and vegetable waste at low OLRs (<2.0 g VS L-1 d-1),

1
single-phase AD resulted better than two-phase AD in terms of CH4 production (up to

+4%), while at higher level of OLR two-phase digestion achieved higher CH4

production (Shen et al., 2013). Single and two-phase operations were compared also at

higher scale using a digester system consisting of 5 m3 reactors treating FW and higher

methane yields were obtained by two-phase mesophilic digestion compared to the

single-stage operation (380 vs 446 L CH4 kg VS-1 L-1), but it must be pointed out that

the applied VS loading rate for the single stage was significantly higher with respect to

the two-stage (Grimberg et al., 2015). Yan et al. (2016) optimized acidogenic off-gas

utilization in a methanogenic UASB reactor for utilization of H2 and CO2 via direct

hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis and methane recovery increased up to 38.6%. The

introduction of external hydrogen into the anaerobic digester and the consequent

promotion of the

hydrogenotrophic methanogenic community is a challenging strategy for in situ biogas

upgrading.

High rate digester, based on two-stage technology, was designed for the treatment of

FW at TS concentration of 18-21%, operating at high HRT 100 days attaining an

average biogas production of 0.16 m3 kg-1 VS d-1 with 50-60% of methane (Dahiya and

Joseph, 2015). Thermophilic temperatures have been effectively applied in 2-stage

systems digesting FW, obtaining high methane yields and avoiding inhibition by

optimization of OLRs and HRTs applying methanogenic sludge recirculation

(Chinellato et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2010; Micolucci et al., 2014), while operating two-

stage thermophilic reactors without recirculation generated low methane yields despite

the low TS content of the feed (Chu et al., 2012). Moreover, some studies have

compared different combinations of mesophilic and thermophilic conditions in each of

the stages. Ventura et al. (2014) reported the highest methane yields with a mesophilic

first stage and a thermophilic second stage, but the process was found to be less stable at

higher temperatures in the second reactor.

1
4. Anaerobic conversion of food waste into hydrogen

Among alternative energy carriers, hydrogen is recognized to have an important role in

the development of sustainable energy systems, having the highest energy per unit

weight (143 kJ kg-1) of any known gaseous fuel. Dark fermentation (DF) of low value

waste biomass is the most feasible biological technology for hydrogen production due

to its low energy requirements and high production rates meeting the circular economy

requirements. H2 is produced via dark fermentation (DF), mediated by bacteria capable

of synthesizing hydrogen producing enzymes, such as hydrogenase. In general,

biohydrogen is generated from carbohydrate degradation through the acidogenesis and

acetogenesis route, thus FW represents a suitable feedstock. Different metabolic

pathways can occur during DF of FW, depending on the adopted operating conditions,

resulting in either H2 production or depletion. In carbohydrates fermentation, hydrogen

evolution is related to acetate and butyrate pathways, which involve the production of,

respectively, 4 and 2 mol of molecular H2 per mol of glucose degraded (i.e. 544 and 272

mL H2/g glucose at 25°C). However, in mixed microbial cultures, different biochemical

pathways leading to the formation of other products (propionate, ethanol and lactic acid)

lower the H2 production (de Gioannis et al., 2013). As a result, the actual hydrogen yield

is always lower than the theoretical one. Operational parameters including substrate

type, inoculum type and origin, pre-treatment type, temperature, pH, reactor

configuration, OLR and HRT are the main factors affecting the H2 conversion rate (de

Gioannis et al., 2013). Recently, a wide number of scientific studies on H2 production

through DF of FW has been published; most of these experiments have been conducted

at lab or pilot scale (Jayalakshmi et al., 2009; Wang and Zhao, 2009), while no data on

full-scale hydrogen fermentation plants are currently available. A broad range of

operating conditions have been applied, so that the reported results are difficult to

compare and even conflicting (Table 3).

Table 3. Best operating conditions and H2 yields from food waste fermentation

1
An attempt to discuss, critically, the relative importance of each parameter, as well their

mutual interactions, on H2 production efficiency is here reported. For each operating

parameter, the results reported in Table 3 refer to the best H2 yield or optimal system

conditions for 2-stage processes.

The seed microorganisms used as inoculum represent a key factor for H2 fermentation.

In fact, most researchers use mixed microbial cultures, such as sludge, soil or compost,

because of low costs, easiness in control and high versatility (de Gioannis et al., 2013).

However, by using mixed microflora, the coexistence of H2- producing and consuming

bacteria should be considered. In order to enrich the seed inoculum in hydrogen

producers and to inactivate the consumers, namely the hydrogenotrophic methanogens,

inoculum is generally pre-treated. This process step relies on the better chance of

hydrogen producer bacteria to survive when exposed to harsh environmental conditions,

due to their ability to form spores. The reported pre-treatments are heat-shock treatment

(HST), aeration, addition of chemical compounds, acid or alkali treatment, freezing and

thawing. The most common approach is HST, which is generally carried out at

temperature of 80-100 °C for 10-30 min (Chu et al., 2012; Elsamadony et al., 2015;

Gadhe et al., 2014; Han et al., 2015; Jayalakshimi et al., 2009; Kobayashi et al., 2012;

Lee et al., 2010; Nathao et al., 2013; Rafieenia et al., 2017; Voelklein et al., 2016;).

Only few studies have been conducted without inoculum pre-treatment with the aim of

reducing costs (Algapani et al., 2016; Shen et al., 2013; Tawfik and El-Qelish, 2012;

Yeshanew et al., 2016). As FW itself is a source of indigenous microorganisms, also

some DF experiments were performed without inoculum addition (Elbeshbishy et al.,

2011a; Jang et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2011; Wang and Zhao, 2009), by pre-treating the

substrate, aimed at selecting fermentative microorganisms, with the suppression of

lactic acid bacteria (LAB). Based on the results of their previous tests, Kim et al.,

(2011), applied HST treatment to FW without inoculum addition, as they found that

high temperature pre-treatment depressed the lactate production, contemporarily

1
increasing the H2/butyrate production. The effect of alkali-shock was investigated by

Jang et al. (2015) and maximal H2 yield in batch was obtained by pre-treating the FW at

pH 11-12; otherwise, when the batch process switched to continuous mode, H2

production dropped significantly due to the increased activity of H2-consumers.

Studies on H2 production from FW were performed both under mesophilic and

thermophilic conditions (Table 3). Many authors agree that thermophilic conditions are

suitable to optimize the enzymatic activity of hydrogenase during fermentation by

Clostridia, to inhibit the activity of H2 consumers and to suppress the growth of LABs,

thus assuring higher H2 yields. Process temperature shows a significant effect on the

metabolic pathways, dictating the composition of soluble microbial products (SMPs) in

the fermentation medium: lactate was found to be predominant at 35°C, while butyrate

was the main product at 50°C. pH is considered one of the most crucial operational

parameter in H2 fermentation, as it determines the hydrogenase activity, metabolic

pathway, and dominant microbial population. Optimal pH values have been reported in

the range of 5.0–6.5 when the predominant metabolic pathways are those associate with

acetate and butyrate production. On the contrary, neutral or higher pH seemed to favour

ethanol and propionate production. Moreover, if pH drops at very low values (≤ 4.5) a

metabolic shift could occur which leads to lactic acid accumulation (zero-H2 pathway)

and solvent production (solventogenesis). To avoid reactor acidification, the pH of the

system is usually maintained at the optimal operating value by buffer or alkali solutions

addition (Han et al. 2015; Kim et al, 2011; Jang et al, 2015), particularly in continuous

H2-producing reactors. Moreover, the influence of initial pH was correlated to lag phase

duration, synthesis of enzymes and spore germination (in heat pre-treated inoculum)

and the maximal H2 production was observed for initial pH around 8 (de Gioannis et al.,

2013; Kim et al., 2011). As discussed in the precedent paragraph, in 2-stage AD

systems, internal recirculation of the effluent from the methanogenic phase has been

proposed as an efficient strategy to control pH in the optimal range for the hydrogen

1
producing bacteria, thus improving the efficiency and economics of the DF process

(Chinellato et al. 2013; Yeshanew et al., 2016). Nevertheless, controversial results were

obtained by Kobayashi et al. (2012) because by the recirculation of active methanogenic

sludge an inhibitive effect on H2 production was observed, probably due to the high

hydrogen-consuming activity of microorganisms present in the circulated sludge.

Moreover, in long-term operation, special attention must be paid also to the increase of

ammonia concentrations in the reactors as TAN is recycled. Most of the DF hydrogen

production studies have been performed by means of small laboratory vessels or stirred

reactors, under wet conditions, operated under batch, semi-continuous or continuous

mode. The organic load applied to the reactor greatly affects the system performances,

as it determines VFAs accumulation and pH changes, but also modifications in the

active biomass composition. Concerning batch systems, also in the case of hydrogen

production, some studies proved that S/I ratio influences the efficiency of the process,

and, contrary to what was observed for methane yields, efficient H2 production are

strictly related to high S/I ratios (Nathao et al., 2013; Pan et al., 2008;). Under

thermophilic conditions, a maximum H2 yield of 57 mL g-1VS was obtained at S/I of 7,

while under mesophilic conditions the highest yield of 39 mL H2 g-1VS was attained at

S/I of 6 (Pan et al., 2008). For semi-continuous and continuous operations, the HRT is

one of the most crucial parameter, controlling substrate hydrolysis, conversion

efficiency, but also the type of active microbial population and the metabolic pathways

established in the system. It is generally assumed that short HRTs promote H2

production due to methanogens wash-out from the reactor, while long HRTs favour the

growth of methanogenic activity and non H2-producing acidogens inside the active

biomass. Therefore, both OLR and HRT need optimization as controlling parameters to

inhibit the activity of H2 consuming bacteria in DF process. Comparing the data

reported in Table 3, most researchers, with very few exceptions, have set HRT in the

range 1-4 days (de Gioannis et al., 2013; Redondas et al., 2012), operating at high OLRs

1
from 8 to 40 kgVS m-3d-1. Nevertheless, hydrogen yield up to 38 L H2 kg-1VSfed was

reported by Angeriz-Campoy et al. (2015) operating a CSTR in thermophilic conditions

at OLR 66 g VS L-1d-1 with a mixture of food waste and OFMSW. The stepwise

increase of the OLR from 15.10 to 37.75 kgVSfed m-3d-1 may cause a decrease of H2

production and, at the same time, an increase of lactic acid concentration by an

integrated two-stage process (Wang and Zhao, 2009). Also Voelklein et al., (2016)

noted a close correlation between increasing OLRs of fermentation reactor (6-15 kgVS

L-1d-1), with fixed SRT of 4 days, and high quantities of ethanol and lactic acid in the

fermentation broth. The continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTR) is the most commonly

used reactor type, as the biomass is suspended and well mixed in the fermentation

liquid, this configuration guarantees an efficient substrate uptake by the anaerobic

bacteria. However, due to CSTR vulnerability to environmental shocks, other types of

reactors have been exploited, too. Continuous mixed immobilized sludge reactor

(CMISR) and anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) were used, respectively, by Han et al.,

(2015) and Tawfik and El –Qelish, (2012) in order to enhance biomass retention in the

reactor by physical immobilization of sludge through various carriers. These systems

allow operating the reactors at higher OLRs compared to CSTRs, maintaining a stable

fermentation process and representing a practical solution at industrial scale. As regards

to one stage H2 fermentation, higher gas yields are generally reported in batch

experiments rather than with semi-continuous or continuous operations (Table 3). This

is probably related to the short period in batch fermentation, which permits to easier re-

establish proper environmental conditions in the system, resulting in high H2

productions and yields. On the contrary, for long term operations, the continuous

feeding of a low buffering capacity substrate as FW could likely lead to system failure

due to pH drop, low nitrogen input, and biomass metabolic shifting. Unfortunately, even

under optimized process conditions, a considerable portion of the substrate energy

content remains in the effluent from the H2 fermentation, promoting research activity

1
and technological development towards the just mentioned two-phase AD systems to

improve the overall FW conversion yields recovering both hydrogen, from first, and

methane, from second reactor. In two-stage systems, the first reactor is generally

operated at lower OLRs with respect to those applied for one stage reactors (Table 3),

and H2 yields in two-stage systems operating at thermophilic conditions vary between

60 and 150 mL H2 g-1VS, and are significantly higher with respect to those obtained in

mesophilic ones.

5. Strategies to improve the anaerobic digestion of food waste

Complex heterogeneous organic materials such as FW range from highly recalcitrant

material to extremely biodegradable compounds, so the best option to improve the AD

performances is a case-specific and properly designed strategy considering not only FW

characteristics and composition but also the final aim of the study. In fact, feedstock

pre-treatment is suitable in the case of recalcitrant, lignocellulosic FW to improve AD

performances when hydrolysis is the rate limiting step, while, in the case of

biodegradable FW, the long-term digestion leads often to inhibition phenomena due to

intermediate accumulation suggesting the need of co-digestion with other substrates to

stabilize the entire process (Wang et al., 2014). In the subsequent paragraphs both

strategies are reviewed and critically discussed.

5.1 Anaerobic Co-digestion with other substrates to improve stability

Co-digestion of FW with other organic substrates has currently attracted increasing

interest, making AD more efficient, enhancing biogas production, promoting synergistic

effects of microorganisms, stabilizing digestate and increasing its amount of key

nutrients (El-Mashad and Zhang, 2010; Gou et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2013; Mata Alvarez

et al., 2014; Nghiem et al., 2017). In the literature of the last years, various organic

waste streams have been investigated to co-digest FW for biogas production, and the

most frequent are animal manures, sewage sludge, green waste and agro-waste (Mata-

Alvarez et al., 2014). The mixture ratios are selected in order to favor positive
1
interactions as for instance the right nutrients and moisture balance, to avoid inhibition

and to optimize methane production (Zhang et al., 2012). However, the wrong

combination of co-substrates can lead to negative results. The most important literature

results regarding co-digestion of FW with different organic waste residues are

summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Operative conditions and anaerobic performances of co-digestion with other

substrates
Generally, animal waste is considered an excellent co-substrate because of its alkalinity,

low C/N ratio and for its wide variety of macro- and micronutrients needed by the

anaerobic consortium of microorganisms. Zhang et al. (2012) confirmed that the co-

digestion of FW with cattle slurry, in 20:80 ratio, permitted to reach greater stability

operating at OLR of 2 kg VS m-3 day-1. Operating at the same OLR, Agyeman and Tao

(2014) investigated the effects of FW particle size on co-digestion with dairy manure

(50:50), finding that specific methane yield increased up to 630 L CH4 kg-1VSfed feeding

fine-grinded FW in mesophilic conditions. Lowering the temperature to 20°C assured

good methane yields and stability by co-digesting FW and cow manure (Rajagopal et

al., 2017). It is worth to note that in most published papers, the mixtures of FW and

animal waste matter are typically composed by low percentages of FW (ideal substrate

for H2 production due to the high content of sugars), consequently no data are available

in the literature as regards hydrogen generation during co-digestion. Another typical co-

substrate of FW is sewage sludge, characterized by low C/N ratio and low organic

content that guarantee the C/N balance improving microbial activity and lowering

intermediate accumulation, as ammonia (Dai et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013) ). In fact,

during co-digestion batch tests no process failure was reported and methane production

increased significantly (Naran et al., 2016; Zhang al., 2016). In semi-continuous co-

digestion of FW and WAS (33:67 ratio) the contemporary increase of HRT from 160d

to 188d and process temperature up to thermophilic conditions affected positively the

methane yield and VS reduction rate (Gou et al., 2014). Operating a mesophilic digester
1
at shorter HRT (20d) and high OLRs (up to 7.6 g VS L-1d-1), co-digestion with

dewatered sludge assured stability and higher methane yields, with respect to those

observed with WAS (Dai et al., 2013). As just highlighted for animal waste, also for

sewage sludge hydrogen production from co-fermentation with FW is still limited (Liu

et al., 2013). Hydrogen yields ranging from 10 to 104 L H2 kg-1VSfed were obtained in

batch mode with high S/I (up to 4) treating different mixtures of FW, primary sludge

and WAS. As expected, the higher the FW content in the mixture, the higher was the H2

yield (Zhu et al., 2008). Liu et al. (2013) obtained up to 106 L H2 kg-1VSfed and 354 L

CH4 kg-1VSfed with the 85% of FW in a two-stage co-digestion batch system with WAS.

Co-digestion of FW with sewage sludge results advantageous where spare digestion

capacity of existing WWTPs is available (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2014) offering beneficial

synergies for the water industry and authorities responsible for FW management (Zhang

et al., 2013b). Nevertheless, several bottlenecks as inert impurities in FW, regulatory

uncertainty, lack of suitable options for biogas utilization, impact on bio-solids

agricultural use, have been identified. A multi-disciplinary approach is therefore

necessary to face these challenges and to promote co-digestion as a key technology for a

circular economy (Nghiem et al., 2017). Besides sewage sludge or animal manures,

agro-food waste and green waste are other possible co-substrates with FW, mainly

because of the very low cost associated with their collection (Chen et al., 2014).

Moreover, the mono-digestion of lignocellulosic green/agro waste faces different

challenges, because of the poor nutrient content, long retention times and potential high

levels of inhibitory compounds (Gianico et al., 2013). At the same time, the high

content of recalcitrant lignin in green/agro waste might reduce the biodegradable rate of

FW (Drennan and Di Stefano, 2014), thus reducing the risk of VFAs accumulation

(Chen et al., 2014; Rizwan Haider et al., 2015). The relatively low biodegradability of

landscape waste, makes it an unsuitable substrate for-co-digestion with the aim to

increase the C/N ratio (Drennan and Di Stefano, 2014). Co-digestion of FW with a

1
substrate with high content of bioavailable carbon is therefore recommended to allow

AD at loading rates up to 15 g COD L-1d-1. Jabeen et al. (2015) co-digested FW with

rice husk in a pilot scale plug-flow reactor and, biogas production, reactor stability and

VS removal efficiency decreased by OLR increase and HRT reduction. Conversely,

Owamah and Izinyon (2015) obtained increasing methane yields (up to 482 L CH4 kg-
1
VS) by increasing the OLR, up to 4.5 gVS L-1d-1, in a co-digestion of FW with maize

husk, probably due to the appropriate high FW fraction (i.e. 75%). An increase in

methane yields by increasing the FW content in batch mesophilic co-digestion with

straw was reported by Yong et al. (2015). As regards batch co-digestion, also in this

case an inverse correlation between CH4 yield and load (expressed as S/I) was observed,

during mesophilic and thermophilic co-digestion of FW with green waste or rice husk

(Liu et al., 2009; Rizwan Haider et al., 2015). Interesting prototypes as single-stage

(2,500 L) and two-stage (1,000 L + 2,500 L) anaerobic digesters treating FW and rain

tree leaf have been developed and operated at high OLRs, resulting in high VS removal

efficiencies, but poor CH4 yields (153 L CH4 kg-1VSfed and 283 L CH4 kg-1VSfed for

single- and two-stage) (Ratanatamskul and Manpetch, 2016). The feasibility of the co-

digestion process of FW with a further wide range of other co-substrates has been

widely investigated. Zhang et al. (2015b) studied the co-digestion with fresh leachate

rich in trace elements and alkalinity promoting therefore methane production assuring

buffering ability of AD system. Paudel et al. (2017) carried out a two-stage co-digestion

of FW with brown wastewater, obtaining up to 99.8 L H2 kg-1VSfed in the first stage and

up to 728 L CH4 kg-1VSfed in the second stage. The use of de-oiled gras trap waste as co-

substrate provided excellent conversion yields in single-stage digestion process and in a

temperature-phased process with biomass recycling system (Wu et al., 2016).

5.2 Food waste pre-treatments and impact on AD performances

Every pre-treatment, in fact, acts with a different mechanism, with several variables

playing a role and it is therefore difficult to compare them and to assess the “ideal” pre-

1
treatment type because of the lack of common and standardised protocols (Carlsson et

al., 2012). In this section, the pre-treatments applied to food waste have been revised

and evaluated taking into consideration both solubilisation and H2/CH4/biogas yields.

Table 5 reports the best combination of pre-treatment parameters, leading to the best

performance, i.e. the one that had the highest gain in H2/CH4/biogas yield if compared

to the control (untreated substrate).

Table 5. Pre-treatment impact on solubilisation and AD performances

As showed in Table 5 the solubilisation of organic matter (usually assessed by means of

soluble COD measure) is not directly related to the subsequent gain in CH4 or H2 yield,

but sometimes the correlation is even negative. This leads to an urgent need in

understanding more deeply the inner mechanisms of the various pre-treatments on the

substrate characteristics, so to understand how the variable contents of carbohydrates,

proteins, lipids and lignocellulosic fractions present in organic waste are associated to

pre-treatment. Moreover, most FW pre-treatments have been still studied in lab scale

batch reactors, while semi-continuous trials are still very limited (Table 5). In this

chapter, mechanical pre-treatments aimed to reduce particle size such as grinding or

milling, and to screen FW (screw press, disc screens, magnets, etc.) were not considered

as they are already successfully implemented in full-scale treatment plants.

Thermal pre-treatments have been extensively investigated and are already implemented

in full-scale for what concerns sewage sludge and lignocellulosic biomasses. Its

mechanism of action significantly alters both physical and chemical properties, resulting

generally in increased solubilisation and improved digestate dewaterability and

hygienization. Higher temperatures or longer retention times affect significantly the

degree of solubilisation, but this is not always connected to a final energy yield gain. At

160°C lignin solubilisation starts, but at the same time lignin solubilisation is

responsible for the formation of inhibitory phenolic compounds. For temperature higher

than 170°C there might be also some condensation reactions (e.g. Maillard reactions)
1
which turns out to be hardly biodegradable or even refractory (Ariunbataar et al., 2014).

So, for all these reasons, increased yields have been mostly observed in the lower

temperature range, and main results show a decreased yield related to high T pre-

treatment (Table 5), while there is an increasing trend of CH4 yield at T<120°C. Tampio

et al. (2014) and Liu et al. (2012), reported a 7.9 ÷ 11.7 % decrease in methane yields

after thermal pre-treatment at T > 160°C, even though a high solubilisation degree.

However, thermal pre-treatments for H2 production seem to be a good option: a 92-fold

upgrade in hydrogen production by pure culture was obtained (Hu et al., 2014) Most of

the pure cultures tested (3 out of 4) were efficient in utilizing FW to produce H2 and

gave a substantial yield gain even without pH control (Hu et al., 2014). Similar results

were reported for a single stage AD of pre-treated cafeteria FW, where sugars

solubilisation enhanced significantly H2 yield, affecting negatively the successive CH4

yield because of the lack of bioavailable substance just transformed (Pagliaccia et al.,

2016). Microwave (MW) pre-treatment is an appealing alternative method to

conventional heating because of lower energy requirements (no heat loss through

convection or conduction), and polarization of macromolecules chains leading to the

hydrogen bonds breakage. Nonetheless, results are not that satisfactory: despite an

increase of organics solubilisation with T, biogas gain at 115°C was only 8%, and AD

process collapsed for the 175°C pre-treated samples (Shahriari et al., 2012),

highlighting that even MW pre-treatment is prone to melanoidins formation. Also by

semi-continuous tests, the results were not satisfactory (Shahriari et al., 2013).

Mechanical pre-treatments are, in general, far less sensitive to substrate specific

characteristics and they exclude the risk of inhibitory compounds formation, but they all

require high-energy consumption (electricity). Ultrasounds pre-treatment at 20 kHz acts

as mechanical pre-treatment by disrupting the biomass due to strong mechanical shear

forces. Gadhe et al.(2014) and Elbeshbishy et al. (2011a) applied ultrasounds for H2

production enhancement achieving +220% and +181% gain, respectively, by sonicating

1
food waste at high specific energy. Solubilisation was directly proportional to sonication

time and energy, but the degree of solubilisation was generally lower compared to that

obtained with thermal pre-treatment. FW pre-treatment for methane production gave a

+50% gain by sonicating the substrate at 7300kJ kg-1TSS (Naran et al., 2016). Anyway,

specific methane yield of control AD with untreated FW was very low, namely 137 mL

CH4 g-1VSSrem versus a typical average value of 400±30 mL CH4 g-1 VSrem. This might

be due to the high value of the S/I chosen (60 on VSS based), which might have led to

inhibition of the process. Zou et al. (2016) tried a first attempt of HVPD (high voltage

pulse discharge) on FW. It consists of a pulsed power supplier and a multi-needle-to-

plate reactor, which creates a rapidly pulsing (several kHz), high-voltage electric field to

disrupt and break up the cellular membrane, complex organic solids, and

macromolecules. HVPD pre-treated FW samples generated more methane than the

control, and from the point of energy usage efficiency, output methane production was

calculated to be equal to 5.7 times than energy consumption, which makes it more

appealing than sonication.

Biological pre-treatments include both enzymatic and aerobic methods (to enhance

hydrolytic rate). Enzymatic pre-treatment intensify the hydrolytic activity improving

biogas production. Interesting application of FW by fungal mash to obtain glucose-rich

hydrolyzate for ethanol production is reported elsewhere (Capson-Tojo et al., 2016).

Enzymes can be added to the substrate prior to digestion as pre-treatment or directly in

the digester. As pre-treatment there is the inherent risk that released sugars are rapidly

consumed by the endogenous microorganisms present in the FW, so a sterilisation step

might be required but this option is generally too expensive to be pursued in full-scale

implementation. In full-scale scenario, adding the enzymes directly in the digester is the

most usual configuration (Carrere et al., 2016). Generally, even though enzymatic pre-

treatments require much less energy input than mechanical and thermal ones without

chemicals addition, cost, enzyme selectivity (lipase or glucoamylase) and process

1
efficiency remain major issues. Moreover the relatively long contact time needed (24h

at least) might not be a feasible option for full-scale plants, despite the high methane

enhancement obtained in batch tests (Kiran et al., 2015; Yin et al., 2016). Aeration prior

to anaerobic digestion is another option, in order to induce faster hydrolysis rates,

because of the higher production of hydrolytic enzymes, induced by an increased

specific microbial growth (Ariunbaatar et al., 2014). In addition, pre-aeration reduces

accumulation of VFAs, thus improving the start-up stability of AD. Rafieenia et al.

(2017) investigate aeration efficiency on different synthetic FW types before two-stage

AD highlighting that average hydrogen production decreased, probably due to the low

SRT (3 d) in the first reactor and parallel consumption of the readily biodegradable

carbon for microbial cell growth during substrate aeration. However, during the

subsequent stage, CH4 production was higher for pre-aerated protein- and carbohydrate-

rich samples than in non-pre-aerated ones; conversely, pre-aeration of the lipid rich-

substrate was not effective, causing a decrease of energy potential compared to

untreated sample.

Strong acids, alkalis or oxidants are commonly used reagents to solubilise biopolymers

favouring the availability of the associated organic compounds for anaerobic

conversion. Solubilisation levels achieved with chemical pre-treatments are usually very

high, much higher with respect to those obtained with other pre-treatments, but the risk

of chemical contamination and recalcitrant compounds formation should be considered.

Because of the high solubilisation capacity, chemical pre-treatment is not suitable for

easily biodegradable substrates such as FW: high rate carbohydrates degradation and

subsequent VFA accumulation convey in methanogenesis inhibition (Ariunbaatar et al.,

2014). A different approach using surfactants (Tween 80 and polyethylene glycol,

individually or combined) to modify substrate structure and to improve enzymatic

hydrolysis of particulate organic matter in order to achieve higher H2 production was

successfully reported by Elsamadony et al. (2015). Pre-treatments are usually coupled to

1
lower the severity of each pre-treatment reducing the intrinsic disadvantages as

inhibition, recalcitrant products formation, long retention times, specificity of the

enzyme, energy costs. Combination is also applied in the case a single pre-treatment is

not sufficient to obtain the desired result due to its specific mechanism of action.

Elbeshbishy et al. (2011a) tried to couple ultrasonic with acid, alkali and heat shock pre-

treatment for H2 production without using extra seed (FW was inoculum and substrate

at the same time). The only significant increase compared to the single pre-treated

sample was due to acid addition, resulting in +181% higher hydrogen yield than the

control. Even though results are promising in this case, an economic analysis is needed

to determine whether the combination is energetically feasible and economically

convenient. As the pretreatment of FW is relatively new, no real cost estimation has

been reported in literature to date.

Conclusions

This review explored recent advances in the research field of FW conversion into

energy in the framework of the circular economy. It resulted that FW is a complex and

heterogeneous substrate, with variable biodegradability, and consequently AD results

can vary significantly during the scaling up of the process, from batch BMP tests to

semi-continuous performances. Prudence is needed by pre-treating FW to improve

solubilization, since hydrolysis is not necessarily the limiting step, and the risks related

to typical acids accumulation may be emphasized. In situ methane enrichment

processes, as bubble columns for selective desorption of CO2 need more applicative

research.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the PRIN 2012 project titled “Advanced Processes to

convert organic wastes in innovative, sustainable and useful products” co-financed by

1
the Italian Minister of University and Scientific Research (MIUR). Authors wish to

thank dr. Giuseppe Mininni and Prof. Fausto Gironi for their valuable support.

1
References

1. Agyeman, F.O., Tao, W., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure:
Effects of food waste particle size and organic loading rate. J. Environ. Manag. 133, 268-
274.
2. Algapani, D.E., Qiao, W., Su, M., di Pumpo, F., Wandera, S.M., Adani, F., Dong, R., 2016.
Bio-hydrolysis and bio-hydrogen production from food waste by thermophilic and
hyperthermophilic anaerobic process. Bioresour. Technol. 216, 768-777.
3. Angeriz-Campoy, R., Álvarez-Gallego, C.J., Romero-García, L.I., 2015. Thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) with food
waste (FW): enhancement of bio-hydrogen production. Bioresour. Technol. 194, 291–296.
4. Ariunbaatar, J., Panico, A., Frunzo, L., Esposito, G., Lens, P.N.L., Pirozzi, F., 2014.
Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by thermal and ozonation pretreatment
methods. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 142–149.
5. Ariunbaatar, J., Di Perta, E.S., Panico, A., Frunzo, L., Esposito, G., Lens, P.N.L., Pirozzi,
F., 2015. Effect of ammoniacal nitrogen on one-stage and two-stage anaerobic digestion of
food waste. Waste Manag. 38, 388–398.
6. Browne, J.D., Murphy, J.D., 2013. Assessment of the resource associated with biomethane
from food waste. Appl. Energy 104, 170–177.
7. Capson-Tojo, G., Rouez, M., Crest, M., Steyer, J.-P., Delgenès, J.-P., and Escudié, R.,
2016. Food waste valorization via anaerobic processes: a review. Rev. Environ. Science
and Bio/Technol. 15(3), 499-547.
8. Carlsson, M., Lagerkvist, A., Morgan-Sagastume, F., 2012. The effects of substrate
pretreatment on anaerobic digestion: a review. Waste Manage. 32, 1634–1650.
9. Carrere, H., Antonopoulou, G., Affes, R., Passos, F., Battimelli, A., Lyberatos, G., Ferrer,
I. 2016. Review of feedstock pretreatment strategies for improved anaerobic digestion:
from lab-scale research to full-scale application. Bioresour. Technol. 199, 386–397.
10. Castrillón, L., Marañón, E., Fernández-Nava, Y., Ormaechea, P., Quiroga G., 2013.
Thermophilic co-digestion of cattle manure and food waste supplemented with crude
glycerin in induced bed reactor (IBR). Bioresour. Technol. 136, 73–77.
11. Chen, Y., Cheng, J.J., Creamer, K.S., 2008. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A
review. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 4044-4064.
12. 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.
13. Chinellato, G., Cavinato, C., Bolzonella, D., Heaven, S., Banks, C.J., 2013. Biohydrogen
production from food waste in batch and semi-continuous conditions: evaluation of a two-
phase approach with digestate recirculation for pH control. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38,
4351–4360.
14. Cho, S.K., Im, W.T., Kim, D.H., Kim, M.H., Shin, H.S., Oh, S.E., 2013. Dry anaerobic
digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: Performance and methanogenic
community analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 131, 210-217.
15. Chu, C.F., Xu, K.Q., Li, Y.Y., Inamori, Y., 2012. Hydrogen and methane potential based
on the nature of food waste materials in a two-stage thermophilic fermentation process. Int.
J. Hydrogen Energy 37(14), 10611-10618.
16. Dahiya, S., Joseph, J., 2015. High rate biomethanation technology for solid waste
management and rapid biogas production: An emphasis on reactor design parameters.
Bioresour. Technol. 188, 73-78.
17. Dai, X., Duan, N., Dong, B., Dai, L., 2013. High-solids anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
sludge and food waste in comparison with mono digestions: Stability and performance.
Waste Manag. 33, 308–316.
18. De Baere, L., Mattheeuws, B., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of
municipal solid waste in Europe -Status, experience and prospects in: Waste Management,
Vol 3 Recycling and Recovery, TK, pp. 517- 526.
19. De Gioannis, G., Muntoni, A., Polettini, A., Pomi, R., 2013. A review of dark fermentation
hydrogen production from biodegradable municipal waste fractions. Waste Manag. 33(6),
1345-1361.

1
20. Dennehy, C., Lawlor, P.G., Croize, T., Jiang, Y., Morrison, L., Gardiner, G.E., Zhan, X.,
2016. Synergism and effect of high initial volatile fatty acid concentrations during food
waste and pig manure anaerobic co-digestion. Waste Manag. 56, 173–180.
21. Dong, L., Zhenhong, Y., Yongming, S., 2010. Semi-dry mesophilic anaerobic digestion of
water sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste (WS-OFMSW). Bioresour. Technol.
101, 2722–2728.
22. Drennan, M.F., Di Stefano, T.D., 2014. High solids co-digestion of food and landscape
waste and the potential for ammonia toxicity. Waste Manag. 34, 1289–1298.
23. Elbeshbishy, E., Hafez, H., Dhar, B.R., Nakhla, G., 2011a. Single and combined effect of
various pretreatment methods for biohydrogen production from food waste. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 36, 11379–11387.
24. Elbeshbishy E., Hafez H., Nakhla, G., 2011b. Ultrasonication for biohydrogen production
from food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 36, 2896–2903.
25. Elbeshbishy E., Nakhla, G., Hafez., H., 2012. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of
food waste and primary sludge: influence of inoculum pre-incubation and inoculum source.
Bioresour. Technol. 110, 18–25.
26. El-Mashad, H.M., Zhang, R., 2010. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure
and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 4021-4028.
27. Elsamadony, M., Tawfik, A., Suzuki, M., 2015. Surfactant-enhanced biohydrogen
production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) via dry anaerobic
digestion. Appl. Energy 149, 272–282.
28. Facchin,V., Cavinato,C., Fatone,F., Pavan,P., Cecchi,F., and Bolzonella, D., 2013. Effect
of trace element supplementation on the mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste in
batch trials: the influence of inoculum origin. Biochem. Eng. J. 70, 71-77.
29. Fisgativa, H., Tremier, A., Dabert, P., 2016. Characterizing the variability of food waste
quality: a need for efficient valorization through anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag. 50,
264-274.
30. Gadhe, A., Sonawane, S.S., Varma, M.N., 2014. Ultrasonic pretreatment for an
enhancement of biohydrogen production from complex food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 39, 7721-7729.
31. Ghanimeh, S., El Fadel, M., Saikaly, P., 2012. Mixing effect on thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol.
117, 63-71.
32. Gianico, A., Braguglia CM, Mescia D, Mininni G. 2013 Ultrasonic and thermal
pretreatments to enhance the anaerobic bioconversion of olive husks. Bioresour. Technol.
147, 623-626.
33. Gou, C., Yang, Z., Huang, J., Wang, H., Xu, H., Wang, L., 2014. Effects of temperature
and organic loading rate on the performance and microbial community of anaerobic co-
digestion of waste activated sludge and food waste. Chemosphere 105, 146–151.
34. 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.
35. Han, W., Liu, D.N., Shi, Y.W., Tang, J.H., Li, Y.F., Ren, N.Q., 2015. Biohydrogen
production from food waste hydrolysate using continuous mixed immobilized sludge
reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 180, 54–58.
36. Holliger, C., Alves, M., Andrade, D., Angelidaki, I., Astals, S., Baier, U., Bougrier, C. et
al., 2016. Towards a standardization of biomethane potential tests. Water Science Technol.
74(11), 2515-2522.
37. Hu, C.C., Giannis, A., Chen, C.-L., Wang, J.-Y., 2014. Evaluation of hydrogen producing
cultures using pretreated food waste, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 39, 19337–19342.
38. Izumi, K., Okishio, Y., Nagao, N. et al., 2010. Effects of particle size on anaerobic
digestion of food waste. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 64, 601–608.
39. Jabeen, M., Zeshan, Yousaf, S., Rizwan Haider, M., Malik, R.N., 2015. High-solids
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rice husk at different organic loading rates. Int.
Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 102, 149-153.
40. Jang, S., Kim, D.H., Yun, Y.M., Lee, M.K., Moon, C., Kang, W.S., Kwak, S.S., Kim,
M.S., 2015. Hydrogen fermentation of food waste by alkali shock pretreatment: microbial
community analysis and limitation of continuous operation. Bioresour. Technol. 186, 215–
222.
1
41. Jayalakshmi, S., Joseph, K., Sukumaran, V., 2009. Bio hydrogen generation from kitchen
waste in an inclined plug flow reactor. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34, 8854-8858.
42. Kawai, M., Nagao, N., Tajima, N., Niwa, C., Matsuyama, T., Toda, T., 2014. The effect of
the labile organic fraction in food waste and the substrate/inoculum ratio on anaerobic
digestion for a reliable methane yield. Bioresour. Technol. 157, 174–180.
43. Kim, D.H., Kim, S.H., Jung, K.W., Kim, M.S., Shin, H.S., 2011. Effect of initial pH
independent of operational pH on hydrogen fermentation of food waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 102, 8646-8652.
44. Kiran, E.U., Trzcinski, A.P., Liu, Y., 2015. Enhancing the hydrolysis and methane
production potential of mixed food waste by an effective enzymatic pretreatment.
Bioresour. Technol. 183, 47–52.
45. Kobayashi, T., Xu, K.Q., Li, Y.Y., Inamori, Y., 2012. Effect of sludge recirculation on
characteristics of hydrogen production in a two-stage hydrogen–methane fermentation
process treating food wastes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 37, 5602–5611.
46. Kong, X., Wei, Y., Xu, S., Liu, J., Li, H., Liu, Y., Yu, S., 2016. Inhibiting excessive
acidification using zero-valent iron in anaerobic digestion of food waste at high organic
load rates. Bioresour. Technol. 211, 65–71.
47. Kuruti, K., Begum, S., Ahuja, S., Rao Anupoju, G., Juntupally, S., Gandu, B., Kumar
Ahuja, D., 2017. Exploitation of rapid acidification phenomena of food waste in reducing
the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of high rate anaerobic digester without conceding on
biogas yield. Bioresour. Technol. 226, 65–72.
48. Lee, D.-Y., Ebie, Y., Xu, K.-Q., Li, Y.-Y., Inamori, Y., 2010. Continuous H2 and CH4
production from high-solid food waste in the two-stage thermophilic fermentation process
with the recirculation of digester sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 101(1), S42–S47.
49. Li, Y.Y., Jin, Y.Y., 2015. Effects of thermal pretreatment on acidification phase during
two-phase batch anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste. Renew. Energy 77, 550-557.
50. Liu, G., Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Dong R., 2009. Effect of feed to inoculum ratios on
biogas yields of food and green wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 100, 5103–5108.
51. Liu, X., Wang, W., Gao, X., Zhiu, Y., Shen, R., 2012. Effect of thermal pretreatment on the
physical and chemical properties of municipal biomass waste. Waste Manag. 32, 249-255.
52. Liu, X., Li, R., Ji, M., Han, L., 2013. Hydrogen and methane production by co-digestion of
waste activated sludge and food waste in the two-stage fermentation process: substrate
conversion and energy yield. Bioresour. Technol. 146, 317–323.
53. Lü, F., Hao, L., Zhu, M., Shao, L., He, P., 2012. Initiating methanogenesis of vegetable
waste at low inoculums-to-substrate ratio: importance of spatial separation. Bioresour.
Technol. 105, 169–173.
54. Ma, Y., Yin, Y., Liu, Y. 2017. A holistic approach for food waste management towards
zero-solid disposal and energy/resource recovery, Bioresour. Technol. 228, 56-61.
55. Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Romero-Güiza, M.S., Fonoll, X., Peces, M., Astals, S., 2014. A
critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013. Renew.
Sustainable Energy Rev. 36, 412–427.
56. Micolucci, F., Gottardo, M., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., 2014. Automatic process control for
stable bio-hythane production in two-phase thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste.
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 17563–17572.
57. Montecchio, D., Gallipoli, A., Gianico, A., Pagliaccia, P., Mininni, G., Braguglia, C.M.,
2016. Biomethane potential of food waste: modeling the effects of mild thermal
pretreatment and digestion temperature. Environ. Technol. DOI:
10.1080/09593330.2016.1233293
58. 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
digestion of food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 118, 210-218.
59. Naran, E., Toor, U.A., Kim, D.J., 2016. Effect of pretreatment and anaerobic codigestion of
food waste and waste activated sludge on stabilization and methane production. Int.
Biodeterior. Biodegr. 113, 17-21.
60. Nathao, C., Sirisukpoka, U., Pisutpaisal, N., 2013. Production of hydrogen and methane by
one and two stage fermentation of food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38, 15764–15769.
61. 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. Sustainable
Energy Rev. 72, 354-362.
1
62. Owamah, H.I., Izinyon, 2015. The effect of organic loading rates (OLRs) on the
performances of food wastes and maize husks anaerobic co-digestion in continuous mode.
Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess. 11, 71–76.
63. Pagliaccia, P., Gallipoli, A., Gianico, A., Montecchio, D., Braguglia, C.M., 2016. Single
stage anaerobic bioconversion of food waste in mono and co-digestion with olive husks:
Impact of thermal pretreatment on hydrogen and methane production. Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy 41(2), 905-915.
64. Pan, J., Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Sun, H., Ying, Y., 2008. Effect of food to
microorganism ratio on biohydrogen production from food waste via anaerobic
fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 33, 6968-6975.
65. Patinvoh, R.J., Osadolor, O.A., Chandolias, K., Sárvári Horváth, I., Taherzadeh, M.J.,
2017. Innovative pretreatment strategies for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 224,
13-24.
66. Paudel, S., Kang, Y., Yoo, Y.-S., Seo, G.T., 2017. Effect of volumetric organic loading rate
(OLR) on H2 and CH4 production by two-stage anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
brown water. Waste Manag. 61, 484–493.
67. Qiang, H., Niu, Q., Chi, Y., Li, Y., 2013. Trace metals requirements for continuous
thermophilic methane fermentation of high solid food waste. Chem. Eng. J. 222, 330–336.
68. Rafieenia, R., Girotto, F., Peng, W., Cossu, R., Pivato, A., Raga, R., Lavagnuolo M.C.,
2017. Effect of aerobic pre-treatment on hydrogen and methane production in a two-stage
anaerobic digestion process using food waste with different compositions. Waste Manag.
59, 194-199.
69. Rajagopal, R., Bellavance, D., Rahaman, M.S., 2017. Psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of
semi-dry mixed municipal food waste: For North American context. Process Safety and
Environ. Protection 105, 101-108.
70. Ratanatamskul, C., Manpetch, P., 2016. Comparative assessment of prototype digester
configuration for biogas recovery from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and rain tree
leaf as feedstock. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 113, 367-374.
71. Redondas, V., Gómez, X., García, S., Pevida, C., Rubiera, F., Morán, A., Pis, J.J., 2012.
Hydrogen production from food wastes and gas post-treatment by CO2 adsorption. Waste
Manag. 32(1), 60–66.
72. Rizwan Haider, M., Zeshan, Yousaf, S., Malik, R.N., Visvanathan, C., 2015. Effect of
mixing ratio of food waste and rice husk co-digestion and substrate to inoculum ratio on
biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 190, 451–457.
73. Serna-Maza, A., Heaven, S., Banks, C.J., 2014. Ammonia removal in food waste anaerobic
digestion using a side-stream stripping process. Bioresour. Technol. 152, 307-315.
74. Shahriari, H., Warith, M., Kennedy, K.J., 2012. Anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of
municipal solid waste combining two pretreatment modalities e high temperature
microwave and hydrogen peroxide. Waste Manag. 32(1), 41-52.
75. Shahriari, H., Warith, M., Hamoda, M., Kennedy, K., 2013. Evaluation of single vs. staged
mesophilic anaerobic digestion of kitchen waste with and without microwave pretreatment.
J. Environ. Manag. 125, 74–84.
76. Shen, F., Yuan, H., Pang, Y., Chen, S., Zhu, B., Zou, D., Liu, Y., Ma, J., Yu, L., Li, X.,
2013. Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of fruit & vegetable waste (FVW) and food
waste (FW): single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour. Technol. 144, 80–85.
77. Tampio, E., Ervasti, S., Paavola, T. et al., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of autoclaved and
untreated food waste. Waste Manag. 34, 370–377. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.024.
78. Tawfik, A., El-Qelish, M., 2012. Continuous hydrogen production from co-digestion of
municipal food waste and kitchen wastewater in mesophilic anaerobic baffled reactor.
Bioresour. Technol. 114, 270-274.
79. Ventura, J.-R.S., Lee, J., Jahng, D., 2014. A comparative study on the alternating
mesophilic and thermophilic two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. J. Environ.
Science 26, 1274–1283.
80. Voelklein, M.A., Jacob, A., O' Shea, R., Murphy, J.D., 2016. Assessment of increasing
loading rate on two-stage digestion of food waste. Bioresour Technol. 202, 172-180.
81. Wang, X., Zhao, Y., 2009. A bench scale study of fermentative hydrogen and methane
production from food waste in integrated two-stage process. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 34,
245–254.

1
82. Wang, M., Sun, X., Li, P., Yin, L., Liu, D., Zhang, Y., Li, W., Zheng, G., 2014. A novel
alternate feeding mode for semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with
chicken manure. Bioresour. Technol. 164, 309–314.
83. Wu, L.-J., Kobayashi, T., Kuramochi, H., Li, Y.-Y., Xu, K.-Q., 2016. Improved biogas
production from food waste by co-digestion with de-oiled grease trap waste. Bioresour.
Technol. 201, 237–244.
84. Yan, B.H., Selvam, A., Wong, J.W.C., 2016. Innovative method for increased methane
recovery from two-phase anaerobic digestion of food waste through reutilization of
acidogenic off-gas in methanogenic reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 217, 3-9.
85. Yang, L., Huang, Y., Zhao, M. et al., 2015. Enhancing biogas generation performance from
food wastes by high-solids thermophilic anaerobic digestion: effect of pH adjustment. Int.
Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 105, 153–159.
86. Yeshanew, M.M., Frunzo, L., Pirozzi, F., Lens, P.N.L., Esposito, G., 2016. Production of
biohythane from food waste via an integrated system of continuously stirred tank and
anaerobic fixed bed reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 220, 312-322.
87. Yin, Y., Liu, Y., Meng, S., Kiran, E.U., Liu, Y., 2016. Enzymatic pretreatment of activated
sludge, food waste and their mixture for enhanced bioenergy recovery and waste volume
reduction via anaerobic digestion. Applied Energy, 179, 1131-1137.
88. Yirong, C., Heaven, S., Banks, C.J., 2015. Effect of a trace element addition strategy on
volatile fatty acid accumulation in thermophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste
Biomass Valorization 6, 1–12.
89. 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.
90. Zamanzadeh, M., Hagen, L.H., Svensson, K., Linjordet, R., Horn, S.J., 2016. Anaerobic
digestion of food waste—effect of recirculation and temperature on performance and
microbiology. Water Res. 96, 246-254.
91. Zhang, R., El-Mashad, H.M., Hartman, K., Wang, F., Liu, G., Choate, C., Gamble, P.,
2007. Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour.
Technol. 98, 929-935.
92. Zhang, Y., Banks, C.J., Heaven, S., 2012. Co-digestion of source segregated domestic food
waste to improve process stability. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 168–178.
93. Zhang, C., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013a. Batch and semi-continuous anaerobic digestion of food
waste in a dual solid–liquid system. Bioresour. Technol. 145, 10–16.
94. Zhang, Z.-L., Zhang, L., Zhou, Y.-L., Chen, J.-C., Liang, Y.-M., Wei, L., 2013b. Pilot-
scale operation of enhanced anaerobic digestion of nutrient-deficient municipal sludge by
ultrasonic pretreatment and co-digestion of kitchen garbage. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1, 73-
78.
95. Zhang, C., Su, H., Baeyens, J., Tan, T., 2014. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food
waste for biogas production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 38, 383–392.
96. Zhang, W., Wu, S., Guo, J., Zhou, J., Dong, R., 2015a. Performance and kinetic evaluation
of semi-continuously fed anaerobic digesters treating food waste: role of trace elements.
Bioresour. Technol. 178, 297–305.
97. Zhang, W., Zhang, L., Li, A., 2015b. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with MSW
incineration plant fresh leachate: process performance and synergistic effects. Chem. Eng.
J. 259, 795–805.
98. Zhang, J., Lv, C., Tong, J., Liu, J., Liu, J., Yu, D., Wang, Y., Chen, M., Wei, Y., 2016.
Optimization and Microbial Community Analysis of Anaerobic Co-digestion of Food
Waste and Sewage Sludge Based on Microwave Pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 200,
253-261.
99. Zhu, H., Parker, W., Basnar, R., Proracki, A., Falletta, P., Béland, M., Seto, P., 2008.
Biohydrogen production by anaerobic co-digestion of municipal food waste and sewage
sludges. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 33, 3651–3659.
100. Zou, L., Ma, C., Liu, J., Li, M., Ye, M., Qian, G., 2016. Pretreatment of food waste with
high voltage pulse discharge towards methane production enhancement. Bioresour.
Technol. 222, 82-88.

1
Food Waste Volume Temperature Duration VS Methane initial CH4 Initial References
type of batch removal yield F/I (or (%) pH
reactors (%) (L CH4 kg- load)
1
VSfed)

Fig. 1. Composition (%) of Food Waste at household in different regions of the world

Table 1. Methane yields from batch digestion of food waste.

1
Synthetic FW 1L Meso 25 d N.R. 469 ± 6.8 0.5 N.R. N.R. Ariunbataar
et al., 2015
Canteen FW 5L Meso 25 d N.R. 467 0.33 N.R. N.R. Browne and
Murphy,
2013
Canteen FW 0.5 L Meso 25 d N.R. 529 0.33 N.R. N.R. Browne and
Murphy,
2013
FW 35 L 30°C 60 d 42 314 0.57a 65 5.7 Dong et al.,
2010
Waste sorted 1L Meso 30 d 82 353 ± 10 2 54 N.R. El Mashad
by waste gVS/L and Zhang,
company 2010
Source N.R. Meso 40 d N.R. 434±40 0.3-0.4 N.R. 7.1 Facchin et
segregated (inoculum al., 2013
FW A); 338±30
(inoculum
B)
Source N.R. Meso 40 d N.R. 487 0.3-0.4 N.R. N.R. Facchin et
segregated al., 2013
FW + trace
metal mix
(50% of
typical
requirement)
Disposer 2L Meso 16 d N.R. 417a N.R. N.R. 6.7 Izumi et al.,
grinded 2010
standard
Japanese FW
Standard FW 2L Meso 45 d N.R. 435 0.33 N.R. 7.5 Kawai et al.,
2014
Synthetic FW 0.25 L Meso 1221 h N.R. 495 ± 8.5 40 60 N.R. Kong et al.,
(+ 0.4 g gVS/L 2016
ZVI/g VS
FW)
Vegetbale Double Meso/Meso 55 d N.R. 445 18.9 N.R. N.R. Lü et al.,
waste from stage (1 2012
supermarket L each)
Synthetic FW 0.5 L Meso 100 h N.R. 82 7.5 48 ± N.R. Nathao et
10 al., 2013
Synthetic FW Double Meso/Meso 100 h N.R. 94 7.5 N.R. N.R. Nathao et
stage al., 2013
(0.5 L
each)
Local waste 0.5 L Meso 30 d N.R. 492.7 ± 9.3 0.5 N.R. N.R. Voelklein et
management al., 2016
company
Canteen FW 1L Meso 28 d N.R. 410 8 75 7.3 Zhang et al.,
gVS/L 2013a
Restaurant 1L 50°C 25 d 93.6 510 1.6 65.6 7.2 Liu et al.,
FW 2009
Canteen FW 0.5 L Thermo 28 d 95.85 178a 1.5 54 8 Yang et al.,
2015
Waste sorted 1L Thermo 28 d 81 435 2 73 7.6 Zhang et al.,
by waste gVS/L 2007
company
a
calculated from data provided in the manuscript.
N.R. not reported

1
Table 2. Best semi-continuous performances of single and two-stage anaerobic
digestion systems in terms of methane conversion
FW one or two Tem HRT OLR Durati VS Methane Referenc
type/source stage reactors pera (d) (g VS L-1d- on removal yield es
1
(volume) ture ; kg VS m- (d) (%) (L CH4 kg-1
3 -1
d VSfed)
kitchen 2 (1L; 5L) ther 2;10 N.R. 60 . 364 Chu et
garbage mo/t al., 2012
herm
o
Kitchen 1 (5m3) meso N.R. 3.79 6 months 96 380 Grimb
erg et
al.,
2015
2(5 m3; 5 m3) meso N.R. 0.78 400 93 446
/mes
o
dining hall 2 (8L; 40L) ther 2.87;1 15 78.7 (as 470 Kobay
raw food mo/t 4.4 COD) ashi et
waste herm al., 2012
o
diningh hall 2 (10L; 40L) ther 1.9/7. 39 g COD 100 450.6 Lee et al., 2010
mo/t 7 L-1d-1; 8.4g
herm COD L-1d-1
o
incoming FW 2 (200L;380L ) ther 3.3/12 18.4/4.8 140 476 Micolucc
at the WWTP mo/t .6 i et al.,
herm 2014
o
local waste 1 (3L working meso 16 9.2 45 91.8 455 Nagao et
management volume) al.,2012
comp
synthetic 1 (12 L ther 50 6.3 kg COD 38 72 430±2 Qiang et al.,
working vol) mo m3 day-1 2013
synthetic + 1 (12 L ther 30 6.3 kg COD 120 78 475±95
TEs working vol) mo m3 day-1
FW +fruit 1 (8L) meso 30 1-3.5 210 328-544 Shen et
and vegetable al., 2013
waste
2 (5L; 8L) meso 10/10 1°stage: 2.0 210 198-546
/mes – 10
o 2°stage: 1.0
– 5.0
souce 1 (1L) meso 78 3 100 77.7 483 ±13 Tampio et
segregated al., 2014
domestic
food waste
food waste 2 (10L;30L) Mes 5.0/15 3.2 195 78.5 380 Ventura
recycling o/me et al.,
company so 2014
2 (10L;30L) Mes 5.0/15 4.4 109 81.7 440
o/ter
mo
2 (10L;30L) ther 5.0/15 4 43 79.2 370
mo/
meso
local waste 2 (5L; 5L) meso 4/12 15;5 N.R. 389.2±31.8 Voelklei
management /mes n et al.,
comp o 2016
1 (5L) meso 16 4 N.R. 316.4 ± 17.9
restaurant 2 (450L; 40°C 160h( 22.65; 4.61 125 546 Wang
1500L) /40° SRT); and
C 26.67d Zhao,
2009
synthetic 2 (1.6 CSTR; ther 3.7/1. 3.4/6.1g 30 334.7* Yeshane
1.3 AFBR; mo/ 5 COD L-1d-1 w et al.,
with meso 2016
recirculation)

1
source segregated 1 (5L) ther N.R. 2 50 400 Yirong et
domestic FW mo al., 2015
(with TEs)
pasteurized 1 (10L) meso 20 3 152 480 Zaman
±33 zadeh
et al.,
2016
1(10L) ther 20 3 152 448
mo ±44
canteen 1 (1L) meso 25 7 N.R. 405 Zhang et al.,
2013a
campus 1(6L) meso 40 4.5 22 460 Zhang
restaurant et al.,
(with TEs) 2015a
CSTR: continuous stirred tank reactor; AFBR anaerobic fixed bed reactor; N.R.:not reported; *in L CH4
kg-1 COD d-1

1
 Table 3. Best operating conditions and hydrogen yields from food waste fermentation,
in single and dual stage.
Single-Stage
Inoculu Operative conditions
m Reactor Tempera HRT Organ pH Durati Referen
Inoculu
Waste Pre- type ture (°C) (h) ic on H2 Yield ces
m
treatme Load
nt
Mesophil
ic
39 mL g-
anaerobic 1
35 NR S/I: 6 44 h VSfed
sludge Pan et
FW - Batch NR
Thermop al., 2008
55 NR S/I: 7 44 h 57 mL g-
hilic 1
VSfed
anaerobic
sludge
Heat 219.9 mL g-
1
FW pretreat VSfed
Anaerobi Batch Han et
hydrolys ment 37 NR NR 4.0 - 4.6 75 d (1.56 mol
c sludge (0.5 L) -1 al., 2015
ate (T=100° mol glucose
C; t=6 h) added)
Heat
Initial
pretreate
pH:8 1.92 mol mol-
d FW Batch 1 Kim et
None - 35 NR NR Operati 100 h hexose
(T=90°C; (0.2 L) al., 2011
onal added
t=20
pH:5
min);
162 mL g-
Alkali 1
VSfed
pretreate Batch Jang et
None - 37 NR NR 6.0 1.2 d (1.71 mol
d FW (0.3L) al., 2015
mol-1 hexose
(pH:12)
added)
Heat
FW Max 149 mL
pretreat 4
(ultrasou Batch g-1VSfed
Anaerobi ment gCOD Gadhe et
nd pre- (0.125 37 NR 5.5 NR (FW
c sludge (T=90°C g- al., 2014
treatment L) 1 TS=8%;USti
; t=20 VSS
) me:15 min)
min)
80.6 mL g-
1
COD
(2.8% T80)
FW
Heat 70:30 82.4 mL g-
(pretreat 1
pretreat % COD
ment Batch Elsamad
Sewage ment (v/v) (1.7 g L-1
with T80 (0.18 55 NR NR 60 h ony et
sludge (T=100° 22.6 PEG)
and L) al., 2015
C; t=15 (VS/V 85.6 mL g-
PEG6000
min) S)a 1
COD
)
(2.8%
T80+1.7 g L-1
PEG)
Incline
Heat
d plug
pretreat
flow 8.19 Jayalaks
Kitchen Digested ment HRT:1 72 mL g-
reactor n.r. gVS 5.6 NR hmi et
waste slurry (T=100° 68a 1
VSfed
(150 L) L-1d-1 a al., 2009
C; t=30
pilot
min)
scale
OFMSW
Elbeshbi
(ultrasoni
Batch Initial 118 mL g- shy et
c + acid None - 37 NR NR 360 h 1
(0.2 L) pH:5.5 VSfed al., 2011
pretreate
a
d)
CSTR
Ultrason with
ic pre- ultraso
Elbeshbi
treatmen nic 14.5
Anaerobi 332 mL g- shy et
OFMSW t probe 37 24 gVSS 5-6 45 d 1
c sludge VSSfed al., 2011
(Espec=79 (2 L) L-1d-1
b
kJ kg- continu
1
TS) ous
mode
UASB
Municipa
reactor 29 245 mL g- Tawfik
l food 1
sludge ABR 38.4 gCOD CODremoved and El-
waste+ - 35 -1 - 5.0 - 5.2 250 d
for H2 (26 L) (1.6 d) tot L d 558 mL g- Qelish,
kitchen 1 1
productio VSremoveda 2012
waste
n
1
 CSTR
(3 L)
11.4 Redonda
Acidogen Semi- 10 20.5 mL g-
FW - 34 48 gVS 5.5 1 s et al.,
ic sludge continu HRT VSfed
L-1d-1 2012
ous
mode

Table 3. Continue
Operative conditions
Inoculum
Waste Inoculum Reactor type Temperature HRT (h) Organic Load pH
Pre-treatment
(°C)
CMISR (3.2 L)
WWTP packing ratio:15% 40 kgVS m-3d-1
FW hydrolysate Aeration (30 d) NR 6 ˃4
sludge of activated 16 kgVS m-3d-1
carbon
SRT:45.6
FW + OFMSW (20:80) No - SSRT 55 66 gVS L-1d-1 5.54
(1.9 d)
Anaerobic
FW - CSTR (4.5 L) 55 120 23.6 kgCOD m-3d-1 NR
sludge
Two-Stage
FW No - SCRD (200 L) 40 SRT:160 22.65 kgVS m-3d-1 5.6 - 5.
Heat pretreatment
Anaerobic Semi-continuous 45.6
FW (T=90°C; t=30 min) + 55 39 (gCOD L-1d-1) 5.4 - 5.
sludge reactor (10 L) (1.9 d)
acclimatization
Heat pretreatment
Anaerobic Semi-continuous 68.9
FW (T=90°C; t=30 min) + 55 NR 5.4-5.6
sludge reactor (8 L) (2.87 d)
acclimatization
Anaerobic Heat pretreatment CSTR (1 L)
Kitchen garbage 55 2d NR 5.5
sludge (T=70°C; t=30 min) Semi-continuous
Full scale Two stage batch
Heat pretreatment
FW UASB reactor fermentation 37 NR S/I : 7.5 Initial pH
(T=90°C; t=30 min)
sludge (0.5 L)
Source-segregated FW WWTP
CSTR (1 L)
(+2nd phase recycled mesophilic - 52 72 20 gVS L-1d-1 5.22
Semi-continuous
sludge) digestate
Mesophilic CSTR (5 L)
FW anaerobic - semi continuous 35 10 2 gVS l-1 d-1 NR
sludge mode
nd
OFMSW (+2 phase CSTR (200 L) 79.2
No - 55 18.4 kgVS m-3d-1 5.2
recycled sludge) Semi-continuous (3.3 d)
Heat pretreatment
Anaerobic (T=120°C; t=20 min) CSTR (1.35 L) 9 gVS L-1d-1
Source-segregated FW 35 96 5.5
sludge + 1 M HCl + Semi-continuous (tested range 6-15)
acclimatization (20 d)
Anaerobic CSTR (1.6 L) 88.8
FW - 55 3.4 gVS L-1d-1 5.0 - 5.
sludge Semi-continuous (3.7 d)
FW (no pretreatment) UASB
Heat pretreatment
FW (aeration pretreatment; granular Batch (1 L) 35 NR S/I: 0.3 6.0
(T=80°C; t=15 min)
air flow = 5L h-1; t=24 h) digestate
ABR: anaerobic buffled reactor; CSTR: continuous stirred tank reactor; CMISR: continuous mixed
immobilized sludge reactor; SCRD: semi-continuous rotating drum;
SSRT: semi-continuous stirred tank reactor; UASB: upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; NR: Not
reported; v/v = volume/volume
a
Calculated

1
Table 4. Operative conditions and anaerobic performances of co-digestion of food waste
with other substrates
FW + Animal Waste
Co- Pretreatme Process Operative conditions Performances References
substrates nt type
(Shredding Tem HRT OLR or Duration VS CH4 H2
excluded) p (d) S/I (d) remov yield yiel
(°C) al (L d
(%) CH4 (L
kg- H2
1
VS) kg-
1
VS
)
FW+PMa None Batch (0.5 37 - S/I = 3 35 NR Dennehy et
(VS ratio) L) (VS 54% 320 al., (2016)
(20/80) based) 63% 443
(40/60) 68% 489
(60/40) 71% 521
(80/20)
FW+DMb None Batch (1 L) 35 - Initial 30 NR El-Mashad
(VS ratio) loading 60% 282 and Zhang
(32/68) =3 gVS 68% 311 (2010)
(48/52) L-1
FW+DMb None CSTR (2 L) 36 80 2 gVS 180 NR 630 NR Agyeman
(VS ratio) L-1 d-1 (fine- and Tao
(50/50) grinde (2014)
d FW)
470
(coars
e-
grinde
d FW)
FW+ChMc None CSTR (3.5 35 35 2.5 gVS 225 NR 508 NR Wang et al.,
(Alternate L) L-1 d-1 (2014)
feeding)
FW+CSf (VS None CSTR (75 36 30 2 gVS 308 NR 220 NR Zhang et al.,
ratio) L) L-1 d-1 (2012)
(20/80)
FW+CMd None Induced 55 20 5.53 40 82.5% 330 NR Castrillón et
(w/w) Bed gCOD al. (2013)
(10/90) Reactor (19 L-1 d-1
L)
FW+CoMg None SBR (24 L) 20 NR 0.8–4.2 205 NR 477 ± NR Rajagopal et
(NR) gVS L-1 (Cycle 88 al. (2017)
d-1 length=7 (last
d) 24
cycles)
FW + Sewage Sludge
FW+PSh+W None Batch (0.1 NR - S/I = 4 NR NR NR Zhu et al.
ASi (v/v) L) (Volum 104 (2008)
(75/12.5/12.5 e based) 112
) 10
(50/25/25)
(25/37.5/37.5
)
FW+SSj (TS Batch (0.4 37 - S/I = 5 35 NR Zhang et al.,
ratio) None L) (TS 50% 297 (2016)
(50/50) Microwave based) 48.1% 311
(50/50) s
FW+WASi None Two-stage 37 - S/I = 2.3 55 18% - - 25 - Liu et al.,
(w/w) batch - S/I = 3.0 (hours) 50% 216 - 106 (2013)
(Several tests (0.1 L) (VS 1000 22% - 354 -
with FW based) (hours) 32%
contents =
10%; 20%;
30%; 40%;
54%; 85%)
FW+WASi None CSTR (2 L) 16.7 2 gVS NR Gou et al.,
(TS ratio) 35 d L-1 d-1 160 d 62% 250 (2014)
(33.3/66.6) 45 178 d 60% 290
(33.3/66.6) 55 188 d 58% 370
(33.3/66.6)
FW+DSk (VS None CSTR (6 L) 35 20 NR NR Dai et al.,
ratio) 6.3 gVS 46% 258 (2013)
(30/70) L-1 d-1 58% 332
(50/50) 7.2 gVS 67% 380

1
(70/30) L-1 d-1
7.6 gVS
L-1 d-1
FW+WASi None Single-stage 35 20 0.85 350 46% 960 NR Zhang et al.,
(VS ratio) pilot CSTR gVS L-1 (bioga (2013b)
(16.5/83.5) (20 tonns) d-1 s)
FW+WASi None Two-stage 35 NR NR 350 48% 440 NR
(VS ratio) pilot CSTR (bioga
(16.5/83.5) (4.5+15.5 s)
tonns)
FW + Green and Agro/Waste
FW+OHl None Batch (0.3 37 - S/I = 0.6 30 49% 505 84 Pagliaccia et
(w/w) Thermal L) (VS 53% 91 87 al., (2016)
(67/33) based)
FW+GWm None Batch (1 L) 50 - S/I = 1.6 25 90.8% 430 NR Liu et al.,
(VS ratio) 50 S/I = 3.1 82.5% 359 (2009)
(50/50) 50 S/I = 4.0 80.8% 390
50 S/I = 5.0 60.2% 337
35 S/I = 3.1 48.7% 185
(VS/VS
S based)
FW+Sn None Batch (1 L) 35 - Initial NR NR NR Yong et al.,
(w/w) loading 171 (2015)
(20/80) =5 gVS 299
(60/40) L-1 313
(80/20)
FW+RHo None Batch (1 L) 37 - S/I = 45 55% 557 NR Rizwan
(VS ratio) 0.25 48% (bioga Haider et
(98/2) S/I = 0.5 31% s) al., (2015)
S/I = 1.0 27% 458
S/I = 1.5 24% (bioga
S/I = 2.0 s)
(VS 267
based) (bioga
s)
97
(bioga
s)
71
(bioga
s)
FW+MHp None CSTR (5 L) 37 68 1 gVS 120 80.7% 400 NR Owamah
(w/w) 27 L-1 d-1 120 76.5% 408 and Izinyon
(75/25) 19 2.5 gVS 120 74.3% 447 (2015)
15 L-1 d-1 120 78.3% 482
3.5 gVS
L-1 d-1
4.5 gVS
L-1 d-1
FW+FVWq None One-stage 35 30 Single 210 NR 328 - - Shen et al.
(VS ratio) CSTR (8 L) 10 stage: 140 544 5- (2013)
(81/19) Two-stage 10 1.0 – 3.5 210 - 28
CSTR (5 L gVS L-1 198 - -
+ 8 L) d-1 546
1°stage:
2.0 – 10
gVS L-1
d-1
2°stage:
1.0 – 5.0
gVS L-1
d-1
FW+RTLr None Pilot scale 35 30 6.8 gVS 112 80.4% 153 NR Ratanatams
(w/w) one stage L-1 d-1 kul and
(95/5) (2500 L) 30 89.2% 283 Manpetch
Pilot scale 9.5 gVS (2016)
two stage L-1 d-1
(1000 L +
2500 L)
FW+LWs None High Solids 35 175 2 gCOD 141 NR 229 NR Drennan and
(FW and LW Digester (SR L-1 d-1 DiStefano
mixed to (280 L) T) (2014)
obtain
constant
OLR and
reactor
TS=20%)
FW+RHo None Pilot scale 37 26 5 gVS 27 82.4% 446 NR Jabeen et al.
(mixed to Plug-Flow 25 L-1 d-1 52 73.1% (bioga (2015)
obtain a (80 L) 14 6 gVS 30 35.4% s)

1
C/N=28) L-1 d-1 399
9 gVS (bioga
L-1 d-1 s)
215
(bioga
s)
FW + Other Waste
FW+GTWu None CSTR (6 L) 35 30 NR 180 77.4% 620 - Wu et al.
(NR) TPADx (10 55+3 6+24 73.3% 520 - (2016)
L) 5 3+12 78.8% 470 13.
TPADry 55+3 5
(7.5 L) 5
FW+BWv None Acidogenic 35 2 18 gVS 47 29% - 78. Paudel et al.
(v/v) CSTR (8 L) 35 1 L-1 d-1 34 27% - 5 (2017)
(70/30) 35 0.5 35 gVS 27 26% - 73.
35 0.33 L-1 d-1 25 NR - 6
Methanoge 35 20 71 gVS 70 52.5% 728 80.
nic 35 15 L-1 d-1 80 44% 676 5
CSTR (30 106 99.
-1
L) gVS L 8
d-1 -
1.24 -
gVS L-1
-1
d
1.76
gVS L-1
d-1
w
FW+FIL None CSTR (0.3 37 20 4.1 gVS 70 78% 479 - Zhang et al.
(VS ratio) L) 15 L-1 d-1 70 76% 452 - (2015b)
(77/23) 10 6.2 gVS 70 72% 506 -
L-1 d-1
8.3 gVS
L-1 d-1
a
PM= Pig Manure; DM=Dairy Manure; ChM=Chicken Manure; dCM=Cattle Manure; eSS=Sewage Sludge;
b c
f
CS=Cattle Slurry; gCoM=Cow Manure;
h
PS=Primary Sludge; iWAS=Waste Activated Sludge; jSS=Sewage Sludge; kDS=Dewatered Sludge; lOH=Olive Husk;
m
GW=Green Waste;
n
S=Straw; oRH=Rice Husk; pMH=Maize Husk; qFVW=Fruit and Vegetable Waste; rRTL=Rain Tree Leafs;
s
LW=Landscape Waste;
t
OFMSW=Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste; uGTW=De-oiled Grease Trap Waste; vBW=Brown Water;
w
FIL=Fresh Incineration plant Leachate;
x
TPAD=Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion; yTPADr=TPAD with biomass recycling.
NR=Not Reported; S/I=Substrate/Inoculum ratio; w/w = weight/weight; v/v = volume/volume.

1
 Table 5. Pre-treatment impact on solubilization and anaerobic digestion performances
Type Su Pretreatment Pretre Process type and Solubilisation Result Refer
bst method atmen parameters s ences
rat t
e conditi
ori ons
gin
Sou Autoclave T=160 T=37°C; F/I=1 (VS); +16% sCOD, +22% NH4-N 445 Tampi
rce °C; Working volume= 0.4 L; mLCH o et
seg p=6.2 Duration= 35 days 4/gVSfe al.,
reg bars d vs 2014
ate 501
d mL
do CH4/g
mes VSfed (-
tic 11%)
FW
Caf Autoclave T T=37°C; F/I=0.6 (VS); pHi +35% sCOD,+75% soluble sugars**; 23 Paglia
eter max=1 set to 7 Working volume +58% soluble proteins** mLH2/ ccia et
ia 34°C; =0.3 L; Duration= 30 days gVSfed al.,
foo p vs 5 2016
d max=3 mLH2/
was .2 bar; gVSfed
te Retenti (+360
on %);
time= 385
20 min mLCH
4/gVSfe
d vs
446
mLCH
4/gVSfe
d (-
14%)
Uni Autoclave T T=35°C; Load= 0.8 gVS; +27% sCOD, +19% soluble sugars 39.2 Hu et
ver max=1 No inoculum addition; mLH2/ al.,
sity 21°C; Working volume = 0.03 L; gVSfed 2014
Can Retenti Duration= 5 days; vs 0.4
tee on mLH2/
THERMAL

n time= gVSfed
BATCH

15 min **
(+9700
%)
Kit Thermal T=120 T=35°C; 2 phase system; 899 Li and
che °C; Working volume mLCH Jin,
n Retenti acidogenic= 5.5 L; 4/gVSfe 2015
was on Duration= 21 days; d ** vs
te time= 607mL
50 min CH4/g
VSfed
**
(+48%
)
Kit Thermal T=175 T=35°C; F/I= 0.2;pHi set to +114% soluble sugars **, +204% soluble -7.9% Liu et
che °C; 7.5;Working volume= 0.25 proteins ** (kitchen waste); +312% on al.,
n Retenti L; Duration= 15 days; soluble sugars **, +185% soluble methan 2012
was on proteins ** (vegetable/fruit residue) e yield
te; time= mLCH
veg 60 min 4/gVSfe
eta d
ble/ (kitche
frui n
t waste);
resi -11.7%
due on
methan
e yield
mLCH
4/gVSfe
d
(vegeta
ble/frui
t
residue
)

1
 Syn Thermal T=80° T=33°C; F/I= 0.5 (VS); 647 Ariun
thet (various) C; Working volume= 1 L; mLCH baatar
ic Retenti Duration= 220 days; 4/gVSfe et al.,
foo on d vs 2014
d time= 426
was 90 min mLCH
te 4/gVSfe
d
(+52%
)
Din Microwave Micro T=37°C; F/I=5 (TS); Co- -25% sCOD **, -52% soluble sugars **, 316 Zhang
ing wave digestion with sewage +45% soluble proteins** mLCH4/ et
hall freque sludge (ratio FW:SS=3:2 gVSfed al.,20
ncy= TS based) Working (ratio 16
2450 volume= 0.4 L; Duration= MW-
MHz; 35 days FW:SS
Ambie 3:2) vs
nt 71
pressur mLCH4/
e; gVSfed
Power (only
= FW)
600W; (+347
Tmax=1 %)
00°C;
No
retenti
on
time
M- Microwave Micro T=33°C; Working volume= +21% sCOD **, +12.5% soluble proteins +8% Shahri
OF wave 0.155 L; Duration= 30 ** on total ari et
MS freque days* biogas al.,
W ncy= produc 2012
(rep 2450 tion **
rese MHz;
ntat Tmax=1
ive 15°C;
of Ramp
Can time=
adi 40
an min;
kitc Retenti
hen on
was time=
te) 1 min
Camp Ultrasounds Pow T=37° +7% sCOD 48 Gadhe et
us er= C; F/I= mLH2/gVSfed al., 2014
cafete 1200 4 vs 15
ria W; (COD/ mLH2/gVSfed
Freq VSS); (220%)
uenc pHi set
y= to 5.5;
20 Worki
kHz; ng
Tmax volum
= e=
30° 0.125
C; L;
Rete
ntio
MECHANICAL

n
time
= 15
min
Food Ultrasounds Ener T=35° 206 Naran et
waste (various) gy C; F/I mLCH4/gVS al., 2016
treatm inten (VSS) Sremoved vs
ent sity = 137
plant = 60**; mLCH4/gVSr
7300 Worki emoved (+50%)
KJ/k ng
gTS vol=
S**; 0.06 L;
Rete Durati
ntio on= 20
n days
time
= 30
min

1
 Unive HVPD (High Puls T=35° +16% sCOD, +53% soluble sugars, +1149% soluble 315 Zou et al.,
rsity Voltage e C; proteins (40kV, 5mm, 300Hz, 30 min); +107% mLCH4/gCO 2016
Cante Pulse volta F/I=0.5 sCOD, +25% soluble sugars, +171% soluble proteins Dremoved vs
en Discharge); ge= (VS); (34kV, 5mm, 400Hz, 30 min) 234mLCH4/g
(various) 40k pHi set CODremoved
V; to 7; (+35%).
Elec Worki
trod ng
e volum
dista e= 1 L;
nce= Durati
5m on= 45
m; days *
Puls
e
freq
uenc
y=
400
Hz;
Rete
ntio
n
time
=
30m
in
Unive Enzymatic Gluc T=35° +1547% sCOD*,** 468 Kiran et
rsity hydrolysis oam C; F/I= mLCH4/gVSf al., 2015
Cafete ylas 0.5 ed vs 198
ria e gVS/g mLCH4/gVSf
loadi VSS** ed (+137%)
ng= ;
10 Worki
U/gd ng
ryF volum
W e= 0.3
T= L**;
60° Durati
C; on= 30
cont days;
act
time
=
24h
Unive Enzymatic Gluc T=35° +25% sCOD*,** 817 Yin et al.,
rsity hydrolysis oam C; F/I= mLCH4/gVSf 2016
Cante ylas 5 ed vs 610
en e (TS/V mLCH4/gVSf
BIOLOGICAL

conc S)**; ed (+34%)

entra Worki
tion ng
=2 volum
g/L; e=
T= 0.16 L;
60° Durati
C; on= 30
cont days*;
act
time
=
24h
Synth Aeration Air T=35° -19 ÷ -33% Rafieenia et
etic flow C; on H2 al., 2017
food rate F/I=0.3 production
waste = (VS); 2 mLH2/gVSfed;
5L/h phase -10 ÷ +46%
; system on methane
Cont ; production
act Worki mLCH4/gVSf
time ng ed according
= volum to food waste
24h e= 1 L; type
Durati
on= 73
days*
Resea Alkaline Rea T=37° 162 Jang et al.,
CHEMICAL

rch gent C; mLH2/gVSfed 2015

institu = Load= (no control
te 6N 30 data were
cafete KO gCOD reported)
1
 ria H; carb/L;
pHfin pHi set
=12; to 8.0;
Cont Worki
act ng
time volum
= 6h e= 0.3
L;
Durati
on=
28h*
Camp Surfactants T80 T=55° 86 Elsamadon
us conc C; F/I= mLH2/gCODi y et al.,
restau entra 22.6 vs 62 2015
rant tion (VS)** mLH2/gCODi
= ; pHi (37%)
2.8 set to
%; 7.0;
PEG Worki
conc ng
entra volum
tion e=
=1.7 0.18
g/L mL;
T= Durati
37° on=
C; 60h
Cont
act
time
= 8h
M- Microwave + H2O T=33° +35% sCOD **, +101% soluble proteins ** +6% on total Shahriari et
OFM H2O2 2 C; biogas al., 2012
SW adde Worki production
(repre d= ng **
sentati 0.38 volum
ve of g/gT e=
Canad S at 0.155
ian 30% L;
kitche (v/v) Durati
n ; on= 30
waste) Cont days*
act
time
=1
h;
Micr
owa
ve
freq
uenc
y=
2450
MH
COMBINATION

z;
Tmax
=
85°
C;
Ram
p
time
= 40
min;
Rete
ntio
n
time
=1
min;
Organ Ultrasounds Pow T=37° +30% sCOD *,**; +31% soluble sugars; +35% 118 Elbeshbish
ics with acid er= C; soluble proteins *,** mLH2/gVSfed y et al.,
Proce (various) 500 No vs 42 2011a
ssing W; inocul mLH2/gVSfed
Facilit Freq um (+181%)
y uenc additio
y= n;
20 pHi set
kHz; to 5.5;
Tma Worki
x= ng

1
 30° volum
C; e= 0.2;
spec Durati
ific on= 15
ener days *
gy
inpu
t=
7900
kJ/k
gTS;
pHfi
n=
3.0
(1N
HCl)
;
Cont
act
time
=
24h
at
4°C

Sourc Autoc T=16 T=37°C; +16% sCOD, +22% NH4-N 439 mLCH4/gVSfed vs 465 Tampio et
e lave 0°C; OLR=4 mLCH4/gVSfed (-6%) al., 2014
segre p=6.2 kgVS/m3·
gated bars d; HRT=
dome 47 d (Untr
stic 58d);
FW duration=
162 days
**;
Working
volume=
11 L
Synth Micro Micro T=35°C; +19% sCOD** 1.50 LCH4/L·gVSremoved·d vs 1.31 Shahriari et
THERMAL

etic wave wave OLR= LCH4/L·gVSremoved·d (+14.5%) al., 2013

kitch freque 3.26
en ncy= kgVS/
waste 2450 m3·d; 2
MHz; phase
Tmax= system;
145°C HRTacido
; genic= 2d;
Ramp HRTmeth
= anogenic=
SEMICONTINUOUS

2.7°C 7d;
/min Working
volume=
0.3/0.6L
Duration=
20d *;
Orga Ultras
Power T=37°C; +9% sCOD, +17% soluble 247 mLH2/gVSSfed vs 180 Elbeshbishy
nics ounds
= 500 CSTR sugars, +20% soluble proteins mLH2/gVSSfed (+37%) et al., 2011b
Proce W; reactor
ssing Frequ (HRT= 2
Facili ency= days;
ty 20 OLR=
kHz; 14.5 for
Tmax untreated
= and 13.4
MECHANICAL

30°C; gVSS/L·d
Specif for
ic sonicated);
energ Working
y volume =
input 2 L;
= Duration=
5000 45 days;
kJ/kg
TS;
Reten
tion
time=
24
min
* deducted from the graph; ** calculated

1
 More than 400 papers in the last 5 years have been published on FW into energy
 Food waste complexity and composition affects anaerobic conversion
 Scaling up of the AD process is fundamental to assess the real methane potential
 Methanogenesis is often rate limiting step leading to pH drop and instability
 Strategies to improve AD performances and stability are here reviewed