Indexed in

Scopus Compendex and Geobase Elsevier, Chemical

Abstract Services-USA, Geo-Ref Information Services-USA,
List B of Scientific Journals, Poland,
Directory of Research Journals
www.cafetinnova.org April 2015, P.P.877-892
ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 08, No. 02

Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using

Different Techniques- A Review
MUHAMMAD RASHED AL MAMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII
Department of Mechanical System Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Kumamoto
University, 2-39-1 Kurokami, Kumamoto 860-8555 Japan
Email: rashedshahi@gmail.com, torii@mech.kumamoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract: Biomass is one of the most promising renewable energy sources which are utilizable to produce biogas
through anaerobic digestion (AD), a feasible alternative for fossil fuel as well as organic solid waste disposal. The
methane yields in biogas can be improved through co-digestion, a combination of hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis and methanogenesis four anaerobic treatment stages which are capable to establish a synergy between
the digestion medium and supply of missing nutrients. The most common constraints during biomass digestion are:
the large HRT, PH, temperature and contaminant by CO2, with traces of water vapor and hydrogen sulfide. To use in
mechanical power or in the natural gas grid it is necessary to remove the contaminants, as well as to adjust the
calorific value. Usually the high density CO2 is separated through pressure swing adsorption, membrane separation,
or chemical absorption method. Air dosing, addition of iron chloride into the biogas digester and adsorption on iron
oxide pellets, are common for removal of H 2S. Condensation and drying methods are used to remove water in
combination with foam and dust. However, different upgrading methods are differs in functioning, quality of
incoming gas and the operational efficiency. This paper reviews the accelerate process of biogas generation from
various sources the respected variation in the parameters and the comparative methane upgrading techniques.
Besides, investment, operation and maintenance costs are also taken into consideration.
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion, Biomass, Biogas, Co-digestion, Upgradation

1. Introduction treatment of organic solids biomass for biogas

Energy is considered as one of the basic elements that
are essential for the progress of human civilization and
all development activities. Agriculture, industry,
transport, commercial and domestic in every sector of
world economy highly depended on energy. Every day
in this sectors rising consumption of energy has resulted
becoming increasingly dependent on fossil fuels such as
coal, oil and natural gas. Therefore, rapidly growing of
population, urbanization and industrialization the world
is unavoidable faced with energy crisis of conventional
fuel and causes environmental problems both locally
and globally [1]. It is thinkable that, natural gas and
mineral sources of energy are depleting state
measurably and stored mineral energy would come to its
last layer due to diversified use within next several
decades. As a result, energy consuming life style, need
for searching and utilizing new energy sources which
are renewable as well as eco-friendly is a must. Million
tons of various biomasses are produced annually from
livestock, municipal, industrial and agricultural sources
which have a very good potential to provide renewable
energy. But their indiscriminate decomposition results
in large-scale contamination of land, water, and air. In
this regards, research continues to focus on the
production through AD and possible optimization
technique which could be used to enhance the biogas
production and upgradation for practical applicability of
technology for meeting energy demands. In fact proper
functioning of biogas system can provide multiple
benefits to the users and the community resulting in
resource conservation and environmental protection.
AD and chemical compositions of the biogas depends
on the nature of raw feedstock’s and the operational
conditions [2]. Raw biogas is a mixture of methane (40–
75%) and carbon dioxide (15–60%) with small amounts
of other gases and by-products, i.e. hydrogen sulfide
(0.005–2%), nitrogen (0–2%), carbon monoxide
(<0.6%), oxygen (0–1%) and ammonia (<1%). Trace
amounts of siloxanes (0–0.02%), halogenated
hydrocarbons (<0.65%) and other non-methane organic
compounds are also sometimes present. Usually this
mixed gas is saturated with water vapour and may
contain dust particles and might be inconvenient for use
when not removed [3-8]. Biogas upgrading nowadays is
a state-of-the-art-process of gas separation. A number of
different technologies to fulfill the task of producing a
biomethane stream of sufficient quality to act as a
vehicle fuel or to be injected into the natural gas grid are

#02080248 Copyright ©2015 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved.

 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques-
A Review
already commercially available and have proven to be
technically and economically feasible. The right choice
of the raw biogas to be upgraded, of the economically
optimal technology is strongly depending on the quality
and quantity, the desired biomethane and the final
utilization of this gas, the operation of the AD plant and
the types and continuity of the used substrates as well as
the local circumstances at the plant site. Depending on
the raw biogas composition this separation task
comprises the separation of carbon dioxide, the drying
of the gas, the removal of trace substances like oxygen,
nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia or siloxanes as
well as the compression to a pressure needed for the
further gas utilization. Nevertheless, intensive research
is still in progress to optimize and further develop these
technologies as well as to apply novel technologies to
the field of biogas transform to biomethane. No
technology exists for optimal solution of each and every
biogas upgrading situation because all technologies
have their own specific advantages and disadvantages.
This paper presented a comprehensive overview of the
biogas production enhancement with operational
conditions and upgrading methods are given below.
This overview is oriented according to the components
that need biogas production and removal of unwanted
composition.
1.1. Historical background of biogas
Anecdotal evidence indicates that biogas was used for
heating bath water in Assyria during the l0 th century BC
and 16th century in Persia. In 17th century Jan Baptita
Van Helmont first determined that decaying organic
matter could evolve flammable gases. Since 1776 Count
Alessandro Volta concluded that there was a direct
correlation between the amount of decaying organic
matter and the amount of flammable gas produced. The
first digestion plant was built at a leper colony in
Bombay, India in 1859 [9]. AD reached England in
1895 when biogas was recovered from a "carefully
designed" sewage treatment facility and used to fuel
street lamps in Exeter [10]. The development of
microbiology as a science led to research by Buswell
[11] and others in the 1930s to identify anaerobic
bacteria and the conditions that promote methane
production. It can be used as a fuel when it becomes
biomethane using gas purification techniques much like
compressed natural gas and used to internal combustion
engine in any country. In 1942-44, garbage collection
trucks with diesel engines were operated using purified
and compressed sewer gas in Zurich, Switzerland [12].
2. Process Mechanisms of Biogas
Anaerobic microorganisms in an anoxic environment
decompose biodegradable matter in a scientific way is
called biomethanation, or methanogenesis, [13]. In the
swamps, peat bogs, lakes, ponds, hot springs, and the
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
878
intestines of ruminants naturally occurs it [14]. Biogas
produced by extracting chemical energy from organic
material in sealed container can be applied in
mechanisms called biogas digester to produce
commercially applicable, stable compounds. The
biological conversion of organic matter in
methanogenesis takes place in four different stages and
is influenced by a number of different factors [15].
Hydrolysis is the first step in biomethanation. In this
stage hydrolyzed complex organic matters, like as
proteins carbohydrates and lipids into sugars, amino
acids and fatty acids by extracellular enzyme (cellulase,
amylase, protease or lipase) as soluble organic
molecules, [16]. In the second step acidogenesis or
acidification, the soluble organic molecules from
hydrolysis are utilized by fermentative bacteria or
anaerobic oxidizers to produce volatile fatty acids
(acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid), alcohols,
aldehydes and CO2, H2 and NH3 gases. Acetogenesis is
the third step where acidification produced products is
converted by acetogenic bacteria into acetic acids,
hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Finally in
methanogenesis step, methanogenic archaea are
converted acetate and H2/CO2 into CH4 and CO2.
3. Biogas Generating Factors
The degradation efficiency of biogas reactor and
microbial activity can be enhanced by studying and
monitoring of various factors like pH, temperature,
HRT, OLR, stirring, etc. Any drastic change in
parameters can adversely affect the biogas production.
Therefore, the above parameters should be varied within
a desirable range to operate the biogas plant efficiently
and economically.
3.1. Hydraulic retention time (HRT)
Hydraulic retention time denoted by HRT refers to the
average time period for which the fermentable material
remains inside the digester before it comes out. It’s
varies with differing process temperature, waste
composition, as well as technologies. In winter climate
it may go up to 100 days compare to tropical countries
HRT varies from 30–50 days. Large volume of the
digester requires longer retention time while shorter
time is likely to face the risk of washout of active
bacterial population. While treating a mixture of poultry
waste, cattle dung and cheese whey in the ratio of 1:2:3
the highest gas production investigated 2.2 L/day
contained 62% CH4 at an HRT of 10 days having a
loading rate of 6 gTS/L [17]. Maximum gas per volume
can be produced in shorter time, but degradability of
organic matter will be less than longer time.
3.2. Temperature
Enhance the biogas production process temperature is
one of the most important factor inside the digester. The
 879 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII

physical, physico-chemical properties of compounds 3.5. C: N ratio

and the kinetics and thermodynamics of biological
It is necessary to maintain proper C:N ratio for efficient
processes are affects by temperature [18]. The AD
digester operation. C/N ratio defined to the amount of
process can take place at different temperatures, divided
carbon and nitrogen present in feedstock. To achieve
into three temperature ranges: psychrophilic (below
optimum degradability to need a 20–30:1 ratio of C/N.
25°C), mesophilic (25°C–45°C), and thermophilic (45°–
The largest percentage of the carbon need during
70°C) [19]. Increasing the temperature the rate of gas
anaerobic digestion because microorganisms utilize
production increases but the percentage of methane
carbon 25–30 times faster than nitrogen [32]. Inhibition
reduces and increases CO2. Therefore, ideal temperature
of ammonia and pH values exceeding 8.5, which is
between 32°C-35°C are most efficient for stable and
toxic for methanogenic bacteria due to low ratio.
continuous production of methane. However, anaerobes
Contrarily, a high ratio is an indication of rapid
bacteria are most active in the mesophilic and
consumption of nitrogen by methanogens and results in
thermophilic temperature range [17, 20-24]. Any drastic
lower gas production [33]. The optimum range (25-30)
change should be avoided due to methanogens are very
can be achieved by co-digestion of high and low C/N
sensitive in temperature [25]. Consideration can be
ratios, such as organic solid waste mixed with animal
taken during the installation of biogas digester due to
manure or sewage [34].
keeping optimum temperature in the digester and
coating those with insulating materials within the 3.6. Stirring/mixing
desired range [26]. A simple technique of charcoal
By stirring improved the digestion process to ensure
coating of ground around the digester had been found to
intimate contact between microorganisms and substrate.
improve gas production in KVIC biogas plant by 7–15%
The slurry will tend to settle out and form a hard scum
[27]. The temperature of digester content at 40℃
on the surface due to lacking of stirring, which will
reduces over by 40% HRT [17].
prevent release of biogas. However, excessive mixing
3.3. pH can disrupt the microbes so slow mixing is preferred.
Enhanced the net biogas production was to physically
The pH value of the AD substrate influences the growth
disrupt cellular material using mechanical disintegration
of methanogenic microorganisms and affects the
[35].
dissociation of some importance compounds for AD
process (ammonia, sulfide, organic acids). The degree 3.7. Seeding of biogas plant
of acidity or alkalinity in a solution can be determined
Early starting up the anaerobic process to introduce
by pH. The micro-organisms require a neutral or mildly
enriched seeding bacteria into the digester from sludge a
alkaline environment, a too acidic or alkaline both
running biogas plant, material from well-rotted manure
conditions are detrimental. Anaerobic digester pH
pit, or cow dung slurry. Addition of inoculum tends to
should be kept within a range of 6.8–7.2 by optimum
improve both the gas yield, methane content in biogas
loading rate. Reduction in pH can be controlled by the
and reduce retention period [36-38].
addition of lime or recycled filtrate obtained during
residue treatment. At pH value 5.0, the efficiency of 3.8. Solid content
CH4 production was obtained more than 75% [28].
The amount of fermentable material of feed in a unit
3.4. Organic loading rate (OLR) volume of slurry is defined as solid content. Low solids
(LS) in AD systems contain less than 10 % TS, medium
Mass of organic matter over digester volume over time
solids (MS) about 15-20% and high solids (HS)
or the biological conversion capacity of the AD system
processes range from 22% to 40%. Higher levels can be
is called organic loading rate (OLR). Long retention
tolerated in special reactor types with a direct feed line
time would require inside the digester for obtaining the
[29]. However, ordinarily 7–9% solids content is best-
maximum biogas yield, by complete digestion of the
suited [24]. The biogas yield increased, reaching 0.46
substrate and a correspondingly large size of digester.
m3/ (m3 day) at 37℃ and 0.68 m3/(m3 day) at 55℃
The normal load for a CSTR reactor is 1–6 kg COD/m3
respectively. The process was unstable below a total
reactor volume/day [29]. A study carried out on manure
solids level of 7% (of manure) while a level of 10%
in Pennsylvania on a 100 m3 biogas digester, when OLR
caused an overloading of the digester [39].
was varied from 346 kg VS/day to 1030 kg VS/day, gas
yield increased from 67 to 220 m3/day. Sundrarajan 3.9. Particle size
et.al, observed maximum produced yield of 0.36 m3/kg
The size of the feedstock should not be too large
VS at an OLR of 2.91 kg VS/ m3/day [30]. However,
otherwise it would result in the clogging of the digester
between 0.5 and 3 kg VS/m3/day is the typical values of
and also it would be difficult for microbes to carry out
OLR [31].
its digestion. Smaller particles would provide large

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques-
A Review
surface area for adsorbing the substrate that would result
in increased microbial activity and hence increased
biogas production. Particle sizes of raw materials are
0.088 and 0.40 mm out of five particle sizes (0.088,
0.40, 1.0, 6.0 and 30.0 mm) was produced maximum
quantity of biogas [40]. Grinding of substrates could
significantly reduce the volume of digester required,
without decreasing gas production [41, 42].
4. Enhancement biogas production Techniques
To enhance the biogas production using different co-
substrate techniques are described below:
4.1. Anaerobic Co-digestion
Simultaneous digestion of two or more organic waste is
term as Co-digestion. The use of co-digestion process
usually improves the biogas yields from anaerobic
conditions due to positive synergisms established in the
digestion medium and the supply of missing nutrients
by the co-substrates [43].
4.1.1. Food waste as a feedstock for co-digestion
A test was performed at thermophilic (50℃) using batch
AD mode to evaluate optimum yields of biogas and
methane from food waste. Nutrient content analysis
showed that the food waste contained well balanced
nutrients for anaerobic microorganisms. The methane
yield after 10 days and 28 days of digestion was 348
mL/g VS and 435 mL/g VS respectively. The average
VS destruction at the end of the 28 day digestion test
was 81% and methane content of biogas was 73%. The
results of this study indicate that the food waste is a
highly desirable substrate for anaerobic digesters with
regards to its high biodegradability and methane yield
[44].
4.1.2. Effectiveness of inoculum sources on anaerobic
digestion
Six different inoculums sources were used in a study to
evaluate the effects in AD under thermophilic
conditions. The experiments were carried out at 55°C
temperature, 25% of inoculum and 30% of total solid.
The results indicated that digested sludge is the best
inoculum source for anaerobic treatment of organic
municipal solid waste at dry conditions (30% TS). After
60 days of operation period, it was observed that
digested sludge reactor can achieve COD and VS
removal efficiency of 44.0% and 43.0% respectively. In
stabilization phase, digested sludge reactor showed
higher volumetric biogas generated of 78.9 mL/day
reaching a methane yield of 0.53 L CH4/g VS [45].
4.1.3. Mixing effects of kitchen waste with sewage
sludge
Under thermophilic conditions for 90 days HRT was
observed that, the total biogas generated in this system
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
880
was the sum of methane and carbon dioxide due to the
presence of methylotroph population in the activated
sludge which uses methane production as a carbon
source for their growth. Biogas produced from the
decomposition of kitchen waste was a mixture of 76%
CH4 and 24% CO2 [46]. The biogas generation capacity
of the mixture of kitchen waste and sewage sludge in
different composition on batch mode anaerobic
digesters under the controlled temperature 35°C and pH
7 was studied. The highest value of methane production
was 59.7 ml which produced from (75% kitchen waste
and 25% activated sludge) [47].
4.1.4. Effective co-substrate of activated sludge and
organic municipal solid wastes
Industrial sludge and organic of municipal solid wastes
was operated with leachate recirculation. After 98 days
of anaerobic incubation observed that in the leachate
samples of the industrial sludge added reactors was
better than in the control reactor in terms of pH, COD,
VFA concentrations. Thus, this proves that co-digestion
is better than mono digestion [48]. Another study results
shows the activated sludge with the organic municipal
solid wastes at ratio of 60:40 (sludge: OMSW) on a
TVS basis allowed for an increase of the organic
loading rate up to 1 kgVS/m3/day. Biogas production
also evaluated when only activated sludge was digested
of 0.13m3 kg/VS which increased up to 0.43m3 kg /VS
in the case of co-digestion [49].
4.1.5. Co-digestion of pig manure, municipal and
agricultural waste with dairy cow manure
To determine the mixing effect of pig and cow dung on
biogas yield a research was carried out in 1.5 liter
fifteen plastic bottles. Each fed with 1 kg of pig and cow
dung mixture in proportions of 1:0, 3:1, 1:1, 1:3 and 0:1.
The results show that co-digestion of cow dung with pig
manure increased biogas yield as compared to pure
samples of either cow dung or pig manure. The highest
biogas yields increase of almost three and seven fold
was respectively achieved when mixed in proportions of
1:1 [50]. 500 ml batch reactor was used to evaluate
biogas production from co-substrate of fruit, rice bran
wastes with cow dung at ambient temperature. Biogas
productions from different samples were as follows:
Sample A (fruit waste), 363; B (fruit waste + cow
dung), 405; C (fruit waste + rice bran), 315 and D (fruit
waste + rice + cow dung), 381 ml. The results show that
cow dung influence digestion of fruit waste and highest
yield of biogas production. Whereas, rice bran and fruit
waste alone does not have greater potential for biogas
production [51]. Semi-continuous mode digester
operated at mesophilic conditions using wasted
tomatoes (WT) with cattle dung (CD). The average gas
yield was 220 dm3 kg VS added at 20 days HRT. The
maximum methane productivity was obtained at the
 881 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII

ratio of CD/WT was 80:20 and OLR was 2.9 kg

VS/m3/d [52]. Organic municipal solid waste (OMSW)
and dairy cow manure (CM) alone and compared the
results with the co-digestion of the same wastes was
carried out in AD. The result was 62m3 methane/ton
when OMSW was digested alone and CM produced 37
m3 methane/ton of dry waste. Whereas, from co-
digestion of OMSW and CM produced 172 m3
methane/ton of dry waste [53].
4.1.6. Anaerobic co-digestion of cheese whey with
cattle manure
Co-digestion of cheese whey (CW) and cattle manure
(CM) were experimented based on concentric
acidogenic by an innovative two-stage process and
methanogenic phases, designed for reducing footprint
and enhancing performance. The results demonstrated
that the anaerobic process greatly improved addition of
CM in co-digestion with CW. The highest methane
yield was obtained co-treating the two substrates at
equal ratio by using the innovative two-stage process
[54].
4.1.7. Biogas production from co-substrate of goat
manure and crop residues
A study was conducted on the anaerobic co-digestion of
GM with wheat straw (WS), corn stalks (CS) and rice
straw (RS), under different mixing ratios at mesophilic
temperature (35±1 ℃) with a total solid concentration of
8%. Result showed that the combination of GM with CS
or RS significantly improved biogas production at all
carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratios. After 55 day of
fermentation, GM/CS (30:70), GM/CS (70:30), GM/RS
(30:70) and GM/RS (50:50) produced the highest biogas
yields from different co-substrates (14840, 16023,
15608 and 15698 mL, respectively). Biogas yields of
GM/CS 70:30 (C/N 21.19), GM/RS 50:50 (C/N 26.23)
and GM/WS 30:70 (C/N 35.61) were 2.11, 1.83 and
1.62 times higher than that of crop residues (CRs)
respectively. These values to be the optimal C/N ratios
were determined for co-digestion [55].
4.1.8. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
human excreta
A unique experiment was carried out of food waste with
human excreta for 60 days using a 40-liters digester.
The volume of gas generated from the mixture was
84,750cm3 and comprised of 58% CH4, 24% CO2, and
19% H2S and other impurities. The temperature
remained relatively constant at mesophilic range:
22.0ºC–30.5ºC throughout the study. The
Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the feedstock before
digestion was within 139:1. The study presented that
most of the developing nations where biomass abundant
anaerobic co-digestion could be the much awaited
solution for energy scarcity [56].
5. Biogas upgrading and cleaning technologies
There are different technologies to convert raw biogas
into biomethane. These technologies, which are often
multi-staged, involve: 1) Harmful trace components to
the appliances, natural gas grid or end-users are
removed by a cleaning process and 2) an upgrading
process, in with inert gases, mainly CO2, are separated
to concentrate the CH4 energy density adjusting the
calorific value and relative density in order to meet the
specifications of the Wobbe Index. These proved
technologies will be presented in the following section.
5.1. Enhancement of calorific value by removing
CO2
Typically biomethane consists of 97-99% methane and
1-3% CO2 depending on final application. Natural grid
standard gas requires less than 3% CO2 whereas
combined CO2N2 content of 1.5-4.5% require for
vehicle fuel [57]. The following technologies describe
how CO2 can be effectively removed: (1) Pressurized
water scrubbing (2) Physical and chemical absorption,
(3) Pressure Swing Adsorption, (4) Membrane
separation, (5) Cryogenic separation and (6) Biological
process [2, 8, 57-68].
5.1.1. Pressurized water scrubbing
In this process the biogas is upgraded as well as cleaned
from CO2, H2S and NH3 that are physically dissolved in
water under pressure in an absorption column. CH4 is
also dissolved in water, but its solubility is lower than
the other substances. Solubility increases with
increasing pressure and decreasing temperature. There
are two types of water absorption process single pass
absorption and regenerative absorption. In both
processes biogas is introduced from the bottom of a tall
vertical column and water is fed at the top of the column
to achieve a gas-liquid counter flow.
In a single pass process (without regeneration) the water
is used only one time (Fig. 1). This wastewater will not
only emit CO2 to the atmosphere but may emit CH4 and
H2S. To minimize the losses of methane the washing
water leaving the column at the bottom is partly
depressurized in a flash tank. The released gas mixture
rich in methane is recirculated to the compressor inlet.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques-
A Review
Fig.1. Schematic diagram of a water scrubbing process
without regeneration [6]
In the regenerative absorption (Fig. 2) the water brought
into contact with inert gas that volatilizes the CO2 in the
water. The regenerated water is then cooled because
CO2 is more soluble in cold water and brought back to
the absorption column. For instance, a passive system
such as a stock pond can be used [8].
To keep the dissolubility as high as possible part of the
washed water is purged and replaced with clean water.
The biomethane pressure at the outlet is about 5–7 bar.
CH4 concentrations in the product gas stream are around
98% depending on the raw gas composition and the
column size [58]. Methane recovery more than 99% in
new systems and methane losses are about 1–2% and
more than 4% in older ones, so an exhaust gas cleaning
is required [8]. Because the exhaust gas normally
contains H2S the following exhaust gas treatment
technologies are possible: 1) regenerative thermal
oxidation, and 2) flameless oxidation.
Fig.2. Schematic diagram of a water scrubbing system
with regeneration [6]
5.1.2. Physical absorption
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
882
Fig.3 shows the physical absorption technology using
organic solvents is basically distinguishable to the water
scrubber technology. Instead of water, organic solvents
are used to absorb CO2. Besides CO2, also H2S, NH3
and H2O can be separated. Solvents come in different
forms and brands, including polyethylene glycol,
Selexol®, Genosorb®.
Fig.3. Biogas upgrading with the Selexol chemisorption
process [69]
Smaller plants compared to the water scrubbing can be
built because the solubility of CO2 is higher in these
liquids than in water. H2S is also highly soluble in
organic solvents, and a high temperature process is
required to regenerate the solvent. Additional drying of
the upgraded gas is not necessary due to absorption of
water by the organic solvent. Selexol has been used
successfully to upgrade landfill gas at several sites in
the US [2, 6, 8, 57, 58]. The operational pressure is
normally around 4–8 bars. For regeneration in the
desorption column, a temperature level of
approximately 50°C is required. Typical CH4
concentrations in the product gas stream are in the range
of 93–98%. The exhaust gas stream includes >2% CH4
(related to the CH4 mass flow of the biogas) [8].
5.1.3. Chemical absorption
The chemical absorption technology using organic
solvents is a combination of a physical and a chemical
absorption (Fig.4). Solvents as mono-ethanol amine
(MEA) or di-methyl ethanol amine (DMEA) can be
used to dissolve CO2; however instead of simply
dissolving these components, they react chemically with
them and therefore drive them into solution. Due to
absorber costs and the disposal of contaminated
absorber, the absorber is always regenerated either using
vacuum or heat (steam). Amines are highly CO2
selective, and result in minimal losses of CH4 (< 0.1%).
If there is no N2 and/or O2 in the biogas flow CH4 output
can be as high as 99.5% [2, 6, 8]. However, these
organic solvents are toxic to humans and the
 883 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII
environment. Furthermore, they required about 0.5
kWh/Nm3 cleaned biogas is needed at 120–160°C for
regeneration and water from the biogas may
contaminate the chemical, reducing its efficiency. To
avoid corrosion, undesirable chemical reactions and
higher temperatures for the regeneration the preliminary
purification (<6 ppm H2S, low oxygen) of the biogas is
very demanding. Therefore, to remove this component
prior to the amine scrubber.
Fig.4. Schematic diagram of amine scrubbing system
5.1.4. Adsorption
In the adsorption process selected molecules are
absorbed at high pressures and then released at low
pressures by zeolites, silica gel carbon molecular sieves,
, alumina or activated carbon [8]. Depending on the
adsorbent and operation pressure used CO 2, O2 and N2
can be adsorbed. There are several adsorption
techniques commercially available for removal of CO2
from biogas.
These are:
1) Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)/Vacuum Swing
Adsorption (VSA).
2) Temperature Swing Adsorption (TSA)
3) Electric Swing Adsorption (ESA)
Among the techniques currently most used for
adsorption is PSA (Fig.5). It consists of a series of
vessels filled with adsorption substance. Usually
working on adsorption, depressuring, regeneration and
pressure build-up four different phases. During the
biogas enters from the bottom into one of the adsorbers
through the vessel CO2, O2 and N2 are adsorbed by the
media and the exhaust gas as biomethane. Biogas goes
to another ready vessel that has already been
regenerated to achieve continuous operation before the
adsorbent material is completely saturated.
Regeneration is performed by a stepwise
depressurization of the adsorber vessel to atmospheric
pressure and finally to near vacuum conditions. This is
followed by a second depressurization step to almost
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
atmospheric pressure (PSA) or under vacuum (VSA).
This step contains significant amounts of methane
during the gas leaving the vessel and is recycled to the
biogas intake port. The adsorber vessel is repressurized
stepwise to the final adsorption pressure before the
adsorption phase starts again. Typical adsorption
pressures and temperatures are in the range of 3–7 bar
and 50–60°C; and regeneration pressure are around
100–200 mbar. A complete cycle is completed in
approximately 3–5 minutes [70].
Fig.5. Principle diagram for PSA process [70]
Typical CH4 concentrations in the product gas stream is
about 96–98%, moreover the methane rich stream is
substantially free from siloxanes components and
volatile organic compounds. The higher the methane
content in the product gas, the higher the methane
losses. Because the waste exhaust gas stream that leaves
the absorber vessels at the bottom includes 2–4% CH4
[2, 4, 6], an exhaust gas cleaning is recommended or
obligatory depending on the country emission
requirements.
5.1.5. Membrane technology
In membrane separation systems CO2 and trace
components as, H2S, H2O and NH3 are conveyed
through a thin membrane in more or less extent while
CH4 is retaining, due to difference in particle size and/or
affinity (Fig.6). The driving force behind this process is
a difference in partial pressures. The properties of this
separation technique are highly dependent on the type of
membrane used.
Fig.6. Mechanism of Membrane separation process [2]
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques-
A Review
Mainly two basic techniques exist: (1) gas-gas
separation with a gas phase at both sides of the
membrane and (2) gas-liquid absorption with a liquid
absorbing the diffused molecules.
5.1.5.1. Gas-gas separation or solid membrane
process or dry membranes
Dry membranes for biogas upgrading materials are
made that are permeable to CO2, H2O and NH3. H2S and
O2 permeate through the membrane to some extent
while N2 and CH4 only pass to a very low extent (Fig.7).
Usually membranes are in the form of hollow fibers
bundler together, and very compact modules working in
cross flow can be used [5,63]. Before the gas enters the
hollow fibers it passes through a filter that retains water,
oil droplets, hydrocarbons and aerosols. Additionally, to
increase life time of the membrane hydrogen sulfide is
usually removed by activated carbon before the
membrane seperation.
Fig.7. Schematic of gas permeation membrane
technology
A major disadvantage of this technique is the low
methane yield. Due to imperfect separation the raw gas
can be purified to maximum 92% CH4 in one step.
When two or three steps are used, a gas with 96% or
more CH4 is achieved. The maximize methane yield and
still obtain pipeline quality gas is to upgrade the biogas
to a lower quality than required and then add propane in
order to meet specifications. The main advantages of the
process control and the investment for the required
equipment is small compared to the total investment [6].
5.1.5.2. Gas-liquid absorption membranes process
Recently, gas-liquid absorption membranes for
upgrading biogas have been developed and are still in
trial phase. To change the gaseous to liquid phase a
micro-porous hydrophobic membrane are used. The gas
stream generated molecules, flowing in one direction,
and able to diffuse through the membrane, are absorbed
on the other side by liquid flowing in counter current.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
884
The liquid is prevented from flowing to the gas side due
to slight pressurization of the gas. These membranes
work at approximately atmospheric pressure (100 kPa),
which allows low-cost construction and they have a
very high selectivity. The removal of CO2, carried out
with an amine solution, is very efficient; biogas with
55% CH4 can be upgraded to more than 96% CH4 in one
step. The amine solution can be regenerated by heating,
which releases a pure CO2-flow which can be sold for
industrial applications [63].
5.1.6. Cryogenic technique
The cryogenic purification technique involves the
separation of gas mixture by fractional condensation
and distillations at low temperature (Fig.8). Because
CO2 condenses at lower pressure and higher
temperatures than methane can be separated. This
process is especially suitable when the final product is
liquid biomethane (LBM). In this case, cooling for
purification is synergic to further cooling to produce
LBM [8].
Fig.8. Schematic of Cryogenic separation process
This process performs best at elevated pressure to
ensure those CO2 condensates into a liquid and not a
solid form (dry ice) that would clog the piping system.
This technique makes use of low temperature, close to -
90℃, and high pressure, approximately 40 bars. If CH 4
is condensed, N2 can also be removed. Moreover, it is
best to remove H2S and water first to avoid clogging
and freezing before the process.
Cryogenic processes are technically very demanding but
connected with high methane contents (> 99%) and low
methane losses (<1%) [71]. Electrical energy demand is
about 5-10%. The fact that cryogenic separation uses no
chemicals makes of this separation an environmental
friendly technique.
5.1.7. Biological treatment process
Carbon dioxide is to some extent soluble in water and
therefore carbon dioxide will be dissolved in the liquid
 885 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII

phase of the anaerobic digester tank (Fig. 9). In grade from the biogas. However, to prevent poison,
upgrading with the in situ methane enrichment process, corrosion and mechanical wear of the equipment, it
sludge from the digester is circulated to a desorption must be remove from the gas. This section oriented on
column and then back to the reactor. Carbon dioxide is biogas cleaning aspects.
desorbed by pumping air through the sludge in the
6.1. Trace compound of Hydrogen sulfide removal
desorption column. The constant removal of carbon
techniques
dioxide from the sludge leads to an increased
concentration of methane in the biogas phase leaving Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is always present in biogas,
the digester [72]. normally at concentrations between 80–4,000 ppmv
depending on the feedstock. The primary mechanism for
Process simulations have shown that it may be possible
production of this compound is the reduction of sulfur-
to reach a biogas quality of 95% methane with methane
containing proteins under anaerobic conditions by
losses below 2%. Cost estimations have shown that for a
sulfate-reduction microorganisms [76].
raw gas flow of below 100 Nm3/h, costs can be one
third of the cost of conventional techniques. A pilot Table1: Biogas utilization technologies and H2S
plant with a digester volume of 15 m3 and a 140 dm3 requirements [75, 76].
bubble column has been constructed and tested [73]. In
Technology H2S tolerance (ppm)
experiments where different sludge and air flows were
tested the highest methane content obtained was 87% Heating (Boilers) and
< 1,000
with 2% nitrogen and a methane loss of 8% in the off- Stirling Engines
gas from the desorption column. Kitchen stoves < 10
< 500 ppm (depends on
Internal Combustion
the kind of engine; it can
Engines
be < 50 ppm)
Turbines < 10,000
Micro-turbines < 70,000
Fuel Cells : <1
PEM < 20
PAFC < 10 in fuel (<0.1–0.5 at
MCFC the anode)
SOFC <1
Natural Gas Upgrade <4
Sulfur dioxide emissions have harmful environmental
effects when H2S combustion leads. The level at which
gas quality specifications are exceeded and sulfur
Fig.9. Schematic view of in-situ methane enrichment abatement is required varies by application, equipment
research plant [74, 75] and vendor. The above table outlines the typical
tolerance of H2S levels for different biogas utilization
This technology is relatively simple and there is no need equipment.
for much auxiliary equipment such as pressurized tanks.
However, the process is limited to smaller plants where A large number of technologies exist to remove H2S
a high methane concentration (>95%) is not needed. It is from gas streams. Selecting the best one depends on end
easy to pump for primarily suited sludge. Using fibrous application, variability, composition and gas to be
substrates if this technique is applied to a digester, the treated by volume, present of H2S concentration and the
concentration of nitrogen might increase due to air absolute quantity of H2S to be removed. Each
bubbles attaching to the material when it passes through technology has pros and cons. In the upgrading process
the desorption column. This system is being developed hydrogen sulfide can be removed either from the crude
at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. biogas or in the digester.
6. Biogas cleaning technologies Table 2: H2S removal technologies from gas streams
Biogas can also contain water, oxygen, nitrogen, a) Addition of iron salts/oxides to
hydrogen sulfide, siloxanes, ammonia, and dust the digester slurry
A)Physical–
particles apart from methane and carbon dioxide. So, b) Adsorption :
Chemical
there are different equipment has different tolerance to i). Activated carbon
these substances and depending on the biogas ii).Molecular sieve
application they have to be removed in higher or lower iii) Iron oxides
iv) Zinc oxides

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques- 886
A Review

c) Absorption/Scrubbing:
i). Water
ii). No–water physical solvents
iii). Alkaline solutions
iv) Zinc oxide slurries
v). Iron oxide slurries
vi).Iron salts, chelated and no
chelated
vii).Chemical oxidants
viii). Amines
a) Air/Oxygen dosing digester
B)Biotechnological slurry
b) Biofilter/Biotrickling filter Fig.10. In-situ biological H2S reduction by air/oxygen
c) Bioscrubber (ThiopaqTM) dosing
C) Combined Chemical absorption with iron
physical-chemical/ salts and microbial regeneration of 6.1.2. In-situ (digester) sulfide abatement by addition
biotechnological the solution. of iron salts/oxides to the digester slurry
Iron chlorides, phosphates or oxides are directly added
The most common H2S removal technologies for biogas
into the digester slurry or into the feed substrate in a
cleaning are given in subsequent points.
pre-storage tank. The addition of FeCl2, which is a
6.1.1. In-situ biological H2S reduction by air/oxygen liquid, is the most regularly practiced. Iron hydroxide
dosing to digester slurry (Fe(OH)2) in solid form can also be added. They react
then with the produced hydrogen sulfide and form
For biogas coming from AD the simplest method of
insoluble iron sulfide salts. Due to this precipitation
desulfurization is the addition of oxygen or air directly
stripping of H2S into the biogas is prevented.
into the digester or in a storage tank serving at the same
time as gas holder (Fig.10). In this way it takes place the Fe+2 + S–2 → FeS………… (2)
biological aerobic oxidation of H2S to elemental sulfur
This method is very effective in reducing high H2S
and sulfates by Thiobacillus bacteria. They grow on the
levels, but less effective in attaining a low and stable
surface of the digestate, which offers the necessary
level of H2S in the range of vehicle and injection into
microaerophilic surface and at the same time the
the gas grid demands. Reductions of H2S concentrations
necessary nutrients. The small amount of oxygen (2–6%
in the biogas down to 200–100 ppmv have been
air to biogas) required in this method is introduced in
achieved [58]. At this respect, this method can only be
the biogas system, e.g. by using an air pump. The
regarded as a partial removal process and must be used
following reaction takes place in the digester:
in conjunction with another technology to go down 10
2H2S + O2 → 2S + 2H2O ………… (1) ppmv.
Depending on the temperature, the reaction time and the 6.1.3. Adsorption
amount and place of the air, full scale digesters have
It is the trapping technique of pollutants on a solid,
claimed 80–99% H2S reduction, down to 20–100 ppm
typically an activated carbon or a crystalline material
H2S [77]. The oxygen content in the biogas after
with a high-surface area and internal porosity whose
desulfurization will be about 0.5–1.8 % per volume.
surface holds the pollutant through intermolecular
This is likely the least expensive and most easily forces. The conventional adsorber vessel is a fairly long
maintainable form of scrubbing for on-farm use where cylinder that can be installed in either a vertical or a
no further upgrading of biogas is required. The crucial horizontal position. Regeneration steam is frequently
disadvantage of a desulfurization in the digester is the introduced from the bottom of the vessel. For
coupling to the anaerobic degradation process as well as continuous processes, two or more adsorbers are
the necessity to supply oxygen. Thus the digestion is installed for regenerative adsorption. Adsorption
disturbed and the methane formation hampered. As systems are typically suitable for flow rates between
consequence the biogas yield decreases. In addition, the 10–10,000 m³/h and pollutants concentrations between
remaining of sulfur or sulfate can lead to a renewed 0.1–8 g/m3 [78]. Adsorption is one of the most
formation of H2S and yellow clusters of sulfur are competitive technologies for precision desulfurization
deposited on surfaces, increasing chances of corrosion. because it is simple and effective (>99%). Major
However, the remaining concentrations may still be too drawbacks include a continually produced waste stream
large to enable use of the biogas as a substitute for of spent media, and growing environmental concern
natural gas [58]. over appropriate waste disposal methods. The most

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 887 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII

competitive products for H2S biogas removal are using iron oxides. Elemental sulfur and regenerating the
impregnate activated carbon and iron oxides [77]. iron oxide is possible to extend bed life by admitting air.
This regeneration process is highly exothermic.
6.1.3.1. Adsorption on impregnated activated
carbon Purification: FeO + H2S → FeS + H2O
Fe2O3 + 3H2S → Fe2S3 + 3H2O … (4)
Among the available adsorbents activated carbon (AC)
is the most often used for removal of H2S if low Regeneration: FeS + ½ O2 → FeO + S
’

concentrations are required. In addition activated carbon Fe2S3 + 3/2O2 →Fe2O3 + 3S……. (5)
provides a catalytic surface for oxidation to elemental
Regeneration is possible for a limited number of times
sulfur and sulfate to adsorption process, which
(until the surface is covered with natural sulfur), after
considerable improved the removal efficiency of H2S.
which the tower filling has to be renewed. If using one
The following reaction occurs in presence of oxygen:
column systems the regeneration can be applied by
2H2S + O2 → ¼ S8 + 2H2O……….. (3) injecting 1–5% air into the reaction column but loading
is limited when compared to a two-column system. In a
The elementary sulfur being adsorbed onto the internal
two-stage system the raw biogas streams through the
surface of the activated carbon.
first column and produced iron sulfide. When air is
The AC must have 20–30% of moisture content and the injected in parallel installed second column the
required volume of oxygen. In large biogas plants air is regeneration takes place.
injected into the gas stream but for small scale, regular
The purification step is optimal between 25 and 50°C
removal of AC and exposure to ambient air suffices.
and the gas stream should not be too dry since the
The reaction works best at pressures of 7 to 8 bar and
reaction with iron oxide needs water. However,
temperatures of 50 to 70°C. Usually, the carbon filling
condensation should be eliminated because the iron
is adjusted to an operation time of 4,000 to 8,000 hours.
oxide material will stick together with water reducing
If the gas has high levels of H2S (>3,000 ppmv)
the reactive surface [76].
regeneration is periodically required [75].
The iron oxide removal technology is simple and
Impregnation of AC to optimize H 2S abatement with
effective (up to 99.98%). H2S output concentrations <1
chemical adsorption is normally done using alkaline or
ppm (related to 1,000 ppm H 2S in the raw gas stream)
oxide coatings. Impregnated products enhance H2S
are possible. Its general drawbacks are that the process
removal capacity from a normal 10 – 20 kg H2S/m3
is highly chemical intensive, the operating cost can be
carbon for virgin carbon to 120–140 kg H2S/m3 carbon.
high, and a continuous stream of spend waste material is
Drawbacks of impregnated carbons are that the spent
accumulated.
carbon must either be landfilled or re-impregnated with
costly, hazardous chemicals and that they are highly 6.1.3.4. Iron Sponge adsorption
susceptible to exothermic reactions and notorious for
Iron-oxide-impregnated wood chips are the most well-
causing bed fires if careless operation [79].
known iron oxide product. The primary active
6.1.3.2. Adsorption on molecular sieve ingredients are hydrated iron-oxides (Fe2O3). Iron oxide
or hydroxide can also be bound to the surface of pellets
Molecular sieves (zeolites) are excellent products to
made from red mud (a waste product from aluminum
separate different compounds from gas streams. The
production). These pellets have a higher surface-to-
selectivity of adsorption is achieved by different mesh
volume ratio and density is much higher than
sizes and/or application of different gas pressures. Non-
impregnated wood chips. At high H2S concentrations
polar systems as methane can be removed by polar
(1,000 to 4,000 ppm), 100 grams of pellets can bind 50
compounds, such as SO2, H2S, NH3, water, carbonyl
grams of sulfide. However, the pellets are likely to be
sulfide, and mercaptans, which are very strong adsorber.
more expensive than wood chips [8].
The former are rather cheap materials, readily available
from many companies. Moreover, they have high initial Iron sponge is a mature technology so there are design
adsorption capacities. On the other hand, the latter, parameter guidelines that have been determined for
despite their limited initial capacity, are thermally and optimum operation [78].The application of wood chips
chemically very stable products and generally do not for biogas cleaning is very popular particularly in USA
lead to side reactions. Their relatively high cost prevents [75] Different scales of operation have been employed
their extensive use for the moment. ranging from gas flow rates of ~2,500 m3 CH4/h [80].
6.1.3.3. Adsorption using iron oxides The most important drawback of this kind of iron oxide
media is that the safe disposal of spent iron sponge has
To form insoluble iron sulfides this one of the oldest
methods still in practice to remove hydrogen sulfide

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques-
A Review
considered hazardous waste and requires special
disposal procedures.
6.1.4. Absorption/Scrubbing
In physical absorption H2S is removed by water or other
solvents such as methanol and ethers of polyethylene
glycol [58]. In chemical absorption the water solubility
of the H2S is enhanced by making the water alkaline or
by its oxidation to more water-soluble compounds. The
primary disadvantage of the absorption is that usually
eliminates a problem with a contaminated gas stream
only to create a contaminated liquid stream or a more
concentrate gas liquid stream (if regeneration) that must
be further treated. Advantages are high efficiency
removal (up to 99%) [81], small footprint and ability to
handle a wide range of pollutant concentrations.
Absorption systems are suitable for flow rate
approximately between 100–10,000 m³/h and pollutant
concentrations between 8–30 g/m³.
6.1.4.1. Alkaline scrubbing
One of the oldest methods of H2S removal involves
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or Fe(OH)3 washing.
Absorption of H2S is favored by highly alkaline
conditions. The NaOH reacts with the H 2S to form
sodium sulfide or sodium hydrogen sulfide. This
chemical reaction enhanced the water absorption
capacity resulting in lower volumes of process water
and reducing pumping demands. The formed salts are
insoluble and the method is no regenerative. To prevent
salt precipitation in the scrubber, purge stream (spent
caustic) must be withdrawn from the unit on regular
basis. The NaOH also absorbs CO2, so this is a
technology for simultaneous CO2 and H2S removal. H2S
is removed using Fe(OH)3 resulting in the formation of
Fe2S3. Regeneration is done with oxygen or air (closed
system) [58]. Disadvantages of this technique are high
technical requirement to deal with the caustic solution.
When very large gas volumes are treated or high
concentrations of H2S are present only this application
is hardly applied. Moreover, large volumes of water
contaminated with sodium sulfide need to be disposed.
6.1.5. Membrane separation
H2S can be separated from the gas through a semi-
permeable membrane because CH4 cannot pass whereas
H2S and CO2 can pass into the membrane [58]. The
essential part is a micro porous hydrophobic membrane
separating the gas from the liquid phase. The molecules
flowing in one direction from the gas stream diffuse
through the membrane and will be absorbed on the other
side by the liquid, flowing in counter current. At a
temperature of 25-35℃ the H2S concentration of the raw
gas of 2% could be reduced to less than 250 cm3/m3 thus
yielding an efficiency of more than 98%. NaOH is used
as the absorbing liquid [4].
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
888
6.2. Water trapping techniques
Untreated or raw biogas is commonly saturated with
water and the absolute water quantity depends on the
temperature. For example, almost 5% water content at
35°C temperature [3]. When passing from high to lower
pressure systems water vapor is problematic as it may
condense into water or ice. This may result in corrosion
and clogging. Pipeline quality standards require a
maximum water content of 100 mg/m3 water and
compressed natural gas vehicle fuel standards require a
dew point of at least 10°C below the 99% winter design
temperature for the local geographic area at atmospheric
pressure [3]. There are different methods to remove
water from biogas. These are generally based on
separation of condensed water or chemical drying
(absorption and adsorption).
6.2.1. Water condensation
Through refrigeration using heat exchangers excess
water vapor can remove from biogas. This simplest
method can only lower the dewpoint to 0.5°C due to
problems with freezing on the surface of the heat
exchanger. To achieve lower dewpoints the gas has to
be compressed before cooling and the later expanded to
the desired pressure. The lower the dew point, the
higher pressure is needed to be applied [2]. The
condensed water droplets are entrapped, removed and
disposed of as wastewater or recycled back to the
digester. Techniques using physical separation of
condensed water include:

Demisters, in which wired mesh (micropores 0.5 –2
nm) separated liquid particles. A dew point of 2–

20°C (atmospheric pressure) can be reached.
Cyclone separator, in which centrifugal forces are

applied to separate water droplets from gas.
Moisture traps in which the condensation takes
place by expansion, causing a low temperature that

condenses the water.
Water traps in the biogas pipe from which
condensed water can be removed [58].
6.2.2. Water adsorption
Water can be adsorbed on drying agents as silica gel,
activated carbon, alumina, magnesium oxide, sodium
sulfate that can bind water molecules. The gas is
pressurized and led through a column filled with the
drying media, which afterwards is regenerated.
Normally two parallel vessels are used, so one can be
regenerated while the other absorbs water. Regeneration
when the drying is performed at elevate pressure is
achieved by evaporating the water through
decompression and heating. Part of the dried gas is led
through the column and recycled to the compressor
inlet. If the adsorption is done at atmospheric pressure
 889 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII

air needs to be injected for regeneration. This method

Method Advantages Disadvantages
has the disadvantage of mixing air into the gas and is
therefore not well suited for the drying of biogas. Using 1. Increase biogas 1. Maintain proper
adsorption dryers, a dew point from -10 to -20°C production rate. mixing ratio.
(atmospheric pressure) can be achieved [2,58]. 2. Balance nutrient
2. COD effluent
Adsorption using alumina or zeolites/molecular sieves is and digestion of
increased in digester.
the most common chemical drying technique. feedstock.
3. All Renewable
6.2.3. Water absorption biomass 3. Additional pre-
Drying can also take place by using the water binding Anaerobic disposals treatment
component triethylene glycol or glycol. After Co-digestion possible in same requirements.
absorption, this is pumped into a regeneration unit, digester.
where is regenerated a temperatures of 200°C. 4. Content of 4. Proper feedstock
Dewpoints from -5 to -15°C (atmospheric pressure) can methane quantity selection
be reached [58]. Water can also be absorbed using improved. requirements.
hygroscopic salts. The salts are dissolved as they absorb 5. Produced rich
5. Consideration of
water from the biogas. The saturated salt solution is nutrient content
hygienization.
withdrawn from the bottom of the vessel. Salts are not fertilizers.
regenerated and new salt granules have to be added to 8. Conclusions
replace the dissolved salt [2].
Biomass originated biogas can replace conventional
7. Advantages and Disadvantages of Biogas fuels, and render the harmful leakage of greenhouse
production technologies gases. Most of the studies on AD solid waste were
Table3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Anaerobic conducted with different types of anaerobic reactors
digestion (AD) process with various settings regarding operating parameters
such as temperature, C/N ratio, OLR, and HRT. The
Method Advantages Disadvantages effect of these parameters on the process performance is
1. AD does not 1. AD influences significant. In many cases, unstable pH, temperature or
contribute any gases significant capital and the presence of toxic substances can inhibit the
to the atmosphere, operation cost when digestion process. This reviews revealed that there is a
thereby reducing the integrated management strong possibility to enhance the biogas production, and
greenhouse gases system do not take into methane quantity using co-digestion process. CO2
emission. consideration. removal technologies, except the cryogenic technique,
2. AD provides are in operation in large scale and delivers biomethane
2. Sometimes AD
renewable energy that meets the standards for injection in the natural gas
create nuisance for
for heat, electricity, grid or for vehicle fuel. Condensation methods are
neighbourhood.
fuel etc. mainly used as a first step in a biogas cleaning from
3. Energy generated water. The most common technique here is adsorption
through this process 3. There may be some on alumina or zeolites. To choose an appropriate
Anaerobic can help to reducing risks of fire and technique for H2S removal, the technique to remove
digestion the demand of fossil explosion. CO2 should be considered first. Absorption by water or
(AD) fuels. selexol, membranes or PSA/VSA that removes H2S as
4. AD reduces the well as CO2 from gas. However, each method represents
4. Long distance
likelihood of soil the merit and demerits for the related specific
between production of
and water pollution application. A technology can also be chosen according
feedstock, digester and
to create an to the highest achievable methane content. Moreover,
storage tank may
integrated the type of technique that could be implemented was
influence costs.
management system. discussed with respect to economic and ecological
5. On economic issues.
aspects, it produced
saleable products 5. Need some technical Acknowledgments
like as biogas, soil knowledge. The author expresses his deep indebted to Mohammad
conditioner and Razaul Karim Chemistry Department, Graduate school
organic fertilizer. of Science and Technology, Kumamoto University,
Japan for his valuable suggestions and co-operation.
Table-4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Anaerobic
Co-digestion process References

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques- 890
A Review

Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ cfapps/

[1] Nuttall, W. J. and Manz, D. L. 2008. A new energy
ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=54&aid=2&
security paradigm for the twenty-first century.
cid=&syid= 2000 &eyid=2008&unit=TBPD
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75,
[14] IEA, World Energy Outlook 2005, Energy
1247-59.
Balances of Non-OECD Countries 2002-2003.
[2] Persson, M. 2003. Utvärdering av
[15] Hessami M.A., Christensen S. and Gani R. 1996.
uppgraderingstekniker för biogas. Malmö, Sweden:
Anaerobic digestion of household organic waste to
Svenskt Gastekniskt Center, 85, pp.Report SCG
produce biogas. Renewable Energy, 9(1-4), 954-
142.
957.
[3] Ryckebosch, E., Drouillon, M. and Vervaeren, H.
[16] Parawira W. Murto M. Read J.S. and Mattiasson
2011. Techniques for transformation of biogas to
B., “Profile of hydrolases andbiogas production
biomethane. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, pp. 1633
during twostage mesophilic anaerobic digestion of
– 1645.
solid potato waste,” Process Biochemistry, 2005,
[4] Wellinger, A. and Lindberg, A. 2005. Biogas
40(9), 2945-2952.
Upgrading and Utilisation. [Internet] IEA
[17] Desai, M. and Madamwar, D. 1994. Anaerobic
Bioenergy Task 24: Energy from Biological
digestion of a mixture of cheese whey, poultry
Conversion of Organic Waste, [cited January
waste and cattle dung: a study of the use of
2011].
adsorbents to improve digester performance,
[5] Wheless, E. and Pierce, J. 2004. Siloxanes in
Environ .Pollut., 86 (3), 337–340.
Landfill and Digester Gas Update. [Internet]
[18] Boe, K., Online monitoring and control of the
Whittier (Canada) and Long Beach (California):
biogas process, Ph.D. thesis, Technical university
Los Angeles Country Sanitation Districts and SCS
of Denmark, 2006.
Energy, [cited January 2011].
[19] Al Seadi, T., Rutz, D., Prassl, H., Köttner, M.,
[6] Hagen, M., Polman, E., Jensen, J., Myken, A.
Finsterwalder, T., Volk, S. and Janssen R. 2008.
Jönsson, O. and Dahl, A. 2001. Adding gas from
Biogas Handbook. University of Southern Denmark
biomass to the gas grid. 144. Malmö, Sweden:
Esbjerg.
Swedish Gas Center, Report SCG 118.
[20] Mital, K. 1996. Biogas Systems-Principles and
[7] Persson, M. and Wellinger, A. 2006. Biogas
Applications, New age International (P) Ltd.
upgrading to vehicle fuel standards and grid
[21] Maurya, M.S., Singh, L., Sairam, M. and Alam, S.I.
injection. IEA Bioenergy, Task 37-Energy from
1994. Production of biogas from night soil: effect
Biogas and Landfill gas, Report SCG 142.
of temperature and volatile solids, Indian
[8] Krich, K., Augenstein, A., Batmale, J., Benemann,
J.Microbiol, 34 (3), 223–228.
J., Rutledge, B. and Salour, D. 2005.Upgrading
[22] Takizawa, N., Umetsu, K., Takahata, H. and
Dairy Biogas to Biomethane and Other Fuels. In:
Hoshiba, H. 1994.Temperature effects on
Andrews K., Editor. Biomethane from Dairy Waste
continuously expending anaerobic digester with
-A Sourcebook for the Production and Use of
dairy manure slurry, Res. Bull. Obihiro Univ.,
Renewable Natural Gas in California, Clear
Natural Sci., 19 (1), 31–36.
Concepts, pp. 47-69.
[23] Umetsu, K., Takahata, H. and Kawamoto, T. 1992.
[9] Meynell, P-J. 1976. Methane: Planning a Digester.
Effect of temperature on mesophilic anaerobic
NewYork: Schocken Books, pp. 3.
digestion of dairy cow slurry, Res.Bull. Obihiro
[10] McCabe, J., and Eckenfelder, W. eds. 1957.
Univ.Ser., I 17 (4), 401–408.
Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial
[24] Zennaki, B.Z., Zadi, A., Lamini, H., Aubinear, M.
Wastes. Two volumes, New York: Reinbold
and Boulif, M. 1996. Methane Fermentation of
Publishing,
cattle manure: effects of HRT, temperature &
[11] Buswell, A.M. and Hatfield, W.D. 1936. Anaerobic
substrate concentration. Tropicul tural, 14 (4), 134–
Fermentations. Urbana, IL: State of Illinois
140.
Department of Registration and Education, Bulletin
[25] Garba, B. 1996. Effect of temperature and retention
32.
period on biogas production from ligrocellulosic
[12] Report of Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy
material, Int. J Renew. Energy, 9 (1–4), 938–941.
Sources, Government of India, 2007, 3-15.
[26] Molnar, L. and Bartha, I. 1989. High solids
[13] Dickerson, K. and Rubin, J. 2009. Maine
anaerobic fermentation for biogas and compost
Bioproducts Business Pathways. Margaret Chase
production. Biomass, 16 (3), 173–182.
Policy Centre, FBRI. Available at
[27] Anand, R.C. and Singh, R. 1993. A simple
http://denali.asap.um.maine.edu/mcs/files/pdf/MBB
technique: charcoal coating around the digester
P_Jul%2008_final.pdf International Energy
improves biogas production in winter, Bioresour.
Statistics. Energy Information Administration.2009.
Technol., 45, 151–152.

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
 891 MUHAMMAD R ASHED AL M AMUN AND SHUICHI T ORII
[28] Jain, S.R. and Mattiasson, B. 1998. Acclimatization
of methanogenic consortia for low pH
biomethanation process, Biotech. Lett., 20 (8), 771–
775.
[29] Jørgensen P.J. 2009. Biogas – green energy.
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus
University.
[30] Sundrarajan, R., Jayanthi, A. and Elango, R. 1997.
Anaerobic digestion of organic fractions of
municipal solid waste and domestic sewage of
Coimbatore, Indian J.Environ. Health, 39 (3), 193–
196.
[31] Poliafico, M. 2007. Anaerobic digestion: decision
support software, Master’s thesis, department of
civil, structural and environmental engineering,
Cork institute of technology, Cork, Ireland.
[32] Bardiya, N. and Gaur, A.C. 1997. Effects of carbon
and nitrogen ratio on rice straw biomethanation,
J.Rural Energy, 4 (1–4), 1–16.
[33] Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S. and Llabres, P. 2000.
Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes: an
overview of research achievements and
perspectives, Bioresource technology, 74, 3-16.
[34] Monnet, F. 2003. An Introduction to anaerobic
digestion of organic wastes. Remade Scotland.
[35] Baier, U. and Schmidheiny, P. 1997. Enhanced
anaerobic degradation of mechanically
disintegrated sludge, Water Sci. Technol., 36 (11),
137–143.
[36] Dangaggo, S.M., Aliya, M. and Atiku, A.T. 1996.
The effect of seeding with bacteria on biogas
production rate. Int. J.Renew. Energy, 9 (1–4),
1045–1048.
[37] Kanwar, S.S. and Guleri, R.L. 1995. Biogas
production from mixture of poultry litter and cattle
dung with acclimatized inoculums, Biogas Forum I,
60, 21–23.
[38] Kotsyurbenko, O.R., Nozhevnikova, A.N.,
Kalyuzhnyy, S.V. and Zavarzin, G.A. 1993.
Methanogenic digestion of cattle manure at low
temperature, Mikrobiolo giya, 62 (4), 761–771.
[39] Baserja, U.1984. Biogas production from cowdung:
influence of time and fresh liquid manure, Swiss-
Bio tech., 2: 19–24.
[40] Sharma, S.K., Mishra, I.M., Sharma, M.P. and
Saini, J.S. 1988. Effect of particle size on biogas
generation from biomass residues. Biomass, 17,
251–263.
[41] Gollakota, K.G. and Meher, K.K. 1988. Effect of
particle size, temperature, loading rate and stirring
on biogas production from castor cake. Biol.Wastes,
24, 243–249.
[42] Moorhead, K.K. and Nordstedt, R.A. 1993. Batch
anaerobic digestion of water hyacinth: effects of
particle size, plant nitrogen content and inoculum
volume. Bioresour. Technol., 44 (1), 71–76.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
[43] Alvarez, R. and Liden, G. 2008. Semi-continuous
co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse waste, manure,
and fruit and vegetable waste. Renewable Energy,
33, 726-734.
[44] Zhang, R., Hamed, M., Karl, H., Fengyu, W.,
Guangqing, L., Chris, C. and Paul, G. 2009.
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for
anaerobic digestion. Bioresource Technology,98(4),
929-935.
[45] Forster, T., Perez, I. and Sales, D. 2007.
Drythermophilic anaerobic digestion of organic
fraction of the municipal solid waste: focusing on
the inoculum sources International conference of
the faoescorena network on recycling of
agricultural, municipal and industrial residues in
agriculture,98(17), 3195-3203.
[46] Mohan, S. and Jagadeesan, K. 2013. Production of
Biogas by Using Food Waste. Int. J. Engg. Res, and
App., 3(4), 390-394.
[47] Sharom, Z., Malakahmad, A. and Noor, B. 2004.
Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and
sewage sludge for producing biogas, 2nd
International Conference on Environmental
Management, Bangi.
[48] Delia, T. and Agdag, N. 2007. Co-digestion of
industrial sludge with municipal solid wastes in
anaerobic simulated landfilling reactors. Process
Biochemistry, 40, 1871–1879.
[49] Battistoni, P., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P. and Cecchi,
F. 2006. Anaerobic co-digestion of sludge with
other organic wastes and phosphorus reclamation in
wastewater treatment plants for biological nutrients
removal. Water Science & Technology, 53, 177-
186.
[50] Muyiiya, N.D. and Kasisira, L.L. 2009. Assessment
of the effect of mixing pig and cow dung on biogas
yield. Agril. Engg. Int.: the CIGR Ej., XI: 1-7.
[51] Narayani, T. G. and Gomathi P. 2012. Biogas
production through mixed fruit wastes
biodegradation, J. Sci. and Res., 71, 217-220.
[52] Saev, M., Koumanova and Simeonov, Iv. 2009.
Anaerobic co-digestion of wasted tomatoes and
cattle dung for biogas production. J. uni. chem.
Tech. and Met., 44(1), 55-60.
[53] Samani Z., Macias-Corral, M., Hanson, A., Smith,
G., Funk, P, Yu, H. and Longworth, J. 2008.
Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste and
agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion
with dairy cow manure. Bioresource Technology,
99(17), 8288-93.
[54] Lorenzo, B., Selene, G., Alessandro, S. and Fabio,
F. 2013. Innovative two-stage anaerobic process for
effective co-digestion of cheese whey and cattle
manure. Bioresource Technology, 128: 779–783.
[55] Tong, Z., Linlin, L., Zilin, S., Guangxin, R.,
Yongzhong, F., Xinhui, H. and Gaihe Y. 2013.
 Enhancement of Production and Upgradation of Biogas Using Different Techniques-
A Review
Biogas production by co-digestion of goat manure
with three crop residues. PLOS ONE, 8(6), 1-7.
[56] Dahunsi, S. O. and Oranusi, U. S. 2013. Co-
digestion of food waste and human excreta for
biogas production. British Biotech. J., 3(4), 485-
499.
[57] Rutledge, B. 2005. California biogas industry
assessment white paper, Pasadena, USA: West
Start-Calstart, 38 p. Report
[58] Schomaker, A.H.H.M., Boerboom, A.A.M., Visser,
A. and Pfeifer, A.E. 2000. Anaerobic digestion of
agro-industrial wastes: information networks e
technical summary on gas treatment. Nijmegen,
Nederland: AD-NETT; Report No.: FAIR-CT 96-
2083 (DG12-SSMI) 31.
[59] Jönsson, O. 2004. Biogas upgrading and use as
transport fuel. Malmö, Sweden: Swedish Gas
Center, 5 pp. Report.
[60] Bourque, H. 2006. Use of liquefied biogas in
transport sector. [Internet] Conférence sur les
crédits CO2 et la valorisation du biogaz, [cited
January 2011]. Available from:
http://www.apcas.qc.ca.
[61] Enggas [Internet]. Gilbertsville: Engineered Gas
Systems Worldwide, Inc.; c2003 [cited November
2007]. Available from: http://www.enggas.com.
[62] Gomes, V.G., Hassan, M.M., Coalseam methane
recovery by vacuum swing adsorption, Separ. Purif.
Techn., 2001;24: 189-96.
[63] Welink, J-H., Dumont, M., Kwant, K., Groen Gas:
Gas van aardgaskwaliteit uit biomassa: update van
de studie uit. 2007; 34.
[64] Kim, T-J, Li, B, Ha¨gg, M-B., Novel fixed-site-
carrier polyvinylamine membrane for carbon
dioxide capture, J. Polym Sci. Part B Polym Phys.,
2004; 42(23):4326-36.
[65] Roks, M.F.M., Luning, L., Coops, O., Feasibility of
applying new membrane for processing landfill gas
to natural gas quality at low pressure (8 bar),
[Haalbaarheid toepassing nieuw membraan voor
opwerking stortgas naar aardgaskwaliteit bij lage
druk (8 bar)] Nederland: Aquilo Gas Separation bv;
1997; 57 p. Report.
[66] Guha, A.K., Majumdar, S. and Sirkar, K.K. 1992.
Gas separation Modes in a hollow fiber contained
liquid membrane permeator. Ind Eng Chem Res,
31(2), 593-604.
[67] Esteves, I.A.A.C. and Mota, J.P.B. 2002.
Simulation of a new hybrid membrane/pressure
swing adsorption process for gas separation.
Desalination, 148, 275-80.
[68] Strevett, K.A., Vieth, R.F. and Grasso, D. 1995.
Chemo-autotrophic biogas purification for methane
enrichment: mechanism and kinetics. Chem Eng J
Biochem Eng J., 58, 71-79.
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 08, No. 02, April, 2015, pp. 877-892
892
[69] BC Innovation Council. 2008. Feasibility Study–
Biogas upgrading and grid injection in the Fraser
Valley, British Columbia.
[70] Benjaminsson, J. and Anders, D. 2008.
Upggradering av biogas. Kusrsuskompendium.
[71] De Hullu, J., Maassen, J.I.W., van Meel, P.A.,
Shazad, S. and Vaessen, J.M.P. 2008. Comparing
different biogas upgrading techniques. Eindhoven
University of Technology, The Netherlands.
[72] Lindberg, A. 2003. Developmente of in–situ
methane enrichment as a method for upgrading
biogas to vehicle fuel standard. Licentiate thesis,
KTH, Chemical Engineering and Technology,
Stockholm.
[73] Nordberg, Å., Edström, M., Uusi-Pentillä, M. and
Rasmusson, Å. 2005. Processintern
metananrikning. JTI–rapport Kretslopp & Avfall
33.
[74] Petersson A., and Wellinger A. 2009. Biogas
upgrading technologies–developments and
innovations. IEA Bioenergy. Task 37.
[75] Wellinger, A. and Lindberg, A. 2000. Biogas
upgrading and utilization. IEA Bionergy. Task 24.
[76] Trogisch, S., Baaske, W. E., et al. 2004. Biogas
Powered Fuel Cells. Trauner Verlag, Linz.
[77] McKinsey, S. Z. 2003. Removal of Hydrogen
Sulfide from Biogas using cow-manure compost. A
Thesis Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell
University.
[78] Shareefdeen, Z. and Singh, A. 2005. Biotechnology
for Odor and Air Pollution Control. Springer,
Berlin,. doi:10.1007/b138434.
[79] Zappa, L. P. 2001. Options in Odor Control.Water
& Wastewater Products, 1(1), 38.
[80] Environment-Agency. 2004. Guidance on Gas
treatment Technologies for Landfill Gas Engines.
[81] Horikawa, M.S., Rossi, F., Gimenes, M.L., Costa,
C.M.M. and da Silva, M.G.C. 2004. Chemical
absorption of H2S for biogas purification. Braz J
Chem Eng, 21(3), 415-22.