Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Effects of swine manure storage time on solid-liquid separation and biogas

production: A life-cycle assessment approach
C.E. Hollas a, A.C. Bolsan b, A. Chini a, B. Venturin a, G. Bonassa a, D. Cândido c, F.G. Antes d, R.L.
R. Steinmetz d, N.V. Prado e, A. Kunz a, c, d, *
a
UNIOESTE/CASCAVEL/CCET/PGEAGRI, Western Paraná State University, 85819-110, Cascavel, PR, Brazil
b
Universidade Tecnológica Federal Do Paraná, 85660-000, Dois Vizinhos, PR, Brazil
c
Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, 99700-000, Erechim, RS, Brazil
d
Embrapa Suínos e Aves, 89715-899, Concórdia, SC, Brazil
e
Universidade Tecnológica Federal Do Paraná, 85601-970, Francisco Beltrão, PR, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the present study was evaluated and compared the effects of swine manure storage on a low-cost solid-liquid
Animal manure separation approach. We also determined the consequences of these stages on further treatment for energy re­
Anaerobic digestion covery and environmental impact reduction. Different hydraulic retention times were studied in the solid-liquid
Settling
separation techniques to determine the best pre-treatment conditions and apply these conditions in anaerobic
Screening
Waste management
digestion. This evaluation highlighted the possibility and advantages of applying solid-liquid separation using a
Energy recovery settling pre-treatment in the swine chain. Storage time significantly affected the efficiency of screening which
Circular economy was reduced by 80 ± 0.5% after 5 d compared to fresh manure screening. This directly reflected the sludge
volume generated in the following stages, with sludge increments of 51 ± 0.1% for settling. The waste solid-
liquid separation provided better energy production results when the manure storage time was less than 5 d,
resulting in improved power generation capacity of the system (up to 4.5 kWh of electricity for each m3 of raw
manure). We observed the positive contribution of adequate manure management in swine sustainability
through the life-cycle assessment of the swine chain during manure storage, solid-liquid separation, and
anaerobic digestion. It promoted low greenhouse gas emissions, resulted in a carbon-neutral chain, and maxi­
mized energy production and recovery. The results highlighted the importance of previous solid-liquid separa­
tion in anaerobic digestion and the relevance of proper effluent management because more than 5 d of storage
time compromised subsequent processes. This was also observed during the life-cycle assessment.

sources have become a global challenge. Despite constant technological

1. Introduction
Increasing demand for animal protein has prompted at shift in swine
production from small family-owned farms to larger industrialized fa­
cilities, such as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), worldwide
[1,2]. With such intensification, large quantities of manure are gener­
ated, limiting the worldwide continuous agronomic use of agricultural
waste as a fertilizer. Unfortunately, constant concerns regarding soil,
water, and air contamination have required more sustainable systems
and better management and technological strategies for its residues [3,
4].
The mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions combined with
reducing fossil fuel dependence and searching for alternative energy
evolution, which makes the production processes more sustainable, the
search for a sustainable energy matrix and reducing GHG remain a
global problem [5–8]. Swine production has contributed to GHG emis­
sions (i.e., carbon dioxide [CO2], nitrous oxide [N2O] and methane
[CH4]), and inadequate waste management is one of the main causes [9,
10]. Although these gases are emitted during all swine production
phases, storage is considered the critical stage of the process because it
can change waste constituents and promote gas emission because of
degradation [11,12].
To mitigate these problems, currently several technologies are
currently available to manage swine effluents, among which anaerobic
digestion (AD) is one of the most attractive alternatives for the treatment
of swine wastewater fractions [13,14]. Hence, swine manure has been

* Corresponding author. Embrapa Suínos e Aves, 89715-899, Concórdia, SC, Brazil.

E-mail address: airton.kunz@embrapa.br (A. Kunz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111472
Received 3 October 2020; Received in revised form 22 June 2021; Accepted 5 July 2021
Available online 17 July 2021
1364-0321/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.E. Hollas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472

Abbreviations Bmax Maximum biogas yield (mLN biogas g−VS1)

CfLF1 Chemical flocculation Liquid fraction
AD Anaerobic digestion CfSF1 Chemical flocculation Solid fraction
BMP Biochemical methane production (mLN CH₄ g−VS1) e Euler number
CHP Combined heat and power EP Electric energy production for each fraction (kWh kg− 1)
CLB Covered lagoon biodigester M1 Swine Raw manure (for the SLS tests)
CSTR Continuous stirred-tank reactor M2 Swine Raw manure (for the BMP tests)
EEP Electric energy potential (kWh d− 1) Qf Daily swine manure flow rate (m3fraction d− 1)
FS Fixed solids (g L− 1) Qm Daily mass flow rate (kgfraction d− 1)
FSS Fixed suspended solids (g L− 1) Rec Methane recovery rate (%)
GHG Greenhouse gases Ren Energy requirement for biogas production (kWh m− 3CH4)
HRT Hydraulic retention time (min) SLF1 Screening liquid fraction (for the SLS tests)
LCA Life-cycle assessment SLF2 Screening liquid fraction (for the BMP tests)
LCI Life-cycle inventory SSF1 Screening solid fraction (for the SLS tests)
LCV methane lower calorific value (kWh m− 3) SSF2 Screening solid fraction (for the BMP tests)
MP Methane production (m3N CH₄ m− 3fraction) StLF1 Settling liquid fraction (for the SLS tests)
SLS Solid-liquid separation StLFHRT_10min Settling liquid fraction for HRT of 10 min
TAN Total ammonia nitrogen (gN L− 1) StLFHRT_30min Settling liquid fraction for HRT of 30 min
TN Total nitrogen (gN L− 1) StLFHRT_5min Settling liquid fraction for HRT of 5 min
TOC Total organic carbon (g L− 1) StSF1 Settling solid fraction (for the SLS tests)
TP Total phosphorus (gP L− 1) StSFHRT_10min Settling solid fraction for HRT of 10 min
TS Total solids (g L− 1) StSFHRT_30min Settling solid fraction for HRT of 30 min
TSS Total suspended solids (g L− 1) StSFHRT_5min Settling solid fraction for HRT of 5 min
VS Volatile solids (g L− 1) ε Efficiency of the conversion of biogas into electricity (%)
VSS Volatile suspended solids (g L− 1) λ Lag phase (d)
μmax Maximum rate of biogas production (mLN biogas g−VS1 d− 1)
NOMENCLATURES
B(t) Accumulated biogas yield (mLN biogas g−VS1)

explored as a potential renewable energy source to replace fossil fuels,
contributing to energy matrix diversification in several countries [15,
16]. This management enables energy recovery, promotes a circular
economy, and mitigates GHG emissions of the swine production chain
[17,18].
In recent years, the improvement of treatment technologies under
several conditions and wastewater pre-treatment has been the focus of
many studies. Because of the solid content of swine manure, solid-liquid
separation (SLS) is a widespread pre-treatment applied to these effluents
before to biological processes (except for high solid rate biodigesters)
[19–21]. SLS as a pre-treatment for AD can be used for process opti­
mization, increasing the biogas/methane yield, because of better use of
the highly biodegradable fraction (liquid fraction), especially in covered
lagoon biodigesters (BLC). Additionally, it can also reduce costs and
operational problems in the treatment system, such as siltation and its
subsequent process overload because of solid deposition inside the
reactor, reducing the hydraulic retention time [22–28].
SLS can be performed using a distinct range of technologies. Among
the commonly applied strategies for swine manure pre-treatment,
screening, settling, and chemical flocculation, are commercial
methods [29–31]. Despite the established efficiency of these
pre-treatments, their costs remain a limiting factor in swine wastewater
management [32,33]. Thus, settling has become an attractive alterna­
tive because of its low-cost and simple operation [23,34]. However,
once organic manure matter easily degrades and suspended particles
destabilize, the biomass storage time should be as short as possible to
avoid compromising the efficiency of SLS technologies, and subse­
quently, the AD [21,22]. Reduced manure storage time also minimizes
GHG emissions and improves energy recovery [8,35].
Although SLS and AD can manage the waste from swine production
to solve environmental issues and, supply an energy demand, the
appropriation of this route, and sustainability in relation to environ­
mental impacts (i.e., GHG emissions) must be carefully analyzed.
Therefore, the life-cycle assessment (LCA) standardization methodology
is a good approach to compare and measure the environmental impact of
biogas production from swine manure and ensure its sustainability as an
energy resource. The LCA considers all inputs and outputs of materials
and energy flow during all stages, examining and promoting information
related to the sustainability of swine production and manure treatment,
which can be positive or negative [13,36]. The LCA is defined according
to ISO 14040–14044:2006 [37,38] as the “compilation and evaluation
of the inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a product
system throughout its life cycle”. Such an evaluation is an effective tool
for assessing and solving environmental problems from the biogas pro­
duction based on a wide range of feedstocks and wastes [39].
According to Tabatabaei et al. [40], in regard to different types of
biofuels present in the renewable matrix, biogas from organic wastes in
AD is a promising alternative energy source with which to solve a
portion of global energy and environmental challenges. Despite these
benefits, they can also be produced from different types of organic
wastes. Many studies have addressed the LCA for biogas production
[41]. In Table 1, some studies regarding biogas production using the
LCA approach are presented for different biomasses and wastes.
According to Table 1, the type of pre-treatment applied to the wastes
can play different roles in biogas yield, and consequently, LCA. Addi­
tionally, the importance of LCA analysis has been observed in different
production chains. Several strategies has been proposed to increase AD
efficiency, and the best is based on biomass characteristics (i.g., waste
biodegradability) [59]. Consequently, this significantly improves the
environmental and economic feasibility of biogas production plants by
reducing capital and operating expenses [60].
Until now, most studies have determined the impacts of animal
manure pre-treatment on AD yield and LCA. Although some reports also
determined the impact of manure storage time in the LCA because of
CH4 and N2O emissions [41], there is little information that correlates
the influence of manure storage time on SLS efficiency and the combined
global effect on the swine LCA. This knowledge provides a solid strategy
to improve the efficiency of biogas production and energy recovery of

2
C.E. Hollas et al.
Table 1
Application of LCA approach on different biomass and wastes for biogas
production.
Biomass Main considerations
Food waste Biogas production from food wastes is
more suitable than other biological
alternatives from LCA.
Food waste Co-digestion of food waste (nappies and
expired food wastes) were assessed by
LCA; The tested approach showed a
positive environmental impact: lower
emissions of CO2 were obtained with less
human damage if compared with
landfilling and incineration of the wastes.
Food waste Biogas production from co-digestion of
food waste with corn silage; According to
the LCA, this is an alternative to the
reduction of 42% in the carbon footprint
of the electricity produced.
Municipal solid waste Biogas production from co-digestion of
municipal solid waste with sewage sludge
as an alternative to incineration,
composting and landfilling; The co-
digestion showed lower environmental
impact, with advantages in relation to the
LCA (global warming potential,
acidification, eutrophication and
ecotoxicity); The benefits were also
related with environmental and economic
sustainability.
Food waste Integration of pyrolysis with anaerobic
digestion were compared, according with
the LCA; Eutrophication can be reduced
around 64% and acidification 51%, with
food waste management;Biochar and
biogas are generated as alternative energy
sources.
Animal manure (effluent Tests with digestion of cow-dung and co-
slurry) digestion of cow-dung with potato-pulp;
The proportions of manure-pulp mixtures
impact the LCA categories (i.e. climate
change, eutrophication, and acidification
potential); The evaluation demonstrates
the importance and relevance of these
types of assessments.
Animal manure Some kind of pretreatment is necessary to
increase the yield of biogas from manure,
due to it high solids content;
Pretreatments approaches also impacts
the LCA of animal manure AD and biogas
production: it increases the sustainability
of the chain, through better waste use.
Animal manure The management of poultry litter by AD
and biogas production leads to reduced
environmental impacts of this waste,
terrestrial acidification, and
eutrophication. According to the LCA, the
AD of this feedstock conducts valorization
pathways in the circular economy and
reduces environmental impacts.
Animal manure and In relation to fossil diesel, gains around
municipal organic 93–131% in greenhouse gases emissions
waste were achieved with the management of
the wastes by AD, according with the
LCA; Acidification and territorial
eutrophication impacts were also reduced
(257 and 700%, respectively); Fertilizer
and nutrient recovery techniques with the
digestate from the AD would promote an
ever-great sustainability to the chain.
Animal manure Pretreatment of dairy and swine manure
would improve the efficiency of the AD,
due to the fibrous content of these wastes;
The management of wastes, pretreatment
and AD efficiency affects the global LCA,
since the environmental performance is
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
Table 1 (continued )
Biomass Main considerations Reference
directly influenced by the entire
Reference treatment of the farm.
[42] Animal manure AD was evaluated as an alternative to [52]
manage the wastes from dairy farm, with
the LCA approach; Then, the
[43] environmental categories of global
warming potential, acidification,
eutrophication and photochemical ozone
creation were assessed, which promoted
reductions in the environmental impact of
25.7, 49.5, 18.1 and 16.1, respectively;
Besides, the manure accumulation and
[44] storage time on the sand bed is one of the
highest contributors to global warming
and photochemical ozone potential, due
to excessive emissions of CH4. With such,
there are also losses on biogas production.
[45] Microalgae The advantages of microalgae AD are due [53]
that this biomass fast grow in non-arable
land areas and accumulates a high
quantity of digestible macromolecules in
the biomass, for biogas production;
During the microalgae growing, it
reduces CO2 from air to its cultivation,
which also does not require fresh water
and nutrients, impacting the LCA
positively.
Lignocellulosic biomass To apply these kinds of wastes, some kind [54]
[46] of pretreatment before the AD is required
(i.e. sulfuric acid (SA), sodium hydroxide
(SH), aqueous ammonia (AA), and
sodium carbonate (SC)); These
pretreatments affect biogas yield and
consequently the LCA.
Municipal solid waste Manage gas from AD as vehicle [55]
[47] applications promote better
environmental issues than as energy,
according with the LCA results; The
advantages related with the utilization of
methane as road transport fuel in
substitution of fossil fuels is about the
minimization of greenhouse gases
emission, more than if it was applied as an
[48] energy source.
Sludge from wastewater The AD was evaluated as an alternative to [56]
treatment plant organic matter treatment of sludges from
WWTP, to evaluate the consequently the
environmental impacts according with
the LCA; Low CO2 emissions were
observed with the implementation of this
[49] management.
Food waste The palm oil waste was evaluated as a [57]
source to biogas production by AD;
According with the LCA, from the point of
view of global warming, land use and
water consumption, this a promising
technology that can be used to meet the
goals for a sustainable energy matrix; The
[50] sustainability of biogas production can be
enhanced with better techniques of
biogas production (i.e. pretreatment
routes), utilization and digestate
management.
Vinasse The LCA of vinasse AD were analyzed to [58]
compare the environmental impact of this
system with open lagoons; According,
77% of the impact was reduced with the
AD management, with the biogas
[51] production and recovery, reducing the
negative environmental impact of this
category.
3
C.E. Hollas et al.
the swine production system, creating adjustments that reduce its
environmental impact.
Accordingly, research is needed that addresses certain issues and
presents a systematic and reliable assessment of the LCA, considering the
SLS and manure storage time. In this study, we (i) determined the in­
fluence of swine manure storage time on SLS efficiency (based on
screening, settling, and chemical flocculation); (ii) explored the influ­
ence of SLS on swine biogas and methane yield; and (iii) conducted an
LCA to evaluate the environmental impact of biogas production during
different scenarios, including variation in manure storage time and SLS.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Samples and storage
A representative fresh raw swine manure (M1) sample (200 L) was
collected directly from the reception pits inside a gestating sow house
(previously cleaned 1 d before sample collection) in the experimental
swine production system at the National Swine and Poultry Research
Center (Embrapa Suínos e Aves) located in Concórdia, Santa Catarina,
Brazil (27◦ 18′ S, 51◦ 59′ W). The manure was stored in a dark poly­
ethylene container at room temperature (25 ± 3 ◦ C).
For the biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments, raw
swine manure (M2) sample was collected after 3 d of storage in recep­
tion pits inside a gestating sow house.
2.2. Solid-liquid separation experiments
The effects of storage time on the SLS of raw manure (at drainage
channels) were determined using simplified and low-cost separation
strategies based on screening and settling and compared with chemical
flocculation. The experiments were performed for 20 d. During this
period, samples were collected daily and submitted to an initial SLS by
screening using a 2 mm sieve for coarse particle separation. The
resulting solids retained in the sieve (SSF1) were characterized, and the
liquid fraction (SLF1) was subjected to another SLS using settling or
chemical flocculation techniques (Fig. 1). Moreover, the supernatant
from the settling was subjected to settling tests for 60 min in an Imhoff
cone. All tests were performed in triplicate.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of swine manure solid-liquid separation tests for screening and subsequent settling or chemical flocculation.
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
2.2.1. Solid-liquid separation by settling
The experimental apparatus used for SLS experiments was composed
of (i) a feed tank continuously stirred by a mechanical stirrer (RW20 D
S32, Ika); (ii) two peristaltic pumps (07554–95, Master Flex and BP-600,
Milan) for system feeding; and (iii) a conical decanter with a working
volume of 1 L. The decanter operated with continuous feeding at the top,
intermittent disposal of sludge at the bottom (10 ± 3% of the feed vol­
ume), and 30 min of hydraulic retention time (HRT).
To monitor the effects of manure storage time on SLS, the solid
(StSF1) and liquid fractions (StLF1) from the tests were characterized
daily according to the physicochemical properties of the solid and liquid
fractions generated during the SLS experiment.
2.2.2. Solid-liquid separation by chemical flocculation
SLS tests with chemical additives were performed by chemical floc­
culation, using as coagulant a 10% (v v− 1) aqueous solution of poly­
phenolic organic polymer (liquid form containing 30% tannic acid (TA)
and 0.01%, w v− 1, Veta Organic®, Brazilian Wattle Extracts, Brazil) and
an aqueous solution of polyacrylamide (PAM) (granular form, Activator
Q®, Brazilian Wattle Extracts, Brazil). Both coagulants were prepared
immediately before use by dilution with water under vigorous stirring
for 15 min.
These tests were conducted using a Jar-Test (JT102/3, Milan,
Colombo, Brazil) with a working volume of 1 L, with the following steps:
(i) the influent was stirred for 5 min at 200 rpm with 75 mL of TA (10% v
v− 1), (ii) 15 mL of PAM (0.01% w v− 1) was added to the system at 50
rpm for 10 min, and finally (iii) the mixture was maintained without
mixing for 15 min for solid fraction settling [61]. Both fractions
(chemical flocculation solid fraction (CfSF1) and chemical flocculation
liquid fraction (CfLF1)) were characterized using physicochemical
analyses.
2.3. Biochemical methane potential
The BMP was determined using raw swine manure and each of the
fractions from the SLS: solid retained in the sieve (SSF2), supernatant
from screening (SLF2), settled sludge (StSF30, StSF 10, and StSF5), and
supernatant from settling (StLF30, StLF10, and StLF5). Samples of su­
pernatant from settling and settled sludge were collected at three HRT
(5, 10, and 30 min).
AD experiments were performed to determine the BMP, in batches
C.E. Hollas et al.
and triplicate, under mesophilic temperature conditions (37 ◦ C) ac­
cording to VDI 4630 [62]. For all SLS fractions and raw manure, the tests
were conducted using a 250 mL reactor flask, and the gas volume was
measured using eudiometer graduated tubes (500 mL). The mesophilic
anaerobic inoculum was prepared as described by Steinmetz et al. [63].
The gas production was monitored daily by displacement of the column
of liquid sealant [64] in the eudiometer tube, and the dried biogas
volume was corrected to 273.15 K and 1013 hPa. The test was consid­
ered stabilized and finalized when the daily biogas production was less
than or equal to 1% of the total volume [62].
For the biogas composition evaluation (CH4), the samples were
analyzed by infrared and electrochemical sensors on a BIOGAS 5000
(Landtec, Dexter, USA).
2.4. Analytical methods
All analytical determinations were performed at least in triplicates,
and the results represent the average and standard deviation. Total
ammonia nitrogen (TAN: NH+ 4 –N + NH3–N, expressed as NH3–N) was
measured by a colorimetric method in a flow injection analysis system
(model 2500, Fialab Instruments, Seattle, USA), based on the method
Rice et al. [65], as described by Hollas et al. [66]. Total solids (TS), fixed
solids (FS), volatile solids (VS), total suspended solids (TSS), volatile
suspended solids (VSS), and fixed suspended solids (FSS) were quanti­
fied gravimetrically according to standard methods [65].
The soluble total organic carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN) were
determined using a TOC analyzer (TOC-LCPH/CPN, Shimadzu, Kyoto,
Japan) following the manufacturer’s recommendations. A the relative
standard deviation of less than 2.5% was obtained in triplicate to the
determine of TOC and TN. Total phosphorous (TP) was quantified by the
molibdovanadato colorimetric method using a UV-VIS spectrophotom­
eter (model Cary 50, Agilent, Santa Clara, USA). Potassium was quan­
tified by flame photometry (B-462, Micronal, Santo André, Brazil) [65].
Total phosphorous (TP) was quantified by the molibdovanadato
colorimetric method using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (model Cary 50,
Agilent, Santa Clara, USA). Potassium was quantified by flame
photometry (B-462, Micronal, Santo André, Brazil) [65]
2.5. Kinect model
The modified Gompertz model (Equation (1)) was used to adjust the
biogas potential data to a theoretical logistic model [67].
{ [ ]}
μ ⋅e⋅(λ − t)
B(t) = Bmax ⋅exp − exp max +1 (1)
Bmax
Fig. 2. Hypothetical scenarios to estimate the energy potential with or without use of solid-liquid separation.
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
where B(t) represents the accumulated biogas yield (mLN biogas g−VS1) at
time t; Bmax is the maximum biogas yield (mLN biogas g−VS1); μmax is the
maximum rate of biogas production (mLN biogas g−VS1 d− 1); λ refers to the
lag phase (d); t means the incubation time (d); and e is the Euler number.
2.6. Electric energy potential
The energy potential of biogas from the SLS fractions and raw swine
manure was calculated according to Equation (2), and the electric en­
ergy production for each fraction, as a function of the concentration of
VS and considering the energetic consumption of AD, were calculated
according to Equation (3). This was estimated for three scenarios
(Fig. 2), considering a hypothetical farrow-to-wean unit with 5000
breeding females and 111.9 m3 d− 1 of manure [68,69].
EEP = MP⋅ LCV⋅ Qf ⋅ ε ⋅ Rec (2)
( ) ( )
MP⋅ LCV ⋅ Qf ⋅ ε ⋅ Rec − Ren. ⋅ MP⋅ Qf
EP = (3)
Qm
where EEP is the electric energy potential for each fraction (kWh d− 1);
MP is the methane production related to the fraction volume (m3N CH₄
m− 3fraction); LCV is the methane lower calorific value (9.45 kWh m− 3); Qf
is the daily flow rate generated for each fraction (m3fraction d− 1); ε is the
total efficiency of the conversion of biogas into electricity (30%) [70];
and Rec is the methane recovery rate (%), which represents the ratio
between the reactor yield and the BMP value from the fraction, ac­
cording to previously presented values [71]. EP is the electric energy
production for each fraction, as a function of the VS concentration and
considering the energy consumption of AD (kWh kg− 1); Ren. Is the en­
ergy requirement for biogas production, estimated according to Boula­
manti et al. [72] using the ratio 0.16 kWh m− 3CH4; and Qm is the daily
mass flow rate generated for each fraction (kgfraction d− 1).
2.7. Life-cycle assessment
The LCA was applied to evaluate the environmental aspects and
possible impacts associated with swine manure storage time and energy
use by AD. The evaluation was performed according to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO14040 and 14,044) provided for
any LCA study [37,38]. The software OpenLCA 1.10.2 [73] was used to
perform the evaluation, (free open-source software), with detailed in­
sights regarding the results and analysis performed, allowing for greater
reliability and transparency.
The LCA approach was split into three scenarios to compare the
C.E. Hollas et al.
environmental profiles of swine manure treatment systems (Fig. 3). The
of scenarios included manure production and storage in swine produc­
tion installations; manure organic matter stabilization followed by field
application and/or biogas production, or electricity and heat cogene­
ration at the combined heat and power (CHP) plant; AD digestate stor­
age and application as fertilizer.
The baseline was comprised of the storage of waste in the in­
stallations (~8 d) [74], followed by stabilization in an open storage tank
(120 d) [75], transportation to the field, and soil application as a fer­
tilizer source (N, P, and K). Scenario 1 included manure storage in the
installation (8 d), followed by organic matter degradation by AD (30 d),
and storage of digestate in an open storage tank (60 d). Then, the
digestate was applied as fertilizer in the soil (after 60 d of storage, a hot
spot for emissions in LCA studies of biogas systems), and the gaseous
fraction (biogas) could be used for electricity and heat production. In
Scenario 2, the swine manure storage in the installations was reduced to
3 d. The effluent was pretreated by before AD of both fractions. The
biological process occurred in separate reactors because of to the con­
centration of manure solids. As in Scenario 1, the liquid fraction was also
used as a fertilizer and gaseous product for heat and electricity pro­
duction (Fig. 3). For all scenarios, the impacts related to the construction
steps of the physical installations were not included in the assessment,
because they were not a result of changes in manure management, and
the objective was to verify the impacts associated with effluent storage
time and biogas production.
The LCA modeling for the current study was projected for the
treatment of 1 m3 of swine manure. The life-cycle inventory (LCI) was
constructed to understand the magnitude and significance of the po­
tential environmental impacts of the effluents. LCI considered the pro­
cess involved (and corresponding inputs and outputs) and the emissions
and energetic demands from each phase. To understand and describe the
consequences of a decision (Baseline, Scenario 1 or 2) for the environ­
ment, we used some marginal data from the Ecoinvent 3.6 [76] data­
base, data estimation based on the relevant literature, the inventory
described by Cherubini et al. [77] and the experiments developed in
present the study (Table 2). More detailed information on the inventory
estimates is provided in the Supplementary Material.
IMPACT World+, a globally regionalized life-cycle impact assess­
ment method, was used to evaluate the described systems (Table 2). The
method integrates Latin America and relates spatial variability to pri­
ority elementary flows in a regionalized way [84]. Because the scenario
in this study refers to environmental impacts, midpoint impact cate­
gories were used in the LCA methodology. For this, the following
midpoint categories of environmental impacts were used: climate
Fig. 3. Scenarios and system limits, being that: the dashed box represents the system limits; black arrows indicate the flows and (T) means transport.
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
change (short term), freshwater acidification, freshwater ecotoxicity,
freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer
related), marine eutrophication, photochemical oxidant formation and
terrestrial acidification.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the percentages of
emissions during the storage stage to verify how an increase or decrease
in emissions would affect the overall performance of each scenario,
considering 15% and 25% variation in the emissions at this stage [85].
2.8. Data processing and statistical analysis
Differences between the treatments over time were assessed by an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test for means
comparisons, both with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
To describes the behavior of sludge volume production through
storage, screening, settling and chemical flocculation over time, a simple
linear regression was performed. The coefficient of determination (R2)
describes the explanation percentage of the adjusted model.
Statistical analyses (ANOVA, Tukey test, and linear regression) and
the mathematical modeling required for the kinetic analysis of the
Gompertz model were performed using the software R version 3.6.3.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of swine manure storage on solid-liquid separation
According to the data obtained for physicochemical parameters
during manure storage (Fig. 4), it was possible to verify that the con­
centrations of TN, K, and TP exhibited smaller variations over time,
unlike TAN and TOC, which presented increases of approximately 20%
and 5%, respectively. Popovic and Jensen [86] also fund that TP con­
centration in swine manure did not significantly influence the storage
process, during 43 weeks at 25 ◦ C.
However, TS was the parameter most affected by storage time, with
an average reduction of 10% in TS after 20 d of storage. Provolo et al.
[87] also verified a pronounced reduction in TS (approximately 15%)
when the waste manure was stored for 28 d. Shin et al. [88] assessed the
effects of storage and acidification of swine manure on biogas produc­
tion, attaining a decrease in TS of approximately 20% after 40 d of
storage, and approximately 1–3% of this reduction was related to CH4
emission.
Perazzolo et al. [89] studied the behavior of cattle slurry stored in
different seasons of the year and showed that the temperature was a
determining factor in the acceleration of the waste degradation process
C.E. Hollas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472

Table 2
Life-cycle inventories for all three scenarios (mass balances per m3 manure).
Inputs

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reference

Manure, in m3 1.0 1.0 1.0

Electricity from Brazilian grid for SLS, in kWh n.a.b n.a.b 0.3 [78]
Electricity from Brazilian grid for AD, in kWh n.a.b n.a.b 0.93 [72]
Heat wood-based for AD, in MJ n.a.b n.a.b 16.35 [72]
Electricity from Brazilian grid for CHP, in kWh n.a.b 0.33 0.52 [72]
Mineral and lubricating oil for CHP, in g n.a.b 7.32 11.68 [72]

Outputs

Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reference

Product avoided
Chemical fertilizer NPKa, in kg 3.58 3.28 3.51 study data
Electricity from Brazilian in grid, in kWh n.a.b 6.22 8.34 study data
Heat wood-based, in MJ n.a.b 48.50 65.01 study datac

Emissions to air Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reference

CO2 in storage, in kg 8.09 4.41 4.02 [79]

CH4 in storage, in kg 5.69 3.11 2.83 [80]
NH3 in storage, in kg 0.11 0.070 0.066 [81]
CH4 in AD, in g n.a.b 7.32 11.68 [19]
SO2 in CHP, in g n.a.b 0.073 0.11 [19]
NOx in CHP, in g n.a.b 11.53 18.40 [19]
NMVOC in CHP, in g n.a.b 0.40 0.64 [19]
CH4 in CHP, in g n.a.b 41.36 65.99 [19]
CO in CHP, in g n.a.b 3.14 5.02 [19]
CO2 in CHP, in kg n.a.b 11.71 18.68 [19]
N2O in CHP, in g n.a.b 0.22 0.35 [19]
NH3 in spreading, in kg 0.46 0.47 0.47 [77]
N2O in spreading, in kg 0.025 0.014 0.014 [77]
N2 in spreading, in kg 0.074 0.064 0.064 [77]
NO in spreading, in kg 0.18 0.18 0.18 [77]

Emissions to water Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reference

NO3 leaching, in kg 0.71 0.67 0.68 [77]

P leaching, in kg 0.30 0.30 0.30 [82]

Emissions to soil Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Reference

Copper, in g 8.98 7.44 7.44 [83]

Zinc, in g 63.58 53.42 53.42 [83]
a
NPK as N, P2O5 and K2O.
b
Not applicable.
c
65% heat recovery [70].

because it favors the growth of microorganisms. According to Browne
et al. [90], countries with tropical climates have effluent storage limited
to environmental conditions because they can promote significant losses
of nutrients and greenhouse gases, and consequently, compromise sub­
sequent treatment efficiency.
According to Moset et al. [91], manure storage has a direct influence
on organic matter biodegradability, and consequently, on gas emissions.
In addition to the carbon emitted as methane, stored waste releases
considerable amounts of nitrogen (as nitrous oxide or ammonia) into the
atmosphere, which is subsequently deposited in aquatic environments,
triggering eutrophication and acidification. Finally, the agronomic and
energetic potential of the waste are reduced [7,8,22,92].
Manure storage severely compromised the screening, the first step of
SLS. In the first 5 d, the efficiency of TS retained by screening was 27.9
± 19.6%. After this period, the efficiency decreased to 3.7 ± 2.7%. This
effect was also observed with 8 d of manure storage by Kunz et al. [74],
where the efficiency was reduced by 30%.
Mechanical screening-based techniques generally have low effi­
ciency for solids removal (approximately 30% for TS). This is because
the sieves act mainly on the suspended particles, which have a diameter
greater than the sieve mesh [31,93,94]. Based on this, the efficiency
achieved in the first days was consistent with the average efficiency of
the process and was also compatible with the results obtained by Marti
et al. [95]. The authors achieved 27% efficiency in TS removal from
swine manure, whereas for dissolved fractions such as ammoniacal ni­
trogen, they obtained an efficiency approximately 3.2%. In the present
study, for the first 5 d, the efficiency of TAN removal was 6.7 ± 2.6%.
For the separations conducted after screening, the manure age had a
significant influence on the concentrations of some of the analyzed
physicochemical parameters (Table 3). According to the Tukey test (p <
0.05), VS, TN, and TAN did not change significantly over time. In gen­
eral, it was possible to verify an increase in TAN, TP, K, and TOC con­
centrations in the supernatants of the separation techniques adopted.
On average, the TS removal efficiency after 19 d was 59.5 ± 0.2%
and 75.9 ± 0.2% for settling and chemical flocculation, respectively.
Regarding screening and settling using the SLS technique, the removal
efficiencies of K were 7.3 ± 0.3%, TP 61.2 ± 0.2%, and TAN 15.1 ±
0.3%; for screening and chemical flocculation, the efficiencies were 8.9
± 0.2%, 66.9 ± 0.2% and 14.8 ± 0.1%, respectively. Riaño and García-
González [32] applied screening and chemical flocculation as SLS ap­
proaches and obtained efficiencies similar to those of the present study,
removing 68.3% of TS, 22% of TKN and 76.6% of TP.
According to the results of the SLS supernatant over time (Table 3),
there was an increase in the concentration of the analyzed parameters,
which was mostly because by a reduction in separation efficiency, and
some transformations that occurred in the manure supported these in­
crements. It is well known that for TP, the soluble fraction in swine
waste is present in orthophosphate form, but most of it is associated with

7
C.E. Hollas et al.
Fig. 4. Swine raw manure physicochemical parameters concentration as a function of storage time. A) Relation between swine raw manure (C0) and solids and TOC;
B) Relation between swine raw manure (C0) and mineral forms. C0: TS:17.5 g L− 1; FS: 4.6 g L− 1; VS: 12.9 g L− 1; TOC: 3.95 g L− 1; TN: 1.83 g L− 1; K: 0.55 g L− 1; TP:
0.41 g L− 1; TAN: 0.97 g L− 1.
TS, supporting the high efficiency of removal [94].
However, with solid decomposition, phosphorous tends to solubilize
during manure storage and consequently its transformation into insol­
uble species decreases over time [86,96], corroborating the increase
observed in this work. The TOC increment observed in the liquid frac­
tion from SLS was a consequence of manure degradation, which resulted
in organic matter solubility, whereas part of it could be lost as methane
[97].
The degradation of organic matter also leads to an increase in TAN
concentration (Table 3) because of the ammonification process that
occurs in waste with nitrogen, such as swine manure, caused by organic
nitrogen degradation [98]. Hui et al. [99] stated that degradation caused
by storage promotes an increase in such parameters in the liquid frac­
tion. This reduction is directly reflected in subsequent treatment pro­
cesses (i.e., AD, nitrification/denitrification) and mainly in SLS
efficiencies [30,90].
Comparing the two SLS techniques, chemical flocculation showed
superior efficiency. In the settling process, mainly discrete particles will
be removed, whereas chemical flocculation also removes suspended
particles, substantiating the difference [100–102]. However, it is
important to highlight that although the settling showed lower perfor­
mance, the difference may not imply that flocculation should be adopted
instead of settling once the cost associated with chemical flocculation
makes the system onerous. It corresponds to approximately 30% of the
operating cost of the treatment plant. This demonstrated the screening
and settling approach as a considerable and applicable strategy for SLS
of swine manure [33,66,103].
Additionally, the storage time also influenced the volume of sludge
generated in different stages and with different separation techniques
(Fig. 5a). As a consequence of reduced screening efficiency, the sludge
volume retained in the sieve is also reduced by 52 ± 0.5%, which in­
terferes with the settleable solids volume (Fig. 5b), increasing in volume
because of the degradation of the solid fraction [22,88]. The sludge from
chemical flocculation tends to be more stable because of the use of
chemical products, and does not show as much interference from the
degradation process during sludge densification (Fig. 5c) [34,101].
The observed settleable solid volumes were consistent with those
documented by Fragoso et al. [100], wherein the produced sludge vol­
ume after 30 min of settling was 400 mL L− 1. The sludge volume ob­
tained in the chemical flocculation tests (600 ± 71 mL L− 1) was close to
that found by Steinmetz et al. [61], who applied the same concentration
of PAM and TAN during the SLS.
The generation of sludge in treatment plants is an important issue,
and because of the costs associated with its management, it deserves
attention. Hence, there are several technologies that can be used in
sludge treatment, ranging from agronomic use to energy reuse by AD
[104–106]. Thus, it is evident that manure storage time should be
reduced to avoid compromising the sludge volume generated, avoid the
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
emission of pollutant gases, and improve the entire management of
swine manure treatment routes.
3.2. Effect of solid-liquid separation of swine manure on BMP
As concluded, the manure storage time should not be longer than 5
d therefore, the waste used was collected with a maximum of 3 d of
storage. Several studies have mentioned the effects of storage on organic
matter degradation and the consequent adverse outcomes regarding
biogas production. Not only in the pre-treatment stage, but also in the
AD stage, storage negatively affects the treatment system.
Shin et al. [88] investigated the effects of storage on GHG emissions
and biogas production and noted that waste stored for 40 d emits
1
approximately 3.7 kgCO2 eq. Ton−manure and reduced the effluent BMP by
up to 40%. Im et al. [8] also studied the storage effect during 80 d at
35 ◦ C on cattle manure degradation and stated that it emitted 375.1
kgCO2 eq. Ton−VS1 and the biogas potential was reduced by 42%. It is
evident that stockpiling affects the treatment system not only in terms of
process efficiency, but also in terms of the environmental damage it can
cause because of the emissions associated with this practice, compro­
mising environmental quality.
To better understand the influence of SLS on biogas production, the
mass balances of the fractions under study were initially determined
(Table 4). It was possible to verify that screening generates a sludge
volume of approximately 3.5 ± 2.0% and settling of approximately 10.0
± 5.0%, both related to the input volume into the SLS system. Yang et al.
[27] obtained similar proportions in relation to the SLS volumetric
balance, with 85% of the final volume related to the supernatant and
15% to the sludge from the separation process, using a separation system
composed of a hydraulic wedge-shaped sieve followed by 3 h of settling.
Yang et al. [33] obtained volumetric efficiencies ranging from 10 to 30%
in sludge generation in the process of SLS of swine manure through a
settling column made of plexiglass.
The composition of animal manure is influenced by several factors,
including animal diet, production phase, age, water consumption, and
management system, which directly affect the characteristics of the final
material. Consequently, a solid fraction is present, which supports the
divergent values in the literature and the data observed in this study on
the removal during the separation stages, both by sieving and sedi­
mentation, in addition to operational differences in the SSLstage itself (e.
g., mesh of sieve, sedimentation time, use of centrifuges) [32,33].
Even with the HRT changes imposed on SLS, the separation ratios
were maintained, as shown in Table 4, based on the volumetric balance.
However, the separation efficiency varied depending on the HRT
employed for each SLS test. As the settling time increased, the concen­
trations of the analyzed parameters showed a tendency to decay in the
supernatants, being concentrated in the sludge, as previously discussed.
TS removal efficiencies obtained by SLS were higher than those report
C.E. Hollas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472

Table 3
Swine manure characteristics (liquid fraction) after the solid-liquid separation process.
Time (d) TS (g L− 1) FS (g L− 1) VS* (g L− 1) TOC (mg L− 1) TN* (mg L− 1) K (mg L− 1) TP (mg L− 1) TAN* (mg L− 1)

Settling

1 6.4 ± 0.4aA 2.0 ± 0.1dA 4.4 ± 0.3 1792 ± 144fA 1211 ± 55 508 ± 41cB 83 ± 6eA 730 ± 71
2 5.7 ± 0.2bA 1.9 ± 0.1dA 3.9 ± 0.1 1729 ± 114fA 1247 ± 22 555 ± 16bA 81 ± 4eA 756 ± 19
3 5.5 ± 0.1bA 1.9 ± 0.1dA 3.5 ± 0.1 2039 ± 167eA 1202 ± 54 532 ± 40bB 84 ± 2eA 849 ± 123
4 5.0 ± 0.2bA 1.6 ± 0.1eB 3.4 ± 0.2 1759 ± 58fA 1223 ± 44 505 ± 39cA 81 ± 8eA 774 ± 39
5 5.7 ± 0.2bA 2.1 ± 0.1cA 3.6 ± 0.1 1975 ± 79eA 1314 ± 55 554 ± 33bA 93 ± 1eA 825 ± 19
6 5.6 ± 0.1bA 2.1 ± 0.1cA 3.5 ± 0.1 2042 ± 59eA 1254 ± 43 481 ± 4cB 107 ± 4dA 925 ± 136
7 5.5 ± 0.2bA 2.0 ± 0.1dA 3.5 ± 0.2 2250 ± 180dA 1293 ± 49 464 ± 7cA 106 ± 3dA 827 ± 44
8 5.6 ± 0.1bA 2.1 ± 0.1cA 3.5 ± 0.1 1669 ± 111fB 1135 ± 8 488 ± 34cA 115 ± 1dA 867 ± 37
12 5.9 ± 0.2aA 2.3 ± 0.1bA 3.7 ± 0.1 2386 ± 124cA 1117 ± 66 468 ± 20cA 139 ± 6cA 911 ± 52
15 5.6 ± 0.1bA 2.2 ± 0.1bA 3.4 ± 0.1 2539 ± 45bA 1269 ± 91 535 ± 23bB 153 ± 2bB 985 ± 58
19 6.3 ± 0.3aA 2.4 ± 0.1aA 3.8 ± 0.2 3049 ± 181aA 1326 ± 100 595 ± 24aA 183 ± 7aA 1025 ± 40

Chemical Flocculation

1 4.5 ± 0.3aB 1.7 ± 0.1cB 2.7 ± 02 1495 ± 35fB 1089 ± 25 564 ± 36aA 44 ± 4fB 673 ± 1
2 3.7 ± 0.2bB 1.8 ± 0.1cA 1.9 ± 0.2 1366 ± 43fB 1162 ± 39 565 ± 25aA 54 ± 3fB 747 ± 24
3 3.7 ± 0.3bB 1.9 ± 0.1cA 1.9 ± 0.2 1506 ± 81fB 1155 ± 23 610 ± 5aA 69 ± 7fB 806 ± 19
4 3.8 ± 0.8bB 1.8 ± 0.1cA 2.0 ± 0.7 1542 ± 50fB 1254 ± 71 539 ± 16bA 91 ± 10eA 875 ± 17
5 3.8 ± 0.1bB 2.0 ± 0.1bA 1.8 ± 0.1 1610 ± 36eB 1230 ± 36 519 ± 14bA 91 ± 4eA 852 ± 9
6 3.8 ± 0.2bB 2.0 ± 0.1bA 1.8 ± 0.2 1672 ± 9eB 1165 ± 57 533 ± 25bA 110 ± 8dA 885 ± 13
7 3.9 ± 0.1bB 2.0 ± 0.1bA 1.8 ± 0.2 1877 ± 35cB 1273 ± 39 484 ± 24cA 116 ± 3dA 880 ± 8
8 3.6 ± 0.1bB 2.0 ± 0.1bA 1.6 ± 0.1 1807 ± 47dA 1062 ± 69 488 ± 14cA 96 ± 11eB 919 ± 71
12 4.3 ± 0.2aB 2.3 ± 0.1aA 2.0 ± 0.2 2045 ± 66bB 1137 ± 51 494 ± 27cA 137 ± 9cA 920 ± 11
15 4.1 ± 0.4aB 2.2 ± 0.1aA 1.9 ± 0.3 2237 ± 73aB 1157 ± 35 602 ± 17aA 171 ± 20aA 1008 ± 11
19 3.7 ± 0.3bB 2.2 ± 0.1aB 1.6 ± 0.2 2331 ± 80aB 1337 ± 66 585 ± 8aA 156 ± 10bB 1029 ± 12

* Showed no significant variation over time according to Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Note: Different lowercase letters indicate different means between days for each parameter inside the treatments and different uppercase letters indicate different
means between treatments for each day and parameter, according to Tukey test, p < 0.05.

by Zhang et al. [34], which achieved 40% after 120 min of SLS of swine
wastes by settling. This difference can be explained by the storage time
because the authors stocked the manure for 2 months, compromising the
SLS.
After the SLS balances were determined, BMP tests were performed
to compare the effect of SLS on AD. As presented by Jingura and
Kamusoko [107], BMP tests are the basis for determining the perfor­
mance of the AD process, being a high reliability and widely used
method. These tests resulted in a higher methane yield value in the su­
pernatant from settling with a 30 min HRT, as shown in Table 5. As the
HRT in the settling step increased, the potential also increased, even
reducing the solids concentration. There was an increase in the methane
production potential up to 1.2 times compared to the raw manure value.
Supernatants, in general, correspond to 30–90% of the swine manure
methane potential.
Amaral et al. [23] also showed that BMP was higher in the super­
natant from SLS. According to the authors, the organic matter of these
fractions has greater bioavailable for AD, reducing the HRT of bio­
digesters. This makes it possible to treat these fractions in high-loading
rate reactors (i.e., upflow anaerobic sludge blanket, UASB) [17,71].
Different sedimentation times affect the composition of the fractions
present in the substrate, not only in terms of VS, but also in relation to
their biodegradability, resulting changes in the C/N ratio and potentially
inhibiting the process by the concentration of inhibitors in a particular
fraction. Based on this, it was possible to verify the optimal operation
conditions for the pre-treatment stage, considering not only the effi­
ciency of the separation process but also the performance of the AD
stage.
The sludge retained in the sieve exhibited the highest methane
production, 51.38 ± 3.11m3N CH₄ m− 3fraction, with a BMP similar to that
of other analyzed fractions. In a general way, all sludge fractions had a
higher BMP because of their high solids concentration (1–12%)
compared to that of the supernatants (0.3–0.8%). Furthermore, the
sludge corresponds to 10–60% of the biogas potential of swine manure,
but with an increase of up to 14% in methane production in relation to
that of raw manure.
Rico et al. [26] studied the effects of chemical treatment and
screening at the technique for the separation of dairy cattle manure and
found changes in the BMPs of the different fractions obtained in the SLS.
The dairy manure changed from 0.320 m3 kgvs− 1 to 0.580 m3 kgvs− 1 in the
separated liquid fraction and 0.258 m3 kgvs− 1 in the solid fraction. In
addition to the increase in BMP, another important observation made by
these authors was changes in the degradation times of the fractions.
Although the liquid fraction took 21 d to reach 90% recovery of biogas,
the solid fraction and raw manure took 48 and 52 d, respectively, to
reach this percentage of recovery. This reinforces the discussion of the
beneficial effect of SLS on the AD of animal waste, resulting in higher
rates of biogas and methane production, giving higher loading capacity
in digestion reactors with shorter retention times [30].
According to the results obtained in this study, the sludge fractions
have the capacity to produce from 4.5 to 51.4 m3 of methane for each m3
of digested sludge. These values are approximately 7.5 times higher than
that of the supernatants, which shows the capacity to produce from 1.58
to 3.45 m3 of CH4 for each m3 of the digested fraction. Deng et al. [108]
also reported that the biogas potential from sludge was approximately
6.7 times higher than that from SLS. Yang et al. [33] stated that because
of the higher levels of solids (sludge fractions), a higher HRT may be
needed, which influences reactor size. However, the methane yield was
still higher than that of the digestion of raw manure.
Fig. 6 shows the relative behavior of the accumulated biogas yield in
the stratified fractions compared to that of raw manure (Figure A1). The
supernatants exhibited a production delay when compared to the sludge
fractions. However, after 1.7 d the settled supernatant (HRT 30 min) had
an equal yield to that of raw manure. After the initial delay presented by
the supernatants (compared to the other fractions) yield rates increased,
and the settled supernatant (HRT 30 min) stood out in relation to other
fractions, with a yield 14% higher than that of the raw manure.
According to Cao et al. [109], this behavior occurs because the
methane production rate is lower than that the hydrolysis at the
beginning of the process. With an improvement in biodegradability
caused by SLS, the hydrolysis and acidification rates are higher and
methanogenesis is reversibly inhibited by acid accumulation. Because it

9
C.E. Hollas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472

Fig. 5. Non-linear regressions of the monitoring of sludge and settleable solids during the experiment. a) mass of sludge retained on the sieve, where y = mass of
solids retained on the sieve (g kg− 1) and x = time (d); b) settleable solids of the supernatant after screening, where y = volume of settleable solids (mL L− 1) and x =
time (d); c) settleable solids from chemical flocculation, where y = volume of settleable solids (mL L− 1) and x = time (d).

Table 4
Volumetric balances (v v− 1) from each fraction after swine manure solid-liquid separation and mass fraction (w w− 1) of physicochemical parameters compared to
swine raw manure.
volumetric balance

M2 Supernatant from screening Solid retained in sieve Settled supernatant Settled sludge

100% 96.5 ± 1.5% 3.5 ± 2.0% 86.5 ± 5% 10 ± 5%

Mass fractiona

TOC TAN TS VS

SLF2 0.93 ± 0.15 1.00 ± 0.06 0.94 ± 0.02 0.90 ± 0.03

StLF5 0.83 ± 0.14 0.92 ± 0.04 0.67 ± 0.06 0.67 ± 0.05
StLF10 0.78 ± 0.07 0.91 ± 0.04 0.49 ± 0.07 0.46 ± 0.07
StLF30 0.61 ± 0.08 0.89 ± 0.04 0.40 ± 0.03 0.36 ± 0.09

M2 (Raw manure): TOC: 3952 ± 633 mg L− 1; TAN:1124.9 ± 238.5 mgN L− 1; TS: 12.45 ± 0.3 mg L− 1; VS: 8.9 ± 0.3 mg L− 1.
a
C/C0 (Mass/M2 Mass).

is a reversible inhibition with biogas production, yield increases again resulting from SLS of swine manure, whereas for the solid fraction and
(Fig. 6), as also reported by Jiang et al. [110]. The modified Gompertz the raw manure, the peak production ranged between 3 and 9 d. These
model was used as a support for the kinetic analysis of biogas production rates were related to the biodegradability and availability of organic
on the stratified swine manure samples (Table 6). The correlation co­ matter and indicated that SLS contributed to biogas improvement, with
efficient (R2) of each treatment was higher than 99.70 ± 0.01, indicating differences from the literature being inherent to the substrate [111].
that the proposed model fit the data and there was no significant dif­
ference between the expected biogas yield and that obtained 3.3. Energy production potential and GHG mitigation
experimentally.
According to that observed on day 5.3 ± 0.2, the maximum rate of Considering the proposed scenarios in accordance with the results
biogas production exhibited the lowest value for the sludge retained in discussed above, Table 7 shows the bioenergy potential production of
the sieve (47.5 ± 2.7 mLN biogas g−VS1 d− 1) and higher values were the three hypotheses. Generally, a hypothetical farm with 5000 breeding
observed for the supernatant from screening (60.8 ± 1.8 mLN biogas g−VS1 females and a daily average effluent production of 111.9 m3 had a
d− 1) and the settled supernatant (HRT 30 min) (60.2 ± 2.4 mLN biogas g−VS1 maximum energy potential of 1161.1 ± 34.9 kWh d− 1.
d− 1). Yang et al. [27] found that daily methane production peaked on Scenario 2 stood out in terms of energy production, with values 1.2
day 3 for the SLS fractions, whereas for the pig slurry fraction peak times higher than that the other scenarios. The adoption of strategies,
production was reached on day 4 only. Amaral et al. [23] obtained the such as those proposed in Scenarios 2 and 3, which separated the
maximum methane production on day 1 for most of the liquid fractions treatment according to the waste solids content, improved the perfor­
mance of the CLB, increasing its efficiency and useful life. These oper­
ational advantages are related to the SLS that promotes better use of
Table 5 organic matter as well as lower solids load and HRT for the reactor.
Methane production potential for the studied fractions. Because of this, in the medium/long term, the energy gain would offset
Fraction VS (g L− 1) BMP (mLN CH₄ g−VS1) Production (m3N CH₄ m− 3
fraction) the investment in yet another unit process (in this case, SLS) [27,71].
M2 8.9 ± 0.3cd
410.2 ± 8.2 bcd
3.66 ± 0.11cd Atelge et al. (2020) [30] emphasized that waste pre-treatment is an
SLF2 8.3 ± 0.1cd 417.1 ± 5.2abc 3.45 ± 0.05cde important step prior to AD. It allows better solid degradation, improves
SSF2 125.1 ± 6.0a 410.6 ± 21.0bcd 51.38 ± 3.11a treatment performance, and consequently, lowers costs of the installa­
StLF5 6.0 ± 0.1cd 435.7 ± 62.5bcd 2.61 ± 0.33def
tion and maintenance of the systems. The AD of swine waste is be an
StSF5 11.6 ± 0.4c 384.7 ± 23.7bcd 4.46 ± 0.64c
StLF10 4.1 ± 0.3d 447.8 ± 18.9ab 1.85 ± 0.13ef adequate alternative to mitigate GHG emissions resulting from manure
StSF10 19.1 ± 0.4b 357.0 ± 31.0d 6.82 ± 0.53b storage [4]. For the theoretical scenarios, the emission reductions would
StLF30 3.2 ± 0.1d 488.7 ± 9.4a 1.58 ± 0.05f be approximately 280 TonCO2 eq year− 1, which is a low value compared
StSF30 22.6 ± 1.3b 370.7 ± 14cd 8.39 ± 0.50b to national indicators.
Note: Different letters means statistically significant difference by Tukey test (p In Brazil, there are 334 plants for animal waste treatment through
< 0.05). AD, which implements the energy use of biogas. Together, they have an

10
C.E. Hollas et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472

Fig. 6. Stratified swine manure samples cumulative

biogas yield compared to the swine raw manure. M2:
Swine raw manure; SSF2: Screening solid fraction;
SLF2: Screening liquid fraction; StLFHRT_30min:
Settling liquid fraction for HRT of 30 min;
StSFHRT_30min: Settling solid fraction for HRT of 30
min; StLFHRT_10min: Settling liquid fraction for HRT of
10 min; StSFHRT_10min: Settling solid fraction for HRT
of 10 min; StLFHRT_5min: Settling liquid fraction for
HRT of 5 min; StSFHRT_5min: Settling solid fraction for
HRT of 5 min.

Table 6
Kinetic parameters of biogas production on stratified swine manure samples based on the modified Gompertz model.
Sample Experimental biogas yield (mLN biogas Predicted biogas yield (mLN biogas g¡1
VS ) μmax (mLN biogas g¡1
VS μmax day λ (d) R2 (%)
g¡1
VS ) Bmax d¡1) (d)

M2 550.2 ± 11.0abA 541.6 ± 10.6abA 59.3 ± 2.4ab 4.7 ± 0.1a 1.4 ± 0.0b 99.85 ±
0.01
abA abA b a b
SLF2 559.2 ± 7.0 550.6 ± 6.6 60.8 ± 1.8 4.7 ± 0.1 1.4 ± 0.1 99.86 ±
0.02
aA aA a a
SSF2 624.8 ± 32.0 615.6 ± 32.4 47.5 ± 2.7 5.3 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.0a 99.70 ±
0.01
StLF5 557.6 ± 80.0abA 554.6 ± 83.4abA 53.3 ± 9.3ab 5.4 ± 0.2a 1.5 ± 0.5b 99.84 ±
0.14
StSF5 550.9 ± 34.0abA 538.9 ± 33.0abA 55.3 ± 3.0ab 5.0 ± 0.1a 1.5 ± 0.1b 99.78 ±
0.05
StLF10 566.4 ± 24.0abA 562.7 ± 24.2abA 56.0 ± 1.0ab 5.4 ± 0.1a 1.7 ± 0.1b 99.94 ±
0.02
StSF10 494.2 ± 43.0bA 490.2 ± 41.4bA 59.1 ± 7.3ab 4.3 ± 0.3a 1.2 ± 0.2b 99.88 ±
0.03
StLF30 625.3 ± 12.0aA 618.18 ± 13.3aA 60.2 ± 2.4b 5.2 ± 0.3a 1.5 ± 0.1b 99.88 ±
0.05
StSF30 506.3 ± 20.0bA 501.2 ± 20.1bA 58.8 ± 1.4ab 4.7 ± 0.1a 1.6 ± 0.0b 99.88 ±
0.02

Note: Different lowercase letters indicate different means between the treatments for each parameter and different uppercase letters indicate different means between
the parameters for each treatment, according to Tukey test, p < 0.05.

Table 7
Energy potential in each stratified swine manure fraction according to the proposed scenarios.
Fraction CH4 (m3CH₄ d− 1) Bioenergy (kWh d− 1) Bioenergy Productiona (kWh kg−VS1)

Maximum potential of raw manure 409.6 ± 12.3 1161.1 ± 34.9 1.10 ± 0.03

Scenario 1
Raw manure (CLB) 245.7 ± 7.4 696.6 ± 20.94 0.66 ± 0.02

Scenario 2
Solid fraction (CSTR) 171.0 ± 1.8 484.9 ± 12.2 0.53 ± 0.02
Liquid fraction (CLB) 158.5 ± 30.6 449.5 ± 86.8 1.45 ± 0.30
Total 329.5 ± 15.6 934.4 ± 48.09 1.98 ± 0.23

Scenario 3
Solid fraction (CSTR) 138.0 ± 1.5 391.4 ± 15.5 0.46 ± 0.02
Liquid fraction (CLB) 159.5 ± 20.2 452.1 ± 57.2 1.14 ± 0.18
Total 297.5 ± 11.52 843.5 ± 37.8 1.60 ± 0.13
a
Considering the mass flow rate of the system and the energy consumption of the AD.

11
C.E. Hollas et al.
Fig. 7. Environmental impacts of each stage of the three management systems for the life cycle of one m3 of swine manure. Environmental charges are shown above
the “0” line, while credits are shown below “0” line with a negative algebraic sign.
annual capacity to produce 164.67 × 106 m3 of methane, annually
mitigating the emission of 153.8 × 106 TonCO2 eq. However, considering
the amount of waste generated by the energy potential, these data still
represent a small portion [112].
According to Freitas et al. [36], biogas from biomass represents
0.08% of the Brazilian energy matrix. In total, animal waste corresponds
to only 1.73%. Tursi [16] pointed out that biomass is a valuable source
to supply worldwide energy needs, with the capacity to suppress more
than 80 times the annual consumption of energy in the world. That it is
not only present in animal waste, but also in different areas, with distinct
energy potentials and composition for each waste.
The emergence of alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels
has been discussed worldwide, and several countries have been invest­
ing in the use of waste as an energy source [14]. In this sense, and ac­
cording to the data throughout the present research, animal manure is
an excellent alternative to complement the Brazilian energy matrix,
because it allows the management and reduces environmental impacts
and GHG emissions [77,113].
3.4. Life-cycle impact assessment results of analyzed studies
The baseline presented the greatest environmental impact compared
to Scenarios 1 and 2. These higher impacts were related to the swine
manure storage for a long period (120 d), which promotes GHG emis­
sions and nutrient losses by leaching into soil and water.
The “climate change, short term” category is the one that showed the
greatest negative influence of manure storage. As the storage time
decreased, there was a reduction of up to 50% of the impacts caused by
manure storage in this midpoint category (Fig. 7). Brockmann et al.
[114] assessed the effects of manure storage and application in the soil
and found that storage promoted an impact four times greater than the
scenario with effluent treatment and disposal (nitrification and
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
denitrification, followed by soil application). This shows that treatment
systems that aim to reduce manure storage time contribute to the
reduction of impacts associated with management systems.
The positive effects observed in the baseline are attributed to
nutrient recovery categories, because of the mitigation of environmental
damage compared to the use of chemical fertilizers. Several studies have
found the same positive effects associated with replacing the use of
mineral fertilizers with the effects associated with climate change.
Lansche and Müller [115] verified a reduction of up to 10 gCO2 eq.
Brockmann et al. [114] observed a reduction of approximately 20% in
emissions. Ramírez-Islas et al. [10] found a benefit of 50 gCO2 eq
attributed to replacement of chemical fertilizers. The impacts generated
for photochemical oxidant formation were mitigated by the environ­
mental gains from the substitution products. The most harmful stage is
related to the operation of the treatment plants, which supported the
most favorable values for the baseline scenario.
For freshwater eutrophication and acidification categories, the sce­
narios did not differ in terms of impact. In terms of While terrestrial
acidification, marine eutrophication, and freshwater ecotoxicity, the
variation among the scenarios was low (2–5%). For human toxicity
(cancer and non-cancer related), the discrepancies were between 5%
and 20%. In general, for these categories, the transportation and fertil­
ization stages negatively contributed to the impacts.
Transportation and fertilization promote the release of higher
amounts of gases into the atmosphere, such as ammonia and other
nitrogenous compounds. This occurrence is associated with manure
spreading, which impacts air, water, and soil. Phosphorous, ammonia,
nitrate, copper, and zinc are the main factors responsible for eutrophi­
cation, soil acidification, and environmental toxicity [10,19,116,117].
According to the LCA of the fertilization process verified by
Corbala-Robles et al. [116], the disposal of effluents in the field gener­
ates relevant environmental impacts. It contributes to eutrophication,
C.E. Hollas et al.
acidification, and toxicity processes, similar to the results found in the
present study (Fig. 7).
Despite the impacts associated with the operational stage of the
treatment plants, Scenarios 1 and 2 stood out in relation to the baseline,
with the advantages related to nutrient recovery, energy, and heat
production. Scenario 2 exhibited the best environmental results. Thus,
the performance of the system in energy recovery was higher, which
may be attributed to the lower manure storage time, SLS techniques, and
AD in both phases (liquid and solid). Thus, the biogas yield was higher
and in relation to Scenario 1, Scenario 2 presented an increase up to 1.3
times. According to Dennehy et al. [9], suitable manure management of
each fraction (solid and liquid) is one of the key elements to mitigate
GHG emissions in a swine treatment installation, as evidenced in the
present study. Additionally, energy recovery is attractive from an eco­
nomic viewpoint, reducing the cost of swine production units.
The pre-treatment technologies presented promising results
regarding the treatment and energy recovery of the system, emphasizing
the importance of handling the waste during the storage stage, which
has a direct effect on the emission rates of the systems. Because there is
an uncertainty associated with the emission rates, the sensitivity anal­
ysis performed to investigate how an increase or decrease of 15% and
25% in the emissions during the storage stage would affect the perfor­
mance of the scenarios (Figure A2).
The highest sensitivity was observed for the climate change category,
where both the 25% reduction and increase in emission rates resulted in
an increase or reduction of 27.31%, 30.82%, and 31.51%, respectively
in the baseline, Scenario 1, and Scenario 2. For 15% variation in emis­
sion rates, there was an increase or decrease in impacts by 16.35%,
18.57%, and 18.64% in the baseline, Scenario 1, and Scenario 2,
respectively. Photochemical oxidant formation was the second most
sensitive category, with an increase or decrease in the impact by 14.90%
for a 25% variation in emissions and an increase or decrease in the
impact by 8.92% for the 15% variation, at baseline.
The other categories presented lower sensitivities, for freshwater
acidification, the baseline scenario presented similar variation either in
the increase or decrease of emissions from storage for the two percent­
ages. An impact of 5.44% occurred given a variation of 25% in emissions
and by 3.63% for 15% variation in emissions. In Scenario 2 for the same
category, the variation in emission rates presented different impacts,
related to the increase, or decrease in rates. A 25% reduction in emis­
sions from storage resulted in a reduction of 3.13% in the effect, whereas
an increase of 25% in emission rates resulted in an increase of 2.73% in
the impact of this category. For the marine eutrophication category,
Scenario 1, exhibited a 4.51% reduction in the category impact with a
25% reduction in emissions, whereas an increase resulted in a 3.94%
increase in impacts. For the terrestrial acidification category, 15%
emission rate variations resulted in a 1.12% reduction and 2.62% in­
crease for Scenario 2, whereas the 25% variation in Scenario 2 resulted
in a 3.68% increase or reduction in the impact for the terrestrial acidi­
fication category.
These data corroborated those observed by Duan et al. [19], who also
found the highest sensitivity associated with the climate change cate­
gory by changing emissions rates by 25%. Cherubini et al. [77],
emphasized that in LCA modeling, the greatest uncertainties are related
to emission estimates in waste management because of the difficulties
regarding inaccurate measurements and estimates.
These results demonstrated the importance of management related
to waste storage, because the emission rates are directly related to the
storage time varying according to the characteristics of the waste. This
strongly reflected the impact on climate change.
3.5. Future perspectives and practical implications of this study
Because of global activities and prospects of carbon emissions
reduction, the feasibility of the swine manure production in a view of
“carbon-neutral” operation is being globally emphasized [118]. AD of
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
swine manure is a conventional biological process used to convert
organic matter into energy (methane-rich biogas) and fertilizer.
The development of renewable energy from animal manure is
conducive to improving the energy structure worldwide, reducing car­
bon emissions, and achieving the purpose of protecting the ecological
environment. Therefore, because there is an urgent need to develop an
alternative to animal manure management, renewable power genera­
tion from it is an approach for recycling waste. However, the current
technologies used for animal waste management (AD) needs to be re-
evaluated. Improving technologies and optimizing agricultural prac­
tices are essential for the sustainable development of renewable power
generation from manure management. Based on the results of this study,
some suggestions regarding manure storage time and SLS techniques
before AD, may be good alternatives to maximize the use of waste and
energy production.
In response to the above SLS technique, the swine manure storage
time also has implications for the feasibility of yield treatment. Based on
the results, the key for a treatment system to maximize energy produc­
tion, must be a perfect balance between manure storage time, the SLS
technique, and AD. Moreover, beyond SLS methodologies, some
research is needed to determine the best technique, which may vary
according to the type of waste in question (i.e., solids, content, and
biodegradability of organic matter).
Under the above circumstances, the volume of sludge also changed
according to the manure storage time. This is related to swine farms,
because sludge has limited applications in AD. Thus, the present
assessment shows that the efficiency and sustainability of swine manure
management is critically dependent on an integrated understanding of
the underlying component interactions, which also impacts the LCAs.
Credits for the whole farm system benefit from the aforementioned sit­
uation of the entire treatment: greenhouse gas emissions and farm
environmental effects are minimized with the combination of the ideal
manure storage time, SLS, and AD. From a global perspective, these
methods also maximize biogas production and yield.
Although the results are promising, there are many factors that in­
fluence the systems under study. According to Aghbashlo et al. [119],
AD plant designs depend on more advanced engineering analyses, not
only on the design, but also on the operations and processes involved
[120]. In addition to the LCA approach, studies of the processes, ener­
getic and/or thermodynamic, by means of exergy and exergoenvir­
onmental analyses, are important tools for determining the
environmental sustainability of AD projects [121,122].
Looking toward future projections and applicability based on the
implemented results, before the advanced wastewater-based swine
manure biogas production technologies, more research is needed to: (i)
better understand the mechanisms of swine manure organic matter
degradation/removal according to storage time and/or AD; (ii) improve
the capabilities of SLS technologies for different types of wastewater
with sludge and solid content; (iii) optimize the parameters of SLS; (iv)
optimize the environmental parameters and techniques to combine the
best conditions for storage time, SLS, and AD directly on swine farms; (v)
develop efficient and cost-effective SLS methods; (vi) integrate the
biorefinery processes and concepts for economical production of biogas
from swine manure; (vii) conduct techno-economic assessment to
determine the economic viability of the aforementioned set; (viii)
analyze LCA of other environmental impacts of the swine farms; and (ix)
perform more in-depth investigations using advanced thermodynamic
methods, such as exergy, exergoeconomic, and exergoenvironmental
analyses. All these will guide the system to integrate and innovate farms
in a more sustainable, economically viable, and environmentally
friendly way. The profits for the producer are in the maximization of
energy generation and biofertilizer quality. It all adds to the sustain­
ability tripod and circular economy concepts.
C.E. Hollas et al.
4. Conclusions
In this work it was concluded that:
(i) The storage time had a significant influence on the SLS by
screening. After 5 d of storage, the separation was drastically
compromised, the sludge volume generated increased accord­
ingly and the performance of the treatment system was
compromised;
(ii) Al though chemical flocculation showed greater performance
that settling, both methodologies are satisfactory for manure
treatment by subsequent AD;
(iii) The fractions from SLS have different biogas and methane yields,
and such pretreatment improves the performance of a manure
treatment system;
(vi) The supernatant from SLS by screening and 30 min of settling
provided the highest methane potential, with the capacity to
generate up to 4.5 kWh of electricity/m3 of raw manure, miti­
gating GHG emissions, and managing a large volume of animal
wastes;
(vii) According to the LCA, the GHG emissions and environmental
impacts of a manure treatment plant can be reduced if the system
works with low effluent storage time, SLS techniques, and AD of
liquid and solid phases separately.
Credit autorship contribution statement
Camila Ester Hollas: Conceptualization; Investigation; Software;
Data curation; Writing – original draft. Alice Chiapetti Bolsan: Investi­
gation. Angélica Chini: Conceptualization; Investigation; Writing – re­
view & editing. Bruno Venturin: Software; Formal analysis;
Investigation; Data curation. Gabriela Bonassa: Investigation; Writing –
review & editing. Daniela Cândido: Investigation. Fabiane Goldschmidt
Antes: Investigation. Ricardo Luís Radis Steinmetz: Investigation;
Writing – review & editing. Naimara Viera do Prado: Software; Formal
analysis; Investigation; Data curation. Airton Kunz: Conceptualization;
Writing – review & editing; Supervision; Project administration; Fund­
ing acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the
project SISTRATES FUNTEC-BNDES (Contract Number February 15,
0837.1), CNPq and CAPES.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111472.
References
[1] Moses A, Tomaselli P. Industrial animal agriculture in the United States:
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). In: Steier G, Patel KK, editors.
Int. Farm Anim. Wildl. Food Saf. Law. Cham: Springer International Publishing;
2017. p. 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18002-1_6.
[2] Handan-Nader C, Ho DE. Deep learning to map concentrated animal feeding
operations. Nat Sustain 2019;2:298–306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-
0246-x.
[3] Makara A, Kowalski Z, Lelek Ł, Kulczycka J. Comparative analyses of pig farming
management systems using the Life Cycle Assessment method. J Clean Prod 2019;
241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118305.
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
[4] Tallaksen J, Johnston L, Sharpe K, Reese M, Buchanan E. Reducing life cycle fossil
energy and greenhouse gas emissions for Midwest swine production systems.
J Clean Prod 2020;246:118998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118998.
[5] Xu X, Ma Z, Chen Y, Gu X, Liu Q, Wang Y, et al. Circular economy pattern of
livestock manure management in Longyou, China. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
2018;20:1050–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-017-0667-4.
[6] Ferreira LRA, Otto RB, Silva FP, De Souza SNM, De Souza SS, Ando Junior OH.
Review of the energy potential of the residual biomass for the distributed
generation in Brazil. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;94:440–55. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.034.
[7] Shan N, Li H, Li J, Ng EL, Ma Y, Wang L, et al. A major pathway for carbon and
nitrogen losses — gas emissions during storage of solid pig manure in China.
J Integr Agric 2019;18:190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(17)
61902-6.
[8] Im S, Petersen SO, Lee D, Kim DH. Effects of storage temperature on CH4
emissions from cattle manure and subsequent biogas production potential. Waste
Manag 2020;101:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.036.
[9] Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Jiang Y, Gardiner GE, Xie S, Nghiem LD, et al. Greenhouse
gas emissions from different pig manure management techniques: a critical
analysis. Front Environ Sci Eng 2017;11:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-
017-0942-6.
[10] Ramírez-Islas ME, Güereca LP, Sosa-Rodriguez FS, Cobos-Peralta MA.
Environmental assessment of energy production from anaerobic digestion of pig
manure at medium-scale using life cycle assessment. Waste Manag 2020;102:
85–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.012.
[11] Zhuang M, Shan N, Wang Y, Caro D, Fleming RM, Wang L. Different
characteristics of greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions from conventional
stored dairy cattle and swine manure in China. Sci Total Environ 2020;722:
137693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137693.
[12] Li Y, Liu H, Li G, Luo W, Sun Y. Manure digestate storage under different
conditions: chemical characteristics and contaminant residuals. Sci Total Environ
2018;639:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.128.
[13] Yao Y, Huang G, An C, Chen X, Zhang P, Xin X, et al. Anaerobic digestion of
livestock manure in cold regions: technological advancements and global
impacts. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;119:109494. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2019.109494.
[14] Safieddin Ardebili SM. Green electricity generation potential from biogas
produced by anaerobic digestion of farm animal waste and agriculture residues in
Iran. Renew Energy 2020;154:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.02.102.
[15] Jofre AF, Ripoll XF. Los Gases Renovables: Un vector energético emergente. 1
edición. Madrid: Fundación Naturgy; 2019.
[16] Tursi A. A review on biomass: importance, chemistry, classification, and
conversion. Biofuel Res J 2019;6:962–79. https://doi.org/10.18331/
BRJ2019.6.2.3.
[17] Flotats X. Biogas: perspectives of an old technology. In: Bastidas-Oyanedel J-R,
Schmidt JE, editors. Biorefinery. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 313–49. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-10961-5_13.
[18] Zhu T, Curtis J, Clancy M. Promoting agricultural biogas and biomethane
production: lessons from cross-country studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;
114:109332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109332.
[19] Duan N, Khoshnevisan B, Lin C, Liu Z, Liu H. Life cycle assessment of anaerobic
digestion of pig manure coupled with different digestate treatment technologies.
Environ Int 2020;137:105522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105522.
[20] Vats N, Khan AA, Ahmad K. Options for enhanced anaerobic digestion of waste
and biomass—a review. J Biosyst Eng 2020;45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-
019-00040-y.
[21] Guilayn F, Jimenez J, Rouez M, Crest M, Patureau D. Digestate mechanical
separation: efficiency profiles based on anaerobic digestion feedstock and
equipment choice. Bioresour Technol 2019;274:180–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2018.11.090.
[22] Aguirre-Villegas HA, Larson RA, Sharara MA. Anaerobic digestion, solid-liquid
separation, and drying of dairy manure: measuring constituents and modeling
emission. Sci Total Environ 2019;696:134059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134059.
[23] Cestonaro do Amaral A, Kunz A, Radis Steinmetz RL, Scussiato LA, Tápparo DC,
Gaspareto TC. Influence of solid-liquid separation strategy on biogas yield from a
stratified swine production system. J Environ Manag 2016;168:229–35. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.12.014.
[24] Coarita Fernandez H, Teixeira Franco R, Bayard R, Buffiere P. Mechanical Pre-
treatments Evaluation of Cattle Manure Before Anaerobic Digestion. Waste and
Biomass Valorization; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-020-01022-4.
[25] Hjorth M, Nielsen AM, Nyord T, Hansen MN, Nissen P, Sommer SG. Nutrient
value, odour emission and energy production of manure as influenced by
anaerobic digestion and separation. Agron Sustain Dev 2009;29:329–38. https://
doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008047.
[26] Rico C, Rico JL, García H, García PA. Solid - liquid separation of dairy manure:
distribution of components and methane production. Biomass Bioenergy 2012;39:
370–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.031.
[27] Yang D, Deng L, Zheng D, Liu G, Yang H, Wang L. Separation of swine wastewater
into solid fraction, concentrated slurry and dilute liquid and its influence on
biogas production. Fuel 2015;144:237–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2014.12.044.
[28] Wei Y, Liu J, Zhou X, Wu J, Qian X. Effect of solid–liquid separation enhanced by
low-temperature hydrolysis in methanogenic phase on two-phase anaerobic
C.E. Hollas et al.
sludge digestion system. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019;16:8573–84. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13762-019-02423-2.
[29] Chai L, Li Q, Wang Q, Yan X. Solid-liquid separation: an emerging issue in heavy
metal wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2018;25:17250–67. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2135-7.
[30] Atelge MR, Atabani AE, Banu JR, Krisa D, Kaya M, Eskicioglu C, et al. A critical
review of pretreatment technologies to enhance anaerobic digestion and energy
recovery. Fuel 2020;270:117494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117494.
[31] Burton CH. The potential contribution of separation technologies to the
management of livestock manure. Livest Sci 2007;112:208–16. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.004.
[32] Riaño B, García-González MC. On-farm treatment of swine manure based on
solid-liquid separation and biological nitrification-denitrification of the liquid
fraction. J Environ Manag 2014;132:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.10.014.
[33] Yang D, Deng L, Zheng D, Wang L, Liu Y. Separation of swine wastewater into
different concentration fractions and its contribution to combined anaerobic-
aerobic process. J Environ Manag 2016;168:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2015.11.049.
[34] Zhang X, Lin H, Hu B. The effects of electrocoagulation on phosphorus removal
and particle settling capability in swine manure. Separ Purif Technol 2018;200:
112–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2018.02.025.
[35] Laubach J, Heubeck S, Pratt C, Woodward KB, Guieysse B, Van Der Weerden TJ,
et al. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from the storage and land application
of farm dairy effluent. NZJAR (N Z J Agric Res) 2015;58:203–33. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00288233.2015.1011284.
[36] Freitas FF, De Souza SSNM, Ferreira LRA, Otto RB, Alessio FJ, De Souza SSNM,
et al. The Brazilian market of distributed biogas generation: overview,
technological development and case study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;101:
146–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.007.
[37] ISO 14040. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – Principles and
framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for Standardisation
(ISO); 2006.
[38] ISO 14044. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements
and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO); 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0297-3.
[39] Wang P, Wang J, Qin Q, Wang H. Life cycle assessment of magnetized fly-ash
compound fertilizer production: a case study in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;73:706–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.005.
[40] Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Valijanian E, Kazemi Shariat Panahi H, Nizami AS,
Ghanavati H, et al. A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to
improve biogas production, Part 1: upstream strategies. Renew Energy 2020;146:
1204–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.037.
[41] Hijazi O, Munro S, Zerhusen B, Effenberger M. Review of life cycle assessment for
biogas production in Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:1291–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.013.
[42] Xu C, Shi W, Hong J, Zhang F, Chen W. Life cycle assessment of food waste-based
biogas generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:169–77. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.164.
[43] Zagklis D, Tsigkou K, Tsafrakidou P, Zafiri C, Kornaros M. Life cycle assessment of
the anaerobic co-digestion of used disposable nappies and expired food products.
J Clean Prod 2021:304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127118.
[44] Bartocci P, Zampilli M, Liberti F, Pistolesi V, Massoli S, Bidini G, et al. LCA
analysis of food waste co-digestion. Sci Total Environ 2020;709:136187. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136187.
[45] Lee E, Oliveira DSBL, Oliveira LSBL, Jimenez E, Kim Y, Wang M, et al.
Comparative environmental and economic life cycle assessment of high solids
anaerobic co-digestion for biosolids and organic waste management. Water Res
2020;171:115443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115443.
[46] Zhou H, Yang Q, Gul E, Shi M, Li J, Yang M, et al. Decarbonizing university
campuses through the production of biogas from food waste: an LCA analysis.
Renew Energy 2021;176:565–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2021.05.007.
[47] Yasar A, Rasheed R, Tabinda AB, Tahir A, Sarwar F. Life cycle assessment of a
medium commercial scale biogas plant and nutritional assessment of effluent
slurry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:364–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.09.026.
[48] Achinas S, Willem Euverink GJ. Rambling facets of manure-based biogas
production in Europe: a briefing. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;119:109566.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109566.
[49] Beausang C, McDonnell K, Murphy F. Anaerobic digestion of poultry litter – a
consequential life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ 2020;735:139494. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139494.
[50] van den Oever AEM, Cardellini G, Sels BF, Messagie M. Life cycle environmental
impacts of compressed biogas production through anaerobic digestion of manure
and municipal organic waste. J Clean Prod 2021;306:127156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127156.
[51] Varma VS, Parajuli R, Scott E, Canter T, Lim TT, Popp J, et al. Dairy and swine
manure management – challenges and perspectives for sustainable treatment
technology. Sci Total Environ 2021;778:146319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.146319.
[52] Adghim M, Abdallah M, Saad S, Shanableh A, Sartaj M, El Mansouri AE.
Comparative life cycle assessment of anaerobic co-digestion for dairy waste
management in large-scale farms. J Clean Prod 2020;256:120320. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120320.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
[53] Zabed HM, Akter S, Yun J, Zhang G, Zhang Y, Qi X. Biogas from microalgae:
technologies, challenges and opportunities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;117:
109503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109503.
[54] Mirmohamadsadeghi S, Karimi K, Azarbaijani R, Parsa Yeganeh L, Angelidaki I,
Nizami AS, et al. Pretreatment of lignocelluloses for enhanced biogas production:
a review on influencing mechanisms and the importance of microbial diversity.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;135:110173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.110173.
[55] Ardolino F, Parrillo F, Arena U. Biowaste-to-biomethane or biowaste-to-energy?
An LCA study on anaerobic digestion of organic waste. J Clean Prod 2018;174:
462–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.320.
[56] Arias A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. What is the best scale for implementing anaerobic
digestion according to environmental and economic indicators? J Water Process
Eng 2020;35:101235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101235.
[57] Aziz NIHA, Hanafiah MM. Life cycle analysis of biogas production from anaerobic
digestion of palm oil mill effluent. Renew Energy 2020;145:847–57. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.084.
[58] Barrera EL, Rosa E, Spanjers H, Romero O, De Meester S, Dewulf J. A comparative
assessment of anaerobic digestion power plants as alternative to lagoons for
vinasse treatment: life cycle assessment and exergy analysis. J Clean Prod 2016;
113:459–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.095.
[59] Dehhaghi M, Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Kazemi Shariat Panahi H, Nizami AS.
A state-of-the-art review on the application of nanomaterials for enhancing biogas
production. J Environ Manag 2019;251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109597.
[60] Tabatabaei M, Aghbashlo M, Valijanian E, Kazemi Shariat Panahi H, Nizami AS,
Ghanavati H, et al. A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to
improve biogas production, Part 2: mainstream and downstream strategies.
Renew Energy 2020;146:1392–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2019.07.047.
[61] Steinmetz RLR, Kunz A, Ramme MA, Dressler VL, Flores EMM. Separação sólido-
líquido em efluentes da suinocultura com uso de extratos tanantes modificados e
aplicação de modelos de otimização multivariada. Rev AIDIS Ing y Ciencias
Ambient 2007;1.
[62] VDI 4630. Fermentation of organic materials – Characterization of the substrate,
sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests. Düsseldorf, Germany:
The Association of German Engineers; 2016.
[63] Steinmetz RLR, Mezzari MP, Silva MLB da, Kunz A, Amaral AC do, Tápparo DC,
et al. Enrichment and acclimation of an anaerobic mesophilic microorganism ’ s
inoculum for standardization of BMP assays. Bioresour Technol 2016;219:21–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.031.
[64] DIN. German standard method for the examination of water, waste water and
sludge. Sludge and sediment (group S). Determination of amenability to
anaerobic digestion (S8). Deutsches Institut für Normung.; 1985.
[65] Rice EW, Baird RB, Eaton AD, Clesceri LS. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 23a. Washington DC: American Water Works
Association and Water Environment Federatio; 2017.
[66] Hollas CE, Chini A, Antes FG, do Prado NV, Bortoli M, Kunz A. Modified
Ludzack–Ettinger system role in efficient nitrogen removal from swine manure
under high total suspended solids concentration. Int J Environ Sci Technol 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02326-2.
[67] Zhao X, Luo K, Zhang Y, Zheng Z, Cai Y, Wen B, et al. Improving the methane
yield of maize straw: focus on the effects of pretreatment with fungi and their
secreted enzymes combined with sodium hydroxide. Bioresour Technol 2018;
250:204–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.160.
[68] Mito JY de L, Kerkhoff S, Silva JLG, Vendrame MG, Steinmetz RLR, Kunz A.
Metodologia para estimar o potential de biogás e biometano a partir de plantéis
suínos e bovinos no Brasil. Concórdia: Embrapa Suínos e Aves; 2018.
[69] Kunz A, Chiochetta O, Miele M, Girotto AF, Sangoi V. Comparativo de Custos de
Implementação de Diferentes Tecnologias de Armazenagem/Tratamento e
Distribuição de Dejetos de Suínos. Circ Técnica 42 Embrapa Suínos e Aves 2005;
16.
[70] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Development of biogas combustion in combined heat
and power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:868–75. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.204.
[71] Van DP, Fujiwara T, Tho BL, Toan PPS, Minh GH. A review of anaerobic digestion
systems for biodegradable waste: configurations, operating parameters, and
current trends. Environ Eng Res 2020;25:1–17. https://doi.org/10.4491/
eer.2018.334.
[72] Boulamanti AK, Donida Maglio S, Giuntoli J, Agostini A. Influence of different
practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;53:149–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.020.
[73] GreenDelta. openLCA 1.10. Professional life cycle assessment (LCA) software.
Berlin, Germany: OpenLCA; 2020.
[74] Kunz A, Steinmetz RLR, Ramme MA, Coldebella A. Effect of storage time on swine
manure solid separation efficiency by screening. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:
1815–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.09.022.
[75] Kunz A, Higarashi MM, Oliveira PA de. Tecnologias de manejo e tratamento de
dejetos de suínos estudadas no Brasil. Cad Ciência Tecnol 2005;22:651–65.
[76] Life Ecoinvent. Cycle Inventory Database Ecoinvent Version 3.6. Switzerland:
Zürich; 2019.
[77] Cherubini E, Zanghelini GM, Alvarenga RAF, Franco D, Soares SR. Life cycle
assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure
management systems. J Clean Prod 2015;87:68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.10.035.
C.E. Hollas et al.
[78] Riaño B, García-González MC. Greenhouse gas emissions of an on-farm swine
manure treatment plant - comparison with conventional storage in anaerobic
tanks. J Clean Prod 2015;103:542–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.07.007.
[79] Hamelin L, Wesnæs M, Wenzel H, Petersen BM. Environmental consequences of
future biogas technologies based on separated slurry. Environ Sci Technol 2011;
45:5869–77. https://doi.org/10.1021/es200273j.
[80] Sardá LG, Higarashi MM, Nicoloso R da S, de Oliveira PAV, Falkoski C,
Ribeiro SMS, et al. Methane emission factor of open deposits used to store swine
slurry in Southern Brazil. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 2018;53:657–63. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S0100-204X2018000600001.
[81] Kunz A, Mukhtar S. Hydrophobic membrane technology for ammonia extraction
from wastewaters. Eng Agrícola 2016;36:377–86. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-
4430-Eng.Agric.v36n2p377-386/2016.
[82] Nemecek T, Kagi T. Life cycle inventories of Agricultural Production Systems,
ecoinvent report No. 15. Final Rep 2007;2:1–360.
[83] Cestonaro do Amaral A, Kunz A, Radis Steinmetz RL, Justi KC. Zinc and copper
distribution in swine wastewater treated by anaerobic digestion. J Environ Manag
2014;141:132–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.03.021.
[84] Bulle C, Margni M, Patouillard L, Boulay AM, Bourgault G, De Bruille V, et al.
IMPACT World+: a globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int
J Life Cycle Assess 2019;24:1653–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-
01583-0.
[85] Orner KD, Cornejo PK, Rojas Camacho D, Alvarez M, Camacho-Céspedes F.
Improving life cycle economic and environmental sustainability of animal
manure management in marginalized farming communities through resource
recovery. Environ Eng Sci 2021;38:310–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/
ees.2020.0262.
[86] Popovic O, Jensen LS. Storage temperature affects distribution of carbon, VFA,
ammonia, phosphorus, copper and zinc in raw pig slurry and its separated liquid
fraction. Water Res 2012;46:3849–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2012.04.020.
[87] Provolo G, Finzi A, Perazzolo F, Mattachini G, Riva E. Effect of a biological
additive on nitrogen losses from pig slurry during storage. J Environ Qual 2016;
45:1460–5. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.10.0503.
[88] Shin SR, Im S, Mostafa A, Lee MK, Yun YM, Oh SE, et al. Effects of pig slurry
acidification on methane emissions during storage and subsequent biogas
production. Water Res 2019;152:234–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.01.005.
[89] Perazzolo F, Mattachini G, Riva E, Provolo G. Nutrient losses during winter and
summer storage of separated and unseparated digested cattle slurry. J Environ
Qual 2017;46:879–88. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2016.07.0274.
[90] Browne JD, Gilkinson SR, Frost JP. The effects of storage time and temperature on
biogas production from dairy cow slurry. Biosyst Eng 2015;129:48–56. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.09.008.
[91] Moset V, Cambra-López M, Estellés F, Torres AG, Cerisuelo A. Evolution of
chemical composition and gas emissions from aged pig slurry during outdoor
storage with and without prior solid separation. Biosyst Eng 2012;111:2–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.10.001.
[92] Sommer SG, Clough TJ, Balaine N, Hafner SD, Cameron KC. Transformation of
organic matter and the emissions of methane and ammonia during storage of
liquid manure as affected by acidification. J Environ Qual 2017;46:514–21.
https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2016.10.0409.
[93] Cocolo G, Hjorth M, Zarebska A, Provolo G. Effect of acidification on solid-liquid
separation of pig slurry. Biosyst Eng 2016;143:20–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biosystemseng.2015.11.004.
[94] Hjorth M, Christensen KV, Christensen ML, Sommer SG. Solid-liquid separation of
animal slurry in therory and practice. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 2010;30:
153–80.
[95] Marti E, Gros M, Boy-Roura M, Ovejero J, Busquets AM, Colón J, et al.
Pharmaceuticals removal in an on-farm pig slurry treatment plant based on solid-
liquid separation and nitrification-denitrification systems. Waste Manag 2020;
102:412–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.11.001.
[96] Tolofari A, Islam M, Yuan Q. Statistical modeling of phosphorus solubilization
from chemical sludge and evaluation of optimal sodium hydroxide dose.
J Environ Manag 2020;255:109824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109824.
[97] Wang Y, Dong H, Zhu Z, Li L, Zhou T, Jiang B, et al. CH4, NH3, N2O and NO
emissions from stored biogas digester effluent of pig manure at different
temperatures. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2016;217:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2015.10.020.
[98] Huang Y, Li D, Wang L, Yong C, Sun E, Jin H, et al. Decreased enzyme activities,
ammonification rate and ammonifiers contribute to higher nitrogen retention in
hyperthermophilic pretreatment composting. Bioresour Technol 2019;272:521–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.10.070.
[99] Hui C, Wei R, Jiang H, Zhao Y, Xu L. Characterization of the ammonification, the
relevant protease production and activity in a high-efficiency ammonifier Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens DT. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2019;142:11–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ibiod.2019.04.009.
[100] Fragoso RA, Duarte EA, Paiva J. Contribution of coagulation-flocculation process
for a more sustainable pig slurry management. Water Air Soil Pollut 2015;226:
4–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2388-4.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 150 (2021) 111472
[101] Agomoh I, Zvomuya F, Akinremi OO, Cicek N. Chemically enhanced solids and
phosphorus removal from liquid swine manure. Trans ASABE (Am Soc Agric Biol
Eng) 2018;61:1705–12. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12584.
[102] Hu Z, Zhu H. Effects of combined technologies on environmental prevention
against livestock pollution in biogas projects. J Environ Eng 2019;145:1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001553.
[103] Kunz A, Miele M, Steinmetz RLR. Advanced swine manure treatment and
utilization in Brazil. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5485–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2008.10.039.
[104] Chen G, Wang X, Li J, Yan B, Wang Y, Wu X, et al. Environmental, energy, and
economic analysis of integrated treatment of municipal solid waste and sewage
sludge: a case study in China. Sci Total Environ 2019;647:1433–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.104.
[105] Grobelak A, Grosser A, Kacprzak M, Kamizela T. Sewage sludge processing and
management in small and medium-sized municipal wastewater treatment plant-
new technical solution. J Environ Manag 2019;234:90–6. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.111.
[106] Yang G, Zhang G, Wang H. Current state of sludge production, management,
treatment and disposal in China. Water Res 2015;78:60–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2015.04.002.
[107] Jingura RM, Kamusoko R. Methods for determination of biomethane potential of
feedstocks: a review. Biofuel Res J 2017;4:573–86. https://doi.org/10.18331/
BRJ2017.4.2.3.
[108] Deng L, Chen Z, Yang H, Zhu J, Liu Y, Long Y, et al. Biogas fermentation of swine
slurry based on the separation of concentrated liquid and low content liquid.
Biomass Bioenergy 2012;45:187–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2012.06.004.
[109] Cao L, Keener H, Huang Z, Liu Y, Ruan R, Xu F. Effects of temperature and
inoculation ratio on methane production and nutrient solubility of swine manure
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2020;299:122552. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122552.
[110] Jiang Y, Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Hu Z, McCabe M, Cormican P, et al. Inhibition of
volatile fatty acids on methane production kinetics during dry co-digestion of
food waste and pig manure. Waste Manag 2018;79:302–11. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2018.07.049.
[111] Mao C, Zhang T, Wang X, Feng Y, Ren G. Process performance and methane
production optimizing of anaerobic co-digestion of swine manure and corn straw.
Sci Rep 2017;1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09977-6.
[112] Brazil. Diagnóstico da expansão da adoção da tecnologia de Tratamento de
Dejetos Animais ( TDA ) no território brasileiro entre 2010 e 2019. Brasília:
Ministério da Agricultura. Pecuária e Abatecimento; 2019.
[113] Silva FP, de Souza SNM, Kitamura DS, Nogueira CEC, Otto RB. Energy efficiency
of a micro-generation unit of electricity from biogas of swine manure. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:3900–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2017.10.083.
[114] Brockmann D, Hanhoun M, Négri O, Hélias A. Environmental assessment of
nutrient recycling from biological pig slurry treatment - impact of fertilizer
substitution and field emissions. Bioresour Technol 2014;163:270–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.04.032.
[115] Lansche J, Müller J. Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed
combined heat and power plants: environmental impact of different agricultural
substrates. Eng Life Sci 2012;12:313–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/
elsc.201100061.
[116] Corbala-Robles L, Sastafiana WND, Van linden V, Volcke EIP, Schaubroeck T. Life
cycle assessment of biological pig manure treatment versus direct land
application − a trade-off story. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;131:86–98. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.12.010.
[117] Paccanelli N, Teli A, Scaglione D, Insabato G, Paccanelli N, Teli A, et al.
Comparison based on environmental effects of nitrogen management techniques
in a manure digestate case study. 2015. p. 3330. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2015.1055820.
[118] Christiansen K, Raman DR, Hu G, Anex R. First-order estimates of the costs, input-
output energy analysis, and energy returns on investment of conventional and
emerging biofuels feedstocks. Biofuel Res J 2018;5:894–9. https://doi.org/
10.18331/BRJ2018.5.4.4.
[119] Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Soltanian S, Ghanavati H, Dadak A. Comprehensive
exergoeconomic analysis of a municipal solid waste digestion plant equipped with
a biogas genset. Waste Manag 2019;87:485–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2019.02.029.
[120] Rosen MA. Environmental sustainability tools in the biofuel industry. Biofuel Res
J 2018;5:751–2. https://doi.org/10.18331/BRJ2018.5.1.2.
[121] Barati MR, Aghbashlo M, Ghanavati H, Tabatabaei M, Sharifi M, Javadirad G,
et al. Comprehensive exergy analysis of a gas engine-equipped anaerobic
digestion plant producing electricity and biofertilizer from organic fraction of
municipal solid waste. Energy Convers Manag 2017;151:753–63. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.09.017.
[122] Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Soltanian S, Ghanavati H. Biopower and biofertilizer
production from organic municipal solid waste: an exergoenvironmental analysis.
Renew Energy 2019;143:64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.109.