Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2011; 31(2): 99–111

© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

ISSN 0738-8551 print/ISSN 1549-7801 online
DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2010.525496

REVIEW ARTICLE

Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and

perspectives including modeling
Joan Mata-Alvarez, Joan Dosta, Sandra Macé, and Sergi Astals
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Barcelona, Martí i Franquès, No. 1, 6th floor, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract
The last two years have witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of papers published on the subject of codigestion,
highlighting the relevance of this topic within anaerobic digestion research. Consequently, it seems appropriate to
undertake a review of codigestion practices starting from the late 1970s, when the first papers related to this concept
were published, and continuing to the present day, demonstrating the exponential growth in the interest shown in
this approach in recent years. Following a general analysis of the situation, state-of-the-art codigestion is described,
focusing on the two most important areas as regards publication: codigestion involving sewage sludge and the
organic fraction of municipal solid waste (including a review of the secondary advantages for wastewater treatment
plant related to biological nutrient removal), and codigestion in the agricultural sector, that is, including agricultural
– farm wastes, and energy crops. Within these areas, a large number of oversized digesters appear which can be
used to codigest other substrates, resulting in economic and environmental advantages. Although the situation may
For personal use only.

be changing, there is still a need for good examples on an industrial scale, particularly with regard to wastewater
treatment plants, in order to extend this beneficial practice. In the last section, a detailed analysis of papers addressing
the important aspect of modelisation is included. This analysis includes the first codigestion models to be developed
as well as recent applications of the standardised anaerobic digestion model ADM1 to codigestion. (This review
includes studies ranging from laboratory to industrial scale.)
Keywords: MSW, sewage sludge, manure, nutrient removal, energy crops, biogas, ADM1, anaerobic digestion

Introduction
Anaerobic codigestion (AcoD) consists of the anaerobic
digestion (AD) of a mixture of two or more substrates with
complementary characteristics, so that biogas production
is enhanced through their joint treatment. Thus, it is not
simply the digestion of a mixture of substrates (such as pri-
mary and secondary sludge), or of different types of wastes
in a municipal solid waste (MSW) digester. Where pos-
sible, it is very important in codigestion to choose the best
blend ratios in order: a) to favor positive interactions (for
instance, positive synergisms and nutrient and moisture
balance); b) to avoid inhibition (ammonia, lipid degrada-
tion products); and c) to optimize methane production.
Consequently, the AD process becomes more economi-
cally feasible through the application of codigestion.
The potential inhibition of methanogenesis by ammo-
nia is a well-known problem when digesting wastes with
high nitrogen content. For instance, it has been shown
that optimum values for the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N)
ratio fall within the range of 20 to 70 for the AD process
(Burton and Turner, 2003) but even lower values (12 to
16) have also been reported (Mshandete et al., 2004). The
ammonia threshold limit for inhibition depends on sev-
eral factors, such as temperature, substrate, cosubstrates,
and pH (Chen et al., 2008; Cuetos et al., 2008). In all these
cases, the level of methanogenic activity decreases with
increasing concentrations of ammonia (Angelidaki and
Ahring, 1993; Chen et al., 2008; Hansen et al., 1998).
Therefore, the main issue for the codigestion process lies
in balancing the C/N ratio, but the right combination of
several other parameters in the cosubstrate mixture, such
as macro- and micronutrients, pH/alkalinity, inhibitors/
toxic compounds, biodegradable organic matter, and dry
matter, are also relevant (Hartmann et al., 2003). This

Address for Correspondence: Joan Mata-Alvarez, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Barcelona, Martí i Franquès, No. 1, 6th
floor, Barcelona, Spain. Tel. (+34) 934021310; Fax. (+34) 934021291; E-mail: jmata@ub.edu
(Received 10 September 2009; revised 20 February 2010; accepted 04 March 2010)

99
 100 Joan Mata-Alvarez et al.
more balanced operation achieved by codigestion not
only enhances biogas production, but also results in a
more stable process. In addition to improved yields due
to nutrient compensation (Monou et al., 2008; Cuetos
et al., 2008), other advantages include the possibility of
cost-sharing, since the equipment and general infra-
structures can be used for several wastes (Macias-Corral
et al., 2008). However, especially at farm level, care must
be taken to avoid the spread of diseases (Kaparaju et al.,
2002).
Codigestion offers several potential ecological,
technological, and economical advantages, resulting
in improved organic waste treatment through AD. For
instance, it is very important for plants treating manure to
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
produce as much biogas as possible, in order to increase
the economic viability of the plant. In many cases, biogas
production from mixed substrates is higher than the sum
of the biogas production from substrates digested sepa-
rately. AcoD can easily increase the methane production
of manure digesters by up to 200%, depending on the
operating conditions and the characteristics and amount
of cosubstrates used (Amon et al., 2006; Ferreira et al.,
2007; Murto et al., 2004; Soldano et al., 2007). The search
to increase renewable energy production has fostered the
development of codigestion in agricultural biogas plants.
Denmark and Germany are the leading countries for
manure and organic waste codigestion (Angelidaki and
For personal use only.
Ellegaard, 2003; Weiland, 2006; Raven and Gregersen,
2007), as examined in detail below. Finally, in addition
to the production of renewable energy, using AD to treat
organic waste produces greater reductions in greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions than the aerobic options.
Codigestion is not a new concept. Early references to
this procedure using sewage sludge and the organic frac-
tion of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) appeared in the
late seventies (Miller et al., 1978), and the first reports in
the area of agricultural wastes also date from the same
period (Hills, 1979; Fujita et al., 1980; Hills and Roberts,
1981; Fischer et al., 1983; Hashimoto, 1983). Later on, var-
ious authors studied the behaviour of different substrate
blends (Llabrés-Luengo and Mata-Álvarez, 1987 and
40
35
30
No. of papers
25
20
15
10
5
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year of publication
Figure 1 . Evolution of the number of papers with the word ‘co-digestion’ or “codigestion” in the title.
 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
1988; Lo et al., 1988; Kumar et al., 1988; Mtz-Viturtia et al.,
1989; Robbins et al., 1989). These early studies focused
more on the kinetic and yield aspects than energy.
However, the number of papers on AcoD published
in referred journals has recently grown exponentially.
Approximately 40% of all AcoD papers were published in
2008 and 2009. Figure 1 shows the number of papers with
the word “co-digestion” or “codigestion” in the title per
year of publication.
An analysis of published papers on codigestion
reveals the distribution of the main substrates used:
sewage sludge (27%), manures (25%), organic fraction
of municipal solid waste (21%), industrial wastes (13%),
crops (5%), agricultural wastes (4%), and animal and
meat industry wastes (4%). Figure 2 shows the interrela-
tionship between cosubstrates, and in particular, the C/N
ratio, (the most important parameter in AcoD), together
with the percentage of papers which included these
cosubstrates. As can be seen in this figure, the highest
percentage of articles on codigestion dealt with sewage
sludge, and these have also become much more frequent
in the last five years. Many of the authors analysed lab-
scale digesters, assessing the digestibility of codigestates,
process performance, design aspects, the inhibitory effect
of codigestates, and the effect of temperature (mesophilic
or thermophilic) (Alatriste-Modragon et al., 2006).
The remainder of this review is divided into three parts:
The first deals with sewage sludge and the most common
cosubstrate, the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW). The second part examines the codigestion
of manures, especially with regard to energy crops and
OFMSW. These two parts cover most of the published
codigestion papers. Finally, the third part explores the
issue of modeling.
Sewage sludge: Codigestion OFMSW –
sewage sludge
Research into codigestion of OFMSW and sewage
sludge (SS) has a relatively long history and, as shown
in Figure 2, is the most popular codigestion research
 Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and perspectives including modeling 101
30
Sewage Sludge
25 Manures
Percentage of papers (%)
OFMSW
20
15
Industrial
wastes
10
5 Meat industries
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
Animal wastes
0
0 10 20
Figure 2 . Distribution of papers dealing with codigestion as a function of the substrate percentage of use and its C/N ratio. Solid lines link
the most reported mixtures while dotted lines link other published codigestions.
subject, representing 27% of all codigestion papers. With
regard to these, Table 1 shows a summary of some of the
most relevant references on this topic, which are exam-
ined in more detail as follows.
Early references concerning this subject date from the
For personal use only.
seventies and eighties (Ghosh and Klass, 1976; Diaz et al.,
1980), and looked at ways to enhance biogas production
from landfill cells. Recently, this issue has been reconsid-
ered, looking at the use of SS as a cosubstrate, or other
wastes with a similar high humidity level such as mixed
industrial sludge (Aǧdaǧ and Sponza, 2005 and 2007) or
septic tank sludge (Valencia et al., 2009), to fit the nutri-
ent balance. One of the first and most comprehensive
demonstrations that the codigestion process could be
successfully implemented in existing wastewater treat-
ment plants (WWTP), to improve digester performance
and thus energetic balance, was carried out by Cecchi
et al. (1988). These authors published a pilot scale study,
comparing the performance of different types of OFMSW
codigested with sewage sludge and confirming the inter-
est inherent in this approach. From this point onwards,
many papers were published which described different
configurations on either a laboratory or pilot scale. For
example, Schmit and Ellis (2001) and Sosnowski et al.
(2003) focused on the operational advantages of a two-
stage and temperature-phased system, while Caffaz
et al. (2008) tested two different kinds of source-sorted
OFMSW – fruit and vegetable waste and kitchen food
waste – in a pilot digester. In the OFMSW-SS system,
both basic components of the sewage sludge play an
important role in codigestion: the N content of second-
ary sludge can supplement a possible deficit of nutrients
in the other cosubstrate (OFMSW), whereas the higher
biodegradability of the primary sludge provides an addi-
tional contribution to the increase in biogas production
potential.
© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Crops
Agricultural wastes
30 40 50 60 70 80
C/N ratio
The influence of the mixing regime on the codigestion
performance of SS and OFMSW has been studied by dif-
ferent authors. It seems that for codigestion, good contact
among the cosubstrates is necessary in order to balance
the nutrients and other parameters. For instance, Gómez
et al. (2006) carried out experiments on high mixing
conditions (200 rpm), low mixing conditions (80 rpm)
and static conditions. As expected, the results showed
a reduction in biogas yield when the reactors were run
under static conditions. However, no differences were
found when the reactors were run under high or low
mixing conditions. This latter study was complemented
by that of Stroot et al. (2001) who, using the same cosub-
strates, demonstrated that reducing the level of mixing
improved digester performance, and that therefore con-
tinuous mixing was not necessary for good performance
and could even be inhibitory at higher loading rates. They
concluded that a reduction in mixing levels could stabi-
lize the digesters. It would appear that mixing inhibits the
syntrophic oxidation of volatile fatty acids (VFA), possi-
bly by disrupting the spatial juxtaposition of syntrophic
bacteria and their methanogenic partners (McMahon
et al., 2001).
Within this codigestion scenario, it should be noted
that papers dealing with biohydrogen production from
the codigestion of these two substrates have also been
published. For instance, in the study by Zhu et al. (2008),
the hydrogen yields observed in the codigestion tests
appeared to be a function of the availability of suitable
substrates (i.e. carbohydrates from food wastes) and pH
(buffering capacity). Other studies regarding hydrogen
production from the same cosubstrates include those by
Zhu et al. (2009) and Kim et al. (2004).
The application of an alkaline pre-treatment to enhance
biogas production has been reported by Heo et al. (2003),
based on batch assays, and by Hamzawi et al. (1998a),
 102 Joan Mata-Alvarez et al.

Table 1. Characteristics of some laboratory and bench scale experiments concerning codigestion between Sewage Sludge (SS) and
OFMSW.
Reactor size Temperature range Substrates Reference
40 L 22–40°C MSW and SS Ghosh and Klass, 1976
4, 9 and 1600 L 22–40°C MSW and SS Díaz et al., 1980
30 000 L Mesophilic OFMSW and SS Cecchi et al., 1988
2L Mesophilic and thermophilic Paper mill sludge, biosolids, and MSW Poggi-Varaldo et al., 1997
20 L, CSTR 37°C Mixture of PS:WAS (65:35) and OFMSW Hamzawi et al., 1998
Non detailed Mesophilic OFMSW, industrial wastes and biosolids. Kübler et al., 2000
2 L, several mixing levels 37°C OFMSW, PS and WAS. McMahon et al., 2001
2 L, several mixing levels 37°C OFMSW, PS and WAS. Stroot et al., 2001
0.5 L, Laboratory batch tests Mesophilic MSW and PS Schmit and Ellis, 2001
0.5 L, Laboratory batch tests 25, 35, 55°C Sludge pretreated with NaOH and FW Heo et al., 2003
40 L, CSTR 56°C and two-stage (56–36°C) OFMSW and SS Sosnowski et al., 2003
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14

350 L, anaerobic simulated 35–40°C MSW and mixture of industrial sludge Agdad and Sponza, 2005
landfill reactors
3 L, several mixing levels Mesophilic OFMSW and PS Gómez et al., 2006
350 L, anaerobic simulated 35–40°C MSW and mixture of industrial sludge Agdad and Sponza, 2007
landfill reactors
200 L, CSTR 35–37°C OFMSW and WAS Caffaz et al., 2008
0.1 L, Laboratory batch tests 35°C PS with mechanically and biologically Pahl et al., 2008
treated MSW
40 L, CSTR Mesophilic SS and OFMSW Sosnowski et al., 2008
31 L, Bioreactor simulator 30°C±1 °C MSW and septic tank sludge Valencia et al., 2009
FW: Food Waste; MSW: Municipal Solid Waste; OFMSW: Organic Fraction Municipal Solid Waste; PS: Primary sludge; SS: Sewage sludge;
WAS: Waste Activated Sludge

based on continuous reactors. Hamzawi et al. (1998 and digestion in a mono-digester and codigestion with sew-
For personal use only.

1998a) reported a maximum increase in biodegradability
as well as maximum enhancement of biogas productivity
when using a mixture with 25% OFMSW and 75% sew-
age sludge. This approach could become an interesting
option, as the production of renewable energy in order
to reduce GHG emissions becomes increasingly impor-
tant. In fact, many plants have already implemented
different kinds of pre-treatment (ultrasound, thermal)
on an industrial scale, especially for secondary sludge
(Phothilangka et al., 2008; Khanal et al., 2007).
Finally, attention must be paid to the digester load,
as described by Pahl et al. (2008), who reported digester
destabilisation leading to a significant reduction in bio-
gas production rates when large amounts of OFMSW
were added.
Full scale plants with sewage sludge
codigestion
Despite the large number of papers published dealing
with the codigestion of sewage sludge – OFMSW, this
trend is not yet reflected on an industrial scale, although
it would appear to be a very interesting option from an
economical and ecological point of view, as demon-
strated by a feasibility study carried out in Wiesbaden
(Germany) at a WWTP with oversized digesters due to an
expected increase in wastewater flow-rates, which failed
to materialise in the end (Krupp et al., 2005). In this study,
the effects on the environment of the disposal options for
12 000 t/y of organic waste were compared and evaluated
using a life cycle assessment. Composting, anaerobic
age sludge were the treatments considered. Within the
impact category of climate change, codigestion proved
to be the most advantageous option. Moreover, when
implemented at a large plant (350 000 equivalent inhabit-
ants (EI)), codigestion was the option which represented
minimal operational costs and the greatest economic
benefit.
As mentioned above, reported full scale cases in the
literature are scarce, although this does not necessarily
imply that the cases reported in the literature are the
only ones in practice. In fact, not much interest is shown
in publishing papers reporting industrial scale experi-
ences. Nevertheless, the authors’ practical experience
indicates that these codigestion practices are not quite as
wide-spread as could be desired. Problems with public
administration bodies responsible for solids and water
management, and contracts with WWTP management
have to a certain extent hampered this development.
Among the few cases reported it is worth mention-
ing the study performed by Zupancic et al. (2008) at a
WWTP of 50 000 EI in Velenje (Slovenia), equipped with
two digesters of 2000 m3 each, and operating at an HRT
of 20 days. The average organic loading rate of digesters
was 0.8 kg VSS/(m3 d) and they were supplemented with
OFMSW to increase the organic loading rate by 25%,
reaching 1 kg VSS/(m3d). As a result, biogas production
increased by 80% and the specific biogas production
increased from 0.39 m3/kg VSS to over 0.6 m3/kg VSS.
Another interesting full scale study is that reported
by Zitomer et al. (2008), in which the addition of five
cosubstrates to the WWTP digester was evaluated. More

 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology

 Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and perspectives including modeling 103
specifically, the addition of yeast waste had a notable syn-
ergistic effect, increasing biogas production by over 50%.
This synergistic effect may be explained by trace nutri-
ents (Fe, Ni, Co) present in the yeast waste. The addition
of aircraft deicing waste resulted in an antagonistic effect
at high loadings and neutral outcomes at lower loadings,
probably due to inhibitory deicer constituents, while res-
taurant wastes exhibited a neutral performance.
However, the most inclusive study dealing with SS and
OFMSW digestion was carried out by Bolzonella et al.
(2006 and 2006a) at a WWTP in Treviso (Italy) (70 000
EI), one of the first codigestion plants to treat these sub-
strates. This plant has been codigesting these wastes for
more than 8 years, without encountering any significant
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
problems. The addition of around 10 t/d of OFMSW - with
a sludge/OFMSW ratio of 60/40 on a VS basis - increased
biogas production from 3 500 to 17 500 m3/month, which
corresponded to an increase in specific biogas produc-
tion from approximately 0.13 m3/kg VS, when only waste
activated sludge was digested, to 0.43 m3/kg VS in the case
of codigestion, with an applied OLR of 0.78 kg VS/(m3 d).
The treatment costs were estimated at €50/ton OFMSW,
at a flow rate of 50 t/week. This low cost is due to the low
energy consumption of the prior OFMSW sorting line.
The investment costs for the OFMSW addition step were
estimated at €1.5 million, with an approximate payback
time of only 3.5 years. In addition to OFMSW, wastewa-
For personal use only.
ters from cheese factories were tested as a cosubstrate in
the sewage sludge digester, also resulting in a significant
increase in biogas production from 0.3 to 0.5 m3/kg VS
(Bolzonella et al., 2006a). In fact, the introduction of
other industrial and agro-industrial wastes represents a
very attractive and effective option for using the available
capacity of existing sewage sludge digesters. The same
authors also conducted a similar study at the WWTP
of Viareggio in Italy with 100 000 EI, equipped with 2
digesters of 3 500 and 1 500 m3, respectively (Bolzonella
et al., 2006). The introduction of around 3 t/d of OFMSW
increased the OLR from 1.0 to 1.2 kg TVS/(m3 d), which
resulted in a 50% biogas production increase
Another quite different approach to codigestion of
OFMSW and SS is the use of domestic garbage disposers
to deal with kitchen food waste. This is an old concept,
especially in the USA, where it is now being revisited
(Diggelman and Ham, 2003; Battistoni et al., 2007).
According to an ongoing project of the European Agency
for Competitiveness and Innovation (RE-WISE), there
are a number of advantages associated with this type of
system, as described below. Together with wastewater,
kitchen food waste (KFW) is conveyed to the WWTP,
where it is intercepted in the primary clarifier and routed
to the anaerobic digester. This can lead to an increase in
biogas production of around 120 m3/t waste. At the same
time, it is possible to reduce the amount of CO2 generated
by the vehicles collecting FKW (1 000 food waste dispos-
ers can save 52 kg of CO2 per km not travelled (Bolzonella
et al., 2003). However, one of the pre-requisites of this
system is to have an adequately installed and maintained
© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
sewerage network with a minimum slope of 2%. Other
authors found that the use of food waste disposers
increased the energy potential of biogas obtained from
the anaerobic sludge stabilization process by 50% to 70%,
depending on the wastewater treatment sequence, with
a reduction of between 7 and 19% in the total weight of
MSW (Galil and Yaacov, 2001). On the other hand, the
authors estimated an increase in wastewater treatment
investment of 23% to 27% and in annual operation and
maintenance costs of 26% to 30%. Some criticism has
also arisen concerning the “misuse” of clean water in
FWD (Weiland, 2009).
It is not only SS digesters which are used for SS-OFMSW
codigestion. OFMSW digesters have also been used for
this codigestion option with some full scale examples
already in operation. One of the first papers dealing
with this option was that of Rintala and Jarvinen (1996),
who described the success of a 1 400 m3 digester in
Stormorsen (Finland), codigesting OFMSW and SS in a
MSW treatment plant. Another similar example of codi-
gestion of OFMSW with other food organic wastes at a
full scale MSW plant, using BTA® technology is given by
Kübler et al. (2000), who report substantially improved
performance.
The nutrient problem
Biological nutrient removal is a major concern for
WWTP managers. Codigestion of SS with OFMSW, as
well as with other wastes, increases the nutrient load of
the plant. This effect was reported by Nowak et al. (2007),
in a paper about the WWTP in Loewen (Austria). This
plant is typical of many oversized digesters in WWTP.
It has two digesters (2 500 m3 each) and one of them
was not used. The digestion overcapacity was used by
employing the second unit to digest organic wastes (as
can be seen, this does not represent a true codigestion
approach). After operating the plant, they set balances
for N and detected an increase in this nutrient. Namely,
the supernatant of the organic wastes digester showed
a level of ammonia which was twice that of the sewage
sludge digester. In this case, this extra ammonia load
was solved by using the primary settler as a nitrification/
denitrification device for the reject water. This increase
was also notable at the Treviso WWTP mentioned ear-
lier. Thus, codigestion of sewage sludge together with
other organic substrates at this plant gave rise to a
digester supernatant rich in nutrients (approximately,
400 mg N/L of ammonia and up to 100 mg P/L of phos-
phates) which was recycled to the wastewater treatment
line (Pavan et al., 1998 and 2000).
Many studies have reported a wide range of COD/N
ratios required for satisfactory or complete denitrifica-
tion processes, of between 4 and 15 g COD/g N. If the
COD/N ratio in the incoming wastewater to the WWTP
is not sufficient for complete biological nutrient removal
(BNR), an external carbon source is needed. This external
carbon source can be chemical (acetic acid or methanol),
 104 Joan Mata-Alvarez et al.
primary settled hydrolysed sludge or the anaerobic fer-
mentation products from OFMSW (Cecchi et al., 1994;
Pavan et al., 1998 and 2000). In Treviso, the WWTP has a
modified Johannesburg configuration, avoiding primary
settling in order to preserve COD for nutrient removal.
A scheme of the plant is shown in Figure 3, where it
can be seen that in this operation mode, the fermented
effluent goes to a screw-press where the liquid fraction
is extracted and used to feed readily biodegradable COD-
rich liquid to the BNR sections (main line of the WWTP).
One drawback of this approach is that it creates a higher
oxygen demand (5–10 %) and a greater amount of sludge
to dispose of (from 2 700 to 4 300 Kg/d). However, the
advantages include increased biogas production and the
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
treatment of 20 t/d of OFMSW. Regarding the P excess
in Treviso WWTP, another demonstration project car-
ried out at this plant concerned the recovery of struvite.
Approximately 80% of the P from supernatants can be
recovered through struvite crystallisation (Bolzonella
et al., 2006a). These authors concluded that codiges-
tion of sewage sludge with other organic substrates is a
feasible means to improve not only the performance of
anaerobic digesters in WWTPs but also BNR processes,
where these are applied.
In another project conducted at a pilot plant installed
in the WWTP in Florence (Caffaz et al., 2008), the excess
N load (calculated at approximately 16–18 %) produced
For personal use only.
by the codigestion of sewage sludge and OFMSW (and
sometimes other organic wastes such as olive mill wastes)
was resolved using a different approach, requiring less
oxygen and readily biodegradable COD. Following codi-
gestion, the supernatant was treated chemically with
magnesium salts to obtain struvite, and subsequently the
effluent of this treatment was passed to a moving bed bio-
reactor (MBBR) for partial nitrification. The MBBR outlet
contained 50% nitrite and 50% ammonia, an ideal mix-
ture for the anammox process that followed. The effluent
of the Anammox reactor (with a conversion of approxi-
mately 90%) was returned to the main biological reactor
of the WWTP. Results indicated that the high costs of
composting and the market problems experienced at the
Florence plant were resolved by codigestion of OFMSW
(Caffaz et al., 2008).
Wastewater Biological Treatment
Pretreatment
inlet (N-P removal)
Anaerobic sludge
OFMSW Preparation
co-digestion
Fermentation
demonstrative section
Struvite
Figure 3 . Scheme of the nutrient management and codigestion in the WWTP of Treviso. Note the use of fermentative products in the
biological nutrient removal process and the absence of primary settler.
 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
Codigestion in the area of agriculture
The second most cited cosubstrate is manure. As shown in
Figure 2, 25% of papers examine this substrate. In fact, the
agricultural area is showing a renewed interest in biogas
technology as well as in other renewable energy sources,
due to the need to reduce GHGs, and because of the sec-
tor’s decentralised nature, although the real driving force
behind this development has been the income it repre-
sents through the sale of electricity. Ideal cosubstrates for
manures (with a high N content and high alkalinity) are
agricultural wastes and crops, with a lower alkalinity and
a high C/N ratio, although the main cosubstrate reported
in publications is OFMSW (reported in 33% of the papers
reporting manure codigestion). OFMSW is followed by
industrial waste (22%), agricultural wastes (21%), crops
(18%) and sewage sludge (6%).
In many cases, the reduced biogas yield of manures
does not justify the high capital costs for farm-scale plants
of manure-only digestion. However, biogas productiv-
ity can be dramatically increased by adding energy-rich
cosubstrates to the anaerobic digester, namely C-rich
wastes and especially energy crops (Pavan et al., 2007).
Biogas yields from manure digestion typically range from
10 to 20 m3/t, while the operation is only profitable when
biogas yields higher than 30 m3/t of treated material can
be achieved (Angelidaki and Ellegaard, 2003).
Codigestion of manures and energy crops has devel-
oped very rapidly in some countries such as Germany
and Austria. This precipitate growth has led to inaccurate
plant design in the opinion of Lindorfer et al. (2008). To
correct this extra capacity, the load of a full-scale two-
stage digester (2 000 + 1 850 m3) was doubled, resulting
in a proportional increase in biogas production (Table 2).
The authors also warned of an increase in the residual
methane potential of the digestate and also higher VFA
values.
Cavinato et al. (2010) reported the importance of the
operating temperature in agricultural codigestion. They
recorded an increase from 0.45 to 0.62 m3/kg VS at a full-
scale digester in Italy treating a mixture of cattle manure
(solid and liquid), maize, and fruit-processing wastes, with
total solids at the inlet of between 10–12%. This increase
Secondary Final Treatment:
outlet
Settler chlorination
was
Dewatering and phosphorus
precipitation
Sludge
Struvite
demonstrative section Wastewater
headworks
 Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and perspectives including modeling 105
Table 2. Comparison of the old and new situation, after
increasing the load by adding silage from maize in the plant of
Loewen, Austria (Lindorfer et al., 2008).
Old situation New situation
VS input from crops (t/d) 7.58 15.63
VS input from manure and 8.12 16.53
crops (t/d)
Hydraulic retention time (d) 129.6 74.6
Biogas production 5 790 11 185
Biogas yield (m3CH4/kg VS) 0.73 0.69
VS degradation (%) 88.2 83.1
Electrical capacity (kW) 500 1 000
was due to an operating temperature correction, chang-
ing the temperature from 47°C to 55°C, which also had a
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
positive effect on the biogas methane content (increasing
from 52 to 61%). The authors also studied the econom-
ics of this type of digester and concluded that with the
present rates for electricity in Italy (green certificates) of
€0.22/kWh, the investment return period (AD only) was
around 2.5 years, rising to 3.5 years if a nutrient removal
step was included due to N restrictions in the soil.
As mentioned above, the most frequently reported
waste in codigestion with manures is OFMSW, the sub-
ject of 33% of reported cases (Ahring et al., 2001; Ikbal
et al., 2003; Møller et al., 2004; Mladenovska et al., 2004;
Hartman and Ahring, 2006; Park et al., 2008). This is due
For personal use only.
to the high biodegradability of OFMSW and its rela-
tively high proportion of solid contents, which enables
the digesters to operate at higher organic loading rates.
In this way, the low productivities obtained with cattle
manures (between 150–240 L CH4/kg VS) or pig manures
(in the range of 280–360 L CH4/kg VS), can be increased
dramatically (Møller et al., 2004).
As mentioned earlier, one of the countries which pio-
neered the application of codigestion at farm level was
Denmark, where presently there are around 20 central-
ized AD plants, treating approximately 1.5 million tons/
year of manure, most of them together with other organic
wastes, preferably in the thermophilic range (Nielsen
and Angelidaki, 2008; Angelidaki and Ellegaard, 2003).
Other countries, such as Sweden, also have a significant
number of codigestion plants, with a total of around 200,
10 of them centralized. Cosubstrates for manure in these
centralized plants come mainly from the food-processing
industries, whereas in individual plants they come from
crop residues (Lantz et al., 2007). In Sweden, as well as in
Germany, it seems that the full utilisation of this energy
potential in centralized plants presents difficulties, and
therefore individual codigestion plants are more com-
mon (Svensson et al., 2005). The problem now seems
to be that the volume of easily degradable substrates is
not sufficient to satisfy demand, and consequently some
plants have begun to import organic waste with a high
biogas potential. In addition, research has begun into
other types of biomass which require more expensive
pre-treatment in order to increase biodegradability, such
as wet explosion (Wang et al., 2009).
© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
A review of anaerobic codigestion modeling
Much research has been carried out with the aim of under-
standing AcoD technology and establishing the effect
of mixing two or more individual wastes in a digester.
Achieving a successful combination of different types
of waste requires careful management, since random or
heuristic decisions on the ratio between waste streams or
feedstock to full-scale plants often lead to process distur-
bance and significant reductions in methane production
(Zaher et al., 2009). Consequently, the need has arisen
for accurate modeling of the anaerobic degradation of
waste (Angelidaki et al., 1993). The power of models lies
in their capacity to reproduce empirical behaviour on a
computer, in a clear and quantifiable manner, where the
mathematical equations are able to simulate the physi-
cal, chemical, and biological processes (Esposito et al.,
2008; Galí et al., 2009).
Pioneering papers dealing with codigestion modeling
appeared in 1996, 1997, and 1999, although the majority
were published in 2008 and 2009, all of the latter being
based on ADM1 (see Table 3). Today, some 6% of papers
on codigestion address modeling aspects.
The first codigestion modeling study was performed
by Bozinis et al. (1996), using an operation model based
on a simple uninhibited Monod kinetic model depend-
ing on the composition of the waste (lipids, proteins and
carbohydrates). The authors included an engineering
model but many constants were necessary to produce
viable results. Another pioneering model was developed
by Gavala et al. (1996) for the codigestion of Olive Mill
Wastes (OMW), pig sludge, and dairy wastewaters. To
carry out the degradation process, this model considers
a four step pathway (hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogen-
esis, and methanogenesis) and three bacterial groups.
Meanwhile, the wastes were defined by a simplified
composition: carbohydrates (soluble and insoluble),
proteins (soluble and insoluble), and VFA. However, the
model could not predict pH and biogas composition nor
did it take into account the inhibitory effect of low pH
values, high VFA concentration or a shortage of ammo-
nium nitrogen (Fezzani and Cheikh, 2008). Kiely et al.
(1997) modeled the results of the codigestion of OFMSW
and primary sludge using a two-step model (hydrolysis/
acidogenesis and methanogenesis) which introduced
ammonia inhibition, affecting the specific growth rate
of the methanogenic biomass and acetic acid inhibi-
tion in the methane production rate. Later on, a more
complete model was developed for the degradation of
complex organic material. At first, development of this
model focused on the AcoD of OMW and cattle manure
at thermophilic conditions in a continuous stirred tank
reactor (CSTR) (Angelidaki et al., 1997), and involved
one enzymatic process, six bacterial groups, and three
inhibition mechanisms. Further development of the
model was based on the AcoD of manure with glycerol
trioleate or manure with gelatine (Angelidaki et al.,
1999), and evolved to include two enzymatic processes,
 106 Joan Mata-Alvarez et al.

Table 3. Evolution of codigestion modeling from 1996 until 2009.

Year Author Model Waste stream
1996 Bozinis et al. -One Monod kinetics-Many parameters -Industrial Wastewater
Gavala et al. -Four step pathway-Three bacterial groups -OMW, PM, Dairy WW
1997 Kiely et al. -Two step pathway-Two inhibitions: ammonia and -OFMSW and primary sludge
acetic acid
Angelidaki et al. -One enzymatic step-Six bacterial groups-Two -OMW and Cattle manure.
inhibitions: ammonia and acetic acid
1999 Angelidaki et al. -One enzymatic step-Six bacterial groups-Two -Manure and glycerol trioleate-Manure
inhibitions: ammonia and acetic acid with gelatine-Manure with proteinous WW
2007 Lübken et al. -ADM1 including bacteria and methanogens in the -Cattle manure and energy crops
inflow
2008 Fezzani and Ben Cheikh -ADM1 including total VFA amount inhibition in the -OMW and OMSW
acetate uptake.
Espostio et al. -ADM1 including surface based kinetics at hydrolysis -OFMSW and sewage sludge
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14

step
2009 Derbal et al. -ADM1 -OFMSW and sewage sludge
Fezzani and Ben Cheikh -ADM1 including phenolic compound degradation -OMW and OMSW
Galí et al. -ADM1 including sulfideinhibition in the acetate -Combinations of agricultural waste
uptake.
Zaher et al. -ADM1 -Combinations of solid waste
OFMSW: Organic Fraction Municipal Solid Waste; OMSW: Olive Mill Solid Waste; OMW: Olive Mill Waste; PM: Pig Manure; WW: Waste
Water.

eight bacterial groups, and six inhibition mechanisms.
Furthermore, it considered the hydrolysis process, the
intermediate compounds derived from the degrada-
tion of complex substrates, and the digestion inhibition
For personal use only.
et al., 2007; Derbal et al., 2009; Galí et al., 2009; Zaher
et al., 2009)
Lübken et al. (2007) applied ADM1 to simulate energy
production by codigesting cattle manure and energy

mechanism as key factors for achieving a successful
simulation.
A more recent and sophisticated model, the Anaerobic
Digestion Model No.1 (ADM1), was developed in 2002
by the International Water Association (IWA) task group
for mathematical modeling, where complex substrates
are described by their complete organic and inorganic
composition (Batstone et al., 2002). Figure 4 shows the
ADM1 pathways, showing the number of variables,
equations, and other parameters of the model. A com-
plete description of the model’s equations can be found
in (Batstone et al., 2002). The ADM1 was designed to be
easy and extendible; as a result of the improvements, the
additional functions work very well, and are easily docu-
mented (Batstone et al., 2006). Since its development
in 2002, these advantages have been demonstrated in
practice. The ADM1 has been tested and used on differ-
ent substrates, as reflected in the large number of related
research papers reported in the literature (Derbal et al.,
2009). Nevertheless, the next papers to address codiges-
tion using the already established ADM1 were published
more than five years after this. Furthermore, all of them
considered the two following premises when the model
runs under codigestion conditions: (1) the ADM1 model
component for composites cannot be used as an inflow
fraction, and substrate characterisation should be in
terms of carbohydrates, proteins and lipids (Lübken
et al., 2007; Fezzani and Cheikh, 2008; Galí et al., 2009;
Zaher et al., 2009), and (2) the disintegration/hydrolysis
step is generally considered the rate-limiting step during
the degradation of particulate organic matter (Lübken
crops. The model inflow characterisation included the
content of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, inert particles,
and biomass, where the active biomass content in the
fed manure was 4.2% of total COD for anaerobic bacteria
and 0.05 of total COD for methanogens. This last value,
and the different hydrolysis constant for each single frac-
tion, had a negligible influence on achieving the higher
biogas production predicted. Other papers dealing with
codigestion modeling were published by Fezzani and
Cheikh (2008), who reported a satisfactory simulation,
after optimising some of the kinetic and stoichiometic
parameters and using olive mill waste (OMW) and olive
mill solid waste (OMSW) as substrates in a semi-contin-
uous tubular digester at mesophilic (Fezzani and Cheikh,
2008) and thermophilic conditions (Fezzani and Cheikh,
2008a). Their model included a slight modification to
predict reactor failure at short HRTs. More precisely, the
inhibition factor applied to the rate of acetate uptake was
modified to take into account inhibition of the metha-
nogenic step by the total amount of VFA. Moreover, in
2009 the same authors published an extension of ADM1
to include phenol compound biodegradation (Fezzani
and Cheikh, 2009). Incorporating the phenol degrada-
tion process, first into benzoate and then into acetate,
in ADM1 required the addition of five state variables,
six phenol conversion processes and the corresponding
inhibitory effect of phenolic compounds on the rate of
acetate uptake.
Furthermore, ADM1 has been applied in two studies to
simulate the codigestion of OFMSW with sewage sludge
at a WWTP (Esposito et al., 2008; Derbal et al., 2009).

 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology

 Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and perspectives including modeling 107

Compled Particulate
Organic Matter (Xc)
Inert
Particulates
(XI)

Carbohydrates (Xch) Proteins (Xpr) Fats (Xli)

Inert
Soluble
(SI)
Amino
Acids Long Chain
Sugars
(Saa) Fatty Acids
(Ssu)
(Sfa)
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14

Propionate (Spro) Butyrate (Sbu)

Valerate (Sva)

Acetate (Sac) Hydrogen (Sh2)

Methane (Sch4)

Process equations Inhibitions Variables

19 Biochemical - pH 12 particulate (Xi)
For personal use only.

- 4 for particulate matter degradation - Lack of inorganic nitrogen 18 soluble (Si)

- 8 for soluble matter degradation - H2 to fatty acids degradation 3 Gases
- 7 for biomass concentration - H2 to butyric/valeric degradation
6 Equilibrium acid/base - H2 to propionic degradation
3 Gas transfer (CH4, CO2, H2) - NH3 to acetate degradation

Figure 4 . ADM1 biochemical processes (Parker, 2005).

Esposito et al. (2008) focused their research on the disin-
tegration process. More specifically, sludge degradation
was modelled according to ADM1, while surface-based
kinetics was used to simulate the OFMSW disintegration
process, in order to reproduce the particle size distribu-
tion effect on the process. Derbal et al. (2009) reported a
unique ADM1 codigestion simulation case using a full-
scale reactor. The data obtained from their research indi-
cated that ADM1 is a useful tool for assisting in system
operation and controlling a full scale anaerobic digester.
Finally, two powerful simulation tools for the codiges-
tion of multiple waste combinations and based on ADM1
have recently been reported, by Galí et al. (2009) for
agricultural waste, and Zaher et al. (2009) for numerous
solid wastes. Both models were developed in MATLAB/
SIMULINK, where the practical information is taken
from Excel files, although the Simulink schemes are
slightly different (see Figure 5). On the one hand, the
model developed by Galí et al. (2009) can be operated for
one or two stirred reactors in series, which can be filled
separately either continuously or semi-continuously, and
the number of substrates included can be chosen indis-
criminately for each of the reactors. On the other hand,
the model developed by Zaher et al. (2009) divides the
solid anaerobic degradation process into an enzymatic
hydrolysis phase and an uptake phase of the hydrolysis
product in ADM1 node. Moreover, the Galí et al. (2009)
model implemented H2S in the liquid and gas phases
and the inhibitory effect of this compound on the rate of
acetate uptake, whereas Zaher et al. (2009) model only
needed eleven characteristics as model inputs.
Conclusions
Much interest is currently being shown in codigestion
processes. After many years, practitioners and plant
operators have recognised the potential of this approach
and have encouraged applied research in this area. Many
papers and reports have been published, especially in
the last two years, concerning codigestion of sewage
sludge (SS), manure and the organic fraction of solid
waste (OFMSW). Although the main driving force behind
this research is energy production, in many cases a more
stable operation is also obtained.
Many oversized agricultural digesters and WWTP
digesters could be improved by the codigestion process

© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.

 108 Joan Mata-Alvarez et al.
A
INF
To Workspace2

Input_conc Effluent_conc
From Workspace To Workspace

REACTOR

S-Function

Input_flowrate Additional_state_conc
From Workspace1 To Workspace1

B INF Effluent_conc Effluent_conc_2

To Workspace2 To Workspace To Workspace3
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14

Input_conc
From Workspace
REACTOR REACTOR2
S-Function S-Function2
Input_flowrate Input_flowrate
From Workspace2
From Workspace1

Additional_state_conc Additional_state_conc_2
To Workspace1 To Workspace4

C
Input1 Transformer Output1
Practical Practical characteristic Biochemical
characteristic to biochemical composition of
For personal use only.

of solid waste1 composition solid waste1

waste1
Hydrolisis model
For solid waste 1
Combiner model ADM1 DAE1 out
To be repeated for additional Sums both solid waste DAE Digest output
waste sreams Hydrolisis model streams after hydrolysis

For solid waste 1

Input2 Transformer Output2

Practical Practical characteristic Biochemical
characteristic to biochemical composition of
of solid waste2 composition solid waste 2
waste2

Figure 5 . Comparison of ADM1 schemes in Matlab/Simulink of (a) one reactor configuration by Galí et al. (2009); (b) two reactor
configuration by Galí et al. (2009); and (c) one reactor configuration by Zaher et al. (2009).

Table 4. DM1 simulations correspondence with experimental data.

Author
Lübken et al., 2007
Boubaker and Ridha 2008
Fezzani and Ben Cheikh, 2008
Espostio et al., 2008
Derbal et al., 2009
Fezzani and Ben Cheikh., 2009
Galí et al., 2009
Zaher et al., 2009
Gas flow % CH4 %H2 pH VFA COD N-NH4+ Phenol
√ √ √ - ~ - - -
√ √ - √ ~ - - -
√ √ - √ √ - - -
- - - - - - - -
~ √ - √ √ √ - -
√ √ - √ - √ - √
√ √ - √ √ √ √ -
√ √ - √ √ - - -

with very little investment. The investment return period
is usually short and given the prospect of energy /climate
change, it can be expected to be even shorter in the future.
Codigestion also offers significant potential for biological
nutrient removal (BNR) in WWTPs.
Research challenges are very similar to those for
mono-substrate digestion. Improvements such as hyper-
thermophilic pre-treatments as well as other more clas-
sical approaches could also be studied and implemented
to enhance yields from codigestion. However, more

 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology

 Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and perspectives including modeling 109
examples of good industrial applications are still needed,
especially for many WWTPs. Sometimes, the diversity of
criteria applied by public administration bodies respon-
sible for solid and water management poses problems
for integrated management. However, this situation
seems to be changing according to the number of papers
related to this particular codigestion. The use of food
waste disposers (FWD) constitutes a further challenge,
with advantages in terms of energy savings and the BNR
of the WWTP.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
alone are responsible for the content and writing of the
paper.
References
Aǧdaǧ ON, Sponza DT. (2005). Co-digestion of industrial sludge with
municipal solid wastes in anaerobic simulated landfilling reactors.
Process Biochem, 40, 1871–1879.
Aǧdaǧ ON, Sponza DT. (2007). Co-digestion of mixed industrial sludge
with municipal solid wastes in anaerobic simulated landfilling
bioreactors. J Hazard Mater, 140, 75–85.
Ahring BK, Ibrahim AA, Mladenovska Z. (2001). Effect of temperature
increase from 55 to 65°C on performance and microbial population
dynamics of an anaerobic reactor treating cattle manure. Water
For personal use only.
Res 35, 2446–2452.
Alatriste-Mondrago´n F, Samar P, Cox HHJ, Ahring BK, Iranpour R.
(2006). Anaerobic codigestion of municipal, farm, and industrial
organic wastes: A survey of recent literature. Water Environ Res,
78, 607–636.
Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Bodiroza V, Pötsch E, Zollitsch W.
(2006). Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of
manure: effects of dairy systems and of glycerine supplementation.
International Congress Series, vol. 1293, 217–220.
Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. (1993). Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
livestock waste: effect of ammonia. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
38, 560–564.
Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L. (2003). Codigestion of manure and organic
wastes in centralized biogas plants. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
109, 95–105.
Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L, Ahring BK (1993). A mathematical model for
dynamic simulation of anaerobic digestion of complex substrates:
Focusing on ammonia inhibition. Biotechnol Bioeng, 42, 159–166.
Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L, Ahring BK. (1997). Modeling anaerobic
codigestion of manure with olive oil mill effluent. Water Sci
Technol 36, 263–270.
Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L, Ahring BK. (1999). A comprehensive model
of anaerobic bioconversion of complex substrates to biogas.
Biotechnol Bioeng, 63, 363–372.
Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi
A, Sanders WT, Siegrist H, Vavilin VA. (2002). The IWA Anaerobic
Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci Technol, 45, 65–73.
Batstone DJ, Keller J, Steyer JP. (2006). A review of ADM1 extensions,
applications, and analysis: 2002–2005. Water Sci Technol, 54,
1–10.
Battistoni P, Fatone F, Passacantando D, Bolzonella D. (2007).
Application of food waste disposers and alternate cycles process in
small-decentralized towns: A case study. Water Res, 41, 893–903.
Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Battistoni P, Cecchi F. (2003). The under sink
garbage grinder: A friendly technology for the environment.
Environ Technol, 24, 349–359.
© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Bolzonella D, Battistoni P, Susini C, Cecchi F. (2006). Anaerobic
codigestion of waste activated sludge and OFMSW: The experiences
of Viareggio and Treviso plants (Italy). Water Sci Technol, 53,
203–211.
Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Battistoni P, Cecchi F. (2006a). Anaerobic
co-digestion of sludge with other organic wastes and phosphorus
reclamation in wastewater treatment plants for biological nutrient
removal. Water Sci Technol. 53 (12), 177-186
Bozinis NA, Alexiou IE, Pistikopoulos EN. (1996). A mathematical
model for the optimal design and operation of an anaerobic
co-digestion plant. Water Sci Technol, 34, 383–391.
Burton C, Turner C. (2003). Manure Management. Silsoe Research
Institute, 281–282.
Caffaz S, Bettazzi E, Scaglione D, Lubello C. (2008). An integrated
approach in a municipal WWTP: Anaerobic codigestion of sludge
with organic waste and nutrient removal from supernatant. Water
Sci Technol, 58, 669–676.
Cavinato C, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, Pavan P. (2010). Thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure with agro-wastes and
energy crops: Comparison of pilot and full scale experiences.
Bioresour Technol, 101, 545–550.
Cecchi F, Traverso PG, Perin G, Vallini G. (1988). Comparison of
co-digestion performance of two differently collected organic
fractions of municipal solid waste with sewage sludges.
Environmental Technology Letters, 9, 391–400
Cecchi F, Battistoni P, Pavan P, Fava G, Mata-Alvarez J. (1994).
Anaerobic digestion of OFMSW (organic fraction of municipal
solid waste) and BNR (biological nutrient removal) processes: A
possible integration - Preliminary results. Water Sci Technol, 30,
65–72.
Chen J, Cheng J, Creamer KS. (2008). Inhibition of anaerobic digestion
process: a review, Bioresour. Technol., 99, 4044–4064.
Cuetos MJ, Gómez X, Otero M, Morán A. (2008). Anaerobic digestion
of solid slaughterhouse waste (SHW) at laboratory scale: influence
of co-digestion with the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
(OFMSW). Biochem Eng J, 40, 99–106.
Derbal K, Bencheikh-Lehocine M, Cecchi F, Meniai AH, Pavan P.
(2009). Application of the IWA ADM1 model to simulate anaerobic
co-digestion of organic waste with waste activated sludge in
mesophilic condition. Bioresour Technol, 100, 1539–1543.
Diaz LF, Savage GM, Trezek GJ, Golueke CG. (1980). Biogasification
of municipal solid wastes. In: Proceedings of National Waste
Processing Conference, 403–410.
Diggelman C, Ham RK. (2003). Household food waste to wastewater
or to solid waste? That is the question. Waste Manage Res, 21,
501–514.
Esposito G, Frunzo L, Panico Ad’, Antonio G. (2008). Mathematical
modelling of disintegration-limited co-digestion of OFMSW and
sewage sludge. Water Sci Technol, 58, 1513–1519.
Ferreira L, Duarte E, Silva C, Malfeito M. (2007). Fruit wastes
bioconversion for anaerobic co-digestion with pig manure.
Process development for the recycling in decentralised farm scale
plants. In: Proceedings of the International Conference Progress in
Biogas. Stuttgart, Germany, 135–140.
Fezzani B, Cheikh RB. (2008). Modelling of the mesophilic anaerobic
co-digestion of olive mill wastewater with olive mill solid waste
using anaerobic digestion model No. 1 (ADM1). Bioresour.
Technol., 99, 6565-6577.
Fezzani B, Cheikh RB. (2008a). Implementation of IWA anaerobic
digestion model No. 1 (ADM1) for simulating the thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill wastewater with olive mill
solid waste in a semi-continuous tubular digester. Chem Eng J,
141, 75–88.
Fezzani B, Cheikh RB. (2009). Extension of the anaerobic digestion
model No. 1 (ADM1) to include phenolic compounds
biodegradation processes for simulating of anaerobic co-digestion
of olive mill wastes at mesophilic temperature. Bioresour Technol,
99, 6565–6577.
 110 Joan Mata-Alvarez et al.
Fischer JR, Iannotti EL, Fulhage CD. (1983). Production of methane gas
from combinations of wheat straw and swine manure. Transactions
ASAE 26, pp 546–548.
Fujita M, Scharer JM, Moo-Young M. (1980). Effect of corn stover
addition on the anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Agric.
Wastes, 2, 177–184.
Galí A, Benabdallah T, Astals S, Mata-Alvarez J. (2009). Modified
version of ADM1 model for agro-waste application. Bioresour
Technol, 100, 2783–2790.
Galil NI, Yaacov L. (2001). Analysis of sludge management parameters
resulting from the use of domestic garbage disposers. Water Sci
Technol, 44, 27–34.
Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Bozinis NA, Lyberatos G. (1996). Anaerobic
codigestion of agricultural industries’ wastewaters. Water Sci
Technol, 34, 67–75.
Ghosh S, Klass DL. (1976). SNG from refuse and sewage sludge by the
biogas process. In: Clean fuels from biomass, sewage, urban refuse,
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
agricultural wastes; Proceedings of the Symposium, Orlando, Fla.,
January 27–30, 1976. (A77–37652 17–44). Chicago, Institute of Gas
Technology, 123–181.
Go´mez X, Cuetos MJ, Cara J, Mora´n A, Garci´a AI (2006). Anaerobic
co-digestion of primary sludge and the fruit and vegetable fraction
of the municipal solid wastes. Conditions for mixing and evaluation
of the organic loading rate. Renewable Energy, 31, 2017–2024.
Hansen KH, Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. (1998). Anaerobic digestion of
swine manure: inhibition by ammonia. Water Res, 38, 5–12.
Hartmann H, Ahring BK. (2006). Strategies for the anaerobic digestion
of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: an overview. Water
Sci Technol, 53, 7–22.
Hamzawi N, Kennedy KJ, Mclean DD. (1998). Technical feasibility
of anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and municipal solid
waste. Environ Technol, 19, 993–1003.
For personal use only.
Hamzawi N, Kennedy KJ, McLean DD. (1998a). Anaerobic digestion
of co-mingled municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. Water Sci
Technol, 38, 127–132.
Hartmann H, Angelidaki I, Arhing BK. (2003). Co-digestion of the
organic fraction of municipal waste with other waste types. In:
Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid
Wastes, IWA Publishing, UK.
Hashimoto AG. (1983). Conversion of straw-manure mixtures
to methane at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 25, 185–200.
Heo NH, Park SC, Lee JS, Kang H. (2003). Solubilization of waste
activated sludge by alkaline pretreatment and biochemical
methane potential (BMP) tests for anaerobic co-digestion of
municipal organic waste. Water Sci Technol, 48, 211–219.
Hills DJ. (1979). Effects of carbon: Nitrogen ratio on anaerobic
digestion of dairy manure. Agricul Wastes, 1, 267–278.
Hills DJ, Roberts DW. (1981). Anaerobic digestion of dairy manure and
field crop residues. Agric Waste, 3, 179–189.
Ikbal YQ, Tang T, Shigematsu S, Morimura K, Kida (2003).
Methanogenic activity and repression of hydrogen sulfide evolved
during high rate thermophilic methane fermentation of municipal
solid waste. Jpn J Water Treatment Biol, 39, 17–24.
Kaparaju P, Luostarinen S, Kalmari E, Kalmari J, Rintala J. (2002).
Co-digestion of energy crops and industrial confectionery
by-products with cow manure: batch scale and farm-scale
evaluation. Water Sci Technol., 45. 275–280
Khanal SK, Grewell D, Sung S, Van Leeuwen J. (2007). Ultrasound
applications in wastewater sludge pretreatment: A review. Cri Rev
Env Sci Technol, 37, 277–313.
Kiely G, Tayfur G, Dolan C, Tanji K. (1997). Physical and mathematical
modelling of anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. Water Res, 31,
534–540.
Kim SH, Han SK, Shin HS. (2004). Feasibility of biohydrogen production
by anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge. Inter J
Hydrogen Energy, 29,1607–1616.
Krupp M, Schubert J, Widmann R. (2005). Feasibility study for
co-digestion of sewage sludge with OFMSW on two wastewater
 Critical Reviews in Biotechnology
treatment plants in Germany. Waste Manage, 25 (4 SPEC. ISS.),
393–399.
Kübler H, Hoppenheidt K, Hirsch P, Kottmair A, Nimmrichter R,
Nordsieck H, Mücke W, Swerev M. (2000). Full scale co-digestion
of organic waste. Water Sci. Technol., 41, 195–202
Kumar S, Jain MC. (1988). Dry anaerobic fermentation of cow dung-
water hyacinth mixture in multiple batchfed digester. Research
and Industry, 33 (2), 162–166.
Lantz M, Svensson M, Bjornsson L, Borjesson P. (2007). The prospects
for an expansion of biogas systems in Sweden – incentives, barriers
and potentials. Energy Policy 35, 1830–1849.
Lindorfer H, Corcoba A, Vasilieva V, Braun R, Kirchmayr R. (2008).
Doubling the organic loading rate in the co-digestion of energy
crops and manure - A full scale case study. Bioresour Technol, 99,
1148–1156.
Llabrés-Luengo P, Mata-Alvarez J. (1988). Influence of temperature,
buffer, composition and straw particle length on the anaerobic
digestion of wheat straw - pig manure mixtures. Resour, Conserv
Recycl, 1, 27–37.
Llabrés-Luengo P, Mata-Alvarez J. (1987). Kinetic study of the anaerobic
digestion of straw-pig manure mixtures. Biomass, 14, 129–142.
Lo KV, Liao PH, Chiu C. (1988). Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of a
mixture of cheese whey and diary manure. Biomass, 15, 45–53.
Lübken M, Wichern M, Bischof F, Prechtl S, Horn H. (2007).
Development of an empirical mathematical model for describing
and optimizing the hygiene potential of a thermophilic anaerobic
bioreactor treating faeces. Water Science and Technology, 55,
95–102.
Macias-Corral M, Samani Z, Hanson A, Smith G, Funk P, Yu H,
Longworth J. (2008). Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste
and agricultural waste and the effect of co-digestion with dairy
cow manure. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 8288–8293.
McMahon KD, Stroot PG, Mackie RI, Raskin L. (2001). Anaerobic
codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various
mixing conditions-II: Microbial population dynamics. Water Res,
35, 1817–1827.
Miller JW, Swartzbaugh JT, Wiles CC. (1978). Fuel production from
organic residue: sludge mixtures. AIChE Symposium Series, 74,
117–122.
Mladenovska Z, Hartmann H, Kvist T, Sales-Cruz M, Gani R, Ahring
BK. (2004). Thermal pretreatment of the solid fraction of manure:
impact on the biogas reactor performance and microbial
community. Water Sci. Technol., 53, 59–67.
Møller HB, Sommer SG, Ahring BK. (2004). Methane productivity of
manure, straw and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy
26, 485–495.
Monou M, Pafitis N, Kythreotou N, Smith SR, Mantzavinos D, Kassinos D.
(2008). Anaerobic co-digestion of potato processing wastewater with
pig slurry and abattoir wastewater. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 83
(12), 1658-1663.
Mshandete A, Kivaisi A, Rubindamayugi M, Mattiasson B. (2004).
Anaerobic batch co-digestion of sisal pulp and fish wastes.
Bioresour Technol, 95, 18–24.
Mtz., Viturtia A, Mata-Alvarez J, Cecchi F, Fazzini G. (1989). Two-phase
anaerobic digestion of a mixture of fruit and vegetable wastes.
Biological Wastes, 29, 189–199.
Murto M, Björnsson L, Mattiasson B. (2004). Impact of food industrial
waste on anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge and pig manure.
J Environ Manage, 70, 101–107
Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I. (2008). Codigestion of manure and industrial
organic waste at centralized biogas plants: process imbalances and
limitations. Water Science and Technology 58, 1521–1528.
Nowak O, Melcher R, Enderle P. (2007). Evaluation of the reject
waters from co-digestion of solid wastes from agro-industries in a
municipal WWTP. Water Science and Technology, 55, 37–44.
Pahl O, Firth A, MacLeod I, Baird J. (2008). Anaerobic co-digestion of
mechanically biologically treated municipal waste with primary
sewage sludge - A feasibility study. Bioresour Technol, 99,
3354–3364.
 Codigestion of solid wastes: A review of its uses and perspectives including modeling 111
Park Y, Hong F, Cheon J, Hidaka T, Tsuno H. (2008). Comparison of
thermophilic anaerobic digestion characteristics between single-
phase and two-phase systems for kitchen garbage treatment. J
Biosci Bioeng 105, 48–54.
Pavan P, Battistoni P, Bolzonella D, Innocenti L, Traverso P, Cecchi F.
(2000). Integration of wastewater and OFMSW treatment cycles:
from the pilot scale experiment to the industrial realisation – the new
full scale plant of Treviso (Italy). Water Sci Technol, 41, 165–173.
Pavan, P.; Battistoni, P.; Traverso, P.; Musacco, A.; Cecchi, F. (1998)
Effect of addition of anaerobic fermented OFMSW (organic fraction
of municipal solid waste) on biological nutrient removal (BNR)
process: Preliminary results. Water Sci Technol, 38, 327–334.
Pavan P, Bolzonella D, Battistoni E, Cecchi F. (2007). Anaerobic
co-digestion of sludge with other organic wastes in small wastewater
treatment plants: An economic considerations evaluation. Water
Sci Technol, 56, 45–53.
Phothilangka P, Schoen MA, Huber M, Luchetta P, Winkler T, Wett B.
Critical Reviews in Biotechnology Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by McMaster University on 11/04/14
(2008). Prediction of thermal hydrolysis pretreatment on anaerobic
digestion of waste activated sludge. Water Sci Technol, 58,
1467–1473.
Poggi-Varaldo HM, Valdés L, Esparza-García F, Fernández-Villagómez
G. (1997). Solid substrate anaerobic co-digestion of paper mill
sludge, biosolids, and municipal solid waste. Water Sci Technol,
35, 197–204.
Raven RPJM, Gregersen KH. (2007). Biogas plants in Denmark:
successes and setbacks, Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 11,
116–132.
Rintala JA, Jarvinen KT. (1996). Full-scale mesophilic anaerobic
co-digestion of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge: Methane
production characteristics. Waste Manage Res, 14, 163–170.
Robbins JE, Gerhardt SA, Kappel TJ. (1989). Effects of total ammonia
on anaerobic digestion and an example of digestor performance
For personal use only.
from cattle manure-protein mixtures. Biological Wastes, 27,
1–14.
Schmit KH, Ellis TG. (2001). Comparison of temperature-phased
and two-phase anaerobic co-digestion of primary sludge and
municipal solid waste. Water Environ Res, 73, 314–321.
Soldano M, Fabbri C, Piccinini S. (2007). Co-digestion plant in dairy
cattle farm in Emilia Romagna region (Italy). In: Proceedings of the
International Conference Progress in Biogas. Stuttgart, Germany,
95–99.
© 2011 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.
Sosnowski P, Wieczorek A, Ledakowicz S. (2003). Anaerobic
co-digestion of sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal
solid wastes. Ad Environ Res, 7, 609–616.
Sosnowski P, Klepacz-Smolka A, Kaczorek K, Ledakowicz S. (2008).
Kinetic investigations of methane co-fermentation of sewage
sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid wastes. Bioresour
Technol, 99, 5731–5737.
Stroot PG, McMahon KD, Mackie RI, Raskin L. (2001). Anaerobic
codigestion of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various
mixing conditions-I. Water Res, 35, 1804–1816.
Svensson LM, Cheistensson K, Bjornsson L. (2005). Biogas production
from crop residues on a farm-scale level: is it economically
feasible under conditions in Sweden? Bioprocess and Biosystem
Engineering, 28, 139–148.
Valencia R, den Hamer D, Komboi J, Lubberding HJ, Gijzen HJ. (2009).
Alternative treatment for septic tank sludge: Co-digestion with
municipal solid waste in bioreactor landfill simulators. J Environ
Manage, 90, 940–945.
Wang G, Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Ahring BK. (2009). Wet explosion of
wheat straw and codigestion with swine manure: Effect on the
methane productivity. Waste Manage, 29, 2830–2835.
Weiland P. (2006). Biomass digestion in agriculture: a successful
pathway for the energy production and waste treatment in
Germany. Eng. Life Sci. 6, 302–309.
Weiland P. (2009). Personal communication.
Zaher U, Li R, Jeppsson U, Steyer JP, Chen S. (2009). GISCOD: General
Integrated Solid Waste Co-Digestion model. Water Res, 43, 2717–2727.
Zhu H, Parker W, Basnar R, Proracki A, Falletta P, Béland M, Seto P.
(2008). Biohydrogen production by anaerobic co-digestion of
municipal food waste and sewage sludges. Int J Hydrogen Energy,
33, 3651–3659.
Zhu GF, Wu P, Wei QS, Lin JY, Gao YL, Liu HN. (2009). Biohydrogen
production from purified terephthalic acid (PTA) processing
wastewater by anaerobic fermentation using mixed microbial
communities. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
Zitomer DH, Adhikari P, Heisel C, Dineen D. (2008). Municipal anaerobic
digesters for codigestion, energy recovery, and greenhouse gas
reductions. Water Environment Research, 80, 229–237.
Zupancic GD, Uranjek-Zevart N, Ros M. (2008). Full-scale anaerobic
co-digestion of organic waste and municipal sludge. Biomass
Bioenergy, 32, 162–167.