BioEnergy Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-019-10073-y

Waste Potential, Barriers and Economic Benefits of Implementing

Different Models of Biogas Plants in a Few Indian
Educational Institutions
Godwin Glivin 1 & S. Joseph Sekhar 2

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The environmental impacts of conventional energy sources and the policies of governments on renewable energy technologies lead to
biogas generation and utilization as one of the major areas to replace conventional energy sources with renewables in a number of
applications such as power generation, heating, drying and refrigeration. The non-uniform availability of biowastes in a year, the lack
of studies on the potential of biogas generation with non-uniform feeding of biodigesters and the economic viability of using this
technology in such situations are the major factors to be analysed for the implementation of biogas in wider applications. Therefore in
this present work, analytical and experimental studies have been conducted to predict the generation of methane from the biowastes
collected from student hostels, restaurants and other residential buildings in educational institutions, where the availability of
biowastes is not uniform throughout a year. The Anaerobic Digestion Model 1 (ADM1) was used for analytical studies, and four
portable anaerobic digesters manufactured by fibre-reinforced polyester were used in the experimental investigation. The average
methane content has been observed between 52.28% and 58.01%. The variation of yield and the quality of biogas throughout years,
due to non-uniform organic loading rate, are also presented. The economic benefits of implementing biogas plants in five different
categories of institutions were also studied, and payback period has been obtained between 3.18 and 7.59 years, besides having a
positive net present value.

Keywords Biogas . Biodigesters . Payback period . Non-uniform OLR

Introduction intensive research and development on process integration

The World Bank survey reveals that about 50% of the waste
generated comprises of organic wastes which could be utilized
for biogas production. The waste composition estimated for
2025 based on income level tells that about 50% of the waste
generated comprises of organic wastes [1]. Through biochem-
ical conversion process, this bio-resource can be used as a
chemical fertilizer, besides its different bio-based products.
The initial cost to implement this technology is high, but
* Godwin Glivin
godwinglivin@gmail.com
S. Joseph Sekhar
josephsekhar@gmail.com
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Marian Engineering
College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695582, India
2
Mechanical Section, Department of Engineering, Shinas College of
Technology, Shinas, Sultanate of Oman
and intensification could overcome this issue [2, 3]. The biogas
technology has been found to be more outstanding with a
production of 3 billion m3 biogas with 24 million cattle popu-
lation and 75 million poultry population [4]. The wastes gen-
erated in supermarkets from different commodities such as
fruits and vegetables, flowers, dairy products, meat waste and
sugar products showed a higher methane yield of 40 L CH4/g
VS which could be obtained in two-stage digesters [5]. Biogas
has been supplied to millions of households with 832749.13 TJ
for cooking, lighting, water pumping and for other power ap-
plications in China from 1991 to 2005. This saved great quan-
tity of fuel wood, straw, coal, refined oil, LPG and natural gas
[6]. The biogas technology could be implemented success-
fully for disposing the kitchen waste and extracts its energy
without environmental impacts [7]. The anaerobic digestion
of municipal solid waste (MSW) showed that an average of
44.3% to 75.4% of methane content could be achieved dur-
ing steady-state conditions [8, 9].
The influence of temperature is a very important parameter
to be considered in the production of biogas from food wastes.
 Bioenerg. Res.

Categorization of institutions If CH 4 concentration < 50%

Reject the biowaste

Professional Non-Professional Check the
or
quality of
Selection of co-digestion
biowaste
Population Canteen, cafeteria, hostels, process
departments
A B C D E If CH 4 concentration > 50 %
Rice waste, mixed rice waste, Biogas potential
Biowaste collection
vegetable Waste, cow dung • Quality (CH4, CO2)
• Quantity (m3)
Experimental measurements as
Biowaste Types
per APHA standards
1. Simulation using ADM1
Prediction for B,C,D,E
Measurement of 2. I/P Parameters
biowaste properties 3.O/P Parameters
Pilot study for Validation of the predicted
results 1. Biowaste generation per
“A”
person per day.
[365 Days]
Economic Analysis 2. Biogas yield per day.
1. Pay back period
2. Net present value
Simulation Experimentation 3. Life cycle cost
4. Internal rate of return
• Equipment's used 5. Profit rate of investment
• I/p parameters for ADM1. 6. Internal Rate of Return
1. Biodigesters
1. pH, TS & VS of the feedstock. 7. Profit Rate of Interest
2. Loading biowaste
2. Temperature inside the biodigesters.
3. Gas flow meter
3. Number of days for the simulation.
4. Multi gas analyzer Sensitivity Analysis
• o/p parameters of ADM1.
• Experimental results
1. CH4, CO2
1. CH4, CO2
2. Biogas generation in m3 END
2. Biogas generation in m3
Fig. 1 Flow chart for the methodology used in this study

The solubilization rate of food waste at 15 °C, 25 °C, 35 °C, 45 The hydrolysis and methanogenesis of VW with varying
°C, 55 °C and 65 °C was observed to be 47.5%, 62.2%, 70.0%, OLR in two-stage anaerobic digester showed a significant
72.7%, 56.1% and 45.9%, respectively. The observation shows VFA in acidogenic reactor [12, 13]. The effect of pH control
that biogas production was higher under mesophilic conditions with co-digestion of sewage sludge (SS) and sugar beet pulp
(35 °C and 45 °C) than thermophilic (55 °C and 65 °C) condi- lixiviation (SBPL) at mesophilic conditions (35 °C) shows
tions for food waste [10]. By changing the HRT and reducing inhibition in methane yield without pH variation. By changing
the volume of digester, thermophilic conditions could be made the pH value to an opt level, an increase effect in biodegrad-
more effective [11]. The biogas production from fruit and veg- ability is seen, besides high methane yield [14, 15].
etable wastes (FVW) with respect to different temperature con- Anaerobic Digestion Model 1 (ADM1) has been utilized to
ditions, carried in thermophilic (55oC), psychrophilic (20oC) investigate the relationship between population dynamics and
and mesophilic (35oC) conditions, reveals that thermophilic con- digester stability. The result from case studies shows that the
ditions could produce more biogas than the other two conditions digester fails to work under high OLR, and the same is proved
by 144% and 41%, respectively. through ADM1 [16, 17]. The various mathematical models
used in anaerobic digestion system, starting from the simple
models such as black-box models and experienced-based
Table 1 The number of institutions under various categories and their models, fuzzy logic to advanced models such as ADM1, show
population that biological aspect of modelling will be implemented to
study the performance of anaerobic digestion process [18, 19].
Category Population range Number of institutes Mean population
The lack of awareness regarding the utilization of biogas
A 1000–2500 200 1727 digesters in rural households is one of the major drawbacks for
B 2501–5000 180 3449 the implementation of AD technology. A cost-benefit analysis
C 5001–9000 95 6400 for implementing biodigesters in rural households for tradition-
D 9001–20,000 75 11,500 al cooking, lighting and producing fertilizers showed that
E 20,001–40,000 20 29,231 breakeven has been reached in the 10th year for households
collecting firewood and 8th year for households collecting
Bioenerg. Res.

Table 2 Characterization of
feedstock Sl. No. FEED pH % TS % VS %

Exp. Reported values Exp. Reported values Exp. Reported values

1 CD 6.50 6.30 [52], 15.98 17 [52], 64.99 89[52],

2 MRW 4.91 4–7 [53], 20.25 14.4 [55], 90.15 89.5 [55],
3 RW 6.61 7.1 [54] 30.28 9.3 [46] 90.11 78–93 [47]
4 VW 6.35 10.55 90.45

dung. Though positive net present values are seen, the biogas
utilization will increase the risk of investment without subsi-
dies [20, 21]. The economic studies based on solid-state fer-
mentation for fermentative hydrogen generation from food
waste show that the system is feasible with a PBP, rate on
investment (ROI) and internal rate of return (IRR) of 5 years,
26.75% and 24.07%, respectively [22].
The economic analysis of biogas energy generation in
Uganda shows that the biogas energy generation is economical-
ly viable with a payback period (PBP) of 1.17 to 1.01 years for 8
to 16 m3 biogas plants. The economic viability is also proved
through NPV of 4500 to 9500 dollars. The discount rates and
costs of capital, operating and maintenance involved in this
m Volume
Time (TS, VS, pH, Temp.)
Hydrolysis
Acid producing bacteria
(acidogenesis &
acetogenesis)
technology are identified as some of the important barriers that
affect the economic viability [23–26].
A novel biogas digestion to check the feasibility for biogas
generation from OMSW shows that the total sum of the invest-
ment along with operational cost for 15 years is 656 USD. In
comparison, the same quantity with subsidized LPG and kero-
sene is 1455 USD and 975 USD, respectively. The sensitivity
analysis presented a positive investment unless the price of ker-
osene goes down to less than 0.18 USD/l. Moreover, this
biodigester with 2 m3 capacity could supply fuel required for
4–6 people. An investigation on the impact of combined
thermo-chemo-sonic disintegration of waste activated sludge
(WAS) on biochemical conversion showed that this system
could be successfully implemented with a profit of 42.6 USD
per ton of sludge in cost analysis [25, 27].
From the review of the literature, it has been observed that
most of the investigations on the anaerobic digestion system are
focused on the improvement of biogas production with respect
to its quality and quantity. Apart from batch and continuous-type
digesters, the production of biogas with available biowastes
throughout the year is identified as an important area of research
to implement this technology in new applications. Therefore the
impact of non-uniform loading in the performance of digesters
and its economic viability have been studied in this paper as

Selection of biowaste
Methanogenesis
Input parameters: pH, TS, VS, Moisture etc.

Selection of inbuilt control parameters: Operating temperature range,

number of days, capacity of the digester.
Sludge Pressurizer
Run simulation in steps of a day

If CH 4 concentration < 50%

Storage Check the quality of
(Quality and Quantity) biogas
Reject the biowaste or selection of
co-digestion process If CH 4 concentration > 50 %
Application Plot the results: Quality & Quantity
Fig. 2 Modified schema of the anaerobic digestion model Fig. 3 Flow chart of simulation procedure
 Bioenerg. Res.

Table 3 Loading pattern of different biowastes for the simulation for Identification of Biowaste Sources
various phases of a category ‘A’ institution

Biowaste Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV The energy sources identified for biogas generation are sewage
sludge (SS), food waste (FW), leafs, cotton waste, paper waste,
MRW (kg) 7–49 2–31 7–41 1–10 etc. The survey on the availability of food waste in category ‘A’
RW (kg) 0.7–4.5 0.3–4 1–4.5 0.1–2 institution has been conducted on a daily basis for various aca-
VW (kg) 0.7–4.5 0.2–3.8 1–4.4 0.1–2 demic schedules. The most commonly used food menu patterns
in various institutions and the food waste generated before
cooking and after consumption are also included.
shown in Fig. 1 to check the possibility to utilize the biowastes The major biowastes available in the study region are rice
in educational institutions as alternative energy source. waste (RW), mixed rice waste (MRW) and vegetable waste
(VW). The MRW involves the wastes left out after consuming
food which includes meat waste, fish waste, vegetable waste and
rice waste. Except raw vegetables and rice waste, all the other
Materials and Methods biowastes are added along with MRW since their quantity is
very less.
Categorization of Institutions

The institutions situated in the southern part of India, where Measurement of Biowaste Properties
35% to 40% of the conventional fuel used for cooking have
been considered for this study. The professional institutions As per APHA standards [28], the percentage of TS in each
are mainly focussed because these institutions have many stu- sample has been calculated by
dents residing inside the campus and the potential for biogas

Wd
generation in these institutions is very high. The categories are TS ¼  100 ð1Þ
defined based on the student population, as mentioned in Ww
Table 1.
where Wd and Ww are the weight of dry and wet samples,
respectively.
The percentage VS of the samples has been calculated from
Selection of Biowastes
 
ðW d −W a Þ
VS ¼ :100 ð2Þ
In order to identify the availability of biowastes, a survey has Wa
been carried out with an appropriate questionnaire, which
could reveal the details about biowastes such as quantity, com- where
position and types. The structure of the questionnaire is de- Wd – Weight of dry samples
signed to get the appropriate data based on the category of Wa – Weight of dry ash obtained after complete ignition
institution, academic schedules, population of students and The pH of the biowaste (CD, RW, MRW and VW) has been
staff residing inside and outside the campus, sources of determined at least once a day with a pH electrode of accuracy
biowaste generation, conventional fuel used for cooking, etc. 0.05%. Table 2 shows the chemical properties of the four
The reliability of the data was also verified with the appropri- types of biowastes used in this study. The values of TS and
ate authorities of a few institutions. VS have been calculated from Eqs. (1) and (2). The results

Fig. 4 Schematic diagram of the

experimental setup
Bioenerg. Res.

Table 4 Summary of the

experimental design Digester Digester size Feedstock Mixing ratio Temperature State Test duration
3
(m ) (Feed + water) (days)

AD1 2 Mixed rice waste 1:1 32 ± 20C Mesophilic 365

AD2 1 Cow dung 1:1 32 ± 20C Mesophilic 365
AD3 0.25 Rice waste 1:1 32 ± 20C Mesophilic 365
AD4 0.25 Vegetable waste 1:1 32 ± 20C Mesophilic 365

were compared with the literature, and the validity of the tests
has been confirmed.
Exp: Experimental observation
Slurry Preparation
Cow dung has been used for the generation of methanogenic
bacteria. The unwanted particles present in the CD are removed
manually and mixed with water in the ratio 1:1. The slurry
prepared is stored in the biodigesters for 50 to 65 days until
the methanogenic bacteria is produced [29]. After that RW,
MRW and VW were mixed with water in the same ratio and
loaded gradually based on the size of the digester.
Mathematical Modelling
In order to study the performance of biodigesters for various
biowastes, a theoretical study has been conducted with a simu-
lation model. A tool box named Anaerobic Digestion Model 1
(ADM1) which incorporates the various biochemical reactions
during anaerobic digestion with suitable chemical and mathe-
matical methods [30] has been used. Since ADM1 has been
developed by integrating all the previous AD models, this tool
box helps in identifying the influencing parameters of the anaer-
obic digestion process; besides it demonstrates the behaviour of
the system. All the analyses conducted are programmed using
MATLAB© software.
The various stages of the implementation of ADM1 (mathe-
matical model) are shown in Fig. 2. This model could help in
designing a biogas plant of large or small scale by varying the
input parameters. The system consists of input module, bio-
chemical reaction stage, sludge disposal system and storage
tank. The various input parameters of the biowastes along with
the quantity and time duration of study were given as the input.
The ADM1 tool box considers the various stages of biochemical
reactions and gives the properties and yield of the biogas.
Simulation Procedure
The total simulation of the anaerobic digestion is given in Fig.
3. The biowaste was initially selected based on the availability.
In ADM1 the measured properties are given as input values
for the simulation process as mentioned in Table 2. In this
work, the properties may vary due to non-uniform availability
of the biowaste which results in varying OLR. ADM1 tool box
supports to run the model for any number of days. The required
capacity of the biogas plant and the number of days for the
simulation are given in the respective dialog boxes of the
ADM1 toolbox. Then the simulation was allowed to run and
the output was recorded. The loading patterns for the simula-
tion during various phases are given in Table 3.
The simulation also can also be paused at any moment, and
the abovesaid substrate properties could be changed without
interrupting the process. This unique feature supports the non-
uniformity of biowaste generation.

Fig. 5 Biowaste availability per 4000 16000

Biowaste availability for category A, B

Biowaste availability for category D &

day throughout a year for A B D C E

3500 14000
different categories of institutions
3000 12000

2500 10000
& C (kg)

E (kg)

2000 8000

1500 6000

1000 4000

500 2000

0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
 Bioenerg. Res.

Table 5 Categories of institutions

and the predicted plant capacity Category Population range Mean population Size of biogas digester (m3)

A 1000–2500 1727 25
B 2501–5000 3449 50
C 5001–9000 6400 100
D 9001–20,000 11,500 170
E 20,001–40,000 29,231 450

Experimental Setup Experimental Procedure

Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of the experimental set-
up which consists of floating drum type fibre glass-reinforced
polyester (FRP) biogas plants with the capacity of 2 m3, 1 m3,
0.25 m3 and 0.25 m3. The various components of the FRP
biogas plant include a digester tank, floating drum, water jacket,
central guide, drain plug and inlet and outlet pipes. The
biowastes are loaded into the digester tank through inlet pipe
[31]. The biogas generated from anaerobic digestion will be
stored in the floating drum. Water jacket prevents the odour
and leakage of biogas from digester and floating drum. The
central guide made of galvanized steel (GS) helps the floating
drum to float steadily without any inclination.
The left-out digestate after the digestion process will be
drained through the outlet pipes. Both inlet and outlet pipes
are made of PVC. The purpose of the drain plug is to re-
lease the filled substrate from the digester tank during the
cleaning process. The four digesters used in this study are
mentioned as AD1, AD2, AD3 and AD4. To measure and
maintain the pressure and temperature inside the digester, a
pressure gauge is fixed above the floating drum, and tem-
perature sensors are dipped in the substrate. Various bypass
lines are connected before every instrument to avoid dam-
ages due to chocking. Cooking stove is provided to safely
burn the biogas. The gas outlet from the digesters is con-
nected to a multigas analyser (NUCON) of 0.3% accuracy
and a thermal gas flow metre of accuracy 0.5% full scale
(FS). A pH electrode is kept inside the digester for pH
measurement.
The digesters were initially loaded with cow dung and water in
1:1 ratio [29, 32] as shown in Table 4. Approximately 50 days
are required to produce sufficient quantity of methanogen bac-
teria and complete the digestion of cow dung [33].
After ensuring that the biogas production from cow dung
has stopped and the bacteria were starving for feed, the
biowastes were loaded gradually in each digester. Methane
production was observed and its quality and quantity per day
were measured. The temperature, pH and quality were also
recorded for a minimum of four times a day, and the average
was calculated. The atmospheric temperature throughout the
year in the area where the study has been conducted was 19 °C
to 34 °C; however, more than 90% of the readings showed the
temperature above 28 °C.
Economic Study
Three models of biogas plants, namely, KVIC, JANATA and
fibre glass-reinforced polyester (FRP), are used for economic
studies to check the feasibility of installing the biogas plants in
universities. If higher-capacity plants are needed, KVIC
models are preferred because of its simple design and construc-
tion. In hilly regions, the KVIC model plant has a disadvantage
because the floating drum rusted off frequently due to climatic
conditions, whereas the JANATA model plant which is
completely made of bricks overcomes the rusting, and hence
it is recommended for hilly regions. For smaller capacity re-
quirements, FRP model is the best due to its portability.

Table 6 Economic parameters and procedure involved in economic analysis

Parameters Value Reference

Capital cost of BGP Cost of digester + installation cost of biogas plant [43]
Payback period (PBP) (years) Cost
h  of installation/annual
i profit [34, 43]
Þn −1
Net present value (NPV) S: ðd1þd
ð1þd Þ n −CC [43, 44]
where S=savings per year
Life cycle cost (LCC) Initial costs +POC + PMC + PRE + PSV [34, 43]
Internal rate of return (IRR) [S. (((1 + d)n−1)/(d (1 + d)n))]−CC = 0 [34, 43]
Profit rate of investment (PRI) Annual profit/capital cost [43]
Bioenerg. Res.

Table 7 The relations used to

calculate few of the economic
parameters
Parameter Relation Reference
Annual operation cost (INR) Cost of the energy source used + operation and [45]
maintenance cost of BGP + depreciation value
Annual profit (INR) Total income − annual operation cost [43, 45]
Total income (INR) Income from gas + income from slurry [43, 44]
Income from gas (INR) Cost of LPG per kg * equivalent of 1 LPG [45]
Income from slurry (INR) 0.3 * Annual dung requirement [43, 45]

However their economic advantage is also a major factor
[34–42].
To select the suitable biogas plant for non-uniform loading,
the economic viability also plays a major role. Therefore, the
economic analysis has been performed based on capital cost
(CC), annual operation cost, payback period (PBP), net present
value (NPV) and life cycle cost (LCC). Standard equations
available in the previous studies [34] have been selected for
this analysis.
Estimation of the Biogas Potential
The biogas generation potential of institutions in each category
was calculated based on the pilot study conducted in a category
‘A’ type of institution. Based on the observation, the biogas
generated per person per day has been estimated between
0.014 m3 and 0.019 m3 with the mean of 0.015 m3 per person.
Similarly, the methane content was also observed around 53%.
The mean value was considered to derive the capacity of bio-
gas plants in each category. The quality and the quantity of the
biogas generated throughout a year were also obtained from
the primary data.
Biowaste Availability and the Capacity of Biogas Plants
Based on the data obtained from the pilot study conducted in a
category ‘A’ type of institution, the availability of biowaste in
the other categories of institutions throughout a year was cal-
culated and plotted in Fig. 5. The average population according
to academic activities was used to calculate the capacity of the
biogas plant as given in Table 5. The table shows that the
biogas plant capacity shall be between 25 m3 and 450 m3.
Therefore, a single type of biogas plant cannot be selected
for all the institutions. Hence, the details of various biogas
plants available in India have been studied.
Economic Analysis
Economic analysis is used to study the economic systems of
various biogas plant models. It may help to select the appro-
priate type, model and capacity of various biodigesters under
various conditions. The analysis also helps to determine how
effectively the economy is operating. Table 6 shows the impor-
tant economic parameters and procedure involved in economic
analysis of biogas plants.
Table 7 shows the other economic parameters involved in
the economic analysis, and Table 8 shows the various param-
eters involved in the economic analysis.
Result and Discussion
The performance of anaerobic digesters with non-uniform or-
ganic loading rate in educational institutions has been studied
for various academic schedules, and the results obtained from
both the theoretical and the experimental studies are presented.
The simulation results are validated with the experimental
values, and the economic parameters are also studied and pre-
sented. However, in this study, the experiments were conduct-
ed from the wastes collected from one of the category ‘A’
12 60
RW VW MRW
10 50
OLR for RW & VW in kg

Table 8 Economic parameters used in the analysis

OLR for MRW in kg

8 40
Parameters Value Reference
6 30
Annual O&M cost (INR/year) 2% of capital cost [46]
4 20
Annual interest rate (%) 12 [12]
NPV evaluation period (years) KVIC: 15 [12, 47, 48] 2 10
JANATA: 20
FRP: 10 0 0
27

53

79
1

105

131

157

183

209

235

261

287

313

339

365

LCC Life Time (years) KVIC: 15 [12, 47, 48]

Days
JANATA: 20
FRP: 10 Fig. 6 Loading pattern of the three types of wastes in a category ‘A’
institution
 Bioenerg. Res.

0.3 2 2.5
RW VW MRW Pilot study (experiment)

Biogas yield (m3)

1.8 2
Biogas yield for RW & VW (m3)

Pilot study (simulation)

0.25

Biogas yield for MRW (m3)

1.6 1.5
1.4
0.2 1
1.2
0.5
0.15 1
0.8 0

105

131

157

183

235

261

287

313

339

365
209
27

53

79
0.1
0.6 Days
0.4 (a) The experimental and predicted biogas yield for 365 daysin the pilot study
0.05
0.2
0 0 600
120 A B C D E
1

27

53

79

105

131

157

183

209

235

261

287

313

339

365

Biogas yield for A, B &C (m3)

Biogas yield for D & E (m3)

500
Days 100
400
Fig. 7 Biogas yield from different biowastes for 365 days 80
300
60

40 200

institutions. Therefore the comparison between ‘simulation 20 100

and experimental’ results of the same has been presented. 0 0

27

53

79
1

105

131

157

183

209

235

261

287

313

339

365
The other category institutions are having a similar pattern of
Days
waste availability; the biogas quality and yield are predicted
based on the values obtained for the sample study in a category (b) The predicted biogas yield of categories biogas yield for categories A, B, C, D & E for 365
days
‘A’ institution.
Fig. 9 (a) The experimental and predicted biogas yield for 365 days in the
Figure 6 shows the loading rate of RW, VW and MRW
pilot study. (b) The predicted biogas yield for categories A, B, C, D and E
generated in category ‘A’ institution for a period of 365 days. for 365 days
Since the digester cannot accommodate the entire biowaste,
only 10% of the available biowaste was loaded. For loading
the other digesters too, similar methodology has been followed
a constant level of 1.8 m3 is recorded till the 150th day. The
due to the size restriction. Figure 7 shows the biogas yield from
VW was loaded with an average quantity of 1 to 5 kg (Fig. 6).
RW, VW and MRW according to the loading pattern. The study
The methane yield varied between 0.02 m3 and 0.17 m3. The
period was divided into four phases as phase I (1–150 days),
methane yield is observed to increase gradually with a time gap
phase II (151 to 225 days), phase III (226 to 315 days) and
of 4 weeks which continued till the 90th day and attained a
phase IV (316 to 365 days). First 150 days, i.e. from January to
level between 0.06 m3 and 0.17 m3 (Fig. 7) which varied ac-
June, the student population was high, and an average of 0.07
cording to the loading rate.
to 4.6 kg RW was loaded daily for digestion as shown in Fig. 6
During phase II, the student population is less due to exam
An average yield of 0.16 m3 is observed as shown in Fig. 7
and vacation schedules. RW is loaded with an average of 0.7 to
with a maximum yield of 0.18 m3. It is observed that there is an
3.5 kg (Fig. 6) according to the availability of the biowaste.
initial lag in methane yield in accordance with the loading rate
Methane yield decreases gradually according to the loading
(Fig. 7). For MRW, an average of 28 kg is loaded during this
rate and attains a level of 0.05 m3 during the 180th day. On
phase (Fig. 6). The methane yield is observed to be 0.4 m3
the 225th day, the methane generation has a low value of 0.01
initially and attains a maximum of 1.8 m3 during the 150th
m3 (Fig. 7). MRW is loaded with a variation between 2 and
day (Fig. 7). The methane yield increases gradually and attains
16 kg (Fig. 6), and its methane yield is found to be 0.3 m3
a constant level after every 3 weeks till 90 days. After 90 days,

13
60 11 Base value (experiment) MRW RW VW
RW SIM RW EXP VW SIM
9
Methane composition (%)

58 VW EXP MRW SIM MRW EXP

7
Deviation (%)

56 5
3
54
1
52 -1

50 -3
-5
14
27
40
53
66
79
92
1

248
105
118
131
144
157
170
183
196
209
222
235

261
274
287
300
313
326
339
352
365

48
27

53

79
1

261
105

131

157

183

209

235

287

313

339

365

Days
Days
Fig. 10 Deviation of predicted methane composition from experimental
Fig. 8 Methane composition in biogas for a category ‘A’ institution results for category ‘A’ institution
Bioenerg. Res.

Table 9 Capacities of biogas

plants for different categories Biogas Plant Models KVIC JANATA FRP

Size (m3) No’s Size (m3) No’s Size (m3) No’s

Category A (25 m3) 25 1 10 2 6 4

- - 5 1 1 1
Category B (50 m3) 50 1 10 5 6 8
- - - - 1 1
Category C (100 m3) 50 2 10 10 6 16
- - - - 4 1
Category D (170 m3) 50 3 10 17 6 28
20 1 - - 2 1
Category E (450 m3) 100 4 10 45 6 75
50 1 - - - -

during 180 days and 0.1 m3 during the 225th day (Fig. 7).
Loading of VW varies between 1 and 5 kg (Fig. 6). The meth-
ane yields on the 180th day and the 225th day are 0.04 m3 and
0.06 m3, respectively, as shown in Fig. 7.
Like phase I, in phase III also, the student population is high
as the semester starts. The loading rate of biowastes increases
and the methane yield increases accordingly. The loading rate
for RW, MRW and VW is observed with an average range of 5
to 14 kg, 26 to 30 kg and 3 to 9 kg, respectively. The methane
yield for the same is observed to be from 0.03 m3 to 0.14 m3,
0.8 m3 to 1.3 m3 and 0.04 m3 to 0.14 m3, respectively. During
phase IV, the student population was less due to exam and
vacation schedule, and the loading rates of RW, MRW and
VW were 1 to 4 kg, 2.5 to 11 kg and 1 to 7 kg, respectively,
with an average methane yield of 0.01 m3 to 0.08 m3, 0.1 m3 to
0.3 m3 and 0.01 m3 to 0.09 m3, respectively. Figure 8 shows
that the average theoretical and the experimental values of
methane composition in the biogas generated from RW,
MRW and VW are 51.43% and 52.1%, 51.3% and 51.9%
and 52.1% and 51.9%, respectively. Figures 6 to 8 show that
the yield is not similar in all phases. The methanogen bacteria
formed during the phase I with uniform loading rate lead to
proper digestion and good biogas yield. In phase II, the yield
potential is low due to less loading rate, which leads to insuf-
ficiency of methanogen bacteria to undergo anaerobic diges-
tion. This impacts on the biogas yields in phase III. Even
though the loading rate is similar to phase I, the biogas yield
is not similar to phase I which is due to the fact that in phase I
cow dung was loaded initially for generating methanogen bac-
teria [49]. Because of the lower loading rate, the activity of
anaerobic digestion process gets low, and due to that there is
an insufficiency of methanogen bacteria [34]. In phase IV, the
loading rate is less, and it is observed that the biogas yield is
reduced similar to phase II. This shows that the non-uniformity
in loading rate could influence the biogas yield. However, the
variation of methane composition in biogas is not significant in
all phases.
Prediction of Biogas Yield for Different Categories
Since the theoretical and experimental results of biogas yield
from the study are closer as shown in Fig.9(a), this model can
be used to predict the biogas yield with various loading rates as
shown in Fig.9(b). The yield for all categories is based on the
respective academic schedules and availability of biowaste.
The deviation of predicted methane composition from
the experimental values has been calculated, and the varia-
tion in percentage is plotted in Fig. 10. Since the deviation
is within 4% for more than 95% of the data points, the
validity of the simulation is confirmed. For MRW the max-
imum deviation is within 4%; however, a variation of 10%
is seen for RW until the methane composition arrives the

Table 10 Cost of installation per

m3 and annual operational cost of Description Type A B C D E
biogas plants for different
categories Cost of installation per m3 KVIC 14,261.4 13,802.4 11,902.4 10,446.75 8838.655
(INR) JANATA 10,380.22 9921.22 9481.22 9227.926 8718.652
FRP 17,052 16,713 16,333 16,104.41 15,754.67
Annual operational cost KVIC 3519.323 3507.832 3318.659 3155.96 3010.756
(INR) JANATA 2936.052 2924.561 2910.588 2892.172 2880.916
FRP 3432.359 3368.068 3357.695 3340.761 3339.077
 Bioenerg. Res.

Table 11 PBP, NPV and LCC for different models and capacities with uniform and non-uniform loading

Models Description PBP for different categories (years) NPV for different categories (Lakhs) LCC for different categories
(Lakhs)

A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E

KVIC Non-uniform loading 6.7 6.5 5.1 4.2 3.3 2.4 5 10.7 18.8 52.5 408.8 402.6 367.2 338.8 309.9
Uniform loading 4.2 4 3.3 2.7 2.2 4 8.2 17 29.7 81 472.5 466.1 430.6 402.8 373.3
JANATA Non-uniform loading 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.8 5.9 12.3 21 57.6 343.8 337.4 331.1 326.7 319.7
Uniform loading 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 4.6 9.4 19.2 33 88.9 413.6 407 400.6 396.9 389.3
FRP Non-uniform loading 7.5 7.4 7.1 7.6 6.8 0.5 1.1 2.6 4.7 14 388.8 384.6 379.6 376 371.8
Uniform loading 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.4 1.8 3.7 7.9 13 37.6 441.6 437.3 432.2 429.1 424.5

stable condition. An overall variation of 4% is observed Installation Cost and Annual Operational Cost of Different
during the stable state for all the biowastes. The deviation Models of Biogas Plants
was computed using the following formula:
The installation cost and annual operation cost per cubic metre
Deviation ð%Þ capacity of all category biogas plants for selected institutions are
Experimental value–Theoretical value shown in Table 10. To study the economic parameters of com-
¼ *100 mercial type KVIC, JANATA and FRP models (category A to
Experimental value
category E), the costs involved in construction, installation, annual
operation, etc. have been calculated based on the market price
prevailing in the study region [50].
The Government of India provides subsidy for household di-
Capacities of Biogas Plant Models for Different gesters irrespective of its applications. But when it comes to com-
Categories mercial digesters, the subsidy is limited to applications related to
power generation. Hence, the subsidy is not included in this study.
The capacity of biogas plant needed for various categories of The analysis focusses on the selection of suitable biogas plant
institution was calculated, and the type of biogas plants and model for non-uniform loading and its contribution to the reduc-
their numbers were assumed accordingly as discussed earlier tion of LPG usage. The total cost of FRP model per cubic metre is
and given in Table 9. The split was carried out to calculate the maximum which is followed by KVIC and JANATA. The limi-
cost involved in implementing different models of biogas tations in the plant size (12 m3) and the need for many units with
plants in educational institutions. augmented capacity are the reasons for the trend. For KVIC

45
40 KVIC JANATA FRP
40 KVIC JANATA FRP
35
Profit rate of investment (%)
Internal rate of return (%)

35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
A B C D E A B C D E
Categories of biogas plants Categories of biogas plants
Fig. 11 Internal rate of return for different categories Fig. 12 Profit rate on investment for different categories
Bioenerg. Res.

Fig. 13 (a) Sensitivity of PBP to

various cost parameters of KVIC 20% -20%
for the category E. (b) Sensitivity
of PBP to various cost parameters
LC 1.61 1.63
of JANATA for the category E. (c)
Sensitivity of PBP to various cost
parameters of FRP for the cate- GH 1.59 1.66
gory E

AOC 1.58 1.67

1.57 1.59 1.61 1.63 1.65 1.67

(a) Sensitivity of PBP to various cost parameters of KVICfor the category E

20% -20%

LC 1.89 1.90

GH 1.88 1.89

AOC 1.84 1.94

1.82 1.84 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.92 1.94 1.96

(b) Sensitivity of PBP to various cost parameters of JANATA for the category E

20% -20%

LC 4.63 4.66

GH 4.58 4.71

AOC 4.50 4.80

4.46 4.51 4.56 4.61 4.66 4.71 4.76 4.81

(c) Sensitivity of PBP to various cost parameters of FRP for the category E

model, the cost is high compared to JANATA model due to the
cost involved in the fabrication of gas holder. The cost of gas
holder in KVIC model is high due to the fact that the steel
body makes regular maintenance as well as corrodes easily.
Even if the same gas holder is replaced with fibre-reinforced
polyester, it makes the investment cost high. However, the
installation cost for KVIC model reduces gradually from cat-
egory A to category E, and for JANATA model the cost is
almost the same for all categories.
The operational cost seems to be high for the FRP model
followed by KVIC and JANATA models. It is observed that for
all categories, the operational cost per cubic metre capacity is
almost the same for corresponding types and capacities.
Payback Period
The payback period (PBP) of all digesters with different pop-
ulation ranges has been studied and depicted in Table 11.

Table 12 Sensitivity analysis results for the net present value for
different biogas plants with respect to interest rate
Category KVIC JANATA FRP
A 6929 13,129 8625 15,313 37 3880
B 7319 13,498 9227 15,835 456 4282
C 8080 13,926 9819 16,341 770 4586
D 8556 14,115 9937 16,422 893 4692
E 9290 14,593 10,530 16,955 1212 5012
Along with the PBP for the mean population of students, a
variation of ± 20% in mean population is also considered in
this analysis. The variation in population range was considered
to check the feasibility of implementing the selected biogas
plant under various conditions. The analysis shows that the
decrease in PBP is observed with increase in the capacity of
the biogas plant which is in accordance with many research
findings [34]. Due to high installation and running cost, the
FRP model requires the highest PBP for all categories varying
from 25 to 450 m3. It is already known that the KVIC model is
the most suitable one. Though the JANATA type biogas plants
are complicated in design when compared to the other two
models, it is highly feasible in educational
institutions which is shown in Table 11. Due to non-
uniform loading, it is also seen that the payback period is 44
to 57% higher than that of the same system which is fully
loaded throughout the year.
Therefore, the implementation of JANATA type biogas di-
gester is highly feasible in educational institutions if the de-
sign and construction process is carried out by an expert.
Net Present Value
The net present value for implementing the biogas digesters in
various categories of institutions has been calculated and
depicted in Table 11. The difference between the present value
of the benefits and the costs resulting from an investment is
the net present value of the investment. The result shows that
the NPV increases with increase in the size of the biogas
plants. It is also observed that the values are positive for all
the categories considered in this study. However a negligible
negative value has been observed when the mean population
is reduced by 20% for A, B and C category institutions with
FRP type digesters. Based on the NPV selection criteria,
aforementioned biogas plant project can be the most prefera-
ble one for the implementation in academic institutions.
Table 11 shows the NPV of uniform and non-uniform loading
rates. From the values, it is clear that uniform loading gives
more advisable data than non-uniform loading. But the same
values obtained from non-uniform loading rates suggest that
Bioenerg. Res.
those digesters could be successfully implemented in institu-
tions with varying academic schedules.
Life Cycle Cost
Life cycle cost analysis determines the most cost-effective
option among different competing alternatives which are
equally appropriate for the implementation on the technical
grounds. Therefore, the LCC was calculated and tabulated as
given in Table 11 which shows that the LCC of JANATA is
the most preferable option compared to the other two models.
The same result was obtained with uniform loading rates as
shown in Table 11. But based on the literature [38], KVIC is
recommended due to the fact that the design and construction
of larger size JANATA model biogas plants are complicated.
Internal Rate of Return
Based on the investment cost, operation cost and savings, the
IRR has been calculated for all the cases, and the values ob-
tained for the five categories with the mean population are
shown in Fig. 11. It is observed that the IRR for JANATA is
maximum for all the categories, whereas FRP model has the
lowest values. For E category, the difference between the IRR
of JANATA and KVIC is minimum. This is due to the remark-
able reduction in investment cost of KVIC models at higher
capacities. For the JANATA model plants, the variation in IRR
with capacity is not significant, whereas the population is a
major factor to decide the IRR of KVIC model. For all the
models, the operation cost has been taken as 2% of the invest-
ment cost [43]. Comparing the IRR values of all the categories
with three different model biogas plants, the JANATA model
is found to be the best.
Profit Rate of Interest
The PRI has been calculated based on the annual profit and
investment cost, and the variation of the same for all the
five categories has been plotted in Fig. 12. It is observed
that the profit rate of investment increases with the increase
in digester size for all categories. For JANATA model bio-
gas plants, the PRI is seen very high for all categories
which is followed by KVIC model biogas plants. For FRP
and JANATA model biogas plants, the PRI variation is
negligible with the increase in population. The significant
variation of PRI with population for KVIC models is due
to the huge changes in investment cost with capacity.
Comparing the PRI values for all categories with three dif-
ferent model biogas plants, JANATA model is found to be
the best.
Bioenerg. Res.
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis is performed using standard procedure
[44, 51] to find the impact of the variation in the relevant
parameters on the PBP and NPV. To check the flexibility of
the BG digester, the variations in the labour cost (LC), gas
holder cost (GH), annual operation cost (AOC) and interest
rate are changed by ± 20% of the base value, and the increase
or decrease in PBP and NPV is quantified. The AOC was
performed based on the variation in the availability of
biowaste.
Figure 13(a) shows the PBP for KVIC model biogas plant
of category E. The GH and AOC influence the PBP for this
model. The other parameters seem to be very less significant.
Figure 13(b) shows the PBP for JANATA model biogas plant
of category E for the three scenarios. From the three scenarios,
AOC is the significant parameter to affect the PBP of BGP
with JANATA model. The other parameters seem to influence
less on the PBP of JANATA model. Figure 13(c) shows the
PBP for FRP model biogas plants of category E for the three
scenarios. From the three scenarios, AOC and GH seem to be
the major significant parameters to affect the PBP of BGP. The
other parameters are very less influencing in the PBP of FRP
model.
Table 12 shows the sensitivity analysis of NPV for different
biogas plants for category E with respect to the interest rate.
From the table, it is clear that the NPV is positive for all the
three biogas plants. In general, category A would be more
sensitive to changes in interest rate than category E due to
the fact that the lower capacity depicts a steeper change in
NPV. Though the positive NPV for the different capacities
and models implies the economic viability of categories,
higher capacity is considered to be more economical because
smaller capacity designs are more sensitive to economic pa-
rameters [23].
Conclusion
The simulation and experimental studies were conducted to
predict the quality and yield of biogas generated from the
biowastes such as rice waste, mixed rice waste and vegetable
waste collected from an educational institution, where the
availability of biowaste varies throughout a year. The econom-
ic factors were also studied and the following conclusions are
drawn:
1. The deviation of predicted composition of CH4 in biogas
is less than 5% from the experimental values. Thus the
proposed approach for the simulation is validated.
2. The biogas generated from all the biowastes consists of
52% to 58% of methane. Therefore, the biogas obtained
from the biowaste produced in the educational institution
considered in this study can be used in any application
like heating, power generation and refrigeration.
3. In all the four phases, during a year, the biogas quantity
differs based on the population. However the methane
composition remains the same.
4. The PBP for all models is observed to be 44–57% higher
than the same obtained for uniform loading. It is identified
that JANATA type biogas plants can be preferred in cate-
gory A, B, C and D type institutions, whereas E category
institution can use both JANATA and KVIC models.
5. The NPV calculated for the mean population is positive
for the three models with five different capacities which
implies that all the models selected are economically via-
ble. However, a negligible negative value has been ob-
served when the mean population is reduced by 20% for
A, B and C category institutions with FRP type digesters.
6. The analysis of IRR and PRI on the three models of bio-
gas plants shows that the JANATA model is the most
appropriate one for this application.
7. The sensitivity analysis proves that the uncertainty in in-
put parameters such as civil construction cost and gas
holder/dome cost influences the PBP.
In this present work, the drainage/night soil was not taken
for consideration since there is a complication in separating
them from the mixing of soap and other components which
resist the bio digestion process. However, if suitable method-
ology is adopted to use the same for biogas generation, the
economic viability can be improved. Moreover proper aware-
ness programme to be conducted to the higher administrative
bodies of the institutions regarding the advantages of this
technology. Some norms/regulations shall be formed by the
government bodies of higher education to implement such
technologies to develop eco-friendly and zero waste
campuses.
References
1. The World Bank (2012), Statistics, Available from: <https://www.
proparco.fr / jahia/webdav/site/proparco/shared/PORTAILS/
Secteur_prive_developpement/PDF/SPD15/SPD15_key_data_uk.
pdf>. [25 August 2018].
2. Fava F, Totaro G, Diels L, Reis M, Duarte J, Carioca OB, Hector
Poggi-Varaldo M, Ferreira BS (2013) Biowaste biorefinery in
Europe: opportunities and research & development needs. New
Biotechnol 32:100–108
3. Lai C-M, Ke G-R, Chung M-Y (2009) Potential of food wastes for
power generation and energy conservation in Taiwan. Renew
Energy 34:1913–1915
4. Sadrul Islam AKM, Islam M, Rahman T (2006) Effective renew-
able energy activities in Bangladesh. Renew Energy 31:677–688
5. Alkanok G, Demirel B, Turgut Onay T (2014) Determination of
biogas generation potential as a renewable energy source from su-
permarket wastes. Waste Manag 34:134–140

6. Yu L, Kuang Y, Ningsheng H, Wu Z, Xu L (2008) Popularizing
household-scale biogas digesters for rural sustainable energy devel-
opment and greenhouse gas mitigation. Renew Energy 33:2027–
2035
7. Li Y, Jin Y, Li J, Chen Y, Gong Y, Li Y, Zhang J (2016) Current
situation and development of kitchen waste treatment in China.
Procedia Environ Sci 31:40–49
8. Wan S, Sun L, Douieb Y, Sun J, Luo W (2013) Anaerobic digestion
of municipal solid waste composed of food waste, wastepaper and
plastic in a single – stage system: performance and microbial com-
munity structure characterization. Bio/Technology 146:619–627
9. Noorollahi Y, Kheirrouz M, Asl HF, Yousefi H, Hajinezhad A
(2015) Biogas production potential from livestock manure in Irn.
Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:748–754
10. Bouallagui H, Haouari O, Touhami Y, Cheikh B, Marouani L,
Hamdi M (2004) Effect of temperature on the performance of an
anaerobic tubular reactor treating fruit and vegetable waste. Process
Biochem 39:2143–2148
11. Komemoto K, Lim YG, Nagao N, Onoue Y, Niwa TT (2009) Effect
of temperature on VFA’s and biogas production in anaerobic solu-
bilization of food waste. Waste Manag 29:2050–2955
12. James Browne D, Stephen Gilkinson R, Frost J (2015) The effects
of storage time and temperature on biogas production from dairy
cow slurry. Biosyst Eng 129:48–56
13. Zuo Z, Wu S, Zhang W, Dong R (2013) Effects of organic loading
rate and effluent recirculation on the performance of two-stage an-
aerobic digestion of vegetable waste. Bioresour Technol 146:556–
561
14. Montanes R, Perez M, Solera R (2014) Anaerobic mesophilic co-
digestion of sewage sludge and sugar beet pulp lixiviation in batch
reactors: effect of pH control. Chem Eng J 255:492–499
15. Izumi K, Okishio Y-k, Nagao N, Niwa C, Yamamoto S, Toda T
(2010) Effects of particle size on anaerobic digestion of food waste.
Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 64:601–608
16. Micheal Schoen A, Sperl D, Gadermaier M, Goberna M, Frankle-
Whittle I, Insam H, Abilinger J, Wett B (2009) Population dynamics
at digester overload conditions. Bioresour Technol 100:5648–5655
17. Wu B (2013) Advances in the use of CFD to characterize, design
and optimize bioenergy systems. Comput Electron Agric 93:195–
208
18. Lauwers J, Apples L, Ian Thompson P, Degreve J, Jan Van Impe F,
Dewil R (2013) Mathematical modeling of anaerobic digestion of
biomass and waste: power and limitation. Prog Energy Combust
Sci 39:383–402
19. Cuong Pham H, Jin Triolo M, Sven Sommer G (2014) Predicting
methane production in simple and unheated biogas digesters at low
temperatures. Appl Energy 136:1–6
20. Gwavuya SG, Abele S, Barfuss I, Zeller M, Muller J (2012)
Household energy economics in rural Ethiopia: a cost-benefit anal-
ysis of biogas energy. Renew Energy 408:202–209
21. Rajendran K, Harshavardhan Kankanala R, Maritinson R,
Mohammad Taherzadeh J (2014) Uncertainty over techno-
economic potentials of biogas from municipal solid waste
(MSW): a case study on an industrial process. Appl Energy 125:
84–92
22. Han W, Fang J, Li Z, Tang J (2016) Techno-economic evaluation of
a combined bioprocess for fermentative hydrogen production from
food waste. Bioresour Technol 202:107–112
23. Walekhwa PN, Lars D, Mugisha J (2017) Economic viability of
biogas energy production from family-sized digesters in Uganda.
Biomass Bioenergy 70:26–39
24. Wunsch K, Gruber S, Claupein W (2012) Profitability analysis of
cropping system for biogas production on marginal sites in south-
western Germany. Renew Energy 45:213–220
25. Lamidi R, Jiang L, Wang Y, Pathare P (2019) Techno-economic
analysis of a biogas driven poly-generation system for postharvest
Bioenerg. Res.
loss reduction in a Sub-Saharan African rural community. Energy
Convers Manag 196:591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.
2019.06.023
26. Lamidi R, Jiang L, Wang Y, Pathare P (2019) Techno-economic
analysis of a cogeneration system for post-harvest loss reduction: a
case study in sub-Saharan rural community. Energies 12(5):1–19
27. Kavitha S, Yukesh Kannah R, Yeom IT, Do K-U, Rajesh Banu J
(2015) Combined thermo-chemo-sonic disintegration of waste ac-
tivated sludge for biogas production. Bioresour Technol 197:383–
392
28. APHA/AWWA/WEF (2005) Standard methods for examination of
water and waste water 21st edition Baltimore New York, USA.
29. Singh R, Malik RK, Tauro P (1985) Anaerobic digestion of cattle
waste at various retention times: a pilot plant study. Agric Wastes
12:313–316
30. Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis
SG, Rozzi A, Sanders WTM, Siegrist H, Vavilin VA (2002) The
IWA anaerobic digestion model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci Technol
45:65–73
31. Vikram Reddy M (2014) Municipal solid waste – waste to energy
conversion in India: an overview. Int J Environ Technol Manag 17:
283–292
32. Menardo S, Balsari P (2012) An analysis of the energy potential of
anaerobic digestion of agricultural by-products and organic waste.
Bioenergy Res 5:759–767
33. Frühauf S, Saylor MK, Lizasoain J, Gronauer A, Bauer A (2015)
Potential analysis of agro-municipal residues as a source of renew-
able energy. Bioenergy Research 8:1449–1456. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12155-015-9608-z
34. Edwin M, Joseph Sekhar S (2016) Thermo-economic assessment of
hybrid renewable energy based cooling system for food preserva-
tion in hilly terrain. Renew Energy 87:493–500
35. Tiwari GN, Chandra A, Singh KK, Sucheta S, Yadav YP (1989)
Studies Of KVIC biogas system coupled with flat plate collector.
Energy Convers Manag 29:253–257
36. Kanwar SS, Gupta RK, Guleri RL, Singh SR (1994) Performance
evaluation of a 1m3 modified, fixed-dome Deenbandhu biogas
plant under hilly conditions. Bioresour Technol 50:239–241
37. Kalia AK, Kanwar SS (1998) Long- term evaluation of a fixed
dome janata biogas plant in hilly conditions. Bioresour Technol
65:61–63
38. Anjan kalia K, Shiv Singh P (1999) Case study of 85 m3 floating
drum biogas plant under hilly conditions. Energy Convers Technol
40:693–702
39. Bouallagui H, Ben Cheikh R, Marouani L, Hamdi M (2003)
Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in a
tubular digester. Bioresour Technol 86:85–89
40. Vinoth Kumar K, Kasturi Bai R (2005) Plastic biodigesters – a
systematic study. Energy Sustain Dev 9:40–48
41. Menkiti Nnamdi I, Ndirika Victor IO (2015) Comparative evalua-
tion of fiber-glass reinforced plastic and metal biogas digesters. Int J
Eng Sci 4:38–44
42. Jyothilakshmi R, Prakash SV (2016) Design, fabrication and exper-
imentation of a small scale anaerobic biodigester for domestic bio-
degradable solid waste with energy recovery and sizing calcula-
tions. Procedia Environ Sci 35:749–755
43. Glivin G, Edwin M, Joseph Sekhar S (2018) Techno-economic
studies on the influences of nonuniform feeding in the biogas plants
of educational institutions. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ep.12892
44. Edwin M, Joseph Sekhar S (2014) Hybrid thermal energy based
cooling system for a remote seashore villages. Adv Mater Res 984:
719–724
45. Jatinder Singh K, Sooch SS (2004) Comparative study of econom-
ics of different models of family size biogas plants for state of
Punjab, India. Energy Convers Manag 45:1329–1341
Bioenerg. Res.
46. Somashekar RK, Verma R, Naik MA (2014) Potential of biogas
production from food waste in a uniquely designed reactor under
lab conditions. Int J Geol Agric Environ Sci 2:1–7
47. Mane AB, Rao B, Anand Rao B (2015) Characterisation of fruit
and vegetable waste for maximizing the biogas yield. Int J Adv
Technol Eng Sci 3:489–500
48. Ann Wilkie C, Ryan Graunke E, Cornejo C (2015) Food waste
auditing at three Florida schools. Sustainability 7:1370–1387
49. Feng R, Li J, Dong T, Li X (2016) Performance of a novel house-
hold solar heating thermostatic biogas system. Appl Therm Eng 96:
519–526
50. Akella AK, Kumar GS (2012) Sizing and cost analysis for integrat-
ed renewable energy system in a study area. J Eng Technol 2(1):34–
43
51. Murugavel V, Saravanan R (2010) Life cycle cost analysis of waste
heat operated absorption cooling systems for building HVAC appli-
cations. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference
Enhanced Building Operations, Kuwait
52. Miah MR, Abul Kalam Lutfor Rahmana M, Akanda MR, Pulak A,
Abdur Rouf MD (2016) Production of biogas from poultry litter
mixed with the co-substrate cow dung. J Taibah Univ Sci 10:497–
504
53. Dhanariya R, Sharma S, Sharma AK, Verma S (2014) A review on
biogas production from food waste. Int J Pharm Chem Sci 3(4):
299–904
54. Mishra S, Tenneti S (2015) Effect of operational parameters on
biogas production using tomato waste as substrate and cow dung
as inoculating medium. IJSR 4(5):148–152
55. Ramzan N, Naveed S, Latif N, Saleemi AR (2010) Characterization
of kitchen waste as a feedstock for biogas generation by thermo-
philic anaerobic digestion. NUST J Eng Sci 3(1):15–21
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.