Article
Bio-Waste from Urban and Rural Areas as a Source of Biogas
and Methane—A Case Study from Poland
Wojciech Dronia 1,2, Jakub Kostecki 3,*, Jacek Połomka 1 and Andrzej Jędrczak 3
Citation: Dronia, W.; Kostecki, J.;
Połomka, J.; Jędrczak, A. Bio-Waste
from Urban and Rural Areas as a
Source of Biogas and Methane—A
Case Study from Poland. Energies
2024, 17, 317. h ps://doi.org/
10.3390/en17020317
Academic Editor: Egle Sendzikiene
Received: 10 November 2023
Revised: 23 December 2023
Accepted: 4 January 2024
Published: 8 January 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Swi erland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (h ps://cre-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Energies 2024, 17, 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17020317
1 Łużyckie Centrum Recyklingu in Marszów, 68-200 Marszów, Poland; w.dronia@marszow.pl (W.D.);
j.polomka@marszow.pl (J.P.)
2 The Doctoral School of Exact and Technical Sciences, University of Zielona Góra,
65-417 Zielona Góra, Poland
3 Institute of Environmental Engineering, University of Zielona Góra, 65-516 Zielona Góra, Poland;
a.jedrczak@iis.uz.zgora.pl
* Correspondence: j.kostecki@iis.uz.zgora.pl
Abstract: The growing volume of household waste, especially bio-waste, poses a significant chal-
lenge to waste management systems. In Poland, bio-waste accounts for almost one third of total
waste generation. To address this challenge, in the context of optimising the waste biomass value
chain, we are investigating the potential of methane fermentation to convert bio-waste into valuable
end products in the form of digestate (organic recycling) and biogas (a renewable energy source
with a wide range of downstream applications). This paper presents the moisture content, loss on
ignition and biogas and methane production efficiency for bio-waste and for the seven types of
waste that are the main constituents of selectively collected bio-waste (meat, other edible waste
(dairy), fruits and vegetables, grass, leaves, branches and the < 10 mm fraction). Data on the techno-
logical properties of bio-waste and its constituents may be of interest to a range of stakeholders. The
average moisture content ranged from 41.9% (<10 mm fraction and others) to 84.4% (fruits and veg-
etables), and the average organic ma er content of the dry weight of the waste ranged from 37.8%
(<10 mm fraction and others) to 88.7% (edible constituents other than meat and fruits and vegeta-
bles). The bio-waste had an average moisture content of 71.3 ± 1.7% and loss on ignition of 68.6 ±
1.7%. Biogas production from selectively collected bio-waste ranged from 285 to 404 Ndm3·kg−1 DM
(mean: 347 ± 53 Ndm3·kg−1 DM), and methane production ranged from 191 to 271 Ndm3·kg−1 DM
(mean: 215 ± 33 Ndm3·kg−1 DM).
Keywords: bio-waste; composition analysis; garden waste; food waste; waste impurities; methane;
biogas
1. Introduction
In 2017, the EU-28 (28 EU Member States) generated 249 × 106 Mg of municipal solid
waste, of which around 34% or 86 × 106 Mg was bio-waste (168 kg per capita on average).
This includes bio-waste collected separately and bio-waste collected together with mixed
municipal waste (residual waste) but excludes bio-waste composted at home. Approxi-
mately 3.9 × 106 Mg of bio-waste was generated in Poland, which corresponds to almost
101 kg of bio-waste per capita per year [1].
The most preferred option in the bio-waste hierarchy is to prevent the generation of
bio-waste. However, if bio-waste cannot be avoided, it should be collected separately and
subjected to biological treatment for the recovery of valuable substrates. This can be car-
ried out under aerobic (composting) or anaerobic (digestion) conditions, with different
products being produced (respectively, compost and biogas). However, it seems that, for
bio-waste, methane fermentation should play an increasingly important role, as it has a
number of favourable properties compared to composting [2]. The process has a limited
www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2024, 17, 317 2 of 12

environmental impact [3], includes a high potential for energy recovery in the form of
biogas [4–8] and provides carrier material for the production of soil amendments, includ-
ing compost [5,9]. In order to achieve optimal economic and environmental benefits, it is
necessary to ensure demand for the compost produced from the digestate. A well-man-
aged digestion process will allow energy recovery from the biogas produced, which, in
turn, will reduce the need for fossil fuel energy.
The best results in recovering materials and energy from bio-waste are achieved by
using digestion as a pretreatment followed by the aerobic stabilisation (composting) of the
resulting digestate [10]. The integration of AD and composting processes is now recog-
nised as an environmentally beneficial way of treating food waste. A study showed that
only 5% of composting plants process anaerobic digestate in shared facilities [11]. In re-
gions with low levels of organic ma er in agricultural soils, composting may be the pre-
ferred option from an environmental perspective.
Food waste digestion is used as a waste treatment method in both developing and
developed countries. This technology achieves good results in methane production [12].
The monofermentation of food waste often has some difficulties related to the stability of
the system [13]. The fermentation of waste with a high content of easily biodegradable
organic ma er leads to the significant production of volatile fa y acids (VFAs), which can
inhibit methanogenesis [14]. The co-digestion of food waste with lignocellulosic waste,
such as garden waste (leaves and branches), avoids these problems. The combination of
kitchen and garden waste improves the substrate properties (e.g., be er C:N ratio) and,
consequently, increases methane production [15–17]. The mixing ratio of these fractions
is important to optimise the process [18,19]. Too high a proportion of garden waste re-
duces the energy efficiency of the process due to the presence of lignin, which does not
degrade under anaerobic conditions. Replacing 20% of the organic loading rate (OLR) of
food waste with lignocellulosic substrate improved both biogas production and methane
production efficiency [17]. The general characteristics of the components of bio-waste are
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of bio-waste components [20–31].

Organic Biogas Methane

Type Water Nitrogen
Ma er C/N Production, Content in
of Content, Content,
Content, Ratio dm3·kg−1 Gas,
Waste % % DM
% DM DOM %
Bio-waste 52–80 34–81 0.5–2.7 10–25 150–600 58–65
Kitchen waste 50–60 30–70 0.6–2.2 12–20 150–500 60–65
Pork (meat) 68 28 5.0 2–3 428 -
Beef (meat) 47 53 1.1 3–6 572 -
Poultry (meat) 62 44 6.8 5–10 266 -
Canned meat (minced beef) 87.3 93.8 - - 675 -
Fruit waste and scraps 55 61.5 - 32 400 -
Waste and scraps of vegetables 86.4 80.2 - 12–13 370 -
Raw mixed vegetables 86.6 94.5 - - 330 -
Garden waste 30–40 90 0.3–2.0 20–60 200–500 55–65
Green waste 20–75 83–92 0.3–3.0 20–60 200–500 -
Grass (cuttings from lawnmowers) 81.1–88.3 86.4–88 - 16–40 260–588
Spring grass 68 79.2 2.4 16–40 641 -
Summer grass 66.7 90.3 3.1 16–40 619 -
Leaves 20–72 82–93 0.2–1.0 20–60 100–330 58–62.6
Twigs and branches of trees (apple
63.5 96.6 - - 96 -
tree)
Energies 2024, 17, 317 3 of 12

Anaerobic digestion stands as a well-established biochemical process that plays a

crucial role in transforming organic ma er in oxygen-deprived environments. This con-
trolled decomposition, orchestrated by diverse microorganisms, produces both stabilised
organic sludge and biogas (primarily methane and carbon dioxide), a valuable renewable
energy source. The process typically takes place in liquid phases, making it ideal for sub-
strates with low solid concentrations and moisture contents (60–95%). Although anaerobic
digestion operates at a slower rate than its aerobic counterpart due to reduced metabolic
activity, it exhibits remarkable efficiency. The successful digestion of lignocellulosic ma-
terials, a key component of many organic feedstocks, depends heavily on factors such as
material porosity, cellulose crystallinity and lignin content. Improving cellulose conver-
sion efficiency often necessitates the application of pretreatment methods [32].
According to the European Compost Network [11], around 38 × 106 Mg of municipal
bio-waste (87 kg/(C·year)) was biologically treated in digestion and composting plants in
Europe in 2019–2020. Almost 30% of this amount was digested. An estimated 6000 AD and
composting plants will be needed to process the projected increase in municipal bio-waste
required to achieve 35% MSW recycling [33]. In Poland, the need for new installations by
the end of 2034 has been estimated at 28 digestion plants with a capacity of 30,000 Mg/year
and 33–48 composting plants with a capacity of 15,000–10,000 Mg/year, as well as the ret-
rofi ing of some existing composting plants (approx. 37 plants) [33].
Deciding on an appropriate method of bio-waste disposal, designing bio-waste treat-
ment facilities and providing a good estimation of biogas production (a renewable energy
source with a wide range of further applications) require knowledge about the technolog-
ical properties of bio-waste and its constituents. Improving this knowledge can be of in-
terest to a number of stakeholders, such as national and local authorities, waste manage-
ment companies and researchers.
The aim of this study is to determine the moisture and volatile solids content of the
basic components of bio-waste, to assess their potential for methane production during
the digestion process and to test whether the co-fermentation of these components in-
creases methane production.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Types of Tested Waste
This study investigated seven types of waste, comprising the fundamental constitu-
ents of bio-waste that were selectively collected from rural communes and towns in Zary,
Zagan, Gozdnica and Leknica (Figure 1). All of them are located within the scope of
Luzyckie Centrum Recyklingu in Marszow. The waste types that were examined included
meat, dairy waste, fruits and vegetables, grass, leaves, branches and < 10 mm fraction, as
well as bio-waste mixture [34].
The bio-waste components were carefully selected to ensure a minimum weight of 5
kg, manually separated from the selectively collected bio-waste. After collection at the
treatment plant, the waste was transported to the laboratory within 24 h in plastic buckets
for immediate testing. All types of selected waste were then shredded using a knife shred-
der to achieve a grain size below 5 mm. To determine the grain size of the waste, the waste
fractions underwent a 5 mm sieve screening.
Bio-waste samples were acquired by blending bio-waste components in proportions
established through studies of the morphological makeup of bio-waste samples collected
in rural areas, urban se lements and single-family houses located in the towns of Zary,
Zagan, Gozdnica and Leknica. The average proportion of components in the bio-waste
was as follows: meat—0.58%, other edible waste (dairy)—0.14%, fruits and vegetables—
43.85%, grass—17.10%, leaves—16.12%, branches—7.20% and fraction < 10 mm—15.00%
[34].
Energies 2024, 17, 317 4 of 12

The test waste samples were treated with digested sewage sludge obtained from the
closed separate digestion chambers (CSD) at the Guben-Gubin (Poland) wastewater treat-
ment plant.

Figure 1. Location of survey area.

2.2. Frequency and Scope of Testing

The bio-waste was sampled on two occasions during 2022, specifically on 14 Septem-
ber and 20 October. During these tests, the moisture content and roasting losses of the
waste were determined, along with the unit production of biogas and methane during the
mesophilic digestion process. The moisture content and roasting losses of the waste were
tested following the guidelines and regulations of the Central Laboratory of the Institute
of Environmental Engineering. The laboratory possesses current accreditation for waste
sampling and testing, valid until 2 January 2027 [35], conforming to EN 15934:2012 and
EN 15935:2021 standards [36,37]. The yield of biogas and methane production was deter-
mined in accordance with the laboratory’s existing procedure, as described below.

2.3. Analysis
2.3.1. Construction of the Test Bench
The determination of biogas production from the tested waste was carried out on a
laboratory scale in a 30-station batch fermentation ‘digester’ (Figure 2).
Energies 2024, 17, 317 5 of 12

Figure 2. Schematic of the test bench.

The measuring station for one sample consisted of the following:

 A digester (reactor)—1 dm3 glass bo le, sealed with a rubber stopper, with two spig-
ots: one for feeding the biogas to the gas bure e, the other for removing air from the
chamber;
 A gas bure e with a capacity of 2.30 dm3 (tube 45.8 mm in diameter and 1.40 m high),
5 mL elementary division, with three nozzles: two at the bo om of the bure e, one
to feed biogas from the reactor into the bure e, the other to connect the bure e to the
equalisation tank; and one at the top, to remove biogas from the bure e;
 The equalising tank—a polypropylene container with a lower tube containing a sat-
urated solution of sodium chloride (brine);
 A thermostat in which the reactors are placed.
The thermostat is a metal tub filled with water that is heated to the required temper-
ature in the reactors, i.e., 36 °C for mesophilic fermentation. The arrangement of the heat-
ers in the tank, the forced circulation of the water and the design of the control system for
the heaters and the pump ensure an even temperature distribution throughout the tank
and temperature fluctuations of less than 1 °C.

2.3.2. Sample Preparation for Test

The test samples comprised organic waste with a fineness of less than 5 mm, inocu-
lation material and water. Three samples were prepared for each type of waste and intro-
duced into three separate reactors. The endogenous activity of the inoculation material was
determined in triplicate for each series of tests, including a control sample without waste.
In each reactor, 0.600 dm3 of inoculation ma er (digested sewage sludge) and waste
samples of a known moisture content were added to guarantee a 1:1 ratio of dry waste
and sludge mass. Tap water was used to make up the volume to 0.700 dm3, and the pH of
the mixture was measured; if the pH was between 6.8 and 7.8, it was adjusted with a
Energies 2024, 17, 317 6 of 12

solution of either NaOH or HCl. The rubber stopper was securely sealed over the bo le.
To achieve anaerobic conditions, the air above the mixture in the reactor was eliminated
by purging the reactor with nitrogen for two minutes. The reactor was then firmly con-
nected to the gas bure es and placed in a thermostat.

2.3.3. Process Control

During this study, the following were measured: the daily gas volume, as well as the
air pressure and the room air temperature. We used a GEOTECH GA5000 (QED Environ-
mental Systems, Coventry, UK) analyser to measure the methane, carbon dioxide, hydro-
gen sulphide and ammonia content of the produced gas. The accuracy of the GA5000 is ±
0.5% for methane and ± 1.0% for carbon dioxide, and the accuracy of the hydrogen sul-
phide sensor is ± 10 ppm and 20% for ammonia. The measurement interval for all param-
eters is 10 s. The tests were conducted for 21 days counting from the end of the lag phase.
For each test, the preparation time (adaptation phase-lag phase) was subtracted, the value
of which was determined according to the recommendations given in Siemiatkowski’s
work [38]. The lag phase ended when the daily average gas production reached 25% of
the maximum 3-day average value. The volume of gas produced during the lag phase was
subtracted from the volume of gas produced during the entire test (lag phase + 21 days).
The measurement of the volume of biogas produced consisted of equilibrating the
pressure in a gas bure e with a saturated NaCl solution and reading the value from a scale
on the bure e. The pressure equalisation was achieved by closing the valve on the hose
connecting the reactor to the bure e and lifting the container with the NaCl solution until
the liquid levels in the bure e and container equalised. The volume of biogas was adjusted
to standard conditions of temperature (273 K) and pressure (1013 hPa).
Periodically, after the biogas had accumulated in the bure e in the amount necessary
for the proper analysis of its composition, the measurement was performed and the col-
umn was refilled with the NaCl solution.
To conduct the test, the measuring device was linked with a hose to a nozzle with a
valve at the top of each measuring tube. On a shelf above the measuring tubes was a con-
tainer with the NaCl solution. Once the valve was unblocked, the weight of the saltwater
forced the biogas to travel via the apparatus at a set rate of about 1 dm3 per minute. As
soon as the measuring tube was packed with the NaCl solution, the test was finished.
The amount of biogas and methane produced from the waste samples was adjusted
to account for the amount of gas produced in the control samples of the inoculation ma-
terial (a sample without waste but with 2 g of crystalline cellulose).
The results obtained from laboratory tests were subjected to statistical analysis by
calculating the mean and correlation coefficient [39].

3. Results
3.1. Water Content and Loss on Ignition
The moisture content and loss due to the roasting of the waste samples are presented
in Table 2.
It was found that fruits and vegetables had the highest moisture content, which
ranged from 82.1% to 87.5% with a mean value of 84.4%. The < 10 mm and other fraction
of the waste contained the least amount of water, with moisture levels ranging from 30.7%
to 51.7% and a mean value of 41.9%. The bio-waste had moisture content ranging from
68.3% to 72.7%, with an average moisture content of 71.3%. The percentage of organic
ma er in the dry weight of waste ranged from 37.8% DM (fraction < 10 mm and others) to
88.7% (edible components, not including meat and fruits and vegetables). In terms of bio-
waste, the proportion of organic ma er in the dry weight ranged from 67.5 to 71.4% DM
with a mean value of 68.6% DM, denoting its high potential for biogas production.
Energies 2024, 17, 317 7 of 12

Table 2. Moisture content and loss on ignition of selected bio-waste streams collected selectively
during the autumn season.

Water Content, Organic Ma er Content,

% % DM
Type of Waste
Range Mean Range Mean
S.D. S.D.
of Values Value of Values Value
Meat 54.5–60.7 58.8 2.3 78.7–88.2 86.7 4.1
Fruits and vegetables 82.1–87.5 84.4 1.9 84.4–85.3 84.7 0.4
Edible others 62.7–66.6 66.1 1.6 85.1–95.9 88.7 4.2
Grass 74.7–77.7 77.0 1.7 71.4–80.4 75.9 3.2
Leaves 56.7–69.9 65.9 4.2 73.7–81.5 79.2 3.2
Branches 40.9–56.0 52.6 5.3 87.5–89.4 88.1 0.8
Fraction < 10 mm and others 30.8–51.7 41.9 7.3 38.1–42.9 37.8 3.8
Bio-waste 68.3–72.7 71.3 1.6 67.5–71.4 68.6 1.7
S.D.—standard deviation.

3.2. Biogas and Methane Production

The yield of biogas production from selectively collected bio-waste and the material
components included in the composition are shown in Table 3. The yield of biogas pro-
duction from selectively collected bio-waste ranged from 285 to 404 Ndm3·kg−1, with an
average of 347 ± 53 Ndm3·kg−1, and for dry organic ma er from 422 to 566 Ndm3·kg−1 DOM,
with an average of 505 ± 57 Ndm3·kg−1 DOM.

Table 3. Yield of biogas production of selected separately collected bio-waste streams.

Biogas Production
Ndm3·kg−1 W/W Ndm3·kg−1 DM Ndm3·kg−1 DOM
Type of Waste
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
S.D. S.D. S.D.
of Values Value of Values Value of Values Value
Meat 232–322 270 33.3 591–707 656 43 752–821 756 39
Fruits and vegeta-
31.4–64.2 53.3 12.9 252–358 342 58 295–424 404 67
bles
Edible others 183–195 185 1.9 496–553 538 24 517–650 607 53
Grass 63.6–151 106 31.2 251–674 461 161 352–838 608 185
Leaves 39.6–106 70.9 24.8 91.5–354 208 103 124–434 263 120
Branches 52.4–70.5 59.4 6.9 88.7–160 125 26 99.1–183 142 30
Fraction < 10 mm
21.4–46.1 34.5 8.8 30.9–95.3 59.4 24 72.0–250 157 63
and others
Bio-waste 77.5–128 99.3 20.3 285–404 347 53 422–566 505 57
S.D.—standard deviation.

The yield of methane production from selectively collected bio-waste ranged from
211 to 271 Ndm3·kg−1, with an average of 215 ± 33 Ndm3·kg−1, and for dry organic ma er
from 312 to 380 Ndm3·kg−1 DOM, with an average of 314 ± 39 Ndm3·kg−1 DOM. The values
are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Yield of methane production of selected separately collected bio-waste streams.

Methane Production Methane Content of Biogas
Ndm3·kg−1 W/W Ndm3·kg−1 DM Ndm3·kg−1 DOM %
Type of Waste
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean
S.D. S.D. S.D. S.D.
of Values Value of Values Value of Values Value of Values Value
Meat 168–204 187 16.2 427–449 444 9 471–543 498 29 63.4–72.2 69.0 4.1
Energies 2024, 17, 317 8 of 12

Fruits and vegetables 18.6–43.5 35.2 9.8 149–243 212 37 175–288 250 44 59.4–67.8 66.1 3.5
Edible others 103–114 113 7.5 276–342 334 28 288–402 370 48 55.6–61.9 61.7 3.5
Grass 38.6–85.3 54.0 18.3 152–382 236 88 213–474 310 99 56.6–60.6 51.0 7.5
Leaves 22.0–66.2 42.5 15.7 50.9–220 126 61 69.0–270 159 72 55.6–62.2 60.0 6.2
Branches 32.0–34.9 32.0 1.3 54.2–79.3 66.9 11 60.6–90.7 76.0 13 49.5–61.1 53.9 4.3
Fraction < 10 mm
12.8–25.4 19.6 4.5 18.5–52.6 33.7 13 43.0–138 88.7 34 55.1–59.7 56.8 2.0
and others
Bio-waste 57.4–86.0 67.3 11.1 211–271 215 33 312–380 314 39 67.1–74.0 62.1 5.8
S.D.—standard deviation.

Figure 3 shows the contribution of components to the wet and dry weight of bio-
waste and the amount of biogas and methane produced from it.

Figure 3. Contribution of components to the wet and dry weight of bio-waste and the amount of
biogas and methane produced.

Table 5 shows the average yield production values of biogas and methane deter-
mined for the bio-waste in this study and the calculated values of YBP (yield of biogas
production) and YMP (yield of methane production) determined for the bio-waste com-
ponents, based on the material composition of the bio-waste, assuming that they are ad-
ditive quantities.

Table 5. Average yield production values for biogas and methane determined for the bio-waste in
the studies and calculated based on the material composition of the bio-waste and the yield produc-
tion values determined for the components of the bio-waste.

Biogas Production Methane Production

Type of Waste Ndm3·kg−1 Ndm3·kg−1 Ndm3·kg−1 Ndm3·kg−1 Ndm3·kg−1 Ndm3·kg−1
S.D. S.D.
W/W DM DOM W/W DM DOM
Bio-waste—studies 99.3 347 505 57 61.7 215 314 39
Bio-waste—calculated values 64.2 285 363 90 38.0 166 210 51
Value difference (line 1 − line 2) 35.1 62 143 77 23.7 49 104 24
Value quotient (line 1 / row 2) 1.55 1.22 1.39 0.33 1.62 1.29 1.49 0.28
S.D.—standard deviation.

The experimentally determined YBP and YMP values of the bio-waste are signifi-
cantly higher than the values calculated as the sum of the magnitudes of these parameters
Energies 2024, 17, 317 9 of 12

corresponding to the mass proportions of the components in the bio-waste mixture. The
fermentation efficiency in relation to the dry mass of the bio-waste, expressed as YBP,
increased by 28%, and as YMP, increased by 34%. The co-digestion of food waste with
lignocellulosic waste such as leaves and branches leads to an increase in biogas produc-
tion. This is in line with the observations of Borth et al. [40], who found that the combina-
tion of these components improves the material properties, including a be er C:N ratio.

4. Discussion
The composition of the fermentation feedstock can significantly affect biogas produc-
tion. Materials that are too concentrated or diluted can impede biogas and methane yields.
Effective waste management solutions are crucial due to the increasing volume of bio-
waste generation. The anaerobic digestion of food waste, a byproduct of food processing
and consumption, presents a promising option because of its high organic ma er and
moisture content. The composition of bio-waste can vary widely (Table 1), and this varia-
tion can have a significant impact on the efficiency of anaerobic digestion. Household bio-
waste is a waste stream rich in organic ma er, which makes it possible to recover it
through organic recycling. These theses have been confirmed in the works of various au-
thors, e.g., Ding et al. [41] and Khan et al. [42]. Furthermore, household bio-waste repre-
sents a major fraction of MSW in Europe, and its sustainable management is crucial for
resource recovery and environmental protection [43–45]. Our results show that the pro-
portion of organic ma er of bio-waste ranged from 67.5 to 71.4% DM with a mean value
of 68.6 ± 1.7% DM. In all components of bio-waste, except for the < 10 mm fraction, the
loss on ignition exceeded 75% of dry ma er. This demonstrates their high biogas potential.
Correlation analysis showed a highly significant correlation between the type of
waste analysed and organic ma er content (r = −0.5978) and biogas (r = −0.6682) and me-
thane (r = −0.6898) production. A highly significant correlation was found between the
organic ma er content of the waste analysed and the biogas (r = 0.5235) and methane (r =
0.5117) produced.
The results show that bio-waste has a high potential for methane production. Biogas
production from bio-waste ranged from 285 to 404 Ndm3·kg−1 DM (mean value 347 ± 53
Ndm3·kg−1 DM) and methane production from 282 to 380 Ndm3·kg−1 DM (mean value 214
± 39 Ndm3·kg−1 DM). These values are in the middle of the range reported in the literature
for bio-waste [20,46–48]. The co-digestion of food waste with lignocellulosic waste can
increase methane production by about 28%.
The components of bio-waste, taking biogas production (in relation to dry ma er) as
a criterion, can be arranged in a series, as follows: meat, other edible components, grass,
fruits and vegetables, leaves, branches and fraction < 10 mm and other. The order of the
components in terms of yield of biogas production (in relation to organic dry ma er) is as
follows: meat, grass, other edible components, fruits and vegetables, leaves, fraction < 10
mm and other and branches.
The average methane content of biogas from bio-waste was 62.1 ± 5.8%. Both the lim-
its we obtained and the average value are below the values found in the literature [46,49].
Despite the theoretically high potential of bio-waste components for biogas production, it
is not an additive value. The value for a mixture of components is not the sum of the biogas
production values corresponding to the components of the bio-waste.
The results show that fermenting bio-waste, which includes kitchen and garden
waste, produces high levels of biogas. The high content of organic substances, including
the presence of garden waste (structural materials), makes it possible to use the digestate
as fertiliser. Fermenting a mixture of kitchen and garden waste is an example of a closed-
loop bioeconomy.
Producing biogas from food waste offers significant environmental, economic and
societal benefits, aligning with circular economy principles [50–52]. It is a crucial alterna-
tive to fossil fuels for sustainable energy generation. On the other hand, it is necessary to
consider the shortcomings associated with the processing of bio-waste, including its
Energies 2024, 17, 317 10 of 12

seasonal variability and relatively high hydration and the seasonal variation in its compo-
sition [2,34].

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, A.J., W.D., J.K. and J.P.; methodology, A.J., W.D. and J.P.;
validation, A.J. and W.D.; formal analysis, J.K.; investigation, A.J., J.K., W.D. and J.P.; resources, W.D.
and J.P.; data curation, A.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J. and J.K., writing—review and
editing, A.J. and J.K.; visualisation, A.J. and J.K.; supervision, A.J.; project administration, A.J. and
J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data supporting this study are available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Eurostat. Available online: h ps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/waste/data/database (accessed on 14 August 2023).
2. Jędrczak, A. Composting and fermentation of biowaste—Advantages and disadvantages of processes. Civ. Environ. Eng. Rep.
2018, 28, 71–87. h ps://doi.org/10.2478/ceer-2018-0052.
3. Capson-Tojo, G.; Rouez, M.; Crest, M.; Steyer, J.F.; Delgenès, J.F.; Escudié, R. Food waste valorization via anaerobic processes:
A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2016, 15, 499–547. h ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-016-9405-y.
4. Yong, Z.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, X.; Tan, T. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and straw for biogas production. Renew. Energy 2015,
78, 527–530. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.033.
5. Kuruti, K.; Begum, S.; Ahuja, S.; Anupoju, R.G.; Juntupally, S.; Gandu, B.; Ahuja, K.D. Exploitation of rapid acidification phe-
nomena of food waste in reducing the hydraulic retention time (HRT) of high rate anaerobic digester without conceding on
biogas yield. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 226, 65–72.
6. Ren, Y.; Yu, M.; Wu, C.; Wang, Q.; Gao, M.; Huang, Q.; Liu, Y. A comprehensive review on food waste anaerobic digestion:
Research updates and tendencies. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1069–1076. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.109.
7. Zamanzadeh, M.; Hagen, L.H.; Svensson, K.; Linjordet, R.; Horn, S.J. Anaerobic digestion of food waste—Effect of recirculation
and temperature on performance and microbiology. Water Res. 2016, 96, 246–254. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.03.058.
8. Zhang, R.; El-Mashad, H.M.; Hartman, K.; Wang, F.; Liu, G.; Choate, C.; Gamble, P. Characterization of food waste as feedstock
for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 929–935. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.039.
9. Shen, F.; Yuan, H.; Pang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhu, B.; Zou, D.; Liu, Y.; Ma, J.; Yu, L.; Li, X. Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of
fruit & vegetable waste (FVW) and food waste (FW): Single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 144, 80–85.
h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.099.
10. Odegard, I.Y.R.; Bergsma, G.C.; Naber, N.N. LCA van de Verwerking van Voedselresten van Huishoudens—Vergelijking van Verschil-
lende Routes: Restafvalroute, GFT-Route, Waterketen en Nieuwe Waterketen; CE Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2015.
11. ECN Data Report 2022—Compost and Digestate for a Circular Bioeconomy: Overview of Bio-Waste Collection, Treatment &
Markets Across Europe—European Compost. Available online: h ps://www.compostnetwork.info/wordpress/wp-content/up-
loads/ECN-rapport-2022.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2023).
12. Embenezer, A.V.; Dinesh Kumar, M.; Kavitha, S.; Khac Uan, D.; Rajesh Banu, J. Chapter 14—State of the art of food waste
management in various countries. In Food Waste to Valuable Resources; Rajesh Banu, J., Gopalakrishnan, K., Gunasekaran, M., Kavitha,
S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818353-3.00014-6.
13. Ye, M.; Liu, J.; Ma, C.; Li, Y.Y.; Zou, P.; Qian, G.; Xu, Z. Improving the stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion of food
waste using additives: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 316–326. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.244.
14. David, A.; Govil, T.; Tripathi, A.K.; Mcgeary, J.; Farrar, K.; Sani, R.K. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion: Enhanced and sustain-
able methane production from co-digestion of food and lignocellulosic wastes. Energies 2018, 11, 2058.
h ps://doi.org/10.3390/en11082058.
15. Brown, D.; Li, Y. Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of yard waste and food waste for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 2013,
127, 275–280. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.081.
16. Panigrahi, S.; Sharma, H.B.; Dubey, B.K. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with pretreated yard waste: A comparative study
of methane production, kinetic modelling and energy balance. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118480. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2019.118480.
17. Perin, J.K.H.; Borth, P.L.B.; Torrecilhas, A.R.; Cunha, L.S.; Kuroda, E.K.; Fernandes, F. Optimization of methane production
parameters during anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and garden waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 123130.
h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123130.
18. Oladejo, O.; Dahunsi, S.; Adesulu-Dahunsi, A.; Ojo, O.; Lawal, A.; Idowu, E.; Olanipekun, A.; Ibikunle, R.; Osueke, C.; Ajayi,
O.; et al. Energy generation from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, cow dung and piggery dung. Bioresour. Technol. 2020,
313, 123694. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123694.
Energies 2024, 17, 317 11 of 12

19. Ahmed, B.; Tyagi, V.K.; Khan, A.A.; Kazmi, A. Optimization of process parameters for enhanced biogas yield from anaerobic
co-digestion of OFMSW and bio-solids. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 12, 607–618. h ps://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-020-00919-
3.
20. Jędrczak, A. Biological Waste Treatment; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2007; p. 456. (In Polish).
21. Zhao, Y.; Yang, S.; Wang, D. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes as a potential tool to differentiate pork from organic and
conventional systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 3950–3955. h ps://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7567.
22. Bontempo, L.; Perini, M.; Pianezze, S.; Horacek, M.; Roßmann, A.; Kelly, S.D.; Thomas, F.; Heinrich, K.; Schlicht, C.; Schellen-
berg, A.; et al. Characterization of Beef Coming from Different European Countries through Stable Isotope (H, C, N, and S)
Ratio Analysis. Molecules 2023, 28, 2856. h ps://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28062856.
23. Schmidt, O.; Quilter, J.M.; Bahar, B.; Moloney, A.P.; Scrimgeour, C.M.; Begley, I.S.; Monahan, F.J. Inferring the origin and dietary
history of beef from C, N and S stable isotope ratio analysis. Food Chem. 2005, 91, 545–549. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.food-
chem.2004.08.036.
24. Yanagi, Y.; Hirooka, H.; Oishi, K.; Choumei, Y.; Hata, H.; Arai, M.; Kitagawa, M.; Gotoh, T.; Inada, S.; Kumagai, H. Stable carbon
and nitrogen isotope analysis as a tool for inferring beef ca le feeding systems in Japan. Food Chem. 2012, 134, 502–506.
h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.02.107.
25. Cruz, V.C.; Araújo, P.C.; Sartori, J.R.; Pezzato, A.C.; Denadai, J.C.; Polycarpo, G.V.; Zane i, L.H.; Duca i, C. Poultry offal meal
in chicken: Traceability using the technique of carbon (13 C/12 C)- and nitrogen (15 N/14 N)-stable isotopes. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91,
478–486. h ps://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2011-01512.
26. Chang, J.; Tsai, J.J.; Wu, K.H. Composting of vegetable waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 354–362.
h ps://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X06065727.
27. Sall, P.M.; Antoun, H.; Chalifour, F.P.; Beauchamp, C.J. On farm composting of fruit and vegetable waste from grocery stores:
A case under cold climatic conditions of eastern Canada. In Proceedings of the UM 2016, Third Symposium on Urban Mining
and Circular Ecology, Bergano, Italy, 23–25 May 2016.
28. Gislum, R.; Griffith, S.M. Tiller Production and Development in Perennial Ryegrass in Relation to Nitrogen Use. J. Plant Nutr.
2005, 27, 2135–2148. h ps://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-200034675.
29. Godley, A.; Lewin, K.; Frederickson, J.; Smith, R.; Blakey, N. Application of DR4 and BM100 biodegradability tests to treated
and untreated organic wastes. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. S.
Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, 1–5 October 2007; p. 225. Available online: h p://hdl.handle.net/1826/4121 (accessed on 9
November 2023).
30. Chiumenti, A.; Boscaro, D.; da Borso, F.; Sartori, L.; Pezzuolo, A. Biogas from Fresh Spring and Summer Grass: Effect of the
Harvesting Period. Energies 2018, 11, 1466. h ps://doi.org/10.3390/en11061466.
31. Vargas-Soplín, A.J.; Prochnow, A.; Herrmann, C.; Tscheuschner, B.; Kreidenweis, U. The potential for biogas production from
autumn tree leaves to supply energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions—A case study from the city of Berlin. Resour. Con-
serv. Recycl. 2022, 187, 106598. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106598.
32. Dupla, M.; Conte, T.; Bouvier, J.C.; Bernel, N.; Steyer, J.P. Dynamic evaluation of a fixed bed anaerobic digestion process in
response to organic overloads and toxicant shock loads. Water Sci. Technol. 2004, 49, 61–68. h ps://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2004.0019.
33. KPGO2028, National Waste Management Plan 2028, Draft of 14.06.2022. Available online: h ps://bip.mos.gov.pl/strategie-
plany-programy/krajowy-plan-gospodarki-odpadami (accessed on 10 January 2023).
34. Dronia, W.; Połomka, J.; Jędrczak, J. Morphological composition of bio-waste collected selectively in towns and villages during
autumn and winter. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2007, 73, 313–320. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2023.2171505.
35. Accreditation Certificate of Testing Laboratory No AB 772 Is Valid until 02.01.2027; PCA: Warsaw, Poland, 2022.
36. EN 15934:2012; Sludge, Treated Biowaste, Soil and Waste—Calculation of Dry Ma er Fraction after Determination of Dry Res-
idue or Water Content. European Commi ee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
37. EN 15935:2021; Soil, Waste, Treated Biowaste and Sludge—Determination of Loss on Ignition. European Commi ee for Stand-
ardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
38. Siemiątkowski, G. Emissions of methane from the landfill and the method of its determination. Sci. Work. Inst. Ceram. Build.
Mater. 2014, 16, 78–88.
39. Tibco Statistica v. 13.3; TIBCO Software Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017.
40. Borth, P.L.B.; Perin, J.K.H.; Torrecilhas, A.R.; Pan, N.C.; Kuroda, E.K.; Fernandes, F. Biochemical methane potential of food and
garden waste co digestion with variation in solid content and inoculum:substrate ratio. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Man. 2021, 23,
1974–1983. h ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01270-z.
41. Ding, Y.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J.W.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, L.; Zhao, J.; Shao, Z.; Iris, C.; Pan, B.; Li, X.; et al. A review of China’s municipal
solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and technologies in treatment and resource utili-
zation. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126144. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144.
42. Khan, A.H.; Alberto López-Maldonado, E.A.; Khan, N.A.; Villarreal-Gómez, L.J.; Munshi, F.M.; Alsabhan, A.H.; Perveen, K.
Current solid waste management strategies and energy recovery in developing countries—State of art review. Chemosphere 2022,
291, 133088. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133088.
43. Tonini, D.; Wandl, A.; Meister, K.; Unceta, P.M.; Taelman, S.E.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Dewulf, J.; Huygens, D. Quantitative sus-
tainability assessment of household food waste management in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, Resources. Conserv. Recycl.
2020, 160, 104854. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104854.
Energies 2024, 17, 317 12 of 12

44. Vambol, V.; Kowalczyk-Juśko, A.; Vambol, S.; Khan, N.A.; Mazur, A.; Goroneskul, M.; Kruzhilko, O. Multi criteria analysis of
municipal solid waste management and resource recovery in Poland compared to other EU countries. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22053.
h ps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48026-3.
45. European Environment Agency. Bio-Waste in Europe—Turning Challenges into Opportunities; European Environment Agency:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020; p. 51. h ps://doi.org/10.2800/630938.
46. Myszograj, S. Biogas and Methane Potential of Pre-Thermally Disintegrated Bio-Waste. Energies 2019, 12, 3880.
h ps://doi.org/10.3390/en12203880.
47. Niemiec, M.; Sikora, J.; Szeląg-Sikora, A.; Gródek-Szostak, Z.; Komorowska, M. Assessment of the Possibilities for the Use of
Selected Waste in Terms of Biogas Yield and Further Use of Its Digestate in Agriculture. Materials 2022, 15, 988.
h ps://doi.org/10.3390/ma15030988.
48. Kasinath, A.; Fudala-Ksiazek, S.; Szopinska, M.; Bylinski, H.; Artichowicz, W.; Remiszewska-Skwarek, A.; Luczkiewicz, A. Bi-
omass in biogas production: Pretreatment and codigestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111509.
h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111509.
49. Sobczak, A.; Chomać-Pierzecka, E.; Kokiel, A.; Różycka, M.; Stasiak, J.; Soboń, D. Economic Conditions of Using Biodegradable
Waste for Biogas Production, Using the Example of Poland and Germany. Energies 2022, 15, 5239.
h ps://doi.org/10.3390/en15145239.
50. Bedoić, R.; Čuček, L.; Ćosić, B.; Krajnc, D.; Smoljanić, G.; Kravanja, Z.; Ljubas, D.; Pukšec, T.; Duić, N. Green biomass to biogas—
A study on anaerobic digestion of residue grass. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 700–709. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.224.
51. Kaszycki, P.; Głodniok, M.; Petryszak, P. Towards a bio-based circular economy in organic waste management and wastewater
treatment—The Polish perspective. New Biotechnol. 2021, 61, 80–89. h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.11.005.
52. Sulewski, P.; Kais, K.; Gołaś, M.; Rawa, G.; Urbańska, K.; Wąs, A. Home Bio-Waste Composting for the Circular Economy.
Energies 2021, 14, 6164. h ps://doi.org/10.3390/en14196164.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.