Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges MARK

and perspectives
Kiros Hagos, Jianpeng Zong, Dongxue Li, Chang Liu , Xiaohua Lu
⁎ ⁎

State Key Laboratory of Materials-Oriented Chemical Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Globally, there is increasing awareness that renewable energy and energy efficiency are vital for both creating
Anaerobic co-digestion new economic opportunities and controlling the environmental pollution. AD technology is the biochemical
Biogas production process of biogas production which can change the complex organic materials into a clean and renewable source
Biochemical methane potential of energy. AcoD process is a reliable alternative option to resolve the disadvantages of single substrate digestion
Biodegradability
system related to substrate characteristics and system optimization. This paper reviewed the research progress
Modeling
and challenges of AcoD technology, and the contribution of different techniques in biogas production
engineering. As the applicability and demand of the AcoD technology increases, the complexity of the system
becomes increased, and the characterization of organic materials becomes volatile which requires advanced
methods for investigation. Numerous publications have been noted that ADM1 model and its modified version
becomes the most powerful tool to optimize the AcoD process of biogas production, and indicating that the
disintegration and hydrolysis steps are the limiting factors of co-digestion process. Biochemical methane
potential (BMP) test is promising method to determine the biodegradability and decomposition rate of organic
materials. The addition of different environmentally friendly nanoparticles can improve the stability and
performance of the AcoD system. The process optimization and improvement of biogas production still seek
further investigations. Furthermore, using advanced simulation approaches and characterization methods of
organic wastes can accelerate the transformation to industrializations, and realize the significant improvement
of biogas production as a renewable source and economically feasible energy in developing countries, like China.
Finally, the review reveals, designing and developing a framework, including various aspects to improve the
biogas production is essential.

1. Introduction role in the future of renewable energy production [4–7]. However, AD

Environmental pollutions and energy insecurity are among the
greatest challenges of human beings face in the 21st century. The
mitigation of CO2 emission and related global warming demands the
exploration of alternative energy in order to reduce the dependency on
fossil fuel. Producing cost effective energy and utilizing bioenergy
efficiency is the key to improve the living standard of developing
countries [1–3]. In this regard, the energy source of biomass has
become one of the most promising futures of renewable energy sources.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a suitable and efficient technology for
organic materials management, and it is also predicted to play a vital
is a very complicated and sensitive process involving numerous
microorganisms with ultimate operational environmental conditions.
The type and structure of substrates also affect the efficiency of biogas
production. The organic materials are mainly composite of carbohy-
drates, proteins, lipids which can be degraded to simpler compounds
by microorganisms in an oxygen-free environment with the following
process stages: hydrolysis stage, acidogenesis stage, acetogenesis stage
and methanogenesis stage [8,9].
The process of biogas production from a different organic material
mainly depends on the content of substrates that can be converted into
biogas, while their chemical compositions and biodegradability are the

Abbreviations: AAS, Aqueous ammonia soaking; AcoD, Anaerobic co-digestion; AD, Anaerobic digestion; ADM1, Anaerobic digestion model no. 1; BMP, Biochemical methane
potential; BSM2, Benchmark simulation model no.2; BW, Bakery waste; COD, Chemical oxygen demand; CM, Cow manure; CSTR, Continuous stirred tank reactor; EEM, Excitation-
emission matrix spectroscopy; FTIR, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; GHG, Greenhouse gas; GISCOD, General integrated solid co-digestion; HRT, Hydraulic retention time;
HSAD, High-solid anaerobic digestion; Kdis, Disintegration kinetic parameter; LCFA, Long chain fatty acid; MS, Municipal sludge; OFMSW, Organic fraction municipal solid waste;
OLR, Overload rate; PM, Pig manure; RS, Rice straw; STR, Scientific technical report; TWAS, Thickened waste activated sludge; USR, Up flow solid reactor; VFA, Volatile fatty acid; VS,
Volatile solid; WS, Wheat straw; Xc, , Particulate fraction composite
⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: ChangLiu@njtech.edu.cn (C. Liu), xhlu@njtech.edu.cn (X. Lu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.184
Received 24 March 2016; Received in revised form 28 September 2016; Accepted 12 November 2016
Available online 30 November 2016
1364-0321/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Hagos et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496

key factors for the biogas and methane productions [10]. Determine
the degree of biodegradability, composition of the substrates, particle
size and alkaline dose helps to optimize the biogas/methane production
[11]. Several studies have been carried out on the AD process of biogas
production using different biomass as mono-substrates [12–14].
However, the direct utilization of substrates is difficult because of their
nutritional imbalance, lack of diversified microorganisms and the effect
operational factors. The co-digestion process was recommended to
overcome the difficulty, like mixing agricultural byproduct with live-
stock manure [15]. Anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD) has been widely
used to enhance the biogas production of the digesters. There have
been a number of published papers investigated the AcoD of livestock
manure with other different biomasses to improve the biogas produc-
tion rates [16–19]. AcoD is the simultaneous AD of two or more
substrates which is a promising possible option to overcome the
disadvantages of mono-digestion and improve the economic viability
of AD plants due to higher methane production.
The significant research efforts have been devoted to studying the
co-digestion of different combinations of municipal, industrial, agri-
cultural and farming waste materials [11,16,19–22]. The main advan-
tage of AcoD process based is the improvement of biogas production Fig. 1. Assessment of a number of papers published from 2000 to 2015 with the phrase
and methane yield. In addition to the high biogas production per unit of Anaerobic Co-digestion in their title (SciFinder (ACAS solution; https://scifinder.cas.
org)).
volume of digester, AcoD can give the following important beneficiaries
[15,19,23–28]: (i) improve the process stabilization, (ii) dilution of
inhibitory substances, (iii) nutrient balance, (iv) accomplishment of the industrial biogas plants needs to be adjusted for some local complex
required moisture contents in the digester feed, (v), reducing the feedstock wastes and climate [35]. And still, the problem of input
emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, (vi) synergetic effects characterizations remains as challenging in co-digestion systems. The
of microorganisms, (vii) increasing the load of biodegradable organic unbalanced distribution of the biomass is also another bottleneck in
matter, and (viii) economic advantages from the fact of sharing scaling up the co-digestion technology. The objective of this paper was
apparatus and cost. Co-digestion is the main factor like pre-treatment to review the progress AcoD of the biogas production process. In this
and type of digester to affect the biogas production. During the co- paper, the assessment of the current status of biogas production
digestion, two or more organic materials should be managed properly process, and the challenges and perspectives for further improvements
to increase biogas production as compared to mono-digestion of these were discussed. In addition, the importance of ADM1 model in the
substrates. Co-digestion can enhance biogas production from 25% to AcoD process optimization was briefly reviewed.
400% over the mono-digestion of the same substrates [20,26]. It is very
promising technology to enhance the biogas products from AD of 2. Factors in anaerobic co-digestion of biogas production
organic wastes since it can establish good synergisms in the digestion process
reactor, and it is economically feasible. However, there is a difficulty to
enhance the AcoD system in one-stage digester because the metabolic Biomass is a composition of different organic and inorganic
properties, nutritional requirements, growth rates and optimum opera- materials. To optimize the AcoD process of biogas production technol-
tional factors are significantly different [21,22]. The two-stage system ogy, the chemical composition, the operational parameters (tempera-
of AD of biogas production appears to be a more efficient process ture, pH, loading rate etc), biodegradability, bioaccessibility and
compared to a one-stage system, and have been applied to solve the bioavailability, characterization of substrates are the crucial para-
problems [29,30]. In spite of its advantages, AcoD system is a meters. It is also essential to deal with these parameters to develop
challenging organic waste treatment process, and the stability and mathematical models and scale up the system to an industrial level.
optimization problems cannot solve yet even using two-stage technol-
ogies. 2.1. Chemical compositions of the substrates
Mathematical modeling of AcoD process is needed to predict the
impact of the mixing ratio of the two or more organic materials, loading Characterizing the different chemical compositions of substrates is
rates, the selection method of substrates, and minimize the energy helpful to identify the appropriate substrates for anaerobic co-diges-
consumption and time during the process [24,31,32]. Mathematical tions. The substrates contain the whole range of simple and complex
models become a crucial tool to predict the performance of the organic matters which can use in the AD process. Depending on their
anaerobic co-digestion, optimize the production, and avoid process sources (agricultural farming and animal manure, municipal, food and
failure and instability [33]. Based on this fact, the anaerobic the industrial wastes), specific organic compounds may predominate,
Anaerobic Digestion Model no.1(ADM1), which was developed by although most of the time the exact composition of the substrates is
IWA group for wastewater treatment [34]. ADM1 is the most powerful difficult to know. Chemical analysis of the substrates, while possible,
and extensible mathematical model and it can give a better under- provides slightly useful information for the development of the
standing of operational prediction and process optimization about the technological approaches to the substrate treatment and utilization in
AcoD process and its most favorable working environment. AcoD process. Classifying the substrates according to their biochemical
Nowadays, the AcoD process becomes a hot research area in biogas compositions can be useful to evaluate the bioaccessibility, biodegrad-
production technology [23,24]. Within the last fifteen years, the ability, and bioavailability of substrates.
publications about AcoD of biogas production show a dramatic
increment as shown in Fig. 1. This indicates that the feasibility and 2.1.1. Carbohydrate-rich organic materials
applicability of AcoD technology in the enhancement of biogas Carbohydrates (commonly sugars) are present in all substrates with
production and environmental protection. However, the difference in different proportions. Food waste (including waste from the sugar
waste feedstock composition, optimal contributions in the pilot and industry, and fruit and vegetable processing) is enriched with simple

1486
K. Hagos et al.
sugars and disaccharides, which are easily decomposed by methano-
genesis communities with the formation of volatile fatty acids (VFA).
High levels of simple sugars may result, rapid VFA accumulation in the
reactor, decreased pH, and suppression of methanogenesis. For the
balanced operation of anaerobic reactors, mixing the feedstock contain-
ing high amounts of simple carbohydrates with waste with a lower
content of easily degradable organic components is recommended [36].
All plants-derived materials are carbohydrate rich substrates.
Physicochemical or biological pre-treatment of this material is
required for its efficient co-digestion process [37,38]. Cellulose is the
most common organic compound on earth and represents a large
potential for biogas production, in spite of its degrading difficulty.
Starch is the commonest polysaccharides in major dietary items such
as rice, pasta, and potatoes. It consists of straight or branched chains of
glucose and is digested relatively easily in the biogas process.
Applications of agricultural wastes without pre-treatment or mixing
with other livestock wastes results in a low biogas yield due to the high
values of C/N ratio and lignin content. Moreover, this material may be
contaminated by pesticide and herbicide residues, which may affect the
dynamics of the process. [36,39–42]. The AcoD process can improve
the digestibility of the cellulose and hemicelluloses, and the buffering
effects of ammonia and VFA [43]. Even though the lignocellulosic
biomasses are abundant resources, they are still challenging due to
their low biogas production and potential instability.
2.1.2. Protein rich organic materials
Alike to the carbohydrates, proteins can found in all organic
substrates. Slaughterhouse waste, pig and chicken manure, and stillage
from ethanol industry are examples of organic wastes with high protein
content. Domestic wastewater and food waste also contain protein, but
in lower amounts. Protein rich substrates are rich in energy and
produce a relatively high amount of methane in the biogas [41,44].
The Common to all 20 different amino acids in proteins is that they
have an amine group (−NH2). Ammonia and ammonium are in
equilibrium with each other to maintain the stability of the process
which strongly depends on the operational factors (pH and tempera-
ture). Microbial degradation of proteins results in the release of
ammonium ions, which are strong inhibitors of methanogenic bacteria.
At high concentrations, ammonia (not ammonium) can inhibit micro-
organism. When the concentration of the ammonia begins to increase,
it leads to the process instability and system failure [45]. Suitable co-
substrates and adjustment of C/N ratio to its optimum value or culture
enrichment in the system can minimize this problem.
2.1.3. Fat rich organic materials
Considerable amounts of fat rich waste are produced by food
processing industry, wastewater of slaughterhouses, the edible oil
industry, the dairy products industry and olive oil mills. The organic
materials with high fat content used for high biogas production by AD
process, because they are easily degradable. However, with high
concentrations, lipids cause different types of problems in anaerobic
digesters, including blocking, adsorption to biomass (causing mass
transfer problems) and microbial inhibition. Hence, in the presence of
long-chain fatty acids (LCFA), the system may become malfunction
[41,46–48]. The degradation of triglycerides produces LCFAs (over 12
carbon atoms) and glycerol. Glycerol is rapidly converted to biogas,
while decomposition of LCFAs is a more complex process. Some LCFAs
in high concentration may inhibit the activity of anaerobic microorgan-
isms. Stearic and oleic acids have a negative impact on methanogenesis
stage at the value of 0.2–0.5 gL−1 [39,46]. LCFA group also detergent
properties which may cause foaming, especially at elevated tempera-
ture [44]. The accumulation of LCFAs during the AcoD process can
cause inhibition of the system by producing toxic elements [49]. Mixing
carbohydrate-rich materials with the fat-rich materials (slowly degrad-
able and fast degradable) are advantageous in nutrition balance,
microorganism enrichment, reducing the accumulation of inhibitors,
1487
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
increase the stability, high efficiency of biogas production and methane
yield.
2.2. Temperature
Temperature is one of the main factors for survival of microorgan-
isms during AcoD process. Temperature range is the main technique to
differentiate different digestion process. There are three operational
ranges can be used in anaerobic digester: psychrophilic (25 °C),
mesophilic(around 35 °C) and thermophilic (around 55 °C) [50].
Microorganisms grow best at temperature ranges of mesophilic and
thermophilic. Generally, an increased temperature has a positive effect
on the metabolic rate of microorganisms and accelerates the digestion
processes, but the thermophilic process is harder to control and needs
more energy to maintain the constant temperature of the reactor. The
temperature variation can affect the microbial growth and will reduce
the production of biogas in a significant way [50,51]. Co-digestion
process with a high concentration of ammonia is unstable in the
thermophilic temperature range [39]. In general, the mesophilic
process often involves a diversity of microorganisms and more stable
compared to thermophilic process since fewer varieties of microorgan-
ism are available and active in thermophilic ranges [52]. The meso-
philic bacteria cannot survive in the thermophilic ranges of tempera-
ture, whereas thermophilic bacteria can survive in mesophilic ranges of
temperature, but their growth rate is slow [36]. Temperature is the
important parameter for the microorganisms to grow based on the
optimum requirement and to improve the biogas production.
2.3. pH value
The pH value is one of the main operational factors which greatly
affect the digestion process. In spite of some organisms, most micro-
organisms prefer a neutral pH range. In the biogas production process,
there are multi-organism which requires different optimal pH growth.
The most favorable range of pH to obtain maximal biogas production in
AD is 6.8–7.2 [52]. In the AD process, methanogenesis microorgan-
isms are very sensitive to pH variations and prefer a pH around 7.0.
Acidogenesis microorganisms are relatively less sensitive to pH and are
tolerable to the range of 4.0–8.5. However, the optimal pH for
hydrolysis and acidogenesis is between 5.5 and 6.5 [44,50]. The
optimum pH value is one main reason to separate some digesters into
two-phase as acidogenic phase and methanogenesis phase [50,53]. The
pH value is also the important factor because it influences the
proportion of ionized and non-ionized forms (excessive hydrogen
sulfide, fatty acids, and ammonia are toxic in their non-ionized forms)
[54]. Generally, the pH value indicates a healthy environment for the
digester's microorganisms [55–58]. The co-digestion can enable stable
pH value by avoiding the extreme acidification condition. The change
of the pH value of the mixed raw materials in the co-digestion is more
stable and easier to maintain in optimum pH range during the
digestion process compared to the single substrate digestion [59].
2.4. Biodegradability and Bioaccessibility
Physical decomposition is when the materials broke down into
smaller pieces. Biodegradation is the process of chemical decomposi-
tion performed by microorganisms. Biodegradability is the property of
a material to safely biologically degrade in the system to be consumed
by microorganisms in anaerobic conditions. There are different che-
mical, physical and physiological factors in the environment that affect
the biodegradation of organic compounds, such as bioavailability,
bioaccessibility, temperature, pH, moisture, concentrations. Due to
the complex structure of organic materials, bioavailability and bioac-
cessibility are mainly defined for the organic materials by their access
to be degraded by microorganisms, depending on the digestion time,
hydrolytic activity and the pre-treatment applied to the organic
K. Hagos et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496

materials [60]. Anaerobic biodegradation is a complex process, but it is Table 1

essential for optimal growth of microorganisms [61]. In AcoD system, Different substrates categorized into lower and higher value of C/N ratio [50,51,77–80].
the disintegration and hydrolysis steps of the biomass are the limiting
Relatively lower C/N value materials Relatively higher C/N value
and responsible factors for the biodegradability, bioaccessibility, and materials
degradation rates [62,63]. Traditionally, characterization of both
factors can be obtained from the batch test using biochemical methane Substrates/materials C/N ratio Substrates/materials C/N ratio
potential (BMP) experiments. The experimental data were obtained by
Cow dung 16–25 Rice straw 51–67
BMP lab tests and used to validate ADM1 model which proposed as a Poultry manure 5–15 Wheat straw 50–150
strong application for biodegradability and bioaccessibility prediction Pig manure 6–14 Sugar cane bagasse 140–150
[64]. However, there is no relevant method to determine both Sheep dung 30–33 Corn stalks/straw 50–56
biodegradability and bioaccessibility for hydrolysis step prediction. Horse manure 20–25 Oat straw 48–50
Kitchen waste 25–29 Sugar beet/sugar 35–40
foliage
Fruits and vegetable waste 7–35 Fallen leaves 50–53
3. Progresses and challenges of anaerobic co-digestion
Food waste 3–17 Seaweed 70–79
process Peanut shoots/hulls 20–31 Algae 75–100
Waste cereals 16–40 Sawdust 200–500
The AcoD is the combined treatment of various feedstock wastes Grass/grass trimmings 12–16 Potatoes 35–60
alfalfa 12–17
with complementary characteristics. Co-digestion of the agricultural
Slaughterhouse waste 22–37
by-product with livestock manure and food waste is a promising Goat manure 10–17
process for biogas production and environmental protection. Mixed food wastes 15–32
However, the amount and the quality of the nutrients in different
organic materials can vary depending on their species, growth condi-
tions, age, the environment and types of feed for animals [65]. The with nitrogen rich byproducts, like animal manure and kitchen wastes,
characteristics and energy potential of different substrates are quite can improve the process stability, the nutrient required for microbial
different based nature and availability, which makes the selection of and the biogas production [51,69,72,73]. The biodegradability and
suitable substrates for co-digestion complicated process. Improvement availability of the different substrates are also essential to improve the
mechanisms of co-digestion have practical problems related to the biogas production rate using co-digestion process [54,74]. The main
characterization of the digester feedstock, and the enzymatic disinte- constraint of livestock by-products (as given in Table 1) is the
gration and hydrolysis steps. The responsible step for low/high imbalance of nutrient contents, especially the low carbon to nitrogen
biodegradability and thus slow/fast digestion rate in AD process is ratio which decreases the microorganism activity. The AD process is
the hydrolysis step [31,62]. In co-digestion process, it is important to stable at the optimum value of the carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio in the
consider separate hydrolysis rates for each particulate component from range 20–30, which is sufficient to cover predictable energy needs
each substrate because the hydrolysis rates vary significantly. The beside of the other factors [51,75,76]. Substrates which have an
separate characterization and phasing of the co-digested substrate optimum C/N ratio only can fulfill the probable nutritional necessity
hydrolysis allowed the optimization of biogas production [66,67]. The of the microorganisms. Thus, while selecting substrates for co-diges-
conversion pathway of AcoD process is given in Fig. 2. Therefore, tion, it is obvious that C/N one main factor to increasing the
characterization of the different chemical composition of substrates is performance of the AcoD process of biogas production. The C/N ratios
helpful to select for co-digestion process and to predict the whole AcoD of different substrates are given in Table 1. However, it is difficult to say
process for biogas production using a mathematical model. precisely what ratio is optimal because the optimum value of C/N ratio
The most agricultural biogas plants possess a great potential for the may be affected by different factors such as the substrate type,
renewable energy and technology improvement [69,70], the direct composition of trace elements, chemical composition, and biodegrad-
utilization of agricultural wastes by microorganisms is difficult because ability. When the C/N ratio becomes higher or lower from the optimum
of their unbalanced macronutrients (e.g. C/N) and the complex value, it causes the instability, failure of the system and reduction of
lignocellulosic structure [12,71]. Mixing the carbon-rich substrates biogas production. The co-substrates are characterized by the high C/N

Fig. 2. Conversion pathway of organic material during anaerobic co-digestion process and modeling
(adapted from Batsone et al. [68]).

1488
K. Hagos et al.
ratio, which has the poor buffer capacity and produces large amounts of
volatile fatty acids during the fermentation process. On the other side,
the co-substrates with low values C/N ratio have high buffer capacity
and during the fermentation process, the concentration of ammonia
increased and inhibit the microbial growth of the system. In addition,
the N2O emissions of the effluent are dependent on C/N ratio [35]. The
emissions increase as C/N ratio decreases and decrease when the C/N
increases.
The composition of the material is very important for microorgan-
ism growth in the biogas production process and also for the process
stability. The substrates must meet the nutritional requirements for the
microorganisms, in terms of energy resource and various components
needed for microorganism growth [36]. In the case of decomposition of
organic materials in biogas production process, the ratio of carbon to
nitrogen (C/N ratio) is one of the main important parameters and
critically affects the whole process [81]. For agricultural by-products,
co-digestion process is considered more economic than pre-treatments
and promising method to improve the biogas production. The co-
digestion of nitrogen-rich substrates such as animal manure (eg.,
chicken waste, and pig manure) with carbon-rich biomass(e.g., rice
straw) could balance the C/N ratio and further increase the volumetric
biogas production rate and biogas yield [69,72] (as shown in Fig. 3). A
system with highly diversified microorganisms in organic materials
treatment provides more stable methanogenesis under fluctuating
environmental conditions [44]. The mixing of different substrates
improves the nutrients in the influent substrates and increases the
growth rate of microorganisms, and also enhance the metabolic
regulation of the system [82]. The co-digestion between glycerine and
pig manure shows 215 mL CH4 /gCOD methane production, which is
around 125% higher than the mono-digested of pig manure. The
maximum specific growth rates of the microorganisms are related to
the optimum specific substrate utilization rate [83,84]. Continued
studies have been reported on co-digestion of pig manure with
cultivated algae [85], dairy wastewater with cattle manure [86], sewage
sludge with glycerol [87], in different operating conditions which are
confirmed that the biogas production is improved comparing with
single substrate feed. The AcoD technology helps to obtain enhanced
nutritional balance in the system and reduces the possibility of lipids
and ammonia inhibiting the digestion environment. Moreover, the
coexistence of different types of organic wastes in the same geographic
area enables integrated management, offering considerable environ-
mental benefits, e.g. energy saving, recycling of energy in agriculture,
and reduction of CO2 emission [22]. Recently, the co-digestions of
cyanide containing cassava pulp with pig manure [88], sorghum stem
Fig. 3. Different organic materials for anaerobic co-digestion system of biogas produc-
tion process.
1489
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
with cow manure [89], poultry dropping and Carica papaya peels [90],
have reported. All these reports show that the improvement of biogas
production and the stability of the system. Zhang, Z. et al. [89]
conducted using the high-solid anaerobic digestion (HSAD) to enhance
the biogas production and achieved the biogas yield of 478 mL/gVS at a
C/N ratio of 25. The adding of CM helped to maintain a constant pH
but its strong buffering capacity is not directly related to the C/N ratio.
On the other side, Glanpracha, N. et al. [88] reported the mesophilic
AcoD of cyanide containing cassava-pulp and PM with C/N ratio of
35:1. They obtained the optimum OLR is 6 kg VS/m3d and the
optimum gas production rate, methane yield and VS removal are
4.1 L/L d, 0.38 m3/kg VSadded and 82% respectively. However, incom-
plete solubilization of organic particulate matter was observed and
system failure occurred due to VFA accumulation beyond the optimum
OLR. Hence, the database of the key parameters and developing and
designing a general model are required to control optimal operating
environment of co-digestion system.
The overall degradation of organic materials decrease/inhibited due
to the absence of accumulated microorganisms and the presences of
inhibiting materials [91,92]. Some inhibiting materials are already
present in the organic substrate and they can also be generated during
the digestion process. The impact of using different organic and
inorganic nanoparticles in relation to different biomass and their
environmental suitability should be considered [26]. Adding organic
nanomaterials as additives for improving the degradation of organic
wastes and biogas production are recommended [93]. Zeolite, one of
the environmentally friendly inorganic additive materials, is used to
enhance the performances of AcoD. Because of its conducive char-
acteristic for microorganisms’ adhesives, zeolite has widely been used
as ion exchangers for the removals of ammonium and absorbs heavy
metals, which are toxic for microorganisms in AcoD process [94,95].
Clinoptilolite (main kind of zeolite), which is abundant in nature, has a
large surface area and fine structure, small grain size and layer upon
layer between the accumulation. These properties are favorable to
absorb of the heavy metals that are toxic to microbial organisms (Cu,
Cd, Zn), carry microorganisms on the surface of the fixed zeolite as well
as adsorb organic molecules and make flexible the trace elements in the
AcoD process [93–96]. Wang et al. [95] have studied the effect of
clinoptilolite zeolite on the entire AcoD process of feces with kitchen
wastes. They found that the biogas production increase from 44.10–
65.3%. The natural zeolite (clinoptilolite) maintained pH in its
optimum value (7.0–7.5) by inhibiting the ammonium and improve
the destruction of VFAs in the system. In addition to the enhancement
of biogas production, the addition of clinoptilolite shortens the lag
phase of co-digestion, improve the organic carbon matter destruction
and control the optimal C/N ratio. Another method has also been
investigated for recovery of ammonia inhibition by diluting the organic
materials with water [97], but it is not economically feasible for large
reactor due to the size and high cost for operational constructions.
Including the nanoparticles (e.g. activated carbon, zeolites, polymers)
in system designing can improve the biogas production and more
economically feasible.
There is a large discrepancy of biogas production performance
between lab scale and industrial scale biogas plants in spite of the social
and economic factors. These discrepancies occur, in most cases,
because of the uncertainty of feedstock wastes and environmental
conditions in a given area, where the AD biogas production processes
take place. The uneven distribution of substrate causes a difficulty for
suitability of co-digestion to achieve the optimal biogas production that
required by the biogas plants. There are different types of organic
wastes and biomass, which are suitable for AcoD. But the digestion
mechanism not yet fully understood due to the high complexity of the
process. Assessments of the community composition, identifying their
dynamic properties, and evaluating biodegradability during the diges-
tion process can further illustrate the working mechanism of the
system (as reviewed by Apples L. et al. [4]). Therefore, to overcome
K. Hagos et al.
the challenges and complexities of AcoD process, design appropriate
reactors, developing characterization methods, categorizing organic
materials based on their biodegradability, accessibility and availability
are very important. Some accurate characterization methods have been
reported based on the chemical extraction to characterize the single
and co-digestion system: such as infrared spectroscopy [98], fluores-
cence spectroscopy [99], three-dimensional extraction matrix (EEM)
fluorescence [100] and Fourier transform infrared(FTIR) spectroscopy
[101]. These methods used to analyze the intrinsic biodegradability and
characteristic of heterogeneous of organic materials. Recently, Song Z.
et al. [102] reported the pre-treatment of co-substrates using wet-state
H2O2 can improve effectively the biodegradability and methane yield
from wheat straw (WS) and cattle manure (CM). During the co-
digestion process, the methanogenic community shifted from the
acetoclastic methanogens to the hydrogenotrophic methanogens which
are most common in agricultural wastes. This method may decrease the
concentration of VFA and create a conducive environment and increase
substrate biodegradation to improve the biogas production rate.
Several AcoD studies have been carried out in batch experiments, but
for industrial applications, the continuous system considering the
organic loading rate (OLR) [43,103] is the main area and needs further
investigation.
3.1. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments
The biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments [74] have
been broadly used to determine the anaerobic biodegradability, poten-
tial efficiency, and concentration of organics in different feedstocks that
can be converted by anaerobic digestion to methane [104,105]. BMP
experiments can be used to determine: (i) the amount organics in the
substrates that can be converted to methane (biogas) in a given specific
time, (ii) remaining organic material for further management, (iii) the
amount of non-biodegradable remain after treatment and (iv) to assess
the potential efficiency of the process for a given combination of
substrates. It can also give essential information to researchers to
determine the most efficient way of mixing substrates for co-digestion
process. Previous studies indicate that the co-digestion, food wastes as
a co-digestion organic material can greatly improve the biogas and
methane production [106–108]. Sol Lisoa et al. [109] conducted the
co-digestion of four food processing wastes with manure by applying
BMP experiments. The methane production shows an improvement
from 67–2940% compared with the result of manure only. This
demonstrates how the BMP experiments provide the important in-
formation about the organic materials and the feasibility of the testing
system.
As the application and importance of AcoD process increase, it is
necessary to find the mechanism to assess the biodegradability and bio-
availability of substrates and the biogas production performance. In
this case, BMP experiments can give relevant information to estimate
the degradation related parameters and hydrolysis rates [110,111]. The
BMP experiments have been performed to characterizing the phyico-
Fig. 4. The phase separation of Anaerobic co-digestion process and modeling.
1490
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
chemical parameters at the mesophilic temperature in co-digestion
with different mixing ratios, and in the single substrate systems as well.
The normalized methane and biogas production shows an improve-
ment up to 47% with respect to each sewage sludge waste [112]. AcoD
of solid waste with mixed OFMSWs can improve the biodegradability
and nutrient balance of the digestion system. Labatut et al. [104]
conducted the co-digestion of dry manure with food wastes shows the
productions of biogas and methane increased as compared with dry
manure only, and achieved more than 90% agreement with the
theoretical value. The information given by BMP tests is valuable for
characterizing and evaluating the biodegradability and potential effi-
ciency substrates, and for optimal design and performance of AcoD
process. BMP tests are promising to characterize parameters and
evaluate the improvement in ultimate methane/biogas production
since the composition of different organic substrates has a great impact
on anaerobic bioaccessibility and biodegradability for AcoD technology
[95]. In addition, BMP tests can provide a key database of AcoD
process parameters to advance the modeling and utilizing different
biomasses in AD and help to avoid the possible causes of synergism
observed in co-digestion mixtures [25,113]. The BMP tests are useful
method to determine the suitability of substrates for the co-digestion
process of biogas production [112–114]. This indicates that the BMP
tests can provide the database of the key bio-digestion parameters to
advance the modeling and utilization of biomass. One of the newest
methods used for pre-treatment of co-digestion is the alkaline solution
of H2O2, and used mostly for biomass delignification. Two reports have
reported recently by Abudi et al. [115,116] which deal about pre-
treatment of the co-digestion thickened waste activated sludge (TWAS)
with rice straw (RS) using the thermal/thermo-alkaline (NaOH/H2O2)
in BMP experiments. They used the modified Gompertz model to
predict the biogas yield and evaluate the kinetic parameters. The
estimated parameters indicate that the pre-treatments and the co-
digestion markedly improve the biogas production rate, but they didn’t
consider the pre-treatment expense.
3.2. Two-stage anaerobic co-digestion process
AcoD system is a challenging organic waste treatment technology.
AD process compromises four steps: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, aceto-
genesis, and methanogenesis. Based on the microorganisms’ growth
rate and environmental response, the process can split into acidogen-
esis and methanogenesis stages (as given in Fig. 4). This leads to design
and develop two-stage AD process which was first proposed by Pohland
and Ghosh [117]. The ability to predict and control how these
Bioprocess stages distribute between the reactor stages is vital to
understand and optimize the digestion system. The two-stage AD
system consists of a hydrolysis-acidogenesis stage followed by the
methanogenesis stage. The advantages of two-stage system over single-
stage reactor: (i) increase stability with better pH control; (ii) higher
loading rate; (ii) increase specific activity methanogens resulting in a
higher methane yield; (iv) increase VS/COD reduction efficiencies and
K. Hagos et al.
(v) high potential for pathogens controlling [118–122]. Different
researchers studied the two-stage AcoD process and demonstrated its
potential advantages compared to a single stage. The two-stage system
is recommended for treatment of different organic wastes which
contain more lipid contents [108,123–125]. However, some disadvan-
tages of two-stage reactor are reported, such as (i) hydrogen build-up
resulting in inhibition of acid-forming bacteria; (ii) elimination of
possible interdependent nutrient requirements for the methane form-
ing bacteria; (iii) technical complexity and (iv) higher costs to start up
[126,127].
The potential advantages of two-stage digestion reactor permit the
selection and improvements of different microorganisms in each stage
based on the specific requirement of operational factors. The hydraulic
retention time (HRT) for acidogenesis and methanogenesis stages is
different depending on operating temperature. The optimum HRT for
co-digestion of vegetable oil with pig manure [123], olive mill waste-
water with olive mill solid wastewater [128], food waste with sewage
sludge [129], and agro-industrial wastes [130] has reported 1–5 days
for acidogenic phase and 20–25 days for methanogenesis phase. These
reports confirmed that the two-stage AcoD process shows a stable
performance of pH or buffering capacity, alkalinity and methane
productions. However, Li et al. [108] conducted at lab scale two-stage
AcoD of food waste with dairy manure in mesophilic condition and
obtained a maximum biogas production 1 and 12 days of HRT for
acidogenesis and methanogenesis stages respectively. Therefore, the
optimum HRT can differ for different co-digestion process depending
on the preferable temperature range and types of microorganisms.
Generally, the overall efficiency of the two-stage process depends on
its stability and the controlling mechanism [131]. The two-stage
reactor may be the better means to investigate the contribution of
the two paths (Acetate path and hydrogen path as shown in Fig. 4) for
biogas production in the Co-digestion system. The acetate path is the
acetate degrading path which consists of the slow growth rate and most
sensitive organisms, whereas, 70% of the methane produced through
this route. On the other hand, the hydrogen path is the H2 utilizing
path which contains the high growth rate and less sensitive organism,
and the 30% of the methane produced through this route [132]. The
two stage AcoD allows section and improvement of different micro-
organisms in each reactor and increase the stability of the whole
process by controlling the acidification phase in the first reactor and
hence avoiding the overloading and inhibition of the methanogenic
population in the second reactor. Furthermore, the first stage of
acidogenesis may be optimized to generate biohydrogen and enhance
the methane production in the second stage. Hydrogen production in
AD process is the result of acidogenesis and acetogenesis in the
biotransformation of organic wastes VFAs, lactic acid, and alcohol
which can maintain stable the feed organic wastes. The two-stage
system can solve the problem relate to VFA inhibition, and also help to
study the microbial populations and variations in the system, in spite of
the high cost of operation and complicated facilities. Recently, Zahedi
et al. [133] conducted a two-phase thermophilic AcoD process from
bio-waste and confirmed that the microbial community in the first
phase, the dominant group are the Clostridium sporogenesisis,
whereas, Methanobacteriales are the dominant group in the second
phase. However, the technological and economic feasibility of two-
pahse AcoD process needs further investigation.
4. Modeling of anaerobic co-digestion process
For decades, the AcoD process has attracted the attention of many
researchers. Predicting the AcoD process is important to i) to save time
and increase resources utilization efficiency, ii) transform from lab-
scale to industrial scale and iii) design the system including appropriate
operational factors. However, the main problem of modeling the AcoD
process is the required data for system classification and prediction.
The importance of mathematical models has become a standard
1491
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
practice in biogas plant design, operational control, prediction and
optimization. AD process modeling is a mature and well-established
field, mainly conducted by a dynamic model structure of the funda-
mental processes. However, the level and complexity of biochemical,
and physico-chemical reactions involved in AcoD make them challen-
ging for the first practitioner to understand adequately the complicated
details of the model. Based on this fact, different models have been
developed and used for simulation tools.
Although different models have been developed to predict and
control the anaerobic digestion process, the Anaerobic Digestion Model
no.1(ADM1), which was developed by IWA group for wastewater
treatment [34], is the most powerful, flexible and easily extensible
model [68]. It is the first time and the most advanced model which is
applicable for predicting and controlling biogas production and the
dynamic processes involved. ADM1 is a structured model which
consists of biochemical processes (disintegration; hydrolysis, acido-
genic, acetogenic and methanogenic), physicochemical processes (li-
quid-gas processes (liquid-gas transfer) and liquid-liquid processes
(ion association/dissociation)) are included in the model (as shown in
Fig. 2). Beside its original objective, the ADM1 became a powerful tool
to predict and control the optimization of AD processes of biogas
production [134]. ADM1 is a dynamic modeling and very useful tool for
describing the existing systems and has a capacity to predict the overall
processes of AD system [135–140]. The ADM1 has been modified and
used by numbers of researchers to simulate different types of biogas
production processes from different substrates for both lab and full-
scales of biogas plants; for example, a two-stage digester with a
thermophilic pre-treatment step and a mesophilic main step, co-
digestion of organic waste with activated sludge, co-digestion of cattle
manure and agricultural byproducts, dry digestion of the organic
fraction of municipal wastes [138,141–144]. Gali et al. [145] reported
AcoD of agricultural byproducts shows two promising points: i)
substrate characterization must be divided into carbohydrates, pro-
teins, lipids and inert, and ii) the hydrolysis and disintegration steps
are the main limiting factors in the co-digestion process ADM1 model.
The challenging part of the co-digestion process is the proportion-
ality of the different parameters. The modified ADM1 model can
predict parameters: VFA, propionic acid, biogas production rate, the
hydrogen gas, the effect of HRT, the substrates ratio, the biogas
production, alkalinity, ammonium nitrogen concentration to improve
the process efficiency of AcoD process [67,146,147]. It can also predict
the VFA concentration relatively accurate by considering the oxidation
rates which cause the overestimation. Accumulation of VFA causes the
process instability and failure. The modified ADM1 has reported which
can predict accurately the impact of co-digestion of bakery waste (BW)
with municipal sludge (MS). The stability of the digestion process is
achieved until the ratio range of 37–40% BW:60–63%MS [148]. The
mathematical modeling reduces the failure risks related to the AD
process and also help to minimize the risk of imbalance and instability
in the digestion process of lab and full-scale plants. However, char-
acterizing the substrate composition is very complex, since the
agricultural byproducts are rich in fiber materials (mainly cellulose,
hemicelluloses, and lignin). The mathematical predictions of the
performance of AcoD of agricultural byproduct with different sub-
strates, is vital for the appropriate process design and maintain the
stability of the system. Moreover, the ADM1 model has a great diversity
of VS/COD-based inputs; most of them cannot be extracted easily from
organic material characterizations. Based on the extended Weender
analysis, Klimiuk, E. et al. [149] studied the characterization of
fractionation of particulate and soluble organic matter in a mixture
of maize silage and cattle manure (49:51% in VS). The content of
individual particulate fraction composition (Xc) (in kg COD/kg COD)
is: 0.5 carbohydrates, 0.111 proteins, 0.048 lipids and 0.341 inerts.
And also based on material balance, the concentrations of carbon and
nitrogen in Xc are 0.0326 kmol C kg-1COD and 0.0018 kmol N kg−1
COD respectively. However, there does not provide clear data about the
K. Hagos et al.
soluble components in substrates, and due to the fact that the values of
different components variances with the matrix of the steady-state
input variables, it is difficult to compare with literatures. So this work
needs further investigations. Jurado et al. [150] reported that the
modification of the hydrolysis kinetics of carbohydrates, proteins, and
lipids estimated to simulate the swine manure with aqueous ammonia
soaking (AAS) swine manure fibers. The result shows a good agreement
with the experimental data and the AAS directly affects the hydrolysis/
disintegration step of the system. Here, the LCFA which is a key factor
in anaerobic digestion is ignored in this model. The important point
which must be noticed is that missing of any parameter, can severely
affect the performance of AcoD system. Thus, it is recommended to
integrate BMP experimental data with ADM1 model for optimization of
biogas productions [151]. However, to the authors’ knowledge, very
few reports have been published on the prediction of biodegradability
and ADM1 model variable characterization. And no reported paper was
found on using BMP tests for ADM1 modeling of AcoD technologies.
The main difference in co-substrates compositions pretense a
challenge for modeling AcoD process since the model parameters
should be calibrated accordingly. For dynamic simulations and evalua-
tion of operational strategies, flexibility in substrate composition is
essential. There are several kinds of literature which deal how to
modify ADM1 for AcoD process simulation in lab and industrial-scales.
The simplest approach is to characterize the real substrate mix. Derbal
et al. [152] developed a modified model successfully, based on the
standard procedure of original ADM1 to obtain the stoichiometric
composition of complex particulate COD (Xc). This approach is
successful in terms of model prediction, but it lacks flexibility. The
General Integrated Solid Waste Co-Digestion model (GISCOD) devel-
oped by Zaher et al. [67] is a powerful simulation tool. The model was
developed in MATLAB/SIMULINK, which more general and flexible
method for AcoD process simulation. The main drawback of GISCOD is
a large number of states and parameters required where the multiple
complex organic materials are fed. The major challenging problem for
co-digestion process is input characterization. The feasibility of char-
acterization method for engineering purposes is determined by sim-
plicity, transparency, affordability and fit for purpose of accuracy [153].
Recently, AcoD has been implemented for the first time in BSM2 [154]
in plant-wide. They used GISCOD model for predicting AcoD process
complemented by a Gaussian LCFA inhibition function. They devel-
oped a new input model for fractionation of COD based on feasible and
affordable tests, and the performance was performed with a dynamic
feed mix. They also confirmed that the applicability of the simulation to
assess cost-benefit and the plant-wide effects of AcoD. However, the
high nitrogen content in substrate increased ammonia inhibition in the
AcoD process, leading to lower reactor performance. The sensitivity
analysis of co-substrates characteristics justified that the biodegrad-
ability of COD, protein and lipid fractions of particulate biodegradable
COD are the two most important state variables for reactor stability
and methane production [153]. This may be the reason why different
input substrates cause the different modes of system failure.
Finally, One of the modified versions of ADM1 and more applicable
for large-scale biogas plants is ADM1xp which was proposed by Wett
et al. [155]. The modified description of organic material led to the
degradation pathways for disintegration and hydrolysis is given in
SIMBA# manual reference for biogas [156]. The ADM1xp assumes a
low rate of disintegration and high hydrolysis constants for carbohy-
drates, proteins, and lipids. One of the most important processes in the
ADM1xp is the decay of biomass, responsible for producing particulate
organic matter. The problem for co-substrates during the simulation is
disintegration kinetic parameters. Katarzyna et al. [132] reported that
the calibration revealed that the disintegration kinetic (Kdis) proceeded
slowly, which is 0.1 d−1 and much lower than the original value in
ADM1. They used the generic algorithm optimization procedure, and
the SIMBA 6.6 software package (ifak system GmbH, Germany),
working in MATLAB/SIMULINK (MathWork, USA) package as a
1492
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
simulation tool. Typically ammonia and hydrogen inhibitions for
acetoclastic methanogenesis and acetogenesis are calibrated in
ADM1xp. The problem is that the enrichment of volatile organic acids
cannot be well described quantitatively. This model includes the
maximum growth rates, the decay rates, and inhibition constants as
temperature dependent, despite this; the ADM1xp model is similarly
complex to the original ADM1 model. Including the microorganisms’
population data in the co-digestion, there are a large number of
dependent and independent components. ADM1 model and its mod-
ified version cannot differentiate the different performance of micro-
organisms in the same process. The complexity and inflexibility of
fractionating and characterizing of all feed substrates remain challen-
ging. Thus, further investigation of characterization techniques and
parameter calibrations of the model is necessary.
Most biological and chemical anaerobic oxidation and methano-
genic reactions which take place during the AD process are character-
ized by a low Gibbs energy exchange (ΔG~0), mainly due to the absence
of strong external electron acceptors such as oxygen. This low-energy
exchange makes some key reactions during AD near to thermodynamic
equilibrium [157]. The thermodynamic equilibrium model shows there
is a possibility that the bioprocesses occur near the equilibrium and it
should include the development of biokinetic models of AD process
[157]. Nevertheless, in the dynamic modeling such as ADM1 modeling,
the thermodynamic aspects of the system have been ignored, and the
optimization and stability problems of digestion system are not solved
yet. Therefore, studying the thermodynamic aspects (considering the
activity coefficient) of co-digestion processes and including in ADM1
modeling may improve the controlling mechanisms of biogas produc-
tion, and also simplify the complexity of the AcoD process. Therefore,
the dynamic modeling, integrating with the thermodynamic aspect of
AcoD process should be considered.
5. Anaerobic co-digestion process of biogas production in
China
Developments of renewal energy plants are achieving high levels of
penetration in many countries. China led the world in new renewable
power capacity installed in 2014 [158]. Biogas, especially for develop-
ing countries, has a great potential in terms of accessibility of
biomasses, reducing environmental impacts and providing reliable
energy to improve the living style. China is a huge agricultural country
that is tremendously rich in organic waste resources. There is abundant
of agricultural waste resources, which contain 800 million tons of crop
straws [159] and 3 billion tons of livestock manure per year according
to the report of Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) [160], and 300 million
tons of municipal wastes [161]. All these organic by-products are the
main sources of the environmental pollution. The government has
announced the biogas policy to stimulate and promote the transforma-
tion of biogas generation [162] and achieved breakthroughs in the
construction and Standardizing household-scaled biogas process tech-
nologies depending on the different climates, materials and applica-
tions [163]. However, the implementation of AcoD process of biogas
production in industry level is rare and needs much effort to improve.
Currently, China is striving to popularize rural biogas technologies,
achieve integration between facilities and technologies, and speed up
the pace of biogas industrialization. It is a vital strategy to improve the
utilization and management levels of the waste products and maintain
the ecological environment [164]. China's biogas engineering technol-
ogies are developing into a full stage to produce renewable energy,
utilize efficiently and control the environmental pollution. Almost all
types of anaerobic reactors have been used, but the continuous stirred
tank reactor (CSTR) and up-flow solid reactor (USR) technologies are
widely applied in almost 65% of all biogas plants. Despite the huge
renewable energy resources, China is facing great challenges in its
sustainable development of bioenergy utilization, process optimizing
and stability controlling of biogas plants and environmental protection.
K. Hagos et al.
In addition, the utilization of low-grade biomass of agricultural by-
products is another main challenge. To overcome such challenges,
AcoD is recommended [165].
The social and technological barriers are another challenge to apply
AcoD technology. Expert design and supervision of construction is
required because the organic and solid content in the influent needs to
be monitored. The economic and technological barriers reviewed in
depth [35], which are still challenging the development of large-scale
biogas technology. It is a high capital cost investment which requests a
combination system and cooperation between different entities. Other
challenging constraints are the scaling up lab-scale to industrial scale
and the transformation from decentralized technology to the centra-
lized technology of AcoD. The practical problems in the development of
biogas technology are due to the environmental conditions, the
availability of raw materials, feedstock wastes storage and transporta-
tion, low biogas production, optimal operating conditions, the buildup
of sand, leakage of pipelines, easy operation and maintenance and the
feedstock producer skills [166,167]. In China, the biogas plant devel-
opment is mainly affected by both climatic effects and economic level
[168,169]. The intervention of the government is crucial.
The AcoD process should be considered as a desirable treatment of
organic wastes due to valuable biogas products, low emission of
greenhouse gas (GHG) and high economic feasibility. The biomass
resources such as livestock manure, organic municipal solid wastes,
and agricultural residues can be used as raw material for the AcoD
process of biogas production. It is recommended that substrates which
have a high potential for environmental contamination should be
chosen for the biogas production process to provide multiple benefits
such as environmental protection beside to supplement the accessi-
bility of the raw materials for the AcoD of the biogas production [51].
Thus, the strategic policies, developing and designing of biogas plants
should consider AcoD technologies to improve the utilization efficiency
of organic wastes.
6. Future prospective of anaerobic co-digestion technology
The applicability and feasibility of the AcoD processes of biogas
production have been increasing, especially within the last five years
(Fig. 1) [18–21,24,85,153,170,171]. This indicates that there is a
potential to further increase the biogas production using co-digestion
of different feedstock wastes. However, there are different kinds of
challenges during the development of the AcoD process to pilot scale
and industry level. Controlling AcoD technology requires maintaining
delicate microbial ecosystems. The importance of increased buffering
capacity, enhancement of biogas/methane production rate, microbio-
logical stability, and nutritional balance has been reported. The
disintegration and hydrolysis steps of the input co-substrates still need
further investigations. Using the application of nanotechnology in the
AcoD system in the form of chips and sensory system may provide a
new way of controlling and monitoring the inhibitory effects of
different parameters. Other main challenges of the AcoD process of
biogas production are input characterization, emerging microbial
processes, the availability, and biodegradability of feedstock wastes
[64,134]. using principal analysis, organic materials can be classified
based on their nature, complexity, and accessibility [172]. The new
dynamic methods to analyze the intrinsic biodegradability and char-
acterization heterogeneous organic materials are needed. Because of
the diversity of feedstock composition, optimal operating conditions in
the large scale of AcoD process biogas plant require adjustment based
on the availability of raw materials and environmental conditions.
Here, the local data of the feedstocks (availability, accessibility, and
degradability) and design of the universal anaerobic reactors are
essential. The social and economic barrier should also be considered.
Finally, to industrialize the biogas plant, the mathematical model is
essential. However, the complex properties of the input feedstocks
characterization and their primarily conversion process, emerging
1493
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
carbon metabolisms are the challenges to the existing model [134].
Therefore, either the further modification of the existing model or
developing a universal model to predict the AcoD technology is
required. To realize the goal of scaling up the co-digestion, biogas
plant; the future research should focus on the continuous AcoD process
by considering the uneven distribution of feedstock distributions in
different areas. Thus, a key factor in better usage of feedstock wastes in
AcoD technology will be the development of new chemical pathways
that make more efficient utilization of the structures of lignocelluloses
and lignins, and the livestock manures integrated with the universal
mathematical model.
7. Conclusion
Biogas production using AcoD from different biodegradable organic
materials is increasingly becoming a feasible renewable energy source.
This review discussed the research progress of AcoD system and the
role of ADM1 model in biogas production technology. The AD process
of biogas production has been growing into a fully matured and
interesting broad discipline that is continually looking for challenging
advanced technologies. AcoD technology is a promising method of AD
for biogas production process technology in both lab-scale and large
scale plants, and it also financially and environmentally feasible.
However, AcoD system is challenging natural process. The challenging
paradigms in biogas production technology are characterizing the
organic materials, involving diversified microbial activities, biodegrad-
ability, accessibility, determining the exact limiting step and factors.
Different kinds of literature reveal that numerous works have been
done about AD process and biogas production, including different
mathematical models about the process up to now but the stability and
optimization problems still require further investigations.
ADM1 model is the powerful tool to predict, control and optimize
the AcoD system. Nevertheless, as the applicability and demand of the
model increase, the complexity of its parameter characterization and
calibration becomes increased. Therefore, further intensive researches
are needed to develop advanced techniques for characterizations of the
biodegradability, chemical compositions, and the dynamic behavior of
microorganisms, and intrinsic properties of the whole AcoD system.
Adding nanoparticles and integrating the thermodynamic and kinetic
modeling may improve the optimization process. The important
criteria can be used for the selection of substrates for AcoD process
of biogas production comprise the C/N ratios, the nature of substrates,
availabilities, biodegradability, potential of productivities and their
environmental effect with the intention of sustainable development of
each country. Finally, considering the implementation of innovative
policies and increasing ambitious goals, research directions of AcoD
technology should continue to realize the important improvement of
biogas production as a renewable source and economically feasible
energy. The innovative AcoD design may significantly improve biogas
production as a renewable energy and the environmental quality.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by Chinese MOST 973 project
(2013CB733501), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(21136004, 21476106), Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation
(BK20130062) and the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD) (PPZY2015A044).
References
[1] Garnier G. Grand challenges in chemical engineering. Front Chem 2014;2:17.
K. Hagos et al.
[2] Jacqueline H, Ebner RAL, Rankin Matthew J, Pronto† Jennifer L, Gooch Curt A,
Williamson Anahita A, Trabold Thomas A. Lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of an
anaerobic codigestion facility processing dairy manure and industrial food waste.
Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:10.
[3] Changhua Wu CM, Wang Yi, Xue Shouzheng, Lee Davis Devra. Water pollution
and human health in China. Environ Health Perspect 1999;107:6.
[4] Appels L, Lauwers J, Degreve J, Helsen L, Lievens B, Willems K, et al. Anaerobic
digestion in global bio-energy production: potential and research challenges.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:4295–301.
[5] Buffiere P, Mirquez LD, Steyer JP, Bernet N, Delgenes JP. Anaerobic digestion of
solid wastes needs research to face an increasing industrial success. Int J Chem
React Eng 2008:6.
[6] Ju XT, Zhang FS, Bao XM, Romheld V, Roelcke M. Utilization and management of
organic wastes in Chinese agriculture: past, present and perspectives. Sci China
Ser C-Life Sci 2005;48:965–79.
[7] Surendra KC, Takara D, Hashimoto AG, Khanal SK. Biogas as a sustainable energy
source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;31:846–59.
[8] Deublein DSA. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources - an Introduction.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA; 2008.
[9] H. G . The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters. Hoboken, New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons Inc; 2003.
[10] Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Zollitsch W, Mayer K, Gruber L. Biogas
production from maize and dairy cattle manure - Influence of biomass composi-
tion on the methane yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2007;118:173–82.
[11] ABDUL RAZAQUE SAHITO RBM, KHAN MUHAMMADBROHI. Anaerobic Co-
digestion of canola straw and buffalo dung: optimization of methane production in
batch experiments. Mehran Univ Res J Eng Technol 2014;33:12.
[12] Khalid A, Arshad M, Anjum M, Mahmood T, Dawson L. The anaerobic digestion of
solid organic waste. Waste Manag 2011;31:1737–44.
[13] Babaee A, Shayegan J, Roshani A. Anaerobic slurry co-digestion of poultry manure
and straw: effect of organic loading and temperature. J Environ Health Sci Eng
2013:11.
[14] Salminen E, Rintala J. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slaughterhouse
waste - a review. Bioresour Technol 2002;83:13–26.
[15] Mata-Alvarez J, Mace S, Llabres P. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes.
Overv Res Achiev Perspect Bioresour Technol 2000;74:3–16.
[16] Astals S, Nolla-Ardevol V, Mata-Alvarez J. Thermophilic co-digestion of pig
manure and crude glycerol: process performance and digestate stability. J
Biotechnol 2013;166:97–104.
[17] Chen JH, Lin CC, Wang KS. Potential of Methane Production by Thermophilic
Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Pulp and Paper Sludge with Pig Manure. J Biobased
Mater Bioenergy 2013;7:300–4.
[18] Giuliano A, Bolzonella D, Pavan P, Cavinato C, Cecchi F. Co-digestion of livestock
effluents, energy crops and agro-waste: feeding and process optimization in
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour Technol 2013;128:612–8.
[19] Astals S, Ariso M, Galí A, Mata-Alvarez J. Co-digestion of pig manure and
glycerine: experimental and modelling study. J Environ Manag 2011;92:1091–6.
[20] Cavinato C, Fatone F, Bolzonella D, Pavan P. Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion
of cattle manure with agro-wastes and energy crops: comparison of pilot and full
scale experiences. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:545–50.
[21] Hubenov VN, Mihaylova SN, Simeonov IS. Anaerobic co-digestion of waste fruits
and vegetables and swine manure in a pilot-scale bioreactor. Bulg Chem Commun
2015;47:788–92.
[22] Kacprzak A, Krzystek L, Ledakowicz S. Co-digestion of agricultural and industrial
wastes. Chem Pap 2010;64:127–31.
[23] Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Mace S, Astals S. Codigestion of solid wastes: a review of
its uses and perspectives including modeling. Crit Rev Biotechnol
2011;31:99–111.
[24] Mata-Alvarez J, Dosta J, Romero-Gueiza MS, Fonoll X, Peces M, Astals S. A
critical review on anaerobic co-digestion achievements between 2010 and 2013.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;36:412–27.
[25] Astals S, Batstone DJ, Mata-Alvarez J, Jensen PD. Identification of synergistic
impacts during anaerobic co-digestion of organic wastes. Bioresour Technol
2014;169:421–7.
[26] Shah FA, Mahmood Q, Rashid N, Pervez A, Raja IA, Shah MM. Co-digestion,
pretreatment and digester design for enhanced methanogenesis. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;42:627–42.
[27] Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P. The future of anaerobic
digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5478–84.
[28] Jagadabhi PS, Lehtomaki A, Rintala J. Co-digestion of grass silage and cow
manure in a cstr by re-circulation of alkali treated solids of the digestate. Environ
Technol 2008;29:1085–93.
[29] Demirel B, Yenigun O. Two-phase anaerobic digestion processes: a review. J Chem
Technol Biotechnol 2002;77:743–55.
[30] Muha I, Zielonka S, Lemmer A, Schönberg M, Linke B, Grillo A, et al. Do two-
phase biogas plants separate anaerobic digestion phases? – A mathematical model
for the distribution of anaerobic digestion phases among reactor stages. Bioresour
Technol 2013;132:414–8.
[31] Galí A, Benabdallah T, Astals S, Mata-Alvarez J. Modified version of ADM1 model
for agro-waste application. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:2783–90.
[32] Kavacik B, Topaloglu B. Biogas production from co-digestion of a mixture of
cheese whey and dairy manure. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:1321–9.
[33] Weiland P. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol
Biotechnol 2010;85:849–60.
[34] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A,
1494
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
Sanders WTM, Siegrist H, Vavilin VA. Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1),
IWA Task Group for Mathematical Modelling of Anaerobic Digestion Processes.
London, UK: IWA Publishing; 2002.
[35] Wang J. Decentralized biogas technology of anaerobic digestion and farm
ecosystem: opportunities and challenges. Front Energy Res 2014:2.
[36] Jarvis ASaÅ. Microbiological Handbook for Biogas Plants. Swedish Waste
Management U2009:03 Swedish Gas Centre Report 207. 2010: pp. 10–138.
[37] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from
organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:821–6.
[38] Yang L, Xu F, Ge X, Li Y. Challenges and strategies for solid-state anaerobic
digestion of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:824–34.
[39] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
review. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:4044–64.
[40] Parawira W, Read JS, Mattiasson B, Bjornsson L. Energy production from
agricultural residues: high methane yields in pilot-scale two-stage anaerobic
digestion. Biomass Bioenergy 2008;32:44–50.
[41] Wagner AO, Lins P, Malin C, Reitschuler C, Illmer P. Impact of protein-, lipid- and
cellulose-containing complex substrates on biogas production and microbial
communities in batch experiments. Sci Total Environ 2013;458–460:256–66.
[42] Chandra R, Takeuchi H, Hasegawa T. Methane production from lignocellulosic
agricultural crop wastes: a review in context to second generation of biofuel
production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1462–76.
[43] Mei ZL, Liu XF, Huang XB, Li D, Yan ZY, Yuan YX, et al. Anaerobic mesophilic
Codigestion of Rice Straw and Chicken Manure: effects of Organic Loading Rate
on Process Stability and Performance. Appl Biochem Biotechnol
2016;179:846–62.
[44] Kallistova AY, Goel G, Nozhevnikova AN. Microbial diversity of methanogenic
communities in the systems for anaerobic treatment of organic waste.
Microbiology 2014;83:462–83.
[45] Schnurer A, Nordberg A. Ammonia, a selective agent for methane production by
syntrophic acetate oxidation at mesophilic temperature. Water Sci Technol
2008;57:735–40.
[46] Angelidaki I, Ahring BK. Effects of free long-chain fatty-acids on thermophilic
anaerobic-digestion. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1992;37:808–12.
[47] Chow WL, Chan YJ, Chong MF. A new energy source from the anaerobic co-
digestion (acd) treatment of oleo chemical effluent with glycerin pitch. Asia-Pac J
Chem Eng 2015;10:556–64.
[48] Fernandez A, Sanchez A, Font X. Anaerobic co-digestion of a simulated organic
fraction of municipal solid wastes and fats of animal and vegetable origin.
Biochem Eng J 2005;26:22–8.
[49] Cavaleiro AJ, Pereira MA, Alves M. Enhancement of methane production from
long chain fatty acid based effluents. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:4086–95.
[50] Kwietniewska E, Tys J. Process characteristics, inhibition factors and methane
yields of anaerobic digestion process, with particular focus on microalgal biomass
fermentation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:491–500.
[51] Divya D, Gopinath LR, Christy PM. A review on current aspects and diverse
prospects for enhancing biogas production in sustainable means. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;42:690–9.
[52] Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic
digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:755–81.
[53] Arslan C, Sattar A, Changying J, Nasir A, Ali Mari I, Zia Bakht M. Impact of pH
management interval on biohydrogen production from organic fraction of
municipal solid wastes by mesophilic thermophilic anaerobic codigestion. BioMed
Res Int 2015;2015:9.
[54] Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL. Optimisation of the anaerobic
digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:7928–40.
[55] Benlin Dai JX, He Yulong, Xiong Peng, Wang Xinfeng, Deng Yuanfang, Wang
Yixian, Yin Zhiming. Acid inhibition during anaerobic digestion of biodegradable
kitchen waste. J Renew Sustain Energy 2015;7:9.
[56] Zhai N, Zhang T, Yin D, Yang G, Wang X, Ren G, et al. Effect of initial pH on
anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cow manure. Waste Manag
2015;38:126–31.
[57] Normak A, Suurpere J, Suitso I, Jogi E, Kokin E, Pitk P. Improving ADM1 model
to simulate anaerobic digestion start-up with inhibition phase based on cattle
slurry. Biomass Bioenergy 2015;80:260–6.
[58] Souza TSO, Carvajal A, Donoso-Bravo A, Pena M, Fdz-Polanco F. ADM1
calibration using BMP tests for modeling the effect of autohydrolysis pretreatment
on the performance of continuous sludge digesters. Water Res 2013;47:3244–54.
[59] Monou M, Pafitis N, Kythreotou N, Smith SR, Mantzavinos D, Kassinos D.
Anaerobic co-digestion of potato processing wastewater with pig slurry and
abattoir wastewater. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2008;83:1658–63.
[60] Mottet A, Ramirez I, Carrère H, Déléris S, Vedrenne F, Jimenez J, et al. New
fractionation for a better bioaccessibility description of particulate organic matter
in a modified ADM1 model. Chem Eng J 2013;228:871–81.
[61] Angelidaki I, Sanders W. Assessment of the anaerobic biodegradability of
macropllutants. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol 2004;3:13.
[62] Batstone DJ, Tait S, Starrenburg D. Estimation of hydrolysis parameters in full-
scale anaerobic digesters. Biotechnol Bioeng 2009;102:8.
[63] Li YY, Noike T. Upgrading of anaerobic-digestion of waste activated-sludge BY
thermal pretreatment. Water Sci Technol 1992;26:857–66.
[64] Jimenez J, Gonidec E, Rivero JAC, Latrille E, Vedrenne F, Steyer J-P. Prediction
of anaerobic biodegradability and bioaccessibility of municipal sludge by coupling
sequential extractions with fluorescence spectroscopy: towards ADM1 variables
characterization. Water Res 2014;50:359–72.
[65] Ofoefule AUNJ, Ibeto CN. Biogas production from paper waste and its blend with
cow dung. Adv Appl Sci Res 2010;1:1–8.
K. Hagos et al.
[66] Zaher U, Buffiere P, Steyer JP, Chen S. A procedure to estimate proximate analysis
of mixed organic wastes. Water Environ Res 2009;81:407–15.
[67] Zaher U, Li R, Jeppsson U, Steyer J-P, Chen S. GISCOD: general integrated solid
waste co-digestion model. Water Res 2009;43:2717–27.
[68] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A, et al.
The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci Technol
2002;45:65–73.
[69] Comino E, Rosso M, Riggio V. Investigation of increasing organic loading rate in
the co-digestion of energy crops and cow manure mix. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:3013–9.
[70] Uzodinma EO, Ofoefule AU. Biogas production from blends of field grass
(Panicum maximum) with some animal wastes. Int J Phys Sci 2009;4:91–5.
[71] Himmel ME, Ding S-Y, Johnson DK, Adney WS, Nimlos MR, Brady JW, et al.
Biomass recalcitrance: engineering plants and enzymes for biofuels production.
Science 2007;315:804–7.
[72] Ye J, Li D, Sun Y, Wang G, Yuan Z, Zhen F, et al. Improved biogas production from
rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure. Waste Manag
2013;33:2653–8.
[73] Lindmark J, Thorin E, Fdhila RB, Dahlquist E. Effects of mixing on the result of
anaerobic digestion: review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:1030–47.
[74] Owen WF, Stuckey DC, Healy JB, Jr, Young LY, McCarty PL. Bioassay for
monitoring biochemical methane potential and anaerobic toxicity. Water Res
1979;13:485–92.
[75] Naik L, Gebreegziabher Z, Tumwesige V, Balana BB, Mwirigi J, Austin G. Factors
determining the stability and productivity of small scale anaerobic digesters.
Biomass Bioenergy 2014;70:51–7.
[76] Zeshan , Karthikeyan OP, Visvanathan C. Effect of C/N ratio and ammonia-N
accumulation in a pilot-scale thermophilic dry anaerobic digester. Bioresour
Technol 2012;113:294–302.
[77] Budiyono INW, Johari S, Sunarso . The kinetic of biogas production rate from
cattle manure in batch mode. Int J Chem Biol Eng 2010;3:6.
[78] Zhang TLL, Song Z, Ren G, Feng Y, et al. Biogas production by co-digestion of goat
manure with three crop residues. PLoS One 2013;8:7.
[79] Mnkeni PNS, Austin LM. Fertiliser value of human manure from pilot urine-
diversion toilets. Water SA 2009;35:133–8.
[80] Edison Muzenda M., IAENG. Bio-mthane generation from organic waste-review.
In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science
2014, Vol II, San Francisco, USA. 2014: 3.
[81] Sébastien Guillaume TL. Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cattle slurry and agro-
industrial fats: effect of fat ratio on the digester efficiency. Chem Eng Sci Sustain
Ind 2014;9:5.
[82] Hoelzle RD, Virdis B, Batstone DJ. Regulation mechanisms in mixed and pure
culture microbial fermentation. Biotechnol Bioeng 2014;111:2139–54.
[83] Park S, Bae W, Chung J, Baek S-C. Empirical model of the pH dependence of the
maximum specific nitrification rate. Process Biochem 2007;42:1671–6.
[84] Asenjo JCMaJA. The Monod equation and mass transfer. Biotechnol Bioeng
1994;45:4.
[85] Astals S, Musenze RS, Bai X, Tannock S, Tait S, Pratt S, et al. Anaerobic co-
digestion of pig manure and algae: impact of intracellular algal products recovery
on co-digestion performance. Bioresour Technol 2015;181:97–104.
[86] Toumi J, Miladi B, Farhat A, Nouira S, Hamdi M, Gtari M, et al. Microbial ecology
overview during anaerobic codigestion of dairy wastewater and cattle manure and
use in agriculture of obtained bio-fertilisers. Bioresour Technol 2015;198:141–9.
[87] Jensen PD, Astals S, Lu Y, Devadas M, Batstone DJ. Anaerobic codigestion of
sewage sludge and glycerol, focusing on process kinetics, microbial dynamics and
sludge dewaterability. Water Res 2014;67:355–66.
[88] Glanpracha N, Annachhatre AP. Anaerobic co-digestion of cyanide containing
cassava pulp with pig manure. Bioresour Technol 2016;214:112–21.
[89] Zhang Z, Zhang G, Li W, Li C, Xu G. Enhanced biogas production from sorghum
stem by co-digestion with cow manure. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:9153–8.
[90] Dahunsi SO, Oranusi S, Owolabi JB, Efeovbokhan VE. Mesophilicphilic anaerobic
co-digestion of poultry dropping and Carica papaya peels: modelling and process
parameter optimization study. Bioresour Technol 2016;216:587–600.
[91] Abbassi-Guendouz A, Brockmann D, Trably E, Dumas C, Delgenès J-P, Steyer J-P,
et al. Total solids content drives high solid anaerobic digestion via mass transfer
limitation. Bioresour Technol 2012;111:55–61.
[92] Cazier EA, Trably E, Steyer JP, Escudie R. Biomass hydrolysis inhibition at high
hydrogen partial pressure in solid-state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol
2015;190:106–13.
[93] Wang Q, Yang Y, Yu C, Huang H, Kim M, Feng C, et al. Study on a fixed zeolite
bioreactor for anaerobic digestion of ammonium-rich swine wastes. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:7064–8.
[94] Montalvo S, Guerrero L, Borja R, Sánchez E, Milán Z, Cortés I, et al. Application of
natural zeolites in anaerobic digestion processes: a review. Appl Clay Sci
2012;58:125–33.
[95] Wang X, Zhang L, Xi B, Sun W, Xia X, Zhu C, et al. Biogas production
improvement and C/N control by natural clinoptilolite addition into anaerobic co-
digestion of Phragmites australis, feces and kitchen waste. Bioresour Technol
2015;180:192–9.
[96] Tada C, Yang Y, Hanaoka T, Sonoda A, Ooi K, Sawayama S. Effect of natural
zeolite on methane production for anaerobic digestion of ammonium rich organic
sludge. Bioresour Technol 2005;96:459–64.
[97] Nielsen HB, Angelidaki I. Strategies for optimizing recovery of the biogas process
following ammonia inhibition. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:7995–8001.
[98] Lesteur M, Latrille E, Maurel VB, Roger JM, Gonzalez C, Junqua G, et al. First step
towards a fast analytical method for the determination of Biochemical Methane
1495
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
Potential of solid wastes by near infrared spectroscopy. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:2280–8.
[99] Muller M, Milori DMBP, Déléris S, Steyer J-P, Dudal Y. Solid-phase fluorescence
spectroscopy to characterize organic wastes. Waste Manag 2011;31:1916–23.
[100] Wan S, Xi B, Xia X, Li M, Iv D, Wang L, et al. Using fluorescence excitation-
emission matrix spectroscopy to monitor the conversion of organic matter during
anaerobic co-digestion of cattle dung and duck manure. Bioresour Technol
2012;123:439–44.
[101] Martinez EJ, Fierro J, Sanchez ME, Gomez X. Anaerobic co-digestion of FOG and
sewage sludge: study of the process by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy.
Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2012;75:1–6.
[102] Song Z, Zhang C. Anaerobic codigestion of pretreated wheat straw with cattle
manure and analysis of the microbial community. Bioresour Technol
2015;186:128–35.
[103] Li D, Sun YM, Guo YF, Yuan ZH, Wang Y, Zhen F. Continuous anaerobic digestion
of food waste and design of digester with lipid removal. Environ Technol
2013;34:2135–43.
[104] Labatut RA, Angenent LT, Scott NR. Biochemical methane potential and
biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:2255–64.
[105] Raposo F, Fernandez-Cegri V, De la Rubia MA, Borja R, Beline F, Cavinato C, et al.
Biochemical methane potential (BMP) of solid organic substrates: evaluation of
anaerobic biodegradability using data from an international interlaboratory study.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2011;86:1088–98.
[106] El-Mashad HM, Zhang R. Biogas production from co-digestion of dairy manure
and food waste. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:4021–8.
[107] Li R, Chen S, Li X. Anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cattle manure for
methane production. Energy Sour Part a-Recovery Util Environ Eff
2009;31:1848–56.
[108] Li R, Chen S, Li X. Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
with dairy manure in a two-phase digestion system. Appl Biochem Biotechnol
2010;160:643–54.
[109] Sol Lisboa M, Lansing S. Characterizing food waste substrates for co-digestion
through biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments. Waste Manag
2013;33:2664–9.
[110] Jensen PD, Ge H, Batstone DJ. Assessing the role of biochemical methane
potential tests in determining anaerobic degradability rate and extent. Water Sci
Technol 2011;64:880–6.
[111] Mou Z, Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P. Evaluating the biochemical methane potential
(BMP) of low-organic waste at Danish landfills. Waste Manag 2014;34:2251–9.
[112] Cabbai V, Ballico M, Aneggi E, Goi D. BMP tests of source selected OFMSW to
evaluate anaerobic codigestion with sewage sludge. Waste Manag
2013;33:1626–32.
[113] Ebner JH, Labatut RA, Lodge JS, Williamson AA, Trabold TA. Anaerobic co-
digestion of commercial food waste and dairy manure: characterizing biochemical
parameters and synergistic effects. Waste Manag 2016;52:286–94.
[114] Lisboa MS, Lansing S. Characterizing food waste substrates for co-digestion
through biochemical methane potential (BMP) experiments. Waste Manag
2013;33:2664–9.
[115] Abudi ZN, Hu Z, Sun N, Xiao B, Rajaa N, Liu C, et al. Batch anaerobic co-digestion
of OFMSW (organic fraction of municipal solid waste), TWAS (thickened waste
activated sludge) and RS (rice straw): influence of TWAS and RS pretreatment and
mixing ratio. Energy 2016;107:131–40.
[116] Abudi ZN, Hu Z, Xiao B, Abood AR, Rajaa N, Laghari M. Effects of pretreatments
on thickened waste activated sludge and rice straw co-digestion: experimental and
modeling study. J Environ Manag 2016;177:213–22.
[117] Pohland FG, Ghosh S. Developments in anaerobic stabilization of organic wastes–
the two-phase concept. Environ Lett 1971;1:255–66.
[118] Riau V, De la Rubia MA, Perez M. Assessment of solid retention time of a
temperature phased anaerobic digestion system on performance and final sludge
characteristics. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2012;87:1074–82.
[119] Blonskaja V, Menert A, Vilu R. Use of two-stage anaerobic treatment for distillery
waste. Adv Environ Res 2003;7:671–8.
[120] Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Cheikh RB, Hamdi M. Bioreactor performance in
anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Process Biochem
2005;40:989–95.
[121] Hartmann H, Moller HB, Ahring BK. Efficiency of the anaerobic treatment of the
organic fraction of municipal solid waste: collection and pretreatment. Waste
Manag Res 2004;22:35–41.
[122] Dinopoulou G, Rudd T, Lester JN. Anaerobic acidogenesis of a complex waste-
water .1.0.1. the influence of operational parameters on reactor performance.
Biotechnol Bioeng 1988;31:958–68.
[123] Hidalgo D, Gomez M, Martin-Marroquin JM, Aguado A, Sastre E. Two-phase
anaerobic co-digestion of used vegetable oils' wastes and pig manure. Int J
Environ Sci Technol 2015;12:1727–36.
[124] Travieso Cordoba L, Dominguez Bocanegra AR, Rincon Llorente B, Sanchez
Hernandez E, Benitez Echegoyen F, Borja R, et al. Batch culture growth of
Chlorella zofingiensis on effluent derived from two-stage anaerobic digestion of
two-phase olive mill solid waste. Electron J Biotechnol 2008:11.
[125] Yang Y-Q, Shen D-g, Li N, Xu D, Long Y-Y, Lu X-Y. Co-digestion of kitchen waste
and fruit-vegetable waste by two-phase anaerobic digestion. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 2013;20:2162–71.
[126] Ueno Y, Tatara M, Fukui H, Makiuchi T, Goto M, Sode K. Production of hydrogen
and methane from organic solid wastes by phase-separation of anaerobic process.
Bioresour Technol 2007;98:1861–5.
[127] Wang X, Zhao Y-c. A bench scale study of fermentative hydrogen and methane
K. Hagos et al.
production from food waste in integrated two-stage process. Int J Hydrog Energy
2009;34:245–54.
[128] Fezzani B, Ben Cheikh R. Two-phase anaerobic co-digestion of olive mill wastes in
semi-continuous digesters at mesophilic temperature. Bioresour Technol
2010;101:1628–34.
[129] Wang F, Li W-Y, Yi X-N. Two-phase anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and
sewage sludge. Water Sci Technol 2015;71:100–6.
[130] Dareioti MA, Kornaros M. Effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on the
anaerobic co-digestion of agro-industrial wastes in a two-stage CSTR system.
Bioresour Technol 2014;167:407–15.
[131] Nathao C, Sirisukpoka U, Pisutpaisal N. Production of hydrogen and methane by
one and two stage fermentation of food waste. Int J Hydrog Energy
2013;38:15764–9.
[132] Katarzyna Bułkowska IB, Gusiatin Zygmunt Mariusz, Klimiuk Ewa, Pokój Tomasz.
ADM1-based modeling of anaerobic codigestion of maize silage and cattle manure
-calibration of parameters and model verification (part II). Inst Environ Eng Pol
Acad Sci 2015;41:8.
[133] Zahedi S, Solera R, Micolucci F, Cavinato C, Bolzonella D. Changes in microbial
community during hydrogen and methane production in two-stage thermophilic
anaerobic co-digestion process from biowaste. Waste Manag 2016;49:40–6.
[134] Batstone D, Puyol D, Flores-Alsina X, Rodríguez J. Mathematical modelling of
anaerobic digestion processes: applications and future needs. Rev Environ Sci
Biotechnol 2015;14:595–613.
[135] Ekama GA, Wentzel MC, Loewenthal RE. Integrated chemical-physical processes
kinetic modelling of multiple mineral precipitation problems. Water Sci Technol
2006;53:65–73.
[136] Vavilin VA, Fernandez B, Palatsi J, Flotats X. Hydrolysis kinetics in anaerobic
degradation of particulate organic material: an overview. Waste Manag
2008;28:939–51.
[137] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Steyer JP. A review of ADM1 extensions, applications, and
analysis: 2002–2005. Water Sci Technol 2006;54:1–10.
[138] Blumensaat F, Keller J. Modelling of two-stage anaerobic digestion using the IWA
Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 (ADM1). Water Res 2005;39:171–83.
[139] Kleerebezem R, van Loosdrecht MCM. Critical analysis of some concepts proposed
in ADM1. Water Sci Technol 2006;54:51–7.
[140] Razaviarani V, Buchanan ID. Calibration of the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1
(ADM1) for steady-state anaerobic co-digestion of municipal wastewater sludge
with restaurant grease trap waste. Chem Eng J 2015;266:91–9.
[141] Bollon J, Le-hyaric R, Benbelkacem H, Buffiere P. Development of a kinetic model
for anaerobic dry digestion processes: focus on acetate degradation and moisture
content. Biochem Eng J 2011;56:212–8.
[142] Derbal K, Bencheikh-Iehocine M, Cecchi F, Meniai AH, Pavan P. Application of
the IWA ADM1 model to simulate anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste with
waste activated sludge in mesophilic condition. Bioresour Technol
2009;100:1539–43.
[143] Luebken M, Wichern M, Schlattmann M, Gronauer A, Horn H. Modelling the
energy balance of an anaerobic digester fed with cattle manure and renewable
energy crops. Water Res 2007;41:4085–96.
[144] Zhou H, Loeffler D, Kranert M. Model-based predictions of anaerobic digestion of
agricultural substrates for biogas production. Bioresour Technol
2011;102:10819–28.
[145] Gali A, Benabdallah T, Astals S, Mata-Alvarez J. Modified version of ADM1 model
for agro-waste application. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:2783–90.
[146] Boubaker F, Ridha BC. Modelling of the mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of olive
mill wastewater with olive mill solid waste using anaerobic digestion model No. 1
(ADM1). Bioresour Technol 2008;99:6565–77.
[147] Shi X-S, Yuan X-Z, Wang Y-P, Zeng S-J, Qiu Y-L, Guo R-B, et al. Modeling of the
methane production and pH value during the anaerobic co-digestion of dairy
manure and spent mushroom substrate. Chem Eng J 2014;244:258–63.
[148] Morris E, Demitry JZ, Hansen Conly, McFarland Michael. Modifying the ADM1
model to predict the operation of an anaerobic digester Co-digesting municipal
sludge with Bakery waste. Environ Pollut 2015;4:20.
[149] Klimiuk E, Gusiatin ZM, Bulkowska K, Pokoj T, Rynkowska S. ADM1-based
modeling of anaerobic codigestion of maize silage and cattle manure - a feedstock
1496
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 76 (2017) 1485–1496
characterisation for model implementation (part I). Arch Environ Prot
2015;41:11–9.
[150] Jurado E, Antonopoulou G, Lyberatos G, Gavala HN, Skiadas IV. Continuous
anaerobic digestion of swine manure: adm1-based modelling and effect of
addition of swine manure fibers pretreated with aqueous ammonia soaking. Appl
Energy 2016;172:190–8.
[151] Souza TSO, Carvajal A, Donoso-Bravo A, Peña M, Fdz-Polanco F. ADM1
calibration using BMP tests for modeling the effect of autohydrolysis pretreatment
on the performance of continuous sludge digesters. Water Res 2013;47:3244–54.
[152] Derbal K, Bencheikh-lehocine M, Cecchi F, Meniai AH, Pavan P. Application of the
IWA ADM1 model to simulate anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste with waste
activated sludge in mesophilic condition. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:1539–43.
[153] Arnell M, Astals S, Amand L, Batstone DJ, Jensen PD, Jeppsson U. Modelling
anaerobic co-digestion in Benchmark Simulation Model No. 2: parameter
estimation, substrate characterisation and plant-wide integration. Water Res
2016;98:138–46.
[154] Nopens I, Batstone DJ, Copp JB, Jeppsson U, Volcke E, Alex J, et al. An ASM/
ADM model interface for dynamic plant-wide simulation. Water Res
2009;43:1913–23.
[155] Wett B, Eladawy A, Ogurek M. Description of nitrogen incorporation and release
in ADM1. Water Sci Technol 2006;54:67–76.
[156] Werner-Heisenberg-Str. IfAuKeVM. User抯 Guide and the software SIMBA#
biogas. 2015.
[157] Oh ST, Martin AD. Thermodynamic equilibrium model in anaerobic digestion
process. Biochem Eng J 2007;34:256–66.
[158] COMMITTEE RS. The Renewables 2015 Global Status Report. REN21: 251; 2015.
[159] Yang D, Pang Y, Yuan H, Chen S, Ma J, Yu L, et al. Enhancing biogas production
from anaerobically digested wheat straw through ammonia pretreatment. Chin J
Chem Eng 2014;22:576–82.
[160] (MOA MofA. Programming on China’s Rural Biogas Construction (2006–2010).
MOA, Beijing. 2007.
[161] Zhang DQ, Tan SK, Gersberg RM. Municipal solid waste management in China:
status, problems and challenges. J Environ Manag 2010;91:1623–33.
[162] Lo K, Wang MY. Energy conservation in China's Twelfth Five-Year Plan period:
continuation or paradigm shift?. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:499–507.
[163] Gao Y, Kuang Z, Pan M. Development progress and current situation analysis of
the rural household biogas in China Guangdong Agricultural Sciences. 2006; 11:
6.
[164] Chen L, Zhao L, Ren C, Wang F. The progress and prospects of rural biogas
production in China. Energy Policy 2012;51:58–63.
[165] Lin J, Zuo J, Gan L, Li P, Liu F, Wang K, et al. Effects of mixture ratio on
anaerobic co-digestion with fruit and vegetable waste and food waste of China. J
Environ Sci 2011;23:1403–8.
[166] Chen Y, Yang G, Sweeney S, Feng Y. Household biogas use in rural China: a study
of opportunities and constraints. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:545–9.
[167] Cheng S, Li Z, Mang H-P, Neupane K, Wauthelet M, Huba E-M. Application of
fault tree approach for technical assessment of small-sized biogas systems in
Nepal. Appl Energy 2014;113:1372–81.
[168] Han R, Hagos K, Ji X, Zhang S, Chen J, Yang Z, et al. Review on heat-utilization
processes and heat-exchange equipment in biogas engineering. J Renew Sustain
Energy 2016;8:032701.
[169] Yang Y, Zhang P, Li G. Regional differentiation of biogas industrial development
in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:6686–93.
[170] Dareioti MA, Kornaros M. Anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of ensiled sorghum,
cheese whey and liquid cow manure in a two-stage CSTR system: effect of
hydraulic retention time. Bioresour Technol 2015;175:553–62.
[171] Fonoll X, Astals S, Dosta J, Mata-Alvarez J. Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
sludge and fruit wastes: evaluation of the transitory states when the co-substrate is
changed. Chem Eng J 2015;262:1268–74.
[172] Jimenez J, Aemig Q, Doussiet N, Steyer J-P, Houot S, Patureau D. A new organic
matter fractionation methodology for organic wastes: bioaccessibility and com-
plexity characterization for treatment optimization. Bioresour Technol
2015;194:344–53.