Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Waste to energy bio-digester selection and design model for the organic MARK
fraction of municipal solid waste
⁎
Anthony Njuguna Matheria, , Charles Mbohwab, Freeman Ntulia, Mohamed Belaida,
Tumisang Seodigengc, Jane Catherine Ngilad, Cecilia Kinuthia Njengae
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2028, South Africa
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2028, South Africa
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, Vaal University of Technology, Private Bag ×021-Vanderbijilpark 1911, Andries Potgieter Blvd, South Africa
d
Department of Applied Chemistry, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2028, South Africa
e
UN Environment in South Africa, Regional Office for Southern Africa, 351 Francis Baard Street, P.O. BOX 6541, Pretoria, South Africa

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

Keywords: In this study, a feasibility study was carried out in terms of quantification-characterization of waste, biomethane
Anaerobic digestion potential from organic biomass and bio-digester selection and designing. From waste quantification, 38% was
Bio-digester found to be an organic fraction of the municipal solid waste (OFMSW) of the 1.4 million tonnes per year. The
Mesophilic temperature composition of the waste was investigated using a laboratory batch anaerobic digester for biochemical methane
OFMSW
potential (BMP) and the waste to energy bio-digester selection and design for the anaerobic co-digestion of
Design model
Quantification-characterization
different OFMSW originating from the City of Johannesburg landfills. The carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio of
OFMSW was found to be below 13. Through co-digestion, the C/N ratio settled at 15. Laboratory experimental
data from 500 ml batch anaerobic digester operating at a mesophilic temperature of 37 °C and pH of 6.9 had a
good productivity of methane of average 59% recommended in the literature and was used to derive the volume
of digester and surface area. The artificial intelligence (AI) technique was applied to select the most preferred
digester model. Using the application of the simple multi-attribute rating (SMART) technique of multiple-criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) as a decision support tool, the most preferred option of a bio-digester model was
selected from a list of potential alternatives available in the market. The continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR)
scored highest with 79% and was selected as the most preferred digester for the OFMSW digestion. The geometry
of the biodigester parameters was found to be comparable and economically feasible with the process para-
meters, energy generation from the BMP and scale up model for the independent power producer (IPP).

1. Introduction
The energy demand globally is increasing due to population growth
and industrialization. It has exponential growth over time with a pre-
dicted 85% increase between 2010 and 2030 globally. Approximately
85% of the world's energy supply is obtained from non-renewable fossil
fuels sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. These fuels yield high
quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly carbon di-
oxide (CO2). The continuous use of fossil fuels is leading to the long-
term potential risk of energy insecurity and simultaneously degrading
the environment with the high CO2 emissions [1–3]. According to
Cornish [4] from energy systems, South Africa has the highest carbon
emissions level in Africa due to coal energy generation as compared to
large emitter like China with per capita emission much lower than
South Africa. This call for the alternative source of energy that is
renewable, clean (green) and sustainable like bioenergy, wind, solar,
geothermal, hydropower and fuel cells [5]. With the regards to sus-
tainable development goal (SDG-7), it is more desirable to create sus-
tainable worldwide energy system [6]. Municipal solid waste (MSW), a
by-product of the lifestyle of urban dwellers, comprises of wastes from
household, offices, restaurants, market, industries among others ha-
zardous waste [7,8]. The rapid development has led to severe problems
with waste management and running out of the landfill airspace that
requires urgent waste management mitigation measures. There are
several obstacles confronting MSW management within the cities. Some
of such obstacles are; interrelation of economic growth and urbaniza-
tion; complexity of the waste stream due to different class of citizen
living within the city; lack of adequate facilities that will expedite waste
separation at source; overstretching of the superannuated infra-
structure; and also the waste management technologies that are handy,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tonynjuguna22@gmail.com (A. Njuguna Matheri).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.051
Received 8 June 2016; Received in revised form 30 July 2017; Accepted 14 September 2017
Available online 10 October 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Njuguna Matheri et al.
are very costly compared to the cost of land-filling [7,8]. Separation of
waste at the source and adopting zero waste economic incentive en-
courage household to reduce waste. The organic waste can be converted
to energy using waste to energy alternative routes that include thermal
conversion; gasification, incineration, pyrolysis and liquefaction and
biological processes; fermentation, hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion
for biogas and biomethane production [9].
Biogas is produced by the breakdown of biomass (organic com-
pound) using microorganism under controlled variables [10]. The
biomass is sourced from biodegradables compounds such as agri-
culture waste, animal waste, municipal solid waste, sewage sludge and
industrial waste [11,12]. Biogas is a mixture of gases such as methane
(60%), carbon dioxide (30%) and other traces of ammonia, hydrogen
sulphide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and oxygen. Energy derived
from biogas and biomethane (upgraded biogas) is used in the form of
heat, fuel, electricity and beverage grade CO2 after carbon capture
from biogas upgrade. Biogas production takes place in series of five
fundamental steps namely: disintegration, hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
acetogenesis and methanogenesis [13–15]. The various parameters
that control the performance of the anaerobic digestion include;
nature of substrate, optimum trace metals concentration, nutrient
supply (carbon to nitrogen ratio), constant temperature, organic
loading rate (OLR), agitation intensity, hydraulic retention time
(HRT), partial pressure, an amount of inhibitors (e.g. ammonia) and
exclusion of oxygen [15,16].
1.1. Anaerobic digesters
Anaerobic digestion (AD) can be performed as a continuous or a
batch process depending on the biomass being digested and the digester
configuration [17]. In a continuous digestion process, biomass is con-
stantly added in phases to the digester on an interval while the end
products are constantly removed. This results in constant biogas pro-
duction. A multiple or single digester in a sequence may be used [18].
In a batch process, the biomass is added to the digester at the onset of
the AD and is maintained over the hydraulic retention time [17]. The
main characteristic of anaerobic digester technologies include: type of
digester; covered lagoon, plug flow, complete mix, fixed film, up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), vertical and horizontal digester,
temperature range that include psychrophilic, mesophilic and thermo-
philic, digester environ that include wet and dry digestion, process
stages that include single, multiple stages and lastly loading rate
strategy that include batch, continuous and semi-batch. The selection of
bio-digester depends on the dry matter (DM) content of the biomass.
The two AD technologies systems include dry digestion for the solid
digestion of the biomass; the DM content of the substrate is more than
15% (usually from 20% to 40%). Wet digestion for the liquid digestion;
the average DM content of the substrate is less than 15%. The wet di-
gestion is applied to biomass like sewage sludge and liquid animal
manure while dry digestion is applied to municipal organic waste,
agriculture waste, household and restaurant organic waste [19,20].
Table 1 shows the comparison of various technology, digesters types,
Table 1
Comparison of various digester types [21,22].
Technology Digester type Substrate type
Wet digestion Covered lagoon Thin manure
Plug flow Think manure
Complete mix Liquid and Solid
Fixed film Liquid
UASB Liquid
Dry digestion Batch
Vertical Agricultural and municipal feedstock
Horizontal
1114
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121
and substrate type with regards to the HRT, biogas yield and level of the
technology [21].
1.2. Factors affecting the choice of a biogas plant
Bio-digester designing is essentially the final stage of the AD plan-
ning process. Ultimately, a successful bio-digester plant design should
be able to respond to a number of factors that include climate condi-
tions, substrate quality and quantity, availability of the construction
materials, geotechnical, specialized skill labour and standardization
[21]. Bearing in mind that bio-digesters operate optimally at tem-
perature ranges between 30 °C and 40 °C for the mesophilic and 40 °C to
55 °C for the thermophilic in cooler regions, it is advisable for the de-
signer to incorporate heating accessories and insulation to the design.
The design should respond to the prevailing climatic conditions of the
location. The organic loading rate to be used will dictate the sizing of
the digester as well as the inlet and outlet design. Sourcing the feed-
stock locally minimize the cost and this lower the operational cost and
thus maximizing the firm profits. To guide the designer on the nature of
the subsoil, the geotechnical investigation is highly required. Biogas
technology requires high levels of specialized skilled labour. The labour
factor cuts across from the contractors, planner to the operators. The
gaps can be bridged through training of the involved parties at a cost.
The planners must carefully study the prevailing standards currently on
the market in terms of pricing and product quality for the large scale
projects prior to commissioning [21].
1.3. Anaerobic digester design model selection
The modern technology designs are probabilistic in nature and the
evaluation criterion is multi-dimensional. The anaerobic digester design
model has a secure niche in the artificial intelligence (AI) research and
techniques. This utilizes the principle component of analysis to enhance
the overall performance using the artificial neural network (ANN)
[23–25]. This calls for complex technology that can capture all the
dimensions of decision making. The most effective and existing tech-
nology selection methods include; multi-criteria decision analysis
(MCDA) approach that is employed by decision makers and stake-
holders to make recommendations from a set of finite seemingly similar
options base on the highest score against a pre-defined set of criteria.
This techniques aim to achieve a decisive goal from a set of alternatives
using pre-set selection factors herein referred to as the criteria [26]. The
selection criteria are assigned weights base on their highest level of
importance. Using appropriate techniques, the alternatives are awarded
scores depending on how well they perform with regard to particular
criteria. Finally, ranks of alternatives are computed as an aggregate sum
of products of the alternatives with corresponding criteria. The decision
is then made based on ranking [27].
Several variations in MCDA technique employs the mathematical
and psychology. These include; case-based reasoning (CBR), simple
multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) and analytic hierarchy pro-
cess (AHP). AHP aims at analyzing and organizing complex decisions
HRT (days) Biogas yield Technology level
20–200 Poor Low
20–40 Poor Low
20–80 Good Medium
1–20. Good High
0.5–2 Good High
20–30 Good Medium
20–40 Good High
20–40 Good High
A. Njuguna Matheri et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

Table 2
The Saaty's scale intensity 1–9 [9,28].

Intensity of Importance Definition

1 Equal importance/preference
2 Weak
3 Moderate importance/preference
4 Moderate plus
5 Strong importance/preference
6 Strong plus
7 Very strong or demonstrated importance/preference
8 Very, very strong
9 Extremely importance/preference

basing on their relative importance independent of each other [28,29].

From the study done by Saaty [28], he developed a scale of 1–9 to score
alternatives base on their relative importance as shown in Table 2.
The major drawback of the AHP was the alteration of ranks in cases
where new alternatives were introduced into an already analyzed
problem [28,29]. By applying the SMART technique, alternatives are
ranked based on ratings that are assigned directly from their natural
scales [30,31]. The merit of the SMART technique over AHP is that the
decision-making model is developed independently of the alternatives.
Therefore, an introduction of new alternatives does not affect the rat-
ings of the original ones making it a simple and a more flexible tech-
nique [31]. In CBR, problem-solving is done basing judgement on si-
milar past problems and experiences [32].
The main objective of this study was to undertake the feasibility
study on the waste to energy. This included; investigating the use of
laboratory batch anaerobic digestion for biochemical methane potential
(BMP) and the waste to energy process selection and design modelling
for the anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid
waste (OFMSW) originating from the city's landfill and other substrate
from market waste to sewage sludge to be used as biofuel for the city
buses and electricity generation for the surrounding community.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Waste quantification and characterization
The research was undertaken at Robinson deep landfill,
Johannesburg market, cattle farm A, wastewater treatment A, City of
Johannesburg, South Africa. This involved quantification exercise by
measurement of the general waste at the point of generation. Waste
quantification-characterization was done to ascertain the composition.
This included chemical and physical composition with regards to the
different category of waste, total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS),
moisture content (MC), C/N ratio and elemental analysis for carbon,
nitrogen, sulphur and hydrogen in accordance with the standard
methods (APHA 1995) [33].
2.2. Bio-methane potential
To determine biomethane production rate, a batch digester was fed
with the co-digested substrates and inoculum (digested cow dung-CD)
under pre-set conditions of 37 °C and pH of 6.9 as shown in Fig. 1.
Bioprocess control AMPTS II was used to perform BMP for OFMSW and
the co-digested substrate. The AMPTS II consists of a digester, CO2
fixing unit and gas collection unit. The setup was in batch process. A
500 ml digester, with the organic loading rate of 400 ml was used for
biomethane production which had headspace of 100 ml. NaOH, CaCO4
and Ca(OH)2 was used for CO2 removal. Using NaOH, a 3 M NaOH
solution was prepared by mixing 240 g pure NaOH with distilled water
up to 2 ml. The solution was used as the scrubbing solution to absorb
the impurities. A pH indicator solution was added to NaOH solution
with 0.4% thymolphthalein pH-indicator solution (40 mg in 9 ml
Fig. 1. Biogas production set-up; (Biochemical methane potential (BMP) test, (1)
Thermostatic water bath, (2) Glass bottle reactor (digesters), (3) CO2- Fixing unit and (4)
Gas volume measuring device.
ethanol 99.5% and 1 ml water). The prepared NaOH with pH indicator
was used to determine the saturation point for the cleaning solution to
be replaced. The substrate was prepared and fed into the digesters. The
digesters were purged with nitrogen to expel the oxygen and create an
anaerobic condition. The digesters were connected to a 100 ml bottles
containing 80 ml NaOH and pH indicator solution, which was used as a
scrubber. The gas exiting the CO2 fixing unit (carbon capture) was sent
to the flow cell (gas collection unit) where the gas produced was
measured using downwards displacement method on a daily basis until
the completion of the retention time.
2.3. Waste to energy bio-digester selection and design model
2.3.1. Bio-digester selection model
Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) technique was employed
to select the most suitable bio-digester technology for substrate based
on weight of: cost of the digester (0.17), local availability of the digester
(0.18), temperature regulation ability (0.1), scalability (0.2) substrate
suitability (0.2), ease of construction (0.1) and presence of agitation
accessory (0.05). This involved the identification of the suitable di-
gesters for OFMSW with regards to the feasibility study of the organic
compound. To enable appropriate digester selection, identification of
the stakeholders in the bioenergy and green economy industry, seeking
the unbiased opinion and facts with regard to the histological tech-
nologies from the experts and modelling the obtained solution for the
detailed analysis was taken into consideration. The digesters in-
vestigated included: complete mix- continuous stirred tank reactor
(CSTR), up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), plug flow, covered
lagoon and fixed film.
The decision matrix approach (DMA) or weighted-sum method
(WSM) was employed. This evaluated each alternative respectively with
respect to each criterion and then multiply by the importance of the
criterion. The result was given by the sum of overall criteria for the
particular alternatives to generate the ranks of the alternative.
N
Ri = ∑ aij wj
j=1 (1)
where: Ri is the rank of the ith alternative, aij is the actual value of the ith
alternative in term of the jth criterion, n order and wj is the weight or
importance of the jth criterion [34,35]. Each was evaluated with respect
to each criterion. The computation of the results was shown in Table 3.
2.3.2. Waste to energy design model
Using the results obtained from the feasibility study, the appropriate
size and dimensioning of the bio-digester was determined using stan-
dard procedure considering substrate composition. Bio-digester

1115
A. Njuguna Matheri et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

Table 3
Multiple criteria decision analysis for bio-digester selection.

Criteria Cost Local Scalability OFMSW Temperature Presence of Ease of

availability suitability regulation ability agitation construction
accessory

Weight 0.17 0.18 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.1

Digester Score Wt. Score Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Score Wt. Score Wt. Score Score Wt. Score Wt. Total
types Score Score Score Score score

1 Complete 0.65 0.11 0.80 0.14 0.85 0.17 0.80 0.16 0.80 0.08 0.90 0.05 0.75 0.08 0.79
Mix- CSTR
2 UASB 0.50 0.09 0.75 0.14 0.65 0.13 0.30 0.06 0.75 0.08 0.80 0.04 0.75 0.08 0.60
3 Plug flow 0.70 0.12 0.60 0.11 1.00 0.20 0.40 0.08 0.60 0.06 0.60 0.03 0.75 0.08 0.67
4 Covered 0.80 0.14 0.80 0.14 0.40 0.08 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.05 0.30 0.02 0.80 0.08 0.61
Lagoon
5 Fixed film 0.65 0.11 0.70 0.13 0.40 0.08 0.60 0.12 0.70 0.07 0.75 0.04 0.75 0.08 0.62

Thus the diameter of the digester (D);

4Vr
D=
π (8)
Taking the gas holder/digester radial clearance to be 20 mm, gives a
diameter (d) of the gas holder as;

4Vr ⎞
d = (D −0.04) = ⎜⎛ ⎟ − 0.04

⎝ π ⎠ (9)
Given a gas holder volume (Vg), the height (h) of the gas holder is
therefore given by;
−2
4Vg 4Vg ⎛ ⎛ 4Vr ⎞ ⎞
h= = *⎜ ⎜ 3 ⎟ − 0.04⎟
πd 2 π ⎝⎝ π ⎠ ⎠ (10)
Fig. 2. Bio-digester with single dome.

2.3.2.2. Design using organic loading rate (Digesters' volume and surface
designing was used to demonstrate the correct geometry and dimen-
area). Total weight of mixture [21,37,38]. The Design of Biodigester is
sions of the bio-digester parameters required to satisfy a given organic indicated in Fig. 3.
loading rate conditions. This involved the use of suitable prescribe
model to determine dimensions and geometric equations: Wt = (Wvc + Wvs + Wvg ) + 2 (11)

Diameter of the digester cylinder is;

2.3.2.1. Design using waste quantification and characterization. Using
1.173
data obtained from the waste quantification and characterization, d = ( 3 dcap ) (12)
appropriate input parameters like the substrate volumetric flow rates
were ascertained. The aided in biodigester as shown in Fig. 2 [36]: Volume of the digester top dome;
Volume of digester;
Vr = Q*HRT (2)
where: Vr = volume of the digester, Q = volumetric flow rate, HRT =
hydraulic retention time. Volume of gas holder is taken as half digester
volume (Vg);
Vr
Vg =
2 (3)
Total biodigester volume (Vd);
Vd = Vr + Vg (4)
The digester cylindrical tank of volume (Vr);
πD 2H
Vr =
4 (5)
where: Vr = digester volume, D = diameter of the tank and H = height
of the digester. Assume height of the digester equal diameter of di-
gester;
D~H (6)

πD3
Vr =
4 (7) Fig. 3. Bio-digester with two dome.

1116
A. Njuguna Matheri et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

(3r 2 + f12 )*πf1 3. Results and discussion

V1 =
6 (13)
In this study, co-digestion of OFMSW, market vegetables, animal
where: V1 = volume of the digester top dome, f = height of dome and r manure and sewage sludge were evaluated for the purpose of getting
= radius of the digester. Volume of the digester cylinder; the bio-methane potentials at the optimum temperature of 37 °C, an
V2 = πr 2h (14) initial pH of 6.9, digester selection and designing.

where: V2 = volume of the digester cylinder, f = height of digester and

3.1. Waste quantification
r = radius of the digester. Volume of the digester bottom dome;

(3r 2 + f22 )*πf2 The results showed that 1,444,772 t per annum of domestic waste
V3 =
6 (15) was generated in the City's of 3.2 million citizens every year as reported
by City of Johannesburg, South Africa Pikitup (2015) [39]. Littering
where: V3 = volume of the digester bottom dome, f = height of dome alone cost the City 5.7 million dollars a year while illegal dumping costs
and r = radius of the digester. Surface area of digester top dome; another 6.2 million dollars per annum [39]. From our investigation
S1 = 2πp1 f1 (16) shown in Fig. 4, the landfill comprised of 34% organic, 5%, 3%, 1% and
17% were the metals, textile/fabric/leather, special care waste and
where: S1 = surface area of the digester top dome, f = height of dome others general waste respectively. The organic waste was the most
and p = radius of the digester. Surface area of the digester main cy- abundant component of the MSW, accounting to 34%. Recyclables
linder body; waste (paper/paperboards, plastics and glass) was the second-largest
S2 = πdh (17) component 12%, 19% and 9% respectively.
The organic fraction of MSW was the main substrate that was fed in
where: S2 = surface area of the digester cylinder body, h = height of the digesters for BMP from the landfills site. Utilizing these organic
digester and d = diameter of the digester. Surface area of the digester wastes to energy generation saves airspace and assist in waste man-
bottom dome; agement mitigation measures.
S3 = 2πp2 f2 (18)
3.2. Substrate characterization
where: S3 = surface area of the digester bottom dome, f = height of
dome, p = radius of the digester. Table 4 shows the substrate characterization of market fruit and
For the determination of safety in operation. The mixture act on two vegetable waste, sewage sludge, garden waste, cow manure as in-
surface areas, that of the bottom sphere and that of the cylinder hence oculum, food waste and the mixed organic fraction of the municipal
that designed area will be; solid waste.
Sa = πd (0.5d + h) (19) The TS% for mixed and garden waste was 27.33% and 29.26%, with
the moisture content of 72.67 and 70.74 respectively. It was observed
Pressure will then be; that there was no significant difference in TS% between mixed waste
F and garden waste. The TS% for the fruit waste was extremely low with
P= 9.69%. The high TS% of mixed MSW was due to the heterogeneous
πd (0.5d + h) (20)
nature of the waste with elements of uncooked grains, some garden
For safety of plant without failure, the pressure or stress developed waste and other foreign bodies. VS (TS%) was relatively high, favouring
must be less than the bearing capacity multiplied by the strength of the anaerobic digestion and ranged between 72.26–87.65% except for the
concrete and divided by a factor of safety; sludge where the VS% was low due to wastewater treatment (WWT)
aerobic and anaerobic digestion during the WWT process. The main
bcap*fc
P< advantage of the sewage sludge was the microbes that came with the
n (21)
sludge for the AD process. High VS% indicates high nutrients content of
where: n = safety factor 10%, bcap = bearing capacity, fc = strength of the substrate for the microbial growth and thus high biomethane pro-
concrete. duction. The moisture content was recorded optimum for the AD pro-
Equation the expression gives; cess. The C/N ratio for waste fruits, vegetables and garden waste was
below the optimal range of (10–30:1), indicating imbalanced nutrients
F bcap*fc
< (C/N) required by microorganisms during AD. Mixed waste had C/N
πd (0.5d + h) n (22) ratio of 14.56. From samples with high C/N ratio, co-digestion with a

Fig. 4. Municipal solid waste quantification at Robinson deep

landfill at the City of Johannesburg.

1117
A. Njuguna Matheri et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

Table 4
Substrate characterization of the substrate.

Substrate C H N S MC (%) VS (%) TS (%) C/N ratio

Fruits 5.17 2.90 0.95 0.00 90.30 82.78 9.69 5.44

Vegetables 5.97 2.52 0.99 0.00 86.24 87.65 13.75 6.03
Sewage sludge 47.66 6.64 3.18 1.16 37.16 37.18 62.82 15.47
Inoculum (CD) 41.61 5.44 1.97 1.81 1.81 47.18 98.18 21.12
Garden waste 19.67 5.36 1.96 0.00 70.74 72.26 29.26 10.03
Food waste 23.33 7.31 1.79 0.00 54.65 94.96 45.35 13.03
Mixed MSW 13.25 6.25 0.91 0.00 72.67 80.69 27.33 14.56

substrate of low C/N ratio was recommended. High C/N ratio leads to a
high production of carboxylic acids thus inhibiting the digestion due to
the high competition of nitrogen with the microbes. Likewise, low C/N
ratio lead to a high production of ammonia that poison the digestion
process. From the ultimate and proximate analysis of the waste stream
characterised, mono-digestion was possible for the substrate within the
acceptable range of parameters studied. However, for optimality and to
reduce the need for high-level control of process parameters, co-di-
gestion of waste streams was highly recommended.
3.3. Biochemical methane potential (BMP)
The analysis was experimentally achieved on a laboratory scale
using batch automatic methane potential test system (AMPTS II). In this
system, biochemical methane potential (BMP) tests were performed to
determine the anaerobic biodegradability and optimum methane po-
tential of waste as well as the biodegradation rate on a laboratory scale.
The organic loading rate ratio of 1:2 was considered with regards to VS
% of each substrate. The pH was regulated with calcium hydroxide (Ca
(OH)2), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and
sulphuric acid (H2SO4). This BMP assay was performed per day and
presented as in Fig. 5.
The result shows co-digestion of OFMSW with other substrates.
CaCO3 had higher biodegradability rate compared to other pH reg-
ulators like; Ca(OH)2 and NaOH. This was because calcium provided
nutrients for microbial growth and minimized accumulation of the
volatile fatty acids that lower the pH. However, using CaCO3 for pH
adjustment may not be advisable as large quantities of CaCO4 are re-
quired and this is not economically feasible as high costs may be in-
curred and cementing of the soil when digestate is used as bio-fertilizer
or organic fertilizer. Methane production under CaCO3 was approxi-
mately 3800 Nml/gVS compared with NaOH 148 Nml/gVS and Ca
(OH)2 which was approximately 221 Nml/gVS. Using bioprocess
loading rate gave higher methane content without the use of any re-
agent to regulate the pH. Optimum organic loading rate has proven to
be self-pH regulator. OFMSW inoculated with cow dung produced
326 Nml/gVS while OFMSW and sewage sludge produced 805 Nml/
gVS respectively due to the availability of the nutrients and the proper
balance of the pH. However, the ratio of 1:2 optimise the efficiency for
the production of methane. It has the highest methane yield which was
also enhanced by the mixing for 60 s interval under retention time. The
mixer speed was adjusted to 80% to enhance homogeneity for microbial
and substrates at a constant mesophilic temperature of 37 °C. The im-
portance of the hydrothermal processing increases the production of
biomethane and better the bugs in anaerobic digestion according to
Posmanik et al. [40]. From the 500 ml digester and 400 mg organic
loading rate, 805 Nml/gVS of methane production gave an equivalent
of 0.169 MJ that was 0.0046 kWh of energy. According to Nizamu et al.
[41] 1 m3 of methane from grass gave an approximately 37.78 MJ and
10.49 kWh of energy, while 1 m3 of methane from dairy manure gave
21 MJ of energy and 5.83 kWh [42]. According to the Mojapelo et al.
[43], the energy content of biogas is directly proportional to CH4
concentration and 1 m3 of CH4 from OFMSW has a calorific value of
around 9.81 kWh with zero CO2 [43].
3.4. Bio-digester selection and design
Using MCDA-SMART techniques, a suitable model was selected
from a list of potential alternatives (cost, scalability, local availability
and substrate suitability, the presence of agitation accessory, tem-
perature regulation ability and ease of construction) as showed in
Fig. 6. The developed list of bio-digesters (CSTR, UASB, plug flow,
covered lagoon and fixed film) alongside a summary of their attributes
are indicated and elaborated.
The overall priority of the anaerobic digestion is presented in Fig. 7.
The scalability of the bio-digester and their suitability to handle
substrate were taken to be the ruling factors for digester selection each
having individual weighted factors of 0.2. Ease of construction and
temperature regulation ability both weighed relatively lower at 0.1
because the technologies were relatively easy to set up and therefore
temperature can easily be regulated as the operating factor. The relative
locally availability of digester and cost price of the individual digester
was of importance because both factors had a direct implication on the
overall project cost in terms of the capital cost. Local purchased elim-
inates the added cost of the transport, inspection, retails facilities,
packaging and handling. Locally purchased is claimed to be better for
the working conditions and economic environment (green politics) that
enhance currency fluctuation and thus impact on overall cost. All this

4500 Fig. 5. Methane production from co-digestion of

Biomethane Accumulation (Nml/

OFMSW.
4000
3500 OFMSW_CaCO3

3000 OFMSW_NaOH
gVS)

2500
OFMSW_Ca(OH)2
2000 Methane production from co-digestion of OFMSW
1500 OFMSW

1000 OFMSW and Sludge

500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Retention time (Days)

1118
A. Njuguna Matheri et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

Fig. 6. Bio-digester ranking against each criterion.

data obtained from quantification and characterization, the appropriate

Fig. 7. Overall priority of each technology in anaerobic digestion process.
prioritized the financial systems through balance of the financial sta-
bility, innovation and economic growth (FSIEG). They weighed 0.18
and 0.17 respectively. The least important factor was the presence of
agitation accessories weighing 0.05. Continuous stirred tank reactor
(digester-CSTR) scored highest with 0.79 and was selected for the de-
sign of the bio-digester for the biomethane production.
Table 5 shows the historical waste data for the City of Johannes-
burg. The average total weight was indicated as 1,444,772 t/annum
and 3958.28 t/day with the valuable organic compound of an average
weight of 491,222.48 t/annum and 1348.82 t/day. Utilizing these or-
ganic compounds to energy saves disposal sites, mitigation of the cli-
mate change due to a reduction in CO2 and CH4 emission, transporta-
tion cost, odour reduction, carbon capture, zero waste and large
benefits of energy generation (renewable natural gas-RNG-bio-
methane), liquid CO2 and organic fertilizer from the digestate. Using
input parameters like the organic loading rate were ascertained. This
aided bio-digester design as presented in Table 6 and 7.
The BMP digester of 500 ml with the organic loading rate of 400 ml
gave a total bio-digester volume of 0.012 m3 with gas holder while bio-
digester with two dome gave 0.014 m3 with gas holder and digestate
holder. The energy content of 0.004 m3 biomethane (calculation) was
equivalent to 0.042 kWh and that from the experiment was
0.0046 kWh. For the average weight of the 1.4 million tonnes per
annum weight with 34% organic fraction of the solid waste in the City
of Johannesburg (CoJ), the digester capacity was approximated to be
16,995 m3 with one gas holder and 19486.27 m3 with gas holder and
digestate holder. The energy content from 5665 m3 of biomethane was
equivalent to 59.43 MW. The reference calculation was according to the
study done by Nizamu et al. [41]; 1 m3 of methane giving approxi-
mately 37.78 MJ and 10.49 kWh of energy. According to Kuria et al.
[36], 5.48 kg per day of the organic compound gave digester size of
0.49 m3 and gas holder of 0.25 m3 with retention time of 50 days which
was compatible with the results shown using the methodology formula
of the sizing and dimensioning; digester 0.41 m3 and gas holder of
0.27 m3. Same results were achieved with a retention time of 28 days
where Caslin [42] a bioenergy specialist show that 461 m3 with a
loading rate of 16.438 m3/day resulted to 460.264 m3 that was ac-
cording to our study. According to Curry et al. [44], there was a small
variation of the results on digester size of 27.12–30 m3 and gas holder
of 13.56–10 m3 but the overall volume was the same with 40.68–40 m3
respectively. According to New Horizon [45], the only state of art waste
to energy (WtE) plant at Cape Town, South Africa (SA), 60 t/day or
pure organic from landfills produce 1250 m3/h of raw biogas. This
show the potential of adopting the WtE technology in South Africa and
other Nations.

Table 5
Historical waste management data from the City of Johannesburg.

Ton/Annum Robinson Deep Ennerdale Marie Louise Goudkoppies Ton/ann Organic compounds Ton/ann

2008–09 363,661 130,602 383,265 221,911 1,099,439 373,809.26

2009–10 521,417 114,363 334,616 295,716 1,266,112 430,478.08
2010–11 449,254 121,710 417,578 470,278 1,458,820 495,998.80
2011–12 594,261 127,108 512,798 428,669 1,662,836 565,364.24
2012–13 670,166 106,698 472,738 420,415 1,670,017 567,805.78
2013–14 773,409 91,296 320,688 326,016 1,511,409 513,879.06
Average (ton/annum) 562,028 115,296 406,947 360,501 1,444,772 491,222.48
Average (ton/day) 1539.80 315.88 1114.92 987.67 3958.28 1348.81

Using data obtained from quantification and characterization, the appropriate input parameters like the organic loading rate were ascertained. This aided bio-digester design as presented
in Table 6 and 7.

1119
A. Njuguna Matheri et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121

Table 6
Design based on the volume and surface area from quantification.

Digester d (m) r (m) f1 (m) V1 (m3) h (m) V2 (m) f2 (m) V3 (m3) p1 (m) S1 (m2) S2 (m2) p2 (m) S3 (m) Total V (m3)

BMP 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.003 0.22 0.008 0.11 0.001 0.11 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.08 0.014
CoJ-Scale up 24.35 12.18 12.80 4076.35 24.35 11333.565 12.80 4076.35 12.18 979.08 1861.78 12.18 979.08 19486.27

Table 7
Design based on the volume from waste quantification.

Digester Q (m3/day) HRT (days) Vr (m3) D (m) H (m) d (m) h (m) Vg m 3 Vd m 3

BMP 0.0004 20.00 0.008 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.0040 0.012
CoJ-Scale up 566.50 20.00 11,330 24.35 24.35 24.31 12.21 5665 16,995

Where: V1 = volume of the digester top dome, f = height of dome, r = radius of the digester, V2 = volume of the digester cylinder, H = height of digester, S1 = surface area of the
digester top dome, p = radius of the dome, S2 = surface area of the digester cylinder body, D = diameter of the digester, S3 = surface area of the digester bottom dome, BMP =
biomethane potential set-up from feasibility study and CoJ = City of Johannesburg scale up digester from historical data.

3.5. Operation and maintenance of bio-digesters Acknowledgements

A carefully designed AD system should be easily run and maintained
without difficulty. However, this requires constant attention from the
owners of the plant. Poor maintenance of the plant results in opera-
tional problems which can have effects such as reduction in the amount
of biogas available for consumption. The following are the activities
that should be carried out in the running of an AD system to ensure its
proper functionality.
• The gas holder must be cleaned regularly cleaned so as to avoid the
accumulation of solids that eventually reduce the gas storage ca-
pacity by taking up the volume.
• Feeding of the plant must be done regularly at a predetermined rate
so as to achieve regular gas production.
• The water used should not contain chlorine as chlorine kills bac-
teria, and this would render the digester useless, therefore rainwater
harvesting is advised for households using biogas.
• The overflow tank should be kept clean by removing any over-
flowing slurry or else the outlet could get blocked and lead to
pressure imbalances in the digester resulting into a backflow of the
biogas through the inlet pipe.
• The careful selection of suitable feedstock coupled with sufficient
agitation of the substrate often prevents the occurrence of scum in
the digester. If scum occurs, the lid has to be opened and the scum
removed manually.
4. Conclusion
From the quantification-characterization results, OFMSW was found
to be the highest with 34%. The co-digestion of biomass in a 500 ml
digester under mesophilic temperature showed the optimum pro-
ductivity of biomethane of 59% recommended in the literature. The
rate of biomass conversion increased with increase in temperature and
retention time until an equilibrium state was attained. This could be
much useful to scale-up and commercialized. The CSTR was selected as
the preferred bio-digester for the anaerobic digestion of OFMSW with
the highest score of 79% using MCDA-SMART. The design of the bio-
digester in determining the dimensions and geometry of the digester
parameters was comparable with the waste to energy process tech-
nology. The digester scale-up indicated an energy content of 5665 m3 of
biomethane generated, this was equivalent to 59.43 MW. Thus, WtE
technology using CSTR could be viewed as key and economical feasible
component to renewable (green) energy; green economy, electricity
generation, liquid biofuel for the industrial and transport sector and
more vital to the renewable energy independent power producer pro-
curement programme (REIPPPP).
The authors wish to express their appreciation to Process Energy
Environmental and Technology Station (PEETS) funded by Technology
Innovation Agency (TIA), South Africa National Energy Development
Institute (SANEDI), City of Johannesburg-Green Economy (CoJ): CoJ/
UJ/WTE/FS001 through Mr. Thabo Maahlatsi, Prof. Charles Mbohwa;
Water Research Commission (WRC)- K5/2563 and University of
Johannesburg for allowing us to conduct the research. Dr Robert
Huberts and Dr Caliphs Zvinowanda for assisting with some of the
analysis equipment. Mr Samson Masebinu, Dr Jeffrey Bosire Orina, Dr
Martin Magu and Dr Agbenyeku Emmanuel for technical support.
References
[1] Allan H. Grass productivity. Washington DC: Island Press Conservation Classics
Series; 1998. p. 56–89.
[2] Latinwo GK, Agarry SE. Modelling the kinetics of biogas production from meso-
philic anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung with plantain peels. Int J Renew Energy
Dev 2015;4(1):55–63.
[3] E.I.A.. International energy outlook, annual energy US. Washington, DC: Energy
Information Administration; 2013.
[4] DBSA, SABIA, DoE. A report on the first national biogas conference. Midrand, South
Africa: Vulindlela Academy; 2013.
[5] Matheri AN., Mbohwa C, Belaid M, Tumisang S, Ngila JC. Mesophilic anaerobic co-
digestion of cow dung, chicken droppings and grass clippings. Lecture notes in
engineering and computer science. In: Proceedings of the world congress of en-
gineering and computer science. San Francisco, USA, 19–21 October 2016, 2016. p.
846–51.
[6] United Nations, U.N., Progress towards the sustainable development goals.
Economic and social council for the UnitedNation. E/2016/75; 2016.
[7] McDougall FR, White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated solid waste management: a
life cycle inventory. John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
[8] White P, Dranke M, Hindle P. Integrated solid waste management: a lifecycle in-
ventory. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
[9] Matheri AN, Mbohwa C, Belaid M, Tumisang S, Ngila JC, Muzenda E. Waste to
energy technologies from organics fraction of municipal solid waste. lecture notes in
engineering and computer science. In: Proceedings of the world congress of en-
gineering and computer science. San Francisco, USA, 19-21 October; 2016. p.
846–51.
[10] Matheri AN, Belaid M, Seodigeng T, Ngila JC. The role of trace elements on
anaerobic co-digestion in biogas production. Lecture notes in engineering and
computer science. In: Proceedings of the world congress of engineering. London,
UK, 29 June-1 July 2016; 2016. p. 784–9.
[11] Sambo AS, Garba B, Danshehu BG. Effect of some operating parameters on biogas
production rate. Renew Energy 1995;6(3):343–4.
[12] Dangoggo S, Aliyu M, Atiku A. The effect of seeding with bacteria on biogas pro-
duction rate. Renew Energy 1996;9(1):1045–8.
[13] Sundararajan R, Jayanthi S, Elango R. Anaerobic digestion of organic fractions of
municipal solid waste and domestic sewage of Coimbatore. Indian J Environ Health
1997;39(3):193–6.
[14] Angelidaki I, Hendriksen HV, Mathrani I, Schmidt J, Sørensen A, Ahring B. The
biogas process. Lecture notes for: Energy from biomass. (6362); 1996.
[15] Matheri AN, Sethunya VL, Belaid M, Muzenda E. Analysis of the biogas productivity
from dry anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017.

1120
A. Njuguna Matheri et al.
[16] Matheri AN, Ndiweni SN, Belaid M, Muzenda E, Hubert R. Optimising biogas pro-
duction from anaerobic co-digestion of chicken manure and organic fraction of
municipal solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;80:756–64.
[17] Schnurer A, Jarvis A, Microbiological handbook for biogas plants 2010. Swedish
Waste Management U2009, p. 1–74.
[18] Available Online: 〈http://www.e-inst.com/biomass-to-biogas〉, [Accessed 15 July
2017].
[19] Al Seadi T, Rutz D, Prassl H, Köttner M, Finsterwalder T, Volk S, et al. Biogas
handbook. University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg; 2008. [ISBN 978-87-992962-
0-0].
[20] Rapport J, Zhang R, Jenkins BM, Williams RB. Current anaerobic digestion tech-
nologies used for treatment of municipal organic solid waste Davis: University of
California; 2008. [Contractor Report to the California Integrated Waste
Management Board].
[21] Matheri AN, Mbohwa C, Belaid M, Tumisang S, Ngila JC, Design model selection
and dimensioning of anaerobic digester for the OFMSW. Lecture notes in en-
gineering and computer science. In: Proceedings of the world congress of en-
gineering and computer science. San Francisco, USA, 19–21 October 2016; 2016. p.
846–51.
[22] Lfu. Biogashandbuch Bayern, Materialienband. Augsburg. Available Online 〈http://
www.lfu.bayern.de/abfall/biogashandbuch〉. (letzterZugriffam06.12.2012).
[Accessed 18 July 2017].
[23] Kana EBG, Oloke JK, Lateef A, Adesiyan MO. Modeling and optimization of biogas
production on saw dust and other co-substrates using the artificial neural network
and genetic algorithm. Renew Energy 2012;46:276–81.
[24] Balas CE, Koç ML, Tür R. Artificial neural networks based on principal component
analysis, fuzzy systems and fuzzy neural networks for preliminary design of rubble
mound breakwaters. Appl Ocean Res 2010;32(4):425–33.
[25] Uraikul V, Chan CW, Tontiwachwuthikul P. Artificial intelligence for monitoring
and supervisory control of process systems. Eng Appl Artif Intell
2007;20(2):115–31.
[26] Chai J, Liu JNK, Ngai EWT. Application of decision-making techniques in supplier
selection: a systematic review of the literature. Expert Syst Appl
2013;40(10):3872–85.
[27] Dangoggo S, Aliyu M, Atiku A. Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London:
Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.
[28] Saaty TL. Decision making – the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/
ANP). J Syst Sci Syst Eng 2004;13(1):1–35.
[29] Pohekar SD, Ramachandran M. Application of multi-criteria decision making to
1121
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 1113–1121
sustainable energy planning – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2004;8(4):365–81.
[30] Barron FH, Barrett BE. The efficacy of SMARTER – simple multi-attribute rating
technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychol 1996;93(1):23–36.
[31] Belton V. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-at-
tribute value function. Eur J Oper Res 1986;26(1):7–21.
[32] Leake DB. Case-based reasoning: experiences, lessons and future directions. MIT
press; 1996.
[33] Rice EW, Bridgewater L. A.P.H.A.. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2012.
[34] Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol
1977;15(3):234–81.
[35] Bhushan N, Rai K. Strategic decision making by applying the analytic hierarchy
process. Springer; 2004. p. 172.
[36] Kuria J, Maringa M. Developing simple procedures for selecting, sizing, scheduling
of materials and costing of small bio-gas units. Int J Serv Learn Eng, Humanit Eng
Social Entrep 2008;3(1).
[37] Umaru S, Abubakar AF, Ismail IR. Computer aided design of biogas plant for
modern abattoirs. IRACST – Eng Sci Technol: Int J (ESTIJ) 2013:2.
[38] Matheri AN, Ntuli F, Belaid M, Seodigeng T, Ngila JC, Mbohwa C. Selection and
dimensioning model of the anaerobic digester for the sewage sludge digestion to
energy. Vol. lecture notes in engineering and computer science. In: Proceedings of
the world congress on engineering and computer science, World Scientific-ITES;
2017.
[39] Pikitup C.o.J. 〈http://joburg.org.za〉. [Accessed 20 July 2017].
[40] Posmanik R, Labatut RA, Kim AH, Usack JG, Tester JW, Angenent LT. Coupling
hydrothermal liquefaction and anaerobic digestion for energy valorization from
model biomass feedstocks. Bioresour Technol 2017;233:134–43.
[41] Nizami A, Murphy JD. What type of digester configurations should be employed to
produce biomethane from grass silage? Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2010;14(6):1558–68.
[42] Caslin B. Potential of farm scale AD in Ireland. AD in Ireland; 2009.
[43] Mojapelo N, Muzenda E, Kigozi R, Aboyade AO. Bio-methane potential of the or-
ganic fraction of the municipal solid waste; 2014.
[44] Curry N, Pillay P. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for
the urban environment. Renew Energy 2012;41:200–9.
[45] IWMSA. Promoting integrated resources management; resource. Institute of Waste
Management of Southern Africa; 2017.