Journal of Cleaner Production

Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135867
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Review
New opportunities for the European Biogas industry: A review on current

installation development, production potentials and yield improvements
for manure and agricultural waste mixtures
Cornelis Bumharter, David Bolonio, Isabel Amez, María Jesús García Martínez,
Marcelo F. Ortega *
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros de Minas y Energía, Calle Ríos Rosas 21, 28003, Madrid, Spain
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Handling Editor: Zhen Leng Despite most biogas-plants worldwide being within the EU-country territory, the potential of converting existing
waste streams is not exploited sufficiently in the current industry landscape. Through analysing EU databases, it
was determined that only 2.65% of biogas is produced to what is possible. The biogas generation potential is
quoted as 2.46 × 107 TJ in energetic value, which is juxtaposed by the current production estimates of 6.51 ×
105 TJ in 2021. We summarise the current legislative landscape and biogas outlook, primarily showing that
many waste systems become uneconomical due to high transport distances to industrial-scale, high-efficiency
biogas plants. To reduce environmental impact and profit from waste-to-energy mechanisms, individual farms
are to focus on small-scale local biogas plants to boost their self-sufficiency objectives. The main feedstocks
present in agriculture have been analysed to evaluate the best performance parameter to provide insight into
process optimisation. Through statistical analysis of 65 independent co-digestion studies of manure and ligno
cellulosic biomass systems, the carbon-nitrogen ratio (C/N) is the most important factor to produce a high
biomethane proportion in biogas. The ratio is equally crucial in the production quantity of biogas, as slight
deviances may cause pH changes to either volatile fatty acid or ammonia accumulation. Modelling tasks showed
that especially systems containing less than 50% manure show several correlations between pH, reduced volatile
solids and C/N. Any inflection in pH yields inhibition as microbial performance reduces due to unfavourable
conditions in the biogas reactor. It is apparent that anaerobic co-digestion of feedstocks is advantageous and
using mixing regimes, larger implementation of low-cost pilot-scale digesters is advised in rural settlements. The
behaviour of C/N, pH, solids retention time and manure proportion are discussed, showing that low C/N ratios of
15–25 are vital for good performance, whilst especially manure-heavy digestions perform better under higher pH
conditions than comparative studies with more lignocellulosic biomass. The potential to degrade volatile solids
(VS) is decreased substantially after more than 50% of manure have been added to the co-digestion.
1. Introduction Furthermore, human waste management and unsustainable agriculture

are specifically damaging to ecosystems, promote greenhouse gas (GHG)
The European Union (EU) has provided a set of regulations for their production and cause widespread pollution (Scarlat et al., 2018; Mat
objective to reach “no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050” (Euro a-Alvarez et al., 2000). Due to poor after-treatment processes and
pean Commission, 2019). As climate change is accelerated through landfill disposal, methane, nitrous oxide, and other GHG are emitted by
growing economies, innovative technologies are sought to reach energy inadequate disposal, extensively straining the carbon budget by having a
independence and a shift towards renewable sources becomes apparent greater GHG potential than carbon dioxide (Paolini et al., 2018).
worldwide. The necessity for renewable energy sources that solve Technologies such as anaerobic digestion (AD), the simultaneous
intermittency issues seen from conventional renewable sources is un digestion of more than a single feedstock, actively reduce the chemical
equivocal, and biofuels provide a solution to meet that requirement. oxygen demand of waste products and limit the environmental damage
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.F. Ortega).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135867
Received 25 October 2022; Received in revised form 16 December 2022; Accepted 2 January 2023
Available online 10 January 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Bumharter et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135867
produced through harmful GHG emissions. 2. European biogas landscape

Using AD, waste management uses residue materials to produce a
renewable, combustible and carbon-neutral fuel, biogas, mainly con To properly understand the future potential for rapid biogas
sisting of CO2 and CH4 (Scarlat et al., 2018). This alternative disposal upscaling potential, the political framework and current installation
mechanism provides a benchmark for future sustainable practices in capacities should be discussed for context.
fertilisation and stable energy production due to the abundance of AD is a mature technology that has its commercial origin in the
agricultural and livestock waste created. Ubiquitous biogas imple 1970s with the first oil crisis and the onset of climate change concerns in
mentation further holds the benefits of reducing major environmental the 1990s (Scarlat et al., 2018; Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018). As a
strains on the ecosystems, as renewable fertilizers and reduced ecolog result, research activity within the scientific article database Scopus
ical damage diminishes ecotoxicity, eutrophication, water contamina shows an exponential trend with behaviour of (year)0.135 for studies
tion and air pollution (Scarlat et al., 2018; Paolini et al., 2018). This from the 1990s to now, indicating that rising environmental concerns
review assesses the potential of implementing AD on the EU waste led to the contribution of scientific discovery in the field (Kougias and
accumulating in the agriculture and livestock sectors by taking data Angelidaki, 2018). Fig. 1 illustrates the European installation of biogas
from Eurostat databases and comparing average biogas yield data from plants in recent years and worldwide capacity distribution. On average,
previous AD studies for manure and lignocellulosic biomass feedstocks the European plant installation has increased by 20% annually. Europe
to provide an estimation for the total amount of biogas production po leads the industry with a 50% share in biogas production, followed by
tential within the EU, and its relative current implementation. Resulting 35% in Asia and 14% in the Americas (GLOBAL BIOENERGY STATIS
from this analysis, further incentives can be sought to improve biogas TICS, 2021 World, 2021). Of the total 62.3 Mm3 of biogas energy pro
production upscaling in the EU. duced worldwide in 2019, Europe boasts to be market leader due to
Previous studies in the field of anaerobic co-digestion (AcD) have substantial implementation of industrial Biogas plants, whereas Asia
concentrated on mixing various feedstocks to derive an optimum mainly focuses on small, domestic units (GLOBAL BIOENERGY STA
mixture of prime materials, leading to the highest methane composition TISTICS, 2021 World, 2021; Bušić et al., 2018).
in biogas, whilst also producing the largest quantities of biogas. AcD has
been vastly explored in literature and is considered unanimously as an 2.1. Biogas in Europe: common practices and market leaders
improved method for producing a renewable fuel, as suggested by
Scarlat et al. (2018) and Kougias and Angelidaki (2018) (Scarlat et al., Between 2008 and 2016, the European Union has seen a doubling in
2018; Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018). Furthermore, through the addi biogas production from 93 to 187 TWh (EurObserv’ER, 2017; EurOb
tion of hydrogen to the biogas, an enhanced combustion stability has serv’ER, 2010). Whilst biogas implementation has decelerated in recent
been shown by complimentary studies such as Amez et al. (2021) (Amez years, Kampman et al. (2017) suggests an accelerated biogas installation
et al., 2021). Therefore, through analysis of feedstock ratios, the biogas capacity to 2030 due to energy independence and sustainability criteria
quality may be predicted, and one can calculate the required hydrogen (Tagne et al., 2021; Kampman BLCSTTKJBRMGLJPMKSNEB, 2017).
addition to produce a stable combustion for generating low-cost, By production quantities, Germany is the largest EU biogas producer,
decentralised, carbon-neutral and sustainable sources of heat and en followed by Italy and France (Biogas Barometer, 2020, 2020, 2020).
ergy (Amez et al., 2021; Zhen et al., 2014; Tagne et al., 2021). Fig. 2 summarises the main European biogas producers, the available
Biogas-hydrogen mixtures will play a central role in a carbon-neutral arable land for crop cultivation, percentages of farming activities of the
combustion portfolio of the EU, and proper understanding of this field GDP, renewable energy shares, main crop production and their relative
of research is required for optimal implementation. share in comparison to all agricultural products of the country (Biogas
The current state of literature does not cover a holistic study evalu Barometer, 2020, 2020; Eurostat Data Browser, 2449a; Eurostat Data
ating a broad range of biogas production studies, and no study has been Browser, 2448; Eurostat Data Browser, 2449b; Eurostat Data Browser,
performed to analyse various experiments that have been previously 2426; Eurostat Glossary; Eurostat Data Browser, 2022; Eurostat Data
devised and conducted against each other. The objective of this review is Broser, 2022). The raw data is reproduced in tabular format (Tables S2,
to fill this gap in expertise through summarising the key results of each S3, and S4) in the supplementary material.
recently performed study and analysing them statistically. Additionally,
this work should support the development of further biogas technologies 2.2. EU regulatory framework
in Europe and increase the yield in biogas/methane through minimising
the waste’s chemical oxygen demand after treatment. This summary The EU regulatory framework is complex and dates to 1997 with the
profile provides an overview on the biogas development on all EU White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan by the European
countries and elucidates the potential of not yet realised biogas pro Council and the European Parliament as a setting stone for renewable
duction in the EU. energy policy (Scarlat et al., 2018; European Commission). Table 1
This paper provides a review on the recent developments in AcD by summarises the major regulations and communications by the European
assessing the legislative landscape and production potentials in Europe. Commission on promoting development for renewable energies,
Chapter three focusses on a Eurostat study assessing the waste generated improving directives to prevent climate change, and general sustain
in agriculture and livestock management in all European countries, ability criteria. A more complete list may be found in the supplemental
which indicates how much biogas may be produced from waste streams. material.
Through this, a comparison of the political climate and the current ca
pacity installation is obtained, allowing for an overview of future bio 2.3. Potentials and outlook
energy implementation potentials for the energy market. Following this,
various prediction strategies are discussed which lead to a statistical The outlook of the biogas sector is positive, given that various
analysis of data collected from 65 independent co-digestion studies. This sources predict a growth in the industry in coming years and the
has been performed to analyse various waste stream mixtures and pre installation capacities to skyrocket. The European Biogas Association
dict the optimum factors for ideal biogas production so that industrially, (EBA) quotes various predictions in their roadmap to 2030/2050 (Eu
performance parameters may be optimised to attain ideal operation ropean Biogas Association, 2018b; Arnau et al., 2022):
conditions. Lastly, issues faced by the industry in terms of supply secu
rity, environmental concerns and economic intricacies are examined. • Renewable gas, from sources such as AD, will exceed 10% of the EU’s
current natural gas consumption by 2030. In fact, Scarlat et al.
(2018) quotes that Germany has already passed its 10% gas
2
Fig. 1. Global Biogas Installation Capacity Development Sorted by Regions (Renewable Energy Agency I, 2021; RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY STATISTICS,
2015, 2015; International Renewable Energy Agency, 2017) and Installed Biogas Plants within the EU. Timeframe 2009 to 2019. Data for 2018 was interpolated
(European Biogas Association, 2018a; Iglesias et al., 2021).
Fig. 2. A summary of various biogas statistics. Data sourced and processed by the Eurostat database (Eurostat Data Browser, 2449a; Eurostat Data Browser, 2448;
Eurostat Data Browser, 2449b; Eurostat Data Browser, 2426; Eurostat Glossary; Eurostat Data Browser, 2022; Eurostat Data Broser, 2022).
consumption in 2015, with 12.1% of their gas consumption being growing exponentially at the current rate and is growing in impor
from renewable sources (Scarlat et al., 2018; European Biogas As tance, as shown in literature (Scarlat et al., 2018; Arnau et al., 2022;
sociation, 2018b). Using pre-treatment strategies, the methane yield Adnan et al., 2019). For instance, in 2021 40% more upgrading units
is augmented and more waste products that were previously assumed were installed than had been operating in the past, proving the dy
to be indigestible are now available for utilisation in AD. namic development of the sector (Arnau et al., 2022).
• By 2030, it is expected that twice the current biogas energy gener • Industry growth will offer job prospects within the biogas sector,
ated (191 TWh in 2020) will be produced. The biomethane map 2021 accumulating to about 420,000 new jobs by 2030. By 2050, the
projects sustainable biomethane to cover 30–40% of EU gas con employment within the biogas sector is projected to increase by
sumption by 2050, producing approximately 1000 TWh (as 500% as large-scale implementation is expected, leading to an esti
compared to 191 TWh in 2020) (Arnau et al., 2022). Some estimates mated 1 million jobs within the biogas industry (Arnau et al., 2022).
predict an upper band of up to 1700 TWh of production (Arnau et al., • A study by the CE Delft and the European Commission evaluated the
2022). Additionally, the installation of biogas-upgrading plants is European biogas prospects and project a biogas and biomethane
3
Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

A summary of key European renewable energy and biogas policies. Year Name/ Description Reference
Year Name/ Description Reference Communication
Communication
biologically
1991 EU Nitrates Directive • Hinders and limits the (Musacchio et al., 2020; synthesised fuels
use of nitrogen-based European Biogas • Support for
manure digestate Association, 2018b) renewable natural gas
after AD post- transportation in
processing existing gas networks
2010 Common • Incentivises biogas European Commission and trade through
Agricultural Policy production in rural Agriculture and Rural origin certificates
(CAP) settings to reduce Development • Revised sustainability
emissions of methane Directorate General for thresholds for
from animal waste Agriculture and Rural biofuels: for public
and manure Development (2010) funding eligibility,
2011 COM(2011) 112 • 80–95% carbon (Scarlat et al., 2018; biofuels must provide
final statement and emission reduction in COM, 2011; COM, at least 65–80% GHG
COM(2011) 885 each EU member 2012; Scarlat et al., savings depending on
final statement country by 2050 2015) the application
• RES of 55–75% in sector. This was
consumption implemented to
• Decarbonisation and reduce the incentive
Energy Roadmap for for damaging
2050 published ecosystems
2012 The bioeconomy • Fossil fuel (Scarlat et al., 2018; (wetlands, forests and
strategy: COM substitution to European Biogas peatlands, i.e. natural
(2012) 60 natural resources in Association, 2018b; carbon sinks) to
chemical and Scarlat et al., 2015; produce more energy
material industries. COM (2012) 60final, crops for biofuel
• Revision in 2018 to 2012; Peter and production (Indirect
define recyclable and ChristianEuropean land use change,
bio-based fertilisers Commission) ILUC)
within a circular 2021 EU Taxonomy • AD (and upgrading (EBA European Biogas
economy context: AD Climate Delegated with gas grid Association, 2021;
digestate is recog Act injection) recognised European Commission,
nised as a fertiliser, a sustainable and low- 2021)
but must still be carbon activity, pro
registered under the moting investments
REACH programme in the biogas sector
as a hazardous 2021 Fit-for-55 Package • 55% carbon emission (European Parliament,
substance. reductions by 2030, 2021; Arnau et al.,
2015 COP21 Paris United • General agreement to (Scarlat et al., 2018; net-zero pollution by 2022)
Nations Framework limit global European Biogas 2050
Convention temperature rise to Association, 2018b; UN • Proposal of further
1.5 ◦ C FCCC, 2015) biofuel deployment to
• Production of the abide by EU climate
Intended Nationally law
Determined
Contribution (INDC)
for each country to production potential of 2.7 and 3.7% of the EU’s energy consumption
define goals in by the year 2030 (Lesschen et al., 2017).
preventing exceeding
• A study led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
of climate change by
2 ◦C predicts the increase of energy generation through biomass and
• Led to the third EU biofuels to 50,000, 75,000, and 89,000 TWh by the years 2050, 2075
Clean Mobility and 2100 respectively (Divya et al., 2015).
Package (2018)
2016 COM(2016) 767 • Limitation of biofuels (Scarlat et al., 2018;
final/2 statement derived from food/ COM (2016) 767
Biogas upgrading to biomethane allows for simple distribution,
energy crops of 3.8% final/2, 2017) storage and selling through the existing natural gas grid (Scarlat et al.,
of the fuel mix 2018). Appropriate registration and guarantee-of-origin biomethane
2018 Renewable Energy • Revision of targets (European Biogas permits the trading of gas on the energy market according to an
Directive (REDII) and roadmaps to Association, 2018b;
energy-equivalence approach. The procurement of biomethane is thus
reach climate European Parliament,
neutrality by 2050 2018) incentivised despite no proximity to an upgrading plant such that the
• EU-wide minimum carbon emission credits are lowered on the buyer’s side. Given the EU
renewable energy grid infrastructure this poses a popular solution, but this review purely
consumption target of focusses on biogas. Compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural
32% by 2030
• Heating sector: 1.3%
gas (LNG) are transport fuels used by heavy duty vehicles for public
annual increase in transport or logistics. Through substitution to biomethane contained
renewable energy within the grid network, lower carbon emissions are also brought
share (RES) through AD in road transport. The European biomethane use for trans
• Transport sector: 14%
port increased 74% in 2019 to 14 PJ (Scarlat et al., 2018).
RES by 2030,
including 3.5% Immediate combustion of biogas is also possible for in-situ heat and
mixture share of energy supply. This decentralised approach makes use of combustion in
combined heat and power plants (CHP), where occasionally hydrogen is
4
added to the gas mixture to improve combustion stability (Amez et al., 3.1. Waste impact in agriculture and livestock rearing
2021). The development of localised heat networks from CHP and
decentralised energy production provide a further economic outlook for 3.1.1. Lignocellulosic biomass
biogas installations (Gustafsson and Anderberg, 2021). AD and biogas Lignocellulosic biomass has received widespread attention due to its
production is one of the few energy generation sources that may be potential of producing a renewable fuel without endangering human
carbon negative, as net emissions are often quoted negative due to an and animal food supply. However, recalcitrant cell structure of ligno
excess of carbon being deposited as digestate. Especially through the cellulosic biomass inhibits the ability to easily perform AD and prevents
incorporation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies or microbial attack by hydrolysis, impeding the potential of biodegrada
oxyfuel combustion carbon-sink technologies may be coupled (Reijnders tion (Bušić et al., 2018). As a result, reaction kinetics change, and hy
and Huijbregts, 2008; Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 1997). drolysis is the rate limiting biogas production process (Bušić et al.,
Gustafsson et al. (2021) discuss the necessity for continuity and 2018). Hydrolysis is the reaction step dictating the “breakdown” of
stable legislature for biogas development (Gustafsson and Anderberg, complex carbohydrates, lipids and proteins to produce simpler chemical
2021). According to their analysis, uncertain economic conditions, un compounds such as monomers and oligomers. Because of this, feedstock
predictable laws and unstable prices were the main barrier for biogas pre-processing for lignocellulosic materials is often performed to
capacity installation. Feed-in tariffs and other stability measures pro improve the material breakdown efficiency of cellulose and hemicellu
mote the biogas landscape and provide the incentives for further in lose structures. Examples of several pre-treatment techniques are sum
vestment into this industry (Gustafsson and Anderberg, 2021). A marised in Table 2 (Bušić et al., 2018).
continuity in support schemes has seen vast investment in countries such Fig. 2 shows the most common agricultural products in Europe. On
as Germany and Italy, but also holds risks in terms of “lock-in effects” an EU-wide level, animal and energy crops dominate the production
that prevent further innovation and improvement of the technology landscape with a total share of 40.40%. Animal and energy crops include
(Gustafsson and Anderberg, 2021). A great challenge perceived by the grains, industrial plants and other plants used as fodder for animals, the
industry are various environmental and pollution directives that spark production of biomass or as biomass for energy production (Eurostat
uncertainty, and subsequently, reduced investments. Statistics Explained, 1177). The production of cereal produces large
amounts of lignocellulosic biomass, as straw products are seldom used as
3. Agricultural and livestock management in Europe fodder and not competing with human dietary requirements (Maji et al.,
2020). Roots and lignocellulosic material of animal and energy crops are
The stringent European climate goals hold the agricultural and wasted due to low availability of viable and economic applications
livestock sector accountable to reduce their climate impact using (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). An example of plants used include maize silage,
friendlier sector practices to limit the environmental impact of the in clover, alfalfa, and different types of grain plants (Eurostat Statistics
dustry. Whilst agriculture and livestock rearing do not play a substantial Explained, 1177). Any output that does not show economic value or
role on an economy-wide level, it counts as one of the main GHG immediate application in terms of transportation, collection and pro
emitters with nearly 33% total emissions, proving that further work and cessing effort is considered a waste product from agricultural practices
research is required to understand and mitigate these circumstances (Maji et al., 2020).
(Crippa et al., 2021). Generally, agricultural crop residues are left on the land plot and
Fig. 2 gives a summary on agricultural and energy data in the EU ploughed into the soil for slow-term (over a period of years) nutrient
(Eurostat Data Browser, 2449a; Eurostat Data Browser, 2448; Eurostat release for the next generations of crops following to be grown on the
Data Browser, 2449b; Eurostat Data Browser, 2426; Eurostat Glossary; land plot. Crop residues support irrigation efficiency, soil health and
Eurostat Data Browser, 2022; Eurostat Data Broser, 2022). The large EU erosion control, or can be post-processed into compost (Maji et al.,
countries Germany, France, Spain, Poland and Romania quote the 2020). Biomass mismanagement leads to nitrate, sulphate and phos
largest area of agricultural land, with each more than 10 million hect phate leaching, but generally has less detrimental impacts compared to
ares available for agriculture. Utilised agricultural area is any area that inorganic fertilisers, which pose greater environmental threats through
sees cultivation of any form, including arable land, permanent grass their leaching potential (Maji et al., 2020). Denitrification and
land, permanent crops, and kitchen gardens (Eurostat Glossary). Arable
land, on the other hand, is defined as land regularly ploughed or trilled
with crop rotation of several types of common crops (Eurostat Glossary). Table 2
Fig. 2 also informs on the main agricultural output in each country. It Lignocellulosic Biomass used for AD along with the Pre-treatment Method
becomes apparent that most countries have animal or energy crops Employed.
(“Plants Harvested Green” in Eurostat) or cereals as their main agri Type Biomass used Pre-treatment
cultural output. The supplementary material shows reference nutritional Wood Birch Alkaline (NaOH) Pre-treatment (
values of main European crop outputs and may be referred to by inter Goshadrou et al., 2013; Kabir et al.,
ested readers. The percentage of agriculture and livestock rearing GDP 2013; Teghammar et al., 2012)
in the EU is low, yet surprisingly this sector is responsible for dispro Spruce and Birch N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide
(NMMO) (Goshadrou et al., 2013;
portionate 33% of GHG emissions (Crippa et al., 2021). When investi Kabir et al., 2013; Teghammar
gating renewable energy shares in member states, it becomes apparent et al., 2012)
that most countries are not even close to reaching the 2050 neutrality Pine Tree Wastes Needle leaves, NMMO (Cuissinat and Navard,
goal and an upscale installation of renewable energy and infrastructure branches, cones and 2006)
bark
development is required to meet neutrality in less than 30 years.
Straw Rice, Barley, Triticale, NH3OH, NMMO, Microwave,
As discussed later in section 5, a high water and fibre content is not Winter Rye, Oilseed Mechanical Extrusion, Wet
beneficial for the anaerobic digestion of a waste product and does not Rape, Faba Bean, oxidation, Na2CO2 and elevated
yield large amounts of biogas. From assessing this data, it becomes Wheat pressure (Goshadrou et al., 2013;
evident that especially cereals, animal/energy crops and roots lend Kabir et al., 2013, 2014;
Teghammar et al., 2012; Song,
themselves to anaerobic digestion. Additionally, the adverse climate Yang, Guo, Zhang; Petersson et al.,
effects of manure are decreased through post-processing and environ 2007; Jackowiak et al., 2011)
mental threats are decreased as a result of the treatment of the waste Water Hyacinth N/A (1-N-butyl-3-me-thylimidazolium
stream. (Eichhornia chloride and dimethyl sulfoxide) (
crassipes) Gao et al., 2013)
5
immobilisation of nutrients may also occur and render the effectiveness properties within the feedstock. A low carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, C/N,
of the nutrients in the soil (Maji et al., 2020). By using pesticides, soil coupled with unfavourable nitrogen concentrations within the manure
health may also be affected (Wohlfahrt et al., 2010). render its effectiveness to be digested in without further substrates.
(Iglesias et al., 2021). The quantity of volatile solids (VS) is compara
3.1.2. Manure tively low and there are numerous parts of the manure that cannot be
Waste products from animals provide a nutrient-rich and highly biologically degraded with the same ease as other biological substances.
potent feedstock for renewable fuel generation and organic fertiliser As a result, animal manure is favoured to be digested in co-digestion
production, especially through AD (Iglesias et al., 2021). A trend is with lignocellulosic biomass, to improve degradability potentials and
clearly observed in developed countries: whilst the number of farms stabilise the AD process (Issah et al., 2020; Nasir and Mohd Ghazi
decrease, the number of animals within each farm increases tremen TIOmar, 2012; Tsapekos et al., 2016).
dously (Iglesias et al., 2021; Garzón, 2022). Livestock production is also Thermal, physical, chemical and biological pre-treatments are often
transformed in the same way in developing countries, where economies performed on animal manure to improve methane and biogas yield
of scale are exploited to provide low-cost sources of animal products along with abiding to specific sanitary and environmental regulations.
(Iglesias et al., 2021). As a result of these pre-treatments, the methane yield improves by 32%,
The expected animal droppings can be estimated based on knowl 45%, and 46%, to 238 Nm3/ton VS, 271 Nm3/ton VS and 328 Nm3/ton
edge of total animals within Europe, but are subject to variables such as VS for cow, pig and poultry manure respectively according to a study by
feeding regimes, livestock management strategies, types of production Orlando and Borja (2020).
systems, and the shelter system used for animals (Ogbuewu et al., 2011).
If there is no effective manure management, livestock farms exacerbate 3.1.3. Landscape and associated problems
global warming through dire environmental footprints (Chadwick et al., Fig. 3 elucidates the estimated livestock waste created from all
2011; van Dijk et al., 2016; Velthof et al., 2014; Webb et al., 2012). In bovine and swine animals reared in EU countries (Eurostat Data
contrast, using manure has the potential to transform the energy land Browser, 2426; Eurostat Glossary; Eurostat Data Browser, 2022; Euro
scape and promote circular economies through the renewable produc stat Data Broser, 2022; Eurostat Data Browser, 2447; Eurostat Data
tion of energy, along with replacing industrial fertilisers, reducing the Browser, 2021a; Eurostat Data Browser, 2021b). More statistics have
impact of chemical fertilisation on soils today (Li et al., 2018). been published in the supplementary material. Evidently, these large
Mono-digestion of animal slurry is difficult due to characteristic amounts must be managed effectively as mismanagement or purposeful
Fig. 3. A Summary of Biomass availability, Biogas Potential Production, and Current Production Share in Comparison to the Estimated Potential (Eurostat Data
Browser, 2426; Eurostat Glossary; Eurostat Data Browser, 2022; Eurostat Data Broser, 2022; Eurostat Data Browser, 2447; Eurostat Data Browser, 2021a; Eurostat
Data Browser, 2021b).
6
incorrect disposal causes adverse environmental damages. of biomethane. The deviation in potential and current production proves
Whilst liquid manure may be used immediately as a fertiliser, it is the great opportunity to exploit the biogas energy landscape and provide
agreed that post-processing substantially reduces the chemical oxygen further investments-not only for energy production, but also for climate
demand, whilst maintaining the beneficial nutrients that can be added to change mitigation.
soil at a later stage in the process chain (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). There is On an EU level, a production share of 2.65% biogas production in
no risk of fertiliser competition, as the same amount of nutrients ulti comparison to its potential is estimated. For conservative result
mately are used for the same area (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). dissemination, a correction factor should be fit on the data provided, as
Manure storage facilities and stables are known to be large emitters many free-field animals do not allow for manure collection and treat
of ammonia (NH3) (Verheyen et al., 1996). Due to the high ammonia ment. However, most livestock rearing is performed in controlled en
vapour pressure, volatilisation will occur freely once exposed to air vironments and manure collection may be coordinated (Scheftelowitz,
(Verheyen et al., 1996). Direct soil contact with manure may cause Thrän). A substantial amount of further biogas production expansion is
liquid seeping into ground water. Ammonia is a toxic compound advised to accommodate these waste magnitudes.
responsible for the reduction of aquatic biota cultures. Due to this, do Germany shows the largest production share in comparison to its
mestic wastewaters must be denitrified. Nitrate production through potential, with a value of 11.50%. This is no surprise, as German legis
aeration causes water toxicity and leads to widespread eutrophication of lature has considerably shaped the expansion of the biogas industry
surface water, resulting in excessive algae growth and low oxygen through favourable laws and feed-in tariffs over the years (Scheftelo
concentrations within the water, making fish ecosystems suffocate due witz, Thrän). Because of this, Germany also shows by far the largest
to lacking essential nutrients (Verheyen et al., 1996). Nitrogen, potas amount of biogas plants within the EU, holding 53% of all biogas plants
sium and phosphorous, along with other organic and inorganic com in the EU within their borders in 2017 (Iglesias et al., 2021; for
pounds such as heavy metals, organo-chlorines and salts may be Renewable Resources A, 2019).
introduced into the ground water and cause great pollution (Verheyen
et al., 1996). 4. Prediction of biogas yields
Manure disposal into soil brings advantages for soil fertility and soil
structure. Individual components of the manure are not readily biode The first section of this chapter details previously in literature dis
gradable and provide the basis for the humus and stable organic matter cussed models that may be used to predict methane yield through
layer for soil structure. Further research concludes that soil salt content chemical feedstock composition. Subsequently, the biogas yield is esti
of KCl and NaCl is increased through manure mistreatment (Sequi and mated based on a study of the previous literature, including a statistical
Voorburg, 1993). analysis that encompasses the summary of 65 anaerobic co-digestion
Air quality is affected due to nitrous oxide (N2O) forming from experiments that have been conducted in the research environment. A
ammonia, which is detrimental to the ozone layer due to its destructive summary expression yields the conclusions of the statistical analysis to
potential (Verheyen et al., 1996). High soil toxicity and odour in the express methane composition as a function of pH, C/N, and HRT.
form of hydrogen sulphide and ammonia are also present and are the
main contributors to odour within the vicinity of dumping, which occurs
mainly because of manure decomposition in air (Verheyen et al., 1996). 4.1. Theoretical biogas production analysis
4.1.1. Macronutrient analysis

3.2. Potentials of waste stream utilisation for agriculture and livestock Each feedstock is composed from a unique set of macronutrients that
farming may be analysed based on its chemical composition. The main macro
nutrients within AD are carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur
Despite the widespread knowledge of exacerbating effects that (Bušić et al., 2018), which promote high levels of metabolic activity
intensive agriculture and livestock farming have on the global climate within the microbial consortium to maximise biogas yield (Bušić et al.,
budget, there is no prospect for improvements in sector practices as 2018). Weiland (2010) quotes an optimal nutrient ratio of C:N:P:S of
further dietary resources are required to satiate growing populations 600:15:5:1, respectively (Weiland, 2010). Other important nutrients,
worldwide. This is shown in statistics in form of growing annual live referred to as micronutrients, help with the physiological wellbeing of
stock head counts and agricultural outputs (Eurostat Data Browser, the bacteria population that dictate the AD process (Bušić et al., 2018).
2447; Eurostat Data Browser, 2021a; Eurostat Data Browser, 2021b). As The addition of micronutrients is especially crucial for the application of
a result, whilst efforts in reducing the climate detriment of intensive bio-digestion of energy crops to aid in a healthy balance of nutrients
agriculture and livestock rearing are stalling, one must appreciate the within the inoculum (Bušić et al., 2018). For quantification, micro
opportunities of biogas production using AD of the waste products nutrient concentrations of 0.05–0.06 mg/L are advantageous according
created by these two industries. In light of this potential, a biomethane to literature, with iron at 1–10 mg/L being the exception (Bušić et al.,
production estimation of European countries has been simulated based 2018; Holm-Nielsen et al., 2009).
on data collected within the Eurostat databases on types of agricultural
wastes, biomasses, types and amounts of bovine and swine animals, and 4.1.2. Liquid AD (LAD) versus solid-state-AD (SS-AD)
current biogas production outputs (Eurostat Data Browser, 2426; Anaerobic digestion is generally operated under either LAD or SS-AD
Eurostat Glossary; Eurostat Data Browser, 2022; Eurostat Data Broser, (Bušić et al., 2018). Key differences include the total solids present
2022; Eurostat Data Browser, 2447; Eurostat Data Browser, 2021a; within the digesting substrate. To exemplify, LAD operates under 10%
Eurostat Data Browser, 2021b). The general methodology on modelling total solids, whilst SS-AD is performed up to 35% total solids within the
the biomethane production potential follows the work by Scheftelowitz substrate (Bušić et al., 2018). LAD operation is easier to manage for
and Thrän (2016) and is summarised in Fig. 3 (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). continuous digestion and is the standard in agricultural waste digestion,
More details on the calculation methodology are published in the sup as their characteristics include fast reaction rates and thus short reten
plementary material. tion times (Bušić et al., 2018). SS-AD, on the other hand, requires a
The results reported give key insight into current utilisation and smaller reactor volume, bringing the advantages of a reduced energy
potential for further development. Within the EU, an equivalent energy requirement for operation and easier management of the effluent.
of 2.46 × 107 TJ methane can be produced with the given waste prod Studies have concluded that there are no efficiency differences in
ucts. This vast potential is juxtaposed with the current biomethane (in methane yields by employing LAD versus SS-AD, as investigated by
biogas) generation statistics, which are quoted EU wide as 6.51× 105 TJ Brown et al. (2012) (Brown et al., 2012).
7
4.1.3. Biochemical methane potential (BMP) feedstock are often rich in carbohydrates, so care must be taken to avoid
The BMP test is the standard approach to analytically determine the pH fluctuations resulting from material addition to the digester. For
biodegradability and rate of decomposition for any organic substance. proteins, careful operation is advised as ammonium ion formation in
The BMP is a cheap and uncomplicated procedure to predict methane hibits the biogas generation, as methanogenic microbes operate less
yield, reaction-rate kinetics, anaerobic activity, inocula pre-treatments efficiently with the change in substrate alkalinity (Schnürer and Nord
and mixing with different viscosities (Siddique and Wahid, 2018). berg, 2008). This risk is minimised through careful feedstock selection
Countless studies have been performed on BMP tests and are readily and estimation of C/N entering the biodigester. Lipids may also be
quoted in literature for all types of biodegradable products. BMP tests degraded to biogas, but the fat content may result in operational prob
give insight into the performance of anaerobic co-digestion and help lems within the reactor, such as pipe blockages, biomass adsorption and
design efficient digestions regimes. Furthermore, BMP tests yield deci microbial inhibition (Siddique and Wahid, 2018). Further decomposi
sive conclusions to potential synergies between different co-digestion tion of lipids yields long-chain fatty acids which obstruct effective biogas
mixtures (Siddique and Wahid, 2018). generation of the microbes and destabilise the biogas production pro
A typical BMP test procedure may take between 30 and 90 days and cedure (Siddique and Wahid, 2018).
includes several trials and statistical analysis for accurate data reporting. Two independent studies conducted by Dahunsi (2019) and Tsape
Costs of feedstock storage and management, along with maintaining kos et al. (2018) concluded a model to predict methane yield based on
stable inoculum mixtures requires meticulous analysis and careful the composition of lignocellulosic feedstock. Based on six different
attention to various performance parameters to ensure error mini feedstocks and performing mechanical pre-treatment techniques of
misation (Siddique and Wahid, 2018). Due to the long-time requirement pressure and coarse rolling, a statistical model to fit the chemical
for BMP tests, alternatives have been devised to simplify the data composition to the biomethane yield has been obtained, as shown in
collection process. Equation (1) (Dahunsi, 2019).
The BMP test must occur in batches within a laboratory (small-scale)
CH4,yield = 281.66 + 15.72 × Arabinan − 3.50 × Lignin + 28.46 × Proteins
setup. For each analysed material, a “control” mixture (containing the
inoculum only) and a “control + material” mixture (containing the (1)
equivalent quantity of inoculum, along with a specific mass of material) The equation uses units of (mL/g VS) for specific methane yield, and
are analysed simultaneously (Siddique and Wahid, 2018). By subtract (g/100 g VS) for concentrations of chemical compounds on the right
ing the biomethane yield generated by the control sample from the -hand side. It is worth noting that this equation, whilst allowing for an
“control + material” sample after gas generation, one obtains the initial estimate of methane yield, quotes a statistical accuracy of R2 of
theoretical biomethane yield of only the material (Siddique and Wahid, 0.63, rendering its precision (Dahunsi, 2019).
2018). This value, after sampling various repetitions and statistical Tsapekos et al. (2018), similarly, compared two pre-treatment pro
analysis, may be concluded as the BMP of a certain material. An example cesses to meadow grass to model and differentiate pre-processing tech
of selected BMP products for lignocellulosic biomass and manures is niques (Tsapekos et al., 2018). The mechanical pre-treatments were
quoted in Table 3. It is worth noting that complex waste mixtures usually shear brushing and coarse steel rolling (Tsapekos et al., 2018). Further
cause an over-estimation in BMP values because inhibition criteria are chemical analysis allowed for a study to break down the pre-treated
not regarded in this feedstock evaluation. meadow grass into its constituent chemical components, which
allowed for an estimation using multiple linear regressors. The model
4.1.4. Methane yield modelling predictions ling equation, with same unit convention including statistical analysis is
From a nutrient perspective, large quantities of sugars promote the summarised in Equation (2), yet the results also portray limited accuracy
production of volatile fatty acids (VFA), leading to a pH reduction in the (R2 of 0.61).
digester (Siddique and Wahid, 2018). Biomass and lignocellulosic
CH4,yield = 270.74 + 16.61 × Arabinan − 3.35 × Lignin + 27.88 × Proteins
(2)
Table 3
The research group among Tsapekos et al. has developed a table to
BMP test results for selected substrates.
summarise the methane yields and concentrations produced through AD
Category Substrate/ Methane yield Reference of various chemical compounds. The initial table has been published in
Origin according to
BMP (ml CH4/g
Kougias et al. (2018) and gives insight into the prediction statistics based
VS) on macronutrients fed into an AD system (Kougias and Angelidaki,
2018).
Manure Cattle 242–399 (Tsapekos et al., 2015;
Søndergaard et al.,
2015a; Kougias et al.,
2014a; Labatut et al., 4.2. Methane yields of monodigestion
2011)
Pig 313–322 (Søndergaard et al.,
Food waste and the organic fraction of municipal solid waste
2015b; Tsapekos et al.,
2017; Li et al., 2013a) (OFMSW) are further sources that are readily used in AD. The annual
Poultry 107–438 (Tsapekos et al., 2015; Li production of MSW accumulates to two billion tons according to an
et al., 2013a; Kougias estimate by Iglesias et al. (2021) (Iglesias et al., 2021). Of these two
et al., 2013; Fotidis billion tons, a third is not managed effectively. Glycerol, a waste product
et al., 2014)
Lignocellulosic Wheat 245–319 (Søndergaard et al.,
created through the transesterification of biodiesel, is a further agri
biomass/ 2015a; Li et al., 2013a) cultural waste product that has a proven high efficiency in AD according
Agricultural Rice Straw 279–280 (Li et al., 2013a; to various studies (Astals et al., 2013a). Especially in co-digestion,
Waste Menardo et al., 2015) glycerol can substantially augment the biogas yield, as seen in studies
Corn Silage 270–298 (Labatut et al., 2011;
by Astals et al. (2013) (Astals et al., 2012, 2013a) and Sillaparassamee
Frigon and Guiot, 2010a)
Barley 322–335 Søndergaard et al. (2017) (Kanchanasuta and Sillaparassamee, 2017).
(2015a) Kougias et al. (2018) and Scarlat et al. (2018) summarised the
Meadow 282–388 (Tsapekos et al., 2015, theoretical methane yield through anaerobic digestion of various feed
Grass 2017; Søndergaard et al., stocks (Scarlat et al., 2018; Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018). Table 4 re
2015a)
views their analysis on expected yields under distinct experimental
8
Table 4 Aguilar-Aguilar et al. (2021) indicate that a higher COD removal effi
Mono-digestion methane yield of common compounds. ciency is related to a higher methane production rate (Aguilar-Aguilar
Feedstock Category Methane References et al., 2021; Park et al., 2019). Additionally, Dionisi et al. (2018) pro
Type Yield L CH4/ pose a calculation basis for estimating the methane yield based on COD
kg VSreduced removal efficiencies on raw data assumptions and the Buswell equation
Manure Pig Manure 250–350 Scarlat et al. (2018) (Dionisi et al., 2018). This, from a chemical conservation standpoint is a
Dairy Manure 200–399 (Scarlat et al., 2018; sensible argument as more material is degraded, leading to a higher
Tsapekos et al., 2015; biomethane production rate. Regarding methane proportions within
Kougias et al., 2014a;
Labatut et al., 2011;
biogas, Aguilar-Aguilar et al. show that a high amount of glycerol
Søndergaard et al., addition to manure substantially improves the quality of the biogas,
2015c), producing a methane proportion of 71.94% (Aguilar-Aguilar et al.,
Chicken Manure 107–438 (Tsapekos et al., 2015; Li 2021). Given the extremely high COD of glycerol, this suggests that
et al., 2013a; Kougias
glycerol, as a feedstock, is advantageous for producing a high-quality
et al., 2013; Fotidis et al.,
2014) biogas (Aguilar-Aguilar et al., 2021).
Agricultural Barley 322–335 Søndergaard et al. (2015c)
Waste Sugar Beet 230–380 Scarlat et al. (2018) 4.3. Co-digestion of feedstocks
Maize silage 250–450 (Scarlat et al., 2018;
Labatut et al., 2011;
Frigon and Guiot, 2010b)
Whilst it is important to study digestion mechanisms in isolation,
Fruit and 153–342 (Scarlat et al., 2018; Li AcD of multiple feedstocks has clear advantages and is the standard
vegetable waste et al., 2013a; O-Thong approach in industrial biogas units due to various benefits and synergies.
et al., 2012) It is often shown in literature that AcD can reduce risks of inhibitor
Meadow Grass 282–450 (Scarlat et al., 2018;
accumulation (like VFA, ammonia, phenols, etc.) and improves the
Tsapekos et al., 2015,
2017; Søndergaard et al., methane generation potential substantially (Kougias and Angelidaki,
2015c) 2018). Moreover, seasonal availability of agricultural feedstocks allows
Palm Oil Mill 282–388 (Tsapekos et al., 2015, for more flexible production mechanisms, especially when various
Effluents 2017; Søndergaard et al.,
lignocellulose-based substrates must guarantee supply to AcD during a
2015c)
Rice Straw 2200–280 (Scarlat et al., 2018; Li
whole year (Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018). A summarised list of ad
et al., 2013a; Menardo vantages of AcD are listed below:
et al., 2015)
Ryegrass 140–450 (Scarlat et al., 2018; • AcD allows for higher OLRs of digestible matter, as substrate
Frigon and Guiot, 2010a;
degradation is generally faster and smoother, depending on the
Søndergaard et al., 2015c)
Switchgrass 122–450 (Scarlat et al., 2018; Li substrate chemical composition (O-Thong et al., 2012; Borowski
et al., 2013a; Labatut et al., 2014).
et al., 2014) • The buffer capacity is increased within the feedstock mixture, lead
Wheat 245–319 (Li et al., 2013a; ing to improved operation within the pH bands of methane genera
Søndergaard et al., 2015c)
OFMSW/ Kitchen Waste 200–683 (Scarlat et al., 2018; Li
tion by the archae (Zhang et al., 2013a; Wei et al., 2015).
Kitchen et al., 2013a, 2013b) • The C/N ratio is often improved and a balance in minerals/chemicals
Waste OFMSW 300–570 (Pagés-Díaz et al., 2014; allows for high-quality digestate production through a robust
Davidsson et al., 2007) chemical balance (Tsapekos et al., 2017; Kougias et al., 2014b; Liu
Slaughterhouse 550–657 (Scarlat et al., 2018;
et al., 2016).
waste Pagés-Díaz et al., 2014)
• The concentration of inhibitory compounds which restrict biogas
production are reduced, as more substrates allow for a balance of
conditions and various observations. The high variability in ranges can various compounds within the inoculant (Tsapekos et al., 2015;
be interpreted due to different experiment performance parameters, Mata-Alvarez et al., 2011).
different chemical characteristics, and different types of inoculum used • Methane production (by volume) is increased (Søndergaard et al.,
that have a more or less active bacteria consortium present. 2015b; Dennehy et al., 2017).
• Various feedstocks improve the heterogeneity of the substrate,
4.2.1. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) reducing stirring or pumping problems within the biodigester
Two important performance parameters worth mentioning in the (Angelidaki and Ellegaard, 2003).
anaerobic digestion research community are the chemical oxygen de • Allows for more economical operation of biogas plants, as more,
mand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which measure readily available substrates are available for use (Hosseini Koupaie
the potential of the effluent to pollute the environment (Kangle et al., et al., 2014; Banks et al., 2011).
2011). COD is defined as the amount of oxygen that is required by re
actions to fully oxidise within a set solution and computes the level of The major benefit of the co-digestion of agricultural and livestock
organic, degradable material dissolved in water (Hu and Grasso, 2005). wastes is that both substances are readily available on farms and com
The BOD assesses the potential for oxygen consumption through aerobic plement well on a chemical and macronutrient basis. Through the
biological organisms to decompose organic material dissolved within addition of agricultural wastes into manure systems, an equilibrium of
the water solution (Li and Liu, 2019). In the upcoming statistical anal nutrients is established that is favourable for AD and provides a greater
ysis, the COD and BOD were not discussed, because the most stand nutrient basis for the prolonged augmented production of biogas, in
ardised degradation factor that is used for comparison is the percentage comparison to the mono-digestion of manure. It is thus advantageous to
of reduced volatile matter. make use of the characteristics that both feedstocks hold.
Whilst initial studies have been performed to investigate the rela
tionship between COD and methane production, the field of research is 4.3.1. Statistical survey methodology
not exhaustive and clear tendencies cannot be summarised with high To verify the overarching benefits of co-digestion, especially when
accuracy. Despite this, works performed by Park et al. (2019) and mixing manure with lignocellulosic biomass, the authors have con
ducted a literature summary on previous experiments analysing
9
agricultural waste and manure mixtures. The studies, along with the
data extracted, can be viewed in the supplementary material. A decision
flowchart, summarised in Fig. 4, was followed to focus on key studies
that were deemed essential for the analysis. The studies evaluated are
(Kanchanasuta and Sillaparassamee, 2017; Søndergaard et al., 2015c;
Pagés-Díaz et al., 2014; Aguilar-Aguilar et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2015;
Mata-Alvarez et al., 2011; Li et al., 2018; Astals et al., 2012, 2013a),
(Risberg et al., 2013; Sen et al., 2013; Nkemka and Murto, 2013; Sitti
junda and Reungsang, 2020; Zhong et al., 2013; Solé-Bundó et al., 2017;
Mendieta et al., 2020; Panichnumsin et al., 2010; Janke et al., 2016;
López González et al., 2017; Glanpracha and Annachhatre, 2016;
Herrmann et al., 2016a; Torres et al., 2021; Lovato et al., 2019; Zhao
et al., 2018; Bah et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2013; Monou et al., 2008;
Serrano et al., 2014; Zhai et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2018), (Goberna et al.,
2010; Callaghan et al., 1999; Robra et al., 2010; Amon et al., 2006,
2007a, 2007b; Kalamaras and Kotsopoulos, 2014; Abouelenien et al.,
2014; Andriamanohiarisoamanana et al., 2018; Astals et al., 2011,
2013b; Bertin et al., 2013; Chuenchart et al., 2020; Ebner et al., 2016;
Gelegenis et al., 2007; Giuliano et al., 2013; Guillaume and Lendormi,
2015; Herrmann et al., 2016b; Kim et al., 2019; Kougias et al., 2014c;
Lehtomäki et al., 2007), (Li et al., 2014, 2015; Ma et al., 2019; Ning
et al., 2019; Nuchdang and Phalakornkule, 2012; Sun et al., 2013; Wang
et al., 2014, 2018; Ye et al., 2013; You et al., 2014; Zahan et al., 2018;
Fig. 5. Variation of C/N at different percentages of VS reduction. Black points
Zhang et al., 2013b).
indicate batch experiments with less than 50% manure, red points greater than
50% manure.
4.3.2. Statistical survey results
A statistical evaluation, depicted in Figs. 5–8, concludes data anal
ysis of 65 independent studies of methane yield and methane percentage
composition as dependent variables, along with a range of independent
variables (prime materials, mixture ratio, C/N, OLR, HRT, pH, experi
ment scale, temperature regimen). 85% of data collected falls within the
mesophilic temperature regime, as this is mostly experimental and in
dustrial standard practice. Multivariate analysis of these 85% yields
evidence of the most important dependent variables influencing per
centage of methane obtained and quantity of biogas produced.
The C/N ratio proved the be the most influential performance
parameter based on the statistical analysis. The higher the C/N, the
Fig. 6. Variation of VS reduction percentage and C/N at low manure con

tent (<50%).
lower the methane percentage content in the biogas. As C/N and pH are
highly interlinked due to the biochemical degradation processes, it is
advised to keep the C/N at the lower bound of the suggested range of
20–35 in literature (Siddique and Wahid, 2018), because whilst for
biogas production quantity an intermediate value is ideal, for biogas
calorific content a lower C/N shows improved methane production. In
all, the studies mixing similar quantities of VS of lignocellulosic biomass
and manure performed best such that feedstock mixing should be
manipulated to introduce a C/N close to 20 within the reactor. Through
the analysis, it was determined that the C/N is the most important
Fig. 4. The decision flowchart for final statistical analysis.
correlation factor to guarantee a high biogas yield, more than the
10
Fig. 7. Examination of Methane Proportions based on various Manure Contents

in co-digestion experiments (53 Studies analysed).
Fig. 8. A Summary of Methane Yields for the Mesophilic Temperature Regime
with Primary (Majority) Feedstocks indicated as Colours (53 Studies analysed)
temperature regimen that was followed. As the C/N dictates the
(Kanchanasuta and Sillaparassamee, 2017; Søndergaard et al., 2015c; Pagés-
pH-balance between macronutrients, it is essential to prevent inhibition,
Díaz et al., 2014; Aguilar-Aguilar et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2015; Mata-Alvarez
either through acidity (VFA) or alkalinity (NH3). If a high C/N ratio is
et al., 2011; Li et al., 2018; Astals et al., 2012, 2013a), (Risberg et al., 2013; Sen
present in the substrate, the substrate is likely to be inhibited through et al., 2013; Nkemka and Murto, 2013; Sittijunda and Reungsang, 2020; Zhong
the accumulation of VFA, causing pH-levels to drop below the range in et al., 2013; Solé-Bundó et al., 2017; Mendieta et al., 2020; Panichnumsin et al.,
which the AD bacteria work in producing methane. In contrast, a low 2010; Janke et al., 2016; López González et al., 2017; Glanpracha and
C/N ratio causes the opposite effect with ammonia accumulation, Annachhatre, 2016; Herrmann et al., 2016a; Torres et al., 2021; Lovato et al.,
causing pH rises past the operating range of the bacteria consortium. 2019; Zhao et al., 2018; Bah et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2013; Monou et al., 2008;
Lastly, results show a positive correlation between C/N and the per Serrano et al., 2014; Zhai et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2018), (Goberna et al., 2010;
centage of reduced VS, which is the most evident sign of efficient Callaghan et al., 1999; Robra et al., 2010; Amon et al., 2006, 2007a, 2007b;
degradation. Kalamaras and Kotsopoulos, 2014; Abouelenien et al., 2014; Andriamanohiar
isoamanana et al., 2018; Astals et al., 2011, 2013b; Bertin et al., 2013;
Assessment of C/N to the proportion of reduced VS at different
Chuenchart et al., 2020; Ebner et al., 2016; Gelegenis et al., 2007; Giuliano
manure percentage groups is assessed in Fig. 5. Statistical significance
et al., 2013; Guillaume and Lendormi, 2015; Herrmann et al., 2016b; Kim et al.,
was found in batch array systems with a manure content greater than 2019; Kougias et al., 2014c; Lehtomäki et al., 2007), (Li et al., 2014, 2015; Ma
50% (on a VS basis). In contrast, systems containing a lower methane et al., 2019; Ning et al., 2019; Nuchdang and Phalakornkule, 2012; Sun et al.,
proportion were not statistically significant. 2013; Wang et al., 2014, 2018; Ye et al., 2013; You et al., 2014; Zahan et al.,
As seen in Fig. 5, the red points showing behaviour above 50% 2018; Zhang et al., 2013b).
manure content did not yield a statistically significant correlation. The
black points with less than 50% manure content indeed yield statisti 2014; Andriamanohiarisoamanana et al., 2018; Astals et al., 2011,
cally significance, with the 95% confidence interval being reproduced 2013b; Bertin et al., 2013; Chuenchart et al., 2020; Ebner et al., 2016;
for the black points in Fig. 6. The illustration proves that the influence of Gelegenis et al., 2007; Giuliano et al., 2013; Guillaume and Lendormi,
C/N in the reduction of VS, or say, the potential to degrade waste matter 2015; Herrmann et al., 2016b; Kim et al., 2019; Kougias et al., 2014c;
effectively, becomes irrelevant starting at 50% manure, whereas plays a Lehtomäki et al., 2007), (Li et al., 2014, 2015; Ma et al., 2019; Ning
dominant role in low-manure systems with less than 50% manure con et al., 2019; Nuchdang and Phalakornkule, 2012; Sun et al., 2013; Wang
tent. Despite various modelling attempts, no statistical correlation could et al., 2014, 2018; Ye et al., 2013; You et al., 2014; Zahan et al., 2018;
be found in performance parameters and the data containing more than Zhang et al., 2013b). It was found that for feedstocks mainly consisting
50% manure. of manure, a higher initial pH led to a higher methane percentage in the
Studies were analysed with pH averages ranging from 5.3 to 8.5 produced biogas. In contrast, for low-manure systems analysed, the pH
(Kanchanasuta and Sillaparassamee, 2017; Søndergaard et al., 2015c; as a performance parameter played a less important role in dictating
Pagés-Díaz et al., 2014; Aguilar-Aguilar et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2015; AD-efficiency. This can be explained by the fact that deviations in pH did
Mata-Alvarez et al., 2011; Li et al., 2018; Astals et al., 2012, 2013a), not lead to noticeable changes in the methane proportion of the pro
(Risberg et al., 2013; Sen et al., 2013; Nkemka and Murto, 2013; Sitti duced biogas. This is most likely linked to the buffering capacity of a
junda and Reungsang, 2020; Zhong et al., 2013; Solé-Bundó et al., 2017; substrate’s chemical composition, shifting the substrate towards the
Mendieta et al., 2020; Panichnumsin et al., 2010; Janke et al., 2016; ideal setpoint after expected deviations due to process kinetics. More
López González et al., 2017; Glanpracha and Annachhatre, 2016; over, the higher the SRT and HRT of the experiment, the higher the
Herrmann et al., 2016a; Torres et al., 2021; Lovato et al., 2019; Zhao average pH of the trials, caused by the acidic elements in the substrate
et al., 2018; Bah et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2013; Monou et al., 2008; being converted to biogas, whilst the basic chemicals, such as ammonia,
Serrano et al., 2014; Zhai et al., 2015; Silva et al., 2018), (Goberna et al., remain in the substrate and subsequently raise the pH.
2010; Callaghan et al., 1999; Robra et al., 2010; Amon et al., 2006, When analysing the mesophilic temperature regime, a substantial
2007a, 2007b; Kalamaras and Kotsopoulos, 2014; Abouelenien et al., difference in biogas quality (the methane percentage) was observed. In
11
manure-rich substrates, the methane percentage was on average 30% below 3 g/L TSS (Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018) and mainly treats
higher than in lignocellulosic biomass-based substrates. A trend was wastewaters and other light mixtures. UASB reactors contain a blanket
seen, as shown in Fig. 7, which was however not statistically significant: of granular sludge, which is suspended within the tank (IWA The In
the lower the proportion of lignocellulosic biomass, the higher the ternational Water Association). AD occurs through the addition of
percentage of methane in the biogas. However, lignocellulosic biomass wastewater into the reactor, flowing upwards and encountering the
supported the production of total biogas in co-digestion of manure. granular sludge blanket. An equilibrium of upward flow and gravita
Therefore, a mixture of co-digestion must be found to optimise the tional pull suspends the blanket due to the action of the flocculants (IWA
amount of biogas with a sufficiently high methane percentage. Addi The International Water Association). Lastly, commonly employed
tionally, co-digestion systems with a higher manure percentage show a membrane reactors are the MBR (membrane bio-reactor) or the EGSB
higher variability in methane percentage in the final biogas. The raw (Expanded Granular Sludge Blanket), which allow for improved treat
data has been summarised in the supplementary material, where all ment of wastewaters and produce sanitary/disinfected water, with the
evaluated studies are presented in a tabular format with their perfor disadvantage of high costs (Christian et al., 2011).
mance parameters. The use of small-scale AD reactors has the advantage of having a
A statistically significant trend was observed between the pH and the lower installation cost and is more readily available for small-scale farms
retention time of the substrate, as shown in Equation (3). This is ex and large domestic waste sources. Industrial AD units, which are
pected as a longer retention time yields a higher methane conversion currently offered on the market, are often quoted to be difficult to
ratio, and a pH, within its limits described previously, performs well operate and require substantial maintenance effort. In contrast, a small-
when augmented slightly towards the higher end of the acceptable scale domestic biogas plant of 1–5 m3 is ideal for a small farm or large
spectrum of 7.5–8.5. Additionally, a further trend was observed in kitchen to support with the self-consumption of heating and cooking
Equation (4), which however did not show statistical significance. fuel, whilst providing an improved environmental footprint through the
reduction of GHG emissions. Currently, less than 30% of manure pro
%CH4 = 2.6797 + 6.3848 × (pH) + 0.3632 × (SRT) (3)
duced on farms is treated for biogas production in Germany, with the
main reason for low implementation being a mismatch in the manure
%CH4 = 9.016 − 0.1003 × (%Manure) − 0.6784 × (pH) + 0.01355
production quantities and the plant capacity specifications, which ren
× (%Manure × pH) (4) ders an economic operation of a large-scale biogas plant (Djatkov et al.,
The results provide conclusive data that small-scale AD systems 2021). Low-cost, smaller biodigesters open a business case for the in
provide a higher methane proportion in biogas, as seen in Fig. 8. It is vestment into this market segment (Djatkov et al., 2021). This simple
therefore advisable to exploit the controlled setting and knowledge of solution to the large biogas plants of farms does not need to run on full
small-scale, low-cost digesters to provide a decentralised energy source capacity to be economically competitive, and their product helps reduce
in rural landscapes, where energy self-sufficiency can be met through energy purchases as self-sufficiency of landowners and individuals is
introduction of farm waste products such as manure and other ligno supported using a decentralised production scheme. Disadvantages of
cellulosic waste. Especially using a low-cost digester, the amortisation small-scale AD reactors include a reduced energy efficiency as compared
costs may be very low. to large industrial units. However, there is no necessity for high-level
monitoring and CAPEX-costs are limited. It is important to acknowl
5. Biogas implications: economics, security of supply, the edge reduced efficiency of the plants, but the availability of waste
environment and sustainability products and the low market penetration of AD technologies to today (as
discussed in section 3) shows the potential of further saving GHG
5.1. Economics emissions and energy costs.
In terms of installation costs, one must plan with industrial equip
The biogas sector economics are potentially the most crucial to ment such as a fermentation reactor, gas storage entities, peripheral and
predict the future of the industry and yield positive climate impact supporting equipment, along with pumps and mixing domes (Schefte
through this technology. When designing a biogas plant system or lowitz, Thrän). For further cleaning to biomethane quality, expensive
business plan, several aspects must be agreed to and fine-tuned to work equipment for sulphur removal, humidity removal and CO2 cleaning
well interdependently. For example, essential aspects include the must be installed to abide by the strict regulations of feeding fuel into
sourcing of feedstock, pre-treatment strategies, yield predictions and the natural gas grid or conforming to vehicle combustion standards. The
energy/fuel supply contracts, distance and location of plant, plant cleaning of biogas to biomethane quality is generally financially unvi
design and engineering and digestate management must be decided to able due to the competitive landscape of other gas suppliers and the high
guarantee profitability (Iglesias et al., 2021; Tabatabaei et al., 2020). investment and maintenance cost of industrial cleaning apparatus
Two general types of business models have been established: a central (O’Connor et al., 2021). For low-cost digesters, a study by Amigun and
ised large industrial-scale biogas plant that produces at high efficiency von Blottnitz (2010) predicted costs of 1427 USD for the full installation
and has numerous contractors providing their waste products (generally of a 6 m3 digester (Amigun and von Blottnitz, 2010). Fig. 9 gives the
owned by the municipality or a third entity) (GMI - Global Methane
Initiative, 2020), or a small-scale “pilot-plant” biogas installation that
operates decentralised and promotes self-consumption of waste on in
dividual farms and reduces the transport distances, whilst not operating
as efficiently as large industrial installations (owned by individual
farms) (GMI - Global Methane Initiative, 2020).
Continuous Stirred Tank Reactors (CSTR) are the most common units
found in industry today and are especially suited for treating liquid
manure and other slurries in the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) band of
30–80 g/L (Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018). Most industrial co-digestion
reactors are CSTRs because these allow for homogeneous mixing within
their reactor and thus yield the optimal synergies brought upon by
different feedstocks. The UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) is
the most common sludge retention bioreactor, which digests substrates
Fig. 9. Cost breakdown of low-cost digester.
12
proportional breakdown of costs. The analysis by Lindfors et al. (2020) concluded that a bottom-up
Scheftelowitz and Thrän (2016) propose substantial opportunities approach is advantageous for fast biogas plant and infrastructure
for economies of scale in the technical effort required to digest waste deployment (Lindfors et al., 2020). They suggest that on a local, regional
substances into biogas (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). According to their anal level, incentives should be introduced to use local resources in a joint,
ysis, investment costs are approximately €3500/kWel for a 1 MWel organised approach to self-sustain their energy requirements (Lindfors
installation, increasing to €9000/kWel for smaller units in the range of et al., 2020). Using several communities, an efficient and effective
50–75 kWel (Scheftelowitz, Thrän; FNR, 2022; Dederer, 2012). They biogas infrastructure may be built that is decoupled from foreign energy
propose that due to this cost behaviour, biogas installations of at least 50 imports. This makes the necessity of centralised planning and large
kWel capacity are required for an economic operation. Further govern transport issues organised by governments and energy agencies obsolete
ment subsidies may support the installation of a small-scale anaerobic and aids consumer, energy organiser, and the environment.
digester, and awareness must be raised to improve the global opinion of Given the analysis conducted in section 3, abundant resources are
self-produced biogas on farms for own consumption (Scheftelowitz, present within Europe to support their fuel necessity of natural gas by
Thrän). augmenting their fuel mix with biogas or biomethane. The low relative
The average EU farm size is quoted at 16.1 Ha, which is of insuffi cost of the fuel provides the basis for increased usage in coming years, as
cient size to produce large amounts of feedstock for an industrial unit both criticisms of foreign supply and sustainability are increasingly
(Eurostat, 2015). Therefore, O’Connor et al. (2021) propose the use of a apparent. The EU currently uses 15 million TJ of natural gas annually,
small-scale reactor as a viable technology for most small-sized farms according to the 2020 statistic (Eurostat Data Browser, 2022). AD could
(O’Connor et al., 2021). Animal manure has a low energy density, maintain the steady supply of renewable natural gas within the EU and
therefore biogas installations must be built within the vicinity of the promote sustainability and energy independence. A potential challenge
production facility (i.e. a farm site) (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). Using faced when further developing these technologies in rural areas such as
co-digestion, small manure amounts may become more economically farms is that the best mixture for creating a high-quality biogas yield
viable as research suggests that the conversion efficiency is higher, and it may deviate from the resources available on farm-level. A sacrifice must
is also possible to meet the quantities of general pilot-plant AD biogas occur to increase the amount of biodegradable material, whilst also
plants for small-scale farms (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). Scheftelowitz and maintaining a biogas of high-quality that allows for local heating and
Thrän (2016) suggest that due to the low relative dry matter content in energetic purposes. To build on this, the biogas created may also expe
manure (ranging between 0.9 and 23%), methane yield is comparatively rience distribution difficulties if self-consumption is only partially viable
low, and it is therefore advised that biogas plants focussing on livestock on the farm. As a decentralised form of energy-generation, any excess
manure are situated in a proximity to the farm such that transport costs biogas cannot be easily transported or distributed using existing infra
of the low dry-matter content are minimised (Scheftelowitz, Thrän; structure without the necessity of cleaning to biomethane quality. This
LKVBB; Kaltschmitt et al., 2016). This also implies, that the size of the then requires the additional necessity of infrastructure, logistics, or
biogas plant is dictated by the size of the livestock population at each custom burners and generators to deliver the energy in one form or
individual farm (Scheftelowitz, Thrän). another.
An additional challenge faced by agricultural biomass industries is Thousands of small-scale (i.e. 1 m3 operating volume) biogas plants
the low effort on farm-waste degradation in the past and the high cost may be installed on farms and in rural communities Europe-wide,
involved in transport, inevitably yielding no incentive for self- reducing their dependence on centralised gas producers and large im
consumption or biogas plant investments. However, this landscape is ports of (mainly) fossil-fuel based natural gas. With this, their gas
rapidly changing due to the European energy crisis. Self-consumption is requirement is maintained through the recycling of organic waste
now an attractive option not only due to rising energy costs, but also products generated in each household or farm. There is a big tie between
because carbon taxation is steadily increasing and because wider sectors regulation, financial viability and security of supply (Gustafsson and
of emissions must be accounted for in the future, including the agri Anderberg, 2021). According to Gustafsson (2021), regulation and
cultural sector. government policies are the main driver to promote the installation of
Feed-in-tariffs provide the most stable landscape for biogas invest new biogas capacity and must be advantageous for improved deploy
ment and effectively scale with the size of the biogas plant to different ment in coming years.
rewards received based on the efficiency of the installation (O’Connor
et al., 2021). The German government actively supports the installation 5.3. Environmental impact
of small-scale reactors plants through their renewable energy source act
of 2012, providing special allowance for plants up to 75 kW which 5.3.1. GWP and GHG savings
substantially improved the economics of operating a small-scale plant The environmental impact of biogas plants, and the AD process in
(O’Connor et al., 2021). general, is inevitably linked to the emissions produced and saved
through biogas generation. The production of several greenhouse gases,
5.2. Security of supply such as methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide is attributed to
biogas production and in-situ combustion in electrical generators, such
One of the most important policies of every country and society is as common CHP plants (Paolini et al., 2018).
energy security. Interestingly, countries with an abundance of domestic A broad study was conducted by Bachmaier et al. (2010), deter
energy in form of fossil sources do not declare the same necessity for mining the GHG impact of ten different agricultural biogas plants
energy independence (Gustafsson and Anderberg, 2021). This energy (Bachmaier et al., 2010). Through combustion for electricity production,
independence is mostly the key driver for developing and implementing they concluded ranges of global warming potentials and GHG savings of
alternative sources of energy generation, such as biogas through AD − 85 to 251 gCO2, eq/kWhel and 2.31–3.16 kWhfossil/kWhel (Bachmaier
(Wilkinson, 2011). Wilkinson et al. (2011) discuss this by comparing et al., 2010). Estimates of GHG emissions savings are based on indi
energy importing countries with energy exporting countries (Wilkinson, vidualised data, often ranging substantially due to different case spe
2011). They outline that Germany, an energy importer, proposes a cifics and unique boundary conditions. For instance, heat recycling,
long-term agenda to be independent of fossil fuel energy sources and input material utilisation, transport routes and digestate management
promote renewable, domestic sources, such as the production of biogas are crucial parameters to simulate the environmental balance of a biogas
energy (Fachverband Biogas, 2000). Likewise, nations with an abun plant (Paolini et al., 2018).
dance of oil resources and other fossil fuels tend to follow different Further important conclusions were gained by a case study of Battini
long-term energy strategies, as suggested by Kim (2014) (Kim, 2014). et al. (2014), analysing the GHG emission reduction of dairy cattle farms
13
in Italy through AD (Battini et al., 2014). Emission reductions occur at a and 540 g CO2/GJel respectively (Battini et al., 2014; Nielsen and NOK;
level between 23.7% and 36.5%, providing a positive impact for PM, 2014; Kristensen, Jensen, Nielsen, Boll Illerup). Carbon monoxide is
reducing anthropogenic climate change from intensive livestock produced due to the incomplete combustion of methane, whilst the
farming (Battini et al., 2014). Kaparaju and Rintala (2011) conducted amount of sulphur emissions considerably varies depending on the
similar analysis on livestock farms in Finland, concluding a GHG emis desulphurisation degree of the biogas plant (Nielsen and NOK; PM,
sion reduction of 177, 125.6 and 87.7 Mg, of CO2eq/yr for dairy, pig and 2014). NOx emissions are three times larger in biogas plants than in
sow farms respectively (Kaparaju and Rintala, 2011). natural gas engines (Kristensen, Jensen, Nielsen, Boll Illerup), with an
Mechanisms to reduce the global warming potential of biogas plants emission factor of 540 g/GJ. They are detrimental for the environment,
are discussed in Hijazi et al. (2016) (Hijazi et al., 2016). They propose as they show exacerbation in acidification (5.5–6.1%), eutrophication
measures to minimise methane escape from the production system, as (0.8%) and particulate matter emissions (0.7–1.4%) (Battini et al.,
methane is quoted to have a substantially worse global warming po 2014). Additionally, NOx emissions increase the photochemical ozone
tential (GWP) than carbon dioxide (Paolini et al., 2018), contributing formation (41.6–42.3%) (Battini et al., 2014). NOx emissions can be
28–36 times as much to global warming than carbon dioxide. Parts of reduced in general through the use of optimised combustion techniques,
their suggestions include: implementation of flares to burn escaping along with chemical strategies such as selective catalytic reduction and
methane into CO2, improved tank coverage to reduce risk of leaks, scrubbing techniques according to Liu et al. (2020) and Siddiek et al.
improve CHP efficiency as much as possible, improve utilisation of (2014), which are strategies currently investigated on industrial level for
electric and thermal power, and to avoid leakages in general (Hijazi emission reduction (2014) (Seddiek and Elgohary, 2014; Liu et al.,
et al., 2016). Buratti et al. (2013) reach the same conclusions in their 2020).
case study on Italian cereal crops in the region of Umbria, where espe Through storage and application/final use of digestate, secondary
cially the open storage of digestate is highlighted as an additional po particulate matter, brought upon by NOx emissions and NH3 volatilisa
tential to induce GHG savings (Buratti et al., 2013). A GHG reduction of tion, pose a critical threat to the environment (Paolini et al., 2018).
up to 68.9% is projected if effective measures are employed to reduce According to a study conducted by Boulamanti et al. (2013), NOx
methane leaks to a minimum, by for example covering the digestate emissions are responsible for most particulate matter created (Boula
storage units (Buratti et al., 2013). manti et al., 2013). Using closed storage, the emission of ammonia and
therefore particulate matter is effectively abated, reducing the global
5.3.2. Main GHG emissions particulate matter formation through this compound (Paolini et al.,
The main GHG emissions considered critical in the biogas production 2018).
and combustion chain are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide
(Paolini et al., 2018). Various LCA studies have been conducted to assess 5.4. Digestate sustainability
the emissions brought upon by biogas installations (Poeschl et al.,
2012). For instance, a study conducted by Poeschl et al. (2012) assessed Digestate proves to be a clean readily available and affordable fer
the CO2 emissions related to biogas production and its various sub tiliser to be reintroduced to crops for improved agriculture (Kougias and
groups, including feedstock sourcing, plant operation, infrastructure Angelidaki, 2018). Special compost directives exist within the EU like
development and digestate management (Poeschl et al., 2012). They the EC communication 1774/2002, which specifies regulations for AD
determined that the use of biogas, holistically, leads to a negative CO2 feedstocks whose digestate may later be used as fertiliser, to prevent the
balance, as more CO2 is captured throughout each spread of soil contamination through residue pesticides, the onset of
photosynthesis-AD-combustion cycle than emitted, leading to an disease spread and soil/groundwater endangering (Lukehurst, Frost, Al
improvement in air quality and ecological health (Paolini et al., 2018; Seadi, Rudolf, Guilherme, Andrew Mc, Denmark). Especially the use of
Poeschl et al., 2012). co-digestion feedstocks of animal-by-products and plants with pesticides
Methane emissions are substantially worse for the environment, are stipulated within this quality standard to improve the sanitary
quoting a GHG factor 28–36 times worse than CO2 (Paolini et al., 2018; measures of digestate (Lukehurst, Frost, Al Seadi, Rudolf, Guilherme,
Alexander et al., 2013). However, methane emissions are mostly mag Andrew Mc, Denmark).
nitudes smaller than carbon dioxide emissions, giving them less of an
impact on global climate change as compared to CO2, and only being the 5.4.1. Emissions of digestate
second greatest anthropogenic gas causing climate change after carbon The digestate contains compounds such as methane, nitrous oxide,
dioxide (Alexander et al., 2013). In the same study conducted by Poeschl ammonia and volatile hydrocarbons, which must be assessed from an
et al. (2012), methane emission rates lower than 5 g/kg feedstock were ecological point-of-view to minimise the harm brought upon through
simulated. The main feedstock within their study was cattle manure, ejection to the environment (Paolini et al., 2018).
which under incorrect feedstock management (i.e. leaving manure on Möller et al. (2015) conducted a study on nitrogen turnover and
the field to digest naturally), proves some of the highest methane emissions from a soil perspective, determining that the soil fertility and
emissions (Paolini et al., 2018). environmental impact of using AD manure digestate as fertiliser is a
The third important GHG is nitrous oxide (N2O). Depending on the sustainable practice, given the extremely limited environmental impact
climate metric used, in this case the Global Temperature Change Po of using this fertiliser (Möller, 2015). Organic matter is less readily
tential (GTP-100), nitrous oxide can be considered the most important degraded than digestate within the soil, and additionally contains a
GHG, as over the span of 100 years this gas may have a more detrimental higher carbohydrate fraction, which may be easily absorbed by new
effect on the environment than CH4 and CO2. Nitrous oxide is generally plant material for the enrichment of lignin and non-hydrolysable lipids,
produced by combustion of biogas in air. GHG emissions of this com which are not readily degraded, either naturally or by AD (Tambone
bustion can vary, with literature quoting values within the range of et al., 2009). Especially the use of pig slurry digestate yields high bio
0.10–0.40 kg CO2eq/kWhel. To put this into context, the emissions logical stability when used as a fertiliser, according to a recent study by
brought upon by nitrous oxide were 22–75% less than the GHG emis Tambone et al. (2015) (Tambone et al., 2015).
sions of the 2018 German energy mix (Meyer-Aurich et al., 2012). A study conducted by Eickenscheidt et al. (2014) assessed the
emissions brought upon through the absence of treatment of manure and
5.3.3. Pollutants from biogas combustion digestate as a fertiliser (Eickenscheidt et al., 2014). Methane, ammonia
Biogas combustion leads to the pollution of carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrous oxide emissions were investigated, yielding conclusions that
sulphur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) (Paolini et al., 2018). methane emissions were not significantly altered, whilst high N2O
Depending on plant efficiency, these three pollutants produce 310, 25, emissions were correlated to high carbon loadings (Eickenscheidt et al.,
14
2014). Generally, however, emissions brought upon by methane and Table 5

nitrous oxides are significantly higher for untreated biomass, proving The benefits and drawbacks of biogas production through AcD.
that AD digestate reduces the overall emission of feedstocks (Oshita Advantages
et al., 2014).
Production • Sanitation of waste products and prevention of ecological
Fresh slurry is more easily degraded in AD than digestate products. damage (The European Parliament and the Council,
This causes slower microbial degradation, fewer anoxic microsites and 2002)
low N2O emissions in the digestate as compared to fresh feedstock, • Improved resource utilisation and augmented efficiency
which has not passed through the AD process stages yet (Eickenscheidt of anthropogenic resources (Kougias and Angelidaki,
2018)
et al., 2014; Oshita et al., 2014; Clemens and Huschka, 2001). • Reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions through
Furthermore, methane emissions are low due to the reduced methano the improper use of waste substances on farms, landfills
genic potential as compared to original biomass (Poeschl et al., 2012; and in water basins (Paolini et al., 2018)
Boulamanti et al., 2013). For the specific case of manure, studies have • Security of supply and creation of versatile energy vector
that can be stored efficiently (Wilkinson, 2011)
shown that the ammonia emissions are greater for digestate than the
Use of Biogas/ • A renewable form of heat, power and fuel (energy
original manure (Möller, 2015; Ghoneim et al., 2007). For instance, a Biomethane storage) is generated that can support energy generation
study conducted by Matsunaka et al. (2006) concluded a nitrogen vol of intermittent sources and supply energy to the grid
atilisation of 13% as ammonia through AD of cattle manure and sub instantaneously (Tabatabaei et al., 2020)
sequent use of fertiliser on grassland (Matsunaka et al., 2006). • Reduced emissions of methane, CO2, nitrogen oxides, and
particulates (Paolini et al., 2018)
Nitrogen release to the environment poses the greatest threat for • Improved carbon budget and the potential to for the
digestate sustainability and subsequent use as a fertiliser to improve the technology to be carbon negative (Poeschl et al., 2012)
soil quality. Appropriate control of nitrogen dosage is required to Digestate • Circular economy: nutrient recirculation (Hagman and
maintain healthy and rich soils for further plant growth (Paolini et al., recirculation Eklund, 2016)
• Support of soil health through promotion of humus layers
2018). Finally, emissions brought upon through digestate storage are
and structural aid (Maji et al., 2020)
higher and thus more important than those related to use as fertiliser on • Improved agricultural yield and incentives to increase the
soil, so the focus of emissions reductions should concentrate on sealing economic viability of the agriculture sector (EBA -
digestates and feedstocks from the environment (Paolini et al., 2018; European Biogas Association)
Buratti et al., 2013; Clemens and Huschka, 2001). • Decrease the necessity for fossil-fuel or chemical-based
fertilisers (Maji et al., 2020)
• Decreased complaints about odour (Verheyen et al.,
5.4.2. Storage of feedstock and digestate 1996)
Feedstock and digestate storage show a major emission potential • Promotion of organic farming techniques through
when their compounds are not stored in a regulated, closed-to-air fa improved fertilisation (Hagman and Eklund, 2016)
Financial/social • Reduced gas and energy purchases from self-producers
cility (Paolini et al., 2018). Especially the use of a closed storage facility
(EBA - European Biogas Association)
allows for the minimisation of emissions, as aerobic digestion is limited, • Reduced dependency from third-party entities for gas/
thus minimising harmful GHG emissions. For instance, due to closed energy supply (Wilkinson, 2011)
storage of manure feedstock, the majority of N2O is trapped, reducing • No necessity to carbon budget/count emissions as
the emission, ecological damage and global warming risks associated technology is proven to be carbon neutral (EBA -
European Biogas Association)
with this gas (Boulamanti et al., 2013). A major source of ammonia
Environmental • Lower general emissions and reduced destruction of the
emissions is caused by the incorrect storage of biomass, reducing the ozone layer (Verheyen et al., 1996)
effectivity of the AD production chain, whilst also producing a toxic • Reduced water contamination and eutrophication effects
chemical compound which requires further processing before intro (Verheyen et al., 1996)
• Reduced emission of GHG as carbon dioxide is emitted
duced into the environment (Boulamanti et al., 2013). Battini et al.
instead of the more damaging methane (Paolini et al.,
(2014) modelled a GHG emission reduction potential of up to − 36.5% 2018)
(as compared to the previous − 23.7%) through addition of a gas-tight Disadvantages • Slow process kinetics compared to the generation of other
tank for digestate storage (Battini et al., 2014). Further benefits of biofuels (Kougias and Angelidaki, 2018; Bušić et al.,
effective storage strategies include the reduction of odour pollution, 2018)
• High initial investments required that may deter
along with the reduction of chemical production like ammonia and
entrepreneurs and farm owners to invest into biogas
emissions to increase the GHG emissions of the biogas system (Paolini generation for self-supply or energy production ((Bhatt
et al., 2018). and Tao, 2020))
• Unstable legislative landscape and missing support from
executive governmental organs to incentivise the
5.5. Advantages and disadvantages
technology (Gustafsson and Anderberg, 2021)
• Low yield of biogas as compared to other processes
Table 5 gives an overview of the main benefits and drawbacks of the producing biofuels (also: high land use requirement
anaerobic co-digestion after having conducted the review. compared to other renewables, e.g. solar PV, wind power)
(Boulamanti et al., 2013)
• Certain technologies not matured yet within the biogas
6. Conclusions generation cycle (i.e. multi-stage AD, pre-treatment
strategies, simulation and prediction of biogas yields)
To summarise, biogas production on small-scale farm systems in (Tabatabaei et al., 2020; Boulamanti et al., 2013)
Europe is has previously been uneconomical, as the low dry matter • Questionable sustainability concerns in terms of large
area necessity, competition with food sources, and
content requires low transport distances between production and con
production of emissions due to combustion (Paolini et al.,
sumption (i.e. treatment plants). With the rise of gas prices and carbon 2018; Verheyen et al., 1996; Boulamanti et al., 2013)
taxation, this landscape has changed. This shows the necessity for the • Through the combustion of biogas and biomethane,
use of local, decentralised biogas plants which make use of farm waste pollutants such as particulates and nitrous oxides are
for self-sufficiency principles in rural communities. Most manure, as produced, which have a negative environmental impact
(Paolini et al., 2018).
stated in Germany as more than 70%, is currently wasted, contributing • Co-digestion of manure-based biomass remains difficult
to climate change and exacerbating anthropogenic footprints on the due to the requirement of balancing multiple perfor
ecology. Overall, in the EU, we see that a mere 2.65% of biogas is being mance parameters, such as pH, C/N and total suspended
used as compared to its potential, proving that further effort is required solids contained within the substrate.
15
in decarbonise the agricultural and livestock sectors and prevent envi Angelidaki, I., Ellegaard, L., 2003. Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in
centralized biogas plants: status and future trends. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 109
ronmental damage brought by manure mistreatment.
(1–3), 95–106.
The literature review showed that the C/N is the most influential Arnau, Á.S., Lamon, F., Dekker, H., Lorin, A., Giacomazzi, M., Decorte, M., et al., 2022.
factor when approximating a methane proportion in the biogas yield. A EBA Activity Report 2021.
high C/N leads to a lower methane concentration in the biogas. Small Astals, S., Ariso, M., Galí, A., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2011. Co-digestion of pig manure and
glycerine: experimental and modelling study. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (4), 1091–1096.
changes in C/N have the greatest impact on the biogas generation sys Astals, S., Nolla-Ardèvol, V., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2012. Anaerobic co-digestion of pig
tem. Feedstocks mainly consisting of manure perform better under a manure and crude glycerol at mesophilic conditions: biogas and digestate. Bioresour.
higher pH than feedstocks mainly consisting of lignocellulosic biomass. Technol. 110, 63–70.
Astals, S., Nolla-Ardèvol, V., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2013a. Thermophilic co-digestion of pig
By statistical analysis, it was possible to pinpoint key relations between manure and crude glycerol: process performance and digestate stability.
operation parameters C/N, pH, SRT and manure content to the biogas J. Biotechnol. 166 (3), 97–104.
yield and methane proportion. A significant trend was seen in the Astals, S., Nolla-Ardèvol, V., Mata-Alvarez, J., 2013b. Thermophilic co-digestion of pig
manure and crude glycerol: process performance and digestate stability.
behaviour of C/N with VS reduction, showing that after the co-digestion J. Biotechnol. 166 (3), 97–104.
proportion exceeds 50% manure, no further optimisation of C/N yields Bachmaier, J., Effenberger, M., Gronauer, A., 2010. Greenhouse gas balance and resource
an improved reduction of VS. Further work may include analysis of demand of biogas plants in agriculture. Eng. Life Sci. 10 (6), 560–569.
Bah, H., Zhang, W., Wu, S., Qi, D., Kizito, S., Dong, R., 2014. Evaluation of batch
wastewater treatment and the assessment of co-digestion regimes of anaerobic co-digestion of palm pressed fiber and cattle manure under mesophilic
other biodegradable wastes, including statistical analysis of a broader conditions. Waste Manag. 34 (11), 1984–1991.
groups of waste material. Further market depth analysis, as conducted Banks, C.J., Salter, A.M., Heaven, S., Riley, K., 2011. Energetic and environmental
benefits of co-digestion of food waste and cattle slurry: a preliminary assessment.
with this study for Europe, may be applied for other economic regions to
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 56 (1), 71–79.
evaluate the technology penetration. An important challenge that must Battini, F., Agostini, A., Boulamanti, A.K., Giuntoli, J., Amaducci, S., 2014. Mitigating
be addressed in future studies should be a single parameter or expression the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure:
that can accurately approximate the methane yield of any feedstock, case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. Sci. Total Environ. 481 (1), 196–208.
Bertin, L., Grilli, S., Spagni, A., Fava, F., 2013. Innovative two-stage anaerobic process for
which would yield key insight for small-scale systems and their feed effective codigestion of cheese whey and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 128,
stock requirements to become self-sufficient from a heating perspective. 779–783.
Bhatt, A.H., Tao, L., 2020. Economic perspectives of biogas production via anaerobic
digestion. Bioengineering 7 (3), 1–19.
Biogas Barometer 2020. 2020..
Declaration of competing interest Borowski, S., Domański, J., Weatherley, L., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of swine and
poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge. Waste Manag. 34 (2), 513–521.
Boulamanti, A.K., Donida Maglio, S., Giuntoli, J., Agostini, A., 2013. Influence of
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 53, 149–161.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Brown, D., Shi, J., Li, Y., 2012. Comparison of solid-state to liquid anaerobic digestion of
the work reported in this paper. lignocellulosic feedstocks for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 124, 379–386.
Buratti, C., Barbanera, M., Fantozzi, F., 2013. Assessment of GHG emissions of
biomethane from energy cereal crops in Umbria. Italy. Appl Energy. 108, 128–136.
Data availability Bušić, A., Kundas, S., Morzak, G., Belskaya, H., Mardetko, N., Šantek, M.I., et al., 2018.
Recent trends in biodiesel and biogas production. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 56,
152–173. University of Zagreb.
Data will be made available on request.
Callaghan, F.J., Wase, D.A.J., Thayanithy, K., Forster, C.F., 1999. Co-digestion of waste
organic solids: batch studies. Bioresour. Technol. 67 (2), 117–122.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Chadwick, D., Sommer, S., Thorman, R., Fangueiro, D., Cardenas, L., Amon, B., et al.,
2011. Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim. Feed
Sci. Technol. 166–167, 514–531.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Chen, J.H., Lin, C.C., Wang, K.S., 2013. Potential of methane production by thermophilic
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135867. anaerobic Co-digestion of pulp and paper sludge with pig manure. J. Biobased Mater.
Bioenergy 7 (2), 300–304.
Christian, S., Grant, S., McCarthy, P., Wilson, D., Mills, D., 2011. The first two years of
References full-scale anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR) operation treating high-strength
industrial wastewater. Water Pract. Technol. 6 (2).
Chuenchart, W., Logan, M., Leelayouthayotin, C., Visvanathan, C., 2020. Enhancement
Abouelenien, F., Namba, Y., Kosseva, M.R., Nishio, N., Nakashimada, Y., 2014.
of food waste thermophilic anaerobic digestion through synergistic effect with
Enhancement of methane production from co-digestion of chicken manure with
chicken manure. Biomass Bioenergy 136, 105541.
agricultural wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 159, 80–87.
Clemens, J., Huschka, A., 2001. The effect of biological oxygen demand of cattle slurry
Adnan, A.I., Ong, M.Y., Nomanbhay, S., Chew, K.W., Show, P.L., 2019. Technologies for
and soil moisture on nitrous oxide emissions. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst [Internet 59 (2),
Biogas Upgrading to Biomethane: A Review, vol. 6. Bioengineering. MDPI AG.
193–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017562603343. Available from:
Aguilar-Aguilar, F., Adaya, L., Godoy-Lozano, E.E., Pantoja, L.A., dos Santos, A.S.,
COM, 2011. COM(2011) 885 Final, Energy Roadmap 2050 Communication from the
Eapen, D., et al., 2021. Anaerobic co-digestion of raw glycerol and swine manure:
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
microbial communities. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.org/10.1007
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 2011.
/s13399-021-01914-y.
COM, 2012. COM(2011) 112 Final, A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon
Alexander, L., Allen, S., Bindoff, N., Breon, F.M., Church, J., Cubasch, U., et al., 2013.
Economy in 2050. Communication from the Commission to the European
Climate change 2013: the physical science basis, in contribution of working group I
Parliament. the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
(WGI) to the fifth assessment report (AR5) of the intergovernmental Panel on climate
Committee of the Regions, 2012.
change (IPCC). In: Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis.
COM(2012) 60 final, 2012. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: a Bioeconomy for
Amez, I., Castells, B., Llamas, B., Bolonio, D., García-Martínez, M.J., Lorenzo, J.L., et al.,
Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,the
2021. Experimental study of biogas–hydrogen mixtures combustion in conventional
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the
natural gas systems. Appl. Sci. 11 (14).
Regions.
Amigun, B., von Blottnitz, H., 2010. Capacity-cost and location-cost analyses for biogas
COM(2016) 767 final/2, 2017. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and
plants in Africa. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (1), 63–73.
of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources.
Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Bodiroza, V., Pötsch, E., Zollitsch, W., 2006.
Recast.
Optimising methane yield from anaerobic digestion of manure: effects of dairy
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N., Leip, A.,
systems and of glycerine supplementation. Int Congr Ser 1293, 217–220.
2021. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG
Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Zollitsch, W., Mayer, K., Gruber, L., 2007a. Biogas
emissions. Nat Food 2 (3), 198–209.
production from maize and dairy cattle manure-Influence of biomass composition on
Cuissinat, C., Navard, P., 2006. Swelling and dissolution of cellulose Part 1: free floating
the methane yield. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118 (1–4), 173–182.
cotton and wood fibres in N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide–Water mixtures. Macromol.
Amon, T., Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Machmüller, A., Hopfner-Sixt, K., Bodiroza, V.,
Symp. 244 (1), 1–18.
et al., 2007b. Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various energy
Dahunsi, S.O., 2019. Mechanical pretreatment of lignocelluloses for enhanced biogas
crops grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresour. Technol. 98 (17), 3204–3212.
production: methane yield prediction from biomass structural components.
Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J., Saikawa, A., Kan, T., Qi, G., Pan, Z., Yamashiro, T.,
Bioresour. Technol. 280, 18–26.
et al., 2018. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, meat and bone
meal and crude glycerol: process performance and digestate valorization. Renew.
Energy 128, 1–8.
16
Davidsson, Å., Gruvberger, C., Christensen, T.H., Hansen, T.L., Jansen, J. la C., 2007. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 1997. A System Approach to
Methane yield in source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste BiogasTechnology (Rome).
Manag. 27 (3), 406–414. for Renewable Resources A, 2019. Bioenergy in Germany Facts and Figures 2019.
Dederer, M., 2012. Betriebswirtschaftliche Bewertung Kleiner Biogasanlagen. ALB Fotidis, I.A., Kougias, P.G., Zaganas, I.D., Kotsopoulos, T.A., Martzopoulos, G.G., 2014.
Tagung: Hohenheim, Germany. Inoculum and zeolite synergistic effect on anaerobic digestion of poultry manure.
Dennehy, C., Lawlor, P.G., Gardiner, G.E., Jiang, Y., Cormican, P., McCabe, M.S., et al., Environ. Technol. 35 (10), 1219–1225.
2017. Process stability and microbial community composition in pig manure and Frigon, J.C., Guiot, S.R., 2010a. Biomethane production from starch and lignocellulosic
food waste anaerobic co-digesters operated at low HRTs. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 11 crops: a comparative review. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 4 (4), 447–458.
(3), 4. Frigon, J.C., Guiot, S.R., 2010b. Biomethane production from starch and lignocellulosic
Dionisi, D., Bolaji, I., Nabbanda, D., Silva, I.M., 2018. Calculation of the potential crops: a comparative review. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 4 (4), 447–458.
production of methane and chemicals using anaerobic digestion. Biofuels, Gao, J., Chen, L., Yan, Z., Wang, L., 2013. Effect of ionic liquid pretreatment on the
Bioproducts and Biorefining. 12 (5), 788–801. composition, structure and biogas production of water hyacinth (Eichhornia
Divya, D., Gopinath, L.R., Merlin Christy, P., 2015. A review on current aspects and crassipes). Bioresour. Technol. 132, 361–364.
diverse prospects for enhancing biogas production in sustainable means. Renew. Garzón, A., 2022. Transcripción Entrevista the Guardian. Twitter.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 690–699. Gelegenis, J., Georgakakis, D., Angelidaki, I., Christopoulou, N., Goumenaki, M., 2007.
Djatkov, Dj, Viskovic, M., Martinov, M., Nesterovic, A., Bojic, S., Venus, T., et al., 2021. Optimization of biogas production from olive-oil mill wastewater, by codigesting
Small Biogas Plants. Novi Sad, Serbia & Freising, Germany. with diluted poultry-manure. Appl. Energy 84 (6), 646–663.
EBA - European Biogas Association. The contribution of biomethane to Europe’s Gas Ghoneim, A., Ueno, H., Ebid, A., Asagi, N., darag, IA el, 2007. Analysis of nitrogen
Security of Supply [Internet]. Available from: www.european-biogas.eu. dynamics and fertilizer use efficiency in rice using the nitrogen-15 isotope dilution
EBA European Biogas Association, 2021. European Commission gives green light for method following the application of biogas slurry or chemical fertilizer. Int. J. Soil
biogas on access to sustainable finance [Internet]. https://hybridheatingeurope. Sci. 3 (1), 11–19.
eu/wp-. Giuliano, A., Bolzonella, D., Pavan, P., Cavinato, C., Cecchi, F., 2013. Co-digestion of
Ebner, J.H., Labatut, R.A., Lodge, J.S., Williamson, A.A., Trabold, T.A., 2016. Anaerobic livestock effluents, energy crops and agro-waste: feeding and process optimization in
co-digestion of commercial food waste and dairy manure: characterizing mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 128, 612–618.
biochemical parameters and synergistic effects. Waste Manag. 52, 286–294. Glanpracha, N., Annachhatre, A.P., 2016. Anaerobic co-digestion of cyanide containing
Eickenscheidt, T., Freibauer, A., Heinichen, J., Augustin, J., Drösler, M., 2014. Short- cassava pulp with pig manure. Bioresour. Technol. 214, 112–121.
term effects of biogas digestate and cattle slurry application on greenhouse gas GLOBAL BIOENERGY STATISTICS 2021 World Bioenergy Association.
emissions affected by N availability from grasslands on drained fen peatlands and GMI - Global Methane Initiative, 2020. Market Opportunities for Anaerobic Digestion of
associated organic soils. Biogeosciences 11 (22), 6187–6207. Livestock and Agro-Industrial Waste in India the Global Methane Initiative Market
EurObserv’ER. Biogas Barometer. 2010. Opportunities for Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock and Agro-Industrial Waste in
EurObserv’ER. Biogas Barometer. 2017.. India.
European Biogas Association, 2018a. EBA Statistical Report 2018. Goberna, M., Schoen, M.A., Sperl, D., Wett, B., Insam, H., 2010. Mesophilic and
European Biogas Association, 2018b. EBA Activity Report. thermophilic co-fermentation of cattle excreta and olive mill wastes in pilot
European Commission. COM(97) 599: White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action anaerobic digesters. Biomass Bioenergy 34 (3), 340–346.
Plan, Energy for the Future.. Goshadrou, A., Karimi, K., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2013. Ethanol and biogas production from
European Commission. A European Green Deal: Striving to be the first climate-neutral birch by NMMO pretreatment. Biomass Bioenergy 49, 95–101.
continent. https://ec.europa. Guillaume, S., Lendormi, T., 2015. Anaerobic co-digestion of dairy cattle slurry and agro-
eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en. 2022. industrial fats: effect of fat ratio on the digester efficiency. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 93 (2),
European Commission, 2021. Sustainable Finance and EU Taxonomy: Commission Takes 304–308.
Further Steps to Channel Money towards Sustainable Activities. Gustafsson, M., Anderberg, S., 2021. Dimensions and characteristics of biogas policies –
European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development Directorate General for modelling the European policy landscape. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110200.
Agriculture and Rural Development, 2010. Greening our energy supply the role of Hagman, Linda, Eklund, Mats, 2016. THE ROLE OF BIOGAS SOLUTIONS IN THE
bioenergy from forestry and agriculture [Internet]. http://ec.europa.eu/agricultu CIRCULAR AND BIO-BASED ECONOMY.
re/http://bookshop.europa.eu/. Herrmann, C., Kalita, N., Wall, D., Xia, A., Murphy, J.D., 2016a. Optimised biogas
European Parliament, 2018. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/2001 of the EUROPEAN production from microalgae through co-digestion with carbon-rich co-substrates.
PARLIAMENT and of the COUNCIL of 11 December 2018 on the Promotion of the Bioresour. Technol. 214, 328–337.
Use of Energy from Renewable Sources (Recast) (Text with EEA Relevance). Herrmann, C., Idler, C., Heiermann, M., 2016b. Biogas crops grown in energy crop
European Parliament, 2021. REGULATION (EU) 2021/1119 of the EUROPEAN rotations: linking chemical composition and methane production characteristics.
PARLIAMENT and of the COUNCIL of 30 June 2021 Establishing the Framework for Bioresour. Technol. 206, 23–35.
Achieving Climate Neutrality and Amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and Hijazi, O., Munro, S., Zerhusen, B., Effenberger, M., 2016. Review of life cycle assessment
(EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). Official Journal of the European Union. for biogas production in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 1291–1300.
Eurostat. Farm structure statistics. 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics -explai Holm-Nielsen, J.B., al Seadi, T., Oleskowicz-Popiel, P., 2009. The future of anaerobic
ned/index.php/Farm_structure_statistics. [Accessed 16 April 2022].. digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour. Technol. 100 (22), 5478–5484.
Eurostat Data Broser. Arable Land by Area. https://ec.europa. Hosseini Koupaie, E., Barrantes Leiva, M., Eskicioglu, C., Dutil, C., 2014. Mesophilic
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tag00103/default/table?lang=en. 2022.. batch anaerobic co-digestion of fruit-juice industrial waste and municipal waste
Eurostat Data Browser. Bovine Animals by NUTS 2 Regions. https://ec.europa. sludge: process and cost-benefit analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 152, 66–73.
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ef_lsk_bovine/default/table?lang=en. 2021. Hu, Z., Grasso, D., 2005. WATER ANALYSIS | chemical oxygen demand. In: Encyclopedia
Eurostat Data Browser. Pig by NUTS 2 Regions. https://ec.europa. of Analytical Science. Elsevier, pp. 325–330.
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ef_lsk_gpig/default/table?lang=en. 2021. Iglesias, R., Muñoz, R., Polanco, M., Díaz, I., Susmozas, A., Moreno, A.D., et al., 2021.
Eurostat Data Browser. Material Flow Accounts. https://ec.europa. Biogas from anaerobic digestion as an energy vector: current upgrading development
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tag00103/default/table?lang=en. 2022.. [cited 2022 Feb 14]; Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102742.
Eurostat Data Browser. Complete energy balances. https://ec.europa. International Renewable Energy Agency, 2017. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2016.
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NRG_BAL_C__custom_2426279/default/table? Issah, A.A., Kabera, T., Kemausuor, F., 2020. Biogas optimisation processes and effluent
lang=en. 2022. quality: a review. Biomass Bioenergy 133, 105449.
Eurostat Data Browser. Animal Populations by NUTS 2 Regions. https://ec.europa. IWA The International Water Association. Up Flow - Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/AGR_R_ANIMAL__custom_2447208/default/table? (UASB).
lang=en. 2022. Jackowiak, D., Bassard, D., Pauss, A., Ribeiro, T., 2011. Optimisation of a microwave
Eurostat Data Browser. GDP and main Components (Output, Expenditure and Income). pretreatment of wheat straw for methane production. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (12),
https://ec.europa. 6750–6756.
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NAMA_10_GDP__custom_2448825/default/table? Janke, L., Leite, A.F., Nikolausz, M., Radetski, C.M., Nelles, M., Stinner, W., 2016.
lang=en. 2022.. Comparison of start-up strategies and process performance during semi-continuous
Eurostat Data Browser. National Accounts Aggregates by Industry. https://ec.europa. anaerobic digestion of sugarcane filter cake co-digested with bagasse. Waste Manag.
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NAMA_10_A64__custom_2449040/default/table? 48, 199–208.
lang=en. 2022.. Kabir, M.M., del Pilar Castillo, M., Taherzadeh, M.J., Sárvári Horváth, I., 2013. Effect of
Eurostat Data Browser. National Accounts Aggregates by Industry. https://ec.europa. the N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of
eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NAMA_10_A64__custom_2449040/default/table? forest residues. Bioresources 8 (4).
lang=en. 2022.. Kabir, M.M., Niklasson, C., Taherzadeh, M.J., Horváth, I.S., 2014. Biogas production
Eurostat Glossary. Eurostat Glossary: Agricultural Area and Arable Land. https://ec. from lignocelluloses by N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO) pretreatment: effects
europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary: of recovery and reuse of NMMO. Bioresour. Technol. 161, 446–450.
Agricultural_area_(AA).. Kalamaras, S.D., Kotsopoulos, T.A., 2014. Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure and
Eurostat Statistics Explained. Glossar: Pflanzen zur Grünernte. https://ec.europa. alternative crops for the substitution of maize in South Europe. Bioresour. Technol.
eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=511773. 2021. 172, 68–75.
Fachverband Biogas, 2000. Biogas LN. Biogas in der Landwirtschaft. Freising. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H. (Eds.), 2016. Energie aus Biomasse.
FNR, e.V.. Faustzahlen biogas. Available online: http://biogas.fnr.de/daten-und-fakten/ Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.
faustzahlen/. (Accessed 16 April 2022). accessed on.
17
Kampman BLCSTTKJBRMGLJPMKSNEB, 2017. Optimal Use of Biogas from Waste Mata-Alvarez, J., Macé, S., Llabrés, P., 2000. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes.
Streams : an Assessment of the Potential of Biogas from Digestion in the EU beyond An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 74 (1),
2020. European Commission, Luxembourg. 3–16.
Kanchanasuta, S., Sillaparassamee, O., 2017. Enhancement of hydrogen and methane Mata-Alvarez, J., Dosta, J., Macé, S., Astals, S., 2011. Codigestion of solid wastes: a
production from co-digestion of palm oil decanter cake and crude glycerol using two review of its uses and perspectives including modeling. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 31 (2),
stage thermophilic and mesophilic fermentation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 42 (5), 99–111.
3440–3446. Matsunaka, T., Sawamoto, T., Ishimura, H., Takakura, K., Takekawa, A., 2006. Efficient
Kangle, K.M., Kore, S.V., Kore, V.S., Kolkarni, G.S., 2011. Recent trends in anaerobic use of digested cattle slurry from biogas plant with respect to nitrogen recycling in
codigestion: a review [internet]. www.environmentaljournal.org. grassland. Int Congr Ser 1293, 242–252.
Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2011. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by adopting Menardo, S., Cacciatore, V., Balsari, P., 2015. Batch and continuous biogas production
anaerobic digestion technology on dairy, sow and pig farms in Finland. Renew. arising from feed varying in rice straw volumes following pre-treatment with
Energy 36 (1), 31–41. extrusion. Bioresour. Technol. 180, 154–161.
Kim, J.E., 2014. Energy security and climate change: how oil endowment influences Mendieta, O., Castro, L., Rodríguez, J., Escalante, H., 2020. Synergistic effect of
alternative vehicle innovation. Energy Pol. 66, 400–410. sugarcane scum as an accelerant co-substrate on anaerobic co-digestion with
Kim, J., Baek, G., Kim, J., Lee, C., 2019. Energy production from different organic wastes agricultural crop residues from non-centrifugal cane sugar agribusiness sector.
by anaerobic co-digestion: maximizing methane yield versus maximizing synergistic Bioresour. Technol. 303, 122957.
effect. Renew. Energy 136, 683–690. Meyer-Aurich, A., Schattauer, A., Hellebrand, H.J., Klauss, H., Plöchl, M., Berg, W., 2012.
Kougias, P.G., Angelidaki, I., 2018. Biogas and its opportunities—a review. Front. Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production
Environ. Sci. Eng. 12 (3). from agricultural resources. Renew. Energy 37 (1), 277–284.
Kougias, P.G., Fotidis, I.A., Zaganas, I.D., Kotsopoulos, T.A., Martzopoulos, G.G., 2013. Möller, K., 2015. Effects of anaerobic digestion on soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, N
Zeolite and swine inoculum effect on poultry manure biomethanation. Int. Agrophys. emissions, and soil biological activity. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 35 (3),
27 (2), 169–173. 1021–1041.
Kougias, P.G., Boe, K., Tsapekos, P., Angelidaki, I., 2014a. Foam suppression in Monou, M., Pafitis, N., Kythreotou, N., Smith, S.R., Mantzavinos, D., Kassinos, D., 2008.
overloaded manure-based biogas reactors using antifoaming agents. Bioresour. Anaerobic co-digestion of potato processing wastewater with pig slurry and abattoir
Technol. 153, 198–205. wastewater. J. Appl. Chem. Biotechnol. 83 (12), 1658–1663.
Kougias, P.G., Kotsopoulos, T.A., Martzopoulos, G.G., 2014b. Effect of feedstock Musacchio, A., Re, V., Mas-Pla, J., Sacchi, E., 2020. EU Nitrates Directive, from theory to
composition and organic loading rate during the mesophilic co-digestion of olive practice: environmental effectiveness and influence of regional governance on its
mill wastewater and swine manure. Renew. Energy 69, 202–207. performance. Ambio 49 (2), 504–516.
Kougias, P.G., Kotsopoulos, T.A., Martzopoulos, G.G., 2014c. Effect of feedstock Nasir, I.M., Mohd Ghazi Ti, Omar, R., 2012. Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock
composition and organic loading rate during the mesophilic co-digestion of olive manure treatment for biogas production: a review. Eng. Life Sci. 12 (3), 258–269.
mill wastewater and swine manure. Renew. Energy 69, 202–207. Nielsen, M., NOK; PM, 2014. Danish Emission Inventory for Stationary Combustion
Kristensen PG, Jensen JK, Nielsen M, Boll Illerup J. EMISSION FACTORS FOR GAS FIRED Plants, vol. 102. Scientific Report from DCE–Danish Centre for Environment and
CHP UNITS < 25 MW. Energy.
Labatut, R.A., Angenent, L.T., Scott, N.R., 2011. Biochemical methane potential and Ning, J., Zhou, M., Pan, X., Li, C., Lv, N., Wang, T., et al., 2019. Simultaneous biogas and
biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (3), biogas slurry production from co-digestion of pig manure and corn straw:
2255–2264. performance optimization and microbial community shift. Bioresour. Technol. 282,
Labatut, R.A., Angenent, L.T., Scott, N.R., 2014. Conventional mesophilic vs. 37–47.
thermophilic anaerobic digestion: a trade-off between performance and stability? Nkemka, V.N., Murto, M., 2013. Biogas production from wheat straw in batch and UASB
Water Res. 53, 249–258. reactors: the roles of pretreatment and seaweed hydrolysate as a co-substrate.
Lehtomäki, A., Huttunen, S., Rintala, J.A., 2007. Laboratory investigations on co- Bioresour. Technol. 128, 164–172.
digestion of energy crops and crop residues with cow manure for methane Nuchdang, S., Phalakornkule, C., 2012. Anaerobic digestion of glycerol and co-digestion
production: effect of crop to manure ratio. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51 (3), 591–609. of glycerol and pig manure. J. Environ. Manag. 101, 164–172.
Lesschen, J.P., Meesters, K., Sikirica, N., Elbersen, B., 2017. Optimal Use of Biogas from O-Thong, S., Boe, K., Angelidaki, I., 2012. Thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of oil
Waste Streams. palm empty fruit bunches with palm oil mill effluent for efficient biogas production.
Li, D., Liu, S., 2019. Water quality monitoring in aquaculture. In: Water Quality Appl. Energy 93, 648–654.
Monitoring and Management. Elsevier, pp. 303–328. Ogbuewu, I.P., Odoemenam, V.U., Obikaonu, H.O., Opara, M.N., Emenalom, O.O.,
Li, Y., Zhang, R., Liu, G., Chen, C., He, Y., Liu, X., 2013a. Comparison of methane Uchegbu, M.C., et al., 2011. The growing importance of neem (Azadirachta indica A.
production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Juss) in agriculture, industry, medicine and environment: a review. Res. J. Med.
Bioresour. Technol. 149, 565–569. Plant 5 (3), 230–245.
Li, Y., Zhang, R., Liu, X., Chen, C., Xiao, X., Feng, L., et al., 2013b. Evaluating methane Orlando, M.Q., Borja, V.M., 2020. Pretreatment of animal manure biomass to improve
production from anaerobic mono- and co-digestion of kitchen waste, corn stover, biogas production: a review. Energies 13 (14), 3573.
and chicken manure. In: Energy and Fuels, pp. 2085–2091. Oshita, K., Okumura, T., Takaoka, M., Fujimori, T., Appels, L., Dewil, R., 2014. Methane
Li, J., Wei, L., Duan, Q., Hu, G., Zhang, G., 2014. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion and nitrous oxide emissions following anaerobic digestion of sludge in Japanese
of dairy manure with three crop residues for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. sewage treatment facilities. Bioresour. Technol. 171 (1), 175–181.
156, 307–313. O’Connor, S., Ehimen, E., Pillai, S.C., Black, A., Tormey, D., Bartlett, J., 2021. Biogas
Li, D., Liu, S., Mi, L., Li, Z., Yuan, Y., Yan, Z., et al., 2015. Effects of feedstock ratio and production from small-scale anaerobic digestion plants on European farms. In:
organic loading rate on the anaerobic mesophilic co-digestion of rice straw and cow Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 139. Elsevier Ltd.
manure. Bioresour. Technol. 189, 319–326. Pagés-Díaz, J., Pereda-Reyes, I., Taherzadeh, M.J., Sárvári-Horváth, I., Lundin, M., 2014.
Li, K., Liu, R., Cui, S., Yu, Q., Ma, R., 2018. Anaerobic co-digestion of animal manures Anaerobic co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse wastes with agro-residues: synergistic
with corn stover or apple pulp for enhanced biogas production. Renew. Energy 118, and antagonistic interactions determined in batch digestion assays. Chem. Eng. J.
335–342. 245, 89–98.
Lindfors, A., Gustafsson, M., Anderberg, S., Eklund, M., Mirata, M., 2020. Developing Panichnumsin, P., Nopharatana, A., Ahring, B., Chaiprasert, P., 2010. Production of
biogas systems in Norrköping, Sweden: an industrial symbiosis intervention. methane by co-digestion of cassava pulp with various concentrations of pig manure.
J. Clean. Prod. 277, 122822. Biomass Bioenergy 34 (8), 1117–1124.
Liu, C., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Liu, C., 2016. Improve biogas production from low-organic- Paolini, V., Petracchini, F., Segreto, M., Tomassetti, L., Naja, N., Cecinato, A., 2018.
content sludge through high-solids anaerobic co-digestion with food waste. Environmental impact of biogas: a short review of current knowledge. https://www.
Bioresour. Technol. 219, 252–260. tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lesa20.
Liu, A., Yang, Y., Chen, L., Zeng, W., Wang, C., 2020. Experimental study of biogas Park, J.G., Shin, W.B., Shi, W.Q., Jun, H.B., 2019. Changes of bacterial communities in an
combustion and emissions for a micro gas turbine. Fuel 267, 117312. anaerobic digestion and a bio-electrochemical anaerobic digestion reactors
LKVBB, Landeskontrollverband Brandenburg e.V. Untersuchung von Gülle-Notwendig according to organic load. Energies 12 (15), 2958.
Für Den Fachgerechten Einsatz Als Dünger Oder Als Substrat in Biogasanlagen. Hirsch Peter, Schempp Christian, European Commission. Directorate-General for
http://www.lkvbb.de/hauptinf-Dateien/Guelle%20mit%20Tabellen.pdf.. Research and Innovation. Categorisation System for the Circular Economy : a Sector-
López González, L.M., Pereda Reyes, I., Romero Romero, O., 2017. Anaerobic co- Agnostic Categorisation System for Activities Substantially Contributing to the
digestion of sugarcane press mud with vinasse on methane yield. Waste Manag. 68, Circular Economy..
139–145. Petersson, A., Thomsen, M.H., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Thomsen, A.B., 2007. Potential
Lovato, G., Batista, L.P.P., Preite, M.B., Yamashiro, J.N., Becker, A.L.S., Vidal, M.F.G., bioethanol and biogas production using lignocellulosic biomass from winter rye,
et al., 2019. Viability of using glycerin as a Co-substrate in anaerobic digestion of oilseed rape and faba bean. Biomass Bioenergy 31 (11–12), 812–819.
sugarcane stillage (vinasse): effect of diversified operational strategies. Appl. Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2012. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment –
Biochem. Biotechnol. 188 (3), 720–740. Part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process emissions to air.
Lukehurst P, Frost T Al Seadi CT, Rudolf B A, Guilherme S B, Andrew Mc F C, Denmark J. Clean. Prod. 24, 168–183.
nrcangcca. Utilisation of Digestate from Biogas Plants as Biofertiliser. Reijnders, L., Huijbregts, M., 2008. Biofuels for Road Transport: a Seed to Wheel
Ma, X., Yu, M., Yang, M., Gao, M., Wu, C., Wang, Q., 2019. Synergistic effect from Perspective. Springer Science & Business Media.
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and Sophora flavescens residues at different co- Renewable Energy Agency I. RENEWABLE ENERGY STATISTICS 2021 STATISTIQUES
substrate ratios. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (36), 37114–37124. D’ÉNERGIE RENOUVELABLE 2021 ESTADÍSTICAS DE ENERGÍA RENOVABLE 2021
Maji, S., Dwivedi, D.H., Singh, N., Kishor, S., Gond, M., 2020. Agricultural Waste: its About IRENA [Internet]. 2021. Available from: www.irena.org.
Impact on Environment and Management Approaches, pp. 329–351.
18
RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY STATISTICS 2015 [Internet]. 2015. Available from: The European Parliament and the Council, 2002. EC 1774/2002 - Laying Down Health
www.irena.org. Rules Concerning Animal By-Products Not Intended for Human Consumption.
Risberg, K., Sun, L., Levén, L., Horn, S.J., Schnürer, A., 2013. Biogas production from Torres, A., Padrino, S., Brito, A., Díaz, L., 2021. Biogas production from anaerobic
wheat straw and manure – impact of pretreatment and process operating parameters. digestion of solid microalgae residues generated on different processes of
Bioresour. Technol. 149, 232–237. microalgae-to-biofuel production. Biomass Convers Biorefin. https://doi.
Robra, S., Serpa da Cruz, R., de Oliveira, A.M., Neto, J.A.A., Santos, J.V., 2010. org/10.1007/s13399-021-01898-9.
Generation of biogas using crude glycerin from biodiesel production as a supplement Tsapekos, P., Kougias, P.G., Angelidaki, I., 2015. Anaerobic mono- and Co-digestion of
to cattle slurry. Biomass Bioenergy 34 (9), 1330–1335. mechanically pretreated meadow grass for biogas production. Energy Fuel. 29 (7),
Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Banja, M., Motola, V., 2015. 4005–4010.
Renewable energy policy framework and bioenergy contribution in the European Tsapekos, P., Kougias, P.G., Frison, A., Raga, R., Angelidaki, I., 2016. Improving methane
union – an overview from national renewable energy action plans and progress production from digested manure biofibers by mechanical and thermal alkaline
reports. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 969–985. pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 216, 545–552.
Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Fahl, F., 2018. Biogas: Developments and Perspectives in Tsapekos, P., Kougias, P.G., Treu, L., Campanaro, S., Angelidaki, I., 2017. Process
Europe, vol. 129. Renewable Energy. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 457–472. performance and comparative metagenomic analysis during co-digestion of manure
Scheftelowitz M, Thrän D. Unlocking the Energy Potential of Manure-An Assessment of and lignocellulosic biomass for biogas production. Appl. Energy 185, 126–135.
the Biogas Production Potential at the Farm Level in Germany. Available from: www. Tsapekos, P., Kougias, P.G., Angelidaki, I., 2018. Mechanical pretreatment for increased
mdpi.com/journal/agriculture. biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass; predicting the methane yield from
Schnürer, A., Nordberg, Å., 2008. Ammonia, a selective agent for methane production by structural plant components. Waste Manag. 78, 903–910.
syntrophic acetate oxidation at mesophilic temperature. Water Sci. Technol. 57 (5), UN FCCC, 2015. COP 21: Adoption of the Paris Agreement.
735–740. van Dijk, K.C., Lesschen, J.P., Oenema, O., 2016. Phosphorus flows and balances of the
Seddiek, I.S., Elgohary, M.M., 2014. Eco-friendly selection of ship emissions reduction European union member states. Sci. Total Environ. 542, 1078–1093.
strategies with emphasis on SOx and NOx emissions. Int. J. Nav. Archit. Ocean Eng. 6 Velthof, G.L., Lesschen, J.P., Webb, J., Pietrzak, S., Miatkowski, Z., Pinto, M., et al.,
(3), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijnaoe-2013-0209. 2014. The impact of the Nitrates Directive on nitrogen emissions from agriculture in
Sen, K., Mahalingam, S., Sen, B., 2013. Rapid and high yield biogas production from the EU-27 during 2000–2008. Sci. Total Environ. 468–469, 1225–1233.
Jatropha seed cake by co-digestion with bagasse and addition of Fe2+. Environ. Verheyen, L.A.H.M., Wiersema, D., Hulshoff-Pol, L.W., Brandjes, P., Westra, P.J., Bos, J.
Technol. 34 (22), 2989–2994. F.F.P., et al., 1996. Interactions between Livestock Production Systems and the
Sequi, P., Voorburg, J.H., 1993. Cientific basis for environmentally safe and efficient Environment - Global Perspectives and Prospects. Wageningen.
management of livestock farming: report of the Scientific Committee of the European Wang, M., Sun, X., Li, P., Yin, L., Liu, D., Zhang, Y., et al., 2014. A novel alternate feeding
Conference Environment, Agriculture and Stock Farming in Europe, Mantova 1991- mode for semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with chicken
1992. In: Environment, Agriculture, Stock Farming: the Basic Problem. Mantua, manure. Bioresour. Technol. 164, 309–314.
Italy. Wang, Y., Li, G., Chi, M., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Jiang, S., et al., 2018. Effects of co-digestion
Serrano, A., Siles, J.A., Chica, A.F., Martin, M.A., 2014. Improvement of mesophilic of cucumber residues to corn stover and pig manure ratio on methane production in
anaerobic co-digestion of agri-food waste by addition of glycerol. J. Environ. Manag. solid state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 250, 328–336.
140, 76–82. Webb, J., Sommer, S.G., Kupper, T., Groenestein, K., Hutchings, N.J., Eurich-Menden, B.,
Siddique, M.N.I., Wahid, Z.A., 2018. Achievements and perspectives of anaerobic co- et al., 2012. Emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane during the
digestion: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 359–371. Elsevier Ltd. management of solid manures. In: Agroecology and Strategies for Climate Change.
Silva, F.M.S., Mahler, C.F., Oliveira, L.B., Bassin, J.P., 2018. Hydrogen and methane Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 67–107.
production in a two-stage anaerobic digestion system by co-digestion of food waste, Wei, Y., Li, X., Yu, L., Zou, D., Yuan, H., 2015. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cattle
sewage sludge and glycerol. Waste Manag. 76, 339–349. manure and corn stover with biological and chemical pretreatment. Bioresour.
Sittijunda, S., Reungsang, A., 2020. Methane production from the Co-digestion of algal Technol. 198, 431–436.
biomass with crude glycerol by anaerobic mixed cultures. Waste Biomass Weiland, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol.
Valorization 11 (5), 1873–1881. Biotechnol. 85 (4), 849–860.
Solé-Bundó, M., Eskicioglu, C., Garfí, M., Carrère, H., Ferrer, I., 2017. Anaerobic co- Wilkinson, K.G., 2011. A comparison of the drivers influencing adoption of on-farm
digestion of microalgal biomass and wheat straw with and without thermo-alkaline anaerobic digestion in Germany and Australia. Biomass Bioenergy 35 (5),
pretreatment. Bioresour. Technol. 237, 89–98. 1613–1622.
Søndergaard, M.M., Fotidis, I.A., Kovalovszki, A., Angelidaki, I., 2015a. Anaerobic Co- Wohlfahrt, J., Colin, F., Assaghir, Z., Bockstaller, C., 2010. Assessing the impact of the
digestion of agricultural byproducts with manure for enhanced biogas production. spatial arrangement of agricultural practices on pesticide runoff in small catchments:
Energy Fuels 29 (12), 8088–8094. combining hydrological modeling and supervised learning. Ecol. Indicat. 10 (4),
Søndergaard, M.M., Fotidis, I.A., Kovalovszki, A., Angelidaki, I., 2015b. Anaerobic Co- 826–839.
digestion of agricultural byproducts with manure for enhanced biogas production. Ye, J., Li, D., Sun, Y., Wang, G., Yuan, Z., Zhen, F., et al., 2013. Improved biogas
Energy Fuel. 29 (12), 8088–8094. production from rice straw by co-digestion with kitchen waste and pig manure.
Søndergaard, M.M., Fotidis, I.A., Kovalovszki, A., Angelidaki, I., 2015c. Anaerobic Co- Waste Manag. 33 (12), 2653–2658.
digestion of agricultural byproducts with manure for enhanced biogas production. You, Z., Wei, T., Cheng, J.J., 2014. Improving anaerobic codigestion of corn stover using
Energy Fuels 29 (12), 8088–8094. sodium hydroxide pretreatment. In: Energy and Fuels, pp. 549–554.
Song Z, Yang G, Guo Y, Zhang T. COMPARISON OF TWO CHEMICAL PRETREATMENTS Zahan, Z., Georgiou, S., Muster, T.H., Othman, M.Z., 2018. Semi-continuous anaerobic
OF RICE STRAW FOR BIOGAS PRODUCTION BY ANAEROBIC DIGESTION. co-digestion of chicken litter with agricultural and food wastes: a case study on the
Sun, Y., Wang, D., Qiao, W., Wang, W., Zhu, T., 2013. Anaerobic co-digestion of effect of carbon/nitrogen ratio, substrates mixing ratio and organic loading.
municipal biomass wastes and waste activated sludge: dynamic model and material Bioresour. Technol. 270, 245–254.
balances. J. Environ. Sci. 25 (10), 2112–2122. Zhai, N., Zhang, T., Yin, D., Yang, G., Wang, X., Ren, G., et al., 2015. Effect of initial pH
Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Valijanian, E., Kazemi Shariat Panahi, H., Nizami, A.S., on anaerobic co-digestion of kitchen waste and cow manure. Waste Manag. 38 (1),
Ghanavati, H., et al., 2020. A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations 126–131.
to improve biogas production. Part 1: Upstream strategies 146, 1204–1220. Zhang, C., Xiao, G., Peng, L., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013a. The anaerobic co-digestion of food
Renewable Energy. Elsevier Ltd. waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 129, 170–176.
Tagne, R.F.T., Dong, X., Anagho, S.G., Kaiser, S., Ulgiati, S., 2021. Technologies, Zhang, C., Xiao, G., Peng, L., Su, H., Tan, T., 2013b. The anaerobic co-digestion of food
challenges and perspectives of biogas production within an agricultural context. The waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 129, 170–176.
case of China and Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23 (10), 14799–14826. Zhao, Y., Sun, F., Yu, J., Cai, Y., Luo, X., Cui, Z., et al., 2018. Co-digestion of oat straw
Tambone, F., Genevini, P., D’Imporzano, G., Adani, F., 2009. Assessing amendment and cow manure during anaerobic digestion: stimulative and inhibitory effects on
properties of digestate by studying the organic matter composition and the degree of fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 269, 143–152.
biological stability during the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of MSW. Zhen, H.S., Leung, C.W., Cheung, C.S., Huang, Z.H., 2014. Characterization of biogas-
Bioresour. Technol. 100 (12), 3140–3142. hydrogen premixed flames using Bunsen burner. In: International Journal of
Tambone, F., Terruzzi, L., Scaglia, B., Adani, F., 2015. Composting of the solid fraction of Hydrogen Energy. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 13292–13299.
digestate derived from pig slurry: biological processes and compost properties. Zhong, W., Chi, L., Luo, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Z., Wu, W.M., 2013. Enhanced methane
Waste Manag. 35, 55–61. production from Taihu Lake blue algae by anaerobic co-digestion with corn straw in
Teghammar, A., Karimi, K., Sárvári Horváth, I., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2012. Enhanced continuous feed digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 134, 264–270.
biogas production from rice straw, triticale straw and softwood spruce by NMMO
pretreatment. Biomass Bioenergy 36, 116–120.
19

Journal of Cleaner Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135867

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect