Waste to Watt - A review study on utilization of food

waste to produce energy using anaerobic digestion

BY
PETAR KEKOVIC
GRADUATE STUDENT
CLEAN FOSSIL AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS ENERGY
KIC INNOENERGY
and

SHASHANK NAGARAJA
GRADUATE STUDENT
CLEAN FOSSIL AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS ENERGY
KIC INNOENERGY

Contents
1 Introduction

2 Biogas Production
2.1 Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Stoichiometry of the Anaerobic Digestion Process
2.3 Biology of the process: steps of the reaction . . .
2.3.1 Hydrolysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Acidogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.3 Acetogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.4 Methanogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Process parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Hydraulic retention time . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 pH value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.4 C/N ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Inhibition of biogas production . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Active microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3 Food Waste as Feedstock for Biogas Production

3.1 General Characteristics of Feedstock needed for Biogas Production
3.2 Characteristics of Food Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Pretreatment of Food Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Anaerobic co-digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Biogas Utilization
4.1 Direct Combustion . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Gas Turbines . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs)
4.4.1 Biogas in SI Engines . . . . .
4.4.2 Biogas in CI Engines . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

5 Conclusions

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

6
6
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
13

.
.
.
.

14
14
15
17
17

.
.
.
.
.
.

18
18
20
21
22
23
28
31

List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Municipal Solid Waste sent to Landfill in 2007 in USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Classification of food waste to energy technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stages of anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase separation of the anaerobic digestion system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Different shapes of methanogenic bacteria:
Methanosaeta (filament) and Methanosarcina (cocci) (top left), Methanothermus
(top right), Methanotorris igneus (bottom left) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Taxonomy of methanogenics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Four steps in the AD of organic substrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Worldwide deaths from indoor air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Graphical User Interface of the tool developed for direct combustion of biogas .
Laboratory setup of reforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Variation of electrical efficiency versus power output for different biogas compositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nomenclature of an engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flame Velocity for different CO2 concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Burn Duration and MBT timing as a function of equivalence ratio for methane
and simulated biogas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flammability limits for different concentration of CO2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
COVimep vs Equivalence Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NOx emissions vs Equivalence Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BTE vs Equivalence ratio for different concentrations of CO2 . . . . . . . . . .
Engine Torque and BMEP vs Engine speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amount of CH4 in the exhaust for different biogas composition . . . . . . . . . .

4
5
7
8

13
14
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
27
28
29
30

Introduction

FAO estimates that each year, approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption in the world is lost or wasted [1]. This food wastage represents a missed opportunity
not only to improve global food security, but also to mitigate environmental impacts and resources use from food chains. Although there is a wide recognition of the major environmental
implications of food production, no study has yet analyzed the impacts of global food wastage
from an environmental perspective.
In the United States alone, food waste is the second largest category of municipal solid waste
(MSW) sent to landfills accounting for approximately 18% of the waste stream. That is over
30 million tons of food waste that the U. S. sends to the landfills each year. Of the less than
3% of waste currently being diverted from landfills, most of it is being composted to produce
a fertilizer. The pie-chart shown in Figure 1 illustrates this fact clearly [2].

Figure 1: Municipal Solid Waste sent to Landfill in 2007 in USA

Another study of global food waste that was published in 2011 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN found that roughly one third of all food produced for human
consumption each year goes to waste totaling 1.3 billion tonnes [3]. This waste is distributed
almost evenly between developing and industrialized nations with 40% of the food waste in the
developing nations occurring in the production and processing phases of consumption while in
the industrialized nations, 40% occurs at the retail and consumer levels of consumption.

Diverting food waste from landfills not only conserves limited landfill space, but also helps
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In landfills, organic materials, like food scraps and yard
trimmings, are broken down by bacteria to produce methane. Methane, a potent greenhouse
gas, is shown to have a warming potential of 21 times that of carbon dioxide. As we try to
combat global climate change, we need to reduce methane emissions to the atmosphere.
Food waste is a potential resource to create renewable energy and also enhance soil fertility. Energy recovery from food waste is an attractive option to pursue, particularly from the
energy security viewpoint. This realization has motivated fundamental research on technologies
that help to recover some valuable fuels from food waste to reduce the environmental burden of
its disposal, avoid depletion of natural resources, minimize risk to human health and maintain
an overall balance in the ecosystem.
Insights into various technologies that have been explored for food-waste-to-energy conversion
including biological (e.g. anaerobic digestion and fermentation), thermal and thermochemical
technologies (e.g. incineration, pyrolysis, gasification and hydrothermal oxidation) is shown in
Figure 2 [4].

Figure 2: Classification of food waste to energy technologies

The present study focuses on production of biogas and its utilization. A brief overview on
the possible routes of biogas utilization is provided.
In the next section, production of biogas is briefly shown.

Biogas Production

A synopsis about biogas production by anaerobic digestion is provided in this section.

2.1

Anaerobic digestion

Biogas is produced as a product of anaerobic digestion. This is a process where plant and animal
material (biomass) is converted into useful products by microorganisms in the absence of air [5].
The general equation for production of biogas is illustrated in (1):
Cc Hh Oo Nn Ss + yH2 O xCH4 + nN H3 + sH2 S + (c x)CO2

(1)

where:
1
x = (4c + h 20 3n 2s)
8
1
y = (4c h 20 + 3n + 3s)
4
The products in case of carbohydrates, fats and proteins are shown in (2), (3) and (4) respectively [6]:
Carbohydrates : C6 H12 O6 3 CO2 + 3 CH4
(2)

F ats : C12 H24 O6 + 3 H2 O 4.5 CO2 + 7.5 CH4

(3)

P roteins : C13 H25 O7 N3 S + 6 H2 O 6.5 CO2 + 6.5 CH4 + 3 N H3 + H2 S

(4)

The fact that makes biogas production even more interesting, besides production of a energy
source and its importance in waste management, is the fact that the digestate or slurry from
the digester is rich in ammonium and other nutrients used as an organic fertilizer [7].

2.2

Stoichiometry of the Anaerobic Digestion Process

Because the sulfur remains in the residue and part of the CO2 binds to NH3 , the result in
general is a biogas composition of
CH4 : CO2 =71 % : 29 %
Some other sources state that the composition is 60 % methane, 40 % carbon dioxide. These
differences are due to the fact that the ratio of these two main components is determined by
the substrate used, i.e. the reduction ratio of the organic raw material [6].
6

High methane content in biogas would be desirable, as it would reduce, in some cases even
avoid, the need for CO2 removal from the biogas, and direct utilization (after H2 S and moisture
removal) as a vehicular fuels and other applications requiring compression [8].
For the simplest case, the conversion of carbohydrates, such as sugars (e.g., glucose, C6 H12 O6 )
and starch or cellulose (Cn Hn2 On1 ), an equal amount of CH4 and CO2 is produced (50:50
ratio) [8].
Proteins and fats produce more methane. The exact biogas composition will depend on the
individual substrate protein. Generally, a CH4 :CO2 ratio of 55:45 in case of proteins and a
CH4 :CO2 ratio of 70:30 in case of fats is produced .
However, the final ratio of the main components, methane and CO2 , depends on other factors, such as process parameters, production of byproducts (metabolites, fatty acids, etc.),
overall efficiency of the reaction (some fractions of the feed is used more easily, while others,
like lignin, remain mostly unused), and production of microbial biomass.

2.3

Biology of the process: steps of the reaction

Methane fermentation is a complex process, which can be divided up into four phases of degradation, named hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanation, according to the main
process of decomposition in this phase. The individual phases are carried out by different
groups of microorganisms, which partly stand in syntrophic interrelation and place different
requirements on the environment [6]. The four stages of anaerobic digestion is shown in Figure
3 [7].

Figure 3: Stages of anaerobic digestion

The four key biological and chemical stages of anaerobic digestion are :
1. Hydrolysis
2. Acidogenesis
3. Acetogenesis
4. Methanogenesis
7

Due to different process parameters needed for the bacteria that act in the various steps, the
whole production can be split into two stages. In the multi-stage digestion system, the two
bioreactors are optimised for acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria. First ones grow more
rapidly and produce acids that cause variation in the pH levels, which doesnt suit the latter
ones, which need a stable pH level and temperature for maximal production of methane.
Thus, the first three steps can take place in the first reactor, while the second one is used
only for methanogenesis. To prevent any problems that can halt production of methane by
the sensitive methanogenic bacteria, a pasteurisation or even sterilisation step can take place
between the two stages of digestion.
Unfortunately, this concept suffers from a fundamental flaw: the two types of populations
work commensally, that is they depend on each other for optimal metabolism. Simply put,
the H2 and acetate (as well as the higher fatty acids) produced by the acid-forming bacteria
are strong inhibitors of the metabolism by these bacteria. The methanogens, by removing
these waste products and converting them to CH4 , perform a most useful and necessary role in
the overall process. Indeed, although acidogenic bacteria (at least some populations) tolerate
the low pH that develops in the first, short hydraulic retention time, acid-forming reactor of
a two-phase process, a low pH does not actually help the process of acidogenesis. In brief,
after several decades of research, the advantages of two-phase anaerobic digestion are still to
be demonstrated. Indeed, the main advantage claimed for two-phase digestion, the reduction
in overall tank sizes, has not been demonstrated, and the operation of two, rather than one,
digesters is not an advantage. ) [9]. Phase separation of anaerobic digestion system is shown
in Figure 4 [7].

Figure 4: Phase separation of the anaerobic digestion system

2.3.1

Hydrolysis

This is the first step in anaerobic digestion process, it involves the enzyme-mediated transformation of insoluble organic materials and higher molecular mass compounds into soluble
organic materials [7].
In most cases, biomass is made up of large organic polymers. In order for the bacteria in
anaerobic digesters to access the energy potential of the material, these chains must first be
broken down into their smaller constituent parts. These constituent parts or monomers such
8

as sugars are readily available by other bacteria. The process of breaking these chains and dissolving the smaller molecules into solution is called hydrolysis. Therefore, hydrolysis of these
high-molecular-weight polymeric components is necessary. Through hydrolysis the complex
organic molecules are broken down into simple sugars, amino acids, and fatty acids [10]. Some
important groups of hydrolytic enzymes and their functions are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Some important groups of hydrolytic enzymes and their functions

This step is the shortest one, and lasts usually just a few hours for carbohydrates, while for
proteins and fats it can last up to a day. Other materials, lignocelulose and lignin are hardly
hydrolyzed in normal biodigesters and remain in the slurry.

2.3.2

Acidogenesis

The monomers formed in the hydrolytic phase are taken up by different facultative and obligatorily anaerobic bacteria and are degraded in the second, the acidogenic phase, to short - chain
organic acids, C1 - C5 molecules (e.g., butyric acid, propionic acid, acetate, acetic acid), alcohols, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. The concentration of the intermediately formed hydrogen
ions affects the kind of the products of fermentation. The higher the partial pressure of the
hydrogen, the fewer reduced compounds, like acetate, are formed.
2.3.3

Acetogenesis

The third stage of anaerobic digestion is acetogenesis. Here, simple molecules created through
the acidogenesis phase are further digested by acetogens to produce largely acetic acid, as well
as carbon dioxide and hydrogen [11].
The main goal of this step is to create methanogenic substrates, mainly volatile fatty acids
and alcohols (VFA), which can be converted to methane by methanogenic bacteria. This is
done by oxidizing products of Acigonegensis. In this step, it is of great importance that the
bacteria that have different roles work in symbiosis in order to prevent slowing down, or even
stopping biogas production. The partial pressure of H2 is the key factor to keep an eye on.
2.3.4

Methanogenesis

Methanogenesis is the final stage of the biogas process. In this stage, methane and carbon dioxide (biogas) are formed by various methane-producing microorganisms called methanogens. The
9

most important substrates for these organisms are hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide, and acetate,
which are formed during anaerobic oxidation. But other substrates such as methyl amines,
some alcohols, and formates can also be used for the production of methane [12].
Just like in other stages of the biogas process, not just one, but several different types of
microorganisms are active in this stage. The methane-producing group that usually dominates
in a biogas process is the so-called acetotrophic methanogens, which use acetate as substrate.
In their metabolism, acetate is cleaved into two parts. One of the carbons is used to form
methane and the other to form carbon dioxide. Thus, acetotrophic methane producers are
sometimes also called acetate-splitting methanogens. Acetate is the source of about 70 % of
the biogas produced in a digestion tank [13].
Because methane producers generally grow very slowly, this is often the rate-limiting stage
of the biogas process [12]. Generation time, i.e. the time required for a microorganism to
divide itself in two, is between 1 and 12 days for methane producers. The growth rate of
methanogens often sets the limit for how short the retention time in continuous biogas process
can be . Too short retention time (less than 12 days) increases the risk that these organisms
will be washed out of the process, because they do not have sufficient time to increase at the
same rate as the material is pumped into and out of the digestion tank [10].

2.4

Process parameters

Various factors such as biogas potential of feedstock, design of digester, inoculum, nature of
substrate, pH, temperature, loading rate, hydraulic retention time, C: N ratio, volatile fatty
acids, and other trace gases influence the biogas production [11].
2.4.1

Temperature

There are two conventional operational temperature levels for anaerobic digesters, which are
determined by the species of methanogens in the digesters:
- Mesophilic, which takes place optimally around 30-38 o C or at ambient temperatures between
20-45 o C where mesophiles are the primary microorganism present
- Thermophilic, which takes place optimally around 49-57 o C at elevated temperatures up to
70 o C where thermophiles are the primary microorganisms present [12]
Most of the acid forming microorganisms grows under mesophilic conditions; however, for
methanogens, a higher temperature is favorable. Temperature affects the production of biogas. The temperature at which the stages of biogas formation take place is very important and
needs to be kept constant. The methanogenic bacteria, which facilitate the formation of biogas,
are very sensitive to temperature changes. The optimum temperature is 35 o C. Temperatures
below this slow down the biogas production process, a higher temperature than necessary kills
the biogas producing bacteria. The methonogens are inactive in extreme high and low temperatures. When the ambient temperature goes down to 10 o C, gas production virtually stops.
Satisfactory gas production takes place in the mesophilic range between 25 o to 30 o C.Proper
insulation of digester helps to increase gas production in the cold season. When the ambient

10

temperature is 30 o C or less, the average temperature within the dome remains about 40 o C
above the ambient temperature. Therefore in areas of temperature changes, such as mountainous regions, or winter conditions that may be more accentuated inland, mitigating factors need
to be taken into account, such as increased insulation, or the addition of heaters to maintain
temperatures. [8]
2.4.2

Hydraulic retention time

Hydraulic retention time (residence time) is the average time that the slurry spends inside the
digester before exiting. This is determined by the overall speed of the reaction, size of the
reactor as well as the concentration of nutrients in the inlet stream.
Methane-forming microorganisms grow slowly, with a doubling time of around 5 - 16 days.
Therefore, the hydraulic retention time should be at least 10 - 15 days, unless these bacteria
are retained by, for example, entrapment [7]
Residence time for thermophilic single-stage biogas production is about 14 days. [6]
2.4.3

pH value

Generally, the process doesnt occur at extreme pH values. The optimum biogas production is
achieved when the pH value of input mixture in the digester is between 6 and 7. The pH in a
biogas digester is also a function of the retention time. In the initial period of fermentation,
large amounts of organic acids are produced by acid forming bacteria, the pH inside the digester
to below 5. This inhibits or even stops the digestion or fermentation process. Methanogenic
bacteria are very sensitive to pH and do not thrive below a value of 6.5. Later, as the digestion
process continues, concentration of ammonia increases due to digestion of nitrogen which can
increase the pH value to above 8. When the methane production level is stabilized, the pH
range remains buffered between 7.2 and 8.2. A pH higher than 8.5 will start to show toxic
effect on methanogen population. [13]
2.4.4

C/N ratio

The relationship between the amount of carbon and nitrogen present in organic materials is
expressed in terms of the carbon/nitrogen ratio (C/N).
In the case of C : N ratio, 25-30 : 1 is optimum for biogas production [14] For many materials that have inadequate C/N ratio, dilution and mixing is done in order to make them
suitable for application.
If the C/N ratio is very high, the nitrogen will be consumed rapidly by methanogens for
meeting their protein requirements and will no longer react on left over carbon content of the
material. As a result, gas production will be low. On the other hand, if the C/N ratio is
very low, nitrogen will be liberated and accumulated in the form of ammonia. Ammonia will
increase the pH value of the content in the digester. Animal waste, particularly cattle dung,
has an average C/N ratio of about 24. The plant materials such as straw and sawdust contain
a higher percentage of carbon. The human excreta has a C/N ratio as low as 8 [13]. C/N ratio
11

of some of the commonly used materials are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: C/N Ratio of different organic materials

2.5

Inhibition of biogas production

Inhibitory substances are often found to be the leading cause of anaerobic reactor upset and
failure since they are present in substantial concentrations in waste waters and sludges. A wide
variety of substances have been reported to be inhibitory to the anaerobic digestion processes.
A material may be judged inhibitory when it causes an adverse shift in the microbial population or inhibition of bacterial growth. Inhibition is usually indicated by a decrease of the
steady-state rate of methane gas production and accumulation of organic acids.
Ammonia is produced by decomposition of nitrogenous matter, primarily proteins and urea.
Among the four types of anaerobic microorganisms, the methanogens are the least tolerant and
the most likely to cease growth due to ammonia inhibition.
Presence of certain ions such as Na+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+ were found to be antagonistic to ammonia inhibition, a phenomenon in which the toxicity of one ion is decreased by the presence of
other ion(s).
Sulfate is a common constituent of many industrial wastewaters. In anaerobic reactors, sulfate
is reduced to sulfide by the sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB). Sulfate reduction is performed by
two major groups of SRB including incomplete oxidizers. Two stages of inhibition exist as a
result of sulfate reduction. Primary inhibition is due to competition for common organic and
inorganic sub-strates from SRB, which suppresses methane production. Secondary inhibition
results from the toxicity of sulfide to various bacteria groups.
Other elements that can cause inhibition of biogas production are Al, Ca, Mg, K, Na, as
well as most heavy metals.

12

Finally, it must be mentioned that lignin derivatives with aldehyde groups or non-polar substituents are highly toxic to methanogens. The aromatic carboxylic acids, however, were only
mildly toxic.

2.6

Active microorganisms

The methanogenic bacteria are included in the archeabacter genus in contrast to acidogenic and
acetogenic bacteria. There are three types of methanogenic bacteria involved in the metane
producing process;
- Methanosarcina genus (spherically shaped)
- Methanothrix bacteria (long and tubular)
- Bacteria that catabolise furfural and sulfates (short and curved rods)
These bacteria are shown in Figure 5. The species of microorganisms vary depending upon the
materials which are to be degraded; e.g., Clostridium degrades butyricum, Cl. Pasteurianum
and Citrobacter freundii degrade particularly hexadecimal chlorine cyclohexane, Micrococcus,
Aerobacter, Alcaligenes, Flavobakterium, and Pseudomonas decompose the alkylsulfonate of
detergents. Figure 6 shows taxonomy of methanogenics.

Figure 5: Different shapes of methanogenic bacteria:

Methanosaeta (filament) and Methanosarcina (cocci) (top left), Methanothermus (top right),
Methanotorris igneus (bottom left)

13

Figure 6: Taxonomy of methanogenics

After a brief discussion on the biogas production process, an insight into food waste as
feedstock for biogas production is provided in the next section.

Food Waste as Feedstock for Biogas Production

A brief discussion on usage of food waste as a feedstock for biogas production is provided in
this section.

3.1

General Characteristics of Feedstock needed for Biogas Production

Like for all biotechnological processes, feedstock (biomass and its derivetives) taken into consideration for production of biogas can be a wide array of substrates. However, they must satisfy
some general precondition: they must contain a source of carbon (carbohydrates, proteins, fats,
cellulose, and hemicellulose) and other biogenic compounds. We can sum these prerequisites in
several key points: [6]
The content of organic substance should be appropriate for the selected fermentation
process.
The nutritional value of the organic substance, hence the potential for gas formation,
should be as high as possible.
The substrate should be free of pathogens and other organisms which would need to be
made innocuous prior to the fermentation process.
The content of harmful substances and trash should be low to allow the fermentation
process to take place smoothly.
The composition of the biogas should be appropriate for further application.
The composition of the fermentation residue should be such that it can be used, e.g., as
fertilizer.
14

Due to the specific nature, origin and characteristics of food waste as a substrate, which will
be explained further in more detail, we can make an conclusion that it is a suitable feedstock
for biogas production.

3.2

Characteristics of Food Waste

The composition of food waste varies greatly depending on many factors, which could be
grouped in two general categories:
1. Those affecting the composition and structure of the local diet (geographical location,
socio-economic factors, culture, etc.)
2. Those determining the general amount of food waste produced (socio-economic factors,
local waste management policy)
While food waste generated in northern climates contains more proteins and fat, the food waste
in moderate and tropical regions generally contains more carbohydrates originating from rice,
grains and roots. However, even this generalisation has exceptions, depending on regional cultures and living habits.
As food waste, is fractions of food that is lost, discarded or uneaten during production, processing, retailing and consumption [15]. So, even though what is usually considered as food
waste is just uneaten leftovers, a significant and valuable amount is the waste produced by the
food processing industry and in food supply.
Chemical characteristics of food waste vary greatly, and data that can be obtained from literature shows different values of basic properties, such as dry matter, volatile matter, ash content
etc.
A study by The Beijing University of Chemical Technology [16], determined basic chemical
properties and composition of food waste from a canteen in Beijing that contained leftovers of
cooked foods, such as meats, rice, breads, noodles and vegetables. Results are shown in table
3.
Table 3: Characteristics of canteen food waste

15

More commonly, data about the composition of food waste is presented in a more concise
way, shown in Table 4. There we can see moisture content, the percentage of volatile matter
and, most importantly, the C/N ratio. This value is crucial in order to have a working process.
Sources for the data are shown in the final column of the table.
Table 4: Characteristics of food wastes reported in literature

Additionally, what makes food waste an appealing feedstock for anaerobic digestion are connected with its origin. Most foods have a high moisture content, which makes it s waste
unsuitable for combustion and other thermochemical processes. It is very rich in nutrients,
which benefit the microbial cultures used for production of biogas. Finally, due to health safety
reasons, it lacks inhibitory substances (heavy metals, ions, ammonia) which would harm the
microorganisms and endanger production (see section on Inhibition of biogas production).
Finally, a difficulty in the process must be mentioned. When producing biogas from manure
and similar waste, the microbes working in the conversion steps originate from the feedstock.
Due to the lack of significant amounts of microbial biomass in food waste, inoculation is a
necessary step to initiate production. However, this is not an obstacle that cant be overcome,
since inoculation is preferred compared to spontaneous colonization, in order to have a controlled production. Four steps in the AD of organic substrates is shown in Figure 7 [17].

16

Figure 7: Four steps in the AD of organic substrates

3.3

Pretreatment of Food Waste

The rate-limiting step in anaerobic digestion of food waste is hydrolysis. Significant quantities
of waste originate from starch-based food sources, which have to be broken up prior to being
converted to precursors of methane. Therefore, enhancing the hydrolysis process would speed
up the whole production cycle. Properties which affect the hydrolysis course are particle size,
structure, etc. Several approaches can be taken for pretreatment of organic substrates.
Physical methods include Mechanical grinding, Ultrasound, Microwave, Thermal, Freeze-thaw
and Pressure-depressure. These operations increase the overall solubility by disrupting the cell
structure and the formed sludge. This results in decreasing retention time and increasing biogas
yield from 20-30 %.
Pretreatment with acid is the most common chemical method used, and it can result in increasing the production rate by up to 66 %.
Finally, physical-chemical methods includes treatment with thermo-acid (solutions of HCl at
100-120 o C for 2-24h).

3.4

Anaerobic co-digestion

Although food waste is a promising and important feedstock in order to increase food production sustainability, inhibition always occurs when FW is digested alone in the long-term
operation. The reasons for the inhibition are that the nutrients always imbalance in the anaerobic digester: whilst e.g. ,trace elements (Zn, Fe, Mo, etc.) are insufficient, macronutrients
(Na, K, etc.) are excessive [17].

17

This, and the need to change the C/N ration in the digester, is the reason why a common
practice is so-called co-digestion. This means that two feedstock of different origin and composition, in order to increase biogas yield. If any of these two feedstocks would be used individually,
the resulting amount of biogas would be lesser than the one produced with the mixed feedstock.
As for food waste, most commonly it is mixed with feedstock that has less nutritional value,
but, when mixed with food waste, balances the levels of elements needed for biogas sythesis.
This is most commonly maize husk, straw and other grassy biomass (Festuca arundinacea ).
H.I. Owamah and O.C. Izinyon [18] researched the potential of production of biogas from
the Food Waste : Maize husk mixture (FW:MH). They experimented with different ratios of
the two feedstocks: FW: MH of (100:0; 75:25; 50:50; 25:75; 0:100), and found that the ratio
75:25 worked best, by producing 0.71 L/gVS. The same authors tried to develop kynetic models
for that ratio of substrates in a different study (Development of simple-to-apply biogas kinetic
models for the co-digestion of food waste and maize husk).
Another study [16] used straw for co-digestion. The results indicate that the optimum mixing
ratio of FW to straw appears to be close to 5:1, and the methane production yield (MPY)
reached 0.392 m3 /kg-VS, i.e., increased by 39.5 % and 149.7 % compared with individual digestion results, respectively. Moreover, further benefits of mixing the feedstocks are that the gas
production (GP) and methane content was reaching 0.58 m3 /kg-VS and 67.62 %, respectively.
After looking into food waste as feedstock for biogas production, an overview on biogas utilization technologies will be provided in the next section.

Biogas Utilization

There are several viable options for biogas utilization. Foremost applications are direct combustion, use in internal combustion engines, gas turbines and fuel cells. A brief overview of all
these processes will be provided and an in-depth analysis of use of biogas in internal combustion
engines will be considered for this study.

4.1

Direct Combustion

Direct combustion is inarguably the simplest method of biogas utilization. Conversion of combustion systems to biogas combustion is basically a matter of fuel orifice enlargement and intake
air restriction, with attendant modification of the fuel delivery and control system. Biogas is
a much cleaner cooking fuel than wood, and the reduction in smoke in the kitchens is immediately apparent, as is their general cleanliness. Not so apparent, but also important, is the
reduction in the emission of carbon monoxide and other products of incomplete combustion.
Smoke inhalation in third world kitchens is a major cause of eye disease, respiratory illness and
premature death.
Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using solid fuels (i.e. wood, charcoal,
coal, dung, crop wastes) on open fires or traditional stoves. Such inefficient cooking and heating practices produce high levels of household (indoor) air pollution which includes a range of
18

health damaging pollutants such as fine particles and carbon monoxide.

In poorly ventilated dwellings, smoke in and around the home can exceed acceptable levels
for fine particles 100-fold. Exposure is particularly high among women and young children,
who spend the most time near the domestic hearth.
According to WHO, 4.3 million people a year die from the exposure to household air pollution [19]. The national burden of disease due to indoor air pollution from solid fuel use was
first assessed for the year 2002, then updated for the year 2004 by WHO. The total deaths from
indoor air pollution is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Worldwide deaths from indoor air pollution

Biogas direct combustion is advocated as a solution for ameliorating this situation. Also,
biogas has higher efficiency compared to direct combustion of biomass.
A tool has been designed by the authors of this article in Matlab to study the effect of biogas
composition on emissions in the case of direct combustion. The screenshot of User Interface
is shown in Figure 9. The tool uses 53 species and is based on open source object oriented
software, Cantera. Cantera is a suite of object-oriented software tools for problems involving
chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, and/or transport processes. In the present study, the tool
uses only the thermodynamics domain of Cantera.

19

Figure 9: Graphical User Interface of the tool developed for direct combustion of biogas
Now a days, biogas flameless combustion has sparked a lot of research interest among scientists. Simplicity of the flameless burner, pollutant formation reduction and decrease in fuel
consumption are the main causes of biogas flameless combustion supremacy [20]. After understanding in brief about importance of biogas direct combustion, we look into its use in fuel cells.

4.2

Fuel Cells

Biogas fuel feeding presents an attractive option among emerging applications for fuel cells,
especially for the high temperature ceramic type solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). SOFCs show
a potential for biogas with an efficiency of 30-40 % [21]. A study by Staniforth and Kendall
showed that SOFCs thrive even when biogas has higher concentrations of carbon dioxides. Ordinary combustion engines do not ignite satisfactorily. However, SOFCs provide equal power
for a wide range of biogas compositions [22]. The set up used by Naumann and Myren is shown
in Figure 10. [23].

20

Figure 10: Laboratory setup of reforming

Methane is desulphurized in a zinc oxide bed and steam reformed to produce hydrogen.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is harmful to fuel cell and hence, converted to CO2 using shift reactor.
The presence of two shift reactors ensures the CO is less than 1.5 %. Hydrogen produced from
biogas can be directly used in fuel cell.
The main problem in this process is the process of sulphur in the form of hydrogen sulphide
and volatile sulphur, which is a catalyst poison. The cost effectiveness of sulphur removal and
CO removal has to be verified.

4.3

Gas Turbines

Gas turbines provide high fuel flexibility, low emissions, small footprint, and low maintenance
costs, while CHP systems have a high overall efficiency ( 85 %). Micro gas turbines (MGTs),
which are usually defined as small gas turbines up to a few hundred kilowatts, are considered as
promising power generators. Micro-turbines are very simple systems having only one moving
component: the high speed shaft (over 60.000 rpm and up to 105.000 rpm) supporting the
compressor, turbine wheel and generator. The shaft is mounted on air bearings rather than
lubricated bearings, which are commonly used in conventional turbines. This reduces maintenance and technical complexity. [24].
A numerical study on use of MGTs for power generation using biogas(mixture of CH4 and
CO2 ) was carried out by Somehsaraei et al [25]. The effects of biogas on the engine performance were fully analyzed at various operational conditions by changing the power demand
and also the ambient temperature. The results obtained by the researchers is shown in Figure
11.

21

Figure 11: Variation of electrical efficiency versus power output for different biogas compositions
The conclusions from this study illustrate the viability of using MGT fed with biogas. The
efficiency is lower by a small amount when compared with natural gas.
Another application of MGTs was found in den Dulk Dairy [26]. The anaerobic digester at den
Dulk Dairy is manufactured by Austria-based Entec Biogas. This biogas produces 30kW of
continuous power and 45kW of thermal energy using Capstone CR30 micro turbine. There are
various case studies where biogas fed MGTs are used for producing power and thermal energy.
All these installations show that biogas fed turbine is a tangible solution for the clean future.
[27].

4.4

Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs)

Reciprocating engines are one of the most popular solutions for utilization of biogas. This
technology is mature and has relatively more tolerance for biogas impurities. Using biogas
in ICEs started from 1940s and lot of progress has been achieved [28]. This present study attempts to provide a brief understanding of ICEs and then the effects of using biogas in an engine.
ICEs are generally divided into two types based on the thermodynamic cycle followed. Firstly,
a spark ignition (SI) engine is assisted by a spark for ignition. The combustion process is
isochoric and the cycle is called Otto cycle. Finally, a compression ignition (CI) engine depends on auto ignition of fuel for ignition process. The combustion process is isobaric and the
22

cycle is called Diesel cycle. The nomenclature of a universal engine is provided in Figure 12 [29].

Figure 12: Nomenclature of an engine

The ratio of total volume to clearance volume is called compression ratio and is one of the
important parameters of the engine. The utilization of biogas in IC engines will be divided into
two sections based on the type of the engine.

4.4.1

Biogas in SI Engines

Small cogeneration systems are invariably associated with the use of an SI engine operating
directly on biogas that is, without the removal of impurities such as CO2 , H2 S or H2 O. Minor
modifications are required to adapt natural gas engines to biogas engines. In SI Engines,
laminar flame speeds play an important role. The sparking process can be divided into three
phases namely, breakdown, arc and glow [30]. The flame developed in the spark gap during
this process ignites the charge (homogeneous mixture of fuel and air) and the flame propagates
into combustion chamber and gets quenched very close to the cylinder walls. Laminar flame
speed is a property of the charge which aids this process. The variation of laminar flame speed
for different carbon dioxide concentrations is shown in Figure 13 [31].
23

Figure 13: Flame Velocity for different CO2 concentrations

CO2 acts as a diluent and hence, the flame velocity decreases with increase in CO2 concentration. The lowered flame propagation rates cause a substantial increase in the combustion
duration. Hence, advance in spark timing to obtain maximum brake torque (MBT) increases
with increase in CO2 concentration. This fact is very well illustrated from the study by Stone
et al. [32]. Burn duration and MBT timing as a function of equivalence ratio is shown in Figure
14.

24

Figure 14: Burn Duration and MBT timing as a function of equivalence ratio for methane and
simulated biogas
Added to this, stoichiometric air-fuel ratio decreases with increase in concentration of CO2 .
Presence of CO2 also decreases the flammability limits and this was demonstrated in a study by
Alder et al [33]. This affects the stability of combustion as the range of air fuel ratios decreased.
Flammability limits for the fuel are shown in Figure 15.

25

Figure 15: Flammability limits for different concentration of CO2

It is clear from the above figure that the window of operation decreases with increasing CO2
concentration and hence, it is not favoured. In order to overcome, the disadvantages of narrow
flammability limits and lower flame velocity, biogas is enriched with gases like hydrogen (H2 ).
A study on using H2 enriched biogas was carried out in a SI engine at Silesian University of
Technology.
The experiment was performed in a three cylinder naturally aspirated SI engine with compression ratio of 9.3 and stroke volume of 796 cc. The loading was carried out using electric
motor/dynamometer with the power take-off system, capable of operating in two modes. It can
not only absorb the power of the engine, but can also drive the engine for measuring friction,
pumping losses, and other factors.
During the experiment, the operation of the engine was controlled using Electronic Control
Unit (ECU). The composition of the mixture was controlled using the signal from exhaust
wideband lambda sensor, which can operate in a closed loop mode with the controller. The
controller also has adjustable spark plug discharge energy which is controlled by changing the
loading time of high voltage coils.
The experiment was carried out at constant speed of 1500 rpm and MBT timing for biogas (60
% CH4 , 40 % CO2 ) and biogas with H2 addition (10 % by volume). Coefficient of Variation
in Indicated Mean effective Pressure (COVimep ) is generally considered as a better measure to
26

understand combustion stability. Since, we are looking at the effect of hydrogen addition to
biogas, COVimep is an excellent measure to analyse the cycle to cycle variations. Lower the
value of COVimep , better the combustion stability. COVimep versus equivalence ratio is shown
in Figure 16.

Figure 16: COVimep vs Equivalence Ratio

COVimep decreases with hydrogen addition. This indicates that hydrogen addition is an
effective measure in biogas engines. It can be recognized that hydrogen addition helps in attaining wider flammability limits. However, addition of hydrogen also increases the emissions of
oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). NOx is a strong function of temperature. Due to better combustion
with hydrogen addition, combustion temperature increases leading to rise in NOx emissions.
NOx emissions versus equivalence ratio is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17: NOx emissions vs Equivalence Ratio

27

Studies by Porpatham et al [34,35] showed that with the increase in compression ratio, the
brake thermal efficiency (BTE) of a biogas engine increases. It was also shown that BTE of a
biogas engine increases with increase in methane concentration. BTE versus equivalence ratio
is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18: BTE vs Equivalence ratio for different concentrations of CO2

From the above review, it was clear that biogas can be a viable alternative to natural gas
to be used in SI engines. However, narrow flammability limits deter its application as vehicle
fuel. Hence, the issue on upgrading biogas to biomethane should be considered.
4.4.2

Biogas in CI Engines

Biogas in diesel engines is normally operated on a dual-fuel mode where biogas acts as a primary fuel and diesel is the pilot fuel [36]. In such engines, biogas is premixed with air and at
the end of compression stroke, a small amount of diesel fuel is injected to ignite the mixture.
In a study by Bari, natural gas was introduced with the air which was done with simultaneous decrease of diesel flow to maintain the desired power. At certain percentage of diesel
28

substitution by natural gas (15, 30, 50 and 75 %), the pure carbon dioxide was introduced with
the natural gas. The power and speed were maintained at constant level by varying the quantity of diesel flow [37]. It was found that the presence of CO2 up to 40 % did not deteriorate
the engine performance to a great extent.
Another study by Karim et al showed with an increase in the concentration of the diluent
CO2 in biogas, the ignition delay period increases substantially and reduces the energy release
rate. A study by Duc et al concluded that biogas premixed charge diesel dual fuelling for the
engine produced almost no performance deterioration at all test speeds [38]. Variation of engine
torque and brake mean effective pressure (bmep) with engine speed for diesel and dual diesel
fuelling (DDF) is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19: Engine Torque and BMEP vs Engine speed

Increasing CO2 diluent in the fuel results in an increase in the concentration of the unburnt
methane in the exhaust as shown in Figure 20.

29

Figure 20: Amount of CH4 in the exhaust for different biogas composition
This is shown as a reflection of the relative slowing down of the combustion processes [39].
It was also observed that carbon monoxide increased in the exhaust corroborating this fact.
Increasing pilot diesel quantity helped the combustion process. However, there was an increase
in NOx emissions.
Articles on use of biogas in diesel engines is limited and hence, from the literature available, it
can be concluded that use of biogas to fuel a CI engine is feasible in dual fuel mode.
Overall, biogas is a satisfactory fuel for the IC engines provided that the engine parameters are
being tuned for optimum performance. Since biogas contains trace amounts of H2 S, a review
study by Mustafi et al. [36] points out that there is lack of research in this sector. There is also
lack of research in the field of particulate matter (PM) emissions for the biogas operated dual
fuel diesel engines. As PM emissions are concern for human health, these two factors can be
30

a scope for future research. It was also observed during the review that bio-methane provide
several advantages over biogas. Hence, biogas upgrading should be considered in the future.

Conclusions

The management of food wastes has always posed a serious economic and environmental concern. From the literature review provided, it is clear that biogas production from food waste
and its utilization is a tangible solution in creating sustainable food production. This will help
in creation of a circular economy where the food wasted is utilized for energy production and
this energy can be used in the food production industry. Furthermore, this technique can be
employed in restaurants and cafeteria for being zero-waste. The low or no cost of food waste
along with the environmental benefits considering the waste disposal would balance the initial
high capital costs in the long run. Therefore, anaerobic digestion appears to be a feasible
solution for sustainable food production.

31

References
1. Food and Agricultural Organization
2. US Environment Protection Agency
3. Gustavsson, Jenny, et al. Global food losses and food waste. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rom (2011).
4. Pham, Thi Phuong Thuy, et al. Food waste-to-energy conversion technologies: Current
status and future directions. Waste Management 38 (2015): 399-408.
5. Redman, G. A detailed economic assessment of anaerobic digestion technology and its
suitability to UK farming and waste systems. Melton Mowbray, UK: The Andersons
Centre for the National Non-Food Crops Centre (2008).
6. Deublein, Dieter, and Angelika Steinhauser. Biogas from waste and renewable resources:
an introduction. John Wiley & Sons, (2011).
7. Adekunle, Kayode Feyisetan, and Jude Awele Okolie. A Review of Biochemical Process
of Anaerobic Digestion. Advances in Bioscience and Biotechnology 6.03 (2015): 205.
8. KTH MSc Thesis
9. Krich, Ken, et al. Biomethane from dairy waste. Report. Western United Dairymen
(2005).
10. Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Association (ADBA
11. Ferry, James G. Enzymology of the fermentation of acetate to methane by Methanosarcina
thermophila. Biofactors 6.1 (1997): 25-35.
12. Liu, Yuchen, and William B. Whitman. Metabolic, phylogenetic, and ecological diversity
of the methanogenic archaea. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1125.1 (2008):
171-189.
13. Zinder, Stephen H. Physiological ecology of methanogens. Methanogenesis. Springer
US,(1993): 128-206.
14. Schn
urer, A., and
A. Jarvis. Microbiological Handbook for Biogas Plants. Swedish
Waste Management U2009: 03 Swedish Gas Centre Report 207. Malmo: Avfall Sverige
Development (2010).
15. Galanakis, C. M., F. J. Barba, and K. N. Prasad. Cost and safety issues of emerging
technologies against conventional techniques. Food waste recovery: processing technology and industrial techniques, 1st edn. Elsevier?Academic Press, London (2015): 323-338.
16. Yong, Zihan, et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and straw for biogas production. Renewable Energy 78 (2015): 527-530.

32

17. Zhang, Lei, Yong-Woo Lee, and Deokjin Jahng. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
and piggery wastewater: focusing on the role of trace elements. Bioresource technology
102.8 (2011): 5048-5059.
18. Owamah, H. I., and O. C. Izinyon. Development of simple-to-apply biogas kinetic models
for the co-digestion of food waste and maize husk. Bioresource technology 194 (2015):
83-90.
19. WHO report
20. Hosseini, Seyed Ehsan, and Mazlan Abdul Wahid. Biogas utilization: experimental
investigation on biogas flameless combustion in lab-scale furnace. Energy Conversion
and Management 74 (2013): 426-432.
21. Membrez, Yves, and Olivier Bucheli. Biogas as a fuel source for SOFC co-generators.
Journal of power sources 127.1 (2004): 300-312.
22. Staniforth, J., and K. Kendall. Biogas powering a small tubular solid oxide fuel cell.
Journal of Power Sources 71.1 (1998): 275-277.
23. Naumann, Sara Thyberg, and Carin Myren. Fuel processing of biogas for small fuel cell
power plants. Journal of Power Sources 56.1 (1995): 45-49.
24. Bio-Turbine brochure
25. Somehsaraei, Homam Nikpey, et al. Performance analysis of a biogas-fueled micro gas
turbine using a validated thermodynamic model. Applied Thermal Engineering 66.1
(2014): 181-190.
26. Capstone Case Study -den Dulk Diary
27. Capstone Microturbines
28. Razbani, Omid, Nima Mirzamohammad, and Mohsen Assadi. Literature review and
road map for using biogas in internal combustion engines. International conference on
applied energy. (2011).
29. http://www.mae.wvu.edu/~smirnov/mae320/figs/F9-1.jpg
30. Maly, Rudolf. Spark ignition: its physics and effect on the internal combustion engine.
Fuel Economy. Springer US, (1984: 91-148.
31. Walsh, J. L., et al. Utilization of biogas. Biomass 20.3 (1989): 277-290.
32. Stone, C. R., J. Gould, and N. Ladommatos. ANALYSIS OF BIO-GAS COMBUSTION
IN SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES, BY MEANS OF EXPERIMENTAL-DATA AND A
COMPUTER-SIMULATION. JI ENERGY66.469 (1993): 180-187.
33. Mustafi, Nirendra N., Robert R. Raine, and Pradeep K. Bansal. The use of biogas in
internal combustion engines: a review. ASME 2006 Internal Combustion Engine Division
Spring Technical Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (2006).
33

34. Porpatham, E., A. Ramesh, and B. Nagalingam. Investigation on the effect of concentration of methane in biogas when used as a fuel for a spark ignition engine. fuel 87.8
(2008): 1651-1659.
35. Porpatham, E., A. Ramesh, and B. Nagalingam. Effect of compression ratio on the
performance and combustion of a biogas fuelled spark ignition engine. Fuel 95 (2012):
247-256.
36. Mustafi, Nirendra N., Robert R. Raine, and Pradeep K. Bansal. The use of biogas in
internal combustion engines: a review. ASME 2006 Internal Combustion Engine Division
Spring Technical Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, (2006)
37. Bari, Saiful. Effect of carbon dioxide on the performance of biogas/diesel duel-fuel
engine. Renewable energy 9.1 (1996): 1007-1010
38. Duc, Phan Minh, and Kanit Wattanavichien. Study on biogas premixed charge diesel
dual fuelled engine. Energy Conversion and Management 48.8 (2007): 2286-2308.
39. Karim, G. A., and I. Wierzba. Methane-carbon dioxide mixtures as a fuel. No. 921557.
SAE Technical Paper, 1992

References for Table 4

1. S.K. Han, H.S. Shin: Biohydrogen production by anaerobic fermentation of food waste,
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 29 (2004), pp. 569?577
2. S.H. Kwon, D.H. Lee, Evaluation of Korean food waste composting with fed-batch operations I: using water extractable total organic carbon content (TOCw), Process Biochem.,
39 (1) (2004), pp. 1183?1194
3. H.S. Shin, J.H. Youn, S.H. Kim, Hydrogen production from food waste in anaerobic
mesophilic and thermophilic acidogenesis, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 29 (13) (2004), pp.
355-1363
4. S.H. Kim, S.K. Han, H.S. Shin, Feasibility of biohydrogen production by anaerobic codigestion of food waste and sewage sludge, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 29 (15) (2004), pp.
1607-1616
5. Nordberg, A., Edstrom, M., 1997. Co-digestion of ley crop silage, source sorted municipal solid waste, and municipal sewage sludge. In: Proceedings of 5th FAO/SREN
Workshop, Anaerobic Conversion for Environmental Protection, Sanitation and Re-Use
of Residuals. March 24?27, Gent, Germany.
6. R. Steffen, O. Szolar, R. Braun, Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion, Institute of Agrobiotechnology Tulin, University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna (1998)
7. M.S. Rao, S.P. Singh, Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic
studies and gas yield-organic loading relationships for process optimization, Bioresour.
Technol., 95 (2) (2004), pp. 173-185

34