energies

Review
Decoding Anaerobic Digestion: A Holistic Analysis of Biomass
Waste Technology, Process Kinetics, and Operational Variables
Oluwafunmilayo Abiola Aworanti 1 , Oluseye Omotoso Agbede 1, *, Samuel Enahoro Agarry 1 ,
Ayobami Olu Ajani 1 , Oyetola Ogunkunle 2, *, Opeyeolu Timothy Laseinde 2 , S. M. Ashrafur Rahman 3, *
and Islam Md Rizwanul Fattah 4

1 Biochemical and Bioenvironmental Engineering Research Group (BBERG), Department of Chemical

Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso P.M.B. 4000, Nigeria;
[email protected] (O.A.A.); [email protected] (S.E.A.); [email protected] (A.O.A.)
2 Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Technology, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg 2006, South Africa; [email protected]
3 Biofuel Engine Research Facility, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
4 Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater (CTWW), School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and IT, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (O.O.A.); [email protected] (O.O.);
[email protected] (S.M.A.R.)

Abstract: The continual generation and discharge of waste are currently considered two of the
main environmental problems worldwide. There are several waste management options that can
be applied, though anaerobic digestion (AD) process technology seems to be one of the best, most
reliable, and feasible technological options that have attracted remarkable attention due to its benefits,
including the generation of renewable energy in the form of biogas and biomethane. There is a large
amount of literature available on AD; however, with the continuous, progressive, and innovative
Citation: Aworanti, O.A.; Agbede,
O.O.; Agarry, S.E.; Ajani, A.O.;
technological development and implementation, as well as the inclusion of increasingly complex
Ogunkunle, O.; Laseinde, O.T.; systems, it is necessary to update current knowledge on AD process technologies, process variables
Rahman, S.M.A.; Fattah, I.M.R. and their role on AD performance, and the kinetic models that are most commonly used to describe
Decoding Anaerobic Digestion: A the process-reaction kinetics. This paper, therefore, reviewed the AD process technologies for treating
Holistic Analysis of Biomass Waste or processing organic biomass waste with regard to its classification, the mechanisms involved
Technology, Process Kinetics, and in the process, process variables that affect the performance, and the process kinetics. Gazing
Operational Variables. Energies 2023, into the future, research studies on reduced MS-AD operational cost, integrated or hybrid AD-
16, 3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/ biorefinery technology, integrated or hybrid AD-thermochemical process, novel thermochemical
en16083378
reactor development, nutrient recovery from integrated AD-thermochemical process, and solid and
Academic Editors: Antonio liquid residual disposal techniques are more likely to receive increased attention for AD process
Avalos Ramirez and Carlos technology of biomass wastes.
S. Osorio-González
Keywords: waste management; anaerobic digestion; biogas; biomethane; organic biomass
Received: 17 March 2023
Revised: 6 April 2023
Accepted: 8 April 2023
Published: 12 April 2023
1. Introduction
A large amount of liquid and solid waste is globally produced on a daily basis,
and these wastes result in the pollution or contamination of the environment (land or
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. soil, water, and air). Inadequate management of these wastes, especially in developing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. countries, is a serious environmental and health problem. Rapid population growth,
This article is an open access article
alongside urbanisation and industrialization, the standard of living, disposable income,
distributed under the terms and
and consumption of goods and services, have led to a continual increase in solid waste
conditions of the Creative Commons
generation [1]. Furthermore, in developing countries such as Nigeria, this waste generation
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
is on the increase due to poor storage systems.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Energies 2023, 16, 3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16083378 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2023, 16, 3378 2 of 36

Most conventional solid waste management methods that have been widely used [2,3]
reduce the amount of waste disposed of in uncontrolled dumping sites, which, if unman-
aged, produce leachates and release pollutants into the air, water, and soil, as well as
contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are harmful to the environment [4–8].
In addition, these methods incur high energy losses and are thus not economically fea-
sible [2,3,9]. Therefore, the challenge of managing these solid wastes while ensuring the
protection of the environment has instigated the need for developing suitable new and
innovative treatment options that would allow the organic fraction of solid wastes (e.g.,
animal wastes and fruit wastes) based on the concept of a circular economy to be used for
other purpose and help alleviate the waste problem. One such treatment option is the use
of anaerobic digestion (AD).
AD is defined as the biodegradation of organic material by microorganisms in the
absence of oxygen in which four sequential main reactions occur during the entire pro-
cess [10,11]. AD of organic biodegradable wastes in a fermentation digester produces
biogas [6]. Various consortia of microorganisms are involved in the anaerobic degradation
process, producing energy-rich biogas and a nutritious digestate that serves as a biofertil-
izer [12]. Meanwhile, the main priority of most countries in the world is driving towards
finding clean and renewable energy. AD of solid waste provides a unique technological
approach and opportunity for obtaining this clean, renewable energy (biogas). All countries
in the world throw away large volumes of solid organic waste, so all can benefit from
the use of AD as an appropriate waste treatment technology option to generate biogas as
a global growth energy of the future [13]. Thus, the AD process technology contributes
to improved waste management practices and the achievement of sustainable energy
management goals [5,14]. In addition, it also contributes to the production of renewable
green energy and a circular economy, stimulates sustainable socioeconomic development,
and simultaneously mitigates climate change [15]. Even though this technology is widely
applied globally, its industry utilization is still limited [15]. One of the primary renewable
energy sources is biomass wastes (e.g., agricultural biomass wastes); these are organic in
nature and biodegradable [16]. Therefore, they can be degraded by a consortium of bacteria
to generate bioenergy [17,18]. Using biowaste to produce biogas creates a carbon-neutral
cycle, in which the carbon emitted from burning the gas is absorbed by new crops from
which the waste residues can be used again as feedstock [13].
Biogas is considered one of the cheapest renewable resources of energy as well as the
best alternative for fossil fuel (e.g., for the generation of heat and electricity) and also as
vehicle fuel [11]. Biogas production from organic waste may play an essential part in both a
circular economy and a bioeconomy [11,19]. Biogas is used not only for power generation
but also for solid waste management, and the digestate from the biogas process can be
used as fertilizer for farmers. This is especially useful in countries where soil quality has
been degraded due to overintensive farming; it improves hygienic conditions by reducing
pathogens in the environment, and it creates macroeconomic benefits by decentralizing
energy generation [20–22]. The recovery of biogas from waste is an area of vital interest
since it combines both alternative energy production and environmental impact reduction
through methane and carbon dioxide, two of the main greenhouse gas emissions [4–6].
In developing countries, biogas/biomethane production and its utilization are still facing
different problems, among which is the lack of capital or funds, the lack of adequate
knowledge, and the lack of adequate policymaker or government support seem to be the
most significant barriers to overcome. Although many pieces of review on the different
segments of the AD process have been published [23–32], there has been no systematic and
comprehensive review of the complete AD process technology.
Also, to better understand the AD process dynamics and optimize the process operat-
ing parameters or conditions, the availability of mathematical kinetic models is of great
importance. These models have to be derived from prior knowledge and experimental
kinetic data obtained from a real biodigester or reactor. Several reviews of kinetic models,
from the simplest to the more complex models for the AD process, have been published
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 3 of 36

in the literature in the last 10 years [25,33–37]. However, there is a need to know which
models are most commonly applied in recent advances in the AD of organic wastes.
This paper, therefore, aims to provide a comprehensive review of the complete AD pro-
cess technologies for organic biomass waste, together with its kinetic modeling. Each type
is discussed based on its classification. Based on the existing literature, the process variables
influencing the AD process technology performance are identified and discussed. Therefore,
this review will serve as a comprehensive AD process technology design guideline.

2. Feedstock for Anaerobic Digestion

The feedstocks that can be utilized for AD include agricultural wastes or residues,
municipal solid wastes, industrial wastes and wastewater, and aquatic biomass (e.g.,
algae) [27,38–41]. The survey of the various feedstocks from different sources is shown
in Table 1. The extraction of biogas from various feedstocks relies on the physical and
chemical compositions of the substrate that promote biodegradation. The composition
of biogas from different types of feedstocks and substrates is shown in Table 2. These
feedstocks encompass a range of substrate components, including carbohydrates (cellulose,
hemicellulose, and lignin), lipids (fats, oils, and glycerols), and proteins, which are readily
biodegradable. However, not all of these components are equally biodegradable. For
instance, lignin is highly resistant to degradation. The breakdown of cellulose requires
several weeks, whereas hemicelluloses, fats, and proteins can be biodegraded in a few days,
and volatile fatty acids and alcohols can be broken down in several hours [27]. Hence,
the selection of appropriate feedstock concerning reactor design, waste disposal, and the
amount of energy production is essential.

Table 1. Survey of the Various Feedstocks from Different Sources.

Agriculture Communities Industry

Manure OFMSW Food/beverage processing
Energy crops Municipal solid waste Dairy
Algal biomass Sewage sludge Starch industry
Harvest remains Grass clippings/garden waste Sugar industry
Food remains Pharmaceutical industry
Cosmetic industry
Biochemical industry
Pulp and paper
Slaughterhouse/rendering
plant

Table 2. Composition of Biogas from Different Types of Feedstock.

Component Household Wastewater Agricultural Food Industry

(%vol) Waste Sludge Wastes Waste
CH4 50–60 60–75 60–75 68
CO2 38–34 33–19 33–19 26
N2 0–5 0–1 0–1 -
O2 0–1 0–0.5 0–0.5 -
H2 O 6 (40 ◦ C) 6 (40 ◦ C) 6 (40 ◦ C) 6 (40 ◦ C)
Total 100 100 100 100

Protein-rich substrates and lipid-rich substrates (i.e., substrates that contain a high
level of proteins and lipids), which, when utilized for AD, influence the development
or production of high concentration levels of ammonia and sulfide. Elevated levels of
ammonia can have detrimental effects on methanogens, resulting in process instability,
imbalances, and inhibition of pH buffering. This, in turn, leads to reduced degradation
rates, accumulation of fatty acids, lower yields of biogas or biomethane, and sometimes
even process failure [42,43]. Despite these challenges, lipid-rich feedstocks offer significant
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 4 of 36

potential for enhanced methane production when codigested with other substrates [44,45].
Various methods have been suggested to overcome the problems associated with protein-
rich and lipid-rich feedstocks, including reducing particle size [46], operating at mesophilic
temperatures [47], increasing hydraulic retention time [47,48], lowering organic loading
rates [48], stripping ammonia by adding sodium hydroxide, calcium hydroxide, or potassium
hydroxide [49], and adjusting pH through the addition of acidic iron and acid [47,50].
Furthermore, carbohydrate-rich substrates, which include lignocellulosic biomass,
have been used as a good source for biogas production. Lignocellulosic biomass such as
grass, wheat, straw, and sorghum demonstrate relatively high theoretical biogas/biomethane
potential [27]. However, due to their heterogeneous structure, recalcitrant nature, and low
accessibility by enzymes, they are difficult to degrade [51,52], and hence oppose microbial
hydrolysis [53] and are recalcitrant to anaerobic conversion [27]. Nevertheless, a number of
research studies have suggested the pretreatment of these classes of feedstock to maximize
their utilization [27,51,52].

2.1. Agricultural Wastes

Agricultural wastes include animal or livestock manure, slaughterhouse waste, food
waste, fruit waste, energy crops, forest residues, and crop residues.

2.1.1. Food Waste

Food waste (FW) can be generated from food processing industries, household or
kitchen waste, restaurants, slaughterhouses, and marketplaces, and partly from municipal
solid wastes [22,27]. FW possesses several characteristics such as high carbohydrate,
protein, and fats (lipid) contents, various trace elements, low pH, high moisture content,
and high volatile solid (VS), which makes it one of the best substrates for AD due to
its biogas/methane production potential [25]. If the waste contains too much protein,
problems can arise with ammonia inhibition [2,22].

2.1.2. Animal (Livestock) and Poultry Manure

Animal manure and poultry or chicken manure are common sources of biodegradable
organic biomass utilized as feedstock for AD. The manure that has been mostly used as
feedstock for AD is obtained from cattle/cow, sheep, goat, pig, and chicken [10,54–57]. How-
ever, in recent times, manure from animals, such as horses [58,59], donkeys [60], camel [61],
lions, elephants, hippopotami, and orangutans [62] has been utilized as feedstock for AD
processes in the generation of biogas/biomethane. Animal manures contain the presence
of diverse microbial species, or microbial load, and moisture content (75–92%) [63], as well
as high amounts of lignocelluloses, proteins, polysaccharides, and other biomaterials [64].
Nevertheless, the characteristics and composition (volatile solid, total solid, pH, and carbon
to nitrogen ratio) of manure from different animals vary, as presented in Table 3, which could
be due to their digestive system, diet, management system, and animal type [65].

Table 3. Physicochemical characteristics of different animal manure [65].

Volatile Solids Carbon/Nitrogen

Animal Manure pH Total Solids (%)
(%) Ratio
Cattle manure 7.1–8.6 14.5–22.7 11.9–72.0 14.6–18.9
Sheep manure 7.2–8.1 22.3–40.0 18.7–72.7 11.3–14.7
Goat manure 7.9 33.7–55.5 27.7–89.4 18.0
Pig manure 6.4–7.5 8.2–36.7 6.2–82.8 5.7–13.5
Chicken manure 6.9–7.4 20.0–92.6 18.3–84.1 7.5–9.8

Therefore, manures vary in their suitability as feedstock for biogas generation pro-
cesses [66]. The pH of the different animal manure ranges from 6.4 to 8.6, which will
effectively support the methanogenesis step in the AD process and enhance the hydrolytic
enzymes’ activities [65–67]. Manure can be classified into solid and liquid manures (or
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 5 of 36

slurry), depending on the dry solids content. Solid manure typically has a higher carbon
content and dry solids content (27–70%) than liquid manure since it includes straw and hay
in addition to feces [68]. Liquid manure is more accessible for digestion, as it contains more
nitrogen and has a dry solids content of 5% to 10%.
Manure provides a good buffering capacity for the degradation of substrates low in
nitrogen, controls for volatile fatty acids levels and essential nutrients (micro and macro)
for bacterial proliferation [27], as well as eliminates the step of digester inoculation during
AD [63].
The biogas/biomethane potential of animal manure can vary widely depending
on factors like animal species, amount and type of bedding, feed, breed, and growth
stage [27]. In addition, it also depends on the variation in animal digestion, intestinal
microbial community, the difference in the animal manure origin, mechanisms of manure
storage prior to the AD process, and the management system [65,69]. Biogas produc-
tion from manure is gradually increasing, but the rate of development is slow due to
difficulties in profitability [43,70]. Manure from cows or cattle has high water and fiber
content [43] as well as high lignin content [71]. The lignin contents in cattle manure,
pig manure, sheep manure, and chicken manure are 11.5–14%, 8.5%, 8.6%, and 4.2%,
respectively [71,72]. The use of this cattle manure results in low degradation efficiency
and low yields of biogas/methane, which tends to hamper the increased utilization
of biogas technology in agriculture [43,70]. In general, the manure from cattle yields
less biogas/biomethane than that from pigs, sheep, goats, and chicken manures [65].
Goats’ and pigs’ manure generates higher biogas/biomethane yields than sheep and
chicken manure [65]. The low biogas/biomethane yield displayed by cattle manure in
comparison with other manures is due to its high lignin content, which inhibits or reduces
biogas/biomethane production [65,72].
Typically, the biogas or biomethane potential of manure is decreased by its recalcitrant
solid content, particularly when biofibers or bed contents (e.g., straw) are present [27].
However, to enhance the conversion of the recalcitrant fraction, pretreatment of the manure
is often recommended prior to its use for biogas production [27]. Manure from pigs and
chickens contains more protein than manure from cattle. It can lead to ammonia inhibition
if these materials are digested in the digester without including materials containing more
carbohydrates [73,74]. If the manure is digested along with other types of materials, such
as food waste or forage crops, the gas yield can increase [75]. The manure from cattle can
also have a stabilizing effect on an unstable biogas process since its addition results in the
inoculation of more microorganisms as well as nutrients. In addition, a dilution may reduce
the concentrations of inhibitory components such as ammonia or volatile fatty acids.

2.1.3. Slaughterhouse Waste

The major livestock slaughtered in an abattoir or slaughterhouse for the purpose
of meat production includes cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and poultry [1]. Slaughterhouse
wastes can be categorized into two types: livestock slaughterhouse waste and poultry
slaughterhouse waste. Abattoir or livestock slaughterhouse operations generally lead
to the generation of a considerable quantity of organic waste which consists of blood,
urine, animal trimmings, feces, paunch content, fat, horns, and bones [1,76,77], while
poultry slaughterhouse operations result in the generation of blood, poultry droppings or
manure, feathers, and intestinal wastes [78]. Slaughterhouse waste contains high contents
of carbohydrates, lipids or fats, and proteins, which are very energy-rich [77] and possesses
a high biogas/biomethane generation potential [79]. Slaughterhouse wastes due to higher
nitrogen contents have a poor carbon/nitrogen (C/N) balance, or ratio that varies between
7 and 10, which makes it inhibitory for a stable AD process as this value is lower than the
optimal C/N balance of 25–30 required for a stable AD process [80,81]. However, excessive
fat and protein contents allow for increased concentrations of ammonia, volatile fatty acids,
and long-chain fatty acids production during the AD process, which can then lead to
process instability and breakdown [82,83]. It is, therefore, difficult to use slaughterhouse
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 6 of 36

waste as the sole substrate, especially at a thermophilic temperature, because the proportion
of ammonia in relation to ammonium can easily become too high [84]. Nevertheless, with
the application of co-digestion with a carbon-rich substrate that is low in fat and protein, the
likelihood of a stable process operation without inhibition is significantly improved [80,85].

2.1.4. Bioenergy Crops/Crop Residues

Many crops, such as cereal crops (e.g., corn or maize, grains), crop residues (like
rice, cotton, and maize residues), and plant materials, which include perennial grasses
and silages, can be used for biogas/biomethane production due to their high energy
content [64,70,86,87]. One of the critical factors to consider is if bioenergy crops are to be
utilized for biogas/biomethane production, their relatively high environmental impact,
and production cost as compared to waste feedstock or substrate [70]. Bioenergy crops
often have a relatively high content of dry solids (10–50%). Many bioenergy crops also
have a high carbon/nitrogen ratio (C/N) [88]. The biomethane yield of energy crops is
affected by the storage process, site properties, and time of harvest since these factors affect
the chemical composition of the crop, and, hence, the ability of microorganisms to use them
as substrates for their growth depends on the chemical composition [87]. With regard to
the time of harvest, the maturity stage of the crop affects its energy value, and thus the
biomethane potential decreases with increasing maturity of the crop [70]. Hence, for the use
of bioenergy crops for biogas/biomethane production, there should be a balance between
the time of harvest and yield [70,89]. In most bioenergy crops, the level of essential trace
metals is low [70]. For its usage as biogas feedstock, these low trace metal concentrations
can be complemented by co-digesting with the more nutrient-rich substrate [90]. This
essential trace metal level differs for different types of crops based on the soil type and the
fertilization used during cultivation [90].

2.2. Municipal Solid Waste

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a major component of the solid waste generated in
municipal cities. This waste is made up of different kinds of waste generated by house-
holds, industries, and commercial setups [65], such as commercial waste, household waste,
institutional waste, construction and demolition waste, shop waste, retail waste, garden
waste, and park waste [91]. Although the composition of MSW varies with time, globally,
food and green waste constitute a significant portion of the MSW [92,93]. FW constitutes
about 40–50% of the MSW weight [94], while according to Kaza et al. [93], food and green
waste constitute about 44% of the MSW. This is followed by paper and cardboard (17%),
plastics (12%), glass (5%), metal (4%), wood (2%), rubber and leather (2%), and others
(14%) [93]. This indicates that the organic fraction (OGF) or organic wastes present in
MSW is heterogeneous and consists of different wastes with varying biodegradability [95]
and FW constituting a greater percentage of the organic wastes and having the highest
biogas/biomethane potential compared to other biodegradable wastes [65]. According to
Nwokolo et al. [65], the total solids and volatile solids content of the organic fraction of
MSW ranges from 10.8 to 23.0% and 10.2 to 18.5 respectively, while the carbon/nitrogen
ratio ranged from 13.6 to 32.5.
Sludge from various stages of sewage treatment can be utilized for biogas production.
The use of this material has accounted for the largest single source of biogas production
in Sweden [63]. Sludge could contain a relatively low content of organic matter (3% to
4%) and different chemical compounds, such as metals and organic pollutants, which are
capable of inhibiting the microorganisms in the process [96]. Although a large amount of
biogas is produced during the anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge, some of the organic
matter may still remain in the residual sludge. This indicates that the digestion process has
a relatively low efficiency [97]. This can be linked to several factors, such as the retention
time may be too short for the microorganisms to degrade the material and the presence of
inhibitory substances, as well as the organic matter in the sludge may be too complex for
the microbes’ hydrolyzing enzymes to effectively break up the organic matter [98].
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 7 of 36

2.3. Industrial Waste

Industrial wastes are wastes, residues, and byproducts that are generated from dif-
ferent industrial activities, such as from the food industry, textile industry, petrochemical
industry, pulp, paper industry, etc. [65]. Aside from the food industry wastes, other in-
dustrial wastes have not been widely utilized as feedstock in AD as a result of their low
biodegradability (about 30–50%) and recalcitrant chemical properties [99].

2.4. Aquatic Biomass

Aquatic biomass such as macro- and microalgae, water hyacinth, and seaweeds can be
utilized as feedstock for the AD process [100–103]. This is because they possess relatively
high polysaccharides, lipids, and proteins and low or no lignin contents [102], do not
compete with arable land areas utilized for food cultivation as they can be cultivated
on non-cultivable land areas or in lakes/ponds or ocean, and have faster growth with
higher production rate than the terrestrial biomass [63]. The factors that affect its AD usage
effectiveness and restrain its biogas/biomethane production mechanism include cell walls
that are recalcitrant to anaerobic degradation due to the presence of cellulose/hemicellulose,
the production of substances that are toxic to anaerobic bacteria, the presence of poor C/N
ratio in the biomass, long chain fatty acid inhibition, and an increasing pH level in the case
of algae species with a high C/N ratio and ammonia inhibition [100,103]. Some of these
challenges can be overcome by utilizing the pretreatment method [101,104] and the co-
digestion method [27]. Among the aquatic biomass, microalgae and water hyacinth are the
most utilized feedstock for AD since they demonstrate higher biogas yield efficiency [102].

3. Process and Mechanism of AD (Biomethanation)

The process of producing biogas/biomethane through AD is termed biomethanation
or biomethanisation [17]. AD describes the biodegradation of organic material in the
absence of oxygen, in which four main reactions occur during the entire process [105].
These reactions are hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis [17]. These
four reaction stages occur simultaneously and are interdependent [39].
Stage 1: Hydrolysis
It is the first stage of AD. This complex multiple-step process is mediated by extracel-
lular enzymes in which the bacteria decompose or depolymerize or convert long chains
of complex organic molecules (carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids) into small chains of
soluble monomers [5]. For example, polysaccharides are converted into monosaccharides,
and the proteins are split into peptides and amino acids [5,106]. The required hydrolytic
enzymes, called hydrolase, which is present in microorganisms, can either be secreted
to the medium or still remain attached to the microbial cells [27,107]. These hydrolases
include glycosidase, esterase, and peptidases [31]. The hydrolysis reaction of the fraction
of the wastes can be represented by Equation (1):

hydrolysis
(C6 H10 O5 )n + nH2 O → nC6 H12 O6 (1)

There are different groups of hydrolytic microorganisms that are involved in the
metabolic degradation of different substrate compositions, where bacterial species such as
Bacteriods, Clostridium, Micrococcus, Bacillus, Vibrio, and Staphyloccocus are the significant
drivers [27]. In the AD process, hydrolysis is considered to be the stage-limiting process,
and this stage is influenced by [26]: (a) temperature, (b) pH, (c) substrate structure or
nature, (d) particle size, and (e) organic load. The formation of total ammonium nitrogen
during hydrolysis can result in high alkalinity, thereby leading to process disturbances or
collapse [27].
Stage 2: Acidogenesis
This is the second stage of AD. In this stage, the products (sugars and amino acids)
obtained from the hydrolysis stage are transformed or fermented by acidogenic bacteria (or
acidogens) such as Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, and Clostridium species to produce volatile
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 8 of 36

fatty acids (propionic acid, butyric acid, and acetic acid) [26,27,108], organic acids (succinic
acid, valeric acid, and lactic acid) [27], low alcohols [27,108], ammonia (NH3 ), carbon
dioxide (CO2 ), hydrogen gas (H2 ), and hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) [26,27]. The acidogens
have the characteristics of strong and rapid growth with a minimum doubling time of 30
min [30,109]. The concentration of H2 gas produced during digestion has an impact on
the final product. As a result, the organic products generated, including volatile organic
acids, are not appropriate for direct conversion to methane by methanogens [27]. Thus,
the need for the third stage. The surrounding pH conditions of the bacteria significantly
affect the volatile fatty acids products. If the pH falls below 4.0, the formation of volatile
fatty acids is strongly inhibited [30,110], while stepwise pH perturbation from four to eight
results in a change of the main products from acetic and butyric acids to propionic and
acetic acids [30]. Therefore, a pH that is in the range of 5.5 to 6.5 has often been reported to
be the optimal range for this stage [30,111]. If the VFAs produced during acidogenesis are
not metabolized into products, it will significantly result in lowering or decreasing the pH
(<3), which eventually will lead to process collapse [27]. The reaction that occurs during
the acidogenesis stage is shown in Equations (2)–(5).

acidogenesis
nC6 H12 O6 −−−−−−→ 3nCH3 COOH (2)

C6 H12 O6 → CH3 CH2 CH2 COOH + 2CO2 + 2H2 (3)

C6 H12 O6 + 2H2 → 2CH3 CH2 COOH + 2H2 O (4)

C6 H12 O6 → 2CH2 CH2 OH + 2CO2 (5)

Stage 3: Acetogenesis
It is the third stage of AD. This stage comprises two reactions: fermentation and
acetogenesis reactions. Involved in this stage are acetogenic bacteria, which are also
known as acetogens or acid formers, or acid-producing bacteria. They are strict anaerobic
microbes that can grow under acidic conditions [22] but cannot tolerate the presence of
oxidants such as oxygen and nitrate [30,112]. These anaerobes perform better in a weak
acid environment with a pH range of 6.0 to 6.2 [30,109]. In this stage, acetogenic bacteria
convert the intermediates of fermentation (volatile fatty acids), especially acetic acids and
butyric acids, into acetate, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. Also, they reduce the compounds
with low molecular weights into alcohols, organic acids, amino acids, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, and traces of methane [39]. This process is partially endergonic (i.e., only
possible with energy input) since bacteria alone cannot sustain this type of reaction [22].
Among the volatile fatty acids, propionic acid primarily remains unconverted due to its
degradation being thermodynamically less favorable in comparison to butyric acid, while
about 65 to 95% of methane is directly produced from acetic acid [27,113]. The kinetics
of acetogen’s growth during acetogenesis is slower than that of the acidogens, having a
minimal doubling time that lies in the range of 1.5–4 days [30,109]. Equations (6)–(9) show
the reactions that occur during acetogenesis.

CH3 CH2 COOH + 2H2 O → CH3 COOH + CO2 + 3H2 (6)

CH3 CH2 CH2 COOH + 2H2 O → 2CH3 COOH + 2H2 (7)

CH3 CH2 OH + H2 O → CH3 COOH + 2H2 (8)

2CO2 + 4H2 → CH3 COOH + 2H2 O (9)

Energies 2023, 16, 3378 9 of 36

Stage 4: Methanogenesis
The fourth stage is methanogenesis, which is the final and most important stage
involved in the generation of methane gas. In this final stage, acetogenesis products (hydro-
gen, carbon dioxide, and acetic acid) from the third stage are converted or transformed into
methane and carbon dioxide by three groups of methanogens (methane-producing bacte-
ria), namely acetotrophic, hydrogenotrophic, and methylotrophic methanogens [27,39,106].
Nevertheless, the majority of the methane has been produced by acetotrophic methanogens,
which act on the acetate [27,114]. In this pathway, the principal reaction is given in Equa-
tion (10).
acetotrophic methanogens
CH3 COOH −−−−−−−−−−−−−→ CH4 + CO2 (10)
The hydrogenotrophic methanogens convert hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane,
as depicted in Equations (11) and (12) [27] (25;156). About 30% of methane may be produced
through this route.

hydrogenophic methanogens
CO2 + 4H2 −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ CH4 + 2H2 O (11)

hydrogenophic methanogens
4CO + 2H2 O −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ CH4 + 3CO2 (12)
The growth kinetics of acetotrophic bacteria are much lower, with doubling times of
two to three days, while the maximum growth rate of hydrogenotrophic bacteria is higher,
with doubling times of range 4 to 12 h [30,109]. Apart from the above two methanogenic
bacterial groups, some methane can be produced by the methylotrophic methanogens by
transforming the methyl or trimethylamine component of a given feedstock, as provided
in Equations (13) and (14) [27]. Figure 1 shows the schematic of the relationships between
each group of bacteria in the anaerobic ecosystem.

methylotrophic methanogens
3CH3 OH + 3H2 −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ 3CH4 + 3H2 O (13)

methylotrophic methanogens
4(CH3 )3 N + 6H2 O −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→ 9CH4 + 3CO2 + 4NH3 (14)
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 36

Figure 1. Schematics of the relationships between each group of bacteria in the anaerobi
Figure 1. Schematics of the relationships between each group of bacteria in the anaerobic ecosystem.

4. Anaerobic
4. Anaerobic Digestion Technology Digestion Technology
The AD process, anThe AD process, protection
environmental an environmental
technology protection
throughtechnology through orga
organic wastes
and wastewater treatment, involves converting biodegradable organic waste into biogas waste
and wastewater treatment, involves converting biodegradable organic
and biofertilizer
and biofertilizer [115,116]. [115,116]. It is treatment
It is a biotechnological a biotechnological
process thattreatment
recovers process
energythat recov
(biogas), value-added(biogas),
products, value-added
and nutrientsproducts,
(nitrogen,and nutrients (nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium)phosphorus,
from and
biodegradable organicfrom biodegradable
waste in the absenceorganic waste[117].
of oxygen in theNitrogen
absence of oxygen
(N), [117]. Nitrogen
phosphorus (P), (N)
and potassium (K) arerus recovered in biosolid(K)
(P), and potassium form, which
arSSe may bein
recovered applied
biosolid as biofertilizers
form, which may be
on agricultural landbiofertilizers
if the level on of the pathogenland
agricultural is very low.
if the levelThe
of biogas can as is
the pathogen well
verybelow. The
transformed into electricity and heat [118]. Despite the noncommercialization
as well be transformed into electricity and heat [118]. Despite the noncomme of this
technology, it remains onetechnology,
of this of the promising technologies
it remains one of the that convert wastes
promising into biogas
technologies that convert w
and odor-free residues thatand
biogas are odor-free
rich in nutrients
residuesthat
thatcanareberich
used as fertilizers
in nutrients that[119].
can be used as fertil
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 11 of 36

4.1. Classification of the AD Process Technology

The AD process technology can typically be categorized or classified based on the
following: (a) the nature of the total solid content, (b) the feeding mode, (c) the operating
temperature, (d) the number of operational stages, and (e) the type of digester and reactor
configuration (i.e., technical) [30]. The AD process can be categorized into different types
based on various factors. The total solid content determines whether the process is dry or
wet, while the feeding mode determines if it is a batch or continuous process. The operating
temperature determines if the process is mesophilic or thermophilic. The number of stages
involved in the process categorizes it as a single-stage or multistage process. Finally, the
type of digester used classifies the AD process as a fixed dome, floating dome, balloon, or
garage type.

4.1.1. Dry and Wet AD Process Technology

The dry and wet AD process technologies are dependent on the amount of total solid
content (TSC) in the system. The dry AD (D-AD) process technology which is also referred
to as high-solid (HS-AD) or solid-state process technology, is the one that generally operates
with a feedstock of 15–40% TSC [120] or 20–40% TSC [29]. That is, D-AD process technology
works at a higher TSC than wet AD process technology [29]. This indicates that D-AD
allows for treating or handling higher quantities of waste per digester volume [29]. It has
been claimed that D-AD or HS-AD is more advantageous over wet AD process technology
based on a number of reasons, such as reduced energy input for heating and stirring, higher
volumetric loading capacity, greater ease in handling of the digestate, smaller reactor
volume, and abrasion reduction in the reactor from sand and grit [29,94,121]. Despite the
merits of D-AD or HS-AD process technology, it also has some demerits, which include
low operational stability, long degradation times, lower biogas and biomethane production
when compared to the wet AD process technology, liquid and gas diffusional problems,
higher inoculation ratio and the accumulation of toxic and inhibitory components or
compounds (volatile fatty acids, ammonia, and heavy metals), which still hinders their
wide applications [29,120,122]. The reasons for these demerits have been attributed to the
high TSC [122] and reduced water content which consequently reduces the availability of
substrate to the microorganisms and thus affects their metabolism [123].
Wet AD (W-AD) process technology, also referred to as liquid AD (L-AD) process
technology, is the one in which the feedstock is mixed with a large quantity of water to
provide a dilute feed of 10 to 15% dry solids [124]. That is, the W-AD or L-AD systems
typically operate with 0.5–15% TSC [102,124,125]. Consequently, dilution with water, liquid
digestate fraction, or slurry is essential to acquire total solid contents of less than 15%. Some
studies, as obtained from the literature, all revealed that an increase in the water content
results in an increase in biogas and biomethane yields [126,127]. This increase in water
content produces a better homogenization of the digester’s contents in the AD, increasing
the interaction between bacteria and nutrients, reducing the problems of diffusion problems,
and diluting any potential inhibitors [29,127]. The advantages and disadvantages of W-AD
have been well documented [121,124]. However, one of the main disadvantages of the wet
process is that a large amount of water is required, and the biogas output is not proportional
to the volume of water required; thus, when a large volume of biogas is required, a large
reactor volume will be required to accommodate the large volume of water required [124].

4.1.2. Batch and Continuous AD Process Technology

The AD is classified on the basis of its feeding mode or operation mode, namely batch
and continuous modes. In a batch AD process technology, the digester is fed with fresh
raw materials, then tightly closed and sealed, and left for a fixed duration until the overall
degradation or digestion is accomplished. The digester is emptied once the digestion
is completed, and a new batch of organic feedstock is fed. The effluent or residues are
then removed to allow the new process to take place [128]. Generally, it is essential to
have a number of digesters in a batch process so that alternate loading and emptying can
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 12 of 36

be done. A batch digester is technologically simple and straightforward, requires fewer

moving parts, is cheap or inexpensive, has a low maintenance cost, and has limited energy
losses [129].
In a continuous AD process technology, fresh raw materials are fed regularly and
constantly into the digester to replace or maintain the same amount of digested waste
as products are continuously withdrawn [120]. Typically, a pumping system is fixed for
the transportation of the feed into the digester. Any interruption during pumping will
affect biogas production. The advantages of using a continuous feeding mode in anaerobic
digestion include (i) a constant biogas production rate by maintaining a steady feedstock
input, (ii) a smaller land area requirement, (iii) lower operating costs, (iv) uninterrupted
digestion, (v) a continuous cycle of input and removal of bio-waste, and (vi) the achievement
of steady-state conditions [30]. However, there are also some disadvantages associated
with this method, including (i) higher initial investment costs, (ii) technical difficulties
associated with the pump used for loading, and (iii) a requirement for high internal fluidity
to ensure a smooth feedstock intake and removal process.

4.1.3. Mesophilic and Thermophilic AD Process Technology

Based on the operating temperature, as earlier mentioned, AD process technology can
be classified as mesophilic AD process technology and thermophilic AD process technology.
Mesophilic AD process technology is the technology where the AD process is performed at
a temperature range of 20–40 ◦ C in which the mesophilic organisms that are involved in the
degradation or digestion process grow and perform optimally. According to Gebreeyessus
and Jenicek [130], the advantages of this technology are: (i) the microorganisms can tolerate
greater environmental changes, (ii) it is more stable and easier to maintain, and (iii) it
involves the use of smaller or minimal energy, while the disadvantages include longer
retention time and lower biogas production. Several studies have been performed with the
use of this technology for the biological treatment of sewage sludge [131], slaughterhouse
waste [132], sugarbeet pulp [133], cattle manure [134], corn silage [135], and fruit and
vegetable waste [136].
Thermophilic AD process technology is the technology in which the AD process is
carried out at a temperature range of 50 ◦ C–65 ◦ C, where the thermophilic organisms
involved in the digestion or degradation process grow and perform optimally. A review
of the advantages and disadvantages of the use of this technology has been made by Ge-
breeyessus and Jenicek [130]. According to the review, the advantages of this technology
include lower retention time, higher organic loading rate, increased biogas/biomethane
generation, and higher pathogen destruction, while the disadvantages are responsive to
toxins, the presence of less distinct microorganisms with an attendant less efficient mecha-
nism, difficult maintenance of the system, and higher energy required for heating. Many
studies have been conducted with the use of this technology for the biotreatment of organic
wastes to produce biogas/biomethane, and such wastes include sewage sludge [137], sugar
beet pulp [133], cattle manure [134], solid waste residues from palm oil mill (empty fruit
bunches, oil palm fronds, and oil palm trunks) [138], and food waste [9].

4.1.4. Single and Multistage AD Process Technology

AD process technology is further classified based on the number of operational stages,
namely, single-stage and multistage AD process technologies. A single-stage AD (SS-AD)
process technology is that technology that involves the use of a single biodigester or reactor
where all the four steps (i.e., hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis)
involved in microbial digestion simultaneously take place [139]. This implies that in SS-
AD, acidogenic and methanogenic microbial species have to cohabit despite their marked
differences with regard to nutritional needs, environmental factors such as temperature and
pH, growth factors, and kinetics [139,140]. It is pertinent to note that most AD applications
operate in single-stage systems [27]. This is because the SS-AD process has proven to
possess many advantages, such as simplicity in design, low cost or low capital investment,
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 13 of 36

low maintenance cost, recirculation adaptability, less technical failure, lower volatile solid
losses, and smaller reactors required [9,27,124]. Notwithstanding the advantage, the SS-AD
process still has some disadvantages or limitations, such that it cannot alone handle organic
waste with TSC under 20%, the possibility of dilution with water is low, restricted bioreactor
heights, high fluctuations in biogas/biomethane production, and the loss of biogas during
the emptying of the bioreactors [139]. So far, the SS-AD process technology has been
utilized to biologically treat several arrays of feedstock, including food waste [3,9,124],
manure [141], sewage sludge [142], vegetable waste [143], and municipal solid waste
(MSW) [144], and process performance was optimized in the greatest number of cases by
recirculating the process digestate back into the reactor [145].
The multistage AD (MS-AD) process technology currently includes two-stage, three-
stage, and four-stage systems. In the MS-AD process, there is the physical separation
of the four biochemical reactions or digestion steps. A two-stage AD (TS-AD) process
technology is a technology where the AD process is conducted in two biodigesters or
bioreactors in which all the biochemical reactions sequentially occur [146]. That is, in a TS-
AD process system, the first step entails introducing the feedstock into the first digester or
bioreactor (acidogenic bioreactor), where hydrolysis, acidogenesis, and acetogenesis occur,
and the partially digested feedstock is then removed and fed into the second bioreactor
(methanogenic bioreactor), where the biogas/biomethane is finally produced [27]. This
implies that in a TS-AD process, acid fermentation, and methanogenesis are separated
into two different bioreactors in order to optimize operating conditions for the acidogenic
and methanogenic microbial species. The first (acidogenic) stage is typically performed
at a low hydraulic retention time range of two to three days and a pH range of five to
six, while the second stage (methanogenic) is operated at a hydraulic retention time of
20 to 30 days and a pH range of six to eight [125]. Comparing the TS-AD process to the
SS-AD process, the TS-AD process allows rapid and efficient biogas/biomethane generation
in the second stage [147]. The multistage AD (MS-AD) process concept that involved a
three-stage reactor was developed in the early part of the 1990s [27]. The distribution of the
biochemical reactions or digestion steps in a three-stage AD is hydrolysis/acidogenesis,
acidogenesis/acetogenesis, and acetogenesis/methanogenesis [30]. In this MS-AD (i.e.,
three-stage AD), the first stage involves the semianaerobic hydrolysis of feedstock at a
low hydraulic retention time and the removal and transfer of undegraded waste to the
secondary bioreactor for acidogenisis. From the secondary bioreactor, the liquid and
solids output are removed and fed into a tertiary bioreactor where biogas/biomethane
is finally produced [27]. The key benefits of the TS-AD, Th S-AD, or MS-AD processes
over the SS-AD process are higher biogas/biomethane yield or better energy recovery,
increased volatile solid removal performance, enhanced process stability and reliability,
better control of pathogens, reduced retention time, reduced reactor size [139,140,148].
Nevertheless, the disadvantages lie in the fact that the design is complex (i.e., they are
complex systems), biogas/biomethane yield is low if solids are not digested and involve
large or high cost of investment, operations, and maintenance. Voelklein et al. [149]
reported that the biomethane production performance of TS-AD is 30% higher than that
of SS-AD. TS-AD or MS-AD process technologies are suitable for processing a wide range
of wastes. The TS-AD process technology has been applied for the processing of wastes
in biogas/biomethane. Such wastes are swine manure and market biowaste [150], cheese
whey and cattle manure [151], fruit and vegetable waste and food waste [152], vegetable oil
residue and pig manure [153], and food waste and sewage sludge [98]. Also, the MS-AD
(i.e., three stages) has been utilized to process organic wastes into biogas, and this includes
wastes such as food waste [154], food waste, and horse manure [59].

4.2. Types of Anaerobic Digesters

The construction of a biodigester depends on some key factors, such as the type of
feedstock, hydrological and geological conditions, and weather or climate conditions [155].
In the design of a biodigester, the two key parameters that must be chosen correctly
 Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 37

4.2. Types of Anaerobic Digesters

Energies 2023, 16, 3378 The construction of a biodigester depends on some key factors, such as the type of
14 of 36
feedstock, hydrological and geological conditions, and weather or climate conditions
[155]. In the design of a biodigester, the two key parameters that must be chosen correctly
arethe
are thenumber
numberofofstages
stagesand
andthethetotal
totalsolid
solidcontent
contentsince
sincethese
theseparameters
parameterssignificantly
significantly
affectits
affect itsperformance
performanceand andreliability
reliabilityasaswell
wellasasthe
theoverall
overallcost
cost[30].
[30].Primarily,
Primarily,digester
digester
design is concerned with the rate, stability, and completion of biochemical reactions
design is concerned with the rate, stability, and completion of biochemical reactions [156]. [156].
There are various types of anaerobic digesters. The variations in their designs are due toto
There are various types of anaerobic digesters. The variations in their designs are due
climatedifferences,
climate differences,feedstock
feedstock types,
types, feedstock
feedstock amount,
amount, feedstock
feedstock fluidfluid dynamics,
dynamics, struc-
structural
tural strength, material availability and cost, design complexity, and process
strength, material availability and cost, design complexity, and process duration [156]. Each duration
[156]. Each
designed designed
digester has digester has itsand
its advantages advantages and disadvantages.
disadvantages. In anaerobic In anaerobic
digester digester
technology,
there are several types of digester configurations. The three major types of anaerobicof
technology, there are several types of digester configurations. The three major types
anaerobicare
digesters digesters are (a)anaerobic-lagoons
(a) covered covered anaerobic-lagoons
digesters, digesters, (b) plug-flow
(b) plug-flow digesters,digesters,
and (c)
complete-mixed digesters [157]. The other types of digesters include fixed-domefixed-dome
and (c) complete-mixed digesters [157]. The other types of digesters include digesters,
digesters, floating-drum
floating-drum digesters,
digesters, and and balloon-type
balloon-type digesters [155].
digesters [155].

4.2.1.Covered
4.2.1. CoveredAnaerobic
AnaerobicLagoons
Lagoons
Anaerobic
Anaerobiclagoons
lagoonsareareponds
pondsthatthatare arecovered
coveredininwhich
whichfeedstock
feedstockisisfed
fedatatone
oneend,
end,
and
andthe
theresidue
residueisisremoved
removedatatanother
anotherend end(Figure
(Figure2)2)[157].
[157].ItItisisused
usedprimarily
primarilyfor forliquid
liquid
or
ordiluted
dilutedwaste
wastethat
thatcontains
contains<2%
< 2%solids.
solids.Plastic
Plasticwith
withananimpermeable
impermeablecover coverisisused
usedtoto
collect
collectthe
theproduced
producedbiogas
biogas[156].
[156].ItItisiswidely
widelyused
usedinincold
coldclimate
climateregions
regionsforforswine
swineoror
dairy
dairyoperations
operationsandanduses
usesaaflush
flushsystem
systemto totransport
transportthe
themanure.
manure.However,
However,itsitsdrawbacks
drawbacks
include
includeaalowlowrate
rateofofreaction
reactiondue
duetotothe thelow
lowreaction
reactiontemperature,
temperature,no nomixing
mixingdue duetotoaa
closed
closed lagoon causing coagulation of solids at the bottom of the digester, which resultsinin
lagoon causing coagulation of solids at the bottom of the digester, which results
less
lesscontact
contactbetween
betweenthe thebacteria
bacteriaand
andfeed,feed,andandaahigher
higherenergy
energyrequirement
requirementtotoscreen
screenoutout
coagulated
coagulatedsolids
solids[158].
[158].

Figure2.2.Covered
Figure CoveredAnaerobic
AnaerobicLagoon.
Lagoon.

4.2.2.
4.2.2.Plug-Flow
Plug-FlowDigesterDigester
The
Theplug-flow
plug-flowdigester
digesterconsists
consistsofofaalong
longtubular
tubulardigester
digesteror ortank
tankwith
withvarying
varyingsizes
sizes
(2.4–7.5
(2.4–7.5m m33),), which
which has hasaaconstant
constantvolume
volume that
that produces
produces biogas
biogas at variable
at variable pressures
pressures (Fig-
(Figure 3) [155].
ure 3) [155]. It be
It can canfixed
be fixed
eithereither vertically
vertically or horizontally.
or horizontally. The digester
The digester consists
consists of
of an inlet
anandinlet
two and
outlettwo pipes,
outlet which
pipes, which areat
are fixed fixed at opposite
opposite ends above
ends above ground ground
level. level. The
The outlet
outlet
pipes pipes are connected
are connected to thetodigestate
the digestate extraction
extraction systemsystem
unit. unit.
As theAsfresh
the fresh feedstock
feedstock is in-
istroduced
introduced into the digester through the inlet, the digestate moves
into the digester through the inlet, the digestate moves towards the other towards the end
otherof
end
the of theand
tank tank and comes
comes out through
out through thepipes
the outlet outletinto
pipes
theinto the digestate
digestate extraction
extraction unit. It isunit.
best
Itsuited
is bestfor
suited for feedstocks
feedstocks such as
such as cattle cattle manure
manure with high with high
total total
solid solid in
content content in theof
the range
range
11% to of14%
11%[155,158].
to 14% [155,158].
Plug-flowPlug-flow
digesters digesters
may havemay fewerhave fewer
moving moving
parts [157]parts
or no[157]
mov-
or no moving parts [155], thus requiring less maintenance. Since the
ing parts [155], thus requiring less maintenance. Since the plug-flow digester is a growth-plug-flow digester
isbased
a growth-based
system, cleaning system, thecleaning the
reactor is reactor is inexpensive
inexpensive [156].
[156]. The main The main of
advantages advantages
plug-flow
of plug-flow digesters are their ease of use, adaptability to extreme conditions, ease of
installation, and low maintenance costs [155].
 Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 37
Energies 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 37

Energies 2023, 16, 3378 15 of 36

digesters are their ease of use, adaptability to extreme conditions, ease of installation, and
digesters are their ease of use, adaptability to extreme conditions, ease of installation, and
low maintenance costs [155].
low maintenance costs [155].

Figure 3. Plug-Flow Digester.

Figure3.3.Plug-Flow
Figure Plug-FlowDigester.
Digester.

4.2.3.Total-Mixed
4.2.3. Total-Mixed Digester
4.2.3. Total-MixedDigester
Digester
InIn thistype
typeofofdigester,
digester, allthe
In this type of digester,all
this the organicwastes
all theorganic
wastes arecombined
organic wastesare
combined togetherinto
are combinedtogether
into a single
together intoaasinglesingle
tank,and
tank, andananagitation
agitationsystem
systemisisintroduced
introducedtotomix mixthe thecontent
contentwhile
whileititisisbeing
beingdigested
digested
tank, and an agitation system is introduced to mix the content while it is being digested
(Figure4)4)[158].
(Figure [158]. Variousagitators
agitators canbe be used,such
such as mechanicalmixers mixers orrecirculation
recirculation
(Figure 4) [158].Various
Various agitatorscan can beused,
used, suchasasmechanical
mechanical mixersor or recirculation
pumps. The
pumps. The most efficient
efficient type,
type, in
interms
terms ofofpower
power consumed
consumed per gallon
per gallonmixed, is the
mixed, me-
is the
pumps. The most efficient type, in terms of power consumed per gallon mixed, is the me-
chanical
mechanical mixer. This
mixer.This system
Thissystem is suitable
systemisissuitable for
suitablefor handling
forhandling manures
handling manures with 3%
manures with 3% to 10%to 10% solids [157].
chanical mixer. 10% solids
solids[157].
[157].
Theadvantage
The advantage of the
of the completely-mixed
completely-mixed reactor
reactor is thatisit that it is a technology
is a proven proven technology
that achievesthat
The advantage of the completely-mixed reactor is that it is a proven technology that
reasonable conversionconversion
achieves reasonable of solids toofgas [157].
solids to This process
gas [157]. Thisis widely
processused in industries
is widely used in toin-
achieves reasonable conversion of solids to gas [157]. This process is widely used in in-
convert
dustrieswaste into biogas
to convert waste[156].
into biogas [156].
dustries to convert waste into biogas [156].

Figure 4. Total-Mixed Digester.

Figure 4. Total-Mixed Digester.
Figure 4. Total-Mixed Digester.

4.2.4. Fixed-Dome Digester

The fixed-dome digester, also known as the hydraulic digester, is the most prevalent
model developed for biogas production [155]. It is characterized by a simple construction
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 16 of 36

that does not include any movable components. The digester comprises a dome-shaped
chamber equipped with inlet and outlet pipes, as well as a gas pipe attached at the top
of the dome chamber. The substrates are loaded through the inlet pipe until they reach
the bottom of the chamber, and the resulting biogas collects in the upper storage part of
the digester. Modified versions of the fixed-dome digester have been created in many
countries worldwide [155]. Generally, these digesters are constructed underground and
require minimal space [159]. Thus, it is expected that this type of digester can be utilized
for a long number of years. Fixed-dome digesters take a longer time to warm up. The
digester’s size depends on the amount of substrate available daily and the location and
number of households that will make use of it [155]. In general, if well constructed,
fixed-dome digesters have advantages, including lower manufacturing or investment cost,
low maintenance costs, long life span, less variation in temperature (due to being built
underground), and less space requirement [160]. Nevertheless, some disadvantages could
be that a skilled technician will be required for the construction, it might be hard to repair
since it is built underground, fluctuation in gas pressure depending on the stored gas
volume, and difficulty in constructing it in bedrock.

4.2.5. Floating-Drum Digester

A floating-drum digester, also known as a Gober gas plant, comprises a cylindrical
or dome-shaped chamber, an underground digester (either cylindrical or dome-shaped),
and an inverted movable steel drum or gas holder [155]. The steel drum, positioned
on the digester, serves as a gas storage tank that separates gas accumulation from the
production process, thereby maintaining a constant gas pressure [161]. Floating-drum
digesters generate biogas with a variable volume at a steady pressure [155]. The pressure
required for gas flow through the pipeline for utilization is achieved by the weight of
the steel drum [162]. The inverted steel drum moves up and down depending on the
quantity of accumulated gas stored at the top of the digester, necessitating regular painting
to prevent rusting [155]. The advantage of this type of biodigester is its simplicity, ease of
construction, and operation. However, it has several drawbacks, such as high steel material
costs, regular maintenance and repair expenses, and a relatively short lifespan [32].

4.2.6. Balloon Digester

The balloon biodigester consists of a polyethylene tubular film sealed at both ends
along with inlet and outlet polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes with rubber straps of recycled
tire tubes wound around them [32]. The digester also consists of an installed PVC pipe
at the top of it to allow the generated biogas to be released into a reservoir collection bag.
A hydraulic level is created within the digester between the inlet and outlet in such a
way that the amount of digestate that leaves the outlet is equal to the quantity of organic
matter (a mixture of feedstock and water) that is added. The advantages of this type of
digester lie in the fact it is easy to construct with low cost for construction, it has a shallow
installation depth that makes it suitable in areas with high groundwater tables, and not
being complicated in digester emptying and maintenance [32]. Its demerits are that the
digester is susceptible to mechanical damage, scum cannot be removed from it, and it
relatively has a short life span [32].

5. The Physiochemical and Biological Variables Affecting AD Performance

In addition to maintaining an absolute anaerobic environment, AD’s performance or
efficiency depends on two major groups of variables or factors: environmental (physical,
chemical, and biological) factors and operational factors [125]. The environmental factors
are comprised of pH, temperature, pressure, and feedstock characteristics. The feedstock
characteristics include feedstock particle size, total solid content (TSC), the amount of
volatile solids (VS), nutrients, carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio, and inhibitory components
(volatile fatty acids and ammonia). The operational factors are agitation (mixing or stir-
ring), organic loading rate (OLR), solid retention time (SRT), and hydraulic retention
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 17 of 36

time (HRT) [17,31,163]. The OLR, pH, temperature, agitation, pressure, SRT, and HRT
are greatly influenced by the reactor or digester type, while volatile fatty acids and am-
monia are basically influenced by the biochemical reactions involved [27]. Any drastic
changes in these variables can lead to a breakdown in the AD process, as this results in
changing the microorganism’s environment and metabolic activity within the digester.
Since biogas/biomethane production is a microbial process, the maintenance of suitable
growth conditions for biogas/biomethane-producing bacteria is essential. It is only if these
conditions are fulfilled that maximum bacteria activity and adequate gas production are
assured [164]. Therefore, these conditions or variables require proper monitoring and
control so as to obtain optimum or maximum biogas/biomethane yield [17]. The effect or
influence of all these variables on the various aspects of AD is widely elucidated in the
following subsections.

5.1. Feedstock Particle Size

Feedstock particle size is directly correlated with the substrate or feedstock contact
surface [165]. The larger the particle size, the smaller the available contact surface. That
is, as the particle size increases, the contact surface reduces or decreases, and thus the
space available for enzyme contact is minimized [26]. In the AD process, very good contact
between the feedstock or substrate and the microbial community (or inoculum) is essential
as enzymatic processes are extracellular and are adsorbed onto a particulate surface [26,166].
A feedstock with smaller particle sizes possesses a higher or larger surface area and will
thus, during the AD process, display higher reaction efficiency, which will, in turn, result
in increased biogas and/or biomethane yield [163].

5.2. Total Solid Content

The total solid content (TSC) of solid waste influences the performance and stability
of AD [120,167]. Generally, TSC represents or indicates the amount or concentration, or
percentage of the solids (materials) present in the solid wastes (feedstock) [168]. That is,
TSC describes the dry matter of a substrate, and it is expressed as the percentage of the
total weight in g/kg [169,170]. To obtain the TSC of the solid waste feedstock, the amount
of feedstock is weighed and then dried at 105 ◦ C until its water or moisture content is
zero; thereafter, the dried weight is divided by the original feedstock weight [170]. TSC
affects the solid sedimentation, fluid dynamics, clogging, and digester contents’ rheology
and viscosity, which can directly impact the overall rates of mass transfer within the
digester [121]. The bacterial activity could be hampered depending on the TSC level if it
is too high or too low [169]. The adjustment of TSC is commonly done by the addition
of water [169]. The optimum TSC is different for each kind of biogas feedstock [169]. For
example, the optimum TSC for the AD of cattle manure, agricultural wastes, and municipal
solid waste was found to be 7.4–9.2% [73], 9% [171], and 10% [172], respectively. The ideal
solid concentration in sewage sludge for AD ranges from 8 to 10% [32]. There are several
studies that concern the effect of the TSC on the AD process performance [10,169,173].
From these several studies, it can be deduced that biogas/biomethane yield often increases
with increasing the low-percentage TSC range of 1 to 10% [169,174,175], while in most
cases it decreases with increasing the high-percentage TSC that is greater than the range of
10–20% [10,173,176].

5.3. Carbon/Nitrogen (C/N) Ratio

The ratio of the amount of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) present in the feedstock is
denoted as the carbon: nitrogen ratio or C/N ratio. The C/N ratio is an essential parameter
for the AD process. A high C/N ratio indicates the presence of a low amount of nitrogen,
and so there will be rapid nitrogen consumption by methanogens which consequently
leads to lower biogas and biomethane production. On the other hand, a low C/N ratio
depicts the presence of a high amount of nitrogen which results in ammonia accumulation
and high pH values that are toxic and inhibitory to methanogens [125]. Therefore, there
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 18 of 36

must be an optimal balance between the carbon and nitrogen (i.e., C/N ratio), as well
as other factors being at the optimum value to achieve process stability [177] and higher
biogas/biomethane production. The suitable or optimal C/N ratio required for the effective
microbial metabolic processes, maintenance of process stability, microbial growth, and
better AD performance lies within the value range of 20 to 30 [121,178]. In some cases, there
is a rapid occurrence of the AD process when the C/N ratio falls between 25 and 35.1 [179].
Karthikeyan and Visvanathan [121] achieved a maximum biomethane potential at a C/N
ratio of 27, while Zhang et al. [56] obtained it at a C/N ratio of 15.8 when they co-digested
FW with cattle manure. However, the optimal C/N ratio depends on both the substrate and
the inoculum. Substrates that have high C/N ratios possess the poor buffering capacity and
produce excess amounts of volatile fatty acids during AD fermentation, while substrates
that are characterized by lower C/N ratios possess a high buffering capacity and generate
high amounts of ammonia during the AD fermentation process, which eventually leads to
the inhibition of microbial growth [125].

5.4. Nutrients and Metals (Light and Heavy)

Light metals, such as sodium, potassium, and calcium, as well as heavy metals, such
as chromium, selenium, cobalt, zinc, nickel, manganese, iron, molybdenum, and copper,
together with nutrients (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), are essentially required
by anaerobic microbial species for the optimal growth, development of enzyme synthesis,
and the maintenance of microbial activity [125,180]. The addition of these metals into the
anaerobic bioreactors or biodigesters, not in excess, can improve the AD process system
performance [125,181]. Nevertheless, an excess of metal level or concentration can result in
the inhibition of the AD process due to the enzyme function and microorganism structure
disruption [182].

5.5. Presence of Inhibitory Compounds

Inhibition is a common problem for AD process systems, with dry AD process systems
being more prone to the accumulation of inhibitory compounds (volatile fatty acids and
ammonia). The occurrence of this inhibition in the AD system can be due to the imbalance
between the rates at which hydrolysis and methanogenesis take place. A rapid or fast
methanogenesis step over the hydrolysis step is required to prevent the accumulation of
volatile fatty acids from lowering the pH to the point that it can inhibit methanogenesis [125].
The inhibitory compound’s accumulation, associated with dry AD processes, is due to
the high OLR and TSC, as well as low or no stirring/mixing, which did not allow for
proper homogenization [29,127], and thus facilitated the inhibitor’s accumulation [29,183].
Nevertheless, dry AD processes have a higher inhibitor tolerance [29,184] and can function
at higher volatile fatty acid or ammonia concentrations, as these inhibitory compounds are
localized as a result of the poor diffusion that occurs in the ADs. This does not frequently
affect the entire bioreactor or biodigester volume [29].

5.5.1. Volatile Fatty Acids

Volatile fatty acids are one of the paramount parameters that affect AD process tech-
nologies [185]. Volatile fatty acids are short-chain fatty acids, which are intermediate
compounds produced during the acidogenesis step, where more hydrolyzed substrates are
broken down. The major volatile fatty acids present during the AD process are acetic acid,
propionic acid, and butyric acid [186], as well as valeric acid, caproic acid, and enanthic
acid [27,187], which are commonly accumulated at the start-up period in the ADs. At a pH
of 8.0, most of the volatile fatty acids (approximately 99.9%) exist in the dissolved form,
while at a pH of 6.0, approximately 90% of the volatile fatty acids occur in the dissolved
form [31]. Accumulated volatile fatty acids, depending on the types and concentrations
or levels, can be toxic and inhibitory to the AD process [27]. The AD process inhibition
takes place when the volatile fatty acids are produced in the hydrolysis/acidogenesis
steps at a faster rate than they are taken up by the acetogenesis and methanogenesis steps
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 19 of 36

which results in the drop of pH and, in turn, the inhibition of the methanogenic bacterial
groups [188]. Several approaches have been proposed that can result in the reduction of
volatile fatty acid accumulation. Among these approaches, the utilization of appropriate
OLR, pH, reactor type, chemical additives, temperature, and hydrogen partial pressure
have been widely considered to be important, all of which have been comprehensively
reviewed by Sarker et al. [27]. The operational strategies applied to reduce the volatile
fatty acids accumulation in both batch and continuous AD process systems are different.
For the batch AD process system, the most common strategies are: (i) to increase the
inoculum/substrate ratio and (ii) to recirculate the percolate, while for the continuous AD
process system, the most common strategy used is OLR reduction [29].

5.5.2. Ammonia
Ammonia is produced from a nitrogen-containing substance such as protein and urea
that could be present in the feedstock. It can be present in the aqueous phase as ammonium
ions or ionic ammonia (NH4 +) and un-ionized ammonia (NH3 ) or free ammonia (FA),
where the sum or totality of both is called the total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) [125,189].
Most of the ammonia generated during the AD process is usually produced during the
stage of hydrolysis [190]. The type of ammonia produced is often influenced by variables
such as a change in pH, microbial community or inoculum, and temperature [27]. Free
ammonia or un-ionized ammonia is membrane permeable, and when it diffuses through
the cell wall of the organisms, it causes an intracellular pH variation or proton imbalance
leading to enzymatic reactions inhibition [27]. Therefore, it is a strong candidate for the
inhibition of methanogens. Generally, a free ammonia concentration that ranges from 1.7
to 14 gN/L is inhibitory to methanogenic organisms, especially to the acetoclastic species,
which results in a 50% or more decrease in the yield of biomethane [27]. Free ammonia
values that range from 300 to 800 mg/L have been reported to be inhibitory, while the
higher range values of 1500 to 3000 mg/L for ammonium are tolerated [125]. The degree to
which ammonia concentration or level affects methanogenic organisms varies depending
on environmental conditions and bacteria type. Thus, to achieve an optimum AD process,
there should be a careful and right choice of process variables, essentially feedstock type,
operating pH, type of inoculum, and temperature so that the level of free ammonia can be
kept below 0.2 g/L, as recommended in the literature [182]. Different methods have been
employed to overcome the accumulation of ammonia, including (i) OLR reduction, (ii) the
use of co-digestion with other carbon-rich wastes or the adjustment of the C/N ratio [191],
and (iii) bioaugmentation [192] and substrate dilution [182].

5.6. pH
The pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of an aqueous fluid. It has a vital role
to play in the biological activities of bacteria. Therefore, the maintenance of the appropriate
pH is essential in the production of biogas/biomethane. Before the feedstock is to be fed
into the digester, it is important to ascertain the pH condition. Where the feedstock pH is
very low or high, it is pertinent to artificially neutralize the feedstock by adding a base or
acid to the reactor (digester) [31,193]. Low or high pH decreases can inhibit the performance
of methane-producing bacteria, which in turn adversely affects the yield of biogas. For
example, a pH equal to or greater than 9.0 results in a significant rise in ammonia which
has a strong inhibitory effect. While a pH ≤ 6 leads to a significant increase in volatile
fatty acids, which is indicative of inhibition [30]. In general, a pH range of extremely acidic
(≤3) or extremely alkaline (≥12) can be inhibitory to acidogenesis [194] and limit the rate
of hydrolysis.
The pH requirement of the AD process is a compromise, as the optimal pH for
methanogenic micro-organisms is reported to be most effective at pH 6.5–8.2 with the
optimal pH of 7.0 [195], while for hydrolytic and acidogenic microorganisms, it is between
5.5–6.5 and 6.5–8.5, respectively [29,153]. Hence, the optimal pH for the AD process is
often near neutral at a range of 6.8–7.4 [111,196]. The generation of certain chemical species
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 20 of 36

(e.g., CO3 2− , NH3 , and CH3 COO− ) and basic cations (e.g., K+ , Ca2+ , and Mg2+ ) as well as
multivalent anions (such as SO4 −2 and Fe(OH)3 ) reductions that occur during biochemical
interaction in the course of AD processing can cause a considerable pH variation or rise
in the digestate [27]. Fluctuation in pH is dangerous since it can inhibit the process of
biomethanation. It is highly necessary that the pH must be properly controlled so that the
normal activity of the bacteria will not be disrupted [197]. Improper control of pH will
result in a large accumulation of volatile acids and, consequently, lead to a lower pH in the
digester which could inhibit the biomethanation process [198]. Thus, the pH of the AD
process is controlled by the bicarbonate acid–base system [199]. In a modern biogas plant,
an automatic pH controller is often installed to be able to operate the AD process at the
desired pH range and to control pH fluctuation.

5.7. Temperature
Temperature is considered to be one of the most significant operation parameters for
the stability of the AD process [26]. This is because it influences enzyme and coenzyme
activities of the anaerobic bacteria responsible for biogas generation [26], as they can only
survive in certain ranges of temperature. That is, temperature affects the rate of reaction
of AD or the biomethanation process [164,200]. Therefore, constant control of the AD
temperature is pertinent to maintaining stable AD digester operation, and in order to make
the AD bacteria work at their maximum efficiency, a suitable temperature is required.
The temperature at which the maximum activity of bacteria occurs varies, and as a result,
bacteria are classified into three categories according to the range of temperature where
their maximum growth is attained. These are the psychrophilic bacteria (below 25 ◦ C), the
mesophilic bacteria (between 25 ◦ C and 40 ◦ C) and the thermophilic (between 40 ◦ C and
60 ◦ C) or extremophilic bacteria (>65 ◦ C) [27]. The AD duration is temperature dependent,
and methanogenic bacteria are very sensitive to sudden thermal changes. Thus, any
drastic temperature change should be avoided [200]. This is because for a given process
temperature, a few degrees of temperature fluctuation and permanent changes can have a
severe effect by inhibiting the bacteria’s metabolic activity and decreasing population and,
thus, reducing or stopping the stoppage of biogas/biomethane production [117]. Anaerobic
bacteria are most active in the mesophilic and thermophilic ranges of temperature [200].
The amount of biomethane produced in AD subjected to thermophilic temperature is
almost identical to that subjected to mesophilic AD, though a higher temperature improves
the rate of production [27] as well as reduces the high HRT operational requirement and
hence reduces the reactor volume or size [27,201]. On the other hand, Li et al. [202] reported
that the mesophilic AD system generates less biomethane than the thermophilic AD system.
As a general rule, the bacteria metabolic rate, growth rate, and biogas production rate, as
well as the performance of AD, increase with temperature [27]. Despite its advantages,
thermophilic AD systems can be challenging to operate, unstable, energy-intensive, and
sensitive to inhibition [27,203]. Consequently, mesophilic AD processes are currently the
most preferred technology implemented on an industrial scale [27,204].

5.8. Regular Agitation/Stirring

It is essential to stir the reactor at short intervals in order to prevent the thickening
and caking of the scum, which prevents the gas from escaping into the gas holder [164].
According to Nandi et al. [205], crust formation hampers effective reactor operation and
biogas formation. Mixing can be an engineering approach to solve this problem. Agitation
or mixing, or stirring to a large extent, can influence the performance and cost of the AD-
processing system. Agitation promotes intimate contact between the bacteria, substrates,
and nutrients to encourage more active metabolism and provides a uniform temperature
or heat distribution (i.e., avoidance of pronounced temperature gradients) and uniform
bacterial population density within the digester [17,27]. Adequate agitation or stirring can
also set free gases that may be trapped in the substrates or remove gas bubbles produced
by methanogens, reduce or prevent sedimentation and scum/foam formation, and prevent
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 21 of 36

dead spaces formation that would reduce the effective digester volume [17,206,207]. The
main factors that influence agitation, stirring, and mixing are the strategy of agitation,
intensity, and duration of agitation, as well as the agitator/stirrer location [207].
Agitation or stirring, or mixing can be achieved by means of mechanical agitators
or mixers, pneumatic agitators/mixers, hydraulic agitators, and the recirculation of the
digester’s contents or the recirculation of produced biogas using recirculation pumps at
various frequencies and intensities (minimal (gentle), intermittent, and continuous ro-
tation speeds) as well at different duration (several hours or several times in an hour
during a day) [27,205,208]. An increase in stirring rate enhances mass transfer from the
substrate in the bulk phase to the granulated biomass, thus providing nutrients to the
micro-organisms [209]. Also, this increases the amount of water within the porous area
of the waste, so sufficient hydrogen is made available in the water-filled pores. This
hydrogen is used by methane-forming species to generate methane with carbon diox-
ide [210]. Reactors or digesters equipped with agitation/stirring tend to produce more
biogas/biomethane [211–214] than those without agitation. However, some researchers
have reported contrasting or negative results [207,215]. The use of intermittent agitation or
stirring leads to the great enhancement of mass transfer from the liquid phase to the gas
phase, resulting in an increased release of biogas by as much as 70% higher than is the case
without mixing [216]. High intense agitation/stirring during startup can generate negative
effects due to high shear forces that break microbial flocs and syntrophic relationships
that exist between methanogens and bacteria, thus resulting in the acidification of the
system due to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids [214,217]. In addition, among the
various agitation intensities, gentle or minimal agitation leads to aggregate formation and
prevents biogas/biomethane-producing organisms from being washed out and, hence,
proves to be more effective [211]. For instance, Aworanti et al. [17] reported higher bio-
gas/biomethane yield at an agitation speed of 30 rpm than at an agitation speed of 70
rpm. Thus, according to Sulaiman et al. [218], Rojas et al. [219], and Jaman et al. [214],
low, gentle, or minimal-intensity agitation is preferable as it allows for proximity between
microorganisms and, thus, maintains the juxtaposition of the microbes. Despite the mer-
its of increased biogas/biomethane generation, agitation does require energy input and
possesses an extra cost [27]. To this end, continuous agitation or stirring can demand as
much as approximately 50% of the total biogas plant energy, with 2.5% additional energy
being consumed by the agitator motor during startup [27,220]. Therefore, agitation/stirring
should be carefully chosen or compromised, given the type of AD technology and the type
of feedstock.

5.9. Hydraulic Retention Time

Retention time is a crucial parameter used for the design and optimization of AD.
It encompasses both solid retention time (SRT) and hydraulic retention time (HRT). SRT
refers to the retention of the microbial culture in the bioreactor [27] or the time required for
feedstock degradation and microbial growth [221], while HRT, measured in days, refers to
the retention time of the liquid phase [27], the time needed for complete feedstock (raw
material) degradation [9] or the average amount of time that the feedstock spends in the
bioreactor before being removed [222,223]. In an AD bioreactor system where the microbial
mixed cultures and feedstock are present at the same phase, the SRT equals HRT. SRT and
HRT can be represented using Equations (15) and (16) [27]:

V×X
SRT = (15)
Q X × XX

V
HRT = (16)
Q
where V = biodigester volume (m3 ); Q = influent flow rate [m3 /d]; X = mixed liquid-
suspended solids in the biodigester (mg/L); Qx = removal rate of excess biosolids (m3 /d);
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 22 of 36

Xx : mixed liquid suspended solids in excess of biosolids flow (mg/L). HRT has an influence
on biogas production, biomass or microbial concentration, kinetic model parameters, and
AD system operation stability [149]. In general, HRT depends on the feedstock composition,
temperature, organic loading rate (OLR), and biodigester or bioreactor volume, and is
associated with the growth rate of bacteria [27,113]. To achieve constant and maximum
biogas/biomethane yields, a longer or higher HRT and a lower OLR are the best options
required [9]. Meanwhile, there could be significant high-molecular-weight volatile fatty
acids (VFA) accumulation and bacterial washout (mobilization) at a shorter or lower HRT
and a higher OLR, resulting in AD failure [27,111]. A high biodigester or bioreactor
temperature increases the rate of feedstock degradation or decomposition rate and reduces
the HRT. This is the reason for most thermophilic bioreactors generally being operated at
a shorter or lower HRT than mesophilic bioreactors [27]. Conversely, the use of a longer
or higher HRT leads to an increase in the biodigester size [27,201]. It has been reported
that a minimum of 10 days of HRT is required to prevent bacteria from being washed
out [32]. Therefore, the optimum operational HRT is neither very long nor very short and,
in most cases, ranges from 10 to 25 days. Nevertheless, a very long HRT in the magnitude
of 50–100 or more days could be required for biodigesters or bioreactors operated in colder
climates [27]. Bouallagui et al. [224], Kim et al. [225], and Shi et al. [226] have, respectively,
reported that there is a stable AD performance as well as increased biogas/biomethane
yield as HRT increases.

5.10. Organic Loading Rate

The organic loading rate (OLR) is defined as the amount of feedstock or volatile solids
(VS) added to an AD biodigester per unit volume per day [27,166]. This is expressed in
Equation (17):
C
OLR = (17)
HRT
where C is the feedstock or raw-material concentration in g.VS/L and HRT are the hydraulic
retention time.
Typically, biogas and biomethane yields, to some degree, increase with increasing
OLR [32]. An OLR that is very low may adversely affect AD [227], while an OLR that is very
or too high may result in the generation of insufficient products that promote microbial
growth, as well as contribute to the accumulation of volatile fatty acids in the biodigester or
bioreactor which prevents microbial growth [228]. In general, OLR is affected or influenced
by factors such as TSC, HRT, microbial concentration (i.e., number of microbes) in the
biodigester, and temperature within the digester [229]. For a typical AD biodigester
utilization, a high-operating OLR is often preferred. This is because it allows for reduced
bioreactor sizes, reduced investment cost, enriched bacterial species, and has a lower heat
requirement [230]. Lowered HRT may result in high operational OLR which in turn may
lead to microbial washout and overloading and, due to overloading, could result in volatile
fatty acid accumulation and the eventual failure of the biodigester [27,231]. That is, there
will be a decrease or reduction in biogas/biomethane production if the OLR (feeding rate)
in the biodigester or bioreactor is above the optimal level, and then, eventual collapse or
failure of the system due to overloading [9,124]. Several approaches to OLR optimization
that lead to enhanced biogas/biomethane production are continually being researched.
Some of these approaches include keeping OLR constant and simultaneously reducing the
HRT [148], utilization of additives [24], and microbial management [232].

5.11. Pressure
Extensive studies on the effect of pressure on AD have not been conducted. Typically,
AD occurs at atmospheric pressure. However, lower pressure or high pressure can be
developed on the liquid surface due to different gas accumulations and exchange into
the reactor headspace [27]. Petersson and Wellinger [233] reported that, as biomethane
gas solubility increases with pressure, there is a lower pressure on the liquid surfaces
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 23 of 36

that results in higher yields of biogas. Singh et al. [234] have reported that a reduction
in the height of a high digester (over 10 m) to a lower height (i.e., depth of about 4–5 m,
horizontally oriented) resulted in a lowering of the hydrostatic pressure, thereby improving
methanogenesis activities. That is, the level of hydrostatic pressure within the digester can
also affect the production of methane. High pressure leads to an increase in the solubility
of carbon dioxide, and thus, as the biogas has been produced, there is a partial carbon
dioxide stripping, which in turn gives rise to a net increase in biomethane concentration [27].
According to Lindeboom et al. [235], the use of high pressure in the biodigester results in a
methane level that is above 95%. However, it has been reported that, in some cases, high
pressures in the AD bioreactor did not result in satisfactory improvement in the production
of biogas [27]. Anaerobic bioreactors that make use of high pressures (i.e., pressurized
bioreactors) have been developed. However, high investment costs, pH reduction, and the
technical challenges associated with leakages in the bioreactor systems are recognized as a
few of the drawbacks of the pressurized bioreactor [27].

6. Kinetics Modelling of AD
The mathematical kinetic modeling for the AD of complex organic biomass is often
challenging as a result of its complicated nature and that of the substrate [25]. Nevertheless,
the kinetic data of AD can be utilized to create correlations between the efficiency of the
process and kinetic characteristics, as well as to reveal the mechanisms of kinetics that
can cause the instability of the process [217,236]. The mathematical kinetic model used
for the AD process can represent the major aspects of the biological system and predict,
simulate, and quantify the system’s empirical behavior under different conditions [33],
as well as predict the process variable that is most influential in the system [237] and
identify parameters that can be optimized [34]. It plays a vital role in monitoring the
performance of the process under various conditions [25]. It is a useful predicting tool
for large-scale anaerobic digester or reactor design since it helps in comprehending the
design, operation, and maximization of biogas and biomethane output [217]. According to
Donoso-Bravo et al. [33], the several mathematical kinetic models that have been proposed
for the AD of organic waste can be divided into three generations.
The models that were modeled based on either methanogenesis or hydrolysis as the
limiting step are referred to as first-generation models. The models modeled, based on the
intermediate products (volatile fatty acids), redox potential (NADH/NAD+ ratio), and their
effects on the AD process, were designated as second-generation models, while models
that considered the different substrates used in the AD and incorporated additional species
and processes, as well as detailed inhibitory kinetics, were referred to as third-generation
models. There have been several reviews of kinetic models, from the simplest to the more
complex models for the AD process, that have been published in the literature in recent
times [25,37]. Nevertheless, most of the models that deal with the production of biogas
and biomethane are based on mechanistic and empirical models (data based or experimen-
tal) [34,36,238]. The mechanistic models are models formed based on the chemical, physical,
or biological laws that govern the behavior of the process in relation to biogas production,
while the empirical models are black-box models formed using mathematical equations
to stochastically relate different factors or variables based on observation and measure
extensive-process data [36]. Some examples of empirical models include response surface
methodology (RSM), neuro-fuzzy models, fuzzy-logic models, partial least-square (PLS)
models, and artificial neural networks (ANN), which are particularly used for nonlinear
systems [34]. PLS models are used for linear systems. These models have been used to
describe and predict the performances of anaerobic reactors that have been used to treat
different organic wastes for biogas generation [239–241]. The mechanistic model can further
be subdivided into dynamic models and steady-state (or static) models [36].
Steady-state models are those mathematical models that use input parameters that
are constant to predict the constant values of the product, while dynamic models are
the models that describe the temporal variability of a process system and its physical
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 24 of 36

behavior. The models consist of ordinary differential equations (ODE) that are based
on mass balances [34]. These models predict the biodigester’s transient behavior based
on the different substrates and bacterial cultures’ mass balances represented by a set of
differential equations [36]. Time is one of the factors or variables that is considered in
dynamic models [117]. An example of the dynamic model is the anaerobic digestion model
number one (ADM1) proposed by Bastone et al. [242], which involves the four stages of the
AD process. ADM1 focuses on kinetics and the optimum reaction conditions but neglects
the microbial degradation of different substrates [36]. Amongst the mechanistic models,
ADM1 is the most widely used model in the AD process for biomethane production from
wastewater [36,243]. Furthermore, reaction kinetic models and stoichiometric models are
other forms of models that can be applied in modeling AD process systems.
Stoichiometry models are nondynamic white-box models which are time-independent
and are based on stoichiometry, as well as rely on the organic substrates’ basic ele-
ments/components data [244]. They are only applied for biogas and biomethane pro-
duction calculation. That is, they are helpful for CH4 and CO2 theoretical values estimation.
Reaction kinetic models are based on microbial growth, substrate conversion or degrada-
tion, and byproduct formation [245] and thus can be categorized into growth-kinetic models,
substrate-degradation models, and product-formation models [244]. These different kinds
of reaction-kinetic models have been utilized to model the influences of physical and chem-
ical conditions (such as temperature, total solid content, pH, inhibitors, etc.) on the AD of a
feedstock [35,246]. Kythreotou et al. [35] reported that the kinetic model of biogas produc-
tion (i.e., product-formation model) was the most important among the reaction-kinetic
models. Therefore, understanding the kinetics of biogas and biomethane production from
substrates is very significant for designing and evaluating AD digesters or reactors. Among
the numerous reaction-kinetic models utilized in evaluating and describing AD processes,
the most common reaction-kinetic model expressions that have been employed in recent
times, as presented in Table 4, include (i) the first-order kinetic model [202,247–249] or
exponential rise to maximum [144,250], (ii) the Gompertz kinetic model [251], (iii) the
modified Gompertz kinetic model [202,248,252], (iv) the logistic model [251–253], (v) the
Chen-Hashimoto model [247,254], (vi) the anaerobic-digestion model one (ADM1) [255,256],
(vii) the Richards model [251,253], (viii) the modified Richards model [251,252], (viii) the
cone model [251,257,258], and (ix) the Monod model [257,259].

Table 4. Most common kinetic models used for AD process reaction kinetics.

Model Equation Ref.

 
First-order kinetic model C (t) = C0 × 1 − e(−kt) [20]

Gompertz model C (t) = a exp[− exp(−kt)] [21]

 µ e 
Modified Gompertz model C (t) = A exp −exp max A (λ − t) + 1 [22]
a
Logistic model C (t) = 1+b exp(−kt)
[23]

Modified logistic model A [24]

C (t) = h 
4µmax
i
1+exp A (λ+t)+2
 
Chen–Hashimoto model KCH [25]
C (t) = C0 1 − HRT ×µmax ×KCH −1
1
Richards model C (t) = a{1 + v exp[k(τ − x )]}(− v ) [26]
n h   io(− 1 )
Modified Richards model µ
C (t) = A 1 + v exp(1 + v) × exp max ( 1 + v ) 1 + 1
× ( λ − t )
v [27]
A v

Cone model C0 [28]

C (t) =
1+(kt)−n
 
Monod model kt [29]
C (t) = C0 1+kt
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 25 of 36

Where, C(t) is the cumulative-specific biogas or biomethane yield (production) at

the hydraulic retention time or digestion time t (dm3 /g or mL/g VS); A is the maximum-
specific biogas or biomethane production potential (dm3 /g or mL/g VS), µmax is the
maximum-specific biogas or biomethane production rate (dm3 /g /day), λ is the lag-phase
period or the minimum time required to produce biogas or biomethane (day); e is a constant
that is equal to 2.7183; HRT is the hydraulic retention time (days); KCH is the Chen and
Hashimoto kinetic constant (dimension less); n is the shape factor; Co is the biogas or
biomethane potential of the substrate (dm3 /g or mL/g VS); k is the biogas or biomethane
production-rate constant (day−1 ); t is the hydraulic retention time (days); a, b are the logistic
constants; and v is the shape coefficient.
The above models are basically used to model the cumulative biogas and biomethane
production with time and thus comprehensively represent the basic framework for the
simulation of the biogas and biomethane production process. Several researchers have
reported on the application of these models to determine the kinetic parameters of AD
processing of different organic feedstocks and to simulate the biogas and biomethane
yielding rates and the cumulative biogas and biomethane production [9,176,214,260–262].
Most of these researchers reported that the modified Gompertz model fitted best to most of
the AD kinetic data [9,176,251,262].

7. Knowledge Gap and Future Research

Based on this review, herein are presented prospects for potential research areas that
could be investigated in future work.
(i) The feedstock composition itself is of great importance concerning the quality of the
biogas and biomethane, being the main product of AD process technology. Components
that are not desirable will affect its potential utilization as fuel. That is, the relative amounts
of these undesirable components in the starting feedstock need to be carefully put into
consideration, along with their fate, during the AD process to ensure that relatively clean
biogas can be obtained. Hence, one of the main challenges, which should be addressed, is to
carry out more systematic research studies with a wide biomass waste or feedstock diversity
so as to establish a comprehensive relationship between the feedstock composition and
the AD performance under different operating conditions and how the AD performance is
affected by these conditions;
(ii) MS-AD (three-stage and above) is more complex in operation, more expensive,
and requires more maintenance and operation energy when compared to TS-AD process
technology. However, its performance has not been adequately improved compared to the
TS-AD process technology. Thus, its application on a large scale is currently not advisable,
and so it is suggested or proposed that there should be further research studies on its
operation with the aim of reducing the cost involved;
(iii) There is also the need for AD economic cooperation in order to improve and
establish a circular economy. Thus, there should be further research development where
the AD process technology can be merged or integrated with biorefineries such that the
intermediates products (volatile fatty acids) of AD can be utilized for the production of
high-value products. It can as well be integrated with thermochemical processes (e.g.,
hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) or hydrothermal carbonization (HTC)) such that the di-
gestate as a byproduct from AD process technology can be passed into the thermochemical
process unit and be used for further production of biogas and value-added products such as
hydrochar. Thus, performing the AD-HTL in a continuous mode needs to be investigated,
and this also requires research on the design of novel thermochemical (e.g., HTL) reactors;
(iv) The process or liquid water from the HTL or HTC section contains nutrients (nitro-
gen and phosphorus) that can be recovered and utilized as fertilizer. The methods that have
been used in full scale for nutrient recovery are ammonia stripping and struvite formation
(chemical precipitation) [263–265]. Other methods that have been utilized are ion exchange
and adsorption [263–265]. These methods have their drawbacks, and therefore further re-
search should be carried out on nutrient recovery using other methods, such as pressurized
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 26 of 36

and nonpressurized membrane technologies. Techniques for the disposal of solid volatiles
and liquid residuals after nutrient recovery should also receive research attention.

8. Conclusions
Anaerobic digestion process technology suggests being a very reliable and feasible
technology for recycling and recovering organic biomass waste. In terms of socioeconomic
and environmental considerations, AD process technology appears to be the best option or
alternative for waste management due to its potential to extract renewable green energy
with low emissions from waste. That is, the AD process technology provides an effective
technology to treat organic biomass waste in order to reduce waste, improve air pollu-
tion, and improve energy security through meeting local energy (biogas, heat energy, and
electricity) demand. Biogas/biomethane is a renewable green energy that can be utilized
as an alternative to fossil fuels for heat and power generation. However, the currently
perceived complexity of the AD process operation tends to limit its full implementation.
Understanding the operational factors or variable impact on AD performance and how
a stable operation without inhibition can be sustained is thus very critical. Therefore, a
more thorough and adequate knowledge of the process is required for the proper devel-
opment and stability of the AD process technology. This paper, therefore, reviewed the
AD process technologies for the treatment or processing of organic biomass waste with
regard to its classification, the mechanisms involved in the process, process variables that
affect the performance, and the kinetic models utilized for describing the process reaction
kinetics. Gazing into the future, research studies on reduced MS-AD operational cost,
integrated or hybrid AD-biorefinery technology, integrated or hybrid AD-thermochemical
process, novel thermochemical reactor development, nutrient recovery from integrated
AD-thermochemical process, and solid and liquid residual disposal techniques are more
likely to receive increased attention for AD process technology of biomass wastes. It can be
concluded from this review that the AD process technologies are of different classifications
based on the feedstock properties, mode of operations, growth temperature of microorgan-
isms involved in the process, and type of digester or reactor configuration. Each of these
technologies has its merits and demerits.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.A.A.; methodology, O.A.A. and O.O.A.; formal analysis,
O.A.A.; investigation, O.A.A.; resources, O.A.A., A.O.A., O.O. and O.T.L.; data curation, S.M.A.R.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.O.A., O.O. and O.A.A.; writing—review and editing, S.E.A.,
O.T.L., O.O., S.M.A.R. and I.M.R.F.; visualization, I.M.R.F.; supervision, I.M.R.F.; funding acquisition,
S.M.A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by University of Technology Sydney through Strategic Research
Support funding with grant number [2200034].
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Fitranto Kusumo in
revising the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mozhiarasi, V.; Natarajan, T.S. Slaughterhouse and poultry wastes: Management practices, feedstocks for renewable energy
production, and recovery of value added products. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2022, 1–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Zhang, C.; Su, H.; Baeyens, J.; Tan, T. Reviewing the anaerobic digestion of food waste for biogas production. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 383–392. [CrossRef]
3. Meng, Y.; Li, S.; Yuan, H.; Zou, D.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, B.; Chufo, A.; Jaffar, M.; Li, X. Evaluating biomethane production from anaerobic
mono- and co-digestion of food waste and floatable oil (FO) skimmed from food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 185, 7–13.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 27 of 36

4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change; Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): New York, NY, USA, 2014; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (accessed
on 10 March 2023).
5. Agbede, O.O.; Aworanti, O.A.; Osuolale, F.N.; Adebayo, A.O.; Ogunleye, O.O.; Agarry, S.E.; Babatunde, K.A. Anaerobic
Conversion of Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste to Biogas: A Review. LAUTECH J. Civ. Environ. Stud. 2019, 3, 27–43.
[CrossRef]
6. Biodun, M.B.; Fayomi, O.S.I.; Okeniyi, J.O. The Possibility of Biogas production in Nigeria from Organic Waste Material: A
Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1107, 012166. [CrossRef]
7. Szilágyi, Á.; Bodor, A.; Tolvai, N.; Kovács, K.L.; Bodai, L.; Wirth, R.; Bagi, Z.; Szepesi, Á.; Markó, V.; Kakuk, B.; et al. A comparative
analysis of biogas production from tomato bio-waste in mesophilic batch and continuous anaerobic digestion systems. PLoS ONE
2021, 16, e0248654. [CrossRef]
8. Razzaq, L.; Mujtaba, M.A.; Soudagar, M.E.M.; Ahmed, W.; Fayaz, H.; Bashir, S.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Ong, H.C.; Shahapurkar, K.; Afzal,
A.; et al. Engine performance and emission characteristics of palm biodiesel blends with graphene oxide nanoplatelets and
dimethyl carbonate additives. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111917. [CrossRef]
9. Pramanik, S.K.; Suja, F.B.; Porhemmat, M.; Pramanik, B.K. Performance and Kinetic Model of a Single-Stage Anaerobic Digestion
System Operated at Different Successive Operating Stages for the Treatment of Food Waste. Processes 2019, 7, 600. [CrossRef]
10. Ogunleye, O.O.; Aworanti, O.A.; Agarry, S.E.; Aremu, M.O. Enhancement of animal waste biomethanation using fruit waste as
co-substrate and chicken rumen as inoculums. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2016, 38, 1653–1660. [CrossRef]
11. Agbede, O.O.; Aworanti, O.A.; Ogunleye, O.O.; Agarry, S.E.; Babatunde, K.A.; Alagbe, S.O. Design and Fabrication of Electric
Jacketed Anaerobic Digester. J. Pet. Environ. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 403.
12. Farooq, M.; Chaudhry, I.A.; Hussain, S.; Ramzan, N.; Ahmed, M. Biogas upgradation for power generation applications in
Pakistan. J. Qual. Technol. Manag. 2012, 8, 107–118.
13. Vögeli, Y.; Lohri, C.R.; Gallardo, A.; Diener, S.; Zurbrügg, C. Anaerobic Digestion of Biowaste in Developing Countries: Practical Infor-
mation and Case Studies; Binkert Buag AG: Laufenburg, Switzerland, 2014; Available online: https://www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/
Domain1/Abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/SWM/Anaerobic_Digestion/biowaste.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
14. Sawatdeenarunat, C.; Surendra, K.C.; Takara, D.; Oechsner, H.; Khanal, S.K. Anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic biomass:
Challenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 178, 178–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Kasinath, A.; Fudala-Ksiazek, S.; Szopinska, M.; Bylinski, H.; Artichowicz, W.; Remiszewska-Skwarek, A.; Luczkiewicz, A.
Biomass in biogas production: Pretreatment and co-digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 150, 111509. [CrossRef]
16. Hoang, A.T.; Ong, H.C.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Chong, C.T.; Cheng, C.K.; Sakthivel, R.; Ok, Y.S. Progress on the lignocellulosic biomass
pyrolysis for biofuel production toward environmental sustainability. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 223, 106997. [CrossRef]
17. Aworanti, O.A.; Agarry, S.E.; Ogunleye, O.O. Biomethanization of Cattle Manure, Pig Manure and Poultry Manure Mixture in
Co-digestion with Waste of Pineapple Fruit and Content of Chicken-Gizzard–Part I: Kinetic and Thermodynamic Modelling
Studies. Open Biotechnol. J. 2017, 11, 36–53. [CrossRef]
18. Patel, V.; Pandit, S.; Chandrasekhar, K. Basics of Methanogenesis in Anaerobic Digester. In Microbial Applications Vol.2: Biomedicine,
Agriculture and Industry; Kalia, V.C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 291–314.
19. Lindkvist, E.; Johansson, M.T.; Rosenqvist, J. Methodology for Analysing Energy Demand in Biogas Production Plants—A
Comparative Study of Two Biogas Plants. Energies 2017, 10, 1822. [CrossRef]
20. Nnabuchi, M.N.; Akubuko, F.O.; Augustine, C.; Ugwu, G.Z. Assessment of the effect of co-digestion of chicken dropping and
cow dung on biogas generation. Int. Res. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Innov. (IRJESTI) 2012, 1, 238–243.
21. Aragaw, T.; Andargie, M.; Gessesse, A. Co-digestion of cattle manure with organic kitchen waste to increase biogas production
using rumen fluid as inoculums. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2013, 8, 443–450.
22. Ziauddin, Z.; Rajesh, P. Production and analysis of biogas from kitchen waste. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2015, 2, 622–632.
23. Deepanraj, B.; Sivasubramanian, V.; Jayaraj, S. Enhancement of biogas production by pretreatment: A review. In Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Advances in Energy Research Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India, 10–12
December 2013; pp. 309–319.
24. Romero-Güiza, M.S.; Vila, J.; Mata-Alvarez, J.; Chimenos, J.M.; Astals, S. The role of additives on anaerobic digestion: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 1486–1499. [CrossRef]
25. Bong, C.P.C.; Lim, L.Y.; Lee, C.T.; Ho, W.S.; Klemes, J.J. The Kinetics for Mathematical Modelling on the Anaerobic Digestion of
Organic Waste—A Review. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2017, 61, 1669–1674. [CrossRef]
26. Morales-Polo, C.; Cledera-Castro, M.D.; Moratilla Soria, B.Y. Reviewing the Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste: From Waste
Generation and Anaerobic Process to Its Perspectives. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1804. [CrossRef]
27. Sarker, S.; Lamb, J.J.; Hjelme, D.R.; Lien, K.M. A Review of the Role of Critical Parameters in the Design and Operation of Biogas
Production Plants. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1915. [CrossRef]
28. Hosseini Koupaie, E.; Dahadha, S.; Bazyar Lakeh, A.A.; Azizi, A.; Elbeshbishy, E. Enzymatic pretreatment of lignocellulosic
biomass for enhanced biomethane production-A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 233, 774–784. [CrossRef]
29. Rocamora, I.; Wagland, S.T.; Villa, R.; Simpson, E.W.; Fernández, O.; Bajón-Fernández, Y. Dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste:
A review of operational parameters and their impact on process performance. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 299, 122681. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 28 of 36

30. Van, D.P.; Fujiwara, T.; Leu Tho, B.; Song Toan, P.P.; Hoang Minh, G. A review of anaerobic digestion systems for biodegradable
waste: Configurations, operating parameters, and current trends. Environ. Eng. Res. 2020, 25, 1–17. [CrossRef]
31. Uddin, M.N.; Siddiki, S.Y.A.; Mofijur, M.; Djavanroodi, F.; Hazrat, M.A.; Show, P.L.; Ahmed, S.F.; Chu, Y.-M. Prospects of
Bioenergy Production From Organic Waste Using Anaerobic Digestion Technology: A Mini Review. Front. Energy Res. 2021,
9, 627093. [CrossRef]
32. Mahmudul, H.M.; Rasul, M.G.; Akbar, D.; Narayanan, R.; Mofijur, M. A comprehensive review of the recent development and
challenges of a solar-assisted biodigester system. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 141920. [CrossRef]
33. Donoso-Bravo, A.; Mailier, J.; Martin, C.; Rodríguez, J.; Aceves-Lara, C.A.; Wouwer, A.V. Model selection, identification and
validation in anaerobic digestion: A review. Water Res. 2011, 45, 5347–5364. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Lauwers, J.; Appels, L.; Thompson, I.P.; Degrève, J.; Van Impe, J.F.; Dewil, R. Mathematical modelling of anaerobic digestion of
biomass and waste: Power and limitations. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2013, 39, 383–402. [CrossRef]
35. Kythreotou, N.; Florides, G.; Tassou, S.A. A review of simple to scientific models for anaerobic digestion. Renew. Energy 2014,
71, 701–714. [CrossRef]
36. Enitan, A.M.; Adeyemo, J.; Swalaha, F.M.; Kumari, S.; Bux, F. Optimization of biogas generation using anaerobic digestion models
and computational intelligence approaches. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2017, 33, 309–335. [CrossRef]
37. Ali, M.M.; Dia, N.; Bilal, B.; Ndongo, M. Theoretical models for prediction of methane production from anaerobic digestion: A
critical review. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 2018, 13, 206–216. [CrossRef]
38. Dahunsi, S.O.; Oranusi, U.S. Co-digestion of Food Waste and Human Excreta for Biogas Production. Br. Biotechnol. J. 2013,
3, 485–499. [CrossRef]
39. Kader, F.; Baky, A.H.; Khan, M.N.H.; Chowdhury, H.A. Production of Biogas by Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste and Process
Simulation. Am. J. Mech. Eng. 2015, 3, 79–83.
40. Usman, M.N.; Suleiman, M.A.; Binni, M.I. Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Wastes: A Potential Remedy for Energy Shortfalls
in Nigeria. J. Waste Manag. Dispos. 2021, 4, 1–13.
41. Zamri, M.F.M.A.; Hasmady, S.; Akhiar, A.; Ideris, F.; Shamsuddin, A.H.; Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.M.R.; Mahlia, T.M.I. A comprehen-
sive review on anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 137, 110637.
[CrossRef]
42. Rajagopal, R.; Massé, D.I.; Singh, G. A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour.
Technol. 2013, 143, 632–641. [CrossRef]
43. Ahlberg-Eliasson, K.; Westerholm, M.; Isaksson, S.; Schnürer, A. Anaerobic Digestion of Animal Manure and Influence of Organic
Loading Rate and Temperature on Process Performance, Microbiology, and Methane Emission From Digestates. Front. Energy Res.
2021, 9, 740314. [CrossRef]
44. Latha, K.; Velraj, R.; Shanmugam, P.; Sivanesan, S. Mixing strategies of high solids anaerobic co-digestion using food waste with
sewage sludge for enhanced biogas production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 388–400. [CrossRef]
45. Sahoo, S.R.; Venkateswara Rao, P. Temperature-Phased Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Rice Husk Using Response
Surface Methodology. In Water Resources and Environmental Engineering II; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 137–146.
46. Aldin, S.; Nakhla, G.; Ray, M.B. Modeling the Influence of Particulate Protein Size on Hydrolysis in Anaerobic Digestion. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 10843–10849. [CrossRef]
47. Moestedt, J.; Nilsson Påledal, S.; Schnürer, A. The effect of substrate and operational parameters on the abundance of sulphate-
reducing bacteria in industrial anaerobic biogas digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 132, 327–332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Westerholm, M.; Moestedt, J.; Schnürer, A. Biogas production through syntrophic acetate oxidation and deliberate operating
strategies for improved digester performance. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 124–135. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, L.; Jahng, D. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of piggery wastewater by ammonia stripping: Effects of alkali types. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2010, 182, 536–543. [CrossRef]
50. Karlsson, A.; Ejlertsson, J. Addition of HCl as a means to improve biogas production from protein-rich food industry waste.
Biochem. Eng. J. 2012, 61, 43–48. [CrossRef]
51. Tan, C.; Saritpongteeraka, K.; Kungsanant, S.; Charnnok, B.; Chaiprapat, S. Low temperature hydrothermal treatment of palm fiber
fuel for simultaneous potassium removal, enhanced oil recovery and biogas production. Fuel 2018, 234, 1055–1063. [CrossRef]
52. Dong, L.; Cao, G.; Tian, Y.; Wu, J.; Zhou, C.; Liu, B.; Zhao, L.; Fan, J.; Ren, N. Improvement of biogas production in plug flow
reactor using biogas slurry pretreated cornstalk. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2020, 9, 100378. [CrossRef]
53. Teghammar, A. Biogas Production from Lignocelluloses: Pretreatment, Substrate Characterization, Co-Digestion, and Economic Evaluation;
Chalmers University of Technology: Göteborg, Sweden, 2013.
54. Manikam, N. Biogas Production from Municipal Waste; Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman: Petaling Jaya, Malaysia, 2012.
55. The Biogas. Biogas Composition. Available online: https://www.biogas-renewable-energy.info/biogas_composition.html
(accessed on 14 March 2023).
56. Zhang, C.; Xiao, G.; Peng, L.; Su, H.; Tan, T. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2013,
129, 170–176. [CrossRef]
57. Achinas, S.; Krooneman, J.; Euverink, G.J.W. Enhanced Biogas Production from the Anaerobic Batch Treatment of Banana Peels.
Engineering 2019, 5, 970–978. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 29 of 36

58. Mönch-Tegeder, M.; Lemmer, A.; Oechsner, H.; Jungbluth, T. Investigation of the methane potential of horse manure. Agric. Eng.
Int. CIGR J. 2013, 15, 161–172.
59. Zhang, W.; Lang, Q.; Pan, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Liebetrau, J.; Nelles, M.; Dong, H.; Dong, R. Performance evaluation of a novel anaerobic
digestion operation process for treating high-solids content chicken manure: Effect of reduction of the hydraulic retention time at
a constant organic loading rate. Waste Manag. 2017, 64, 340–347. [CrossRef]
60. Mukumba, P.; Makaka, G.; Mamphweli, S. Anaerobic digestion of donkey dung for biogas production. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2016, 112, 1–4.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Silwadi, M.; Mousa, H.; Al-Hajji, B.Y.; Al-Wahaibi, S.S.; Al-Harrasi, Z.Z. Enhancing biogas production by anaerobic digestion of
animal manure. Int. J. Green Energy 2023, 20, 257–264. [CrossRef]
62. Zhang, J.; Chen, J.; Ma, R.; Kumar, V.; Wah Tong, Y.; He, Y.; Mao, F. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of animal
manure: Integrated insights from biogas productivity, microbial viability and enzymatic activity. Fuel 2022, 320, 123990. [CrossRef]
63. Achinas, S.; Achinas, V.; Euverink, G.J.W. A Technological Overview of Biogas Production from Biowaste. Engineering 2017,
3, 299–307. [CrossRef]
64. Jingura, R.M.; Kamusoko, R. Methods for determination of biomethane potential of feedstocks: A review. Biofuel Res. J. 2017,
4, 573–586. [CrossRef]
65. Nwokolo, N.; Mukumba, P.; Obileke, K.; Enebe, M. Waste to Energy: A Focus on the Impact of Substrate Type in Biogas Production.
Processes 2020, 8, 1224. [CrossRef]
66. Velmurugan, B.; Ramanujam, R.A. Anaerobic Digestion of Vegetable Wastes for Biogas Production in a Fed-Batch Reactor. Int. J.
Emerg. Sci. 2011, 1, 478–486.
67. Goswami, R.; Chattopadhyay, P.; Shome, A.; Banerjee, S.N.; Chakraborty, A.K.; Mathew, A.K.; Chaudhury, S. An overview of
physico-chemical mechanisms of biogas production by microbial communities: A step towards sustainable waste management.
3Biotech 2016, 6, 72. [CrossRef]
68. Phetyim, N.; Wanthong, T.; Kannika, P.; Supngam, A. Biogas Production from Vegetable Waste by Using Dog and Cattle Manure.
Energy Procedia 2015, 79, 436–441. [CrossRef]
69. Caruso, M.C.; Braghieri, A.; Capece, A.; Napolitano, F.; Romano, P.; Galgano, F.; Altieri, G.; Genovese, F. Recent Updates on the
Use of Agro-Food Waste for Biogas Production. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1217. [CrossRef]
70. Ahlberg-Eliasson, K. Swedish Farm-Scale Biogas Production—Substrates and Operating Parameters; Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2018.
71. Orlando, M.-Q.; Borja, V.-M. Pretreatment of Animal Manure Biomass to Improve Biogas Production: A Review. Energies 2020,
13, 3573. [CrossRef]
72. Li, Y.; Achinas, S.; Zhao, J.; Geurkink, B.; Krooneman, J.; Willem Euverink, G.J. Co-digestion of cow and sheep manure:
Performance evaluation and relative microbial activity. Renew. Energy 2020, 153, 553–563. [CrossRef]
73. Budiyono, B.; Widiasa, I.N.; Johari, S.; Sunarso, S. The Influence of Total Solid Contents on Biogas Yield from Cattle Manure Using
Rumen Fluid Inoculum. Energy Res. J. 2010, 1, 6–11. [CrossRef]
74. Paranjpe, A.; Saxena, S. Co-Digestion of MSW, With Cow Manure & Poultry Waste: An innovative approach for Biogas Production.
Int. J. Recent Dev. Eng. Technol. 2015, 4, 45–48.
75. Abubakar, B.S.U.I.; Ismail, N. Anaerobic digestion of cow dung for biogas production. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2012, 7, 169–172.
76. Mamhobu-Amadi, W.C.; Kinigoma, B.S.; Momoh, Y.L.O.; Oji, A.A. Abattoir operations and waste Management Options: A
review. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. (IJAERS) 2019, 6, 226–231. [CrossRef]
77. Selormey, G.K.; Barnes, B.; Kemausuor, F.; Darkwah, L. A review of anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste: Effect of selected
operational and environmental parameters on anaerobic biodegradability. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2021, 20, 1073–1086.
[CrossRef]
78. Yoon, Y.-M.; Kim, S.-H.; Oh, S.-Y.; Kim, C.-H. Potential of anaerobic digestion for material recovery and energy production in
waste biomass from a poultry slaughterhouse. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 204–209. [CrossRef]
79. Böjti, T.; Kovács, K.L.; Kakuk, B.; Wirth, R.; Rákhely, G.; Bagi, Z. Pretreatment of poultry manure for efficient biogas production as
monosubstrate or co-fermentation with maize silage and corn stover. Anaerobe 2017, 46, 138–145. [CrossRef]
80. Borowski, S.; Boniecki, P.; Kubacki, P.; Czyżowska, A. Food waste co-digestion with slaughterhouse waste and sewage sludge:
Digestate conditioning and supernatant quality. Waste Manag. 2018, 74, 158–167. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Cheong, D.Y.; Harvey, J.T.; Kim, J.; Lee, C. Improving Biomethanation of Chicken Manure by Co-Digestion with Ethanol Plant
Effluent. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 5023. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Reyes, I.P.; Díaz, J.P.; Horváth, I.S. Anaerobic Biodegradation of Solid Substrates from Agroindustrial Activities—Slaughterhouse
Wastes and Agrowastes. In Biodegradation and Bioremediation of Polluted Systems; Rolando, C., Francisca, R., Lorena, S., Eds.;
IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2015; pp. 31–64.
83. Wang, F.; Pei, M.; Qiu, L.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, C.; Qiang, H. Performance of Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure Under Gradually
Elevated Organic Loading Rates. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2239. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Bayr, S.; Rantanen, M.; Kaparaju, P.; Rintala, J. Mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of rendering plant and
slaughterhouse wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 104, 28–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 30 of 36

85. Pagés-Díaz, J.; Pereda-Reyes, I.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Sárvári-Horváth, I.; Lundin, M. Anaerobic co-digestion of solid slaughterhouse
wastes with agro-residues: Synergistic and antagonistic interactions determined in batch digestion assays. Chem. Eng. J. 2014,
245, 89–98. [CrossRef]
86. Olaoye, J.O. An analysis of the environmental impacts of energy crops in Nigeria towards environmental sustainability. In
Proceedings of the Nigerian Branch of International Soil Tillage Research Organization, Ilorin, Nigeria, 21–24 February 2011;
pp. 204–212.
87. Lim, J.S.; Abdul Manan, Z.; Wan Alwi, S.R.; Hashim, H. A review on utilisation of biomass from rice industry as a source of
renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3084–3094. [CrossRef]
88. Simonyan, K.J.; Fasina, O. Biomass resources and bioenergy potentials in Nigeria. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 4975–4989.
89. Frigon, J.-C.; Guiot, S.R. Biomethane production from starch and lignocellulosic crops: A comparative review. Biofuels Bioprod.
Biorefin. 2010, 4, 447–458. [CrossRef]
90. Demirel, B.; Scherer, P. Trace element requirements of agricultural biogas digesters during biological conversion of renewable
biomass to methane. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 992–998. [CrossRef]
91. Gupta, N.; Yadav, K.K.; Kumar, V. A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J. Environ. Sci. 2015,
37, 206–217. [CrossRef]
92. Brown, D.; Shi, J.; Li, Y. Comparison of solid-state to liquid anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic feedstocks for biogas production.
Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 124, 379–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.C.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.
2018. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/d3f9d45e-115f-559b-b14f-28552410e90a
(accessed on 13 March 2023).
94. Yi, J.; Dong, B.; Jin, J.; Dai, X. Effect of Increasing Total Solids Contents on Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste under Mesophilic
Conditions: Performance and Microbial Characteristics Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Nielfa, A.; Cano, R.; Vinot, M.; Fernández, E.; Fdz-Polanco, M. Anaerobic digestion modeling of the main components of organic
fraction of municipal solid waste. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015, 94, 180–187. [CrossRef]
96. Nghiem, L.D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Manassa, P.; Fitzgerald, S.K.; Dawson, M.; Vierboom, S. Co-digestion of sewage sludge and crude
glycerol for on-demand biogas production. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014, 95, 160–166. [CrossRef]
97. Pitk, P.; Kaparaju, P.; Palatsi, J.; Affes, R.; Vilu, R. Co-digestion of sewage sludge and sterilized solid slaughterhouse waste:
Methane production efficiency and process limitations. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 134, 227–232. [CrossRef]
98. Ratanatamskul, C.; Wattanayommanaporn, O.; Yamamoto, K. An on-site prototype two-stage anaerobic digester for co-digestion
of food waste and sewage sludge for biogas production from high-rise building. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2015, 102, 143–148.
[CrossRef]
99. Meyer, T.; Edwards, E.A. Anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill wastewater and sludge. Water Res. 2014, 65, 321–349.
[CrossRef]
100. D˛ebowski, M.; Zieliński, M.; Grala, A.; Dudek, M. Algae biomass as an alternative substrate in biogas production technologies—
Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 596–604. [CrossRef]
101. Tedesco, S.; Benyounis, K.Y.; Olabi, A.G. Mechanical pretreatment effects on macroalgae-derived biogas production in co-digestion
with sludge in Ireland. Energy 2013, 61, 27–33. [CrossRef]
102. Deepanraj, B.; Sivasubramanian, V.; Jayaraj, S. Biogas Generation through Anaerobic Digetsion Process—An Overview. Res. J.
Chem. Environ. 2014, 18, 80–93.
103. Ma, J.; Zhao, Q.-B.; Laurens, L.L.M.; Jarvis, E.E.; Nagle, N.J.; Chen, S.; Frear, C.S. Mechanism, kinetics and microbiology of
inhibition caused by long-chain fatty acids in anaerobic digestion of algal biomass. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2015, 8, 141. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
104. González-Fernández, C.; Sialve, B.; Bernet, N.; Steyer, J.P. Comparison of ultrasound and thermal pretreatment of Scenedesmus
biomass on methane production. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 110, 610–616. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Valijanian, E.; Tabatabaei, M.; Aghbashlo, M.; Sulaiman, A.; Chisti, Y. Biogas Production Systems. In Biogas: Fundamentals, Process,
and Operation; Tabatabaei, M., Ghanavati, H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 95–116.
106. Ostrem, K. Greening Waste: Anaerobic Digestion for Treating the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes; Columbia University:
New York, NY, USA, 2004.
107. Angelidaki, I.; Karakashev, D.; Batstone, D.J.; Plugge, C.M.; Stams, A.J. Biomethanation and its potential. Methods Enzym. 2011,
494, 327–351. [CrossRef]
108. Zhou, M.; Yan, B.; Wong, J.W.C.; Zhang, Y. Enhanced volatile fatty acids production from anaerobic fermentation of food waste: A
mini-review focusing on acidogenic metabolic pathways. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 248, 68–78. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Ramos-Suárez, J.L.; Arroyo, N.C.; González-Fernández, C. The Role of Anaerobic Digestion in Algal Biorefineries: Clean Energy
Production, Organic Waste Treatment, and Nutrient Loop Closure. In Algae and Environmental Sustainability; Singh, B., Bauddh, K.,
Bux, F., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2015; pp. 53–76.
110. Stronach, S.M.; Rudd, T.; Lester, J.N. Anaerobic Digestion Processes in Industrial Wastewater Treatment; Aiba, S., Fan, L.T., Fiechter, A.,
de Klein, J., Schügerl, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986.
111. Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2015, 45, 540–555. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 31 of 36

112. Kondusamy, D.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Pre-treatment and anaerobic digestion of food waste for high rate methane production—A
review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1821–1830. [CrossRef]
113. Felchner-Zwirello, M. Propionic Acid Degradation by Syntrophic Bacteria during Anaerobic Biowaste Digestion; Karlsruher Institut für
Technologie (KIT): Karlsruhe, Germany, 2014.
114. André, L.; Ndiaye, M.; Pernier, M.; Lespinard, O.; Pauss, A.; Lamy, E.; Ribeiro, T. Methane production improvement by modulation
of solid phase immersion in dry batch anaerobic digestion process: Dynamic of methanogen populations. Bioresour. Technol. 2016,
207, 353–360. [CrossRef]
115. Ge, X.; Matsumoto, T.; Keith, L.; Li, Y. Biogas energy production from tropical biomass wastes by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour.
Technol. 2014, 169, 38–44. [CrossRef]
116. Paramaguru, G.; Kannan, M.; Lawrence, P. Effect of pH on Biogas Production through Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste. J. Adv.
Eng. Res. 2017, 4, 59–62.
117. Oyejide, J.O.; Orhorhoro, E.K.; Atadious, D. Mathematical modeling of biogas yield from anaerobic co-digestion of organic waste
and pig dung. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2018, 7, 30–38.
118. Zabed, H.M.; Akter, S.; Yun, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, X. Biogas from microalgae: Technologies, challenges and opportunities.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 117, 109503. [CrossRef]
119. Krishna, R.H. Role of factors influencing on anaerobic process for production of bio hydrogen: Future fuel. Int. J. Adv. Chem.
2013, 1, 31–38.
120. Chen, X.; Yan, W.; Sheng, K.; Sanati, M. Comparison of high-solids to liquid anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and green waste.
Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 154, 215–221. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
121. Karthikeyan, O.P.; Visvanathan, C. Bio-energy recovery from high-solid organic substrates by dry anaerobic bio-conversion
processes: A review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2013, 12, 257–284. [CrossRef]
122. Jha, A.K.; Li, J.; Nies, L.; Zhang, L. Research advances in dry anaerobic digestion process of solid organic wastes. Afr. J. Biotechnol.
2011, 10, 14242–14253.
123. Jiang, D.; Ge, X.; Zhang, Q.; Li, Y. Comparison of liquid hot water and alkaline pretreatments of giant reed for improved enzymatic
digestibility and biogas energy production. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 216, 60–68. [CrossRef]
124. Kothari, R.; Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, S.; Tyagi, V.V.; Tyagi, S.K. Different aspects of dry anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: An
overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 174–195. [CrossRef]
125. Rabii, A.; Aldin, S.; Dahman, Y.; Elbeshbishy, E. A Review on Anaerobic Co-Digestion with a Focus on the Microbial Populations
and the Effect of Multi-Stage Digester Configuration. Energies 2019, 12, 1106. [CrossRef]
126. Le Hyaric, R.; Benbelkacem, H.; Bollon, J.; Bayard, R.; Escudié, R.; Buffière, P. Influence of moisture content on the specific
methanogenic activity of dry mesophilic municipal solid waste digestate. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2012, 87, 1032–1035.
[CrossRef]
127. Abbassi-Guendouz, A.; Brockmann, D.; Trably, E.; Dumas, C.; Delgenès, J.-P.; Steyer, J.-P.; Escudié, R. Total solids content drives
high solid anaerobic digestion via mass transfer limitation. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 55–61. [CrossRef]
128. Abu-Reesh, I.M. Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of labaneh whey in a batch reactor. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2014, 13, 1745–1755.
129. Anyaoku, C.C.; Baroutian, S. Decentralized anaerobic digestion systems for increased utilization of biogas from municipal solid
waste. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 982–991. [CrossRef]
130. Gebreeyessus, G.D.; Jenicek, P. Thermophilic versus Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Sewage Sludge: A Comparative Review.
Bioengineering 2016, 3, 15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
131. Duan, N.; Dong, B.; Wu, B.; Dai, X. High-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge under mesophilic conditions: Feasibility
study. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 104, 150–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132. Slimane, K.; Fathya, S.; Assia, K.; Hamza, M. Influence of Inoculums/Substrate Ratios (ISRs) on the Mesophilic Anaerobic
Digestion of Slaughterhouse Waste in Batch Mode: Process Stability and Biogas Production. Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 57–63.
[CrossRef]
133. Suhartini, S.; Heaven, S.; Banks, C.J. Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion of sugar beet pulp:
Performance, dewaterability and foam control. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 152, 202–211. [CrossRef]
134. Moset, V.; Poulsen, M.; Wahid, R.; Højberg, O.; Møller, H.B. Mesophilic versus thermophilic anaerobic digestion of cattle manure:
Methane productivity and microbial ecology. Microb. Biotechnol. 2015, 8, 787–800. [CrossRef]
135. Veluchamy, C.; Gilroyed, B.H.; Kalamdhad, A.S. Process performance and biogas production optimizing of mesophilic plug flow
anaerobic digestion of corn silage. Fuel 2019, 253, 1097–1103. [CrossRef]
136. Miramontes-Martínez, L.R.; Rivas-García, P.; Albalate-Ramírez, A.; Botello-Álvarez, J.E.; Escamilla-Alvarado, C.; Gomez-
Gonzalez, R.; Alcalá-Rodríguez, M.M.; Valencia-Vázquez, R.; Santos-López, I.A. Anaerobic co-digestion of fruit and vegetable
waste: Synergy and process stability analysis. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2021, 71, 620–632. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
137. Wang, F.; Hidaka, T.; Uchida, T.; Tsumori, J. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge with high solids content. Water
Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 1949–1955. [CrossRef]
138. Suksong, W.; Jehlee, A.; Singkhala, A.; Kongjan, P.; Prasertsan, P.; Imai, T.; O-Thong, S. Thermophilic solid-state anaerobic
digestion of solid waste residues from palm oil mill industry for biogas production. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 95, 502–511. [CrossRef]
139. Castellano-Hinojosa, A.; Armato, C.; Pozo, C.; González-Martínez, A.; González-López, J. New concepts in anaerobic digestion
processes: Recent advances and biological aspects. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 5065–5076. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 32 of 36

140. De Gioannis, G.; Muntoni, A.; Polettini, A.; Pomi, R.; Spiga, D. Energy recovery from one- and two-stage anaerobic digestion of
food waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 68, 595–602. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141. Nasir, I.M.; Mohd Ghazi, T.I.; Omar, R. Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock manure treatment for biogas production: A
review. Eng. Life Sci. 2012, 12, 258–269. [CrossRef]
142. Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abbà, A.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Torretta, V. What Advanced Treatments Can Be Used to Minimize the
Production of Sewage Sludge in WWTPs? Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2650. [CrossRef]
143. Yao, Y.; Luo, Y.; Yang, Y.; Sheng, H.; Li, X.; Li, T.; Song, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, S.; He, W.; et al. Water free anaerobic co-digestion
of vegetable processing waste with cattle slurry for methane production at high total solid content. Energy 2014, 74, 309–313.
[CrossRef]
144. Latinwo, G.K.; Agarry, S.E. Modelling the Kinetics of Biogas Production from Mesophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Cow Dung
with Plantain Peels. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 2015, 4, 55–63. [CrossRef]
145. Estevez, M.M.; Sapci, Z.; Linjordet, R.; Schnürer, A.; Morken, J. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and
steam-exploded Salix with recirculation of liquid digestate. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 136, 9–15. [CrossRef]
146. Gómez Camacho, C.E.; Ruggeri, B.; Mangialardi, L.; Persico, M.; Luongo Malavé, A.C. Continuous two-step anaerobic digestion
(TSAD) of organic market waste: Rationalising process parameters. Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng. 2019, 10, 413–427. [CrossRef]
147. Bouallagui, H.; Touhami, Y.; Ben Cheikh, R.; Hamdi, M. Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable
wastes. Process Biochem. 2005, 40, 989–995. [CrossRef]
148. Zhang, J.; Loh, K.-C.; Lee, J.; Wang, C.-H.; Dai, Y.; Wah Tong, Y. Three-stage anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and horse
manure. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1269. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
149. Voelklein, M.A.; O’ Shea, R.; Jacob, A.; Murphy, J.D. Role of trace elements in single and two-stage digestion of food waste at high
organic loading rates. Energy 2017, 121, 185–192. [CrossRef]
150. Schievano, A.; Tenca, A.; Scaglia, B.; Merlino, G.; Rizzi, A.; Daffonchio, D.; Oberti, R.; Adani, F. Two-Stage vs Single-Stage
Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion: Comparison of Energy Production and Biodegradation Efficiencies. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2012, 46, 8502–8510. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
151. Bertin, L.; Grilli, S.; Spagni, A.; Fava, F. Innovative two-stage anaerobic process for effective co-digestion of cheese whey and
cattle manure. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 128, 779–783. [CrossRef]
152. Shen, F.; Yuan, H.; Pang, Y.; Chen, S.; Zhu, B.; Zou, D.; Liu, Y.; Ma, J.; Yu, L.; Li, X. Performances of anaerobic co-digestion of
fruit & vegetable waste (FVW) and food waste (FW): Single-phase vs. two-phase. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 144, 80–85. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
153. Hidalgo, D.; Martín-Marroquín, J.M.; Sastre, E. Single-Phase and Two-Phase Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Residues from the
Treatment Process of Waste Vegetable Oil and Pig Manure. BioEnergy Res. 2014, 7, 670–680. [CrossRef]
154. Zhang, J.; Loh, K.-C.; Li, W.; Lim, J.W.; Dai, Y.; Tong, Y.W. Three-stage anaerobic digester for food waste. Appl. Energy 2017,
194, 287–295. [CrossRef]
155. Rajendran, K.; Aslanzadeh, S.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Household Biogas Digesters—A Review. Energies 2012, 5, 2911–2942. [CrossRef]
156. Ghosh, R.; Bhattacherjee, S. A review study on anaerobic digesters with an Insight to biogas production. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent.
2013, 2, 8–17.
157. Akula, V.R. Wetland Biomass—Suitable for Biogas Production? Halmstad University: Halmstad, Sweden, 2013.
158. Bond, T.; Templeton, M.R. History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2011,
15, 347–354. [CrossRef]
159. Mungwe, J.N.; Colombo, E.; Adani, F.; Schievano, A. The fixed dome digester: An appropriate design for the context of Sub-Sahara
Africa? Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 95, 35–44. [CrossRef]
160. Walekhwa, P.N.; Lars, D.; Mugisha, J. Economic viability of biogas energy production from family-sized digesters in Uganda.
Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 70, 26–39. [CrossRef]
161. Saady, N.M.C.; Massé, D.I. High rate psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of high solids (35%) dairy manure in sequence batch
reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 186, 74–80. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
162. Singh, K.J.; Sooch, S.S. Comparative study of economics of different models of family size biogas plants for state of Punjab, India.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2004, 45, 1329–1341. [CrossRef]
163. Kwietniewska, E.; Tys, J. Process characteristics, inhibition factors and methane yields of anaerobic digestion process, with
particular focus on microalgal biomass fermentation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 491–500. [CrossRef]
164. Comparetti, A.; Febo, P.; Greco, C.; Orlando, S. Current state and future of biogas and digestate production. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci.
2013, 19, 1–14.
165. Izumi, K.; Okishio, Y.-k.; Nagao, N.; Niwa, C.; Yamamoto, S.; Toda, T. Effects of particle size on anaerobic digestion of food waste.
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2010, 64, 601–608. [CrossRef]
166. Agyeman, F.O.; Tao, W. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and dairy manure: Effects of food waste particle size and organic
loading rate. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 133, 268–274. [CrossRef]
167. Wu, G.; Healy, M.G.; Zhan, X. Effect of the solid content on anaerobic digestion of meat and bone meal. Bioresour. Technol. 2009,
100, 4326–4331. [CrossRef]
168. Junaidi; Wijaya, A.; Rachmawan, A.; Andriyanto, M. Total Solid Content and Compound Properties from Different Collection
Time of Latex. Acta Technol. Agric. 2019, 22, 104–108. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 33 of 36

169. Budiyono; Syaichurrozi, I.; Sumardiono, S. Effect of Total Solid Content to Biogas Production Rate from Vinasse (RESEARCH
NOTE). Int. J. Eng. 2014, 27, 177–184.
170. Orhorhoro, E.K.; Ebunilo, P.O.; Sadjere, G.E. Experimental determination of effect of total solid (TS) and volatile solid (VS) on
biogas yield. Am. J. Mod. Energy 2017, 3, 131–135. [CrossRef]
171. Yavini, T.D.; Chia, A.I.; John, A. Evaluation of the effect of total solids concentration on biogas yields of agricultural wastes. Int.
Res. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 3, 70–75.
172. Igoni, A.H.; Abowei, M.; Ayotamuno, M.; Eze, C. Effect of total solids concentration of municipal solid waste on the biogas
produced in an anaerobic continuous digester. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2008, 1–11.
173. Sathish, S.; Chandrasekaran, M.; Solomon, G.R. Effect of total solids and agitation time on biogas yield, using rice husk. Int. J.
Ambient Energy 2019, 40, 101–104. [CrossRef]
174. Maamri, S.; Amrani, M. Biogas Production from Waste Activated Sludge Using Cattle Dung Inoculums: Effect of Total Solid
Contents and Kinetics Study. Energy Procedia 2014, 50, 352–359. [CrossRef]
175. Budiyono, B.; Syaichurrozi, I.; Suhirman, S.; Hidayat, T.; Jayanudin, J. Experiment and modeling to evaluate the effect of total
solid on biogas production from the anaerobic co-digestion of Tofu liquid waste and rice straw. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021,
30, 3489–3496. [CrossRef]
176. Deepanraj, B.; Sivasubramanian, V.; Jayaraj, S. Experimental and kinetic study on anaerobic digestion of food waste: The effect of
total solids and pH. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2015, 7, 063104. [CrossRef]
177. Montingelli, M.E.; Tedesco, S.; Olabi, A.G. Biogas production from algal biomass: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,
43, 961–972. [CrossRef]
178. Hagos, K.; Zong, J.; Li, D.; Liu, C.; Lu, X. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas production: Progress, challenges and
perspectives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 1485–1496. [CrossRef]
179. Resch, C.; Wörl, A.; Waltenberger, R.; Braun, R.; Kirchmayr, R. Enhancement options for the utilisation of nitrogen rich animal
by-products in anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 2503–2510. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
180. Facchin, V.; Cavinato, C.; Fatone, F.; Pavan, P.; Cecchi, F.; Bolzonella, D. Effect of trace element supplementation on the mesophilic
anaerobic digestion of foodwaste in batch trials: The influence of inoculum origin. Biochem. Eng. J. 2013, 70, 71–77. [CrossRef]
181. Kangle, K.M.; Kore, S.V.; Kore, V.S.; Kulkarni, G.S. Recent Trends in Anaerobic Co-digestion: A Review. Univers. J. Environ. Res.
Technol. 2012, 2, 210–219.
182. Chen, Y.; Cheng, J.J.; Creamer, K.S. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4044–4064.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
183. Fernández-Rodríguez, J.; Pérez, M.; Romero, L.I. Dry thermophilic anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid
wastes: Solid retention time optimization. Chem. Eng. J. 2014, 251, 435–440. [CrossRef]
184. Fagbohungbe, M.O.; Dodd, I.C.; Herbert, B.M.J.; Li, H.; Ricketts, L.; Semple, K.T. High solid anaerobic digestion: Operational
challenges and possibilities. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2015, 4, 268–284. [CrossRef]
185. Magdalena, J.A.; Greses, S.; González-Fernández, C. Impact of Organic Loading Rate in Volatile Fatty Acids Production and
Population Dynamics Using Microalgae Biomass as Substrate. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18374. [CrossRef]
186. Massaccesi, L.; Sordi, A.; Micale, C.; Cucina, M.; Zadra, C.; Di Maria, F.; Gigliotti, G. Chemical characterisation of percolate and
digestate during the hybrid solid anaerobic digestion batch process. Process Biochem. 2013, 48, 1361–1367. [CrossRef]
187. Labatut, R.A.; Gooch, C.A. Monitoring of anaerobic digestion process to optimize performance and prevent system failure. In
Proceedings of the Got Manure? Enhancing Environmental and Economic Sustainability Conference, Liverpool, NY, USA; 2014.
188. Guendouz, J.; Buffière, P.; Cacho, J.; Carrère, M.; Delgenes, J.P. Dry anaerobic digestion in batch mode: Design and operation of a
laboratory-scale, completely mixed reactor. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1768–1771. [CrossRef]
189. Krakat, N.; Demirel, B.; Anjum, R.; Dietz, D. Methods of ammonia removal in anaerobic digestion: A review. Water Sci. Technol.
2017, 76, 1925–1938. [CrossRef]
190. Sahu, N.; Deshmukh, S.; Chandrashekhar, B.; Sharma, G.; Kapley, A.; Pandey, R.A. Optimization of hydrolysis conditions
for minimizing ammonia accumulation in two-stage biogas production process using kitchen waste for sustainable process
development. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 2378–2387. [CrossRef]
191. Zhang, L.; Jahng, D. Long-term anaerobic digestion of food waste stabilized by trace elements. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1509–1515.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
192. Nzila, A. Mini review: Update on bioaugmentation in anaerobic processes for biogas production. Anaerobe 2017, 46, 3–12.
[CrossRef]
193. Ali, R.S. Biogas Production from Poultry Manure Using a Novel Solar Assisted System; University of Birzeit: Ramallah, Palestine, 2015.
194. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Quan, X.; Li, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Meng, X.; Chen, S. Optimization of anaerobic acidogenesis by adding Fe0 powder to
enhance anaerobic wastewater treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 2012, 192, 179–185. [CrossRef]
195. Cerón-Vivas, A.; Cáceres, K.T.; Rincón, A.; Cajigas, Á.A. Influence of pH and the C/N ratio on the biogas production of wastewater.
Rev. Fac. Ing. Univ. Antioq. 2019, 92, 70–79. [CrossRef]
196. Khanal, S.K.; Li, Y. Biogas Production and Applications. In Bioenergy: Principles and Applications; Li, Y., Khanal, S.K., Eds.; John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 338–358.
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 34 of 36

197. Manyi-Loh, C.E.; Mamphweli, S.N.; Meyer, E.L.; Okoh, A.I.; Makaka, G.; Simon, M. Microbial anaerobic digestion (bio-digesters)
as an approach to the decontamination of animal wastes in pollution control and the generation of renewable energy. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 4390–4417. [CrossRef]
198. Molinuevo-Salces, B.; Gómez, X.; Morán, A.; García-González, M.C. Anaerobic co-digestion of livestock and vegetable processing
wastes: Fibre degradation and digestate stability. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1332–1338. [CrossRef]
199. Murphy, J.D.; Thanasit, T. 5—Fundamental science and engineering of the anaerobic digestion process for biogas production. In
The Biogas Handbook; Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2013; pp. 104–130.
200. Kennedy, Z.R.; Munisamy, P.; Murali, S.R. Enrichment of biogas production from mixture of rubber seed cake and cow dung
using TiO2 catalyst and temperature. Int. J. Renew. Energy Technol. 2015, 6, 1–17. [CrossRef]
201. Nelson, R. Methane Generation from Anaerobic Digesters: Considering Different Substrates; Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA,
2010; pp. 1–11.
202. Li, L.; He, Q.; Zhao, X.; Wu, D.; Wang, X.; Peng, X. Anaerobic digestion of food waste: Correlation of kinetic parameters with
operational conditions and process performance. Biochem. Eng. J. 2018, 130, 1–9. [CrossRef]
203. Angelidaki, I.; Ellegaard, L.; Ahring, B.K. Applications of the anaerobic digestion process. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 2003,
82, 1–33. [CrossRef]
204. Labatut, R.A.; Angenent, L.T.; Scott, N.R. Conventional mesophilic vs. thermophilic anaerobic digestion: A trade-off between
performance and stability? Water Res. 2014, 53, 249–258. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
205. Nandi, R.; Saha, C.; Huda, M.; Alam, M. Effect of mixing on biogas production from cow dung. Eco-Friendly Agric. J. 2017,
10, 7–13.
206. Keanoi, N.; KanokornHussaro; Teekasap, S. Effect of with/without agitation of agricultural waste on biogas production from
anaerobic co-digestion-A small scale. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2014, 10, 74–85. [CrossRef]
207. El-Bakhshwan, M.; El-Ghafar, A.; Zayed, M.; El-Shazly, A. Effect of mechanical stirring on biogas production efficiency in large
scale digesters. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2015, 6, 47–63. [CrossRef]
208. Wang, B.; Wu, D.; Ekama, G.A.; Huang, H.; Lu, H.; Chen, G.-H. Optimizing mixing mode and intensity to prevent sludge flotation
in sulfidogenic anaerobic sludge bed reactors. Water Res. 2017, 122, 481–491. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
209. Ghanimeh, S.; El Fadel, M.; Saikaly, P. Mixing effect on thermophilic anaerobic digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of
municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 117, 63–71. [CrossRef]
210. Rico, C.; Rico, J.L.; Muñoz, N.; Gómez, B.; Tejero, I. Effect of mixing on biogas production during mesophilic anaerobic digestion
of screened dairy manure in a pilot plant. Eng. Life Sci. 2011, 11, 476–481. [CrossRef]
211. Kaparaju, P.; Buendia, I.; Ellegaard, L.; Angelidakia, I. Effects of mixing on methane production during thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of manure: Lab-scale and pilot-scale studies. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 4919–4928. [CrossRef]
212. Lindmark, J.; Eriksson, P.; Thorin, E. The effects of different mixing intensities during anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction
of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1391–1397. [CrossRef]
213. Singh, B.; Kovács, K.L.; Bagi, Z.; Nyári, J.; Szepesi, G.L.; Petrik, M.; Siménfalvi, Z.; Szamosi, Z. Enhancing Efficiency of Anaerobic
Digestion by Optimization of Mixing Regimes Using Helical Ribbon Impeller. Fermentation 2021, 7, 251. [CrossRef]
214. Jaman, K.; Amir, N.; Musa, M.A.; Zainal, A.; Yahya, L.; Abdul Wahab, A.M.; Suhartini, S.; Tuan Mohd Marzuki, T.N.; Harun, R.;
Idrus, S. Anaerobic Digestion, Co-digestion of Food Waste, and Chicken Dung: Correlation of Kinetic Parameters with Digester
Performance and On-Farm Electrical Energy Generation Potential. Fermentation 2022, 8, 28. [CrossRef]
215. Tian, Z.; Chauliac, D.; Pullammanappallil, P. Comparison of non-agitated and agitated batch, thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
sugarbeet tailings. Bioresour. Technol. 2013, 129, 411–420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
216. Ong, H.K.; Greenfield, P.F.; Pullammanappallil, P.C. Effect of mixing on biomethanation of cattle-manure slurry. Environ. Technol.
2002, 23, 1081–1090. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
217. Singh, B.; Szamosi, Z.; Siménfalvi, Z. State of the art on mixing in an anaerobic digester: A review. Renew. Energy 2019, 141, 922–936.
[CrossRef]
218. Sulaiman, A.; Hassan, M.A.; Shirai, Y.; Abd-Aziz, S.; Tabatabaei, M.; Busu, Z.; Yacob, S. The effect of mixing on methane
production in a semi-commercial closed digester tank treating palm oil mill effluent. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2009, 3, 1577–1583.
219. Rojas, C.; Fang, S.; Uhlenhut, F.; Borchert, A.; Stein, I.; Schlaak, M. Stirring and biomass starter influences the anaerobic digestion
of different substrates for biogas production. Eng. Life Sci. 2010, 10, 339–347. [CrossRef]
220. Kowalczyk, A.; Harnisch, E.; Schwede, S.; Gerber, M.; Span, R. Different mixing modes for biogas plants using energy crops. Appl.
Energy 2013, 112, 465–472. [CrossRef]
221. Vanwonterghem, I.; Jensen, P.D.; Rabaey, K.; Tyson, G.W. Temperature and solids retention time control microbial population
dynamics and volatile fatty acid production in replicated anaerobic digesters. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 8496. [CrossRef]
222. Meegoda, J.N.; Li, B.; Patel, K.; Wang, L.B. A Review of the Processes, Parameters, and Optimization of Anaerobic Digestion. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2224. [CrossRef]
223. Bachmann, N. Design and engineering of biogas plants. In The Biogas Handbook; Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D., Eds.;
Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2013; pp. 191–211.
224. Bouallagui, H.; Ben Cheikh, R.; Marouani, L.; Hamdi, M. Mesophilic biogas production from fruit and vegetable waste in a
tubular digester. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 86, 85–89. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 35 of 36

225. Kim, J.K.; Oh, B.R.; Chun, Y.N.; Kim, S.W. Effects of temperature and hydraulic retention time on anaerobic digestion of food
waste. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2006, 102, 328–332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
226. Shi, X.-S.; Dong, J.-J.; Yu, J.-H.; Yin, H.; Hu, S.-M.; Huang, S.-X.; Yuan, X.-Z. Effect of Hydraulic Retention Time on Anaerobic
Digestion of Wheat Straw in the Semicontinuous Continuous Stirred-Tank Reactors. BioMed Res. Int. 2017, 2017, 2457805.
[CrossRef]
227. Zhang, L.; Loh, K.-C.; Zhang, J. Enhanced biogas production from anaerobic digestion of solid organic wastes: Current status and
prospects. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2019, 5, 280–296. [CrossRef]
228. Dhanya, B.S.; Mishra, A.; Chandel, A.K.; Verma, M.L. Development of sustainable approaches for converting the organic waste to
bioenergy. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138109. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
229. Guo, J.; Wang, W.; Liu, X.; Lian, S.; Zheng, L. Effects of thermal pre-treatment on anaerobic co-digestion of municipal biowastes at
high organic loading rate. Chemosphere 2014, 101, 66–70. [CrossRef]
230. Liu, C.; Wang, W.; Anwar, N.; Ma, Z.; Liu, G.; Zhang, R. Effect of Organic Loading Rate on Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste
under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Conditions. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 2976–2984. [CrossRef]
231. Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Xie, D. Insights into the production potential and trends of China’s rural biogas. Int. J. Energy Res. 2015,
39, 1068–1082. [CrossRef]
232. Ferguson, R.M.W.; Coulon, F.; Villa, R. Organic loading rate: A promising microbial management tool in anaerobic digestion.
Water Res. 2016, 100, 348–356. [CrossRef]
233. Petersson, A.; Wellinger, A. Biogas Upgrading Technologies—Developments and Innovations; IEA Bioenergy: Paris, France, 2009.
234. Singh, G.; Jain, V.K.; Singh, A. Effect of Temperature and other factors on Anaerobic Digestion Process, responsible for Bio Gas
Production. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Mech. 2017, 12, 637–657.
235. Lindeboom, R.E.; Fermoso, F.G.; Weijma, J.; Zagt, K.; van Lier, J.B. Autogenerative high pressure digestion: Anaerobic digestion
and biogas upgrading in a single step reactor system. Water Sci. Technol. 2011, 64, 647–653. [CrossRef]
236. Sumantri, I.; Budiyono, B.; Purwanto, P. Kinetic Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Ketchup Industry Wastewater in a Three-stages
Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR). Bull. Chem. React. Eng. Catal. 2019, 14, 326–335. [CrossRef]
237. Fdez.-Güelfo, L.A.; Álvarez-Gallego, C.; Sales Márquez, D.; Romero García, L.I. Dry-thermophilic anaerobic digestion of simulated
organic fraction of Municipal Solid Waste: Process modeling. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 606–611. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
238. Obileke, K.; Mamphweli, S.; Meyer, E.L.; Makaka, G.; Nwokolo, N. Development of a Mathematical Model and Validation for
Methane Production Using Cow Dung as Substrate in the Underground Biogas Digester. Processes 2021, 9, 643. [CrossRef]
239. Almomani, F. Prediction of biogas production from chemically treated co-digested agricultural waste using artificial neural
network. Fuel 2020, 280, 118573. [CrossRef]
240. Mougari, N.E.; Largeau, J.F.; Himrane, N.; Hachemi, M.; Tazerout, M. Application of artificial neural network and kinetic
modeling for the prediction of biogas and methane production in anaerobic digestion of several organic wastes. Int. J. Green
Energy 2021, 18, 1584–1596. [CrossRef]
241. Yang, Z.; Sun, H.; Zhou, L.; Arhin, S.G.; Papadakis, V.G.; Goula, M.A.; Liu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W. Bioaugmentation with
well-constructed consortia can effectively alleviate ammonia inhibition of practical manure anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 2022,
215, 118244. [CrossRef]
242. Batstone, D.J.; Keller, J.; Angelidaki, I.; Kalyuzhnyi, S.V.; Pavlostathis, S.G.; Rozzi, A.; Sanders, W.T.M.; Siegrist, H.; Vavilin, V.A.
The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 45, 65–73. [CrossRef]
243. Baldé, Y.M.; Diop, S.; Tebbani, S.; Kanté, C. Modeling of a Continuous Anaerobic Digestion of Wastes. In Proceedings of the
2020 24th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC), Sinaia, Romania, 8–10 October 2020;
pp. 596–601.
244. Momodu, A.S.; Adepoju, T.D. System dynamics kinetic model for predicting biogas production in anaerobic condition: Preliminary
assessment. Sci. Prog. 2021, 104, 368504211042479. [CrossRef]
245. Gerber, M.; Span, R. An analysis of available mathematical models for anaerobic digestion of organic substances for production
of biogas. Proc. IGRC Paris 2008, 1–30. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283518957_An_analysis_
of_available_mathematical_models_for_anaerobic_digestion_of_organic_substances_for_production_of_biogas (accessed on 10
March 2023).
246. Dinh, P.V.; Fujiwara, T.; Phu, S.T.P.; Hoang, M.G. Kinetic of Biogas Production in Co-Digestion of Vegetable Waste, Horse Dung,
and Sludge by Batch Reactors. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 159, 012041. [CrossRef]
247. Kafle, G.K.; Chen, L. Comparison on batch anaerobic digestion of five different livestock manures and prediction of biochemical
methane potential (BMP) using different statistical models. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 492–502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
248. Li, P.; Li, W.; Sun, M.; Xu, X.; Zhang, B.; Sun, Y. Evaluation of Biochemical Methane Potential and Kinetics on the Anaerobic
Digestion of Vegetable Crop Residues. Energies 2019, 12, 26. [CrossRef]
249. Orangun, A.; Kaur, H.; Kommalapati, R.R. Batch Anaerobic Co-Digestion and Biochemical Methane Potential Analysis of Goat
Manure and Food Waste. Energies 2021, 14, 1952. [CrossRef]
250. Ghatak, M.D.; Mahanta, P. Comparison of kinetic models for biogas production rate from Saw Dust. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2014,
3, 248–254.
Energies 2023, 16, 3378 36 of 36

251. Bakraouia, M.; Karouacha, F.; Ouhammoua, B.; Lahboubib, N.; Gnaouia, Y.E.; Aggoura, M.; Baria, H.E. Kinetics study of methane
production from anaerobic digestion of sludge and wastewater recycled pulp and paper by different models simulation. Int. J.
Smart Grid Clean Energy 2020, 9, 170–179. [CrossRef]
252. Zhang, H.; An, D.; Cao, Y.; Tian, Y.; He, J. Modeling the Methane Production Kinetics of Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Agricultural
Wastes Using Sigmoidal Functions. Energies 2021, 14, 258. [CrossRef]
253. Prajapati, K.B.; Singh, R. Kinetic modelling of methane production during bio-electrolysis from anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
sludge and food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 263, 491–498. [CrossRef]
254. Lopes, J.O.; Rosa, A.P.; Sousa, I.d.P.; Oliveira, N.S.; Borges, A.C. Mathematical models for estimating methane production in
covered lagoon biodigesters treating pig manure. Eng. Agrícola 2021, 41, 438–448. [CrossRef]
255. Calise, F.; Cappiello, F.L.; Dentice d’Accadia, M.; Infante, A.; Vicidomini, M. Modeling of the Anaerobic Digestion of Organic
Wastes: Integration of Heat Transfer and Biochemical Aspects. Energies 2020, 13, 2720. [CrossRef]
256. De Crescenzo, C.; Marzocchella, A.; Karatza, D.; Molino, A.; Ceron-Chafla, P.; Lindeboom, R.E.F.; van Lier, J.B.; Chianese, S.;
Musmarra, D. Modelling of autogenerative high-pressure anaerobic digestion in a batch reactor for the production of pressurised
biogas. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2022, 15, 20. [CrossRef]
257. Pererva, Y.; Miller, C.D.; Sims, R.C. Existing Empirical Kinetic Models in Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) Testing, Their
Selection and Numerical Solution. Water 2020, 12, 1831. [CrossRef]
258. Ihoeghian, N.A.; Amenaghawon, A.N.; Ajieh, M.U.; Oshoma, C.E.; Ogofure, A.; Erhunmwunse, N.O.; Edosa, V.I.O.; Tongo,
I.; Obuekwe, I.S.; Isagba, E.S.; et al. Anaerobic co-digestion of cattle rumen content and food waste for biogas production:
Establishment of co-digestion ratios and kinetic studies. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2022, 18, 101033. [CrossRef]
259. Jijai, S.; Siripatana, C. Kinetic Model of Biogas Production from Co-digestion of Thai Rice Noodle Wastewater (Khanomjeen) with
Chicken Manure. Energy Procedia 2017, 138, 386–392. [CrossRef]
260. Blasius, J.P.; Contrera, R.C.; Maintinguer, S.I.; Alves de Castro, M.C.A. Effects of temperature, proportion and organic loading rate
on the performance of anaerobic digestion of food waste. Biotechnol. Rep. 2020, 27, e00503. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
261. Rani, P.; Pathak, V.V.; Bansal, M. Co-digestion of wheat straw and animal manure pretreated with calcium hydroxide for
biomethane production: Kinetic study. Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 4, 100145. [CrossRef]
262. Deepanraj, B.; Sivasubramanian, V.; Jayaraj, S. Effect of substrate pretreatment on biogas production through anaerobic digestion
of food waste. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 26522–26528. [CrossRef]
263. Shi, L.; Simplicio, W.S.; Wu, G.; Hu, Z.; Hu, H.; Zhan, X. Nutrient Recovery from Digestate of Anaerobic Digestion of Livestock
Manure: A Review. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2018, 4, 74–83. [CrossRef]
264. Abbà, A.; Domini, M.; Baldi, M.; Pedrazzani, R.; Bertanza, G. Ammonia Recovery from Livestock Manure Digestate through an
Air-Bubble Stripping Reactor: Evaluation of Performance and Energy Balance. Energies 2023, 16, 643. [CrossRef]
265. Barampouti, E.M.; Mai, S.; Malamis, D.; Moustakas, K.; Loizidou, M. Exploring technological alternatives of nutrient recovery
from digestate as a secondary resource. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 134, 110379. [CrossRef]

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