1.

Introduction
Due to the increasing prices of fossil fuels and taxes on energy sources, finding alternative, clean
and economical sources of energy has nowadays become a major concern for households’ and
nations’ economies. In addition, economic prosperity and quality of life, which are linked in most
countries to per-capita energy consumption, is a great determinant and indicator of economical
development (Singh and Sooch 2004). Energy demand is a critical reason for extensive climate
change, resource exploitation, and also restricts the living standards of humans (Pagar, 2008).
By the time fuel and fertilizer reaches rural areas, the end price is relatively expensive due to high
transport costs, leaving people to find alternative resources other than oil (Zhou et al 2008).
Starke (2004) reported wood as the traditional source of fuel to produce energy for domestic
purposes for 2.5 billion people in Asia. Many of the rural communities in developing countries
are forced to rely on the traditional energy sources such as firewood, dung, crop residues, and
paraffin. These traditional methods are often expensive and/or time-consuming (Ravindranath,
2000). Cooking accounts for 90% of energy consumption in the households of developing
countries. Furthermore, access to electricity in rural areas is relatively scarce (Zhang, 2000).
Biogas is a substitute for firewood and cattle dung that can meet the energy needs of
rural population. Biogas is a renewable source of energy that can be used as a substitute for
natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas (Luijten and Kerkhof, 2011). There are different models to
assess the energy content of different energy sources, which includes water boiling test,
controlled cooking test and kitchen performance test (Lusk,1998). The energy content of 1.0
m3 of purified biogas is equal to 1.1 L of gasoline, 1.7 L of bioethanol, or 0.97 m3 of natural gas
(Beddoes, 2007). The application for rural and urban waste biogas production is widely spread. It
is a challenge for engineers and scientists to build an efficient domestic digesters with the
materials available, at the same time taking the local and economical considerations into the
account. Although many digesters have been built, additional research and awareness are needed
to meet the changing needs and conditions (Ferrer, 2009).
Biogas production can be carried out in very small reactors ranging from 100-mL serum bottles in
the lab up to 10,000 m3 large digesters as normally used, for example, in Europe. This review
deals with a summary of different household biogas digesters, their operating parameters, cost
and materials used to build them, startup, and maintenance, the variety of applications employed,
and associated social and environmental effects.
Biogas
Biogas, the metabolic product of anaerobic digestion, is a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide
with small quantities of other gases such as hydrogen sulfide (Cantrell et al 2008). Methane, the
desired component of biogas, is a colorless, blue burning gas used for cooking, heating, and
lighting (Martins et al 2009). Biogas is a clean, efficient, and renewable source of energy, which
can be used as a substitute for other fuels in order to save energy in rural areas. In anaerobic
digestion, organic materials are degraded by bacteria, in the absence of oxygen, converting it into
a methane and carbon dioxide mixture. The digestate or slurry from the digester is rich in
ammonium and other nutrients used as an organic fertilizer (Hiremath et al., 2009).
Methane formation in anaerobic digestion involves four different steps, including hydrolysis,
acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. Different bacterial/archaea communities work in
a syntrophic relationship with each other to form methane. In hydrolysis, complex carbohydrates,

1
fats, and proteins are first hydrolyzed to their monomeric forms by exoenzymes and bacterial
cellulosome. In the second phase (acidogenesis), monomers are further degraded into short-chain
acids such as: acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, isobutyric acid, valeric acid, isovaleric
acid, caprionic acid, alcohols, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. During acetogenesis, these short-
chain acids are converted into acetate, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. In the last phase,
methanogens convert the intermediates produced into methane and carbon dioxide. Almost one-
third of methane formation is due to reduction of carbon dioxide by hydrogen (Singh, 2000)
1.2. Digestion Factors
Anaerobic digestion depends on several different parameters for an optimum performance.
Different groups of microorganisms are involved in the methane production, and suitable
conditions have to be established to keep all the microorganisms in balance. Some of these
parameters are: pH, temperature, mixing, substrate, C/N ratio, and hydraulic retention time
(HRT). Digestion is a slow process and it takes at a minimum of three weeks for the
microorganisms to adapt to a new condition when there is a change in substrate or temperature
(Xiaohua and Jingfei 2005).
A symbiotic relationship is necessary between the hydrogen-producing acetogenic
microorganisms and the hydrogen-consuming methanogens. Furthermore, a neutral pH is
favorable for biogas production, since most of the methanogens grow at the pH range of 6.7–7.5.
Temperature is also an important factor in the biogas production. Most of the acid forming
microorganisms grows under mesophilic conditions; however, for methanogens, a higher
temperature is favorable (Meynel and Methane 2003). Mixing is also an essential parameter for
biogas production. Too much mixing stresses the microorganisms and without mixing foaming
occurs. Methane-forming microorganisms grow slowly, with a doubling time of around 5–16
days. Therefore, the hydraulic retention time should be at least 10–15 days, unless these bacteria
are retained by, for example, entrapment. Substrate and the balance of carbon sources with other
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur is also important. The substrate should be
slowly digested, otherwise easily degradable substrates may cause a sudden increase in acid
content. The carbon and nitrogen ratio should be around 16:1–25:1. Too much increase or
decrease in the carbon/nitrogen ratio affects biogas production. The concentration of solids in the
digester should vary between 7% and 9%. Particle size is not an important factor compared to
other parameters such as pH and temperature. However, the size of the particles used affects the
degradation and ultimately the biogas production rate (Gijzen, 2001).

Household Digesters
It is always difficult to adopt one particular type of digester for household purposes. Design of the
digesters is varied based on the geographical location, availability of substrate, and climatic
conditions. For instance, a digester used in mountainous regions is designed to have less gas
volume in order to avoid gas loss. For tropical countries, it is preferred to have digesters
underground due to the geothermal energy (Wilkinson, 20111). Out of all the different digesters
developed, the fixed dome model developed by China and the floating drum model developed by
India have continued to perform until today (Gerardi, 2003). Recently, plug flow digesters are
gaining attention due to its portability and easy operation.

2
2.1. Fixed Dome Digesters
The fixed dome digester also called “Chinese” or “hydraulic” digesters are the most common
model developed and used mainly in China for biogas production (Singh and Sooch 2004). The
digester is filled through the inlet pipe until the level reaches the bottom level of the expansion
chamber. The produced biogas is accumulated at the upper part of the digester called storage part.
The difference in the level between slurry inside of the digester and the expansion chamber
creates a gas pressure. The collected gas requires space and presses a part of the substrate into an
expansion chamber. The slurry flows back into the digester immediately after gas is released
(Hiremath et al., 2009).
Fixed dome digesters are usually built underground The size of the digester depends on the
location, number of households, and the amount of substrate available every day. For instance,
the size of these digesters can typically vary between 4 and 20 m3 in Nepal (Safley and
Westerman, 1992), between 6 and 10 m3 in China, between 1 and 150 m3 in India (Deublein and
Steinhauser, 2008) and in Nigeria it is around 6 m3 for a family of 9 ((Meynel and Methane
2003). Instead of having a digester for each individual home, a large volume digester is used to
produce biogas for 10–20 homes, and is called community type biogas digesters. In countries
where houses are clustered as in Nigeria, these types of biogas digesters are more feasible
(Meynel and Methane 2003).
2.2. Floating Drum Digesters
Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) is the name of a floating drum digester model
developed in 1962. Even though the model is pretty old, it is one of the most widely accepted and
used designs for household purposes in India. The design includes a movable inverted drum
placed on a well-shaped digester. An inverted steel drum that acts as a storage tank is placed on
the digester, which can move up and down depending on the amount of accumulated gas at the
top of the digester. The weight of this inverted drum applies the pressure needed for the gas flow
through the pipeline for use (Singh and Sooch 2004).
Floating drum digesters produce biogas at a constant pressure with variable volumeL From the
position of the drum, the amount of biogas accumulated under the drum is easily detectable.
However, the floating drum needs to be coated with paint in a constant interval to avoid rust.
Additionally, fibrous materials will block the movement of digester. Hence, their accumulation
should be avoided if possible (Kanwar and Guleri, 1994). In Thailand, the floating dome has been
modified with two cement jars on either side of the floating drum. The average size of these kinds
of digesters is around 1.2 m3 (Santerre and Smith, 1982). For a small-medium size farms the size
varies from around 5–15 m3.

Plug Flow Digesters

The disadvantage with the fixed dome and floating drum models is, once installed they are
difficult to move. Hence, portable models built over the ground called tubular or plug flow
digesters were developed. Plug flow digesters have a constant volume, but produce biogas at a
variable pressure (Meynel and Methane 2003). The size of such digesters varies from 2.4 to 7.5
m3. Plug-flow digesters consist of a narrow and long tank with, an average length to width ratio
of 5:1. The inlet and outlet of the digester are located at opposite ends, kept above ground, while
the remaining parts of the digester is buried in the ground in an inclined position. As the fresh

3
substrate is added from the inlet, the digestate flows towards the outlet at the other end of the
tank. The inclined position makes it possible to separate acidogenesis and methanogenesis
longitudinally, thus producing a two-phase system. In order to avoid temperature fluctuations
during the night and maintain the process temperature, a gable or shed roof is placed on top of the
digester to cover it, which acts as an insulation both during day and night (Gijzen, 2001).
The popularity of tubular digesters has increased recently in Peru, due to its portability and low
cost. The usefulness of these digesters includes easy installation, easy handling, and adaptation to
extreme conditions at high altitudes with low temperatures. The transportation costs for the
material to build the digester in hilly areas are high, leading to a high capital cost. On the other
hand, plug flow digesters are easy to transport, which ultimately reduces the cost of the digester.
It is also difficult to dig a large volume under the ground to build digesters in high altitudes
(Ferrer et al., 2011).
2.4. Comparisons of Different Digesters
Hamad et al. (1981) compared the performance of the modified Indian digester and the Chinese
fixed dome models for the conditions prevailing in Egypt. None of the digesters were suitable for
the local conditions, and for the conditions present in Egypt, the plug flow digester and the
digester with a solar heater were reported to be more efficient. Biogas production decreased by
70% in the rubber balloon digester compared to 17% in the deenbandhumodel during winter. It is
not advisable to use the rubber balloon model in hilly areas as it is affected by the ambient
temperatures. The fluctuation in temperature changes the microflora in the reactor between lower
mesophilic in summer to psycrophilic in winter, affecting the process parameters. Compared to
the conventional plant (fixed dome digesters), rubber balloon reactors in hilly areas maintain 2–3
°C lower temperatures during the winter and 2–3 °C higher temperatures during the summer.
Mohammad (1991) compared the vertical plant (modified floating drum), horizontal (with two
partitions), community type, Chinese dome, French type, rubber tube, and polyethylene bag using
a common substrate (buffalo dung). The results suggest that the community model was somewhat
expensive, but it was very effective.
2.5. Other Digesters
Singh and Anand (1994) aimed to decrease the water consumption in domestic digesters. Thus, a
solid-state digester (SSD) was built out of a cylindrical vertical vessel with a cone at the bottom.
This digester was welded to a tripod for balance. Lagoons with a floating cover could also be
used as a digester, which is very cheap for farmers. Qi et al. (2005) designed and studied an
integrated system of biogas production, using a greenhouse for growing vegetables and a pigsty
for feeding the pigs in Laiwu, Shandong province, North of China. The biogas produced from
swine manure and urine was used for cooking, lighting, or to maintain the temperature inside the
greenhouse for optimum vegetable growth and the digestate were used as a fertilizer to replace
chemical fertilizers. During winter, the low temperature and sunlight levels increases the
application of chemical fertilizers. This frequent use of chemical fertilizer not only increased the
cost of expenses but also decreased the vegetable quality during the winter. However, the
substitution of chemical fertilizer with digestate increased the vegetable yield by 18.4% and
17.8% for cucumber and tomato respectively.

4
Applications of Biogas in Household Digesters
3.1. Cooking and Heating
Biogas produced from the household digesters is mainly used for cooking. The amount of biogas
used for cooking purposes usually varies between 30 and 45 m3per month. This number can be
compared with other commonly used fuels such as kerosene where the consumption is between
15 and 20 L, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) between 11 and 15 kg per month, respectively.
The energy equivalent was around 300, 200, and 150 kWh for biogas, kerosene, and LPG,
respectively. The surplus biogas in the domestic digester could be used for water and space
heating (McKendry, 2002).
3.2. Biogas Stoves
Biogas burning is not possible in commercial butane and propane burners because of its
physiochemical properties. However, it is possible to use these burners after some modifications.
Burners are changed in the gas injector, its cross-section, and mixing chambers. The biogas
burners are designed to meet a mixture of bio-gas and air in the ratio of 1:10 (Itodo et al.,2007).
Different burners like vertical flame diffuser, horizontal flame diffuser, and no diffuser with
biogas have been examined. A vertical flame diffuser had a high heat transfer efficiency
compared to other diffusers (Meynel and Methane 2003).
3.3. Fertilizer
The digestate left over from the digester is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, and can
be used as a fertilizer. Digestate increased the potato cultivation by 27.5% and forage by 1.5%
compared to no added fertilizer. Due to the anaerobic digestion of organic matter, these nutrient
concentrations were easily taken up by plants. The effluent can be directly used as a fertilizer in
farming. Digestate has a high commercial value when exported. The dried effluent could also be
used as an adsorbent to remove lead from industrial wastewater. Biogas slurry could be helpful in
growing algae, water hyacinth, duck weed, and fish poly-aquaculture (Singh, 2000).
3.4. Lighting and Power Generation
The other major application of household biogas is for lighting and power generation. In many
developed countries, biogas from the digesters is sent to a combustion engine to convert it into
electrical and mechanical energy ]. Biogas requires a liquid fuel to start ignition. Diesel fuel can
also be combined with biogas for power generation. For instance, in Pura (India), a well-studied
community biogas digester can fuel a modified diesel engine and run an electric generator.
Anand, and Singh, (1993) reported that carbon dioxide up to 40% will not decrease the engine
performance using biogas as a fuel. Biogas can also be used to power engines when mixed with
petrol or diesel, and it can also help in pumping water for irrigation. Cottage/small scale
industries use biogas for pumping, milling, and for some other production activities (Hiremath et
al., 2009).
Biogas lamps are more efficient than the kerosene powered lamps, but the efficiency is quite low
compared to electric-powered lamps. However, the light intensity of the biogas lamp compared to
a kerosene lamp or an electric light bulb, was in the power range of 25–75 W. One cubic meter of
biogas is equal to lighting 60–100 watt bulb for 6 h, or cooking three meals a day for 5–6 persons.
In contrast, 0.7 kg of petrol can run 1 hp motor for 2 h or generate 1.25 kW for electricity ( Singh,
2000). To provide electricity for a home with a family of five, about 0.25 to 0.5 m3 biogas is
needed. Until recently, many of the rural areas in India depended on kerosene lamps for lighting

5
due to the energy shortage. Using these kerosene-powered lamps was inefficient as well costly.
Battery-operated solar panels were also an expensive means for lighting. This resulted in research
to design a digester, which could provide lighting to a home. A mini-biogas digester developed
especially for lighting purposes. This digester could produce 0.5 m3/day biogas which is enough
for 4 h of use (Pagar, 2008).
3.5. Other Applications
Besides common applications, domestic biogas is also utilized for other purposes. Gas-powered
refrigerators or a chicken incubator can run on household biogas, which is a well known
application in Kenya (Zhang, 2000). In India, around 4600 public toilets are connected to biogas
digesters by a local NGO to improve social living conditions of the people. Similarly, in Nepal,
public toilets are connected to biogas digesters to light these toilets (Lusk,1998).
4. Disadvantages Household biogas
Despite the various advantages of household biogas digesters, there are a few disadvantages to
overcome as well. Anaerobic digestion is a slow process, and it requires a long HRT (>30 days).
This increases the volume and cost of the digester. Low loading rates and slow recovery after a
failure are other limitations in biogas production. Another limitation is the fluctuation in
temperature throughout the year. The decrease in biogas production during the winter months
makes it difficult for cold countries to adapt this technology. In the long-run, people often stop
using the household digesters due to lack of knowledge, gas leakage, slow recovery, low gas
production, and inadequate supply of substrate (Hamad et al., 1981).
Leakage from biogas digesters increases emissions of methane and carbon dioxide into the
environment. Fire explosions in households are another disadvantage when methane leaks from
the digester.
Individual economic status is also a concern in biogas technology. Moog et al, (1997). Installed a
floating drum digester in a school to meet their energy needs. However, it was impossible for the
school to spend a capital investment unless a governmental subsidy was provided. In Thailand,
high investment, lack of financial resources, lack of information, and lack of skilled labor are
barriers towards adopting biogas stoves, and household biogas digesters (Gijzen, 2001)
Developments in technology can help to rectify these problems by making biogas sustainable for
rural energy production. However, low functionality of biogas plants due to defective
components, lack of technical knowledge, not adopting a proper size and model based on locality
and availability of raw materials, poor supervision, and lack of NGO involvement continue to
present obstacles to technology dissemination. It is important to spread basic knowledge among
farmers and local people in order to train and educate them about the potential of biogas
technology (Lusk,1998).

Conclusions
Household digesters represent a boon for farmers and rural people to meet their energy needs.
These digesters help in two ways: one is to reduce waste, and the other is to provide valuable
energy. Although they have been used for many years, modernization is needed to overcome the

6
drawbacks in the long run. The awareness by people of their technical issues, and governmental
subsidy plans could provide even more benefits from household digesters.

References
. Anand, R.C.; Singh, R. A simple technique, charcoal coating around the digester,
improves biogas production in winter. Bioresour. Technol. 1993, 45, 151–152.
. Beddoes, J.C.; Bracmort, K.S.; Burn, R.B.; Lazarus, W.F. An Analysis of Energy
Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on Us Livestock Production Facilities;
Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
. Cantrell, K.B.; Ducey, T.; Ro, K.S.; Hunt, P.G. Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation
opportunities. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7941–7953.
. Deublein, D.; Steinhauser, A. Biogas from Waste and Renewable Resources; Wiley Online
Library: Weinheim, Germany, 2008
. Ferrer, I.; Gamiz, M.; Almeida, M.; Ruiz, A. Pilot project of biogas production from pig
manure and urine mixture at ambient temperature in Ventanilla (Lima, Peru). Waste Manag.
(Oxf.) 2009, 29, 168–173.
. Ferrer, I.; Garfí, M.; Uggetti, E.; Ferrer-Martí, L.; Calderon, A.; Velo, E. Biogas
production in low-cost household digesters at the Peruvian Andes. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35,
1668–1674.
. Gerardi, M.H. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester,
UK, 2003; Volume 3.
. Gijzen, H.J. Anaerobes, aerobes and phototrophs: A winning team for wastewater
management. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 44, 123–132.
. Hamad, M.A.; Abdel Dayem, A.M.; El Halwagi, M.M. Evaluation of the performance of
two rural biogas units of Indian and Chinese design. Energy Agric.1981, 1, 235–250.

7
. Hiremath, R.B.; Kumar, B.; Balachandra, P.; Ravindranath, N.H.; Raghunandan, B.N.
Decentralised renewable energy: Scope, relevance and applications in the Indian context. Energy
Sustain. Dev. 2009, 13, 4–10.
. Itodo, I.N.; Agyo, G.E.; Yusuf, P. Performance evaluation of a biogas stove for cooking in
nigeria. J. Energy S. Afr. 2007, 18, 14–18.
. Kanwar, S.S.; Guleri, R.L. Performance evaluation of a family-size, rubber-balloon biogas
plant under hilly conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 1994, 50, 119–121.
. Lusk, P.D. Methane Recovery from Animal Manures: The Current Opportunities
Casebook; National Renewable Energy Laboratory Colarado: Golden, CO, USA, 1998; Volume 3.
. Luijten, C.C.M.; Kerkhof, E. Jatropha oil and biogas in a dual fuel ci engine for rural
electrification. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 1426–1438.
. Martins das Neves, L.C.; Converti, A.; Vessoni Penna, T.C. Biogas production: New
trends for alternative energy sources in rural and urban zones. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2009, 32,
1147–1153.
. Meynell, P.J. Methane: Planning A Digester; Sochen Books: Prison Stable Court: Dorset,
Clarington, ON, Canada, 2003.
. McKendry, P. Energy production from biomass (part 2): Conversion
technologies. Bioresour. Technol.2002, 83, 47–54.
. Moog, F.A.; Avilla, H.F.; Agpaoa, E.V.; Valenzuela, F.G.; Concepcion, F.C. Promotion and
utilisation of polyethylene biodigester in smallhold farming systems in the Philippines. Livest.
Res. Rural Dev.1997, 9.
. Pagar Savita, D. Design, Development and Performance Evaluation of Biogas Stoves;
Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology: Udaipur, India, 2008.
. Qi, X.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y.; Wang, R. Advantages of the integrated pig-biogas-vegetable
greenhouse system in north China. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 24, 175–183.
. Ravindranath, N.H. Renewable Energy and Environment: A Policy Analysis for India; Tata
McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.: Uttar Pradesh, India, 2000.
. Santerre, M.T.; Smith, K.R. Measures of appropriateness: The resource requirements of
anaerobic digestion (biogas) systems. World Dev.1982, 10, 239–261.
. Safley, L.M., Jr.; Westerman, P.W. Performance of a low temperature lagoon
digester. Bioresour. Technol.1992, 41, 167–175.
. 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.
. Singh, R.B. Bio-Gas Plant: Generating mEthane from Organic Wastes; Gobar Gas
Research Station: Ajitmal, India, 2000.
. Starke, L. State of the World 2004; World Watch Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
. Singh, R.; Anand, R.C. Comparative performances of Indian small solid-state and
conventional anaerobic digesters. Bioresour. Technol. 1994, 47, 235–238.
. Wilkinson, K.G. A comparison of the drivers influencing adoption of on-farm anaerobic
digestion in Germany and Australia. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1613–1622.
. Xiaohua, W.; Jingfei, L. Influence of using household biogas digesters on household
energy consumption in rural areas—A case study in Lianshui County in China. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2005, 9, 229–236.

8
. Zhang, J.; Mauzerall, D.L.; Zhu, T.; Liang, S.; Ezzati, M.; Remais, J.V. Environmental
health in China: Progress towards clean air and safe water. Lancet2010, 375, 1110–1119
. Zhou, Z.; Wu, W.; Chen, Q.; Chen, S. Study on sustainable development of rural
household energy in northern China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.2008, 12, 2227–2239.