Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/process-safety-and-environmental-protection

Emerging technologies for biogas production: A critical review on recent

progress, challenges and future perspectives
Farooq Sher a, *, Narcisa Smječanin b, c, Harun Hrnjić b, c, Amar Karadža b, c, Rasim Omanović b, c,
Elma Šehović b, c, Jasmina Sulejmanović b, c
a
Department of Engineering, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG11 8NS, United Kingdom
b
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo 71000, Bosnia and Herzegovina
c
International Society of Engineering Science and Technology, Nottingham, United Kingdom

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

Keywords: Biogas is a resource of renewable energy with the highest significance to development in many countries due to
Biochemical engineering the great accessibility to biomass. It is mostly produced by the anaerobic digestion of various feedstocks, but
Renewable energy technologies such as landfilling, aerobic composting and incineration are also being used. The current novel
Biohydrogen
review aimed to present emerging technologies for biogas pretreatment, production and upgrading process.
Energy transition
Furthermore, various applications together with a current and future perspectives of biogas have been covered. It
Biomass
Biodiversity was found that pretreatment technologies such as chemical, physical, thermochemical and oxidative are
Sustainability increasing biomethane and biogas yield. Hence, extrusion pretreatment has increased biomethane production by
Climate mitigation 190 %. The novel technologies for biogas upgrading, such as photosynthetic biofixation of CO2 by microalgae
have shown that upgraded CH4 have maximum CO2 content in the biogas ranging from 2 to 6 %. Microbial
electrolysis cell technology is sustainable and effective for biogas upgrading with a low requirement of energy.
Thus, it was found that bioelectromethanogenesis leads to the uptake of 13.2 gCO2/d. In addition, nanobubble
technology is in recent studies extensively investigated for the improvement of methane yield. In Europe around
70 % of biogas plants are utilising the feedstocks from agriculture sectors. In 2022 global combined production of
biogas and biomethane has reached more than 1.6 EJ which is an increase of 17 % in the last five years. Fossil
fuels are the primary global energy source with around 85 % of the world’s energy supply. Hence, wider use of
biogas could ensure the goals for the implementation of sustainable renewable energy.

1. Introduction accumulation and biowaste (Mishra et al., 2021). Nowadays, renewable

energy sources represent a necessary and beneficial part of the system
An effective method for reducing one of the most significant green­ for energy supplying (Ighravwe and Babatunde, 2018). Global devel­
house gases, CO2 and substitution of fossil fuels with renewable energy opment of renewable resources is expanding and usage costs have
sources (RES) is decreasing the consumption of fossil fuels (Lu et al., decreased. Across the globe, the establishment of renewable resources
2021). The major environmental issues of concern are changing global has become very significant for managing global climate change (Lu
climate, due to pollutants such as plastic pollution, pesticide et al., 2021). Therefore the growth and implementation of the RES have

Abbreviations: AD, Anaerobic digestion; AcoD, Anaerobic co-digestion; AnMBR, Anaerobic membrane bioreactor; APBR, Anaerobic packed bed reactor; ASTBR,
Anaerobic structured bed reactor; AFBR, Anaerobic fluidized bed reactor; AHP, Analytical hierarchy process; B, Biological; Bcm, Billion cubic meters; C, Chemical;
CHP, Combined heat and power; COD, Chemical oxygen demand; COMB, Combined; CM, Reducing methanogens; CNMs, Carbon-based nanomaterials; CSTR,
Continuous stirred tank reactor; EU, European Union; EGSB, Expanded granular sludge bed; FB, Fermenting bacteria; FBR, fixed bed reactor; FW, Food waste; FSTR,
Fully stirred tank anaerobic reactor; GHG, Greenhouse gas; HAIB, Horizontal anaerobic immobilized biomass reactor; HAR, Hybrid anaerobic reactor; HRT, Hy­
draulic retention time; MDEA, Methyldiethanolamine; MCDM, Multi-criteria decision-making; NB, Nanobubble; NPs, Nanoparticles; OA, Organic acids; OM, Organics
matter; OLR, Organic loading rate; P, Physical; P2G, Power to gas; RES, Renewable energy sources; SSAD, Small-scale AD systems; SRT, Solid retention time; TS, Total
solids; UAFR, Up-flow anaerobic filter; UASB, Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; VFAs, Volatile fatty acids; VS, Volatile solids.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Sher).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2024.05.138
Received 24 January 2024; Received in revised form 12 March 2024; Accepted 29 May 2024
Available online 2 June 2024
0957-5820/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

become one of the main priorities for every country (Li et al., 2024). The highly diverse products that meet the common criteria of being organic
major reason for this is that renewable energy sources are a primary, (Wiselogel et al., 2018). The categorization of biomass could be done by
clean and inexhaustible source of energy. The renewable energy most its origin. Thus, renewable sources could be described as woody and
common sources include hydro, wind and solar energy, but they also agricultural biomass (residues of crops, trees, energy crops and stalks),
include geothermal energy and biomass. Currently, these sources are industrial waste, biomass from marine (reed, waterweed, water hya­
responsible for the production of 28 % of the total demand regarding cinth and algae), poultry waste, animal husbandry (Fernandes et al.,
energy usage in the world (Zhao et al., 2022). 2023) and all the land and organic waste and vegetation that is
In accordance with EU policies towards the utilization of renewable water-based by origin (Yaqoob et al., 2021). Every biomass that consists
energy and overcoming climate changes, their attention is directed to of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, hemicelluloses and cellulose as the
promoting the renewable resources that have spurred the uprising of major components has the prospective to be utilized as a substrate in the
biogas plants for the production of cleaner energy (Scarlat et al., 2018). system process of biogas production. The expected CH4 yield and the
Biogas as renewable energy enables the sequestration of CO2, thus biogas composition depend on the system for digestion, feedstock type
enhancing the quality of air (François et al., 2023c). Anaerobic digestion and time of retention and due to that there is a need for the optimization
(AD) exploits the potential of biogas to be used for electricity and heat of the system (Ghosh et al., 2020). Primary feedstocks for biogas pro­
production, as well as fuel with further environmental, economic and duction are presented in Fig. 1.
climate interests (Mancini et al., 2024). After AD, produced biogas is
composed of CH4 (55–70 %) and CO2 (30–45 %) by volume and small 2.1. Food waste as feedstock
amounts of O2, H2S, H2O and trace hydrocarbons (Zabed et al., 2020). Of
great significant for the environment is obtaining biogas through AD by One of the main global issues presents a generation of food waste
utilizing agricultural and livestock biowaste, which is then utilized for which is a consequence of rising demands for food supplements because
the production of electricity (Shirzad et al., 2019). Currently, the largest of the continuing growth in population number (Mishra et al., 2021).
biogas production is represented in US, Germany and China, respec­ Every year, about 1.3×109 tons of different foods are treated as waste
tively (Molla et al., 2024). around the world. Places such as homes, restaurants, grocery stores,
According to REPowerEU plan the annual biogas production should company cafeterias and bars are places where this type of waste could be
reach the 35 billion cubic meters (bcm). Currently, it is only 3 bcm for generated (Chew et al., 2021). The main components of food waste are
produced biomethane and 15 bcm for produced biogas in EU-27 IAE) organic matter like carbohydrates, proteins and lipids, which decom­
(IAE, 2023). The value of produced biogas could be enhanced through pose into compounds such as fatty acids, glucose, organic amino acids,
processes of purification and upgrading that involve the removal of CO2 etc. (Mishra et al., 2021). In recent years, anaerobic digestion has
from biogas that further increases the energy density by biomethane become the first method of choice for waste treatment as it is the most
concentration increase (Mulu et al., 2021). Studies have revealed the widely used method for biogas production. In comparison with other
utilization of modern technologies in the purification and upgrading of methods of treatment such as gasification, pyrolysis and incineration,
biogas such as cryogenic separation (Tamilselvan and Selwynraj, 2024), pollution of the air and solid waste caused by the method of anaerobic
chemical absorption (Lv et al., 2024) and bioconversion process (Huang digestion is minimal (Chew et al., 2021).
et al., 2024). The main deficiency of the mentioned technologies is their
very high costs of operation and capital of investment (Archana et al., 2.2. Industrial feedstock
2024).
Hence, the current study has covered the most crucial selected seg­ Various industries processing different raw materials produce a high
ments for biogas production technology. The main objective of this re­ quantity of residues, by-products, and waste that could be utilised for
view is to provide detailed status on current emerging technologies for the production of biogas. The content of waste could include different
biogas production, pretreatment as well as upgrading. The upgrading pathogens, impurities and heavy metals that depend on techniques that
technologies include an overview of physicochemical, biochemical, industries use in their production process. All these wastes could change
nanotechnology as well as green current technologies. The main feed­ the biological environment in a bioreactor and slow down or even stop
stocks for biogas production are being discussed, evaluated and the process of anaerobic digestion. In addition, using digestate as a
compared. Furthermore, since the leading technology for biogas pro­ fertilizer could cause health risks for people and animals and lead to
duction is still anaerobic digestion in this review main reactor designs environmental pollution. Therefore, a lot of countries already have
and operational parameters have been summarized. Ultimately this re­ committed to environmental legislation for the reduction of waste uti­
view facilitates various applications of biogas utilization as well as lization. Generally waste from industries represents waste such as waste
current scenarios and future perspectives of biogas production world­ from textile industrial sectors, petrochemical waste, pulp and paper
wide. Energy generation from renewables (biomass and biowaste) is industrial wastes, agro-industrial wastes etc. (Atelge et al., 2020). The
crucial for achieving low-carbon emissions due to its numerous advan­ usage of agro-industrial waste and its degradation process are also fol­
tages involving low-cost energy provision for purposes of heating and lowed by different characteristics such as chemical composition and
generation of power, access to easy off-grid energy as well as decreasing physical, as well as thermal properties (Devi et al., 2022). The AD pro­
the costs for fossil energy. cess of industrial waste is affected by parameters such as type of feed­
stocks, pH, organic loading rate and temperature. Hence in the study of
2. Sources for biogas production Kiani et al. (Kiani et al., 2022) was found that bioreactor performance
was enhanced by utilizing a digestion consisting of two-stage and
On the global level, climate and energy change policies as well as maximum uptake of COD (greater than 80 %) and CH4 production with
more and more usage of renewable resources, have motivated re­ the value of 0.329 LCH4/kg COD with utilizing APBR and ASTBR reactor
searchers and the enlargement of plants to produce biogas (Sica et al., configurations was obtained with a high loading rate of 30 kg COD/m3d.
2023). The main basis for this is the rapid price increase of energy In recent years there has been an increase in the pulp and paper
sources, uncontrolled depletion of fossil fuels, the variability of stability industry production. Hence great amounts of waste are generated from
of supply and the trustworthiness of purchasing (Kucher et al., 2022). these industries such as sludge, fly ash and lime mud (Gupta and Shukla,
Biomass as a source of energy that is an alternative presents a chance 2020). Fig. 2 gives various technologies for the usage of waste from the
and an opportunity to overcome environmental issues such as restrained pulp and paper industry. Hence, generated waste could be used in bio­
depletion of various resources from nature and pollution (Koryś et al., hydrogen production, energy generation (biogas and biochar), bio­
2019) and could be described as a generic description of a group of refinery integration (fuel and energy), clinker preparation (brick and

835
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Fig. 1. Different feedstocks that could be used for the production of biogas as a renewable energy source.

Fig. 2. Representation of various techniques for waste valorization from pulp and paper industry (Gupta and Shukla, 2020).

836
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

cement), sorbents preparation (acids and polymers), etc. (Gupta and organic nutrients (Mishra et al., 2021). On the basis, it contains 10 %
Shukla, 2020). Among the mentioned technologies, special attention is plastic, 17 % paper, 46 % scraps from food and waste from grade and
directed towards biohydrogen production (Yellezuome et al., 2024). The 27 % other waste. Anaerobic digestion is one of the most utilized
production of biohydrogen from various biowaste is a sustainable methods in the management of food biowaste by process of biogas
approach for the development of products, decreased cost of biowaste production. Co-digestion together with substrates such as lignocellulosic
disposal and environmental regulations consideration (Yellezuome waste and biowaste from slaughterhouses could be effectively utilized
et al., 2024). Its production considers reaction of an anaerobic fermen­ for the process enhancement, thus obtaining greater yield for biogas. In
tation process without any light for breaking down complex carbohy­ addition, methods of pretreatment could increase the production of CH4
drates and to form H2 and other products. This process of H2 production in AD process of food waste (Chew et al., 2021). Biogas production using
is also called a dark fermentation process. The by-product of bio­ municipal solid waste is influenced by the fraction of organic (Parvez
hydrogen production is water vapour and hence it is a clean energy and Ahammed, 2024) that could be utilized for the AD process of biogas
source without any pollution (Tagne et al., 2024). production (Mittal et al., 2019). The latest data show that the production
of this waste amounts to about 1.7 billion tons per year with a constant
2.3. Activated sludge from wastewater treatment plants trend of increase as the population grows. Unfortunately, with poor
management, municipal solid waste could pose a danger to the health of
Waste activated sludge is generated in high quantities from the humans and impose many negative impacts on the environment such as
process of activated sludge which is utilized in treatment plants for contaminated soil, water, and air. Therefore, the primary option to
wastewater. In Europe, there was around 9×106 metric tons of waste reduce municipal solid waste and create better management practices is
activated sludge produced and discharged in 2020. The main producer to use it as a primary substrate for bioenergy production with good
was Germany with 1.8×106 metric tons of activated sludge followed by sustainable and economic practices (Mishra et al., 2021).
Spain and France with 1.2×106 metric tons. Since waste activated
sludge has great amounts of organics it could be utilized as a substrate 2.4. Livestock manure as a feedstock
for energy production (biogas). Per ton of sludge from the wastewater
industry, there is around 120 m3 of biogas produced and by further Livestock manure is comprised of organic matter that could be uti­
optimization of the process of anaerobic digestion regarding CH4 pro­ lized as a feed in a process of bioenergy production (Wang et al., 2021).
duction, biogas from this source could be a significant source of energy In the EU27 and UK up to 1.4 billion tons of livestock manure from farms
(Kanellos et al., 2024). The schematic illustration of biogas production is being yearly produced and only a small fraction of this biowaste is
from wastewater treatment plants is given in Fig. 3. Biogas could fulfil being collected (Köninger et al., 2021). Plant, animal and human waste
the energy demands of wastewater treatment plants or it could be uti­ are organic materials which are biodegradable and with parts that could
lized in the infrastructure of existing grids for the production of heating be utilized for the production of biogas. Any wet organic matter is
and electricity (Gas for climate 2050, 2022). There are currently many suitable for usage in the process of anaerobic digestion. Generally,
studies directed toward enhancing biogas production from activated livestock wastes such as plant wastes (forage and straw), manure and
sludge by using various pretreatment techniques such as; ultrasonication fodder wastes, and household wastes are types of biomasses that are
(Zhao et al., 2023), enzymatic and thermal pretreatment (Moreira et al., appropriate for biogas production. Transformation and use of livestock
2023), utilization of natural zeolites (Tang et al., 2023a), etc. manure waste for biogas production are important from different as­
Food residues and organic household (Chew et al., 2021) waste are pects. Some of them are protecting the environment and human health
the major constituents of municipal solid waste. In global meaning, this and heating value - because they could be utilized as a substitute for
waste comes from end-users of products from commercial, medical, fossil fuels (Zareei, 2018). Hence, there are many studies conducted for
trade activities and households and carries a significant amount of the enhancement of livestock manure properties for improved

Fig. 3. Process flow diagram for biogas production from wastewater treatment plant by AD process (Salamattalab et al., 2024).

837
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

production of biogas. Hence, in the study of Chen et al. (2023) alkaline 3. Advanced pretreatment technologies for feedstocks
pretreatment was found to enhance the yield of biogas and CH4
production. The pretreatment technologies (Fig. 4) of feedstock for biogas pro­
duction include; physical pretreatments (mechanical, extrusion, micro­
wave irradiation), thermochemical pretreatments (liquid hot water and
2.5. Microalgae as feedstock steam explosion pretreatment), chemical pretreatments (alkali, acidic
and organosolv), oxidative pre-treatments (wet oxidation, advanced wet
Another feedstock for the production of biogas is microalgae. The explosion and ozonolysis) (Abraham et al., 2020). In physical pre­
biomass from algae has a small quantity of lignin and cellulose in its treatments, the feedstocks are treated without usage of chemicals and
content, thus making them a great source of feedstock for biogas pro­ microbes. This treatment influences the size of particles, cellulose
duction by the process of AD. Microalgae is considered as very effective crystallinity, polymerization range, size of pores and area of biomass
source for the production of biogas due to their high lipids and poly­ surface. In mechanical treatments varieties of milling, grinding and
saccharides content. Furthermore, they are easy to cultivate, grow fast, chopping technologies are used for feedstock processing before entering
easy to harvest as well as easily transformed into biogas. However, the an anaerobic digester. The study of Dell Omo (Dell’Omo and Spena,
obtained yield of biogas is in accordance with the used algal strains and 2020) evaluated double stage mill on an industrial scale for the
operating conditions (Ahmad et al., 2022). In the conducted study by pre-treatment of giant reed stems and wheat straw and the study results
Kowthaman et al. (2021) Spirulina platensis microalgae was utilized as a established that CH4 yield was upgraded by 137 % in comparison to
feedstock for the production of biogas. The study revealed that biomaterial which was not treated.
maximum yield of obtained biogas was 740 mL/gVS at 70 ◦ C and a re­ In pretreatment by microwave irradiation, energy from microwaves
action time of 4 h utilizing 6 % NaOH for the alkaline pretreatment. is introduced into biomass which ensures its fast heating with a low
Furthermore, in the study of Kumari et al. (2021) obtained yield of thermal gradient and due to its fast heating energy costs are reduced
biogas was 479 mL and CH4 yield was 147 mL/VS (g) for untreated (Arpia et al., 2021). In addition to microwave irradiation treatment,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa biomass. there are also studies directed towards combine pretreatment by using
Different feedstock wastes with their CH4 yield are given in Table 1. microwave irradiation and ultrasonic methods (Yue et al., 2021). The
This shows different substrate types, their comparative amount of combination of these two methods is found to result in decreased
methane yield and energy potential that could be generated from the biomass particle size and growth in the area of the exposed surface as
biogas production process. Furthermore, it could be noticed that well as availableness of oligosaccharides, cellulose and hemicellulose
methane yield for different substrate types is in the range from 0.0178 to (Sidana and Yadav, 2022). Furthermore, these methods combination
0.501 m3/kg. Regarding the obtained fresh matter, values ranged from accelerates the process of hydrolysis and process of biodegradation of
96 to 409.6 kWh/t. As found in the study of Bharathiraja et al. (Bhar­ residues from agriculture sectors and sewer sediments which are adop­
athiraja et al., 2018) the highest yield for energy production was ted for the production of biogas. In the study of Hosseinzadeh et al.
determined for maize silage. Furthermore, the second highest obtained (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2024) was found that low-frequency ultrasonic
methane yield was found for kitchen waste as determined in the study of pretreatment was feasible in improving the production of biogas from
Nwokolo et al. (Nwokolo et al., 2020) with a value of 0.501 m3/kg. landfill leachate in anaerobic digestion and for recovery of energy.
Moreover, as given in Table 1 wastewater from the paper and pulp in­ Extrusion pretreatment is usually combined with the actions of
dustries and sewage sludge has the lowest yield of methane and energy. thermal and mechanical operation due to rotation of a screw inside the
Therefore, the most important waste from this category is kitchen waste container that is tight. The study of Karimipour-Fard et al. (Kar­
in terms of biogas production. imipour-Fard et al., 2024) investigated 6 screw designs with shear in­
tensity variations for enhancing the pre-treatment process of biowaste
Table 1 (forestry) for the generation of industrial biogas. It was found increased
The amount of methane yield and obtained fresh matter for biogas production biomethane production by 190 % by using optimal designs of screws in
using various feedstocks. comparison to benchmark samples. In thermochemical pretreatment
Substrate types Methane Obtained fresh Reference marked as liquid hot water pretreatment biowaste is treated at great
yield* matter pressure without any chemicals and by ensuring high pressure water is
(m3/kg) (kWh/t)
kept in a state of liquid at a temperature ranging from 140 to 220 ◦ C.
Banana skin (Robusta 0.277 - (Ji et al., 2017) When this water under pressure penetrates the biowaste it leads to the
species)
hydrolysis of organics (hemicellulose), the area of the surface is
Onion skin 0.400 - (Ji et al., 2017)
Potato skin 0.267 - (Ji et al., 2017)
increasing and the lignin fraction is removed from biomass (Chen et al.,
Pulp and paper mill 0.429 - (Atelge et al., 2022). In the study of Lee et al. (Lee et al., 2020) sunflower stalk was
sludge 2020) treated at different temperatures for AD and the obtained results showed
Pulp and paper 0.078–0.138 - (Atelge et al., that hydrothermally treated biomaterial led to an increased yield of
industry wastewater 2020)
methane with 87 %.
Animal manure+ 0.404 - (Nwokolo et al.,
Tomato pulp 2020) In steam explosion (Fig. 4), the pretreatment biomaterial is heated
Corn stover + Chicken 0.219 - (Nwokolo et al., under great pressure for a short time and with steam which is saturated.
manure 2020) This process is followed by a fast reduction in pressure and results in
Kitchen waste 0.501 - (Nwokolo et al., lignocellulose material destruction. The pressure is usually from 5 to 50
2020)
Chicken litter/dung - 257.3 (Bharathiraja
bars and the temperature ranges from 160 to 250 ◦ C. The hemicellulose
et al., 2018) hydrolysis occurs during an explosion of steam and lignin fraction is
Horse manure - 114.3 (Bharathiraja kind of transformed leading to easily degradable lignocellulose material
et al., 2018) (Yu et al., 2022). In the research of Hashemi et al. (Hashemi et al., 2021)
Municipal solid waste - 207.2 (Bharathiraja
was revealed that steam explosion pre-treatment increased the produc­
et al., 2018)
Sewage sludge - 96.0 (Bharathiraja tion of biogas (Table 2) from birch wood with a value of 155 % and that
et al., 2018) enzymatic treatment further led to an increase in the yield of biogas up
Maize silage - 409.6 (Bharathiraja to 25 % (Hashemi et al., 2021).
et al., 2018) Pretreatments with alkali solutions (NaOH, KOH, urea and Ca(OH)2
*
Note: Presented units are given per mass of volatile solids. etc.) are generally utilized for lignocellulose-based biowaste that results

838
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Fig. 4. Classification of different advanced technologies for feedstock treatment used for biogas production.

Table 2
The representation of various feedstocks and its pretreatment or upgrading technology with obtained biogas and methane yields as well as process conditions.
Feedstock Biogas Increase of Methane Increase in Process Reactor Pretreatment or/ Reference
yield biogas yield methane conditions type upgrading
(mL/g yield (mL/g VS) yield technology
VS) (%) (%)

Swine manure - - 566.1 ± 7.8 49 157 days, Continuous Membrane-based NH3 (Rivera et al., 2022)
2.5 L of anaerobic stirred tank extraction
inoculum, pH 8 reactor (CSTR)
Mixed fruit waste - - 53.58 10 pH 7, 37 ◦ C, 86 days Batch digestion Dilute acetic acid (Saha et al., 2018)
Biorefinery lignin - 56.3 - 106.2 Thermophilic Bioreactor Wet explosion and (Khan and Ahring,
conditions (52 ◦ C), enzymatic hydrolysis 2020)
HRT: 20 days
WWTP mixed 70.3 ± 324.7 ± 75.8 91.2 ± 0.7 Mesophilic Anaerobic Photosynthetic (Méndez et al.,
sludge 12.1 L/d conditions (35 ± 2 digester at pilot upgrading 2022)
◦
C), HRT: 20 days scale
Birch wood - 25 566 - 40 ◦ C, 43 days Batch reactor Steam explosion and (Hashemi et al.,
enzymatic 2021)
Miscanthus 295.50 56.92 135.51 8 35 ◦ C, 90 days Batch reactor Hydrothermal and (Xue et al., 2020)
alkaline
Rice straw - - 311.7 88.7 37 C, 50 days.
◦
Batch reactor Microbial (Amin et al., 2021)
Organic fraction of - - 342.66 ± 41.49 Mesophilic Batch reactor Thermal (Kamali et al., 2023)
municipal solid 6.11 conditions (35 ± 2
waste (OFMSW) ◦
C), 30 days
Wheat straw - - 27.4 Nm3/ 137 Mesophilic Anaerobic Mechanical (Dell’Omo and
tVS conditions (38 ◦ C), reactor Spena, 2020)
28 days
Giant reed stems - - 15.6 Nm3/ 49.1 Mesophilic Anaerobic Mechanical (Dell’Omo and
(Arundo donax) tVS conditions (38 ◦ C), reactor Spena, 2020)
28 days
Rice straw 29.26 20.79 - - 37 ± 1 ◦ C, 45 days Batch reactor Fungal pretreatment (Rani and Dhoble,
2023)
Cattle manure - - 1.30 ± - Thermophilic Four cylindrical Ex-situ biogas (Ghofrani-Isfahani
0.15 L CH4/ conditions (55 ± 1 up-flow reactor upgrading et al., 2021)
Lr day ◦
C)
Algae and corn 740 60 - - 50 ◦ C, pH 7 Batch reactor Thermochemical (Kowthaman et al.,
husk pretreatment 2021)
Wheat straw 16 - 408 14 37 ◦ C, 10 days Continuous Fungal and bacterial (Yadav and
stirred tank pretreatment Vivekanand, 2021)
reactor

in the opening of ester bonds in organic fractions of these materials. technologies at 175 ºC (Table 2). The biogas yield was improved by
Fig. 5 gives a schematic representation of three different configurations 52.96 % and the time of AD period was reduced by 45.4 % towards the
for alkaline treatment. This kind of treatment improves the process of control. The major parameters which affect this process are tempera­
enzymatic hydrolysis in the AD systems as well as the porosity and area ture, time of residence and alkali concentration. On the other side,
of the surface of biomaterials thus leading to reduced polymerization inorganic acids which are used in the pretreatment process of feedstock
degree (You et al., 2019). The study by Xue et al. (2020) found enhanced include HNO3, H3PO4, H2SO4 and HCl (Ilanidis et al., 2021).
biogas production from miscanthus used as aa feedstock by the combi­ This treatment is performed with acids ranging in concentrations
nation of alkaline (8 % NaOH) and hydrothermal pretreatment from 30 to 70 % and at temperatures under 100 ◦ C or above, depending

839
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Fig. 5. Different configurations for alkaline anaerobic digestion processes; (a) Pretreatment, (b) Posttreatment and (c) for In-situ usage (Chen et al., 2023).

on acid concentration. These acids are hydrolysing fractions of cel­ Hence, in the study of Dutta et al. (Dutta et al., 2022) sewage sludge was
methane yield fromlulose in the biomaterial (Mishra et al., 2021). subjected to the advanced wet oxidation and steam explosion pretreat­
Suthar et al. (Suthar et al., 2022) investigated the influence of dilute ment. Their study revealed a 94 % improved yield of methane under the
acid-thermal treatment and the addition of biochar from cattle dung on optimal CH4 average yield of 183 mL/g VS at 165 ◦ C, 15 min and by
anaerobic co-digestion of activated waste sludge. The production of using 10 % oxygen.
biogas was improved by 98.7 % and methane yield by 77.4 %. The In the process of ozonolysis, the ozone is used as an oxidizing reagent
treatment with organics is carried out by utilization of various organic which influences the fraction of lignin during the pretreatment process.
solvents in or without the presence of catalysts. The pretreatment with The process effectiveness is dependent on ozone concentration, particle
organic solvent of Napier grass and silage was investigated in the study size of biomaterial and amount of biomaterial water. There are no
of Jomnonkhaow et al. (Jomnonkhaow et al., 2022). The pretreatment formed inhibitory compounds during the process since biomass is
of used biomaterials by organic solvent followed by enzymatic hydro­ treated at ambient pressure and temperature. The most crucial factor in
lysis enhanced methane yield 2 times in comparison to untreated bio­ the process is water due to the solubilization of biomaterial during the
materials. In addition, this pretreatment has enhanced the removal of pretreatment (Zhou et al., 2023). Perrez-Barragan et al. (Pérez-Barragán
lignin. et al., 2024) assessed methane and biohydrogen production from two
In the wet oxidation pretreatment water is added to the feedstock types of biomaterial and used ozonolysis as a pretreatment method. It
which is then followed by the addition of an oxidizing reagent like H2O2 was revealed that with ozonated enzymatic hydrolysates yield of bio­
and the biomaterial is heated at temperatures ranging from 125 to 300 hydrogen was improved up to 78.2 % and methane yield was 260 NmL
◦
C and pressures from 0.5 to 20 MPa. In the study of Lee et al. (Lee et al., CH4/g VS.
2021) wet oxidation pretreatment with H2O2 for oil palm empty fruit Table 3 gives various feedstocks for biogas production and their
bunches as biogas feedstock has proven to be very effective in improving required pretreatment technologies. There is a broad spectrum of wastes
methane yield from 19.7 to 52.7 %. In the pretreatment called advanced that are used as a substrates in anaerobic digestion (AD) in accordance
wet explosion, the temperature ranges from 140 to 220 ◦ C and pressure with their origin (source) from one of three main primary kinds of
from 0 to 3.5 MPa. When the selected temperature is achieved then O2 is organic waste (Atelge et al., 2020). In addition, the literature indicates
purged into the selected reactor and feedstock is heated from 5 to that the selection of one or more adequate pretreatment processes could
120 min (Wang et al., 2023). When the process is completed, pressure is improve the running of a biogas plant increasing the rate of anaerobic
promptly decreased and biomaterial is removed from the flash tank. digestion or enhancing methane yield (Chandel et al., 2019). However,

840
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Table 3
Feedstock classification and required pretreatment technologies for biogas production.
Origin Feedstock Examples Pretreatment required Reference

Agriculture Agricultural residues and waste, Herbaceous woody crops, Grasses; Sugar crops, P: (mechanical, thermal), C: (oxidative, (Dahunsi, 2019), (
Livestock waste, Energy crops, Starch crops, Oilseed crops; Manure (cattle, pig, alkali), B:(partial composting, enzymatic, Kamusoko et al.,
Animal by-products, Manure, poultry), Harvest remains; Prokaryotic algae, fungi), COMB: (nitrogen extraction, 2019),
Algae; Mosses, Lichens Eukaryotic algae, Kelps, Bryophyta, Polytrichales, extrusion) (Chevalier et al.,
Crustose lichens, Foliose lichens 2023),
(Orlando and Borja,
2020),
(Bhushan et al., 2023)
Industry Industrial wastes and wastewaters Food/beverage processing; Slaughterhouses waste, P: (thermal, ultrasound, microwave, (Ketsub et al., 2022),
Starch industry, Sugar industry, Pharmaceutical electrokinetic), COMB: (steam explosion) (Aliyu Salihu, 2016), (
industry, Textile industry, Cosmetic industry, Pulp Anacleto et al., 2022), (
and paper, Biochemical industry Yankov, 2022)
Municipal Community bio wastes Organic fraction from municipal waste, Sewage P:(mechanical), B: (precomposting), (Mitraka et al., 2022), (
waste sludge, Excreta waste, Garden waste, Food remains COMB: (steam explosion) Kamali et al., 2023),
(Karthikeyan et al.,
2018)

Note: P- Physical; C- Chemical; B-Biological; COMB- Combined

it must be ensured that the important return in terms of biogas pro­ such as siloxanes, hydrogen sulphide and water vapour cause corrosion
duction should be greater than operational and capital costs for pre­ to the mechanical parts that lead to a decrease in the heating value. It is
treatment. In this regard, the process efficiency could be enhanced and of great significance to ensure the separation of CO2 due to the calorific
the costs involved in pretreatment could be minimized by applying biogas value which could increase up to 35.8 MJ/m3 and other con­
co-digestion (Gontard et al., 2018). Recently, anaerobic co-digestion stituents which are corrosive to broaden and increase the usage of biogas
(AcoD) method has been seen as a more viable technology enhancing (Sahota et al., 2018). The four main biogas production technologies
biogas yield, in general, compared to AD mono-substrate (Rodrí­ (Table 4) used worldwide are incineration (thermochemical process)
guez-Nuñez and Castillo Baltazar, 2020). and waste disposal, anaerobic digestion and aerobic composting (bio­
logical processes) (Tshikovhi and Motaung, 2023).
Selecting the optimal technology is challenging regarding the full
3.1. Emerging technologies for biogas production and upgradation complexity of parameters that determine the various (dis)advantages.
One of the tools used for the objective assessment is a multi-criteria
Under controlled conditions, biogas is produced by the anaerobic decision-making (MCDM) such as analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
activity of selected bacteria and has a calorific value from 21 to 24 MJ/ method based on several usually conflicting criteria (Ozgur, 2024). The
m3. Biodegradation of organic matter under natural anaerobic condi­ key is to establish a suitable technology considering the four main
tions delivers about 800×106 tons of methane into the atmosphere. The criteria (environmental, economic, sustainable and social criteria of
composition of biogas is complex and it is the reason for its limited use energy recovery from used waste) and if necessary, a sub-criteria
(Kapoor et al., 2020b). Biogas represents a mixture of various gases and (identified for pairwise comparison) during the selection process. For
most of it consists of methane, carbon dioxide and other gases that make instance, Agbejule et al. (2021) found that technology preference fol­
up 1–5 % of hydrogen. Methane enables the easy combustion of biogas, lows the order: incineration> anaerobic digestion > aerobic digestion >
whereas CO2 lowers the calorific value and limits the ability to transport landfilled gas based on three major criteria and nine sub-criteria are
biogas because it does not combust normally. Other biogas constituents

Table 4
Comparison of main technologies for biogas production.
Process Landfilling Aerobic composting Incineration Anaerobic digestion

Biomass type Uncontrollable Organic waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) see Table 3.
biomass (mostly organic matter -
garbage dump)
Main end Gas (CH4, CO2) Gas (NH3, CO2), Gas (CH4, CO2), Gas (CH4, CO2);
products Solid (compost), Heat Digestate
Heat
Advantage Very low cost raw material Minimizes animal manure Uses almost all types of MWS fraction and can Economically viable (low capital and
quantity and kills reduce the volume of the waste by 80 % and operating costs). Low amount of
microorganisms the solid mass by 70 %. greenhouse gas (GHG) emission.
Nutrient-rich substance (digestate)
could be further used for fertilizer
making it safe for disposal.
Disadvantage Environmentally problematic Causes secondary Very high initial plant costs, maintenance and A large area is required for this type of
(leachate environmental pollution operating capital costs, Eventually could lead plant installation.
could easily lead to pollution and to air and/or water pollution. Quite difficult management and
quality of water and soil) Lower energy content maintenance.
Complex products need additional
techniques for processing to become
products which are refined.
Problems due to storage and product
processing.
Reference (Al-Wahaibi et al., 2020), ( (Lu et al., 2019), (Duan et al., (Ouda et al., 2016); (Rasheed et al., 2021), (Chojnacka et al., 2020), (Holtzapple
Agbejule et al., 2021), (Velasco 2022) (Beyene et al., 2018) et al., 2022)
et al., 2019)

841
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

marked for pair-wise comparison and evaluated by 10 experts. This to acetate and ethanol is converted to acetate, which then in further
sequence is subject to change on a case-by-case basis concerning the stages are used by methanogenic microorganisms as substrate compo­
developed capacity integration strategies and institutional capabilities nents (Koniuszewska et al., 2020). During the acidogenesis to produce
for these processes in the country. However, the main leading technol­ H2, acetic acid and CO2 products are subjected to anaerobic digestion.
ogy for biogas production is still considered anaerobic digestion tech­ This stage is performed until the point where methanogens can influence
nology since it is in agreement with the new set up targets of the acetogenesis products as well as the products from other AD processes to
European Union (EU) considering biogas production (Gas for climate produce CH4 (Kabeyi and Olanrewaju, 2022). The methanogens which
2050, 2022). are acetoclastic and CO2 are reducing methanogens (CM) to produce
methane and carbon dioxide (Song et al., 2024). Methanogens are pri­
3.2. Stages of biogas production by anaerobic digestion marily active in a moderately alkaline environment (6.8–7.2) since these
microorganisms die if pH < 6. In various stages of AD pH of the sus­
Four basic stages are part of the AD process and make up the biogas pension goes under changes. In the stage of acidogenesis, the pH value is
production from different organic biomaterials (Livestock, industrial, about 6 and a large quantity of CO2 is released. In the pH range of
food and municipal solid waste etc.) that occur in a digester for anaer­ 6.6–7.5 that is often buffered in digestate, biodegradation is very
obic digestion. The stages include hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis effective and microorganisms are very operative (Koniuszewska et al.,
and methanogenesis (Tang et al., 2023a) as shown in Fig. 6. Hydrolysis 2020). Methanogens are categorised as chemolithotrophic microorgan­
is the first stage in which high-molecular and insoluble organic com­ isms due to the utilization of carbon dioxide as a resource of carbon
pounds such as carbohydrates, proteins and lipids are subjected to the (Bharti et al., 2022).
conversion to low-molecular and simple compounds, such as propionic,
formic and butyric acids (volatile fatty acids (VFAs)) as well as to CO2, 3.3. Physicochemical technologies
H2 alcohols and aldehydes. This process involves saprophytic bacteria
due to the participation of some extracellular enzymes (Koniuszewska There are many technologies which are currently used for biogas and
et al., 2020). The chemical process that breakdowns the water molecules feedstock treatment and pre-treatment process as well as for its
into anions (OH-) and cations (H3O) is called hydrolysis. upgrading and the first reason is an uptake of impurities such as H2S,
For that process, an acidic catalyst to break down the large bio­ water vapour, ammonia and siloxanes which are not favourable for its
polymers into low-molecular substrates is needed. In the stage of hy­ applicability, natural gas grind and for end-users. The second reason is
drolysis, fermenting bacteria (FB) such as bactericides, clostridia and an uptake of CO2 to increase its calorific value and to minimize the
bifidobacterial represent fermenting bacteria that breakdown density of biogas which was treated to meet the standards of specific
mentioned polymers from biomass, i.e., high-molecular carbohydrates Wobble index (upgrading of biogas). In addition, depending on used
and lipids into sugar and fatty acids which are then soluble components technology, storage, usage and removal of CO2 could make biogas a
of the process (Kour et al., 2019). Acetate and hydrogen are the main carbon-neutral resource of energy and thus manage emissions of
products of the hydrolysis phase which are utilised in further stages of anthropogenic CO2. After the process of biogas upgrading final product
anaerobic digestion by the process of methanogens (Begum et al., 2018). is marked as biomethane and its quality and performance are defined
Acidogenic bacteria (Kour et al., 2019) convert hydrolysis products and based on the end utilization. Biomethane usually consisted of 95–99 %
compounds which are water-soluble into components such as CO2, methane, 1–6 % carbon dioxide and 0.02–0.05 % hydrogen sulphide.
methanol or ethanol (alcohols), organic acids with H2 short-chain and Biogas upgrading technologies include scrubbing, membrane separa­
aldehydes (Koniuszewska et al., 2020). During acetogenesis, the con­ tion, pressure swing adsorption and cryogenic technology (Fig. 7). The
version of the products is mediated by the acetic bacteria, Syntropho­ scrubbing technology includes chemical and organics solvents/physical
monas and Syntrophobacter. scrubbing techniques (Nguyen et al., 2021).
In this stage propionate is converted to acetate, glucose is converted Techniques based on the solvent or water scrubbing rely on the

Fig. 6. Anaerobic digestion (AD) stages (hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis and methanogenesis) for the process of biogas production from biomass.

842
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Fig. 7. Biogas upgrading technologies; (a) Pressure swing adsorption, (b) Scrubbing technology for the separation of CH4 and CO2, (c) Membrane separation and (d)
Cryogenic technology (Nguyen et al., 2021).

solubility difference of CO2 and CH4. The used solution could be organic varieties of the solvent regeneration process; hot process of regenera­
solvent or water. In the process of water scrubbing biogas which is pre- tion, decompression of the solvent or flash desorption and stripping by
treated is maintained at the temperature of 40 ◦ C and the pressure from using an inert gas (Carranza-Abaid et al., 2021).
6 to 10 bars and introduced into the column for scrubbing (Fig. 7(b)). Another technology for biogas upgrading is chemical scrubbing or
Hence, CO2 solubility is about 26 times greater compared to the solu­ chemical absorption (Khan et al., 2021). This technology is based on the
bility of CH4. This method requires a great quantity of water with the chemical adsorbent and CO2 reaction which is reversible (Fig. 7(b)).
value of 200 m3/h for a flow of the gas with 1000 Nm3/h (Sun et al., Chemical adsorbents could be used in varieties of amine compounds
2015). So, regeneration of the water is essential for the economic sus­ such as methyl diethanolamine (MDEA). The loss of methane in this
tainability of this technique and is favourable for the implementation of process is minimal since used adsorbents are reacting only with CO2.
this technology into wastewater treatment plants. The process of Hence, there are no requirements for lean gas process of
scrubbing with the organic solvent is similar to one which uses water post-combustion. In the technology of chemical scrubbing high purity
(Angelidaki et al., 2018). The process with organic solvent is referred methane (99 %) could be produced (Nguyen et al., 2021). The removal
also as physical scrubbing. As organic solvents could be used methanol, of H2S from the upstream must be performed due to the H2S corrosive
poly(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether, propylene carbonate, tributyl reaction with the solution of amines. Compared to physical scrubbing
phosphate, tetramethylene sulfone, n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and n-for­ technology regeneration of adsorbent compounds is an
myl-morpholine (Carranza-Abaid et al., 2021). energy-intensifying process due to the strong bonds between molecules
In this process, CO2 has a greater solubility in the organic solvent of gas. In general, the regeneration process consumes from 15 to 30 % of
such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone than in the water and a decreased the generated energy from bioCH4 (Sun et al., 2015). The latest studies
amount of solvent is required as well as scrubbing column size could be are directed towards decreasing energy requirements for the adsorbent
decreased. The absorption of CO2 occurs at pressures ranging from 4 to 8 regeneration process by using a novel solution of amine compounds and
bars leading to a lower demand for energy in comparison to technology by optimizing various process conditions such as rate of gas flow and
of water scrubbing. In the study of Carranza-Abaid (Carranza-Abaid temperature.
et al., 2021) was found that solvent performance regarding energetic The pressure swing adsorption technology is based on the fact that
and economic costs could be arranged in the following order poly methane and carbon dioxide are differently adsorbed onto specific
(ethylene glycol) dimethyl ether ≈ n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone > n-for­ adsorbent pores or surfaces. This technology uses differences in selected
myl-morpholine > methanol > water. The disadvantage of organic pressure and temperature since CO2 adsorption is in proportion to the
solvent scrubbing is regeneration of solvent since stripping and pressure increased pressure and decreased temperature (Abd et al., 2022).
of air release are not successful for its regeneration. There are three Therefore, separation process is carried by a swing in

843
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

pressure/temperature. The process basic principle is shown in Fig. 7(a) pure CO2 that could be used in the industry of drinks and food (Esposito
and its main section is filled with the selected adsorbent (carbon mo­ et al., 2019). The research of Esposito et al. evaluated this technology
lecular sieve, zeolites, carbon which is activated, silicates, silica gel, and found that high-purity CO2 with 99.9 % could be obtained after
etc.). These materials are used because they have great areas of surfaces, cooling the system to 30 ◦ C with the separation of nitrogen, oxygen and
are porous and thus will enhance the capacity of adsorption. Since H2S traces of methane. The separation with membranes technology is usually
could be adsorbed onto these materials and lead to producing toxic ef­ conducted under pressures ranging from 7 to 20 bars and its requirement
fects the process of desulphurisation is required before pressure swing of energy is ranging from 0.18 to 0.33 kWh/Nm3 of used biogas. In the
adsorption. This technology is operating at various plants for the biogas study of Baena-Moreno et al. (Baena-Moreno et al., 2020) losses of CH4
process of upgrading. The quality of bioCH4 ranges from 96 % to 98 % were reported at 2 % at levels of laboratory-scale. In addition, it was
and the loss of the CH4 is between 1.5 % and 2.5 % (Nguyen et al., reported that the process of pretreatment of biogas is of great impor­
2021). Thus, this technology requires exhaust gas post-combustion with tance due to membrane protection and for ensuring great purity of CH4.
the aim of minimising the release of CH4 into the environment. The The cryogenic technology (Fig. 7(d)) is based on low temperatures
requirement of energy for pressure swing adsorption is from 0.15 to 0.35 and high pressure conditions for CO2 condensing while due to the dif­
kWh/Nm3 of used biogas which makes it a good technology for ference of points of boiling CH4 remains in the gas phase. The process of
upgrading biogas (Nguyen et al., 2021). CO2 re-sublimation is carried out at a temperature of 78.5 ◦ C and
The technology of membrane separation (Fig. 7(c)) is based on pressure of 1 bar and CO2 in solid state could be separated from CH4 by
different gas permeability through the pores of the membrane due to rectification process. Hence, this technology ensures obtaining high
their selectivity differences. Hence CO2 is greatly permeable and CH4 is purity CH4 and CO2 with the value of 99 % by their volumes (Nguyen
impermeable due to their molecule sizes. The used membranes are 20 et al., 2021). The methane loss is more than 1 %. However, cryogenic
times less permeable for CH4 compared to CO2. The rich exhaust gas of technology is still developing and the market is not yet ready for it.
CO2 from this technology could be utilized for the production of greatly Disadvantages include high requirements of energy for the compression

Fig. 8. (a) The mechanism of lignocellulose biomass transformation into biogas mediated by nanocatalyst (Govarthanan et al., 2022) and (b) Nanobubble technology
for biogas production by anaerobic digestion (Wang et al., 2021).

844
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

and refrigeration of the biogas which is raw and ensuring that frozen extensively studied in recent years (Wang et al., 2021). In the study of
carbon dioxide does not lead to equipment clogging in the process of gas Wang et al. (Wang et al., 2019) was investigated this technology and it
refrigeration. The consumption of energy is around 10 % of produced was found that NBs have improved methane yield from 14 to 21 % and
CH4. Nevertheless, some options for enhancing cryogenic technology are content of methane was increased by 5 % in comparison to the control
still possible. The utilized energy for condensing of biogas could be used reactor (55 %).
recovered by the liquefaction process of produced bioCH4 and frozen
carbon dioxide could be used as a dry ice in selected industries (Esposito
3.4. Biochemical technologies
et al., 2019).
A lot of the latest studies are directed towards the introduction of
The biochemical technologies for enhancement of biogas production
nanotechnology for the improvement of the production process of
process include fungal, microorganism and enzymatic pre-treatment.
biogas. Fig. 8(a) gives the pathways of lignocellulose biomass conver­
These technologies are greener, eco-friendlier and suitable to foster
sion into biogas mediated by nanocatalyst. Utilization of NPs is found to
the performance process. For the enhanced biogas feedstock process of
decrease contaminants in biogas production and to enhance its pro­
enzymatic hydrolysis during the anaerobic digestion process, it is of
duction process. In addition, nanoparticles are found effective for
great importance to advance the process of microbial growth on utilized
decreasing the levels of COD, CO2 and H2S removed from the biogas
biomass which could be done by biochemical technologies. Various
(François et al., 2023a). In the research of Francois et al. (François et al.,
enzymes such as xylanases, proteases, cellulases and ligninolytic en­
2023b) was found that the usage of nanoparticles (NPs) is influenced by
zymes have been utilized for the conversion of feedstocks in an anaer­
the mass and selected feedstock for biogas production, feedstocks
obic digestion process into digestible sugars and to improve production
biodegradability, pH and variety of used NPs. In another study was re­
of biogas rate under selected operational parameters to avoid inhibitory
ported that carbon-based nanomaterials (CNMs) could be prepared by
compounds formation (Fig. 9). In general for the treatment of ligno­
utilizing different biowastes for enhanced production of biogas. It was
cellulose biomass other technologies must be used before enzymatic
found that they had good performance, CH4 yield as well as good
liquefaction for getting enhanced production rate of sugars and yield
chemical oxygen demand uptake in the anaerobic digestion process
(Deshavath et al., 2021).
(François et al., 2023c).
There are commercially accessible enzymes utilized in the substrate
Another technology called Nanobubble (NB) technology (Fig. 8(b))
hydrolysis process which could be further utilized by microorganisms
has been also explored for upgrading biogas. The nanobubbles are
for biogas production and their growth. In the study of Tyagi et al.
bubbles which have a shape that is spherical and diameter from 50 to
(Tyagi et al., 2018) was found that prepared manure compost when
200 nm. These NBs are improving the solubility of the gas with a great
mixed with the organic fraction of municipal solid biowaste from in­
charge of surface and a long time of residence. Furthermore, NBs could
dustry could improve the reduction of organic dissolved carbon with
improve enzymatic activity by promoting the mobility of water, thus
61 % and volatile solids (VS) by 35 % compared to a control sample,
acting as carriers marked as Coenzyme F420 (Chuenchart et al., 2021).
thus enhancing the production of methane yield and increasing the yield
Regarding their mechanism, NBs usage in H2-NB based systems is quite
of produced biogas by 60 %. In a study by Liew et al. (Liew et al., 2020)
intriguing. Hence, upgrading of biogas by this technology has been
was found that selected enzymes have greatly improved biogas

Fig. 9. (a) Production of biogas from lignocellulose biomass by anaerobic digestion process (Abraham et al., 2020), (b) Biological pretreatment process of ligno­
cellulosic biomass (Abraham et al., 2020) and (c) Organic matter pathways for anaerobic degradation (Rasapoor et al., 2020).

845
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

production up to 76 %. In the process of enzymatic technology bio­ which are secreted by basidiomycetes like laccase, manganese and lignin
wastes containing various fats and oils usually are utilized bio­ peroxidase (Zhao et al., 2019). Even though this process has many ad­
surfactants as additives for the stimulation of enzyme activity by leading vantages, the disadvantages of utilization of white-rot fungi are a long
to increased solubility as well as bioavailability of these compounds of pretreatment period of incubation and significant loss of holocellulose.
utilized feedstock (Vijayakumar et al., 2022). Hence for obtaining biomass which is delignified and rich in cellu­
The biological fungal pretreatment which could be aerobic of lose a greatly selective type of white-rot fungi is favoured for accelerated
anaerobic is one of the most widely utilized and effective techniques that production of biogas. Furthermore, parameters for cultivation that in­
use types of wood-rotting fungi (Fusarium, Trametes and Phanerochaete), fluence the performance should be optimized as well (Nurika et al.,
especially white-rot fungi, for the process of lignocellulose biomass 2018). The study of Kainthola et al. (Kainthola et al., 2019) found an
delignification (Fig. 10) at decreased temperatures (Kainthola et al., improved generation of biogas as well as higher methane yield by using
2021). These fungi are helping in the degradation process of cellulose, fungal pretreatment. Furthermore, in comparison to biomass which was
hemicellulose and lignin at equal rates. When the process ends, simple untreated to fungal-treated rice straw increase in methane yield was
sugars fraction is made and the enzymatic digestibility of utilized 1.65 times higher. Albornoz et al. (Albornoz et al., 2018) used the same
lignocellulose feedstocks is improved. During fungal pretreatment fungus and biogas yield was enhanced by 25 % by using wheat straw as a
degradation effectiveness of lignin is dependent on lininolytic enzymes feedstock and an incubation time of 15 days. However, the application

Fig. 10. Substrate degradation pathways of fungi; (a) Selective process and (b) Non- selective process (Kainthola et al., 2021).

846
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

of this kind of treatment is of high cost and compared to the general consisting of Bacteroides and Clostridium-rich methanogens. Production
pre-treatment methods from 4 to 15 times higher. In addition, the pro­ of methane increased by 67.2 % and the degradation efficiency of empty
cess of fungal pretreatment still needs to improve its efficiency and this fruit bunches by 57.5 %.
could be performed by optimising the content of moisture and by
cultivation media supplementation with selected nutrient elements
(Mishra et al., 2021). 3.5. Green upgrading technologies for biogas production
Utilization of a specialized microbial consortium (mixture of more
strains) has been found to effectively degrade lignocellulose compared Another upgrading biogas technology is bioconversion of carbon
to the usage of separate strains (Ali et al., 2024). In comparison with the dioxide into methane which is done by utilization of hydrogenotrophic
different fungi whose main target is lignin, pre-treatment with microbial methanogens (Fig. 11(b)). Hence, in the process of CO2 bioconversion by
consortium leads to the degradation of cellulose- and hemicellulose H2-based chemoautotrophic, CO2 is sequestrate by its conversion into
(Zhou et al., 2024). The major advantage of this process is the metabolic CH4 via the usage of hydrogen that is produced from the process of water
diversity of microbial consortiums that causes higher adaptability and electrolysis, thus making a new technology which is marked as P2G
rate growth, higher consumption yield of substrate and rate, more (Power to gas) (Zabranska and Pokorna, 2018). The used energy for the
effective pH control during the process of sugar assimilation and production of hydrogen via mentioned process is mostly obtained from
enhanced effectiveness of subsequent enzymatic process of saccharifi­ the energy which is surplus from RES, such as solar and wind. The
cation (Tabatabaei et al., 2020). Hence, Hua et al. (Hua et al., 2022) bioCH4 which is converted from the reduction of CO2 would lead to
prepared a micro-aerobic synthetic microbial consortium composed of increased content of methane in the final obtained biogas. This process
Methanosarcina acetivorans C2A and Methanosaeta thermophila NBRC leads to upgraded biogas which is used as a fuel for transportation.
101360 for anaerobic digestion of cattle manure. It was found that by Therefore, storage of electricity in the CH4 could lead to simple storage
using these synthetic microbial consortiums at accelerating levels of of energy and its distribution. In this process three types of methanogens
recovery from decreased inhibition of pH value; biogas production was could be used; hydrogenotrophic, acetotrophic methanogens and
increased by 44.78 %. Furthermore, the study of Tukanghan (Tukan­ homoacetogens (Wu et al., 2021).
ghan et al., 2021) found enhancement production of biogas and oil palm Which methanogens could be used depends on the substrates that are
empty fruit bunches efficiency of degradation by using a consortium utilized for their metabolism process. Furthermore, following the system
configurations in which hydrogen assists the biomethanation of CO2, the

Fig. 11. Biogas upgrading technologies; (a) Utilization of microalgae, (b) Different designs of H2-based upgrading biogas processes and (c) Microbial electrolysis cell
technology (Wu et al., 2021).

847
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

upgrading systems for biogas could be divided into the following types; being produced in the plant for anaerobic digestion. The AD process uses
in- and ex-situ and designed hybrid systems which are given in Fig. 11(b) different sorts of bacteria (saprophytic bacteria, bactericides, clostridia,
(Wu et al., 2021). In-situ systems for biogas H2 technology upgrading bifidobacteria, acidogenic and acetic bacteria) that continuously break
consist of an anaerobic digester and system for the electrolysis of water down organic components and it comprises the four stages which are
for H2 formation. In this process, H2 is introduced into AD system and previously described (Hosseinzadeh et al., 2024). Microorganisms have
coupled with carbon dioxide which is indigenous and obtained from AD, a very significant role in the process of AD. Groups of bacteria are
which is further converted to methane by methanogens. Ex-situ systems different in the hydrolysis phase, acidification and phase of methane
have AD unit for the production of biogas which is raw and a second unit production in AD (Wang et al., 2018). Fermentation of methane includes
of the reactor that is anaerobic for the removal of CO2 by the biological four biological and chemical phases that use mutually interacting groups
reaction of hydrogen obtained from the electrolysis of water. In the of microorganisms. In general, AD is not a fast process, since microor­
study of Rafrafi et al. (Rafrafi et al., 2021) CH4 yield by ex-situ H2 ganisms need almost a month to adapt to new environmental conditions
technology upgrading was found to a value >97 % for a sludge used as a whenever some of the factors change (substrate type, temperature or
feedstock for biogas production. The hybrid process for biogas upgrad­ other environmental parameters). Microbial relations are very complex
ing utilizes biomitigation of carbon dioxide to methane in AD system and when there is a lack of equilibrium among microorganisms con­
and the process of biomethanation of CO2 conducted in a reactor which sortia which are responsible for various phases in methane production,
is separate together (Zabranska and Pokorna, 2018). the rate of reactions will be affected, which could further lead to the
The microbial electrolysis cell (MEC) for the upgrading of biogas is a accumulation of inhibitory substances (Koniuszewska et al., 2020).
sustainable and effective technology with a low requirement of energy
(Gao et al., 2021). In this process, H2 is formed by MEC that is a bio­ 4.1. Influencing factors in biogas production
electrochemical system and CO2 is converted into CH4. The bacteria
which are anode-respiring could transform organics from wastewater As mentioned in the previous section, various types of bacteria are
into electrical current and discharge H+. The H+ is subsequently trans­ involved in the process of anaerobic digestion (AD) (Fig. 9). For the
ported to cathode and then into H2 reduced. Thus, this obtained H2 is production of biogas from FW in the process that uses bacteria all sig­
then utilized for the CO2 reduction into CH4 through hydrogenotrophic nificant parameters for an adequate environment need to reach equi­
methanogens. It also could be used to produce multi-carbon products by librium. Parameters such as volatile fatty acids, temperature, time of
the utilization of microorganisms which are acetogenic (Fig. 11(c)) (Wu retention etc, should be monitored continuously and maintained within
et al., 2021). In the study of Zeppilli et al. (Zeppilli et al., 2020) bio­ their optimum ranges in the process of AD (Zhang et al., 2023). The
electromethanogenesis reaction in a tubular MEC was used for the influence of temperature in the AD process is a significant parameter to
upgrading of biogas. Thus, it was found that the reaction of bio­ monitor. Since temperature influences the production of methane, vol­
electromethanogenesis leads to the uptake of 13.2 gCO2/d. atile acid-dependence microorganisms and as well as methanogenic
The process of photosynthetic biofixation of CO2 for biogas microorganisms. Overall, bacterial fulfilment shows great dependency
upgrading is carried out by microalgae. The microalgae could be used on temperature effects in AD. There are different temperatures at which
due to their high rates of growth, ability to consume nutrients from the AD process occurs and they are divided into the following types: ther­
various waters and capability for growth under different conditions. mophilic (50 and 65 ◦ C), mesophilic (20 and 45 ◦ C) and psychrophilic
There are two proposed configurations (direct or indirect) of this tech­ (10 and 20 ◦ C). The disadvantages of the thermophilic stage are re­
nology shown in Fig. 11(a) (Wu et al., 2021). The CO2 is fixated via flected in a greater amount of disproportion and a greater need for en­
microalgae by the process of photosynthesis. Namely, raw biogas is ergy due to the associated high temperature (Nie et al., 2021).
introduced into the reactor for the biogas photosynthetic system of Overall, bacterial fulfilment shows great dependency on temperature
upgrading. The photoautotrophic microorganisms are responsible for effects in AD. There are different temperatures at which AD process
the removal of CO2 while using as an energy source solar and producing occurs and they are divided into the following types: thermophilic (50
its biomass by the consumption of nutrients (Angeles et al., 2020). The and 65 ◦ C), mesophilic (20 and 45 ◦ C) and psychrophilic (10 and 20 ◦ C).
H2S formed in this process is removed by bacteria in the reactor which The disadvantages of the thermophilic stage are reflected in a greater
are sulphur oxidising or by the reaction with O2 which is unwanted and amount of disproportion and a greater need for energy due to the
obtained from microalgae. In this process, CH4 is upgraded to have associated high temperature (Nie et al., 2021). The use of heat for re­
maximum CO2 content in the biogas ranging from 2 to 6 % (del Rosario actions accelerates the processes, which is also the case with the biogas
Rodero et al., 2020). Overall, this process is a promising technology for production process. Thermophiles are microorganisms in AD that un­
commercial uses of the biogas upgrading process. Since it leads to the dertake mesophilic and thermophilic digestion processes. Thermophiles
capture of carbon and its re-use, thus enhancing the sustainability of the are effective in the range of 45–80 ◦ C, while mesophilic bacteria are
biogas production process in a circular system of economy (Bose et al., effective at temperatures 25–40 ◦ C (Kabeyi and Olanrewaju, 2022). An
2019). optimal temperature of 35 ◦ C is characteristic of mesophilic digestion
and 55◦ C for thermophilic digestion. Improved rate of reaction, reduc­
4. Technological challenges for biogas production tion of pathogens and less request for microorganism nutrients are all
advantages of thermophilic digestion compared to mesophilic digestion.
The raw biogas is produced from biomass feedstock via a process The temperature needs to be regularly monitored, mostly when a change
called anaerobic digestion (AD) which usually consists of four main in weather is expected. The temperature (mesophilic or thermophilic) is
phases. In this process, organic fractions of biowaste under anaerobic usually chosen following the variety of end-products (Sawyerr et al.,
conditions are decomposed into simple molecules mixture containing 2019).
methane (40–65 %), carbon dioxide (35–55 %), hydrogen sulphide The value of pH is the most important parameter (Fig. 12) that not
(0.1–3 %), water and other organic volatile compounds (Angelidaki only influences the stability of an AD but also influences its performance.
et al., 2018). The value of energy from biogas is 37.3 MJ/m3 with a Microorganisms show a high sensitivity to pH, because, for each type of
calorific value ranging from 5000 to 7500 kcal/m3 (Mishra et al., 2021). bacteria, the optimal pH range is different and necessary for their
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process which uses microorganisms in the growth. For hydrolysis ideal value of pH is 6 and for acetogenesis and
atmosphere without oxygen that break down high molecular and com­ methanogenesis, 6–7 and 6.5–7.5, respectively (Leung and Wang, 2016).
plex organic components into low-molecular and simpler chemical To ensure the enzymatic activity of enzyme, the required pH value for
components. Obtained gas in AD is called biogas and it contains com­ acid-forming bacteria is > 5.0 and 6.2 for methane-forming bacteria.
ponents such as CH4, CO2, H2S, NH3 and other various gases which are Methanogenic bacteria showed better performance at pH values 6.8–7.2

848
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

et al., 2019).

4.2. Operational parameters and reactor design strategies

Bioreactors to produce biogas should have appropriate operation

parameters and conditions for utilized communities of microbes which
are participating in the process of substrate conversion, with emphasis
on methanogens. Since microbes could be inhibited in dependence of
applied pH value, this parameter should be strongly monitored. In
addition to pH, temperature also should be monitored since it effects the
activity and conditions of living for microorganisms. Furthermore,
efficient nutrients should be provided, because their deficit as well as the
presence of some inhibitors could lead to effective reactor performance
(Wu et al., 2021). There are several reactor configurations for anaerobic
digester system which could be utilized in dependence on available
biowaste and space such as fully stirred tank anaerobic reactor (FSTR),
fixed bed reactor (FBR) and its varieties such as anaerobic packed bed
reactor (APBR) and up-flow anaerobic filter (UAFR), anaerobic fluidized
Fig. 12. Different process parameters that can effect anaerobic digestion bed reactor (AFBR) up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB),
of biomass. expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB), anaerobic membrane bioreactor
(AnMBR), anaerobic structured bed reactor (ASTBR), horizontal anaer­
and the production of CH4 was established 75 % more efficient at pH> obic immobilized biomass (HAIB) and hybrid anaerobic reactor (HAR)
5.0. It was found that during AD process, the amount of produced CO2, (Kiani et al., 2022).
VFA, bicarbonate concentration (HCO3) and alkalinity influence the pH The biogas performance depends on various biological, physical and
variations (Pramanik et al., 2019). pH is also a stability indicator of chemical parameters, such as the type of used feedstock, the technology
digestion. The limitation of the methanogenesis process is found to be a of pre-treatment and the diversity of used anaerobic microorganisms
result of high pH values as well as some dysfunction of the system or low (Kumar et al., 2021). The plants for anaerobic digestion could be cate­
capacity of buffering could disrupt and stop the process of digestion at gorized as micro-, small-, medium- and large-scale anaerobic digestion
lower pH values. To maintain a pH value in the AD system, the relation systems with the following combined heat and power (CHP) electrical
between HCO3 and VFA concentration is of great importance (Sawyerr output; < 15, between > 15 and <99, between > 100 and < 299 and >
et al., 2019). 300 kWe. The small-scale AD systems (SSAD) vary in dependence on
Retention time is the time required to complete the degradation geographical position, utilized feedstock, weather conditions and gen­
process of organics matter (OM) or the average time that OM remains in eral usage of the reactor. SSAD systems could be further categorized into
a digester (Zhang et al., 2023). A longer retention time is usually high- and low-rate systems and passive systems (covered lagoon
required (Leite et al., 2023) because it will contribute to better stabili­ digester). Low-rate systems are systems in which utilized feedstock is
zation of the sludge and will provide better contact of the liquid flow and held in a selected digester from 10 to 30 days to increase the obtained
biomass in the treatment process (Sawyerr et al., 2019). In AD system yield of biogas. These systems operate in mesophilic (from 25 to 40 ◦ C)
two kinds of retention time are incorporated. The first retention time is and thermophilic (from 50 to 65 ◦ C) ranges of temperature and require
called solid retention time (SRT), which is an average time that selected utilization of additional heating to maintain selected temperature. The
bacteria spend in the digester. The second retention time is called hy­ types of low-rate systems are given in Fig. 13. The garage-type AD
draulic retention time (HRT) and it is the average time that sludge in digester utilizes a process of dry fermentation which usually lasts from 4
technical condition spends in the digester (Deepanraj et al., 2014). The to 5 weeks by processing in a batch mode which is usually combined
bacterial rate of development which is linked to time of retention is with the tank that contains percolation fluid. The feedstock is added or
under the influence of temperature, the composition of the substrate and removed by the batch wise mode and the digester operates in a ther­
the loading rate of organics (Zhang et al., 2023). It is usually needed for mophilic or mesophilic range of temperature. Garage-type AD digester
10–40 days at mesophilic temperature for the treatment of waste from could be used for the stream of feedstock which contains a great amount
organics. On the other side, a shorter retention time is usually required of total solids (higher than 15 %) (Franca et al., 2022).
at a thermophilic temperature (Bokhary et al., 2022). In plug-flow reactors (Fig. 13(b)) when new feedstock is being added
The organic loading rate (Fig. 12) represents the quantity of organic into the reactor it pushes present biomaterial through the used digester
solids (dry components), which is used in AD per day per unit volume of like a “plug”, thus the older biomaterial is driven out. In the research of
capacity of the digester. This parameter highly influences the yield of Dong et al. (Dong et al., 2019) was found that plug flow reactors are very
CH4 (Zhang et al., 2023). The quantity of substrate referred to biomass good for processing biowaste that contains a high content of total solids
used in the reactor unit system is marked as OLR (organic loading rate). (TS>10 %) which decreases the time of start-up, volume of reactor and
It is usually expressed as chemical oxygen demand (COD) in kg/m3, efficiency of the process. In comparison to a complete mix digester or
volatile (VS) of total solids (TS)/ L per day. The increase of OLR in solid continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) for AD, the plug-flow reactors
waste AD leads to problems, such as insufficient consumption of H2 and could handle double more content of total solids and triple the organic
VFA by methanogens that are created by the acidogenic bacteria at the loading rate at decreased hydraulic time of retention (Rossi et al., 2022).
same rate. Growth of OLR and activity of acidogenic (CO2, H2 and VFA,) A complete mix digester (Fig. 13(c)) needs to have a supplementary
can lead to a decrease in pH value and production of gas, but also to the heating and mixing system with the aim of reaching a microorganism
cumulation of organic acids (Sawyerr et al., 2019). The ratio of carbon active mass. In this reactor type production of biogas is supported by
and nitrogen (C/N) is a ratio among their quantity in FW. Yang et al. adjusting the volume of entering into the digester to sustain retention
(2023) (Tang et al., 2023b) revealed that this ratio has a great effect on time from 20 to 30 days. The varieties of biowastes could be treated in
AD process stability. Carbon utilization is 30–35 times faster than ni­ this type of reactor with TS in the range from 3 to 10 %. The enhance­
trogen by microorganisms during the AD process and this could be the ment of CSTR system includes the utilization of two-phase configuration
reason for the chosen C/N ratio in the substrate of 30–35:1 (Pramanik in which used feedstocks are broken down by usage of fermenting
bacteria in the phase one with methanogens further in phase two by

849
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Fig. 13. Different low rate systems for biogas reactors; (a) Garage-type, (b) Plug-flow and (c) Complete mix reactors (O’Connor et al., 2021).

transforming organic acids (OA) to biogas (Calise et al., 2023). Yadav pearl millet straw.
et al. (Yadav and Vivekanand, 2021) used CSTR system for biogas and High rate systems are systems in which solids are kept longer time in
the influence of combined fungal and bacterial pretreatment of wheat digesters and in which low energy fraction of the liquid of biowaste is
and pearl millet straw for biogas production is studied. It was deter­ kept in the reactor for a shorter time. Hence, concentrations of micro­
mined that without bacteria biogas yield increased by 31 % and 46 % for organisms are higher and there is a reduced time of retention (less than
pretreated wheat straw and pearl millet straw. On the other side with the 10 days) (O’Connor et al., 2021). The types of high-rate systems are
bacteria presence obtained biogas yield was 41 and 57 % for wheat and fixed-film digesters (Ahmed et al., 2021) and induced bedded reactors.

Fig. 14. Different high rate systems for biogas reactors; (a) Fixed-film digester and (b) Induced bedded reactor (O’Connor et al., 2021).

850
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

The fixed film digester has in its structure a bioreactive medium reactor. et al., 2021). Biogas plant capacity on a global level at the end of 2019
Thus increasing the surface area for the growth and propagation of was approximately 19.5 GW. The capacity growth is being fuelled by
microbes (Fig. 14(a)). Since there is a great biomass of microbes in the among others, low-cost and easy availability of feedstock originating
reactor unit hydraulic retention time is decreased and ranges from 2 to 6 from biomass, high costs of fossil fuel and concerns over global warm­
days. Induced bedded reactor Fig. 14(b) utilizes constant liquid upward ing. Biogas production by anaerobic digestion significantly enables the
flow with the aim to suspend utilized microbes which results in smaller conservation of natural sources and the protection of the environment
particles. These particles are then washed out while larger particles and improves the energy status of countries (Abanades et al., 2021).
remain retained in the digester. The increased volume of used metha­ Fig. 16(a) gives feedstock shares for biomethane production in
nogens in the reactor is a result of microbes which have formed biofilms Europe countries. In Europe, bioCH4 is mainly produced from organic
around the greater particles. The two most used induced bedded reactors residues and biowaste and this type of biogas complies with EU RED II
are up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket and digester with induced media. quotas for renewable fuel. On the other side, biogas production in
The up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket is suitable for the diluted streams Germany is mainly led by energy crops as feedstocks in the last ten years.
of waste with a total solid content of less than 3 % and digesters with As a result, of these policies, corn and grains from cereals are only used
induced media are more effective with a higher content of total solids with 40 % in the production of biogas. Furthermore, France is not using
(ranging from 6 to 12 %) (Wikandari and Taherzadeh, 2019). any more energy crops for the production of biogas and they are more
oriented on using feedstocks such as livestock manure (IAE, 2023). In
5. Biogas applications, perspectives and opportunities Germany, France and Italy biogas is used mostly for combined heat and
power (CHP) purposes as given in Fig. 16(b). In Denmark, the majority
Biogas and methane as major components occur naturally and have a of produced biogas (80 %) is used for residential needs. In Spain, biogas
significant harmful part in scenarios of global warming. Methane was has more usage in various sections and in Sweden biogas is mostly used
utilised as a source of fossil fuel and was transferred into energy pro­ in the industry sector and for transport (around 30 %) ((IAE, 2023).
duction, for transportation and heating (Liang et al., 2022). Most of the
consumption and use of methane comes from natural gas sources. Bio­ 5.1. Renewable natural gas for domestic and industrial heating
methane production approaches from waste recovery have grown
significantly and therefore developed countries are using advanced Biogas is a highly desirable substitute for natural gas as a source for
biogas production facilities. In addition, several industrial applications the production of power. Raw biogas could be directly and indirectly
are being advanced for biomethane use in plants for biogas as a sub­ used for different purposes as given in Fig. 17. Biogas’s direct applica­
stitute for natural gas, since biogas is regularly used to produce elec­ tion is for lighting and cooking, but when biogas is treated chemically,
tricity and heat. The generation of energy required for social or physically or biologically for the improvement of its quality/future then
industrial sectors offers different ways of using biogas technology as it is used indirectly for various systems (Kapoor et al., 2020b). Com­
shown in Fig. 15 (Abanades et al., 2021). The most promising renewable bustion of biogas by direct approach is cheap, well established and
energy resource is biogas produced from organic waste. CO2 and CH4 are generally the most utilized method that requires technology which is in
the main biogas components, which when released from landfills or general simple for maintenance. This type of biogas use doesn’t demand
farms contribute to the greenhouse effect. H2S removal and a high percentage of moisture. Additionally, it has been
Therefore, it is of great importance that the production of biogas is utilized for a very long period across the whole world, with emphasis on
under conditions which can be controlled and that it could be used for areas which are rural evolving countries. The flame of biogas while
the generation of electricity and as well for thermal energy (Konius­ burning is blue and clean and emits fewer pollutants (Kapoor et al.,
zewska et al., 2020). Substances that are used for the production of 2020a). Physical methods for biogas treatment like upgrading and
biogas are sugar cane, forest residues, grass, wheat straw, corn stalks, cleaning are common to improve its future. The conversion of gas
energy cane, residues from livestock etc. In the EU about 70 % of biogas components into other forms by chemical treatment is another approach
plants are utilising the substrates from agriculture sectors (Kasinath for the enhancement of biogas quality. The third approach is biological

Fig. 15. Various implementations and utilizations of green biogas technology; (1) AD - Anaerobic digester, (2) Crude biogas, (3) Sanitary landfills, (4) Scrubber, (5)
Improvements, (6) Natural gas, (7) Implementation to grid, (8) Compressor, (9) Gas station, (10) Biogas, (11) Burner, (12) Heat, (13) Turbine and generator (14)
District heating, (15) Hot water and (16) Cogeneration.

851
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Fig. 16. (a) Shares of feedstock for biogas and biomethane production in EU. (b) Final shares of end users for produced biogas in selected EU countries IAE)
(IAE, 2023).

Fig. 17. Direct and indirect utilization pathways of biogas, bioCO2 and bioCH4 (Kapoor et al., 2020a).

which includes the conversion of biogas components by methanotrophic that could be used as a transportation fuel, or to generate electricity and
bacteria (Wang et al., 2022). Production of biogas is under the influence heat (Osman et al., 2023). This energy could be utilized as fuel in
of many parameters such as time of retention, amount of nutrients, pH households, systems of vehicle fuels and as a source of electricity. India’s
value of substrate, temperature and rate of loading which all could slow renewable electricity production by source has increased significantly
or delay the production of biogas (Sawyerr et al., 2019). since the early 1980s. Biogas has emerged as a popular alternative en­
ergy source to fossil fuels, alongside solar, wind, and hydropower. In
2019, biogas production accounted for approximately 45 TWh/year of
5.2. Biogas electricity generation electricity (Karne et al., 2023).
Some scientists investigated the possibility of generating green
For decades, energy demand has been on the rise, resulting in the electricity from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion of agricultural
depletion of coal and gas reserves. Therefore, there is a need to find a livestock waste and residues in Iran. The study analysed various crops,
cleaner and economically viable energy source. Biogas, a renewable and such as wheat, rice, barley, corn, potatoes, apples, grapes, alfalfa, sug­
clean energy source, could be a possible solution to this issue. The arcane, and sugar beet. The amount of agricultural waste produced is
production of biogas through anaerobic digestion could enable an effi­ 24.3 million tons. This waste has the potential to produce 6542 million
cient means of energy generation. Biogas is a mixture of CH4 and CO2

852
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

cubic meters of biogas, 2 million and 443 million litres of biobutanol and waste treatments, and agricultural biowaste could ensure reliable sub­
2082 million cubic meters of biohydrogen. Livestock waste alone has a strates of biogas for power generation (Aznam et al., 2023).
biogas potential of 11,523.84 million cubic meters per year (Heidar­ Among the different energy systems, biogas production is a benefi­
i-Maleni et al., 2023). Rouhollahi et al. (Rouhollahi et al., 2020) con­ cial process for generating eco-friendly hydrogen gas and reducing the
ducted a study on farm biogas plants in Iran. The study aimed to use of natural gas (Awad et al., 2024). Fuel cells (FCs) highlighted in
determine the economic feasibility of establishing a biogas plant in a Fig. 18 are devices that enable the direct chemical conversion of fuels
country where natural gas and cheap electricity are widely available. into electricity. Fuel cells represent an electrochemical apparatus with
The results indicated that biogas production is generally economically an electrical efficiency of 30–70 % and decreased emissions. The elec­
feasible in Iran. tricity and heat are generated without the process of combustion or
environmental pollution by using the H2 which is from fuel and O2
5.3. Biogas transportation fuels which is from air. They are comprised of an electrolyte, cathode and
anode. H2 gas is being oxidized on the electrode (anode) by catalysis
Biogas produced from AD has a wide range of usages. It could be thus ensuring the electrons flow from cathode to anode through the
burned directly to enable thermal or electrical energy. To make it usable solution of electrolyte and thus electricity producing. The ions of H2 are
for other applications, such as transportation fuel and injection into the then reacting with the oxygen at the other electrode (cathode) and
natural gas system, biogas could be enhanced. The grade of natural gas produce water (Fig. 18). The operation of fuel cells (FCs) coupled with
contains CH4 and CO2 in equal or greater parts (Manikandan et al., biogas produced by the process of gasification or anaerobic digestion is a
2023). The global energy demand is increasing due to population topic of great significance due to the good compatibility between the
growth. Fossil fuels are finite and have the potential to harm the envi­ two systems. Among the different fuels that could be used to power these
ronment in numerous ways. Biogas is a clean and economically viable devices, this combination is particularly noteworthy. Integrated biogas
solution to the current fuel problems (Archana et al., 2024). The use of fuel cell systems could maximize the production of clean energy from
biomethane in transportation is a crucial component of decarbonization low calorific value gas generated from biomass and/or waste (Tam­
efforts. Its environmental and economic performance should be burrano et al., 2024).
compared to that of conventional solutions in various transport sectors,
such as public transportation, trucks and shipping. Research studies 5.5. Biogas for sustainable chemical manufacturing
indicate that by 2030, road transport is expected to consume a signifi­
cant portion of the projected EU bioCH4 production. In the long term, After several decades of research and industrial action, there is now a
maritime applications are expected to gain momentum (Noussan et al., general consensus that converting waste to energy is a promising waste
2024). management option (Rafiee et al., 2021). Biogas is an economical and
renewable biofuel. The composition of the mixture is mainly made up of
5.4. Biogas for fuel cells primary and secondary gases. The primary gases consist of methane
(CH4) (50–60 %) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (40–50 %). The secondary
Fossil fuels are the primary global energy source, accounting for gases consist of trace gases, such as hydrogen (H2), hydrogen sulphide
around 85 % of the world’s energy supply. However, due to the rapid (H2S), water vapour (H2O) and siloxane, which make up only 2–3 % of
growth of emissions and depletion of existing fossil fuel resources, a the total gases (Singh et al., 2023). The emissions from biogas (CH4 and
rapid transition to alternative fuels is required. For this reason, the CO2) were previously considered waste but now they are recognized as
development of more efficient and cleaner energy systems is essential to renewable sources. The biogas industry has two main business strate­
satisfy demand while preserving the environment (Abouemara et al., gies: direct transformation into calorific energy and renewable fuel
2024; Nouri et al., 2024). In addition to renewable sources like wind, generation. The transformation of biogas into valuable chemicals such
solar, geothermal, and hydropower, researchers are also exploring the as acetic acid, methanol, olefins and ammonia is a promising method for
use of biogas fuel produced from biomass through anaerobic fermenta­ reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
tion or conversion as an alternative power source. The continuous The upgrading of biogas through chemical transformation is an area
biomaterial availability from various sources such as landfills, water that has not been fully explored. This field offers numerous possibilities

Fig. 18. Fuel cell’s working mechanism (Kapoor et al., 2020b).

853
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

for the chemical industry to address greenhouse gas emissions. Acetic waste and industrial and livestock waste. For example, anaerobic
acid (AA) is a valuable intermediate product that can be generated from digestion enables very low costs of used feedstocks and the highest GHG
biogas and later transformed into other valuable products (Martín-Es­ preservation (Archana et al., 2024). Additional research is greatly
pejo et al., 2022). Additionally, hydrogen (H2) could be produced from needed to increase the electrical efficiency and minimum limits of
biogas through the BSR (biogas steam reforming) process (Abanades methane concentration in biogas utilized as a fuel in piston engines. The
et al., 2021). With that, biogas could be used as either the pyrolysis lifetime of fuel cells and the cost of produced energy require improve­
medium to modify pyrolysis products or as a renewable source of ments in competence with engines having internal combustion using
value-added chemicals. When used as a pyrolysis medium, the quality biogas as fuel (Kapoor et al., 2020b). Using waste from food and other
and quantity of pyrolysis products can be modified by the synergistic organics biowaste for AD ensures the preferences for nitrogen and
effects of CH4, which has a reductive nature, and CO2, which has an phosphorus, which could be specifically useful in agriculture for or­
oxidative nature, on the pyrolysis process. Different chemicals, such as ganics and could restrict the utilization of fertilizers (inorganic). Pro­
acetic acid, ethylene, and methanol could also be produced from a duction of biogas is performed mainly in medium or large-scale plants
mixture containing CH4 and CO2 via processes of catalysis or for wastewater and biogas plants on farms or waste. On the other side, in
plasma-catalysis (Lee et al., 2022). more developed countries small digesters are rather utilized on a do­
mestic scale (Scarlat et al., 2018).
6. Current scenario and future perspectives AD gives advantages to all parts of society and is especially utilized in
rural areas by farmers. Farmers have a stable and open approach to
The global combined production of biogas and biomethane has waste from animals and residues from crops, which ensures substrates
reached more than 1.6 EJ in 2022 which represents an increase of 17 % for the digesters for biogas production. In this process, digestate is uti­
from 2017. Almost 50 % of the biogas production is settled in Europe, lized as a fertilizer (Kasinath et al., 2021). As a by-product of upgrading
with Germany producing about 20 % of all global consumers, then biogas plants, rich gas is produced. An area that needs more attention is
China with 21 %, USA with 12 % and India with 9 %. Fig. 19 represents the use of bioCO2 in the process of grain fumigation and atmospherically
biomethane historical, forecast and targeted production for EU countries modified packaging. For that reason, power to-gas concept is a promi­
(Fig. 19(a)) and for China, US and India (Fig. 19(b)). According to nent technology where the requirement of low-cost sources of power, for
REPowerEU, the EU has set a target which is nonbinding for 34 billion example, wind, solar etc. is a major challenge (Götz et al., 2016). In
cubic meters (bcm) production of bioCH4 by 2030. The same target for recent years, many researchers have focused their studies on methanol
China is 20 bcm until 2030 for biomethane production (Fig. 19(b)). In generation, as well as higher alcohols from biogas.
2023 Denmark has achieved 37.9 % progress in bioCH4 production Furthermore, studies are focussing on the methods which could be
compared to other countries such as Spain and Belgium which are still at applied for the utilization of biogas/biomethane in the process of syngas
the stage of development. generation. This product is of great importance for the generation of H2-
The technology of biogas has various environmental advantages and rich resources for fuel cells or DME, urea, or some alcohol production
could help exceed environmental issues and enable the treatment and (Yentekakis and Goula, 2017). Furthermore, there are great research
reuse of different biowaste varieties such as food waste, municipal solid opportunities that should be directed toward the catalytic treatment of

Fig. 19. (a) EU historical, forecast and targeted biomethane production and (b) China, US and India’s historical and forecast production of biogases, and China’s
target ((IAE, 2023).

854
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

biogas to syngas and nanofibers from carbon. They are promising ma­ References
terials with various applications, such as solar cells, supercapacitors,
transistors etc. (Ghosh et al., 2020). Methanotrophs and acetogens can Abanades, S., Abbaspour, H., Ahmadi, A., Das, B., Ehyaei, M., Esmaeilion, F., El Haj
Assad, M., Hajilounezhad, T., Jamali, D., Hmida, A., 2021. A critical review of biogas
produce liquid fuels from methane, but on the other side, there is very production and usage with legislations framework across the globe. Int. J. Environ.
limited research about their industrial use, which is required for their Sci. Technol. 1–24.
widespread utilization (Kapoor et al., 2020a). Furthermore, industrial Abd, A.A., Shabbani, H.J.K., Helwani, Z., Othman, M.R., 2022. Experimental study and
static numerical optimization of scalable design of non-adiabatic and non-isothermal
sectors for the production of biogas and biomethane could also provide pressure swing adsorption for biogas upgrading. Energy 257, 124781.
wider advantages regarding the development of the countries. Abouemara, K., Shahbaz, M., Mckay, G., Al-Ansari, T., 2024. The review of power
The Biogas production sector in coordination with social and generation from integrated biomass gasification and solid oxide fuel cells: current
status and future directions. Fuel 360, 130511.
ecological point of view within the countries could provide many jobs Abraham, A., Mathew, A.K., Park, H., Choi, O., Sindhu, R., Parameswaran, B.,
for people in rural areas (Kasinath et al., 2021). There is great potential Pandey, Ashok, Park, Jung Han, Sang, B.I., 2020. Pretreatment strategies for
for the degradation of biomass in which H2S, volatile organic com­ enhanced biogas production from lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 301.
Agbejule, A., Shamsuzzoha, A., Lotchi, K., Rutledge, K., 2021. Application of multi-
pounds with sulphur, aromatics, ketones, amines and aldehydes could
criteria decision-making process to select waste-to-energy technology in developing
be obtained (Byliński et al., 2019). In addition, the formation of a sig­ countries: the case of Ghana. Sustainability 13 (22), 12863.
nificant amount of ammonia, with the decomposition of the proteins to Ahmad, A., Banat, F., Alsafar, H., Hasan, S.W., 2022. Algae biotechnology for industrial
amino acids causes the emission that could range from 18 to 150 g per wastewater treatment, bioenergy production, and high-value bioproducts. Sci. Total
Environ. 806, 150585.
ton of sludge (Kasinath et al., 2021). Overall, biodegradability, char­ Ahmed, M., Sartori, F., Merzari, F., Fiori, L., Elagroudy, S., Negm, M.S., Andreottola, G.,
acterisation of FW, bacterial activities development, upgrading of CH4 2021. Anaerobic degradation of digestate based hydrothermal carbonization
production, accessibility and balance of nutrients are expressed as the products in a continuous hybrid fixed bed anaerobic filter. Bioresour. Technol. 330,
124971.
main challenges for effective biogas production (Wu et al., 2021). Albornoz, S., Wyman, V., Palma, C., Carvajal, A., 2018. Understanding of the
contribution of the fungal treatment conditions in a wheat straw biorefinery that
7. Conclusion produces enzymes and biogas. Biochem. Eng. J. 140, 140–147.
Ali, S., Dar, M.A., Liaqat, F., Sethupathy, S., Rani, A., Khan, M.I., Rehan, M., Zhu, D.,
2024. Optimization of biomethane production from lignocellulosic biomass by a
Due to the crisis in global energy, there is a great effort made by developed microbial consortium. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.
many scientists worldwide to enhance technologies for biogas produc­ Aliyu Salihu, M.Z.A., 2016. Pretreatment methods of organic wastes for biogas
production. J. Appl. Sci. 16 (3), 124–137.
tion, pretreatment and upgrading. It is of great importance on a global Al-Wahaibi, A., Osman, A.I., Al-Muhtaseb, A. a H., Alqaisi, O., Baawain, M., Fawzy, S.,
level to harness the potential of biogas production since it could help in Rooney, D.W., 2020. Techno-economic evaluation of biogas production from food
greenhouse gas emissions mitigations and carbon storage. Hence, the waste via anaerobic digestion. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 15719.
Amin, F.R., Khalid, H., Li, W., Chen, C., Liu, G., 2021. Enhanced methane production and
current review has discussed selected emerging technologies for biogas
energy potential from rice straw by employing microaerobic pretreatment via
production. The overview of its current usage and future perspectives on anaerobic digestion. J. Clean. Prod. 296, 126434.
the global level has been presented as well. It was found that from all Anacleto, T.M., Kozlowsky-Suzuki, B., Wilson, A.E., Enrich-Prast, A., 2022.
biogas production on the global level in 2022, 50 % is produced in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Pathways to Increase Biogas Production in the
Textile Industry. Energies 15 (15), 5574.
Europe with Germany producing around 20 %, which is followed by Angeles, R., Arnaiz, E., Gutiérrez, J., Sepúlveda-Muñoz, C.A., Fernandez-Ramos, O.,
China (21 %), USA (12 %) and India (9 %). In Germany around 90 % of Muñoz, R., Lebrero, R., 2020. Optimization of photosynthetic biogas upgrading in
produced biogas is from agricultural feedstock, as well as in France (≈ closed photobioreactors combined with algal biomass production. J. Water Process
Eng. 38, 101554.
70 %), Denmark (≈ 85 %) and Italy (≈ 80 %). In UK the main feedstock Angelidaki, I., Treu, L., Tsapekos, P., Luo, G., Campanaro, S., Wenzel, H., Kougias, P.G.,
for biogas production is landfill gas with around 40 %. It was found that 2018. Biogas upgrading and utilization: current status and perspectives. Biotechnol.
pretreatment technologies are enhancing methane yield in the range Adv. 36 (2), 452–466.
Archana, K., Visckram, A., Kumar, P.S., Manikandan, S., Saravanan, A., Natrayan, L.,
from 25 to 190 %. For example, pretreatment of swine manure by 2024. A review on recent technological breakthroughs in anaerobic digestion of
membrane-based extraction with ammonia has improved methane yield organic biowaste for biogas generation: challenges towards sustainable development
by 49 % and resulting yield was 566.1 ± 7.8 mL/gVS by using a goals. Fuel 358, 130298.
Arpia, A.A., Chen, W.-H., Lam, S.S., Rousset, P., De Luna, M.D.G., 2021. Sustainable
continuous stirred tank reactor. Furthermore, there is an extensive biofuel and bioenergy production from biomass waste residues using microwave-
number of novel green upgrading technologies which are sustainable assisted heating: a comprehensive review. Chem. Eng. J. 403, 126233.
and effective with low requirements of energy such as biofixation of CO2 Atelge, M., Krisa, D., Kumar, G., Eskicioglu, C., Nguyen, D.D., Chang, S.W., Atabani, A.,
Al-Muhtaseb, A.H., Unalan, S.J.W., Valorization, B., 2020. Biogas production from
by microalgae, the introduction of microbial electrolysis cells and
organic waste: recent progress and perspectives. Waste Biomass-.-. Valoriz. 11 (3),
bioconversion of carbon dioxide into methane which is done by utili­ 1019–1040.
zation of hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Hence, CH4 yield by ex-situ Awad, M., Said, A., Saad, M.H., Farouk, A., Mahmoud, M.M., Alshammari, M.S.,
H2 technology upgrading was found with the value >97 % for a Alghaythi, M.L., Aleem, S.H.E.A., Abdelaziz, A.Y., Omar, A.I., 2024. A review of
water electrolysis for green hydrogen generation considering PV/wind/hybrid/
sludge used as a feedstock for biogas production. Future studies should hydropower/geothermal/tidal and wave/biogas energy systems, economic analysis,
focus more on the development of low-cost and sustainable technologies and its application. Alex. Eng. J. 87, 213–239.
for effective biogas production since the majority of used techniques are Aznam, I., Muchtar, A., Somalu, M.R., Baharuddin, N.A., Rosli, N.A.H., 2023. Advanced
materials for heterogeneous catalysis: A comprehensive review of spinel materials
still high-cost and non-eco-friendly. for direct internal reforming of methane in solid oxide fuel cell. Chem. Eng. J.,
144751
Declaration of Competing Interest Baena-Moreno, F.M., le Sache, E., Pastor-Perez, L., Reina, T., 2020. Membrane-based
technologies for biogas upgrading: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 18, 1649–1658.
Begum, S., Anupoju, G.R., Sridhar, S., Bhargava, S.K., Jegatheesan, V., Eshtiaghi, N.,
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 2018. Evaluation of single and two stage anaerobic digestion of landfill leachate:
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence effect of pH and initial organic loading rate on volatile fatty acid (VFA) and biogas
production. Bioresour. Technol. 251, 364–373.
the work reported in this paper. Beyene, H.D., Werkneh, A.A., Ambaye, T.G., 2018. Current updates on waste to energy
(WtE) technologies: a review. Renew. Energy Focus 24, 1–11.
Acknowledgement Bharathiraja, B., Sudharsana, T., Jayamuthunagai, J., Praveenkumar, R.,
Chozhavendhan, S., Iyyappan, J.J.R., 2018. Biogas production–A review on
composition, fuel properties, feed stock and principles of anaerobic digestion.
The authors are grateful for the financial support from the Interna­ Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90 (April)), 570–582.
tional Society of Engineering Science and Technology (ISEST) UK. Bharti, R.K., Singh, A., Dhar, D.W., Kaushik, A., 2022. Biological carbon dioxide
sequestration by microalgae for biofuel and biomaterials production. Biomass,
Biofuels, Biochemicals. Elsevier, pp. 137–153.

855
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Bhushan, S., Jayakrishnan, U., Shree, B., Bhatt, P., Eshkabilov, S., Simsek, H., 2023. Gao, T., Zhang, H., Xu, X., Teng, J., 2021. Integrating microbial electrolysis cell based on
Biological pretreatment for algal biomass feedstock for biofuel production. electrochemical carbon dioxide reduction into anaerobic osmosis membrane reactor
J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 11 (3), 109870. for biogas upgrading. Water Res. 190, 116679.
Bokhary, A., Leitch, M., Liao, B.Q., 2022. Effect of organic loading rates on the Gas for climate 2050, A.G. f C. r, 2022 Gas for climate 2050, A Gas for Climate report,
membrane performance of a thermophilic submerged anaerobic membrane 2022.
bioreactor for primary sludge treatment from a pulp and paper mill. J. Environ. Ghofrani-Isfahani, P., Tsapekos, P., Peprah, M., Kougias, P., Zhu, X., Kovalovszki, A.,
Chem. Eng. 10. Zervas, A., Zha, X., Jacobsen, C.S., Angelidaki, I., 2021. Ex-situ biogas upgrading in
Bose, A., Lin, R., Rajendran, K., O’Shea, R., Xia, A., Murphy, J.D., 2019. How to optimise thermophilic up-flow reactors: the effect of different gas diffusers and gas retention
photosynthetic biogas upgrading: a perspective on system design and microalgae times. Bioresour. Technol. 340, 125694.
selection. Biotechnol. Adv. 37 (8), 107444. Ghosh, P., Shah, G., Sahota, S., Singh, L., Vijay, V.K.J.B., 2020. Biogas production from
Byliński, H., Aszyk, J., Kubica, P., Szopińska, M., Fudala-Książek, S., Namieśnik, J., 2019. waste: technical overview, progress, and challenges. Bioreactors 89–104.
Differences between selected volatile aromatic compound concentrations in sludge Gontard, N., Sonesson, U., Birkved, M., Majone, M., Bolzonella, D., Celli, A., Angellier-
samples in various steps of wastewater treatment plant operations. J. Environ. Coussy, H., Jang, G.-W., Verniquet, A., Broeze, J., 2018. A research challenge vision
Manag. 249, 109426. regarding management of agricultural waste in a circular bio-based economy. Crit.
Calise, F., Cappiello, F.L., Cimmino, L., d’Accadia, M.D., Vicidomini, M., 2023. Dynamic Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (6), 614–654.
analysis and investigation of the thermal transient effects in a CSTR reactor Götz, M., Lefebvre, J., Mörs, F., Koch, A.M., Graf, F., Bajohr, S., Reimert, R., Kolb, T.J.R.
producing biogas. Energy 263, 126010. e, 2016. Renewable Power-to-Gas: a technological and economic review. Renew.
Carranza-Abaid, A., Wanderley, R.R., Knuutila, H.K., Jakobsen, J.P., 2021. Analysis and Energy 85, 1371–1390.
selection of optimal solvent-based technologies for biogas upgrading. Fuel 303, Govarthanan, M., Manikandan, S., Subbaiya, R., Krishnan, R.Y., Srinivasan, S.,
121327. Karmegam, N., Kim, W., 2022. Emerging trends and nanotechnology advances for
Chandel, A.K., Albarelli, J.Q., Santos, D.T., Chundawat, S.P., Puri, M., Meireles, M.A.A., sustainable biogas production from lignocellulosic waste biomass: a critical review.
2019. Comparative analysis of key technologies for cellulosic ethanol production Fuel 312.
from Brazilian sugarcane bagasse at a commercial scale. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 13 Gupta, G.K., Shukla, P., 2020. Insights into the resources generation from pulp and paper
(4), 994–1014. industry wastes: challenges, perspectives and innovations. Bioresour. Technol. 297.
Chen, B., Azman, S., Dewil, R., Appels, L., 2023. Alkaline anaerobic digestion of livestock Hashemi, S., Joseph, P., Mialon, A., Moe, S., Lamb, J.J., Lien, K.M., 2021. Enzymatic
manure: unveiling mechanisms, applications, and perspective. Chem. Eng. J., pretreatment of steam-exploded birch wood for increased biogas production and
146852 lignin degradation. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 16, 100874.
Chen, W.-H., Nižetić, S., Sirohi, R., Huang, Z., Luque, R., Papadopoulos, A.M., Heidari-Maleni, A., Taheri-Garavand, A., Rezaei, M., Jahanbakhshi, A., 2023. Biogas
Sakthivel, R., Nguyen, X.P., Hoang, A.T., 2022. Liquid hot water as sustainable production and electrical power potential, challenges and barriers from municipal
biomass pretreatment technique for bioenergy production: a review. Bioresour. solid waste (MSW) for developing countries: A review study in Iran. J. Agric. Food
Technol. 344, 126207. Res., 100668
Chevalier, A., Evon, P., Monlau, F., Vandenbossche, V., Sambusiti, C., 2023. Twin-Screw Holtzapple, M.T., Wu, H., Weimer, P.J., Dalke, R., Granda, C.B., Mai, J., Urgun-
Extrusion Mechanical Pretreatment for Enhancing Biomethane Production from Demirtas, M., 2022. Microbial communities for valorizing biomass using the
Agro-Industrial, Agricultural and Catch Crop Biomasses. Waste. MDPI. carboxylate platform to produce volatile fatty acids: a review. Bioresour. Technol.
Chew, K.R., Leong, H.Y., Khoo, K.S., Vo, D.V.N., Anjum, H., Chang, C.K., Show, P.L., 344, 126253.
2021. Effects of anaerobic digestion of food waste on biogas production and Hosseinzadeh, A., Gitipour, S., Mehrdadi, N., 2024. The biogas upgrading from landfill
environmental impacts: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 19 (4), 2921–2939. leachate pretreated with low-frequency ultrasonic: anaerobic digestion
Chojnacka, K., Moustakas, K., Witek-Krowiak, A., 2020. Bio-based fertilizers: a practical performances and energy balance. Sci. Rep. 14 (1), 652.
approach towards circular economy. Bioresour. Technol. 295, 122223. Hua, B., Cai, Y., Cui, Z., Wang, X., 2022. Bioaugmentation with methanogens cultured in
Chuenchart, W., Karki, R., Shitanaka, T., Marcelino, K.R., Lu, H., Khanal, S.K., 2021. a micro-aerobic microbial community for overloaded anaerobic digestion recovery.
Nanobubble technology in anaerobic digestion: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 329, Anaerobe 76, 102603.
124916. Huang, J.-H., Fan, X.-L., Li, R., Sun, M.-T., Zou, H., Zhang, Y.-F., Guo, R.-B., Fu, S.-F.,
Dahunsi, S., 2019. Mechanical pretreatment of lignocelluloses for enhanced biogas 2024. Biogas upgrading by biotrickling filter: effects of temperature and packing
production: Methane yield prediction from biomass structural components. materials. Chem. Eng. J. 481, 148367.
Bioresour. Technol. 280, 18–26. IAE, I. E. A. (2023). Renewables 2023 Analysis and forecast to 2028.
Deepanraj, B., Sivasubramanian, V., Jayaraj, S., 2014. Biogas generation through Ighravwe, D.E., Babatunde, M.O., 2018. Determination of a suitable renewable energy
anaerobic digestion process-an overview. Res. J. Chem. Environ. 18, 5. source for mini-grid business: a risk-based multicriteria approach. J. Renew. Energy.
Dell’Omo, P.P., Spena, V.A., 2020. Mechanical pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass to Ilanidis, D., Wu, G., Stagge, S., Martín, C., Jönsson, L.J., 2021. Effects of redox
improve biogas production: comparison of results for giant reed and wheat straw. environment on hydrothermal pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass under acidic
Energy 203, 117798. conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 319, 124211.
Deshavath, N.N., Goud, V.V., Veeranki, V.D., 2021. Liquefaction of lignocellulosic Ji, C., Kong, C.-X., Mei, Z.-L., Li, J.J.A. b, 2017. A review of the anaerobic digestion of
biomass through biochemical conversion pathway: a strategic approach to achieve fruit and vegetable waste. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 183 (3), 906–922.
an industrial titer of bioethanol. Fuel 287, 119545. Jomnonkhaow, U., Sittijunda, S., Reungsang, A., 2022. Assessment of organosolv,
Devi, M.K., Manikandan, S., Oviyapriya, M., Selvaraj, M., Assiri, M.A., Vickram, S., hydrothermal, and combined organosolv and hydrothermal with enzymatic
Awasthi, M.K., 2022. Recent advances in biogas production using Agro-Industrial pretreatment to increase the production of biogas from Napier grass and Napier
Waste: a comprehensive review outlook of Techno-Economic analysis. Bioresour. silage. Renew. Energy 181, 1237–1249.
Technol. 363. Kabeyi, M.J.B., Olanrewaju, O.A., 2022. Biogas production and applications in the
Dong, L., Cao, G., Wu, J., Yang, S., Ren, N., 2019. Reflux of acidizing fluid for enhancing sustainable energy transition. J. Energy. 2022, 1–43.
biomethane production from cattle manure in plug flow reactor. Bioresour. Technol. Kainthola, J., Kalamdhad, A.S., Goud, V.V., Goel, R., 2019. Fungal pretreatment and
284, 248–255. associated kinetics of rice straw hydrolysis to accelerate methane yield from
Duan, Y., Tarafdar, A., Kumar, V., Ganeshan, P., Rajendran, K., Giri, B.S., Gomez- anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 286, 121368.
Garcia, R., Li, H., Zhang, Z., Sindhu, R., 2022. Sustainable biorefinery approaches Kainthola, J., Podder, A., Fechner, M., Goel, R., 2021. An overview of fungal
towards circular economy for conversion of biowaste to value added materials and pretreatment processes for anaerobic digestion: applications, bottlenecks and future
future perspectives. Fuel 325, 124846. needs. Bioresour. Technol. 321, 124397.
Dutta, N., Garrison, R., Usman, M., Ahring, B.K., 2022. Enhancing methane production of Kamali, M., Abdi, R., Rohani, A., Abdollahpour, S., Ebrahimi, S., 2023. Enhancing
anaerobic digested sewage sludge by advanced wet oxidation & steam explosion Biomethane Production from OFMSW: the Role of Moderate Temperature Thermal
pretreatment. Environ. Technol. Innov. 28, 102923. Pretreatment in Anaerobic Digestion. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 62 (46), 19471–19481.
Esposito, E., Dellamuzia, L., Moretti, U., Fuoco, A., Giorno, L., Jansen, J.C., 2019. Kamusoko, R., R.M. Jingura, W. Parawira and W.T. Sanyika (2019). "Comparison of
Simultaneous production of biomethane and food grade CO2 from biogas: an pretreatment methods that enhance biomethane production from crop residues-a
industrial case study. Energy Environ. Sci. 12 (1), 281–289. systematic review."
Fernandes, D.J., Ferreira, A.F., Fernandes, E.C., 2023. Biogas and biomethane production Kanellos, G., Tremouli, A., Arvanitakis, G., Lyberatos, G., 2024. Boosting methane
potential via anaerobic digestion of manure: a case study of Portugal. Renew. production and raw waste activated sludge treatment in a microbial electrolysis cell-
Sustain. Energy Rev. 188. anaerobic digestion (MEC-AD) system: the effect of organic loading rate.
Franca, L.S., Ornelas-Ferreira, B., Pereira, C.P., Bassin, J.P., 2022. Performance of a Bioelectrochemistry 155, 108555.
percolation reactor integrated to solid-state anaerobic garage-type digesters with Kapoor, R., Ghosh, P., Kumar, M., Sengupta, S., Gupta, A., Kumar, S.S., Vijay, V.,
leachate recirculation for organic fraction of municipal solid waste treatment. Kumar, V., Vijay, V.K., Pant, D.J.B.T., 2020. Valorization of agricultural waste for
Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 20, 101215. biogas based circular economy in India: a research outlook. Bioresour. Technol. 304,
François, M., Lin, K.-S., Rachmadona, N., Khoo, K.S., 2023. Advancement of 123036.
nanotechnologies in biogas production and contaminant removal: a review. Fuel Kapoor, R., Ghosh, P., Tyagi, B., Vijay, V.K., Vijay, V., Thakur, I.S., Kamyab, H.,
340, 127470. Nguyen, D.D., Kumar, A., 2020. Advances in biogas valorization and utilization
François, M., Lin, K.S., Rachmadona, N., Khoo, K.S., 2023. Advancement of biochar- systems: a comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 273, 123052.
aided with iron chloride for contaminants removal from wastewater and biogas Karimipour-Fard, P., Chio, C., Brunone, A., Marway, H., Thompson, M., Abdehagh, N.,
production: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 874, 162437. Qin, W., Yang, T.C., 2024. Lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment: industrial oriented
François, M., Lin, K.-S., Rachmadona, N., Khoo, K.S., 2023. Utilization of carbon-based high-solid twin-screw extrusion method to improve biogas production from forestry
nanomaterials for wastewater treatment and biogas enhancement: a state-of-the-art biomass resources. Bioresour. Technol. 393, 130000.
review. Chemosphere, 141008.

856
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Karne, H., Mahajan, U., Ketkar, U., Kohade, A., Khadilkar, P., Mishra, A., 2023. A review Méndez, L., García, D., Perez, E., Blanco, S., Munoz, R., 2022. Photosynthetic upgrading
on biogas upgradation systems. Mater. Today.: Proc. 72, 775–786. of biogas from anaerobic digestion of mixed sludge in an outdoors algal-bacterial
Karthikeyan, O.P., Trably, E., Mehariya, S., Bernet, N., Wong, J.W., Carrere, H., 2018. photobioreactor at pilot scale. J. Water Process Eng. 48, 102891.
Pretreatment of food waste for methane and hydrogen recovery: a review. Bioresour. Mishra, A., Kumar, M., Bolan, N.S., Kapley, A., Kumar, R., Singh, L.J.B.T., 2021.
Technol. 249, 1025–1039. Multidimensional approaches of biogas production and up-gradation: opportunities
Kasinath, A., Fudala-Ksiazek, S., Szopinska, M., Bylinski, H., Artichowicz, W., and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 338, 125514.
Remiszewska-Skwarek, A., Luczkiewicz, A., 2021. Biomass in biogas production: Mitraka, G.-C., Kontogiannopoulos, K.N., Batsioula, M., Banias, G.F., Zouboulis, A.I.,
pretreatment and codigestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 150, 111509. Kougias, P.G., 2022. A comprehensive review on pretreatment methods for enhanced
Ketsub, N., Whatmore, P., Abbasabadi, M., Doherty, W.O., Kaparaju, P., O’Hara, I.M., biogas production from sewage sludge. Energies 15 (18), 6536.
Zhang, Z., 2022. Effects of pretreatment methods on biomethane production kinetics Mittal, S., Ahlgren, E.O., Shukla, P.J., 2019. Future biogas resource potential in India: a
and microbial community by solid state anaerobic digestion of sugarcane trash. bottom-up analysis. Renew. Energy 141, 379–389.
Bioresour. Technol. 352, 127112. Molla, S., Farrok, O., Alam, M.J., 2024. Electrical energy and the environment: Prospects
Khan, M.U., Ahring, B.K., 2020. Anaerobic digestion of biorefinery lignin: effect of and upcoming challenges of the World’s top leading countries. Renew. Sustain.
different wet explosion pretreatment conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 298, 122537. Energy Rev. 191, 114177.
Khan, M.U., Lee, J.T.E., Bashir, M.A., Dissanayake, P.D., Ok, Y.S., Tong, Y.W., Moreira, A.J.G., de Sousa, T.A.T., Franco, D., Lopes, W.S., de Castilhos Junior, A.B.,
Shariati, M.A., Wu, S., Ahring, B.K., 2021. Current status of biogas upgrading for 2023. Kinetic modeling and interrelationship aspects of biogas production from
direct biomethane use: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 149, 111343. waste activated sludge solubilized by enzymatic and thermal pre-treatment. Fuel
Kiani, M.K.D., Parsaee, M., Ardebili, S.M.S., Reyes, I.P., Fuess, L.T., Karimi, K., 2022. 347, 128452.
Different bioreactor configurations for biogas production from sugarcane vinasse: a Mulu, E., Arimi, M.M.M., Ramkat, R.C., 2021. A review of recent developments in
comprehensive review. Biomass and Bioenergy 161, 106446. application of low cost natural materials in purification and upgrade of biogas.
Köninger, J., Lugato, E., Panagos, P., Kochupillai, M., Orgiazzi, A., Briones, M.J., 2021. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145, 111081.
Manure management and soil biodiversity: towards more sustainable food systems in Nguyen, L.N., Kumar, J., Vu, M.T., Mohammed, J.A., Pathak, N., Commault, A.S.,
the EU. Agric. Syst. 194, 103251. Sutherland, D., Zdarta, J., Tyagi, V.K., Nghiem, L.D., 2021. Biomethane production
Koniuszewska, I., Korzeniewska, E., Harnisz, M., Czatzkowska, M., 2020. Intensification from anaerobic co-digestion at wastewater treatment plants: a critical review on
of biogas production using various technologies: a review. Int. J. Energy Res. 44 (8), development and innovations in biogas upgrading techniques. Sci. Total Environ.
6240–6258. 765, 142753.
Koryś, K.A., Latawiec, A.E., Grotkiewicz, K., Kuboń, M.J.S., 2019. The review of biomass Nie, E., He, P., Zhang, H., Hao, L., Shao, L., Lü, F., 2021. How does temperature regulate
potential for agricultural biogas production in Poland. Sustainability 11 (22), 6515. anaerobic digestion? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 150.
Kour, D., Rana, K.L., Yadav, N., Yadav, A.N., Rastegari, A.A., Singh, C., Negi, P., Nouri, F., Maghsoudy, S., Habibzadeh, S., 2024. Dynamic insights of carbon management
Singh, K., Saxena, A.K., 2019. Technologies for biofuel production: current and performance enhancement approaches in biogas-fueled solid oxide fuel cells: A
development, challenges, and future prospects. Prospects Renew. Bioprocess. Future computational exploration. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 50, 1314–1328.
Energy Syst. 1–50. Noussan, M., Negro, V., Prussi, M., Chiaramonti, D., 2024. The potential role of
Kowthaman, C., Selvan, V.A.M., Kumar, P.S., 2021. Optimization strategies of alkaline biomethane for the decarbonization of transport: an analysis of 2030 scenarios in
thermo-chemical pretreatment for the enhancement of biogas production from de- Italy. Appl. Energy 355, 122322.
oiled algae. Fuel 303, 121242. Nurika, I., Eastwood, D.C., Barker, G.C., 2018. A comparison of ergosterol and PLFA
Kucher, O., Hutsol, T., Glowacki, S., Andreitseva, I., Dibrova, A., Muzychenko, A., Szeląg- methods for monitoring the growth of ligninolytic fungi during wheat straw solid
Sikora, A., Szparaga, A., Kocira, S.J.E., 2022. Energy potential of biogas production state cultivation. J. Microbiol. Methods 148, 49–54.
in Ukraine. Energies 15 (5), 1710. Nwokolo, N., Mukumba, P., Obileke, K., Enebe, M.J.P., 2020. Waste to energy: a focus on
Kumar, M., Dutta, S., You, S., Luo, G., Zhang, S., Show, P.L., Sawarkar, A.D., Singh, L., the impact of substrate type in biogas production. Processes 8 (10), 1224.
Tsang, D.C., 2021. A critical review on biochar for enhancing biogas production from O’Connor, S., Ehimen, E., Pillai, S., Black, A., Tormey, D., Bartlett, J., 2021. Biogas
anaerobic digestion of food waste and sludge. J. Clean. Prod. 305, 127143. production from small-scale anaerobic digestion plants on European farms. Renew.
Kumari, P., Varma, A.K., Shankar, R., Thakur, L.S., Mondal, P., 2021. Phycoremediation Sustain. Energy Rev. 139, 110580.
of wastewater by Chlorella pyrenoidosa and utilization of its biomass for biogas Orlando, M., Borja, V., 2020. Pretreatment of animal manure biomass to improve biogas
production. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (1), 104974. production: A review. Energies 13 (2020).
Lee, J., Hong, J., Jeong, S., Chandran, K., Park, K.Y., 2020. Interactions between Osman, A.I., Lai, Z.Y., Farghali, M., Yiin, C.L., Elgarahy, A.M., Hammad, A., Ihara, I., Al-
substrate characteristics and microbial communities on biogas production yield and Fatesh, A.S., Rooney, D.W., Yap, P.-S., 2023. Optimizing biomass pathways to
rate. Bioresour. Technol. 303, 122934. bioenergy and biochar application in electricity generation, biodiesel production,
Lee, J.T., Khan, M.U., Dai, Y., Tong, Y.W., Ahring, B.K., 2021. Influence of wet oxidation and biohydrogen production. Environ. Chem. Lett. 21 (5), 2639–2705.
pretreatment with hydrogen peroxide and addition of clarified manure on anaerobic Ouda, O.K., Raza, S., Nizami, A., Rehan, M., Al-Waked, R., Korres, N., 2016. Waste to
digestion of oil palm empty fruit bunches. Bioresour. Technol. 332, 125033. energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61,
Lee, S., Tsang, Y.F., Lin, K.Y.A., Kwon, E.E., Lee, J., 2022. Employment of biogas as 328–340.
pyrolysis medium and chemical feedstock. J. CO2 Utillization. 57, 101877. Ozgur, C., 2024. The analytic hierarchy process method to design applicable decision
Leite, W.R.M., Magnus, B.S., de Moraes, B.A.B., Kato, M.T., Florencio, L., da Costa, R.H. making for the effective removal of 2-MIB and geosmin in water sources. Environ.
R., Belli Filho, P., 2023. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge in Sci. Pollut. Res. 31 (8), 12431–12445.
an intermittent mixing reactor: effect of hydraulic retention time and organic Parvez, K., Ahammed, M.M., 2024. Effect of composition on anaerobic digestion of
loading rate. J. Environ. Manag. 338, 117839. organic fraction of municipal solid wastes: a review. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.,
Leung, D.Y., Wang, J., 2016. An overview on biogas generation from anaerobic digestion 101777
of food waste. Int. J. Green. Energy 13 (2), 119–131. Pérez-Barragán, J., García-Depraect, O., Maya-Yescas, R., Vallejo-Rodríguez, R.,
Li, B., Amin, A., Nureen, N., Saqib, N., Wang, L., Rehman, M.A., 2024. Assessing factors Palacios-Hinestroza, H., Coca, M., Castro-Muñoz, R., León-Becerril, E., 2024. Solid
influencing renewable energy deployment and the role of natural resources in MENA and liquid fractionation of sugarcane and Agave bagasse during ozonolysis and
countries. Resour. Policy 88, 104417. enzymatic hydrolysis: Impact on biohydrogen and biogas production. Ind. Crops
Liang, X., Kurniawan, T.A., Goh, H.H., Zhang, D., Dai, W., Liu, H., Goh, K.C., Othman, M. Prod. 210, 118175.
H.D., 2022. Conversion of landfilled waste-to-electricity for energy efficiency Pramanik, S.K., Suja, F.B., Zain, S.M., Pramanik, B.K, 2019. The anaerobic digestion
improvement in Shenzhen (China): a strategy to contribute to resource recovery of process of biogas production from food waste: prospects and constraints. Bioresour.
unused methane for generating renewable energy on-site. J. Clean. Prod., 133078 Technol. Rep. 8, 100310.
Liew, Y.X., Chan, Y.J., Manickam, S., Chong, M.F., Chong, S., Tiong, T.J., Lim, J.W., Rafiee, A., Khalilpour, K.R., Prest, J., Skryabin, I., 2021. Biogas as an energy vector.
Pan, G.T., 2020. Enzymatic pretreatment to enhance anaerobic bioconversion of Biomass and Bioenergy 144, 105935.
high strength wastewater to biogas: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 713, 136373. Rafrafi, Y., Laguillaumie, L., Dumas, C., 2021. Biological methanation of H2 and CO2
Lu, W., Alam, M.A., Luo, W., Asmatulu, E., 2019. Integrating Spirulina platensis with mixed cultures: current advances, hurdles and challenges. Waste Biomass-.-.
cultivation and aerobic composting exhaust for carbon mitigation and biomass Valoriz. 12, 5259–5282.
production. Bioresour. Technol. 271, 59–65. Rani, J., Dhoble, A.S., 2023. Effect of fungal pretreatment by Pycnoporus sanguineus and
Lu, J., Gao, X.J.B., Bioenergy, 2021. Biogas: potential, challenges, and perspectives in a Trichoderma longibrachiatum on the anaerobic digestion of rice straw. Bioresour.
changing China. Biomass-.-. Bioenergy 150, 106127. Technol. 387, 129503.
Lv, S., Zhang, R., He, Y., Ma, Z., Ma, X., 2024. Efficient reactive adsorption of Rasapoor, M., Young, B., Brar, R., Sarmah, A., Zhuang, W.Q., Baroutian, S., 2020.
hexamethyldisiloxane on MCM-41 supported sulfuric acid. Renew. Energy, 120174. Recognizing the challenges of anaerobic digestion: critical steps toward improving
Mancini, G., Lombardi, L., Luciano, A., Bolzonella, D., Viotti, P., Fino, D., 2024. biogas generation. Fuel 261.
A reduction in global impacts through a waste-wastewater-energy nexus: a life cycle Rasheed, T., Anwar, M.T., Ahmad, N., Sher, F., Khan, S.U.-D., Ahmad, A., Khan, R.,
assessment. Energy 289, 130020. Wazeer, I., 2021. Valorisation and emerging perspective of biomass based waste-to-
Manikandan, S., Krishnan, R.Y., Vickram, S., Subbaiya, R., Kim, W., Govarthanan, M., energy technologies and their socio-environmental impact: a review. J. Environ.
Karmegam, N., 2023. Emerging nanotechnology in renewable biogas production Manag. 287, 112257.
from biowastes: Impact and optimization strategies–A review. Renew. Sustain. Rivera, F., Villareal, L., Prádanos, P., Hernández, A., Palacio, L., Muñoz, R., 2022.
Energy Rev. 181, 113345. Enhancement of swine manure anaerobic digestion using membrane-based NH3
Martín-Espejo, J.L., Gandara-Loe, J., Odriozola, J.A., Reina, T., Pastor-Pérez, L., 2022. extraction. Bioresour. Technol. 362, 127829.
Sustainable routes for acetic acid production: Traditional processes vs a low-carbon, Rodríguez-Nuñez, J.R., Castillo Baltazar, O.S., 2020. Anaerobic digestion technology for
biogas-based strategy. Sci. Total Environ. 840, 156663. management of organic wastes: latin american context. Biogas Prod.: Anaerob. Dig. a
Sustain. Bioenergy Ind. 39–55.

857
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

del Rosario Rodero, M., Carvajal, A., Arbib, Z., Lara, E., de Prada, C., Lebrero, R., solid wastes towards a greater environmental friendliness of anaerobic digestion
Muñoz, R., 2020. Performance evaluation of a control strategy for photosynthetic system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 145, 111074.
biogas upgrading in a semi-industrial scale photobioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. Wang, J., Ma, D., Lou, Y., Ma, J., Xing, D., 2023. Optimization of biogas production from
307, 123207. straw wastes by different pretreatments: progress, challenges, and prospects. Sci.
Rossi, E., Pecorini, I., Paoli, P., Iannelli, R., 2022. Plug-flow reactor for volatile fatty acid Total Environ., 166992
production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: influence of organic Wang, P., Wang, H., Qiu, Y., Ren, L., Jiang, B., 2018. Microbial characteristics in
loading rate. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10 (1), 106963. anaerobic digestion process of food waste for methane production–A review.
Rouhollahi, Z., Ebrahimi-Nik, M., Ebrahimi, S.H., Abbaspour-Fard, M.H., Zeynali, R., Bioresour. Technol. 248, 29–36.
Bayati, M.R., 2020. Farm biogas plants, a sustainable waste to energy and bio- Wang, D., Yang, X., Tian, C., Lei, Z., Kobayashi, N., Kobayashi, M., Adachi, Y.,
fertilizer opportunity for Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119876. Shimizu, K., Zhang, Z., 2019. Characteristics of ultra-fine bubble water and its trials
Saha, S., Jeon, B.H., Kurade, M.B., Jadhav, S.B., Chatterjee, P.K., Chang, S.W., Kim, S.J., on enhanced methane production from waste activated sludge. Bioresour. Technol.
2018. Optimization of dilute acetic acid pretreatment of mixed fruit waste for 273, 63–69.
increased methane production. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 411–421. Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Lin, J.G., Zhang, N., Cao, W., 2021. Biogas energy generated
Sahota, S., Shah, G., Ghosh, P., Kapoor, R., Sengupta, S., Singh, P., Vijay, V., Sahay, A., from livestock manure in China: current situation and future trends. J. Environ.
Vijay, V.K., Thakur, I.S.J., 2018. Review of trends in biogas upgradation Manag. 297, 113324.
technologies and future perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 1, 79–88. Wang, D.H., Zhu, M.Y., Lian, S.J., Zou, H., Fu, S.F., Guo, R.B., 2022. Conversion of
Salamattalab, M.M., Zonoozi, M.H., Molavi-Arabshahi, M., 2024. Innovative approach Renewable Biogas into Single-Cell Protein Using a Combined Microalga-and
for predicting biogas production from large-scale anaerobic digester using long-short Methane-Oxidizing Bacterial System. ACS EST Eng. 2 (12), 2317–2325.
term memory (LSTM) coupled with genetic algorithm (GA). Waste Manag. 175, Wikandari, R., Taherzadeh, M.J., 2019. Rapid anaerobic digestion of organic solid
30–41. residuals for biogas production using flocculating bacteria and membrane
Sawyerr, N., Trois, C., Workneh, T., Okudoh, V.J., 2019. An overview of biogas bioreactors–a critical review. Biofuels Bioprod. Bioref. 13 (4), 1119–1132.
production: Fundamentals, applications and future research. Int. J. Energy Econ. Wiselogel, A., Tyson, S., Johnson, D., 2018. Biomass feedstock resources and
Policy 9 (2), 105. composition. Handbook on bioethanol. Routledge, pp. 105–118.
Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.F., Fahl, F., 2018. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Wu, D., Peng, X., Li, L., Yang, P., Peng, Y., Liu, H., Wang, X., 2021. Commercial biogas
Europe. Renew. Energy 129, 457–472. plants: review on operational parameters and guide for performance optimization.
Shirzad, M., Panahi, H.K.S., Dashti, B.B., Rajaeifar, M.A., Aghbashlo, M., Tabatabaei, M. Fuel 303, 121282.
J.R., Reviews, S.E., 2019. A comprehensive review on electricity generation and Wu, L., Wei, W., Song, L., Woźniak-Karczewska, M., Chrzanowski, Ł., Ni, B.-J., 2021.
GHG emission reduction potentials through anaerobic digestion of agricultural and Upgrading biogas produced in anaerobic digestion: biological removal and
livestock/slaughterhouse wastes in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 111, 571–594. bioconversion of CO2 in biogas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 150, 111448.
Sica, D., Esposito, B., Supino, S., Malandrino, O., Sessa, M.R., 2023. Biogas-based Xue, Y., Li, Q., Gu, Y., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., Zhou, X., 2020. Improving biodegradability and
systems: An opportunity towards a post-fossil and circular economy perspective in biogas production of miscanthus using a combination of hydrothermal and alkaline
Italy. Energy Policy 182, 113719. pretreatment. Ind. Crops Prod. 144, 111985.
Sidana, A., Yadav, S.K., 2022. Recent developments in lignocellulosic biomass Yadav, M., Vivekanand, V., 2021. Combined fungal and bacterial pretreatment of wheat
pretreatment with a focus on eco-friendly, non-conventional methods. J. Clean. and pearl millet straw for biogas production–a study from batch to continuous
Prod. 335, 130286. stirred tank reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 321, 124523.
Singh, D., Tembhare, M., Machhirake, N., Kumar, S.J.E., 2023. Biogas Gener. Potential Yang, Y., Wang, M., Yan, S., Yong, X., Zhang, X., Awasthi, M.K., Zhou, J., 2023. Effects of
discarded Food Waste Residue Ultra-Process. Act. Food Manuf. Packag. Ind. 263, hydrochar and biogas slurry reflux on methane production by mixed anaerobic
126138. digestion of cow manure and corn straw. Chemosphere 310.
Song, L., Ha, J., Ye, M., Qin, Y., Li, Q., Niu, Q., Li, Y.Y., 2024. Inorganic carbon as a key Yankov, D., 2022. Fermentative lactic acid production from lignocellulosic feedstocks:
factor governing competition between methanogens and acetogens in high-rate from source to purified product. Front. Chem. 10, 823005.
anaerobic treatment of methanol wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 481. Yaqoob, H., Teoh, Y.H., Din, Z.U., Sabah, N.U., Jamil, M.A., Mujtaba, M., Abid, A., 2021.
Sun, Q., Li, H., Yan, J., Liu, L., Yu, Z., Yu, X., 2015. Selection of appropriate biogas The potential of sustainable biogas production from biomass waste for power
upgrading technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation. Renew. generation in Pakistan. J. Clean. Prod. 307, 127250.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 521–532. Yellezuome, D., Zhu, X., Liu, X., Liu, R., Sun, C., Abd-Alla, M.H., Rasmey, A.H.M., 2024.
Suthar, S., Sharma, B., Kumar, K., Banu, J.R., Tyagi, V.K., 2022. Enhanced biogas Effects of organic loading rate on hydrogen and methane production in a novel two-
production in dilute acid-thermal pretreatment and cattle dung biochar mediated stage reactor system: performance, enzyme activity and microbial structure. Chem.
biomethanation of water hyacinth. Fuel 307, 121897. Eng. J. 480.
Tabatabaei, M., Aghbashlo, M., Valijanian, E., Panahi, H.K.S., Nizami, A.-S., Yentekakis, I.V., Goula, G., 2017. Biogas management: advanced utilization for
Ghanavati, H., Sulaiman, A., Mirmohamadsadeghi, S., Karimi, K., 2020. production of renewable energy and added-value chemicals. Front. Environ. Sci. 5,
A comprehensive review on recent biological innovations to improve biogas 7.
production, part 1: upstream strategies. Renew. Energy 146, 1204–1220. You, Z., Pan, S.-Y., Sun, N., Kim, H., Chiang, P.-C., 2019. Enhanced corn-stover
Tagne, R.F.T., Costa, P., Casella, S., Favaro, L., 2024. Optimization of biohydrogen fermentation for biogas production by NaOH pretreatment with CaO additive and
production by dark fermentation of African food-processing waste streams. Int. J. ultrasound. J. Clean. Prod. 238, 117813.
Hydrogen Energy 49, 266–276. Yu, Y., Wu, J., Ren, X., Lau, A., Rezaei, H., Takada, M., Bi, X., Sokhansanj, S., 2022.
Tamburrano, G., Pumiglia, D., Ferrario, A.M., Santoni, F., Borello, D., 2024. Analysis of Steam explosion of lignocellulosic biomass for multiple advanced bioenergy
the performances of a solid oxide fuel cell fed by biogas in different plant processes: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 154, 111871.
configurations: An integrated experimental and simulative approach. Int. J. Yue, L., Cheng, J., Tang, S., An, X., Hua, J., Dong, H., Zhou, J., 2021. Ultrasound and
Hydrogen Energy 52, 745–760. microwave pretreatments promote methane production potential and energy
Tamilselvan, R., Selwynraj, A.I., 2024. Model development for biogas generation, conversion during anaerobic digestion of lipid and food wastes. Energy 228, 120525.
purification and hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. Int. J. Hydrog. Zabed, H.M., Akter, S., Yun, J., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., Qi, X.J.R., Reviews, S.E., 2020.
Energy 50, 211–225. Biogas from microalgae: Technologies, challenges and opportunities. Renew.
Tang, S., Wang, Z., Lu, H., Si, B., Wang, C., Jiang, W., 2023. Design of stage-separated Sustain. Energy Rev. 117, 109503.
anaerobic digestion: principles, applications, and prospects. Renew. Sustain. Energy Zabranska, J., Pokorna, D., 2018. Bioconversion of carbon dioxide to methane using
Rev. 187. hydrogen and hydrogenotrophic methanogens. Biotechnol. Adv. 36 (3), 707–720.
Tang, C.-C., Zhang, B.-C., Yao, X.-Y., Sangeetha, T., Zhou, A.-J., Liu, W., Ren, Y.-X., Li, Z., Zareei, S.J.R. e, 2018. Evaluation of biogas potential from livestock manures and rural
Wang, A., He, Z.-W., 2023. Natural zeolite enhances anaerobic digestion of waste wastes using GIS in Iran. Renew. Energy 118, 351–356.
activated sludge: Insights into the performance and the role of biofilm. J. Environ. Zeppilli, M., Cristiani, L., Dell’Armi, E., Majone, M., 2020. Bioelectromethanogenesis
Manag. 345, 118704. reaction in a tubular Microbial Electrolysis Cell (MEC) for biogas upgrading. Renew.
Tshikovhi, A., Motaung, T.E., 2023. Technologies and innovations for biomass energy Energy 158, 23–31.
production. Sustainability 15 (16), 12121. Zhang, X., Jiao, P., Zhang, M., Wu, P., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Xu, Kaiyan, Yu, Jiazhou,
Tukanghan, W., Hupfauf, S., Gómez-Brandón, M., Insam, H., Salvenmoser, W., Ma, L., 2023. Impacts of organic loading rate and hydraulic retention time on
Prasertsan, P., Cheirsilp, B., Sompong, O., 2021. Symbiotic bacteroides and organics degradation, interspecies interactions and functional traits in thermophilic
clostridium-rich methanogenic consortium enhanced biogas production of high-solid anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 370.
anaerobic digestion systems. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 14, 100685. Zhao, J., Patwary, A.K., Qayyum, A., Alharthi, M., Bashir, F., Mohsin, M., Hanif, I.,
Tyagi, V.K., Fdez-Güelfo, L., Zhou, Y., Álvarez-Gallego, C., Garcia, L.R., Ng, W.J., 2018. Abbas, Q.J.E., 2022. The determinants of renewable energy sources for the fueling of
Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW): green and sustainable economy. Energy 238, 122029.
progress and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 380–399. Zhao, Y., Xu, C., Ai, S., Wang, H., Gao, Y., Yan, L., Mei, Z., Wang, W., 2019. Biological
Velasco, A., Franco-Morgado, M., Revah, S., Arellano-García, L.A., Manzano-Zavala, M., pretreatment enhances the activity of functional microorganisms and the ability of
González-Sánchez, A., 2019. Desulfurization of Biogas from a Closed Landfill under methanogenesis during anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 290, 121660.
Acidic Conditions Deploying an Iron-Redox Biological Process. Chemengineering 3
(3), 71.
Vijayakumar, P., Ayyadurai, S., Arunachalam, K.D., Mishra, G., Chen, W.-H., Juan, J.C.,
Naqvi, S.R., 2022. Current technologies of biochemical conversion of food waste into
biogas production: a review. Fuel 323, 124321.
Wang, X., Lei, Z., Shimizu, K., Zhang, Z., Lee, D.J., 2021. Recent advancements in
nanobubble water technology and its application in energy recovery from organic

858
F. Sher et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 188 (2024) 834–859

Zhao, K., Zhao, S., Song, G., Lu, C., Liu, R., Hu, C., Qu, J., 2023. Ultrasonication- Zhou, S.P., Ke, X., Jin, L.Q., Xue, Y.P., Zheng, Y.-G., 2024. Sustainable management and
enhanced biogas production in anaerobic digestion of waste active sludge: a pilot valorization of biomass wastes using synthetic microbial consortia. Bioresour.
scale investigation. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 192, 106902. Technol., 130391
Zhou, Z., Ouyang, D., Liu, D., Zhao, X., 2023. Oxidative pretreatment of lignocellulosic
biomass for enzymatic hydrolysis: progress and challenges. Bioresour. Technol. 367.

859