Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A critical review on dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste:

Characteristics, operational conditions, and improvement strategies☆
Zhongzhong Wang a, b, c, Yuansheng Hu d, Shun Wang a, b, c, Guangxue Wu a, b, Xinmin Zhan a, b, c, *
a
Civil Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, University of Galway, Ireland
b
Ryan Institute, University of Galway, Ireland
c
MaREI Center for Marine and Renewable Energy, University of Galway, Ireland
d
Department of Civil Engineering & Construction, Atlantic Technological University Sligo, Sligo, Ireland

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

Keywords: The development and utilization of bioenergy from various biomass can effectively reduce our dependence on
Dry anaerobic digestion fossil fuels and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The dry anaerobic digestion (AD) process is a promising
Mass transfer limitation technology for the treatment and stabilization of organic wastes (e.g., agricultural residues, livestock waste) with
Methane production
high total solid contents (15%–40%), while simultaneously recovering energy through biogas production (mainly
Microbial communities
Total solids
methane). In the past few years, it has attracted significant attention because it possesses several advantages over
wet AD, including higher volumetric methane yield, reduced digester size, less digested residue, and greater ease
in handling the low-moisture digestate. This technology, however, still faces challenges owing to its excessive
solids content. Additionally, dry AD is greatly different from wet AD in terms of technical operation, reactor
design, and process performance. It is therefore essential to comprehensively understand dry AD and its char­
acteristics, to analyze its operational factors, and to evaluate the optimization methods and techniques in order to
develop practical applications. This paper presents a critical overview of the fundamental and engineering as­
pects of dry AD, and reviews specific characteristics of dry AD. Moreover, the operational conditions affecting the
process stability of dry AD are discussed, as well as the strategies for improving its performance. Finally, chal­
lenges and prospects for its future application in treating high-solid organic waste are discussed. Future research
on continuous/semi-continuous operations and scaling up of the lab-scale dry AD systems should be conducted.

waste minimization and nutrients recovery through digestate applica­

tion [5]. Additionally, AD with closed operation has proven particularly
1. Introduction effective in managing organic wastes and avoiding risks associated with
uncontrolled GHG emissions from open storage [6]. Thus, it has
Nowadays, the rapid consumption of fossil fuels has brought about generally been perceived as an eco-friendly, competitive, and promising
severe energy crisis and environmental issues (e.g., climate change), biotechnology to address energy and environmental issues [3].
which has hampered global progress towards the goals of economic, Currently, AD is extensively used to treat various types of organic
social, and cultural sustainability [1]. An increasing consensus now solid wastes such as agricultural residues, municipal solid wastes, and
views exploiting renewable energy to gradually replace conventional industrial wastes [7,8]. Generally, AD is driven by four sequential
fossil fuels as a key strategy to address energy and environmental con­ stages: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis,
cerns [2]. The development and usage of bioenergy from various which are correspondingly functioned by hydrolytic bacteria, acido­
biomass (e.g., agricultural residues) can effectively reduce human genic bacteria, acetogenic bacteria, and methanogenic archaea [9].
dependence on fossil fuels, as well as relieving environmental pressure Conventional AD is generally used to treat organic waste with a low total
by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a well-established solids (TS) content (below 10%) [10,13,15], which leads to a large
biotechnology, anaerobic digestion (AD) can not only produce renew­ amount of digestate (high-water content) after digestion. The
able energy in the form of biogas through the decomposition of various post-treatment or disposal of digestate has been a major challenge for
organic wastes [3,4], but also offer an alternative to waste stabilization,

☆
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
* Corresponding author. Civil Engineering, College of Science and Engineering, University of Galway, Ireland.
E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Zhan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113208
Received 29 August 2022; Received in revised form 31 January 2023; Accepted 3 February 2023
Available online 7 February 2023
1364-0321/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

Abbreviations MSW municipal solid waste

OFMSW organic fraction of municipal solid waste
AD anaerobic digestion OLR organic loading rate
AWS agricultural wastes ORP oxidative–reductive potential
BMP biochemical methane potential PAC powdered activated carbon
C/N ratio carbon to nitrogen ratio PM pig manure
CSTR continuous stirred tank reactor RT retention time
CM chicken manure SAO-HM syntrophic acetate oxidation coupled with
COD chemical oxygen demand hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis
DIET direct interspecies electron transfer SMY specific methane yield
DPSM domesticated paddy soil microbes SS suspended solids
DSS dewatered sewage sludge STP standard temperature and pressure
FAN free ammonia nitrogen TAN total ammonia nitrogen
I/S ratio inoculum to substrate ratio TS total solids
FW food waste VFA volatile fatty acids
GAC granular activated carbon VS volatile solids
GHG greenhouse gas VSS volatile suspended solids
LCFA long-chain fatty acids ZVI zero-valent iron

AD processes [11]. In a study using digestate directly as organic fertilizer Additionally, the purpose of this review is to highlight the knowledge
for farmland, Dennehy et al. [12] estimated that transportation costs gaps that need to be filled for developing a suitable and feasible dry AD
would account for approximately 30–70% of the total AD operation process.
costs.
Water, as the medium for nutrient diffusion and the necessity for 2. Fundamental aspects and principles of AD
microbial growth, has played a pivotal part in controlling AD [9].
Additionally, the substrate’s moisture content significantly affects AD Microbiologically driven AD is a complex biochemical process
performance in terms of methane production [11]. Nowadays, it is depending on a consortium of microorganisms that can be classified
widely accepted that AD processes are divided into three categories based on their metabolic pathways [22]. The microorganisms involved
according to the TS content in the raw materials, including the wet in AD can be divided into four groups according to their different
(<10% TS), semi-dry (10% < TS<15%) and dry (≥15% TS) AD pro­ functions: hydrolytic bacteria, acidogenic bacteria, acetogenic bacteria,
cesses [13–16]. Compared to wet AD, dry AD can offer several benefits, and methanogenic archaea, which are correspondingly responsible for
including higher volumetric methane yield, smaller reactor volumes, hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, respec­
decreased energy requirement for heating, less digested residues, and tively [23]. The main steps and metabolic pathways in dry AD are
low moisture in digestate that is easier to deal with [11,17]. Besides, illustrated in Fig. 1.
minimal material handling issues during pre- and post-processing are
appealing in dry AD [15]. It has been reported that dry AD can be
designed at higher organic loading rates (OLRs) with TS content up to
40% [18]. In the past decade, dry AD has gained increasing attention
because of these advantages. In Europe, according to the European
Bioplastics report “Anaerobic Digestion” [19], the installed cumulative
capacity of dry AD was increased by 56.5% from 2009 to 2015, even
though dry AD only made up around 35% of waste treatment AD in
2015. Therefore, dry AD is a promising technology for the management
of organic waste.
Despite its main advantages, dry AD has biological and technological
shortcomings owing to the excessive solids content in the digester [20].
As a result of high TS conditions, dry AD systems have difficulty in
mixing and homogenizing, which negatively affects methane production
by increasing the diffusive transport resistance of soluble compounds
(substrates or intermediates) [20,21]. In addition, high OLRs in dry AD
would result in the build-up of inhibitors (such as ammonia and volatile
fatty acids (VFAs)), consequently adversely affecting AD performance. A
previous study examined the effects of TS content on co-AD of pig
manure and food waste, and found that 20% TS led to a decrease in
methane yields by 11% compared to 10% TS condition [11].
The anaerobic process stages and relevant biochemical reactions in
dry AD, as well as the microorganisms inside the digesters, are similar to
those in wet AD. However, they have many differences in terms of
technical operation, reactor configuration, and process performance
resulting from the high TS content. Therefore, the focus of the present
literature is critical assessment of the previous scientific literature on dry
AD, mainly including specific characteristics of dry AD, operational Fig. 1. Main steps and metabolic pathways in dry AD (Adapted from Kothari
conditions, and strategies for improving the performance of dry AD. et al. [9]).

2
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

The biodegradable organic matter in feedstock primarily consists of

carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids. In general, microorganisms are not 3. Characteristics of dry AD
capable of using these polymers directly due to the large size of indi­
vidual molecules. Hence, at the beginning of the AD process, via 3.1. Feedstock
extracellular enzymes excreted by the hydrolytic bacteria, hydrolysis
breaks down complex organic polymers (particulate or dissolved) into Conventionally, a large variety of organic wastes can serve as AD
smaller soluble molecules, such as sugars, amino acids, and long-chain feedstock, such as food waste, livestock manure, sewage sludge, and
fatty acids (LCFA) [24]. Hydrolysis is mainly performed by heterotro­ agricultural waste. Etc. The commonly used feedstock in AD can be
phic acidogenic bacteria, which are both hydrolytic enzyme producers characterized by: (1) high biodegradability, which means it has a high
and hydrolysis product consumers [25]. Generally, hydrolysis is regar­ proportion of biodegradable organic material that is readily biode­
ded as the rate limiting step of AD when using solid organic wastes as gradable under anaerobic conditions; (2) balanced nutrient composition
substrates [26]. in macro and micro elements, which is in favor of anaerobic microbial
The reduced compounds formed in the hydrolysis step are then growth. Dry AD operated under high solid conditions prefers to treat
further transformed by acidogenic bacteria (or acidogens) to VFAs as these organic wastes featured with relatively low moisture contents (e.
well as a small number of other products (such as CO2 and H2). These g., municipal solid waste, agricultural residues), while wet AD is more
bacteria grow rapidly, and the minimum doubling time is approximately suitable for feedstock like wastewater or animal slurry with high mois­
30 min [27]. The acetogenesis, functioned by acetogenic bacteria (or ture contents [9]. The dry AD system is designed primarily to treat solid
acetogens), is responsible for consuming the non-acetic acid VFAs organic wastes, including agricultural residues, industrial waste,
generated in the preceding stage and producing acetate, CO2, and/or H2. municipal solid waste, and energy crops and plants, as shown in Fig. 2.
Basically, there are two types of microorganisms involved in aceto­ In practical applications, the selection of a particular substrate for dry
genesis: (1) syntrophic acetogens, which can metabolize non-acetic acid AD systems should consider the following factors: (1) local availability
VFAs, alcohols, and fatty acids into acetate [28]. Since most acetogenic of raw material with a high solids content; (2) physicochemical char­
reactions are thermodynamically unfavourable and easily inhibited by acteristics, in particular the biomethane production potential; and (3)
the accumulation of their metabolites, especially H2, these organisms economic aspects of the dry AD process operation.
form syntrophic associations with methanogens. (2) non-syntrophic
homoacetogens, which produce acetate by using H2 and CO2. In addi­ 3.2. TS content
tion, homoacetogens are versatile anaerobes, capable of converting a
variety of substrates into acetate [29]. These bacteria grow slowly with a Dry AD is typically characterized by a high TS content, usually 15%–
doubling time of 1.5–4 days [27]. 40%, which allows it to deal with a large amount of organic waste per
The final stage of AD is methanogenesis. According to the substrates unit volume of the digester, thereby decreasing the size of the digester
used, methane can be generated in the following three ways: (1) ace­ and reducing capital investment [11,32]. The high TS content results in
totrophic pathway, in which methane is produced from acetate; (2) mass transfer limitation between microbes and substrates and/or me­
hydrogenotrophic pathway, in which methane is produced by reducing tabolites, which inevitably reduces the accessibility of nutrients to mi­
CO2 with H2 or formate as electron donors, and (3) methylotrophic croorganisms and negatively affects their metabolism, ultimately
pathway, in which methane is produced from methyl groups (like leading to low VS degradation and biogas production. The TS content of
methanol, methylamines and methyl sulfides). The methanogens grow substrates as one of the most important operational factors for the dry
slowly with a doubling time of 2–4 days [27]. The methanogenic re­ AD process has significant impacts on methane production. Numerous
actions of the three pathways can be described with the following studies have examined the effects of TS content on AD performance in
equations [30]. terms of methane production when using different organic wastes as
/ substrates, as shown in Fig. 3. The results of most studies show that when
(1)
′
CH3 COO− + H+ → CH4 + CO2 , △G0 = − 36 kJ molCH4 the TS is above 15%–20%, an increase in TS leads to a reduction in
/ methane production, with exception of Yi et al. [33], who obtained
(2)
′
CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 + H2 O, △G0 = − 130 kJ molCH4 better performance in terms of VS reduction and methane yield in AD of
food waste when increasing TS from 15% to 20%. Abbassi-Guendouz
/
(3) et al. [20] performed batch experiments with TS contents ranging
′
4CH3 OH → 3CH4 + CO2 + 2H2 O, △G0 = − 106 kJ molCH4
from 10% to 35% to evaluate the effects of the TS content on the

Fig. 2. Variety of feedstock sources for dry AD.

3
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

the yield stress increases exponentially with TS content. Therefore, more

research should be conducted on the development of mixing strategies
for dry AD and the optimization of the mixing process.

3.4. Ammonia inhibition and VFA accumulation

Ammonia nitrogen is derived from the breakdown of nitrogenous

organic matter in the substrate in dry AD, such as proteins. Ammonia
nitrogen at low concentrations (50–200 mg/L) can act as a preferred
nitrogen source for the growth of microorganisms and raise the buff­
ering capacity of the AD system [46]. Nevertheless, exceeding
ammonia-tolerant limits would negatively affect the activities of mi­
crobes involved in AD processes and ultimately compromise AD per­
formance [47–49]. As a result of the high TS content in dry AD, total
ammonia nitrogen (TAN) levels are usually high when degrading
protein-rich wastes, which makes dry AD often susceptible to ammonia
inhibition [50]. Moreover, ammonia inhibition directly results in the
Fig. 3. Effects of TS content on methane production in AD when using card­ build-up of VFAs and instant pH drop, which worsens the dry AD
board [20], food waste [33], Municipal solid waste [34], sewage sludge [35],
deterioration. Jiang et al. [51] conducted batch dry AD reactors
and pig manure and food waste [11], as substrates.
co-digesting food waste and pig manure under mesophilic conditions
and demonstrated that methane production was largely inhibited by
performance of AD fed with cardboard as the substrate. They observed a high VFA concentrations, with a threshold inhibition concentration
slight decrease in methane production when TS contents were increased ranging from 16.5 to 18.0 g/L.
from 10% to 25%, with a sharp decline at TS contents of 30–35%. Hence, In aqueous solutions, ammoniacal nitrogen exists in two forms, free
the authors indicated that 30% TS may be reckoned as a threshold for ammonia nitrogen (FAN or NH3) and ammonium nitrogen (NH+ 4 ), which
causing inhibition in dry AD. are in a pH-dependent equilibrium [52], as shown in Eq. (4). The pro­
portion of FAN to TAN is dependent on pH and temperature, demon­
3.3. Rheological behavior and mass transfer limitations strated as Eq. (5) [11]. Fig. 4 shows the variation of the proportion of
FAN at different conditions of pH and temperature. Clearly, the pro­
Dry AD processes are often carried out under high-solid conditions portion of FAN increases with pH and temperature. To date, FAN is
(typically 15–40% TS), so the medium has the appearance of a paste widely considered to be more accountable for the ammonia inhibition of
containing granular particles. It looks like there is no or less free-flowing AD processes compared with NH+ 4 [48,53]. Hence, thermophilic dry AD
water in such dry AD systems. Garcia-Bernet et al. [36] analyzed the is more prone to ammonia inhibition due to a higher FAN concentration.
water distribution in digestates collected from two industrial dry AD
plants and found that in 20%-TS digestate, around 50% of the water was NH3 (aq.) + H2 O(l.) ↔ NH + +
4 (aq) + OH (aq.) (4)
free water; and the same fraction was bound water. As a result, the pasty ( )
media in dry AD systems inevitably present significant differences from TAN
= 1+
10− pH
(5)
the water-based media in wet digestion, in the aspects of rheological 10− (0.09018+ T )
2729.92
FAN
behaviors and mass transfer [37].
The rheology of Newtonian fluids (such as water) behaves in a where, FAN and TAN are the free (NH3) and total (NH3 + NH+ 4)

viscoelastic manner can be described by the apparent viscosity (referred ammonia concentrations, respectively, mg/L; and T is the temperature
to as the ratio between the shear stress and the shear rate) [38]. How­ in Kelvin, K.
ever, anaerobically digested solid waste, such as sludge, is usually It is widely accepted that methanogens are more susceptible to
considered as a non-Newtonian fluid because the shear stress is not ammonia tress than other groups of anaerobic microbes participating in
linearly correlated to the shear rate [39,40]. Therefore, its rheological AD processes [54,55]. It has been observed that high levels of both FAN
property cannot simply be determined by the viscosity. Previous studies and NH+ 4 can inhibit methanogenic archaea [56,57]. The inhibitory ef­

employed a plastic model to characterize the rheological behaviors of fects of ammonia on methanogenic archaeal are discussed in Section 3.5.
different types of digested sludge. Garcia-Bernet et al. [16] measured the
yield stress by using the slump test and demonstrated that the yield
stress increased with the increase of the TS content based on an expo­
nential correlation model. Similarly, Battistoni [41] found that there
was an exponential correlation between the yield stress and total VS
content in the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW).
Clearly, the digestate in dry AD systems is characterized by high yield
stress levels, with the yield stress increasing exponentially with TS
content, making it more difficult for the digesters to get mixed and
homogenized.
Studies have shown that adequate mixing can effectively boost
biogas production in dry AD systems by increasing the contact between
biodegradable organic matter (including substrates and intermediate
metabolites) and microorganisms [42–44]. However, mechanical mix­
ing is an energy-intensive process that usually accounts for a large share
of energy consumption in full-scale AD plants. Lemmer et al. [45] re­
ported that approximately 51% of the total electric energy consumption
was for the mixing process in a biogas plant. Energy consumption for Fig. 4. Variation of the proportion of FAN under different conditions of pH and
mixing in dry AD systems is greatly affected by the high TS content since temperature.

4
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

To decrease the effect of ammonia-induced inhibition, several strategies pathway during dry AD claims that methanogens possess different
have been used in practice, such as reducing OLR (or increasing reten­ abilities to resist varying digestion conditions due to their differences in
tion time (RT)), and co-digesting two or more substrates to balance the adaptability to specific environmental conditions [17]. For example, the
C/N ratio [58]. Another approach is to inoculate with anaerobic sludge consensus from different studies is that hydrogenotrophic methanogens
that has been acclimated to high ammonia concentrations and has a are much more resistant to ammonia inhibition than acetoclastic
higher resistance to ammonia exposure. Yan et al. [59] conducted two methanogens [54]. High ammonia levels have been shown to trigger a
mesophilic continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) using OFMSW as shift in methanogenesis in AD systems. Tian et al. [64] found that the
the sole substrate, along with gradually increasing ammonia concen­ syntrophic acetate oxidation coupled with hydrogenotrophic methano­
tration from 1.1 to 9.5 g NH+4 -N/L. The results proved that the micro­ genesis (SAO-HM) pathway was enhanced throughout the ammonia
organisms in CSTRs were successfully acclimatized to up to 8.5 g acclimation process (up to 10 g NH+ 4 -N/L) in mesophilic reactors
NH+ 4 -N/L, with their methane yields fluctuating below 10%, compared co-digesting cattle slurry and microalgae, as proved by the increase in
to the methane yields without ammonia addition. the relative abundance of Clostridium ultunense and Methanoculleus.
Similarly, Hao et al. [65] demonstrated that the biodegradation of ac­
3.5. Microbial communities etate gradually shifted from acetoclastic methanogenesis to the SAO-HM
pathway in mesophilic AD reactors when TAN was increased from 0.14
Microbial communities play a key role in the performance and sta­ to 7 g/L.
bility of dry AD. Generally, the preferred conditions for the AD process In summary, dry AD is effective in treating various organic wastes
are neutral pH (6.8–7.2), constant temperature (mesophilic 30–40 ◦ C, or with a high solids content, and it is characterized by high TS, high yield
thermophilic 50–60 ◦ C), and a relatively stable feeding rate [9]. The stress, retarded mass transfer, and being prone to ammonia inhibition
succession of microbial communities takes place among the four func­ and VFA accumulation. Additionally, the TS content has significant ef­
tional groups of microbes, and if operating conditions are not main­ fects on the methanogenesis pathway, and hydrogenotrophic metha­
tained near optimal levels, imbalances across the functional groups nogens are likely to play an important role in methanogenesis in dry AD
occur. Due to high TS content, dry AD is usually prone to high ammonia systems.
and VFA concentrations [47,60], which inevitably affects the activity of
microorganisms. Consequently, microbial communities in dry AD are 4. Operational conditions affecting process stability of dry AD
more likely to experience greater environmental stress compared to wet
AD. The performance of the dry AD process is affected by several factors,
Methanogenic archaea, the executors of methanogenesis, are often including temperature, pH level, carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio, OLR,
reported to be more susceptible to high-stress environments than other and Inoculation.
groups of anaerobic microbes participating in AD processes [17]. Ac­
cording to the substrates they can use, methanogenic archaea are 4.1. Temperature
generally classified as acetoclastic methanogens, hydrogenotrophic
methanogens, and methylotrophic methanogens while using acetic acid, Temperature has been recognized as one of the most crucial pa­
H2 and CO2, and C1-methyl, respectively [61]. Many previous studies rameters for the operation of the AD process, because it can affect the
have shown that TS content has significant effects on the archaeal diversity and community structure of microbes, the kinetics and ther­
community. Liu et al. [10] investigated the evolution of microbial modynamical balance of the biochemical reactions, and the conversion
communities along with the increase in TS (10–19%) in sewage sludge pathways of the substrates and their metabolites. AD can be classified
AD. They observed an increase in the relative abundance of hydro­ into three types depending on the temperature in operation: psychro­
genotrophic methanogens from 6.8% at TS 10%–22.3% at TS 19%, philic digestion (below 20 ◦ C), mesophilic digestion (20–45 ◦ C), and
while that of acetoclastic methanogens Methanosarcina decreased from thermophilic digestion (above 45 ◦ C) [66]. Owing to its low reaction
82.2% to 56.3%, although acetoclastic methanogenesis, primarily rate and methane production, psychrophilic digestion has not been
functioned by the genus Methanosarcina, was found to be the predomi­ extensively studied and applied compared to the other two. Currently,
nant pathway for methane production. The authors explained that the mesophilic digestion is most commonly used in practice because of its
high TS conditions undermined the competitive advantage of aceto­ high stability and low operating costs [67], while thermophilic digestion
clastic methanogens, which allowed more hydrogenotrophic metha­ is typically used in most large-scale centralized biogas digesters [9].
nogens to grow. Some studies show that Methanosarcina, which is In comparison to mesophilic digestion, thermophilic digestion pos­
versatile and capable of both the hydrogenotrophic and the acetoclastic sesses several advantages, including superior growth rates and activity
methanogenesis pathways for growth and methane production, is more of microorganisms that result in a shorter RT, higher removal rates of
resistant to severe conditions such as high levels of ammonia and VFA in organic compounds, greater production of methane, and better inacti­
dry AD. In batch high-solid AD (TS from 5% to 20%) using food waste as vation of pathogens [60,68,69]. Fernández-Rodríguez et al. [70] studied
the sole substrate in mesophilic conditions, Yi et al. [33] found that the kinetics of mesophilic and thermophilic digestion of OFMSW at a
Methanosarcina was the predominant methanogen throughout the whole 20% TS and found that the maximum specific growth rate of microor­
digestion, with its relative abundance increasing as the TS content ganisms was enhanced by 27–60% under thermophilic conditions. Be­
increased. Zhou et al. [62] explored the metabolic pathways of meth­ sides, the performance of dry AD has been reported to be improved at
anogenesis through the analysis of the microbial community structures higher temperatures. Sun et al. [71] observed a 21% increase in the
in dry and wet AD sludge. The results showed that hydrogenotrophic maximum cumulative methane yield in dry AD of beer lees at 55 ◦ C in
methanogenesis was the predominant metabolic pathway in dry AD, comparison to 35 ◦ C.
with relative abundances of 48.0% and 15.3% for Methanocorpusculum Regardless of these benefits, the thermophilic dry AD process still has
and Methanobrevibacter, respectively, while the acetoclastic metha­ several drawbacks in terms of technical and economic aspects, such as
nogens Methanothrix (77.0%) dominated in wet AD. Schnürer et al. [63] low stability and reliability that requires close monitoring and precise
indicated that most methanogens were able to utilize hydrogenotrophic operational controls, and high energy demand for heating [72,73].
methanogenesis pathway under stressful conditions, such as high levels Thermophilic digestion is susceptible to inhibition and instability due to
of ammonia, VFAs, sodium, heavy metals, or sulfide. Therefore, it can be the high hydrolysis rate which can result in a build-up of LCFA and a
inferred that hydrogenotrophic methanogens play an important role in decrease in pH level [74]. Shi et al. [75] compared the performance of
methanogenesis under high-solid conditions in dry AD systems. dry AD of corn stover at mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures.
The mechanism that mostly explains the change in the methanogenic They observed a sharp pH drop from day 6 to day 12 in the thermophilic

5
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

reactors, with a concentration of VFAs being 5 times higher than in the successful operation of anaerobic reactors. Meanwhile, the relationship
mesophilic reactors. Moreover, it has been found that thermophilic between pH, alkalinity and other operational parameters should be
digestion is highly sensitive to ammonia since the FAN level increases considered when running a dry AD process.
with temperature [48].
In general, dry thermophilic digestion is more efficient than meso­ 4.3. C/N ratio
philic digestion in terms of methane production and biodegradation of
organic compounds, but it requires more precise operational controls to Carbon and nitrogen are two essential nutrients for microorganism
maintain the process stability. In the practical application of dry AD, it growth, and the C/N ratio is one of the most critical parameters affecting
is, therefore, important to trade off the efficiency of methane production the performance of the dry AD process. An inappropriate C/N ratio can
and operational costs and energy consumption. lead to a build-up of VFAs and a low pH in the digester, which poten­
tially inhibits the AD process [85]. The literature generally recommends
4.2. pH level an operating C/N ratio between 20 and 30, with 25 being the optimal
C/N ratio for the growth of anaerobic bacteria in an AD system [86,87].
AD is a complex biochemical process mediated by a consortium of Nevertheless, the optimal C/N ratio depends on the type of feedstock
microorganisms, making it highly sensitive to pH conditions. Even used in the AD process. Yen and Brune [88] found that the optimal C/N
though pH is one of the most important parameters, pH effects on the dry ratio for co-digestion of algal sludge and wastepaper was within the
AD process have rarely been reported. Because of the similarity of the range of 20–25. Zhang et al. [89] observed that the C/N ratio of 15.8 was
bioprocesses and anaerobic bacteria, the pH effect on dry digestion can optimal when co-digesting food waste with cattle manure under meso­
be inferred from the research results of wet digestion. It is widely re­ philic conditions. The C/N ratio represents an indicator of organic waste
ported that the optimal pH for an efficient wet AD process is in the range input into a dry anaerobic digester and varies greatly with feedstock
of 6.8–7.2, although methane production still occurs in a pH range be­ type. Table 1 shows typical feedstock as characterized by lower or
tween 5.5 and 8.5 [33,76,77]. Nevertheless, the optimal pH value varies higher C/N ratios. A better C/N balance can be achieved by combining
greatly for different stages (hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and substrates with low and high C/N ratios in appropriate proportions. This
methanogenesis) because the enzymatic activities of all functional mi­ is one of the main reasons to perform AD by co-digestion in practice to
croorganisms at each stage are principally determined by different improve the process stability.
optimal pH levels [78]. According to Yu and Fang [79] and Kim et al.
[80], the optimal pH for hydrolysis and acidogenesis is found in the 4.4. Organic loading rate (OLR) and retention time (RT)
range of 5.5–6.5. Lay et al. [81] indicated that methanogenesis would
only proceed at a high rate when the pH is maintained at around 7.0. OLR refers to the amount of organic waste fed into the digester
This is one of the most important reasons for researchers to develop a through continuous or semi-continuous processes per unit volume of the
two-stage AD process where the hydrolysis/acidification and acetoge­ digester per day (usually expressed in kg VS/m3/d or kg COD/m3/d)
nesis/methanogenesis processes proceed in two separate reactors. [92]. Compared to wet AD, dry AD often operates with a higher OLR due
In single-stage AD systems, pH is generally dependent on VFA con­ to the high TS content of substrates [93]. According to Duan et al. [94],
centration and alkalinity. Accordingly, the pH of the reactor varies with the dry AD system can operate at a 4–6 times higher OLR compared with
reaction time because the VFA and ammonia concentrations fluctuate conventional wet AD systems while achieving comparable methane
during digestion. During the initial stage of batch AD reactors, the pH is yields and VS reduction. The OLR value for dry AD is strongly dependent
prone to decrease because of the rapid kinetics of the hydrolysis/acidi­ upon the characteristics of the feedstock materials [95], and varies
fication process and the buildup of organic acids. Meanwhile, the greatly when using different feedstock, such as 3.5–8.5 kg VS/m3/d for
reduction in pH is partially offset by the increase in ammonia produced corn silage [96], 7–10 kg VS/m3/d for OFMSW [13], and 4.0–8.5 kg
by the biodegradation of proteins. Subsequently, the pH begins to in­ VS/m3/d for swine manure [97]. Operating at a proper OLR is vital for
crease when the methanogenic archaeal gradually converts VFAs into the process efficiency and stability of dry AD, since a high OLR that
methane [78]. When the pH falls below 6.5 during the hydro­ exceeds the digester’s degradation capacity would result in a reduction
lysis/acidification process, it may negatively impact methanogenic in methane production and disturbance of the process [98]. High loads
archaeal activity, or even inhibit them completely [82]. Therefore, easily result in the accumulation of VFAs and pH drop during the
excessive acidification should be avoided in the AD process. Chandra acidogenesis process, impairing methanogenic activities and causing a
et al. [78] claimed that the pH of the digester can be maintained within low effectiveness of the process or even failure [99]. The impacts of
an acceptable range by regulating an OLR appropriately. Additionally, varying OLR on methane production have been studied extensively to
improved buffering capacity may provide an alternative option for determine optimal operational conditions. Using corn silage as feed­
preventing excessive acidification and maintaining a constant pH for the stock, Veluchamy et al. [96] investigated the effects of increasing OLR
AD process. Normally, the buffering capacity of an anaerobic digester is on methane production in a plug flow reactor through a semi-continuous
evaluated by measuring the alkalinity, which is a result of the equilib­
rium that forms between carbon dioxide and bicarbonate ions. The Table 1
alkalinity effectively prevents significant and rapid pH fluctuations, and Typical feedstock characterized by low or high values of C/N ratio [90,91].
it is therefore principally determined by the bicarbonate concentration
Substrates with a low C/N C/N Substrates with a high C/N C/N ratio
in the digester [76]. There are several methods to modify the alkalinity ratio ratio ratio
of the digester, such as co-digesting with a substrate with high alkalinity
Livestock waste Agricultural waste
such as livestock manure, adding alkaline reagents such as sodium bi­ Pig manure 6–14 Rice straw 51–67
carbonate (NaHCO3) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH), modifying the I/S Cattle manure 15–26 Wheat straw 50–150
ratio or reducing the OLR [63,76,83]. Poultry manure 5–15 Corn stover 50–56
Apart from the issue of AD process instability caused by low pH Sheep manure 20–34 Sugar cane waste 139–151
Goat manure 10–17 Sawdust 200–500
levels, high pH levels could potentially aggravate the ammonia inhibi­
Cow dung 16–25
tion in AD systems. According to Kadam and Boone [84], methano­ Industrial and municipal solid waste Energy crops and plants
genesis was completely inhibited at a TAN concentration above 5 g/L Slaughterhouse waste 22–37 Algae 75–100
when the pH was 7.5, comparatively only at 1.6 g/L when pH was 8.5, Food waste 2–18 Seaweed 70–79
because FAN was greatly higher at high pH levels. It is therefore Sewage sludge 10–20 Potato 30–60
Grass/grass trimmings 12–16
necessary to monitor the pH of the system regularly to ensure the

6
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

process. They found that the VFAs concentration increased along with of VFAs.
OLR ranging from 3.5 to 8.5 kg VS/m3/d, while the AD system remained
stable up to 6.5 kg VS/m3/d, but became extremely unstable at 8.5 kg 5. Strategies for enhancing dry AD
VS/m3/d. Additionally, the highest maximum methane yield (410 mL/g
VSadded) was obtained at 6.5 kg VS/m3/d OLR, while the methane yield 5.1. Pre-treatment
decreased by 12.2% at 8.5 kg VS/m3/d OLR.
The RT is defined as the average time that the organic substrate re­ Pre-treatment is usually applied to feedstock prior to dry AD to
mains inside the digester. In continuous dry AD processes, the RT de­ improve methane production and process stability. The commonly used
termines the contact time between microorganisms and the substrate pre-treatment strategies involve mechanical treatment, chemical treat­
[92]. An effective RT is determined by the substrate composition and ment, biological treatment, and thermal treatment. The main purpose of
OLR, and a short RT usually results in the build-up of VFAs, while a long the pre-treatment is to increase the biodegradability of feedstock
RT reduces AD effectiveness. The RT required for AD digestion is (typically lignocellulosic biomass). In this regard, the dry AD process is
affected by operational conditions such as temperature. The RT for compatible with most of the pre-treatment methods used in wet AD.
mesophilic dry AD typically ranges from 30 to 40 days [95], while it is Table 2 illuminates the performance of various pre-treatments used in
usually lower for thermophilic digestion [9]. Additionally, the RT and recent studies for improving methane production in dry AD.
OLR are coupled in continuous dry AD processes, and the increase in the
OLR is accompanied by a decrease in the RT. The relationship between 5.1.1. Mechanical pre-treatment
OLR and RT can be written as Eq. (6). The solid-state substrates used in dry AD usually span a wide range of
particle size, which is partially determined by the physical characteris­
CSub daily flow × VS concentration
OLR = = (6) tics of the substrates and the collection process [107]. Numerous studies
RT liquid volume
have revealed that a large particle size could result in a low methane
where, CSub is the substrate concentration expressed as total added mass production efficiency [108]. Thus, substrates are usually mechanically
(VS or COD) per digester volume. The OLR of the digester is inversely pretreated before digestion to obtain desired particle sizes. Through
proportional to the RT in continuous dry AD processes. It is necessary to mechanical pre-treatment, the substrate surface area, bulk density, and
achieve a good balance between OLR and RT to optimize the fixed flow properties are altered, which can improve mixing conditions be­
volume of the industrial anaerobic digester. Hence, the OLR and RT are tween substrates and inoculum and increase the microbial-substrate
critical parameters for dry AD processes, and they should be carefully contact [109]. This is the main mechanism for enhancing dry AD per­
selected to optimize plant productivity and maximize renewable energy formance through mechanical pre-treatment. Wang et al. [110] reported
production, simultaneously avoiding process instability. an increase of up to 26.4% in methane production in dry AD of stored
corn stover when the particle size was reduced from 12.7 mm to 1.0 mm
(Table 2). They indicated that grinding may result in the reduction of
4.5. Inoculation cellulose crystallinity and the degree of cellulose polymerization and
thereby improve the digestibility of corn stover. Many types of me­
Inoculation is another key operational factor affecting the process chanical pre-treatment methods are used for particle size reduction,
stability of dry AD. It is an essential requirement for speeding up the including mechanical shredding, sonication, liquid shear, high-pressure
biochemical reactions inside the dry anaerobic digester [49,100], homogenizer, etc. [111,112]. Mechanical shredding is the most used by
thereby reducing the digestion time of the batch AD process [101]. the industry due to its easy-operation and low maintenance re­
Several materials, including activated sludge, manure, wet AD digestate, quirements, with hammer and knife mills being the most popular types
and dry AD digestate are often used as seed sludge for inoculation of the [113].
dry AD reactor [100,102]. Using digestate from a wet or dry AD often
offers better performance since it contains more active methanogenic 5.1.2. Chemical pre-treatment
populations that have been enriched in another digester or previous Chemical pre-treatment involves the use of chemical reagents, such
batch of digestion, and are better adapted to AD conditions [102]. as acids, alkalis, or oxidants to decompose or extract organic compounds
Currently, the investigations on inoculation primarily focus on the present in the feedstock, thereby enhancing the biodegradability of the
methanogenic populations in the inoculum, whereas the hydrolysis organic fractions [115]. This method is intended to be used for the
stage also plays a vital role in dry AD systems and sufficient hydrolytic pre-treatment of lignocellulosic biomass with high lignin contents (such
microbes present in the inoculum are critical for the start-up of the as agricultural wastes) before digestion [116]. Lignocellulosic biomass is
digester [103]. mainly composed of three complex-structured compounds: cellulose
A proper amount of inoculum is an essential condition for achieving (25–40%), hemicellulose (20–30%) and lignin (15–25%), and it is
stable and efficient AD performance. The low inoculum content prob­ recalcitrant to biodegradation and becomes very difficult to break down
ably results in the accumulation of VFAs, subsequently inhibiting the during the hydrolysis stage of dry AD [115]. Chemical pre-treatment
methanogenic activities [104]. The I/S ratio (usually on VS basis) is processes are primarily used to improve the biodegradability of
taken as the main parameter for the inoculation of the batch dry AD, but organic substrates. Chemical pre-treatment methods have been exten­
there is no optimal I/S ratio accepted for any cases, since it is greatly sively studied to enhance AD performance using lignocellulosic biomass
dependent on several factors, such as types of AD systems, operational as the substrate, including alkali, acid, and alkali hydrogen peroxide
conditions (such as temperature), and substrate characteristics [60, [117,118]. There are different reaction mechanisms of chemical treat­
105]. Many studies have been conducted to optimize the I/S ratio to ment, corresponding to the different chemicals used. In alkaline
enhance dry AD performance. Jiang et al. [51] carried out the batch dry pre-treatment, the OH− generated by alkali can weaken or break two
AD (20%TS) using food waste and pig manure as substrates at different types of chemical bonds, hydrogen bonds and ether ester bonds, which
I/S ratios under mesophilic conditions. The results showed that all the exist in lignin and polysaccharides, cellulose and hemicellulose,
reactors with an I/S ratio of 1:4 obtained lower methane yield and respectively [119]. In acid pre-treatment, acid can cleavage glucosidic
longer lag phase time compared to those with a ratio of 1:1, regardless of bonds within hemicellulose to generate oligomeric and monomeric
the ratio of food waste to pig manure. Moreover, reactors digesting food sugars and solubilize a part of the cellulose and lignin; this results in a
waste alone were found to be completely inhibited, because more noticeable change in the enzymatic digestibility of substrates [119]. In
readily degradable organic matter in the substrates led to the rapid the dry AD process, alkaline pre-treatment is widely used to enhance the
hydrolysis and acidogenesis, thereby resulting in a rapid accumulation biodegradability of lignocellulosic substrates and improve the dry AD

7
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

Table 2
Performance of various pre-treatments used in recent studies for improving methane production in dry ADa.
Methods Substrate Pre-treatment conditions Effects of pre-treatment Methane production Mechanisms Ref.
(mL/g VS)b

Mechanical treatment
Grinding/ Corn stover Using a Wiley Mill 1, 12.7 mm particle size 207 (+10.1%)c Increased surface area, reduced [110]
chopping Wheat straw Using a cutting mill 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.25, 0.12 Increased degree of cellulose crystallinity [114]
mm particle size biodegradation rate and reduced degree of cellulose
polymerization
Chemical treatment
Alkali Corn stover 12 g NaOH/L alkalinity (black liquor 22.1% HC removal 260.5 (+59.1%) Degradation of HC, increased [121]
from the paper industry); 24 h surface area, reduced crystallinity.
Cassava pulp 0.5%–2% NaOH; 30 ◦ C Enhanced COD 324 (+33.0%) Dissolved lignin and hemicellulos, [122]
solubilization, increased increased surface area, reduced
HC and lignin removal crystallinity.
Pearl millet 2% KOH 39.4% lignin disruption 140 (+65.2%) Enhanced lignin disruption [146]
straw
Oxidant Dairy manure 50–200 mg KMnO4/g-TS; 2–48 h Enhanced HC, cellulose 12.38 NmL/g VS/ Decomposition of LC [125]
and lignin removal d (+27%)
Biological treatment
Fungal Broiler litter Inoculated with 10% (v/w) of fungal +5.4% cellulose removal, 438 (2.0-fold Disruption of outer layer of [129]
(around 57% spore suspension (Trichoderma +8.0% HC removal, higher) lignocellulosic structure
rice husk) longibrachiatum); 50% moisture +1.5% lignin removal
content; 7 days; 30 ◦ C
Corn silage Inoculated with white-rot fungus 70% lignin removal 236 (+41.3%) Degradation of lignin [128]
Trametes versicolor;7 days; 27 ◦ C
Enzyme Willow Laccase and versatile peroxidase; 6 Improved lignin (+33%) Degradation of lignin [131]
Corn Stover h–24 h; 30 ◦ C degradation (+15%)
Microbial Barley straw Enriched microbial consortia to the Effective degradation of 15.2 mL/g TS Increased digestibility and surface [132]
consortia and hay (BSH) BSH co-substrate ratio of 1:7; 40 days at BSH residues by the (almost 40 times area of the lignocellulosic material
25–27 ◦ C; the oxygen level maintained enriched microbial more)
at 2–5 mg/L consortia
Thermal treatment
High-thermal Dewatered 140 ◦ C for 3 h Increased COD 195 (+81%) Enhanced hydrolysis [142]
pre- sludge solubilization
treatment
Dewatered 160 ◦ C; 210 min (+400%) MAD [141]
sludge (+67%) TAD
Food waste and 121 ◦ C; 103.4 kPa; 30 min Declined in TS 320–430 mL/g – [15]
cattle manure concentration, increased VSreded
VS content
Sunflower stalks 180 ◦ C; 60 min Enhance lignin removal 234 (around 87%) Degradation of lignin, cellulose [143]
crystallinity reduction
Low-thermal Swine manure 70 ◦ C; 3 days Enhanced HC, cellulose 282 (+39.5%) Increased biodegradable organics [144]
pre- and protein degradation
treatment Dewatered 60 ◦ C; 3 h – 138.5 – [145]
sludge
a
HC: hemicellulose; LC: lignocellulose; MAD: mesophilic AD; DAD: thermophilic AD.
b
Data shown in the bracket represents the methane yield improvement.
c
Compared to the AD reactor fed with 12.7 mm covered corn stover.

performance as it has shown several positive effects, such as enhanced enzymes to degrade the biomass prior to the AD process [126,127]. As
lignin disruption, decreased crystallinity, and increased surface area shown in Table 2, several biological pre-treatment methods, like fungal
(Table 2). Moreover, alkali creates a good condition for the dry AD pre-treatment, enzymatic pre-treatment, and microbial pre-treatment,
process by preventing a drop in pH during acidogenesis and substan­ are widely used to improve the biodegradability of substrates and
tially enhancing anaerobic microbes’ accessibility via enlarging the methane production for dry AD.
substrate surface area [120,121]. In fungal pre-treatment, white-rot fungi are popular to be used due to
Oxidative treatments using oxidizing agents (such as hydrogen their effectiveness in breaking down polysaccharide-lignin bonds and
peroxide and potassium permanganate) possess the potential to improve removing lignin. The improved biodegradability of lignocellulosic ma­
the hydrolysis rate and methane production in dry AD of lignocellulosic terials by fungal pre-treatment is mainly attributed to the highly active
materials. Its mechanism is based on the oxidation capacity of the oxi­ oxidative ligninolytic enzymes produced by the fungi. Tišma et al. [128]
dising agent to break down the polymer structure, promote delignifi­ applied the white-rot fungus Trametes versicolor for corn silage
cation, and thereby increase the soluble fractions [123]. Song and Zhang pre-treatment in solid-state conditions prior to digestion at a pilot scale
[124] found that the lignin and hemicellulose contents of wheat straw and found that 70% of the lignin content was degraded after a seven-day
were significantly reduced by 5.4–21.9% and 12.5–45.2%, respectively, pre-treatment; pH stability and biogas productivity were improved. The
after oxidative pre-treatment at 25 ◦ C for 7 days by using 1–4% H2O2. performance of fungal pre-treatment is affected by the operating con­
Similarly, Wang et al. [125] observed that, KMnO4 pre-treatment for 8 h ditions, such as microbial activity, moisture content, and I/S ratio.
led to remarkable improvement in dairy manure degradation, with Chaitanoo et al. [129] found that implementing a long-time fungal
cellulose and lignin reductions of approximately 49% and 48%, pre-treatment for broiler litter negatively affected the microbial activity
respectively, at a dosage of 100 mg/g-TS for KMnO4. owing to the moisture loss during this process, and they suggested that
the optimal time was 7 days. Planinić et al. [130] suggested that, to
5.1.3. Biological pre-treatment achieve efficient fungal treatment, more attention should be given to the
Biological pre-treatment involves the use of bacteria, fungi, and I/S ratio, feedstock particle size, oxygen concentration, moisture

8
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

content, and reaction time when designing the process of fungal shown in Table 2. From an economic standpoint, the high-temperature
pre-treatment. thermal treatment requires more energy consumption, which will
Unlike the fungal treatment, the enzymatic treatment employs spe­ offset the benefits of the increased biogas production and constrain its
cific enzymes such as manganese peroxidase, versatile peroxidase, lignin practical implementation. Moreover, a high-temperature treatment may
peroxidase, and laccase to pre-treat substrates directly, and as a result, cause the generation of refractory compounds or toxic intermediates,
the reaction time for the process is relatively short [127]. Additionally, which might reduce biogas production [139]. Thus, the
the process can be carried out by either pre-treating substrates with low-temperature thermal treatment (<100 ◦ C) has attracted consider­
enzymes prior to digestion or by directly adding specific enzymes into able research interest. To improve biogas production in high solid AD of
the digester during dry AD [123]. Many studies have proved that swine manure, Wu et al. [144] used a low-temperature thermal treat­
enzymatic treatment using specific enzymes could effectively enhance ment process (70 ◦ C for 3 days). The results showed that proteins, cel­
the degradation of lignocellulosic materials. Schroyen et al. [131] lulose, and hemicellulose were significantly degraded, and the methane
examined the effects of enzymatic pre-treatment using laccase (2 U/g) yield in high-solid swine AD was increased by 39.5%.
and versatile peroxidase (1.5 U/g) on willow and corn stover, and they
found that the release of total phenolic compounds was significantly 5.2. Co-digestion
increased after pre-treatment which indicated the occurrence of lignin
degradation by the enzymes. Yet, enzymatic pre-treatment is still facing The utilization of co-digestion in the wet AD process has been shown
a challenge related to the economic feasibility at an industrial scale to have several benefits, including: (1) improved balance of nutrients;
because of the high enzyme cost. (2) synergistic effects on microbes; (3) increasing the loading rate of
Aside from fungus and enzymes, adapted microbial consortia can biodegradable organic matter; (4) dilution of inhibitors/toxic com­
also be utilized in biological pre-treatment. Using adapted microbial pounds; and (5) higher methane production [9,147–150]. For example,
consortiums has been identified as a more cost-effective microbial pre- co-digesting food waste with other substrates, like sewage sludge, pig
treatment compared with pure enzymatic pre-treatment. Microbial manure, or yard waste, has been shown to effectively eliminate the
consortiums have been widely reported to improve biomass degradation common issues of VFA accumulation and acidification, as well as
performance over single-microorganism pre-treatments, since lignocel­ significantly improve methane production and AD process stability [51,
lulose degradation in natural habitats is dependent upon the interaction 151]. Though the operational TS conditions and substrate fluidity are
of multiple microorganisms [132]. Additionally, microbial consortiums dramatically distinguished from those in wet AD systems, dry AD sys­
are more adaptable to complex substrate mixtures because of more tems may still benefit from co-digesting with two or more substrates.
abundant degrading enzymes. The use of microbial consortia has been Thus, co-digestion is one of the most important strategies for intensi­
reported to improve the biodegradability of lignocellulosic substrates fying dry AD systems in which the bioconversion of organic matter may
and in turn, to enhance the methane production of AD processes [133]. be enhanced.
Yan et al. [134] applied domesticated paddy soil microbes (DPSM) to Typical types of organic wastes used for co-digestion to enhance
pre-treat the co-substrates of rice straw and pig manure prior to AD. The biogas production in dry AD systems are illustrated in Table 3. Food
results showed that the DPSM treatment effectively promoted hydrolytic waste with a high content of biodegradable organic matter is typically
acidification of the co-substrates at 20% TS and shortened the methane regarded as one of the attractive substrate candidates for the dry AD
production time by 43.4%. process. Nevertheless, due to its high biodegradability and relatively low
C/N ratio, mono-digestion of food waste often encounters the accumu­
5.1.4. Thermal pre-treatment lation of VFAs, sudden pH drops, or even process failure, which is more
An additional method for accelerating hydrolysis and boosting pronounced in dry AD process [51]. Thus, co-digesting food waste with
methane production from organic biomass is thermal treatment, which other co-substrates is a common measure to optimize dry AD perfor­
has been extensively used in wet AD in treating various substrates [135], mance. Many studies have proven that a series of substrates with high
such as sewage sludge [136] and food waste [137]. During the thermal C/N ratio are suitable for co-digestion with food waste in dry AD sys­
treatment process, the temperature is gradually increased to a target tems, including pig manure [51], yard waste [152], green waste [153],
temperature (usually 60–270 ◦ C) and then maintained for the desired cardboard [151], and sewage sludge [149,154]. Dai et al. [149] carried
period (varying from minutes to hours) [138]. With the thermal treat­ out long-term experiments in semi-continuous reactors to evaluate the
ment process, the polymeric compounds within a substrate are effec­ system stability and methane production performance of dry co-AD of
tively degraded and released into the liquid phase, and the dewatered sewage sludge and food waste, and the results demonstrated
biodegradability of the substrate is improved due to the breakdown of that the system stability was greatly enhanced, and the digester per­
chemical bonds [139]. Besides improved biodegradability, thermal formed well under high OLRs conditions (4.6–18.5 g VS/L/d). Appar­
pre-treatment can also eliminate pathogens from organic wastes [139]. ently, the OLR used in dry anaerobic co-digestion was higher compared
Based on its characteristics and mechanism, thermal pre-treatment is with mono-digestion.
potentially suitable for the enhancement of dry AD. Some studies have In dry anaerobic co-digestion, the mixing ratio of the organic sub­
shown its effectiveness in improving methane production in dry AD. For strates is an important parameter that has significant effects on methane
example, Hu et al. [97] adopted the thermal pre-treatment at 70 ◦ C for 3 production [155]. By adjusting the organic substrate mixing ratios, it is
days to enhance dry AD of swine manure and found that the methane possible to maintain a balance between the microbial population,
yield (416 mL CH4/g VS) was significantly increased by 390% compared nutrient level, and organic loading. Studies have emphasized the
with the unpretreated feedstock. importance of optimizing the ratio of organic substrates in a dry AD
The efficiency of thermal pre-treatment is primarily determined by system. Li et al. [156] examined the effects of feedstock mixing ratios on
two factors (temperature and duration), and the optimal conditions are methane production and system stability of digesters when tomato res­
dependent on the type and composition of feedstock [115]. Thermal idues were co-digested with dairy manure and corn stover at 20% TS
treatment at high temperatures (≥100 ◦ C) can promote the solubiliza­ under mesophilic temperature. The results showed that the highest
tion of substrates, as it effectively breaks down the polymeric com­ methane yield (415.4 mL/g VSS) and VS reduction (46%) were achieved
pounds and cell membranes, resulting in the release of complex at the mixing ratio of 33:54:13, and the inhibition of VFAs to methane
substances (e.g., proteins, polysaccharides, and lipids) into the soluble production was observed with a proportion of tomato residues
phase [140]. Hence, the high-temperature thermal treatment has been exceeding 40%. Jiang et al. [51] indicated that raising the food
studied in dry AD of various substrates, such as dewatered sludge [141, waste/pig manure ratio for dry AD may result in a rapid accumulation of
142], food waste and cattle manure [15], and sunflower stalks [143], as high VFAs concentration and a longer lag phase due to an increase in

9
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

Table 3
Typical organic wastes used for co-digestion to enhance biogas production in dry AD systems.
Co-substrates Mixing ratioa TS (%) C/N ratio Operational VS Methane Remarks Ref.
Conditions reduction yield (mL/g
(%) VS added)

FW + PM 0:100, 25:75, 50:50, 20 – Batch, mesophilic, no 40–71 200–304 Acidification and no methane [51]
75:25, 100:0 mechanical mixing production were observed in
mono-digestion of FW; optimal
FW/PM ratio was 50:50 at the I/
S ratio of 1:1.
FW + yard 1:3 (TS base) >15 25 Batch, mesophilic – 335 Maximum methane yield was [152]
waste observed at the I/S ratio of 2.0.
FW + green 100:0, 80:20, 60:40, 15 14.4–16.9 Batch, mesophilic – 164–326 + (4.0%–18.7%) in methane [153]
waste 40:60, 20:80, 0:100 yield compared with the
weighted yield from FW and
green waste
FW + 80:20, 60:40, 50:50 (v/v 19–24 – Semi-continuous, 45–65 130–240 The lower methane yield for [151]
cardboard %) mesophilic, SRT = 40 digesters with cardboard content
d, OLR = 4.7–5.7 g >40%.
VS/L/d
FW + sewage 1:1, 1:2, 1:3 (volume- >15 13.0–26.8 Batch, mesophilic/ 76 (M) 350 (M), 420 The mixing ratio of 1:3 and 1:2 [154]
sludge based) thermophilic 88 (T) (T), mL/g VS was optimum for mesophilic and
reduced thermophilic conditions,
respectively
DSS + FW 1:0, 2.4:1, 0.9:1, 0.4:1, 0:1 7.0–17.4 6.8–14.8 Semi-continuous, 27–86 157–465 Improved system stability and [149]
mesophilic, SRT = greatly enhanced volumetric
8–30 d, OLR = biogas production were
4.0–21.8 g VS/L/d achieved in dry AD of DSS by co-
digesting with FW
Cattle manure 1:1 20 15.5–20.6 Batch, mesophilic 32 169 +58.2% in methane yield [148]
+ sorghum- compared with mono digestion
vinegar of cattle manure
residues
Sheep manure 1:1 20 20.6–22.4 Batch, mesophilic 22 103 +45.5% in methane yield [148]
+ sorghum- compared with mono digestion
vinegar of cattle manure
residues
PM + sorghum- 1:1 20 11.1–20.6 Batch, mesophilic 34 160 +10.1% in methane yield [148]
vinegar compared with mono digestion
residues of cattle manure
Rice straw + pig 1: 25.9 21 20–23 Batch, thermophilic 83 354 With the I/S ratio of 1:2 [106]
urine
PM + corn 5:1:4, 5:2:3, 5:3:2, 4:1:5, 22 13.8–15.6 Batch, mesophilic – 305.4 The optimal mixture ratio was [158]
stover + 4:2:4, 4:3:3, 4:4:2, 3:1:6, (highest) 5:2:3 with the highest methane
cucumber 3:2:5, 3:3:4, 3:4:3 (wet yield
residues base)
DSS + rice – 20 18:1, 23:1, Batch, mesophilic 43–60 361-520 Low C/N ratios resulted in a [159]
straw 26:1, 29:1 (biogas) higher biogas production rate,
but a lower specific biogas yield
OFMSW + 1:1, 2:1, 4:1, 1:0 20 20–35 Batch, mesophilic – 170–300 The optimum OFMSW/sawdust [157]
sawdust mL/g VS ratio was 2:1 with the maximum
reduced methane production
MSW + sewage 60:40 15 and 21.5 Batch, mesophilic 30 and 24 227.4 & 209 The optimum MSW/sewage [160]
sludge 20 sludge ratio was 60:40
Grape marc + 3:1 28.5 102 (COD/ Batch, thermophilic 62 (COD 363 No overloading phenomenon [161]
cheese whey N) reduction) was observed under high TS
conditions
Tomato 100:0:0, 0:100:0, 0:0:100, 20% 11.7–28.7 Batch, mesophilic 46 415.4 The optimum ratio was [156]
residues + 33:13:54, 33:27:40, (highest) (highest) 33:54:13.
dairy manure 33:40:27, 33:54:13, Inhibition of VFAs occurred with
+ corn stover 13:33:54, 27:33:40, adding more than 40% tomato
40:33:27, 54:33:13 (wet residues.
base)
SPW + hay 100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 17.6 10.8 Batch, mesophilic – 258 The optimum mixing ratio was [162]
25:75, 0:100 (highest) 75:25, with 148% and 50%
increase in the methane yield
compared with that from SPW
and from hay
SMS + yard 1:1 20 74.6 Batch, mesophilic – 194 16 and 2 times higher than [163]
trimmings methane yields from SMS and
yard trimmings.
SMS + wheat 1:1 20 71.9 Batch, mesophilic – 269 22 times higher than methane [163]
straw yield from SMS
a
On volatile solids base. VS, volatile solid; OFMSW, organic fraction of municipal solid waste; MSW, municipal solid waste; OLR, organic loading rate; FW, food
waste; PM, pig manure; DSS, dewatered sewage sludge; I/S, inoculum to substrate; COD, chemical oxygen demand; VFA, volatile fatty acid; SPW, soybean processing
waste; SMS, spent mushroom substrate.

10
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

readily biodegradable organic matter content. They also suggested that [71] carried out dry AD of beer lees with supplementing10 g/L cow
a mixing ratio of 50:50 could be more suitable for the operation of dry manure-derived biochar, which resulted in increased cumulative
AD under mesophilic temperature, with a specific methane yield (SMY) methane yields by 82.6% and 46.8% under mesophilic and thermophilic
of 263 mL/g VS added. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct experimental conditions, respectively. Wang et al. [169] found that adding 15 g/L of
trials for the determination of the most appropriate mixing ratio of pecan shell-derived biochar to mesophilic dry co-AD of pig manure and
multiple substrates during dry co-digestion in practical applications. food waste increased methane production by 12.0%, suggesting that
enhanced electron transfer due to the addition of biochar might have
played a role in the improvement of methane production. Xiao et al.
5.3. Conductive material supplementation [170] observed that the addition of granular activated carbon (GAC)
increased the methane production of dry AD of swine manure under
The use of conductive materials (e.g., activated carbon, biochar, mesophilic conditions, as well as shortening the lag phase. Similar re­
magnetite, etc.) in wet/liquid AD to intensify the process performance is sults of enhanced methane production with the addition of powdered
a research hotspot and has been extensively studied in the past decade activated carbon (PAC) were also obtained in dry AD of OFMSW [171]
[164,165]. In many studies, researchers have demonstrated that the and sewage sludge [168].
addition of conductive materials in wet/liquid AD can promote electron Currently, the conductive materials used in dry AD systems can be
transfer between electron-donating bacteria and electron-accepting classified into two categories based on their nature: (1) carbon-based
methanogenic archaea by means of direct interspecies electron trans­ materials, such as biochar and activated carbon; and (2) metallic ma­
fer (DIET), and thus enhance AD performance in terms of reduced lag terials, such as limonite and zero-valent iron (ZVI). Different mecha­
phase, elevated methane production rate and yield, and tolerance to the nisms for improving the methane production performance of dry AD
shock of OLRs and inhibitory conditions [4,164,166]. Furthermore, systems when using different types of conductive materials have been
adding conductive materials to improve AD performance has also been proposed in previous studies. An overview of possible mechanisms for
studied in full-scale AD systems [167]. Similar problems may exist in dry enhanced methane production in dry AD with conductive material
AD systems, such as electron transfer limitation and substrate inhibition, supplementation is shown in Fig. 5. Due to their electrical conductivity,
and these can potentially be addressed by the supplementation of conductive materials are generally considered to act as electricity con­
conductive materials [168]. duits, which facilitates electron transfer between syntrophic bacteria
Table 4 summarizes different conductive materials used in recent and methanogenic archaea via DIET [164]. Xu et al. [172] assessed the
studies for improving methane production in dry AD. In general, all effects of limonite on the dry AD of rice straw and cow manure, sug­
conductive materials show enhanced methane production compared to gesting that limonite particles served as electron conduits in DIET to
the control digesters (without conductive materials), however, the in­ facilitate methane production. Apart from facilitating DIET,
tensity of improvement varies greatly with operational conditions, such carbon-based materials (typically like biochar) can also offer a more
as dosage, substrate, reactor type, and operating temperature. Sun et al.

Table 4
Different conductive materials used in recent studies for improving methane production in dry AD.
Type of Particle Dosage Operational conditions for dry AD Effectiveness Possible explanations Ref.
additive size (mm) (g/L)

Carbon-based material
Cow 0.4–0.6 10 Beer lees 25% Mesophilic, batch, +82.6% methane yield Promote DIET; the microbial [71]
manure- lab-scale colonization and biofilm development
derived Thermophilic, +46.8% methane yield due to the high surface area and porous
biochar batch; lab-scale structure of biochar
Pecan shell- 0.46–1.10 15 Pig manure 15% Mesophilic, batch, +12% methane yield Promote electron transfer [169]
derived + food lab-scale
biochar waste
Wood- ≤0.6 30 OFMSWa 16% Mesophilic, batch, Allow execution of dry AD – [178]
derived lab-scale without a lag phase
biochar
PACb – 15 OFMSW – Mesophilic, batch, +17% methane yield – [171]
lab-scale
0.15 50%c Sewage Around Mesophilic, batch, +49.9% methane yield Promote electron transfer; high [168]
sludge 16% lab-scale adsorption due to porous structure of
biochar
GACd 0.5–1.0 4.2% Swine 28% Mesophilic, semi- +10.6% biogas production Enhanced microbial adhesion, the [170]
manure continuous, lab- provision of electronic bridges, and
scale enrichment of functional
microorganisms
Type of Particle Dosage Operational conditions for dry AD Effectiveness Possible explanations Ref.
additive size (mm) (g/L)
Metallic material
e
ZVI 0.2 10 Food waste Around Mesophilic, semi- Improved methane Enhancing interspecies hydrogen [176]
21% continuous, lab- production and organic transfer and direct interspecies electron
scale removal; resist to the stock transfer
of higher OLRs
Limonite 0.4 1% Rice straw 25% Mesophilic, batch, +30.3% methane yield Promoted the growth rate and activity [172]
+ cow lab-scale of methanogens, and direct interspecies
manure electron transfer.
a
OFMSW: organic fraction of municipal solid waste.
b
PAC: powdered activated carbon.
c
The dosage of PAC was 50% of the volatile solids.
d
GAC: granular activated carbon.
e
ZVI: zero-valent iron; DIET, direct interspecies electron transfer.

11
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

Fig. 5. Overview of possible mechanisms for enhanced methane production in dry AD with conductive material supplementation.

favorable habitat for microbes owing to their physicochemical proper­ surface of a box-type reactor [179,184]. Regardless of the use of either
ties (porosity, high specific surface area, and functional groups) and pattern, the intensity of percolate recirculation applied in dry AD is a
biostability, and thus promote microbial metabolic activity and biofilm significant factor in determining its effectiveness to a large extent.
formation [71,169]. Moreover, some carbon-based materials have Usually, the intensity of percolate recirculation is determined by the
strong adsorption properties, which can mitigate adverse effects on recirculation rate which represents the ratio of the percolate recircula­
anaerobic microbial habitats by adsorbing inhibitory substrates or in­ tion volume to the digester volume per day [185]. An excessive recir­
termediate metabolites (e.g., VFAs and ammonia) [173]. ZVI, different culation rate of percolate can lead to acidification, the buildup of VFAs,
from other materials, has attracted more attention from researchers in and a low pH level due to the different rates of hydrolysis, acidogenesis,
recent years, because it not only has the potential to facilitate DIET, but acetogenesis, and methanogenesis, particularly in the start-up stage of a
it can also serve as an electron donor to increase methane production in dry AD system [181]. Rico et al. [186] also suggest that low percolation
dry AD system [174]. Daniels et al. [175] reported that H2 was released recirculation rate must be applied at the start-up of the dry AD process.
from the ZVI surface via anaerobic biocorrosion and captured by More recent studies have paid attention to the optimization of
hydrogenotrophic methanogens for the conversion of CO2 to CH4. Zhu percolate recirculation strategies, in terms of the recirculation model
et al. [176] indicated that the presence of ZVI which serves as a and recirculation rate. Table 5 illustrates the different strategies of
conductive material could establish DIET to enhance electron exchange percolate recirculation used for enhanced methane production in dry
among microbes and improve interspecies hydrogen transfer in dry AD AD. Xing et al. [187] evaluated the effects of recirculation models
systems. Besides, the presence of ZVI offers a more favorable environ­ (continuous or intermittent) on methane production in Pennisetum
ment for AD by decreasing oxidative–reductive potential (ORP) [177]. hybrid dry AD, with the results showing that continuous recirculation
The use of conductive materials is a promising strategy for the led to a lower accumulative methane yield owning to washing effects
enhancement of dry AD performance, and it also has a great potential in and poorer distribution on lower layers. In contrast, Xu et al. [183]
industrial practice. To date, studies investigating the effects of adding found that continuous leachate recirculation significantly improved the
conductive materials on dry AD performance have largely been con­ organic leaching with distinct extracellular enzyme activities. Therefore,
ducted on a laboratory scale or via batch operation model. More studies it cannot be concluded that either continuous or intermittent recircu­
need to focus on long-term operation tests at a full scale. From the point lation is more effective in enhancing dry AD performance. Meng et al.
of practical feasibility, the use of these additives might be restricted as [179] explored the effects of different leachate circulation strategies on
disposal of these additives after AD could cause environmental issues, the AD performance of co-digesting rice straw with pig urine, and the
such as secondary pollution and threats to the environment. Addition­ results showed that immersing rice straw into leachate was more
ally, the high production cost of conductive materials weakens the effective in improving methane production compared to leachate
economic feasibility in practice. Therefore, more attention should be percolation. Pezzolla et al. [188] demonstrated that recirculating
given to the economic feasibility and environmental effects of the percolate at an optimal frequency of 4 times per day had positive effects
practical use of conductive materials in the dry AD process in future on biogas production and led to better process stability because it
studies. avoided the accumulation of VFAs in the liquid fraction.
The percolate recirculation is primarily designed to create a better
5.4. Percolate recirculation environment for the growth of anaerobic microorganisms in dry AD
systems, and it can improve the degradation of organic matter either via
Percolate recirculation is one of the most used strategies to improve moisture movement within the reactor matrix or by directly affecting
mass transfer and thereby enhance dry AD performance [179]. Ben­ the moisture content of the feedstock. However, different feedstock has
belkacem et al. [180] found that periodical leachate injections at a different compactness, depending on the physicochemical properties of
proper flow rate allowed for a significant acceleration of the biogas substrates used, which directly influences the effectiveness of the
production in dry AD of municipal solid waste. Many studies have shown percolate recirculation process. Thus, to enhance the performance of dry
that percolate recirculation provides several benefits to dry AD systems, AD systems, it is vital to optimize percolate recirculation and select an
such as increased moisture content of the medium [181]; elevated appropriate recirculation strategy.
contact efficiency between microorganisms and nutrients [182];
improved reactor uniformity [60]; and provision of additional micro­ 6. Challenges for dry AD applications
organisms that have a partial inoculation effect [183]. All these ad­
vantages could potentially reduce digestion time and increase the In comparison with wet AD, dry AD offers several additional benefits,
methane yield for dry AD. including higher volumetric methane production, reduced digester
There are two main patterns of recirculation: (1) percolation recir­ volume, improved feedstock flexibility, and reduced heating and mixing
culation with leachate infiltrating through a leach-bed reactor; and (2) energy consumption. Nevertheless, there are still some technical and
immersed digestate circulation with a liquid flow convection on the economic challenges to the application of the dry AD process. From the

12
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

Table 5
Different strategies of percolate recirculation used for enhanced methane production in dry AD.
Type of Reactor Model Conditionsa Total Recirculation strategy PRRb Effectiveness Remarks Ref.
substrates solid

Pig slurry + Leach- Batch M 20.7% 1, 2 and 4 times per day; 0.133–0.533 + (28%–105%)c biogas Avoid the accumulation of [188]
straw bed lasting 45 min for one production VFAs; induce the
time consumption of readily
available compounds
Cow manure Leach- Batch M 22.2% Once per hour, lasting 1.558 +95% methane Inoculated leachates [181]
bed 20 s for one time productiond significantly affect the
production of biogas
Rice straw Box- Batch M 10%– Immersion and 0.5–2.0 No significant methane Enhanced VFAs release [185]
type 12% recirculation; yield improvement and methane production
rate at the initial stage of
AD
Rice straw + Leach- Batch T – Immersion and percolate – – Combination of [179]
pig urine bed recirculation, 1 h per 3 immersion and leachate
days recirculation showed a
higher methane yield
Solid fraction Leach- Batch T Around 15 times per day; lasting 0.333 Improved stability and – [189]
of dairy bed 26% 2 min for one time speed of the process
manure
Food waste Box- Batch M – 6, 12 times per daye, 0.571–1.142 Increased methane Low PPR must be applied [186]
type lasting 1 min for one production and at the start-up of the
time shortened operation lime process
Pennisetum Leach- Batch M 20% Continuous reflux; and 3.6 Methane yield for Shortened lag phase [187]
hybrid bed intermittent reflux (6 intermittent reflux was
times per day, lasting 40% more compared
less than 1 h) with continuous reflux
Poultry litter Leach- Batch M Around 2, 3, 4 times per day; – Increased methane – [190]
bed 33% lasting 15 min for one production
time
Corn stalks + Leach- Batch M 25% based on equal interval – Increased methane yield Significant effects on [184]
cow dung bed times (2, 4, 6 and 8 h) methanogens and their
key enzyme activities
a
M: mesophilic; T: thermophilic.
b
PRR, percolate recirculation ratio, defined as the ratio of the percolate recirculation volume to fermentation volume per day, L/L/d.
c
These data were estimated based on the data present in the reference.
d
Compared with the group with the recirculation of autoclaved leachate.
e
6 times per day during the start-up (days 1–20) and then increased recirculation frequency to 12 times per day.

technical perspective, one of the biggest challenges is to provide ho­ practical application. Therefore, the development of strategies for
mogenization and efficient mass transfer in dry AD systems. The yield improving dry AD processes is one of the important research topics in
stress of anaerobically digested solid waste exhibits an exponential in­ the future. As summarized earlier, numerous strategies for enhancing
crease along with the TS content, which directly restricts the mass dry AD have been proposed. Some methods are mainly based on early
transfer in dry AD systems. In this case, the high yield stress not only developments in wet AD systems, in particular substrate pre-treatment
restricts the availability of nutrients to microbes due to retarded mass processes. However, not all the strategies for methane enhancement
transfer, but also makes it difficult to homogenize substrates through are economically feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to perform a
mechanical equipment and causes increased mixing energy consump­ techno-economic analysis of methane production performance for those
tion. Hence, more research is required on the rheological behavior and strategies to assess process costs, benefits, and feasibility for their
mass transfer evaluation within the digester during the dry AD process practical implementation.
as well as on optimizing the TS conditions. Secondly, many dry ADs
often encounter the inhibition of ammonia and/or VFA accumulation. 7. Conclusions and future perspectives
The TAN concentration is generally higher in dry AD due to the low
moisture content. Because ammonia-induced inhibition has been The dry AD process is a promising technology for energy recovery
extensively studied in wet AD processes, strategies for alleviating through biogas production from organic wastes with high TS contents
ammonia inhibition in dry AD systems can be developed from early (15%–45%). However, this technology is confronted with the challenges
developments in wet AD systems in future studies. On the other hand, associated with mass transfer limitation, intermediate metabolites-
ammonia inhibition could be one of the reasons for the build-up of VFAs induced inhibition, and reduced methane production. A thorough un­
in dry AD systems. The accumulation of VFAs is essentially due to im­ derstanding of the characteristics of dry AD and of how operational
balances between hydrolysis/acidogenesis/acetogenesis and methano­ parameters affect its performance is therefore crucial. This paper
genesis, which can also be caused by improper operational parameters comprehensively reviews the scientific literature on dry AD, covering
such as temperature, OLRs, C/N ratios, and inoculation. Therefore, the specific characteristics of dry AD, operational conditions affecting the
optimization of operational parameters is critical to prevent the accu­ process stability, and strategies for improving its performance. Due to
mulation of VFAs and, consequently, enable better system performance high risks of the inhibition caused by intermediate metabolites in dry
and stability of the dry AD processes. AD, this technology must be properly optimized. Hence, it is of great
From the economic perspective, dry AD performance in terms of importance to understand the use of feedstock with optimal operation
methane production plays a vital role in cost effectiveness. The reduc­ parameters, inhibition factors, process monitoring and controls. Since
tion of VS and methane production are relatively low in dry AD pro­ the reduction of VS and methane yields are relatively low in dry AD
cesses due to several technical hurdles [60,169]. The low methane processes, the development of efficient strategies for improving dry AD
production performance weakens the economic feasibility of the processes are needed. Moreover, most studies and applications of dry AD

13
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

are operated in a batch mode, and very few are available for continuous [18] Cho S-K, Im W-T, Kim D-H, Kim M-H, Shin H-S, Oh S-E. Dry anaerobic digestion
of food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and methanogenic
or semi-continuous operation. Dry AD engineering projects are still
community analysis. Bioresour Technol 2013;131:210–7.
lacking reliable practical data that could be used to support the design, [19] Charlottenburg A, Rosenheim. Anaerobic digestion. 2015. http://docs.europe
construction, and operation of the continuous processes. In this context, an-bioplastics.org/publications/bp/EUBP_BP_Anaerobic_digestion.pdf. accessed
future research studies should pay more attention to scaling up lab-scale April 2015.
[20] Abbassi-Guendouz A, Brockmann D, Trably E, Dumas C, Delgenes JP, Steyer JP,
dry AD systems since environmental factors potentially affect Escudié R. Total solids content drives high solid anaerobic digestion via mass
commercial-scale implementation. transfer limitation. Bioresour Technol 2012;111:55–61.
[21] Xu F, Wang ZW, Tang L, Li Y. A mass diffusion-based interpretation of the effect
of total solids content on solid-state anaerobic digestion of cellulosic biomass.
Declaration of competing interest Bioresour Technol 2014;167:178–85.
[22] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from
organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:821–6.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [23] Zhan X, Wu G, Hu Z. Greenhouse gas emission and mitigation in municipal
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence wastewater treatment plants. London: IWA Publishing; 2018.
the work reported in this paper. [24] Montero B, Garcia-Morales J, Sales D, Solera R. Evolution of microorganisms in
thermophilic-dry anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:3233–43.
[25] Li Y, Chen Y, Wu J. Enhancement of methane production in anaerobic digestion
Data availability process: a review. Appl Energy 2019;240:120–37.
[26] Pavlostathis SG, Giraldo-Gomez E. Kinetics of anaerobic treatment. Water Sci
Technol 1991;24:35–59.
Data will be made available on request. [27] Mosey F. Mathematical modelling of the anaerobic digestion process: regulatory
mechanisms for the formation of short-chain volatile acids from glucose. Water
Acknowledgement Sci Technol 1983;15:209–32.
[28] Amani T, Nosrati M, Sreekrishnan T. Anaerobic digestion from the viewpoint of
microbiological, chemical, and operational aspects—a review. Environ Rev 2010;
This research was co-financed by Science Foundation Ireland and 18:255–78.
Gas Networks Ireland through the Sustainable Energy and Fuel Effi­ [29] Diekert G, Wohlfarth G. Metabolism of homoacetogens. Antonie Van
Leeuwenhoek 1994;66(1):209–21.
ciency (SEFE) project (Ref: 16/SP/3829). [30] Bueno-López JI, Nguyen CH, Rangel-Mendez JR, Sierra-Alvarez R, Field JA,
Cervantes FJ. Effects of graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide on
References acetoclastic, hydrogenotrophic and methylotrophic methanogenesis.
Biodegradation 2020;31(1):1–11.
[32] Jiang Y, Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Hu Z, Zhan X, Gardiner GE. Inactivation of
[1] Howells M, Roehrl RA. Perspectives on sustainable energy for the 21st century.
enteric indicator bacteria and system stability during dry co-digestion of food
Sustainable development in the 21st century (SD21) project. New York: United
waste and pig manure. Sci Total Environ 2018;612:293–302.
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable
[33] Yi J, Dong B, Jin J, Dai X. Effect of increasing total solids contents on anaerobic
Development; 2012.
digestion of food waste under mesophilic conditions: performance and microbial
[2] Burke MJ, Stephens JC. Political power and renewable energy futures: a critical
characteristics analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e102548.
review. Energy Res Social Sci 2018;35:78–93.
[34] Benbelkacem H, Bollon J, Bayard R, Escudié R, Buffière P. Towards optimization
[3] Zhang J, Zhao W, Zhang H, Wang Z, Fan C, Zang L. Recent achievements in
of the total solid content in high-solid (dry) municipal solid waste digestion.
enhancing anaerobic digestion with carbon- based functional materials. Bioresour
Chem Eng J 2015;273:261–7.
Technol 2018;266:555–67.
[35] Wang T, Chen J, Shen H, An D. Effects of total solids content on waste activated
[4] Yin Q, Yang S, Wang Z, Xing L, Wu G. Clarifying electron transfer and
sludge thermophilic anaerobic digestion and its sludge dewaterability. Bioresour
metagenomic analysis of microbial community in the methane production
Technol 2016;217:265–70.
process with the addition of ferroferric oxide. Chem Eng J 2018;333:216–25.
[36] Garcia-Bernet D, Buffière P, Latrille E, Steyer JP, Escudié R. Water distribution in
[5] Capson-Tojo G, Moscoviz R, Ruiz D, Santa-Catalina G, Trably E, Rouez M,
biowastes and digestates of dry anaerobic digestion technology. Chem Eng J
Crest M, Steyer JP, Bernet N, Delgenès JP, Escudié R. Addition of granular
2011;172:924–8.
activated carbon and trace elements to favor volatile fatty acid consumption
[37] Bollon J, Le-Hyaric R, Benbelkacem H, Buffiere P. Development of a kinetic model
during anaerobic digestion of food waste. Bioresour Technol 2018;260:157–68.
for anaerobic dry digestion processes: focus on acetate degradation and moisture
[6] Papageorgiou A, Barton JR, Karagiannidis A. Assessment of the greenhouse effect
content. Biochem Eng J 2011;56:212–8.
impact of technologies used for energy recovery from municipal waste: a case for
[38] Dai X, Gai X, Dong B. Rheology evolution of sludge through high-solid anaerobic
England. J Environ Manag 2009;90:2999–3012.
digestion. Bioresour Technol 2014;174:6–10.
[7] Karagiannidis A, Perkoulidis G. A multi-criteria ranking of different technologies
[39] Tang B, Zhang Z. Essence of disposing the excess sludge and optimizing the
for the anaerobic digestion for energy recovery of the organic fraction of
operation of wastewater treatment: rheological behavior and microbial
municipal solid wastes. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:2355–60.
ecosystem. Chemosphere 2014;105:1–13.
[8] Yin Q, Gu M, Wu G. Inhibition mitigation of methanogenesis processes by
[40] Di Capua F, Spasiano D, Giordano A, Adani F, Fratino U, Pirozzi F, Esposito G.
conductive materials: a critical review. Bioresour Technol 2020;317:123977.
High-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge: challenges and opportunities.
[9] Kothari R, Pandey AK, Kumar S, Tyagi VV, Tyagi SK. Different aspects of dry
Appl Energy 2020;278:115608.
anaerobic digestion for bio-energy: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
[41] Battistoni P. Pre-treatment, measurement execution procedure and waste
2014;39:174–95.
characteristics in the rheology of sewage sludges and the digested organic
[10] Liu C, Li H, Zhang Y, Si D, Chen Q. Evolution of microbial community along with
fraction of municipal solid wastes. Water Sci Technol 1997;36:33–41.
increasing solid concentration during high-solids anaerobic digestion of sewage
[42] Singh B, Szamosi Z, Siménfalvi Z. State of the art on mixing in an anaerobic
sludge. Bioresour Technol 2016;216:87–94.
digester: a review. Renew Energy 2019;141:922–36.
[11] Wang Z, Jiang Y, Wang S, Zhang Y, Hu Y, Hu ZH, et al. Impact of total solids
[43] Liu Y, Chen J, Song J, Hai Z, Lu X, Ji X, Wang C. Adjusting the rheological
content on anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and food waste: insights into
properties of corn-straw slurry to reduce the agitation power consumption in
shifting of the methanogenic pathway. Waste Manag 2020;114:96–106.
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2019;272:360–9.
[12] Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Gardiner GE, Jiang Y, Shalloo L, Zhan X. Stochastic
[44] Yu L, Ma J, Chen S. Numerical simulation of mechanical mixing in high solid
modelling of the economic viability of on-farm co-digestion of pig manure and
anaerobic digester. Bioresour Technol 2011;102:1012–8.
food waste in Ireland. Appl Energy 2017;205:1528–37.
[45] Lemmer A, Naegele HJ, Sondermann J. How efficient are agitators in biogas
[13] Zeshan S, Karthikeyan OP, Visvanathan C. Effect of C/N ratio and ammonia-N
digesters? Determination of the efficiency of submersible motor mixers and
accumulation in a pilot-scale thermophilic dry anaerobic digester. Bioresour
incline agitators by measuring nutrient distribution in full-scale Agricultural
Technol 2012;113:294–302.
biogas digesters. Energies 2013;6(12):6255–73.
[14] Elsamadony M, Tawfik A, Suzuki M. Surfactant-enhanced biohydrogen
[46] Agyeman FO, Han Y, Tao W. Elucidating the kinetics of ammonia inhibition to
production from organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW) via dry
anaerobic digestion through extended batch experiments and stimulation-
anaerobic digestion. Appl Energy 2015;149:272–82.
inhibition modeling. Bioresour Technol 2021;340:125744.
[15] Arelli V, Begum S, Anupoju GR, Kuruti K, Shailaja S. Dry anaerobic co-digestion
[47] Dai X, Yan H, Li N, He J, Ding Y, Dai L, Dong B. Metabolic adaptation of microbial
of food waste and cattle manure: impact of total solids, substrate ratio and
communities to ammonium stress in a high solid anaerobic digester with
thermal pre treatment on methane yield and quality of biomanure. Bioresour
dewatered sludge. Sci Rep 2016;6(1):1–10.
Technol 2018;253:273–80.
[48] Rajagopal R, Masse DI, Singh G. A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic
[16] Garcia-Bernet D, Loisel D, Guizard G, Buffière P, Steyer JP, Escudie R. Rapid
digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour Technol 2013;143:632–41.
measurement of the yield stress of anaerobically-digested solid waste using slump
[49] Chen Y, Cheng JJ, Creamer KS. Inhibition of anaerobic digestion process: a
tests. Waste Manag 2011;31:631–5.
review. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:4044–64.
[17] Abbassi-Guendouz A, Trably E, Hamelin J, Dumas C, Steyer JP, Delgenès JP,
[50] Shapovalov Y, Zhadan S, Bochmann G, Salyuk A, Nykyforov V. Dry anaerobic
Escudié R. Microbial community signature of high-solid content methanogenic
digestion of chicken manure: a review. Appl Sci 2020;10(21):7825.
ecosystems. Bioresour Technol 2013;133:256–62.

14
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

[51] Jiang Y, Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Hu Z, McCabe M, Cormican P, Zhan X, [80] Kim M, Gomec CY, Ahn Y, Speece R. Hydrolysis and acidogenesis of particulate
Gardiner G. Inhibition of volatile fatty acids on methane production kinetics organic material in mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic digestion. Environ
during dry co-digestion of food waste and pig manure. Waste Manag 2018;79: Technol 2003;24:1183–90.
302–11. [81] Lay JJ, Li YY, Noike T. Influences of pH and moisture content on the methane
[52] Wu G, Healy MG, Zhan X. Effect of the solid content on anaerobic digestion of production in high-solids sludge digestion. Water Res 1997;31:1518–24.
meat and bone meal. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:4326–31. [82] Wang K, Yin J, Shen D, Li N. Anaerobic digestion of food waste for volatile fatty
[53] Müller T, Walter B, Wirtz A, Burkovski A. Ammonium toxicity in bacteria. Curr acids (VFAs) production with different types of inoculum: effect of pH. Bioresour
Microbiol 2006;52:400–6. Technol 2014;161:395–401.
[54] Wang Z, Wang S, Hu Y, Du B, Meng J, Wu G, et al. Distinguishing responses of [83] Guwy A, Hawkes F, Wilcox S, Hawkes D. Neural network and on-off control of
acetoclastic and hydrogenotrophic methanogens to ammonia stress in mesophilic bicarbonate alkalinity in a fluidised-bed anaerobic digester. Water Res 1997;31:
mixed cultures. Water Res 2022;224:119029. 2019–25.
[55] Kalamaras S, Vasileiadis S, Karas P, Angelidaki I, Kotsopoulos T. Microbial [84] Kadam PC, Boone DR. Influence of pH on ammonia accumulation and toxicity in
adaptation to high ammonia levels during anaerobic digestion of manure-based halophilic, methylotrophic methanogens. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996;62:
feedstock; Biomethanation and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. J Chem Technol 4486–92.
Biotechnol 2020;95(7):1970–9. [85] Yan Z, Song Z, Li D, Yuan Y, Liu X, Zheng T. The effects of initial substrate
[56] Astals S, Peces M, Batstone D, Jensen P, Tait S. Characterising and modelling free concentration, C/N ratio, and temperature on solid-state anaerobic digestion from
ammonia and ammonium inhibition in anaerobic systems. Water Res 2018;143: composting rice straw. Bioresour Technol 2015;177:266–73.
127–35. [86] Shah FA, Mahmood Q, Rashid N, Pervez A, Raja IA, Shah MM. Co-digestion,
[57] Kayhanian M. Ammonia inhibition in high-solids biogasification: an overview and pretreatment and digester design for enhanced methanogenesis. Renew Sustain
practical solutions. Environ Technol 1999;20:355–65. Energy Rev 2015;42:627–42.
[58] Zhang Y, Banks CJ, Heaven S. Co-digestion of source segregated domestic food [87] Bouallagui H, Lahdheb H, Ben Romdan E, Rachdi B, Hamdi M. Improvement of
waste to improve process stability. Bioresour Technol 2012;114:168–78. fruit and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion performance and stability with co-
[59] Yan M, Fotidis IA, Tian H, Khoshnevisan B, Treu L, Tsapekos P, Angelidaki I. substrates addition. J Environ Manag 2009;90:1844–9.
Acclimatization contributes to stable anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of [88] Yen HW, Brune DE. Anaerobic co-digestion of algal sludge and waste paper to
municipal solid waste under extreme ammonia levels: focusing on microbial produce methane. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:130–4.
community dynamics. Bioresour Technol 2019;286:121376. [89] Zhang C, Xiao G, Peng L, Su H, Tan T. The anaerobic co-digestion of food waste
[60] Rocamora I, Wagland ST, Villa R, Simpson EW, Fernandez O, Bajon-Fernandez Y. and cattle manure. Bioresour Technol 2013;129:170–6.
Dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste: a review of operational parameters and [90] Hagos K, Zong J, Li D, Liu C, Lu X. Anaerobic co-digestion process for biogas
their impact on process performance. Bioresour Technol 2020;299:122681. production: progress, challenges and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
[61] Cai Y, Zheng Z, Wang X. Obstacles faced by methanogenic archaea originating 2017;76:1485–96.
from substrate-driven toxicants in anaerobic digestion. J Hazard Mater 2021;403: [91] Siddique MNI, Wahid ZA. Achievements and perspectives of anaerobic co-
123938. digestion: a review. J Clean Prod 2018;194:359–71.
[62] Zhou M, Yang H, Zheng D, Pu X, Liu Y, Wang L, Zhang Y, Deng L. Methanogenic [92] Pera AL, Sellaro M, Bianco M, Zanardi G. Effects of a temporary increase in OLR
activity and microbial communities characteristics in dry and wet anaerobic and a simultaneous decrease in HRT on dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW.
digestion sludges from swine manure. Biochem Eng J 2019;152:107390. Environ Technol 2021:1–9.
[63] Schnürer A, Zellner G, Svensson BH. Mesophilic syntrophic acetate oxidation [93] Karthikeyan OP, Visvanathan C. Bio-energy recovery from high-solid organic
during methane formation in biogas reactors. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 1999;29: substrates by dry anaerobic bio-conversion processes: a review. Rev Environ Sci
249–61. Biotechnol 2012;12:257–84.
[64] Tian H, Fotidis IA, Mancini E, Treu L, Mahdy A, Ballesteros M, González- [94] Duan N, Dong B, Wu B, Dai X. High-solid anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge
Fernández C, Angelidaki I. Acclimation to extremely high ammonia levels in under mesophilic conditions: feasibility study. Bioresour Technol 2012;104:
continuous biomethanation process and the associated microbial community 150–6.
dynamics. Bioresour Technol 2018;247:616–23. [95] Srivastava SK. Advancement in biogas production from the solid waste by
[65] Hao LP, Mazéas L, Lü F, Grossin-Debattista J, He PJ, Bouchez T. Effect of optimizing the anaerobic digestion. Waste Dispos Sustain Energy 2020;2:85–103.
ammonia on methane production pathways and reaction rates in acetate-fed [96] Veluchamy C, Gilroyed BH, Kalamdhad AS. Process performance and biogas
biogas processes. Water Sci Technol 2017;75:1839–48. production optimizing of mesophilic plug flow anaerobic digestion of corn silage.
[66] Borja R, González E, Raposo F, Millán F, Martín A. Kinetic analysis of the Fuel 2019;253:1097–103.
psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of wastewater derived from the production of [97] Hu YY, Wu J, Li HZ, Poncin S, Wang KJ, Zuo JE. Study of an enhanced dry
proteins from extracted sunflower flour. J Agric Food Chem 2002;50:4628–33. anaerobic digestion of swine manure: performance and microbial community
[67] Basinas P, Rusin J, Chamradova K. Assessment of high-solid mesophilic and property. Bioresour Technol 2019;282:353–60.
thermophilic anaerobic digestion of mechanically-separated municipal solid [98] Ganesh R, Torrijos M, Sousbie P, Steyer JP, Lugardon A, Delgenes JP. Anaerobic
waste. Environ Res 2021;192:110202. co-digestion of solid waste: effect of increasing organic loading rates and
[68] Jiang Y, Xie SH, Dennehy C, Lawlor PG, Hu ZH, Wu GX, Zhan X, Gardiner GE. characterization of the solubilised organic matter. Bioresour Technol 2013;130:
Inactivation of pathogens in anaerobic digestion systems for converting biowastes 559–69.
to bioenergy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;120:109654. [99] Zamri MFMA, Hasmady S, Akhiar A, Ideris F, Shamsuddin AH, Mofijur M,
[69] Momayez F, Karimi K, Taherzadeh MJ. Energy recovery from industrial crop Fattah IR, Mahlia TM. A comprehensive review on anaerobic digestion of organic
wastes by dry anaerobic digestion: a review. Ind Crop Prod 2019;129:673–87. fraction of municipal solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;137:110637.
[70] Fernández-Rodríguez J, Pérez M, Romero LI. Comparison of mesophilic and [100] Forster-Carneiro T, Pérez M, Romero LI, Sales D. Dry-thermophilic anaerobic
thermophilic dry anaerobic digestion of OFMSW: kinetic analysis. Chem Eng J digestion of organic fraction of the municipal solid waste: focusing on the
2013;232:59–64. inoculum sources. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:3195–203.
[71] Sun C, Liu F, Song Z, Wang J, Li Y, Pan Y, Sheng T, Li L. Feasibility of dry [101] Sukhesh MJ, Rao PV. Anaerobic digestion of crop residues: technological
anaerobic digestion of beer lees for methane production and biochar enhanced developments and environmental impact in the Indian context. Biocatal Agric
performance at mesophilic and thermophilic temperature. Bioresour Technol Biotechnol 2018;16:513–28.
2019;276:65–73. [102] Xu F, Wang F, Lin L, Li Y. Comparison of digestate from solid anaerobic digesters
[72] Matheri AN, Sethunya VL, Belaid M, Muzenda E. Analysis of the biogas and dewatered effluent from liquid anaerobic digesters as inocula for solid state
productivity from dry anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid anaerobic digestion of yard trimmings. Bioresour Technol 2016;200:753–60.
waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:2328–34. [103] Xu F, Shi J, Lv W, Yu Z, Li Y. Comparison of different liquid anaerobic digestion
[73] Paritosh K, Kumar V, Pareek N, Sahoo D, Fernandez YB, Coulon F, Radu T, effluents as inocula and nitrogen sources for solid-state batch anaerobic digestion
Kesharwani N, Vivekanand V. Solid state anaerobic digestion of water poor of corn stover. Waste Manag 2013;33:26–32.
feedstock for methane yield: an overview of process characteristics and [104] Zhou Y, Li C, Nges IA, Liu J. The effects of pre-aeration and inoculation on solid-
challenges. Waste Disposal & Sustainable Energy 2021;3(3):227–45. state anaerobic digestion of rice straw. Bioresour Technol 2017;224:78–86.
[74] Labatut RA, Angenent LT, Scott NR. Conventional mesophilic vs. thermophilic [105] Li Y, Zhu J, Wan C, Park SY. Solid-state anaerobic digestion of corn stover for
anaerobic digestion: a trade-off between performance and stability? Water Res biogas production. Trans ASABE 2011;54(4):1415–21.
2014;53:249–58. [106] Meng L, Xie L, Kinh CT, Suenaga T, Hori T, Riya S, Terada A, Hosomi M. Influence
[75] Shi J, Wang Z, Stiverson JA, Yu Z, Li Y. Reactor performance and microbial of feedstock-to-inoculum ratio on performance and microbial community
community dynamics during solid-state anaerobic digestion of corn stover at succession during solid-state thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of pig urine and
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Bioresour Technol 2013;136:574–81. rice straw. Bioresour Technol 2018;252:127–33.
[76] Ward AJ, Hobbs PJ, Holliman PJ, Jones DL. Optimisation of the anaerobic [107] Zhang Y, Banks CJ. Impact of different particle size distributions on anaerobic
digestion of agricultural resources. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:7928–40. digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag 2013;33:
[77] Dague RR. Application of digestion theory to digester control. Journal (Water 297–307.
Pollution Control Federation) 1968:2021–32. [108] Jain S, Jain S, Wolf IT, Lee J, Tong YW. A comprehensive review on operating
[78] Chandra R, Takeuchi H, Hasegawa T. Methane production from lignocellulosic parameters and different pretreatment methodologies for anaerobic digestion of
agricultural crop wastes: a review in context to second generation of biofuel municipal solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:142–54.
production. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1462–76. [109] Amin FR, Khalid H, Zhang H, Rahman SU, Zhang R, Liu G, Chen C. Pretreatment
[79] Yu HQ, Fang HHP. Acidogenesis of dairy wastewater at various pH levels. Water methods of lignocellulosic biomass for anaerobic digestion. Amb Express 2017;7
Sci Technol 2002;45:201–6. (1):1–12.

15
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

[110] Wang F, Xu F, Liu Z, Cui Z, Li Y. Effects of outdoor dry bale storage conditions on [137] Ariunbaatar J, Panico A, Yeh DH, Pirozzi F, Lens PNL, Esposito G. Enhanced
corn stover and the subsequent biogas production from anaerobic digestion. mesophilic anaerobic digestion of food waste by thermal pretreatment: substrate
Renew Energy 2019;134:276–83. versus digestate heating. Waste Manag 2015;46:176–81.
[111] Elliott A, Mahmood T. Comparison of mechanical pretreatment methods for the [138] Biswal BK, Huang H, Dai J, Chen GH, Wu D. Impact of low-thermal pretreatment
enhancement of anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper waste activated sludge. on physicochemical properties of saline waste activated sludge, hydrolysis of
Water Environ Res 2012;84:497–505. organics and methane yield in anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2020;297:
[112] Coarita Fernandez H, Teixeira Franco R, Bayard R, Buffiere P. Mechanical pre- 122423.
treatments evaluation of cattle manure before anaerobic digestion. Waste Biomass [139] Kor-Bicakci G, Eskicioglu C. Recent developments on thermal municipal sludge
Valori 2020;11:5175–84. pretreatment technologies for enhanced anaerobic digestion. Renew Sustain
[113] Kratky L, Jirout T. Biomass size reduction machines for enhancing biogas Energy Rev 2019;110:423–43.
production. Chem Eng Technol 2011;34:391–9. [140] Tyagi VK, Fdez-Güelfo LA, Zhou Y, Álvarez-Gallego CJ, Garcia LIR, Ng WJ.
[114] Dumas C, Damasceno GSG, Barakat A, Carrère H, Steyer JP, Rouau X. Effects of Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW):
grinding processes on anaerobic digestion of wheat straw. Ind Crop Prod 2015;74: progress and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;93:380–99.
450–6. [141] Wu LJ, Li XX, Liu YX, Yang F, Zhou Q, Ren RP, Lyu YK. Optimization of
[115] Paudel SR, Banjara SP, Choi OK, Park KY, Kim YM, Lee JW. Pretreatment of hydrothermal pretreatment conditions for mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic
agricultural biomass for anaerobic digestion: current state and challenges. digestion of high-solid sludge. Bioresour Technol 2021;321:124454.
Bioresour Technol 2017;245:1194–205. [142] Kim GB, Cayetano RDA, Park J, Jo Y, Jeong SY, Lee MY, Pandey A, Kim SH.
[116] Paritosh K, Yadav M, Kesharwani N, Pareek N, Karthyikeyan OP, Balan V, Impact of thermal pretreatment on anaerobic digestion of dewatered sludge from
Vivekanand V. Strategies to improve solid state anaerobic bioconversion of municipal and industrial wastewaters and its economic feasibility. Energy 2022;
lignocellulosic biomass: an overview. Bioresour Technol 2021;331:125036. 254:124345.
[117] Fu SF, Chen KQ, Zhu R, Sun WX, Zou H, Guo RB. Improved anaerobic digestion [143] Hesami SM, Zilouei H, Karimi K, Asadinezhad A. Enhanced biogas production
performance of Miscanthus floridulus by different pretreatment methods and from sunflower stalks using hydrothermal and organosolv pretreatment. Ind Crop
preliminary economic analysis. Energy Convers Manag 2018;159:121–8. Prod 2015;76:449–55.
[118] Janke L, Weinrich S, Leite AF, Terzariol FK, Nikolausz M, Nelles M, Stinner W. [144] Wu J, Hu YY, Wang SF, Cao ZP, Li HZ, Fu XM, Wang KJ, Zuo JE. Effects of thermal
Improving anaerobic digestion of sugarcane straw for methane production: treatment on high solid anaerobic digestion of swine manure: enhancement
combined benefits of mechanical and sodium hydroxide pretreatment for process assessment and kinetic analysis. Waste Manag 2017;62:69–75.
designing. Energy Convers Manag 2017;141:378–89. [145] Kim GB, Cayetano RDA, Park J, Jo Y, Jeong SY, Lee MY, Kim SH. Effect of low-
[119] Cai Y, Zheng Z, Schäfer F, Stinner W, Yuan X, Wang H, Cui Z, Wang X. A review thermal pretreatment on the methanogenic performance and microbiome
about pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass in anaerobic digestion: population of continuous high-solid anaerobic digester treating dewatered sludge.
achievement and challenge in Germany and China. J Clean Prod 2021;299: Bioresour Technol 2021;341:125756.
126885. [146] Paritosh K, Balan V, Vijay VK, Vivekanand V. Simultaneous alkaline treatment of
[120] Li H, Li C, Liu W, Zou S. Optimized alkaline pretreatment of sludge before pearl millet straw for enhanced solid state anaerobic digestion: experimental
anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2012;123:189–94. investigation and energy analysis. J Clean Prod 2020;252:119798.
[121] Xu H, Li Y, Hua D, Zhao Y, Mu H, Chen HL, Chen G. Enhancing the anaerobic [147] Angelidaki I, Ellegaard L. Codigestion of manure and organic wastes in
digestion of corn stover by chemical pretreatment with the black liquor from the centralized biogas plants. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 2003;109:95–105.
paper industry. Bioresour Technol 2020;306:123090. [148] Zhang J, Qi C, Wang Y, Li Y, Han T, Gong X, Shan M, Li G, Luo W. Enhancing
[122] Lomwongsopon P, Aramrueang N. Mild chemical pretreatment of cassava pulp for biogas production from livestock manure in solid-state anaerobic digestion by
enhancing high-load anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol Rep 2022;17: sorghum-vinegar residues. Environ Technol Innovat 2022;26:102276.
100896. [149] Dai X, Duan N, Dong B, Dai L. High-solids anaerobic co-digestion of sewage
[123] Millati R, Wikandari R, Ariyanto T, Putri RU, Taherzadeh MJ. Pretreatment sludge and food waste in comparison with mono digestions: stability and
technologies for anaerobic digestion of lignocelluloses and toxic feedstocks. performance. Waste Manag 2013;33:308–16.
Bioresour Technol 2020;304:122998. [150] Karki R, Chuenchart W, Surendra KC, Shrestha S, Raskin L, Sung S, Hashimoto A,
[124] Song Z, Zhang C. Anaerobic codigestion of pretreated wheat straw with cattle Khanal SK. Anaerobic co-digestion: current status and perspectives. Bioresour
manure and analysis of the microbial community. Bioresour Technol 2015;186: Technol 2021;330:125001.
128–35. [151] Begum S, Das T, Anupoju GR, Eshtiaghi N. Solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of
[125] Wang Y, Yuan T, Zhang Z, Lei Z, Shimizu K. Improved lignocellulose degradation food waste and cardboard in a pilot-scale auto-fed continuous stirred tank reactor
prior to semi-dry anaerobic digestion of dairy manure via potassium system. J Clean Prod 2021;289:125775.
permanganate treatment. Bioresour Technol Rep 2020;11:100462. [152] Panigrahi S, Sharma HB, Dubey BK. Anaerobic co-digestion of food waste with
[126] Ali SS, Mustafa AM, Kornaros M, Manni A, Sun J, Khalil MA. Construction of pretreated yard waste: a comparative study of methane production, kinetic
novel microbial consortia CS-5 and BC-4 valued for the degradation of catalpa modeling and energy balance. J Clean Prod 2020;243:118480.
sawdust and chlorophenols simultaneously with enhancing methane production. [153] Chen X, Yan W, Sheng K, Sanati M. Comparison of high-solids to liquid anaerobic
Bioresour Technol 2020;301:122720. co-digestion of food waste and green waste. Bioresour Technol 2014;154:215–21.
[127] Koupaie EH, Dahadha S, Lakeh AAB, Azizi A, Elbeshbishy E. Enzymatic [154] Arelli V, Mamindlapelli NK, Begum S, Juntupally S, Anupoju GR. Solid state
pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for enhanced biomethane production-A anaerobic digestion of food waste and sewage sludge: impact of mixing ratios and
review. J Environ Manag 2019;233:774–84. temperature on microbial diversity, reactor stability and methane yield. Sci Total
[128] Tišma M, Planinic M, Bucic-Kojic A, Panjicko M, Zupancic GD, Zelic B. Corn silage Environ 2021;793:148586.
fungal-based solid-state pretreatment for enhanced biogas production in [155] Fagbohungbe MO, Dodd IC, Herbert BMJ, Li H, Ricketts L, Semple KT. High solid
anaerobic co-digestion with cow manure. Bioresour Technol 2018;253:220–6. anaerobic digestion: operational challenges and possibilities. Environ Technol
[129] Chaitanoo N, Aggarangsi P, Nitayavardhana S. Improvement of solid-state Innovat 2015;4:268–84.
anaerobic digestion of broiler farm-derived waste via fungal pretreatment. [156] Li Y, Li Y, Zhang D, Li G, Lu J, Li S. Solid state anaerobic co-digestion of tomato
Bioresour Technol 2021;332:125146. residues with dairy manure and corn stover for biogas production. Bioresour
[130] Planinić M, Zelić B, Čubel I, Bucić-Kojić A, Tišma M. Corn forage biological Technol 2016;217:50–5.
pretreatment by Trametes versicolor in a tray bioreactor. Waste Manag Res 2016; [157] Ziaee F, Mokhtarani N, Pourrostami Niavol K. Solid-state anaerobic co-digestion
34:802–9. of organic fraction of municipal waste and sawdust: impact of co-digestion ratio,
[131] Schroyen M, Vervaeren H, Vandepitte H, Van Hulle SWH, Raes K. Effect of inoculum-to-substrate ratio, and total solids. Biodegradation 2021;32:299–312.
enzymatic pretreatment of various lignocellulosic substrates on production of [158] Wang Y, Li G, Chi M, Sun Y, Zhang J, Jiang S, Cui Z. Effects of co-digestion of
phenolic compounds and biomethane potential. Bioresour Technol 2015;192: cucumber residues to corn stover and pig manure ratio on methane production in
696–702. solid state anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2018;250:328–36.
[132] Raut MP, Pandhal J, Wright PC. Effective pretreatment of lignocellulosic co- [159] Chu X, Wu G, Wang J, Hu ZH. Dry co-digestion of sewage sludge and rice straw
substrates using barley straw-adapted microbial consortia to enhanced under mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res
biomethanation by anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2021;321:124437. 2015;22:20143–53.
[133] Abraham A, Mathew AK, Park H, Choi O, Sindhu R, Parameswaran B, Pandey A, [160] Ahmadi-Pirlou M, Ebrahimi-Nik M, Khojastehpour M, Ebrahimi SH. Mesophilic
Park JH, Sang BI. Pretreatment strategies for enhanced biogas production from co-digestion of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge: effect of mixing ratio,
lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 2020;301:122725. total solids, and alkaline pretreatment. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 2017;125:
[134] Yan C, Liu Y, Cui X, Cao L, Xiong J, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Ruan R. Improving the 97–104.
efficiency of anaerobic digestion: domesticated paddy soil microbes enhance the [161] Kassongo J, Shahsavari E, Ball AS. Renewable energy from the solid-state
hydrolytic acidification of rice straw and pig manure. Bioresour Technol 2022; anaerobic digestion of grape marc and cheese whey at high treatment capacity.
345:126570. Biomass Bioenergy 2020;143:105880.
[135] Ariunbaatar J, Panico A, Esposito G, Pirozzi F, Lens PNL. Pretreatment methods to [162] Zhu J, Zheng Y, Xu F, Li Y. Solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of hay and soybean
enhance anaerobic digestion of organic solid waste. Appl Energy 2014;123: processing waste for biogas production. Bioresour Technol 2014;154:240–7.
143–56. [163] Lin Y, Ge X, Li Y. Solid-state anaerobic co-digestion of spent mushroom substrate
[136] Dhar BR, Nakhla G, Ray MB. Techno-economic evaluation of ultrasound and with yard trimmings and wheat straw for biogas production. Bioresour Technol
thermal pretreatments for enhanced anaerobic digestion of municipal waste 2014;169:468–74.
activated sludge. Waste Manag 2012;32:542–9. [164] Park JH, Kang HJ, Park KH, Park HD. Direct interspecies electron transfer via
conductive materials: a perspective for anaerobic digestion applications.
Bioresour Technol 2018;254:300–11.

16
Z. Wang et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 176 (2023) 113208

[165] Yin Q, Wu G. Advances in direct interspecies electron transfer and conductive adding biochar derived from gasification of wood pellets. Renew Energy 2022;
materials: electron flux, organic degradation and microbial interaction. 186:1–9.
Biotechnol Adv 2019;37:107443. [179] Meng L, Maruo K, Xie L, Riya S, Terada A, Hosomi M. Comparison of leachate
[166] Wang Z, Yin Q, Gu M, He K, Wu G. Enhanced azo dye Reactive Red 2 degradation percolation and immersion using different inoculation strategies in thermophilic
in anaerobic reactors by dosing conductive material of ferroferric oxide. J Hazard solid-state anaerobic digestion of pig urine and rice straw. Bioresour Technol
Mater 2018;357:226–34. 2019;277:216–20.
[167] Barua S, Dhar BR. Advances towards understanding and engineering direct [180] Benbelkacem H, Bayard R, Abdelhay A, Zhang Y, Gourdon R. Effect of leachate
interspecies electron transfer in anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2017;244: injection modes on municipal solid waste degradation in anaerobic bioreactor.
698–707. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:5206–12.
[168] Pan C, Fu X, Lu W, Ye R, Guo H, Wang H, Chusov A. Effects of conductive carbon [181] Degueurce A, Tomas N, Le Roux S, Martinez J, Peu P. Biotic and abiotic roles of
materials on dry anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge: process and mechanism. leachate recirculation in batch mode solid-state anaerobic digestion of cattle
J Hazard Mater 2020;384:121339. manure. Bioresour Technol 2016;200:388–95.
[169] Wang Z, Wang S, Xie S, Jiang Y, Meng J, Wu G, Hu Y, Zhan X. Stimulatory effects [182] Lee E, Bittencourt P, Casimir L, Jimenez E, Wang M, Zhang Q, Ergas SJ. Biogas
of biochar addition on dry anaerobic co-digestion of pig manure and food waste production from high solids anaerobic co-digestion of food waste, yard waste and
under mesophilic conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2021;29(13):19212–23. waste activated sludge. Waste Manag 2019;95:432–9.
[170] Xiao Y, Yang H, Yang H, Wang H, Zheng D, Liu Y, Pu X, Deng L. Improved biogas [183] Xu SY, Karthikeyan OP, Selvam A, Wong JW. Microbial community distribution
production of dry anaerobic digestion of swine manure. Bioresour Technol 2019; and extracellular enzyme activities in leach bed reactor treating food waste: effect
294:122188. of different leachate recirculation practices. Bioresour Technol 2014;168:41–8.
[171] Dastyar W, Azizi SMM, Meshref MNA, Dhar BR. Powdered activated carbon [184] Yu J, Zhao L, Feng J, Yao Z, Huang K, Luo J, Wei S, Chen J. Sequencing batch dry
amendment in percolate tank enhances high-solids anaerobic digestion of organic anaerobic digestion of mixed feedstock regulating strategies for methane
fraction of municipal solid waste. Process Saf Environ 2021;151:63–70. production: multi-factor interactions among biotic and abiotic characteristics.
[172] Xu L, Peng S, Dong D, Wang C, Fan W, Cao Y, Huang F, Wang J, Yue Z. Bioresour Technol 2019;284:276–85.
Performance and microbial community analysis of dry anaerobic co-digestion of [185] Luo T, Ge Y, Yang Y, Fu Y, Awasthi MK, Pan J, Zhai L, Mei Z, Liu H. The impact of
rice straw and cow manure with added limonite. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;126: immersed liquid circulation on anaerobic digestion of rice straw bale and
41–6. methane generation improvement. Bioresour Technol 2021;337:125368.
[173] Fagbohungbe MO, Herbert BM, Hurst L, Ibeto CN, Li H, Usmani SQ, Semple KT. [186] Rico C, Montes JA, Lobo A. Dry batch anaerobic digestion of food waste in a box-
The challenges of anaerobic digestion and the role of biochar in optimizing type reactor system: inoculum preparation and reactor performance. J Clean Prod
anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag 2017;61:236–49. 2020;251:119751.
[174] Puyol D, Flores-Alsina X, Segura Y, Molina R, Padrino B, Fierro JLG, Gernaey KV, [187] Xing T, Kong X, Dong P, Zhen F, Sun Y. Leachate recirculation effects on solid-
Melero JA, Martinez F. Exploring the effects of ZVI addition on resource recovery state anaerobic digestion of Pennisetum hybrid and microbial community
in the anaerobic digestion process. Chem Eng J 2018;335:703–11. analysis. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2020;95(4):1216–24.
[175] Daniels L, Belay N, Rajagopal BS, Weimer PJ. Bacterial methanogenesis and [188] Pezzolla D, Di Maria F, Zadra C, Massaccesi L, Sordi A, Gigliotti G. Optimization
growth from CO2 with elemental iron as the sole source of electrons. Science of solid-state anaerobic digestion through the percolate recirculation. Biomass
1987;237:509–11. Bioenergy 2017;96:112–8.
[176] Zhu Y, Zhao Z, Yang Y, Zhang Y. Dual roles of zero-valent iron in dry anaerobic [189] Rico C, Montes JA, Muñoz N, Rico JL. Thermophilic anaerobic digestion of the
digestion: enhancing interspecies hydrogen transfer and direct interspecies screened solid fraction of dairy manure in a solid-phase percolating reactor
electron transfer. Waste Manag 2020;118:481–90. system. J Clean Prod 2015;102:512–20.
[177] Zhen G, Lu X, Li YY, Liu Y, Zhao Y. Influence of zero valent scrap iron (ZVSI) [190] Marchioro V, Steinmetz RLR, do Amaral AC, Gaspareto TC, Treichel H, Kunz A.
supply on methane production from waste activated sludge. Chem Eng J 2015; Poultry litter solid state anaerobic digestion: effect of digestate recirculation
263:461–70. intervals and substrate/inoculum ratios on process efficiency. Front Sustain Food
[178] Salehiyoun AR, Zilouei H, Safari M, Di Maria F, Samadi SH, Norouzi O. An Syst 2018;2:46.
investigation for improving dry anaerobic digestion of municipal solid wastes by

17