0% found this document useful (0 votes)
24 views13 pagesAZEVEDO 2023-Opportunities and Challenges in The Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Municipal Sewage Sludge and Fruit and Vegetable Wastes - A Review
This review discusses the anaerobic co-digestion of municipal sewage sludge and fruit and vegetable wastes, highlighting its potential to enhance biogas production and address challenges in wastewater treatment. The analysis of studies from 2018 to 2023 shows that co-digestion can significantly improve methane production compared to mono-digestion, with increases ranging from 600% to 800%. The review also emphasizes the importance of integrating circular economy principles in wastewater management to achieve energy self-sufficiency and reduce environmental impacts.
Uploaded by
nataliainjorgeCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
24 views13 pagesAZEVEDO 2023-Opportunities and Challenges in The Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Municipal Sewage Sludge and Fruit and Vegetable Wastes - A Review
This review discusses the anaerobic co-digestion of municipal sewage sludge and fruit and vegetable wastes, highlighting its potential to enhance biogas production and address challenges in wastewater treatment. The analysis of studies from 2018 to 2023 shows that co-digestion can significantly improve methane production compared to mono-digestion, with increases ranging from 600% to 800%. The review also emphasizes the importance of integrating circular economy principles in wastewater management to achieve energy self-sufficiency and reduce environmental impacts.
Uploaded by
nataliainjorgeCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 13
Energy Nexus 10 (2028) 100202
‘Contents lists available at ScienceDirect,
Energy Nexus
net
ELSEVIER journsl homepage: www.sleevier.convlocateinexus
Opportunities and challenges in the anaerobic co-digestion of municipal
sewage sludge and fruit and vegetable wastes: A review Sar
André Azevedo, Nuno Lapa", Margarida Moldao‘, Elizabeth Duarte*
"rp 1-Resaree Monge Lantz Archi, king Landa, evvoen Ace nd Pod TERRA Aid chor, Sto of
‘Aare lisbon 196.07, org
‘Tha acount. parent of Cherry, NOVA Sco Sc end Teco, OVA Unie Lion, Caprice 229516 Pregl
“Grip 9 and ed Linking eceap enn Agere ee Pod TERRA Ae Labor, Sho of Age Lon 14817, Prag
Koporte “To overcame the andivopogeni Impacts esting from the consent growth af the world population indus
‘Aauerobi codgetion like wastewater eament plans and food processing must e adapted to follow tis tendeney and suppees
Bowe coy the associated challenges and needs arising from thi global situation. Inthe cones ofthe circular economy,
energy self-suticiency of wastewater treatment plants. The anaerobic co-digeston of two or more substrates
{vale option to overcome the drawhack of mano-igeston and to improve methane production. Considering
the econome abit ofthe anaerobic digestion system itso major nportance to address te potential ofthe
“This review compiles the works published between 2018 and 2023 regarding the anaerobic co-geton of
‘municipal sewage sludge with fruit and vegetable wastes, presenting a rtcl analysis ofthe gaps and future
perspectives on this ope. The rsults demonstrated the effectiveness of erdigeton to core inblanees fom
than he meono-dgestion of minicipal sewage shige Fr instance, the increment in iogpsprodeson varied
from around ¢ upto 800% when comparing monoigeston with co-digeston rials. In two studies, the biogas
production fom ful and vegetable wastes was 3 and 84s hghec tha in the tale with only muntepal sewage
Sage. Malt-stage systems eahanced anaerobic digestion due tothe inprovement inthe ery stages of the
‘proces, namely the hyerolysi whichis uly the limiting phase. A significant mimber of the experimental
tal (9 ot of 20 studies) were performed in bach reactors Geto eaey operation and maintenance, revealing
the gp of studies with oer types of reacts lke the continuous sted tank ceactoy, which she most used in
vwestewater treatment plans The educed number fetes within this scope 20) demonstrates tha thee still
potenti to improve the knowiedge an fil inthe existing gaps, aiming to nerease the energetic selsiiency
fastener treatment plants
Fru and veel wae
1. Introduetion ‘will benear 9.7 billion [1]. This entails enormous anthropogenic and en
vironmental pressures on different services, and some value chains are
‘According to the World Population Prospects of 2022 from the still based on a linear model causing the loss of material and energy re
United Nations, the world population continues to increase, although sources, Due to the current need to make antheopogenie activities more
the growth rate i slowing down (1). Estimates indicate that by 2030, resilient and less harmful tothe environment, it is necessary to embrace
‘the world population wil be around 8.5 billion, and in 2050 thenumber a more eicular economic model, contradicting the liner paradigm of
‘OA, carbon/altogen rato; COD, chemical oxygea demand; CSTR, continuous stirred tank reactor, EGSB, expanded granular skudge bed; FSS, oecaent sewage
sludge; FVW, fuitand vegetable waste; HRT, hydraulic retention time; ndusal granular anaerobic sludge; MSS, municipal sewage sludge; 08, orange bgasse;
(OLR, organic loading race Pp, pasion felt pel PS, primary sludge PW, pomegranate waste, SELR, speci energy loading fate: SDG, sustainable development
sols SMP, specif methane production; SRT, solids reenon tie: SS, secondary sade; TS, toa solid; VFA, voll fatty aids; VS, volatile sold; VSS, volatile
ospended solid; UASB,uplow anaerobic sige blanket WAS, waste-actvated siadge W/W, weight weight; WWTP, wastewater treatment pants
Corresponding auter.
mall dares: endreanevedo@ise lisbon p (A. Azevedo),
nps//do.og/10.1016/).nexs.2023.100202
Received 20 March 2023; Received in cevsed form 26 Apri 2023; Accepted 7 May 2023,
{2772-4271/9 2023 Tae uthors, Published by Hever Ld. This an open access article under te CC BY-NCND license
(hep://ereatvecommons.org/ienses/oy-ne-84/40/) A eed, % Lapa Me Ma a
tract-produce-dispose of in landfills” [2]. Bearing this in mind, the
concept of “circular economy" has been inereasingly accepted by several
diferent sectors, addressing the sustainable development topic (3). This
“eco-friendly” approach alms forthe conservation of natural resources,
reducing the generation of waste and highly controlling the use of re
sources, targeting a closed-loop economy (4),
‘The eunieipal wastewater treatment sector has been highly affected
by the continuous growth ofthe world population as it must be abe ro
follow this growth and treat increasing volumes of munieipal effluents.
This provided an improvement at an infrastructural level, leading to
the application of sustainable methodologies (5). Globally, WWTP pro-
‘duced around 360-380 cubie kilometres of trated municipal wastew=
ater in 2020 and is estimated to ineease by nearly 50% between 2020,
‘and 2050 [6). Regarding municipal sewage sludge (MSS), the anausl
global production is on average 45 million dry tons (7). In this con
text, to avoid the current practices of MSS management, such as land
filling and incineration in which the material loss occurs, more effective
technologies are being applied namely anaerobic digestion (AD). This
Bioprocess occurs in four stages (hydrolysis, acidogenesis,acetogencsis,
and methanogeness) and can transform the solid fractions (primary and
secondary shidges) of wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) into biogas
‘nd organi fertilize [8]. During the AD process, hydrogen (H,) is gen
erated throughout the acidogenesis and acetogenesis phases, due to the
conversion of organic sluble components (other generated by-products
from this phase are volatile fatty acids, acetates, carbon dioxide, and
alcohols) (9 There ae Uaree pathways from which biohydrogea is pro:
‘duced during acidogenesis Through propionic fermentation, butyric fer-
mentation, and ethanol fermentation, but the mainstage for biohydro-
sen production is acetogenesis, where the long-chain volatile fety acids
Aare converted into hydrogen (and acetate). The last phase of AD is re
sponsible forthe production of biomethane through the consumption
of hydrogen and CO, (by hydrogenotrophic archaea) and acetate (by
acetotrophic archaea) resulting in just vestigial amounts of H, in biogas
(1)
Throughout the treatment of wastewater, two types of sludge can
be generated: primary sludge (PS), and waste activated sludge (WAS).
Generally, they are thickened to decrease the water content before both
(or only one of them) are aided tothe anaerobic digesters (in the ease
lof WAS, only the excess sludge from the secondary sedimentation tank
{g0es to the anaerobic reactors, which is named the secondary sludge —
$8) [11] This technology is extemely succesful to stabilize these types
of sludges and can easly reduce the volume and costs associated with
their disposal [12
‘Being one of the two main products of AD, biogas i a biofuel mostly
composed of methane and catbon dioxide that can be converted into
electricity and heat, which ean be used in WWTP facies or exported
as products with economic benefit. Nevertheless, two ofthe major prob
lems of the WWTP anaerobie digesters are the under usage oftheir full
capacity, due tothe low biodegradability of the SS, and the tendency
(of $5 to float in the digester (13). To overcome these drawbacks, some
\WWTPs are introducing the AD of @ combination of PS and SS (named
mixed MSS) to increase biodegradability as PS is more biodegrad-
able than SS, WWTPs are also starting to apply co-digestion with high
carbon content substrates, aiming to improve the biodegradation of
5 (14)
‘On the other hand, the food industry sector i also being affected by
the continuous growth of the world population. Regarding fruits and
vegetables, their production has drastically increased during the last
decades: the production offrults rose from 400 to 865 million metre
tons (from 1990 to 2017) and the production of vegetables increased by
{60% (from 680 t0 1000 million metre tons, between 2000 and 2017)
(15). This situation is explained by the need to fulfil the human demand
for these foods. As a result, more Fruit and Vegetable Wastes (FVW)
have been generated throughout the value chain (from field to for.
In 2019, FAO [16) estimated that the global post-harvest losses fom
fruit and vegetables were around 20%, Some factors that contributed to
ey Ren 10 (2023) 100202
this high number ate the non-eible parts, the perishabilty, and losses
uring production, transpor, distribution, and consumption.
‘As referred :o above, substrates with high carbon content are very
beneficial for AD as they can balance the C/N ratio, which is below 20-
30 in the majority of the organic substrate. In this context, anaerobic
‘ovdigestion has been performed using several different co-substrates
such asthe organic fraction of munipal solid waste - OFMSW (17),
dairy wastes | 18], coffee wastes [19], crop residues [20), fat, oll and
grease ~ FOG [21 food wastes (10,22), but some ofthe used substrates
could negatively impact the AD process by inhibiting some of the bio
chemical steps. Therefor, it is important to consider which ae the most
appropriate and beneficial substrates to be used in the AD process De
spite the different substrates reported in the literature, this review fo
ccuses on the co-digestion of MSS with FVW due to the huge amounts of
Doth substrates produced worldwide and the possibilty of using FVW
1s 8 carbon source for the AD process
Besides co-igestion, other innovative strategies to improve bio.
‘gas/biomethane production have been studied, offering new possibil
ities to full the existing knovsledge gaps, The most notorious approach
is nanotechnology, where different types of nanoparticles (1 to 100 nm
size) are being added to the AD process with different purposes such as
improving the hydrolysis phase, enhancing microbial activity through
the increase ofthe substrate surface area, removing contaminants and
promoting digestibility of complex compounds (23). For instance, zero
valent nanoparticles improve the production of important enzymes for
AD, and metallic nanoparticles can catalyse the degradation of organic
‘compounds, increasing biogas and biomethane production [24]
Other cypes of additives that are being introduced in AD include
biochar and fly ashes. Biochar is highly porous carbon material, gener
ated through the pyrolysis of biomass. thas (i) a high surface area due
to the pores within its structure, which help to retain nutrients i) high
clectrical conductivity, which improves the electron transfer between
:mjerobial species n each stage of AD, and (i high cation exchange ca
pacity, allowing ito adsorb cations like calcium and magnesium, which
may work as pH buffers during the acidogenic and acetogenic stages, In
the AD process, biochar increases the buffer capacity of the medium, in
hibits compounds that could affect negatively the system (like organic
acids), and helps to remove hydrogen sulphide which is a hazardous gas
responsible forthe corrosion of metallic infrastructures. Fly ashes act as
source of nutrients ike phosphorous and perasium, adsorb heavy met
als due to thei highly porous surface area, and help to stabilize plt due
to their inherent alkaline composition (25)
Some authors [26,27] tested # methodology called bioaugmenta
tion, where mierobial cultures, with the ability to degrade specific com
pounds, are manipulated and added tothe anaerobie bioreactors to im
prove the stability and efficiency of the process. This strategy Is use
fal when the feedstock composition changes or if some inhibitory com
‘pounds occur during the digestion.
In terms of pretreatments, some madern approaches are being stud
‘ed, such as cavitation and electrolysis, to enhance the biodegradability
‘of organic compounds [28]. Cavitation consists in ereate cavities with
sgas/vapour, in a liquid system by dropping the pressure of the liquid
‘below its vapour pressure, and when the bubbles formed inthe cavities
‘explode, it helps to destroy the more complex and resistant materials
(fibres and lignocellulosic compounés). Regarding electrolysis, the use
‘of an electrical field with high voltage heps to decompose the cell walls
fof some feedstocks releasing their cellular content, and ean als inhibit
some microorgenisms (at low temperatures) increasing the biological
stability and durability of organie substrates
FVW are mostly composed of water (80 to 9036) and carbohydrates,
(70 t0 90% dry weight) [29]. FVW can boost AD because it inereases the
C/N ratio, make available more soluble and fast biodegradable organic
components, and promote synergistic positive effects within the micro
Dial consortium, leading to higher production of biogas and biomethane
(20). As a single substrate, AD with FVW is not adequate once it can
‘originate harmful levels of acidification due to the fast production and (A. Aare, Napa M Ml
accumulation of volatile fatty acids, affecting the methanogenic archaea
[81] In tis context, using FVW as a co-substrate in the AD of MSS can
have a positive impact to help achieve the energetic sof sustainability of
WWTP, by inereasing the biodegradability of MSS and using the spare
capacity ofthe infrastructures to increase the quantity and quality of
the biogas (12). This combination solves the problem ofa low C/N ra
tio in MSS and provides easly biodegradable sources of organic matter,
allowing an increase in the Organic Loading Rate (OLR) (32
Establishing favourable connections between different economic sec-
tors is of major importance to achieve a greater and common good for
‘humankind. The suscainable development goals (SDG) are inline with
this ambition and their implementation isa prosity, but there isa Tong.
path that countries must read, regarding changes in their organizations,
se of resources, infrastructures, and technologies, amongst other rele~
vant factors [35]. Renewable energy plays a major cole i this context as
an eco-friendly option to help reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Anaerobic co-lgestion Isa valid option to reduce andiflling, valoris-
ing organic waste, and generate a biofuel with different applicablitis
(ireet burning, heat, eleericity, transport fuel) and a biofertilizer with
high agronomie potential (34,35]-
‘This review aims to create a context, regarding the advantages of
using FVW as a co-substrate of MSS on WWTP anaerobic digesters to
Improve thei performance and enhance biogas production, emphasiz-
{ng the integration ofthese systems in an increasing numberof wastew
ater creatment filtes, increasing the efficiency of AD processes with
‘minimal troubleshooting steps towards a sustainable bioeconomy.
2, Review methodology
‘The main criterion to select the articles to be included in this re
view was based on experimental works regarding MSS anaerobic co-
Aigestion with FVW, published throughout the period between January-
2015 and March-2023, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct were
‘the main scientific databases used to identify ad retrieve bibliographic
references. Search keywords used were the following: Anaerobic; Diges-
tion; Co-digestion; Sewage sludge; Fruits; Vegetables; Wastes. Different
boolean operators (AND/OR), in different combinations to form ditfer-
ent search strings were used. In every search round, the retcleved results
that included artiles with livestock manure, FOG, organic fraction of
‘municipal solid waste, egg shells, cooked food, or agriculture residues
were not included because they were not in the scope of ths review.
Scopus was the search engine with fewer results but with an average
of nearly 40% of articles used in this review. Web of Science was the
ext web engine with more retrieved results and showed 2556 of the
selected articles for this review (some results were the same as from
Scopus). Science Direct was the engine with more results and when us.
ing a broad search string, including all the search words, it retrieved
‘more than 1000 results. Per year and starting in 2015, the number of
results was increasing exponentially and the number of articles within
the scope was around 25.
‘Ahmadi-Pilou etal, (36) isa bibliographic reference slighty dtfer
ent from the other references, de to the presence of 8% of waste be
yond FVW (616 is food waste and 2% is paper). However, because 9246
ofthe food substrate was composed of FVW, this study was included in
the present review. Table 1 summarizes all selected bibliographic refer-
ences (20 publications), withthe respective type of sludge used and the
type of FVW applied as a co-substrate.
‘The studies of Gonzilez ec a. (37), Carvalheira et al. (38), and Pavi
etal, [99] were selected, even though MSS was only used as inoculum,
‘The main aim was to use these studies asa reference to asses the poten
sia of AD of only fruit and/or vegetable wastes. The authors Chatrerje &
Mazumder [40] and Masebinu ea. [41] did not use sludge asthe mai
substrate or as inoeslum, However, these studies were also included in
this review with the same purpose of serving a references for the AD
process of FVW. ig. 1 presents th distribution of the 20 articles selected
ey Ren 10 (2023) 100202
Distribution of the selected articles by years of
a
= 201
2018 *2019-2023
Fig. 1. Distribution ofthe sect aries by set years of publicton.
{or this review and the geographical representation of Fig. 2 shows the
dlisteibution ofthe artiles per country
Tr ie clear the growing trend of articles published on this subject
(ig. 1), once 25% ofthe publications (S works) were from 2015 to
2018, and 75% (15 works) were from 2019 to Mare-2023. This reflects
the importance of FVW as a co-substrate to improve the AD of MSS.
From the authors’ knowledge, more studies are being developed to im
prove the FYW applicability as a co-substrate of other diferent main
substrates.
‘Spain and Brazil are the countries with more publications, as can
bbe soon in Fig. 2 (G and 3 articles, respectively), representing 40% of
the publications. From 2015 to 2018, 2 articles were published from
Europe [38,42], 1 from Asia 43], 1 from South America (39), and 1
from Afvie (41). From 20,219 to 2028, the Asian continent stood out
‘ih 7 publications (21,36,40,44-471 in contrast o publications from
Europe (32,37,48,49], 2 from South America (50,51), 1 from Oceania
[523, and 1 from Africa [53]
Due to the selection of a very specific topic for this study, the num:
ber of retrieved results that fulfil che requirements for inclusion in this,
review was saree, That is why the following § articles were included:
GGonzileze al. (37|; Carvalheira et al. (38; Pavi tal. (39|; Chatterje &
‘Mazumder [40) and Masebinu et al. [41]. Although these papers do not
Tlf 100% of the requirements, they were very close to the required
conditions. This relevant fact indicates that the anaerobic co-digestion
‘of MSS with FVW has the potential for a more in-depth and detaled
study to improve the knowledge of waste valorisation for bioenergy.
3, Sewage sludge in anacrobie digestion and improvement
‘through co-digestion
Considering their physicochemical and microbiological composition,
Whieh includes toxic compounds, heavy metals, and pathogens, MSS
cannot be directly disposed of in the environment due to the env
ronmental and public health problems that may arise. Over the last
decades, the most applied solutions to manage this biomass were not
cco‘fiendly, since they include incineration and landfilling (54). Cur
rently, AD stands out as a sustainable technology with the capacity to
reduce toxic substances and pathogens, and stabilize the organic mat
ter from MSS, providing two outputs with a high added value: biogas,
‘Which isa biofuel, and digesta, whieh has agronomic value as an oF.
ganic ferdizer (8
‘When AD is performed with SS asthe unique substrate the process is
not efficient, presenting ow values of methane production and removal
of volatile solids [55]. To overcome this drawback, new approaches have
‘been applied, aiming to inerease the efficiency ofthe AD process and the
mixture with PS has proven to be an excellent altemative with promis.
ing achievements (56]. The implementation of co-dgestion is only pos
sible due tothe volume surplus that some anaerobie reactors of WWTP
present, resulting from the design and conceptual plan ofthe facilities (A. Aare Napa M Molo
ey Nera 10 (2023) 100202
Tablet
Papers published between 2015 and 2023 on anaerobic co-geston of sewage sludge with fra and vegetable wastes and types of wastes used.
eee Solge We Food ane
Tata ea) ns Tanna ans wane PWT
Stang a3) Sewage sie acted dg) ran vegeta
‘ney ea) Manip eage sage Cole! wae ge) ‘opie, pomegranate, and Black at wae
Teste ta | Anaerobic ewape dee ‘nana ptt, art cyte parpin,p98)
Abia eal, 8) Secondary sedge Marty fae nd vogetbe ( ru, 23 pot, 32%
‘epee, 6h ood was, 2 spe)
yoda, (51 Primary sade ‘Beran, spl ceo nema ses
Morale Plo ea 0)
Sasa (50)
Cater & Macunder, 40)
eal tng ra UASD reactor
ranted sae) / Neen sewage age
(anil se)
NVA oral de wih sane from an arsrobi deter
‘eaing PV and cher waste mined Wit ewan sl)
‘rend vegas ide varity pening esol) /
(eomesane vere)
‘rl juin rut pec onage agus td cake pane
2 ype ets vegetal tes
‘Aburadba & Avda 35)
(Conair tal (37)
unpl mge luge ods)
Digested sludge sed oe)
Aosta (52)
svt sg)
ep eta (52) ‘np sewage sage (tre of pay a secondary
seis)
Ses tal (8) Primary sewage stg
eva et al)
Cara et (3)
oo ealy ts)
Mardmenge se
Marine ea, 1)
Pavel 2047 29), Anse sage (ed a om)
onal ea, 20152)
sledge wet)
aed shag (aw primary sg nd tend excess
Aerob granular sige (sed as nol)
N/A noc disp! fom 2 lt weming sat wae)
Sewage de (0% primary sage nd 408 wae stat
rend vegetables
‘tend vegetable wats rom the four angeprodcing
fae
ren vegetables beg, egpant seh, poo,
recall mst, ect)
ran vegetables 1 fs and 11 vegetables)
ral and vegetables orang, lee tomitos, and cocumbe)
Frat and wegtabos (2 ate and 2 eget)
Frit wae (peach a apne plp waste)
rt pple mace tomato and epee (abba, Chinese
cabge cares lec, easier ec) waster
‘rand egtaie water ans, papa, ape, bb,
Ince alo a pom)
Fr wane peach, tana and ape wats)
N/a Not applcabe
5
ee Ss
(57). This extra capacity, conceived to support higher volumes, can be
filed with co-substates to increase the production of biogas and reduce
the energetic dependency on external sources (58)
‘Recent studies have implemented the use of both PS and SS for AD
and the inclusion of co-substrates with features that complement the
characteristics of the main substrate [48], exploiting the positive syn
exgstc effets of al hese substrates on the microbial consortium. This
strategy balances the C/N ratio and the nutrients within the anaerobic
bioreactor, redsces the inhibitors’ concentration and their effect, and
Improves the process of organte biodegradation ofthe organic substrates
(59),
4, Pruit and vegetable wastes as potential co-substrates
FW are mainly composed of carbohydrates and proteins and have
high water content, which means that are easily biodegradable. This is
ig. 2. Number of publiations per county,
between 2018 and 2023
«key factor for AD since the microbial community benefits from these
supplementary substrates [60]. The physicochemical characteristics of
EVW provide an increment of the C/N ratio of feeding mixtures, con
‘wibuting to stabilizing the AD process of MSS due to the synergistic ef
ects between substrates, and despite the inherent lower pH values, the
buffer capacity ofthe system can withstand these variations, reflecting
‘on inereasing productions of biogas and methane yields (91),
VW, in particular, can be beneficial to upgrade the AD process of
[MSS but also ean cisupt and inhibit the system due t its acidification
and increasing volatile fatty acids accumulation. That is why FVW must
‘be used asa cosubstrate and not as the main substrate, and the increas
ing incorporation ratio must be gradual for the bacterial community 0
adapt to the new environment, avoiding collapse [53].
‘The bibliographic references compiled in this review used fruit,
‘wastes or mixes of fruit and vegetable wastes and tested different com.
Dinations with MSS (Table 1). Regarding the sludge substrate, the se (A. Aare Napa M Molo
ey Nera 10 (2023) 100202
Tabled
Characteristics of the anacrobe reactors ad feeding proportions used inthe select biblographle references from 2015 to 2023
Type
aerobic Typ of asarbie
reactor ved for reac sed forthe Pedi proecton
efeences thei phnwe Reactor vohime snd pate Resco vlane ost)
Tene, 20227) wa WA Consnacasatinad Si (wating wala: 4D a 2 sda
tank (os) (aos aa (100) 4)
fang, 2022 (31) NA wa Semiconinooss ——SDL(washingwolime 251) 4 (Vala)
‘Abey eta, 202146) NA wa Glas bachaype ab 125 (wang volume 25075 (258 AW, 256 FW and
Py ste) 2ewsom)
ita, 2001 (51) NA wa ach ype 25L meshing volume 201) 2080 veg pecetge)
Nomadio etal 2021 (35) A NA Glas bot dieser 700m lating volume) (eno tes0, 080%
(Gach coaion) (400 5050, 0090) 00)
‘Bayed etal, 2021 (551 Na wa Clas bole ier 500 (king volume (G00) oso, soso)
(Gath codiions) $00.1) (6070; ean (0:1001 06)
Merle Plo eta, 202069) N/A wa Rescoreten 1 Lworking volume: 300m) 3
Sua ta, 2020 (50 NA NA Borsieteginss 250 a (wrhng volun 25g421 96171 ab wae)
fuss iicbsype) 200.) 1/08, 72¢21 1251,
pte 8/08; 294 24
171 mewaten 77,
Tag 424 (12501 wer
imi wen W/CH
Pag iba 12600 aer
wien
Ccharerje&Macumder, 2020 Tanmarest_ = L(108Z91 Hybrid anaeoble 16.586 qld volume: 121) Gaoeuumsuirae)
ao) serge See role acon; lgeter
yore Gat
racer yo
‘eacsn)
Auradha & Arran, N/A NA Sorsiete ite 25ers volume: 211) 25:75 of Vaal)
220 31 snare ieee
onset, 2020 (57 elem 230m Compsty ined 31 (woking value) NA
Ambrose a, 2020 (52) esr or Lowecting ——Sembcominsoar 1 Long eam SOO ml) 1: an Tt Sod ass)
hyarewane vole sdgeter
genase 500m) (amchocte
(270
‘tous eta, 2019 (32) NA wa BOSTATE E ined GAL waking lume SL) (102 (207 (504
(40s, en (0:00) 0)
Seouay ea, 2019 146) Na wa 500 (wing volume 1209 (Vote Sls bas)
stom)
‘neta, 2029 (48) NA wa OSTATE E tined GFL (wrkiag volume: 51) 102. (0207 (5040
racer) (400,20 (0200) 0)
Ccowatoe eta, 201838) Conionus SLabscal) —Conindesstival Sls) and 120 Lot ihcaumsdstae 12.16
sted tank aads0L (plot tank CSIR) forsee vss OOD
(csr feels Seal) Segond
td llr scales amas dg ed
(Ee) resco fr
plc sae
0 a, 2038 68) wa a Waerath ear 21 (working vlan: 1.81
ome) ‘arohydate/ Patines
rao (3) 792850)
(50: ee (a0
(asec ca)
Marengo, 208 (01 Hyaripieanie GLO Lwaring Vea 381 (wotng voc: 29491) Freeper raion (4:
soln) ominous srt Goss 2am.
rac (aas.29)
Peseta, 201735) wa wa Gsrrecor (atk) 21 (woking velar) 1: bratenocala)
onal et, 2015 22) NA NA Semiconinows—25L(workingvolume 151) (1000) (13% 02),
sed nk (oso) ie wn
‘N/A: Not apliable; AW: Apple wast; BOW Black carrot waste; CB Cashew bagasse; IS Industral granlar sue; MSS: Municipal sewage shlge; OB: Orange
bagasse; PP: Passion fruit peel PW: Pomegranete waste VSS: Volatile suspended solids w/w: Weigh weight
lected articles encompass different approaches when compared to the
‘usual trend of using just PS or SS. As an example, a highlight must be
given to the works of Morales-Polo etal. [49] and Santos et al. (50), a8
these authors ured granular sludge which is denser and has more bac
teria diversity than the Noceuent sludge. Carvalheira et al. [38] also
used granular sludge but only a5 an inoculum to start the AD process
of fruit wastes (namely peach and apple pulp waste). Ambrose et al.
(52), Arhoun etal. (32,48), and Ronol etal. (2) combined PS with $$
to form a mixed MSS added with FVW for the anaerobic co-digestion
process
Concerning fruit wastes, Joknio etal. (47l; Santos et al. (50), Car
valhelra et al. [98], and Fonoll et al. (42) used fruit wastes as the
‘unique substrates (namely, banana peel waste; passion fruit peel, or
ange bagasse, and cashew bagasse; peach and apple waste; peach, be
nana, and apple waste, respectively). These bibliographic references rep
resented 20% ofthe selected articles, while the other 80% of bibli
graphic references combined different types of fruit wastes with veg
table wastes
‘Table 2 compiles information about the type of anaerobie bioreac-
tots and the MSS:FVW proportions used in each bibliographic reference. A eed, % Lap Me Ml ea
Noteworthy is the fact that five experimental works contemplated &
two-stage AD process [40,37,52,3841]. In these works, the first-stage
bioreactor is used for the hydrolysis, acidogenesis, and acetogenesis
‘phases, hile the second-stage bioreactor is used forthe last phases of
AAD (methanogenesis)
5. Pre-treatment processes and operational parameters of MSS
and FVW eodigestion
5:1. Preieaiment processes
Usually, $8 is more difficult ro degrade biologically when compared
with PS, due to the strengeh of the cell membrane that constitutes
the biological sludge [61]. This fat remains one of the mast impend:
ing drawbacks for the anaerobic digestion of MSS, considering that
fon average only 30-35% is biodegraded under mesophilic conditions
(37 #1 °O with a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) of around 20-25,
days [54]. In this context, i sof major importance to promote and in
plement different suitable techniques as pretreatments, allowing to fa-
ciltate the bioavailability of the organic matter for the AD microbial
consortium, These techniques include biological, chemical, mechani-
cal, and thermal methods that could be used at both the lab and fall
scales (62),
5.1.1, Physical preeauments
Since hydrolysis isthe limiting phase of AD, itis usual to frst ap
ply 8 simple mechanical pretreatment that consists in redueing the di
‘mensions of the substrates and increasing the specific surface area due
to the formation of smaller particles (63}. All the experimental works
selected for tis review included mechanical pretreatment through dif.
ferent techniques like cutting, grinding, chopping, milling, or erushing,
‘withthe dimensions ofthe resulting semples varying between I mm and
‘The other most common pretreatment used is thermal hydroly-
sis, which increases the solubility of the organic content and has 8
‘major impact on the elimination of pathogenie organisms (54). San
tos et al. |50) performed a simple eut of the samples before apply
Jing & thermal pretreatment in which the sample was dried at 65 °C
Arhoun et al. (32,48) and Masebinu etal. [41] used a different ther:
imal approach, in which the samples were stored between 20 and
18 °C, whieh according to Montusiewicz et al. (64), ean be consid
cred a thermomechanical pretreatment since it destroys the cell struc-
res theough Freezing, increasing the biodegradability of the organic
substrates,
5.12. Biological and enzymatic preveatments
‘Usually, his type of pretreatment consists of splitting the AD process
in more than one reactor to establish different conditions on each one
(Gitferen temperature ranges) aiming to crestean effective proliferation
ofthe specific bacteria and methanogenic archaea. For instance, through
the separation in twa reactors, AD ean be improved by the ist stages of
the process occurring in the first reactor (usually a thermophilic reactor)
and then the hydrolysed substrate continues the process in the second,
actor (usually a mesophilic reactor, allowing the correct environment
for aeidogenie bacteria and methanogente archaea in each reactor [65].
Besides that, the use of exogenous enzymes like lyases and hydrolases
results in an effective degradation ofthe cell wall components, increas
ing the solubilization ofthe substrates (66]. From the selected works
for this review, some of them (27,38,40,¢1,52] performed the anaero
Die process in two stages using more than one bioreactor to optimize the
5.1.3. Chemical prereatments
This cateyory of prettetments includes the addition of acid or al
alls to ease the degradation process and increase the bioavailability
oy Nem 10 (223) 100202
of intracellular content. Due to the cost of reagents and the possiblity
to form toxie by-products [65], these pretreatments are not the most
used as can be seen by the only two studies which used chemical pre
‘weatments: Ambrose etal. (52] used a chemical precreatment coupled
with a prior microwave pretreatment, where the sample was exposed
10 660 W microwave irradition followed by the addition of hydrogen
peroxide (19 w/w); Akbay etal. [46] applied acid (HS0, 0.1-1 MD
and alkali (NaOH 0.1-1 M) to assess the effect of both reagents on the
degradation of organie matter.
Tn some cass, different types of pretretments are combined to i
crease the efficiency ofthe process. For example, Akbay et al. 6) tested
seven different pretceatments, including ultrasonieation, microwave i
radiation, acidic hydrolysis, alkaline hydrolysis, thermal hydrolysis, and
‘wo combinations (ultrasonication-aeidie hydrolysis; ultrasonication
alkaline hydrolysis). Regarding the thermal treatment, the authors used
‘an autoclave at 120 °Cto perform a cycle with diferent heating times
Table 3 shows the operational and performance parameters namely
temperature, HRT, organi loading rate, and biogas/methane yield re
ported inthe selected works
5.2. Hydraulic retention time
Asreferred to above, AD comprises four different phases: hydrolysis,
acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis. Fach phase takes dif.
ferent times to occur, but hydrolysis is considered the limiting phase due
to the complex degrading process of macromolecules into smaller ones
to be used throughout the next phases (67|, HRT represents the time
‘that the substrate remains inside the anaerobic bioreactor, and solid re
tention time (SRT) isthe total time that the microbial consortium says
in the Bioreactor [68
Setting HIRT depends on different conditions like the type of sub:
strate, OLR, and temperature selected for the process. More complex
substrates and high OLR require higher HRT, Inversely, higher temper:
atures as the ones applied in thermophilic processes require lower HRT
[59]. For mesophilic conditions, the normal HRT Is 10-40 days [70],
‘hich iin agreement with most of the selected articles from thisreview
(80% used HRT between 10 and 40 days). Only Chattrje & Mazumder
[40} and Carvatheira etal. [38) performed the trials with HRT lower
than 10 days (48-84 h and 5.17.7 days, respectively). Santos etal.
[501 used a mitch higher HIT of 60 days
5.3. Temperature
‘Temperature is one of the most important parameters of the AD pro
cess since i promotes the development of diferent microorganisms de
pending on the thermal regime, Currently, the most applied temperature
ange is mesophilic (approximately 35-37 C), followed by thermophilic
{approximately 50-60 °C), but there is also psychrophilic AD where the
process occurs at lower temperatures of around 15-25 ‘C (71). The most
stable regime is the mesophilic one due to the lower risk of ammonia
concentration increase which can occur more frequently during ther
‘mophilic AD. However, higher biogas productions are obtained in ther.
:mophilie processes, despite the methane concentrations being lower ac
cording to some authors [72]. The postive aspect of using the AD pro
cess with higher temperetures is that the elimination of pathogens in
creases, allowing the digestate to fulfil the required parameters for soil
application. Nonetheles, this option entails higher energy expenditures
5, in the case of smaller-scale treatment plant, the use of mesophilic
AD coupled with thermal pretreatment could be the most favourable
solution (73)
‘Table 3 shows that che mesophilic regime is the most used for AD
(with 19 of the 20 articles applying this process, with the tempera
ture varying betwen 30 and 38 ‘C) Only Leite etal. (51 used a psy
rope regime with an average temperature of 26 C to perform the
‘methanogenic phase. (A. Aare Napa M Molo
ey Nera 10 (2023) 100202
Table
‘Opertional and performance parameters ofthe selected iblogaphic references from 2015 to 2028,
“Temper ge pH siete
etree Goetanogenle pase) HRT oeSRT_—— OLR cin) Mean eld
Toho, 20227) Meophiie 7202") aba SAGSGR VE. BPN TOSI 750-7 Berne 297.2 and IS
tang ta, 202 (91) Memphiie (522°C) 11S 17H 08S and g 600-740 Bermeen 10am 75 La ae
ved oes)
‘Aaya, 202148) Mempite@s 21°C) 20d 588 VSI" - Organic 650-740 erween 30 snd 792 mL
losing te the beginning (comune methane yd)
teeta, 200 (51) 26°C terre) roasan 15220, coD,.4~! on aia
AvdiPiow ea, 2021 (98) Mespae O70) soa 012819 257 and 350-890 tween 19nd BA LI
aged etal, 2021 (51 Mespiie 7 22°) 0d 1it-0200,0350,0400, 659-668 t-te 107 and
(0560, 09%5 VSI“ and 141 mg 5; 2d Beween
085,196, 1798 VS" m5 2nd 295 ag VS
Morelos, 202049) Mesphic(@7 41°) ad 12058.%¢ 0, 702 26351 Nag YS
O05
Saas ta, 2020 (50 esopitie 37° wou 200 ng 6; COD 650-770 Begmeen 62 and 128 Nag
‘charesje @Mazunder 2020 Mesople (382°C) such 48-50 Between 12,095 and 70-790 Beoneea 27 an 38.21 (ose
oo tnd72-04h 17.480 mg 0, COD sencceon pr batch)
(Geetyarti), between
15716 and 2.782 m0,
ODI Cae he)
chorea & Arivakarasan, —— Mesphlle(31 85° 204 ispvsicud~! 780-770 1468; 285and 4821
20 5) (aris lors
‘ovaser a, 220 (97) Memphite (21° 08 aang ysiy-\4-! 730 Seo kee vs
era ay 202 (2) Mespaiie 22°78 Vand 19 gS. 4 50-740 Becwen 79 and 26m VS
Nevo eta 039" [2] Mempaile i120 betwen 1 and 700-723 eomeen 0.303 9d 44s
Waegm= a skp VS MP)
Seowoya eta, 201948) esopite (27°0 wa Masse, nave Taner WS
con,
‘chown ea, 2019 (18) sop 5°0) me Benen 06 and 585 690-720 eeween 0.276 and 447 Lg
vsita=* vio
Ccorvalers eta,2018 (38) Mephile 10°C. pst SeeneenS.t and Beween 2nd 17630, 7402020 ‘Between 25 and 0221
saemda'C-le 776 copia bate Gig COD- he ele
=) Dene 199081350, Beene 0.27 ap 0,
(COD Ld" spot asie ig COD- pot wale
Po eal, 2038 5) Mempie (7 £10) td SSSane somo VSteriast ava Besnecn 24 ae 20 mg*
rte acted sage,
repectvey
Mose e 2018 (4 Mespile@s-+1°0) ard Between 08084 405% 700-860 Between 0.54 nd 0547
Vid" bse Nave v8 /04585,
2esig vim 2a Na? ig V5 conser for
‘osiered fr the lace hesulsee pan
pre
Pelt 2017 (39) esopie 35°0) nd 130% vs-subsste/ 7604020 27594 266NnLe VS
280% ¥S- incon
Fonol ea 2015 (82) esopie 7 °0 wa Lamd adel 'd=* 7904010 Berwnen 50
Sasuysie"
27a: pot avalabe; BPW: Banana plant wats; COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand d Dayl
Tous HT Hydraulic etenton time y ine of easton OLE Organle
Loading Rate; SMP: Specie methane production; SRT: Sous retention time; VS: Vale Slide.
54. pH
‘One of the key ecological factors that affect the environment fr the
iicrobes during AD is pH. It has a major role to regulate the enzy
‘atic reactions and organic content solubilisation, controlling acetoge-
resis and methanogenesis {74,75}. An adequate pH is vital to main
tain stability and ensure strong metabolic activity. Despite that most
microorganisms prefer neutral environments (between 6.8 and 7.2), the
four stages of AD requite different pH values to allow the proliferation
of bacteria responsible for each phase (76). For instance, during the
fist phases (hydrolysis, acdogenesis, and acetogenesis), an acidic pH
Js more favourable asthe microorganisms require a pH of around 5.5
and 6.5. However, during the lst phase (methanogeness), a neutral pH
(round 7) is more favourable for the methanogenic archaea to produce
Diogas (71,771
‘Due to these differences in the microbial-preferred pH value, the im-
plementation of multi-stage systems emerges as an excellent approach
‘to improve the AD process and increase the production of biogas. With
this alternative, AD can be performed in two or more bioreactors where
each one works with a different pH value [78). Using lower pH (near
4.2 valuein the first bioreactor (responsible forthe development of bac.
teria from the acidic phases), the generation of VFAs can be increased.
‘The VFAs are then pumped into the methanogenic bioreactor, where
the methanogenic archaea develop, ata controlled flow to keep this
bioreactor witha neutral pH. Thus, VEAs which are major inhibitors for
‘methanogenie archaea ate supplied at a controlled rate to these mieroor
‘ganisms and optimal pil values can be offered to the different groups
‘of microorgenisms involved in AD. This promotes the increase in biogas
production (79).
‘When mono-digestion AD is performed with substrates such as MSS
or livestock effluents shows pH values close to neutrality as they are ich
innitrogen [80,81]. Furthermore, MSS has high buffer capacity which
{sa major component for AD stability (48), unlike what happens in AD
‘of FVW alone, FVW is characterized by having pH values between 4 and A eed, % Lapa Me Ma a
5 and can easily be biodegraded to generate organic acids (82] which
can lead to acificaton ofthe biozeator. To avold this situation, FVW
has been studied and implemented as a co-substrate for nitrogen-rich
substrates to provide a ready and fast biodegradable source of earbon,
{increasing the C/’ ratio and adjusting some imbalances that can occur
‘throughout the process (3).
‘The articles compiled inthis zeview follow the laformation previ-
ously stated regarding de pH range ofthe FVW, asthe pH values varied
from 3.20 to 5.60. Akbay eta. 46) used an alkaline precteatment to
‘increase the pH ofthe feeding mixture (ater the addition ofthe sludge
‘with an average pli of 8.16), reaching values between 6.80 and 7.80
Elsayed etl, [53] also used sodium hydroxide on the feeding substrate
to achieve pit values of 7.00-7.20 inside the bioreactor, Chatterjee &
“Mazumder [40] and Masebinu etal. [41 performed the mono-digestion
of FVW in multi-stage systems, The former researchers reached pH val
ues in the hydrolysis biodigester of §.60-5.80 with fresh samples ran.
Jing fom 4.79 to 7.00, while the latter researchers obtained pH values
of 3.81-4.94 inthe hydrolysis biodigester. Despite these acidic pH va
ues, the methanogenie biodigester maintained stability with pH valves
between 7,06 to 8,00 due to the buffer capacity ofthe inoculum inside
the bioreactor.
Regarding the sludges, the observed values ranged from 5,60 to 8.16,
withthe lowest value being from Arhoun etal, [32], and the highest
value from Albay etal. [46). The feeding mixtures ofthe other works
showed pH values from 4.30 to 8.30, being the lowest value of 4.30,
from Ambrose et al. (52) and the highest value from Ahmadi-Pirlou
et al [36]. Ambrose et al. [52] studied a proportion of I:1 MSS/FVW
{in which they obtained the lowest pH value but also studied a propor.
‘ion of 3:1 in which they obcained higher pH values (around 7.90 after
using hydrogen peroxide). Anhuradha etal. [45] studied a ratio of 3:1
expressed as FVW:MSS, meaning that more FVW than sludge was used.
‘Overal, despite the wide variety of pH values, the bioreactors mai.
tained stable inner environment, allowing stable processes throughout
all the laboratory assays
5.5. Onganie loading rote and specific energy loading rate
OLR corresponds to the organic matter that is fed tothe bioreactor
per time unit and volume unit (usually, the working volume). Tis isa
crucial parameter that could affect the stability ofthe AD process (74
For low OLR values, microorganisms can biodegrade more easily the
substrates, but the production of biogas is compromised due to the low
organic content available. For high OLR, methane production can be
‘optimized but on the other hand, the microbial consortium could go
into metabolic stress because of the organie overload that may cause
fan accumulation of VEAs and the acidification ofthe bioreactor content
(831
Specific Energy Loading Rate (SELR) is a parameter that provides
Indirect information regarcing microbial metabolic activity, showing if
the microbial population is working in a stable environment or with or
ganic overload conditions. This parameter (expressed in d~!) correlates
the daily intake ofthe bioreactor with the biomass existing inside oft.
For values above 0.4 d71, the process is unstable, and the organic load
should be reduced [34,64].
‘the type of bioreactor used is also an important factor to be assoct
ated with the OLR, since, for instance, batch bioreactors are more ep
propriate for high OLR, and semi-continuous bioreactors are more ade
(quate for low OLR as they could struggle with some stability problems
[85]. The OLR range in the works identified for this review is between
0.28 to 5.8 g VS.L"1.d~ expressed in volatile solids and 0.12 0 17.6 g
(COD.L".d"! expressed in chemical oxygen demane (COD) (the highest
value corresponds tothe study of Carvatheia eal [38] in which sludge
was only used as inoculum).
CChatterje & Mazumder {40} used a multistage system and deter
mined the COD in the influent of the firststage bioreactor Chydroly
sis tank) and in the hydrolysed effluent of this first-stage bioreactor.
ey Ren 10 (2023) 100202
“These authors obtained an inerement of 25-30% (12,10-17,48 to 15,72
21.78 g COD.L"), proving the potential and impoctance of carrying out
‘the hydrolysis in a different bioreactor than that in which the methano
‘genesis phase occurs
Jang etal. [91] observed the negative effect of increasing OLR to
‘harmful values, once they stated with 1.786 g VS.L~!.é-!, and after 56
days of experimental work, they increased ito 2.088 g VSL", The
authors registered a decrease in methane percentage from SO ro 30%
‘VA. Biogas production stopped on #88 experimental day due to an
other increment in OLR to 2.50 g VS.L"¥.d"?, which caused the acid
cation ofthe system, inhibiting the methanogenic archaea. Arhoun eta
[18] tested a higher OLR (5.8 g VS.L~!.d~1) with mixed MSS and con
‘early to what was observed by Jiang eal. (31 for the ratio WAS:FVW
‘of 10020, Athoun etal. achieved the highest Specific Methane Produc
tion (S¥P) of 329 mi.g VS" when compared to other lower OL values
(4.8 t0 5.4 g VSI71.4"), where the authors echieved SMP values be
‘ween 276 and 323 mg VS", Ahmadl-Peiou [36] also tested different
OLR values (0.64, 1.28, 1.92, 257, and 3.21 g VSL~'.d-*) and obtained
1 decreasing cumulative methane production with the gradual increase
of the total solids content, starting with 222.7 ml.g-* VS for 5% TS and
83.3 mg"! VS for 25%.
“These differences observed inthe stdles prove thatthe produetion
of biogas/methane could vary in opposite ways depending on several
factors besides the OLR, such asthe type of substrates and their incor.
poration ratios, and all parameters should be taken into account t0 op
timize the efficiency ofthe system.
5.6, Biogas and methane yields
Biogas is one ofthe added.-value outputs arising from AD. It is a bio
fuel mainky composed of methane and carbon dioxide and other compo-
nents in trace concentrations, such as water vapour, hydrogen sulphide,
ammonia, and carbon monoxide. When upgraded to biomethane (pro:
‘ess to remove carbon dioxide and other contaminants, increasing the
percentage of methane), t canbe injected into the Natural Gas networks
togenerate thermal energy, along with the possiblity tobe directly used
in the transportation sector (86,87)
Currently, biogas, as “green” biofuel, s responsible for more than
3506 of the energy produced from biomass and Js an environmentally
fiendly alternative, allowing fr the reduction ofthe dependency on fos
sil fuels by using organic matter for its production [8,89]. The types of
substrates used in AD, along withthe operational conditions established
forthe process, havea big impact on the biogas quantity and quality. In
Adaition,co-digestion has a major contribution to increasing the genera
tion of biogas as well, as demonstrated by the works selected to support
‘this review, Regarding the mono-digestion tials with shudge using WAS,
slang et al. (31) achieved average dally biogas productions of 13.15,
17.70, and 23.44 Ld") for the OLR values of 1.79, 2.08, and 2.50 kg
VSL-!.d-1, respectively. The highest methane percentage was 7296 v/¥
during thelr ist tal, with an OLR of 1.79 ke VS.~.d"". The average
‘Biogas Production Rate (BPR) was between 0.64 and 1.49 LL~!.d"!
Elsayed etal. (53) obtained a maximum methane cumulative yield of
119 mL.g™! VS with PS, which was lower than the production from the
‘mono-digestion tral with FVW (around 135 ml.g-! VS), The same be
haviour happened in the work of Anhuradh and Arcrvulkarasan (4S),
in which the FVW trial presented a higher cumulative biogas produc.
ton (with methane berween 57 and 59% v/v) in comparison to the AD
of sludge: 28.53 L and 14,69 L, with specific gas productions of 0.49-
1.00 Lg VS and 0.26-0.64 Lg" VS, respectively.
Santos eta, (50) performed the AD of industrial granular anaerobic
sludge and MSS co compare with diferent co-igestion trials (adding
‘orange bagasse; pasion fruit peel eashew bagasse). Mono-digestion of
[MSS achieved better results than industrial shidge with biogas eurula
tive productions of 128 Nm. and 47 Nm, respectively, and methane
‘cumulative produetions of 70 Nea. and 23 Nm, respectively. Once this
range is expressed in normal condition, to obtain the standard produc A eed, % Lap Me Ml ea
sion for comparison, this range was converted following the principle
of Charles and Gay-Lussae: assuming an average temperature of 36“
since most ofthe experimental triale worked in a range of 35-37 “
and @ conversion factor of 1.132, the standard productions are 145 mi
and 53 ml. for biogas production, and 79 mL and 26 ml. for methane
production.
(Other authors [37-41] performed experimental works with EVW
as a single substrate. Effectively, Carvalheira et al. (38) only used
fruit waste asa unique substrate, namely peach and apple pulp wast.
Gonzalez etal (37) obtained the highest methane yield with an aver.
age of 340 L.kg"! VS for SMP. Chatterje and Mazumder {40} obtained
Diogas productions of 27 to 38.2 1 pee batch and Carvalhelea etal
(38) registered 0.25-0.32 Loyg-g°? COD, at lab seal trials, and 0.27-
10.30 Lee:8"! COD, at pilot seale cial, Regarding the laboratory tests
of Masebinu etal. (1) and Pavi et al (39) Uheir methane productions
‘were within the range of 275 and 647 Nml.g"? VS with the converted
values for standard units between 311 and 619 ml.g~! VS (considering
the same temperature and conversion factor as refered to above).
‘Arhoun et al. [48] studied 6 different ratios (including 2 mono-
digestions, one for mixed MSS and the other one for FVW) through
‘ut 4 different seasons and the results showed that SMP was higher for
‘the FW than for the MSS (between 323 and 416 ml.g"! VS and 276-
329 mL.g- VS, respectively). Fonoll etal. (42] achieved an SMP range
‘of 0.25 0 0.28 L.g"! VS for AD of MSS, values that are closer tothe anes
‘obtained from Arhoun et al [48] on the sludge mono-digestion trial.
In the works in which the cowigestion was introduced, the results
were in general very positive. Starting with the work of Jiang et al
[1], & maximum BPR of 2,04 LL-!.d- was ebtained (379 higher
than the maximum obtained during the sludge AD tral). Flsayed eal
[53] aebieved the highest cumulative methane yield of 141 ml.g~!
VS (18 and 4.4% higher than the mono anaerobic digestion of MSS
and FVW, respectively) during the tral with a mixing ratio of 50:50
MSSIFVW, Regarding Anburadha & Arrivukkacasans’ [45] research,
during the co-igeston trial ofa 3:1 ratio of FYW.MSS, there was an
increase of 194 and 51% when compared to mono-tigestion trials of
(MSS and FVW, respectively.
During the anaerobic codigestion of orange bagasse and municipal
sewage sludge (OB:MSS), Santos etal. [50) reached 732 Nml. of cumu
lative biogas (829 mi in standard units) with 286 NmL.g"? VS biogas
potential (116 Nil. CH.g"! VS), corresponding to 324 ml.g-! VS bio.
gas potential (131 ml Cy. VS). This represents an increment near
47 folds of biogas production from the best mono-digeston tril (MSS)
to the co-igestion assay (OB:MSS).
‘Arhoun et al. (48) obtained the best SMP during the 60:40 ratio
rial of FVWEMSS, with 447 ml.g" VS, representing an increase of 36
and 7.5% {rom sludge mono-digestion and FVW mono-digestion, respec-
tively. Fonoll eal 42| achieved the highest SMP during the trial using
1179121 ratio of MSS:FW, with 0.30 Lg"! VS which represents an in
crease of 7.1% when compared tothe best MSS mono-digestion trial.
5:7. Stngle-stage and multi-stage AD processes
‘The most common and simplest process used in AD consists in 2
single-stage system, where al four phases occur inthe same anaerobic
bioreactor, being characterized by high HRT and low OLR. This system
{is widely used asthe initial investment is lower when compared with
the two-stage process [90]
‘As stated above, with the evolution of scientific research and the
‘emergence of new and innovative techniques, recent studies have been
implementing a diferent approach comprising a multt-stage process,
here the different phases of AD occur in more than one reactor. Whe
Adding a second reactor (two-stage system), itis possible to separate
the acide phase from the methanogenic phase, optimizing the process
‘without inhibiting the microbial consortim from each step [91
‘Another improvement that has been introduced inthe latest experi
mental works consists in using different temperatures for each bioreac-
oy Nem 10 (223) 100202
tor. For the frst stages of AD, a higher temperature is favourable (ther
:mophilic range) to improve hydrolysis, and a mesophilic environment
is more adequate for methanogenesis (92). In more complex systems,
another separation is established, setting one bioreactor for hyetoly
sis, one for acidogenesis, and another one for methanogenesis. Over:
all, multi-stage systems are more efficient and have other positive a
pects like higher biogas production, a more stable AD process, fewer
pathogens, and more effective solid reduction. However, the highest a
vvesoment that is required for these multi-stage systems can be a major
‘obstacle to their fullscale applicability, That is why all associated cost,
like initial investment and maintenance expenses, must be considered
‘to understand whether its an economically viable process (90,
From the selected articles fortis review, only (37,38,40,¢1,52] used
malti-stage systems for their AD processes (Teble 2), representing 25%
of all experimental works. Batch bioreactors were used in 48% of the
studies for the methenogenic phase, with volumes ranging from 125 mi.
10 25 1. (9 out of the 20 experimencal works), The other experimental
‘works used continuous stirred tank, semi-continuous stirred tanks, hy
brid digesters, and completely mixed stirred reactors forthe last phase
of the AD process.
Regarding the S works in which multi-stage processes have been
‘used, Gonzilez etal. [37) performed the hydrolysis in 250 mi Een
meyer flasks before the addition ofthe hydrolysed substrate to the semi-
continuous methanogenic reactor. Ambrose eta. [52) established the
first stage in thermophilic conditions (near 55 °C) inside a 11. biore
actor, where hydrolysis and acidogenesis occurred, and a second stage
‘where methanogenesis occurred in mesophilic condition (near 37 °C),
CCarvatheira etal. (28) and Masebinu etal. [41] used mesophilic con
ditions for the fist stage (30-37 and 35 °C, respectively) with similar
volume units (5 and 6 1, respectively). Chatterje and Mazumder [40]
used 2 42.90 L crylie fibre bioreactor forthe hydrolysis phase, and the
Inydrolysed substrate was later on added to a 16,60 L hybrid digester for
the methanogenic phase
5.8. Net energy ratio.
Net Energy Ratio (NER) is a fundamental parameter to assess the via
bility of cifferent systems, including AD processes and some stcies also
associate the greenhouse gas emissions analysis with the NER determ
nation to support decision-making regarding the improvement of spe
cific established conditions [92]. NER concept measures the energetic
ficiency of a system by calculating the ratio of energy produced (en
ergy output) and the energy required for its generation (energy input)
In the ease of AD, it assesses the amount of energy that was used t pro
duce a certain amount of biogas (witha specific percentage of methane)
land how much energy the biogas can generate. Ifthe NER value is nega
tive, itmeans that more energy is required thatthe one thats produced,
so the system is not efficient and the process isnot viable. In this com
text NER is influenced by several factors like the operating conditions
of the AD bioreactor, the type and quality of the substrates used, and
the pre-treatments (when applicable), amongst other factors, s, when
all the factors are optimized, iis posible to improve the values of NER,
From the 20 sclected articles in this review, only 4 assessed the en
ergy ratio, namely [37,41,46], and [49]. Gonaaler et al. [37] performed
‘comparison of thre different scenarios through lifecycle assessment
and life cycle cost. In the ease of scenario 1, where the aim was to
use the generated biogas in a combined heat and power unit to pro
duce electrical and thermal energy, the authors estimated that all the
fenergy demand ofthe facility was covered and also obtained an extra
121,788 kWh of electric energy and 7234 kWh of thermal energy for
sale, per year.
Ta the case of Masebinu et al. [41], these authors suid three lt
{erent energy pathways and inthe ease of te fist scenazio (ll the pro
duced biogas isto produce electricity and export to the grid), they est
‘mated the potential production of $369,529 kWh per year of electricity
with only 614,901 kWh per year of electrical demand (at a full-scale A eed, % Lapa Me Ma a
plant). They lso estimated excess thermal energy of 2715,143 kWh per
year, which proved the efficiency of the process,
‘Akay etal. [46} assessed the energy ratio nt lab-scale forthe AD pro-
‘ess including the cost analysis forthe pre-iveatments and estimated 0.2
USD per litre of mixture with an estimated production from the methane
of 12.5 USD per litre of mixture, representing an extremely positive in
‘Morales-Polo eta. |29) presented the values for the obtained energy
from biogas with the respective electrical and thermal energy demand
for 23 different wholesale markets and in only four cases the energy
demands where higher than the energy produced (with ~53.01; -62.95;,
70,92 and -0,55% efficiency). The average efficiency ofthe emaining
10 markets was 28.3856 (withthe highest efficiency being 44.34%)
Globally, it is possible to conclude that the co-dgestion of S$ and
EVW generates very positive NER values.
6. Conclusions and future directions
‘Overall, co-digestion of MSS and FVW proves to be very effective in
complementing AD of single substrate, adjusting some imbalances, and
{increasing biogas production and methane content. Despite the limita:
tions of some experimental works, the mono-digestion of FYW achieved
better results than the ones obtained during the mono-digestion of
[MSS. These results are promising or ther industries that generate high
amounts of organic wastes besides wastewater treatment plants, The
‘multi-stage systems have been demonstrated to improve the frst phases
ofthe AD process, being an option that must be considered taking ino
account all the associated costs that may arise from is implementation.
Since co-digestion tecnnology uses biowaste that can come from difer-
ent sources, ic isa valuable solution to be taken into account and must,
continue to be used in the future to reduce not only harmful waste man:
agement approaches like landfill and incineration but lso the emission
of greenhouse gases tothe atmosphere.
"Even though numerous scientific advances have already been made
regarding the anaerobic digestion of MSS with fruit and vegetable
wastes, there is always space fr new technical innovations and different
Approaches that could be integrated to increase the effcieny ofthe pro
cess. Throughout this review, some gaps and challenges were identified,
and further investigation must be supported to unvell new possibilities
yet to be discovered,
6.1. Municipal sewage slude physicochemical composition
Sludge does not have alusays the same composition, and it varies
amongst diferent types of sludge. These properties can influence sev-
cra factors, from pretreatments to methane yield, and that is why is
necessary to deepen the knowledge of the different organic and inor.
ganic structures from different sludges, to improve the effectiveness of
anacrobic co-digetion (55). This will allow an understanding of how
‘components interact within the microstructure, granting new sights
into more efficient pretreatment techniques.
6.2, Prereatments
As indicated previously, pretreatments are procedures that aim to
enhance the AD process, mainly hydrolysis, which isthe limiting phase
where the macro elements are reduced to smaller compounds to be
further biodegraded. They can also help to reduce inhibitory com-
ponents and increase energy recovery. Anaerobic co-digestion perfor:
‘mance strongly depends on these techniques, so it s of major impor
tance to improve and optimize them
‘One of the main drawbacks of pretrestments is that their applica
bility is mostly studied in the labscale environment, and the obtained
results could not reflect the same effectiveness at a higher scale. Be
sides that the energetic cot of some pretreatments could have a high
Impact on the NER, affecting the overall viability of the AD proces.
ey Ren 10 (2023) 100202
“Therefore, further research must be carried out applying different pre
‘treatment techniques at higher seales to endorse the potential of the
lab-sale process and to assess more viable techniques.
In 2023, a European Directive wil be implemented within the scope
of the European Green Deal - Directive (HU) 2018/851 from the Eu
ropean Parliament and the Council (94) to make the hierarchy and
segregation of organie waste mandatory. This will help to avokd cro
contamination, which leads tothe presence of undesired compounds for
the anaerobie co-digestion using of food waste
(6.3. Anaerobic bioreactors design
Separation of phases through more than one bioreactor to increase
the efficiency of anaerobic co-digestion is becoming a preferable choice
lover single-stage systems, due tothe possibility to create different ex
vironments to proliferate the specific and adequate microorganisms for
each phase. However, the design ofthe bioreactors could also benefit
from an upgrade since some ofthe problems stem from ineficent layout
‘and construction, So, co overcome this drawback, more research should
‘be made regarding the improvement of structures and configurations to
‘optimize the AD bioreactors, always considering the investment costs.
64. Microbial community
Each phase of AD favours the development of certain types of mi
‘roorganisms, and different substrates also influence which microbial
‘communities will proliferate. Considering this fact, future experimen
tal works on anaerobic co-digestion would benefit from more detailed
characterizatons and microbiological analysis to assess the influence of
the microbial consortium and how they behave with the introduction of
lifferentco-substates [95]
Improving knowledge on this subject will allow the discovery of
new and unclassified groups of microorganisms and enhance the perfor.
mance of anaeroble co-digestion through the applicetion of more spe-
cifle approaches, based on the specific microbial consortia existing in
each phase.
6.5. Codigestion optimal ratio.
Co-igestion is a major contributor to increasing the production
fof biogas and adjusting some imbelances that might occur during
the monosdigestion of nitrogen-rich substrates, a8 the selected articles
proved early in this review. However, a very important question that
remains isthe selection of an appropriate ratio between substrate. Fu
thermore, when one ofthe substrates is PYW there is an external factor
‘that highly contributes to the diversity, which is seasonality (71)
{An additional investigation must be performed, aiming to comple
‘ment existing information related to different ratios and in different sea
sons, witha more detailed physicochemical characterisation to broaden
the range of valid options
6.6, Process ail
‘The potential of AD as a green solution to produce biogas and a ci
agestate with agronomic value was proven multiple times, but a major
concern related to the entire system refers tothe viability of the anser:
‘obie couligestion of MSS and FVW. To evaluate the sustainability ofthe
system, the most appropriate tools to be used include lifecycle analy
sis environmental assesment throughout the lfe cycle) life cycle cost
(economic assessment throughout the life cycle) and energy and exergy
analysis |96). The first one is a method which aims to determine the
impacts associated with a process ora product on the environment. It
should encompass the entire cycle from the beginning (extraction of the
‘aw material) until the end or disposal (named “cradle to grave"), but
in specific eases it cam only asess a specific stage ofthe eycle Cera
dle to gate” or “gate to gate") [97]. More recently, de to the circular (A. Aare, Napa M Ml
way of thinking and practical implementation ofthis nonlinear mod
‘here is also the “cradle to cradle” holistic concept, where the recycling
or reusing process is taken inta account. This concept aims to design
and create recyclable, moce durable and sustainable materials to reduce
waste allowing the conservation of the natural resources.
‘Regarding the life cycle cost evaluation, this approach assesses the
economic viability of the process and s used to compare the cost-benefit
of different processes, providing alternatives to obtain the best scenar-
Jos. The main drawback of this method is that It does not include the
environmental aspects so itis important to complement with the lie
cycle analysis,
‘The energy efficiency analysis is essential to appraise the energetic
conversion of a system, encompassing all types of energy that are in
volved, but this method only takes into consideration the quantity and
sot the quality of the energy, which can lead to deceptive information.
To.overcome this situation, the most suitable option isto perform an ex
ergetic analysis that considers quality ané quantity. Exergy analysis is
useful method to quantify all energy flows and to determine theoreti
the maximum work that can be achieved by a system and can help
engineers 1 deatiy inefficient sources for developing new strategies (0
Improve the overal efficiency (98)
(On a smaller scale, the main objective Is to assess the potential of
anaerobic co-digestion to up-sale into larger equipment and facilites,
fand when upstaled, the process entails different problems like €co-
nomic and environmental issues. Other important aspect regards the e2-
pacity to equalify the established infrastructures to face the challenges
ofthe agro-energetic transition. This isthe main reason that urges the in
vestigation of techno-economie analysis and lifecycle analysis to assess
the costs and environmental burdens that can go through the anaerobic
o-digestion and evaluate if the energy produced can surpas the energy
spent in the process.
6.7. Practical implications ofthe present review
‘This study highlights the great advantage of using FVW as co-
substrate in anaerobie digestion of MSS and points ot some of the most
significant gaps that currently exist, for future studies to complement
and improve the knowledge on this tape, To overcome the barrier of
‘upscaling the laboratorial works and implement the techniques at a
higher sale lke in dtferent industries, one ofthe most important steps
to take isto mimic the targeted large scale conditions, reproduce the es.
tablished processes and assess the viability ofthe entire process. Most of
the lab-sale studies don't perform life-cycle analysis nor lifecycle cost
of their works, neither contemplate exergeti analysis, therefore its of
major importance to carry out more works and to contemplate these
extremely important components to improve the quality of the studies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
‘The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
{interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
CCRediT authorship contribution statement
André Azevedo: Investigation, Conceptualization, Methodology,
Wiriting ~ original draft. Nuno Lapa: Supervision, Conceptualizaton,
Methodology, Writing ~ review & editing. Margarida Moldao: Super-
vision, Conceptualzation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing
Flizabeth Duarte: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Wri
Ing ~ review & editing.
Data availability
Iisa review paper. Data are from other authors.
ey Ren 10 (2023) 100202
‘Acknowledgments
‘The authors acknowledge the financial support from FCT - Fun:
ago para a Clencia e a Tecnologia/MCTES, LP, through the doctoral,
scholarship «UI/BD/151370/2021» attributed to Mr. André Azevedo. N.
‘Lapa acknoveledges the support from PT national funds (FCT/MCTES,
Pundagio para a Ciencia e Tecnologia and Ministéio da Cléncia Tec
nologiae Ensino Superior) through the projects UIDB/S0006/2020 and
‘UIDP/50006/2020 attributed to the Associated Laboratory for Green
Chemistry (LAQV).
References
(01 Gnted Nations Deparment of Feopemie and Sucal Als, Population Di
vision (022), Work populiton peepee 2022. summary’ of rel UN
DesArPOF/2022/TRNO. 3,” hep rr scery/Seveonent n/p
Stat evelopment ete any els
len Machrhor fosndation & UN tween Propane (2022). ‘Te
bel eomanent 2022 popes repr. Np. /elemacihaoansaton or
[obel-commtaen 202/areten.
EH Arica LAP Bela, W Ley, DM Con, Cua economy beer
tar review (2015-202), Senin Oper. Comp 2 2021) 73-86 SSN 2686-41077,
a0 1006) se 202 9801
Food an Aelxe Oranization ofthe Une Nato (Rome, 2022) HO set
pcs ange Ns wn arcana a
enageslodge with aur mater a prvi e eakaneet of
‘ops produtan is Preceding ofthe Mele Today, 2022159 22147853,
da. 20%6r ma. 202205599.
{ED Giacomo, 7 Romano, Elton and Prospect in managing sewage sue
‘lng From mie! warewaer prea, Serge 15 (15) 022) 3635
Sac10 90 ei sissen,
I Ferenin,t Lanpoe, | ll Androl, Psa sewage sud re.
tion wennlogie a ree wth a foc on ergy consaapon, Water sel) 1
{@) 2025) 615 dot0 sso wIsoe081s
Ener Mr Rice. Zio, G. Dimporeano, W. Qiao, A. Dong, F. Adan, Asser
thie eigeton of ood wake fer bisenerey production fn Chia ad Saute
‘el: a reven ene: Shati. Energy Rev. 198 (202) OLB ISSN T3640,
fat. :on6 es 2020 110138
BLA Khan LNW. Gu, ¥ Lt X. ang, J Guo, SW. Chan, DD. yen,
1 ang: Bcbyepespodacos om enneretic gation and ts potatia r
eae energy Rene Energy 129 (Fast 8) (2018) 754-766 ISN ODED 4,
Sacto iovey semen 07 O40
WL Cong, ¥. Chan, TJ. Tong, Wc Chong, W. Kukiipong K. KE
tipong, St Mobamad, Dead LWA Suwa, EM Sac VC Li,
‘Ansetbie Ondigesion of fod waste with sewage age ition and op
Umnon for maximum Moga production, Water (Se) 14 (7) (22) 1075
faciao0mi aa?
Nrerettn, 6. Veal © VidaAntich § PetPola, 1M. Gimeno,
DM, Dees J Dot, 6. Aa, Pte f amveroble cementation waste,
‘ese pnts reve Se Total zon, 15 (2022) 150498 SSN OD483697,
Socio Ole hactoton 021 1S2008.
Fes, The economic fieenty of the codgeston ee MWTES lla
Sdy, Waste Manoge. (Oxterd) 138 a0zl) TOTS ISSN 09560555,
‘cl. 2006) waman202107. 03.
Feb. Nachos, Dy Gambon Sentana, EAL BaadaAragh, Secondary sae
‘dead adele enero nice mira fa cl, eage
Rect Avec New Perspectives and Apletons th (2) teehOpen 2021,
ae 10.5772itehepen 10080.
[ED Nghe, sock D. Brae, Drewes, ule codigo of wae
er sludge ad ood waste tence Sr pout, Renew. Sian ery
fy. 72 (a0i7 ated BBN Tae 8a, dof lees 20 0
Pe Mngama, {Chives 3. Muopo, A systenate review of salable
trot and vege waste recycling enavs and poner for ange
Ihe irene, Beaior: Tena. Rep. 16 (2022) 101031 (SS 2565014%
fel ie 22 T0103)
Fed and Agate Organization of te Usted Nason. (ome, 2019). The
Ste of fad and gree. moving frwar on fad lean we rokcton
Ir /a creeisen ak0S0ea
‘A Setighi M. Kanab, Staboavay, M Mowaavinetnd, Bioeergy prod
Son fam he ec facon of kp sd ne ob cova sae
Ing my, Renew. Sonn, Srorgy Ree. 188 092) TH1707 SGN Taeec,
dt sooi6jesu 202. 111797
Senter, © Mcnteh, 5. Aas, K Koc, Benes and deawtocks of fod
Sd day wwe cogent igh organic ldig vate Mossy
UP enue dy, Wate Manage 9 (2519) 217-226 (Ord SSN D305,
Enc s086} matman 25090808
5 Sousa Duarte Msc, 5. Sara, Eargee valotzato feel ad ex
asta cole wastes hou anecrbicodieson with pr, Feot Sata
ood Sse 5 (021), dal Ws ee22e8
a
a
a
st
i
a
“1
o
tio}
un
nat
ua
ua
hist
het
7
fist
9) (A. Aare, Napa M Ml
(20) 0, Mendis, 1. Casto, J. Rodan, Heal, Serie eft of sap
‘eine scum 6 an accent cosibtte on ahabie codon ith
efihura!” cop resduer kom neweeaaugal cane tgar agra
fer scr, Hoeur Teena” 303)" (2020)" 12987 SSN ss0.8524,
dorio oven. 2020 1255)
HESS" Sama, Sts, ACB. onde S. Dey, SW. Chang, Joon BA Re
‘ot wend enable cogs: tol and grease (900) for enhanced
Bomettann, Prog. Sergy Combust Se. 70 (2019) 22-4 SN 03609285,
detinl0veipes 01808002
SISA Thong, Ya Cha, Ly ML Moar, CD. Ho, AU. aba, WK
Stipa te Scaecbsa Kank Sinaia and etetion f snare
‘odgeston of food waste wth pal ol ll for or Boga produto, Si
tansy 13 (24) (202113665, a0 3590 5015241955
{Sorin Soqarprolcon and totais! removal a rvew, Ped 40 023)
1z7e70 S00 obve2361, dai. 1016).k aes 27470,
1M. Gorarbanan,S. Monhanéan, R.subbay, RY. Kesha, 8. Seinasa,
1 aroeja, WH ering ens and aapotcialoy advances Sst
583 oly van sn obioae) doe orsyecseanizoan
Y. Song FG Che, LM B. Yan, Hei, TZ, Recor advancements
In sts orev sasroble dgesion of pect nergy grass fore
Inaeed mest poducon, Se Tot Beton. 361 (2023) 160582 ISN CO4E
Seo 0: 852 _
1 ppt on microplates era Cea, Prod 37 (228) 135064 SSN
(399.626, da 0 1006) epeo.25 35868
1M Tabata AC Agha Valjean, HAS, Papa, AS. Nam H. Gane
‘A. Sulsinn, © Mleaohunaodegh K Harn, Acomprebeave ele
{et Helo ianovtins to impeore pa poduion, art ste od
‘dws stein, Rene. ergy 146 (2020) 1382-1407 SN O960148,
Gatio.re/reoene 201807087.
Y.ichubue, D. Dayiy, ¥. Cheapo, L yuh, V. shea, 8. Hasek,
Rosh Meh lor enhg bogus producon om wane a ceome
{vi of ition and sets nen hermes 8 18) 022 S70,
oto 9 emesnnenb 00970
kaw, Ghoshal, A. Jam, loslzaon of fats and wegeables waste
to produce ferouse it suite femenutnchareceanton at a
Soden eli, Press ieee. 76 (2019) 1SE-164 ISSN 13585115,
dotio love/spectio 80007
NEMA. Giom, A Har, LM. all NSD. Abmod, Preto fae po
